Shouldn't being against racism include being against anti-white racism?

If socio/economic conditions are the major factor in crime then why wasn't crime across the U.S. off the charts during the Great Depression. ?

Instead church attendance was.

Oh, eastern Kentucky! That explains it all.

Is sociology too librul for people nowadays? This isn't exactly rocket science.

Wait, can poor social conditions in urban areas can lead to increased crime? Maybe.

Because possibly, that you live way up there in a frozen land that will only feel a warm breeze when the nuclear attack comes.

Just worth looking at.

http://www.jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf

Because when the first step tells you that nobody in the world is accurately described as a white person, the next step can't be killing everyone who is accurately described as a white person. Again, if you understand that he said nobody is white, and now believe that saying 'you should not exist' to the fictitious white person indicates a desire to kill an actual person, whom do you think he wants to kill?

He wants to kill white people.

He didn't come out and say, "I want to kill white people."

But it's pretty clear he wouldn't mind if O2C, me and a bunch of other white people ate a bullet. After all according to him in his entire life he's only met a dozen, tops, decent white people.

Because of course you do. Since you just mentioned the Great Depression and Church attendance, that tells us that church goers typically create their own misfortune, and people with those qualities became much more numerous in that generation for some reason. The New Deal, on the other hand, clearly improved their average character greatly.

You both claim that you understand that he does not believe that white people exist. Clearly the original piece has more of a point than I originally thought if this is this hard to follow for so many readers.

Since the original column was removed from the original online source, does anyone have a link or copy to the original column as written?

You realize those data show a tremendous spike in consistently defined crimes, such as murder, in 1930?

Sure, if you like that it also created the new job of wards of state, and enslaved (or tethered if less inflammatory) previously liberated americans to the teet of the 'look-to-government' source of sustenance.

And I should add, Black power ! [vote Democrat! they'll give you stuff]

@K., I am confused. How can the author of the column both a) Claim that white people do not exist and b) claim that he's never met more than a dozen "decent" white people?

Because he is describing the confusion created by a social misconstruction. Imagine living, say, in a caste system in which some people are considered to be born with special blessings by Hindu gods, and the preferential treatment they get from birth turns most of them into insufferable assholes. One observation would be that Brahmans, the blessed of the gods, are rarely decent people. Another observation would be that these gods don't exist and therefore there aren't actually any people that are in fact blessed by them. Now you could say: I have understood, Brahmans, that the hate I have learned to feel for you is not because some people are blessed by the Hindu gods, and are usually assholes. Nor is it because you are all assholes by nature. No, the problem is that we should not have the category of Brahman in the first place. It's not that you are evil, Brahmans, but that you should not exist in an enlightened society at all.

Just by reading what's visible of the printed version of the column that's found in the original post's link, I am very skeptical that your exegesis of the column is accurate.

Does anyone have a link to the original column in toto?

K. is running in circles again.

The guy said the DNA of white people is an abomination.

How do you get rid of an abomination?

You kill it.

The author of the piece is just not willing to come out in the open and say, "yes all white people should be rounded up and killed."

But you can damn well infer it from his writing.

I'm still looking for a copy. It was pulled so fast that hopefully someone who has a physical copy will transcribe it and put it on the internet for all to see.

The portion of the column that's visible says that the author essentially counts the definition of "white" to mean all descendants of the European settlers in America living on "stolen land".

That doesn't sound like he thinks "white people" don't exist.

The author's colleague is the one who said "whiteness" is a construct.

The author of the column, however, certainly seems to reckon whiteness as a very real, and very detestable thing.

No... it's looks like @K. certainly has it all very wrong.

The Examiner points out that the author describes that the talk about DNA does not in fact amount to a biological explanation, and that whiteness is instead a "construct used to perpetuate a system of racist power". The Examiner clearly does not understand what it has quoted there, but it is still apparently a direct quote, so we can read and understand what the piece said anyway.

No. It considers stealing land a detestable thing, and giving special power to people on the basis of their ancestors having stolen land and people a detestable thing. Do you disagree?

Here's the full text.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DNA-1122x1496.jpg

Ok, the full text of the column reveals that you truly don't know what you are talking about.

He puts 'white' in quotation marks. He describes the means to bring about the death of white people as a 'constant ideological struggle to deconstruct whiteness'. He describes the world created by that death not as full of corpses, but full of 'cultural zombies' who no longer have a sense of their identity. No, neither of those things means killing people.

No, he said he doesn’t want white people to exist as a concept, but it does and he hates them. Not it. Them.

Yes. That isn't in question. The question is whether he wants to kill them. His description of what he wants to do is 'ideological deconstruction' of 'whiteness', he says that once it has been done the people involved will be 'cultural zombies', and that a white person can 'accept' what he wants to do by 'defining themselves as something other than an oppressor'. You seriously want to tell me you read this as ending their biological life?

"Quick, get a doctor! This man's cultural identity has been deconstructed! He is losing blood fast! Do we have an exit wound?"

Look, O2C thinks brown boogeymen are out to get him.
You think logic is gonna dislodge that from his fucked up head?
Do ya?
Have you watched me arm wrestle with Dayton over religion?
Unreason and delusion don't bend to reality, they bend reality.

See, that isn't how I picture O2C at all. I think racism is just so deeply ingrained into this culture that the original piece, while obviously unfortunately difficult to understand, is exactly correct in challenging that confusion of ideas head-on. The majority of people still seem to think that not being a racist means treating all races alike, rather than not believing in races. Ideological criticism calls this misrecognition. If you read the term 'white people' or 'white person' and conclude, 'he's talking about me', you have accepted a racist premise. Althusser talks about the ideology of appellation, meaning, do you turn around when someone calls out to you in the street? If someone calls out, "hey, whitey!" do you feel as if you might just have been spoken to? I certainly do. When that happens, that mere feeling is an expression of racism. It doesn't make me evil, but the fact that it happens is evil.

Both K and Ancalagon are racist pieces of shit who belong in prison. They both disgust me. Cheering and enabling such true racism should be utterly unacceptable.