The title for today's talk is: Identity:
or how to handle accusations of "racism".
Racism is supposed to be all around us,
an invisible yet all pervasive force that poisons our societies...
but for some reason no-one is able to root out this evil spirit.
My intention today is to get to the bottom of this issue by thoroughly investigating it from a scientific,
moral and practical perspectives.
So this talk should be helpful to anyone annoyed at being called a racist all the time,
but it may be especially useful to those that have a serious interest in being able to defend a position based on their identity.
That is that be able to say that someone is an 'Other',
who doesn’t belong with you.
This talk consists of three parts:
In the first part, I will spend some time reviewing evidence from the biosciences
that will provide a basis for why the 'Other' as a category, exists as a fact.
Then I will move onto the philosophical basis for why taking your own side is morally acceptable.
Finally, I will wrap up by sharing some real world advice on how to actually pull this off in practice.
Part one: Science and the Other.
So what is the scientific basis, if any, for being 'an-other'?
That is, someone, who does not belong in your in-group?
You are told pretty much every day that we are all born equal.
That we are the same. Any differences that are just obvious, are only skin deep,
You are told pretty much every day that we are all born equal.
That we are the same. Any differences that are just obvious, are only skin deep,
or 'socially constructed', implying that they are in no way immutable.
Today, even noticing that someone is different, is considered 'racism’
as we really are meant to believe that we are all the same.
It is even claimed, that this is the scientific truth.
So In the next few minutes, I will briefly review some recent bioscience literature to check if this is indeed the case.
So why can't we all be equal?
The answer to this, lies in the most fundamental facts of biology: evolution.
In case you are not familiar with the concept,
you could think of evolution as how lifeforms change over time as they become more adapted to their environment.
The force behind this change is called natural selection
and the carriers of change are usually referred to as 'genes' or 'alleles'.
And as we’ve all experienced slightly different environments, the frequencies of theses alleles will be different also.
There are two issues that we need to address:
The first one is Genetic identity:
that is the biological similarity or difference between ethnic groups or populations.
And the second one is: what effect genetic factors have on our traits.
The first one that we need to talk about is the issue of genetic identity:
who you are and to what extent does your genotype form part of your identity.
This is Richard Lewontin, a famous evolutionary biologist, who in 1972
published a landmark paper where he made the claim, that there is in fact more genetic variation within, than between populations.
This was arguably the most dangerous and misleading piece of scientific fact of all time.
We really need to spend some time on this, as this is so greatly important,
as it is used to justify so much of our social policy in the Western world today.
So do we really have more genetic variation within than between populations?
The answer is yes, this is technically true, it's just doesn't actually mean what Lewontin implied.
The fact that there is more variance within than between, doesn't say anything about how similar or different people really are.
The terms 'variance' and 'mean' are conflated as if they meant the same thing,
where as these two are actually distinct concepts.
Variance, means how much 'variation', 'spread' or 'diversity' exists in a dataset,
where as mean distance would mean the actual 'difference' or 'similarity' between populations.
Lewontin measured variances, yet he presented his results as if they were the mean difference.
I know this sounds very confusing, so let's clarify this a bit further.
So the way Lewontin's claim is usually understood,
is to the effect of saying that two random people from one ethnic group,
could be less similar to each other, than to someone from another continent.
Later on, Lewontin himself made this claim explicitly:
He said that there is: "no greater similarity occurring between Western and Eastern Europeans than between Europeans and Africans!"
This forms the scientific basis for the justification for mass immigration,
as if the above was really true, then it could really mean that someone from Africa
could potentially be more similar to native Europeans than we are to ourselves.
To illustrate how wide-spread this belief is,
here are some clips from a particularly notorious propaganda piece: The Human Family Tree:
Like all of our other physical differences,
the genetic changes responsible responsible for our varying shades of color are minuscule.
Just a handful of mutations,
out of the more than 3 billion letters in the human genome,
form the foundation for humanity's entire notion of race.
Tangible proof, something Dave and his girlfriend Michelle already know.
Race is just... it doesn't really mean much.
I mean people are different. But I don't base anything on a person's race.
For all the problem race has caused,
Our differences, are literally not more than skin deep.
Genetically speaking,
race does not exist.
And some, like Dave Reed's ancestors' would turn left,
and take the M173 towards Europe.
Leaving us with one obvious question...
If Dave's markers trace back to this early European track,
Why, doesn't he look European?
Now I am going to switch all the way to the other extreme of the globe,
this big group over here, the Europeans.
At the end where the participants' genetic ancestry is dramatically revealed,
we end up having several African individuals amongst the European group.
...he is supposed to be European, I said how did that happen?
I am questioning my own self.
How is it possible?
How is it possible, 'couse I totally had to be straight off from Africa.
Dave Reed was wondering the same thing.
I've never thought that I would be standing with the Europeans and not the Africans.
It kind of breaks all the modes on race and what people think about where they come from,
and I can't wait to bring it home to my parents.
What they have done here is really quite deceptive,
as the general message that most people will take home from this,
is that someone from Africa could just as easily be genetically European as the actual natives.
Now, of course I’ve edited the worst bits together,
but still what you have seen is still quite representative of both this show
and how the rest of popular science perpetuates Lewontin’s fallacy.
In the meanwhile,
actual research done on the subject revealed something quite different.
In a study by Witherspoon et al,
actual genetic similarity was measured on a larger scale, as the average pairwise difference between individuals.
And what they have actually found laid Lewontin’s claim to rest for once and for all.
This diagram is from the paper,
which shows the probability of an individual being more similar to someone from his non-native group
as a function of number of genetic variants considered.
As you can see, this converges to zero as we increase the number of markers.
So what they've found was that If you look at just 10.000 markers,
Then the possibility that an individual would be more similar to someone from his non-native population,
was effectively 0%.
And as our genomes differ at at least 4 million sites between individuals,
when considering the whole person, this is always going to be the case.
So.. you will always be more similar to someone from your own ethnic group than to outsiders.
But why is this important? What are the implications?
The social implications are enormous.
To understand why, we need to understand what greater genetic similarity means.
In short: it means more commonality,
more shared identity and therefore common interests.
To understand why this is the case,
let's have a quick review of what we know of how genetic factors influence our traits.
You may have heard that our genes influence pretty much everything about us, including:
Health risks, such as cancer, susceptibility to various illnesses such as sickle cell disease or Alzheimer's.
In addition, they also have an effect on non-disease traits, such as high altitude adaptation or lactose tolerance.
So depending on the genetic variants you carry,
you may have a different probability of developing such a trait.
As a matter of fact, the distribution of these traits is not-uniform,
but instead follow a distinct, geographic pattern.
For example,
it is far more common to be lactose tolerant amongst those of European descent.
Where as high altitude adaptation is more frequent amongst the people of Tibet.
n both cases, variants conferring these abilities reflect the different life histories of these populations.
And as we've seen, you share more genetic material with members of your own population,
which then will also mean,
that you will share more traits with them, that are more common in your own group.
So far so good.
None of the above is particularly controversial.
Now here is the bit which may still sound controversial:
the distribution of genetic variants that influence our brain and cognitive abilities, actually, also differ.
There is no qualitative difference between genes that affect how you digest milk and those that influence brain development.
In other words, there is no reason to believe that evolution stopped below the neck, 50,000 years ago.
There is actually now some good evidence to support this.
This is from a recent paper from the journal Cell,
in short, what they’ve done is illustrated by the diagram on the left:
They’ve took a large number of individuals from a diverse ancestral background,
then performed MRI and also genotyped them
and finally compared these two, to check what affect genetic ancestry had on their brain structure.
The results are shown in the picture on the right,
which demonstrates how our brains differ as a function of our genomic ancestry.
YRI is an African group,
where as CEU represents peoples from central Europe,
and EA represents Asia.
And here is the same thing as animated:
as you can see there are systematic differences in cortical structure between Africans, Europeans and people from Asia.
Now, the authors don't make any specific claims,
as of how this would impact our personalities, or who has the "better brains".
But it is hard to argue that this would have no noticeable influence on our group behaviour.
In plain English, this means precisely,
what you've been told your entire life to be not true: that people do differ in fundamental and inherent ways based on their ancestry.
This is an emerging consensus in the biosciences,
everything we've found so far in the past decade or so points towards this direction,
wherever we look, we seem to find more and more differences.
