You wouldn't think this needs to be said

Only if you aren't a student of human history.  A fellow who pops up in my feed every now and then, who seems to be about 3 or 4 hits to 1 miss, points out what should be obvious: Why you should judge people as individuals, not races.  

Of course societies and nations and empires, being made up of people, suffer that same tendency we all suffer as people.  That is, it's easier to descend into vice than to ascend to virtue.  Let's face it, when was the last time anyone said, "You know, all my life I wanted to be a lazy couch potato, but I just couldn't overcome the temptation to eat right and exercise."  Vice and bad and unhealthy are easier than virtue and good and healthy. Let's be honest.

Which is why civilizations and cultures, being made up of people, tend to suffer the same thing.  Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom, equality and fraternity, of the people and by the people are tough.  Tyranny, oppression, conquest, bigotry and imperialism are easier.  As we're seeing now.  

Even now, we have journalists informing us that freedom of speech can be dangerous and sometimes we need a little of the old government censorship (kudos for that one 60 Minutes).  Barry Lynn once told Anderson Cooper in 2005 that the First Amendment clearly didn't mean religions that promote discrimination and prejudice (that is, that disagree with him).  And since BLM we've been informed that it's time to stop judging based on content of character and get back to judging based on the color of one's skin or any one of a thousand other demographic identities.  With the caveat, as Deacon Greydanus pointed out, that saying JD Vance is white has nothing to do with him being white.  It being postmodernity with its post-reality dogmas.  

At the end of the day, that post-WWII PTSD that the world slipped into in which we decided everything before must have been flawed and we were now going to get it right, has passed. Many of those lofty ideals of total and complete tolerance, respect, openness, freedom of expression, and most of all never judging based on group identity or accident of birth are dead Jim.  As any student of history should be able to predict.  If they ever really lived. 

The case against our "Hate Crime" culture mentality in one easy story

A two year investigation of the Covenant School Shooting, the shooter's manifesto never having been officially released to my knowledge, has come to an end.  Apparently the school, the traditional, conservative Christian school, was just a random target. Yes, the investigation found much rage and hatred aimed at targets that could be argued to identity with that particular school.  But apparently the school being targeted was just random and not for any other reason than dumb, blind luck.  

Remember, George Floyd was killed by a racist cop because of American systemic racism. The protests, riots, court case, condemnation of America as a 400 year old racist state, were all based on that verdict as soon as the story broke.  And how did we know it was racism?  Derek Chauvin is white, that's why.  That's all we needed to know to not only immediately label it a racist hate crime, but then move to tarnish by association everything up to the whole of Western Civilization. 

Yet time and again we'll see cases where something like the Covington shooting happens, and contrary to similar standards in other cases, it looks like it was just random fortune.  Or a shooter with reams of rage hate against religion in general or Christianity in particular opens fire on a church - and authorities are unable to pinpoint a reason for it. Maybe a mental health problem?  Or a black man kills multiple white people and is found to have endless posts hating on white people, but can we ever know why?  A card carrying Democrat and leftwing activists opens fire on a group of Republican politicians, but we can't really speak to motives can we?  Or a Muslim goes into a bar and murders multiple people because, according to the gunman, he is outraged at America's policies in the Middle East.  So perhaps it was homophobia?  

I'm no lawyer, but I recall the argument against the concept of hate crimes - and yes, youngsters might be shocked to discover that this was a debate in the 90s and not something universally agreed upon - was the pure subjective nature of it.  That it could be driven by very shallow, and trendy, opinions, narratives and nothing more.  Or it could be based on social prejudices or biases or ideological activism and not actual proof.  Of course there were other arguments, such as the severity of the crime being based on the demographic identity of the victim. The implication that a white man raping and murdering a white woman might be bad, but nowhere as bad as if he does the same exact thing to a black woman purely because of the victim's skin color, had a certain ick factor for some people.  Assuming, of course, that saying a white or black person has anything to do with skin color.  

But on the whole, the argument I remember repeated often was that the idea of 'hate' is just too darn subjective, and too apt to be based only on theoretical fashions, trends, and the latest talking points in a college bar rather than objective fact based assessments.  Nowhere is this more clear than here, or any one of dozens of cases where motives never seem able to challenge the dominant leftwing narratives of who will or won't forever be guilty based on oppressor or oppressed status. 

For my part - again, no lawyer here - that is the problem.  That it seems almost a stealth way of preemptively judging or exonerating people based on their particular identities and allegiances, only with legal teeth.  

The staggering intolerance of the modern Left

 A white Jewish liberal guy tries to shout down and keep a black man from talking:

The look you get when a white man tells a black man to shut up on national TV in 2024

Here is a link if you wish to see the video, from shortly after last year's election.  

So in  the midst of the crazy last year, we did something I haven't done in a long, long time.  We started watching a currently running TV show.  It's called Blue Bloods.  It stars Tom Selleck as the patriarch of an Irish Catholic family that works within law enforcement.  

I was aware of it only by reputation, that it was a show of rightwing bigotry, racism, and all manner of typical charges being phobia prejudice, right wing nationalist supremacy and what have you. This became a loud complaint when Selleck announced a couple years ago he wouldn't tarnish the police in accordance to BLM doctrine.  So we thought we would watch it to see. 

After watching a few seasons, I've concluded there is nothing in recent history more self-righteously judgmental, intolerant, or close minded than the modern Left, with a big helping of hypocrisy and mendacity thrown in for yeast.  

I mean, what about Blue Bloods is rightwing?  It openly supports the LGTBQ community and movement.  It is clearly left leaning in terms of America and its history.  One of its uber-storylines is that there was a time when law enforcement (if not the US in general) was everything BLM says - but those were the 'bad old days' (a phrase frequently used).  When the conflict is between men and women, the women win every time, especially if gender is the topic.  It has stories about racist cops, abusive cops, American racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, Western imperialism and its legacy.  It takes for granted that sleeping around outside of marriage is fine - even for a good Irish Catholic family.  It comes out and says that the Church needs to change and get with the times where things like homosexuality and religious tolerance are concerned, and that includes Drag Queens (who had their own episode) and virtually anything not from the historical values of the Christian West. 

Could someone tell me how this is some rightwing conservative show?  My sons had their ideas.  First, the main family is a white, heterosexual, Christian family.  Right there.  As far as Hollywood and Madison Avenue are concerned, white families don't exist in America. Spend a day watching commercials on televisions during the game and take a shot of whisky every time you see a white family.  Stone cold sober would be the result. 

Second, it does follow all of the leftwing narratives about racism, sexism, bigotry, every phobia in existence.  But - and this is crucial - sometimes it shows those aren't true.  Sometimes it isn't sexism, or racism, or bigotry.  And what is more - and this is even more crucial - sometimes those in various leftwing protected groups are the baddies.  And sometimes there are good things in America's history, society, police and institutions - even among white, heterosexual Christians!  

More than that, on rare occasion there is the race hustling black pastor exploiting an incident for his own purposes.  Sometimes the homosexual is the bad guy, though never due to his homosexuality.  Or the admission that at times Muslims can be terrorists, or Hispanic criminals.  With the exception of women as the feminine symbol of perfection, in which case feminism always shines bright, it does admit that the white, Anglo-American Christian White guy can not only be the good guy, but a victim of those in such minority groups. 

And that, likely more than anything, is how it got its 'rightwing racist propaganda show' label.  Not that it is.  In fact, most episodes pander to leftwing narratives and activism, full stop.  If Muslims are the bad guys, the main guest character will be a Muslim who is a good guy, who still shows us racism in America.  If the homosexual is bad, it will only be framed as part of larger homophobic bigotry exploiting such realities because of course gays are the oppressed group.  If the Hispanic immigrant here illegally is the villain, we're reminded that most immigrants are put-upon and oppressed by the racist structures of our society, whether illegal or not.  

Yet that's not good enough.  As the good white man in the above discussion demonstrates to that vile black guy who dares question the leftwing narrative, you will 100% conform to the Left.  Period.  100%.   Not 99.99%. Not 93%.  Not 97.1%.  100% or you're a transphobic bigot full stop.  Period.  Or a racist, period.  Or Nazi, period.  Or sexist, period.  Or whatever, period.  And that includes never, ever pointing out anything negative about what the Left says is good, or good about what the Left says is bad.  Period.  

The good news is that most Americans appear to at least ignore this level of self-deification among the Left. Perhaps they were voting against it in November.  But one thing is for sure, despite this being the dominant view disproportionately held by most of our nation's institutions and leaders, the masses appeared to at least break from the pens and corrals and took their own stand this time around.  Whether it lasts or points to greater trends we'll have to see.  Based on the last few weeks, it looks like the left/press hasn't learned anything, that's for sure.  

Jesus is not an excuse for cowardice

 I've seen this pop up over the years in different outlets:

It's of some men's choir from the bygone days of Hollywood, but around the time I was a youngster.  The individuals are, back row left to right: Kent McCord and Martin Milner (from the very pro-police show Adam 12 - a childhood favorite of mine), Charles Nelson Reilly (who my mom liked, but knew even then that he walked on the other side of the fence in terms of sexuality), and Ed Asner, not exactly your hard rightwing radical.  Front row is Glenn Ford, next to him Redd Foxx, a racy fellow who obviously was not white, Jack Carter (a comedian I know little about), and the always awesome Ernest Borgnine. Sitting are John Wayne, a well known leftwing communist, and Howard Cosell, known in my day as the most hated man in America (for reasons I never could fathom).

I looked at that and thought about the unthinking diversity of people and ideals in the photo.  They were singing together having a grand old time with much joy and laughter.  Did it dawn on Foxx to chafe at all the racism and white skin around him?  Did Wayne seem offended at Reilly, since if my mom guessed it, the ultra pro-American conservative Wayne couldn't have been in the dark?  Was Asner and his leftwing sensitivities bothered by two actors in a very pro-police television show?  And who is Jack Carter?

These things I wondered as I looked at this photo and couldn't help but smile.   

Then I thought of today, and the growing number of young people who see America from when this picture was taken as an extension of some 400 year old racist Nazi state.  A country awash in bigotry and homophobia and misogyny and racism.  A nationwide gas chamber with hippy music.  Young Americans taught to divide everyone into groups and hate and condemn and hate some more.  Young Americans taught that Americans have ever and always been driven by only the most evil motivations conceivable.

And things like this are compounded by not just the radicals, but ones willing to accept the premise to some degree or another.

I recall deacon and film critic Steven Greydanus, and his laments over the racist undertones of the Rocky franchise.  When pressed, he said the obvious problem was that of Stallone being the heroic white guy beating up on black guys.  When it was pointed out Rocky also beat up on at least one white guy, and was beaten up by black guys, it still didn't matter.  I pointed out that Stallone wrote the part for himself (in one of Hollywood's most beloved rags to riches stories), and he just happened to be white.  If there were no blacks at all in a 1976 boxing movie, do you think people would have said nothing?  Otherwise, what was he to do, give up his dreams for the person with the proper skin color because he had the misfortune of being white?  At that point Deacon Greydanus said other parts could have had the proper skin colors represented.  Perhaps scratch Burgess Meredith with the wrong skin color and replace him with an actor having the right skin color for the part of Mickey.  And this was written by the good deacon unironically. 

Think of that.  A nationally known Catholic deacon and film critic and he couldn't not see divisions, racism, and bigotry simply because of the skin colors in a beloved franchise.  And more than that, he said with almost casual ease that removing a person from a part due to the wrong skin color is a perfectly reasonably solution. 

Is it any wonder that young people today hate each other, our nation, our society, our religious foundations? That they divide everyone into groups and condemn and hate accordingly?  That they judge and perpetually condemn our culture, values, principles, laws or everything and everyone associated with the world around them?  The people insisting they're just trying to get to the truth accept a perspective that would have been asinine fifty years ago.  At least if the picture above has anything to say about the majority opinion back then. 

Yes, it's entirely possible that we live in the most self-righteously judgmental, close minded, intolerant and hypocritical age in many a moon.  We don't even hold back.  Assume the worst, judge without mercy, condemn and eradicate.  Execute judgment and apply slippery standards based on convenience and intolerance in the name of diversity.  

None of these things are acceptable for a person with common sense, much less acceptable for a Christian.  Going along with it, or finding lame reasons to justify it in the name of some Christian virtue, is even worse.  For as often as not, failure to call out the obvious comes from a  lack of courage to stand up to it, while donning a Jesus mask in the hope of making it look good. 

Because of racism

 This:

There are only four athletes who are billionaires, all of them black Americans.  It becomes more and more difficult to convince sane and thinking people that we are a Jim Crow nation of gas chambers and death camps and universal racism and oppression of minorities.  Remember, as my oldest son observed, the BLM movement didn't begin until after the reelection of our first black president.  That alone should give clues about what we're seeing. 

Beyond the obvious narrative breaker of non-white, non-Western and non-conservative protesters and activists praising Hamas and calling for the slaughter of Israeli Jews, we have this.  With more and more black multi-zillionaire superstars dominating various sports and professional positions, it gets difficult to convince poor, working class, low income whites that they nonetheless have the privilege owing to their skin color.

Not that everyone needs convincing of course.  Only enough.  And Catholics alone have shone we're equal to the task when it comes to providing people who will believe and embrace such bilge, no matter how much evidence is stacked against it. 

People like Dawn Eden and The Atlantic's Graeme Wood continue to miss the point

 Here:

Here is the article she references.

The problem isn't that Palestinians, pro-Palestinian protesters, leftists, and various anti-white, anti-Western activists are saying there is a moral equivalency between Israel's IDF and  Hamas.  The problem is they're saying there is no moral equivalency because Israel and IDL are the only bad guys.  By virtue of the Left's slick 'Sanctified Oppressed Class v. Unforgivable Oppressor Class' template, Israel is the oppressor.  Therefore, Hamas is merely a bunch of rough around the edges freedom fighters for the blessed oppressed.  Because for the Left, as part of its anti-Western strategy, to be the Oppressor means you deserve nothing that you have and everything you'll get.  And anything connected to the Western Tradition is always the Oppressor.  

It's not hard to see in Mr. Wood's archives that he drinks deeply from the 'Bad West and its fascist defenders' well that makes such idiotic narratives possible.  Same with Ms. Eden.  Her alliance with those dividing the world between the heroic oppressed and the fascist loving cheerleaders of the Oppressors has become more obvious with each passing month.

But now Israel and all those Israeli Jews are the establishment Oppressors.  They are the baddies. Jews in America might still be worth something when it comes to trotting out endless reminders of antisemitism in Europe and America or the Christian Church.  But in Israel?  Not so much.  And as the Left throws out old Western ideals of freedom of speech, religious liberty, forgiveness, reconciliation and tolerance, we see what happens next.  The oppressor has got to go one way or another, along with anyone defending the Oppressor in any way - and that includes Jews.  

So I ask them - what the hell did they expect?  We've had about three generations of this little dichotomy being pounded into the heads of our youth.  That is, the world divided into the Oppressed versus the Oppressors.  By the time my kids were in school, that was the canvas upon which their world was painted.  There was still some lag over from the past.  For instance, they still learned that we need to become a color blind society, to put race behind us, and never, ever judge based on skin color no matter what.  But much of the 'Unforgivable Oppressing West, Otherwise Beautiful Oppressed' narrative was in full swing.  Along with celebrating the growing hatred, merciless condemnation, calls for the erasing and extermination of reprobate sinners and deplorables and anyone else forever damned for the label Oppressor. 

In addition, since Covid and the 2020 BLM riots, we've seen yet another old liberal mantra die and die fast.  That is, the much tired out and endlessly repeated claim that 'violence is never the answer.'  Well, since 2020, it's become a damn good answer, if you're on the side of the Oppressed against the Oppressor. 

And as these things pile up - divide the world, no mercy for the villains, all defining sins of the oppressors, erase the irredeemable, darn right violence against the oppressor establishment - you should be able to do the basic math.  Even now, while the pro-Hamas/anti-Israel side has polished its act up a bit and ditched the 'gas the Jews' chants (though I'm still seeing signs that read "Any means necessary"), the template meant to destroy the West is ironclad.  That is, Israel is part of the West, it is therefore the irredeemable Oppressor, therefore it must go the way of the Confederate flag, the Columbus Statue, the Robert E. Lee monument, the Jefferson memorial, and anything of the Oppressor that can't be cleansed of its unforgivable sins.

People like Dawn Eden, or any Jewish liberals today, have sown the wind, and they are only now beginning to realize that the whirlwind is around the corner.  Some are beginning to wake up, but what that means I don't know.  Will they put the brakes on and begin questioning this thing with which they've aligned for so many years?  Will they think if they can just make them stop calling for killing Jews this time, it will fix things for good?  I don't know.  The infinite capacity for humans to be stupid is one of our most endearing qualities.  

Says middle aged white dude

Ever since John Lennon sat in his multi-million dollar English estate with a custom decorated Rolls-Royce in the driveway and asked the world to imagine no possessions, proxy martyrdom has been all the rage.  What is proxy martyrdom?  That's my term for people willing to latch on to a righteous cause that demands sacrifice from anyone other than the people latching on to that righteous cause.  Consider wealthy celebrities flying in their private jets to the latest Climate Change conference. Or a rich and famous musician calling for a world with no possessions from the midst of his mansion.  Or anything to do with population control. Has anyone ever sacrificed for the cause of thinning the human herds? 

In fact, much of our modern activism is rather light on self-sacrifice while being heavy on self-righteousness.  Like the bold hero above.  And no, going out and looting, stealing televisions and laptops does not count as sacrifice.  

It is worth noting that the cause he is advocating is becoming common.  There is a growing number of activists calling for things like 'hire fewer white people', or 'don't hire white men' or 'don't this or that with this or that group.'  Often it is called for by people in those very groups.  For example, notice when white liberals beseech organizations to hire fewer people who look like them.  In many cases, those same white liberals have noticeably white hair.  Meaning their careers are comfortably in the rear view mirrors.  Whatever hiring changes come as a result of their pleas might impact millions of white people, especially young white people, but it won't impact them.  Proxy martyrs. 

