The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.


Friday, 11 May 2018

Do Most Corbynites Hate the Rich?

Why is it that so many supporters of Jeremy Corbyn (Britain's “radical socialist” Leader of the Opposition) have such a big problem with what they call "posh" and "rich" people? Is it because so many of them are posh and rich people themselves? Or is it because the “rich people” they criticise dare to be even more wealthy than they are? 

It's certainly the case there are many (to use Corbyn's term for himself) “radical socialists” - specifically in the London area - who have nannies, cleaners and gardeners. (Indeed many of these "helpers" are underpaid and also immigrants.) In more general terms, the Radical Left is also chockablock with public-school boys and girls. Some of these Radicals even send their own kids to private schools and to the best grammars (Seumas Milne and Shami Chakrabarti are good examples of this).

The Radical Left (at least its leaders and activists) is also almost entirely made up of middle-class professionals; many of whom earn loads of dosh. And the Rad Left is chockablock with students who're hoping to make loads of dosh in the future too. 

To paraphrase: Many Corbynites don't love the poor. They just hate the rich.

Of course it can't be said that every single supporter of Jeremy Corbyn "hates the rich" - just most of them. This is especially prevalent on social media, when it comes to Momentum activists and to those people with more sympathy for Corbyn than for the Labour Party itself. (It's worth reading Richard Seymour's Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics here because this former Socialist Workers Party member despises the Labour Party at the very same time as simply adoring Jeremy Corbyn.)

Of course it can be asked how I know that many Corbynites hate the rich. Then again, how do other people know that Corbynites don't hate the rich? This is the philosophical problem of "other minds" writ large. So all one can do is interpret the words and behaviour of Corbynites. And the behaviour and words of Corbynites leads me to the conclusion that it's just as much a question of good old-fashioned hatred as it is of moral or political opposition.

To put all this another way. Many on the Left are forever talking about "haters", "hatred" and the rest. I'm simply arguing that Corbynites most certainly haven't miraculously escaped from the biological/human net in these respects.

Another thing which needs to be said here is that some/many people "support Corbyn" simply because they've always supported the Labour Party. And they also want to “get rid of the Tories”. So I certainly wouldn't class all of these Labour Party people as ideological Corbynites.

Envy, Jealousy and Hate?

So what about envy and jealousy?

I personally don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn himself is driven by an envy of - or jealousy towards - the rich. However, many Corbynites and other Radical Socialists most certainly are.

As for Corbyn and hate.

I think that hate is part of the Corbyn story. However, hate is almost the whole story when it comes to John McDonnell - the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. After all, he did say that his favourite past-time is "generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism”. McDonnell has also made many other vicious and hateful remarks directed at the wealthy and at many others too.

This obsession with "the rich" and with “public-school boys” (which is often displayed by rich leftwing public-school boys) could be seen when the Eton-educated Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg was recently photographed in Greggs (which is the largest bakery chain in the UK). Corbynites classed it as a “cheap PR stunt”. Yes, a PR student a bit like Jeremy Corbyn wearing Primark shorts, a Lenin cap, and carrying a plastic bag. Corbyn, of course, went to a private preparatory school, was brought up in a large house with seven bedrooms, had wealthy (Trotskyist) parents, has lived most of his life in a posh part of Islington, and has very many public-school friends; many of whom are communists and Trotskyists in the Stop the War Coalition - which he led until 2015. (The leading public-school boys in the Stop the War Coalition included and still include its Chairman Andrew Murray, as well as Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell, Chris Nineham, Charlie Kimber, Alex Callinicos, etc.

The Top 1%?

There also seems to be a logical flaw when Corbynites say that they "simply want the rich to pay their way” through “fair taxes”. In other words, Corbynites claim that it's not about vindictiveness or envy. However, surely if the tax policies which Corbynites want were ever brought into play, then there would simply be no rich people left. Corbynite tax policy is effectively a way of stopping the rich from being rich. Isn't that what “socialist equality” is all about?

This means that Corbynites are, after all, against the rich. Their policies would obliterate this section of society. “Fair taxes” and socialist equality will result in there being no rich people (except for, perhaps, the leaders of the Socialist State and Party leaders). Thus Corbynites are indeed against the rich; even if not all of them “hate the rich”.

So there is some dishonesty apparent here.

In a collectivist society based on socialist equality, there would be no room for "fair taxes" for the rich or for a “benign wealthy”. The idea that Corbynites or Radical Leftists just want to tax the rich more is very dishonest.

It's also the case that Corbynites never stop talking about “the top 1%”.

If you look at the socialist/communist regimes of the 20th century, it was never only the top 1% which got smashed in the face. Vast sections of society did. The Kulaks, for example, were wiped out for being “bourgeois” or “counter-revolutionary”. There were the “NEPmen” who suffered too. Some peasants who has an extra plot of land were even persecuted by the Soviet state or by party functionaries. Finally, under the Khmer Rouge, wearing glasses was seen as being a sign of being “bourgeois” or “rich”.

Even today, Marxists have a problem with all businessmen and owners of capital – very few of whom are in the top 1%. “Socialist equality” is, after all, socialist equality. Not only would the top 1% be wiped out, so would all “class distinctions”... Or, at least, the class distinctions noted by the middle-class Vanguard Class or by the Socialist State. That means that Party leaders, the rulers of the Socialist State, leftwing/Marxist academics, lawyers, and functionaries, etc. would still earn a hell of a lot more than the average worker - as was the case in all socialist/communist states.

Another point is is that the average member of the middle- and upper-middle-class Radical Left still earns a lot more than the average worker. However, that inequality is fine. It's the inequality between the middle-class Left and the top 1% that members of the former can't stomach.

Philanthropy and Charity

Despite all the above, some - though certainly not all - supporters of Corbyn say that they aren't "against the rich" or "against wealth". They say it's "what people do with their wealth that matters". They hint that Rad Socs do good things with their wealth. Though they never say, exactly, what it is they do with it. And I can't think of any examples myself.

As for the philanthropy of generous Radical Socialists.

The Radical Left has always seen philanthropy as being “counter-revolutionary” in that if individuals spread their wealth, then that would work against the revolution or against "radicalisation". It also means that philanthropy stops the Socialist State itself spreading the wealth. Either way, individuals spreading their wealth is a bad thing for Radical Socialism.

Traditionally, the Rad-Soc position on charity has been even more critical. After all, it's the Socialist State and the Socialist State alone which must make it the case that there's simply "no need for charity".

Thus both philanthropy and charity work against Radical Socialism.

So, instead, what many Corbynites have done with their wealth is send their kids to private schools, employ foreign nannies/cleaners/gardeners, go on many foreign holidays, buy extra cars, perhaps even invest (as Seumas Milne did), etc.

Thus the bottom line is this:

If you're rich, posh and a socialist – then that's fine.
If you're rich, posh and rightwing – then that's not fine.

Tuesday, 8 May 2018

Is the term “Corbyn Cult” an “empty cliché”?

The meme above graphically displays the nature of the Corbyn Cult. Essentially, it's Manichean politics at its worst.

This particular Corbyn cultist tells us of the battle between Good and Evil. Specifically, he depicts the Holy War between Socialist Good and Capitalist (or Tory) Evil. And, of course, the Good is made up exclusively of socialists; and the Bad is made up of right-wingers or conservatives. 

In the language of post-structuralism, “race theory”, etc., Tories and right-wingers generally are being “Othered” by Corbyn cultists. That is, they're being dehumanised by members of the Church of Corbyn. As is well known, the German National Socialists (i.e., Nazis) did exactly the same when it came to many “out-groups”. The International Socialist Bolsheviks did it too.

This post also shows us the term “Corbyn cult” is not, in fact, a “manufactured cliché” of the platonic/Chomskyite Mainstream Media. Day in and day out Corbynites display such cultish words and cultish views on Facebook, social media generally and elsewhere. The opening post is just one more example of this. 

The particular Corbyn cultist (the one who posted the meme above) does indeed believe in a literal war of Good versus Evil. Specifically, he believes in what he calls "class war". That is, he claimed that because the Tories themselves are engaged in an evil "class war", then a Holy Socialist Class War has to be fought back.

All this means that no one needs to "lie", "exaggerate" or “distort” when it comes to many of the followers of Corbyn. They put themselves in the shit. Yes, who needs the Daily Mail to lie, exaggerate or distort when you have Corbyn cultists doing so instead?

As for the details of the meme. Even if the Tories have deliberately and evilly brought about “chronic NHS underfunding” and “housing neglect” (as well as having it in for “disabled people”), wouldn't all this still be preferable to a Corbynite socialist state which may well – in the long term at least – do some (or even all) of the following? -

- take control the entire media
- take control of the entire education system (in order to use it to teach True Socialist Theology)
- quickly import a few million more immigrants (many of whom would be terrorists and those intent on creating an "Islamic society") – and all in strict accordance with International Socialism's “open borders” policy
- form closer political, financial and military ties with Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and other useful socialist and Muslim oppressive regimes
- enforce the mass collectivisation of all aspects of life
- ban all right-wing parties and groups other than the Conservative Party
- imprison thousands - or even tens of thousands - of political dissidents (all of whom will, of course, be Naziracistfascistbigots! or members of the platonic Rich)
- slowly establish a one-party state



Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. Through an ongoing process that takes place in human history, light is gradually removed from the world of matter and returned to the world of light, whence it came.” - Wikipedia

The term [Manichean] is often used to suggest that the world view in question simplistically reduces the world to a struggle between good and evil. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski used the phrase 'Manichaean paranoia' in reference to U.S. President George W. Bush's world view... Philosopher Frantz Fanon frequently invoked the concept of Manicheanism in his discussions of violence between colonizers and the colonized.” - Wikipedia

Saturday, 5 May 2018

Facebook, Data Harvesting, and Brexit

Facebook has recently been the subject of a British parliamentary inquiry. More specifically, Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been looking into the American company. Indeed the inquiry's chairman - Damian Collins (a pro-Remain Conservative MP) - even threatened Mark Zuckerberg with a formal summons to appear in person. Damian Collins MP did admit that Zuckerberg doesn't come under UK jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Collins also said that “he will do so the next time he enters the country”.

In terms of detail, a Canadian firm called Aggregate IQ is said to have spent money targeting the Leave vote in June 2016 – some two years ago.

So Facebook allowed pro-Brexit adverts... And? It's a private company. It isn't breaking any law in doing so.

Despite saying that, what's happened here is that various pro-European Union politicians (who had - and still have - a problem with the politics of these Facebook advertisements) have found another angle on the issue. That angle is the “illegal harvesting of data”. That is, it's not the pro-Brexit advertising on Facebook itself that's meant to be illegal – it's the “harvesting” of personal data. And that data was then said to have been used to advance the Brexit campaign.

All this, of course, discounts the tremendous amount of pro-Remain (actually, pro-European Union) advertising and propaganda on Facebook and elsewhere. In other words, even if pro-Brexit groups have advertised on Facebook, that doesn't automatically mean that Remain groups haven't done exactly the same thing. They have. Not only that: there are many Remain groups and even more Remainers on Facebook doing daily pro-EU propaganda work. Indeed some Remainers seem to be on Facebook all the time; and they are there specifically to put the European Union cause. That is, many of them never seem to post or comment on any other subject.

So has there been any data harvesting which has also helped the Remain campaign?

A History of Data Harvesting

The fact is that many websites and companies harvest data and personal information. This basically means that the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica stories only became news because politicians and activists had a political (not a legal) problem with data harvesting.

Data harvesting isn't new.

The Obama election campaign of 2012 used the data of up to 190 million Facebook users.

For example, one of the apps used by pro-Obama companies and activists could “grab information about [] friends: their birth dates, locations, and 'likes'”. In this particular case, up to 190 million people had their Facebook data processed by activists and companies involved in the Obama campaign. And no one had any knowledge of this or gave their consent. Indeed this political technique was classed as a "game-changer" by Democrats.

Facebook facilitated all this. Or as one Obama campaign director (a Carol Davidsenput it:

"Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing."

So many of the people who're against data harvesting today were in favour of it during the 2012 Obama campaign. Indeed Democrats and Obama supporters said that the methods used at that time were “ground-breaking” and “innovative”. The New York Times, for example, eulogized in the following manner:

Just like Kennedy brought in the television presidency, I think we’re about to see the first wired, connected, networked presidency.”

Many other political groups have also harvested data.

Take the Scottish National Party (SNP).

In terms of detail, the SNP has been “compiling a database of every voter in Scotland for over seven years”. And here's an interesting Facebook connection. The computer software the SNP used (i.e., NationBuilder) was co-founded by Facebook's own co-founder (along with Mark Zuckerberg): the Democrat and “social activist”, Joe Green.

Facebook is a Private Company

Facebook is a private company. So it can basically do want it wants as long as it doesn't break the law. Then again, that's the question: Has Facebook broken the law when it comes to the harvesting of data?

It's also the case that because Facebook is a private company, then it's free to have - or display - a political bias. In theory, Facebook could simply be a mouthpiece for International/National Socialism and there would still be nothing we could do about it … except, that is, stop using its services.

Indeed it's somewhat ironic that some of the fiercest critics of Facebook are also the people who use it much of the time.

So Facebook (as a company or - as it were - “editorially”) takes political positions. Everyone knows that.

Take just two examples.

Literally thousands – over the years - of Facebook users have been banned, blocked or suspended for criticising – in any shape or form – Islam. These people haven't been banned or suspended for “abuse” or for being “racist”. However, it's of course the case that the very criticism of Islam or Muslims (as Muslims) is indeed regarded as “racist” by many leftwingers.

Countless right-wing groups have also had their pages “removed” from Facebook. I too deemed some of those pages to be objectionable, crude and/or extreme. However, does that mean that they should have been removed?

Perhaps one day people may have such a political problem with Facebook that they simply stop using it. In fact many people have already given up on Facebook because of its “liberal Left” political bias and huge use of censorship (i.e., bannings, blockings, suspensions, “erasing content”, etc.).

On the other hand, many people find Facebook useful. And they do so for many reasons. Indeed even in terms of political debate and, yes, propaganda, Facebook can be useful.

So, in the end, Facebook is a game of pros and cons.

False Consciousness

As ever with the Remain campaign, there seems to be an implicit (sometimes explicit) reliance on the Marxist notion of “false consciousness”. Of course I don't mean that Remainers are actual Marxists or even that they've even heard of the Marxist term “false consciousness”. (That's why philosophers make a distinction between concepts and the words which express those concepts.) However, just as Noam Chomsky believes that the real reason why hundreds of millions of people aren't Chomskyites (or Radical Socialists) is because they've all been “brainwashed by the mainstream media”; so Remainers have heavily relied on the theory that over 17 million Brexiteers were totally unaware that they were being lied to during the Brexit campaign. That is, they believe that these 17 million Brexiteers were more susceptible to lies than they were! And again (as with Chomsky), Remainers deem this to be the case largely because of the platonic/Chomskyite Mainstream Media.

. And now we have yet another “data scandal”. Yes, Remainers have found another conspiracy theory to explain why it was that people dared to disagree with them.

The same false consciousnesses tune was also sung about Cambridge Analytica and its ability to hoodwink literally millions of gullible people (i.e., Brexiteers).

It's strange that Cambridge Analytica has been accused of “influencing the Leave vote” because that just-quoted phrase has been used very many times about the very many different things which have.... influenced the Leave vote. Isn't that pretty damn obvious? It's also a very vague accusation. (The just-linked article has it that “deindustrialisation”influenced the Leave vote.)

Of course all this doesn't mean that the harvesting of data isn't illegal (that's if if it is illegal) or stop it from being morally/politically objectionable to do so. Nonetheless, it's still the case that Remainers and pro-European Union politicians were really against Cambridge Analytica influencing the Leave vote, not against any ostensible illegality.

And this conspiracy theory also depends on the huge assumption that millions of gullible Brexiteers only ever had access to pro-Brexit comments, data and propaganda. That's obviously false when it comes to the vast majority of Brexiteers. Of course, as psychologists tell us, people often do gravitate towards political views which simply back up what they already believe. (It's called “confirmation bias”.) That's true. However, exactly the same is true of Remainers!... Unless, that is, each and every Remainer is morally and intellectually superior to all Brexiteers. Well, that's certainly something which many Remainers believe.


To repeat. This storm in a teacup doesn't mean that Remainers haven't used advertising campaigns. Of course they have. And it doesn't mean that each and every Remainer only relies on pure debate, fact and analysis. Of course it doesn't. In the end, then, most Remainers are only against data harvesting and advertising that's pro-Brexit. They're not against the data harvesting and advertising that's pro-Remain. Now, isn't that a surprise?

Thursday, 3 May 2018

Remainers Wait for the Right Referendum Result

Many British elections – both local and national – have resulted in the victors having only just “passed the post” by a small margin. In terms of various referendums, that's also true.

That's democracy, folks!

This shows us that it's obviously the case that the vast majority of Remainers would have very happily accepted the vote had it gone their way. They know that. Brexiteers know that. And just about everyone else knows that too. So let's have less of the fancy political footwork - and more honesty - from Remainers.

Yes, many Remainers are pretending that they have various technical and political problems with the actual 2016 referendum when, in actual fact, they only really have a problem with the result of that referendum. In theory, and using the same logic as that used by Remainers, every national and local election (along with every referendum) which has ever been held would need to be retaken... for one reason or another. In addition, had the election resulted in a Remain vote, then Brexiteers might also have found their own infinity of reasons as to why the vote should be retaken. Alternatively, they could argue that the pro-Remain referendum was only “advisory” in nature - or a direct result of interference from alien lizards...

Anything goes in politics, eh?

One meme from Remainers is that Brexiteers are attempting to stop them from “expressing their views” (i.e., post-referendum). Yet no one is expecting Remainers to "shut up" (as a Remainer put it) about their love of the European Union. Brexiteers are simply questioning their endless demands for another vote. Note the large difference between the two. Thus “moaning” isn't the issue. The issue is about the attempted subversion of a referendum. Now there are many (usually bogus) arguments against the referendum itself. But, then again, there have of course been many arguments against all referendums and democratic votes on any issue... from those who lost the vote!

Another Remainer meme is that all (or perhaps only most) Brexiteers are what one Remainer called “thickies”. Yes, many Remainers believe that everyone who dares to disagree with them is a thickie. They must also believe in mass Brexiteer "false consciousness" too. Surely that is itself a psychological result of the cognitive dissonance Remainers suffer when people dare to express a political position they disagree with. So if these Remainers attempted to develop some self-awareness, then perhaps their arrogant snobbery would dissipate somewhat.

Tuesday, 1 May 2018

White Violence?

Isn't the message in the banner above a perfect expression of racism? (“WHITE People: What will we do TODAY to change our legacy of violence?”)

It's hard to understand this because these self-described "anti-racists" seem to be fighting racism by being.... racist. Yes, they're tying "violence" to skin colour (i.e., to what's often called "whiteness") and even to DNA/genes.

So how, exactly, does that work?

The statement also disregards the fact that violence has occurred in every culture at every time since the beginning of the human race. (In the 1960s and beyond, leftwing anthropologists tried to deny this by citing spurious examples which were quickly discovered to be bogus.) Indeed this "anti-racist" position is so blatantly racist itself that it must surely end up being counterproductive.

In basic terms, why does that banner mention “white people” at all? And why do other anti-racists, Critical Race Theorists, activists, etc. also mention “whiteness”? Why don't they simply point the finger at "the West", culture, history, institutions, or at certain states/governments?

So fighting racism with racism seems to be either dumb or deceitful.

Anti-racist Theory

The very many people who don't understand “anti-racist theory” may need things clearing up for them. Or as one self-described “leftie” put it to me:

"Okay, I'm a leftie, an analytical Marxist and a History and Politics student. Let me clear a few things up for you..."

Let's start by saying that many leftwing political theories can be very pure. What I mean by that is that such theories hardly reflect - or coincide with - reality. That's not a surprise because the theories discussed here aren't designed to reflect reality or the facts: they're designed to advance very specific political causes.

Thus if the anti-racist political cause comes first, then it doesn't matter if the theories which advance it are absurd or simply false.

As Karl Marx happily admitted: truth, correctness and accuracy are secondary to "revolutionary" or "radical" change. Or to use Marx's own words:

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”

So it's not a surprise that leftwing/Marxist theory has it that it's literally – yes, literally! - impossible for anyone to be racist against whites. (Alternatively, no non-white person can ever be a racist.) Some leftwing anti-racists may qualify this statement by saying that it's actually the case that no black person can be racist “within a white society”. However, the large-scale black racism against whites (as well as against Asians) which occurs in various African countries, for example, is also excused by British and American (white) leftwingers.

Despite all that, some anti-racist novices may not understand how pure such “race theory” actually is. For example, this is one person's take on the issue:

"Of course non-white people can be racist. That's very much a faux argument that's often stated by people who don't know what they're talking about. Pro-white racism is, however, institutionalized, unlike other forms."

This person clearly hasn't read her Marxist academic papers or her Critical Race Theory. It would be very easy to provide countless links and quotes which explicitly state such things as "Blacks people can't be racist" (even if sometimes stated in a roundabout way). There have also been multitudes of Marxist articles and papers which have also argued that it's impossible for non-whites to be racist or for non-white people to be racist against whites. (I mention the word “Marxist” because much academic anti-racist theory developed from Marxist beginnings.)

Now we can say that this surreal or absurd position is the result one of two things:

i) Of theory which has simply disappeared up its own backside.
ii) Of theories which are specifically designed to advance anti-racist political causes.

This means that the idea that “Blacks can't be racist” (for example) isn't meant to be true or even accurate. It's simply meant to be a weapon in a (usually white) political war.

Indeed one anti-racist (almost) agreed with this when he stated the following:

"If it is designed to combat racism, then yes, generalizations about whites have some leeway. To a limited degree, fighting racism often involves generalization."

Does that mean that generalisations which are ideologically correct - and which further a correct political cause - are okay? And does it also mean that generalisations which are ideologically incorrect are not okay?

After making such points about the racism of much anti-racism, one student said that I "sounded very confused”. More specifically, he said that I was "incapable of understanding white privilege theory".

Of course many people are “confused”! They haven't read the theory. And many of those who have read at least some of the theory, still don't understand it. Others see it as being a pile of bull*hit.

Theory also accounts for the prejudice-not-racism cliche which excuses blacks and other non-whites of racism. Indeed there are legions of middle-class students and political hipsters who recite this mantra without bothering to argue for it.

This is how one social-media user put the prejudice-not-racism position:

"Saying 'white people can't experience racism' doesn't mean 'black people can't be mean to white people'. It means you aren't going to be hassled by the police because of the colour of your skin, for example."

So blacks can be "mean"; though they can't be racist.

In any case, there are many examples of white people who've been "hassled" (or worse) by the police because they are white.

Take these examples.

White people can be hassled by the police for noting blacks being racist towards whites or for noting the racism of Muslim gangs. The latter example often occurred during the mass abuse of specifically white girls by Muslim grooming-gangs in the UK. In this case, because many whites noted the ethnic identity and religion of the mass abusers, the police often simply assumed that they must have been racist. That is, the police (just like well-trained anti-racist activists) displayed racist thinking and actions (against whites) in order to combat the largely fictitious racism of whites against Muslims.

Taking Ownership of Historical Racism

In response to a debate about the “white guilt” issue, one person said:

"It's not about white people's guilt, it's about ownership. We need to own up to the destructive nature of colonialism and capitalism and the effect it's had on minorities..."

You're right! That does sound like inane jargon. (The notion of “ownership” can be found in much Critical Race Theory; as well as elsewhere.) You may wonder if the person who said this had bothered to think through this theory for himself.

The word “ownership” (in this context at least) was coined at some university or other. And now, of course, it's filtered down to the streets and to university activists; who now obediently use it as if it's the gospel truth.

In any case, if it's not about “white people's guilt”, then how can there be "ownership" for the bad things which have happened in the past? In order for anti-racists to demand that all whites take ownership for the past sins of Evil White People, then there must also be some present-day guilt. Otherwise why should present-day whites “take ownership” in the first place? How can present-day whites own something which they don't have? And how can present-day whites own things which they didn't do?

The other thing about the quote above is that it ties (very firmly!) anti-racism to anti-capitalism.

In other words, there's more to much anti-racism than.... well, “fighting racism”. In the case of Radical Leftists, anti-racism is just one part of a much larger political package. This means that anti-racism is a weapon (or tool) in the “revolution” or a perfect means of "radicalisation". Indeed many communists (or “radical socialists”), for example, have often explicitly admitted this. After all, if capitalism itself is responsible for literally all racism (i.e., “Capitalism cannot exist without racism” - Malcolm X), then capitalism (not racism) must be the primary target.

Yes, anti-racism is often about middle-class leftwing whites advancing their own (politics-based) careers, their own political causes, and their own political power.

This taking “ownership” (of past racism/colonialism) meme is also elaborated upon in the following quote:

"There has been a theft, a historical theft that we (as the white community) have ultimately benefited from and is reflected in our relations today."

Of course it hardly needs to be said (though I'll still say it!) that many examples can be given of non-white cultures, traditions and states which have benefited from countless wrongs and which have also – despite leftwing theory – been racist. However, none of these examples will be given a strictly racial reading by those who've studied "analytic Marxism" (as the guy quoted above claimed he had done) or Critical Race Theory.

Again, the position discussed above is essentially one of anti-white racism. Leftwingers may dress this racist position up with references topraxis” or with other academic terms. However, it all still comes out of the wash in the same way - as (anti-white) racism.


*) This piece can be see @ American Thinker as 'Racism, White Violence, and the Left'.