What is the actual definition of racism? What has been the common understanding for hundreds of years? What is the definition of the mindset of racism and its extension into a racist culture that the United States fought a war to overcome, sacrificing 330,000 white boys and 168,000 black boys on the bloody battlefields of the Civil War in order to eradicate?
It is simply this; the determination that the genetic racial structure of a person is what determines their success or failure—that it is what determines their worth in a variety of areas in life. That a particular race or races are genetically inferior to others, and that this prevents members of these specific races from attaining equal moral, social, educational, or economic standing as members of another race might attain, and that therefore that specific “inferior race” can justifiably be denied rights and opportunities afforded to other races. This is the strict, historical definition of racism, understood clearly by all Americans for centuries.
Merriam-Webster defines racism thusly:
: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
In the Antebellum American South, in the society existent there before the Civil War, the holding of Black African slaves was commonplace, due to the widespread racism in existence in the American states where it was practiced. Slavery was also practiced in myriad other countries of the world at that time—countries consisting of both primarily white and primarily black citizens.
The enslavement of black Africans by other black Africans was legal historically in Ethiopia until 1929, where 2.5 million black slaves were then enslaved by their countrymen. Even today at this writing, black slaves are still owned and enslaved in five African countries—Mauritania, Algeria, Libya, and the Sudan—by Arab and Muslim masters. The underlying assumption of any slaveholder of blacks must of necessity be that Black Africans are inferior or sub-human, and therefore not worthy of being afforded equal treatment by other races, and are therefore rendered without relative power and justifiably subjected to exploitation.
Under this truly racist assumption, slavery in the Antebellum American South, throughout many other countries of the world in the same era, and in Africa and China to this day, was and is allowed to exist and to flourish. It is estimated that between 500,000 and 900,000 black African slaves are currently held against their will in the five aforementioned African countries today by their Arab and Muslim captors, and that 1,000,000 Turkish Muslim Uighurs are now enslaved by the Han Chinese in China. 1,250,000 white Europeans were captured and enslaved by Muslim Barbary slave traders in the 1600s. So indeed, slave holders and their slaves were and still are from a variety of races and societies. It was not at all an evil solely or even primarily practiced by whites against black Africans. None the less, it is an evil wherever it is found to exist.
Slavery does not always result only in the provision of free labor to the slaveholder. As in China today, where the Han Chinese hold captive over one million Uighur Muslims, labor is not the sole desired benefit to the Chinese. The Han seek not only the Uighur slave labor, but the ability to control their reproduction, thereby diminishing the distinct genetic strain of the Uighur within China, which is racially dominated by the Han. The Han not only obtain free slave labor, but they also obtain the further dominance of their racial strain in China, to the detriment of the Uighur. The Uighur are not only enslaved for their labor, but in a more serious assault on their people, their very genetic lineage is attacked for diminution or elimination.
And in another grievous assault on their population, the Han Chinese also actively promote a market in China for the sale of the body organs of the healthiest Uighurs. The national or international buyer contacts the Chinese brokers, who then select out a subject to be murdered, their organs stripped immediately thereafter for harvest and sale. It is hard to think of a more evil perpetration of inhumanity and barbarism than this practice inflicted on the Uighurs by the Chinese Han majority today.
Under the commonly and historically accepted definition of racism, any race can be guilty of racism—all they would need do is to independently hold the mindset of the previous slave masters of black African slaves in the United States—or of the Arab and Muslim slave masters of today, or of the Barbary Muslims of yesteryear, or of the current day Han Chinese—and then focus those degrading definitions and philosophies against any other race of human being—considering them inferior on account of their racial makeup—and attempt then to deny this class whatever human or civil right their race chose to deny them out of their own supposed genetic or power paradigm superiority. But slavery is about more than racism, which is the excuse that supports the holding of slaves. It is more about exercising unjustified control over another—it is about abject cruelty and human exploitation, normally undertaken under a strictly racist pretense.
So in essence, under the ages old commonly held definition of racism, any race can become racist and be considered such, simply by considering a member or members of any other race to be inferior and incapable of the traits or accomplishments of another—solely because of their genetic racial composition—and to consider them therefore subject to exploitation. Antebellum American Southerners considered black Africans inferior and worthy of subjugation. Muslims of the Barbary Coast considered themselves genetically and religiously superior to European and American whites, and therefore saw themselves as justified in enslaving my people. Each slaveholding group was willing and able to exploit a vulnerable group, employing a variety of racist bases to justify their actions.
An Antebellum Southerner could buy a black African slave, keeping that person in forced servitude indefinitely, and subject them to whatever form of brutal punishment the slaveholder chose. That slave’s freedom was stripped, and his/her life and movements completely controlled, which cannot in any way be justified. This is one of the many definitions of abject evil.
A Han Chinese can today, under the traditional definition of racism, consider the members of their race to be the rightful rulers of the entire world, solely on their own perceived self perception as a race superior to all others—and naturally by definition be judged to be racist in their considerations and their resultant actions. These Han Chinese could then justifiably—in their own minds—enslave in prison camps the Uighur Muslim minority population in China, send Han Chinese men into the homes of the Uighur women, after expelling the Uighur husbands, to forcibly rape and impregnate these Uighur women, to purposely use the offspring of these rapes to dilute the genetic makeup of the Uighur population, in a form of bloodline genocide that enhances the genetic strain of the Han and diminishes that of the Uighur. Indeed this very evil the Han Chinese are in the midst of committing on this day in February 2022, almost two centuries after American slavery was conquered through the death and sacrifice of 330,000 white men and 168,000 black men during the Civil War.
In the same vein, a black American activist named Malcolm X could consider the black race the pinnacle of humanity, and degrade and call his white protagonists “crackers” and “white demons,” considering them the sole repository of all human evil. Because he was in no way interested in equally calling out racism and slavery by his own Muslim people against blacks, but to solely focus on the slavery and oppression previously and in his mind currently performed by white people against black people, it appears clear that he considered the white race to be more inclined to evil than other races, and considered their evil actions—which in essence are morally equal to the actions of other races in similar documented circumstances—to be part of a yet greater genetic white proclivity to moral evil. Malcolm X chose to ignore the equally heinous actions of his own adopted generally non-white religion in other lands, and to unequally weight the evil perpetrated by some white Americans, and could easily by traditional definition therefore be considered to be a black Muslim racist. In his mind, my people were morally inferior to his people, and our reprehensible actions, immorally equal to those of other slaveholding countries and peoples, were to be weighted as disproportionally evil.
The unequally weighted consideration of white racism as being of a lower moral nature than equal instances and levels of racism perpetrated by non-whites, is a by product of a mindset inclined to utilize skewed evidence in the service of a previously arrived at intellectual and political conclusion. It is the tortured arrival at a conclusion already previously desired and chosen, before any honest consideration of the available truth and evidence, by the twisted and unequal weighting of an isolated portion of human truth. It is the utilization of only a portion of truth, and the denial of another portion, in order to buttress a desired conclusion, irrespective of abundant evidence to the contrary that would lead one toward a more balanced and homogenous consideration of humanity. It is an attempt to arrive at a conclusion without weighing the comprehensive evidence available, and to then bend the body of evidence towards that conclusion, regardless of the final merit of the conclusion and the clearly unjust weighting of the evidence inherent in and supporting that conclusion.
The proper way to arrive at conclusions upon which true and balanced philosophies are based is to analyze the entire body of evidence, then to weight objectively and dispassionately the various facets of this evidence, and then to develop a set of rational conclusions, and extrapolate these conclusions out into a mature overarching general philosophy.
But there is a school of thought that thinks completely antithetically to this paradigm—bending all available evidence towards only one pre-set conclusion, regardless of the existent reality and of ample evidence to the contrary of this conclusion. This life philosophy refuses to integrate the entirety of the available human information, and chooses instead to overly weight some truth, and to completely ignore other provable truth. It is an anti-intellectual philosophy, and in the final analysis its extrapolations are not worthy of consideration as overarching truth.
My Cousin Robert French Utter served for 23 years as a Washington State Supreme Court justice, including a two year stint as chief justice of that court. A man imbued with an intense personal kindness and with genuine concern for those whose life circumstances initially relegated them to a position of extreme want in any life category, Cousin Bob and his wife Betty Utter spent countless hours mentoring and helping people who crossed their paths under such circumstances. Cousin Bob eventually resigned his position on the court in protest of what he perceived to be the unequal judicial application of the death penalty against minority members of American society, which was generally considered an extension of his compassion for those less fortunate.
I have never though been able to intellectually square his position on this particular matter, either from our personal conversations nor from my readings of his opinions, since black Americans as an overall racial segment of American society commit on average six times more violent felonies and eight times more murders than their white American counterparts, according to yearly compiled F.B.I. statistics. As a result, black Americans per capita have far more outstanding warrants against them for these crimes, and as a result are pulled over in traffic and detained at a far higher level than whites, and also have far more death penalty convictions against them as a result of the greater national per capita preponderance of their commission of violent crimes.
Since black Americans per capita are more likely to violently offend than their white counterparts in American society, and to then be justifiably judged as dangerous offenders, does it not follow that the death penalty might indeed be sanctioned against offenders in this particular population segment at an even higher per capita level than white Americans who have far less previous violent felonies, but had committed the exact same crime in the present case? Is not the multiple re-committing of violent felonies a mitigating factor when a jury weighs the justice of the application of the death penalty in a specific instance, and would not this appropriately weighted reasoning naturally lead to more per capita convictions for the same current offense against the population segment with the greater past violent felony convictions, and therefore be considered an unequal application of justice by those who refuse to accept the existence and nature of these mitigating circumstances?
I can make no sense of Cousin Bob’s positions other than to make the assumption that he considered black Americans higher than normal level of violent crime commission to be in some way not solely their fault, and in some mitigating manner at least the partial fault of others, and that therefore the higher application of balanced legal sanctions against them was at least partially unjust. If this were not his position, how then could he logically consider the application of blind American justice to be oppressive against minority criminals, and then feel it incumbent upon himself to resign the court in protest over this issue?
It seems that Cousin Bob’s position was based on three pillars:
Pillar 1: That it is far more expensive to apply the death penalty, due to the large legal costs necessary to thoroughly adjudicate a case beyond a shadow of a doubt. All avenues of legal appeal must be afforded to the condemned, as it is crucial to be positive that the crime was actually committed by the accused before such a final ultimate price can be demanded from them. This effort of course incurs heavy attorney fees and great legal cost, making it more expensive than to simply incarcerate the offender for the duration of their life. Because of the greater cost incurred, applying the death penalty is therefore fiscally unwise as a consideration.
Response: On the issue of the final cost to incarcerate for life vs. the imposition of the death penalty—it is true that many social policies cost more money than their alternative choices available, and are therefore chosen for their greater perceived value to society as a whole. Overall final cost is commonly not the determinant consideration, if the greater good to society outweighs the greater expense.
I find this argument then somewhat specious. Americans of the leftward political persuasion are not known for being slow to spend when a cause meets their criteria. At the base of this argument seems to be the assumption that the extra cost to apply strict justice for violent felonies committed is unwarranted because the defendant is not fully responsible, or else the application of strict justice would be seen as a just societal good worthy of the excess expenditure.
Pillar 2: As a legal system we are not able to make such life taking decisions wisely enough, since black Americans are prosecuted and given harsher sentences than whites for the exact same crime committed, and that therefore a systemic injustice is being committed against this minority community.
Response: As to the purportedly unwise nature of prosecuting more frequently and then imposing harsher sentences against black Americans than their white counterparts in society receive—again the answer is apparent. Since black Americans per capita commit six times more violent felonies, it is only logical that should a member of this population segment for example be presented to a jury having two other prior violent felonies in their history, in addition to the current chargeable violent offense, that they would be given a harsher sentence than a person who had no previous violent convictions. This would clearly designate this person as a greater overall criminal threat to society than an offender with far less previous convictions. To attribute the reality of blind American justice more severely sentencing a black American than a white one to a racial bias in the legal system or in the jury pool against blacks is supported by no comprehensive body of evidence, other than the bare fact that this population segment receives harsher sentences, which is clearly and easily attributable to other naturally mitigating factors.
Pillar 3: Minority communities are more likely to commit crimes due to their higher levels of poverty, and resultant higher levels of need. That if you put any community in dire need, the same levels of criminality will be attained, and that therefore the imposition of legal sanctions against the current community in the most financial need and now committing higher levels of violent crime is unjustified, as their state of need is the determining factor in their higher level of criminal acts.
Response: As to the proposition that black Americans are more likely to be mired in poverty, and that this state of poverty is the causal factor in the commission of their crimes—this cannot be supported on virtually any level, without dehumanizing the subject community. It is of course true that the temptation to commit crime—theft, robbery, assault, murder—is higher in communities that are more impacted by poverty and therefore in greater financial need. Since the ability in each individual in this situation to abstain from the commission of crime is still intact, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of black Americans in these conditions do indeed abstain from criminal activity, it is clear that the choice for some to satisfy their personal needs at the expense of the security and safety of another is a selfish individual moral choice, and not the only option available. Whenever an alternative choice is available, and the ability to choose the good is intact, civil and legal responsibility are also commensurately still intact. The level of temptation is not traditionally a mitigating factor in the application of American justice, nor has it been traditionally accepted as a legal excuse for impoverished white Americans in any case under the new social justice paradigm sought by the political left. It is currently the truth that per capita, black Americans violently offend to a much higher degree than their white counterparts. That is the current situation, but in our past and in our hopeful future, this was not and will no longer be the case. There is no genetic paradigm demanding the current status quo—indeed it is fluid depending on ever changing cultural determinants.
Therefore poverty and need cannot be considered causal in the commission of crime, but rather correlative. Unless the proposal is that human beings have devolved to the status of animals, driven by pure instinct for survival, and with no true moral nature still available to them, that they have lost their moral power to resist and to choose morally in the face of temptation. As humans, the ability to morally choose is one of the qualities that set us apart from instinct driven animals. Extracting the humanity from minority communities in our consideration of their level of criminal commission is ultimately dehumanizing. Whether the current state of temptation is low or high, we are all responsible to choose correctly, no matter the nature or level of our own personal temptation—and the American justice system is in place to assure that we all do, no matter our circumstances. But it appears that Lady Justice, originally blindfolded and with the scale of justice balanced in her hands, is having her blindfolds removed now by the American left, and is being encouraged to consider race and class in her judgements, and to unequally balance the scales of justice in light of these considerations.
Should a Wall Street executive be tempted to commit financial crime by their access to the investment funds of their clientele, then tempted to misrepresent their fund and its position to their clients for great personal gain, in compensation for their previous investment losses that have rendered them penniless and in ruinous debt and real pressing personal need—would any person or court in the land consider their proximity to great temptation and pressing personal financial need as mitigating factors in the consideration of their crime? I dare say not! But then in that case we would not be speaking strictly of the proletariat. And here begins the meat of the discussion.
So what are the underlying assumptions in my Cousin Bob’s apparent reactions to the unequal per capita application of the death penalty to black Americans?
The most dangerous assumption seems to be that justice should not be equally applied for any reason—that partially or fully absolving one racial subset of people and then fully holding responsible another for exactly equal harmful societal actions—is in any rational and moral universe fair and justified. It is in fact an actual racist construct.
The second assumption is that one person’s moral actions can be controlled by a second person or group of persons, effectively absolving the first group of the responsibility for their devastating moral actions, and transferring a portion of their guilt to the second group. This flies in the face of the basis of both our traditional Christian religion and American culture—where each man and woman stands before God and man for only what they have done in life, and not in the place of another—and cuts hard at the foundations of the American legal tradition originally based on that religious precept. In my Cousin Bob’s paradigm, it seems that God will judge human beings on a sliding scale according to their relative poverty or riches, or their relative position in American society, since these social and financial statuses directly control their actions in some unrecoverable way, and that they are morally incapable of overcoming their circumstances and therefore are relatively incapable of correct moral action.
In this consideration, the non white murderer must be given a pass, since they are economically and socially “oppressed” by those of another race with more present day power or riches. Since the non white murderer is considered therefore to be morally incapable of choosing another morally correct action—how exactly is this not a dehumanization of this individual, and how exactly is this consideration not a traditional racist construct? One racial group is considered incapable of correct moral action because of their circumstances, while another is held strictly accountable, no matter their circumstances—this fits exactly the standard definition of racism and is completely unacceptable on any rational and intellectual plane—it is therefore unworthy of consideration.
The conclusion arrived at by my Cousin Bob and other politically left leaning individuals seems to be arrived at by an earlier and deeper paradigm conclusion, upon which other subsequent conclusions are built and assumed therefore to be true should they align with the original conclusion—such as the conclusion that members of one race are not equally culpable for the exact moral infraction as the members of another, but that the latter shares culpability for the former’s actions. Only one world philosophy counts these assumptions as the basis of their political and legal philosophy—that espoused originally by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Marxism taught and teaches that one group, because of their predominant financial standing, naturally and by necessity oppresses others who hold a lower status in the power paradigm, and that the criminal actions of those oppressed are therefore at least somewhat justified as a reaction to their oppression, and can be partially freed from traditional moral and legal judgement.
Should a proletarian man of little means pistol whip and rob a man of higher social and financial standing, it can then be considered a simple and understandable act serving to partially balance the unbalanced social and financial scales, and worthy of a lesser criminal punishment because of the underlying assumption that the offender had suffered oppression under a system of men who had the current victim’s skin color. A white Christian woman can be brutally raped by a member of a non-white racial group, purportedly naturally oppressed by her racial group, and the whole incident can be then partially justified under this paradigm. The entire incident can then be judged based on the class or racial group of each person involved in the altercation, and the sliding scale of social justice applied accordingly. The offense becomes therefore relatively less grievous, and the crime victim’s suffering naturally less consequential.
This degradation of traditional concepts of equal treatment under the law is widespread across vast portions of the Western world. In Rotherham England between 2002 and 2007, 1,400 socially vulnerable English girls were sexually trafficked and gang raped by primarily Muslim immigrant men, who comprised then 4% of the English population, but who comprised over 80% of the perpetrators. A full 4% of Rotherham’s female population was gang raped and trafficked. The police turned a blind eye for years, castigating the female white English victims because they accurately described their captors and rapists as Muslim immigrants, effectively blaming the girls and women for reporting the felonies and inhumanities committed against them, as if the victim girls and women were somehow responsible for a racial crime for simply reporting accurately about their attackers.
This supposed Muslim proletarian group was initially allowed entry into English society out of a English societal sense of guilt, in order to balance the economic scales between English wealth and Muslim poverty. This disparity was considered to have arisen due to the supposed oppression by Western nations of Muslim nations at some undefined time in world history. The English police and judicial system virtually abandoned these native English female victims, refusing them traditional justice in order to protect those they saw as the real historical victims—their Muslim immigrant rapists.
Christianity teaches that all human souls are equally culpable for their sins, whatever these sins entail—covetousness, theft, murder, rape—the list is long. That the moral infractions of a person are under their control—and not the control of another—and that therefore their sins are theirs alone, nor do they share culpability in those of another.
Marxism teaches us that all of the above sins committed against other human souls by the proletariat are the natural expression of their defensive reaction to their own assumed previous oppression, and are therefore justified culturally equalizing reactions, and not strictly sanctionable by Marxism’s own assumed correct interpretation of a social justice paradigm and its outgrowth in law and jurisprudence—but only if committed by the proletariat. That
these acts are in their case simply to be considered as natural understandable act outs in reaction to their oppression. In this case and under this paradigm, they are to a great degree less blameworthy for their crimes.
Hence, in philosophically and politically hard left California, we have today a legal system that considers the outright smash and grab theft of less than $1,000. as no longer criminal, but rather a naturally expressive reaction of the oppressed, and as a justified theft in the attempt to re-balance the financial scales imbalanced previously by racial oppression. Hence we see the entrance into long established retail stores of gangs of organized individuals with calculators, and the methodical and outright theft of the sub $1,000. legal threshold value of property, owned by others, and the resultant withdrawal from retail districts of major retailers unwilling to suffer the unwarranted financial losses. And everybody in the end loses! The retailer is gone, their employees are out of work, and the criminal “oppressed” element loses a potential employment opportunity from these established community businesses. The entire community is thusly degraded.
We see tens of thousands of the homeless, in the main drug addicted and absent any adherence to normal social protocols, who are granted the right to squat on portions of public property, to urinate and defecate on public streets, to use drugs openly in public view—all under the assumption that an oppressive society forced them into the drug abuse and criminality that then served as their natural reaction to their oppression, and that this oppressive society must take their share of the blame for their actions, and therefore give up public space in order to balance the effects of said oppression, regardless of the effects on those who have chosen to live in a peaceful and orderly fashion within the strictures of natural civil society. Those who choose to live under the paradigm of personal responsibility, who hold to the belief that clean, safe, and organized public spaces are a natural good for all citizens, no longer have any right to experiences the natural outgrowth of their beliefs and choices, since the majority of us are, primarily because of the light nature of our skin, considered morally inferior, and as oppressors who have caused all of the natural reactions of the oppressed when they turn on us and on all of traditional society.
We see a Columbus Ohio black woman holding a knife attacking two other black women, then confronted by a white police officer who shoots and kills the assailant in order to stop the murder of the victims. The reaction is then swift against the officer, as if the assailant were naturally and justifiably acting out her oppression, and should not have been shot, but rather allowed freedom to continue her attack without being counter attacked by an oppressive bourgeoisie member of the police force. And what right could any white officer ever have to shoot a black woman due to the systemic imbalance between the two? Was his response not simply a continuation and an outgrowth of her oppression? NBA star Lebron James tweeted in reaction to the officer’s actions: “you’re next” insinuating that society was coming for the officer for his unjust actions. This shows the clear and deep extent to which Marxist interpretations of reality have made inroads into our culture and society, and how actual traditional justice has been supplanted by a skewed sense of social justice, inspired by the Marxist paradigm.
We see leftist District Attorneys across the country refusing to prosecute murder cases where the assailant is non-white, and their subsequent release back into society without consequence, often to quickly re-offend, raising the level of murder and mayhem in American society, which we all now suffer at higher levels due to this unequal application of justice, rooted in the perverted Marxist legal construct.
We see American universities teaching openly that Americans with un-changeable genetic programming for white skin are unable to change their resultant genetically programmed “moral deficit”—expressed in our “inescapable racism”—and are therefore morally flawed relative to other races—that we are hopelessly morally compromised—again the textbook definition of a racist construct and interpretation. The extrapolation out of this philosophy is that white Americans should be stripped of power and influence in American society in order to rectify and nullify our oppressive genetic influence.
And at the base of this entire paradigm is the insidious underlying racist assumption—that those of minority classes are morally incapable of upright moral action, and that the blame should be justifiably shifted to others, who because of their white skin are naturally inclined to moral and societal evil at a higher rate than those whom they “oppress.” In this paradigm, one group is fully able to act morally and doesn’t, and one group is not fully able to act morally, and when they indeed do not, they are therefore absolved of responsibility. What is this if not a classic racist interpretation of human reality?
And hence the breakdown of American society continues under the tutelage of the hard left, inching us ever closer to a Marxist societal understanding, and the imposition of a governmental system in line with this paradigm, inching us ever closer to complete alignment with the political philosophy whose member governments and insurgency groups have murdered 100 million human souls in the last century since the inception of its deeply intellectually and morally flawed premise entered consideration.
Could not a hybrid consideration be devised, wherein we employ the intense kindness of my
Cousin Bob and his wife Betty, and their selfless efforts to mentor those less fortunate, with a strict judicial construct that treats all Americans legally equal regardless of their races and circumstances? Can we not lose all expressions of racism from both sides of the social equation, and instead treat each other more truly equally in our considerations, both personally and legally? I say that yes indeed we can and that we should.
We once fought a bloody civil war in order to bury the stench of racism on our shores. It seems clear that should our national path ultimately progress unabated along the current philosophical, political, and judicial continuum, that this tragic solution may unfortunately again become the only means by which oppressive societal racism and its resultant human suffering can be turned back and defeated once again.
American Renewal
