On ‘Racism’

The word ‘racism’ is thrown around a lot in America, circa 2013. This is a problem because the word has several different meanings in popular usage. In some cases it designates things I would consider normal and healthy. In other cases it designates things I dont care about one way or the other. And in yet other cases it designates things that are downright evil.

For example:

Here we have an article applying the term to a genocidal dictator with really dorky facial hair. From this we might conclude that a racist is someone who wants to kill other races of people.

However, this definition is clearly too narrow. Read, for instance, La Wik’s article on George Wallace.

Wallace, whose presidential ambitions would have been destroyed by a defeat for governor, has been said to have run “one of the nastiest campaigns in state history,” using racist rhetoric while proposing few new ideas.^[42]

Now Wallace, as far as I know, never killed or tried to kill black people. So we must expand our definition. Let’s try this:

A racist is a person who wishes to harm other races or separate the races by force.

So what if you dont want to separate the races by force, but simply personally prefer the company of your own race? That one’s a little greyer. Here’s a message board discussion on the subject. It seems to be about even-split.

How about sexual preferences? If you only want to date/marry/have sex with women of your own race, is that racist? As far as I can tell, the general opinion is no, but there are dissenters. And if history is any guide, ‘progress’ will push us in their direction rather than the other.

I assert, then, that the term ‘racist’ is worse than meaningless. Not only does it not designate anything approaching a single, universally-agreed concept, but it serves to lump together things that should be distinguished.

A social preference for one’s own race, for instance, is probably natural and healthy (though I’m not prepared to prove that at the moment), but there’s certainly nothing necessarily immoral or destructive about it. Genocide, on the other hand, is agreed by most (including myself) to be horribly evil.

By lumping the healthy (or at least nondestructive) in with the horribly evil, you create a dishonest, or at least sloppy, form of language. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. This is useful for the thought controllers, but not so useful to us. On the Authentic Right our goal is to conform our worldview to reality, not the other way around. We must unite linguistically what is united in fact, and divide linguistically what is divided in fact.

Therefore, ‘racism’ is not a term we should use. Nor is it a term we should permit others to use. Even when the person being called ‘racist’ is truly horrible, as he sometimes is, the use of the word, unchallenged, reinforces the Newspeak lexicon.

Who controls the language controls the thought. Take control of the lexicon; control the discourse.