Skip to content

“We’re not racist!”

I am getting tired of hearing people deny that they are racist or that their fellow countrymen are racist or that white people in general are racist. When are they going to realise that they have fallen into an anti-racist trap?

In a video for the New Culture Forum, Peter Whittle lists some recent accusations. Our history is racist; the countryside is racist; our monuments, much of our cultural output, gardening and the idea that ability should be the deciding factor in success are racist. A colour-blind society is racist. Punctuality is racist. White people themselves are inherently racist


Well, of course we are! Anti-racists don’t like us very much, as Peter Whittle might have noticed, so they attack us, and their way of doing it is by calling us racist. They don’t say what they mean by the word so we don’t know what offends them. Should we have involved some black people in the Peasants’ Revolt to make our history more inclusive? Should Chaucer have written a basketball player’s tale to make his cultural output more diverse? Some of their accusations make no sense. How can the countryside be racist? But we should not expect sense from anti-racists since for them the word “racist” lacks all meaning. It is just a verbal tub of custard to throw at us. Yet Peter Whittle responds as though their accusations had semantic content. “Of course, none of that list is true”, he says. What does he think he is denying?

His response will only gratify our assailants. Their accusations seem to hurt him, which will show them they are using the right tactics. A denial accepts the terms of the accusation, so he accepts the word “racist” and with it the assumption that if something is “racist”, this matters. How can it matter when the word is meaningless? He almost seems to regard anti-racists as our judges as well as our accusers. They throw the word at us, and he pleads not guilty. Hasn’t it occurred to him to treat them with contempt?

The word “racist” as anti-racists use it may be meaningless, but their accusations do tell us why they hate us. It is because we differ from black people.

The reason gardening and the countryside are “racist” is that as white people we enjoy them whereas black people aren’t interested. You will rarely see anything green in a black person’s front garden and could spend a lifetime walking in the hills without seeing a black person.

The reason punctuality is “racist” is that we value it whereas black people do not. It is always black children who saunter into the classroom ten minutes after the lesson has started. A man who worked with Africans reported that they were always late for work [1]. The commentator Simon Webb observes that many black people “suffer from an apparent inability to arrive anywhere at an agreed time” [2]. Among Africans, “African time” is an institution. When an African is invited to a party starting at eight o’clock, he asks whether this is African time or Western time, meaning to enquire whether it matters when he turns up.

The reason our history, monuments and cultural output are “racist” is that they are more impressive than the history, monuments and cultural output of black people. The reason our “racism” is described as inherent is that, except on the running track, we can’t seem to stop outdoing black people.

As for the idea that ability should be the deciding factor in success, this is “racist” because black people display the necessary ability less often than do whites. The principle of equal treatment, as in being “colour-blind”, is “racist” because where most things are concerned it causes black people to come last.

Peter Whittle might have added mathematics and English grammar to his list, or libraries or mediaeval scholarship, which have all been called racist recently. Why? Because black people tend not to be very good at maths or grammar and have little interest in books or manuscripts.

But why should anti-racists hate us just because we differ from black people? It is because they believe in essential racial equality, the idea that the races are in themselves the same. Seeing the differences, they worry that they disprove their cherished belief, which they can only retain by blaming them on white people, without whose “racism”, they imagine, no differences would be seen. And indeed, without our “racism” no differences would be seen, for our “racism” is us.

In just a few short decades anti-racists have destroyed much of our culture, and they might destroy the rest in a few more, especially since our rulers are anti-racist too and only want to make our societies more anti-racist. What is certain is that if we hope to find an adequate defence, it will not consist of denying that we are racist. On the contrary, our ideas of racism are just the problem.

Judging from the way the word was used thirty years ago, it had three main meanings, which probably still exist in many people’s minds along with the tub-of-custard meaning or non-meaning of today. First it could refer to expressing an affinity for one’s race or an aversion to other races, as in preferring to live among one’s own kind or not wanting one’s daughter to marry outside her race. Secondly it could refer to making empirical statements about the races, as in describing their characteristic behaviours or their cultural or technological achievements. Thirdly it could refer to racial discrimination in institutions, such as schools or the police [3]. But how bad are these things, how was the idea that they are bad presented, and what kind of morality does this give us?

Racial affinity and aversion are entirely natural. No one is indifferent as between living among their own kind and seeing their town or country taken over by people unlike themselves. A father’s desire for his daughter to continue the race is on a par with his desire for her to continue the family, for a race is only an extended family [4]. Secondly, describing a race or the races is no less legitimate than describing anything else. The only bad thing among the three is racial discrimination in institutions.

Not only were we misled by the idea that the first two things are bad; the idea that any of them is bad was presented with a racial skew. Racial affinity and aversion were bad only in white people. For Muslims to want to live with other Muslims, for example, was entirely understandable, and the fact that a Muslim might punish his daughter for going out with white boys, even to the point of killing her, was covered up. Secondly, only statements thought liable to offend non-whites were forbidden; statements disparaging whites, however outlandish, were encouraged. For example, in 1987 the statement that eighty per cent of muggers were black was described as neo-fascist [5], whereas when the white race was described as the cancer of human history twenty years earlier, the description was not only published but celebrated [6]. As for racial discrimination, in Britain the anti-black variety was condemned, whereas the pro-black variety — anti-white discrimination — was described as “positive”.

The racial double standard was applied to social reality, where it was continually taken further. For example, “positive discrimination” spread unofficially through Britain’s institutions in the 1980s and ‘90s before being mandated in 1999 [7], since when the degree of it has become grotesque. Yet in the name of such unexplained ideals as “diversity”, “inclusion” and “equality” (or “equity”), our institutions take it to ever new extremes. In 2022 a white man hoping to join West Yorkshire police was told that they were hiring only women and minorities [8]. The Royal Air Force stopped hiring white men too: only women and non-whites were required to fly our bombers and fighters [9]. The Treasury set itself a target of having six per cent of its staff black, almost twice the percentage of blacks as in the national population [10], not that there is any reason why an organisation should “look like the community it serves”, to cite another euphemism used to justify anti-white discrimination. The right percentage of black people in the workforce of any institution is whatever percentage happens to result from selecting the most suitable applicants regardless of their race.

But such racial impartiality has been anathema in anti-racist Britain for many years, including at Buckingham Palace, which in 2021 regretted that its “diversity and inclusion initiatives” had increased its non-white staff to a mere 8.5 per cent of the total. A palace source said that it was determined to be held accountable if more “progress” was not made in the future [11]. We can see towards what kind of future we are progressing: one in which there are no white men in the police or Royal Air Force and no whites at all at the Treasury or Buckingham Palace. The anti-racist dream is of a white-free Britain, a white-free world.

Our concepts of racism give us the following morality. We deplore white people who identify with and stand up for their race, but do not deplore non-whites who identify with and stand up for theirs. We deplore white people mentioning things like the Muslim rape gangs, no matter how many hundreds or thousands of white girls fall prey to them in every town with an appreciable Muslim population [12], as the police, local councils and media kept quiet about them for 35 years so as not to be “racist”, but do not deplore references to much milder white misdeeds, which must be repeatedly mentioned and exaggerated. We deplore discrimination that puts us at an advantage, or would do if there was any, but tolerate discrimination that puts us at a disadvantage, however monstrous that discrimination may be. In short, we take a resolutely anti-white position. This is not a morality; it is a racial suicide plan.

Contrast with this the position taken by an Israeli girl who spoke at a protest about an influx of Africans to her neighbourhood ten years ago. Outside her house, she said, she saw shit, spit and psychopaths just waiting for a chance to kill her. “You can see it in their eyes” [13]. When locals complained, their complaints were dismissed as “racist”, she said, before claiming the word: “We’re racist because we want to preserve our lives and our sanity, so I’m proud to be racist, and it’s our right to be racist!” How could she say such a thing? She was survival-minded, not suicide-minded.

How did we come by our self-destructive morality of race? Did an ethics committee sit down and work it out? Did it arise from a national discussion as the majority view? No, we got it through Pavlovian conditioning.

Ivan Pavlov, after noticing that his dog salivated at the sound of his assistant’s footsteps as she came to feed him, found that he could condition any dog to salivate at a chosen sound by inducing an association between the sound and being fed. In the same way, through incessant propaganda coming to us from journalists, teachers and other intellectuals, our innate moral sense — our desire to be good or thought well of, equivalent to a dog’s innate desire to be fed — was exploited to create an association between the word “racist” and the idea of badness, making us react with disapproval to its mere sound. This is how much the idea that “racism” is bad is worth [14].

The conditioning makes us the puppets of anti-racists, who only need to attach the word to something they wish to attack for conditioned whites to view it with suspicion and perhaps start attacking it themselves. It is at this level of mindlessness that the discourse of “racism” proceeds.

Equally mindless are those who react to anti-racist accusations with denials. Thinking that they are insisting that they or whites in general are good, they are in effect insisting that they or whites in general will do what they can to help our enemies destroy our culture.

If a denial is the wrong response, and given that we are accused because we differ from black people, how should we respond? We should say: “The races differ. So what?”


  1. See comment by “Cunliffe” on History Debunked, March 25th 2022, “The thing with Nigerians”,

  2. History Debunked, April 5th 2022, op. cit. Simon Webb thinks that black people’s habit of arriving late is just a custom, passed down from parent to child (History Debunked, Oct 28th 2021,“Multiculturalism or Assimilation among Immigrants to Britain; Part 2 Multiculturalism”, He might have wondered about its origin, such as in black people’s lack of the other races’ concept of time. Similarly deep in origin could be some of black people’s other characteristics, such as their failure to repay debts, notorious in sub-Saharan African countries that have borrowed money from white countries. This might be connected to black people’s lack of the concept of an obligation. In “Racial Differences in Morality and Abstract Thinking”, Gedaliah Braun explains that African languages have no words for what to white people are basic moral concepts (American Renaissance, Oct. 15th 2017,, first published Feb. 2009).

  3. These three ideas of racism and seven others are discussed in the article “Concepts of racism” on this site.

  4. “A racial group is simply an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent” (Steve Sailer, May 24th 2000, “Cavalli-Sforza II: Cavalli-Sforza’s Ink Cloud”).

  5. This was the academic Paul Gilroy’s description of the organisers of a March Against Mugging held in September 1975 under the slogan “Stop The Muggers. 80% of muggers are black. 85% of victims are white” (Paul Gilroy, 1987, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, London: Routledge, p. 120).

  6. Susan Sontag, 1967, “What’s Happening to America? (A Symposium)”, Partisan Review, 34 (1): pp. 57–58. Her description paved the way for descriptions of the white race as “the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth” (given by Munroe Bergdorf in 2017, according to Wikipedia’s article on this mixed-race transgender model), as well as calls indicated by headlines from the American press between 2015 and 2017 such as: “USC Professor Calls For Holocaust Against All White People”; “Trinity College professor calls white people ‘inhuman’: ‘Let them f-ing die’”; and “All I want for Christmas is white genocide” (Mark Collett clips, Oct. 7th 2020, “Racism’s New Anti-White Definition — Mark Collett”,

  7. Pro-black discrimination was given the green light by Sir William Macpherson in his report,commissioned by Tony Blair’s Home Secretary Jack Straw, on the police’s investigation of a murder, before being required by Straw in his shortly appearing race equality “action plan” applying to the public services. Setting numerical “targets”, the plan stated: “We will aim for a police service which fully reflects the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural diversity of the communities it serves” (Home Office, March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan).

  8. Telegraph and Argus, Dec. 14th 2022, “Police applicant is told ‘we’re only hiring women and minorities’”, In 2021 the police in Essex, a county 5.7 per cent of whose inhabitants were non-white, advertised for non-white recruits as follows: “We’re hiring! Essex police aims to be the first county-level Police Force in Britain composed of at least 50% Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic officers! If you’re from the correct background you can submit a streamlined application without your CV”. News source: Mark Collett, July 26th 2021, “Patriotic Weekly Review — With Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson”,; demography source: Essex County Council, no date, “Essex & District Ethnicity Population 2011 Census”,

  9. History Debunked, Aug. 17th 2022, “Britain’s RAF halts the recruitment of white men”, The RAF brought this policy in because it was failing so badly to meet its government-imposed race and sex quotas.

  10. See Telegraph, Nov. 15th 2022, “Treasury aims to have six per cent of staff from black backgrounds in race target”,

  11. BBC, June 24th 2021, “Buckingham Palace reveals 8.5% ethnic minority staff”,

  12. Muslim rape gangs appear to operate in every English town with even a small Muslim population. One that eventually received publicity was in Telford, which has a population of 155,000, two per cent of whom are Muslims. There were thought to be 1,500 victims or ex-victims there. If Telford’s victimisation rate of one per cent is general, and if the total population of British towns and cities with appreciable Muslim populations is three quarters of the whole (approx. fifty million), a conservative estimate, this gives us half a million victims or ex-victims nationally.

  13. The Nation, Oct. 17th 2013, “Israel’s New Racism: The Persecution of African Migrants in the Holy Land”, The footage was mentioned by International Business Times, July 1st 2014 (first published Oct. 18th 2013), “New York Times ‘Rejected Documentary Showing Anti-African Rally in Israel’”,

  14. For an explanation of how our intellectuals, defined by Friedrich Hayek as society’s “second-hand dealers in ideas”, come by their ideas, see Hayek, 1998 (1949), The Intellectuals and Socialism, London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit, pp. 9-18.

    As for those who give them their ideas, if there was any one originator of the idea of essential racial equality it was Franz Boas (1858-1942). Chief among those who passed it to our intellectuals were Boas’s pupil Ashley Montagu (e.g. in Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, 1942); Stephen Jay Gould (e.g. in The Mismeasure of Man, 1981); and Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose (in Not in Our Genes, 1984). Apart from Hayek, all these men were Jewish. Ashley Montagu also co-authored “Natural Selection and the Mental Capacities of Mankind” (1947) with Theodosius Dobzhansky, another Jew, and edited UNESCO’s 1950 Statement on Race, which said: “For all practical purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1969, Four statements on the race question,

Please follow and like us: