Racism is an anti concept

We do not have a word “deskism” for someone who thinks differences between kinds of desk matter, and who has strong preferences in favor of some kinds of desks and against other kinds of desk.

No one can be racist against white people, and all whites are racists. That is why it is not racism when a bunch of blacks beat up a white man who happens to be passing by. When they do that, they are being anti racist. When you try to give “racism” some meaning other than “Beat the daylights out of honkeys”, you are trying to push muck uphill.

“Racism” never had the meaning that some reactionaries and extreme right wingers are trying to give it. And it never will, because there is no need for a word with the meaning Zippy is trying to give “racist”. It is like gays trying to force us to pretend that the word gay still has the meanings cheerful and happy, rather than filthy, disgusting, weak and depraved.  It is not in the nature of words to work like that.  If there was a place in the language for a word that means what Zippy wants “racist” to mean, we would have had that word a thousand years ago.

The word “racist” was invented at the start of the twentieth century  invented by Trotsky for the purpose of destroying western civilization.  It has never meant what reactionaries and right wingers would like it to mean, and it never will mean that.  Words mean what they are used to mean, not what people claim they mean or say that they mean, and people just are not naturally inclined to use a word the way that Zippy would like them to use the word “racist”.  Language does not work like that.

If there was a place for a word with that meaning, we would have had such a word before Trotsky.

They are pushing muck uphill when they try to keep the pleasant associations of gay, but they have the power. Zippy is pushing muck uphill when he tries to call blacks who beat up whites racist, rather than the anti racists that they so obviously are, and he does not have the power.

“Racist” means what it means, and what it means is that blacks are entitled to beat the hell out of whites, and whites are not entitled to fight back.  We saw that in the Zimmerman incident.  The supporters of Trayvon implicitly admitted what they explicitly denied, that they assumed that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.  They simply felt that Trayvon had the right to do so, and Zimmerman had no right to defend himself.  That is what racism means.  Zimmerman was a racist, because less black than Trayvon, therefore deserved his beating.

Trayvon was obviously motivated in part by hatred of those less black than himself, because, according to retard girl’s testimony, when he reached his father’s house, he turned around and said he was going to get that “creepy cracker”.  But scarcely anyone called him a racist for that, which shows that is not what “racist” means, shows that even the tiny handful of reactionaries and extreme right wingers that are trying to give it the meaning “someone who thinks differences between kinds of human matter, and who has strong preferences in favor of some kinds and against other kinds of humans”, cannot bring themselves to actually use it in that sense, because it would sound mighty strange to actually use it in accordance with that meaning.

“Racism” is an anti concept because actual usage and purported meaning completely contradict each other.  It purportedly means Hitler-nazi-genocide evil, and actually means white, as proven by actual usage, as for example in the Trayvon Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman was a racist and Travyon not a racist, just as an air conditioned capitalist tee shirt factory which has eight hour shifts but limited toilet breaks is a sweat shop, but a communist slave labor camp in the tropics where the slaves are worked to death in baking heat on nineteen hour shifts  is not a sweatshop.

Similarly “prejudice”.  What is prejudice?  Is it a belief one assumes true without adequate empirical evidence?  Obviously not.  “Prejudice” means “hate fact”, or “low status belief”.

Words mean what they are used to mean.  And scarcely anyone calls Martin Trayvon racist.  Not progressives, not me, and not Zippy.  Zippy is not going to spontaneously call Trayvon “racist” to describe the fact that Trayvon was in the habit of attacking people less black than himself, any more than Zippy is going to spontaneously call me “gay” because I am in a good mood.

Tags: ,

86 Responses to “Racism is an anti concept”

  1. Biggus Dickus says:

    I was surprised to learn that before, during and after the Revolution, Lenin fully and vocally supported the rights of Muslims to practice Islam in the Russian sphere of influence. You would think this would be utterly incompatible with dialectical materialism, or at the very least this would mean that mosques would be treated like Orthodox churches (suitable for bulldozing.) But nope. They were a useful wedge.

