According to Oxford Dictionary, racism is “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” Racism may additionally be viewed as: “The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”
Despite escalating awareness and discussion of ‘racism’, there is one group exempt from this moral protection: those of European descent. For whenever racially charged attacks occur against whites; there is seldom, if any outrage.
Last month, Sarah Jeong was appointed to the New York Times editorial board. Upon this news, Right-wing twitter uncovered Jeong’s astonishing record of anti-white vitriol. Her incurably anti-white tweets included: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins;” “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants;” and “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” In response, the New York Times didn’t condemn Jeong’s tweets, merely noting they didn’t ‘condone’ them. Nor did the New York Times criticise their new editor’s remarks as racist. To state the obvious, if Jeong’s comments were made by a white person about any other ethnic group, the political, cultural, and economic ramifications would be severe. Consider: even the Daily Stormer, which has been denied a web domain due to radical content, has not gone even close to espousing bigoted views of Jeong’s ilk.
Whenever one points to this incontrovertible double standard, comes a response of anti-white mental gymnastics. For because whites are the majority of Western populations and control political, cultural as well as economic halls of power, anti- white racism is purportedly impossible. This argument essentially boils down to racism= prejudice+ power. But most major institutions: law firms, bureaucracy, universities, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Youtube, the media, the entertainment industry, government mandated affirmative action, the Human Rights Commission, the ABC and major sporting codes; are certainly shifting away from employing those of European descent as well as our heritage. Moreover, Richard Spencer has been vociferously censored, attacked and ostracised since the 2017 Charlottesville rally. Despite having demonstrably negligible institutional power, why is Spencer still described as ‘racist’?
It further appears unlikely that when whites become minorities, anti-European attitudes within power structures will readily abate and grow sympathetic. Far-fetched predictions aren’t necessary to envision this imminent future; given the barbaric attacks upon the white South African minority, and the contempt media elites subsequently show.
So when ‘racism’ cannot be committed by non-whites against whites, and the stated explanations for this case disintegrate, one must ask: what does ‘racism’ truly mean?
Evidently, ‘racism’ is a connotative, inflammatory term employed as an anti-white attack. ‘Racism’ is a bogeyman that strikes fear into the hearts of a well-intentioned Western public. ‘Racism’ is a stain deliberately tinted upon the European sub-conscious, used to beat down factual conclusions about race, positive expressions of white identity, and survival.
In fairness, some conservatives seek to use ‘racism’ in honest terms, as they criticise the racialism of the far-Left as well as the Alt-Right. But as their use of ‘racism’ is trifling compared to Leftist levels, these attempts hold little sway in the word’s overall influence.
As such, those ostensibly on the Right should neither avow nor disavow charges of ‘racism’. Obviously, we should not avow these charges, as the word evokes images of boundless, oppressive, aggressive hate, which acting according to human genetic interests certainly is not.
However, equally importantly, we should neither disavow racist charges. Because any time contrived or sincere arguments are made to deny ‘racism’ accusations; this additionally normalises, justifies and publicises a narrative constructed to facilitate white dispossession. Once established as the apogee of all evil, ‘racism’ portrays white people as eternal assailants, with non-whites the victims.
Instead of battling within this unmistakably one-sided paradigm, we should elucidate ‘racism’ and cease debating over which circumstances the term applies.
2 thoughts on “Why We Should Move Beyond ‘Racism’”