Is this racist?

[A.Saturnus]

It matters because ethnic minorities in predominantly non-white nations
are almost invariably dispossessed and seriously persecuted. Think of
the poison gas attacks on Kurdish villages in Iraq. Think of the
treatment of Indonesian minorities like the West Papuans and East
Timorese. Think of the dispossession of white farming families in
Zimbabwe. Or the genocide of Tibetans and Uighurs by the Chinese. Or
the white women in Africa gang-raped by blacks who apparently believe
this is a cure for AIDS (see, e.g., The Australian, 9 Feb 1990). If
you
do not do something NOW to stop this happening, you are condemning your
own children and grand-children to be dispossessed, and putting them on
the path to eventual extinction.

It implies that non-white people will, given the chance mistreat any whites they can lay hands on. It is racist hate speech.
Gawain, you can quote who you want to, but if you want to quote a racist, make sure to dissociate yourself from the problematic aspects.

[Paul Peru]

It implies that non-white people will, given the chance mistreat any whites they can lay hands on. It is racist hate speech.

Agreed!
I think it's obvious that the racist that wrote the article was racistically motivated.
Furthermore, I think that discussing race is distasteful anyways, because race is not a meaningful or even clearly defined criterion when applied to humans, and most people who think it is important use it to direct negative sentiments towards "other races".
It can certainly be fascinating to study different peoples and their history, rise, fall, migrations, customs, excise etc., but I fail to see the importance of having less pigmentation than many others and why it concerns me what country someones ancestors lived in a few generations ago. Once you go there, racism lurks around the next corner.
But this is probably backroom talk