"They are. They're the ones most likely to have white guilt. It's just that they're not the focus. It's easy to understand if you understand the intentions behind all of it.
In the event of the outbreak of WW1 the communists thought that they could convince the white working classes of Europe to unite, turn against their respective nations and revolt in favour of communist revolution.
However, what actually happened is that they all fought and died for the love of their countries, and outside of Russia the communists failed.
They then tried to figure out why they had failed, and they came to the conclusion that the biggest barrier to their success was white Western culture. They also concluded that they couldn't actually convince white working class men to favour communism.
Thus they came to the conclusion that if they were ever going to be successful they'd have to subvert the culture, attack Western values, and rely on other groups as revolutionaries - everybody but white men. In fact in the 1950s a Marxist named Herbert Marcuse said that "a coalition of non-white non-Westerners, students, feminist women and homosexuals would form the basis of the new revolution."
The way they looked to bring about this change was by slowly and gradually subverting the culture. Max Horkeimer, another Marxist, said that "the revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation after generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational systems and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism."
The way they achieved this is by using the same Marxist framework of oppressive class vs oppressed class, only rather than speaking about economic classes they spoke about cultural classes. They infiltrated the media and the education system, and pushed these ideas mainly on the young and gullible. Today they talk about "privileged" vs "under-privileged" but it's the same thing. Some will dishonestly argue that it isn't, but this is the way all SJWs today think right?
With white people, they focused mainly on women. Women are more likely to trust in authority, and are more easily emotionally manipulated because they're higher in empathy. Men are mainly manipulated by women through sex. Therefore, if you want to create some kind of change, you manipulate the young women and then those women will manipulate the men. It doesn't work as well the other way around. That's why it usually goes like this:Since white men were the biggest barrier to their success, and white men were the ones who ran the culture back then, this all involves demonising white men. That's where the focus is. Portraying them all as abusive assholes, telling women that they were oppressed and enslaved by white men, that white men are the most privileged class. The main aim being to encourage them to support anything which would work against white patriarchy (white civilisation as a whole) - feminism, LGBT, multiculturalism, mass immigration etc"
.
In the event of the outbreak of WW1 the communists thought that they could convince the white working classes of Europe to unite, turn against their respective nations and revolt in favour of communist revolution.
However, what actually happened is that they all fought and died for the love of their countries, and outside of Russia the communists failed.
They then tried to figure out why they had failed, and they came to the conclusion that the biggest barrier to their success was white Western culture. They also concluded that they couldn't actually convince white working class men to favour communism.
Thus they came to the conclusion that if they were ever going to be successful they'd have to subvert the culture, attack Western values, and rely on other groups as revolutionaries - everybody but white men. In fact in the 1950s a Marxist named Herbert Marcuse said that "a coalition of non-white non-Westerners, students, feminist women and homosexuals would form the basis of the new revolution."
The way they looked to bring about this change was by slowly and gradually subverting the culture. Max Horkeimer, another Marxist, said that "the revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation after generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational systems and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism."
The way they achieved this is by using the same Marxist framework of oppressive class vs oppressed class, only rather than speaking about economic classes they spoke about cultural classes. They infiltrated the media and the education system, and pushed these ideas mainly on the young and gullible. Today they talk about "privileged" vs "under-privileged" but it's the same thing. Some will dishonestly argue that it isn't, but this is the way all SJWs today think right?
With white people, they focused mainly on women. Women are more likely to trust in authority, and are more easily emotionally manipulated because they're higher in empathy. Men are mainly manipulated by women through sex. Therefore, if you want to create some kind of change, you manipulate the young women and then those women will manipulate the men. It doesn't work as well the other way around. That's why it usually goes like this:Since white men were the biggest barrier to their success, and white men were the ones who ran the culture back then, this all involves demonising white men. That's where the focus is. Portraying them all as abusive assholes, telling women that they were oppressed and enslaved by white men, that white men are the most privileged class. The main aim being to encourage them to support anything which would work against white patriarchy (white civilisation as a whole) - feminism, LGBT, multiculturalism, mass immigration etc"
.
