For decades, the Left has had a very powerful rhetorical weapon in its arsenal, one which they wielded to great effect until very recently. This was – as the reader can probably guess – the accusation of “racism” against their opponents. It was effective because there was no defence against it. If a certified bon penseur accused you of racism, that was it. You were tarred irrevocably. Your name was mud in academia, politics, or in your chosen vocation. Its appeal was entirely emotional: racism = bad, so if you’re accused of racism, then you must be a bad, bad person. Nobody wants to be associated with bad, bad people so an accusation of racism effectively isolated its target – it was Alinskyism in action. Nobody who counted was going to come to the defence of the bad, bad, evil racist. And nobody was going to listen when the bad, bad, evil racist tried to rationally explain what they were saying, the facts that they used to arrive at a conclusion, and so forth. No – being accused of “racism” by someone in the appropriate victim group or one of their “leaders” in the movement was the equivalent of the radical Left’s neutron bomb – it leaves the shell, but destroys the substance of its target.
Of course, the thing which any cuckservative Republican politician fears the most – much more so than being accountable to his constituents – is being tagged with the “racism” label and having it hinder his reelection.
Yet, like any weapon which is overused, it loses its effectiveness over time as opponents develop defences against it. That’s what we’re seeing now. That’s why 2016 is the year racism died – the year in which “racist” and other similar epithets ceased to have the rhetorical effect which they once did.
Because its power is rhetorical, the negation of that power also rests in the realm of rhetoric. And because its effectiveness rests on intimidation, it can be rendered ineffective by a steadfast, strong-minded refusal to be intimidated.
This comes as no surprise. It’s an open secret that the term “racism” basically has no meaning anymore beyond “you said or did something a social justice warrior didn’t like.” An increasing number of white people are starting to not care about being tagged with it. After all, within the past few weeks, we’ve found out or been reminded that you are racist for:
- Disagreeing with Obama
- Disagreeing with any other Democrat
- Saying that “all lives matter”
- Questioning any SJW narrative, even if race plays no role in it
- Being a white guy with dreadlocks
- Referring to chocolate-infused bread snacks as “brownies”
- Pointing out that fake “hate crimes” committed by black college students were…committed by black college students
- Refusing to rent your property to violent ex-felons
- Opposing gun control
- Supporting gun control if it means young black males won’t get to own them
- Being born white
It’s rather apparent why nobody with any sense takes charges of “racism” seriously anymore.
The effectiveness of the “racism” slur was not because of its accuracy, but because of its emotional impact, which made it the perfect tool for SJWs to use as a signaling mechanism to bully their opponents. Everyone knew that SJW charges of “racism” were bilious nonsense. But everyone else also knew that being accused of it, even falsely, could be a career-ender. Nobody knew that others thought the same way as they did, so everyone was isolated and thus silenced. It’s like the Soviet Union right before it collapsed – everyone in the Soviet Union knew their system was unsustainable, but nobody wanted to say so for fear of running afoul of the secret police. But then the dam broke and the whole system was swept away. And then everybody openly said what they had known all along, which was that the system had been failing for years.
The SJW name-calling has become less and less effective as more and more people begin to discover the alt-Right and become red-pilled. That’s not surprising. As I’ve pointed out previously, one of the key factors in red-pilling is the acceptance of truth, facts, and reason, regardless of where they go or to what conclusions they might lead. So it’s obviously that if the power of “racism” is to be completely broken, then the alt-Right needs to double down on the diffusion of “hate facts” into the West’s social consciousness, rather than drawing back from doing so. The reason isn’t so much to educate people who don’t understand these “hate facts,” but rather to openly declare them so that these people will know that there other people out there who think like they do.
See, the reason why the radical Left uses terms like “racism” to isolate wrong-thinkers is because they know that when people are isolated, when they don’t believe anyone else around them believes as they do, they will often conform to what they perceive to be the dominant belief around them. This was demonstrated by the Asch conformity experiments back in the 1950s. In these experiments, a test subject was placed in a room with several other people, who were all part of the experimental team. The subject was shown a paper with three lines of different lengthes printed on them, and then another paper with one line, the length of which matched one of the three lines on the first paper. The subject was asked to tell which of the three lines the other, single line matched in length. The trick, however, was that all of the members of the experimental staff would purposefully choose the wrong answer. The test was to see whether the test subject – who always chose the obviously correct answer – would recant and change his or her answer to conform to what everyone else was saying was the right answer. It was found that many of the test subjects would do so – they would go along with what they knew to be the wrong answer, just to conform to what they perceived to be the majority belief around them.
The Left has used its rhetorical epithets to great effect to silence opponents, and then to induce in them Asch-like responses of conformity.
But there’s more to the story. When other people were included in the experiment who answered the same way as the test subject (i.e. “confederates”), the test subjects became much more resistant to conformity. This was the case even when only one confederate was introduced. The ability of a majority to bend a minority to its will was greatly reduced when that minority had even a small amount of support from confederates.
This is what has started to occur in 2016. The dam began to break earlier this year when the alt-Rightish Republican candidate Donald Trump refused to walk back comments he had made about illegal immigrants. Widely condemned as “racist” by the Cathedral media, he nevertheless stuck to his guns. The result? He took the lead in the primaries and never lost it. Rank-and-file voters rewarded him with victory in the primaries, and gave him the Republican nomination (presuming that the cuckservatives don’t figure out a way to steal it from him through convention shenanigans).
What’s interesting is not so much that Trump rose to prominence by refusing to cave to the SJW-driven political correctness conflict initiated against him, but why he prevailed in that conflict. Why is it that despite so-called “misstep” after “misstep,” Trump seemed to be immune to every effort by the media and the political establishment to cow him into submission by casting him as “racist” (as well as other allied terms like “sexist” and “homophobic”)?
Simply put – Trump doesn’t scare because Trump doesn’t care.
They could call him whatever they liked – he didn’t care. He didn’t grovel or cower, he doubled down and threw it right back at them. The Cathedral punditry this year were simply astounded and dismayed by Trump’s overturning of all the accepted rules of the political game. Essentially, these rules exist for the purpose of hobbling any candidate who would go too far off the reservation and begin to say things that really challenged the Cathedral’s status quo. A Republican can be “edgy” by saying we should cut taxes a few percentage points. Calling for a wall to keep out illegal aliens and taking a stand for a reinvigourated American nationalism are outside the pale. Yet, all of the media’s usual tactics at keeping politicians docile failed with Trump this year.
Why? Because there are a lot of people who are simply getting sick and tired of the whole “racism” racket. So when Trump stood his ground, he served as a rally point for all of these people, and they, in turn, fed into his sense of broad-based support for his words and actions. The media could call him a “racist” all they liked, it only began to have the opposite effect – he grew more popular, not less. His refusal to back down drew attention, which in turn caused more and more people to be exposed to his actual ideas, instead of the media’s caricature.
In other words, Trump was basically acting as a nationwide (and indeed worldwide) “Asch confederate,” letting the incipient proto-redpillers out there know that they’re not alone. This, in turn, has fueled the rise of the alt-Right – with all of its non-conformist, reactionary, and politically incorrect ideas – into the national consciousness to the point that the Cathedral media and other organs have began to feel the need to deal with it instead of ignoring it. This is why the Overton Window has been moving in our direction on a number of issues such as illegal immigration, Muslim “refugees,” and the defence of Western civilisation in general. It’s why we saw a successful Brexit last month, and why Austria will most likely elect a nationalist president this fall, provided they can keep their election honest this time around. The Cathedral may still succeed in using raw political force to stifle these rebellions, but they will do so without having majority support from an increasingly rebellious populace.
And this will be in large part because their old rhetorical weapons are rapidly losing their edge.
The key to breaking the power of the SJWs does not lie in counterprotesting or otherwise mimicking the Left’s activism, which is bound to fail. Rather, it consists in continuing to red-pill those who are red-pillable at the demotic level, while building and/or strengthening our own alternative support sources – churches, männerbunden, citizen militias, and the like. These support structures should follow a loose, “distributed system” approach toward organising and working together – no single head which can be crushed and the movement broken. We will know that we have achieved success when someone can be fired for being a “racist” for something completely unrelated to their job or their company, and that company is forced by a mass of negative feedback to rehire that person and refrain from further punishing them. Success will be achieved when the SJWs are no longer able to do what SJWs do.