There are numerous sites reporting on university professors and activists urging White people, especially males to kill themselves because of White privilege: .

Then we have the comments found at:

.

Cutting and pasting with gay abandon, we have this little monster:

Prof. Ignatiev: Thank you. I am happy to talk with you today.

Ivan Fernando: I understand that a few people objected to your advice to your white male students on your last day of teaching. Why do you think that is?

Prof. Ignatiev: I chalk it all up to white supremacist attitudes. The goal of destroying the white race is simply so desirable, it boggles the mind trying to understand how anyone could possibly object to it. Those who object to my advice, knowingly or perhaps unknowingly, are themselves white supremacists. They wish to go on oppressing and exploiting other races and maintaining their own privileged positions of power. That is the conscious and sometimes subconscious motivation of all of my critics. That is why they object to destroying the cancer of humanity known as the white race. That ugly disease, which dares to call itself a people and a culture.

Ivan Fernando: All whites, or just white males should commit suicide?

Prof. Ignatiev: Obviously, all whites need to be destroyed, but why not start with white males? They are behind most of history’s greatest atrocities. Besides, some of the brothers like to bang white women. Eventually white women can breed out, but my feeling is that if you are a white male, you should kill yourself now. If you are a thoughtful person, with a social consciousness who considers himself white, you will consider suicide. It’s the right thing to do.”

Now the problem here is that the above piece appears to be “false news,” or what some folk call satire, although if we do a wee bit more internet searching we can find some true news by the utterly reliable 100 percent truth-telling Washington Times so it must be good:

:

“Mr. Ignatiev, a one-time steelworker and Marxist activist who earned a doctorate at Harvard, could not be reached for comment. But he writes about what he believes at the Web site of Race Traitor, whose motto is: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."

"The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society," the journal's statement of purpose says.

"The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse."

Among the "privileges" of being white, according to Race Traitor, are not being followed by security in stores, not being harassed by police, having easier access to better schools, jobs and housing, and not being asked whether skin color or affirmative action got you a job.

In the essay in Harvard Magazine, Mr. Ignatiev says he always expected "bewilderment" at his views from "people who still think of race as biology."

"We frequently get letters accusing us of being 'racists' just like the KKK, and have even been called a 'hate group.'" he wrote.

Mr. Ignatiev attempts to clarify how he could be seeking to abolish the white race without calling for genocide. "Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc."

Abolition of a monarchy has often been marked by killing the monarch and sometimes his family members; for example, England in 1649, France in 1792, Russia in 1917 and Iraq in 1958. Even those nations that have abolished kings or emperors without regicide generally have forced the monarch into exile.

Mr. Ignatiev grew up in a Philadelphia family that he says was devoid of racial bias. As a child, he swam at a free community pool, where he was the only white patron. He says his parents refused to pay a $1 fee that was designed to keep other public pools all-white.

Mr. Ignatiev's parents, Jewish immigrants from Russia, were not college educated, but he attended the University of Pennsylvania, dropping out after three years. He worked in a Chicago steel mill and in factories that made farm equipment and electrical parts for two decades. At the steel mill, he helped organize strikes and protests by the predominantly black work force.

He was laid off from the steel mill in 1984, a year after he was arrested on charges of throwing a paint bomb at a strike-breaker's car. He set up Marxist discussion groups in the early 1980s. In 1985, Mr. Ignatiev was accepted to the Harvard Graduate School of Education without an undergraduate degree. After earning his master's, he joined the Harvard faculty as a lecturer and worked toward a doctorate in U.S. history.

His dissertation was his book, "How the Irish Became White." Mr. Ignatiev said the book told how Irish immigrants came to the United States and became "oppressors" by emulating American whites.”

Now, whether one is recommending suicide, or the more passive options expresses in the large second quote, there is a destructive criticism that should be levelled against the anti-Whites. If ex hypothesi, Whites are a cancer of history responsible for all the evil of the world, then there is utterly no reason why they should suddenly act moral because a Leftist professor thinks that they should. Indeed, the conclusion of the moral argument contradictions it supporting premise, indicating that the argument is logically inconsistent, and self-referentially inconsistent. Bad argument.

Abolishing Whiteness may also involve abolishing logic, and hence morality, so there can no logical or moral reason for abolishing Whiteness. They saw the branch on the tree, from which they sit there well-padded butts.