Racist

Introduction


(I’m not sure how many of you will be rereading this entire piece now that it’s updated, but I want to quickly explain why I decided to make edits. Originally, the second section was dedicated to redefining the word racist to mean something coherent. I no longer think this clever game of redefining words is useful. Instead, I think it is much more useful to dissect how the word is used in everyday life. If you’ve already read this piece before than you can skip to Section 2 to see what I mean.)


Racism can be a difficult topic to honestly discuss for those who are scared of potentially losing their job, friends, and even family members to the mobs of insane, brainwashed fools seeking to ruin your life. So, it makes sense why so many people avoid the topic if they don’t fall directly in line with modern racial ideology. But that’s not the only reason racism is difficult to discuss. The term has definitions that are so ephemeral we can hardly nail down one concept to analyze before another has come to take its place. What racism constitutes seems to shift on a weekly basis as manipulative opportunists attempt to shame and destroy their political enemies. Despite what you may think, this rhetorical game is not done out of ignorance or by accident. Racist is a word used to silence white people and stop us from standing up to defend our families, communities, countries, and values. Sure, many naive and impressionable young people are brain washed to spout the typical racial talking points by their teachers and professors, but the core group of intellectuals and elites pushing this nonsense know what they are doing, and they are decidedly anti-white. No need to trust my word on this, just look at what they say or ask them yourself. They believe white Western Christian nations must be destroyed, and they will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this goal.

What I want to do in this piece is break down the term in the simplest way possible to help rid you of any confusion when it comes to the concept racism, and the first step in accomplishing this task is to briefly tackle the very concept of race itself. Now, I think I can confidently say that most people, at this point, understand that race is real. Intellectuals have been pushing the concept that race is only skin deep for a long time, but many people intuitively understand this not to be true. However, if you are unsure of where you stand I will attempt to show you why race is almost certainly real, and if you need more convincing there are plenty of resources you can find on your own. For those of you who don’t need convincing, feel free to skip the rest of this intro section and go right to Part 1.

To start, 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 fully 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 you can do your own research on that topic as I don’t want to spend too much time on it here. And with that out of the way, we will move on to the purpose of this piece.

Part 1 - What is Racism?


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 closer 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 also 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 basic statistics are too far over your head, and you are clearly unable to distinguish an individual from a group. 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 should be attributed to either stupidity, or intentional malice 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. 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 can be called 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 either stupid or lying. 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 complete 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. 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 possible 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. Again, there is no shame in this fact. The reality of incomplete information should not deter us from acting on the information we do have, and more importantly there is no moral problem with doing so.

Part 2 - An Anti-White Weapon


I understand the last section could probably be described as overly autistic. Focusing too heavily on semantics is never a great way to prove a point, especially to normal people. But the reason I decided to over analyze the definitions to such an extent is because such an analysis simply needed to be done, and it will help put this next section into perspective. Although we’ve seen that the definitions of racism are rather incoherent, no overly detailed explanation on the internet is going to change the majority of people’s perspectives. Most people think racism is real and evil, and I have no illusions that the previous section is going to change that fact. However, even if we accept that racism is coherently defined as something like, “Hatred of another race,” and even if we tentatively accept that racism is morally evil, I can still show you why it is a deceptive rhetorical tool.

As I just said, let’s assume that racism is something like the hatred of another race or hatred of another person because of their race, and that this is morally evil. This simple definition means racial phenomena can happen between any two racial groups. Whites can be racist against Blacks. Blacks can be racist against Whites. Asians can be racist against Blacks. Hispanics can be racist against Asians. And on and on we can go. Every permutation of racial hatred falls under this umbrella definition. However, this is not how we see the word being used in our everyday lives. It is not uncommon to see college professors expounding on the reasons why only white people can be racist because racism is a product of privilege and power. Again, let’s even assume this is true. Simply redefining the definition of the word racism to this narrow range does not then cause the phenomenon of an Asian man hating a Black man any less real. Not calling this act racist doesn't change reality, it simply narrows the definition of the word to exclude such an act. Other words must then be created to take the place of the word racist to correspond to these other phenomena. Yet, no professor advocating for this clearly deceptive rhetorical change is introducing new words to make up for this limitation.

An analogy might be if I call all sodas Coke. I’m using the word Coke to describe a large range of drinks. However, if I decide to start using Coke to refer to the specific branded drink called Coke, that doesn’t suddenly mean all the other sodas in existence disappear. It simply means I now need a new word or words to describe them. Thankfully, we as humans have developed language to distinguish such things. Soda is our all encompassing word, and words like Coke, Sprite, and Mt. Dew are more specific words used to pinpoint the exact drink we are talking about. Racist is a similar kind of thing. We could use the word racist to describe all the types of phenomena I’ve described above, or we could use it to pinpoint only one type and use different words for the other types. Obviously, this isn’t happening, and not by accident. The word racist exists to create a moral standard that only applies to White people. And don’t be fooled into thinking this problem is exclusive to those who say only White people can be racist. Whether such a statement is intellectualized or vocalized is not as important as how the word is used in daily life, and the word is almost exclusively used against Whites.

