An assertion that might matter, if such a program existed. There is no such “program”, therefore it doesn’t matter no regardless of how many times you robotically repeat that line. As it is, you are basically doing the equivalent of arguing that it’s immoral for all men under 30 to wear cowboy hats because the Illuminati have conned them into doing so. It’s a claim that makes no sense about something that isn’t happening caused by people who don’t exist.
And no answer from you about how to define white people. I think you’re afraid to answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Non-white people. With their shifty eyes, incomprehensible languages, and their diabolic plans to eradicate the White Race so they can rule the world in the name of their Secret Masters, the Jews!!*
*“Jews” should properly be read here accompanied by an ominous background chord, and the lights going dim and red. DUN-DUN-DUUUUUN!!
Nobody has to ENFORCE Interrmarriage. They ENFORCE the conditions which lead to Interrmarriage.
Anti-whites enforce the conditions, which would lead to assimilation, knowing that assimilation would take place AND encouraging it.
This isn’t about me. This is about anti-whites who demand that ALL and ONLY white countries assimilate AND that they encourage intermarriage AND that they ostracise and call ‘racist’ those who don’t wish to take part.
Anti-whites do this knowing, and admitting, that this will lead to a ‘mixed world’, but because they only worry about white nations, this means a world where whites are assimilated out. Essentially a program of genocide.
The fact that I can resist (with risk to my livelihood and personal safety through the actions of anti-whites), doesn’t excuse anti-whites of what they advocate.
If you are not anti-white, then put forward a position which doesn’t result in whites being assimilated out.
I’m still waiting.
Wow. That’s the most mind-numbingly moronic comment in the history of this board.
That “assimilated out” mantra doesn’t make sense. In fact, assimilate has an interesting etymology:
One is not assimilated “out”–the word implies one is assimilated “in.” Surely such staunch defenders of Western Civilization as our recent visitors should know some Latin–or at least some Star Trek: TNG.
Actually, “Western Civilization” hasn’t been mentioned. Perhaps because it didn’t arise in isolation and isn’t purely white. Or maybe that stuff is just too hard for this group.
We haven’t heard of Western Imperialism, either; most previously whitish countries to which multicolored/multicultural folks emigrate invited that traffic by colonizing their homelands. Thus building roads (actual or virtual) that run both ways.
I’d love to hear more about OP v.2’s trip to Germany. Why didn’t he stay in the Fatherland? Did he not measure up to immigration standards, which measure more than the color of the epidermis?
Finally, no group of “brethren” can establish a breeding enclave. They need some willing sistern. These groups seem to consist of Angry White Males. Angry White Single Males…
In this “assimiliation,” nothing is being lost. There is no essential quality of “whiteness” that can be lost through intermarriage, because “whiteness” can have no rigorous definition. If every white person has only mixed-race children, essentially nothing has changed from the perspective of the human race.
I find the question offensive.
Would you deny a black man his identity, by playing semantic games about what exactly is black? Would you do that to a Jew, an Aboriginal, Native American?
Anti-whites have no problem acknowledging that there are black people, Native Americans, Aboriginals, but somehow whites don’t exist? They pretend that ‘white’ is undefined and indefinable and unknown when PRO-WHITE people use it. But when ANTI-WHITE people use the term, it has a meaning.
You are not genuinely interested in the answer, but rather trying to avoid the accusations against anti-whites by diverting the discussion to pointless technical issues, about marginal cases.
All Liberals and anti-racists know what the term white is. The fact that there is debate about exactly where to draw the line (and this is the point you probably so desperately want to make, so as to excuse yourself of being anti-white and draw the discussion to ‘familiar’ anti-white talking points bestowed by mummy professor) doesn’t in any way really prove that anti-racists are not anti-white.
Anti-whites demand that ALL and ONLY whites countries take in the rest of the world and assimilate. The fact that some countries may or may not fall within the category of ‘white’, doesn’t excuse you one iota of the fact that anti-whites are calling for essentially genocide.
If I was an anti-semite, and said that the world would be better if we were all mixed, and only advocated this for Jewish groups and for Israel, would the fact that there is debate about exactly who is a Jew, excuse me? I don’t think so. Why should it excuse you?
So you don’t have an actual argument against it.
So you’re afraid to answer it. Got it. I’ll keep asking though, because I can’t know if I’m anti-white unless I know if I am white, and which of my family and friends are white.
Only in your fantasies.
So instead of arguing against my point, presumably because you can’t, you decide to nit-pick over whether its ‘assimilated out’ or ‘assimilated in’?
If anti-racist was NOT a code word for anti-white, I would have thought I would have gotten better arguments than what you’ve provided.
You can tell how a debate is proceeding by what is being discussed. The anti-whites here are trying to get out on technicalities, the way that ANY criminal tries to get out, knowing they are guilty.
Anyone who debates with an anti-racist anti-white will see this clearly. This thread clearly indicates this. The anti-racists use ‘white’ without other anti-racists saying ‘hey, what exactly do you mean by white’. Anti-racists can talk about whites without being dragged into technical debates. They can say “the royal wedding was too white”, or “Australia is too white”, without immediately getting other anti-whites demanding they define exactly what they mean.
But when ****** use it, different story.
To those following this thread, just read through and you’ll see what I mean.
You have gotten any number of good arguments, all of which you’ve ignored while spouting nonsense and refusing to answer questions. You aren’t convincing people because you are so obsessively wrong in everything you say, and because everyone knows just how incredible worthless, nasty and destructive your entire world view is.
I simply pointed out that there is no such thing as “assimilated out.” You keep repeating the same words, over & over. They don’t mean what you think they mean. You’re just parroting a few phrases, not engaging in debate.
Did some of those other matters I mentioned sting a bit?
Uganda expelled all residents of Asian (mainly Indian and Pakistani) descent in 1972. Anti-racists opposed this.
Japan’s strict immigration laws are opposed by anti-racists.
Germany’s nationality law was opposed by anti-racists, and was recently reformed.
Saudi Arabia’s practices toward its 6 million guest workers are opposed by anti-racists.
Anti-racists oppose legal distinctions and discrimination based on race. It’s that simple.
More people try to immigrate to wealthy nations than poor ones. Wealthy nations are disproportionately white, and are overrepresented by media outlets and internet presence. This doesn’t mean anti-racists are fine with Uganda’s policies, it means much fewer people are trying to immigrate to Uganda than to the United States, for instance, and that the sort of people who are in a position to discuss immigration on the Internet are much more likely to be Westerners than Ugandans.
Okay, lets simplify the question: Is America a white country in your opinion?
It’s really quite pathetc that the phrase “anti-racist” keeps being used, as though racism were the natural order of things, and to oppose it one must be “anti”. Racist people, why must you use made up phrases to hide behind? Does doing so make you a little more comfortable in your silly battle? If you need to hide from something (the truth) you are on the wrong side of the argument. There are no anti-racists. There are racists, and there are the rest of us.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
We know there are “white people” and “black people”, but we also know that the problem isn’t so much a lack of definition but TOO MANY DEFINITIONS. That is why we want to know what YOUR DEFINITION is. As already pointed out, some people consider Indians to be “white” and some people don’t. Some people consider Arabs to be “white” and some people don’t. Some people consider Italians to be “white” and some people don’t.
You, yourself, have used the term “Nordic” to describe yourself. Is that the same as “white”? Does one have to be “Nordic” to be “white”?
Where is the geographic dividing line between “white” and “not white” in Europe/Asia?
AssemblyLineHuman, I’m curious – are you attempting to persuade us that you’re right, or are you merely justifying your racist attitude to yourself? Because “I don’t have to answer that question!” may work in your own head, but you are convincing absolutely nobody else.