Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud

 

@drbastiat wrote a characteristically insightful post about recent remarks by the President of the United States to the effect that there is a white supremacist behind every tree and bush in America. These “domestic terrorists,” the president would have us believe, are everywhere and heavily populated by former military and law enforcement personnel.

The “rise of white supremacy,” as the president calls it, is really more of a descent in the definition of white supremacy, as I tried to say in the comments. But it is worth reflecting on the motivation for this increasingly desperate attempt to redefine white supremacy downward.

A cynic might conclude that the entire thing is contrived and merely reflects an effort to build political support for left-wing policy prescriptions. It’s certainly not less than that but, IMO, there is more here than mere politics.

Anyone who harbors doubts that racial discrimination provides all the needed explanatory power regarding disparate outcomes between racial groups is now being lumped into the “white supremacy” bucket. This amounts to a giant exercise in deflection. It is far more congenial to blame others for one’s hardships than to consider one’s own contribution.

There is a subtle, but comprehensive, rejection underway of Martin Luther King’s dream that character would be paramount and that color blindness would be universally embraced as a virtue. The notion that color blindness is an aspirational good, where race relations are concerned, is something that was aggressively cultivated in the minds and hearts of everyone who grew up in the ’60s and ’70s. But, since then, at least two generations of young people have been brought up with the notion that everything about themselves should be dwelt upon and celebrated. (If you don’t believe me, you have not been watching children’s television.) And we’ve now arrived at the point where a critical mass of people has embraced the idea that skin color controls and defines everything aspect of one’s lived experience.

It gets worse.

There is a longstanding belief, within the urban underclass, that black people are incapable of living with moral constraints. This belief has spilled over into the broader progressive political community. This is the quiet part that isn’t often said out loud. It is a dehumanizing point of view regarding an entire race of people and it is, fundamentally, a resurgence of the racist views of the past, camouflaged in soothing, trendy – but assertive – rhetoric about system this and structural that. Though the dehumanizing core of how progressives view the black community is normally unspoken, sometimes it does leak out.

Last year, the Smithsonian published a graphic on its website on “White Culture” and “Whiteness” in America. The argument put forth by the graphic was that whites, allegedly, hold the commanding heights of power in America and this is a list of things that characterize whites. The graphic stated that, to the extent other races exhibited similar characteristics, it was only due to the fact that those races had been on the receiving end of white oppression and, one can only conclude, they would not otherwise have exhibited those traits. And what are those traits, you ask, that have been crammed down the throats of unwilling recipients by powerful whites? Why, it is uniquely “white” things such as hard work, delayed gratification, a commitment to rationality – even an embrace of the nuclear family.

This graphic raised such a ruckus among people who recognized the degrading, embedded assumptions about non-white races, that the Smithsonian eventually took it down. But the episode is instructive because it reveals a great deal about how people on the left conceive of races and racial diversity.

For reasons I won’t explain here, I have had far more up close and personal contact with the urban black community than you would ever expect for a person with my background. I have been at jails, all over Texas and Louisiana, where I have bailed young men out of jail in the wee hours of the morning so they can make it to work and keep their job. I have carried drug addicts, young and old, to rehab and sometimes paid their expenses out of my own pocket. One memorable morning, I was lectured by a bi-racial woman on the extent to which anyone with a black ancestry is incapable of living with the moral constraints of white society. She implanted that idea in the mind of a 17-year-old who was there at the time, and she was lecturing me because, in my whiteness, I was expecting too much of the 17-year-old black teenager.

As I listened to the lecture that day from the biracial woman claiming that anyone with a black ancestry was incapable of moral restraint, this passage from Aldous Huxley’s Ends and Means kept running through my head:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

Thirteen years later, the same 17-year-old black teenager who was there to hear the woman object to my white morality, died alone in a hotel room, having overdosed from a combination of fentanyl and meth. (The same cocktail that helped kill George Floyd, as it turned out.) During the intervening 13 years, that young woman not only believed what the woman had told her, but she lived by it as a kind of code. It cost her her life. She left an orphaned, fatherless little boy in her wake.

