Yes, "Anti-White"

Nigeria is too black. One ought to send people of other races into Nigeria to the point that black Nigerians are a minority, so that black Nigerians no longer make the rules, and must obey the rules made by these new people who came in. And this is to be done even when the majority of black Nigerians do not wish for this to happen, i.e. against their will.

When the British invaded and took over the area that is now “Nigeria,” they made the rules. This was a denial of sovereignty and was anti-Nigerian. But the British didn't replace the Nigerian population and eventually left. Recovery from a mass immigration program would not be so easy, if it is possible at all.

Obviously I'm using Nigeria to illustrate that mass immigration programs targeted at white countries against the will of whites are anti-white. It is worse than military conquest, and as I argue in a previous article, seldom in history has it been seen as anything but.

When the head of the Oslo Jewish community in Norway says that Norway is too white, and that other people should come in to make the rules that the whites must now obey, it's obviously about reducing white power and elevating the power of everyone else.

In the US, the projection of a white minority has been celebrated by Bill Clinton and the entire 1998 graduating class of Portland State, Newsweek Magazine, The Huffington Post, The Daily Show, Joe Biden, and certainly a lot more that I can't be arsed to go look up and post in here.

Now maybe you wish to say whites, especially whites in the US, deserve dispossession, while Nigerians do not. I disagree with that, but that doesn't change that it's still anti-white, even if you think it's justified. Pointing out that it is anti-white, though, puts your views in an honest perspective; it puts in the full gravity of what you're saying.

Usually that is where this argument ends, with more white leaders in Europe calling for permanent Somali rule over various countries via immigration. And while it's a sound argument, it leaves the door open that “these people” aren't viscerally anti-white but are merely hypocritical due to a lack of thought.

A report released by the University of Illinois stated that a room full of white people constitutes a microaggression against other races. Of course they have lots of theory behind this, but the ultimate point is that a room full of white people is immoral. If you disagree with the term “immoral,” well, certainly it is pathologized.

And while this study was mocked by “conservative” media outlets, it was treated seriously by the Huffington Post and the three principle researchers all still have their jobs and didn't face any consequences for a paper designed to delegitimize the existence of whites in groups. If you disagree that this was their intent, well, certainly the study, if taken seriously, would have that effect, and the policy proposals of the study were all aimed at eliminating overwhelmingly white classes. So while at first glance that interpretation may appear hyperbolic, it nevertheless very simply appears to be the case.

But this deligimization of whites is much broader. Examples I found doing google searches based on what I knew off the top of my head included attacking the TEA Party for being too white, and the GOP for being too white.

There has also been an ongoing campaign mandating that whites in the US military be aware that their achievements in life are to be discounted and minimized because they have “white privilege.” If someone told Japanese people that their life accomplishments weren't so meaningful because they are Japanese, that would obviously be anti-Japanese, just as this is obviously anti-white to anyone who doesn't subscribe to certain priors that form the backbone of what I call “University Social Science Consensus,” which is a topic for another time.

In addition, the US military has been attacked for being too white overall, for having too many white males in leadership roles and having too many white males in special forces.

Even the POW flag was attacked by Newsweek for depicting a white male in a POW camp. It doesn't matter that the military itself is disproportionately white and male, the flag must show non-white POW victims that don't exist in reality and suppress the reality of white POW victims.

The city of Los Angeles attacked its fire departments for being too white.

Our incompetent diplomats claim that US diplomats are too white. To be fair, this is the only example of demanding whites be replaced where they probably should be replaced—though the argument that it needs to be non-whites is just facile, given that other European countries do just fine with white diplomats.

Speaking of incompetence, anti-white mania even hits schools below college; Brooklyn schools are cutting gifted programs because they're too white, and the Federal Government released a report saying that AP programs are too white.

We can take a trip across the pond, and see that anti-white mania afflicts the UK. UK schools which would otherwise get top marks get marked down one grade for being too white. Say it with me—they are being punished; yes, being marked down a grade is a form of punishment. Why are they being punished? For being white. Okay, lets put it together—they are being punished for being white. Simple, true, no need to argue—just swallow it.

Also in the UK, The BBC is willing to put their desire to reduce white influence on the BBC ahead of the old way of just hiring the most capable people. Again, if you think that's a loaded description of what they're doing, well, what are they doing? Previously, their hiring was all based on perceived ability, but that got too many white people. So in order to get fewer white people, they must necessarily reduce the importance of ability and raise the importance of not being white.

But there's a silver lining to anti-white mania, which is that white anti-whites sometimes get burned. For example, there is a growing stigma that Indie Music is too white, that the shitcom “East Enders” is too white, that Bicycling is too white, and that the Green party is too white.

No matter that the Green party of California supported booths to give free slaps to straight white men for the crime of being straight white men.

Even embracing “African” music didn't save the band “Shokazoba” from the charge of being white. Also Game of Thrones is too white. Also Hillary Clinton's campaign is too white.

South Africa, which Noam Chomsky hilariously predicted was ending apartheid to institute a knowledge-based economy, has a problem in that its University Professors are still 86% white, clearly a result of them still having all the power and privilege. A similar sentiment was aired publicly by the president of Western Washington University who decried that the University was too white.

Perhaps a possible solution would be to make the curriculum more diverse, perhaps by starting a campaign to not read any books by white males for a year, or a more long term solution to remove things like Shakespeare from the curriculum. Though in all fairness Shakespeare was super boring and just said lame things in obtuse ways and really should be removed, along with the rest of “literature.” Oh Shakespeare is too white BTW.

But the real tell that these old ideas of “tolerance” and “diversity” were really just the thin end of an anti-white wedge comes from the concept of “color-blind racism”. This is the idea that, by treating everyone equally, you are being “racist” against non-whites because of their past “systemic oppression.” And thus fairness dictates that whites be treated worse than everyone else.

And of course if you question the priors that “color-blind racism” rests on—that other races did have systemic disadvantages in a way that would be felt today, and that none of the current differences are due to genetic differences between the races—you're a “revisionist” and a “pseudoscientific racist”. I.e. their beliefs are structured in such a way that they're nearly impossible to attack.

Who am I talking to? Early on I said “you”, now I'm saying “they”. I never bought into the notion that you needed to address the reader in a consistent manner.

Larry King, when talking to who-cares on his dumb softball show in 2011, mentioned that his grandson wished he were black, and followed with “there's a lot of advantages to being black” and then “Black is in. Is this a turning of the tide?”

Related to this is the “trans-racial” movement, which is white people pretending that they are not white. Of course this thing, like with gender fluidity, is mental illness masquerading as something real. But the tell is that few of these people wish they were white. Why not, aren't whites super-privileged? This is a bit of a tell. If these people were blacks saying they were white, or little black children saying they wished they were white, we'd never hear the end of it.

Robin Morgan, a “feminist” activist, in 2003 made a quote that gives a great tell into the anti-white “movement” or whatever you want to call it:

"My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free."

—A tacit admission that all of this “privilege” is a big fat fake, and really being white is a disadvantage.

In fact, white people are the ones who wish to stop talking about race. This is what they would do if "talking about race" meant more attacks on white people.

Author image
LARPing and proud of it. I like to run naked in the woods after painting runes all over my body and rail against capitalism and consumerism.