Use It - Or Lose It !!
Jared Taylor, who wrote this article
under the pseudonym Thomas Jackson, is also the author of
the book "Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure Of
Race Relations In America"
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.
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
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.
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 favoritism.
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"
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.
then, is the final, baffling inconsistency about American
refuse to do so,
would be racism.
Things Work In Real Life
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 destinies.
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
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
Jared Taylor, who wrote the above article
under the pseudonym
Thomas Jackson, is also the author of the book
Paved with Good Intentions: The failure of race relations
words "Racist" and "Racism"
Just what do these words mean ?
I cant remember where I first
saw this definition, but it seems to sum things up
very nicely. We have problems because of the lack
of precise definitions of what the words Racism or
Racist mean. At the present time they have been made
into emotional "CLICK" words with little
or no meaning, other than the tone of voice used to
say them at the time. They have been designed to make
people have a "Feel Bad" factor about something
or someone without really knowing why. So far it has
worked very well at doing this. Getting the questions
raised in peoples minds about just what the words
racist and racism mean, would be a very good idea,
but how ! Mr Average will not ask these questions
unless forced to for some reason, and then will probably
accept the most "comfortable" definitions
given to him by someone else.
|This is because Political
Correctness has been used to place anyone who
raises these questions,
under suspicion of being guilty of "RACISM"
......"The Trial" By Franz Kafka