Culturism vs. Racism

Is it ever OK to discriminate?

In the age of bad argumentation and deliberate logical fallacies designed to evoke emotion over reason, no shaming tactic has been overused nearly as much as the “racist!” smear. Labelling, this compound fallacy (straw man, association, ad hominem, red herring, circular reasoning, etc.), is extremely effective because you can’t even begin to defend yourself against it.

A note on racism

You can’t live in 2026 and be of a certain range of complexion without having been dishonestly labelled, at least once, a racist, no matter what your beliefs or political affiliations are. In today’s Western communities, there exists no manipulation tactic more potent than being called (preferably publicly) a racist. Few things have as much of an immediate impact on your emotional state and behaviour as that.

I remember during a postgraduate course when, after the first semester, three students decided to gang up together and claim they were unfairly graded due to “racism” against them. They accused the faculty and their fellow students (including me) of supposedly being “racist” against them, which, according to them, was why they didn’t get the marks they expected. No context, no proof, just an infuriating audacity to exploit the sensitivities of the community they voluntarily entered, and in which they pridefully saw themselves as privileged “victims”. Their attempt at victim supremacy and preferential treatment was nothing but appeals to guilt and an assertion that they just happen to have mind-reading abilities on top of a victimhood privilege, which they seem to have no problem exploiting in communities where the “racism” slur is the cardinal sin.

And why is the mere association with “racism” such a sin? Because of relentless state-sponsored propaganda since 1945, and a cultural affinity towards noble or self-righteous guilt. The money-laundering and embezzlement scheme of “foreign aid”, “affirmative action”, and “asylum” would not have been possible without a population crippled by self-righteous guilt.

It seems that you can do anything to a population once you make them guilty for their existence, which is why religions tend to preach original sin and impurity by default. Statism, the most atrocious manifestation of religiosity, also cultivates a sense of self-hating guilt; climate alarmism, COVID moral posturing, and socialist policies are all driven by guilt.

You are extremely manipulable when you constantly feel guilty, especially when, whatever you do, you will never be forgiven, since guilt is your identity. And some derive some sick, perverted pleasure out of the fetish of guilt. Look at all those sanctimonious moralists kneeling in front of their pet “noble savages” and tell me they’re not getting a kinky kick out of their pretentious virtue signalling.

Those who insist that you should feel guilty will control your body and mind. Whether you should realistically feel guilty or not is irrelevant; what matters is that you feel guilty, and that’s enough to render you manipulable.

---

It’s important to note that racism is totally fine in the vast majority of regions in the world, for all of recorded history. Go to Turkey or the Arab peninsula and start talking disparagingly about Jews, blacks, whites, Asians, Hindus, or Native Americans, and see what happens. Nothing. If anything, many will nod in agreement with your comments. You will never be met with conversation stoppers like “this is offensive, inappropriate, racist!” Go to any African country and do the same. Go to Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Japan, or China, and publicly declare how much you flat-out hate a race different to theirs. Nobody will bat an eye. Nobody will lose their cool over you. Nobody will shame you, ostracise you, or try to get you fired. Nobody will presume to get offended on behalf of others for moral exhibitionist brownie points, because nobody’s handing them there.

The unhinged outrage of “racism” is a fairly new one in human history, and an extremely localised one at that. It’s a state-sponsored brainwash that only works in societies that are more guilt-based than shame or fear-based. You could see this in the COVID propaganda narratives. For certain cultures, the way to get them to submit to restrictions and unsafe/ineffective experimental injections wasn’t so much the fear of getting sick: it was the guilt of “infecting and killing grandma”. Propagandists know their targets and amend their message accordingly.

Being “a racist!” is the ultimate anathema, and being perceived as one (rightfully or unjustly) is the greatest threat to your survivability: you can lose relationships, your business, your job, your livelihood, even your life, if you are ostracised or morbidly hated by the self-righteously indignant.

Discrimination

But racism is just another form of discrimination, albeit a generic, blanket, and misguided one. Discrimination is a natural human behaviour, one that allows us to survive and thrive. Recruiting employees is a textbook discriminatory practice, and it’s good because you don’t want to employ people with certain attributes (like a criminal record or a history of schizophrenia. You discriminate against such candidates in favour of candidates with experience and qualifications that suit the role.

Depending on the demands of the job, you discriminate based on IQ, skills, and qualifications that were achieved as a consequence of a privileged upbringing. Yet, this type of discrimination is perfectly understandable, accepted, and warranted.

Choosing your romantic partner is one of the most discriminatory practices you can ever engage in. When evaluating potential spouses, you discriminate according to genetics, age, gender, height, body composition, sexual orientation, personality, education, religion, political beliefs, ethnicity, personal tastes, and virtue… and even socioeconomic status. Not only is this discrimination, but it is also a virtue to have high and clear standards from which you do not waver.

