| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We learned BLM is one of the most racist organizations to come
upon the scene in recent times. They are also one of the
largest shakedown organizations in recent times. We also
learned many capitalist dolts, who run some of the largest
corporations in America, fell for their nonsense and contributed
millions of stockholder money to BLM only to subsequently learn
BLM insiders squandered a good bit of that largess on personal
gratifications such as expensive homes etc.
That executives of companies like Coca Cola. Delta, American
Airlines et. al. became sufficiently intimidated to fork over
stockholder dollars and, in my humble opinion, it justifies having
their golden parachutes taken from them as they are
kicked off their corporate jets.
I personally owned a few shares of Delta and Coca Cola and sold
them the next day. Furthermore, the corporate executive
cowardly nonsense did not stop there. it continued into
the ranks of their employees who are being afflicted by
re-education. You would think these companies have embraced
Xi's CCP Model of indoctrinating Muslims on how to behave and
become obedient little Mandarin's.
Opinion: When
will all of the shrill nonsense stop? Perhaps when people are
bored enough.
Rutgers
University in New Brunswick, N.J., by the Raritan River.
Opinion by George
F. Will Columnist
Rutgers
University’s chancellor and provost, who are weathervanes in
human form, lack the courage of their convictions, which they
also lack. First, on May 26, they announced themselves “saddened” and “greatly concerned” about recent anti-Semitic
violence. Soon, however, they crouch into the academic
bureaucrat’s gush-and-grovel mode because Rutgers’s Students
for Justice in Palestine objected.
The two officials promptly agreed that
their first statement, by failing to
“communicate support for
our Palestinian community,” did not serve the university’s
“beloved community” as “a place where all identities can feel
validated.” Rutgers’s president then denied that
their second
statement was an apology. It was headlined “An
Apology.”
This episode,
illustrating academia’s familiar compound of vanity, mendacity
and cowardice, was not startling. It followed the University of
California Press, which was displeased with Israel’s response
to Hamas’s rockets, proclaiming “Solidarity
and Support for Palestinians in their Fight for Liberation.”
And a Brandeis University dean, who is White, notifying
the world, which had not sought her opinion, that “all
White people are racist.”
In California,
indoctrinators posing as educators say
that insisting on “getting the right answer” perpetuates the fiction of “objectivity” and “white supremacy
culture in the mathematics classroom.” The U.S. Education
Department urges school
districts to use some of the $200 billion covid-19 relief funds
for “antiracist therapy for White educators.” A Madison, Wis.,
high school invites parents
to participate in a segregated discussion of “police brutality
and violence,” one Zoom link for White parents, one for
“Parents of Color.”What starts on
campus does not stay there The flag of Black Lives Matter, a
political movement unenthusiastic about the nation, is given privileged
status to fly at U.S. embassies. And so on, and on, and on.
A glimmer of good
news is that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th
Circuit has
ruled unconstitutional the provision of the $28.6
billion Restaurant Revitalization Fund’s that grants racial
preferences to minority-owned small restaurants. The bad news,
which is more discouraging than the good news is encouraging,
is that this provision was enacted 153
years after ratification of the 14th Amendment’s
guarantee of equal protection of the laws. As “equity” eclipses
equality as the Democratic Party’s aspiration, the
infantilization of minorities as permanent wards of government
has become the policy of the party of “caring.”
The unceasing
torrent of political proclamations from people whose politics
are not germane to their vocations raises a question. Why do
people who have nothing intelligent to say insist on proving this? The urgent question, however, is whether the ideologies
of the speakers, and the sensitivities of their anticipated
auditors, have produced a new etiquette: Politeness is
understood as genuflection at approved political altars. Today,
verifiable truth is just one option among many, with a standing
inferior to any ideological agenda that the truth
inconveniences.
Last month,
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor deliberately misquoted —
actually, expurgated — one of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s
opinions. In her opinion for the court in an immigration case,
she quoted from
a 1987 Marshall opinion in which he referred to the rights of
an “alien,” the term used in the statute at issue. She replaced
this word with “noncitizen,” in brackets. It has become
impermissible in journalism to refer to someone who is residing
indefinitely in the country illegally as an illegal immigrant.
Journalism, however, is written on water, so such curtsies to
current fashion do not matter as much as historical documents
do. When the highest court begins prettifying yesterday’s
opinions to conform to today’s ideological delicacies, the
question becomes: When will today’s pandemic of nonsense stop?
Perhaps when the
nation is rescued by the human capacity for boredom. In 1982,
the sociologist and philosopher Robert Nisbet wrote:“Many an evil
dogma, doctrine, or other intellectual continuity has in the
end been undone, not by assault, but by boredom on the part of
its victims. A secret weapon against the Soviet Union and the Marx-Leninist creed is the stupefying boredom that this creed
induces in the minds of the secon and third generations
brought up under it.”
Because today’s
dogmas are amplified by ubiquitous media, their life spans from
birth to boring can perhaps be compressed into a few years
rather than generations. Tedium is the result when the nation
is hectored by shrill claims that something (formerly,
capitalism and the class struggle; today, “systemic racism”)
explains why everything is dreadful. The
bores, tuned out by their intended audience, might become akin
to audible wallpaper — there, but no longer noticed. Bores will, however, always have the consolation of tenure.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Spencer Lawton is
one of Savannah's most articulate writers and deepest thinkers and is a dear friend and fellow memo
reader. For those who may not know, he was one of the most gifted district attorneys ever to serve in Chatham County and trained Meg Heap to be an equally outstanding district attorney.
It’s Not Systemic and It’s Not Racism Virtually all of Enlightened
Opinion in America holds that our society is plagued by systemic racism.
Not being a journalist, university professor or celebrity, I’m free to
disagree. Any fool knows we
have a problem of race relations. The hostility, suspicion and resentment that seem to permeate American life around the issue of race are toxic to civil
society, and neither blacks nor whites are free of grave responsibility in it. I don’t think ordinary
white people feel like or behave like oppressors, or dislike ordinary black people. I don’t think ordinary black people feel like or behave like helpless
victims, or dislike ordinary white people. I think the whole cataclysmic sturm
und drang we’ve been enduring is being played out largely over the heads of
ordinary citizens trying to live peaceful and productive lives. I think it’s a
political racket orchestrated by people who derive an ideological satisfaction
or financial advantage from exploitation of the issue. I think it’s important
to understand who’s playing what parts in the orchestra. This is my effort to
do that. It’s Not Systemic. If the racism
complained of were systemic it would be coordinated, controlled, and
have a clear and purpose toward which all its parts were functionally
directed; it would have parameters toward which it would naturally extend and
by which it would be limited. But this “racism” has none of these
attributes. It’s scattered, random, usually passive, and rarely intense. If it
can plausibly seem systemic, that’s because it’s widespread. I believe the other
reason it’s said to be systemic is that among people who don’t like to think
but hope to persuade, powerful adjectives are a ready substitute for thinking;
hence the proliferation of words like profound, existential, fascist,
crisis et cetera to describe anything mundane, offensive or inconvenient --
and systemic to describe something about which specific instances don’t
come readily to hand. It’s Not About Racism. A favorite adage leaps
to mind: Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. If this issue were
about racism, it would be an expression of the belief that black people
are defined by genetic inferiority. Because this bases a negative
judgment on an immutable element of racial genetics – a person can’t change his DNA -- it strikes us
as fundamentally unfair, and carries the noxious moral tinge of malice. Certainly black
people are often faced with unprovoked and offensive affronts to their natural human dignity, both personally and collectively. They aren’t alone in this
however, as many minorities might be willing to confirm. That an affront
strikes a black person does not by that fact alone make it a racial offense. Anyone may quarrel
with my definition of racism. Critical race theory, as I understand it, doesn’t even bother to define it, but identifies it as the “whatever” force that must
necessarily be the cause of any disparate negative outcome for blacks, there
being no other possible cause. Race, say the theorists, so ineradicably
permeates every dimension of American society that, like gravity when something
falls, we don’t trouble ourselves with identifying it in every case. But we
know it’s there, don’t we? Guess what else suffuses every nook and cranny: Sex.
Oops...what now? A simple distinction
is necessary. There is real “racism,” but it’s not the “racism” complained of
in Enlightened Opinion. I can think of only one treatment of black people in
America that is genuinely systemic and racist: the broad range of protections
and privileges uniquely accorded them by the larger society. It’s systemic in
the sense of being institutionalized in the law and in the functional cultural
mores of that society. It’s racist in the sense of being based solely on the
fact that they are black, and having nothing to do with individual or
collective merit. While it’s usually justified as remedial, after the better
part of three generations, the remedy has either worked or not, and might
reasonably be abandoned. It’s About
Culture The neutral
explanation for the conflict lies in culture. large numbers of white people
just don’t much like black people generally. It’s not because of their
color, but because of their perceived culture, which has nothing to do with
their color. It’s all down to old-fashioned cultural stereotyping. Black people
aren’t so special after all. Anyone who just doesn’t much care for Deplorables
will know exactly what I mean. To be disrespected
is not the same as being oppressed. There is a morally
neutral explanation for the inescapable bias among whites against black people, and by the injunction I just cited we are admonished to choose it over the
explanation that requires malice. What is the
perceived culture of black people that inspires the negative stereotype held by
so many whites? I’ll hazard a few possibilities: I think many white
people see black people, in the aggregate, as disproportionately inclined to criminality; as prolifically creating fatherless families (now at about 70%);
as underachieving in education; as drawn to entertainment that’s loud, vulgar,
violent and misogynistic; as dressing to emulate streetwalkers and jail
inmates; as valuing victimhood over achievement; and as being marinated in an
attitude of entitlement beyond the reach of merit. On the point of
embracing victimhood over achievement, I’ll refer to the recent celebration in
the media of the Tulsa race riot and massacre of 1921. As I saw it, the
dominant theme was the racist atrocity which deserves to be remembered and
learned from forever. But it seemed
almost an afterthought when there was a mention of the brave self-reliance of
the black community there who, in the teeth of Jim Crow himself, built a
community of strength and prosperity, and did so without the by-your-leave or
sympathy of white people or of the government. And then they rebuilt,
again on their own terms. Wait for a white liberal or black leader to focus on
that – if you have the time left in life. Paraphrasing Jason Riley, writing in
the Wall Street Journal: They seem much more concerned by white criminal
behavior100 years go in Tulsa than black criminal behavior every day in
Chicago. Where are their priorities?
However true or
false, this cultural thing is still all about a stereotype, and as such
whatever grain of truth it may contain is surely confined to a too-conspicuous
minority and just as surely exaggerated. The salient point is that it doesn’t
have reference to genetic racial characteristics, which can’t be changed, but
to perceived behavior, which can. Nor are they traits that can be
thought unique to blacks, but are commonly found – and commonly disapproved --
in society at large. The operative idea
is that they are often perceived as describing black people disproportionately. I hasten to add here
that my characterizing the cultural perception as a stereotype is not meant to minimize it.
While universal and timeless and offering an evolutionary survival advantage, stereotypes are almost always offensive and usually harmful, which puts a
particular burden of truthfulness and charity on the one doing the judging. By
no means do I suggest that white Americans have discharged that responsibility
always well or fairly. Lest it be thought
that white people assign these objectionable traits on spiteful whim alone,
it’s worth considering how often black/liberal opinion leaders confirm them, as
when they expressly denigrate as bourgeois tools of white oppression any
suggestion that young blacks finish school, get a job, marry before having
children, and obey the law. Imagine how it would
affect race relations in America if those few admonitions were to be more generally internalized among blacks – even to the degree found in the rest of
the population, which is actually a pretty low bar. It’s Also About
Exploitation. I think there are at
least two elements to the this exploitation: A graceless denial of redemption,
and a cynical racket. [1] Redemption Cancelled: The racket, which
I’ll attempt to describe anon, could only live in the dead air left when
redemption is denied.Senator Tim Scott referred to this, a few weeks ago, eloquently and
succinctly: “Original sin is never
the end of the story. Not in our souls, and not for our nation. The real story
is always redemption.” The compulsion
to focus on our history and its legacy of sin is entirely understandable, of
course. But is it helpful or healthy for a person to bind himself to the limitations
of his past -- and is it any more so for a people emerging from bondage? I
think not. Equally it’s unhealthy and unhelpful to permanently consign others
to the sins of their past. Has America not earned a bit of redemption?
White America can’t escape an acknowledgment of the virulent racism
that accompanied its embrace of slavery until a century and a half ago. From
that time to the present it is morally obligated to accept condemnation for the
extent to which the residue from that awful period before 1865 has festered and
infected its society.
Equally however, White America is morally entitled to credit for the
extent to which it has expunged that residue from its soul. If the descendants
of the victims of the original evil and its residue refuse to grant that
credit, but insist upon full condemnation of their former oppressors, they must
bear some responsibility for the moral and social toxicity that persists.
