Saturday, July 17, 2010

The NAACP, Wrong From the Start

Andrew Breitbart is a very clever fellow. He's lined up a dozen credentialed commentators of African descent to condemn the NAACP's recent labeling of the Tea Party movement as racist. [Big Government, July 15.] Many of the articles, like Deroy Murdock's, are outstanding. Still, most of the writers make the same mistake. They fall all over themselves to assert something along the lines of "while the NAACP once did great work..."

Nothing could be further from the truth. The NAACP has always been a bunch of collectivists and statists. It's true that some members of the NAACP fought real evils, sometimes risking life and limb. But the name alone is enough to demonstrate that the organization has been collectivist of the racial variety from its beginning.

The organization was founded in 1909 by, among others, W.E.B Du Bois. The communist Du Bois opposed Booker Washington's efforts at social integration of the races. (He also wrote: "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature.") The group soon attracted notable Progressives like Jane Addams and John Dewey.

They might have started an organization to stand up for individual rights for everyone and, if desired, simply focus for a time on Jim Crow laws in the South and the like. They chose otherwise because the leaders of the NAACP were just as collectivistic as their enemies (not surprisingly given the presence of individuals like Dewey). It has always engaged in identity politics.

(In theory, the organization is for all 'colored' people, but has always focused chiefly on blacks. They initially called themselves the National Negro Committee.)

Today, descendants of Africans — many of whose ancestors never saw a moment's slavery or even American prejudice — frequently get preference in hiring and college admission. They often get away with the most outrageous statements simply in virtue of their skin color, words that would see any descendant of a Northern European lose his job in a heartbeat.

It's long been widely recognized — and just as widely ignored — that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and a host of other American descendants of Africans have played the race card to fame and riches. It's ignored because three generations of Progressives cleared the way for them to say anything they like without consequences. Such is the inevitable consequence of treating individuals as morally significant solely in virtue of membership in a group, i.e. of collectivism. It is Hegel's legacy.

Well, with the latest NAACP announcement, the hustlers have finally crossed the line and are seeing a backlash. They know there's not a shred of evidence that the Tea Party movement has any appreciable number of, and certainly no sympathy whatever for, racists. If they did, it would be all over the New York Times, CBS, and every other major outlet.

In fact, the evidence in the other direction is stark and overwhelming, and not just in the Tea Parties. Today, almost no one is denied a job, a home, an education, or even friendship on the basis of race. Sure, racists still exist. There will always be a few troglodytes around, even in the best of countries. But there simply is no large-scale, institutionalized racism in America any more, except against the descendants of Europeans (and even that is usually minor).

So, unlike some, I'm pretty happy that the NAACP finally outed itself in an unmistakable way. It's belatedly getting the tongue lashing it has long deserved. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of racists.

[P.S. Given everything I've written over the years, the following should go without saying. But, being a realist, I know I have to add this clarification.

No racist son of a bitch should now feel free to jump into the comment section and start banging on 'darkies'... or yellowies or brownies or Jews (or Irishmen, Poles, or Italians to cite three more groups who endured a great deal of prejudice in the early 20th century, never reported today).

I am not your ally. I am not your friend. You are just as collectivist as the NAACP and you should go to hell just as fast as they. I hold with a statement imputed to Andrew Klavan: the good thing about racism is it lets you know clearly who the scumbags are.]


mike said...

its very sad that individuals are referred to as peoples

madmax said...

Sure, racists still exist. There will always be a few troglodytes around, even in the best of countries. But there simply is no large-scale, institutionalized racism in America any more, except against the descendants of Europeans (and even that is usually minor).

Two things about this. I think you are right that the biggest case of racism is anti-White racism. The entire Leftist media is demonizing the Tea Party as racists. Why? Because to a Leftist, rejecting welfare state politics is de facto racism. That's how far gone they are.

Point two: I think you are wrong about racism being on the decline though. Anti-White racism is rising due largely to agitation from the Left. But the racialist Right wing movement are growing IMO. I don't know how big they will get but I get a sense that this BioConservative (or Human-Bio-Diversity) movement might gain a following. Its rotten through and through but it claims to have evolutionary science on its side. I think it is the scariest movement out there. Even scarier than Progressivism.

Jeff Perren said...


True. Welcome to Shaving Leviathan, and thanks for your comment.

Jeff Perren said...


As always, thanks for your valuable comment, but I can't entirely agree with you.

I made no statement about the trend and I honestly don't know whether racism is growing. It may be, but it's still true - at present - that there is no "large-scale, institutionalized racism," which was my claim.

Further, I'm always open to new evidence - and I know you've studied this a bit and so are more knowledgeable - but I'd be very surprised if those white power groups got much traction now or for some time to come.

There is some backlash, as there has been in Europe and for the same reasons. The resentment Caucasian firemen, college students, and others might feel on seeing a job or admission go to a less qualified person with African or Hispanic ancestors could certainly fuel a certain amount of that. But I can't see the American public going for it whole hog; if anything, they are so PC they would overreact against it, even if in their private moments they sympathized.

As to it being more scary than Progressivism... In my view, nothing - short of explicit Fascism, and perhaps not even that - is as scary as Progressivism. It's true that Progressivism is much milder, but outright Communism or Fascism are so starkly opposite America's traditional values and philosophy they've always had a hard time attracting adherents.

But Progressivism is Fascism with a smiley face and therefore much more insidious in many ways than the more obvious - and ultimately, more lethal - cousin. So, over time, it continues to grow by the convenient ruse of its adherents pretending to merely be extending those values.

Sooner or later, Progressivism simply becomes Fascism.

UNRR said...

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 7/18/2010, at The Unreligious Right

madmax said...

Good points Jeff, thanks for the response. I hope you are right.

madmax said...


One more thing, let me expose you to a typical BioCon political commentary:

Notice the misdiagnosis and the racialist proposed solution. This type of stuff is very common on the Internet Right. Its my fear that this might spread in reaction to Progressivism. Take note of the argument (not stated explicitly but definitely implied) that Classical Liberalism failed. This is something many Conservatives believe. They associate Classical Liberalism with Progressive Leftism and think the two are conceptually linked.

As I say I hope you are right but I wonder.

Jeff Perren said...

Maybe I just don't know the lingo, but I really didn't find anything racial or white-power oriented about that post.

Of course, the post is so muddle-headed I might just have missed it. "Homogeneous population" was about as close as it got, so far as I could tell. Was it the stuff about genetics research into intelligence, etc? I grant you that stuff would be worrying, if it weren't so silly.

The concept of "democracy" has many critics, not least Ayn Rand, so I can't fault him on that score either.

He talks about revolution, but explicitly says it's to be a revolution of ideas, not guns. Is this just BioCon taqiyya?

That guy and the post to which he links remind me mostly of Tom Knapp and friends, i.e. libertarian anarchists.

I'll keep my ears tuned, but so far I don't see a lot to worry about. With intellectual leaders like Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn, and the like, I think the conservative movement isn't likely to succumb to fascism anytime soon.

By the way, just what is it about these writers that causes you to label them as on "the right"?