A Close Examination of "That's Racist" and Other Invectives
On The Nature and Purpose of Such Tiresome Rhetoric, and Ways to Respond to It.
“Racism,” “racist,” and other such utterances are words that, for many, evoke a Pavlovian response. Decades of propaganda and social conditioning have conditioned a wide range of emotive responses, ranging from anger to disgust, from outrage to befuddlement. Martin Luther King’s birthday is a national holiday as his legacy is eulogized throughout our public school system, replete with assemblies, lesson plans, and the like. Hollywood has effectively created an entire sub-genre of civil rights films that are designed to evince a particular emotive reaction to various depictions of injustice and barbarism perpetrated against the black populace. Many of course are wanting for historical accuracy. Mississippi Burning is probably the stand-out of its kind. The sub-plot concerning the plight of Toomer Smalls in The Great Santini was one of the earlier instances of this trope. The indoctrination runs so deep that, in the 2011 film The Help, Hollywood depicted a black woman serving a white woman a chocolate pie containing large quantities of fecal matter—that is, the black woman’s shit. Not only did Hollywood escape any outrage or even criticism, that scene in particular was met with widespread acclaim and approval.
As a result of decades of such propaganda and indoctrination, charges of racism are considered by many to be about the worst utterance that can be made about someone, perhaps second only to accusations of pedophilia. And as irrational as these conditioned responses are, this Pavlovian response has infected not just the populace generally but a large number of so-called conservatives as well, both in relation to the constituency overall and the establishment shills that feign advocacy for that constituency. Many popular venues of mainstream conservatism are rife with pitiful displays that incorporate this very nomenclature of our ideological enemies. “The democrats are the real racists;” “the soft bigotry of low expectations;” “Affirmative action is racist against both blacks and whites;” “Robert Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan,” so on and so forth. The penetration of our enemies’ ideological framework into mainstream conservatism further explains the phenomenon seen all too often in which cuckservative midwits insist that fascism, right-wing populism, and the like are somehow left-wing.
All of this is fraught with many problems, intellectually and even logically. The various problems discussed below notwithstanding, large numbers of people have been conditioned by decades of propaganda and indoctrination to have a negative, reflexive response when such accusations of racism are uttered. That a critical mass of people has been so conditioned requires every individual and organization to develop a framework, a rhetorical methodology, on how to handle these accusations and this rhetoric.
The function of an accusation like “that’s racist” is nothing less than a rhetorical bludgeoning instrument, serving two principal purposes. The first is to slander the individual this rhetorical device is used against, as many have been conditioned to regard racism as a deep societal taboo as well as profound moral failure. The second purpose is to “disrupt the frequency,” to bog down or obfuscate the intended message of the person this rhetorical device is used against. Very often, the target will then spend time and energy disavowing the accusation or explaining why either that person or the position he has taken is not racist. Instead of setting forth the position or argument he had been articulating before, the target is thus obliged to restate and formulate the argument on the terms insisted by our political and ideological enemies. Of course, other pejoratives such as “sexist,” “bigoted,” “xenophobic,” “homophobic” and other such silly names are employed in precisely the same manner, although with varying degrees of efficacy. In this way, the same principles set forth in this tract concerning accusations of racism apply to these other pejoratives as well. Other such terms of course include “white-supremacist” as well as “right-wing,” and “right-winger,” although the latter two are an excellent to way distinguish actual right-wingery from milquetoast, ineffectual conservatism. The accusation of antisemitism is also part of the same playbook, but is perhaps the most effective of all due to Jewish lobbying and power.
Although much of modern society is too stupid or too conditioned in the very same way as Pavlov’s dogs to see, discern or understand it, dismissing something as “racist” suffers from a particular logical fallacy, insofar as these accusations presuppose that racism is immoral or that it is wrong, factually, logically, or otherwise. If someone correctly asserts that thirteen percent of the population commits over 50 percent of violent crime, dismissing that assertion as “racist” without addressing the factual or other merits of the claim presupposes either that uttering that statement is immoral, or factually or philosophically wrong. The logical fallacy is revealed when one considers how absurd a charge of sexism would be in relation to the true utterance that men, in the aggregate, are much more violent on average than women, although black women are overall more violent than white men. Any such objection to this true statement as sexist would be rightly regarded as ridiculous. Of course, accurate or true statements that observe general principles about women do invoke the charge of sexism with much more effect than they ought to.
