Majorityrights Central > Category: Anti-racism

Exactly how did elements of the left - the white gentile left, that is - ever get themselves in the position where they cheer on our genetic destruction for the sake of “defeating racism”?  I imagine that all politically free-thinking European men and women have pondered this mystery.  I can only offer the most cursory explanation - basically, a three-word answer, the first and second words each being of three letters (the second being “and”) and the third “religion” ... what Tom Sunic identified in his Homo americus as the seemingly imperishable Puritan tendency in our racial psyche. 

There are quite a few answers put forward in the thread to a piece in the Telegraph this morning written by Brendan O’Neill.  His subject matter is the contempt exhibited by two white middle-class Unite Against Fascism members for a woman “guilty” of supporting the English Defence League, conveniently filmed by one of them and posted on YouTube.  O’Neill ascribes this behaviour to class-hatred, but that ignores the single most apparent fact about anti-racism: it is a system of moral punishment.

A commenter on the thread named Manxman got the point:

You do not have to be Sigmund Freud to figure out that there is some peculiar psychology and hypocrisy playing itself out amongst UAF supporters.

The vast majority of them are from middle-class backgrounds and consider themselves socialists/lefties/commies. Yet they support mass immigration which undermines the working-class and provides cheap labour for big business.

They think of themselves as moral crusaders because they profess to love people who have no respect for them (immigrants) and they deeply hate white working-class people whom they regard as a politically-incorrect embarrassment.

Here is the offending video.  See what you make of the psychology of these people.

READ MORE...

Hat-tip to Simon Darby for this one.  It’s a short review of Laura Fairrie’s The Battle for Barking by an Independent journalist named Rhiannon Harries who, I must say, I don’t know but Darby fingers as a “self-proclaimed anti-racist”.

The review itself is worthless, containing nothing more elevated than a few cheap, boorish jibes at the BNP.  Until we get to this arresting thought in the closing paragraph:

Everybody was at pains to stress that they weren’t racist and, on a fundamental level, I believed them. Immigration had simply become the prism through which local and national ills – namely unemployment and a chronic shortage of social housing – were being refracted. Add to that a pervasive sense that those at the top simply didn’t care and the crude appeal of the BNP as a party “of the people” became clearer.

Given that we knew only too well that the programme would conclude in the satisfying trouncing of the BNP, I wondered why I felt a growing knot of anxiety in my stomach as I watched. Perhaps it was the realisation that, even if the BNP has been temporarily cauterised, we still have a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation of which they took advantage.

Now, no doubt Miss Harries will claim that having “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation of which they took advantage” simply means solving the problems of “unemployment and a chronic shortage of social housing”.  But that doesn’t quite follow.  A professional journalist, which Miss Harries is, would just have written “we still have a long way to go before the economy lifts people out of unemployment and the local housebuilding programme provides them with decent homes, and in the process deprives the BNP of its most potent political arguments.”  That isn’t at all difficult to come up with.  Why, then, choose such an imprecise formula as “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation”?  Well, it isn’t imprecise if Miss Harries is actually referring to the “situation” of a still obtaining English majority, going “beyond” which is its demographic replacement.

The BNP has claimed consistently that large numbers of Africans were moved into the constituency, added to the electoral register, and got out to vote on election day.  In his blog Darby claims that “I have the electoral register to prove it.”  It must be said, there is much dispute about this even among nationalists.  But, plainly, a rapid process of demographic replacement in the borough is in train.  Labour knows its electoral value, knows how important Barking was and is to the BNP, and would do literally anything to defeat them.  Anti-racists are on record discussing white minoritisation in terms of the final defeat of “racism” and “fascism”.  Miss Harries’s meaning seems clear to me.  Even if she does not state that meaning publicly, she would appear to have got as close to it as she can, given that pushing us towards our grave is the hate that dare not speak its name.  For now.

by Adelheim

We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot, and so on.  What do they mean by this?  And what is their long-term goal?

“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.”

So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called Race Traitor.

Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does.  Anti-racists generally will not call themselves “race traitors” or “anti-white,” nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves “anti-racist” and then argue for “a melting pot” where all will be mixed and become brown.

This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided into four basic stages:

(1) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as “white guilt”;

(2) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries;

(3) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being “racist”;

(4) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as a “racist”, or as a “white supremacist”, or as a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eventually eliminating the white race.

Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:

READ MORE...