Calling Liberals Racist
As I’m sure you’re all aware, “racist” is a meaningless word; the closest it comes to having any semantic content is John Ringo’s “Bad dog! No biscuit!” It’s an empty set of boo-lights meant to censure those on the right. Any of the following can get you called racist:
- Noticing biological/behavioural differences between the races
- Noticing cultural differences between non-White groups (cultural differences between Whites don’t count)
- Noticing different groups
- Advocating policies based upon race which don’t involve free-money or preferential treatment
- Advocating polices which ignore race, “free-market economics” style
- Disagreeing with a black person (or other minority aside from Asian)
- Preferring your own culture, without denigrating others
- Enjoying your own culture
- Trying to help another race by focusing on malnutrition or systemic social problems
- Not trying to help another race
- Invading the Middle East
- Opposing an invasion of the Middle East
As the saying goes, “Anti-racism is anti-White.” You never see the term “racist” applied to outright racially loaded statements by minorities. It’s an epithet reserved for White, usually conservative people. The closest you’ll get for a conservative Black is “Uncle Tom,” but only Black people are allowed to say this.
However, “Anti-racism” is more than just anti-White – it’s also anti-Black.
In one of my first posts on this blog, way back in 2009, I was home-brewing my own Red Pills with the observation that Feminists are fundamentally anti-female – that they’re the biggest misogynists of all. Rather than pursuing the Liberation of women (whom, it turns out, have been Liberated for at least 700 years) they sought a Handicapper General for Men; they held the fundamental conviction that women were less competent than men, and needed Affirmative Action to be on equal footing.
The anti-racists are no different.
You can debate about systemic, institutionalized racism (a debate you’ll lose, since what we actually have is institutionalized (and condescending) Affirmative Action) but even if the argument were granted, the Liberal stance is still chock-full of contempt for “coloured” races. The implication of the Liberal stance is that Blacks are incapable of overcoming institutionalized racsim on their own; that the Master Race of pure Aryans (not those dirty Southerners!) must band together to lift up the Negro, and bring him the Earthly Kingdom of God. Their fundamental premise is that Blacks are too stupid to take care of themselves.
The historical White Man’s Burden was a movement stemming from Christian Charity; it viewed the African (whom, let’s recall, didn’t even have the Wheel when Europeans found him) as a potential equal; a Man of a different skin-tone and a different culture, with his own virtues and vices, who could one day stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us as equals. If there was condescension in this, it was the condescension of a Priest for an Addict. The Africans were primitive, they did suffer high infant mortality, and the colonization of Africa was almost entirely done with the best of intentions. Certainly there were mistakes – even a few monsters amongst the European peoples (Leopold II of Belgium deserves his place in History) – but the core belief guiding it was a desire, not just to improve the African’s physical comforts, but to also bring him into the fraternity of Civilization.
It was not a period of History where self-delusion was encouraged amongst the ruling classes; hope balanced with realism.
Contrast to the present day White Man’s Burden which the Liberals hold to: theirs is an utterly self-serving dogma. They do not seek to help uplift the Blacks (whose neighbourhoods have been rotting since the days of Martin Luther King Jr), but rather to compete against other self-righteous White Liberals to see who can be the most “Holier than Thou.” They support the appearance of caring about Blacks, without a thought given to what their policies actually do. They welcome the presence of Clay Davis race hucksters, and are too cowardly to look into the corruption they embody.
Like all other things Cathedral, what we see here is but another instance of Christianity morphed into Evil.
Time to bring this back around to the original point I was trying to make.
“Racism” is nothing but a dirty word that Liberals love to sling at the Right. They’re chimpanzees with fecal matter. If you are Right Wing, you will be called Racist eventually; shrug it off, defuse it, but don’t argue with it. Do you argue with a High School Bully when he calls you X? Of course not. The word is meaningless, and arguing with it only grants it meaning – where there’s smoke there’s fire, and all that. The Cathedral has done an amazing job of indoctrinating all of us that “Racist” is the worst thing you can possibly be.
Ideally you should try avoid this Nuclear Bomb of insults (it’s terrible for your career, after all) but ultimately there’s little you can do. It’s just Liberal scatology, and there’s nothing a Liberal loves so much as playing with the things that come out of their anus.
Like all Witchcraft, refusing to believe in it is your most powerful defence against it.
But… do you know how does believe in “Racism?” Do you know who believes in it with a faith that puts all the Saints to shame? That’s right: the Liberals themselves. A Christian Avatar can successfully use a Voodoo Hex on a Witch Doctor, without ever believing in that nonsense himself.
If you want to destroy a Liberal, simply call them a racist. Not only are their beliefs actually hateful towards other races (ergo my tangent above), they’re especially susceptible to the accusation itself. Batter them with Logic (that Masculine Energy which terrifies them), and their own scat, and you’re liable to trigger an Amygdallic Overload in their damaged little minds, separating them from their herd, while throwing the fear of a Just God into the herd itself.
I leave you with a snap-shot of a recent twitter conversation I had. Happy Hunting, Men of the West!