The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: The NJ State Budget

This is another installment of my examples of the racism of the Anti-Racist movement. All emphasis in the following excerpts from Black leaders call for an anti-racist state budget by New Jersey Star-Ledger Guest Columnist Brandon McKoy are added by me.

 

The year 2020 has presented several moments of reckoning and reflection for the nation, as the simultaneous crises of COVID-19, a disparate recession, and the fight against systemic racism roil our streets from coast to coast. These moments have laid bare, with great clarity, the wounds of racial injustice and white supremacy foisted upon Black Americans since before the dawning of the country.

 

Right off the bat, the focus is on history. Why?

 

New Jersey is no different. We need an anti-racist budget that invests in communities of color that have been ignored and harmed for far too long, especially during economic downturns like what we are currently experiencing. 

 

A budget that specifically “invests in communities of color” is the very definition of racism. Government spending, to be just--that is, color-blind--should be neutral in regard to the race of the recipients. 

 

For a state with vast riches and access to the most consequential and beneficial resources in the United States, these incredible advantages are not equitably shared or enjoyed.

 

There you have it. The heart of the Anti-Racist agenda; egalitarian criminal socialism. Socialism and racism have a common root; collectivism--the supremacy of the group. The only alternative to collectivism, and thus racism, is individualism. Individualism is the root of capitalism and, more broadly, Americanism. You can’t graft socialism onto an individualist base. Hence, the drive to remainstream racism in American society and law is to lay the groundwork for socialism. If you are anti-socialist, you are a racist. 

 

This is why we must fight for individualism, the only genuine anti-racist creed. These black socialist leaders don’t want the focus on the individual. That would require providing genuine proof of racism or white supremacism individually, the individual being the only human entity and thus the only focus of justice. Eliminate genuine injustice, and you eliminate oppressed groups.

 

The state doesn’t have “vast riches” that it can “equitably share.” These riches are earned by productive individuals who work, voluntary cooperate, and trade. These “riches” belong first and foremost, morally and economically, to the individuals who earn it, and only the individual can rightly share what he has earned. Any legitimate “sharing” is voluntary; any “sharing” of the “riches” of NJ residents by force, including by the state budget, is the action of a criminal. The state may tax it away, and redistribute it. But it does not have a first claim on it. 

 

The Anti-Racists have to ignore this fact of nature--”you didn’t build that”--in order to rationalize away the injustice they advocate; that the government-imposed “equitable sharing” they want is crime by legal means, with a twist of racial favoritism. Collectivism is the moral escape hatch that enables them to evade this truth; if people are judged as parts of groups, rather than on personal individual factors, then anything goes.

 

No matter how outcomes are measured, whether it be household wealth, educational attainment, homeownership, or personal health, Black New Jerseyans lag far behind their white neighbors due to centuries of discriminatory policy choices.

 

Here they turn to statistical disparities. Statistics are interesting, but they don’t tell you anything about individuals, where actual evidence could be found. For example, they talk of “educational attainment” in the context of funding. But educational outcomes in places like Newark have improved dramatically due to the individual parental school choice policies of Governor Chris Christie’s charter school expansion, not more state funding. Even the Leftist Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran credits Christie for this improvement. Yet the only mention of Christie by McKoy is to criticize the “Christie-era tax breaks for wealthy families and big corporations.” Yet they want taxpayer money to perpetuate the traditional monopolist school establishment that thousands of Newark parents, mostly black, seek to escape. No matter. Statistics “say” otherwise. Statistics, of course, are the last refuge of “damned liars”.

 

McKoy gets down to defining “systemic racism”. Quoting Murphy, whose budget they criticize, McKoy writes:

 

When Governor Murphy recently addressed the parishioners of Friendship Baptist Church in Trenton, he said, “I did not decide that Black Lives Matter last week – this has been a lifelong commitment… We cannot escape the fact that systemic racism – not the outward racism of hate groups, but the silent racism of complacency – has bled into nearly facet of our society.”

 

What is meant by “complacency”? Systemic racism has been redefined. It no longer means legal segregation or other race-based law. It now means failure to support the re-systemization of racism according to a socialist agenda. If you are an individualist; if you support equality before the law; if you are not “outward” racist; if you judge and treat people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, that is not enough. If you are white, and “complacent”--no matter how thoroughly you live by individualism--you are “systemically racist” because you’re white, and don’t support race-tinged socialist schemes. That, people, is textbook racism--your moral standing is determined by factors outside of your control, such as your body chemistry or actions of long-dead ancestors (“the wounds of racial injustice and white supremacy foisted upon Black Americans since before the dawning of the country”). What about your personal convictions and actions? Not relevant, according to the collectivists--just support our socialist schemes.

 

Cuts to public education alone will be devastating — more than half a million dollars in funding has been taken from critical programs like the Amistad Commission and Restorative Justice in Education pilot program, initiatives meant to reduce racial disparities and dismantle structural racism. Budget decisions that prioritize austerity over constructive investments are proven to fail; and history has shown Black people are routinely the biggest victims of such tactics.

 

The “tactics” that have victimized black people is precisely the race-based law they now advocate. Didn’t we learn anything from the Jim Crow era? That was structural racism. McKoy and his ilk want to re-introduce structural racism, apparently believing it’s acceptable as long as white people are the victims. But that is just as wrong as Jim Crow. The very idea of correcting  “the wounds of racial injustice and white supremacy” by imposing racist policies on current people who had nothing to do with the original injustice is itself racist: The very idea that guilt passes down through the chemistry of skin color is textbook racism. This hideous premise ignores the fact that resurrecting the principle of race-based law can be reversed by future politicians, and pave the way for a new Jim Crow era, or something worse.

 

Murphy’s budget proposal doesn’t incorporate the racial coloring the black leaders advocate, yet. Let’s hope he doesn’t cave in to their demands. If bias against “communities of color” have happened, the answer is to objectively and fairly apply standards going forward; i.e., impose the same anti-pollution controls on all industrial plants equally.

 

True, there are lingering negative effects of the systemic racism of Jim Crow laws and the like, such as zoning and government-imposed redlining on the banks. But re-racializing the law is regressive, not progressive. Expanding school choice, restricting the power of zoning boards, and eliminating occupational licensing, in addition to cutting taxes on productive citizens, are some of the steps that should be taken. Statistical equality is not an ideal. It is unjust. “First, do no harm.” Protect individual achievement. Take the 14th Amendment seriously. And above all, protect the inalienable individual rights of all, equally, at all times. The individual is the smallest minority. Defending the rights of minority groups begins with individual rights.

 

Related Reading:

 

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein. 

 

Although I don’t agree with some of Rothstein’s proposals, his basic message is that private racism alone--that is,absent government force--could not have segregated America, and that lawmakers’ failure to adhere to the United States Constitution, not the Constitution itself, is to blame.

 

Harriet Tubman Was a Hero for Individual Rights, Not ‘Social Justice’

 

What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?--Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852

 

Martin Luther King Jr. and the Fundamental Principle of America

 

The ‘1619 Project’ Fraud Begins its Poisonous Infiltration into American Politics

NJ Turns its Back on the 14th Amendment – and History

In Stop polluters from choking Black lives, The New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized:

 

Time to stop polluters from kneeling on the neck of communities like these. In response to their strong call for environmental justice, the Legislature is finally acting more courageously, and moving a bill that could help, rather than simply studying the problem again.

 

It would require the state to produce a list of “overburdened communities,” defined as either low income, with a high population of people of color or non-English speakers. In these places, your permit has to go through a special process.

 

Incinerators, gas plants, coal plants, landfills, sewage treatment plants and the like would need to do an environmental justice impact statement for the state, share it with the public and hold a hearing. The Department of Environmental Protection would have the power to deny it or require new safety conditions.

 

My emphasis. 

 

There is no justice in treating people unequally before the law. Whenever you hear “justice” qualified by an adjective--“social” justice, “environmental” justice, “racial” justice, and the like--you hear the obliteration of justice. What about people who speak English, are “non-colored”, or are economically more successful? — (what income or net worth does one have to achieve to be subjected to less stringent pollution standards?) 

