Thursday, June 26, 2008

Racism: the Word, the Concept, and the Consequences

The left have been amazingly successful in maligning the malleable concept denoted as racism. So successful, in fact, that they’ve been able to promote it to the status of a modern-day cardinal sin. Utter the word ‘racism’ at a public setting and the tension in the air will be palpable – which goes to show how heavily draped in negative connotations it has become.

One aspect of the word ‘racism’ that makes it so crippling to the white race is the elasticity of its definition. It can mean this; it can mean that; it can mean anything. Although there is a standard dictionary definition, which reads “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others”, it is common for people to use it outside this context. This factor enables a wider demographic to be in firing line of socialist and minority use of it.

Both the word and concept have even been able to sustain such invalid theories as ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’.

Of course, violence resulting from racism – whatever your definition of ‘racism’ may be – is immoral and a concern, but no more so than that emanating from any other motive (with the exception of self-defence obviously). In fact, a glance at the past reveals that communism and religion have been responsible for many more deaths than racism – with communism killing in excess of 100,000,000 people in the previous century alone.

So why is there so much hysteria over the word? Perhaps that can be found in its applicability to leftists in furthering their agenda.

In Marxist doctrine, there is a term known as ‘bourgeois nationalism’. It describes the alleged practice of the upper-class in pitting those of different races, nationalities, and ethnicities against each other to prevent them from uniting and engaging in revolution against their oppressors. “Racism” could have very easily acquired this ghastly aura, not necessarily because people opposed ethnocentrism itself, but because those on the far-left saw it as a hurdle in initiating a workers revolution against oppression.

Obviously, though, what is important in the here and now is not how it came about, but how it’s implemented.

Among its other uses, the word ‘racist’ is used by leftists to demonise whites who voice legitimate concerns arising from race-based issues. Those harbouring opinions acknowledging that races lag and excel in various departments are prone to similar maligning. The ever-present threat of the word ‘racism’ being used to browbeat those having a preference for their own or who recognise racial realities severely limits the perimeters of debate due to its power to intimidate whites into withholding opinions. It is part of a bullying tactic used to stifle debate.

Some progressive politicians have blended the word into neat, little, sound bites to be delivered to citizens over the airwaves. Just to annihilate any lingering preference you may still have for your own kind.

One of these is “racism has no place in our society”. To me this sounds suspiciously like “this is a democracy, but your views are forbidden.” Another one doing the rounds is “racism rears its ugly head again.” Funny how you never hear “ethnic crime rears its ugly head again” isn’t it? In any event, since same-race preference has been paraded before society in the guise of an ogre for half a century, it isn’t surprising that our opponents feel comfortable in attempting to deprive us of our democratic rights.

In Belgium, a supposed democracy, the “far-right” party, Vlaams Blok, has been effectively banned even though public support for them had been steadily increasing. Another instance of how the high-horse indignation “racism” is corroding our rights can be seen by the hysteria following a group of white students’ decision to hold a white only prom. This resulted in much anger. One columnist stated “It was prom night last night in rural Georgia. Or at least it was for some. For new graduates in one high school yesterday danced to an old Southern tune - racial segregation.” Considering that segregation is state sanctioned and people holding a private party and inviting those they see fit isn’t, it’s a pretty poor comparison. In fact, if it were made illegal for people exclusively of one race to congregate it would resemble segregation in its authoritarian nature. In both cases the government is taking the decision of citizens’ hands and making it themselves. Sure, there is the separation of races, but shouldn’t people have the right to choose their friends and companions? Are people supposed to sacrifice their right to associate with whom they want just to keep some pie in the sky idealists happy?

Again, the effectiveness of the left in managing to cultivate a public mindset with such an irrational dread of same-race preference has been astonishing. It has reached a point where anyone lacking skill in treating ethnic minorities with kid gloves can expect, not just to have a barrage of smear words hurled at them, but punishment from the law too. A case in point: a fourteen year old Caucasian schoolgirl in Britain was imprisoned for refusing to sit with Asian students; not given detention, not suspended, but imprisoned.

This term has given the far-left and minorities undue political leverage. The insanity must be reversed.

No comments: