Deceptive Rebranding: Racial Activism

In the previous instalment of this series, I discussed young-Earth creationism and how it was re-branded into “intelligent design” and later “sudden emergence” to get around being banned in public schools. At the end of that article, I mentioned that proponents of Critical Race Theory (CRT) have done something similar, albeit with much greater success. They began by re-defining the word “racism” to mean something other than “differential treatment based on genetic lineage.”

The word “racism” originally appeared in the western lexicon in 1946 as a result of the Nuremburg trials (more proof that the Holocaust absolutely was about race), but its actual origin was in 1927. “Racismus” was a word coined by Leon Trotsky for the purpose of morally brow-beating anti-socialist Slavs. Trotsky, though Lenin’s heir apparent, was far too radical in his departure from Marxist orthodoxy, and also not at all liked in the Communist Party, so it was relatively easy for Stalin to get rid of him. Trotsky, of course, was so high on the smell of his own flatulence that he didn’t realise how hated he was, despite being kicked out of every country he tried to live in after being deported from the Soviet Union. He eventually settled in Mexico and founded another Revolutionary organisation called the Fourth International, which is where the modern neo-Marxist school of thought gets most of its ideas, and also why I refer to Trotsky as “the original neo-Marxist.”

In 1969, after the passing of the Civil Rights Act in the US, racial activism was no longer necessary. The Civil Rights Movement got exactly what it wanted. Unfortunately, while the Civil Rights Act was certainly a good thing, the activists who made their living off the existence of social problems could no longer continue doing their activism. If people make a living off of the existence of a social problem, then it goes against their self-interest to ever have that problem solved. Racism certainly still existed, but it had been outlawed. Segregation and other forms of racial discrimination were no longer legal. This meant that the racial activists had to become race grifters, starting with Patricia A Bidol.

In 1972, Bidol, a public school superintendent in Michigan, wrote a teaching manual titled Developing New Perspectives on Race, in which, contrary to the convention of the time, called people who practiced racial discrimination “racist” rather than “segregationist.” Recall that “racist” was basically a synonym for “Nazi” or “genocidal maniac” at that time, which is why the Ku Klux Klan doesn’t call itself “racist”; the KKK doesn’t believe in the extermination of black people. The deceptive rebranding of the word “racism” was simply a brilliant way to get attention, and hoo boy, did it work!

As Morgan Freeman once noted, the way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about race. There is only one race: the human race. If racial consciousness is diminished, then racial discrimination will diminish along with it. Elevating racial consciousness, on the other hand, only exacerbates racial discrimination. Pointing this out is anathema to the race grifters, so they had engaged in a motte-and-bailey argument using the Trotskiist definition of racism in order to push their equine excrement on people, like so:

Normal people after the Civil Rights Act: black people now have equal protection under the law. Any problems they face are the fault of individual action, not the system.

Race grifters: our society is built on racism, and therefore systemic racism lives on; the Civil Rights Act accomplished nothing because it doesn’t legislate against racist thoughts.

Normal people: we’re not racist, we supported the Civil Rights movement, but there’s only so much we can do about the racists who still exist. We’re not activists, just regular people trying to live and let live.

Race grifters: all white people are racist. Racism isn’t an ideology, but a system of privileges.

Normal people: affirmative action is a form of racism, because it treats people on the basis of skin colour!

Race grifters: all racism is based on structural power, therefore only white people can be racist.

Those three points and contra-points are taken from this video, which is the first in a two-part series. If you have a couple hours to spare, I suggest watching both of them.

You may notice that I have a different angle here, and that’s because Sitch isn’t working with the whole picture; this is but one piece of a vast network of insufferable busybodies.

All of the arguments that the “white knights” (pun fully intended) against racism, and I do mean all of them, are lifted straight from Trotsky’s work. These are the exact same arguments that he used against the peasants who resisted having their land “re-distributed” to “marginalised ethnicities” in the Soviet Union. Bear in mind that collectivised agriculture, forced relocations, and purges, all began under Lenin, not Stalin, and Trotsky was on board with it all along. As a reminder, Lenin initially rescinded the tsarist policy of strict Russification, and encouraged ethnic minorities such as Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Kazaks to speak their own languages, but he quickly changed his mind as he noticed a lack of integration and homogenisation of the Soviet people.

Bidol then went on to work on an “action manual” titled Education and Racism with several other activists in 1973, which is where the activistic definition of racism as “prejudice plus power” is first laid out. As of this writing, I was unable to confirm if this book is cited in the bibliography of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s 1996 book titled Critical Race Theory: the key writings that formed the movement (because I’ve read parts of it, but I don’t own a copy), but I’d be shocked if it isn’t, considering that Education and Racism cites Bidol’s curriculum from the previous year, because these race grifters are all in one big circle-jerk, rather like YECs, military “reformists,” and other so-called progressives.

Another event of some note in 1973 was that Sandra Harding, the founder of Standpoint Theory (ST) was awarded a PhD in philosophy from New York University. Harding immediately went on to teach in Critical Social Sciences and Women’s Studies. You will note that the word “critical” appears in a lot of these ideologies, but it in no way means the same thing that it does in the phrase “critical thinking.” “Critical,” in the context of critical “theory” (in quotes because none of these theories even qualify as hypotheses, but I digress) means “de-constructive,” from the Hegelian tradition, because Hegelianism originated in direct opposition to empiricism, which ST is also unabashedly opposed to. However, I’m not going to get into that here, because Harding’s canine excrement doesn’t begin to play into all of this until much later. While I had contemplated addressing intersectionality, a term which Kimberlé Crenshaw coined in 1989 and which Harding’s particular brand of radical feminism contributed greatly to, that deserves its own article on account of being yet another stinking shit-pile of incoherent nonsense. *Sigh* So much bullshit, so little time…

In a rather famous hoax, Peter Boghossian re-published Mein Kampf after replacing every instance of the word “Jew” with the word “White” and a few other minor changes, and it was hailed as a brilliant piece of “anti-racist” literature by the far-left. However, this is not the first instance of “anti-racist” rhetoric being fundamentally indistinguishable from National Socialist doctrine. In 1978, Judith H Katz wrote a handbook for “anti-racism” training titled White Awareness, and in it, suggested that racism is a form of schizophrenia… but not in the sense that “obsessing over skin colour is cognitive dissonance,” rather in the sense that “acting ‘White,’ i.e. in accordance to classical liberal values (see Table 1 in the book), is unnatural, and a manifestation of a dissociative identity disorder.” In other words, white people “can’t help themselves,” which sounds to me an awful lot like “the Jew cannot help but be a parasite on the German people, and therefore must be removed by force from German society,” but also goes a long way to perpetuating the “Madman Hitler” myth that I thoroughly despise. This is the opposite of the strictly Lamarckist view that Karl Marx held, in his own words: “the social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.” In other words, Katz is (she is still alive and, apparently, still active) an anti-white race realist… but she is white herself, so she is projecting her own particular brand of white supremacy onto all other Caucasians. Shit like this is why I say “CRT is white supremacy with a guilty conscience.”

Of course, every single claim made by Marx, Trotsky, Bidol and Katz is demonstrably false and laughably wrong, but because they are/were ideologues, they would not accept this. They have an agenda to push, and truth cannot be allowed to get in their way. In 1977, David T Wellman wrote Portraits of White Racism, which is yet another nonsensical tome attempting to shoehorn the activistic definition of racism into academia, this time into the field of sociology. Wellman claimed that the “accepted method,” by which he obviously means empiricism, doesn’t support his claims, which means that the accepted methods must be wrong, rather than the activists’ claims. Some people call this motivated reasoning, I call it the ideological method in action. If the Marxist connection isn’t obvious yet, simply bear in mind that Marx was a Hegelian also. Recall as well the hubris of the cathedral, that they, the anointed, already know everything because of their pseudo-spiritual enlightenment, so any investigation of the facts that doesn’t agree with their predetermined conclusion must be discarded. This, by the way, is the reason I was debating whether or not I wanted to publish this article first, or my introduction to Gnosticism, because these ideas are all basically the same, just wearing different skinsuits.

Socio-political ideologies are almost never supported by empiricism, hence the Marxists labelling empricism as “oppressive bourgeois science,” Nazis labelling it as “Jewish science,” YECs calling it “secular science” or “atheist science,” and CRT proponents calling it “White science,” all of which are stand-ins for “pseudoscience,” in obvious attempts at a hand-waving dismissal of any arguments that are inconvenient for them. Ideologues don’t deal in facts and logic, they deal in platitudes and fallacies, and how dare you catch on!

Since I am an equal opportunity abuser, the next instalment of this series will focus on white supremacy, and how it has rebranded over the decades… but by all means, feel free to dismiss every claim made by this filthy Russian Jew. Na shledanou!