I’ve been uncertain at times that despite the evidence and the seeming trends, we would see an increase in racism in these United States that would make it possible for admitted racists to “come out of the shadows” and participate openly and fully in public life. I speak here as an intensely interested party:
I have said it before, and I'll say it whenever anyone asks, whether in public or in private: I am a racist. That is, I am persuaded that as statistical aggregates, the conventionally recognized races differ in ways that can be contextually significant. So any mealy-mouthed leftists in the audience who think they can cow me by calling me a racist already have my reply: Damned right I am!
I haven’t changed that stance nor qualified it in any way since I first wrote the essay in April of 2007.
Racism today, despite what the Left would have us believe, has nothing to do with injustices done to individuals, whether by private action or through the mechanisms of the law. Rather, it’s about watchfulness: knowing against whom you might need to defend yourself. Jesse Jackson once famously said that when walking down a street at night, he was relieved to discover that the footsteps he heard behind him were those of a white man. Jackson thus qualified himself as a sensible, self-protecting racist. That the race he fears is the one to which he belongs is irrelevant.
Phenomena such as the Ferguson and Baltimore riots and the “Black Lives Matter” agitations are turning even dyed-in-the-wool left-liberals into exactly such racists. Put a single Negro before them and they strain to the utmost to treat him as an individual to be judged on his own individual merits, which is laudable. Ask them to walk through a heavily black district when the light is fading and the traffic dwindling, and they become tense, watchful, and quick of step, which is only healthful, self-protective sense.
As the American population has aged, that need for self-protective conduct has risen. We do become more conservative politically as we age, but more to the point we become more concerned with safety and security. It’s imperative that my Gentle Readers realize that that’s not a redundancy: safety is about the present moment; security is about the future. In recognition whereof:
- We tend to go armed whenever we leave our homes.
- We refrain from making eye contact with strangers.
- We avoid crowds and venues heavy with Negroes.
- We buy homes in predominantly white districts.
- We give our children John Derbyshire’s talk.
The first three items above are about safety, while items 4 and 5 address security.
Why is this on my mind this fair August morning, I hear you cry? Quite simply, because the logic that’s making white Americans ever more racist is beginning to enclose yet another group.
Just yesterday, the mighty Dystopic deposeth and sayeth:
As Europe falls victim to Islamic terror attacks on a daily basis, the latest of which is an apparent mass stabbing (but muh gun control!), SJWs are desperate to stop Trump, and his rhetoric surrounding a ban on Islamic immigration. Americans, you see, might fail to see the benefits of importing millions of Muslims into their country, which include bombings, stabbings, shootings, an attack with a cargo truck, and a greater propensity to live on welfare.
The effect of the expanding plague of Islam-powered violence has been to make individual Europeans far more watchful and self-protective, even as their elites, egged on by their social-justice crowd, strains to increase the Muslim fraction among them. Of all the countries of Europe, only Switzerland has adopted the proper public attitude toward Islamic immigration, though from recent news it appears that France’s political class might have come to its senses, as well.
Americans, despite the canard that we’re ignorant about matters beyond our shores, have been watching. We’re becoming as distrustful of Muslims as we are of Negroes, and for the same reasons. The political rise of Donald Trump is largely due to that distrust. How else would any rational man expect other rational men to react to Islamic violence around the world?
However, to the Left, this is merely one more phenomenon to be labeled “racism.” Quoth Dystopic once more:
If a Christian country sent migrants to Saudi Arabia, and asked the Arabs to pay for them, and to accept some increase in terrorism, and to build them churches and make citizens of them, the Saudis would laugh… and then probably kill the whole lot of them.
But, at a minimum, they practice none of the tolerance they demand of us.
The Left has one set of rules for themselves and their favored special interest groups. And a very different, and far more stringent set of rules for everyone else. This selective rule-making falls just short of law, so as to give them a thin veneer of deniability.
In effect, the Left’s position is that self-protection, when practiced by American Caucasians in awareness of the variable aggressiveness and predilection for violence of identifiable groups, is morally wrong and must not be tolerated. But sensible Americans are aware that this is a political ploy intended to evoke more unearned guilt – this time, over the grievances of Muslims whose political and religious elites are wholly responsible for their condition.
Sensible, rational racism – the sort that makes use of what we know about the proclivities of identifiable groups and of masses of the members thereof – has never looked better. Maybe sensible racists should form a political party. At any rate, it would be something different.