For many people today, the issues related to massive immigration and all its consequences are not entirely unknown. After all, decades of massive immigration have hardly gone unnoticed. Typically, the focus of the immigration debate has revolved around cultural and economic impacts, as well as how many crimes immigrants commit. But this debate has been a dead-end as it has not led to any solutions in the past 50 years. Also, there is a much more important aspect to highlight, which is the demographic aspect; that we, as a consequence of massive immigration, are on our way to becoming a minority in our own countries.
Whilst it is true that this massive immigration has serious implicationss financially, as well as culturally, none of that really matters if we become a minority in our own homelands or entirely cease to exist as a people. Even ifwe were to benefit from immigration financially, or none of the immigrants committed any crimes whatsoever and were perfectly integrated in our societies, it would still not justify our people becoming a minority in our own countries. Therefore, the only logical focus in this debate should be primarily on the demographic aspect.
Many people opposed to massive immigration have been reluctant to address its demographic dimension. They have been afraid to highlight such issues because they do not know how to approach the subject without feeling that they are on the defensive. It is easier for them to talk about failed integration, the cost of immigration or increasing crime rates, because then they can avoid talking about demographics, which might lead to a discussion about race which could risk one being branded as a “racist” or a “nazi”. They escape the subject because they have lost control of the debate and they do not have the moral high ground. Therefore, it is important to have the right approach when addressing these issues.
So how do you address these issues effectively?
When addressing these issues, you can either be on the offensive or on the defensive. Being on the defensive has been a very common approach in this debate. For example, you have often heard people say “I’m not racist, but…” when trying to address the issue of immigration, trying to convince their opponents that they are not bad people, while at the same time trying to defend themselves from bad labels. Needless to say, this approach has never been effective.
Being on the offensive however, means that you can make your points without making excuses or feeling the need that you have to defend yourself. You just convey your arguments.
There are two approaches when being on the offensive in the debate: being aggressively on the offensive and being passively on the offensive.
The difference between being aggressively on the offensive and being passively on the offensive is that when you act aggressively you attempt to force the other person to acknowledge your points and opinions with the purpose of convincing them. This usually results in the opposite however, as this approach will rarely leave people convinced. Rather, it will leave them wondering why you seem to feel that you have to force it upon them. After all, if you are confident that you are 100% right, then why would you feel that you have to force your approach on to others? Also, proceeding in this manner will usually make you come across as being rude and harsh.
A person who is being passively on the offensive however, is a person who is not being defensive as they do not make excuses. They do not try to force their points and opinions on others even though they are convinced that they are right. They are confident and they simply share their own standpoints without feeling that they have to convince everybody.
The paradox here however, is that when you have this approach you actually start to convince other people, as they start to see that you are confident and that you do not have to make any excuses and they feel that you know what you are talking about.
People who can be passively on the offensive are able to convey truths in a social way, without using antagonistic and destructive language. They can easily come across as respectable, thoughtful and sociable. They can discuss these issues without coming across as “controversial”. They are good at pointing out things that are just common sense.
For example, being passively on the offensive may be to point out the contradictions of our society or the arguments of the opponent by either simply asking questions or stating moral points.
Nobody can attack you for making indirect statements by asking questions, such as:
- Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, but White countries are for EVERYONE?
- If skin colour does not matter, then why is racial diversity so important (in all and only White countries)?
- If multiculturalism is something people really want, then why do we have White flight?
- If the so called ‘anti-racists’ are so unconcerned with race, how come they only have a problem with White schools, White workplaces, White towns, White Cities and White countries?
- You accuse me of being ‘racist’ for not wanting my people to become a minority in my country, when was the last time you accused Chinese people of being ‘racist’ for not wanting China to become non-Chinese? Why don’t I see you protesting against Saudi Arabia for not wanting to become a melting pot? How come Africa is not forced to become “more diverse”?
Questions can be a powerful tool if used correctly.
Keep in mind however that no matter how you engage the subject you are bound to upset someone at some point, but this approach will make it harder for people to verbally attack you. And if they do, being passively on the offensive is an excellent form of verbal self-defence as it has many tactical advantages and can be quite effective in all types of conversations.
For instance, having this approach can be quite disarming, as people who verbally abuse you tend to expect you to fight back. Not stooping to their level will take your opponent by surprise. Also, you will come across as more mature and respectable to other people which in turn will make people listen to you. By being collected and focusing on your talking points with a positive attitude you are already changing the mood of the entire conversation.
But being passively on the offensive is not always easy. For someone who is easily provoked it might prove difficult to restrain the urge to respond aggressively. Just remind yourself that you are the one who is leading the conversation. Understand that the people who call themselves “anti-racists” are in fact anti-White, and that they do not know any better as they are victims of years of indoctrination. Understand that you do not debate these people. You point out their contradictions. You ask them questions and you keep conveying your talking points in a calm and assertive manner. It does not matter if they agree or disagree or are trying to argue against you. As long as you keep control of the conversation, by being passively on the offensive, and make them stay on your talking points, it will be to your advantage. They do not own the moral high ground, you do.
Knowing how to approach these issues in a proficient and collected manner is imperative. You want people to join you, or at least sympathise with you, rather than to work against you. Use talking points that are impossible to deny or argue against. Be aware that the more these issues are addressed and discussed, the more normalised these sort of conversations or debates will become and more people will be inspired to join you by speaking up for themselves.
Here is a great article that demonstrates how you can be passively on the offensive by asking questions!