Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: How to Counter the Argument That We Germanics Have No Right to USA or Other Countries Outside of Europe

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 17th, 2021 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,434
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,261
    Thanked in
    745 Posts

    How to Counter the Argument That We Germanics Have No Right to USA or Other Countries Outside of Europe

    I recently talked to an American who was concerned about the ongoing program of White genocide in the Western World, who 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 us Whites. 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.

    This is a common conception expressed by pro-Whites, 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 Whites becoming a minority in our own countries because Europe has historically been considered White, but this is irrelevant to the anti-White mentality which we are up against. The anti-White mindset says that Whites must go. It aims for White genocide and consequently makes up justifications for mass non-White immigration into White majority countries.

    As mentioned above, in America one common anti-White justification is that America was not White to begin with, so Whites have no right to it. If this were 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 – 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-Whit, not anti-Asian.

    ainuThe 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 cases like we did above, you will see that they are just justifications for more non-stop immigration into all White countries.

    Anti-Whites just invent plausible excuses for more non-stop Third World immigration into White countries. We, however, do not agree that one genocide 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 country, has the right to remain White because they did not take the land away from any native population.

    In addition to pointing out the contradiction of their statement, we also need to point out their intention, which is justifying White genocide through the means of non-stop Third World immigration into all and only White countries. Use the SCI-module below as a guide:

    Statement: Whites have no right to the USA (or any White country outside of Europe) because it was not White to begin with.

    Contradiction: One genocide does not justify another.

    Many groups have conquered another nation at some time in history. But that does not justify harming such groups today.

    The Anti-White Intention: To justify more mass immigration from the Third World into every predominately White country.

    Since they always argue for something that leads to more immigration into White 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, anti-Whites will want it to open its borders to mass immigration and invent plausible arguments which will favour pro-immigration policies.
    http://thisiseuropa.net/how-to-count...-to-homelands/

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Nachtengel For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    48
    Thanked in
    48 Posts
    Just point out that indigenous people have no strict definition, that excluded naturalised Euro-Americans: people move around, and as they settle they get a sense of place connected to themselves as a people (moreso than any past place of origin). And then they are indigenous themselves.

  4. #3
    Danelagenssvensk
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    1/4 Tyke, 1/2 Yankee-Canuck, 1/4 Rebel
    Subrace
    Corded Ware-Battle/Boat Axe
    Y-DNA
    R-S6285 Uppland
    mtDNA
    K2a5a Dalarna
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Eastern
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Lorry Driver for the Mill
    Politics
    Anti-Federalist
    Religion
    Asatru Folk Assembly
    Posts
    3,945
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,637
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    372 Posts
    Iceland, Greenland, Helluland, Markland and Vinland were all Norse before Latin America existed, or Vinland became English Newfoundland, followed by Virginia. Do all Amerinds everywhere, regardless of admixture, deserve all of both continents? What about the Russians following them from Siberia across Alaska, seeing how Amerinds would therefore be from what's now Russian Siberia? Do Scandinavians not make provisions for Finns and Lapps and don't Anglos provide for First Nations reservations, the Ruskies allowing ethnic republics inside their Federation, even if the Latinos nevered bothered? Furthermore, since Indo-Europeans from haplogroup R are nearest Amerinds from haplogroup Q, this means we're the next of kin in the event of their extinction, so who thinks they've got a right to take our place in these lands with any greater claim to inheritance, when both legal possession and common Siberian genetics are on our side? Why should only Amerinds from Eastern Siberia, arriving on the Pacific coast, have sole claim to exclude Indo-Europeans from Western Siberia, arriving on the Atlantic coast? Why not just rule out non-Siberian racial groups?

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Rodskarl Dubhgall For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    Monday, October 12th, 2020 @ 08:16 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    426
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    397
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    397
    Thanked in
    193 Posts
    The best one is that land ultimately only belongs to those who take possession of it successfully. As far as a blood and soil-style argument is concerned, whites have been working this soil with their own hands for over 400 years - longer than the Maori were in New Zealand before first contact with Europeans and they get the luxury of being considered indigenous (even though they massacred and ruthlessly enslaved a previous wave of Polynesian settlers called the Moriori, on top of the possibility of other prehistoric settlement).

  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Coillearnach For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Retarded in mysterious ways
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 10:06 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,798
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,901
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,939
    Thanked in
    984 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    The best one is that land ultimately only belongs to those who take possession of it successfully.
    That brings up the question of whether non-White immigrants can be considered to have taken legitimate possession over parts of our countries. And if not, what criteria would have to be fulfilled in order for an immigrant population could be considered the rightful owners of the land they presently inhabit? Does war or weaponized conflict have to be involved?
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    Monday, October 12th, 2020 @ 08:16 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    426
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    397
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    397
    Thanked in
    193 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    That brings up the question of whether non-White immigrants can be considered to have taken legitimate possession over parts of our countries. And if not, what criteria would have to be fulfilled in order for an immigrant population could be considered the rightful owners of the land they presently inhabit? Does war or weaponized conflict have to be involved?
    For me, the answer is that they have taken possession of it. I don't think they fully realize it based on their laundry list of complaints and we ofc are in various stages of denial, apathy, complete delusion, tedious mental gymnastics... Considering any kind of illegitimacy to it is kind of the cope of a loser - "but but but... you didn't play by the rules!" (as if there are any, really).

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Coillearnach For This Useful Post:


  12. #7
    Senior Member
    Winterland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 4th, 2021 @ 04:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German; Scot-Irish; Scandinavian
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Coastal region
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Free Lance
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    407
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    237
    Thanked in
    173 Posts
    To start, Indians only made up about 850,000 to 1 million across the Continental US. They had poor infrastructure and communication with other tribes speaking many different tongues and had their own established enemies. When the British and French arrived, various tribes helped the Europeans to win wars and territories to prevent torture and other cruelties against their own women and children in high conflict areas. Many tribes took no prisoners and killed the living or made slaves of them. They also tortured. A few tribes were cannibals as historians like to conceal those facts from the media. Early Native Americans had horses, but the Natives over time killed them for food instead of using them for travel and work. Some Indians admittedly knew that they had to change from the old (Paleolithic) ways as they became introduced to modern tools, better methods of farming, infrastructure and governance. I'm not saying that Europeans caused no harm, but they also liked the trade (wealth), modern equipment, better transportation, and medicines for the sick. Indians did increase population here from 1,000,000 to 2.5 million today. We had a close Indian friend who openly discussed politics and tribal life, pro's and con's. From my surprise, some Indians have a long history serving in the US military and admirable patriotism.

    Only Liberals cry about how we mistreated Natives. Natives today have a choice to live on Reservations or join the rest of society. In my opinion, Europeans have claim to these lands also due to wild open ranges being cultivated and cleared to make developments. It has been estimated that 20,000 Europeans have been killed by Natives, and around 60,000 Natives killed by Europeans. Disease probably took a larger toll. I think we will have a greater challenge in holding onto our territories as the rest of Asia and Africa expands in population. With the low birth rates, we may end up losing lands much like the Native Americans experienced if we don't develop better technologies.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Winterland For This Useful Post:


  14. #8
    Senior Member
    Astragoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 03:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Posts
    1,094
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,126
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,130
    Thanked in
    620 Posts
    Why argue with them at all? They don't use facts or logic its pointless talking to them.
    Just ask them why they are anti-white.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Astragoth For This Useful Post:


  16. #9
    Retarded in mysterious ways
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 10:06 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,798
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,901
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,939
    Thanked in
    984 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    For me, the answer is that they have taken possession of it.
    I'm not sure I understand you completely. London, for instance, is ruled by a Muslim Paki mayor, and the population is predominantly non-White. Have "they" taken possession of London, and the English lost it, and thus lost their moral right to London?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    I don't think they fully realize it based on their laundry list of complaints and we ofc are in various stages of denial, apathy, complete delusion, tedious mental gymnastics... Considering any kind of illegitimacy to it is kind of the cope of a loser - "but but but... you didn't play by the rules!" (as if there are any, really).
    Well, yes. These kind of arguments are never meant towards the people who want to dispossess us in our homelands, but meant to convince our own people of our moral rights to our historical homelands and motivate them to defend and reclaim it.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  17. #10
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    Monday, October 12th, 2020 @ 08:16 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    426
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    397
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    397
    Thanked in
    193 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    I'm not sure I understand you completely. London, for instance, is ruled by a Muslim Paki mayor, and the population is predominantly non-White. Have "they" taken possession of London
    Have they taken possession of London? With demography and the elites on their side, yes.

    ....and the English lost it, and thus lost their moral right to London?....

    Well, yes. These kind of arguments are never meant towards the people who want to dispossess us in our homelands, but meant to convince our own people of our moral rights to our historical homelands and motivate them to defend and reclaim it.
    I know, I just don't think "moral rights", at least in the way I'm assuming you mean it, to land actually exist - taking our own side ala debt to ancestors, bond with the land, defending our own lebensraum, sure. What is your working definition of "moral rights"?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, April 2nd, 2018, 03:30 PM
  2. The Least & The Most Racist Countries in Europe
    By Northern Paladin in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 29th, 2017, 04:52 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, August 9th, 2012, 05:11 PM
  4. Germanics in South Africa Back in Europe
    By Teuton in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 08:16 AM
  5. Future of Europe/USA?
    By DreamWalker in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 06:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •