Should We Study White People?

Laurie Essig, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 6, 2012

This semester I am teaching a new (for me) course: “White People.” The course considers the historical formation of whiteness as well as its current cultural and economic manifestations. For me, teaching “white people” is an obvious way to work through some of the key issues of critical race studies: How did our current racial categories form and under what conditions? How are these racial categories intertwined with one another? How does race depend on class, gender, sexuality and often geographic location to make sense?

Of course, when you teach a course called “White People,” you are bound to take some teasing. Someone suggested that it’s a course to “paint white people as bad.” Another friend said I’m just trying to “relieve my liberal white guilt.” But I reject both the claim that all white people are the same and the claim that to critically examine one’s racial position is motivated by “guilt” rather than the sociological imagination. To me, the question that motivates white studies is the same as the question that motivates sociology: How does social power operate in our everyday lives?

But according to Alex P. Kellogg, who wrote a piece at CNN last week called “Has ‘whiteness studies’ run its course at US colleges?” my new course may already be DOA. That’s because, according to Kellogg, most college students believe we live in a “post racial” America and “the election of Obama represents the culmination of decades of racial progress, they say.”

{snip}

That is hardly the white studies field I know. White studies, like critical race studies more generally, actually offers a far more nuanced notion of power and how it operates than “whites are bad.” {snip}

White studies is able to show the historical formation of whiteness as a racial category that has always been embedded with things like class, gender and sexuality (one need only think of the figure of the white lady alongside the figure of white “trash”). As such, white studies is hardly a simplistic and didactic lesson in racial privilege (although surely it can also explain the privileging of certain forms of whiteness).

{snip} But as disturbing as I found Kellogg’s description of white studies, I found the comments to his article even more disturbing. Consider these:

Let whites keep busy on the work of science and technology, advancing the human species. No! we must degrade whites and tell them they are racists and show no appreciation for what they are and have done for humanity. Does demeaning of whites help the cause of human progress?

and this:

“Whiteness studies” are a product of a genocidal anti-white regime. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Indeed, reading the responses to Kellogg’s article is a reminder of how much resistance there is among those marked as “white” to even acknowledge that they have a racial position in the world, let alone a privileged one. How often have I had to tell white students that they must discuss race in their papers only to have them respond “but there is no race. Everyone I’m studying is white.”

If nothing else, this response is compelling evidence that white studies has hardly run its course. If anything, white studies has merely been absorbed into other courses—rather like much of gender studies has—so that any course that attempts to unravel social power is forced to deal with the race/class/gender/sexuality hairball that by definition involves both white privilege and white abjection.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    A female Tim Wise.

    Academics always hide the things they truly want to say behind wordiness. Her objections come down to this: “it’s shocking and insensitive when white people defend themselves from scapegoating because everyone knows they should be the scapegoat. Whites should always be open to insults, attacks, and criticism and never point out lies; all for the good of the rest of world.”

    It’s so unappealing when white people fail to show the proper attitude.

    • Anonymous

      She’s just another garden variety, anti-White.

  • This comment struck me: Ms. Essig said:

    Indeed, reading the responses to Kellogg’s article is a reminder of how
    much resistance there is among those marked as “white” to even
    acknowledge that they have a racial position in the world, let alone a
    privileged one.

    And I say:  I think there is a problem because whites don’t have a racial position in the world. We are the one people who are denied ethnicity.  It is hard to talk about race when the very act of talking about race makes us racist.
    And if I do have a privileged position in the world, it is because of the actions and choices and wisdom of my ancestors. I stand on their shoulders, just as every other person stands on the shoulders of those who came before them. It is not something I should be ashamed of, but rather something that I should feel great pride for.  Yet the politically correct world denies me that privilege.
    Q.

  • Laurie Essig, meet Mantra.  Mantra, meet Laurie Essig.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, I love it when anti-Whites help us spread our terminology (instead of us repeating THEIR terminology!) and even lines from the Mantra! 

  • Anonymous

    Are there “whiteness studies” analogues — even on the first rungs of the education ladder: the elementary grades?