The best way to approach this is to ask yourself just what they sacrificed when you see someone bravely facing the applause over something like antiracism, or gender, or causes dealing with sex, or climate change, or anything for that matter.  Ask yourself if anyone will have to sacrifice.  Then ask if the individual banging the drum for the cause is one who has, or will, have to sacrifice for the cause.  If there are people who might have to pay a price for the cause, but it's not the one boasting about supporting the cause, then it's best to walk away and ignore.  Find a real hero, because it ain't them. 

What anti-racism should look like

 Here:

Anti-racism, like social justice, marriage equality, or reproductive health, is a good thing. Anti-racism is good.  So is social justice.  Marriage equality could be good, too.  Reproductive health.  Who would be against it?

But we all know these are political buzz phrases used by the Left to mean, well, what the Left says they mean on any given day:  Anti-white racism, Marxist inspired leftwing political activism, sexual amorality, and pro-abortion advocacy.  Mantras that must be repeated or be deemed an enemy of the Left. 

In the video above, however, we have a wonderful explanation for why the discrimination against whites, the judgementalism against whites, the condemnation of whites simply for being white, all promoted in the name of anti-racism, is every bit as racist as anything the Nazis pulled in the 1930s.  What the young man says here is authentic anti-racism, and the type that should be embraced every bit as much as we would embrace anti-Nazism.  Sadly, that is not the case among far too many, including those who otherwise see this for what it is.  

Let's face it.  There is little to suggest that those embracing this latest incarnation of racism today would have done any different in the Jim Crow South or Germany in the 30s and 40s.  Sorry, but that's the fact of the matter.  It takes nothing to stand up to the sins of the past, but sometimes everything to stand up to the sins of the present.  Failure to stand up against the sins of the powerful today is probably all the proof you need to know you would have failed the same way in the past.  

Bonus points, by the way, for watching the segment of the video showing various racist screeds that include white people, most likely liberal white people.  The white liberal sanctification of demographic self hate and masochism is a virtue that is unique among the woes of humanity, I will say that.  I've not found its parallel in history.  Which is why, perhaps, it is so effective and so devastating. 

Because nobody tells black American racists or Asian American racists that it's fine to be a racist if it's directed at white people more loudly than white liberals.  Which makes me think of this:

“And Jesus said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea”    Luke 17.1-2a

Ethnic scrubbing

Is simply ethnic cleansing writ small.  John C. Wright has another absurd case in the growing 'can we get rid of the white people?' movement among the Left.  As Mr. Wright points out, a big part of this is to provoke a racist reaction.  Yes, the Left can label any reaction racist, and it will.  But the big game trophy is in finding someone who reacts in a legitimately racist way - hence reinforcing the narrative.  We call this a type of self-fulfilling prophecy. 

It reminds me of a story a week or two ago that white supremacy is on the rise in the US.  That was a couple weeks after a story on the same local channel in which some professor explained why it's absolutely fine when a university segregates based on skin color, or roles in movies are now decided based upon which skin colors to exclude (I think in reaction to the new Oscars requirements).  I'll leave you figure which skin colors were being discussed.

Of course very few speak out against this (see the charge of racism above), leaving young up and coming white Americans  more than clear about their future prospects.  Those who are white who push this racial discrimination usually sport gray hair with their own careers safely in the rear view mirrors. Or they are individuals in positions where they, or they assume their posterity, won't be the ones singled out for dismissal owing to their skin color.

All in all, nothing new.  Racism, contrary to popular narrative, is not a white person's sin, a conservative person's sin, a MAGA person's sin, a Western Civilization sin.  It's found where two or more people tend to gather.  And, as we see in front of our eyes, it has a universal appeal.  So universal that a form of racism unknown in the West - against whites - is now as common as Jim Crow was in the south a hundred years ago.  That racism was based on generations and even centuries of racist thinking.  Yet how fast has the current racism been embraced today?  And most institutions and national leaders (and religious leaders) stand by and let it happen - or join in.

With each passing day we have less and less reason to think we can judge previous generations.  After all, in doing so we are becoming the worst of those generations without the good.  A toxic combination. 

The Righteous Gentiles of Juneteenth

 Are, like the Righteous Gentiles of the Civil Rights Movement, pretty much non-existent. 

Something missing here

You know who the Righteous Gentiles are.  They are those non-Jews who risked, and at times lost, their lives trying to rescue Jewish victims from the clutches of the Nazis.  Throughout the world in Jewish circles, they are held in the highest esteem.  There are memorials, tributes and celebrations of them across the board.  For the Jewish community, especially the survivors of the Holocaust, they were always seen as the heroes they were.

I notice, however, that in our modern Civil Rights era, there are no 'Righteous Gentiles'.  There are no white people who ever seemed to contribute to the aid of black Americans.  Tributes for civil rights activists are almost always centered on African Americans.  Any mention at all about anyone non-black American is glossed over.  

Something about that bothers me.  Like Juneteenth.  The attempt, of course, is to eventually push this to replace July 4th. That wouldn't be a problem if it was celebrating what it was: Basically the government did good by sending Union troops down to Texas to enforce the liberation of the remaining slaves.  But that's not how it's portrayed.  Like the Google image above, apparently the black Americans of the day magically freed themselves and that's why we celebrate.

Some years ago, I watched on our streaming service a documentary about the making of the movie Harriet. Obviously it was about Harriet Tubman, apparently focusing on her work within the Underground Railroad.  Now to be clear, I never saw the movie and perhaps the movie itself is no problem.  But if the documentary was to be believed, you'd never know white people had anything to do with the Underground Railroad.  To watch the documentary, the only role white people played were those whites hunting down runaway slaves or betraying them.  

That's a big problem I have with the civil rights movement today. Something doesn't go down well when I notice that there is a purposeful attempt to ignore, downplay or deny any positive roles played by white people in the history of our country where the fight for civil rights is concerned.  When I see things like that, I imagine we aren't supposed to be educated about these events.  Rather they are to be exploited for other, unmentioned, agendas. 

BTW, an excellent example is this NPR piece.  Under the photo, it mentions the arrival of the Union Troops on June 19.  That is it. Nothing else in the piece alludes to the actual event or who was involved.  In fact, it seems to go out of its way to explain why Juneteenth is not at all a celebration of the actual historical event which led to Juneteenth: 

"We are not celebrating the history of Juneteenth. We are celebrating the symbolism of Juneteenth," said Leslie Wilson, professor of history at Montclair State University in New Jersey.

Because to do so would necessitate celebrating the individuals involved, and goodness knows we can't have that.  Or as this piece in McPaper makes clear: White people have no business being included on images for Juneteenth, which isn't only about black people. 

Heh.  If it wasn't based on racism and the desire to destroy Christian Western civilization and its virtues of liberty, equality, and life, it would be funny.  Everyone runs about screaming 'it ain't about black people' and then they turn about and insist it's for black people.  That's literally where we are as a country.  They can say opposing things in the same breath and it's true or you're a racist.  

“"Juneteenth GVL would like to apologize to the community for the presence of non-black faces on two flags representing Juneteenth. We acknowledge this mistake having been made and will correct the error quickly.”

Always remember

Young people today are taught that when they see this:

They should think this:

My eldest son said it best, after one of his college history classes.  The age old question - how could Germans do such a thing, in reference to Nazi Germany - has finally been answered.  How could Germans do such a thing?  Easy.  They were white Europeans.  That's what white Europeans do.  He said that after such a discussion in his class.  

I consider that when I see something like this pop up:

Note there is no reason for the 'guy' to be described as white.  The joke works fine without it.  Yet it is mentioned.  Because 'white' increasingly is a euphuism for racist.  Back in the day if you gratuitously mentioned someone was black for no reason, or Jewish, or any such identifier, it was said to be evidence of your racist thinking.  Yet think how often today 'white' is mentioned, always pejoratively, and often when there is no reason to mention it. 

And while this development has been touted by white liberals for decades, it's not hard to see that a growing number non-white individuals are warming up to the trend.  Just where those white liberals fit into this and its logical ramifications I can't say.  I just know bad and dangerous trends when I see them.  That comes from studying history most of my life. 

Meant to stoke race hate

And nothing more.  

I'm sure you've heard the story that San Francisco is moving forward with a plan to award every black resident $5 million dollars because slavery and systemic racism.  Anyone who thinks that will lead to some racial harmony or reconciliation has sawdust for brains.  

But let's face it, this has nothing to do with any such thing.  It has nothing to do with reconciliation, harmony, justice, reparations, or anything.  It's about pitting Americans against each other and, if we're lucky, getting Americans to act as they're accused of being.   Royally tick off white Americans as best you can, and if any react negatively against the black community, viola!  Racism proven. 

The two pronged attack by our emerging top down revolution against the Christian Western Democratic tradition is 1) divide and conquer, and 2) guilt by association.  Convince the world that European and American Caucasians are a malignant blight upon the world.  Anything associated with their civilization is therefore open to suspicion.  Ideas of liberty, democracy and equality came from that civilization, so let's reconsider.   Thus religious liberty has been a tool exploited by white nationalists and white supremacists, so let's rethink this whole religious liberty thing.  Same goes foe equality, presumption of innocence and free speech. 

The other is endless divisions of Group A v. Group B (fill in your favorite groups accordingly).  That way when  they say the government needs power to punish, to oppress, to strip away rights, to ban, or enact other moves against freedoms, it can assure us it will only be used against those haters over there.  Blacks might get millions while whites are marginalized, but they can trust that nothing bad will ever happen to black Americans.  Or any group containing me.  Just give society the power to take away their rights and reduce them to second class, and they promise it will never happen to you.

It takes a special level of stupid to fall for this, but stupid has been the goal for decades now.  And it has worked.  I've said before that our educational system has either failed miserably or succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.  Because on the whole, we are a stupid age, with things said by our best and brightest that would have drawn scorn from your average middle schooler when I was a lad.  Drugged up, sexed up narcissistic fools: the only formula needed to seize and throw down a prosperous nation built on freedom, democracy and equality.  It appears to have worked like a charm. 

47% of whites surveyed disagree or are not sure that it's OK to be black

Imagine that.  If that were an actual poll with those results, we'd be hearing screams of racism from coast to coast.  The outrage would be beyond the coasts actually.  From the UN to the Vatican, outrage would be the song of the day.  And rightly so.  Imagine saying you don't know if it's OK to be of a particular skin color.  

Yet that's exactly the results of a poll that asked if it's OK to be white.  Just the question itself shows the deep delve of racism in our country.  That the Anti-Defamation league has denounced the statement 'it's OK to be white' as hate speech shows there's never forgetting the lessons of history, and then there's forgetting the lessons of history we're not supposed to forget.  

But in the poll - take polls for what they're worth - 47% of blacks questioned said it is not OK to be white, or they weren't sure if it is OK to be white.  For my money, if you're not sure if it's OK to have a certain color then, yes Virginia, you're a racist. 

Yet when once celebrated Dilbert creator Scott Adams reacted to this by labeling those blacks who have issue with the existence of white people as a hate group, and furthermore stating that moving away from blacks who don't think it's OK to have your skin color is the logical thing to do, papers across the nation dropped his comic strip like a hot potato.  No mention that almost half of blacks surveyed weren't sure if it's OK to be white.  Apparently the Anti-Defamation league thinks there's a problem with being white, so it must be fine*.  

The only problem mentioned is that Scott Adams pointed out the logical response of logical people who find out their existence is not approved of.  I'm not saying Adams was smart for what he said or how he said it.  After all, we live in the 21st Century, a cool generation or so after we ceased being a free country according to liberal definitions (in case you missed the memo).  And it might not have been the best way to react to this racist finding.  After all, his was simply a 'then it's us vs. you buster' response.  That is, of course, the goal here.  Divide and conquer.  That's how you get a free country to give it up: Make it about us vs. them, with the assurance it will only be them who loses all the nifty freedoms, prosperity and blessings. 

Nonetheless, the fact that almost all outlets glossed over and ignored the donkey in the living room about blacks increasingly disliking the existence of whites is more than telling. Like so many things liberalism once condemned, race hate and discrimination against the wrong ethnicity are now all the rage.  Add that to free speech, judgementalism, religious tolerance, respecting other opinions, equality and group identity, in case you're keeping track.  

Bonus observation:  One of my sons has said that with each passing day, it becomes easier to sympathize with the German people in the 1930s.  After all, look at what people are willing to accept, and how few are prepared to speak out. 

*Note the trend.  Remember when the Left declared the statement 'All Lives Matter' to be racist motivated?  See how that works?  Now we're told that saying 'It's OK to be White' is a racist chant.  You do know there will be more such declarations over the next few years, don't you?  Examples of just which people groups are not to be called OK.  Again, great job Anti-Defamation league for becoming everything you say you're against. 

Because fighting racism is not the point

 

The destruction of the Christian Western democratic traditions is the point.  Using racism when convenient is simply one of many avenues taken to achieve that goal. 

The New York Times priority

Skin color.  It's all about skin color, or anything that can pit as many Americans against each other as possible.  

In this case, it goes after that most underrepresented group in the NFL - African Americans.  At least in terms of winning quarterbacks I guess?  Are they saying something about the talent level of African American quarterbacks?  

I doubt it.  At this point you aren't supposed to think it through.  You're supposed to react as if you're a donkey hit by a whip.  It says Black yadda yadda, and Super Bowls, more yadda yadda.  And naturally you respond: Racism!

I don't know what is the most shocking thing today.  That our institutions have become so corrupted towards such dark purposes, or that Americans were stupid enough to play along.  Either or, things are happening fast now.  Like it or not, we're entering a new age.  

Whatever betide, you have come to the end of the Gondor that you have known.  

                                                                                                JRR Tolkien, The Return of the King 

BTW, that the media was already beginning to hype the 'two black quarterbacks!' narrative before the results of the final playoffs, and that once again a key game was ended with a questionable call from the refs, reminds me of my old saying.  Sometimes it takes more credulity to disbelieve a conspiracy theory than to believe in one. 

Assumptions

L-R: Thief, hacker, hitter, grifter, mastermind

I've said before that if my life depended on naming three modern television shows I'd be a gonner.  We don't watch much current programming, either aimed at kids or adults.  Most of our fare comes from pre-70s television, with a smattering of later shows (MASH or Monk for example) that the kids have picked up.  For my wife and I, we'll reminisce around a viewing of Magnum PI, or Simon and Simon.  But that's about it.  We don't watch much television anyway, preferring movies on DVD or even VCR - a subversive approach to be sure. 

The most 'modern' show we started watching is a show called The Librarians, and its predecessor Leverage.  I say predecessor, not because the show has anything to do with The Librarians, but because many of the same individuals were involved in both productions. 

Basically Leverage is a 21st Century reimagining of the old A-Team show.  That is, a bunch of world class outlaw mercenaries band together to help the little guy.  The premise is that the main 'mastermind' (played by lawsuit wielding Timothy Hutton) lost his son when the insurance company he worked for refused to pay for the child's experimental medical treatments.  As an internationally successful executive, he was able to pull his resources to right similar wrongs made against others. 

The band is a 'Robin Hood' gang of outlaws: The honest guy mastermind trying to right the wrongs done to little people (and avoid becoming as bad as the corruption he fights), the thief (a mentally unbalanced super-thief with nerves of steel and no self-censorship), the grifter (a terrible actress wannabe who nonetheless shines when deceiving people with her acting), the hacker (who is what every hacker dreams hacking computers could be), and the hitter (that is, hit man and assassin - the darkest character of the bunch, but also the most sensitive to others, especially vulnerable people and children). The whole show centers around your typical 'bad guys make better good guys' theme. 

There was one episode in this series I admit is pure enjoyment.  It follows the 'Rashomon' storyline. It is named "The Rashomon Job" just to drive the point home.  I touched on another famous example of this plotline some time ago here.  Named after a Kurosawa movie that some say popularized that type of plot, it's when multiple people relay their version of an event, and you see how radically different each one sees things.  

In this case, they are reminiscing about the five year old robbery of a priceless Middle Eastern dagger from Boston's Museum of Fine Arts.  Each one claims to have stolen it, only to have lost it again.  As the accounts unfold, it turns out they were all there together vying for the same prize, but back before they knew each other.  The fun part is when each character is 'revealed' by the next person's version.  So in the first account, the 'grifter' tells of running into a handsome young doctor who was charming and quite attractive to her.  Only when the 'hitter (hit man)' tells his tale does she realize the doctor was him in disguise (remember, they didn't know each other).

It's cleverly done, and allows the characters to take potshots at each other as they saw themselves in the best light, while the others didn't.  For instance, the 'hacker' saw himself surrounded by dozens of adoring women, hanging on his every word.  But when the 'thief' tells her version, he's simply a bumbling computer hacker in a tux with a few nearby women rolling their eyes then walking away.

Standard for this storyline.  But there was one interesting difference.  In each account, the museum's head of security is seen as a major threat.  He's mean, he's all business, he takes no prisoners.  And each character has to dodge, avoid, or somehow escape his bulldog tenacity while he's guarding this precious artifact. 

Until the reveal.  The reveal is the point in this type of story where the 'reliable' witness finally stands up and explains 'what really happened.' In the All in the Family episode, it was honest Edith Bunker who set the record straight.  In this episode of Leverage, it was Timothy Hutton's character.

Naturally he sees everything from a different point of view - supposedly the correct one.  But when it comes to the security chief, he shows they were not only wrong, but all wrong the same way.  It turns out the security chief's stalking the hallways, barging into rooms, and accosting the different characters, was not because he  was this ruthless force to be reckoned with.

Nope.  Turns out he was a guy with a middle aged crush on the 'grifter's' disguised character (she disguised herself as a scientist working in the antiquities department). He was just trying to ask her out.  That doesn't mean he was a buffoon.  Quite the contrary, his character helped wrap things up in the end and save the day.  But each time he confronted one of the characters, he was merely trying to work up the courage to ask the young woman out on a date (and failing miserably).  

The dialogue was pretty much the same - and that was the brilliance of the writing.  Its merely changed context.  So when he barked at the 'hacker' that 'This job is his life!' (hence he will not fail to capture the perpetrators), in the 'reveal', he laments that 'This job is his life' - which is why he's so lonely.  It was a clever take that most such storylines don't have.  Usually they simply change the dialogue, along with everything else, to fit the version.  In the All in the Family version for instance, Archie sees Ron Glass  (complete with five foot afro) whip out a switchblade and say 'Black is beautiful baby', while Mike's version has the same character saying no such thing, but instead cowering and begging forgiveness from Mr. Bunker in his best Uncle Tom manner.  

Version #1: The grifter nervously avoids security's questions

But the part that hit me was that unlike the usual approach, where almost everything is seen differently by different characters, all of them saw security the same, dialogue and all: They all saw him as a threat (kudos to the actor for being intimidating in most of the episode, then the lost and helpless romantic beat puppy in the final reveal). Except for Timothy Hutton of course.  

When we watched this, my sons brought up an interesting point.  No doubt it was the point intended by the show's writers.  That is, Timothy Hutton's character is supposedly 'the honest one', working with all these thieves, con artists and mercenaries for the greater good.  Thus he sees things as they are.  The others, all dishonest and crooked in some way or another, saw things as dishonest people see things.  And we all know when a person is a thief, they assume everyone else is as well. Or at least they see the world as divided into victims and authorities.  Which is how they saw the security chief.  Being dishonest, they all saw him as a threat.  Because being robbers and crooks, that's how they measure things.  While the honest man saw him as the well meaning, if not awkward, museum security that he was. 

And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do. Let's face it, how we see others sometimes says more about us than about those we see. When I've taught history in the past, I said the history you read will often tell you more about the historian than the history you're reading.  Same with many things. Sometimes the way we see others speaks volumes for ourselves. 

For instance, we live in an age that has elevated bigotry, especially racial bigotry, to the top of all human evils.  As predicted, it is now far worse id a white man rapea and murdera a black woman than if he merely raped and murdered a white woman.  And slavery?  African to African slavery is no big thing, because not racist.  Nor Asian, pre-Columbian American, or any other slavery.  But when it's whites owning non-whites, that's when it hits the fan - because slavery is one thing, slavery based on certain skin colors is a whole new ballgame. 

It's not just racism, however.  It can be gender, sexuality, religion, you name it.  A month or so ago I saw a new story that men who  have sex with men made up the lion's share of new HIV cases last year.  Why?  Because of homophobic bigotry, that's why. What does that even mean?  It matters not.  What matters is bigotry.  

Yet, I wonder.  An age that sees in everything bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, even full on racism - could it be because the ones who see it this way are, in fact, the bigots?  I think on all those pro-feminist men who were all about fighting for women in the War on Women.  Yet how many of them during the #MeToo stampede fell under accusations of all manner of sexual misconduct - from mere harassment all the way to charges of attempted rape.  Some accusations apparently had merit, and the bulk of the high profile offenders were those men who were proud liberals all about supporting women.  Makes you wonder if their easiness in calling other men sexists was projection.

I think on that when I see the speed with which we not only throw 'Bigot' onto the court at the drop of a hat, but how those who do so see things.  When you insist you can always tell a racist by the color of her skin, you have to admit.  Or if you talk about certain groups, often your own, in ways we would consider to be bigotry if applied to others, it makes me wonder.  I mean, if you see nothing but bigotry everywhere, see bigotry in everything, and often talk about people as mere caricatures of various groups you are here to save or condemn in a manner you would consider bigotry if applied to those groups by others, is it possible that you're the real bigot in the room?   Perhaps that's why you see bigotry everywhere, since it's ultimately a mirror you're looking at?  Makes me wonder.  Don't think I don't. 

A story that breaks the Narrative

Hence you are not likely to see it covered much in the national press.  From NBC in South Florida, five middle school students, apparently black or non-white at least, are arrested for suspected hate crimes against white students. 

Now this is news, and not news at the same time.  It's news for the same reason it would be news if any combination of students were gathered to do such a thing.   It isn't news given the racially explosive environment we've created in our nation.  If you don't hate somebody because of their skin color in our country today, you're a gem among humans.  Our entire national conversation is directed at stirring as much race hate between people as possible.  

It's likely that the main goal of this generated race hate is to provoke whites to lash out against minorities, therefore the self-fulfilling prophecy that whites, unchained by good leftist ideology, are genetically programmed to lash out against minorities. Therefore anything made by or attributed to whites, such as the last 1000 years of Christianity, the Constitution, ideas of liberty, democracy or equality, can be jettisoned with no effort. 

Nonetheless, facts are a pesky thing.  In our neck of the woods, most violence is black on black.  When it is interracial, it's often black on Hispanic and vice versa, or black on Muslim, or black or Muslim on Jewish.  Of course there are cases of whites against those minority groups, but they are hardly the majority cases - simply the only ones you typically hear about. When it turns out those non-white groups are the ethnicities involved, the stories are typically dropped faster than a hot dish you stupidly pick up with bare hands when it just came out of the oven.

For weeks and weeks, for example, we had constant local news updates about an Islamic religious leader who was brutally murdered.  It appeared to be a hate crime.  It seemed as if he was targeted.  Of course we had stories reminding us of the post-9/11 anti-Islamic holocaust, the rampant Islamaphobia that plagues America, and on and on.  Almost every other day we heard his religious community interviewed and much emphasis on bringing the perpetrators to justice. Until the suspect was arrested and charged and turned out to be - damnit! - black.  That was a week or so ago and I've heard no updates since. 

It goes like that.  On the national stage as well.  The point is that white Christian Republicans in Red States are the cause of evil in our world,  Everyone else is just a bunch of hapless muggels awaiting the bold Blue State crusaders to save the day.  That is believed by millions.  It is believed because that is the fiction our producers of this fiction have worked so hard to establish.  Hence this story of white children being targeted due to race hate against whites.  Blink!  And you'll miss it. 

The unbearable existence of white people

Yep, even when it comes to board games.  Somewhere, within the last hundred years, we decided that European and American civilization have no right to exist.  That includes anything connected with Caucasians.  Much less Christianity.  

African, Chinese, Japanese,  Aztec, pre-Columbian American, Mongolian, Indonesia, Indian, Hindu, Muslim, and an endless list not-Caucasian, not-Christian, not-European/American cultures have every right to exist.  They are to be celebrated and embraced, honored and respected without exception.  But that does not apply to anything north of the Mediterranean or west of the Urals.  

I've said before how I remember like it was yesterday the first time I heard the term WASP described.  It was fourth grade.  That's about 1976/1977.  It was a dark time in American history when we were a WASP  (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) nation, or so we learned that day.  Then came that first ray of light when Catholic John Kennedy was elected president, breaking the stranglehold that those/us WASPs had on our nation.  Glory be it was a new era of possibilities. 

More than one Catholic I've known over the years accepts that narrative. Heck, many still do.  Was a time when America was the nation of bigotry and prejudice, discrimination and oppression in those old Protestant majority days.  But we became much better that November in 1960. 

Problem?  Obviously the problem is plain to see.  It took no time at all to swap the P with C, for generic Christian.  By the late 70s it was time to ditch the hold that old Judeo-Christian values and beliefs had on our society.  By the late  80s, the J-word and Christianity were to be seen, not heard.  

Same with the AS part of WASP.  As the P gave way to C, so the AS eventually merged with Europeans in general and finally - as today - simply White.  So now it's the deplorable WC that is a blight on our nation, and on the Western tradition as a whole. If it's White it's evil.  And you can bet your grandma's uncle that any form of evil thinking today, any bigotry or opposition to the pure faith of modernity, is rooted in Christianity somewhere.  Christianity quickly became the only purely evil religion in a world of fake and fictional, but often honorable, religious beliefs.

That this anti-white racism and anti-Christian bigotry is driven by whites and Christians as much as anyone is beside the point.  Others are beginning to warm up to the trend. Plenty of minorities and activists from around the world are starting to notice what the article points out: That "whites" make up a decidedly small part of the global population, with serious Christian believers only slightly more numerous.  

Again, our grandchildren will get what we deserve.  From this the Faith will no doubt survive, and a remnant will keep the Gospel message alive, even after the world has forgotten  gothic cathedrals and Shakespeare and Mozart and Mt. Rushmore.  I have no doubt the Faith will grow in other parts of the world, and it will go as the Holy Spirit will lead.  Just as it has for 2000 years.  

But it took our generation of believers, including Catholics, to conclude that the Holy Spirit must have taken a thousand year vacation from which we are only now beginning to return.  The great blunder of God was allowing the Church to grow and develop in this one civilization that, due to its ethnic and religious heritage, never should have existed in the first place. 

I know that sounds over the top.  But please find me examples of modern rhetoric about America and the West and Christianity and Caucasians to show we're I'm wrong.  

Anti-Racism is about exploiting racism and injecting it into everything

 It's also a quick way for blacks to deflect from personal responsibility. So I saw this:

To be black in America? It's one of many posts and stories that have erupted ever since Ms. Richardson cried racism after the young Russian phenom Kamila Valieva was reinstated after initial disciplinary actions over a failed drug test. 

Here's the thing.  The two casers are as different as night and apples.  Far be it for me to think a Russian athlete is incapable of using banned substances, or that Russia could never be behind an athlete doing so.  But it still remains to be seen what will happen here.  As of now she was allowed back because of claims the substances and the situation did not rise to the occasion of punishing her.  We'll see.  If it comes around she did wrong, they can always remove her medals, which they sometimes do. 

Ms. Richardson, on the other hand, admitted to using marijuana, which has been a no-no since I was in sports back when MTV still played videos. I get that we're trying to legalize drugs, since nothing will help a dying nation more than getting as many people high as possible.  I also get that punishing someone over this flies in the face of our 'no rules, just right - especially if it feels good' post-war morality.

Nonetheless, she broke the rules.  She paid the price.  She admitted she had done so to cope with the pressures.  It had nothing to do with her being black.  Other athletes have faced the same penalties when it comes to banned substances - white, black, or whatever.  Lance Armstrong anyone? 

The fact that Ms. Richardson jumped on this to make it about race was bad enough.  Again, if you give people an easy out - no matter how wrong or destructive it is - they'll often take it.  Especially if doing so will put you back into the 15 minutes of fame cycle. 

But note how it has become an attack - on America!  I hope they do know this is being done by the Olympic committee, not the Republican Party.  That it involves a Russian athlete, not a white American.  That it's at the Olympics in China, not Alabama.  That this decision has bupkis to do with America, which would be happy to see Ms. Valiena removed from the competition, if Machiavellian sportsmanship is in play. 

Personally I'm more inclined to see a Russian athlete given a pass in the Chinese Olympics as a factor of China pressuring for the Russians in light of growing tensions with Russia and NATO.  That's just me.  Not saying that's the case, but if I had to choose. 

But the current doctrine of Anti-Racism insists we see as ever and always American racism and skin color as race skin color and color skin race - and that's all.  There simply can be no other explanations, because there is no other aspect of human existence worth acknowledging but race/skin color in America.  Therefore if three Mongolians rape and murder a Nigerian in Bolivia, it must prove the Founding Fathers were white supremacists because of course it does. The essence of anti-racist doctrine in the 21st Century. 

Alessandra Harris gets it wrong

 

People aren't mad that black people had the nerve to proclaim their lives matter.  Most I know wouldn't have said otherwise.  They simply point out the problem with the usual leftwing duplicity behind it all. That is, insisting they aren't saying only black lives matter, and then watching them suggest anyone who says all lives matter is a racist.  

The Left's favorite tactic of denying having stated the implicit truth they just used to separate the sheep from the greatest of all time, is the problem. And pardon me for noticing, but the only one who seems mad about any of this is Ms. Harris.