How to Counter the Argument That White Western People Have No Right to USA (or Any Other Country For That Matter)

I recently talked to an American who was concerned about the ongoing demographic trend in the Western World, not least in the U.S. where whites are already a minority among national births, and he had difficulties speaking up against the mass immigration policies in his country. What was holding him back was the fact that America is considered to be the homeland of Native American Indians and not white Western people. He felt that it would be much easier for Europeans to be speak up and take action against these policies because Europe historically belongs to us whites/Europeans.

This is a common conception or concern among people not in favor of open borders, not only in America but also in other white majority countries outside of Europe.

It might feel easier for us in Europe to be against our people becoming a minority in our own countries because Europe has historically been considered white, but this is irrelevant to the dogma known as “political correctness”. Or as we prefer to call it: the anti-white mindset. The anti-white mindset dictates that whites are essentially evil and it consequently makes up justifications for mass non-white immigration into white majority countries, even if such policies would lead to a population replacement of white people.

As mentioned above, in America one common justification for having mass immigration is that America was not white to begin with, so whites have no right to it. If this was true, it would imply that Germany, for example, could remain white, as it is originally a white country. But in Germany the justification is that Germany has a dark past with nazism, and therefore the native white Germans are forced to accept mass immigration into their country and the fact that they are becoming a minority.

The Dutch did not take land of Holland away from any native population, nor did they support Hitler. But this country still has to have mass immigration. One justification for this is that they had colonies hundreds of years ago.

And if we take a look at Iceland, we can see the same pressure to have open borders – and why is that? They did not take their land away from any native population, they did not support Hitler and they did not own colonies. The justification given here is that Iceland has a high standard of living and an aging population.

In contrast, let us compare this to Japan. Japan was allied with Hitler. Japan had colonies and Japan has an aging population and a high standard of living. To boot, the people now living in Japan are not even the native population of the island. The people we now know as “Japanese” conquered the Ainu-people long ago. But despite all of this, Japan has not been forced to accept mass Third World immigration the way Germany, France and Sweden have. Why is that? The reason is that the anti-White mindset is anti-white, not anti-Asian.

ainu

The Ainu people are the indiginous people of Japan, but no one would argue today that Japan does not belong to the Japanese.

One important thing to take notice of here is that if you listen to just one of the anti-white arguments without comparing it to other similar situations in non-white areas of the globe, it might sound legit (such as the USA not being allowed to be white because it was non-white before the Europeans got there). But if you actually start to compare such arguments with other non-white/non-Western cases like we did above, you will see that they are just justifications for more non-stop immigration into all white/Western countries.

Political correct people just invent plausible excuses for more non-stop Third World immigration into Western countries. We, however, do not agree that one genocide or population replacement justifies another.

How to counter this?

The way to break through this is to compare their justifications to other international contexts and point out their contradictions, like we did above. You have to point out the fact that nobody who says that whites have no right to the USA/Australia etc. because they took the land away from a native population, would argue that Germany, or any other native white/European country, has the right to remain white/European because they did not take the land away from any native population.

Since they always argue for something that leads to more immigration into white majority countries, we can see their intention shining through. They do not care whether the country has had colonies or not, has been allied with Hitler or not, or has taken the land away from a native population or not. As long as it is a white majority country, political correct people will want it to open its borders to mass immigration and invent plausible arguments which will favour pro-immigration policies, despite the fact that many groups have conquered another nation at some time in history. We on the other hand do not agree that such historical misdeeds would justify harming such groups today. After all, one genocide/population replacement does not justify another.

 

 

3
Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Painted Lady

Also I’d never heard of the Ainu people! Thank you for sharing that!

Painted Lady

Living in Canada, this is something that has come up frequently. You made some good points.

Mikael Ternedahl

Yes, the anti-whites are allways finding arguments that put us in a world without us white people. I don’t understand how someone honestly could want that, it’s not only immoral and stupid, it’s like these people are disabled from any type of common sense and love for other people. Totally selfish and evil.

Pin It on Pinterest

This website uses cookies and third party services. Ok