The White Anti-racist Community Action Network...

...Commonly known as "WACAN". This is a site dedicated to forming a community of people (Despite the title, not just white people. Anyone is allowed and indeed encouraged to join.) with a common goal; ending white supremacy in Northern America and Canada. That's the stated goal in any case, but I imagine that it extends to Europe too.

The site itself is well managed and has some good news items and intellectual injections that are often truly food for thought, well worth some detailed exploration. Obviously however, being a community, the forum is where the true action should be happening. Unfortunatly, this isn't really the case. The forum is rather empty and a couple of the regular members, avid Fullerites both, tend to steer the discussions down the "All white people are racist" path (itself a racist idea) and little gets to be acheived.

On the whole however, an injection of new and like minded members would really get WACAN kicking in the right direction, so the more people who hear about it the better:

http://www.wacan.org/

Get in there!

White people are more racist than the rest?

Actually, no, that aint true. Let me demonstrate.

I live in Britain, so I'll go with the population there. In Britain, approxiametly 85% of the population is white, for the purpose of simplicity, I'm gonna call it 90%. That means 10% are non-white. Let's take those percentages and simplify the equation further:

Welcome to "Little Britain", population; twelve. Now, 90% of the population of "Little Britain" is white (for the mathematically challenged, that's 10 and-a-bit, we'll call it 10 people) and 20% are non-white (i.e. 2 and-a-bit, we'll call it 2 people) and all twelve of these people are racists sons-of-bitches. On average, everyone one of these people commits 5 acts of racism every day. These acts can be anything; an insult, a biased promotion, whatever. For the purposes of simplicity, we'll just assume they are all insults.

Now, every day those 10 white people sling 5 racial slurs each (for a total of 50) at the nonwhite people, each nonwhite person is a victim of racism 25 times a day. The nonwhite people do exactly the same thing, they sling 5 insults each, every day. This means that the white people are insulted just once every day. The inherent problem here being that despite the fact that nonwhite people are every bit as racist as white people, they are more likely to experience racism because they are the minority. Chat with a white person in South Africa, for them, its the other way round. Like Beharry said, "Sometimes you the bug, sometimes you the windshield".

When will there be equality? Well, let's see. In order for the white people to experience 25 acts of racism a day, the nonwhite people have to each sling 125 racial slurs every day. In other words, they have to be 25 times more racist than white people.

But wait, there's another way...If nobody commits any acts of racism, then nobody experiences any racism at all! That's the perfect solution, and one we should all strive towards.

This article was re-written in my own words, but is entirely the work of "Angry Harry". All credit goes to him, along with my thanks for pointing out what should have been glaringly obvious.
http://www.angryharry.com/esAThoughtonRacism.htm

Racist Suspect

Roight, this one is pretty wierd, so bear with me.

As soon as you tell a 'counter-racist' (bit of an oxymoron in regards to them) that you are a white person, they will instantly label you a racist suspect. In other words, if you're white, they think you're a racist, no middle ground. The logic behind this is that because of this [mythical!] system of White Supremacy, any white person is capable of practicing racism and is therefore a suspected racist.

No, how logical does that sound? Apart from the fact that it's blatant racism, it doesn't even make sense. Pretty much all the people in the world are capable of being rapists, should we treat them as if we think they're rapists? Worse, everyone over the age of 18 is capable of being a paedophile (which incidentally, has an 'a' in it, damn American spelling), should we treat them as if we think they are a paedophile? Obviously, merely having the ability to do something IS NOT enough to label them a suspect, but hey, since when do racists think logically?

My suggestion, next time you get called a "Racist suspect" or "Suspected Racist", answer with "To the suspected paedophile..." and walk them through their own logic.

The “Fuller Trap” part 2

Oh yeah, forgot a bit. The slogan of the Fuller gang is "Replace White Supremacy with Justice". Not the everyday, boring kind of Justice that you and me are familiar with though, oh no. According to them, "Justice" means guaranteeing that no person is mistreated and that the person who needs the most help gets the most help. All well and good, I'd have some of that.