    “Beginning in the early 1980s . . . the most effective way to upgrade the status of students whose academic performance in school had barely changed . . . was not so much to enhance it positively through celebratory readings but to reduce the moral and cultural status of the mainstream. To do so, they [educators] began to load the history and literature curriculum with literary works . . . that stressed the flaws and failings of the United States . . . Although this literature became known facetiously as ‘victim lit’ or ‘white-guilt lit’ for its highlighting of a group’s victimization by white Americans, many teachers believed it was useful precisely because it served to elevate a minority group’s moral status . . . and create guilt in white students . . .” (Losing Our Language: How Multicultural Classroom Instruction is Undermining Our Children’s Ability to Read, Write, and Reason , by Sandra Stotsky, 1999, p49)

    In Losing our Language, Professor Stotsky, then a Research Associate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, examined “the contents of the leading readers for grades 4 and 6 published in 1993 and 1995.” Five years later, in The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (2003), research professor Diane Ravitch would reveal how textbook publishers efficiently generate the required content for the new approach. Their key instrument: comically elaborate “bias and sensitivity guidelines” — some of which, with great difficulty, Ravitch was able to obtain. Below is her description of the guidelines of publishing giant McGraw-Hill:

    “The MH guidelines express barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry. They deride European Americans for exploiting slaves, migrant workers, and factory labor; they excoriate the land rapacity of the pioneers and mock their so-called courage in fighting Native Americans: ‘Bigots and Bigotry,’ say the guidelines, referring to European Americans, ‘must be identified and discussed.’ European Americans, the guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in all human history . . .” (p44)

    My favorite example, though, of the exquisite sensitivity of the textbook and testing industry to the ideological demands of selling to school systems is an incident Ravitch shared about her 1998 service on the National Assessment Governing Board, the supervisory body for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Ravitch, a Clinton appointee, worked on a subcommittee tasked to review fourth grade reading passages intended for what would have become a voluntary national test:

    “After I had read about a dozen such passages, a combination of fiction and nonfiction, I realized that the readings themselves had a cumulative subtext: the hero was never a white boy. Instead, the leading character — the one who was most competent, successful, and sympathetic — was invariably either a girl (of any race) or a nonwhite boy. Almost without exception, white boys were portrayed as weak and dependent. In one story, a white boy in a difficult situation weeps and says plaintively, ‘If only my big sister were here, I would know what to do.’” (“Education After the Culture Wars,” Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Summer, 2002)

  • there are ‘white studies’

    are there courses studying white racial interests???

    and white racial concerns??? 

    Yeah, Thought Not.

  • Anonymous

    She makes a very good point.

    • Anonymous

      Which point does she make that you consider very good?

  • I recently read “Human Accomplishment” by Charles Murray.  I also own a copy of a book of inventions.  One thing and one thing alone stands out.  Whites created everything.  “White Studies” is nothing but White guilt and minority resentment.  Enough said.

  • “For me, teaching “white people” is an obvious way to work through some
    of the key issues of critical race studies: How did our current racial
    categories form and under what conditions? How are these racial
    categories intertwined with one another? How does race depend on class,
    gender, sexuality and often geographic location to make sense?”

    I have the next few queries: how come only academics get confused over race? How come the rest of society is able to think “Whites= people of European ancestry”? Which understanding of race is representative of a brain-dead, out-of-touch worldview?

    Yes, I suppose we are indeed “marked” as “white”, but the mark is the outward signature of our internal character: the European soul.

    These “whiteness studies” courses are absolutely abhorrant. The purpose of this disipline can basically be summed up in two points: 1) Affirm the reality that “whiteness” exists, and 2) deny that this “mark” correlates with any positive attributes in humans; link it entirely to diabolical “privilege” and frame all stereotypes about Whites (including canards) in the context of that “privilege”.

    Intellectually honest questions about White identity are never linked to class and gender or whatever. These “studies” never focus on the real burning questions which get those who’re actually enthusiastic about White identity all worked up (for instance., how to characterize minor Turkic-speaking, traditionally Christian communities in Eastern Europe).

  • .

