The student newspaper at Texas State University recently published an article called “Your DNA Is An Abomination,” written by a student named Rudy Martinez. It’s some pretty horrific stuff, stuff that even Joseph Goebbels would be proud to see published in his newspaper if only you replaced “white’ with “jews.” It’s a piece about the evils of white people, how they’re abnormal, and how the death of whites means liberation for everyone else with the ending suggestion that the death of all whites is the only answer–that’s right, a state college published an article about how racial genocide was the only answer. The article starts out by saying:
Now I am become white, the destroyer of worlds.
When I think of all the white people I’ve ever encountered- whether they’ve been professors, peers, lovers, friends, police officers, et cetera – there is perhaps only a dozen I would consider “decent.”
You know, now that I’m looking at this article, I actually don’t think the ideas presented in it are the most disgusting thing about it… Nah… it’s the fact this article was written by a college student and went through multiple editors who are theoretically being paid and/or also college students, yet atrocious mistakes like “am become” and “People I’ve ever encountered is.” Lots of people have a difficult time with plurals and generally, it seems unreasonable that they have such a difficult time. In this case. “Of all the white people I’ve ever encountered, there were perhaps only a dozen.” Martinez doesn’t just screw up the plural, but also the casing. You’re saying, “That I’ve ever met.” You’re talking past case. “I’ve encountered” the follow-up verb should be something like, were or have been. “Is” is probably the wrongest word you could have put in there… Aside from am.
To the content, how much trouble would I get into if I not published, not even published, but had a private conversation with a friend on say, a plane, where I go, “You know, of all the Latinos I’ve ever encountered… they were mostly all criminals and rapists tbqh fam. I dunno. Maybe like, five were ‘decent’,” how well do you think that’d go over? Have your opinions, but be ready to be called out on your gross bigotry and racism.
My colleague, Tafari Robertson, in his brilliant column “Debunking the Myth of White Majority,” already exposed whiteness in the United States as a construct used to perpetuate a system of racist power. This column functions, however, within a different definition of whiteness: to be white in the United States is to be a descendant of those Europeans who chose to abandon their identity in search of something “new” – stolen land.
This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of American history in pretty much its entirety. If we’re trusting government schools to teach US history for 12 years and then maybe a little extra in college, they’re not doing a very good job. Not technically US history, but every white person in the United States was not related to the settlers. There are MANY who were slaves themselves or completely unrelated to the settlers who immigrated later, in some cases, much later. You’re claiming every white is guilty by virtue of association (being white) in the same way that you’d probably claim every man is guilty of rape by virtue of just being male.
For the most part, European explorers left and explored… because that’s literally what they do. Now, the American revolution happened because the settlers and our founding fathers didn’t like the monarchy, the high taxes, or the control the powerful held over everyone else. They didn’t like the way they were being treated, and as you so like to exclaim about yourselves, they felt oppressed. So what was their solution? Instead of complaining at people who wouldn’t care (and could have had them killed), they left, to find or create a better way. It’s funny because you talk to people like Martinez and mention, “If you’re not happy, then leave. Why are you still here?” Not just in the US, but they’ll complain about universities oppressing them and you ask, “Well, why do you continue to come?” and they go, “What? You think I can just stop coming? You think because I don’t feel like I belong here I should just stop? No. I’m not going to stop. I’m just going to complain.”
Look, the people telling you, you should leave if you feel abused are the good guys. If one of your friends is in an abusive relationship and they talk about how bad their spouse beats them, you, as a good friend, probably don’t encourage them when they say, “What? You think my spouse doesn’t love me? Of course, they love me! I’m not going anywhere! I belong with my abusive spouse! I’m just going to use my voice to talk about it!”
Yes, you’re literally that ridiculous. If you don’t like something, leave. I’ve had this conversation about jobs before too. Someone was arguing with me that if you’re unhappy in a job, you can’t just leave. Well, if you don’t have a contract, you actually can just leave. You can apply to other jobs, you can flat out quit, you may take a pay cut (or end up with zero income), but quitting, leaving, ending something completely miserable is always a choice. You just may not be willing to make the sacrifices that come with that decision… But that doesn’t mean it’s not a viable option.
The article continues:
Racial categories – white, black, brown, red, et cetera – are used to subjugate non-white people. This bending of semantics upholds a white supremacist society. As someone “white,” whether you know it or not regardless of your socio-economic standing, you benefit from privilege. In Texas, a bizarre state I have now inhabited for four years, I continuously meet individuals that either deny the existence of white privilege or fail to do something productive with it.”
Read this as: I meet people who challenge my ideas. When they refuse to agree with me or obey the orders I bark at them because they are white, they are ebil racists. Why don’t they do what I say?!
A lot of you tell me, upon my insistence that whites should have an active role within activist circles, that you “didn’t choose to be white.”
You were not born white, you became white. You actively remain white. You are estranged from yourself and, in that absence, have been instilled with an allegiance to a country that was never great.
Then leave. Why are you still here if you hate it so much? Oh–right. Because why would you leave? You just want to complain and do nothing.
Also, if I’m not born white, then how can I be held accountable for anything other white people have done? Who says that any of the people who committed ‘such acts of atrocities’ were white? Maybe they identified as something else and that’s why they committed such heinous acts? Martinez is trying to paint being white as a social construct one chooses to adapt while also maintaining its genetic because you’re white, you’re related to whites by being white–If I’m physically white, but I have a poor socio-economic status, does that mean I’m not actually white because I’m not benefiting from being white? I’m not really sure how this logic works where you ‘choose to be white and remain white’ by the choices you make, but somehow you’re still not in charge of everything they say you are.
If Martinez is arguing that someone ‘chooses to be and remain white, then you show power,’ then Obama suddenly became white when he was president because he accepted a ‘white man created role’ and had ‘white man power.’ This really isn’t that different than how the Nazis spoke about the Jews in the 1920s-40s. They demonized the Jews and assumed they thought themselves better than everyone else because of their positions in society. Here we see the same thing happening. Interesting, isn’t it?
For example, in Claudia Koonz book, The Nazi Conscience, she writes that “early in his membership in the Nazi Party, Hitler presented the Jews as behind all of Germany’s moral and economic problems, as featuring in both Bolshevism and international capitalism.”
Don’t we see that here? People like Martinez and the groups the left typically aligns with (ANTIFA, BLM, Pussy Hats, Muslims), all blame whites for the moral and economic problems in the US. “If it weren’t for white people, we wouldn’t have racism. If it weren’t for white people, we wouldn’t have poverty. If it weren’t for white people…” They also demonize whites for capitalism…
Also worthy of note, even before the Nazi party ascended to power, it wrote essays and had slogans about boycotting Jewish businesses. That sounds almost reminiscent of Black Lives Matter’s current “protest against white capitalism!” The above-linked article goes to a satirical post by Nazi propagandist leader Joseph Goebbels where he recommends people only buy from the Jews because they sell shoddy stuff, but hey, it’s cheap!–and it’s much more subtle than, “Just don’t buy from them.” If we compare the current movements in America to the Nazi party, they’re actually much more frank with far less nuance. I’m not entirely sure why they’re not being taken more seriously. Anti-capitalism propaganda was as rampant in the Nazi-party as it currently is on college campuses that feature groups like ANTIFA, communist and socialist party clubs, and basic haters of capitalism who double in going after whites.
It was in 1935 when the first set of anti-semitic laws went into effect. The Nuremberg Laws forbid the Jews and political opponents from civil service. Though we haven’t reached law yet, we have seen mainstream groups commenting on how white hold too many positions in nearly every industry and white men shouldn’t apply for tech jobs while an ex-Saunders aide proudly proclaimed, “We don’t need white people leading the democratic party.” Early this year, Huffington Post published an article about taking the right to vote away from white men and strongly defended it when it fell under scrutiny only to take it down shortly after they found it was written by a troll. Yet they still defended and published it. What kind of vetting and security does HuffPo have for this kind of thing to slip through? But I’m rabbit trailing now…
I think I can guess where this would go if these people had the power to make laws: it could easily go into the outright banning of whites from political involvement.
Just one last similarity on this front. By the mid-1930s, general classroom textbooks contained more antisemitism than they had before. Right now, we see an increase in anti-white, anti-American information placed in textbooks. Here we even have an ex-textbook company executive admitting the work they put in common core had an anti-American, anti-Christian agenda. If this doesn’t seem like a setup, I dunno what would tip anyone off. There’s so much information out there about Nazi propaganda against the Jews and if you study it, the similarities are frightening… but back to the Texas State article:
One that has continuously attempted to push non-whites into non-existence through crusades that have been defended by the law.
In your whiteness, you are granted the luxury of not having to think about race daily. Your heartbeat does not speed up when you get pulled over and find yourself staring at the red-and-blue lights of the fascist foot soldiers we call the police. You don’t leave your home wondering if you will ever come back. You don’t give a damn.
That’s a pretty might assumption. Actually, when I see a police car waiting to turn in the direction I’m going, I go, oh no, is he gonna be behind me? When I see a police car behind me, with his lights off, and I’m following all the rules I worry about the light suddenly turning on and me getting pulled over and then getting in trouble for not responding to him fast enough when his lights went on. It’s a major assumption to assume people don’t worry about getting in trouble just because of their race. Also, police, at least here, aren’t fascist foot soldiers. They uphold the law. Now that doesn’t mean there aren’t some corrupt people on an individual basis, but your local police are hardly the SS. They don’t even have cool gang tattoos.
The oppressive world you have built, through the exploitation of millions and the waging of barbaric wars against one another, is coming apart at the seams. Through the current political climate, in which a white supremacist inhabits the White House and those of his ilk would try to prove otherwise, I see white people as an aberration. Through a constant, ideological struggle in which we aim to deconstruct “whiteness” and everything attached to it, we will win.
Whiteness will be over because we want it to be. And when it dies, there will be millions of cultural zombies aimlessly wandering across the vastly changed landscape.
Ontologically speaking, white death will mean liberation for all. To you goodhearted liberals, apathetic nihilists and rightwing extremists: accept this death as the first step toward defining yourself as something other than the oppressor.
Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.
And like that, they end this racist article with a bang: just kill all the whites and if you’re a white and you don’t die, then you’re being oppressive just by existing. How delightful, yeah?
This is so over the top that it shouldn’t have made it onto these pages. If the Texas Star stands by this idea of posting anything because yeah, everyone has the right to free speech and what they publish doesn’t represent their values, then I’d love to see them post something by a white nationalist, something that endorses ethnostates or maybe something that asks for the genocide of some other race–you know, just to prove they’ll post opinion articles that don’t reflect their opinions. I believe fully in free speech, and if you’re going to publish something like this, you have a responsibility to answer questions, provide more information, dialogue, and even publish rebuttals or the counter-argument. Otherwise, you’re using your position solely to spread your personal ideology and propaganda. As a state-funded university, you’re also doing it on the taxpayers dollar.
As of writing this story, the newspaper has fired the editor who wrote this story–meaning Rudy Martinez was paid for this drivel, in addition to it passing multiple levels of approval to publication. They’ve also made the following statement:
The original intent of the column was to comment on the idea of race and racial identities. We acknowledge that the column could have been clearer in its message and that it has caused hurt within our campus community. We apologize and hope that we can move forward to a place of productive dialogue on ways to bring our community together.
To me, calling for the death of an enter race doesn’t really say, “we’re trying to create a productive dialogue and we didn’t think it’d hurt anyone.” What do you think?