The Problem with Using the Term White Supremacy

Executive Summary

• The term white supremacy is used quite commonly. However, its actual meaning does not at all comport with what the term means.
• When non-white groups advocate for their culture, “supremacy” is never applied to them.

Introduction

White supremacy has come into common usage. In this article, we will illuminate the inaccurate use of the term as well as the double standard applied to advocacy for a racial or cultural group.

Typical Usage of the Term White Supremacy

In the video, the female commenter — Sahar Aziz makes a number of good points. However, she uses the term “white supremacist” several times. 

This not doubt, feels good, as Sahar Aziz is not white. And, curiously, Sahar Aziz would probably never use the term “Arab supremacy.” However, the double standard of justice applied to non-Arabs in the Middle East is extreme.

• Visitors have close to no rights versus a citizen of the Gulf states, for example.
• Arabs bring in indentured labor from all over the world, and these foreign workers can be bought and sold, have their passports taken from them, and are frequently beaten and treated terribly.
• Gulf states have online markets where workers are bought and sold.

Migrant workers that came to Qatari are treated terribly. However, there is little coverage of this, and of course, the term Arab supremacy is not used. 

Has the term “Asian supremacy” ever been used? Let us see the following quotation.

The hand-written sign in the entrance of a cosmetics shop in Japan might have been shocking to many Chinese, but to some observers its message was all too familiar.

The sign, which said Chinese people were not allowed to enter, caused outrage when images of it were posted on Chinese websites last month.

There are countless reports of Japanese property owners refusing to lease their flats to foreigners and, because there is no law that explicitly forbids discrimination based on nationality or race, there is little to stop them. Similarly, foreigners who approach government-run agencies for jobs are often refused based on their nationality or because they “look foreign”, according to Arudou, who in 2015 published Embedded Racism: Japan’s Visible Minorities and Racial Discrimination. – SCMP

Why is it ok for Japan to see their people as unique and better than all other people and for the term “Japanese superiority” not to be a term in usage?

How, about the Chinese, the group that, along with the Koreans, have often been the object of Japanese superiority? Certainly, the Chinese would never apply a sense of superiority over other races.

In Hong Kong, Southeast Asian domestic workers from the Philippines or Indonesia are often terribly mistreated. However, no one would think of using the term “Chinese supremacy.” Chinese, after all, are the minority. And they are not white — so how could a Chinese person ever be guilty of mistreating other races? 

China is a patchwork of many areas, many of which are not Han Chinese. The Chinese government claims racial superiority over these groups and will either move Han Chinese into regions (such as Tibet) to dilute the indigenous population. Or they will intern these people into camps where they are “re-educated.” The Chinese government states that China has 5,000 years of culture. Longer and better than any other culture. When the British came into contact with China, called The George Macartney Mission to China in 1792, the Chinese royals considered the British barbarians. All of China “knew” that they were the central Kingdom and the most elevated place in the world. 

However, the term Chinese superiority is also not a term. 

This maid, who worked in a Gulf state, wanted to die. Yet, there is virtually no international criticism of Gulf state human rights violations in Western media. 

Unlike in white countries, these immigrant workers have no rights. In the US, for example, Mexicans usually are not deported unless they are felons. Many illegal Mexican workers have driver licenses, use emergency rooms as free clinics, and are entitled to in-state tuition in California. And it is the position of many Mexicans, that they have a right to stay in the US and to work and migrate to the US if they can simply get across the border. Secondly, enforcing borders or immigration laws is a type of white supremacy.

However, even though the treatment of foreign workers is demonstrably better in white countries than any place else, the bulk of the focus on redressing inequities is in white countries – not non-white countries.

Does Sahar Aziz even bother talking about Arab supremacy?

And why would she care?

She lives in a white country now, and her main objective is wringing as many concessions from that white country as possible. And that means showing selective outrage at the only people that will pay attention — white people. Sahar Aziz knows that she would be locked up if she were to move to a Gulf country and try to change anything. Furthermore, what does she care about how Arabs treat non-Arabs? Do Mexicans in the US care about Mexico’s legal system? No, Mexicans in the US care more about stopping deportations and getting more Mexicans in the country? Do Indians care about improving India? No. They know that it is hopeless. Indians who try to improve India get murdered or otherwise sidelined.

Indians spend nearly all of their political change efforts in getting the US’s foreign worker programs to allow in even more Indians. Indians like to discuss how white countries have a “skills gap” and how they are the people to fill that gap.

This is the rare Indian protesting against something other than enlarged foreign worker programs for Indians. However, she is not protesting for the things on her sign in India. India is far worst on every topic — rather, she is lobbying for these things in the US. And these are things to be demanded from white societies — not however from her own Indian society. However, how is an Indian — which has a caste system and a society known for mass discrimination, a model for the US. How are these immigrants who come from countries that have made far less progress on all of these issues a model for white countries? The only thing they are arguing for is for their own personal benefit — but under the guise of being principled or in pushing for general improvements. This is where the term “diversity” comes into play. When Indians use the term “diversity,” they mean more jobs or benefits for Indians. When blacks use the term “diversity,” they don’t mean Indians, they mean jobs or benefits for blacks. Both agree, though, that “diversity” really means anti-white. 

These groups seem to spend most of their outrage energy talking about how white societies can give more to non-whites and be made more accommodating to non-whites — and of course, correspondingly less accommodating to whites. This is true even though it was the whites that founded the countries they moved to.

Why?

The Inconsistent Use of the Term Racial Supremacy

In the video above, Sahar Aziz calls members of the Trump administration white supremacists. As an Arab, does she feel the same way or worse about the regimes in the Middle East? Where would Sahar Aziz rather be a foreign worker — in the US or the Middle East? 

Sahar Aziz is falling into the pattern of calling people who want to promote white culture are categorized as anti-everything else.

However, how can this be an accurate characterization?

When non-whites promote their culture and change the culture, as with the Mexicans in California all to the suit them, they are not accused of being anti-white.

Why not?

The formal catchphrase of La Raza is the following.

“Everything for the Mexican race, nothing for anyone else.”

Why isn’t La Raza called Mexican supremacist? The answer is simple. The only type of racial supremacy, under the current, WOKE thinking, is white supremacy.

Mexicans have even made up fake histories where they occupied the US (that is the Mexican government), and therefore the entirety of the US belongs to Mexico. Mexican pride or advocate or immigration attorneys are not pro-Mexican; they are anti-white or Mexican-supremacist.

Using The Term Supremacist Consistently

If we are going to categorize all things that promote white culture as white supremacists, then we must use the same language with non-whites. The Imperial Japanese thought that the Japanese were superior to all other races. Yet when racial superiority beliefs of WW2 are discussed, the Japanese are left out of the discussion, and the Nazis take center stage.

What is that?

The Japanese had the same racial superiority beliefs as the Nazis. They committed virtually the same acts as the Nazis (although they lacked the broad extermination camps of the Nazis, most of the POWs were treated worse by the Japanese than the Germans treated their POWs)

Secondly, when WW2 is covered, often, the racial beliefs against the Japanese are often discussed, but never the Japanese racial beliefs? Again why is that? 

And along these lines, the new strategy is to call people that one does not agree with the Nazis.

This biology teacher triggered a walkout by a trans student and sympathizers and to the group, cutting the mikes of the presenters. The presenters were also called Nazis. What was the offense? A biology professor stated that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women. That is all it takes to be called a Nazi these days. And the term Nazis must be used if you call someone of sharing the ideology of the Imperial Japanese; it’s not PC because you are using a negative reference to a group of people that are not white. Under PC culture, only whites can have an ideology that makes them superior to other races. The Chinese, who received vicious treatment at the hands of the Japanese, might disagree — but then again, they consider themselves racially superior to all other groups. 

According to actress Debra Messing of Will and Grace fame, Trump is similar to Hitler. The evidence is the shocking similarity that each once held up a book. 

The Tricky Matter in Differentiating Pride from White Supremacy

When a non-white group advocates for itself, it’s “pride” and a positive thing. But when whites do, it is a racist or white supremacist. Commentary is so censored that bringing up white accomplishments is a form of white supremacy. The current approach is to categorize white accomplishment as a sham, and that for instance, the only reason that it was the US that put a man on the moon, was because the whites stole the technology from other countries (in the undeveloped world). That white media censored the accomplishments of non-whites. 

Stopping Whites from Advocating for Themselves

The point of miscategorizing white advocacy as white supremacy has a strategic purpose. It is to make whites defenseless. If Spike Lee says, as he has, that he does not like it when whites come in and take over or take back neighborhoods, it is considered perfectly fine. But if a white person wants a white neighborhood to stay white, then they are a white supremacist.

In this video, Spike Lee opposes “gentrification.” Spike asks the question of why it required an influx of whites to make what were previously black neighborhoods to get better. Spike Lee blames racism. However, what was stopping blacks from “picking up garbage,” which was his complaint? Even though the outcomes of black areas are improved when whites move in, Spike Lee opposes it because those areas are black — and of course, should stay black. However, when a white person makes the same statement, they would be called a white supremacist. 

Something else that Spike Lee does not highlight is that the areas he is discussing were originally white. However, when the blacks took over those areas, that was ok, under Spike Lee’s thinking, and it would have been racism to oppose it. However, once an area becomes black or taken over by his group, then that area needs to stay permanently black.

This is the view of many non-whites.

Mexicans in the US increasingly talk about “taking over” the US. And it is not racist. But to oppose a take over of white areas by Mexicans is racism, white supremacy even. All of this is true even though neither Mexican nor blacks created cities in the US. Each city that is now resided in by blacks or Mexicans was originated by whites. In each case, blacks and Mexicans did not go out into the wilderness and just created their own cities.

However, even though whites originated the cities, they do not have the right — under current thinking, to keep those cities for themselves. And once the city goes into decline, whites are blamed for this as well.

According to Michelle Obama, whites left areas where blacks moved into. And the whites left these areas in “shambles.” How exactly that occurred is an open question. Whites left or moved out of areas that became predominantly black. These cities declined in function under black management expressly. The eventual end state was when black politicians took over the operations of the city — which marked the no turning back state for those cities. Baltimore, Detroit, Birmingham, and other cities are examples of this. These cities are now in a type of federal conservatorship. Most blacks who live in cities want to leave them, but most cannot. Even when whites are barely present — their white supremacy causes cities they no longer occupy to go into decline. This is the same as being accused of murder in a city where you were not present. 

But because not enough whites stayed to maintain the city, whites were also blamed for white flight. The logic seems to be that just enough whites need to stay to “keep the lights on,” maintain infrastructure, etc..

And any unwillingness to do this is yet another example of white supremacy.

Conclusion

Overall, the people that told us diversity is a strength have been proven wrong. Diversity is a weakness, and now diversity is leading to whites being censored and shamed into never supporting white or European culture. The more immigrants come from countries without any freedom of speech heritage, the more the people in white countries have their speech limited. Young whites are now told to advocate for non-whites, while the non-whites would never advocate for them. 

And the only reason we have diversity is that non-whites want to live around whites. There are not “diversity” issues when whites go and live or retire in the Philippines or Latin America. If the whites don’t like their treatment, they leave. But we have a situation where non-whites immigrate to white countries and then say the conditions are intolerable.

Behind them are an unlimited number of future immigrants who are complaining that they are not allowed into white countries fast enough. But that is only a temporary complaint. And then, as soon as they are allowed into these countries, they call the countries white supremacists.

These Africans are so offended by white supremacy, that they are risking their lives to cross the Mediterranian to get to Europe.

Which is it?

Are whites a bunch of racists, or do you want to gain entry to their countries to be alongside white supremacists? 

These Latin Americans also are so offended by white supremacy that they are taking the trip north to enter the US illegally. Once there, they will claim asylum. Apparently, what most of them are claiming asylum from is non-white countries. African immigrants, when detained on Italian vessels when saved from their transport vessel, often claim they are seeking “human rights.” Yet, why are human rights only claimed in white countries? Do only white countries have the responsibility to provide human rights — and should white countries be responsible for providing human rights to all non-white countries? Would a failure to do so be yet another example of white supremacy? 

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2123539/no-chinese-why-anti-china-racism-so-big-japan

https://www.city-journal.org/europe-multiculturalism

This article describes how elites in white countries for multiculturalism on their domestic populations.

The shift in opinion has even occurred in Sweden, long proud of its tolerance but now coping with a social enmity unfamiliar to a historically homogeneous country. The academic, media, and corporate establishments hope to crush these movements, whose adherents they regard, says Henry Olsen, as “medieval peasants.”

Cultural conflict is not primarily the result of the migrants themselves. Earlier migrant waves arrived in Europe when the continent felt confident about its culture. Today’s newcomers enter European societies where many people—notably in the intellectual classes—reject core values, rooted in Christianity and liberal democracy, that shaped their culture. Filling this void is a campaign to replace the current colorblind republic with a “multicultural and post-racial republic” that embraces an “erasing of identities” from the past.

*https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/world/australia/immigration.html