Naming the Enemy
By • 2/1/08Yesterday, I suggested that race realists might want to portray themselves as the true liberals, that is, the true defenders of core Western values like individualism, pluralism, and tolerance. It’s an idea that’s tough to swallow, requires considerable digestion, and may come right up again, I realize. However, I think even people who would be inclined to reject my idea can agree with me on one thing.
We need a new name for our enemy. The term “liberal,” derived as it is from liber, the Latin word for “free,” clouds the public’s understanding of the debate over race because it suggests that our enemy stands for liberty. We saw yesterday that this is an inversion of the truth that stacks the deck against the realist side. When we say that we are against “liberals,” along with “civil liberties” groups, people take us to be against freedom, when, in fact, it is we who are fighting for the freedom to challenge our culture’s dogmas about race and to choose our associates.
The prejudices that work against race realists are so profound that they are engrained in our very language, and we will need to create a whole new terminology before people listen to us. The terms we use should make the real nature of the debate over race clear and place realists on the moral high ground.
What should our new name for liberals be then? We want something that captures their core beliefs in a concise and lapidary fashion. Our enemy believes that:
- Diversity is a strength.
- The races are identical in respect to character and intelligence.
- Whites are to blame for the failings of non-whites, and, consequently, for the hostility that non-whites feel towards whites.
- They have the right to prevent criticism of their core ideas.
- They have the right to prevent those who do not share their ideas from living as they want, that is, forming segregated communities.
I’ve brooded a lot on this question, and the best term I could come up with was “diversity authoritarian.” While not perfect, this term does capture points 1, 4, and 5. Also, since everyone who believes diversity is a strength believes in the equality of the races, I think point 2 is implied in my term. The word does not capture point 3 at all though.
Try it on for size. “Martin Luther King was a diversity authoritarian.” “The National Council of La Raza is a diversity authoritarian group.” It makes an impact, doesn’t it? The term is accurate, and at the same time gives a sinister cast to the political positions of Martin Luther King and the NCLR.
Another possibility is “Hesperophobe,” derived from John Derbyshire’s term “Hesperophobia,” meaning fear and loathing of the West. This term captures point 3 fairly well; indeed, Derbyshire used the word to describe ludicrous attempts to blame America for the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, while “diversity authoritarian” names an attitude towards racial issues within white nations, “Hesperophobe” can be used to describe how non-Western foreigners feel about us.
The problem with the word is that it does not capture any of the other beliefs characteristic of our enemy very well. Moreover, hesperos means “The West” in Greek, and thus Derbyshire’s term designates a culture rather than a race. By the way, the Greek word for fear and loathing of the whites is “leukophobia.” Any takers?
So, I think “diversity authoritarians” is the best term for liberals, and “Hesperophobes” is not quite as good, or to be used in different circumstances.
Anyway, I propose that we have a weekend competition to figure out the best name for our enemy. I’ll be interested to see what you come up with.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
Although it does not capture all your points, I prefer “secular creationists” or “liberal creationists”. This name may not do well with religious race realists, but I find is a very effective label to expose the contradiction in the belief system of most secular liberals.
BTW, did you see this?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/racenationalismandpatriotismpartirace/
By on 2/1/08 at 6:37 pm
Ian Jobling notes:
“I’ve brooded a lot on this question, and the best term I could come up with was ‘diversity authoritarian.’ While not perfect, this term does capture points 1, 4, and 5.
Also, since everyone who believes diversity is a strength believes in the equality of the races, I think point 2 is implied in my term. The word does not capture point 3 at all though.”
