The term ‘Racism’ blurs ‘race’ and ‘ism’ and confuses people. The proper spelling should be race-ism. That way, people would be more aware of the true meaning of the word. ‘Race’ means race and ‘Ism’ means belief. So, race + ism = belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.
So, I say I am a race-ist. Ism means belief, therefore race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief, creed, conviction, or thought system. Now, race-ism can become radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Nation of Islam or even extreme strains of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are on factual basis and for their psycho-social implications.
The big problem is ‘racism’ has been defined by the Powers-that-be to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such way, it negates the possibility of formulating a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because the neutral formula of race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred(especially among white folks), it’s difficult to conceive of an objective term about belief in race reality. I suspect the term ‘racism’ was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term about race would be near-impossible. If ‘racism’ means hateful racial supremacism, what would be the proper term for belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and need for racial identity and consciousness? Some defensively use ‘racialism’ and ‘race realism’, but even those terms become tainted because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been associated with the Worst Evil.
Suppose I define ‘heliocentrism’ as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such meaning should be called ‘helio-supremacism’ or ‘helio-chauvinism’. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It’s a belief in objective fact based on science. But if ‘heliocentrism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term denoting the centrality of the Sun in the Solar system becomes difficult to conceive.
Or take the term ‘humanism’. It doesn’t mean humans are the bestest and superduperest things in the cosmos and deserve supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as thinking-and-feeling beings on the planet.
But suppose ‘humanism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity over the entire planet or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all extraterrestrials must bow down to human earthlings.
Such an outlook should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania, NOT humanism. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for human + ism to mean something extreme, maniacal, or demented. As it happens, ‘humanism’ is defined properly. It doesn’t carry supremacist baggage.
But for some reason, ‘racism’ has been defined to mean ‘my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated’. Since when does Ism mean something that crazy?
Same goes for ‘nationalism’. It should mean belief in, loyalty to, and defense of one’s nation as historical entity and cultural homeland. Now, nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as national + ism simply means belief in loyalty to one’s own nation. It is belief in the right of one’s nation to survive as territory, history, and inheritance. But the PC media have defined ‘nationalism’(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme or ‘far right’. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as ‘neo-nazi’. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with hatred and supremacism when, in fact, it is the globalists who HATE the sovereign right of nations to survive and preserve themselves.
So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting the rights of other nations), they are compared with ‘dark forces’ when it’s George Soros who is the real Prince of Darkness. When something as sound as basic nationalism is defined so radically, it sucks out all the air in the room for a normal and balanced definition. When mere nationalism is ‘nazism’(that actually turned imperialist and violated the nationalisms of other peoples), then it’s impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it creates a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been rendered extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term RACE-ISM to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness. Thus far, I’m the only true race-ist.
As ‘racism’ and ‘antisemtism’ are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. America has gone way past the struggle for legal equality for minorities. The new dominant theme is about how we must all bow down before black chauvinism and Jewish supremacism. For example, when a white person is called ‘racist’, it now means ‘kiss black ass’. When he is called an ‘anti-Semite’, it means ‘kiss Jewish ass’.
Daring to say NO to blacks and Jews or daring to NOTICE negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence is anathema in the Current Year when ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ are used as bludgeons against anyone who won’t play the game.
So, if in the past, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superiors and Jews as rightful masters. Today, ‘racism’ means the right of black superiority, and ‘antisemitism’ means the right of Jewish supremacism.
Same thing with ‘homophobia’. What used to mean an “extreme animus against homos who are only minding their own business” has come to mean the “refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos”. So, if a bakery won’t bake ‘homo wedding’ cake, it is ‘homophobic’. If a politician refuses to participate in a homo ‘pride’ parade, he or she is deemed ‘homophobic’ and targeted for political extinction. Or, if a Church says NO to homo colors and banners, it must be ‘homophobic’ too. (Granted, even the original use of the term ‘homophobia’ was bogus because ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological & panicked fear of something harmless. While it’s true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it’s not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny genital mutilation. In our demented Jew-run society, even laughing at homos or finding homo community to be ridiculously funny is ‘homophobic’.)
Those three terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. The Holy Three, the Blacks, Jews, and homos have become arrogant and contemptuous because they’ve gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro demigods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him ‘Caitlyn’.
In a way, Milo represents the fusion of the Holy Three, and if he weren’t so politically correct, he would be the darling of the SRS(self-righteous supremacist) circuit. He is Jewish, Homo, and accepts only Negro dong up his bung. He also looks a bit ‘Aryan’, which can’t hurt because, despite all the anti-white-bashing, the ‘Aryan’ aesthetic still has great iconic value. Jews, browns, and blacks lust after ‘Aryan’-looking women despite all their yammering about ‘diversity’.
So often, the problem of meanings derives from the willful or misguided abuse of terminology. The ‘ism’ of ‘racism’ was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
From the start, blind racial animus or hostility should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc.
Worse, the problem wasn’t just the wrongful definition but the ‘idology’ and ‘iconology’ that came to be associated with the term, especially via the electronic media. While dictionaries offer verbal definitions, the political potency of certain terms derives from the term’s association with sensationalized images and sounds. This is why the term ‘racism’ has special potency in relation to blacks. Hollywood, PBS, and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with ‘racism’. There used to be some degree of association between ‘racism’ and American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians, which is inconvenient to Jewish Zionists. (It’s interesting that Tarantino’s WESTERN deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of what had been the most popular movie genre.) When people hear ‘racism’ in relation to non-blacks, there’s a faint sense of injustice but no real outrage. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don’t dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, Traumatic Muslim, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. There is little sympathy for Palestinians among Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba and the Occupation. Palestinian tragedy hasn’t been made into TV series, movies, protest songs, and popular books. While most Americans will theoretically agree that ‘racism’ against Palestinians is wrong, their hearts and minds haven’t been filled with the iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of sounds and images of Palestinian victimhood. Public opinion could change overnight. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling “I kill for Allah” and blowing up people. (‘Iconology’ matters a tremendous deal. Consider the movie E.T. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend a little boy. But Spielberg’s movie made E.T. so lovable, and so many adults and children were swept up with emotions for the warm cuddly creature from heaven. So, even though there are 100s of millions of REAL PEOPLE suffering all over the world, many Americans felt more compassion for a fictional space creature than for, say, Palestinians under Zionist Occupation. No less fantastical than E.T. is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as a divine god figure.) So, what matters is not just the control of terms but control of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there’s a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. Images like that are baked into our minds. It’s like Mel Brooks’ movie BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of a ‘nigger sheriff’, the Negro cowboy’s clever use of ‘iconology’ of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people’s heartstrings. Even though some of us eventually grow out of Magic Negro Myth, it takes some effort because we all imbibed so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It takes time and effort to wean ourselves from Negropiate. We gotta go Cold Jive Turkey.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z_JOGmXpe5I
What we must do is rehabilitate the term ‘racism’ as ‘race-ism’ and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective, or it be a form of radical racism and be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism about blacks would realize that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to intelligence, whites generally have the edge and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and raw power, blacks have the superiority and advantage.
So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Without manhood, white men will lose his soul, and white women will lose respect for white men and go for ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The only place for white males in a world racially integration with black is cucky-wuckery. Does any self-respecting white man want to be like CucKen Burns? This is why the white race needs SAFE SPACE from black thuggery.
Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won’t respect men without manly pride. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Colin Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn’t make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why white cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)
Proper rational ‘race-ism’ is still a work in progress. After all, consider how many racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know the changes were extensive. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.
Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and was twisted to justify horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it’s a fallacy to say that because an Ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety or will always lead to horrors. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath-water. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of ‘scientific socialism’ doesn’t mean that socialism has NO value. Socialism has real value in right doses and with proper implementation. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist because they support things like public libraries and Social Security. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain common needs and guarantees.
Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America DOES notice race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.
It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It’s not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter, and that’s why they are so rich and influential. Things get confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed as ‘anti-racist’ and sometimes deemed as ‘racist’. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief of race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed ‘anti-racist’?
It all depends on context and tenor. ‘Racism’ in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, ‘blacks are less intelligent’, that is deemed ‘racist’. But if someone says ‘blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America’, that is ‘anti-racist’. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, “Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power to exploit us”, that is ‘antisemitic’. But if someone says or implies, “Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected”, that is anti-antisemtic or ‘philosemitic’. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised.
But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept? The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But ‘iconologically’ and ‘idologically’, their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone’s child must have emergency brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got it through grade inflation of a ‘caring’ professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A’s from an elite college, even most progs are going to sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an ‘affirmative’ A.
Also, why do ‘anti-racist’ progs feel more compassion for certain races than for others? Why has there been far more concern for Jews than for Palestinians since WWII? Because of the iconography of Anne Frank and Shoah, and also because people associate Jews with great scientists, humorists, doctors, and thinkers. In contrast, their image of a Palestinian is some street urchin tossing rocks or some woman making funny sounds with her tongue. ?esthetics and iconology matter(and it goes way beyond ‘optics’).
And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, moderate left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is denounced as ‘nazi’ or ‘far right’. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But ‘idologically’ and ‘iconologically’, they behave with full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don’t listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. Indeed, even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are more likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow pooters. Now, ideologically, these people may stick with PC dogma, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellows are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, even-tempered, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yabbity-dabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery. So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.
So, if we are to be honest, we must fix the terminology, and we must demonstrate that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It’s just part of reality.
Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he won’t be so scared because he has a good chance of beating up Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same. The more muscular Negro can beat him up.
