A FEW TIPS ON HOW TO ARGUE WITH IDIOT LEFTIST RACE TRAITORS

An astute definition of a racist is anyone against whom a multiculturalist loses an argument. This implies champions of national destruction don't like losing and aren't very good at it. This may be because the leftist/liberal has built his home on the high moral ground. It's difficult for him to accept that it is in fact a castle in the sky. He's been running with the herd for so long, enjoying the wonderful sense of belonging that comes with throwing in one's lot with what appears to be a highly fashionable winning side. Being sociable animals, most humans would rather avoid the pariah-like status that may come with holding to an unfashionable opinion unless he is of the kind who a strong inner conviction and and love of truth conspire to cause him to throw caution to the wind.

When a person who is inclined to outsource his thinking comes into contact with one who prefers to do his own thinking, it may be for the first time and cause something of a shock. So have fun

FUCKFACE: Why don't you like multiculturalism?
YOU: What's to like?
FUCKFACE: The diversity of course.
YOU: What's so good about diversity?
FUCKFACE: Well, for starters there is strength in diversity.
YOU: It's never occurred to you that that is simply Orwellian double-think no different from slavery is freedom. Give me something that doesn't sound as though it's come from the mouth of a lunatic.
FUCKFACE: Well,what about all the different restaurants and wonderful cuisine it's given us.
YOU: So you mean to say with mass international travel being with us for around the last fifty years, Australians are so hopelessly unenterprising that they couldn't travel overseas, see all that exotic cuisine and not be able to think to themselves, I'm going to grab a few recipes, go home, open a restaurant and make a quick fortune. What else is diversity good for?
FUCKFACE: (mouth moving but nothing coming out)

FUCKFACE: Australia is a country of immigrants.
YOU: (looking quizzical) But to be an immigrant you'd have to have something to immigrate to wouldn't you? And, in the beginning, unless you count the Aboriginal Shangri-la that we're often told about, that something was sorely missing. So, given that you can't move into a house before you build it, that is exactly what the first Europeans had to do.  Although they weren't builders they were something very similar - they were settlers. And those that hadn't come exactly voluntarily; those who were separated from slavery by only a few fine technical point would no doubt have been highly bemused as well as amused on learning that they were in fact immigrants. Then for the best part of 200 years after the original settlers and convicts had died off, the country was peopled by descendants of settlers and convicts. They too would have been highly amused to hear themselves described as immigrants. The first Bona fide immigrants didn't begin arriving until all the spade-work had been done but they themselves were prepared to roll up their sleeves, work hard, and integrate into Australia.  Later immigrants attracted by what had been created here by others and evidently bringing with them the banner of 'immigrant nation' weren't entirely happy with what they saw and decided to change it to something more their liking. Contribute? No, not if it could be avoided. And where did you say nearest Centrelink office is?

FUCKFACE: (in attempted justification of open borders insanity) Why shouldn't others be allowed to live here if they want? After all, it's only by virtue of the luck of the draw that we were born here and others elsewhere.
YOU: Are you a Communist?
FUCKFACE: Of course not. Why do you say that?
YOU: Because it sounds as though you don't believe in the right of inheritance. And of course that's one of the first things to be jettisoned under Communist rule.
FUCKFACE: It's hardly the same thing.
YOU: Why not? Or do you really think our ancestors were so selfish and lacking in a vision of posterity that they built the country for only themselves without so much as a thought to those who came after them. Wrong. Moreover and it's entirely safe to assume that they were anticipating that the inheritors would have been of their own stock - not one of absolutely no connection to it..
FUCKFACE: But, but ...
YOU: no hang on, a member of a nation inherits that nation in exactly the same way as a member, or members of a family, inherits property formerly belonging to a diseased member of the family. Therefore, if there's no right of inheritance of a nation, there shouldn't be on the microcosmic level. So picture this: you've taken the day off work to attend your father's funeral. While you're there Abdul, Fatimah and the eight kids fresh of boat move into the house you thought you would be inheriting. You protest. But, hey, it's just the luck of the draw and you were out of luck - especially if Abdul and family say they are refugees.

FUCKFACE: the only true Australians are Aborigines.
YOU: Interesting. So you're saying that all those Anglo-Saxon-Celtic men who gave their lives for the country during its greatest peril, or rotted and starved in barbaric Japanese captivity, weren't true Australians. What absolute mugs they were - making the supreme sacrifice in defence of a country which didn't truly belong to them. It's a pity they weren't informed of that at the time. They could have saved themselves a whole lot of time, trouble and pain, not to mention their lives. No Fuckface, we took this land out of the stone-age, built an advanced civilization on it in record time and then paid with blood to keep it.