The late Sen. Daniel Moynihan published a famous study in which he sounded the alarm about the state of the black community in America. He especially called out the worrisome statistic that, at the time, approximately 25% of black children were being born out of wedlock. That number is now close to 75%. Even among whites that number is now around 25%, so they are a few decades behind the black community but on the very same trajectory.

Anyone who claims to care about the plight of the American black community, who isn’t talking about fatherlessness, is not a serious person. Or, at least, their actual interest is not really in helping the black community.

Philosopher Andrew Fletcher was famous for saying “Let me make the songs of a nation. I care not who writes its laws.” He was suggesting, at least, that the power of the arts to influence human beings precedes and informs the making of laws. If you want to understand where things are headed, you should listen to urban music or, at least, read the lyrics. Materialist superstitions dominate the entire genre. Physical pleasure and material consumption are considered the ultimate ingredients of a meaningful life. If you’re black in America, you’re being asked to believe that the only things standing between you and this kind of personal fulfillment are “white supremacy” and “systemic oppression”.

It was not always this way. Not that long ago, even the infantile Michael Jackson understood well enough to say this:

I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

The dehumanization of black Americans by the left is picking up steam. The “soft bigotry of low expectations” is being replaced by the “hard bigotry of no expectations.” More people are likely to die as a result.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 40 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Absolutely brilliant post.

    Keith Lowery: Anyone who harbors doubts that racial discrimination provides all the needed explanatory power regarding disparate outcomes between racial groups is now being lumped into the “white supremacy” bucket. This amounts to a giant exercise in deflection. It is far more congenial to blame others for one’s hardships than to consider one’s own contribution.

    Absolutely brilliant paragraph.

    Keith Lowery: There is a longstanding belief, within the urban underclass, that black people are incapable of living with moral constraints.

    The is the primary challenge of middle class black parents, trying to raise good kids. And this is why government programs which give money to such people will fail – you’re simply funding self-destructive behavior – making their problems worse.

    All this, in a post that quotes Aldous Huxley, Michael Jackson, Daniel Moynihan, and Andrew Fletcher. Yahoo! Awesome stuff!

    Thanks for taking the time to put this together!

     

    • #1
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I continue to sense a reluctance on the part of many to deal head on with these “white supremacist” accusations, as well as with the condemnation of the traits that allegedly define “white supremacy” (e.g., merit). Much as “white supremacy” is the spawn of the unchallenged notion of “white privilege,” we should expect this latest iteration to morph into a belief system that’s even more toxic down the line.

    The reluctance I sense is exemplified by the failure to call the notion of white supremacy for what it is–racist, as in a stereotypical distinction based on race.. And to call it that again and again and again until the idea starts to stick. While the notion that racism cuts both ways seems to be acknowledged here, many so-called thought leaders, including some deserving of respect, seem reluctant to go there out of (I suspect) fear of being accused of making common cause the “real” white supremacists..

    • #2
  3. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    If We are to dismantle all things white supremacy, can We start with planned parenthood?

    Talk about domestic terrorists.

    • #3
  4. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Oh, there is method to their madness. There is a more practical side to the white-supremacist / domestic-terrorist labelling. Those designations will provide fig-leaves for the Xiden administration to use the regulatory state to attack its political opponents. Obama using the IRS against the Tea Party was just them dipping their toes in the water. It’s about to get a lot worse. They will shortly be using the banking and payment processing systems against anyone who doesn’t give full throated support. See the attached from The Federalist

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/19/biden-administration-prepares-way-for-banks-to-refuse-service-to-democrats-enemies/

    Xiden recently re-activated an Obama-era program called Operation Choke Point. It had been nullified by Trump, but now it’s back.

