Lew Rockwell "What Exactly Is Racism"? 2014
Not new, but a good and thorough assessment of modern social pathology regarding mandated conformity and the suppression of dissent.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Ayn Rand explained racism in terms of its essentials, opening the chapter "Racism" in The Virtue of Selfishness with:
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/govern...
The essay continues to explain and discuss racism, its implications, and implementation in depth. From this the leftist fallacies in calling everyone they don't like a "racist" while advocating racist policies themselves are clear.
She later built on that in her discussion of "ethnicity" in her 1977 Ford Hall Forum lecture "Global Balkanization" https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-co...
" 'Ethnicity' is an anti-concept, used as a disguise for the word 'racism' — and it has no clearly definable meaning. . . . The term “ethnicity” stresses the traditional, rather than the physiological characteristics of a group, such as language — but physiology, i.e., race, is involved . ... So the advocacy of “ethnicity,” means racism plus tradition — i.e., racism plus conformity—i.e., racism plus staleness"
The entire discussion of ethnicity was reissued as the chapter "Global Balkanization" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (expanded 1999 2nd edition entitled The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution) and also in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought.
This is especially important with the continuing rise of "ethnicity" and racism today.
I dont like entitlement and want little to do with any entitled people. Unfortunately, a lot of blacks (since Obama) consider themselves entitled, and act that way. Of course not ALL blacks are entitled, but its one of the traits that is pretty obvious and is grounds for me to not deal with them. There are people of other social groups who are entitled too, and I have learned to pick out that trait pretty quickly and stay away from them too. The leftists would call me racist of course (whatever that means...).
The "cultural" factor mixed with racism was addressed by Ayn Rand in "Global Balkanization" referred to on this same page https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The rise in "ethnicity" mongering by the left and spreading from there on top of the left's fallacies calling others racist while practicing it themselves is important to understand. Ayn Rand spotted it as a major trend and analyzed it over 40 years ago. Her earlier analysis of racism is fundamental, but not enough to understand the full ethnicity movement.
It led me to the review of Conceived in Liberty, Volume 5: The New Republic.
I hadn't realized it was available. I already own the earlier 4 volumes.
👍
It is available as https://www.amazon.com/Conceived-Libe...
Free downloads for pdf, epub and an audio book are at https://mises.org/library/conceived-l...
The first four volumes were informative and interesting, but one has to ignore the occasional pleadings for anarchism and the repetitive 'Indian good -- white man bad' revisionism. The preface by Napolitano in the new 5th volume indicates that it has its own problems, but it looks like it is worth reading for the history apart from his evaluations.
The book is also available via Mises Bookstore https://store.mises.org/Hardcover-P11...
The Article of Confederation were non-functional and incapable of protecting individual rights, as is Rothbard's anarchism. The states were very mixed, and without the Federal Bil of Rights they would have become much worse than they already are. That doesn't condone Hamilton's statism and doesn't mean that the Constitution couldn't have been better.
The Articles apparently didn't allow central government much taxation and that prevented growth of government. I'll have to read the book before I can converse on the Articles.
Rothbard may have something in particular interesting to say in assessing this, but remember that his standards are anarchism.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/govern...
Of particular interest are the views of the NYT quoted, but that was then, 1963.
The left is promoting ethnicity and tribalism on principle, as discussed in Ayn Rand's "Global Balkanization" https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Their collectivist anti-concept of 'racism' is anything that rejects their own ethnic collectivism -- If you reject their racism because you oppose all racism on principle, they regard that as an attack on their race-ethnic collectivist entitlements.
They don't deny the country's predominantly European ancestry -- they condemn it, elevating it in importance as a hostile tribe.
But 'ancestry' is not a legitimate source of pride. You made yourself through your own thinking and choices. Your ancestors didn't do that for you whether they were good or evil. They did not determine what you are, which is a racist concept. Neither did you determine what they were as a reason to feel pride in them. There is only a biological connection. You can find it interesting to explore your ancestral background, but it's not something be "proud" of.
If one wants more discussion on equality, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice"
If Blarman had something to say about why he thinks his pronouncement on "equality" and an undefined "cosmic justice" are relevant and what he thinks about them he could have written it. He could have also attempted to explain why he thinks Rockwell's wandering essay concluding that the answer to an undefined racism is to "shun the state" and its "language" is good. Blarman's word is not authority.
He has previously demanded that I not respond to his posts on this public forum and tried to have me banned. He is a religious conservative hostile to Ayn Rand and has no interest in her ideas.
If one accepts the proposition that "Good neighbors come in all colors", then it would seem that the proposition "Assholes come in all colors" is true as well. So how to best respond to an every day act of "ass-holiness" committed by a black person without being accused of "racism" and perhaps being censured and/or losing ones position or tenure? To bite one's tongue and not respond would not only be physically, but would amount to condecention--which itself an act of crypto-racism!
I believe that perception of what constituts "hate"is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. How would a "reasonable and prudent person" perceive it?
But that does not make it a subject for government control over so-called "hate crimes". It is a form of freedom of thought and expression. The idea of "hate crime" is an anti-concept with no validity. Crimes are violations of rights, not what someone holds in his head or says, whether or not he actually commits a crime through his actions in accordance with hate.
So, is there a subset of the human species with that kind of difference?...No, there is not.
Are there groups of humans that look a little different...yes, of course...but those differences are not enough to demand a separation between the two.
Yes, I know, the leftest, the idiots, those prejudice against anyone different from them, have constructed a different meaning, standard, definition, than what the real concept of race denotes.
We can't use a country, region or culture as a defining difference worthy of separation either...unless one is ignorant...which they are, nor are they self aware, either.
So, I have a better term but it wouldn't bother me one bit if you chose the use the designation, "different race" instead of Entity; because I refer to the most important difference within the human species is Conscience, those that have or could have, versus those that don't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever having a conscience.
Conscious Humans and parasitical humanoids are the only divisions I recognize.
As for individuals -- I have been engaged in an online dialog, over the past three years, with a guy from Lagos, Nigeria. He is from an affluent family in the Igbo tribe. His father had three wives and he is the eldest son. In his own words, he described Nigeria as one of the most intellectually devoid and corrupt hell-holes on earth. He is forever grateful for the civilizing influence provided by Western Europeans in context of building cities and developing the petroleum industry. These are his observations shared in the general forum of our online discussion group as well as personal messages. He recently invested 10 years in the United States and Canada in various universities. Then he began looking for work ... now I have never met this guy, but based on our interchanges over the years, we came to know each other quite well. I tried to get him a job with my company. He even got in the front door with an interview. He did not get the job. He is presently working on becoming a successful author (novels). In summary, I judge individuals based on the expressed content of their character. Funny twist in this story -- it was this Igbo man from Nigeria who introduced me to Jared Taylor (Labelled "white supremacist" on Wikipedia) and American Renaissance.
Racism does not mean denying that there are inherited physical attributes. Lumping the existence of inherited physical attributes together with valuing or disvaluing people on the base of race as a rationalization for racism is racist. Racism is crude collectivism, not "realistic", and does not become realistic with a crude verbal deflection. There is no such thing as realistic racism, which categorization is nothing more than trying to put a positive "spin" on racism.
When I encounter someone calling me a Racist, the words are as from a 13-year-old teenage girl (GSRM - Gossip, Shame, Ridicule, Moralize) . . . like a spattering of impotent rain on a granite edifice. Like Roark, I just smile ... very slowly, in a manner of demonstrating ownership... and because I also take joy in seeing the reaction on the girl's face. Like Galt, I am the man with the face without pain or fear or guilt. No thank you, Mister Whitey is not in the market for buying guilt, from anyone. I will be participating in the American Renaissance Conference this spring, and will engage in happy conversation with sundry Race Realists including the founder of AmRen, Jared Taylor.
Looks like I've come full circle.
ZFG.
Crime "statistics" do not justify attributing what people choose to do or think to their race, and statistics are not a substitute for philosophy.
You are not "like Roark" or "like Galt". Please do not associate yourself and your swaggering, crude collectivist determinism with Ayn Rand's ideas and characters in any way.
If you ever want to understand why, read Ayn Rand's explanation in her article "Racism" referred to here several times https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/govern...