Boneheads Are SO Cute When They Think They’re Clever: Bob Whitaker's Mantra

One of the most common types of fan mail we receive here on the blog from boneheads takes the form of challenging us to debates. Invariably, these challenges are poorly worded, poorly considered, and poorly executed, as the following effort indicates:

And when we decide not to post their incoherent streams of consciousness, they often accuse us of being afraid to post comments by intelligent boneheads, as we might lose people to their powerfully argued prose:

We don’t think this last one needs much of a commentary. Pretty sad and what we’ve come to expect.

Over the past few months, however, the boneheads (perhaps one bonehead who keeps posting the same tripe) have changed their strategy. In what might be the most transparent efforts we’ve found ourselves laughing about in some time, the boneheads are now posing as anti-racists asking for help after being faced with an argument in favour of racism that the, “anti-racists on the street” can not overcome.

Here’s the set up. Someone claiming to be an anti-racist leaves an urgent and earnest message on our blog, which both begs for our help while at the same time accusing us of inaction, because he or she is being confronted by an argument presented by, “the enemy” that simply can not countered. As a result, anti-racists are losing the battle of ideas badly and seeing legions of people fall under the sway of the WN movement which is making the stronger case for racism:

Could you please help us anti-racists on the street with this new set of verses that white people are always using on us. We don't have a defense against it and we always seem to lose anti-white race discussions when they use it. I even had a teenager pull this 'Everybody says there is a race problem' stuff. You need to discuss this in your blog so that we can invent ways to get around it. There is no point in talking about the racists like Paul Fromm if their side has effective repliers like that one that I'm going to append to this note. If we don't openly discuss this shit with each other on blogs like yours, our anti-racist activists are basically finished. I mean what's the point of even reading your blog if it doesn't even deal with the challenges that our enemy is throwing at us. We are starting to fail and it will continue to get worse for us until people like you stop running away from your responsibility of discussing effectively methods of dealing with our enemies points and arguments.

And here is a variation of the same plea:

Hey there you guys at ARC, we need some help with this set of verses that young White people are pulling on us. It's almost like a friggin mantra. We need some effective repliers to deal with this. Our enemy is having a field day with this because we can't deal with this.

So, what exactly is the racist argument that is so compelling, so powerful, and so irrefutable that anti-racists are cowering in fear at the mere thought of having to try and address?

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 “assimilating” 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.

Yep. That is the irrefutable argument.

Sigh.

Really? REALLY? This is the best you guys can come up with?

Oh, and it's almost a, "friggin mantra" because it actually IS a mantra, courtesy of Stormfront favorite Bob Whitaker. And, according to some bigots, the mantra is working... despite all available evidence to the which suggests otherwise.

We’re amused by a number of things here. First, we suspect that it may very well have taken the Mr. Whitaker quite a while to think of what to write that would freeze anti-racists in their tracks, and even then he could only come up with the usual clichés.

Second, Whitaker is unable to overcome the caricature of anti-racists that he (and other racists) has internalized. He actually believes that we are monolithic in our views and that we all believe what the boneheads have DECIDED that we believe despite all contrary evidence. It’s one of the reasons why their movement is failing actually. Boneheads aren’t able to overcome their preconceptions about us and rely on worn-out stereotypes. We’d be willing to bet Whitaker believes we are all unemployed communists who use and sell drugs as well, which appears to be the primary caricature the WN movement has of anti-racists. Alternatively, in spite of our language that appears lump racists together (use of the term bonehead is an example of this) we do look at the WN movement from a much more nuanced perspective. We know there are variations in beliefs (KKK, Creativity Movement, Christian Identity, etc), personality conflicts, alliances and enemies in the movement, and differing views regarding the use of violence and legal means to achieve their goals. And we can use that, which is why we do a lot better at pretending to be boneheads when gathering information than they are at doing the same, though we recognize the likelihood that we might also be tricked.