Whites are the sole target of this racial propaganda through the redefinition of words. Yet, there is never an argument presented for why White people should be held to a higher moral standard than other racial groups. Do these intellectuals want to argue that White people are somehow more human, more intelligent, and more capable than other races? Are we Whites superior to all other people and as such more should be expected from us? This is obviously not what they are arguing. Such arguments are the epitome of evil in their eyes. So, why are no new words being created to describe these now unnamed racial phenomena, and no reason is given for holding Whites to a higher moral standard? Because consistency is not the issue here. Truth is not important to those making these arguments. History, morality, rationality, none of it matters. Winning is all they care about. What does winning look like? It looks like the invasion, destruction, and erasure of white populations and civilizations. How does one reach this goal? Well, one way is to invade Europe and North America. Take over White nations and destroy their people and countries by force. However, given that White Western Nations have historically been, and currently are, the most powerful and technologically advanced nations in the world makes this method rather difficult. A much more feasible method is to demoralize White people into voluntarily giving up their nations and cultures. Even saying this out loud seems rather absurd. How could an entire nation be convinced into giving up their own lands and selling out their own people? Yet, this is what’s been happening to every White nation on earth for decades.

Whites of all nations have been demoralized into willingly handing over their countries to those who would be considered invading tribes in any other time in human history. We’ve seen Whites kneeling in submission to the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, Whites unable to defend their families or protect their communities from Muslim invasions in Europe, and Whites in many countries barely reproducing at replacement levels. Much of this has been caused by a general cultural and moral decay, but one of the cores of this deadly erosion is a corrupted racial consciousness. Fear of being called racist, or even more importantly actually BEING racist, has made Whites morally paralyzed to the point where they are unwilling and unable to defend and uphold their unique cultures and values. Immigrants, legal and illegal, pour into White nations with no intention of assimilating. Affirmative action, civil rights, and hate crime legislation enshrine discrimination against Whites into our laws and cultures. Whites can no longer prefer Whites, associate exclusively with Whites, and even hinting at the possibility that Whites as a group have positive characteristics is forbidden. The racial demoralization of Whites has reach a level unseen before in human history.

Part 3 - Is Racism Truly Evil?


In the previous section I assumed that racism is evil just like we’ve been taught. We are told this explicitly by parents, teachers, celebrities, and most authority figures, or implicitly through various forms of propaganda. I’ve already tried to expose the inconsistencies in the term’s definition and show how it’s used to undermine White people, but what if racism isn’t as evil as we’re lead to believe. I’m not going to argue that arbitrarily hating people is somehow good, but as I showed earlier this isn’t how the word is typically used. What I am saying is that noticing differences between races isn’t evil, and preferring your own race over any other isn’t evil either. No matter who you are or where you’re from, it is perfectly natural and healthy to prefer your people and culture and not want them destroyed.

What is race? I don’t mean in a technical way as I described before, but in a more general and common sense understanding. A race is simply a group of people categorized by their DNA, in other words, related by birth. In this way, what is your race other than an extension of your family? Just as you prefer your own kids over someone else’s kids, so too does that preference extend to those who share your ancestry. You favor your immediate family over your cousins, aunts, and uncles. You favor your cousins, aunts and uncles over distant relatives, and this pattern extends forever outwards from your family to incorporate communities, nations, and races. Just as you favor your own children, it’s natural to favor your own race over others. Obviously, life is complicated and we often create long lasting relationships outside our family, but for most of history we have understood that the bond of blood is stronger than most other forces on earth. Non-whites don’t need convinced of this truth. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and almost any other non-white group advocates for their own people and openly prefer their own. It seems that Whites, specifically White liberals, are the ones that have the hardest time admitting that they prefer their own people and culture, even though most of them choose to live in affluent white communities. Despite what we are told, it is perfectly reasonable for Whites to prefer their people and culture just like other groups.

Even though what I just explained seems obvious to most people, you will get you banned off social media, socially outcast, and even fired from you job for expressing these views, especially if you’re White. Whites are constantly fed propaganda telling us that this tribalism is racist and therefore evil, yet other groups are allowed to be proud of their heritage and culture. This is called diversity. Whites are supposed to be ashamed of their heritage and culture, while others who are proud of their people come to replace us. Diversity is simply a code word for non-white, and diversity programs and propaganda are meant to facilitate our replacement. Yet, the contradiction is obvious. Either tribalism is racist and evil for everyone, or preferring your people and culture is a natural, good, and healthy way to exist. Intellectual and media types will try to come up with every rationalization for why Whites are uniquely evil and shouldn’t be allowed group identity or preference, but isn’t this the same racial hatred we talked about earlier? Targeting a specific race of people to vilify and attack with the goal of their genetic and cultural destruction would be the best definition of racist if there ever was one.

Attacking racial preference is just another way of attacking the family. It’s no secret that the destruction of the family is one of the main focuses of those who push globalism. It just so happens that first on the chopping block is the destruction of White nations and peoples. When Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, or any other non-white group expresses a preference for their own, a pride in their heritage and culture, advocates for their own people, or believes their people should have a right to exist, they are applauded and encouraged. However, when Whites try to do any of these things they are called racist. I could get into why White nations are being targeted, but that would require a deeper dive into history than is possible in this piece. For now, it is enough to recognize that racism is used as a rhetorical tool to destroy European peoples and cultures, but it won’t stop there. It should be obvious to any White person not wholly succumbed to the indoctrination of anti-family, anti-racist, globalist propaganda that fighting against the destruction of White Western nations and peoples is a righteous and worth while cause, but any non-whites might be reading this asking themselves, “Why should I care?” Don’t be fooled. Although there are currently organizations and individuals who advocate for elevation of your people at the expense of Whites, this is only the case insofar as it is a beneficial tool to use in the march towards globalism. The powers that be do not care about your race and culture, all they care about is power and control. Right now this is happening to Whites, but the same thing can and will happen to you if you do not learn from these mistakes. I could speculate on a future free of borders, free of race, free of distinction, a society full of docile and individualistic slaves whose only sense of group identity is pre-approved, inconsequential ones such as sports teams. But again, such speculation and discussion is beyond the scope of this piece. All I mean to say is that the future is not one where White nations are destroyed and everyone lives happily ever after. They will come for you and your people as soon as it is beneficial for them to do so, and this means the eventual destruction of your unique people and culture.

Part 4 - Conclusion


We’ve taken a look at multiple definitions of racism that are designed to obfuscate and confuse us, with the effect of giving a negative connotation to thinking. We’ve seen that racism is mostly used as a weapon against Whites. And we’ve seen that preferring your own people and culture is a natural human instinct that’s only called racist if you’re White. The term has come to a sort of tipping point. It is the most popular tool being used against White Western people, and at the same time many people are becoming immune to its absurd over use. There are those who still naively take the accusation of racism seriously, but many are beginning to see through the manipulation. If nothing else, I hope this piece has made it more than clear to you that the term is a meaningless tool of control. If we want to have conversations about tribalism, racial groups, cultures, nations, history, slavery, or any other subject dealing with race, than we must do so independent of the term racism. The only difference between being called a racist and a heretic is the religion. Racism is a rhetorical tool meant to intimidate, silence, and destroy people’s lives who go against this new politically correct religious standard. And just like any other religion, we’d be fools to take it seriously if we don’t believe in its foundations and its teachings.

We as Western people, and especially White Western Christians, must throw off the shackles of this new religion and fight back against the imposing of new moral standards that go against truth and seek only to control. Even if you aren’t White or aren’t Christian, it is still in your interest not to succumb to the lies and deception of the term racism. No matter your people or culture, wanting to preserve any innate group identity goes against the new modern moral standard that the term racism represents. You may not be directly under attack the moment, but your people and your culture will soon be on the chopping block the moment it is convenient.

Do not be intimidated by being called a racist. That label only has power over us if we allow it to. There will always be those who try to impose their moral framework on you, refuse to give in. Of course, being practical and thoughtful is needed in a time when most of society is under the spell of political correctness, but fighting against this deceptive standard starts with the courage to reject the moral framework of those who wish to destroy you and your family. It is time to stop placating those who wish to see our cultures, nations, peoples, and families annihilated. It’s time to start fighting back.

Racist

Racist is a propaganda term created in the 20th century used to subvert white racial identity and culture. It is a word used to silence white people and stop us from standing up to defend our families, communities, countries, and values.

Learn more »

Sexist

Sexist is another propaganda term created in the 20th century used to shame those who dare question sexual egalitarian ideology. At its root, the term and the ideology are anti-family, anti-human, and ultimately antagonistic towards the happiness of both men and women.

Learn more »

Nazi

Nazi is term used to accuse anyone who is pro white, or simply proud of being white, as morally reprehensible. It is used as a specter to deter whites from having any form of in-group preference or racial consciousness. The Nazis generally, and the holocaust more specifically, are used as a subversive weapon against western nations and cultures.

Learn more »

Bigot

Bigot is a blanket term applied to anyone who doesn't agree with the politically correct ideas of the time. Ironically, the term bigot is most often used to shame those with heterodox opinions, making bigots out of the users themselves. Taking on this contradictory meaning makes bigot similar to the word "literally" in that they are both used to mean the opposite of their standard definition.

Learn more »

Homophobe

The word homophobe is used to shame anyone who is resistant to the increasing creep towards culturally enforced homosexuality and increasing acceptance of pedophilia. Normal human sexuality is deemed sexist, while resisting degenerate, perverse, blood line ending sexuality is deemed homophobic. Transexuality and any other aspect of the LGBTQP subversion is simply a branch extending from homosexuality.

Learn more »


© 2021 - The Year of Our Lord