Racism and the “New” Identity Politics

“Only white people can be racist.” This is the conclusion drawn by many activists of the modern day, who exert their various energies toward the goal of attaining justice for society. The reasoning goes that racism is prejudice plus institutionalized power, so only white persons can be racist. Let’s look at whether this is true and what it really means.

First off, there is the simple consideration that racism is not prejudice plus power. Racism is “the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others” or “abusive or aggressive behavior towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.” A belief does not require power. Those who say that racism requires power provide no evidence of it–one could just as easily claim that racism is prejudice minus power. What is claimed without evidence can just as easily be refuted without evidence. With that in mind, let’s look at the following statements, none of which are based on any evidence:

“Only Germans can be fascist/Only Russians can be socialist.”

“Only Mexicans can be lazy.”

“Only Asians can be bad drivers.”

“Only Jews can be greedy.”

“Only black people can steal.”

“Only white people can be racist.”

“Only Arabs can be savages.”

Any statement that follows this formula is racist, because you’re judging someone on the basis of skin color or nationality/ethnicity. Not only that, but the statement “Only white people can be racist,” is unintentionally white supremacist. How so? Well, can animals be racist? Of course not–animals have neither the mental capacity nor moral ability to make such a value judgment. So if only white people are capable of racism, then only white people are smart enough and morally-equipped enough to take responsibility for their actions. In short, if only white people can be racist, then only white people are full-fledged human beings. Everyone else is at best an uncivilized animal and at worst a miserable tower of pond scum.

But then the detractor, the SJW (Social Justice Warrior), will say that it is not the moral or intellectual character of the white man that renders him alone capable of such an enterprise. Rather, it is the institutionalized power the white man enjoys that gives him a monopoly on racism. But this means that no one else is capable of gaining power, which once again signals to us that only the white man is smart and competent enough to hold power, and so be racist. But then the SJW will say it is not that no one but the white man is capable of wielding power, only that the white man currently holds power, and within this current power structure the white man reigns supreme, and so he alone is capable of being racist. One must wonder, then, how much power the white man yields in all-black neighborhoods, or mostly-Hispanic voting districts? How much power does the white man yield when he is interred in a federal prison? What of the homeless white man? What of the white men held prisoner in foreign dictatorships, or the white man who died in war and was shipped home in a box? How much power is wielded by white persons who are murdered by black gang members? How much power is wielded by white babies who are aborted?

And what shall we say of the power wielded by Asian politicians (political power), Hispanic celebrities (cultural), Black power leaders (social movements), Arab caliphs (religious) and so on? Nobody can trivialize and dismiss the legitimate influence and success of minorities better than SJWs. No sane person would deny the actual influence and power of leaders and talking heads such as Oprah, Al Sharpton, Marjane Satrapi, Deepak Chopra, Barack and Michelle Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Susan B. Anthony, etc. But all of their accomplishments mean nothing to SJWs because there are still powerful white people in America. So who is the real racist? According to SJWs, a white man sleeping in a gutter is more privileged than Barack Obama just because of skin color.

SJWs are under the delusion that we need to bring down “privileged” persons in order to bring up “unprivileged” persons. But any reasonable person can see that this will bring about a net decrease in the quality of life. And besides, how do you determine “privilege?” The dictionary definition of “privilege” is giving someone special treatment. This means that, factually, privilege belongs to those whom the SJWs call unprivileged. Affirmative action, Title IX, and other policies afford legal privileges to minorities–and not just in the US. In China, for instance, scholastic performance is subject to a boost for students of non-Han ethnicities. Those minorities enjoy legal privilege that the majority doesn’t. Of course, SJWs reject any and all dictionary definitions that do not fit their agenda, so they will tell you that “privilege” simply means having an easy life. So if we go by that definition, then Asians are the most privileged ethnic group in the US (pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/). According to the source, most of them regard their lives in the US as being better than their old lives, and they enjoy high levels of success with low levels of antagonism and conflict from other ethnicities. And African immigrants earn 30% more money on average than American blacks (blackenterprise.com/money/black-immigrants-in-u-s-earning-30-more-than-u-s-born-blacks/), so by this definition they are privileged while American blacks are not. So how can we make policies catering to Americans based on skin color if some are privileged and some are not? Also, women in many areas have more privilege than men (myhouseofrandom.tumblr.com/post/156791467634/can-you-please-give-me-5-real-reason-on-why-we). So would it be right for us to violate certain rights of women, Asians, and Africans to curb or check their privilege?

You see, it’s absolutely insane. SJWs only care about their agenda where white people are evil and need to be punished. Never mind the fact that white people invented the airplane, automobile, penicillin, anesthesia, computers, television, telephone, gramophone, telegram, calculus, concrete, and so on. These can’t compensate for the crimes of our ancestors because we’re not allowed to take credit for things that our ancestors accomplished–but we sure can take the blame. Even when looking at a collective rather than at individuals, SJWs still fail to think rationally. But that’s ultimately because collectivist thinking is inherently irrational. There can be no such thing as social justice because society is an imaginary concept. Society is nothing more than a group of individuals. A society cannot be harmed; only persons can be harmed. And the great irony of social justice is that it harms the individual in order to seek out good for society. But if society is made up of individuals, then harming individuals will harm society.

Once the intellectuals use racism to segregate the people based on skin color (or use any kind of prejudice to segregate them by any characteristic) then they can form a political identity and base their entire policy around that identity–this leads to the emergence of “identity politics.” Once you have segregated the people into “us vs. them,” then you can get away with anything. Right now we are in the “idea suppression” stage of the process, where any ideas deemed to be privileged are attacked and–if the SJWs get their way–banned.

The term “cultural appropriation” is used for the purpose of keeping “white” American culture segregated from other cultures. The funny thing about this term is that its contradiction is apparent within the term itself. “Appropriation” has three meanings, one positive and two negative. The positive meaning of appropriation is “using something for a specific purpose,” but because the term is meant in a negative sense, we can discard this first definition. The two negative meanings of appropriation are, “seizing exclusive use or control of something” and “making use of without permission.” Both of these meanings are impossible to use with culture, because it can neither be used exclusively nor used without permission.

Culture is a set of behaviors and beliefs shared by a particular people, and beliefs/behaviors cannot be seized for exclusive use. If two Japanese men were to shake hands when meeting, this would not wrest the handshake (which came from England) away from American culture. Similarly, if two Americans were to bow in greeting, this would not remove the bow (which came from China) from Japanese culture. And it’s impossible to shake hands or bow either with or without permission because no one owns the American or Japanese cultures. If I want to eat with chopsticks, should I first ask permission from every individual living in China, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, etc.? Because SJWs are collectivist in their thinking, it is difficult to say what their response to that would be, and frankly I haven’t the intestinal fortitude to ask.

The simple fact of the matter is that culture is meant to be shared. Almost everyone on Earth is flattered, delighted, or at least amused by the use of their culture by an outsider. The Japanese in particular make a profitable business out of selling kimono and other items to gaijin (foreigners), and having geisha pose for pictures with them. Japan and Korea make billions of dollars every year exporting their culture, as does the US. Travel to India and you will probably be offered a bindi to wear so that you blend in and feel more comfortable–it is the same everywhere on Earth. Humans enjoy learning new things and hence enjoy taking part in other cultural behaviors and materials. Only a bitter racist would want to keep different cultures isolated. And that brings us back to SJWs.

Once we decide that those deemed “privileged” cannot express or participate in certain ideas, then we will feel justified in taking away anything from them. If you think that this is a slippery slope fallacy, then please try explaining what happened in Nazi Germany. First it started with speeches and political discourse about how “we,” the German people, were being harmed by “them,” the Germans of Jewish descent. Look at the speeches made by Hitler and you’ll see a victim mentality and the use of social justice language that eerily mirrors the discourse being used by SJWs today. Basically, Adolf Hitler was a failed liberal arts student who blamed his problems on a privileged group of Germans. No, really. When Hitler wasn’t accusing the Jews of being “inferior” because of their genes, he was busy talking about how their low character afforded them exceptional privilege. Furthermore he claimed that they used this privilege to cause problems in Germany.

“He is to blame for the war!”

Once a majority of the people could be convinced that individual rights are secondary to “social” benefit, then more and more rights could be violated without anyone doing anything about it. What’s more, there was a growing sentiment that violence was not only an acceptable tool for political change, but the superior means of enacting change. Not at all unlike the riots of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, violence against Jews was considered justified on the basis that they have had it too good for too long at the expense of the gentiles. Anything the Jews were denied was seen as comeuppance. Of the 750,000 Jews living in Germany, most of them were pretty well-off. In fact, as a whole the Jewish population was more financially successful than any other group of Germans. All it takes is ignorance of economics and self-righteous anger to decide that something has to be done about those Jews “sucking us dry.” Of course, anyone with even a basic knowledge of economics knows that the rich do not profit at the expense of the poor–rather, in a free economy, the rich become rich by benefiting the poor. But do you think that SJWs bother to study economics?

The so-called “We are the 99%” view rich persons in America the same way that Nazis viewed wealthy Jews. They think that the 1% are bleeding us dry, even though they can’t name who the 1% are. In fact, nobody can name who they are because they change from year to year. Most Americans move into the 1% at least once in their lifetimes. Also, most millionaires are self-made (myhouseofrandom.tumblr.com/post/125134656675/there-are-many-false-narratives-unbiased); they got there by producing something that benefits customers. So do the SJWs want to kill most Americans? Don’t ask! They might say “Yes!” Antifa (short for “Anti-fascist”) members go around physically assaulting persons they consider Nazis. But as I demonstrated with “racism” and “privilege,” there is no desire amongst SJWs to adhere to the true meanings of words. So once they establish that it’s OK to punch Nazis (even though it’s not!) then they only have to expand the meaning of the word “Nazi” until it includes everyone they don’t like.

So the real irony is that SJWs who vociferously protest “fascism” are themselves the most fascist persons in the world. They claim to love diversity but they really want to force one government solution and one way of thinking onto the rest of us. They claim to love diversity but then they want to homogenize culture and segregate communities into “white” and “non-white.” They claim to love diversity but they only want superficial diversity based on skin color, not true diversity based on views, values, beliefs, levels of success, etc. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mom then she is a traitor to women for not embodying feminist ideals. If a black man wants to get rid of Black History Month then he is “internally colonialized.” And so on. If you still think that this is an exaggeration, or some sort of false equivalence, please look at what the Nazis actually believed and did.

SJWs don’t want harmony among human beings. They want to crush humanity under an iron fist. They want to label, separate, and subjugate us. Virtually all such persons are incapable of listening to reason. In the 1940s we came to the conclusion that there was only one way to deal with this:

Let’s hope we don’t have to use that approach again. Too many good American men died taking the beaches in France.



BONUS! Here’s a delightful conversation I had on tumblr a while back. (Click first image for post)


One comment on “Racism and the “New” Identity Politics

  1. The fact that people don’t provide evidence for the notion that racism requires power isn’t surprising. It’s a a question of definitions, and definitions aren’t empirical questions.

Leave a Reply, Win Candy! (not really)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s