Friday, November 26, 2021

They Really Do Hate You: The Left's Double Standard and Virtue Signaling

      Glenn Reynolds likes to point out that with the left, if it weren't for double standards, they'd  have no standards at all. An example of this earlier this year was The New York Times hiring of Sarah Jeong notwithstanding her very publicly avowed hatred of all things white. In fact, the author of the cited article reviewed her vile tweets and concluded that "[i]n fact, she seems rather pathologically obsessed with white folks."
One of Jeong's less offensive tweets

      Of course, the far left seemed either outraged or puzzled that anyone would find Jeong's tweet's racist.  Aja Romano, writing at Vox, thought the whole backlash was unfounded and, she believed, perpetrated by the Alt-Right. Romano defended Jeong's tweets as sarcasm, jokes, or "counter-trolling." She explained that "Jeong’s tweets were, at best, mean to some white people, and were written in a context reasonably understood to be a sarcastic response to people who were perpetually harassing her on the basis of her gender and race." She had no problem with what Jeong had written over the course of many years.

       Libby Watson penned an op-ed for Splinter News that also characterized Jeong's tweets as jokes. Moreover, Watson explained, "[t]he tweets were not racist; they were jokes about white people, which is a different thing that is not racism." She elaborated:
         Making jokes about white people isn’t the same as making racist jokes about black people, or Asian people, or Jews, or gay people, or any other historically oppressed minority. This is a very simple principle, but one that many aggrieved whites find difficult to accept. You can’t say, “Well, imagine if you replaced ‘white’ with ‘black’ in those tweets,” because those two things are not equally replaceable. As much as you might find it desperately oppressive to not be able to use the n-word when you sing along to rap songs, there has never been a government-endorsed legal or societal campaign of oppression against whites. White people can be oppressed by other means, such as through gender or economics, but whites in the U.S. have never been systematically oppressed on the basis of their race alone.
         In fact, white people in the United States have had it comparatively super good in large part because of their oppression of other races; when you, a white person, express or act upon your prejudice towards oppressed groups, you are taking part in that oppression. You contribute to the project of belittling, keeping down, otherizing, and exploiting historically oppressed minorities. When a member of an oppressed community complains about white people, that is different, because it is the whites who are doing the oppression. It is just different, which things often are.
In short, she contends that racist tweets are okay when they are about white Americans because whites deserve it, and if any white Americans object, they are just being racist.

     However, the rank hypocrisy has even bothered some of those on the left--but not enough for them to condemn Jeong. For instance, Bret Stephens, a columnist for The New York Times acknowledges that many of Jeong's tens of thousands of tweets are, in fact racist.
We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist. I’ve seen some acrobatic efforts to explain why Jeong’s tweets should be treated as “quasi-satirical,” hyperbolical and a function of “social context.” But the criterion for racism is either objective or it’s meaningless: If liberals get to decide for themselves who is or isn’t a racist according to their political lights, conservatives will be within their rights to ignore them.
Nevertheless, he believes her tweets should be overlooked and that The Times made the right decision in retaining Jeong.

       Compare this with the reaction to commentary on Fox News by Laura Ingraham, in which she stated that "[i]n some parts of the country it does seem like the America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” and crediting it to massive demographic changes "that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like." Ingraham was immediately labeled a racist or worse. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace said Ingraham’s comments were “articulating and embracing a racist ideology.”

      Others questioned whether Ingraham really loved America--America being, in their minds, merely a proposition.Sarah Quinlan, writing at Red State, stated:
       I love this country because it recognizes “that all men are created equal” and “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” I love this country because it is based on the belief that the people should be safe from tyranny and their rights should be protected. I love this country because of the ideals that America was built upon. 
       I love my country because of what America represents, not because of the background of her people.
Conor Freidersdorf, writing for the Atlantic, similarly proclaimed that "[w]hat I love about America is its animating idea: 'That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'," and chastised Ingraham for loving America's "former demographic profile." Rick Moran found Ingraham's comments "puzzling," because, "these demographic changes that we've managed to absorb over the centuries are, in large measure, what make America so exceptional."