Problem is, however, anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows damn well that isn't possible. Any criminal could bring the whole system down with as little effort as spitting on a granny and whoops, someone got mistreated. What are we meant to do, assign each and every person their own personal policeman to ensure they don't mistreat anyone? Oh shit, can't do that, having the law watching your every move is mistreatment in itself. Build a race of robot cops? Hmm I watched Battlestar Galactica yesterday, best to bin that idea I think. The relatively obvious point is that it is completely impossible for anybody to guarantee that nobody is mistreated, it just can't happen. Naturally however, that doesn't stop the Fuller gang from demanding that white people implement such a system or even from insisting that it would take them about five minutes to do so. Preposterous.

What I find even more galling is that they use this as a premise to actually practice racism; "Replaced White Supremacy [Which still doesn't exist by the way] with Justice yet? Ahh shoot, looks like I'll have to continue labelling you a racist for no other reason than being white". Irony at it's finest.

Stormfront.org

Stormfront.org is widely considered to be the most racist site on the net. Many people accuse the people frequenting it of showing more supremacist ideology than anywhere else, but does stormfront.org really deserve it's reputation?

Short answer? Yes, yes it does. The first complaint I have with stormfront.org is the insistence of many of it's posters that they are not "white supremacists" but are rather "white nationalists", meaning that they don't want to oppress anyone, they just want the "white race" to live seperatly from other races. What they generally don't mention, but is easily discernible from a few hours lurking, is that in order to acheive this aim, they're willing to use pretty much any means, up to and including killing, in order to make that happen. Sounds just like racism to me.

Another beef I have is the perpetuation that races are a biological reality. This is plain wrong. I could be convinced into believing that once, hundreds of thousands of years ago, there may really have been seperate races. However even that's only a maybe, and only then if you gather a world of evidence to support it. Fact is, race is a social construct, not reality.

Finally, the (in my opinion) ridiculous idea that if you do not follow their racist beliefs, that somehow makes you a racist??! I never quite understood that because halfway through the explanation I got fed up and left, but it didn't seem to be making sense anyway.Check out stormfront if you must, but fully expect to be inundated with people ordering you out of "their" country or threatening you with death. On the other hand, White Supremacists though most of them be, there are a good number of people there working to refute and counter the racism they spout. If nothing else, it's worth dropping by just to offer them your support.

How disgusting is this?

I actually sat and stared at my computer screen in disgust when I first read this post:

http://www.counter-racism.com/cgi-bin/work-study/viewtopic.php?t=918

Hey, all you non-white people can go and force as many women as you like to have sex with you, because according to the"counter-racists", it's only rape if a white person does it.

Not only does this bullshit completely trivialise a traumatic and really quite horrific occurence, providing the perpetrator (who in my opinion, should be killed for their crime) isn't white, it also further perpetuates and refines the "Fuller Trap". These people actually preach that only white people are capable of such hideous crimes, if anybody else does it, it's a white mans fault.

Still think the scumbags aren't racist?

The trap that Fullerites lay for White People

Browsing through the 'counter-racist' forums, it struck me pretty hard one day just how tight the trap they have laid for white people is. Let me elaborate:

First of all, this 'System of White Supremacy'; a global system in which all non-white people are mistreated at all times in every aspect of their lives by white people, plain does not exist. It's a lie. But by perpetuating the myth that it does, these 'counter-racists' (and I suggest you take that term with a pinch of salt) can pretty much absalve themselves of all blame for anything they have ever done. The Rwandan Genocide? White people. Rapes by black people? Yep, whitey again. Any war that ever happened, initiated by non-white people? Well it's not going to be their fault is it? They only started it, white people were the ones who made them do it. Obviously, this is bullshit, but they will refuse to take any responsibility for any transgression whatsoever. Pretty convenient isn't it, preaching an infallable moral superiority.

Secondly, any genuinely good willed white person who offers help to these 'counter-racists' instantly opens themselves up to attack. According to their ridiculous dogma, all white people know every intricate detail regarding the 'System of White Supremacy' and therefore any question a white person asks about it is an attempt to confuse non-white people, and is itself racist. Riiiight. Let's look at this logically. You insist white people owe you help, even though they don't, but when you manage to fool one into thinking that he does, you refuse to explain why you need help, and how he could help you, and even brand him a racist for daring to ask how he could help you. Anyone see where this is going? It's impossible for anyone to comprehend a system that doesn't even exist, so the resulting confusion on the part of the good-samaritan is simply marked as racism and the good-willer as a probable racist, meaning that the 'counter-racists' can claim they are still oppressed and continue to claim that white people owe them compensation for their mistreatment. To me, this shit is all the evidence I need that the Fuller cult is just a way of maintaining the "Victim mentality". Far from wanting the 'System of White Supremacy' to be abolished, they know full well it doesn't exist and are simply maintaining the myth that it does to milk the race card for all it is worth.

There's one easy way to get out of the trap they lay, and it also, very interestingly, easily explains all the things the 'counter-racists' claim to find confusing or evidence of their mythical system. Whenever you read their forums or talk to one of them, always keep at the forefront of your mind the fact that the 'System of White Supremacy' does not exist! Do that, and their traps become crystal clear.

What is a white person, part 2

And, in addition to that, a black person?/yellow person?/red person? etc etc etc.

Ok, this is a continuation of the previous post, which I have since realised is not quite complete. As previously noted, everyone makes decisions on what colour/race they and other people they interact with are based on their physical appearance. This said, who's opinion counts? Well the simple fact is, everyones does.

Let me explain, if I go up to a black guy, and say I'm black too, then he has to make a decision on whether I'm black or not. If he thinks I am, then hunky dory, I'm black. If he thinks I'm not, then no matter what I say he's still going to treat me like a white person. This can be applied to any interaction, regardless of the number of people involved or whatever. The point, therefore, is that it is hard to definetly give someone a "white person" or "black person" et al label because that label can change at any time, in any place, depending on the decisions of the people they interact with.

If, as some people insist, it becomes necessary to define yourself as a colour/race, the best you can do is tell them what usually occurs. Usually, in my case, people decide that I am white, therefore if asked, I answer that I am white. That doesn't stop some people, specifically the blue-eyed, blonde-haired neo nazi's of stormfront.org (actually only a few of them, not the whole board obviously) from deciding that, actually, I'm not white at all. In my interactions with those people, I'm as non-white as the next guy.

This guy says it better than me

...Just watched this video on Youtube, I gotta say, anyone who watches this and still insists that only white people are racist? You need a serious reality check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgPZjWqp_U
Created by 'TheGenocideScrolls'. I suggest you check the rest of his video's out too.

What is a white Person?

And, in addition to that, a black person?/yellow person?/red person? etc etc etc.

Now, as I've already discussed, race is not a biological reality but is merely a social construct. So how does one determine race? Simple, it's all a matter of opinion. Alot of the "counter-racists" (there's an oxymoron if there ever was one!) on thecode.net will go down the "How do you know you are a "white person" route?" and attempt to get you to say "Because I say I am" and trust me, that's the right answer! Indeed, it's the only answer that makes any sense. Allow me to demonstrate:

Since it is impossible to biologically determine your race, people hold an opinion about which race they belong to, this opinion is formed after comparing oneself to other people in society. In general, people will choose to belong to the "race" they most resemble. Note: It 'aint nothing to do with behaviour, these decisions are based on physical appearance. Therefore, a white person has made the decision that he is white, because he shares the physical characteristics (especially skin colour) of other people whom society has classified as "white people". The same formula can be followed for black people, asian people et al. We also make these decisions about other people, again based on physical appearance.

Now, don't let anyone sell you this shit: "Non-white people cannot tell who white people are, they have to ask" This is patently untrue. On more than one occasion in my life alone, I have been attacked by black people (who didn't ask me if I was white) who made the decision that I was a white person based on my physical appearance (I didn't say a word to them, or even look at them, so it aint behaviour) and also made the decision that I should be injured due to my physical appearance. This pretty much dispells another Fullerite argument right there. There was no way for these black people to know I was a white person unless they made the decision themselves.

“Race” is a social construct

Yep, you read that right. The concept of "race" is not a biological reality, but merely a social construct. Elaborate? Why certainly. Let's head back to the dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com):

race
n.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

4. Humans considered as a group.

5. Biology
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

Okey dokey, let's get started. #5 and #6 are completely unrelated to Human beings, so let's discount them straight away. #3, In my opinion, is instantly discounted because at it's very roots, all of humanity stems from the same genealogical line, so it's obviously impractical to seperate people into "races"on that definition. That's the easy ones out the way.

Next, let's look at #2:

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Let's start with "common history". What counts as "common history"? The Americans, Japanese, French, Italians, Australians, Poles, Russians, Germans, Austrians, Belgians and so on and so forth all share the common history of participation in World War 2, are we all of the same race? What about "geographic distribution"? There are millions of black people who have lived in the UK for hundreds of years but are still considered a seperate race, so that doesn't make sense either. As for nationality, the whole concept of a "nation" is itself a social construct, so that pretty much deals with that definition.

Definition #1 is the one that seems to be most commonly used. Let's look at it again:

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

How vague and ridiculous does that sound? "more or less a distinct group"? I have Hazel eyes, Brown hair and size 11 feet, all of which are "genetically transmitted physical characteristics" from my father, are the two of us (and all other hazal eyed, brown haired size 11 footed people) part of a seperate race? If not, why the fuck not? Those characteristics denote a (more or less) distinct group don't they? Obviously, those characteristics are utterly arbitrary, they no more denote a race than hand width, finger length, height, weight, number of teeth or any other physical characteristic; so why does skin colour? That shit makes as much sense as a chocolate teapot. Bottom line is, skin colour denotes a race because society says so, no other reason.

What is Racism?

One of the many issues I have recently is people saying that only white people can be racist. Please, everyone stop this ridiculous shit. The online free dictionary(www.thefreedictionary.com) that I always use gives the definition of racism as follows:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Number 2 seems to be the important one. I would also add mistreatment to that definition however, since the words "Discrimination" and "prejudice" don't really seem to include all the things that are considered racist, and also leave a great many loopholes open.

So then, what we have for racism is: "Discrimination, prejudice or mistreatment based on race". Now, despite what some people think, race is a social, rather than biological, classification and is really very difficult, if not impossible, to define. It pretty much all boils down to each individuals opinion. What is that opinion based on? Almost exclusively on the colour of a persons skin. Other physical features may come into it, but colour is the main factor. So, racism winds up as being: "Discrimination, prejudice or mistreatment based on the colour of a persons skin"

Now, anyone saying that white people are the only people who can discriminate against, hold prejudice against or mistreat a person based on the colour of their skin is nothing more than a babbling lunatic who needs a serious reality check. White people can be (and frequently are! Check out the metropolitan police force's racist recruitment policy) discriminated against or mistreated simply for the colour of their skin, and that is racism.

Just one last point, there are people (one person in particular) who come out with the line "White people say they have no colour, so how can they be mistreated on the basis of colour?" to justify their own racism. Well, first of all, I aint never said that. So that kills the argument with regards to me. Infact, I have never even heard a white person say that. The second point is pretty simple, wether they say they have or not, white people do have a colour, and can therefore be mistreated because of it. If he wanted to, Prince Harry could say he didn't have any hair, but at the end of the day he's still going to be laughed at for being ginger.

Two of my YouTube video's relate to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CQegKPuVNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1y-JZzBXkI

The Purpose of this Blog

The issue of racism has recently been at the forefront of my mind; it's always something that I have been opposed to, but my encounters with followers of Neely Fuller Jr and his book, the United Independent Compensatory Code/System/Concept have brought it very much to my immediate attention. I have decided to make this blog to speak out, not only against the stereotypical "skinhead" perpertrators of racism but also against Fuller and his followers, whom I believe are preaching racism against white people in a form every bit as destructive as the KKK. Hopefully, this blog will lead some racists to realise that their actions are unforgivable, and need to end.