Why are liberals “anti-racist”?

Soldiers march during a World War Two victory parade in Red Square in Moscow

A common saying out there is that “anti-racist = anti-white,” but I think it’s simpler than that. Anti-racist means against any majority that’s trying to preserve itself by not letting in the rest of the world.

If you have it good, they want it, so your only option is shutting the door and denying them welfare, jobs, food, sex, etc. It’s not that they’re bad or wrong so much as that they’re wrong for your nation if you want to self-preserve. Otherwise, you join the many “gray race” nations where people have roughly the same genetic makeup because they’re mixed and adulterated. It’s why people from Vietnam, Russia and Mexico can look identical; there’s only three races, and if you hit on roughly the same percentages, you get the same looking people.

But the left worldwide loves to raise anti-racism. They use it against Israel, who is trying to avoid Holocaust II at the hands of the Palestinians. They use it in the USA when a white girl doesn’t want to have sex with a brown or Asian guy. They use it in Europe when some small town says it would prefer not to have a mosque or synagogue. What’s the left’s fascination with anti-racism?

It boils down to a simple thing: it’s the one thing the Soviets did not do that other totalitarian regimes did. The left realizes that ideologically, it’s part of a sliding scale that ranges from mainstream Democrats through Communists and Anarchists. Since both of these groups are responsible for violent murders, the left is seeking some way to show that these groups can be rehabilitated. “At least they’re not anti-egalitarian,” they thought, and it was off to the races. Racism, sexism, “homophobia” et al are simply different forms of not being egalitarian. Who needs egalitarianism? Those who aren’t part of the successful majority, whether poor, minorities, perverse or otherwise alienated.

The Soviets were actually racist of course. They murdered Poles by the field, starved millions of Ukranians into death, and shot anyone they could find in captured countries like Estonia and Latvia who showed any sense of national pride. They unleashed a rape and murder wave against Germany in the aftermath of WWII despite Germans having done no similar thing to them. Even in occupied Eastern Bloc territories, the Russian Soviets were only too glad to spend local lives like water and their own like fine wine. Not to mention their periodic Jew-hating pogroms where they murdered more Jews than Hitler ever dreamed of. But that’s not the point. With liberals, truth is an afterthought; everything is ideology, concept and symbol. Symbolically, the Soviets weren’t racist, but the Nazis were, so anti-racism becomes the new liberal ideological weapon.

An ideological weapon is easy. Find a rule that can’t be broken; link what the other guy wants to the rule. You can see a version of this in debate in the US and EU. If someone has proposed a plan, and it’s not liberal (much less anti-liberal), they will wait until the audience has just about decided the plan is OK. Then out comes the trump card: “But if you do this, it will disadvantage the poor!” Now it’s done for. You can’t be for this plan without being against the poor, which makes you evil. You can be an outright Communist who advocates murdering the children of the rich, and you’re still less of an evil bastard than someone who doesn’t want to give free stuff to the poor.

The use of the term “racism” is winding down. First of all, people are figuring out that every group is racist. Second, they’re realizing that even people of mixed-race are latent bigots who hate people of any unbroken racial or ethnic line. Finally, as we look at the same color lines emerge among mixed-race people in Brazil, Mexico and the USA, it’s clear that mixed everyone into a gray race will not only fail to solve the problem, but exacerbate it. There is no longer any scientific, rational or logical reason to support anti-racism. It’s solely a political weapon against the right, who by not demanding an entitlement state that benefits those who are not of the majority (non-whites in the West) are assumed by the principle of inversion to be secretly flaming racists.

Like the Soviets before them, liberals are racists. They send their kids to private schools, buy themselves into mostly-white gated communities, assert their culture as if it were arbitrary, and condescend to any minorities they find. They generally prefer to assume the role of Great White Savior of the Unwashed Brown Hordes and pretend that if it weren’t for their welfare, foreign aid, enlightening pamphlets and affirmative action, the rest of the world would live in mud huts decorated in feces and the skulls of their dead children. In private conversation, liberals are racist in that ironic way that masks deeply submerged rage as sarcasm or humor. If you want funny jokes about minorities, don’t seek them on the right — find the liberalest hipsterest social media activist insider elitist you can and ask her. You’ll get the funny, edgy and quirky stuff that way.

Anti-racism is a convenient way to shut up the right. The left wants to hide its secret agenda, which is that everyone is supported by the collective and the collective instructs everyone in what must be done to keep this situation intact. That road leads to Communist, but in leftist zombie logic, Communism is OK because it isn’t racist. And that, not whatever palaver they spew about their palliatives for ethnic minorities, is the reason the left are fanatical anti-racists.

20 Comments

  1. 1349 says:

    They murdered Poles by the field

    But what does this have to do with racism (especially as slavs were killing slavs)? The mutual hatred of Moscow and Poles has political and religious (orthodoxy vs. catholicism) roots, the religious being unimportant in Soviet times.

    starved millions of Ukranians into death

    I guess this was incidental rather than purposeful.
    But even if purposeful, it has nothing to do with racism.

    shot anyone they could find in captured countries like Estonia and Latvia who showed any sense of national pride

    Politics, clearly…

    They unleashed a rape and murder wave against Germany in the aftermath of WWII

    Politics and emotions, not racism.

    their periodic Jew-hating pogroms where they murdered more Jews than Hitler ever dreamed of

    But where do you get this?
    The repression machine was egalitarian: it chewed upon everyone, including jews; but jews, as usual, cried the most. I live around here but have never heard about “Soviet pogroms against jews”. On the contrary, in the USSR one could serve time for calling a jew “yid” (“жид”). Also, half of Soviet science and technology was developped by jews.
    Stalin struggled with (some of the) jews, including Trotsky, not for racial but for political and ideological reasons.

    The USSR, a far as i understand, tried to breed a new “Soviet” race. At least, internal migration, and thus intermixing, was incentivised.
    But then, there are different periods in Soviet history.

    Also, i want you to see the whole picture: these things you say about the Soviets are the same that local liberals say. Or not even liberals but ones that are closer to this funny description: https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Leftard
    Local “leftards” consider the USSR racist, oppressive, bigoted etc. etc.
    “The central focus of the Leftard belief system, in any situation, is advocacy for whichever option would be the least advantageous for Western nations/culture/people.” Just change “Western nation” for “USSR” or even “former USSR”.

    1. Poles aren’t completely Slavic, and Ukranians and Russians have substantial differences as well. One tribe killing another is racism as far as I can tell.

      I’m sure many disagree on the Soviet Union. As you say, there were different eras, brought on by the instability of (a) Russia and (b) liberalism. These are minor points designed to show that liberals only loathe “racism” when it’s convenient for them.

      1. 1349 says:

        One tribe killing another is racism as far as I can tell.

        ??? So all wars and revenge acts between tribes are racist???

        Ukrainians have variations inside themselves which are not less than differences between hypothetical “Ukrainians” and “Russians”; there’s no such “tribe” or “race” as “Ukrainians”. Same goes to “Russians”. It physically couldn’t be racism. It was politics, maybe social engineering by quite brutal means.

      2. 1349 says:

        Russians aren’t completely Slavic, too.

      3. GoshDarnIt says:

        Yes, Pole are completely Slavic. They’re just a different strain, being “western Slavs” as opposed to Ukrs & Russkies & Bylorussians, who are “eastern Slavs”. And then there are the Southern Slavs! If you did DNA testing on all of these folks, you would find that way back, they all have some western and northern European blood. Then these new ethnic groups stabilized into their present “pure” form. You know, like hybridizing a vegetable from 2 different parents, then doing this for 50 years, till you have a new “heirloom” variety. Goes with plants, goes with humans!

        Happy New Year!

        1. NotTheDude says:

          That is the most sensible outlook I think.

