It’s racist for white people to lodge complaints…

It ended with these words:

As such, members of the culturally dominant group must commit to engaging with resistant imaginings with a critical openness to the other and their testimony, and they must develop their capacities as listeners and a propensity to epistemically esteem the other in recognition of their alterity, if we are to prevent such injustices in the future.

If you don’t understand any of that, don’t worry. I don’t really either.

But let me attempt to unpack it for you anyway.

As far as I can tell, according to Louise Richardson-Self, a lecturer in philosophy and gender studies at the University of Tasmania, I am a racist because I lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding Linda Burney’s statement that opponents to 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act were ‘white men’.

One way of arriving at that conclusion was reading the abstract of her latest work, Offending White Men: Racial Vilification, Misrecognition and Epistemic Injustice:

In this article I analyse two complaints of white vilification, which are increasingly occurring in Australia. I argue that, though the complainants (and white people generally) are not harmed by such racialized speech, the complainants in fact harm Australians of colour through these utterances. These complaints can both cause and constitute at least two forms of epistemic injustice (willful hermeneutical ignorance, and comparative credibility excess). Further, I argue that the complaints are grounded in a dual misrecognition: the complainants misrecognize themselves in their own privileged racial specificity, and they misrecognize others in their own marginal racial specificity. Such misrecognition preserves the cultural imperialism of Australia’s dominant social imaginary—a means of oppression that perpetuates epistemic insensitivity.

The second and perhaps easiest way to get there was the fact that my name is mentioned 21 times in the 25 misery-filled pages of feminist woe that make up this little ‘study’.

Louise also made a few other comments that caught my eye.

For instance, in the very first sentences of her work she implied that the Racial Discrimination Act is flawed because it permits a person of any race to lodge a complaint. No doubt, that’s evidence of some kind of ‘imaginary’ yet all-too-real white privilege and, after all, she did go on to note that white people are lodging complaints because of the ‘ostensibly’ neutral language of the Act.

And she does have a point: what’s the bloody point of a Racial Discrimination Act if white people can complain?

Fortunately, the courts have interpreted the Act in such a way that labelling somebody a white so-and-so is not deemed to be racist because the majority of Australians are white.

That makes sense in a totally progressive way. It also explains, by the way, why the Australian Human Rights Commission did nothing with my complaint against Burney.

It is perfectly fine to claim that the only people who want to get rid of this Act are white but it is decidedly risky to make an assessment about the race of those who want to keep it.

And it’s also racist to ‘celebrate’ Australia Day, but it is hunky dory to get up on a stage on ‘Invasion Day’ and claim that white Australians are responsible for land theft, child stealing, state-sanctioned murder and that the nation as we know it should be burnt to the ground.

And the reason for this is simple: according to Louise, holding the view that all should be treated equally before the law is nothing more than white privilege and fails to understand that such concepts constitute ‘cultural imperialism’.

Louise even went out of her way to make this clear, stating:

Here I am assuming that the complainants genuinely believe that ‘white vilification’ and non-white vilification are qualitatively equivalent.

I’ll take her assumption away.

Racism against a white person is exactly the same as racism against any other person.

Louise obviously disagrees and, instead, yearns for a world where people are treated differently as a result of their skin colour.

There is a word for that worldview. Unfortunately, it has lost all meaning today because it’s been completely high-jacked by feminist loonies intent on cultural suicide…

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. White people should not be lodging complaints, they should be apologizing for White Privilege. White Males when apologizing for White Privilege should grovel obsequiously. We look to our Cultural Marxist mentors for these protocols.

    Post a Reply
  2. What was that saying about “Assuming/ Assumptions”?. They make an Ass of you and me! ?

    Post a Reply
  3. A consistency of logic is never the long suit of lefty academics and others like Louise Richardson-Self.
    A very large dose of hypocrisy and double standards is typical of her ilk, though.

    Post a Reply
    • It seems that the left, in ecclesiastical terms ‘of the devil’ but I shall let that one go through to the keeper, also cannot spell. Youre (sic) should be you’re but perhaps the apostrophe is in the minority and is subsumed by the prevailing privilege of those which can be described as the patriarchal imperialists “letters”.

      I may as well be hung as a sheep as a lamb. Louise is inter alia a lecturer in Gender Studies. Now, as far as I can discern, this is code for Women’s studies, but I may well be in error. I am given to understand that gender is fluid, so I struggle to see how she could argue for women’s rights if a woman can merely identify as a man if such person (genderless) so desired. Hence, Louise has a withering demand for her speciality.

      If we take the traditional view of men and women (ordered alphabetically and not as a taxonomy), women are in the majority. Hence, if her argument holds true, then she should be arguing for more rights for the minority, err men, rather than the majority, women.

      Post a Reply
  4. Perhaps you need to push back using their own style of argument…
    eg. “Conservative white males tend to have a broad, global perspective and rightly see themselves as a minority within the panoramic vista of humanity. In contrast, lecturers in philosophy and gender studies – restricted to the immediate confines of their cloistered little community – tend to develop a localized, distorted, myopic view and falsely project their own small horizons onto the whole world. They fail to appreciate the minority status of white males within the global community. As a consequence, their ‘writings’ have become a great source of mirth, and provide more than adequate compensation for the decline in recent decades of the parochial bumpkin ….etc…

    Post a Reply
    • Love it – you should write some more!

      Post a Reply
    • Delroy you have made a grand start, I shall return serve !

      Recent scientific sources (confirmed by CNN) have established the strong link between, “short haired be-speckled tattooed ugly lesbian academics and delusional Mantras promoting distorted and dystopic paradigms of reality”.

      However these Mantras give rise to hyperbole to such extent that when mixed with Socialist dogma, the view becomes entirely jaundiced & distorted to the point where no theoretical gyroscope can correct it. Hence leading the Feminist Academic from gross Hyperbole to a 360 degree loop then finally into a cognitive inverted spin of death.

      Post a Reply
    • Nice comment. Satire with humour is an art form. And on the main article: if Bernard continues to fearlessly deconstruct and expose this philosophical cultural Marxism, will we see emerging an Australian version of Jordan Peterson?

      Post a Reply
  5. Back in 2007 I was sacked from Veggco for asking about one of my co-workers, whose name I didn’t remember, using phrase “black fellow” (he was Kenyan). Overheard by Aboriginal worker, I was instantly dismissed. I took case to VICAT, claiming discrimination. They can call us “white fellow”, but we cannot call them “black fellow”. After 3 hearings, with lies flying left and right, judge decided that it was not case of discrimination, but unfair dismissal. At that point I quit, and didn’t follow it any further. To me it was clear case of racial discrimination, because I’m white. If somebody called me ” white fella”, I wouldn’t even think about it.

    Post a Reply
  6. These intellectuals need to be careful.. some people call it reverse racism but it’s just plain old racism and vilification of white people. Trying really hard to make whites 2nd class citizens and forcing us to accept less rights than others. If they continue to grind us into the ground who will pay taxes so these people can continue to make ridiculous studies and statements to justify their existence. I think I got my point across without using REALLY BIG WORDS so nobody really knows what I an saying !!

    Post a Reply
    • Her mode of speech makes Rudd sound almost normal.

      Post a Reply
  7. Does Louise Richardson-Selfnot realise that the very arguments she sets out also mean any opinion she has in defining racism is null and void because she is a priviliged white woman? She should immediately resign her position as Louise a lecturer in philosophy and gender studies at the University of Tasmania.

    Maybe she could get a real job?

    Post a Reply
    • So how MANy times has this wonderful specimen of huMANkind actually gone to war-torn areas to do more than just waffle about bs? Never, is my guess!
      As for her deciding what I can, and can’t say! ?

      Post a Reply


  1. News of the Week (May 13th, 2018) | The Political Hat - […] It’s racist for white people to lodge complaints… It ended with these words: As such, members of the culturally…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest