The Case Against Racism

"Racism thus amounts to ideological conflict with nature made abstractual; demonized, pathologized, then reified as fact"

"The question arises whether people who hold that witches do not exist are to be regarded as notorious heretics, or whether they are to be regarded as gravely suspect of holding heretical opinions. It seems that the first opinion is the correct one." - Heinrich Kramer

Can you imagine what a world without racism would look like? I think the most common description of such world would be everyone dancing and singing Kumbaya, metaphorically speaking of course; less racial conflict and issues, less division, and more peace. And who doesn't want peace? Regardless of how one might imagine it, I'm sure that most of us can agree that such world would be a better place to live.

This might be a good time to say that I believe it's possible to create such a world.

However, while it's quite admirable that we have politicians and celebrities who regularly and bravely speak out against racism, along with Formula 1 drivers taking a stance against racism by wearing shirts saying "End racism," and over a thousand of health experts expressing support for protests by our new civil rights movement, in the middle of a pandemic, saying in part that "In addressing demonstrations against white supremacy, our first statement must be one of unwavering support for those who would dismantle, uproot, or reform racist institutions," I don't believe that any of what they are doing can actually end or help in ending racism. In fact if I had to argue about it, I'd say it'll only re-affirm it and make it more pervasive.

To understand where they are going wrong, deliberately or otherwise, first one must understand what racism is. And what better way is there to understand racism than starting with its origins, and more importantly, its function and purpose within our society? Let's begin.

/ Origins of racism /

Racism as a term has its origins in France, 1890. It was created by Gaston Mery, intended as a positive characterization of those genuinely French. For example, he argued back in 1897 that: "It is truly time, in popular meetings, that truly French - truly racist - voices oppose their eloquence to the rhetoric of internationalist boastings."

Meanwhile, the first recorded negative use was by Richard Henry Pratt in 1902, who argued against segregation of Indian nations and in favor of their forcible assimilation - abandonment of their culture, language, and compulsory Christianization. In the following decades use of the term was sparse and varied; Henri Lichtenberger and Edmond Vermeil used the term in their books in 1920s, in attempt to translate German word volkisch into French; in 1930 Leon Trotsky used the term to denounce "Slavophiles," traditionalist Slavs who valued and wanted to preserve their native culture; during the 1930s it was also used to denounce National Socialist racial doctrines, while some Italian fascists employed the term in a positive way, comparative to the use of the term by Gaston Mery.

Despite such occasional use of the term it wasn't until early 1940s that it began spreading, something Magnus Hisrchfeld and his book "Racism" are often credited for, in particular the translation of his book in 1938 which came several years after his death. Nevertheless, it wasn't until 1960s/70s through its use in activism and by media that the term entered widespread use and attained its modern meaning, where racism is usually considered to be about prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism on the basis of race.

In summary: racism has changed its meaning, function, and value through time, and has attained its current meaning within the past several decades.

/ The concept of racism /

Racism as a concept rests on the idea of discrimination. Discrimination is the idea that unequal (different) treatment of different groups (or members of) is undesirable and unjust, in turn endorsing the idea that equal (same) treatment of different groups (or members of) is desirable and just. Discrimination itself is based on the concepts of individualism and equality, which are best known as liberal ideals in our society, and which I'm going to briefly discuss before returning to the subject of racism.

There's a lot that could be said about individualism, from its origin as a pejorative, to its role in human rights, democracy, capitalism, and so forth. But what I'm going to talk about is one of particular ways that individualism is conceptualized in our society, where individuals are described as inherently free, independent, and equal to one another. In fact, there's a common argument that what you're born as - your race, ethnicity, sex - to whom you're born to, and which country you're born in are all accidents or circumstances of birth, things that are outside of our control and thus should be irrelevant; nationalism is cringe, and why would you care about your ethnicity or race? What does it matter what skin color you are, and if you think it does, isn't that basically racism? What matters and should matter is the individual.

However, such notion of individualism is less a reflection of reality and more a reflection of ideology; to be more specific, it's an attempt to construct an identity based on liberal ideology, an identity free from heritage, belonging, and being, which is best described as rootless individualism. And I'll explain why.

First and foremost, we don't simply come into existence out of nowhere and for no reason at all. Each and every individual in existence is a product of specific people, who made specific choices, took specific actions, had specific experiences, including trials and tribulations they went through in their lives, all of which eventually led up to the making of and birth of the said individual.

All of their actions, choices, and experiences themselves were dependent on and conditioned - both socially and genetically - by their parents, ethnicity, race (itself a form of extended family), culture, society, nation, as were those of their parents, those before them, and so forth. Who we are as individuals is, fundamentally, a part of and a product of other people and specific people at that; such individualism can be described as a form of relational individualism.

Giovanni Gentile illustrates this point quite cogently through language, demonstrating interconnectedness of communities of which one is a part of with the individual which they organically, not ideologically, generate:

The language that every man uses is that of his father, the language of his tribe or that of his clan, or his city or his nation. It is his and yet not his; and he cannot use it to say 'This is my view' unless at the same time he can say 'This is our view.' The community to which an individual belongs is the basis of his spiritual existence; it speaks through his mouth, feels with his heart, and thinks with his brain.

In a speech given almost two thousand years back by Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, which was aimed at unmarried, childless men (he gave another right before it to those who were married and had children), you can see a particular relational notion of individualism, one which transcends the time and place and stretches into history:

You are committing murder in not begetting in the first place those who ought to be your descendants; you are committing sacrilege in putting an end to the names and honours of your ancestors; and you are guilty of impiety in that you are abolishing your families, which were instituted by the gods, and destroying the greatest of offerings to them, — human life, — thus overthrowing their rites and their temples. Moreover, you are destroying the State by disobeying its laws, and you are betraying your country by rendering her barren and childless; nay more, you are laying her even with the dust by making her destitute of future inhabitants. For it is human beings that constitute a city, we are told, not houses or porticos or market-places empty of men.

Because of who we are - and what makes us who we are - different groups (and members of) have different importance and meaning in relation to the individual, whether it comes to family, ethnicity, race, nation, and so forth; they are not and cannot be considered equal. Usually, such occurrence is described as in-group preference, that is, individual's preference for groups they are a part of which also exists among other species beyond humans.

Which brings us to the second point. Built on the notion of race as a biological myth but a social truth, of individuals as free, independent, and inherently equal to one another, with things that make the individual in the first place relegated to irrelevance, as mere accidents or circumstances of birth, discrimination (and thus racism) amount to ideological conflicts with nature made abstractual; demonized, pathologized, then reified as facts. Racism and discrimination are thus better understood as manifestations of heresy towards liberal (and leftist) doctrines and ideals, but also as villains within those ideologies, and fundamental tools.

It's worth noting that demonization, pathologization, and persecution of heresy isn't a new thing. In the same manner liberalism transforms beliefs, words, and behavior it deems heretical into discrimination, racism, and hate speech all of which tend to be punishable by law, so had Soviet Union transformed dissent, struggle for truth, and beliefs in reform into sluggish schizophrenia. If we were to go back further, Inqusition would also be relevant as it was formed to persecutes heretics.

Withcraft is also an interesting and relevant subject. Before the 14th century witchcraft was largely seen as pagan superstition, with some exceptions such as can be seen in Canon Episcopi. While it was punishable by law, the punishment was often lenient. However, with discovery of various classic works in 12th century which spread among the clergy, witchcraft was re-conceptualized as diabolical and heretical; it consisted of making a pact with the devil, renunciation of Christianity, nocturnal meetings, and often things like orgies with the devil, sacrifice, and cannibalism.

During the witch trials, witches were often tortured in effort to extract confessions of fictitious and fantastical deeds and crimes they committed. While execution was a common form of punishment for those found guilty, in some places up to 75% had their lives spared and they instead received non-capital sentences, such as corporal punishment, imprisonment, or banishment, the last of which was often considered worse than death. Meanwhile, those who were acquitted or set free were often shunned by their neighbors who in some cases were those that accused them in the first place, and they had to live in fear of physical assault and lynching by the villagers who believed that justice wasn't met. Ultimately, Inqusition and witch-hunts led to thousands upon thousands of deaths of heretics and witches.

Although the purpose of Inqusition is fairly evident, the purpose of witch-hunts varied. Competition between Catholicism and Protestantism and attempts to consolidate power were some of the key factors. Suppression of dissent, money, power, personal grudges, abuse, and sadism were some of the other factors. True believers shouldn't be ignored either, though it usually intertwined with other factors.

/ The purpose of racism /

The main purposes of racism within our society are power and control. On an individual level, accusing someone of racism serves to lower their social status; to win the argument against them; to deflect from the subject/stop the conversation; to exert control over them, their behavior, or thoughts; and most often, to vilify in them in an attempt to justify harassment, abuse, doxing, and threats against them. Often that leads to attempts to get them fired, bring them to the point of attempting suicide, physically harm them, and in many western countries it may even led to them being arrested for it.

Consider Convington kids who were accused of racism, harassed, and threatened, all because they cheered and one of them stood and smiled in front of a Native American. Parents of Nick Sandmann, one of the teens who was present during the event, hired a public relations firm to help them deal with it. They also sued various news outlets, and settled with Washington Post and CNN.

Unlike Convington kids, however, most people dealing with such accusations don't gain widespread attention, they don't have affluent parents who can hire public relation firms for them, and in many cases where what they've said or done is deemed heretical there aren't many people who'd stand in their defense to begin with, and certainly, defending a person will hardly undo the harm they experienced. Meanwhile, those opposing racism and anti-racists - the latter of which largely consists of leftists selling their ideology under guise of opposition to lib/left heresy - assure us that such treatment is just, deserved, and underlied by good intentions

But I don't see that.

Do good intentions underlie firing of a man for saying "all lives matter"?

Or the arrest of a 12 year old kid for online heresy towards a soccer player that's in top 0.5% of income in the country?

Maybe they underlie firing of workers who dissented during a diversity forum?

Or perhaps they underlie targeting, harassment, and doxing of Sarah Dye, a mother of three boys and a farmer? Do they underlie the anti-fa protests in front of her farm's booth, her removal as a president from the farmer's market, an event she helped establish?

Was such treatment just and deserved? Why? Did she perhaps spend months rioting and causing billions in damages like our new civil rights movement? No? What did she do that merited such treatment? Oh, right, she held heretical beliefs and participated in an online chat. Horrifying.

Where were the people standing up for her? Where were the principled conservatives who, they assure you, stand for conservatism and not just yesterday's liberalism? And where were the people defending the kid?

Sure, you've had some people defend the man fired for saying all lives matter - while such statement is being transformed into heresy, it's not quite there yet. He's had a long career and I'm sure he'll do well. What about the others? What about the girl whose home address was doxed over a shirt she wore, her dox reaching thousands upon thousands of retweets and likes, with clear intent to physically harm her and with people in comments saying they'll go and do so? Over a shirt? Is she fine? How about thousands of others like her who have to deal with abusers, sadists, and megalomaniacs who get off on harming and controlling others?

The truth is, in a world where witch-hunts are ongoing and intensifying, there aren't a lot of people who are willing to stand up for those deemed to be witches. In fact, seeing them being targeted they'll do the opposite. They'll hunker down or conform in fear of being targeted and labeled one themselves; they well know the consequences of it.

Which brings us to the purpose of persecuting heresy on the societal level. A good example might be corporations and businesses as a representation of capital. You might have recently noticed that many of them, hundreds in fact, have put out statements denouncing racism, expressing support for our new civil rights movement, and pledging money in its name, in the name of social justice, or to fight racial injustice. While many people seem to think that they are doing so out of social pressure or because of their brand, reality is more simple: they are doing so because certain ideologies and ideals are more favorable for accumulating wealth and power than others. This shouldn't be hard to see.

Consider Apple CEO Tim Cook who argued that globalization is "great for the world," and Apple saying that "the company wouldn't exist without immigration" as they expressed support for illegal aliens.

Or Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft who said "[T]he fact that people... see [globalism] as a bad thing ... that's a huge concern," or Google CEO Sundar Pichai who recently said that: "We... stand with immigrants and [we will] work to expand opportunity for all" after Trump suspended H1B visas due to unemployment levels, while also noting that immigration has contributed immensely to Google.

This is in line with underlying aspects of our new civil rights movement, from demands to repeal 1996 immigration bill, end to ICE, deportations, detention centers, and criminalization of migrants, to its UK off-shot saying there'll be 200 million climate refugees by 2050, calling climate change racist, and saying "open borders."

Another underlying aspect would be globalism, which they consider as a guiding principle and wish to insert in school curriculum.

Meanwhile, statements that corporations have been making verge on absurdity when juxtaposed with reality of who they are and their alleged actions, which themselves reveal the underlying motive. That stands for corporations like Google, Apple, and Microsoft which are being sued by a Human Rights firm, with the lawsuit accusing them of "aiding and abetting in death and serious injury of children who they claim were working in cobalt mines in their supply chain," as much it does for Walmart, Gap, and H&M who are being accused of exploiting workers by an international coalition of trade unions and Human Rights organizations, with various allegations such as exploitative contracts, low wages, denial of benefits, penalties for engaging in union activity, and forced overtime.

It stands for Fashion Nova which stated in part "Our actions speak louder than words," which has been accused of exploiting sweatshops based in Los Angeles, with the allegations that factories they use owe over $3.8 million in wages to workers, which make on average $2.77 an hour, as much it stands for Procter and Gamble, Nestle, and Unilever where an executive called for corporations to speak out against racism. Those companies have been accused of profiting from child labor and forced labor, with some of the workers being paid $2.50 a day, children as young as 8 working at plantations, and workers being threatened with pay cuts or not being paid at all, to force them to work longer hours.

Ultimately, the purpose of ideologies and ideals they support, along with their villains and heresies, is to justify and defend the system or changes to the system that will allow for greater exploitation and harm, all in effort to accumulate more wealth and power. Morality and good intentions don't even enter the picture.

Punishment of heretics, whether through actions of individuals and thus abuse, harassment, doxing, threats, or through actions of corporations and thus firing, or state and thus imprisonment, serve to make people conform to those very ideologies and ideals. Faced with the threat of destructive power of such actions, to their safety, well-being and livelihoods, individuals have little choice but to conform. Even worse, they internalize heresies dominant in our society and self-police themselves, their own actions and thoughts, becoming "their own overseer, each individual thus exercising surveillance over, and against themself."

This is especially true in the age of social media, where the mildest heresies can lead to radical consequences.

It's also worth talking about what isn't considered heretical under liberalism. You might have heard of people like Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Max Boot, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice. They are all notable political figures or commentators that share one thing in common: they are warmongers.

Bill Kristol and David Frum played prominent roles as architects of the Iraq war, with Jonah and Max cheering it on, while Samantha Power and Susan Rice played prominent roles in intervention in Libya. It would take too much time and space to describe the consequences of both. Iraq war alone has led to hundreds thousands of dead, trillions of dollars wasted, and rise of ISIS. In Libya, attempts to intervene led to slave markets and massive refugee crisis that affected Europe.

During Trump's regime, Bill Kristol has emerged as a prominent anti-Trump personality, as have Frum and Max Boot, the latter of which is also an analyst at CNN. Jonah Goldberg has hardly been cancelled, not that there are any attempts to do so. Samantha Power and Susan Rice, meanwhile, have influenced Biden's presidential campaign, with former being considered for a role in his administration, while the latter was considered as a potential vice president and will have a role in his administration.

In other words, if you're a warmonger or play a role in a disastrous foreign policy you'll face less consequences than a 12 year old kid or a farmer whose views were deemed heretical.

We shouldn't forget the role of the media either, which regularly elevates heretics to national attention and instigates abuse, harassment, doxing, and threats against them and their livelihoods. Leading up to the Iraq war and Libyan intervention, media played a prominent role in getting people to support both and suffered no meaningful consequences over it.

A study conducted by FAIR which lasted for three weeks, and was based on five different news programs at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox, found that 64% of all sources supported war with Iraq along with 71% of US guests. Those opposing the war were 10% of all sources, and 3% of all US sources. Further, most of those that appeared on the news programs were current or former government or military officials, most of them in favor of the war.

When it comes to Libyan intervention, a similar pattern can be seen among opinion pages at Washington Post and Ny Times, with articles in favor of intervention outnumbering those against it 4 to 1.

/ Leftism and racism /

It feels fitting to finish off this article by talking about leftism, and its approach to racism. I've referred to racism as a product of both liberalism and leftism, which it is, but it's worth noting the distinction between the two; while both liberalism and modern forms of leftism serve as janissaries of the system, leftism generates more grandeur narratives and illusions for its followers, with the punishment for heresy being more brutal and merciless.

Some people, especially those on the right, have argued that the issue with racism nowadays is that it's often being misused, and that such misuse makes it meaningless. But what they describe as misuse is in fact its natural expansion, fulfilment of its potential as a heresy; in fact, much of what modern leftism stands for is an end-product of liberalism, of its ideals, villains, and liberal inability to fulfill the potential of those things, with leftism offered as the answer. It's why the phrase "All Lives Matter" is now considered racist, why Trump's attempt to build the border wall was considered racist and a "monument to white supremacy," and it's why patriotism, American flag, opposition to immigration, globalism, and so forth are all considered racist. Even before racism entered widespread use it's been changing and expanding and it will continue to expand as long its function and purpose remains and its potential remains unfulfilled.

Meanwhile, anti-racism is flourishing in our society. Many of its proponents argue that it's not enough solely to not be a racist, but that you have to actively be anti-racist, where anti-racism is in itself a reflection of leftist ideology and ideals. It's also being turned into a business, with companies being created to cater to schools, universities, organizations, and corporations that want to use diversity and anti-racism trainings to impart leftist beliefs on their workers. On the other hand, beyond efforts to get individuals and businesses to embrace anti-racism, some have argued that government should embrace it with efforts that go beyond the typical hate speech laws that exist among the west. Consider a person which recently received a $10 million donation from Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, who argued that Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment and establish a department of anti-racism:

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials.

It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees ... The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

With that said, there's not much of a need to imagine what type of dystopian nightmare America could become as our society is bad enough as is, most people are just used to it. But there are things we can do about it, and when it comes to racism I think this article offers a decent argument.

Instead of conceptualizing racism as a mere fact that's free from ideological and political tentacles, and free from power, we should recognize it as what it really is; a social/ideological construct which functions as a heresy but also a villain, with various purposes within our society; from an individual level where it serves to justify abuse, harassment, doxing, and threats against people, to a more broader, societal purpose where such actions serve to make people conform to lib/left ideologies and ideals, to turn opposition to racism into a business which itself sells ideology, justify exploitation, and so forth, and it's precisely on that basis that heresy of racism should be rejected.

I'd like to end this article on the possibility of change, and I can't think of a better example than the woman by the name Ann Putnam Jr. She's a woman who believed that witches were real, and that she was doing God's work by accusing people of witchcraft. She accused 62 people, including one of her friends with whom she previously accused others, of which twenty were executed and several died in prison. Despite the harm her accusations have brought, her apology shows that even most ardent believers can change; and if they can, so can our society. She stated, to quote:

that I, then being in my childhood, should, by such a providence of God, be made an instrument for the accusing of several people for grievous crimes, whereby their lives was taken away from them, whom, now I have just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent persons; and that it was a great delusion of Satan that deceived me in that sad time whereby I justly fear I have been instrumental, with others, though ignorantly and unwittingly, to bring upon myself and this land the guilt of innocent blood; though what was said or done by me against any person I can truly and uprightly say, before God and man, I did it not out of any anger, malice, or ill-will to any person, for I had no such thing against one of them; but what I did was ignorantly, being deluded by Satan. And particularly, as I was a chief instrument of accusing of Goodwife Nurse and her two sisters, I desire to lie in the dust, and to be humbled for it, in that I was a cause, with others, of so sad a calamity to them and their families; for which cause I desire to lie in the dust, and earnestly beg forgiveness of God, and from all those unto whom I have given just cause of sorrow and offence, whose relations were taken away or accused.