“Racism” and In-Group Preference

by TBG

“Racism” and In-Group Preference

Editor: The template for this was lain out in 1950 by leading Cultural Marxist Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality. In this book, traditional conservative outlooks were defined as fascism (later substituting 'racism') to label all right-of-centre dissent as taboo. It's a rhetorical technique of long pedigree.


Introductory Post by @HereticalAnglo


Long has it been my view that the word “racist” is losing its meaning and therefore its relevance and power. 

For almost the entirety of the post-World War II era, it has been used as a cudgel with which to beat down one’s political opponents and besmirch their names rather than going toe-to-toe with their arguments. 

Such repetitive and frequent employment of a strategy renders it increasingly less effective over the long term, and such is the case for the branding “racist”. Whilst in the past this word might have been ascribed to, and conjured up images of, violent white thugs chasing down and attacking defenceless brown and black people, it growingly found itself applied to all manner of people expressing innocuous opinions or uttering words which hitherto were customary and appropriate but had now been proscribed by the latest manifestation of equality and diversity.

That racism is dying as a concept is I think all the more evident when one considers how its prevalence is now more intense than ever – like a man unexpectedly faced with a brutal demise thrashing about in vain grasping for any branch of life available, the word racist is applied to practically anything to which it has the slighted chance of sticking, not appreciating that with every attempt it weakens itself more and more. For example, it has been found that between 2011 and 2019 usage of the words “racist”, “racists” and “racism” increased by over 700% at the New York Times and by nearly 1,000% at the Washington Post.

It is time to put this meaningless concept out of its misery.

To do this, recognition must be made that its dominion (particularly over Western man) these last several decades was borne of an illusion comprising two parts – firstly an illusion of fact and secondly an illusion of morals.

The illusion of fact derives from the idea that the word “racism” represents something real in the same way that the word “table” represents something real. All words are created with the intention to merely represent something in the material or spiritual worlds; the words are not what is represented nor even simulacra thereof. They are more like sign-posts, directing one’s attention and focus to the underlying object.

Thus, “Table” is not a table but it points to all tables of whatever size, shape and material. 

What does “racism” point to? The proliferation of meanings issued by academics and politicians is itself evidence that a stable basis for the concept does not exist other than as temporary illusion. At first it meant discrimination on the grounds of race, then less-than-favourable or just inconvenient views of different races and cultures and more latterly prejudice plus power (rendering the African incapable of racism owing to his lack of power in a world dominated by Europeans).

Such frequent alterations to the meaning of the term racism is congruent with the political and social aims of those who wield it at any one time. In point of fact, it means very little in the context of modern discourse, other than as a pejorative; the more one can tar one’s opponents as racist, the more one wins (or has until recently won) the argument in any debate. It was the ultimate ad hominem, the death-blow to any adversary because it had the power to immediately cause him to be abandoned by his actual or potential supporters. The fear of guilt by association meant that someone labelled as a racist usually became largely isolated, even if his arguments had merit.

People appear to be waking up to the way in which the word has been abused and have become rightly suspicious of the way it is wielded in any discussion; those who have weaponised the derogative far too much have learnt to their cost that they overplayed their hand.

When even gardening is accused of being racist, it is pretty clear that the word is vacuous.

But there is still, perhaps understandably given its high costs, a residual perception that racism, if genuinely identified, is an evil. For my own part, I am no longer wholly of this view.

And so we come to the second illusion – that of the moral.

For our purposes let us assume that racism does have an objective basis and that this basis is simply judgement, prejudice and discrimination in favour of one’s own race as against another in whatever form (except that which might manifest in unprovoked violence or persecution – more on which will be said later). In some ways this is can at least act as a common thread between all the variations in definition mentioned above.

If the definition of racism were limited in this way, it would be perfectly clear that the concept does reflect an objective reality – one that can be exhibited via deed and word. 

But the term is laden with a moral judgement wherefrom issues its vigour and capability as a verbal firearm. Indeed that moral dimension to the idea of racism is central to the post-WWII paradigm we inhabit; without it, the very notions of equality and diversity become ludicrous.

The question then is: how justified is this moral dimension? How seriously should it be treated?

I believe the answer lies in whether it is an aberration, a perversion, of a degraded human soul or whether it arises by natural means, so as to be common among men. 

We know it is the latter.

