Hello
I wrote an article with some good help from Lord Nelson.
I would very much appreciate some comments.
Anti-racist, or anti-white?
We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculture, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot and so on. What do they mean by this? And what is their long term goal?
In this article we shall expose the real goal of anti-racists, and prove that they are in reality simply anti-white. Their goal and their mentality can best be described by the Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev in his article: “Abolish the White Race.”
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
Hardly any anti-racist will admit their goal as clearly as professor Ignatiev. Anti-racists will not call themselves race traitors or anti-white, nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they will just call themselves anti-racist and then argue for “a melting pot” where all will be mixed and become brown.
This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided up into four basic stages:
1. The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as “White Guilt.”
2. Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries.
3. Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being racist.
4. Anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of White genocide will be denounced as a ‘Racist’, ‘White Supremacist’ or a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation which will lead towards the melting pot where all formerly white countries will be brown, and thus the white race will become extinct.
Let us now take a look at the arguments that the so called anti-racists use.
Why must white countries have immigration?
Let us start with the USA. A commonly used argument for why America must accept immigration is because white people took the land away from the native-Americans. If that really was the case one might start to wonder why Germany must accept immigrants. For as we all know, Germans never took their land away from Indians or any other non-white group.
Then you will notice that anti-racists change their argument. They will now talk about the evil Nazis, Holocaust and Hitler. It would be a disgrace if Germany, with their history, would discriminate and not take in non-whites; anti-racists will say.
So what about Britain and France, they never took their land from anyone nor did they support Hitler. Then you will notice that the anti-racists will change their arguments again. This time they will pretend to be objectively interested in former colonial powers taking in immigrants from the former colonies.
What about Iceland? The people on Iceland did not take the land away from anyone, they did not support Hitler nor did they have any colonies. Again the anti-racists will change their arguments in order to support immigration and say that Iceland has an ageing population and they need more workers.
If you have argued with so-called anti-racists, you will notice that they always have many arguments for why white countries must have immigration.
All of these different arguments, taken as single cases, may seem genuine. But then comes the case of Japan:
Japan was allied with Hitler, they had colonies and they also have an ageing population. But Japan does not have massive third world immigration. Do anti-racists condemn Japan, and accuse them of being a racist country? That is because anti-racists are purely anti-white, not anti-asian.
And remember! Anyone who opposes these facts is automatically accused of being a RACIST!! By so called anti-racists. Therefore, as has been demonstrated, anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.
The white race is a social construct, but not when someone is to be blamed.
Another commonly used argument is that the white race does not exist. And therefore there is no good reason to preserve it. Who is white, the anti-whites will ask.
Anti-whites pretend to have problems with identifying who is white and who is not when they are confronted by people who want to preserve the white race. But at the same time they have no problems identifying who is white when they talk about slavery, colonization, the Holocaust, discrimination, racism and so on.
Anti-racists know, as does everybody, who is white and who is not. The reason they deny the existence of the white race is because they are justifying white genocide. And remember; nothing justifies genocide!
Genocide
Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 defines genocide as 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.Anti-racists, as we know by now, are anti-white. They are going after all white countries and only white countries. Through their forcing of immigration, integration and assimilation into all white countries, and only white countries, they have shown their intent to destroy the white race in whole. “They are deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole.”
So remember; whatever these anti-whites come up with, whether it be lynchings of blacks in the south or the mass killing of Jews in Germany, nothing justifies what they do today which is genocide against whites. We have to begin to think in this way. Whatever has been done in the past or whatever is being done in the future, NOTHING justifies genocide against our race, the white race. Period.
What is our goal?
We who are pro-white want to preserve the white race. We believe that all races have the right to exist, including the white race. And it is usually when we say this, and include the white race, that theses people who call themselves anti-racists get mad. We are fighting for our existence, for the right to live. In the world view of an anti-white, there is simply no place for white people. In our world view there is a place for all races, including the white race.
