“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.”
– Noel Ignatiev, Harvard professor
This quote, although extreme, summarize the anti-White mentality that all anti-Whites share, at least on a subconscious level. The consensus is that White genocide is a good thing and everyone who oppose it is a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews”. This is their core assumption.
While few anti-Whites (the people who call themselves “anti-racist”) are this conscious of their core belief they act upon this very idea all the time.
As we have pointed out before, all so called “anti-racist” or “multiculturalists” arguments always lead to one or many of the following categories below:
1) more non-White immigration
4) demonization of Whites
5) saying “racist”, i.e. demonizing & silencing the opposition
All of their arguments, despite which category it falls into, is in some way or another a justification for White genocide. After all, what they want on a subconscious level is a world without White people. In this article we illustrate exactly this point, that all their arguments can be traced back to this subconscious aim of justifying policies that will lead to a world without White people.
“Diversity is a strength”
This would fall mainly under category one as presented above (more non-White immigration), but also two (integration) and three (assimilation). This statement suggests that a homogeneous country is a bad thing, and therefore we need more non-White immigration and integration wherever there still is a White majority population. After all, we never hear the “diversity is a strength” argument in any non-White country.
With this argument they present themselves as being objectively in favor of diversity. But if we all integrate and blend together, i.e. assimilate, we will ultimately not have the diversity they themselves say is such a strength. Is it not strange that someone who claim they want diversity also seeks to destroy it?
If we look upon them as anti-White we can understand why this is. It is because they do not care about diversity, but rather they only use it a plausible argument for more immigration into White countries. Therefore, what they really want is something that leads towards a world without White people.
“Whites in the Americas and Australia have no right to their countries because it was not theirs to begin with”
This argument would fall under category one and four: more non-White immigration and demonization of Whites. It is implied that Whites have done bad things in the past and therefore have no right to the country they have taken.
With this argument they portray themselves as being objectively interested in the principle that if someone have taken a country away from another people the ones who stole it has no right to claim it as their own. And since Whites took the land away from native American Indians for instance, Whites can not morally stop other people from coming as well.
Truth of the matter is however, the anti-Whites do not care about this otherwise they would have given up their homes and moved away themselves a long time ago. After all, that is the proper thing to do if you truly believe that you have actually stolen something.
Also, we all know that Europe was White to begin with, but we would never hear any anti-White persons argue that Europe could or should remain White. Here we see that they do not care about who “stole” the country from whom or who had it first, they only adapt their arguments to favor something that leads towards a world without White people, i.e. White genocide.
“We all come from Africa/ We all bleed red/ Race is social construct/ We are all humans”
These statements, which are very similar to one another, would fall under category one (more immigration), and possibly two (integration) and three (assimilation). By arguing that “we are all humans”, “Race is a social construct” etc., they are implying that there is no such thing as Whites and since there are no Whites it is not wrong to do away with Whites.
It is implied that this massive immigration we have is okay or that it is a good thing because we are all humans/Africans after all. If Whites is to be extinct it does not matter because we are all the same, so there is really no Whites to begin with. You can not kill something that is a social construct.
It is strange that people who talk so wonderfully about Racial Diversity also say race is a social construct and imply that it does not matter if there were to be no more Whites. On the other hand if Jews were to be extinct one might not find it so nice to say that Jewishness is just a social construct. One would be more inclined to value their contribution as a people and support their right to exist as a people. Justifying a world without Jews with the argument that “We are all humans” would be logically consistent, but I doubt anyone would say it.
While it is true that we are all humans, we see that anti-Whites tend to use that as an excuse to justify more immigration and integration which is part of White genocide. If Jews were facing extinction they would probably not say that is does not matter because we are all humans.
So in short, the underlying statement is that there is no such thing as White people, and since there are no White people it is not wrong to do away with them. They basically deny our existence, which is an important step in justifying a genocide.
“It is good for our economy”
There are essentially two ways this statement can be interpreted, which falls undeniably on category number one. One is that immigration (from the Third World) is good for the economy and therefore we should have more immigration, the other interpretation is that immigration is crucial for a good economy therefore we have no choice but to have immigration.
Both of these interpretations are pretty similar to each other, as is the intention behind these arguments. Again, the intention behind their argument can in this case be easily pointed out by just pointing out the contradictions of their statement.
For example, if they genuinely believed that immigration is good for the economy, then why are they never suggesting that the immigration waves should be directed towards the Third World? Are they not in more dire need of a good economy than us? And why are we in a crisis if immigration equals economic stability? Unless it is not true.
Anti-Whites love to justify their policies by assuring the people that it brings benefits. That their policies does not just bring challenges and conflicts, but beneficial opportunities. It has been an effective way of justifying open borders into the Western world, as we just pointed out above they never suggest immigration/open borders being a solution to the economic welfare of poor non-White countries.
“Without immigration our society would collapse”
This statement is quite similar to the last one. The difference is that is implied that non-stop Third World immigration is not only beneficial to our economy, but our very welfare and infrastructure is dependent on having immigration as well. The argument is that we need immigration to sustain our welfare and infrastructure, therefore we cannot afford to close our borders. According to the anti-Whites, if we did not have immigration we would not have enough workers and then our society would collapse.
Granted, our infrastructure and welfare is partly dependent on immigrants, but that is because they are here. If we did not have Third Worlders here to begin with they would not have been a part of our infrastructure in the first place. And even if our population were to be too small to meet the required needs in terms of work force, we could just as easily promote our people to start having more children to fill the quota. But that is something that really do not want.
Again, it is very easy to debunk this argument and exposing their intention by pointing out its contradictions. For instance, it is very obvious to us that Japan, for example, has next to no immigration and has not collapsed. In fact, quite the opposite is true. We could point to any number of examples of countries that is not having an open border policy and is thriving, but as we all know by now this is just another excuse for them to justify more non-stop immigration.
Of course not all arguments have been presented in this article. There are many that we have not brought up in this discussion and perhaps you, the reader, can name a few. The main point here however is to show that whether they use arguments or statements that is portraying more non-stop Third World immigration as something positive and beneficial, or as something negative and a punishment to White people, they all have the same underlying aim in common: to justify more immigration and a world without White people.
If we look upon so called “anti-racist” arguments as objectively against racism they can seem to be very inconsistent. But if we look upon these arguments as just being anti-White we will see they are 100% consistent. Everything they say is always an attempt to argue for more non-White immigration into White countries.