Monuments, Museums and the Racial Reconciliation Racket

 Montgomery, Alabama (CNN) — One of my first thoughts when I arrived in Montgomery, Alabama, and encountered the spring heat was this: How did enslaved men, women and children endure day after day?

                                                   Nia-Malika Henderson

The exotically forenamed Nia-Malika Henderson is a senior political reporter for CNN who, according to her by-line, “reports on the politics, policies and people shaping Washington with a focus on identity politics.” Just wondering, would a reporter so named be pursuing anything other than identity politics?  “Identity politics” has become a euphemism for an ideology whose central premise makes racism the defining feature of both historical and contemporary America and holds white Americans morally culpable for the all of the social and economic disparities that mark black-white race relations. White privilege and whiteness have become the twenty-first century’s scarlet letter with rituals of contrition and petitions for forgiveness as basic requirements for sustaining social and professional respectability.  

Ms. Henderson recently wrote a piece for CNN about her visit to Montgomery, Alabama where she experienced The National Memorial for Peace and Justice and The Legacy Museum: From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration that opened on April 26^th.  She reports that “The memorial captures the brutality and the scale of lynchings throughout the South, where more than 4,000 black men, women and children, died at the hands of white mobs between 1877 and 1950. Most were in response to perceived infractions—walking behind a white woman, attempting to quit a job, reporting a crime or organizing sharecroppers.”

Some curious folks out there might pause and puzzle over just how much “peace” and “justice” will come out of this sort of a museum. But whatever skepticism or misgiving someone might entertain should quickly dissipate with the realization that “memorial” and “museum” are not quite the right words to describe what the creators of this project have in mind. Here is what a visitor will be in for.

From the website: “The memorial is more than a static monument. In the six-acre park surrounding the memorial is a field of identical monuments, waiting to be claimed and installed in the counties they represent. Over time, the national memorial will serve as a report on which parts of the country have confronted the truth of this terror and which have not.”

You need to read this slowly, pause and consider carefully what is going on and why it should make you very nervous and deeply suspicious, particularly, “Over time, the national memorial will serve as a report on which parts of the country have confronted the truth of this terror…” Whoa! Cultural Revolution, China, anyone? So, the old “white supremacy” monuments are being torn down at a dizzying pace, and now up goes a memorial-museum where the curators promise (threaten?) at some indefinite future time to come to your county of residence and determine whether you and your neighbors have “confronted the truth,” i.e., whether you constantly ruminate about how terribly, both in the past (enslavement) and present (mass incarceration), white people treat non-white people. What exactly will that confrontation involve and what will happen to you if your efforts to respond to the confrontation are deemed unsuccessful? Certified attendance at MLK prayer breakfasts will not be sufficient. It sounds like the “peace and justice” envisioned will be something like the fate of white farmers in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or, closer to home, the experience of the property owners in Ferguson, Missouri staring at their burned-out ruins when the rioting mobs were done.   

Somehow, the contemplation and understanding of history (what memorials and museums are supposed to be all about) do not seem to be what visitors to this site are supposed to come away with, and what exactly will the “reconciliation” look like? The objective is the stimulation of anger and bitterness on the part of black Americans; guilt and submission on the part of whites. This is another step up to the complete racializing of American politics which is increasingly marked by a systematic campaign of recrimination, resentment and hostility directed at middle class white Americans with the purpose of leveraging collective guilt through historical grievances and exerting collective retribution against people who had no part in them.  

From the Legacy Museum website: “Why build a memorial to victims of racial terror?  EJI [Equal Justice Initiative, the 501c3 non-for-profit sponsor] believes that publicly confronting the truth about our history is the first step towards recovery and reconciliation. A history of racial injustice must be acknowledged, and mass atrocities and abuse must be recognized and remembered, before a society can recover from mass violence. Public commemoration plays a significant role in prompting community-wide reconciliation.”

Whoever wrote this must live in an alternate universe. In contemporary America reminders of its “history of racial injustice” are relentless and ubiquitous. The main-stream media is obsessed with it. Pop-culture and the entertainment industry cannot get enough (“Black Panther,” anyone, The “Color of Water” or “Hidden Figures” just in the last year or so). Sports? Try watching ESPN or NFL football to attempt to escape the “national conversation on race” the professional scolds running our institutions keep telling us we have to have. Look at the content of public school curricula or the subject matter of social science and humanities courses at most universities and the reverence and sensitivity required whenever the “civil rights movement” is mentioned. Recall then-President Obama’s rumination that “racism is in our DNA.” Consider the single most memorable line coming out of the 2016 American Presidential campaign from Hillary Clinton. “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.” So, this business of “publically confronting the truth about our history” is actually going on at a breakneck pace with truth as the biggest casualty. 

The orthodoxy of pervasive, systemic, institutional racism as the defining feature of American society is well defined and ruthlessly enforced by the most powerful forces that shape our culture. As it is with all firmly entrenched orthodoxies, punishment falls heavily on any and all transgressors. Nothing outside the boundaries of orthodoxy can be countenanced as the truth. Religious orthodoxy bans transgression as heresy; communist orthodoxy banned it as false consciousness and counter-revolutionary thinking; identity politics orthodoxy dismisses it simply as “hate.” Recently Mark Zuckerberg in an appearance at a Congressional hearing seemed genuinely flummoxed when asked by Senator Ben Sasse to define “hate speech.” One gathers from his dumbstruck look that he thought that the answer was just too obvious. How could anyone as bright as Sasse even raise it as a serious question? Hate speech is whatever would stimulate the disapproval of the feminists, black studies professors and sociologists who populate the faculties of our prestigious universities or would upset the diversity commissars who manage sensitivity training sessions and enforce speech codes at the corporations.   

Consider the fate of Amy Wax, a senior law professor when she strayed outside of what are normally the tightly secured boundaries of identity politics orthodoxy at the University of Pennsylvania. Together with her colleague Larry Alexander, she published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer that among other things said:

“America’s less progressive culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”

One might be tempted to think that not following this script might have something to do with the current “mass incarceration” of black males which is one of the grievances of EJI’s National Memorial for Peace and Justice. But Professor Wax’s suggestion that something other than racism has had a bearing on this ongoing catastrophe was clearly a transgression of major proportions. This along with some of her other violations of the PC code has aroused the fury of students and colleague faculty members at Penn and she is now a persona non-grata, pulled by her dean from teaching first year law courses and routinely pilloried by the illuminati in the local and national media outlets. Only tenure has saved her from a complete professional decommission, termination and expulsion from the university.     

The rage and condemnation cascading down on Professor Wax is completely understandable and instructive. She is not some unemployed West Virginia coal miner who supported Donald Trump, or your run of the mill bigoted Republican politician from fly-over country. She is a brilliant, full Professor at an Ivy League university with a record of teaching excellence who possesses a medical degree from Harvard in addition to her law degree and who also happens to be Jewish. Which make her the ultimate insider, a member of an elite club that prides itself on its progressive politics and its unconditional embrace of the ideology of victimhood. As a high-status member, you do not step out of this pristine, prestigious tent, turn around and piss back in. The keepers of the tent are all about making sure an insider, especially one with her stature, is punished to the max for violating the code. Otherwise, someone on the outside might begin to suspect that the members of the club are not quite as virtuous or perspicacious as they pretend to be.

But let us return for a moment to the alternate universe of the EJI and the truth we are supposed to confront.  “EJI believes that publicly confronting the truth about our history is the first step towards recovery and reconciliation…” The “first step”? Really? Apparently the last 50 years or so of race relations in American society have gone down the memory hole for these earnest EJI reconciliation specialists. Much can be said on this topic, but consider just a few highlights that might be considered as “first steps” and beyond: the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the creation of EEOC; Affirmative Action; Section 8 of the Housing Act; Minority Contract Set-Aside Program; University of California v. Bakke (1978) decision; Oprah; the official beatification of Martin Luther King Jr.; two black American Presidents (Bill Clinton, honorary per Toni Morrison), two black Secretaries of State, two black Attorney Generals; black domination in national athletics and prominence in the entertainment and music industries.  One can go on and on, but this should be sufficient to demonstrate that it would highly delusional to believe that “community wide reconciliation” is where any of us are heading. 

I wish the best for the National Memorial for Peace and Justice and the Legacy Museum and hope my county of residence will be ready for the coming confrontation. In order, however, to advance their efforts at “publicly confronting the truth about our history” now that O.J. Simpson will soon be walking freely among us, let me suggest that another memorial should be erected close by: The Nichole Simpson Brown--Ron Goldman National Memorial. It would be dedicated to victims of racially motivated miscarriages of justice. It could be set up as a site of interactive learning with Johnny Cochrane impersonators doing seminars on race pandering and jury nullification. It could also feature galleries with photos of the bloodstained crime scene, OJ trying on the gloves, video clips of the OJ white Bronco-Police caravan, the circus courtroom antics and best of all, the wildly jubilant black response to the announcement of the jury’s not-guilty verdict. "Who cares if he did it? The white bitch and her Jew boyfriend had it coming", I think, was the message the jurors were sending. (For the record: no white rioting followed this grotesque perversion of justice.) This memorial, however, would eschew the “peace and justice,” and “reconciliation and recovery” crapola that the EJI folks use to disguise their own project of grievance mongering and racial animosity to sound like anything other than what it is, casus belli.   

Is America a Democracy? Its Enemies Think Not

                                                                                     
 

“Stalin’s dictatorship, too would be expected to foster ‘a permanent condition of stress by creating enemies at home and abroad and/or by imposing upon the population gigantic tasks that would be unlikely to be carried out in the absence of the dictatorship’ as well as, ‘a charismatic image of the dictator,’ ‘a utopian goal, carefully kept in a remote future’ and ‘proscription of any deviating values, supported by threats and acts of repression.’”

(From Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941, p. 306)

Observations and reflections of seemingly no relevance to your daily comings and goings jump out at you sometimes and make a strong, unexpected connection to your unrelenting, consuming nightmares. Jumping out at me was the above reflection on Stalin’s dictatorship from a new biography by the prolific historian of the Soviet era, Stephen Kotkin. So, how does a long dead, mass-murdering Bolshevik connect to twenty-first century American politics now in a constant, wild frenzy over one of its most bizarre of improbabilities, a TV-reality show star and former real estate mogul with gorgeous wife numero tres sitting in the White House? 

The closest we have gotten to a “charismatic image of the dictator” in recent times might have been the cult of personality that enveloped candidate Barack Obama, The One, in 2008 replete with fainting maidens at his rallies, God-comparisons by serious journalists, and fake Greek columns for the backdrops of his speeches. Obama’s “healing the planet” magic was sustained for a season by the massive collective sycophancy composed of the media establishment, the entertainment industry and academia. The cult of Obama, however, was a celebrity cult and Americans in their embrace of celebrities are, if nothing else, a fickle lot. Obama is now (at least for the time being), past tense, the mystic, Oprah, the current fashionable buzz.  For better or worse, we have, as they say, moved on, and whatever one might care to say about Donald Trump, “charismatic” is not what first jumps to mind.

What strikes so close to home about Kotkin’s comments on Stalin’s rule is his noting of “a permanent condition of stress by creating enemies at home or abroad….”  It is safe to say, I believe, that “a permanent condition of stress” captures what so many of us now feel as we endure the daily irruptions of ideological warfare increasingly infused with the language of apocalypse and the denunciation of yet another enemy of “our democracy.” Nancy Pelosi, of the recent Republican tax bill, intoned, “It is the end of the world… The debate on health care is life/death… This is Armageddon.” In the head of this cognitively impaired septuagenarian, predicting how the levers move to arrange her thoughts might be an entertaining exercise, but she cannot possibly believe this. No one believes it, but American politics has descended into untrammeled tribal warfare, and warfare is all about friends and enemies. Obama let it slip out in a 2010 Univision interview, dropping his ‘g’s  in order to sound less like a President and more like a mob boss, “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends.” Obama, however, had stumbled on to something: enemies exist to be punished; that’s the whole point, and when you practice politics as warfare, that’s the only rule. 

The existence of these enemies Obama had put in his sights for punishment, I would suggest, is what makes our “permanent condition of stress” permanent. Moreover, it should be obvious that, whatever the particular threats political enemies might exude, persistence and endurance are of the highest importance, in a word, permanence. A completely vanquished enemy is no longer an enemy, and without him, the status-quo with all of its limitations and imperfections conveniently ascribed to his wiles, belongs entirely to the victor, an undisputed but tainted possession, however, that does not work completely to his advantage. On our enemies, we depend for our longevity more, perhaps, than on our friends.

Stalin was extremely fortunate in the early stages of his dictatorship to have had Hitler and Mussolini as his enemies. The racial and national superiority claimed by the Nazis and Fascists and their affinity for violence and military aggression made them the perfect foil for the Soviet’s phony “peace” propaganda and the promise of humanity’s revolutionary march of progress toward a world of equality, harmony and plenty and a socialist workers paradise. The Soviets were the “progressives” of the 1930s; they had divined the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice and were, in stark contrast to the Nazis, bending right along with it. Though Nazi Germany was militarily vanquished by Stalin (with massive assistance from the capitalist powers he had vowed to destroy) the imagery of fascism was embraced by the Soviets up to its collapse in 1991 to define its enemies, including its primary cold war enemy, the United States.

Who then are the enemies that now foster this “permanent state of stress” that seems to plague American politics? These are “enemies within,” those who oppose or are indifferent to the coercive moralism of the self-proclaimed “progressives” who now own the Democrat party. These enemies, in continuity with practice of the Soviet-era progressives, employing the ominous swastika-blackshirt imagery of the 1930s, continue to be smeared as fascists; “fascism” meaning opposition or resistance to progress. Only moral defectives and mental pigmies can be against progress which is why “fascist” rolls so effortlessly off the tongue of a progressive whenever he encounters someone not of his ilk. 

Progress, however, is conveniently and hopelessly abstract and remains always an elusive goal, one, as noted in Kotkin’s observation above, “that is carefully kept in the remote future.” The future is never where we are at, and thus it serves to defer accountability for current failure and as the ideological fulcrum to justify the application of whatever force is necessary to prepare everyone for arrival, someday, at that morally pristine destination of perfect equality, progressivism’s ruling motif. All progressives, whether of the 1930s Bolshevik-genre or 21^st century American social justice warriors, are enthusiasts for coercion, since not everyone comprehends their current fallen state and only those who are willing to submit to the purification rituals get to continue moving toward the promise land. Those who do not are, as Hillary Clinton put it so bluntly during her 2016 Presidential campaign, “irredeemable.” With the shift of a few electoral votes, the future for anyone belonging to this class, would have looked even less promising. When you have the power, what exactly will you do to a large, intractable class of irredeemables that will not involve massive coercion? Hillary’s irredeemables would have felt her revenge; a bit like Stalin’s kulaks of the 1930s.

For today’s progressives, so enthralled with the promises of Obama and now in desperate “resistance” to President Trump, their “friends” and “enemies” no longer break out into Bolshevik-theorized hostile classes (oppressed-proletariat versus oppressor-capitalist) but into racial tribes (oppressed-people of color versus white-oppressors). The vehicle of this relationship is racism, and it is barely an exaggeration to say that twenty minutes cannot pass without Americans being reminded by some angry or condescending “authority” from the chattering classes what a racist society they live in. They watch the mobs assault historical monuments, benignly regarded for hundreds of years, now proclaimed “racist.” Speech that does not conform to the standards set by self-proclaimed victims of racial discrimination and oppression is proscribed as “hate speech,” and harassment and banishment meted out to the transgressors. Whiteness and white-privilege are officially the marks of moral turpitude and require the bearers to undergo confessional “struggle sessions” reminiscent of the Mao’s Red Guard in action during the Cultural Revolution.          

Racism, Obama revealed to us late in his Presidency, is “still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it.” This was not good news, at least for some of us “folks.” Translated into practical-political terms this means that racists are here for the duration, enemies, you might say, of a permanent nature. What punishment might be in store for them is a matter of grim speculation. Obama’s metaphor of the “cure,” clearly, is a euphemism that barely conceals the growing hostility and resentment for the heritage and traditions of white European America and the determination to erase them.

There was no push back on Obama’s “diagnosis” from any notable within our culture shaping institutions. Indeed, this seems to be the received, state-enforced wisdom, the foundation of the ruling orthodoxy, and so once again Kotkin’s text on Stalin’s last-century terror-state bears out a certain resemblance to the descent of 21^st century American politics into a soft dictatorship. We now, as did the Russians in the 1930s, face the “proscription of any deviating values, supported by threats and acts of repression.” The dictatorship we live under today has no mustachiod, grey tunic-wearing party General Secretary who personally sets the standards for “correct” thinking enforced by an elaborate apparatus of state-terror. The proscription and repression for us is of a different more insidious, sophisticated order. Instead, we have a hoard of mini-Stalins (race-careerists, political opportunists, left-wing globalists, and cultural Marxists) throughout the land sniffing into every corner of American society for any scent of racism. The American-Stalinist orthodoxy is the judgment that racism, the defining core of American history, dominates every aspect of its social order. Redemption comes only by remaking America into a multicultural rainbow that reflects the diversity of the planet. This is not a debatable proposition: to raise questions or doubts is a high-risk enterprise. Your career can be destroyed, Nobel prize winning geneticist, James Watson, for example, for publishing research on race and IQ. You cannot speak and may be assaulted on a university campus if your views on race related matters do not meet official approval, Charles Murray and his faculty escort, for example, at Middlebury College last year. Professional advancement, academic respectability, social approval and mobility, all rest heavily on conformity to the affirmations of the fixed faith.

In government, the mini-Stalins busy themselves opening the borders to millions of third world people and denouncing as “racist” Americans who resent not only the financial and social burdens they impose, but also fear the loss of their culture and heritage. The journalists and media advocacy-functionaries, perform Pravda-like, rewarded for their fawning with access to corridors of power. From the corrupt, dissolute entertainment industry, we are subjected to productions of obscenity-laced nihilism and a steady barrage of barely disguised works of leftwing agitprop. Little-Stalins infest the workplace as sensitivity enforcers policing such things as the use of gender pronouns, searching for micro-aggressions, expanding the world of victims whose feelings require constant protection from the bigots who fail to grasp the imperatives of diversity and inclusion.   

