Thats all very well and good. But no one says this should happen in non-white countries. ONLY white countries are supposed to mix. This mean, that logically, whites disappear, other races remain.
The very definition of Genocide. The fact that you can advocate racial Genocide on a public forum, and not be called out on it by other so called anti-racists, shows that anti-racism is really anti-white.
Name ONE White nation, in which anti-racists would be OK with it actively keeping itself racially white through exclusionist immigration policies and a rejection of multiracialism.
Name ONE white nation, which if it adopted a policy of being for white people, and against racial assimilation and mixing, anti-racists would find acceptable.
Yet no non-white nation is expected to become multiracial. Japan is not expected to become a ‘mixed brown’ nation. It may be critised for being insular, but racial assimilation is never touted as an answer.
If you were to have ALL white nations take in large numbers of non-whites (as we are seeing) and assimilate (as we are seeing, and as is actively promoted), with people who want to stop this being cast as “Racist” and “evil” (as we are seeing), then what other conclusion can there be, than the white race being lost into a multiracial setting?
The problem is, that if you support these conditions, KNOWING that it will lead to whites being assimilated out, as many anti-racists openly look forward to it, how can you not claim to be allowing racial genocide?
So, what defines “white people”, then? Or “white nations”? How about an example or two, at least?
Maybe you can be the first of this latest batch of racial evangelists here to have a coherent argument. Or maybe not, which would be the way to bet, but we’re always ready for surprises.
Wow, another one.
I’m just curious how you define white. I want to know which of my friends and family count as white, and which ones don’t. Is there a percentage of non-European ancestry that disqualifies a person? It’s not that hard of a question, yet all we’ve gotten so far are dodges and very nebulous responses.
It doesn’t lead to “whites being assimilated out”, at least not in America- it leads to everyone being assimilated in. In biology, hybrids are often more fit then their non-hybrid parents. And diverse human cultures are often stronger then non-diverse cultures- with lots of different kinds of people, and lots of different ways of thinking, there will be a lot more different ideas and solutions to solve various problems.
By the way, I’m American, so I mostly talk about America- but I think Japan would make itself stronger if it allowed more immigration from around the world, and ditto for most countries. It doesn’t mean totally open doors, but in general, I think immigration makes countries stronger and better.
While I’m waiting for one of these fine people to actually define a “white” person or nation:
The only nations I “expect” to do anything are the ones I have some personal connection to, so as I have a vested interest in both the US and UK I hold stronger views in relation to those countries. But I do think that Japan ought to be less xenophobic, and I do think that countries like China and Burma/Myanmar and the Arabian Gulf countries ought to treat their indigenous and immigrant minority populations with respect and without persecution. And if they want to intermarry with other ethnic and racial groups, that’s fine by me too.
You (AssemblyLineHuman and friends) seem to think that non-white immigrants are being forceably transported to the US and made to marry white people against their will to fulfill the Bulworth Doctrine. This is, to use the vernacular, “crazy talk”. Immigrants usually come for economic reasons or to escape persecution in their home country. Sometimes they or their children or their grandchildren, having been assimilated into the new culture, marry a white person. Since the PTB still resolutely refuse to appoint me “Guy Who Gets To Decide Who Marries Whom” it’s none of my business if they do that.
And if it really bothers you, you can probably buy a decent Panty Untwister from Amazon.
I agree with you. We need to see to our own country before we tell Japan how to run theirs; although their aging population needs growth from somewhere.
America was “mixed” long before the USA was born. There were already non-whites living here; despite disease & war, a number of them stubbornly survived. Many non-whites were imported in chains; their children suffered, strove & survived. Immigration built our country & continues.
We’re a lost cause for the shrinking number of white supremacists & their impotent flailing about is depressing. They are convincing nobody…
(And I don’t care about their definitions; they will be wrong.)
If there was a reason to devise an objective standard for sorting people into skin-color ‘races,’ this would work, in an academic way. But it would never be popularly accepted, because skin color is only one of the somewhat-variable markers that people use to divide and categorize. No matter how you grouped the plaques, people would object to some of the classifications. I used to date a black woman whose absolute skin shade was clearly lighter than that of many people identified as white in some quarters; I can imagine both she and they taking issue with a sort that put her into the white set and them out of it. There would also be situations like full siblings being identified as different races (which works in the Brazilian race model, but surely not in the American).
I’m gonna go contract jaundice and then hit the tanning bed - I fancy being classified as “High Yaller” this week.
I find their impotent flailing quite amusing 
Yeah. “Another one”. I find this one’s name particularly apt. Not that I’m accusing anyone of anything…
Seems to me respect for individual rights is incompatable with concern for racial rights. At heart, the latter means limiting the choice of the individual to mate as he or she chooses, right? Hard to imagine a more intensely personal individual decision than who to bang.
You might want to google the meaning for word “logically”, cuz it aint what you’re using. Of course, if your ‘race’ is so utterly impotently weak that simply being in proximity to other ‘races’ will cause your entire race to suffer “genocide!!!” (also known to normal folks as: fuckin’ people and having babies)?
Well… maybe y’all weren’t the Master Race after all, eh?
Just a thought. Have a happy genocide.
Oh no! The genocide has started!
Damn. Now we’re never going to know what a white person is.
Where will the slaughter end?!
One drop rule, eh?
No, this is not “logical” unless you begin with a set of postulates that are not themselves sensible.
It assumes a baseline of “whiteness” vs “non-whiteness”. So “white” + “non-white” = “non-white”?
This automatically limits discussion to 2 putative races. But, I’m sure you split humanity into more than that. So, what happens if an Asian person bred with a Black African? Is the child Asian or Black? Or non-Asian or non-Black, as the case may be. Or other people who don’t fit into those categories at all? Is there a similar one-drop rule operating there?
And do we divide “Asian” into more than one race (people from the Indian subcontinent do look pretty different than Han Chinese, after all)?
The problem you always get with these ‘racial purity’ theses is that they never make sense unless you begin with the conclusions. They’re bits of circular reasoning poorly disguised with a veneer of bad logic and assumptions.
ETA: worse yet: where do you draw the dividing line? As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, probabilistically, every “white” person (by whatever criteria you decide) almost certainly has a “non-white” ancestor from sometime in the last 2000-3000 years. Clearly, there’s a point after white the “non-whiteness” no longer matters. What is that point? Or is it “I know it when I see it” once again?
First, they came for the racists and I did nothing.
Next, I drank a coffee and looked back fondly upon my wise decision.
And then I don’t know what happened, because it hasn’t happened yet.
to be accurate, the Berbers are the autochtone population of the Maghreb adn the North AFrica outside of Egypt - who in ancient Egypt called them the Libyans - and those who speak the Berber languages are mostly pale skinned, but there are old populations who are very dark, they are not the Touareg who have intermarried, but are in their origines not dark skinned, but Haratine among other names in north maghreb (not the same as in the Mauretania) and it is thought that they might have once been of the same ancestral population pool of the Peul but that migrated north when the Sahara dried.
The phoenicians, the romans, they can later.