3 Resourceful Steps To Find Contradictions In Any anti-White Argument
Those who call themselves “anti-racists” or “multiculturalists” have many arguments in favour of more immigration at their disposal. By now, most of us are familiar with too many of their clichés, such as “we all bleed red” or “we need immigration to boost our economy” etc. But not all of us are left convinced (to say the least) after hearing these regularly repeated statements.
Whilst this process probably can be used for most arguments in general, in this article you will learn specifically how to find contradictions in any argument used to justify an open border policy into the West. We believe having the ability to do this is necessary in order to move public opinion further in the right direction. Whether you aim to counter these people openly in debates, or simply wish to have a better understanding of their way of thinking (or your own for that matter), it is ultimately up to you how you will make use of such an ability.
Note that although the below presents a good way to find contradictions, the other person can still come up with a counter argument to the point you just made. What you can do in that situation is just repeat the process if necessary with the new argument he or she came up with.
Step 1 – Identifying the claim
The first step is simply to identify a claim or statement that you want to be able to confront or find a good answer to. To get this process started, you can try and think about a statement or argument you tend to hear a lot that you are unsure how to deal with.
What claim to focus on depends on you. Ask yourself, what is holding you back? What arguments do you find hard to answer? Questions such as these will help you identify a specific claim. The more specifically you know what is bothering you, the easier it is to do something about it.
For example, you might be a person who opposes mass immigration and you happen to live in America. A common claim you would most likely encounter in the immigration debate is “America is a nation of immigrants”. This is a common remark you hear from the pro-multiculturalism side of the immigration debate in the US.
No matter the context the claim is made in, it is up to you to identify one that you specifically have difficulty dealing with.
Once you have identified a claim you wish to be able to contradict, it is time to move on to step 2.
Step 2 – Figuring out the implication of the claim
What does the statement you identified in step 1 actually imply? That is what you need to determine now in order to figure out exactly what they mean when making this claim.
As this step is to understand why they are saying something, it is important to keep in mind that they are most likely saying it for a reason. What is their intention? The better you can pinpoint the underlying meaning of their statement, the easier it will be to find a contradiction.
So let us look at the example from the previous step: “America is a nation of immigrants” and underline what is actually being implied.
Here they try to convey the notion that the ones who oppose immigration into the US today are hypocritical because they themselves, or at least their forefathers, were once immigrants and therefore they cannot stop other people from doing the same as they or their forefathers did. It also implies that since America was ‘stolen’ from the Native American Indians, white people cannot claim it as their own. There has always been immigration to America and what we see today is just a continuation of that trend.
In other words, it is implied that white people have no exclusive right to America, and therefore you cannot oppose non-white immigration into America.
Pinpointing the exact implication may require some brainstorming. It is a drafting process and it might take a while until you think of something solid. There may be different interpretations that can be taken from a statement. That is because the first time you try to describe the implication you might feel you did not get it completely. Just continue brainstorming until you feel you really have it.
Having their intention behind their claim in mind is useful in that it makes this step easier. Usually they are making these statements for a reason. More often than not, the intention (whether it is conscious or subconscious) is to justify something, in this case more mass immigration into Western countries. You would never hear a pro-European person use arguments that justify non-stop Third World immigration or a white minority multicultural society.
Step 3 – Testing their consistency
Once you have identified an implication behind their claim, the next step is to test the consistency of their claim. Are there exceptions to the claim? Are they avoiding using the claim in other contexts where the same claim should be true or are they consistent with the usage of the claim? This will be key in finding a contradiction.
Using the same example as before, if a person implies that whites have no right to America because whites took it from Native American Indians, you can take that claim and put it into another context.
The Germans, for example, have never taken their land from another race, can Germany therefore remain white?
If the person truly believes that only an indigenous people have an exclusive right to a country, then they should theoretically argue that Germans have the right to remain in Germany and that Germany can remain white. That would be consistent. But we never experience that though, therefore there is an inconsistency in their claim. If the person makes other excuses for why Germany must have immigration we see that the person is inconsistent and we have good reason to believe that he/she is just making up excuses in order to justify massive non-white immigration into white majority countries.
Putting it all together
Now that we know the 3 required steps to find a contradiction within an argument, let us apply all steps effectively on a couple of other examples and show how the results may differ.
Claim: “Immigration is good for the economy”
Implication: In this case the implication can be very similar to the claim. It can simply be that immigration is beneficial for the economy and therefore it would be unwise to oppose immigration. Some people can also imply that it is downright necessary to have immigration to avoid social collapse.
Consistency: Is the claim consistent, or are there exceptions to this claim in other contexts? Can you think of an economy that does well despite not having massive Third World immigration to ‘support’ it? We can. Japan has a very high standard of living and a very strict immigration policy. That is one valid contradiction located.
Another contradiction in this example would be that if immigration is good for the economy, then why do we never hear anyone arguing that the waves of immigration should be directed to Third World countries? For example, Syrian refugees could be helped to get to The Congo. After all, the Third World is in bigger need of a good economy than we are so let us not be greedy. If they TRULY believed that immigration was good for the economy then they would promote such policies in the Third World rather than the Western World, especially considering how they like to claim that they want to help people.
Note that there can be more than just one single contradiction to an anti-white statement, that there are many that you can find using the same method, and you should not stop with just one. The best contradictions, however, are the ones that are obvious once heard, and the ones that no one can deny or argue against and the ones that really expose the true intentions of the anti-whites.
Finding the optimal contradiction
No contradiction will be perfect in any given situation, although it will mostly come down to feelings, i.e. what simply feels to be the best. If it does not feel like you have a found a contradiction that really hits the mark, chances are that you have not found an effective one at all yet. Ideally, you should get an aha-moment when you and others hear it for the first time.
During this process, you can ask yourself: does it feel right? Do you feel like you would own the moral high ground were you to say this openly?
You can also test it with a friend or someone you trust to get their perspective. Do they get some kind of aha-moment when hearing your point? Are you and/or the other person left convinced? If the answer is no, then you most likely will have to repeat the steps and do more thinking.
Once you have an optimal contradiction, it is up to you if you want to point it out openly and how you do it. At the very least, you will have achieved a better understanding of how the anti-white mentality works.
Ps. If this process of finding contradictions is interesting to you, and if it is something you would like to practise and get feedback on, please do not hesitate to contact us at email@example.com and we can take it from there.