What Do You Say When You’re Called a Racist?

FWIW, it seems to me that both yourself and the hysterical types you oppose are missing an important distinction…

So-called “racial egalitarianism” is an imprecise term. Under it there is lumped bits of both nonsense and truth. The matter of whether or not racial differences exist is a seperate matter from the concepts of equality of rights and equality before the law (the classic and positive understanding of equality that predates dysfunctional post-modern views of equality).

If you want to talk about racial differences then do so. You can defuse a lot of the backlash you’re talking about by stressing your belief in equal rights for all human beings. There may be some misunderstandings. It may be difficult. So what, though? Man up about it and just do it if it’s that important to you.

If you find that you can NOT stress the importance of equality of rights because you don’t really believe in that, then you’re finding yourself in the position of gradually realizing the insults may have a grain of truth in them. That might be best addressed by taking some time to sit down and rethink some things about yourself.

Dr. Jobling has pre-empted me on something I’ve given considerable thought to—I refer of course to the R-word.

He’s right about questioning the concept. I think words mean specific things—they have to, for communication even to occur—but “racism” seems to mean different things, from person to person and from day to day. So it really means nothing—it doesn’t even qualify as a “word”. There is no racism, although I know there’s plenty of “racism”, which is any white thought, speech, or activity which opposes victimization of whites for being white.

And so I refuse to acknowledge “racism” as a word, as a meaningful concept. I never use or write that combination of letters without the quotation marks, and I never will.

I’ve never been in the social situation of being called the R-word, face to face. But my intention is, if it does happen, to say—calmly—something like: “Hey, <name>, I don’t like name-calling, but if you call me that again, I’m going to call you some names right back.” If I’m insulted again, I intend to insult right back—again, calmly—probably with an 8-letter word that starts with “s” and ends with “head” (and I apologize for the implied vulgarity). I will then ask the opposing party if he or she really would like to talk civilly about the issue. By this time, of course, I’ll be ready to disengage entirely, if the opposing party can’t get a grip.

That’s the plan. I’ll post about it if it’s ever implemented.

I don’t like “racism is realism” precisely because of what you said earlier: racism invokes the image of a Klansman or a Nazi. What you are doing is admitting that you are a Nazi/Klansman by saying that this is how you see the world, that this is “realism” to you.

A better way would be to combine pall 3 of your points: “A racist is someone who won an argument against a liberal. Every time real life collides with the politically correct dogma, liberals use the ‘racism card’. If racism means Nazism and lynchings, I am opposed to it. But it is unfortunate that many choose to smear realism as racism. And if seeing the truth and refusing to subscribe to the politically correct liberal dogma is racist, then you can call me a racist. I’d rather be a racist than a mindless idiot.”

Frankly, I don’t give the ‘r’ word much thought. For one thing, I rarely say things that would provoke the insult. However, I’m pretty forthright about my views, which I am willing to share in the right context, and sometimes do. I am fortunate, I guess, to be in a position where my views, were they to be made public, would not harm my standing.

I think white people need to get over the fear and moral concerns about being accused of ‘racism.’ It’s just a silly word. It is a tool designed to intimidate and control white people. It does not affect me in the least. I wish whites would get over it already. I oppose ‘equality of rights,’ I advocate force, violence, and deportation of non-whites, and I believe in separation of the races. I believe white people and the West are superior. I want our people to prevail and prosper, at the complete expense of non-whites if need be.

And yet, I am 100% guilt-free about my views. I feel good about myself and my family, and I feel hopeful for the future. There’s no need to get introspective about it.

I suppose part of this is because I realise we are in a race war, albeit a low-intensity war (for now). In this kind of war—a war for our survival—everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden. There are no rules in this kind of war. We must not allow our enemies, therefore, who desire our displacement and physical elimination, to enjoy any tactical advantage over us.

Our enemies know that this is total war and they use every weapon against us, and yet whites still refuse to see that the gloves have come off. Whites are still cowed by a stupid word, a silly insult. Whites need to be de-pussified. I am hopeful about the future because I realise that once enough whites wake up, we will act and we will win.

Maybe that’s a naive hope.

However, having said all this, I do use the ‘racist’ accusation quite often against our opponents. I use it to refer to Obama, black militants, Hispanic separatists, and Asians, in both white and mixed company. I use it to insult and intimidate liberals, Marxists, and anti-white militants. Why do I do this? Because the word ‘racist’ is a very effective weapon on PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT SUCH THINGS, as I just explained above. The ‘r’ word does not affect me. But, I know it affects others in a big way and I see it as just another weapon to use against our opponents.

When challenged by liberals sophists about behaviour or sentiments they’ve defined as “racist”, it’s best to reply that “I’m speaking the truth” or “I”m acting on true premises”.

This shows you have not accepted the liberal definition of the situation, and that you expect a rational argument to justify the accusation of “racism”. At that point, if you know what you’re talking about, you get the upper hand.

You should always respond with the hardest facts relevant to your case or the most important, but possibly hardest to understand, theoretical point.

What you say when they call you racist is what people will remember. So you put in their heads the numbers that prove your case. Then stop and say no more.

If its immigration, men’s median wages are the same as in 1973 but productivity has doubled, graph page 16 p60-233.pdf. Women’s median wages are the same as men’s were in 1960.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

If its on crime and race, cite the BJS page at DOJ:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

“Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.”

More quotes on that page.

Or refer to genes and IQ from James Watson as well as his view that other factors like anger and hostility would be linked to genes if not already.

I usually respond with something like “Ok, show me an error in what I’ve said.”

Like most posters here, I know more than enough about actual data to address any leftist moron’s talking points (they really are like media talking heads, all reading from the same teleprompter). And like Oops, I simply refuse to grant “racism” any legitimacy as an idea or an epithet.

I’ve tried before to deny the accusation by saying that I reject hatred, cruelty, and oppression, that all humans are in the same species and deserve basic respect and rights such as the right to life. I sometimes go further and discuss religion, saying that I believe God gave all of us a soul and died for each individual person. Maybe it does get a few people to calm down a bit, but mostly saying such things helps you with other listeners who might be on the fence or tempted to shy away. The accuser rarely listens.

I have two other suggested approaches.

One, equate race with sex, and accusations of “racism” with those of “sexism”. In my opinion, accusations of “sexism” are far less powerful, and usually come with a connotation of shrill bitter feminists who are less likeable and credible than those they denounce, and who are in denial about reality.

I like to talk about how feminists in the 70s insisted that men and women were absolutely identical except for reproductive and urinary systems. About how they said there are no innate differences; all differences are constructed, environmental, social, cultural, learned; and how they gave their boys dolls and girls trucks, and found to their consternation that, even when soaked in a lifelong completely “non-sexist” environment the boys were making their dolls fight and the girls were cuddling and loving their trucks.

Most people accept that there are important behavioral and psychological differences between men and women. I think an accused “racist” should emphasize that this was enormously controversial in the 70s, and still is in ultra-PC places like Harvard (Larry Summers).

Over and over, the parallels can be drawn. Nobody thinks it’s “sexist”, anti-male, and oppressive that men are massively disproportionately represented in jail compared to our numbers in the population. So why is it that blacks are? People know that men are more aggressive and violent, and accept being told about men having more testoterone and etc.

My other suggested approach is to de-legitimize the word as a vague insult. The classic AR article at http://tinyurl.com/47yenf by Dr. Sam Francis will help arm you on this. I think the basic approach should be that “that word was invented in the 30s by a left-wing writer who meant it to be an insult.” It was meant to have connotations of evil, oppression, and such. Unlike fascist, Communist, Nazi, and other labels, which people used to embrace, and which earned their reputations, no one ever voluntarily called himself a racist, and the term had a bad name because it was designed to.

But what does it mean? Perhaps it might help to say that the longer anyone is in public life, the more likely it is that he’ll be called a racist. People on the opposite sides of the same issue, like affirmative action, call each other racist all the time. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get called racist by Sean Hannity. Bill Clinton got called a racist by Randall Robinson (black American, founder of TransAfrica, advocate of Haitians and others).

In other words, if it’s hopelessly vague and can be applied to left-wing blacks, center-left whites, and so on, it’s meaningless, and like calling someone a poopy-pants.

“r-word”: reason, ridicule, or revaluation.

Add retaliate. Remember the blog entries last couple months about “leukophobe” and “diversity authoritarian”? That is of what you accuse them. Alternatively, call them a “facists against freedom of thought”. Apply their own favorite terms such as “racist” and “facist” against them becasse “you are exactly what you accuse me”. Throw it right back at them.

In effect, retaliation is fighting fire with the same vitriolic fire. It uses the same non-rational name calling tactic the opposition uses because it is really is the only thing they understand. Don’t use “you are DOING exactly what you accuse” because an attack on their outward behaviour is not ad hominem. That is how liberals operate so that is what you must do to get through to them.

Realist are intrinsically rational people but you have to realize the inner workings of the opposition. You have to talk their language.

This is why the methods described will not work in isolation. 1. Reason and objectivity doesn’t work on liberals. They are ruled by the heart, not by the head. That’s why they are liberals. You can’t REASON with a liberal. 2. Ridicule of the type described is not sufficiently persuasive like retaliation. The example given makes it almost sound diplomatic. But liberals are unfazed by anything short of denunciation and the same sort of hysteria thrown right back at them. 2. Revaluation is a long term solution requiring a universal solidarity which is missing right now. It is the eventual goal.

On the other hand, a synergistic push by precisely combining them will have greater impact. I would favor a consecutive order like this if accused of being a racist today: 1. Ridicule with a diplomatic insult: “You know what the definition of ‘racist’ is? Anyone who’s winning an argument against a liberal!” 2. Retaliate to get them on the defensive: “On the other hand, you are a thought police facist for restricting my freedom.” 3. Reason with something for which they would find difficult convincing counter argument after the former 2 steps stuns them momentarily: “Afterall, isn’t it reasonable that if Muslims can hold violent anti-West protests without condemnation or Black church leaders can preach hatred, one has the right to challenge such wrongs against me?”

Accuser: You’re a racist!

Responder: I know You are, but what am I?

Childish? Maybe. But the insult is returned. Quickly. And anyway, it’s true.

This is a seemingly silly semantic issue but actually with tremendous importance. If asked, or “accused” of being a racist I would suggest anyone totally deny it. You could sound erudite and say something like, “Yes, if by racist you mean,….” Forget it. You’re already Simon Legree and like to chase little Black ladies into the back of the bus. It doesn’t matter one iota what you mean by the term to this person who probably hates you.

If the person seems somewhat civil and open-minded, I might say “No, but I am a race realist”. This may, or may not elicit an enlightening discussion. Point out that most liberals don’t even believe that race is real. This will often discredit such anti-racists instantly. Point out how these antiracists hate racists, but race doesn’t even exist to them?

A second strategy is for the not so civil. In this case pump up the volume a bit and pretend that you’ve been called an “evil, wicked devil”. Why? Because that’s what happened! You’ve been slandered and verbally abused. In that case, an apology to you is in order, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

One more point I’d like to add. If I’m correct, I’d like to agree with Michael Levin that a place for the term “racist” does exist. This would be reserved for someone who believes in oppressing someone else of another race.

“The dictionary definition of “racist” is simply someone who believes that his race is superior to others.”

I am white and I beleive the white-race is superior to all others. I am a racist! If I didn’t beleive white people are superior, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to preserve it.

If someone calls me a “racist” out of anger, I simply thank them then move on.

Smear words like “racist” “homophobe”, “bigot” and suchlike, are used either to close down discussion and silence criticism, or to classify people as social outcasts. They are part of the sanctimonious idiom of those who would decide how and what we think. It’s a mental trap to allow these words to have meaning.

I take pride in the term. I call myself a racist.

I’m not sure who coined the phrase but the response I use the most is, “Calling someone a racist is mindless name-calling and name-calling is the last recourse for an exhausted mind”. It works well on most left leaning Whites since it is a direct challenge to their intellect. When lefties drop the “R” bomb they fully expect their target to back peddle in disgust with attempts to defend their “honor”. Never do this. Ever. Once you start apologizing for your opinion you’ve lost all credibility.

I think it’s important to remember what we are trying to do. I’m not “attacking” the person I’m debating with as much as I’m trying to convince them to consider an alternative viewpoint. In most cases, that is the best you can hope for. Getting an adult who has been bombarded with politically correct, race denying, rhetoric their entire life to just consider a race realist perspective is no easy task. However, each of us has the obligation to do just that if we have any hope of creating a viable movement that serves the interest of our people. It’s something I strive to do in some small way each day.

