Deconstructing “Racism”

Race and racism have become central to modern politics. Nearly every political question, no matter how trivial or benign, is turned into an issue of race. Leftists thrive on non-white identity politics, while conservatives typically avoid the issue. They often claim they are above it all and wish that their political opponents would simply stop racializing political issues. But this is never going to happen. Asking the Left to stop playing identity politics is comparable to asking one football team to quit scoring so many touchdowns because it is unfair to their opponents. Identity politics is a winning strategy for the Left. This is especially true because the Right refuses to play the identity politics game. It has been a one-sided battle for over fifty years now.

If you are reading this essay you are probably a disaffected conservative or libertarian (or maybe even a progressive) who is sick and tired of being beaten over the head with the dreaded “R” word. Racism is a very complex issue and takes a complex approach to understanding it. 

What is “Racism”?

Most people think that “racism” is disliking someone simply because he belongs to a different race. But “racism” is much more complicated than that. To quote a passage from Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority: 

As the idea is to ideology, so the concept of race is to racism. This leads to the definition of racism as a belief in the race idea. But belief implies some measure of assent, some inward or outward activation of the belief. Racism, accordingly, can be described as the overt or covert expression of the concept of race at one or more levels of human activity-in politics, art, religion, business, community life, and in the privacy of the home.[1]

Perhaps, now you see why the Republican party is called racist all the time. The GOP is not a white Identitarian or White Nationalist party. However, it is a party that is almost exclusively made up of white people. The policies the GOP advocates for may not appear to be racist on the surface but are implicitly racist because they are claiming to represent what are seemingly white interests. This is that covert expression of race and the GOP is very guilty of dog-whistling on such issues, i.e., talking about welfare queens, illegal immigration, and urban crime. Sadly, the GOP does nothing to actually address these issues. They just talk about them to keep white voters in their ranks.

When white people express their self-interest as a group, they are called racists for doing so. When non-whites express their self-interest as a group, they are called heroic. This is a blatant double standard. This racism thing seems to be a one-way street. It only works against white interests. 

Political Correctness, Heresy, & the Church of Secular Liberalism

Americans often believe in the misconception that the USA is a free country. This is not entirely true. It is true that people are not being sent to Gulags, jailed, or put to death for their speech. However, if one dabbles in thoughtcrime, you might find yourself socially ostracized, out of a job, and unemployable in the future. You don’t need the government to stifle speech when corporations, NGOs, universities, Hollywood, and the media are doing a great job of keeping a lid on what is or is not acceptable speech in public discourse. Although, with the rise of the Alt Right and the demographic shift taking place in this country, do not be surprised if “hate speech” laws become a reality within our lifetime. A kind of soft totalitarianism exists within our society, and the policing is mostly done by the elite managerial class. These managers are also the ideological enforcers. They essentially constitute the “state.”

What is the ideology of the elites? Secular Liberalism. Liberalism is a belief in things such as democracy, liberty, and equality; especially the equality part. The USA is just as much of an ideological entity as the Fascist and Communist regimes of the past, minus the hard totalitarianism. In order for a society to be functional, its citizenry must be ideologically aligned with the “state.” Society would not function very well if half of the electorate were Communists and half of the electorate were Fascists. Such a society would eventually collapse into civil war. So everyone living under the Secular Liberal state of the USA must be some kind of a secular liberal, i.e., a libertarian, a conservative, or a progressive. While these various factions may bicker about tax rates or government programs, they all agree to the orthodoxy of Secular Liberalism in their own way: that all human beings are created equal.

What if you do not believe that all human beings are created equal? As Ramzpaul puts it: “In Soviet Russia, you would be called a counter-revolutionary for challenging the state ideology. In Soviet America, you would be called a racist for challenging the state ideology.”

Enter the Alt Right.

You may ask be asking yourself, “What is or isn’t racist?” Lots of things are racist. Using the dreaded nigger word in conversation is racist, and most everyone would agree that is racist. However, talking about the correlation between race and IQ or race and crime is also called racist by the thought police. Why is that? Using a racial slur or citing scientific evidence that race is a biological reality with real social consequences are both racist, because they involve differentiation. You have distinguished between us and them. This implies that there are different groups, and difference is not equality. You have challenged the ruling ideology. You have committed heresy in the church of Secular Liberalism.

Secular Liberalism—which includes multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and political correctness—really is a religion because it takes faith to believe in things contrary to evidence. The Alt Right is a movement of heretics. Whether we are using offensive language or scientific evidence, we are making our point that there is an us and a them; that race is biologically real. 

Only White People Can Be Racist

If you have been paying attention to the changes in political discourse over the past decade or so, you may have run across the meme that “only white people can be racist.” Now, you might think that this statement is racist towards white people (what is also sometimes called reverse racism). Reverse racism is an interesting concept because it implies that normal racism is a sin only committed by white people against other races. So-called “anti-racists” promote the idea that there is no such thing as reverse racism, or no such thing as racism against whites. They often cite the mantra that racism is power plus prejudice. Since white people are the only people in society with power, they are the only people in society who are racist. Of course, whites do not hold all the power in American society. If we did, do you really think we would advocate an immigration policy that diminishes our power, ultimately to nothing? Worst. White Supremacy. Ever. 

Understanding White Privilege

Critical Race Theory (CRT) promotes the idea of “white privilege.” Most whites scoff at the notion that by virtue of our race that we have some kind of in-born privilege. But if you reply that you grew up in a lower-middle class environment and had to work for everything in your life to get to where you are, it falls on deaf ears. “White privilege” is the notion that you live in a society whose institutions, culture, and history were forged by white people for the benefit of their posterity (you). Also, it is the notion that whites have passive advantages that you may not know about, which distinguishes white privilege from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one’s own worth, presumed greater social status, and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.

So, in Japan, do the Japanese have Japanese privilege? Do the Nigerians have Nigerian privilege in Nigeria? What about the Nicaraguans? Do Jews in Israel have Jewish privilege? You get the picture. Isn’t it a good thing that people create a society in which they and their posterity will feel at home? Do you think the Japanese would’ve built up their culture, institutions, etc. just to hand it all over to Somalians? Of course not! Is it a crime that Japanese people get to enjoy the fruits of their ancestors hard work and sacrifice? Of course not. So why should white people feel guilty about having white privilege? If non-whites don’t feel at home in white societies, we do not have to accommodate them. They just have to go home.

White guilt is what drives the white privilege narrative. Without it, it would go nowhere. The moment that whites drop the slave morality of “checking their privilege” and start embracing the master morality of taking their own side, then it falls apart. With that said, white privilege—which is really no privilege at all, but the basic right to feel at home somewhere on this planet—is great and we need more of it! 

White Guilt

White guilt is a powerful force all throughout North America and Western Europe. Jewish American professor Paul Gottfried wrote a book about it, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy, in which he discusses how celebrations of diversity, multiculturalism, and white guilt are degrading our once dominant Western culture. Another term for White guilt is ethno-masochism, which Guillaume Faye describes as, “the masochistic tendency to blame and devalue one’s ethnicity, one’s own people.” It is all part of a collective psychopathology, provoked by a concerted propaganda campaign to make European feel guilty about how they’ve treated other peoples. It is part of an original sin of the European man’s intrinsic racism and he must feel guilty for who he is.[2]

White guilt manifests itself in a variety of ways. From trans-racial adoptions, to miscegenation, to excuses for why we must permit endless mass third world immigration, to pandering to Black Lives Matter, and to endless apologetics for being racist for taking our own side. When will whites finally be absolved of their original sin of racism? Likely never. 

Why the Hate?

To quote Finnish nationalist intellectual Kai Murros, “without hate, one cannot possibly know love.” Some people seem hateful because they are fueled by a passionate desire to protect what they love and cherish: their race, their culture, their homelands, and their way of life. The notion of loving everyone and hating hate is just a mindless Leftist cliché.

It is impossible to love everyone, and if you could, then your love would ultimately be meaningless. If you love everyone, then you love no one. Love is a very powerful emotion and should only be reserved for a limited amount of people, typically only people who would reciprocate those feelings.

Since love is powerful, so is hate. Hate does not come from nowhere. Hate comes because we love. We hate those who try and harm the people and things we love. With that said, people do not typically hate those they do not know, have never met, and are not trying to destroy the things we love. For example, most people do not hate the people of New Guinea because they have never met any before. They aren’t in our lands, they aren’t assaulting our people, and they aren’t destroying our way of life. It is only when we are made to live in close proximity to those unlike ourselves that we hate others.

Harvard professor Robert Putnam wrote a whole book about this, Bowling Alone, where being close proximity to diversity makes us dislike and distrust our neighbors. It drains our communities of social capital.

So yes, in the Alt Right you will find those who are prejudiced towards others. However, I do not think their prejudices are entirely unwarranted. If you felt your way of life was being destroyed by another group of people, don’t you think you’d be a tad bit prejudiced towards that group? 

Conclusion

There is a limited amount of space on this planet for all of the people in the world to exist. Africa is for Africans, Asia is for Asians, but white countries are for everyone. Only white countries are practicing multiculturalism, and there is no sign that other countries will adopt it. Since space is limited, when non-whites arrive in white countries, they have appropriated space that once belonged to us for our culture and our way of life. When they arrive, they begin dabbling in politics and reducing our political power in our homelands. Once demographics have shifted enough, eventually whites will not be able to exercise any political power or self-determination in deciding their destinies in our own homelands. This is why we do not have time for political correctness. This is why we do not care about being called racists. This is why you will see some people in the Alt Right expressing prejudice. Our race, our culture, our traditions, our ways of life are being threatened with extinction. Mexico will always be Mexican. Japan will always be Japanese. But will White Americans have a place to call home? Will the English have a place to call home? How about the French? Based on current demographic trends they won’t. The Alt Right aims to fix that.

Originally Published at Counter-Currents

Notes

1. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen, 1981), p.7.

2. Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight (London: Arktos, 2011), p. 136

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Reactionary and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Deconstructing “Racism”

  1. Pingback: Deconstructing “Racism” | Reaction Times

  2. soico soirav says:

    Good essay for the layman to get the Alt-Right perspective. Probably somebody confused by the growing importance of identity politics in Western societies, and particularly America.

    However, about the concept of “white privilege”, I am going to pull a Morrakiu here and (partly) agree with liberals for the wrong reasons. The way I see it, “white privilege” is the fact that being Caucasian in a society with a European majority makes you the normal or standard person, and therefore you have an advantage over others who aren’t white, because they have to prove their “normalcy” and yours is taken for granted. Thus, even if you are a poor white, you still have some residual “privilege” over an equally poor POC; you still have your “whiteness” going for you.

    I sort of agree with that. However, since such biases are never going to disappear, there are just two options: the creation of homogeneous ethnic societies for each group or a very harsh assimilation. In this case, for POCs to act as “white” as possible, which would be probably rejected by the CRT people. So yeah, white privilege might exist in some form, but the only foolproof solution to it is secession.

    Also, the way I see it from a left-wing perspective, identity politics are a smokescreen for capitalists to divide the global working class in the 21st century. It is well explained by this Twitter user:

    Liked by 1 person

  3. IA says:

    If people stopped believing in the human rights god they’d have to re-imagine privilege, honor and obligation. They’d need another god to imitate. Intellectuals live in a world of ideas. Most people don’t. So, you’ve got a problem.

    Like

  4. armenia4ever says:

    1. Privilege is a great thing. Self loathing whites who’ve been brainwashed by the social justice courses in academia have given it a negative connotation that has managed to permeate most of the layman discourse around it.

    It is what you make out of it. If you learn English, assimilate to the culture of those who are successful, etc. you give yourself a privilege that others who are foolish don’t bother to attain. Letting others try to attain a similar privilege doesn’t occur by giving “silenced” voices a bigger platform. (Check into the nonsense of Muted Group and Standpoint Theory)

    2. The key weapon used to keep them in check seems to be shame. If there’s anything I’ve learned this election, it’s that if they can’t shame you, their arrows can be shrugged off. It’s something I noticed journalists complaining about when it came to Trump. He had no shame, so therefore their attacks weren’t working.

    The racist is yesterday’s equivalent of a heretic. It is losing it’s meaning, but that happens faster when we shrug off the label. Most people who use it aren’t worthy of the time it takes to respond to. Then again, they aren’t interested in discourse, but in the buzzworthy dismissal of throwing the word around to supposedly disqualify your argument.

    I don’t see modern Mongols apologizing to those in Iraq for setting their progress back hundreds of years when they burned Baghdad to the ground and destroyed that Caliphate. I sure as hell don’t see them apologizing to the Russians for 400+ years of subjugation or to the Chinese for killing something like 1 out of 300 something Chinamen for several hundred years.

    Without Western civilization, Mexico would still be run by the Aztecs. There is a reason the English conquered and colonized the new world and the Japanese didn’t. There is a reason China and the Abbasid caliphate didn’t colonize Australia or begat the Industrial Revolution. To admit this would be to realize the reasons for their success – their worldview. (There is a reason so many inventors, thinkers, etc. came from Scotland.)

    3. “Diversity” to those on the left essentially means anti-white. These people never talk about the need for more Ugandan immigrants in Japan or for more Danes to immigrate to India. They especially never demand the Chinese take in Syrians and accept their culture.

    Vox is right when he says diversity + proximity = war. There is much historical evidence to back this up. It’s interesting you mention Putnam, because he was a liberal who had a wakeup call and plenty of backlash when he published that.

    Worldviews clash. Everytime. While I’m half-white and not a white nationalist, to not only deny someone their homeland, but to tell them they have to forego their pride while bolstering the pride of people who refuse to assimilate to their culture is the ultimate sin, so to speak.

    Deus Vult brother.

    Like

  5. guest says:

    You are over complicating it, but Free Northerner boiled it down perfectly:

    “Only whites can be racist, because racist is a nominalist, specifically anti-white slur. Calling another race racist would be akin to calling a white a nigger. It’s silly. The sooner people realize that it means nothing beyond BADWHITE, the sooner it loses its power.”

    Indeed, it’s time to come down from our etymological Trojan horse and face this reality.

    Like

  6. And you can’t help but notice that all the hoo-haw over “white privilege” was birthed in White academic institutions by academics as White as the driven snow, and who love to lecture the middle and working classes about unearned White privilege when they’ve got plenty of it themselves- just as their own “critical race theories” would predict, if its producers ever applied it to themselves, which of course they never do (they pretend that they are somehow above being White, esp. by virtue of being female, or wanting to be).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s