ly what happened. “Apartheid” endednthe day Nelson Mandela and his CommunistnPart)’-dominated African NationalnCongress came to power, and not anmoment before.n”Racism,” concisely redefined, isnmerely opposition to nonwhite power ornto any measure that promises such powernor support for any measure or institutionnthat thwarts such power. The rationalenbehind the new meaning of the word isnthe claim that in American, Western, ornwhite societies, nonwhites are—by definihon—subordinatengroups, and the dominantnsociet)’ is therefore (also by definition)n”white supremacist.” It is notnnecessarily white supremacist because ofnthe formal legal and political structuren(as in South Africa under apartheid or thensegregated South), any more than it isn”racist” because of the parhcular ideologicalnrationalization of the domination.n”Racism” in this sense is no longer confinednto those who adhere to hereditariannviews of intelligence and behavior. Thatnis one form of the new racism, but by nonmeans the only one. hi the ideologicalnWeltanschauung from which the newnmeaning is derived, scientific theoriesnand empirical studies that depict nonwhitesnas being in some respects inferiornto whites are merely one means by whichnwhite dominance is rationalized, but religious,nmoral, social, historical, and othernnonscientific rationales are also availablenand tend to be favored by the white rulingnclass over the rationale of biologicaln”racism.” The liberal-neoconservativenideal of a “color-blind society” is alsonracist, because it is used to reject measuresnlike affirmative action that empowernnonwhites. By the same reasoning,nnonwhites themselves can also ben”racists” —Clarence Thomas springs tonmind — as the white ruling class conscriptsnand rewards nonwhites willing tonoffer jusfifications for their dominahon.nMoreover, opposition to “hate crime”nlegislation, “sensitivity” training, immigration,nany “civil rights” measure, law,nor policy, or to anything else the nonwhitenagenda demands is also racist, regardlessnof the reasons offered. You cannargue against affirmaHve achon becausenit’s inherenth’ unjust to everyone or supportnthe Confederate flag because notnmany white Confederates owned slavesnor be against reparations because they arenbad for blacks or oppose immigration becausenit increases population growth ornfor whatever other reasons you can concoct,nbut it doesn’t matter. You are still an34/CHRONICLESn”racist” and a supporter of “white supremacy”nbecause what you want to do ornstop doing thwarts nonwhite power.nThe new meaning of “racism” is not anverbal trick or a political charade. It derivesnlogically from the worldview that regardsnthe dominant societ)’ as repressivenand exploitative of nonwhites for the benefitnof whites, and, granted its premises, itnmakes at least as much sense as the oldernand more conventional meaning of thenword. Indeed, the new meaning becomesnincreasingly obvious as we seenhow the term is actually used and deployednagainst political figures like Mr.nAshcroft, President Bush, or JusticenThomas.nStill, the new meaning is not as obviousnas it should be, for the simple reasonnthat “conservatives” — I use the term in itsnbroadest possible meaning, to includenMr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft and Mr.nHorowitz—still don’t get it. They don’tnget it because their tactics in fighting thenracially tinged measures they opposenseem always to presuppose the old definitionnof the word and therefore to aim atnall costs at not being tarred with then”racist” label. Let’s get a black nomineenor spokesman; then they can’t possiblynaccuse us of being racists. Lef s not usenhereditarian arguments but just talknabout the “culture”; then they can’t possiblynaccuse us of being racists. Let’s notnsay reparations or affirmative action ornimmigration or sanctions on SouthnAfrica are bad for whites or for whitenWestern societies and civilization, butnsay instead they’re bad for blacks, for immigrants,nfor nonwhites; then they can’tnpossibly accuse us of being racists.nThe problem, of course, is that they donalways accuse you of being racists, despitenyour pathological phobia of beingnso called and the bizarre lengths to whichnyou are willing to go, distorting and weakeningnyour own case, to avoid and denyndie accusation. They accuse you of beingnracists precisely because, no matternwhat you say or how you say it, you are, b)’nthe new meaning of the term, exactlynthat. You may oppose the nonwhite politicalnagenda for precisely the reasonsnyou offer —because it really is, by yournvalues, bad for blacks or immigrants ornthe environment or simply unjust—butnthe reasons don’t matter, and no one onnthe other side of the racial power strugglengives a hoot about tiiem. What they dongive a hoot about is the triumph of theirnagenda and the power it will yield, andnanyone who is not on board with thatnnnagenda, for whatever reasons they offer, isna “racisf’ and an apologist for “white supremacy.”nFailure to recognize the new meaningnof “racism” therefore constitutes a seriousnvulnerabilih’ on the part of those who opposenthe nonwhite agenda, because bynplanning their strateg)’ as though the conventionalnmeaning of “racism” still applied,nthey do nothing to avoid thencharge of “racism” in its new meaningnand waste an immense amount of theirntime and energies trying to avoid beingnidentified as “racists” in any sense. Theirnenemies can then avoid any serious debatenabout the issues on their agenda andnspend all their time lobbing accusationsnand making the opponents of the agendanjump through hoops —which is exactlynwhat Mr. Ashcroft did and what Mr.nBush has been doing ever since he wasnelected. But the new, political meaningnof “racism” is so broad that it effectivelynstrips die word of the old pejorative associationsnthat serious political figures understandablynwish to avoid. Under thennew meaning, the term has no more pejorativenconnotation than “conser’ative”nor “liberal”; indeed, it is more or lessnidentical with the former term, andnmuch of the purpose of the new meaningnis precisely to demonize and delegitimizenconservatism of any kind. Nevertheless,nthe word only retains any negative implicationsnbecause of its linkages to the oldnmeaning—which is why it survives at allnin the national political lexicon — not becausenof the actual content of the newnone.nConservatives who seriously opposenthe nonwhite political agenda (as seriousnconservatives will and should) can thereforenexpect to be called “racists,” andnwhile it is not useful to court the label,nthe new meaning it has acquired removesnany compelling reason to avoid it,nand certainly any reason to obsess over it.nAs the revolutionary and totalitarian characternof the antiwhite racial-politicalnagenda becomes more and more obvious,nthose who push that agenda will discovernthat the “racists” who oppose themnare more and more numerous, until whatnthey falsely call “racism” —so far fromnbeing “extremist” or a “fringe” movement—nhas evolved into the political andncidtural mainstream, and conservativesnof every stripe will say, “We are all ‘racists’nnow.”