“The concept of ‘racism’ posits that preference for those closest to you genetically is immoral.”

“The fact that anti-racists oppose family is …. the concept of racism taken to its logical conclusion.”

@Mark_Taylor

— Comments —

Kathy G. writes:

I don’t think Mark Taylor understands that it is only white people who are not allowed to prefer those closest to them genetically. All other races are encouraged to do so, to “preserve their culture and heritage”, blah, blah, blah. I agree with his insight that opposition to the family is the logical conclusion of anti-racism.

What this professor is apparently trying to say is that intact male-female marriages and families, with traditional sex roles, is a large reason for the success of the white race. Why is this bad? “Structural racism” seems to mean the right of humans to freely associate with people they choose to, their own race even, if that is their preference. Again, this seems to be acceptable, except when done by whites.

Why is this wrong? If nothing else, the last 60 years have shown us that the notion of “magic dirt” is debunked, and blacks in general want to use anti-racism to demand money and property, even as they destroy everything around them. This whole narrative is so full of holes, no one is buying it but these “professors”, DEI agents, and the beltway communists who profit from pushing it.

The term “heteropatriarchal” makes no sense, especially in this context. That would be matriarchy, wouldn’t it? Or some other “it takes a village” commie invention? Is the professor trying to reference a male patriarchy, as opposed to a preferable trans-male homosexual “patriarch”, but trying not to admit that males are male?? What a mess.

Please follow and like us: