"Celebrating Diversity" is a program of white genocide/Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

You recently challenged pro-whites to a debate on http://www.stormfront.org...

Here I am.So let`s debate.

I thank my opponent for his advice,but I believe that the following will make things much clearer for him:

This piece of text I will now offer is known as "The Mantra".It describes the basic operation of the white genocide program that so-called "anti-racist" elites have imposed on every "Western" i.e traditionally white country.These so-called "anti-racist" elites say that we must "Celebrate Diversity",even though this "Celebrating Diversity" results in fewer and fewer white people in existence.

The Mantra:

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realise I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Since my opponent did not declare a resolution for this debate, I am going to assume it to be, "'Celebrating Diversity' is a program of White genocide" from his opening argument. I will assume that "'anti-racist' is a code word for 'anti-white,'" to be more of an exclamation, rather than a debate resolution. I would like to ask voters to be lenient with my opponent on the conduct vote for his failure to declare a resolution, as this is his first debate here.


Con's Opening Argument

First of all, I would like to post the official definition of "genocide" as given by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[1]

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin right after the Holocaust to describe it's atrocities.[2].


Both sets of my grandparents lived through the Great Depression in the United States and bore my parents right at the end of the Depression era. My parents were raised in poverty and had to work 12-14 hours per day, every day, in the hot sun in the cotton fields of Louisiana to survive. When I was a young man, our family would be working in the yard a couple of hours and I would complain to my parents that I was tired. My mother would tell me, "Son, you don't know what 'tired' is!" I'm sure the survivors of the Holocaust and the Tutsis of Rwanda would tell my opponent, You don't know what 'genocide' is!"

White people on the other hand have been exempt from the atrocities that people of other races have endured because of race. As a White person, I don't know what it is like to live in fear that I will be killed, harassed or abused because of my race. I challenge my opponent to document the suffering of White people in any way because of our race!



Rebuttals

My opponent argued:
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

The first response I have to this statement is that there is no such thing as a "White country." I challenge my opponent to produce documentation in any nation's constitution that declares the nation to be a "White country." Now my opponent may wish to point out the countries where White people originated and call them "White countries." If he does so, I would remind him that prior to Columbus' discovering the Americas in the 1490's, one might rightfully have called European states, "White countries" by virtue of the fact that they were either 100% White or at least almost 100% White. Since that time the planet has become "assimilated" because of the actions of WHITE people! John Rolfe left Europe to found Jamestown and the first thing he did in his new home was to "assimilate" Pocahontas, a Native-American, to be his wife.[3] Then the austere, ultra-conservative Puritan Pilgrims settled at Plymouth and had a big multi-cultural feast they called, "Thanksgiving."[4] History shows that "assimilation" and multi-culturalism has been a big pastime of White people for the last 500 years. The English and French just had to "assimilate" what is today the United States. The Spanish "assimilated" Central and South America and produced the "Latino" people. Then Australia, South Africa and New Zealand were all "assimilated" by White people. At one point Earth was neatly divided into what my opponent calls "White countries," "Black countries," "Asian countries" etc. before White people mixed it all up over the last 500 years. "Celebrating diversity" is celebrating the great accomplishment of White people over the last 500 years, not some new program that liberals imposed in the last 60 years! If anyone is committing "genocide" against White people it is White people themselves!

My opponent:

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realise I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

In the case of one of the nations that White nationalists refer to as a "White country," the United States, in it's Statue of Liberty has the following words displayed,

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" [5]

The (allegedly White) United States thus opened it's doors to those third world people. If those people were not invited by White people with open arms, you might have a slight chance at having a point. Beside that, those words were not penned by some recent liberal, they were penned in 1883! Notice how from John Rolfe until today, White people have been pro-multi-cultural all along! Why stop now? White people invented multi-culturalism and have been its greatest proponents! "Anti-racist" and multi-culturalism is PRO-White!


[1] http://www.preventgenocide.org...
[2]http://en.m.wikipedia.org... and http://www.preventgenocide.org...
[3] http://www.preservationvirginia.org...
[4] http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com...
[5] http://www.libertystatepark.com...

Rebuttals

My opponent argued:

"First of all, I would like to post the official definition of "genocide" as given by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:"

Yes,that is the relevant international law on genocide.

(a) Killing members of the group;

Many whites have been killed by non-whites who otherwise would not have had the opportunity if non-white immigration and "assimilation" had not been imposed on the white population.That is indisputable.

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Here we have the first non-violent act of genocide mentioned,that of serious mental harm.For decades,the anti-white politicians,media executives,educators and academics have been engaged in a coordinated campaign to demonize white historical achievement,to revel in crimes committed by whites(ignoring the similar crimes of other groups),to attempt to eliminate white racial identity,even going so far as to claim that white people are not members of a distinct racial group.

In tandem with this white demonization,there has also been a glorification of non-whites and their history,and also a heavy promotion of inter-racial sex and marriage.

This is clear evidence of a deliberate infliction of serious mental harm on members of my racial group.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

The imposition of mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" on all white countries(and ONLY white countries) has had a detrimental effect on conditions of life for my racial group.If immigrants are invited to colonise my group`s territory and my racial group ordered to "assimilate" the physical destruction of my racial group(in whole or in part) is the logical and predictable outcome.

My opponent argued:

"The first response I have to this statement is that there is no such thing as a "White country." I challenge my opponent to produce documentation in any nation's constitution that declares the nation to be a "White country."

My opponent has spoken of white people but will not acknowledge that these white people inhabit their own countries that their ancestors created in which they are the majority of the population and therefore deserving of the description "white countries"? My opponent knows what a white country is,the same way he knows what an Arab country is,the same way he knows what a black African country is.

My opponent argued:

"the planet has become "assimilated" because of the actions of WHITE people!"

Really? There are no identifiable racial or ethnic groups in the world because of the actions of white people? If the planet has become "assimilated" as you claim,why do non-white governments not impose mass immigration and "assimilation" on their citizens like governments in Western(read white) countries do?

My opponent argued:

"History shows that "assimilation" and multi-culturalism has been a big pastime of White people for the last 500 years."

Even if true,that has no bearing on whether "Celebrating Diversity" as practiced today in "Western"(read white) countries is a program of genocide as per the genocide convention,does it?

My opponent argued:

""Celebrating diversity" is celebrating the great accomplishment of White people over the last 500 years, not some new program that liberals imposed in the last 60 years!"

The phrase "Celebrating Diversity" as used today in "Western"(read white) countries is certainly not used to describe "the great accomplishment of White people over the last 500 years".It is used to describe the situation of a shrinking white population and a growing non-white population in "Western"(read white) countries that white people are ordered to accept or be labelled as "haters" "racists" "white supremacists" leading to personal harassment,loss of livelihood,official sanctions etc

Reponses to rebuttals

My opponent argued

"Please forgive my opponent for insulting your intelligence. Members of ddo know the difference between someone killing a person to get $100 out of his wallet and a government or other large group killing "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a ...racial...group." Members of ddo also know that crime is commited by members of all racial groups including Whites. The absence of non-Whites certainly does not insure the absence of crime!"

My opponent acknowledges that killings of whites has occurred as a direct result of non-white immigration and "assimilation" being imposed on the white population.The genocide law has no stipulation that a "government or other large group" must carry out the killings. My opponent seems to be insulting the intelligence of ddo members by implying that killings of whites by non-whites is only ever a by-product of acts of robbery.

My opponent argued

"Demonize White historical achievement? Every child in the public schools of the Western world takes history classes. They recieve text books that are filled with the names and faces of White people. The few non-White people in these books are often named as enemies. Only until the last few decades has there been an attempt to correct this text book problem."

For the largest majority white country on Earth it would be right and proper if the children receive books filled with the names and faces of white people,the same way that Chinese history books are filled with the names and faces of Chinese historical figures.

White historical achievement such as colonialism,industrialism, and even the creation of this country are never presented as "white achievements",they are often presented as negative impacts on non-whites and on the environment.My opponent acknowledges that for decades "a text-book problem" has been perceived by so-called "anti-racist" educators and that there has been "attempted" "corrections".

My opponent argued

"First of all, as stated in the second round, I don't know how other nations do; but, Americans invite immigration."

You claim that white Americans invited mass non-white immigration upon themselves? That would only be true if there had been a national debate and democratic choice on the matter.In fact it was never put to a vote,not just in the USA,but in every "Western"(read white) country on Earth.

My opponent argued

"Because "White" governments WANT to be "assimilated" and immigrated! Governments in the Western world are democratic and are elected by the White people in them. You are proving that "anti-racist" is indeed "anti-racist," and not "anti-White" because White people VOTE otherwise."

From my round two opening paragraph:

"the white genocide program that so-called "anti-racist" elites have imposed on every "Western" i.e traditionally white country."

It is good that my opponent agrees with me that the governments/elites of white countries DO want their white populations to be "assimilated and immigrated" by non-whites i.e white genocide.As already mentioned,there is a severe democratic deficit if all the political parties refuse any debate and democratic choice on "Celebrating Diversity".There is no "democratically authorised" clause in the genocide law that allows one section of the population to vote for acts of genocide for all.A democratic vote does not in any way make an act of genocide lawful.

My opponent argued

"Celebrating diversity" in no way comes close to the atrocities mentioned in the genocide convention definition! As I mentioned in the second round, "you don't know what 'genocide' is!"

I put it to you,that it is you who does not know,or will not admit,what does or does not constitute an act of genocide.

Maybe an analogy will be helpful to you.Imagine that there is a small island nation inhabited exclusively by one racial group.Imagine that the governing elite of the island who call themselves "anti-racist" then start a program of continuous colonisation of the island by people of another racial group.The elite describes this new demographic reality as "Celebrating Diversity".
The island elite tell the "old islanders" that even though this colonisation will result in their eventual extinction as a group they must not object,and if they do object they will be called "evil racists" and suffer official sanctions.

The deliberate attempted replacement of the original islanders with "new islanders" is an act of genocide.

The deliberate attempted replacement of whites with non-whites that is taking place in every "Western"(read white) country is also an act of genocide.

Once again, I would like to thank my opponent this debate and for staying with this debate these four rounds. In my two previous debates on race, my opponents have either forfeited or given meager attempts at debating the topic. My current opponent has both stayed with the debate without forfeiting and he has put forth an effort to debate this topic.

Final Argument:

During slavery, African-Americans were subjected to very cruel conditions. They were sometimes branded by their owners, so that other slaveholders could not "steal" them. Female slaves were sometimes raped by their "owners," and if the male slave significant other had objections, he was subjected to flogging. One slave had tar smeared on his face which was set to flame. [1] During the Jim Crow era, African-Americans, although they had been part of the United States since its inception, were not allowed access to the same public facilities, public education, and rights of citizenship that other Americans were. They were terrorized through the Ku Klux Klan by school burnings, personal attacks and by lynching when they protested the inequity of the Jim Crow laws. [2]

Most of us are aware that one of the most vocal White Nationalists and a leader of the movement, David Duke was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. What has happened, the same ideology that victimized the African-American race during slavery and Jim Crow wants to turn around and play victim now that they are no longer allowed to torture other races. The Ku Klux Klan may have been the Big Bad Wolf, now the White Nationalist movement is playing Dear Old Grandma. "My what big eyes you have, White Nationalists, and what big ears you have." I'm not buying the "victim" role of the White Nationalist movement! I feel the reader will not either. "Genocide" is certainly not appropriate!

Here are a couple of REAL life examples of genocide:

After World War II began, the Nazis ordered Jewish people to leave their homes to go live in small apartments in the ghettos. The Jewish people were trapped in these ghettos and were not allowed to leave. In time the Nazis would tell some of the Jewish people that they were being transferred to another location, but would instead send them to either concentration camps where they would be worked and starved to death or to extermination camps where they would be forced to strip naked to "take a shower" and be sent into gas chambers. [3]

In the months of April-July of 1984, 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis were killed "using physical characteristics as a guide " in Rwanda [4]

Whites have certainly not undergone anything near the atrocities of these two groups of people; neither have they suffered anything like the members of the African-American race has. I'm sure survivors of any of those horrid events would laugh at the idea of racist White people claiming genocide for themselves. "Poor babies," they might sigh, "aww, is it really that bad. Let me give you a band-aid for your bo-bo." As a White person, I have never suffered because of my race. I challenge my opponent to document the suffering of White people that has come exclusively because of race!

My opponent is building a semantic argument for genocide rather than giving us examples of true genocide. In other words, he is taking the square peg of the current circumstances and is trying to make it fit the round hole definition of the word, "genocide." I pointed out that the official definition of "genocide" by the Genocide Convention states:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;"

My opponent replied "Many whites have been killed by non-whites who otherwise would not have had the opportunity if non-white immigration and "assimilation" had not been imposed on the white population. That is indisputable." "Killing" does not constitute genocide unless it is "with intent to destroy in whole or in part a...racial...group." Sporadic murders against White people by non-Whites is not the same thing as what happened in Rwanda!

Rebuttals from Round 4:

"My opponent acknowledges that killings of whites..."

"You claim that white Americans invited mass non-white immigration upon themselves? That would only be true if there had been a national debate..."

America is a nation of immigrants. America doesn't invite immigration, America IS immigration! For America to discriminate as to who immigrates here, would be hypocritical since the Declaration of Independence declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." To avoid hypocrisy, all Americans who agree with my opponent should leave the United States and go back to the country of their origin; otherwise their presence in the States agrees with immigration!

"It is good that my opponent agrees with me that the governments/elites of white countries DO want their white populations to be "assimilated and immigrated" by non-whites i.e. white genocide..."

My opponent is arguing that White people should not be allowed to celebrate diversity even if the majority of White people wish to do so (via their vote). A democratic vote does not in any way make an act of genocide lawful.No, it does not, but we are certainly not dealing with true genocide of White people; and, in democratic countries, "lawful" is determined by democratic vote! I would challenge my opponent to run for a political office if he does not like the law as it is. His opportunity to be elected is equal to that of any other law-abiding citizen. The reason why that might be a problem for him, is that the majority of other White people do not agree with him! That being the case, the majority of White people have the government they want which includes "assimilation," immigration, and the celebration of diversity.

"The deliberate attempted replacement of whites with non-whites that is taking place in every "Western"(read white) country is also an act of genocide. "

My opponent is being overly dramatic here. No one is replacing White people. Immigration and assimilation is adding to, not replacing. In order to replace White people, there would need to be a deportation or killing of a White person for every immigrant that comes within the borders of a "White country" as my opponent claims.

Thank you for reading.

[1] http://homepage.ntlworld.com...

[2] http://www.encyclopedia.com...

[3] http://history1900s.about.com...

[4] http://www.gendercide.org...

[5] http://www.pbs.org...

I thank my opponent for his participation in this debate.

Summary/Conclusion

My opponent still claims that deliberate demographic replacement policies such as mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" which are only targeted at white countries,and which everyone including the United Nations agrees are making white people a steadily-shrinking proportion of the global population,are not acts of genocide.The international genocide law that my opponent has confirmed that he is aware of is very clear on the matter.Any policies targeting a group for destruction are acts of genocide.

If my opponent`s position is correct any government on Earth can target their population for acts of genocide and as long as they can misinform and/or coerce their populations into not opposing the government`s genocide program they would not be violating the international genocide law.No group of people anywhere on the planet would have any international legal protection from a corrupt and tyrannical government using it`s state power to target them for genocide.

Speaking on the government policy of assimilation from the 1880s to the 1960s, Sir Ronald Wilson, President of Australia's Human Rights Commission, said,

It clearly was attempted genocide… It was believed that the Aboriginal people would die out.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com...

So-called anti-racists say that white people dying out as a result of "Celebrating Diversity" in all white countries and ONLY white countries is a good thing.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic for 5 rounds without forfeiting and for giving an honest effort to debate this topic. Unfortunately, I have not had an opponent on the topic of race who has debated the topic as my opponent has. I would like to commend him for his efforts. I hope that the voters will give detailed reasons for their decisions so that my opponent and I may be more effective debaters in the future.

Summary

Pro's position:

My opponent opened this debate with a mantra which mourns the alleged "genocide" of the White race. This mantra was more poetic than argumentative; thus appealing to emotion rather than intellect. Throughout the rest of the debate, my opponent has defended his use of the word "genocide" to describe the condition of the White race as a result of "celebrating diversity." I would like to summarize his allegations that White people are experiencing "genocide" according to "who, what, when, where and why" he says "genocide" is being committed against the White race:

Who?

My opponent's position is that governments in "White countries" (according to him, countries that have predominantly White populations) are committing the genocide. I would like to remind the reader that these governments are also predominantly White and are elected by a predominantly White population. This allegation is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. My opponent has not proven a conspiracy to destroy the White race by governments of "White countries," he has only presented conjecture.

What?

My opponent's position is that genocide is being committed against White people through the

1. Violent crimes of non-Whites. I pointed out that this did not fit the definition of "genocide," to which my opponent insisted otherwise.

2. Demonizing of White achievement (colonization and industrialization). My opponent then said that current history books point out that colonization had negative impacts on non-Whites and that industrialization had a negative on the environment. He did not refute these claims by history books, he merely complained that those claims were there. Since he did not prove those claims were false, then he has no argument. His claim is that this "demonization of Whites" has "inflict[ed]...serious mental harm on members of the [White] racial group. He did not give any evidence for this claim. If this were true, should there not be records from mental health facilities to substantiate this claim?

3. Preventing White births through giving Whites the option to intermarry. This is ridiculous at best. Any reasonable person would conclude that giving someone more options for marriage does not constitute genocide! I'm sure the survivors of the Holocaust would have preferred this form of "genocide." Interracial marriage is not required of any White person!

4. Immigration. Immigration only enhances the cultural experiences of Whites; it does not eliminate or "replace" White people as my opponent claims. I pointed out in the fourth round that in order to replace Whites, a White person would have to be deported or killed every time a non-White person immigrates to a "White country." That is certainly not what is happening.

When?

My opponent has not told us when the alleged genocide of White people occurred or if it is occurring now when it started. That, of course, is because it did not/is not happen(ing).

Where?

My opponent claims the alleged genocide is happening in "White countries." I have pointed out that these "White countries" have populations and governments that are predominantly White. If White people are destroying White people, then it could not be classified as genocide, it would rather be suicide.

Why?

My opponent did not give a motivation for the "genocide" he claims has/is happen(ed)(ing).

Con's Position:

My opening argument was to give the official definition of "genocide" from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which was:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I then pointed out that White people have not suffered any of the above atrocities "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, [the White]... rac[e]."

I have repeatedly pointed out that real genocide like that of the Holocaust and Rwanda were very different from my opponent's alleged "genocide" of White people. Let's look at those events and answer "who, what, when, where and why?"

Who?

Holocaust (H): Hitler and the Nazi Regime

Rwanda: (H) Members of the Hutu tribe.

What?

H: Ghettos, gas chambers and concentration camps

R: Mass killing

When?

H: During World War II

R: April-July of 1994 (1984 in Round 4 was a typo)

Where?

H: In Germany and German occupied territories

R: In Rwanda

Why?

H: Hitler had a bad experience with Jewish people as a child and hated them. (More reasons could be listed, I'm sure.)

R: A history of tension between Hutus and Tutsis

Genocide during the Holocaust and in Rwanda are historically documented, unlike the alleged "White genocide." I will repeat to my opponent, You don't know what genocide is!

Conclusion

My opponent stated that "'Celebrating diversity' is a program of White genocide." He has not proven his resolution with documentation or with logic. This debate has a clear winner!

Acknowledgments

Thank you Charlester, for this debate and for your diligence in pursuing your resolution. I hope that you will continue to debate on ddo and that you and I will have the privilege of debating again. You have been a great opponent. If the voting results of this, your first debate on ddo do not meet your satisfaction, I hope that you will not be discouraged and that you will learn from any mistakes you have made and try again.

Thank you readers and voters for following this debate through all five rounds.