It is finals week, and we wish all students at Auburn University the best of luck with their final exams.
However, this post is not about finals: it is about criticism from the Auburn University chapter of the SPLC on Campus (AUSPLC) and their incorrect remarks concerning the Auburn White Student Union (AWSU). Specifically, we will be addressing their comments concerning our website and the activism of individuals on campus.
In this post, we will explain why AWSU is not ignorant and why AUSPLC is ignorant and anti-White.
First, we would like to respond to the claim that AWSU is “spreading ignorance on campus.” This is simply untrue. In fact, we are doing quite the opposite with our general information campaign. This campaign’s primary purpose and goal is to educate students about the issues White people face today.
Consider this Tweet:
— AU SPLC (@au_splc) April 27, 2017
Archive: https://archive.fo/NqkQn (in case the Tweet is deleted).
The notion that we are spreading ignorance is flat-out wrong. In this case, you are the only one spreading ignorance. We expected better from an organization that claims to “facilitate communication between diverse groups.”
Newsflash, AUSPLC: those “diverse groups” include White people.
Let’s break apart this tweet image by image.
Are you affiliated with Auburn University?
The first image in AUSPLC’s tweet is a screenshot of our FAQ. There is nothing ignorant about it at all. We are simply clarifying our (unofficial) status with Auburn University.
Are you just run-of-the-mill Republicans?
The second image in the tweet is a clarification of the AWSU’s political stances. In the paragraph we claim the following:
While many conservatives gave lip-service to their constituency, they stabbed our country in the back with anti-White schemes such as pointless wars, mass immigration, and affirmative action.
If AUSPLC included this image in their Tweet, we can only assume that they disagree with this message. Fair enough, but what do you actually disagree with AUSPLC? Do you disagree with our message, or are you having an irrational knee-jerk reaction?
If you actually read the section, we claim the following:
- In the past, so-called “conservative” politicians gave lip-service to their (White) voters, and did not represent their interests.
- The same politicians brought our country into pointless wars (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan).
- The same politicians allowed the institution of mass (non-White) immigration into the United States (the Hart-Cellar Act, which received 24 Republican votes in the Senate and 117 in the House).
- The same politicians allowed affirmative action to take shape (numerous laws and executive orders over the years).
- The aforementioned policies are not in the interest of White Americans.
So AUSPLC, which of these claims is wrong? Save us the trouble, because we know that you can’t answer. Each of the claims is true, and we will explain why in the following sections.
Did these (or any) politicians actually act in the interest of their constituents?
No. It’s common knowledge on both sides of the aisle that politicians commonly stab their voters in the back. It’s practically a nationwide meme that American politicians betray their voters whenever they arrive in Washington.
Did “conservatives” keep us out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
No. A total of 9 Republicans did not vote in favor of the Iraq Resolution.
Were these wars pointless?
Yes, because there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Moreover, Operation Desert Storm was not justified either.
Did “conservative” politicians institute mass non-White immigration?
The Hart-Cellar Act allowed millions of non-White peoples to immigrate to America. Because of this, White Americans may become a minority in our own country.
Is affirmative action in the interests of White Americans?
Obviously not. How could taking away scholarships, jobs, and bids from Whites and giving them to others on the sole factor of race possibly be in the best interest of White Americans?
None of the above policies are in the interests of White Americans. In case you forgot, let’s review:
Are pointless wars and losing American lives in the interests of Whites? No. Losing American soldiers lives’ is not in the interests of any Americans (both White and non-White).
Is it in the interest of White Americans to become an eventual minority in their own country? No. Face it: being in the minority sucks, regardless of race. It sucks for both Whites and non-Whites. Why would White Americans ever want to be a minority? It simply isn’t in our interest.
Is affirmative action in the interest of White American voters? No. It is not in the interest of White Americans to take resources (taxes, jobs, etc) from themselves and give those resources to other races via affirmative action.
Do you hate Blacks/Jews/Mexicans/Asians/Other Races?
The third image AUSPLC posted is also from our FAQ.
We give AUSPLC some credence here, because they may have misinterpreted our text.
For some, the text may imply that we (AWSU) love our race as much as Blacks love our (White) race. We totally understand if the misleading wording was your issue, AUSPLC. In fact, we have updated the wording of the page in question. Now, let’s discuss other possible issues with AWSU’s response.
If AUSPLC doesn’t have issues with the wording, but rather the general message, then why? What’s the issue with being pro-White? If being pro-Black isn’t anti-White [these are the AUSPLC’s own words (archive)], then does pro-White mean anti-Black or anti-non-White?
Reminder: AWSU is pro-White — not anti-Black or anti-non-White.
Right now, there are 18 dedicated non-White student organizations at Auburn University. What is the AUSPLC’s issue with a single pro-White organization at Auburn? Promoting pro-Black, pro-Indian, or pro-Korean organizations while denigrating pro-White organizations is a double standard and textbook example of discrimination. And isn’t the definition of racism discrimination based solely on race?
How can you be against our organization unless you are anti-White, AUSPLC? We promote neither hate nor ignorance, but somehow you still manage to criticize us.
Ironically, it seems that in your anti-racist crusade, the AUSPLC has become what it hates — racist.
The final image AUSPLC posted is of our homepage.
We can’t fathom any issues the AUSPLC has with this page.
Are you in favor of anti-White ideas? Are you in favor of Marxism? Please AUSPLC, let us know what you could possibly disagree with on that page.
Our (and Others’) Activism
The AUSPLC also discussed their issues with many of the flyers on campus, so let’s address that.
While we do post many flyers on campus, we certainly don’t post all of them. Many of the flyers on campus are not ours. In fact, the last four flyers posted on the AUSPLC Twitter account were not created by AWSU or its affiliates (one (archive), two (archive), three (archive), and four (archive)).
Maybe AUSPLC cares about vandalism rather than the messages of the flyers.
Does AUSPLC condemn Antifa’s vandalism? Why hasn’t the organization issued a statement condemning the vandalism of various leftist elements on campus?
Or is the AUSPLC simply complaining about vandalism when it suits its own interests?
When AWSU does hang up flyers, it’s only in legal, non-destructive fashions (unlike leftists, as shown above). We don’t vandalize property – that is beneath us.
We had nothing to do with Goy Hall (although it was hilarious). We also had nothing to do with the Anticom posters. In fact, AWSU has no affiliation with Anticom whatsoever. Our only similarities are that we both are opposed to Communism and Marxism.
So AUSPLC, do you disagree with the medium? Do you disagree with our message? Do you disagree with our factoids? Or are you simply having a knee-jerk reaction? Please help us, we can’t seem to figure this out.
Do your homework, and stop misleading people, AUSPLC. We will not tolerate your anti-White message any longer. Don’t claim that you represent diverse groups whenever you condemn White people for taking their own side.
We will fight for our ideas and our people. You will not silence us.
Quod erat demonstrandum.