Racism

The term “racism” is often ascribed to people on the social-political Right, whether they be Republican, conservative or Libertarian, and the charge of racism is generally uttered by someone on the social-political Left. We propose a response to the charge below, which will likely put Leftist/Demonic-rats off balance when they level such a charge… Here we discus the meaning of racism… We could go to the dictionary for a definition of racism, and it would read:

a.) “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others”; or perhaps:
b.) “hatred, or intolerance, of another race or of other races.”

Though those definitions may suffice under certain condition, they do not define racism in a way in which one may determine racism really animates human conduct; such definitions allow individual, or group, “X” to tag, or identify individual, or group, “Y” with the appellation “racist,” because the accuser (X) “feels” the other (Y) is a racist. Thus, “X” has conflated their personal feelings regarding “Y” with, “Y.” Thus, we paraphrase Jesus Christ’s admonition in John 7: 24, ‘”X” judges by appearances, rather than judging justly.’ This does not mean that “Y” is not a racist – “Y” may be racist, but one’s feeling for “Y” does not determine “Y’s” soul’s motivation, or moral ordering…

Charging (characterizing) “Y” in such a manner (as a racist) places “X” in the company of what actually defines racism, viz: racism is: an injustice predicated upon pigment i.e., on an accidental¹ quality rather than essence². Although the characterization may not be based on pigment, it is an injustice. Accidents address appearance – or how a thing is seen; essence addresses nature – or what a thing is. So claiming that another is a “racist” – is most very often today – an immoral (unjust) objectification of how one feels about the other (the one claimed to be a racist), and then ascribing such feeling to the other’s soul; such a judgment is not determined through a dispassionate dialectical moral interrogative/questioning³, but instead indicates immediate i.e., emotional reflexive, knowledge; humans have immediate knowledge of things sensed e.g., a flame is hot; one does not determine deductively that one has been burnt, one knows immediately i.e., without any interposing reflective process of thought. Only God can know immediately an individual’s soul’s ordering and motivations for action…

1 Example: an apple is red accidentally; it may be also green, yellow etc. color does not make an apple an apple…
2 Example: apples are – in essences – the fruit grown by apple trees
3 Note: Only those which understand morality – specifically teleological and deontological, which actually represent objective morality, as opposed to sentimental whim – are up to the patient questioning whereby one may deductively determine what principles animate another’s choice.

Now as we indicated above, the use of the derogatory ascription – racism/racist – has been a great political expedient for Leftists/Demonic-rats allowing them to separate people-of-color from their reason; this in turn has generally produced an emotional embrace of the those on the social-political Left who incessantly market themselves as protectors of the disenfranchised. Generally, those on the Right have made the mistake of ‘wrapping their arms about their closest person-of-color friend” – so as to demonstrate that they are not racists and do not detest “brown-people.” We suggest that it may be more efficacious – to those on the Right – to state clearly: “I hold racism to be immoral, for it is an injustice to deny another their due based on the accident of pigment. All moral beings should be treated in a manner according to their conduct – just as Martin Luther King Junior asserted; moreover, a just individual, by definition, will not allow him/her self to deny an individual their due, even if they have a personal antipathy for the individual. My political opponent shows contempt – for the very disadvantaged the claim to represent – as they reduce them and their interests to pigment. In the process of reducing them to their color, they rob them of their individual dignity as a uniquely created child of God possessed of diverse interests which attend to them as individuals.”

So we define racism, thusly: “the act of denying another their due (i.e., what they are owed as a moral being) predicated upon, or motivated by, an abhorrence of the accident of pigment.” Now we define “justice,” thusly: “each person (moral being) is to be afforded (given), and is owed, their due.” Thus, racism – which denies another his/her due – base upon an antipathy for the individual’s attendant accidents – is established as a particular form of injustice. Justice is a principle of morality, and thus racism is immoral; now classically speaking “rational action” and “moral action” are one in the same, and thus the injustice of racism is also an act of irrationality i.e., sentimentality…

Sentiment is the ground upon which social-political Leftist are quite comfortable exchanging derogatory epithets, and the Press – and the culture (the culture-of-death, the culture opposed to reason) – aid-and-abet their ginning up and fomenting emotional responses from the disadvantaged. Moral discussions are outside of the Left’s “wheelhouse,” and thus those on the social-political Right should incessantly respond to the inflammatory charge of “racist/racism” with an appeal for the dispassionate reason of moral dialogue; such a practice would place those on the social-political Right in the ‘drivers-seat.”