    • B says:

      Sort of true. The Communists initially supported national self-determination for the ethnic minorities of the Russian Empire, including the Muslim ones. A big part of their initial surge to power in St. Petersburg and Moscow was enabled by the fact that their White enemies were busy fighting rebellions all over the rest of the empire. But once they consolidated power a bit, they crushed their former allies, of course attacking the basic Islamic institutions first. The longest-running counter-revolutionary insurrection was in Central Asia, where the Muslim Basmachi fought the Soviets and their local Communist affiliates for 25 years running (leading to the first Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by the way.) If you want an interesting read, look up Zeki Velidi Togan, a Bashkir who was kind of a prototype for all the Egyptian/Syrian hipsters who allied with the MB against the reactionary govt, then lived to regret it.

      • hitlerworehats says:

        Some religions can be turned leftist with ease. Some are difficult to turn leftist. Based on the last century of history, Orthodox Christianity seems to be very difficult to turn leftist. And Islam seems to be very easy to turn leftist, so long as they’re willing to put up with some significant theocratic elements. For example, Iran.

        • B says:

          Which brand of Orthodox Christianity? The official Russian Orthodox Church spent the last 50 years of the USSR functioning as a franchise of the NKVD/KGB. I wouldn’t say they were leftist per se, but definitely complicit. The ones who wouldn’t comply were murdered/starved in the camps. The entire top hierarchy was on the payroll. Once the USSR fell, they joined the Soviet leadership in their transition from Communism to capitalist whoredom-see the Mitropolit rocking a $30K wristwatch.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Glasnost_and_evidence_of_KGB_links

          https://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/demokratizatsiya%20archive/01-04_armes.pdf

          The Catacomb Church is a laudable exception, although it is funny how many of their leaders are Jewish by birth. As always, we have to be more Communist than Lenin, more Catholic than the Pope and more Orthodox than the Russian Orthodox Church.

          The Muslims in Russia did better, probably due to their decentralized structure. They fought the Communists for a long time to preserve their religious tenets, and even when the Soviets broke them to accepting the ideology officially, they kept their culture, and bounced back after 1991 (to a large degree.)

          Iran is not leftist but a weird mixture of fascism, Islam and socialism. I can’t quite put my finger on it.

          By the way, did you know that Stalin made his bones as the People’s Commissar of Minorities? Togan has some very interesting notes about dealing with him in 1918/1919 in Moscow and Baku in his autobiography, which is well worth the read if you can read Russian.

          I have never seen a picture of Hitler in a hat.

          • hitlerworehats says:

            Which brand of Orthodox Christianity?

            All of them. Or at least, all the ones I know about, which doesn’t include the Albanian Orthodox Church, and similar minor ones.

            The official Russian Orthodox Church spent the last 50 years of the USSR functioning as a franchise of the NKVD/KGB. I wouldn’t say they were leftist per se, but definitely complicit.

            Cooperation with a state does not mean they supported the state. If they were fully controlled by by Communism, their teachings would resemble Pope Francis’ teachings. A Russian version of Liberation Theology, perhaps.

            After all, Christians are called to “submit to the governing authorities”, except when the authorities tell them to violate Christian morality. That excludes active support for revolution, and many types of political subversion.

            Mitropolit rocking a $30K wristwatch.

            Corrupt (and bad at hiding the corruption) =/= Leftist

            As always, we have to be more Communist than Lenin, more Catholic than the Pope and more Orthodox than the Russian Orthodox Church.

            And if Murray Rothbard and the Austrian school are any indication, more libertarian than all other libertarians (including the Libertarian Party).

            The Muslims in Russia did better, probably due to their decentralized structure.

            How well did Protestants (especially low-Church ones) do in the USSR? East Germany, the Baltic states, and various converts. They were pretty decentralized, yet they did worse than the Orthodox. Especially Lutherans, who almost don’t exist in Estonia and (East) Germany any more.

            The Muslims were poorer, and less integrated into the Commie-Cathedral. Kind of like Evangelicals in the USA.

            Iran is not leftist but a weird mixture of fascism, Islam and socialism.

            Well, Socialism is clearly leftist. And fascism is a kind of pseudo-leftism (leftist economics, plus völkisch radicalism, plus some other stuff). Islam is a religion, and it’s big political element is Sharia law. Sharia is a inherently leftist system, because it gives power to religious authorities. Certain historic schools of Sharia law limit their authority, but the Iranian versions.

            By the way, did you know that Stalin made his bones as the People’s Commissar of Minorities?

            Did not.

            I have never seen a picture of Hitler in a hat.

            I doubt that.

            http://imgur.com/9t63c4J
            http://imgur.com/FTs2K4C

          • B says:

            Oh, THAT hat. I thought you meant something more stylish, a Borsalino, perhaps, or a pakol.

            The Soviet state did not promote the sort of thing Pope Francis does. It was quite stodgy in that regard, at least after the mid-20s. Its leftism was in completely different direction. And the Russian Church quite supported this (after the 30s,) allowing their overseas offices to be used by the KGB for agent recruitment, allowing the KGB to pick their senior leadership, and for all I know violating the privacy of the confessional to inform on their flock.

            The Russian Protestants held up quite well during their persecutions. You can read about the Baptists in the camps in Solzhenitsyn’s books.

            Sharia is a fairly right-wing phenomenon, except for its mid-20th century interpretation by Qutb and co.

            Of course, more Libertarian than the Libertarians (not hard to do.) Also, more German than the Germans (Heine,) more Polish than the Poles (Ginczanka) and more Spanish than the Spanish Inquisition (Torquemada.) None of which is to imply disingenuity-quite the opposite. Imagine a bright child raised with a certain set of ideals to aspire to. As he matures, he notices that his peers and elders don’t seem to be taking these ideals very seriously. It’s like they’re not even trying! And at the same time, they are (maybe implicitly, maybe explicitly) questioning his commitment to those ideals due to his birth to a family with a particular last name. What is the natural reaction?

  2. screaminjay says:

    Well, the English language have pushed a ton of silly words like gay, queer, racism, sexism, everythingphobia, etc.

    Just a slight note in this regard. These words are not translated when you transpose them to other languages. Both “Gay” and “Queer” remain the same in French. There are words for “gai” and “drôle”, but these preserve their original meaning.

  3. screaminjay says:

    That being said, I agree with the general message and commented as Joël Cuerrier on Zippy.

  4. peppermint says:

    zippy should stick to blogging about stuff the Church has had time to consider. Though, race is something the Church has had time to consider, and the fact that they only discovered that racism was a moral evil after they were required to should suggest something about how essential it is to Catholic doctrine.

    • red says:

      More like zippy is just another common progressive pretending to help the Christian community with lies and distractions.

  5. spandrell says:

    Yes, words evoke a certain mental model. And we all know what the mental model of a racist is.

  6. Thrasymachus says:

    Trying to invert leftist concepts is futile, but it’s almost all mainstream conservatives try to do.

  7. Dan says:

    If I had a blog of black-on-white hatecrimes, I would call it notracist.com .

    • thugreport has such a list

      • peppermint says:

        thugreport is pointless. No one other than Bill Cosby will ever care about black-on-black crime, but he’s probably smart enough to understand not to do anything about it, because that’s how Blacks maintain control over areas: the second crime dies down, gentrification happens. Also, disingenuous White racists claim to care about black-on-black crime, the same way that disingenuous White anti-racists claim to care about police brutality and innocent Blacks accidentally convicted of cirmes.

        DailyKenn has on its left side a list of murders of Whites by Blacks that the mainstream media doesn’t care about. Also, there’s some blog somewhere called “one million points” or something. I don’t know where else, because once heard of Jonathan Foster and the blowtorch, you stop being interested in crime stories, because if that was going embarrass the Left it would have done so when Eldridge Cleaver bragged about his terrorist rapes.

  8. James James says:

    “The word “racist” was invented by Trotsky”

    No it wasn’t.

    “This work here is the first time in history one will ever find that word.

    My more doubtful readers may check the internet… the local library… but they shall never find an earlier usage of the word “racist” than Trotsky’s coinage of the word here.”

    • James James says:

      The Oxford English Dictionary provides examples of the word being used long before Trotsky.

    • nydwracu says:

      Turns out you can login to OED with just your library card number, and, while I’m not sure if I ever even got around to getting a card from my library, I managed to dig the bit of paper with the card number in it out of my wallet… and the first OED citation is from 1903:

      1903 Proc. 20th Ann. Meeting Lake Mohonk Conf. Friends of Indian 1902 134 Segregating any class or race of people..kills the progress of the segregated people… Association of races and classes is necessary in order to destroy racism and classism.

      Here’s another from 1926, four years before that Trotsky citation:

      1926 Manchester Guardian 9 Feb. 7/4 The press of the Left is extremely mild. The [French publication] ‘Quotidien’ remarks neutrally that the two Nationalisms are in conflict, and that ‘if German racism is a danger to the world Fascism is another.’

      As for ‘racist’:

      1926 Manchester Guardian 22 Sept. 5 If the French people and Government show that they desire to come to a real understanding the opposition of the German Nationals and the Racists will be nullified and will soon disappear altogether.
      1927 Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 21 385 The government bloc reached an understanding with the most notorious Racists.

      • jim says:

        OK, corrected my post.

        But it still did not catch on until Trotsky.

        • nydwracu says:

          That roughly matches up with the ngrams usage, but if you turn smoothing down to zero…

          …damn, don’t they have a way to graph rate of change on these things? As far as I can tell, it begins to break away from background noise in the late 20s–early 30s, almost doubles 1935-1936, and then completely blows up in 1939.

          With smoothing at 3, it looks even clearer that it caught on in the early 30s. When was that Trotsky remark (or anything else of his that contains the word ‘racist’) first translated into English? (Or did they get it straight from the Russian text? Seems unlikely.)

          • nydwracu says:

            …ach, a common problem that I forgot to correct for (though I don’t know if it would affect the data here) is that Google Books is not only generally terrible at dating books, but specifically terrible in that it will count the introduction to a book as having been written at the same time as the book itself.

            I don’t know if this is what happened or not, but it’s possible that it’s caused by an increase in uses of the term ‘racism’ from introductions to reprints of books from the early days of the Great Depression.

            Also, and this is admittedly unlikely: Depression -> lower-quality printing -> more errors -> more illusory noise-caused mentions of any word, including ‘racism’.

            This search suggests that it’s probably the first interpretation, and probably not the second. There’s a lot of introductions in there. Don’t know what would’ve caused the uptick in uses of ‘racist’ though.

          • peppermint says:

            So what you’re saying is, ‘racism’ wasn’t invented by Jews and Bolsheviks to confuse and demoralize Whites, but by Americans and ultra-Calvinists to confuse and demoralize Indians.

            I bet you’re half Jewish yourself.

          • Facts are facts, Peppermint, Jews or no. But it appears that the term, as at the time “slang”, was used by ultra-Calivinists if anything to demoralize whites in favor of Indians. So I guess you’re half-right…. Ngrams is clear, however, the term didn’t really take off til mid/late 30s, post Trotsky.

          • peppermint says:

            that was a joke lol i was comparing him to Moldbug

            Nydwracu was kind enough to put a link to the actual book on his blog: http://books.google.com/books?id=KGE-AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA5-PA134&lpg=RA5-PA134&dq=%22Association+of+races+and+classes+is+necessary+in+order+to+destroy+racism+and+classism.%22#v=onepage&q=%22Association%20of%20races%20and%20classes%20is%20necessary%20in%20order%20to%20destroy%20racism%20and%20classism.%22&f=false

            It sounds like the guy wants to shame Whites into being as nice to the Indians as they are to Blacks. That’s progressive cant. What is he really saying?

            “The great American idee / Is to make a man ana man / And then to let him be”…

            If we can make the Indian a man and get him to the point where he has ability to take care of himself and then let him alone, there will be no trouble…

            Association of races and classes is necessary in order to destroy racism and classism…

            Remove the restraints and influences that keep him on his reservation in tribal life…

            The distribution of money to an Indian tribe is always regarded by those living near the Indians as a contribution to the development of that district. That it harms the Indian is not considered….

            It is the greatest possible wrong to prolong their Indianism, whether we do it for humanitarian or so-called scientific reasons. We have a bureau in Washington which gets large sums of money for the alleged purpose of investigating the mysteries of Indian life and discovering their origin…

            What the Indian was is past, and cannot be restored…

            The ethnologists prefer the Indian kept in his original paint and feathers…

            That sounds like what respectable conservatives say about Blacks today.

            Also, there were few Indians and many Whites. If they assimilated, they would disappear, and not stain the Whites very red. I don’t know how much the speaker was thinking that, but it’s a fact that must color any analysis of the situation.

  9. […] is read what your interlocutors actually say instead of making up their argument for them. Jim notices. […]

  10. Guy From Oregon says:

    You, my friend, are a stupid, politically correct, ill directed social justice warrior. To suggest that there is no racism against white people is beyond ignorant. Please contract super AIDS and die.

    • Someone’s new…

      There is hate directed at members of the white race for being members of the white race. No one denies that. Jim is saying that the word “racist” is stupid because the concept it ostensibly identifies is so ubiquitious and normal (group identity and animosity along biological lines) that it’s not worth having a word for, and the actual operational definition just means “insufficiently self-hating white”.

      Jim explicitly calls out and sides with the operational definition, which is a much better approach than what conservatives do, which is pretend that the leftists are trying to be consistent and help them correct their hypocrisies.

  11. Alrenous says:

    “If there was a place in the language for a word that means what Zippy wants “racist” to mean, we would have had that word a thousand years ago.”

    Indeed. And the word is ‘bigot.’ Though that’s perhaps not as exact as I would like. Kindly note I really don’t give a shit what Zippy thinks. And yes, this is a steelman.

    There is a real, current phenomenon that is close enough to ‘racist.’ It is the belief that one race can commit crimes that another cannot. More generally, that one race is inferior in moral properties (as opposed to mere behaviour).*

    Both of these accurately describe progressives. They believe that a white man battering another white man is wrong, but a black man battering a white man is not wrong. They believe this because they think blacks are morally inferior; and cannot help themselves; they do not have free will in this matter. Put so concretely, the philosophical failure is obvious.

    The truth value of these concepts is indifferent to whether using this label for that concept is rhetorically useful or possible.

    Of course I’m a member of several tiny minorities, but I absolutely would spontaneously call Trayvon a racist. (Though it isn’t really important; as I’m fond of saying, he committed crimes which are already legally recognized as such, does it really matter if his mens rea – easily demonstrable in either case – is racist or not? Prosecute crimes and racist beliefs disappear as a side effect.)

    Similarly, there’s a real thing that follows exactly from the etymology of ‘prejudice.’ Pre-judge, as in, to judge previous to argument. If you want to let proggies steal the word, fine, whatever, but the concept is still valid. And again, proggies calling others prejudiced is pure projection. The other response is to calmly and firmly call them on their bullshit when you happen to run into it. (“By ‘prejudice’ did you mean hate-fact or did you mean to pre-judge?” They trap themselves, you only have to ex post facto set the trap.) Which you’re in the habit of doing anyway. The fact that everyone does or thinks a thing does not mean it’s not a mistake. Descriptivist grammar can be fine and dandy but not when it directly contradicts the etymology of the word.

    Words mean what they are heard to mean. The whole point of the megaphone is that the crowd’s beliefs must be changed – they are not already in agreement with the microphone holder. Yes, we can predict that absent an upset the crowd will adopt the new hotness, but they haven’t yet.

    *(The essence of a steelman can be glimpsed here. In charitably forgiving and repairing this sloppiness on Zippy and co’s part, I’m merely being consistent. It is not appreciably more sloppy than your writing, it’s just that the systemic mistakes go in a different direction.)

    • jim says:

      “If there was a place in the language for a word that means what Zippy wants “racist” to mean, we would have had that word a thousand years ago.”

      Indeed. And the word is ‘bigot.’.

      The original definition of ‘bigot’ was a holier than thou hypocrite, a synonym for pharisee. So, when did the meaning change? Checking google books, seems to have changed about the same time as ‘racist’ was introduced. ‘Racist’ was introduced in 1930. Google book search for “bigot” from 1890 to 1906 produces curiously few hits, and those hits primarily refer to holier than thou people.

      Looks like ‘bigot’ to mean someone who thinks blacks are dirty was introduced in 1914, or not very long before 1914, in the big rush of holiness and universalism that was used to justify the war in the US, though I have not pinned down the exact date.

      Similarly, there’s a real thing that follows exactly from the etymology of ‘prejudice.’ Pre-judge, as in, to judge previous to argument. If you want to let proggies steal the word, fine, whatever, but the concept is still valid.

      Words once destroyed can never be regained. That is not how language works. What am I now supposed to tell someone who is indifferent to empirical evidence? If I tell him he is prejudiced, he is going to be sincerely and honestly puzzled.

      • Alrenous says:

        Oh yeah? Very well, I retract my statement about ‘bigot.’

        I have a readily available retreat position though. It’s normal to treat outsiders as morally inferior. Racism is just a slightly unusual definition of ‘insider.’

        However, it is philosophically unjustifiable. Sophists are parasitical upon philosophy, which means in certain cases they spread philosophy so they can be parasitical upon it. The growing recognition of the moral equivalence (property, not propensity) between humans is a real and positive effect, but not natural.

        It would be pretty shocking if the Enlightenment were uniformly bad on social progress. It should have a few dark spots just by chance and mistake. I’m kind of impressed by how few dark spots there are – that must have taken work.

        • jim says:

          It’s normal to treat outsiders as morally inferior. Racism is just a slightly unusual definition of ‘insider.’

          However, it is philosophically unjustifiable.

          I like Xenophon’s position, which seems quite philosophically justifiable. You have no obligation to do good to far away strangers, but are not allowed to rape, slaughter, and rob them – unless their group refuses to trade with your group, denies your group innocent passage, or their group attacks first. Then you can kill them all.

          Applying Xenophon’s position to the Cowboy/Indian wars: if the settlers could buy land from the Indians, morally obligated to do so rather than just taking it. If they could not, kill them all except for the cute chicks, and enslave the cute chicks.

          You will notice that if most people follow that policy, then it is in the interest of everyone to follow that policy, the net outcome being that polities that respect free trade and individual property rights get to survive and prosper, and polities that do not get fire and steel.

          • Merovan says:

            Mulling over Xenophon’s first attack criterion (trade).

            I refuse to trade with a cable TV provider, at all, because they offer nothing I want. I don’t think that gives them moral authority to raid my bank account and force cable on me, though I imagine they’d like that.

            I think of free trade as starting with freedom to choose to trade at all or not.

            • jim says:

              You the individual trading or not trading is not a problem. But suppose your entire people will not trade, perhaps because your king says no, perhaps because you lack sufficient peace and order for trade to be safe. Perhaps you have collective property rights that make it hard to trade. And Xenophon and his army need something your people have. Xenophon’s army will pay market prices – if there is a market, if there are many sellers, then his army will then be many buyers, and competition in the market place will determine a fair price. But if no marketplace thus no fair price, then his army will quite likely just kill people and take stuff. If opposed in this project, apt to burn everything and slaughter everyone.

              Xenophon did not entirely explain or justify his policy, but if I was to explain it in his place, I would say that the market enables large scale cooperation between individuals and groups. If cooperation feasible, should cooperate, if cooperation infeasible, might as well revert to killer ape mode.

              On the individual scale, person to person, you cooperate with cooperators, and help helpful people, and hang the rest. On the larger scale, cooperation between peoples and groups, you cooperate with people who use effective institutions to facilitate the large scale coordination problem, and rob the rest.

          • peppermint says:

            Well, since Catholics aren’t willing to let me buy Eucharist hosts, I guess I can melt down their tabernacles and chalices for gold and rape their nuns.

            • jim says:

              You don’t particularly want to buy the eucharist. If you want their chalices, they are alarmingly willing to sell them. Today’s Catholic Church views all the saints and stuff of yesterday’s Catholic Church as a pile of rubbish.

          • hitlerworehats says:

            unless their group refuses to trade with your group

            I recognize that an unwillingness to trade would create an economic incentive for invasion. But not all goods, correct?

            You can’t steal Bitcoins by an invasion. Nor a lot of goods that the defender can destroy before the invaders get to them. Scorched earth, ya know.

    • jim says:

      Both of these accurately describe progressives. They believe that a white man battering another white man is wrong, but a black man battering a white man is not wrong. They believe this because they think blacks are morally inferior; and cannot help themselves; they do not have free will in this matter. Put so concretely, the philosophical failure is obvious.

      You are criticizing progressives for not being progressive enough. Been done for years. Totally does not work, because of doublethink and crimestop.

      If that argument worked, their heads would have exploded when they passed the “violence against Women act”

      Imagine a violence against whites act that required police to always assume whites were in the right and blacks where in the wrong, had special judicial procedures to protect whites from the terrible stress of having their versions of events contradicted, and so on and so forth.

      • Alrenous says:

        The truth value of these concepts is indifferent to whether using this label for that concept is rhetorically useful or possible.

        • jim says:

          It is not useful to have a word for the propensity to take racial information into account in predicting someone’s propensity to cooperate or defect.

          It is not a valuable concept. Because of the uselessness of this concept, the word will always wind up being used for an emotionally related purpose: to refer in a derogatory fashion to members of a particular race.

          It would be useful to have a word that refers to unwillingness to pay attention to empirical data, to not look for it, to ignore it, and to be uninfluenced by it when it gets in one’s face.

          What word would you suggest, for if you use “prejudice” for this purpose, no one is going to understand you?

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Progressives are always very careful to ensure that there are no words for being a progressive – it’s just a natural consequence of being reasonable in their world view.

            If you agree with the theory anthropogenic global climate change you’re … but if you disagree you’re a denier.

            If you believe that men and women are identical except for some minor differences related to urination you’re … but if you disagree you’re a sexist.

            If you believe that races don’t exist and if they do exist that they’re all the same (except that whites have original sin and NAMs don’t) then you’re … but if you disagree you’re a racist.

            They have a good point buried in there.

            If you agree with reality there is no word to describe that. If you are making a categorical error for an ideological reason then there should be a simple word to describe that. The only problem is that they have inverted the factual beliefs in quite a few areas.

            “Racist” is as meaningless as “woodist” for someone who believes that different woods have different traits making them suitable for different uses.

      • Alrenous says:

        To be precise, I’m not chastising them for not being progressive enough. I’m pointing out that they do not, never have, and never will care about being progressive. Just about signalling progressiveness.

    • hitlerworehats says:

      They believe this because they think blacks are morally inferior; and cannot help themselves; they do not have free will in this matter.

      But doesn’t White Privilege effectively force those black men to rob? Blacks don’t have moral agency, because the oppressive Whites stole it.

      In fact, Black crimes that don’t result from oppression are much fewer than White crimes. If anything, Blacks are superior.

  12. Hidden Author says:

    So Jim, are you really a hardcore leftist communist who joined the conservatives as a living caricature the way Stephen Colbert did?

  13. Hidden Author says:

    You’re ignoring me because you think I am mocking you. But I genuinely wonder whether you believe the crap you say or whether you’re a leftist false-flagging as a rightist. Your opinions are so out there. Can you seriously give me some evidence to answer my question?

    • jim says:

      If you are sincere in asking the question, you are too demented to understand the answer.

    • peppermint says:

      Hidden Author, proggies don’t memorize hatefacts and recite them while coming up with new lines of hatespeech such as the Donald Singularity Theory. When a hateful thought comes into their heads, they do a ritual like unpacking their invisible knapsacks to stay free from hate, because this is 2014, no place for hate.

      • Hidden Author says:

        But it’s not unheard of for progressives to pose as reactionaries for satirical purposes. Has anyone here heard of Stephen Colbert?

        • red says:

          If you have at to make, then make it. So far your just running your running your mouth like drunk who wants a fist fight.

          • red says:

            If you have an argument to make*

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Genuine spiritual conservatives often come off as “drunk” because they have a lot more spirit than dried-up intellectuals.

            However, in context, there may be something of a conceptual intelligence threshold to a discerning use of the word “racist”.

        • hitlerworehats says:

          Stephen Colbert posed as a reactionary

          You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      I’ll second Peppermint here. If Jim is a false flag provocateur, he scored a serious own goal with the Donald Singularity Theory.

      You say you’re not mocking, but of course that’s exactly what you’re doing. “Your opinions are so ludicrous and moronic that it’s impossible someone could believe them in earnest: are you an idiot or a liar?” That’s not a serious question. What evidence could Jim possibly give? Wouldn’t a true infiltrator simply lie if asked? Read his words and judge for yourself.

    • Erik says:

      I don’t find the question particularly relevant. Westboro Baptist is stupid, Landover Baptist is stupid, the “satire” bit on one of these doesn’t tell me anything new to make me alter my view. In addition, there’s an annoying recent trend I’ve seen of people trying to engage in “parody” by reading the opposition’s program in a mocking voice, then pointing and laughing.

      If you think Jim is being stupid, call him out for being stupid – not for being satirical.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Ah-ha, young padawan! I *did* explain how Jim was being stupid, quite elegantly, in previous discussions. I would continue until he made real debate infeasible by insisting that the New York Times served as my Hive Mind because I was one of the masses (of asses, I suppose)!

  14. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Yes, “Jim”, this is very good. I post the Mantra frequently myself ( http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/the-white-mantra/ )

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white

    has the anti-whites always trying to deconstruct it saying, “If you take away the double-negative, then white = racist, and that’s not true, since people from every race can be racist”

    And, then we say “Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, nobody is flooding EVERY Asian country with tens of millions of non-Asians, yelling ‘racist’ at them until they blend into a population of mocha-coloured humanity.

    Nobody is bringing a never ending amount of non-blacks into ALL of the 50+ black countries, shouting ‘racist’ at those blacks until they give special rights and privileges to non-blacks, and the blacks are made minorities in EVERY black country.

    It’s ONLY happening in white countries, ONLY white elites are pushing it, and ONLY white people are affected by this, it’s genocide.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white”

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      nobody is flooding EVERY Asian country with tens of millions of non-Asians

      The difference is, the Asians are smart enough not to let the foreign hordes flood in. Or at least, their rulers still have enough loyalty to their own people to prevent it. The Great and the Good of Harvard and the NYT don’t like this at all, would change it if they could, and do in fact try to promote increased immigration to Asian countries as much as they are able, which is thankfully not much so far.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Sometimes I think that Orientals foresaw the headache caused by the colonial expansion and therefore didn’t. However, the problems we are facing now, properly handled and God willing, should be looked back on as growing pains… Our fate is in our hands. Anti-whites be damned.

      • fnn says:

        IOW, Asians aren’t governed by hostile elites.

      • peppermint says:

        I’ve seen some stuff about racism in China; apparently the Chinese government doesn’t like it and wants the Chinese to accept mixed-race children of Black immigrants.

        • fnn says:

          They do a lot of business in Africa, why would they be pointlessly offensive? But I don’t think they’ll be encouraging mass immigration from Africa. They have some blacks, but only a tiny percentage of the total population.

        • hitlerworehats says:

          Governments are generally opposed to ethnic hostility. Stability isn’t improved by pissing off the minorities.

    • Hidden Author says:

      So no one shouts “racist” about the way Hutus and Tutsis treat each other or about the way the Chinese treat Tibetans and Uighurs? See, it’s that kind of ignorance about the broader world that makes people see you as an ignorant ranter!

      • Hidden Author says:

        Though to be fair, the use of “racist” in the case of China is somewhat ironic because the Chinese are accused of racism for *encouraging* migration into Tibet and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region while in America and Europe, the term “racist” is used against those who want to *discourage* immigration.

        • peppermint says:

          haha, it’s almost like you don’t know the difference between immigration and colonization

          to you, it’s just a river of meat, and the only possible differences are technological, right?

          • Hidden Author says:

            Good point! The state-sponsored nature of Han entering Tibet and Xinjiang is not colonialism than immigration though whether or not, we apply words like “unjust” and “colonization” depends on whether we see Tibet and Xinjiang as rightfully part of China. White nationalists would of course take in my explanation and say that the encouragement of non-white immigration in the West is a form of colonization. Rather than parse the finer nuances of such words, why not concede to the white nationalist crowd (which your crowd sometimes has common views with) that the Left will denounce Han moving to Tibet and Xinjiang under the encouragement of the Chinese government but oppose those who oppose non-whites entering America and Europe under the encouragement of the “local” national governments.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Please use the term “pro-white” rather than white nationalism, H.A.. There is no aspiration to the lofty goal of creating a nation… Rather, we seek to Stop White Genocide!

      • jim says:

        So no one shouts “racist” about the way Hutus and Tutsis treat each other

        A little while ago there was a Cathedral sponsored genocide against Tutsis in the Congo. There was plenty of shouting that the Tutsis were and are racist. Did not hear any shouting that the people genociding them were racist.

        Tutsis, like George Zimmerman, get to be honorary whites when blacks attack them.

        Wikipedia carries the official Cathedral view. And the official Cathedral view is that Tutsis, like whites, and like George Zimmerman, have it coming to them, because racist.

        • hitlerworehats says:

          Maybe a better definition of “Racist” would be

          All Whites, and non-Whites that are enemies of Cathedral-approved political-racial movements

  15. […] to generally oppose the use of the term racism without the self-immolation involved in contending that “racism” is an anti-concept and that thinking of black people as the moral equivalent of pets isn’t […]

  16. […] color shirt they are wearing.  This kind of “greenism” or “shirt colorism” is not an anti-concept: it is perfectly intelligible.  But it is rather arbitrary because people don’t […]

  17. […] therefore becomes a meaningless word, which is what a number of people are beginning to […]

  18. Werner Vivino

    I found a great…

  19. Trotsky’s or Marx’s views on race could not be described as progressive these days.

Leave a Reply