Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for Everybody.
They say the RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but they don’t say Japan or Taiwan will solve the RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and ” assimilating ” with them.
They say the final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was a RACE problem, and the solution to this RACE problem was to bring hundreds of millions of non-blacks into EVERY black country and ONLY black countries?
How long would it take them to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take black people to notice this, and what sane black man wouldn’t object to this “solution”?
But when I tell the obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals AND respectable conservatives agree that I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist, what they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.
When I first came across this message I was kind of skeptical…but as I started to analyze and research many different White countries and the massive numbers of non-White peoples that are being led into those countries, I began to see some relevance to this whole statement. I mean if Tibetan people need to be protected from this sort of genocide, why not White countries as well. Why is this standard not also applied to White people in White countries???
Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-bigotry. For anti-discrimination. For the right for anyone to marry anyone they choose. So, yeah, anti-racism does mean an opposition to color-bar laws, to anti-miscegenation laws, to apartheid laws, to segregation. Anti-racism means not believing in “white” countries, or “black” countries, but in free countries, where people can move if they want, and where people can leave if they want.
If you don’t want to intermarry…don’t. Nobody’s going to force you.
If you don’t want your neighbor to intermarry…what specific kind of law do you propose by which you will prevent him? That, by and large, is what anti-racism is opposed to.
Actually, people do say that the Japanese are hurting themselves by their own racist immigration policies. They have a demographic problem of too many old people and not enough young people, which could be solved by letting in non-Japanese…but they won’t, thanks to xenophobia towards non-Japanese.
Ummm, me? I usually post angry drunken nonsense here, but thanks, if you were talking to me. By the way, I’m sober now, and I Looooo-ooove those of African roots. Yes, you heard me: I love all of humanity, and I’m just sober enough to post it on the internet.
Peace
I’ll be charitable (for now, anyway) and assume this part of the post is your opinion because the rest seems to be white supremacist boilerplate: it’s all over the web on racist sites. And the answer is that nonwhite immigration to white countries isn’t even remotely comparable to ethnic cleansing or genocide. That’s a disgusting thing to say. Do you actually agree with that?
And why do you think “they” are “bringing” people X to country Y? People move from one country to another for different reasons. Such as love, work, wanting a better future, fleeing from war or persecution etc.
And do you know what the word “genocide” means? Unless you’re a former Zimbabwe farm owner, you’re just delusional if you think it’s happening to you. The reason people assume you are a nazi is probably because most people who suffer from your delusion is. It’s a bit unfair to assume that of course, but not unreasonable.
Anyway, you just happen to have some wacky ideas. The fact that people who you respect seem to think you are nuts should set off some alarm bells. Maybe you have some psychological problems that you don’t know about. Perhaps if you talk to a professional about it you can get some help.
There are many problems however with the replies here. I have argued with these white dissident types for some years now and i’m somewhat taken aback with their arguments. I haven’t been able to really counter any of their positions with any really decisive arguments. The standard anti-racist arguments that I used to deploy against these guys.
For example, one of the above posters stated that White people are not being genocided because they are not suffering massive killings, beatings, rapes, and other violent acts from other groups. I used to say this also. It is one of the standard anti-racist arguments that I was taught to use in seminars to neutralize the white supremacists. Then a few years ago they started replying with some or all of the following types of arguments:
“Section C of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Section C applies to what anti-whites are doing to my race:
Flooding our countries with non-whites, force integrating our communities, encouraging us to blend ourselves out of existence and attacking anyone who opposes these things are imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of my race. It’s genocide…It’s White Genocide”
2)") “Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out.”
Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)
Attempting to ‘blend’ White people, out of existence in EVERY White country at the same time is Genocide.
Nobody is doing this to ANY Asian country, or ANY Black country.
‘Anti-racism’ is a codeword for Anti-White
These are just a couple of replies that I have gotten and am unable to offer up decisive replies to counter their claims of white genocide. I’m here more for help in devising effective counter points to these types of arguments. And please so silly epithets…I need intelligent ideas
It sounds like ranting to me. I wouldn’t give it much creedence.
Regarding your own comment, do you really think people are being “led into” other countries, rather than deciding for themselves to go, for their own good reasons?
I doubt most immigrants care about whether they’re changing the racial mix where they’re going. I imagine most of them are just looking for better economic opportunities.
The “black” countries of norther Africa have had, over the centuries, huge Arabic migrations, so that the “race” of, say, Egypt, is very mixed. Meanwhile, Europeans ruled India for a while, and had a lot of children there, so you’ve got “white” intrusion into that region.
And what about the Native Americans? There is a group that can fairly legitimately claim to have suffered a genocide, and there was a lot of intermarriage there, too.
Basically, wherever people go, they have sex. It isn’t solely a “black on white” thing, as the paranoid driveling of the racists, as quoted, would have it. Absurd.
If “one drop of black blood means black” is a valid rule (and it isn’t!) then “one drop of white blood means white” would also have to be true…in which case a HUGE number of ethnically non-white people worldwide would be “white.” Very silly.
(A good friend of mine is an adopted Korean war bastard. A U.S. G.I. had sex with a Korean woman, and the baby was, in time, adopted here. Which way would you say the intermarriage counts? White into Korea, or Korean into U.S.? Sort of both, really. This example alone should make it clear that the lines are too confused for any such claims.)
(And who knows the full racial makeup of the G.I.? Maybe part black? Part Mexican? Part Egyptian? Part Russian? Hell, I’m told there is still a fair amount of Neanderthal DNA floating around!)
But here is how the white supremacist freaks answer this kind of argument…and I’m having great difficulty dealing with it:
“What you don’t realize is that White people have not consented to having their borders opened to non-White immigration…period. This is something that has been FORCED down the throats of White people and ONLY White people. We have been systematically targeted for a particular form of genocide, in this case a force-assimilation. White people have not consented to being assimilated out of existence, that’s what makes this a genocide.
Anti-racist is a codeword for ANTI-WHITE.”
These are the type of points that they put out ALL the time. They are putting the onus on the white elites for the massive non-white immigration…NOT the immigrants themselves. Their position is that these non-whites are being used as means to racially assimilate white people. This is very very difficult arguments to answer especially whey they start putting out irrefuable facts.
“Basically, wherever people go, they have sex. It isn’t solely a “black on white” thing, as the paranoid driveling of the racists, as quoted, would have it. Absurd”
You are absolutely correct in this. We ALL understand that populations when mixed will eventually have sex, produce kids, and the resulting racial mix will be genetically dissimilar from the races which produced the children. However, these white supremacists also address this with a difficult point to refute. They will say:
“We understand that people will ultimately reproduce with each other whenever our races are combined into a common living space or country. These anti-White elites understand this better than any of us and have been destroying the borders of White countries and ONLY White countries, and subsequently leading into white countries and ONLY white countries massive numbers of non-Whites to achieve just this goal of race mixing thus causing the eventual and total assimilation of the white populations of white countries. This is an attempt to genocide white people and only white people.”
So how the hell do I answer a point like this one???
