It has been a big week for the race hustlers as they try to foist their toxin on America as both received wisdom and law.
The photo at the top of the page is a crop from this photo, part of a satirical post from The People’s Cube.
It certainly captures the insanity running wild in our country at the moment, where everything is being filtered through a racial lens by race hustlers who demand that we accept their tripe without question.
This video below is of an interview of black Portland police officer, Jakhary Jackson, discussing racism, historic ignorance, and the riots. If you haven’t seen it yet, do take the time to watch it. Some of the points he makes are that many of the rioters are not from Portland, they are majority white, clueless, and themselves racist. This from Hot Air:
“Coming from someone who graduated from PSU with a history degree it’s actually frightening…They say if you don’t know your history you’re doomed to repeat it. And watching people do that to other people just because of what they’ve decided to do with their life.”
Asked for an example, Jackson said people of color will frequently come up to speak to him during protest to ask him what he thinks about the death of George Floyd or some other issue. But inevitably when he tries to engage with these people, “someone white comes up ‘F the police. Don’t talk to him.’” Jackson said that after a while he could see it coming.
When a young African-American girl came up to him at a recent protest to ask why he wouldn’t speak to the protesters he said he started to explain that every time he tried to do so a white protester would cut him off. Jackson said, “right when I said that this white girl pops right in front of her.” The girl was amazed and said, “He just said that was going to happen.” Jackson said to the girl, “I told you.”
Jackson then said to the white girl who had interrupted, “I’ve been called the N-word. She’s been called the N-word. Why are you talking to me this way? Why do you feel that she can’t speak for herself to me? Why is it that you feel you need to speak for her when we’re having a conversation?” The white girl replied, “Someone told me to do it.”
Though the language of the rioters is that of civil rights, the reality is quite different, at least beyond the useful idiots dancing like marionettes on a string. As Maurice Richards writes at the Daily Caller:
Recent looting, arson and targeted violence against police wasn’t about police reform, and the assassination of police officers wasn’t about mourning or respecting George Floyd—so what’s really going on?
A quick look at two radical movements behind George Floyd protests — Antifa and Black Lives Matter — provides some insight. . . .
The common thread uniting these movements is the belief that the United States as a country is illegitimate, inherently racist, and irredeemable. They view the police as racist defenders of this evil order.
This destructive pathology is a theme being echoed by many media and left-wing elites. In doing so, they fan the dangerous flames of racial hatred and violence while they downplay theft, arson, mob violence, the killing of innocent citizens, and the assassinations of police officers. . . .
In the media and progressive centers of government, that has led to calls to “defund police.” As serious as that is insane, it has led to a fascinating series of events in hard left Seattle, Washington, where the city council has voted for a 50% police budget cut. This from Hot Air:
“I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away. That is completely reckless,” said Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best.
City Council has advocated her department’s budget be cut 50 percent. https://t.co/RNfTyFWYBw
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 13, 2020
In addition to the video, Chief Best sent a letter to Mayor Durkan warning that dramatic cuts would require the layoff of hundreds of officers. The letter details some of the ways those cuts would impact the department: “We would have to significantly cut or eliminate Bike Units, Foot Beats, Community Policing Teams, and Anti-Crime Teams.” In addition there would be significant cuts to investigators of violent crime, sexual assault burglary, domestic abuse, fraud, etc.
The public affairs department also pointed out that cutting staff would result in a less diverse work force. It produced a graph based upon standard last-hired, first-fired practice of the department which pointed out how many officers from each minority group would probably wind up being fired if the cuts go through . . .
Actually, it would result in a significantly less diverse work force as many of the recent hires who would be, by operation of contract, the first to be laid off, are minorities. White female legislator Lisa Herbold has the solution. Ignore the contract and target people for firing based on their race:
In the case layoffs are necessary, one threat is firing BIPOC officers first. Chief can request the Public Safety Civil Service Commission ED for permission to lay off “out of order” when doing so is in “the interest of efficient operations of his or her department.”
— Lisa Herbold (@Lisa_Herbold) July 13, 2020
It is hard to think of any clearer violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This from the police chief:
So as we sink deeper into the insanity of progressive race centric politics, one needs to keep in mind that it is a canard without any significant basis in fact, whether it be termed “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “implicit bias” or “systemic racism.” All are virtually meaningless terms that are either unfalsifiable — and thus not factual — or unsupported by actual data.
Implicit bias is one area where researchers have tried and failed to establish objective proof. As Powerline points out, the studies show no correlation with discriminatory acts, nor are the studies reproducable, even with the same test subjects. Thus it is not valid science.
All else is being pushed as fact, with people being pressured to, as Ann Althouse says, “accept without questioning.” Althouse reviewed several articles and texts to evaluate the “underlying science.” She writes:
Look what I found instead of the science underlying the ideology:
Borrowing from feminist scholarship and critical race theory, whiteness studies challenges the very nature of knowledge, asking whether what we define as scientific research and scholarly rigor, and what we venerate as objectivity, can be ways of excluding alternate perspectives and preserving white dominance. DiAngelo likes to ask, paraphrasing the philosopher Lorraine Code: “From whose subjectivity does the ideal of objectivity come?”…
Robin DiAngelo is the author of the book “White Fragility.” She’s critiquing science — or “what we define as scientific research” — but is she doing science? There’s a paradox here. Is her theory about white supremacy white supremacy or is it just completely unscientific? . . .
Finding nothing but unsupported assertion masquerading as fact, Althouse says that “what we are dealing with” is “the radical dumbing down of America.”
. . . [D]on’t expect the science to catch up with this snowballing trend. It didn’t need science to get rolling, and science isn’t going to get out in front of it or get in the way of it at all. The theory isn’t based on science, and the theory critiques science as racist, and you don’t want to be racist, so better get up to speed on all the many things that are considered racist by these people who’ve stepped up to define racism for you and who tell you it’s racist to resist their definition of what is racism and what you’ve got to do about it.
But maybe it’s like religion, operating in a different dimension from reason and science, and maybe, like religion, it has great power to help human beings meet the challenges of living in a world that is not paradise. But no:
If the aim is to dismantle white supremacy, to redistribute power and influence… do the messages of today’s antiracism training risk undermining the goal by depicting an overwhelmingly rigged society in which white people control nearly all the outcomes, by inculcating the idea that the traditional skills needed to succeed in school and in the upper levels of the workplace are somehow inherently white, by spreading the notion that teachers shouldn’t expect traditional skills as much from their Black students, by unwittingly teaching white people that Black people require allowances, warrant extraordinary empathy and can’t really shape their own destinies?
Then there is black English Professor John McWhorter’s review of Robin DiAngelo’s best selling work of race hustling, “White Fragility.” Writing at The Atlantic, McWhorter calls the book “a racist tract”:
Despite the sincere intentions of its author, the book diminishes Black people in the name of dignifying us. This is unintentional, of course, like the racism DiAngelo sees in all whites. Still, the book is pernicious because of the authority that its author has been granted over the way innocent readers think. . . .
She operates from the now-familiar concern with white privilege, aware of the unintentional racism ever lurking inside of her that was inculcated from birth by the white supremacy on which America was founded. To atone for this original sin, she is devoted to endlessly exploring, acknowledging, and seeking to undo whites’ “complicity with and investment in” racism. To DiAngelo, any failure to do this “work,” as adherents of this paradigm often put it, renders one racist. . . .
. . . DiAngelo’s depiction of white psychology shape-shifts according to what her dogma requires. On the one hand, she argues in Chapter 1 that white people do not see themselves in racial terms; therefore, they must be taught by experts like her of their whiteness. But for individuals who harbor so little sense of themselves as a group, the white people whom DiAngelo describes are oddly tribalist when it suits her narrative. “White solidarity,” she writes in Chapter 4, “requires both silence about anything that exposes the advantages of the white population and tacit agreement to remain racially united in the protection of white supremacy.” But if these people don’t even know whiteness is a category, just what are they now suddenly defending? . . .
. . .
But with racism limned as such a gruesome spiritual pollution, harbored by individuals moreover entrapped in a society within which they exert racism merely by getting out of bed, the issue of gray zones seems beside the point. By the end, DiAngelo has white Americans muzzled, straitjacketed, tied down, and chloroformed for good measure—but for what?
And herein is the real problem with White Fragility. DiAngelo does not see fit to address why all of this agonizing soul-searching is necessary to forging change in society. One might ask just how a people can be poised for making change when they have been taught that pretty much anything they say or think is racist and thus antithetical to the good. What end does all this self-mortification serve? Impatient with such questions, DiAngelo insists that “wanting to jump over the hard, personal work and get to ‘solutions’” is a “foundation of white fragility.” In other words, for DiAngelo, the whole point is the suffering. And note the scare quotes around solutions, as if wanting such a thing were somehow ridiculous. . . .
As Phillip Harris writes at PJM, America is not racist, but the race hustlers are. But of course, DiAngelo and her race hustling ilk now permeate the upper echelons, selling their sermons and absolutions for a sin for which forgiveness and rehabilitation is not possible. This is most decidedly not the goal of the Civil Rights movement this nation signed onto in 1964. Writes Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:
The new activism surrounding race is completely at odds with the traditional goals of the civil rights movement — that all people be treated with dignity and afforded the protections of our laws without regard to race
Jacobson, currently the subject of a Cancel campaign at Cornell where he teaches law, notes that Cornell has embraced this abortion. The college is now intent on making white privilege / racism classes a part of the required curriculum and making “anti-racial activism mandatory.”
Meanwhile, in the media, the war on facts continues unabated. Redstate notes that the media is in a frenzy because that noted racist, Donald Trump, stated accurately that more whites are killed by police every year than are blacks.
. . . [T]he question [to Trump by the interviewer] implies in the nature of it that police are targeting African Americans. Which is why Trump responded with “more white people” are killed, which is also true, more white people are killed by police than are African Americans.
But you wouldn’t know that if you listened to the media and that’s been a missing part of the whole discussion going on.
Here are a couple of samples of the reaction to Trump’s remark. . . .
Maggie Haberman at the New York Times:
The president asserts that “more” White people are killed by police than Black people https://t.co/m27Bc6Oda6
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 14, 2020
What a sentence. It’s demonstrably true statement without even a question but she says Trump “asserts” it and she puts quotes around “more” as though the statement is in doubt.
Check out Reuters which clearly goes over the line here.
When asked about George Floyd’s death by CBS News, President Trump said it was terrible but stated more white than Black people are killed at the hands of police in the U.S., without giving any evidence of the claim pic.twitter.com/4vB01AfnVW
— Reuters (@Reuters) July 15, 2020
Eventually, Ben Shapiro responded with:
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) July 14, 2020
On one hand there is a complete lack of objective fact to support the “all whites are racist” meme underlying the current attempted revolution, while on the other, there is a refusal of the left to even acknowledge, let alone engage with, contrary facts. Add to that yet another twist, that so many of the anecdotes being used in place of objective fact by the left as proof of racism are themselves bogus race hoaxes. The most recent comes from The Atlantic via The Federalist:
When social justice activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell was just 12 years old, she and her sister watched a police officer shoot a young boy in a city recreation center because he had ignored the basketball sign-in sheet. This jarring, emotional, and deeply unsettling story was published July 6 at The Atlantic, in the section reserved for ideas, under the bold, attention-grabbing headline, “How I Became a Police Abolitionist.”
Purnell’s deeply personal story of shattered innocence and shattered bones at the end of a policeman’s gun was shared widely among top journalists and activists. “I started her article thinking abolition was impossible and ending thinking it must happen,” the president of a social justice think tank at Harvard wrote on Twitter, quoting his mother. “This is a beautifully written piece,” the Atlantic’s constitutional law editor agreed. “Derecka is the future,” an activist journalism executive declared.