The term that best describes them is one that I have used for years, Multi Cultists. Not only does it capture points 1, 4, and, 5, point 2 is not implied and 3 is covered. Here we go in my defense of the term:
1.) “Diversity is our strength,” is the irrationally baseless mantra that either whips them into a frenzy of euphoria or hate, given the circumstances. For example, championing Comrade Obama’s rise as our “proof” of a race free American “transformation, insights zombie like joy; while the Clintons’ “unsavory” injection of race into the question of his coronation as the Cultists’ savior incarnate, evokes nothing but venom and hissing convulsions. This holds true for most “mainstream liberals” and “mainstream conservatives” alike;
2.) “The races are identical in respect to character and intelligence,” this is the unattainable, but mythically comforting “reality” filtered through the Cultists’ deranged mind’s eye. What is implanted or refuted by “history” lessons or romantic media “morality” parables, encourages a malleable psychology that is then easily manipulated to reduce reality to what is wanted through fantasy, not what it is clearly evaluated by reason and the five senses;
3.) “Whites are to blame for the failings of non-whites, and, consequently, for the hostility that non-whites feel towards whites,” is a belief that reinforces point 2 and allows for an endless “crusade” of self “actualization” through self debasement to be indulge in. It allows for abuses, no matter how horrid to be directed and excused as “sanctifying” or “exorcising” for whites in the Cult or outside it collectively, by the hatefully undulating demigod of collective nonwhite humanity. Moreover, through such a twisted prism of psychological and “spiritual” vertigo, the Duke “Rape” case can be a reality of note, even if disproved by evidence and facts, while the Knoxville Atrocity is at best regulated to the dustbin of “paranoia’ or “racist machinations” in a society steeped in “institutional racism” or “white privilege” rightfully punished;
4.) “They have the right to prevent criticism of their core ideas,” is the very central dictum of all cults that distinguishes them from a religion. Is it any wonder that a “religion” so intolerant of others as Islam, is the Multi Cultists’ favored “traditional” old world “faith” of “cultural promotion” in the temporal versus spiritual debate, of allowable state and church separations? Certainly, one cult that is dedicated to destroying the West as a form of collective “martyrdom,” finds a certain harmony with another cult so violently willing to symbiotically aid it in its quest for self-inflicted genocide, by way of alien “enrichments.”
In an almost perfect waltz of cultic madness, in which the Multi Cultist and Islamic invaders intone a hymn of “tolerance,” that only allows expression of their desire to destroy the West. All others, those who sing out of key, are “racists,” ‘infidels,” or simply “scum;”
5.) “They have the right to prevent those who do not share their ideas from living as they want, that is, forming segregated communities,” again, is a core ideal of cults. “Outsiders” from the “ideal” are of no value. At best, they must be forced to convert or enjoy a “well deserved” destruction. An all white community, free of “diversity” as dictated by the Multi Cult, cannot be tolerated through their “beatitudes” of “tolerance,” simply because it exemplifies the reality of the situation. Reality, to any cult, must be stopped.
Thus, call them what they are: Multi Cultists!
By on 2/1/08 at 7:29 pm
‘Racial Marxism’ or ‘racial Bolshevism’ captures points one to five.
‘Race unrealism’ captures point two.
Terms like ‘multi-cultist’ sound illiterate.
‘Europhobia’ sounds better than ‘Hesperophobia’.
By on 2/2/08 at 2:03 am
Any critic of the state we’re in - especially regarding the prevailing contempt for the white race and its achievements - will probably hear the familiar slogan, “We should celebrate our diversity”. This sounds like a moral imperative, so let’s find out why.
The diversity enthusiasts assume their commitment to cultural diversity gives them the moral high ground because in the sense they use the concept of “diversity”, it implies an intrinsic cultural good. In other words, “diversity” has become a concept like “education” or “reform” - with an in-built notion that something worthwhile is going on.
If we restrict the word “culture” to meaning accomplishments in the arts - literature, painting, and music - we can acknowledge that diversity has some positives. Some good has come of it: the development of jazz is an obvious example. However, if by “culture” we mean the pattern of society as a whole, then the negatives of diversity outweigh the positives.
Striving for the ideal of diversity has caused a lot of social and economic damage - including the gross falsification of history, and the ideological manipulation of employment, education, law, and justice. But on what grounds can liberals defend their abstract respect for diversity?
Whatever the arguments in behalf of cultural diversity, conservatives should counter that the success of Western civilization in every aspect of intellectual achievement - of which probably the most important is the advance of science - was built on the foundations of homogeneity.
(My name for the enemy is “diversity enthusiast” - implying a mindless devotion to an unexamined assumption)
By on 2/2/08 at 4:06 am
To the eloquently “literate” Chris, regarding:
“‘Racial Marxism’ or ‘racial Bolshevism’ captures points one to five.
‘Race unrealism’ captures point two.
Terms like ‘multi-cultist’ sound illiterate.”
Indeed, “Racial Marxism” or “racial Bolshevism” would sum it all up, if lengthy explanations of the terms Marxism or Bolshevism (rather archaic, that is) were not required, for the majority of the rabble that readily or unconsciously swallow the “diversity is our strength” pap.
Or put another way, we must ask ourselves which terms Homer Simpson would most readily grasp, and then proceed from there!
By on 2/2/08 at 8:46 am
I prefer the simple term “utopian”. This is descriptive of all forms of socialism, both economic and racial. The key feature of utopianism is that it denies reality, which is also why “race REALISM” describes this website so aptly.
Has anyone ever visited this website… http://mega.nu/ampp Its brilliant and concise explanation of how utopian socialism has attempted to eat away at Western culture through the centuries.
By on 2/2/08 at 2:08 pm
You’ve got it right - “diversity authoritarian.” Now just condense that to “diversitarian” for added punch.
By on 2/3/08 at 3:59 am
How about “attitudinizing orduritarians.” Ordure defined as: Something morally offensive; filth.
By on 2/3/08 at 10:49 am
I second the vote for ‘diversitarian.’ Has a nice ring to it.
It can be useful to use the Left’s language of diversity, intolerance, and racial politics against them. I usually just use the term ‘anti-white bigot,’ which gets the point across and can be understood by most. It puts Marxists and non-white militants on the defensive.
By on 2/3/08 at 12:29 pm
What people must realize is that liberals do not believe the stuff they spout. I recommend challenging liberals to take a lie detector test and be asked questions such as “Do you believe the races are equal?”, ” Do you believe the sexes are equal?”, “Do you feel Jews are superior to others?’. i guarantee no liberal will pass the test. It’s one thing to claim you believe in P.C. nonsense and another to pass a lie detedtor test to prove you believe this nonsense.
By on 2/3/08 at 1:32 pm
Indeed labels are powerful. Let’s see if any of these thoughts stimulates convergence on the right one. If successful, it will become a dirty term to utter at someone.
“Coercion” and “coercionist” captures their actions. But your “authoritarian” is a broader term in that it includes the holier-than-thou types who boast of their moral superiority, look down upon others, but are not active participants. “Equalitarianism” is something they try to achieve through coercion but or “equality” has a noble ring to it and won’t work too well in becoming a slur.
4 and 5 are characteristics of any tyranny. Your “authoritarianism” already captures this. So it’s 1, 2 and 3 that requires the most attention.
1 and 2 are pretty easy to combine and you came up with “diversity”. They say diversity is strength and that races are equal. By definition, there is no diversity if all races are equal. The concepts are self contradictory. Believers are therefore “delusionists” which is the opposite of the “realist” or “race realist”. Ring any bells? The lable delusionist has fault in that it makes the accuser seem arrogant.
“Authoritarian” is word that does not go well with anyone living in a democracy, whatever their racial inclination. “Diveristy” is still a word that conjures warm and fuzzy feelings. But “race authoritarian” or “racism authoritarianism” uses a couple of words that are so in-your-face to many people, it gets attention. Offending people’s sense of ease will work better than a pleasent term such as “diversity”. #3 is racial matter and so it too becomes incorporated into this phrase.
According to your previous article, race realists are the true “liberals”. If they are also engaged in promoting their views, then they must be the “civil rights activists” of today. Then imposter liberals (for lack of better term) today must be whatever civil rights activitist opposed back in the days. What were they called and can it be used directly or be tweaked?
Barring anything that arises from the civil rights activist train of thought, I favor “racial authoritarian” while we are “racial realists”.
By on 2/3/08 at 7:03 pm
Or put another way, we must ask ourselves which terms Homer Simpson would most readily grasp, and then proceed from there!
By John PM on 2/2/08 at 9:46 am
Good point John PM. Success of a movement is often swayed by the simplicity of its slogans and concepts. Even a two word phrase may be too much, let alone explaining Marxist/Bolshovist philosopy as you point out.
Hmm…perhaps finding an exact term from political science text book is a dead end. Perhaps a colorful character or event out of a famous work of fiction, pop culture, or history in much the way calling someone a “Homer Simpson”, “Casanova”, “Benedict Arnold” “luddite”, “inquisitor”, “flat earther” evokes a certain IMAGERY through association.
By on 2/3/08 at 7:58 pm
Bradster writes:
What people must realize is that liberals do not believe the stuff they spout.
I think Bradster is correct. When liberals are cornered into defending, for example, the proposition that tolerance is an indispensable value (in a liberal society), they have difficulty in deciding whether the preaching of intolerant philosophies should be suppressed.
By on 2/4/08 at 8:33 am
“Perhaps a colorful character or event out of a famous work of fiction, pop culture, or history in much the way calling someone a “Homer Simpson”, “Casanova”, “Benedict Arnold” “luddite”, “inquisitor”, “flat earther” evokes a certain IMAGERY through association.”
An interesting point, most certainly.
But the question remains, what to call them?
I will hold with the term Multi Cultists, simply because it does evoke the image of what they are for me: diversity freaks, that spew platitudes and invective with a peer reinforced and “shaman” programmed inability to distinguish between, the “tolerance’ they preach and the intolerance they embody. At this point in time Reality Check, I am hard pressed to think of any major sociopolitical figure or pop culture work that would fully encompass all that.
One might call them Adolf Hamlets, but I think the irony would be lost on most?
In all the best humor and with sincere best wishes Reality Check,
John PM!
By on 2/6/08 at 7:13 pm
Is it the real aim of the liberals to promote diversity and celebrate multiculturalism?
I say emphatically, NO!!! What they are really seeking is the ethnic cleansing of the White-race. They know that the result of integrating non-whites with whites will eventually blend the two gene pools; hence, the forever destruction of the uniqueness that makes us white.
Of course the libs hide behind benign slogans such as: “From many one” or “We are a nation of immigrants” or “We are a melting pot” “Race is a social construct” etc.
Practising behind the shield of those set of ideals, the malevolent-liberals can hide their true intentions. One can only conclude the ‘liberal’ diversitoid crowd is really about obliterating the unique genetic racial differences God has created. What they are really about is genocide. Genocide targeted first and foremost at the White-race.
On the other hand, race-realists are vehemently against blending all the races into one. We are the true protectors of diversity and multiculturalism; but the liberals are practitioners of a soft, stealthy, form of genocide. They, the liberals, are the Nazis’ of the 21’st century.
By on 2/7/08 at 7:50 am
Given that the Thought Police, straight out of Orwell’s novel, have claimed the careers of Don Imus (newly resurrected), Michael Richards, James Watson, the editor of Golfweek, the sports broadcasting job of Rush Limbaugh, and your own example, Frances Semler, who I had never heard of previously, one might call these policemen of heretical thought, the bureaucratic enforcers of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, or “The Dream Police.” Imagine ourselves sent to reeducation camps for daring to utter the heretical words “Down with Big Brotha.”
By on 2/9/08 at 9:52 am
Ian, I like your diversity authoritarian moniker, but that seems to reduce liberals to being first and foremost about race (admittedly, it is high up the pecking order for them).
But the liberal philosophy is broader than that. They believe in all sorts of pie in the sky ideals that are both unrealistic and make them feel good about themselves.
My own preference is Utopian-Authoritarian (I’ll even hyphenate it for them since they so like that). The utopian part conveys how unrealistic and based on fantasy their politically correct pap is, and the Authoritarian part gives away the game about their willingness to destroy (vilify, marginalize as crazy, intolerant, racist, reactionary) anyone who dissents from their suicidal views.
By on 2/18/08 at 8:44 am
>Ian Jobling: the best term I could come up with was “diversity authoritarian.”
>Roger Glass: You’ve got it right - “diversity authoritarian.” Now just condense that to “diversitarian” for added punch.
>Reality Check: Good point John PM. Success of a movement is often swayed by the simplicity of its slogans and concepts. Even a two word phrase may be too much
diversity + authoritarian = diversithoritarian, diversithoritarianism
I know it’s more of a mouthful than Roger Glass’s diversitarian but it sounds scarier. Raising alarm bells about the enemy helps. Either one is more polished than diversitoid commonly used by AmRen posters.
By on 2/29/08 at 10:18 am
While this is a fun exercise, I personally just use the word “leftist.”
Leftists are essentially (1) socialists, who (2) believe that human beings are blank slates. Thus, they do not realize that diversity is a dangerous luxury; if genetics don’t matter, all human beings are essentially replaceable, and any failures are based on environmental contingencies and malice. Because certain white males are successful, and lots of other people and races aren’t, white males are malicious. It’s a pretty simple worldview. Never mind that it’s absurd.
By tucker on 2/1/08 at 4:58 pm