1,946 words
I see that an American golfer I had never previously heard of, Fuzzy Zoeller, has just died. Despite him apparently being a major and successful figure, having won the 1979 Masters and 1984 US Open, this is how the print version of The Times summarized Fuzzy’s life in the one-sentence strapline to his obituary: “Golfer who tarnished his reputation with a racist joke about Tiger Woods.” Not “First golfer to win the Masters on his debut since 1935”, or “Golfer who won 10 PGA Tour events”, but “Golfer who once made a joke about a black man eating fried chicken in 1997.”
Was that really considered the most significant thing about Fuzzy’s entire 74 years on this Earth? What other past racially skewed obituaries of significant historical and cultural figures has The Times published along similar lines, I wonder? “Charles Darwin: Minor English scientist who once compared an African to a monkey”?
According to his obituary, quipping Tiger liked to chew KFC ruined Zoeller’s life: “He lost lucrative sponsorship deals, but more importantly his reputation as a doyen of the fun and sportsmanship of golf was destroyed.” Tiger Woods himself didn’t even care about the gag, which was very mild, [1] but Fuzzy Bear was forced to care about it:
I’ve cried many times. I’ve apologized countless times for words said in jest that just aren’t a reflection of who I am. I have hundreds of friends, including people of color, who will attest to that. Still, I’ve come to terms with the fact that this incident will never, ever go away.
It was never, ever supposed to, Fuzzy. Such is the recent power of the magic word “racism” to ruin a white man’s life.
A Matter of Context
Accusations of racism – against whites, anyway – have over recent decades been positively radioactive. What is needed is a full, 180-degrees PR rebrand for the very term itself to repaint it as a positive quality, which all the cool kids on the block should actively aspire to possess.
Racism amongst blacks is widely socially admired today, as we see with the examples of St Nelson Mandela and St Martin Luther King. They were both racists, of a sort, in the simple sense they stood up for others of their own color. As a result, their own one-line obituary lead-ins in The Times never read anything negative like “Black statesman and terror-leader” or “Black orator and rape-enabler” respectively, as the duo’s widely-admired “positive racism”, as it were, helped block out all negatives in the public eye as completely insignificant by comparison.
If it were only possible for a white person like Fuzzy Zoeller, when accused of being racist, to smile widely and say “How flattering! Yes, I am indeed a massive racist, just like the great black bigot Nelson Mandela, thank-you very much for comparing me to him!” So, how to engineer this positive amelioration of the term? Well, there was an interesting article on Counter-Currents a short while back asking what readers of this website should call themselves, now terms like “dissident right” seem a little outdated. My own suggestion: how about “contextual racists”?
A contextual racist, in my own self-coined definition, might be considered a person who adopts the position of racism not through any innate racial hatred per se, but from a simple and accurate perception of the need for rational self-defense in the presence of persons of other races who are being racist against him first.
Growing up in 1980s and 1990s England, there were essentially no non-whites living in my area, and I had nothing against those living in their own lands. I still don’t. I might be absolutely sick of imported, unintegrated, Pakistanis and their actions over here today, but as for Pakistanis in Pakistan, I don’t care much either way: good luck to them, I suppose. As a consequence, race was then a total non-issue for me. Non-whites did not appear any threat to me, my people, or their future way of life, so I had no natural need for antipathy against them: it would have been like Nelson Mandela hating the Dutch, if no Boers had ever sailed across to settle the Cape in the first place.
Today, things are quite different. White people are continually demonized over here, treated as second-class citizens within a two-tier legal system, and due to become a despised minority in their own homeland, perhaps by the 2060s. So, contextually, racism now becomes necessary: a necessary form of self-defense, which has been forced upon people who otherwise would have been completely apathetic towards the issue, much as St Nelson would presumably have remained completely apathetic towards white people in an imaginary all-black South Africa.
In this sense, to be a “contextual racist”, as I put it, simply means to stand up for your own legitimate self-interests: or, more simply, just not to surrender and die out.
Color TV
An excellent example of a recent attempt by “anti-racists” to do a Fuzzy Zoeller on someone here in England involved Sarah Pochin, an MP with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK Party, the most anti-immigration mainstream outlet in the UK at present. Thinking this is still 1997, when Fuzzy Zoeller could be crucified for saying something very mild indeed about KFC, left-wing political opponents complacently think labelling Reform MPs as being racist is the best tactic to tar their popularity amongst voters – apparently wholly unaware that, like myself, millions of white native ones have been transformed into contextual racists without ever even having heard the term. [2]
Sarah Pochin was on a radio call-in show at the end of October when a listener complained about how the skewed demographics of UK TV adverts, which incorrectly imply we are a non-white majority country about 40 years too early, “don’t represent what this country looks like” (yet). Pochin replied her caller was “absolutely right”, adding:
It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people … It doesn’t reflect our society, and I feel that your average white person, average white family is … not represented anymore … How many times do you look at a TV advert and think there’s not a single white person in it?
It drives me mad too. But what drives the UK’s (white) Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer even madder is anyone daring notice this fact. Accusing Pochin of “shocking racism”, he told the BBC her views were the kind that would “tear our country apart”, and “tell you everything [you need to know] about Reform” — like that they might just be worth voting for, possibly?
Pochin later apologized for her language, calling her words “phrased poorly”, and her boss Farage labelled them “ugly”, but said he would take no further action as the intention behind them was not “deliberately and genuinely racist.” This was not as full-throated a defense of Pochin as I may have liked, but it’s significant progress since the days of Fuzzy Zoeller. Essentially, Farage was saying this was contextual racism in action: not full-blown race-hatred, just legitimate ethnic self-defense.
At the current moment in time, perhaps this is the best we can hope for. Whilst the power of the shrill accusation of “racism!” is beginning to wear off for many whites, it has not yet become the outright badge of moral honor it needs to become. But, a few years down the line, as more and more examples of anti-white racism disadvantaging Europeans come to light with each passing day, another approach towards PR-managing attempted smearings like Pochin’s may become possible.
False Advertising
One of Sir Keir Starmer’s left-wing Labour Party MPs who was loudest in his condemnation of Pochin was his Deputy PM David Lammy, who is black and incredibly proud of the fact – so much so, that you could well argue he himself is also something of a contextual racist.
Writing in a newspaper in obvious defense of his own continued racial self-interest, he called Pochin’s remarks “flagrant racism”, professing himself “disgusted” by them. A truly racially confident opponent may have pointed out Lammy had only been handed this column in the first place to mark Black History Month, [3] an annual jamboree of whitey-baiting many Brits consider an occasion of “flagrant racism” themselves.
In his piece, Lammy bemoaned how poor, quaking non-whites “feel the peril of such comments [as Pochin’s] becoming normalized”. I bet they do. Because, once they are thoroughly normalized, the process of justifiable, Nelson-Mandela-In-Whiteface national liberation from gaslighting settler-colonialist oppressors like Lammy himself can truly begin.
If I had been Nigel Farage, when confronted by calls from the likes of Lammy and Starmer to sack Pochin, I would simply have directed them towards an interview David himself gave to an advertising industry publication in 2021 in which, in characteristic double-standards style, he called for more black people like himself (thick fat ones?) to be seen in British TV adverts, praising the march made towards this end over recent years:
When I can spare a moment to watch TV with my wife and kids, [particularly old episodes of Mastermind] it does surprise me the differences in the people that I see on the screen compared with when I was younger. From TV shows to adverts, I grew up thinking the nuclear family was white and middle class. I didn’t fit into that and the older I got, the more I realised that neither did a significant number of people in this country … We must acknowledge that polarising identities do not evolve in isolation from the changing structures that divide us. Creative industries can be central to forging greater cohesion between social groups. That’s because people need to feel represented and heard. We are losing the trust of people across this country in our institutions. By ensuring that representation is central to the output of creative industries we can begin to rebuild this trust.
Or, to sum up Lammy’s words in the simplest, most Pochin-like précis: “It drives me mad when I see adverts full of white people. It doesn’t reflect our society.”
When Reform’s leader Nigel Farage failed to immediately sack Pochin after she said precisely what Lammy said, but with the skin colors swapped around, Starmer complained that “Either he doesn’t consider it racist, which in my view is shocking in itself, or he does think it’s racist, and shows absolutely no leadership.” Well, why don’t you sack David Lammy then, you hypocrite?
When accused of racism, eventually non-brainwashed white people in public life have to get used to saying “Yes, I am a racist, actually – people like you have forced me into being so. I may not naturally be that way, but when our kind are surrounded by hostile non-white antagonists like David Lammy being racist against us, not being racist back as a means of rightful self-protection would be akin to engaging in an act of unilateral nuclear disarmament at the very moment when Vladimir Putin has a large uranium-tipped ICBM pointed right at us.”
In short, they need to begin admitting that, like me, they have been forced to become contextual racists, just like Nelson Mandela. The only other option, after all, is to become Fuzzy Zoeller.
Notes
[1] Traditionally, golf champions get to choose the menu at the next clubhouse dinner, and in 1997 when Woods was on his way to winning a tournament, Zoeller said: “You know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year.” (Apparently, black Americans are stereotypically supposed to enjoy eating fried chicken.)
[2] Perhaps understandably, because I’ve just completely made it up.
[3] Which is in October in the UK, not February, like in the US.
11 comments
I was watching the Masters that year. If I’m not mistaken the winner gets to determine the menu at the next Masters. After Tiger won, Fuzzy, the defending champion, said something to the effect, “That little boy did very well. I guess we’ll be having fried chicken and collard greens next year.” I thought it was crude. But no big deal. Tiger said nothing about it. Lots of pro golfers have said un-PC things and gotten called out. Tiger once said he “played like a spaz”; VJ Singh and Jack Nicklaus said cripples like Casey Martin shouldn’t get to ride in carts in a pro event.
Good comment but you made a few mistakes. Fuzzy was not the defending champion Nick Faldo was. 1996 was the year of Greg Norman’s monumental collapse. Also it was Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus who were opposed to Casey Martin riding in a cart because they thought that walking the course was part of the game. I don’t recall them saying anything disparaging about cripples.
Oh, okay … thanks. My memory is a little “fuzzy.”
People just need to stop using the enemy’s language and accepting their framing. I feel younger white nationalists now are much better at this than previous generations. Looking back, I see our elders sort of hit this stumbling block repetitively over the 20th century. Atheists don’t debate Christianity by accepting the concepts of religious sin, atonement and heresy, they reject those concepts and are blunt and honest about rejecting those concepts.
When someone calls you a “racist”, you simply reply with.
“Racism doesn’t exist, it’s not a legitimate concept.”
if you’re feeling particularly spicy and you’re able to go further without negative career or social punishments, you can follow it up with “the word racist is just a magic cheat code that non-whites use to get their way”.
Just treat the accusation like it’s a joke, with dismissive contempt. Treat it like someone is asking you to humor that Santa exists.
And it’s not even me being a sophist here, or doing some sly deceptive debate tricks, it’s correct. The concept only comes from the 1930s, the guy in Weimar Germany who first used it threw it around like a deprecating slur, we managed to discuss racial issues for decades without needing this ideological term. The best historical analogue for racist is actually “Bourgeois mentality”. Bourgeois mentality as a concept pathologized healthy human behaviors, even fixing your neighbor’s plumbing for cash could be considered having a “bourgeois mentality”. The concept embedded itself in the legal system and law, accusations of it could destroy your career. And yet, when the eastern bloc came down, the entire concept just disappeared like it was nothing.
I feel like conservatives and even some white nationalists are doing the movement a disservice by trying to engage with the term at all. The concept of racism doesn’t even deserve that respect. There is hypocrisy, yeah, of course there’s hypocrisy. Every stupid ideological concept is rife with hypocrisy. “Democrats are the real racists” sets us back, it gives legitimacy to what should have no legitimacy.
>When accused of racism, eventually non-brainwashed white people in public life have to get used to saying “Yes, I am a racist, actually – people like you have forced me into being so.
Even this is giving the concept more legitimacy than it deserves, it’s affirming it. The Sydney Sweeney dismissive contempt is a better response. Kiera Knightly did it perfectly with a recent interview, where she was asked about the announced trans boycott of Harry Potter. She just laughed in a “what an absolute joke” sort of way, said she had no idea what the woman was even talking about, and said that people are “just going to have to get along”. Not biting in, not affirming, sort of stonewalling. Just imagine if an actor was accused of being a heretic or an infidel, the sort of response they’d give. “Well I’m not religious so I just really understand where they’re coming from” with a bit of a sniggering laugh at the absurdity of the accusation. I think we can move to a point where we respond with “I just don’t believe in this ‘racism’ nonsense, it’s a bit of a silly belief”.
We’re so used to giving stupid ideas legitimacy because there’s so much power behind them. If there wasn’t the full force of the law and institutions making such accusations deadly, more people would realize what an absolute joke they are.
Sure, but what should we call people who unashamedly prefer their own people, as opposed to everyone else, who still prefer their own people but less openly? “Racist” seems to be the best word we have, even though it’s been freighted with negative connotations. Everything else sounds hokey.
In seems that “racism” describes two things: 1) normal in-group preference, which is so normal and unremarkable that we haven’t invented a colloquial word for someone who has that, and which has simply been pathologized when whites do it, and 2) (white) racial hatred (of non-whites), which is a bogeyman that scarcely exists in reality and is used to tar whites who exhibit in-group preference. Of course those have been deliberately conflated to our disadvantage.
But until a better word is coined, I’m inclined to reclaim “racist” like the queers reclaimed “queer”.
“but what should we call people who unashamedly prefer their own people, as opposed to everyone else, who still prefer their own people but less openly?”
We call them good white men. The same way Christians separate the lukewarm from the zealously hot. In any past age, the more loyal to your kin, the more moral you are. I’m happy to just use terms like “loyal, good, kind, community-minded”, that’s how they’d be described in any past age, and how we can describe such people again. I do agree though that trying to coin new terms or square rhetorical pegs into round holes can come across as hokey, or even a bit insincere. But we had a racial consciousness once, we just have to look at how they phrased it and phrase it in the same way. Wasn’t it Roger Devlin’s recent speech where he said anti-racists could be thought of as being traitorous? It’s a good way of looking at it.
“(white) racial hatred (of non-whites), which is a bogeyman that scarcely exists in reality and is used to tar whites who exhibit in-group preference. ”
It’s really a lot of different things that get thrown into that bag. Hate is a strong emotion and only really comes about from negative experiences or perceived threats. To the extent it can be wrapped up in race is because race exists, people are tribal, and that leads to conflict. I think it’s sometimes pretty valid to feel racial hatred. I perfectly understand the burning resentment the English have towards things like Rotherham. Even here again, our tendency to dismiss all hatred as being reprehensible is doing us a disservice. The Jews understand full well the power of resentment and hatred for group identity, its why they foster and cultivate it so much in their culture. It’s why the holocaust has become a sacred thing for them. We are the only ones that are told to “not look back in anger”, and they certainly don’t tell us that for our benefit. Even Christian theologians of past ages were not dismissive of all forms of anger, and made sure to separate justified anger from the sin of wrath.
The other thing that gets thrown in there is just a tendency to bullying based on race. This is genuinely unpleasant, and the prime example is sportsball fans making monkey noises when a black player goes onto the field. Even in a white ethnostate I’d personally ban such behavior. It’s extremely rude to do that to a visiting team from another country. The races vary significantly, and what’s different can be used for mockery. Of course this has nothing to do with our movement, everyone here would, I’m certain, condemn such behavior. It’s the same impulse to punch down that manifests in horrible people mimicking how a cripple walks to mock said cripple. But it is thrown under the “racial hatred” and “racism” category, so we’re tarred with that broad brush. When people call us a “racist” they’re thinking of people like that drunken guy in a stadium sadistically mocking some Nigerian trying to play a game. I wouldn’t even call that racial hatred though, as bullying is typically done for sport.
What Steve Laws did in a recent interview where he said “I wouldn’t identify as a racist, but I don’t deny the label, people can call me that if they want” is pretty close to a perfect answer as well. Dismissive of the concept and also indifferent to the smearing.
I certainly concur. Like other devil words, “racism” is simply a polemical term used to demonize the opposition, with no real objective value. Race realism is a suitable term to reframe it.
BTW, the guy from the Weimar Republic who coined it, or at least popularized it, is (((Comrade Magnus Hirschfeld))), an early pioneer of radical gender theory and sex change surgery. That famous “Nazis burning books” picture that everyone has seen was his porn stash and “research” collection.
It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people … It doesn’t reflect our society…
Great article, the reason they advertise this way, is because they want Whites to internalize the idea that this future is inevitable, ineluctable. 🙃
I agree, like it’s a foregone conclusion. An attempt to normalize it, so that it’s not so jarring. Well, it IS jarring, and it just pisses me off! Even after years of this programming.
Every advert I see now that features a family dinner or gathering has a mix of random multiracial members, including elderly blacks. Bizarro world! I logged onto my bank account recently and see a very White middle-aged woman sitting at a breakfast table in a nice clean, bright kitchen. Appliances, everything white in color. She is sitting there with two very black young children. Are they adopted? Grandchildren? It looked utterly ridiculous. I left a comment in the feedback section: “Why do I have to look at this anti-White propaganda just to use my bank account??”
I agree with Mr. Tucker and Chud that we need to re-frame the discussion; how we do so depends on personal taste as much as anything. I have envisioned us ‘owning’ the r-word much like blacks ‘own’ the n-word: “What’s up, my rayciss?” Dismissing the left’s presumptions is absolutely a valid response, and another way to do that is to turn their attempt at pejorative around by asking, “What exactly do you mean by that?” If they bring up ‘White Supremacy’ you can point out that even if we are not superior we have a right to exist on our own terms (GENUINE multiculturalism); if they take the (patently absurd) position that “race is just a social construct”, “Then what are we even arguing about?”
Leftists do not argue in good faith. No mountain of evidence, no ocean of statistics, will sway a Cultural Marxist. Our target audience is the soft middle -majority- of Whites, who see that the prevailing narrative is utter nonsense but don’t have the tools, vocabulary, or backbone to resist-yet.
Blancosol, aka White Solidarity
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.