    Under Operation Choke Point…

    federal regulators instructed banks to do the opposite — to openly discriminate against entire industries the Obama administration found objectionable. Weaponizing the power of banking regulators at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Obama administration realized it could block entire industries from the banking system that it didn’t like. This made it difficult — if not impossible — for politically unfavored businesses such as gun sellers and short-term lenders to operate.

    • #4
  5. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I like the post.

    I get a sense, though, that the OP is exonerating black Americans of any blame for the current problem. It starts by complaining, rightly in my view, of the unfair demonization of white Americans as “white supremacists,” though this slander seems aimed mostly at conservatives and Republicans.

    It concludes that “[t]he dehumanization of black Americans by the left is picking up steam.”

    Why assume that black Americans have nothing to do with the unfair and slanderous application of the “white supremacist” label? It seems to me that quite a number of prominent American blacks are at the forefront of this agenda, though they have plenty of white collaborators.

    Ibram X. Kendi, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and the founders of BLM are all black.

    • #5
  6. Joker Member
    Joker
    @Joker

    I think “white supremacy” and “racism” have both been defined down to an extent that neither would be recognized thirty years ago. They were an intersection of racial hate and violence. The terms have been twisted so hard that neither condition is necessary any more. Hate is assumed no matter what and words are violence.
    I live in a mixed neighborhood and I am pleased to say that these middle class POC are working hard, going to church, driving their kids in school, friendly and actively engaged in the HOA. They clearly understand what makes their lives better and what is best for their families. Unfortunately, the press is more interested in disadvantaged neighborhoods. They are not interested in pointing to the way out, and that’s a real shame.

    • #6
  7. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I like the post.

    I get a sense, though, that the OP is exonerating black Americans of any blame for the current problem. It starts by complaining, rightly in my view, of the unfair demonization of white Americans as “white supremacists,” though this slander seems aimed mostly at conservatives and Republicans.

    It concludes that “[t]he dehumanization of black Americans by the left is picking up steam.”

    Why assume that black Americans have nothing to do with the unfair and slanderous application of the “white supremacist” label? It seems to me that quite a number of prominent American blacks are at the forefront of this agenda, though they have plenty of white collaborators.

    Ibram X. Kendi, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and the founders of BLM are all black.

    Without trying to parse the details of the OP, I conclude that the essence of the problem facing Americans is not to be found in race issues at all but almost totally in leftist progressivism. But race is used by those same leftist progressives to both create a false narrative of racism against the black communities being the cause of failures and then those same progressives go on to create an additional false narrative that the racism against blacks comes from something the progressives call “white nationalism”. Leftist progressivism is the source of this problem and those in that program come from all colors without exception.

    • #7
  8. Keith Lowery Coolidge
    Keith Lowery
    @keithlowery

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I like the post.

    I get a sense, though, that the OP is exonerating black Americans of any blame for the current problem. It starts by complaining, rightly in my view, of the unfair demonization of white Americans as “white supremacists,” though this slander seems aimed mostly at conservatives and Republicans.

    It concludes that “[t]he dehumanization of black Americans by the left is picking up steam.”

    Why assume that black Americans have nothing to do with the unfair and slanderous application of the “white supremacist” label? It seems to me that quite a number of prominent American blacks are at the forefront of this agenda, though they have plenty of white collaborators.

    Ibram X. Kendi, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and the founders of BLM are all black.

    I think you’re right but I also think all the people you mentioned are part of the left. In saying the left is dehumanizing blacks, I’m not suggesting that only white progressives are doing that. It’s not out of the question, in this instance, for progressive blacks to be just as guilty in this regard as progressive [insert race here].

     

    • #8
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Keith Lowery: Last year, the Smithsonian published a graphic on its website on “White Culture” and “Whiteness” in America. The argument put forth by the graphic was that whites, allegedly, hold the commanding heights of power in America and this is a list of things that characterize whites.

    I remember that! As it turned out, the list was actually a blueprint for success in life . . .

    Update: Obviously not all parts, but you get the idea . . .

