So no answer then.
Anti-whites will continue to push for multiracialism, and deny white people any recourse to avoid being assimilated out.
When I lived in Poland there was a sizable Roma minority.
But only for white countries. Pray tell, why do you concern yourself with white countries only?
Anti-racists say that ALL and ONLY white nations must take in the third world and assimilate. You could have mentioned non-white nations, but you DIDN’T.
Besides, some of the other posters here are saying that there is no ‘white’ race. But as I said, it is only when white people speaking in defence when ‘white’ all of a sudden, has no definition. It is only when I say “All and ONLY white countries”, where people ask me “well, what IS white?”. But so called anti-racists use the term all the time, and they don’t ask each other “what do you mean by white?”
It is only AFTER the double standard is pointed out about using race mixing to eliminating racism, that anti-whites include Japan, to give the appearance there is no double standard.
In practice, every anti-racist who want to end racism, concerns themselves solely with white countries. They on one hand, claim to not know what ‘white’ is, but then focus on “racism” in nations other than their own, which all happen to be white.
Name ONE white nation, where “anti-racists” would be A-OK with it taking measures to keep itself white.
Would Anti-Racists be OK with Germany putting in measure to stop itself becoming non-white? It is currently undergoing a demographic shift (I was there two years ago).
If Germany restricted their immigration policies in order to preserve its RACIAL heritage, you’re telling me that anti-racists would be OK with that?
Name ONE country, which anti-racists would be OK with, if it decided to preserve its ethnic heritage.
What are you talking about. The overwhelming majority of immigrants to Germany are either Turks or Eastern Europeans or, to put it another way, “whites”.
Moreover, they have amongst the most stringent immigration and naturalization laws in the world, as well as having laws which blatantly favor ethnic Germans over non-ethnic Germans.
Are you one of those people who insists that people from the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia and Turkey aren’t whites?
Now you are pretending not to know what white countries are, which is typically what anti-whites do when they don’t have an argument.
The thread is titled " Is ‘Anti-Racist’ just a Codeword For Anti-White??", and all I’ve been asking, is for anti-whites to demonstrate how their anti-racism is not anti-white.
Yet so far, no one has been able to put forward a position that doesn’t amount to ALL white nations becoming assimilated out through mass immigration and assimilation.
Very simply, if ALL white nations must take in non-whites, and assimilate, then white people are assimilated out.
If someone supports this, they are supporting the eradication of a race of people.
That is essentially supporting Genocide.
In any sort of race conspiracy the answer to “who is to blame?” is pretty much always the Jews. In this case they control the media and portray non-whites as being exotic in movies, television, commercials, video games, etc. So when a fine upstanding red blooded white man sees that spicy latina they just can’t help themselves, even as they become race traitors. Jews, somehow, are resistant to this brainwashing effect (a perk of being the master race, I guess).
Because no such “threat” exists except in your fantasies.
Your and your friends have refused to even define the term, so that’s a meaningless question.
Yet more nonsense, the subject has come up now and again for years.
You mean like rounding up and murdering millions of people? Because as we all know, that’s what your “measures” against carefully undefined “non-whites” really are.
Ok, now you’re moving the goal posts.
You started by squealing about naming a country that preserving it’s “white” heritage now you’re talking about it’s “ethnic” heritage.
Anyway, Turkey would be an excellent example of that since it’s both a white country and a country that has strict laws to protect it’s ethnic heritage and even goes so far as to have laws making “insulting turkishness” a crime.
It was absolutely an answer. You’re suggesting “anti-racists” (or whatever) oppose race-based laws because they want to destroy white people, or something (I think that’s the gist of your position, but I’m prepared to admit error), when it’s actually reasonable to wonder if race-based laws don’t do more harm than good.
Well, you can decide for yourself that you’ll only mate with white people (I assume you consider yourself white, though a useful definition thereof with some actual scientific merit remains elusive) and I guess you could aggressively raise your resulting children to only seek out white mates, and I guess you could use whatever influence you have to push your grandchildren toward white mates, and maybe your great-grandchildren, too… But after that, you’ll be dead and the matter will be out of your hands. In fact, I daresay nobody on Earth has any firm influence on what will happen three or four generations down the line, including the “anti-racists” you accuse of a systematic and presumably multigenerational anti-white effort. All the anti-racists you are addressing in this thread have exactly as much influence on late-21st-century breeding patterns as you do. That is to say, none. It’ll be the great-grandkids’ world by then and any effort you make now to guide their genetic fate has an excellent chance of seeming quaint, if not utterly laughable, in their eyes.
My question was, to name one country which anti-racists would be OK with, if it had policies which would preserve its racial heritage.
You didn’t do that. You just stated that Germany has particular laws (and classified Turks as whites, which normally anti-racists do NOT do.). Are anti-whites OK with this? Would they not object, if Germany tightened things?
If Angela Merkel got up tomorrow and said “We must ensure that Germany remains a country for ethnic Germans” or “We must ensure that Germany remains a white country”, you’re telling me anti-racists wouldn’t froth at the mouth?
They would, and you know it!
Genocide is not acceptable. If you’re telling me that discrimination is worse, then your moral worldview is questionable.
My argument is simple. Anti-whites are defending a status quo, where it is expected that ALL and ONLY white countries embrace multiracialism. Anti-whites call any white person who actively objects to this ‘racist’.
If you have mass non-white immigration into ALL and ONLY white nations, and promote assimilation, then whites will be mixed out.
Not difficult to understand.
Firstly, if I was to promote the idea of rejecting interracial marriage, anti-whites would attack me. These ideas are considered EVIL by anti-racists. So you’re advocating doing something which anti-whites consider evil.
Secondly, my argument is that anti-white support Genocide through assimilation. That is the crime. The fact that I can choose who I mate with is irrelevant. The issue is that YOU are supporting a program of genocide against my race, which is called “anti-racism”.
The fact that I can escape someone who is trying to commit a crime against me, doesn’t absolve that person of conspiring to commit a crime, does it?
How is this different?
Racial or ethnic heritage is pretty much the same.
“Insulting turkishness” is a far cry from ensuring that Turkey remaining ethnically Turkish or racially white. It is not the same.
Secondly, Turkey is comprised of a mixed people ALREADY. Turkey is a mix of the original Greek inhabitants, and Eastern peoples who moved in and conquered the area.
Besides, I can’t remember Liberals ever talking about the crimes of humanity that Turks have committed as crimes conducted by “white people”.
I’m sorry, but I nearly pissed myself laughing at the sheer stupidity of this statement.
These people are all of the same ethnicity.
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0701/ny_g_bonilla1x_200.jpg
http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/113/d8de53b9345d40fda20157f18fa3d90f/l.jpg
So are these three.
http://www.lcnj.com/images/Lebanese_Matchmaker.jpg
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/images/adams/anwar_sadat_drum.jpg
http://www.onthegotours.com/repository/MoroccanBerber-88741270039605_800_600.jpg
Are you going to claim that all of the first three and all of the second three are of the same race?
You really have no idea what you’re talking about do you? Turkey is a nation based on blood and soil nationalism which goes out of its way to preserve it’s Turkish heritage, having strict immigration policies and insisting that the Kurds are actually “Mountain Turks”.
More stupidity. The original inhabitants of Anatolia weren’t Greeks. At this point it’s impossible to say who they were.
However, there’s no question that if there is such a thing as “white people” the Turks are “white”.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qTOt-IkbmrA/UALOB7wEhfI/AAAAAAAAATA/8w_6x-v7vrU/s1600/IMG_0506.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qTOt-IkbmrA/UALOB7wEhfI/AAAAAAAAATA/8w_6x-v7vrU/s1600/IMG_0506.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hE0TRpE-p8U/TG14usASMyI/AAAAAAAAni0/89-gLTEg4vs/s1600/1qzqq4no1_1280.png
Which of the above people are you going to insist isn’t white?
Of all the things you’ve said, this is easily the dumbest.
During WWI and the aftermath, when the US government and it’s Ambassador were accusing the Ottoman Empire of engaging in genocide, they were allowing Turkish immigrants to enter the US and get naturalized as US citizens.
At the time, the US law was that in order to become naturalized as a citizen one had to be a “free white person” which is why Turkish immigrants were able to become US citizens while Japanese and Chinese immigrants weren’t allowed to become US citizens.
It’s not clear that genocide is actually happening. It could just be, y’know… evolution.
But for kicks, let’s say for the sake of argument that races actually exist in some scientifically discernible way, and of those races (which until recent centuries were in relative isolation from each other, a situation changed by large-scale colonialism, sea-based travel and trade and modern immigration) the “white” race is much more worldly and cosmopolitan and thus, to be blunt, is generally more willing than other races to fuck just about anybody anywhere.
This, apparently, will lead to a gradual dilution of “whiteness” as it spreads to other races, like milk poured into coffee and stirred.
