The idea that inherent genetic differences between racial populations is the best explanation for the difference in economic and academic success between the races is considered hate speech. The only acceptable explanation, which has failed to withstand falsification numerous times, is that whites are to blame for the underperformance of other races, whether due to some specific actions we have taken, or, as more recent versions of the hypothesis propose, due to our very existence. Apparently this is not hate speech, since hatred is being incited towards white people. You are told it incites hatred between the races, but the truth is, it would defuse them, blacks would hate whites less for their lack of achievement, and whites would hate themselves less for their superior levels of accomplishment. It also explains why whites commit so few crimes compared to blacks, as intelligence levels and likelihood of criminality are very well correlated. This is the real reason it is banned, not because it produces racial hatred, but because it reduces it. It causes people to have less reason to hate whites for their race, and thus it is hidden away, under the excuse that it is hateful. Tell me, if you accept that people with down syndrome are less intelligent than people without it, does that mean you hate people with down syndrome? Tell me, if you think dogs are less intelligent than humans, does that mean you hate dogs? The whole idea that accepting the cognitive limitations of others produces hatred towards them is completely absurd, and the only way people could accept such a ridiculous premise is if they have some alternative reason to ignore the flaws in this assumption. such as an almost religious belief that white people are an evil to be exterminated, a central dogma that needs justifications in order to rationalize itself as not being the product of indoctrination, but of reason. Like you see in any cult, they will shut down their critical faculties to swallow lies and absurdities in order to tell themselves that the ideology they had been programmed with, was actually something they believed in for good reasons. An accurate description of our society's whole prevailing culture is that it centers around a intense religious hatred of white people. it's a religion without a God, but with a very clear Devil. White people are psychologically manipulated from birth to welcome the annihilation of their own kind, and they are fed a steady diet of ignorance, lies, deception, and misinformation in order to produce this hate in them. Then you are programmed to deny that they are the products of an ideology of hate, by telling yourself that they are the followers of a religion of love, to discriminate against whites, and then lie to yourself that you love everyone equally. The whole narrative is based on a deliberate (over) half-century long campaign of ignorance, half-truths, and lies, specifically designed to make you hate white people. it's worse for us, because we are denied the one thing all other races have, the freedom to openly acknowledge that we are being attacked for our race, even in the lowest depths of a race experiencing persecution, they had that one freedom, to recognize that they were victims, to be forced to call yourself a perpetrator, and know that you are a victim, it is a torment so great that I simply cannot describe the anguish that results from it. It's also worse for us in that for every crime the ancestors of white people have been attacked for, not only had they suffered the exact same kind of oppression from other races, and other races had been outclassing whites in it in every way. Black Slavery in America was nothing compared to what the white slaves experienced in Africa and the middle east, where they were kidnapped from their homes on coastal Europe, brought south, males castrated, women were sex slaves, and the treatment they experienced was worse than anything a black had ever experienced in America, the Barbary slave trade began before the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and ended afterwards. White people's occupation of Africa or Oceania was nothing compared to the Ottoman occupation of Southern Europe, where whites were being actively slaughtered for over 400 years until the first crusade began. In that time, they had suffered multiple forms of genocide, lived as non-persons under arab rule, even if they converted, a large quantity of them were kept as slaves in their own homelands by a foreign power. The colonial period was nothing by comparison, the treatment was better, and in the case of Africa, the occupation was far shorter, and in Australia, the occupation was mainly whites settling down in colonies on lands the Aboriginals had not settled in, then being attacked by them, then fighting back when they were attacked, when talking about the horrors of that period, people tend to leave out how in most cases, it was the dark-skinned people who were the initial aggressors. Whites are shamed for the colonization of America and the mistreatment of the natives, the first rebuttal was the same as in Australia, that the whites were not the aggressors, and merely responding in self-defense to attacks made on them by natives after they had built successful colonies in areas that the natives where not settled in, also areas which had been fought over by natives for pretty much all the history of the region before the white man came. But the new rebuttal is that which originates from "new" (censored) discoveries made in archeology. whites were the first people to live in the Americas, there were people to came from Europe and had settled there, and were in the Americas for thousands of years before the first ancestor of the amerindians arrived from Siberia, then the European-originated people were killed off by the amerindians. So when the white man came on ships to the coasts of America, and started taking land there, they were not stealing it from the indians, the indians had stolen it from them, what the pilgrims and conquistadors were doing, was taking the land that was stolen from them, back from the thieves. Same applies to the crusades, while the first crusades were a justified response to Muslim occupation and the atrocities performed on Europeans by them, the campaigns that followed, to reclaim the holy land, were said to be unjust, because if you hate white people, any time a white person harms one of another race, it's unjustified, no matter the reasons why. The genetic information we have had leaked out from mummies tested in labs reveals confirmation of what was long suspected, but never said, in Egyptian archeology. The indigenous Egyptian population was White people, more closely related to Western Europeans than to modern day inhabitants of the North African region. Blacks were the orchestrators of the most successful campaign of genocide n human history, because they went from a small tribe on the coast of West Africa, to the kind of people you think of when you think of Native African People, they did this by killing, raping, enslaving, and even eating other African peoples across the continent, displacing them from their homelands, and generally doing the whole "kill anyone who looks different from you" thing in such a manner that white people had never even attempted. They did look different, Africa is huge, with various environments and a lot of geographic solation, thus the people of the continent all formed into different groups that all had physical traits that would easily allow anyone to distinguish them from each other, these would be races, if they weren't arbitrarily considered to be ethnicities, the black people we know best came from zulu-bantu ancestry, which now dominated the continent, and they dominated the continent by killing off people who looked different from them, worse, these genocidal maniacs openly thought that the other African peoples weren't worth considering as even being human. They zulu-bantu were the most successful genociders because they straight up exterminated multiple physically-distinct groups of people, having succeeded in wiping multiple target races out, not even the worst stories of Hitler and his Nazis could compare, because in each tale, they failed to exterminate even a single ethnic group. As for how we know of the races that the Bantu wiped out, we only got to know of them recently, through the remnants of the ancestral DNA found in modern Africans. for most of these groups that got exterminated, we don't know what they looked like, though they would have looked different to their killers, we don't know what culture they would have had, we don't even know what they called themselves, we only know them as some alphanumeric designation of their genetic population. The blacks of Africa have no right to complain about the Trans-Atlantic clave trade, after all, they were a part of it, the instigators of it, in fact, they were the ones who captured the slaves and made them slaves from free men in the first place, and they were the ones who sold them to the jews who ran the slave ships. Your history books are carefully edited to excise all mention of the crimes committed by the ancestors of other races towards people of other racial groups, because if they were included, then whites would look morally superior by comparison. What you call "racism" has so many meanings that most people have to guess what you mean when you use the word. it can means so many things about someone, and could also mean the exact opposite about the same person, and it could mean that the person has yet another trait that sits between the two extremes. Racists can hate other races, or they can be against hate for other races. Racists can be violent or against violence. Racists can believe in racial superiority, or they can oppose the idea. Racists can want to force racial separation, or not want to merely allow individuals to choose their own associations, and establish them on a voluntary basis. Racists can even be anti-racists who aren't sufficiently anti-racist, or be an egalitarian or meritocrat. Racists can be so accidentally or intentionally. Looking at someone can be racist, farting can be racist, sleeping can be racist, merely being in the presence of someone else can be racist, you can also be racist if someone simply accuses you of it, or assumes that you are for no reason at all, except that you are white. Racists can be pretty much anyone who is white, and it is for any reason a white person can be called a racist, "racism" is a meaningless word that describes such a ridiculously broad range of positions, that in most cases where it is used, the majority of listeners can only guess as to what someone means by "racist" or "racism", and they often guess the worst form they can think of. The one unifying factor is that racists are white, and that anti-racism is hating white people. "racism" is just the act of existing while being white, for half a century, our race has been our crime, and "racist" is just a word for stirring up hate towards a particular white person or group of white people. So why should whites strive to be anything else but a racist? it's a hopeless cause, as even "allies" are racists who must be purged. The real ask is this, where is the benefit in not being racist? What possible upsides can whites get in exchange for becoming "allies"? i see none, the relationship between whites and other races is not downright abusive, it resembles a marriage between a wife and a wife-beater, where white people are abused and made to see themselves as the ones at fault. We are abused in every way by everyone, and then we are slandered as the perpetrators, the ones at fault for the failings of others, when we are willing to do anything in order to help them succeed, we want other races to succeed, because then maybe the abuse will stop, other races don't want to succeed, because they can live off whites, and if they were successful, the abuse might stop. White Nationalism is the equivalent of asking for a divorce, the marriage is not working, and at least some white people are not willing to be abused anymore, most White Nationalists are presenting peaceful and voluntary options for the terms of the divorce, they are even willing to accept a deal that hurts them greatly and benefits non-whites just as greatly, if only they can get away from the abuse that is heaped upon them for their race. Some White Nationalists are getting to the point where compassion dries up and then they stop caring about the terms, they just want the split to happen. Your goal is that the abused spouse dies by the hands of their abuser, so you are pushing them to this point, because your goal is only the destruction of their race, you are a genocidal aspirant, the fact that you are of the same race that you wish to butcher is inconsequential.