Something is happening in this presidential election cycle that has some folks totally up in arms. A white GOP presidential candidate is addressing the issues in the black community. And, of course, Donald J. Trump has kicked the hornet’s nest and is consistently castigated with the ultimate denigrating moniker of “racist.” Trump is finding out that there is a super-secret club handshake in the black community. And the only white people who have been provided that code are white liberal progressive socialists.
What amazes me is that here we have someone challenging the failed progressive policies of the inner city and his sincerity is questioned? Why has no one EVER questioned the sincerity of the Democrats who have run the inner cities of America for decades? Easy answer, they have the secret sauce and Hillary Clinton even admitted she carries it in her purse. When the left, (or the appointed black gatekeepers) are challenged on their policy shortcomings in the black community, the retort is racism. That is the means by which suppression of the discussion is sought. If you are a black conservative, then you are told you are not really black, only a token, Oreo, sellout, Uncle Tom and several other denigrating titles that are too vile to repeat here.
Even those of us who have been born and raised in inner city neighborhoods are told we have no clue about the “black experience.” I was raised in Atlanta’s historic Old Fourth Ward, which produced Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Funny, I suppose a biracial fella who was raised early on in Indonesia and ended up being raised by a white grandparents in Hawaii has a clearer perspective. Then again, Barack Obama was given the code, the super-secret handshake because he is a progressive socialist.
So, it becomes very apparent that one does not talk about the decimation of the black family. No one needs to know that, prior to the policies of Lyndon Johnson, the two parent black household was at 75%-77%. Even a white, liberal Democrat senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Monyihan, admonished Johnson against instituting the policy of government checks for out of wedlock children, caveated by the condition that no man could be in the home. Monyihan obviously did not know the super-secret handshake because he was attacked and demonized for speaking out. I am reminded of his famed quote, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” The fact is that many of the issues in the inner city, the black community, stem from the destruction of the black family. But, if you are not part of the secret club, you best not speak of that, lest you are attacked.
If you are a member of Black Lives Matter, you have a double super-secret handshake and membership. And your membership card is printed by a white liberal progressive socialist named George Soros. How odd is that? Trump gets the ultimate beat down for addressing issues in the black community. He is criticized for speaking before white audiences. Ask yourself, when was the last time Soros went before a black audience? Does not matter, he has the super-secret handshake, probably given by Al Sharpton himself.
But, why is it that BLM has little to say about the rise of black gangs? They say nothing about better education opportunities and choice in the black community? Consider that the only choice offered to blacks by white liberal progressive socialists is to kill their unborn children…to the tune of 13-15 million since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. I guess those lives don’t matter, after all, they did not get the super-secret handshake. Donald Trump gets pilloried for speaking of school choice, vouchers, charter schools, homeschooling…anything that is better than the failing public schools that plague the black community. Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard any member of the Congressional Black Caucus champion the issue of school choice? You will not because they fear losing the code provided by the white liberal progressives of the teachers unions. So, generation upon generation in the black community falls behind and ends up as the two young Chicago black men, the Sorrell brothers, ages 26 and 22, who shot the cousin of NBA superstar Dwayne Wade as she walked her infant child in a stroller. These two young men were on parole for a gun conviction. They were also gang members.
Unless you have the super-secret handshake code, you cannot talk about black on black shootings and murders. Matter of fact, it is about the gun, not the socio-economic factors creating the violence. And, you had best tow the talking points line, or else have your membership card revoked — which is what we see from the liberal progressive media. Their propaganda is not focused on the real issue. How many shootings and deaths occurred in Chicago this past weekend? The message from the leftist media is all about maintaining the status quo, the 21st century economic plantation. It is about the perpetuation of the dependency society, the welfare nanny-state. They will never challenge the notion of economic enslavement to the government masters.
There is a quote attributed to George Orwell, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Indeed, in the black community, truth is condemned as hate speech simply because it exposes those who have done genocidal and horrific actions. We must continue to challenge them at every turn. Sadly, it has taken all this time for any GOP presidential candidate to elaborate on this. It cannot be about just an election cycle; this is an issue that has to be constantly engaged. No one group should ever invest all of their political capital into one ideological party agenda. And, when assessing the return on investment for the black community for their consistent electoral patronage of the Democrat party, well, it speaks for itself.
My evidencing such will draw demeaning comment, but see, I know the super-secret handshake, the code. I just refuse to be a dependent subject, and that is threatening.
I suspect none of these folks had anything to say about the trained children being led to sing songs of praise for Obama.
A market that rewards victims generates demand for offenses…
The point being, the poor dear who wrote the book is “offended” by the critiques she’s receiving.
Richard Dawkins has been disinvited from a speaking engagement in Berkeley, hosted by public radio station KPFA, because of remarks he made about Islam. The topic of his speech wasn’t related to Islam, but his voiced opinions on the religion have rendered him unclean.
It’s tempting to call this an example of “The Left Eating Its Own”. Dawkins was welcome when he offered his blistering critiques of Christian religions, but criticizing anything even remotely related to Islam is off limits and enough to make him persona non grata.
As a regular platelet donor, I’ve watched the grounds for deferral expand over the years. They do sometimes contract, as for example when the ban on male donors who have had sex with another male was changed from lifetime to 12 months. Obviously, the more potential donors you screen out, the fewer people you’re going to have donating blood.
I wonder if I’m not seeing something similar in the Leftosphere: Keep expanding the number of ways to declare someone beyond the pale, and before too long you don’t have anyone to supply new blood.
Racism (n): Observing what is right in front of you.
Yet what, precisely, is political correctness? It is totalitarianism — promoted as morality.
Thus one is not merely wrong for challenging the progressive status quo on same-sex marriage, transgenderism, “white privilege,” illegal immigration, global warming, “hate speech,” or a host of other leftist causes. One is evil, and the “appropriate” label defining what particular evil is applied: homophobic, transphobic, racist, nativist, anti-science, fascist, etc.
Labeling one as evil as opposed to wrong is critical. Wrong leaves room for debate. Evil makes debate unnecessary — and entrenches the progressive default position as a result.
The right thinks the left is mistaken.
The left thinks the right is evil.
Every year the LASFS votes the Forry Award for lifetime achievement in the field of science fiction and fantasy. This is a collection of the works of some of those so honored.
Seems to call for a rewrite of a song, to be titled “Nancy Made Her Stuff Up”.
There’s a link to a review of one of her earlier books, Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan. Apparently her bad habits have made an appearance in at least one previous book.
The review is interesting in that it could be read, in today’s climate, as supporting the Klan.
Source: He Fights – Evan Sayet
My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Here’s my answer:
We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain? We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? And the results were always the same.
This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.
I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”
Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!” That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.
That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.
Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do.
First, instead of going after “the fake media” – and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what reallyhappened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri – Trump isolatedCNN. He made it personal. Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”
Everyone gets that it’s not just CNN – in fact, in a world where Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof are people of influence and whose “reporting” is in no way significantly different than CNN’s – CNN is just a piker.
Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNNin an untenable and unwinnable position. With Trump’s ability to go around them, they cannot simply stand pat. They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices.
They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery.
The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.
Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s, church.
Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.
This makes “going high” a non-starter for CNN. This leaves them no other option but to ratchet up the fake news, conjuring up the next “nothing burger” and devoting 24 hours a day to hysterical rants about how it’s “worse than Nixon.”
This, obviously, is what CNN has chosen to do. The problem is that, as they become more and more hysterical, they become more and more obvious. Each new effort at even faker news than before and faker “outrage” only makes that much more clear to any objective observer that Trump is and always has been right about the fake news media.
And, by causing their hysteria, Trump has forced them into numerous, highly embarrassing and discrediting mistakes. Thus, in their desperation, they have lowered their standards even further and run with articles so clearly fake that, even with the liberal (lower case “l”) libel laws protecting the media, they’ve had to wholly retract and erase their stories repeatedly.
Their flailing at Trump has even seen them cross the line into criminality, with CNN using their vast corporate fortune to hunt down a private citizen for having made fun of them in an Internet meme. This threat to “dox” – release of personal information to encourage co-ideologists to visit violence upon him and his family — a political satirist was chilling in that it clearly wasn’t meant just for him. If it were, there would have been no reason for CNN to have made their “deal” with him public.
Instead, CNN – playing by “Chicago Rules” – was sending a message to any and all: dissent will not be tolerated.
This heavy-handed and hysterical response to a joke on the Internet has backfired on CNN, giving rise to only more righteous ridicule.
So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.
So, say anything you want about this president – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights.
This essay is a response to the recent book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, by my Duke University colleague, Nancy MacLean, a professor in our distinguished Department of History.
It is, let me say at the outset, a remarkable book.
At first I misunderstood its method. MacLean has argued persuasively throughout her career for the historical method. For example, in Debating the American Conservative Movement: 1945 to the Present (with Donald T. Critchlow), she writes: “We hope this book will help students learn that the strongest, most tenable positions are arrived at through careful sifting of evidence and respectful encounters with opposing points of view” (2009, viii).
So perhaps I can be forgiven for my misunderstanding of her method in this book. Early in Democracy in Chains, in a preface entitled “A Quiet Deal in Dixie,” MacLean recounts an exchange, a conversation really, between two conservatives. One is the president of a major southern university, the other is an academic worker intent on reverse-engineering a repressive sociopolitical order in America, working from the ground up, using shadowy methods and discredited theories.
The academic writes a proposal for a research center where these ideas can be given a pestilential foothold, a source of viral infection hidden in a legitimate academic setting. The goal, as MacLean tells it, was to begin a Fabian war to re-establish a repressive, plutocratic society ruled by oligarchs. MacLean has actually examined the founding documents, the letters in this exchange, and cites the shadowy academic as saying: “I can fight this [democracy] . . . I want to fight this.” (xv, emphasis in original reference).