Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


Recommended Posts

On Racism

Posted By pcr3 On June 4, 2020 @ 8:44 am In Articles & Columns | Comments Disabled

On Racism

Paul Craig Roberts

If white people are racist, how was Obama twice elected president of the United States?  That such questions do not occur to those shouting “white racism” indicates weak minds, the presence of anti-whites out to make mischief, and people who speak on the basis of an unexamined assumption that has been drilled into their heads.

The unexamined question is: Are white people racist by nature?  Those who say whites are racist by nature simultaneously claim that hundreds of thousands of Lincoln’s soldiers died in order to free black people from slavery and that white people in the North carried on a relentless long war against white people in the South for the benefit of black people.  

It is these same racist white people who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act 56 years ago and permitted the establishment of racial quotas and contract set-asides for blacks that gave blacks rights and privileges that white people do not have. 

If white people are so racist, how can it be that many of them are upset about George Floyd’s death from police violence and some joined the protests? Either white people are racist by nature or they aren’t racist by nature.  If whites are not racist by nature, how can it be that the New York Times is leading the rewriting of American history with its 1619 Project that explains the United States as a country founded on the racism of white people?

Such questions do not occur to Anthony DiMaggio who writes for CounterPunch —Revolution, Not Riots—https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/03/revolution-not-riots-prospects-for-radical-transformation-in-the-covid-19-era/ [1] .

DiMaggio repeats the propagandistic mantra that Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis—thank God not Southern—police is another sign of the structural violence against people of color.  So what is police violence against white people?  Are white people murdered and brutalized by police because of their skin color? Is this structural violence against white people?

You think police don’t use violence against white people? How uninformed you are!  In 2017 police shot to death more than twice as many white people as black people. In 2018 police shot to death almost twice as many white people as black people. In 2019 57% more white people than black people were shot to death.   So far in 2020, 35% more white people than black people have been shot to death by police. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ [2] 

Neither black nor white people know this for reasons I explain here—https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/06/03/all-races-suffer-from-police-violence/ [3] 

A multicultural racially diverse society, which the United States has become as a result of illegal immigration and the change in immigration law in 1965, cannot survive if race hatred is a feature of the society.  In the US, white liberals have been teaching black Americans to hate white Americans for decades.  Black people have been indoctrinated into believing that every unpleasant feature of their existance is due to white racism. In many white people, this indoctrination has engendered guilt that causes them to excuse and make excuses for black violence. The effect over time is to make blacks more angry and whites less willing to resist violent acts of anger and to blame themselves instead. The survival of such a society is problematical. Watching Washington foment conflict with more unified societies, such as Russia and China, is scary.

None of those screaming racism are interested in stopping police violence. Police violence against members of the public is a product of police training, not of racism.  Those screaming racism don’t want the violence corrected by reforming the way police are trained. They want the violence to continue as it is useful for their agenda of using white racism to create white guilt and black anger. This is the way to revolution. In Marxism, there was only class warfare between workers and capitalist—the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie—but in Cultural Marxism or Identity Politics there is racial oppresson, gender oppression, homosexual oppression, and oppression against the disabled and elderly.  All of these oppressed people become alienated from society and potential supporters for revolution.

However, Cultural Marxism could also brew counterrevolution. Some whites might see where this is heading and the realization could create opposition to the attack on white people. Some regard Trump’s election as president as an indication that white Americans realize that they have been abandoned by the Democrat Party. Unless you are a well-to-do white liberal on the east or west coasts, the Democrat Party has written you off.  White people, including the working class that formerly was represented by the Democrat Party, have been defined by Hillary Clinton as  “the Trump deplorables.” Whites are already second-class citizens, especially if they are straight males, and they are being set up for worse to come. Politicians, except for Trump, are too scared of media attacks to confront the propaganda with the truth.

Of course there are racists, but the assumption that these animosities exist only between skin colors is problematic. In modern times the most extreme manifestitions of racial violence are tribal between blacks themselves, such as the Rwandan genocide, the mass slaughter of Tutsi by the Hutu. 

Indeed, the black slave trade is the product of blacks themselves and has its origin in 1600 in the slave wars fought by the black Kingdom of Dahomey.  Dahomey’s use of black slaves for economic production predates the cotton planations in the US south. One would think that these well known and totally documented facts would be a part of black studies in universities, but such facts are unacceptable to the ruling ideology. Karl Polanyi’s history of Dahomey and the Slave Trade has simply disappeared. It is as if it never was written.  It has gone down Big Brother’s Memory Hole even before the digital revolution created Big Brother.

