Red Flag For White Bulls

What a bunch of nonsense, LOL.

From Race Traitor magazine.

White nationalists go stark raving nuts over this stuff, but I think it’s like a woman or a child (same thing) throwing a tantrum – glance over at the scene and start laughing. If this PC nonsense carried any water in the White community (which does indeed exist, thank you very much) we might have to start getting worried.

But read this article to a room full of White people (which also exist, thank you very much), and they will go for the fridge for a beer, pop it and guffaw their way through the piece while joyfully swilling.

This stuff is pure entertainment for most Whites, downright racial silliness, like the minstrel shows of old. Your average White person ain’t buyin this stuff yet, even at 90% off closeout.

There are some errors in the text below. White as in White race or course is always capitalized. We deserve less?

Abolish the White Race – By Any Means Necessary

Race Traitor Magazine

The white race is a historically constructed social formation – historically constructed because (like royalty) it is a product of some people’s responses to historical circumstances; a social formation because it is a fact of society corresponding to no classification recognized by natural science.

The white race cuts across ethnic and class lines. It is not coextensive with that portion of the population of European descent, since many of those classified as “colored” can trace some of their ancestry to Europe, while African, Asian, or American Indian blood flows through the veins of many considered white. Nor does membership in the white race imply wealth, since there are plenty of poor whites, as well as some people of wealth and comfort who are not white.

The white race consists of those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to the system that degrades them.

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue in U.S. society, whether domestic or foreign.

Advocating the abolition of the white race is distinct from what is called “anti-racism.” The term “racism” has come to be applied to a variety of attitudes, some of which are mutually incompatible, and has been devalued to mean little more than a tendency to dislike some people for the color of their skin. Moreover, anti-racism admits the natural existence of “races” even while opposing social distinctions among them.

The abolitionists maintain, on the contrary, that people were not favored socially because they were white; rather they were defined as “white” because they were favored. Race itself is a product of social discrimination; so long as the white race exists, all movements against racism are doomed to fail.

The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a determinant of behavior will set off tremors that will lead to its collapse.

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those which promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. Dissolve the club

The white race is a club, which enrolls certain people at birth, without their consent, and brings them up according to its rules. For the most part the members go through life accepting the benefits of membership, without thinking about the costs. When individuals question the rules, the officers are quick to remind them of all they owe to the club, and warn them of the dangers they will face if they leave it.

RACE TRAITOR aims to dissolve the club, to break it apart, to explode it. Some people who sympathize with our aim have asked us how we intend to win over the majority of so-called whites to anti-racism. Others, usually less friendly, have asked if we plan to exterminate physically millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people. Neither of these plans is what we have in mind.

The weak point of the club is its need for unanimity. Just as the South, on launching the Civil War, declared that it needed its entire territory and would have it, the white race must have the support of all those it has designated as its constituency, or it ceases to exist.

Elsewhere in this number, readers will find an account of John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry and some of the events it set in motion. Before the Civil War, the leading spokesmen for the slaveholders acknowledged that the majority of white northerners, swayed above all by the presence of the fugitive slave, considered slavery unjust.

The Southerners also understood that the opposition was ineffective; however much the white people of the north disapproved of the slave system, the majority went along with it rather than risk the ordinary comforts of their lives, meager as they were in many cases.

When John Brown attacked Harpers Ferry, Southern pro- slavery leaders reacted with fury: they imposed a boycott on northern manufactures, demanded new concessions from the government in Washington, and began to prepare for war. When they sought to portray John Brown as a representative of northern opinion, Southern leaders were wrong; he represented only a small and isolated minority.

But they were also right, for he expressed the hopes that still persisted in the northern population despite decades of cringing before the slaveholders. Virginia did not fear John Brown and his small band of followers, but his soul that would go marching on, though his body lay a-mould’rin’ in the grave.

When the South, in retaliation for Harpers Ferry, sought to further bully northern opinion, it did so not out of paranoia but out of the realistic assessment that only a renewal of the national pro-slavery vows could save a system whose proud facade concealed a fragile foundation. By the arrogance of their demands, the Southern leaders compelled the people of the north to resist. Not ideas but events were in command.

Each step led inexorably to the next: Southern land-greed, Lincoln’s victory, secession, war, blacks as laborers, soldiers, citizens, voters. And so the war that began with not one person in a hundred foreseeing the end of slavery was transformed within two years into an anti-slavery war.

It is our faith – and with those who do not share it we shall not argue – that the majority of so-called whites in this country are neither deeply nor consciously committed to white supremacy; like most human beings in most times and places, they would do the right thing if it were convenient. As did their counterparts before the Civil War, most go along with a system that disturbs them, because the consequences of challenging it are terrifying. They close their eyes to what is happening around them, because it is easier not to know.

At rare moments their nervous peace is shattered, their certainty is shaken, and they are compelled to question the common sense by which they normally live. One such moment was in the days immediately following the Rodney King verdict, when a majority of white Americans were willing to admit to polltakers that black people had good reasons to rebel, and some joined them.

Ordinarily the moments are brief, as the guns and reform programs are moved up to restore order and, more important, the confidence that matters are in good hands and they can go back to sleep. Both the guns and the reform programs are aimed at whites as well as blacks – the guns as a warning and the reform programs as a salve to their consciences.

Recently, one of our editors, unfamiliar with New York City traffic laws, made an illegal right turn there on a red light. He was stopped by two cops in a patrol car. After examining his license, they released him with a courteous admonition. Had he been black, they probably would have ticketed him, and might even have taken him down to the station.

A lot of history was embodied in that small exchange: the cops treated the miscreant leniently at least in part because they assumed, looking at him, that he was white and therefore loyal. Their courtesy was a habit meant both to reward good conduct and induce future cooperation.

Had the driver cursed them, or displayed a bumper sticker that said, “Avenge Rodney King,” the cops might have reacted differently. We admit that neither gesture on the part of a single individual would in all likelihood be of much consequence. But if enough of those who looked white broke the rules of the club to make the cops doubt their ability to recognize a white person merely by looking at him or her, how would it affect the cops’ behavior?

And if the police, the courts, and the authorities in general were to start spreading around indiscriminately the treatment they normally reserve for people of color, how would the rest of the so-called whites react?

How many dissident so-called whites would it take to unsettle the nerves of the white executive board? It is impossible to know. One John Brown – against a background of slave resistance – was enough for Virginia. Yet it was not the abolitionists, not even the transcendent John Brown, who brought about the mass shifts in consciousness of the Civil War period.

At most, their heroic deeds were part of a chain of events that involved mutual actions and reactions on a scale beyond anything they could have anticipated – until a war that began with both sides fighting for slavery (the South to take it out of the Union, the north to keep it in) ended with a great army marching through the land singing, “As He died to make men holy, let us fight to make men free.”

The moments when the routine assumptions of race break down are the seismic promise that somewhere in the tectonic flow a new fault is building up pressure, a new Harpers Ferry is being prepared. Its nature and timing cannot be predicted, but of its coming we have no doubt. When it comes, it will set off a series of tremors that will lead to the disintegration of the white race. We want to be ready, walking in Jerusalem just like John. What kind of journal is this?

RACE TRAITOR exists, not to make converts, but to reach out to those who are dissatisfied with the terms of membership in the white club. Its primary intended audience will be those people commonly called whites who, in one way or another, understand whiteness to be a problem that perpetuates injustice and prevents even the well-disposed among them from joining unequivocally in the struggle for human freedom.

By engaging these dissidents in a journey of discovery into whiteness and its discontents, we hope to take part, together with others, in the process of defining a new human community. We wish neither to minimize the complicity of even the most downtrodden of whites with the system of white supremacy nor to exaggerate the significance of momentary departures from white rules.

We should say that there are some articles we are not interested in publishing. Since we are not seeking converts, we probably will not publish articles which lecture various organizations about their racial opportunism. Also we probably will not publish articles promoting inter-racial harmony, because that approach too often leaves intact differential treatment of whites and blacks and provides subtle confirmation of the idea that different races exist independently of social distinctions.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

38 thoughts on “Red Flag For White Bulls”

  1. Race Traitor, by Noel Ignatiev.

    Written by a Jew. Why am I not surprised?

    If it weren’t for Jews such as Jew Among You, I’d probably be a complete Jew hater.

    1. Jew Among You is most likely a neocon, pro-Zionist, even if he’s against turd world immigration like Auster. There are really no Jews who are both anti-Zionist AND anti-leftist. The ones who are anti-left tend to be Meir Kahane types, who still want goyim to fight and die for Israhell.

      1. I don’t know about that.

        You should actually go to Jew Among You’s blog and read what he writes (and I actually comment there every now and then).

        While he is a Jewish nationalist in addition to being a white nationalist, and supports the idea of a Jewish state in Israel, he’s not a blind Israel worshipper who screams “anti-semite” whenever someone criticizes Israel or Jewish influence.

        Well, here’s how he puts it in his own words.

        You be the judge.

        Am I Zionist? I believe we Jews have a right to our own homeland – and it should be in the historic Land of Israel. However, the way this was brought about was shameful and, arguably, brought more harm than good. I wish we could start over. This is my opinion and make of it what you will.

        1. I guess he’s a reasonable type then. But there a lot of what I’d like to call “controlled-opposition Jews” who may seem different from the rest of the pack, but if you read carefully, they’re still all about the selfish promotion of Jew interests at the expense of practially everybody else.

        2. But yes, I agree with you.

          Many Jews are either radical leftists, or liberal/neocon (which are really just two sides of the same coin) Zionists who worship Israhell and slander those who criticize Israeli or Jewish influence as “anti-semites.”

          Heck, Israelis themselves even brag about the influence they wield in American politics.

          Read articles by Paul Craig Roberts on Vdare and Counterpunch for more perspective.

        3. I always read Craig Roberts. What do you think happened to him to change him from a Reagan Treasury Department official to a radical critic of U.S. foreign policy and the domestic establishment?

        4. I think Roberts changed because upon retiring from politics, he was free to say what he truly thinks.

          As a result, you can only find his writings on fringe publications such as Vdare and Counterpunch, and you can only see him on Russia TV.

          In the early 2000s, many of his articles focused on racial and social issues (such as Cultural Marxism, turd world immigration, problems with diversity, the disastrous legacy of Brown v. Board, etc)

          However, lately, he hasn’t really been talking about race or immigration that much.

          Now, he focuses on economics (although he’s always written articles on economics, seeing as how he’s first and foremost an economist, and his articles on the economy used to be featured in mainstream publications, but I digress).

          He also mainly focuses much of his attention on Israhell, neocon foreign policy, American imperialism, etc.

          Although he also focused on foreign policy during his early days writing for Vdare.

          But to fully answer your question, it is acceptable to be an honest, critical, and independent thinker when you’re not working for the government or any mainstream institution.

          As I’ve said before, there’s a reason why you cannot find him on CNN, or any other mainstream news outlet.

          By the way, he was also a guest on The Political Cesspool, although since it’s an old archive, I cannot download the MP3.

          If you could somehow retrieve Roberts’ appearance on the cesspool, that would be awesome!

        5. It’s truly ironic that the land of the former USSR allows a genuine American patriot to make an appearance while CNN wouldn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole.

        6. It’s truly ironic that the land of the former USSR allows a genuine American patriot to make an appearance while CNN wouldn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole.

          Truer words have not been spoken.

          It just shows you how pathetic this country has become.

          It also shows that while Russia used to be the land of Communism, it never subscribed to BS Cultural Marxism, PC, or any of that nonsense.

        7. On another note, the reason why Asian countries are rising is because they don’t put up with Cultural Marxism and other BS.

          Unlike the States and increasingly Europe, Asian countries are homogenous, united, and have a strong sense of pride and nationalism.

          If they completely understood Cultural Marxism and Zionism, they would die laughing at us.

          (and I’m sure they already have a pretty good idea)

        8. You make a great point. The Soviets were Stalinist commies. In other words, they combined Marxist economics with traditional moral values and Russian patriotism/nationalism. However, Trotskyites were the decadent, Jewish type commies. I think America has been hijacked by commies of the Trotskyite flavor. Where’s Comrade Stalin when you need him?

        9. Well anon, I wouldn’t exactly like living under a Stalinist regime.

          I happen to enjoy the freedoms that come with living in a non-Communist, democratic society.

          But still, I get what you’re trying to say.

          I think combining Marxist economics with patriotism and nationalism, while avoiding the repression that came with living under Stalin would be a good strategy for those on the Marxist left.

          If only they would drop all this “diversity” and Cultural Marxism BS.

          The commies in Russia and China were always proud to be Russian and Chinese, unlike commies here in the west.

        10. Actually, considering the weaknesses of Marxist economics, the ideal political and economic system for a country would be National Socialism. The NS Germans had a unique and highly superior economic system that preserved private property and individual initiative while avoiding the pitfalls of capitalism, namely parasitic usury and international (Jewish) finance. And of course they were just as nationalistic, if not more so, than the Stalinist type commies.

        11. They also were the first European nation to get out of the Depression in the 1930s. Most Europeans, with the obvious exception of Jews and Soviet citizens, actually welcomed the German occupation and many Frenchman, Dutch, Norwegians, etc. volunteered for the Wehrmacht and even the Waffen-SS, preparing for the final showdown with Judeo-Bolshevism in 1941.

        12. I don’t know about that, anon.

          It’s easy to regulate an economy when you have absolute power and the common people cannot object.

          I would definitely not want to live in Nazi Germany.

          Sure, they may have been nationalistic and run an efficient economy.

          But again, I like living in a free, democratic country, in spite of its many headaches. I also wouldn’t want to live in a country that initiated WWII.

          (of course, if the American Empire keeps up its misbehavior, it may very well provoke a massive global conflict, but that’s another story).

          I wish that there were a democratic, free, and prosperous society that spurns neoliberal economics without succumbing to National Socialism or Stalinist/Maoist Communism.

          But I guess that’s asking for too much.

        13. That would indeed be the perfect society. Unfortunately, the American neocon imperialists never allow that option. Look what happened to all the democratic socialist leaders that the U.S. overthrew? So the choices are live in a patriotic dictatorship or succumb to a disgusting neoliberal regime that oppresses the people anyway while also looting their pockets at the same time. See Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, and the Somoza dynasty. Also Churchill and France declared war on Germany first just because the Poles were being stubborn about territory where the majority were ethnic Germans who wanted to be reunited with the fatherland.

  2. On another note, in the eyes of blacks and anti-racists, John Brown is the only good white person who ever existed.

    Basically, whites have to side with blacks and kill their fellow whites in order to be seen as acceptable.

    Of course, there are some non-violent self-haters such as Robert Jensen. But the idea is the same. Unless you’re actively fighting against whites and siding with blacks, you’re the enemy.

    (on another note, I think the term self-hating white is overused. From now on, I’ll call them castrated crackers. It’s an alliteration, I made it up, and it more accurately describes what they are. What do you guys think?)

    I think all whites (white liberals in particular) should be required to read radical black and anti-racist blogs. If they truly knew what these people thought of them, white liberals and rainbow conservatives would disabuse themselves of their naive racial liberalism.

  3. Perhaps since “Male” is also a social construct which is responsible for all of society’s ills, we’ll proceed to abolishing that afterward? Become like those female fish that clone themselves?

    1. Lol!

      Come to think of it, everything is a social construct.

      Language, ethnicity, culture, etc.

      So does that mean that we should tell the Japanese and Koreans, Greeks and Turks, Christians and Muslims, and other “social constructs” to love one another, since after all, they’re all made up?


      Culture is not fixed. Identity is not fixed. Race is just another construct, one of many, that has developed over time.

      I know, they say, “it was used by elites to divide the workers,” “it was used to subvert poor whites and justify Capitalism,” etc.

      However, anthropology shows that all human groups, be they racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, etc, define themselves not so much by what they have in common, but which groups they define themselves against.

      Therefore, if we ought to abolish race because it’s a “social construct,” then we have a hell of a lot more to abolish.

  4. More weirdness from the US of A. How anyone can take this stuff seriously! Is Race Traitor aligned with any…uh…social movement as we understand it? Or is it highly marginal like White nationalism?

  5. Unlike the States and increasingly Europe, Asian countries are homogenous

    Racially yes but only South Korea can say ethnically as well. People being who/ what they are it wouldn’t surpise we if South Korea had religious uprising one day.

      1. There are Koreans and a lot of Chinese illegals = treated like shit. The Chinese illegals are brought in by ruthless gangs called Snakeheads.

        The Ainu are also supported treated badly, but that may be changing in recent years. Young Japanese are not really into Japanese racial fascism, and they are rebelling against it. One way is that they are getting into Ainu culture. Most Ainu just look like Japs anyway these days.

        Ainu concerts with young Ainu rock bands draw huge, enthusiastic crowds of young Japanese who seem to be rejecting anti-Ainu racism. The Ainu language is also getting popular with young Ainu. There are Ainu academic departments being set up at universities, etc.

        Hating the Koreans and Ainu strikes me as retarded. By one analysis, Japanese are simply 60% Koreans + 40% Ainu. So Japanese racism simply means that they hate themselves. Way to go, tools.

      2. Robert, how are Koreans for instance closer to Europeans than southern Chinese if we both belong to the same y-chromsome haplogroup?

    1. China has 80 or so designated ethnic groups, many of whom speak different languages. Your average Han Chinese person will be highly insistent that these people are *not* Chinese, the only Chinese of course being the Han.

      Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, all have many ethnic groups who speak many different languages. These folks are neither Khmers, Thais, Viets, Lao, Burmese or Indonesians.

      How is Asia racially homogeneous? You mean they are all Asiatics?

      1. How is Asia racially homogeneous?

        I was using American standards of racial classification.

        In America, the Han and Ainu and the japanese-Japaneese would all be Asian.

  6. Both China and Japan have ethnic minorities.

    The main minorities in China are Northwest Muslims and Tibetans, as well as others. At the same time, the Han Chinese are still the overwhelming majority.

    Japan has the Burakumin, Koreans, Ainu, and very small numbers of non-Asians, but Japan is still one of the most relatively homogenous nations in the world.

    Same with Korea.

    Compared to the U.S and Europe, it’s not even close. Asian countries are far more homogenous in a relative sense. Certainly in a racial sense, and even in an ethnic sense.

    Asian countries are far more united and don’t have to deal with “diversity” issues.

  7. Quote:Asian countries are far more united and don’t have to deal with “diversity” issues.

    Well then i guess we shouldn’t expect next music phenomenon to come from Asia then

    1. Well, I can live with that.

      Not getting the newest cool music in exchange for greater unity, less conflict, and greater patriotism is well worth the price.

      1. You do realize that America has always used the pop medium to unify it’s youth base and to give herself an identity apart form those boring Europeans , her (America) identity is her homogeneity.

        1. I know, I know.

          You buy into the whole idea that “America is is a nation of ideas and common beliefs.”

          Well, I beg to differ.

          And I hardly see how music unites us, and provides us with a homogenous identity.

          Not exactly seeing the unity here.

          And the U.S doesn’t even have a homogenous identity either, which is precisely the problem caused by diversity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)