Is best demonstrated by its almost knee jerk tendency to assume malice in anyone who strives for what common sense once said was good. Here, NPR swoops in to suggest the sudden concern over our dangerously low birthrates could be - you guessed it - thinly veiled white nationalist white supremacy racist Naziism. Because of course. Apparently anyone thinking more babies are good must be motivated by wickedness. Which speaks volumes about the NPR mentality, if you think on it.
As a bonus, I love how the above artwork displayed in the piece has a white family, which obviously is suppose to elicit panic and visions of Nuremberg rallies on the part of the reader. The idea that a white family is supposed to suggest something evil purely by being a white family is hilariously demonic. But it shows how far the Left has come in its apparent conclusion that the only problem with the Nazis was that they race hated and mass exterminated all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. Remember kids, if you ever and only reference an ethnic group, skin color, or other demographic based on accident of birth purely in negative, accusatory or pejorative ways, then you're a racist.
Naturally the content of the article is of no importance. It's the usual building a false molehill by ignoring a mountain of inconvenient facts and suffering and human experiences. In other words, contemporary journalism. I seriously doubt that science can possibly invent an instrument able to gauge the utter worthlessness of the modern media.
There are two basic approaches to America. Either America has always been a great country despite its sins. Or America has yet to be a good country because of its sins.
The Left has convinced a growing number of Americans, especially younger ones, that next to America, there have been few truly evil societies in history. Ours is a racist, genocidal, imperialist nation where the evils of racism, oppression, bigotry and genocide are as much in our national DNA as they were in the DNA of the Nazi Party.
Part of this has been monlithing such sins a racism. Was a time when we understood racial bigotry was bad. More than one American had fought against racism since before America. By the time I came along, racism was clearly a societal no-no. You drop the N-Word in school and it would be off to the principle's office in no time. Though you probably wouldn't have been expelled, had the cops called, or saw the media descend on your school like an armored division. Probably just given a warning and a talking to.
But racial bigotry was merely one of many such foibles. And it was certainly varied. It was understood that to tell a racially insensitive joke, while certainly evidence of the lingering effects of socially accepted racist thinking, was not the same as seizing control of a central European country and mass murdering ethnic minorities in gas chambers. Perhaps you could argue it might lead there, but it wasn't the same.
That is no longer the case. Racism is simply the worst, all defining, unforgivable sin that even Jesus could never forgive. And there are no levels to it. Seize that central European country or drop an N-Word in a 20 year old email, and you're now a racist. Period. End of statement. You could have cured cancer or rescued twenty kids from a burning building. Now you're merely a racist, and that's all you'll ever be. Not a human, an American, a father, or a sister. Racist.
To that end, and based heavily on the Left's push for a world of endless group identity, America is nothing but racist and, therefore, nothing but irredeemable. It's history is one of racism, where every black American lived in the equivalent of an America shaped death camp, and every white American had privilege enjoyed from being racists 24/7. End of template.
Hence, there is no good in America's past. There was only racism, or sexism, homophobia, or whatever you wish to focus on, depending on the group in question. While Haley's is clearly a politically spun recollection, it isn't false. Those were things more than one American would have valued across the demographic board, hence America worked to end such injustices on its own. Nobody had to invade and conquer America to get the US to give women the right to vote, or pass the Civil Rights Act. Yet Ms. King acknowledges none of that. She could have said 'Yes, those things are missing and we could use them again, however there were also problems back then ...'. Or something to that effect.
But nope. It's straight to the bad. Only the bad. Not faith, not country, not family, only racism in our racist nation filled with American racists.
Note also that nothing Nikki Haley said prevents one from acknowledging the sins and failings of the past. Which is a good thing. Goodness knows we are the generation that defines itself by eternal finger pointing at those who came before. But Ms. King's response all but wipes those virtues aside, as if to say yearning for those cannot happen but that we focus exclusively on the sins of our nation. It's either acknowledging sins, or ignoring them by embracing the best. Almost as if the purpose of continually focusing on the sins of the past is specifically for the purpose of getting us to forget the best of the past.
