The Moral Case for Using the Word ‘Nigger’

2314 Words

Prior to the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska by a Black man on August 22nd, 2025, there was much talk about “black fatigue.” According to the Urban Dictionary, “black fatigue” refers to the “deep mental exhaustion from being forced to care about Black people and their actions 24/7”[1]—an understandable state of mind for Whites confronted by the appalling reality and universality of Black crime. Since Iryna’s murder however, that fatigue has turned to disgust and contempt. Given not only the atrocious murder itself, but also the anti-Whiteism of the killer who twice claimed he “got the white girl,” the indifference of the handful of Blacks who witnessed the crime on that Charlotte train (sort of like the Kitty Genovese story, but real), the brazen irresponsibility of the Black magistrate who released the killer back in January for a mere promise to meet his court date, and the sheer callousness of many American Blacks who reacted to the murder with little more than a shrug, how could it not?

According to National-Conservative, in 2023 and 2024 Blacks murdered 1,136 Whites in America, while Whites returned the favor only 200 times. Are Whites just not supposed to notice this?

The rampant criminality among Blacks is bad enough. What raises them to the level of an existential threat to the West  is how they coalesce into an identity group, which not only fiercely protects its interests but also seeks to strip power away from other groups (namely, Whites) that care to implement higher standards of law and order—standards which, let’s face it, a significant proportion of Blacks simply cannot abide. And 9 out of 10 non-criminal Blacks get sucked into this vortex. This is where the “slowly I began to hate them” moment begins. You may have a Black neighbor or colleague who’s perfectly nice, and they may even be honest enough to feel some Black fatigue themselves; but they stick with their identity group at the ballot box and they do precious little to police their own. Thus, they offer no real resistance to the forward march of Black power against Whites.

One way Blacks remain on the offensive in this power struggle is to establish uneven codes of speech. For instance, they can speak of a racial “us” and a racial “them,” while Whites cannot. They can use past injustices to justify present misbehavior, while Whites cannot. Also, they can use the word “nigger” and its variations, while Whites cannot.

This last stipulation crystalized for me a few months ago when I was seated at an outdoor table at an amusement park. Four or five young Blacks sat at the table adjacent, and very soon every other word out of their mouths was nigga this and nigga that. It was gratuitous and obnoxious. And because there were no other tables available, I had to listen to it, as did several other Whites seated nearby. It then occurred to me that these Black kids were being loud and proud with this supposedly hateful slur for no reason other than to flex their power. They wanted to rub our noses in the fact that they can say it and we could not. I believe it was the late great Z-Man who referred to this word as “the word of power,” and he was right.

So does this mean that Whites will begin to halt the odious political progress of Blacks when enough of them can utter this word with impunity? Perhaps. It’s gotten to the point in my personal life where I refuse to trust a White person unless he can either say the word “nigger” or tolerate someone who does. And that got me thinking—is there a moral argument for the appropriate use of the word “nigger?” This is, of course, assuming that there is no moral argument behind the indiscriminate use of a racial slur—except as a necessary evil. For example, calling half a million Indian H-1B workers “jeets” when a clear majority of them may well be honest, peaceful individuals is evil, but it’s a lesser evil than the H-1B Visa program itself which, through its use and abuse, is chipping away at the White majority and White political power in America. Thus the lesser evil is justified. The problem with this argument is that it can easily be adopted by anyone, including Blacks. Observe:

Sure, shanking random White girls in the neck on public transportation is evil, but it is the lesser evil to White supremacy, which oppresses Black people everywhere. So this Zarutska bitch is not worth crying over. And if you do cry over her, then you’re a White supremacist who wants to keep Blacks down and contribute to the greater evil.

This epitomizes how Blacks use the necessary evil argument to shrug their shoulders over poor Iryna Zarutska and the thousands upon thousands of other White victims of Black crime. So while I, as a White person, appreciate the necessary evil argument when it protects or advances my interests (which, as Ricardo Duchesne has shown, closely aligns with humanity’s), its inherent moral flexibility makes it difficult—although not impossible—to prove in a formal setting.

Instead of proving that indiscriminately using the word “nigger” is a necessary evil, I would rather attempt to prove that appropriately using the word is a positive good. In other words, it is immoral not to use or tolerate the word under appropriate circumstances. One could take the tack that using it in order to turn a double standard into a single standard is reason enough. So would using it to help diminish Black political power, which obviously has bad effects. Okay. But what about after this double standard or Black power has been crushed? Would saying “nigger” then no longer be a positive good? I am interested in whether saying “nigger” appropriately is always good, everywhere, regardless of double standards or power structures.

I believe it is.

Here are my axioms:

1. Sub-Saharan Africans have a unique genetic makeup in that 2 to 19 percent of their DNA comes as a result of interbreeding with primitive archaic hominid species hundreds of thousands of years ago.
2. The general lack of intelligence and impulse control among sub-Saharan Blacks springs from this interbreeding.
3. On a population level, such genetic defects are impossible to overcome through education, law enforcement, self-discipline, religion, or social engineering.
4. The word “nigger” is appropriately used only when describing particularly dangerous Blacks who lack enough intelligence and impulse control to become criminally violent.[2]
5. Violent crime is inherently evil.

I conclude from these axioms that appropriately using the term “nigger” is moral because it is one way to not tolerate and potentially diminish the inherent evil of Black violent crime. If one disagrees with any of these axioms, then the moral imperative behind “nigger” fails, but if one does agree with them, then it must succeed.

Springing from this, my argument is simple: Whites appropriately using the word shames non-criminal Blacks into better controlling their criminal element when it comes to interracial violence. “Nigger” is a nasty word. It is also cruel. When used appropriately it is never good.[3] It is an especially potent epithet because it applies a broad brush to describe behavior that if performed by people of other races would require a finer brush. For example, in 2007 a Korean student shot up Virginia Tech University and murdered 32 people. Using broad-brush language to describe the killer (e.g., calling him a chink or a gook) would be inappropriate since East Asians rarely commit violent crime, let alone shoot up universities. More appropriate would be to label the killer (and only the killer) a deranged psychopath, which is indeed what he was.

On the other hand, using a broad brush to describe Iryna Zarutska’s killer (i.e., calling him a nigger) would be appropriate because the killer’s behavior is typical among Blacks due to their genetics—even though a majority of Blacks are neither criminal nor violent. Because the word itself denotes race, calling him a nigger is effectively calling all Blacks niggers, something that non-criminal Blacks are not going to appreciate. When this happens with enough frequency and nonchalance among Whites, non-criminal Blacks will give up trying to force Whites not to use the word and instead will try to force their own criminal subpopulation to commit fewer violent crimes, thus reducing the evil we established in the final axiom above. For example, if Teresa Stokes, the Black magistrate who set Iryna’s killer free, had any fear at all of a whole nation of Whites shaming her as a nigger, she would have played it safe and kept Iryna’s killer behind bars. But because she had no fear of such a broad-brush treatment (since Whites today lack the nerve to apply it), she let him go, thus perpetuating the evil of Black violent crime.

Another recent example is Raja Jackson, whose horrendous story fell from the news cycle after video of the Zarutska murder was released, and has remained sidelined thanks in no small part to the tragic Charlie Kirk assassination. Raja, the son of retired MMA fighter Quentin “Rampage” Jackson, was taking part in a scripted wrestling event in Los Angeles on August 23rd in which he body slammed wrestler Stuart Smith (AKA Syko Stu) into the canvas and then punched the unconscious Smith nearly twenty times in the head before having to be pried off of him by other wrestlers. Jackson is an MMA fighter like his father, and so knows how to attack a downed opponent with his fists. As a result, Smith was hospitalized for a concussion, a fractured maxilla bone, the loss of several teeth, and trauma to both jaws. The video is horrific. This was clearly attempted murder—all to avenge a perceived slight before the event in which Smith harmlessly smashed a beer can on Jackson’s head in an attempt to sell the show. (He later apologized to Jackson for it.) For some reason it took law enforcement in California nearly a month to arrest Jackson for felony assault.

White people calling Raja Jackson a nigger for his actions would be appropriate not because it would make Jackson less inherently violent (nothing can do that), but because it would make Jackson’s less-violent father less indulgent of his son’s violence. After the assault, Rampage Jackson predictably condemned Raja’s actions and offered prayers and platitudes for the victim. He also stated that his son should do “a little time” and then attend anger management therapy. But when asked about it directly, Rampage denied it was attempted murder. How did he know? Because Raja is his son, that’s how. Perhaps Rampage also wished to downplay his own possible culpability in the crime since he rage-baited his son moments before the attack.

I argue that millions of angry White people publicly calling Raja Jackson a nigger would effectively be calling his father and other Blacks niggers too. This would prompt them to use whatever influence they have to throw the book at Raja to avoid the opprobrium themselves. The result would be taking a violent thug off the streets for a long time and sparing future victims of violence. In other words, widespread appropriate use of the word “nigger” will force a fundamental attitude shift among at least some non-criminal Blacks towards the good. It will reduce the evil of Black-on-White violent crime, and is therefore moral.

Of course, this is not a perfect solution and won’t necessarily have a dramatic impact. There are better and more direct solutions to Black-on-White crime, such as police racial profiling, segregation, apartheid, or (most preferably) complete separation. But these solutions require greater effort and come at greater risk. Normalizing the word “nigger” among Whites requires less effort and entails less risk, so of course it will have less impact. But an impact it will still have, and likely will be the starting point for the more consequential solutions listed above. Most importantly, however, I am not arguing the efficacy of the appropriate use of the term “nigger” but rather its morality. Using it appropriately is moral. The small extent to which it will reduce the evil of Black-on-White crime makes it so.

*   *   *

[1] “Black fatigue” has a double meaning, and originally stems from the title of a 2020 book called Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit by Mary-Frances Winters. According to a separate entry at the Urban Dictionary, “Black fatigue” originally referred to how Blacks feel “the physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion, trauma, and consequences of systemic racism.” In this essay, of course, we focus on the second definition of this term, not the first.

[2] Arguments can be made for using the word “nigger” to describe Blacks who exemplify other negative stereotypes of their race, such as laziness, stupidity, and corruption. But these arguments are more difficult to prove and are thus excluded from this brief essay. With video evidence of Black violence being so pervasive today, keeping to the strict definition of appropriateness outlined above is sufficient to prove the moral necessity of using the word “nigger.”

[3] Yes, “nigga” and words like it can be used as terms of endearment, but not universally. Blacks who accept other Blacks using the word will balk when a White  (or non-Black) uses it in the exact same way—even if the endearment is sincere. A memorable scene from the 1998 Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker movie Rush Hour exemplifies this contradiction. Meanwhile, Whites may use the term among other Whites for the sake of humor or rebelliousness, but would never dare utter it publicly—as White country singer Morgan Wallen found out after being secretly recorded using the word in 2021. Thus, “nigga” as endearment is not a serious term  with only one strict definition; whereas the hard-R term “nigger” is.