     Of course, we know that Moran, Quinlan, Freidersdorf are wrong: there is substantial research showing that diversity reduces social capital and trust. And, even if America is an idea, not a people, that idea arose from and is rooted in the cultural backgrounds, philosophies, practices and civilization aspirations of Western Europe--specifically Great Britain, Denmark, Holland, and certain of the Germanic states. Ideas completely alien to the third world. It may be possible to admit a small number of aliens and have them assimilate, but alien peoples bring their alien ideas and culture, and in large numbers, those alien ideas can erode the America aspirations and replace it with something else. For instance, the founders thought of equality as being "equal" before the law--i.e., no special privileges for any particular group. However, the import of immigrants with socialist or Marxist leanings have attempted to twist that credo of "all men are created equal" to be "all are entitled to equal outcomes." This, in turn, has morphed into the concept of "social justice" founded on the resentment of the white middle class and a lack of gratitude for the civilization that they bequeathed to us.

       And if this is not enough, Moran, Quinlan, and Freidersdorf are wrong because they presume to ignore identity politics--or, rather, implicitly argue that whites should ignore identity politics. To people like them, "that white Americans are slowly waking up to the fact that they don’t really want to get pushed around by newcomers just for being white merely proves that whites deserve their fate." And they don't want  whites to react to the fact "that the Left has declared war on straight American white people for decades."

       So, what motivates this current hatred of all things white? Although concentrating on the Jeong affair, Reihan Salam, in an article at The Atlantic, believed that much of it came down to virtue signaling:
        ... What I want to do, though, is look beyond the particulars of Jeong’s remarks to better understand why anti-white rhetoric is, in some communities, so commonplace as to be banal. 
       To state the obvious, Jeong is hardly alone in colorfully expressing anti-white sentiment, and it is this broader phenomenon I find most interesting. ... The people I’ve heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile people who’ve proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed identity as being of recognizably European descent. 
       One reason I’ve been disinclined to take this sort of talk seriously in the past is that it has so often smacked of intra-white status jockeying. It is almost as though we’re living through a strange sort of ethnogenesis, in which those who see themselves as (for lack of a better term) upper-whites are doing everything they can to disaffiliate themselves from those they’ve deemed lower-whites. Note that to be “upper” or “lower” isn’t just about class status, though of course that’s always hovering in the background. Rather, it is about the supposed nobility that flows from racial self-flagellation.  
     But many of the white-bashers of my acquaintance have been highly-educated and affluent Asian American professionals. So why do they do it? ... 
      ... In some instances, white-bashing can actually serve as a means of ascent, especially for Asian Americans. Embracing the culture of upper-white self-flagellation can spur avowedly enlightened whites to eagerly cheer on their Asian American comrades who show (abstract, faceless, numberless) lower-white people what for. And, simultaneously, it allows Asian Americans who use the discourse to position themselves as ethnic outsiders, including those who are comfortably enmeshed in elite circles.

        Think about what it takes to claw your way into America’s elite strata. Unless you were born into the upper-middle class, your surest route is to pursue an elite education. To do that, it pays to be exquisitely sensitive to the beliefs and prejudices of the people who hold the power to grant you access to the social and cultural capital you badly want. By setting the standards for what counts as praiseworthy, elite universities have a powerful effect on youthful go-getters. Their admissions decisions represent powerful “nudges” towards certain attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and I’ve known many first- and second-generation kids—I was one of them—who intuit this early on.
These people have no moral compass, other than what finds them favor with the "in crowd."

    But that is only part of the story. There is a now dominant political-legal philosophy called Critical Race Theory (CRT) which, at its heart, casts whites in the role of Satan: the corrupter of all things good. Below is a short video from American Uncovered which covers the main points of CRT.

VIDEO: "What Is Critical Race Theory?"--America Uncovered (25 min.)

In short, however, the 6 basic tenets of CRT are:

(1)    Racism is the norm. Keep in mind that to fully understand this, you have to understand that per CRT's pundits, only whites are racist. That is, blacks cannot be racist.

(2)    Colorblindness is disguised racism. In other words, equality of opportunity, judging people based on the quality of their character and not their skin color, etc., is racist. Yeah, who knew the Martin Luther King Jr. was promoting racism. This concept postulates that white people will only help black people if its advances their (the whites') interests. 

(3)   Race is an unscientific social construct. Although CRT recognizes that people of common origins share physical traits. And this tenet is ignored, of course, when it useful under CRT to use race. Thus, CRT judges whites by the color of their skin, and is therefore itself racist, because it claims that all whites and everything whites do, is racist.

(4)    Liberalism is racism. That is, traits held in esteem in Western liberal thought like reason, rationalism, due process, equality before the law, etc., are all processes that advance the interests of whites. That is why you can come across comments like "math is racist" or that rationality and hard work is racist.  

(5)    CRT is intersectional. This point seems rather benign at a basic level because it postulates that everyone has unique mixtures of past experiences, values, and judgments. But in application, it divides people into "oppressor" and "oppressed classes" with white people (or anyone appearing to be white) falling into the "oppressor" class.

(6)     Voice of color. That is, "oppressed" people have unique viewpoints that need to be shared with "oppressors." In other words, it trains POC (particularly blacks) to only think of themselves as "oppressed" and to dwell on that point.

    All of this leads to strange outcomes. For instance, violence and crime as we witnessed last year in the rioting and looting is considered appropriate because it is a means of blacks expressing their displeasure at the inherently racist system around them. Conversely, for white people to not actively support black insurrection (i.e., be "anti-racist") is a form of violence--the source of the term "silence is violence."

    It is also why the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict has been decried as "rascist" or the result of a corrupt justice system: it didn't take into account the feeling of blacks in reaching a decision (blacks supposedly wanting a guilty verdict).

    It is also why white violence against blacks is blasted across media, but black violence against whites is largely ignored. For instance, the incident just a few days ago of a black supremacist plowing a vehicle through a crowd of white people killing 6 and injuring dozens is already being memory-holed by major media outlets.  

    This philosophy is also invading and subverting all our institutions. As you know from the news, it has infiltrated our school systems and is being indoctrinated into our kids, leading to revolts. In fact, the recent Virginia governor's race likely turned on this issue. But it is infiltrating all of our institutions, including our churches. Thus, CRT concepts are now official policy in the Salvation Army, reports the Daily Wire

    “The desire is that Salvationists achieve the following,” the Army says in an online “resource” titled “Let’s Talk About Racism,” listing several goals including  to “lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed.”

    The resource claims Christianity is inherently racist and calls for white Christians to repent and offer “a sincere apology” to blacks for being “antagonistic… to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.”

    “Many have come to believe that we live in a post-racial society, but racism is very real for our brothers and sisters who are refused jobs and housing, denied basic rights and brutalized and oppressed simply because of the color of their skin,” one lesson in the resource says. “There is an urgent need for Christians to evaluate racist attitudes and practices in light of our faith, and to live faithfully in today’s world.”

    “And as we engage in conversations about race and racism, we must keep in mind that sincere repentance and apologies are necessary if we want to move towards racial reconciliation. We recognize that it is a profound challenge to sit on the hot seat and listen with an open heart to the hurt and anger of the wounded. Yet, we are all hardwired to desire justice and fairness, so the need to receive a sincere apology is necessary,” said the resource.

    In an accompanying Study Guide on Racism, the Salvation Army says whites are racist. “The subtle nature of racism is such that people who are not consciously racist easily function with the privileges, empowerment and benefits of the dominant ethnicity, thus unintentionally perpetuating injustice,” it says.

    “We must stop denying the existence of individual and systemic/institutional racism. They exist, and are still at work to keep White Americans in power,” the lesson says.

      What does the future hold? Over the short term, probably not much. As I indicated, CRT philosophy--in actuality, a form of religion--has infiltrated almost all of our institutions. Since one of the purposes of pushing CRT is to shame and discourage whites, to make whites feel unworthy, it is unlikely that we will see any sort of organized resistance against CRT and its philosophies except in certain limited circumstances, and such resistance will not be exclusively white.

    The most serious opposition may, ironically, come from Hispanics and Latinos. Reihan Salam, mentioned earlier, suggests in different article, that the next populist revolt will be by Latinos. According to Salam, the Left's strategy for the past few decades has been to rely on minority voters, including blacks and poor Latino immigrants, looking forward to "the fullness of time, [when] a unified coalition of college-educated white liberals, African Americans, and working-class immigrants and their descendants will vanquish the aging rump of reactionary whites." Salam observes that "[t]he logic of rainbow liberalism says that the anger of working-class Latinos and other marginalized minorities ought to be directed at hateful working-class whites in the heartland. But it’s not hard to imagine second-generation Americans choosing a different target for their ire: the white overclass of coastal America." He explains:
        A key principle of rainbow liberalism is that the solution to working-class woes is hiking taxes on the rich to finance a generous suite of wage subsidies, social services, and, for the truly ambitious, basic-income grants. But will white liberals be as enthusiastic about sharp increases in their taxes if they become something other than theoretical? Immigrants in New York, for instance, live in a state where the Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo, recently championed a tax reform designed to sharply reduce the total tax burden facing his state’s wealthiest residents while stymieing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s efforts to raise taxes on the city’s ultrarich. Cuomo did so as New York’s transit infrastructure was in crisis and rising rents were exposing tens of thousands of families to the risk of eviction.

         These betrayals sting in the present. But in the near future, such efforts will be undertaken in the midst of “the Great Wealth Transfer”—in which trillions of dollars in accumulated cash, homes, and other assets will be transmitted from disproportionately white, native-born, college-educated Baby Boomers to their long-waiting heirs. In this context, a brown populism might emerge, one that is sharply to the left of today’s rainbow liberalism. Just as Donald Trump appeals to the ethnic self-interest of rural whites, a tribune of working-class Latinos could call attention to the dearth of Latinos in the uppermost echelons of American society and promise to do something drastic about it, such as redistributing the inherited wealth of privileged whites. In the post-civil-rights era, many charismatic African American politicians—and activists like Fred Hampton—promised to redress the racial injustices plaguing majority-black cities by confronting an ostensibly liberal white elite. Brown populism would pledge to do the same, but from a position of far greater electoral strength. Latinos already outnumber whites in California, and aren’t far behind in Texas; the electorates of the two most populous states will soon have a Latino plurality.
But Salam also predicts that Latinos will likely favor restrictions to immigration in coming decades. Again, from his article:
        According to the historian Brian Gratton, America’s major restrictionist movements have emerged in response to a dramatic increase in immigration levels coupled with a change in the ethnic origins of new immigrants. Both factors are important. If a dramatic increase in immigration levels occurs but natives by and large see the newcomers as their cultural kin, the reaction might be muted, as cultural affinity overrides other considerations. If a dramatic increase occurs and the newcomers are culturally distinct, however, intergroup tension is all but inevitable. Gratton’s thesis partly captures why older whites have been so resistant to Latino immigration.

        But as Latino immigration slows, and as working-class Latino Americans come into their own politically, Gratton’s work leaves us with an irony-laden prediction about what is to come: A coalition of cosmopolitan whites, Asian Americans, and blacks may well fight to open the U.S. labor market to growing numbers of desperate people from Asia and Africa, whether out of class interest, ethnic loyalty, or devotion to rainbow liberalism as an ideology—but these new immigrants could be met by a coalition of working-class whites and Latinos who favor closed borders.

    For Christians, it is a time to look to our scriptures. Christ is no respecter of persons or races, including blacks. The Bible is replete with the admonition that the son should not be judged for the sins of his father. God expects us to abide by his commandments, not act according to our will or emotions. CRT is the exact opposite of this and is, therefore, anti-Christ. In matter of fact, that CRT identifies Christians as an "oppressor" class, is proof positive that it is an anti-Christ philosophy. 

2 comments:

  1. Odd then, that we each have unique DNA, and that DNA gives us unique skills and attributes, and that AI can reliably differentiate between "races" based only on x-ray data. So, it's real.

    We just can't talk about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What can I say? Socialists are anti-science. I think it is because they are afraid of anything that contradicts or could contradict the party's narrative. Thus the reason leftists support censorship and no longer support the 1st Amendment.

      Delete

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap: Poisons

I found a link to this PDF in my collection of bookmarks: Criminal Poisoning: Investigational Guide for Law Enforcement, Toxicologists, Fore...