No, it’s mocking feeble arguments. You’ve offered nothing that this forum hasn’t seen dozens of times before.
Perhaps we’re not tasty enough. Sort of bland…
No, you haven’t. You’ve quoted a series of people with no connection to each other who are saying generally unrelated things about demographic change. Some of them admit they’re benefiting from it electorally, but that doesn’t mean they’re behind it.
This is another quote that doesn’t say what you’d like. Nobody in the thread has taken “white genocide” for granted, and formulaone dodged this repeatedly. And nobody in this thread said “groups come, groups go.” The quote is from the Pit thread, and taken in full, it says this:
So you couldn’t have possibly gotten this quote more wrong. Der Trihs didn’t agree that any genocide is happening or that white people are disappearing. He did say in general that groups come and go, which is kind of hard to argue.
He didn’t say anything about the future of white people either.
More on Conspiracy to Exterminate White People.
Having proven that there is an elite conspiracy to exterminate White people, I will note that there is no need for any conspiracy in order to perpetrate a genocide. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, “intent” just means knowledge:
Article 30: Mental element
-
Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge. -
For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where: (a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct; (b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events. -
For the purposes of this article, "knowledge" means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. "Know" and "knowingly" shall be construed accordingly.
So there is no requirement of a showing of purposive intent, or what is commonly called "conspiracy’ under international law.
This is the one and only time I’ll remind people here: you can’t insult other posters in this forum.
That’s the point. Mocking is not arguing. It is deliberately avoiding an argument that you know you cannot win.
If the arguments are “feeble”, then you should be able to refute them on the merits rather than hide in cheap sophistry.
Say you’re right White Survivalist. You’re not, but let’s play along and presume you are.
What do you suppose to do about it? Forbid “non-white” immigration and bring back anti-miscegenation laws? Kick out the brown people? Or is the world just supposed to be more forgiving of racists now that you’ve convinced us you’re right? What’s the end goal here?
You’ve proven nothing, by the way.
Wow! Now, this quote right here is certainly an odd one :
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
“Make no mistake about it,” he says,
“Make no mistake about it . . . we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
…
It seems to me that any person who is so obsessed with “bashing” a particular group of people – any ethnicity – has some mental health issues going on. It is much healthier to just learn how to get along with people, don’t you think?
No, sir, it is not happening. What is happening is more nonwhite immigrants and more interracial relationships than were considered acceptable in earlier generations; neither constitutes extermination.
Some arguments deserve to be mocked. Moon-landing hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, birthers, flat-earthers, white-genociders, Illuminati, lizard people, etc; all these arguments fall in the same category, and they’ve been debunked publicly over and over again, so mockery is appropriate.
In other words, having failed to prove there’s a conspiracy, you’re now going to use Humpty Dumpty tactics to use a definition of conspiracy that nobody would recognize. I’m not scared for the future of white people, but this makes me worry about the future of the English language.
Again, assuming facts not in evidence. Mockery is just as often deployed against arguments that are simply boring of illogical, or which have been debunked thousands of times and keep coming back anyway because the arguers aren’t motivated by logic.
You must not have read the post.
By the way, while “white people” (however they are defined) may be, statistically, getting browner, “brown people” (and black/yellow/red/whatever) are also getting whiter. So there’s a nice, happy balance.
I just summarized it. That does imply I read it.
Dr. Cube.
Native Americans have reservations where they are allowed to live in peace and preserve their heritage.
Anyone who demands that Native American reservations should be opened up to non-Indian residents on the grounds that non-Indians have a right to live anywhere they want is clearly showing that they do not value the existence of Native Americans and is therefore anti-Native American.
Wouldn’t you agree?
No you didn’t. You failed to engage with any of the evidence I provided, you merely dismissed it out of hand.
Native American reservations are, for the most part, open to anyone who wants to live there. Your “facts” are wrong. Not everyone can be accepted as a member of the tribe, but few tribal lands prohibit non-tribe-members from living there.
In 100 years, Nigeria will still be full of black people. China will still be full of yellow people. Central America will still be full of brown people. It is ONLY and ALL White countries that are being subjected to mass alien “immigration” and forced “integration” such that the native or founding White population will be assimilated out of existence.
No you are wrong. Residents must be enrolled members of the tribe, which is determined by ancestry.