So disagreeing with an accusation makes the accusation true?
If I call you a pedophile, and you deny it, that makes you a pedophile then?
Because according to your stupid logic, that would have to be the case.

I say you’re a child molestor. Are you a child molestor?

I see you’re being arbitrary again. Typical.

The first comic you posted was evidence, in and of itself, that Redpanels wasn’t/isn’t a Nazi, as you have Hitler (who is both 14 and 88) on the top left, and Richard Spencer (who is 14, but not 88) on the top right.

The “14” is a reference to the Fourteen Words, which are a call to white self-preservation, and the “88” refer to the “88 Precepts”, which are a long list that white people supposedly need to follow, which have some strict ideas on race and behavior, which some people can consider backwards.

As the comic demonstrates, Spencer (and by proxy, the rest of the alt right) aren’t Nazis. The most anti-semitic thing I’ve ever seen Spencer do is talk down a rabbi, accusing him of hypocrisy for denying the validity of a white ethnostate while simultaneously being a zionist (a supporter of a Jewish ethnostate).

Regardless of whether or not the send-off comic has a “Nazi Salute”, or (as Tila Tequila infamously used at one of Spencer’s conventions) a “Roman Salute” is also ambiguous.
This is where a lot of people have had hiccups, as they see an arm raised and they think “Nazi Salute”, and deny any and all possibility it could be a Roman Salute.
Of course, it’s also possible he’s being ironic, considering that people seem bound and determined to cal the alt right Nazis, despite all evidence to the contrary and the lack of evidence for such an accusation. One person showing up to the Unite the Right with a swastika flag doesn’t poison the entire movement.

Nor does being critical of zionist Jewish people. There’s a fine line between criticizing the ethnocentric view that many Jews have and actually wanting to kill, harm, exploit, or expel them.

In the end, your evidence is flimsy, and ultimately meaningless.
Stop letting other people choose your ideals for you. Or… go back to parroting “Nazi” some more. Be a mental slave, if that’s what makes you happy.
Just don’t vote. Or have kids. Ever.

Yeah, he’s a self-induced retard. But maybe other people won’t drink the same Kool Aid. Maybe.

The establishment.
The same people who promote mass immigration (to supply votes/cheap labor) and the tearing down of distinct cultural and racial identities (as to make the masses easier to manage) have written your ideology.
Those same people fear and hate white identity, and the anti-consumerist ideals of white identitarians, because collectively, white people have the strength to throw them out of power. For their agenda to work, white people need to be to be docile, complacent, fat, and materialistic.

You are either an active participant in the establishment’s goals, or a useful idiot for them.
Compared to them, “keyboard warriors” are a fine and noble lot.

To be an identitarian is to be someone who engages in identity politics, and to be a white identitarian is to take the rare position of being pro-white.
Screaming “RACIST!” doesn’t undo what’s true.

But yes, you ARE feeding straight into their palm.
Whether you love them, or hate them as controlled opposition (too weak to actually do anything to actually inconvenience them) you’re still doing what they want.

I never said “miscegenation” btw. Your words, not mine, and don’t pretend otherwise. If you have to lie and attack strawman arguments, it underlies how weak your own position is.
No, what I’m talking about are the racial identities that exist, underneath being ethnic identities.
African Americans, Ugandans, Liberians, and Zimbabweans all exist as distinct, separate ethnic identities, but they all exist under the clout of the racial identity of being “black”, separate but similar enough to have common ground with one another.
The same is true for the ethnic groups under white identity, but the establishment has no love for ethnic or racial groups. A “wigger” is someone who tries (and usually fails) to adopt black culture, and “weeaboos” are those who try to adopt Asian (specifically Japanese) culture.
Governments and corporations care only for money and power, and the sooner they tear down what makes us anything more than a singular entity from which to sell products to, the sooner they can maximize what they want from us.

So yes, maybe not “fat”, but keep being docile and complacent. It’s the only thing you show talent for… you certainly suck at rhetoric and narrative consistency.

Addition: I’ve finally realized that by Indioes you meant American Indeginous, the slang term for which is “Indios”

I’ll explain it again: Indios is the correct spelling, not Indioes. Also it’s Beringia, not Beringa, so Get wrecked, dipshit.

I didn’t lie about my previous statement. I asked you to mention something I said that was false, with evidence. The second part, “Why would I do that”, doesn’t make sense. I’m the one who’s using evidence rather than just calling my opponent an idiot and a fraud. I’m actually gifted. As in, at least 135 IQ. Professionally tested by the school board. So by definition, I am nowhere near retarded.

As for your one attempt to actually debunk what I’ve said, the last one:
I understand you’re trying to push the narrative that I’m an idiot like the highly educated and respected Jared Diamond. I have not read his works, rather I’ve looked at evidence and sources to come to the conclusions myself. Calling a book that I haven’t read a hoax as evidence that my point is false doesn’t make sense.

I’m willing to give you a second try, because you clearly aren’t a complete idiot. But I’d like to clear up your main point first. Evidence has been found of European settlers crossing the Atlantic ocean before the Indios crossed Beringia. It seems reasonably likely, but remains a theory. It doesn’t have an answer to where then did the Europeans go? The two most likely options are 1. They interbred with the Indios to create the Native American culture, distinct from Europeans, that we know of. This is more likely because genetically and culturally Native Americans are close to a mix of early Europeans and Uralic peoples, although the Uralic side is more dominant. Either way, Native Americans are different from both groups. Possibility 2. The Indios slaughtered all the Europeans. This is less likely, because of the reasons mentioned supporting option 1.
What you’ve done is take the less likely option (2) from what is already just a theory, and stated it as fact. Everything I said was just adding context, something I’ve noticed racists enjoy leaving out.
Funnily enough, before interbreeding, both the Europeans and Indios were very similar in North America. I’d say that supports the geography over race argument, but I’ll let you respond to it.
Anyway, have fun! Just make sure to use factual or logical evidence rather than attacks on my character, otherwise you prove my point.

Genetics and culture support the interbreeding theory more than total slaughter, although there were certainly some Euros who were killed even so. Either way, it isn’t definitive. That’s where my criticism of you stems. You stated a plausible theory as definitive fact. If you actually were open minded, you’d have stated it as something like “a theory suggests Europeans migrated to the Americas first, and may have been killed by the Indios.” All you’ve really said is that I’m an idiot and that some evidence suggests I’m wrong. I actually acknowledged most of that evidence before you did. I have read the articles, and had known about the theories already.

At this point, you’re talking in circles without proving anything but your own ignorance and toxicity. I see no reason to continue this discussion.