Is 'Anti-Racist' just a Codeword For Anti-White??

[Marley23]

@White_Survivalist

No you didn’t. You failed to engage with any of the evidence I provided, you merely dismissed it out of hand.

There’s nothing to engage with. You quoted a series of people in various political or academic positions making comments about a variety of demographic issues and trends in different places and then asserted they’re in a conspiracy together based on nothing.

[White_Survivalist]

@Marley23

In other words, having failed to prove there’s a conspiracy, you’re now going to use Humpty Dumpty tactics to use a definition of conspiracy that nobody would recognize. I’m not scared for the future of white people, but this makes me worry about the future of the English language.

Again, assuming facts not in evidence. Mockery is just as often deployed against arguments that are simply boring of illogical, or which have been debunked thousands of times and keep coming back anyway because the arguers aren’t motivated by logic.

I did not redefine the term “conspiracy”, I simply said that one isn’t necessary to prove genocide.

If I’ve got the definition of conspiracy wrong, kindly tell me what you think it means.

Now, if these arguments have been debunked thousands of times, why can’t you provide a brief summary of said debunking, because I have never heard or seen it. After all, don’t you want to cure me of my “racism”, i.e. desire that white people continue to exist.

[iiandyiiii]

@White_Survivalist

No you are wrong. Residents must be enrolled members of the tribe, which is determined by ancestry.

Nope, you’re wrong. They are administered by their tribal councils, which set their own rules. Few go as far as outright prohibiting non-members from residing there.

[gytalf2000]

@White_Survivalist

In 100 years, Nigeria will still be full of black people. China will still be full of yellow people. Central America will still be full of brown people. It is ONLY and ALL White countries that are being subjected to mass alien “immigration” and forced “integration” such that the native or founding White population will be assimilated out of existence.

I still think that there are too many “whites”, or “Northern Europeans”, or whatever, to be assimilated totally.

[White_Survivalist]

@Marley23

There’s nothing to engage with. You quoted a series of people in various political or academic positions making comments about a variety of demographic issues and trends in different places and then asserted they’re in a conspiracy together based on nothing.

You saying that there is no proof of a conspiracy does not make it so.

What is becoming ever more apparent is that you are simply ignoring the evidence because you do not wish to believe it is so.

I would remind you that the UN Convention on Genocide is titled, in full:

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

You impose such a ridiculously high burden of proof to show genocide that it becomes de facto impossible to prevent one, because you will continue denying it until it is irreversible.

When are you going to demand that Native American Indian reservations be dismantled on the grounds that they are “racist”?

[White_Survivalist]

@iiandyiiii

Nope, you’re wrong. They are administered by their tribal councils, which set their own rules. Few go as far as outright prohibiting non-members from residing there.

Proof?

Just exactly why are they called “reservations”?

Because they are “reserved” for Native Americans that’s why.

When can White people have a reservations where we can have a tribal council to set the rules about who can live in our community?

Oh wait that would be “racist”!

I guess OP is right. Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.

[iiandyiiii]

@White_Survivalist

You saying that there is no proof of a conspiracy does not make it so.

What is becoming ever more apparent is that you are simply ignoring the evidence because you do not wish to believe it is so.

I would remind you that the UN Convention on Genocide is titled, in full:

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

You impose such a ridiculously high burden of proof to show genocide that it becomes de facto impossible to prevent one, because you will continue denying it until it is irreversible.

When are you going to demand that Native American Indian reservations be dismantled on the grounds that they are “racist”?

There’s no genocide of white people, organized by a conspiracy or otherwise. Demographics always change over time (and they always have), and the definition of “white people” is nebulous, based on social and not biological categorization, and is different depending on when in history and where on earth you are. You are very incorrect, about mostly everything.

[BrainGlutton]

@gytalf2000

Wow! Now, this quote right here is certainly an odd one :
“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.”

“Make no mistake about it,” he says,

“Make no mistake about it . . . we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
…
It seems to me that any person who is so obsessed with “bashing” a particular group of people – any ethnicity – has some mental health issues going on.

[url=]Or not.

Noel Ignatiev is an American history professor at the Massachusetts College of Art. He is best known for his work on race and social class, and for his call to “abolish” the white race, which he defines as “white privilege and race identity”. Ignatiev is the co-founder and co-editor of the journal Race Traitor and the New Abolitionist Society. He also has written a book on antebellum northern xenophobia against Irish immigrants, How the Irish Became White. His publisher bills him as “one of America’s leading and most controversial historians”.[1]

<snip>

“New Abolition” and the “White Race”

Ignatiev’s web site and publication Race Traitor display the motto “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”. In response to a letter to the site which understood the motto as meaning that the authors “hated” white people because of their “white skin”, Ignatiev and the other editors responded:

We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.[6]

[John_Mace]

@White_Survivalist

Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev revealed that White Genocide is the motive for the constant beratement of White people and our heritage in the academy:

“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.”

“Make no mistake about it,” he says,

“Make no mistake about it . . . we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/

I’ll just take this one last item. First off, this guy is a nut and there is no evidence that he has any power or authority to put his views into practice. But note that he talks about destroying the “social construct” of the white race, not the “biological construct” (if there even were one). Here’s more, from your cite:

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society," the journal’s statement of purpose says.
“The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its coll
apse.”

So, no, this guy isn’t talking about interbreeding the “white race” out of existence. Not to mention that he’s a babbling academic that no one of import pays any attention to.

[iiandyiiii]

@White_Survivalist

Proof?

Just exactly why are they called “reservations”?

Because they are “reserved” for Native Americans that’s why.

When can White people have a reservations where we can have a tribal council to set the rules about who can live in our community?

Oh wait that would be “racist”!

I guess OP is right. Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.

Native Americans don’t call them reservations- they call them Tribal Lands (in general). Their ancestors were given the territory based on treaties that were signed in the past. Just about everything you post is wrong.

[White_Survivalist]

Moving on to the next argument.

White genocide deniers claim that nothing will be lost if Whites are exterminated.

This is a very peculiar thing to say in a multicultural age when we are supposed to be “celebrating diversity.”

If “celebrating diversity” means anything, it means not exterminating the race that invented electricity and modern medicine.

I guess when so-called anti-racists demand that we “celebrate diversity” what they really mean is: You are set for extermination Whitey, like it or not.

[BrainGlutton]

@Marley23

. . . or which have been debunked thousands of times and keep coming back anyway because the arguers aren’t motivated by logic.

See PRATT and Gish Gallop.

[BrainGlutton]

@iiandyiiii

By the way, while “white people” (however they are defined) may be, statistically, getting browner, “brown people” (and black/yellow/red/whatever) are also getting whiter. So there’s a nice, happy balance.

Apparently “balance” = “genocide” in the WN lexicon.

[iiandyiiii]

@White_Survivalist

Moving on to the next argument.

Because you’ve lost every one so far.

White genocide deniers claim that nothing will be lost if Whites are exterminated.

I admit it, I do not want to kill all white people. You’ve made me say it. You got me there.

[BrainGlutton]

@White_Survivalist

When can White people have a reservations where we can have a tribal council to set the rules about who can live in our community?

Now, apparently.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Marley23

This is the one and only time I’ll remind people here: you can’t insult other posters in this forum.

There *is *a Pit thread for that sort of thing!

[BrainGlutton]

@White_Survivalist

I did not redefine the term “conspiracy”, I simply said that one isn’t necessary to prove genocide.

But, you fail to offer any other proof of genocide. (N.B.: Race-mixing != genocide.)

[White_Survivalist]

@iiandyiiii

There’s no genocide of white people, organized by a conspiracy or otherwise. Demographics always change over time (and they always have), and the definition of “white people” is nebulous, based on social and not biological categorization, and is different depending on when in history and where on earth you are. You are very incorrect, about mostly everything.

When non-whites are exterminated, its called genocide. For example, there was never any conspiracy to get rid of the Australian aborigines. They were just slowly pushed off their land, occasionally murdered, and assimilated by intermarriage, just exactly what is happening today to White people.

But it is still recognized as genocide, and White Australians are trying to make amends by giving them land rights. Not that it matters, they will still be guilted into accepting their own genocide anyway. (In Australia, White genocide is called “Asianization of Australia.”)

Nobody says, you aborigines don’t deserve a homeland to preserve your people and culture because “race is just a social construct.” No, people only do that to White people. Why? Because anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

[BrainGlutton]

@White_Survivalist

After all, don’t you want to cure me of my “racism”, i.e. desire that white people continue to exist.

See post #188 – even Noel Ignatiev wants white people to continue to exist.

[BrainGlutton]

@White_Survivalist

When are you going to demand that Native American Indian reservations be dismantled on the grounds that they are “racist”?

IMO, they should all simply be assimilated into their state-government systems, as counties, the county government being separate and distinct from the tribal council. (The tribe owning the land, the government ruling it.)