I suppose my initial response is “So?” and my follow-up question is “what exactly is being lost in process? Pale skin? Blue eyes? Blonde hair? Those will be around long after everyone currently discussing the issue is dead.”
That’s not exactly a stinging rebuke, I’m afraid. I’m not taking your warning of an impending genetic catastrophe seriously, is all.
Well, then whites are just the victims of their own success, then, by making their countries sufficiently attractive to everyone else. Frankly, from an environmental point of view, someone with the gumption to immigrate to a “white” country already shows potentially more genetic fitness than a white person who just happened to be born there and never had the gumption to do much of anything. I mean, what’s more attractive to you - someone who recognized a better situation and worked hard to grab it, or someone who was born into it and takes it for granted?
No, you’re definitely not difficult to understand. I admit that I would have difficulty taking your concerns seriously, though. Heck, I’m a Jewish Canadian of European ancestry as far back as… several centuries at least, I can say with some plausible confidence. I’m not even sure if the people who lament the pending loss of whiteness consider me white, and if they don’t, why should I care about their concerns?
Frankly, if the Jews really do run things, that only demonstrates the superiority of their culture - being able to take charge despite small numbers and concentrated efforts for several centuries by Christians to exile and exterminate them. Frankly, these are not “white” countries, these are Jewish countries, with non-Jews being allowed to live in them through Jewish generosity.
Or so one could conclude if one believed Jews really ran things.
Heck, I’m okay with you personally rejecting anything you want, and even talking about your rejections freely. But do you want interracial marriage rejected by law? I find that offensive not because of the race angle, but because you’d be infringing on the individual’s right to marry as they choose. Who the hell are you to tell someone who they can and can’t marry? You can pull that crap with your kids if you feel the need, but total strangers?
Okay, so let’s say it’s established that I’m not of your race. Why should I care what happens to your race? What’s my incentive to do so?
Well, it’s not really a crime, for starters. Who’s actually being victimized, for example? White people who can no longer completely surround themselves with the comforting security blanket of other white people? Heck, if you want to establish a colonial outpost of racially-protected whites, go buy a million acres in Wyoming or Texas or Alaska or wherever and gather a few thousand like-minded whites around you, and as long as none of you ever steps off the reservation to be subjected to a nonwhite face, you can be as lily-white a pocket a humanity as you like.
You might get a little inbred after a while, and probably by the third generation it’ll be hard to keep the offspring from wandering off, but don’t blame us if you’re too lazy to see it through.
I would settle for a Zhuang, or a Manchu (or someone who identified as one.) Uighers and Tibetans, bawww, that’s not going to happen for decades. Or centuries. Menggu is more likely, but still a long shot.
White people may be more cosmopolitan in general than others.
That doesn’t justify supporting a program whereby whites are assimilated out.
Whites may not disappear tomorrow in a genetic catastrophe.
That doesn’t justify supporting a program whereby whites are assimilated out.
You may not be able to see “benefit” in why whites might want to remain as a race on the planet.
That doesn’t justify supporting a program whereby whites are being assimilated out.
White may have countries which are more desirable to others, and may even get economic benefit from immigration.
That doesn’t justify supporting a program of whereby whites are being assimilated out.
I’ve simply been asking for proof that anti-whites would support a position whereby whites can preserve their posterity as a race, and have got nothing. Because anti-whites don’t support that idea.
I said Liberals never claim that Turkish attempts at genocide were “white” crimes. You didn’t provide a counter example, but instead went back 100 years to the WWI US government, which as you have pointed out, held policies which are unacceptable to anti-racists today (that is race based discrimination).
My point that Liberals never categorise Turkish human rights violations as those by “white people” stands.
I asked for a country in which anti-racists would be A-OK with it having a policy of retaining its whiteness, and you did NOT give an answer.
You merely pointed out that Turkey, of all places, is somewhat strict. But you did NOT say that it was ACCEPTABLE for Turkey to have a program whereby it remains a WHITE country.
That was my original question.
Well, if anyone is assimilating the whites out, it’s the whites themselves, by having broader horizons in who to have sex with. Do you want to control who an individual can have sex with? Would you be okay with someone trying to control who you have sex with?
Anyway, I see you repeated the phrase like a mantra several more times. Yawn.
Well, if you want to preserve your posterity as a member of a particular race, be my guest, but you’re hinting at passing laws that control who people can mate with, and that’s intrusive, silly, and unwarranted. Like I said, gather a few thousand of your like-minded white brethren and get them to agree to not mate outside the white race, nor let their children do so (your control over what your grandchildren do is a tad tenuous, let alone your great-grandchildren) and best of luck to you.