Diversity/ Racism and Aristocracy

[Trevor]

Just a thought: This could be a reason why diversity is bad. This could also answer a very important question. Perhaps if a nation is of one unity it could achieve true happiness. What is true happiness? Aristotle once said "...happiness is the highest good, being a realization and perfect practice of virtue, which some can attain, while others have little or none of it..." Maybe everyone living in a diversity free nation would be happy, for that would be greatness, which could be achieved.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Diversity is variety, Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection. Some people look upon diversity as appearances alone, truly diversity is not only appearances but feelings, actions, comprehension, intelligence and social abilities. To better understand diversity I will attempt to explain and examine the truths, exaggerations and views of diversity.

Throughout history diversity has played a role in the development of human kind. Diversity has been the cause of wars, suffering, genocide, crime and the crusades. For these reasons I have lingered upon the thought that diversity is bad and should be made avoidable. You may be asking how could it be made avoidable, well I will explain that in the later part of the manuscript. To eradicate diversity would make a utopian type society, never before achieved throughout all of history.

As oppose to popular belief the genocide of the Jewish people was not because of the supposed insanity of Adolf Hitler, it was because of diversity. Throughout history the Jews have been persecuted because of their Anti-Christ ideals. They’ve been persecuted by the Egyptians, the Romans, and in the 20th century by the Germans. Many Christians viewed the Jews as an “infection” to society because they do not believe in Jesus Christ. In the bible it clearly states that if you do not believe in the Lord you will go to hell, therefore many Christians believe that the Jews should be persecuted for their beliefs. The whole religion of Judaism contradicts itself, how so you ask? Well the Jews believe that the Messiah has not yet come, but Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and he prophesized that there would never be a second coming if there are disbelievers. Jesus Christ was the Messiah and given that the Jews do not believe in him there will never be a return of the Messiah. Since the Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ they expect a Messiah who will never come. The Jew practices foreign ideals which Christians do not agree with and this makes the Jew a target because of their differences. Difference is a deadly word if used in Fascism, the whole ideologies of Fascism lay among unity or working as a whole to the advantage of the nation. It’s difficult for people to work together if diversity rest among them for this is why some groups and religions were targeted in Germany during the 3rd Reich. Fascism puts the Government and Nation above the person which was one of the reasons for its temporary success through the 30’s and early 40’s. An example of diversity affecting the Fascist Ideology would be World War I, the Jewish people did not want a war and were opposed to it which in returned affected the unity of Germany and later lead to the defeat of Germany. When Germany lost the war the allies imposed the Treaty of Versailles which limited Germany greatly and caused much frustration and anger towards the Jews. This was the beginning of the rise of Adolf Hitler. In my beliefs much of what the Nazis did in World War II was wrong but if you examine their beliefs and understand what they believed in and why, then you will better comprehend them.

Along with Diversity comes Racism, which has been seen all through history and is a way of human life. In the dictionary Racism is referred to as “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” In another account Racism was referred to as “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.” In this definition discrimination is used in the manor of a deliberate attack on someone, something or on someone’s race. Discrimination varies depending on who is being discriminated against and it to is part of the human race. What would be the best way of eliminate discrimination you ask? The best way to eliminate discrimination is to vanquish the source which is diversity. If you crush diversity then you crush discrimination and thus one would be yet another step closer to creating a humane and blissful society where no one gets discriminated against and prejudice does not exists.

In every society you have the intellects, infidels, self-made, capitalists, hardworking, and the indolent. Many believe that diversity lies amongst race alone, well truly diversity has many forms and one of which are the types of people that make up a race, such as listed above. This type of diversity is silent and difficult to eliminate, but not impossible. Intellects are the elite of a society and looked upon as the masters of their fields of study. Infidels are the total opposite of the intellects; they are the sub-level individuals who commit crimes to get ahead in life and in most cases are very unintelligent. They most certainly must be rooted out and be made examples of. The self-made individuals, like intellects are considered high in society for working hard to get ahead in life and achieving at most of their goals no matter how unpromising their lives have been or how impossible their goals seem. Capitalists are the greed and evil of society and like the infidels must be rooted out. The hardworking are the most valuable to a society for their regard, integrity, effort, and priorities. The indolent are the froth of a society, they lack ambition and independence, the indolent are worthless to a society and must be rooted out like the Capitalists and Infidels. This type of diversity is different in many aspects mostly because in every race there are people that fall in these categories. If you can root out the froth of the society then you can attempt to change them for the better in hopes of uniting to a cause.

