Why Whites Are Racist

ABSTRACT: How has the racist narrative become so powerful in recent years? Up until a few years ago there was relative peace nationally. The explanatory power of the race narrative has always been weak. It serves little purpose than as a justifier for greater regulatory interference. What is the scientific explanation for racism? How does one quantify and measure racism? When we see a hate crime how to we impute motive to the act? Am I allowed to call a compatriot a Canuck but if an American does the same is he guilty of a hate crime? Is calling a Christian a Bible Thumper a hate crime? Who gets to choose? Why Whites Are Racists details why the narrative of white racism has little to do with race.

Have you given any thought as to why Whites are racist or what would happen if Whites ceased being racist? Racism is not as meaningless as some suppose. Whites are racist for a reason. Not all Whites but the Whites that are not racist are in a metaphorical if not physical sense, no longer considered White. One has to be racist to be White and to be White is racist. Why this dynamic has to exist is dealt with later on.

Most people argue racism is learned. No one really wants to think racism could be genetic. If one was born racist it would be difficult to demonize it and revile those who practice it. But who bothers to explain where racism came from originally, since it is not inherited?

There also appears to be a lack of curiosity about why racism has impacted white culture to such a degree yet has left other races alone. This is not to say there are not bigots in all cultures and we are not saying all whites are racists, in the normal sense of the term, but the birthplace of racism is Whites and Whites are the identifiable and scientifically verifiable source or root of all racism.

We need to look at where new knowledge comes from? Whites were not originally racist if racism is not genetic. Whites must have adopted racist attitudes for some reason. Why is that?

There was considerable homogeneity between the white and black experience after emancipation.

One writer on the topic observes there were no white people in 1619. When the first black people arrived in Virginia there were no whites mentioned, nor would there be Whites mentioned for another 60 years (1680). This observation and most of the following is taken from Theodore W Allens “Invention Of The White Race” published in 1994

English was the usual term used when discussion white settlers. As Allen understood it, the division of labor into White and Black segments was pragmatic. Landowners needed cheap labor. This cheap labor was either provided by slavery or potentially so to keep wages of white worker’s low. But after emancipation racist rhetoric kept labor from forming a united front. But the myth of White superiority and Black inferiority could only be maintained so long as the Jim Crow laws of Democrats could be kept on the law books. The rise of the Republican Party and its growing strength gave Blacks an ally to help them move forward and integrate socially and economically with the rest of society.

Initially racism was not strictly racism as much as a tribal concern over ones position in the social hierarchy. It was not until the publication of “On The Origin Of Species”, 1859 by Charles Darwin that racism was given a philosophical justification. This is better understood when the books full title is revealed.

The full title is understandably rarely shown, but it was published as: On The Origin of Species by Natural Selection or the Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life.”

It was no accident that the title of Darwin’s title included this anthropogenetic sentiment that led the reader to assume nature was directed towards preserving favored races. Nor is it any surprise that a lot of whites came to the conclusion Darwin actually meant, “favored race.”

If there was any doubt as to Darwin’s conclusion, his 1871 book ‘The Descent of Man,’ depicted Africans as less evolved than white people. It was this book that the scientific community in Europe and the United States used not just to promote racial discrimination but to give them a scientific basis for their actions.

In other words, a pragmatic need to divide the working class was given a powerful tool in the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, one could make a powerful argument for the usefulness of Darwin’s book to eugenics and racial based social division for why it was so quickly adopted by elites and powerful interests the world over.

Academic racism was pushed into society by students of Darwin such as William McGee, a former Association for the Advancement of Science president who imported thousands of indigenous people from around the world to display in a “human zoo” at the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis to educate the public on Darwin’s theory a living testament to the truth of evolution.

The New York Times wrote that “pygmies … are very low in the human scale,”.

Evolutionary Theory backed up by Darwin’s books helped reduce the difference between some races and animals. Darwinianism has helped birth the eugenics movement which in its modern form attempts to reduce the birth rate of less desired races and populations. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger espoused Darwinian views. Abortion and sterilization were a way of “improving” the population through eugenics.

Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages:” The “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” according to Darwin.

Darwin’s thought and his theory of natural selection justifies violent imperialism. His thought even gave rise to the idea of The White Man’s Burden; the argument that it was up to the white race to civilize the world.

The power of Darwin’s ideas and the ease by which they can be used to promote the doctrine of white supremacy, is that the Theory of Evolution provides a biological explanation and justification for bigotry. Western nations were considered to … ‘surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization”.

