Democracy is the new White Supremacy

“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 … Race Traitor will not abandon its focus on Whiteness, no matter how vehement the pleas and how virtuously oppressed those doing the pleading. The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, ‘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.’”

Noel Ignatiev, Ed.M. Ph.D. From 1994, fellow at the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute.American history professor at the Massachusetts College of Art

 

This is it, ladies and gentlemen. You have in front of you a decision to make: you can buy into the propaganda that’s been forced down your throat for the last 60 years, which will result in disempowerment and disillusionment for your people and the entire West; or you can intellectually reconsider the merits of our currently accepted philosophies and thereby save democracy. For those of you already well versed in the philosophy of democracy and capitalism as well as Marxist principles, this should be a healthy refresher course. For those of you unfamiliar with reexamining popular and institutionally propagated mindsets, this may result in a bit of a headache.

 

As such, I ask the reader to actively consider the following questions and take the time to discuss this amongst his or her friends. This is not an easy thing to do, for the Western Elite have taken no small measures to make sure you cannot safely consider or espouse these ideas. But just as our American founding fathers threw off the shackles of imperialist mindset, just as Martin Luther resisted the apostate Catholic church, and just as Jesus resisted the Pharisees, so must you now take the time to resist the status quo which threatens not only your way of life, but ultimately the very survival of your kind. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, after all. And this will be a venture.

 

That being said, here is the guide to anti-racism, the assumptions made by those abiding its philosophy, and the ramifications resulting from an inability to discuss the topic openly. This will be done in a series of statements and explanations that follow them, in the hopes that the reader will find the points easier to digest.

 

#1: Anti-racism and democratic capitalism are incompatible.

 

The first point that any person discussing the merits of anti-racism must understand is that anti-racism is the monkey wrench within the machine of classically liberal economics. Basically, the way capitalism and democracy are designed to work is by giving people the ability to succeed and fail by making decisions. Our model being simplified, this personal autonomy is the basis of capitalism and democracy.

 

What anti-racism seeks to do is achieve equality of outcome based on racial status instead of social expectancy, redistributing wealth until all races have shares of the national economy that equate to their ratio of the population. That means that if 50% of the people in a country are Black, 50% of the people in positions of power should be Black, and that they should be making the same amounts as the other ethnicity in question, eventually regardless of behavior. In short, this is as close as Marxists have ever gotten to usurping the purpose of economic rights.

 

Now, redistribution of wealth along racial boundaries could potentially be justified if one could prove that people’s capabilities, moral structures, and behaviors were equal along racial lines, with Blacks and Whites behaving in exactly the same ways, but the opposite has been shown to be true: races behave along very different standards. For instance, the overwhelming majority of Black households do not have a father present, which is statistically related to high dropout rates, increased crime rates, and less economic stability (1). Unfortunately, with anti-racist legislation in effect, quotas for minority advancement must be met regardless of performance, lest a business owner or politician lose their career, potentially left with an enormous debt to pay those who sue them. This redistribution of wealth fundamentally antagonizes the interests of any capitalist/democratic nations because it predicates value of ethical decision-making with racial factors, which is not only immoral, but dangerous.

 

When people along certain group lines follow certain patterns, you can be guaranteed divergence of outcome, and this is why conservatism was so successful in the West: because those who made the right decisions and espoused the highest morality and foresight were able to thrive, and those who did not were incapable of progressing. As such, one can see how anti-racism is anathema to any moral system in which outcome only meets the expectations set by behavior.

#2: Anti-racism is not about defeating racism. It is about disempowering the White race.

 

Once you consider that anti-racist ideology is a disguise that Marxists use to circumvent the philosophy of practicality and wisdom, eventually tearing away at the fabric of democracy (since Marxists are by definition against any sort of economic inequality), it’s clear that anti-racism simply should not be allowed to function in our free society. But if it must, then one must then ask themselves if anti-racism is being equally applied in all aspects of Western existence. After all, if the egalitarian process is being used to achieve ultimate economic equality amongst the West’s racial groups, it would only make sense that those pursuing the financial bolstering of Blacks would try to bring Whites to equal status with any racial groups doing better than Whites do.

 

Obviously, I would be talking about Jews and Asians, specifically in aspects of presence in Ivy League campuses (Harvard, anyone?) and home ownership, respectively (2)(3). If Whites are the ones receiving the majority of media shame and disempowerment because of Black and Hispanic poverty, then why have Jews and Asians not been targeted by the academic community or media? Their presence in colleges far outperforms their population size, and Asian homes are worth about ten thousand more than homes owned by Whites (3). Clearly, this is not a war against racial inequality, but is specifically targeting one race for disempowerment, its wealth for dissolution.

 

“When it comes to abolishing the White race, the task is not to win over more Whites to oppose ‘racism’; there are ‘anti-racists’ enough already to do the job.”

-Noel Ignatiev

 

#3: There is no way to prove that you are not a racist, unless purposely diverging your personal resources to those outside your race.

 

One of the most horrible insults levied against the modern White Westerner is the name “racist.” This powerful word has ended political careers, bankrupted businesses, and divided the sacred Christian church just based on unverified claims and the angry mobs that follow them. Unfortunately, those espousing the quasi-morality of anti-racism must face an unpleasant reality: there is only one way to prove that you are not a racist, and that is by placing the needs and wants of those not bearing resemblance to your kin first. Aside from this, there is no way to a clean name.

 

For instance, if you have a business, you must choose members of other races before your own. I personally work for a company in which it has been made VERY clear that diversity is a goal in itself, not a byproduct of prudently colorblind decision-making. For those out there with any sort of mental prowess, with so many companies espousing this goal of racial diversification and so few minorities in comparison with the rest of the White population, there can only be so many companies with an ideally diverse population of employees (meaning, over-represented). For instance, if it’s known that Blacks occupy blue-collar jobs, and most blue-collar companies actively promote their egalitarian colorblindness, then wouldn’t that leave White-collar companies comparatively White, considering that there are only so many minorities to go around? Minorities are the minority, after all. With this in consideration, wouldn’t this make White-collar companies easier targets for discrimination lawsuits?

 

Unfortunately, the nature of the decision-making process is that someone must be chosen and another denied. This is a simple fact of life: someone will lose the job. But by instating anti-racist legislation, the ultimate effect is that instead of allowing companies to choose who is best for the job, White-collar businesses (following the logic presented earlier) are turning away businessmen with better qualifications simply based on their race. This is the antithesis of the ideals anti-racism claims to espouse, considering that a person is a person is a person, and regardless of who gets a job, a person of equal value still gets the job.

 

Either way, companies simply cannot afford massive lawsuits ranging in the millions (not to mention just the lawyer fees) just to choose the person they think is truly better for the job, which forces them to diversify under threat of massive litigation. I must remind the reader that anti-discrimination lawsuits can award millions in damages (4).

 

#4 There is no such thing as Systemic Racism in America

 

Those who fail miserably when trying to discuss ideas such as “silent racism,” (which is silly, mostly because silence implies that nothing happens) oftentimes point their fingers toward systemic racism, which is one of the most ridiculous myths propagated by the Liberal Elite.

 

For instance, we’ve already studied how anti-racist policy affects the workplace and makes systemic racism in the workplace functionally impotent and threatening, but how does racism affect democracy? One vote counts for one person. In Detroit, Blacks get Black mayors. With corporations? Shareholders elect the board of directors, and shares can be openly purchased. In the world of real estate? According to the Fair Housing and Fair Lending Acts, you cannot deny a minority the sale of a home (or even just lending) without an excessive reason. So what rights should be repealed to ensure that “systemic racism” is ousted from the modus operandi? Of course, ousting “systemic racism” means ensuring that companies are owned by minorities, Whites do not have a majority, and nothing else . This is the only logical conclusion, and requires active disregard for economically fair, democratic principles, on top of disempowerment of Whites within Western society. You have to ask yourself, in light of all I’ve mentioned above, is anti-racism really worth discarding the entire foundation of Western existence, especially when considering that affirmative action was unconstitutionally instated by a single man?

 

Even prominent anti-racists such as Barbara Trepagnier, author of “Silent Racism: How Well-meaning People Perpetuate the Racial Divide,” admit that “[I]nstitutional racism, as a concept has been expanded to include the role of cultural beliefs as integral to the process. Despite these changes, sociology has been slow to explain the role of actors involved in the production and maintenance of institutional racism. A breakthrough in sociological race theory, institutional racism has remained a compelling macrolevel concept primarily because it demonstrates the important idea that racism permeates society through its institutions; that is, the concept reveals that racism is systemic. In accomplishing this, institutional racism illustrates that racism is more than the prejudice of individuals. The difficulty, however, is that the concept implicitly disconnects individuals from institutions. This false separation results in institutional racism being undertheorized in terms of the mechanism through which institutions produce racial inequality.”

 

In short, as noted by Matt Nuenke of Majorityrights.com, the theory has no practical way of verifying itself, or even explaining how it functions. This idea should seem unusual if you’re an anti-racist, because it engenders the logic of a colonial witch hunt, which The Left has ironically and loudly denounced as one of the most embarrassing periods of American history (remarkable, as the Left is consistently embarrassed of all American history).

 

#5: Whiteness is not racism

 

A major problem that all races encounter when espousing anti-racism is that all races must be represented equally. Unfortunately, this is completely impossible, and the race that occupies the overwhelming majority (or the target group) is going to be represented first and foremost. As each race sees the other races being adequately represented, it becomes their right to complain when they do not see their likenesses displayed alongside those of their partners in “equality.”

 

As such, when uniforms were designed by Ralph Lauren for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the mainstream media took offense when the uniforms were fundamentally White. A fellow named “Sameer” whose appearance was undoubtedly homosexual was quick to note the following: “The WASP aesthetic he sells—think of characters from ‘The Great Gatsby,’ clothed in tennis Whites and delicate tea dresses—has come to represent a classist and racist set of ideals, hardly representative of the current multicultural social fabric of the United States(5).“

 

In short, unless it’s specifically not White, it’s not multicultural. This, coming from a very mainstream media outlet known as Newsweek: make it FUBU or risk our wrath.

 

Also worth mentioning is that even if it appears to Whites that society is acceptably enforcing diversity, this is not the same perception embraced by other minorities. Over-representation of Blacks in commercials has led to a general frustration on behalf of the American Hispanic population, as they now occupy a larger minority than Blacks, but are generally underrepresented in ads (6). After legitimizing the silliness of anti-racist representation, it is logically immoral to deny Hispanics the right to claim this.

#5 Being against anti-racism does NOT make you a racist.

 

Something every person who takes a stand against anti-racism will have to deal with is the claim that because they are not actively seeking to governmentally fight racism, they must be a racist. This is total slander on the behalf of anti-racists, and a clear indication that they cannot rely on political or economic philosophy to reinforce their causes.

 

Since it’s true that Whites are predominantly in positions of power in the West, the argument could be made that supporting the classic Western democratic principles (that ironically made anti-racism possible) that placed Whites in power is equivalent to White supremacy, and a radical libertarian philosophy. To those who would argue such a thing, I propose the following question: which is more radical a stance? Standing up for democratic principles, or forceful and active disempowerment based solely on racial factors? And furthermore, who is the racist out of the following options? The person who allows people to make decisions for themselves? Or the person who demands that other people make decisions based upon race?

 

So, brothers and sisters of all races, the choice to be made today is very clear: we either continue to espouse a radically unfair and racist ideology, or remain true to our classically democratic moral principles. There exists no other option with the case of anti-racism, and it is ultimately to the benefit of all participants of classic Western morality to throw off the shackles of this neo-Marxist disgrace, which has been disguised as a civil rights campaign. After all, the battle between morality and foolishness cannot exist forever within any social construct, and unless soundly defeated within Western intellectual and cultural realms, it will collapse the noble system which it infests. For all practical purposes, it is in the best interest of the reader to take their stand against this abomination now.

 

1. The radical difference between Black and White family structure

   http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200410/ai_n13506797

2. Jews and diversity in higher education

   http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_HowFarDoesDiversityGo.htm

3. The value of homes by ethnic ownership

   http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200209/17_williamsb_censushousing/

4. Muslim women sue Mcdonalds for 10 million dollars

   http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080724/METRO/807240480

5. Newsweek tells the world that White is racist

   http://www.newsweek.com/id/154209

6. Hispanics are “underrepresented” in commercials

   http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/advertising-television-advertising/105172-1.html

    

 

This entry was posted on 2. January 2009 at 20:38 and is filed under cultural/racial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print