Posts Tagged ‘racist’

Yes, Leon Trotsky Invented The Word “Racism”

Monday, May 15th, 2017

Leftists always lie, and one of their common tropes is to insist that their views are normal. For example, they deny that Leon Trotsky invented the term “racist” and “racism”:

Raciste’ and ‘racisme’ crop up regularly in the works of late-19th and early-20th century French agitators, while their English language counterparts first appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1902.

Of course, at the time, these words were predominately used to refer to (a) the pseudo-scientific classification of human beings into distinct races, (b) the supposed hierarchies that result from those distinctions, and (c) the scientific and/or moral righteousness of white racial superiority.

However, you can see the full story here: a term that once was descriptive, referring to those who we now call racialists, became a political weapon. In other words, the same word gained a new meaning, making it — in our common lexicon — and invention.

Leftists will not accept that, so let us use another word: “gay.” This originally had an innocent meaning, indicating a carefree happiness. Starting in the latter half of the 20th century, it became politicized.

Was that a new word? It was a new meaning, the same way Leon Trotsky re-invented “racism” and “racist” to be terms for political groups that he wished eliminated.

You Cannot Beat The Left By Using Leftist Language

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

Among those on the Right, a disturbing tendency appears time and again where we attempt to use the arguments of our enemies against them, but go too far and use their language.

To defeat a party by using its own arguments, you must show that your way works better in terms of achieving goals, and also possibly that their way does not achieve its goals. If the mayor says he wants to decrease litter, and he wants to do it by putting more trash cans in the town square, pointing out that most of the littering does not occur there is a winning argument.

But Leftist language is not about goals; it is entirely categorical. You are either ideologically correct or the enemy. This is why it tends to operate in binary forms that designate a category of bad things, and an “anti” category for those that oppose them. People signal obedience by belonging to the latter.

For this reason, to use Leftist language is to affirm one side or the other when the actuality of the situation is more complex. Are you an ableist — a Leftist term meaning those who favor physically fit people — or not? Does the world ever fit into such narrow categories? Most people do not take ideological positions, but realistic ones, and the Left forces them into a categorical choice to control them.

If you are not an ableist, after all, you agree with the Leftist position against ableism. On the other hand, if you say you are an ableist or try to evade the question, you will be filed in a neat little box of ideas that the Leftists want you to think are socially unacceptable. It is their way of either forcing you to conform or beginning the process of destroying you.

Those who are not Leftist can defeat Leftists by rejecting their terms. This is why it is self-defeating (the worst kind of defeat) to use terms and metaphors like the following:

  • Nazi.
  • Racist.
  • Fascist.
  • Elitist.

You may recognize the second item as the failed DR3/DemsRtheRealRacists ploy which generally serves more as an indicator of cuckservative intent than a refutation of Leftism.

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

If you need to call the Left nasty names, try these instead:

Unlike Leftist language, these are descriptive terms based on the behavior of Leftists. They also explain Leftism as a pathology and not an ideology, which is its weakness and why Leftists tend to be so fanatical. It is time to retake language from politics, and stop using it to affirm the Leftist narrative in a misguided attempt to attack Leftism. That never works.

Exposing the Malicious Hatred of People Who Shout “Racist”

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


Those who have weathered years of invective and hate as a reward for speaking up for Western European men, for not standing idly by as the white race lethargically dissolved, will likely have noticed that sometime in 2015 indifference to the left’s trump card of shouting “racist” filtered into the mainstream.

The majority of whites still cower pathetically at the mere thought of enduring this social attack, but the idea that some regular whites might, upon becoming interested in their peoples’ survival, neither collapse in fear of the “r” word, nor transform into Hollywood Nazis, entered public consciousness.

The anti-PC juggernaut that is Donald Trump is the obvious locus of this phenomenon, but in all likelihood his absence would have found another entity embodying the latent forces that had been building underground for decades. In any case, we now find ourselves in a situation where a Western European man may express opposition to the extinguishing of his people and still get invited to some parties.

This is a positive development; we’ve gained some ground — now we must advance.

One way to do so is to hijack the social war machine of the left and turn it on them. Shouting “racist” is a means of chastising healthy in-group preference and anything that gets within a hundred miles of that. This attack works because it equivocates white self-interest with an interest in harming non-whites, and as an extension of this, also equivocates recognition of racial differences with genocidal intent.

The simple fact is that those who use the word “racist,” whites and non-whites alike, hate white people and want them gone.

White people are generally nice, and, especially when oversocialized, recoil in horror at the thought of pointlessly or maliciously causing harm. Of course, the equivocations implicit in the attack word “racist” are false: interest in the survival and flourishing of European people is not predicated on hatred of others. The word is founded on a lie. We can substitute it with the truth.

There are a few things that can happen when the word “racist” is used. On an individual level, it causes the targeted white person severe psychological stress as they subconsciously imagine themselves cast out from the warmth and protection of the herd. Nothing good comes from this, and it’s easy to see this for the cruel bullying that it is.

Another thing that can happen is the murder and rape of large numbers of whites. South Africans were badgered endlessly with the word until they finally relented, and allowed power to pass to those who hated them, with the predictable result that thousands of white farmers were murdered. For the police officers of Rotherham, the mere thought of the word was enough to strike them impotent and watch in cowardice as thousands of children were raped by Pakistanis who considered them livestock.

Every single day, whites around the world bow their heads and take hatred quietly and let themselves, their friends, and their relatives get robbed, raped, and murdered because they don’t want to do a single thing that could possibly lead to them being called “racist.”

After this scale of disaster, how can anyone in good conscience maintain and intensify the attacks of “racist”? Doing so clearly requires a sickening commitment to mass cruelty. Ultimately, the thing that would result from an unrelentingly successful attack with this word is the disappearance of whites entirely — most likely through miscegenation — and everything that is unique about us.

Demographic patterns are not secret knowledge. Leftist aims can no longer be denied when there are SJWs in every organization screeching about “fucking white males” who have too much privilege. The simple fact is that those who use the word “racist,” whites and non-whites alike, hate white people and want them gone. With no evidence of life anywhere else in universe, to desire the obliteration of something as rare and with as much potential as Western Europeans is cruelty on a cosmic scale.

All of this, based on a lie—that being unashamed of being white is evil. The truth that must substitute this lie is that those who use the word “racist” are hateful and evil. In order to do so, my suggestion is to call them “leukomisiacs” because they are people who adhere to “leukomisia,” or the hatred of whites. Whenever someone shouts “racist,” we expose them as a leukomisiac.

The word itself doesn’t matter, one of the many bright minds in the growing alt-right movement may find a better term. The attitude is what’s important: not only should we be unapologetic, we should push back.

For the useful idiots who never really grasped leftist ideology, who in some sense are as responsible for their actions as a rotting potato, we can make it very simple and clear: calling someone “racist” means willing rape upon little white children.

The primary determinant of whether a social group can lead — whether it can wield social shaming — is not its size, it’s the degree to which the group is perceived as being right.

As a matter of practicality, one objection to all this might be that for social ostracism to work, it must come from a majority; that no one will be shamed for shouting “racist” if the ones doing the shaming constitute a small minority. While the thinking behind that is not entirely mistaken, it puts too much emphasis on quantity. The primary determinant of whether a social group can lead — whether it can wield social shaming — is not its size, it’s the degree to which the group is perceived as being right and having or being on the path to having power.

Do we have this? Declarations such as this from the Los Angeles Times may give us hope:

The Alt-Right represents the first new philosophical competitor to liberalism, broadly defined, since the fall of Communism.

Shouting “racist” is cruel to individuals because of the psychological stress it causes, is cruel to groups because of the misery, murder, and rape that it causes, and is cosmically evil because of the genocide that it furthers. We need to advance from being unapologetic in the face of this and mount a counter-attack against these leukomisiacs.

The term “hate group” is a hateful, bigoted slur

Saturday, March 5th, 2016

The SPLC’s Mark Potok admitted something disgraceful in an otherwise unrelated news story:

Groups must have ideologies that malign an entire group of people to be included on the map, and they must be actively promoting their ideas and attracting a larger audience than a single person, Potok said.

“Most of the groups — probably the vast majority — do not engage in criminal violence,” he said.

In other words, to be a hate group, you need only to have an opinion that contradicts a certain Leftist narrative. This is itself a form of bigotry, or judging people by category and assuming they lack the ability to contribute. In this case, it is mere political bigotry.

The idea of hate crimes, hate groups and “racism” is slowly passing into history — on the wrong side. People invested good faith in struggling against their instincts and common sense, but the last few years have revealed that these terms — and related terms like sexist, homophobe and transphobe — are merely manipulative propaganda, or “speech policing” in order to deflect criticism of the ideological paradigm of the current Establishment.

As liberal democracy enters its twilight phase, expect more such illusions to fall.

The fall of giants

Sunday, January 17th, 2016


The champion oversimplified fighting into a formula: charge fiercely to pressure, eat a few punches to get into the clinch, and then apply Olympic level judo to finish. This works every time if the opponent plays into those assumptions and is unable to withstand them.

But a skilled opponent and their coaches peer further into this assembly line aggression and notice where substance is lacking, allowing the attack to be evaded, countered from angles at opportune moments, and gradually dismantled. By keeping the fight away from the standard formula that chews up opponents, its strategy is stifled, and gets no help from an inept coach who calls for more of the failing customary attack.

Exerting fruitless effort and taking strikes soon brings on exhaustion. Form suffers into sloppiness and invites more strikes. The final moment soon comes, sending the champ to the ground unconscious. The myth of invincibility is at once shattered.

This same supposed invincibility exists for the political approach that relies on blustering intimidation to control discussions. It has been able to succeed in saying that massive untested changes to society that no one wants are inevitable because laws make them so, and therefore we must change as codified and tolerate whatever happens, rather than crafting the type of society that has proven best.

Modern political discourse is premised on irrational, senseless aims supported by a bullrush of names, accusations, and other incantations:

Racist! Hater! Microaggressor! Privileged Bigot!

But once you survive this initial onslaught, there’s nothing else coming. They will wail like victimized innocents and complain that you have victimized them and hurt their feelings by expressing ideas that differ from their preferences. Don’t be baited.

Circle away, stick and move, and stay true to your winning strategy.

Tactics such as doxing someone, i.e. posting personal information to get them fired and homeless to silence their political opinions, were previously successful methods used by left-wing opponents, but are increasingly familiar and becoming a generic lackadaisical attack. People with anonymity, financial independence, and nontraditional employment don’t even have to prepare defensive counter moves.

Calling everyone racist without cause has spread wide immunity to the term and made it synonymous with crying wolf. By turning the word into a farce, its use for slandering others has become ineffective.

Clearing out those haymakers leaves little in the way of legitimate arguments. The promised results of left-wing activists can be contrasted with the actual results observable when those policies have been attempted. For all their slick marketing, the demonstrated product experience of misery and lowered quality says it all.

Many in media and college campuses hold fast to old slogans and ideology as those lose strength through debunking, inspection, and awareness of better alternatives. Those who stay the course remain unaware their camp is losing the luster of novelty when its grand promises of utopia become repurposed as memes to derisively mock the naive and obtuse.

Bullies fall into utter confusion to see their tactics stop working. Their legs become awkward hunks of rubber and their wild telegraphed swings miss. Their formula has been exposed and countered, and there is nothing they do can save it.

Exhausted, they struggle to stay upright, open for the final strike to fell them and dispel the nonsense they have tried to make us believe by sheer force. The giants fall, having turned out to be puny after all.

“Racism” does not exist

Wednesday, April 8th, 2015


“Racism” is a made-up term with an implicit political ideology. It is a binary term, implying a negative and by reflection that all which is not that is good.

It is comparable to the old courtroom question: Answer yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife?

There is no good answer, of course. Damned if you do — and say “yes” — and damned if do not, and say “no.” That is the whole point: the accusation itself is the conviction.

Investigations into racism (like recent college rape trials) are often compared to witch-hunts, for a good reason. They shift the burden of proof to the accused. When you are accused of being a witch, or being a racist, you have to somehow prove you are not racist.

And the only proof? Adopting an anti-racist ideology yourself, and acting to include other races in your activities for the sole reason of their race.

People accept “racism” as an idea because they believe in good and evil defined by human means, a change that happened to religious thought during The EnlightenmentTM

Before there were attempts to mix different populations in the same political entity, the “nation-state,” racial strife was nonexistent. Conquest and enslavement were more common within races than through colonialism.

The racism binary denies the root of racial antipathy in the question of the direction of a civilization. “Who are we?” is the basic question that unites a society. When race is replaced by politics, this becomes confused and societies fall apart. Those who have racial antipathy are afraid of that consequence more than they are specifically afraid of the abilities of other races, or lack thereof.

Anti-racists deny the fact that they are in fact racist, which is why they hide behind this binary of racism=bad and therefore anything non-racist=good. Mixed-race groups are inherently bigoted against any who are not mixed-race. They are not stable until they replace the indigenous group with a mixed-race group in a process comparable to genocide. They fear, hate and dehumanize people who are not mixed-race.

If we examine the term “racism,” we see a clever attempt to hide the failure of mixed-race policy.

We also see the first real technique of social control. Unlike previous authoritarian and totalitarian governments, social control works by having a mob form spontaneously to enforce the ideals of the government. That way, government cannot take the blame for controlling its citizens.

Like other forms of social control, the racism binary operates by the coercive threat of ostracism. If you do not affirm anti-racism, you become an ideological enemy, and no one will hire you, rent to you, sell to you or befriend you. You will die friendless and alone, they say, wagging their fingers.

But as time goes on and the anti-“racist” mixed-race societies spiral downward into social chaos, the nature of this political binary reveals itself. It was always a means of control. And the more it fails, the more the tyrants will come out from behind the curtain and directly enforce it with threats of terror.

Recommended Reading