Paul Weston — “I am a racist”

Defending what is good about your country is racist.  So is describing Islam and its cultural and political practices.

Regarding Islam, let me be clear that this is not the same as the antisemites making things up about Jews, as they have since time immemorial.  Instead, what we know about Islam comes from the Muslim world itself:  from their concrete (and bloody) acts, from their media, from their speeches, and from their houses of worship.  They are open about what they are.  It is we who bury their true nature under platitudes and lies.

Martin Luther King III rejects his father’s legacy by going to Washington to parrot the race hustlers

(This post originally appeared in slightly different form at Mr. Conservative.)

Just because your father was a great man doesn’t mean you will be a great man. Exhibit A for this truism is Martin Luther King III, son of the great racial harmonizer, Martin Luther King Jr. Standing in Washington, D.C., where his father stood 50 years ago to state that people should be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, MLK III proved himself to be just another two-bit race hustler. And so a dream dies in one generation.

Several thousand people gathered in Washington today to remember Martin Luther King Jr’s brilliant “I have a dream” speech, which he delivered exactly fifty years ago this month. In stirring tones, the elder King set forth his vision of an America in which people are judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, would have wept if he had lived long enough to see what the Democrat party has done to his legacy. His greatest sorrow might have been that his son, Martin Luther King III, has turned his back on his father’s inclusive, color-blind ideology, and become one with the race hustlers.

This is pretty strong language, but it’s the truth. Here is what Martin Luther King III said as he stood where his father had once stood.

And so I stand here today in this sacred place, in my father’s footsteps. I am humbled by the heavy hand of history. But more than that, I, like you, continue to feel his presence. I, like you, continue to hear his voice crying out in the wilderness.

The admonition is clear: this is not the time for a nostalgic commemoration, nor is this the time for self-congratulatory celebration. The task is not done. The journey is not complete. We can and we must do more.

The vision preached by my father a half century ago was that his four little children will one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content up their character. However, sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martin’s mother and father remind us that far too frequently, the color of one’s skin remains a license to profile, to arrest, and even to murder with no regard for the content of one’s character.

Regressive Stand Your Ground laws must be repealed. Federal anti-profiling legislation must be enacted.

John Adams, another famous American, once said “Facts are stubborn things.” Here are a few facts to challenge MLK III’s infantile remonstrance against “racism” in America:

1. Content of character: The undisputed facts show that Trayvon Martin was a hulking thug who used drugs, played with guns, got into fights, skipped school, and talked trash. The same undisputed facts show that George Zimmerman was a neighborhood favorite who went the extra mile for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin – so much so that he spent enormous time trying to help a young black man he believed the police had unjustly targeted.

2. Stand Your Ground laws: Neither the prosecution nor the defense breathed a word about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law (also known as the Castle doctrine). Instead, this was an out-and-out case of old-fashioned self-defense. The evidence showed that Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman trying to bash his brains out on the pavement. Zimmerman didn’t have the choice of standing his ground or trying to flee when he was shot. The situation had devolved in “it’s either him or me.”

3. There was no profiling. Police profile. Zimmerman is not a police officer. He is an ordinary citizen. Ordinary citizens observe, make decisions, and react as they see fit. You cannot enact federal laws imposing on all ordinary citizens some bizarre standard by which they’re not allowed to defend themselves against black aggressors, because to do so is “profiling.”

The only thing the MLK III got right is that racism lives today. But the racism in the Zimmerman case wasn’t Zimmerman’s racism against Trayvon. Every bit of evidence introduced at trial or revealed by fact-finders showed that George Zimmerman was a mixed-race man who treated all races with respect.

The real racism in this case was that shown by the race hustler’s in the Democrat party and the media (but I repeat myself), who made the decision to lynch George Zimmerman during that brief window of time when they thought he was white. Even when they were corrected, and learned that Zimmerman self-identifies as Hispanic, they created a bizarre new racial classification called “white-Hispanic” so that they could play out their revolting racist fantasies against him.

Martin Luther King (did I mention he was a Republican?) would be shocked at the way in which his son and the Democrat party have perverted his color-blind message and turned it into as aggressive a form of anti-white racism as was ever practiced in the old days in the anti-black south.

Is the mainstream media the spiritual descendent of Charles Manson?

