The word “racist” is not a descriptive word, but a dispositive one. It roughly equals “heretic” in Christendom: language used as a semantic cudgel or baton.

Do you know? I am extremely aggressive when someone calls me racist. I reply:

“Are you plugged in the Matrix? Don’t you know that only doubleplusgood duckpeakers babble that word? Don’t you know that the real America was built without the introduction of that anti-white word in the 1920s?”

Those who use that word are unaware of what Orwell called a black-white use of language. As Tom Szasz put it, “The ritual murder of people has always been preceded by the ritual murder of truth—and, indeed, by the ritual murder of language itself.” Some linguists have argued that language is rhetorical, and that we commit a great mistake in believing that, if a group of individuals use a word in all seriousness, it means that something real exists behind it. According to Orwell, the rhetorical objective of Newspeak is social control. Neologism, and the abuse of language characterize it. For that very reason all discourse must start with a cleansing in our vocabulary. Only the semantic hygiene can prevent us from ideological and political contamination.

In other words, the stupid Tea Party people (“No: I’m no racist, I’m no racist!”) are placing themselves on the defensive. Every time I’m confronted by a liberal I immediately put him/her on the defensive with my italicized words above. Since I accompany my words with great emotions, they shut up.

I always respond now by stating that I reject the concept of racism itself. I instead point out that what is called racism is a merely a manifestation of inter-group conflict and usually its only deployed to delegitimise white interests.

Something like that anyway.

“From Brandeis University’s website (for April 28):

Interdisciplinary Conference

New Right-Wing Radicalism.
A Transatlantic Perspective

The U.S. Perspective
Moderator: David Cunningham, Associate Professor of Sociology, Brandeis University
4:15 Kathleen Blee, Distinguished Professor and Chair of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh: “Which Comes First: Thinking Like a Racist or Acting Like a Racist?”
4:25 Pete Simi, Associate Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska, Omaha: “Cycles of Right-Wing Terror”
4:35 Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst, Political Research Associates, Boston: “From Tea Parties to Armed Militias”

http://conservativeamericannews.com/fox-nation/university-lumps-tea-parties-in-with-nazis

http://www.brandeis.edu/cges/news/upcomingevents/rightwingradicalism.html

Wikipedia on Brandeis:

“Founders

Names associated with the conception of Brandeis include Israel Goldstein, George Alpert, C. Ruggles Smith, Albert Einstein, and Abram L. Sachar.
Ruggles Smith was the son of Dr. John Hall Smith, founder of Middlesex University, who had died in 1944. In 1946, the university was on the brink of financial collapse. At the time, it was one of the few medical schools in the U. S. that did not impose a Jewish quota; but it had never been able to secure AMA accreditation—in part, its founder believed, due to institutional antisemitism in the AMA[9]—and, as a result, Massachusetts had all but shut it down.

Israel Goldstein was a prominent rabbi in New York from 1918 until 1960 (when he immigrated to Israel), and an influential Zionist. Before 1946, he had headed the New York Board of Rabbis, the Jewish National Fund, and the Zionist Organization of America, and helped found the National Conference of Christians and Jews. On his eightieth birthday, in Israel, Yitzhak Rabin and other leaders of the government, the parliament, and the Zionist movement assembled at his house to pay him tribute.[10] But among all his accomplishments, the one chosen by the New York Times to headline his obituary was: “Rabbi Israel Goldstein, A Founder of Brandeis.”

Flanders