This post is going to be a little different to the usual, as I dispel something that I just had to address. For those of you who know a little about (white) nationalism on the Internet, you may have come across complete retards posting stuff like 'anti-racist is codeword for anti-white' amongst other guff. It comes from a Canadian politician called Bob Whitaker who has written a document called Bob's Mantra. Here it is:
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
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 I’m 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 wouldn’t 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
Now straight away we can see a huge error in the strapline alone, conflating continents with 'racial' criterion of countries. I'll revisit the error of 'white countries' in due time, but for the moment let's press on to the start of the mantra.
"Everybody says there is a RACE problem." Who says; everybody apparently, apart of course from all of those people who don't, myself included. "Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY white countries." Here's a newsflash: Countries are not defined by the colour of the skin of the majority of the inhabitants who happen to live there; ONLY by racists have they ever been defined in such a way.
Moving on, Whitaker makes the claim that Japan and the Netherlands are just as crowded as Belgium and Taiwan. Okay then, here are some figures for population density per Sq mile, which is not the measurement for how 'crowded' a country is because as we all know, much of Japan is inhospitable i.e. everybody lives on one piece of the land instead of there being complete human spread across a typical Sq Mile land mass. Here are the figures:
Japan: 873 People per Sq Mile
Belgium: 879 People per Sq Mile
Netherlands: 1023 People per Sq Mile
Taiwan: 1849 People per Sq Mile
Okay, so he's part right about that at least but to put this into perspective, here are some other countries with a higher population density than Japan: Monaco- 42143 People per Sq Mile; Singapore- 18645 People per Sq Mile and finally Gibraltar- 12056 People per Sq Mile. So is Monaco more crowded than Japan, of course not, because the infrastructure of the country and what occupies the land mass takes up more space than the humans who live there.
Progressing to the next paragraph, Whitaker ominously suggests that the "final solution" to the so-called race problem is only white countries assimilating or intermarrying with other races. This of course is bollocks because there are NO 'black' OR 'white' countries; it's as if he thinks whites never go anywhere else despite the fact that America was founded upon mass immigration by largely whites from Europe, as was S. Africa and Australia.
More to the point, there is absolutely nobody FORCING whites to intermarry and/or have kids with anyone that they don't wish to. His further hypothetical of the situation, turning on it's head and the shoe being on the other foot with so-called 'black' countries accepting mass white immigration, he brands this as people perceiving the "'final solution' to the BLACK problem," which is where he begins to suggest that a genocide against the whites is sliding by unchallenged, alleging that any "sane" black man would object to this.
He then accuses Liberals and respectable Conservatives (obviously he isn't respectable,) of branding him a "naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews" and states that the anti-racists are anti-white. This is the utter logic fail that brings this mantra to its knees, since anti-racist is code for anti-white, which pretty much states that whites are either inherently racist or implies that all whites should be racist, because white would equal racist according to this logic.
The funny thing about this is that these so-called white nationalists, also white supremacists as well, more often than not, taking pride etc. in their ethnicity; yet by saying that whites are going to be wiped out out of existence via breeding, what they are effectively saying is that black genes are more dominant than white genes, which would usually lend credence to those espousing 'scientifically racist' views on the nature of races and their alleged superiority/inferiority dressed up as 'recognising differences'. Ironically, these are the true black supremacists because they believe that white genes are somehow wiped out, though in reality any set of black/white parents could theoretically have one child entirely black and another entirely white, because the genes from both parents are present regardless.
But the final point is on the idea of the white genocide. These people often claim that their definition of the word genocide comes from the United Nations Convention on Genocide, specifically Articles 2 & 3. Here they are:
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (my underline)
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
- (a) Genocide;
- (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
- (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
- (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
- (e) Complicity in genocide.
Okay then, so let's go through Article 2.
a) No one is being killed; in fact the argument Whitaker uses is that more people are being produced.
b) Serious bodily or mental harm is not happening aside from the mental anguish caused to a few bigots it seems. The rest of us seem just fine in living with those who are ethnically different.
c) Nothing is being CALCULATED; there is no such thing, according to the UN, as an indirect genocide.
d) No births are being prevented; if anything, the argument is once against about births happening albeit being outside the preferred skin colour of Whitaker and co.
e) No children are being forced, against their will to transfer or are being exiled. Again, if anything the argument being used is about more children being created in countries that Whitaker deems to be 'white' areas.
So in summary NONE of this applies to the narrative of the white genocide conspiracy theorist, the arguments generally describing anything but a genocide. And also, here are some other questions:
WHO is doing it, considering most people in power in these areas of the world tend to be white?
WHY are they doing it, because those in power really don't benefit in any way from a whole segment of the population disappearing, especially given the fact that, again, those in power are white themselves.
HOW do you get around the paradox of the anti- equivalences and the logical problems that they entail?
As a final message to the White Genocide morons, you can type that mantra into a comment section till time ends and it will convince no-one. The very definition of the word mantra is a slogan or song, tagline etc. It is NOT an argument for anything, the only use it has is as such, a song, a mantra to egg on those already pious, to preach to the already converted.
Thanks for reading this critique and see you soon.
LINKS:
