Auster and Wardlow on Race

Mean Mr. Mustard and one of Lawrence Auster's commentors make an excellent point.

When we get to the point where "racism," a term that used to refer to hatred or violent hatred of other races, is used to refer to anyone who doesn't want the white race (by which I mean people of European ancestry - the actual color of one's skin is not the issue here) to disappear, then eventually you end up making white extremism more popular, because when you force people to choose between extremist hatred of others and hating their own, they will naturally hate others first.

Or, as one of Mustard's commenters said:

If normal, healthy impulses are held to be synonymous with extremism, then people will come to think of extremism as normal and healthy.

This is why I was so "snarky" in this post. Of course, people like Betacandy can qualify the term "racism" all they want, but unless they declare racism (as long as it is not hatred) to be morally neutral, they are still saying that morally, white people should be indifferent to the survival of their race. I dislike the idea that a concern for European-American survival is termed the same way that a desire to, e.g., deny freedom to African-Americans is.

"Racism" is a loaded term, so using it to refer to any preference towards one's own, or simply to the act of wanting one's own to survive, ultimately denigrates the morality of such an impulse, regardless of how unjudgmental or morally neutral to try to make the term seem. (So, by the way, does referring to such an impulse as "narcissism").

(Also by the way note that this has nothing to do with one race being better than the other - one can want one's own to survive merely because they are his own - he neither need feel animosity toward others nor superiority toward them.

That is all.