Because so much of society has been so conditioned to respond to utterances of racism with such irrational aversion and even disgust—and by presupposing that “racist” comments or positions are inherently immoral, wrong, or otherwise invalid—a number of important and even vital topics and concepts are removed from the parameters of what is widely regarded as acceptable discourse. These include:
aggregate I.Q. differences between the races and other differences along racial lines rooted in biology and evolutionary psychology.
vastly disparate rates of violent crimes committed by blacks and to a lesser extent mestizos as compared to other racial groups
the importance of race for culture and identity, as evinced by the busty blonde beer maid at a German Biergarten or the pale visage of the Briton in the King’s Guard or the way that Japanese ethnicity is bound up in Japanese identity.
man’s inherently tribalist nature, that people naturally prefer their own kind. That the history of civilization has shown that multiculturalism does not work. And civilizations that have entertained such folly for any period of time have done so through tyranny or despotism, such The Ottoman Empire, The Soviet Union, Tito’s Yugoslavia, and so on.
the evils posed by miscegenation, from the hardships and difficulties suffered by those of such background, to the role the promotion of miscegenation plays the Great Replacement, not to mention the moral imperative to preserve different phenotypes but especially our own.
in relation to American society specifically, blacks collectively hold strong and irrational grudges against white people as a collective, grudges being quite an understatement. This despite billions spent in Great Society programs, that over 500,000 white men lost their lives or suffered terrible, gruesome casualties during the American Civil War, among other considerations demonstrating how altruistic whites have been.
Aside from allowing these important, even vital topics to become unduly stigmatized in public discourse, a failure to develop a proper resistance or immune system to such rhetoric is a key component of how much of a failure establishment conservatism has been. By not properly inoculating itself from this rhetorical and ideological framework, mainstream conservatism has been unduly occupied with paying lip service to the civil rights movement and even Martin Luther King on a wide variety of issues, including most especially so-called “gay marriage” and the continuing, unabated descent into depravity advocated by LGBTQ Yuck since Obergefell v. Hodges conjured a constitutional right to gay marriage by judicial fiat.
It is impossible for either the individual or a group or organization to resist effectively an ideological enemy if that person or group has incorporated the very nomenclature, buzzwords, and slogans touted by that very ideological enemy. The adoption and incorporation of this rhetoric, this set of ideological and political parameters is similar in many ways to an operating system incorporating the malicious code of malignant malware. Imagine, in other time periods and contexts, how ineffective anti-communists would be if obliged to pay lip service to Marxist talking points each time they set out to persuade the masses against the communist agenda. In relation to establishment conservatism’s ineffectual response to a wide range of policy matters from so-called gay marriage to affirmative action to immigration, they start-out on the back-foot by having not inoculated themselves from this civil rights era nomenclature and baggage. Any person who has a rudimentary understanding of chess and knows the importance of tempo will discern what a disadvantage it is for rhetoric and persuasion to be so bound up in adhering to this nomenclature, as the preoccupation with giving lip service to these sacred cows detracts from any focus on the arguments for or against a particular policy matter. Every time a figure in mainstream conservatism gives lip service to these talking points before addressing the issues in earnest, it puts that person at a distinct disadvantage similar to a loss of tempo in chess.
As important as these considerations are, responding to these utterances is not as simple as merely offering a logical or flippant rebuttal. precisely because so much of our society is so thoroughly conditioned to react to these words and slogans in such an irrational way. Any method of response must therefore account for the particular situation and context any given person finds himself. Although some are in such a position where they can say or utter anything they please and not endanger their livelihood or well-being, not everyone and perhaps most are not so situated.
If a person is either anonymous on the Internet (and can assure he remains anonymous), is independently wealthy or has a job and is in a community where such utterances cannot harm someone, the full gambit of responses is available. “Yes, and?” is a celebrated meme for a reason, as it denies what these words presuppose to be true. “Truth is racist” is a similarly devastating response, as is “truth is antisemitic.” Usually such a response will prompt an abrupt cessation of dialogue, or an outburst of insults. When properly insulated from the outrage of social media that can occur such as with the Central Park bird watching incident, the aka Central Park Karen incident described below or any other such consequences, baiting leftists and others of similar ilk can be most amusing.
Another response is to state simply that it is of no concern whether others denounce a statement as racist, or bigoted, or whatever, but rather that the only concern is whether the assertion is true or false. Call me Hitler, call me a Nazi, call me this or that, all of that is conceded for the sake of (not really) an argument. Answer whether the assertion made is true or false. Keep the focus on the merits of the claim being advocated or disputed. When a person is properly insulated from the lynch mob mentality of so much outrage on social media or in real life settings, seeing leftists and other rabble sputter in their tirades can be most amusing when challenged to address whether a claim is true or false.
As stated, quite often a person will have to massage and tailor a response depending on context and how much of a threat to a person’s well-being such accusations are. If, in response to the accusation “that’s racist” one cannot respond “yes, and” for any number of reasons listed above, it is important to still contradict the assumption that this utterance wins the day or obliges the person against whom it is uttered to grovel about how he certainly is not a racist or any other such lip service used to placate those who resort to such accusations. As stated above, these utterances are used to disrupt the flow of conversation, to disrupt the argument, to “jam the frequency.” Do not permit them to. It is imperative that people stop falling into that trap by groveling with denials of racism, how “some of my best friends are black people” or equivocating how the position advocated is not “racist.” Instead, such utterances must be met with stern deflection, a firm indication one does not respond to these terms in the way that is desired, followed by immediately redirecting the conversation towards the position or argument advocated.
That stated, it cannot be stressed enough that we live in the age of Amy Cooper, the white woman who was embroiled in the Central Park bird watching incident, in which she was socially ostracized for calling the police on a black man who made a veiled threat when she did not leash her dog in “the ramble.” Before he started filming her reaction, he stated 'If you’re going to do what you want to do, then I’m going to do what I want to do, but you’re not going to like it,” before reaching in his pocket for a dog treat: the implication being that the treat could be tainted or used to lure her dog away from her. As a result of the moral outrage against her, she lost her high paying job at Franklin Templeton, at one point faced criminal charges for calling 911 (the charges were later dismissed) and was forced to flee to Canada and live in hiding. In the age of Amy Cooper and the countless number of other incidents where interactions are filmed on smartphone cameras to shame or expose those who go against the received orthodoxy, one must exercise vigilance and awareness, both in regards to the specific environment one finds himself in and the precise manner of how one responds.[1] In place of “yes, and,” “what if truth is racist?,” “truth is racist” or other such more provocative, but more enlightened retorts, the language of a response can still be massaged in a way that still deflects this rhetoric, both as an attempt to slander and to disrupt the flow of the conversation or argument, while also maintaining plausible deniability. If someone blurts out “that’s racist” or “you’re racist,” the response “that shit does not work on me” deflects in ways very similar to “yes, and…,” but is much less likely to make that person a public pariah from some video going “viral.” Other similar responses with language massaged for hostile audiences or when someone does not enjoy anonymity or independent wealth include:
“Never heard that one before. Real original.”
“I do not respond to name-calling or ad hominem attacks.”
A simple laugh of mirthful defiance.
Any response that effectively makes the person who utters the accusation an object of ridicule. As Saul Alinsky articulates in Rules for Radicals, there is no effective defense at being an object of ridicule.
If some “boomer con” or other such limp-wristed conservative blathers on about how DEI or affirmative action is racist and that just comes to show that “the democrats are the real racists,” it is imperative to respond in ways that reject the nomenclature of our ideological enemies. Such a response could be something like:
“I care far less whether something is racist. I care that something is anti-white. I will not apologize for having the same in-group preferences that every other demographic is encouraged to have.”
Sarcasm and ridicule are always highly effective. “You mean to tell me the democrats are the real racists. Wow, dude, that is deep.”[2] Be advised however this author has responded with such sarcasm, only to be met with a sincere response explaining how the democrats are the real racists.
As stated before, deflecting such rhetorical bludgeoning devices offers some protection against the intent to slander while also preventing, as much as possible, those making such utterances from derailing the conversation or having the conversation stated on the terms mandated by their ideology and worldview. Going beyond that, acts of defiance are vitally important given the herd mentality dynamic of human psychology, where few will go against the grain until someone else has done so first. As the famous Solomon-Asch experiment indicates, offering that first example of defiance is absolutely essential to breaking the frequency that has so many masses entranced.
The more people see others resist these rhetorical bludgeoning tools, the less captive the masses will be to them. Deflecting these rhetorical bludgeoning tools is vital not just to keep the argument or position on track, but to slowly put cracks and fissures in the anti-racist construct, blow by blow.
[1] The importance of reflecting how one will react before such an incident cannot be stressed enough. Such altercations often invoke a fight-or-flight response. Some even see tunnel vision in such altercations. It is important to reflect on how one would respond. The subtle difference between “so what” or “yes I am racist” as opposed to “that does not work on me” are critical. Generally, if at all possible, it is advised to remove one’s person from a cell phone camera recording as quickly as possible. Give such a person as little to record as possible. Making these decisions reflexively in the moment requires thought and reflection before any such altercation happens.
[2] Those readers familiar with my writing style or with me personally should detect the sardonicism in using the word “dude,” which I would never utter other than to mock and deride someone by talking down to that person as if he were a juvenile.
I call the phenomenon of being controlled like this being in a state of moral subjugation. I recently had a written conversation with a friend who is morally subjugated. It took place around Caitlin Clarke and this friend had an article published was the problem was that the WNBA racists were Egalitarians. I pointed out that they are racial supremacists waging a territorial war, not trying to make everyone equal. He responded with something about racism. My response was:
" I think the term racist is a meaningless term. I think it is a term that is weaponized particularly against virtuous and well meaning Whites."
I also included the clip of Nelson Mandela singing, "Kill the Whites", in front of reporters in Swahili and then promoting love amongst South Africans in English to make the point that just because our enemies use virtuous language doesn't mean they are virtuous. They are hiding malicious intent - usually hiding it very poorly.
In his response he conceded that he agreed. This simple sentence was very effective. Granted, I was talking with an intellectually honest, though morally subjugated friend. Those are the only conversations worth having.
Later in the conversation as I suggested that we must unite as a race and face the reality that all of the other races are organizing in a race war against us and proposed solutions - namely sovereign, racially homogenous homelands, he pulled out the white supremacist trope, saying I was advocating for a white supremacist state. For that I said: "Democracies die horrible violent deaths. Multi-racial societies of any type suffer horrific violent episodes and are under constant tension. They also require massive constant repression to mask to the constantly emergent racial/ethnic tensions. I do not advocate for a white supremacist state. I advocate for separate ethno- states precisely so competing races do not have to assert supremacy over the other groups or be ruled over. Separation eliminates that problem and it also removes the need for the repressive tyranny which you rightfully so loathe."
It was an extremely effective argument. None of these are my ideas or arguments. I learned them from the early advocates and beacon lighters of White advocacy. The point is, being calm, assertive and refuting the false premises are very effective. Of course, this is in the context of a conversation with someone open to logic. Discourse with anti-Whites is futile. However, in the on-line world discourse that refutes the false and anti-White premises calmly and simply is important for it will show Whites the way out of the bondage of moral subjugation. This critical first step is desperately needed in order to mount an effective offensive and achieve permanent victory.