Politics Magazine

How Common Antiracist Arguments Are Inadvertently Viciously Racist Themselves

Posted on the 31 October 2016 by Calvinthedog

We know who is violating the Comments Policy against, well, classism really. There are two of you. They are both blaming Whites who are the victims of Black/NAM crime here and in South Africa for being losers who are too poor or stupid to move. This is really shitty.

It’s appalling too. You are attacking White crime victims with a “blame the victim” game which is objectively rightwing.

And the thing is that this line really insults Blacks and NAM’s. It says that living around Blacks and NAM’s is sheer utter Hell such that any sane person would automatically move away from them. In other words, Blacks and NAM’s are scum. Get it? This is an antiracist argument that ends up admitting that Blacks and NAM’s are the scum of the Earth and that no sane or decent human would want to live around them. So this antiracist argument is actually viciously racist.

The argument that only loser Whites (low income) live around Blacks and NAM’s is very insulting to NAM’s also. It says in effect that NAM’s are losers themselves because the only places they ever live are low income loservilles. In other words, once again, NAM’s are scum. Poor scum in this case.

So this antiracist argument, in order to shift the blame off NAM criminals for committing tons of crime and destroying neighborhoods onto their White victims as an antiracist deflection, ends up calling all NAM’s poor losers and hyper-criminal neighborhood destroying scum that no sane human would want to be around.

Do you see how these nutty antiracist arguments end up being unbelievably racist themselves?

I’ve been pointing out forever how modern antiracism has gone completely off the tracks bonkers for a long time now, and this is just another example of it.


Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog