For example, to say that a person is black, is therefore distinct from a person who is white, and can therefore be said to be distinct because they have black skin, is a simple truth. No-one would deny that, notwithstanding other differences (i.e. not just skin colour). However, for example, to opine that black people are less intelligent would be viewed as racist. Why? Ultimately, the statement is either true or false, but even if it is false, it can’t make the person racist. This is because a statement of a belief of fact or of a situation is not in itself ‘prejudiced’. “Facts” can’t be racist!! In both above examples, that’s to say allegedly non-racist and racist statements, these are simple assertions about the differences in race.

The reason the first is ‘not’ racist and the second ‘is’, is because the first isn’t pejorative or in anyway significant or damaging to black people – in this case. So what if they have a different colour skin? It’s just a colour, after all. However, the second is viewed as racist because it can be seen to be detrimental. But because it may be detrimental through what it says, it doesn’t mean it’s racist; surely by that same degree, anything that was complimentary would be racist? No, the point about racism is that it makes no sense as a label unless malice is present in the claim or comment.
If you hold the opinion that based on experience, data or evidence you feel that black people are less intelligent that white people, then you should be allowed to think that as a point of fact. After all, we’re allowed to think that there are certain medical differences between races without being accused of racist opinions (e.g. blood types, sickle-cell, etc).

The fact that the label ‘racist’ makes no distinction between a statement derived from malice and one derived from an honest, thought-through opinion shows the problem with the whole issue. Because quite simply, if it was on the basis of evidence your GENUINE opinion that blacks were less intelligent than whites, you shouldn’t be classed with the same people who willingly go out to persecute people solely on the basis of their race. Otherwise, we’re on the very dodgy ground of saying that one thought is as bad as one horrific action.

Around the mid-80s people in the UK were nervous of calling blacks black; this was because they thought they might be perceived as racist. Why? Because the underlying rule is that it’s not truthfulness that is considered or even looked at in the race debate, it’s whether the race in question could be looked down upon were people to be influenced by your opinion. So favourable opinions are in, disfavourable, or even neutral[!] ones are out.

The point above demonstrates that even the most ardent ‘non-racists’ are not genuine, because even they get caught up in their own silly rules and oppressive dogma. They get confused because they don’t know when you can be truthful and when you can’t; any condemnation of anyone on the basis that they were being truthful is inherently wrong as it is misdirected. No good comes out of such deception and concealment.

Lastly, the viciousness with which people are accused of racism and shunned accordingly is so a) calculating, b) enjoyed and c) pursued incessantly by its progenitors that it possesses all the hallmarks of the black and white thinking of so-called racists. It also closely mirrors the attributes of fasicm. If you make a point-by-point comparison of the attributes of the anti-racists and the so-called racists, you will find they match; after all, they both:

1) Show extreme intolerance
2) Ignore rational debate
3) Blur truth and emotion into one
4) Deflect criticism by changing direction or ‘shouting down’
5) Enjoy the punishment of their foe
6) Address the whole issue on an all-or-nothing basis (the hallmark of intolerance)

I advocated invoking Godwin’s Law the moment Leo O’Wingnut first claimed that blacks had lower IQs. The idiot thought I was trying to defend him, because he was too dense to realise I was calling him a Nazi. I think it was my only posting in the thread. Anyone that can get you, Tony Smith and JNM ganging up against him is a true wingnut.

With Eric Olsen, he’s taking violent exception to the fact I’m calling a combination of religious bigotry and cultural chauvenism racism. To me, if it looks like racism, and smells like racism, it’s racism.

Case in point: you may have noticed the recent flareup on the Pyramid message boards, where it turns out that we have a very calm and diplomatic white supremacist fully-armed with “scientific” arguments to support the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, but gosh, if you think that makes him a racist or a white supremacist then you are obviously a close-minded self-hating white person brainwashed by PC propagandam…