Libertarian “right opportunism”: attempting to persuade the looters to loot a little less.

The leftist definition of racism is fluid, but generally comes down to 3 individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. Smith is racist toward race X if and only if:

1) Smith hates X;
2) Smith has the power to harm X; and
3) Smith is objectively superior to X in personal qualities.

This explains why leftists don’t think that South African blacks — who comprise the great majority, who hate the minority of whites, and who seek to plunder and murder whites — are racist.

This is because though conditions (1) and (2) are fulfilled, condition (3) is not. No sane black person considers himself superior to whites.

Therefore, the blacks’ political crimes in South Africa are motivated by pathetic resentment, wretched envy of their betters, but not racism.

On the other hand, for whites, (2) and (3) are fulfilled, but not (1). Whites may despise blacks, but contempt is an intellectual judgment, and thus distinct from hatred which is an emotion.

And almost no white person, even if he looks down on blacks, cares enough about them to hate them.

Hence racism pretty much does not exist in the world.

If war were a racket, it would be an improvement.

One can understand, sort of, when a person steals something. It’s evil on a personal scale, a sin, and “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) One can deal with it.

One can even understand, though less clearly, when a band of 40 thieves plunders a small village.

Even mercenaries are in it for the money. It’s distasteful, but no one is deceived about their “serving the country” or “securing our freedoms,” least of all they.

World War I, say, was not any of that. Neither was the nuclear bombing of Japan. They were destruction on the global scale for its own sake.

Here’s another pathetic “conservative” opinion by William Voegeli extolling “civil rights” legislation which has now allegedly been corrupted by the extreme left:

Thanks to the political and moral victories of the civil rights movement, America was on the right road, the one that led to “colorblind individualism”…

The daunting but noble goal was to make America more equal without making it less free and democratic.

But there is no such thing as colorblind individualism, because an individual’s race influences his personality, self, and traits of character. Ignoring one’s inherited qualities diminishes other people’s appreciation of his individuality. It’s also extremely stupid, since color-seeing can be used with considerable success to predict behavior.

In addition, civil rights legislation did make America less free by forcing inclusion and abridging business property rights. And there are plenty of “unintended” consequences of this evil policy that defeat the allegedly “noble goal” even on its own terms.

It was in keeping with this principle of one standard for all Americans that the 1964 Civil Rights Act repeatedly stipulates that —

its prohibitions of discrimination on account of race, color, national origin, etc., apply to all persons or any individual.

A one-size-fits-all “standard” enforced by “prohibitions” is utterly un-American. I mean, Universal Serial Bus is a standard; non-discriminationism is coercive idiocy. That’s why libertarians and paleos are right that there are no conservatives anymore, only more and less extreme leftists. Indeed just like Voegeli.

Politics is not “about who gets what.” If it were, then it would be impossible to distinguish it from economics.

Rather, politics is about who gets what unjustly, who steals from whom, who gets protected from whose competition.

That’s precisely why libertarians contrast just economic means to wealth with criminal and unjust political means.

Sarah Jeong of the New York Times wrote the following:

The world could get by just fine with zero white people.

It’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.

Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.

Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling bilious goblins?

Walter Williams argues that if “white” in these statements were replaced by “black,” then Jeong’s life would be quickly ruined. There is a double standard that posits that hatred of whites is Ok but is not tolerated of blacks.

This is true, but Williams’ “conservative” conclusion is typically inane. He apparently would like it if Jeong were fired or shamed for her “racist” remarks. Repression, according to him, should be “equal.”

I disagree. People should be able to express their contempt for any race whatsoever freely and without consequences (unless they are objectively mistaken).

It’s perfectly fine with me if Jeong were to continue her trash talking even from her lofty perch at the NYT, but those who would opine instead that “the world could get by just fine with zero black people” should be free from censorship, as well.

And to answer Jeong’s question, yes, white people are indeed genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun; that’s one way in which they are different from blacks. But the conclusion that whites need to live underground does not follow.