You clearly didn't read what I said before. I'm not poster 14807901 nor am I 14806512.

I don't do social media.

I have quite a few friends.

You, on the other hand, reply to yourself on your own post, and are called out on it. That is all I did. You are the one who are sperging out and lobbing ad hominems my way when I said to stop dodging the question.

That depends how you phrase the question. I believe whites are amongst the smartest races (average IQ is slightly below ashkenazi/east-asian, but with a higher spread leading to a higher number of geniuses). I also believe they possess the best balance of low criminality and high empathy, for all their criminality levels could stand to be decreased. Those are just facts, and if believing them makes me white supremacist nature herself is white supremacist.

In regards to absolute terms, no, not really, although I won't deny an in-group racial bias - you could consider this analogous to supporting your favourite football team. I'm also fully cognisant of the fact that differences between groups across multiple traits exist, and these differences will lead to differences in the resultant culture - I think ignoring this is very dangerous, and intellectually dishonest.

I also genuinely believe white people have done more than any other race to uplift others - against, call me evil for that view if you like, but I'd appreciate you not denying white history. Whites stopped slavery (globally). Whites created modern farming practises that allow so many people to be alive today. Whites created the systems of government used in most every civilised country today, as well as the basis for most judicial systems. Whites created most of modern technology, and whites them freely spread this technology with other races. White aid currently props up Africa, whilst Chinese 'investment' seeks to exploit their resources. We've certainly done horrible things, but no race has done more to help others than whites. You can mention the input of other races, and you'd be right that they have contributed, but the lions share of this has been whites (and even then, primarily western Europe).

More importantly, I believe in one simple fact : no race deserves to be genocided. That should be a point we can agree on, yes? Believe me or not, but I'm honestly genuinely sad for what happened to various indigenous populations in regions whites moved to, most particularly the Amerinds and the Aboriginal Australians. Were I undisputed ruler tommorow, I wouldn't be hunting them down and genociding them. I wouldn't even be removing them from their respective lands. I might reduce overt aid, but that's for the same reason republicans want blacks off welfare - it doesn't help. Neither does integration, most especially where aboriginies are concerned. They need to be free from our cultural influence in order to continue their societal growth as it was before we arrived, and our help has to be much, much less overt and much less damaging to their societal structures. My approach on how to help them may seem 'supremacist', but it's also one taken out of sincere respect for their original societies. I don't want their genepool or their culture to die, and I believe reducing western cultural influence and contact would be a good way to preseve it, although really it's a case by case basis kind of problem - the maori suffer far less from it than the aboriginies do.

However, the simple fact is in a huge, huge number of white countries, whites are being demographically displaced. We live in democracies, and as such when we fall below (or close to) 50%, we are functionally disenfranchised as a group. The founding fathers had similar concerns regarding the remaining Indians - that's why they were permitted their own land, and a degree of freedom from federal oversight. Do you believe we will be granted the same kindness? In terms of countries that will within the next 100 years suffer this fate, just off the top of my head, I believe the list is : US,UK, Canada, France,Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, maybe Italy, Australia, maybe NZ, Spain, maybe Portugal. I've probably missed one or two off that list. That list still encompasses the entire anglosphere, and most of Western Europe. That isn't just the displacement of one group, its the displacement of an entire culture, inarguably amongst the greatest that have ever existed.

I favour a world of multiple nations and cultures which retain their individuality, and believe that smooshing these together invariably reduces and destroys the diversity. Pic related explains it perfectly. http://i.magaimg.net/img/2ty9.jpg . Flooding every single western European country with non-whites is an act of harm against the race, and the culture. On that basis alone, it should be a bad thing, and yet desiring to prevent this outcome leads to endless cries of 'racist'. It's worth noting, if I argued these views, even PERFECTLY civilly in public, I'd lose my job, were I overheard and it reported back to them. That isn't even doubtful.

What does it say about the world when wanting to preserve my own culture and race and ability to collectively decide our future through democracy is not merely regarded as wrong, but is an action I will be publicly punished for? You made your comment presumably on the basis of believing I held a morally reprehensible view. Given your view would maintain the status quo where I would be ostracised for desiring my nation and culture to continue to exist as it historically has, can you, straight up honestly claim your position is not morally reprehensible, regardless of whether you believe this is what the end result of it should be? Because if I'm right, even slightly, your position is actively advocating for genocide, and the disenfranchisement of an entire race of people. Is that fair? You may believe after reading this I'm an evil white supremacist, and at times, when aggravated, I may even tend towards statements that might err towards that position. I would still never act in this way towards another race, I could never be capable of that degree of hate. Not merely genociding a race, but doing so whilst telling them they're evil, and should feel bad for not desiring this outcome? Even treating the most comparatively stupid, violent, and ungrateful race this way would be beyond wrong to me. Why is it ok to do it to a race that has, at the very least, done amongst the most good for humanity of any race on the planet?

Is genocide our reward for ending slavery, for curing diseases, and for creating the basis for a just and fair legal system based on the precept of 'innocent before proven guilty'?

Can you not understand how this being the result will only make people more angry, more hateful, and more willing to do whatever is necessary to preserve their race?

Nobody wins if people continue down this path.