Trendy ‘anti-racists’ don’t realize they’ve been conned by Marxists

By David McElroy · May 11, 2021

In the world of the so-called “anti-racist,” there’s no tolerance for anyone who believes in individual freedom. You must accept his Marxist definitions and political positions. Otherwise, you are a racist.

We have seen a bizarre distortion of reality and truth lately. Far-left ideologues have captured the public imagination and have claimed the moral high ground. They have redefined words in ways that mean you are a hateful racist unless you accept their views.

And the political and social success of these radicals has overwhelmed the reasoning of otherwise-intelligent people — to the point that far-left political ideology is sneaking its way into the mainstream. This leaves many educated middle-class white people accepting collectivist ideas and rejecting individual freedom.

Some of us have shown for years that the existing coercive structures of society were inherently oppressive to the individual. We’ve also repeatedly shown that this coercion — exercised by armed agents of governments — has been most harmful to those in society who are the most marginalized.

But now these modern Marxists have suckered a lot of people into believing that these very agents of oppression — the politicians and their coercive allies — are the ones who should be given even more power over every individual.

This is madness — and many decent people have fallen for this con game without realizing they are leading us straight into a form of evil which is worse than you can now imagine.

Genuine racism has always been evil. The real solution to racism has always been found in learning to treat every single person as an individual, regardless of his or her skin color or religion or other group identity. But the Marxists of the modern left teach group identity. To them, there are only oppressor groups and oppressed groups.

And if you happen to have been born with pale skin, you are an oppressor, no matter what you’ve done. If you happen to have darker skin, you are oppressed, not matter what you have done.

There was a time when we realized that it’s racism to treat people differently according to the color of their skin. The Marxists of the new “anti-racist” movement have redefined the term now. They say that only someone from an “oppressor group” — a white person — can be a racist. This new way of defining the word is both dishonest and evil.

I’ve spent time with genuine racists, so I know there are plenty of them. I’ve been around what I call “hard racists” among whites — those who openly hate blacks or Hispanics or pretty much anybody who doesn’t look like them. I’ve also been around what I call “soft racists,” those who don’t openly hate anybody, but who assume that almost all black folks are evil or stupid or untrustworthy.

But some of the most racist people I’ve ever spent time around were certain black politicians and their supporters when I worked in politics. At one point in my political career, I was consulting for all three of the white members of the Birmingham City Council. The mayor and the other six council members were black, and they held all of the power.

Birmingham City Hall was a hateful and racist cess pool — and I was on the receiving end of the hate and the racism when I walked the halls there doing my job. In this respect, it was very little different than the days when a mostly white city council had been filled with racists who hated the black minority.

In the far-left conception of “anti-racism,” we are expected to embrace a new form of racism — as whites slowly become a minority in this country — and we are expected to support Marxist ideas of group identity.

We are expected to give up merit-based systems and accept quotas of all types. We are expected to give up the last remnants of the free market system which created wealth and prosperity at a scale never seen before in history.

All of this is evil, but the trendy “anti-racists” are accepting these ideas without question, failing to understand that the way to fight oppression is to take power away from those who would use force to compel others to obey them.

I am an individual. I am not a token to represent whatever group you choose to fit me into. I will treat you — and every other person — as an individual who deserves to be treated according to his or her own actions and ideas.

I’m not going to treat you according to the color of your skin. I’m not going to accept the idea that I deserve to be treated in certain ways according to the color of my skin.

The Marxists are winning today. Their evil ideas are spreading. I believe their miserable policies will become widespread in the coming years — and I believe what they’re doing is going to bring about unspeakable misery and pain.

I won’t be a part of what they’re doing. If you have the intelligence and decency and morality to recognize that all humans are naturally free and equal individuals — who deserve to be treated according to “the content of their character” — you will reject this monstrous deception, too.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts