Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white – rationalwiki gas oil ratio chainsaw

###

Image posted to the Facebook group of the Steadfast Trust. Notice the poor understanding of ethnicity in other countries (and lack of awareness of the arbitrary and shifting nature of political boundaries), such as claiming Africa as being "Home of Black people," even though Africa has many non-black ethnic groups; Muslims being considered an ethnic group when "Muslim" refers only to people who practice the religion and nothing about their physical appearance; Indians not being classified as Asians despite being being officially classified as Asians, and "Indian" refers to a nationality, not an ethnicity or race; and claiming Mexicans to be one homogeneous racial group. Also the last comment, which, stunningly, has the most likes, is incoherent: how can one be both British and "anti-English", and, by apparently existing with other British people (how the argument generally assumes), be "ethnic-cleansing" the population?

Whitaker was also the originator of the term " white genocide". [4] 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?

This in turn raises the question: "Exactly why is this alleged genocide 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" [5] or " CulturalMarxismDidIt." [6] Fall of the mantra [ edit ]

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. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a whole section on its website dedicated to documenting black racists and have listed the Jewish Defense League as a hate group as well. [8] Other anti-racist groups that have countered bigotry and extremism from non-whites include the Anti-Defamation League, [9] Hope not Hate, [10] and Genocide Watch. [11] If "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white", then these organizations would not do what they do.

People who make this argument often cite anti- white comments made by certain alleged anti-racists. Among their favorite 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 [12]) 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 (e.g. "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race").

Yet 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." He writes: [13]

Subsequent to my arrival in England in 1984 I was dismayed, and indeed horrified, to discover that in the newspapers and on the television there had grown up in my absence a widespread practice of referring to my fellow countrymen – if they were not obviously of one of the darker-complexioned minority ethnic groups – as ‘whites’… The use of the term White encourages the fracture of society along the lines of incidental racial characteristics, instead of allowing people to be grouped together according to their cultural integrity and affiliation.

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"). Entire continents are used in conjunction with nationality (and not race) that makes them appear to be a homogeneous blob, and they are compared to "white country", without any acknowledgement that those two continents are also a rich mix of races and ethnicities. 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, America for Americans, 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 who were forcefully brought and held there against their will by white people.

The mantra 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 [14]) and the United Kingdom (87% white). If this mantra was written from a different perspective (e.g. "Europe for the Europeans, Asia for the Asians, Africa for everyone!"), then South Africans could rightfully complain that their country has been filled with foreign different-race immigrants.

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. [15] "One single drop" and statistics-gathering [ edit ]

Conveniently overlooked is that "white" in the United States 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". Say you have a group of people, equally male/female and white/black. If they pair up randomly, the children will be 1/4 white, 1/4 black, and 1/2 mixed race. But the way statistics are gathered, the population will be "75%" black.

YouTube user Joniversity has also made a lengthy take-down of this mantra. [16] Another notable response is by TheTruePooka, who has also given very concise and humorous rebuttals to its many fallacies and deceptions. [17] [18] [19] Coughlan000 has a commentary against this statement, and considers it "The Moron Manifesto." [20] Even RevLeft of all sites has managed a comprehensive, piece-by-piece debunking. [21] Trivia [ edit ]