If in this choice they are supported by virtually every one of our
social institutions – the news media, the academy, the entertainment industry,
major political parties, et cetera -- then those institutions likewise share
responsibility for the inevitable unpleasant consequences. With Senator
Scott, I think there’s a strong case for redemptionThere is probably not in
the history of humankind a society that has devoted as much effort, treasure,
and purposeful cultural evolution to assimilating a previously enslaved
population as America -- dare I say white America? -- has done. *Only a century after
its founding, America fought a fierce war of brother against brother in which almost half a million of its young (Union) men died, with the result that
slavery was ended and black slaves were freed. We hear much these days about reparations
for the evil of slavery. Is there some reason the contemporaneous suffering and
death of so many white citizens in the war to end slavery doesn’t satisfy that imperative?
If we add to this the injustices and social burdens white America inflicted on
itself in the sixties (e.g., affirmative action and the excesses of the
Great Society), might we fairly consider the issue of reparations
to be settled? *The Constitution, our sacred founding
document, is often and correctly criticized for institutionalizing slavery. Yet
immediately after our civil war white America took dramatic steps to amend that
document so as to enshrine the abolition of slavery, and the guarantee of equal protection, in our foundational law. Is this what racists do?
True, it took another century, while
Jim Crow made a mockery of that promise, for it to be fully realized. But even
that was largely a reaction against Reconstruction, which was itself a national effort at assimilation. *In any case, the cornerstone had been
laid, and from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s white
legislatively erased
every remaining vestige of legal discrimination on the basis of race in this country, beginning with our schools. Is this the behavior of a congenitally
racist society? *In the half-century since then, there
has occurred a sea-change in racial attitudes of Americans. With rare and
diminishing exceptions, black and white people in America have mostly learned
to shake off the cobwebs of the past that sometimes still cling, and to live
together in relative harmony. For the better part of three generations since
the sixties we have increasingly come to know each other -- in workplaces,
recreational activities, civic affairs, commercial activities, and in all the spaces between. How these billions of natural, normal and unremarked personal interactions
can be described as infused with white racism is beyond me*This process of merger and
assimilation has been true not only of individual relationships, but of our
institutional interactions as well. Almost everywhere in America – certainly (maybe
especially) in the Deep South -- blacks have come to occupy positions high and
low in the electoral politics of all three branches of government at every level from local to national. And did I mention that this systemically racist
society twice elected a black man President? *Perhaps even more
significant than the power of elective office, the perceived moral urgency of assimilation has resulted in the dominant population’s voluntarily ceding to a thirteen
percent minority a virtual veto over most of domestic policy. If this has ever
been true of any other society on Earth, I’m unaware of it. *If a bedrock belief in the simple
truth of black racial inferiority and white supremacy is a natural and
irremediable aspect of white character, how does it happen that whites
accept “racist” as the most opprobrious epithet possible in contemporary
society? Why do powerful politicians, captains
of industry and chieftains of finance make fools of themselves channeling Joan
of Arc atop the barricades, or debase themselves in Chinese Revolution-style
public confession and apology, in the vain hope that that they’ll be spared the scarlet letter “R” branded on their foreheads? Does anyone really believe they are as
ashamed or as pure as they wish to appear? ...I didn’t think so. Does everyone
know they act from guilt and fear? ...Of course. What does this tell us about whites’
racist oppression of blacks in America?
Of course there are some white people
who entered into those decades of reconciliation clinging to their clearly
racist bias against black people, and emerged with that bias unchanged, hoping
for the second coming of the Confederacy. They walk among us. There are also
people who wait out apocalyptic anniversaries gathered on mountaintops expecting
to be transported in the rapture that somehow always gets postponed. The fact
that they’re out there doesn’t mean they’re relevant in any meaningful sense.
They’re not. To promise
redemption while it’s purposefully placed beyond reach calls to mind the
Inquisition. I don’t mean to draw too close an analogy, but a construct in
which a plea of not guilty is seen as proof of guilt (“repressed/unconscious
racism”) is a bit disconcerting. Why might we not
slake the thirst for Social Justice, of which we hear tiresomely (I prefer the
kind that has definitions, relies on actual evidence, and provides for mercy),
with a sip of sweet redemption? Answer: Hoffer’s Racket has taken hold. [2] Exploitation – Hoffer’s Racket: I think, wholly
unburdened by empirical evidence, that white people chafe under not only the passive
denial of any credit for their good faith and fidelity to simple justice, but
also under a sense of being actively exploited.
Wait...that’s not a typo! Shouldn’t
everybody get to be a victim? From here on, I mean
to refer not to white people or black people in general but to the black
leaders white liberals who are the custodians and promoters of the
Enlightened Opinion I referred to at the outset. Meanwhile, to make
the distinction more clear I’ll point out, just by way of limited example, that blacks by significant majorities reject the arrant nonsense of “defund the
police” and support police presence in their neighborhoods; they likewise
support school choice and the requirement of voter IDs. Other examples of
the disconnect between enlightened leaders and hapless followers can be seen everywhere, except by people whose self-interest or emotional myopia won’t
allow it. It’s difficult to
think of a contemporaneous white concession to the accusation of racism that
isn’t ultimately grounded in guilt, or fear, or both. (The test: try it.) Leaving aside any question
whether the guilt and fear are warranted, the point is their vulnerability to
exploitation. Eric Hoffer said, “Every great cause begins as a movement,
becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Here is how I see that evolution: The Movement: First there was
the Civil Rights Movement. It succeeded because whites overwhelmingly either
supported or acquiesced in it. This was followed by the Great Society which lent it substance. Most of white America became resigned to the inevitable –
some more enthusiastically than others -- and entered into the decades following the
sixties in a spirit of basic good faith, though opposition to forced busing was
an obvious – and for most easily understood -- exception. The result has been a
sea-change in Americans’ racial attitudes. The Business: Quickly the
movement became a Business. It should surprise no one that with an irreversible
victory at last in hand, and theretofore incredible amounts of Great Society money sloshing around, the effort to extend the de jure triumph into the de
facto realm should become a magnet for entrepreneurial politics and social
activism. This it did. Locally, who can
forget the grant-funded “grass roots” programs that popped up like mushrooms in the grass of the seventies? The last time I checked, our board of education
maintains (under a different name) a forty year old set-aside policy for
minorities in school construction projects. There was also the broad
array of national social welfare agencies and programs, many of which are still
with us despite records of success charitably described as modest. As a business the
movement did well for the people who ran it and for its employees – the nonprofits and bureaucrats who churned it, the academics who professed it, the
journalists who wrote about it -- while it failed almost completely to advance
the prospects of its supposed beneficiaries. I have in mind here the numberless
poor blacks – and their children – whose condition didn’t much improve
over the next forty and more years. The first and most obvious failure of the business lay in the stubborn
destruction of the black family and the creation of an intractable
intergenerational dependency. Rather than mitigating blacks’ dependence on government
and white people, race-as-business deepened that dependence. Instead of
becoming fully independent agents of their destiny, blacks increasingly became mere clients. Jason Riley, again: ...in the first half of the 20th century, long before an expanded
welfare state supposedly came to the rescue, blacks accomplished quite a lot.
Incomes rose, poverty fell dramatically, and education gaps narrowed. Blacks entered the skilled professions—medicine, law, accounting,
engineering, social work—at faster rates in the years preceding the1960s
civil-rights legislation than they did in the years afterward....violent crime
among blacks declined in the 1940s, then dropped even further in the 1950s,
while remaining relatively stable among whites. In other words, blacks living
during Jim Crow segregation, and much closer to the era of slavery, experienced
significantly lower rates of violent crime and incarceration both in absolute
terms and relative to whites. [Emphasis supplied] Hoffer’s Racket: As
I look back it seems to me that eventually – sometime in the nineties, perhaps -- it became clear that the principal agents of and apologists for the harm
were the same opportunists -- black leaders and white liberals --who had done
so much to cause it. Meanwhile,
everyone else was not only paying for it but
being blamed for it. That, in my opinion, is when the Movement degenerated from
a Business into a Racket. How to illustrate
the fact? Examples abound. Here are some that came to mind randomly as I’ve
been
writing this: **BLM was conceived and born in fraud.