Many may see my ideas of eliminating diversity as insane or inhumane but if you crush diversity then you end wars, quarrels, discrimination, racism, cruelty, and inhumanity all together. Diversity is evil, not the individuals who tried to defeat it. There are two ways of defeating diversity, you can eliminate the persons diversified from Christianity, unison, and cooperation, or you can expel them and form a country free of diversity and it would truly be a utopia. I for one do not believe in genocide for the reasons that the lord condones it and it is not civilized. Perhaps the Jewish question could be solved with a simple isolation in their modern day nation, Israel.

[Ederico]

Originally posted by Trevor
Just a thought: This could be a reason why diversity is bad. This could also answer a very important question. Perhaps if a nation is of one unity it could achieve true happiness. What is true happiness? Aristotle once said "...happiness is the highest good, being a realization and perfect practice of virtue, which some can attain, while others have little or none of it..." Maybe everyone living in a diversity free nation would be happy, for that would be greatness, which could be achieved.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Though I believe that a more Homogenous Collective is of a greater desirability to achieve a stable and cohesive Society, I do not believe that the elimination of diversity is a prerequisite of happiness. I am opposed to Racial diversity in a given Society because Racialistic Ideals and Policies are the basis of the survival of any Race which interacts with other Races, that is, a Race which is not isolated, which in modern days is practically non-existant.

Diversity is variety, Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection.

I need to read some of Darwin's works, you do not happen to know a link to some of his books available to read online?

Some people look upon diversity as appearances alone, truly diversity is not only appearances but feelings, actions, comprehension, intelligence and social abilities.

I perfectly agree, a good observation. All categories of Diversities cannot be eradicated unfortunately, there will always be a degree of diversity within a Society, the importance for the survival of the Race and/or Ethnicity involved in that Society is that there is no Racial Diversity, otherwise, there is Racial Weakness within that Society.

To better understand diversity I will attempt to explain and examine the truths, exaggerations and views of diversity.

That is not an easy task, I'll read on.

Throughout history diversity has played a role in the development of human kind. Diversity has been the cause of wars, suffering, genocide, crime and the crusades. For these reasons I have lingered upon the thought that diversity is bad and should be made avoidable. You may be asking how could it be made avoidable, well I will explain that in the later part of the manuscript. To eradicate diversity would make a utopian type society, never before achieved throughout all of history.

Actually Diversity is essential in certain aspects, and a Utopian Society is not essentially Diversity-free. A Society must be Organised and Structured to create an Ordered Process of Advancement. Such a Society must have a clearly defined Hierarchy in all Societal Activities, and Hierarchy necessitates Diversity, otherwise how would a Society distribute its Individuals within the Hierarchy, given that no Diversity exists?

In my beliefs much of what the Nazis did in World War II was wrong but if you examine their beliefs and understand what they believed in and why, then you will better comprehend them.

National Socialism laid the basis for an Aryan Racialist Movement that safeguards the existance, survival, reproduction, and progress of the Aryan Race. All Aryans have something to thank for the National Socialists of the Third Reich. In my eyes National Socialism, albeit its errors, was the start of the resurgence of the Aryan Folks.

The best way to eliminate discrimination is to vanquish the source which is diversity. If you crush diversity then you crush discrimination and thus one would be yet another step closer to creating a humane and blissful society where no one gets discriminated against and prejudice does not exists.

This is a correct observation in my opinion. The problem is that a Society necessitates a Hierarchy and the assignment of tasks in that Society are assigned through Discrimination. A Society without Diversity and the subsequent Discrimination related to Diversity, is a Universally-Egalitarian Society which does not function most probably.

In every society you have the intellects, infidels, self-made, capitalists, hardworking, and the indolent.

Every Society most probably involves much greater categories of Individuals grouped in a single Collective, than you have mentioned. Also why list Capitalists? What about Communists?

Many believe that diversity lies amongst race alone, well truly diversity has many forms and one of which are the types of people that make up a race, such as listed above. This type of diversity is silent and difficult to eliminate, but not impossible.

Are you suggesting the elimination of all Diversity? Do you propose a Universally-Egalitarian Society?

Many may see my ideas of eliminating diversity as insane or inhumane but if you crush diversity then you end wars, quarrels, discrimination, racism, cruelty, and inhumanity all together.

If you eliminate Diversity, and thus no Discrimination exists, how would the various tasks in Society be assigned?

Diversity is evil, not the individuals who tried to defeat it. There are two ways of defeating diversity, you can eliminate the persons diversified from Christianity, unison, and cooperation, or you can expel them and form a country free of diversity and it would truly be a utopia.

An Organised and Structured Society which Progresses requires a Hierarchy. How would this Hierarchy be Organised in a Universally-Egalitarian Society, that is, a Society which is Diversity and Discrimination free.

[Moody]

NAZZ: Though I believe that a more Homogenous Collective is of a greater desirability to achieve a stable and cohesive Society, I do not believe that the elimination of diversity is a prerequisite of happiness. I am opposed to Racial diversity in a given Society because Racialistic Ideals and Policies are the basis of the survival of any Race which interacts with other Races, that is, a Race which is not isolated, which in modern days is practically non-existant.

MOODY: This problem is answered by my thesis of dynamic subgroup [sometimes misleadingly called 'subrace'] diversity WITHIN a Race.
This Race is homogeneous and separated from other Races by genetic distance, and also by insurmountable Cultural difference.
However, within its own impregnable borders it allows the free-flow of creativity, particularly as regards subgroupings.

NAZZ:All categories of Diversities cannot be eradicated unfortunately, there will always be a degree of diversity within a Society, the importance for the survival of the Race and/or Ethnicity involved in that Society is that there is no Racial Diversity, otherwise, there is Racial Weakness within that Society.

MOODY: As I have argued elsewhere, subgroup diversity is NOT 'Racial' diversity. The latter is rejected, while the former is a fact of Aryan Nature.
Obviously man needs to have the polarities of heterogenity and homogeneity within the totality.
To try to extirpate one or the other is un-natural and self-defeating.
By adopting an Order of Rank we have the homogeneous Race at the top, which is served by the inner flux of subgroupings within.

This is how the Race CREATES - as Race.

NAZZ: Actually Diversity is essential in certain aspects, and a Utopian Society is not essentially Diversity-free. A Society must be Organised and Structured to create an Ordered Process of Advancement. Such a Society must have a clearly defined Hierarchy in all Societal Activities, and Hierarchy necessitates Diversity, otherwise how would a Society distribute its Individuals within the Hierarchy, given that no Diversity exists?

MOODY: Of course, here we agree; hierarchy is NECESSARY. This is satisfied in the Racial Nation by SUBGROUPINGS.

NAZZ: National Socialism laid the basis for an Aryan Racialist Movement that safeguards the existance, survival, reproduction, and progress of the Aryan Race. All Aryans have something to thank for the National Socialists of the Third Reich. In my eyes National Socialism, albeit its errors, was the start of the resurgence of the Aryan Folks.

MOODY: WE agree again; and notice how National Socialism began to be aware of a Unified Europa (and its interior subgroupings) as the war against Internationalism progressed.

NAZZ: The problem is that a Society necessitates a Hierarchy and the assignment of tasks in that Society are assigned through Discrimination. A Society without Diversity and the subsequent Discrimination related to Diversity, is a Universally-Egalitarian Society which does not function most probably.

MOODY: Precisely; but I see this as no 'problem', but as a desideratum.
It is Nietzsche's Order of Rank where elements within the broad Race play the part of differing strata within the Whole.
Anything else is Communism/Liberalism.

In the latter two we see an un-natural imbalance.
Communism seeks to destroy all diversity, and create the Ultimate Homogeneity, while Liberalism attempts to eradicate all fellow-feeling and a have a disruptivism of diverse, individualist atoms.

National Socialism balances the two; subgroup diversity within, and homogeneous Race without.

[Grimr]

I am a little confused as to what people on this board actually believe or to what extent they believe it.

I personally believe that the white race is a source of much human productivity upon this earth spanning from art, literature and science, infact inventing those three subjects without us humanity would just be a bunch of nomads warring and wandering aimlessly upon the face of the earth.

Anyhow we have now placed ourselves in a position where we have given the other races so much that they are lashing out at us, from the deepest pits of their souls they want to be degenerate nomads but because of us they must live in a state of civility thus like spoiled children they wish to destroy us.

I know some people will speak of the Jews as some kind of satanic entity but it isn't really the Jews who cause most of the problems any longer, indeed they where the first of the parasitic invaders but now that the Orientals, the general peoples of dark hew and the certainly the Islamic Arab, they are all causing the white race problems, holding us back and slowly, Eugenically killing us through vast medias, control of general public opinion and when all else fails violence.

I also believe that if we are to forge a solution to this problem then we must first begin analysing the problem, that is the point of this thread.

[Moody]

[QUOTE=Grimr; "I know some people will speak of the Jews as some kind of satanic entity but it isn't really the Jews who cause most of the problems any longer, indeed they where the first of the parasitic invaders but now that the Orientals, the general peoples of dark hew and the certainly the Islamic Arab, they are all causing the white race problems, holding us back and slowly, Eugenically killing us through vast medias, control of general public opinion and when all else fails violence".

Moody Lawless replies; I would argue that the current conflict between Islamists and the West is due to American-led support for Israel.

The lack of sufficient immigration controls in the post-war period has been largely due to Jewish pressure which always like to evoke the 'holocaust' when such controls and 'White-Only' programmes are mooted.

This is not to say that the Jews are 'satanic', or that they are to blame for 'everything'.
Rather to say that the Jewish outlook, particularly as it developed during the period of the Roman Empire, was always antagonistic and antithetical to the Aryan/Western European one.

This conflict reached its peak in the mid 20th century, where the Jewish outlook was victorious thanks to the help of the British Empire, the USA and Communist Russia in 1939-45.
Multiculturalism is the child of those Allied Empires of the West, and is the source of much unhappiness in the West AND in the Middle East today.

Jewish and Jew-friendly control of the Media is as much a reality today as it was in the past. It skews our whole culture with its hypocritical values and slave-morality; only a frankly Aryan, pan-European, and pan-White Nationalism - both cultural and political - can hope to have the qualities necessary to defeat this JudaISED world outlook.

[Abby Normal]

There is often a "pecking order" among racial/ ethnic groups that are generally viewed as inferior. For instance, Negroes are of the belief that the lighter- skinned members of their own race are superior to the darker ones, and likewise, Argentines and Venezuelans see themselves as superior to other Latins. (As in, 'They're better than me, but at least I'm better than you!')

Perhaps these are smaller examples of the situation with humanity as a whole. In this case, the superior group would be the aristocracy (in general, with numbers and title systems varying with each country. This is assuming we are talking about real, power- holding aristocracy, not the dilapidated version we generally see today. I'd love to talk about the decline of the aristocracy in recent years, but that's a different subject). The inferior group would be everyone else, or the commons. Among the commons, the main status indicator would be race. There are other status indicators among commons, such as wealth, or occupation, that the aristocracy usually scoffs at. (Wealth can also be important to the aristocracy).

Have you ever considered that all commons, regardless of race or status (to other commons), are deemed inferior by the aristocracy, much as you view lighter and darker Negroes as equally inferior?

If this is true, then this division among the commons must be detrimental to them. The commons are clearly not a unified force, and their strengths lie only in numbers, as centuries of failed peasant revolts and 'workers' riots' have proven. In the rare occasion that commons have usurped power (such as the French Revolution), the result has been mass chaos, followed by a return of aristocratic/ monarchistic rule.

I personally think aristocrats (power- holding aristocrats, that is) are that way for a reason. Their families have centuries of rule behind them, so they will have more duty to uphold, therefore making better rulers. They are also educated from the start to rule (obviously, more well- trained that your average politician). Of course, a 'black sheep' will pop up from time to time (particularly in the older ruling houses). This can easily be solved by control being ceded to more intelligent ministers (aristocrats themselves), especially in the case of a national leader.

It is my hope that the commons never discover this idea (assuming it has even the smallest bit of truth to it), and thus fail to ever establish a unified group. (Commoners control most nations today, but they have as of yet failed to completely overthrow the aristocracy. They have, however, weakened it. On the other hand, overthrowing the romantic notion of aristocracy from the minds of the people is an almost impossible task for the commons).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Well, I hope you like my idea, and if there are any errors, keep in mind that it was written in a very quick, slapdash manner at about 4:00 in the morning...

[Jack]

There is often a "pecking order" among racial/ ethnic groups that are generally viewed as inferior. For instance, Negroes are of the belief that the lighter- skinned members of their own race are superior to the darker ones, and likewise, Argentines and Venezuelans see themselves as superior to other Latins. (As in, 'They're better than me, but at least I'm better than you!')

Perhaps these are smaller examples of the situation with humanity as a whole. In this case, the superior group would be the aristocracy (in general, with numbers and title systems varying with each country. This is assuming we are talking about real, power- holding aristocracy, not the dilapidated version we generally see today. I'd love to talk about the decline of the aristocracy in recent years, but that's a different subject). The inferior group would be everyone else, or the commons. Among the commons, the main status indicator would be race. There are other status indicators among commons, such as wealth, or occupation, that the aristocracy usually scoffs at. (Wealth can also be important to the aristocracy).

Have you ever considered that all commons, regardless of race or status (to other commons), are deemed inferior by the aristocracy, much as you view lighter and darker Negroes as equally inferior?

If this is true, then this division among the commons must be detrimental to them. The commons are clearly not a unified force, and their strengths lie only in numbers, as centuries of failed peasant revolts and 'workers' riots' have proven. In the rare occasion that commons have usurped power (such as the French Revolution), the result has been mass chaos, followed by a return of aristocratic/ monarchistic rule.

I personally think aristocrats (power- holding aristocrats, that is) are that way for a reason. Their families have centuries of rule behind them, so they will have more duty to uphold, therefore making better rulers. They are also educated from the start to rule (obviously, more well- trained that your average politician). Of course, a 'black sheep' will pop up from time to time (particularly in the older ruling houses). This can easily be solved by control being ceded to more intelligent ministers (aristocrats themselves), especially in the case of a national leader.

It is my hope that the commons never discover this idea (assuming it has even the smallest bit of truth to it), and thus fail to ever establish a unified group. (Commoners control most nations today, but they have as of yet failed to completely overthrow the aristocracy. They have, however, weakened it. On the other hand, overthrowing the romantic notion of aristocracy from the minds of the people is an almost impossible task for the commons).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Well, I hope you like my idea, and if there are any errors, keep in mind that it was written in a very quick, slapdash manner at about 4:00 in the morning...

Nice - except outside of a handful of European countries, there is no aristocracy That's a small problem with your idea, but I agree with parts of it.

I think what you're trying to get across is illustrated brilliantly by the movie called 'Gangs of New York' (I have it on DVD - it's great) which shows the struggles of Irish immigrant gangs against native American (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) gangs.

I think it might be worth pointing out that native Americans (Anglo-Saxon Americans) in the 1800's viewed the Irish on par with blacks, as Stribog has pointed out (the recent movie 'Gangs of New York' highlights this pretty well) and Hitler's early views of the Slavs puts them on par with blacks.

I think there's two sides of racism, (excuse me for borrowing Marxist terms but the reasons for doing so should become apparent) proletarian racism and bourgeois racism. Proletarian racism is what those on the bottom levels of the social hierarchy (e.g. Irish and German immigrants in the 1960's New York) feel towards other races on the same level or perhaps against those of another race who reign above them (blacks against whites). Proletarian racism is hate in the proper sense - no respect given and an inner drive to annihilate one's enemy.

Bourgeois racism is effectively systematic discrimination against racial foreigners with a feeling of moral superiority accompanying. In Gangs of New York the best example of this is Bill the Butcher, the leader of the strongest native gang, who said "On the seventh day, the Lord squatted over England, and what came out of him was Ireland" (by the way, I'm over three quarters Irish so don't assume I agree with him - I just think he's a good illustration of 'bourgeois racism').

In contrast to both of these types of racism, which I think are unhealthy, I put foward racialism as an alternative. Racialism is racism in which respect for one's enemy is a factor. An enemy may be aesthetically appealing, economically useful, morally impeccable - but if his cause crosses with mine, he is my enemy. Hate has nothing to do with it, nor does despise, only a line which seperates friend from enemy. The relationship between Priest Vallon and Bill the Butcher (Priest Vallon was the early leader of the Dead Rabbits, the Irish gang) is an example I'd put foward of racialism. Whether a racial enemy is worth the attitude of proletarian racism, bourgeois racism or racialism will have to be determined by the judgement of the individual - not all enemies are of equal worth.

[Ederico]

Very interesting thoughts put forward. I have ambiguous feelings regarding this "Aristocracy for the Common" being compared to Racism as I do not see Racism to be only in a Negative Way Aristocratic in the sense that there are feelings of superiority by a Race towards another one with subsequent discrimination to arise from this feeling which could be well grounded in reality as well mind you.

I agree with Jack's statements in this thread regarding Racialism and what he terms "Proletarian Racism" (quite a low form of envy and primitive hate) and "Bourgeois Racism" (this leads forward to Racialism in my opinion and is probably the Racism I feel even though I am from a Working Class Family).

Racialism is the way forward. This involves the categorisation between Racial In-Group and Racial Out-Group, subsequent policies to preserve the In-Group and stengthen it, and the exclusion of the Out-Group from the Racialist Society by acceptable means forward. Racialist Society must like every Ordered Society be Hierarchical according to a Meritocratic System and this is where the concept of Aristocracy could be held into account.

[Awar]

Jack is totally right about the unhealthy effect proletarian and burgeois racism have.

[Abby Normal]

Nice - except outside of a handful of European countries, there is no aristocracy That's a small problem with your idea, but I agree with parts of it.

So the aristocracy is from these European countries, and the rest of the world is common.

Seriously, though, there is no aristocracy in many countries, but, in America for instance, there is a "plutocracy" made up of the extremely wealthy. They're very similar in many ways, with one exception: (I heard this quote somewhere: ) "The brilliant thing about the American atistorcacy is that they have managed to convince everyone else that they don't exist."

I think what you're trying to get across is illustrated brilliantly by the movie called 'Gangs of New York' (I have it on DVD - it's great) which shows the struggles of Irish immigrant gangs against native American (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) gangs.

I think it might be worth pointing out that native Americans (Anglo-Saxon Americans) in the 1800's viewed the Irish on par with blacks, as Stribog has pointed out (the recent movie 'Gangs of New York' highlights this pretty well) and Hitler's early views of the Slavs puts them on par with blacks.

I think there's two sides of racism, (excuse me for borrowing Marxist terms but the reasons for doing so should become apparent) proletarian racism and bourgeois racism. Proletarian racism is what those on the bottom levels of the social hierarchy (e.g. Irish and German immigrants in the 1960's New York) feel towards other races on the same level or perhaps against those of another race who reign above them (blacks against whites). Proletarian racism is hate in the proper sense - no respect given and an inner drive to annihilate one's enemy.

Bourgeois racism is effectively systematic discrimination against racial foreigners with a feeling of moral superiority accompanying. In Gangs of New York the best example of this is Bill the Butcher, the leader of the strongest native gang, who said "On the seventh day, the Lord squatted over England, and what came out of him was Ireland" (by the way, I'm over three quarters Irish so don't assume I agree with him - I just think he's a good illustration of 'bourgeois racism').

In contrast to both of these types of racism, which I think are unhealthy, I put foward racialism as an alternative. Racialism is racism in which respect for one's enemy is a factor. An enemy may be aesthetically appealing, economically useful, morally impeccable - but if his cause crosses with mine, he is my enemy. Hate has nothing to do with it, nor does despise, only a line which seperates friend from enemy. The relationship between Priest Vallon and Bill the Butcher (Priest Vallon was the early leader of the Dead Rabbits, the Irish gang) is an example I'd put foward of racialism. Whether a racial enemy is worth the attitude of proletarian racism, bourgeois racism or racialism will have to be determined by the judgement of the individual - not all enemies are of equal worth.

I agree!

In America, racism is used synonymously with "hatred," because the two terms have been used in context with each other for so long. Americans only view racism in terms of "proletarian racism," (which they feel contempt for; they are also contemptuous of aristocracy as well.)

If I feel any racism at all, it is of the more sophisticated, bourgeois kind (though I am of aristocratic origin, so technically I should not feel any racism at all- just classism. )