Friday, April 13, 2007

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white

Bob’s Mantra:

PeeCee religious doctrine goes something like this:

“If you go against your group interests while black you’re an uncle tom, if you do so while white you’re open-minded. Amen. If you express group interests while black you’re standing up for your people, if you do so while white you’re racist. Amen.”

The PeeCee fanatics that dominate government, academia and media keep telling us there is a problem with white people and white countries. The problem, it appears, is that they are too racist. They keep saying this problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says there is a problem with asian people and that this problem will be solved by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this problem with white people and white countries 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 problem with black people and black countries and this 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 realize I’m not talking about a problem with black people being too racist, I am talking about MY race hatred of black people?

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 demographic extinction against my people, white people, the pro-minority bigots and chauvinists agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

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

Anti-racist has become a code word for anti-white racist.


Bob’s Riddle

“All anti-white racists agree that it’s ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All anti-white racists also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is an anti-white racist?”

For the answer go to:
http://www.nationalsalvation.net/
http://whitakeronline.org/blog/



14 comments:

el Tom said...

I don't get it, I'm afraid. I'm not quite aware why there is a race 'problem'. Why is there a problem with race?

You talk about group interest, but the main group interest that impacts on how my life is lived out is social class. For me, that's the only 'group interest' that really matters.

What has national or cultural identity got to do with race? Surely it's a lot more about appreciation of a certain historical story, or certain confined practices, like playing folk music or going to the pub on a Sunday?

The only race 'problem' is that people notice 'race'.

mantra77 said...

hi el tom

If you live in the US how will you explain that attitude to your children who will face all kinds of discrimination because they're white?

Here's a partial list:

affirmative action discrimination in education +
no whites allowed race based private scholarships +
race quotas in private hiring +
race norming of employment tests +
separate pool executive hiring +
minority layoff protection +
sensitivity training +
minority promotion networks +
no whites allowed contract set-asides +
minority-only tax breaks =
-----------------------------------------------------
Your children will pay dearly for being white throughout their lives.


Should they one day ask you whether you've been resisting or collaborating what will you say?

mantra77 said...

Sorry el Tom, I just read your profile and noticed you're British, not American and way too young to have children.

I don't know how things are in the UK but I hope for your sake (and your children's should you have any) that you never face the extreme pro-minority chauvinism and bigotry which has become routine over here.

The reason the focus is race is because that is what bothers these pro-minority chauvinists about my children, their race. Not their culture or class, their race.

Since that is why my children are being targetted, that is what I have to defend.

I hope you become a father one day (it's the best thing that will ever happen to you) and if you do you'll understand exactly where I'm coming from.

nzconservative said...

Race is a problem for economic leftists as well as conservatives.

As western countries have become more multi-cultural they have also become less egalitarian.

This is why working class whites now vote for people like Bush or abstain from voting altogether.

For example, large scale immigration makes housing more expensive without improving wages.

This is fine for high incomes whites (who make money out of immigration)but not for those with average incomes.

The most egalitirian countries, such as Finland and Japan, also tend to be the most monocultural.

el Tom said...

'Pro-minority'...

You don't seem to understand what I was saying. I don't make seperations on the basis of race without additional reasons to do so. To me, a black person and a white person might as well be the same person until we start talking about them as individuals.

On that basis, I find it difficult to understand what is meant by 'pro-minority' or 'pro-majority'. What is pro? An identification with interests? Support? For what? 'Advancement' of some sort, I suppose?

For me, because I don't see racial difference as important, what advances a black man is, before we bring in individual personality, statistically very similar to what will advance the interests of a white man.

In this respect, people of different social classes have a hell of a lot more differences between them than people of different races.

To me, the opinion I have just espoused is anti racism. Anti-racism is not treatment of minorities as superior.

It actually exists in two stages. The first stage is in viewing races as the same (which may entail working towards them actually BECOMING similar in terms of status; equal but different, if you like). The more advanced stage is one of colourblindness, and opposing those that refurse colourblindness.

Anti-racists should not see colour or ethnicity. Their duty should be working against the agendas of those who do.

I hope that sheds some light on my thinking. Sorry about spelling 'colour' that way, but I'm afraid the British are in fact genetically superior. ;o)

In terms of the list of things you propose, I think that whether or not they are discriminatory against white people depends on context. If inequalities are truly exacerbated by race, I'm convinced of the argument for affirmitive action. Imagine a world where the Negro slaves have just been set free. Should they start out with nothing, purely because they are black, while others are entitled to pre-existing property, because they are white?

The real question is whether or not race is responsible for inequality, in a given situation. The more time goes by, the less it is.

I wonder how bad, in that respect, the place where you live is, compared to others?

mantra77 said...

El Tom, thank you for your comprehensive reply. I really appreciate having an Oxford law student commenting here. I'm quite flattered actually.

"You don't seem to understand what I was saying. I don't make seperations on the basis of race without additional reasons to do so. To me, a black person and a white person might as well be the same person until we start talking about them as individuals."

Fair enough. Here in the US blacks vote 90% Democrat, white males 70% Republican. The white male percentage has been steadily increasing as has the white female one. Even as we drop as a percentage of the population, our concentration of votes into Republican hands has given the current idiot the presidency and if it wasn't for his pandering to Zionist warmongering, the Congress would still be Republican.

What's my point? We are radicalizing along racial lines. We are a minority in each of our ten biggest cities and there we see where the democratic process is heading: Elections that are straight racial censuses. I repeat straight racial censuses. Each group tries to stiff the others. If you think anyone, and I mean anyone, talks about actual city management issues such as street maintenance or anything like that - forget it.

Now add to this scenario the fact that there is one group - and only one group - that is actively denied the right to organize to express, let alone defend, its interests. (This denial comes in the form of neo-McCarthyite persecutions for "racism". These involve organized blacklists, intimidation and economic strangulation of dissidents.)

You talk as if we have options, we can choose to assert our group interests or we can choose not to. Yet if we try we are persecuted until we learn our lesson: It's a minority-only privilege - no whites allowed.

The reason we're radicalizing despite this barrier is because in this environment it is beyond obvious that a group that continues to think along universalist or class lines is simply asking for the shaft. It is axiomatic that a group that doesn't care about its interests will be exploited by those that do.

This exploitation manifests in many ways, not least the RACE LAWS that are levied against us, the one group that can't defend itself. They're called affirmative action, equal opportunity etc etc because the pro-minority bigots are too dishonest to call them what they are: RACE LAWS that specifically target a RACE for STATE discrimination. That RACE is us.

As a side note, it always strikes me as incredible when pro-minority chauvinists and bigots stick a thumb in their mouth and wonder aloud does race exist? who is white? is there such a thing as white?

Hello? They don't know what whites are or whether we exist? Why don't they look up their own RACE LAWS! It's THEY who define us! They're THEIR OWN RACE LAWS so what's the matter? Amnesia?

As someone once said (forgot who), "if you don't know what you are your enemies will soon remind you"

Well, we've been reminded alright. We're white because we're attacked for being white and only for being white. Since we're attacked for being white we have to organize as whites to defend ourselves.

In other words, I don't disagree with you that individuals should be judged as such irrespective of color. It's just that it's not an option anymore. When you are constantly attacked because of your race by groups who block vote their particularist interests at 90% and are constantly lobbying for more and more racial privileges, adopting that universalist point of view simply means handing over your children's future to them.

You just can't be a colorblind individualist in a multiculturalist society, not unless you want your children to be at the bottom of the pecking order.

So, in practice, the option just isn't there anymore.

"On that basis, I find it difficult to understand what is meant by 'pro-minority' or 'pro-majority'. What is pro? An identification with interests? Support? For what? 'Advancement' of some sort, I suppose?"

Pro-minority describes the Gramscian racial extortion coaltion that seeks (and obtains) ever increasing group-specific privileges for its constituent groups off the backs of my children.

"For me, because I don't see racial difference as important, what advances a black man is, before we bring in individual personality, statistically very similar to what will advance the interests of a white man."

Affirmative action advances the interests of a black man by denying educational and career opportunities to a white man. Their respective interests are directly opposed, i.e. in conflict.

"In this respect, people of different social classes have a hell of a lot more differences between them than people of different races."

Yes, whites and minorities of the same social class have a lot in common. Except that after the dinner party and smiling is over, minorities go back to lobbying and block voting for whoever promises to extract more privileges for themselves off the backs of white children.

In contrast, whites go back to simmering in resentment because they can't assert their group interests and protect their children for fear of neo-McCarthyite persecutions for "racism".

