Because you know that calling for slavery, mass murder and forced sterilization will make your reception even more hostile. Although we all know that’s what your ideological movement has always wanted, and done when it could.
So, the Japanese are white now? Your understanding of “liberals” is as inaccurate as your understanding of “race” and “genocide”.
No, that’s just part of your pre-programmed reality-free mantra that you keep regurgitating onto the board, despite no one buying it. It’s not only irrational rhetoric, it’s pretty much copy-and-pasted irrational rhetoric.
If you advocate that ALL white countries must take in non-whites and that people should interbreed (ie not have any racial bias in selecting a mate, which is what anti-racists advocate), then what do you think would happen?
More non-whites appear in white nations. Probability of intermarriage increases. Children mixed race. Probabilty of intermarriage increases.
It seems you don’t want to think about that.
If you PROMOTE those ideals, you are promoting Genocide. Anti-whites KEEP promoting it for as long as there are white areas which aren’t diverse.
“Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
I’m guessing that ALH’s formula would get cheers of support on the boards he normally visits, and he can’t understand why they don’t here, and the only strategy he has is repetition.
So an anti-racist would discourage white people from immigrating to say India and having mixed race children there?
If you really believe this you have a very strange definition of people against racism, in fact I’d bet most people against racism would have no problem with white people immigrating to non-white countries.
Thanks. I got there was something wrong with this paper after reading the article about French “sensitive areas”, but I didn’t expect to be that peculiar.
And given the native population’s low birth rate, the Japanese race and culture is far more likely to go extinct than the white race and culture if they don’t change their policies in a hurry.
Your whole point here is that someone making that foolish nitpick would, of course, be using the wrong definition.
The correct – and obvious – response would be to reply with the correct definition; isn’t that what you’d actually do if someone made the “global” argument you’re sensibly deriding? Isn’t that what, y’know, anyone would do? Reply to an inaccurate nitpick with mere accuracy for the win?
Apologies for the misquote, then. However, the Northern part was settled by the Phoenicians, indeed, but the Berbers predated them
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Berbers (Berber: ⵉⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⴻⵏ Imazighen/Imaziɣen) are the indigenous ethnic group of North Africa, west of the Nile Valley
[/QUOTE]
The first Phenician colonies in modern day Tunisia appeared about 100 years earlier. But Berbers’ ancestors had already been there for thousands of years.
A quote I like wrt the origin of Berbers and vaguely relevant to this thread :
I am watching this thread and I fail to really understand it. So I’d like to piggyback with a question that might clarify things a bit for a non-American:
Is the real malaise affecting “concerned white Americans” vs. the immigration and “supremacy” a skin color issue or a cultural/social one ? That is, will a hypothetical perfectly “assimilated”, protestant, well educated person of say, Pakistani extraction who has perfect accent and American manners, but quite dark skin, be feared as “diluting” the whites ? As against another hypothetical whiter than white French catholic person that sneers at American values, American food and American Sex with a heavy French accent.
OK, I explained how “assimilated out” is meaningless because being assimilated means joining a group.
Now, let’s look at “anti-racist.” I’ll be the second person on this thread to mention we’ve got another nonsense phrase here. Nobody says “anti-racist”–except certain groups who show up when one Googles. Who says “anti-murderer” or “anti-child molester”?
Words are all you have to explain your concepts. Learn how to use them!
To doubleminus: The latest arrival claims to be Australian, not American. In fact, none of the three has harped on “Americanism”. They are concerned about Whiteness, which they can’t really define. Here in Texas, I’ve certainly witnessed racism–but not the malignant type being demonstrated in this thread…
Actually, that is the very question that they have all been assiduously avoiding all the while complaining that the question of who is “white” is an evasion.
Most people already know who is “white,” but the White Nationalists, White Supremacists, and others of similar bent are often found to have really odd, (not to say–OK, I’ll say it–silly) ideas of who gets to be “white.” So letting them rant on about the elimination of some imaginary group that we can recognize is not endangered is tiresome and we wish they would just tell us who they believe is threatened, (and by whom, since the people so far accused of threatening them have no power to accomplish any such goal).
Well, personally I think each country should set it’s own immigration policies, but it would be silly for many “white” countries with declining birth rates to refuse immigrants who could help their country actually grow just because the immigrants had a different skin color. Japan is going to have to face that problem very soon, just as many European countries do. Most “non-white” countries don’t have a problem of decreasing population, so it’s not really an issue for them. But some, like Japan, do. It’s not so much a white/non-white thing as an industrialized/not-quite-industrialized thing.
You are trying to make it a racial/cultural problem when it is fundamentally an economic problem.
Still, there is no indication that whites will disappear as a race, and you are dodging every opportunity to tell us when you think this will actually happen. If you are so sure it will, then you should be able to tell us when, at least to the nearest order magnitude. I mean, I’m giving you every opportunity to give us your best estimate in the looses possible manner.
I have no problem thinking about that at all. You have problems fleshing out your ideas and posting something beyond the talking points that your organization feeds you. Repeating the same tired, unproven statements over and over doesn’t make them true.
Nope. Until you tell us when this genocide is predicted to occur, we will continue to see that you are just making stuff up.