The non-negotiable aspect of anti-racists

On January 24, 2014, in Commentary, by mkennedy

Michael Kennedy

There are differences of opinions among anti-racists, but the one thing they all agree on, is that white people must go. ALL White countries must become multiracial melting pots, if, as they say, they are to ‘join the 21st century’. There are no exceptions. There can be no areas where whites can stake a place to preserve their race of culture. Anti-racist anti-whites agree that white people must go.

Anti-whites can disagree on whether certain races are superior or not. The idea of racial supremacy is challenged by some anti-whites, but at times, championed by other anti-whites without challenge from their peers. An anti-white can choose to disregard racial equality, but suggesting that white nations must take in non-whites to create a more robust population. An anti-white can choose to disregard racial equality by suggesting that certain ethnic groups require white assistance and affirmative action to be equal. An anti-white can choose to engage in race-hate, by openly calling for the eradication of white people, and by openly stating that the white race deserves Genocide. Prominent anti-white activist Time Wise makes a living stating this. Anti-whites can disagree on whether race is real or not. The idea that there are different races can be held by some anti-whites without opposition from other anti-whites, especially if that acknowledgement of the existence of race promotes the anti-white agenda.

Hating a race of people and stating their eventual disappearance is a good thing, believing that race exists and is real and holding ideas of racial inferiority do not necessarily make one a racist in the eye of anti-whites. These are all points they can contradict each other on, but not call each other out on. There is one point which all anti-racists agree on, and will immediately ostracise any other ‘anti-racist’ should they disagree. That white people have the right to take measures to protect their race. There are no nations which some anti-whites agree should be able to stay white. There are no circumstances or areas, which some anti-whites agree, should be able to reject multiracialism and ‘diversity’. Every anti-white is in complete agreement that there is no room for an all white anything.

“No room for racism” means “no room for white people”.

2 Responses to The non-negotiable aspect of anti-racists

  1. Jai says:

    I am not clear on the direction of your article. Which way are you leaning. While your articles suggest a fair go for all cultures and colours, it seems that ‘Nationalist’ is another way of suggesting white supremacy or things to that effect with tones towards European. What is a true Aussie? A typical Aussie comes from all over the world. The colour or the language spoken is no longer an indicator. Plus the European influence came due to the British Colonization more than anything else. I have met people that are proud of their Convict heritage, dunno what is there to be proud of. They are here for a long time is all that I can understand. What about the countless non-European nationalities that call Australia home and are contributing towards the modern Australia?

    Even with colour, there has been discrimination where non British, Scottish and Irish (mainly Italians and other non english speaking Europeans) were referred to as Wogs. One can only imagine the discrimination that the Indians (who get away by being Doctors, you have to talk nice to them) Sri-Lankans and other Asian and African heritage cultures face for being the non White colour.

    I support your vision of a united Australia for everyone minus the greed and corruption. However I am confused on the direction. Is this only for a select community / group of heritages? If so then you are contradicting your own directive.

  2. mkennedy says:

    Hello Jai,

    Nationalism is the idea of national identity being based on peoples true identity, their cultural and ethnic/racial identity. Aboriginals may be Australian citizens, but they identify as Aboriginals. That is their nation, that is who they are. You cannot simply decide that a people become something else.

    Multiculturalism sounds good, in theory, but in practice it doesn’t offer any identity or any sense of belonging. How can Australian mean anything, if it means every identity and culture? True identity and social cohesion is being replaced by an ersatz national identity, where people only have superficial connections (they pay taxes to the same government, have the same passports, vote in the same electorates). These are not things which provide a rich identity and sense of nationhood or belonging. Multiculturalism cannot therefore replace more traditional national identity, only erode it.

    Many Australians don’t wish to erode it, and identify with the more established White, predominantly Anglo-Saxon, European influenced national identity which offers a greater sense of cohesion, shared culture and history and destiny. This still means something to us, and it is something that we wish to preserve and defend.

    After all, there can be a “Community” for those who identify as Indian, Asian, Chinese, Jewish, African, why not White? While we understand that many Europeans also copped flak, they were, for the most part, naturalised.

    The idea of a united, racially blind Australia as people like Andrew Bolt promote might seem appealing, but it will never happen. The reality is, that the more diverse we become, the more that there will be competition between identities.

    Identity politics is becoming the future of the Western World, and it is one where white people need a voice, especially since many are keen do deconstruct our identity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *