No, they aren’t. Not that you’ve even defined “white”.
No; you are saying that because it’s a standard line that you’ve been taught to regurgitate over and over. You can’t - or won’t - even properly define the terms you are using.
I’m not here to advocate solutions, only to point out that anti-whites promote an agenda which would logically result in Genocide. That this “anti-racist” agenda, because it logically results in Genocide of whites through assimilation, is anti-white.
Promoting a situation which means a race of people disappears is evil. Perhaps you don’t consider promoting a plan to better humanity which involves removing a racial group evil, but I do.
However, you’re not even interested in stopping the support of a position of Genocide. That is was strikes me. Not that you anti-whites don’t decide to discuss how racism can be fought without destroying a race of people, but they don’t even stop supporting a position of Genocide.
Which means they support it.
OK, then no it’s not.
You are incorrect about this. I don’t know any “anti-whites”, but the general population that opposes racism promotes an agenda that would logically result in more white people than before (as well as more mixed and non-white people).
Now he’s capitalizing Genocide, because the lower-case version obviously wasn’t impressive enough.
Next phase… italics!
Actually a racist is one who believes their race is superior…
Wait, which is it? If it logically results in genocide, then it must eventually be successful, or else there is another logical outcome that isn’t genocide.
So, I’ll ask my questions again:
How many whites are there in the world now, and how many (according to your calculations) will there be, say, 100 years from now?
Because if you can’t answer that question, I can envision another logical outcome that does not result in genocide. That is, white people keep reproducing and creating more white people.
Liberals consider those countries which must be opened to third world immigration white countries, because they refer to all the countries which must be come diverse, as white countries.I
I identify myself as white, being of European origin.
But it doesn’t matter whether my defintion matches 100% with yours (I bet it wont).
What matters, is that anti-whites target whites, by identifying whiteness as a problem. It is WHITE areas which they say, need diversity. It is when WHITE people, they say resist diversity, where you have ‘racism’.
It is their assertion there can be no ‘all white’ anything.
Anti-White Noel Ignatiev says “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity” and he talks of the white race.
Tim Wise, a prominent “Anti-Racist” anti-white activist says
Here is a testimonial about him
Hmm, she know what 'white’is, but you pretend to need a defintion.
Rubbish.
do you want me to go on and on and on about anti-whites having no problems using the word white to refer to people and saying that is better when they are gone?
Do you really want that? Or do you want me to save you the embarrassment?
Like “we all bleed red”?, or “We are all the same under the skin?”, or “Diversity is our strength”, or “Without assimilation there would be inbreeding”? or the “hybrid - vigour” argument?
You’re ignoring staff instructions at this point, so this is your last chance to stop bobbing and weaving. This is pointless if you won’t define who you’re talking about. It doesn’t matter if other people agree with you (that might be the next phase of the discussion).
Hey, I’m also of European origin. I’m white like you!
So being Jewish doesn’t matter, then? Confusing.
Here are more quotes from a promnent anti-white activist, Tim Wise
I didn’t say that. That was Tomndeb. I think he’s correct thought that the northern part of Algeria was initially settled by Phoenicians while the Southern part was held by the Berbers.
No, he didn’t. I don’t know why he choose to use the word “metissage” in the speech one of your friend linked to, but what he was talking about was integration.
You truly believe that he was publically stating : “French citizens of European stock must make babies with immigrants, and if they don’t want to, we’ll force them to do so”??? :rolleyes: Seriously, how could one imagine for a second, in good faith, that he was saying that?
And for the record, Sarkozy was the most anti-immigrant president we ever had.
AssemblyLine,
You define yourself as white because you’re “of European origin.”
Around 85-90% of all African-Americans are of European origin.
Does that mean they are white as well?
If not please explain why you have such seemingly intellectually inconsistent views.
I realize this is very late in the thread to be bringing this up, but…
Way back in Post 176, White Survivalist held up Native American reservations as an example of an ethnically pure community. Along with all the other wrong-headed assumptions built into this argument, he assumes that Native Americans value racial purity the way he does. I don’t know how universal it was, but at least some tribes actively encouraged visitors to father children with their women, and their own men to father children with other tribes’ women, as a way to foster good relations between those tribes. I don’t have an easily accessible cite for this, unfortunately–it’s based on a not-yet-published book, which I’ve been copyediting and proofreading, on the Nez Perce Indians’ interactions with the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Debating all the edge cases as to who is white is EXACTLY where you want to take the discussion, because then you don’t have to talk about the position that anti-whites advocate.
It’s you who is dodging and weaving. You and I both know that we are aware of the general grouping of white people, which is to me, those descended from the historic European peoples. The White Americans, the White Australians, are those who had come from Europe.
Now, if you are saying that there is no real understanding of what white people are, then you are a LIAR.
Every anti-white seems to understand from their own articles, discussion what white is. Yet when I argue with an anti-racist, I always, ALWAYS just happen to get the ‘exception’ who doesn’t know what white is.
Piffle.
As has already been pointed out, “third world immigration” is driven by economics, not some imaginary “liberals.”
And, has already been pointed out, the majority of countries facing third world immigration are seeing immigration mostly by white people: Germany and France, for example, seeing large numbers of Turkish and Algerian immigrants.
Who is this “they” of whom you speak? You and your fellow travelers keep quoting people on the outer Leftist fringe and then acting as though they both 1) represent “liberals” and 2) actually wield political power. Both of those implications are wrong.
Noel Ignatiev is nothing but a college professor, and one with strong Marxist leanings, to boot. The U.S. is a Right-Centrist country and no Marxist has been able to shape public opinion in decades. Then you go on to quote someone from SNCC? An outfit that has not wielded any political influence in over forty years?
Tim Wise may actually wield a tiny bit of influence in the world, but then, you had to quote him out of context in order to try to make a point.
And to repeat what several of us have already noted: it is not that we don’t know what “white” means, it is that we don’t know what you pretend “white” means. If you are pretending that Turks and Jews are not “white,” we need to know who else you have excluded from your club before we consider joining it.
Read the forum rules: do not call other posters “liar” in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
OK, let me give you an even looser question to answer.
Will this white genocide happen in 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years or 100,000 years?
Because, if according your calculations (and please show your work) it’s more like 10,000 or 100,000 years, then count me as completely uninterested. No one today can make any accurate predictions about what demographics will be like that far in the future. Too many unknowns.
I’m quite willing to accept that Berbers were already on the North African shore when the Phoenicians beached their ships. It hardly changes the discussion, given that there is no reason to call Berbers anything but white.