Dr. Duke did not post this on his own website, so I will replicate the three defining posts he made on the Stormfront thread here. Here's the opening post, which is exactly as he originally wrote it, except I did some minor paragraph re-formatting to make the post more compact in appearance:
Stop Using Trotsky's Term Racist! Turn it Back on Our Enemy Where it Belongs!
[Ed. Note: Dr. Duke begins by citing a quote from someone else.]
Do comments like this by Dr. Duke help or hurt his cause?:
Tea party people are called racists because the vast majority wants to stop the massive non-European immigration that will turn America into a crumbling, Tower of Babel.
Does this type of rhetoric hurt Dr. Duke's cause? It is SO hard to say anything at all that does not get labeled as "racist". I have been called racist numerous times for merely saying that I believe in equal rights and I am against affirmative action. It seems to be a lose-lose situation but I was just wondering if comments like that one above are positive or negative. As always, Dr. Duke's videos are great!
I really believe that this is one of the most important things that I teach our fellow activists.
[Ed. Note: Now begins Dr. Duke's response.]
Language is not about etymology. It matters not what a word should mean, or what you want it to mean.
The word racist as defined by our media, academia and society as hating and oppressing other races. It is totally a NEGATIVE TERM. In fact Trotsky coined it, and even though it should etymologically mean race + ism (to believe in) (to believe in race) It does not mean that at all in the popular vernacular. Of course there are many other words like that in language. The point is that it in a real sense "racist" has a connotation of anti-race, denoting suppression of race, or people -- rather than a positive connotation of believing in race or the rights of race to survive to live to preserver its heritage. Notice how racism is always portrayed as Whites suppressing non-white freedoms, liberties, committing genocide against them etc.
We live in a world that unless you understand the psychology of persuasion you will NOT persuade!
If racism is a negative term, then turn it on its head and use the term accurately to show that it is the Jewish extremists who are the ultimate racists, denying us our liberty, our freedom, our heritage, and even our very existence. Point out how the establishment in a true sense represents racial HATRED, hatred against our heritage, our people.
Yes, it is the Media with their anti-White hate flicks that are the real racists. It is the Jewish flicks portraying Whites as evil anti-Semites, even born that way, (a modern blood-libel) who are the real racists. Unlike the Jews, we support White heritage and nationalism, but we also support Black nationalism! We really believe in the right for all people to preserve themselves and have their own society, their own schools, their own culture. That is the opposite of racism or "suppression of a race"!
The truth is that far from being racists, we are race affirmers, in that we embrace the idea that all people have the right to have their own societies. The Jewish extremist are the race-genociders, the race destroyers, the race suppressors (for every people but their own).
So divorce yourself of the Jewish terminology of racist to describe yourself.
Jared Taylor was asked the other day if he was a racist. He answered no, that he was a race realist. Good answer. Don't let them define you, use words that better express what you believe than the common definitions decreed by the establishment media.
Race ecologist is a good term, racial idealist is a good term, or simply White activist is great, or White civil rights activist. Who can say a convincing word (expect expletives) against that principle. We are exactly that, we believe in real civil rights, and that our civil rights as a people and a nation are being attacked and wiped away!
When the media is ours someday we can use words or make them mean whatever is our popular vernacular, but in the meantime it is totally counterproductive to use words to describe ourselves that are defined not in a positive way, that don't define us accurately and positively.
One last comment. I used to say when asked if I was a racist, "Well depends on how you define it, if you define it as person who hates others and wants to suppress them, no, but if you define it as someone who loves his heritage and wants to preserve it then yes". Truthfully, that is not the best answer. I know the best answer today.
Are you a racist?
No, I believe in the human rights of all people. The real racists are those who are trying deny my people their most basic human and civil rights. Even our right to survive and preserve our own heritage and freedom!
Notice that this answer does not compromise one iota of our basic principle but shows us as for human rights than opponents of such. Just about everyone is for human rights. And truth is so are we, we just demand that they apply to our people as much as Tibetans or Amazon Indians or whatever! That's power. Practically unanswerable power, with none of the subtle negative associations that are created when you say I am a racist or defend "racism."
I really hope that you all get this!
40 years of reading and research, 40 years of debate and studying rhetoric have taught me these fundamentals, and it is vital I share it with all our people, many who are fairly new to Movement.
Just using the word "racist" brings all sorts of emotional associations imbued by the media of black kids getting bombed in Birmingham or White people screaming obscenities at 7 year old black children brought to a white school, (that's simply the fact right or wrong)
By the way, understand that people are not just persuaded by reason, they are persuaded by associations, social approval and all sorts of other things that often supersede reason. So study psychology. The Jewish extremist enemy has. They are experts at it. (by the way notice how I almost always put adjectives before nouns dealing with "Jews." Notice how they do it with us constantly. "White supremacist" is like the first part of any of our spokesman's names. Now you see the rhyme and reason to my book title "Jewish Supremacism".
I recommend a book for all White activists called "Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini (read a recent summary of the book HERE). Read it and study it. Our people need not just to know the facts but how to present them in the most persuasive way, not the most UNPERSUASIVE WAY. Unfortunately because practically all of us have been raised in the Jewish media, even our reactions to their sickness is a Jewish born reaction.
How many Whites have grown up watching media that tells them that if there is a Black problem, the way to respond is to sneak up in the middle of the night and light a cross on their lawn. How many have been locked up for such nonsense and how much evil images of us have these kinds of actions given the media enemy?
This is my psychology 101 lesson. I teach history, but I practice psychology on behalf of our people!
You don't have to compromise any of our core beliefs. Just learn what works, and I am not trying to boast at all. But I think I have as good as an idea of that as anybody. How else would have gotten over 60 percent of the White vote in Louisiana with the entire media dumping invective on me every day and being outspent 100 to 1 in campaign advertising.
Study current events, study our position but also study books like Influence by Cialdini and learn how to BE Persuasive in addition to being RIGHT!
Here's a follow-up post from Dr. Duke, in which he focuses upon the existing perceived definition of the term "racist":
The truth is that racist (because of the media) has become a very powerful word. People run and hide from it, just the accusation is enough for many to become a mass of quivering jelly. That's because the word has power to it, no matter how you may like the fact or not.
Like judo in using the strength of your opponent against you, throw the word right back at our enemies with the proof that they are real racists as they define the term. They are the haters, the oppressors, the murderers, and indeed they ARE.
so I say, USE IT, USE This word TO BASH THE ENEMY IN THEIR SOLAR PLEXUS!
By definition a White man who wants to separate and can't be a racist (oppressor) because he wants his own society where there are no non-Whites to oppress! Those who push non-WHITE immigration are the real racist haters because they are consciously trying to destroy the White RACE.
How much more clear can you get.
The affirmative Action folks are RACIST because they want to discriminate against better qualified White people. Those who cover up Black crimes against millions of Whites are racists who are supporting genocide, murder, rape and other crimes of humanity against White people.
Are you getting it?
Use the power that the Jewish media has put into this word to attack our enemies with full force and fury. That's how you go on the attack.
When you say, "I am a racist," to countless millions you are saying that by their interpretation of the term that you are just a bigoted, hateful person trying to put Blacks in chains and under White feet.
When you say, "No, you are the racist because you are denying the human and civil rights of me people", you have just flipped the 300 pound gorilla on his back!
Best to all.
As I said, read the Cialdini Book, we need to learn the art and science of persuasion! It is not just enough to be right; you must appear right!
The Jewish extremists are masters at being wrong,but dressing it up to appear right (just, decent, kind, fair, loving, etc.) while they are biggest, most degenerate, evil criminals on the face of the earth.
WE have to use both our brawn and our brain. Not only be courageous but clever!
In response, longtime White activist Ron Doggett stated that he won't even allow interlocutors to use the word "racist", telling them if they want to ask the question "I'm I concerned about the White race" or "Do I hate other races" then they can ask that. Dr. Duke follows up with this post in which he explains that while he considers Doggett's tactic a good one, he (Dr. Duke) employs a different approach:
That is one tactic, a good one. But my suggestion as I talk about in the post below is a bit different.
When you start with the "how do you define it, "or saying the term has no meaning" the psychological impression is that you are trying to cover up your "racism". No matter if the term is applied too broadly people have heard the term so many thousands of times they think it does exist, that there are "racists" out there. So I suggest go on the attack. THEY are the RACISTS!
One advantage is that people do know the term can be applied unfairly, so you do the judo and throw it back on them throwing in the facts to prove your point. "No the racists are the ones in media are discriminating against millions of White people with affirmative action." Who are destroying whole neighborhoods and schools! Who put out the hate propaganda against White people constantly in the media while covering up anti-White racism and crimes against us!
That has so much more power than my old way of handling it by saying, "Well it depends on how you define it" or "I refuse to deal with a term that has no meaning." Well, to tens of millions it has meaning.
What you are doing is going on the attack, righteously, powerfully, eloquently.
Analysis: Dr. Duke has logically and eloquently explained why he does not accept the designation of "racist". He believes that the term has become so corrupted and skewed that it is a waste of time to attempt to re-define it, and so he suggests it's more productive and constructive to deflect the term back upon the heads of our adversaries in classical judo fashion.
Dr. Duke is correct when he suggests that to accept the designation of "racist" is to allow our adversaries to define us. However, by rejecting the designation of "racist", I am concerned that we are also allowing our adversaries to continue to be the sole definitors of the term. This is something I believe is worthy of challenge; the original etymology shows that "racism" should simply mean "race-consciousness" or "race-awareness".
By all means, our first tactic should be to deflect the term back upon the heads of our adversaries. But the job will remain incomplete unless we eventually succeed in re-defining and de-stigmatizing the word itself. One must judge an audience or a situation to determine whether it may be appropriate to take that second step in a given situation; as Dr. Duke has illustrated in his own conduct, one should never get so far ahead of those one seeks to lead that the others lose sight of where one is headed.