Racism can be a difficult topic to discuss for those who are scared of the politically correct language police, but also because the term has definitions that are so ephemeral we can hardly nail down one concept to discuss before another has come to take its place. What racism constitutes seems to shift on a weekly basis as the politically motivated shift the ground beneath our feet to move the goal posts. To understand why racist is used as a label to shut down those who oppose the “diversity is our strength” dogma, we must first understand what the term actually means, what it possibly could mean, and what the definition should be if it is to make any sense by corresponding to truth.
As a quick aside, I need to comment on the existence of Race as a viable concept. I don’t want to deal with whether or not Race actually exists, as such a question is a topic on its own that would make the breadth of what I say here much too wide. For now, we will make the assumption that most humans make and assume there are in fact various races of people that, although sometimes vague and hard to define precisely on the individual level, can be distinguished by our general knowledge and common understanding of various peoples’ origins. Although the above should be sufficient to move on, I realize that many will have too clouded a mind to proceed on such an easy assumption. So instead of taking the time to prove race exists, I will attempt a quick logical breakdown of why race almost certainly exists.
First, one must only agree to the proposition that people are different. No sane person would argue this point. Some people are tall, some people are short, some have dark hair, light hair, a deep voice, a high voice, brown eyes, blue eyes, etc. If people are different, then the data as to how different they are in various ways could be measured. It might be the case that all people, regardless of parents, place of origin, and even DNA, have characteristics that are evenly distributed with no direct link to their birth. Two black parents could produce a white child, an Asian child, a Native American child, or a Hispanic child just by a roll of the dice. Although one can nitpick at the definitions of black, white, Hispanic, etc., this is clearly false. What we actually find is that an individual inherits various characteristics from his parents. Sure, what characteristics he inherits are due to factors we may not yet understand, but we do know the combining of DNA from two parents creates the DNA of the child. The only step left in proving race exists is to see if the characteristics of people cluster into groups. This clustering is then called a race. Don’t misunderstand me, understanding and properly distinguishing clusters of people in this way is difficult. This clustering is a fact that I will not attempt to prove here, but it is a fact nonetheless.
Maybe I will address the clustering issue at another time. But for now, you must either deny that people are different, the existence of DNA passing on to children, or the clustering of characteristics in order to deny race. It seems to me that the third point is the only disputable option, and as such we will move on to the purpose of this piece.
I know that quoting Wikipedia or a dictionary may seem like the amateurish way a freshman in college starts off his first paper, but in this case we actually need a good general reference for the definition of racism to build upon and examine. So, racism on Wikipedia is described as such:
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives us a few definitions as follows:
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles b : a political or social system founded on racism 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Maybe these definitions don’t strike you as surprising at first glance, but there is something odd about them after a close look. There is a significant difference between the first definition listed by Merriam-Webster and the third definition, and the Wikipedia article admits that the term cannot be nailed down to one definition. A single word or term having multiple meanings can often be a problem when it causes confusion in conversations, but it can be a useful tool for those whose political agenda involves controlling speech and approved narratives.
Let’s first look at the obviously politically motivated definition that is displayed front and center in both cases: the belief in racial superiority. As we’ve established, a race is simply a matter of certain traits clustering based on the DNA of a group’s ancestors. Certain groups of people, i.e. races, tend to be better or worse at things on the average than other races. This is especially true at the tail ends, which is why you find black men to be the sole owners of the top ten 100 meter dash times. However, if I said something like, black people are faster in short distances than white people, or some other general statement, someone would invariably come out of the woodwork trying to refute my statement with an anecdote about one white person faster than most black people. If you are one of these people, someone who immediately wants to jump to anecdotes to try to counter claims about averages, then I would advise you to stop reading this because talk of statistics and logic may be too far over your head to comprehend. For anyone who finds themselves resorting to this tactic but still thinks themselves smart enough to understand basic statistics, then maybe I will be able to solve your confusion once and for all. When someone says, black people are faster in short distances than white people, they are saying one of two things. 1. The average black person is faster in short distances than the average white person, or 2. In the extreme cases, the fastest people of each race, black people are faster than white people. This is always, unless otherwise stated, the meaning of such statements. Any confusion about this can be and should be attributed to either lack of education, unintelligence, or intentional malicious misunderstanding for political purposes.
Now that I’ve handled the misunderstanding and misdirection that comes from such statements, it is true that differences between races exist everywhere we look. Similarly, black people dominate in the NBA. White people dominate at the quarterback position in football. These are just facts that come from the existence of racial clusters. The very fact that the races are different implies being better or worse at certain things. Another way to say this is simply that certain races are superior to other races depending on the criteria being measured. Why this is the case is a completely different issue, but the mere fact that it is true seems to be a problem. Based on the main definitions of racism that we have seen so far, anyone accepting this truth about reality is racist.
Does being racist really just mean believing in the truth about differences between races? Well, clearly, no. Accusing someone of believing in differences between races would not be nearly as emotionally hard hitting and damaging to one’s reputation as modern accusations of racism if this were so. The reason racism is loosely defined is precisely because it instills confusion. Whenever racism is used as a pejorative to discredit someone, the association is with one of two definitions.
The first definition relates directly to what we’ve already discussed, misunderstanding statements of “all” versus “average” combined with racial supremacy. Everyone knows there are differences between the races, what people do not accept is that one race is totally superior to another in every possible way. Yet, even the staunchest white supremacist does not believe this to be the case. As with any position, you can certainly find someone crazy enough to believe all white people are better than all black people, as sure as you could find a person with the opposite position, but acting as if anyone who sees superiority of one race over another in specified criteria believes that same race is superior in every criteria is simple straw manning and sophistry. The truth is, all races are different. Some are better at X and some are better at Y, but none is completely and totally superior. So few people believe in complete racial supremacy that it is sufficient to say, for all practical purposes, that no one believes in racial supremacy. However, the word racism is purposefully vague so as to weaponize the word against any and all who question the dogma of diversity and complete equality. If you think there are even minor differences between the races in any way, you must believe that one race is completely racially supreme.
The second definition that is used to confuse and misdirect is the third definition listed by Merriam-Webster, racial prejudice and discrimination. This definition is the more common, less politicized definition. Yet, even this definition is suspect to further examination. Prejudice literally means pre-judging, and discrimination literally means to differentiate between one thing and another. We’ve already shown that races, by their mere existence, are able to be differentiated. So, the idea that this somehow makes the term racism meaningful is incoherent.
Prejudice, on the other hand, is slightly more complicated. Pre-judging isn’t necessarily wrong as a concept. In fact, being able to experiment with ideas and judge situations before they happen is one of the keys aspects of our humanity. Experimenting with counterfactuals and predicting based on available information is one of reasons we consider ourselves more advanced than other animals. It’s part of what gives us our advantage in the food chain. Taking away a human’s ability to judge something before they know the truth is taking away a valuable part of our cognitive abilities. Of course, there is also another side to this coin. Sometimes our judgments and predictions are wrong. Sometimes we live based on a general rule about the averages but in life we encounter the extreme tails. There is no shame in this fact, one must simply be aware of it. If I know most lions are lethally dangerous, would it be morally reprehensible or somehow representative of my lack of intellect to treat each encounter with a lion as if it may kill me? Certainly not, most would say you would be stupid not to assume each lion you encounter is dangerous until proven otherwise. Needing proof of each individual lion’s lethality would be tantamount to eliminating yourself from the gene pool.
Yet, in other circumstances we judge any recognition of reality to be evil based on the fear of racism. If it is racist to be wary of young black man in a high crime Chicago neighborhood then racism simply means living ignorant of reality to a fault. (Anticipating those who would intentionally construe this point for their sophistry, the comparison is not meant to be similar in every way but simply to give two examples of times when waiting for individual information rather than acting on pre-judgements could be fatally dangerous.) Better safe than sorry definitely applies in both of these scenarios, but sometimes being wrong about your assumptions can have negative consequences. I doubt I need to come up with scenarios to convey how pre-judging someone before you know them can end up going poorly. This is sure to happen frequently, and there is nothing wrong with this. Being wrong is something we must deal with in all aspects of our lives. We are human after all, and we can never have complete information about anything we need to live our lives. We need to humbly admit when we are wrong and realize that our assumptions about a group, even if it isn’t a racial group but a group of people who wear specific clothes, for instance, can easily be wrong. When talking about topics of government and philosophy we deal with large groups and overarching truths, in our day to day lives we deal with individuals and outliers.
One of the greatest lies we are told in our current time is that we are smart enough to grasp the important aspects of existence, that the end of history is upon us and we have very little left to discover. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is we know very little compared to the totality of what is possible to know, and we may never know much more than a small percentage. However, this leads us into an entirely different topic that we will save for another time.
One thing I do not want to be in the business of is redefining words in a top down way to force others to conform to what I think a word should mean. This often doesn’t work since language is an organic process that isn’t easily controlled. However, what I’m doing here is cutting through the fog in order to make some sense of a term used so liberally to discredit people. If people seem to care so much about not being racist, we should have some idea of what we actually mean when we say the word. In fact, we should realize that the use of the term only appeared in the mid-20th century, around the time of WWII. Instead of “race”, the word generally used would have been “nation”, which is defined as a large group of people with common ancestry. If you hadn’t realized before this moment, it should be fairly clear that the word “race”, along with the concept of racism, hasn’t come to prominence by accident. Its entire existence is a political tool of thought control. If words such as these are going to exist to confuse and control, then I might as well try to turn this tool against those who use it for evil by redefining it to something more sensible and coherent.
After the analysis above, there are only three courses of action left in response to this form of thought control. The first strategy is to deflect the term by arguing that it’s meaning is incoherent. The first definition we examined was racial supremacy, meaning that someone is racist if they believe one race is superior to another race in every single criterion. This is false, and therefore believing it can be ridiculed. Yet, this leaves racism as a very shallow and pointless word, because if it were true that one race is superior in every criterion, it would no longer be something worth ridicule. The second definition racism could have is dealing with pre-judging. As we saw earlier, pre-judging is not inherently wrong or shameful. It is something we must do to survive in some cases, and a shortcut to simplifying our complex world in others. If racism means incorrectly applying an assumption about an average to an individual, or that the assumption we have about the average is incorrect, then racism loses its punch. This would mean everyone is racist because everyone applies generalizations as shortcuts, and therefore, worse yet for the definition, being racist is simply equivalent to thinking. Now, it is not very difficult to understand why the politically motivated would want to create great shame in using one’s brain, but this again leaves racist as a rather pointless word. This may be intellectually effective, but it is my opinion that deflecting the term in this way is not a strategy that will work. It is far too common an insult to be easily deflected. This nuanced argumentative approach is too complicated to be effective at flipping the word’s connotation since connotation is largely an emotional response. It is rarely effective to counter emotional or rhetorical manipulation with complicated logical refutations.
The second option is to flip the word’s connotation and accept the word as a badge of honor for simply recognizing the truth. Being a racist can simply mean the acceptance of racial truths and to believe that every race has a right to their homelands, cultures, and in group preferences. The same tools can be used in the first option for explaining the incoherence of racism as it is currently understood, but instead of deflecting the term one can wear it as a badge of honor for standing in truth. It is my opinion that this is also not an effective strategy. Wearing racist as a badge of honor would only solidify your supposed moral inferiority in the mind of the brain washed NPCs. It is best not to corner yourself into a position by owning your opponent’s narrative frame. Simply accepting their frame of reference automatically starts you in a disadvantageous position. In order to own the term, one must also explain its current meaning with logical arguments rather than emotional and rhetorical ones. One may be able to use the Socratic method to help an individual dissect the incoherence of the term, letting them come to the conclusion on their own by asking pointed questions, but this is a bad overall strategy for large scale influence. I believe any course of action which requires connotation flipping to be sterile.
