It seems that almost since the dawn of modern American liberalism, accusations of conservative racism have been flying, and conservatives have been ineffectively wasting their time trying to fight them. But regardless of how vigorously the movement tries to defend itself, it’s not ever going to clear its name. From a leftist point of view, any conservative movement is “racist” in deeply rooted principle. Even the TEA Party, a strictly constitutional and financial movement which has nothing to do with racial issues, finds itself under attack for many of the same issues that any other conservative movement embraces, since its ranks are publicly known to consist of those [1] who consider themselves “very conservative.”

So let us approach the situation soberly: a truly conservative movement for constitutional government is a movement against government intrusion into the private liberties of all Americans. Any such movement would seek to end governmentally-enforced racial quotas and the lawsuits which impoverish our businesses [2] unfairly. It would be against racially-based lending laws that [3] force banks to lend to people who may not pay them back, laws which resulted in the explosion and eventual implosion of our subprime mortgage industry. It would rightfully oppose stimulus packages and welfare which disproportionately “benefit” minority groups, liberal programs which actually [4] impoverish and destroy neighborhoods. It would seek to [5] end overreaching programs which tell home owners to whom they can and can’t sell their homes, and with whom a home owner can conduct his rental affairs, even if the buyer/renter appears dangerous for the neighborhood.

At its core, conservatism says corporate America doesn’t need to be restructured racially, and prefers democratic ownership of corporations instead of what some “Republican” [6] leaders say: that affirmative action hasn’t yet seen its full necessary potential in the corporate realm. Conservatism vehemently opposes the government’s role in attempting total racial economic equality despite personal behaviors (the only possible goal of affirmative action programs), placing itself against a Leftist principle which is so backward in nature, so deeply against the grain of free-market principles, democracy, and justice, that its existence demands an emotional facade only racial factors can provide. Some would call that principle anti-racism. I call it racially-oriented communism.

If we are at all sensible, we would stop defending ourselves from accusations of racism and go on the offensive: the anti-racist movement, while falsely claiming to espouse principles of liberty and fairness, has done little more than dismantle our economy, our sense of justice, and by impoverishing those it claims to help, dismantling our very neighborhoods. Our country was founded upon the idea that people were to be free, and that those who strictly adhered to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God would take us into a brighter, safer, more prosperous future (which they historically have). But the movement for racial economic equality has stripped us of our very purpose, turning us instead into a welfare state, predicated upon the forced advancement of skin colors instead of allowing those who have talent and work with dignity to succeed. This is what we fight, and why we will never be able to shake the accusations of racism, even if every single conservative were physically incapable of distinguishing between colors.

Every step of the way, the Left has used racial arguments to advance us into an Orwellian nightmare, so expect every step out of it to be tainted with accusations of racism.  So don’t try to waste time defending yourself against accusations.  Instead, we must tout our support of a free economy, democracy, property rights, liberty, and — yes — the economic survival and promotion of contributors.  And instead of repeatedly explaining that we’re not racists (the only way you can prove so, by the way, is by diverting your monetary resources, property, and votes toward those not of your race), go on the offensive: degrade Leftists for their hatred of success, capitalism/economic fairness, and democracy.  But if you’d really like to play by their rules, forcing them to reap what they’ve sown, ensure that they’re held under the same standard of colorblindness they require of us.

Of course, we all know this so-called “anti-racism” movement doesn’t just exist for the purpose of empowering certain minorities, but also for the purpose of disempowering majorities (see: definition of “[7] left wing“). Having a racial quota for a student, an employee, or a tenant doesn’t just mean that someone is let in. It means that another person–an equal, valuable person–is kept out. Getting someone into a leadership position because of their race doesn’t just mean that someone was promoted, it means that someone else was not promoted because of their own racial or cultural belonging. 

As such, the only way that this anti-racist movement can function is by first acknowledging that a person is disadvantaged and needs help, after which it seeks to disadvantage another person.   But if this liberal struggle is truly against economic disempowerment of people, these Leftist programs do not truly have any solutions, since someone still suffers economically.  That is, it doesn’t have any solutions unless they find the benefit of one race more advantageous than another race’s, which they must in order for these programs to exist.  To the Left, these acts are known as philanthropy.  To dictionaries, the acts are known as “[8] racist.”

Also interesting to note, liberalism and its ensuing “anti-racist” programs are unsettlingly similar to corruption.  Corruption is [9] defined as:

“Giving or obtaining through means which are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’s duty or the rights of others. Corruption often results from patronage.“ 

And “patronage”? It’s [10] defined as:

“Power to confer favors, give support and protection, or to appoint to office or position.  Providers of patronage (patrons) and receivers (clients) form a network through which access to various resources is obtained.  It originates from unequal distribution of power, and since ancient times, is closely linked with corruption.”

So if we are at all to take the concept of corruption seriously, then this form of racially-based wealth redistribution fits it perfectly.   After all, who can imagine a more corrupt system than one which snatches rightful ownership from others under threat of force, solely to reward preferred groups?

So let’s abandon the ninny-like defensive posture: we’re not only fighting a more deeply-rooted governmental racism, but also both the very definition of corruption and the economic principles of communism.   Some would call that fight racism.  I call it American conservatism.

For further reading: 

[11] What the Bible says about true justice

[12] Race-based lawsuits: America’s ghetto lottery

[13] A plan to reverse social decay, ironically through discrimination and failure