If you have followed our writings for a while you will have noticed that we say things like “anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white”. We will say that our opposition who calls themselves anti-racist in reality is not against racism but is against white people. We also say that their real goal is the melting pot i.e. blending people together in white countries in order to do away with whites. This is also widely referred to as “white genocide” or “the great replacement”. Their goal is not diversity or tolerance, although they often claim it is.

Since we doubt the motivation and intention of the politically correct people, one of the criticism we often encounter is that it sounds like a farfetched conspiracy theory when we say that they really are anti-white when they themselves say they are anti-racist. How can we know their motivation better than themselves?

What we would like to point out is that doubting the motivation of other people is quite common. We don’t need to go further than the politically correct people themselves. If a person who is member of a right wing party says that we should stop immigration from the third world because it is not good for the economy, it is not uncommon for the left to call this person racist. In doing so the left doubt his intention and motivation. The left believe that he in reality is racist but use a plausible argument in order to hide his racism. Yet nobody think of this as conspiracy thinking, although they accuse the person or party of having a hidden agenda.

When we say that the real goal of the self-proclaimed anti-racist in reality is to do away with white people it is based partly on this idea of the melting pot that they themselves talk about, and partly that they all argue and support actual politics that is leading towards this particular outcome. We believe that they are caught in an anti-white way of thinking which they themselves don’t recognize.

Some examples of how the anti-white mentality manifests itself

They always argue for more non-white immigration into Western countries. They also argue for diversity and at the same time they argue for integration and mixing of cultures and people, which seems rather contradictory.

Furthermore, when it comes to stereotyping, they say it is wrong to associate terrorism with muslims because this gives a negative association to an ethnic religious group, while they at the same time have no trouble associating white people with racism, although this also gives a negative association to a group of people. If they were objectively anti-racist they would not be stereotyping whites in this way, but since they are anti-white it makes sense why they do.

Multiculturalists also tend to talk very fondly about diversity of cultures and people. So then it makes little sense they would mix away every culture through integration. Why is it that so much pressure is put upon white countries to accept immigration while not Japan for example? It is because the multiculturalists is not anti-asian and not pro-diversity but anti-white.

While talking about preserving and protecting non-white groups and nations is fine and welcomed, any talk about doing the same for white countries is automatically deemed racist.

Any arguments in favour of an ethnic and cultural continuation for Western nations is deemed racist.

Any kind of political action in order to have a continuation of whites is racist.

That is because anti-racist in reality is anti-white. That explains why they have one instinctive reaction towards preserving different non-white nations and a opposite instinctive reaction towards preserving whites.

We could it point out more, as we have done in various other articles, but hopefully it goes to show that doubting the motivation of others is not as farfetched as it might first appear.