Racism is all the rage now. It is the battle cry of Antifa and other neo-fascist gangs, including those in Congress.
A long time ago, in 1997 to be precise, I reviewed a book, “Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing,” and republished it on Rule of Reason in 2013, in “The-Ghouls-of-Grammatical-Egalitarianism.” In it I wrote:
What is “bias-free” writing? The Guidelines’ definition of it is “writing free of discriminatory or disparaging language.” It should be stressed that the object of Guidelines’ concerns is not primarily racial slurs. The AAUP is not referring to the language to be found in the pathological hate literature published by the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, or the Black Muslims, but to staid university publications. Its focus is common, inoffensive usage, and the implication throughout the book is that scholarly works that are not “sensitized” and “sanitized” may in the future be demoted to the rank of hate literature, and treated with the same disdain, regardless of their intellectual merit or significance….
Guidelines includes the disclaimer, “there is no such thing as a truly bias-free language” and stresses that the advice it offers is only “that of white, North American (specifically U.S.), feminist publishing professionals.” The Task Force, which is composed of 21 university press editors (two of them men), recommends euphemistic proxies for all of the terms on its “hit list…”
In essence, Guidelines advocates abolishing human comparisons by prohibiting the identity of referents. In the foregoing example, one would be discouraged from expressing a judgment or evaluation of a person who has offered abundant evidence of his inability or unwillingness to think normally or to perform some task. Such a person is simply there, like a rock or a tree, beyond discrimination (in the strict, nonracial, nonsexist meaning of that word), beyond evaluation, beyond recognition. He is not incomparable; more precisely, he is non-comparable. To compare the inventor of the steam engine with a man who is unable to do simple math or boil a kettle of water without harming himself is, by egalitarian anti-standards, a grave breach of “social justice” and an unforgivable faux pas.
So any statement today that upholds Western civilization as an accomplishment to be preserved and advanced can be labeled as “hate speech,” specifically racist hate speech, because what we have today did not come from Islam or the Central African Republic or the natives of the Argentine pampas or the Algonquians. It is now primarily racist slurs that are flung at men of reason. Academia and the MSM may “disparage” whites and civilization without penalty or recrimination. Whites will even “disparage” themselves to remain in the graces of the PC collective.
GOPUSA reported on August 29th:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who last week denounced the Patriot Prayer gathering in San Francisco as a “white supremacist rally,” had no public comment on the leftist violence.
In “To the Left, “Ignorance IS Strength” I wrote:
So, the purpose of quasi-government censorship via the giant tech companies such as Google and Apple, and financial systems like PayPal, is not just to silence “offensive” blog sites and to control personal emails, but to suffocate the public into soundless and voiceless silence. And to create a permanent pall of ignorance. A vacuum. The Left has a long history of blanking out reality, and it wishes to force Americans to blank out as well.
The Left, in alliance with Islam, is determined to sequester and imprison man’s mind. That is the long and short of it. “Were you ever there?” asks Ezra Levant of The Rebel Media. The Left doesn’t want you to know. It prefers you to somehow live and exist in a state of cluelessness.
In a vacuum. The only thing left is racism.
Vox on August 15th reported:
There is no question that Americans have the right to express racist, offensive, unpopular views under the First Amendment — it's a right that has been repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court. But the right-wing demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend may have gone too far when they began chanting racial and homophobic slurs to specific people.
It’s a gray area of constitutional law, but several experts said this week that the white supremacists may have crossed a line into what is known as unprotected speech.
In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled that "fighting words" are not protected under the First Amendment. The Court defines fighting words as "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Suppose the police were ordered to stand down when those “fighting words” were spoken, and to let the two groups rumble without interference. As they did in Charlottesville and Berkeley. Not so coincidentally, it was a Supreme Court ruling that sanctified the notion that words can “inflict injury.” Is that physical injury, caused by a thrown brick, or a fist, or was the Court also referring to “psychological” injuries of some kind? The rot goes back decades.
The Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.
Fast forward to the 21st century and again to Vox:
In the context of the Charlottesville demonstration, experts agree that slurs such as the n-word and "faggot" would be considered serious personal insults and that they were directed at a specific person or group of people. What is unclear is whether their words were likely to spark immediate violence.
But in the Bizarro World of the Left, personal insults, serious or not, are more injurious than slapstick comedy’s cream pies thrown in the face; sound vibrations acquire the metaphysical potency of objects.
Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, does that make it true? The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls one's own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink… ("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once").
A colleague, Syme, who is working on the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak dictionary in Nineteen Eighty-Four, which will be shorter than the Tenth Edition, describes his work:
”It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. …
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten….”
“Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” [Italics mine]
In “The Eraser Heads,” I wrote:
The Eraser Heads believe that removing or destroying statues will somehow erase the history behind them. The selectively self-blinded non-seers of the non-existent statues (and artwork) will no longer be triggered or defiled by them, and will be pure. While anyone who is white will be tarred and feathered with guilt. Anyone who upholds Western culture (and not the Deconstructionist brand) and Western civilization will be smeared as a racist.
The “rising tide of racism”? Where? If there’s a tide, then it’s a puddle. However, if there is a “rising tide” of racism, it’s being fed by the leaking mains of academia and the MSM. It has been cited so many times, the term “racism” no longer has any punch or significance. As Syme explained, such a term serves as a catch-all for anything “negative.” “Every concept that can ever be needed, will be
expressed by exactly one word…” In
this case, racism. If you question
what is on Donald Trump’s Oval Office desk, you can call it racism. If you
object to Melania Trump’s appearance and sense of fashion, but refrain from Michelle
Obama’s “patented shower curtain dresses,” you can indulge in approved racism. If
you derogate the political and intellectual Founders of the U.S. and cite their
slavery, you can turn the tables and not be accused of racism. You can call Confederate
statues or statues or portraits of past university
staff or a movie a priori racist, and not
have someone tap you on the shoulder.
Your new lexicographers
And let us not forget the very real “rising tide” of anti-Semitism on the Left and abroad. You can charge all Jews with a conspiracy to conquer the world as many Leftists and Islam do, but neglect to mention Islam’s 14 century record of anti-Semitism and slavery and conquest, and get away with it, without so much as a nod to the facts.
After all, “Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” And your task as a race-card game player is to be unconscious and to spread and enforce politically correct unconsciousness on all.
“Not that there’s anything wrong with that,” as Jerry Seinfeld was want to say.