Category Archives: VICTIM BLAMING

Bookworm Beat 6/18/20 — Idle thoughts of an irritated mind

I’m in a Festivus mood: My Airing of the Grievances has me saying “I got a lotta problems with you leftists, and now you’re going to hear about it!”

Sometimes victim-blaming is appropriate: I found the following statement circulating among my leftist friends on Facebook and it irritated me more than it ought to have:


No. Just no. Morally wrongful “blaming the victim” happens when someone is doing something safe, innocuous, and normal, and nevertheless falls afoul of an evil criminal, only to have people say “You shouldn’t have walked your dog in a safe neighborhood in broad daylight,” “You shouldn’t have worn clothes that are slightly form fitting without revealing any flesh,” “You shouldn’t have walked down a street in Atlanta because you’re black.” That’s victim-blaming.

It is not victim-blaming to say that, while the criminal actor must always be blamed, people are nevertheless responsible for their stupid choices. As I always told my daughter, “You don’t dance naked in a Hell’s Angels’ biker bar and then act surprised if you get raped.” Likewise, you don’t brutally attack the police, steal their taser, and try to shoot one of them with the taser, and then have people posthumously say that you weren’t a contributing factor to your own death. Brooks was a victim who deserved to be blamed.

One of the problems with America today is that we’ve told people they’re never responsible for their own choices. Here’s the standard for victim blaming: If any sane, reasonable person would’ve and could’ve known better, you should have too.

Too many American blacks have no father in Heaven or on earth: I’ve always liked The Lord’s Prayer, which I think is beautiful poetry. Lately, I’ve had the first line running through my head: “Our Father, who art in Heaven….”

One doesn’t have to be Christian to recognize the important message in that line; namely, that whether we’re talking about the Jewish God or the Christian God, there is a God out there who has sent us a moral code and who will, in this life or the next, judge us for running afoul of it. (And yes, I know that Judaism is a little squishy on Heaven, but I’m with Dennis Prager, who believes that God is too good to be cruel enough to deny his faithful a glorious afterlife given how much yucky stuff we deal with in this life.)

While blacks overall are still a religious people (although their churches have been taken over by leftism; see, i.e., Rev. Jeremiah Wright), I suspect that criminally-inclined black men do not believe that their lives are being overseen by a moral and, at the end of the day, judgmental God. For them, there is no divine presence keeping them on the path of righteousness.

Leftism killed God, their father.

Leftism also killed their actual fathers. Over 70% of black children have no biological father in their life. This means that they’re more likely to live in poverty. It means that they’re at greater risk of getting assaulted or killed by their mother’s boyfriends. And it means that girls are more likely to be promiscuous and boys are more likely to be criminals. Also, and this is my theory with no data to back it up, just a gut feeling, boys are more likely to be homosexuals or claim to be transgendered because they over-identify with their mothers.

Dad energy is different from mom energy. Moms nurture but dads guide. Dads tell their daughters how beautiful they are, so the daughter doesn’t go from one man to another seeking the affirmation all women need from a loving man. And dads tell their sons to be strong and loyal and hard-working.

Dads do important negative things as well. They scare predatory men away from their daughters. It’s unlikely that the Muslim rape and prostitution gangs in England would have fared as well as they did if the girls on whom they preyed had fathers who would have stood up for them. My understanding is that most of the girls didn’t.

Another “negative” thing dads do is scare the living daylights out of a boy when he commits some petty crime and his parents have to pick him up from the police station. Moms are sympathetic and might even blame the police. Dads, though, are punitive. A good dad will come down on his son like a ton of bricks, even while letting the boy know he still loves him.

In the black community, 70% of kids don’t have the loving, positive dad or the angry, negative dad in their lives. It’s just mom, and maybe a bunch of half-siblings. When these kids look up at the sky, they don’t imagine a Heaven in which there’s a loving, positive God or a moral, judgmental God. There’s just space. Nothing, absolutely nothing, constrains kids who feel unloved and unwatched.

This is what leftism has done to the black community with its hatred for faith and its relentless push to get black women on welfare, making dads extraneous. I’ve said before that, while President Trump’s crime bill might indeed put more criminals back on the street, its saving grace could be that it puts more dads back in the home, especially the black home.

I think John Roberts is being blackmailed. Some people think John Roberts hates Trump, which is why he consistently rules against Trump on things that matter to Democrats. I don’t think that’s what’s going on because he started this pattern early, long before Trump.

Roberts is either a really weak conservative or, as I believe, he’s being blackmailed (my feeling is that it’s about his children). That’s why he’s conservative on the edges but, whenever it really matters to the leftists, suddenly he comes out strong as an activist justice who has no time for the Constitution or the laws of this land.

And yes, of course I know that my claim that he’s being blackmailed about his adopted children is completely unfounded. I’m not arguing otherwise. This is a feeling, not a theory.

I’m running out of things not to buy and places not to go. Chick-fil-A’s CEO announced that I need to wash black people’s feet. No, they can wash their own feet.

I’m not surprised, though. Remember the kerfuffle when it turned out that the Chick-fil-A Foundation was run by a hard leftist? Management pretended to be surprised by that revelation, but they’re not that stupid. Chick-fil-A has figured out that, if it promotes a few overtly Christian behaviors, it can get away with leftist murder.

I won’t go to Chick-fil-A anymore.

I don’t ever want to shop from Amazon again, given that it refuses to support mainstream conservative causes and that Bezos doesn’t want customers who don’t support the Black Lives Matter movement. I support the civil rights of every individual in America. I do not support a hard-left group that’s using race in lieu of class as a way to impose Marxist ideology on America. Screw you, Bezos.

I’m grateful I’ve never used T-Mobil, which dumped Tucker Carlson because Carlson has said the same things about BLM that I believe.

I never buy Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, or Mrs. Butterworth, so I can’t stop buying them as a way to let their parent companies know that their cowardice is not appreciated.

I won’t stand in line to buy anything other than food or to exercise my Second Amendment rights. It enrages and disgusts me that stores are still meekly going along with edicts limiting the numbers of customers allowed, thereby risking their economic destruction, after the BLM and Antifa marches and riots. There’s no product I want enough to stand in line for other than life’s very basic necessities.

I’m staggered that, judging by my Facebook page, leftists in California are still going along with Gavin Newsom’s edicts. His latest is mandatory masks. I have friends speaking about their gratitude that their children sneaked into their houses to visit them. Again, how in the world can these sheep act that way in light of the marches and riots?

When I run errands I notice three classes of people wearing masks: The elderly, who clearly should; blacks, who probably should (although I do believe that they might need more Vitamin D); and young, affluent white people, who are at low risk and are either virtue-signaling or made totally paranoid by their daily consumption of the New York Times. The Times makes people paranoid and fills them with self-loathing.

Middle-class people risk the most in a cancel culture. We in the middle class have big chains around us. I noticed that in Marin with divorce. The very poor divorced because they were poor before and remained poor afterward. The very rich divorced because they were very rich before and remained very rich afterward. For the middle class, especially women with children, divorce could be an economic death sentence.

It’s the same with being open about our politics. The poor and the rich do not change status when they speak up. Today’s cancel culture means that we in the middle risk everything when we stand against the mob.

Grumble, grumble, grumble. Running errands today soured me.

The 1619 Project: Reframing History & Redefining Racism

“White Supremacy” is a progressive canard to keep the race card viable in the absence of actual racism. It paints all whites as inherently racist and promotes the worst of tribalism as a progressive political tool.

The New York Times’ 1619 Project seeks to “reframe” American history to mark the year 1619 as the “true founding.”  The first purpose of the 1619 Project is to cement slavery as America’s original sin.  The “reframing” comes about, first, in the telling of a narrative so distorted as to be false, then, second, in redefining “racism” to attach the slander to a whole host of things that either are not caused by racism or are not racist by definition.  Mirable dictu, America is suddenly a nation full of virulent racists / white supremacists.

It is helpful before continuing deeper into this morass to take a balanced look at the actual history of slavery in this country, not as an original sin that still stains us today and that can only be explicated by destroying the country, but rather as an extremely difficult issue that was set on the road to being righted by our Founders and their progeny. In a recent AEI article, author Mark Perry quotes extensively from black economist (and one-time card carrying communist) Thomas Sowell:

Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved – and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.


Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century – and then it was an issue only in Western civilization. Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there. But who is singled out for scathing criticism today? American leaders of the 18th century.

Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the population.

It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.

In 1862, a ship carrying slaves from Africa to Cuba, in violation of a ban on the international slave trade, was captured on the high seas by the U.S. Navy. The crew was imprisoned and the captain was hanged in the United States – despite the fact that slavery itself was still legal at the time in Africa, Cuba, and in the United States. What does this tell us? That enslaving people was considered an abomination. But what to do with millions of people who were already enslaved was not equally clear.

That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost [620,000 Civil War casualties] for every six people freed [3.9 million]. Maybe that was the only answer. But don’t pretend today that it was an easy answer – or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains when most leaders and most people around the world saw nothing wrong with slavery.

While Sowell notes the reality, the NYT actually does posit an “easy answer” to the slavery issue. The Times “reframes history” in the 1619 Project to tell it in Howard Zinn fashion, erasing or minimizing the First Great Awakening and the abolition movement, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement.  And with that, the Times then claims that America is still a country full of virulent racism — at least if you support Trump or are not a progressive.  Of course, the lack of racism in mainstream America is a problem, so progressives have redefined “racism” into “white supremacy,” something that implies virulent, evil racism but means, in actuality, nothing.

To put it another way, a strict, classic definition of “racism” means “a belief that race is the primary detriment of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” The decline of actual racist acts in America’s mainstream, though, has become a real problem for progressives who have bet their entire political future on keeping minorities believing that they are under siege and that their only protection is to voting proggie.  There is a reason, not that many years ago, that then Vice President Biden told an audience of black Americans at an NAACP meeting that Republicans want to “put y’all back in chains.”  And there is a reason President Obama, author of all that racial healing in his administration, told Latinos that Republicans were their “enemies.”

So what is “white supremacy?”  Well, at least when the Left talks about it, it’s not the old KKK crap anymore. Instead, we can use the “Pyramid of White Supremacy” (pictured at the top of this post) as our guide to see just how outrageous it is and just how disconnected it is from people actually engaging in racist acts predicated on the belief in the inferiority of minorities — i.e., actual racism.

A college professor put together and uses the “Pyramid of White Supremacy” for a mandatory course she teaches for elementary education majors at Salisbury University in Maryland.  I was reminded of it the other day when I saw it at the Ace of Spades blog. The pyramid names nothing as “racist” that has not already made it into the mainstream media over the past several years.  The list goes from ludicrous, to insane, to evil, literally making of everyone not a proggie a white supremacist.

Racism Pyramid of White Supremacy

Tier One — Genocide 

At the top of the “white supremacy” pyramid are those who call for genocide of blacks or other minorities. No one in the mainstream for the entire history of this nation has ever called for that — but one would not know that today.  According to the NYT, the President is a “white supremacist” who, according to MSNBC, wants to exterminate Latinos. Moreover, according to CNN, Trump is already responsible for more deaths than Mao (40,000,000-75,000,000), Stalin (20,000,000) and Hitler (11,000,000) put together.  And by extension, if you are a Trump supporter. . . .

Tier II –  Violence

a)  Unjust Police Shootings & Police Brutality — This is the BLM obscenity that blacks have more to worry about in the inner cities from police than they do from black on black violence.  Until, of course, one actually looks at the numbers, then at the facts of just about every case — yet you still have virtually all progressives, including Kamala Harris and Fauxcohauntus, pushing this canard, at whatever expense to police such race hustling might bring.

b)  Lynching — The extra-judicial killing of a person as an act of mob justice and with any substantial basis in racism declined precipitously as the Civil Rights movement took hold in the 1950’s.  The last — but perhaps most horrendous — race-based lynching was that of fourteen year old Emmett Till in 1955 Mississippi.  So here we are almost seventy years removed from that event.  The vile racism that gave rise to that event is dead in this country.  But proggies are still trying to paint a link between the racists who murdered Till and all not-progressives today.

For instance, two years ago, Vann Newkirk, writing in The Atlantic in an article entitled How the Blood of Emmett Till Still Stains America Today, proclaimed the lynching of Till an act of “white supremacy.”  So, while the racism that motivated Till’s lynching may be, in all relevant respects, banished from the mainstream of society, it still lives on under the newly minted charge of “white supremacy.”  Non-progressive whites, virtually all of whom are neither committing or tolerating racism, still not only own all the guilt for slavery, but for the lynching of Emmett Till as well.

[Bookworm here: I’d like to suggest that race-based lynching still has a bit of a hold in America, at least as recently as the early 1990s. In 1992, for example, was beaten almost to death because he was a white man in the wrong place. And a year before that, Al Sharpton instigated the Crown Heights riots that saw black men kill random Jewish men after a Jewish motorcade accidentally killed one black child and injured another.]

c)  Hate Crimes — The whole concept of “hate crimes” is one that needs to be banished from American jurisprudence.  That said, it is the perfect metaphor for what is happening in this nation today.  The majority of “hate crimes” — i.e., crimes with a racial component — occurring in this country are progressive hoaxes to drive a racial narrative, with Jussie Smollett being simply the most notable and recent.

Tier III — Calls For Violence:

a)  Neo-Nazi’s, KKK, Burning Crosses — These are the people in this nation who in fact can be called racist and are associated with movements having a history of violence.  These groups are not conservative groups nor are they tolerated in mainstream society.  Today, the total number of people in these organizations nationwide, in a nation of over three hundred million people, is probably at or under 100,000.  I would not be surprised to find about the same number or higher if you add up ANTIFA, anarchists, and black nationalist groups.

b)  The N-Word — The professor lists using the “N” word as a call to violence.  I agree.  I only point out that I look forward to the day when the right understands that being falsely labeled racist is also a call to violence.

c)  Confederate Flag — I am not going to argue this one.  I think Bookworm’s take on the flag and Confederate statutes (see item 11 in the linked post) is the right one, and this is one case where the subjective feelings the flag and paeans to Confederate generals might engender is sufficient justification to move them into museums.

Tier IV — Actual Discrimination

 a)  [Systemic] Mass Incarceration — This has long been a stalking horse for progressives.  For progressives, enforcing the law against blacks is ipso facto proof of racism. The statistics do not show disparate treatment against blacks for sentencing, only that blacks’ rate of criminal conduct is out of proportion to their numbers in society.  Regardless, Trump has in fact been the only President to push through prison reform with an eye towards giving blacks caught up in the prison system a second chance.  That must be “sneaky” white supremacy.

b)  [Systemic] School to Prison Pipeline — Again, another stalking horse, calling this discrimination.  The fact that there might be fundamental problems in the dysfunctional culture of lower socio-economic blacks is never the cause — and by calling the pipeline discrimination, that makes it racist to even discuss and solve the problem of young black men leaving school and heading straight into the prison system.

c)  [Systemic] Racial Profiling and Stop and Frisk — Stopping a person to question or search simply because of that person’s race is a 4th Amendment violation and would be racist.  No one argues that.  But stopping and searching someone is neither a 4th Amendment violent nor racist if, because of surrounding circumstances, the police have a reasonable suspicion that the person might be involved in a crime.  This goes back to NYC’s policy of “stop and frisk” that the NYPD used successfully to bring down crime by and against minorities circa 2000.

d)  [Systemic] Redlining —  Redlining has been illegal since the 1970’s.  It was a practice by financial institutions to refuse loans to people regardless of qualification if they lived in particular areas, most often in inner city areas.  Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act to end it, but then Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd used the CRA to destroy all color-blind lending standards as racist.  This social engineering under the guise of correcting for racism led to the Sub-Prime Crisis and the Great Recession of 2008.

e)  Housing Discrimination and Employment Discrimination — These have been unlawful since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Rare cases of actual racism still occur on the fringes of society and are dealt with through the courts.  That said, the majority of Housing and Employment discrimination cases of today rely on the “disparate impact” theory, which holds that one does not even need to show an intent to discriminate if a policy is shown to affect minorities disproportionately for whatever reason, including, as mentioned above, colorblind reasons.  As Thomas Sowell has opined, much of what the left falsely claims today is racism in society is based on their manipulations using the “disparate impact racket.”

f)  Anti-Immigration Policies — This is pure post-modernism, where the subjective feelings of the progressive author are embraced as objective fact.  There are countless reasons to enforce the border and require that our federal government control immigration.  Indeed, that is an express right and duty of the federal government in Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution.  And yet, for the progressive left, any attempt to stop illegal immigration, and any attempt to deport illegal immigrants is deemed “racist” and is part and parcel of “white supremacy.”

g)  Funding Schools Locally — We’ve been funding schools locally in this country for as long as there have been schools.  It is a state and local function.  It is not an Art. 1, Sec. 8 enumerated power of the federal government, the Department of Education notwithstanding.  As Thomas Sowell points out, the problem with minority educational achievement or lack thereof is not school funding.  But apparently, you are a white supremacist if you do not support a federal takeover of funding for schools.

Tier V — Veiled Racism

a)  Victim Blaming — If you believe that people should address the problems of their community and that they are responsible for their own actions, you are a white supremacist.

b)  Paternalism — If you offer suggestions for minorities to solve the problems of their community, you are a white supremacist.

c)  English Only Initiatives — The ability of a nation’s people to communicate using a common language is near a foundational element of societal success and a keystone for individuals to succeed in society.  That seems like a valid, non-racist basis to require that everyone learn the English language in this country.

d)  Euro-centric Curriculum —  This is nothing more than reverse racism.  Unless one can articulate how substituting X for Y acts as an improvement to our society, then this is nothing more than intentionally destroying the common culture of a nation founded in Western civilization because of identity politics.

e)  Claiming reverse racism — To point out that the progressives are attacking whites on the basis of their skin color alone — which is all the white supremacy movement is — is itself an act of white supremacy.  Apparently, though, while the professor does not make this point, it appears that the progressive left defends itself against charges of racism by claiming minority status.  Somehow, being a minority in proggie land means that obscene racism is not truly racist.  This is all part of the redefinition of “racism” into a purely white, original sin.

f)  Tone Policing —  So telling a minority to tone down if that person is emoting so that you can have an exchange of ideas is racist because . . . minorities can’t control their emotions?

g)  Cultural Appropriation — To borrow from another culture because one appreciates something is about as far from racism as one could act.  How that becomes an act of “white supremacy” is beyond my ken.

h)  Tokenism — So having minority friends is now “white supremacy?”

Tier VI — Minimization

a)  Denying you are a white supremacist — This may seem completely insane, but to be white and deny your white supremacy is proof that you are a white supremacist.  No less than the NYT has proclaimed that in “The Heartbeat of Racism Is Denial.”

b)  Colorblindness — Treating a minority the same as everyone else — the very antithesis of racism — is proof that you are a white supremacist.

c)  Not believing the experiences of people of color —  If you question a person’s narrative or point out that the person’s subjective feelings are not the same as objective facts . . . you are a white supremacist.

d)  Post-Racial Society — I’m not quite sure what the professor means by that, but I am assuming that she means that to posit a post-racial society as the goal for America, as Martin Luther King did, is “white supremacy.”  The goal of progressives is an identity centric society where a critical mass of the identities vote proggie.

Tier VII — Indifference

a)  Remaining Apolitical — This is binary.  You either join the progressives and buy into their obscene canards or you are a white supremacist, even if you could care less about race.

“White Supremacy” is an obscene dark fantasy.  But Project 1619 and the MSM at large are all engaged in pushing this canard.  There is not a single major outlet outside of Fox not running with it.  It is an effort to balkanize and turn our nation from a melting pot into a state based on tribalism permanantly ruled by progressives.  With this latest foray into “white supremacy,” progressives will either keep this obscene dark fantasy of racism in America alive, or progressives will lose any hope of regaining political power.  It will be the ruin of our nation if they succeed.

The post The 1619 Project: Reframing History & Redefining Racism appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.