- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

What Do You Say When Someone Accuses You of Racism?

[1]

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:

  1. “I am not a racist because XYZ.”
  2. “Yes, I am a racist, but racism is good.”
  3. “You (the Left) are the real racists!”
  4. “Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white (racism).”
  5. 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.

[2]

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here. [3]

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.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here: