Etymology of "Racism"


It used to be that you had to do something really extremely drastic, like support existing US immigration laws, to be called a racist.  But now we've lowered the bar to "Scientific Racism" [note the capital letters on this common noun] to qualify as a racist

A Scientific Racist is one who quotes federal statistics to a liberal without a brain in its haid




In the entire Holy Bible, the phrase or concept of "racism" is not mentioned even once.  Instead are God's commandments and statutes prohibiting the mixing of the holy seed with the peoples of the lands.  As late as 1945, dictionaries like The New Century Dictionary also didn't have a definition for "racism", or "racist".

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989

racism [f. RACE sb.2 + -ISM; cf. F. racisme (Robert 1935).] a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. b = RACIALISM.

1936 L. Dennis Coming Amer. Fascism 109 If .. it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deportization, or sterilization of the excluded races.

[note: by this definition, if a person believes Negros are black, he's practicing racism]

racist ('reisist), sb. and a. [f. RACE sb.2 + -ist.] A. sb. = RACIALIST sb.

1932 M. Eastman tr. Trotsky's Hist. Russ. Revol. i. 27 This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelation of the 'Racists'. 1934 H. G. Wells Exper. Autobiogr. I iii. 107 So much for the Hitlerite stage of my development, when I was a sentimentalist, a moralist, a patriot, a racist.

New Century Dictionary

racismnc.jpg (103582 bytes)

It was Webster's Dictionary which appears to be the first dictionary to include this concept in the English lexicon.   Their first definition wasn't nearly as vitriolic as the latter ones:

"racial prejudice or discrimination"

racismwebster3.jpg (38989 bytes)

But then as jews like Noah Webster felt more comfortable about the unlikelihood of the visitors called jews of being expelled as they've been 86 times before us, Webster's definition got more vitriolic:

"program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, persecution, and domination, based on racialism"

Now, rather than just meaning "prejudice", this relatively mild word is displaced with with a "program" which is based on "persecution and domination".

racismwebster2.jpg (239430 bytes)

Similarly, the words "sexism" and "sexist" are not to be found anywhere in the entire Scripture, and also were not in the 1945 edition of the New Century Dictionary:

sexismnc.jpg (136827 bytes)

But Webster went right for the jugular this time and pronounced that sexism was:

"economic exploitation" and "social domination" of women, by (of course) men.

sexismwebster2.jpg (125162 bytes)

Now we get to the nitty gritty.   It's with his new concept of "anti-semitism" that Noah Webster reveals his not so hidden agenda.  New Century Dictionary defines "anti-semitism" as "one hostile to the jews", but Noah makes this giant leap of faith "disliking or fearing Jews and Jewish things".

The concept of "anti-semitism" is not mentioned even ONCE in the entire Holy Bible.  "Fear of the jews" is mentioned numerous times, yet New Century Dictionary doesn't include this as a part of its definition.  Being hostile to the jews is an antonym to fearing them.  How can one phrase have such contradictory definitions as "hostile to" and "fear of"?  And why does Webster's definition suddenly add "jewish things", a concept not mentioned by Century NOR Scripture?

antisemitenc.jpg (86302 bytes)

antisemitewebster.jpg (86044 bytes)


newcentury.jpg (60618 bytes)

newcentury1945.jpg (34185 bytes)

<<<United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life>>>

"Reverse" Racism by Governor Gilmore

77% of Americans support NOFEAR and DISAGREE with racist anti-White "leaders" like Gov. Gilmore



gilmore.jpg (2840 bytes)


Where does racial pride end and racism begin?

  1. "if you're White and not proud of it you don't belong here"

  2. go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

  3. I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Governor Gilmore is a HYPOCRITE! 

If he believes it's right to insult an organization which represents Americans of European descent who represent almost three quarters of his constituents, then he MUST insult other "racist" organizations "equally".

  1. He MUST rescind any and all support for the NAACP.  This is at *least* as *racist* an organization as NOFEAR, and they represent only 12% of Americans, at most.

  2. He MUST rescind any and all support for the jewish Anti-defamation League (ADL).  This is the most *racist* organization of them all, and they represent only 1.9% of Americans.

  3. He MUST rescind any and all support for the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), as the most worthless, biased, and destructive organization on the planet, who represent only 2% of Americans..