In this dictatorship that the overlords continue, laughingly, to call “our democracy,” we – white, European, Christian Americans – are the enemy, the permanent enemy. Apologies for slavery and racism and copious confessions of white privilege will not change that. Reparations will not change that. Diversity indoctrination, sensitivity training and absorbing more lectures on tolerance will not make us less toxic. Reverence and worship of Martin Luther King and attendance at MLK prayer breakfasts will make no difference, will impress no one and will not diminish the hostility and rancor held against us. Nothing we say or do will make “whiteness” other than a permanent moral stain. The first practical order is to stop pretending otherwise and collaborating with the engineers of our destruction. What comes next should be obvious.     

                                                                     

Edward "Teddy" Kennedy: How the Lecher became the Lion

Let us cut to the chase.  Edward “Teddy” Kennedy was one miserable, contemptible excuse for a human being.  But happily dead he has been for eight years, so why bother now sifting through the sordid details, the mountainous offal strewn in the wake of his long and epically degenerate life?   

It happens slowly, but at some point you consciously begin to feel it and convulse.  You are chocking on one more chunk of the thick stew of distortion of America’s heritage, the smearing of the greats and elevation of frauds and profligates. Time to pause and reflect on how we have come to this sorry state. In full throttle is the Bolshevization of American history, an ideologically motivated démarche to de-moralize and ultimately criminalize resistance and dissension to the forced march to equality.  The left through its capture of America’s culture-shaping institutions – the schools, the universities, the media and vast entertainment complex, and the courts – rewrites American history as a vast and singular expression of racial and ethnic exploitation and oppression. The ubiquity and pervasiveness of “racism” means that our language must be constantly monitored to repress this impulse (which according to Barack Obama is in our DNA), and that our public spaces – the statuary, monuments, the names of buildings, schools, streets, etc.  – must be purged of any historical references, symbols or imagery that might offend the delicate sensibilities of social justice warriors: nothing can remain in any form that does not depict the suffering of their selected victim classes and excoriate the oppressors, who are?  Well, go to a local school or university and discover “white privilege.” Confederate monuments are being torn down, schools are being renamed, speakers who fail the test of orthodoxy are banned and sometimes assaulted: soon the conformity and uniformity will be complete.

How then does the defunct Teddy, “the Lion of the Senate” Kennedy fit into this scene of wreckage and ruin?  He was a principal agent, a man who performed far above his meager talents.  But this answer leads to a more complicated and fundamental question.  How was he able to do it? How was this arch hypocrite, a man so intellectually mediocre, so personally dissolute and debauched able to rise to this pinnacle of political power, eulogized at his death as a champion of the disadvantaged and downtrodden, officially “lionized” as a great Senate statesman?   

One might reasonably argue that Chappaquiddick was for Edward Kennedy his defining moment both as a man and as a politician.  The decades that followed were merely exposition and commentary on this shameful episode of moral immolation. As a man?  A coward, a libertine, a liar, a fraud, complicit in a homicide from one of his countless alcohol fueled, philandering escapades.  He abandoned a young woman in his submerged Oldsmobile he had driven off of a bridge, then fled the scene and sobered up.  She could have been saved, but the Senator was busy huddling with his handlers with the more important task of concocting a story to thwart the law and to salvage his political career, letting his girlfriend of the moment slowly drowned.  As a politician? He used the wealth and influence of his family and the power of his office to suborn the local authorities, buy off the Kopechne family and ultimately to evade responsibility for actions that would have sent any other man to prison.

He was never completely able to escape the shadows and shame of Chappaquiddick, but the voters of Massachusetts had to have a Kennedy in Washington, perhaps to keep the women in the Bay state safe, and with the passage of time and the crafting of a fashionable leftish championing-the-underdog image, his abandonment of Mary Jo to die became a mere peccadillo, collateral damage of the sort happily overlooked so as to keep a playboy with a magic name in a high place. Here then is the beginning of the answer to the question posed above:  how did the lecher become the lion? 

With gusto Kennedy positioned himself firmly on the left embracing its antinomian trends and leading the charge of American identity politics.  Rewarded with the unconditional support of its pandered-to beneficiaries, he was thus in large part able to immunize himself from the sharper edges of the contempt he deserved.  Teddy never came to endure what should have been an outpouring of disgust and repudiation for a man with the moral fiber of a bunko artist and the life-style of Caligula.

The easy life of a protected rich wastrel and reprobate was, however, not enough for Teddy. He was, after all, a Kennedy, committed to what he liked to call “public service” a laughable, crude piece of unintended irony for someone wholly self-indulgent in his gross personal conduct and self-serving in his public role.  A life devoted to beakers of Johnny Walker and whoring was not enough to, as they say, “make a difference.”  Kennedy needed to inflict himself on the nation. And so he did … make quite a difference. Two of his signature pieces of mischief, that pushed the country toward its current state of anguish, deserve mention here.  First, his support and active selling of the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 which produced the opposite of what he promised.

From the Center for Immigration Studies

 Although the 1965 bill was intended only to end discrimination, some people feared a major increase in immigration and a change in the source countries of immigrants. Supporters of the measure assured doubters that this would not happen. Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.” [emphasis added]

In the “final analysis,” we are talking about the word of Teddy Kennedy.  Most apropos is a single phase -- Kennedy “reassured his colleagues and the nation,” the same sort of reassurance, perhaps, he gave Ms. Kopechne in watery bowels of his Oldsmobile – “don’t worry, honey, I’ll get you out of here.”  He lied with the verve of a true Bolshevik – “everything is the opposite of what I say it is.”  The country was “flooded with millions of immigrants” who dramatically changed “the ethnic mix of this country.” America, thanks in large part to his man, has been transformed, ethnically, culturally, economically by this law. California, once a competitive and healthy two-party state is now because of the immigration influx unleashed after 1965 entirely controlled by a single party.  Hillary Clinton’s nearly three million vote margin over Donald Trump in the 2016 election came out of California, a Democrat clientele of Kennedy’s creation.  Her plan, upon election, was to turn the rest of the country, politically, into California. Aside from the increasingly isolated, gated, tony enclaves of the predominately rich white Democrats such as Hollywood, Silicon Valley, parts of San Francisco, and Palm Springs, California will increasingly come to resemble a vast enlargement of Tijuana with the drug trafficking, the crime and the poverty.

Catering to a burgeoning, resentment-laden set of victim classes and importing lots of needy people into the country along with the extraction and redistribution of resources from its largely middle class citizens to support them would create a cultural and political backlash that would threaten the power structure and its overseers.  Thus, the second piece of the Teddy Kennedy legacy: “hate” legislation.  From a peroration in the Senate in 2007, “Standing Against Hate.” 

I'd like to speak … regarding the Hate Crimes Amendment -- at a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice what we preach, and that we are doing all we can to root out the bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to violence here at home. Now more than ever, we need to act against hate crimes and send a strong message here at home and around the world that we will not tolerate crimes fueled by hate…..  Since the September 11th attacks, we've seen a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims, Sikhs, and Americans of Middle Eastern descent…..  Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism…. Like other acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. [emphasis added]

What a vapid collection of useless abstractions and non-sequiturs from a man who ceaselessly preached but never practiced.  “At a time when our ideals are under attack from by terrorists in other lands”?  Terrorists do not attack “ideals”: they attack and kill defenseless people which is what makes them so terrible.   Not clear as well is why terrorists would be attacking our ideals in other lands, but this is Ted Kennedy talking, oblivious to minimal standards of evidence and coherence. Why, a rational person might ask, do we need to send this “message” to the world that “we will not tolerate crimes fueled by hate”?  Since there was absolutely no evidence that we did tolerate such crimes, why was he talking like this?  To distract people from the obvious fact that so much of the terrorism going on around the world was being done by people of “Middle Eastern descent,” and to hope people might not wonder why politicians like Kennedy were so eager to put more of them in their neighborhoods.  No one in the political establishment from President Bush after 9-11 on down was speaking of Islam as anything other than the “religion of peace.”  One has also to ponder: how America had managed to stave off collapse until 2007 by ignoring these crimes, now morphed into “domestic terrorism” against, first, “entire communities,” then, “the whole nation” and then, yikes! America’s foundational “fundamental ideals.”  Once again, we are supposed be traumatized by terrorists attacking those wonderful “ideals” – what specific ideals he doesn’t bother to say, but the more nebulous and vague the abstractions, the easier it was to keep his multicultural scam going.  And the scam?  Import millions of third world people, many of whom are resistant to assimilation, some of whom are hostile to American norms.  Then, stigmatize the resentment of the American hosts who bear the cultural, financial burden as “bigotry and prejudice.”  Gotcha! Welcome to twenty-first century America where lechers are lions and where the politicians have christened half of the citizens as “irredeemable” racists, xenophobes and bigots because many of them believe that it is not a good idea to let anyone and everyone into the U.S. who simply wants to come. 

The mumbo-jumbo of “Standing Against Hate,” late in a career of pretending to be a statesman was unfortunately one of Teddy’s many signature incoherent episodes of Senate oratory. Since his death in 2009 it can be said in fairness to him that he did leave his mark; he did make a difference: to the American people he did figuratively what he did literally to Mary Jo Kopechne fifty years earlier. 

The Exterminationist Left: Happy Trails to Zimbabwe

 

Three waves of massive extermination were conducted by Marxist regimes during the twentieth century. The first was Stalin’s Bolshevik terror famine during which five million Ukrainian farmers and their families perished in the early 1930s. It is difficult to be precise with the number of Chinese killed by Mao during the Great Leap Forward in the 1950s and 60s because the communist government of China still limits access to the archives with the demographics.  No one, however, disputes that the deaths topped off in the tens of millions.  In the 1970s Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered about a quarter of their fellow Cambodians. 

The dead victims in all three of these utopias in progress were selected by the “theorists” in charge who planned and carried out the cleansing operations guided by an ideology that had deciphered the progressive movement of history and identified those, shall we say, “irredeemables” who were not part of the improvement plan.  All three architects of mass murder (Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot), by the way, died in advanced years in their beds, never to be held to account, Mao now slumbering away as a revered mummy in his ornate mausoleum in Tiananmen square.

Underway for some time is another Leftist planned extermination program.  The 21^st century theorists like their 20^th century predecessors are Marxists.  The Marxist foundational template is the same – “Revolution”.  Revolution is shorthand for the way Marxist history is supposed to unfold – a smaller number of designated oppressors (bad people) are overthrown by a larger number of the discovered oppressed (good people). It is important to note that there is no place for the oppressors once they are overthrown. These bad people, “bourgeoisie scum,” as Lenin called them,  get what they deserve, “liquidatation.”  

There are important differences, however, in the way this extermination is currently unfolding.  First, while the Marxist template (Revolution) remains the same, the place holders have been repositioned. Economic classes (the oppressor, bourgeois capitalist versus the oppressed workers, the proletariat) have been replaced by races (white European oppressors versus non-white oppressed third world people).  Second, this revolution is a softer one.  The oppressors are not being violently overthrown, murdered in mass or exiled.  They are much more complicit in their elimination, ultimately surrendering their heritage and obliterating their identity, succumbing to a steady stream of propaganda that stresses their collective guilt, losers in a Kulturkampf where speech and behavior that are deemed “insensitive” to people of color bring severe social sanctions and ostracization. “Hate speech” is a tool for the left to monopolize power and criminalize dissent.

The left now is ramping up this soft revolution with their trifecta of the “white privilege” indoctrination of our children in the schools and universities, the relentless insistence on pervasive, ubiquitous racism in American history and society, and the advocacy of open borders.  These are all of a single piece and the goal is not a colorblind, race-neutral society, free of discrimination and ethnic hatred, but the reduction of white Europeans to social and political irrelevancy, the elimination of their history and self-identity, and the purging of “whiteness” which now carries the eternal stain of racism and a permanent stigma of bigotry. 

American history has been reduced to a narrative largely focused on racial subjugation and discrimination, so successful for several generations in defining the American experience that room has been created for supplemental stories of exploitation and oppression – sexism, homophobia, most recently Islamophobia – dramatically inflating the legions of the oppressed, and defining with more precision the identity of the oppressor, white males.

Students now in schools and universities are increasingly being subjected to a program of moral blackmail that leverages ethnic guilt. The teaching of “white privilege”bears a strong resemblance to the “self-criticism” sessions of political reeducation during the Cultural Revolution in China.  Thus, courtesy of the Southern Law Poverty Center:

“White skin privilege is not something that white people necessarily do, create or enjoy on purpose. Unlike the more overt individual and institutional manifestations of racism described above, white skin privilege is a transparent preference for whiteness that saturates our society. White skin privilege serves several functions. First, it provides white people with “perks” that we do not earn and that people of color do not enjoy. Second, it creates real advantages for us. White people are immune to a lot of challenges. Finally, white privilege shapes the world in which we live — the way that we navigate and interact with one another and with the world.” http://www.tolerance.org/article/racism-and-white-privilege

What then might be a rational response be from a white person subjected to the airing of a grievance of such magnitude? Since these sorts of tendentious deceptive semantics are impossible to refute – “whiteness” being so slippery and malleable an abstraction it can perform whatever subversive tasks are required of it – the only rational response is not to take it seriously, the way one would ignore an orating crackpot on a street corner.  But the targets for this ethnic demolition are captive children and young people who do not understand what is at stake and are not quite up to fighting off professional indoctrinators. Clearly, the whiteness of “white privilege” is no less than an inherent, unalterable corruption, and whether or not any given individual white person bows to the cudgel, the widespread importation of “white privilege” teaching into the schools and universities as a social engineering tool helps to manufacture feelings of the sort of collective guilt that sets up future generations of “white folks” who can be more easily duped, manipulated and willing to assist in their destruction.     

“There is an old saying that the victors of war get to write the history of the world. White privilege works this way, too. Since white folks have been in control for so long, we have determined what is valuable or interesting or useful in terms of education. Greek and Roman mythology, Chaucer, and other canonized works have been selected and revered through the ages as critical components of any “solid liberal arts education.” http://www.tolerance.org/article/racism-and-white-privilege

You cannot help but relish the candor expressed with this and wonder why any sane white person would cooperate with such an obvious attempt at intimidation and extortion. No dissimulation of raw, racial resentment, and not even the pretense of a win-win outcome is suggested here – whites have been in control for too long.  It is time for them to capitulate and come to know what subjugation really feels like. There is neither a moral nor a self-interested reason to respond affirmatively to this.

