The cheeky devils are at it again. Hot on the heels of the campaign to tell people that it is okay to be white, comes a move to remind people that you shouldn't touch things that aren't yours.
Last night #MyBordersMyChoice signs were posted all across the world. Global awareness of the damage mass immigration causes is only rising, and unwilling participants in the diversity experiment are speaking up. pic.twitter.com/tXUZZe0A1M— /pol/ News Network (@PolNewsupdates) January 22, 2018
Of course in the current year of 2018, this is hate speech. Fanta Aw, Vice President of Campus Life at American University, sent an email to students Monday afternoon stating the flyers
“contained anti-immigration messages attributed to a Neo-Nazi organization.”
She said she does not believe the flyers were specifically targeted to AU.
“These flyers represented part of an international, hateful movement attempting to provoke fear in and intimidate immigrant communities throughout the world,” Aw wrote. “These flyers also are most likely a reaction to the DACA and Women's marches held in Washington, D.C., this past weekend.”
Dr. Faw, who teaches graduate courses related to immigration, should know better. Immigration is not solely an American issue, and it betrays a certain level of Americentrism to assume that the continent of Europe gives a damn about your silly pink hat march when it is experiencing in excess of a million illegal entries to the continent every year.
But of course, this reaction is entirely what the distributors of these hateful posters were looking to highlight. American University is not unusual in that it believes in 'diversity' and has a special department to push this Neo-Marxist agenda.
The Center for Diversity & Inclusion (CDI) works to advance American University's commitment to respecting & valuing diversity by serving as a resource and liaison for students, staff, and faculty on issues of equity through education, outreach, and advocacy. To achieve this mission, the center is dedicated to enhancing LGBTQ, multicultural, first generation, and women's experiences on campus.
It is therefore obvious that a poster that highlights the rights of European peoples as the founders of Western nations is triggering to the extreme.
The American University campus website reports breathlessly;
Eight flyers with the words “NO means NO” and “#MyBordersMyChoice” were found at the University Monday. Four posters were found between the School of International Service and Roper Hall. Four additional flyers were found at Kerwin Hall, Aw told The Eagle. The University has reached out to the Metropolitan Police Department regarding the flyers, Mark Story, the University's director of strategic communications told The Eagle.
Freshman Abigail Bowers spotted one flyer on their way to Roper Hall Monday at about 12:30 p.m. Bowers said Public Safety officers were already responding to the flyer when Bowers arrived at the residence hall, which is home to a social justice-themed floor.
“I felt worried and angry, of course, because the campus is supposed to be a safe space,” Bowers said. “But, I am not surprised.”
Comprehend our astonishment. There these good little trainee helicopter passengers were, minding their own business and hating white people, when all of a sudden a poster is discovered supporting the rights of nations to have defined borders. This is completely racist. The campus should indeed be a safe space where anyone can say that the Holodomor never happened and that the Kulaks deserved it.
Naturally the police were called. Here is another interesting part. Are we now seeing Neo-Marxists being introduced to the concept of context? We have recently passed through the storm of #MeToo which while being hilarious, was also kind of a witch-hunt based on sometimes the flimsiest of evidence.
Remember to print out multiple copies of your respective country's #MyBordersMyChoice flyer to post in your local college/public spaces on the 21st of January at night time.— Ernest Heimdall (@Ernest_Heimdall) January 15, 2018
Any other dates/times/flyer formats/etc are subversive attempts to sabotage this memetic campaign. pic.twitter.com/R9ymhfMiKi
No means no. Always. Except when people apply it to the biggest mass movement of humanity in history and the potential extermination of European culture within a few generations. Then it is problematic to resist- you should just lie back and take it like a good girl. Never mind that the Prime Minister of Denmark recently warned against this exact issue. He is a racist too, I guess.
What 4Chan's /pol/ warriors have achieved is that they have once again exposing the hypocrisy of the advocates of Neo-Marxist ideology for all to see. With every operation like this that is designed to trigger an illuminating ideological response the feminists, immigration advocates, and leftist intellectuals expose themselves and their organizations for what they are; cultists.
Social Justice is a Neo-Marxist cult. It operates like a cult. When a cult is attacked, the only response possible is a counter-attack based on the doctrine of the cult- which is exactly what we see at American University.
Public Safety officers (definitely not cult sounding) and the Police were called because junior cult members were worried about pieces of paper that threatened harm to no-one and satirised affirmative consent. This is a stroke of genius on the behalf of the operation planners- bravo! Of course, Fanta Aw fell for it entirely, exposing herself immediately by virtue of her ideologically driven analysis.
an international, hateful movement attempting to provoke fear in and intimidate immigrant communities throughout the world
So she's saying this movement is international, and therefore multicultural, right? Wrong. In Neo-Marxist ideology, Whites have no culture, except the culture of oppressing brown people. A hateful movement that suggests that the people who live in a place should be given a choice about who lives there. This is the same courtesy that First Nation advocates say should have been extended to the American Indians- and the fact that this choice was not given is used as a political weapon to this day to exert moral power over White Americans.
Not only this, but the same activists will claim it is the Whites who are immigrants themselves- so if this is true, and the White people accepted this to be true, what would change? Would the First Nation people then rule as a dominant minority? Would the White immigrants all be sent back to Europe? The argument from Black activists is that the descendants of slaves do not know where in Africa they are from, so even if they do happen to be shitholes now, most Blacks will stay in America, and wait for the Whites to be outnumbered.
Forgive me if I'm portraying your arguments poorly, Black Racial Supremacists. I know a lot of you read my column. My point is that this conversation is not about people's feelings or immigrants being afraid of ICE. This is a power play that has been going on for decades- open borders and replacement migration supported by both Neo-Marxist ideologues and myopic Neoliberals with no regard for culture.
American University itself is committed to "enhancing... first generation... experiences on campus." While the American University claims special privilege for people of Native American descent, their Vice-President would deny the same treatment to the Greek, Italian or Belgian. Why is it hateful to apply standards equally? Dr. Aw, can you tell me if it is okay to be white?
Dr. Aw then says that these pieces of paper with a bashful cartoon country on them are fear-provoking. Indeed, criminals should fear the law- as this is what the cartoons are contextualized by; No Means No. My Borders, My Choice. I don't see any demands for the heads of immigrants, nor that the borders of all nations should be closed. In fact, these cartoons say that the people of the nation should choose who migrates there. Dr. Aw exhibits hateful double standards as she would deny Europeans the choice of whom they wish to allow into their lands.
If migration takes place legally, there is no issue whatsoever. I myself am an immigrant, and I have absolutely no fear of being arrested or victimized by my neighbors or the police because of these posters. The enforcement of border security in Spain, where I live, is a matter on which the Spanish people must decide. If they decide that I, as an immigrant, am no longer welcome- I wouldn't like it from a political or personal perspective, but it is not my decision. I suppose though, as a white guy, I am somehow protected from experiencing state intimidation.
Dr. Aw isn't talking about me, though. She is talking about illegal immigrants, who in her mind are always brown. To look at these cartoons and feel fear necessitates that you have transgressed the consent message contained in them. You ignored the legal route into the nation, and so violated the consent of that nation. All nations have borders, it goes with the very concept of nationhood that the nation is defined by the limits of territory. Dr. Aw says that immigrant communities throughout the world are to feel intimidated.
This only makes sense if immigrant communities -being people who live in countries other than their nation of origin- also disagree with the concept of borders in the first place. This clearly is not true, as it is through accessing the superior opportunities provided within the borders of Western nations that immigrant communities have become prosperous. That is to say, if we accept the leftist narrative that immigrants always contribute more to societies than they take out- which they do not.
Dr. Aw is wrong about the intimidation, of course. She is wrong because despite lecturing at a graduate level at a university on the topic of immigration, she is not an academic. Dr. Aw is an activist. An academic on the topic of immigration would understand the different forms of immigration and discriminate between them. She does not do this- instead, Dr. Aw collectivizes me and the immigrant 'community' where I live with the experience of, for example, an Eritrean illegal immigrant in Sweden.
This is unintentional on Dr. Aw's part as she does not consider migration of White people to count, somehow. She does not think we are culturally diverse enough from each other as Europeans to matter in her grand idea of the poor, oppressed immigrant archetype. Despite this anti-European bigotry, Dr. Aw is teaching students that immigration is a universal good. In this extended metaphor Dr. Aw is now a rape apologist, saying that the consent of a group of people no longer matters. The rights of the invader take suzerainty over that of the victim.
These posters which raise the question of the rights of indigenous people are, to her mind, an expression of hate. This is only possible if you consider White people to be somehow inferior, undeserving of the same rights extended to minority races within 'White' nations.
Neo-Marxists hold double standards. Regardless of their level of education, from the freshman who thinks her campus is a safe space from different ideas to the professor who values non-white life higher than white life- hypocrisy is the whole of the law. Thus, to Dr. Aw and her cult, consent only matters when it is a weapon to be used for ideological purposes.
Italy is saying, Me Too. Greece is saying, Me Too. Europe is saying, Time's Up. America, The Wall is going to be beautiful, for sure. Does anyone think that any American would want to spend millions of tax dollars on a wall if it wasn't needed? Oh, you poor nations! You should have protected yourselves, you shouldn't have worn such attractive welfare systems. You were asking for it. Seems like victim blaming to me to start crying foul play now.