The Right & Racism Myth

"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."- Ayn Rand

The Department of Homeland Security has, as been the case time and time again, chosen to lump the 'Right' with radical racist groups such as the Klan. It has become almost standard in political lexicon to associate 'Radical Right Wing' with racist organizations, but what is the truth and how did the two become lumped together?

The Left and Right Divide
Before exploring this, it is important to understand and define specifically what is associated with the Left/Right divide that is often referred. While many people have created all sorts of complex graphs and charts, the line can simply be defined as the rate of collectivism versus individualism. If you imagine a line, in the political spectrum, the further Left you move, you increase society's collectivism, the further Right, the increase in individualism. Mainstream political thought generally falls into a small bubble in the middle, with the extreme Left being totalitarian communistic collectivism while the extreme Right could represent complete anti-State anarchy. What we as Conservatives generally define as 'extreme Right' in our political experience generally is a pure Constitutional, strong Tenth Amendment supported anti-Statist society. It, in no way resembles anarchy because most on the Right acknowledge the need for a rule of law to protect the basic freedoms of the individual.

The extreme Left, however, has an interesting history. In all collectivist societies, there is always the case of the collector and the collected- in most cases, this involves property or productivity, but it also is represents the collectivism of individual liberty. Extreme totalitarian, Communist societies involved a very small controlling class attempting to control all aspects of society, redistributing all production, regulating religion, belief, even speech. In most of these cases, what defined the collector was usually a ruling class definition, but more often than not, there where racial overtones as said classes almost always represented a specific group of people and subjected other groups. The individual was completely crushed within the system and what he could or couldn't achieve was always defined by the controlling class and what they deemed ideal.

For those in the Western political Right, the concept of collectivism is the antithesis of our beliefs, and as Ayn Rand stated, "racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." The fundamental principle of the philosophy of the Right is the power and freedom of the individual to achieve in a free society. The concept of any 'group' supremacy is not compatible with the individualistic nature of the Right. Your ability to succeed is based on your individual drive, not by who your ancestors may or may not have been nor trivial things like the melatonin content within your skin.

Those who Define
Why is it then, with this basic concept that few would argue with, that the Right has been associated with racist groups and ideology?
First and foremost, it is pure marketing of the Left. In order for any collectivist to have power, there must be those who do the collecting and those who are collected from. To create these groups, the Left has successfully created hundreds of categorical boxes within our society and has succeeded in making most people feel as though their place is in one of these boxes. If you are XX race, you belong in this box, if you are YY, you belong in this box. The Left then goes to each group and says "see the folks over in that box, your box isn't achieving because of that box"… and so on… the cycle continues until all of the boxes blame each other for their own lack of achievement, and of course, then look to the ultimate collectivist, the government, to 'set things right'. The collectivist has no intention of actually solving the problems of any boxed group, all they care about is continuing to make sure each group remains in its own box, always looking at the other boxes as blame and to the collectivist as the solution.

Of course, what this has resulted in, is that all of the boxes each look at the collectivist as the one who is speaking to their box, to the one promising their box something. What they don't see is why they are subjected to the limitations of the box in the first place.

For the Right to speak to the 'boxes' like this is to acknowledge that the limitations of the box exist. It is then to become what the Left is, collectivists who assign limitations on individuals based on their 'box'. When the Right speaks, it isn't to box A or box B, it is to each individual. Of course, this is spun by the Left to mean that, because the Right isn't speaking to your personal box, they don't care about, or they actually oppose what your box represents. The Left also takes individual issues, such as the Right to Bear Arms, where there may be some agreements and ties the two groups together. What they will never acknowledge is that the collectivist desire for the freedom to bear arms is not about the defense of individual liberty, but in the desire to have the 'right people' armed for some sort of control. The Right believes all individuals have this right, the Left, the Collectivist, fights for their own right, but does not want this right for all.

The Brass Tacks
With all this being said, let's put it out on the table. Racism is Collectivism. It is restricting the individual's rights to the subject of what the collectivist deems worthy or in their interest. Racism and individual liberty do not mesh in the least. The Right wholeheartedly rejects the concept of racism in practice and in philosophy. Wherever you find institutionalized racism, you find the collectivist flexing his muscles.

I, for one, am sick and tired of the collectivist Left defining the Right by their own philosophy. It is time we call them out. It is time we point out how their collectivist attitude is at the core of racism and how it is the Radical Left, not the Right, which believes in and supports institutionalized racism.

"There is only one antidote for racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, capitalism." - Ayn Rand

Racism 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.

Perhaps the worst definition of racism I've ever seen.

What she is describing appears to be a belief in the importance of heredity as compared to environment.

Racism is the belief that one large group of people is genetically superior to another large group.

I don’t think there is a difference in what either of you are saying, it is just you are describing the same thing differently. Yes, racism is the believe of one group is superior to another based solely on their genetics, I read what Rand is saying as just that, only she is looking at it from the other direction, why some say other groups are ‘limited’.. Wherever there is someone who believes they are superior, they believe another group is inferior.. two sides of the same coin.

Mussolini invented fascism. Socialism at that time was anti-nationalism. They thought war between States was reactionary, they wanted war between the classes.

Mussolini basically said that was nuts. He was one of the top people in the Italian Socialist Party. He dumped that for a nationalistic socialism. He decided he wanted war to expand Italy, recreate the Roman Empire. He made some other changes to orthodox socialism.

Hitler's national socialism was also leftwing, an off-shoot of Marxism. Hitler compared 'Mein Kampf', My Struggle, to Marx's Class Struggle. Hitler also combined nationalism with socialism.

The correct political spectrum is tyranny to liberty.

My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that Rand a describing the superiority of the genetics of an individual. (Which actually exists.)

Racism is about the superiority of the genetics of a group.

Would it align more closely to what you are saying if the word man’s was changed to mans’ and the second “man” changed to “men” so as to make it not individuals? Thank you for the clarification.

Not that it’s particularly important, but as I read Rand, she is saying that a belief that some individuals are genetically superior to other individuals is racist. The problem is that this belief is true. Some are. And believing in this fact is not racist.

Racism is the belief that all (or almost all) members of race A are genetically superior to all (or almost all) members of race B. This is not true.

Although this gets us into a potential argument about what constitutes “genetic superiority.”

Actually, the way I took it was not that the "belief that some individuals are genetically superior to other individuals is racist" but rather that it's racist to imply that a man's ability is predicated by his race. In fact, Rand did believe that some people are genetically superior - it's just not their race that determined their superiority. She believed that no matter who you are, as long as you work to the best of your ability and capitalize on that ability, you were living a moral life.

If that’s what Rand was trying to say, I agree with her. It is quite obvious that some individuals are born with genetic advantages over others, just as some are born with genetic defects.

I also agree that this is not race-linked.

Oddly, in our society those who are most successful financially and otherwise are least likely to reproduce and are therefore the least “fit” in Darwinian terms, while the least successful are the most likely to reproduce. Over time this MUST have some effect on the gene pool, but nobody wants to talk about what those effects might be.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.