Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White

In Africa, there are no “anti-racists” telling Africans they have no right to patrol their borders and kick out illegal immigrants.

The Liberian constitution states that only Black people can be citizens. Why aren’t “anti-racist” groups screaming at Liberia? Why is this not front page news? Because no one cares that there is a country only for Black people.

In Asia, there are no “anti-racists” telling Asians that mixed race people are genetically superior to separate races, and the whole world should all mix together (but only in Asia).

Many Asian countries, like Japan, have strong economies, low birth-rates, colonial histories, and almost no immigrants or refugees. So which countries are “anti-racists” trying to open to immigrants and refugees? Eastern Europe, of course! It’s full of White people.

This agenda is ONLY forced on White countries. The people who scream “diversity” and “progress” say that they are “anti-racist”.

Bielefeld University, Germany.

But, according to their actions, the only countries in need of “diversity”, “progress”, and “anti-racism” are White; whether rich or poor, high birth-rate or low birth-rate, colonial history or no colonial history.

Some coincidence, huh?
That’s why anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

http://whitegenocideproject.com/anti-racist-is-a-codeword-for-anti-white/
======================

Diversity is a codeword for White genocide

Why is diversity a codeword for White genocide?

No anti-Whites say a 100% Black area needs more diversity.
No anti-Whites say a 100% Asian area needs more diversity.
No anti-Whites say a 100% Muslim area needs more diversity.
No anti-Whites say a 100% Indian area needs more diversity.
When it comes to “diversity”, anti-Whites make two distinctions: 1. Anyone non-White is “diverse”, and 2. anyone White is not “diverse”.
“Diverse” simply means a place without any White people in it.
So every time they talk about a “lack of diversity”, they have said what their object is : a place that becomes less and less White – which is genocide.
That’s why diversity is a codeword for White genocide.

http://whitegenocideproject.com/diversity-is-a-codeword-for-white-genocide/
======================

The “R-Word”.

“Racist” has been the greatest single weapon in the arsenal of anti-Whites since it first started being used around 1960. It is their attack word.

An attack word causes people to react, usually in defense.

Their attack word, “racist“, often makes people defend themselves, by saying: “I’m not a racist because I have Black/Asian/Mexican/Muslim friends“, you will have probably seen this in your everyday lives.

The best solution to this anti-White attack word is not to ignore, or not to deny it; the best solution is to attack it. In response to “racist“, we say: “You’re only saying that because I’m White – anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.”

Our attack word is “anti-white“, and it is designed to get anti-Whites in that same defensive position: “I’m not anti-White because I am White“.

What that phrase does is set you up to deliver another point. The next point you should deliver is: “If you’re not anti-White, why do so called ‘anti-racists’ never call something ‘too Black’ or ‘too Asian’ and ‘in need of diversity’?”

We never want to be on the defensive. In a court of law, the prosecution does not get asked questions and called names by the defendant – that would be silly.
We are the prosecution, we are charging anti-Whites with the crime of White genocide, or with supporting White genocide. The prosecution makes a point and asks a question to reinforce that point.

Our word “anti-White“, hurts anti-Whites position because unlike their accusation, ours it true – and they know they are anti-White, but they have never positioned themselves that way. They have always positioned themselves as “anti-racist“, or “progressive“, or some other feel-good word.
Anti-Whites regularly talk about how they want this “mixed race future” for the planet. However, when a country in Africa is 99% Black, no anti-Whites have EVER called on that country to bring in more non-Black people, in an attempt to make Black people the minority, or in their words, make that 99% Black country a “diverse” country.

All these policies of creating a “mixed race future” are demanded in White countries – and ONLY White countries. That is NOT a “progressive social experiment” – that is genocide.

Calling all anti-Whites “anti-White” will change the debate in society from: “someone who wants a White majority is racist”, to: “someone who wants a White minority is anti-White”.

http://whitegenocideproject.com/the-r-word/
=========================

White countries for everyone?

Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, but White countries for everyone?

Anti-Whites all agree that Africa belongs to Black people, and the various mixed-race Muslim groups in North Africa. So when White people in the past, or the Chinese today move into Africa so much that Black people become a minority – anti-Whites all agree that’s wrong.
Similarly, anti-Whites all agree that Asia belongs to Asian (Oriental, and Indian) people.

Anti-Whites will never go to these countries and campaign so that millions of immigrants can pour into a non-White country and “diversify” some of the homogenous non-White countries, such as Japan which is 98.5% Japanese as well as being a first world country.

Africa would benefit from millions of Asian or South American immigrants to do the work that Africans don’t want to do, or can’t do. But, anti-Whites don’t object to the fact that millions of non-Black immigrants moving into Africa would eventually make Africa minority Black.

So you see, open borders policies only ever apply to White countries. White countries are not meant to be for a specific group of people, anti-Whites say. They say that all White countries today are meant to exist for an idea – not a race or group of people.
It is very ironic that democracy is one of the ideas anti-Whites claim “Western” (White) countries should exist for. It’s ironic because they ignore the opinion of the majority of people, and go ahead and promote this “mixed race melting pot of diversity”, where White countries used to be.
Black countries exist for Black people. Asian countries exist for Asians, but White countries are for everyone? That’s genocide!

 http://whitegenocideproject.com/white-countries-for-everyone/
=======================

The Mantra

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

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 quote assimilating unquote 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.

 http://whitegenocideproject.com/the-mantra/
==========================

Drieu Godefridi : Has France Been Bought by a State Sponsor of Islamic Terrorism?

Has France Been Bought by a State Sponsor of Islamic Terrorism?

by Drieu Godefridi
August 31, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10911/france-qatar

• It is through these tax breaks that the Qataris are buying the "jewels" of France. The U.S. is not selling its defense companies to Qatar.
• Thanks to its huge gas and oil reserves, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world and huge reserves of cash to invest everywhere, whereas France, thanks to 40 years of socialism, is in dire need of cash.

The state of Qatar has been officially labelled as a "state sponsor of terrorism", and an active supporter of Islamic terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State -- not by Western governments, but by Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islamic faith, and the other Islamic regimes of the region.
Knowing the facts of Qatar -- 11000km², one-third the size of Belgium, population 2.5 million -- the question may seem far-fetched: How could France, the great France, possibly be bought by a tiny state such as Qatar?

For the single reason that, thanks to its huge gas and oil reserves, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world and huge reserves of cash to invest everywhere, whereas France, thanks to 40 years of socialism, is in dire need of cash and has a tradition of corruptible officials, to say nothing of a propensity for "collaboration".

On August 4, the English press -- not the French press -- revealed that French prosecutors are actively investigating two events: the awarding the 2022 World Cup of football (soccer) to Qatar, and the purchase by "Qatari Diar", a state-owned investment company, of a stake in the French utility firm Veolia.
At the center of the investigation is former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. To be sure, Sarkozy has not been formally indicted (and he may never be), but the evidence is overwhelming.

First, the World Cup. That the State of Qatar, known for decades for its active support of Islamic terror organizations, and with a temperature among the highest in the world -- in addition to zero tradition in the world of football -- was awarded the 2022 World Cup is, of course, a source of wonder ever since the award was announced by FIFA, the international governing body of football.

French investigators are now looking into a meeting that took place between then-President Sarkozy, Michel Platini -- the French former president of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), who sat on the FIFA committee that chose Qatar -- and Qatari officials on November 23, 2010 (10 days before the vote). It is alleged that Platini was dead-set against Qatar and that Sarkozy urged him to change his mind: "They're good people."

The "deal" is said to have been sealed when Qatar agreed to buy the biggest French soccer team, the Paris-Saint-Germain (PSG). It is alleged that huge bribes were paid by Qatar to high-ranking French officials, to secure these two deals: the World Cup and the Veolia investment. Although no evidence has yet been presented, the case would not have been opened by French prosecutors without it. In addition, no one has ever denied the meeting of November 23, 2010.

In April 2010, the "Qatari Diar" fund bought a 5% stake in Veolia. Investigators are tracking 182 million euros suspected of having been used to bribe French officials. Investigators are also looking into a possible link between these two operations: Qatar investing in Veolia as a favor to France, possibly in exchange for France's support for Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup.

France's then-President Nicolas Sarkozy (left) greets Qatar's then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani (right) on March 19, 2011 in Paris, France. (Photo by Franck Prevel/Getty Images)

It is doubtful if the French investigators will ever get to the bottom of these two cases. The judiciary in France has a long tradition of submitting to the government. Since 1789, the French judiciary has not even been an independent power -- as are the Legislative and the Executive -- but a mere authority with a more limited scope.
It is revealing that these two investigations were exposed, not by the French press, but by the English press.
What we already know for sure is the following:

1. A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was allowed to buy France's leading soccer team, Paris-Saint-Germain, with the help of then-president Nicolas Sarkozy. The former owner of the PSG was a private fund controlled in Europe by one of Sarkozy's close friends. There would have been no deal without the direct consent of Sarkozy -- that is the way France functions.
   
   
2. A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was not only allowed, but actively courted, by French officials to invest in some of France's largest companies, including defense companies, such as Veolia, as well as the Airbus parent company, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS); the energy group EDF; the construction firm, Vinci; and the media and defense group Lagardère.
   
   
3. A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was actively supported in its 2022 bid for the World Cup by the government of France and Nicolas Sarkozy, who declared after the FIFA vote in 2010: "Sport does not belong to a few countries. It belongs to the world... I don't understand those who say that events should always be held in the same countries and the same continents."
   
   
4. There is a significant part of the French political class that seems to consider the Embassy of Qatar in Paris some sort of automatic teller machine (ATM), as has been showed by renowned journalists Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot in their book, Nos très chers émirs (Our Very Dear Emirs) and deplored by the new ambassador of Qatar in France, Meshaal al-Thani.
   
   
5. Since 2008, a state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, has benefited from a huge tax break in France: the exemption of profits on property sales. In France, profits on property sales are not only taxed at 19%, they are subject to a further CSG/CRDS and social tax (15.5%), resulting in a combined total minimum tax rate of 34.5%. The rule is the same for everyone, whether a person or a corporation. Everyone, that is, but the State of Qatar, when the administration of Nicolas Sarkozy decided to exempt it from the tax. As a result, Qatar's royal family and sovereign fund have since built up a huge portfolio of assets in France, one that dwarfs the portfolio of a state such as Saudi Arabia. Qatar's portfolio ranges from a Champs-Élysées mall to the Lido Cabaret. "Our deficit has destroyed our freedom," said Nathalie Goulet, a centrist senator from Lower Normandy, in 2013. "The Qataris are here to buy, while we are selling our family jewels." Which they did. [1]
   

Qatar and other Gulf states try to benefit from tax exemptions everywhere in the world, but this convergence of facts -- the selling of assets, sports clubs, defense companies and governmental representatives -- is unique to France. It is through these tax breaks -- this is only one of them -- that the Qataris are buying the "jewels" of France. Of course, the U.S. is also selling arms to the Qataris -- the U.S. has a military base in Al Udeid -- but the U.S. is not selling its defense companies to Qatar.

We therefore probably do not even have to wait for the results of the latest investigations to note that France, particularly but not exclusively under the auspices of Nicolas Sarkozy, has literally been bought by a state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar.

At the same time, Islam in France has been spreading. France has been deeply infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood terror organization, which is not categorized in France -- unlike the UK -- as a sponsor of terror. This organization, since it was overthrown by Egypt's current president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is now the darling of Qatar. Without Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood would be without a home-base. Given its huge financial, corporate and political dependence on Qatar, it is clear that France -- in the name of "stability" -- would not do anything to displease its darling.

Although France is a member of NATO and a nuclear power, nowhere else in the West is Islamism so deeply embedded in the fabric of the institutions, mind and zeitgeist of a country as it is there. 
Even in the UK, you still find very powerful counter-powers (see the governmental report on the Muslim Brotherhood). Not in France.

Consider the case of the Palestinian official Jabril Rajoub -- sentenced to life in prison in 1970 for throwing a grenade at an Israeli army vehicle, but released, along with others, in exchange for three Israeli soldiers taken hostage by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
Rajoub is now chairman of the Palestinian Football Association -- another illustration of the deep infiltration of FIFA by Islamists and Jew-haters sponsored by Gulf States, beginning with Qatar. Would that position even be thinkable without France's sponsorship of Qatar in FIFA? Probably not.

It is true that Qatar is buying assets from around the world, including politicians, not only in France. And it is true that the U.S. is also selling arms to the Qataris, as are many other countries. It is one thing, however, to sell arms, but another to sell your defense companies. It is one thing to be open to foreign investment, but another to give huge tax breaks to a state sponsor of terror so it can acquire the "jewels" of your country.

It is also not an accident that the main face of Islamism in Europe, the Muslim Brother Tariq Ramadan (from his base in Oxford, England) now sees France as the future of Islam in Europe, and not the UK (still number 2 on the list).

The U.S. and other countries may be selling things, but France is selling herself.

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l'Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.