No political issue garners more attention and more controversy than race, and no political insult has been more dangerous and ubiquitous than "racist." This despite the fact the term has become increasingly vague with multiple possible definitions and interpretations.
I will here offer five possible definitions for racism, analyzing the meaning and implications of each. The fifth is perhaps a controversial but compelling "red-pill" definition that may change the way you think about the term in common use.
This seems to be the most common, implicit definition being used when someone calls a person racist. The implication is that you have hatred, or prejudice, or disdain for some other race, perhaps that you even wish ill of them. This is also the implicit definition most often being used when people deny being racist. I don't and have never considered myself racist, because I don't hate or wish to harm any other race of people.
The images the mind conjures up when thinking about racism are usually forms of historical hatred or violence, such as lynchings by the KKK. Of course, hatred of this sort is diminishingly rare today, and yet the use of the term "racism" is expanding. There is power in this emotional association of racism with violent hatred, and people want to use that power whenever possible. They seek to attach that emotional association to much weaker examples of prejudice, such as "microaggressions," while still retaining the full power and force of the term. This has been fairly effective in the short-term, but of course this sort of inflation is slowly diluting the power of the label over time.
Some have asserted that it is racist to believe there are biological differences between races, or that race is a valid biological category at all (racialism). Wikipedia claims that "most dictionaries define the term racialism as synonymous with racism." And the site Oxford Dictionaries Online literally defines racialism to be "another term for racism."
The problem with this definition is that whether or not significant differences exist between races is a purely empirical question, something that can either be supported or rejected through scientific inquiry. Racialism is either true or not true, and belief or opinion doesn't enter into the equation.
This contradicts the popular usage of the term "racist" as a pejorative, as a kind of ignorance of character flaw. Believing in a scientifically verified reality cannot render one morally reprehensible except in an Orwellian world.
Some may argue that science has rejected the concept of race, and thus to continue to assert it makes one a racist. But it is simply not true that science has rejected the concept of race. In fact, there is continually growing evidence for the efficacy of human races, despite the PR statements made by groups like the American Anthropological Association. (Note that anthropology doesn't study genetics, a field of biology).
Is it racist to prefer ones own people and culture?
It is important to first note that ethnocentrism is evolved behavior. It is not only human nature, but is common throughout the animal kingdom, and in primates especially.
We evolved to live in tribes, and to avoid or oppose any outside tribes. Apes hold a territory and police its boundaries, attacking or even killing those who trespass. This is all to ensure the survival of a group based on kinship.
If ethnocentrism is racism, then racism is evolved behavior, designed to protect the tribe from violence, exploitation, and disease.
It is modern universalism that is the major historical outlier. Multiculturalism is a radical, experimental departure from thousands of years of biological precedent.
While ethnocentrism could be a valid definition for racism, the term would necessarily have to lose most of its pejorative implications as a consequence.
This is a very new definition for racism. It is the "flavor of the month" semantic argument being pushed by the Cultural Marxists in American universities. It differs so heavily from the other definitions discussed that it is basically unrecognizable.
While racism has always been seen as a psychological trait, a way of viewing people in the world, this odd new definition for racist is neither an attitude nor a choice. It is something you are born into, something you cannot escape, like a class in a caste system.
The purposes of pushing this definition are threefold:
1. To deny whites the ability to claim racial discrimination, thus justifying or condoning racism or discrimination against whites
2. To instill in whites collectively a fundamental and unavoidable sense of guilt (Original Sin)
3. To assert that racism is institutionalized and thus to demand social justice action
This is more of an ideological argument than a legitimate or historically consistent definition for the term. Nevertheless, it is important to know as it is becoming inceasingly popular among the college educated in particular.
"Donald Trump hates black people!"
It struck me as a rather odd assertion. I'd followed the Trump campaign closely and couldn't think of a single instance of Trump disparaging blacks.
After questioning this person and digging deeper into their beliefs, the reality of what was going on became apparent... Trump simply represented whites in this man's mind. It wasn't that Donald Trump hated black people, it was that this black person hated white people, and calling them racist was his way of expressing that hatred.
This was a major red-pill moment for me, as I saw more and more examples of this everywhere. I began to recognize that calling someone racist was more often an expression of hatred than a response to hatred, and the often bizarre or random use of the term started to make much more sense when seen in this light.
"Racist" was simply a socially acceptable anti-white slur, a way of safely disparaging whites as morally inferior to other races. In addition, "racist" was a pejorative designed to deny whites the same collective identity and interests that were openly celebrated by all other groups. Blacks could advocate for their collective interests, hispanics could advocate for their collective interests, but whites could not... To even acknowledge that whites had collective interests, to even acknowledge that "white" was a legitimate identity in the first place, was "racism."
And, as explained in the definition above, the use of the term is designed to instill in whites a collective sense of guilt. "Privilege" is a secular version of Original Sin, and serves to control in a similar manner.
Whites are not allowed to be collectivists, only deracinated individualists or civic nationalists, and this status quo is maintained primarily through fear of the label "racist."
Coerced ethnic self-denialism.
Date of publication: May 20, 2017