>>383368
I have pure European ancestry, white and clean as the driven snow. and I have some 17th century English colonial ancestry so this 'muh been in this mutt shithole longer than you' argument is also bunk, even though I don't subscribe to its premise that that's a desireable thing. being "American" is nothing to be proud of, "America" is pure libtard decadence and the biggest mistake of the white rice
>>383370
>muh descendents of massive rah0wa
>but Iberian ancestry is le bad
>>383372
this is a good example of the false Varg perspective on whiteness where it's just 'the lighter the pigmentation, the more white, everything else is irrelevant', stemming from the perception that southern European ancestry is somehow 'less European' than northern European. that's not how I see it, to me there are a variety of indigenous European phenotypes and all of them are equally white- that's what white means, 'European'. according to my reasoning, a southern Italian with dark brown hair and eyes and olive skin is more European than a blonde haired blue eyed Finn with chinky eyes, the Vargist perspective would assert otherwise. 100% European and brown eyes is more white than 95% European and blue eyes, in my view
which would you rather drink, a glass of chocolate milk or a glass of milk with a little bit of shit in it? the glass with the shit in it is overall lighter colored than the chocolate milk, after all, that must mean that it's purer milk, right?
>>383414
that's very blatant