Posted on April 3, 2021

Is Racism Moral Now?

Victor Davis Hanson, American Greatness, March 28, 2021

Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expediencies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people . . . 

—Damon Young, New York Times contributor

Over the past year, I have, of course, still had to interact with white people on Zoom or watch them on television or worry about whether they would succeed in reelecting a white-supremacist president. But white people aren’t in my face all of the time. I can, more or less, only deal with whiteness when I want to . . . White people haven’t improved; I’ve just been able to limit my exposure to them.

—Elie Mystal, The Nation     

Racism is the deductive bias against, and often hatred of, an entire racial group. It is often birthed by dislike of particular individuals of a given group that supposedly justifies, by extension, disliking or indeed hating all of them. {snip}

But now there grows a strange new ahistorical “antiracism” racism.

One variety encourages holistic hatred, blaming all of one’s own unhappiness, indeed all of the cosmic injustice in the manmade and natural world—the very air, water, and earth—on a white racial collective.

Another constructs a purported racial pathology to encourage segregation and separation from all members of the white race, thereby limiting all “exposure” to a toxic people.

These are not just the idle critical race theory rants of intellectuals. They now are reified in racially segregated graduations and dorms and in systemic racialist reeducation and confessional workshops in government, the military, and private enterprise. In fact, the new antiracism racism is flagrantly directed at “whiteness”—the obsession of an America gone mad.

Barack Obama who, when a senator, filibustered the 2006 Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito now claims, falsely, the filibuster is a racist relic of Jim Crow, which it predated by at least 30-40 years. On the Senate floor, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) vowed to block confirmation of nominees based solely on their white skin color.

In violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the mayor of Oakland just announced race-based grants of $500 per month to be given only to poor “BIPOC” (“black, indigenous, and people of color”) families, excluding the white poor.

The latest multibillion-dollar stimulus/farm aid bill is targeted for all those in need—as long as they are not white. The latter are all ineligible.

The new antiracism racism, whatever its original intentions, unfortunately exhibits the historical telltale signs of its noxious genre: an a priori negative stereotyping of all whites that can then be applied to individuals deemed undeserving because they are white. It is a deductive doctrine used to justify racial bias and racial preferences, to enhance careers and profits, and to excuse and contextualize racist language and behavior.

Antiracism’s implicit defense is that the nonwhite have less power to act out their biases than do whites, while it “rights” an historical wrong. Therefore even crude antiracists cannot be harmful racists. Consult the government data on hate crimes, however, and one learns some non-white groups have a greater proportional tendency to commit such crimes against others than so-called whites. And how has a white lower-middle-class generation, born in the post-Civil Rights movement and the age of affirmative action, continued to enjoy so-called white privilege?


Notice how the term “white racism” began metamorphosing into “white supremacy.” The latter is a linguistic means of stating, without evidence, that “they” control everything and thus there is little need for demonstrable examples of white racism.

But “supremacy” itself proves a problematic rubric. What does one do when Asian Americans as a group make far more per capita than do whites? Or the 44th president of the United States was black—as is the current vice president? Or both the recent Democratic and Republican candidates for lieutenant governor in South Carolina, the first slave state to secede from the Union, were black?

After all, a true “Islamic supremacy” state such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, does not allow a Christian or Jew access to such power in their country. A racially supremacist nation such as we see in communist China cannot allow a black or white immigrant to be premier—any more than can North Korea. Even South Korea or Japan may not any day soon see a Korean president or Japanese prime minister of Mexican or Irish ancestry.

And yet “white supremacy” itself is devolving into “white privilege.” The newer term no longer requires proof that all whites are always supreme—only that they all, by use of the collective “white,” enjoyed innately unfair advantages over all others based solely on their race.


So “white privilege” is now morphing into just “whiteness” in a malignant stereotyping hauntingly reminiscent of the 1930 theories of insidious “Jewishness,” a term denoting a mythical and underhanded power that warped and “controlled” Western Europe—even as no believable charge could be leveled against individual Jews.

Infectious “whiteness” supposedly is what explains why the privileged Meghan Markle is unhappy with, or rather furious at, the royal family and the psychodramatic injustices allegedly done to her—as the former royal couple lecture the public on its sins from their $14 million Montecito estate.

The “whiteness” conspiracy similarly explains why multibillionaire Oprah Winfrey, who interviewed the couple from her nearby $90 million estate, not long ago was—or so she complained—treated rudely by a clerk in a Swiss boutique who committed the mortal sin of not recognizing Oprah, and thus not purportedly retrieving a $38,000 crocodile bag out of its secure case quickly enough to Oprah’s liking.

“Whiteness” often towers over even 5’11” Michelle Obama. Even as First Lady, when incognito in a Target store, she complained that a much shorter white woman did not recognize her and asked her, a taller stranger, to help lift down an item from an upper shelf—a phenomenon that millions of Americans encounter weekly.


It took the media and the Left about a nanosecond, and without any evidence other than a grainy video, to falsely label the recent Colorado mass shooter—later revealed as a Trump-hating Syrian-born Muslim—a “white supremacist.”

And it only took a second for the online mob and media to use his now falsely assumed identification to fuel a grand indictment against all “white men” in general—in the same old, same old unapologetic Duke lacrosse, Covington Catholic kids, and Jussie Smollett style.

Next, the Colorado mass murderer was immediately lumped in with the recent Georgia mass killer—as if that monstrous shooter was, unquestionably, a similar white supremacist. The two together proved a “pattern” of systemic white violence, most notably against Asian Americans.

All of these narratives, which are still floating around and widely accepted, are false.


As far as the deviant Atlanta shooter being illustrative of an epidemic of white-inspired, anti-Asian-American crimes, the majority of such hate crimes against Asians have not been found, by a variety of metrics, to have been committed inordinately by whites. Indeed, in many surveys, African American males are proportionally more likely to commit such hate offenses against Asians. Nor do whites commit hate crimes in general disproportionally. Nor in the case of mass shootings, are whites “overrepresented” in the data.


Barack Obama was also quick to inflame the dramas—in the fashion of his unfortunate Trayvon Martin commentaries—by weighing in falsely that racism was one of the Georgia shooter’s stimulants.

Meena Harris—a Dr. Seuss canceller, Kamala Harris’s niece and campaign advisor, and the would-be Harris family memorialist—before the Colorado shooter had even been identified, immediately tweeted out: “The Atlanta shooting was not even a week ago. Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country”


{snip} Again, according to most information on mass murderers, there is no evidence that whites are more likely proportionally to be the culprits than are members of other racial categories. In terms of interracial violent crime, whites both proportionally and in absolute numbers, are more likely, in comparison to both blacks and Hispanics, to be victims than perpetrators.