Tuesday, 4 October 2016

How social-justice warriors are re-defining racism–& Hobson Pledgers can’t keep up


You will have noticed that what used to be defined as racism has changed. It has changed because the old way of defining it was not proving politically useful. Racism, observes Robert Bidinotto, used to be defined objectively … now however it is defined politically.

"RACISM" USED TO BE DEFINED OBJECTIVELY: the belief that the character, intellect, and worth of any given individual is determined, not by his individual choices and actions, but by his genetic and racial ancestry. Racism is thus a variant of collectivism: judging people not as individuals, but by their accidental "membership" in some racial/ethnic collective. The belief that some racial collectives are "superior" or "inferior" to others -- intellectually, morally, aesthetically, etc. -- is a disgusting corollary of this notion of biochemical and genetic determinism.

This is the standard espoused by Martin Luther King in his deservedly famous speech in which in dared to dream big:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Racism by this objective standard is a denial of free will, and an embrace of tribalism, determinism and collectivism. So that will never do; a new definition was needed by the social-justice warrior who embraces all three:

Their new definition changes "racism" from a belief system to a political system. Now, "racism is a system in which a dominant race benefits off the oppression of others — whether they want to or not." (See the linked article.) In other words, according to this hijacked definition, in America only white people (the "dominant race") are or can be "racists," even if they harbour no attitude of racial prejudice. By contrast, no black (or "minority") can possibly be a "racist," even if they do harbour racial prejudice.
    By this redefinition, "racism" is now a genetic-based moral crime attributable to whites only, as a collective. And because whites are *inherently* racists -- even if, individually, they choose NOT to be racially prejudiced -- "racism" has become akin to the doctrine of "original sin": All whites are born guilty of the sin of racism, because they are inherently "privileged" and thus are "oppressors" of minorities...not by what they choose to do, but simply by being white.

Note how neatly the re-definition effectively overturns the whole notion of racism:

  • So if you’re literally colourblind and want one law for all then you are a racist.
  • And if you base your whole world-view on arguing that some races need legal preference, then you are simply a good social-justice warrior who will view Don Brash’s views as “quaint,” and will be “virtue signalling” by calling Hobson Pledgers racist.
  • And when “the subverted definition of ‘racism" is even infecting the Google search engine,” this is why you know you can get away with it – even when your re-definition is the very essence of racism.

It’s astounding.

It’s such a through-going attack on the objective definition, observes Bidinotto, that even Martin Luther King’s statement itself is under attack by this new generation of ignorati.

What’s the antidote? Individualism, say Bidinotto:

[Individualism] holds that people must be judged, not as members of arbitrary classes and accidental collectives, but as INDIVIDUALS, solely on the basis of their freely chosen statements and actions. It does not attribute moral status to one's ancestry or genetics or physical traits, or to anything that is not voluntarily chosen by or under the control of the individual…
    Those who truly oppose racism must reject the racial/genetic determinism at its foundation. They must affirm the dream of Dr. King, and judge individuals by their personal character and deeds, and not by their biological ancestry or collective class "memberships." They must reject the notions of racial superiority or inferiority.
    They must embrace individualism, and reject collectivism in any form, including its lowest: racism.

They might begin by embracing the idea behind Hobson’s Pledge – embracing the individualism of One Law For All -- instead of rejecting it on the basis of collective outcomes, deterministic predictions of disaster, a phony fascination with “power structures: – and a barnyard view of human beings that is objectively racist.




  1. The Hobson's Pledge campaign carries the following story:

    At about the same time, GNS Science, a Crown research institute, went to considerable expense to bring a mini-submarine all the way from Germany to the shores of Lake Taupo to explore the floor of the lake for geothermal, and potentially volcanic, activity. At the last minute, the local iwi forbade GNS to explore the floor of the lake – this despite the fact that knowing more about volcanic activity under Lake Taupo is of fundamental importance not just to those who live on the shores of the lake but also to all those who live in New Zealand.

    Now, it happens that Tūwharetoa own the bed of Lake Taupō. If this story was about anyone else telling the Government they couldn't do something on their property, my guess is that someone like Don Brash would be supporting them.

    But Hobson's Pledge isn't supporting them in the exercise of their property rights. I realise you're not a member, but can you explain why this exercise of property rights against the Government is offensive, but other exercises of property rights are not? Because I am having some difficulty in drawing any distinction between this exercise of property rights and other exercises of property rights than the people who are exercising this property right are Māori, and that they are exercising their property rights for reasons that are important to them as Māori (as though you need a reason!), and that because of this, Hobson's Pledge seems less inclined to defend their property rights than they would other property rights.

    And if they can't explain it (themselves, or via your educated guess), I'm pretty happy calling them racist, because at present, I can see no other real distinction.

    1. It's pretty simple really, Graham.

      The Hobson's Pledge group folk are against Maori or anyone else having property rights in water or in lakebed.

      As for me, I'm in favour of recognising all property rights wherever they exist, whether in forehore, seabed, lakebed or estuary bed.

      And as for you, Graham, I'm guessing you're not in favour of recognising or proetecting property rights in anything, unless those rights are owned by folk who are brown.

      Happy to be proven wrong on the latter, but if not (and since you cast the first stone) who is really the racist here?

    2. I didn't cast it at you!


      ps I do support the existence of rights in property.

    3. Very pleased to hear both. ;^)

      Do you agree now that the distinction is clear enough, if flawed?

    4. To give Graeme the benefit of the doubt, there's no-one other than Maori claiming property rights to sea or lakebed. Therefore you could argue that they are opposed to this particular right because they are Maori. Knowing Dr Brash I think that's unlikely, but it's not completely implausible either.

  2. I can keep up with them all by myself. There is not one comment on the pledge site I have seen that is about equality and democracy.
    Most of the comments are struggling English and I suggest the Hobson's people could translate into the various other European languages which the commenters names suggest they may understand.

    I often have to start with these wretches that I am a known
    Racist, Sexist, bigot, and am stupid, old, white, young, uneducated, rural leaning, jewish, backward, christian, misogynist, chauvinist, bad, ugly, alt-white ,extremist ,idiotic, despicable not progressive.
    Its sad because that's really all they know of as response and I al-ready approve.

    Some of them like to dive off into the partnership and various latter day derivations and of the Treaty words
    They are not interested in equality or democracy.
    This blue rinse caretaker Government has a lot to answer for. A visit to Farrar now can make a grown man despair. There is a little piece of rainbow colour in their Government, a traitor to democracy and New Zealand.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.