Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white
| The colorful pseudoscience|
|Hating thy neighbour|
|Divide and conquer|
| Frogs, clowns and swastikas|
|Rebuilding the Reich, one meme at a time|
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white" is a straw man phrase used by white nationalists, white separatists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, alt-righters and so on. Individuals who make this claim allege that the real bigots are actually the people who claim to be anti-racist, who purportedly have a secret anti-white agenda. This phrase can be found copied and pasted in any comments section of any website discussing anything related to race or immigration, conveniently always failing to clarify what someone who genuinely is against racism would say or call themselves.[note 1]
The argument can be seen as an example of psychological projection; a person who sees the world entirely in terms of ethnic conflict may have trouble understanding that people are capable of holding a genuinely different worldview. As a result, white supremacists et al. might believe that those anti-racists who disagree with their pro-racist views actually share these views, just in inverted "anti-white" form. This is much the same as how Christians often see people of different religious persuasions as being "anti-Christian".
- 1 "The mantra"
- 2 Fall of the mantra
- 2.1 Anti-racists need not be anti-white
- 2.2 Anti-whites need not be anti-racist
- 2.3 "White" groups facing discrimination in the past
- 2.4 Logical inconsistency: America for the Americans!
- 2.5 Statistical inaccuracy: Africa for everyone!
- 2.6 Decreasing percentage versus decreasing number
- 2.7 "One single drop" and statistics-gathering
- 2.8 Other rebuttals
- 3 Trivia
- 4 See also
- 5 Notes
- 6 References
The original form of this argument, dubbed "the mantra", was written by ex-Reagan appointee Bob Whitaker (1941-2017)   (who believed that every single Jew hopes to eliminate white gentiles). It runs as follows:
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 "assimilating" 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.
Whitaker was also the originator of the term "white genocide". 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" or "CulturalMarxismDidIt."
Fall of the mantra
“”ROME FOR THE ROMANS
JUTLAND FOR THE JUTES
BRITANNIA FOR EVERYONE
ANTI RACIST IS A CODE WORD FOR ANTI CELT
Anti-racists need not be anti-white
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 such as the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party and have listed the Jewish Defense League (an anti-Arab/anti-Muslim organization) as a hate group as well. Other anti-racist groups that have countered bigotry and extremism from non-whites include the Anti-Defamation League, Hope not Hate, and Genocide Watch. If "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white", then these organizations would not do what they do.
Anti-whites need not be anti-racist
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) 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") but in reality it is simply referring to the concept of whiteness being abolished not whites.
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:
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.
In short, very few people hold "anti-white" views. Those who do tend to be unknown extremists -- and may even be pro-racist themselves.
"White" groups facing discrimination in the pastNot all ethnic groups considered "white" today have ever been part of it. Irish Catholics in particular have historically faced discrimination by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants living in places such as America and Britain for example where they faced cases of businesses refusing to employ them by putting up Irish Need Not Apply/No Irish Need Apply signs and writing songs as well as race riots not just on their religion but the fact they were from a non-Anglo-Saxon country like Ireland or the The Troubles in Northern Ireland in which Ulster Scots fought against Irish there. During World War I, there existed a hostility toward Germany not just for that country but to also German immigrants living within the United States, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom such as forcing them to assimilate by giving up their culture and language sometimes it even escalated into riots. The famed Founding Father Benjamin Franklin expressed hostility to six "white" European groups in a 1751 pamphlet titled "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind" he was very hostile to Germans in question immigrating to Pennsylvania and also described Russians, Swedes, Italians, French (ironically a group that Frankin would meet), and Spanish as being "swarthy". Another example is Italians immigrating to America or other countries also faced discrimination sometimes with violence most notably the 1891 New Orleans lynchings or the 1924 Immigration Act which barred not just Jews, Arabs, and Asians but it also limited immigration from Southern and Eastern European Catholic and Orthodox countries. A modern day example would have to be the Polish British community who have seen racially motivated attacks against them. Many who complain of "anti-white" sentiment however don't seem to notice that even certain white groups such as Irish, Italians, Germans, Polish, Armenians, Southern and Eastern Europeans have faced discrimination and attacks in the past.
Logical inconsistency: America for the Americans!
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 (Rwandan genocide, anybody?). 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 - are not the descendants of voluntary migrants, but people who were forcefully brought and held there against their will by white people.
Finally, this argument relies on the assumption that political boundaries are static. How will this argument hold up if, say, the boundaries between African and Asian countries get shifted?
Statistical inaccuracy: Africa for everyone!
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) 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.
Ironically, in a way that most racists probably grind their teeth at, Africa is the birthplace of humanity, and everyone's ancestors were ultimately black if you go far back enough.
Decreasing percentage versus decreasing number
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.
"One single drop" and statistics-gathering
Conveniently overlooked is that "white" in the United States is defined as "not non-white", thanks to racist obsession with racial "purity", 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.
|Parent 2:||Black|| Black
| By genes,
this population is:
50% black, and
| By US statistics,|
this population is:
75% black, and
If the black-black pairs produced no children, the next generation would be 1/3 white and 2/3 "black" even though "black genes" went from 1/2 down to 1/3 of the population.
YouTube user Joniversity has also made a lengthy take-down of this mantra. Another notable response is by TheTruePooka, who has also given very concise and humorous rebuttals to its many fallacies and deceptions. Coughlan000 has a commentary against this statement, and considers it "The Moron Manifesto." Even RevLeft of all sites has managed a comprehensive, piece-by-piece debunking.
- Fatwa envy
- Genocide conspiracy and white extinction scenario
- Reverse racism
- Argumentum ad nauseam
- Persecution complex
- Granted, the implication is that such people do not exist...
- Which sounds just a tiny bit like the chorus of Robert Knight's "Everlasting Love" with maybe a bit of Daniel Powter's "Bad Day" on the side.
- https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/06/07/bob-whitaker-author-racist-mantra-white-genocide-has-died SPLC
- Bob Whitaker, Author of the Racist 'Mantra' on White Genocide, Has Died
- Lovejoy, John (2000). The Deculturalisation of the English People, pp 48-9.
- "Racism - The White Race Is Facing Extinction?"
- "WHITE GENOCIDE DEBUNKED"
- "Sneaky Race Statist New Mantra Contest!"
- "Anti-Racist is Anti-White...? (WHITE GENOCIDE MANTRA)"