Racism, by my definition, is disliking someone because of their biological ethnic heritage. Racism is both idiotic and immoral. Disliking others due to unchangeable biological characteristics is nonsensical, defies reason, and is void of any moral value.
Sadly, there are those who subscribe to such nonsense. Personally, I could care less who lives in my neighborhood, providing they keep their kittens out of my fish pond and their teenagers from attacking people after dark, organizing themselves in violent flash mobs, or murdering 12-year-old girls so they can steal their bikes.
Sadder, still, is the fact that others attempt to erase racism by pretending the biological reality of races is nonexistent.
While it is immoral and idiotic to dislike others due to their biological ethnic heritage, it is also immoral and idiotic to bury one's head in the sands of political correctness and deny races exist.
• The concept of racism
The concept of racism first emerged as a Marxist agitation ploy to create friction between classes of people. It is that cultural disruption that allows the political and economic left to gain and retain control as the victims (proletariat) of racism are dependent upon government to fend off the privileged villainous racists (bourgeois).
 |
| Magnus Hirschfeld first coined the terms racist and racism in the 1930s |
In 1933 Hirschfeld fled to France, not because of his Jewish heritage, but because the National Socialists closed his Institute of Sexual Science. Hirschfeld's primary area of research was sexology, a topic over which he obsessed challenging even the passion of Alfred Kinsey.
Hirschfeld was sometimes correct, as cultural Marxism typically exploits bits of truth then falsely extrapolates it into nonsensical, ideological kudzu. Hirschfeld noted, for example, that interbreeding was possible between races, then concluded that races are mental abstracts or social constructs, all the while ignoring the myriad of biological markers that Hirschfeld, being a medical professional, surely knew existed.
Hirschfeld extended his ideology to the condemnation of Zionism as ethnocentric, in spite of the fact that he was a Jew. He also extolled individualism as the criteria by which one's merit should be acknowledged -- something similar to Martin Luther King's content of character concept. Who could argue with that? In the end he identified seventy individuals he considered outstanding world figures, explained Sam Francis. All but eight or nine of those on the list, it turns out, were white Europeans. None were black.
Who was he fooling?
Thus the individual who gave us the terms racist and racism was an intellectually dishonest, albeit brilliant, leftist with an agenda. Take note that prior to Hirschfeld the social concept of racism didn't exist. Humans simply took note of what they observed and believed their eyes.
We still do, of course. Show anyone a photograph and ask them to describe the hat worn by the black man in the crowd and they will innately do so. None will say, "There is no black guy. Race is a social construct."
Cultural Marxism is burdened, therefore, with the task of convincing white people that their acknowledgement of race realism is racist and, all the while, denying that race exists.
• Exploiting race to advance an agenda
Cultural Marxism perennially pretends to fight racism even as it proliferates it.
Two things of which to take note:
Note, first, that Jesse Jackson is a perennial opponent of white racism. Then ponder what Rev. Jackson would do for a living if there were no racism? If the exterminator exterminated all the vermin, he'd be out of a job. Jackson needs racism like the Orkin man needs rats.
Note, second, that there are cultures that are practically void of racism. These homogeneous cultures include Iceland, The Falklands, The Isle of Man, and Cameroon. Were cultural Marxism truly determined to wipe out racism, it would struggle to create racially segregated, homogeneous cultures. But that's not what we see. Rather, we observe cultural Marxism successfully creating heterogeneous cultures in which racial conflict is bound to happen. It weaves ethnicity into the cultural fabric through integration to assure the friction can be neither avoided nor resolved. Like Jesse Jackson and other exterminators, it is guaranteed a "job."
Here's a question to ponder: What's more dishonest than an exterminator who breeds rats?
 |
| HUD wants to make the Rural Purge reality. |
Recently The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to force integration upon every outpost of white homogeneous communities. Ostensibly its agents want to fight the evils of segregation which, through their filtered thinking, translates into racism and the consequential economic and social injustices it causes. In reality it wants to exacerbate racial and ethnic tensions, assuring that agitation will be be well-woven into our culture from Manhatten, New York to Mayberry, RFD.
Again, the struggle against racism is perennial because cultural Marxism requires it to survive. While white people allow themselves to be guilt ridden for even entertainingthe thought that the crowd of obnoxious young black thugs may pose physical danger, non-whites are encouraged to embrace the ethnocentric perspective that even Hirschfeld deplored.
Here's a meme to remember: Government-forced integration breeds racism.
Neither integration nor segregation constitutes or causes racism. Rather, racism is the outcome of government force. Government's role is to protect our freedom of association; not to remove it.
• Four pillars of culture
So we make concessions to purge our culture of the evils of racism even as non-whites are encouraged to do the opposite. This process of cultural mitigation deprives the white bourgeois (Marxist perspective) of control while empowering the non-white proletariat. Neither diversity nor multiculturalism is a strength. That is precisely why cultural Marxism flames it's fire.
There are at least four pillars of a cultural structure that must be compromised for Marxism to thrive.
• The first is a unified language.
When my French ancestors first set foot in the British colonies they were challenged with adopting English so they could adapt to the culture. 100 years later, when the colonists sought independence from British oppression, they began making linguistic distinctions between themselves and the enemy. The letter u took a noticeable hit as labourbecame labor, colour became color, and our neighbours became our neighbors. Coincidentally, the British spellings were remnants of the Norman invasion hundreds of years earlier.
 |
| Nous les Gens |
The United States Constitution was written in English. There was no anticipation of a fractured culture.
The natural divide between us and them is, again, by design. The left causes racial divisions for exploitation purposes as it encourages a sense of victimization among the non-white proletariat and guilt among the privileged white bourgeois.
Cultural Marxism, therefore, is innately racist even as it accuses those of us who resist such efforts of being the same. It is akin to a schoolyard bully accusing his victims of being bullies.
• The second pillar is a sense of history.
Again, from an ounce of truth grows disinformation and misinformation in kudzu proportions.
 |
| Good or evil? |
The Trail of Tears is an historical reality, although the Indians whose trek to the West was made aboard boats shed few tears. We all know that Indians perished along the trail. We do not consider that Indians perished who did not make the trek. The dirty little secret is that every single Indian alive in 1830 is now dead and would have died with or without the transfer to homogeneous homelands. Who knows that many Indians acclimated themselves to Western culture and were exempted from the move? Does anyone stop to consider that some of the Indians who made the trek were quite wealthy? Are we informed that the government provided healthcare to the Indians as they made their way westward? Does cultural Marxism ever take note that millenia of inter-tribal warfare was ended by white people? Or do we take note that white innovation, particularly in the healthcare field, has saved millions of lives of Indians and other non-whites? Why is cultural Marxism so eager to portray white people as instigators of genocide when, in reality, our innovation has enhanced living standards of the billions of humans who co-occupy the planet and will continue to do so for generations to come?
Cultural Marxism seeks to cast a disparaging shadow across American history, forever portraying white people as slavers while ignoring the reality that we ended millenia of legal chattel slavery worldwide. They question the moral content of the minds of our founders, but only when convenient. Sordid tales of Christians on deadly witch hunts are well known to every school child even as they are simultaneously taught that America was founded as a secular nation. Does no one else see they hypocrisy? How do revisionists convince us that slavery was an institution embraced by our Christian founders, and then contend that our founders were deists and not Christians?
Christopher Columbus opened a door to the new world that culminated in remarkable innovative changes that will continue to enhance the lives of the descendants of natives for generations. Cultural Marxism rewrites history to focus on viral epidemics that killed Indians. Of course, they never mention that the critters that introduced the Black Death to Europe were imported from China, nor do they bother to mention the body of evidence pointing to syphilis as being as native to the Americas as maze and tobacco.
In the cultural Marxism narrative, white people have a history of oppressing non-whites.
• The third pillar is comprised of icons and symbols.
Icons are powerful. They instill a sense of community and identity. People literally give their lives in honor of icons in the form of symbols and flags.
The Roman Emperor Constantine understood this principle when he went to battle Maxentius. According to the historian Lactantius, Constantine ordered each shield held by every soldier to include the image of the cross. Constantine knew, no doubt, that the enemy's army included a large contingency of Christians who would be reluctant to pierce the cross with an arrow, spear, or sword.
Traditional American icons are demonized, removed, and replaced. Most notorious is the Confederate flag. In my lifetime I have watched that flag change from a benign symbol of Southern culture to be demonized as the embodiment of racial hatred. Statues of Confederate statesman are removed. Today's monuments are erected en masse to honor Rosa Parks and Martin Lutheran King, Jr.
How peculiar that multiculturalism excludes Southern culture.
The demonization of Paula Deen had nothing to do with her use of the n word. Deen was an icon. Her cooking show placed a positive spin on Southern white culture. And that, to cultural Marxism, in anathema.
 |
| Where have all the icons gone? |
So it was that from 1969 to 1972 Americans were denied television programming that portrayed their culture in a positive light. Called the rural purge, white-friendly programming such as The Andy Griffith Show, The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, Mister Ed, Petticoat Junction, Hee Haw, and Lassie were stripped from the weekly lineup. Many of those programs were immensely popular and profitable. They were also anathema to cultural Marxism that requires white America to be demonized. During that same time frame America was introduced to a slew of commercials feature black actors. Next up was Norman Lear and his onslaught of politically correct humor.
Television programming is iconic and such icons from Ellie Mae Clampett to Paula Deen's kitchen are untenable.
The image of Christopher Columbus is no longer honored. Streets and public places named after America's founders have long gone out of vogue.
• The fourth pillar is common identity.
We are even deprived of such friendly icons such as manger scenes.
Americans were not communal, but they had much in common: A common religion, a common language, and a common rule of law. Combined those elements comprised to create a common people whose cohesion could withstand an onslaught from the British Empire. Add a common work ethic to a lust for liberty and America with her European cousins transformed humanity with previously unfathomable innovation.
What made America work was a common identity.
• Summary conclusion
Today our identity is being fractured by design. Beginning in 1965 our government displaced the European criteria for immigration and opened our borders to huddled masses who yearned, not to be free, to exploit our heritage. Some assimilated, most did not.
The same is true in Europe and Australia.
In time our common culture will be gone and, along with it the innovative infrastructure that feeds, finances, and provides healthcare to all humanity. An impending dark ages looms on the horizon from which humanity will never recover and we're witnessing the storm front in our life time. We the people who enhance the lives of all others are being destroyed. And that, my friend, is racism: The destruction of one race of people to the detriment of all others.
Summarily, when cultural Marxism says it hates racism, it is saying it hates me. When I say I hate racism, I'm saying I hate cultural Marxism and the irreversible damage it is doing to all people of all races.