    • #9
  10. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I continue to sense a reluctance on the part of many to deal head on with these “white supremacist” accusations, as well as with the condemnation of the traits that allegedly define “white supremacy” (e.g., merit). Much as “white supremacy” is the spawn of the unchallenged notion of “white privilege,” we should expect this latest iteration to morph into a belief system that’s even more toxic down the line.

    The reluctance I sense is exemplified by the failure to call the notion of white supremacy for what it is–racist, as in a stereotypical distinction based on race.. And to call it that again and again and again until the idea starts to stick. While the notion that racism cuts both ways seems to be acknowledged here, many so-called thought leaders, including some deserving of respect, seem reluctant to go there out of (I suspect) fear of being accused of making common cause the “real” white supremacists..

    And don’t use the “reverse racism” phrase, not that anyone here is. That implies that racism naturally goes from white to non-white so anything going the opposite direction is the reverse. Racism is racism, no need to modify it. Another problem was the twisting of the definition, made popular by I think Jesse Jackson, that blacks couldn’t be racist because they didn’t have any power over other races. That was always nonsense because racism is the thought that one race is superior to all others or one race is inferior to all others. It’s doubly so now, especially after the Obama administration.

    • #10
  11. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Well, this post (and the too polite replies) got me to resign back up. At least for a month.

    Its a nicely written post. But please, correct me if I’m misreading.

    Are you saying that what appears to be the dehumanization of white people with the smear of white supremacy is actually all about dehumanizing blacks?

    Are we so oikophobic (and so negrophilic) that the only way we can firmly denounce any wrong in our culture is if it is bad for the blacks?

    How is it that we can’t say that this defining down of white supremacy is an attack on white people?

    • #11
  12. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I continue to sense a reluctance on the part of many to deal head on with these “white supremacist” accusations, as well as with the condemnation of the traits that allegedly define “white supremacy” (e.g., merit). Much as “white supremacy” is the spawn of the unchallenged notion of “white privilege,” we should expect this latest iteration to morph into a belief system that’s even more toxic down the line.

    The reluctance I sense is exemplified by the failure to call the notion of white supremacy for what it is–racist, as in a stereotypical distinction based on race.. And to call it that again and again and again until the idea starts to stick. While the notion that racism cuts both ways seems to be acknowledged here, many so-called thought leaders, including some deserving of respect, seem reluctant to go there out of (I suspect) fear of being accused of making common cause the “real” white supremacists..

    Just finished an hour of Tucker–much of which was devoted to the demonization of whites at various levels of education. He had some very articulate guests, from Tammy Bruce to Christopher Rufo, to others of whom I’d never heard–with considerable hand-wringing from all. If anyone used the term “racist” or “racism,” I missed it. But I don’t think that I did.

    Q.E.D.

    • #12
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Stina (View Comment):

    Well, this post (and the too polite replies) got me to resign back up. At least for a month.

    Its a nicely written post. But please, correct me if I’m misreading.

    Are you saying that what appears to be the dehumanization of white people with the smear of white supremacy is actually all about dehumanizing blacks?

    Are we so oikophobic (and so negrophilic) that the only way we can firmly denounce any wrong in our culture is if it is bad for the blacks?

    How is it that we can’t say that this defining down of white supremacy is an attack on white people?

    My take on the entire process of what is going on is that the whole issue of race or color is a progressive construct to divide real Americans. What we are seeing has been created by the Left.

    • #13
  14. Mim526 Member
    Mim526
    @Mim526

    I always like to know the bottom line. Why the rejection of “Martin Luther King’s dream that character would be paramount and that color blindness would be universally embraced as a virtue” as the OP describes? Why are major companies like Coca-Cola forcing employees to complete training that encourages them to “try to be less white”?

    Jesse Kelly makes a case the race, gender etc. warfare is a gateway to Marxist control in America that has infiltrated even our most traditional institutions like military, school, and churches.

    • #14
  15. Keith Lowery Coolidge
    Keith Lowery
    @keithlowery

    Stina (View Comment):

    Are you saying that what appears to be the dehumanization of white people with the smear of white supremacy is actually all about dehumanizing blacks?

    Are we so oikophobic (and so negrophilic) that the only way we can firmly denounce any wrong in our culture is if it is bad for the blacks?

    How is it that we can’t say that this defining down of white supremacy is an attack on white people?

    These are legit questions and there’s more to unpack than can probably be fit into the 500 word comment limit.

    When I use the term “dehumanize”, I’m using it in the sense of viewing someone or some group as incapable of exhibiting the behavior expected of fully fledged human beings. We expect humans to live with moral constraints. If you believe someone or some group is incapable of volitionally restraining their moral choices, then you believe they are less than human.

    There’s no question that false accusations of racism amount to an attack on the accused. So the “white supremacy” smear is vile but the point I was making about dehumanization was rather different. I wasn’t using “dehumanize” as a synonym for “mean” or “cruel” or “othering”. I was trying to make a point about what motivates the redefinition of “white supremacy”. I was perhaps too subtly suggesting that the demand for racism far exceeds the supply, which complicates the lives of everyone who wants to view the world, ever and always, through the lens of race. I’m suggesting that the accusers themselves harbor racist views, which accidentally show themselves from time to time (e.g. the Smithsonian graphic) and which have blinded them to the possibility that the voluntary choices of actual human beings offer more explanatory power about disparate outcomes than anything having to do with race.

    Race neither adds to, nor detracts from, a person’s humanity of course. It is what a person believes about the world, and the nature of reality, that animates his choices and that will have a far more decisive effect on his life than any anatomical feature ever will. 

    FWIW.

    • #15
  16. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Well, this post (and the too polite replies) got me to resign back up. At least for a month.

    Its a nicely written post. But please, correct me if I’m misreading.

    Are you saying that what appears to be the dehumanization of white people with the smear of white supremacy is actually all about dehumanizing blacks?

    Are we so oikophobic (and so negrophilic) that the only way we can firmly denounce any wrong in our culture is if it is bad for the blacks?

    How is it that we can’t say that this defining down of white supremacy is an attack on white people?

    My take on the entire process of what is going on is that the whole issue of race or color is a progressive construct to divide real Americans. What we are seeing has been created by the Left.

    I agree with Bob and I think both the post and other comments conclude. It started with Obama. He was heralded into the presidency because of race, and it was a positive hurdle overcome. I didn’t vote for him, but I really thought he would be good for the black community and the country. He never improved black communities or opportunities for people of color. Trump did far more.

    Before that, race relations were good. I then realized it’s not about race – his Saul Alinsky Marxist 13 rules for radicals were put in place, and could not be undone. It’s never been about race – it’s a mask for power and control and very sinister. It also crosses over into gender issues, faith issues, income levels, control over private business practices, etc. all with a mask of “racism”. We’ve always had bad eggs on all sides – people who hate and really are racist, but the majority is not.

    Now our history, statues and most importantly, moral boundaries is being dismantled – this is the Marxist way – be on your guard.

    • #16
  17. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    I always like to know the bottom line. Why the rejection of “Martin Luther King’s dream that character would be paramount and that color blindness would be universally embraced as a virtue” as the OP describes? Why are major companies like Coca-Cola forcing employees to complete training that encourages them to “try to be less white”?

    Jesse Kelly makes a case the race, gender etc. warfare is a gateway to Marxist control in America that has infiltrated even our most traditional institutions like military, school, and churches.

    YES!! You beat me to it – my comment below was posted before I read yours. You are spot on.

    • #17
  18. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    I always like to know the bottom line. Why the rejection of “Martin Luther King’s dream that character would be paramount and that color blindness would be universally embraced as a virtue” as the OP describes? Why are major companies like Coca-Cola forcing employees to complete training that encourages them to “try to be less white”?

    Jesse Kelly makes a case the race, gender etc. warfare is a gateway to Marxist control in America that has infiltrated even our most traditional institutions like military, school, and churches.

    @mim526 I was going to start a conversation covering the Communist/Marxist/Progressive/Democrat cultural and government takeover strategy using the above material to illustrate but I thought better to suggest you do that. I think it is beneficial to get that discussion up and potentially on the main feed.

    • #18
  19. Joker Member
    Joker
    @Joker

    Keith, you’re spot on that the entire privilege/supremacy claim is facially racist. The claim that minorities cannot be racist because they don’t have enough power is insincere at best. The act of dehumanizing a person or group is independent of the relative social power of the dehumanizer.

    So much of this controversy is just manufactured by the Left to divide Americans who largely want the same things from life and from their government. We want to be left alone by our government, for instance. While the Left has had some success in prosecuting for mild infractions (and hate crime laws), while excusing the behavior of its fellow travelers, it hasn’t gotten too far thanks to the Constitution.

    But the very document that has protected private individuals for a couple of hundred years still provides no protection from cancel culture. One straightforward protection embodied in the Constitution is the right to confront your accuser. Cancel culture is a means for unnamed accusers to wreck the lives of opponents at zero cost to the accuser. It effectively empowers one individual to cancel the free speech of another. There’s no testimony under oath, no cross examination, no inquiry into the accuser’s standing in the matter and so on. Anonymous sources can do more damage to an individual than most government sanctions, short of incarceration. Hard to sue for slander when you don’t know who did it. That downgrading the meaning of supremacy or privilege is a natural outcome of being able to lazily and anonymously being able to hurl it at your opponents.

    Until we get some tools to fight cancel culture, we’re going to have a difficult time smoothing race relations.

    • #19
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Joker (View Comment):

    Until we get some tools to fight cancel culture, we’re going to have a difficult time smoothing race relations.

    There is a need to encourage all those of all colors who already enjoy all the fruits of the labors of those who have gone before us and built our great American institutions to join the fight against the Progressive/Communist/Democrat oppressors who are in the process of destroying those same legacies. 

    • #20
  21. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Are you saying that what appears to be the dehumanization of white people with the smear of white supremacy is actually all about dehumanizing blacks?

    Are we so oikophobic (and so negrophilic) that the only way we can firmly denounce any wrong in our culture is if it is bad for the blacks?

    How is it that we can’t say that this defining down of white supremacy is an attack on white people?

    These are legit questions and there’s more to unpack than can probably be fit into the 500 word comment limit.

    When I use the term “dehumanize”, I’m using it in the sense of viewing someone or some group as incapable of exhibiting the behavior expected of fully fledged human beings. We expect humans to live with moral constraints. If you believe someone or some group is incapable of volitionally restraining their moral choices, then you believe they are less than human.

    There’s no question that false accusations of racism amount to an attack on the accused. So the “white supremacy” smear is vile but the point I was making about dehumanization was rather different. I wasn’t using “dehumanize” as a synonym for “mean” or “cruel” or “othering”. I was trying to make a point about what motivates the redefinition of “white supremacy”. I was perhaps too subtly suggesting that the demand for racism far exceeds the supply, which complicates the lives of everyone who wants to view the world, ever and always, through the lens of race. I’m suggesting that the accusers themselves harbor racist views, which accidentally show themselves from time to time (e.g. the Smithsonian graphic) and which have blinded them to the possibility that the voluntary choices of actual human beings offer more explanatory power about disparate outcomes than anything having to do with race.

    Race neither adds to, nor detracts from, a person’s humanity of course. It is what a person believes about the world, and the nature of reality, that animates his choices and that will have a far more decisive effect on his life than any anatomical feature ever will.

    FWIW.

    Cannot we all see that the differences between blacks and whites is cultivated, and purposed to divide and rule everyone? Both blacks and whites who promote racial divisions make money off the result. And they accrue power, political and legislative (legal) power. Can no one see that addressing so-called race issues is allowing actual racists to set the language and the debate?