Racism as we have said is an observation not an explanation. Denigrating people based on race is more about hate than logic. But labeling actions as racism or as a hate crime also denigrates without explaining what one has observed. That Fred hates Joe is what a court calls hearsay. We do not know what Joe feels. To call an act a hate crime, tells us we interpret these kinds of actions racially. If we do not recognize race it would be impossible to understand meanness as stemming from racial hatred. Race categories must exist prior to claims of racism. Racism indeed tends to suggest a person of another race never deserves to be hated, which is a rather bizarre position to take. How does one person determine on what grounds another person ought to be hated or accepted?

Black poverty does not exist if there is no category of person labeled Black. If poverty was an unwanted situation then we could look at the broader and systemic causes of poverty. But poverty is not an evil. Black poverty is evil because it is due to racism. Indeed, to claim poverty is wrong or that all lives matter is racist. To say poverty is wrong is to deny the racism of Black poverty.

If the Black race exists as a category, then there are also other races. If the poverty of Blacks is due to racism, then there has to be an oppressive race to the Black victim race. This is logic. If whites were not racists why would Blacks be poor? If whites did not hate Blacks then why would they be White Racists? Whites are racist perfectly explains the Black situation and more importantly it justifies the social agenda of liberals. Whites must be racists or the paternalist pandering to the Black experience would not be justified.

Alcoholism seen as bad coping mechanisms and the alcoholic a victim of his own bad choices is more difficult to market than the alcoholic as a victim of the system or a disease. By the same terms, Blacks as the victims of systemic racism elicits more sympathy and dollars than a narrative in which outcomes are largely determined by personal and family choices.

Liberalism has always been about power and the unit of power in this world is money. Liberals have always blamed the right for the conditions they created. They have always been the White Knight coming to the rescue for a price.

If whites are racists or superior how did Black Nigerians and oppressed Asians outmaneuver whites in education and levels of wealth? How did the superior whites get pushed to the margins in many areas of sports and entertainment? Why indeed have whites conspired to hold down Blacks in America but not in the Caribbean. Indeed, why do African and Caribbean Blacks do better than American Blacks in the US.

Trying to explain problems by irrelevant factors causes the same problem whether talking about race or sex. There is an alleged discrimination against female workers. Either capitalists are not governed by the profit motive or woman are not systematically paid less than men for the same work. If Blacks can be oppressed why would they not be hired preferentially? Is that not what capitalism is about?

Perhaps the differences observed do not exist or exist because of some other reason than hatred based on race or sexuality. The problem is by positing hatred as the reason for a problem nothing is solved. All it does is justify doing nothing as success and failure is beyond their personal control.

Hatred is real. Racism is real but is forcing a racist to hire those who he hates a viable response? Is driving hatred underground a successful strategy? Do we allow minority employers to not hire White persons because they hate racism but disallow White employers to discriminate against Blacks because Whites must also hate racism? To apply hate crime rhetoric evenly, that is without prejudice across all races, would undercut the argument used to implement hate crime legislation.

If we are to bring in laws against hate crimes, hate has to be a crime with a White Profile. Racism is committed by whites against other racial groups. To bring legal actions against Black for hate crimes against Whites would show the narrative for what it is.

Ultimately Whites must be racists. The entire edifice of the social justice narrative is predicated on the presence of evil. This is not the supernatural evil of God versus Satan. Liberals reject the Biblical narrative but still need the dynamic of an evil White Agency, and innocent Black Victim and the white knight of liberalism that comes to the rescue.

The evil in its essence is White Ownership. White Ownership is not evil because it deprives Blacks of assets they want, it is evil because it hinders liberal freedom. Ownership prevents liberals from ascending to the throne of the Most High.

White racism has to be challenged and overturned at every level and ever manifestation of it, because liberals need an idea which is able to eliminate ownership. The remedy for White Racism is for whites to transfer their property into the account of the Trustee for the Black victims?

But imagine if White people did not exist? Imagine Detroit or Minneapolis without White People. What would democrats do? How could they justify their power grab? Democrats could not function without Whites and White Racism. That is why Whites have to be racist. If Whites are not racist there is no justification for depriving Whites of their resources to feed the coffers of liberals. There would be no reason to fund liberal social agendas. So long as liberalism exists Whites will be racist. And so long as Whites are racist there can be no solidarity between workers. So long as the people are not united liberal governments will be needed to defend the weak and champion the underdog.

In this arrangement the underdog and the oppressed is never the weak and the powerless because if they were it would mean the oppressor is the rich and the powerful. The oppressed is the minority and the oppressor is the White male worker supporting a family.