Now normally I do not get into this type of discussion with other whites — I’ve felt more refreshed, productive even, after talking to my dog; certainly never set upon as I do when I loosen my tongue for the negrophilic rabble. If, however, with as wide a berth as I give my true sentiments in even the most topical discussion, they should yet detect the note of skepsis, and I am called a racist, I close up shop and merely reply: “As you like.” For beyond this nothing is possible, and in fact the curtain hath already lowered on whatever bonhomie you and your partner had enjoyed prior to the introduction of your heresy. The mood is altered; your company is colder, less animated. One sees this most clearly with young women.

I notice people using “liberal” as a smear word. That’s the wrong tactic, imo. Use “communist” instead. “Gramscian communist” or “Frankfut School Communist” also work well. “Communist” is less ambiguous and has more impact. “Liberal” is not much of an insult, really.

Per poster Irish, above, about the R-word:

“In other words, if it’s hopelessly vague and can be applied to left-wing blacks, center-left whites, and so on, it’s meaningless, and like calling someone a poopy-pants.”

Exactly!—I actually thought of the word “poopy-head” as I considered this—great minds thinking alike?

—the point being that the “R-word” is on precisely the same intellectual plane as “poopy-pants”—that of a, oh, third-grader—and deserves the appropriate amount of respect. If it’s actually coming from a third-grader, I would tell the kid I don’t want to hear that, and then, politely but firmly, confront his parents with the expectation that the brat apologize, personally, to me.

But this thread is clearly about about being slurred by adults—people you or I can reasonably expect to know better. An “adult” slurring me—especially in front of others, at a third-grade level—has earned an “adult” response: contempt. Thus the word I hinted at above.

The shock will do them some good, because it is much-deserved. And they may even learn something. It’s a win-win.

If anyone calls me a racist, I respond with “And your point is?” And, I do believe my race is superior! Now, if I am walking down a street in Northeast DC or Detroit (of course I never visit those places) and someone calls me racist, I’m hottailing it out of there as if a rocket was strapped to my ass. I guess it all depends on the situation.

The problem with embracing the word “racist” is that it was intended to have connotations beyond its denotation.

The denotation may be equivalent to “racial realist’ or “pro-white”, but its connotation, as Dr. Jobling pointed out, is of evil, bullying, oppression, malice, cruelty, injustice, ignorance, murder, and mass-murder.

Proudly associating yourself with all of that is not very bright, any more than blacks associating themselves with the slurs attached to them.

“I notice people using “liberal” as a smear word. That’s the wrong tactic, imo. Use “communist” instead. “Gramscian communist” or “Frankfut School Communist” also work well. “Communist” is less ambiguous and has more impact. “Liberal” is not much of an insult, really.”

How many people have even heard of Gramsci, or the Frankfort School? Answer: very very few.

I know Dr.Jobling runs a clean site here but calling someone a “Gramscian communist” will only get a blank look or laughing response.

Depending on the situation … be blunt. Call WHITE-liberals what they acually are: Fake-phony-fraud-two faced-pinko-lowlife-hypocrites.

If you are confronted by an angry irrational black(s), refer to MissScarlett’s post on 4/7/08 at 9:48 pm

P.S.

Before someone corrects me, I know the term ‘black’ combined with ‘irrational’ is redundant.

I usually point out that racism was a concept invented by Leon Trotsky, a communist mass murderer, to demonise certain issues.

“I usually point out that racism was a concept invented by Leon Trotsky, a communist mass murderer, to demonise certain issues.” — Tribalist

Actually, the term “racism” was invented and introduced by Magnus Hirshfeld in 1933.

http://www.amren.com/ar/1999/05/index.html

Trotsky used the word “racisme” in French in 1922.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mipwwi/is200208/ai_mark08045312

Even though I am a White nationalist, I would never say that my race is superior to any other. Also I am an evolutionist, and I view any subspecies, or race in regard to it’s adaptation to the environment. This is relatively value free and neutral observation.

One could argue whether one race is more adapted to say, urban American life, or the Kalahari Desert, but injection of talk about “superiority” is only value laden opinion. Probably the Hottentot is more adapted to the desert, but does that suddenly make his a superior race? To say one race is better or worse is to enter into the world of values and only an all-knowing God might know the answer to that one. Furthermore, you’ve declared yourself a racial supremacist above all else.

@ factualist:

Are you saying there is no way in which the civilization of the United States in the 21st century can be compared with the way of life of the Kalahari bushmen or the Hottentots?

Thousands of years ago we also were still at the hunter-gatherer stage of human existence, but we’re not now. How can we compare what we once were with what we have become, unless we use words like “superior” and “inferior”? Isn’t the existence we enjoy now superior to our survival in a primitive epoch in which human life was nasty, brutish, and short?

You say that “superior” is a value laden term. But consider the differences between the races in intellectual achievements - art, philosophy, science, technology and all the rest of it - isn’t there an obvious sense in which the achievements of white people can be described as “superior” to the efforts of blacks?

What is wrong with being a racial supremacist? There is nothing immoral and unethical about placing one’s own family and tribe above those of others. Of course whites are superior to other races.

Just because people from Africa or Europe or Asia are different, that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that one of the races, or subspecies is superior to the others. And my contention has to do with race, not culture. If you want to arbitrarily and subjectively establish criteria for a superior culture according to your values and rankings of traits ascribable to one, that’s all it is.

Maybe your ranking might subjectively establish a culture displaying your idea of a “cultural supremacy”, but this is not to be confounded with “racial supremacy” which is about biology and not culture. Perhaps some self-proclaimed racial supremacists are actually more ethnocentrist which includes the component of culture?

It’s totally consistent to be ethnocentric and at the same time not certain that your biological race is “superior”. You can be White nationalist and so strongly prefer to associate with your own race whether or not it really is superior.

This simply continues the debate at another remove. For we can ask: Is the culture that let’s say white people in the Western world have created, superior to any created by blacks?

By “culture”, I mean customs, arts, social institutions, and intellectual achievements.

I have already given my answer that I believe the achievements of white people are superior to the efforts of blacks. Contrast and compare, if you will.

Given that the human races began at the same starting post, how do you know those superior achievements are not associated with racial differences? If they’re not, and you do not deny them completely, then how do you explain them?

Indeed, let us compare and contrast. The empirical data and record of achievements do not lie. Of course white people are superior. I can’t believe we even have to assert this, the obvious, on a website such as IW.

“What is wrong with being a racial supremacist? There is nothing immoral and unethical about placing one’s own family and tribe above those of others. Of course whites are superior to other races.”

For most people “white supremacism” means wanting to rule over others, and possibly wanting to oppress, enslave or destroy them. You can say you don’t mean that, but then “ethnocentrism” is a better term for what you advocate. There’s no point in acting as if words don’t have the connotations they do, and this term doesn’t simply mean caring more about your own “family and tribe” than others.

On the other hand, if you actually do want to rule over others (because you think your race is superior) there might well be something wrong with that. It depends on what kind of rule you want to impose on those others, I guess. But even if it’s a very benevolent form of paternalism, I can sympathize with non-whites who would find that very unjust and horrible. If you became convinced that Jews are superior to (gentile) Euros, would you then accept that they have the right to rule over Euros? I certainly wouldn’t. Generally, people don’t like to be ruled by aliens, even if the aliens can do a lot of good for them. Whether that makes sense or not is beside the point; it seems to be a deep fact about human beings. So why not let the other races go their own way? As long as we’re allowed to do our own thing, and not forced to accept them in large numbers in our societies, we get everything we want without making anyone else unhappy.

In any case, I don’t see much basis for these claims of general superiority over other races. Are whites supposed to be superior in every important way to every other race. That’s pretty dubious, to say the least. The Japanese are impressive in many ways, and so is Hindu philosophy and religion. If we look carefully at other races, there’s often a lot to admire. Also, whites are the ones who invented the suicidal world view of liberalism and multiculturalism. That’s a big minus for whites. None of those other races are sitting around celebrating their own demise. But what does it matter? WN shouldn’t be based on supremacy, which just might turn out to be false in the long run. It’s enough that whites are different, that we’re the only ones who can sustain the distinctively European cultures that we like, and that we have a right to be left alone. If only we can muster the political will to assert that right, which is not certain.

An identity between race and culture does not exist. Race does not equal culture. Certainly anyone can place a value on a culture, but to slip values into value-free biology, or any other science for that matter is not science. To argue that a culture is superior is one issue, and a superior race another. Values and preferences regarding a culture are like a matter of taste, but not exactly.

If someone wants to call a race superior, that’s their business, but it’s not science. Values are human constructions, not that of an omniscient god. I don’t believe the success of White nationalism requires any pseudo-science to label particular genes “superior”. Science describes what “is” and not what “ought” to be.

Of course I want to control, if not oppress and destroy, other races, in so far as they continue to wage war on whites and inhabit our territory. And what is wrong with that? There is nothing immoral or unethical about wanting to eliminate the enemy tribe. Yes, there are some things to admire about other races. But it does not imply that whites are not superior. No one is asserting that whites are superior in ‘every way’; I would simply say, we are superior in MOST ways, as the historical record would indicate. Culture is largely a function of race. Arguing that whites are just different, and therefore because of this difference whites have a ‘right’ to our own territory where we can ‘be left alone’ (like an isolated Amazonian tribe), implies another form of relativism, and an acceptance of and surrender to the Multi-Cult. It is naive in the extreme. And look where that got us. Enough of this soft ‘you’re all right, I’m all right’ thinking. We need to start thinking like our Greek and Roman ancestors.

I don’t think anyone here has confused the distinction between culture and race. The question which has been asked is, to what can we attribute the fact that cultures created by white people are superior to any created by blacks in the respects which have been referred to. I don’t agree that the answer to this question is merely a value judgment. And we don’t need the authority of an omniscient god to validate explanations of racial differences.

William of OC says that culture is largely a function of race, and I agree with him.

Nobody in this discussion has advocated the domination and exploitation (by whites) of other races on grounds of cultural superiority or for any other reason.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that non-whites are “waging war” on us. Maybe a small number of them are doing that (e.g., Jamaican criminals) but most of the ones where I am seem to be doing things like running grocery stores. Yes, I know they’re driving down wages and straining the infrastructure, but I wouldn’t call it a war. These people are here only because white elites and Jews brought them. If there’s anyone who’s waging war on you it’s those people, not the non-whites.

On the other hand, it does seem fair to say that American blacks are waging war on whites. But by your reasoning, they have every right to do so. Surely they have as great a claim to the territory as whites, having been there longer than many white groups (and brought against their will). So they’re just trying to “eliminate the enemy tribe” on their territory, i.e., whites. Is that okay with you? Or do you want to assert some moral objection when the shoe’s on the other foot?

As for the glories of “our Greek and Roman ancestors”, I’m somewhat ambivalent. Most of my ancestors (I think) belonged to European tribes enslaved and murdered by the Romans. So I think it’s too bad the Romans didn’t have the “relativist” view that even people less advanced than themselves deserve moral consideration. Incidentally, considering the interests of others, including non-whites, is not “relativism” or “multiculturalism”. It’s called moral reasoning, and it was not foreign to the Greek philosophers. Your own view, which seems to reduce the good to what is good for your “tribe”, is real relativism, and probably closer to the way that primitives in the Amazon think.

This post has proven very popular. In the week since I posted it, I’ve had a few more thoughts about this question.

In the first place, I agree with Guy White and others that “Racism is realism!” probably isn’t a good response, as it doesn’t challenge the original connotations of the term racism. A much better response is “I’m not a racist. I’m a realist!” After that, you have to recognize and defuse the slander implicit in term by saying something like, “I don’t believe in burning crosses, lynching, and certainly not in building concentration camps, but I do believe there are biological differences among the races that cause them to create different types of culture… etc.”

There’s perhaps an even better response that didn’t occur to me when I wrote the post: asking your interlocutor to define what “racist” means. That makes him do the work, rather than yourself, of pinning down the meaning of this nebulous term. If he says a racist who believes in innate racial differences, you say, “Well, that’s true, there are [insert evidence]. You clearly meant to insult when you called me a racist, BUT NOW YOU JUST LOOK KIND OF DUMB, DON’T YOU?!!” If he says a racist is someone who believes his race is superior, answer as you please.

I don’t think claiming racial superiority is a very good idea. I don’t think it accomplishes anything, and it’s a tricky claim to defend because “superiority” has no clear definition. What is the criterion of superiority? The ability to create liberal democracies? To gain power over others? To attract the opposite sex? To be authentic? To “do the right thing”? Claiming whites are superior gets you into a debate about values rather than facts, and we realists had best stick as closely to facts as closely possible, because people have a right to their own values, but not to their own facts.

My approach is to say that I prefer to live in a Western society and that only whites can create that type of society. Those claims, God knows, are difficult enough to defend, but they are at least questions about which a factual discussion is possible. Proving Western society is in some way objectively superior to others gets you into vertiginous regions of ethical metaphysics.

Why should I be afraid of a word invented in the 1920’s by communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky. This word was unheard of except in the communist, and the socialist press, such as the daily world that was available from almost every news stand. This word was unheard of until the 1964 election when Martin Luther King called Barry Goldwater a racist, and was picked up by the mass media, and incorporated in daily language ever since. The purpose is to shut the opposition up, and causes well meaning people from opposing forced integration, and avoid the subject. The true purpose is to give a free hand to revolutionaries to tear down the social fabric of society and prepare for a military, and a police state, in which there is no freedom, no constitutional protections, and that people are treated if they are cattle.

When someone challenges my intransigent, racialist viewpoint and calls me a racist, I respond: “So, what is your point?”

Liberals and other brain-dead anthropoids seem to “lock up” when I respond to their hackneyed canard in such a fashion.

After some of them “reset”, so to speak, they ask me in a condescending manner, “Don’t you know that racism is bad?”

I respond: “According to whom?”

Silence often follows, and I continue: “Please define “bad”, using empirical terms.”

Their jaws drop, and I respond: “In my subjective opinion, what assists in furthering the interests of the white race is “good”, and what does not contribute to the furthering of white racial interests is “bad”.

An occasional cretin will change tack, and counter with such pitiful absurdities as: “Racism is a sin in the eyes of God”, to which I retort, “I am an atheist, religion means nothing to me.”

Usually, that candid response terminates the conversation.

whatdoyoudowhenyourecalledaracist

I say “What are you saying about racist people?”

When called a racist, do what Lawrence Auster does:

“Racism means something morally bad. If you’re accusing me of racism, you have to show that what I did is morally bad. If you can’t do that, then what I did is not racist.”

(http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010745.html)

He makes another excellent point:

“By simply saying, ‘racism is a false word, it means nothing,’ the speaker is implicitly saying that there cannot be any morally wrong behaviors directed at a group because of its race. Which implies that he will justify any bad behavior done to people of a different race, because he has rejected, in principle, the idea that behavior toward people of another race can be morally wrong.”

How about this …

“That’s your definition of a racist - not mine!”

or

“Don’t label me!”

Of course it all depends upon the context of the situation.

I’ve been called ‘racist’ a few times, and more often have gotten “That’s a racist thing to say!” My usual response to that is, “It’s not racist; it’s factual.” In response to “You’re a racist!” I usually reply: “Of course I am. That’s because I’m not suicidal.” The usual response is, “What do you mean by that?” or something along those lines. I often get to explain my position, because of the non sequitur which places doubt on the mental stability of anyone who isn’t a racist. I also employ the ridicule tactic, usually making reference to my opponent’s brainwashi…I mean, education.

It depends on what you mean by “racist.”

If you mean someone who recognizes that races differ in their average physical and mental characteristics, then I’m a racist.

If you mean someone who hates other people on the basis of race and wants to harm them, then I’m not a racist.

Recognizing the limitations of a race does not imply hostility toward its members. Instead, it’s a necessary condition for treating those people in a compassionate and supportive way.

Such treatment is absent from our society precisely because it refuses to acknowledge the stark racial differences that exist.

Pretending that most African-Americans can be competent quantum physicists is just as misguided as pretending that most white quantum physicists can last 10 rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson. Such fairy tales do no one any good.

Here’s the best answer to the racism smear I’ve thought of yet:

“Why is it hatred for me to prefer my own people and my own culture? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that preference was motivated by love?”

The really damaging part of the racism smear is the implication that you are motivated by irrational racial hatred. The answer I’ve come up with drills down immediately to that accusation and refutes it. These thirty words are about as succinct a refutation of America’s racial insanity as I can imagine.

“Why is it hatred for me to prefer my own people and my own culture? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that preference was motivated by love?”

Great response! However I prefer the word “connection” rather than “prefer”. Why is it hatred for me to have a connection or common bond with my people and culture. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that connection was motivated by love?

The word “prefer”, I think, suggests to some folks superiority and every thing that is associated with it.