Let us start with the USA. Anti-whites say the USA must accept immigration is because white people took the land away from the native-Americans. If that really was the case one might start to wonder why Germany must accept immigrants. For as we all know, Germans never took their land away from Indians or any other non-white group.
Then you will notice that anti-whites change their argument. They will now talk about the evil Nazis, Holocaust and Hitler. It would be a disgrace if Germany, with their history, would discriminate and not take in non-whites; anti-whites will say.
So what about Britain and France, they never took their land from anyone nor did they support Hitler. Then you will notice that the anti-whites will change their arguments again. This time they will pretend to be objectively interested in former colonial powers taking in immigrants from the former colonies.
What about Iceland? The people on Iceland did not take the land away from anyone, they did not support Hitler nor did they have any colonies. Again the anti-whites will change their arguments in order to support immigration and say that Iceland has an aging population and they need more workers.
If you have argued with so-called anti-racists, you will notice that they always have many arguments for why white countries must have immigration.
All of these different arguments, taken as single cases, may seem genuine. But then comes the case of Japan:
Japan was allied with Hitler, they had colonies and they also have an aging population. But Japan does not have massive third world immigration. Do “anti-racists” condemn Japan, and accuse them of being a racist country? That is because anti-racists are purely anti-white, not anti-asian. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-25 4:58
Facebook Login
Email:
Password:
Keep me logged in
or Sign up for Facebook