Charles Manson

This post poses a very provocative, even inflammatory, question:  “Is the mainstream media the spiritual heir of Charles Manson?”  Will you be too surprised if I answer “yes”?

Let’s start with Charles Manson.  Manson had a goal:  he envisioned a new world order, with himself and his followers as the leaders.  To bring about this new world order, he first had to destroy the existing one.  He came up with an idea that he called “Helter-Skelter“:  he was going to incite race warfare because he was pretty sure that would bring America down, leaving room for him and his followers to take over.  He figured that the best way to start an apocalyptic race war was through violent murder.  He wasn’t going to do the murder himself, of course, but he did incite his dumb, sexually-opiated, often drugged followers to commit the deeds on his behalf.

Now, let’s think about the mainstream media.  The MSM has a goal:  a completely Democrat-dominated political machine, with the MSM and the politicians it’s created in total control.  Because this will be a statist new world, the MSM must first destroy completely America’s current, still vaguely capitalist market and individualist ideology.  To that end, the media has decided that it will incite race warfare, because it’s pretty sure that race warfare will destroy existing institutions and allow it and its political class to take over.  Media members figure that the best way to start this societal breakdown is to sow so much division between blacks and whites in America that the country becomes dysfunctional and, if necessary, bloodied.  The media elite are not going to sully their own hands, of course, but they will work hard to incite their followers to commit the deeds on their behalf.  (And sadly, to the extent they have followers in black inner cities, these are young people who are minimally educated, inundated with unhealthy sexual messages from movies and rap songs, and too often on drugs.  Just think of Trayvon….)

I can’t prove the MSM’s goal, but I can prove its tactics.

Exhibit A is the way the MSM has used Obama’s presidency to paint every single American who opposes his politics as “racist” — so much so that the MSM dictionary defines “racist” as “someone who expresses any disagreement with Obama’s policies or conduct while in office.”  Since roughly 50% of the country doesn’t like what he’s doing at any given time, 50% of the country is therefore by definition racist. (Here’s just one example, but it’s remarkably easy to cull dozens or even hundreds.)

This “opposing Obama” message is pounded home through relentlessly repeated and embroidered stories about rodeo clowns; Obama’s fellowship with murdered black teens; and even the obscenity of referring to Obama as “Obama,” rather than as President Obama.  By the way, this last one is a dilly, because Chris Matthews, rather than admitting that other presidents have been called “Carter,” “Reagan,” “Bush,” “Dubya,” or “Clinton,” compares the casual approach to Obama’s name to the way non-believers refer to Jesus Christ as “Jesus” or “Christ.”  Wow.  Just . . . wow.

Exhibit B is the racial incitement that permeated every bit of the MSM’s coverage of George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.  It began when NBC doctored Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound as if he was a racist; picked up steam when the media coined the phrase “white-Hispanic” to cover-up their problem when they discovered that Zimmerman identified as Hispanic; entered the world of farce when the media only reluctantly revealed, when trial court motions made it impossible to ignore, that Martin wasn’t a 12-year-old choirboy but was, instead a husky, drug-using, gun- and violence-obsessed, thug; and just kept rolling with homages to hoodies and Skittles.  Bill Whittle does the best summary I’ve seen of the media’s “hi-tech” lynching of a non-black man:

Exhibit C: Oh, I don’t know. Take your pick. How about the new movie “The Butler,” which takes a real man’s quite distinguished and interesting life, and turns a star-powered movie into a parable about white and Republican racism?  The director, incidentally, makes it clear that these racial accusations are no accident.  Or maybe look at the way Oprah, the PETA-admiring “woman of the people,” makes a national incident out of her claim that a Swiss salesclerk was “racist” for suggesting that Oprah might like something cheaper than a $35,000 animal-skin purse.

Or maybe, as Rush pointed out, you just want to notice how the media completely ignores any violence that doesn’t fit in the narrative.  Rush pointed to the recent murder of Chris Lane, a (white) baseball player from Australia who was shot dead by thug-addicted three teenagers because they were bored.  Rush points out that the media assiduously refrained from commenting on the killers’ race (two were black and one is white, or white-Hispanic, or white-black, or whatever).

