Cultural Marxism: Making Race into a Weapon

So, this is one of those posts where Kells is totally justified in calling me verbose.  But then, this is a post about an issue that does not lend itself to an abbreviated analysis.  If you do not care to look deeper than the surface of the issue, then reading this will likely be a tortuous waste of your time.  However, if you would like to consider my argument as to what racism is, why it should be defined so and how it has been bastardized so as to politicize and weaponizes the issue, I’d ask you to read this essay in its entirety.  Just understand this: I am not a racist – not in any but those definitions that would paint every human ever borne as a racist.  I am a thinker doing his best to reason as an individual.  I am not a member of a collective mentality who allows himself to be pushed along by the emotions of the crowd.  As such, I welcome reasoned objection to my argument, but I ask that anyone who does so use the established rules of logic in addressing my actual argument.  Ad hominem attacks do not sit well with me as they are irrational.  I may fail in my attempts, but I am trying to use reason here.  I hope my readers will do the same.


How does one make the issue of racism into a weapon?  Well, before we can examine that topic, we have to first define the term.  Let’s start with Wiki because – though I take issue with the general tone of this entry — I find it very useful to the discussion at hand:

Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.[3]

The definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about what the word “race” means, and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn’t constitute discrimination.[4] Some definitions would have it that any assumption that a person’s behavior would be influenced by their racial categorization is racist, regardless of how seemingly benign such assumptions might be. Other definitions would only include conscious malignant forms of discrimination.[5] Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of racial stereotypes through the media and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component.


Now, let’s deal with some of this one point at a time, starting with this one:

Some definitions would have it that any assumption that a person’s behavior would be influenced by their racial categorization is racist, regardless of how seemingly benign such assumptions might be.


If we accept this as ‘the’ definition of racism, then every human that has ever walked the face of the earth is racist.  It is in our nature that like tends to gather with like, or that we tend to think in terms of ourselves, therefore, if we use this definition, all humans would be racist.  This may be useful to those who see every aspect of your life as political because it provides a club with which to beat any and all opponents over the head, but – to my way of thinking – it would make the term ‘racism’ meaningless when dealing with the injustices that are commonly attached to the word ‘racism.  Think about it: if racism is a characteristic common to all humans, then what sense would it make to yell “You human!” at the grand wizard of the KKK?  So why would we even bother to argue that racism is unjust when it would mean people are simply acting according to their nature?  It would be the same as telling a dog it is unjust for sniffing the rear end of another dog.  For this reason, I reject this definition of racism (but we will return to it shortly).


Next, we have this:

Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes,


I suppose this comment by an RNL reader is an example of this definition:

I once wrote about playing wide receiver on my football team. A white kid lined up to cover me and I instantly thought, “there’s no way this white boy can cover me.” I thought I was a superior athlete because I was black and he was white.


To me, this is a case of applying the word racism to an individual characteristic more accurately called prejudice:

Definition of PREJUDICE

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights; especially : detriment to one’s legal rights or claims


2a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics


Or bigotry:

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


What’s more, some ‘stereotypes’ labeled as racist are founded in actual fact, but in our society, we can’t point this out anymore because of the political nature of the subject.  In the example given by the RNL commenter, there is actual data to support his assumption.  African-Americans comprise approximately 79% of NBA rosters, 65% of NFL line ups, and 18% of MLB teams (about 18 % of MLB players are Hispanic).  Now, these figures probably do not account for the possible cultural aspect of this ration, but then, by themselves, cultural preferences cannot explain the disparity evidenced by these numbers – especially when we consider that blacks are only 12-14% of the U.S. population.  This same issue is even more apparent when we look at the racial percentages of NHL players and NASCAR drivers/crew members.  These numbers suggest that it may actually be true that blacks may have superior athletic abilities in some areas of sports.  If so, then this definition would mean that stating the truth is racist.  If this is the case, it takes us back to yelling “You human!” at the grand wizard of the KKK.


Here again, assigning the term racism to what is more accurately called prejudice and/or bigotry would seem to have more to do with creating a political weapon than accurately defining an issue, characteristic or problem.  For this reason, I reject this definition of racism as well.


Then we have this definition:

whether to include institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of racial stereotypes through the media and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component.


Again, this definition has more to do with stereotyping than what I would consider to be racism.  And again, there are often real reasons that stereotypes develop (though – admittedly – they are not always accurate and do not apply to every individual within a given group).  And the notion that culture is racist is yet another attempt to mix different issues in with the label of ‘racism.’  Culture is just that: culture.  It is not defined by the color of a society’s skin, but by the practices, rituals, norms and mores of the people living within that culture.  One need go no further than the ‘hip-hop’ community to see what I mean.  That ‘culture’ is not homogeneous when it comes to skin color, as MM and many, many others will attest.  So, once again, I reject this definition for racism.


At this point, before we look at the last definition in the Wiki post, I want to introduce an additional definition presented to me by an RNL commenter:

 “I’ve said many of the lighter skinned blacks feel superior to the darker skinned ones. That’s RACISM within what is referred to as sub-races.”


Subraces?  I took my copy of Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary and couldn’t even find the word ‘subrace.’  The spell checker on Word does not recognize it, and I couldn’t I find a definition of it on line that did not seem to be connected to a political agenda (all of which caused me to suspect the term is somehow racist in itself).  How does one even define a subrace if skin color is the only attribute?  Do you develop a systematic means of measuring the tonal quality of an individual’s complexion?  If so, what happens when that person gets a tan, or becomes pale due to working nightshifts (this happens for all races)?  Defining a ‘subrace’ by skin color would be purely subjective, and therefore, irrational.  For this reason, I reject the notion of racism being attached to the term ‘subrace,’ as it has all the characteristics of the fallacy known as ‘circular reasoning,’ or defining a word by using a form of the word (in this case, defining racism by using racist assumptions).  It also smacks of a political or racially motivated agenda.


Finally, this brings us to the last definition listed in the Wiki post, and the definition I have always accepted as the best definition for racism:

Other definitions would only include conscious malignant forms of discrimination.[5]


This is the definition I prefer.  To me, it is the only one that actually addresses the immorality and injustices associated with the notion of racism.  It is also the only definition associated with the history of the term.  As best I could determine, the origin of the term ‘racism’ developed in the early parts of the 20th Century.  Its first use is attributed to several people, and to several examples: most notably, Leon Trotsky and the Holocaust.  It is also connected to the anti-racism movement characteristic of Cultural Marxism – something I believe is key to understanding the true nature and purpose behind the issue of race in America (I found several sites that were helpful to me.  You might want to read through them as well.  You can find them here, here and here.  Please note: I do not vouch for the accuracy of any information presented on them, but I do accept the information in the most general sense as it conforms with what I already know to be true from past studies.).


To me – a natural rights theorist in the school of Locke — unless there is some system in place that enforces discrimination based solely on the color of a person’s skin, then there is no racism.  You and I have a natural right to think and believe whatever we wish.  If we believe in this god, or that god, or no god at all – as long as we are not harming anyone else — that is our right.  Our founders called it ‘freedom of conscience,’ and it is the essence of the 1st Amendment.  Well, this principle applies equally to anyone who wishes to believe that one race is superior to another: as long as they are not harming anyone with their belief, we do not have a right to take action against them for what they believe because they have a natural right to believe it.  Utah expressed this idea best when he said:

“A person is not racist, people are.”


Therefore, to be considered truly racist, the practice must be enforced, either by law, or through some other unavoidable social institution.  Otherwise, we would find people making arguments such as this:

“Affirmative action discriminates against certain people if it denies one group and accepts another purely based on race alone. That’s discrimination but not racism. That is done because a law said so not because on group or another felt superior to the other. We tend to call it racism since whites more often than any other lose out in this case.”


To start off, we must recognize this for what it is: a straw man definition of affirmative action.  This definition was constructed to make the speaker’s point appear to be correct when it is not.  This is a perfect example of the fallacy of straw man and the problems we encounter when we try to actually examine the issue of racism in America under an honest light.  To see just how pervasive this issue has become, note the dictionary definition of the term:


: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons


Remember, all definitions of racism have some notion of the wrongful, differential treatment of one person over another based solely on race.  This means – by every definition we have examined so far – affirmative action is racism.  Yet, this RNL commenter specifically denies that it is racism.  Denial does not change the simple definition of words: affirmative action is a racist policy because it is mandated (i.e. forced) by law and based solely on the color of a person’s skin (as assumed by their racial classification).  Now, before I deal with this caveat of ‘other disadvantage persons,’ let me point out the key part of this RNL reader’s comment:

“Affirmative action discriminates against certain people if it denies one group and accepts another purely based on race alone. That’s discrimination but not racism. That is done because a law said so not because on group or another felt superior to the other. We tend to call it racism since whites more often than any other lose out in this case.”


According to this, slavery was not racism.  Neither were Jim Crowe laws, or any of the legal restrictions placed on blacks before the Civil Rights Laws were passed – because a law said so!  I pray I do not have to point out the contradiction here.  This reader just justified everything I consider to be true racism – so long as it was supported by law.  Slavery in America was supported by law.


And finally, this brings us to how race has been turned into a weapon.  I will start by pointing to the caveats we always find attached to these statements, such as ‘women’ or ‘other disadvantaged persons.’  This is an attempt to marry the issue of race to that of minorities, and it is a fallacy in reason as they are not the same.  In the case of women, they aren’t even a minority; they are the majority between the sexes.  But group identity – collectivism – is the focal point of Cultural Marxism.  The idea is to create the issue (in this case, racism), decry the injustice, convince people that it demands reparations in the form of money and even the destruction of the system that supposedly created it (in this case, the U.S. Constitution and free market) and then the creation and joining of other supposed minority groups to the general race issue.  In this way, the population is compartmentalized into mobs that are then systematically set against each other in a struggle for each group’s ‘rights.’  And this is why racism has been defined to include anything and everything anyone wants it to cover: so that it can be used as a hammer against anyone, at any time and for any reason.


Admittedly, there are many, many more aspects to this issue, but this is why I argue that real racism must be a matter of forced policy, not just a personal characteristic of the individual.

16 thoughts on “Cultural Marxism: Making Race into a Weapon

  1. Did you have to make this 10 miles long just to get into semantics? I think you’re misconstruing Will’s argument. I knew exactly what he was referring to when he mentioned sub-races. For instance, many Cost Ricans refer to Nicaraugans as Nicas.While they are both Latin, for some odd reason they feel them to be inferior or “beneath” them. (sub race) I’ve been to many a restaurant where my husband has said, “They don’t know how to speak Spanish correctly.”

    Do you know, one day I was in the mall with a lighter-skinned black girlfriend of mine, and two darker-skinned black girls made a snide remark, which then caused my girlfriend to get in their face.

    For a white person, I could very much see an educated person referring to a redneck as a sub race. (Don’t tell M. I said that.)

    Why the hello does my name keep coming into my comment box??!!

  2. Actually KB, in this and the previous discussion, semantics are very important. We’re talking about words and their meaning. The main point is that the left has been changing the definition of words in order to instigate class and race warfare. It’s called political correctness and is a language disease this country could very well do without.

    • Mr. G,

      I have been trying – and failing epically – to explain how pivotal language is to the Progressive Movement (i.e. collectivists in general). It is a central theme of “1984,” and is the foundation of John Dewey’s philosophy (read that the modern American educational system – public and college), yet no one seems to even care, let alone understand it.

      Case in point: what is being called a ‘subrace’ is not race or racism, it’s just cultural bigotry. But, when we cannot properly define what is being discussed, we end up talking at, over, under and around each other – all the time never realizing we are all discussing different things. The Progressives know this, they use it intentionally. And unless a person has bothered to read through the Progressive literature, they will be a slave to this tactic and not even see it.

      So, G, what can we do, and how can we do it better?

      • We just have to keep on doing what we’re doing and pray that people will catch on sooner rather than later. Short of slapping them upside the head with a “smarts” board*, I don’t see what else we can possibly do.

        People are catching on though, just not as fast and as many as we want.

        *..2×4 about 4 or 5 feet long

      • I disagree. Tell me I’m wrong, but I refuse to believe the AVERAGE person has that much hate in their heart for people they don’t even know. I think it is more the result of truly evil people (i.e. the leaders of the movement(s) ) taking advantage of the general helplessness many people feel in a society that has lost touch with the human bonds that we were created to need and desire. they use the hole we feel inside of us to make us believe some faceless, nameless ‘they’ are to blame, then focus on whatever ‘villain’ they chose to blame (Jews, ‘the rich,’ whites – take your pick).

        In the end, I think the average person is as much victim as perp. They just never stop long enough to actually think (mostly because people are lazy and thinking is hard work), and/or no one ever tries to help them understand what is happening for themselves. And lucky for the evil leaders that, when people DO try to help, another part of human nature tends to make us naturally reject that help.

        Anyway, this is how I see it – how I HAVE to see it because, if I am wrong, then humanity needs to be wiped from the face of the earth as it is totally and hopelessly evil by nature. I just can’t accept that; I’ve seen too much good in people to believe this to be true.

      • Here’s just one example of how language has been corrupted over the years.

        My wife is from the “Upper South”, in other words, she’s a Yankee from Maine. Where she grew up, a shovel was called a spade. From Merriams Dictionary;

        : a digging implement adapted for being pushed into the ground with the foot

        : a spade-shaped instrument

        Here’s another definition of “spade”;

        To speak plainly – to describe something as it really is.

        It might be thought that this derives from the derogatory use of the slang term ‘spade’, meaning Negro – an American term originating in the 20th century. That view of it as derogatory might also be thought to be supported by this piece from John Trapp’s Mellificium theologicum, or the marrow of many good authors, 1647:

        “Gods people shall not spare to call a spade a spade, a niggard a niggard.”

        If you want to know the meaning of the non-racist word, niggard..look it up yourself. 😉

  3. Get Jonah Goldberg’s new book. I’ve got it on my e-reader.

    At Amazon:

    The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas [Hardcover]

    Jonah Goldberg (Author)
    3.4 out of 5 stars See all reviews (17 customer reviews) | Like (78)
    List Price: $27.95
    Price: $16.77 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
    You Save: $11.18 (40%)

    In Stock.
    Ships from and sold by Gift-wrap available.
    Want it delivered Tuesday, May 8?
    Order it in the next 49 hours and 19 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.
    32 new from $15.65 7 used from $17.44 1 collectible from $29.95
    Amazon Price New from Used from
    Hardcover $16.77 $15.65 $17.44
    Expand MP3 CD, Audiobook, Unabridged $29.95 $29.95 —

    Book Description
    Publication Date: May 1, 2012
    The bestselling author of Liberal Fascism dismantles the progressive myths that are passed-off as wisdom in our schools, media and politics.

    According to Jonah Goldberg, if the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist, the greatest trick liberals ever pulled was convincing themselves that they’re not ideological.

    Today, “objective” journalists, academics and “moderate” politicians peddle some of the most radical arguments by hiding them in homespun aphorisms. Barack Obama casts himself as a disciple of reason and sticks to one refrain above all others: he’s a pragmatist, opposed to the ideology and dogma of the right, solely concerned with “what works.” And today’s liberals follow his lead, spouting countless clichés such as:

    – One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter: Sure, if the other man is an idiot. Was Martin Luther King Jr. a terrorist? Was Bin Laden a freedom fighter?
    – Violence never solves anything: Really? It solved our problems with the British empire and ended slavery.
    – Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer: So you won’t mind if those ten guilty men move next door to you?
    – Diversity is strength: Cool.The NBA should have a quota for midgets and one-legged point guards!
    – We need complete separation of church and state: In other words all expressions of faith should be barred from politics …except when they support liberal programs.

    With humor and passion, Goldberg dismantles these and many other Trojan Horses that liberals use to cheat in the war of ideas. He shows that the grand Progressive tradition of denying an ideological agenda while pursuing it vigorously under the false-flag of reasonableness is alive and well. And he reveals how this dangerous game may lead us further down the path of self-destruction.

    • I love his writing. I always need my dictionary handy as he tends to use words that aren’t monosyllabic. Fortunately, you boys have whipped me into shape. Unfortunately, I still seem to have problems with this e-reader thingy….. Seems like I skip pages when I slide my thumb across it…. I swear, I must just have big thumbs. That’s my excuse and I’m stickin to it! (Sorta like not findin the box cutter so I could open the box of those work-out videos that I ordered….)

  4. Pingback: Democrats Will Use Claims Of Racism: The Center For Social Inclusion | The Rio Norte Line

  5. Pingback: Cultural Marxism: Race Weapon | Official Site of Henri Le Riche

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.