Category Archives: African Americans

Corporate virtue-signaling about institutional racism hides the real problem in black America

America doesn’t have institutional racism. It has a black community that undercuts itself and enablers who allow blacks to blame others for their failings.

I know this sounds petty given the outrages on American streets, but one of the things that irritates me most is the corporate virtue signaling that’s going on. Whether on their home pages or social media, various corporations are in a race to abase themselves. It’s difficult to determine whether they’re doing this because they think it’s good business, or because their management is now made up almost entirely of leftist-indoctrinated white college grads, or because they’re trying to deter the looters from attacking them. (If that last is their goal, they’re failing miserably, as I’ll discuss more below.)

The most ridiculous thing about corporate America’s pushing the “we stand against systemic racism” narrative is that there is no systemic racism in America. Legally it is not allowed. Practically, there are two real problems, and they’re both buried within the black community. The first problem is that blacks commit crimes in numbers disproportionate to their representation in the population; the second is that there is a damaged black subculture that aims relentlessly downwards, not upwards.

First, the virtue-signaling: At the top of this post you can see a collage. It’s a collection of 13 virtue-signaling moments from American companies just to give you a sense of how desperately they’re embracing the “systemic racism” notion in America. If you scroll to the bottom of this post, you can see the complete images.

None of these corporations engage in discriminatory hiring. Even if they wanted to, it would be illegal. All of these corporations are staffed by university grads who are assiduously non-racist, so the likelihood that they would want to discriminate against anyone other than white males in hiring is slim to nil.

As I noted in the opening paragraph, the corporations are abasing themselves for one of three reasons: A marketing scheme, a plethora of management employees who graduated from American colleges in the last 25 years or so, or a payment to the Black Lives Matter movement along the lines of a protection racket.

If the last, it’s not working. As President Trump tweeted, Macy’s had all of the ground-level windows on its flagship New York store smashed:

A Mercedes-Benz store in Beverly Hills was looted:

A Bank of America in San Bernardino was looted:

A Wells Fargo in Minneapolis was looted:

Amazon trucks were looted in Santa Monica:

A FedEx in Melrose Park was looted:

A Footlocker in Austin was looted:

A Nordstrom in Seattle (Nordstrom’s home town) was burned down:

And of course Target, one of America’s premier virtue signalers, was at the epicenter of looting in its hometown of Minneapolis:

Corporate America has a lot of problems, including cowardice, greed, and way too many leftist management employees, but systemic racism is not one of the problems.

The black community’s problems lie with the black community. It’s true that a disproportionate number of blacks are victims of police violence relative to black presentation in the American population.

Do not forget the statement about lies, damn lies, and statistics. The implications flowing from that statistic are a damn lie. The police are not systematically slaughtering blacks.

The statistic hides the fact that blacks are disproportionately responsible for crime in America:

Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn’t cut it as a plausible explanation.

In other words, the likelihood that blacks will have contact with the police is vastly greater than the likelihood that other racial groups will. Each contact with the police in a crime situation increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.

Moreover, despite primarily preying on each other, blacks are also disproportionately responsible for crimes against whites:

Far from destroying the black body, whites are the overwhelming target of interracial violence. Between 2012 and 2015, blacks committed 85.5 percent of all black-white interracial violent victimizations (excluding interracial homicide, which is also disproportionately black-on-white). That works out to 540,360 felonious assaults on whites. Whites committed 14.4 percent of all interracial violent victimization, or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks. Blacks are less than 13 percent of the national population.

And what about the famous “driving while black” problem? That’s a myth too:

According to the study commissioned by the New Jersey attorney general and leaked first to the New York Times and then to the Web, blacks make up 16 percent of the drivers on the turnpike, and 25 percent of the speeders in the 65-mile-per-hour zones, where profiling complaints are most common. (The study counted only those going more than 15 miles per hour over the speed limit as speeders.) Black drivers speed twice as much as white drivers, and speed at reckless levels even more. Blacks are actually stopped less than their speeding behavior would predict—they are 23 percent of those stopped.

Does this data mean that blacks are less capable of being law-abiding then whites? Of course not.

What it means is that both the black community and its white enablers are giving blacks a pass. The crime problem within the black community is the equivalent of alcoholism.

Early on, the alcoholic denies that there’s any problem at all. Sure, he has a few memory lapses and makes a fool of himself at parties, but it’s not a big deal. When the consequences increase, the alcoholic in denial starts the blame game: My boss is a jerk; my wife is a nag; the cop who pulled me over was an anti-black / anti-Hispanic / anti-white / anti-man / anti-Mercedes driver; that stupid woman cut in front of my car; the judge was a hard-ass….

We all know that the only way the alcoholic is going to end this destructive behavior – destructive to himself, his family, his colleagues, and his community – is for him to acknowledge that he has a problem and that he is the problem.

Slavery ended in 1865. The Jim Crow era ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, almost 60 years ago. Over 85% of the population today was under ten years old the last time institutionalized racism existed. Today’s whites were not the problem with slavery and Jim Crow and today’s blacks were not the victims.

There are racists today. Pick any race, and you’ll find people within it who hate other races. As a Jew, I certainly know about that. After all, next to American Muslims, who hate Jews with a burning fervor, the most anti-Semitic cohort in America is blacks. (The link is a little old, but believe me, since then, the problem has gotten worse, not better.)

These racists are icky people, but they are not what’s standing in the way of blacks. What’s standing in the way is saying the kids who do well in school are “acting white” – and then beating them up. What’s standing in the way is feeling that, because of slavery, you’re entitled to commit crime. What’s standing in the way is fatherless homes because the welfare system makes men expensive. After all, welfare is worth more than a low-salary. What’s standing in the way is a bad attitude, which sees blacks assume that everyone hates them.

This is a Jewish joke. It could be a black one:

Man 1 sees Man 2 walking down the street, obviously upset. Man 1 asks Man 2 what happened.

Man 2 explains, “I-I-I ap-ap-applied for a j-j-j-job as a D-D-D-J and-and-and they t-t-t-turned me d-d-down. D-d-d-amned anti-S-s-semites.

No, it’s not always anti-Semites and racism. Sometimes it’s you. When that small cohort of blacks that treats itself like garbage starts cleaning up its act – less crime, less antipathy to education, more marriage, a smaller chip on its collective shoulder, a greater willingness to bring energy and intelligence to work – then I’ll believe it when blacks and white liberals say we live in a world of systemic, institutionalized racism.

I blame middle-class blacks, too, even though they don’t show any of those behaviors. Somehow they managed to escape racism, but when they’re faced with that percentage of blacks that fails at everything but crime, suddenly these middle-class blacks blame racism and only racism.

Going back to my alcoholism analogy, these middle-classers are enablers. And by the way, a lot of people like being enablers. They complain about the person they’re enabling, but they enjoy the feeling of superiority.

Despite 4,000 years of consistent genocidal mania, which ended with 6,000,000 slaughtered in four years, Jews have done all right. Their collective success is not because of some evil cabal. It comes about because the Bible tells them to live justly, and the majority of Jews do.

I am certain that every black in America is at least as good as, as smart as, as honest as, and as capable as every Jew in America. Or, for that matter, the equal of Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and all other races in America. I believe we’re all God’s children or Nature’s children or whatever’s children, but that we are fundamentally equal. Sure, there’s always going to be a bell curve, with some people more athlete, more beautiful, more mathematically-gifted, or more verbal, but that’s a HUMAN bell curve, not a racial bell curve. What I almost sure of is that those people who strive, who aspire, and who abide by basic legal principles (including driving at the speed limit) will – on average – do better. Not all will. Yes, some will run afoul of jerks, racists, and even evil cops. But on average, in America, the recipe for success is always the same: Work hard in school, work hard at work, abide by the law, get married, have children, stay married.

(I know that black kids are trapped in stinky schools. Blame virtue-signaling white leftists and black race hustlers for that because they oppose vouchers that increase competition and, therefore, quality. But blame the black community for not emphasizing education and allowing their children to run with the idea that getting educated is a form of race betrayal.)

So, now I role back to where I started, which is those virtue-signaling corporations. These craven enterprises are simply more enablers who perpetuate the race-aholism that perpetually afflicts America’s black community.

Random postscript: Considering that blacks are the primary victims of black crime, I think all law-abiding black citizens should be armed. Since the problem of black crime begins at home (meaning the neighborhood), that should be the best way to control the problem. Unfortunately, those white liberal enablers and their black race-hustler cronies have decided to disarm those law-abiding blacks suffering in urban black communities.


Every black progressive should watch PBS’s Clarence Thomas bio

Dear @cthagod, now that you’ve interviewed Joe Biden, I suggest that you learn about Clarence Thomas to clarify your thinking about blacks and Democrats.

In the past two days, two things collided in my brain. The first was the interview that Charlamagne tha God did with Joe Biden, from which emerged Joe’s epic gaffe telling blacks that they’re black only if they vote for him. The second was Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, which I believe is still available for viewing for another week.

You’ve all heard about Biden’s utterly tone-deaf statement, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” There’s no doubt in my mind that Joe thought he was funny. He did not intend to be either offensive or racist. Biden either thought he was making a “no true Scotsman” joke, or he believed that his lifetime of race-based politics makes him some sort of honorary African-American. If he thinks the latter, he also probably thinks he can use the “n” word too, which is a scary thought, especially since incipient dementia has a way of leeching away a person’s social controls.

That Joe was stupid and offensive was the least interesting thing to me about the interview. Charlamagne is a decent interviewer. He was polite, but he called Biden out on the things that concerned Charlamagne and his audience. He then sat back and just let Biden talk. The only problem is that I don’t believe Charlamagne knew quite how many lies or – let’s be kind – distortions Joe included in his wandering narrative.

He distorted his record on the coronavirus response. He would have people believe that he handled things better than Trump did. His January 27 article, though, did not have any useful concrete statements. Instead, he ultimately insisted that America needs to work with (and, of course, fund) the international community. Biden also conflated two different things: A runaway virus in the only country in the world that is as globally connected, if not more globally connected, than America, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a scary disease in a thankfully small and quarantinable corner of West Africa.

On January 31, when Trump ignored the WHO’s continued attempts to downplay the Wuhan virus and closed our borders to China, Joe promptly lambasted Trump as hysterical and xenophobic. Biden then did nothing concrete until mid-March, when he finally released his plan.

Aside from echoing much that Trump had already done, the plan was the equivalent of Anne Elk’s theory about dinosaurs, for what Biden basically promised was to create an infrastructure that would create a plan.

Having lied, er, distorted his record, Biden tripped lightly over to systemic racism. He noted (accurately) that blacks are harder hit by the Wuhan virus. Doing so ignored the fact that blacks are concentrated in Democrat-run urban areas, which have been hit harder than most places anyway.

This is especially true for New York, where both de Blasio and Cuomo continued to let packed subway trains run. While more affluent whites were working from or sheltering at home, less affluent blacks were packed into underground moving Petri dishes. That’s not on Trump.

Blacks also have more risk factors for dying from the Wuhan virus, such as obesity and the diseases of obesity – Type II diabetes and heart disease. What no one will admit is that, just as the Japanese as a culture eat that super-healthy diet that has them routinely living into their 90s, blacks in America eat traditional Southern food, much of it a fusion of African and American cuisine.

Although Southern food is some of the most delicious food on planet earth, it’s also some of the least healthy. I have heartburn for days after eating a Southern meal. Sure, you can blame poverty, but culture and food choices matter too.

And then there’s Vitamin D. More and more studies are showing that Vitamin D is critical to people’s immune function. Elderly people and blacks are chronically low on Vitamin D.

Blacks also metabolize Vitamin D differently, because they can draw from it a subset of the vitamin that helps build strong bones. This does not mean, however, that this same vitamin subset helps black people’s immune systems.

Indeed, if they are other deficient in Vitamin D, that may also help explain the problems of obesity, Type II diabetes, and heart disease. Skin pigmentation meant to filter out the African sun beating down on people who lived outdoors for tens of thousands of years may not serve people well in northern climates or living life indoors.

Still, as far as Biden is concerned, the black mortality rate is all Trump’s fault because . . . systemic racism.

And that’s where I want to jump from talking about Biden and get to Charlamagne tha God and Clarence Thomas.

Charlamagne tha God didn’t start life out as a hip talk show host. Instead, he was born Lenard Larry McKelvey in 1978, just outside of Charleston (i.e., coastal-ish South Carolina). Clarence Thomas was born in 1948, in truly coastal Pin Point, Georgia, before moving as a child to Savannah. The two men, therefore, were separated by thirty years and about 120 miles. Those 120 miles don’t make a big difference, but the thirty years sure do.

In the 1990s, when I was in my thirties and a Democrat, Thomas was the black sellout who did mean things to Anita Hill. Today, I’m in my 50s and a conservative. Until this afternoon, all I knew about Clarence Thomas was that he is a strict constructionist and originalist on the Supreme Court whose writing and thinking I deeply admire. He is, I believe, the unsung intellectual genius on the court.

What changed this afternoon was that I watched that PBS special about Thomas. Everything in it was new to me because I had not read My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir, Thomas’s autobiography. Watching the show was a revelation. Thomas has lived an extraordinary life.

Clarence Thomas was born into rural poverty in the Jim Crow south. His first language was Gullah, a dialect unique to coastal South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Shortly after Thomas was born, his father left, so his mother was raising three children on her own. She eventually relocated with her two younger children (Thomas and his younger brother) to Savannah. They lived in segregated squalor that modern Americans cannot even imagine.

Eventually, Thomas’s grandparents stepped in, taking him and his brother into their clean, shiny, new home. His grandfather was a semi-literate, incredibly hard-working, God-fearing martinet. During the school year, the boys attended a primarily black parochial school where the Irish nuns made it clear that the black children under their care were all children of God. During the summer, their grandfather had the boys working on an old-fashioned family farm, one without any modern farm implements. Thomas’s grandfather infused his life with meaning, discipline, and faith.

At sixteen, Thomas decided he had a calling and entered a local seminary. His grandfather told him that, having made this choice, Thomas must stick it out. If Thomas didn’t become a priest, said his grandfather, he would be on his own, without his family’s support.

After two years there, Thomas heard a fellow seminarian celebrate Martin Luther King’s assassination. Disgusted, Thomas turned his back on becoming a priest and on God. His grandfather, terribly disappointed, kicked him out, telling Thomas that, having made a man’s decision, he was now responsible for himself.

The only lifeline Thomas had was that he had been admitted to the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. Because Thomas had grown up in segregation and lived through the traumas of MLK’s death, Robert Kennedy’s death, and the hideously ugly fights about school segregation, he was deeply disenchanted with America. He became a hardcore leftist and instantly fell in with the school’s black student movement, which was a leftist, indeed, communist movement. So involved was Thomas that he helped found the Black Students Union there.

What changed Thomas was the night he went to Boston to participate in protests. He was so appalled by the unbridled violence of the night (and, he suggests, by what he did), that he prayed for the first time in two years. He renounced violence and hatred, and put his life on a new track.

Thomas had always been interested in the law, which he understood controlled the world and controlled blacks. As I argued in an older post, the problem in the South was the law as laid down by the government:

Civil rights mean small government, with the government limited primarily (although not entirely) to protecting citizens from itself.

Martin Luther King understood this.  The Civil Rights movement was a stand against overt government encroachment on the rights of black people.  The Southern States, ignoring the Declaration’s acknowledgment that all meninherently possessed civil rights, used the government as a weapon against the black people within its borders.  The real problem blacks faced wasn’t that their fellow white citizens behaved hostilely, and even murderously, towards them.  Had the government fulfilled its policing responsibilities and stepped forward to protect those citizens, Jim Crow would have been a short-lived phenomenon.  The real problem was that Southern government itself encroached on citizens’ freedom.

It was Southern government that legislatively segregated schools, segregated housing, segregated business establishments, segregated marriages and enacted barriers between blacks and ballots.  It was Southern government that was a “Form of Government [that had become] destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for black people],” making it the civil  “Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

I figured the above out through aging and brute intellectual work. Thomas figured it out because he lived it. He realized that some people are good and some are jerks, but that it’s the government, acting through the laws it enacts, that forced upon blacks the rules that made their lives miserable. With this belief, and with good grades, Thomas chose to go to Yale Law School.

I’ll skip over the middle parts, which you know: After Yale, Thomas finally got a job when a Republican politician, John Danforth, hired him to work in Missouri. He ended up in Reagan’s EEOC, became a respected judge, and got nominated for the Supreme Court. (The documentary covers all this; I’m the one skipping it.)

The documentary covers quite well that disgraceful episode in America’s political life. As I said, back then, I was too stupid to understand. I got all my news from NPR, The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The New Republic. I was pro-abortion and thought it was splendid that the Democrats were making abortion a litmus test for the Supreme Court and that Anita Hill conveniently emerged to take out a pro-Life black man.

I am only grateful that I have lived long enough and become wise enough to understand the terrible thing that the Democrats – led by Joe Biden and Teddy “Kopechne killer” Kennedy – did to a conservative black man. (Thomas’s only comment about Biden was that then, as now, Biden made no sense.) I’m also, as I said, wise enough to know that Thomas will go down in history as one of America’s greatest legal minds.

So let’s go back to where I started, to Charlamagne tha God and Clarence Thomas. The younger man grew up geographically near to Thomas, but in a world that wasn’t just thirty years away, it was a universe away. I don’t doubt that Charlamagne’s experiences as a black man in modern America were troubled. He hints that he had run-ins with the law before he found his way.

Having said that, Charlamagne did not, could not, experience the degradation that was visited upon Clarence Thomas, a black man raised in a grotesquely racist, segregated community; a black man who was brilliant and graduated from America’s top law school, only to find himself unemployed; and a black man whom Democrats attacked by pinning on him one of the oldest racist tropes, which is that black men were unable to control their animal sexuality.

So here’s my question for Charlamagne: Is it possible that Clarence Thomas’s belief in the wisdom of the Founders — imperfect men who nevertheless had a brilliant vision — is of more worth than your ingrained support for the Democrat Party and progressive politics? And is it possible that Clarence Thomas’s belief in the individual rather than in divisive labels and powerful government entities is at least worth your consideration?

I urge you to watch the PBS show (with “you” being Charlamagne and everyone else who reads this) and to think long and hard about how Thomas, slowly and very painfully, reached his conclusions about conservativism. You might find that you view differently how the Democrat party uses and abuses American blacks, so much so that Biden thinks it’s funny to tell blacks who they are for political purposes.

COVID-19: Behavior changes mean we’re not victims

Seeing COVID-19-related behavioral changes in Walmart, especially among African-Americans, told me that we can control our destinies and reopen America.