#1 by Adelheim_ on 02/25/2009 - 6:03 pm
Did I post the article on the front page? Or did someone else do it? I thought I just posted it on General Comments II…
#2 by Dave on 02/25/2009 - 8:12 pm
Great work! Here is my re-write:
Anti-Racist, or Anti-White?
We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot and so on. What do they mean by this?
And what is their long-term goal? “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.” Harvard Professor Noel Ignatieve
Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev.
Anti-racists will not call themselves race traitors or anti-white, nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves anti-racist and then argue for “a melting pot” where all will be mixed and become brown.
This goal of abolishing the white race is promoted as follows:
(a) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as “white guilt”; (b) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries; (c) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. (assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being racist); (d) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as “racist”, or “white supremacist” or a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews”.
The demonization of whites (the white guilt complex) makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eliminating the white race.
Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:
Why must white countries have immigration? A commonly used argument for why America must accept immigration is because white people took the land away from the native-Americans. If that really was the case one might start to wonder why Germany must accept immigrants. For as we all know, Germans are aboriginal to Germany and never took their land away from Indians or any other non-white group.
Then you will notice that anti-racists change their argument. They will now talk about the evil Nazis, the Holocaust and Hitler. They say it would be a disgrace if Germany, with such a history, would discriminate and not take in non-whites.
So what about Britain and France? Britain and France never took their land from anyone nor did they support Hitler. Notice that the anti-racists change their arguments again and pretend to be objectively interested in former colonial powers taking in immigrants from former colonies.
What about Iceland? The people of Iceland did not take the land away from the aboriginal people there, nor did they support Hitler, nor did they have any colonies. Again the anti-racists will change their arguments in order to support immigration and say that Iceland has an ageing population needing more workers.
If you have argued with so-called anti-racists, you will notice that they always have many arguments for why white countries must have immigration. These arguments, taken as single cases, may seem genuine.
However, consider Japan: Japan was allied with Hitler, had colonies and also an ageing population. But Japan does not have massive third world immigration. Do anti-racists condemn Japan, and accuse Japan of being a racist country? That is because anti-racists are purely anti-white, not anti-Asian.
Anyone who opposes these facts is automatically accused of being racist.
Another argument is that the white race does not exist and therefore there is no good reason to preserve it. Who is white, the anti-whites will ask?
Anti-whites pretend to have problems with identifying who is white and who is not when people who want to preserve the white race confront them. But at the same time they have no problems identifying who is white when they talk about slavery, colonization, the Holocaust, discrimination, racism and so on.
Anti-racists know, as does everybody, who is white and who is not. The reason they deny the existence of the white race is because they are justifying white genocide. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Genocide
Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 defines genocide as 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.
Anti-racists as we know are anti-white. They are going after all white countries and only white countries. Through their forcing of immigration, integration and assimilation into all white countries, and only white countries, they have shown their intent to destroy the white race in whole. They are deliberately inflicting on the white race conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
Whatever these anti-whites come up with, whether it is the lynching of blacks in the American South in times long gone, or the mass killing of Jews in Germany three generations ago, it is all to justify genocide against the completely innocent generations of whites today.
These anti-whites think this way. Whatever has been done in the past or whatever is being done in the present, it all justifies the genocide and elimination of the white race. Period.
What is our goal as whites?
We who are pro-white want to preserve the white race. We believe that all races have the right to exist, including the white race. And it is usually when we say this, and include the white race, that theses people who call themselves anti-racists get mad. We are fighting for our existence, for the right to live.
In the worldview of an anti-white, there is simply no place for white people. In contrast, our worldview there is a place for all races, including the white race.
#3 by Tim on 02/25/2009 - 8:18 pm
“What is our goal?
We who are pro-white want to preserve our race. We believe that all races have the right to exist, including our race. And it is usually when we say this, and include our race, that these people who call themselves anti-racists get mad. We are fighting for our existence, for the right to live. In the world view of an anti-white, there is simply no place for white folks. In our world view there is a place for all races, including the white race.”
Bob,
Time and time again you guys say “the white race” in places were OUR RACE or MY RACE would be MORE effective. Dammit, Everyone knows were WHITE. And dammit—-Bob Whitaker, you taught this to me. How many times I gotta remind you guys about this?
It is a GREAT piece but I got to read it a few more times. The only suggestion I would have is replace THE WHITE RACE with OUR RACE. Especially at the end were it gets too damn redundant.
OH and here is another affective tactic I have found. Always try to use FOLKS instead of People. Instead of White People say WHITE FOLKS. Sounds more personal. People have NO problems attacking PEOPLE. But for some reason have problems with attacking FOLKS.
#4 by BoardAd on 02/25/2009 - 11:37 pm
Adelheim
I posted it on the front page because I felt it deserved attention and since you asked for comments on it, I felt it was best to put it in a logical division.
Who is your target audience?
#5 by Adelheim_ on 02/26/2009 - 7:38 am
Thank you!
“Who is your target audience?”
I am not quite sure. I had in mind the people who already are pro-white. The reason I put it here is so that we can figure out all this together.
#6 by Adelheim_ on 02/26/2009 - 7:51 am
Tim
I think you have some good points. This was the kind of response I was hoping for. When I argue on SF I sometimes write “…. our race, the white race” in order to make the point that this is our race not just something abstract. I think your rewrite makes good sense.
When it comes to using FOLKS instead of people, I do not know really. I have not seen that word used much but that might be because I am from Norway and do not talk a lot of english.
#7 by Adelheim_ on 02/26/2009 - 8:14 am
Dave
As I said to Tim, you have given the kind of response I was hoping for.
It would be very interesting if you could elaborate on why you did the changes you did.
Why for instance, did you change “This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided up into four basic stages:” to “This goal of abolishing the white race is promoted as follows:”
#8 by The Dude on 02/26/2009 - 12:09 pm
I’m not that smart so my observations are limited to real basic laws of human nature.
1)”Anti-white” whites are nothing more than “trendy” ideolists who want to fit in and be cool (simple peer pressure).
2)”Anti-white” Jews have real contempt for everyone and need total control. Whites are their only real competition now, but when we are out of the way, Asians will be….(Their inbreeding is perhaps the cause of their pyschopathic behavior)
3)”Anti-white” darkies hate you for what nature did to them, but not to you (which is to make you smarter, better looking and more adaptable to life)
4)”Anti-white” Asian have contempt for you because of their lack of natural resourses and white creativity……
I may be wrong, but unless we eliminate them from our world, by any means, we will perish behind pseudo-names and keyboards.
You see, they get it. They understand “their race is their most important aspect of their existence”. They look in the mirror and see themselves, our people look in the mirror and see what they are told.
#9 by The Dude on 02/26/2009 - 12:11 pm
Pardon my spelling. I’m a bit under the weather.
#10 by Dave on 02/26/2009 - 12:25 pm
Adelheim,
None of my changes had a profound reason other than to improve readability. We are just presenting a picture. No need to turn it into an intellectualism and a theory (which people usually suspect).
The one substantive change I did make was on Greenland. Greenland was inhabited by the same aboriginals (basically the same people) who live there today (very small numbers) long before the brief Viking inhabitation and later the Danes.
Although, I admit my knowledge of Greenland’s history is very limited. But it wasn’t an uninhabited place before whites arrived there, to my knowledge.
Tim’s point about using “our race” is great, regardless of the “audience”.
#11 by Tim on 02/26/2009 - 12:29 pm
Adelheim,
I did not know this was written by a Norwegian! For some reason, I thought Bob wrote this. I do not know if it would be best to use folks or people in Northern Europe. I have never been there and know very little about how they express themselves. My mother side goes back Norman. However we have been in America since before the Mayflower. So whatever my blood could remember —it can’t anymore! 🙂 You will have to experiment yourself.
I made the changes to our race from THE WHITE RACE simply because it was becoming redundant. I do this stuff verbally everyday. By now it just pops out of me. There is no specific reason other than it is personal and puts you on the offensive instead of the defensive.
