halcitron

What Is Racism?

Posted under:
General- @ 8:46 am

What Is Racism?
by Thomas Jackson

Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in
greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and
public have become so used to tales of murder, ****, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic
stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior
are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great
deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism
is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly
American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks
are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for
black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any
explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness
threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial
differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no
desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed
them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress
them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks
are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of
white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to
keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for
an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an
indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white
racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing
proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white
oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable
and f****vable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous
attacks on whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges
must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist
would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but
anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a
form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to
expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages,
whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now
the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil
rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of
White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races,
but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for whites, ****ogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is
branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to
dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the
expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around.
No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by
admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that
National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the
diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the
Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate
homogeneity. And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school,
a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of
diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when
whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been
achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity,
as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an
excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from
an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so
that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants
are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It
is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of
any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in
jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups
and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots
and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that
can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the
fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and
hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from
those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of
this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages,
their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put
their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a
once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand
over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should
Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves
be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much
less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world
has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured
out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into
thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its
heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the
races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a
preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told
that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All
healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing
to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their
neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors.
Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards
non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the
unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary
is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies
of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=32

end


:/
Halcitron
misc.survivalism


alt.politics.immigration,misc.survivalism,soc.cult ure.mexican.american,ca.politics

samoa271

actually, Hispanicks are the most racist people in the world. I have
never in my life seen a people so goddamned in love with themselves as
Latin American of Spanish ancestry. They are so in love with themselves
that they refuse to learn any other language besides Spanish, can't see
anything good in any other people who dare not speakie Spanish, they
think they speak the best language in the world, they think they are
the world greatest athletes, and they think it is then their moral duty
to bring Hispanick civilization and culture to the world.
Reality check: Hispanicks have rendered unlivable every goddamned
society they have ever settled and have goiven the world nothing to
make it a beter place. yet they still insist it is their duty to bring
the Hispanick way to the world.
But they call me the "racist", even though I chose to marry a Japanese
woman, even though I listen to Hawaiian music 100% of the time, even
though I am wa world traveler who was desperate to see otehr indigenous
culture in the wolrd.......

samoa271

actually, Hispanicks are the most racist people in the world. I have
never in my life seen a people so goddamned in love with themselves as
Latin American of Spanish ancestry. They are so in love with themselves
that they refuse to learn any other language besides Spanish, can't see
anything good in any other people who dare not speakie Spanish, they
think they speak the best language in the world, they think they are
the world greatest athletes, and they think it is then their moral duty
to bring Hispanick civilization and culture to the world.
Reality check: Hispanicks have rendered unlivable every goddamned
society they have ever settled and have goiven the world nothing to
make it a beter place. yet they still insist it is their duty to bring
the Hispanick way to the world.
But they call me the "racist", even though I chose to marry a Japanese
woman, even though I listen to Hawaiian music 100% of the time, even
though I am a world traveler who was desperate to see other indigenous
culture in the wolrd.......

graphic queen

WRONG again but it figures with you. Actually Japanese people are much
more racist than the totality of Hispanics.

GQ

david eduardo

Like the broken clock that is right twice a day, we sometimes agree. You are
"right on" on this observation.

graphic queen

I know that I am right about this. My son is married to a Japanese
woman and I know here family quite well and we have been to Japan
visiting her family. They are quite racist.

GQ

strabo

In Re: What Is Racism? on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:45:21 GMT, by
Graphic Queen, we read:

How do they rank the races in order of importance?


1. Japanese
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

ray leon

Mentally, the majority of ego is really just the shit left over from
previous experiences and memories that we have organized into a nice
little story we call personality and lifespan. But existence is really
much more than that. Growing a mental garden out of the shit we have in
our minds is really a process of getting ourselves dirty and recognizing
that without the shit we could have no hope of illumination,
enlightenment, freedom, creativity, nirvana, or what-have-you. Instead
of just trying to cover up the shit with some cool academic sounding
erudition, we need to accept it and knead it into the ground of our
existence so that we can grow all the nice little things of brilliance
we wish to have. There is no escape from who we are. But there is much
more to who we are than any of us could ever think or imagine. We can
come to this realization only by accepting the fact that there is shit.
We have shit. And that all of our shit smells…and not like roses, my
friends. True toilet training for the mind does not involve just trying
to flush out the shit like some sort of New Age enema.

the bandit

I think if you define racism as the belief that non-whites are somehow
sub-human and inferior deserves a inflammatory title like racism....but
to somehow single out a population who only seeks to be homogeneous
amoung the likes of their own is not racism or anything upsetting.

No one is alarmed when a all black school is pointed out...but others
might single out a all white school as outragous.

I recall my daughter and her girlfriends singled out two other girls
their age because they were "weird." Since they were all white you
couldn't call this racism...but say they were hispanic or black, then
would this had elevated their behavior to racism?

I read in Scientific American once about how species of mammals were
found to "discriminate" against others that had different outter
colors.

Frankly I find nothing wrong with association based on ones own racial
lines no more then I find anything wrong with people associating with
different races or even interracial marriage.

I just think it just shows stupidity and ignorance when someone desires
to use race as a means to force compliance based upon their own biased
or politically motivated agenda of what is right for "all".

To say a company, school or community needs to do more to show
"diversity" is a ugly display of ignorance, stupidy and lack of
understanding of human evolution.

halcitron

BRAVO! A+