White privilege is the corollary of racism, ubiquitous, and so deeply entrenched in white-controlled and white dominated America, so pervasive and in so many recondite forms, that a white America without racism is virtually unthinkable. Here is how former President Barack Obama explains it to a recent interlocutor.

Obama: What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives — you know, that casts a long shadow. And that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it.

Maron: Racism.

Obama: Racism. We are not cured of it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/22/416476377/we-are-not-cured-obama-discusses-racism-in-america-with-marc-maron

Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in 2016, not to be outdone by her former boss had this to add to the genetics of Obama: “We all have implicit biases. They are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia. And what we need to do is be more honest about that and surface them.”  http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/20/hillary-tells-black-church-white-people-must-end-systemic-racism/#ixzz4bi9fezs7

How something can “almost” be in the DNA is a bit puzzling, but don’t bother. It has been a problem for thousands of years, so things will not change soon. In her 2016 Presidential campaign Hillary Clinton in a brief moment of honesty before her LGBT followers slipped out of her tightly regimented script and went full-Leninist to share her feelings about the supporters of her rival, Donald Trump.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up….  Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/

Yes, we know. The picture now should be coming into a very sharp focus: whether they will admit it or not, these recalcitrant, racist white folks, as any good contemporary Marxist will happily explain to you, are the oppressor class. Do not expect them to happily renounce their unearned and undeserved privilege they daily use imperceptibly to exploit and discriminate against non-white people. As our former geneticist-in chief informed us, discrimination derives from a racism that is embedded in our DNA with no “cure” in sight. Obama is being his usual disingenuous self when he says “our DNA” when he really means the DNA of the oppressor-discriminators. What Marxism 101 teaches is that the oppressor class never voluntarily steps aside to make room for the oppressed:  Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot overthrew them and then killed them.

What then to do about these DNA infected, racist irredeemables, the oppressors who dismantled Jim Crow fifty years ago, but who still, as Vice President Joe Bidden so elegantly put in back in 2012, “They're going to put y'all back in chains”? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/vp-biden-says-republicans-are-going-to-put-yall-back-in-chains/

The Stalinist, Maoist approach, so last-century, is not necessary. Bring on part three, open borders, a final solution, so to speak, that eliminates white privilege and the white racist infrastructure that keeps it in place by flooding the country with third world people in sufficient quantities to displace those“white folks”too long in control.  This has been going on in California since the 1965 immigration law change, and the most populous state is now sufficiently non-white as to give open-borders, Hillary Clinton most of her two-plus million vote plurality in the last November election.  If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were to have their way, in a few short years, the entire country would be “Cali-fornicated” and that “basket of deplorables” would no longer be a problem. 

To get a glimpse of what the elimination of white privilege in its final stages looks like and how to put the oppressors out of business, African Marxist, Robert Mugabe, perhaps, best shows the way.  As Ilana Mercer illustrates in her recent book, Into Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Mugabe in a few short decades turned Rhodesia, the bread basket of Africa into a third world hell hole, expelling and murdering the white farmers who produced the food and ultimately the wealth.  But Mugabe was an illustrious member of the oppressed race, and even though he wrecked the country and murdered thousands of people, black and white, he dismantled white privilege.  This made him into an international star of sorts, a particular favorite at western universities such as Edinburgh, U-Mass, and Michigan State University where he was bestowed with tributes along with honorary degrees. 

The revolutionary freedom fighter was spokesperson and cherished idol of the anti-apartheid growth industry abroad. It took decades and piles of dead bodies before Robert Mugabe lost luster in the eyes of the American mainstream media.  Mercer, Ilana. Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa (p. 134). Bytech Services. Kindle Edition.  


Michigan State University must have forgotten Mugabe's success in dismantling white privilege and in 2008 stripped him of the doctorate awarded eighteen years prior. 

Michigan State University trustees Friday stripped Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe of an honorary law degree it gave him in 1990, citing a pattern of human rights abuses and political repression. Mugabe led the successful struggle to overcome White minority rule over what then was called Rhodesia. But he now faces wide domestic and international opposition because of Zimbabwe’s economic collapse and his crackdown on opponents.  http://diverseeducation.com/article/11685/

The American people have just finished eight years of being governed by a version of Robert Mugabe-Lite. Mrs. Mugabe was anointed and waiting in the wings with, we can be quite sure, her plans for that “basket of deplorables,” her very own Untermenschen who are really not part of America.  Much to the chagrin of our sneering  overlords, she was upended by the Orange Man who may at least slow down our own miserable forced march to Zimbabwe.   

-