Below are the 3 most recent journal entries recorded in simplicius' LiveJournal:

Friday, March 10th, 2006
10:46 am	Racism and Education, or the Absence Thereof In a history class, it was asked whether a certain author, the subject of our discussion, was perpetuating racist stereotypes. I asserted that it is racist to ascribe characteristics to a person or group of people on no other basis than their race, and that if the author did so, then he was in fact racist. A traditional rebuttal would likely consist of an assertion to the contrary, that the author did not make racial generalizations and was therefore not racist. Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard, among the counter-assertions, that the author was somehow entitled to make racial generalizations because he was black, that persecution must exist for racism to be truly present, and that only certain races can be victims of racism. All of these assertions are indubitably and demonstrably false. Racism, in the absolute, uncorrupted sense of the word, is 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, and 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination. No more, no less. So how do the counter-assertions fit in? Racism can most certainly exist without persecution. Were I to assert that any Asian student must be a the top of his class because Asians are smart, I would doubtless be blasted for making a racist generalization - and rightly so. But not that there is not a whiff of persecution in that hypothetical assertion; indeed, were it not blatantly racist, it could easily be construed as admiring and complimentary. The other two assertions can be combined into one simple phrase: "Only some races can be racist and only some races can be victims of racism." To begin, there are no grounds for this statement in the actual meaning of 'racism' - note that the definition is wholly generalist, and makes no exceptions. The phenomenon called 'reverse racism' cited by critics of affirmative action is redundantly named - racism doesn't depend on the direct it's aimed. Prejudicial behavior toward any race, regardless of its specific target or its source, must by definition be racist. Secondly, and most disturbingly, the assertion that racism is race-dependent is in and of itself racist. It is generally agreed - with genetic evidence providing full support - that the 'races' are nothing more than social constructs. So, the assertion is problematic in that it depends on the language of race to be valid, where that language is itself meaningless. But, even making the generous assumption that it is valid on those grounds, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that *it makes and depends upon racial generalizations*. Why, pray tell, can't blacks be racist? What special characteristic do blacks have that magically transmutes a racist statement into a non-racist one? What special power does being black confer upon one that ensures that it is *absolutely impossible* for one to say something bigoted? And if that power exists, please explain to me the use of "Oreo" as a racial epithet to describe blacks who are seen to be traitors to their race. Except that epithet can't possibly exist, because blacks can't possibly be racist. Oops. When I suggested to the students making these absurd claims that their definitions of racism were utterly, dangerously wrong, the counter suggestion was that I "should take Professor So-and-So's diversity class." Now I don't like conclusions without evidence, and I have forgotten the professor's name, so I can't go straight to the source, but I believe the implication of that suggestion was that taking the class would cause me to think about racism in the "right" - by which I mean "absolutely wrong" - way. Ladies and gentlemen, regardless of whether or not that implication is true, we are seeing the failure of the diversity/tolerance/multicultural/whatever-PC-flavor-of-the-week movement. If I understood that student correctly, an educational institution, overflowing with staff and student organizations to promote tolerance and celebrate diversity, is *perpetuating racist terminology and thinking in a politically correct package*. If I misunderstood the student, than even the student's actual presence in a diversity class failed to budge or correct a fallacious and racist assumption on her part, and the class was completely ineffectual. This honestly comes as little surprise; I had hoped my fellow students would be more intelligent than they demonstrated themselves to be, but I was well aware that the tolerance/diversity/etc. movement is merely racism in a politically-correct costume. How, you ask, can striving to mix up groups to make them less ethnically homogeneous be racist? Think about it. The ideal of diversity is attained by the presence of a mixed group of blacks, whites, Asians, hispanics, and whoever else you care to throw in - and that's *all it takes*. Because, of course, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, whites, and whoever have completely different characteristics because they look different; apparently it never occurred to diversity advocates that the black John Doe across the room grew up in the same town as me, and we have more in common than a white guy from Germany. Diversity comes from within - it is a result of individuals having unique personalities. You want a diverse crowd? Put any two or more people in the same space. And shitcan all that racist bullshit, if you really mean what you say about equality and individual freedom. (Comment on this)
Saturday, December 3rd, 2005
11:13 pm	A pre-emptive grammatical note: English, like French, has no gender-neutral third-person pronoun. It is grammatically correct to substitute the masculine third-person pronoun in its place. Any politically-correct nitpickers who object to this fact can keep it to themselves. (Comment on this)
9:55 pm	Introduction Humans have been fighting, governing, and generally living the hell out of themselves for thousands upon thousands of years. Despite the great scope of human history and the wealth of knowledge it can offer anyone who cares to draw from it, it often goes disregarded. A pervasive air of thoughtlessness seems to touch people from all walks of life - staunch ideologues, religious fundamentalists, and, sadly, those few in whose hands the fates of millions rest. It does not take much effort to decide that the state of the world is not as it should be. Blame is slung back and forth, catching innocents in the crossfire and making a walk down the street a hazardous position. Refusal to toe the party line is heresy, whether the issue in question is war in foreign lands or the increasingly harsh demands of political correctness. The conflicting camps would sooner tear society into pieces than see their views lose out, and I fear that as long as the partisans are the ones with the loudest voices, they stand a good chance of achieving this. If there was ever a time for those with open minds and calm voices to step forward, it is now. If there is only one reason for this, it is because we all have to live in the future we create. My intent is to create a record of those ideas which I have accumulated over years of thought on the matters of politics and governance, history, warfare, and society, which will comprise most of the posts here. The contest of ideas championed by John Stuart Mill informs my thinking here, and I have intentionally submitted my thinking to a public forum that they may be challenged and defended, expanded or abandoned. Comments are welcome from any who care to provide them, and any serious debating can be conducted via e-mail if need be. It is probably apparent that the introduction referred to a particular nation, although the world is small enough in the twenty-first century that events do not stop at national borders. I freely volunteer that I am currently in the United States, and that country is the primary focus of my thinking. However, I bear no allegiance any political party and espouse no popular ideology. Any readers should look elsewhere to hear "ZOMG BUSH [or DEMOCRATS] IS T3H EVIL!!11!" as that kind of simple-minded partisan hackery has no place in any civilized discussion. The perspective afforded by history is essential; this country has had more mediocre or inferior Presidents than good ones, and yet it survives. In three years there will be a new American President, and I care less about who he is than what he intends to do with his office. Theory and policy as put into practice, in this case, matter a great deal more than those who create them. One additional note: I must call myself a patriot, for no other reason than I am committed to my country and wish to see it and its citizens prosper. To those who find patriotism objectionable, I say this: a true patriot is not blind, does not shut out that which is unpleasant to hear, but seeks to remedy the ills of his country within and without that he may regard it it without shame, and that others may do so as well. Updates will no doubt be sporadic; I have obligations in the real world that I must meet. More substantial content will follow. (Comment on this)