In regards to the idea of ‘implicit racism,’ a commenter stated the following:
Now, as ridiculous as that may seem and in fact is, it makes sense if contained to describing a possible tendency that arises in the result to a very provable correlation between certain people and actions.
There was a time when racism meant: ‘Viewing a person to be inherently inferior based on her race and acting in a way based on that view.” Were racism still to have that original meaning, implicit racism would mean: ‘implicitly viewing a person to be inherently inferior based on that person’s race and, acting in a way based on that view.’
‘Racism’ now just means ‘morally bad.’ And when liberals use it, what’s judged to be morally bad, is done so from a Universalistic perspective, and more specifically, from a West as post-European now Universalistic perspective. According to this perspective, it’s racist to say such things as, ‘England should be for the English,’ because saying this is an expression of European particularism, and particularism is inherently threatening to universalist thinking. Because cultural-Marxism emanates from the West, and the West was European in identity, everything particularly European in the Post-West is, accordingly, ipso facto ‘racist.’ So, it’s rather unsurprising that so much ‘racism’ is continually being dug up.
Now most people, conservative and leftist, have accepted the basic proposition of Liberalism, or Post-Europeanism. Most people see Europeans as rightfully just one part of the diverse post-West. The Liberal-Left, or Cultural-Marxists, just go one step further. For them, Europeans should not even be part of the post-West, as a people. For the Liberal-conservatives, Europeans can be part of the Post-West, but should be quite until the transformation is complete. One is more pragmatic in tone and the other is moral. But both see overt expressions of Europeanness in the Post-West as fundamental threats to the the Liberalism, around which so much has been invested.
This is not to say that some persons do not ‘implicitly view some persons or peoples to be inherently inferior based on that person’s race and act in a way based on that view.’ What it is to say, is that ‘racism,’ has come to means something quite different from this.
Further, this is not to say that ethnic cultures are not exclusive. Persons as a people are exclusive — they are them and that means being somebodies. Liberal-Multiculturalists call that ‘racist’ and I call that having Kulture. Regardless, that is not ‘racist’ in the non-Orwellian sense. Kultures could, of course, be racist, but this is not what these people are saying. They are saying that Kulture, at least European Kulture, is racist, which is to say that it’s racist to be European or Western, unless European or Western means being open to everything and anyone.
This is why so much racism is being found in the West. The west was something in particular. It has been redefined as ’supposed to be general’ — and racism is just the finding of Western European things in the now post-European, Post West.