Counter-Currents
What Do You Say When Someone Accuses You of Racism?
Aylmer Wedgwood
Francisco de Goya, Witches’ Sabbath, 1798
2,471 words
“Sir, you are hereby charged with the crime of racism. How do you plead?”
This accusation is actually a hidden false dichotomy, where the correct response is neither admitting nor denying the alleged crime, but instead rejecting the concept itself. The appropriate answer is to say that this term means nothing to you, and then move the conversation forward. This sounds deceptively simple, but there is a lot more to it. To understand the required frame of mind for delivering this, and to find out why this is likely to be more effective than previous alternatives, read on.
Why is the accusation of “racism” so threatening? “Racism” is a word imbued with immense power. This is not by accident, but due to the establishment having spent hundreds of billions of dollars on indoctrination via university courses, diversity and equality training, Critical Race Theory, and financing Hollywood propaganda. If you were to factor in the budgets of wars and peacekeeping operations where “racism” was used as a justification as well, then the costs would become truly astronomical.
I like to think of the “racism” concept as the One Ring of Sauron, into which our dark lords have poured their cruelty, malice, and will to dominate our culture. “White supremacy”, “Nazism,” and “xenophobia” are similar, but they are all subordinate to the One Word to rule them all: “racism.”
As long as the term “racism” carries such moral weight, we will never win. It must therefore be a top priority to dismantle it. This is not a trivial task, however, so we have to carefully consider our response to it. I will now suggest five coping strategies, listed in reverse order of effectiveness:
- “I am not a racist because XYZ.”
- “Yes, I am a racist, but racism is good.”
- “You (the Left) are the real racists!”
- “Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white (racism).”
- Cite race realist research on IQ and crime.
None of these responses are optimal. But to explain why, and to show why my proposed strategy is better, I will first need to suggest an allegory.
Every age has its term for heretics. In the Middle Ages it was witches, and in some places in the twentieth century it was the kulaks (rich peasants). We are all familiar with the story of medieval witch-hunts whereby someone in a village was tried for witchcraft and is subsequently burned alive at the stake. The modern-day equivalent of a witch is a “racist.” There are many parallels, and they are both accusations of something that is either nonsensical or simply part of the human condition. Therefore, if you accept the bogus premises behind the charge itself, then it will be virtually impossible to fend the accusation off.
Let’s return to the five suggested strategies and analyze each to identify their weaknesses.
1. “I am not a racist because XYZ.”
This is by far the worst of the five answers, but sadly, it is also the most common knee-jerk reaction among normies. By protesting that you are not a “racist,” you are still implicitly acknowledging the validity of the concept. The problem is then that you will not be able to prove that you are not engaged in something that is part of the human condition (preferring your own kin) or that you are not a beneficiary of dark magic (“white privilege”). Thus, you will inevitably lose such an argument. Not only will you lose, but you will also have perpetuated and reinforced the myth of “racism” as a moral crime, thereby establishing bad precedents for others.
2. “Yes, I am a racist, but racism is good.”
This response comes from a healthier impulse, as it means that you feel that they are criminalizing a natural behavior. You want to own the label and rehabilitate it. This attitude is usually found among those who don’t yet realize that this term has already been toxified beyond all recovery. Others may do so because they have formed their own enclaves. Inside their little echo chambers, among a few thousand faithful, this term may genuinely mean something else other than what the mainstream says it means. Those who wish to use the term positively believe that if enough people joined the “racist” camp, then the term could be reclaimed. This is not going to happen, however, because billions of dollars are being spent every year to make “racism” synonymous with “evil.” By attempting to own it, you are contesting the price tag on an item you simply cannot afford. Regardless of how you see yourself, from the outside it will appear that you have internalized the false dichotomy of “good = anti-racist” versus “evil = racist,” and willingly cast yourself as the villain in this narrative. In the witch allegory, what you are effectively doing is the same as the defendant shouting, “Yes I am an unrepentant witch, burn me!”
3. “You (the Left) are the real racists!”
