The Racist Strategy

In light of the recent Atheism+ nonsense, I think we’ve done feminism to death so it’s time to take a look at another of their bullet points, this time being racism.  I am absolutely, positively, undeniably opposed to racism, but as with feminism, I’m not out looking for black rights or hispanic rights, I’m out looking for equal rights for all.  But bring that up and you’ll be branded a racist by many civil rights crusaders.  Denying that minorities deserve special, extra rights somehow means that you hate them with a passion.  That’s absurd.

Sorry, but in the modern world, the only rational definition for racism is “taking into consideration someone’s skin color in making a judgement of that individual, positively or negatively”.  Anyone who does, in any fashion, is a racist.  It doesn’t matter if you have the power to do anything about it, it doesn’t matter if anyone ever knows about it, you’re still a racist.  The guy in the corner who silently hates Eskimos is a racist, even if nobody ever discovers that fact.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, two infamous race-baiters, are racists.  They consider people’s skin color and actively attempt to use it against them, or to give others excuses for bad  behavior.  In fact, I think the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida has revealed that the country isn’t as post-racist as it would like to think, as far too many people, upon hearing very little information about the event, immediately sprang to the conclusion that it must have been racially motivated.

Unfortunately, race-baiting is very typical on the left, they rely on the notion that every white person hates blacks… except for them, of course, and that racism is rampant in this country and only the liberal mindset can ever solve the problem.    This is, of course, ridiculous  because some of the most blatant racism around comes from the left and they work very hard to cover it up or redefine the term out of existence.

The fact is, there are an awful lot of blacks out there who are extremely racist.  People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make their living race-baiting, trying desperately to tie every “bad” thing that happens to blacks to white hatred.  I’m not going to address whether any specific instance of racism is warranted, based on personal experience, or not because that doesn’t matter.  No one has any excuse for hating someone else solely on the basis of their skin color.  Not blacks, not whites, not American Indians, not hispanics, not anyone.  The idea that someone can think “you’re <fill in the blank>, therefore I hate you or think differently of you” is absurd and we ought to do away with the idea that anyone can get away with it.

Now let me say that there are some very limited and specific reasons that certain people can and ought to take race into account.  Medical doctors certainly have to because different races have different risk factors for disease.  Sickle-cell anemia is prevalent in black patients, moreso than in those of other races.  Multiple sclerosis is more common in whites than in blacks.  There’s an entire field of medicine called Pharmacogenomics, which studies race-related pharmacology and there are drugs, specifically things like the heart drug BiBil, which are licenced specifically for black patients.  These things are intended to save lives, not to judge the quality of any individual group of people and thus are specifically excused from charges of racism.  It is no more racist to recognize real genetic differences between races than it is sexist to understand real physical differences between men and women.  These things exist, we deal with them and so long as we don’t treat one side significantly differently than the other, we’ve got equality.

However, the more I see liberals, the more I realize that they don’t really want equality.  They want revenge against whatever side used to have more power.  They want revenge on men.  They want revenge on whites.  They want revenge on the wealthy.  Hell, they want to string up wealthy white men!  They don’t want the sides to be equal, they want the formerly downtrodden to get theirs and then some, usually without having to do any serious work achieving it.

I want women to have equal pay for equal work, I just want them to do equal work to get it.  I want blacks to get the same jobs as equivalently skilled whites, I just want them to actually have the same skills.  I want equality of opportunity, not what the liberals dream about, equality of outcome.  Isn’t that what the American dream is all about?  Being given the chance to make something of yourself if you work hard?

I want people to work hard and be responsible and make the right choices and most of all, I want people to succeed.  Not because they’re black or white, rich or poor, male or female, gay or straight, but because they did their best and they worked their hardest and they made something of themselves.  Nobody ought to be handed success on a silver platter no matter how their ancestors were treated.  The time to whine about things is over.  The time to get off your ass and work is now.

20 thoughts on “The Racist Strategy

  1. Equality of outcome can be considered a performance indicator for equality of opportunity. Of course there wil be certain people who have great opportunities and fail to capitalize on them out of choice but such laziness is not more likely to be exhibited by one particular group be it based on race, gender or whatever.

    "It doesn’t matter if you have the power to do anything about it…" The "racism needs power" thing has been around for years. I don't want to get into word games but when I was studying social science, the mantra was that anyone cound be prejudiced in the way you assume anyone can be racist but you need the power to leverage this prejudice to adversely affect other people. This power could come from being a hiring manager or a school bully who has a plethora of racial/gender based epithets at their disposal which the black/female kid doesn't.

    How many racial slurs can you think of that can be used against non-white people versus those that can be used against white people? I know there are some of the latter, but it's not as many. Perform the same exercise for derogatory terms for women versus those for men and see which way the balance tips and curiously, a lot of the terms for women are animals: cow, dog, bitch etc. What are the male equivalents?

    This power could also come from being part of an organisation that is majority white and prejudice is endemic throughout affecting hiring, promotion, day to day support of colleagues, decline in moral from racial insults, comments etc. all otherwise known as Institutional Racism. Look no further than London's (and further afield) Metropolitan Police Force to see this in action.

    The paradigm on which my comments above are based: "the whites/men etc. have the power and blacks/women etc. do not" is a very naive and simplistic approach and so the question is not one of whether this is an accurate representation of society (it is not) but the extent to which it is. I do not know the answer to this but what I do know is that if you were to ask a black man, a black woman, a white man and a white woman, you would get four very different answers.

  2. A couple of things:

    Your sixth paragraph is somewhat true for a very small number of people. To attach that to "liberals" as a large group is hyperbole to the point of stupidity and beyond. I've been an American "liberal" for twenty years, and I don't even support any type of affirmative action at all. I am far from alone in that stance- we just don't get much press, especially in the corporate media. You are beating a conservative-imagined caricature that is only truly representative of a small percentage of people. I complain about those liberals as well, don't pretend it's part of the definition.

  3. “Equality of outcome can be considered a performance indicator for equality of opportunity. Of course there wil be certain people who have great opportunities and fail to capitalize on them out of choice but such laziness is not more likely to be exhibited by one particular group be it based on race, gender or whatever.”

    I think that many people who fail to capitalize on a situation do so out of laziness and sometimes that laziness is codified into a particular sub-culture as an acceptable or even desirable thing. I don’t think that should be acceptable for one second. Everyone has an opportunity, it’s up to them to act on it and be successful.

    “I don’t want to get into word games but when I was studying social science, the mantra was that anyone cound be prejudiced in the way you assume anyone can be racist but you need the power to leverage this prejudice to adversely affect other people.”

    Racism doesn’t have to adversely affect other people, that’s just a dodge invented by liberals to get around black racism. Clearly, they claim, black people can’t be racist because they don’t have the political and financial and social power to force their hatred on others. This is about ideas, not about effects. The most powerful person on the planet who secretly hates another race, even if they never take a single action that implements this hatred, is still a racist.

    “How many racial slurs can you think of that can be used against non-white people versus those that can be used against white people?”

    Seriously, who cares? Sticks and stones and all that. Anyone who is bothered by namecalling really needs a bit of maturing.

    Any institutional racism needs to be taken care of, but that is extremely rare and certainly doesn’t explain all of the complaints. In fact, it seems much more likely that what’s endemic is the belief that white people are going to be racist, whether or not they actually are. That’s a much, much bigger problem than anything else at this point.

  4. 2: Are there race baiters on the left? Absolutely. But to pretend that liberals as a group are somehow even close to the worst offenders when it comes to stirring up trouble based on race is ridiculous. When it comes to liberals, the worst offenders are usually the ones who are more "advocates" than politicians….the politicians on the left will get called out (often by other liberals) if they go too far. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons have less at risk, they can go full retard when it's useful. Much like the difference between say Limbaugh and national republican politicians…except that Limbaugh is considered far more powerful and popular than Sharpton ever was, and is much more openly bigoted and disrespectful of his opponents.

  5. Remember Willie Horton? When was the last time the democrats used a white racist psycopath as a poster boy during a presidential election? One black rapist psycho somehow became the vision of everything that was wrong in the country just a few elections ago, on every (supposedly liberal) network, in campaign ads, on the radio…as if one criminal slipping through the cracks was a real indictment of liberal policy(and as if Dukakis were even all that liberal). Not only did republicans perform that bit of sludge on the national stage, but every network and the entire republican base licked it up and ran with it. Irrational and yes, racist fear of ONE black rapist was an effective tool in a national election. When democrats run ads featuring lynchings, skinheads, the abortion clinic shooters, and Tim McVeigh, and then link them all explicity to republican/conservative policies or politicians, there might be a valid comparison. (Except it would still be more accurate camapigning IMO).

  6. There are legitimate points to be made about institutional racism, and there are those who want to use affirmative action-style solutions. Such ideas are far from universal among liberals, and I don't think it's fair to call every attempt at making a more level playing field (equality of opportunity) "wanting revenge". If you think that the entirety of institutional racism has been defeated by good old American fair play, you're fucking delusional. Speaking of "equality of outcomes"…whether you like it or not, it is a factor that can help determine "equality" in general. To think otherwise is to believe, conciously or not, that blacks must in fact be lazy criminals at amuch, much higher rate than whites.
    A quick bit of research into courtroom outcomes is educational.

  7. Research into courtroom outcomes shows that blacks routinely get harsher sentences, lesser plea deals, and less early release than whites convicted of the same crimes. Black murderers are still more likely to be executed than whites. Drugs popular among blacks get special harsher laws made to discourage use than chemically similar drugs popular among whites. These situations are brought about almost entirely by supposedly "tough on crime" policies supported by conservatives, and reactions of mostly white juries. How are "liberals" to blame for this obvious institutional racism? Are they racist if they speak out about it? Are blacks racist if they accurately percieve that conservatives and white jurists do in fact want them to face harsher punishments for the same crimes?

    1. Those are things that ought to be addressed and corrected, race should never be an issue when it comes to treatment of people in any context, including legal. That's why I keep talking about equality. Inequality is the fault of whoever practices it, regardless of skin color or political platform.

      1. I'm glad you're for equality. And I fully believe you on that, I don't think you're trying to sweep anything under the carpet. But the judicial system is in my opinion the clearest indicator that in at least some large parts of the US, and among some of the population, we are nowhere near basic equality. Another interesting piece of research showed that people appying for jobs face obvious discrimination. In one study, researchers turned in identical job applications, except one would have a stereotypically "black" sounding name attached. Non-black sounding names averaged something like 2-3 applications per callback, black sounding names averaged 14-16 applications per callback. It is certainly easy, from the outside, to blame things on laziness, but let me ask:
        (and be honest) if job offerings are low, and this is the rate of response you are getting, how many months or years are you going to stay optimistic? How long before you figure there must be something institutionally wrong? How long before you complain? Would you see yourself as "militant" or "racist" for complaining or asking for assistance from lawmakers?

  8. If you haven't noticed, I think you're flat out stupid wrong on this one….and this is coming from a guy who has lived for years as a white minority. I have actually seen anti-white racism, in my face and up close. To pretend the two are equal, or solely a personal issue, is ridiculous.

    Obama, while being maybe a little more liberal than Reagan, has inspired floods of racism. Protests, thousands of racist cartoons and images, death threats, fucking widespread, undying conspiracy theories for fucks sake…Bush's grandfather did business with Nazis, yet for some reaon there are many times more conspiracy theories making Obama a muslim, kenyan, foreigner, etc, than there were comparing Bush to nazis or fascists….how could that be, if it's the liberals who are the ones promoting racism?

    1. I didn't say all liberals were, I said that there are liberals that do and clearly it's the case. Personally, I'd like it if everyone on every side just stopped and grew up.

    1. This stuff happens all the time, especially coming from the left. After all, this article was influenced by the idiotic feminist nonsense coming out of Elevatorgate, and the one who is most to blame or that is Rebecca Watson who referred to Richard Dawkins as a "wealthy old heterosexual white man".

      That's who they hate. They're not hiding it.

  9. Again…that is hardly the entirety, or even the base, of the "left". You do realize that much of the backlash that the Skepchick/Myers/FTB liberals has been getting, is coming not from conservatives, but from other liberals, right?
    We're not all members of the perpetual professional victim brigade. But we don't use self-serving myths and assumptions to hide issues, either.

    1. I never said it was everyone, you asked for an example, I provided one. It isn't a remotely uncommon one either, but as you said, it does tend to come from the hyper-feminist or hyper-anti-racist fringe. These people do have a hard-on for white men and seem dedicated to kicking them as much and as hard as they can, simply because they exist.

      Didn't mean to imply that all liberals were that nutty.

  10. Thanks for clarifying. I don't mean to nitpick, but I hear "liberals this" and "liberals that" so often it starts to sound the same as feminists lecturing all men everywhere about their privilege. I have so many conservative(and even religious conservative) friends and relatives that I always have to be careful to differentiate and not to lump them in with say, Westboro Baptist or whatever idiotic thing Pat Robertson or Glenn Beck said this week….even when their stated opinions are just barely any different.

    1. There are lots of people out there who self-identify as liberals who act this way. I've never said that *ALL* liberals do, nor that such things are a characteristic of liberalism, but when you run into these issues, chances are excellent that the individuals involved will identify themselves as liberals.

      I just call a spade a spade. If it clearly doesn't apply to you, don't take it personally.

  11. "Equality of outcome can be considered a performance indicator for equality of opportunity"

    Herein lies the problem. Not everyone has the same opportunities. Not everyone is even given access to the same opportunities. The playing field needs to be made level and the same for EVERYBODY! regardless of color or race or accident of birth or whatever!!

    1. The playing field will never be level, although I agree we can do more to make it closer. I do disagree though, everyone has, in general terms, the same opportunities. Everyone can go to school. No, the schools are not necessarily equivalent, but whoever said life was fair? You can go, you can learn, you can graduate, whether your school is in an upper-class neighborhood or in the ghetto. It ultimately comes down to individual choice. Either you decide to better yourself or you do not. Let's be honest, people with much bigger problems than coming from a poor neighborhood have achieved much greater things than simply graduating from high school, why should I expect any less from perfectly healthy and able students that happen to be in a poor neighborhood?

Leave a Reply

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

Optionally add an image (JPG only)