Nationalist Alternative in Action: Episode 2

On October 31, 2012, in Activism, by mkennedy

by Michael Kennedy

We continue with our blow by blow online debate. Here we present another YouTube debate, which carries on very similar to the first.

The second YouTube ‘debunking’ was titled “Anti-racist=anti-white”=Anti-reality “

You can view it here

We start with MrOutstep33 who writes

But do you understand whatpeople are saying about anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white? genocide is not racism even though our government who has the majority of committing genocide or any government in fact.

I rather go anti white and be a racist hater even though I think anti white is nothing but a stupid excuse for hate mongers to make sense of their excuses by showing fascism and ignorance.

I respond with

But do you understand thatimmigration and assimilation is demanded for every White country and only White countries? That is genocide.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

MrNovember41 writes in response to MrOutstep33

A lot of people like AusGael are unfortunately so narrow-minded that they fear everything that is different to them; be it race, creed or whatever. I see a lot of these people on Youtube these days spouting ignorance and it’s disturbing howuninformed and scared these people really are about the outside world. I blame the parents 😛

Not to let pretend ignorance go free, I respond with

I blame anti-racists who for decades have been calling for ALL and ONLY white nations to take in the third world and assimilate.

It hasn’t escaped us that it is essentially a call for white people to go. Many anti-racists have explicitly said that when the races (ie, WHITES) no longer exist, racism will end.

You can lie about it being ‘ignorance’, but the fact is, we are no longer ignorant tothe reality that mass non-white immigration is incompatible with the existence of the white race.

DeadRaibead666 weighs in with this comment. You’ll notice that it’s the same Duh! comment in the previous discussion thread. An anti-white saying it’s all new to them, they don’t understand it.

When has an“anti racist” said that?

How are “white” Americans being assimilated by minorities?

Similar to the last discussion thread, the anti-white here is trying to move the argument away from them. Recognising that they are trying to switch the argument from a demand from us of them, to one of me, I stay on the attack.

Again, it is important to realise that at this stage, they are trying to switch the focus of the debate. Away from accusations against them they have no defence for, to side issues and other questions. Unfortunately, many White Nationalists have obliged in the past turning the discussion to academic issues, and giving them a way of not having to be challenged in demanding the Genocide of our race.

I write

Anti-racists say that all whitenations must open their borders.

anti-racists call any white person who objects to this, “RACIST”.

It is the INTENT which is the issue. Anti-whites intend for ALL and ONLY white nations to become multiracial melting pots. They oppose any opposition.

Hence why anti-racists are anti-white.

Anti-whites must stop hiding behind minorities and bear moral responsibility for what they advocate.

DeadRaibead666 writes,

When have anti racists ever said that? It depends on what country you are talking about. Was your country founded through immigration?

And what intent is there against “white” people? Haven’t “white” people made every country they immigrated too and colonized a melting pot? Didn’t the Spaniards andthe English do so?

And what moral responsibility do they advocate? You don’t think that minorities deserve equal rights?

This is again a standard response. Anti-whites are tape recorders, who recite the same arguments again and again, when triggered in a pavlovian fashion by pro-white statements.

I write, hammering the mantra again

If you advocate that all white nations must become multiracial melting pots, and you oppose everyone who says otherwise, then such a situation would, logically,lead to whites eventually not existing, effectively genocide, if done knowingly.

That is where anti-racist, anti-whites must be held morally accountable. Using “nation of immigrants”, “colonialism” and other past facts, does NOT absolve one of the responsibility of their own attitudes and words.

These do not make genocide OK.

DeadRaibead666 raises interesting points, but doesn’t address the issue.

DeadRaibead666 continues

I have never heard anyone advocate that all “white” nations should become multicultural melting pots. Immigration didn’t only occur during European colonization. What about the Irish Diaspora? The Polish never colonized anywhere and they are immigrating tothe Netherlands. Would you call them anti white?

Nobody is morally responsible for something when not shown the evidence. Where are the facts that this is happening in all “white” countries?\

It is important to cut to the chase. We KNOW anti-racism is anti-white. They oppose any white nation remaining white. Any white nation is expected to become multiracial and whites to assimilate, non-white countries have no such expectations.

So when the anti-white, as before, tries to make excuses by bringing up Polish immigration and such, bring them back to the mantra.

I respond with

So you are trying to tell me that Europe, the US, UK, Canada,Australia don’t have mass non-white immigration? Are you telling me that the demographic changes in White nations is comparable to those in non-white nations?

No sane person who has an inkling of what is going on in the world would admit this.

Yet any white person who speaks against this, or says that this must be stopped is racist. If you stop someone from preserving their own race, then you are against that race.

DeadRaibead666 responds with

The US, Canada, and Australia were founded on immigration. Why is it only wrong when the immigrants are now non white?

I don’tlive in Europe, Canada or Australia. Those lands are not my concern. Only the US is.

If you want to preserve your race, then go ahead. Marry and white woman and have white children. How are you being stopped?

So what would your solution be to solve this immigration problem that wouldn’t lead to an act of genocide against non whites?

