Does Race Equal Thought?

blackliberalismby Glenn Fairman   2/9/14
It is no revelation that the Nazi ideology held fast to racial determinism: the idea that race was consistent with mind and thought. Having grown from the Darwinian spore that heralded men to be as fated as flies of a season, this biological fatalism reduced humanity into an organism that was contingent upon stimuli and responses—blind necessity and material reduction. From there it was only a necessary step to social and racial theories in which loathsome ideologies could flower in the foul detritus of pseudo-science.

It was then inevitable that “Enlightened Minds” expressed postulates of superiority and inferiority from which the former were given a naturalistic right to rule and the latter were therein condemned to: de-humanizing rhetoric, loss of rights, experimental vivisection, and eventual systematic destruction. The smashing of such theories—ideas that would have poisoned civilization for ten thousand years if victorious—very nearly destroyed the West. Who can deny now that our civilization was indeed ripe for this racialist contagion once we had abandoned our Judeo-Christian ethos and the American concept of inalienable natural rights for doctrines that applauded the technocratic herding of humanity like so much cattle?

But so ingrained is the worm of evil in our characters, that as soon as error is bludgeoned in one form, it sprouts forth in another. A civilization that had rebelled against The Moral Law, the Decalogue, and the notion of moral absolutes soon found succor in the intoxicating cocktail of Progressive Marxian liberalism: the political faith that an unfolding materialistic necessity will inevitably bring about the ascent of mankind into emancipated beings via the State. And as such, this evolution will occur, regardless of mankind’s moral or spiritual character. Juxtaposed in bitter conflict against the worldviews of the past which it holds in high disdain, liberalism’s secular Gnostic faith holds that our liberated innate goodness will by necessity free us from material want, outmoded moral constraints, and usher in that Earthly City. What was not immediately apprehended, however, was that this same equivalence of race and thought was smuggled in and would provide that same faulty bedrock whereupon utopian longings would once again poison the possibility of freedom of thought and individual conscience.[pullquote]But so ingrained is the worm of evil in our characters, that as soon as error is bludgeoned in one form, it sprouts forth in another. A civilization that had rebelled against The Moral Law, the Decalogue, and the notion of moral absolutes soon found succor in the intoxicating cocktail of Progressive Marxian liberalism: the political faith that an unfolding materialistic necessity will inevitably bring about the ascent of mankind into emancipated beings via the State.[/pullquote]

To hold that the group interests of African Americans, females, Caucasians or Asians are monolithic is part and parcel the reinvigoration of that Nazi foundation that masquerades under the shadow of the Progressive Science of Politics. As it now stands, only a minority of whites would make the claim that in choosing Paul Ryan over Joe Biden or even Alan Keyes over Barack Obama, one was exhibiting the psychology of a false consciousness or racism. But because the great commanding majority of Blacks have bought into the Progressive lie, they have been herded lockstep as fodder for the spiritual destruction of American civil society. Indeed, the cynical canard of “Black Authenticity” has laid a blanket claim to minds that do not necessarily agree with all aspects of the Progressive project. For Liberals, anyone who does not toe the line which reinforces the mentality of victimhood or the soft racism of lowered expectations is thus perceived as a race or gender traitor to be exiled to the outer darkness of political orthodoxy. To the Progressive consciousness that fortifies this strait-jacketed world view, the political /moral interests of race and biology are equivalent to thought.

The Progressive Marxian worldview accustoms its adherents to view their society as being involved in an intractable battle for preeminence—a historically determined struggle where the interests of classes and groups are in a state of siege. That these Progressives believe that they can duly command these disparate groups, once the old regime is brought down, is more owing to hubris that reality. The Progressives are effective at evangelizing discord and destruction. Their track record in creating solvent self sustaining societies, rooted in mutual peace, is dismal at best and requires command and force to bond together alienated factions under the supreme aegis of the homogenous State.

Progressives love to trumpet the words of Martin Luther King, who in transcending politics with the spiritual force of Christ’s words, spoke to and transformed hearts through peace while eschewing the Marxian doctrines of enmity and alienation. But for these small men of race and revolution, the “content of one’s character” is a slogan to be damned. It is the egalitarian tribal mindset that attaches itself to color and externalities that are primal to the Progressive zeitgeist– a Marxian formulation that demands the balkanization of society under gender, class, color, economics and all the stratified groupings that divide a people into a series of warring camps in a zero sum game of all against all. If the concentration of one’s melanin pigmentation means more in civilizational terms than what we have to offer each other as unhyphenated Americans who share the common heritage of freedom from coercion and constraints, we will have failed in securing our Founder’s vision that so many have shed their blood to maintain.
__________________________________________________
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (1050 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Does Race Equal Thought?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    But so ingrained is the worm of evil in our characters, that as soon as error is bludgeoned in one form, it sprouts forth in another. A civilization that had rebelled against The Moral Law, the Decalogue, and the notion of moral absolutes soon found succor in the intoxicating cocktail of Progressive Marxian liberalism: the political faith that an unfolding materialistic necessity will inevitably bring about the ascent of mankind into emancipated beings via the State.

    This is a brilliant thought and captures the difference between liberals and American conservatives. The former think that evil stems from material want. The latter – while not denying that a harsh upbringing or a deleterious environment can have an effect – believe that in a free society it is primarily our moral choices that determine our fait – economically, socially, and politically.

    Thus the solution to poverty (considered the greatest harm by liberals, but often embraced by noble religionists such as St. Francis) is quite different between these two groups because of what they believe causes it. (Nor, of course, do conservative put such emphasis on “poverty,” particularly given that our “poor” are in no measure poor compared to the rest of the world.)

    And conservatives have the real answers. Simply giving people “free stuff” undermines their morality (the ever-present and defining influence) and mires them in dependency. On the other hand, if you teach a man how to fish (which requires all the virtues of self-responsibility, integrity, stick-to-it-iveness, and hard work) and he will eat for a lifetime.

    But independent human beings are not what empowers politicians. The day that the average American can see the Left as an evil influence, and not a compassionate one, is the day we can save ourselves from these fools and miscreants.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    liberalism’s secular Gnostic faith holds that our liberated innate goodness will by necessity free us from material want, outmoded moral constraints, and usher in that Earthly City.

    The words, “man is basically good,” did at one time come from my lips. Everyone has moments where utopian feel-good views trump reality.

    Well, that was just a passing line (not even a passing fad, but just something I had written once and probably only once…my memory of stupidity doesn’t easily fade).

    And right there we grasp a core difference between liberals (including many Christians, I might add) and American conservatives. The former tend to pooh-pooh the idea of sin and believe that man is inherently good. This is the Cultural Marxist (aka “Progressive”) paradigm. This theory then says that if man does bad things, it is because something (such as capitalism, competition, and the drive for profit) is twisting his nature.

    Fools and dim-wits think this way. And our society (including many Christians) is full of such dim-wits. I was one for a brief moment as well.

    But sin is real. Man is not inherently good. I like what Dennis Prager says about this. He says that although man might be born innocent, he is not born good and must be made good.

    The rejection by the Left (and that includes many Christians and libertarians as well) of the basic role that human morality plays (or the lack of it) is a grave error. And that these people who hold this view think they are the cat’s meow in terms of compassion is a monstrous situation of ignorance or self-deceit.

    • The left is spurred on by two basic, but false ideas: 1) truth is relative, and 2) people are good. Those two falsities warp their thinking almost beyond redemption. If people are good, then why do they do bad things? Poverty, as you pointed out, or a bad upbringing, or society in general — never the choices made by the evil person. They can’t go there because truth is relative, so nothing can be labeled “evil” with any real certainty. Note how squirrelly leftist get when you bring up the atrocities of Islam. They have no idea how to fit that into their paradigm.

      Liberals are so tangled in their own “logic” that they’re getting a little testy; all they can do is yell louder and project their own prejudices onto others. I’m a tad nervous about how nasty they will have to get before rational thought can reassert itself.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The Progressive Marxian worldview accustoms its adherents to view their society as being involved in an intractable battle for preeminence—a historically determined struggle where the interests of classes and groups are in a state of siege.

    Thus Leftism becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. America (human nature and The South notwithstanding) is about individual freedom, not group rights. We are foremost God’s children, not a part of some tribe. But because Cultural Marxists (aka “Progressives”) see the world in terms of a conflict of groups based upon race, class, or gender, they have actually exacerbated these conflicts which, of course, are always a lingering part of human nature.

    But to define ourselves via these conflicts is to doom ourselves to them. As I say, at this moment in history, no good man or woman can vote for the Democrat Party or support their Cultural Marxist agenda. That the Republicans are such wimps and tend to offer no solution or rebuttal of this Cultural Marxist nonsense does complicate the plot.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    Actually, I’m not sure most blacks have bought into the demand for monolithic orthodoxy. Most black leaders (and their synoptic media enablers) do so, for very convenient reasons (since they define the orthodoxy), though there are exceptions (such as CORE). But I suspect that most blacks (like most whites, or Hispanics, or Asians, etc.) pay too little attention to politics to be aware of this attitude (or to consider the implications of it).

    As for black (or female) “authenticity”, one reason for this formulation is that it enables liberals to bypass their reflexive support for Official Victim groups. If a woman or black or Hispanic is “authentic”, then they are underdogs to be favored in any dispute with non-underdogs. But if they’re “inauthentic”, then they don’ t qualify for the special dispensation that underdogs receive.

  5. steve lancaster says:

    Thomas Sowell writes that when he was growing up in Harlem the black family was just as secure as the white family, even with higher poverty rates most children were raised in two parent families. Schools were what we would consider today sub-standard yet the high school graduation rate was comparable to white schools. Walter Williams expresses the same point of view.

    I am a Southerner of seven generations. My g grandfathers all served in the CSA. Yet, my personal experience of the 60’s and 70’s is that there is more inherent racism in the West and North than ever existed in the South. It does not mean that some Southerners are not racist; just they temper their thoughts with the “content of character”. There are white people I would not trust with the time of day, and black people I would willing leave my great grandchildren with.

    What has changed in race relations is the “war on poverty”. This badly thought out, but feel good program boiled down to its essence has ruined millions of black families, created a system of entitlements that encourage broken marriages, drug use, illiteracy and teen pregnancy. Part of the racism of the Yankees is the lowered expectations. We see this daily in lowered standards accorded “minorities” in high school graduation and college admissions.

    The horror of the Nazi era, is in large part attributable to three American Presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson. Each of these gentlemen espoused eugenics as a valid science and with the assistance of Margaret Sanger ultimately destroyed the black family in the United States. It is no coincidence that most Planned Parenthood clinics in the US are in or very close to minority neighborhoods. Abortion murders more black babies in three days than the KKK murdered in 150 years.

    Progressives and social democrats have never been called on their racism. The media gives a pass to the Jeremiah Wrights, of the world and focus instead on Bull Connor. Is it any wonder that the low information citizen is confused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *