This seething anti White tantrum was written in response to the recent supreme court rulings. The Anti White writer pulls out the standard Black grievance points about historical and "current" oppression with his solution is for Blacks to take from Whites.
"We should take things from white people.
Affirmative action is not what prevents Asians from attending elite unities like Harvard. According to a 2019 study, 43% of white students at Harvard gained admission because they were a legacy, related to a donor, a child of a Harvard employee or an athlete, populations which are overwhelmingly white. When asked, the researchers noted that eliminating these white privilege loopholes would increase the number of African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic students but the white acceptant rate would decrease.
We should take that.
The University of North Carolina, also a plaintiff in the Supreme Court cases that upended affirmative action, is about 8% Black, while the state is 22% Black. Because of the Supreme Court ruling, UNC can no longer consider race as a factor in its admission standards, but it is still free to admit legacies who make up about 17% of the student body. UNC is a state school. Why should African-American taxpayers fund an educational institution that disproportionately excludes them?
Someone should take that from white people.
One of the arguments against Black reparations is that it would cost too much. However, the $10 to $12 trillion in federal expenditures that the leading scholars estimate pales in comparison to the principal and compounding interest on the stolen labor that created the racial wealth gap. It certainly wouldn’t cost white people $800,000 — the difference in the wealth of the average white household compared to a Black household.
We should take that, too.
We should remove their slaveholding heroes from social studies lessons that make Black children feel uncomfortable. We should eliminate job recommendations, unpaid internships and other policies that promote anti-diversity, inequities and exclusion. We should ban white Santas and Christmas songs and pro-police rallies and violent national anthems and cisgender bathrooms and books about heterosexual relationships.
We should not take things from white people out of anger, payback or retribution. It is impossible to recover the blood spilled by white anger and the land stolen by their thievery. But it is an injustice to pretend that not considering race can fix a problem that is real. Justice demands an equal response to the infraction committed. This is just the most logical approach to the history of proactive anti-Blackness."
My take on the Anti Whites points is that it represents the main threat African Americans pose to White interests/advocacy in the US (and throughout the White world due to the cancerous influence the American left radiates). The grievances they went through are valid in regard to historical oppression with slavery and segregation and inability to build generational wealth. You can make some arguments that some their peoples faults are self inflicted in modern US or with iq. The average White person is not to blame for this, neither are their ancestors and it does not invalidate White nationalism. However, the propaganda value of these grievances are used by the left to collectively demonize the White race, White advocacy and nationalism and pull moderate Whites towards the left, away from ethnocentrism and towards voting for anti White, pro mass immigration parties like the democrats. Black criminality and rioting in my opinion isn't too much of a problem and is in fact useful for our cause, similar to the Islamic terror wave in Europe and the refugee crisis.
The comments in response to the article where overwhelmingly negative.
What are your thoughts or rebuttals to the arguments presented?
Should this be shared/propagandized by the right in order to pull Whites towards White Nationalism?
If you engage with the writer in a debate, what would you ask or debate with him?