So-Called "Race Realism": A Reaction

Aaron Laramore, a moderate-conservative Republican blogger in Indianapolis, Ind., highlights a form of white supremacist thought that is old wine in a new bottle: "If you go to Wi[k]ipedia, it explains 'race realism' as the claim that races are real rather than social constructs, and that racial distinctions are enduringly important because racial groups differ by nature (genetically) with regard to such important behavioral tendencies as  intelligence and  impulsiveness. This claim holds that racial distinctions are real and measurable, and further claims those measurable differences are based in  science instead of  idealism. Examples of scientifically demonstrable racial distinctions are said to include different  decision and reaction times, intelligence, crime rates, and  medical characteristics, such as differing tendencies toward diseases such as osteoporosis or sickle cell anemia. Critics often claim that racial realism is a euphemism for scientific racism. I would agree.

He continues: "Dennis Mangan is the author of the blog Mangan's Adventures in Reaction and describes his views on race in various ways, one of those self descriptors being that of a 'race realist'. His way of explaining this viewpoint in an April 2009 post responding to James Collier of the blog Acting White: 'it merely means the recognition of persistent racial differences in biology and behavior.' He further self describes himself  as 'nothing other than a patriotic American, white and race-conscious to be sure, who wants to stop the rising tide of immigration and the declining proportion of whites in the country.' One of the commenters to this April 2009 post, Latte Island, in their comment, said the following 'I think the harsh tone of many race-realists, and I plead guilty here, is pushing back against the threat of losing our right to do our culture with people we choose freely"

More commentary from Mr. Laramore about so-called "race realism": "From my viewpoint, I experience a choking level of incredulity in reading a statement like the above. Does such a statement stem simply from prohibitions against discrimination in some private settings and things of that order? Its never seemed to me that whites have difficulty doing their own thing amongst themselves. Isn't this what the defacto segregation of large swaths of America's neighborhoods and certainly her houses of worship is all about? More broadly, this seems to me merely intellectual rationalization for why people don't want to live around people of other races, unless you are in a position of numerical, financial, political, military or other superiority. That would be okay, then you could deal with it, otherwise, separation is desired. Mangan's commentors wonder aloud as to why someone who is not white would regard this 'race realism' as sinister or threatening? That someone like me would not immediately conclude that this way of thinking applied to the world I live in, is antithetical to the interests of those I care about? That a world crafted to fit these ideas is not a world that would welcome my children?"

Mr. Laramore continues his commentary: "Often this conversation Mangan's readers are having with each other strikes me as merely studied and practiced exercises in convincing themselves that their race based antipathy does not spring from the same source as the 'white nationalists, Nazis, skinhead' types which they disavow. I think it['s] instructive, enlightening and should at least give them pause that this conversation, these ideas routinely attract this unsavory racist element. Why does that not give them some indication that perhaps there is something aberrant, perhaps even abhorrent, about these ideas and the conclusions they lead to?"

Booker Rising response: That such individuals would call themselves "patriotic" is ridiculous. Blacks have made many contributions to America, even when we had zero rights. Race is primarily a social construct. Just look at American history, when the Irish, Italians, Jews, etc. weren't considered white. A person who is considered one race in Country A is considered another race in Country B. I wonder if the "race realists" white supremacists discuss the differences within what they regard as the white race? Because the inevitable next step would be to rank the white sub-groups on "desirability". Despite the victimologist rhetoric, nobody is stopping white Americans from reproducing. They choose to do so.

"Race realism" It is simply another collectivist ideology equal to communism, seeking to undermine America's individual rights ethic. That "race realists white supremacists valorize semi-literate Billy Bob living in Appalachia over degreed Jamal living in New York City - and thus imply or outwardly state that Jamal should have fewer opportunities even though he has accomplished more in his life, simply because he is black - is quite telling. Not to mention that whites are not even indigenous to America. Had whites kept to themselves in Europe instead of gallivanting around the globe intruding on other folks then the "race realists white supremacists would have nothing to bemoan in the first place. Such are the consequences of colonialism and imperialism. This fascist ideology - which was seen in all of its "glory" during Nazi rule in Germany - should be condemned as the unpatriotic, victimologist ideology that it is.