It has to be evident to all thinking people by now that racism is the new witchcraft. Once you’re branded with the Scarlet “R,” some people do not regard it as immoral to assault you…or worse.
Calling someone a racist is sufficient to brand them as outside the pale of civilized company. In academia, the accusation is a career-wrecker. Socially it is enough to get you dropped from the A-list of the best parties.
Gosh, this racist thing must be pretty vile, something that needs to be combated with a public fervor reserved for satanic pedophiles.
But has anybody bothered to tell us what this vile thing is?
Child molesting involves buggering little boys, or having sex with prepubescent girls, with or without the paraphernalia of the Black Mass. What is this “racism” that has aroused Western Civilization’s moral indignation?
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “racism” as:
Another definition in common usage: “Racism is power plus prejudice.” Therefore, powerless minorities can never be racist, no matter how much they hate you for your melanin deficiency.
It seemed to me that the three youths of color that jumped me on the street when I was 16 had the balance of power at that given moment, but let it pass. I’m just relieved they weren’t racists. That incident might very well have made a “racist” out of me, but for the fact that the karate instructor who taught me this useful trick involving thumbs and eyeballs was not melanin-deficient.
Another working definition of “racist” is:
Someone winning an argument with a leftist.
But let’s stick with Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster’s definition. This alone begs any number of questions.
Which traits and capacities?
Is someone a racist who believes different races have different abilities—not superior or inferior, but different?
“Asians/whites/blacks are better than (blank) at (blank).” Racist?
Did Paul Robeson have such a magnificent voice because of his African ancestry? Do the Irish produce better tenors and the Welsh better baritones?
Excellence in athletics? Then we’d have to wonder if there is a superior race, and not the melanin-deficient one.
Note that the African races can live naked in mankind’s original home, but the white and Asian races need artificial support such as clothing, shelter, etc., just to stay alive in their lands of origin. Does that imply physical inferiority?
Ah, but the Indo-European peoples possess the gene for lactose tolerance, a trait lacking in a great many of the world’s peoples. Does dietary advantage count as “superior”?
But away with sophistry! Everybody knows that when we speak of superior, we mean one trait among many—intelligence.
So is a person a racist if they believe a race other than his own is more intelligent?
John Derbyshire has noted that though black people have measured average IQs a full standard deviation lower than whites, Asians have average IQs higher than white people.
Derbyshire got called a racist for the first observation, but what about the second?
Is it not racist if a white person says Asians are smarter, but racist if an Asian says it?
And how are we to count the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, a standard deviation higher than the non-Jewish white norm? Should we lump them in with whites (Yay for us!) or establish a separate category for them?
Jews have been the targets of some pretty racist sentiments themselves. Joseph Mengele, Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death,” is sometimes cited as an example of how racism always leads to genocide. And we all know that if you’re a “racist,” that’s the gateway drug to becoming a genocidal Nazi.
Racism is generally associated with a fixation on “racial purity.” So what would you call someone who believes in hybrid vigor, the idea that superior genetic stock is produced by mixing the races?
What about someone who thinks that one race might have on average lesser intellectual gifts than another, but that does not in any way justify oppressing them? Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both might fall into that category, at least at some point in their lives.
You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
Suppose it is true that the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature; is it not the exact reverse of justice that the white should for that reason take from the negro any part of the little which has been given him?
So was Lincoln a racist?
Given how much mileage the left is getting out of calling people racist, perhaps it’s asking too much for them to explain just what the hell they mean by the term before throwing it around so loosely. This is obviously their working definition:
A person who is so bad that you need not apply normal standards of decency or ethical conduct when dealing with them.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock
Copyright 2014 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at email@example.com.