How Anti-Racism Today and Racism in the Past are Actually the Same Thing

This is counter-intuitive but I believe I can explain it well.

In the past in western countries, over 98% of the population were white people. I am going to use the term "racial absolutist" here instead of racist because the term racist today doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the past. To be a white supremacist (which I will define as being a racial absolutist, one who believes that being white guarantees things about someone's character) when 98% of the population of your country was white was actually to say that you believed everyone in your country was inherently good. Insofar as this was clearly not true (some people of other races were also good, and the existence of white criminals and so-on clearly evidenced that some whites were bad) the extant bad members of the population had their malice attributed to the behaviors of uniquely corrupt groups, usually Jews in the most recent era in Europe.

Today in western countries, the population is very mixed. To believe that all races, genders and other kinds of identities are completely equal with each other is really to say that you believe that everyone in your country is inherently good. Insofar as this is clearly not true, the extant bad members of the population have their flaws attributed to the behaviors of uniquely corrupt groups, modernly those are the conservatives in the liberal mindset.

In both instances, people are choosing to believe (contrary to immediately observable evidence) that everyone in their society is inherently good and when evidence to the contrary is presented, they blame people who follow an allegedly corrupt philosophy. Previously it was Judaism, today it is anything associated with western conservatism. The truth is that individual people are just individuals and some of them are bad entirely on their own, not due to the actions of anyone else. This is an uncomfortable position for people to take because it could lead to confrontation; much easier to blame any problems upon vaguely alleged saboteurs.

I believe that one reason this mistake is so easy to make is because people increasingly equate things like technical intelligence with being a "good" person, even though someone's job and their skill at it may say nothing at all about the strength of their character. As such, a statement such as "Asians are better at math than blacks" is taken as a statement that blacks are bad people, which is not necessarily true.

 

I'd like to consider four leftist ideas: being a "white ally", the double standard between Christians and Muslim, the recent liberal trend towards wanting segregation and "cultural appropriation". As we'll see, all four of these things actually stem from presumptive racism on the liberal's part.

First, the term "ally" is reserved for people you are working with in a militaristic situation but whom are aliens. You don't call people from the same group as you allies, you reserve that term for people who are from a different group.

Second, the double standard between Christians and Muslims (often held by people who consider themselves to be "Muslim allies") exists because the Muslims are preemptively a different group, so what they do is none of the white liberal's business or concern. In contrast, the white Christian is a part of their group because they are white so they can be very concerned about what the Christian does, even if it is basically a less extreme version of the same behaviors.

Third, liberals are increasingly for segregation because as the above two points show (and as the fourth will also show) they assume that different groups are not only separate but that they should be separate.

Fourth, cultural appropriation is a term for when someone uses things that are attributable to another culture. This could be as simple as a white person making a burrito; the real problem in their minds when a white person culturally appropriates a burrito or so-on is that said person assumed there was no difference between their group and the other group.

So in a way, liberals presume a level of racism (and a militaristic relationship between the races) that a conservative who will eat burritos and so-on does not.

I really believe that in a different environment, most of these Anti-Fa would have been Nazi brownshirts and so-on. The difference between conservatives who are supposedly conspiring against them due to their regressive beliefs and Jews who were supposedly conspiring against people over their regressive beliefs is that Jews were arguably an ethnic group but a conservative is not an ethnic group. Using today's semantics that would make singling out Jews wrong, whereas conservative's willingness to cross sometimes arbitrary social lines means they are not an ethnic group and can be targeted without it being "racist". Thus we end up with things like "black white supremacists" and so-on whose real crime is not racism against blacks, their crime was having presumed there was no line to be crossed.