To Deconstruct Racism, One Needs To Deconstruct General Semantics, Reconstruct History

Look at those clowns going around, decrying “racism”, and all they do, is talk, obsessively, about skin color? Think Rwanda, before and during its genocide, and people obsessing about “Tutsi Lives Matter”, or “Hutu Lives Matter”. Well what was the lively matter with deadly consequences in Rwanda was the very concept of “Tutsi” and “Hutu”. Contemporary Rwanda constitution outlaws this sort of obsessive racism. The ignorant should be taught that there is no good racism [1]. 

Lots of people go around, and talk of “racism”, and condemn it, without even understanding that they are themselves racist in their behavior, ways and feelings. I am genuinely non-racist, and I find it horrifying that people who condemn others for racism are themselves racist, and want us to join them in using racism to fight racism. Why am I non-racist? I have, partly by choice, a family with origin in three regions: Europe, Africa, Philippines. I always found attractive, interesting and human people from all over the world.

See the problem? White/Black Lives Matter to white/black racists

I was educated in Africa. The first thing one learns in Subsaharan Africa is NOT to mention the color of the skin of people: that is viewed as racist. My mom told this to me when I was five. So the very expression “Black Lives Matter” would be viewed as a racist no-no in Africa. All lives matter. Subsaharan Africa has people with skin as dark as charcoal (say Wolof), when a native population a few miles away (say Peul) can be beige color. 

US “blacks” are sometimes endowed with pink skin, blonde hair, and green eyes. They are “black” only in the racist eye. I have a friend who is an attorney in Oakland, California, who is like that; one has to look at her very carefully to realize she may have some African ancestry, from her somewhat kinky blonde hair; her whole family is like that… but that family is viewed as “black”… according to the racist “one drop rule” (perversely embraced by most US non-whites). In Africa, people would guess, but won’t mention, a Norwegian origin, when faced with someone with striking green eyes, blonde hair, pink skin. But not in the US, where genealogy is everything. 

In the US, “black” is a concept so dark, it can’t be erased with the simple trick of looking like a Norwegian. One of the three (I think) “black” US Senators has striking blue eyes: never mind his eyes, he is “black”.

So, right, US racist behaviors have to be stopped. But the worst ones are in plain sight, and no one sees them. The very idea of “Black Lives Matter” is a plutocratic plot… As if it were a question, something non-obvious. 

The police is another matter entirely: it is hyper violent, in part because it is in a society with hundreds of millions of guns. I was personally threatened with my life by police for no reason whatsoever, more than once, except being at the wrong place… because officers feel citizens are keen to kill them… so being ready to shoot them first is the essence of survival. 

The destruction of statues illustrates splendidly the failure of the educational system: in the name of anti-racism, anti-racists’ statues have been destroyed. Instead, the solution with statues is to transform them into history lessons with copious explanations below and around them.

Want to learn from history? Here is the first lesson: history is very complicated.

That simplest of all historical lessons has not been taught to the last few generations. So we have a new class of puritans arising. Claiming all we need is “moral clarity”. Let’s take care of Black Lives, they say. And who kills the “Black Lives”? Well, other “Black Lives” in 90% of the cases. Yes, it’s a question of education and opportunities, and not having guns and drugs around. But on these subjects, much of the hysterical pseudo-left “Black Lives Matter” types are consummate hypocrites, because their speciality is precisely to blend within the majority (besides living in their own communities). 

The majority, all the way to Bernie Sanders, is pro-guns, pro-system, pro-non essential work, anti-performing public education. And the proof of this is that they probably never found themselves in a potentially lethal situation with the police… Because they are part of the system, it is their police, from where they live, how they appear to be, how they look around, etc. As I alluded to, above, very discreetly, I found myself, quite a few times, targeted by such white people, complete with usage of the police (!)… and, right, it was racism. But so what? Accusing such people of racism is 100% counter-productive: they don’t have the notion that their hearts, which are so pure, could be in doubt. They are such expert liars, in part because they are their first audience, and they believe themselves.

So the way out is not by destroying the existence of history. Multiply the statues, and explain. But one can’t explain to the only inferior race which really matters: that of brutes filled up to the rim with hatred.




[1] It does not mean that I am against laws considering “race” (which doesn’t exist), to momentarily compensate for under-representation. However, the fact is, those laws didn’t work too well, and that is why California removed them (after the US Supreme Court found some of them unlawful). Now California wants to re-establish them. But, if they didn’t work before, why would they work tomorrow?


P/S: Semantics (from Greek semantikos, meaning significant; The word semantics was first used by Michel Bréal, a French philologist) is the field of the study of sense, signification and meaning. It touches to everything, including the most esoteric logic (Tarsky) and computer science. It makes no sense to condemn racism, and embrace it. But making no sense itself has sense; after all, Hitler and company condemn the oppression of minorities, that was central to their electoral platform, and this enabled them to hide it. Here, similarly, the fact one has a violently plutocratic society is hidden by the non-sense that this is a racist society. As I explained, Chauvin didn’t look racist (partnering with non-white, married to non-white, etc.)

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: