Tuesday, July 21, 2020

The Left and the most brilliant use of racism ever

You're sh----ng me!
I tip my hat.  How, after half a century of making racism the all defining, unforgivable sin that was perpetrated by nobody but Europeans and Americans, did the Left then use racism in its power grab?  Easy.  Those good white leftists aimed racism at ... wait for it ... their own race!

What's that Dave?  You mean they're racists, but instead of any other race or ethnicity, it's their own race they hate? 

Why yes Dave.  That's exactly what they did.  In fact, that's all this whole 'wokeness' rubbish is all about.  It's convincing us that what we actually do in life doesn't matter, but it's our attitudes about others that are the real unforgivable sins.  Then we apply those same unforgivably sinful attitudes to ourselves and our own demographics, rather than applying them to others outside of our own demographics.  It happens with more than just race, but for now let's stick to the racism part.

But Dave, how does that work?  How does a white person talk about white people the way Nazis talked about Jews, and make it not be, well, kooky? 

Again, I don't know.  That's something I've not quite figured out.  How with a straight face the very white Fr. James Martin can decry the horrible sin of whiteness while insisting Jesus is happier with people closer to His own dark skin color, or decidedly white commentators speak of whiteness the way Germans spoke of the Jewish problem, is something I've not figured out.

It certainly has nothing to do with Jesus or our relationship to God.  You can tell that by white Christians being lambasted as inherently racist by other good white Christians, their relationship to Christ being of no consequence in the equation. Exactly how these decidedly white Christians can speak of the universal blight upon humanity that is 'whiteness', use 'white' entirely in a pejorative manner, and somehow emerge from this with the moral upper hand is a code I've not cracked.

But it's happening.  I say this because I got involved in heated debates on Facebook this weekend over posts touching on this very subject.  One was the whole whiteness thing, or at least the celebrate blackness thing.  In that case I asked if we can celebrate the gift of blackness, why not the gift of whiteness?  Another post dealt with the removal and destruction of European Catholic statues. An individual said those wishing to destroy them should be listened to.  That individual stated that he has no say in the matter.  Why, I asked, would anyone not have say in the matter?  Just because of being European, or white, or better, Caucasian?   In both cases rage exploded, with one banning me from seeing the thread of comments.

Imagine going back and finding out that the Holocaust was carried out by Jews all along.  Or that Jim Crow was entirely the brainchild of blacks in America.   That would be stupid.  And yet that's exactly what is happening.  I can't think of a time in history where this has happened or even come close. 

I used to say, years ago in a different life, that we (meaning the Christian West) will be the first civilization to commit suicide because of unbalanced levels of guilt and self-loathing.  But I didn't think it would become so racially tinged.  I mean, I'm waiting for good white liberals to start insisting whites should drink at separate drinking fountains and ride at the back of buses.

Again, no answers or solutions here.  Just an observation of something I never thought possible that is happening in our modern age - openly embracing racism.  But doing it in a way that common sense suggests could never happen in a million years, and that's hating and seeking the eradication of one's own race and ethnic heritage. 

I do get the strange feeling that all those good white leftists doing this expect a net positive at the end of it all without any negative repercussions.   I could be wrong.  Maybe they would love nothing more than donning striped pajamas and marching with shaved heads into the gas chambers for the cause.  I have a hunch not, however, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how they'll thread the needle of coming out on top of the hill by literally beating themselves down to the bottom of it.  Unless it's that they've not bothered to think that far ahead, and all they know is that the best way to get a star of righteousness badge - not to mention the moral upper hand in debates about power and control - is to hate themselves and every demographic to which they belong more than Himmler ever hated Jews.  And, of course, getting others outside of their own demographics to join the hate.

I Dunno.  Just riffing on a few thoughts after being chastised by white Facebook readers for daring to question their own racial self-loathing and abasement.  I have to admit it's brilliant.  Insist there is no real sin in the world but bigoted attitudes, and then seize upon those same bigoted attitudes in a grab for power, since bigotry is always a great way to establish power and control.  How could you ever do such a thing without hypocrisy charges flying like crows?  Now we know.


  1. "If they are, it might be supposed that their error is very harmless: men fail so often to repent their real sins that the occasional repentance of an imaginary sin might appear almost desirable. But what actually happens (I have watched it happening) to the youthful national penitent is a little more complicated than that. England is not a natural agent, but a civil society. When we speak of England’s actions we mean the actions of the British Government. The young man who is called upon to repent of England’s foreign policy is really being called upon to repent the acts of his neighbour; for a Foreign Secretary or a Cabinet Minister is certainly a neighbour. And repentance presupposes condemnation. The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing but, first, of denouncing the conduct of others. If it were clear to the young that this is what he is doing, no doubt he would remember the law of charity. Unfortunately the very terms in which national repentance is recommended to him conceal its true nature. By a dangerous figure of speech, he calls the Government not ‘they’ but ‘we’. And since, as penitents, we are not encouraged to be charitable to our own sins, nor to give ourselves the benefit of any doubt, a Government which is called ‘we’ is ipso facto placed beyond the sphere of charity or even of justice. You can say anything you please about it. You can indulge in the popular vice of detraction without restraint, and yet feel all the time that you are practising contrition. A group of such young penitents will say, ‘Let us repent our national sins’; what they mean is, ‘Let us attribute to our neighbour (even our Christian neighbour) in the Cabinet. whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy."
    -CS Lewis "on the dangers of national repentance"

    Looks like you can just swap out "national" for "racial" there.

    1. Yeah, that's about right. Part of this also comes from stories my sons are telling me from college. On one hand, they haven't run into horror story professors that throw them out of class if they think wrong. On the other hand, what they're hearing from their peers is enough to send chills down your spine. My oldest, who is majoring in constitutional law, is seriously thinking of changing because, as he said, there may not be a Constitution left to interpret by the time he's going on in his career. Enough of his classmates think the whole of the Christian West and America are just Nazi, and its time for all of it - including such oppressive concepts as freedom of speech and religion (apparently tools of suppression and bigotry), forgiveness and even being hung up on the importance of human beings - have got to go. They actually talk about this in their classes. Some of the profs agree. One debate my son told me from a cultural anthropology class centered around discussing the farsightedness of human sacrifice and the need to revisit the underlying concepts (extreme population control) in light of Global Warming. Since so many - including Christians - admit that the West/Christianity brought nothing meaningful to the human table (esp due to its link to 'whiteness'), then why care about anything that came from those sources? Remember, these kiddos will be running the farm in another couple decades.

    2. Well I think it's like a gateway drug. You get the Christians doing it first, then as the society and culture secularize, you don't have to worry about the shame part any more and people can just go about blasting the sins of their neighbors like they always have in pagan societies. If that makes any sense.

    3. Actually, it makes too much sense. I've said we're seeing a strange mix of secular paganism. Sort of a'worst of both world' soup that everyone can't wait to get their hands on.

  2. I was going to suggest that they perhaps believe that they are the only race so depraved as to engage in genocide, and they expect better from their betters.
    But in truth, I have to admit that C. S. Lewis has very likely nailed it.

    1. Yeah, I think Lewis has something to say about this bizarre twist on an old standard. Though I can't help but think there's still a little more deep down.


Let me know your thoughts