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.

As for Palaeoracism, this is merely an historical idea kept alive by the Left as a means for justifying anti-White racism. It relentlessly and irrationally depicts hard-working, generous, and kind White people as a parasitical, selfish, and evil group, who are inherently racist and therefore 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.


Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's new collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.