Whites, of course, have committed far more violence against one another than they have against people of color. Think of the war of the American north against the South, of all the wars between Europeans, the two wars between the US and Great Britain, capped off by World War I and World War II. White people have killed far more white people than people of color.  

Even white language is said to be racist. The banned n-word is said to be symbolic of white racism. But every white ethnicity has been called names that are slurs— ****, polack, frog, limey. The Irish are bog-trotters.There is a range of slurs for Germans—kraut, boche, hun. Blacks have plenty of pejorative names for whites. For example, “Miss Ann” or “Ann” is a derisive reference to white women and to any black woman who is regarded as acting as if she is white. Blacks also use pejoratives for blacks. An oreo is a black person who is regarded as acting like a white person.  Aunt Jemima is a black woman who is friendly to, or kisses up to, white people. A black man who does the same is Uncle Tom. American whites have pejoratives for one another—cracker, hillbilly, ****.  People in the south of England call those in the north northern monkeys. There are pejoratives for every ethnicity.  Jews call gentiles goy. Latin Americans call North Americans gringo. Ukrainians call Russians moskals. If slurs are an indication of racism, then the entire population of the world is racist. 

For decades the FBI has had a department that monitors white supremacists.  The scarcity of white supremacists has encouraged the FBI to create, or to encourage the creation of, such groups, just as the FBI was organizing “terrorist plots” that they could break up in the aftermath of 9/11.  A budget needs a reason. 

Where do we see evidence of white supremacists? Are statues of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan being pulled down? Is the Lincoln Memorial covered in graffiti?  Are white supremacists rewriting American history in the universities and at the New York Times? Where are their magazines and newspapers? Who are their representatives in government and media? What is the power of such an invisible group?

In contrast, Antifa is a terrorist organization associated with organized violence. Yet it is white supremacists who are being blamed for the pre-delivery of convenient stockpiles of bricks in the protest areas of the cities where blacks are protesting George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police. How did white supremacists know which cities and which locations in the cities protests would take place?  When the point is to blame white people such questions do not matter to those doing the blaming.  

But the questions do matter to a racially diverse multicultural society.  Such a society cannot survive the cultivation of racial enmity. When the goal is revolution, not reform, racial enmity is the weapon.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

American Greatness

Night of the Generals
The unelected parts of the government, including the military, are revolting against the electoral control by the people enshrined in the Constitution.

By Christopher Roach • June 7, 2020

During the Iraq War, the insurgency spent a lot of its resources attacking infrastructure, particularly the electrical grid. This made life miserable for ordinary Iraqis.

That outcome seems to go against the logic of insurgency, where the center of gravity is the people’s allegiance. But making life uncertain and unbearable means that even if the insurgents cannot win, they ensure the regime cannot win either. The cultivation of chaos exposes the government as ineffective and ultimately removes its legitimacy.

The Anti-Trump Resistance
A different kind of planned chaos has challenged Trump’s presidency. While the tactics are different, the effect has been the same. Even before President Trump was sworn in, commentators and Democratic Party officials spoke openly of impeachment. Simultaneously, the intelligence services were spreading tall tales of Russian “collusion,” leading to a nearly three-year-long distraction in the form of the special counsel.

Then Trump faced nationwide injunctions from courts intent on blocking his core executive powers. When Trump wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from the Syrian quagmire, the entire foreign policy community joined in a chorus of condemnation. His secretary of defense, James Mattis, resigned in protest. Later, Trump was impeached—though not convicted—after a cabal of intelligence agents were unhappy with his phone call with the leader of Ukraine.

Now, after a months-long, highly destructive coronavirus shutdown also supported by the establishment, the country is facing war in the streets. The spark was an arrest in Minnesota, where the suspect, George Floyd, died in police custody. Local protests and looting ensued. But a united effort by journalists, Antifa terrorists, social media, and other sources of influence fanned this spark into a nationwide conflagration.

Practically every corporation in America has now weighed in with gestures of support and a vague message that we all need to “do better.” Politicians, cops, and national guardsmen have taken a knee. In the nation’s capital, rioters defaced statues and set fire to an historic church across the street from the White House. The disorder has now gone on for more than a week.

Trump has so far had a pretty light touch, even directing the Justice Department to investigate Floyd’s death. He has been so reticent to act that his conservative supporters are begging him to do something. Trump did suggest at one point he might call in the military, but so far he has demurred. On Sunday, he announced the National Guard would begin to withdraw from Washington, D.C.

In spite of this, the president has been pilloried. The use of police to clear out rioters from the vicinity of the White House is being treated like a rerun of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. His conciliatory words have been twisted by the media. The mere suggestion of using the military to restore order has led to particularly harsh criticism from former military men, including some who served in the Trump White House.

His former secretary of defense, and esteemed former Marine Corps General Mattis said, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. . . . We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”

Mattis concluded, ominously, “Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.”

The arsonists in Lafayette Square were described by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen as having a “peaceful protest.” Channeling community college Marxism, he said, the riots should not distract us from “deeper concerns about institutional racism that have ignited this rage.”

Worse, active-duty Army general and current Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Milley implied that the proposed use of the military to stop riots would violate an unwritten code, warning his subordinates that “we all committed our lives to the idea that is America—we will stay true to that oath and the American people.”

While this all sounds very idealistic, it is mostly middlebrow ****. Like the FBI’s claim of independence, it is anti-democratic elitism masquerading as the protection of democracy.

A more important tradition, one actually enshrined in the Constitution, is civilian control of the military. The people are sovereign, they elect a president, and the president is the commander in chief of that military. The military is an instrument in his hands.

All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic
Understandably, the military has a strong aversion to being used domestically. This tradition deepened during America’s 75-year exercise in global empire-building. This tradition, however, is not a constitutional requirement, but rather a creature of statute.

Even after the advent of professionalized police, the military has been used to reestablish order during domestic disturbances and is permitted to do so under the Constitution and the Insurrection Act. Under George Washington, it put down the Whiskey Rebellion and after that fought hostile Indian tribes on American soil for over a century.

The Civil War, of course, was its most dramatic domestic deployment. But even in the 20th century, President Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce Supreme Court orders on desegregation in 1957. President Johnson and President Nixon relied on the army to deal with violent anti-Vietnam protests, both in Washington, D.C. and Detroit. Most recently, President George H. W. Bush deployed the Marines to help suppress the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

Local and state police can normally control riots. But riots, combined with media support, big business support, local government support, organized Antifa groups, billionaire financiers, and a conspiracy against the president by factions within the government, is something both new and dangerous. The rhetoric and the tactics are reminiscent of CIA-funded “color revolutions,” complete with calls for Trump to “step down” because it is “inevitable.”

As in those color revolutions, the current protests are made in the name of managerial class ideology—the fight for progressive values and globalism against structural racism. In other words—as the “heartfelt letters” from Fortune 500 companies make clear—this is an establishment-supported riot. They consider Trump, and his deplorable supporters, hostile outsiders.

Prestigious ex-generals joining this struggle and directing military power away from presidential control is entirely new and extremely dangerous. Until recently, retired generals either went on to live in obscurity or joined the board of a defense contractor. They usually continued the nonpartisanship that marked their career in public service. Now they are combining with aggrieved ex-officials, civil servants, and mutinous active-duty officers.

And for what?

There is no constitutional right to riot. There is no constitutional obstacle to using the military to suppress riots. Our globalist foreign policy is certainly not enshrined in the Constitution. Mattis’ and his peers’ invocation of the Constitution is a pretext.

The military critics of Trump, like the undisciplined units taking a knee, are overawed and easily manipulated by the language of anti-racism. This is the chief moral foundation of the managerial class and the modern administrative state. It is also one of its chief mechanisms of social control.

A Left-Wing Military Coup?
The Left for a long time worried about a right-wing military coup. In the 1960s and 1970s, this was somewhat plausible. While nonpartisan, the military became a belligerent in the culture war during Vietnam, where the anti-draft movement united various leftist factions.

When the draft ended and the all-volunteer military began, most of the protests ended, too. The military retreated from public consciousness, becoming an increasingly separate society held in some contempt by the elite. Multigenerational military families became common. The South was overrepresented among recruits. And the military—particularly the officer corps—became more Republican over time.

Like Clinton before him, Obama spent at least some of his energies reining this in. During his presidency, the military became soaked in the same corporate diversity speak that originated in our elite universities. He ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and extended protections to transsexuals. The military academies became hotbeds of leftist indoctrination, where militant cadets and a literal Communist could receive commissions.

Thus, many of the top brass today had been molded by the eight-year social revolution of Obama’s presidency. Even if not leftists or liberal Democrats, most were hostile to Trump’s style and his proposed reformation of the military and foreign policy in a more nationalist, America-First direction.

