Racism is a term that is equated with bigotry.
A bigot is defined as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
Wikipedia states that “The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.”
The important word here, and that which is the intended meaning applied by those who would classify one as a bigot is, irrationality.
A bigot has irrational beliefs about others based on race, religion, sex, age etc. The bigot is obstinate with these irrational beliefs and exhibits an undying animosity towards his hated targets.
In modern parlance, when one says that the other is a racist, it is being asserted that the other person has irrational beliefs with regard race, which is just as often conflated with religion.
Is racism irrational?
The most concise rebuttal of that proposition was written in 1988 by an Australian I have a great admiration for, the late David Stove, Associate Professor at Sydney University’s Department of Traditional and Modern Philosophy.
“In “Racial and Other Antagonisms” Stove asserted that racism is not a form of prejudice but common-knowledge:
“Almost everyone unites in declaring “racism” false and detestable. Yet absolutely everyone knows it is true.” (Source)
Stove explains the rationality of racial antagonism as follows:
“But while I see nothing to prevent there being racial antagonism which was entirely rational, I am sure there could not be racial antagonism which depended only on false or irrational beliefs.
For, suppose there could be. Suppose it could happen, for example, that Race A does not at first hate Race B at all, while B hates A, but only because of false and irrational beliefs which it has about A. Then, unless a fluke or miracle prevents it, B’s hatred of A will issue in treatment of members of A, of a kind which will cause A to hate B too, and rationally hate B at that. This hatred will in turn (flukes and miracles again aside), issue in A’s treating members of B in ways which will cause new, and this time rational, hatred of A among Bs. This new and rational hatred will lead B to treat A in such a way that…But it cannot be necessary to go on: you must by now have recognised where you live.” (Bolding mine, emphasis in the original)
Stove’s analysis is concise and simple without being simplistic. Racial and other antagonisms are inevitable and whilst some are irrational some are rational. To what degree it is one or the other it is hard to say but the point is – the antagonisms are often rational.
Stove’s solution is as follows:
“Believe it, and forget it: “divide through” for it, since it is a factor common to all social antagonisms. At least, you must divide through for it, if your object is to justify the giving of special sympathy or (for example) compensation, to just one side of the antagonism. What is common to both sides cannot justify the preferential treatment of one.” (Bolding mine, emphasis in the original)
Repeat that: “What is common to both sides cannot justify the preferential treatment of one.”
The short essay of which the above are excerpts can be found in Stove’s book of short essays, “Cricket versus Republicanism”.
Vincenza Bjornson said:
I would have to say this is an excellent piece of work. I say this deserves mentioning somewhere else.
Cam said:
Pat did you see this post on Botls blog?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/barbarians_through_the_gates/
Soughting crime figures by place of birth with no mention of race! If this PC rubbish passes as conservative discource, we truly are doomed.
pat said:
Matter of fact I just came back here from reading it now.
One category is New Zealander – dumb classification. Also have American in there and Malaysian. Chinese Malay? African American? Wouldn’t know.
At least it’s a step in the right direction.
Bolt frustrates me in a way. In that he is regarded as Conservative when in fact he’s a liberal (in the American sense) with some centrist attitudes.
He’s a confirmed, out and proud multi-culturalist. He’s also philo-semitic.
I think those two points are important for anyone who gets a position in the MSM if from a non-leftist political persuasion.
I’ve been compiling a list of his posts for a post of mine discussing this subject but as you can see I’ve been slack and posting at other blogs instead.
I’m thankful for Bolt and at the same time annoyed that he is presented as the Right side of politics.
We need commentators to the right of Bolt to drag the political spectrum our way. Even if we don’t win the Left is forced into the open by making someone like Bolt seem Centre-Left.
The other day he bagged out Abbot on homosexuals, denounced Geert Wilders, and praised Inglourious Basterds “I’ve long loathed the moral universe of Quentin Tarantino, at least until Inglorious Basterds (sic), but this is one Oscar that’s deserved:”
He excoriated Mel Gibson and his movie The Passion of The Christ, for it’s violence and supposedly anti-semitic themes yet a movie all about Jewish revenge wet dreams where White people are brutally tortured and murdered is aok, nay brilliant, to Bolt.
He did one of his usual (and Tim Blair’s as well) ‘look at our success in Iraq, democracy works, people are voting. You were all wrong!’ things the other day. His philo-semitism make him blind to the fact that Iran is running the political show in Iraq and that as soon as the Coalition leaves it’s more oil for Iran. Unless of course the Yanks go after Iran next. Lets face it – that seems to be the way the neo-cons are urging and no doubt Bolt and Blair will cheer it on all in the name of democracy. No mention of our national interest, because there really is none.
Other than oil in which case a sensible foreign policy that didn’t side exclusively with Israel would play them off each other to our interest not us being played off for Israeli interests.
This is the sort of Conservative commentator Australians get.
Thanks for commenting Cam.
Cam said:
South African is a laugh. I wonder if their Boers or Zulus…scratches head…nope,still can’t figure that out.
On Bolt’s post about Robert Manne the other day i actually slipped in a link to Kevin McDonald:
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=819
that somehow made it past the moderators!Maybe a few people learnt something.
Do you think Bolt realises that jews were extremely infuential enacting the immigration policies that have led to this crime orgy? Is he that blinded by political correctness or merely a careerist. Stupid or a hypocrite? The eternal question regarding our elites.
Bolt is somewhat like O’Reilly in that ocassionally he will pick an issue to gain status points with the centre and centre-left (O’Reilly had a go at Gibson over his recent media apperances). I do think Bolt serves a purpose however, every politcal movement needs it’s low brow commentators and he broadly opposes the ALP.
Inability to admit failure in Iraq is a key characteristic of the neo-cons. It has done the conservative movement a great deal of harm. I originally supported the invasion in 2003 but soon grew disillusioned. Reading writings by the likes of Gregory Cochran i realised how much of a pipe dream the whole thing was.
Iran seems of the radar for now, but if The Lobby wants it back on the agenda the drumbeats of war will start again.
The paleo-cons seem to be having a limited amount of success in the US, which i’m not sure if we could replecate. I struggle to think of an Australian paleo, RJ Stove comes to mind but he’s far from mainstream. The yanks no. 1 would be Buchanan and Sailer is reputedly widely read and publically condemned.
Your above comment is an excellent summation of where Bolt stands on the key issues of the day. Look forward to reading your post on him.
Pat said:
Do you think Bolt realises that jews were extremely infuential enacting the immigration policies that have led to this crime orgy?
OMG Man! You can’t say that. Jews…not brilliant for our interests and not avatars of eternal good!? What the hell’s the matter with you?
After returning from the Christmas break Bolt put up a list of books he’s reading and recommends. All were by Jewish authors about the Jewish holocaust or other Jewish matters. Quirky, redolant of the need for Israel, nuanced, yadda yadda. I think he’s just godamned smitten with them and it conveniently fits his career path. He’s far too ingratiating on the subject to be judged as pursuing it for purely pragmatic purposes.
I’m with you on Iraq. I supported it too but the whole weapons of mass destruction and especially the tie in with 9-11 that wasn’t ever proved turned me. Just as the whole project became a democracy building exercise. Not many people know but that mission has been an unmitigated disaster for Christian Iraqis. Under Saddam they were protected and in fact the nation wasn’t Muslim but Socialist. Soon it will be an Islamic democracy and the last vestiges of Christianity, Zoroastrianism etc obliterated all for democracy. Fuckin brilliant, well done.
Great to see you read McDonald. I love the man.
And RJ Stove, son of the man who first opened my mind, David Stove. Yes. I’ve only started to encounter his writing and would love to read more of him.
Never heard of Gregory Cochran but will look him up.
Good thoughts Cam and thanks for the tip on O’Reilly. I’ve also being researching a post on Mel Gibson and anti-anti-semitism in the Oz rightosphere.
Did you notice Bolt begging Murdoch to start a Fox News Oz style, with of course, Bolt on board? Quite shameless. Speaking of which have you ever thought of blogging? You could post here if you want and I’d love to have a true man of the Right on board. Big Rammer has agreed to post here, but his propensity for slacking like me has prohibited from doing so so far.
But seriously Cam. Would you like to post on M4 Monologue? Doesn’t matter if you don’t but it’d be great if you would. Though I’d lose one of my only commenters.
Cheers Mate,
Pat
Cam said:
Seems alot of commenters are thinking along similiar lines to us regarding Bolt’s political positions:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_i_have_not_stepped_to_the_left/
People seem to be picking up on Bolt not being that conservative. Maybe paleo-consevatism has a future in Australia after all?
The fact is neo-conservatives are not conservatives. The political movement which Leo Strauss started was a bunch of ex-Trotskyites who jumped ship to the Republican party because they believed the conservatives would give them a better deal vis-à-vis Israel.
They believe in open borders, political correctness, multi-culturalism, big government and the democratization of the world. To quote Steve Sailer ‘invade the world, invite the world, in debt to the world’.
It seems this poisonous doctrine has spread to the media elites in Australia (Greg Sheridan being another example) and it is now passing as conservative orthodoxy.
Pat i’d be delighted to join you and Rammers, evry team needs a QLD’er to set things straight. (Tony will be happy it will stop me harassing him at AGB)
Cochran:
http://gc.homeunix.net/
Pat said:
It seems to me many critics now questioning my principles, or purporting to see an inconsistency in my position which can only be explained by having been bought off or intimidated, suffer from one of two things. One is a tribalism that prevents them from acknowledging any good in their foes or any flaws in their friends. And tribalists aren’t conservatives as I define them. The other is that they aren’t conservatives at all, but Right wingers, and do not know the difference.
I’m a tribalist. That’s what it means to be Conservative. A Conservative Revolution that thinking that we matter as a race, an idea, a philosophy, a way of being, a culture. If Bolt hates tribalism then he isn’t Conservative of us.
And he’s no Right winger that’s for sure, I take him at his word.
It’s not about seeing good in foes but being committed to our racial kin. Anything that benefits us is what counts. If he can see wrong in us that disarms or goes to our detriment point it out but don’t promote that which will annihilate my children’s future, which is what Bolt does.
Bolt is not inconsistent. I saw his consistency early on as did Oz Conservative – though he’s banned me from his site which I’m happy for. Oz Conservative is a good bloke but his philo-semitism blocks him from being philo-White. Bolt has been consistently pro-multi-culti and pro-Jew over and above White Australia. Bolt is consistent in undermining us.
Hopefully Bolt will come around. Even Geert Wilders is pro-Israel, probably pragmatically so as is Nick Griffin of the BNP. But it does them no good to Bolt. He’s philo-multi-culti which leads him all the way to our oblivion which makes him no better than that other so called Conservative you mention Greg Sheridan.
The thing is these blokes are hounded as being right wing. ffs they aren’t but that is the way the argument is so slanted in Oz that these erudite yet leftist dupes are slated as Conservatives and they themselves hold themselves out as such.
Are you Greg Cochran or Thrasymachus? I’m sure I’ve seen Thrasymachus at other blogs I’ve read but haven’t come across Cochran. I assume Thrasymachus as Cochran doesn’t want a site. Either way, great to have you on board.
Email me at pathannagan at hotmail dot com.
Pat said:
Sorry, just realised that Cochran is the author of The 10,000 Year Explosion from your link.
I’ve seen this refrenced so many times and now this that I guess I’d better buy it.
Cheers Cam,
Pat
Pingback: A Maori Who Doesn’t Want to Go the Way of the Moa « M4 Monologue
Pingback: Bring on the violence, you know it’s what you want « M4 Monologue
Pingback: Traumatising your nation, traumatising your family « M4 Monologue