Mike Sullivan


Post by Mike Sullivan » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:43 pm

Racism is a Europhobic epithet and conceptual framing in Trotskyist and especially cultural Marxist agitprop discourses. The term is meant to intimidate the person on the recieving end and disuade them from investigating the science of race realism, as well as the conclusions drawn from that. The primary functioning purpose of the epithet is part of a Jewish group evolutionary strategy to maintain hegemony by undermining and demonising their most able competitors, ethnic Europeans from organising for their own socio-political and cultural interests, completely independent of Jewish leadership, influence or ideology.

While some true believer race denialists are to be found amongst the useful idiots who parrot the line of "that's racist!", it is unlikely that the malicious, mostly Jewish, ideologues behind the epithet genuinely believe in genetic egalitarianism between the races. In its initial 1930 coining by Leon Trotsky,✡ a communist Jew and mass murder, the term "racists" is used in an arrogant sneer at what he calls "Slavophilism", the "messianism of backwardness" and also the "Teutonic jackasses". It is along this line, always attacking European self-determination specifically, that the phrase continued to be developed by various Marxist perverts such as Magnus Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Racism (Marxism)
Last edited by Mike Sullivan on Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Direct link not working-- redirect works from Racial Anthropology to Racism (Marxism) linked at top of article.

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Race means subspecies

Post by Will Williams » Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:22 pm

http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/01/t ... pocalypse/

The Real Zombie Apocalypse

by H. Millard

RACE MEANS SUBSPECIES. A subspecies is a group of organisms that has diverged from the species and which is on its way to being a separate species, usually no longer capable of bearing offspring with the old species.

We Whites are a subspecies. We are on our way to becoming a separate species. However, if we miscegenate with members of the old species, our highest possible destiny — specieshood — will be quashed and we will devolve back into the old species.

Miscegenation is the genocide of our subspecies and will blend to extinction those family lines of ours that engage in this great evil.

Spit when you see White miscegenationists and never accept them as friends. They are carriers of our destruction.

The genocidists know that the way to destroy White people and wipe us out is to make miscegenation seem normal and even desirable. It is neither.

We must stay separate and even isolated if possible from the infection of non-White genes.

Zombies? The current craze that few see as the metaphor that it offers.

The real zombies are the ones who can infect us with non-White genes and, when they do so, they create new zombies who in turn can create even more zombies.

It takes two Whites to make one new White child. This is the only way a child can receive the full 46 chromosomes and 20,000 or so genes containing the 3.1 billion DNA letters that make a White person.

It only takes one non-White mating with a White to produce a non-White child. This is so because such a child will only have 23 White chromosomes, 10,000 White genes and 1.5 billion DNA White letters. This child will not be half-White. It will be non-White.

If you mix a gallon of black, brown, yellow or red paint with a gallon of white paint, you will not end up with paint that is half white. You will end up with non-white paint. It is thus with the DNA code.

Don’t let the zombies get you. Stay White. Stay right. Don’t mix with the zombies. They can infect you and make you a zombie, too.

OK, so some will say that using zombies as a metaphor is over the top and that we’re all humans and it’s just natural to mate with other humans no matter their race.

Why, the fact that we can produce viable offspring with such mating must prove that there is no problem with such mating, right? Wrong. Just because something is possible does not make it desirable. As generations of parents have told their children, you can jump off a bridge if you want to, but that doesn’t make it desirable. it is the same with miscegenation.

To repeat what I wrote at the top. We Whites are a subspecies of the human species. We can become a new species, and we will become so if we do not miscegenate and if we remain separate and isolated and allow no gene transfer from the, ah, zombies (“See, there he goes again!” whine the anti-Whites).

Some of us believe that evolving into a new species incapable of bearing children with other types of humans is our highest destiny, and some of us further believe that this is also a command to us from on high.

The fundamental processes of evolution will automatically propel us into specieshood if we avoid all gene transfer from other races, because these fundamental processes work in machine-like fashion, without emotion and without conscious human intervention. However, they are slow and they may cause divergence and specieshood in some ways that may not be best for us in the long run because they may cause specific adaptations rather than general adaptations.

Specific adaptations are what we see with koalas, for example. They will starve if they can’t eat a certain type of plant or if they can’t live in just the right conditions. General adaptations are what we see with cockroaches, who will eat just about anything and live under a wide variety of conditions.

To avoid going in the wrong evolutionary direction; that is to say, to avoid building in specific adaptations that will mean our eventual extinction when conditions change (and they always will change) we are best advised to will our own evolution along a path that will build in general adaptations that will allow us to be able to survive and prosper no matter what changes happen in the future. To go in the right direction, we must live consciously and we must mate right, and we must breed like cockroaches in order to bring forth the greatest number of mutations so that the right ones will occur to move us forward, and we must avoid all gene transfer from non-Whites to us.

If you’re a betting person, put your money on the cockroach surviving and the koala going extinct.

Let us be as the cockroach and let us also avoid zombification.

We are a different kind. Let us remain so and let us consciously increase the differences.

(© 2012 H. Millard)
If Whites insist on participating in "social media," do so on ours, not (((theirs))). Like us on WhiteBiocentrism.com; follow us on NationalVanguard.org. ᛉ

Jim Pennington

Re: "Racism"

Post by Jim Pennington » Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:09 am

The Curious Beginnings of a Useless Word

Samuel Francis

The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship’s most remarkable achievements – the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as “historical principles.” Unlike most dictionaries, the OED also provides information on the first historical appearance and usage of words. The range of the erudition in the OED is often astounding, but for American Renaissance readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word “racism.”

According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 – Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?

Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was a German-Jewish medical scientist whose major work was in the field of what came to be known as “sexology” – the scientific study of sex. Like Havelock Ellis in England and Alfred Kinsey in the United States, Hirschfeld was not only among the first to collect systematic information about sexuality but also was an apostle of sexual “liberation.” His major work was a study of homosexuality, but he also published many other books, monographs, and articles dealing with sex. He wrote a five-volume treatise on “sexology” as well as some 150 other works and helped write and produce five films on the subject.

It is fair to say that his works were intended to send a message – that traditional Christian and bourgeois sexual morality was repressive, irrational, and hypocritical, and that emancipation would be a major step forward. His admiring translators, Eden and Cedar Paul, in their introduction to Racism, write of his “unwearying championship of the cause of persons who, because their sexual hormonic functioning is of an unusual type, are persecuted by their more fortunate fellow-mortals.” Long before the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s, Magnus Hirschfeld was crusading for the “normalization” of homosexuality and other abnormal sexual behavior.

Hirschfeld was the founder of an Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and helped organize “sexology” on an international scale. In 1922, he was physically attacked and almost killed by anti-Semites in Munich. In May, 1933, the Nazis closed down his “Institute of Sexual Science” and Hirschfeld fled to France, where he lived until his death in 1935.

Racism is largely devoted to a highly polemical “refutation” of some of the main racial ideologies and theories of the 19th and 20th centuries. The writers whom Hirschfeld criticized, aside from his favorite target of the National Socialists themselves, were figures like Arthur de Gobineau, Vacher de La-Pouge, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and others generally denounced today as “pseudo-scientists.” In fact, that is an inappropriate term. Some of them were not trying to write as scientists at all but rather as political theorists, while others are better described as pre-scientific writers on race who worked with inadequate information, concepts, methodology, and terminology. While Hirschfeld may have been correct in rejecting their more egregious errors, his sneering at them for these mistakes is rather like ridiculing Copernicus and Kepler because they continued to accept some erroneous ideas from medieval astronomy.

Even when Hirschfeld is right in his critique of the early race theorists, it is often because he has chosen easy targets. His “refutation” of “racism” is largely centered on irrelevant common-places that even extreme exponents of racial differences might readily acknowledge – that all human beings are part of the same species and can interbreed, that blood transfusions can take place between races, that “there is no such thing as a pure race,” that the races are identical in the vast majority of physical characteristics, that cephalic index is not a meaningful measurement of intelligence or character, etc. Yet his “scientific” evidence is often merely anecdotal or simply his own opinion asserted as unquestioned truth.

In another section, he recounts the names of those he considers the 70 most outstanding figures in world history and announces that “all such lists, when made without bias, will show that persons of genius and persons of outstanding talent are not set apart from the ruck by any colour of their eyes, by a peculiar shape of the skull or the nose, by any ‘ethnological’ characteristics whatever. What is decisive in human beings is not race but individuality.” It does not seem to occur to Hirschfeld that all but about 8 or 9 of the 70 world-historical figures on his list are white Europeans. There are no Negroes and only two Asians (Confucius and Sun Yat Sen).

It is interesting that for all his contempt for “racism,” Hirschfeld never once mentions IQ studies or the considerable psychometric evidence about race and intelligence that was already available even in the 1930s. Most of Hirschfeld’s polemic is aimed at the proponents of intra-European racial differences (Nordics, Alpines, Mediterraneans, Dinarics, etc.) and not at differences between whites and other major races (though he steadfastly denies such differences as well). Curiously, he never cites the work of Franz Boas and his disciples against “racism,” though that work was available in Europe at the time, nor does he invoke the ideas of the Frankfurt School, though Hirschfeld’s own claim that “racism” is rooted in fear, loss of self-esteem, and other social and psychological pathologies resembles the ideas the Frankfurt School was formulating.

Nor, despite Hirschfeld’s own Jewish background and the Nazi threat to Jews, does he seem preoccupied with anti-Semitism; in one or two passages he criticizes Jews themselves for their own ethnocentrism and faults Zionism for having created a new “race hatred” between Jews and Arabs. Moreover, Hirschfeld is a stout defender of eugenics, though not on racial lines, and he even has a brief chapter exploring a distinction he calls “Gobinism or Galtonism” – that is, attacking the ideas of French “racist” Arthur de Gobineau and defending those of Francis Galton, who coined the word “eugenics” and pioneered its development. Today most critics of “racism” would lump Galton and Gobineau together rather than distinguish between them.

As a serious critique of the view that socially significant natural differences between the races exist, Hirschfeld’s book is a failure, and even as a polemic against some of the more politicized and unverified claims about race made a century or more ago, it is weak. The importance of the book is not so much its content, however, as what it tells us about the word “racism” and how the enemies of white racial consciousness have developed and deployed it for their own purposes.

Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as “Pan-Humanism,” a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, “we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left... [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution.”

In Racism, Hirschfeld offers what is essentially a definition of “Pan-Humanism”: “The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship – that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.” With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: “Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia.” Later, he informs us, “It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe [i.e., Stalin’s Russia].”

“Racism,” therefore, is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.

But understanding the origins of the word “racism” in Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas “racism” and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.

It is clear that Magnus Hirschfeld himself harbored deep ideological, professional, and personal animosities against those to whom he applied the word, and those animosities may have extended to the entire society that throughout his career he associated with sexual repression and which he wanted replaced by a kind of global communism under the label of “Pan-Humanism.” Whatever the flaws or virtues of his polemic against “racism,” his own opposition to racial consciousness was neither entirely rational nor disinterested. It is time that the enemies of racial, national, and cultural consciousness like Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School cease to be able to claim a monopoly on rationality and sanity and that the obsessions and motivations that seem to shape their own ideologies and political behavior be subjected to the same scrutiny they apply to the societies and peoples whom their thinking could destroy.


Re: "Racism"

Post by jack » Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:14 am

As it's used today, “racism” is a bastardized term. Our media refer only to the negative aspect of racism. In fact, thanks to our gallant journalists, most people associate racism with slavery, lynchings, discrimination, name calling and hate. I have never heard a member of the press or a show host recognize the positive aspect of racism—the stupid and the criminal are put aside. They never mention the higher intelligence, creativity and ability of abstraction of racially European folks. To them, such recognition would be a terrible social sin... and they must remain “pure” or their bosses will fire them.

When someone tells you not to go into a “bad neighborhood,” what does that person really mean? I would challenge the bleeding-heart liberals who talk so sanctimoniously to the rest of us—but live in gated communities—to move into one of those neighborhoods. How would they like to be robbed or to have their daughters and wives raped and murdered by the nobel savages of the inner city? Well, that's exactly why I don't want to have anything to do with those brutes. Observation and experience tell me that the further away I keep from the uncivilized, the better my life will be (if I'm lucky). That separation is one positive aspect of racism.

The liberal media holy persons are also the well-paid mouthpieces who hammer into our heads continuously that Social Security is going to run out of money. Do they ever consider that Welfare funds could run out too? Behold, I say to you: When the non-productive races become a majority, both Social Security and Welfare will surely run out of money.

Except for those silly “peace laureates,” I don't recall ever seen a negroid person earning a Nobel price. How much have the Blacks—or the mestizos for that matter—advanced any of the sciences, the arts or literature. When was the Bell Curve last discussed in public?

As of today, we're a decadent people.


Re: "Racism"

Post by ajaxcleanser » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:39 pm

"Racism", You know, for all of the hundreds of thousands of words written defining "Racism", the reality is really very simple, and quite surprising, i.e.:
"Racism, and Racist behavior, is simply the "preferential" treatment of a person, or persons, based on their ethnic and/or genetic heritage". That is not very difficult to understand, and its the Truth. It turns out I prefer to treat White, European-Americans, differently than Black, African-Americans.
Best regards,
Ajax Cleanser

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: "Racism"

Post by Will Williams » Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:40 pm

Know your enemy, Whitey, and the terms and definitions they use to blunt and vilify your instinctive racial loyalty.

WARNING! If you suffer from White Fragility stop reading now.
Founding Father Benjamin Rush, considered the Father of Modern Psychiatry, was not a Jew but loved his Hebrew Bible and counted chosenites among his friends.


These come to us from the once respected, but now Jew-led, corrupted American Psychiatric Association (APA).


APA Presidential Task Force on Structural Racism
Glossary of Terms

Anti-Black Racism
Prejudice, attitudes, beliefs, stereotyping or discrimination that is directed at people of African descent and is rooted in their unique history and experience of enslavement and colonization.

Source: https://www.ontario.ca/document/data-st ... m/glossary
The active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably.

Source: https://www.aclrc.com/antiracism
Code-switching refers to adopting mannerisms, language style, dress, or appearance in order to appear more "acceptable" to the dominant culture. For example, a Black individual may change his dialect or speech in a room of only White individuals. Black parents often instruct their children how to act when approached by police. The term was initially used to describe the switch between different dialects or languages when speaking to an individual using an alternate language.

Source: https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-costs-of-codeswitching
An action that is motivated by prejudice.

Source: https://education.psychiatry.org/diweb/ ... id=5913368
The demographic presence of individuals encompassing race, ethnicity, gender identity, differing abilities, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, country of origin, religion, and age.
Individual Racism
Includes face-to-face or covert actions toward a person that express prejudice, hate or bias based on race.

Source: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-pos ... efinition/
Authentically recruiting and allowing traditionally excluded individuals and/or groups to partake in the processes decision and policy making within an organization or group—resulting in shared power.
Institutional Racism
Refers to the policies and practices within and across institutions that produce outcomes that chronically favor, or put a racial group at a disadvantage.

Source: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-pos ... efinition/
Brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional that communicate hostile derogatory or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups.
A belief that is often rooted in unfair assumptions.

Source: https://education.psychiatry.org/diweb/ ... id=5913368
A social construct or creation of a social reality, based on physical characteristics, such as skin color and hair texture.

Source: https://education.psychiatry.org/diweb/ ... id=5913368
Racial Bias
An implicit or explicit aversion to, stereotyping of, or discrimination against racial and ethnic groups.
Racial Equity
When every person has the opportunity to attain their full potential; and no one is disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of their racial/ethnic background.

Source: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-pos ... efinition/
Racialized Communities/Groups
Frequently referred to as "visible minorities" encompassing all people that are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in color.
A system of structuring opportunity and assigning value based on the social interpretation of how one looks (which is what we call "race"). A system of structuring opportunity and assigning value based on the social interpretation of how one looks (race).

Source: https://education.psychiatry.org/diweb/ ... id=5913368
The degree to which racial/ethnic groups live apart from one another in a geographic region.
Social Privilege Unearned advantages that one might take for granted while simultaneously not recognizing that others lack them.
Structural Racism

A combination of public policies, institutional practices, social forces, ideologies, and processes that generate and perpetuate inequities among races.

Source: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-pos ... efinition/
White Fragility
Discomfort and defensiveness on the part of a white person when confronted by information about racial inequality and injustice.

Source: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/white_fragility
White Privilege
Refers to whites' historical status and contemporary advantages in access to quality education, decent jobs and livable wages, homeownership, retirement benefits, wealth, and so on.

Source: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-pos ... efinition/
If Whites insist on participating in "social media," do so on ours, not (((theirs))). Like us on WhiteBiocentrism.com; follow us on NationalVanguard.org. ᛉ

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 3193
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: "Racism"

Post by Jim Mathias » Sun Feb 27, 2022 1:47 am

All these terms are psychobabble to hobble the White mind. I don't care to "know" these terms, but instead to reject them and their spewers as unhinged anti-Whites.
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: "Racism"

Post by Will Williams » Sun Feb 27, 2022 1:30 pm

Jim Mathias wrote:
Sun Feb 27, 2022 1:47 am
All these terms are psychobabble to hobble the White mind. I don't care to "know" these terms, but instead to reject them and their spewers as unhinged anti-Whites.
Sure, ignore the terms, Jim. But it is important to recognize and know the enemy.

The 12-member Task Force that came up with this anti-White nonsense is led by this Jew:

Jeffrey Geller

The other 11 members' names and mug shots are found here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrist ... task-force

They look to me to be two more Jews, so 1/4 of the Task Force; six Negroes, fully 1/2 of the Task Force. Add the one Indian. That's 5/6 of the Task Force that are non-White. Throw in two self-hating Whites to represent America's White majority and there you are. I won't cut and paste their faces here. Just go to the linked APA page and see them for yourself.
If Whites insist on participating in "social media," do so on ours, not (((theirs))). Like us on WhiteBiocentrism.com; follow us on NationalVanguard.org. ᛉ

Robert Burns
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: "Racism"

Post by Robert Burns » Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:09 pm

This is just Critical Race Theory. None of these terms or ideas originate in psychiatry or psychology. CRT stems pretty directly from Marxism. It is safe to say that the APA, like any other major institution I can think of, has been infiltrated and subverted by Marxists. I don't think it is safe to say that the majority of professionals in the field actually agree with this politicization of their field. I imagine quite a few of them are not happy about it at all.

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: "Racism"

Post by Will Williams » Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:47 pm

Riley wrote:
Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:09 pm
This is just Critical Race Theory. None of these terms or ideas originate in psychiatry or psychology. CRT stems pretty directly from Marxism. It is safe to say that the APA, like any other major institution I can think of, has been infiltrated and subverted by Marxists. I don't think it is safe to say that the majority of professionals in the field actually agree with this politicization of their field. I imagine quite a few of them are not happy about it at all.
APA has more than 37,000 members involved in psychiatric practice, research, and academia representing the diversity of the patients for whom they care.

As the leading psychiatric organization in the world, APA now encompasses members practicing in more than 100 countries.
That is from the "leading psychiatric organization in the world's" Website in 2022, Riley. There may be a few White men and women psychiatrists among those 37,000, but if they "go along" with the anti-White glossary of racism terms of the APA "to get along," I'm inclined to say they lack backbones -- or maybe they are self-hating whites.

Perhaps there is a group organized to oppose the prevailing Marxist CRT crap that has a need for honest, morally courageous White loyalists in the field of psychiatry that they can join to counter the APA's anti-White propaganda? If you discover such a sane organization, let us know here.

Our White separatist world could used trained psychiatrists who do not care about "encompassing racial diversity," but might specialize in dealing with the problem of alienation of Whites in their former goverment-mandated, racially diverse lives.
If Whites insist on participating in "social media," do so on ours, not (((theirs))). Like us on WhiteBiocentrism.com; follow us on NationalVanguard.org. ᛉ

Post Reply