While all of the above is in the public domain
and were picked from mainstream journals, they are still, mostly hidden in plain sight,
...but as the skeletons will keep falling from of the closet,
it may soon even overflow into the public consciousness.
The importance of which cannot be overstated,
as once that happens, it will de-legitimize the factual basis of egalitarianism and expose its true religious nature,
and over time, it will be moved onto the same platform as any other religion.
But of course, Christianity, Islam etc,
will not be given up by its believers, just because their factual basis have been exposed as fairy tales,
and there is no reason to believe that this would happen to Egalitarianism either.
Exposing the factual basis of egalitarianism as lies,
is just the first stage, in order for it to be fully disposed,
it must be exposed as a false God and be replaced by an alternative morality.
Which brings us into the next part.
The moral or philosophical bases for taking a position based on your identity.
So… we are not technically all born equal.
But why shouldn't we at least try to be then?
As a true believer may argue,
that facts are just simply a problem to be overcome?
As if we cannot all be equal... what's left then?
The morality of the west today is a religion in its own right,
with a set of unwritten, but very strictly enforced taboos that instinctively everyone observes.
The most important ones, are a set of moral codes on how to deal with human differences.
It is actually impossible these days to point out that someone is not like the rest,
or that god forbid, someone doesn't really belong to your in-group.
In polite society,
you will immediately loose status if you ever make such a comment.
Just think about human rights laws,
equality legislation or gender quotas, etc.
All of these are aimed at the single purpose of abolishing human differences.
The worst thing that you could be accused of today,
is to be in a breach of these, that is to be 'intolerant' or 'xenophobic' or 'racist'…
as basically all of these amount to the same thing,
to not to support our drive towards greater and greater universalism.
If you look back at our history,
you could see it as one continuous 'progress' towards the eradication of all differences,
starting from Christianity, through the French and Bolshevik revolutions,
up to the multicultural societies we see today.
So while science is eventually always going to support the truth,
defeating a religion is a far more difficult problem,
as its roots are not-fact based, therefore they cannot be defeated on those grounds only.
So first, we need to fully understand  what we are dealing with,
we need to review this religion of ours and expose its core tenets.
Basically, the religion of equality is the most powerful religion of all times,
since it denies its own status as simply 'just another religion'
but rather, it presents itself as the ultimate truth above all other faiths.
It is only possible to remain a Christian, a Buddhist or a Muslim,
as long as you subscribe to the core beliefs of equality.
and these older religions are basically seen as 'lifestyle choices'.
hobbies that you are free to engage in, in your free time,
as long as they don't interfere the one true faith of equality of course.
This makes modern liberals look particularly bad,
as they pride themselves as peoples who have moved beyond the 'irrationality of faith',
where as in fact they are the most fanatic zealots that the world has ever seen!
So let's delve deeper and lay bare some of the core principles of the secular religion of the West.
In short,
it's aim is to erase all forms of boundaries, which are seen as oppression,
even reality itself.
It is to believe,
that the purpose of mankind is to eradicate all distinction between genders, classes and peoples.
Mankind is basically seen as a species of flawed and incomplete beings,
fallen angles, that have reached the end of their evolutionary potential,
and modernity's goal is to merge all our souls into a single, unified being.
These clips are from the film 'End of Evangelion',
which, in a very abstract and metaphoric way summarises the human condition quite well.
In the movie a shadowy organisation is arranging what they call the ‘Human Instrumentality Project’,
which aims to merge all our souls into into an undefined singularity,
where individual forms no longer exist.
Your personal goal is believed to be the eradication of your ego,
via a self realization of your innermost desires
in a single orgasmic moment of ecstasy
and then bursting and melting into the same primordial soup of life
from where we've once all came from.
At the end of movie,
the protagonist rejects this 'merging of all souls' project,
but not because he has a better idea,
but simply because he is just too honest
and sees through the deception, that this world wouldn't be real
and that reducing all unique beings into a single biomass is just wrong.
The film offers no permanent solution however,
as the protagonist is well aware that once individuals regain their unique forms,
the pain of rejection and the unreturned love of an-other will return at the same time.
To illustrate this,
the first thing he does to his archetypal 'Eve'  is to try to strangle her,
which very tellingly was the same act that initiated the project in the first place.
We need to do better than that,
as otherwise we will always be seen as either sulking introverts or as haters,
who just cannot have a good time by always having to ruin the party by pointing out inconvenient facts.
We must offer a better alternative,
that is not only achievable but it's even more radical and idealistic.
Criticising their position is not enough,
you cannot just be a 'reactionary',
as that will be seen as someone who is scared of 'change' or 'progress'.
You will want to offer an even more extreme alternative.
In the film,
the protagonist is trapped within his own self and as such, there was no solution.
But we can actually solve this problem if we think outside of the box.
If you cannot solve this problem the way we are, then we just have to change ourselves.
Once we have realised the futility of self-realisation,
that our feelings are just a dead end to nowhere,
the solution becomes obvious:
it is to rise above yourself, your petty concerns,
and  strive towards self-transcendence,
towards a higher ideal.
You can do this individually,
or better, as a people.
And you can only strive towards greatness, if you value who you are now,
what set you apart from the Others in the first place.
If we reduce ourselves into a jelly of biomass,
that will surely prevent us from getting there.
The answer to This, is not an apology,
or doubling down on pandering,
but embrace the concept of 'moving beyond',
surpassing oneself.
if you are aiming to transcend your humanity,
then loosing it will not seem to be a problem
and emotional blackmail such as this will no longer work on you either.
Those who appeal to 'our common humanity' are actually regressive,
as they want us to return to a an earlier, undifferentiated state of mankind.
Where as those of us with a tribal consciousness, are often criticised as 'reactionary',
where as the opposite is true,
as differentiating into tribes,
is the first step towards leaving our old selves behind.
Just think about this,
if we were always born equal,
or if that was ever a good thing,
we would never have changed from apes into what we are today.
Everything that we value today, all art, technology our very civilisation,
everything that is beautiful and perfect, is the result of someone being born better than the rest.
Someone born better, who also took advantage of it.
Trying to force equality on people would destroy all beauty
and any future possibility of improvement.
But once you realise that difference is the ultimate moral good,
you will strive for distinction instead.
On the other hand,
holding equality up as an ideal for society,
amounts to holding back everyone.
As the very concept of equality itself
is based on the negation of achievements greater than the average.
The very essence of evolution and true development is difference,
or inequality.
Conversely, a culture that prizes equality as its highest social virtue,
is likely stagnate and then slowly decay.
From evolution we know that no species lasts for ever.
One way or another,
we will change into something else.
We only have the choice of what we are going to change into.
So philosophical answer is to transcend our limitations,
by transcending our humanity.
I do realise, that all of this was perhaps a bit too abstract,
so a practical example is in order.
Think about space exploration:
It isn't frequently mentioned but as we've evolved on Earth,
our biology is profoundly unsuitable to life on other planets.
How are we going to settle Mars?
We are adapted to Earth level of gravity, no gamma rays
and of course there isn’t a whole lot of breathable atmosphere on the red planet.
If we are going to settle Mars,
it seems inevitable that we are going to have to change ourselves.
So we now know that equality is not only impossible, but it is also immoral.
The alternative morality,
is to embrace and value what sets you apart from others,
and instead of leveling humanity,
we should strive towards greater and greater differentiation.
But how do you actually pull this off in practice?
What can you say when someone accuses you of being a racist?
How do you actually say: you do not belong with us?
To find out,
let's have a look at the final part:
breaking the narrative.
But before I would reveal what I think will work,
first let's have a look at will most definitely not work.
This is Dr. William Shockley,
a Nobel prize winning scientist who will demonstrate for us,
the absolute worst example that I could find on how to handle this problem.
Dr. Shockley you are accused of having a theory,
that is a racist, a white racist theory.
How do you respond to that?
Well I respond to that by saying that I've considered whether or not I am a racist,
racist is an epithet that used to damage my self esteem, but it doesn't any more.
I feel it's untrue.
If you look in the dictionary as to what a racist means,
it means emotional feelings, irrational feelings associated with fear and hate.
If I really had those, I don't think I would be here this evening.
I feel that what I am engaged in, is a demand for diagnosis.
