Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • melissa_johnson799
    What Is Racism? by Thomas Jackson There is surely no nation in the world that holds racism in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 4, 2002
      What Is Racism?

      by Thomas Jackson

      There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
      horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
      offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
      and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
      arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
      part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
      shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
      reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified
      as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy
      about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would
      have attracted far less attention and criticism.

      Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
      alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
      against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is

      Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
      word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic
      stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and
      behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean
      a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition
      of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A
      peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all
      ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all
      races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working,
      and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong
      but evil.

      The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
      blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
      for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
      racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
      for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly
      poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with
      pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an
      abject state.

      All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
      Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
      wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
      racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
      hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
      oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they
      must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals
      can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or,
      since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
      millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day
      and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality
      leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in
      some fashion, an indictment of White people.

      The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
      believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
      racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
      welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
      act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
      proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
      precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly
      the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting
      and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to
      strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to
      be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
      congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
      mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
      Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
      Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
      explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
      racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
      flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

      Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
      perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
      forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
      oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
      and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
      an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
      surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
      when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

      Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
      tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
      word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
      the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
      Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
      silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
      statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous
      attacks on Whites.

      At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
      candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
      opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are
      107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must
      be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
      colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same
      thing. To resist would be racist.

      "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but
      anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a
      form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to
      expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages,
      whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

      Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
      now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action,
      if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable

      All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
      are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
      or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
      National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
      campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil
      rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of
      White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all
      races, but is said to be viciously racist.

      At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action
      have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
      Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
      when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
      themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
      like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
      Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
      White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
      branded as racist.

      Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
      of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to
      dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the
      expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way
      around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse
      by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that
      National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the
      diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the
      Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
      Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a
      lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
      celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
      town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
      crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
      possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority
      has "diversity" been achieved.

      Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
      are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
      Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an
      excess of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so
      that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants
      are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
      country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist
      not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It
      is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice
      this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation
      of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

      What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
      citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
      thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
      state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
      who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
      celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even
      if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in
      jobs and schooling?

      Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
      cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
      Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
      entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are
      supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own
      dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would
      be hopelessly racist.

      There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
      Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them
      of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
      Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots
      and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that
      can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
      treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they
      are "anti-white."

      Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
      affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
      policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
      racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer
      the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to
      enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably
      wicked and hateful.

      Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
      relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
      own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
      from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
      of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
      champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice
      their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their
      own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
      displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
      cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
      cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
      cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

      Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
      perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
      love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
      El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
      setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
      action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed
      for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
      languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
      possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-
      great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and
      is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks
      for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

      No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is
      unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have
      let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
      dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in
      the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates
      to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
      people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
      surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
      history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
      into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
      whites are ever told that a love for their own people is
      somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of
      their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love
      their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that
      they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need
      bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone
      to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural

      What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
      unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
      of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
      asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
      neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

      What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary
      is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies
      of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites
      for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to
      the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
      pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
      people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
      but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.


      "What Is Racism?" was originally published in American Renaissance,
      Vol 2, No. 8., P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124 Sample issue $2.

      More articles like the above can be found at the following websites:

    • Trent Eyler
      What does this have to do with GenPhoto?
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 4, 2002
        What does this have to do with GenPhoto?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.