The media did exactly the same thing, incidentally, with the even more heinous 2007 murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, Tenn.  That young (white) couple was so brutally murdered by five (black) people that it’s nauseating even to think about what was done to them.  The killers outdid animals in their savagery, since they added a fiendish human imagination to their feral brutality.  The national media said as little as possible about the murder and nothing about its racial implications.

Nothing restrained the media, however, when it went out of its way to destroy the lives of the (white) Duke lacrosse players after a (black) prostitute falsely accused them of rape.  The media played that every day, every way, on every air or piece of paper over which it had control.  When the players were vindicated, the media was remarkably silent, failing even to issue an apology for yet another “hi-tech” lynching.

The fall-out from the media’s relentless racial harangues is more racial tension in this country than at any time since the peak of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  Despite the fact that there are no racially discriminatory federal laws in America; that there are no overtly racially discriminatory state laws in America; that there is a black man in the White House who got reelected (although Gawd alone knows why); and that compared to other nations in the world (including the Europe the Left so loves) America is a remarkably inclusive nation, blacks feel deeply that whites are bad people.  By this I mean that blacks don’t simply note note that, occasionally and unfortunately, they have the misfortune to run into some idiot who spouts stone age nonsense.  Instead, with relentless prompting from the mainstream media, they feel very strongly that whites view them negatively and are their enemy.  As such, too many of them believe that whites, at most, destroyed and, at least, humiliated.

The MSM has worked its hard to convince blacks and many other minorities, including the LGBT crowd, Hispanics, and, increasingly, Asians that the status quo is bad for them, that there needs to be a new world order, and that the evil white people (excluding, of course, all the white people on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.), must be done away with.

And that is why I say that the MSM is the spiritual heir of Charles Manson.  It’s “helter-skelter” all over again.

Any humor about Obama is ipso facto racial humor

The clown kerfuffle — a rodeo clown dons a presidential mask available at any Halloween costume store and is instantly transformed into a fiery member if the KKK — has helped clarify something about the Left’s response to any non-Democrat generated references to Obama.  I found this clarification in yesterday’s Best of the Web, in which Taranto takes apart a CNN post in which Judy Quest, a “professional” clown, discusses the rodeo clown’s breach of “clown ethics.”  (Keep in mind, incidentally, that a rodeo clown isn’t a real clown, because his primary job isn’t to entertain but is, instead, to keep the bull from trampling a downed cowboy.  Looked at that way, he ‘s more of a gladiator, but whatever….)

The key language in Quest’s article revolves about the first entry in the clown code of ethics:

1. I will keep my acts, performance and behavior in good taste while I am in costume and makeup. I will remember at all times that I have been accepted as a member of the clown club only to provide others, principally children, with clean clown comedy entertainment. I will remember that a good clown entertains others by making fun of himself or herself and not at the expense or embarrassment of others.  (Emphasis mine.)

And here is Quest’s interpretation of that language (emphasis mine):

We have a code of ethics that we adhere to so that our life of making the world smile goes on without hurting people. Among the ethics is a ban on “blue humor.”

This mean [sic] no sexual or racial humor. The joke always needs to be on us and never on an audience member. If someone is offended or made the “victim” of a joke, it is totally against what the clown community would consider funny. . . .

Think back to what Tuffy the Rodeo Clown did. Do you recall any racial component to his humor? Traditionally, of course, a black racial component would have involved:

1.  Shuffling

2.  Watermelons

3.  Lots of “yassir, yassir, I’se doing it, sir.”

4.  References to laziness.

5.  References to obsessive sexuality.

6.  Hugh, grinning white mouths.

7.  References to criminality.

8.  Clear intimations of stupidity.

9.  Eyeball rolling.

10.  Slyness.

11.  References to uncontrollable (and inappropriate) rhythm.

Tuffy did none of that.  Instead, he donned a mask of a white-black man whose skin happens to be blacker, rather than whiter.  (I use the term “white-black” to describe Obama because, if George Zimmerman, who is half Hispanic and half Caucasian, is “white-Hispanic,” than Obama, who is half Black and half Caucasian, is “white-black.”  Precision is important, right?)

In Quest’s world review, any mention of or reference to Obama, even without any mention of his race or any use of traditional negative stereotypes about blacks,  is ipso facto racial and, therefore, racist.  In other words, Obama, just by being, is racist.

To liberals, there is no “Obama the man,” or “Obama the president,” or “Obama the Democrat politician.”  There is only “Obama the black,” a man devoid of personality, accomplishments, foibles, passion, or anything that makes him a person, not a stereotype  — and if that’s not racist, I honestly don’t know what is.

Incidentally, this is what “racist” humor actually looks like, and this was the “clean,” “wholesome” family variation:

(There are no YouTubes of the traditional racist patter that preceded the dance.)

Florida assures its citizens that they can all be murderous thugs

Putting aside all the racist rhetoric flying around from the Left, the uncontroverted evidence coming out of the Zimmerman trial proved that (a) a hooded figure was sitting on top of another man brutally beating him and (b) the man being tried for murder showed all the signs of someone who was on the receive end of a severe beating, from the broken nose to the bleeding back of his head.  Putting aside the racist rhetoric from the Left, the incontrovertible facts that the court refused to admit (incontrovertible because they came from the dead man’s own phone), showed that the dead man was a drug user and fighter who was fascinated by guns and violence.

Now, Florida’s state capitol has announced that you (and you and you and you and you!) are Trayvon!  This assault on American (and Floridan) integrity and decency takes the form of a painting unveiled at the state captiol, purporting to show a hooded figure being shot in the back of the head (which avoids the fact that Trayvon wasn’t running away but was, in fact, intensifying his full front assault) by a man who looks like a cross between George Zimmerman and Stalin.  However, instead of seeing Trayvon’s face in the hoodie, it’s a mirror.  (This ham-handed propaganda device somehow made me think of “Soylent Green” — you know, the bit where he says “It’s people!”):

Florida engages in race baiting

In other words, says the State of Florida, we’re all drug addled thugs who try to beat people to death.  Even worse, if you look at the wall sign behind the painting, it says that we’re looking at the Florida Civil Rights Hall of Fame.

If you’d like to let the State of Florida know that you find this fact-free, racist at of political propaganda offensive, you can contact the capitol building at the building’s website.  As always, remember that a polite, firmly worded message is effective.  Obscenities, personal attacks, and threats only make you look bad and strengthen the other side’s sense of self-righteousness.

Barack Obama joins the race-baiters following the Zimmerman verdict

As you’ve probably realized, I have very limited access to news and the Internet on this vacation. My shipboard Internet plan gives me about five (very expensive) minutes a day, which is just enough to make sure I don’t have any emergencies in my inbox, to write to my family, and to post one article. Today, however, I got hold of a Canadian newspaper and got to see how President Obama once again stirred the racisim pot with his Zimmerman trial comments.

First, I should tell you my point of view: the verdict was entirely appropriate. The prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman did anything other than act in self-defense — and that was despite the judge’s decision to exclude all evidence about Trayvon’s thuggery, and the prosecution’s efforts to paint Zimmerman as a crazed, cop-wannabe racist.

The riots that followed the verdict were the logical outcome, not of a corruk racist jury verdict, but of the ground work laid by the professional race-baiters, Obama included. Obama continued that race-baiting with his comments following the trial.

You may recall that, when the killing went national, Obama opined that Trayvon, a drug using, gang-emulating slacker, could have been his son. I think Sasha and Malia were probably surprised to hear that, while they’ve been raised to be as good as gold and as pure as Ivory Soap, their imaginary brother would have been a thug.

Obama has now upped that rhetoric. In his latest foray, he announced that, 35 years ago, he himself could have been Martin. Apparently Obama’s youthful escapades with dope and “smack” were more serious than he let on. And maybe I wasn’t crazy when I surmised that, based upon pictures of Obama at Occidental, he had a coke nail.

As for the rest of his little talk, all Obama did was add fuel to the racial fire. He said that the judicial system is unfair to blacks, that there’s profiling, and that racism continues to corrupt our justice system. Way to go, Obama.

In a way, it seems that Obama is trying to finish the work Charles Manson started. As you may recall, Manson’s whole goal with that horrible night of Helter-Skelter murder was to start a race war between blacks and whites. He believed that war was a necessary predicate to a complete collapse of the American system, with Manson and his followers emerging as victors at the end. Obama, with his divisive talk, also seems intent upon sparking an America-ending race war, with the obvious belief that he and his apparatchiks will be the last men (and women) standing.

It’s going to be a long three and a half years until Obama’s reign of racial terror finally ends. I only hope that there’s something left standing when it’s all done.

Now I remember why I don’t like the ACLU

Sometimes the ACLU remembers what it’s about and actually defends civil rights.  Most of the time, though, it’s just another hard-core Leftist organization.  Take its reaction to a Marin County Fair edict, for example.

The Marin County Fair in past years has been plagued with gangs from the Canal District, which is the large Hispanic area in San Rafael.  To try to crack down on violence, the Fair announced this year that it would ban gang-style clothing (which, incidentally, some of the “nice” boys in Marin wear too in an effort to look cool).

The ACLU has stepped in, and its theory basically says that cracking down on gang-wear is racist.  That is, it says that, since most gang members are Hispanic, banning their gang paraphernalia isn’t anti-gang, it’s racist:

Marin’s new ordinance cracking down on gang attire at the fair means that “hundreds, and probably thousands” of fairgoers will run the risk of violations, according to a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, adding that as a practical matter Latino youth are the real targets of a code that in effect formalizes racial profiling.

“Given this county’s identified gang population, it is Latino youth who will be taking a risk … not white youth wearing the identical items,” declared Alan L. Schlosser of Mill Valley, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California.

Undersheriff Mike Ridgway begged to differ, saying the county law does not discriminate and was “carefully crafted by attorneys to pass constitutional muster” while providing a more transparent process that includes advance notice of the gang insignia at issue.

BTW, it’s not a hardship for these young men (they’re always young men) to avoid gang wear. It’s just that the ACLU is claiming that it is inherently racist to ban clothes that lead to open warfare if the majority of those wearing them are minorities — never mind that they’re also the same young men who engage in open warfare.  The syllogism is sick:  Gang members wear gang clothes that are triggers for violence; these gang members are a subset of the Hispanic population; therefore it’s racist to ban gang clothes that are triggers for violence.

Elbert Guillory explains why he is a Republican — and they are words that EVERY American should hear

I’ve already admitted to my crush on Elbert Guillory, a crush that formed when he was still a Democrat, although he must already have been planning to leave that party.  My political crush has just deepened into a full-blown, out-and-out case of political passion.  If you haven’t yet watched this short video Guillory made to explain why he switched parties, you must.  I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say it’s one of the most important videos I’ve ever seen.  The only thing that saddens me about it is that it won’t be run on MSNBC, or ABC, or CBS, or NBC, or NPR, or on any other major media outlet.  I think everyone should see this video, no matter their race, creed, country of national origin, or gender identity.  It’s that good:

I don’t know about you, but I’m still cheering.

I think I’m in love (or at least I’m feeling deep respect)

Watch this video at Power Line and keep a close eye on things at around the 2:06 mark.  Then try to tell me with a straight face that you haven’t suddenly developed a little political crush on Democrat Elbert Guillory.

By the way, I know nothing about Rep. Guillory other than what I saw him say in the video.  Please don’t crush my tender little romantic moment by telling me things about him that will make me sad.

Zombie has come up with a great neologism: “progracist”

You don’t really have to work hard to know what a “Progracist” is.  Indeed, it’s surprising, once you think about it, that nobody invented this neologism before.  I mean, it would have applied as perfectly to Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger as it does to today’s Progressives.  Please check out Zombie’s post and add the word to your vocabulary.

The homogeneity of Leftist thinking at American institutions and its effect on poverty at the ground level

I’ve written before about one of my favorite writers, Paul Fussell.  He wrote a wonderful essay entitled Thank God for the Atom Bomb, about the righteousness of dropping the atom bomb.  He was in the Army when Truman dropped the bomb, so Fussell wholeheartedly approved — and had the data to back up his personal opinion.  (More recently released data completely backs up his 30 year old hypothesis.)  I also wholeheartedly approve, as my Mom was a few weeks away from dying in a Japanese concentration camp when the bomb dropped.

Fussell also wrote what I think is one of the greatest books ever about WWI, The Great War and Modern Memory.  I just bought the Kindle version to reread because my copy, which I bought in college, has disintegrated. It’s a beautifully written book that looks at both the war and concurrent war literature to track a vast paradigm shift in intellectual thought during the four years the war lasted.  Young men went in imbued with Victorian ideas of chivalry and honor; they came out jaded, cynical, and completely unable to accept that aggression is sometimes necessary and could have been useful in preventing Hitler’s rise. It is a triumph of both military writing and literary writing.

What you might not know about Fussell was that this iconoclast was a university professor.  Nowadays, the phrase iconoclastic professor is an oxymoron.  Not so in Fussell’s heyday.  Wikipedia sums up his military and academic career:

Fussell attended Pomona College from 1941 until he enlisted in the US Army in 1943. He landed in France in 1944 as a 20 year-old second lieutenant with the 103rd Infantry Division,[8] was wounded while fighting in Alsace, and was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He was honorably discharged from the army in 1946, returned to Pomona to finish his B.A. degree in 1946-7, married fellow Pomona graduate Betty Harper in 1949, and completed his MA (1949) and Ph.D. (1952) at Harvard University.

He began his teaching career at Connecticut College (1951–55) before moving to Rutgers University in 1955 and finally the University of Pennsylvania in 1983. He also taught at the University of Heidelberg (1957–58) and King’s College London (1990–92). As a teacher, he traveled widely with his family throughout Europe from the 1950s to 70s, taking Fulbright and sabbatical years in Germany, England and France.

As his writing shows, Fussell was an entirely original thinker who didn’t march to the beat of anyone’s drum.  Indeed, he delighted in challenging what was already becoming stifling academic orthodoxy:

Fussell stated that he relished the inevitable controversy of Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (1983) and indulged his increasing public status as a loved or hated “curmudgeon” in the rant called BAD: or, The Dumbing of America (1991). In between, Thank God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays (1988) confirmed his war against government and military doublespeak and prepared the way for Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War (1989). The epiphany of his earlier essay, “My War”, found full expression in his memoir Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic (1996), “My Adolescent illusions, largely intact to that moment, fell away all at once, and I suddenly knew I was not and never would be in a world that was reasonable or just”. The last book by Fussell published while he was alive, The Boys’ Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-45 (2003) was once again concerned with the experience of combat in World War II.

Fussell was never petrified or brainwashed by his academic career.  I wonder what Fussell would have thought if he’d been a teacher at Bowdoin in the last twenty years or so.  Bowdoin found itself in the news lately because of what David Feith calls “The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World.”  It all started when Barry Mills, Bowdoin College’s president, had a golf game with investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein.  During the game, the subject of academic diversity came up.  Both Mills and Klingenstein would agree that Klingenstein didn’t like it.  According to Mills’s retelling at a subsequent graduation ceremony, Klingenstein was hostile and, in a word, dumb.  Writes Feith:

In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer’s announcement: “I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons,” said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills’s telling. During Mr. Mills’s next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin’s “misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.” At the end of the round, the college president told the students, “I walked off the course in despair.”

Klingenstein got word of this graduation address, which implied that the anonymous golf-companion was a troglodyte and racist, and knew that Mills was talking about him.  Klingenstein decided to set the record straight.  Rather than just saying “that’s not what I meant,” or offering his opinion about diversity, Klingenstein took his money and funded a National Association of Scholars project that carefully examined Bowdoin’s curriculum, especially in the last ten years.  The results were eye-opening, to say the least — or, saying a little more than the least, eye-opening to anyone who hasn’t been paying attention to what’s going on in, and the product (i.e., graduates) coming out of, these academic “gatekeepers of civilization”:

Published Wednesday, the report demonstrates how Bowdoin has become an intellectual monoculture dedicated above all to identity politics.

The school’s ideological pillars would likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education lately. There’s the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There’s the dedication to “sustainability,” or saving the planet from its imminent destruction by the forces of capitalism. And there are the paeans to “global citizenship,” or loving all countries except one’s own.

The Klingenstein report nicely captures the illiberal or fallacious aspects of this campus doctrine, but the paper’s true contribution is in recording some of its absurd manifestations at Bowdoin. For example, the college has “no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.” Even history majors aren’t required to take a single course in American history. In the History Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history—the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.

One of the few requirements is that Bowdoin students take a yearlong freshman seminar. Some of the 37 seminars offered this year: “Affirmative Action and U.S. Society,” “Fictions of Freedom,” “Racism,” “Queer Gardens” (which “examines the work of gay and lesbian gardeners and traces how marginal identities find expression in specific garden spaces”), “Sexual Life of Colonialism” and “Modern Western Prostitutes.”

Regarding Bowdoin professors, the report estimates that “four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative.” In the 2012 election cycle, 100% of faculty donations went to President Obama. Not that any of this matters if you have ever asked around the faculty lounge.

“A political imbalance [among faculty] was no more significant than having an imbalance between Red Sox and Yankee fans,” sniffed Henry C.W. Laurence, a Bowdoin professor of government, in 2004. He added that the suggestion that liberal professors cannot fairly reflect conservative views in classroom discussions is “intellectually bankrupt, professionally insulting and, fortunately, wildly inaccurate.”

This is an intellectual, academic paradigm shift of almost incomprehensible magnitude.  Since its inception, regardless of the reality on the ground, America’s self-image (which was sold to generations of school children and college students right up until the 1950s) was of an inclusive nation, a melting pot, dedicated to the principle that all American citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law; have a right to equal access to American opportunities (with it being up to the people whether to take that access); and are subject to the downside risks should they refuse to seize the opportunities or violate the law.  With slavery and Jim Crow, we deviated from the principles, but the principles were sound.

At Bowdoin, though, and others like it, the paradigm has shifted.  Young people are taught a new, ugly paradigm about their country:  America is composed of disparate groups, with a few select groups made up of white men (and, probably, Jews) controlling the nation and doing what they can to exploit, denigrate, and impoverish a never-ending, every-growing list of victim classes, ranging from women, to homosexuals, to non-white races, to Muslims, to fat people, to anything that can be brought under the umbrella of victim.  There is no such thing in this world as equality of opportunity.  There is only equality of outcome that can be attained by using the government to strong-arm the ruling class of white males (and, possibly, Jews) so that they redistribute their ill-gotten gains to the victims.

I was talking the other day to a friend who works at elementary schools in a large, urban ghetto.  These schools have no white children.  The schools are dreadful, and the children — innocent victims all — suffer terribly.  They grow up in abysmal poverty, and they don’t have role models within their homes showing  education or wealth.  Their neighborhoods are rife with crime (especially gun fire) and substance abuse. Almost all come from broken homes.Their streets are dangerous because of gangs.  The message one receives from those brave enough to work in those neighborhoods is that these children can succeed only if we pour government funds into their schools.  And if those funds don’t work, then we need to pour more in, and still more in.

In my mind, I compared these children — and they are so sad, since they are bright little lights that are blinking out — with the immigrants who came to this country between, say, 1850 and 1950.  They lived in ghettos; they lived in abysmal poverty; their parents didn’t speak the language of wealth (many didn’t even speak English); the streets were dangerous, not because of gunfire, but because of knives, disease, and starvation; there was significant substance abuse (alcoholism and opium); schools were grossly underfunded, etc.  And yet these children became working class, their children became middle class, and their children became upper class.  It wasn’t a 100% success rate at every generation, but it was a substantial rate at every generation.

They went from this:

Jacob Riis tenement photograph

and this:

Jacob Riis image of street kids

to this:

Suburban kitchen

What’s the difference between then and now? I don’t believe that it’s because American blacks (and it’s mostly blacks stuck for generations in ghettos) are forever developmentally disabled by slavery. John McWhorter points out that blacks were ascending rapidly, both socially and economically, before Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society enticed them into welfare and single parenthood (welfare pays single mothers better than two parent families).  Starting in the 1960s, the increasingly Left-leaning white leadership in America told blacks that, the end of slavery and Jim Crow notwithstanding, they are not created equal and they are not equal under the law.  They are different — they are needier.  Without Mama and Papa government, they are nothing.

I think it’s this paradigm shift, one that starts in the Ivory Towers by creating infinite victim classes, all of which that can be raised up only by government intervention and control, that trickles down into the streets. In the old days, you had to do it yourself, so you did. Nowadays, the government is supposed to rescue you. Homes don’t emphasize education, self-sufficiency, and upward mobility. They emphasize “Why isn’t the government helping?”  This is not about race, or slavery, or poverty — it is about an intellectual environment that explicitly educates future leaders that government needs race-victims, and slave-victims and poverty-victims to fulfill its purpose.  Without those classes, government is meaningless and by definition a vehicle of evil.

Paul Fussell, who thought outside the box, would not have approved.  (Or at least I like to think he wouldn’t have approved.)