What is racism ? Unpacking the term

RedPillStormer

♫♪♬ I bless the rains down in Africa ♫♪♬
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Recently, there has been a discussion about racism in America. What became clear is that the word "racism" is a very vague one, because it includes everything ranging from making un-PC jokes (even without believing them) to calls for genocide along racial lines. Given that I believe it is important to unpack the term

The 8 definitions of racism

I believe there are 8 classical definitions to the term "racism" as it is used. Each with increasing degree of taboo

1) making un-PC jokes
2) noticing differences between groups that are benign in nature (some are taller, some have different hair)
3) noticing differences between groups that have a profound impact on society and life consequences
4) having a personal preference for one group, including one's own
5) having a dislike or a desire to distant from certain groups
6) impolite behavior towards certain racial groups
7) building race based policies
8) violence against certain racial groups

I will hence refer to the lower numbers on the list as "lower forms" of racism and the higher numbers as "higher forms".

When most people criticize "racism" they rarely give a specific definition for the term. It is convenient for radical racial egalitarians and leftist political hacks as it allows to attack people for making un-PC jokes or noticing differences by associating them with the more extreme versions of the term. The classic Motte and Bailey tactic.

The same thing has been done with the word "rape" by feminists. Feminists redefined the term rape while doing college surveys to include "unwanted interactions" while not making efforts to inform about the new definition, thus resulting in the claim that "1 in 4 college women are raped" which is more than African war-torn countries. This game of motley and bailey, of using terms with multiple meanings to entrap others.

Thus the modern "racism" witchhunt is built on the idea of not distinguishing between making un-PC jokes and doing racial violence by using an all-encompassing term.

However, even when proportionality is accounted for, at least to some degree, the modern leftist paradigm claims that lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. To unpack that we need to look deeper into the modern school of thought on the issue

The "pyramid of oppression" narrative

You have probably seen some of these graphs floating online



The logic is that lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. That making un-PC jokes will over time lead to lynchings. Where did this belief start ?

Well, the oppression narrative goes back in time with claims of oppression, largely overwhelmingly thrown at Europeans, with the highlights being the crusades, slavery and most importantly the Holocaust.

The reason the focus is on Europeans, is that largely the goal of leftism is to deal with "racism" in historically majority-White countries and thus, the acts of muslims or Asians is of lesser relevance. Although, similar narratives are used by Palestinians in Israel, Muslims in Asia and so on. We are simply more accustomed to the Western version, which is the most well developed one, of which the other localized narratives are a copy of.

The major feature here is the belief that historically, lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. According to the narrative, Julius Streicher's "Der Sturmer" comics making fun of Jews eventually led to Jews being genocided.

The historically accuracy of this claim would matter for the discussion. People who disagree with the narrative point to places that were Nationalist and allowed some forms of discrimination without them ending in genocide. But the issue is that the people following the oppression narrative are oftentimes emotionally invested to the point of not wanting to consider that possibility.

Similarly, to the majority of people following the oppression narrative, the idea that lower forms of racism, such as belief in group differences could be scientifically justified is dismissed out of hand immediately. HBD and IQ studies are considered apriori wrong if they point to confirming such beliefs (at least if they show Europeans in a better light than other groups). Sometimes the people promoting the oppression narrative will claim that scientific consensus is saying that biological racial differences are not real (at least ones of significance in terms of societal impact, as opposed to hair texture) generally because they also claim to be believers in SCIENCE!™, some will even go as far as to cite a few studies that might go against the grain of consensus. But should a person like Alternative Hypothesis make a video arguing skillfully for the scientific validity of human divergent evolution, typically such people will usually claim that he is wrong because he is morally wrong or simply claim that science doesn't agree with him, or claim that he is stupid, etc.


Thus, to the promoters of the oppression narrative, the truthfulness of racist thoughts is not particularly relevant. Generally they will either say "it doesn't matter, it's wrong because it is morally wrong (not factually)" or claim that "the science is on my side" without significant attempts to argue that usually.

More convoluted forms of "racism". The newest additions

While the 8 definitions of racism used to be generally intuitively understood, new progressive narratives have emerged with even more extreme claims than before. Take for example the aforementioned oppression pyramid.



According to this new definition, even things like indifference are forms of racism. In the past, if a person was indifferent to racial issues, the narrative makers would claim that the person was immoral for not caring, but now they are going in so far as to claim that the person is racist themselves.

The general theme of this new narrative is that even small deviations from the narrative of the radical left is a form of racism !

For example, according to this new definition, not caring is a form racism. Saying racism is a smaller problem than the left claims is racism. Having paternalizing attitudes towards non-Whites or "tokenism" is racism. That anti-immigration policies are a form of racism. That policies like "local school funding" is a form of racism.

The reason this is extreme is because when a person says "I don't think racism is as big of an issue as you claim". Like say a person says "there are thousands of unarmed blacks killed every year by the police !" and someone replies "it was actually only 10 unarmed blacks in 2019 killed by the police", under the new definition that would be "minimization" and thus racism. The person replying is not even saying that racism is good or that it isn't real. However, by not being extreme enough in his belief about the extent of racialized police violence he is racist. Moreover, even believing in a different form of immigration policy or school funding model, even if for non-racial reasons, like say being libertarian, that would still be considered a form of racism due to "Prioritizing intentions over Impact". Not only that, even behaviors that most people might not even classify as racism under the old definitions can be considered "veiled racism". For example saying "I don't like rap" can be considered a "veiled racism".

De facto, the new definition of racism becomes "not being a complete believer in every single policy or narrative of the radical left, even if for non-racial reasons, or disagreeing about the size of the problem". Thus, in practice, any disagreement with any single claim of the radical left, indifference or skepticism over the extent of the issue is now racism. This means that racism now means "not a radical feminist BLM marxist".

Racism as Whiteness

I wanted to point out that recently the theory of racism has moved by many leftists into the territory of privilege + power and just "innate Whiteness".

By that definition everyone who has "White privilege" (AKA every White person) is racist, because Whites benefit from some "systemic advantage" pointed out by the fact that they have better outcomes (and since according to the left all humans are equal, it must be because of system unfairness)/

In that sense, "racist" is just a term against all White people.

Racism has become nothing more than a political tool for the radical left

We can see that in order to not be considered racist, one needs to comply with every single narrative of the radical left. This is very convenient for them.

Of course, if this was sold to people as that, as a compliance test with radical leftism, most people would probably be a lot less enthusiastic. Thus the game of the left has been to claim that it is an abstract moral question, it just so happens that the answer is convenient for them. But of course, even people who are skeptical due to this are considered racist.

The best way to describe the new left's version of "racism" is to compare it to a caricaturized Middle Ages inquisition, where not only foreign religious groups, but even people who are regular Christians are still burned at the stake for not agreeing with every last papal decree or questioning the integrity of the clergy or having any single disagreement with their policy.

Moreover, the left builds policies that help blacks (affirmative action) which is racism based on some definitions. But it doesn't matter, because racism is just a tool used against people using the same tactics to help themselves rather than the leftists doing this (of course the left has justifications for this, usually being the true victim™)

The bug is the feature

During the Gamergate era, there was a particular trope that was popular, exemplifying the impossibility of pleasing an inter-sectional feminist

"If one portrays women as physically strong in video games, that is form of bigotry, as it claims that women can only have value by adopting stereotypical male qualities
If one portrays women as being feminine, that is a form of bigotry, as it forces women into artificially socially constructed gender roles
If one portrays a gay character as fruity, that is a form of bigotry, as it forces traditional fake tropes about homosexuals
If one portrays a gay character as being the opposite of fruity, that is a form of bigotry, as it makes the claim that homosexuals can only be included if they "stay in the closet" by hiding their homosexual character
If a homosexual, gay or female character is included, but there are few of them, that is a form of bigotry, as that is tokenism
If all of the characters are gay, female, homosexual, minority that could still be a form of cheap pandering
And if all of those fail, complain about not including transgender feminist turtle otherkin
And if those are included, complain about the game not being vocal enough to advance the progressive agenda
If that fails, complain about the game not hiring enough female, gay, trans, etc. game developers
If that fails. complain about the company not doing enough to enforce inclusive policies about microaggression
If that fails, complain about the game company not donating enough to feminist charities and not attacking gamers as racist"

The point was, it was clear that in the game of anti-opression, there is really no way to win. Especially as a straight White male. What some realized only later was that it wasn't just simple stupidity, it was by design. It was essentially a lose-win situation for you and the radical left, and that the only winning move was to not play. To counter-act that, the SJWs tried to anything to make it harder to "not play". From doing review bombing, to calling for journals to do bad reviews, to calling for bans on games and so on.

