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.


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'.

No comments:

Post a Comment