“being anti-racist is morally on a par with being pro-racist”
Strictly speaking, there are almost only genetically unique individuals, although extremely rare cases of identical genes can occur. It was Charles Darwin (1809-1882) who showed the myth of species in the sense of a fixed essence. However, as Darwin realised, there are still different species and subspecies in the broad sufficiently-similar sense that they are objectively identifiable physically; including now by genetics. And humans are not beyond such categorisations. From a libertarian or classical liberal viewpoint, of course, whatever their race or subspecies all human persons have the same right to liberty.
Racial differences
Questions often arise as to the existence and causes of various differences among the races. Such is the pervasive woke bias and even bigotry, which now even corrupts the state (government) police, that it is not always safe to discuss these differences in a public forum except to deny their existence or to insist that they must be socially caused or are trivial. It has even been presented as “the science” to deny the reality of different races except as “social constructs”; often pointing to the gradations of differences among them and within them that leave no clear boundaries. This appears to be motivated reasoning caused by the absurd and hysterical idea that even to acknowledge the reality of races is to be on a slippery slope to all kinds of immoral racism. However, the existence of greys can hardly refute the reality of some clear cases of black and white. All dogs are the same species, but it would be equally absurd to deny that a poodle is a different breed from a bulldog just because there are also various mixtures of the two breeds and variations within them. That there are important racial differences as regards biological and medical conditions and their treatments, also make it important not to conflate the races.
Racialism versus racism
There are various interpretations of both “racialism” and “racism”; sometimes distinguishing them and sometimes not. It would not be particularly useful to try to list them all and discuss them separately. All versions can be cut through by observing that insofar as any particular conception involves actual initiated impositions on persons or their libertarian property (such as by state-imposed racial segregation), then it ought to be seen as a licence. But insofar as no one suffers an initiated imposition by some alleged “racialism” or “racism” (as no one does by such things as free speech or private discrimination), then they should be tolerated as civil liberties. In short, libertarianism is indifferent to all aspects of race but condemns all aggression.
That said, a very useful distinction is sometimes made between “racialism” as being theories (including factual assertions) about racial differences and “racism” as being practices (whether actual or advocated) based on race; although it has become common to conflate these and condemn them equally. By this distinction, a racialist theory is one that asserts there to be differences (whether biological or any other kind) among different races, although possibly statistical rather than absolute. No kind of racist practice need be entailed by such theories. Or one could even use these theories to defend what are anti-racist policies, or racist but woke policies, e.g., privileging some “naturally disadvantaged” race (rather as some modern feminists use psychosexual theories to help to explain how women are “exploited”). Neither need racism be based on any racialist theory, beyond the mere idea that there are different races: it can simply be a preference. So, it is confused to conflate racialist theory and racist practice.
Political racism, private racism, and racial persecution
It is even more confused to conflate, 1) political racism, which is inherently illiberal, 2) private racism, which is inherently liberal, and 3) racial persecution, which is inherently illiberal and qualitatively different from both.
1) Political racism is when state legislation or activity aggressively imposes discrimination in some way on racial lines. This is as illiberal as political anti-racism: when states coercively prevent people from discriminating on racial lines. Logically, the state need not privilege or disadvantage any race by political racism; but in practice that is usually the motive. And thanks to woke fascist ideology, that is now often anti-white racism.
2) Private racism is peacefully discriminating on racial lines with one’s own person or property, whether in personal life, business, etc. This is as entirely liberal as private non-racism or anti-racism. Private racism is probably inevitable to some degree because many, even most, people will have some preferences as regards the races—not necessarily their own or the same in each case—with whom they work, live, socialise, have sexual relations, or procreate; but wokeness often makes it too “offensive” or even illegal to admit this. Private racism—whether pro or anti one’s own race—can be based on, for instance, aesthetic, moral, or prudential views. Some racial preferences have roots in the genetic survival value of favouring people who look similar to ourselves. At the same time, however, there is also the statistical factor that women tend to favour men who are darker-skinned and more-masculine than themselves while men tend to favour women who are paler-skinned and more-feminine; which at the extremes leads to interracial offspring (although human diversity allows for all sorts of other preferences).
Contra woke dogma, racial preferences are no more “irrational” (referring to inefficient reasoning, perhaps), or immoral, or prejudiced than any other preferences, such as for wine over beer. For instance, it is not inefficient to be wary of a group that is statistically far more prone to violent crime. And racial preferences are no more immoral in practice than any other liberal choice. To make a liberal choice against people on racial, or any other basis, is not to wrong them as they are thereby only not being positively benefitted. But it does wrong the would-be chooser to use aggressive coercion to prevent that innocent choice. While prejudices are unavoidable and often useful, although sometimes not beyond sound criticism. Liberty as regards racial preferences, as with everything else, should always be tolerated.
3) Racial persecution, initiating impositions on the persons or property of people for racial reasons, is not a mere continuation of personal or even political racism. Racial persecution is different because it is only here that it becomes illiberal in the personal case and far more illiberal than both racism and anti-racism in the political case. But what is wrong with racial persecution is not the fact that it is racial, it is the fact that it is persecution: persecution for any other reason would be equally bad.
Autonomy and tolerance versus “anti-racism”
University systems everywhere tend to be monopolised, funded, and regulated by states to a significant degree. The lack of free competition combined with tenure and so-called “academic freedom” appears to have allowed them to become increasingly biased towards a fashionable and self-indulgent woke outlook on all these matters. This bias then spills over into common-sense opinions and the “curated content”—often woke censorship and propaganda—of internet and AI searches. (An attempt at one’s own intellectual autonomy is the only, fallible, remedy.)
Consequently, self-described “anti-racists” often use “racist” and “racism” as pejoratives for what are really only normal and innocent racial preferences (such as ethnocentrism, ignoring its biased woke definition), or potentially informative and useful racial theories, or even merely suggesting that mass immigration might not be an unalloyed boon. And these pejorative usages are often applied, in a hypocritically racist way, only to white people’s preferences, racial theories, and immigration concerns. But understood more clearly, being anti-racist is morally on a par with being pro-racist: both groups are entitled to express their opinions, within private property limitations, and to avoid associating with any relevant people; but they have no right to persecute. It is only in their political and persecution senses that “racism” is the enemy of liberal civilisation.
Although as a Traditional Catholic with some theology study I cannot support Libertinism with solid justification, but the overlap in good Catholic argument with most of you article - is throughout. Nearly every point and all main points addressed in this article is supportable.
Thank you for addressing the significant violence risk that 2% group have, and wonder if you think those that suppress or lie to our children should be punish publicly for all those people that otherwise would have not put themself at risk in ignorance, that were harmed and killed as a result, or anyone that supports or advocated lies and censoring of information that people need to act prudently for their and others safety? Is something like publicly kicking all their teeth-out enough, or should all adults in their family and others that raised such Poisonous people we must suffer and die from be included?
Does your Libertarianism require the State not do it, that only virtuous men with intent of protection of others do the kicking?
That I have personally suffered needlessly and been crippled by lies that people who profess to love me and those obligated in duty to not lie, to educate and prepare me for adulthood and success, that betrayal of me and nearly every child today in this Hell seems to give justification that it likely right and just they gone if unwilling to stop, that if God killing every one of them, of all in power over us & others that feels that warping and mind-raping us is fine, as fine as they feel in torturing to death our children, that perhaps open public discussion would be a good way to warn, correct and educate the murderous predators, and expose to more the situation?
As far as the racism issues - after my entire life of active attacks and slimy back-stabbing punishment and life crippling abuses [with intent to drive me to suicide or murderous violence - as they succeed to often in targeting men that shoot and kill in schools and workplaces] by women and those they manipulated to action, because .. because of my race and sex, because I am a white man, ..
.. is it reasonable to wonder since this is now so widespread throughout the West, what do you and other think is enough death for justice?
Would 3+ billions dead worldwide from nuke war or other cause be enough? And since that is a reasonable estimate of the number of our babies tortured to death at the whim of their mothers or forced by State [China] in my lifetime, that much Death seem Right?
As this Substack is critical rationalist, it usually avoids all mention of “support”, “solid justification”, and “supportable”. For an explanation, see here: https://jclester.substack.com/p/critical-rationalism.
While the state exists and aggressively dominates the justice system, it is probably better that it attempts to approximate to libertarian restitution than that it does anything else. Using free speech to encourage this option is desirable.
Typo? “Some racial preferences have routes [roots?] in the genetic survival value of favouring people who look similar to ourselves.”
I read this as, racialism involves descriptive factual claims and theories, while racism involves normative claims and theories. I suppose this distinction would be useful, if the entire topic of race did not inspire panic.
JC, thank you for this article.
Although as a Traditional Catholic with some theology study I cannot support Libertinism with solid justification, but the overlap in good Catholic argument with most of you article - is throughout. Nearly every point and all main points addressed in this article is supportable.
Thank you for addressing the significant violence risk that 2% group have, and wonder if you think those that suppress or lie to our children should be punish publicly for all those people that otherwise would have not put themself at risk in ignorance, that were harmed and killed as a result, or anyone that supports or advocated lies and censoring of information that people need to act prudently for their and others safety? Is something like publicly kicking all their teeth-out enough, or should all adults in their family and others that raised such Poisonous people we must suffer and die from be included?
Does your Libertarianism require the State not do it, that only virtuous men with intent of protection of others do the kicking?
That I have personally suffered needlessly and been crippled by lies that people who profess to love me and those obligated in duty to not lie, to educate and prepare me for adulthood and success, that betrayal of me and nearly every child today in this Hell seems to give justification that it likely right and just they gone if unwilling to stop, that if God killing every one of them, of all in power over us & others that feels that warping and mind-raping us is fine, as fine as they feel in torturing to death our children, that perhaps open public discussion would be a good way to warn, correct and educate the murderous predators, and expose to more the situation?
As far as the racism issues - after my entire life of active attacks and slimy back-stabbing punishment and life crippling abuses [with intent to drive me to suicide or murderous violence - as they succeed to often in targeting men that shoot and kill in schools and workplaces] by women and those they manipulated to action, because .. because of my race and sex, because I am a white man, ..
.. is it reasonable to wonder since this is now so widespread throughout the West, what do you and other think is enough death for justice?
Would 3+ billions dead worldwide from nuke war or other cause be enough? And since that is a reasonable estimate of the number of our babies tortured to death at the whim of their mothers or forced by State [China] in my lifetime, that much Death seem Right?
God Bless., Steve
As this Substack is critical rationalist, it usually avoids all mention of “support”, “solid justification”, and “supportable”. For an explanation, see here: https://jclester.substack.com/p/critical-rationalism.
As regards what should be done to people who aggressively censor (https://jclester.substack.com/p/censorship-and-libertarianism) or dishonestly propagandise about anything, here is a theory of libertarian restitution that includes a retribution option: https://jclester.substack.com/p/libertarian-restitution-just-humane. However, this would only be applicable to people who had clearly gone beyond the bounds of free speech: https://jclester.substack.com/p/free-speech-what-it-is-how-it-is. And such matters would probably need to be dealt with via close examination of any specific cases in libertarian courts. It is not possible to go beyond the general philosophical arguments here.
While the state exists and aggressively dominates the justice system, it is probably better that it attempts to approximate to libertarian restitution than that it does anything else. Using free speech to encourage this option is desirable.
Thank you for the links, JC.
God Bless., Steve
Typo? “Some racial preferences have routes [roots?] in the genetic survival value of favouring people who look similar to ourselves.”
I read this as, racialism involves descriptive factual claims and theories, while racism involves normative claims and theories. I suppose this distinction would be useful, if the entire topic of race did not inspire panic.
Yes, a typo. Thanks for spotting that.
>I read this as, racialism involves descriptive factual claims and theories,
It now reads, “theories (including factual assertions) about racial differences”
>while racism involves normative claims and theories.
No: “practices (whether actual or advocated) based on race”
>I suppose this distinction would be useful, if the entire topic of race did not inspire panic.
Unless the wokels develop the power to cancel “racist” substacks, then at least their contributors need not panic.
It’s hard to imagine greater cogency.
Perhaps, but with more criticism and thought I shall try.