School grades are also fundamentally discriminatory. Marking students is the consequence of discrimination according to intellect, ability to memorise, or affinity towards unquestionable obedience. It also discriminates in favour of students with an environment and circumstances that allow focus, motivation, and hard work.

Posting online reviews and boycotting are forms of discrimination. We discriminate against businesses with over-priced, bad quality offerings, or those that engage in false advertising and non-ecological practices. This type of discrimination is fair, useful, and moral.

Even hating someone for being “racist” is discrimination. Calling yourself “tolerant” but “intolerant of intolerance” makes you self-defeating and self-discriminatory. Isn’t it, thus, fair to discriminate in favour of certain traits and against others?

You can’t have standards without being discriminatory. Discrimination is respecting yourself enough to hold good standards, and more importantly, to faithfully adhere to them, without compromising them when they are tested. It just so happens that the “standard” of race isn’t a helpful one. Unless race is an aesthetic preference (for years I used to be exclusively obsessed with Asian women), then I fail to see where race as a “standard” is useful.

Race is not what determines good and bad people. You know what does, though? Culture: personal or collectivist.

I’ve known extremely good and extremely horrendous people of every race. You can give me statistics about how one race might be represented by more criminality or whatever, but I’ll insist it’s more culture than genetics — more nurture than nature. Your average ISIS monster who proudly beheads children and now runs Syria “president” is textbook Caucasian… so what? Does this make all whites bad and all non-whites good? If any “race” can produce extraordinarily bad or good people, even if, theoretically, genetic inclinations might be present, then race as a standard becomes unhelpful.

Nurture trumps nature.

Culturism

Some people confuse culturalism with racism. Race offers no insight into an individual because there are good and bad people in every race, regardless of statistical probability. So, condemning someone solely on their race is just an unrealistic, uninsightful filter. Culture, be it personal, family, community, ideological, ethnic, or religious culture, is the metric that matters when assessing people. Yes, you can discriminate against someone whose culture considers it OK to do things that are objectively shitty.

Regardless of race or ethnic background, some cultures are objectively inferior to others. Read this again because I am unapologetic about it. Some cultures, be it on the collective or individual level, are objectively superior, and that’s that. You can either derive insight from this statement and do some self-reflection towards growth, or you can squeal like an unhinged swine tripping on MDMA.

There are certain cultures in this world in which it is OK to deliberately amputate your children so that they can evoke more pity, and thus make more money begging, since begging is the profession of choice for these cultures.

Other cultures deliberately make children solely to swell their military ranks, and it’s OK for the mothers to relish the idea of their children dying as martyr-murderers for some petty political cause masquerading as a religious one.

There are cultures in which it’s OK to force married people, mutilate the genitals of babies, and to rape children, because their ideal model-prophet does so too.

Some cultures beat their children and call it discipline, because some insane Abrahamist once wrote “spare the rod, spoil the child”; the same cultures that promote entitlement to an innocent child’s involuntary worship.

And some cultures look at the dark pages of their history, rejoicing over the violent conquest and enslavement of other populations, while others recognise the crimes of their forefathers, and feel guilty on their behalf on top of it all. Some cultures call their history’s violent expansionism “golden era” while others disparage it as “colonialism” and “imperialism” that require “reparations” of sorts.

Which cultures are better and which are worse, undeniably?

Objection

“But bad things happen in every culture.”

No kidding, Sherlock. Yes, bad things happen in every culture, but bad things get to define a culture only if the bad is acceptable and considered normal in that culture.

For example, child exploitation happens everywhere, whether it is verboten or not. It is a sad defect of the human species. But if it’s OK in a given personal or collective culture, and even desirable, while it is illegal in another, this makes a world of difference. We make such a big fuss about child exploitation in industrial Victorian England, yet we ignore the fact that there was a massive public outcry in response, evident in the cultural expressions of the time. The public at the time was sensitive to child exploitation. They disavowed it. They opposed businesses that practiced it. And then the state swept in to regulate and take all the credit for what the free market was already doing. And still, that doesn’t end exploitation 100%. But what’s important is the social norm, the culture.

Individual culture

The racist trope has enabled suicidal tolerance of bad culture, and as this emboldened bad behaviour. “Racism” is a psyop by your government (paid for with your taxes, I might add) with the motivation to subvert your community, thus rendering it more controllable. How do I know this? I don’t; it’s a logical deduction from asking “cui bono”.

As an individualist, I attribute bad culture to the individual first, and then to the group. So we need to discriminate against bad behaviour on the individual level first, before we do so to the group. We must not succumb to the smear “racist” whereby we give a free pass for bad behaviour on the “merit” of someone’s supposed victimhood privilege associated with ethnic background. Thus, it would be racist not to be culturist.

