The "Circle of Racism"

Somebody recently asked me to elaborate on the definition of “racism”.  Here is a graphic representation of how racial-egalitarian leftists define it (bearing in mind that this definition only applies to whites).
It’s alright, according to them, to express a preference for one’s self, and It’s alright to prefer one’s own parents, siblings or children. It’s also alright to prefer one’s own species.  But between the realms of family and species lies the ominous “Circle of Racism”:
I haven’t been posting much lately.  This is because I’ve been spending a lot of time on an “editing marathon” as the completion of  “The Ashkenazi Revolution” translation is now in sight.

This entry was posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The "Circle of Racism"

  1. a random user name says:

    This is a great post.

  2. destructure says:

    Excellent point. I’m familiar with concentric circles of loyalty but your pointing out that race is the only one people have a problem with hadn’t occurred to me.

  3. A great, digestible version of the notion of racism according to leftist narrative. I’m surprised nobody has thought to do this earlier.

  4. Pingback: Jewamongyou defines the leftist definition of racism graphically « callistorising

  5. While this is a good point, it’s a bit more complicated than your diagram suggests. To make my point, I’ll introduce a diagram of my own (hopefully this works):
    Obviously, neither of these is a definitive graphic of what categories and levels of kinship one is to consider, but I think that it is reasonable to split them into the above categorization. When you look at it from the point of view of these categories, you can see that the opinion of the Left is a bit less monolithic and binary.
    In the graphic, I used “Nation” as being at the same level as “Ethnic Group” and please note that I am referring to the people not the state. One of the reasons that loyalty to one’s race or nation is discouraged is that it creates tensions at a sub-state level for countries such as the United States that have significant ethnic and racial minorities. Where the boundaries of the state contain multiple ethnic groups or even multiple races, trouble brews and I believe that that plays a role in the desire on the part of the Left as well as the powers that be more generally to tamp down ethnic and racial tensions.
    However, you can certainly find currents of the left that would like to see differential treatment of people from different levels of kinship abolished morally, if not legally. I know that Peter Singer likes to talk about pushing past the species barrier, as do many animal rights activists (though I think their sympathy stops at the Linnaean Kingdom).
    Generally, I’d say that the overwhelming sentiment is idealism tempered with pragmatism. Most on the Left know that family bonds are not easily dissolved and would not want to see their own family bonds dissolve. Further, except for the aforementioned animal rights activists, most people don’t worry about how animals are treated for the food and research purposes that make their current standards of living possible. They also don’t complain much about regionalism because then they couldn’t complain about Texans or the South more generally. It is the outer-subspecial categories that irk them, because they can present locally despite the temporal distance of origin.
    Obviously, both ethnic and racial tensions and preferences fall under the banner of “racism”. That’s not terribly surprising, since “race” used to refer to national differences as well as what we now think of as racial differences, a fact illustrated inthis delightful play on some of Charles Darwin’s writings. Since those groups have some of the most temporally distant origins within our species and yet can, in the modern world, settle relatively closely spatially, those are the relationships for which the most taboos have developed.

  6. Jehu says:

    There’s one problem though with the diagram—most leftists have zero problem with such racial spheres of loyalty if you’re not white.

  7. Doug says:

    We evolved to favor those who shared our genes. For 99.9% of human evolution, that was the people who lived around you (= your tribe or clan). Today that response is tricked or hijacked, when we come to favor or sports team, high school, religion, political party, music type, etc.
    Your favor all the racial members of your sports team, but in our evolutionary past, that never would have happened, because (for the most part) the only people living in your village would have been kin or related populations.
    Massive Racial mixing is new to human evolution.

  8. Pingback: Concentric Rings « Organicist

  9. Pingback: THEY’RE ALL GOING TO LAUGH AT YOU | Alt-Right

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *