Print this post Print this post

Why the Term “Racism” as it is Presently Used Cannot be Part of a Rational Debate

Eagles Wide receiver Riley Cooper, who claimed he’d fight every black at a Kenney Chesney concert.

1,128 words

White advocates have been debating what to do about accusations of “racism.” Some think we should use the “agree and amplify” technique. This involves taking away the person’s ability to use the term to shame us. It involves saying “yes, I’m racist” and facetiously amplifying one’s alleged racism by trolling people with Nazi memes à la Daily Stormer.

Others, such as Hugh MacDonald, have suggested we should shame those who accuse us of racism much as feminists shame men for things like “slut shaming.” In other words, MacDonald argues we should not debate whether we are guilty of it but shame those who use it against us in an effort to stifle legitimate racial solidarity.[1]

In this light, I would like to make some analogies to show that racism is an illegitimate concept for debates.

Racism is problematic in debates because the catalog of actions sufficient for declaring a white person to be racist is considerably larger than it is for blacks. This does not mean that blacks are never accused of racism. For example, in the 1990s the media attacked the black NFL player Reggie White[2] when he opined that God had given different gifts to different races, believing God had enabled Asians to be more clever with gadgetry, saying the Japanese can “turn a television into a watch.”[3] Of course, if a race realist makes a similar claim that blacks have a bell curve for speed shifted to the right of whites because they have more fast-twitch muscle, or that whites on average have a larger brain size and higher IQ than blacks, he is also called racist.

However, there are a whole list of things blacks can do which never elicit accusations of racism. A prime example would be the existence of the black student union at Towson University, which had existed for decades without any receiving any opprobrium. Contrast that with how the university and media reacted to then-student Matthew Heimbach’s attempt to establish a white student union. Heimbach has claimed that he had received threats and that corporations refused to hire him after graduation unless he recanted his beliefs, unlike members of the black student union, who probably benefit from listing that experience on their résumés.

Here is another example: if a black person declares that he loves being black, or that he is happy when a black person is elected President, he suffers no condemnation. If a white person were to declare that he loves being white and that he is happy when a white President is elected, SJW witch-hunters would raise their eyebrows and possibly try to get him into trouble.

The standard for being accused of racism between blacks and whites differs not only according to the number of actions deemed as such, but also according to the severity of the condemnation which the person receives. Jamie Foxx, the black actor in the Weinstein brothers’ film Django Unchained, declared on Saturday Night Live that “I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?” His career may have taken a bit of a setback after that incident, and although he hasn’t played a leading role in a major film since then, he continues to find work in films and on television, even serving as host for the game show Beat Shazam on FOX. Can you imagine Mel Gibson being given a game show after his less-than-kosher comments? What’s more, if Gibson had been cast as a Nazi in Inglorious Basterds and bragged about killing a lot of Jews in the movie, would his career continue unimpeded? Of course not. In general, the punishment for racism, even if dealt out to both blacks and whites, is usually less severe for blacks.

Racism as a concept does not have interracial applicability. By bringing it up, the accusing party puts whites at an immediate disadvantage. All the Leftist has to do is say that whites get in trouble for racism more often, and he has won.

Rational debates between parties can only take place when the terms they use apply equally to the actions of both sides, other things being equal. This is because being “rational” involves weighing one thing against another, but one cannot change the units of measurement by which each thing is weighed. For example, suppose that we measured a Granny Smith apple at 70 grams and a Red Delicious apple at 3.5 ounces. Suppose (((someone))) were to say that the Granny Smith apple outweighs the Red Delicious apple by 66.5 units. We would be right to object and say that we cannot use different units to compare the weight of the two apples, and that if we use the same units, this 70-gram Granny Smith apple weighs 2.46 ounces,and thus it weighs less than the Red Delicious apple of 3.5 ounces. If (((someone))) called us evil for wanting to use the same units, we could conclude that he is incapable of having a rational debate either due to insanity or chutzpah-filled dishonesty. Likewise, those who support the selective applicability of the term “racist” to cover a wider range of actions by whites and the attaching of more severe punishments for the same actions are effectively changing the units by which we measure something, and are either insane or patently dishonest.