  2. George says:

    Famine in Ukraine was “engineered” to reduce the national population with other USSR citizens, genociding 7,000,000 in 1933.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afVdnbMd6gA

    Soviets killed those who might resist because they were patriotic to their nation, intellectuals, scientists, or had other skills suggesting organization and thinking. The Soviets desired a generic mass and hated coherent populations.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5qQsXUZh0I

    The spirit was to take the land and nation of independent people to make them into genetic Soviet citizens. Resistors were shot. Nations were Russified by exporting a new population, breaking their roots while displacing the people of that nation. A false reality was sworn to in public. The new superior society was expected to emerge from the generic masses who dared not speak truth.

    1. The Soviets desired a generic mass and hated coherent populations.

      Sounds a lot like today’s liberals…

    2. 1349 says:

      The Soviets desired a generic mass and hated coherent populations.

      This is purely ideological (emotional, unrealistic) rhetoric.
      1) You (and Brett, often) seem to be using the word “Soviets” just the way liberals use “freedom”, “democracy”, “progress” – an amoeban word, an emotion-provoking symbolic term without actual content. Who “soviets”? Who exactly “hated coherent populations”? All soviet citizens? Patriotic soviet citizens? Soviet ideologists? “Russians”, maybe?
      2) The soviet project couldn’t “hate coherent populations”, as it clearly tried to build its own coherent population. Yes, it wanted a new breed, but not a stupid one. Yes, “the new superior society was expected”.
      The soviet project used old local tribes as building material and would manipulate them by various means, including brutal means, but this has nothing to do with national, racial hatred. There could be class hatred – but it, in turn, is raceless, and was also used as an instrument.

      Famine in Ukraine was “engineered” to reduce the national population with other USSR citizens, genociding 7,000,000 in 1933.

      I still believe it’s at least 50% bullshit, a leftist-style ideological myth promoted by some of the Ukrainians: “we were oppressed, we’re victims, so everyone should help us against the bloody Russia”.

      (Also, notice how only Stalin- and Brezhnev-era excess is wailed about in the media, but no one talks about the deeds of, say, Trotsky.
      It’s because today’s western leftists are neotrotskyites but not neostalinists.)

      The USSR was to a large degree an experiment in autarchy. But when your aim is autarchy, you surely need more people – more workforce and bright minds – not less people. People are the main wealth.

      Russification happened not solely because of “exporting russians” and mechanical “displacement”. I can say for the Belarusian case. Early in the 20th century we were a ~90% agrarian, countryside people. When industrialization started, it made our cities grow and generated jobs there. The process was initiated and controlled by (of course) Russian-speaking Moscow. Moscow, at the time, was pioneering all technology and science in Eastern Europe, so no wonder all books, standards, instructions, educational courses were in Russian. All respectable jobs started to require Russian speech. (The Belarusian elite was too sparse to generate their own science and technology. And there were other reasons why they couldn’t.) Traditional culture which was serviced by the local language became less and less relevant. (Add the strong centralized anti-religious propaganda.) The whole way of life changed.
      So by the end of the USSR we were about 60% urban, Russian-speaking.
      This mechanism works on. Today, if you, as a nation, don’t speak English, you have no access to technology and end up being third world savages.

      1. Leftist revolutions since 1789 follow the same pattern: kill the rich/smart/aristocratic, replace national identity with ideology, and begin breeding a “super race” of ideological robots. It’s not sensible to think the Soviets deviated from that practice.

        1. 1349 says:

          I’m not saying the Russian process deviated from something.
          You simplify things; i’m trying to convey reality.

          a “super race” of ideological robots

          Ideological rhetoric, again.
          There was no goal to breed “ideological robots”, there was a goal to breed sane people, and there were certain steps towards this goal. (Why exactly the USSR eventually failed is a different question.)
          Then again, any Christian (including any WASP) is just as ideological a robot as any “Soviet patriot”. Own cult terminology-using, quick to take ideological offence, locked in own circular logic & tautology, seeing reality through a fine filter etc etc.

          replace national identity with ideology

          How did national identities actually emerge and form back in the day? Weren’t they the same as what we scornfully call “ideology” today? I’m not sure; i’m asking you.

      2. GoshDarnIt says:

        “I still believe it’s at least 50% bullshit, a leftist-style ideological myth promoted by some of the Ukrainians: ‘we were oppressed, we’re victims, so everyone should help us against the bloody Russia’.”

        Ah, but where did all those Ukrainians get the idea from, that maybe there’s hay to be made with promoting information on slaughter and mistreatment of your parents and ancestors generally?

        Don’t worry, they won’t succeed in any meaningful way. Not with Amerika and McCain pretending to be their friend.

        1. 1349 says:

          where did all those Ukrainians get the idea from

          Well, couldn’t they generate it themselves? There was a saying that “Ukrainians are the jews of the USSR”.

          Also, the promotion of such info is quite useful to the US: the worse Moscow’s relationships with her neighbours and the more her neighbours hate her, the weaker she is politically and economically.

          1. GoshDarnIt says:

            You tell me where they came up with the idea. No, the Ukrainians aren’t the “jews of the USSR”. I think you made that up out of whole cloth. The Ukies have nothing in common with jews in any sense and the two groups have never been renowned for their good relations with each other.

            Promotion of the facts of the Soviet-induced starvation of many Ukrainians is no worse than publicizing other historical facts. The continuation of Amerika’s bad relations with Moscow aren’t dependent on Ukrainians pretending they don’t have a big long historical bone to pick with Russia. Amerika will always find a way to try to make sure it is top dog in this world.

            1. 1349 says:

              No, the Ukrainians aren’t the “jews of the USSR”. I think you made that up out of whole cloth. The Ukies have nothing in common with jews in any sense and the two groups have never been renowned for their good relations with each other.

              Where did i say they had good relations with jews?
              “Jews of the USSR” is a sarcastic saying.

              The Ukies have nothing in common with jews in any sense.

              Hmm, how do you know?
              Here’s another Soviet saying:
              “Where a khokhol has been, even three jews are helpless”, meaning that the khokhol would have already taken maximum possible profit.
              (“Khokhol” = pejorative “Ukrainian”.)

              Promotion of the facts of the Soviet-induced starvation of many Ukrainians is no worse than publicizing other historical facts.

              I didn’t say it was “worse” or “better”.

              The continuation of Amerika’s bad relations with Moscow aren’t dependent on Ukrainians pretending they don’t have a big long historical bone to pick with Russia.

              Excuse me? Where did i say about such a dependence? =)))

              Amerika will always find a way to try to make sure it is top dog in this world.

              Well probably. But this means she will use any means – including not only the likes of the promotion of Holodomor info, but also such tiny blows as financing the 100 idiots of the nominal liberal opposition in a country as small as Belarus.

              1. Aelin says:

                After reading this conversation, I just wanted to voice my appreciation for your comments. Thank you.

                1. crow says:

                  Being somewhat dyslexic – or something – I thought your name was ‘Alien’. And thought: “Oh man, that’s ALL we need!”
                  That you for the giggle :)

  3. Daniel says:

    “An ideological weapon is easy. Find a rule that can’t be broken; link what the other guy wants to the rule.”

    This is well put.

  4. NotTheDude says:

    My favourite Liberal line is ‘we are all mixed anyway’. In terms of vacuum sealed nations and impeccable pedigrees, yes, but in a healthy society most breed like to like because of reasons stated in the post above. The ones with the best breeding and the least outbreeding are the most envied. Many peoples are still distinctive. Mixed race is better you say? I smell a Trojan Horse…

    1. Mixed race is better you say? I smell a Trojan Horse…

      I agree. It seems to be a justification used to destroy majorities everywhere, of any type, so that the “international type” who depends on ideology for purpose can prevail.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.466 seconds