Yes, I hate racism. But in this article I'm not referring to the KKK, neonazis, antisemites and so on (who are very despicable, of course), but to the "reverse-racism" phenomenon in most of the world, most prominently in the western countries but also in many others (especially African countries).
The problem with the western global "anti-racist" movement is that it is so extreme that it tries to almost reverse what is traditionally understood as "racism" to the point of being almost ridiculous. The problem with this "anti-racism" is that it is racist all in itself.
For example, in the United States and some other western countries there exists the legal concept of hate crime. A hate crime is a (usually violent) crime committed mainly because of the race or nationality of the victim (IOW the victim was chosen because of his race and/or nationality and this was made clear by eg. insults etc).
There's nothing wrong in the concept of hate crime. What is wrong is that it seems that only adult white males are able to commit hate crimes. There exist numerous examples of violent crimes committed by non-white people for obviously racist reasons (eg. a gang of black people insulting and beating a white person to death just because he is white) but which were not considered hate crimes by the police.
This phenomenon is not limited to the United States. The exact same phenomenon is happening more or less pronouncedly in many European countries, including the UK and even the Nordic countries (although still less pronouncedly there).
It seems that white people, especially in the US (but also in many other countries) feel shame from past racist crimes committed by white people towards non-white people and thus are much more lenient towards hate crimes committed by non-white people and very punitive towards similar crimes committed by white people. This even in places where white people are a minority. However, they don't seem to realize that making this distinction in itself is racism: People are treated differently depending on their race.
This "anti"-racism phenomenon has other forms too, not always related to crimes.
For example, especially in the US, if a black person publicly exalts the achievements of black people, nobody thinks anything negative about that. However, if a white person publicly exalts the achievements of white people (in the exact same way), most people will think he is a racist. Now, having this kind of different attitude depending on the race of who is speaking and the race of who he is talking about is racism in itself.
Also consider for example the word "nigger", especially in the US: If a black person says that word it's cool, but if a white person says it, it's considered so horrible that in the worst case he could even end up being beaten to death. Making this distinction between the race of who says that word is racism in itself.
Moreover, suppose that the word "nigger" is used in written text, for example in a post to the usenet: Most people will consider it a bad word. However, if the writer results to be black, then it suddenly becomes ok. Making this distinction on the race of the writer is racism.
Black people exalting their own race in TV shows (which frequently happens in American reality TV contests and similar shows) is not frowned upon. However, if a white person did the same, it would be considered obnoxious. Making this distinction is racism.
If and when a black person is elected as the president of the US, there will be no end to all the hype about this great moment in the history of the country. This is racism. (I honestly wait in fear when this will happen. Having to hear all this racist exaltation for years and years will be a nightmare.)
In the United States there is an organization which exalts and rewards great achievements made by black people. This is extreme obnoxious racism.
Most people don't consider what that organization does a bad thing. That in itself is racism too.
Speaking bad about non-white people is considered a bad thing (while speaking bad about white people is not) regardless of how factual it is. For example, saying "black immigrants in town X commit considerably more crimes than white natives" or "Pakistani police in the UK are considerably more prone to bribes than native British police" is considered very bad and racist regardless of how factual those statements are. However, reversing those sentences so that they talk about white people doing the bad thing doesn't prompt racism accusations at all. This is often so even if the white people are the immigrant minority. Making this distinction is obnoxiously racist in itself.
A good example of this ideology put in practice comes from Sweden:
Swedish radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called "Will Never Give Birth to a White Man" for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, stating things such as "no white men, please... I just puke on them." After receiving a complaint because of this, Swedish state prosecutor Göran Lambertz explained why this didn't qualify as racism: "The purpose behind the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be included in this law."
So there you have it. At least in Sweden it's now de jure (instead of being simply de facto, as in most other countries): Only non-whites can be victims of racist hatred, white natives can't.
One could argue that racist hatred is dealt more leniently when it's the minority who expresses hatred towards the majority. However, this isn't always the case either:
For example, in South Africa (2006 midyear estimate) 9.2% of the population is white, 88.4% of the population is black, and the rest is of other ethnicity. The amount of racism black people show towards white people there is sometimes obnoxious, if not even dangerous (for example at one point all the white, experienced workers of a nuclear powerplant were replaced with more inexperienced black workers, for racist reasons). Yet there's no international outcry. The general consensus seems to be that this is more or less justified (because of past events in that country).
White people are a clear minority in that country, but they are not considered victims of racism at national or international level. Thus it's not always about being majority or minority, it's simply about being black or white.
True non-racism is when race doesn't matter. When race is considered as unimportant as eg. hair color, eye color, height and so on, when saying "that black person over there" is exactly as neutral as eg. saying "that blue-eyed person" or "that person with the green shirt", then racism will have been completely eradicated. However, the western world (and especially the US) is far far away from this utopia: There race still matters a lot, and distinction between races is very prominent. Achievements made by people are considered in a different way depending on their race, crimes made by people are considered differently depending on their race. This is extreme racism.
Quite ironically, some people who read this text will think I'm racist too because I oppose the idea of exalting non-white people over white people. If you think my text here is racist, them please think again. I'm defending removing all distinction between races, which is what anti-racism should be.