There is No Anti: Thesis.

Look closely. It does not say “educators against racism”, but rather “educators for antiracism”.

That is an extreme distinction. One “against racism” might think to never judge a person by the skin but rather by the “content of one’s character”, (now that should sound familiar, now doesn’t it?) the other just might overlook the character in service to the skin, presuming upon one’s own character in doing so. The former wouldn’t dare to even take the homely details into serious consideration, knowing well both the internal contradictions in that “logic” and all the external consequences; yet the latter might suppress that scruple, saying, “contradictions in such logic are the Way of Nature. Our work is not ascesis but the proper use of evil, in contending with a Greater Evil Still.” One would not admit a student based on race, nor class or background, nor ethnicity or culture, save that culture which the University professes. But the other says: “There are no ‘students’, truly, only Groups. We owe our debt not to the ‘individual’, his ‘character’, nor any such archaic fiction, but rather to every race, each class, and every ethnic group, that our figures should reflect our best ideal projections.”

One opposes truly, inwardly, believing in the Inward, seeing past the Outward, shrugging off the skin, insisting: “I refuse to see, since in perceiving surfaces I blind myself to Substance.” Yet the other says: “the Surface IS the Substance. There’s no character but in the Context of a Culture. Change the culture; only thus are you exempt from its conviction.”

Again raised from the dead are two Greek men, “alike in dignity” (ostensibly). The Platonist insists on Martin Luther King; yet Aristotle speaks for Malcolm X. One seeks transcendence to the plane of racial colour-blindness, knowing that is the extent of virtue, for to force one’s wisdom on another is to force one’s love upon another, tantamount in all respects to rape. Yet the second seeks reform in turning the opponent’s weight against him, like the judo master, saying “it is not enough for us to think. We have to act, and our action must affirm.”

Hence once again we see the tragedy unfold: the noble teacher and the wayward pupil. Plato’s wisdom is usurped by Aristotle’s arrogance. Instead of standing to the side of racism, we must stand for its antithesis. Yet in so doing we stand with it, for the opposite is but the obverse side of the same token. The non-racist who will stand AGAINST the evil knows that, like most mental problems, it will vanish once the consciousness of it is altered, since most problems are mere problems of the mind. Yet the “(anti-)racist” who stands FOR ANTITHESIS will stoop to any level of depravity once having settled with his scruples; for the antiracist, it is either “us” or “them”, and if THEY sway the outcomes in their favour, WE’LL fight back.

Hence even the non-racist is the scapegoat of the anti-racist. Yet have I not turned the anti-racist too into a scapegoat? Are we not contending, both of us, to see which is the Traitor to Our Cause? Who has become our common enemy? Which of us truly is the one who’s tantamount to “racism”? Is it the pious introvert or the neurotic, overactive extravert?

 

In Truth: it’s neither. For the careful contemplation of this problem shows us that there never was “a racist”, nor was there a “race”. There was only Projection, and the most that one could do was to take that projection back. Hence Plato wins, for victory is in the Mind.

[({Dm.R.G.)}]