Could this governor be at all surprised to discover that 77% of his own constituents agreed with his original proclamation and disagreed with his rescinding it?

Only 73.9% of Virginia's population are White, which means that 3.1% who support NOFEAR are either Blacks (who are 20.4% of the population), Asians (4.3%), or Other (2.7%).

Furthermore, 4.7% of Virginia's population who are classified as White are actually Hispanic, which means that only 69.2% are Caucasian, making non-Caucasians 7.8% of those who support NOFEAR.

  • White = 73.9%

  • Black = 20.4%

  • Asian = 4.3%

  • Other = 2.7%

Is it possible that 20% of Blacks support NOFEAR, and thus make up 4% of that 7.8%?  Or that half the Hispanics do, making up another 2.4%, and that the remaining 1.4% are mostly "Other"?

If so, then exactly which minority group was the governor pandering to when he frustrated the will of three quarters of his constituents, became a traitor to his own race, and rescinded the proclamation?  Certainly not the few percent who are Other, nor the few percent who are Hispanics who oppose NOFEAR, nor the few percent who are Asians?  The main opposition he must have been intimidated by are the less than 18% who are Blacks who oppose NOFEAR.

Since when, in this land of the free, home of the brave, did an 18% minority, an emotional minority which is still poorly educated and has been misled for decades by FALSE media hype, get to dictate such policies based solely on their race, or their perceived hate for another race, or their willingness to pretend that they're insulted when Whites display the same pride for their own race that Louis Farrakhan displays for his?

News / Virginia

Unwittingly, Gilmore OKs supremacists' history month
By WARREN FISKE, The Virginian-Pilot
� May 11, 2001

RICHMOND -- An embarrassed Gov. Jim Gilmore on Thursday rescinded a proclamation he unknowingly made on behalf of a white supremacy group.

Each year, the governor routinely signs hundreds of honorary resolutions at the request of civic groups. On Wednesday, he inked his name on an innocently worded decree declaring May ``European-American Heritage and History Month.''



Was Gov. Gilmore right in retracting the European American Month proclamation?

Yes, because of the group that sought it
Yes, because it was a dumb idea
No, the idea is OK, despite its source
No, we SHOULD honor European Americans

View results

TalkNet: Discuss the issue

Much to his horror on Thursday, Gilmore learned from reporters that the resolution was requested by the National Organization for European-American Rights, or NOFEAR, an anti-minority group led by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke of Louisiana.

Gubernatorial aides said the proclamation slipped by them. One described Gilmore as ``quite angry'' about the incident.

Gilmore issued a written statement voiding the proclamation. ``A simple mistake was made and I can assure you we will be more careful screening these types of requests during the remainder of my administration,'' he said.

Gilmore denounced Duke for espousing ``racist attitudes'' and said Duke's organization ``masquerades as an advocacy group for diversity but preaches exclusion and hatred.''

``My aims and goals as governor of Virginia are 180 degrees different from theirs,'' Gilmore added.

Ron Doggett, president of the 300-member Virginia chapter of NOFEAR, issued a press release Thursday morning hailing the proclamation. His joy was short-lived. During an impromptu news conference outside the governor's office later in the day, he accused Gilmore of ``insulting all Virginians of European ancestry.''

Gilmore was quick to say that he has nothing against European Americans or appropriately celebrating their accomplishments.

Reach Warren Fiske at (804) 697-1565 or








Was Gov. Gilmore right in retracting the European American Month proclamation?

Yes, because of the group that sought it

Yes, because it was a dumb idea

No, the idea is OK, despite its source

No, we SHOULD honor European Americans

Total Votes: 1660

> I agree 100% with what Charles Murray wrote in the
> following article:
> I'm sure you have zero proof he's wrong.
Charles Murray and people like him are part of what some call Scientific Racism, and these ideas are rejected by science and academia in general. Here's a very small tip of the very large iceberg as to the literature that exposes the fraud put forth by people like him:
"Evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves described the Bell Curve as an example of racist science, containing all the types of errors in the application of scientific method that have characterized the history of Scientific Racism:
1. claims that are not supported by the data given
2. errors in calculation that invariably support the hypothesis
3. no mention of data that contradicts the hypothesis
4. no mention of theories and data that conflict with core assumptions
5. bold policy recommendations that are consistent with those advocated by racists.[38"
"In April 1966, Alex Haley interviewed American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell for Playboy. Rockwell explained why he believed blacks were inferior to whites, citing a study by G.O. Ferguson that showed black people who were part white outperformed "pure-black ni....s" [my edit] (Rockwell's words) on a test. The statistics used in the study and the excerpt from the Playboy article were used as an example of a statistical fallacy in the book Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking by Stephen K. Campbell."
"Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a Stanford geneticist, said in 1995 that "The Bell Curve" (1994) by Charles Murray and Harvard psychologist Richard J Herrnstein is wrong on the science."
It is somewhat disconcerting that all these papers are totally ignored in "The Bell Curve".... Researchers who might be called "IQ hereditarians" are in general reporting high heritabilities for IQ without any information on how these calculations have been obtained, or why the other papers here cited have been ignored. It is unlikely that they were not seen or read; they are published in well-known scientific journals.
...both the American adoption study by Sandra Scarr and Barbara Tizard's study of British orphans showed that when blacks and whites are brought up  under the same circumstances the difference pretty much disappears.
He further points out that:
* the charts are misleading,
* correlation is not cause and that
* the g factor is likely a statistical artefact.
He thinks IQ tests measure a small and rather uninteresting part of intelligence and that it is impossible to make one that is reasonably culture-free.
He also says that Murray and Herrnstein are racists. He is the first white author I have read who says that flat out. He says racism is:
the persuasion that some races are definitely better than others in some socially important ways, and that the difference is of genetic origin.
Murray and Herrnstein certainly think IQ is socially important, that whites have more of it and that it is mostly genetic. Therefore they are racists. Even though they talk as if racism has pretty much disappeared."
"Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children.
Turkheimer E, Haley A, Waldron M, D'Onofrio B, Gottesman II.
University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22904, USA.
Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and nonshared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."
[Translation: In a non-linear way, the more any lower SES is present, the more it overwhelms all other factors in explaining differences in performance on IQ tests.]
"Assessment of effects of socio-economic status on IQ in a full cross-fostering study
Laboratoire Genetique, Neurogenetique et Comportement, URA 1294, CNRS, UFR Biomedicale, Universite Paris V, 45 rue des Saints-Peres, 75720 Paris Cedex 06, France
AN important question in studies of mental ability concerns the effect of parental socio-economic status (SES) on the IQ of their offspring. Only a full cross-fostering study, including children born to biological parents from the most highly contrasting SES and adopted by parents with equally constrasting SES, can answer this question. Previous adoption studies using incomplete cross-fostering designs1-3 have indicated an effect of postnatal environment on the IQ of children born to low-SES backgrounds and adopted by high-SES parents. They have not shown whether a low SES reduces the IQ of children born to high-SES parents or whether the SES of biological parents has an effect on IQ, or whether the effect of the SES of adoptive parents is independent of the SES of biological parents. We present a full cross-fostering study dealing with IQ, and find that children adopted by high-SES parents score higher than children adopted by low-SES parents; children
 born to high-SES parents score higher than children born to low-SES parents; and that there is no evidence for an interaction between these two factors on children's IQ."
"Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.
As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether."
Quote [by Thomas Sowell]:
"Perhaps the most intellectually troubling aspect of The Bell Curve is the authors' uncritical approach to statistical correlations. One of the first things taught in introductory statistics is that correlation is not causation.
It is also one of the first things forgotten, and one of the most widely ignored facts in public policy research. The statistical term "multicollinearity," dealing with spurious correlations, appears only once in this massive book.
Multicollinearity refers to the fact that many variables are highly correlated with one another, so that it is very easy to believe that a certain result comes from variable A, when in fact it is due to variable Z, with which A happens to be correlated. In real life, innumerable factors go together. An example I liked to use in class when teaching economics involved a study showing that economists with only a bachelor's degree had higher incomes than economists with a master's degree and that these in turn had higher incomes than economists with Ph.D.'s.
The implication that more education in economics leads to lower incomes would lead me to speculate as to how much money it was costing a student just to be enrolled in my course. In this case, when other variables were taken into account, these spurious correlations disappeared. In many other cases, however, variables such as cultural influences cannot even be quantified, much less have their effects tested statistically...."






Search for:


Hit Counter


Modified Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party