The Anti-Racist [Election of black president increased perception of racism]

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mike Gallagher just recently referred to this summer as "the Summer of Race." From the New Black Panthers to Arizona's controversial immigration law, from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to the Tea Party, from the firing of Shirley Sherrod to her rehiring just a couple of days later, there appears to be scarcely an issue that is untouched by the themes of race and "racism." Yet while Gallagher's commentary is not devoid of all intelligibility, it isn't for this entirely correct, for there has scarcely been an issue in American politics for decades that has succeeded in extricating itself from the reach of these themes.

Still, it is hard to escape the impression that with respect to race and, more importantly, the charge of "racism," something in American life has — even if only to a modest (but not insignificant degree) — changed. Well before November of 2008, I argued repeatedly that the "post-racial" or "trans-racial" millennium that we were promised would ensue upon the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of the presidency would not only remain just as elusive as it has always been, but recede ever further beyond the horizons of our utopian imaginings. To understand why, we need to explore the character of "the Anti-Racist," perhaps the most salient and influential figure of our day and age.

It is the quest to rid American society of the very last residues of "racism" that has permitted "the Anti-Racist" to gradually (and in some instances, not so gradually) transform it into a society in his own image, a society, that is, defined by the telos, the purpose, with which he invests it, a substantive condition that, because it is proclaimed to be to the benefit of all, authorizes government to deploy all of its powers to insure that every citizen divests him or herself of the resources in time, money, and energy that will contribute toward its realization. With some exceptions here and there, this summa bonum or "common good" is typically characterized in the idiom of a "Color Blind Society."

Yet in addition to this transformation of the United States into an unqualified "enterprise association," with all of the power at his disposal to remake the world as "the Anti-Racist" sees fit, the campaign against "racism" also endows him with a sense of self-righteousness the immensity of which is matched only by that of the material and professional rewards that he reaps from it.

In short, "the Anti-Racist" has invented quite the lucrative industry in waging his war against "racism," and not unlike any other industry upon which untold numbers of human beings rely for material satisfaction, social prestige, moral identity, and even spiritual fulfillment, any thing so much as remotely perceived as a threat to it "the Anti-Racist" spares no time in rendering an instance of the very evil, "racism," upon which his identity is parasitic. Yet exactly because "racism" is an evil, each and every one of its manifestations — i.e. each and every potential impediment to the implementation of his designs — he realizes must be not only overcome, but crushed "by whichever means necessary."

The election of a black man to the office of the American presidency signifies to the rest of the world that whatever "racism" plagued America in her past, it is now by and large a relic of a bygone era. But the power of this symbolic event is exponentially compounded by the consideration that it isn't just any black man (or woman) that the electorate chose to make its 44th chief executive officer, but a black man with the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Hence, from the perspective of a far greater number of people than have ever thought so before, the narrative of perpetual White Oppression and Black Suffering that has become "the Anti-Racist's" myth of choice to account for those "inequalities" between blacks and whites regarding which the former are at a disadvantage to the latter has been resoundingly, decisively repudiated by this seminal event.

Since, though, President Obama is one of his own — a committed "anti-Racist" who is as interested in preserving the integrity and credibility of the myth of ubiquitous "racism" as himself, and even more capable of doing so — "the Anti-Racist" will resist the urge to discredit him (whether he will always do so, and for how long, however, are different questions); instead, he will turn his attention to the President's opponents.

This explains why in the Age of Obama, charges of "racism" couldn't but intensify. Like a disease that requires for its being the host that it destroys, "the Anti-Racist" needs, not "racism," but the perception of "racism," lest he die. To put it simply, "the Anti-Racist" is fighting for his life. Thus, those who criticize Obama's policies, as well as those who impute to him biases favoring racial minorities over whites, are alike accused of "racism."

"The Anti-Racist," it is critical to observe, is not obsessed with combating inter-racial cruelty as such. This is what he wants for others to believe, and there is little doubt that these are the terms in which he is desirous of reading his own character, but that he cannot be justly confused with the genuine "humanitarian" is borne out by two facts: first, there can be no denying that for decades, the overwhelming majority of inter-racial crimes in America — from murder and rape to armed robbery — have involved, not white perpetrators, but white victims and black victimizers, and yet not only does "the Anti-Racist" refuse to condemn "Black America" for these outrages, he attributes them, even if only obliquely, to — what else? — "White Racism"; second, while "the humanitarian" longs for inter-racial peace, that "the Anti-Racist" insists on accounting for the conduct of both his white opponents and allies in terms of "racism" (to the former he ascribes ill-motives, to the latter an unconscious sense of racial superiority nursed over a lifetime on the breast of America's social institutions — i.e. "Institutional Racism") proves that this is the last thing that he wants or, in truth, needs.

What "the Anti-Racist" does need, however, is for his opponents — whether they are members of and spokespersons for the Tea Party movement or "conservative" media personalities — to go on the defensive when he launches at them the only weapon in his arsenal: the "racism" charge. In this regard, his enemies have been playing right into his hands, sustaining his withering existence.

That so many people, including and especially self-avowed "conservatives" in the so-called "alternative media" who should by now know better, continue to inadvertently abet "the Anti-Racist" in his endeavor to exploit inter-racial mistrust doesn't dishearten me to the extent that it perhaps once would have. Between now and November, you can rest assured that "the Anti-Racist" will put out no stops to prolong his existence, but he is losing faith in himself. The majority that has for far too long been made the object of his derision is now seeing right through him.

"The Anti-Racist" in Chief, President Obama, promised an unprecedented degree of "transparency." Just when it was thought that this promise was as counterfeit as his promise to usher in a "post-racial" era, we are compelled to pause, for just maybe his election did indeed render "transparent" the deception of "the Anti-Racist."

Comments?

Mr. Booker T. Washington had some thoughts about this over 100 years ago. He wisely observed:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

Nam Vet

I don’t agree with the premise that the objects of liberal racist attacks are “playing right into their hands” when they talk back to their false accusers. Not pushing back on racists makes them more aggressive and successful in their dominance, smears and stereotyping. You push back hard and before you know it, lefty racists are defending themselves and overplaying their hand into a comedy routine for public consumption.

Next thing you know people are looking at the “kill baby crackers” video while also learned Obama let the guy off from voter intimidation. They are looking at the video of the Black man at the Tea Party being beaten by Obama’s Union thugs. The real racists are liberals. The NOI is racist. Obama’s minister is a racist. Obama is a racist. He lied to whitey to get elected. White voters do get polarized when flaming liberal racists step up the race hate, scape goating, discrimination and threats of violence but only if there are White people fighting back and objecting - not being scared and shame faced. A lot of non-racist Hispanics and Asians don’t like liberal racism either and the discomfort polarizes them, too.

If I read it once, I read it a million times on blogs and forums “I am a racist because I am not a socialist. I am a racist because I am white. I am a racist because I don’t like Obama...” Everybody got the propaganda smear game liberals were playing in unison in the media (a shocker for the younger people who did not know that the only biased media was Fox News) and it made the public more sympathic towards the Tea Party because it put a dent in the full blown JournoLIST debasing machine. Liberal racism became a joke. (Another example when you don’t fight back: Juan McCain’s messing up in defending Palin’s family when they were under leftist attack.)

Obama is now going to think twice before playing community activist and calling on his race thugs to go against the Tea Party in DC. Suddenly if his thugs show up they are hanging around Obama’s neck. That only happened because conservatives fought back. His left wing wacko base is suddenly not an asset anymore when they open up their big race baiting mouths.

You always fight back - always! You fight smart and you make fun of them. Bush did not have a team to fight back and look what happened. Universities don’t have anyone fighting back and the Left totally dominates and abuses those institutions. Liberals tore Bush to pieces like mad dogs for four long years without a peep from Bush and Bush (and the country) came out on the bottom. Even Rove admits it was a mistake not to fight back.

When faced with concerted leftist attacks, you go for their throats and don’t let go - ever. You hang them with their own stupidity, hate and demons.

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.