In medieval times, one who used a weighted scale that skewed the weighing of gold was called dishonest. Likewise, those who use the unevenly weighted term “racist” are guilty of perpetuating dishonesty. Those who would condemn us for saying that its use is invalid are unworthy of participating in a rational debate so long as “racism” continues to be unequally applied between the races.

Hypothetically speaking, if the concept of “racism” were to be equally applied to all races, then either all the nations would be labelled racial supremacists for not allowing racial aliens to flood in, or else white countries would be able to deny non-whites entry, just as Asian and black nations do without receiving censure.


[1] Greg Johnson & Hugh MacDonald, “A Conversation About Racism,” Counter-Currents Radio.

[2] For the record, when white Eagles Wide receiver Riley Cooper said on camera that he’d “fight every nigger” present at a Kenny Chesney country music concert (which probably wasn’t that many), he also got in trouble, just like White did. Like White, he wasn’t released from the team, but unlike White, his comment may have prevented him from being signed to another team once his stint with the Eagles was over. For whatever reason, whether it be the two-thirds black majority in the NFL, Cooper being white, the worsening of political correctness since the 1990s, or the greater severity of the punishment for racism that whites tend to receive, Cooper probably suffered more for his utterance.

[3] Walter Williams, “Reggie and Racial Stereotypes.”

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. James O'Meara
    Posted September 29, 2017 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    It’s like race relations in the USA have gone back to square one and the current crop of pampered snowflakes doesn’t have a clue what real racism is. REAL racism is “help wanted, no blacks, no Irish;” everything else is just whining and rent-seeking

    • Cecil Henry
      Posted September 30, 2017 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      So to stop ‘real racism’, I must hire blacks???

      Why??? How is this freedom??

      This is why we say: ‘Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-White’

      Do not fall into this trap.

  2. Cecil Henry
    Posted September 29, 2017 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    What does it mean that Whites are ‘racist’??? ITs that Whites exist, and don’t deny their interests, and value as a race.

    That’s the ‘racism’. Its not racism at all. Its healthy and necessary, and long overdue;

  3. Michael L.Woodbridge
    Posted September 29, 2017 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    In the end we White/Aryans must define our own terms and not allow our racial enemies to it for us. Otherwise we get a skewed, dishonest result as mentioned in the article. Let the Coloured races, and those who identify with them, define Racism in anyway they choose. For ourselves Racism can only ever be a positive thing.

    • Michael L.Woodbridge
      Posted September 29, 2017 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      Should read…”to do it for us”

  4. R_Moreland
    Posted September 30, 2017 at 1:03 am | Permalink

    On a couple occasions I’ve had people from Europe say something like this to me: “When I try to oppose African or Mulsim mass migration into my country, the Left calls me a ‘Nazi’.”

    My response has been: “What you must do is call them names right back. And if the Left wants to take it to the streets, then you have to get into the streets and push them right back.” I’ve also recommended an American style Second Amendment for Europe, should things get too far out of control.

    At this point, they will act shocked. and tell me that there has to be some better way. You see, they want to be reasonable.

    But the dilemma is that the Left does not want to be reasonable. Consider how unhinged the Left became in the wake of the 2016 Trump election. If it came to reasonable argument, the Left would not stand a chance against the racially aware Right.

    Accusing their opponents of being “racists” is a way for the Left to throw them on the defensive. It’s like accusing someone of being a “witch” in colonial Salem, or a “Trotskyite wrecker” in Stalin’s USSR. Just as there were no witches or wreckers (or if there were, their influence was not some all pervasive force undermining the Puritan or Worker’s Paradise), there is no such thing as a “racist.”

    Seriously, is there any political movement called the “Racist Party” with a 25 point program to promote “racism?” Is there a Russian refugee turned novelist with a cult following who has penned a “Racismist Manifesto?” Does any White nationalist, immigration restrictionist, human biodiversity advocate, or even race realist self-describe as a “racist?”

    Of course not. “Racism” is a canard, but a very effective one.

    The Left’s use of “racism” follows a basic principle of agitprop – seize the initiative! By screaming “racism,” the Left throws the opposition onto the defensive. This allows the Left to determine both sides of the argument. i.e., since “racism” is ungood, the Right must demonstrate fealty to Leftist dogma on egalitarianism.

    Trying to fight the “racism” tactic on its own terms can be a waste of effort (not to mention sanity). Rather, the Right must seize the initiative. This means coming up with a meme which throws the Left on the defensive. And this must be backed up by all the other tactics employed by the Left: the constant harping, the mass actions, the taking it to the streets. Force Leftists to dissipate their energies defending their core positions, their jobs and their safe spaces. And yeah, it’s gonna get ugly, but it already is so, and is gonna get a lot uglier if the Right does not take action.

    (Incidentally, I use the terms Right and Left very broadly here; really, it’s a question of nationalists versus egalitarians, and they both can be across the political spectrum.)

    What would be a meme which the Right could use? I’ve kicked around the idea of using the term “traitor.” It has emotive force, and certainly the Left has betrayed their own countries and peoples by opening the floodgates to third world mass migration. And we can toss in how the Left betrays the Constitution by suppressing Free Speech in any number of ways. The term also would mobilize support in flyover country, where patriotism still has cred and people are fed up with globalized elites. The end state would be that the Left would be under a constant barrage of agitprop such that it would not have time to act, while the Right would be setting the agenda.

    It comes back to that issue of bringing a gun to a gunfight. As Sean Connery famously stated in The Untouchables, one just may have to employ the Chicago Way.

  5. ster plaz
    Posted September 30, 2017 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    I call it being zipped up in the slander bag.

    It is akin to being shoved into and locked up in a wall locker. Or maybe if some people at a lake/beach/pool try to gang up on you and toss you into the water. Whichever. If you sit still and quiet and wait for someone to let you out: you look bad/lame. If you thrash around, try to free yourself but fail: you look bad/desperate/pathetic. If you thrash around trying to free yourself and succeed: you look bad, in some unnamable way. The only way to avoid all that is to never let yourself get put there in the first place. That requires being able to recognize what is imminently about to happen to you; sense the oncoming assault.

    I avoid being put in the slander bag by not allowing the use of racist, extremist, supremacist or bigot. Or any number of labels. I say out loud that those words are bogus/specious/illegit because 1) they are not used (by the LEFT) true to the roots of the word and 2) whatever definition the LEFT is using is not applied equally to themselves. Any one of those two by itself makes the word bogus/illegit and certainly both makes it illegit.

    Talk over them (the LEFT), interrupt them, shout them down (hell, these are what the LEFT does whenever a White makes a legit point). Keep doing as long as necessary. Don’t let the discourse proceed unless they admit the bogusness of their label. Yes, you might not be debated again, or if on a news broadcast show you will not most likely be invited back; they only want Lindsey Graham or David Gergin types on their programs to basically apologize for not being LEFTIST.

    But the LEFT will keep doing this, putting their opponent (usually a White) on the defensive (slander bag), as long as their opponent keeps playing their game.

  6. Dr ExCathedra
    Posted September 30, 2017 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    “Racism” in our supposedly rational time plays a cultural role almost exactly identical to “witchcraft” in the 16th century: an invisible malevolent power which creates an array of disturbing phenomena whose causality is considered otherwise inexplicable. “Witches” and their diabolical alliances and spells were the hidden force behind spoilt milk, sick children and contaminated wells. Now it is “racists” who just as invisibly (through privilege, systemic racism and white supremacy) keep Blacks and other People of Color (with the odd exception of hyper successful Asians, Indians and Jews) in a miserable state of poverty, ignorance, criminality and social chaos.

    Witches, racists: same discourse, same illusion, same identity of accusation, verdict and sentence.

    Mr Dunphy is absolutely and importantly correct. No White advocate should ever grant an inch of credibility to our contemporary superstition in ideological clothing.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace