From Critical Race Theory, the cultural attack and deconstruction of white identity, to the more aggressive measures of the Great Replacement by demographic swamping, something like the plan of San Diego, as described by Brett Stevens below, seems to be the defining quality of the West. No civilisation has survived this sort of racial suicide, and given globalism, if the West goes down, entities sacred to the Left, like CCP China will be swallowed up in the same chaos. So, what is it all for Dark Lords; universal nihilism, a grand death wish of the spoilt world weary?
https://www.amerika.org/politics/a-modern-version-of-the-plan-of-san-diego/
“You could easily be forgiven for not knowing about the part of history where The Plan of San Diego threatened the United States:
Some radical elements saw the Mexican Revolution as an opportunity to bring about drastic political and economic changes in South Texas. The most extreme example of this was a movement supporting the “Plan of San Diego,” a revolutionary manifesto supposedly written and signed at the South Texas town of San Diego on January 6, 1915. The plan, actually drafted in a jail in Monterrey, Nuevo León, provided for the formation of a “Liberating Army of Races and Peoples,” to be made up of Mexican Americans, African Americans, and Japanese, to “free” the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado from United States control. The liberated states would be organized into an independent republic, which might later seek annexation to Mexico. There would be a no-quarter race war, with summary execution of all White males over the age of sixteen.
As usual, one Leftist success begets others. When the Soviets were part of the victorious alliance in WW2, it became official knowledge that Leftism was the path forward, and even capitalist societies competed for socialist achievements.
This brought us to the civil rights era where any privilege not extended to everyone was quickly obliterated, doing away with culture and hierarchy, then following it up with population erasure through diversity.
On the heels of those victories, the Left wants to push a Plan of San Diego for all of America and Europe: third world races will replace the indigenous first world peoples, obliterating the Cro-Magnid race.
A realistic view of history shows that every population will attempt this kind of conquest unless held in check or wise enough to make itself entirely self-sufficient, content to let the rest of the world seek its own doom separately.
Humanity has clearly taken leave of its senses if it considers diversity to be anything but a prelude to this kind of genocidal race war, since history shows us that diverse populations give rise to constant ethnic conflict.”
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/plan-of-san-diego?utm_source=amerika.org
Along the same lines, the woke at the London council, London now being a majority non-white ethnostate, have claimed that babies, white of course, are racist, and must be dealt with.
“A council in London previously claimed that babies as young as three months old are racially biased, a report has uncovered.
Islington Council in London has in the past published claims that babies as young as three months old can show racial bias, demanding that extremely young children should be talked to about the issue of “race”.
The post was recently uncovered by reporters at The Telegraph after the paper previously found that a number of councils across the United Kingdom had hired the services of a “Maoist” anti-whiteness organisation for the purpose of giving nursery staff racial awareness training.
According to a report published on Saturday, one of the councils to avail itself of the diversity training services provided by the so-called Black Nursery Manager consultancy also previously claimed that babies as young as three months old could be racially biased towards their own carers.
Appearing in a post originally uploaded by an account associated with the Islington Council in 2021, the claim appeared alongside another which said that “white children are strongly biased in favour of whiteness” by the time they turn five years old, as well as a link to material produced by the state-owned BBC on how to talk to toddlers about race.
“Fundamentally, many of the studies presented in support of these sorts of ideas about children and race simply conflate acceptance of one group with rejection of another,” Adrian Hart from parental campaign group Don’t Divide Us told The Telegraph regarding claims similar to those made by Islington Council.
“Children’s choices in relation to things like doll or toy preference, in artificial experimental conditions offer no indication of whether the child takes account of race in everyday social interactions,” he continued. “Parents and educators and policy makers in local and central government alike cannot take claims like these at face value.”
The Telegraph‘s discovery comes shortly after the paper found that a significant number of local councils had hired an organisation pushing controversial Critical Race Theory-style ideas to train nursery staff in their regions.
Slammed as producing “very Maoist” material by one commentator, a number of MPs have since reportedly got in contact with the publication to say that the kind of training provided by the organisation must now be investigated as “the most poisonous and divisive kind of dogma”.
“Children need to form their own views at the same time as they learn to respect those of others,” Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi previously stated regarding the topic of ideological influence within the British school system.
“That is why parents and carers need to be able to trust schools to be totally impartial,” he continued. “They need to be confident that their children can learn about political issues and begin to form their own independent opinions, without being influenced by the personal views of those teaching them.”
“No school should be encouraging young people to pin their colours to a particular political mast,” he added.
This deconstruction of white identity is also seen in the present drive to eliminate even the term “Anglo-Saxon,” as the people are racially obliterated as well:
“Academics who specialise in Medieval History have become embroiled in a racism row over the alleged focus on “whiteness” within Anglo-Saxon history.
