Race, Racism, and Identitarianism
Race is a hoax. Its purpose is to divide. Because divided we are weaker and easier to control.
This was true during Jim Crow, as the power-elite pointed poor people with white skin down the road of racism to distract them from its own greed and abuses.
"If you can make
the whites hate the blacks,
you can keep screwing both
behind their backs.
For hate distracts,
while the Machine attacks."
And it's true again now, as they play the same trick on people with black and brown skin.
The planet is on fire. Elites are consolidating power at unprecedented speed. We're barreling toward a global ecological collapse and a cybernetic techno-dystopia all at once.
And they want you fighting among yourselves, about the outermost millimeter of skin, screaming at your brothers and sisters, distracted, while the powerful run roughshod over all of you, and over the living planet.
To solve these existential problems, we need the Left, because the Left is society's gas pedal - the force that moves us forward and evolves our paradigms.
But the Left can't win elections by itself. It's just not big enough. It needs the Right's help. A coalition of the working class is what's needed.
But the Right (the brake pedal) is afraid of the Left, because of the racism that's coming from that direction.
The Left has been turned racist by 50 years of COINTELPRO infiltration. This was deliberate. It's working. By turning the Left racist, and frightening the Right ,the power elites have successfully (thus far) managed to keep the two tribes divided and bickering. Divided, and unable to mount a united front to overthrow the Machine ,and liberate the planet.
To solve our many problems, we've got to stop fighting about race. And great news! There's a simple way to do so.
All we have to do is return to the original Equality Movement.
Back to the roots.
Two Paradigms of Anti-Racism
For most of its history, the Equality Movement has been a collective spiritual quest - a process of evolution to a more enlightened state of consciousness that transcends fixation on people's involuntary demographic characteristics.
But recently, it has devolved into a tribal war between group identities.
It's no longer about evolution. It's all about power now.
In Dr. Martin Luther King's dream, there was a new society, with a higher consciousness.
People no longer fixate themselves on skin color
People are individuals first - categories second
Choices and character matter - not involuntary traits
People don't discriminate based on race or skin color
No one is excluded from a space because of color
No one's opinion matters less because of color
Laws don't mention race or skin color
The rules are the same for all colors.
Race/color does not form the basis of identity.
We're all one race, and everyone knows it.
This was a different mindset from the consensus of the time. It was a spiritual evolution for humanity. And Dr. King cited his spirituality as the basis for it. He believed in universal, objective moral principles, which transcend the racial identity of the individual.
Skin color is only a millimeter thick, and under it, we're all the same.
We are spiritual beings having an embodied experience.
Spirit has no race, and is every color.
Our true nature transcends our physical forms, and therefore, transcends race and color.
Identity should be independent of race or color.
Rosa Parks had the same dream. Soon, millions had the dream, and marched for it.
This was the project of the civil rights movement. It sought to abolish all racism from legislation, and from the hearts and minds of people. To eliminate racist beliefs, and transform them into spiritual maturity that transcends fixation on race.
But a new current has risen up recently, within the movement, and turned it against itself. Some of the people who are the loudest in proclaiming themselves "anti-racists" are in fact classical racists, in the sense that they believe in the classical tenets of racism.
Racism and Anti-racism have themselves been redefined, from two opposing set of beliefs, to two opposing tribal group identifications.
It's no longer about what you believe, or what you do. It's about who you are and what tribe you're a member of.
Which, in turn, means that a person (of the Good Tribe, of course) is now free to believe the beliefs that define racism, yet "not be a racist", as long as he or she is identified with the correct group.
An "anti-racist" is now permitted to hate, pre-judge, and discriminate, based on race and color - just like the classical racists of Jim Crow.
During Jim Crow, most people with white skin:
-Derived their identity from their skin color
-Believed that different races had different fundamental moral natures; and that their own race was the beneficent one, and the other race was dangerous and problematic
-Believed that a person's skin color was the very first, most important thing that ought to be known about that person, and that it should form the basis for deciding how to treat that person
-Believed in having different sets of rules for different colors, both in social protocols as well has in hard legislation
-Wanted spaces carved out where they could exclude the "other color"
-Believed that the value of an opinion rests largely on the skin color of its proponent
-Believed themselves to be entitled to a greater level of respect and deference by the "other color" than what they owed in return
And now, people claiming to be "anti-racists" and "Equality Activists" believe in exactly those tenets.
Just with the roles reversed.
When the Civil Rights marchers marched, they marched to end racism, which was a set of beliefs. They fought the beliefs.
They recognized those beliefs as repugnant. And they campaigned to evolve humanity to a new level of consciousness.
Race is a hoax. It has no basis in logic or science.
Below the outermost layer of skin, our color isn't even different.
99.9% of all human DNA is the same, across "races". There is no clear line dividing the genomes of different groups considered to be "different races."
In fact, there is a greater genetic difference between individuals within the so-called "races" than there is between the aggregates of so-called races. In other words, two "white" people (or two "black" people) have more variation between them than the aggregate of all "white" DNA and the aggregate of all "black" DNA.
There isn't even a clear line between the physical landmasses of continents where so-called "races" are said to originate. Where does "Europe" end, and "Asia" begin? Where is the line between "Asia" and "The Middle East"? Between "The Middle East" and "Africa"?
There are no such lines. Not on the land, and not in our DNA. The whole thing is bunk.
The concept of color-based "racial" classification was invented in the 17th-century, by slave-traders, to rationalize enslaving people.
Prior to the slave trade, there was no such thing as a "white" person, or a "black" person. No one identified with their skin's color.
And guess what? If you derive your identity from your skin's color, then you're letting slave-traders define who you are.
That is not woke.
You are not your skin color. You are not "black". You are not "white".
You're a PERSON, not a "color".
But recently, the movement devolved. Now, instead of seeking a consciousness of unity, it's now purely a tribal struggle, seeking merely to shift power from one "group" to another "group."
And thanks to many efforts, it made a lot of progress. It changed beliefs, from racist belief-sets into mature belief-sets. Every year, the white population had a few more black connections, a little bit more self-awareness, and a little bit more knowledge about black experiences - and became a little bit more relaxed about race and color. One by one, racially discriminatory laws were repealed, and prejudices were renounced.
But somewhere along the line, a new movement arose, within the academic world, which abandoned the spiritual project of Dr. King, and devolved into a war of identities.
Now, they believe that it's normal, natural, and healthy to derive identity and self-concept from the outermost millimeter of one's skin.
Now, they believe a person is a color/gender first, and an individual second; and all conversations, interactions, and dynamics must be filtered, immediately, through the lens of identity (race and gender), before anyone can even talk.
Now, they want discrimination - both in social protocol and in legislation - but with the roles reversed.
Now, they believe some people should "sit down and shut up", and "go to the back." But with the roles reversed.
Now, they believe that it's OK to dismiss someone's opinion - and even to proscribe them from having an opinion at all - solely on the grounds of their skin color or sex.
Now, they believe segregation is a good thing (as long as the "good" color is in the driver's seat, excluding the "bad" color). Just like the racists of the Jim Crow era.
Now, they believe it's OK to speak words of hatred, up to and including threats of violence, as long as it's the "good" demography saying it to the "bad" demography. Just like the racists of the Jim Crow era.
And in so doing, activists have now become the classical racists which the movement originally fought in the 50's and 60's. Just with a different skin color. The same roles - but flipped.
Instead of working towards enlightened thinking, instead of transcending race, it shrunk, intellectually and spiritually, into a struggle to simply "transfer power."
From "We are all one"...
...to "black is good, white is bad, and the latter must transfer power, and actively practice submission to, the former."
From empowering Love and Understanding...
...to empowering a group over another group.
An identity over another identity.
It's now no longer about transforming racist beliefs into enlightened awareness. Racism, in their view, is no longer about a person's beliefs at all. It's only about their identity.
It's no longer about what you do or what you believe in.
It's only about who you are while you do it or believe in it.
That's identity politics.
And identity politics wasn't an accident.
postmodernism in academia
The CIA implanted agents and "useful idiots" into academic positions, as professors and "thought-leaders."
Since universities depend on funding from the corporate oligarchy, they complied, and allowed small-minded identitarian idiots to become professors, and create entire new departments to peddle the new identitarian politics.