Trying to turn the tables on your opponent this way is only marginally better, and it is still a poor, unwinnable strategy. Trying to turn “racism” around to serve our interests is like trying to use the One Ring against Sauron. It cannot possibly work, as it was specifically crafted to work in only one way: to hurt whites. If your opponent is non-white, then this strategy will fail automatically, since we are taught that only white people can be “racists.” If your accuser is white, then all he has to say is that yes, he is or was a “racist” (we are all guilty of the original sin, as we are human), but he is atoning for it by undermining European interests. He will then suggest that you do the same. If you do, then you have scored an own goal, and if you refuse, then you are back in the first scenario. Thus, you will lose either way once again.
4. “Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white (racism).”
This is a more effective variation of answer 3. This is an improvement, as you are pointing out the accusation’s latent agenda. But then why hasn’t this strategy been more successful in the mainstream? I think it is because this is a more combative approach that requires one to come out as openly pro-white — that is, the person using this strategy may have to face a second aggravating charge of “white supremacism” on top of “racism,” which is a risk unacceptable for most normies in practice. Also, just like answer 3, this response still does not break out of the framework of construing “racism” as a moral failing.
5. Cite race realist research on IQ and crime.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
This is technically a correct response, and I believe that in the coming years this will be an increasingly viable strategy. However, as of today, it is not a workable response for the following two reasons. First, the relevant research is not yet widely acknowledged. Most of the “race realist” researchers our circles are fond of citing are in reality very marginal figures with tainted reputations. This is of course unfair, but it is a sad fact. On the other hand, there is no shortage of mainstream scientists to cite that claim that “race is a social construct” with no biological component. The fact that these people are merely playing word games to protect their jobs, or are just plain wrong, will be lost on most of your audience. Lay audiences evaluate one’s credibility based on social proof rather than through an examination of the evidence.
The second reason is that making arguments based on statistics and data can come across as “autistic,” and is typically quite ineffective for all but the most elite audiences. Sadly, most people aren’t convinced by evidence, but rather by emotional appeals or clever talking points. As the scientific evidence will mount against genetic egalitarianism, this will change as more of the scientific establishment, with stronger proofs, comes over to our side, which will eventually shift the balance. However, as of now, this strategy is unavailable.
Now that I reviewed why the previous responses failed, let’s move on to the proposed alternative strategy. To do that, let’s return to our medieval witches for a moment. Ask yourself, how and why did witch-hunts stop? Were the witches able to convince the church that they weren’t really witches and that they haven’t made a pact with the devil, or that their accusers were the real witches? No. There are no witch trials today because people no longer believe that witchcraft exists. The term carries no currency, thus if someone were to accuse you of practicing witchcraft, you would just laugh. You would certainly never try to defend yourself by saying that you go to church regularly and do not worship Satan! Yet, this is precisely what most people do when the “racist” accusation is made today, especially mainstream conservative types. As soon as the accusation is levelled at them, they instinctively flinch, thinking that “this is serious.” They then put on a sad display of groveling, all the while not realizing that they have already lost the argument the moment they acknowledged the “racist” term with a serious face. By pleading innocence or coming up with elaborate explanations as for how they aren’t “racists,” they are like a struggling insect caught in the spider’s web. Each twisting of concepts, each intellectual contortion only gets them further entangled in the web and finally stuck in a position of utter submission.
Here is a video of Nobel laureate William Shockley answering this question. He is illustrating, via a performance that is almost comical, all the incorrect attitudes I described so far:
He “considered” if he was a “racist” or not with a serious face. Now imagine if he had been accused of witchcraft. Would he still have “considered the matter seriously” and given an answer with a straight face?
So what to do instead? You should never use this term in your conversations or writings, unless you are using it ironically or to deconstruct and undermine the concept itself. All other uses for it are feeding the fire with oxygen.
When the term does come up, use every conversational trick to devalue its currency. Just smirk when someone else uses it, or put verbal quotation marks around it if you have to use it yourself.
If directly confronted with the accusation, simply say that “racism” doesn’t mean anything to you. The important thing is to neither admit nor deny it, but rather to reject the very concept itself. You can communicate this in any number of ways. For example, say that “there is no such thing as racism” or that “racism is too vague and doesn’t mean much these days.” Then, without saying anything else, carry the conversation forward. This last step may not seem relevant, but it accomplishes two important objectives simultaneously. First, by not vocalizing the link between “racism” and the anti-white agenda, you avoid the problems associated with the fourth coping strategy. This way, you will have no other charges brought against you, as you would appear to have no hidden purpose. Therefore unless you have prior evidence that suggests that your audience would be sympathetic, you should not attempt to turn it into a pro-white statement. By not linking this meme to white advocacy, you will increase this meme’s virality by an order of magnitude. More on this later.
Second, by not stopping after you said that “racism is meaningless,” you will deny him the opportunity to try again — which he will definitely attempt, like a vinyl record stuck in a loop. They will simply repeat the accusation, as their minds won’t be able to process their failure to corner you. If your opponent is adamant, or says that you are just saying that you don’t acknowledge the validity of the “racist” concept because you are actually a “racist,” then terminate the conversation. Do not under any circumstances fall for their trick and engage in a conversation where you have to accept “racism” his terminology onto the other side; thus, by just stating that you don’t acknowledge their starting premises and leaving, it is still preferable to adopting and arguing within the framework of your adversary.
My final practical tip is of course to choose your battles wisely. This technique — and indeed no technique at call — will work if you are surrounded by a hostile mob. Dr. Shockley’s example is also illustrative of the dangers of neglecting this consideration. He went on an Afro-American TV program to tell blacks that they should sterilize themselves to save the world from their low-IQ progeny. Only an extraordinary genius very high on the autism spectrum would do something like this. Don’t put yourself in such situations, or if you find yourself there against your will, then get the hell out of there as quickly as possible!
Why am I certain that this will be the right way forward? There are many factors playing into our hands that will help to sell this method. On one hand, science is relentlessly marching forward. Over the next decade, the evidence against genetic egalitarianism will become overwhelming and will help to discredit the “racism” concept entirely. On the other, our enemies are developing increasingly fantastical theories as to why or where “racism” exists. “Systemic racism,” “white privilege,” and similar concepts border on the supernatural. They are overreaching, which severely undermines the “racism” concept’s credibility even in the eyes of mainstream audiences.
In fact, whites are growing increasingly skeptical of the whole system. Many are starting to get desperate for a defense against the “racism” accusation, and would do almost anything to fend it off — anything except associate with explicit white identity politics. But using my technique, they can simply say that they don’t believe in “racism.” People using this technique don’t have to become white advocates to do so. As such, the price of entry for this meme has been reduced to zero, and there is no limit to how far it could spread.
What do we get out of it? Just imagine a world where the terms “white supremacism,” “racism,” and “white privilege” no longer carry any moral weight or meaning. Imagine that all such barriers were lifted from the political and cultural realms. Which group stands to gain the most from that?
I believe that despite appearances, there are reasons to be very optimistic today, just as how Sauron made a crucial mistake by investing all of his power in the One Ring, exposing himself to the threat of complete annihilation should the Ring be destroyed. And that is precisely what we must do. Instead of trying to wield it for our own purposes, we have to cast this term into the fire — and the armies of darkness who make use of it will vanish.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
33 comments
I’ve had good luck with “‘Racist’ and ‘incorrect’ are not synonymous,” which I suppose is a version of #2, although I remain completely unconvinced by this article that that is somehow the wrong reaction. The idea that we’re going to win over some huge portion of the population if we just use the right verbiage and dress the right way is a philosophy I long ago realized was a losing one.
It’s not good advice to say that anti-white racism should not be denounced because it makes us come across as pro-white! On the contrary, we need to hammer home the fact that the government is anti-white.
“Racism” means two different things. It means racial oppression, and it means the idea that race matters. The anti-white side plays on that ambiguity. But when you are called a racist, you are being accused of oppressing non-whites. The obvious answer is “No, I’m not oppressing or harming anyone”. You cannot say that the word racist means nothing to you!
If you are accused of racism, it may be based on something you said against the oppression of White people. The anti-White system wants us to shut up about our oppression. Complaining about it is proof of race-awareness, which qualifies as racism. As if our racial oppressors were race-blind. In fact, both the non-White oppressors and their White victims have racial awareness, but only the victims are blamed for it.
The slogan “anti-racist is a Jewish code word for anti-White” was probably invented to help White people who are already pro-White but have not realized how “antiracism” is a cynical scam deliberately used to destroy White people. Depending on whether you are talking to someone honest or to a journalist, the arguments won’t be the same. There is no point talking to aggressive leftists.
I agree with the idea that billions of dollars have been spent to make racism synonymous with evil. The same billions have made it so that we tend to be embarrassed by statements like this:
– The Jews have too much money
– The Jews plunder every country they pass through
– There are too many Jews on television
– The Jews rule the world
whereas we tend to see an idealistic quest for justice in statements like that:
– White people have too much money
– White people plunder every country they pass through
– There are too many White people on television
– White people rule the world
I sympathize with what you are saying. But with the amount of money spent on positioning the “racism” term as it is used today, unless you can spend an equal amount to impose your own version, you just simply cannot afford to pick and choose what it means. You will not be realistically able to introduce and give currency to different brands of “racism”, saying that there are good and bad types, and you are a good one. As others have pointed out, a racist is just a shorthand for a bad white person. This is the only permitted version, and you would be trying to counterfeit a big corporate trademarked brand with something you produced in a garage. It just cannot work. The best option is to choose to not to buy into their brand altogether. Think of it as boycotting a corporation by not buying their products! It is an asymmetrical wordfare strategy.
How about this approach: “The hunt for “racists” is a witch-hunt and I don’t believe in witch-hunts”.
Other responses:
1. “You’re a pedophile.” My personal favorite. It has the virtue of being as sincere as you want it to be. Presumably the person calling you a racist is also on board with “trans” children. Endorsing the tampering with the genitalia of children is the same if not in the same ballpark as pedophilia.
2. “So?” or “Nobody cares.”: Sort of similar to the author’s number two, dismissing the charge as meaningless is always good practice.
3. “Then we shouldn’t share the same country/society, agreed?” Lay the cards out immediately that you want nothing to do with them. Plant the idea of political/racial separation in their head. “Maybe it’s best if we just go our separate ways, no?”
Another angle is that it is an anti-concept. This means that it is not descriptive, but rather a catchword meant to delegitimize a valid concept. Also, the “only Whites can be racist” tautology is transparently dishonest. The clear purpose is to assign blame to Whites and nobody else, an obvious double standard. You can’t call one group out for doing X and say it’s fine for every other group to do X.
I had high hopes when I saw the title of the article, but unfortunately it disappoints.
The only effective response to someone throwing the R-word around is to reply: The terms “racist” and “racism” are antiwhite slurs.
One can then follow up with: Are you antiwhite? Do you hate White people? Any conclusion you reach which is antiwhite, I reject.
Why does this work? Because it takes us out of the antiwhite narrative, places the other person in the role of the villain, and makes us the hero in our story.
Some White Guy, I agree. Some variation on option four, such as “‘racist’ is an anti-White slur,” followed by taking the initiative against anti-Whites, is the best answer. I have seen this be effective, and that convinced me to do the same.
What about Whites who don’t have the nerve to do that? You and I can tell them that they ought to arm themselves with courage, but they keep showing that they won’t.
It is important that they do something harmless, such as Aylmer Wedgwood is teaching. Only if they have a harmless routine to fall back on will they not fall into options one, two, and three, which do harm to other Whites.
“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
Option four, taking on the anti-Whites, is leading. Option five, following up with the data, is also good. The option six sideslip is, at worst, getting out of the way.
If every time Whites would have acted like Dr. William Shockley they instead said “‘racism’ doesn’t mean anything,” and burbled on without a pause, Whites would be better off.
What you are suggesting is a variation on option 4, and it would be great if more people could be convinced to say these things. But why haven’t these lines caught on then? After all, Whitaker’s Mantra has been around for so many years, why hasn’t it worked?
I actually think that it has worked, up to the limit that it could, and all the people that it could convince are now reading this website already.
But we are less than 1%. What about the other 99%? We clearly need something new that has the potential for virality that breaks out from our own little echo chambers.
Joe Gould got it. It really isn’t a replacement for the Mantra, it just adds a new option to a broader menu of offerings for people with more delicate tastes. To serve those uppity white folks in polite society, who are just too scared to say anything too combative but are actually getting desperate for a viable defense now.
Some White Guy, I think yours is a very good response. I’d like to use it in the next DEI session at work.
This article identified some of the wrong responses, but failed to include the most effective response. Accusing them of being antiwhite.
I do not find it funny when someone accuses me of being evil for caring about white wellbeing. That person is a monstrous, antiwhite. That person means harm to me and my people and that is no laughing matter. Call them antiwhite, and if they claim not to be, demand they prove it, put the onus on them.
Aylmer’s advice is unusable for a school child whose teacher has called him a racist in front of the class. It’s unusable for an employee whose workmate has made an official complaint of racism. It’s in unusable in almost all settings except maybe online trolling.
What works is showing that they are the immoral one in our narrative. They are the victimiser who uses antiwhite slurs to justify doing harm to us.
I have no doubt Aylmer Wedgwood means well with this article and I agree with several points, but I think it misses the mark by so much it requires a total re-writing.
If we laugh at our victimisation we are no different to the conservatives who respond to their destruction with gallows humour.
Watching the clip with Shockley just had my blood boiling. I have had many similar experiences trying to argue with normies and being constantly interrupted with emotional points. Talking to a person to whom the truth is extraordinarily emotionally painful is pointless, because they will never admit it. And this goes from most blacks.
The comparison to the idea of witchcraft is almost perfect, especially for “systemic” racism; I have been using it for quite a while.
And it is central to attack the word and idea itself and never grant it any legitimacy, with whatever tactic fits the situation. It truly has been a killing word for our embattled race, trapping us in a pseudo-moralistic Chinese finger puppet while our enemies laugh.
PS On a side note, even the very anti-Christian Wikipedia acknowledges that executing witches was an ancient feature of Greek, Roman and Germanic pagan societies and that the high point of European witch panic was the post 1450 early modern rather than the medieval period. We are currently living through one (BLM+Wuhan), run by The Most Enlightened People In History.
When Aristotle said that homo sapiens is a rational animal, he must have been drinking.
Since the word has no fixed meaning, I ask them to specify exactly what they mean by “racist.” If they’re capable of specifying what they mean, I offer them a cheerful “yes” or “no.”
https://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/06/am-i-a-racist-depends-what-you-mean-by-racist/
Thanks for reading my article. I also read yours. As usual, it was very well written, argued and there wasn’t anything there that I would dispute when applied to your own individual case. However, you are very unlike most men, as you are unusually straight talking, contrarian and generally you don’t care what others will think of you. These are all admirable qualities, and the world would be a better place if more whites were like you. Sadly though, these attributes are mostly absent from the great majority of people. Therefore, I think your own approach while workable for you personally, it cannot realistically be expected to be widely adopted by the general public. In any case, it was a fun read and I enjoyed it a lot.
In a serious situation, if anyone makes an accusation of racism, the best response is to not engage them in argument, but bounce it back on them with “Who made you judge?” or “Projecting?” My personal favorite: “It takes one to know one.” Very simple: 1.) Do not engage in arguing. 2.) Boomerang issue back on accuser.
You are using a variation of coping strategy #3. All your opponent has to do is to accept that actually yes he is/was a “racist”, but he is now atoning for this original sin by undermining the interests of whites. He will then piously ask you to do the same. Checkmate. You lost because you accepted that “racism” is real and it is a moral crime.