I’ve always been a rather fastidious person, but that went stratospheric in around 2003, which was the year that I stumbled non-stop from one cold to another for almost eight months. At about the same time, I read that shopping cart handles are among the filthiest things we touch. Those handles are especially high in fecal matter. That makes sense for two reasons: (1) A lot of people (at least back in the pre-COVID-19 era) weren’t good about washing their hands after using the bathroom and (2) toddlers sit in shopping carts. Toddlers are cute, but when I look at them, all I really see is a walking, talking, drooling, snot-dripping, sneezing, sniffling, licking Petri dish with hands.

For the last 17 years, I’ve always had hand sanitizer in the car. When I’m in a store, I never get my hands anywhere near my face. When I leave the store, before I even enter the car or, God forbid, touch the steering wheel or anything else, I bend down to the hand sanitizer stowed in my car door, use my wrist to pump some into my palm, and smear it all over my hands. If I used my phone before I disinfected my hands, it gets wiped down too. Thanks to that change, I reduced to an average of one or two the number of colds I get per year.

Over the past, oh, I don’t know, five years or so, grocery stores have started having sanitizing wipe stations near the shopping carts. I’ve always stopped to use that station. Before 2020, I noticed that few others did.

In the past six weeks, though, whenever I shopped, I was seeing more and more . . . and more people using the sanitizing wipes. Eventually, the stores ran out of wipes. In the last week, the stores where I live, near Charleston, have had employees stationed at the entrance wiping carts for customers.

The biggest change I’ve seen lately, though, has been masks. Two weeks ago, I saw about five people with masks at my local Walmart. Last week, I saw about 20% of people with masks (and I was one). Today, about 40% of the people at the store had masks. What really impressed me was that almost all the black customers wore masks. This matters because, as the media have been at pains to point out, the virus has attack minority communities with special virulence.

That blacks were masked makes me believe that the White House’s messaging has been very good. As you probably know, Yamiche Alcindor, PBS’s resident race hustler/”journalist”, accused Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, who is black, of racism for speaking directly to the black community and telling them that they had to change their behavior if they wanted to lower their COVID-19 risks. I think his message was right on the money — and it apparently was the same message he and Mike Pence had been sharing all last week with minority communities.

Adams began by explaining that, in some ways, blacks and other minorities are screwed. They have higher risks of co-morbidity factors, such as asthma, heart disease, and diabetes. In addition, they’re more likely to have lifestyles that increase the risk of the disease spreading. They live in more densely populated communities, have multi-generational households, and hold jobs that don’t allow telecommuting.

But here’s the important thing he said — every person has the power to control his or her own risks:

You are not helpless, and it’s even more important that in communities of color we adhere to the taskforce guidelines to slow the spread.

Stay at home, if possible. If you must go out, maintain six feet of distance between you and everyone else, and wear a mask if you’re going to be within six feet of others. Wash your hands more often than you ever dreamed possible. Avoid alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.

And call your friends on your family. Check in on your mother. She wants to hear from you right now. And speaking of mothers, we need you to do this, if not for yourself, then for your Abuela. Do it for your granddaddy. Do it for your Big Momma. Do it for your PopPop.

We need you to understand, especially in communities of color, we need you to step up and help stop the spread so we can protect those who are most vulnerable.

While the execrable Alcindor was playing “gotcha” about racism, the black community was apparently listening. At Walmart today, at least half the shoppers were black when I was there. When I got my cart, I saw every one of them use the disinfectant to wipe his or her cart. More than that, as I noted above, most of the black shoppers were wearing masks (as was I). That means that a higher percentage of black shoppers in the store were wearing masks than were white shoppers.

Regardless of color, people at the store were in high spirits. They had a sense, I believe, that they were taking control of their destiny. They weren’t just sitting there waiting to die. They were out and about, but they were making intelligent choices: cleaning objects that transfer disease, wearing masks, using social distancing. It’s huge to have sense of control.

I pity the people in places such as Michigan where they are mere pawns, not allowed to go anywhere or do anything. Knowing that you can affect your destiny is a mental and emotional game-changer. Dr. Adams told one of America’s hardest-hit communities that its members could affect their own destinies and, from where I sat (or stood), that community stepped up to the challenge.

Giving people control over their own lives and destinies is how we get America working again. (Although I’d be happy to see America’s institutions of higher indoctrination stay closed.) The government won’t save you. You will save you, and you’ll save your Abuela, granddaddy, Big Momma, Oma or Opa, Mama and Papa, Nana or whatever else you call your beloved parents and grandparents.

The best way to keep us from being victims is for the government to stop victimizing us — and for the race hustlers and Trump haters to stop trying to paint us as victims.

The post COVID-19: Behavior changes mean we’re not victims appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

The Democrat victimhood mantle, plus racial education madness

The story of the sweet beer guy and the doxxing reporter is a microcosm of Democrat behavior, plus racial — and racist — education madness in Seattle.

The first part of this post is about the way in which the Carson King and Aaron Calvin saga parallels the saga of Trump, the Democrats, the Russian Hoax, and the investigation into the origins of the hoax. The second part looks at education insanity in Seattle. I’ve done a podcast on the same topics, which is not identical to this post, but it’s close enough that, if you prefer reading, you won’t miss anything by not listening to the podcast.* And if you listened to the podcast, you’ll find in this post links to the things I mentioned in the podcast.

The Beer Guy, the nasty reporter, Trump, and the nasty Democrats. You’ve probably already heard this story, so I won’t go on at length about it. Carson King is a young man who, during ESPN game night, put up a sign asking people to buy him a beer and giving his Venmo account name. It was silly, audacious, and charming. People responded with cheerful vigor, eventually sending King $1.12 million. King promptly turned around and donated the money to a hospital in Iowa City, where it will be used primarily to help children with cancer. This is a nice guy.

Aaron Calvin is not a nice guy. He was a young reporter at the Des Moines Register. He thought it would be a good scoop to troll King’s twitter feed. After crawling back eight years, he found a tweet or two in which King quoted some movie or TV show in a way that is no longer considered politically correct. (Keep in mind that what’s acceptable changes on an almost daily basis now.) King gave the ritual apology.

Apropos these ritualistic apologies, I’m waiting for someone to say, “No, I won’t apologize. What I said or did 10 or 20 or 30 years ago was within the acceptable norms of the time at which I did or said it (including the norms for 16 year old boys at that time). I certainly wouldn’t do it now because values have changed (although it’s not clear whether for the better), but I will not apologize when I did nothing wrong.” Still, I totally understand that King, raised in cancel culture, felt that he had to apologize.

All of the above was the norm: Some ordinary person does something nice; some snarky, sleazy reporter doxes the person; and the person ritually apologizes.

Something different happened this time, though. While King bowed low, others fought on his behalf. They trolled Calvin’s social media and found him saying worse things (by today’s standards) than what King had said. Although the Des Moines Register refused to apologize to King, because being a media outlet means never having to say you’re sorry, it did fire Calvin.

At this point, Calvin could have said, “I’ve learned my lesson about doxxing and apologized.” He didn’t. Instead, he played the victim card!

Little Calvin, the narcissist, is going to have a lousy life, one in which he’s always the victim of other people being mean to him — and he’ll never understand that they are being mean to him because he was a vile pig to them. Or maybe he’ll mature and become the nice, decent person he can be if he puts aside this narcissistic mindset.

What fascinated me about the above story is that it is precisely the same story, except in microcosm, that’s been playing out nationally between Trump, on the one hand, and the Democrats in both Congress and the media, on the other hand.

Trump did a good thing — he convinced enough people that his values were in line with theirs that he ought to become president. These values were, up until about 20 years ago, completely mainstream American values. Trump is Carson King.

The Democrats were outraged that Trump won. They did everything they could to destroy him. The Democrats are Aaron Calvin.

Trump, however, did not do what King did, which was to apologize. Instead, he stood his ground.

Trump was shown to be innocent by the Democrats’ own anointed savoir, Robert Mueller. Now, Trump is doing what the third party warriors did on King’s behalf, which is revealing the bad motives behind the Democrats’ actions.

This means that he is approaching other countries and saying, “Please find out what role your country played in the 2016 meddling in the American election.”

Like Calvin, the Democrats are screaming their heads off that they’re the victims. It was only right that they should destroy Trump, but how dare Trump turn the tables on them!

Incidentally, although Anheuser-Busch cravenly pulled out of a contract with King, I have heard that King got a new, better one with another company. Also, I’ve heard that people are boycotting Busch for its cowardice, which is only right and proper.

Education madness in Seattle. I was talking to a young friend today who just got a lovely job offer. The interview came about because a friend recommended her to the company. The offer occurred because she’s smart, hardworking, personable, organized, and a perfect fit for the job.

It’s probable that, had there been 30 other equally qualified candidates, the company could have just pulled a name out of a hat but, instead, the company gave the job to my young friend because she came with a recommendation for a source they respected. That’s life. Life isn’t always fair. Not everyone has a friend who can help them with such useful specificity. In a sane world, when we have such a friend, we are grateful that this person knocked on the door for us, but it’s always our responsibility to prove ourselves worthy once that door is opened.

Most of my young friend’s own friends were happy for her. Perhaps they said, “I wish that would happen to me,” but it didn’t adulterate their pleasure in her good fortune.

One of them, though, found it unforgivable. Although white herself, she castigated my young friend for benefiting from white privilege and strongly suggested that she ought not to have gotten the job and, once she got it, she should have rejected it in solidarity with others less privileged than she is.

Almost immediately after that happened, a friend in Marin sent me a message the school sent to all parents from the high school principal. I thought it made for barfy reading:

As I mentioned in the September newsletter, the Redwood staff will continue our anti-racism, anti-hate and anti-bias work to make sure that Redwood is a school where diversity and a variety of experiences and perspectives are valued as beneficial to all of us in our learning community.

One of the key features of this work is upstanding. Upstanding is the opposite of bystanding. Upstanding is being active, not passive. Upstanding is standing up and saying something or doing something when we see or can prevent wrong or hurt. It is the opposite of “letting it go,” “looking away” and “turning a blind eye.” Upstanding is saying something when a racist, insensitive or stereotyping comment is made. Upstanding is helping someone who is being picked on or bullied or attacked. Upstanding is reporting a problem to an adult in our school or confidentially letting us know through our confidential tip line. Anti-racism, anti-hate and anti-bias work requires us to upstand if we are to make a positive difference to our school culture and community. If we want to appreciate each other and embrace and celebrate our differences, we need to upstand when we see or experience racism, hate or bias.

Upstanding is important in other areas as well as anti-racist work. It is important when we see sexual harassment, bullying and other mistreatment of others whether in person or online. Sometimes upstanding means saying something to others (always in a respectful and appropriate way). Other times, upstanding means sharing your concerns with a school staff member. Either way, the difference between upstanding and bystanding is the difference between doing something to make our school culture better for everyone at Redwood and ignoring the type of behavior that can hurt others, emotionally and/or physically.

My friend told me that the school has been shutting down extracurricular programs to fund all this social justice stuff.

Also, this school is not a hotbed of racial strife and hatred. It’s an ordinary school in a relatively affluent neighborhood, with families that are almost entirely Progressive, all of whom preach political correctness. This is virtue-signaling pure and simple.

Moreover, it’s a lie. If your child goes into the school and starts preaching about the Second Amendment, I can guarantee you that your child will find himself in a police station for being a threat. Conservativism, whether political or social, is not welcome there.

But the above message is where people like my young friend’s ill-wisher learn their ideas about “privilege.”

Once upon a time, if you came from a “privileged” background (which meant affluent and educated), you were grateful and, if you were well brought up, you believed it was your responsibility to share that privilege and to help other people.

Today, though, “privilege” is code for “white self-loathing.” These young people are being taught to hate themselves and, instead of sharing their blessings, they’re being told that they need to give them up. This is not about raising people up but about tearing people down. It’s the politics of greed and resentment written into our nation’s social fabric and our young people’s minds.

Which leads me to what’s going on in the Seattle Public School District. This is another school district in which black students are failing and the district, rather than teaching better, is doubling down on the politics of victimhood and resentment.

In May 2019, Stephan Blanford, a deeply Progressive former member of the school board launched an attack on those who failed to agree with the school’s Progressive strategic plan. I’ll get to the plan in a minute, but I just want to cite the statistics that Blanford and the Board felt justified the new plan:

Today, students in Seattle Public Schools lag behind students in other large school districts in our area. Only 53 percent of Seattle students meet grade-level science standards. Compared to nearby Bellevue and Lake Washington school districts, Seattle is underperforming by significant margins.

This statistic and others like it don’t capture the whole story. The achievement gap between higher- and lower-performing schools remains significant in Seattle. Our failures to address inequity have dramatic impacts on the lives of real kids, many of them students of color, whose parents are less likely to engage with our city’s power structure or follow online blog debates.

The District’s answer to a very real problem is victimhood. I’ve embedded the first page of strategic plan, below. The highlights are mine. You can click on the image twice to enlarge it:

The rest of the plan is here.

As you can see, while the goals are laudable, the method to achieve them is to drill into the students that they are victims of an inherently racist system. That’s bad. What’s really bad is the “math ethnic studies framework” the school district worked up for the kids. To understand what you’re reading, you need to know that “SWBAT” means “students will be able to. This time I’m embedding the entire document. Again, the highlights are mine and you can enlarge the images by clicking on them twice:

Translated: “Dear black children, everything that’s important about math predates the Greeks. The Greeks stole from Black Africans and Egyptians. Moreover, when this stolen math came Westerners compounded this theft by stealing Arabic numbers and the concept of zero from the Arabs (who first stole them from the Indian subcontinent). Since its origins in Africa and India, math has been used to destroy you, to oppress you, to demean you, to deny you opportunities to succeed, and to humiliate you. It is a vile instrument of white hegemony over the black man. Oh, and you’d better learn it because it’s a good thing to know.”

In California in the 1970s through the 1990s, there was a totally misbegotten “self-esteem” theory in education. This theory was premised on the observation that good students had high self-esteem. The idiocrats in education concluded that high self-esteem made for good students. It never occurred to them that hard work and the reward of learning created high self-esteem, rather than self-esteem driving hard work and learning. California ended up with several generations of children who felt great about themselves, but who could barely read, write, or do math, and who were completely ignorant about the world.

What’s happening in Seattle is worse. Seattle is create generations of children with a profound sense of victimhood, resentment, and rancor, and then expecting them to embrace education. Only a Progressive could think that this is a pathway to instilling a love of learning into children.

*I’d originally tried doing identical posts and podcasts, but that wasn’t working for me. I seem to use different parts of my brain when I talk and when I write. I ended up simply reading my posts aloud for the podcast, which really killed the fun for me. I’m now trying a system I think will work better, which is to go in this order (1) thinking about things; (2) making notes and collecting documents; (3) podcasting in a more free-form way; (4) writing a companion/parallel post. As always, I value your feedback.

NOTE: In the podcast, I mentioned one of my favorite books, which is an early insight into the Leftist takeover of education and media. The book is Helen MacInnes’s Neither Five Nor Three. I wrote about it here.

The post The Democrat victimhood mantle, plus racial education madness appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Democrats: Enabling dangerous pathologies in black America

If Dems were parents and black Americans were their children, we would clearly see that Dems are enablers cultivating their children’s worst behaviors.

Although I no longer post on my real-me Facebook account, I still lurk periodically. One of the most interesting things about doing so is seeing what my Proggie friends are posting. For two years, they posted non-stop about “Russia! Russia! Russia!” and were open with their belief that Trump was either an idiot or an evil mastermind. Ever since the Mueller report emerged, though, they’ve pivoted away from Russia entirely, and are focused solely on getting an open border for America.

Interestingly, though, my pet Lefties have been completely silent about Trump’s awesome suggestion that all the people flooding the border be placed in sanctuary cities and communities that support illegal immigration. Oh, and if you haven’t seen Tucker Carlson on that issue, you must:

But I digress….

One of my old Proggie friends posted the following on her Facebook page:

My first thought when I saw that poster is that I don’t trust European data. I’m sorry, but I don’t.

I became suspicious years ago when I learned how different countries treat their infant mortality information. America is one of the few countries (or maybe the only country) to count every infant born alive as “alive,” even if it dies within minutes of birth. You’d think that every country would count “live” births that way, but you’d be wrong. Most other countries count as live births only those babies that are certain to live. It makes their numbers look better.

My second thought was that, even if I assume that the data is correct, it simply reflects a stable, old, homogeneous culture. And this is where I wandered into thinking about what Democrats have done to American blacks.

You see, in America, while it’s true that guns contribute to more murders than is the case in Europe, there’s one sad and horrible fact behind that statistic: The American numbers are driven almost entirely by black on black crime. If you remove blacks from the statistics, white America has more or less the same gun crime rate as the rest of Europe.

My next intellectual leap was to think that there’s probably something very similar going on with abortions — that is, that black Americans are one of the primary drivers behind America’s high abortion numbers. After all, we already know that in major American cities, more black babies are aborted than are born. We also know that, when it comes to out-of-wedlock pregnancy, blacks also lead in that metric. More than 70% of black children today are raised in single parent — i.e., poor, single mother — homes.

Those numbers — inordinate numbers of murders, abortions, and out-of-wedlock children — are pathologies. When they happen within a single community, they are sick, self-harming behaviors. And please note that they are behaviors. They have nothing to do with skin color. They are choices not genetic destiny.

If we think of America as a family, large sectors of black America are the troubled sibling whose always coming home in the back of the police car or hanging at in the local Planned Parenthood. Some of the other siblings in this family — Caucasians, Asians, East Indians — are the high achievers, who get all the praise. Hispanics might be the sibling who can’t decide if he wants to hang with his good brothers or his bad ones.

If we continue the family metaphor, the different political parties can be the parents. Republicans are the mommy and Democrats are the daddy. Imagine these parents going to a family counselor for advice about this child who is harming himself and causing ripples of harm to the whole family.

This is the point at which I imagine a good counselor turning to that Democrat daddy and saying, “You’re an enabler.” If Democrat daddy pretends ignorance, the counselor would explain,

Enabling is “removing the natural consequences to the addict of his or her behavior.” Professionals warn against enabling because evidence has shown that an addict experiencing the damaging consequences of his addiction on his life has the most powerful incentive to change. Often this is when the addict “hits bottom” – a term commonly referred to in Alcoholics Anonymous.

Codependents often feel compelled to solve other people’s problems. If they’re involved with addicts, particularly drug addicts, they usually end up taking on the irresponsible addict’s responsibilities.

Their behavior starts as a well-intentioned desire to help, but in later stages of addiction, they act out of desperation. The family dynamics become skewed, so that the sober partner increasingly over-functions and the addict increasingly under-functions.

This builds resentment on both sides, along with the addict’s expectation that the over-functioning partner will continue to make things right when the addict doesn’t meet his or her responsibilities.

When black sibling comes home pregnant or gets involved in crime, Republican mommy says, “I love you, but I am not going to protect you from the consequences of your actions. You know the difference between right and wrong, and you made the wrong choice. I’ve nagged you forever about staying in school, not sleeping around, not running around with the bad kids, getting a job, being reliable, etc. I’ll always love you, but you need to accept responsibility for what you’re doing.”

Democrat daddy, on the other hand, says, “It’s not your fault that you got pregnant or got involved in crime. It’s your white sister’s fault. Or it’s your Asian brother’s fault. They made you feel bad about yourself, and you had to act out to get my attention and have me prove my love for you by giving you a pass and blaming someone else for your behavior. Or maybe it’s your Hispanic brother’s fault because he encouraged you to be bad. Anyway, I’ll take you get an abortion and I’ll tell the judge you’re not responsible for robbing that grocery store. You ought to be given a pass for your bad behavior because it’s just not fair that you’re not like the rest of your siblings. And that’s how much I love you.”

If that dysfunctional family were in your neighborhood, you would look at the Democrat daddy and know in an instant that, by constantly excusing his black child’s behavior, he’s giving black child not just permission but actual encouragement to be bad. Meanwhile, while you’d sympathize with Republican mommy’s efforts to make things right, you’d tell her one of two things: “Either kick Democrat daddy out on his ass or . . . . Well, there is no ‘or.’ Kick him out. He’s destroying your black child by being an enabler.”

I believe strongly that Candace Owens is right that the American black community is in trouble. Sadly, though, just like the junkie in the quotation above, while large segments of the American black community hover near rock bottom, which is the point at which they would realize that they have to change, Democrats keep enabling them. Democrats excuse every type of malfeasance by blaming other people for black pathologies.

Just as with the junkie, though, all that the Democrats are doing is destroying their child. The Democrats’ love of self (and, in the case of political Democrats, as opposed to my hypothetical Democrat daddy, their love of power) far outweighs their concern for their child. Either they’re faking love or their love is the worst kind of enabling that, by stroking the parent’s ego, destroys the child.

Dear black Americans: Please save yourselves because the Democrat party, out of self-love and a lust for power, is bound and determined to destroy you.

The post Democrats: Enabling dangerous pathologies in black America appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 4/10/19 — the flyover country edition

This discursive Bookworm Beat wanders from American black culture, to evil Leftists, to the wonders of Wal-Mart versus the horrors of socialized medicine.

Everything Leftists hate about America. I’ve been spending some time of late in small town America — in Eastern Tennessee to be specific. Frankly, I can see why coastal blue staters hate this part of America. There are so many things here that give offense: good suburban infrastructure, happy people, friendly interactions between the races, staggeringly beautiful nature with lots of open space, Wal-Marts, lawns that homeowners tend every weekend, and lots of pro-Trump and pro-Second Amendment bumper stickers on cars. This kind of well-managed, all-American environment is enough to give any Leftist chronic heartburn and a desire to destroy.

Speaking of those lawns, even though today is not a weekend day, I worked with a friend to get rid of ivy that had overtaken a corner of his property.

Ivy looks so pretty, doesn’t it? It’s not. There’s nothing pretty about it. It’s like Kudzu’s younger brother.

I filled seven big black garbage bags with the stuff and only cleared out 2/3 of it. I am exhausted. I also feel pretty darn self-righteous, though, which helps offset some of the fatigue.

But enough about living the good life in flyover country America. Let me get down to the brass tacks of today’s stories.

For American blacks, the problem isn’t race, it’s culture; more specifically, welfare culture. I’m going to assume that all of you saw Candace Owen’s testimony before a Democrat-run House Committee anxious to find a white nationalism problem where none exists. Owens was obviously nervous, but she was also rocking and rolling, talking about pathologies within the African American community that have nothing to do with white nationalism.

No wonder that the utterly vile Ted Lieu tried to smear Owens as a Hitler lover while the brain dead (Go)Nadler wrongly chastised her for calling Lieu stupid. The Democrats should be deeply embarrassed that these two moronic, immoral people represent them.

Shame, though, isn’t part of a Democrat lexicon unless the Democrat is trying to shame someone else. In fact, what the Leftist media did to try to offset the damage that Owens imposed on the Leftist brand was to repeat Lieu’s smear that a black woman is a Hitler lover. Even worse, those Democrats I follow on Facebook, rather than asking, as Owens did, “How dumb do you think we are?” gleefully passed on those same offensive and nonsensical smears.

A friend of mine keeps saying, “I don’t see any way that we’re going to avoid a Second Civil War.” I always come back at him saying, “We’re already in the Second Civil War. There just haven’t been any shots fired; only hats attacked.” (One of the more insane attacks involved a white woman attacking a Hispanic woman for being a racist because the Hispanic woman were a MAGA hat. As (Go)Nadler demonstrated, white Leftists aren’t even pretending to use their brains anymore.)

What I want to address here briefly is Candace’s point about self-inflicted pathologies within the black community. She’s right, of course, as I’ve blogged here before.

I’ll just add two things. First, while those pathologies were present in black communities through the early 1960s thanks to systemic racial discrimination in the form of slavery, Jim Crow in the South, and open racism in the North, the reality is that by the early 1960s, blacks were making huge social and economic gains by following the universal rules for success in a free market economy: education, job, marriage, children, in that order.

What brought all this to a screeching halt was Johnson’s “Great Society,” which was intended, as Johnson himself admitted to a friend, to keep “n*****s voting for Democratic for 200 years.”  (Some say this quotation is apocryphal, but it’s certainly held up to reality for almost 60 years.) Suddenly, education, jobs, and marriages went out the window. All that remained was children: half of which have been aborted and, of those not aborted, over of 70% of whom have been raised in poverty-stricken homes with single mothers getting some form of welfare.

This ongoing African-American tragedy has nothing to do with skin color and nothing to do with America’s history of either slavery or Jim Crow. Instead, it has everything to do with culture — a culture brought down thanks to what was effectively a pact with the Devil, with the Devil in this case being a welfare state that made education, men, work, and nuclear families redundant and, indeed, offensive. No wonder that, as blacks are finally recognizing the soul-stealing agreement the Left foisted on them, the Democrats are trying to distract them by calling a black woman . . . Hitler.

Looked at in this way, the reparations that all of the Democrat party candidate for president insist must be imposed on a generation of Americans who had nothing to do with slavery is just a reaffirmation of the original welfare contract with the Devil. Reparations won’t make things better. Instead, they will buy another 60 years of Democrat votes built on the ruined bodies and souls of American blacks.

The second thing I’ll add is a point that Scott Adams made, and he’s the first I’ve heard make it: Regarding reparations, he says that someone is going to ask, if we’re giving reparations, by what standard should we measure black lives in America, at least economically? Do we measure them against all whites? Inner city whites? Appalachian whites? Vietnamese who came here 40 years ago with nothing and now are middle class?

Or — and this is the kicker — do we ask how these blacks would be doing if they hadn’t been brought to America in the first place? The answer, of course, is not well. No matter how badly blacks are doing in America, they’re doing worse in Africa.

I’ll offer two links to support that last statement. The first is Kim du Toit’s post saying Let Africa Sink. The second is Keith Richburg’s masterpiece, Out of America : A Black Man Confronts Africa, in which he explains how a stint in Africa while working for the Washington Post made him grateful that his long-ago ancestors had suffered the horrors of being transported to and enslaved in America.

Some of today’s most storied Democrats are either very stupid or very evil. When it comes to the openly anti-Semitic, anti-American Ilhan Omar, I’m inclined to go with the latter choice, although I won’t deny her a strong dollop of the former. I don’t think she’s the brightest bulb on the block, but she has down pat the rap of victimhood, nicely wrapped around her adherence to sharia.

Anyway, the Democrat Omar tale today is a story told in three tweets.

Tweet 1 came when Dan Crenshaw heard how Omar described 9/11:

Tweet 2 is Omar’s response, which does not address the substance of Rep. Crenshaw’s tweet. Instead, she immediately heads straight to victimhood. No surprise there, because it’s worked so well for her up until now:

Tweet 3 explains why I said “up until now.” Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, won’t let her get away with her victimhood ploy. No doesn’t grovel. Instead, he just calls her out on her mindless victimhood calumnies:

I like the cut of Rep. Crenshaw’s jib.

Be sure to whip this out when a Leftist praises socialized medicine. One of my conservative Facebook friend is begging everyone to spread this link far and wide. I’m doing my best right here:

The fraying edges of universal health care : Britain’s version of ‘Medicare for All,’ delivers rationing and even blindness

If you’re wondering what Democrats have in mind when they tout “Medicare For All,” look no further than England. There are more reports of the U.K.’s National Health System’s collapse, this time featuring horror stories of rationing care for the elderly. Doctors are now sounding alarms bells that seniors with cataracts are going blind as they wait for surgical approval.

The Guardian reported, “Patients who are losing their sight are being forced to wait for months before having eye cataracts removed because of NHS cost-cutting. … The NHShas imposed restrictions on patients’ access to cataract surgery in more than half of England. … The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) condemned the rationing as shocking. It warned that not treating people with cloudy vision risks them falling and breaking bones, thus costing the NHS more.”

Last year, The New York Times reported some people in England were waiting for 12 hours to be seen in emergency rooms.

There’s more in the article, much, much more. Once again, let me spell it out: Europe’s post-WWII fling with socialism, or at least its decision to socialize its welfare services, worked for one reason and one reason only: America paid for it. For 70 years, we absorbed most of Europe’s military costs. We worked so that they got free cradle to grave care.

In the unwinding of the world since the Soviet Union’s collapse, Europe’s had to pay for its own socialized welfare system, and it’s had to do that at the same time that its citizens decided once and for all that having children is time-consuming, exhausting, and expensive, so why bother? Without American money and without a rising class of young people to foot the bill for old people’s care . . . older Europeans are in deep doo-doo.

Remember: this is what the Democrats want for you.

The free market is always the best answer. Turn your eyes away from Europe and look at the 1 gig flash drive you got for free at a trade show or a craft fair. When those things first came on the market around the year 2000, you paid several hundred dollars for a 512 MB flash drive. Capitalism drove prices down. People finding needs and filling them, and building better mousetraps is the best way to deliver the greatest amount and quality of services and products to the largest number of people.

Don’t believe me? Go to Wal-Mart. If you’re a Lefty, stop sneering at Wal-Mart’s shoppers and start looking at the dazzling array of products, all at affordable prices. Maybe Wal-Mart shoppers aren’t dressed as expensively as the Kardashians (although most look a darn sight classier), but at Wal-Mart, these shoppers have something akin to the same buying power as the Kardashians do when they’re wasting their money on weird clothes sold on Paris catwalks.

My brain function feels as if it’s entangled with ivy. I’d better stop. Your comments are always welcome.

The post Bookworm Beat 4/10/19 — the flyover country edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Leftism, Islam, anti-Semitism, and the Jews

Democrats and Muslims have come together with anti-Semitism because it is their ideological destiny — and Leftist Jews are too indoctrinated to see it.

One of the fascinating things about the world in which we live is the alliance between Leftists and Muslims. At first glance, it seems as if they have nothing in common. Leftists tout women’s rights; Muslims tout women’s burqas. Leftists tout LGBTQ rights; Muslims tout homosexual hangings. Leftists purport to hate slavery; Muslims have slavery as a core doctrine. Leftists hate rape; Muslims have rape as another core doctrine.

Given these profound differences, one way to account for the Leftist/Muslim alliance today is to look to the old Arab adage stating “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” (Or, as Aristotle said first, “a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies.”) Both the Left and Islam are united in a fight against Western civilization. And significantly, the thing they are fighting against most fiercely is what lies at the core of Western civilization: The value of the individual.

Here’s the thing: Despite their superficial differences, Leftists and Muslims have something very profound in common, which is that both are completely totalitarian ideologies. Each envisions complete control over all people around the world. Individualism is anathema to them. It is this common vision that binds them in the short term. In the long term, of course, each assumes that its ideology will be victorious and that, like the Borg, the winning ideology (whether Islam or Leftism) will either assimilate or destroy the losing ideology (whether Leftism or Islam).

Oh, I almost forgot. There’s another thing that binds them and that is their abiding hatred for Jews. (They hate other religions too, don’t get me wrong, as we can see from the murderous purge of Christians across the Muslim world as well as the softer effort to purge Christians in America. But there’s something about the Jews….)

I have a theory about this Jew hatred. Judaism was the first ideology to identify individual worth, something that Jews wrote down in the Bible and that Christianity, which is Judaism’s ideological progeny, brought to the greater world. From first to last– that is, from God creating man in his own image to Christ recognizing the worth of each individual — the Judeo-Christian tradition is about the individual.

The Judeo-Christian belief system is about freedom of conscience, not mindless subordination to a tyrannical God, set of gods, or earthly dictator. It’s about moral values, not frantically thrashing about to find some way to appease moral or immortal despots, whether with human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, or meaningless rituals divorced from morality and human worth. It’s also about recognizing God in others, whether in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, both of which require that we treat other humans with the dignity we want for ourselves.

Everything the Bible demands is antithetical to both Leftism and Islam. Those faiths (for Leftism is a faith) divide the world into those with power and those without. They see people as either masters or slaves. They see individuals as beings who have no free will but, instead, as beings to be endlessly manipulated for some greater good that always, somehow, coincides perfectly with the masters’ needs.

For those in thrall to totalitarian ideologies, there is no enemy greater than the man who says, “I am me” — not “I am us,” or “We are you,” or “I am you,” or “Tell me what to do,” but “I am me. I am a person created in God’s image. I have free will. I have a moral compass that it is imperative upon me to follow because of my personal relationship with God, to whom I am ultimately answerable.” In a totalitarian world, the person who insists on his individualism and moral worth is the ultimate threat.

Given that this abiding commitment to the individual infuses both Jewish and Christian doctrine, why is anti-Semitism, not anti-Christianity, the oldest hatred? A few reasons.

First, in the Christian world, Christianity, as the child, had to sever itself from Judaism, the parent. As every parent of teens knows, this is often a brutal process — and no more so than when it takes place in a pre-modern world that is itself exceptionally brutal.

To its great credit (and I say this without any sarcasm), in the last two hundred years Christianity has left behind its childhood and adolescence. It now approaches Judaism as one adult to another, just as mature children can finally forge a new — and often so much better — relationship with the parent from whom they sought to separate. The two faiths can enjoy their familial bonds while still valuing their mature differences. It is today, as it should be, a healthy relationship. (I do not include Leftist “churches” in this analysis. They are Leftist first and only vaguely Christian second. To the extent they share a slender bond with Biblical Christianity, they are immature.)

Significantly, there is nothing in the New Testament itself that demands that Christians be anti-Semitic. This was something imposed from the outside, especially when earthly European sovereigns took Christianity as a state religion and used it as one more instrument of power and control. In these circumstances, they found Judaism to be a useful scapegoat for their own — and a cruel world’s — failings. Nothing did more to correct the Christian and Jewish relationship than the wonderful American decision to sever church and state. (I should point out that this does not mean keeping people of faith out of politics; it simply means that the government has no say in religious doctrine.)

Second, in the Muslim world, things took a very different turn. Islam is about Mohamed, the perfect man. And for Mohamed, Jew hatred was personal. He suggested to regional Jews that they declare him God’s prophet and the Jews refused. Mohamed, a narcissist who lacked Christ’s gracious spirit, took the rebuff personally and slaughtered every Jew he could find.

After that, Mohamed went one worse and baked his personal hurt and animus into Koranic doctrine. Anti-Semitism isn’t just an interpretative mistake as it was with the early Christian world. Instead, for each Muslim, it’s a religious imperative not just to hate the Jew but to destroy the Jew. The execrable Ilhan Omar is nothing more than a good Muslim.

There are two ways to jettison entirely Islamic anti-Semitism: re-write the Koran, which isn’t going to happen; or destroy world Islam as thoroughly as the Allies destroyed Germany, Italy, and Japan, which isn’t going to happen either.

Failing that, the best that can be done with Islamic anti-Semitism is to corral it wherever possible. Also, as is happening in the Middle East, the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle still works. Now that Obama empowered Iran so that it has become an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to Sunni Gulf States, suddenly pragmatic Muslims are discovering that having Jews in the neighborhood isn’t such a bad thing.

Three, in the socialist world, just as in the Muslim world, anti-Semitism is baked into the cake. Let me start by saying that there is no anti-Semite worse than a renegade Jew. I was just reading about Jewish life in Romania and learned that the first blood libel there was sparked by a Jew who had converted to Christianity. Indeed, it’s a frequent refrain in Jewish history that those most violently opposed to Jews, and the ones most likely to spark pogroms, were converts. There is, of course, no zealot like a convert.

Karl Marx was genetically Jewish, but his father had converted so that the family could have better opportunities in early 19th century Germany. Marx therefore grew up as a shaky Christian in an anti-Semitic environment. He could have been like Disraeli, in England, who was fascinated by and proud of his Jewish heritage despite the family conversion when he was still a child. Instead, though, Marx clearly went the either way — he was going to out-hate the Jew.

When Marx eventually came up with his crackpot social and economic theories (and they are crackpot, because they were totally wrong about the past, totally misread his present, and were completely illiterate about economic principles), he wrote and wrote and wrote. His writings became gospel for Leftists and he baked Jew hatred into them. Read the following and tell me if it’s anything different from anything the National Socialists or Stalin or Ilhan Omar would say:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Keep in mind, please, that not only did Marx smear the Jews with the worst canards that emerged from 1,900 years of an adolescent Christianity’s warfare against Jews, he folded it into his entire “capitalist versus proletariat” shtick. Even though most of the world’s Jews were mired in abysmal poverty, he nevertheless painted all as parasitical capitalists who needed to be destroyed in order to create a workers’ paradise.

Thanks to Marx’s historic, cultural, and economic illiteracy, a fundamental principle of socialism is to rid the world of Jews. In this way, it is precisely the same as Islam, a fundamental principle of which is to rid the world of Jews. Both doctrines reflect the totalitarian opposition to an ideology predicated on individual liberty, as well as the mad tyrant’s rejection of a faith that, in one way or another, made him feel bad about himself. In other words, Islamic and Socialist anti-Semitism are bound together by ignorance, narcissism, and sociopathy. No wonder the two ideologies are so comfortable in each other’s company.

You can see, therefore, why anti-Semitism is becoming increasingly prominent in the Democrat Party. Once upon a time, the American Democrat party was a totalitarian party committed to slavery. After the Civil War, it tried to shake that image by presenting itself as the party of expertise (those were the racist Wilson Progressives). It swept-up the intelligentsia that way, by making them feel that their learned skills entitled them to petty tyranny.

During the Depression, the Democrats quite openly went for fascism, which is a form of soft socialism. By this I mean that, under fascism, rather than having the state actually take over all private property, the state just gets to dictate what is done with private property. It’s still state control.

Frankly, the only difference between Rooseveltian fascism and Hitler’s and Mussolini’s fascism is that the Americans never went in for wars fought for world domination and genetic purity. (Although one cannot deny that Hitler was inspired by the Democrat Party’s race laws when he first set about trying to legislate against the Jews.)

The American Democrat party figured out a variation of the “if you can’t beat them, join them” principle. Committing genocide against American blacks was a bridge too far and Jim Crow was (sadly, as far as Democrats were concerned) a strictly regional phenomenon. What Democrats realized was that, because so many American blacks existed in abysmal poverty (thanks in large part to Democrat racism), their votes could be bought.

Enter welfare. Blacks had a choice: Starve thanks to Democrat policies while proudly voting for the Republicans who had liberated them from slavery; or eat while voting for the Democrats who starved them with one hand and fed them welfare with the other. Pragmatism won the day. And after a few decades of dependency, just like lions in the zoo, America’s blacks got used to being fed in a cage rather than freely hunting for their own food.

But even this was still not a truly socialist Democrat party. After WWII, the previous soft fascism was anathema, so the Democrats re-fashioned fascism as a “Republican thing.” Moreover, the Democrats still had a constituency of white working and middle class voters who saw Dems as a working man’s party, not a plutocrats’ party (which was laughable, considering that FDR was the ultimate plutocrat). That’s the Democrat party in which I grew up. Republicans were considered to be white shoe bankers while Dems were the people’s people.

Even for the last few decades, despite the fact that Dems were embracing more and more hardcore Marxist ideology, the party still remembered that it was getting votes from the old-fashioned working class and the lower middle class, and that these were people who still thought socialism was a bad thing. Interestingly, having controlled academia since the 1960s, Dems didn’t need to worry about their middle- and upper-middle class constituents.

The sad reality is that people who attended American colleges and universities beginning in the 1960s were endlessly, mindless, and repetitively taught that socialism was a good thing. The fact that socialist countries were despotic basket cases did nothing to discredit the idea. “They just hadn’t done socialism right.”

Moreover, for decades starting in the 1960s and going right through the 1990s, academics and their progeny loved pointing to Europe as the ne plus ultra of working “socialism.” they were undeterred by the fact that (a) Europe still had a market-based economy and (b) Europe’s beloved cradle-to-crave social welfare system was actually an American product. Yup, we Americans paid for it by absorbing almost all of Europe’s defense costs during the Cold War. Americans worked hard so Europeans could retire early, travel endlessly, and get free (although lousy) health care.

Now, in 2019, the Democrats are finally abandoning their pretense that they are not now and never have been socialists. After six decades of controlling education (not just college now, but K-12, plus Headstart), the media, and the entertainment world, Lefties are no longer content to be the ignored man behind the curtain. They’re out and proud. They are socialists. And when you accept their proud assertion, remember what’s baked into the socialist pie: Anti-Semitism. Today’s Democrats are not criticizing Ilhan Omar because their ideology when it comes to Jews aligns perfectly with hers.

But what about all those Jews who are good socialists? Why is that? What the Hell is wrong with those people? Again, there are a few things:

Historically, despite Marx’s ignorant ravings about Jews and capitalism, most of the world’s Jews were horrifically ignorant and downtrodden. They were ferociously abused by various governments, whether Polish or Russian or French or whatever. Unaware of the finer points of Marx’s writing and anti-Semitism, they gravitated naturally to his socialist promises, especially the one about the overthrow of those governments that abused them so badly. Moreover, to the extent that the Church opposed socialism, a church Jews had feared as a fount of anti-Jewish preaching . . . well, we’re back to the whole “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing.

After WWII, Jews also fell into the trap (thanks to hard work from American Leftists) of believing that the Nazis (aka fascists) were right wing, not proud Left wing socialists. For a smart people, this was crazy stupid, considering that the Nazis’ real name was National Socialists, but whatever….

The confusion was made worse by the fact that Israel was founded as a socialist country, embracing Marx’s idiot ideas while ignoring his anti-Semitism. So fascists are Republicans, and socialists are the good guys, and Jews are good guys, and you know the rest.

But really the main reason Jews in America are staunch Leftists is because Jews are among those Americans most committed to higher education. Jews send their children to college — and American colleges and universities are deeply committed to using their power over vulnerable young people to convert them to Leftism. This is why I’ve been saying for a long time that the best way to stop Leftism in America is to pull federal funds from all institutes of higher education. Trump’s promise to do so for free speech violations is a good start, but it’s not enough.

I think I’m done now: Christians (true Christians, not Leftists who pretend to Christianity) have matured beyond anti-Semitism; Muslims and Leftists have anti-Semitism baked into their core doctrine. The Democrat Party has gone full Leftist, so it embraces Islamic anti-Semitism. And Jews, having had way too much college education, are so deeply imbued with Leftism that they are incapable of seeing that the toxic combination of Islam and Leftism is already preparing the road to the gas chamber. They are exactly like good German Jews in 1933 who refused to accept that their beloved country could ever turn on them.

The post Leftism, Islam, anti-Semitism, and the Jews appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Reparations: The Holy Grail of Identity Politics (Part III)

Reparations for the unpaid labor of blacks held in slavery in America are speculative at best and cannot be fairly distributed or imposed.

[Note:  The picture to the left, which shows Democrat Robert Byrd in a KKK outfit. is a Photoshop, but I use it because, to use the phrase coined by the New York Times, it is “fake but accurate. “]

2020 Democrat presidential candidates immersed in race-obsessed identity politics (as a substitute for the class-based politics of pure Marxism) are pushing for the Holy Grail of victimhood: Reparations for slavery.  They are undeterred by the fact that reparations are wholly impractical, utterly immoral, and counterproductive in that they do not address the problems plaguing the lower socio-economic half of the black community.

This will be the third of several posts dealing with the issue of reparations:

Part I – Constitutional Considerations: Bills of Attainder, Corruption of Blood, & Ex Post Facto Laws.

Part II – History of Slavery & Equities

Part III – Practical Impediments to Reparations

Part IV – Need for Reparations?

Part V – Marxism versus Melting Pots

Part III – Practical Impediments to Reparations

The New York Times, in a recent article, observed that “2020 Democrats Embrace Race-Conscious Policies, Including Reparations.”  Leaving aside the legal, historical, ethical, and equitable considerations of slandering all white Americans with the “original sin” of slavery and establishing at law that black Americans in the present day are permanent victims of evil whites, there are a host of practical problems with the concept of reparations for slavery (only) in America (and only as to American slaves).  Those practical problems include calculating the amount of reparations, identifying who should be eligible for the reparations and in what degree, and determining who should be liable for funding the reparations.  Do note that none of the race hustlers mentioned in the Times article linked above address any of these questions.

So, first off, let’s define “reparations.”  According to Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., perhaps our nation’s most well-known victim studies professor, writing in the NYT in 2010, reparations are “the idea that the descendants of American slaves should receive compensation for their ancestors’ unpaid labor and bondage.”  But that is certainly not all.  As Gates states, there is more to this than just compensation in monetary terms.  The push for reparations primarily has a moral purpose:

There are many thorny issues to resolve before we can arrive at a judicious (if symbolic) gesture to match such a sustained, heinous crime. Perhaps the most vexing is how to parcel out blame to those directly involved in the capture and sale of human beings for immense economic gain. [Emphasis added]

So the moral dimension is that all American whites and those slavers in Africa are to be tarred with the sin of slavery, though not a one alive today has ever committed slavery.  And every black alive today is to be given unearned status as a victim, though not a one of them has ever been a slave.  Again, you will never find the people who push for reparations mentioning either the Christian abolition movement or our Civil War.  It is as if they never happened.  But let’s leave the moral question aside.  For the purpose of this post, let’s assume, arguendo, that all reparations for slavery should be paid.

Newsweek published an article in 2015 , using research from Prof. Thomas Craemer, that attempted to value reparations for American slavery:

Craemer . . . has come up with what he says is the most economically sound estimate to date of what reparations could cost: between $5.9 trillion and $14.2 trillion.

Craemer came up with those figures by tabulating how many hours all slaves—men, women and children—worked in the United States from when the country was officially established in 1776 until 1865, when slavery was officially abolished. He multiplied the amount of time they worked by average wage prices at the time, and then a compounding interest rate of 3 percent per year (more than making up for inflation). There is a range because the amount of time worked isn’t a hard figure.

Previous estimates of reparations have ranged from around $36 billion to $10 trillion (in 2009 dollars), Craemer says. Those calculations mostly looked at wealth created by slaves as opposed to services provided, resulting in underestimates. Craemer believes that “the economic assumptions underlying [his method] are more sound” than those used in previous papers.

So, in other words, any attempt at putting a number to reparations — a spread of $36 billion to almost a year’s worth of the Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. at $14.2 trillion — is going to be an incredibly speculative guess from the outset.

Determining Reparations:  Offsets by the costs of life

The numbers that the race hustlers typically throw around do not include any offsets.  The initial round of offsets would include the costs of living during the slave’s lifetime.  Owning a slave meant that the owner was responsible for day-to-day feeding, clothing, housing, and medical care for the slave throughout his lifetime, during the slave’s productive and non-productive years.

Those costs could be significant, and indeed, by the late 1700’s, prohibitory.  George Washington’s life is instructive.

Washington found slavery economically inefficient. In the last decades of his life, the profits from his farmland did not cover the cost of feeding and clothing the estate’s enslaved people. By the 1770s, Washington began to realize that slavery was not an efficient labor system for Mount Vernon. After switching his plantation’s focus from tobacco to less labor-intensive grains, Washington had far more enslaved workers than he needed. He was losing money. By 1799, he lamented, “I have more working Negros by a full moiety [half], than can be employed to any advantage in the farming System.”

