Unquestioning groupthink is a Leftist hallmark, especially for blacks. Antonia Okafor details how she escaped from that intellectual prison.
The Black Lives Matter movement will be a dead-end until American blacks start focusing on the scourge of missing fathers in their poorest communities.
Buzzfeed, of all places, has an excellent article about the turmoil in the upper echelons of the Black Lives Matter movement. The article was a reminder, if one was needed, that the Black Lives Matter movement is an entirely outward looking movement. That is, it targets non-blacks — in law enforcement, education, employment, etc. — and demands that these people and institutions change for the benefit of American blacks.
As best as I can tell, the Black Lives Matter movement never had an inner focus, looking at the black community to see what changes it can make to improve the quality of black lives, including those black lives that intersect with law enforcement, education, etc. Indeed, at least on college campuses, as one looks at self-segregation and demands that education be brought down to an infantile level, ostensibly to benefit blacks, the Black Lives Matter movement seems to have had a negative effect on blacks, leaving them less, not more, capable of functioning in the world of money and power.
This is a shame because there is one thing above all things that the Black Lives Matter movement can do to ensure that black lives do in fact matter — that thing is to encourage the magical middle class model of education, job, marriage, and family, in that order. Even more, within that model, black lives activists should push for a dynamic in which heterosexual couples have monogamous relationships that see the man stick around to parent his children.
Study after study shows how much fathers matter. When it comes to girls, girls with supportive fathers are happier people who engage in safer relationships with the opposite sex:
The hallmark characteristic of a fatherless daughter is fear of abandonment. Because they never got the direction needed from a father figure, they learn to make up their own survival playbook. This can lead to negative coping skills such as sexual promiscuity, total avoidance of intimacy, isolation, substance abuse, anxiety and depression.
Fatherless daughters report having difficulty in relationships and in the workplace interacting with men because they were never taught how to feel comfortable with a man in their father’s absence. They can also carry into adulthood conflicting issues with their mothers from becoming her caretaker for a time or witnessing so much chaos in the home. Financial distress or poverty often follows father loss, and this can have a significant impact in every area of a girl’s upbringing.
Below, Joe Rogan does a superb interview of Bret Weinstein, the Evergreen College professor at the center of more than one racially charged event playing out on his campus, where victim studies students and faculty are pushing radical agendas founded upon a rejection of the Enlightenment values and the concept of objective facts. They would make of their victimhood a kind of WMD, impervious to factual challenge and sufficient to destroy any who would stand in the way of their very dark agenda.
Prof. Weinstein describes himself as firmly “progressive.” He is sorely deluded. It becomes quickly apparent that he suffers no “white guilt,” he is not hobbled by buying into “white privilege,” and he aspires to the same goal Martin Luther King Jr. articulated in his 1964 “I have a dream” speech — to live in a nation where people are “not . . . judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It is hard to imagine something more at odds with the victims’ movements in progressive ideology today, where skin color, gender and sexuality are used to wholly define people, irrespective of their character.
This interview is important. One, Prof. Weinstein’s situation is hardly unique. The same radical agenda we see impacting the Prof. at Evergreen is playing out across campuses throughout the U.S., including the Ivy League schools. Two, these movements are bleeding into the real world with very bad consequences for society. The Black Lives Matter movement, the war on men on college campuses, the war on Christianity, capitalism, our history . . . and I could go on and on. Three, Prof. Weinstein is very articulate in highlighting these issues as he discusses his problems on the Evergreen campus. This is a very long interview. It is worth every minute to watch.
Getting news from 60 Minutes is like getting news from the village idiot, as shown by its ludicrous segment on Terence Crutcher.
Last night, 60 Minutes devoted two segments to the Terence Crutcher shooting. As you may recall, in September 2016, Betty Shelby, a police officer in Tulsa, came upon a running SUV abandoned in the middle of the road, with the driver’s side window open. She then saw walking towards her — and the SUV — a large black man whom she’d noticed before.
The man, like the SUV, had been standing in the middle of the road, with his mental motor barely running. His affect was enough to concern Shelby at the time but, because he seemed harmless, she ignored him, although the thought of drug use was high on her list of explanations for his behavior. With the man heading towards the SUV, though, the connection between him and the SUV concerned her because neither boded well in a dangerous part of Tulsa.