There was never a “Hands up, don’t
shoot!” moment at Ferguson. It’s a falsehood aggressively promoted by the media and refuted even by Eric
Holder’s Department of Justice. Under its banner we have
watched a purposeful eradication of concern for
the wholesale slaughter of blacks by blacks, and in its place a crippling of law enforcement while
cities are consumed by “mostly peaceful”
arson and homicide. And undergirding all of this, hypocrisy at levels fairly described as pathological. **We have seen the wholesale abandonment of the
teachings of Douglass, Washington, du Bois
and King in their advocacy of black self-reliance, treated as quaint relics of an irrelevant past. When was the
last time any heard a
black/liberal leader refer to MLK’s “content of their character” vision? Enlightened Opinion’s battle flag has moved
from equality of opportunity, where
the content of one’s character makes a different, to equity in
outcome, where it doesn’t. Disparate
outcome is now to be understood as ipso facto the product of “white supremacy.” This looks like a
perfect way to promote conflict while
stifling prosperity for the minority. If the racket depends on a disadvantaged client group and a state of
constant conflict over their plight, why
not encourage those things? **The state of permanent black victimhood
and helplessness that feeds the need of the black/liberal elite is well served by banging on about “Jim Crow 2.0” which also shamelessly trivializes the
experience of people who actually
suffered under slavery and Jim Crow. **Imagine that God were to decide that
tomorrow’s sun would rise on an America in which concepts of “racism” and “white supremacy” had no purchase, but everywhere was milk &
honey, bluebirds chirping and rose petals. Who would suffer the greater
loss – bureaucrats, journalists and academics,
or Deplorables? **The WSJ recently reported a case in
which a black entrepreneur was denied
that minority designation by his
association of black-owned businesses and
sued the association for the resulting loss of preferential benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled.
In the world of legal gymnastics this makes perfect sense, but
how have we not entered racket territory
when it’s possible to be both an oppressed minority and have a cause of action for the withholding of a
preference based on that minority status? **Until now, no one outside an asylum
would say with a straight face that mathematics
is racist. Yet in California a proposed math curriculum framework objects to a “white supremacy culture” in current
math classrooms that emphasizes an objectively
right and wrong answer, and that advances gifted students, which
is objected to as “inequitable.” **I’ve already mentioned the issue of
reparations, but I think it surely belongs
in any discussion of a racket. **Voter suppression belongs too, in my
opinion. How have we come to the point where a social and professional death penalty attaches to the slightest suggestion that black people as a group may
suffer from any disability or deficiency
in comparison to the rest of the population, and yet we are asked to accept that the requirement of a photo ID places an “undue
burden” on blacks? Allegedly even in
Georgia, where it’s
now easier for anybody to vote
than to board a Delta flight.
How is this not a racist claim, in the old, pernicious
sense of genetic inferiority? I think it’s just part of the racket. **I’m prepared to suggest that at any
given moment in the ordinary course of
life in America today, a black person entering into a social or commercial transaction with a white person or in a
“white” institution is more likely to be
met with preference than with
prejudice. **The old white racism held blacks to be genetically
inferior, and it was shameful. The new black racism holds whites to be morally inferior,
in that whites are inherently and
irreversibly racist. This is perfectly acceptable. Nowhere is this double standard more persistently
reinforced than in the establishment
media **No mention of race as a racket can
ignore the role of the legacy media. It is almost literally true that for at
least fifteen years it has been impossible to pick
up a newspaper or turn on the radio or TV without being immediately confronted with a story centered on race. Often
if not usually it’s the lead story, and recounts some instance of “white supremacist” oppression, either suffered
or bravely overcome by some black person or group; Often
if not usually, it’s from a time years, generations, decades or centuries ago; Often
if not usually, it ignores, minimizes or excuses any element of fault that might attach to a black person in
the transaction; Often
if not usually, it makes the explicit case that the white person in it was motivated by racial animus,
a claim that often if not usually turns
out to be unfounded or flat wrong. **If we were to search the archives of
the media since, say, 2000 or earlier, selecting at random any statement about race, I think we would very likely find that at its core the statement
relies on the assumption of powerless black victimhood
and/or white guilt. Of both the
victimhood and the guilt, I think this
also would likely be true: neither of them is empirically compelling as they are both largely political
constructs, pretty much exclusively for acquiring
and exercising power. **Such a search would turn up
numberless references to “mass incarceration”
of black males, accompanied by zero mentions of their mass criminality.
This is meant to have, and increasingly
has had, the effect of lightening
the burden of punishment on black criminals, which is a less than helpful form of empowerment. **Al Sharpton has his own show on
MSNBC. Is he not the very embodiment of fraud in service to power? **The New York Times
commissioned The 1619 Project, the historical falsehood and racial hatefulness of which are
well-established. Somebody’s running a game here. It’s Hoffer’s Racket, not
that 400 year-old racism, that has relevance
for a dynamic of victimhood and power today. **Judging solely by what appears in
the media, there is almost no subject and
no institution in American society in which race is not a central concern and black the preferred color. A test for this
might be to think of a few subjects or
institutions for which this is not true. This is a remarkable degree of sharp focus
and broad uniformity in the news
and opinion regularly available to the people, and it tends in remarkable degree to the same effect: one race is noble helpless and desperate, while the other is evil and
dangerous. In any other country and in any
other time, this would be called propaganda.
How Does It End?
I don’t think our society can continue like this, but neither can I see
a path to a happy ending. – sl ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Israel was called upon, if not openly dunned and for this: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/06/06/hamas-leader-boasts-we-can-demolish-tel-aviv/ Hamas leader boasts: We can demolish Tel Aviv Yahya Sinwar says Israel only. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Spot on op ed's:
| | Democrats Continue To Milk The Gullible For Money 
Derek Hunter +++ | | | |
https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/05/30/the-third-lebanon-war/
+++++++++++++++++++++
Meanwhile, Biden gives tax payer money to Palestinians and Abbas uses some to pay murderers:
 | Abbas gives over $42,000 to family of murderer of 2 IsraelisNan Jacques Zilb
 After family of murderer of 2 Israelis falls short on payment to buy a new house, PA Chairman Abbas himself steps in to donate the remaining sum - over $42,000Two Israelis, Rabbi Nehemiah Lavi and Aharon Bennett, were stabbed to death
while walking in the Old City of Jerusalem on Oct. 3, 2015. The murderer was 19-year-old Muhannad Halabi. He also seriously injured Bennett’s wife, Adele, and their 2-year-old son in the attack before he was shot and killed by Israeli police. For the PA, murderer Halabi is a hero. Right after Halabi’s murderous attack, Palestinian Media Watch documented the PA and Fatah’s great praise and admiration for the murderer. The gestures of appreciation of the killings included naming a street and sports tournaments after the murderer, bringing soil from the Al-Aqsa Mosque to his grave, and repeated honor and approval expressed by top PA and Fatah officials. Now, PA Chairman Abbas has conveyed the PA’s admiration for the murderer yet again and rewarded his family by stepping in to help them buy a house. Abbas granted the family 30,000 Jordanian dinars – over $42,000 – to complete their purchase of a house. To hand over the money, Abbas sent another avid fan of terrorist murderers, Ramallah District Governor Dr. Laila Ghannam.
Meeting with the murderer’s family, Ghannam stressed that Abbas himself had instructed that the matter be solved “so as to protect the dignity of the family”: Posted text: “Ramallah and El-Bireh District Governor Dr. Laila Ghannam gave the family of Martyr Muhannad Halabi (i.e., terrorist, murdered 2) a sum of 30,000 Jordanian dinars (over $42,000 -Ed.) today, Sunday [June 6, 2021], which was provided by His Honor President Mahmoud Abbas, in order to complete the amount needed to purchase the home of the family, whose home the occupation destroyed. This was during a meeting that District Governor Ghannam held in the presence of the Martyr’s parents and the family’s lawyer... District Governor Ghannam emphasized that the meeting took place under the instructions of His Honor the president in order to resolve the matter of the home of Martyr Muhannad Halabi’s family, so as to protect the dignity of the family, and out of appreciation for the role of the committee that worked diligently to raise money to rebuild the home. She noted that the president’s instructions to Head of [PA] General Intelligence Majed Faraj were clear: Resolve the matter once and for all. The district governor thanked the president, who is dedicating special attention to the families of the Martyrs, prisoners, and fighters, and emphasized that this is not foreign to His Honor [Abbas], as he is the compassionate father of all our people. She called on all the citizens, media outlets, and activists on social media to strive for precision when reporting news items, and to take them from their source... The Martyr’s family thanked His Honor the president and all those who donated to complete this matter and to pay the amount that was left to pay the owners of the home.” [Facebook page of Ramallah and El-Bireh District Governor Laila Ghannam, June 6, 2021]
After Halabi’s attack, as is Israel's policy, Israel demolished the house he was living in so as to deter other Palestinians from carrying out future terror attacks. According to the murderer’s sister, 130,000 Jordanian dinars ($183,359) were donated to the murderer’s family, so they bought a home worth that sum. However, they received only 100,000 dinars, while the remaining 30,000 was given to families of other “Martyrs.” Growing impatient, the sellers of the home filed a lawsuit against the Halabi family, and therefore Abbas stepped in and them the remaining 30,000 dinars to finalize the purchase of the house. [You Tube channel ”Gaza”, May 29, 2021] Muhannad Halabi - 19-year-old Palestinian terrorist who murdered 2 Israelis, Rabbi Nehemiah Lavi and Aharon Bennett, and - contrary to what Abbas Zaki claims in this speech - injured Bennett's wife, Adele, and their 2-year-old son in a stabbing attack in the Old City of Jerusalem on Oct. 3, 2015. Following the attack, he was shot and killed by Israeli security forces. Prior to his attack, the terrorist wrote on Facebook that a "third Intifada" had begun. Israel carries out demolitions of terrorists' houses. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Demolition orders are issued only against the residences of terrorists who commit the most serious offenses" and it is "an act of deterrence meant to discourage Palestinians from carrying out future terror attacks so as to minimize their number.” (MFA website) ++++++++++++++++++++++
Leaving for Mayo's tomorrow. My father fought for Civil Rights for all. Were he alive today he would be disgusted with what many blacks have allowed to happen in terms of who have become their spokespersons, organizations who have sought to discriminate and the rise of anti-Semitism among black organizations: In the US, statements by black mayors echo the bigotry of white racist mayors of the past - just the direction is reversed. Op-ed.Lori Lightfoot, the Mayor of Chicago, is a reverse throwback to the out-and out racist white mayors of Atlanta, Richmond and other Dixie Belt cities during the Jim Crow era. Ms. Lightfoot is black and she is competing with them in the bigotry arena with her recent outpouring of hate against white reporters. If you rely on the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC, you're probably unaware that towards the end of May, she announced that she will henceforth grant one-on-one interviews only to "black and brown" journalists. That means, white reporters will be given the heave-ho out of City Hall. During her first two years in office she has had some judgment and leadership problems that the press has covered, as is within the realm of their responsibilities. For instance, she was caught with her hair down when she broke her own rules and had a beauty parlor open up exclusively for her during the Covid epidemic when all such businesses were ordered closed - by her. And the exploding, record breaking murder and crime rates within the Windy City this year, during her administration, are covered up at all costs. White reporters, we must assume, by asking the right questions regarding these issues, may be threatening to her. And she expects and will surely get special treatment from compliant and "understanding" reporters of color. Lightfoot will heretofore, judge journalists by the color of their skin. Perhaps a "SkinColorMeter" will be installed at the entrance to City Hall. As a journalist myself, I find it shocking that so little coverage of this issue has made the front pages and lead stories in the media. Unless we all missed it, we could find no criticism of her actions in the pages of the same New York Times, or relevant discussions of the topic on CNN, MSNBC, CBS or PBS. It's a topic treated as, "The tree falling in an empty forest." She did get support from another female black mayor, Muriel Bowser, who controls D.C., who stated that Mayor Lightfoot was "making a point" with her controversial announcement to only grant interviews to black journalists. And just "what point" was Bowser making? That discrimination is only permissible when it is anti-white? What words would Dr. Martin Luther King have to say in response to both of these these overt black bigots? We wonder, with all of this hatred against whites being promulgated by not only blacks but by Progressive whites as well; are we headed for another Civil War, this time to be fought for the rights and liberties of white people? And just how many blacks would fight to maintain these freedoms to their white brothers and sisters, as over 2 million whites did back in 1861 for blacks? We must start ringing the warning bells of a creeping, dangerous Black Supremacy Movement - typified by Critical Race Theory education - joining with the already militant Black Lives Matter network that is quickly engulfing America, threatening to divide it, weakening it morally and physically. And look no further than the wolves at the door, in Iran, Russia, China and North Korea who are licking their lips in support of America's downfall. This cancer of hate, if unchecked, will engulf us all. Alan Bergstein, lecturer and columnist, is an editorial writer for The NY Jewish Voice and a retired NYC school principal A father of four, he is a Korean War veteran and Jewish activist who is President of the Judeo/Christian Republican Club of Palm Beach County, Florida. +++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment