Posted by Steven E. Romer on Fri, 01 May 2009 18:25 | #

This one is too easy—the premise of the question is flawed. Immigration is not equal. In one direction it destroys, in the other it lifts up, but BOTH are immoral for different reasons when you see what the outcome is. Certainly free immigration from other races and the resultant destruction of European societies ranks among the most immoral and heinous acts since the Firebombing of Dresden or the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Massive non-European immigration cannot be recovered from, and the horrors it leaves behind will forever change the destiny of mankind. It might be THE most immoral events in the history of life on Earth, Damning us all to darkness and oblivion—for very objective, verifiabe, and good reasons…

Posted by John on Fri, 01 May 2009 20:15 | #

Right, and “the Jews” (to a man, right down to the head machinist at Maury’s Speed Shop in Hoboken and Crazy Eddie, the furniture salesman) own the American media… You’d do well to keep in mind to things if you’re around to look at the history that’s to be written in the next 20 years: 1. the Indians, with Ghandi as their leader, kicked out those particular Englishmen who were occupying their homeland. 2. it’s all but impossible for an ethnic Englishman to emigrate to India.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 01 May 2009 20:25 | #

GW:

I’m not sure that it falls within the rubric of ‘snappy’ but I usually respond to the ‘You were there so now we’re here’ argument with something along the following lines.

“Yes, I can see your point, and would be willing to concede that some degree of reciprocal migration might be necessary to balance the historical account. So taking British India as an example,  at the height of the Raj, according to Lawrence James (Raj, Little, Brown & Co., London 1997), there were never more than 150,000 British colonial administrators, merchants, military and their families resident in India, out of a total population of over 300 million. Of course at that time British India comprised the present-day territories of India itself, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

So if we were to apply the principle of reciprocity equitably, that would entail the repatriation of all except around 30,000, that is around 99% of the present population of the UK which has its origins in the subcontinent. How does that sound?”

That usually shuts them up.

That seems to take care of the colonial legacy angle, for the white settler countries in N.America and Australasia, I often find the Terra Nullius line the appropriate one to take.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 02 May 2009 07:18 | #

The English can emigrate wherever they please, and have done so in their millions over the centuries, ‘race-replacing’ not just cities but whole continents, eg. North America, Oceania.  But Jonny Foreigner is not welcome here.

(I wish these sorts would make up their minds…...)

So when people from southern Britain emigrate to/colonize other lands they’re easily identified as the historic English people.

But when foreigners immigrate to/colonize southern Britain it’s okay because there is no such thing as an historic English people to begin with.

...

Posted by Ernest Wesley on Sat, 02 May 2009 09:49 | #

The Asmat tribe of Papua New Guinea eat their enemies. Does this mean if I try to eat them they shouldn’t resist?

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 03 May 2009 03:24 | #

The English can emigrate wherever they please, and have done so in their millions over the centuries, ‘race-replacing’ not just cities but whole continents, eg. North America, Oceania.  But Jonny Foreigner is not welcome here.

“You seem to be saying that immigration is screwing us over, but we deserve it because people who look like us did the same thing to other people.  I think I’d like to make that the left’s immigration-boosting motto: “Immigration: it sucks, but you deserve it.”  I’d like every leftist to utter this as often as possible, preferably to the exclusion of all other arguments.  With enemies like that, who would need friends?

I think a national ad campaign is in order: ‘Immigration: it’s bad for you, but you deserve it.’”

“The difference being the races of North America and Oceania didn’t call one another evil for refusing to surrender to the enemy, but you and others like you are doing precisely that.”

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 03 May 2009 03:26 | #

To revise my second pithy comeback:

“If only you’d been there, in North America and Oceania, to make a similar argument to the natives.  I’m sure they’d have rolled right over for whitey.”

(P.S., I like how the Spanish conquests don’t show up on the Med’s radar.  Cute.)

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 03 May 2009 03:29 | #

I like Ernest’s comeback very much. 

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 03 May 2009 03:38 | #

I like Terra Nullius too.  It brings up an important point: wasn’t the ancestral, indigenous way of life typically “he who takes it, owns it”?  Didn’t the tribes push one another off land and take it for themselves if they could?  If so, wasn’t white-eyes within his rights to push the aboriginals out of the way on both continents?

I could write a lot on this topic.  But the left doesn’t want to discuss the matter.  Seems their only interest is in locking the narrative down so they can bash us over the head with it when we get too uppity.  I mean, how would they prefer us to have done things?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 03 May 2009 06:28 | #

Billionswildie writes:

But if I don’t defend the morals of North American colonisation, I am free to attack the morals of foreign colonisation of England, aren’t I? Search any of my comments for a moral defence of North American or Australian colonisation. You won’t find them.

And:

Australians and New Zelanders are my brothers too, and I would like them all to come home.

LOL!  I realize that triangulation for the sake of the lemmings may be necessary, but if sincere this is a stab in the back.  White people of northwestern European descent in North America, Australia, New Zealand and southern Africa think of said AS THEIR NATIVE LANDS; and to think and act in any other fashion is NOT IN THEIR INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF THEIR RACE WRIT LARGE.  If New Zealand, Australia and southern Africa don’t go to the White race THE CHINESE WILL GET IT.  And, if one really wanted to press the issue, just which slab of real estate is more valuable to the White race in terms of potential to nuture the life of our people, Europe or North America?  Obviously the latter.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 May 2009 08:18 | #

Some excellent stuff here, as Svi notes.  These exercises produce a lot of very usable material.

CC,

JorgeG’s position was that a moral balance, predicated on justice, was restored by the Third World taking Europe off us.  There is never any moral defence for ethnic expansionism.  It isn’t predicated on morality but on simple acquisitiveness.  One can make a technical defence predicated on carrying capacity, but that’s a post-facto consideration that most neutral critics would consider trite and self-serving.

So, no, there is no moral argument, and JorgeG’s does not stack up for that reason.

I certainly believe that we should reverse the colonisation of Oz and NZ.  Britain is still sending hundreds of thousands of young people, and it is bleeding us of the demographic we most need.  The single most important struggle we have is to retain Europe for Europe’s native peoples.  Rather we lose any other asset than the hearth and home of our race.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 May 2009 09:30 | #

“Billionswilldie” returned to CiF this morning to post a comment on this piece of dreck:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/03/editorial-bnp-politics

... only to find that the moderator has already banned him for his previous transgression against liberal sensibilities.  But fortunately ...

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 03 May 2009 17:17 | #

I certainly believe that we should reverse the colonisation of Oz and NZ.  Britain is still sending hundreds of thousands of young people, and it is bleeding us of the demographic we most need.

Nick Griffin apparently wants to renew economic and kinship ties with the Dominions.  If his strategy worked out they would come back to do what needed to be done to save the Mother Country, but not feel the need to liquidate the Dominions for their race in the process.  I’m sure Griffin would love to expand the BNP to the Dominions.  But then again Griffin is nothing but a cynical, stumbling dolt in the pay of MI5, so we shouldn’t listen to him (LOL!).

Of course if we don’t win in North America it is all for naught anyway, so long as America has the military might and the will to crush White ethno-nationalism where ever it may be.  English nationalism does not occur in a vacuum, however much it may abrade to hear, in the grand scheme of things it is more useful as a living example which can be used to shift the perceptions of the rest of our race in North America, because by itself it is not even sufficient to deliver the goods to the English - which is the point of it in the first place.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 03 May 2009 17:52 | #

Further, great leaders have always thought in terms of centuries.  We know Kemp does just that because of that book he wrote, and we know he has Griffin’s ear because Griffin allows Kemp to make key speeches for the party and links Kemp’s book - with several degrees of separation - to the party website. 

A moral system which compromises on the position (liquidate our colonies) and preservation (legitimate gene flow) of our race does_not_do_that (think in terms of centuries).  And anyway, for a humane world to adhere our race must enjoy primacy; didn’t the Victorians know that, and oughtn’t we to know ourselves as they did?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 03 May 2009 18:13 | #

The point of a philosophy of European salvation is not to compromise with the liberal zeitgeist so as to make it palatable for the Pavlovians (that is the proper station of propaganda), nor to flatter the moral sensibilities of its creators by reflexively avoiding this or that because that is what the “Krauts” did; it is to replace the liberal zeitgeist root and branch, for the benefit of our race.  Compromising the position of our race globally - for our life is in that context - will not be of sufficient benefit for our race. 

If Kemp and Griffin understand that and act accordingly they are clearly on the right track, if not, then they are every bit the buffoons you suggest.

Posted by BGD on Tue, 05 May 2009 16:02 | #

Have to say I found this one harder. The Terra Nullius suggestion above is the obvious one but you can feel like an Israeli “Oi veh, ve made the desert bloom <leans back, throat clearing..spits>”

I think with a ‘liberal’ audience I’d say something like:

What a select elite among my ancestors decided over two hundreds years ago does not make me responsible for their actions nor mean I have to lie down and let the current situation advance.

Just as Parliament cannot bind it’s successors nor can the actions of my ancestors bind me. Do you expect to be held to account for all that your ancestors have done? If so how far can you be held responsible and how closely do you have to be kinned with them.

If one group of our ancestors commits acts upon another group of our ancestors who is to be held to account hundreds of years later (i.e. Peterloo)?  Can I throw one the history books and lay any action at your door. If so how far should I go back, do I string you and your family up for X/Y/Z?  If one class commits acts against another and the class you belonged to has now changed are you responsible as a member of that class?

Even today, who is responsible for the actions of the Labour government, you? What if you didn’t vote for them?

And anyone that says “yes you can” should thereafter be swiftly committed.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:04 | #

Anti-white Activist: ” The English can emigrate wherever they please, and have done so in their millions over the centuries, ‘race-replacing’ not just cities but whole continents, eg. North America, Oceania.  But Jonny Foreigner is not welcome here. “

An anti-white activist will not use a phrase like race-replacement, except if he is replying to someone who used the phrase.
The settlement of America by Europeans is very different from today’s mass immigration to the West. Europeans came for the land and did not mean to destroy the native society (although the result was predictable). Today’s third-world immigrants don’t care about land. They are here for us, because they see us as a consumer commodity.

So, here is my snappy reply: At least, the European settlers did not hijack the welfare system of the Sioux and the Mohicans.

Besides, no one ever forced the Mohicans to say that the Europeans were Mohicans too, with a slightly paler skin. The Mohicans may have gone extinct because of the European invasion, but no one tried to insult them by denying their tragedy. On the contrary, James Fenimore Cooper wrote a book about it.

Another extremely snappy reply: Two wrongs don’t make a right!

And a question: Is it all-right to race-replace the Blacks in Africa? Why not?