When Shelby approached the man, who was later identified as Terence Crutcher, he refused to respond to her. Instead, after initially putting his hands in the air, even though she hadn’t asked him to, he started reaching for his pocket. Shelby’s training and instincts told her that he might be reaching for a weapon. She therefore took out her gun, pointed it at him, and repeatedly ordered him to keep his hands out of his pockets and to stop moving.
Crutcher completely ignored Shelby. Both a dashboard cam and a helicopter cam show him heading relentlessly towards the open driver’s side window of his SUV. As he was walking, another patrol man pulled up and, since Shelby had a gun, he pulled out his taser. It was his dashboard cam that caught the last few seconds of Crutcher’s life:
By the time Crutcher reached the SUV’s door, he was no longer visible to the helicopter cam. He was, however, still visible on the dashboard cam. In the last second of Crutcher’s life, before Shelby and the other cop obscure the dash cam, what one sees is Crutcher bending forward slightly towards the window, with his shoulder’s dropping. At that moment, Shelby shoots him, hitting him in his chest. He drops, although nobody immediately moves to treat him. Instead, you can see the police back away slowly while still pointing their weapons at someone they deem a potential danger, as well as taking defensive positions in case anyone else is around.
George Washington’s extraordinary accomplishments set the stage for American liberty — so of course Progressives must reduce him to a racist slave owner.
No figure was more central to the birth of our nation, first in war, then as a Constitutional Republic, than George Washington. In 1776, with the Revolution by all accounts lost and our army in tatters, it was Washington who led a ragged band of men in history’s most audacious, decisive and pivotal raids at Trenton and Princeton. It was Washington who, through 1782, kept the military together under unimaginable adversity and who, at the end of the war, stopped a military coup by his unpaid officers. It was Washington in 1783 who, unlike almost all other military leaders throughout history, laid down his sword at the end of the war and bowed to civilian control of the government.
It was Washington, called from retirement in 1787, who presided over the drafting and passage of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was Washington who, in 1789, was unanimously elected to serve as our President. And it was Washington who, eight years later, stepped down as President, establishing a precedent of a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. He was, as Lord Byron later wrote, the Cinncinatus of the West.
Few people in history have succeeded under the adversity Washington faced. Even fewer accomplished so much in both war and peace. None but he accomplished those in the furtherance of freedom from government. He is one of the few historical figures that was truly indispensable. And yet . . .
Enter Drake Univ. Prof. Jennifer Harvey – she a progressive with an exquisitely fine tuned sense of social justice and white guilt. Writing an op-ed at the NYT, she asks “Are We Raising Racists?” It seems that her seven year old daughter came home from school “singing the praises of George Washington.” Ms. Harvey found herself “dismayed” at this “one dimensional” teaching of history. Well, history does indeed have countless dimensions, all of which contribute to the context and understanding of any particular event of note. But Ms. Harvey had only a very selective second dimension in mind:
I’m too young to remember a time when dignity was considered a virtue, not only in individuals, but in entire groups. The other night, I was reminded of what I missed when I watched a 1944 U.S. Army Propaganda film, The Negro Soldier, which Frank Capra directed. The Army commissioned the movie because it was trying to reach out to blacks who were unwilling to enlist in the fight.
The movie qua movie was a resounding success, undoubtedly paving the way for Americans accepting Truman’s executive order integrating the military and, perhaps, moving the American conscience forward towards the Civil Rights movement:
The film began shooting in 1943. The movie crew traveled the United States, visiting over 19 different army posts. The final movie totaled 43 minutes long and received official support in 1944. At first, The Negro Soldier was intended for only African American troops; however, the creators of the film decided that they wanted to distribute the film to a wider military and civil audience. Nobody was certain what the impact of the film would have on viewers, and many people feared that African Americans would have a negative response to the film. However, when the first African American troops saw the film, they insisted that all African American troops should see it. Furthermore, after both African Americans and whites were surveyed about their response to the film, the filmmakers were shocked when over 80% of the white population thought the film should be shown to both black and white troops, as well as white civilians.
Although the Wikipedia article from which I quoted, above, does not say it, TCM stated that blacks did in fact respond to the movie’s message by enlisting in significant numbers. I think you’ll see why if you take the time to watch the movie yourself. Because of it’s importance in American history, the U.S. National Archives restored it and you can see the entire movie here:
Historical Facts For MLK Day
I wrote a post in 2008 opining that, with Obama’s run for the presidency, we stood at a “crossroads” between the melting pot and MLK’s dream of a colorblind society on one hand and the ascendancy — if not permanency — of dystopian identity politics on the other. As part of that post, I noted that the progressive left has, since 1968, been furiously rewriting history to portray conservatives and Republicans as inveterate racists. Here is the opening of that post, just to remind us of some of the actual historical facts:
Liberal African American NYT columnist Bob Herbert recently had this to say in extolling the virtues of the left:
“Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.”
Mr. Herbert pretty much sums up what has been the far left / liberal / progressive line for decades. But then how to explain all the vicious, ad hominem and unhinged Palin-bashing coming from the left? To take it one further, how to reconcile that Palin-bashing with the left’s acceptance of people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a part of their stable? It seems quite the conundrum unless one knows a bit of history and can identify the massive deceits. Here are some facts, some of which you might not be aware:
– The Republican Party – the party of Abraham Lincoln – was borne in 1854 out of opposition to slavery.
– The party of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan was, as Jeffrey Lord points out in an article at the WSJ, the Democratic Party. And Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) is the only living member of the Senate who was once a member of the KKK.
– The 13th (abolishing slavery), 14th (due process for all citizens) and 15th (voting rights cannot be restriced on the basis of race) Amendments to the Constitution were enacted by Republicans over Democratic opposition.
– The NAACP was founded in 1909 by three white Republicans who opposed the racist practices of the Democratic Party and the lynching of blacks by Democrats.
– In 1940, the GOP Platform read:
We pledge that our American citizens of Negro descent shall be given a square deal in the economic and political life of this nation. Discrimination in the civil service, the army, navy, and all other branches of the Government must cease. To enjoy the full benefits of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness universal suffrage must be made effective for the Negro citizen. Mob violence shocks the conscience of the nation and legislation to curb this evil should be enacted.
– In fairness, it was the Democrat Harry Truman who, by Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948, desegregated the military. That was a truly major development. The military has been the single greatest driving force of integration in this land for over half a century.
– It was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, also a Republican, who managed to convince the other eight justices to agree to a unanimous decision in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education. That case was brought by the NAACP. The Court held segregation in schools unconstitutional. The fact that it was a unanimous decision that overturned precedent made it clear that no aspect of segregation would henceforth be considered constitutional.
– Republican President Ike Eisenhower played additional important roles in furthering equality in America. He “proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. . . . They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s.” Moreover, when the Democratic Governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools in what became known as the “Little Rock Nine” incident, “Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school.”
– The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was championed by JFK – but it was passed with massive Republican support (over 80%) in Congress and over fierce opposition from Democrats who made repeated attempts at filibuster. Indeed, 80% of the vote opposing the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Women were added to the Act as a protected class by a Democrat who thought it would be a poison pill, killing the legislation. To the contrary, the Congress passed the Act without any attempt to remove the provision.
– Martin Luther King Jr. was the most well known and pivotal Civil Rights activist ever produced in America. His most famous speech, “I Had A Dream,” was an eloquent and stirring call for equality. If you have not read the speech or heard it, you can find it here. I would highly recommend listening to it. Rev. King was, by the way, a Republican.
– “Bull” Connor was not a Republican.
– and finally, as an aside, Mr. Herbert does not name a single Republican – and I can find none from 1854 to the present – that has ever been drummed out of the Republican party for their embrace of civil rights. That charge is libelous. . . .
Victor Davis Hanson on Trump and the American Divide
When I wrote in 2008 that electing Obama as President would mean the ascendancy of identity politics, even I didn’t envision how true that would be, nor how disastrous it would be for race relations in America. Victor Davis Hanson’s latest offering touches on that issue as he explains how the most unlikely of men, Trump the 70 year old billionaire from NYC, could become the “tribune of rustics and the deplorables“:
The third Monday in January is annually set aside to honor Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., the most towering figure of our nation’s civil right’s movement. He delivered his most memorable, and arguably his most important speech, on August 28, 1963, standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., and referred to commonly today as his I Have A Dream speech.
That speech was a stirring call for true equality. After opening by noting the promise of our nation, that “all men are created equal,” near his conclusion, he said: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That was a moral clarion call to build a colorblind society. It stuck a chord in a nation whose first and most famous statement of founding principals was that “all men are created equal.”
Treat yourself to a bit of history today:
The confirmation hearing for Jeff Sessions began today. It was largely without fireworks — perhaps because Senator Sessions is not the evil, racist, misogynist, card carrying Grand Cyclops of the local Mobile chapter of the KKK (actually I think Sessions had him executed — I wait for the progs to charge that was to eliminate the competition) that the deeply disingenuous progressive left wants to portray him as. But as Powerline opines, Sen. Sessions appears to be “breezing through” the hearing.
The most pointed questioning of Senator Sessions, somehow appropriately, came from the one-time comedian Al Franken. Also embedded below is an interesting analysis of the hearing from Fox’s The Five, and a bonus video of Ted Cruz reminding us the progs on the Judiciary Committee that they are only now discovering concern for fair and equal application of the laws after a collective eight year coma:
On the heels of the crimes committed by four black teens in Chicago who kidnapped and tortured an autistic white man (and each of whom have now been charged with hate crimes (one for race, one for disability), kidnapping, and battery with a deadly weapon) President Obama has claimed to have improved race relations during his time in office. To examine that claim, let’s first take a look at the reaction to the crimes and the charges against the Chicago teens in media and social media.
CNN’s Don Lemon disagreed with his panel guest Matt Welsh when Welsh called the black teens’ actions “evil.” Instead, Lemon attributed the criminal acts to their youth and “bad home training . . . I have no idea who is raising these young people because no one I know on earth who is 17-years-old or 70-years-old would ever think of treating another person like that, and you wonder, at 18-years-old, where is the parent?” Talk about a non-sequitur. Lemon would relieve these feral monsters of any moral blame for their acts because of bad potty training? But many on the progressive left seem to agree with Mr. Lemon.
Fake news is the big thing now. But can a news report omit so many details and be so sterilized as to constitute fake news? Let’s take a look at two stories dealing with what occurred in the video below, a short excerpt pulled from a longer, 30 minute Facebook live stream of a brutal assault by four blacks on an autistic white man whom they had restrained and gagged with duck tape.
Here is the AP in their “Big Story” section reporting on the incident.
Chicago Police Investigate Video Beating
CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago police said Wednesday that they’re investigating a video circulating on social media that shows several people beating a man at a residence.
Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said at a news conference that four suspects, two males and two females, are in custody. Formal charges have not been filed.
The victim, who has “mental health challenges,” is recovering, Johnson said.
He also called the video “sickening,” and Police Cmdr. Kevin Duffin said the suspects made “stupid decisions.”
While police officials did not confirm the races of the suspects or victim, video from Chicago media outlets appeared to show someone off-camera using profanities about “white people” and President-elect Donald Trump.
But police said it’s too soon to determine whether the attack was racially motivated.
Investigators will “determine whether or not this is sincere or just stupid ranting and raving,” Duffin said when asked about the language used in the recording.
The video also shows bottles of alcohol in the room during the attack.
Officers were called to a residence on the city’s West Side Tuesday evening where they found signs of a struggle and damaged property.
Police said that around the same time, officers on patrol encountered the victim on a nearby street.
Duffin said the victim knew one of the suspects.
Video of the alleged incident was initially posted on Facebook, but was later removed from the social media site.
A Facebook spokesman told The Associated Press the company removed the video because it does “not allow people to celebrate or glorify crimes on Facebook.”
Compare and contrast the same incident as reported by the Chicago Fox News Affiliate:
I followed some links to an eye opening post written by a physician and a man who seems far from a Trump supporter. It is a factual look at all of the allegations of racism and white power being made against Trump and, by extension, all who voted for him. Starting at American Digest, where Gerard Van Der Luen says “Required Reading,” to Scott Adams blog, where he says:
It would take me too long to explain why this article about Trump . . . is so important to you and to the country. Stop whatever you are doing and give it ten minutes.
Seriously. Stop what you are doing. Give this ten minutes. It’s more important that almost anything you were going to do today. . . .
The only people who will think Trump is a racist going forward are people who haven’t read this article. If you find someone like that, send them the link. This piece is a brilliant service to the country. Breathtaking.
The article to which he links is You Are Still Crying Wolf by Dr. Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex. Go now. It is worth every bit of your time.
It did not take long for the progressive left to accuse all those who voted for Trump as being (pick one or more) racists, misogynists, homophobes, privileged, uneducated, Hitler clones and / or fascists (list not inclusive.) These progressives have staked out the moral high ground and anyone who disagrees with them can only be evil on par with a Disney villain. Such Trump voters are illegitimate, and thus so is the right of such people to exercise control of government, democracy be damned (unless it favors the progs, of course). PC culture is the thought control used to enforce the distorted obscenity the progs substitute for actual morality. The snowlflakes stock in trade is the heckler’s veto and their goal is nothing short of controlling the police power of government to enforce their brand of tyranny (which would actually look a lot like Stalin’s, I would guess).
My favorite cri de coeur from these prog idiots comes from Paul Krugman, who manages not merely to hit all of the evils listed above in his condemnation of Trump voters, but he adds that Trump voters do not care about the “rule of law.” That, coming from a man who was doing his best to put the unindicted felon Hildabeast in office, may well be the single most hypocritical statement I have ever read. Elsewhere, Zero Hedge has a horrifying roll up of the progs reacting to the election results with riots, flag burnings, and calls for Trump’s assassination (along with, in one case, everyone who voted for Trump). And is there a college campus today (note that the fish rots from the head) where there are not safe spaces, grief counselors and diaper changing stations? The degree of narcissism and entitlement nurtured in these special snowflakes is dangerously psychotic. Visit Ace for Exhibit 1.
But even that pales in comparison to the most insidious of the vitriol which comes from the professional race hustlers, such as that by Slate’s Chief Political Correspondent, Jamelle Bouie. What a worthless piece of garbage. Then there was this bon mot on MSNBC from Van Jones.
I am so, so tired of this. Unfortunately, these slanders and libels against Trump voters are allowed across our air waves unchallenged. It will continue until these people start to pay a penalty for this crap. I look forward to the day when people begin to look at being falsely labeled a racist with the same degree of violent anger that I would fully expect a black person to feel at being labeled with a racist epitaph.
At any rate, I am merely writing here to point out that nothing in the exit polls support the wild accusations being made by the prog left. Nate Cohn, the NYT’s data guru who is filling the hole left there by Nate Silver, tweeted out a response to Mr. Jones that “Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story.” I hope Mr. Cohn already has his next job lined up.
As the data from the exit polls is flooding in, all of the numbers point to the conclusion that there is no objective basis for the charges of racism. The percentage of whites who voted for Trump – 58% — was actually a percentage point less than those who voted for Romney in 2012. The problem for the left was that not every Hispanic and Black bought into the need for voting straight progressive as the race hustlers would have them, nor the need to show up and vote. Among both Latinos and Blacks, Trump outperformed Romney. Most importantly, some ten million less Latinos and Blacks showed up to vote in 2016 than did in 2012. I am sure Van Jones, faced with that fact, would chalk it up to an incredibly efficient voter suppression effort by white Trump voters.
Not that any of this will matter to progs. They may be fact free, but they are narrative strong. Do not expect to be able to engage in rational debate with most of these people. We are beyond the point of any possibility of bipartisan agreement or governing with most of them. They want to play winner take all. There is no room for tolerance or dissent in their world. We should engage in rational debate whenever possible, but we must be prepared to play winner take all as well when it is not. Given that most of these people are pajama boys and Triggley Puffs, I like our odds.
There are no people more committed to black inferiority than racist whites who flatter themselves that they’re loving Progressives who are taking care of blacks. I figured out this white racism problem after the Rodney King riots, when the media tried to push the “rapture” defense for Damian Williams, one of the people caught on camera beating the bejesus out of Reginald Denny — that is, that Williams, animal-like, was so caught up in the rapture of the moment that he was unable to control himself. I thought then, and continue to think now, that this was racism of the type that would appeal to every two-bit white supremacist.
My feeling about blacks — indeed, about all other races — has always been that the only primary difference between them and me is skin color. Everything else falls into either the ordinary bell curve of intelligence and competence or under the umbrella of learned behavior, whether it’s learned through community culture or through government incentives and disincentives. Leftists, though, are pretty sure that blacks are congenitally dumb and must be perpetually protected from their own mental handicaps.
I’ve never seen this type of condescending, racist, attitude from the Left more clearly demonstrated than in this short Ami Horowitz video about voter ID laws:
I look away for a couple of days, and WOW! Magazine, the Watcher’s Council’s collaborative online magazine, simply explodes with content, all of it good.
And remember, as you look at these articles, being informed matters. If you’re not informed, you’re like the dopes who watch PBS Frontline’s recent “documentary” about the two candidates and come away believing that Hillary is a brilliant saint, while Donald is a psychopath from the cradle. It is one of the most duplicitous pieces of propaganda I’ve ever seen, presented in a staid, scholarly way. I’ll try to write more about it tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you want to see taxpayer-funded pro-Hillary propaganda (and you have a strong stomach), you can find it here.