Liberalism and “anti-racism”: How “anti-racist” rhetoric exposes its anti-Western bias

Dennis Kastros explores the problems of Leftist psychology as well as the bizarre and irrational nature of its anti-national hypocrisy.

Perhaps one of the largest problems facing nationalists, is defining to others what it is exactly that we are fighting for, and being able to answer the plethora of arguments against us. Arguments such as “this land was stolen” or “white people committed many crimes against other races”.

In this article, we will be looking at the sources of these arguments, how to counter them, and most importantly, to be able to see these arguments for what they actually are, arguments to push a liberal ideology, rather than arguments which take a moral position.

For many nationalists, the justification for their beliefs comes from instinct, and innate desire to protect one’s kin, one’s culture and to work towards protecting this now, and into the future.

We all know that protecting, not just the Western world and our nation, but the race of people that gave birth to it and catapulted it into the monumental creation it is today is important, but how does one rationalise instinct?

The problem of Leftism and its psychology

The problems that Australia, and the rest of the Western world face, regarding mass immigration and assimilation largely stem from the political phenomenon known as Leftism.

The political left, which consist of Marxists, activists for Political Correctness, Feminists, anti-racists and gay rights advocates, is more a collection of people who share a particular psychology.

Not everyone who participates in promoting these causes is necessarily a leftist, but leftists – in particular the rank and file activists – tend to be drawn towards these causes because of the appeal these causes have to their psychology.

For a lot of leftists, they are drawn by personal feelings of inferiority, self hatred, self doubt and low self esteem. This negative self image leads leftists to identify with groups who they perceive to be inferior. For them, these groups include coloured people, disabled people, homosexuals and women.

That is not to say that these people are inferior, but one of the prominent characteristics of the left, and particularly of people who engage in left wing politics, is a fear that these particular groups may be inferior to your average white, middle class male.

Many leftists, who argue for affirmative action programs, reparations and activities designed to give advantages to non-whites are to a large degree motivated by a fear that these minority groups may not be able to compete with white males. This fear leads to suppression of speech and the modification of IQ tests so as to decrease the black/white disparity. It leads towards affirmative action programs and the suppression of speech which may categorise minorities in the wrong context.

The term ‘minority’ has therefore become synonymous with ‘disadvantaged’ and is used in reference to groups that the left believes represents a social underdog. For this reason, Muslims, Sudanese and Vietnamese are often put under the ‘minority’ umbrella, but other minority groups, such as Italians, Irish and Japanese are much less frequently referred to as such, simply because these groups have been far more successful at assimilating and do not possess the social problems and minorities have.

In a similar fashion, feminists who are desperate to prove that women are just as capable of doing the physically demanding jobs that men do, are not doing this to try and prove equality, but to dispel their own personal fears that women may not be able to performs these jobs with the same efficacy. This leads to a disdain of anything which is feminine. The term ‘actor’ is preferred over actress, as ‘steward’ is preferred over ‘stewardess’.

Motherhood and childrearing are looked down upon, and women are encouraged to pursue professional careers and compete with men. Women are encouraged to break the glass ceiling, to pursue careers which have been traditionally held by men and to hold management and leadership positions. The important point here, is that this is not so much about allowing women to run the world, as it is about attacking femininity and allowing the leftist intellectuals to run the world.

The left hates anything which is seen as strong and successful. They hate White males, western civilization and capitalism. They hate big business, entrepreneurs and self reliance. They hate science and absolutism and have great disdain for systems of knowledge which may classify certain human aspects as being superior to others.

Genetics is quite problematic to them, as genetic explanations regarding intelligence or behaviour or inclination towards certain activities can lead towards judgment about some people having superior traits to others. Leftists therefore favour environmental explanations for differences in behaviour between ethnic groups and sexes rather than genetic differences Environmental and social explanations are considered to not be not the fault of the individual and therefore allow left wing intellectuals to argue that power should be given to them to solve these social problems and accordingly engineer the social and political environment as they see fit.

Liberalism and anti-racism

It is important for anyone who is a nationalist to understand their struggle in relation to liberalism, and how the anti-racist movement has defined what white westerners are fighting for. Anti-racism can be seen as the broad movement which upholds liberal ideals of open borders, of Political Correctness, of the right for people in the Third World to settle in Australia, and other white, western nations.

Anti-racists oppose western nations closing their borders, in particular closing their borders to particular ethnic or cultural groups, and oppose any policy or ideology which may discriminate between ethnic and racial groups or which may favour whites over non-whites. It supports the transition of countries from national groups to more abstract administrative entities.

There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.” — General Wesley Clark, NATO Commander, April 1999 [1]

It is often stated that the world is heading towards multi ethnic, multiracial states, that the notion of a nation based on a particular ethnic group or race is defunct. However, where is the progress in non-white, non-western nations towards becoming a multiracial melting pot? Where are the demands for more homogeneous nations like Japan or Taiwan to take in more immigrants and assimilate with them? It may be often stated that the future of the world is towards racial assimilation and towards greater racial ambiguity, but one has to ask, why is it that this assimilation seems to be occurring predominantly in white, western nations and why there is no call for other nations to take in a greater mix of races and assimilate?

In fact, the very same people who argue that nations such as Australia must open their borders often make the case that Africa is for Africans and Asia is for the Asians. However, white countries are for everyone! Europe, UK, the US, Canada and Australia are obliged to open up their borders to the Third World, but there is no corresponding demand to China, Japan, South Korea or Tanzania. It should be noted that Japan does have a relatively small population of Nigerian immigrants, and that China does have a small population of foreigners, however the proportion of foreigners in China doesn’t compare to large numbers that Australia takes in on a yearly basis, well over 130,000 annually.

The key issue here is not which nation takes in more immigrants. The issue is not whether a foreign nation is taking in any immigrants or not, but it is what liberals and multiracialists are calling for.

They argue that the Third World should be able to enter white nations in large numbers and assimilate and that this will solve racial problems. Problems like Australia just being ‘too white’, problems like racism, discrimination and bigotry. These are problems that apparently will be solved when western nations take in large numbers of non-whites and assimilate and intermarry with them.

However, where are the antis who argue that racism can be solved by Asian nations taking in large numbers of immigrants from the Third World and assimilating with them? Where are the antis who argue for large scale immigration into Africa, so as to make Africans a mixed race?

No one would argue that an Asian person, who objected to large numbers of non-Asian immigrants moving into Asian nations and intermarrying would be racist or insane. It would be a sensible stance. After all, isn’t someone who argues that all and only Asian nations should assimilate, being anti-Asian?

However, liberals and anti-racists argue for all and only white nations to become a melting pot, yet any white person who objects to this happening to his race is labeled a bigot, a racist or even a Nazi.

Liberalism is anti-white racism

Much like the motives that the left have for pursuing their causes, anti-racism as a movement bears all the hallmarks of an ideology aimed at attacking a particular race, precisely because it IS aimed at destroying white hegemony in western nations, including Australia.

Herein lies the problem that nationalists face. This mode of thinking, this morality has become the status quo, and many people who think they are against racism and intolerance, are in reality putting forward arguments against a particular race.

The perceived stranglehold that Political Correctness and Liberalism have on the general population make it difficult for people to speak in defence of their culture because they believe that these anti-racist ideals are moral and just.

Political Correctness is incorrectly seen as a giant juggernaut, a necessary imposition on our thoughts and speech and an impartial ideology. Even though many people would see it at times to be rather silly, most of these people nevertheless tolerate it either by grudgingly accepting it, or as is more often the case, simply remaining silent and not offering any opposition or resistance.

The anti-racist movement is essentially an anti-white movement. Its arguments are essentially constructed so as to support the current program of mass Third World immigration and assimilation into all and only white nations.

One popular argument often thrown by those who support multiracialism is that a nation like Australia was not originally white, that the land was stolen from the Aboriginals. Very similar arguments are made regarding the US, that the land was taken from the Indians, the native Americans.

Firstly, one has to wonder what relevance this fact has to do with modern day immigration policy. Does the fact that white people weren’t the first on the continent mean that these white people have no right to maintain the nation they built for their prosperity?

Do the citizens of the US have to open up their borders simply because they built their nation on land which was already occupied?

How does the fact that Australia was built upon a continent which the Aboriginals were living on, mean that black Africans and Vietnamese have the right to come here as they see fit? Do they have the same right to the infrastructure and resources that Australians created for themselves, as the descendants of those very same Australians?

Another argument is that white nations such as the UK, the US and France have interfered with the affairs of foreign races, and engaged in colonialism and imperialism in non European lands, and that the influx of non whites is therefore a just form of reparation, and in the words of some anti racists, their comeuppance.

Issues of whether Algerians have the right to move to France as they see fit or not, or whether the UK should open its borders to make up for the past aside, it should be noted that the very same English and French who will have to live with these immigrants have most likely never engaged personally in any foreign imperialism and colonialism.

Do you judge and punish someone according to their race? If you’re white, it seems that the answer is “yes”.

Let’s now look at another nation, Sweden. Sweden doesn’t have the same long and controversial history of recent imperialism and colonialism, but the same multiracialist liberals who bring out the colonialism argument in opposition to pro white speech in the UK also oppose pro-white speech in ANY Western nation which has not had a similar past, including Sweden.

One fact becomes immediately apparent, that liberal anti racists really don’t care too much about the history of a particular nation and how this history justifies their particular stance.

The opposition they provide to English and Australians nationalists is the same as the opposition they provide to Swedish and Polish nationalists. With this in mind, what relevance does British colonialism have to modern day social policy in Australia? The answer it seems is none.

If Australia was founded on a completely empty continent and there was no intervention by Australia at all on foreign nations, it’s a good bet, that Australian nationalists would be facing the same opposition. After all, nationalists in other western nations which have a dissimilar relationship with the Third World are receiving the same pressure.

One can also look at the somewhat inconsistent manner in which liberals and multiculturalists deal with the existence, or non-existence of race. On one hand anti-racists argue that race is insignificant, a biological non-reality, a social construct, and on the other hand, many anti-racists argue that racial assimilation is necessary and racial diversity is needed in the Western world.

Arguments are made that it is necessary to prevent inbreeding, arguments about hybrid vigour and mixed people being generally better. Does anyone ever notice that if you argue that race exists, and put it in a context which promotes mixing, then its OK? Alon Ziv, author of “Breeding Between the Lines” openly states “What do Tiger Woods, Benjamin Bratt, and Lenny Kravitz have in common? Their interracial heritage. This mixed ancestry gives them better genes and stronger, healthier, better-looking bodies.”[2]

This is essentially the writings of a racial supremacist, who considers the mixed race as the superior race, yet where is the outcry from anti racists? Even the fact that he admits that race is important should draw massive controversy, but because it is done in a context which is pro miscegenation, it appears to be acceptable.

Despite the contradictions in arguments, the range of arguments against nationalists, the inconsistent way in which liberals deal with the reality of race, one fact remains constant, that the Western world, the realm of the white race, must open its borders to the Third World and assimilate and intermarry with them.

Dealing with anti-racism and justifying nationalism

The public to a large degree, judge nationalists by the means in which they combat arguments put to them by liberals and other members of the general public who have accepted the status quo.

Public debate is a means to destroy the opponent’s arguments, to counter their arguments and to win over the mind of others. It is also a means to expose the opposition, to reveal true motives, to demonstrate how the speech and actions that are carried out would lead to a particular conclusion.

The left is driven by their psychology, their political ideology is a means of fulfilling this psychological need and the arguments they put forward are merely the means to an end.

For many who profess to hold anti-racist ideals, they are merely adopting this liberal ideology because they believe it to be moral and just, but for others, anti racism provides the means to attack white hegemony. The name-calling against those who merely wish for immigration reform, the support for the current open doors immigration policy and the prospect of even more, the support of multiracial assimilation and of the melting pot, the opposition to any support or advocacy of an ethnic state – it all leads to one conclusion, the assimilation of Whites in all and only White nations, including Australia.

One does not hear of arguments for Japan or China to take in African refugees fleeing violence and famine. One does not hear anti-racists demand Taiwan to open up their borders, nor does one hear much opposition to sentiments in these nations to preserve their ethnic and cultural heritage. In this sense, the degree to which particular nations might racially mix, or bring in immigrants becomes less relevant, and the motivation behind liberal, left wing arguments becomes more and more relevant.

In essence, liberalism, and therefore the Politically Correct “anti-racism” de-legitimizes itself with its own arguments. The plight of the Aborigines or the colonialism that Spain engaged in fades into irrelevance when the clear anti-white sentiment held by liberals and “anti-racist” activists is exposed.

Rather than nationalists allowing themselves to be put into positions justifying why they should be able to act in a matter to protect their culture and people, it is nationalists who should be placing the spotlight on the vocal “anti-racist” opposition and making them accountable for the outcomes of their beliefs.

Australians are soon going to need people who will speak on their behalf, and who will act for their interests. With immigration being at an all time high, and now consisting of a large degree of non-Europeans who have trouble integrating and cause social problems, with water scarcity, with a housing shortage and competition for jobs and resources increasing, there is an ever increasing need for White Australians to have a voice of reason speak on their behalf.

Years of observance of Political Correctness, of multiculturalist indoctrination and liberal ideology have stripped away, not only a sense of group identity, but a sense of entitlement to ones own nation.

No longer do the majority of Australians feel as if they are free to assert that this is indeed their own nation which they maintain for their own prosperity.

Australians, and White Westerners worldwide, must start demanding why it is that liberals and multiracialists demand that all and only white nations become multiracial.

No longer should nationalists allow themselves to be put into a position where they have to justify why they are protecting their culture and heritage, but rather why it is that these anti-racists are demanding that only white nations should become melting pots.

It is anti-racists who must be made to answer for their clear anti Western, anti White stance. It is the liberals who must put forward arguments and be made answerable. Any “anti-racist” who argues that Australia should allow in large numbers of every race on this planet because “it wasn’t our country anyway” should have to answer why then it is that nations in which the white population is indigenous, like the UK, have to also allow the Third World within their borders. If it is argued that the UK should allow its borders to be open because of its past, then they should be made to answer why other nations which did not engage imperialism, such as Ireland, have to embrace multiracialist ideals.

There is no rational argument which says that an individual is not entitled to protect their life if it is threatened. Likewise, there is no rational argument which says that a particular culture, nation, or race should not be entitled to protect itself and prevent circumstances from arising which might compromise it future.

By exposing the liberal ideals of anti-racism and multiracialism for what they really are, components of an anti-white ideology, by exposing Political Correctness as the means by which this ideology stifles opposition and protects itself from questioning, one can shift the focus from why it is that you support nationalism, to why it is that your opponents are against a particular race or culture protecting itself.

This requires, not just simply a change in argument, but a change in thinking, in the way the ideological battle lines are drawn and in which verbal arguments are formed. It therefore becomes necessary to expose how arguments used by the left are inherently arguments against a particular race, rather than arguments for tolerance and understanding and worldwide justice.

For most Australians, arguments that are often made in the media about our necessity to be good global citizens, by opening our borders, arguments for racial tolerance and moving forward by embracing the melting pot ideology are taken at face value. For most Australians, they are exposed to arguments for even more assimilation not only here but all over the western world without hearing any real opposition from those who question their motives. Even ‘conservative’ media personalities who supposedly oppose the left will, on racial issues, embrace multiracialism and attack racial segregationists with great ferocity.

We need to demand from the liberals and the activist left to explain why it is that their stance is so blatantly against westerners. By dealing with the underlying message in liberalism, rather than taking the arguments at face value one can strike a blow to liberalism by allowing others to recognise it for what it really is.


Speak Your Mind