Historians are reportedly fighting over the supposedly problematic focus on white people within the Anglo-Saxon medieval period, with one prominent academic accusing fellow progressive-leaning authors of writing a book that “weaponises whiteness”.
Critical race theory-linked rows have reportedly become frequent within the study of medieval history, with there even being an attempt to cancel the term “Anglo-Saxon” within the discipline over accusations that “white supremacists” use the term.
Such controversy has once again reared its head, according to a report by The Times, after a particularly militant left-wing academic — University of Toronto based academic Mary Rambaran-Olm — accused former colleague Matthew Gabriele of helping to write a book which she has deemed problematic due to its focus on white people and use of “whiteness”.
Rambaran-Olm said the book, titled The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe, “weaponises ‘whiteness’ as an unquestionable authority wholly lacking in meticulousness and attention to detail demanded from marginalized scholars and/or women” in a review of the work titled ‘SOUNDS ABOUT WHITE’.
Her criticism reportedly sparked a spate of online attacks against Gabriele, as well as his co-author David M Perry, with the pair reportedly being told that they had “failed as allies”.
Gabriele appears to have bowed to at least some of the criticism, issuing an apology which reportedly condemned “all racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted attacks of any kind and for any reason”, while the editor of one academic publication that declined to publish Rambaran-Olm’s review has since deleted her Twitter account after issuing a public apology.
One academic saidthe row was an example of the “mutual firing squad among people on the radical left”, with another quipping that it could be summarised as “the revolution eats its own”.
It is not the first time that Rambaran-Olm has caused chaos within the medieval history field, with the academic pushing for the term “Anglo-Saxon” to be abandoned entirely by scholars in 2019, arguing that its use by so-called “white supremacists” justified its elimination.
“Generally white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with ‘whiteness’ but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past,” she claimed, adding that the term gives “aid and comfort to contemporary white supremacists”.
While some academics — including those at the former International Society of Anglo-Saxonists, who have now changed their name to the International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England as a result of woke campaigning — have embraced Rambaran-Olm’s war on the term, others have expressed dismay over her suggestion that the term “Anglo-Saxon” should be axed, with one describing it as being as “mad as a bag of ferrets”.
“The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is inextricably bound up with the claim by Alfred to rule as ‘rex Angul-Saxonum’, his use of Bede to back-project a shared Anglian-Saxon identity, & the emergence of England,” historian Tom Holland said regarding the term.
“Scholars of medieval history must be free to use it.”
“Leftists academics are pushing to erase the term “Anglo-Saxon” from the study of history, claiming it is “inextricably bound up with pseudohistorical accounts of white supremacy”.
One such academic is Mary Rambaran-Olm, whose Academia page describes her as an “active member of the Medievalists of Color organization”. Her areas of interest include such topics as “Race and Critical Race Studies in Anglo-Saxon Studies” and “Anglo-Saxon Studies in the Post-Colonial Caribbean”.
Ms Rambaran-Olm claimed in comments to The Times: “Generally white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with ‘whiteness’ but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past.”
“The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is inextricably bound up with pseudohistorical accounts of white supremacy, and gives aid and comfort to contemporary white supremacists. Scholars of medieval history must abandon it,” concurred John Overholt, a curator at Harvard’s Houghton Library.
Rambaran-Olm and her allies are not lone voices shouting into the void. Until recently, she was vice-president of the long-established International Society of Anglo-Saxonists, or ISAS, resigning in high dudgeon when the body refused to change its name to remove the reference to Anglo-Saxons.
Other left-liberal academics soon followed, resulting in a minor Twitter storm which ISAS soon caved in to.
In an email obtained by the Washington Post, ISAS executive director Robin Norris wrote to members: “We apologize to our colleagues of color who have experienced the name of our society as just one of many microaggressions they have faced in academia.”
In a statement posted to its website, ISAS grovelled that it “has long been recognised that the term ‘Anglo-Saxonist’ is problematic” and has “sometimes been used outside the field to describe those holding repugnant and racist views, and has contributed to a lack of diversity among those working on early medieval England and its intellectual and literary culture”.
A name change will now be implemented as “expeditiously as possible”.
The Times, for its part, published an editorial opposing the left’s attempts to rewrite history, observing: “The historian Tom Holland said that dropping the word would be ‘mad as a bag of ferrets’. He tweeted that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ was historically accurate because it was used by the Anglo-Saxons themselves… The job of academia is not to obscure the truth by banning historical phrases. It is to ferret it out.”
It is long time for Euro-whites to wake up and smell the genocide.