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
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.
Yep. Probably no demographic group has been more devastated by absent fatherhood and the rise of broken families more than African Americans. In fact, it's become so obvious that we say it and miss the implications of what we're saying.
A few years ago, to demonstrate the idea of 'privilege', some PSA organization produced a video. In that video, it had a hundred or so people line up on one side of a field. Then the narrator asked questions. If the answer was yes (or no, can't remember which), you stayed put while everyone else stepped forward. The line of people attempted to represent people from every possible demographic group, and who had the real privilege at the end.
The first question out of the box was 'How many of you gre3w up in a broken home?' It seemed almost half the people stayed put. And of those who stayed put, the vast majority were black. And among those who remained to continue the walk across the field, very few blacks were left.
The message was supposed to be what privilege is really all about. Yet nobody who made the video, or the outlets that showed and promoted the video, or the various websites that shared the video, seemed to get the most obvious problem. Per the sampling chosen for the video, the overwhelming number of blacks were left standing after the first question because of one reason: broken households.
So naturally today Google, like most of our nation (our own parish notwithstanding), chose to emphasis the inconsistently promoted Juneteenth and downplay, if not altogether ignore, Father's Day. Except for a brief mention on the news and a special BBQ segment on the local news, it was Juneteenth all the way (with Pride Celebrations elbowing in for a close third, if not second).
With each passing day, I become less able to convince myself that our leftwing ruling class isn't purposefully encouraging the worst behavior and attitudes in the black community in order to foster a self-fulfilling prophecy that can be used to dismantle the heritage of America and the Christian West. At some point, there simply isn't any other explanation for what our eyes can see and our ears can hear.
True, it could be our modern arrogance and hubris that leads to continuing support for the LGBTQ lifestyle and a whole month of PRIDE in the era of AIDS. But more and more it seems deliberate. After all, even the most obstinate narcissists can't possibly miss what is so nakedly obvious.
Note: Apparently this is already a meme. Google had to do Fathers Day before Juneteenth because you can't celebrate blacks and fathers at the same time. Ouch, yet as one fellow said, don't blame the messenger, Google wrote that joke itself.
Or any Civil Rights Righteous Gentiles? I though of that when this came across my desk. It's just a local page going over the various Juneteenth celebrations in the area.
But that brought to mind a local story I saw yesterday that interviewed someone about Juneteenth. It dawned on me that, if that report had anything to say about it, there were no white people involved in the events of Juneteenth. To hear the individual interviewed, it was just blacks finally and inexplicably being freed after not being able to be freed and celebrating freedom. Nothing about who actually freed them.
And this made me kick around what I've noticed before. There are no Righteous Gentiles of the Civil Rights Movement. You get who the RGs are I assume. Those are the non-Jews, both Christian and not Christian, who risked and lost their lives to save Jews from the Nazis. In Jewish culture, they are held in high esteem. There are memorials, tributes and special accolades. Oskar Schindler is the most famous, but there are many others. It's the Jewish community's way of making sure those who did what they could are remembered and celebrated.
But I see none of that in the modern BLM/Civil Rights Era. Truth be told, I've not seen such an emphasis ever. The focus within the black community seems to have ever been on the sins of America and white Americans, and not those who broke with the majority to aid the black community.
In recent years, however, it seems to purposefully downplay or ignore anything positive done by whites on behalf of black Americans. I saw on a streaming service a 'making of'' special telling how the movie Harriet (as in Tubman) was made. In fairness I didn't see the movie. But if the special about its production is any indicator, you'd never know white people had anything to do with the Underground Railroad. It was blacks saving blacks and helping blacks and smuggling blacks. Again, the movie might be different, but not if that special was anywhere near accurate.
Same with the Civil War. I saw a black professor back in February talking about the plight of blacks in America. He spoke of blacks being victims of a racist terror state, the indignities and horror of their experience being on par with Jews in Nazi Germany. When it came to the Civil War, he made it clear there were two armies of racists fighting each other over slavery, and yet not caring about slavery at all.
What is it with the black community and refusing to give credit to white Americans? Do they do so, and the press just bends over backwards to ignore it? Is there a majority of blacks who do celebrate the sacrifice and bravery and courage of white Americans who stood by them? Are there black Americans who acknowledge that without July 4th you don't get Juneteenth in any event? Does the press simply make sure it's only the radicals who want America bleeding on the floor who are represented? We know the press is capable of such tricks.
Or are those radicals the majority view within the black community? I don't know. It's just something I've noticed in recent years. And call me a troublemaker all you want, but I'm always leery of anyone who refuses to give credit where it is due, especially to an entire ethnic group, especially for those within that group who died for their cause.
Winning for the ever creeping post-reality narrative of transgender normality. At the end of the day, the entire transgender revolution is nothing other than O'Brien insisting he's holding up five fingers. And how glad is the State to see so many - politicians, journalists, scientists, intellectuals, celebrities, and religious leaders - stumble over each other to declare that gender is one of those mysteriously complicated subjects at best, an abstract unreality based on our latest version of the latest at worst.
The article is supposedly about the head medical official in NYC slighting white women by only referring to white mothers as 'birthing people', while calling minorities the classic term for people who have babies: mothers. The article on Fox stirs the outrage by referencing a Twitter post or two and suggesting there is some global backlash.
But it's all wrapped up in the idea that what made this bad was that she discriminated in her terminology based on skin color. No. What makes it bad is that she is a medical expert proclaiming that O'Brien was always holding up five fingers, and it's time all who would serve the rising Power confess the same. That is the story. Because once you have men giving birth, going back to Jim Crow levels of hate and bigotry is the easiest step you'll ever take, even if it's directed against a whole new ethnic group this time around.
That is, racism may be evil, but far more evil is exploiting or promoting racism for personal gain. That includes political expediency.
Let's face it, death and taxes may or may not be a sure thing, but we all knew with 100% certainly that anything other than the worship of Judge Jackson would be met with implicit, if not explicit, accusations of racism, sexism, or both. That's called playing the race and sex card. For example:
I'm not sure if the GOP had gathered to worship Judge Jackson as the one, true god it would have kept the leftwing line of "Racist=Non-Leftist" from being floated. I just knew the first moment anyone broke with demands for obedience to the Left and dared question Judge Jackson, the charge of racism and/or sexism would fly faster than a rocket.
Racism has been the favored cudgel of the Left for years because, like many times and places in human history, America has had prejudice, including racism, in its borders. It's easy to use a valid sin to destroy someone. Problem is, if that someone is a reformed sinner who has tried to put the sin behind them and do what's right, then what do you do? That is assuming your goal isn't the sinner's redemption, but her destruction.
That's when you have to don your jolly Satan, and become the perpetual Accusing One. No matter how much penance, no matter how much confession, no matter how much remorse, you must always - and I mean 24/7 - look for ways to keep those sins alive and, if not alive, then at least in the minds of everyone, including the sinner.
That's what makes someone like Judge Jackson so valuable. Whatever her barely discussed credentials, the important thing is that it gives yet another platform for keeping America as Sexist Nazi State in the headlines, in the editorial cartoons, in the punditry, and in the State confessional.
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.
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.
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.
So Gloria Purvis, BLM supporter and CRT narrative advocate for the Catholic Church, posted this:
Now, it could just be she mentioned this during Black History Month. Perhaps she added the point that he was never recognized, just because. You know, bit of trivia. Why do I get the impression, however, that it's supposed to imply he was never recognized ... because he was black?
As the NFL world rebounds from yet another charge of racism from a fired black coach, I thought it might be worth pointing out that not everything that happens to black people is because they are black. Sometimes it just happens. Sometimes employees who happen to be no good, black or white, get canned. Sometimes a talented and celebrated assistant coach craps out in the head position. Sometimes a veteran is overlooked because that's what happens.
For instance, my dad's next older brother served in WWII. He was a medic, as he asked for something where he wouldn't have to hurt anyone. He served with Patton in the breakout period until the end of the war. And yes, he was involved in the legendary Battle of the Bulge.
Nonetheless, it wasn't until shortly before his death from cancer in the late 1990s that he received any decorations. I don't know what they were, and for that matter, neither did he. He called my dad and asked what this was all about. Some medal and talk of an Ardennes Offensive in December, '44. My dad chuckled and said that was the Battle of the Bulge. He said he didn't know what it was called. He just remembered that it was freezing and people kept trying to kill him.
We still laugh at that. That was my uncle. But you see Ms. Purvis, my uncle spent most of his life being quite white. Unless there was some vast anti-white conspiracy, it's likely the failure to recognize his heroism in that legendary battle was anything other than what happens in the bureaucracies of massive countries with the third largest population in history. No ill will or malice.
This isn't to say no black serviceman was ever overlooked because of race. Nor is it to say no black was ever fired because of race. That's would be an absurd suggestion. But there are other forms of prejudice that can enter into play. And sometimes it has nothing to do with prejudice, bigotry or racism at all. Sometimes it's just that thing Prince called Life. Common sense should say nothing else.
But how much longer can we keep beating this horse until it is dead? How much longer can we act as if America and Racism and Race are the only things in its existence, apart from misogyny? Or is there any intention of not beating it until it is dead? Who knows? If we stop attributing everything under the sun to race and race alone, perhaps it might help us look at other reasons there are so many problems in the black community. You never know!
All of these are just like the others, none of these doesn't belong
As soon as the news that Justice Breyer would retire hit the wires, almost every news outlet gushed that his replacement would be a black woman. Qualifications? Who cares? Positions? Probably liberal, but who cares? What matters? Black skin and identifies with female anatomy.
Now, how is that not discrimination? It's not even cloaking it under 'most qualified' language. It is saying anyone not a black woman will be automatically disqualified for having the wrong skin color and identifying with the wrong anatomy.
Is this OK? It must be, our media is cheering from coast to coast. And is the press ever wrong? I mean, back in my college days liberals always insisted Affirmative Action had nothing to do with quotas. It had nothing to do with group identity and ethnicity and gender. It was simply opening up opportunities by removing barriers to the ones most obviously qualified who otherwise would have been prevented from moving forward due to bigotry and prejudice.
But now, they don't even seem to care about hiding it. I guess that is proof of their hammerlock on power. They can say this nomination has bupkis to do with anything but group identify and ethnicity and gender. Anything else is small potatoes. And what's more, it rightly bars candidates based on group identity and ethnicity and gender. And that's fine, too. Welcome to 21st Century Former America.
Speaking of 'you heard postwar liberals say, but the Left now says.' I posted here on how MLK has become a bit of a ghost figure in the last few years. Where once I couldn't go two days without him referenced or quoted, now I go months.
I stand corrected. There was quite a flurry of MLK quotes and references this year, even if it took MLK weekend to happen. And the emphasis? Turns out the old MLK I grew up with was either stretching the truth, or was a-changin with the times.
Really. I heard more references and more quotes than I ever had where MLK draws stark contrasts between how blacks and whites should be treated and judged based on, well, skin color. And even more than that, I saw multiple quotes where it turns out MLK was warming up to the old ultraviolence and butt kicking when need be. Sure some innocents might die and destruction and all, but sometimes you just can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Here's a handy article unpacking King's awakening to the greater Black Panther ideals and the possibilities thereof.
Again, MLK was always the man Jesus should have been. After all, Jesus overturned tables and whipped money changers out of the temple courts and as we know - Violence Is Never The Answer (repeated more when I was growing up than there are grains of sand on the beach). That's why MLK was such a gem. Never would he condone or even come close to condoning violence. Nonviolence and peace all the way. And skin color? It was nothing to him, or at least the world he was striving for would be that way.
But not this year. Turns out he was every bit willing to condemn whites for white, and warm up to some violence, terror and destruction when need be. You know, like most people throughout the ages. Almost everyone else has held to that approach, including size people up based on group identity. MLK was proxy Jesus through most of my life because he never, ever would condone such things.
Apparently these and other quotes I've seen this year were not known, or were kept under lock and key to be revealed at a more convenient time. That time being now.
The New MLK: Revisionist History, or was it Historical Fantasy all along?
Disclaimer: I realize some of my rhetoric here is a bit over the top. But it's stunning to see the ease with which the Left can simply rewrite reality, or declare wonderful what only yesterday it said was Nazi. I personally never worshipped at the altar of MLK. It wouldn't surprise me if Saint MLK we grew up worshipping was a little more complex than they said. But it's the brazenness with which they now can change the rules as they see fit, having no fear of resistance.
First, could Deacon Greydanus point me to a recent time in which he's referenced whites as an ethnic group in a non-negative, non-pejorative, non-judgmental way? I'm not thinking of any, though I don't follow everything he writes. If he can't, then that, good deacon, is racism. Even if it's against your own race.
Anyway, speaking of racism, notice the lead in to the series of quotes. Us white folks don't ever talk about these quotes because, well, us white folks. So let's unpack them.
First quote? I've seen that before. I can't account for the skin color of those who have quoted it, but I'll assume there's a chance some of them are white. I am, and I've seen it more than once over the years. So nope, that one is known and quoted.
Second quote? Oh yeah. I 've seen that many, many times. Usually it's quoted in the context of "the only thing necessary for evil" discussions. I've seen it recently, quoted by conservatives watching the modern assault on democracy and freedom and life. So sorry, that's a common one.
Third quote? Nope, you got me there. That's the first time I've heard of the hellhound quote. So there's one. Not sure if it's because of white people being white, but haven't heard it until now. Or if I did read it, it didn't stick.
Fourth quote? I've heard this one, but not often. But it's not white people being white. It's those who have tried to make MLK into the peace loving non-violent love child who Jesus should have been. Like Attenborough's Gandhi, he was the man who was never about violence. Violence, after all, was never, ever the answer (pre-2020 America). And if mister peace, love and John Lennon songs himself was advocating riots (which are essentially using or threatening violence, assaults, destruction and even terror for a cause), this quote doesn't help. Hence why I've heard it, but not often (until recently, especially after 2020, I should add)
Last quote? Yeah, I've heard it. Not often, since 1) it seems to touch on economics, and 2) it could be seen as a somewhat pro-not-Capitalist private ownership quote. Given the charge that MLK was a communist agent by some detractors back in the day, I can see this one not flying. Truth be told, I probably heard it more on leftwing Catholic sites than anywhere.
So that's that. Most of those listed are quoted, even by white people who spend most of their days being white. With the exception of hellhound discrimination, if I haven't heard much of them, there is a reason. And it isn't because of whites being uncomfortable as much as the quotes being avoided by those trying to present MLK in a prepackaged image of convenience.
So there you go. FWIW, aside from a few conservatives and conservative outlets I know, there is one quote that was conspicuously absent yesterday in all the news and social media outlets I saw:
I wonder why. That, to me, is the interesting omission. It also helps to answer this question:
My third oldest son has an observation that I adore. If you think you would have been one of the brave heroes of history standing up to the evils of the age, there's a 95% chance you're wrong. Would I have marched? Probably not. I'm not doing much to stop what's happening now.
But if you embrace the modern racism, the racism against whites, the judging of a 12 year old girl as having privilege because of her skin color no matter her station in life, then there is a 99.99% chance you wouldn't have marched. In fact, there's an overwhelming chance you would have unleashed the fire hoses if you had the chance.
Hmmm, why do I already question the historical accuracy of this? Let me see.
My problem isn't that a black woman is playing the role of a woman who historically wasn't black. If blacks want to do their own historical productions recounting European history, I'm actually OK with that.
My problem is that at the very same moment, if a white woman played Harriet Tubman or a white man MLK, or Shaka Zulu, you'd have screaming from coast to coast. Accusations of racism and cultural appropriation would fly like bullets. That is a double standard based on ethnicity. And that, of course, is racism.
Racism has come back to American life in ways we've not seen since Jim Crow. Furthermore, it's fully endorsed by our educational institutions, our popular culture, our news media and even our churches and religious leaders.
Those who are aghast at this are divided into two camps: Those trying to find somewhere to compromise and those who are aghast at this but find little in the way of support for calling it for what it is.
What will come of the future I don't know. Ten years ago I didn't think a person would be fired for saying there is such a thing as boys and girls. Nor did I imagine that a growing number of Americans would accept that all whites are racist, therefore such contributions of old white racists as freedom of speech or equality must be jettisoned. Therefore I'm not in a position to make guesses.
I just see that things are happening fast. Those who insist it's all a big bunch of nothing should fly to Munich. I'm sure you'll be able to secure peace for our time.
Critical Race Theory, which alternately does and doesn't exist, and is being advocated and not advocated in our schools, is given a boost by this propaganda piece. NBC pulls the ages old trick of finding students whose experience fits with the agenda, ignoring all others. That is, students who paint a picture of life in their school systems laden by KKK style racism, begging for 'solutions' to their plight.
File under 'CRT is the hope and salvation for our racist school systems'. Next week we will likely be told why there is no such thing as CRT, and if you oppose it you're a racist. That's what comes from our schools working for decades to turn our citizenry into a nation of drugged up, sexed up nihilists. Only such a nation would fall for this.
Mayor Eric Johnson, Democrat, mayor of Dallas, understands reality. That is, there are obviously racists in the Democratic Party. Duh. Of course there are. Racism can be anywhere and promoted by anyone, including blacks. That should be like saying oxygen exists.
It's a testament to the stupid of our most educated generation that people actually believe good and evil exists along purely Red State/Blue State lines. You can thank the news media for that. Nobody does 'divide people up into categories and label them accordingly' better than the press.
I doubt most really believe that. When my former ethics professor David Gushee said history is divided between the good people on the Left, versus the baddies on the Right, I can't believe he really thought that. It's just convenient. We live in an age of truth by convenience. If it's convenient, it becomes true. Even if we know better.
Likewise, so many Christians who have aligned with the same Left they once openly condemned rest heavily on the premise that liberal Democrats are simply the beautiful people, or at least the better people, unlike Republican Nazis who are always stupid, evil and wrong. Again, I can't believe they really think something so stupid and demonstrably false. It's just a convenient excuse to justify aligning with something they once labeled as evil or dangerous.
The problem is, to keep such a stupid and false narrative - that Blue is beautiful, Red is Satan - one must indulge in some pretty underhanded and duplicitous wrangling. Chief among the tricks to ignore grave evils - such as racism - when it doesn't uphold this little lie of racism on one side of the tracks only. Sure, the odd minority might be hurt or even killed. Sure this or that person might suffer. But the justification for allegiance must be maintained, so turning a blind eye to that inconvenient evil is necessary.
Note, this is not to say there are no racists in the Republican party. Or that conservatives can't be racist. Or that we can't sometimes embrace ideas that are prejudiced against others without realizing it. All of these things are obviously true. One of the strengths of liberalism has been to point out problems or flaws that obviously exist, but then run forward with solutions that may not be as obvious.
And it's not to say anyone - conservatives or Republicans or whoever - can't fall into the trap of tribalism and turning blind eyes to the problems in your own camp. But this is different. This isn't even willful blindness. It's become a mandatory strategy to immediately downplay, ignore or deny grave evils or human suffering that challenge the stupid idea of Blue Good/Red Bad. It isn't refusing to admit the evils because we can do that sometimes. It's having to not only deny, but attack people trying to fix the evils, because the allegiance depends on the lie, and the lie must be upheld at all costs.
No better example of both racism and race-baiting political propaganda have I seen in recent years than this 'story' about the Spaulding Board of Elections in Georgia. Read it here. Go ahead. I'll wait.
*****
Are you finished? What did you think? Having white skin is pretty damn evil, ain't it? To read the story it sure appears to be. Note how when the board was majority black skin, all was right with the world. But now the dreaded and nauseating white skin has a majority, and that's how we know outrage should commence:
"A year ago, Sunday voting had been instrumental in boosting turnout of Black voters.
But this was an entirely different five-member board than had overseen the last election. The Democratic majority of three Black women was gone. So was the Black elections supervisor.
Now a faction of three white Republicans controlled the board"
Wow. You can almost hear the Darth Vader March playing faintly as you read the words.
Again, the whole idea that we should look at Caucasians the way Nazis looked at Jews is almost social dogma. The fact that it's happened almost overnight has to make your head spin.
For a minute I thought maybe, just maybe, Spalding County - the county in question - has a majority black population. Since we've pretty much accepted the idea that no white skin should ever presume to teach or in any way hold position over the black skin, that might be why the outrage.
But nope:
Majority white. In fact, the racial makeup of the county appears to be reflected in the current makeup off the board of elections (except for the lack of someone representing the other minority groups - but that doesn't seem to matter this time). Again, it's the nauseating and deplorable white skins who hold the majority. And what's more, white skins who dare blaspheme the Leftist State.
Tell me I'm wrong in this over the top rhetoric. Please. Go into the comments section and say I've gone too far. That I represent the gist of the "story" unfairly. That I'm wrong to say they are clearly judging and appraising based purely on skin color. That they are strongly suggesting the wrong skin color can only be mitigated by proper political allegiance. Tell me I'm wrong in these.
If not, then please go back and apologize to all those Germans from the 1930s that we've spent generations tarring and feathering for not doing anything about the obvious. For this is obvious, as obvious as the nose on Ring Starr's face. And yet not only are most doing nothing about it, but notice the speed with which so many are jumping on board. Christian leaders included.
I swear, on that last day of Judgment, the souls of the Germans from the 1930s will rise up and condemn our generation, and rightly so. For we have them to learn from, and look what little good it has done.
"With both, the parents failed those kids which I know is something you can’t say. Even harder to fix," Kempczinski texted Lightfoot.
"Thanks, Chris. Great to see you in person. Such a great work space, and your folks were terrific. I said to Joe I would be happy reach out to the operator to offer support. He and his team members have got to be traumatized. Terrible tragedy. Thanks again, Chris," Lightfoot responded.
So, what was racist? The assumption that parents, who have recently been told they could be terrorists or that they in fact can't have say in their kids' educations, are therefore responsible for something? I'm not seeing it. Perhaps he shouldn't have spoken to these two particular cases without knowing the details. But racist? By the way, clearly he was right in saying this is something you're not allowed to do, however many thousands of America's youth die in the meantime.
Though I think it's safe to say that as a society, we've been grooming parents to fail their kids for many generations. Ever since we decided Dr. Benjamin Spock was right to tell us everything we ever knew about raising kids was wrong.
Seventy years later, and suicide is now one of the leading causes of death for children as young as ten years old. We have debates about arming teachers because of the penchant for mass murdering fellow students that has arisen in the last several decades. Drug use and dependency among young Americans is at all time highs, along with suicide rates.
It's almost like we shouldn't have listened to a sawdust for brains ideologue and should have trusted in some ages old wisdom when it comes to things like parenting, morality, personal responsibility and being mature adults. Heck, it might even be that we abandoned God and his revealed wisdom for how to act as human beings.
Nah, that would be like saying we've been wrong all these years. And there's no end to the youth of America we're willing to let die rather than admit to such a thing.
