cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs.

it’s bad enough that rush limbaugh* invents a new kind of racist when belittling obama’s supreme nominee (more on that later), but check out what g. gordon liddy had to say about the first female hispanic to be nominated. think progress:

yesterday on his radio show, conservative host g. gordon liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on judge sonia sotomayor. first, just like tom tancredo, liddy slammed sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group la raza — and referred to the spanish language as “illegal alien“ …

finished with the race-based attack, liddy moved on to denigrate sotomayor’s gender:

liddy: let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. that would really be bad. lord knows what we would get then.

gee, we can’t imagine why repubbblicans have lost voters in every major voting block except for frequent church-goers?

now, back to rush’s declaration that judge sotomayor is a "reverse racist." we are w/matt yglesias, at least in the beginning, on this ridiculous invention of the hardly-ever-right wing groupthink:

this seems very confused. being a “reverse racist” can’t be similar to being a “racist,” it needs to be the reverse of being a racist. limbaugh clearly just thinks sotomayor is a racist. she hates white people. for a latina to hate white people isn’t “reverse” racism, it’s racism.

however, this next bit is where we depart from matt’s logic:

reverse racism would be if you had a white person who hates white people. it would be like racism, where you hate people of other races, but in reverse.

uh, no, matt. that would be racism. if you hate somebody because of their race, it’s racism, irrespective of your race (see "uncle tom," "self-hating jew," etc). if you’re a white person who hates white people, you’re a racist. a self-loathing racist, but a racist nonetheless.

you are correct, however matt, in that being a "reverse racist" is not the same as being a racist. and the reason is because, there is no such thing as reverse racism. that’s like saying "reverse magnetism." there’s no such thing. magnets which are repelled from each other (positive to positive, negative to negative) are nonetheless displaying properties of magnetism.

but what we must needs point out, is that the very idea of "reverse racism," exclusively used by white people, is itself a racist conceit. only white people (and usually white men) would think that being discrimated against if you were a white person is different than being discrimated against if you were any other race.

hate a negro? racism. hate a latino/latina? racism. hate an indian, red or brown, a chinese, japanese, balinese, filapino, aboriginal, eskimo, or any third world occupant? racism, pure and simple.

hate a white guy? oh noesss!!! a brand new, extra=super=secret special super-duper new kind of racism! it’s reverse racism!!! something nobody’s ever encountered before! white people are so exclusive, they have their own kind of racism thrust upon them!

only white folk could think they were superior enough to everyone else, that if they were the victims of racism, it would be a completely unique kind.

ergo, the concept of "reverse racism," is itself a racist concept.

* we inadvertantly, in an earlier version of this post, attributed the "reverse racist" remark to newt "how’s the chemo i want a divorce" gingrich. mr. gingrich was not the one qualifying the racism as "reverse." that was rush "hello little boy where’s my viagra" limbaugh. we regret the error.

but not much.