The difference here that Peppermint is missing is a difference in secondary degrees:

1. Conservatives are actually the most really liberal people in existence. Many are truly colorblind and judge people on individual merit. If this creates any skew whiteward, it is merely because both cultural and genetic factors favor white competency. This is not the work of these conservatives, who really are not respecters of persons in this sense.

2. Progressives really are ‘racist’ in the way that word of propaganda was originally structured by the communists and used. They truly have a unique disdain and despite for ‘others’ without any reference to concrete information about what their otherness actually consists of (genetic differences, cultural conflicts, moral disagreements, etc.) It’s a complicated relationship, and it is a charged ‘hate link’ which flip flops between idolatry (ideation) and extreme disgust. Women like Obama’s mom who went with Big Blacks did so more because they were worshiping at the altar of Otherness (Blackness in this case) than for any real love of the men they were supplicating. Anyone who spends too much time attacking Jews or Blacks to me is a leftist hybrid, a chimera. (This just may be my Eastern-ness at work though)

3. The reactionary view, distinct again, is conditioned by both realism regarding race and by history of conflict fueling general caution and distrust between groups. Reactionary distrust of blacks is due to social conflicts and (now, more clearly than ever) ‘realism’ regarding blacks as a group. This view is also ‘racist’, though take note it doesn’t really have that hate link that the ethno-socialists and progressives might entertain. The progressives have the most twisted and perverse relationship with otherness, the EN’s just have a strong, reflexive distrust and a dislike of modern ‘civil’ society which is pluralistic. the reactionary view is still racist, for sure, but I’ve noticed in it (despite what Brooks Bayne may claim!) a lack of emotion concerning these various ‘others’ – difference and incompatibility is taken as a fact, not needed to be sensationalized, and this position is the most odious one possible to the progressive, since it both incorporates naked admission of what they fear to be true or, as Idealists, wish to make untrue through word and love magic, and has a dispassion that makes it immune from their favored methods of intimidation.

Then again I might be talking out of my rear here, anyone may feel free to totally dismantle this comment.

Peppermint is right, “they’re the real racists” is a common right wing argument. Like most mainstream right arguments it has a grain of truth but it has never worked and never will. (The grain of truth here is the kind of argument about agency that SGW makes below, its true, but univeralists aren’t thinking like that).

P.S. can we get over calling our opponents leftists, everyone who isn’t NRx is a leftist relative to us, and there is no absolute centre to political scales.