very good article.
However, I disagree that so-called "racism" is like obscenity, the author can't define it but he knows it when he sees it. This puts so-called "racism" on the same level as obscenity, and reduces both to something that is subjective. The new "racism" is "genderism". It exists like nebulous ether, and is detectable only by the individual's of the Leftists super-keen (that is, "imaginary" and "hypocritical") sense of smell.
Of course, the Leftists will probably propose a new test for "racism". Like the Israelites of old who had battled against their own kinsmen who were Ephraimites, the Ephraimites, realizing that they were beaten, scattered, and pretended to be of another tribe. But these Ephraimites had a lisp and could not pronounce the word for a grain of wheat, Shibboleth, and could only say, Sibboleth; and thus they betrayed themselves with their own speech. Therefore, the Left's new "litmus test" for "racism" will be "anyone who, to any degree, for any reason, likes Trump or thinks he is doing a good job".
The question Is President Trump a Racist? is an absurdity. His cabinet is full of Jews. The leadership of his businesses are replete with Jews. He's proud that his daughter defected from Christianity and married a Jew. Those who have worked and continue to work for him, of all races, speak of him in high regard as an employer (despite his own crass moral failings).
The very notion of "racism" is a "racist myth" that only exists in the rabbit hole in the upside down world of fantasy—a "racist" fantasy of the "victims" of "racism" who claim that only white people can be "racists" and only nonwhites can be "victims" of racism. Blacks can use the "n- word" and it is perfectly acceptable as part of their "culture" (along with other lovely words like "f-ck" and "ho" and "b-tch"); but if a white man uses the "n- word" the earth must grind to a halt from spinning on its axis so that this "crime of crimes" can be adequately DRACONIANLY adjudicated. It is also interesting that statues and monuments have to be taken down, portraints of presidents from from halls, presidents removed from our currency, and a host of other words relegated to the verboten-bin of vocabulary purgatory because the very presence of those images is "insulting" and "intimidating" and causes the spook-fearing blacks to feel "afraid" and "insecure"—and yet the "n- word" THAT WAS INVENTED BY WHITES IN REFERENCE TO BLACKS (which, by the way, initially did NOT have any negative meaning as an insult, it was merely a descriptive name) is a word they bandy about as if it were confetti on New Year's Day or a Birthday Party...! —but if a white man tosses one chad of confetti into the air, he has committed the unpardonable sin, treason, and blasphemy worthy of a thousand deaths by a thousand cuts (if you're counting, that's 1 million cuts). It is really amazingly hypocritical. If blacks want to feel safe and secure in an environment free of whites and racism... why don't they go back to Africa? —maybe they are "racist" themselves and don't want to live among real blacks in their natural habitat (the jungle). They want to live in white society without whites, with rules that they don't have to follow. If applied to any other scenario, this would be immediately recognized as profound psychosis. If the psychiatrist is then handed a memo and told it is in reference to blacks... he immediately would change his ruling and declare, "Well, then it is perfectly understandable, normal and acceptable and only right and fair".
Many such people, who lust after the god (or trans goddess) of "political correctness" will claim that they are not "racist", but colorblind. But that is not really true. All they $ee is green and gold, and if you don't have sufficient amount of either of those colors to be of interest to them, it does not matter what color you are or if you glow in the dark.