And the professors passed it onto the students, and trained a whole generation of activists to become role-reversed classical racists.
And the intellectual thread that ties it all together is post-modernism.
Postmodernism is a psyop.
Postmodernism is the idea that there's "no right and wrong." Everything is subjective, and based solely on the feelings and interpretations of whoever is looking at it. There is no objective truth, in a postmodern worldview.
But here's the big problem with it: Even if you don't believe in objective truth, you still need some kind of value system. It can't just be empty space.
So it gets filled back in with identity.
Good and bad is no longer about actions - no longer about choices you make, beliefs you hold, or principles you follow. It's about identity only.
This group is the "good" group, and goodness means empowering them, at the expense of the other group - the "bad" group.
Black and white,
Female and male,
Gay and straight,
Trans and cis...
Just swap any of those pairs into the preceding "good group bad group" paragraph, and you'll see.
And this is what passes for "progressive activism", in the false left.
They're actually racists now.
Ask them to state: "Racial discrimination is wrong."
They can't do it.
Ask them to say, "People should not treat others differently based on their race or color."
They'll refuse to say it.
Ask them to confirm that laws should not single out specific races and skin colors.
They can't affirm it. They won't. Because they actually disagree with it.
Press them on the issue, and they'll call you a racist.
They will call the person advocating for zero discrimination, a racist, for advocating for zero discrimination.
We Don't Have to Wait
Star Trek envisioned a world evolved beyond "race", where the whole planet was one society and nobody cared how much melanin anyone had, other than for purposes of applying sun-screen.
And they did this all the way back in the 1960's. If they could do it way back then, what happened to us? What are WE waiting for?
Do you think you have to "wait" for something to happen first?
Stop procrastinating! There is nothing we have to "wait for", to evolve beyond fixation on skin color. There is no set of institutions we have to set up first. No lists of criteria that need to be checked off before we're "allowed" to be mature people who don't care what DNA someone else has, and have a society whose laws and legal codes don't mention race.
Nothing we have to wait for, before we can be this. We can be it now.
And we have to. It's necessary for the reconciliation of lefty America and righty America. We have two choices: evolution or civil war.
Let's choose evolution.
* * *
"What about racism? Are you saying racism doesn't exist, and isn't a problem?"
Race is a hoax, but racism is not a hoax.
Racism is the consequence of people believing in race.
Belief in "race" is precisely the thing that enables racism to come into existence in the first place.
Racism is what results when people believe in the hoax of "race." In order to be a racist, you first have to believe in race.
Even if something is a hoax, people can still believe in a hoax, and when people believe in a hoax, and act on that belief, there are consequences. Hoaxes can cause real-world damage, from people's belief in them.
The way to defeat racism, forever, is to strike at its root cause - by exposing the hoax of race. If we transcend the idea of "separate races", and instead view ourselves as the same underneath the skin, then racism can no longer exist.
* * *
And yet, this is considered heresy by some.
Some people will hear this talk of a world beyond race, and interpret it as racism.
And even more shockingly, those making this error are identified with "The Left."
The Left! The side of politics that fought for this very idea, back in the 1960's, is now opposing the very same idea it used to fight for. Not only opposing it, but viewing it as downright racist in itself.
The "Left" now views, as "racist", the very activism it started, decades ago. The ideas that people like Dr. King and Rosa Parks fought for, and the marchers in Selma and the boycotts in Montgomery fought for, are now considered "racism" by today's false, COINTELPROgrammed Left.
Dr. King and the marchers believed exactly what you just read at the top of this page. They envisioned the world having evolved beyond fixation on people's degrees of melanation.
We used to fight against racism, against segregation, and against government discrimination based on race.
We envisioned a world where laws don't mention races.
A world in which your "color" has no bearing on your right to speak, or the value of your opinion.
A world in which, to paraphrase Dr. King, "a person is judged not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character."
We believed that people were individuals - not categories.
But now, it's the opposite. People are just categories now. We're supposed to immediately categorize someone by their color upon meeting them. We're supposed to have different sets of rules, expectations, and standards for people, based on their color.
We're even expected to want different laws for different races, and to willingly submit to such "laws" when enacted.
We're supposed to have different levels of respect for opinions based on the race and/or gender of the speaker. If someone is the "wrong color", or the "wrong sex", they're "not supposed to speak" - and if they do speak, their opinion is not to be valued (at least not as much as someone of the "right color" or the "right sex").
We're supposed to see a person's categories and classifications first, and his or her individual choices second.
And we're supposed to be cool with threats of violence made on the basis of color, as long as they're targeting the "bad" color.
In the 60's, to be woke was to recognize the concept of derivation of identity from skin color as a backwards and primitive concept - something for ignorant buffoons, destined to be left behind by History. After all, the only people whose "color" formed the foundation of their self-esteem, and for whom skin-color was the primary source of pride, were the racist whites.
Yet today, those claiming "anti-racism" are the ones who have become identified with their skin's color, and derive their self-esteem from it, and will call you a "racist" if you point out how this is something they share in common with the KKK.
Meanwhile, conservatives (the mainstream ones at least) have fully embraced the principle of non-discrimination and equality. It's now the Right that wants to treat everyone the same - and to judge only by character - just as Dr. King dreamed of.
And the Left is calling them "racist" for it.
The Right is now the side seeking a world evolved beyond silly fixations on the outermost millimeter of a person's body, while the Left insists that this millimeter is so important that it supersedes all other considerations.
COINTELPRO happened. The Left was infiltrated, corrupted, and led astray from its ideals, by the shadow government seeking to render it impotent and unpalatable to the masses. We've written about this process here.
In the 60's, we decided that mature societies don't discriminate based on skin color.
In the 2020's, it's time to decide that mature people don't derive identity from skin color.
No races. No divisions. Just #AllOfUs.
Treating people differently based on their skin color is racism.
Automatically assigning people different levels of respect, and/or positioning them in any hierarchy of dominance and submission, based on their skin color, is definitely, absolutely racism.
And this is what the false lefties are doing.
That's why we're seeing racist displays, such as these, coming from the "Left" nowadays:
And this is not because the Left is "inherently" crazy. It's not.
This distortion is the result of a deliberate psyop, perpetrated by the oligarchy onto the Left, in order to corrupt and lead it astray.
The Left is essential to a healthy society.
They now demand a race-based classification system for all human beings, in total contravention of everything the Civil Rights marchers marched for.
In the new round of protests, they're even telling people to bow down and kneel to other people, because of their skin's color.
They're demanding BLM "badges", on everything from clothing, to dating profiles, in order to tolerate your presence.
Sane people find these performative displays disturbing.
And the purveyors of these displays are misinterpreting our reasons for why we find them disturbing. They think we're disturbed by the fact that it's people with lighter skin kneeling to people with darker skin. They think we're disturbed by the identities of the roles.
But it's not about the roles. It's about the principle.
We find the whole idea of mass-kneelings-on-demand disturbing. Regardless of who is kneeling to whom.
We find the whole idea of demanding people wear loyalty badges disturbing, regardless of whom the badge is about, or who is wearing it.
It's cult-ish. It's weird.
It's one thing if you spontaneously perform one of these displays, because you feel the urge up-welling within you to do so. That's one thing.
But to expect someone to make such a display? To demand it? As a condition for tolerating their presence?
It's cult-like. It's creepy. And refusing to participate in it does not make someone a "racist."
It's about the principle, not the identities of the roles.
And the postmodernist-indoctrinated false-lefties can't even process that idea, because they're only willing to think in their own terminology, and for them, everything is about identity, so they can't conceive of another person thinking beyond identity.
Being indoctrinated in postmodernism, they refuse to entertain the thought that someone could be motivated by universal moral principles that transcend identity, because, in postmodernism, there's no such thing as a universal moral principle. Only identities.
So they assume that's how we're thinking, and assume that we're upset by the identities of the kneelers and the identities of those knelt-to. And the only possible explanation, therefore, in their view, is that we're "supremacists."
Postmodernism is the rot of academia, and identitarianism is the rot of the "Left."
Restore the True Left
The false belief that someone else is hateful (because of an initial knee-jerk politically-programmed misinterpretation of their words, coupled with an unwillingness to listen to them long enough for them to actually explain themselves and explain that they don't actually "hate" anybody) might be more prevalent, now, than actual hate.
The number of people falsely accused of being hate groups is orders of magnitude larger than the number of people in actual hate groups.
Conservatives aren't perfect, and they certainly still have growing and learning to do, on many issues, including the experiences of oppression felt by people in demographic classifications different from their own. There is still much for them to learn, and the teaching process should continue.
But they don't believe in the actual components of classical racism. Not anymore. They don't believe in superiority based on skin color, or violence based on it, or in enacting it into legal codes. They are willing to have a color-transcendant society.
They weren't in the 60's. But we changed that. Now they are. They're willing. How do we know? Because's they're saying it themselves, all the time!
But they're getting accused of racism - FOR saying it.
Accused of racism, for wanting a society that transcends fixation on race. They're getting accused of being racists for believing in the very transcendance that Dr. King had a dream of.
The Principles of a World Beyond Racism
1. No race is superior.
2. No race is inferior.
3. Someone's race has no effect
on the value of their life...
4. ...nor the dignity they deserve...
5. ...nor their status in Law.
6. Race grants no extra rights...
7. ...nor imposes extra obligations.
8. Laws that discriminate based on race are not valid laws.
9. Color should not be the foundation of identity.
Everyone should be able to agree on these 9 principles. Anyone who rejects them is, by definition, a racist, and anyone who accepts all of them is, by definition, not a racist. This is the yardstick.
People might disagree on the implications and applications of these principles... but not the principles themselves.
And in fact, people do disagree on the details. And some of the details are hashed out in the questions below.
As you're reading, keep in mind that every answer provided is a logical extrapolation of one or more of the above Principles. So if you disagree with something below, you might want to ask yourself if you believe in the Principles above.
Leftie Question #1:
"Even though we've made great strides in racial equality, racism is still a huge problem. People of color are still being attacked in the street, in the park, and in their own homes, for no reason. Cops are killing POC and getting away with it. The drug war and the prison-industrial complex victimize POC extremely disproportionately. Inter-generational poverty still holds many in its clutches. Does the Earth Party have a plan to solve this?"
All forms of oppression that people of color (POC) face are unacceptable, and the Earth Party has a plan to address every single one of them. We envision a world completely free of oppression, and we have a detailed plan to make it happen.
But our strategy is a bit different from what you might be accustomed to. Instead of looking at these things as racial issues, it's better to look at them as human issues, because the latter is more conducive to cooperation between races.
If we look at an issue of oppression from the perspective that we're "all in the same boat", we'll actually be able to solve it faster than if we look at it through a lens of racial comparison. Comparison shows us that we're different from each other; but, in order to solve issues like this, we need to understand why we are the same.
Adding the racial dimension to a problem doesn't help in solving it - it does the opposite. It adds an unnecessary divider that pits one group against another, distracting us from the issue itself, and delaying the resolution of it.
Let's use an example:
Fact #1: Everyone is at risk from out-of-control cops. They kill unarmed people of every race - including whites.
Fact #2: A black person faces a higher risk of it than a white person.
Both of these facts are true.
Organizations like Black Lives Matter have a list of reforms that would greatly reduce, and eventually eliminate, this problem. For everybody. Both black and white.
Here are a few of BLM's demands:
1. End the war on drugs
2. End private prisons
3. Require police to pass psychological health examinations
4. Train officers in de-escalation techniques
5. Stop imposing quotas for traffic stops and tickets
6. Community Policing - make it so that cops who patrol neighborhoods are FROM the neighborhoods they're patrolling
7. Zero-tolerance for abuse
8. Automatic criminal indictment of any officer who uses lethal force - let juries decide, not D.A.'s
9. Stop (and reverse) the trend of police militarization - stop providing municipal departments with tanks, armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, and other military-grade weapons, and confiscate/dismantle the ones they already have
10. End the culture of the "warrior cop", and stop hiring people who display an eagerness for violence
Notice anything missing?
None of those recommendations have anything to do with race.
And yet, if we follow those recommendations, we'd end police brutality. For everyone.
Believe it or not, there are many Righties who agree with most or all of those recommendations! (Especially #6 and #9, which are arguably the most consequential). They may have arrived at their conclusions through different routes (such as their belief in "small government" and local autonomy), but what matters is they're on board. They want to fulfill most or all of BLM's demands! They could be allies in the fight. They'd be happy to work together with Lefties on these things.
But we tend to lose their support when we start making race the central aspect of it.
When we look at it through a racial lens, we introduce an unnecessary divider that pits people against each other, distracting us, and preventing cooperation on solving the actual problem. It adds a whole new dimension of conflict. We start trying to litigate the question of "who suffers more." We begin arguing about race, instead of doing what we really need to do, which is all the things on that list.
"What about other forms of oppression, like inter-generational poverty?"
Poverty is the same way. By making poverty a racial issue, we introduce a division and a source of argument, which, ironically, distracts us from solving poverty.
Every form of oppression that POC face, white people also face. Not in the same proportion, of course.
But the solution is not to equalize the rates of suffering - the solution is to eliminate the suffering. Just stop the whole damn mess. For everybody.
And in order to do that, we need to work together. And introducing race into the mix makes it harder to do that.
If you want to end bigotry, the best thing you can do is have different races working together in pursuit of a common goal. That is, by definition, the end of division, and the end of bigotry. When people of all colors are working side-by-side, cooperating to heal our world, then that's a picture of a world beyond racism.
"But you just admitted that POC are suffering DISPROPORTIONATELY compared to white people. If POC are suffering MORE, then wouldn't it make sense to direct MORE attention and resources toward helping POC?"
This approach only makes sense if you look at people primarily as their group identity, rather than as individuals.
Let's say you have a white family and a black family. The former lives in an impoverished town in Appalachia, the latter in inner-city Detroit. Or perhaps they live in the same neighborhood, right next-door to each other. What's important is that they're both equally poor, and equally despairing. One is struggling with heroin addiction, the other with prescription opioids. Both are under-educated, unemployed, and facing bankruptcy and eviction.
This may seem like a strange question to ask, but... which family is it more important to help?
Think about that for a moment.
If you said the white family, then you're implying that the black one matters less - and that's racist - there's no question about that.
But if you said the black family, then you're still implying that one matters more than the other.
"But white people, as a group, are not as oppressed as black people, as a group. Helping the black family more would help to equalize the overall power of the one less-privileged group, vis-a-vis the other more-privileged one."
But we're talking about individuals here. Being a member of a statistically-privileged group does not necessarily mean that the individual is privileged. Often, it does, but not always.
And an impoverished, destitute family is, by definition, not benefiting from whatever privilege their demographic group is statistically likely to have. The group, as a whole, may be benefiting from privilege, but these individuals aren't.
The problem with a black family in poverty is not the fact that they're black - it's the fact that they're in poverty.
And the solution is to fix the problem of poverty. If there's no more poverty, then there is, by definition, no more black poverty.
But when we fixate on the racial aspect of the problem, we make that harder to do, because, instead of talking about poverty, we're now talking about race. And when we bring up race, we're creating a division between people, and bringing in all of the anger and resentment and disagreements that go along with it - none of which has anything to do with the actual solutions to poverty.
"Ok, so... what are you saying, exactly?"
We're saying: Fix poverty. Fix police brutality. We have specific plans to fix each of those problems, and you can see them by clicking those links..
Enlist the participation of everyone, of all races, to cooperate to implement the plan. Get black hands and white hands, "in the dirt", side-by-side, and bridge the divides by working together towards a common goal.
Rightie Question #1:
"The civil rights movement already succeeded in attaining full legal equality for black people. The playing field has already been made level and fair. No one is being held back by legal discrimination anymore. If someone fails, they can't blame it on racism anymore. Why are we still talking about this stuff today? Will we EVER be able to move on? Why is the Left still making an issue out of what happened decades (or centuries) ago?"
What you're saying is valid, and we acknowledge the importance of forgiveness and "moving on." We DO envision a world where we can all stop being so hung-up on racial issues. That IS our goal.
However, the oppression has not ended. Even if racism has been struck out of the official legal codes, it still lingers in our social codes. It may be subconscious, but it's still there, and it still comes out at certain times - often with horrible consequences.
You want a world that's "colorblind", that doesn't make any distinction between people based on race. Great! So do we! And we're happy to say that we have a set of Principles for a Post-Racist World, which enshrine the values of a society that has truly evolved beyond being concerned over race.
But at the same time, while we strive for such a world, we still have to heal the wounds of the current world. Time alone doesn't heal them - they require conscious attention.
Especially considering the fact that there is still subconscious racism in the collective subconscious. Yes, yes, it's not deliberate, and you're not a "bad person" for having unconscious tendencies that you're not aware of. But still, if you have such tendencies, wouldn't you want to do something to correct them? Wouldn't you want to do some self-examination to make sure you're able to transcend those tendencies?
"What tendencies are you talking about? What the heck is 'subconscious racism'? That doesn't even make sense!"
Let's use an example:
It is true that everybody - including white people - are at risk of being brutalized (and killed) by unhinged cops.
But a black person faces a 3 times higher risk of it. In other words, if you're interacting with a police officer, there is a 3 times greater risk of brutality if you're black, than if you're white.
The reason for this is the subconscious legacy of slavery. For centuries, white people in America believed that they owned black people, and that black people owed them an automatic deference or submissiveness.
Even though slavery ended a long time ago, that expectation of submissiveness still lingers - especially in states where slavery was most prevalent. And if a black person does not display such submission, a white person might feel (subconsciously) that social protocol is being broken, and the black person is acting threatening.
And, feeling under threat, they may feel that physical escalation is called for.
And hence, a white person and a black person could be behaving in exactly the same manner, but the black person's behavior will be interpreted as more aggressive.
"OK, so I'm 'subconsciously programmed' to be racist. What can I do about that? Doesn't 'subconscious' mean, by definition, that it's not under my control?"
There are two angles from which to approach fixing this:
1. Practical reforms that aren't racial in nature
2. Social healing that's of a specifically racial nature
Let's start with #1:
As you can see, over in the Leftie column...
...we're talking about practical solutions. One of them is Community Policing, which basically means that from now on, the cops who patrol a neighborhood should be FROM the neighborhood they're patrolling. They should KNOW the people they're protecting. It's a big reform, but it will be better for everybody.
Another reform is demilitarization. Right now, police departments are accumulating military-grade weaponry. Why? What need is there for tanks and grenade launchers? The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to explicitly forbid the military from doing internal domestic police work, and they did so for a good reason. But in modern times, we've been getting around this restriction by turning the existing police forces into a military.
You might not like organizations with a major racial overtone, like Black Lives Matter. You might feel that they're being unnecessarily divisive. We feel that this is a valid concern. However, there is a list of concrete, practical reforms, that have nothing to do with race, and which would fix these various problems.
We encourage you to give your support to these solutions, and to team up with the "other side" (i.e. Lefties) to achieve them. Even if you feel that they might have lingering resentments and prejudices against you for being white, it's still possible to cooperate in a practical, hands-on way, to achieve concrete, practical goals. And doing so would help them start to trust you.
Which brings us to the second point: social healing.
You'll often hear Lefties, particularly black leaders, talk about the need for a "conversation about race in this country." What they mean is that, while legal equality was the first step, we still need to heal the wounds left by generations worth of violence. It doesn't just go away overnight, just because Congress passed a bill.
In all parts of the world, we can see ancient rivalries causing modern-day problems. Israelis and Palestinians, the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, Sunnis vs. Shias, Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland, Chinese grudges against Japanese people for World War 2, and so on. Some of these hatreds have persisted for hundreds of years. And that will be the same fate of race-relations in any country (including America), if we don't actively address it.
The most effective thing you can do is listen. Every person of an ethnic/racial minority has a story of discrimination or oppression they faced. Or, at least, that they're parents faced. Definitely one that their grandparents faced.
Would it hurt to listen? Would it hurt to do a little research, and learn about it?
The least you can do is not dismiss them when they try to tell you about it.
"Sure, I'm fine with that. It's a good idea. But here's where I diverge: Black people aren't the only ones who have been discriminated against. White people have also! Should they listen to MY stories too?"
This will be addressed in the next question.
Leftie Question #2:
While it may be true that white people might sometimes experience some small amount of discrimination and prejudice, it's tiny compared to what is faced by people of color. Righties who worry about "reverse racism" are making a mountain out of a molehill, while ignoring a real, actual mountain. Why should we care about such a small and insignificant issue? Why should we bother addressing so-called "reverse-racism", when we still have REAL ACTUAL RACISM to deal with?"
It is possible to be against both, at the same time.
1. Oppose anti-POC racism...
2. Acknowledge that it's a bigger problem than anti-white racism...
3. Oppose anti-white racism.
You can do all of it. One does not detract from the other.
In fact, you have to, if you want to be morally consistent.
All racism is bad.
Let's say it again, together:
ALL RACISM IS BAD.
If you can't say those words, then, regrettably, you're part of the problem.
If you only oppose one kind of racism, while supporting (or ignoring) another, then how can anyone really take you seriously? Hypocrisy is one of the biggest turnoffs in social movements.
Mahatma Gandhi said:
"We must BE the change we wish to see in the world."
If you want a World Beyond Racism, then you have to stop promoting racism.
If you want a world that has evolved, then you have to evolve.
If you want racial discrimination to end, then you have to stop racially discriminating.
How are you going to build a world that has let go of X, when you're still holding onto X?
That strategy makes zero sense.
"But racism is prejudice + power. You can't be racist if your race is the oppressed one. Black people might be prejudiced, but they can't be racist - not in this system."
That idea rests on the assumption that all white people have power over all black people, in all situations, at all times - and that no black person ever has any power over any white person, in any situation, at any time.
Which is obviously, demonstrably false.
Statistically, power skews toward white people. But that doesn't mean every situation follows that pattern.
If you're white, and your employer is black, then a black person has power over a white person.
If you're on trial, and the judge is black, then a black person has power over a white person.
Landlords/renters, teachers/pupils, officers/subordinates... our society is filled with power relationships, and anyone one of them can involve a black person in power over a white person.
The potential for racist discrimination exists, for all races.
Some white people have already experienced such discrimination. It's statistically rare, but it exists.
And many are afraid that, if we don't at least acknowledge this, then it will only become more and more common, and that, one day, they might face the same kinds of discrimination widely faced by black people in times past.
Can you really blame someone for not wanting to be discriminated against?
"But we're so far away from that. Even if current trends hold steady, it will be a long time before black people have the power to oppress white people in the same capacity with which whites oppressed blacks."
Maybe it's far off, but are we looking out for it? Are we watching for the moment when the power balance tips over to the other side?
How will we know when it happens?
What are the criteria for identifying it?
Despite the paranoid ramblings of some rightwing bloggers, it might not be any kind of "imminent threat", but if we're not even paying attention for it, then it's reasonable to expect many white people to take it upon themselves to do the lookout duty.
And this is one of the main motivations for the rejection of social justice narratives among the Right. If we can't even admit that we care about them, at all, and openly flaunt our apathy about their well-being, then it's not unreasonable for them to be unable to trust us, and to start preparing for a future in which they might need to protect themselves.
"So... what are you saying? What's your solution?"
Just acknowledge that ALL RACISM IS BAD, and that no racism ever has a place in our society. Just acknowledge it. Say it.
And when you see someone on your team displaying prejudice or discrimination, call them out on it, and denounce it.
That's it! It's so simple!
"But, considering all of the horrible things done by white people, don't they deserve SOME punishment? Don't we need to teach the "white race" a lesson, so that they'll know what it feels like to be oppressed?"
Guilt is not hereditary. Descendants are not liable for the crimes of their ancestors, no matter how bad they were.
If guilt was hereditary, then every single person on the entire planet would be guilty of heinous crimes, because everyone has ancestors who did terrible things. Even black people have ancestors whose tribe massacred other tribes. If guilt is hereditary, then everyone is a murderer, and there is no hope for humanity.
But thankfully, it's not. Every one of us is an individual, and we are responsible for our own choices - not the choices of our ancestors.
One of the Right's main criticisms of the Left, these days, is the tendency to forget about individuals, and treat people as nothing more than members in a group. Ironically, this is exactly what the Right used to be famous for. If you rewind to the 1960's and earlier, the Right was obsessed with categorizing everyone into groups. You weren't you - you were just a member of whatever group your skin color denoted you as.
Sadly, some Leftie circles have been gravitating towards this type of thinking lately. It's not the way.
Everyone is an individual, with individual choices. This is why Dr. King said, "the content of their character."
You can't judge people for what they have no control over. And no one has any control over the past. As long as they're making a good-faith effort to understand the past, and right the wrongs in the present, they're on the side of justice, and they're an ally.
Rightie Question #2:
"Hi. I'm white, and I have no problem at all with black people, brown people, or any other people. But I think that some of THEM have a problem with ME. The Leftists are starting to become racists themelves, and subject white people to the same kinds of racism that non-white people used to experience. I don't think they want Equality - I think they want revenge. They want white people to "take a turn in the barrel." Is this part of the Earth Party's policy, or will you take a stand against it?"
Relax. We understand your concern, and we're happy to say we oppose ALL forms of racism, including the kind directed at white people.
White people have just as much right to enjoy the post-racist world we're building, as anyone else. And any racism, bigotry, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice against white people is just as serious as it would be if it were against someone of any other race.
And we acknowledge that not everyone on the Left agrees with this. Some Lefties - particularly those who have been the most hurt and traumatized by racism - have indeed shifted their focus, from justice, to a tit-for-tat kind of revenge, and are now contributing to the perpetuation of the very intolerant attitudes they used to be fighting against. And this is a problem that the Earth Party intends to help rectify, by facilitating dialogue and healing.
But... here's the thing.
Non-white people, and their allies - collectively referred to by you as "Leftists" - don't hate you - they're afraid of you.
Even if it seems like they hate white people, deep down they're actually afraid of white people.
Whatever hate might be there, is motivated by fear. Fear is the thing that drives the Lefties' apparent unwillingness to fully trust white folks like yourself. They don't trust you. They think you might hurt them.
Even if you profess to be fully tolerant and fully accepting of all races, they don't necessarily believe you. It's not that your words are racist words - in most cases, your words are perfectly fine, and carry no racism in them whatsoever. But people fear that your words might not be genuine - that, lurking behind them, might be secret racism. They fear you might be strategically concealing your racism, so that they might let their guards down and let you in. They fear that you're just putting on a non-racist facade, so that you'll be trusted with power, and once you have it, you'll turn around and re-institute racism, oppression, and even persecution, like in times past.
"But why would they think that? What Reason do they have? Sure, my ancestors might have been racist, and might have oppressed their ancestors, but *I* didn't! I shouldn't be held responsible for something I didn't even do!"
You're correct again. You're not guilty of your ancestors' crimes.
But here's the problem: You all-too-often seem to fail to recognize that those crimes even were crimes. You brush them off as insignificant. You make it seem like a "boys will be boys" kind of thing - or, in this case, "empires will be empires."
When Columbus set sail, North America had over 500 distinct nations in it, comprised of some 60 million people. Columbus himself raped, enslaved, and exterminated several of those nations, and by the time "white-civilization" had conquered the continent, those 60 million were down to about 2 million, most of whom were living as prisoners, getting what little remained of their language and culture starved and forcibly beaten out of them.
That's a genocide. In fact, "genocide" doesn't even do it justice. It wasn't just a twig of the human tree that was nearly cut off, but an entire limb. We need a whole new word for that.
And the fact that the man who started it all - Columbus - is still, to this day, venerated by your culture, means that your culture does not recognize the evil in what he did.
He didn't just open the door for others to do evil - he himself committed it, setting the stage for all of his successors to do the same. The fact that you have statues of him in your town squares, and celebrate a holiday in his honor, means that your culture does not recognize aboriginal people's lives as having value. If their near extermination is of so little consequence to you that you're comfortable celebrating the monsters who committed it, then you can't claim to give ANY damn about them. When you say "All Lives Matter", the problem is not the meaning of your words - it's the fact that you don't really mean them.
"OK, but what does the past have to do with the present?"
Everything! We know YOU didn't commit those crimes, but if you can't even acknowledge that they were crimes, then you can't be trusted to not repeat them. If you don't understand why something is wrong, then why should anyone trust you with the power to do that thing?
If you don't recognize the crimes of the past, then the victims' descendants would be crazy to trust you now.
"Alright, I see what you're saying. But... what can I do about it?"
You can educate yourself. Learn what happened. Learn what's still happening. Listen to people when they try to tell you about what they've experienced, and what their ancestors experienced.
Too often, a conversation will go like this:
Leftie: "Group XYZ is/was oppressed, and here's how...-"
Rightie: "OK OK OK OK OK! I've heard it all already! Enough! Let's put it all behind us and move on! Stop dwelling on the past! Stop complaining about the present! You're in charge of your own life - if it's not going well, that's your own fault! Take personal responsibility! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"
And so on.
You need to cut that crap out.
LISTEN. Hear the stories.
And don't wait for them to come to you and tell you. Research it on your own. Seek the knowledge out actively. Take some initiative in your own learning. Go to the library. Go to Google. Search for topics related to racism, oppression, and empire.
If you really know what happened, then and only then can you be taken seriously when you say you denounce it.
Leftie Question #3:
"I'm willing to be on the lookout for racism of all kinds - including the kind directed at white people - and to denounce it when I see it. But I disagree when it comes to the Right's opposition to reparative justice. I'm talking about government policies that 'even out the playing field', like affirmative action, minority scholarships, and slavery reparations. We need those things, in order to expedite the re-balancing of power between races. What does the Earth Party say?"
Rightie Question #3:
"I'm willing to be on the lookout for racism of all kinds - especially the kind directed at non-white people - and to denounce it when I see it. But I disagree when it comes to the Left's belief in reparative justice. I'm talking about government policies that 'even out the playing field', like affirmative action, minority scholarships, and slavery reparations. These policies are fundamentally racist, since they make official distinctions, in LAW, between people based on their race. What does the Earth Party say?"
Here's the big question you've got to ask yourself:
Would you rather live in:
A) A world where laws mention races
B) A world where laws don't mention races
Think about it.
Don't scroll down until you have an answer.
For real, choose an answer first.
A) A world where governments treat different races differently...
... or B), a world where government is explicitly forbidden from treating races differently, and everyone is treated the exact same way, without regard to what race or ethnicity they are...
OK. Here's our answer:
If you go back to the Principles list (at the top of the page), you'll see that:
+Race does not confer extra rights...
+...nor impose extra obligations.
+Laws that discriminate based on race are not laws.
It is fundamental to the effort of building a post-racist world, that laws and governments do not discriminate based on race. If government is racially discriminating, it is holding back the effort to evolve beyond racism. It's moving humanity backwards - or, at the very least, keeping humanity locked in place, in racism.
There's a principle called congruence, and it means that your actions line up with your professed beliefs. It means there's no discrepancy between what you say you want, vs. what you do.
Gandhi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
If you want a world without racism, then you have to embody the values of that world, now.
For a world beyond hate, you have to stop hating.
For a world beyond discrimination, you have to stop discriminating.
For a world that treats all races with equal respect, you have to treat all races with equal respect.
For a world of civility, you have to be civil.
Not later - not "once we achieve XYZ."
And believing in anti-racism, while simultaneously having government discriminate based on race, is simply not congruent.
"To achieve equality, don't we have to address structural disadvantages, to even out the playing field?"
Of course we do. But we have to be careful that our solutions don't cause new problems. Sometimes we're so eager for change, we don't stop to examine whether our changes are the correct changes. Sometimes they can make it worse.
We won't end racism by instituting more racism. Policies that treat people differently based on race, and grant different people different sets of rights based on race, and give different people different sets of rules to follow, based on race, are racist policies. They bring us backward. You can't overcome racism with racism!
"You probably don't realize this, but the language you're using sounds very similar to the language used by white supremacists."
If a person believes all races should be treated equally, then they are, by definition, NOT a white supremacist. What we're saying here is Equality, condensed down into its purest form.
Equality is when everyone:
+Has the same rights
+Has the same responsibilities
+Has the same rules to follow
+Is judged by the same standard, based on their behavior and their choices - not the color of their skin.
This is what non-racism looks like.
Racism, on the other hand... is when:
+One race is deemed superior to another
+One race has more rights than another
+One race has a different set of rules to follow than another
+People of one race are judged by a different standard than another
+Skin color is the paramount trait that defines a person's identity and place in the social order
In one of the 21st century's greatest ironies, the definitions of racism and non-racism have been switched.
Whereas racism used to be about assigning everyone to a category based on race, now apparently that's what "non-racism" is.
Whereas non-racism used to be about treating everyone the same way without regard for their race, that's now apparently what "racism" is.
This is just madness, and if you don't see that, then you need to do some serious soul-searching.
"So just keep letting white people have privilege, and letting POC be poor and destitute? Do nothing?"
If a person of color is poor, then the problem is not his or her color - the problem is poverty. And the solution is to help lift them out of poverty - regardless of their tolerance for sunburn.
Person A: "I'm poor, can you help?"
Person B: "Depends. What degree of sunscreen do you use?"
That's absurd, isn't it?
The Earth Party's economic plan is designed to help everyone who needs help.
If a black person is poor, they'll get help.
If a white person is poor, they'll get help.
And if Black Person X is poorer than White Person Y, then the former will get more help than the latter - not because his skin is darker, but because he's poorer.
Our plan involves a complete redesign of humanity's economic system, and its replacement with a mature, benign economy, based on Local Self-Sufficiency, augmented with a temporary (but comprehensive and universal) social safety net (to take care of the vulnerable during the transitionary period).
To read about the short-term social safety net, visit: our page on Socialism.
"What about reparations for slavery? Don't we need an actual policy to correct the damage that was done?"
It's a good idea in spirit, but there has to be a way to do it without having government discriminate based on race.
If money is given to people of one race for being that race, while withheld from other people of another race for being THAT race, then this is government discrimination based on race. And that moves us BACKWARDS, away from a world beyond racism.
We say it again: Laws and governments should not make distinctions between people based on race.
We can fix the problem of inter-generational poverty through the economic plan described above. We do not need to explicitly make it about race in order to do so.
"This supposedly 'color-blind' world you're referring to is a pipe dream. Sure, it would be nice, but we aren't there yet. Racism and colonialism are still fresh in many people's minds, and we have so many wounds to heal. We need to address these things - we can't just sweep them under the rug and pretend they never happened."
Historical oppression, and its leftover residue, shouldn't be ignored. It is significant to the collective consciousness, and it does need to be discussed. There are wounds that need healing. The descendants of oppressors do NOT need to atone for their ancestors sins, but they DO need to be AWARE of them. They need to hear the stories and know their history, and if there's any residual oppression that they're still supporting, they need to become aware of that, so that they can dismantle it.
So there needs to be conversation.
The descendants of historical oppressors should listen to the stories of the descendants of the oppressed. They need to know their history. The wounds have to be acknowledged in order to be healed. And the Earth Party plans to facilitate this process of Truth and Reconciliation.
"But what about power? Doesn't power need to be equalized?"
There are two approaches here: one is to stop the force of racism by dismantling it, and the other is to apply an equal and opposite force of racism to cancel it out.
This is a classic example of Power vs. Principle.
Power-based thinking says:
"We need to equalize the power ratio between races, and if continuing racist-type thinking helps in doing that, then racist type thinking is useful."
Principle-based thinking says:
"We need to move beyond racism entirely, by transcending racist type thinking, by upholding the principles of non-racism, no matter what power dynamics are in play. Principles are more important then obtaining power."
The latter is how a truly woke person thinks. Especially since, if you sacrificed your principles to gain power, then a principle-less person is now in power, which defeats the whole purpose of getting into power in the first place!
Leftie Question #4:
"Hey, why are you talking to this RACIST over there ----->
Maybe the other guy from Question #2 wasn't a racist, but THIS guy DEFINITELY is! That's not even arguable. This is bona-fide white nationalism here, and it has no place in civilized society. It's pure evil. By giving him a platform to spew this crap, you're LEGITIMIZING it, and making it seem like it's part of the range of normal, acceptable discourse. It's not. Why are you giving these horrible ideas a platform here?"
In regard to this guy, you're correct. He's wrong. On SO many points. And we will now proceed to show him (and everyone else reading this) WHY he's so wrong.
White nationalism is idiotic. It makes no sense. But if we never talk about it, we can never SHOW anyone WHY it's so ridiculous.
If racists never have the chance to show anyone what their ideas are, then the rest of us never get a chance to DEBUNK those ideas.
If we don't let anybody hear racist ideas, then those ideas retain an air of mystery and intrigue, and people are naturally attracted to those qualities.
If we censor someone, that person will appear as a martyr, and the entire conversation will stray into a debate about the power dynamics of the media and internet. Since the censored person is at the losing end of that power dynamic, they will take on the image of an "underdog." And underdogs automatically garner sympathy. Do you want white nationalists to garner sympathy?
But on the other hand...
If you give racists the ability to tell everyone what they believe, then everyone will be able to see how stupid they are.
See what we're doing here --->
This racist is getting his ass handed to him.
We wouldn't have been able to do this if we had just ignored him and censored him.
Had we censored him, no one would have known what he believed, and we wouldn't have had a chance to debunk it. He would have retained an aura of mystery.
But instead, look what's happening. He's getting humiliated.
And there's another benefit too. Anyone reading this now has a wealth of arguments to use against racists in the future. This conversation can be used as a template in future debates.
Rightie Question #4:
"Hi. I'm white, and I'm PROUD of it! I think Western Civilization is the best civilization ever, and we should never apologize for that! We created almost everything good in the world. We invented democracy, science, and capitalism. We created the greatest prosperity the world has ever seen! My ancestors built America, and brought civilization to the world. Why should I be ashamed of such good things? I think people of all races should be welcome to join in and partake of what we've built, but we have to keep the character of our culture fundamentally white and western - otherwise, the other races and cultures will corrupt everything with their less-civilized ways, and we'll lose everything we've worked for."
While it's true that white/western culture has contributed important things to humanity, it's also true that it's contributed horrible things. And you're ignoring that.
Here's a list for starters:
1. Your civilizaiton has made water undrinkable.
2. It has made air unbreathable.
3. It has made stars invisible.
4. It has made silence unhearable. It's filled our living spaces with maddening noise and caustic vibrations.
5. It may have cured some diseases, but for every disease it's cured, it's created (or exponentially increased) 20 others.
Obesity, cardiovascular diseases, all kinds of cancers, depression, suicide, mass-shootings, schizophrenia, anxiety, panic attacks, skin diseases, reproductive diseases, impotence, and many others - the lifestyles introduced by your civilization have created or dramatically increased all of them.
7. Your civilization invented the idea that the mind and body are completely separate, and that the mind has no influence over the functioning of the body, and that the proper way to treat disease is to simply attack whatever spot the disease happens to be showing up in, with no concern for the holistic functioning of the body, or the mind's role in it.
8. Your civilization invented the idea that a mother shouldn't feed her baby from her breast, but rather from a plastic bottle, and indeed, she shouldn't touch her baby at all, because touch will spoil the child, and therefore babies should live in cribs, with touching kept to a minimum, and they should only feel their mother's touch when it's absolutely necessary for utilitarian activities like diaper-changing, and not at any other time, and that this unnatural coldness won't lead to any psychological problems later in life, at all.
9. It invented the idea that dancing is evil.
10. It invented the idea that water is evil, and no one should ever bathe. This led to the largest plague in recorded history. A world record.
The idea that the shape of a person's skull determines their intelligence and how much human rights they're entitled to (if any).
11. The idea that the human mouth is a perfectly appropriate place to store mercury.
11. The idea that children should have their hands tied to the posts of their bed while they sleep to prevent them from masturbating.
12. The idea that women don't naturally have sexual desire.
No civilization ever created as much sexual neurosis (and misery) as yours.
13. The idea that the Creator of the universe hates his own creation, and spends all his time fuming about how much he hates it (and us), and can't wait to punish everyone by roasting us all alive for all eternity in a lake of fire.
14. The idea that a person's worth can be measured by their susceptibility to sunburn.
15. The idea that reverence for Nature should be punished by being burned alive.
16. The idea that there's no such thing as an ecosystem, and that the idea of designing a civilization to live in harmony and balance with nature is a bunch of hippy-dippy crap that lunatics and low-testosterone cucks believe in.
17. The idea that infinite growth is possible in a finite medium.
18. The idea that the most useful purpose for a 1000+ year old tree is money.
19. The idea that we should cut down forests as quickly as possible, regardless of whether the wood is even needed, and if it's not needed, we should create advertising campaigns to convince people to buy wood products even if they don't need them, so that we can have an excuse to keep cutting down the forest.
20. The idea that changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere will not have any adverse effects whatsoever.
21. The idea that farms should be as far away from residential areas as possible, and that the further away our food is from our homes, the more civilized and prosperous we are.
22. The idea that it's a good thing for our communities to be filled with giant, 2-ton chunks of metal zooming around at high speeds, steered by homo-sapiens, a spcies notorious for being easily distractable, mere inches from where people are walking, wherein the slightest error for even a split-second can result in multiple sudden deaths, and that we should pressure the people steering these objects to arrive to their destinations as quickly as possible, and punish them severely (with threat of loss of livelihood) if they arrive even 1 minute late, and that this entire system can be called sane, and a sign of progress.
The idea that associating education with pain and humiliation will make students more eager to seek education.
23. The idea that constructing a web of absolute power and control, and then handing it over to artificial intelligence, and handing it the keys to our world and locking ourselves out, is smart, and the ultimate sign of how advanced we are.
24. The idea that greed is good.
25. The idea that winning a nation-to-nation war is so important, it justifies that stockpiling of weapons that could completely destroy the entire world and erase hundreds of millions of years of evolution in a matter of seconds.
All of these things, and many more, have led to your white/western civilization causing more misery than any in history. And it's now threatening the continuity of our planet's ability to support LIFE.
"You hate white people! I'm not gonna stand for this!"
We're just sharing facts. If we hurt your feelings, sorry, but reality doesn't care about your feelings. The truth is the truth: If you want to compare civilizations, yours is a failure.
So you might want to stop comparing.
Racism is a divider.
Its purpose is to pit people against one another, so they'll be eaiser to rule.Racism benefits the rich.
The poor have the numbers to overthrow the system that keeps them poor. If we're really being ruled by the 1%, then what means there are 99 of us for every 1 of them! So why arne't we overhtrowing them?
Because the poor are busy fighting amonst themselves.
White/western cultures are the most advanced in technology, but the rest of humanity tends to have most of the spiritual wisdom necessary for using that technology in the correct way.
The races need to work together to heal this planet. We need everybody.
"What about equity in employment? And equity in elected representation?"
We understand the appeal of racial and gender diversity in public offices. It's our preference too. We would rather see a representative body whose outward appearance resembles the outward appearance of the people it represents.
But when it comes to the topic of hiring someone for a job - any job, from president to sales clerk and everything in between - the correct thing to do is to hire the person who is the best person for the job - whatever their race or sex is. Demographic characteristics, such as skin color, should not be factors in hiring people.
Remember congruence? Do you want a world in which hiring decisions are based on race? No? You want to evolve? Then be the change you wish to see.
A sane, happy, enlightened world is one in which a person's skin color does not determine their prospects for employment or success. If you want to live in that world, then be that world.
"What about actual racism? That stuff still exists. White supremacy has been on the rise recently. Ever since Donald Trump came out spewing racism in 2015, white supremacists have become emboldened, and they're gaining numbers and power. Does the Earth Party have a plan to do anything about this?"
First, let us reiterate that we're completely against all racism, and white supremacy (or any type of racial supremacy) has no place in the world we're building. It's 100% wrong.
But there's something else going on here. We're going to make the case to you that this "recent rise in bigotry" is actually just an American media bogeyman - the latest in the long sequence of bogeymen the corporate-media-industrial-complex has utilized to strike fear into the masses, to get what they want.
The news media usually tries to make you afraid. But we have some news that can help you relax. White supremacy is NOT on the rise - it just seems that way because of corporate propaganda. You can actually relax.
We know this can be an emotional issue for some people, but we implore you to read with an open mind, and hear us out.
First, what is a bogeyman?
The American business-industrial corporate-media-government complex has a long history of crafting bogeymen to scare the population into supporting fascist, authoritarian policies and wars. This is not the first - it's the latest in a long list of them.
A bogeyman is part of the formula of "Problem-Reaction-Solution." This is a technique whereby a government (or corporate establishment) causes a problem (or makes it seem like there's a problem), so that the population will have a reaction, and demand a solution. And the establishment offers us one - the same one they were planning all along, for which they created the problem (or perceived problem) in the first place.
Let's examine a few historical examples to see this in action:
1. The Red Scare
A long time ago, they created the "Red Scare", in which they convinced the masses that "communists" (the bogeyman) were coming to get us, and the only way to protect ourselves was to perpetrate a witch-hunt in which general adversaries of the ruling establishment were disenfranchised and blacklisted, even though they weren't actually communists.
2. Reefer Madness
The media of the early 20th century convinced the masses that "marijuana" was causing teenagers to become violent, murderous maniacs (the bogeyman), and the only way to protect ourselves was to ban the plant and initiate a "war on drugs." This got them what they wanted: a ban on hemp (enabling a monopoly for paper companies and oil companies, who no longer had to worry about competition from hemp-based paper and fuels), and it also enabled the creation of a massive, highly profitable policing industry and prison-industrial complex. It also convinced the masses to surrender our rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure, the first right on a long list of rights they ultimately desire to abolish. Not only that, but it also helped them obtain our consent to send the American military into other countries and occupy foreign lands in the name of "drug interdiction." It also gave them a pretext to infiltrate and sabotage anti-war groups and other activist movements.
This was the biggest one yet. It was used during the fascist Bush-Cheney administration.
The corporate government had two goals:
1. Gain consent for the elimination of privacy rights and establishment of an all-pervasive mass-surveillance apparatus
2. Gain consent to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and lay the groundwork for a middle-eastern petro-military empire
To do this, it needed our consent. But who would ever consent to such a thing? Who would voluntarily surrender their rights and common sense?
Only people who are scared. So they needed to scare us. And they crafted the "terrorist" bogeyman for this purpose - to scare us into surrendering our rights.
In that climate, the fear of terrorists was utilized to pass legislation like the Patriot Act and the war authorizations, and it was also used for silencing dissent. Any time a person said something critical of the Bush administration or any of its fascist policies, they were labeled as "unpatriotic" or "un-American", or worse things, like "terrorist sympathizer", or "soft on terrorism." Once such a label was applied to someone, all conversation ceased. The person was unable to explain any further thoughts, nor even defend themselves from the unfounded accusation, because they were already put into that bad-guy category, and bad-guys don't deserve to be listened to - not even to dispute their bad-guy status.
And the corporate government got away with the most significant thrashing of civil rights in modern history, and the rights it took we still don't have back. We still haven't gotten them back.
The Patriot Act is still in effect.
The spooks are still reading all our emails.
The wars are still raging, 16 years on. More wars are being started each year on the same 2002 resolution. The spy agencies are expanding their intrusiveness. Still. That's how useful the bogeyman was and is.
And it was never what they said it was. Notice that all the reports stopped after bush left office. The bogeyman started fading away? Did they all just suddenly stop? Or were they never real in the first place?
Was the bogeyman never real?
He was crafted to fit the narrative. "Give us your right to privacy." And when Bush left office, it was no longer useful, and the retired it and started a new narrative, requiring a new bogeyman:
4. Rapists and rape culture.
Minor bogeyman bc obama years used for a respite (gotta let ppl recharge)
Targeted toward just a select subsection
What right they wanted to take?
Kangaroo courts, instant expulsion, no trial, no due process, no rights. Getting ppl used to the idea.
For over 500 years, western jurisprudence has revolved around maximizing the rights of the accused, to prevent wrongful convictions. History shows us what happens when it's too easy for the state to convict and jail someone. Freedom and human rights require a robust set of obstacles to judicial conviction, and the justice system needs to be tilted in favor of the accused party. The motto, for hundreds of years, has been "innocent until proven guilty."
But the recent bogeymen has successfully convinced a lot of people to abandon hundreds of years worth of judicial checks and balances, and switch to "guilty until proven innocent." We're now being taught to elevate an accuser above the accused, and tilt the judicial process in favor of accusers and against the accused. Many prominent, public feminists freely admit that that's the system they want.
The Obama years were also used for planting the seeds for the next bogeyman: bigotry.
This new narrative was put into service to coincide with the Trump presidency.
And now they have a new bogeyman:
5. White supremacists
The goals this time:
1. Gain our consent to censor the internet
2. Gain our consent for a massive arms buildup (against Russia, the alleged "farm" of the white supremacists) and expansion of NATO imperial military occupation throughout Asia
Just like fascist Bush and Cheney told us that the only way to protect us from terrorists was to take away our right to privacy, the corporate media conglomerates are now telling us that the only way to protect us from white supremacists is to take away our right to freedom of speech.
And millions of so-called "liberals" are going right along with it.
The same people who swore that the Bush regime was plotting to shred up the Bill of Rights are now pleading with tech companies to shred up the Bill of Rights.
The same people who got shut down and shut out by opponents by getting labelled "unpatriotic" and "un-American" and "terrorist sympathizer" are now shutting down and shutting out others by labeling them "racist" and "white supremacist" and "Nazi."
The same people who protested against the Iraq war and Afghan war are now calling for war with Syria, and - it beggars belief - with Russia, a nuclear power.
Saddam Hussein has been replaced with Trump.
Osama bin Laden, the "clever foreign mastermind" has been replaced with Putin.
Radical clerics have been replaced with "Russian trolls."
Radical mosques and madrassas have been replaced with "Russian troll farms."
"They hate us for our freedom" has been replaced by "hate speech."
Anti-war marches have been replaced by conservative rallies, and the aggressive police have been replaced by Antifa.
"Weapons of mass destruction" has been replaced with "Russian collusion."
Hans Blix (the chief inspector of Saddam's weapons sites) has been replaced by Robert Mueller.
"9/11" was replaced with "the theft of our election."
"Our country was attacked" has been replaced with "Our democracy was attacked."
The constant barrage of headlines about terrorist attacks, terrorist plots, and terrorist arrests has been replaced by a constant barrage of headlines about white supremacist attacks, white supremacist plots, and white supremacist arrests.
Pic of cheney saying terrorists are coming to get you! We'll can protect you if you surrender your right to privacy! Wars and patriot act
Pic of cnn nbc nyt etc saying same
Fearmongering is as old as the media. Why does anyone still buy it?
It's the same mythology recycled with new names. It's a story as old as the American media. It's the same thing, over, and over, and over again. Why does anybody still buy it?
And have you noticed that the solution always involves you giving up more of your rights?
Democrats, Liberals, Lefties, take heed: You're becoming the new Republicans!
"But white supremacists are holding rallies! They're organizing! I see it on TV!"
White people are holding rallies, but most of them are not "supremacists."
"Then what the heck are they rallying about?"
1. Tell b ppl to pers w ppl. Examples
2. W ppl get nervous and form groups for safety in numbers, just like all humans do
3. Point finger at rallies and scream bogeyman
4. B ppl more scared, cycle, racewr
5. Use it all to scare into consenting to censorship
Rallying not for supremacy, for self preservation. Forming orgs bc solidarity brings resilience.
But theyre in power!
But for how long? Lines converging - when will they cross? Point of seeking equality is to stop once youve reached it. How know? What criteria? Whos on the lookout for it?
If display desire for vengeance, why let have that power? Goes against goal of racial harmony. Slows it down.
Brings us back to original: If want it, be it.
Equal treatment, same rules, all races.
Pride for one, pride for other
Most importsntly evolve identity beyond race entirely, to planetary. One people, many colors, one planet.
That's as far from racist as its possible to get.
If u like, donate.
What you think of as white supremacy is actually just white people demanding to not get oppressed in reverse. They're not saying they're superior - they're saying they don't want to be treated as inferior. They're watching racism against themselves become more and more common and socially acceptable, and naturally they don't want that to continue, so they're standing up and saying "stop the racism against us." There's nothing unreasonable, or bigoted, about not wanting to BE targeted BY bigotry.
"Amtiwhite racism doesnt exist!"
Anti-white racism exists, and when you deny it, all you're doing is convincing white people that you don't care what happens to them, and proving to them that they need to take care of themselves, by forming groups to promote solidarity amongst themselves. You then call these "hate groups." They have nothing to do with hate - they're about wanting to not BE hated, or failing that, at least have the means to protect themselves FROM hate, which you're displaying towards them with an ever-increasing degree of brazenness.
"Not as much tho"
"But racism is prejudice plus power, and white ppl have more power than black ppl."
Thats true, for now but if current trends continue, they wont be.
Racism against black ppl
The amount of power that black ppl have is steadily increasing. Pace may be slow, but its moving in that direction.
Meanwhile the amount of power that white ppl have is decreasing. Again, maybe slow, but moving.
If one keeps decreasing while the other keeps increasing, they will eventually cross over each other. Thats mathematical truth. We might not know how soon, but we know they will.
How will you know when they have? What will it look like? Do you have a set of criteria to look out for to know when they've done so? You do WANT to know, right? You don't want white people to face oppression, do you? You don't want ANYONE to face oppression, black or white or any color... right?
So have you put ANY thought into forming a way to become aware of when the power balance has arrived, so that we don't overshoot and go out of balance in the other direction?
The whole point of seeking equality is to make it equal - not to swap the roles. Not to make the victims into new oppressors.
That means that you cultivate empowerment of the oppressed group UNTIL equality has been reached, and then you STOP. And in order to know WHEN to stop, you need to have a way of knowing WHEN the power balance has been reached.
Are you on the lookout? Do you know what it'll look like? Have you ever heard it talked about by anyone in your circles?
Considering that it's never talked about, it sure seems like no one's on the lookout for it. So can you blame white people for being on the lookout for it? Since no one else is?
It doesn't make them racist.
Racism is thinking one race is superior to another, coupled with a belief in an entitlement to treat others with less dignity due to said superiority. Racism is about hurting others - not about not wanting to BE hurt BY others.
The vast majority of the people in the Alt Right, the marchers and such, are only seeking a guarantee that they won't be oppressed after the equality point has been reached - that the power transfer will cease once both sides have an equal amount of it.
Whenever you deny that antiwhite racism exists, you're telegraphing that you're not on the lookout. And since you're not, they have to be.
Being on the lookout for future oppression by people who openly admit that they don't care if one gets oppressed does not make one racist.
"But its not oppression, they just think it is cuz they used to havin power and when its equal it feels like less. White fragility"
That phenomenon is definitelt real and accounts for SOME of their alarm, but not all. Look at these pictures:
Is it "fragility" to be alarmed by this?
If bp marches ok, so are wp
If wp marches not ok, neither are bp
Equal treatment, equal rules, for all races.
If n-word ok for one, then other
Equal treatment, equal rules, for all races
Service at restaurants
Telling ppl to go to the back
Here are some examples:
1. In the USA, when a new oil pipeline is proposed, it's typical for majority-white municipalities to object to having it traverse their land, due to the risk of leakage and groundwater poisoning. The companies hear white people's complaints, and then re-rout the pipelines through Indian reservations. This has happened many times. The only conceivable reason is that, structurally, our society does not value Indian lives as much as it values European-American lives.
2. Pig farms produce unbelievable amounts of waste - and by waste, we mean poop. The average concentrated feeding operation produces as much waste as a small city - and there is no treatment plant to process it. To disperse the waste, the company will spray it into the air. That's right - an entire city's worth of excrement gets disposed of by spraying it into the wind. And guess where most of these operations are located? In majority black counties. This would NEVER be allowed if white people were the primary victims of it. But it's considered an acceptable thing to do to black people.
(We think it's not an acceptable thing to do to anyone).
If we want to live in a such a world, we have to exemplify the values of that world. So we invite you to envision the world after racism.
What does it look like? What does it feel like? How do people behave in it?
Our World Beyond Racism
1. Appreciation, but not Identity
When humanity has matured, a person might appreciate their race and its uniqueness - but it's just one among many personal characteristics, and not the central definition of identity.
2. Pride, but not Superiority
A person can take pride in their culture and heritage, and their ancestors' achievements, without misinterpreting this as a reason to feel superior to others - because, after all, those others have things to be proud of as well.
3. Diversity of Characteristics, Equality of Worth.
Equality relates to a person's overall worth, not specific characteristics or abilities.
We can acknowledge differences in traits between races, and this is not racism.
But we must also recognize that no characteristic makes any race superior or inferior to any other. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and we compliment one another.
Varied in Characteristics,
Equal in Worth.