Yes, some cultures are worse and others better. Some village culture that forces underage girls to marry old men are just morally inferior and reprehensible. Undeniably.

Granted, even though I believe certain criteria for worse and bad are subjective, while others are objective, we still have our own opinions about which culture is better and which is worse. Regardless, you should not shy away from pointing out which is which for you. You should be intellectually honest and respect yourself enough to have high standards with the people who associate with you.

And you should finally stop shooting yourself in the foot with the self-righteously pretentious attitude of “tolerance”, as if tolerating your oppression makes you virtuous. It doesn’t; it makes you a sucker for punishment. The more you tolerate bad behaviour, the more you embolden bad behaviour. And those who punish you for daring to expect good behaviour are the ones who want to keep behaving badly at your expense. Read this again.

For some, it seems, the “racist” smear is a manipulative assertion for victimhood privilege by which they can get a free pass for being horrible, insinuating that if you call them out on it, it’s because you’re “racist” instead of just principled.

If you read all this and still take the cop-out of calling me “racist”, then you prove my point: you are dishonestly using this vapid manipulation tactic to excuse your shitty culture, or you can’t read English.

The racism psychopathy not only imbues certain cultures with pathological, self-righteous guilt, but it also fosters self-righteous indignation in others who observe this guilt in other cultures. And they find this guilt lucrative as they do infuriating: “If X group of people feel guilty for all my problems, then I should rightfully blame them for all my problems. If they hate themselves for my problems, then I should hate them even more.”

Who wouldn’t be tempted to export their accountability to others, especially when others are so eager to take on the burden?

Vital takeaway

Next time you pridefully pretend to feel guilty for someone, make sure you’re not giving them an excuse to hate you, first for willingly making yourself the devil of their story, and second for patronising them with your condescending pity. People can detect when you denigrate them with your belittling, treating them like helpless, powerless, and hopeless props for your pretentious moral posturing.

Final, crucial thoughts

Go forth and discriminate, not according to race, but according to individual and collective culture. It is not only morally and intellectually honest to discriminate, but it is also humble to deny the narcissistic temptation for sanctimonious moralist exhibitionism.

It is a virtue to discriminate. Why? Because when you treat all people the same, you do a disservice to the good people. Yes, if you don’t discriminate against bad people, you discriminate against good people.

If you don’t hold the bad accountable, then you are being unjust to the good. If you don’t discriminate against bad culture, you discriminate against good cultures. If you don’t reward the good and instead let the bad slide, you are, in fact, bad yourself.

Although I despise the false dichotomy fallacy, some things are simply binary, whether we like it or not: We often find one more desirable than the other, and that’s that.

Bad people need negative feedback, otherwise they are emboldened, making their enablers bad, too, if not worse. You must post bad reviews or boycott a business when you are unhappy with their deliverables; otherwise, how would they know how to improve? You must defy bullshit laws by the arbitrary, perceived “authority” of the state; otherwise, you empower it to keep making bullshit laws. Your compliance is complicity. You need to take issue with people mistreating you, otherwise they will keep mistreating you more and more.

This blanket tolerance epidemic that’s destroyed the West is textbook Judeo-Christianism: Turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, forgiving your enemies, and basically being a cowardly, undignified gimp for your oppressors. This is why modern shitlibs are the direct evolution of Christianity. Leftists embody the teachings of mainstream Christ more than any right-winger: “Be extremely humble, be a sucker for abuse, love your rapist.” Isn’t this what mainstream Christianity is about? Isn’t this exactly what “progressive” leftism is? Would there be any “progressives” without their mainstream Judeo-Christian influences?

Pretentious tolerance silences negative feedback, a vital component of every sustainable system. If an individual or a society doesn’t know what is undesirable and how undesirable by how many, then they have no chance of improving. You should value negative feedback as cues of growth, not as hate.

This is why culturism is not racism; race is something you can’t change. In contrast, culturism is a prompt to change, to improve. And culture is something you very much can change, first on the individual level and then on a collective one.

This is what individualism is, after all. It’s not solipsism, as the intellectually disingenuous would have you believe; it’s just the order of focus: the individual comes first, not the collective. And individuals get to organically define the group, not the other way around.

Individualism is caring for each tree individually as the only way to take care of the forest. Collectivism is taking care of the arbitrary concept of “the forest” even at the expense of trees.

Conclusion

Culturism is the opposite of racism. When you discriminate on race, you don’t discriminate on culture, and vice versa. How?

Because racism lets people off the hook for bad culture, be it forgiving the transgressions of races you deem “superior” or of races you condescendingly treat as “noble savages” and “victims” by default.

Racism also disparages people based on their race, even when their culture is desirable.

So yes, when you discriminate based on race, you are anti-culturism. When you discriminate based on culture, you are anti-racism.