If you wonder why Washington did not simply sell his slaves at that point, it was because he refused to break up enslaved families.  In the end, when he died, Washington did not merely free all of the 123 slaves that he owned outright, but also provided a trust to educate the slaves and to house and care for those of his slaves that were too old or infirm to make a living in free society.

Determining Reparations:  Offsets by the economic and human costs of the Civil War

Slaves in America are unique in world history.  They are the only group of people for whom a nation engaged in a Civil War to determine their fate as free men or slaves.  That was the costliest and most brutal war in American history.  If the question is how much economic benefit the nation received from the institution of slavery, then would it not be only fair to deduct the economic costs to the nation from ending the institution of slavery?  And if we are going to put an economic value on enslaved blacks during their lifetime, should we not offset that against the economic value of the hundreds of thousands of non-black, non-Confederate lives snuffed out during a Civil War to free the slaves?  “Based on 1860 census figures, 8 percent of all white men aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6 percent in the North . . .”  The race hustlers never mention those issues.

I don’t think anyone has ever attempted to valuate the long-term economic costs of both the Civil War itself and the non-black lives lost during the war.  We can get a sense of the scope, though, because we have a lot of numbers available. Thus, we know the numbers for the war itself (numbers below not inflated to current value).

In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners’ pensions and other veterans’ benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war’s original cost.

Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.

The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruin

We also know what happened to the South’s wealth:

The wealth amassed in slaves and slavery for the Confederacy’s 3.5 million blacks effectively ended when Union armies arrived; they were nearly all freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Slaves in the border states and those located in some former Confederate territory occupied before the Emancipation Proclamation were freed by state action or (on December 6, 1865) by the Thirteenth Amendment.

The war destroyed much of the wealth that had existed in the South. All accumulated investment Confederate bonds was forfeit; most banks and railroads were bankrupt. Income per person in the South dropped to less than 40 percent of that of the North, a condition that lasted until well into the 20th century.

When it comes to the human costs,  approximately 828,000+ people associated with the Union Army or civilians in Union states lost their lives or were seriously wounded during the conflict. (Indeed, one in thirteen of the survivors were amputees). Moreover, of those Union soldiers who survived the war, our nation had to pay pension costs well into the 20th century, with these costs actually exceeding the cost of the war itself.

All of the above led Prof. Thomas Sowell, America’s greatest living economist, to eyeball the numbers and then write:

Sometimes it is claimed that slavery made a great contribution to the development of the American economy, from which other Americans benefitted, so that reparations would be like back pay. Although slaveowners benefitted from slavery, it is by no means obvious that there were net benefits to the economy as a whole, especially when you subtract the staggering costs of the Civil War.

So if in fact, the value of freedom provided to blacks by the Civil War exceeds the cost of reparations . . . can we get a check from Rev. Al and the Congressional Black Caucus?

To whom should reparations be paid?

As of 2016, there were 40 million people in America who self-identified as black (including, apparently, Talculm X and Rachel Dolezal).  This raises an interesting question: Are all people who merely self-identify as black entitled to reparations, regardless whether they can trace their origins in America back to a slave — or can even trace their origins back to Africa? (Or at least, back to black Africa from the 17th to the beginning of the 19th centuries, for modern anthropology tells us that all of us trace our origins back to Africa.)

Of the 40 million self-identified black people living in the U.S. in 2016, 4.2 million were first generation immigrants to America and clearly had no history of slavery in the American colonies or states.  Barack Obama was himself the son of a black man from Kenya.  Many more of the 40 million have ancestors who came to the U.S. after slavery ended in 1865.  So, are these people entitled to reparations regardless?

If a person’s DNA is not full African, is that person limited to only a portion of reparations in equal proportion? Or does the one-drop rule now apply?

For people who can trace their her origins back to the 18th century, what about if their black ancestors were free people, not slaves?  By 1810, at least 13% of Africans in just in the upper South were free people.  Many more were likely free in the north.

Or how about this scenario: What if a person’s ancestor was black but owned black slavesAfter all, “in 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves” in America.  And does it matter that it was a black slave owner in mid-17th century Virginia, Anthony Johnson, who, in a law suit against his black servant John Casor, established the concept of chattel slavery for life in America?

Lastly, what percentage of reparations should be charged against the Africans and Arab Muslims who captured slaves in Africa and sold them into American slavery?

Who should pay reparations?

The simple fact is that, even at the height of slavery in 1860, only 8% of Americans (white and black) owned slaves overall.  Even in the Southern states, that number never rose above 33%.   Moreover, probably half of all Americans (“swag” — scientific wild ass guess) are descended from people who were not even in the U.S. before 1865.  So why should Ms. BWR be responsible for paying reparations to blacks today for slavery during the period 1776 to 1865 when her family did not even come to this country until 1954?   That would amount to requiring people to fund reparations to blacks simply because of their white skin color.  And that would be, dare I say it, racist beyond measure.

If we are to look to history for the wrong, let us look to history for the culprits as well.  As Deroy Murdock writes in the National Review today, slavery and its associated ills are identifiable with a particular group — Democrats:

. . .  As Black History Month draws to a close, it is vital to remember that slavery spread agony across the South under the watchful eyes of Democrats, such as President Andrew Jackson, from the party’s 1828 launch. It was not until 1860’s election of Republican Abraham Lincoln that the final, decisive push toward abolition began. The GOP-led Union Army crushed the Democrat-led Confederacy in 1865. That’s when Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation came into full force, as Republicans freed the slaves.

The Republicans’ Radical Reconstruction empowered newly liberated blacks. Overriding the presidential vetoes of Democrat Andrew Johnson, congressional Republicans pressured southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing blacks equal protection under law. . . .

After detailing the many sins of Democrats as regards blacks, Murdock concludes:

. . . if Democrats want reparations to atone for their nearly 200 years of anti-black sins, they should finance them. From Barbra Streisand to George Clooney to Tom Steyer to George Soros, the Democratic 1 percenters should shove their billions into a huge pile and then show us the money.

I could live with that.

The post Reparations: The Holy Grail of Identity Politics (Part III) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?; or black pathology in modern America

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?

One, but the lightbulb really has to want to change.

A friend sent me a link to a site that allows people to make voluntary contributions to a reparations fund for American blacks. Really, it’s that simple. The “About” page describes the site as follows:

Reparations began as a social media experiment on Facebook on July 15, 2016.

What if you actually did something meaningful for someone before the end of the year? 

What if a stranger restored your belief in humanity, if only for a moment, by supporting you and allowing you to claim something you need in a material way?

I invite People of Color to ask for what we need to feel better, be happier, be more productive by posting in this space. These may be both material and immaterial requests.

I invite people who identify as White to offer services or contributions to People of Color in need of time, energy, substantive care, and support.

The website is filled with requests from “People of Color” (apparently, unlike whites, you don’t need to “identify” as a Person of Color; you just are one) making requests. As I write, the requests are for weight loss assistance, career advice, dental implants, crisis intervention, an exterminator, sanctuary, dental work, winter clothing, and so on.  As you can see, other than the request for sanctuary, nothing very extraordinary.

I like the site — I like the free market quality of people asking and people giving, instead of the government using police power to coerce and people forced under threat to give money. That’s especially true given that most Americans are either generations away from wrongdoing or have roots in a different country altogether and that the reparations are for a wrong that officially ended in 1863, long before the current claimants were born.  At a certain point, the statute of limitations needs to expire. Still, for those “identifying” as White who feel the need to repent for sins committed decades and centuries before their birth, how great that this site exists.

To read more, go here.

“Blexit” — It’s time for America’s blacks to vote themselves out of the Democrat Party

Fifty years of data show that Democrat policies harm American blacks. All the promises of the post-Civil Rights era have failed. Worse, America’s Democrat leadership, especially its black Democrat leadership, no longer makes even a pretense of serving the needs of the American Black community.

Democrat elites, both white and black, are just like the European Union’s elites:  serving themselves — their values and their bank accounts — without no regard for the people they ostensibly represent. Both the Democrats and the EU leadership ride roughshod over ordinary people’s values and ignore their needs. It’s high time, therefore, for American Blacks to have their own Brexit moment — call it a “Blexit” if you will — and turn their backs on the Democrat Party that has served them so badly.

In 1964, you had to give the Democrats credit for adaptability: After spending the late 1950s and early 1960s fighting desperately against the Civil Rights Movement, once it was a done deal they surveyed the landscape and realized that they could use the movement to their advantage. By attaching African Americans firmly to the government teat, Democrats figured that they could rely on a pacified black voting bloc to achieve perpetual political power. Indeed, LBJ is alleged to have made the politically incorrect boast that the Civil Rights act ensured that “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democrat for two-hundred years.”

Sadly, the Great Society legislation that LBJ and his Democrats instituted, while it has ensured those reliable black votes, has continued an American pattern:  Every bad thing that has happened to blacks in America has been the result of government forces. Slavery lasted because the Southern legal system brutally supported it. Likewise, the Jim Crow era lasted as long and as virulently as it did because, again, the Southern legal system brutally supported it.

It’s almost certain that, without rigorously enforced laws separating facilities, criminalizing “miscegenation,” and foreclosing education and work opportunities, the free market would have improved black lives in the South. As Milton Friedman explained, in Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition, the free flow of wealth, without legislation and regulation impeding non-violent, non-fraudulent conduct, is the single best and fastest way to end just about any type of discrimination:

Read more here.