    • #21
  22. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Can no one see that addressing so-called race issues is allowing actual racists to set the language and the debate?

    More than that, rules and practices and that is where it is felt.

    • #22
  23. Mim526 Member
    Mim526
    @Mim526

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    I always like to know the bottom line. Why the rejection of “Martin Luther King’s dream that character would be paramount and that color blindness would be universally embraced as a virtue” as the OP describes? Why are major companies like Coca-Cola forcing employees to complete training that encourages them to “try to be less white”?

    Jesse Kelly makes a case the race, gender etc. warfare is a gateway to Marxist control in America that has infiltrated even our most traditional institutions like military, school, and churches.

    @ mim526 I was going to start a conversation covering the Communist/Marxist/Progressive/Democrat cultural and government takeover strategy using the above material to illustrate but I thought better to suggest you do that. I think it is beneficial to get that discussion up and potentially on the main feed.

    I’ll try to work something up though don’t know if it’ll be main feed worthy :-)

    • #23
  24. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    I always like to know the bottom line. Why the rejection of “Martin Luther King’s dream that character would be paramount and that color blindness would be universally embraced as a virtue” as the OP describes? Why are major companies like Coca-Cola forcing employees to complete training that encourages them to “try to be less white”?

    Jesse Kelly makes a case the race, gender etc. warfare is a gateway to Marxist control in America that has infiltrated even our most traditional institutions like military, school, and churches.

    @ mim526 I was going to start a conversation covering the Communist/Marxist/Progressive/Democrat cultural and government takeover strategy using the above material to illustrate but I thought better to suggest you do that. I think it is beneficial to get that discussion up and potentially on the main feed.

    I’ll try to work something up though don’t know if it’ll be main feed worthy :-)

    New word: feedworthy.

    • #24
  25. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Can no one see that addressing so-called race issues is allowing actual racists to set the language and the debate?

    More than that, rules and practices and that is where it is felt.

    Is this why we still have the Guard in DC now possibly stuck there til Fall? Perception is everything – what are they guarding against?

    • #25
  26. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Can no one see that addressing so-called race issues is allowing actual racists to set the language and the debate?

    More than that, rules and practices and that is where it is felt.

    Is this why we still have the Guard in DC now possibly stuck there til Fall? Perception is everything – what are they guarding against?

    My perception is that any reason to have the Guard until fall is completely a creation of the Democrat Socialists to enhance their control.

    • #26
  27. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    My perception is that the US military is entirely at the disposal of the federal government. The 2nd Amendment, insofar as it was intended to be the people’s protection against tyrannical government, has been superceded by a professional military which in fact bears allegiance to the head of state, rather than the Constitution or the citizenry, and which views an armed citizenry as enemies domestic.

    To recap Venezuela, Chavez was legitimately elected once, and then he and his successor were fraudulently elected ever since. Under Chavez, the constitution was changed in a fraudulent election so that he could stay in power indefinitely. The Chavez administration founded Dominion voting machines to accomplish this.

    Chavez started early on consolidating power by co-opting and judiciary by removing judges that disagreed with his so-called reforms, followed quickly by shutting down television and radio stations that disagreed with his administration’s policies. He purged the military of those who were not aligned with and loyal to hm.

    And began expropriating private property, apartment buildings, strip malls, and industrial manufacturing companies, thus weakening foreign investment, and weakening the bolivar. He famously expropriated a paper company that produced toilet paper and sanitary napkins in insufficient quantities, due to its inability to purchase raw materials with the weakened Venezuelan currency, and he unsuccessfully tried to staff it with soldiers, but they were not skilled in the details of industrial paper products production.

    Chavez and Maduro, his successor upon his death, increasingly controlled the oil companies essentially running them into the ground. He disarmed the population. And his soldiers loyal to Maduro fired on unarmed protesters in the streets. And the citizens are literally eating garbage and rats.

    Eight years after Chavez’s election President 0bama began the same process. He began a successful purge of the military. 0bama’s successor was elected in a questionable manner, using as it happened, Dominion voting machines. The judiciary has shown itself to be completely quiescent and compliant to this new administration.

    Whereas Trump increased oil production, Biden has now restricted it. The government-aligned Press is now not only shutting down dissenting voices and opinions, but entire communications companies are being threatened or shut down entirely. It is coming about that government compliant banks are once again shutting down accounts of those in political disfavor.

    And it looks as if the US government will finally be able to disarm the US citizenry. And the US army is being used as show of force to prop up an unpopular and likely illegitimate government that is contemptuous of its people, and it views the US citizenry who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law as domestic enemies and terrorists.

    We’ve seen this before.

    • #27
  28. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Can no one see that addressing so-called race issues is allowing actual racists to set the language and the debate?

    More than that, rules and practices and that is where it is felt.

    Is this why we still have the Guard in DC now possibly stuck there til Fall? Perception is everything – what are they guarding against?

    It’s noticeable that, although there have been numerous queries about this, there has been no public statement of why it is happening or who has directed it. If there has, please enlighten us.

    • #28
  29. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I would like to make sure it is not my imagination but my perception is there is very little denunciation among our federal government officials of Marxism or Communism as essentially unAmerican ideologies. Occasionally shows up as a side commentary but rarely as the prime topic. Don’t we need more? Am I missing something?

    • #29
  30. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Flicker (View Comment):

    My perception is that the US military is entirely at the disposal of the federal government. The 2nd Amendment, insofar as it was intended to be the people’s protection against tyrannical government, has been superceded by a professional military which in fact bears allegiance to the head of state, rather than the Constitution or the citizenry, and which views an armed citizenry as enemies domestic.

    To recap Venezuela, Chavez was legitimately elected once, and then he and his successor were fraudulently elected ever since. Under Chavez, the constitution was changed in a fraudulent election so that he could stay in power indefinitely. The Chavez administration founded Dominion voting machines to accomplish this.

    Chavez started early on consolidating power by co-opting and judiciary by removing judges that disagreed with his so-called reforms, followed quickly by shutting down television and radio stations that disagreed with his administration’s policies. He purged the military of those who were not aligned with and loyal to hm.

    And began expropriating private property, apartment buildings, strip malls, and industrial manufacturing companies, thus weakening foreign investment, and weakening the bolivar. He famously expropriated a paper company that produced toilet paper and sanitary napkins in insufficient quantities, due to its inability to purchase raw materials with the weakened Venezuelan currency, and he unsuccessfully tried to staff it with soldiers, but they were not skilled in the details of industrial paper products production.

    Chavez and Maduro, his successor upon his death, increasingly controlled the oil companies essentially running them into the ground. He disarmed the population. And his soldiers loyal to Maduro fired on unarmed protesters in the streets. And the citizens are literally eating garbage and rats.

    Eight years after Chavez’s election President 0bama began the same process. He began a successful purge of the military. 0bama’s successor was elected in a questionable manner, using as it happened, Dominion voting machines. The judiciary has shown itself to be completely quiescent and compliant to this new administration.

    Whereas Trump increased oil production, Biden has now restricted it. The government-aligned Press is now not only shutting down dissenting voices and opinions, but entire communications companies are being threatened or shut down entirely. It is coming about that government compliant banks are once again shutting down accounts of those in political disfavor.

    And it looks as if the US government will finally be able to disarm the US citizenry. And the US army is being used as show of force to prop up an unpopular and likely illegitimate government that is contemptuous of its people, and it views the US citizenry who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law as domestic enemies and terrorists.

    We’ve seen this before.

    Exactly. I’ve invoked this old communist rule several times before, here at Ricochet, but it’s worth dragging out again:

    “One Man, One Vote, One Time”

    • #30