There is one very simple method of examining if a supposedly “anti-racist” organization or individual has underlying racist intentions. The term “anti-racist” is horrible double-speak and has its roots in the collectivist worldview, where hate speech is violence but silence is also violence. It is an attempt to control the language much like the “Thought Police” of George Orwell’s, 1984 who used the state language of “Newspeak” to control the populace1. The term “anti-racist” does not simply mean to not be racist. It is specifically designed to force people into action. For example, universities are now widely using the term in this way: “It is not enough to not be a racist. We must be anti-racist2.”
Why is this attempted collectivism a danger? The collective mindset assumes that only through group action and adherence to the group ideology can a society achieve real social change. However, this completely ignores and oftentimes actively works against individual liberties and rights. A person’s individual rights are trampled on for the “common good.” Collectivism may be working against “racism” but in so doing naturally looks at people as avatars for their group. This leaves you back at the inevitable labeling of people by their “inherent” group characteristics. It completely ignores individuality and you run the risk of becoming incredibly classist to the point where that classism might even end up back to a different form of racism.
How can we check these organizations and individuals? Replace the words “Black”, “minority”, “people of color”, “Asian”, “white”, or any other racial term with each other. If it seems like you would be unable to say the statements with these replacements then there most likely exists a double standard. The original statement may be racist in its intent.
Let’s take Black Lives Matter as an example. Would it be okay to say that “Asian Lives Matter” in today’s discourse? If your gut response is no, then consider these excerpts directly from the BLM website, followed by the replaced text.
Original3
We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position.
Replacement
We are unapologetically White in our positioning. In affirming that White Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position.
Original
We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.
Replacement
We see ourselves as part of the global White family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as White people who exist in different parts of the world.
Let’s look at a more alt-right speaker such as Richard Spencer4:
Original
“We Whites are unique, and I would say maybe, uniquely frustrated. We like to believe that even when we’re obviously losing, we’re somehow winning...I actually worked among conservatives for a while… they seem to lose themselves in the abstract...they believe they are somehow winning. They’ve lost their race, they lost their people, they’ve lost who they are in these bullshit concepts like freedom.”
Replacement
“We Asians are unique, and I would say maybe, uniquely frustrated. We like to believe that even when we’re obviously losing, we’re somehow winning...I actually worked among conservatives for a while… they seem to lose themselves in the abstract...they believe they are somehow winning. They’ve lost their race, they lost their people, they’ve lost who they are in these bullshit concepts like freedom.”
What about the 1619 Project5?
Original
Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.
Replacement
Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. White Americans have fought to make them true.
From CNN’s Don Lemon6:
Original
"White men denying the existence of systemic racism, that is the essence of white entitlement. We do not need their permission or their sign off on what we know to be true and what we have lived. That is whitemansplaning. How can you solve this problem? The systemic racism that is killing people of color if you won't even admit there's a problem? First step is admitting there's a problem. America knows which way the wind is blowing."
Replacement
"Black men denying the existence of systemic racism, that is the essence of black entitlement. We do not need their permission or their sign off on what we know to be true and what we have lived. That is blackmansplaning. How can you solve this problem? The systemic racism that is killing people of noncolor if you won't even admit there's a problem? First step is admitting there's a problem. America knows which way the wind is blowing."
Conclusions
Remember, what is the goal of all of this? Well, the New York Times has made it explicit: “A re-education is necessary5.” The collectivists deliberately twist the meaning of terms like “anti-racist” in an attempt to coerce you to agree. The goal is to get you to submit to an ideology, not to make you “anti-racist.” It is eerily familiar to Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China.
“Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture.” - Mao Ze Dong7
Sources:
- 1984. George Orwell. June 8, 1949.
- https://www.grad.uci.edu/forms/HayesStatementGeorgeFloyd.pdf
- https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgyT67fP6k&feature=youtu.be&t=1373
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html
- https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/10/don_lemon_white_men_denying_systemic_racism_is_essence_of_white_entitlement_that_is_whitemansplaining.html
- On The Correct Handling Of Contradictions Among The People. Mao Ze Dong. February 27, 1957.