So an “anti-racist” is really an “anti-white”? And if I am white, under your erm…cryptic code, am I “anti-white” for liking chicks with darker complexions that mine? Or am I limited to Scandinavians? Fuck that. It’d ruin my sex life – such as it is now a days.
Do you like have, a “color-chart” as most paint companies do? If not, that just might be your calling: human hues, paint salesman. Fuck it, you can be the CEO as well.
Assimilated in, assimilated out. you understand what I’m talking about. “Diversity” advocates talk about assimilation ALL THE TIME.
I’m not engaging in debate because there is no debate here, only anti-whites saying “I don’t know what you mean”, “Thats silly”, “Technically it’s not assimilated in, its assimilated out”.
A debate can only occur when people understand concepts. Anti-whites here have discussed NO concepts at all, only technicalities and definitions.
I’m repeating myself, because I’m getting nothing.
I asked for a white nation, which it would be A-OK with anti-whites if it took measures to preserve its whiteness. No anti-white has said “Nation/Country X would be acceptable to anti-whites if it rejected multiracialism”.
I said that if ALL white nations take in large numbers of non-whites and assimilate, then the white race would mix out, but no one has said how it is possible in a manner acceptable for anti-racists for white people to continue as a race with mass immigration and assimilation and intermarriage.
Nitpick : Berbers are the original population of Algeria (of most of North-Africa, in fact). They predate Phoenicians, etc… by a long while.
Also Tuaregs belong to the same population. “Berbers” either refer to that population as a whole (including Kabyls, Tuaregs, etc…) or to the sub-group that populated most of northern Morroco.
The topic is "anti-racist is a code-word for anti-white. It is not “are anti-whites succeeding” or “how far along to a mixed race world are we”.
Nice dodge, but I’m not buying. If one ADVOCATES a situation, whereby ALL white nations will have mass non-white immigration and ADVOCATES assimilation, then they are advocating a position where the white race is mixed out, ie Genocide.
Whether this is a success or not, is not relevant. The issue is that people are pushing this position.
If one advocates Genocide, it is not acceptable because it may not happen. If someone was to say “the world would be a better place without Jews”, they are not exonerated from a hate crime, because there are still lots of Jews. they are judged by their intent. No anti-white would say that anti-semitism is acceptable, because acts of anti-semitism don’t appear to be an immediate threat to Jews.
Likewise for anti-whites. However, whties countries DO have non-white immigration, and they DO have intermarriage and they DO have anti-whites promoting through the media a ‘mixed world’ and they ARE doing this ONLY in white countries.
All the pieces required for white Genocide are there. We are saying that you are anti-white due to supporting those pieces being there.
Not easy to parse out, but if I get it, then here is what’s probably going to continue to happen:
Some white people have kids with other white people, some people don’t. Mixed people become more common, but the overall white population increases in the world (like it always has). Violence in the world continues to go down as it has for decades. So at point X in the future, there are more white people in the world than there are now. Most white people continue to not care that much that many white people are having mixed babies. Most white people continue to ignore and/or mock people who whine about “white genocide” at the same time the global white population is increasing and overall quality of life is increasing as well.
You (and yours) have presented no “concepts” (unless you actually believe that whiny cries of “I believe I am part of a group that is being eliminated even though I cannot even identify my group and I am incapable of demonstrating any example that any of “my” people have been eliminated” qualifies as a “concept”).
You are repeating yourself because you got nothin’.
Nit picking about words when concepts are involved is a sign of the outargued.
Global Warming deniers do this all the time. They ask for ‘proof’, and then nit pick about the proof. They nitpick about the use of the world “global” and say “Well, if region X is cooler this year, then its not global, therefore its not ‘Global’ warming therefore your whole thesis is bunk”.
Standard tactic. Find a small imperfection (ie, the fact that ‘white’ isn’t perfectly defined for ALL 7 billion people on this planet) and then attempt to claim the entire thesis is bunk, despite the fact that it doesn’t rest, at all, on the exact definition of white, only the broad, general definition.
I read an SF short story back when the hole in the ozone layer was bigger news. A couple trying to marry was getting all sorts of static, including legal barriers, because they were both darker skinned, (one black and one Latino or both black–I don’t recall), because by marrying each other instead of picking white partners, they were denying necessary UV ray blocking melanin to the next generation.
