Against Anti-Racism and the Hemeneutics of Hatred

Fighting racism requires knowing what it is – not an easy task….  [R]acism is a Schimfort: a term with pejorative connotations, whose very use inevitably tends to be more instrumental than descriptive. To call someone a racist, even if the charge is intellectually dishonest, can be a useful tactic, either in successfully paralyzing or in casting enough suspicion as to curtail credibility.  
                                            Alain de Benoist, “What is Racism?”

A proposal: to make the charge of “racism” an automatic libelous offense if made by a private citizen, an impeachable act with the loss of government pension if made by a public official.  Punishment falls on the accuser unless the charge could be substantiated and confirmed by empirically verifiable evidence based on a single, legally promulgated definition of “racism” with clear, operational terms. What about free speech, you counter? Well, what about it?  Free speech has done a disappearing act in Canada where the Canadian Senate recently passed Bill C-16 which puts yet another hate crime on the books, this one making it a hate crime, are you ready? -- to refer to a transgendered person who has become a “he” as a “she” and vice versa. “Transphobia” is born joining its morally defective cousins, homophobia and Islamophobia, phobias that will put the possessor in the cross hairs of the local prosecutor.  Also, free speech in western Europe has given way to government regulated speech where any criticism of a member of a designated protected class is prosecutable, again, as hate speech. Here in the U.S.? Try going to any university and college campus and see how far free speech takes you before some social justice warrior throws a plastic bag of feces at you because you are deemed a “hateful” person, or some self-designated “anti-fascist” starts punching you because disagreeing with him makes you a fascist.

Essentially, the governments in the western world have clearly shifted away from the long-held high priority of liberal, democratic polities for freedom of expression to the suppression of “hatred” selectively and arbitrarily interpreted and enforced by high placed ideologues who get to determine whose hatred gets punished and whose is justified. This turns the business of legislating, of making readily understandable rules that everyone is expected to follow, into a contorted hermeneutics of hatred where the subjectivity of moralizing displaces the objectivity of law and the intended universality of its application. The ideologues who operate the abstruse moral machinery that is designed to suppress hatred have theorized individuals into distinct groups, the oppressed and the oppressors, the later who exploit and, of course, hate the former. The social world the ideologues envision is a deeply morally fractured one populated by helpless, blameless victims who need protection from the malevolent, menacing bigots who fail to recognize the humanity of those they oppress. The moral and legal order of such a world then must be structured to protect the oppressed and punish the oppressors, and so the moral and legal standards and expectations necessarily differ depending on whether you are an oppressor or one of the oppressed.  The mad scramble then commences. You join, if you can, the community of the oppressed, articulate your grievances, agitate for revenge, and demand the assistance and protection of the state.  Failing that, retreat, submit, be quiet and hope the political police will leave you in peace.  Whatever one might wish to call this kind of social-political order, a “democracy” is not what firsts jumps to mind.

But a swift and resolute implementation of the above proposal would have many immediate and enormously salubrious effects. Below are just a few. To begin with, it would liberate public discourse from the fetters imposed by the preening moralists and scolds in so many places who wait to pounce on any and every deviation from the script of political correctness.  Some of the scolds are even highly paid to do so. In the workplace, at cocktail parties, in schools, churches, labor unions, political assemblies, and, even as unimaginable as it might now seem, university classrooms, people could speak their minds, express their concerns without the threatening, censorious race commissars launching protests and coercing apologies, Chinese Cultural Revolution style.  Fewer lobotomized college students would be assaulting campus speakers who might hurt their feelings. No more time wasted on deciphering “racist dog whistles.” No longer would we have to endure the hypocritical, disingenuous calls from the likes of Barack Obama, fresh from consorting with a scurrilous race-hustler like Al Sharpton, for a “national conversation about race” because it would actually be possible to have real one, or rather, many, without a threat to your career, reputation, even your physical safety.

The enacted proposal would reduce the current mass hysteria most recently manifest with the election of Donald Trump, christened during his campaign by Hillary Clinton and the MSM as an “unredeemable” racist along with the sixty-two million people that voted for him. There would be fewer reincarnated Hilters and Mussolinis, Bull Connors and George Wallaces to fear, agonize over and scare small children.  The Ku Klux Klan would be the laughable fringe-guys in pointy hats numbering of a couple of thousand nationwide, not, once again, all the Trump voters from Hillary’s “basket of deplorables.”  It would be less likely that another disillusioned Democrat like James Hodgkinson would take target practice at Republican congressmen.  The Southern Poverty Law Center, unable to smear any conservative individual or organization it took a fancy to, would have to close up shop.

This proposal enacted would also mute the multitudes of charlatans and extortionists who populate the “diversity” industry.  Unable to affix “racist” to every conceivable thought, gesture, word, and institution that strikes their fancy, the vast “victim” community under their care, one which they now relentlessly endeavor to expand, would begin to shrink.  The elaborate taxonomy of racism, now in a growth mode – “overt racism,” “covert racism,” economic “racism,” “systemic racism,” “institutional racism,” “environmental racism,” “legacy racism,” and many more – would be duly recognized as mysterious and incomprehensible mumbo jumbo and thus sink happily into oblivion, a subject matter for anthropologists sometime in the far future to ponder as a practice of post-modern superstition or witchcraft.  With many fewer individuals and institutions certified as “racist,” there would be a substantial decline in micro-aggressions which, like a reduction in crime, would make everyone happy. Especially pleased would be university presidents who could relax a bit and not worry about whether they must grovel and apologize every time they hear of one on campus and whether they will be fired for being too lenient on the micro-aggressors.
 
Many “professors” of English and sundry area studies programs would have to seek actual, useful employment. There would be little demand for professors of Post-Colonial Studies, even less for literature courses that are all about the racism in Shakespeare, Milton and Faulkner and every other dead white male in the literary canon. African American studies programs would wither since they are premised on discovery of “racism” as the core of the American experience.

Calling or labelling a person now a “racist” is an excellent way to do accomplish several things that enhance your self-esteem and elevate your status as a superior person.  Firsts, it shows how deeply you care about the disadvantaged, the magnanimous dimensions of your personality and your sensitivity to the suffering of others. As well it immediately separates you from that “racist” you have identified, who, of course, is your complete opposite. Thus the contrast dramatically demonstrates your vast moral superiority and justifies your self-righteous disdain.  It also bolsters your standing among friends and colleagues as a truth-to-power speaker even if that “racist’ you have called out is an unemployed mechanic from down the street whose house is in foreclosure. Best of all, you don’t have to do anything else to bolster your virtue credentials, like send your child to that rundown inner city school full of, well, you get the picture.  Sometimes it is even fun, especially when that “racist” gets really angry and flustered after you have outed him and you get to relish his discomfort as he stumbles through all of those futile protests to convince you otherwise.
 
However, this proposal if enacted would constitute a bold step toward making people more accountable and responsible for the language they use to assert their superior virtue, and it would impose a cost to what is now, cost-free moral preening.  Taking “racism” out of the compendium of popularly permissible slurs would mean that “racist,” as an accusation with all of its invidious comparisons would have to give way to an honest, “I don’t like you,” which is fine. No one is required to like anyone. But not liking someone only means just that, with no implications for your moral stature, no put-downs that testify to your own goodness. So, if you accuse someone of an offense that relegates them to, as Hillary Clinton so elegantly put it, “a basket of deplorables,” as “irredeemable,” you should be able to prove it and suffer some penalty if you cannot.

Most importantly, this proposal enacted would also greatly advance the possibility of making an honest consideration of what the implications are for the mass migrations from the third world that are currently assaulting the countries of the west.  In much of western Europe, native Europeans who question the inundation of refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Asia are shamed by the politicians, in collusion with the media moguls, as bigots and xenophobes.

Immigration is an enormously complex issue with incalculable cultural, political, economic and security implications. Millions of immigrants, many destitute and low-skilled, carry an enormous financial burden that falls mainly on the middle and working class natives. Many of those entering Europe are unable to speak the language of the host country.  Many come from societies with very different cultures, whose values are in conflict with those of western secular society. Not surprising then is that some of new comers are resentful of their hosts and inimical to their norms.  This means that cultural conflict is inevitable and that the sheer number of new-comers threatens the long-enjoyed stability of the host countries.  All of these concerns are real, pressing and legitimate, but the elites who have opened the gates remain crudely reductivist in their own defense, seemingly blind to the coming catastrophe and resolutely self-righteous in their condemnation of those who question them.  Those native, French, Germans, Swedes and Dutch who doubt the wisdom of the inundation and fear the destruction of their own culture get the reductio ad racista treatment so long successful in beating down legitimate dissent.  First, you de-moralize dissent and make it into bigotry; then you make into criminals those citizens you have turned into bigots, unable now in any way to participate in the decisions that affect their lives and those of their children.  That the likes of Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Stefan Löfven continue to call their soft tyrannies run by unelected bureaucrats who punish their citizens for speaking the truth “democracies” is one more expression of their treachery and dishonesty.
 

If the above proposal were enacted the social and political elites would have to begin to argue their case and relinquish the smear that has served so well for so long.

Angela Merkel, Stalin in Drag

 Back in the Pleistocene era in 1989 the Berlin wall went down.  Most of the East Germans, who had likely contemplated with envy the “freedom” enjoyed by the Jurgens and Gretas next door in the West, must have wondered with great anticipation what life in a post-Stalinist world would be like.  No Stasi knuckle crushing snoops in every crevice to monitor and record what you read, said, or might be thinking, no need to pretend that the stupid government propaganda was anything more than attempted manipulation and control.  How relieved and optimistic they must have been, and no one trying to peer into the future then, even with the wildest imagination, could likely have conjured up as a Frau-Fuhrer so ghastly a phantasm as the Teutonic Stalin-in-drag, Angela Merkel. 

A Stalinist world, such as the USSR, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, or Erich Honecker’s DDR, is an alternative universe, one where everything is the opposite of what it is said to be and where just pointing that out amounts to a serious crime.  “Democracy,” majority rule, is the imposition of diktats by the bosses in the Politburo. “Equality” is rigid caste system of privileged party overseeers.  “Freedom” is a one-way ticket to forced labor in the Gulag for those unenthused about life in the workers’ paradise, getting shot trying to escape from East Berlin, or sliding off a crude raft and drowning in the waters off Havana.    

Which bring us to today’s Germany where Boss Merkel has resurrected and summoned the Stalinist Stasi who now pursue the unenlightened ones who exhibit, shall we say, inappropriate emotions.  No room for Germans who do not like the way that they are told to feel about what the apparatchiks are doing to them, a bit like it was in back in the DDR.  Consider, below, this Orwellian description of what German politicians and German police do to German people who fail to understand the proper boundaries of expression.  From a report on recent German government crackdown on social media users.

“In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion and incitement to racism. The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action,” Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said in a statement. “Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet.”

As officialese goes, this is hard to top for its sheer self-contradictory stupidity, and its bullying, sinister intonations. To begin, “The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action.”  "Hate posting"?  Well, this does sound serious: police action must ensue to stamp out, yes, hate posting. The German people are in grave danger.  But then, try not to laugh, as we learn that the Federal government launched a “coordinated campaign across 14 states” in a country of no less than eighty-one million people, to ensnare a grand total of 36 folks plunking away on social media. Sounds eerily like the Stasi of the DDR, searching far and wide, making sure that no one steps out of line with the approved thinking and guidance of Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker.  This does not describe the action of a government protecting the security and interests of its citizens: it is the work of a propagandizing regime of ideocrats chasing down a few hapless, harmless dissenters. With highly publized punishment for the recalcitrant few, you can cower the many.

These 36 people were “accused of hateful postings over social media” and please note the anonymity, a Kafkaesque nameless specter which accuses but cannot be identified, questioned, countered or even understood.  Who were the accusers and what was the exact nature of the accusations beyond the big old umbrella of “hateful”?  Vague and general works best for government enforcers.  “Hateful” in its normal usage is pretty subjective, but Merkel and the German political establishment have politicized the word so that it is objective, precise and, most important, applicable – “hateful” is disapproval or criticism of state-defined victims – but yet conveniently vague and abstract – producing “a climate of fear” – so as to be able to criminalize whomever they have determined has dissented from the state-imposed multi-cultural orthodoxy.  “A climate of fear” is a nice tool for the government bosses. They can pull it out when needed, supplemented with the lexicon of invectives – “xenophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “nativist” “fascist” -- and unleash their repressive organs, selectively, on whomever offends the the noble sensibilities of the moment.  

“Incitement to racism” as a crime is particularly troublesome to contemplate since “racist” is now applied so promiscuously, particularly by leftwing politicians all over the planet, as to be meaningless beyond its intent as an insult, shorthand for “a stupid, mean-spirited right-winger, lacking in compassion for the unfortunate who has no place in our progressive society.”  In the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump supporters were “racists” and hence, “irredeemable,” which to a lot of people sounded rather hateful, not to mention, threatening. Unlike other crimes, e. g. murder, assault, burglary, jury tampering, it is impossible for one to prove that he is not a racist (no one I have ever heard of has of yet ever pulled off this feat), which makes it so handy and versatile.  Safe to say, no leftwing politician in the U.S in the last twenty years has not at some time resorted to calling someone he or she didn’t like a racist. And, speaking of “incitement,” and “hate speech,” reeved up on a steady stream of Trump-hatred from the likes of the NYT scribblers and CNN, MSNBC talkers, a leftist from the Bernie Sanders camp recently attempted to murder a couple of dozen Republican congressmen in suburban Washington DC.  

Let us now hear from the head German policeman, Herr, Holger Münch, speaking like he was trained by the editors of Pravda.  “Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet.”  Orwellian Newspeak like this leans toward first-person plural pronouns – “Our free society…” –  there is, of course, no “our”, in possession of a "free society."  This is an intentional misdirection which camouflages the master-slave relationship of the German people and their German governors, the actual power exerted by an elite, privileged class over those whom they regard as their inferiors, some of whom, many perhaps, who resent the imposed mass migration of needy third-worlders and who don’t feel free to complain about it. Of course, we don’t know what the “threats,” “criminal violence” and “violence” are that filled the social media messaging of these now 36 criminals tracked down by the German Feds, but one suspects that the laws upon which the prosecution will be based have been written with  a maximum, "enemy of our freedom" scope and flexibility as to assure conviction and that the presiding magistrates will spare no effort to inflict maximum punishment.  Examples must be made.   

One “climate of fear” that does not seem to trouble Holger Münch much comes from the spectacle of secular, liberated German women accosted in mass by young immigrant Muslim males whose views of women are shaped by the texts of a seventh century prophet from a desert, and whose behavior, coming from German men, would put them for long stretches in prison.   From New Year’s Eve, 2016:

“The world reeled following reports that as many as 1,000 women had been sexually assaulted - groped, robbed, intimidated and separated from their friends - at Cologne's central train station on New Year's Eve. Many of the perpetrators, it was alleged, appeared to be of North African or Arab descent…”  

Oh, yes, no jumping to conclusions too quickly: the “alleged” North African and Arab-descendent robbers, gropers and sexual assaulters numbered at least 1,000.  They collected around one gathering place in a single city in contrast to the 36 Die Herren und Damen in 14 different states at home on laptops posting mean, angry stuff on their Facebook pages, probably read only by the flunkies in the governments' PC surveillance department who sicced the policemen on them.  Who, really, should be afraid of whom?  In the new DDR only Angela and her Handlangeren get to say.  But let’s pursue the conversation about fear.  There was a lot of it on the streets of Cologne and elsewhere in Germany from the criminal violence of Merkel’s protected class of victims.  The perpetrators, however, are not the concern or target of the nouveau Stasi Federal police chief.  Instead, room for more of them must be made so that Frau Merkel’s globalist, multicultural, bona fides remain in tact.  This is a “climate of fear” that the Germans will be expected by Merkel and her crew to get used to.

The hate-speech/hate crime legislation that Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada and other western European countries have put into place is a predictable, logical extension of their capitulation to third world mass migration.  In the U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, who was instrumental in the passage of the 1965 immigration law that led to the flooding of the country with third world immigrants, later became a strong advocate in the Senate of hate-crime legislation.  Mass immigration and hate-crimes are hand in glove measures for leftists. First you flood the towns with aliens and then punish the locals when they complain.

In the same news release cited above, Heiko Mass, the German Justice Minister, is now said to be pushing for a new law that targets “hate speech” on social media.  As the elites’ strategy of the ethnic replacement of their native populations becomes a painful reality to them, it becomes politically necessary to ramp up the criminalization of the inevitable expression of resentment that results, and to punish resistance and opposition to the planned destruction.  The criminalization of speech based on emotion is one more step toward completing the soft totalitarian society desired by the left with its coerced uniformity of thinking and behavior.  Somehow, somewhere down the road we will all be equal the way, God, no, sorry, history intended.  Don’t worry, be happy.

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. 

In Defense of Hatred -- the Right Kind

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness that speaks lies, and he that sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 6: 16-19

What is to be done about hatred?  I mean “hatred” -- yet another word coopted and perverted by the left.   It has become an almost exclusively a political-ideological weapon, and in the world of meta-politics, a word that the left owns and uses to their advantage.  They wield it to stigmatize and delegitimize persons or institutions insufficiently enthused about the forced march toward the “equality” they envision and those who resist the relentless assaults on their speech, their faith, their traditions, their heritage.  If you have a traditional, Christian view of marriage, you hate homosexuals. If you question affirmative action you hate blacks.  If you are uneasy about the flood of third world immigrants, you hate foreigners.  If you suggest that entitlement programs are out of financial control and should be reformed, you hate (check all the boxes) – the poor, the sick, the homeless, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  Donald Trump, who during his Presidential campaign, proposed a more vigorous vetting of Muslims entering the U.S. because Muslims, these days, seem to be the busiest of our new comers with mass-murder (the Orlando night club slaughter, a recent example), was roundly derided as the candidate of hate, while Hillary Clinton who referred to her opponent’s supporters as “deplorables”, “irredeemable, but thankfully they not part of America” remained the exemplar of compassion.   

For the cultural Marxists, their politics of “social justice” is the practice of selective compassion: the selection of victim-classes of oppression and bigotry and crafting the narrative of their suffering; the identification of the recalcitrant oppressors and the undeserved fruits of their exploitation; and the inevitable denouement, the oppressors unmasked and excoriated – bigots, incapable of human compassion, motivated by that primitive tribal emotion, hatred.  Once convicted as haters, they can be pushed outside the boundaries of common humanity and rightfully denied any moral or political space to compete with their ideas and practice their beliefs, pushed to the fringes where, if they remain compliant, they can be “safely” ignored. This crude, delusional juxtaposition of selfless compassion (them) versus gross visceral hatred (us) fuels the lefts’ sense of its vast moral superiority and is the source of authority for its claim to impose its diktats and regulate the details of everyone’s life.

Consider for a moment the frequently referenced, self-proclaimed authority on “hate groups”, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a disseminator of agitprop whose executors are able to live in considerably high style by selling the absurd fiction of a threatening, powerful Ku Klux Klan.  From its website: The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Simple and irresistible (how can you not be against hate and bigotry?), tested and marketed to appeal especially to a well-heeled, high minded clientele that embraces a politics of arrested development. Being rich and being white can be a problem – white guilt aka “white privilege”, about which, of course, the SPLC has a lot to say.  And, they can help with that:  with a generous tax deductible check comes some guilt relief with the bonus that one gets to imagine oneself as part of a courageous anti-fascist, anti-racist crusade battling the multitudinous hordes of neo-Nazis and right wing bigots pouring out of the small towns and farms of white America.

The pure cynicism beneath this fake idealism, manufactured heroism, and virtue signaling comes straight out of Bolshevik playbook of the 1930s, drafted and perfected by Stalin himself.  From the Constitution of the USSR, adopted in December 1936, under Stalin’s direct supervision:

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

No one could surpass the Stalinists in their professed enthusiasm for equality and no one could question their anti-racist credentials.  But with the Stalinists there is always the absurdity and the irony that emanates from their alternative universe where everything is the opposite of what they say. This “equality” constitutionally guaranteed as “an indefeasible law” was drafted and promulgated during the very time when the grey tunic wearing General Secretary of the CPSU, dedicated to advancing the well being of the toiling masses (the “most vulnerable members” of society as the SPLC would put it) was practicing his unique version of “hatred and contempt” with the staged show trials of his old Bolshevik compatriots and a behind the scenes massive political purge that sent hundreds of thousands to the Gulag and slaughtered many thousands more. 

Contemporary Stalinists like the ones who run the SPLC have imitated their predecessors and perfected a style of propaganda that disguises their goal, the destruction of political opposition, by intensively moralizing their self-image with the language of compassion and fairness and, conversely, demonizing the face and personality of the opposition.  The moralized Stalinist of the 1930s was a little-guy-champion, anti-Fascist, an image designed to make him always come out the winner in the game of “which side are you on?” Even better, “Fascism” was, and still is, an expandable-contractible sort of label, easily adjusted to fit whomever and whenever the occasion demanded. The twenty-first century moralized Stalinist of the SPLC ilk is an anti-racist, which means, if he doesn’t like you, then well … forget the groveling and self-criticism Chinese Cultural Revolution style.  It does no good.  You have to join that other camp of the properly shunned, that “basket of deplorables”.  “Racism” like its cousin “Fascism” has a similar flexibility which makes it suitable for attachment to those disagreeable sorts far and wide.

“Hatred” is one of a number of popular resorted to slurs in the left’s agitprop lexicon.  It joins “Fascist” “Nazi”, “Racist”, all words that rely heavily on the imagery of Europe in the 1930s – Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain and, of course, Hitler’s Germany.  How ironic is it that today’s “progressives” like Barack Obama who claim to see in history an “arc that bends toward justice” have constructed a stark, historically frozen moral universe where Hitler never really dies – he just perpetually reappears with broad support in contemporary incarnations, for the moment, Donald Trump – and where they cannot conceive of themselves as anything other than the moral obverse of the Brown Shirts and goose-steppers?  Of course, the more morally repugnant and malignant your opposition, the greater by contrast the glow of your own goodness and virtue.  Without Nazis to fall back on, the moralism of todays progressives would go poof.

With the frenzied and indiscriminate attachment of “hatred” to its critics, the left exhibits its grossest defects, its rank hypocrisy and incapacity for critical self-reflection.  The unprecedented outpouring of contempt by the left for Donald Trump and the sixty-two million Americans who voted for him suggests that the hatred so eagerly attributed to so many others is a projection of their own hatred and loathing to which they are astonishingly oblivious.   

There is, finally, as we see in Proverbs (above) a “righteous” hatred, the hatred of a just God for wickedness – lying, the killing of innocents, vanity and deceit -- all deserved to be hated.  But this is not the hatred that the left rails against. Hatred for them is completely and ultimately political, something that is only found on the right, something somehow that they themselves in all their rectitude never experience. This approach of turning your critics into deeply immoral, “irredeemable” people enables the left to advance even further toward what they seek, a complete monopoly of power.  Hatred then as a political weapon achieves its perfection when it moves from de-moralizing the opposition to its full criminalization -- hate crimes. With the criminalization of hate, the full, unimpeded power of the state can be brought to bear on unpopular thinking and speech. No competition allowed: the monopoly is complete.  Hate crime laws have paralyzed the right in Europe and Canada and cowed their populations.  Hillary Clinton’s unexpected derailment has only delayed the coming tsunami.  Get ready.  

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.   

-