Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white – RationalWiki

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white” is a straw man phrase used by white nationalists, white separatists, white supremacists and their ilk. Individuals who make this claim allege that the real bigots are actually the people who claim to be anti-racists, as they have a secret anti-white agenda. This phrase can be found copied and pasted in any comments section of a YouTube video or other web page discussing racial matters.

People who make this argument often cite anti-white comments made by certain alleged anti-racists; amongst their favourite targets (in an example of nutpicking) are the former crank Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev and his colleagues at Race Traitor. This obscure journal (whose correspondents denied the existence of white anti-racists, a denial with which Ignatiev, who is white, fully agreed[2]) called for the concept of a white race to be abolished and printed statements which, when taken out of context, appear to be calling for the literal extermination of white people (“The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race”). As an aside, it is worth noting that this unorthodox point of view is not confined to the left: John Lovejoy, an ethnic nationalist from England, objects strongly to being called “white” and argues that there are “a good many objective reasons why the White terminology must not be allowed.”[3]

The argument that “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white” falls to pieces when one considers the existence of individuals and groups who identify themselves as anti-racist and yet have opposed anti-white racism for decades. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, has a whole section on its site dedicated to documenting black racists.[4] If it is true that “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” then the SPLC must not be an anti-racist organisation.

Other anti-racist groups that have countered bigotry and extremism from non-whites include the Anti-Defamation League,[5]Hope not Hate[6] and Genocide Watch.[7]

The argument can be seen as an example of psychological projection. A person who sees the world entirely in terms of ethnic conflict may have trouble understanding that there are people who genuinely have a different worldview. As a result, they assume that anyone who claims to disagree with their views actually shares them, just in inverted form.

The phrase was used as the title of a song[8] by the Australian white nationalist musician Johnny White Rabbit, who says that people who disagree are “brainwashed with joo shenanigans.”[9]

A specific form of this argument, dubbed “the mantra,” was written by Bob Whitaker[10] (who believes that all Jews hope to eliminate white gentiles, just so you know[11]) and subsequently copy-pasted on various forums, blogs and comments boxes across the Internet, even when race is completely irrelevant to the subject. It runs as follows:

Everybody says 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 just as crowded as 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 Im 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 wouldnt object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

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

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.[12]

Later versions of the mantra have subtle changes; most notably, the two uses of “everybody says” in the second line are replaced with “they say.” This sums up the straw man at the heart of the argument: exactly who is saying this? If the people being described have political power, then what body do they belong to – one which has control over the immigration policies of both the Netherlands and Japan?

Beyond this, the mantra is a poorly written Gish Gallop which makes a number of flawed points along its way. It begins by claiming “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for everybody!” – creating a false equivalence between ethnic origins (Asia, Africa) and race (“white”). It is notable that in the United States, the term “Asian” tends to refer to people from East Asian countries such as China, Japan and Korea whereas in the United Kingdom it tends to refer to people from South Asian countries (i.e. its former colonies) such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and both these definitions exclude those from other parts of the Asian continent such as the Middle East and Siberia. Apparently those who use the mantra are aware that a (relatively) logically consistent argument claiming “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, Europe for everybody!” wouldn’t work out so well for white nationalists in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United States.

As a result, it seems to classify the United States as a “white country,” even though the country only has a white, rather than a Native American, majority due to historical colonialism, and that the country’s largest non-white group throughout its entire independent history – African-Americans – were not voluntary migrants, but people forcefully brought and held there against their will by white people. It portrays Africa as having an all-black population; even if we leave aside the primarily Arab countries in the north of the continent this characterization ignores the fact that South Africa, which is 79% black, proportionately has a larger number of ethnic minority people than Australia (92% white) and the United Kingdom (87% white). Another argument is that the total percentage of white population has been decreasing since the 1900s; this overlooks the distinction between percentage and population number. Whites made up 75.1% of the total US population in 2000, and 72.4% in 2010; this is not a decrease in population, however, as the overall number of whites actually rose from 211,460,626 to 223,553,265.[13] Conveniently overlooked is that “white” in the US is defined as “not non-white”, so mixed race people are counted as black/hispanic/other, even if a larger percentage of the genes are “white”.[14] Also, it is simply untrue that “nobody” complains about immigration to Asian countries. Asian countries do, in fact, have far-right idiots paranoid about being overrun by immigrants, such as Japan’s uyoku dantai.[wp] Sound familiar?

One more gap in the mantra is the question of exactly why this alleged genocide is being carried out. Most conspiracy theories have a motive of some kind for the conspiracy to be orchestrated; this one, however, does not. (When asked, proponents’ reasons tend to boil down to some variant of “Jewsdidit.”)

The YouTube user Joniversity has also made a lengthy take-down of this mantra,[15] and another notable response is by user TheTruePooka, who has also given very concise and humorous rebuttals to the its many fallacies and deceptions.[16][17][18] YouTuber Coughlan000 has a commentary against this statement, and Coughlan considers this motto “The Moron Manifesto.”[19] Even RevLeft of all sites has managed a comprehensive, piece-by-piece debunking.[20]

Read more:
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white – RationalWiki

Related Post

March 6, 2016   Posted in: Anti Racism |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."