racist: (adjective) characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized; (noun) a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. —Oxford University Press

The word “racist” is flung around a lot these days, to the point where it may seem to have little or no meaning. And the people flinging the word around seem to keep changing its meaning, so nobody knows what they’re really talking about. But I believe that the above definitions are pretty accurate, logical, and meaningful—in the traditional understanding of that word.

Here is the cyclic way that the word is typically used today: People on the Left accuse people on the Right of being racist. People on the Right deny being racist. People on the Right accuse the Left of being preoccupied with race, thus making them the real racists. People on the Left assert that they have to be preoccupied with race, because people on the Right are so racist. . . And the cycle goes ‘round again.

I would like to propose an end to that cycle by arguing that both the Left and the Right are making valid points—both sides are racist. They should admit this, and then they should try to advance the discussion to a more mature level. But to admit it, you first have to realize it. A real racist has to realize that he is really racist before the discussion can advance.

Racists on the Right

It should be obvious to all that the Left is indeed excessively preoccupied with race—seeing “systemic racism” everywhere; blaming white people for all the problems faced by blacks, Hispanics, and other “minorities” (who are rapidly becoming the majorities); and stoking further racial division and white resentment with their constant screeching about discrimination, reparations, affirmative action, diversity, equity, inclusion, etc etc.

I know that is all probably obvious to most of the readers of this website. So, I am not going to address that in this essay. Rather, I intend to focus on the accurate point that is repeatedly made by the Left and that is repeatedly denied by the Right—the first point that starts the cycle: People on the Right are racist.

That point is perfectly true, accurate, and valid, in many cases, in my opinion. Many readers of this website would probably fall into the “Right” or “alt-Right” category. And many readers of this site—or at least many of those who post comments—may deny that they are racists, or they may admit it but try to make excuses for it, or they make try to totally twist the situation through obfuscation and delusional declarations. Nevertheless, their own statements, as I argued in my previous essay, reveal the truth, I do believe. There are far too many comments left on this site, as well as some posted essays, that are anti-Semitic and racist. But the same is true for a number of other social platforms on the Right side of the Internet.

That is a very unfortunate characteristic of the Right that stains it like dog shit on a new carpet. It’s real hard to get that stain and smell out. And as long as that stain and smell are still there, ain’t nobody gonna want to come in your house, man!

I have complex political views, but I suppose, overall, I would be considered on the Right. However, when I use the term “globalist,” I do not mean “Jew.” Apparently, when lots of other people on the Right say “globalist,” they mean it as an anti-Semitic code word for “Jew.” That’s an especially sneaky, cowardly kind of racism.

Group vs. group

The source of the problem, I think, lies in the social nature of human beings. Most people have an inherent desire to belong, to fit in, to identify as being a member of some particular group. That’s natural and fine in and of itself. But a problem arises in that membership in the group automatically puts you at odds with other groups that differ from your group in basic ways, such as skin color, ethnic origin, country of birth, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other sociocultural characteristics. So, one group ends up hating another group. The members of group A hate, brush off, denigrate, blame, or otherwise dismiss all members of group B as unworthy, guilty, evil, bad, and/or undesirable. And, of course, the different groups make up nasty, insulting names for each other.

Groups are why the world has endless wars, terrorist attacks, rioting, killing, hatred, and misunderstanding. It is the fault of group identity and the resulting miscommunication among different groups, with each group talking in its own secret lingo and jargon.

Imagine individuals

Now, imagine if, rather than identify as members of groups, people simply identified themselves and other people as individual human beings. Rather than judge other people by the group to which they belong—based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, or something else—imagine if people simply formed their views of others based on the idea that all people are created equal and that each individual should be judged on the content of his or her character alone, not on some alleged group characteristic.

If people adopted this individualistic outlook, perhaps they could begin to communicate with each other more clearly and avoid the misunderstanding and miscommunication that lead to the racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and other group hatreds that constitute chronic societal illnesses in America (and much of the rest of the world).

Hate crimes

I’ve never liked the concept of “hate crimes,” because I believe that every crime of violence against anyone is a hate crime. Plus, the concept of hate crimes serves to further the ideas of group identity, which I obviously think are socially and individually destructive. On top of that, I generally do not trust federal government statistics on such things—or on most any other thing.

Nevertheless, the hate crime data that have been compiled and reported do offer at least imperfect glimpses into the kind of ugly racial shit that is going on in our country. The sources of the data are ultimately thousands of local law enforcement agencies, which are on the ground where the shit is actually happening, and they know what’s going on better than anybody. So, I believe that the data can be used to reveal some general trends and realities. And I’m guessing that many readers of this site are never exposed to such information, so I’m going to note a few reported trends here.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, hate crimes are “crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.” Such a crime is “often a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. It may also cover conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out.” There are an estimated 250,000 such crimes committed every year in the United States.

According to FBI data released this past March, hate crimes increased about 12 percent between 2020 and 2021. More than 63 percent of hate crimes in 2021 were motivated by bias based on race/ethnicity/ancestry, and about half of those crimes targeted black people. Crimes targeting people because of their sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity constituted about 20 percent of hate crimes. Crimes targeting people because of their religion made up about 15 percent of hate crimes. Of these religion-based hate crimes, Jews were the victims in more than half of the reported incidents.

The perpetrator of a crime that is based on race, ethnicity, or religion is not alone in his guilt. He was probably inspired or goaded to act by others. I do not believe in censorship of any kind. However, people who post certain kinds of comments and essays online should realize that they are serving as inspiration and fuel for the criminal perpetrators. They share the guilt.

Individual identity

There’s nothing wrong with a little ethnic, racial, or religious pride—as long as you don’t make it your predominant personal identity or use it to assert your perceived superiority over other groups. You should identify as an individual human being first, more than any kind of group identity. Evaluate your own strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures as an individual person, rather than hiding behind some mythological notion of ethnic, racial, or religious group accomplishment.

And if you feel the need to compare yourself with others in order to judge your own worth—which is a pointless endeavor to begin with—compare yourself to other individuals to get an honest contrast, rather than making arguments that your group’s presumed characteristics are somehow superior to some other group’s presumed characteristics.

Moreover, should you ever feel the need to cast blame and hatred on certain groups for the problems you see in the world, be careful where you direct that blame and hatred. Your wide, carelessly cast net of group blame is ensnaring a lot of innocent individuals.

I identify as a member of no group. I was raised Catholic, but I’m not anymore. I denounce all organized religions as corrupt, but I’m not going to single out any particular religion for special condemnation. My ethnicity is Polish and Russian, which I’m proud about. But I keep it in balance, recognizing that people of other ethnicities and racial backgrounds have a right to their own pride, which is just as valid as mine. I just wish they wouldn’t make it the main focus of their identity. I identify with no political party and no political ideology. I’m a political individualist. I’m a straight guy, but I’ve known many gays and even trans people, and I think most of them are pretty cool.

I may be on the Right, according to modern classifications, but I’m way more liberal than most people on the Left these days. Live and let live, man. Mind your own business. And shut the fuck up with your hate speech and conspiratorial delusions about global Zionist tribes (or whatever).

I’m not saying not to judge people. I judge people all the time. Passing judgement on others is wise and healthy. I dislike and even despise a lot of people, but it is because of their own individual characteristics.

I do believe that certain racial or ethnic groups are more likely to possess certain psychological, cognitive, or emotional characteristics than certain other racial or ethnic groups. After all, races do differ physically, and many genetic characteristics are linked, so it stands to reason that races may have some mental differences, too.

But even if that is the case, I do not judge races or ethnicities en masse based on whatever their inherent traits may or may not be. That is not fair, because there are always many exceptions to any rule. I definitely judge people, as I said, but I make my judgements on a person-by-person basis. And that’s how I judge myself, too—as an individual man.

We are all flawed

I know that I am a very flawed, imperfect man who has made a lot of mistakes in my 60-plus years, and I will surely make many more mistakes in whatever time I have left. We are all deeply flawed, if we are human, and we are all human—all members of what is simultaneously the most intelligent species and the most evil species on Earth. Now, that is one group I feel free to judge—humanity as a whole. I don’t like it, but I have to live with it, so I take ‘em one at a time.

So, in conclusion, I challenge you to stop hiding behind cloaks of group identity (if that’s what you’re doing) and stop disparaging other people based on the groups with which you seek to identify them or based on alleged group characteristics that you find distasteful.

Do you really need to identify with a group and its agenda—and to pit your group against another group—to feel secure and meaningful in your own life? Or do you have enough guts and confidence to stand up for yourself as a strong, independent, free-thinking individual? And do you have enough grounding in reality to see and treat other people as the individuals that they also are? Like the man said, it’s all about content of character. Can you dig it?