"To me, the opinion I have just espoused is anti racism. Anti-racism is not treatment of minorities as superior."

That's all nice in theory but the practice boils down to minorities having the right to assert group interests and whites having persecutions for daring same.

You're a law student so you'll appreciate what happens when you have two classes of defendants, one that is denied representation and another that isn't. Guess which class of defendant is going to get the shaft every time? Can you then deny that one of the classes of defendant is superior to the other?

"It actually exists in two stages. The first stage is in viewing races as the same (which may entail working towards them actually BECOMING similar in terms of status; equal but different, if you like). The more advanced stage is one of colourblindness, and opposing those that refurse colourblindness."

Well as for the first stage, show me. Whites are an intermediate group. There are groups above us on the socio-economic ladder and groups below us. I have never seen anyone who follows that plan ever express concern that Asians and Jews are "too privileged", or that there is a need to equalize their status. Ever. When they make their eqality or privilege arguments it is only and exclusively whites they talk about. Never groups that actually are privileged. Never.

As for the second stage, the utopia, it's just a variation of the "don't worry it's all temporary" argument. The theory is that as soon as we become a minority and the racial extortion coalition has all the power it wants, that's when they will back off out of sheer magnamity and the goodness in their hearts.

Too bad this is NOT what happened in our cities as we became minorities - what happened is that the racism got worse and worse until we fled, leaving our weakest, the white working classes, behind to suffer the violence and race hatred.

"Anti-racists should not see colour or ethnicity. Their duty should be working against the agendas of those who do."

I have never ever seen an "anti-racist" protest the fact that minorities have a right to express their group interests or seen them oppose their many many organizations that do so or the agendas of same; it's only when whites - and only whites - claim equal rights to organize as whites that they go ballistic.

"I hope that sheds some light on my thinking. Sorry about spelling 'colour' that way, but I'm afraid the British are in fact genetically superior. ;o)"

Haha as the French say, "all nations think they are the best and all nations are right". (Of course, this doesn't apply if you're white).

"In terms of the list of things you propose, I think that whether or not they are discriminatory against white people depends on context. If inequalities are truly exacerbated by race, I'm convinced of the argument for affirmitive action. Imagine a world where the Negro slaves have just been set free. Should they start out with nothing, purely because they are black, while others are entitled to pre-existing property, because they are white?"

The items I list are not blacks-only privileges or black-slave-descendant-only privileges but extend to any Mexican, Cambodian or Somali off the boat. Indeed, in many cases, such as eligibility for in-state tuituion, illegal immigrants, repeat ILLEGAL immigrants, have minority privilges over my children.

This is why they are RACE laws. It doesn't matter whether a minority has slave ancestors, they get the privileges regardless. Similarly, it doesn't matter if you're of say, Italian origin (and therefore arrived after slavery), it's a question of whether you're white and only a question of whether you're white.

These laws don't have anything to do with socioeconomic status either. The black son of a US General will always, repeat always, be favored over the white son of a dishwasher. Why? Because they are RACE LAWS.

"The real question is whether or not race is responsible for inequality, in a given situation. The more time goes by, the less it is."

In the UK your multiculturalism is less advanced so it's still possible for you to entertain the "it's all going to work out" pipedream. Not here, not anymore.

"I wonder how bad, in that respect, the place where you live is, compared to others?"

San Diego? The ethnic cleansing is almost complete here; there are very few of us left. The main concentrain is La Jolla - a hyperpoliced fortress suburb for the super rich who can afford the security necessary to stay. Basically, we've got a regular run of the mill Latin American style social arrangement going. Surprise, surprise I guess.

To answer your question from a legal perspective, it's steadily getting worse. For example, they're trying to deny us free speech rights as a group simply for being white. As a law student, I'm sure you'll appreciate some case law where you can watch their sick race logic in operation:

Quote

Recently, in a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision which may provide a foundation for applying preferential treatment to freedom of speech. If allowed to stand, the decision could authorize local governments to set varying limits to free expression, depending on the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the listener. Preferential treatment has proved one of the most divisive policies of modern America. The Ninth Circuit's decision could radically expand its scope.

Source: TCS Daily

Judge Reinhardt wrote that a different standard should apply to derogatory remarks aimed at majority groups such as Christians or whites because there is, of course, a difference between a historically[A] oppressed[B] minority[C] group that has been the victim of serious prejudice and discrimination and a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status.

Source: Harper vs Poway Unified School District

End quote

I added the A B and C so you can see how they use their three precious anti-white racial theories to promote, justify and legitimize their racist dicrimination against us:

A. The Unique History of White Evil Theory

This racial theory holds that "whites cannot evade history". It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against a group based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual participation or consent (in slavery, holocaust, etc.) and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

B. The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege Theory

This racial theory holds that "whites are privileged". It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against individuals based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual status or financial condition and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

C. The White Majority Deference Theory

This racial theory holds that "majorities must serve minorities". It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic applies exclusively to whites. For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane.

Racer X said...

There is of course an alternative view my dear friend. The "elite" of each of these "different racial groups" are working together. They merely have you blindly "supporting the interest of your race" and the other guy has his flock of sheep as well. That way, they can keep you in a never ending "racial censunses war" so that you never see the light. The people at the top of each "racial group" will reap the benefits and continue to suppress everyone else. The Middle East is one giant example of how this process works. The elite of Christians, Jews and Muslims all profit from the continual war, while the average man of each group suffers. Remember, terrorist attacks are no threat to American hegemony. Terrorists don't attack gated communities either. Regular people suffer on all sides, while the elite continue to profit. Now, an ever expanding EU and China, that is a threat to American hegemony. Get ready for the next generational regional bloc struggle.

the wily marmot said...

Mantra.
Don't bother arguing with fools who recycle discredited Marxist claptrap. Didn't they learn in school about the Berlin War coming down? Are they too divorced from reality to notice that the PRC has abandoned Marxism for (racial) National Socialism?

If the current growth rate continues the PRC will have the world's largest economy in 2010.

For a general discussion of Chinese racism see: http://www.vdare.com/derbyshire/sino-fascism.htm

the wily marmot said...

On the former country called england:
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/5158
HOW THIS ONCE GREAT LAND LOST ITS SOUL
Monday April 23,2007
By Leo McKinstry

ST GEORGE'S Day should be an occasion for patriotic celebration.

But for those of us who love this land, today has the tone of a funeral wake.

The England that we cherished has disappeared.We can only raise our glasses to the memory of a once great country whose spirit has been broken by her own rulers, its fabric torn apart by social revolution.

The words of that stirring wartime song There'll Always Be An England have acquired a tragic poignancy. For there is no longer a real England--not the England that was once renowned for its gentleness and humour, its decency and sense of history, its rich language and inspiring landscape.

The relics of our past are still around us--such as the monarchy or the village green--but they have been robbed of all meaning and vitality, becoming little more than heritage landmarks in a place without a soul.

We are becoming a mass of conflicting minorities.

The country of Shakespeare echoes to the babble of a thousand foreign tongues. The land of Elgar is held hostage by the thud of the rapper's boom-box. The stiff upper lip has been replaced by the wail of victimhood. A land that used to be known for its lack of crime is now scourged by gang violence, shootings and stabbings.

The English traits of modesty and moderation have been lost to a tidal wave of extremism, terrorism,obscenity and cruelty. Our political system, once the least corrupt in the world, is riddled with ballot-box fraud. A national sense of belonging has given way to mutual distrust.

As an outsider but a passionate Anglophile I have been disturbed by these changes to England's character. I was born and brought up in Northern Ireland but to me England seemed like the promised land--a feeling that was reinforced by family holidays across the water.

As a wide-eyed youth I loved everything about England--from the metallic hiss of a London Underground train to the tender ringing of the bells in a Dorset abbey. It seemed a world so different from the bigotry, insecurity and ethnic strife of my native Belfast.

In my mid-20s I fulfilled my dream of starting a new life in England and settling here only strengthened my devotion to my adopted country.

For my love of England was inspired not just by those icons of English life such as warm beer and cricket but also by other images which resonated for me: a Suffolk wood on a October afternoon, the ravens croaking in the leafless trees; a Jack Russell terrier bounding through the daffodils in an Essex park; the sun catching the dramatic skyline of London on a summer's morning.
But in recent years my attachment to England has faded. My sense of connection, so powerful 20 years ago, has become frayed. I increasingly feel as if I am living in a foreign land, having nothing in common with large numbers of my fellow citizens--not even a language or a shared set of values.

When I go to parts of London, Manchester or Birmingham I am struck by a sense of being in the Third World, with all its attendant chaos and tension. This is not the England that I once loved.

Yet I am told by Government and civic institutions that I am not allowed to harbour such dangerous sentiments. Instead, I should be overjoyed at the changing face of our country. In the twisted logic of the modern British state, my devotion to England--the reason I settled here--is a cause for suspicion. I should be embracing cultural diversity, not clinging to an England that is being systematically demolished.

To me this is a morally reprehensible argument. If you genuinely love something then it is grotesque to be asked to celebrate its demise. Furthermore, the demand for change only ever works one way. The indigenous population is constantly urged to adapt to the ways of migrants, who seem allowed to import their lifestyles, customs and languages wholesale into Britain without any official challenge or disapproval.

Thanks to the twin malign forces of mass immigration and multi-culturalism,the scale of England's transformation is alarming. Though the collapse of our borders has made records unreliable, it is probable that more than 700,000 immigrants are arriving here every year.

Before the end of this decade the majority of London's residents will be from non-white ethnic groups. Other cities will soon follow. On even a conservative estimate, the indigenous population of England will be in a minority before the end of this century. And the pace of change is being accelerated by the ruthlessly enforced official ideology of cultural diversity, which holds that any manifestation of traditional patriotism is akin to racism.

It is often said that Labour's policy on immigration has been a failure. But for the ruling metropolitan elite it has been a huge success. The promotion of influxes of Third World and Eastern European migrants has been the central part of a deliberate strategy to change England for ever.

Full of loathing for their own country, Left-wingers recognised that they could not bring about their revolution by economic means after the downfall of communism. So instead they have cynically used mass immigration as a battering ram against old England--turning this once proud nation into little more than a landmass full of conflicting minorities.

Rupert Brooke wrote in his 1914 poem The Soldier of "some corner of a foreign field, that is forever England." Almost a century later the foreign fields are now filling up almost every corner of England itself.


-

Balder said...

A very necessary post!

I too am trying to enlighten people to the intricacies of the race question, so I found it appropriate to leave a link to my article about race here.

In it I look at different aspects of the race question especially related to the fight against immigration.

In Europe the far greater part of the anti-immigration movement discards the race question as irrelevant, and is in fact often siding with the liberal lefties on that matter.

This may be because it is convenient and they want to avoid the stigmata of the 'racist' accusation, but in many cases it is also lack of knowledge and understanding that leads to the prevailing disrespect of the value of our genetic inheritance.

Here a short introduction:

Racism and the fight against immigration

A provocative discussion around race and racism

Adversaries of immigration have routinely been accused of being "racists" from the very beginning of the immigration discussion.

Since the awareness of the incredible and serious problems, which uncontrolled mass immigration has brought to the Danish and the European societies in general has risen, and resistance or at least skepticism about these developments has spread to a far broader political spectrum, these accusations have been some what toned down.

From the beginning most of the anti-immigrationalists with few exceptions have vehemently protested against being labeled with the negatively loaded word "racist", and have said again and again, that their protests definitively had nothing to do with skin color.

Most of them have "sworn to their disapproval of racism", and have denied the importance of ethnic differences, and weighted cultural and religious differences as the deciding factors in their argument that mass-immigration is a threat to our societies, our culture and our way of life.

And this is readily understandable.

The word "racism" roused associations to Nazism, persecution of Jews, slavery, repression of blacks, imperialism, colonialism, and a wide variety of atrocities of an almost incomprehensible magnitude.

The dogma of racism - a free gift to the pro multicult lobby?

Go on reading Racism and the fight against immigration

Danish version: Racisme og kampen mod indvandringen - Hvad er racisme?

Balder

AcciónVirtual said...

Only true.
Now if your are a white guy and you said that White People is good people and better for your, you´re a criminal, but if a black guy said that blacks are the best, he is a "heroe"
sorry, but my English is so bad.
I´m from South America, here we are minority...... and anti White word are comon

Andy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
131488WOLF131488 said...

"Anti-Racist" = anti-White...
PERIOD!!!
-Whitaker

weston said...

Mantra,

You're being discussed over at Majorityrights.com.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/justin_raimondo_versus_white_supremacists