First, this would limit their mission, as it would reduce the need for long overseas deployments. Policing streets among civilians is not something the military brass is necessarily averse to doing; they just think it’s more important that the streets of Baghdad are safe than the ones here at home.

Second, being dragged into a domestic conflict involving the intersection of race and policing under the direction of a controversial president would risk the social ostracism that the military had endured during the post-Vietnam era. With many of the top brass making a permanent home in Washington, D.C. during the last phase of their careers, this would impose a significant personal burden. Presumably, some are true believers as well.

Mattis and his peers have brought shame on themselves. They have decided to ally with people whose lives, goals, and vision of America is not only contrary to the Constitution but contrary to everything the American military stands for, not least order and discipline. They have adopted extreme notions of “white privilege” and “systemic racism” that were only heard in professors’ lounges a decade ago.

Some have appealed to the military’s own ethos of color-blindness and national unity. But the military is a place where racial peace prevails primarily because neither the individual nor the ethnic group is paramount, but rather the unifying mission of national defense. And, unlike the nation at large, the military can remove those who don’t snap and salute at the latest progressive ideological fad.

Generals and soldiers should vote for whomever they like. But generals, like the soldiers they command, are required to follow orders from the elected commander in chief. No one elected these generals or gave them a greater voice than the most humble citizen in our national affairs. They transform themselves from honorable servants to dangerous mutineers when they encourage those in uniform to disobey the commander in chief.

The FBI and the CIA did not succeed in galvanizing the American people against the president. Their prestige and power were never the same as the military’s. If the military joins the left-wing resistance, it would succeed in commandeering the most powerful instrument of the state.

Anyone who really cares about the Constitution and the rule of law should be alarmed. The unelected parts of the government, including the military, are revolting against the electoral control by the people enshrined in the Constitution.

While not yet in full coup mode, the preconditions are now there: the idea that election results do not deserve respect, that a faction of the country is beyond the pale, and that patriots with a “higher loyalty” must save the country from itself. Mutinous generals would find at least some young soldiers willing to join them.

The nation will be irrevocably changed if the resistance succeeds with the military’s help, and this would usher in a far bloodier domestic conflict than the one Mattis and company now claim they want to avoid. As the great conservative statesman Edmund Burke observed, “The nature of things requires that the army should never act but as an instrument. The moment that, erecting itself into a deliberative body, it shall act according to its own resolutions, the government, be it what it may, will immediately degenerate into a military democracy—a species of political monster which has always ended by devouring those who have produced it.”

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd post this here because I sure can't see Jake ever doing it.

Prosecutors: Man who drove into Va. protesters said he was K K K leader

A man drove a vehicle into a group of protesters outside Richmond, Va., on Sunday, authorities said, and identified himself as a leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Prosecutors said they were investigating the episode as a possible hate crime.

A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center found that the number of white supremacist groups has been rising since 2017, and data from the Anti-Defamation League shows that the use of white supremacist propaganda is growing across the country.


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomJH said:

I thought I'd post this here because I sure can't see Jake ever doing it.

Prosecutors: Man who drove into Va. protesters said he was K K K leader

A man drove a vehicle into a group of protesters outside Richmond, Va., on Sunday, authorities said, and identified himself as a leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Prosecutors said they were investigating the episode as a possible hate crime.

A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center found that the number of white supremacist groups has been rising since 2017, and data from the Anti-Defamation League shows that the use of white supremacist propaganda is growing across the country.


and the other nite CNN aired a special about racism titled unconscious bias...

how would it be if white people told blacks their hatred of white devil hon kees was just as biased?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

American Greatness

Great America
Racism, Inc.
Like the word “heretic” in an earlier age, “racism” is more weapon than word.

By Roger Kimball • June 6, 2020

For the last couple of months, your inbox, like mine, has been awash in nauseating communiqués from every school, club, or business you had carelessly entrusted with your email address. “Stay safe,” they urged—and stay home. A great plague is upon the land, and we must all respond with displays of ritual purification and groveling obedience. Shows of obedience were critical, as was the virtue-signaling that accompanied them. People were shamed for appearing in public without a mask or for walking too close to other people. The whole thing was an extraordinary display of communal insanity.

Suddenly, almost overnight, those communiqués vanished, replaced by others, no less nauseating. There are new items on the menu of virtue-signaling and ritual abasement. Now the theme is not a novel respiratory virus, but a spiritual virus: the virus of supposed “systemic” or “institutional” “racism” and police brutality.

A day or two ago Uber emailed me to announce that it “stands with the Black community”—how nice for them—and that it deplores “institutional racism, and the police violence it gives rise to.” The Yale Club of New York let it be known that it “unequivocally condemns racism, violence, and social injustice in our society.” Unequivocally! Meanwhile, the Harvard Club chimed in about its “broken” heart because of “racism, injustice, and violence.” Many politicians have signed up for this chorus, taking their cue from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz who decried the “stain . . . of fundamental, institutional racism.”

As all the world knows, the catalyst for this emetic display of meaningless verbiage was the unfortunate death of George Floyd, a black man and career criminal, who expired while being arrested by the police in Minneapolis. Much obloquy—to say nothing of a second-degree murder charge—has been directed at Officer Derek Chauvin, one of four police officers involved with the arrest, for his rough restraint of Floyd. Chauvin, who is white, pinned a handcuffed Floyd to the ground, kneeling on his neck. Was that what killed Floyd? Maybe. But maybe he died because his serious heart condition was fatally aggravated by the Fentanyl and methamphetamine he had ingested.

In any event, the death of Floyd, excruciatingly captured by an amateur video that went viral, was the spark that excited not only the explosion of hand-wringing about supposed “systemic racism” among the police and in American society at large, but also the nationwide wave of protests, violent riots, and even calls to defund or disband the police.

As I have noted elsewhere, the destructive mob riots are not race riots. Rather, they are an attack on civilization itself. In essence, they are a reprise of the antinomian radicalism that swept the country in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with Antifa and Black Lives Matter standing in for the SDS, the Weather Underground, and the Black Panthers.

Now as then, histrionic rhetoric ran far ahead of reality. America was not a racist country in 1968. Nor is it one now. As Heather Mac Donald has shown, the charge that the police are guilty of “systemic racism” is a divisive myth. In 2018, Blacks were responsible for 53 percent of the homicides and 60 percent of the robberies in the United States, though they represent only 13 percent of the population. “Police shootings,” Mac Donald observed, “are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is.”

How it is that racism got installed as the crime of crimes is a deep question which is unanswerable not least because we cannot even pose it seriously as a question .  

But reality counts for little in the disorienting echo chamber of political correctness. In those surreal environs, “race” is simultaneously merely a “social construction” but also, when politically convenient, an inescapable and essential reality. “Racial equality” is demanded even as “whiteness” is declared an irredeemably existential liability. Which is it, equality or a new race-based hierarchy?

It is worth stepping back to ask what is it about the term “racism” that silences conversation and sends an anticipatory shudder of delight down the spines of politically correct vigilantes of virtue. Like the word “heretic” in an earlier age, “racism” is more weapon than word. Its primary effect is not to describe but to intimidate, ostracize, and silence. What semantic significance it may command is overshadowed by its use as a negative epithet. Once successfully applied to a person or practice, a sort of secular damnation, or at least excommunication, ensues. Seldom is there any appeal, let alone absolution. Those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, said St. Mark, cannot be forgiven. Racism is the eternal, the unforgivable, sin of our age. It is our summum malum. Those successfully accused of racism are beyond the pale, cast out into the place of fletus et stridor dentium. Exactly why this should be takes us into deep waters. I do not pretend to have the answer.

This much is clear, however: The deployment of power always attracts acolytes and entrepreneurs. So it is no surprise that a thriving cottage industry has grown up around accusations of racism. We might call the resulting enterprise “Racism, Inc.” There is no shortage of workers on that assembly line. On college campuses (but not only on college campuses, as a look at our city streets these last weeks remind us), the bludgeon of “racism” is a popular and effective instrument of moral one-upmanship and social control, not to mention intellectual conformity and economic blackmail.

A full exploration of this phenomenon would fill a book, maybe several. A diligent student might start by drawing on Norman Cohn’s analysis, in The Pursuit of the Millennium, of collective madness, especially the shared conviction of spiritual election and higher virtue, in various medieval heresies.

Given the prominence of “racism” in today’s lexicon of moral opprobrium, it is curious that the word itself is of very recent vintage. Indeed, it is a neologism so recent that it does not appear in the 1971 Oxford English Dictionary. The Supplement to my edition of the OED (printed in 1961) introduces “racialism”—the “tendency to racial feeling; antagonism between different races of men”—but fails to provide an equivalent of our multipurpose imprecation “racism.” (A later edition managed to turn up an instance of the word from the early 1930s.) Perhaps that fact is itself evidence of a particularly insidious form of racism—all the more insidious because unacknowledged. Or perhaps that fact, along with the recentness of the word in any currency, suggests that there is something artificial, manufactured, or even cynically manipulative about the tort it describes. Doubtless, there are spokesmen for both alternatives.