 

There is only one human race. Metaphysically, human life is exclusively individual. Therefor, justice is individual, not collective. Given the common fundamental nature of all individuals as beings of reason and free will, justice is impartial. Justice does not consider factors like language, wealth, or skin color. Justice does not consider the community a person lives in. Law applies equally to all individuals, or it is not just and, in fact, not law at all. Whatever conflict or issue is being considered, the standards of judgement is applicable to all individuals equally and at all times, grounded in the universal equality of individual rights. 

 

Justice applies to pollution laws no less than to all other valid laws. Pollution law should be based on objective criteria. Anti-pollution law must be based objectively on facts, truth, and proven science, not the color, language, or income of individuals. 

 

The Star-Ledger implies that pollution standards are lower in Newark and implies that color, income, and language bigotry is the reason. I don’t know that that is true, but if so, it is wrong and should be corrected by applying the standards justly. Bigotry should be eliminated, not rearranged. Bigotry has no place in the application of the law. But embedding bigotry explicitly in the law as a fix for unequal enforcement of prior law is outrageous, especially considering the history of law in America and the progress in correcting the flaws.

 

Equal protection of the law is implied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. But it was made explicit in the 14th Amendment, one of the three “Civil War Amendments” that corrected the flawed interpretation of  the Founding documents that allowed slavery to persist for nearly 90 years after the Decaration of Independence established the United States of America as a nation Founded upon political equality for all men and women. And it took another 90 years of hard fighting to fully implement that equality because of the reactionary 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling and the like. 

 

Yet apparently some NJ legislators haven’t learned from history. Here we are, in 2020, reinstating unequal protection of the law. 

 

Related Reading:

 

NJ Governor Murphy’s COVID-19 Double Standard Toward the Demonstrators

 

Steve Politi’s Cold Collectivist Attack on Two NJ Gym Businessmen Points to Broader Danger to Our Liberty

 

The Permission Society: How the Ruling Class Turns Our Freedoms into Privileges and What We Can Do About It by Timothy Sandefur

 

Vaccine Exemption Bill Violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Fairness

 

If We’re to Have Labor Laws, Should They Work Both Ways?

 

Another One-Way Labor Law

 

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty – Timothy Sandefur

 

The Founders Were Flawed. The Nation Is Imperfect. The Constitution Is Still a 'Glorious Liberty Document.' — Timothy Sandefur

 

Martin Luther King Jr. and the Fundamental Principle of America

QUORA: ‘Could someone explain America’s debt system to an idiot? How can we be in debt with ourselves?’

QUORA: ‘Could someone explain America’s debt system to an idiot? How can we be in debt with ourselves?’

I posted this answer:

The term “America’s debt system” is vague. Let’s define the terms. By “America’s debt system” I’ll assume the question refers to government debt. 

Government debt is not being “in debt to ourselves”. The government is a distinct entity in and of itself. There is no “we” and no “ourselves”. When the government takes on debt, it borrows money from lenders who supply the cash in good faith that they will be paid back. The debt (bonds) is held by private pension funds, mutual funds, individuals, and sometimes other governmental entities. These lenders’ financial health depends on the soundness of the debt, known as the “full faith and credit of the United States government.” 

The issue is complicated at the federal level by the fact that the federal government has an institution that can print money, the Federal Reserve. The government can borrow from the Federal Reserve, which then holds the debt in its own account. This creates the illusion that the government owes money to itself. But it’s just that--an illusion--because the Federal Reserve ultimately sells the bonds to investors. So the lender is still a separate agent who expects to be paid back. 

When the government takes on debt, we are not in debt to ourselves. There is a debtor, and there are the creditors. Those who claim otherwise are rationalizing away the moral and legal obligation the government owes to its lenders to honor its promise to pay them back.

Related Reading:

Massive Inflation May Be Coming, Because the US Government Has Cornered Itself into a Fiscal End Game by Antony Davies James R. Harrigan for FEE

 

For years, we have warned that continued deficit spending would paint the Federal Reserve into a corner wherein monetary policy would become a slave to fiscal policy. To avoid government default, confiscatory taxes, government shutdown, or a combination of all three, the Federal Reserve has reached a point wherein it has little choice but to monetize federal deficits. Sooner or later, we will all pay the price in the form of massive inflation.

Bond giant Gundlach blasts ‘failed’ and ‘broken’ Federal Reserve by CHRIS SLOLEY

 

The Federal Reserve is presently acting in blatant non-compliance with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. An institution violating the rules of its own charter is de facto admitting that said institution has failed and is fundamentally broken.

Who Needs the Fed?: What Taylor Swift, Uber, and Robots Tell Us About Money, Credit, and Why We Should Abolish America's Central by John Tamny

The Racism of the 'Anti-Racists': 'This New America' - Apartheid?

This is a followup to my post of August 16, 2020. It’s another example of the New Racism of the Left.

Excerpt from In risky bid, Trump stokes racial rancor to motivate voters By JONATHAN LEMIRE for AP

President Donald Trump is wielding America’s racial tensions as a reelection weapon, fiercely denouncing the racial justice movement on a near-daily basis with language stoking white resentment and aiming to drive his supporters to the polls.

The incendiary discourse is alarming many in his own party and running contrary to the advice of some in his inner circle, who believe it risks alienating independent and suburban voters. It’s a pattern that harks back to cultural divisions Trump similarly exploited in his victorious 2016 campaign.

“It’s not about who is the object of the derision or the vitriol. The actual issue is understanding the appeal to white resentment and white fear,” said Eddie Glaude, chair of the Department of African American studies at Princeton University. “It’s all rooted in this panic about the place of white people in this new America.”

My emphasis. This premise smacks of apartheid. There is no “place” for white people--or any people based on their color or ethnicity, in America. America is not a caste society. Philosophically, it is a free nation based on inalienable individual rights, which means a country based on equality before the law. There is “a place” for every individual, equally, at all times--meaning, equally free from coercive interference based on our common individual human nature of reason and free will.

Lemire’s characterization of man as having a particular “place” based on color or some other tribal affiliation is a pre-civilized concept. Has he forgotten what that actually looks like in practice. How does Lemire intend to keep white people in their “place” in this “new” America? He can look no further than past American society and law. This is the premise that governed the Confederacy, which kept black people in their place in the Antebellum South--as slaves--and white people in their place--as masters. Or the Jim Crow era in the post-Civil War South, when black people were “kept in their place”, by law and often through brutality and violence, as second class citizens. There’s nothing new about Lemire’s “new America”.

In fact, what’s genuinely new, radically new, about America is its Founding principles centered around the principle of individualism, which threw out the tribalism that dominated human history. America finally liberated the individual, every individual, from the racial, economic, cultural, political, social, familial, and religious chains defined by their tribal affiliations--leaving them free to autonomously forge their own material, spiritual, and associational lives. No longer would people have to keep their “place”; for no one, including the government, had a right to determine anyone’s place. Lemire’s collectivist/apartheid worldview is regressive, and should be condemned by all true anti-racists.

Related Reading:

July 4, 1776: 'Words that Will Never Be Erased'

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

The 'New American Socialists' Dilemma: The Declaration is as much anti-Socialist as anti-Slavery

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

Identity Politics: America’s ‘Pre-Existing Condition’, and the Cure

'I want out’: Under Americanism, You Can. But What If You ‘Want Out’ of the Left’s Statist Agenda?

Related Viewing:

ATLAS SHRUGGED — AMERICA'S SECOND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
by Onkar Ghate

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’

“Anti-racism” is the new movement. Don’t be duped by the slogan. It does not mean what it appears to mean. In reality, it is a new and particularly insidious form of racism. It is directed only at white people. And it is intended to re-mainstream racism as a means of permanently re-structuring America around the collectivist concept of racial tribalism.

 

The collectivist premise has lurked in America since the Founding. But it has always been subordinate to the individualism of America’s ideals. That’s why slavery was abolished. That’s why women achieved suffrage. That’s why Jim Crow was overturned. That’s why inter-racial and same-sex couples won marriage equality. And that’s why racism has been dying off since the 1960s, making the America of the 21st Century the least racist in its history. 

 

But collectivism has regrouped, and in the last few years is back with a vengeance. Anti-Racism is a manifestation of the collectivist counter-attack. It’s basic premise is, your race is your identity, and white people are racist regardless of their opinions and actions. They can’t help it. It’s inherent in their whiteness. No matter their reason faculty, their free will, any prior efforts at introspection, reappraising, or correcting their basic premises. Regardless of how they live their lives, white people are guilty of racism against non-white people (or “people of color”), and must grovel for forgiveness and redemption from their alleged racist sins. And it’s a one-way street *.

 

This has nothing to do with countering white racism, such as it exists. It is all about saving racism. The very idea that a person is racist because their skin color is white is textbook racism. But that doesn’t matter to the Anti-Racists. I have a theory on why that is. But I’ll get to that later.

 

Examples of the racism of the Anti-Racism movement are suddenly everywhere. Take ‘Being anti-racist is a verb, so it requires action’: Don’t stop demanding racial equality — how to become a lifelong ally by Marketwatch columnist Meera Jagannathan. Despite the neutral-sounding title, the article is one-sided.

 

“Realize that what’s going on now is part of a long-term pattern of racial injustice, discrimination, exploitation and violence,” Paul Kivel, an educator, activist and author of the book “Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice,” told MarketWatch. “It’s really important for us to understand that we need to be always working for racial justice, whether there’s dramatic moments or not.”

 

This speaks for itself. “[W]orking for racial justice” applies only to white people. Everyone else gets a pass, including non-white racists. What can be more racist than that?

 

Jagannathan gets very specific:

 

You can start, of course, by understanding the history of Black-owned businesses and making the conscious decision to shop at them.

 

Yes, the history of black-owned businesses is one of terrible treatment. Philosopher Andrew Bernstein writes:

 

[T]here were many riots in which white mobs burned down black communities and killed numerous innocent blacks. In the Tulsa Race Riot of May 31-June 1, 1921, for example, a racist mob assaulted the Greenwood section of the city. Greenwood was a prosperous black neighborhood, home to many professionals and to a bustling business district known as “the Black Wall Street.” Triggered by a minor incident involving a black teenager and a white woman, a horde of whites invaded Greenwood, burned large swathes of it to the ground, looted and burned over 1200 homes, destroyed churches, a school, a library, a hospital, and numerous businesses–and killed dozens of black citizens. 

 

But why then make a “conscious decision to shop” at black-owned business today? It might have made sense to do so in 1921, to show moral support for the business victims. But now? A responsibly self-interested consumer shops for the best product at the best price at the business with the best service. She does not consider skin color, unless she is a racist. Anti-Racist? I don’t think so.

 

Jagannathan lists three general principles to follow:

 

1. Continue educating yourself

 

“We need to educate ourselves about how racism looks and operates and what the history is, how it plays out today, and how are people of color organizing to address it,” Kivel said. “We should be turning and listening to people of color, and there’s wonderful films and books and YouTube GOOG, -0.84% clips and art and dance and music.” Race-focused book lists abound; they often include a mix of introductory texts about race and literature by Black authors. [sic]

 

I’m all for listening. But I want to be listened to, as well. I don’t want to be subjected to a one-sided “You are white and therefore racist, I am black and therefore a victim” diatribe that picks apart every innocent word or deed of mine. Maybe people of color need to understand that every perceived racist slight is not racist at all.

 

“If you’ve ever heard that a Black writer or thinker is ‘too radical,’ that’s who you should be reading right now,” she said. “Any book that is imagining a world that looks different from the one that we have, and is not just talking about things in theory, is really useful right now and will move people beyond that 101 framing, which is ‘I know that racism exists.’” 

 

Yea, well, what does “a world that looks different from the one that we have” look like? Is it a more individualist--capitalist--world, or a more collectivist--criminal socialist--world?

 

2.            Talk to your friends and family — and speak up when you witness racism.

 

Good advice. I am an individualist, by conscious philosophical choice. I have long been speaking up against collectivism, which intrinsically pits me against racism, a manifestation of collectivism. 

 

[B]ecome a “racial equity advocate.” That means holding people accountable for their actions and statements about inequality at the dinner table, in your friend group and at work, he said. Don’t let racist statements go unchecked. 

 

“Part of the fundamental way you know you’re an advocate is if you speak up and speak out when the group that’s being vilified is not present or when they cannot help themselves,” Ray said. “If you don’t say anything, you’re letting that racist statement ride, and it’s assumed that you support it even if you don’t. You have to purposely say something about it.”

 

Pushing back with responses like, “I actually don’t agree with that,” “I’m not sure if that’s true,” or “I’m not sure if we should be talking about people like that” can go a long way, especially if there are other people observing, he said.

 

Exactly. Silence in the face of an assault on one of your ideals implies approval. But:

 

You can also be an advocate in public. Notice a pattern of Black customers at your local restaurant not being served or only being seated in the back corner? Ask for the manager or write a letter to the head of the company later. See someone being mistreated by the police or others? Record video of the encounter. “Without mobile phones, we wouldn’t know what happened to George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Christian Cooper,” Ray said.

 

Before you become a busybody, you’d better make damn sure that you have evidence. I am utterly intolerant of racism. And I will always counter-speak against it. I also make sure that equality is properly conceptualized as political, not economic. Part of the problem is that racism is too often “seen” where race is not the issue. Just because a black person is mistreated by police doesn’t mean it is racially motivated or even an example of mistreatment. Maybe the “pattern” you see is an illusion or a manifestation of your own biases. If you don’t know the whole context, you’d best stay out of it. Assuming that the black person is a victim of racism because he’s black, and the white person is guilty of racism because he’s white, is textbook racism. Besides, is smacks of condescension to assume a black person can’t speak for himself. 

 

3.            Promote equality at work

 

Take ownership and responsibility for trying to positively change the culture of your workplace, said Laura Morgan Roberts, a professor of practice at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business who has researched and consulted on diversity.

 

Be on the lookout for microaggressions, listen for stereotypical comments disparaging a person’s qualifications, and “call out that flawed assumption or characterization” in the moment, she said.

 

Be proactive to ensure that people of color are included in meetings and important decisions, Roberts added; if you notice your Black coworker was left off an impromptu Zoom ZM, -3.14% meeting invite, take the extra step to loop them in. When a coworker of color does really well on a project or makes an important contribution to the team, shine a light on their accomplishments.

 

Again, one-sided. Shouldn’t all coworkers be recognized for their accomplishments, regardless of racial characteristics. And what does it mean to be “on the lookout for microaggressions”? Maybe it means, as Matt Welsh writes, “a wave of firings, resignations, and castigations over purportedly harmful words, deeds, and sometimes costumes.” Turning us all into busybody race-conscious spies is multiplying injustice, not tamping down racism. This was just the warning contained in a Harper’s joint letter: 

 

"It is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions [microaggressions?] of speech and thought," the signatories contend. "More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms."

 

My emphasis. Exactly. What if the actual victim is the alleged microaggressor, rather than the imagined target?

 

4.            Leverage your money, time and clout

 

Support and volunteer with grassroots organizations led by people of color that are “organizing for systematic change for racial justice at an institutional level,” Kivel said, and addressing issues such as housing, jobs, education and health care. 

 

Why does the color of a person’s skin, rather than the content of the organization’s ideas, matter? I am a donor to the Ayn Rand Institute, a leading and uncompromising intellectual proponent of individualism. Promoting individualism will do more to combat racism than anything proposed in this article, because racism is collectivism and individualism is the antipode of collectivism. Supporting only “organizations led by people of color”, assuming their agenda is actually anti-racist. What if their “systemic change” is collectivist and statist? But there’s another hint of the underlying motive behind Anti-Racism--the reference to “housing, jobs, education and health care.” How are they to be “addressed”? Through more government involvement in those fields--which means more socialism--which means more collectivism. That’s not genuine anti-racism.

 

5.            Use your power to influence systems

 

[B]ecome a “racial equity broker,” meaning you advocate for racially equitable and transparent policies in spaces like your workplace, place of worship, homeowners’ association and kids’ school. “You’re interrogating the rules, policies, practices and laws that are in place that govern what you do,” he said.

 

“Speaking as a white person in those kinds of public settings, whether it’s a school-board meeting or a city-council meeting, does carry weight,” Kivel said.

 

America had a long and painful experience with race-based law. It is called Jim Crow, the lingering effects of which many people of color are still paying the price for. Yet, shockingly, we get an alleged anti-racist seemingly issueing a call to embed race considerations into “the rules, policies, practices and laws”.  This is not progressive. It is regressive. Rules (and laws) should be “color blind”, not “racially equitable”--that is, they should be individually equitable, in their design and enforcement, meaning enforced equally regardless of skin color. 

 

It’s certainly true that through most of American history, especially during the Jim Crow era, American society, contrary to its principles, has been dominated by racism of whites against blacks. But you don’t fight racism with a different form of racism. 

 

White racism has been dying off since the 1960s. This new high-brow racism seeks to re-mainstream racism, making color tribalism a normal part of society. I’m not buying into this “anti-racism” fraud. Why? Number six pulls it all together.

 

6.            Vote

 

“It’s important to think about who we vote for and that we support candidates of color — not indiscriminately [how nice], because we care about what they stand for [and] what their politics are,” Kivel said. He urged voting for candidates who are working toward goals like affordable housing, health care for everyone and safe communities. Consider candidates’ stances, behavior and past records on racism, he added: “Are they going to take us toward racial justice, or are they going to entrench us further in division?”

 

Get that? If your not for government imposing “affordable housing” and “health care for everyone,” you are a racist. ** The Anti-Racist movement is apparently geared toward the political agenda of the socialists, and that may be the underlying agenda of the racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’. Why? Consider the logic of the connection. Racism and socialism spring from the same philosophical root -- collectivism. Therefore, to advance socialism is to obliterate America’s Founding principle, individualism. Put simply, the socialists need to save racism to save collectivism, for the sake of replacing the remnants of capitalism, which springs from individualism, with socialism. If you doubt that, note how Anti-Racism is always tied to some socialist political agenda.

 

* [Ayn Rand exposed this fraud half a century ago. “Today,” Rand observed, “racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority.” This double standard has reached a fever pitch in 2020: The majority whites are condemned, whether any particular individual is a racist or not, while racists of any other color faction get a full moral pass.] 

 

** [It may also be that Jagannathan doesn’t believe people of color are capable of succeeding in a free market capitalist economy. That’s a variation on the same condescending line peddled by defenders of slavery, and which Abolitionist Frederick Douglass forcefully condemned in his famous speech WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH THE SLAVES IF EMANCIPATED?. In 1862, Douglass' said

 

Our answer is, do nothing with them; mind your business, and let them mind theirs. Your doing with them is their greatest misfortune. They have been undone by your doings, and all they now ask, and really have need of at your hands, is just to let them alone. They suffer by every interference, and succeed best by being let alone. The Negro should have been let alone in Africa—let alone when the pirates and robbers offered him for sale in our Christian slave markets— (more cruel and inhuman than the Mohammedan slave markets)—let alone by courts, judges, politicians, legislators and slavedrivers—let alone altogether, and assured that they were thus to be let alone forever, and that they must now make their own way in the world, just the same as any and every other variety of the human family. As colored men, we only ask to be allowed to do with ourselves, subject only to the same great laws for the welfare of human society which apply to other men, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarian, Sythian. Let us stand upon our own legs, work with our own hands, and eat bread in the sweat of our own brows. When you, our white fellow countrymen, have attempted to do anything for us, it has generally been to deprive us of some right, power or privilege which you yourself would die before you would submit to have taken from you.]

 

Related Reading:

 

AMERICA: A RACIST NATION? BY ANDREW BERNSTEIN

 

The ‘1619 Project’ Fraud Begins its Poisonous Infiltration into American Politics

 

The 'New American Socialists' Dilemma: The Declaration is as much anti-Socialist as anti-Slavery

 

The NJ Star-Ledger’s Racist Rant

 

The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’

 

Don’t Allow the Left to Own ‘Diversity’

 

SEC’s Boardroom ‘Diversity’ Rule Is Racist, Unnatural, and Politically Motivated

 

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

 

DelBarton Student’s 'Diversity' Initiative, Though Well-Meaning, is Based on Counter-Productive Premises

 

The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’

 

Starbucks/USA Today’s Racist “Race Together” Campaign

 

Related Viewing:

 

John McWhorter: America Has Never Been Less Racist -- Reason interview

 

<iframe width="727" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O3POpubeoIc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>