"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."- Ayn Rand

 

The Department of Homeland Security has, as been the case time and time again, chosen to lump the 'Right' with radical racist groups such as the Klan. It has become almost standard in political lexicon to associate 'Radical Right Wing' with racist organizations, but what is the truth and how did the two become lumped together?

The Left and Right Divide
Before exploring this, it is important to understand and define specifically what is associated with the Left/Right divide that is often referred. While many people have created all sorts of complex graphs and charts, the line can simply be defined as the rate of collectivism versus individualism. If you imagine a line, in the political spectrum, the further Left you move, you increase society's collectivism, the further Right, the increase in individualism. Mainstream political thought generally falls into a small bubble in the middle, with the extreme Left being totalitarian communistic collectivism while the extreme Right could represent complete anti-State anarchy. What we as Conservatives generally define as 'extreme Right' in our political experience generally is a pure Constitutional, strong Tenth Amendment supported anti-Statist society. It, in no way resembles anarchy because most on the Right acknowledge the need for a rule of law to protect the basic freedoms of the individual.

The extreme Left, however, has an interesting history. In all collectivist societies, there is always the case of the collector and the collected- in most cases, this involves property or productivity, but it also is represents the collectivism of individual liberty. Extreme totalitarian, Communist societies involved a very small controlling class attempting to control all aspects of society, redistributing all production, regulating religion, belief, even speech. In most of these cases, what defined the collector was usually a ruling class definition, but more often than not, there where racial overtones as said classes almost always represented a specific group of people and subjected other groups. The individual was completely crushed within the system and what he could or couldn't achieve was always defined by the controlling class and what they deemed ideal.

For those in the Western political Right, the concept of collectivism is the antithesis of our beliefs, and as Ayn Rand stated, "racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." The fundamental principle of the philosophy of the Right is the power and freedom of the individual to achieve in a free society. The concept of any 'group' supremacy is not compatible with the individualistic nature of the Right. Your ability to succeed is based on your individual drive, not by who your ancestors may or may not have been nor trivial things like the melatonin content within your skin.

Those who Define
Why is it then, with this basic concept that few would argue with, that the Right has been associated with racist groups and ideology?
First and foremost, it is pure marketing of the Left. In order for any collectivist to have power, there must be those who do the collecting and those who are collected from. To create these groups, the Left has successfully created hundreds of categorical boxes within our society and has succeeded in making most people feel as though their place is in one of these boxes. If you are XX race, you belong in this box, if you are YY, you belong in this box. The Left then goes to each group and says "see the folks over in that box, your box isn't achieving because of that box"… and so on… the cycle continues until all of the boxes blame each other for their own lack of achievement, and of course, then look to the ultimate collectivist, the government, to 'set things right'. The collectivist has no intention of actually solving the problems of any boxed group, all they care about is continuing to make sure each group remains in its own box, always looking at the other boxes as blame and to the collectivist as the solution.

Of course, what this has resulted in, is that all of the boxes each look at the collectivist as the one who is speaking to their box, to the one promising their box something. What they don't see is why they are subjected to the limitations of the box in the first place.

For the Right to speak to the 'boxes' like this is to acknowledge that the limitations of the box exist. It is then to become what the Left is, collectivists who assign limitations on individuals based on their 'box'. When the Right speaks, it isn't to box A or box B, it is to each individual. Of course, this is spun by the Left to mean that, because the Right isn't speaking to your personal box, they don't care about, or they actually oppose what your box represents. The Left also takes individual issues, such as the Right to Bear Arms, where there may be some agreements and ties the two groups together. What they will never acknowledge is that the collectivist desire for the freedom to bear arms is not about the defense of individual liberty, but in the desire to have the 'right people' armed for some sort of control. The Right believes all individuals have this right, the Left, the Collectivist, fights for their own right, but does not want this right for all.

The Brass Tacks
With all this being said, let's put it out on the table. Racism is Collectivism. It is restricting the individual's rights to the subject of what the collectivist deems worthy or in their interest. Racism and individual liberty do not mesh in the least. The Right wholeheartedly rejects the concept of racism in practice and in philosophy. Wherever you find institutionalized racism, you find the collectivist flexing his muscles.

I, for one, am sick and tired of the collectivist Left defining the Right by their own philosophy. It is time we call them out. It is time we point out how their collectivist attitude is at the core of racism and how it is the Radical Left, not the Right, which believes in and supports institutionalized racism.

"There is only one antidote for racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, capitalism." - Ayn Rand

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.  - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

It is always the football coach's greatest dream to get a hold of the opposing team's playbook.  In the NFL, teams have even gone so far as sneaking spies into opposing team's practice sessions. In politics, the games are dirtier and the stakes are higher.  Let's face the fact, the Republican Party has failed in the marketing and organizing front.  It is time for a new strategy.

Before we begin creating our own playbook, let's take a look at one of our opponents most effective playbooks; Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  I am not suggesting we copy the opponents rules, but it is vital we understand the tactics they use and the proper way to counter these strategies.

From the Rules for Radicals- The 11 Key Rules:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Study these. We will be looking at each, one by one, in future articles.

I am sure you all have a favorite sport's team, one that you dress up for go to every game, yell, scream, and enjoy, even if they lose.  Remember the excitement of the game. Remember how fun it was having your friends together to root for that team.  Remember tailgating, cheering, talking about it, living it, breathing it.  Remember how much you hated the opposing team. I recall a tradition at Texas Tech where we threw tortillas at our opponents- fun times.

Now, picture yourself for a moment as an Obama supporter- I know, it is difficult, but play along.

Every day you wake up and click on the news.  You see your message of 'Hope' and 'Change' coming from the lips of every commentator.  Every show you watch seems to repeat this message in some way.  All of your favorite musicians create anthems to this message. When you walk down the street, you feel as you are part of something special.  "Yes We Can" comes from your lips, winning is in your heart. 

For eight years, you have been fed the message that 'the powers that be' are the enemy.  It is not just they are political opposition, the message has been drilled in your mind that they actually wish you harm. 

There are many reasons the Right has been losing.  People will cite straying from the message, having the wrong candidate, not understanding new media, etc.  There are a lot of commentators on all of these issues and all have very good and valid points.  Here, however, we will focus on one key area: marketing the message. 

Think back to the Obama supporter we described.  If you think that any of that was by chance, you are sadly mistaken.  There was a long design to the Left's message and plans.  The emotional hooks where planted long ago.  They laid the foundation to make their message, not only acceptable, but accepted . 

Now imagine all of the feelings we described with that Obama supporter, but imagine that with a candidate or movement on the Right.  "Yes We Can".