Another oddity: Racism, Inc. manufactures only one-way ratchets. That is to say, “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” I well remember a bulletin from a professor at Texas Christian University:

At the beginning of the semester, I usually like to invite all my white students to get together and discuss the challenges they may face. . . . However, the time slipped by and I didn’t get a chance. So, I would like to ask if you are interested in a get together on Monday afternoon. We can also discuss the exam that is coming up. I don’t mind if this would turn out to be a study session for my WHITE STUDENTS ONLY.

Are you outraged and disgusted by this blatantly racist invitation? Of course, you are. Though given that it issued from an institution with the words “Texas” and “Christian” in its name, perhaps you are not surprised. What else can you expect from so tainted a source?

Except, that is not exactly how the bulletin read. The professor really did offer an invitation to some, and only some, of his students, and the invitation was race-based. But the original email extended the invitation not to white students, but to “STUDENTS OF COLOR ONLY.” Do you find that your feelings of outrage and disgust are noticeably diminished? Are you busy searching for an explanation, an extenuation, an excuse? Just asking.

Back in 1970, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then serving as a domestic advisor to President Nixon, wrote a memorandum about race relations in the United States. “[A] great deal of the crime, the fire setting, the rampant school violence, and other such phenomenon in the black community have become quasi­ politicized,” Moynihan noted. “Hatred—revenge—against whites is now an acceptable excuse for doing what might have been done anyway.” Noting the great economic and social strides that blacks had made in recent decades, Moynihan suggested that

The time may have come when the issue of race could benefit from a period of “benign neglect.” The subject has been too much talked about. The forum has been too much taken over to hysterics, paranoids, and boodlers on all sides. We may need a period in which Negro progress continues and racial rhetoric fades. The administration can help bring this about by paying close attention to such progress—as we are doing—while seeking to avoid situations in which extremists of either race are given opportunities for martyr­dom, heroics, histrionics or whatever.

Moynihan was a liberal who came to despair of what had become of liberalism. Much to his chagrin, the gargantuan—and gargantuanly expensive—social programs enacted to end poverty and lift blacks into the middle class and self-sufficiency had backfired by creating an enormous apparatus of government dependency.

As James Q. Wilson observed, the War on Poverty did not end poverty, it institutionalized it by providing incentives for infantilization. Commenting on Moynihan’s legacy, the social critic Fred Siegel noted that Moynihan’s advocacy of liberal openness “was blocked by an architecture of indignation built not on evidence, as Moynihan understood it, but rather on what Shelby Steele calls ‘poetic truths,’ which insist, among other things, on the persistence of racial repression. The new shape-shifting structures of micro-oppression (and microaggression) guarantee explanations for why blacks are still held back by white subjugation, even as the symbols of that oppression—such as ‘hands up, don’t shoot’—have to be manufactured out of whole cloth.”

How it is that racism got installed as the crime of crimes is a deep question which is unanswerable not least because we cannot even pose it seriously as a question, at least not in any of those institutions supposedly devoted to ferreting out the truth. Nevertheless, the noxious activities of Racism, Inc.—from the shake-down tactics of Black Lives Matter and Antifa to the academic sport of manufacturing racist incidents on campus—remind us of a profound observation made by the philosopher Sidney Hook.

“As morally offensive as is the expression of racism wherever it is found,” Hook wrote,

a false charge of racism is equally offensive, perhaps even more so, because the consequences of a false charge of racism enable an authentic racist to conceal his racism by exploiting the loose way the term is used to cover up his actions. The same is true of a false charge of sexism or anti-Semitism. This is the lesson we should all have learned from the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Because of his false and irresponsible charges of communism against liberals, socialists, and others among his critics, many communists and agents of communist influence sought to pass themselves off as Jeffersonian democrats or merely idealistic tenured radicals reformers.

Hook wrote that several decades ago. We have yet to catch up to it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Jake, what do you make of someone who, once upon a time on these boards, stated that he was so glad and proud he was white. Is that simply a proud declaration of race but, if so, why make a point of doing it? Or are they not so subtle code words for something else? And do you understand why someone reading those words could jump to a conclusion about that person, especially when he refused to answer a question asking him whether he was a white supremacist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...