Now, if you think turning prosperous, mirthful, and peaceful parts of the globe into miserable hellholes is a righteous, wonderful, and moral thing to do, it is certainly your right to be a retard…
by Emmanuel Spraguer
“Racism” is a term with many disparate definitions. Indeed, that imprecision is very useful for addicts of the term. It is like having a nine-headed dog guarding the church of diversity at all times. The term is more of a weapon than a word at this point. It doesn’t construct so much as dismantle. It is essentially always and everywhere an underhanded attempt to end all civil debate and declare victory, by people incapable of reasoning above a very rudimentary level.
As far as I can tell the term refers to what are four largely distinct phenomena: 1) the belief that races differ biologically and that those differences matter; 2) the hatred of members of different races; 3) racial prejudice; and 4) racial discrimination.
The first definition, namely the claim about inequality between groups and the import of that inequality, is nothing more than an idea, a truth claim to be precise. Our Cultural Marxist overlords tell us that to believe it is to be a bad person. But that is not true and indeed can’t really be true. Only imbeciles and totalitarians could believe that merely believing this renders one a bad person.
What’s more, claiming someone is a bad person for believing this, is what philosophers the world over call a “category error”. You see, this first definition is simply a truth claim about the world. It is not a moral act and thus is not a candidate for moral judgment. For example, if I told you the sky was green, and you told me I was a bad person for believing that, I would reply that you were clearly very confused about something. Now, I may be mistaken about the sky’s color, but I am not a bad person for being mistaken about the sky’s true color. To claim otherwise is to completely misunderstand the subject matter of the discussion; it is to inject matters of morality into matters of reality. We weren’t acting in ways that subjected us to moral judgment. Indeed, we weren’t even discussing moral issues, or what ought to be. We were only discussing how things are or how things aren’t, out there in the world. People who say things like, “racists are evil because they think the races differ in X or Y”, are stupid people. They are people, by and large, who don’t even comprehend what they’re saying, or how utterly idiotic what they’re saying actually is. This is a simple, unmistakable category error. Truth claims about physical/objective reality are not moral (or immoral) acts. They do not possess the basal qualities of moral acts. Moral acts and even moral claims belong to different conceptual categories.
The second definition, hatred, is an extremely rare phenomenon, especially in the modern West. To the extent such hatred even exists anyhow, it is situational and fleeting because hatred is sort of inherently situational and fleeting, and it is also virtually impossible to measure or observe, as hatred is itself nothing more than a feeling. Furthermore, like thoughts/ideas, “hatred” is not something that can be moral or immoral, as it is not an act directed at the outside world, but something entirely personal and internal to an individual. However, since I consider genuine “hatred” of this type to be both extremely rare and outside the knowledge of those who tend to kvetch incessantly about its existence, it is basically a type/definition of racism with minimal import. It is also not so much a valid definition of racism as a smear meant to discredit one’s political opponents. So, while I happen to think that hatred can be both useful and rational in certain instances, again, I don’t wish to harp on this definition for the aforementioned reasons.
Admittedly, racial discrimination taken to its utmost extreme can take a society to rather ugly places (think Nazism). And yet anti-racism, even in a purer, not selectively applied, not fundamentally anti-white form (contrary to how it currently exists and is currently understood), taken to its utmost extreme, is far worse. To take the principles of anti-racism to their logical conclusion is to destroy one’s people and one’s society by design, indeed by necessity. To refuse to distinguish between “us” and “them” in the context of a nation is to abolish the nation itself. To do so in the context or religion is to effectively abolish the religion. If any group wishes to survive, it must take some measures to protect the defining characteristic(s) of the group. Indeed, it must take not only some measures, but adequate measures to do so. To not do so, is to ensure its own demise. What’s more, in the modern world, punctuated by extreme pressures to migrate to wealthier areas, to not do so is to ensure the group’s demise swiftly, via parasitism and invasion. If successful groups do not protect their own interests, they are sure to be swallowed whole by the explosive population growth in populations that wish to share in their success, but which are largely incapable of contributing to it.
Extreme discriminatory racism at least models nature. It at least promotes open competition between groups and celebrates the kinds of successes that nature itself customarily rewards. Anti-racism, on the other hand, is essentially just communism as applied to genes, race, and borders. It is anti-competitive, inherently dysgenic, not progress but anti-progress, and a way for the most worthless peoples on the Earth to gradually consume everything beautiful, precious and decent left on it. Anti-racism is also basically anti-biology. It pretends that evolution magically ceased 250,000 years ago, just because. It is like creationism for leftards, but in reverse. Instead of the Earth magically coming into existence roughly 10,000 years before the present, evolutionary forces magically stopped operating on man a quarter of a million years before the present (when Sub-Saharan Africans and the rest of us split)! Amazing what zealots will believe in the name of ideology/faith.
As has been shown, the term “racism” may be applied to one of four phenomena. The first phenomenon is basically a puerile insult for those who reject race egalitarianism. The problem though, is that race egalitarianism is just patently false, no matter how rabidly leftist totalitarians enforce this pleasant Neo-Lysenkoist fiction. To enforce such a belief, by the way, constitutes nothing less than a war against the truth itself. All racial populations are not equal in their abilities. They are not even remotely equal. Indeed, as data continues to accrue regarding the genetic differences between human populations, even well-known Jewish scientists like David Reich, are beginning to reluctantly concede that race egalitarianism is just intellectually untenable. With that said, even if race egalitarianism was true, which it most certainly isn’t, it still wouldn’t be immoral to believe otherwise. Whereas the second type of racism is simply just a feeling, not subject to moral judgment, and not a particularly good subject for any kind of moral analysis.
The third, prejudice, or more specifically, out-group prejudice, is really just an error/bias in reasoning, or alternatively, a structural/systemic error in reasoning, that is more or less in-built to the human psyche and common to all races and peoples (not just whites). I should say, for what it is worth anyhow, that I do not think prejudice of any variety, properly defined, is something to be celebrated. However, our anti-white overlords don’t properly define it. They typically define prejudice as reaching conclusions about different populations that are not Politically Correct (for example: blacks are disproportionately prone to violence). This is actually an utter bastardization of the concept. “Prejudice” itself is a process-based error. It is not about reaching immoral (not even possible) or improper conclusions (outcome-based), but about employing improper reasoning (process-based) in reaching particular conclusions. Unfortunately, disparate impact jurisprudence shows that even our best legal minds don’t understand this distinction. Thus, properly understood, “prejudice” is not a moral error but an intellectual error. However, since intellectual errors are not themselves commendable or useful, they should be avoided, but not because the conclusions one reaches are somehow morally wrong, but because we should all strive to ascertain the truth via sound processes of reason.
In other words, people (often powerful people in the press and power structure) who argue that “prejudice is immoral”, are again, simply confused. Such types are conflating the bad acts that sometimes flow from prejudice with prejudice itself, as they also commonly conflate bad acts that sometimes flow from racist thoughts, with the thoughts themselves. However, only acts are properly subject to moral judgment, not thoughts or thought processes. Moreover, particular thoughts, like particular ideologies, do not necessarily entail particular acts, and anyone arguing otherwise is simply misinformed and probably reasoning prejudicially themselves. Furthermore, sometimes biases/prejudices can lead us to conclusions anti-racists favor, like false egalitarian conclusions, further elucidating how prejudice is flatly not an outcome-based phenomenon. Thus, any policing of initial truth claims must be made on the basis of their merely being correlated with particular actions or political ideologies, which, in the first place, is just silly, and in the second place, doesn’t get you around the fact that you are still policing ideas, a horrible idea and an inescapably totalitarian practice.
We must also distinguish between prejudice and in-group favoritism, the latter being nothing more than the recognition that the lives, values and interests of one’s own people are worthier of protection. Insofar as one’s own people may be more productive, intelligent or ethical, such a recognition may be based in objective reality, and insofar as like liberties are granted to competing groups, such a position is hardly necessarily rooted in any sort of prejudice (i.e. a biased/flawed reasoning procedure).
Thus, we are left with the final type of racism, racial discrimination, which is really the only type/definition of racism that is even a candidate for moral judgment. Naturally, I would submit to you that a moral value which entails the destruction of the groups that consistently practice it, which anti-racism does, is not a sound moral value at all, but a form of collective insanity.
One of the chief forms of racial discrimination, for example, is exclusion. However, a total lack of exclusion/separation is an invitation to miscegenation, to cultural disintegration via borrowing and mixing, to the rewriting and rereading of one’s history, to the complete loss of identity, etc. Without any barriers to entry into a group, the group simply can not protect itself even marginally (or protect its ways, customs, or genes), let alone survive as a distinct group. It will assimilate the surrounding world or be assimilated into it. In this way, open borders combined with comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, is not merely bad policy, it is implicitly/effectively genocidal. Racial discrimination in the form of exclusion then is a practical defensive measure against incursion into the group, which, in sufficient quantities, entails the disintegration of the traits that define it.
n the modern world, a lack of barriers in both the national and international context, means mass-scale movements of people from highly unsuccessful regions to highly successful regions. After all, why would successful peoples migrate to shitholes? Therefore, in the modern world, we are not only talking about the eradication of the group via total transformation, but also a total transformation that invariably involves moral and civilizational decline. Thus, a total commitment to anti-discrimination by its very nature is destructive, but in its current form it is also socially, morally, culturally and genetically regressive. To refuse to discriminate is to refuse to be a people at all. A people that adopts such a moral value as its cardinal moral value, and aggressively applies that moral value against its own coethnics, is actively genociding itself as a people. An absolute prohibition on out-group discrimination is to the group what poison is to the individual.
Now, if you think turning prosperous, mirthful, and peaceful parts of the globe into miserable hellholes is a righteous, wonderful, and moral thing to do, it is certainly your right to be a retard, but it is our position in the Alt-Right that you are woefully deluded. Some degree of racial discrimination, in some contexts, is not only morally acceptable, but morally mandatory. Out-group discrimination is the nourishment upon which peoples and civilizations survive, and dare I say, thrive. Any group which refuses to engage in it, is simply not long for this world. Such a group is destined to be replaced by groups that do take their own group interests seriously, and enthusiastically discriminate against out-group members, like non-white, anti-white leftists and Mohammedans. Indeed, this is precisely what is happening in the West today. Our Cultural Marxist overlords go further of course, and inform us that whites aren’t even allowed a racial identity! But pray tell, how could a group possibly survive if its members must remain wholly unconscious of their own membership in it?
Thus, of the four variant types/definitions of the term racism, only one is really subject to moral judgment at all, and as we can see, it is not an easy intellectual task to defend the wholesale rejection of it (i.e. to advocate for absolute and unqualified anti-racism), unless you think peoples don’t have the right to remain peoples. We can thus rather comfortably conclude that a complete ban on racial discrimination is simply not morality or coextensive with morality. Morality proper must lie somewhere between racial discrimination in all contexts and racial discrimination in none.