Now I would like to say some more about this chart, which I will come to probably later,
which shows the disproportionate rates of reproduction
for the least effective elements of the black community.
…and then he goes on to show some graphs on IQ differences.
It could work great as a comedy sketch, but sadly he was for real.
He really thought that was going to work!
Let's have a look at another poor attempt, this time by a politician.
Hello my name is Paul Weston and I am a racist.
I know I am a racist,
because I am told I am a racist by a great deal of people.
The hard left think I am a racist,
the Labour Party thinks I am a racist,
Conservatives think I am a racist,
Liberal democrats think I am a racist,
the BBC thinks I am a racist,
so I therefore I must therefore be...
a racist.
Why am I a racist?...
... so we need to denounce it for what it is.
And we need to start mounting some sort of defence against this.
But the problem with mounting a defence against it,
is that you get hit with the racist accusation.
I am not a racist but...
Well here is the thing, I am a racist!
If I want to avoid a civil war happening in my country,
I am prepared to accept being called a racist!
And you should be prepared to accept being called a racist as well!
Well I disagree,
I don't think that you should accept it.
Overall a slightly better effort, but still,
we should be able to do much better.
So, what went wrong?
First, going on a afro-centric TV programme,
then citing science journals to encourage African-Americans to castrate themselves,
is obviously a really bad idea.
Admitting that you are 'racist'
and saying that you are even proud of it,
is also a pretty bad strategy as well.
It just amounts to admitting that you are evil and immoral and just simply don't care.
People use labels to inform your social status which then will determine your social respectability.
A variation of this latter, is to try to accuse your opponent of 'racism',
trying to twist their words to make them look even worse than yourself.
I've never really seen this work either.
Finally, the worst possible thing you could do
is to try to appease your opponent by adopting their ways,
by showing that you are not 'racist'.
This strategy is also likely to fail,
or even worse, if were to succeed,
you would have became the very thing you've set out to combat in the first place.
Let's take a look at each of these in turn,
and see what went wrong and how you could improve your performance.
So let's start with some basic common sense.
When to pick a fight?
This one should be obvious:
when the odds aren't against you.
Don't pick a fight with someone much stronger than you.
Trying to win such argument against people who hold authority over you,
such as your boss, supervisor or landlord will not end well.
Don't put yourself into an impossible situation like that.
If you are outnumbered or out-gunned, just run
and live to fight another day.
And finally don't waste your time on arguing against those who could never agree with you:
people who have an existential interest in keeping you out.
Under these headers I mean minorities, marxists,
and also those too affluent, that have too much to loose by abandoning the status quo.
These people will only ever see you
as an opportunity for moral posturing.
So try to avoid them at all costs.
Second, you should only ever engage in such confrontations,
if you can hope to achieve something positive.
This may be convincing someone of your point of view, or to spread this meme.
So, don't give in to the temptation of engaging in fights just for the sake of it.
Which may be more difficult than it sounds, if you are combative by nature.
So, the above was the most important,
nothing that I am about to say after this point,
will do you any good if you don't pick your opponents and objectives well.
So you've went and done all of that...
and then suddenly, you hear the dreaded words:
You are accused of being a RACIST!
How do you respond to that charge?
Your lifelong programming is about to kick in,
you start to sweat, you are lost for words,
something terrible is about to happen,
you are just about to to raise the white flag!
I've seen even some otherwise really tough men getting tripped up by this.
An instinctive reaction of self-admitted guilt is put on display.
They make excuses like 'I am not a racist but'.
And then try to prove their innocence by making various excuses.
But let's just hold on for a sec,
What does this really mean at all?
Who is a 'Racist' ?
What's the meaning of this term?
It means that you have broken the moral code.
That you are a heretic, a witch,
that is about to be burned on the stake by the inquisition.
So if we were to restate this charge a,
being accused of being a Witch?
How would you handle that?!
What would you actually say?
And I don't mean that just metaphorically, but actually!
What would you actually do,
if you were being accused of being a witch?
That you have made a pact with the devil?
Would you say that it wasn't you who made the pact but... someone else?
Or would you say that you haven't seen the devil since at least last week?
Or that you have looked up the definition of a which in a dictionary, and you don't think your qualify?
You would just laugh and move on.
And that is pretty much what you need to do for the real thing,
as the charge is essentially the same.
People are no longer not burned on stakes for witchcraft
because they convinced the inquisition that they are not witches,
but simply because people no longer believe that witches exist.
Of course the difference is that people still believe today that 'racism' is real.
So you will actually have to address this issue and answer them properly.
Yet, the solution is going to be the same,
you will just have to convince your opponents, that what they believe is not real,
rather than trying to defend yourself against the charge itself.
This may sound almost the same,
but there is a world of difference,
so let me elaborate on this a bit further.
You see,
this isn't about one argument against another,
but one world-view versus another.
If their narrative triumphs, then that means,
that the only role available for you in Their play,
is the role of the villain.
And the only way to avoid that,
is NOT by saying that you are not playing the villain, but are actually one of the good guys,
but to point out that their game is bogus.
Don't say that you are not a racist!
But instead, that there is no such thing as racism.
That it is a meaningless term.
An invalid concept and that you reject the very terminology of it.
You may think I'm obsessing over just words.
But there is more to it.
If you look carefully at these everyday phrases,
you may notice something.
These are all value-laden professionally constructed weapons in the shape of words,
that carry within them an entire world view.
You may find it very difficult to win an argument, if you are using too many of these terms.
Because they are all somehow magically loaded with your opponents ideology.
But of course there is one word to rule them all...
'RACISM'.
Literally,
billions of dollars were spent to compress a large chunk of an ideology into this single word,
that was constructed in such way so that it can only be used one way.
Just like how in Tolkien’s world,
the One Ring can only ever be used to ultimately,
carry out the dark lord Sauron’s will.
Using charged words like that is a bit like making a purchase on a market place.
Each term can only be used appropriately,
or you have to pay their price.
How about a pound of Racism please?
That will be two billion dollars sir.
So how do you win this 'War of the Words'?
As you are unlikely to be a billionaire and therefore cannot afford a hard counter-attack,
the best you could do is to employ asymmetric warfare tactics.
Simply move the goal post,
by avoiding the terms they have monopoly over
and use different ones to describe the same thing.
And if you are forced to use one of their terms,
then only ever do so to discredit the very concept of them.
Let's have a look at few important examples:
First of course is 'racism' itself.
I strongly suggest that you never use this term in any context.
If you must however make an explicit reference to the problem,
then simply replace 'racism' with the term 'ethnic conflict',
as that implies a certain sense of mutuality.
What about the race concept then?
This one is difficult as well.
While there is enough evidence to suggest,
that there are meaningful differences between human populations,
that doesn't mean that you should attempt to resurrect the race concept itself.
But that is actually besides the point.
We don't need races for people to be different!
Just because the colours in the rainbow blend into each other,
that doesn't invalidate the concept of different colours.
And that is what people are truly interested in:
we don't really care if someone belongs to a certain 'race'.
What we really want to know is if someone is fundamentally different from us.
So bottom line is:
that at least in the Western world, this term seems beyond recovery.
It is impossible to use it in any context without having to deal with extremely negative connotations,
so for both scientific and tactical reasons,
avoid it altogether.
Instead, try to use peoples or the more formal term 'populations'.
Other alternative terms I quite like are 'native' or 'indigenous',
as they imply a biological component.
Finally, try to avoid terms that use superficial attributes,
such as those referring to skin colour,
as they will make your arguments look shallow as well.
By using a different vocabulary,
you should try to assert your own narrative,
a different world-view in place of the mainstream.
Like in that movie 'The Cell'.
Where plot involved a scenario where the protagonist had to travel into the mind of a psychopath
to discover the location of his latest victim.
But the problem was,
that while she trapped in his mind and in his dream,
it was impossible for her challenge him.
The way they solved this was to change the dreamer to the heroine,
and your job is the same.
It is to break out from their story
and establish yours.
Let them be the villain in Your story.
So to summarise:
If you stop playing their game, then you can stop being the villain!
If it's your world, then it's your rules!
Start all your answers with "there is no such thing as a",
then by choosing your words very carefully,
assert your own narrative.
I cannot possibly cover all of the different scenarios
and provide a comprehensive guide on how to deal with each a situation.
Also, I don't think that having a single 'mantra' that you could just mindlessly repeat would work either.
Mantras are not flexible
and since they never change your opponents will quickly learn them
and then develop an immunity which will then allow them to easily quarantine you away.
What you want to do, is to make your own local adaptation of the following template:
"There is no such thing as Racism.
The concept of Racism is defined as the moral failure of treating people differently
whom we believe to be the same.
But it is just plain dishonest to pretend that we are.
Therefore I cannot be guilty of something that doesn't exist."
Now of course this is not what you would actually say, but this is what you should mean.
How you actually say it will depend on the current scenario.
In fact in most situations, you wouldn't need to do much more than to simply roll your eyes
and that should express the same thing.
The point is to discredit the concept itself.
It's about making the term 'Racism' loose its currency.
At the end, it should have no weight when thrown around.
You will just need to find the most effective and practical way of achieving that.
At a science conference of course you would need to have done more homework
and be prepared with some citations.
In a philosophical debate, you could draw on part two of this presentation,
plus do more reading of the works Nietzsche for example.
Having said that, before we wrap this up,
I would like share a few practical tips that should help you to get started.
Let's take things in order.
Let's start with a science themed practical scenario:
In the coming years, as the last remnants of any scientific credibility of egalitarianism
are going to be eroded by modern research, it will become less and less likely
that your opponent should choose science to support his arguments.
But today, it is still very much possible that they will first attempt to make a scientific claim,
similar to those you've seen in part one.
There are two basic possibilities:
The first one is that they will make broad scientific claims without any evidence
that science has long proven that we are all the same, but only really to support their underlying morality.
Against this, you should first point this out,
that they are in fact not making a scientific argument, that they are really just applying a morality.
To finish them off, you should try to draw a parallel between creationism and liberal beliefs in equality.
This shouldn't be difficult as they really are the same thing.
Second, if they really are trying to make a science based argument.
Well then you should be well prepared with your own list of facts.
This should not be too difficult either,
as there is now plenty of good research in the public domain that you could draw on.
Next up, is the moral or philosophical debate.
As a philosophical debate is inherently non-practical,
there isn't much I could say here, just refer back part two.
You could also draw on Nietzsche's works,
especially where he deals with systems of values and the importance of who defines morality,
as essentially what you will be disagreeing on are the very definitions of what it means to be good or evil.
In practice, it is quite unlikely that you would have to engage in a full frontal philosophical confrontation,
but it is quite possible, that your opponents will use a mixed strategy,
where they would use a moral coating on their otherwise practical or scientific arguments.
To deal with this, this is my suggestion:
First, point out that their morality is based on scientific falsehoods.
and as such, a morality based on falsehoods must therefore be a false morality.
Try to avoid sounding too 'sciency' though.
People who make decisions based on moral principles
aren't always impressed by what is actually true.
In that case,
try to show that equality and true human development are antitheses of each other.
The point is as always: is to discredit the concept itself!
And last,
if you are talking to a close friend,
you may not even need to make a verbal effort.
The fact that you are no longer believing
in the modern day equivalent of 'witches' and 'heretics'.
That you are no longer spellbound to this morality,
will be obvious no matter what you say.
Ultimately this is going to be the most important arena,
as real change will only happen once a critical mass of individuals will stop believing in 'racism'
and that is much more likely to happen in a pub or in the living room than anywhere else.
Just think about it.
A 100 years from now, calling someone a 'racist' will have same effect as calling someone a heretic,
witch or kulak today
and will be seen in the historical context as essentially a different version of the same thing.
When you are with a close friend,
you can pretend that this has already happened and eventually,
it will happen for the rest of society at large.
Finally, never apologise!
Don't say that you are sorry, because you really aren't!
Trying to back-track never works either,
because it will look like an admission of guilt and they will never let you off the hook anyway.
Just stick to your guns, and fight it out.
So we have reached the end of this presentation,
where to go from here?
Practice makes perfect, so I recommend that you organise into small groups,
where the following  scenarios could be played out:
Science conference, TV show, at a dinner party,
informal conversations and finally at a pub or with your family.
For best results,
choose one of you who would take on the role of the 'witch'
and the rest of them will try accuse him of being a 'racist'
and see what strategy works best.
And finally, don't forget to have fun!
