What’s the best way to discredit a viewpoint? Anyone want to guess?
Associate it with racism, of course!
Eugenics, in most basic form, simply is the science of improving a gene pool. But associate it with racism, and it suddenly becomes a fascist tool to wipe out ethnicities arbitrarily deemed inferior to the chosen one.
Support of English as the national language is nothing more than the wish to preserve America’s fledgling culture in the face of encroaching globalism. But conflate it with racism and it suddenly becomes a hatred of Mexicans. To hear it from the whackos, anyone who would not like to be confronted with “Not to spig Inglich” when they try to order a Big Mac must be a fanatical Nazi, with swastika-emblazoned jackboots and “1488″ tattooed on their knuckles.
Opposition to fundamentalist Islam is met with seething accusations of anti-Arabism, never mind the legions of Arabs who are Nestorian Christians, liberal Sufis, and even non-religious.
This is what is called Fallacious Conflation (FC). FC is the erroneous and usually very intentional intermingling of two unrelated issues. In general one issue is the subject of moral ambiguity and the other is morally obvious. Racism is a popular morally obvious half because most of humanity can agree the proscribing of individuality subject to one’s physical features and genetic lineage is a backward and rather repulsive practice. To ascribe racism to an ideology that has nothing to do with it automatically makes that ideology repulsive in the minds of the ignorant. Of course, other ideologies are often used in FC besides racism. Godlessness and nihilism are ascribed to supporters of abortion, gay marriage, and evolution education. Anti-Americanism is leveled against opponents of the “War on Terror” and the war in Iraq. Anarchism is leveled against those opposing the War on Drugs, and anti-environmentalism is ascribed to those who want to continue to drive personal transportation. Even weirder fallacious conflations exist in Germany where those who complain about the bad behavior of certain Turkish immigrants are prosecuted under laws intended to root out Holocaust deniers.
Fallacious Conflation is a useful and insidious tool to destroy a perfectly good idea. It’s a form of guilt by association, and of course it’s disturbing enough that such a practice is accepted by so many Americans. But now FC is being taken to a new level. It’s being used not just to serve an end, but to serve a new and very worrisome end. Slavoj Žižek has a new video up on YouTube accusing the film “The Sound of Music” of racism. Now, you might wonder what on earth this guy is smoking. The movie is blatantly anti-Nazi.
As you will see in the video, his assertion is that the movie paints the good guys (the anti-Nazis) as honest, hardworking people of the land and the bad guys (the Nazis themselves) as cigarette smoking, city slicker bureaucrats. “So?” you ask. Well duh! According to Žižek, this means that the Nazis in fact represent Jews! Apparently the honest, hardworking Austrians represent the Aryans and the conniving Nazis represent the Jews.
Excuse me?
In other words, he attacks the movie on grounds of racism because it negatively depicts a racist group of people exhibiting traits stereotypically ascribed to Jewish people. Nevermind the the movie draws NO connection between Jews and the negative traits the Nazis show. A film can only, ONLY be racist propaganda if it illustrates a connection between a specific ethnic group and a negative trait. To those unaware of Jewish stereotypes, the film would in no way encourage hatred of Jews. In fact, those who are completely uninformed about the situation would ascribe the traits of honest, manual labor and steadfastness to Jews as opposed to their cartoonish stereotype of aversion to physicality and love of money.
What does this mean? It’s very disturbing indeed. Now, apparently, hatred of the traits ascribed by racists to a particular group means we hate that particular group. Ergo, those who hate avarice, usury, and political skullduggery must hate all Jews. Those who hate gangs, promiscuity, and teen pregnancy must hate black people. Those who hate reckless overbreeding, welfare abuse, and drug running must hate Mexicans. In short, according to this dangerous way of thinking, in order to be anti-racist we must not just accept all colors of skin, but all forms of behavior, no matter how reckless. Nevermind that behavior and race have nothing to do with each other.
Don’t be fooled into thinking this is a lone whacko or some new fringe group. A large contingent of the anti-racism movement has supported this notion. Anti-racism is a cover – something everyone can agree with. Once we’re hooked on the notion, they reel us into ever more insane ideas. Their real goal is not to end racism. They are cultural terrorists. If someone attacks another person for hating traits ascribed by racists to Jews, despite that the person despises racism, the attacker is in effect seeking to protect those repulsive traits the other person hates.
This brings us back to Fallacious Conflation. Cultural terrorists have selected a number of antisocial behaviors ranging from criminality to usury, identified racist groups who name those traits as justifications for hatred of certain ethnicities, and tied the racists’ words to our associations with those behaviors. You think usury? You think Jews. You think welfare abuse? You think Mexicans or blacks. Thus, the cultural terrorists disguised as anti-racists are actually in fact very much racist. The cultural terrorists then take our mental association of ethnic groups and antisocial behaviors, harness the internalized racism they instilled in us, and the end result is that we associate hatred of one thing with hatred of the other. Thus, cultural terrorists conflate beliefs on antisocial behavior with beliefs on race. Two things which have NO business together.
This leads us to ask why someone would want to use Fallacious Conflation or any method to legitimize antisocial behavior. Well, frankly there are as many reasons as there are antisocial behaviors. Loansharks would have us believe those who oppose usury are rabid anti-semites. Israeli child-killers would like us to believe those who oppose militant Zionism are also anti-semites. Sometimes the cultural terrorists don’t even have so pragmatic a motivation as the last two. Often extreme leftists want to sow dischord and depravity on some twisted principle, and thus will conflate opposition to dischord and depravity with some racist agenda.
Normally some whackjob on YouTube spewing nonsense does not merit a blog article, let alone one of this length, however Žižek represents the tip of a very large iceberg. The more our society accepts that it’s ok to associate hatred of a behavior with hatred of a group to which that behavior is stereotyped, the more we will fear to oppose anything bad. We need to nip not just the rhetorical sin of Fallacious Conflation in the bud, but to completely uproot the hordes of cultural terrorists disguised as anti-racists. They will not only discredit the true anti-racist movement, but damage irreparably American intellectualism.