The end point of "anti-opression" is that you are always racist and not "woke enough" and must do even more than before to please the particular person claiming opression. It always escalates. For example, in the early 2000s the left was calling for the people to stop using the word "faggot". In the late 2000s the left was calling for gay marriage. In the early 2010s it was calling for gay adoption. In the mid 2010s it was calling for trans inclussion. And by the late 2010s it was claiming that "not wanting to date trans people makes you a transphobe". Or not wanting to date a certain type of person was racist. AKA suck my dick or you're a racist / transphobe / homophobe


To people who are not in the oppression-narrative school of thought this seems like a money / privileges / sexual favors shakedown. The left doesn't even deny it, it just believes that it is rightful compensation needed to "correct injustices".

Thus, the person is told to donate / take a knee, etc. less he be called names.





Of course, since this is made clear. A different question comes up.

Why do people follow along ?

Seeing how "anti-racism" in the modern context is nothing more than a shakedown, why do people still go along. My personal conclusion is that in order to answer this question we must understand the social divisions. Between the left, and the right. I do understand these terms are loose. But it will start making sense in a moment.

Thomas Sowell in his book "Vision of the Anointed" identified three types of leftists :


1) the anointed
2) the benighted
3) the true believer

He explained that leftist groups consist of these 3 categories. On top stand the anointed. These are the members of the upper class taking upon social justice causes. These are professors in universities, the champagne socialists, the "professor" types in general. These people formulate a particular vision that is then imparted on the society at large. They do it because they want power and recognition.

The benighted are the people who benefit from this particular vision. In the case of the left, it is minorities, LGBT, etc. These people are not "true believers" in marxism or whatever other gibberish, they simply follow it because it is beneficial for them financially or socially, not ideologically. Think of blacks supporting affirmative action, but not really caring for LGBT or "Bernie revolution" or any other such stuff.

The true believers are the people who genuinely believe in the ideas. It's the poor college kids donating money to charities in Africa. People who have nothing to gain, but truly believe in it.

Thus, you can easily see why "anti-racism" is followed along by the anointed, like CNN and BLM leaders. And why the "benighted", in the case of BLM, the blacks are following it. What is more curious is the true believers. Those people who are standing on their knees for BLM and chanting for them. They gain nothing from it. It makes more sense that they do it out of true belief. The entire "anti-racism" doctrine is built on an emotional indoctrination, and people are conditioned since young to follow it less they be called "Hitler", thus they follow it out of emotional trauma programming.

Of course, this leaves the center and the right out. The answer for those is a combination of two things, fear and true beliefs. Even among right wingers, there are many who have internalized the "anti-racist" mode of thinking since youth and are thus "true believers" but they are merely debating the details. Usually these types like to say "Democrats are the real racists". The other category is people who simply stay silent due to fear of social ostracization.

Questions one is not allowed to ask

The biggest reason why racism is a trap is because it has a multitude of definitions. Under the old model it had 8 definitions. Under the new model it has an incredible number of definitions : internalized racism, veiled racism, invisible systemic racism, White privillege, minimzation, denial, etc. etc. etc.

The big problem is that because most discussions of racism are mired in taboo and emotional programming, one is not allowed to ask the following

What is the definition of racism ?
What definition of racism is a real thing that exists in the world ?
Why is racism bad under that specific definition ?
If some facts show some racist ideas to be true should they still be demonized ? Can truth be racist ?
Are negative attitudes ok when they flow from blacks towards Whites, but are wrong when they go in the other direction because of some historical injustice ?
Can White people ever pay for their sins and be free of "reparations" ? Can brown people have to pay reparations to Whites for something they did to Whites ?
Is racism just an excuse for shakedowns ?
Do Whites benefit anything from following along with the anti-racist paradigm ?
Is "anti-racism" a cultish religion ?
Is "racist" just a term for all White people ?

All of these questions would matter if the goal was to identify racism in the real world, see how much of an issue it really is and how to deal with it. But for the radical left, racism is de-facto two things : a religion, a shakedown operation. Thus even asking these questions is grounds for being called racist.

It is very clear that "anti-racism" operates, in reality, as an anti-White religion and shakedown operation (see Al Sharpton, internet feminists, etc.) in the West, and questioning it will bring religious ire from the anti-racists and put the shakedown operation into an unfavorable position. Thus one gets branded a "heretic" and punished for merely asking these questions

How to deal with this issue

Having unpacked the term "racist" one can easily see that in the modern definition it is essentially an accusation of apostasy from the radical left's political view. It is enforced into the minds of people through emotional trauma who follow along out of a religious-like fervor, and grifters enforce it for political / financial gain.

Therefore, the reality is, merely pointing out inconsistencies, or using the questions mentioned in the previous section will not do much good. As the limitations apply.

It seems clear that the people least like to reconsider are the anointed and the benighted. The first because they are the masterminds of the shakedown operation, the second because they are the next-in-line beneficiaries.

However, some progress could be done with the true believers and the "silent dissenters". But it is clear that it requires different approaches.

In the case of the true believer, since his belief is based on emotional trauma programming, the prerequisite to make that person consider a discussion is to emotional de-program him. And generally that is done with humor. Not everyone can be deprogrammed, as some are suicidal in their devotion, but some can be deprogrammed. Given that the "anti-racist" cult has led to cities being burned down, over time the effects of the entire "church of anti-racism" will become harder to bear and more true believers will start fearing their lives and being skeptical.

The silent dissenters on the other hand oftentimes have the issue of disagreeing with the narrative, but not fully being able to explain why. On these people, logical well-structured arguments can have an effect. See this video as an example


The most obvious issue with the discussion currently

Besides the emotional programming. It is very clear that a second issue makes its appearance. The lack of language.

Given that racism is a "magic word" it is by definition unclear. Its goal is to have inquisition-like power to be wielded against opponents. I recommend watching this video, it really explains the issue well, it starts at 6 minutes.


What is clear is that largely the issue can't be discussed easily because vague language is the tool of the radical left alongside of emotional trauma programming, thus the priority is to make the discussion more clear by improving the language.

Clearer language would allow for clearer discussions of the issue. This won't matter to the radical left, as they are emotional on the issue not logical, but for people in the middle, this will have a huge effect, as words are powerful at describing issue and making people reconsider. It is why words like SJW, cuck, soyboy, bugman are powerful, they describe something that people experienced but can't put into words. Although a lot of these words end up being used pejoratively, they oftentimes have good explanatory power, like the word SJW does. It allowed to address a real issue which previously was hard to put into words.

In my opinion, there should be terms for the following. The 8 classic definitions of racism. The "abstract" definitions of racism (secret White privillege, invisible systemic problems, etc.) and the newest definition of racism (not conforming to radical leftism).

Here are my proposed terms to clear up the language

Instead of cataloging every single form of "racism" and giving it a name, I will bunch them up in a way that makes most sense.

When it comes to the 8 classic forms of "racism"

1) making un-PC jokes
2) noticing differences between groups that are benign in nature (some are taller, some have different hair)
3) noticing differences between groups that have a profound impact on society and life consequences
4) having a personal preference for one group, including one's own
5) having a dislike or a desire to distant from certain groups
6) impolite behavior towards certain racial groups
7) building race based policies
8) violence against certain racial groups

I categorize 1,2 as being benign centrism
I categorize 3-5 as being observation and preference racism
I categorize 6 as being asshole racism
I categorize 7 as being policy racism
I categorize 8 as being violent racism

I categorize the definitions of racism that include things like "invisible privilege", "invisible systemic racism", etc. as ephemeral racism or invisible racism
I categorize the definition of racism that is disagreeing with the radical left on anything as non-conformism racism
I categorize the definition of racism that is "White privilege + power" to be racism as term for Whites

The entire leftist tactic is to conflate benign centrism and observation-preference racism with violent racism. It is also to use invisible racism as an excuse to implement policies while not blaming anyone in particular but some invisible "system" or something more material to point to, and non-conformism racism to chastise people for "not being anti-racist enough".

By understanding this particular types of "racism" it is easier to address them. Addressing the moral implication of each would take another effort post. However, I believe that a major breakthrough has been made in discussing racism, by having these types of racism categorized, so it is easier to discuss them.

This categories, unlike the categories made by the left are actually logically grouped together and are perfectly usable to discuss the issue instead of muddying the water

Conclusion

"Racism" is a muddy term, and it is so on purpose, to be wielded by the left for its own political purposes. People are following this paradigm either out of religious indoctrination or some kind of gain. Even asking question on this issue is considered a form of racism.

Many people can not reasonably discuss the issue due to aforementioned points. However, a certain portion of the population can be reached with reasonable arguments, since they oftentimes can't fully formulate why they disagree with something. Reaching them out and making a point is a lot easier when words exist to describe certain things. I thus proposed some terms that best describe what racism is in a practical sense.
 
Last edited:

NE-Goy-RI

New England / Rhode Island Goy
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
It is abundantly clear that the Words Racist / Racism are synonymous with White People, when people use those words they are talking about White People.

yea...2.jpg

They want to cure the virus of Racism / White Supremacy, which means curing the white plague so to speak, South Africa / Rhodesia / Haiti world wide

haiti2.jpg
 
Last edited:

thordaddy

Active member
⏰☕
If your race is your father(s) then...

“Racism,” defined relatively, is the belief that one’s father(s) are better than than all other fathers.

Racism, defined absolutely, is an immersion into one’s father(s), ie., a patriarchal discovery.
 

thordaddy

Active member
⏰☕
“Racist” as used by a “white” self-annihilator is both a “racial slur“ and an affirmation of an absolute inequality between individuals. Proceed situationally.
 

bisonportugal

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽
Recently, there has been a discussion about racism in America. What became clear is that the word "racism" is a very vague one, because it includes everything ranging from making un-PC jokes (even without believing them) to calls for genocide along racial lines. Given that I believe it is important to unpack the term

The 8 definitions of racism

I believe there are 7 classical definitions to the term "racism" as it is used. Each with increasing degree of taboo

1) making un-PC jokes
2) noticing differences between groups that are benign in nature (some are taller, some have different hair)
3) noticing differences between groups that have a profound impact on society and life consequences
4) having a personal preference for one group, including one's own
5) having a dislike or a desire to distant from certain groups
6) impolite behavior towards certain racial groups
7) building race based policies
8) violence against certain racial groups

I will hence refer to the lower numbers on the list as "lower forms" of racism and the higher numbers as "higher forms".

When most people criticize "racism" they rarely give a specific definition for the term. It is convenient for radical racial egalitarians and leftist political hacks as it allows to attack people for making un-PC jokes or noticing differences by associating them with the more extreme versions of the term. The classic Motte and Bailey tactic.

The same thing has been done with the word "rape" by feminists. Feminists redefined the term rape while doing college surveys to include "unwanted interactions" while not making efforts to inform about the new definition, thus resulting in the claim that "1 in 4 college women are raped" which is more than African war-torn countries. This game of motley and bailey, of using terms with multiple meanings to entrap others.

Thus the modern "racism" witchhunt is built on the idea of not distinguishing between making un-PC jokes and doing racial violence by using an all-encompassing term.

However, even when proportionality is accounted for, at least to some degree, the modern leftist paradigm claims that lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. To unpack that we need to look deeper into the modern school of thought on the issue

The "pyramid of oppression" narrative

You have probably seen some of these graphs floating online



The logic is that lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. That making un-PC jokes will over time lead to lynchings. Where did this belief start ?

Well, the oppression narrative goes back in time with claims of oppression, largely overwhelmingly thrown at Europeans, with the highlights being the crusades, slavery and most importantly the Holocaust.

The reason the focus is on Europeans, is that largely the goal of leftism is to deal with "racism" in historically majority-White countries and thus, the acts of muslims or Asians is of lesser relevance. Although, similar narratives are used by Palestinians in Israel, Muslims in Asia and so on. We are simply more accustomed to the Western version, which is the most well developed one, of which the other localized narratives are a copy of.

The major feature here is the belief that historically, lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. According to the narrative, Julius Streicher's "Der Sturmer" comics making fun of Jews eventually led to Jews being genocided.

The historically accuracy of this claim would matter for the discussion. People who disagree with the narrative point to places that were Nationalist and allowed some forms of discrimination without them ending in genocide. But the issue is that the people following the oppression narrative are oftentimes emotionally invested to the point of not wanting to consider that possibility.

Similarly, to the majority of people following the oppression narrative, the idea that lower forms of racism, such as belief in group differences could be scientifically justified is dismissed out of hand immediately. HBD and IQ studies are considered apriori wrong if they point to confirming such beliefs (at least if they show Europeans in a better light than other groups). Sometimes the people promoting the oppression narrative will claim that scientific consensus is saying that biological racial differences are not real (at least ones of significance in terms of societal impact, as opposed to hair texture) generally because they also claim to be believers in SCIENCE!™, some will even go as far as to cite a few studies that might go against the grain of consensus. But should a person like Alternative Hypothesis make a video arguing skillfully for the scientific validity of human divergent evolution, typically such people will usually claim that he is wrong because he is morally wrong or simply claim that science doesn't agree with him, or claim that he is stupid, etc.


Thus, to the promoters of the oppression narrative, the truthfulness of racist thoughts is not particularly relevant. Generally they will either say "it doesn't matter, it's wrong because it is morally wrong (not factually)" or claim that "the science is on my side" without significant attempts to argue that usually.

More convoluted forms of "racism". The newest additions

While the 8 definitions of racism used to be generally intuitively understood, new progressive narratives have emerged with even more extreme claims than before. Take for example the aforementioned oppression pyramid.



According to this new definition, even things like indifference are forms of racism. In the past, if a person was indifferent to racial issues, the narrative makers would claim that the person was immoral for not caring, but now they are going in so far as to claim that the person is racist themselves.

The general theme of this new narrative is that even small deviations from the narrative of the radical left is a form of racism !

For example, according to this new definition, not caring is a form racism. Saying racism is a smaller problem than the left claims is racism. Having paternalizing attitudes towards non-Whites or "tokenism" is racism. That anti-immigration policies are a form of racism. That policies like "local school funding" is a form of racism.

The reason this is extreme is because when a person says "I don't think racism is as big of an issue as you claim". Like say a person says "there are thousands of unarmed blacks killed every year by the police !" and someone replies "it was actually only 10 unarmed blacks in 2019 killed by the police", under the new definition that would be "minimization" and thus racism. The person replying is not even saying that racism is good or that it isn't real. However, by not being extreme enough in his belief about the extent of racialized police violence he is racist. Moreover, even believing in a different form of immigration policy or school funding model, even if for non-racial reasons, like say being libertarian, that would still be considered a form of racism due to "Prioritizing intentions over Impact". Not only that, even behaviors that most people might not even classify as racism under the old definitions can be considered "veiled racism". For example saying "I don't like rap" can be considered a "veiled racism".

De facto, the new definition of racism becomes "not being a complete believer in every single policy or narrative of the radical left, even if for non-racial reasons, or disagreeing about the size of the problem". Thus, in practice, any disagreement with any single claim of the radical left, indifference or skepticism over the extent of the issue is now racism. This means that racism now means "not a radical feminist BLM marxist".

Racism has become nothing more than a political tool for the radical left

We can see that in order to not be considered racist, one needs to comply with every single narrative of the radical left. This is very convenient for them.

Of course, if this was sold to people as that, as a compliance test with radical leftism, most people would probably be a lot less enthusiastic. Thus the game of the left has been to claim that it is an abstract moral question, it just so happens that the answer is convenient for them. But of course, even people who are skeptical due to this are considered racist.

The best way to describe the new left's version of "racism" is to compare it to a caricaturized Middle Ages inquisition, where not only foreign religious groups, but even people who are regular Christians are still burned at the stake for not agreeing with every last papal decree or questioning the integrity of the clergy or having any single disagreement with their policy.

Moreover, the left builds policies that help blacks (affirmative action) which is racism based on some definitions. But it doesn't matter, because racism is just a tool used against people using the same tactics to help themselves rather than the leftists doing this (of course the left has justifications for this, usually being the true victim™)

The bug is the feature

During the Gamergate era, there was a particular trope that was popular, exemplifying the impossibility of pleasing an inter-sectional feminist

"If one portrays women as physically strong in video games, that is form of bigotry, as it claims that women can only have value by adopting stereotypical male qualities
If one portrays women as being feminine, that is a form of bigotry, as it forces women into artificially socially constructed gender roles
If one portrays a gay character as fruity, that is a form of bigotry, as it forces traditional fake tropes about homosexuals
If one portrays a gay character as being the opposite of fruity, that is a form of bigotry, as it makes the claim that homosexuals can only be included if they "stay in the closet" by hiding their homosexual character
If a homosexual, gay or female character is included, but there are few of them, that is a form of bigotry, as that is tokenism
If all of the characters are gay, female, homosexual, minority that could still be a form of cheap pandering
And if all of those fail, complain about not including transgender feminist turtle otherkin
And if those are included, complain about the game not being vocal enough to advance the progressive agenda
If that fails, complain about the game not hiring enough female, gay, trans, etc. game developers
If that fails. complain about the company not doing enough to enforce inclusive policies about microaggression
If that fails, complain about the game company not donating enough to feminist charities and not attacking gamers as racist"

The point was, it was clear that in the game of anti-opression, there is really no way to win. Especially as a straight White male. What some realized only later was that it wasn't just simple stupidity, it was by design. It was essentially a lose-win situation for you and the radical left, and that the only winning move was to not play. To counter-act that, the SJWs tried to anything to make it harder to "not play". From doing review bombing, to calling for journals to do bad reviews, to calling for bans on games and so on.

The end point of "anti-opression" is that you are always racist and not "woke enough" and must do even more than before to please the particular person claiming opression. It always escalates. For example, in the early 2000s the left was calling for the people to stop using the word "faggot". In the late 2000s the left was calling for gay marriage. In the early 2010s it was calling for gay adoption. In the mid 2010s it was calling for trans inclussion. And by the late 2010s it was claiming that "not wanting to date trans people makes you a transphobe". Or not wanting to date a certain type of person was racist. AKA suck my dick or you're a racist / transphobe / homophobe


To people who are not in the oppression-narrative school of thought this seems like a money / privileges / sexual favors shakedown. The left doesn't even deny it, it just believes that it is rightful compensation needed to "correct injustices".

Thus, the person is told to donate / take a knee, etc. less he be called names.





Of course, since this is made clear. A different question comes up.

Why do people follow along ?

Seeing how "anti-racism" in the modern context is nothing more than a shakedown, why do people still go along. My personal conclusion is that in order to answer this question we must understand the social divisions. Between the left, and the right. I do understand these terms are loose. But it will start making sense in a moment.

Thomas Sowell in his book "Vision of the Anointed" identified three types of leftists :


1) the anointed
2) the benighted
3) the true believer

He explained that leftist groups consist of these 3 categories. On top stand the anointed. These are the members of the upper class taking upon social justice causes. These are professors in universities, the champagne socialists, the "professor" types in general. These people formulate a particular vision that is then imparted on the society at large. They do it because they want power and recognition.

The benighted are the people who benefit from this particular vision. In the case of the left, it is minorities, LGBT, etc. These people are not "true believers" in marxism or whatever other gibberish, they simply follow it because it is beneficial for them financially or socially, not ideologically. Think of blacks supporting affirmative action, but not really caring for LGBT or "Bernie revolution" or any other such stuff.

The true believers are the people who genuinely believe in the ideas. It's the poor college kids donating money to charities in Africa. People who have nothing to gain, but truly believe in it.

Thus, you can easily see why "anti-racism" is followed along by the anointed, like CNN and BLM leaders. And why the "benighted", in the case of BLM, the blacks are following it. What is more curious is the true believers. Those people who are standing on their knees for BLM and chanting for them. They gain nothing from it. It makes more sense that they do it out of true belief. The entire "anti-racism" doctrine is built on an emotional indoctrination, and people are conditioned since young to follow it less they be called "Hitler", thus they follow it out of emotional trauma programming.

Of course, this leaves the center and the right out. The answer for those is a combination of two things, fear and true beliefs. Even among right wingers, there are many who have internalized the "anti-racist" mode of thinking since youth and are thus "true believers" but they are merely debating the details. Usually these types like to say "Democrats are the real racists". The other category is people who simply stay silent due to fear of social ostracization.

Questions one is not allowed to ask

The biggest reason why racism is a trap is because it has a multitude of definitions. Under the old model it had 7 definitions. Under the new model it has an incredible number of definitions : internalized racism, veiled racism, invisible systemic racism, White privillege, minimzation, denial, etc. etc. etc.

The big problem is that because most discussions of racism are mired in taboo and emotional programming, one is not allowed to ask the following

What is the definition of racism ?
What definition of racism is a real thing that exists in the world ?
Why is racism bad under that specific definition ?
If some facts show some racist ideas to be true should they still be demonized ? Can truth be racist ?
Are negative attitudes ok when they flow from blacks towards Whites, but are wrong when they go in the other direction because of some historical injustice ?
Can White people ever pay for their sins and be free of "reparations" ? Can brown people have to pay reparations to Whites for something they did to Whites ?
Is racism just an excuse for shakedowns ?
Do Whites benefit anything from following along with the anti-racist paradigm ?
Is "anti-racism" a cultish religion ?

All of these questions would matter if the goal was to identify racism in the real world, see how much of an issue it really is and how to deal with it. But for the radical left, racism is de-facto two things : a religion, a shakedown operation. Thus even asking these questions is grounds for being called racist.

It is very clear that "anti-racism" operates, in reality, as an anti-White religion and shakedown operation (see Al Sharpton, internet feminists, etc.) in the West, and questioning it will bring religious ire from the anti-racists and put the shakedown operation into an unfavorable position. Thus one gets branded a "heretic" and punished for merely asking these questions

How to deal with this issue

Having unpacked the term "racist" one can easily see that in the modern definition it is essentially an accusation of apostasy from the radical left's political view. It is enforced into the minds of people through emotional trauma who follow along out of a religious-like fervor, and grifters enforce it for political / financial gain.

Therefore, the reality is, merely pointing out inconsistencies, or using the questions mentioned in the previous section will not do much good. As the limitations apply.

It seems clear that the people least like to reconsider are the anointed and the benighted. The first because they are the masterminds of the shakedown operation, the second because they are the next-in-line beneficiaries.

However, some progress could be done with the true believers and the "silent dissenters". But it is clear that it requires different approaches.

In the case of the true believer, since his belief is based on emotional trauma programming, the prerequisite to make that person consider a discussion is to emotional de-program him. And generally that is done with humor. Not everyone can be deprogrammed, as some are suicidal in their devotion, but some can be deprogrammed. Given that the "anti-racist" cult has led to cities being burned down, over time the effects of the entire "church of anti-racism" will become harder to bear and more true believers will start fearing their lives and being skeptical.

The silent dissenters on the other hand oftentimes have the issue of disagreeing with the narrative, but not fully being able to explain why. On these people, logical well-structured arguments can have an effect. See this video as an example


The most obvious issue with the discussion currently

Besides the emotional programming. It is very clear that a second issue makes its appearance. The lack of language.

Given that racism is a "magic word" it is by definition unclear. Its goal is to have inquisition-like power to be wielded against opponents. I recommend watching this video, it really explains the issue well, it starts at 6 minutes.


What is clear is that largely the issue can't be discussed easily because vague language is the tool of the radical left alongside of emotional trauma programming, thus the priority is to make the discussion more clear by improving the language.

Clearer language would allow for clearer discussions of the issue. This won't matter to the radical left, as they are emotional on the issue not logical, but for people in the middle, this will have a huge effect, as words are powerful at describing issue and making people reconsider. It is why words like SJW, cuck, soyboy, bugman are powerful, they describe something that people experienced but can't put into words. Although a lot of these words end up being used pejoratively, they oftentimes have good explanatory power, like the word SJW does. It allowed to address a real issue which previously was hard to put into words.

In my opinion, there should be terms for the following. The 7 classic definitions of racism. The "abstract" definitions of racism (secret White privillege, invisible systemic problems, etc.) and the newest definition of racism (not conforming to radical leftism).

Here are my proposed terms to clear up the language

Instead of cataloging every single form of "racism" and giving it a name, I will bunch them up in a way that makes most sense.

When it comes to the 8 classic forms of "racism"

1) making un-PC jokes
2) noticing differences between groups that are benign in nature (some are taller, some have different hair)
3) noticing differences between groups that have a profound impact on society and life consequences
4) having a personal preference for one group, including one's own
5) having a dislike or a desire to distant from certain groups
6) impolite behavior towards certain racial groups
7) building race based policies
8) violence against certain racial groups

I categorize 1,2 as being benign centrism
I categorize 3-5 as being observation and preference racism
I categorize 6 as being asshole racism
I categorize 7 as being practical racism
I categorize 8 as being violent racism

I categorize the definitions of racism that include things like "invisible privilege", "invisible systemic racism", etc. as ephemeral racism or invisible racism
I categorize the definition of racism that is disagreeing with the radical left on anything as non-conformism racism

The entire leftist tactic is to conflate benign centrism and observation-preference racism with violent racism. It is also to use invisble racism as an excuse to implement policies and non-conformism racism to chastise people for "not being anti-racist enough".

By understanding this particular types of "racism" it is easier to address them. Addressing the moral implication of each would take another effort post. However, I believe that a major breakthrough has been made in discussing racism, by having these types of racism categorized, so it is easier to discuss them.

This categories, unlike the categories made by the left are actually logically grouped together and are perfectly usable to discuss the issue instead of muddying the water

Conclusion

"Racism" is a muddy term, and it is so on purpose, to be wielded by the left for its own political purposes. People are following this paradigm either out of religious indoctrination or some kind of gain. Even asking question on this issue is considered a form of racism.

Many people can not reasonably discuss the issue due to aforementioned points. However, a certain portion of the population can be reached with reasonable arguments, since they oftentimes can't fully formulate why they disagree with something. Reaching them out and making a point is a lot easier when words exist to describe certain things. I thus proposed some terms that best describe what racism is in a practical sense.

@Zaldron @Mistaf @Staufer @Donk @Coltraine @Andrew Anglin @Hanbern
When I was younger I thought a racist is someone who wants to harm other races just because they are different. While I did hear this term being used in more encompassing definitions on a few times, I think it was generally understood that only nazis and the KKK were racists in the more strict sense of the world. Needless to say that this definition of racist changed quite fast and already in my teenage years I felt bad for only feeling attraction towards white women because that was my new definition of racism, one that probably got into my brain from watching too much media.

It is obvious that being racist = being evil. It is the bs that it is being pushed inside our heads since birth. I even struggled with this conditioning for one year and half after total and gradual red pill. Today I don't feel much anymore, but I still feel concerned sometimes about people discovering my power level because I know they can get very nasty and cause lots of trouble. But I don't think living with fear is something healthy.

Anyway, being more precise: the word racist is a poison to the white mind. That's the best way to describe it.
 
Last edited:

thordaddy

Active member
⏰☕
When I was younger I thought a racist is someone who wants to harm other races just because they are different. While I did hear this term being used in more encompassing definitions on a few times, I think it was generally understood that only nazis and the KKK were racists in the more strict sense of the world. Needless to say that this definition of racist changed quite fast and already in my teenage years I felt bad for only feeling attraction towards white women because that was my new definition of racism, one that probably got into my brain from watching too much media.

It is obvious that being racist = being evil. It is the bs that it is being pushed inside our heads since birth. I struggled with this conditioning for one year and half after total and gradual red pill. Today I don't feel much anymore, but I still feel concerned sometimes about people discovering my power level because I know they can get very nasty and cause lots of trouble. But I don't think living with fear is something healthy.

Anyway, being more precise: the word racist is a poison to the mind. That's the best way to describe it.
No, man.

Your race is your father(s) and all the Popes — white. black and grey — could never disagree.

Anti-racism is TO BE AGAINST your father(s).

Think removing all the names of the “Forefathers” from the public schools?

Think of the defacement of the Confederate monuments?

Think Antifa and fatherless white boys who are attracted to their destruction?

All, symbolically, representing the “murders” of the fathers of Heritage America.
 
Recently, there has been a discussion about racism in America. What became clear is that the word "racism" is a very vague one, because it includes everything ranging from making un-PC jokes (even without believing them) to calls for genocide along racial lines. Given that I believe it is important to unpack the term

The 8 definitions of racism

I believe there are 7 classical definitions to the term "racism" as it is used. Each with increasing degree of taboo

1) making un-PC jokes
2) noticing differences between groups that are benign in nature (some are taller, some have different hair)
3) noticing differences between groups that have a profound impact on society and life consequences
4) having a personal preference for one group, including one's own
5) having a dislike or a desire to distant from certain groups
6) impolite behavior towards certain racial groups
7) building race based policies
8) violence against certain racial groups

I will hence refer to the lower numbers on the list as "lower forms" of racism and the higher numbers as "higher forms".

When most people criticize "racism" they rarely give a specific definition for the term. It is convenient for radical racial egalitarians and leftist political hacks as it allows to attack people for making un-PC jokes or noticing differences by associating them with the more extreme versions of the term. The classic Motte and Bailey tactic.

The same thing has been done with the word "rape" by feminists. Feminists redefined the term rape while doing college surveys to include "unwanted interactions" while not making efforts to inform about the new definition, thus resulting in the claim that "1 in 4 college women are raped" which is more than African war-torn countries. This game of motley and bailey, of using terms with multiple meanings to entrap others.

Thus the modern "racism" witchhunt is built on the idea of not distinguishing between making un-PC jokes and doing racial violence by using an all-encompassing term.

However, even when proportionality is accounted for, at least to some degree, the modern leftist paradigm claims that lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. To unpack that we need to look deeper into the modern school of thought on the issue

The "pyramid of oppression" narrative

You have probably seen some of these graphs floating online



The logic is that lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. That making un-PC jokes will over time lead to lynchings. Where did this belief start ?

Well, the oppression narrative goes back in time with claims of oppression, largely overwhelmingly thrown at Europeans, with the highlights being the crusades, slavery and most importantly the Holocaust.

The reason the focus is on Europeans, is that largely the goal of leftism is to deal with "racism" in historically majority-White countries and thus, the acts of muslims or Asians is of lesser relevance. Although, similar narratives are used by Palestinians in Israel, Muslims in Asia and so on. We are simply more accustomed to the Western version, which is the most well developed one, of which the other localized narratives are a copy of.

The major feature here is the belief that historically, lower forms of racism lead to higher forms of racism. According to the narrative, Julius Streicher's "Der Sturmer" comics making fun of Jews eventually led to Jews being genocided.

The historically accuracy of this claim would matter for the discussion. People who disagree with the narrative point to places that were Nationalist and allowed some forms of discrimination without them ending in genocide. But the issue is that the people following the oppression narrative are oftentimes emotionally invested to the point of not wanting to consider that possibility.

Similarly, to the majority of people following the oppression narrative, the idea that lower forms of racism, such as belief in group differences could be scientifically justified is dismissed out of hand immediately. HBD and IQ studies are considered apriori wrong if they point to confirming such beliefs (at least if they show Europeans in a better light than other groups). Sometimes the people promoting the oppression narrative will claim that scientific consensus is saying that biological racial differences are not real (at least ones of significance in terms of societal impact, as opposed to hair texture) generally because they also claim to be believers in SCIENCE!™, some will even go as far as to cite a few studies that might go against the grain of consensus. But should a person like Alternative Hypothesis make a video arguing skillfully for the scientific validity of human divergent evolution, typically such people will usually claim that he is wrong because he is morally wrong or simply claim that science doesn't agree with him, or claim that he is stupid, etc.


Thus, to the promoters of the oppression narrative, the truthfulness of racist thoughts is not particularly relevant. Generally they will either say "it doesn't matter, it's wrong because it is morally wrong (not factually)" or claim that "the science is on my side" without significant attempts to argue that usually.

More convoluted forms of "racism". The newest additions

While the 8 definitions of racism used to be generally intuitively understood, new progressive narratives have emerged with even more extreme claims than before. Take for example the aforementioned oppression pyramid.



According to this new definition, even things like indifference are forms of racism. In the past, if a person was indifferent to racial issues, the narrative makers would claim that the person was immoral for not caring, but now they are going in so far as to claim that the person is racist themselves.

The general theme of this new narrative is that even small deviations from the narrative of the radical left is a form of racism !

For example, according to this new definition, not caring is a form racism. Saying racism is a smaller problem than the left claims is racism. Having paternalizing attitudes towards non-Whites or "tokenism" is racism. That anti-immigration policies are a form of racism. That policies like "local school funding" is a form of racism.

The reason this is extreme is because when a person says "I don't think racism is as big of an issue as you claim". Like say a person says "there are thousands of unarmed blacks killed every year by the police !" and someone replies "it was actually only 10 unarmed blacks in 2019 killed by the police", under the new definition that would be "minimization" and thus racism. The person replying is not even saying that racism is good or that it isn't real. However, by not being extreme enough in his belief about the extent of racialized police violence he is racist. Moreover, even believing in a different form of immigration policy or school funding model, even if for non-racial reasons, like say being libertarian, that would still be considered a form of racism due to "Prioritizing intentions over Impact". Not only that, even behaviors that most people might not even classify as racism under the old definitions can be considered "veiled racism". For example saying "I don't like rap" can be considered a "veiled racism".

De facto, the new definition of racism becomes "not being a complete believer in every single policy or narrative of the radical left, even if for non-racial reasons, or disagreeing about the size of the problem". Thus, in practice, any disagreement with any single claim of the radical left, indifference or skepticism over the extent of the issue is now racism. This means that racism now means "not a radical feminist BLM marxist".

Racism has become nothing more than a political tool for the radical left

We can see that in order to not be considered racist, one needs to comply with every single narrative of the radical left. This is very convenient for them.

Of course, if this was sold to people as that, as a compliance test with radical leftism, most people would probably be a lot less enthusiastic. Thus the game of the left has been to claim that it is an abstract moral question, it just so happens that the answer is convenient for them. But of course, even people who are skeptical due to this are considered racist.

The best way to describe the new left's version of "racism" is to compare it to a caricaturized Middle Ages inquisition, where not only foreign religious groups, but even people who are regular Christians are still burned at the stake for not agreeing with every last papal decree or questioning the integrity of the clergy or having any single disagreement with their policy.

Moreover, the left builds policies that help blacks (affirmative action) which is racism based on some definitions. But it doesn't matter, because racism is just a tool used against people using the same tactics to help themselves rather than the leftists doing this (of course the left has justifications for this, usually being the true victim™)

The bug is the feature

During the Gamergate era, there was a particular trope that was popular, exemplifying the impossibility of pleasing an inter-sectional feminist

"If one portrays women as physically strong in video games, that is form of bigotry, as it claims that women can only have value by adopting stereotypical male qualities
If one portrays women as being feminine, that is a form of bigotry, as it forces women into artificially socially constructed gender roles
If one portrays a gay character as fruity, that is a form of bigotry, as it forces traditional fake tropes about homosexuals
If one portrays a gay character as being the opposite of fruity, that is a form of bigotry, as it makes the claim that homosexuals can only be included if they "stay in the closet" by hiding their homosexual character
If a homosexual, gay or female character is included, but there are few of them, that is a form of bigotry, as that is tokenism
If all of the characters are gay, female, homosexual, minority that could still be a form of cheap pandering
And if all of those fail, complain about not including transgender feminist turtle otherkin
And if those are included, complain about the game not being vocal enough to advance the progressive agenda
If that fails, complain about the game not hiring enough female, gay, trans, etc. game developers
If that fails. complain about the company not doing enough to enforce inclusive policies about microaggression
If that fails, complain about the game company not donating enough to feminist charities and not attacking gamers as racist"

The point was, it was clear that in the game of anti-opression, there is really no way to win. Especially as a straight White male. What some realized only later was that it wasn't just simple stupidity, it was by design. It was essentially a lose-win situation for you and the radical left, and that the only winning move was to not play. To counter-act that, the SJWs tried to anything to make it harder to "not play". From doing review bombing, to calling for journals to do bad reviews, to calling for bans on games and so on.

The end point of "anti-opression" is that you are always racist and not "woke enough" and must do even more than before to please the particular person claiming opression. It always escalates. For example, in the early 2000s the left was calling for the people to stop using the word "faggot". In the late 2000s the left was calling for gay marriage. In the early 2010s it was calling for gay adoption. In the mid 2010s it was calling for trans inclussion. And by the late 2010s it was claiming that "not wanting to date trans people makes you a transphobe". Or not wanting to date a certain type of person was racist. AKA suck my dick or you're a racist / transphobe / homophobe


To people who are not in the oppression-narrative school of thought this seems like a money / privileges / sexual favors shakedown. The left doesn't even deny it, it just believes that it is rightful compensation needed to "correct injustices".

Thus, the person is told to donate / take a knee, etc. less he be called names.





Of course, since this is made clear. A different question comes up.

Why do people follow along ?

Seeing how "anti-racism" in the modern context is nothing more than a shakedown, why do people still go along. My personal conclusion is that in order to answer this question we must understand the social divisions. Between the left, and the right. I do understand these terms are loose. But it will start making sense in a moment.

Thomas Sowell in his book "Vision of the Anointed" identified three types of leftists :


1) the anointed
2) the benighted
3) the true believer

He explained that leftist groups consist of these 3 categories. On top stand the anointed. These are the members of the upper class taking upon social justice causes. These are professors in universities, the champagne socialists, the "professor" types in general. These people formulate a particular vision that is then imparted on the society at large. They do it because they want power and recognition.

The benighted are the people who benefit from this particular vision. In the case of the left, it is minorities, LGBT, etc. These people are not "true believers" in marxism or whatever other gibberish, they simply follow it because it is beneficial for them financially or socially, not ideologically. Think of blacks supporting affirmative action, but not really caring for LGBT or "Bernie revolution" or any other such stuff.

The true believers are the people who genuinely believe in the ideas. It's the poor college kids donating money to charities in Africa. People who have nothing to gain, but truly believe in it.

Thus, you can easily see why "anti-racism" is followed along by the anointed, like CNN and BLM leaders. And why the "benighted", in the case of BLM, the blacks are following it. What is more curious is the true believers. Those people who are standing on their knees for BLM and chanting for them. They gain nothing from it. It makes more sense that they do it out of true belief. The entire "anti-racism" doctrine is built on an emotional indoctrination, and people are conditioned since young to follow it less they be called "Hitler", thus they follow it out of emotional trauma programming.

Of course, this leaves the center and the right out. The answer for those is a combination of two things, fear and true beliefs. Even among right wingers, there are many who have internalized the "anti-racist" mode of thinking since youth and are thus "true believers" but they are merely debating the details. Usually these types like to say "Democrats are the real racists". The other category is people who simply stay silent due to fear of social ostracization.

Questions one is not allowed to ask

The biggest reason why racism is a trap is because it has a multitude of definitions. Under the old model it had 7 definitions. Under the new model it has an incredible number of definitions : internalized racism, veiled racism, invisible systemic racism, White privillege, minimzation, denial, etc. etc. etc.

The big problem is that because most discussions of racism are mired in taboo and emotional programming, one is not allowed to ask the following

What is the definition of racism ?
What definition of racism is a real thing that exists in the world ?
Why is racism bad under that specific definition ?
If some facts show some racist ideas to be true should they still be demonized ? Can truth be racist ?
Are negative attitudes ok when they flow from blacks towards Whites, but are wrong when they go in the other direction because of some historical injustice ?
Can White people ever pay for their sins and be free of "reparations" ? Can brown people have to pay reparations to Whites for something they did to Whites ?
Is racism just an excuse for shakedowns ?
Do Whites benefit anything from following along with the anti-racist paradigm ?
Is "anti-racism" a cultish religion ?

All of these questions would matter if the goal was to identify racism in the real world, see how much of an issue it really is and how to deal with it. But for the radical left, racism is de-facto two things : a religion, a shakedown operation. Thus even asking these questions is grounds for being called racist.

It is very clear that "anti-racism" operates, in reality, as an anti-White religion and shakedown operation (see Al Sharpton, internet feminists, etc.) in the West, and questioning it will bring religious ire from the anti-racists and put the shakedown operation into an unfavorable position. Thus one gets branded a "heretic" and punished for merely asking these questions

How to deal with this issue

Having unpacked the term "racist" one can easily see that in the modern definition it is essentially an accusation of apostasy from the radical left's political view. It is enforced into the minds of people through emotional trauma who follow along out of a religious-like fervor, and grifters enforce it for political / financial gain.

Therefore, the reality is, merely pointing out inconsistencies, or using the questions mentioned in the previous section will not do much good. As the limitations apply.

It seems clear that the people least like to reconsider are the anointed and the benighted. The first because they are the masterminds of the shakedown operation, the second because they are the next-in-line beneficiaries.

However, some progress could be done with the true believers and the "silent dissenters". But it is clear that it requires different approaches.

In the case of the true believer, since his belief is based on emotional trauma programming, the prerequisite to make that person consider a discussion is to emotional de-program him. And generally that is done with humor. Not everyone can be deprogrammed, as some are suicidal in their devotion, but some can be deprogrammed. Given that the "anti-racist" cult has led to cities being burned down, over time the effects of the entire "church of anti-racism" will become harder to bear and more true believers will start fearing their lives and being skeptical.

The silent dissenters on the other hand oftentimes have the issue of disagreeing with the narrative, but not fully being able to explain why. On these people, logical well-structured arguments can have an effect. See this video as an example


The most obvious issue with the discussion currently

Besides the emotional programming. It is very clear that a second issue makes its appearance. The lack of language.

Given that racism is a "magic word" it is by definition unclear. Its goal is to have inquisition-like power to be wielded against opponents. I recommend watching this video, it really explains the issue well, it starts at 6 minutes.


What is clear is that largely the issue can't be discussed easily because vague language is the tool of the radical left alongside of emotional trauma programming, thus the priority is to make the discussion more clear by improving the language.

Clearer language would allow for clearer discussions of the issue. This won't matter to the radical left, as they are emotional on the issue not logical, but for people in the middle, this will have a huge effect, as words are powerful at describing issue and making people reconsider. It is why words like SJW, cuck, soyboy, bugman are powerful, they describe something that people experienced but can't put into words. Although a lot of these words end up being used pejoratively, they oftentimes have good explanatory power, like the word SJW does. It allowed to address a real issue which previously was hard to put into words.

In my opinion, there should be terms for the following. The 7 classic definitions of racism. The "abstract" definitions of racism (secret White privillege, invisible systemic problems, etc.) and the newest definition of racism (not conforming to radical leftism).

Here are my proposed terms to clear up the language

Instead of cataloging every single form of "racism" and giving it a name, I will bunch them up in a way that makes most sense.

When it comes to the 8 classic forms of "racism"

1) making un-PC jokes
2) noticing differences between groups that are benign in nature (some are taller, some have different hair)
3) noticing differences between groups that have a profound impact on society and life consequences
4) having a personal preference for one group, including one's own
5) having a dislike or a desire to distant from certain groups
6) impolite behavior towards certain racial groups
7) building race based policies
8) violence against certain racial groups

I categorize 1,2 as being benign centrism
I categorize 3-5 as being observation and preference racism
I categorize 6 as being asshole racism
I categorize 7 as being practical racism
I categorize 8 as being violent racism

I categorize the definitions of racism that include things like "invisible privilege", "invisible systemic racism", etc. as ephemeral racism or invisible racism
I categorize the definition of racism that is disagreeing with the radical left on anything as non-conformism racism

The entire leftist tactic is to conflate benign centrism and observation-preference racism with violent racism. It is also to use invisble racism as an excuse to implement policies and non-conformism racism to chastise people for "not being anti-racist enough".

By understanding this particular types of "racism" it is easier to address them. Addressing the moral implication of each would take another effort post. However, I believe that a major breakthrough has been made in discussing racism, by having these types of racism categorized, so it is easier to discuss them.

This categories, unlike the categories made by the left are actually logically grouped together and are perfectly usable to discuss the issue instead of muddying the water

Conclusion

"Racism" is a muddy term, and it is so on purpose, to be wielded by the left for its own political purposes. People are following this paradigm either out of religious indoctrination or some kind of gain. Even asking question on this issue is considered a form of racism.

Many people can not reasonably discuss the issue due to aforementioned points. However, a certain portion of the population can be reached with reasonable arguments, since they oftentimes can't fully formulate why they disagree with something. Reaching them out and making a point is a lot easier when words exist to describe certain things. I thus proposed some terms that best describe what racism is in a practical sense.

@Zaldron @Mistaf @Staufer @Donk @Coltraine @Andrew Anglin @Hanbern
Cool story bro, more intellectualism
 

MechaPregnantAnneFrank

A fisher of men.
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
A few years ago a family member said to me in a half serious DEEBLY GONCERNED way, "oh hey pregnant anne frank, it sounds kinda like you're getting a bit racist there."

I actually asked him how does he define racism, and roughly what I got was a bunch of bumbling and stumbling.

I basically did the ole, "well even BLACK PEOPLE don't want to live in Detroit or Chicago, and you see this in every rags to riches story where they try real hard to make something of themselves so they can get they ma an pa outta da hood. So why would I want to live around those sorts of people. Would you? Is it racist that someone from California and New York could compare notes on typical black behavior, and they'd get the same results?" etc etc

The conversation went back and forth, ultimately in my favor, mostly due to the fact that he (I shit you not) has an Israeli barber who talks mad shit about niggers and Palestinians, and he said he wasn't offended when the barber does that. Don't think he differentiated Whites & Jews. But whatever. I haven't heard any GONCERN since.

This is anecdotal, and I probably only got favorable results because this is a person who knows me. But white people who aren't brain washed retards can be shown or talked through how "racism" is this big built up boogeyman of a word.
 

DICARLO

Well-known member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
A 'racist' is the opposite of being a self-loathing race traitor. No person who isn't racially conscious can love his own race. Certainly, all Whites should embrace racial consciousness, as opposed to wilfull blindness, delusion, and a rejection of human nature and the Natural Order.

Additionally, accusations by the jews, and other nonwhites, of what they consider as the blackest evil, "racism", ought to be taken by Whites as a compliment, as it thereby separates us by the widest margin from what we most emphatically regard as the blackest evil and is the blackest evil -- those who are working to eliminate and destroy Whites, their culture, and the societies they've created.

They call us "RACISTS"! Well, YES WE ARE! Racism, a term coined by jewish communists, is a political doctrine that rejects the liberal dogma of racial equality. Racism by definition, embraces racial inequality, WHICH IS REALITY! -- which necessarily calls for racial consciousness, i.e., the conviction that mankind falls into identified races that are readily distinguishable, by their appearance, their behavior, and their differences. Racism isn't learned. It's not a social or cultural construct. Racism is instinctive and genetically imprinted into the DNA of all races. It has nothing to do with hatred, at least for Whites. The notion "we are all the same", is patently ABSURD! I am racially conscious, so I must be a racist. It's common sense. Races are not equal! They are plainly different, and by that I am not talking about skin shade!

Actually, if one will simply open their eyes and observe, race and skin shade seems to be the ONLY thing negroes think about. They view everything Whites do and say through a racial lens and seize any opportunity to cry "racism", pretending to be victims and then using that victimhood to acquire power! They even discriminate among their own kind and yet through their enablers, the jews, they try to shame and demonize Whites for understanding the obvious, that we are different from them, and absolutely nothing like them. Meanwhile, no group could be considered any more "racist" than jews, who are extremely ethnocentric, but in the case of jews or blacks, or any other nonwhites, there is never the accusation as smear, of "racist" against them -- only against White Europeans.

Ethnocentrism in all peoples is absolutely natural and normal. Ethnic groups throughout the world exhibit a preference for their own culture and a disposition to judge other cultures by their own standards. This preference is a healthy and practical evaluation of one’s ethnic identity and interests consistent with evolutionary theory and cultural sophistication. People of the same race feel more comfortable being around members of their racial kin. They self segregate. No amount of studies or knowledge of history is going to change this basic primal instinct. All you have to do if pay attention in the real world to understand this. If you walk down some street and a group of thugs comes up and says, "ayo white boy gibs me dat wallet" do you think for one minute they would care if you're a liberal and that you support multiculturalism and believe we're all equal and all the same? Of course not. You will be seen by those black thugs as a collective based on your race. It does not matter how principled or individualistic you are if you are only seen as part of a collective.

I would further point out that, before the dawn of modern liberalism, driven and then normalized by jews by decades of copious bullshit on their media, every culture on Earth was racially conscious, and most still remain so -- those who are not programmed and indoctrinated by jewsmedia, jew controlled academia, and jew Hollywood, to blindly accept massive nonwhite immigration and racemixing as a blessing. Before the dawn of modern liberalism, they didn't call it ‘racism’, because it was simply common reason -- common sense and it is still common sense, something liberals and the politically correct reject, and nonwhites pretend to reject, -- in order to intimidate unawakened, cowardly, White lemmings, while blacks and other nonwhites embrace it by acting in their own racial interests for themselves 100%.

Incidentally, much of what mystifies leftists concerning human behavior is remarkably apparent to anyone with racial consciousness. It is natural that all races value their own kind above all else. All healthy organisms share this instinct. Obviously blacks, hispanics, and jews are hyper-racially conscious, and work in their own racial interests, while they ostracize Whites who are racially conscious, and accuse them of "racism" -- a clear double standard. Plainly, smear and namecalling, which of course is all they have in the face of TRUTH! That is why we racially aware Whites are working on preserving the European peoples, our culture, and our interests, just as every other racial group currently is.
 

bijuz

Goodbye, Jews
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
This quip is more than a little Boomeresque, with self-defining as conservative being a large part, but this is the first I've seen it ascribed to Sowell.
racist: a conservative winning an argument with a liberal
It was only fifteen years or so ago that hipster puppet play "Avenue Q" had that song about how everyone's a little bit racist all over Youtube. Let me see if it got purged...Nope, still around
 

DICARLO

Well-known member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
There are no conservatives. Conservatives are liberals. Conservatives celebrating historically low black and Hispanic unemployment comes from the same place as Liberals celebrating historically high minority college enrollment. Both are all about the improvement of non-whites at the expense of White civilization. How many policies and celebrations can you think of today that don’t revolve around non-white betterment? Mainstream conservatism today is a racket that stands for homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism, tax cuts, deregulating corporations, the American Empire and Zionism. If one believes homosexuals, liberals and grifters who want to conserve political correctness and multiculturalism should be leading the Right, you're a liberal.
 

Seger

seger672@hitler.rocks / ricochet:a5tge2w7icoqus5e
Old World Underground
⏰☕
During the Gamergate era, there was a particular trope that was popular, exemplifying the impossibility of pleasing an inter-sectional feminist

...

The point was, it was clear that in the game of anti-opression, there is really no way to win. Especially as a straight White male. What some realized only later was that it wasn't just simple stupidity, it was by design. It was essentially a lose-win situation for you and the radical left, and that the only winning move was to not play. To counter-act that, the SJWs tried to anything to make it harder to "not play". From doing review bombing, to calling for journals to do bad reviews, to calling for bans on games and so on.
The goal is never to find the truth. Here's another good example:
(Men/women) are doing (well/poorly)...
Men are doing well: This is sexism's fault. Their gains come at the expense of women's.
Women are doing poorly: This is sexism's fault. The men's gains come at the expense of women's.
Men are doing poorly: This is patriarchy's fault. The only reason they're doing poorly is because of the male norms. With more feminism, we can solve the problem.
Women are doing well: haha men BTFO the future is female.

This means that they are completely immune to facts about the real world. Their ideology is unfalsifiable, since it makes no predictions about how things work or what will happen in the future. You can shower them with authentic information, and they can believe it, but it will not count against the ideology.

(Compare this to, say, racism: if I were shown authentic proof that blacks were capable of civilization, this would obviously shake my beliefs to the core)

I think what you would want is to take away the fear from being called racist. Just like calling someone a pedophile, it's a complete death sentence. What you need is to make sure that people in their minds have a good defense to being called a racist, so that they can start thinking along racial lines. What you have would also work, where you narrow the definition of the term until it's not anymore applicable. "This isn't racism, it's just in-group preference". Alternatively, there's all of these classics:

> racist is just what they call all White people, it's just a modern-day ethnic slur
> [Sowell's boomer quip]
> is it racist to point out that Asians are good at math?

"Yes, I am a racist" is probably not achievable with current technology, which means that you unfortunately have to implicitly accept the idea that racism = violent racism. This means that you must separate the violent racism from standard in-group preference.

You could of course also go full psychotherapist and ask them to define racism for you. Listening to people is an extremely good way to convince them of things 1:1, and generally speaking you don't want to do it in a debate (a performative spectacle for the masses), but it could probably be quite effective here, since most people don't consider the term critically. You might even be able to provoke a meltdown.

The American Heritage Dictionary says the following:

  • n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
  • n. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
  • n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

This maps to 3-4, 2, and 7 respectively in your definition.

One argument that I've had some success with is things like "is it sexist to point out that men are taller than women," or "is it sexist to point out that >90% of CEOs are male".

Anyway, rambling aside, I think this is a really good post that @Andrew Anglin should publish after some copyediting.
 

RedPillStormer

♫♪♬ I bless the rains down in Africa ♫♪♬
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
It seems the confusion around the word "racism" is now a big topic of discussion. The comments under the banned HNK Black Lives Matter broadcast had a lot of people asking "how is this racist ?" given that the video actually simply said that blacks are mad that Whites have 7 times more assets, that the Coronavirus left 45% of blacks unemployed and that blacks suffered more from Corona.

The main reasons people called it racist was because it :

1) oversimplified the BLM narrative
2) presented a stereotypical image of blacks

However, HNK is actually considered a left-leaning broadcast in Japan according to many and they actually tried to supposedly present a sympathetic narrative to US blacks.

The word "racist" however is confusing as the comments under the video attest


comm.PNG

It seems to be a big topic of discussion
 

thordaddy

Active member
⏰☕
If one doesn’t possess a concrete conception of “golf” then he RETAINS the CAPABILITY of weaponizing the word “golfist.”

So it is with “racist.” The word remains weaponized BECAUSE neither the “left” nor the “right” is in possession of a concrete conception of “race.”

Psst... Your race is your father(s) and this is an absolute and unequivocal, concrete reality.

Now, “anti-racism” can be understood for what it real is, namely, TO BE AGAINST one’s father(s).

Both BLM and Antifa are “anti-racist,” ie., against their father(s). BLM because “blacks” are matriarchal and Antifa because they really hate their “fascist” fathers.
 

Based Turanist

Active member
The same thing has been done with the word "rape" by feminists. Feminists redefined the term rape while doing college surveys to include "unwanted interactions" while not making efforts to inform about the new definition, thus resulting in the claim that "1 in 4 college women are raped" which is more than African war-torn countries. This game of motley and bailey, of using terms with multiple meanings to entrap others.

@Zaldron @Mistaf @Staufer @Donk @Coltraine @Andrew Anglin @Hanbern
The same logic is applied when they try to separate homos from pedos to acquit homos. According to their logic, if a male fucks(rapes) only underage boys, it has nothing to do with homosexualism, it's called a pedophile, and they talk about it as it's an entirely different thing. They even have papers backing this ludicrous claim. Typical IFLScience! shit.
 

DICARLO

Well-known member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
The basic point is that race exists within the human species. This isn’t “racism” which is rooted in a spirit of malevolence. It is simply an acknowledgment of reality -- truth. All “racism”, as defined by the jews false assertions, is fake. There are no Whites going around hating people “because they’re different” and then plotting to harm them because they hate them because they’re different That just doesn’t exist. It is a complete fantasy, a spoof made up by the jews to attack White people, the only target of these charges of hatred.
 

RedPillStormer

♫♪♬ I bless the rains down in Africa ♫♪♬
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Racism simply means I love my People more than their people.
Some people love to tout this line, but that is not what racism means anymore. The definition has significantly expanded in popular vocabulary to mean pretty much disagreeing with the left on anything for any reason.
 

Vilis_Hāzners

卐卐卐 - RACE AND NATION FIRST - 卐卐卐
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️
Some people love to tout this line, but that is not what racism means anymore. The definition has significantly expanded in popular vocabulary to mean pretty much disagreeing with the left on anything for any reason.
Thus you, and others, let yourselves be controlled by their definitions.

Fuck their definitions. Fuck what they say, whatever it is. I stick to my guns no matter what, period, end of.
 

Seger

seger672@hitler.rocks / ricochet:a5tge2w7icoqus5e
Old World Underground
⏰☕
Some people love to tout this line, but that is not what racism means anymore. The definition has significantly expanded in popular vocabulary to mean pretty much disagreeing with the left on anything for any reason.
What's the best way, then? Arguing that 'X' is not racism because it's not violent racism, arguing that racism is good, or arguing that your interlocutor is a bad, hypersensitive, SJW for calling you a racist?

I would go with the third - "racist is just what they call all White people". It gets more and more true by the day.
 

DICARLO

Well-known member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
What's the best way, then? Arguing that 'X' is not racism because it's not violent racism, arguing that racism is good, or arguing that your interlocutor is a bad, hypersensitive, SJW for calling you a racist?

I would go with the third - "racist is just what they call all White people". It gets more and more true by the day.
That's absolutely so. Only race awareness in Whites is evil. All Whites are evil. No matter how much a White would try to suck up to niggers, how much of a White coward you are, blacks only see you through their racial lens. Blacks are extremely race conscious, but that's all well and good according to the jew brainwashed society. There is no way around it. Only White racialism is evil. White interests are evil. It's absurd, of course.
 

Yourtwin18

In big chief Steve's emotion-logic we trust
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
It is abundantly clear that the Words Racist / Racism are synonymous with White People, when people use those words they are talking about White People.

View attachment 8628

They want to cure the virus of Racism / White Supremacy, which means curing the white plague so to speak, South Africa / Rhodesia / Haiti world wide

View attachment 8629
Craig Bodecker had a good documentary exploring the contradictions and ambiguity of racism back when the wheel Internet was being invented. It was called A Conversation About Race. Just gonna drop this here:

 
Top