Things to watch for when debating Liberals: Don’t let them get away with it!
1) Conflating tourism with immigration
Immigration and tourism are NOT the same thing. There is nothing wrong with tourism. It’s good for the economy, and it’s interesting to learn about other cutures and see new sights. There’s no rule that says a Nationalist can’t go overseas and be a tourist. There’s no rule that says a British Nationalist can’t go to Egypt to see the Pyramids, can’t go to Rome to see the Colloseum, etc. As a Nationalist, I have no problem with people of any race coming to my country for a few weeks or a few months, taking some photos and meeting people. Nationalism is NOT anti-tourism!
2) Conflating trade with immigration
A classic Liberal argument equates people with food. “Don’t you know pasta comes from Italy? Don’t you know tobacco comes from America? How will we survive without trade?”. This argument dehumanises immigrants, putting them in the same category as inanimate objects. We can import Playstations from Japan without importing five million Japanese immigrants. Nationalism is not anti-trade, people aren’t products!
3) Conflating Nationalism with isolationism
They’ll say things like “But we learn from other cultures, it’s a globalised world, we can’t just pull up the drawbridge to the rest of the world”. We can learn from other cultures without letting other cultures move into our backyard. Nationalism is not isolationism. A Nationalist country can still maintain its embassies around the world, we can still be part of the UN, we can still talk to other countries. If Japan finds a cure for cancer, we can still talk to them about it. If it’s the Queen of Denmark’s birthday, we can still send her a card. Nationalism is not isolationism!
4) Saying “skin colour” instead of “ethnicity”
Always say “race” or “ethnicity” when debating liberals. Don’t fall into their traps. Nationalism does NOT care about mere “skin colour”. We are not arguing about “skin colour”, we are arguing about ethnicity. And ethnicity is not skin colour. Race is an inherent biological identity far beyond skin colour. They will try to tell you that race is just skin colour, and you can undermine them by asking a few simple questions. If race is just skin colour, how do experts identfy the races of skeletons? If race is just skin colour, how come DNA tests can determine your race? If race is just skin colour, how come black people are significantly more likely to develop sickle-cell anemia? Races have different skin colour, different muscle mass, bone structure, eye colour, hair colour, hair texture, facial features, brain size – not to mention different cultures and religions. Ethnicity is more than just race. The Germans and French are the same race, but they have different cultures and languages, so its right that they have their own countries.
5) Saying Britain deserves it because of the Empire
This would begin to make sense if the immigrants were Aborigines, Maori and Red Indians. But they’re not. Also, Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right. Also, if Britain deserves it because of Empire, why does Sweden deserve it? Why does Norway deserve it? Why does Denmark deserve it? Why does Iceland deserve it? The modern indigenous Britons obviously didn’t have anything to do with colonising other countries 300 years ago. Because they were born in Britain, their ancestors obviously stayed in Britain. Modern poor people are not responsible for the actions of historical rich people. Plus, when the British Empire was colonising New Zealand and America, the natives resisted. So why shouldn’t the native Britons resist as well? This whole argument is called Appeal to Tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Just because something happened in the past, doesn’t mean it was good, and doesn’t mean it should happen again. If colonisation is wrong in one part of the world in one era, then it’s wrong in every part of the world in every era.
Plus, why do they single out the British Empire? Should Turkey be flooded with immigrants because of the Ottoman Empire? Should Japan be flooded with immigrants because of the Japanese empire? What about flooding Mongolia with immigrants because of the Mongol Empire? Why aren’t they trying to flood Iran with immigrants because of the Persian Empire? Shouldn’t Saudi Arabia also be flooded with immigrants because of the Arab Empire? If we’re going to justify mass immigration because of past sins, lets be consistent here.
6) “It’s 2013″
It’s 2013, so you shouldn’t think like this, you’re old-fashioned, out-dated, etc. This argument seems to be based on a combination of two logical fallacies, Appeal to Novelty (newer = better) and Appeal to Popularity (popular = better). Liberals think they’re on the “right” side of history, and we’re on the “wrong” side of history. Because they view history as being a linear progression from conservativism/nationalism to liberalism/globalism, and that everyone should bend in the wind of what’s popular and not stand in the way of “progress” as they define it. I don’t really know how to argue against this, because it’s not even an argument, they’re just telling you what year it is. Sometimes I reply “It’s April, what opinions should I have in April? Have you got the time as well?”. Or I just quote Chesterton:
We often read nowadays of the valor or audacity with which some rebel attacks a hoary tyranny or an antiquated superstition. There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers. The only true free-thinker is he whose intellect is as much free from the future as from the past. He cares as little for what will be as for what has been; he cares only for what ought to be.
– G.K. Chesterton
7) Saying that Britain has always been multicultural / had immigration – aka “but what about the Vikings?”
So many reason why this is wrong, I don’t know where to begin. First of all, I would caution you to look for them artifically inflating the number of groups who have historically invaded Britain by using synonyms to make it look more, for example I’ve seen Liberals say “what about the Danes, Vikings and Norwegians?”. Danes, Vikings and Norwegians are the same people. Angles, Saxons and Jutes are just three tribes of the same people, the Anglo-Saxons. That’s like saying North America was always diverse because there were Cherokee and Sioux and Iroquois. And here’s the first problem with this argument – all the historical groups that have invaded Britain have all been white Europeans. The Romans left negligable genetic impact on the British, they invaded, occupied, then left, contributing <1% of our DNA. Second problem is that these people were all invaders – they came in uninvited and raped and pillaged and took over – Liberals compare Pakistanis to Vikings without a hint of irony. When the Vikings attacked, the locals didn’t welcome them with open arms in the name of tolerance and diversity, the locals fought to the teeth to keep them out. So, if we’re supposed to follow history, we should fight to the teeth like Alfred the Great. Yes, it’s historically normal for different groups to want to come to Britain – it’s not historically normal for the British to let them. And when you say this, Liberals will backtrack and say “well, history doesn’t matter, just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean it’s right”. And they’d be right. But if history doesn’t matter, then why did they bring it up? If history doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter BOTH WAYS. Also, link them to articles like these ones which proves that the indigenous British aremostly homogenous back to the first hunter-gatherers who came in after the ice melted 15,000 years ago. The indigenous British are not some mish-mash of lots of different things, they’re 100% white Northern European. The indigenous British are about 80% native British and 20% Germanic. Water is hydrogen and oxygen, but we don’t say there’s no such thing as water. If a woman was once raped by a Dane, that doesn’t mean she has to have sex with every Somali who wants to enter her, does it? But that’s the logic they’re using. Saying that Britain must welcome Somali immigration in 2013 because it was invaded by Danes in 865 makes about as much sense as saying that Barbara must have sex with a gang of Somalis in 2013 because she was raped by a gang of Danes in 1986. It just doesn’t make any sense.
8) Racism is prejudice + power, aka “minorities can’t be racist against majorities because I’ve made up my own definition of racism”
White people are a minority in the world, we are only about 7-8% of people. Whites are only the majority in some parts of the world; North America, Europe and Australasia. So if minorities can’t be racist against majorities, what was all that fuss in South Africa about? Simply move the debate to Africa and the Caribbean, where blacks are the majority. Blacks in Africa and the Caribbean have prejudice, and they have power. Watch how the Liberal will suddenly try to change the rules.
9) Saying that not all immigrants are like that
No, not all immigrants are like that. But they don’t need to be all like that for there to be a problem. It is okay to single out immigrant criminals because it’s not their country. They are being deliberately imported by the government. Immigrant crime is being caused by a specific government policy that they could change. So when we look at immigrant crime, we’re looking at the government policy that allowed them to come in and commit this crime in the first place. There is a saying we used to have, “better safe than sorry”. They’re pouring immigrants into the country and saying “but they’re not ALL committing crime”. Ask them how they’d feel if someone poured snakes into their house and said “but they’re not ALL biting you!”. I bet their logic would change then. It’s as if their logic is that they’d rather have their daughters raped than “be racist”. Mind you, it’s never their daughters, is it.
10) Saying that some white people are like that
As above. The white people belong there, it’s their country. They would be there anyway. White British criminals would be committing crime anyway. This argument suggests that indigenous British people have an equal right to be in Britain compared to Africans and Asians, which isn’t true; they have a superior right. The white criminals haven’t been deliberately imported by the government over the last 50 years. Put it this way, if your house is a little bit messy, that doesn’t give someone else the right to come in off the street and trash the place. If someone punches you in the teeth, whether or not you had a toothache is beside the point. I don’t get to punch you in the teeth and then say “but you had a toothache anyway, so what are you complaining about?”. Of course we have some native criminals – all the more reason to not import foreign criminals!
11) But what about all the wonderful food, like kebabs?
A specific form of #2 that I think deserves its own answer because it’s so common. Ask any Liberal to name a specific benefit of mass multicultural immigration, and food will always be their answer. My answer to this is simply that having different types of takeaways isn’t that important. You’d have to be pretty shallow, myopic, materialistic and decadent to seriously put “kebabs” or “curry” on the table as a benefit even worth considering. While this may be a minor “benefit” on some level, does this “benefit” really outweigh all the negative affects? Do you really need a kebab so badly that you’re prepared to sacrifice your daughters to Pakistani rape-gangs just to get one? I don’t. And it’s not as if we actually need Pakistanis to make us kebabs, or Indians to make us curry. We’re quite capable of following recipe books. My white mum said my white grandmother used to make a delicious chicken chow-mein back in the ’70s. Plus, if kebabs and curry are the only benefits of immigration, then every immigrant should be running a kebab/curry shop. If an immigrant isn’t running a kebab/curry shop, then the food benefit doesn’t apply to them. And do we really need so many kebab/curry shops anyway? In some neighbourhoods there’s a kebab shop on every damned corner. Surely we only need one or two per town, then we can say we’ve got enough kebab shops and refuse further Middle Eastern immigration.
12) Multiculturalism is necessary because it teaches you about other cultures
It is not necessary to learn about other cultures. That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with learning about other cultures, but it’s not so crucially important that the country should be flooded with millions of people from those other cultures. Like argument #11, it may be nice, but is it worth it? Usually when you press them hard enough on this point, Liberals will argue themselves into a circle. “We need multiculturalism to teach us about other cultures because we need to learn about other cultures to make multiculturalism work”. Essentially this argument is “we need multiculturalism because we have multiculturalism”. It’s self-fulfilling, it doesn’t explain why we need multiculturalism in the first place. Also, there are many other ways to learn about other cultures; reading books, watching documentaries, travelling to their countries yourself, being taught about them in school. If it’s important to learn about other cultures, then get the schools to teach people more about other cultures in the classroom. It’s ridiculous for us to sit on our arse and get these other cultures delivered to us like pizzas. You don’t see David Attenborough ordering herds of animals to be delivered to his apartment every time he wants to study them – he goes to their natural habitat. Also, I dispute that multiculturalism actually teaches us anything meaningful about other cultures. Many immigrants lead totally segregated lives and seldom interact with the host culture. What have you actually learned about other cultures from mass immigration? I once had a multiculti argue it was great that she could go into her local Hindu temple whenever she wanted. So I asked her how often she actually did it. She had to admit she had never actually gone into it, but she just thought it was great that she could, even though she didn’t. I pressed her for something specific she’d learned about Hindus by having Hindu immigration into her country. She couldn’t name anything specific.