    Let me float an idea. These courses aren’t really motivated by “white guilt”. Not that there aren’t plenty of people denigrated by it. But those whites pushing it the hardest don’t really feel guilty for being white. Instead, they tend to fall into one of two categories. The first category is a feminist, homosexual, environmentalist, etc who has an axe to grind with other whites for not supporting their pet agenda. Though certainly not all women, homosexuals, etc fit this pattern. And the second category consists of those with a self-righteous bigotry towards other, often poorer whites whom they see as beneath them. They cry crocodile tears for poor minorities but despise poor whites. They are simply elitists.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Any white who would put up with any such course, or any teacher like this, then they deserve what they get. If you want to be ashamed of being white, and wish to be in constant slavery to multiculturalism and diversity, then go right ahead. I opt out.

    I agree!! And, here’s an even better way to opt out.  Use your wallet!!

    Does your alma mater teach “White Hate?”  Does it support “isms” studies such as Feminism? Black studies? Mexican-American studies? All promote hatred of Whites!   It’s easy enough to find out.  

    If so, why are you contributing or donating to institutions that use your money to promote hatred against Whites?   It’s bad enough the government uses our tax money for this cause, don’t contribute to it!

    Stop. Donating. Immediately.  

    And don’t forget to tell ’em why.

    Bon

  • Alright now, which one of you “racists” upset the Professor? 

    • Anonymous

      The highly effective White people from BUGs have done their number on this anti-White Mommy Prof.   Sure we all love our 10,000 word essays on crime and IQ, but that is preaching to the converted and they have no effect on people like this anti-White Professor.

  • This does not surprise me at all. It is just like whites to insist on equality in all things. I think this was an interesting experiment, and would have produced the same results even if a white man were asking the questions.

    • Our white race is the
      only race that will intentionally deny or relegate ourselves in order to
      promote equality amongst all, even if it is to our own detriment. As this
      experiment demonstrates, other races have no qualms about choosing their own
      race over others when given the chance to do so. They do not apologize for
      doing this and feel no sense of obligation to be fair to other races. They have
      a healthy sense of racial awareness and pride, which they are not afraid to
      express in the least.

      I’m not sure if this is
      the result of some genetic flaw in our make-up or the result of years and years
      of being indoctrinated with “white guilt” over past behavior perceived as immoral.
      Whatever the reason or root cause, it is something we as a people had better
      resolve and rather soon, before our kindness and sense of fairness drives us to
      extinction.

  • Anonymous

    Anti-Whites are in a spot of bother now their beloved White GeNOcide program, is being discussed by my fellow White citizens.

    Roll on the TV debates asking:

    “Is demographic extermination (genocide as per the 1948 genocide convention) a good or bad thing for White children?”

    or

    “Is anti-racist a codeword for anti-White?”

  • Anonymous

    Moderator, certainly to an article in which a part of the Mantra is quoted, it’s appropriate to have the Mantra in it’s entirety appear once on the thread? It’s not as if the Mantra is known by heart!

    So if you will permit it, I would respectfully ask if everyone who has any interest in it at all would please read it and ask yourself honestly: Do you agree with it, or do you think any part of it or all of it is a lie?

    So I posted this to the original article:

    Here’s the most important thing about Whites today. Will Ms. Essig teach it in her course?AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, 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.

  • Anonymous

    I also posted this to the original article:

    “White studies…offers a far more nuanced notion of power and how it operates than ‘whites are bad.’”How nice. What is “nuanced” about legally mandated preferential hiring, preferential promoting, preferential admission to college, and preferential granting of contracts to non-White minorities? Yes, best to stick to the supposed “nuances” of supposed White “privilege.”Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

  • Anonymous

    This woman is brilliant!

  • Anonymous

    Maybe Whiteness Studies should conduct research as to why Whites have lynched, murdered, systematically discriminated and and inflicted all sorts of horrors on Non-Whites, (especially Blacks) for centuries.

    • I hereby sentence you to write The Complete Mantra (TM) a hundred thousand times. 

    • Anonymous

      Or, black African studies on why blacks conspired with a very tiny percentage of greedy white men to put some members of their own race into harms way via slavery. Or knowing better, why some blacks became slave owners themselves and also still butcher each other with zeal in Africa.

    • Anonymous

      @radical7
      You are saying non-Whites never did anything bad, nor would they if they had the power.

      That is not an intellectual position it is a declaration of WAR on White children.

      Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

    • Are you serious?

      How about doing a Study on all the non-white on White violence instead?

    • Beloved Comrade

      Let’s have a review of lynching, shall we?

      Lynching got its name from Colonel Charles Lynch of Bedford County who defended his community against outlaws and those aiding the British during the Revolutionary War.

      Lynching was primarily extracted on criminals, whether they were white or black, and a significant number of whites were lynched in the South.

      Historically, lynching was most often applied to those guilty of rape, robbery or murder.  

      Considering the disproportionate amount of murders and rapes committed by blacks against whites it stands to reason that blacks would be more likely lynched than whites.

      And, considering the following FACTS from DOJ and FBI statistics, maybe it’s time we gave lynching another look:

      *Blacks are an estimated 57 (that is 5,700 percent) times more likely to commit violent crime against a White than vice versa, and 136 times (13,600 percent) more likely to commit robbery. 

      *Over 34,460 White women are sexually assaulted or raped by Black men each year, and most authorities believe that the actual rape figures are at least twice the reported number. The number of White rapes against black women is statistically zero because there are fewer than 10 cases nationally.

      *Black predators are at least 22 times (2,200 percent) more likely to murder White women than the reverse.

    • Anonymous

      You are making an anti-white narrative in support of the ongoing program of genocide of the white race.  You are being anti-white.  You could have picked one of many subjects that could contribute to humanity, but you choose something that frames all white people as guilty of terrible crimes. 
      You have imbedded an attack against all white people for what a few are alleged to have done.

  • Zombiekiller … I don’t know about you, but I heard about this anti-White named Essig before hearing it here at AmRen.  This stuff often surfaces elsewhere first.

    Before even CONSIDERING commenting here, I hit the Essig anti-White message right on its home ground, right where Essig was published.

    I hit them with a CONSISTENT TALKING POINT, and I wasn’t alone doing that.  Of course, it enraged the anti-Whites.

    That consistent talking point was basically a “repeater” that called attention to the fact that all of Essig’s egg-head talk was just a cover for her being anti-White.

    Now, if EVERY AR commenter made a habit of going out at hitting the anti-Whites BEFORE coming here to talk theory and commiserate ….

    We might have a real movement going …

  • Anonymous

    Since the article reproduces a brief Mantra post (the second post), it seems on-topic for me to illustrate what is a good Mantra post and what is NOT a good Mantra post.

    As an example of a poor Mantra post, I offer my own that I posted to the original article and copied below. Notice that I don’t even mention White Genocide…the only thing Mantra about the post is that I close with the last line of the Mantra. Which is better than nothing:

    “White studies…offers a far more nuanced notion of power and how it operates than ‘whites are bad.’”

    How nice. What is “nuanced” about legally mandated preferential hiring, preferential promoting, preferential admission to college, and preferential granting of contracts to non-White minorities? 

    Yes, best to stick to the supposed “nuances” of supposed White “privilege.”

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

    Let me rewrite that as a GOOD Mantra post:

    “White studies…offers a far more nuanced notion of power and how it operates than ‘whites are bad.’”

    What is “nuanced” about legally mandated preferential hiring, preferential promoting, preferential admission to college, and preferential granting of contracts to non-White minorities? 

    That’s no more nuanced than the program of White Genocide you anti-Whites are carrying out by flooding EVERY White country and ONLY White countries with non-Whites with whom we must assimilate and be blended out of existence.

    You aren’t flooding African countries..etc. etc. (I’m told that Amreners know what follows here)

    You aren’t flooding Asian countries..etc. etc.

    You say you are anti-racist. What you are is anti-White.Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

    The trick of getting it back to the Mantra is one I’m having a hard time learning. Possibly because of my age, and also because of having posted for such a long time (principally here at Amren) in a different style.

    I say “trick,” but all injuries to Whites DO go back to the Mantra, because all the injuries function as part of the program of White Genocide.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not exactly an “AR regular” but I appreciate the site. 

    But I’ve argued, debated, and virtually fought it out with plenty of dyed-in-the-wool leftist nuts in various places on the Web. I can be as inflammatory and confrontational as any of them if it’s called for. I’ve been outright threatened plenty of times. Don’t think you’re the only ones.

    I don’t really see the need or worth of limiting myself to a rigid message or way of thinking, beyond the core value of defending the white race as a People. If we can agree on that it’s good enough to me.

  • Anonymous

    Not that I’m agreeing with what you’re saying, but if whites were to do that with anyone it should be hispanics with a significant amount of white blood. Leaving out the La Raza and little brown types automatically. Doing that would only be used as a last resort.

  • Anonymous

    lol, why does she think there should be “teasing” for her “teaching.”   This is the same “teaching” that has gone on for 50 years, lol.   Didn’t her parents bother to tell her that?   Are there really young academics so cut off that they do not realize this is the same old saw they were teaching for the past 3 generations.  Maybe the girl was an orphan, lol, with no parents or older folks to tell her anything.  How embarrassing for her.

  • Anonymous

    The Mantra is honest and it works in practice. Those are the two things that matter.

    Its author Bob Whitaker developed it over years and tested it for years against anti-Whites in the Opposing Views section of another  pro-White site.

    Bob is a genius who began college at age 16 and worked as a psychological warrior for the U.S. government during the Cold War and was part of the effort that brought down the Berlin Wall.

    “If we live in a workers’ paradise, why are there guards at the border to shoot us if we try to leave?”

    That was the Mantra that was used in that context.

    The present Mantra likewise points out an obvious contradiction: If race mixing is a universal good, in fact a moral imperative, why is it being forced ONLY on White countries and on EVERY White country?

    Whites ARE responding to having their eyes opened to that glaring contradiction!

    Mantra thinking and Mantra use is new, different, and challenging.  I thought I had the skills mastered in a few weeks. Now six months later I’m discovering that I’m a beginner.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

  • Anonymous

    I was the commenter who left that second quote for the anti-white Essig.

    I hope this demonstrates the benefit of actually using the appropriate word >genocide< in our dealings with the public and the anti-white cultists.

     

    • Anonymous

      So important, but readers may miss it because it’s a new idea:

      The benefit is that the anti-Whites start spreading OUR terminology and OUR charges against THEM!
      Instead of us continuing to spread THEIR terminology and THEIR charges against us! (By brilliantly DEFENDING ourselves and winning every debate for years while losing the war).

      As the brilliant Jared Taylor has recently lamented, he has not been able to get his ideas into the mainstream after many years of trying!

      But please note what appears above in the mainstream Chronicle of Higher Education:

      “‘Whiteness studies’ are a product of a genocidal anti-white regime. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

      DO ALL OF YOU GET IT NOW?

      • Anonymous

        Moderator, I’m sorry, but that is NOT AT ALL the point I just made that you are (not!) responding to! Which shows that you DID NOT get it! Lol!

        Here’s the point I just made:

        As Jared Taylor has lamented, we have been unable to move our OWN discourse into the mainstream. We have been kept at the margin in part by ceding to anti-Whites control of the issues we discuss and control of the terminology we discuss them in!

        But note that Mantra methods have succeeded in placing in the above mainstream article the issue of White Genocide, certainly an issue the mainstream does NOT wish to discuss, and certainly NOT framed using anti-white terminology (do you see the word “racism” anywhere in there? We do not help anti-Whites hammer home their terminology!):

        “‘Whiteness studies’ are a product of a genocidal anti-white regime. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

        You may say, well, it was repeated in the mainstream article because it was considered so absurd that it would do no harm to the anti-White cause.

        Fine. When Whites first heard the R-word several decades ago, surely it was also regarded as an absurdity. But constant repetition has made that lying word (it implies that any racial feelings are pathological) the automatic reflex of most Whites when anything non-liturgical is said about race.

        We will make the true terms “anti-White” and “White Genocide” the automatic reflexes of Whites to racial topics.

        If you and others will understand and help, that is.

        What needs to be understood is not only the charge of White Genocide, nor even the methods used to spread it (not as simple as they may seem, I tell you), but the PURPOSE.

        If you don’t understand why it would be much better to have White minds automatically thinking in terms of “anti White” and “White Genocide” than in terms of “racism,” ….well, I’m sure we all DO understand, when I put it that way!

        I do appreciate Amren making room on this thread for this fairly extended discussion.

  • Anonymous

    “It is nonsensical because the phrase ‘anti-racist’ is not a word used in common speech. It therefore cannot be a ‘code word’ by any intelligible stretch.”

    Jordan, this statement fascinates me for several reasons. 
    1. I have a pro-White friend (who posts here in fact) whose intelligence and insights I respect, who offers exactly the same objection!
    2. As far as I know, out in mainstream media where we principally use the Mantra, all the anti-Whites opposing us NEVER  offer this objection! (Someone somewhere must have, but I’ve never ever seen it!)
    3. Personally, I can’t recall if I ever heard the term “anti-racist” before encountering BUGS myself or not, but certainly my brain didn’t trip over it the least bit!
    4. Perplexed at my friend’s objection, I’ve asked several people if they’ve heard the term “Anti-racist” used, and some have said yes.

    I can only speculate why you and a few others are stumbling on this. If you are correct that the term “anti-racist” is not in wide usage, then strictly speaking you are correct that it could not have yet become a code word for anything. In which case you can interpret the last line of the mantra as meaning that on any occasion that anyone would use the term “anti-racist,” it would merely be a code word for anti-White.

    And in which case you might judge the statement in the Mantra, “they say they are anti-racist,” to also be untrue, since anti-whites don’t (if you are correct) walk around saying that! Well, just ASK them if they are “anti-racist.” They will say YES! Lol!!

    I’m bewildered by such objections, because all my life I’ve been known as a nit-picker with a compulsion for precision in everything, and yet this objection doesn’t arouse that part of me at all.

    I think you’re demanding that ordinary language be interpreted with the strictness of a computer language. Ordinary language has more latitude than that.

    But in a similar vein, here is a thread where I worked out with about 40 posts some of my own questions about the Mantra:

    White GeNOcide Project (dotcom)/fox-news-republicans-must-support-genocidal-policies/

  • Not just not defend it, they will no longer bother in the first place.

    You’re not going to exercise your Potential if Potential is “racism”, “evil white privilege” or has any other negative connotations attached to it.When you beat (verbally) people down, many times, they’ll eventually stay there.

  • And here I thought Beauty was in the Eye of the Beholder.

    How old were your subjects and what year and where (State/Town) did you perform your experiment?  I want to know if the area was Liberal for example.

  • Anonymous

    When you HAVE a MANTRA, you can turn every situation into a MANTRA MEME spreading activity.  
    The trick is to find a tool and use it against an anti-white.  Pro-whites just need a lot of practice striking out against anti-whites.
    The exercise of using the MANTRA builds inner strength and pro-white identity.
    You are wrong about having “so few opportunities” to spread our message.  The MANTRA condenses the message, makes it very clear and sticks in people minds and emotions. Its use provides many opportunities for spreading the message.
    We need more internet warriors to spread it.  There are so many opportunities right this moment. We can shut the mouths of anti-whites right now if we have enough white internet warriors.
    Question is, do you so the ongoing genocide of the white race occurring around you this very moment? 

  • White people are the only people who will protest White people meeting as White people. LOL.

    • Anonymous

       Yeah its crazy.

      You don’t see Black anti-racists, demonstrating against racism in Africa and demanding Africa be flooded with non-Blacks.

      You don’t see Asian anti-racists, demonstrating against racism in Asia and demanding Asia be flooded with non-Asians.

  • Anonymous

    Jordan
     When someone says something that is “anti-racist”, they are always saying something that is against White interests and therefore it is anti-White.

    So you can immediately point out that what they are saying, is anti-White.

    Then you can use a Mantra concept to point out the CONTRADICTIONS of anti-racism, which are ALWAYS anti-White.

    You don’t just memorize the Mantra and reel it off in conversation. That is for posting on message boards.

  • Ano Namouse

    Yes. The same predictably knee-jerk liberal who wrote this:

    http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2003/feature_essig_sepoct03.msp

  • Anonymous

    Anybody who finds this comment should pay it careful attention. What is expressed here is the essence of social conservatism — the idea that people need to maintain tradition and heritage. Indeed it is the essence of conservatism itself, the idea that there are things people need to protected from, things that lie outside their normal experience of life within the family and community that are dangerous to them.

    Liberalism believes in human potential and its development. There is a place for that too, but to deny the moral and psychosocial dangers and hazards people face is both dangerous and naive. Is that what liberalism critic believe — that liberalism is both dangerous and naive, dangerous because it is naive, that is to say.