Coping strategy #3 is “You (the Left) are the real racists!” I don’t think my coping strategy even rises to that intellectual level of argument. The coping strategy that I sometimes use is a mirror image of the leftist strategy. It is essentially being slippery, dishonest, belligerent, and just flipping off the accuser by counter-attacking him. The naive normie will take the construct of “racism” at face value, foolishly believing all of its lopsided logic, duplicity, and name-calling. I don’t believe in the legitimacy of the bogus concept called “racism” due to its illogic, double standards, hypocrisy, manipulativeness, extremely ambiguous definition, and the hysterical and biased manner in which it is normally discussed. It is biased against Whites. For that reason I have no faith that honesty and rationality will get me very far with a liberal or lefty. They’ve destroyed America and now all of the West. What’s there to discuss with them?
I would say why do you hate White People and if they say what do you mean I would say only those who hate White people use that term anymore and then move on in the conversation…
This is a relevant and useful article, and a good start for Aylmer Wedgwood.
Pro-Whites who will be accused of “racism” need something to say, and it will be better if those who are not bold enough to pick option four or learned enough to use option five effectively at least avoid options one, two, and three. Even if that was all that could be said for the option six side-slip, that would be enough to justify it.
Quote: “avoid options one, two, and three”
Number 3 is this: You (the Left) are the real racists!
That statement can be ambiguous. When we say the anti-whites are the real racists, it means they are the racial oppressors. They are replacing us with migrants, and that’s a racial attack against us. There’s nothing wrong with saying so.
Unfortunately, phony conservative politicians like to deceive the voters by making the popular claim that the Democrats are the real racists, and then pushing the idea that we have to be race blind and not care one way or the other about race replacement!
In a one-on-one situation, if our accuser is possibly speaking in good faith, it’s better not to tell him he is the real racist. I would point to the government and the media as the real racists. They are anti-White, and they care even less than I do about the well-being of the migrants.
“Racist” is a racial slur against whites—it’s used to demonize and vilify white people. It can only be used against whites (“Only whites can be racist”). It applies to all whites (“Is your baby racist?—Yes”). Therefore it follows that “racism” = “being white.”
In language, usage is the ultimate arbiter. As the author correctly notes, several decades and prodigious fortunes were dispensed in giving this antiwhite slur momentum and currency in the public mind. And as he also gets right, trying to defend yourself from the particulars of the specific accusation is throwing the most important fight—the validity of the concept itself.
Being on the offensive and fighting the most important of these two battles (the latter) is of paramount importance. The best answer so far seems to be “racist is an antiwhite slur; you’re antiwhite. Why do you hate white people?”
This is not exactly the same as option number four, as it is possible to call out the injustice of the opponent’s antiwhitism without necessarily having to go full pro-white with all bells and whistles—and now the ball is in the opponent’s court. He has to justify, define, propose, specify the accusation: do in the open what before was being slipped in surreptitiously. If he tries to escalate with accusations of your being a white supremacist, it can easily be countered: “I’m not an ‘anything’ supremacist. I want all peoples to prosper and be free, including mine. But you’re antiwhite—you’re using an antiwhite slur.”
There’s no way out for him; if he wants to persist on the racism accusation he must justify himself by defending the validity of the concept of “racism,” which of course he can’t, because it is an antiwhite slur invented in the 30s by Trotsky and his fellow tribesmen to be used as propaganda against whites.
To reiterate what somewhat else has said:
It is usually just being used as a slur. Keep your cool, point this out and suggest they stop the name calling and stick to the facts and issue.
And do the same. Elevate your own discourse and don’t use slurs.
I think that anyone can relatively easily tell if one is asking you this in bad faith or if one is just a naive normie taking the narrative at face value.
My point is that any aggressive response is of no use. The former only deserves total ignore, or the finger if being insistent. The latter deserves some gentle pointing out that racist is just a slur and why this is so.
Agreed.
For what it is worth, here are my responses, with which I have had success:
“Yes, I am a racist. A racist is someone who understands that the races of man differ significantly, not insignificantly, in cognition and temperament, and that these differences are genetic in origin, racially correlated, and have cultural impacts.”
“The races of men also differ in other ways such as skin color etc., but these other ways are irrelevant because they have no cultural impact. But differences of cognition and temperament do have a critical cultural impact, and that is why these differences matter, and must be conserved.”
“Racists are conservationists. Racism observes that the races of man are an important natural resource to be conserved. Miscegenation destroys this natural resource, and thus racists oppose this.”
“The races of men each need their own space and their own pace to actualize their full potential. Strife, stress, misery, resentment and un-fulfilled potential are the outcomes when any race is compelled to conform to the cognitive, temperamental and behavioral expectations of others.”
“Racists hate no one on account of their genetic destiny, but they will mortally oppose all those who seek to destroy the racial resources of humanity or seek to impose equalist theories on societies.”
All your arguments are true, but they don’t work in the situation of a public debate, which is more often than not a verbal “witch trial”. If you say “yes I am a racist” then that would be like someone in the Middle Ages saying “yes I am a witch” when summoned at a witch trial. No matter how much such a person would try to “explain” what he really means, he will be burned at the stake anyway.
Public debates are held on an extremely low level of intelligence, you cannot win them with sophisticated arguments.
Franklin Ryckaert: “Public debates are held on an extremely low level of intelligence, you cannot win them with sophisticated arguments.”
I agree with everything you said, but most of all this.
It used to be a good rule that you should leave out everything that might be confusing to a reasonably bright 13 year old boy.
Now that Whites are severely reduced as a share of the population and an absolute minority in the younger age ranges, it may be a better rule to leave out everything that can’t be said to a typical twelve year old without fear of confusion.
We want simple words, simple sentence structures, simple arguments, and definitely no saying, “I am a witch but…”
Throwing my 2 cents in…. I have been using the technique Alymer (sp?) describes here with some measure of success for around 3 years. I typically frame it like so:
1) racism is a false consciousness projected ONLY onto Indo-Europeans. It’s effective, particularly with leftists who are familiar (or semi-familiar in most cases) of Marx’s use of the concept. Almost invariably, I can see in their eyes that it’s jounced them like a speed bump they didn’t see coming.
2) then re-frame their word (racism) into what it really is: negative ethno-centrism.
3) then enlighten them to the existence of POSITIVE ethno-centrism and how it differs from negative ethno-centrism.
4) note that all races have varying levels of positive and negative ethno-centrism and highlight other races displaying the tendencies (i.e. blacks voting en masse for black candidates, the existence of absurd numbers of jewish ethnic power groups, the National Socialist character of the Han Chinese vis-a-vis “Communism with Chinese Characteristics”, etc).
Then naively ask them why only white people are held collectively accountable for these character traits.
I live in (unfortunately) a pretty blue area so I’ve had the opportunity to leave quite a few of them tongue-tied and hand-wringing over these last few years. It never gets old.
Oh…and never get mad or let them have the last word. We must be utterly intransigent in any form of combat with the bug-people.
I like your response, it’s a bit more pointy, but I think in spirit it’s the same what I suggested. Bonus points for making it personalized, as individually thought out counters are always more effective than parroting someone else’s meme’s or mantras.
Speaking pragmatically, if your livelihood is on the line, one needs to neutralise the accusation (“racism is a leftist social construct, no more), but otherwise, the best option is to simply turn around (watch your back) and walk away. This deprives them of the pleasure of an emotional release.
If you want to be nice about it, just ask them to define “racism.” If they can’t immediately rattle off something coherent, you’ve won, because you can just laugh that they would call you something they can’t define. If they do give a definition, and it doesn’t describe your views, just say so, and if it does, just ask “What’s wrong with that?”
The best suggestion to counter accusations of “racism,” “racist” (that resonated with me) was written in the comment section. Several people suggested calling it an ANTIWHITE SLUR and the accuser ANTIWHITE.
Effectively turning the tables on your accuser and making them defend themselves as the immoral one.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
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.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment