The latest fashionable topic is anti-racism, which is being pushed upon society by several people with little or no understanding of what racism actually is. The article “What it really means to be an anti-racist, and why it’s not the same as being an ally” provides summaries on the subject from three well known individuals.

Robert J. Patterson, professor of African American Studies at Georgetown University, a field of study that is as useful as trying to empty an ocean with a straw, stated that “anti-racism is an active and conscious effort to work against multidimensional aspects of racism.” No professor, racism is much simpler and only has one dimension. Then Ibram X. Kendi said that “one is either racist or anti-racist. There is no room for neutrality, and there is no such thing as a ‘non-racist.'” Fair enough, but Mr. Kendi is clueless as to what racism is. Finally, author Robin DiAngelo was more direct and offered that anti-racism is a “white problem,” meaning that “personal accountability and action are at the heart of being an anti-racist.” To summarize, blah, blah and then more blah, that keeps useless platitudes alive while paying her bills and avoiding the obvious.

The propensity to over complicate simple matters is the domain of humanities and liberal studies, constantly seeking convoluted explanations to often excuse predictable behaviors and outcomes, with academia feasting on its own nonsense. One cannot fault them for trying to protect their paychecks, which is in line with human self-interest, and they will speak to any audience confused enough or far too pretentious to ignore the reality on the ground. Thus the nature of the human beast is covered in the following statement from yours truly:

“One cannot understand Sociology without Economics, or understand Economics without Psychology, and definitely will not understand Psychology without Sexuality. Lastly, Sexuality cannot be understood without Biology. Yet life is so simple!”

Diversitopia, page 98

As pointed out in “It’s Realism, Not Racism,” Merriam-Webster defines racism as a “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. Certainly additional definitions have emerged to accommodate the ideological movements that continually distort a variety of terms and concepts to justify their positions, with racism also defined as prejudice or discrimination. Richard Henry Pratt was the first to utter the word “racism” in 1902 and it centered on how races with lower intellect wouldn’t evolve if segregated. He never used the words “hate” or “exclusion,” which have become synonyms for racism in today’s vernacular.

But the “belief” can be easily proven or dismantled by a simple measurement: socio-techno-economic achievement. Either race X is superior to race Y as determined by their respective socio-techno-economic achievement over centuries, or it isn’t. Every time that this simple measurement is introduced into the conversation, a blame game ensues, faulting slavery and exploitation as primary causes for lower or virtually non-existent intellectual output. The problem with that defense is that it solidifies the concept of racism, because obviously race X always dominates race Y, with the latter lacking the ability to overcome the obstacles.

Thus being anti-anything requires the ability to counter and neutralize the “anything.” But exactly how does one defeat racism if race X cannot be beaten by race Y at the socio-techno-economic game? To further complicate matters, then the demand for equality kicks in, but unless race X slows down its development in hopes that race Y will catch up, provides free stuff, or gives awards to race Y regardless of accomplishment, inequality will persist. Yes, the call is masked as equal opportunity, but what people truly seek is equal outcome, regardless of ability.

As if idiocy wasn’t widespread, along comes an interesting article titled “Students claim merit criteria ‘possess inherent bias,” overlooking the inconvenient fact that meritocracy can be measured.

“Arguments that support the objective consideration of merit without the overarching context of external factors are often weaponized against diversity efforts,” they stated, citing “factors outside of one’s control, including race, ethnicity, class, and gender,” all of which they said, “add an extra barrier to their success.” When people say that they hire based on merit rather than race, the essay claimed that these employers are “upholding a nonexistent meritocracy” and “are perpetuating the discriminatory status quo by failing to acknowledge the systemic inequities facing BIPOC.”

To highlight their own diminished comprehension and contradiction, they imply that race, among other things, is responsible for lack of success because meritocracy is unachievable — or the existence of racial superiority/inferiority. The core truth is that human self-interest rules the day, everyday, and the reason why they push for equality is because it benefits them. It is also known as wanting a piece of the pie because they lack baking skills.

However one way to establish equality is to adopt Communism or, its lighter version, Socialism, where everyone shares everything equally. Apart from the large obstacle of human self-interest which has driven every Socialist/Communist country to misery, the state — yes, there’s someone in charge — will penalize people for unequal output, and a one way trip to a gulag will resolve the issue with no excuses accepted. That’s a fact that escapes the illustrious idiots.

To bring added perspective to the subject, please refer to “Liberia: A Testament To Black Lack Of Achievement In An Oppression-Free State.“

Anti-Racism? How can one be anti something that simply is, unless tangibly proven otherwise? Finally, a common slogan is that “Education Is The Great Equalizer,” but who acquires the knowledge and provides the education? The image above was borrowed from the opposing side because unbeknownst to them it has a very clever phrase: See People For Who They Really Are. Period.

---