[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Miscellaneous See other Miscellaneous Articles Title: Racism is Good Racism is Good Thanks Curt M One of the most bizarre facts of modern life is that it is impossible to hear the topic of racism discussed without also hearing a denunciation of it in the same breath. I say this not merely because, until 50 years ago, racism was the conscious or unconscious philosophy of everyone on earth, but also because the basis on which racism is denounced is entirely fallacious. In the present essay we shall show not only why the anti-racist arguments are fallacious, but why racism is actually a positive good. To begin, let us remark that the fundamental reason why racism is good is that it is a law of nature, most commonly expressed as "Birds of a feather flock together." It is impossible to change a law of nature, but impossibility has never stopped a liberal from trying. In particular, liberals failed when they tried to impose communism on the world -- a philosophy which violates the law of nature that men will eagerly work for their own self-interest but not for the interest of indefinite others -- and yet even after killing almost 200 million people in their effort to impose this bloody philosophy, liberals are still trying to do it, excusing their failure so far by the absurd proposition that 'real communism has never been tried'. Now let me make one small but important observation here. While it is true that racism is a law of nature, it is important to note that it is actually a product of the more fundamental evolutionary law that biological or cultural groups can survive and prosper as groups only by 'flocking together'. This is obvious in the case of races, where those races that do not flock together will be destroyed by intermarriage; and it is equally obvious in the case of cultural groups, where groups which do not stay together will lose their ethnic identity in a sea of other identities. Similarly, while most biological groups -- eg, elephants and wolves -- are genetically incompatible and thus find it physically impossible to mix, the evolutionary process which produced such groups necessarily required a tendency in such groups to 'flock together' as they developed from the 'primordial soup' prior to their becoming biologically incompatible with other groups, or otherwise they would never have become groups. Accordingly, we may say that the law of flocking together -- ie, racism and its analogues -- has very deep and abiding roots in the evolutionary process. So what, then, is the positive good of racism -- that is, of wishing to be with one's own kind -- beyond the fact that it does not attempt to violate Nature's iron laws? The answer is that, in a world of overwhelming size and overweening impersonality, it gives the individual a feeling of belonging -- a place, so to speak, where he will not feel out of place. A race, indeed, is a sort of genetic extended family: People share with their racial kin special things which they do not share with any other race, to wit: genetic similarity and a culture which expresses this genetic similarity. And this means that the members of that race will be likely to get along better and have a happier and more productive life than they would if they were among those who are alien. And lest these observations be dismissed as superficial or trivial, let me point out that they are so integral to our way of thinking that they are reflected in an important way in our language: We LIKE those whom WE ARE LIKE, and we are KIND to THOSE OF OUR KIND. Men who are with their kinsmen may be part of a crowd, but it is not, to use the words of David Reisman, a Lonely Crowd. So what, then, are the arguments that liberals present against racism? One of the most important, while rarely stated, is the implication that racism -- far from merely being the desire to be with one's own kind -- is something which also involves hatred of other races. To this we may respond that some racists undoubtedly hate other races, but that hate is not an integral part of racism, except that members of a group may very well hate another group if they see the other group as threatening or attacking their own group. Thus liberals, who inevitably condone minority racism and wallow self-abasingly in the hatred which those minorities continually exhibit toward whites, condemn white racism on the theory that whites -- ie, white racists, for after all, by the laws of nature, we are all racists -- hate minorities, whereas the most that can truthfully be said is that whites who exhibit hatred or lesser forms of skepticism toward minorities are simply REACTING TO MINORITY HATRED OF WHITES. But if the above is an important point, an even more important one is that THERE IS NOTHING THE MATTER WITH HATRED AS LONG AS IT IS DIRECTED AT HATEFUL THINGS. Or to put it slightly differently, hatred is not a moral crime, as liberals imply, because HATRED IS NOT A VOLUNTARY ACT, AND ONLY A VOLUNTARY ACT CAN BE A MORAL CRIME. But if the accusation of hatred falls by the wayside, there is another point on which the liberal makes a much stronger case. In particular, the liberal argues that a blanket condemnation of a race is wrong, because individual members of a race may be good people, and therefore we must judge members of different races as individuals, and not just as members of such-and-such a race. And in a sense, the liberals are perfectly right that we should judge men as individuals IF WE CAN, ie, IF WE HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION. The only problem is that, when coming into contact with members of other races, we may have little information about them except their race. Accordingly, race acts as a 'rule of dumb': Knowledge of how members of another race usually behave is all the information we have, and we thus have no choice but to act accordingly. Or to put it another way, it would be NICE if we could treat members of other races as individuals, but in most cases we can't. In fact, in most cases we CAN'T AFFORD TO, because the hostility which most minorities exhibit toward whites means that whites are at risk of physical attack in most minority neighborhoods. So while it may make the liberals feel good to make fun of Archie Bunker, it is Archie's skepticism that is going to keep him from being manhandled by ghetto goons, while liberals are going to be subject to robbery, rape and rapine should they actually be stupid enuf to believe their stupid racial theories. But if liberals say that members of other races ought to be judged as individuals, they feel no hesitation in contradicting themselves by saying that 'all men are created equal', an absurd and outrageous falsehood if there ever were one. Of course this notion appears in the Declaration of Independence, and for this reason some might think it right, but no one who has the least grasp of history thinks that the Founders believed this except in the sense that all men should be equal before the law, and only white men at that. But whatever we may say of history, men are clearly not equal, either in their talents or their accomplishments, and it is futile to pretend otherwise. Most liberals, however, are not stupid enuf to actually believe that all men are created equal; instead they hold that 'There, but for the grace of the environment, go I', a theory which contrasts with that of more sensible people, who recognize that the genes play a major role in personal potentials. This so-called 'nature-nurture controversy' has been going on for a long time, and we must concede that the liberal view has been a liberating one in that it has helped society to throw off the yoke of rule by hereditary privilege and replace it with the populist notion of governance 'by consent of the governed'. But however liberating the liberal view may be, replacing the erroneous theory of 'heredity is all' with the equally erroneous theory of 'environment is all' has not succeeded in advancing civilization, but only in causing a lot of academic fistfights. Now it is important to realize that the liberal rejection of genetics over environment has not been motivated by some bizarre academic foible, but rather a desire to protect and advance minorities -- particularly blacks -- at all costs, including those of facts, logic and moral principle. More particularly, liberals began with the theory that if blacks were just given equality before the law, they could succeed; but when they failed to do so, liberals introduced anti-white discrimination in the form of affirmative action and similar programs. But -- strangeness of all strange things -- blacks STILL have not succeeded: While a number of them have achieved high-paying sinecures due to affirmative action, blacks are still pretty much hooked on welfare, drugs and failure. The result is that now liberals have found a new bugbear to blame for all this failure -- RACISM, and specifically, WHITE racism. It is perfect for liberal purposes: Even tho it has been practically snuffed out thru constant hammering and yammering by the liberal media and government fiat, it can always be invoked as a 'subtle force', much as the subtle force of witches was supposed in earlier times to be the cause of bad weather, crop failure, and boils on the butt. This is the main reason that white racism is denounced so severely: Liberals cannot admit that their environmental arguments were wrong, so the invocation of (largely nonexistent) white racism is their final hope for 'proving themselves right' and thereby redeeming themselves for all the social destructiveness that their programs have caused. We stated earlier that racism is good because it is an evolutionary force that preserves the race, and in fact is the product of a force that preserves EVERY group which has emerged from the primordial soup. But if this is true, then white racism is doubly good -- good for whites who wish to preserve their race, and good for all the other races that have benefited from Western civilization, that unique product of the white race. For this reason, it pains me to see spokesmen for whites denounce racism in other races, as they often do in the case of blacks and Jews: Not only does it undercut their own philosophy, but what they should be doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of minority advocates and their liberal supporters, and using this to ask why they think white racism is wrong while minority racism is right. Or to put it another way, why anyone would wish -- as liberals evidently do -- to destroy the race that brought the gift of Western civilization to humanity is almost beyond comprehension, and thus we can only hope that liberalism and its benighted flock is destroyed before the white man is.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||