ANUSHIRVAN Humanitarian Racism



Anushirvan’s latest, and he’s devastatingly correct.

PC MC appeasement of gradually developing, parallel Sharia-compliant communities in the West stems from humanitarian racism, above all else. Let’s remind ourselves of the words of Manfred Gerstenfeld, who defined the term humanitarian racism as follows: (Behind the Humanitarian Mask: The Nordic Countries, Israel, and the Jews)

“Such humanitarian racists think—usually without expressing it explicitly sometimes not even being conscious of it—that only white people can be fully responsible for their actions while nonwhites cannot (or can but only to a limited extent).”

“A humanitarian racist is best defined as someone who attributes intrinsically reduced responsibility for their acts to people of certain ethnic or national groups. This racism is a mirror image of the white-supremacist variety. Humanitarian racists consider—usually without saying so explicitly—that only white people can be fully responsible for their actions; nonwhites such as the Palestinians cannot (or can but only to a limited extent).

Therefore, most misdeeds by nonwhites—who by definition are “victims”—are not their fault but those of whites, who can be held accountable. One of the many consequences of this distorted attitude is that nonwhites are falsely perceived as passive victims, never acting, only acted upon or reacting. As humanitarian racism has hardly been investigated, the many ramifications of this discriminatory attitude are also ignored.

One of these is that by considering certain people unable to be fully responsible for their actions by nature, one implicitly degrades them to a subhuman status and ascribes to them characteristics found in animals. They cannot be held responsible because they cannot overcome their urges and are not expected to have rationality or morality. One among many resulting distortions of humanitarian racism is the confusion of criminals and victims. Another is an inversion of perpetrator and victim.

These scantly studied phenomena are related to other false beliefs such as that the problems caused by certain hooligans among non-Western immigrants in European societies are solely the result of socioeconomic factors. Very often criminal inclinations and antiwhite racist ideology are also at play.”

“Ignoring minority racism is yet another collateral phenomenon of humanitarian


In the 21st century, it becomes immediately apparent that moral relativism as the fundamental cornerstone of PC has turned into a “tail between the legs” policy and has become – although originally part of the contrived rhetoric of the so-called anti-imperialist left – a pervasive disorder that has infected our political “elites” as a whole, regardless of their particular ideology or party political stance.

Although humanitarian racism holds its own inconsistencies, it can however perfectly serve as nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a situation Western leaders don’t want to face up to: PC gathers around the blatant untruth that Islam is purportedly “a culture” rather than a pre-modern ideology (aka religion) that seeks to submit the whole of Mankind to a transcendent, static Absolute Moral Truth that is both ill-suited and damaging to the evolution of civilization’s intricacies in an ever-changing, modernizing world, full of complexities to which Islam can give no satisfying answers.

Thus, humanitarian racism seeks to deliberately victimize the Muslims as an oppressed minority from a viewpoint that can only be described as a post-colonial guilt trip. Multiculturalism has it that we can’t possibly “treat these people the same way as we do our own kind, because this particular background culture is fundamentally unable to attain the same standards as we do, so we have to exempt these people from having to comply with our own norms and values”, or something to that effect. Complacently denoting Islam as a culture therefore has to lead to the Islam-critical communities collectively being branded as “a bunch of racists.”

Those who want to wage war on civilization, complying with the discriminatory and dehumanizing core aspects of Islam, like Mohammed Merah, have to be designated consistently as victims of socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that lead to profound “personal frustration”. As a consequence, PC appeasement wreaks further havoc on civilized societies. Salafi Islam becomes mainstream in Muslim communities that self-segregate and become Sharia-compliant, these communities will turn to parallel judiciaries to solve legal issues, Islamic uniformity (as the logical consequence of the totalitarian aspect of Islam) will be enforced by moral police and in the long run, Western societies will increasingly find that PC appeasement of the Muslim “victim” has turned into an exercise that reaps absolutely NO rewards for our civilization in the long run.

PC appeasement leads to the classical conditioning of the Muslim’s behavior as if he were a “Pavlovian dog”: The deeply ingrained negative attitude of the Islamic doctrine towards general human rights, equality of men and women and the compliance with secularized law and order (the only guarantee those rights will be extended to all) will be reinforced by instrumental conditioning that builds on total impunity, as a result of our political leaders’ complacency, which is the very backbone of political correctness.

In the long run, the self-delusional PC MC attitude is mollycoddling the poisonous snake of Islamic totalitarianism and unadulterated Muslim Moral Supremacy that bites the hand that inadvertently feeds it. The consequences are for the long haul, alas. Unless politicians start getting real soon, maybe, and stop assuming that appeasing Muslims can serve as a short-term solution to “keeping the peace”. Lest we forget it, it has to be reiterated explicitly: the peace we so desperately want with Muslims will never be reciprocated. Never ever, whatever PC solution we think we might have !

4 Responses

  1. Just to be clear–are we talking about the “soft bigotry of low expectations”?

    1. Yes JLH, that’s right.Humanitarian racism further expounds the theme.

  2. All this anti-Islamic talk is a red herring to what zionism and multicult jews are actually doing to the West. Let’s go to the source and stop chasing bogeymen.

    1. For someone to believe Ed, they would have to consciously reject all the empirical evidence that proves the contrary. Islam is a proselytizing hegemonic ideology that refuses to accommodate other beliefs and values…it is Islam that is at the core of teh problem, not Jews, who have thoroughly integrated themselves, do not push their religious traditions on the majority society, and if having any outside interests, it’s on a tiny plot of land surrounded by hostile Muslims who want to destroy them. No, Ed is way out in left field on this one.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.