I'm going to preface this by saying that facts are not going to convince anyone. There is always some study out there showing one way or another, and the accusation of bias is used on both sides. And, as a movement, there is no time to be nitpicking apart what study means what, when what is performed is an information propaganda warfare, which some do and some do not pick up.
Instead, I'll tell you that, even if this idea of 'white privilege' and/or 'institutional racism' is falsifiable or not, falsifying studies exist against many anti-white talking points. On a more broad level, I do not see the world, as a philosopher, and think that there is a maleficent force one way or another that somehow discriminates against one group or another. Instead it is all people, people who prefer their own kind, whether it is family or ethnicity or, later, race. And the most controversial to anti-whites is that whites would care about race. They think this is 'evil'. This is a moral position and not able to be falsified except by miring oneself in arguments of what's "normal".
Instead I'm going to ask that, if you're an intelligent person, you consider the position from where we stand - without accepting it or calling it a slur - that there's a nexus of information which may be contrary to premises taken for granted (or not) by you. A nexus that you may accuse of bias, but we do not - and take as seriously as, supposedly, you should about your own. And I am going to lay out some premises which have to be accepted if there's going to be understanding. If at any point you can't imagine any of these as being true, or consider them together to apply to the point about to be made, then click away from this content. You are anti-white and you're always going to be - there's no reason to continue. So, here goes,
Premise 1) There is no institutional discrimination against non-whites.
Premise 2) There is no white privilege.
Premise 3) There is no police discrimination against non-whites.
If you can perceive the world from this view, then you'll be able to comprehend what's being said.
Recent events, with Black Lives Matter, have made many terrorized and afraid. People have gone out and created neighborhood watches, blockading their neighborhoods to prevent the destruction of their livelihood. Many livelihoods have been destroyed. The terror, the terror felt, is real, even if you believe it isn't or shouldn't be.
Many are saying that there is no anti-white behavior of these protests, or movement, but that is not correct when the above premises are true. If there is no generalized or institutionalized discrimination against non-whites in Western society, then these destroyers are not fighting a real thing. Even to call oneself an 'anti-racist' or 'fighting white racism' or 'white supremacy', becomes anti-white - and I will explain why. There is basic process of elimination that has to be performed. How are these activists defining 'racism', institutionally, if none exists against non-whites? How are they defining it if they slur and slander those defending whites against anti-whiteism? They are defining it, either in ignorance or maleficence, as 'all white people'. That is the only definition that remains when all others are eliminated as false, unreal.
These are peoples' lives that are being destroyed, ignorance is not an excuse. So is BLM anti-white, according to these premises? Yes. Is every institutional, corporate, promulgator anti-white? Yes.
The same people who define 'racism' this way, as a slur against whites, also call for the destruction of their nations, cultures, livelihoods and their lives.
And for those who'd say "But I'm just against racism"
BLM is not fighting an ideology, they're explicitly fighting an institution, which to them is all white people; you are communicating anti-whiteism.
Do not accept anti-white conclusions, any conclusions which are not fair to whites are anti-white.