Human beings, like lots of mammals, are group-oriented. As Prof. Ed Dutton has pointed out, we have evolved to be so, and thus it is an entirely natural human trait. This group orientation is known in some circles as “ethnocentrism” or “in-group preference” and it is precisely this that, in its myriad expressions, is also called “racism”.

We all know of the stories of Africans who, after arriving in Britain, were faced with signs declaring that they were not welcome to rent houses and were turned away from job opportunities. Far from being a concerted effort on the part of the indigenous Briton to target and discriminate against the newcomer, such occurrences should have seemed an unexpected illustration of in-group preference whereby the natives simply wanted to give privileged treatment to their own when it came to housing, jobs and whatever else. The discrimination in favour of their own group came at the expense of the out-group. 

The fact that we have needed laws drawn up by Parliament to enforce us to not discriminate on the grounds of race show that without those laws such discrimination would run rampant. How could it be any other way? More importantly, why should it? 

These laws are a superimposition upon human instinct, a way of engineering society away from its natural orientations to one quite alien. As far as I can see, there is no justification for it, other than to keep the peace (just about) between what came to be wholly disparate groups living in this country.

I do not accept that this argument is equivalent to justifying the murder of or violence toward people because of their race. Long before Great Britain had laws against racial discrimination, she had outlawed murder and assault. There is a distinction to be drawn between the rationale someone might provide for perpetrating an act and the act itself – murdering someone out of anger is not anger, its murder. Similarly murdering someone out of racist feeling is not racism, its murder. Anger in itself is not wrong, and neither is racism. The same goes for name-calling. The use of “the N-word” might be unseemly, and downright rude and nasty, but the fact it might be racist (whatever that means in this context) does not make it worse than other insults.

In short, the label “racism” attempts to pathologise an entirely natural and normal human behaviour: in-group preference. The British, and in particular the English (my own ethnic group) need to wake up to the fact we have put our own interests below that of out-groups for far too long. 

One of the ideologies that has misled us into doing this is the Boomer Truth Regime’s framework of unbridled individualism. We too often think of ourselves as entities chiefly separate from any group to which we might otherwise be considered to belong on ethnic, racial and other lines. And we have come to view those belonging to out-groups in the same way. But do they see things the way we do?

When, on the day of The King’s Coronation, Adjoa Andoh bemoaned a “terribly white” Buckingham Palace balcony she was not advocating for diversity per se but in favour her own (non-white) group. In fact, her little outburst demonstrates the futility of diversity initiatives. Despite us having previously been subjected to a shuck and jive choir, a black bishop, and the sight of Floella Benjamin larping in traditional British robes of nobility, it wasn’t enough for Ms Andoh who wanted her people represented on the centrepiece of what is essentially the home of a white family. At their heart, all calls for diversity are calls for a degree of preferential treatment for one’s in-group, but human nature dictates that equality is never truly enough; once attained, the next goal is dominance. Andoh’s comments were a sign that no amount of “diversity” will be enough – she wants her group to have the spotlight; in short, to edge us out.

It is not only ethnic minorities in Britain who seek to further the interests of their own. So-called racism abounds in African nations. Witness the brutal fighting that has taken place between ethnic groups in Somalia and Rwanda – as terrible as it is, it derives from something the participants cannot ultimately overrule: their group instincts. As the number of ethnic minorities increases in our country, we will see more and more how this plays out in their own approach to us and each other.

So those who denounce the likes of Andoh miss the point. She is doing what comes naturally. But let us recognise it for what it is and acknowledge that we too should act in our own group’s interests.

The Englishman’s willingness to be cucked has left the very stake in our own homeland under threat as we face becoming a minority; already governed by replacement caste in the form of an Indian Prime Minister, a Pakistani Mayor of London and Africans like Diane Abbott and David Lammy, among countless others.

We must get over our fear. We must do away with liberalism’s misplaced trust in equality and diversity. We must reignite an ethnocentrism favourable to ourselves. We must act in line with our own interests and be unapologetic in doing so. We must be for us.

The sheer meaningless of the modern description of racism as well as its complete lack of supposed ethical deficiency should allow accusations of the same to wash over us as water off a duck’s back.

With European men under attack like never before, it is time to admit a hitherto unspeakable truth: we need to embrace a healthy degree of ethnocentrism and recognise that our group interests will only be served by us, not by those who, despite living among us, are pursuing their own group interests.


By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.