Finally, it’s funny that this author believes he has created an argument that would cause anyone on our side to be intimidated. For fun, let’s take a look at this list that has so frightened the anti-racists on the street, shall we?

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.

Is that a fact? “Everybody” says this, do they? Because we sort of thought that problems concerning racism were a little more complex than factors related to immigration. We also thought that, “solving” racism involved something more akin to fostering a climate of dialogue, mutual respect, tolerance and accepting the deeper humanity of all peoples regardless of ethnicity. The only concern we have about immigration is that it be fair and open to anyone who wishes to come to Canada and who qualifies, as well giving refugees a fair shake.

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 “assimilating” with them.

Or it could be that no one is saying that, “solving the RACE problem” really has anything to do with immigration and you are creating a strawman argument that few, if any, actually believe? Is that possible? Don’t worry though. You aren’t alone in pushing this strawman:

But boy oh boy, you really are hung up on this issue of immigration, aren’t you, Mr. Whitaker? Okay, we’ll bite. We’ve decided to give you a basic lesson in human geography related to push-pull factors in migration (we'll use Canada as an example, but it could very well apply to the United States with slight variations).

Leaving one’s mother country is not a decision any person makes lightly, so there have significant reasons for making the decision to migrate to another country. Pull factors are those which draw immigrants to a new country. Greater economic and educational opportunities, family reunification, political freedom, improved healthcare and relative security from crime, political oppression, and/or civil conflict are all factors which would pull immigrants to a country. Push factors are those which push people to want to leave a country. These factors include poverty, civil conflict and/or political oppression, natural or human-made disasters, and even climactic reasons (i.e. severe droughts which might result in poor harvests and, thus famine).

All the significant waves of immigration to Canada from Europe have been based on these push-pull factors. Take the period between 1896 and 1911 when the Laurier government promoted immigration to Canada overseas in order to occupy what would later become the western provinces (that there were a people who had been occupying the region for millennia already didn’t seem to matter much). People in central and eastern Europe were the primary targets for this wave of immigration. What were the push-pull factors leading people to leave Europe for Canada? Pull factors included cheap land for homesteading, promises to not conscript young men into military service, and religious freedoms. Push factors included limited opportunities for farmers to expand their land holding, autocratic monarchies who denied basic civil liberties and simple poverty. There were far more push-pull factors than these, and the decision to migrate varied from individual to individual, but these serve as examples. These same factors existed elsewhere (in part a reason for the Chinese migration of the 1800s), but based on a discriminatory immigration policy immigration from Asia, Africa and other locations outside of Europe was very limited.

So, why don’t we see the same numbers of immigrants coming from Europe as occurred during the Laurier Boom? The push-pull factors in Europe are not significant enough reason to leave now. European standards of living are comparable to, and in some cases exceed that of North America. Basic freedoms are respected in Western Europe (and much of the former Soviet bloc since the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe) and since World War II (and outside of the Balkan wars of the early 1990s) the continent has been relatively peaceful. In short, there isn’t a perceived need to leave the motherland for parts unknown because life is relatively good. Such cannot be said of many developing countries for which push-pull factors have lead to considerable migration to more developed countries.

Further, you do realize that people from the developing world don’t just migrate to predominantly white countries, right?  About 71 % of the population of the United Arab Emirates are foreign-born, with most of this percentage comprised of people from South Asia, Somalia, and parts of the Middle East. While the fastest growing visible minority group in Canada is South Asians, globally there are sizeable South Asian immigrant and migrant 'guest worker' populations all over the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Asia. These are but a few examples out of many. The point is, what motivates people to move to other parts of the world is driven by push-pull factors as outlined above, while what motivates governments to seek immigrants and migrant workers is primarily related to factors like labour needs, birth rates and age demographics of the population.  The economic concerns that motivate such migration are not unlike those which drive the movement of people from Eastern Canada to Ontario and the Western provinces.

We know you like to believe that this is really a massive conspiracy, but it’s really just basic human geography.

