The Ambiguity of 'Racism'

The term “racism” (and its cognates) is an unfortunate piece of Orwellian Newspeak. It conflates two or three concepts that ought to be distinguished.

Firstly, there is what, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, used to be called “racialism.” Historically, this is simply the acknowledgment that there are different races.[1]

Secondly, there is merely having an (economic) interest in one’s own race. To put it another way, we could ask any given person whether he or she cares what happens to other persons of his or her own race. If they do care, then we can say that they are interested in the thriving of their race.

Thirdly, there is what we might call “chauvinism” about one’s own (or possibly a different) race. Let’s say that this amounts to (economic) interest run amok. We’ll say that to be “chauvinistic” about one’s own race is to simply lay it down that you and your kind are “better” (period) than other people.

Notice that even if one admits chauvinist-”racism” to be “bad,” this doesn’t mean that “racialism” is unjustified or that simple (economic) interest in one’s own race is ill-advised.

The contemporary conflation of these three distinct senses invites two things.

Number one, it invites a state of affairs wherein organizations such as the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) or the clothing line FUBU (“For Us, By Us”) ought to count as “racist” because they fit senses one and two. However, these institutions are seldom – if ever – saddled with the label “racist.” Such is seemingly reserved for whites.

So, number two, given the simplistic catch-all “racist” label, non-chauvinistic whites are unable to express mere (economic) interest in their own race without being called chauvinistic-“racists.”

For consistency’s sake, either we should allow that whites can express healthy interest in their own race, or we should conclude that FUBU or UNCF are “racist” groups. Since the latter option would do violence to three genuinely differentiable concepts, it would surely be preferably to disambiguate the term “racist,” along the lines sketched above.

However, in doing so, what we discover is that whites are the only group who are not presently permitted to express (economic) interest in their own racial group.[2] “Racist” has been converted into a piece of anti-white weaponry.

---

[1] Against those, like “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” who straight-facedly assert that blacks are merely whites with suntans, are those like Jared Taylor, who acknowledge “The Reality of Race.”

[2] For when are blacks labeled “racist” for sporting FUBU shirts? Or when are Jews labeled “racist” for giving money to the ADL, AIPAC or the Israeli state? Hispanics do not even seem to be subjected to the label many support a militant organization that is called “The Race” (La Raza) and is, among other things, bent on “reclaiming” the American South-West for Mexico?

'A Turnout Battle' For or Against the Multi-Cult

Rolling Stones writer Matt Taibbi has to reconfirm his liberal bona fides. His earlier efforts have grown stale.

Taibbi's anti-Catholic screed "The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope" (New York Press, Mar. 9, 2005) has been pulled down and can now only be found in the dark recesses of Internet archives.

He cannot be expected to write a sequel to The Exile: Sex, Drugs and Libel in the New Russia (with Mark Ames, New York: Grove Press, 2000) now that he has (presumably) quit using H.

Ever since his criticisms of the investment firm Goldman Sachs were construed as "anti-Semitic," Taibbi might even have been facing banishment from Starbucks.

This has all of the makings of a serious crisis for a "progressive" like Taibbi.

What to do?

The most obvious starting point, for a loathsome anti-traditionalists of his ilk, is anti-white invective.

His latest establishment screed ("The Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia," Rolling Stone, Sept. 4, 2015) can be summarized in two sentences.

The upcoming national elections will plausibly be, as Taibbi writes, "a turnout battle between people who believe in a multicultural vision for the country, and those who don't." The remainder of his text is merely a sustained deprecation of "those who don't."

Most of his words are therefore unworthy of serious attention, let alone a response.

After all, what can be the reply to such as Taibbi when their tirades barely rate as the intellectual equivalents of schoolyard "raspberries"? The best his audience can do, perhaps, is to shield their faces from his rancid spittle.

Concerning the one sentence that he managed to type lucidly, however, I pray that it would serve as a rallying cry for those who are too cowed to speak plainly.

Unless your vision for national rejuvenation involves airplanes full of Africans, boatloads of Arab immigrants and semi-trucks full of Mexicans unloading their passengers to a HUD house near you, then I suggest that you line up on the side of "those that don't" want to follow Nimrod's doomed building plan and that you not stand by while Europe and the United States are being possessed by the spirit of the Tower of Babel.

"From one man he [i.e. God] made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands." (The Book of Acts, the Bible, chapter 17, verse 26; New International Version.)