In the wake of a racially motivated mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, President Donald Trump took to the airwaves to condemn racism and White Supremacy, calling for these ideologies to be defeated.
It wasn’t the first time, either. At Trump’s inauguration speech, he said “We will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.” In the wake of the communist riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, the President said racism was evil, and condemned Neo Nazis, the KKK, White Supremacists, and other hate groups. After Robert Bowers shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue, the President said “the vile hate filled poison of anti-Semitism must be condemned and confronted everywhere and anywhere it appears. There must be no tolerance for anti-Semitism in America, or for any form of religious or racial hatred or prejudice“.
Indeed, Donald Trump has often repeated such condemnations. He has always denied and expressed offense at the accusations that he is a racist. His close family ties with Jews seem to make the accusations absurd on their face, but this has never stopped the Left from lobbing them. Perhaps this is because, despite their absurdity, they have been rewarded so frequently with these displays of weakness from the President.
Now, speaking as one who was accused of being a racist and an anti-Semite so many times that I embraced the labels, you can imagine I was less than enthusiastic to hear the President I supported so enthusiastically, condemning what I viewed as simple observations of reality. The President is no dummy, and so one must assume that when he condemns racism, White Supremacy, and anti-Semitism, he means something very different from the idiotic screeching we hear from the Left.
Racism has no doubt been with us for a very long time. Indeed, there is no time in the history of man in which it has not been with us. So if we hope to truly defeat it, we have our work cut out for us. Here, I will try to illustrate a course to excising this “vile hate filled poison” from our National body.
As I see it, there are four steps we must take, which I’ll elaborate upon as we go forward.
- To claim that racism is evil, we must first acknowledge that evil exists. Racism cannot be wrong, if there is no such thing as morality.
- To defeat the evil of racism, we must carefully and precisely define it.
- In defining racism, it must be severed from all that is true and righteous.
- Identify and eliminate the sources of racial stereotypes
Step 1. Morality
In most societies, this is easy. Morality comes from God, and the people of the society all more or less believe in the same God with the same rules.
In our society, God has been all but stamped out of the public square. We operate on a demonstrably false premise that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe essentially the same things, and when the conflicts of that false belief system become unavoidable, we sacrifice the interests of Christians.
This stems from our new, seemingly secular religion, of communism. Since Christians have long been the dominant religious group in the United States, and their beliefs are steadfastly opposed to the communist way of life, their interests must be sacrificed in favor of the newcomers and minority groups, as part of the perpetual revolution strategy of Leon Trotsky.
Fortunately, we have a remedy to some portion of this problem. All three of these faiths, and most others, if their texts are adhered to, and even most people without religious affiliation, reject with limited exceptions, dishonesty, and initiatory violence, by private citizens. While they all vary on what they consider justification for government force, they all can generally agree that government should not force people without some justification.
If all religious and non-religious people can alike agree that it is evil for private citizens to engage in dishonesty or initiatory violence, and we likewise agree that racism is evil, then we can agree on the confines within which we must define racism.
Step 2. Defining Racism
Indeed, much of the problem with “racism” today comes from the hysteria surrounding the terminology. Beto O’Rourke said, without anyone on the Left contradicting him, that “This country was founded on white supremacy“. Elizabeth Warren, likewise lacking in Leftist condemnation, said our justice system is ‘Racist, all the way, front to back.” Keith Ellison said the US Constitution is “the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples“. Luis Gutierrez said Trump’s immigration plans are an “extension of the white supremacist agenda“. Ilhan Omar said Trump is pushing a “White Nationalist Agenda“. Jay Inslee said explicitly, that Trump is a White Nationalist. This list could get kind of long, so hopefully you get the idea.
All of the people who have made these statements are in good standing with the Democrat Party. With “racism” defined so broadly, it cannot be defeated. Every reasonable person, every patriotic American, is, by these broad definitions, a racist and a White Supremacist. If defeating racism means we must set ourselves to the task of defeating the founding of our country, our borders, our justice system, the United States Constitution, and the President of the United States, then only the most detestable people will take up that mission, and all decent people will oppose them.
Many have referred to immigration enforcement as “concentration camps” and other Nazi-esque terminology. Since immigration enforcement is a good thing, the only conclusion an honest person can reach, if taking such language seriously, is that Nazis and concentration camps are also good things.
For proof of my theory, we recently have heard a poll touted that says 51% of the country thinks the President is a racist. Yet, he enjoys 88% approval among Republicans (seriously, not a dog whistle), and an overall approval rating in the low to high 40% range. This would seem to indicate that with racism defined as it is today, a considerable portion of the population, particularly those in the Republican Party, approve of racism. With racism so broadly defined, as an almost all encompassing view of the world, we cannot set ourselves to defeating such a significant portion of our own population. It would literally be a civil war.
We tried that. It was the deadliest war in our blood soaked history. It did not solve the problem.
As a brief aside, it is worth noting here that, of course, the careful observer realizes that this is precisely what the Democrat Party wants. That is why they refuse to condemn Willem Van Spronsen, who very recently, after appearing on CNN’s United Shades of America, glorifying the violence of Antifa, including the armed Redneck Revolt variety, attempted to bomb an ICE detention center, and was killed by law enforcement in the process. That is why Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, hailed the Antifa terrorists who inspired that attack as “a courageous group of Americans” when they attacked Patriots in Charlottesville, Virginia. That is why they were mum when a transgender student shot up a school in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. That is why they only care about the El Paso shooting, but ignore the 9 dead at the hands of an Antifa crossdresser in Dayton, Ohio.
Obviously, we cannot be taking our moral cues from the Democrat Party.
So, back to the task of defining racism.
We know what it isn’t. The President isn’t a racist. Supporting the President isn’t racist. Immigration enforcement isn’t racist. Our justice system isn’t racist. The founding of America isn’t racist. The Constitution isn’t racist.
So what is racism?
Racism is evil, as we’ve established, and evil, we’ve established as dishonesty or lawless violence.
So from here we can deduce that racism is dishonesty or lawless violence, along racial lines, or with racial motivations. Defined this narrowly, there is far greater hope for defeating this wickedness, than there is to defeating the all encompassing madness purveyed by the Left. Indeed, defined thusly, even most White Nationalists, can condemn this evil.
What more powerful ally in the fight against racism could we ask for, than White Nationalists? Without White Nationalists, would racism have any power at all?
Perhaps, but we’ll put a pin in that for now.
Step 3. Severing Racism from Truth & Righteousness
Surely others would object. They see racism everywhere. Private property, they say, is racist. Inequality, they say, is racist. This list could get kind of long…
It is perhaps no coincidence that where these folks see racism, communism too, finds its foes. And what is communism but dishonesty, and lawless violence? Communism is everything we define as evil, all rolled up into one all encompassing sociopolitical (and sociopathic) worldview, which attempts to impose itself by force and deception upon all the peoples of the Earth.
Perhaps it has come to pass, that communism has taken up the mantle of defeating racism, falsely, while calling all of its foes this thing we all ought to be united in defeating? It surely would not be communism’s greatest deception.
This would explain the popular opposition to science that emanates from so called “anti-racist” circles. Communism rightly views truth as a lethal threat to its dominion, and seeks to ruin all the decent people who would stand for the truth at the expense of their own comfort and security. A startling account of precisely this phenomenon is provided by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his excellent book, The Gulag Archipelago. In the story of his own captivity, and through the accounts of other prisoners, we are provided with countless stories of engineers, geneticists, scientists, doctors, philosophers, and religious figures, all imprisoned for no other crime than deviating from the Narrative.
In our own time, we have startlingly similar examples, and if we hope to defeat racism, we must sever it from the enemies of communism, which are true and righteous.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA, was stripped of his titles, chased from polite society, and so impoverished that he had to sell his Nobel Prize. Not because he expressed hatred or irrational prejudices, but because he made some rather easily observed statements concerning the genetic origins of racial IQ disparities, and their impacts on social outcomes. If we hope to defeat racism, we cannot define racism as understanding genetics, because if we try to defeat genetics, we will fail.
In that same vein, we have to decouple opposition to racism from other Left wing delusions. For example, transgenderism. These two concepts have been joined to one another by the Democrat Party, and really every honest person understands that transgenderism is just plain insane. It stands in root and branch opposition to every bit of scientific, genetic, and biological information we have ever collected. If racism and “transphobia” are in the same category, then we cannot defeat racism, because that would mean only insane people opposed racism.
Transgenderism of course, stems from the mythologies of feminism, sexism, and misogyny. This ideology, likewise presents a similar challenge. Men and women are different, on a genetic and biological level, and there are very good reasons for this. Nobody with a 2nd grade education can honestly deny this, and yet the Left insists that acknowledgement of this reality is sexism, and that sexism and racism are in the same category of wickedness. If men and women were the same, then homosexuality actually would be equal to heterosexuality, and then humans beings would be incapable of reproducing. It would literally spell the extinction of human beings, and whatever your opinions about racism, the extinction of mankind is definitely worse than that.
To defeat racism, we must first embrace the actual facts of the human condition, and separate racism from it. We cannot defeat racism if racism and reality are one and the same. “That true statement” cannot be “racist” if racism is to be defeated.
Communism dupes its victims through false promises of “equality” and, in the current supposed crusade against racism, we are told that every inequality is evidence of racism. We cannot defeat racism thusly defined, since inequality is inseparable from the human condition.
And in these false promises we find the Leftist opposition to math, and statistics in particular.
Take for example, crime statistics. Blacks are roughly 13.2% of the population, and the impetus of the “Black Lives Matter” riots was that blacks are disproportionately represented, as 23% of those killed by police and 34% of those incarcerated in America. From this they conjure a supposed right to smash windows, set fires, and attack White people on the street. And one might understand their complaint, if this were happening purely on the basis of skin color, but we know quite certainly that this is not the case. In fact, blacks are also disproportionately represented as more than 50% of murderers and robbers, and as the perpetrators of 27% of all violent crime in America. Thus begging the question as to why they are so underrepresented in other criminal justice statistics.
We certainly cannot fight racism by setting violent criminals loose on our streets. Nor can we do so by imprisoning innocent White people. To defeat racism, it must be decoupled from such demands of equality.
Likewise in poverty statistics, we find black families living below the poverty line at a rate of roughly 23%, compared to the national family poverty rate of 11%. Were it the case that blacks were living identical lifestyles as the rest of the country, indeed this would be a serious problem. That just so happens to not be the case. Roughly 65% of black children live in single parent households, nearly twice the national average of 34%, and more than twice that of White families at just 24%. This combined with their criminal proclivities more than explains the poverty gap, before we even venture into their genetic IQ deficiencies.
We certainly cannot fight racism by subsidizing single motherhood and criminal behavior. In fact, our doing so at present is almost certainly exacerbating the problem. Nor can we do so by impoverishing Whites through public policy. In fact, our doing so at present is almost certainly exacerbating the problem. If we hope to defeat racism, it must be decoupled from such demands of equality.
The above mentioned statistics can be applied, albeit to a lesser degree, to Hispanics as well.
Anti-Semitism presents an interesting deviation from the typical racist norm. We do not typically hear Jewish people asking for equality for themselves, only for darker skinned peoples. Jewish people enjoy dramatically disproportionate wealth, status, and political power in the United States, and for all their talk of equality, they do not seem at all interested in relinquishing it. Their complaints usually come from stereotypes about them, which we’ll address next.
4. Identifying and Eliminating the Sources of Racial Stereotypes
Combating racist stereotypes presents a challenge in large part because so many of them are true.
Blacks, as the easiest example, are stereotyped as violent and poor and not particularly intelligent. As previously established, crime, poverty, and IQ data seems to confirm this, and thus we are met with quite the burden in combating such observations of reality.
However, the stereotypes are no less harmful to the majority of black people who do not fall into these categories, and so combat them we must.
In identifying the sources of these stereotypes, those on the Left typically seek to attack the truth. This is not at all helpful, and often results in anti-Semitism. A better way to go about it would be to attack the representations of blacks as such in popular culture. Most notably, in rap music, and hood movies.
This brings us to anti-Semitic stereotypes, which are some of the most stubborn in mankind’s long racial history. Jews are viewed by racists as everything from greedy capitalists to communist revolutionaries, which seems contradictory to the casual observer. Fortunately for the Jewish people, this seeming contradiction allows them to escape the overcast of such perceptions in the popular mind in the United States.
But for those who still believe these stereotypes, convincing them otherwise proves challenging due to the sources thereof. Careful observation of anti-Semitic online chatter reveals that they are most often sourcing from Jewish publications, such as Haaretz and Forward.com.
Do Jews run Hollywood? According to the Times of Israel, they do.
Are Jews disproportionately wealthy? According to the Times of Israel, Jews make up ten of the top 50 richest people on Earth.
Are Jews pushing homosexuality into popular culture? Maybe, maybe not, but this Haaretz article titled “As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer” certainly isn’t helping the Jewish people any. Neither is this Times of Israel article about how US Jews are more supportive of gay marriage than even their fellow Democrats.
And speaking of Democrats, we previously mentioned the communist revolutionary stereotype, and what is the Democrat Party if not communist? This piece in the Jerusalem Post is not helping the Jewish people by pointing out that Jews finance half of the Democrat Party, despite being less than three percent of the population in the United States. The same piece also points out that they are funding a quarter of the Republican Party, amplifying the stereotype that Jews wield unwarranted political influence.
Those contributions of course come from a minority of very wealthy Jews, but the Jewish Telegraphic Agency doesn’t help the “Left Wing Jew” stereotype by informing us that 75% of Jews vote Democrat.
Do Jews run the media? Well, yes, just not in a conspiratorial fashion, says Alan Dershowitz, in a piece published at the Huffington Post.
Are Jews pushing homosexuality on Children? Perhaps not, but you should probably talk to the Jewish producer of Queer Kid Stuff about that perception.
Are Jews responsible for US foreign policy? Maybe, maybe not, but you should blame John Bolton for that perception, not the Nazis.
In fact, if one were to copy and paste the contents of Jewish websites, and rebrand them with swastikas, nobody would question their authenticity as anti-Semitic propaganda. If one were to attempt this endeavor, they might simultaneously be attacked by the same Jewish attorney, for both hate speech and plagiarism.
The challenge of course is that shutting down Jewish websites would itself be perceived as anti-Semitic, but if we want to defeat racism, do we really have any choice?
I realize that this mission of defeating racism is far bigger than what I’ve outlined here. Racism is omnipresent throughout time and space, and it might never be fully eradicated.
I will concede to the wisdom of the President that we must nonetheless try, and I offer the above as a series of first steps in that mission.
However, in order to remain fair and balanced, I will conclude with the words of one of my favorite Jewish authors and philosophers, the great Murray Rothbard.
In his essay, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Rothbard warns us of the folly that is the pursuit of impossible goals.
Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself — should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.
“The goal of equality has for too long been treated uncritically and axiomatically as the ethical ideal.”
Suppose, for example, that it has come to be adopted as a universal ethical goal that all men be able to fly by flapping their arms. Let us assume that “proflappers” have been generally conceded the beauty and goodness of their goal, but have been criticized as “impractical.” But the result is unending social misery as society tries continually to move in the direction of arm flying, and the preachers of arm flapping make everyone’s lives miserable for being either lax or sinful enough not to live up to the common ideal. The proper critique here is to challenge the “ideal” goal itself; to point out that the goal itself is impossible in view of the physical nature of man and the universe; and, therefore, to free mankind from its enslavement to an inherently impossible and, hence, evil goal.
But this liberation could never occur so long as the anti-arm-fliers continued to be solely in the realm of the “practical” and to concede ethics and “idealism” to the high priests of arm flying. The challenge must take place at the core — at the presumed ethical superiority of a nonsensical goal. The same, I hold, is true of the egalitarian ideal, except that its social consequences are far more pernicious than an endless quest for man’s flying unaided. For the condition of equality would wreak far more damage upon mankind.
Join us, this and every Wednesday from 5-7pm US Eastern time for another exciting episode of Outlaw Conservative! I’m looking forward to hearing from you at 808-4-Outlaw, and the more you talk the less I have to, so please do give us a call.
The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!
You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at
Become an Outlaw Conservative premium member today to support this production, and get access to members only perks!
This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you.