The Idiocy of “Liberals are the Real Racists”

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
March 1, 2017

Of the rhetoric of the hated cuckservative, nothing is more vile than the continued use of the argument that “liberals are the real racists” (alternatively, “Dems R Real Racists,” shorthanded “DR3”).

Above, you can view British cuckservative Pat Condell laying out the argument these people use, in all it’s glory.

Basically, it goes something like this: liberals are the ones always talking about race, always calling people racists, so they are actually racists because they’re thinking about race. Also, liberals engage in the “racism of lowered expectations,” expecting less from non-white minorities, and demanding more is done for them, which infantalizes them and is thus racist. Alternatively, a cuckservative might argue that non-whites are exploited for votes by the left-wing, mainly through welfare programs and other forms of pandering, and that this is racist.

The argument is always presented in terms of “we on the right fight REAL racism and care about not judging people by their skin color.”

This argument was formed as a strategic response to constantly being called “racists” by the left, and feeling that this slur must be deflected, so harmful is it to one’s reputation.

This is understandable, but only if you accept the rules you are being given by the left. It is a way of attempting to change the battlefield of discussion to something that the cuckservative views as more favorable territory, such as real world effects of liberal policy.

But there is no way to make the argument work. They have tried it. It has failed.

Pat Condell makes the argument that Islam is not a race, and so you can’t be racist for criticizing Islam. Except that in reality, everyone thinks of Islam as a racial ideology, fundamentally, because the overwhelming majority of its followers are brown people. And thus even if you are technically correct in saying that it is a religion and not a race, you aren’t going to get anywhere with that line of reasoning, and will ultimately simply come off as dishonest and petty.

The argument looks like this:

Conservative: (Addresses some social problem that is caused by brown people).

Liberal: You are a racist!

Conservative: No, I’m not a racist, I’m simply stating facts.

Liberal: You are stating these facts because you hate the color of the skin!

Conservative: No, please no, I’m not a racist…. you… you are the real racist!

Liberal: Yeah, sure. Whatever, racist.

So, what should these mainstream conservatives do when they are called racists by the left?

The logical thing would be to explain that no, I don’t “hate the color of the skin,” but I am concerned with objective reality, and objective reality dictates that people who have brown skin tend to display behavior patterns which I find distasteful and/or damaging to our society.

So then the argument looks like this:

Conservative: (Addresses some social problem that is caused by brown people).

Liberal: You are a racist!

Conservative: I have no specific hate for any skin color. However, as you are pointing out that this behavior pattern is one which seems to manifest itself among darker skinned people, then perhaps that is something we need to consider. We need to look into why this is happening so much among this specific race, as I seriously doubt it is because of the pigmentation of their skin.

Liberal: It’s because they’re oppressed…!

Conservative: That may be, but nonetheless, a pattern exists which needs to be examined. If we can find specific data which links oppression to this behavior pattern, then we should present that data, and take it into account when we look at how to solve the problem.

Liberal: The only way to stop it is to stop hatred for the color of the skin…!

Conservative: Again, if hatred for the color of the skin is what’s causing the problem, then we need to examine the causes of hatred for the color of the skin as we are figuring out how to solve the problem. By blaming something which is unquantifiable – hatred for the color of the skin – for a problem, you are effectively saying that there is no solution to this problem. I am looking for a solution to this problem, and believe it can be solved if all data is taken into account.

You see.

You take the focus off of their accusation, and put it back on them – without admitting to being a “racist.” Refusing to go on the defensive and beg to not be called a racist is not an admission of racism.

In this way, you can break down the very concept of racism itself, and thus completely undermine the entire basis of their worldview – with minimal effort. Their attacks are based on you accepting that being called a racist is something you cannot bear, and have to defend yourself from. And it’s an argument you cannot win, because it has nothing at all to do with anything – it is an accusation that you are feeling an emotion, made on the basis that there is no way for you to prove you aren’t feeling a specific emotion.

Because the racism they talk about doesn’t actually exist. This racism that they talk about is some kind of irrational hatred for people with a different skin tone. I have been labeled the world’s number one hater, and I have no specific hatred for anyone’s skin color. The concept is just ridiculous and absurd. What I am opposed to is the behavior patterns which manifest in certain racial groups, and the way that these behavior patterns affect my society and the world as a whole.

To go back to Pat Condell: one of these behavior patterns is the religion of Islam. That’s what a religion is, right? It’s a behavior pattern. So, when the liberals call you a racist for talking about Islam, there is a hint of truth there, because you are talking about something that almost exclusively involves brown people. By acknowledging that and then dismissing it, you avoid this nonsensical “NO U” gibberish altogether, and put it back on them to explain why brown people behave in such undesirable ways. Their “it’s because of oppression” line is just a filler argument that they know they won’t ever really have to use in a serious debate, because cuckservatives will just get caught up on trying to explain how they are not racists, and never get to what a racist actually even is, or why people take objection to the collective behavior of non-whites.

We need winning arguments.

“Liberals are the real racists” is not a winning argument.