The REAL Racists Are The Ones Waving The Banner of ‘Anti-Racism.’

Our original pithy phrase was simple: “The new fascists will come waving the banner of anti-fascism.” We didn’t necessarily coin the phrase, or the idea, but we were the only ones (that we’ve found so far) to phrase it that way.

You know it and I know it: Leftists try to make their points by using the language and ideas of the Right. This has long been true. And it’s been true internationally as well as domestically. The International Socialist Left always claimed that their aim was to bring about “liberation,” and “freedom,” and “democracy.” They name their countries things like “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” a long moniker in which the only accurate word is: “Korea.”

In the same vein, the Left is constantly assuring us that they’re ever so “anti-fascism,” even as their street gangs — Antifa, Black Lives Matter, others — engage in the purest of fascistic tactics to silence Conservative speakers on college campuses and elsewhere. The new fascists are here… and they are waving the banner of anti-fascism.

Also in the same vein, the Left loudly proclaims how anti-racist it is. Day in and day out, they’re militantly on the hunt for anything that could, with a little bit of imagination, somehow be characterized as racism. This fabrication of racism where there is none is a characteristic most pronounced in the ranks of black leftists, where we’ve done many hundreds of hours of first-hand research, interacting with black leftists on-line and around the country. Given the proclivities of the Left, we thought it would be a good idea to find out whether leftists, and particularly black leftists, decry racism so vociferously as a means to distract everyone from their own racism.

We did a little thought experiment.

The First Thought Experiment:

We asked groups of black people (here and here — two so-called “anti-racism” blogs) a simple question: Imagine that a genie pops out of a lamp and shows you a red button. “Push this button,” he says, “and I’ll wink all white people out of existence immediately.”  How many black people, I asked, would push the button?

Interestingly, no one answered. In a moment, I’ll explain why that’s significant.

Later I tried another, slightly more elaborate, thought experiment — involving the very same hypothetical genie. It went like this:

The Second, Slightly More Elaborate, Thought Experiment:

Part 1: Imagine a genie pops out of a lamp, and is able telepathically to speak to all non-white Americans at the same time. He says: “I’m holding a vote on whether to eliminate all white people in the world. A simple majority will decide this vote. There are two choices in this vote:

  1. Eliminate all white people in the world.
  2. Don’t eliminate any white people.”

Part 2: The same genie appears and speaks telepathically to all white Americans at the same time. He says roughly the same thing to the white people: “I’m holding a vote on whether to eliminate all non-white people in the world. A simple majority will decide this vote. There are two choices in this vote:”

  1. Eliminate all non-white people in the world.
  2. Don’t eliminate any non-white people.”

Part 3: Now, three questions: Given this scenario:

  1. How do you think black Americans would vote?
  2. How do you think white Americans would vote?
  3. How do you think other non-white Americans would vote?

I then said that I thought I had a good idea as to the answer to question #2: “How do you think white Americans would vote?” Answer: Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3 percent of white Americans would vote to eliminate all non-white people. Why? Because in any population, there are a small number of cranks, whack-jobs, racists, nutballs, morons and psychos. There just are. The other 97-98 percent of white people would vote for option #3: “Don’t eliminate any non-white people.

My thought experiment wasn’t really looking for anyone’s actual estimate as to how many of this group or that group would vote to eliminate anyone; I was looking for something much simpler.

What I was looking for.

I was hoping that a significant number of people would respond something like the only correct answer to the questions: “What a stupid question! No black Americans would vote to eliminate all white people, you moron! That would be racist, genocidal lunacy!

Instead my thought experiment elicited only silence from my black interlocutors. Crickets.

Otherwise stated: not one single, solitary black person in this particular group of several dozen, was willing to stand up for black people, and state categorically that they wouldn’t engage in mass murder on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler look like a Campfire Girl. 

