The Turning of the Tide
There's a very nice post at Fallen Freedom
that will no doubt strike a chord with many of us. It's a summary of the recent midterm elections. Extract:
We were going to return to an era of balanced budgets and low taxes, small government, constitutional law, border control, and all kinds of other wonderful things. Republicans would be in the White House, Senate, and House for several more years. Let the good times roll.
This was of course a complete sham. It was in the election of 2004 just like it was in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, …, all the way back to 1932 at least. Granted every year that passes takes us into an ever more overt anti-white situation but it was known by the forward thinking and courageous patriots of our people for a long time. I finally woke up right after the charade of 2004. It has taken the almost complete ethnic cleansing of Whites in my home area over the last 20 years for me to ask “why did this happen?” and then “why did no one stop it?” to “why is this not even mentioned as anything other than inevitable and/or good?” If you ever search for these answers (most never do) you will end in a similar spot to where I am now.
Source: Fallen Freedom
Does Race Exist?
The short answer
Every forensic pathologist must do two things:
1) First, he must be able to determine the race of a corpse from dessicated remnants or bones and swear to the race of said corpse in court and
2) Second, he must swear in court that race does not exist.
Source: Bob WhitakerThe long answer
According to the Wall Street Journal
, socially defined ethnic categories correspond with genetic ones:
Race Linked to Genetic Markers
Wall Street Journal, 02/01/2005
In the latest study to wade into the question of whether race is a biologically based category or a socially constructed label, scientists at Stanford University claim to have found that 326 genetic ‘markers’ — segments of DNA — can be used to cluster people into four groups, with each group corresponding to common racial categories: white, African-American, East Asian and Hispanic.
For more than a decade some geneticists and anthropologists have argued that race isn’t biologically real and therefore shouldn’t be used in medical research and clinical practice.
The argument is based on the fact that, for thousands of years, humans have been marrying and having children with people of different ancestry, with the result that everyone’s genes come from the same big, humanwide pool.
The mapping of the human genome and growing interest in race-based pharmaceuticals have stirred the debate in recent years.
The study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, involved 3,636 people enrolled in a large trial on the genetics of hypertension. To see whether genetic markers correspond to the standard racial categories, the scientists first analyzed the volunteers’ DNA, identifying which genetic markers they carried. They then used a computer program to cluster people based on genetic similarities; those who shared genetic markers were grouped together. Finally, the scientists compared those groupings with the volunteers’ self-identified race. The result: people who considered themselves white had been grouped by the computer, based on their genetic markers, in one cluster, while people who consider themselves African-American had been grouped in a second, different cluster.
The same held for Hispanics and East Asians. Only five people had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the racial or ethnic box they checked at the outset of the study.
“People have argued that race and ethnicity are purely social categories,” says Neil Risch, the study’s lead author, who is director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, San Francisco. “We’ve shown that socially defined ethnic categories correspond with genetic categories.” The findings are convincing because of the large number of genetic markers — 326 — used to cluster the participants, he says.
The study of the relationship between race and genetics largely is viewed in the medical community as a way to better understand why some ethnic groups suffer and die disproportionately from certain illnesses than others. It also could help physicians predict which patients might respond better to certain drugs, geneticists say.
But using random genetic markers to show links to ancient geographic ancestry doesn’t reveal much about how such markers might be predictive in disease, says geneticist J. Craig Venter, who led the private effort to sequence the human genome and is part of the J. Craig Venter Institute. The markers aren’t actually genes, but merely segments of DNA whose function is unknown.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Bob Whitaker cannot be debated with. Whenever an anti-white racist debates him, Bob recites the mantra and that's it, the debate is over. Anti-white racists simply cannot argue the mantra. They can try changing subject, they can engage in personal insults, they can run away in a huff, but they can't debate the mantra.
The mantra is basically a one move debating checkmate. Bob’s Mantra
”Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem 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 RACE problem and this RACE 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 RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“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 racial engineering experiments against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white racists.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white racist.”
Since anti-white racists cannot argue the mantra they often fall back on personal insults. Here's a second mantra for these situations: Heresy mantra
Each society has its own word for HERESY!
Communists called all HERESY! fascism. Fascist Italy called all HERESY Communist.
Today, under the Politically Correct tyranny, HERESY! is called HATE! or “racism.” Nobody wants to try to deal with a point like Bob’s Mantra, so they start demanding that nobody say it, just like any other tyranny does. They call people who speak HERESY! names.
You Political Correctness fanatics are playing a very old game.
When you call people who disagree with you names or scream Hate or racism, a.k.a., HERESY! it says nothing about the point we heretics make.
But it tells us ALL about YOU.
As mentioned earlier, when faced with the mantra, anti-white racists only have three options: They can run away, they can screech HERESY! or they can change subject. In the first case you win the debate, in the second you can use the heresy mantra but in the third you lose.
The only chance anti-white racists have against the mantra is if you are stupid enough to let them change subject. If you hold their feet to the fire you win the debate, if you let them change subject you lose. It's that simple.
This point is also known as the Rule of Repetition
.Test it yourself
To see how powerful Bob's mantra is, just test it yourself. At the top of this page there is a blogger search box. Type in "immigration" and click the "search all blogs" button. Look through the blogs that come up and find a pro-immigration post. Comment on it by copy/pasting the mantra.
Do this on several blogs then sit back and enjoy watching the anti-white racists react to being exposed for the haters they are.
I guarantee that:
1. They won't debate you (because they can't).
2. They will call you names (because they can't debate).
3. They will try changing subject (but you won't let them).
Eventually they might delete your comments and ban you. That's their only way of dealing with intellectual opposition. However, if you've included a link to this blog, your blog or Bob's blog (http://whitakeronline.org/blog/) your efforts will probably draw some people away from their anti-white racism (and towards our pro-white activism) before you're banned.
Just rinse and repeat - don't take bannings personally. It's not your fault anti-white racists are unable to deal with Bob's mantra.
Update: After posting the mantra myself on several blogs, I've decided it needs two very small changes:
First, in order to make it consistent with this blog's position, I've changed "anti-white" to "anti-white racism". As explained in the Defeating Anti-White Racism
post, there are multiple definitions to the word "racism". The legitimate one, and the one we use, is the dictionary definition where racism is discrimination based on race. As further explained in the Immigration is Racism
post, "Racism is discrimination or prejudice based on race. Those who favor immigration do so only with regard to majority white countries. This is discrimination based on race." Thus supporting immigration is anti-white racism
, not just anti-white.
Second, the term genocide, though accurate, is too strong - so I've changed it to "racial engineering experiment". Displacing a people against their will by flooding their lands with competing groups qualifies as a constructive section C genocide under Article 1 and 2 of the Genocide Convention of 1948. A possible additional violation is forcible denial of group representation since whites - and only whites - aren't allowed to organize as whites under penalty of soft-persecution for "racism". The problem is that most people assume all genocides are section A or B genocides because they associate the term with extreme violence. So you talk about genocide and people look around for evidence of massive carnage, find none and conclude you're being alarmist. The only way around this is to bore them to tears by first discussing international treaties and the three non-vioent genocide categories (C,D and E). Folks... this is too complicated. I say use "racial engineering experiment" instead of "genocide" and lose some legal accuracy while gaining on clarity.
I'll be gone again until Sept 3. When I come back I'll post the much delayed analysis of the real U.S. racial supremacist system. Meantime, scroll down and check the three videos I just posted - each one will knock you off your seat, I guarantee it.
A documentary about immigration
Despite its silly name, this short 20 minute documentary is hands down the best introduction to the immigration debate there is. An absolute must see:
Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land
A documentary about controlled media
Although this documentary deals mainly with the Isreal-Palestine conflict, its exposure of our controlled media is, in my opinion, the more important story. You'll be shocked at the chasm that exists between what is actually happening in Palestine and what you think is happening. The media is able to warp your perception of reality to an incredible degree. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut
A documentary about 9/11
There are many problems with the official story regarding 9/11 and this documentary highlights many of them. In light of the fact that the War on Terrorism is grounded on this event, it is important to get answers about this "loose change" BEFORE we get railroaded into another Middle Eastern war - either against Iran or Syria.
Michael Caracciolo for President
Michael Caracciolo ties with Tom Tancredo as the most promising potential candidate for the 2008 presidential race. Although he has yet to declare his candidacy, or even express interest in running, his political views on several subjects are so dead on target it would be a shame if he didn't. Get him into a suit and tie and watch Hillary's poll numbers go down faster than a Jewish girl at the prom.
The following series of two minute videos - which incidentally would make for great political ads - outline his views on several subjects. Specifically:
- The national debt
- The criminal justice system
- Eminent domain
- English as the national language
He also discusses a few pet peeves which I share, such as Starbucks, Olive Garden and kids who need to "find" themselves.
Michael Caracciolo is truly the voice of the people and his political analysis is the most incisive I''ve ever seen, yet it's short and to the point. Not to mention in-your-face.
A final note: These videos contain adult language. Here we go:
Ok ok - I'll get back to serious posting.
The White-Supremacist Model
Ok folks, I'm back.
I've been caught up in a lengthy debate over the issue of how to confront the odious anti-white racial theory known as the Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory. There are two options.
One. The evasive approach, where the racial theory is rejected on the grounds that 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.
Two. The direct approach, where the racial theory's premise - the notion that the U.S. is a white-supremacist society - is discredited.
The problem with the direct approach is that discrediting the premise requires being forthright as to what the U.S. actually is. Although the the U.S. is not a white-supremacist system, it nevertheless is
a racial-supremacist system - although a covert one, also known as a cryptarchy. Being forthright about a covert racial-supremacist system is necessarily a challenge to it and challenging real supremacism is by no means easy.
- Was it easy for peasants in medieval Europe to question the feudal-aristocratic system?
- Was it easy for blacks in apartheid South Africa to question the white-supremacist system?
- Was it easy for Indians in colonial India to question the Anglo-imperialist system?
No, no and no. Challenging a real supremacist system is never easy. Yet the direct approach requires that it be challenged; that's the rub. Having said this, take heart because it's not as hard as it sounds. A careful analysis of the real covert racial-supremacist system reveals three weak points that make it very vulnerable. Indeed, it is so vulnerable that it is very much a paper tiger. The three weak points are:
- Due to its covert nature, the racial-supremacist system is highly vulnerable to exposure.
- Heavy reliance on victimology makes it unable to deal effectively with counter-victimology.
- Its focus on supressing opposition leadership makes it vulnerable to decentralised cellular networks.
In light of the above, I have decided to go with option two - the direct approach.
However, before we look at the real covert racial-supremacist system, let's first look at the false white-supremacist model that forms the base premise for the Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory. What follows are two extracts from leading theorists in the emerging field of whiteness studies, i.e. the science of anti-white race hatred.
The first extract is from Robert Jensen's The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege
. It illustrates how professional anti-white racists use the white-supremacist premise to advance and develop the Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory.
Extract one - Robert Jensen:
It may seem self-indulgent to talk about the fears of white people in a white-supremacist society
. After all, what do white people really have to be afraid of in a world structured on white privilege? It may be self-indulgent, but it's critical to understand because these fears are part of what keeps many white people from confronting ourselves and the system.
The first, and perhaps most crucial, fear is that of facing the fact that some of what we white people have is unearned. It's a truism that we don't really make it on our own; we all have plenty of help to achieve whatever we achieve. That means that some of what we have is the product of the work of others, distributed unevenly across society, over which we may have little or no control individually. No matter how hard we work or how smart we are, we all know -- when we are honest with ourselves -- that we did not get where we are by merit alone. And many white people are afraid of that fact.
A second fear is crasser: White people's fear of losing what we have -- literally the fear of losing things we own if at some point the economic, political, and social systems in which we live become more just and equitable. That fear is not completely irrational; if white privilege -- along with the other kinds of privilege many of us have living in the middle class and above in an imperialist country that dominates much of the rest of the world -- were to evaporate, the distribution of resources in the United States and in the world would change, and that would be a good thing. We would have less. That redistribution of wealth would be fairer and more just. But in a world in which people have become used to affluence and material comfort, that possibility can be scary.
A third fear involves a slightly different scenario -- a world in which non-white people might someday gain the kind of power over whites that whites have long monopolized. One hears this constantly in the conversation about immigration, the lingering fear that somehow "they" (meaning not just Mexican-Americans and Latinos more generally, but any non-white immigrants) are going to keep moving to this country and at some point become the majority demographically.
Even though whites likely can maintain a disproportionate share of wealth, those numbers will eventually translate into political, economic, and cultural power. And then what? Many whites fear that the result won't be a system that is more just, but a system in which white people become the minority and could be treated as whites have long treated non-whites. This is perhaps the deepest fear that lives in the heart of whiteness. It is not really a fear of non-white people. It's a fear of the depravity that lives in our own hearts: Are non-white people capable of doing to us the barbaric things we have done to them?
A final fear has probably always haunted white people but has become more powerful since the society has formally rejected overt racism: The fear of being seen, and seen-through, by non-white people. Virtually every white person I know, including white people fighting for racial justice and including myself, carries some level of racism in our minds and hearts and bodies. In our heads, we can pretend to eliminate it, but most of us know it is there. And because we are all supposed to be appropriately anti-racist, we carry that lingering racism with a new kind of fear: What if non-white people look at us and can see it? What if they can see through us? What if they can look past our anti-racist vocabulary and sense that we still don't really know how to treat them as equals? What if they know about us what we don't dare know about ourselves? What if they can see what we can't even voice?
I work in a large university with a stated commitment to racial justice. All of my faculty colleagues, even the most reactionary, have a stated commitment to racial justice. And yet the fear is palpable.
Source: Why White People Are Afraid
The second extract is from Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies
. It illustrates what the white-supremacist premise actually is, where it comes from and what it is based on.
Since the white-supremacist model is false and designed to hide the real covert racial-supremacist system, its premise is completely non-quantitive - i.e. no political or economic data is provided to back it up. If the quantitative approach were used, the real nature of the racial-supremacist system might emerge and cause severe embarassment. To avoid this risk, the premise is constructed using vast collections of opinionated anecdotes. Professional anti-white racists believe they can overcome the limitations of anecdotal evidence by presenting it in great quantities.
As you read down the tedious list of anecdotes, note how many of the items are simply untrue. The exercise will provide valuable insights into the delusional minds of professional anti-white racists.
Extract two - Peggy McIntosh:
Daily effects of white privilege
I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.
11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.
12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.
16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.
17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.
18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.
28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.
29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.
30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.
31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.
32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.
33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.
34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.
35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.
37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.
38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.
39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.
40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.
44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.
45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.
46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.
47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.
48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.
49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.
50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.
Source: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
The Unique History of White Evil Theory
A perfect illustration of the Unique History of White Evil theory came across my attention today. Andrew Hawkins (pictured to the right) felt compelled to apologise to a crowd of thousands of Africans. His regret was not for his own actions but offered on behalf of his ancestor, who traded in African slaves 444 years ago. (Source BBC News
This behavior reflects a belief in the odious anti-white racial theory known as the Unique History of White Evil theory. Under this theory, "whites cannot evade history" because guilt is based on ancestry, which in practice means race.
Guilt should be based on either behavior or consent; when it is based on ancestry, innocence is no defence. I'll repeat that because it is the essence of racism: Innocence is no defence
One way of confronting this racial theory is to accept it. Yes, you read that right; to accept the notion that we are responsible for the crimes of our ancestors in order to demonstrate the absurdity of this racial theory. Two examples:Taste your own medicine:
"African colonialism over Spain by the Moors lasted 700 years, yet European colonialism over Africa lasted only 400 years. Since under your racial theories we are all responsible for the deeds of our ancestors, when do you suppose the Africans will deign to pay us reparations for the 300 year difference? I am still suffering from post-colonial trauma and I need free stuff to recover!" Debits and credits:
"White colonialism over Africa introduced Western medicine, sanitation and agricultural practices that allowed the native population to increase five fold, from 100 million to today's 500 million plus. Thus, four out of five Blacks owe their very existence to Whites. Since under your racial theories we are responsible for the crimes of our ancestors, we are also responsible for the good things done by them, i.e. we'll take our ancestor's debits only if we also take their credits. So sure we owe slavery reparations, but four out of five Blacks owe us their lives and property in return."
What is Political Correctness?
The short answer
Political Correctness is the notion that speech is "offensive" and must be censored if it either
- offends non-white minorities, or
- defends the white majority.
The Politically Correct therefore consider any intellectual defense of white group interests to be "offensive". They further believe that the ideas involved need to be censored and their proponents persecuted.
Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. As such, political speech is never offensive. To quote John Bryant
, free speech is
controversial speech. The real offensiveness is something altogether different. What is offensive is Political Correctness and its hatred of free speech and democracy.
That's all there is to it. Keep it simple.The long answer
Political Correctness is a religion, i.e. a structured belief system based on faith. A religion need not have a god, although Political Correctness appears to have one. Its god is Hitler, an altogether evil god that is despised by its followers. In this respect Political Correctness is similar to the Aztec religions whose evil gods had to be appeased with constant human sacrifice. The evil god Hitler needs to be kept at bay with constant discrimination against whites.
The doctrine of Political Correctness measures everything against this god, the evil Adolf Hitler. In this religion, everything that Hitler believed in is evil, and everything that he opposed is good. This belief system condenses to two doctrines:
- Non-white minorities are to be worshipped in the morning
- The white majority is to be degraded in the evening
And is based on this one cardinal faith:
Whites are oppressors; therefore whites deserve discrimination and racism to redress the imbalance.
This faith is in turn sustained and legitimised by three anti-white racial theories:
Introducing the three anti-white racial theories
- The Unique History of White Evil theory
- The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory
- The White Majority Deference theory
Deconstructing these racial theories is the main purpose of this blog. In Gramscian
terms, these three theories form the hegemonic ideology that sustains the anti-white establishment. According to counter-Gramscian theory, if you destroy these three ideological pillars the whole edifice of anti-white racism collapses. Here's a brief overview of each racial theory: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.The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege Theory
This racial theory holds that "whites cannot evade responsibility". 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.The White Majority Deference Theory
This racial theory holds that "majorities must serve minorities unless the minority is white". 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.
Future posts will address each racial theory in detail.
Immigration is Fascism
Opinion polls consistently show a majority of the public against immigration, legal or illegal:
[56%] Fifty-six percent of Americans polled say illegal immigration is doing more to hurt than help the United States. TNS / Washington Post / ABC News via Angus Reid Global Scan, December 15-18, 2005Democracy is rule by the people..
[84%] Eighty-four percent of Texans surveyed consider illegal immigration a serious problem. Scripps Howard Texas poll, December 11, 2005
[56%] Fifty-six percent of Americans polled say Congress should be developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here. CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, Dec. 9-11, 2005
[75%] Seventy-five percent of voters believe immigration is very or somewhat important in an election. Angus Reid Global Scan, November 13, 2005
[81%] Eighty-one percent of Republicans say that the immigration issue is somewhat or very important. That view is shared by sixty-nine percent of Democrats and seventy-five percent of Independents. Rasmussen Reports, November 7, 2005
[56%] Fifty-six percent of Republicans and fifty-one percent of Independents support proposals to end birthright citizenship (automatic granting of citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens). Overall, 49% of those polled support such a policy. Rasmussen Reports, November 7, 2005
[75%] Seventy-five percent of adults polled say the U.S. is not doing enough along its borders to keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country. CBS News Poll, Oct. 3-5, 2005
[90%] Ninety percent of North Carolinians polled believe North Carolina has an illegal immigration problem. John William Pope Civitas Institute poll, September 2005
[81%] 81 percent of Californians polled said they are concerned about illegal immigration. Of those, 49% are “extremely concerned.” Field Poll, September, 2005
[45%] Forty-five percent of the total U.S. Hispanic population says immigrants strengthen the U.S. Pew Hispanic Center poll, August 2005
[44%] Forty-four percent of the total U.S. Hispanic population says immigrants are a burden on the U.S. Pew Hispanic Center poll, August 2005
[70%] Seventy percent of Americans polled say the United States should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. Gallup Poll, June 6-25, 2005
[91%] 91 percent of those polled believe that illegal immigration is a serious problem. Opinion Dynamics Poll for Fox News, April 25-26, 2005
[55%] 55 percent of Florida voters polled believe that immigration harms the United States. Research 2000 Florida Poll, March, 2005
[63%] Sixty-three percent of voters overwhelmingly believe the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. AILA Comprehensive Immigration Reform Public Opinion Poll, March 20-22, 2005
[66%] Sixty-six percent of voters say they want a controlled system that would replace an illegal immigration flow with a legal immigration flow. AILA Comprehensive Immigration Reform Public Opinion Poll, March 20-22, 2005
[52%] Fifty-two percent of Americans want the level of immigration reduced. Only seven percent want to see it increased. Gallup Poll, January 3-5, 2005
[80%] Eighty percent of Carolinians said it should be harder for people to immigrate to the United States. 2003 Carolinas Poll, August 2004
[85%] Eighty-five percent of Americans believe that "large number of immigrants entering the U.S." is an important threat to the vital interest of the United States in the next 10 years. Of those, 50 percent believe it is a "crticial threat." Gallup Poll, February 2-12, 2004
[84%] Eighty-four percent of Americans worry about illegal immigration. Of those, thirty-seven percent worry a "great deal" about it. Gallup Poll, March 8-11, 2004
[64%] Sixty-four percent of Americans believe the U.S. has too much immigration. Andres McKenna Research for the National Journal, January 1-25, 2004
[75%] Three-fourths of North Carolinians think the United States admits too many legal immigrants. Raleigh News and Observer, November 2003
[84%] Eighty-four percent of those who voted in the California recall election believe that stopping illegal immigration is important. Of those, 40 percent said stopping illegal immigration is extremely important. 64 percent of those who voted in the recall believe that illegal immigration has had a negative impact on California. Luntz Poll, October 2003
[80%] Nearly eighty percent of Carolinians believe it's too easy to immigrate to the United States. 2003 Carolinas Poll, August 2003
[76%] Seventy-six percent of those polled prefer legal immigration less than current levels of almost one million a year. 58 percentof those polled prefer legal immigration levels of less than 300,000 a year. 86 percent of those polled believe illegal immigration is a serious problem. RoperASW Poll, March 2003
[65%] Sixty-five percent of Americans feel dissatisfied with the level of immigration into the U.S. Of thouse, 34 percent are very dissatisfied. Gallup Poll, January 13-16, 2003
[majority] A majority of South Floridians believe that recent levels of immigration have made South Florida a worse place to live. South Florida Sun-Sentinel\NBC 6, May 2003
[majority] Over half of those polled believe legal immigration numbers should be lowered. Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, WorldViews 2002
[74%] Seventy-four percent of Tennesseans believe the United States is too open to immigrants. Middle Tennessee State University Poll, November 2002
[majority] Over half of Americans believe immigration numbers should be lowered. Zogby Poll, June 2002
[majority] A majority of Texans believe legal immigration numbers are too high. Scripps Howard Poll, March 2002
[majority] A majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe legal immigration should be lowered. CBS News/New York Times poll, September and December 2001
[49%] Forty-nine percent of American Jews favor lower levels of immigration and 48 percent favor current or higher levels. 2001 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, American Jewish Committee, December 2001
[65%] Sixty-five percent of Americans favor stopping ALL immigration during the war on terrorism. Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, November 2001
[58%] A majority of Americans (58 percent) think immigration levels should be decreased. CNN/GALLUP/USA TODAY poll, October 2001
[55%] 55 percent of Californians believe immigration is single biggest cause of California's population growth. Public Policy Institute of California, May 2001
[55%] 55 percent of Americans are "dissatisfied" with current immigration levels. CNN, USA Today, Gallup poll, January 2001
[majority] Majority of Iowans disapprove of Governor's plan to attract more immigrants. Des Moines Register, November 2000
[majority] A survey of more than 1,500 students from 64 high schools in Illinois, Connecticut, Nebraska and Rhode Island found concern that increasing immigration would exacerbate strains in our society to rank among top concerns for high school students. Chicago Tribune, June 2000
[83%] Eighty-three percent of Americans -- when given numerical choices -- choose immigration below the current annual average of 1 million a year. Roper Poll, February 1996
How can there even be immigration when the people clearly don't want it? To quote Dennis Pasquino,
"If we had democracy, they wouldn't even be here."..and Fascism is rule by a tiny elite
Regular polling over the years has found a deep gulf in immigration opinions between the public and the tiny fraction of Americans who are in the "Opinion Elite" (top leaders of corporations, unions, religion, universities, think tanks, political parties, the federal Administration and Congress). Harris Interactive poll for the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 2002.
- 60 percent of the public fears that the current flow of immigrants and refugees into the U.S. is a "critical threat" to the country. Only 14 percent of the Opinion Elite see immigration as a critical threat.
- The public is far more favorable to decreasing legal immigration than the Opinion Elite (57 percent of the public versus 18 percent of Opinion Elite). Analysis of poll results
Specifically, the tiny ruling elite identified in this survey consists of
"top executives of the Fortune 1000 corporations; presidents of the largest labor unions; TV and radio news directors, network newscasters, newspaper editors and columnists; leaders of all religious faiths, chosen proportionate to the number of Americans who worship in each; presidents of large special interest groups and think tanks with an emphasis on foreign policy matters; presidents and faculty of universities; members of the U.S. House and Senate; and assistant secretaries and other senior staff in the Administration."
In summary, the tiny ruling elite that imposes immigration against the democratic will is composed of eight powerful groups:
- Corporate executives
- Labor union leaders
- Media commentators
- Religious preachers
- Political lobbyists
- Academic faculty
- Career politicians
- Senior bureaucrats
When opinion polls consistently show a majority of the public against immigration, legal or illegal, the issue clearly is not whether immigration is American or un-American, culturally enriching or destructive, good for the economy or bad etc., the real issue is: Why can't we have democracy?
That's all there is to it. Keep it simple.
Immigration is Racism
What's wrong with immigration?Answer: Racism.
Specifically, anti-white racism.
Racism is discrimination or prejudice based on race. Those who favor immigration do so only with regard to majority white countries. This is discrimination based on race.
They NEVER question the moral legitimacy of ANY non-white country retaining their identity. For example, they NEVER question the moral legitimacy of asian countries being asian. In contrast, they ALWAYS question the moral legitimacy of majority white countries being white. This is discrimination based on race.
The question isn't what's wrong with immigration, the question is: What's wrong with majority white countries?
That's all there is to it. Keep it simple.And what motivates those who advocate immigration and open borders?Answer: Hatred.
Specifically, anti-white race hatred.
What motivates someone who demands that, for example, Japan open its borders until it ceases being Japanese and who insists that it is wrong for Japan to remain Japanese? Answer: Anti-Japanese race hatred.
What motivates someone who demands that majority white countries open their borders until they cease being majority white and who insists that it is wrong for majority white countries to remain majority white? Answer: anti-white race hatred.
Sounds too harsh? Think about it, what could possibly motivate someone to demand that the Japanese people, or any people for that matter, lose majority status? What could possibly motivate someone to insist that the Japanese become a minority in their lands? There is simply no other explanation besides race hatred. None.
Or is there? Can you think of any other possible motive someone could have for insisting that the Japanese become a minority? Any?
The question is not what motivates anti-immigration activists, the question is: Why are pro-immigration activists motivated by anti-white race hatred?
That's all there is to it. Keep it simple.
The Line in the Sand
October Sun Films presents
The Line in the Sand
The United States government has refused to effectively protect the southern border with Mexico for 40 years.
Average American citizens are now banding together to stand up against a government they feel no longer represents their interests, forming one of the largest ongoing civil protests in recent American history: The Minuteman Project.
Featuring: Glenn Spencer, Cindy & Ed Kolb, Chris Simcox, John Petrello, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, Alex Linder, Jim Gilchrist, Tom Tancredo, Wes Bramhall and many, many more.
Produced and Directed by Byron Jost
Running Time: 1hr 41 minThis is a bittorrent download. If you have never downloaded bittorrents before, follow these five steps:
- Download a bittorrent client such as Bitcomet
- Install the bittorrent client
- Bookmark this page and close your browser
- Restart your browser and come back to this page
- Click on this link to start downloading
The rights to this documentary were purchased by Yggdrasilfilms, who "urge you to burn as many copies of "The Line in the Sand" as you wish and distribute them to friends or the public. However, you may not use these files to encode, author, or distibute any other copy of the movie, nor may you publicly exhibit or commercially exploit the film in any way without written permission from Yggrdrasilfilms."
In other words, they spent good money to make it free in the hope that YOU make several copies and pass them on to friends. Blank DVDs are dirt cheap, please do your part.
Is America a "nation of immigrants"?
American history in brief:
America was built by three groups that impregnated its soil with their blood, sweat and tears:
- White colonists
- Black slaves
- Indian natives
Once the roads were all paved and the A/C was running full blast, a fourth group broke in:
This fourth group then demanded that all Americans be redefined as free-loading immigrants in the interests of equality.
The anti-white establishment screamed in delight and agreed.
So America got slandered into a "nation of immigrants" and its population was downgraded to Immigrants Formerly Known as Americans, or IFKAs.
But despite this charade two simple facts stubbornly persist:
- America is a nation built by colonists, slaves and natives; not immigrants.
- What you don't earn, you don't own.
That's all there is to it. Keep it simple.
Is White Pride Legitimate?
Anti-white racists become hysterical whenever the subject of white pride comes up; they consider white pride illegitimate.
The French have a saying,
"all nations believe they are the best, and all nations are right."
In other words, Blacks think they are the best and they are right; Jews think they are the best and they are right; Arabs think they are the best and they are right; Whites think they are the best and risk persecution for it.
The dictionary defines "racism" as discrimination based on race. Everyone can be proud of their heritage except whites. This is discrimination based on race. So the issue is not why whites think they are the best, the issue is: Why are you so racist that you discriminate against whites by denying them equal rights?
That's all there is to it. Keep it simple.
Defeating Anti-White Racism
What is racism?
The short answer
When whites engage in racial favoritism toward other whites (and therefore discrimination against non-whites), it's called racism. When other groups engage in racial favoritism, it's called ethnic solidarity.
When people buy into these word games, it's called being brain dead.
The long answer
According to the dictionary, the word racism
has two definitions:
1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
It is important that those of us who fight racism (including anti-white racism) understand exactly what the word means as well as what non-specialists think it means. Most people tend to think the word means:
3) Hatred or hostility based on race.
This triple meaning creates a great deal of confusion; let's clarify by separating these into three definitions:
Definition 1 racism, i.e, the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others, refers to ideas that are commonly known as racial theories
- the ideas that promote, justify and legitimize racism
Definition 2 racism, i.e. discrimination or prejudice based on race, refers to what is commonly known as plain racism
Definition 3 racism, i.e. hatred or hostility based on race, refers to what is commonly known as race hatred
- that which motivates racism
In other words, racial theories
(definition 1) promote, justify and legitimize racism
(definition 2), which is motivated by race hatred
This sounds a lot better than: Racism
promotes, justifies and legitimizes racism
, which is motivated by racism
. This last sentence is so confusing it borders on the meaningless.
There is a fourth unofficial definition that does not appear in any dictionary but is nevertheless widely used, particularly by the education and political establishment. Under this unofficial fourth definition, racism is:
4) The belief that whites can express, claim or defend their group interests.
For example, the policy of affirmative action patently discriminates against whites and is therefore clearly racism under the dictionary definition, i.e. discrimination or prejudice based on race. Yet members of the education establishment strenuously deny that anti-white discrimination is racism. Instead, they claim that racism is opposition
to their discriminatory policies. Under the unofficial definition, whites who question adverse discrimination are defending their group interests and therefore racist.
If you think the fourth unofficial definition is a joke and that I made it all up, consider these statements and ask yourself which definition of racism
these establishment spokespersons were using when making them:
- Government: Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.
Source: Chairman Mary Frances Berry, US Commission on Civil Rights
- Universities: Only whites can be racist.
Source: Cornell University
- Schools: [Racism is] the systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).
Source: Seattle school district
In all the above, the arguments are for
anti-white discrimination and are patently racist under the dictionary definition. However, under the fourth unofficial definition, none of these statements is racist because racism is only
the belief that whites can express, claim or defend their group interests.What is anti-white racism?
Insofar as this fourth unofficial definition is in direct contradiction to the dictionary definition, we will refer to it as fraudulent racism
and opposition to it as fraudulent anti-racism
or simply anti-white racism
. The word fraudulent
is appropriate because the definition is deliberately and intentionally designed to deceive people into not recognizing the racism inherent in anti-white discrimination by masking it as anti-racism.
Thus, people who claim they are anti-racists yet use the fraudulent definition are in reality racists
, specifically anti-white racists.
This is because fraudulent anti-racism
promotes discrimination or prejudice against a group - whites - and is therefore racism
under the real dictionary definition.Why does anti-white racism matter?
Fraudulent anti-racism, or anti-white racism, is spreading like an intellectual plague. It is no longer limited to the education establishment and increasingly touches all areas of American life. Indeed, the very core of our identity and freedoms - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - has now come under assault:
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
Anti-white racism therefore matters because its effects are beginning to extend beyond economic considerations such as diminished educational and career opportunities. If anti-white racism is not confronted - and defeated - soon, it will tear away even the most basic constitutional protections white people have, such as freedom of speech.What is anti-white racism based on?
There are three - and only three - racial theories that promote, justifiy and legitimize fraudulent anti-racism, or anti-white racism. As can be seen from the above court decision, where they have been noted as [A], [B] and [C], these three racial theories often operate in tandem. They are:
- [A] The Unique History of White Evil theory
This racial theory holds that whites "cannot evade history". It is a racial theory because it promotes, justifies and legitimizes 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 "in power", "privileged" and "the oppressors" and therefore "cannot evade responsibility". It is a racial theory because it promotes, justifies and legitimizes 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 Majority Deference theory
This racial theory holds that "majorities must serve minorities". It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic is applied exclusively to circumstances where whites are the majority.
All of the above are racial theories in fact
because they promote, justifiy and legitimize discrimination or prejudice against one group - whites. The bad news is that there are three of them and if one is defeated, anti-white racists simply fall back on another. In order to defeat anti-white racism, it is therefore necessary to discredit all three simultaneously. That's the bad news. But there's also good news.What can we do to defeat anti-white racism?
The good news is that all three are also racial theories in application
and therefore very fragile. In order to discredit them, one merely needs to demonstrate that the proponent doesn't really believe in the principles they embody. This technique involves accepting the racial theory in order to demonstrate its absurdity. Here are three examples to illustrate this concept:
- Debits and credits
(Example discredits racial theory A; slavery variant)
"White colonialism over Africa introduced Western medicine, sanitation and agricultural practices that allowed the native population to increase five fold, from 100 million to today's 500 million plus. Thus, worldwide, four out of five blacks owe their very existence to whites.
Since, under your racial theories, whites are responsible for the crimes committed by their ancestors, it follows that they are also responsible for the good things done by them, i.e. whites will take their ancestor's debits only if they take their credits. So if whites owe blacks for slavery, don't four out of five blacks owe whites their very existence, i.e. their lives and property?"
- As below so above
(Example discredits racial theory B; economic variant)
"According to The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People by Steven Silbiger and Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment by J.J. Goldberg (currently the editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward), Jews account for 33% of millionaires, 45% of billionaires and 50% of Wall Street executives even though they represent only 2.5% of the U.S. population.
Since, under your racial theories, groups that are below whites on the socio-economic ladder are entitled to discriminate against whites, can whites similarly discriminate against groups above them, such as Jews?"
- Detroit and South Africa
(Example discredits racial theory C)
"Whites are minorities in several places, such as Detroit or South Africa. Since, under your racial theories, minorities are automatically entitled to not equal but superior rights simply because they are minorities, shouldn't white minorities in Detroit or South Africa have superior rights over the black majority?"
As you can see, by switching actors around, the same racial theory is applied to non-whites which forces the anti-white racist to turn around and condemn it. This destroys their argument by exposing the hypocrisy and the discrimination inherent in their whites-only application. After all, if they won't apply these theories to any other groups it means they don't buy their own racial theories.
So why should you?Introducing this blog
From an intellectual perspective, anti-white racism is therefore a paper tiger since its ideological foundation is so weak. The Turning of the Tide is a civil rights blog set up to attack it by exposing this fact. Specifically, this blog will focus on anti-white racism by discussing its three enabling racial theories, their effects and the strategies to counter them.