If you say THE WHITE RACE–blah blah blah. You will get hit with all kinds of stupid questions. Like what is the white race etc? However, if you say MY RACE, OUR RACE, you are totally in control. Then when someones asks a stupid question like: “What is your race”? You can hammer them with my phrase:”white folks dumbass”. And then make fun of them. Or say european or whatever. Everyone knows were white.
I do not know anything about the linguistic barrier between us. Hopefully, you understand what I am trying to articulate.
This weekend I will tweak the whole thing and post my version. It won’t be any different but I will do what did above to the whole thing. However, remember, I am in America. So there may be a better tweak for Northern Europe??
#12 by Adelheim_ on 02/26/2009 - 12:40 pm
Dave
The readability is probably better in your version. And we can do the changes Tim talked about. What do others here think?
But to what you said about Greenland… I was talking about Iceland not Greenland. What you say about Greenland is correct. But I have never heard that there has been any native non-whites on Iceland before whites arrived.
#13 by shari on 02/26/2009 - 2:05 pm
Adelheim, I e-mailed it right off to some friends and family. I wanted to do that before there were a bunch of comments. Thanks for writing it.
#14 by Adelheim_ on 02/26/2009 - 2:11 pm
Shari,
I appreciate your comment very much. Very nice that you are spreading it!
#15 by Dave on 02/26/2009 - 6:48 pm
Adelheim,
You are right. I confused Iceland and Greenland. I think you are probably right also about whites being first in Iceland. There is no need for the aborignals segment I wrote as a revision in the Iceland paragraph. Your original version was right.
#16 by Prometheus on 02/27/2009 - 2:01 am
Tim, you’re right.
“Our Race” instead of “white race” where appropriate, unless you really need to use the term “white race”. “White race should be used initially, and occasionally throughout where it reads better. But “Our race” should be used too. Don’t know about “folks” though, its not a term which means much anymore, I don’t think the term ‘folks’ comes with the same assumption of total inclusion as ‘white people’.
MOST IMPORTANTLY
Never use phrases like “Whites wanting to preserve their heritage”, use “Whites wanting to preserve our heritage”. Never make it appear that white racialists are acting only for white racilists.
I think there is an important point to be made. A lot of anti-racists who aren’t rabid acvitists don’t realise that they are essentially following anti-white dogma.
I think it’s better, not to start with trying to deconstruct anti’s arguments. Beginning to deconstruct an argument gives it validity. The point that must be unmistakably clear, is that they have NO arguments, ONLY excuses. So rather than starting out saying “These are the arguments they use”, you want to start out saying “Anti-racism as a movement exists as a movement against white people and white nations. The actions and speech of anti-racists reveal an anti-white agenda which isn’t incidental or a side effect of ‘fighting racism’, but rather the prime motivation for anti-racists, with ‘fighting racism’ being the cover to make the movement palatable to whites. Anti-racists are anti-WHITE. When we look at the arguments that anti-whites often throw at white people, we realise that their support of native americans, their condemnation of colonialism and their multitude of reasons why nations such as Germany, Italy and Iceland should accept mass immigration and assimilation have no consistency aside from the fact that these arguments can be used against whites expressing a desire to preserve our racial and cultural heritage…..”
Maybe not those exact words, but I think you want, from the get go, before you even start to counter arguments, to expose them.
This then would set the tone for the rest of the article, having already impressed on the readers mind that the only commonality between anti-whites ‘arguments’ is that their arguments support mass immigration for ALL and ONLY white nations.
So by the time you get to the secion “The white race is a social construct, but not when someone is to be blamed.” you can state…
“Notice than when anti-whites extoll the virtues of diversity and multiracialism in our nations, they have no difficultly in identifying race, but when confronted with competing points of view, they begin to pretend that they cannot see race, and use all manner of methods to try and make the concept of race seem so undefined that the concept cannot be used by the ideological opponent. The existance of race depends solely on whether the notion of the existance of race can be used to support their anti-white agenda or not”.
A lot of people are also familiar with PC/Liberal arguments, so I think it’s worthwhile to call upon peoples own experiences.
Rememeber, what we say about anti-whites is CORRECT, so don’t be afraid to assume that the reader has noticed and be confident that they will be able to observe the phenomenon we state.
#17 by Adelheim_ on 02/27/2009 - 10:24 am
Prometheus
You make some good points.
Would you like to post your version like Dave did?
I took what i liked from Dave and Tim and adjusted it. Posted it here on SF, although I did not intend it for anti-whites.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6553458#post6553458
#18 by Adelheim_ on 02/27/2009 - 1:22 pm
Now the article is on Western Voices World News.
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6671
What other sites should we go for?
#19 by shari on 02/27/2009 - 3:46 pm
What about The political cesspool?
#20 by Adelheim_ on 02/27/2009 - 4:46 pm
If we could get it to The political cesspool I think that would be good. I sent it to the natall news site, but it has not appeared there. I also thought about David Duke.
Is there anyone here how has had any contact with The political cesspool or David Duke? Where is Bob?
#21 by Pain on 02/27/2009 - 6:19 pm
The article and the number of responses are very encouraging.
#22 by backbaygrouch4 on 02/28/2009 - 8:09 am
Ignatiev was never a professor at Harvard. He was dormitory tutor. As a graduate student he did teach a few courses. He presently works for the Massachusetts College of Art. On occasion I am in that area and have noticed posters and flyers objecting to him. The Mass Art students are a politically tame lot. I have never seen anything about anyone else or any issue for that matter. His title there is Professor. You might try reworking that description, such as, “Professor Ignatiev, when doing doctoral work at Harvard…..” It may seem picky but one, I live in Boston so I can’t help it, and, two, accuracy doesn’t hurt.
#23 by Dave on 02/28/2009 - 2:07 pm
Prometheus,
That was very informative post.
Your point about what we say about anti-whites being “CORRECT”:
It is critical for us “racists” to understand from the very beginning we were making an argument that we could not lose.
It is not that we have won, or need to win an argument. Our argument is correct in the same sense that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is correct. Accordingly, our argument is one we CANNOT LOSE and is IMPOSSBILE TO LOSE.
There is only one race in this world that is capable and has an authentic culture, OUR RACE. The proof of this lies in the fact that the English language (one of our indigenous tongues) is the world’s lingua franca.
Now this point will be dismissed outright. The objection will be made that language is just an “overlay” that says nothing about race. You can count on it. Don’t worry about it. You cannot get rid of the fact of race no more than you can get rid of the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
We cannot change anyone’s minds on this issue. That does not matter. And the reason it doesn’t matter has to do with power. Knowing and acknowledging what is real puts you in power. That is the way the world works.
Just as people reject opportunity all the time, they reject power all the time. It’s ordinary.
In contrast, our audiences are those who want power. We need to write for those people.
The anti-white whites and anti-white nonwhites have no answer to their absurdity. Accordingly, they have no choice but to run up against it. Rest assured, Political Correctness is done. It is over. It never had a chance.
It is critically important to keep that in mind when we are making our arguments.
#24 by Simmons on 02/28/2009 - 7:14 pm
Kids of the left be they white, non-white are pure ego, self centered to their very core. Goo Goo words make “them” feel good and reasserts whatever it is they believe. Even Limbaugh has figured this out. Over at a Peak Oil site LATOC they ginned up a hate whitey thread, and it is nothing they can explain, nothing but a hate that makes them feel relevant. Ego. Dave is absolutely correct, nothing maddens those kids more then to tell them they and their “beliefs” are jokes.
#25 by Tim on 03/01/2009 - 5:26 pm
Adelheim,
I cannot think of anything more to add to make it better. Just modify that ending (per my example above) and remember what we said about OUR RACE.
#26 by Adelheim_ on 03/02/2009 - 2:28 pm
backbaygrouch4
Thanks for the info.
#27 by Adelheim_ on 03/02/2009 - 2:29 pm
Tim
Yes, I used your ending when I sent it to Western Voices World News.
#28 by Bob on 03/03/2009 - 8:39 pm
backbaygrouch,I am as concerned about being accurate about New England as New England is in talking about the South.