In recent days, the news cycle has been dominated by so-called "racism" stories, the best one being "shithole-gate," in which President Trump may or may not have expressed an opinion of certain Third World countries using the S-word. There is an obvious paradox here because those accusing Trump of racism, almost certainly agree with him secretly as these are the same people who claim that it is impossible to repatriate refugees to these very same countries, because they are...well, shitholes.

But the paradox here runs deeper, as just noticing that one thing is better than another is now considered "racism," which means that racism is no longer actually racism, but merely an absurd, dystopian expectation that all things and all people should be equal at all times and in all ways, no matter which way you cut them. In fact, this extremist viewpoint actually represents the death of racism, as racism no longer means what it originally meant—an irrational hatred of a particular racial or ethnic group.

But should we be happy at the death of racism through its conflation with a form of abstract hyper-egalitarianism? Many in the Alt-Right would say "yes" given the way that the concept has been weaponised against White people in the past. But actually, looking at things from within the framework of the hegemony of Alt-Right ideas, racism is a concept that can be redeemed to serve a positive purpose and turned to the benefit of Whites.

But how can this be? Quite simply by returning to the essence of the word, which, as already pointed out, refers to an irrational hatred of a particular racial or ethnic group. Old racism—which I will now refer to as "Palaeoracism"—was founded on a number of scientific theses that have been greatly discredited as well as a number of historical factors that no longer apply. There are also certain moral and philosophical factors that are more abstruse, but which we don't need to go into.

One of the chief characteristics of Palaeoracism
 is that it looked much worse than it was.
First, looking at the scientific basis of Palaeoracism, it was founded on a clear belief in equal potential and a blank-slate view of human psychology, that goes back much further than most people realise. These ideas can, in fact, be traced back centuries, at least to the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, being bolstered in subsequent ages by the flawed science of the likes of Franz Boas. Because of this basis, any racial inequalities could be attributed to injustice, lack of education, poor environment, mean White people, etc. Without going into detail, these scientific premises have been blown away. Indeed, their death knell may well have been sounded by the wave of decolonisation that swept the World in the 1960s, which can be read as an admission by the most proactive elements of the White world—the colonial empires—that non-Whites had their own indelible natures.

Next, looking at historical factors, the concept of Palaeoracism arose at a time when White Western societies could easily be portrayed as denying non-Whites "legitimate" freedoms and rights—at least within the wider moral context created by early globalist capitalism, as this favoured crude forms of egalitarianism for functional reasons. At that time Whites were directly ruling over non-White countries, while in White countries themselves the comparatively small numbers of non-Whites—or occasionally Whites of other ethnicities—were denied certain civil liberties, or else socially disadvantaged in more subtle ways.

"Evil" Brits lording it over the natives. (Actually
they were dealing with a terrorist insurgency.)
America was the fulcrum of this, with Jews being blackballed from country clubs and Blacks being turned back from voting booths. While White homelands and White hierarchies were generally secure, non-White minorities and non-White countries were still subjected to White control and dominance, either through colonialism, neo-colonialism, or other forms of projected White dominance.

Since then there has been a major reversal to this pattern, expressed in the phrase "Black countries are for Blacks, Asian countries for Asians, but White countries are for everyone."

Meanwhile in those White countries, non-Whites or other formerly discriminated groups have been given full rights and then more, with copious amounts of affirmative action, one-sided protective legislation, and cultural biases in their favour. By such means, along with mass immigration, we have allowed the creation of a situation where Whites are effectively being colonised and discriminated against in their own countries, where they are progressively losing power—and where Whites losing power is characterised as progress. In fact they are heading for minority status in most of their traditional homelands.

The gist of this is that there is entirely no basis on which to accuse Whites of racism, either scientific or in socio-historical terms. It is not Blacks or Asians who are giving up large parts of their societies to alien groups, while shaming each other for any unkind words that may be generated by the process.

While it is still possible to find the occasional, rare White Palaeoracist existing on an individual level, on a collective level, it can be said quite objectively that nowhere does White racism actually exist.

Leftists of course disagree with this, citing "microaggressions" or "institutional racism" as "evidence" that White Palaeoracism has merely mutated and evolved to survive in the modern era. By this metric it is also possible to argue that, based on race maps of America, which show Whites clustering together in White neighbourhoods, and the fact that Whites continue to be richer than Blacks or Hispanics, that almost all Whites are in fact "racist." BTW that would include practically all White leftists. Also, what about all the negative things that crop up when you discuss  Blacks and Black countries—the "shitholes" that Trump supposedly referred to—things like poverty, crime, disease, etc.?

But—once again—let us return to the essence of the word "racism": an irrational hatred or opinion of a particular racial or ethnic group. When Trump called Haiti a "shit hole" was he actually being irrational or wrong in his characterisation? Of course, we all know the answer to that, even those who used it as an excuse to pile on the President.

Haiti speech: an actual shit hole would be a big improvement.
We could even say that Trump's comment was a backhanded compliment, as a shit hole implies that somebody has actually taken the trouble to dig a hole to shit in, whereas conditions on the ground in Haiti appear to be much worse than this.

As for Whites avoiding Black neighbourhoods or countries—or crossing the street when a group of Black youths approaches—everybody, even the most signally White liberal knows that they have clear and demonstrable reasons for doing so. Even Jesse Jackson is on their side here. To quote what is now his most famous comment:
"There is nothing more painful to me than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
Just because such behaviour has a racial quality does not make it racist as there is nothing irrational about it. You can't call a White person "racist" because he or she refuses to walk through the ghetto at midnight, any more than you could call a Black man in the 1890s avoiding klansmen "racist."

Racial animosities will always exist, but the key question to ask here is: Are these driven by irrational and unnatural hatreds/fears/dislikes or are they driven by rational and natural hatreds/fears/dislikes? If it is the latter, then it is not racism, no matter how racial or how hate-driven it is, as there is such a thing as rational hatred.

Evil White racist headbutting an
innocent Black man's tender foot.
Now, with this critique clarified, let us examine once again the World around us. The picture that appears is this: except for rare, isolated individual cases (that may in fact have understandable individual causes that we don't know about), there is no such thing as White racism in the world today, and certainly no collective White racism. In fact, if anything, a great many Whites are involved in reverse racism or anti-White racism that is actively harming the health and interests of their own group.

But while there is practically no White-generated racism in the world today, there is plenty of non-White generated racism, or racism against Whites.

A simple example of this is the self-righteous hatred directed at Whites who gentrify previously non-White neighbourhoods, i.e. they are literally getting blamed for improving things, the very definition of irrationalism. But there are countless other examples: Black-on-White crime, which almost always includes elements of racial animosity; "affirmative action," which irrationally tries to reduce the number of more skilled Whites in any occupation to favour less skilled non-Whites; and, of course, the constant cultural demonisation of Whites in countless Hollywood movies, TV shows, and adverts.

The only arguments that can legitimately be mustered in favour of such anti-White racism is the most selfish and crude forms of existential tribalism. But if Blacks are allowed that, why not Whites? That is the Pandora's box that the Left has been working on opening for the last several decades—with recent developments suggesting that they may well have succeeded.

The very concept of Palaeoracism, which, at least originally had the credibility of its untested assumptions and was superficially backed by fleeting appearances, now exists as the very worst kind anti-White racism itself. It relentlessly and irrationally depicts hard-working, generous, and good-natured White people as a parasitical, selfish, and evil group, who deserve to be destroyed.

Dumb blondes
The objective truth, however, is that Whites are the group that has done the most to create a world without slavery, disease, and racial oppression; one with high living standards that benefit all. They are also the group that has opened their countries to the World. Let's face it, you don't get more unracist than White people, who, even if they closed their homelands to non-White settlement and protected their demographic dominance in those homelands as the Japanese are said to do, could not be legitimately accused of racism.

But there is plenty of racism in the world—once again remember its core meaning of irrational hatred of a particular group—but it is against us not by us. It exists at both the collective and individual levels among non-Whites and sadly among many of our own people, and is a constant threat towards us. This is why I think the pejorative term "racism," despite its dubious past, can be redeemed for the positive purpose of highlighting the intense, manic, and rabid hatred that is constantly directed towards Whites.

To do this we need to critique past racism as Palaeoracism and reformulate the only racism that exists today—that directed towards us—as Neoracism.


  1. what you wrote here is mostly correct, but you and the rest of the alt-right are missing a crucial component of the equation--money....

    the conservative/liberal/labor/Democrat/GOP-media-gov't Western establishment is motivated by money....

    those at the top of the establishment like money and they like favorable media attention...favorable media attention gets them more money and status...

    so they do things that get them favorable media attention...

    ....with me so far? Great!

    So what behavior does the media reward with favorable attention? And what does the media punish with unfavorable attention (or by ignoring)?

    Once you understand why the media does what it does and why the establishment elites do what they do, you will have learned, my son.

    The media is comprised of corporations. Corporations do things that increase their profits and revenues. This is axiomatic.

    So we can assume that pushing the ideology of multiculturalism/inclusiveness is something that increases profits of media corporations.

    The media is funded primarily by advertising purchases by big corporations. THe more profitable these big corporations, the more they spend in the media.
    So the media does things that tend to increase corporate profits in general. Because those increased profits flow back to the media via ad purchases.

    So we can assume that the ideology of multiculturalism/inclusiveness increases corporate profits.


    the ideology of multiculturalism/inclusiveness increases the supply workers and consumers, making the economy bigger, and making corporate profits bigger. And thus increasing advertising purchases, and making media corporations more profitable and making media corporate CEOs and shareholders richer.

    Follow the money!

    Now, you may argue that people making decisions in the entities named above act from beliefs and convictions and not from financial motivations. This is true in many cases. However, when you say that, you are missing part of the picture once again....people have a way of adopting beliefs that just so happen to profit them financially. It's called rationalization.

    Also, big corporations have a way of creating and spreading propaganda that makes them more profitable. Therefore, over decades, big corporations have spread propaganda promoting the ideology of multiculturalism/inclusiveness, and that propaganda has molded the beliefs of millions of westerners. Those beliefs, shaped by corporate propaganda (and propaganda from entities controlled by corporations), then influence the behavior of millions of people (we call them normies).

    So, ultimately, it all comes down to how the ideology of multiculturalism/inclusiveness makes the rich richer...and until the alt-right understands this and embraces this analysis, we will continue to fail to convert the necessary numbers of whites to our side.

    1. Wouldn't it make better sense for greedy corporations if the World was full of hard-working Swedes rather than Somalians on welfare? Think it through dude.

  2. I would define Paleo-Racism and Neo-Racism differently.

    I would define Paleo-Racism as the belief and attitude in the West that white peoples were superior, more advanced, and better than other races in all endeavors. Such views could be based on history, culture, or genetics. White people could say white people had a more illustrious history that led to greatness. Or white people could say their cultural values and spiritual power led to greater achievement. Or white people could say they are genetically more predisposed to genius and high achievement.

    Paleo-Racism fell out of favor because of White Guilt associated with subjugation of non-whites, slave trade, and finally the Shoah. The official narrative posited that the idea of White Superiority came to justify white violence against other groups.

    So, the movement was toward Anti-Racism that insisted that racial differences are superficial. Except for skin color, all races are more or less alike. So, whites are really blacks with white skin, and black are whites with black skin… and yellows are whites or blacks with yellow skin. And etc.

    But why did Anti-Racism fail? Because racial differences are real. And that led to rise of Neo-Racist reality of the world. How is Neo-Racism different from Paleo-Racism? Paleo-Racism tended to believe that whites were better than other races in most things: brains, creativity, power, athletics, discipline, organization, and etc.
    This is why Nazis suppressed and denied Jewish Science. This is why White Americans were so traumatized by Jack Johnson the Negro beating up white boxers. Paleo-Racist whites wanted to believe that whites had the edge over other races in brains and brawn.

    Anti-Racists denounced Paleo-Racists and said all races are the same, and the Civil Rights Movement was premised on that notion of ‘we all bleed red’. So, we might be different in skin color, but we are all alike in other areas.

    BUT, the reality was Neo-Racist. Even if the new reality discredited white superiority in every endeavor, it amply demonstrated that race is real, racial differences are real, and people can’t help noticing race.

    So, black supremacy in sports was Neo-Racism. If Anti-Racism is true, all races would be doing equally well in sports. Jesse Owens would have run at equal speed with German runners. But in fact, blacks have more fast-twitch muscles and excel in sports over other races. Tiny Jamaica produces faster runners than all of China, India, and White Europe. Race is real. Also, the reason why whites generally get bullied by blacks is because black kids are faster and better at fighting. This explains the wussification of white males. White girls observe white emasculation, lose respect for white boys, and go have sex with black boys because the natural state of women is to be whores who put out to the top stud. When the West was sexually conservative and patriarchal, such slutty behavior was punished and forbidden. But in the
    hedonistic present with contraceptives and abortion, all social forces encourage white women to go wild with Negro studs. This is why Charles Barkley said Richard Spencer’s grandkids will have black kids. More powerful than ideas and values are icons, sensations, and pleasure. And Barkely is saying that black voice, black dong, and black athletics are so exciting, thrilling,and pleasurable to whites that whites cannot say no to blacks as entertainers, heroes, and sex partners. The movie GET OUT says the same thing. It says Liberal Whites are less about racial equality than addiction to blackness as all things cool and fabulous. They want to be ‘black’.

    1. Also, interracist sex is totally neo-racist since it’s about noticing racial differences. Why does the West see Africa as penis and Asia as vagina? Because black men are more muscular and have bigger dongs than white men. So, white women got jungle fever and go with blacks, and some white men even turn cuck and take delight in their humiliation by black men. (Men have both natural Will to Power and Will to Cower.) In contrast, white men often go to Asia for easy yellow poon. Why? Because they feel they have the advantage over shorter and weaker Asian men. And they are often correct. Asian women have ‘white fever’ and prefer white men over dorky inferior Asian men. In America, Asian-American women prefer white men over Asian men, and some go for black men.
      So, everyone notices race and racial differences and acts upon those differences.

      If blacks excel in sports, Jews and East Asians do much better in academics due to higher intelligence. Jews have hyper-intellect and East Asians tend to be more diligent because of their quieter temperament.

      Look at Jewish-Black relations. Jews are more likely to own a NBA or NFL team than play in one. In contrast, blacks dominate the fields but are incapable of creating and managing complex sports operations. Even super-rich Oprah depended on Jewish-run Media apparatus.
      So, Jews are clearly more about brains and blacks are more about brawns.
      And take music. Jews run much of music industry, but many performers are black because blacks got louder voices and also can dance faster and have a natural sense of funky-jive rhythm.
      Even when whites and blacks borrow each other’s music, they change it in their own way due to different racial temperaments. Black gospel borrowed from white gospel, but blacks made it louder and more rambunctious. White people took from black soul music and rhythm-and-blues but made it into White Rock distinct from black music.

      So, what really followed Paleo-Racism was not Anti-Racism but Neo-Racism whereupon the world was still defined and determined by racial differences. The notion of white superiority in everything was no more, but instead of racial equality, there was only new racial hierarchies in which blacks were superior in some things while Jews, whites, and Asians were better in other things.

      But both Paleo-Racists and Neo-Racists are flawed. Why? Both sides deny that they are ‘racist’. Even David Duke will say he’s not a ‘racist’. And Neo-Racists, people who notice the new hierarchies and act upon them all the time, will deny that they are ‘racist’.
      Paleo-Racists like David Duke is likely to accuse Jews and blacks of ‘real racism’, and Neo-Racists have a strange way of defining ‘racism’.
      For Neo-Racists, being anti-racist means to favor Jews and blacks over other groups. A good example of a Neo-Racist is Milo. He clearly favors Jews as the superior and worthier people over Palestinians. And he loves to rhapsodize about how he only has black homo lovers because black men got bigger dongs. Now, wouldn’t such views be deemed ‘racist’ since they say Jews are more deserving than Palestinians AND blacks are superior sodomizers with their bigger dongs? Milo’s views favor or prize certain races over others. His bung discriminates against non-Negro dongs as inferior and inadequate.
      But in the Neo-Racist universe, such views are NOT deemed ‘racist’ since PC is less about racial equality than about praising and favoring certain races over others. After all, both political parties fully support Zionist interests over Palestinian interests. And even though there are complaints about Too Many White Quarterbacks, there are no complaints about Too Many Black Running backs. Why not? Because our Neo-Racist world accepts as fact that blacks are better athletes and deserving of their dominant status in sports. And all this praise of Jews and Israel above all other groups suggests that Jews are indeed a superior people deserving of more love, respect, and admiration.

    2. I go for a reevaluation of the term ‘racism’. I spell it race-ism to accentuate -ism. The problem with the term ‘racism’ is it was defined wrongly. -Ism means belief. It doesn’t mean hate or supremacism. It simply means belief in something. So, race-ism should have been defined as Belief in reality of race, possibility of racial differences, and inevitability of racial identity/awareness(since humans judge so much by sight). The problem can be traced back to the willful mis-definition of ‘racism’. By defining a neutral and generic term like race-ism to mean ‘racial hatred’ and ‘racial supremacism’, the effect was to associate ANY idea or theory of race with radical racial hate or supremacism.

      Suppose I come up with a term bear-ism. Suppose it simply means the belief in the existence of bears. But then, suppose some jerk redefines the term to mean ‘belief that bears are the superior species better than all others that should be killed’. But Ism just means belief. It doesn’t mean supremacism or hatred. Why should ‘bear-ism’ mean ‘bear supremacism’? But if bear-ism is defined as such, then even those who claim to believe in the existence of bears will come under attack because even the generic term ‘bear-ism’ has been defined to mean ‘bear supremacy over all other animals’. Thus, even those who want to discuss bears without claiming bears are better at everything will be afraid to do so since the very term designating the existence of bears has also come to mean bear supremacism.

      This is why we need Tru-Racism or True Racism. Unlike Paleo-Racists, Tru-Racists would admit whites are not superior in everything. Unlike Neo-Racists, they would honestly admit that races are different and people make decisions in residence, career, sex, entertainment, travel, and etc based on awareness of racial differences. Any white woman who goes to Cuba to have sex with black men is making a decision based on awareness of racial differences. Any white man who goes to Asia for easy pussy is making a decision based on awareness of racial differences. He finds Asian women more feminine and sees Asian men as easy competition to beat. And any Asian woman who wants to come to the West and have babies with white men is making a race-ist decision since she prefers white men as superior to yellow men. And any black guy who goes for a white woman is making a racial choice since white women look prettier and more feminine that black women who look a bit rough and ugabuga.

      Tru-Racism is also known as Race-ism. It is an honest admittance to the reality of race and how it affects all of us in a globalized world. Under globalism some races win in some things, some races win in other things. It’s like Japanese and Koreans win over blacks in making gadgets of convenience like TV and cellphones. They are smarter and more diligent. Blacks cannot build and run modern companies that make high-tech stuff.
      But blacks win the iconic game of mass media convulsion because they dominate sports, music, and sex culture. So, even though yellow folks make all those TVs and smartphones, the images and sounds transmitted through those gadgets to billions of people around the world are the iconic images of black athletes, black singers, and black studs.
      It’s all very racial.

    3. Bullshit. Blacks are physically inferior at almost all sports, except running in straight lines on artificial surfaces.