Incidentally, given the demographic pressures that Japan is going through right now (given current birth rate, Japan’s population is expected to decline by half by 2100 and the largest portion of the population will be over 65), the Japanese government really should re-evaluate the country’s immigration policy should it wish to retain it’s current standard of living, but we in the Collective don’t really have all that much say in the domestic policies of foreign countries.

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.

Ah! And there we have the real reason for this missive.

If the concern really was about immigrants changing the culture, then our friend here would be pleased that immigrants have chosen to assimilate and adopt Western cultural norms. But that isn’t really the concern. Our racist friend who posted Whitaker's mantra simply doesn’t want people of different ethnicities in Canada period. Full stop. Didn’t even really take all that long either, did it?

It is interesting that this individual assumes assimilation (not a policy we would advocate, mind you) equals interracial marriage. He can’t even think beyond this premise.

Let me assure you and Mr. Whitaker that there is no effort by anyone or any group to force you or him to marry/have sex with someone of another race. You marry whomever you please, assuming that you can find someone, anyone, willing to put up with you. But here’s the thing. Who the hell are you to decide who WE have relationships with?

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?

Isn’t that part of the fantasy in the final chapter of, The Turner Diaries?

That there already is European immigration to Africa as well as African immigration to Europe and North America (though it is certainly disproportionate based on push-pull factors already outlined) sort of flies in the face of your premise of immigration being a one way street. Fact it, what you are claiming to be happening isn’t happening.

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?

In the mind of a delusional paranoid? We bet that you would be very frightened. Objective reality would beg to differ. Besides, neo-colonialism has done far more damage to Africa than the worst scenario regarding African immigration to the West that you can present.

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.

Well, if the shoe fits….

Did it occur to you that, if these groups who disagree on most other points are still in agreement that you’re an idiot, that perhaps you’re the one who might be wrong?

And you know, ‘genocide’ isn’t just a word you can throw around to bolster your argument. It has an actual meaning and that meaning does not extend to voluntarily reproducing with people of another ethnicity. But since you conflate assimilation with race-mixing, we’d also assume that in the mythical anti-racist dystopia of your paranoid fantasies, such mixing will be mandatory. Or perhaps you believe that whites will simply be brainwashed into being sexually attracted to people of other ethnicities? The “obvious truth” of the matter is that if it weren’t natural for people from different geographical origins to form friendships, ties and sexual relationships when brought in close proximity to each other, you wouldn’t need to worry about white people doing it. They just wouldn’t do it unless forced to. But they do. And that ain’t genocide – its human nature.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. 

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

Now wait a minute. You just wrote that the anti-racists’ solution to the so-called “RACE problem” is for non-whites to move to white countries, intermarry and presumably mix their genes with white people. This is your narrow, erroneous view of anti-racism and this is what you call the “ongoing program of genocide” against white people. If that is in fact what we want, it would also mean that we want people from non-white ethnic groups to mix THEIR genes. So how exactly would that make us exclusively “anti-white” and only interested in orchestrating “genocide” against white people? Wait – don’t bother answering that. We get it - you believe that white people are special and distinctive, but all others can be counted in one big homogenous blob of non-whiteness, never to taint the precious white race with even one drop of their blood. Since you obviously don’t consider assimilation and intermarriage equally harmful to all ethnic groups, your little hypothetical scenario about the “BLACK problem,” is a bit irrelevant after all, isn’t it?

Only in the diseased mind of a racist could conflate respect and acceptance of other people who are of a different ethnicity with a concerted effort to wipe out Europeans from the planet. Quite frankly, it’s all a bit egocentric as well.

It’s not all about you, you know?

You know, the funny thing about mantras is they are often repeated over and over with little thought given to the words being spoken. Our racist friend who posted Bob Whitaker's mantra might consider giving the words some actual thought before looking foolish again.

By the way, a very special thank you to NomDeGuerre200 for his/her contribution.