By extension, one can infer that many black people came to the uneasy conclusion that large percentages of black Americans would choose to eliminate all white people. Perhaps an uncomfortable number of black people would vote to eliminate all white people, perhaps not… no one can tell. It was more telling, though, that no one was willing to say: Of course they wouldn’t!

This was after considerable reminding and prodding and restating of the thought exercise.

Yes, I considered the possibility that people simply hadn’t read the thought experiments. However, they responded to nearly all my other posts, and with enthusiastic frequency, almost as if they wanted to be sure that no assertion of mine would go un-rebutted. So, they read the experiments. And they didn’t stand up for black people.

Remember: these same people are the ones who proclaim the loudest that they’re “anti-racism!” But they also seemed to imply, if indirectly, that they’d engage in racial genocide on a scale never before seen in the history of mankind.

Here’re a couple of important notes: my inspiration for the two Thought Experiments was simple: several times, I’ve interacted with black people who  have expressed the wish that something would happen that would kill all the white people on the planet. Here, for example, is a post by a certain DIARYOFANEGRESS. I wanted to see whether that sentiment was widespread, or just the occasional fit of pique from the odd person with limited self-control.

Apropos of that post by DIARY, the proprietor of the blog on which it appeared — one “Brothawolf” — immediately endorsed it.

He came over here to debate with us several times, and in those times we offered him numerous opportunities to denounce the sentiment of DIARY’s post. He disavowed it here, but not where it actually counted: on his own blog. He refused outright to do that. Even when I reminded him that if someone had posted something like that on this blog, he or she would have met with immediate denunciation from whoever might be moderating the blog at the moment it appeared.

One is left to conclude only that Brothawolf — one of the loudest in his claims to be anti-racism — is himself an ugly racist. Not only that, he’s on record (here) as approving of a fantasy that yearns for the violent death of an entire race  — all white people.

As we might have mentioned: The real racists are the ones waving the banner of anti-racism.

The real racists are on the Left side of the American political spectrum, as we’ve documented in these pages numerous times.

— xPraetorius




8 thoughts on “The REAL Racists Are The Ones Waving The Banner of ‘Anti-Racism.’

  1. Your “mindbender” would have had a different level of response if you removed “eliminate” or anything suggesting physical harm to the opposite racial side (even your Hitler comparison). Keep it sterile.
    “If a genie popped up and said in the wink of an eye all white people would be moved to a different country… planet… etc… if the majority of black folks could cast a vote to do so.”

    But here’s a better concept…
    Option 1… Racial Separation
    If the entire USA could be divided in half, would you vote for all the white folks to be moved to their half and blacks moved to the other half?

    Option 2… Politics
    Should the entire USA be divided in half, without regard to race, where Conservatives have their own country and Liberals have their own country?

    1. Hmmmm… Your “mindbenders” are intriguing, Doug! And thank you for them. Here are some initial thoughts pertaining to them.

      I imagine a middle ground, simply because I’d like to see responses to both sets of inquiries.

      It was funny… I didn’t set out to make a trick question when I posed my admittedly stark choices to my non-white interlocutors. However, after I’d crafted it all, I realized that the only correct response — as in many binary choices — was really: “None of the above.” With a third far better response (as detailed in the post) as the actual correct response. In that way, my non-trick question question became a (fairly simple, let’s face it) trick question.

      I believe that my conclusions from the non-response responses to my hypothetical were, however, accurate. You can shoot back to me: “But they didn’t even responnd!” To which I’ll reply, they did respond to everything else I put to them, and with never any reluctance whatsoever to submit evasive, ‘None-of-the-above’-type responses to other queries of mine.”

      I tried my queries in several fora, and each time they received the same non-response response from non-white people. I say that’s revealing, especially when the tables could have been so easily turned on me by the correct response that I provided (and that, ultimately, I was looking for). That response: Something like, “Are you crazy?!? No one would vote to eliminate all white people! That’s insane!!! No one would be that horrible, that grotesque, that bloodthirsty, that disgusting!”

      Honestly, that not one single, solitary non-white person came up with that simple, easy, natural, civilized reaction to my hypothetical said to me that #1: Many (Most? All?) were worried that many non-whites would vote to push the “Eliminate White People” button, or #2: they themselves would push that “Eliminate White People” button, or #3: if they were to provide the correct, “Are you crazy…?!?” response, they might trigger a response in turn that would confirm fear #1, above.

      Either way, I’d have had no problems whatsoever with the hypothetical. The response is simple: In no way, under no circumstance, would I ever be tempted to push any “Eliminate [fill in group here] Button.” I’d rather die first.

      With all that said, I’d love to hear the responses to your hypotheticals as well.

      However, yours have “wiggle room.” Room for interpretation, and therefore for misinterpretation. There could be room for honest, if misguided, concern for one’s own group, or for the other one(s) in a positive response to your hypotheticals. For example, a well-meaning, but ignorant, white person could conclude that white people represent a physical menace to non-white people, and might for that reason, vote to give non-white people half the country. The same could be said in reverse: a well-meaning, but ignorant, non-white person could conclude the same thing, and vote to be given half the country to escape from the menace. Or, a third option, a well-meaning non-white person could consider that non-white people represent a menace to white people — let’s face it: whites won’t be a majority in America for overly much longer — and conclude that white people should be given half the country prophylactically to prevent a future genocide. There is, of course, the fourth option: #4: racist whites, or racist blacks might vote to set up a segregated country. You might have to wordsmith or adjust your hypotheticals a bit more to eliminate all the possible ambiguities.

      It would be hard to determine from your hypotheticals the reasons for a given vote. Whereas with mine: a vote to push the “Eliminate all [fill in group here] People” button could be driven only by animus toward people in that group, by virtue solely of their belonging to that group. If the group in the hypothetical is presented as a racial group, then the only reason for either a response to push the button — or not to respond — is… racial animus. Or: racism. I don’t see any way around it, do you?

      As for your second question: With the arrival of Donald Trump on the scene, there’s considerable controversy as to the definition of “Conservative.” Many (Most?) Conservatives are heading away from the label itself, in favor either of “Classical Liberal,” or “Libertarian,” though this particular schism could result in a tri-partite right wing consisting of “Classical Liberals,” “Conservatives,” and “Libertarians.” I think for your second hypothetical, you might wish, or need, to clarify a bit, maybe to set down, say, 10 crucial tenets that would serve as the basis for the governing constitution for each side of the country, then ask whether people would support partitioning the country that way.

      This second question of yours is outstanding, Doug! I have a question for you: What are the basic governing tenets of the Left? For the Right, it’s fairly simple, though there’s greater ambiguity in the details: Free speech absolutism, generally free markets, strong private property protections, limited government, limited regulation, wide latitude for regional and local autonomy, near total freedom of association, near total freedom of worship (see, “peyote” for one limitation), strong protection for individual liberties… things like that. The Right’s governing philosophy can be, and has been, easily summed up with a simple phrase: “that government is best which governs least.” Most credit this to Thoreau, but there’s room for debate. See here, for example. In the meantime, this post of ours is being used in educational institutions around the world as an illustration of the trajectory of the thought processes involved in people’s ideological journeys.

      I wonder what such a list would look like coming from the Left side of things. Oh, I have a good idea… but I’d rather hear it from others as well.



  2. For some reason I could not leave a comment on the most recent update to this post (Real Racists II) but I wanted to thank you for adding such a lovely word to my lexicon:

    Has a nice Gallic ring to it, like “conneries” 😉

    1. Lol! Apologies for the impediment to commenting! I didn’t put any limits on it. Probably just a system glitch.

      You’re so right about the words “jackassery” and “jackasseries!” A very Gallic ring… like “Cuirasse,” and the like. Quelle connerie la guerre, eh?


      — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s