Rassisme    

Rassisme onder die Vergrootglas

Hierdie is 'n uiters interessante onderwerp, maar nie soseer a.g.v. die feitelike en wetenskaplike debatte oor die houdbaarheid van beskikbare getuienis nie. Lg. word veral deur die Genetika (genewetenskap oorheers).

Deesdae dien die term "rassisme" 'n ander doel, aangesien dit in "Polities-Korrekte"-taal heeltemal buite die feitelike en woordeboekbetekenis om gebruik word as 'n eensydige moralistiese begrip. Dit dien nl. as 'n handige rooi vlag om enige afwyking deur witmense van die ideologie van globalistiese mu(l)tikulturalisme uit te wys. So is enige handeling (of uitspraak) vervolgbaar deur die Orwelliaanse gedagte-polisie en haatspraak-tollenaars.

Wat pynlik na aan ons vel lê, is die feit dat nie-Kaukasiers blykbaar mmuuun is teen enige oortreding van rassisme. Aanklagtes van rassisme geld oënskynlik slegs teen blankes en dit verklap 'n moralisme so eensydig dat dit absurd is. Ons voel dit egter nie slegs in Suid-Afrika aan ons bas nie, maar geld elders in die Westerse wêreld ook. 'n Yank het dit onlangs so gestel:

Wanneer Indiane hul identiteit vier, word dit kultuur genoem.
Wanneer Afrikane hul identiteit vier, word dit trots genoem.
Wanneer Jode hul identiteit vier, word dit geskiedenis genoem.
Wanneer Kaukasiërs hul identiteit vier, word dit rassisme genoem!"

Vir goeie balans kan Prof. W.P. Esterhuyse se Afskeid van Apartheid (1981) gelees word. Die werklikheid van ons ervaringswêreld bevestig die loutere snert wat hierdie boek bevat. Dit bevestig egter ook hoe daar lustig in die ou SA meegedoen is aan die leuenverkopery oor die voordele van 'n multikulturalistiese (=swart bevoordelings-) ideologie. Indien dieselfde voorskrifte deur Esterhuyse toegepas word op die rasgebaseerde praktyke van die NSA, is daar net een gevolgtrekking: blatante rassisme is steeds lewend en word vanuit Pretoria teen enige witmens wat weier om 'n "useful idiot" te wees, ingespan.

Maar sovele werke weerspreek die blinde vooroordele wat in bg. werk vervat is. Een daarvan kom uit Afrika self, met die titel: Captalist Nigger deur Chika Onyeani.

Aangesien sommige van hierdie besondere leersame artikels aan die lang kant is, word slegs die laaste twee volledig opgeneem. Die ander word voorsien van internetskakels wat verder opgevolg kan word.

FEIT of VOOROORDEEL?

Op 5 April 1652 was die volgende waar van Suid-Afrika:
"This was a land without a wheel, a lamp, a match to light a fire, without a book, a pencil or a pen, without a blanket. None could make a button, or a buttonhole to fasten his skins about him in the wind. Superstition, pestilence and famine stalked the land and ruled men’s lives. War and raiding were unending. Life was very cheap". A. T. Culwick

Op 6 April daardie jaar het Jan van Riebeeck aan die Kaap geland met die Reyger, Drommedaris en De Goede Hoop. En toe verander alles........... !!!! Dis definitief 'n feit.

'n Interessante vraag wat hieruit na vore kom, is of diegene wat altyd so steen en been kla oor die booshede van die Westerse beskawing, sou instem om die klok terug te draai en van elke voordeel van die Westerse beskawing (van hospitale, grondwetlike regering, paaienetwerk, moderne industrie, vervoermiddels, beskermingsmeganismes, bankwese, organisasiekundigheid, ens. ens.) afstand te doen?

[L.W. dat menings soos deur skrywers in hierdie uitgespreek, nie noodwending deur die webmeester gedeel word nie.]

• What Is Racism? Dr. William L. Pierce
• Is the Concept of Race Illigitimate? Dr. Max Hocutt
• What is Racism? Alain de Benoist
• CAPITALIST NIGGER The Road To Success: Chika Onyeani 
  [click for text of his recent SPEECH on the book]
• The Lord of the Rings' GIMLI speaks up for the West
• What Is Racism? by Thomas Jackson
• Omsingel die laer van die heiliges - toekomsroman deur Jean Raspail uit die Frans vertaal

"Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same. Leave it to our police and our bureacrats to see that my papers are in order"
(Michel Foucault, Franse filosoof)

What Is Racism? by Dr. William L. Pierce

TODAY LET'S TALK about "racism" and related matters. There's hardly a subject the average White person is more uptight about, hardly a subject that makes him more uncomfortable. Fifty or 60 years ago people were really uptight about sex. Very few people could talk about it honestly and openly and comfortably. It embarrassed them. Whenever the subject came up people used all sorts of euphemisms and evasions to avoid having to mention things or use words that made them squirm and blush, things that they just couldn't deal with straightforwardly. In polite conversation one could not even use the word leg in talking about a woman, for example. It was too risqué, bordering on the pornographic, because of the mental associations it evoked.

Why was that? Why did talking about sex make us uncomfortable? Well, of course, it was because sex was a taboo subject. There were a lot of social and religious prohibitions and restrictions associated with sex, and these prohibitions conflicted with our natural urges. We were taught that following these natural urges was sinful, and that terrible things would happen to us if we did. The result was that we felt guilty about our natural urges. To avoid the very unpleasant feeling of guilt, we tried to avoid the subject of sex. We swept it under the rug and tried not to think about it.

Is the Concept of Race Illegitimate? Philosophy; Posted on: 2004-07-30

A Libertarian Philosopher Deconstructs a Modern Superstition by Dr. Max Hocutt Excerpt: "Nearly a quarter century passed between the publication of the three essays in physical anthropology that I have just criticized and the publication of The Great Human Diasporas by the population biologist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his son Francesco (1995). Yet this recent book offers few new arguments. Instead, it repeats the old ones. "The authors begin the chapter 'Race and Racism' by mentioning the evil of racism and by condemning research that they regard as racist. They observe that race is often confused with nation or culture and complain that, given the looseness of the concept, no one can say how many races exist. They attribute the difficulty of making a count to the fact that many genetically related features of human beings vary continuously, leaving no breaks that provide clear demarcations between races. . . . "[T]he Cavalli-Sforzas go on to conclude, 'The idea of race in the human species serves no purpose' (237). With the usual reflex, they attribute belief in race to the Nazi myth of racial purity and to an irrational but innate tribalism. They then cite the mistreatment of Pygmies by their larger and more aggressive neighbors as a regrettable example of our human tendency to divide the world up into them and us. "Clearly, there is nothing new here, just the now-familiar arguments: that a belief in racial distinctions is wrong because it encourages racism; that no distinctions exist between races because the distinctions that do exist are not sharp and clear; that although racial differences may be real, it would be better to describe them as differences between 'peoples'; that there are no races because there are no pure races; and so on. Having already refuted these arguments—or, rather, having shown how they refute themselves—I will not go over them again." Max Hocutt (professor of philosophy emeritus, University of Alabama), "Is the Concept of Race Illegitimate?" The Independent Review 7:115-128 (Summer 2002). http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/tir71hocutt.pdf

What is Racism? Alain de Benoist (38 bladsye Pdf-formaat)

Fighting racism requires knowing what it is — not an easy task. Today the word "racism" has so many contradictory meanings that it takes on the aura of a myth and is, therefore, difficult to define. The followingill attempt to define racist ideology, independently of any sociological considerations. 

The first difficulty arises from the fact that racism is a Schimpfwort: a term with pejorative connotations, whose very use inevitably tends to be more instrumental than descriptive. Deploying the adjective "racist" involves using a powerful epithet. It can be a smear designed to disqualify those at whom the term is addressed. To call someone a racist, even if the charge is intellectually dishonest, can be a useful tactic, either in successfully paralyzing or in casting enough suspicion as to curtails credibility. Such an approach is commonplace in everyday controversies.

On the international level, the term can acquire a significance and weight that does not hide its real nature and purpose.2 Because of a certain affinity, "racism" can be used as the correlate of a whole series of othererms: fascism, the extreme Right, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc. Today, the almost ritualistic recitation of these terms often implies that they are all synonyms and that any one falling into one of these categories automatically belongs to all of them. The end result is to reinforce the vagueness of the term and to discourage meaningful analysis.

Used in the most diverse senses, the terms "racism" and "racist" become prepackaged formulas, generating stereotypes. Antiracists tend to attack racists in much the same way as racists might go after anyone else. Paradoxically, while the signifier "racist" is vague, the signified is rigidly fixed. The charge of having a "racist temperament" follows the same reasoning for which racists are rightly reproached, i.e., vaguely attributing to an entire group traits found in some of its members which, as Pierre-André Taguieff has pointed out, generates another problem: "There is no effective struggle against racism once one creates a false image of it, forthen antiracism becomes a mirror image of the racist myth. To treat in a racist way those whom one is accusing of racist conduct is part and parcel of current antiracism, and one of its shortcomings. Above all, to fictionalize‘the Other,’ even if he be racist, is to miss who ‘the Other’ really is, never coming to know him."

Capitalist Nigger The Road To Success
Chika Onyeani $24.95 [ISBN 0967846005 Non-Fiction]

For every coin there are two images pressed on. For every generation there is a story to preserve and pass on. The new generation is responsible to preserve it, know it, and follow its principles. But what happens when they forget? When they forget the purpose of their very existence? This is where Dr. Chika Onyeani's book comes "in ya face".

It is a no nonsense hook punch into the realities of the condition of the Africans in the Diaspora. From the point of abuse the author states, "I am quite frighten for my people, because I believe that in the next 20 to 50 years, the Black race would descend further into the abyss of the world's totem economic pole unless we do something right now. He also states, " The Black race is a slave - pure and simple - an economic slave"!

What makes this book an important "shake up" is that there are other authors like Dr. Onyeani, who have presented the facts and nothing but the facts to the Diaspora. One such author and publisher is Dr. Sam Chekwas. In his best selling book, " The 100 Steps Necessary For Survival In America For People Of Color", he states "Many of our youths suspend their individual and God given power, replacing their own self-reliance with the thought of an almighty "Big Brother" who will take care of all their needs. They feel as though they are powerless victims of society. Somehow they have abandoned, (or just plain forgotten), their long, painful ancestral struggles for freedom and justice".

Read this important historical document that will help shape, or change our mind, our hearts, and our world. http://seaburn.com/capitalist_nigger_the_road_to_su.htm

The Lord of the Rings' GIMLI speaks up for the West Report; Posted on: 2004-01-07 20:52:23 [ Printer friendly ]

Editorial by Neil Camberly Since THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING debuted two years ago, egalitarians around the world have whined endlessly about the “racist” and “fascist” nature of Peter Jackson’s THE LORD OF THE RINGS films. With a few exceptions, Jewish film critics have relentlessly derided each installment of the trilogy as “simple-minded,” “unimaginative,” and “boring.” In general, they hate the whole thing. The few young egalitarians that can’t help marvel at its spectacular cinematographic achievements debate their co-ideologues in vain. With the final film in theatres and remarkable pro-White comments made recently by one of the film’s main actors, its egalitarian defenders-in-denial may as well throw in the towel; the whiners are right. The very first film raised the eyebrows of everybody who appreciates the important role the entertainment media play in subconsciously shaping the world perception of a vast portion of the global population. Jews and ideological egalitarians hated to see a group of heroes manage anything heroic without the help of non-Europeans. They hated even more to see images of culturally rich communities somehow manage to exist at all, let alone flourish, without the cultural “enrichment” they claim European culture needs and luckily receives from Asian and African immigrants. And they hated most of all to see the features of such immigrants appear in the film only in the faces and manners of the evil, genetically pre(mis)disposed Orks and Uruk-Hai hordes. And, as usual, all of this hatred was manifested in shrieks of ‘racism!’ But the films are “fascist,” too. They hold up beauty as something inherently good, and ugliness as something inherently bad. Their heroes are strong men and women of honor, decency and moral character. The films glorify ethnic collectivism and nationalism, self-sacrifice on behalf of one’s biological community, and courage in the face of overwhelming odds and overbearing evil. Like the 20th century's Fascist philosopher-kings, Tolkein’s Kings spend little time taking votes from their nervous soldiers and citizens over whether their kingdoms should perish with honor or perish with each man desperately trying to save his own skin. But most of all, the films earn their “fascist” credentials by clearly delineating good and evil in the tradition of Western literature’s great adventure stories. Sure, Treasure Island’s Long John Silver was a hero made more interesting by his lack of a few scruples here and there. But films with the spirit of Jackson’s trilogy have been unarguably the exception, not the rule, at least since Oliver Stone had us laughing as Woody Harrelson blasted a sport cyclist off of his bike with a twelve gauge shotgun for no reason at all. Hollywood does little these days to conceal its glorification of absolute depravity, even if that wasn’t Stone’s intention. But Peter Jackson is no Hollywood director, and he avoided the real pressure to ‘diversify’ his second and third films of the trilogy by filming all three simultaneously. Egalitarians weren’t very pleased with George Lucas’ 1977 film STAR WARS, for many of the same reasons, and it was no small inconvenience to Lucas that he was pressured to cast Colt 45 Malt Liquor spokesman Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Still, considering the nature of the film industry of late, one can only rightly assume that heavy pressure to multiracialize LOTR was put on Peter Jackson before he even began filming. Perhaps he had no pro-Western, ideological motives at all. Perhaps he merely convincingly argued that black Elf warriors would have been even more cheesy and ‘90s’ than that goofy black Vulcan they have on one of the myriad new child-minded STAR TREK shows. Or perhaps not. The final film, an utterly surreal masterpiece, sent a significant message by concluding with a battle whose heroes were exhorted to fight with a line Peter Jackson could have easily left out of Aragorn’s script: "By all that we hold dear on this Earth I bid you stand, men of the West!" Controversy has ensued. It is all over the net. And now it is exacerbated by a development that gives the strongest hint yet that LOTR may indeed be a trilogy that consciously expresses the spirit of our people. From the BNP’s Steve Blake, we get news that John Rhys-Davies, the talented character actor who played the axe-wielding Dwarf Gimli, (Rhys-Davies is actually over 6 feet tall, as he appears in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK), used the Hollywood premier of THE RETURN OF THE KING to express some views that undoubtedly left many of his Hollywood colleagues (but certainly not Mel Gibson) shocked and terrified. The following quotes do more than shed light on the attitudes of those behind the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. That they were made with confidence to the senior enemies of our civilization on their most secure territory illustrates a most important truth we must understand at this point: The postwar age of Jewish media monopoly is OVER. Prior to a few years ago, they were able to erode our morale and sap our strength by ignoring us or painting us as mere freaks to be trotted out on talk shows. The final nails have been hammered into the coffin of this horribly effective weapon they had against us. The tide is turning. Imagine the following words emanating from Hollywood ten years ago. It would have been unthinkable: “There is a demographic catastrophe happening in Europe that nobody wants to talk about, that we dare not bring up because we are so cagey about not offending people racially. “You do realize that in this town (Hollywood), what I've been saying is rather like, sort of - oh well, I can't find a comparable blasphemy... “But we've got to get a bit serious. What is unconscionable is that too many of your fellow journalists do not understand how precarious Western civilization is and what a joy it is. From it, we get real democracy. From it, we get the sort of intellectual tolerance that allows me to propound something that may be completely alien to you around this table.... "I'm burying my career so substantially in these interviews that it's painful. But I think that there are some questions that demand honest answers. "I think that Tolkien says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilization. That does have a real resonance with me.” It has a resonance with the vast, landslide majority of White people all over the world. That’s why they love Peter Jackson’s films, and that’s one of the reasons we are going to win.

What is Racism? 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 offences, 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* racism?
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 *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-defence 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 white 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 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" 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 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 "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? by Thomas Jackson originally appeared in American Renaissance, Vol. 2, No. 8.

Ontwerp & © Incitatus  ~ Webmeester:  impromptu@telkomsa.net