The last option we have is to turn the term against those who wish to use it to hide truth and push the diversity dogma. If racism is to mean anything, it should mean the antagonistic desire or intent of once race to dominate, subjugate, or utterly destroy another race. Examples of this would be the denial of a race’s right to in-group preference, denial of a race’s right to an independent homeland, or the subversion of racial cohesion and a race’s culture from within through promoting racially diverse immigration, promotion of miscegenation, or holding office while being a duel citizen with allegiances to another nation/state. All of these examples and behaviors could easily be classed as racist in order to use the negative connotation against those who are actively undermining the people of western nations. In my opinion, slightly shifting the definition of the word in this way is the most effective rhetorical strategy at this time.
In this form, racist still has an emotional and moral punch to it, but it is no longer obscured by politically motivated confusion. Racism is now left to describe people who are actively ignorant of racial truths to the point that they purposefully stoke racial animosity. This is in direct opposition to the current definitions that apply to a person who acknowledges any type of racial existence or differences. A good example is those in the United States who push egalitarian dogma in order to stoke racial tension for political gain. These people are now the racists. If you believe that white people should have their homelands, that the United States and Europe should not be invaded by other races to further the globalist agenda, well then you are not racist. You are simply standing up for the existence of your own people. No one would condemn a man for standing up for his immediate family, and in a similar way no man should be condemned for standing up for his extended kin.
It should be clear, now that we’ve cut through the fog, that the word racist has been used as a political tool to silence through obfuscation. Many different concepts are loaded into a single word in order to equate any racial truth with irrational ideas and moral bankruptcy. Rhetorical and emotional shaming is used to discourage anyone that questions the diversity and egalitarian dogma that is used to subvert western culture and nations. It is even used to discourage the powerful human faculty of thinking. Because everyone has an unconscious awareness that being called a racist implies some kind of moral deficiency, the best course of action is to use this emotional association against the subversive liars who push this evil.
The time has come to stop letting this word frighten us and dissuade us from speaking. Truth is power, and we know the truth about the newspeak of racism. Clearly, there are those who want to use racial tension and racial shame to gain power at our expense. We must not let those who hate humanity, who wish to see western civilization fall to its knees, succeed in controlling our consciousness through manipulation. At the least we must not be scared about being called a name that has no logical meaning or shame connected to it, and at most we can change its accepted definition to use it as a weapon against those who have used it for 80 plus years.
If you found this piece at all compelling or convincing, I urge you to not be afraid of sharing this piece with others. Not for my benefit but for the benefit of us all. You have no reason to fear the charges of racism against you when you know the truth. When we all know and speak the truth, they will no longer have power over us.
Racist has lost its original meaning. It is now a newspeak word used to discredit those speaking about or commenting on percieved or real differences between groups of people.
Sexist is a label thrown at men, and occasionally women, who dare question sexual egalitarian dogma. At its root, the term and the dogma are anti-family, anti-human, and ultimately antagonistic towards the happiness of both men and women.
Calling someone a Nazi is a quick way to accuse anyone with different political views of being morally reprehensible. Nazism is also used as a spectre to deter whites from having any form of ingroup preferance or conciousness. In general, the Nazis are used as a shortcute for pure evil despite many apt examples such as Holodomor, the Soviet Gulags, or Mao's China.
Bigot is a form of Newspeak used to attack those commiting Wrongthink and not adhereing to the politially accepted dogma of the time. Ironically, the term bigot is most often used by bigots themselves to silence differeing opinions.
The word homophobe or homophobic is used to shame anyone who is resistant to the increasing creep towards enforced homosexuality and broad exceptance of pedophilia.