DeadRaibead666 makes two important points, which we must know how to adequately address. The first is that no one is stopping us from marrying who we want and have children with them. This is true, but as always with their arguments, beside the point. If you allow mass non-white immigration, the race of the people in that country WILL change. Anti-whites have no excuse not to know this. They have no excuse therefore, to allow this to happen. Call them out on it. Call them out on the fact that mass immigration and assimilation is going to cause the destruction of OUR race. This argument is akin to saying that if you are on a lifeboat with five others, who are rocking the boat threatening to overturn it, that you are FREE to choose not to rock the boat. Interesting to note, that he is saying that I have the right to have white children, but is not saying that assimilation won’t happen en masse.

We demand a political voice. In saying that we should just have children, and forget about political activity, they are saying that pro-whites should not have a say in the political issues that multiracialism causes. Telling a race of people to say politically silent on an issue which affects their survival is a disgusting display of arrogance.

Preventing Genocide is NOT something we can do, solely through our choice of partner. Multiracialism is a political program, and requires a political force to counteract it.

The second point is what would we do to protect our race? Given that even discussing that there is an issue verges on hate speech. Given that pro-white speech, even of a mild type, is hate speech, and that there are hate speech laws, responding to such a question is asking for trouble. It would be foolish, very foolish, to enter into a debate, where your opponent has legislated your point of view as illegal.

Especially since we don’t know what we would do anyway. What we demand, is the right to speak freely about the future of our race, and the issues we affect it. What happens from there, time will tell.

I respond with

When the hatespeech laws, which give anti-whites free reign to suggest that racism will end when whites are gone, and which stifle whites who might merely suggest that multi racialism is a problem, then we can have a discussion.

If you want to debate how we might go about stopping the end of whites through genocide, then first you must remove the “hate crime” laws which essentially require me to adopt your position.

DeadRaibead666 writes

When has an “antiwhite” (racist) ever said that? I never hear “whites” say that multiculturalism is a problem. If they do it is because they usually hate another race. Only people who don’t like other races don’t want to be around them. It has nothing to do with preserving you “race”. Nobody is stopping you from having “white” children right? So what is the problem?

My position? What do you assume my position is? I am just asking questions. Why does that bother you?

I respond with

You say that I should only care about myself, and to hell with my race, heritage, culture. Its only me that I should concern myself with. Would you tell a Jew “no one is stopping you from having children”, when they object to anti-Semitism? I have every legitimate right to be concerned about the future prospects of my race and nation.

DeadRaibead666 goes off track again, trying to talk about something OTHER than the Genocide of the white race. Never lose sight of the fact that the anti-white will constantly try to talk about something else. DON’T LET THEM!

DeadRaibead666 writes

“white” is not a heritage or culture. Your ethnicity is.

Yes I would tell them that. Because in the US they have the same rights as I do.

Australian is not a race, it is an ethnicity.

What is there to be concerned about? “white” people in their own landsare still the majority. Especially here in the US. What should I be concerned about? I am not being forced to do anything that I don’t want to do. I have the same rights as everyone else.

Again, the point I must repeat, is that the mantra concerns ones intent.

I write

I’m talking about attitudes.

Atthe prevailing attitude in the modern liberal world, is that white nations (regardless of nationality) are somehow “supposed” to aim towards multiracialism, as if it is some fine goal.

But no such aspiration exists for non-white nations, because they are considered “diverse”.

I’m criticising the attitude, and I’m calling for people to realise that this essentially is an anti-white position.

DeadRaibead666 writes

How do you figure that? Not all nations feel that way. The US does because it was founded on multiculturalism. Why should we stop it now? People had a problem with it when it was the Irish. Now it is just mostly Mexicans and other South Americans. Which is no shock since we haveneighboring [sic] countries. But also nobody is checking for illegal aliens from Canada are they?

How is not being against something that formed the country anti white?

Why are you trying to push policies on another country?

We shall leave the debate here, but the response here is that firstly, the USA was not founded on multi-racialism (note that multiculturalism = multi-racialism), and that the Irish were white.

We are talking about how non-white immigration into all and only white countries would eventually lead to our race being assimilated out.

As you can imagine, debates with anti-whites become boring. These are not debates I found interesting or challenging or intellectually stimulating in any way. Their responses are as predictable as the sunrise, and nothing they say is new. “Debating” here is purely a chore, but a very necessary chore. The temptation to ‘mix things up’, to switch the arguments, to vary is great. But as you can see, the anti-whites can go nowhere, as long as you keep demanding that THEY explain their position of Genocide.

Lastly, remember, you are not debating to change their mind. I did not engage in these debates to try and appear intellectual, for fun, or to change their minds. I did this for the hundreds, or thousands of people who will read these threads. People who will see that anti-racism has nothing in its defence. People who will see the mantra used successfully, see that the refutation of it is non-existent.

It is to expose anti-racism as anti-white, and to prove so.


Tagged with:

One Response to Nationalist Alternative in Action: Episode 2

  1. Joseph Andrews says:

    Great analysis here. Excellent example of how to keep on subject. Need more of this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *