...Socialists are trying to monopolize whites as a clientele group.
And you're trying to monopolize pro-whites as socialist.
But protecting themselves with Socialism is no different from suicide.
We're just going in circles, and I think we'll call it here, but again, you just say anyone who wants anything for whites, or a white identity, is a socialist. So the whole thing is pointless.
You even said white people having any sort of identity is not pro-white, and presumably falls into the 'socialist' group.
Your just lying to yourself about what I'm saying. And no, I've never said that whites having an identity is socialist. That's just not reality.
Not lying. This is getting more ridiculous.
You:
the concept of "white racial solidarity" is an anathema to white people.
You're saying a white identity is inherently unnatural for white people. And you've said the primary people pushing white messaging are socialists. It's not a hard add.
Whites are not naturally pro-white + pro-whites are generally socialists...seems to imply that generally white people having an identity is socialism to you.
No, I didn't say that white identity is inherently unnatural for white people, you made that up.
I said that "white racial solidarity" is an anethma to white people because most white people have never seen themselves as white first, rather than their actual ethnic group: like Italian, French, Anglo, German, etc. That's why it doesn't exist in Europe. The concept only tends to exist in the Anglosphere, particularly as a response to a European v. Non-European dynamic being intentionally formed in those countries. Like it was in the US, but most white Americans don't accept white racial solidarity, because they tend to be more unified on values than on race.
As I've said at least a dozen times now, white people having an identity is not Socialism, how many times are you going to reject what I'm saying and just make up whatever you want to hear?
But you are.
And you're trying to monopolize pro-whites as socialist.
We're just going in circles, and I think we'll call it here, but again, you just say anyone who wants anything for whites, or a white identity, is a socialist. So the whole thing is pointless.
You even said white people having any sort of identity is not pro-white, and presumably falls into the 'socialist' group.
Your just lying to yourself about what I'm saying. And no, I've never said that whites having an identity is socialist. That's just not reality.
Not lying. This is getting more ridiculous.
You:
You're saying a white identity is inherently unnatural for white people. And you've said the primary people pushing white messaging are socialists. It's not a hard add.
Whites are not naturally pro-white + pro-whites are generally socialists...seems to imply that generally white people having an identity is socialism to you.
No, I didn't say that white identity is inherently unnatural for white people, you made that up.
I said that "white racial solidarity" is an anethma to white people because most white people have never seen themselves as white first, rather than their actual ethnic group: like Italian, French, Anglo, German, etc. That's why it doesn't exist in Europe. The concept only tends to exist in the Anglosphere, particularly as a response to a European v. Non-European dynamic being intentionally formed in those countries. Like it was in the US, but most white Americans don't accept white racial solidarity, because they tend to be more unified on values than on race.
As I've said at least a dozen times now, white people having an identity is not Socialism, how many times are you going to reject what I'm saying and just make up whatever you want to hear?