Jump to content

Open Club  ·  36 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

On ‘People of Color’ and ‘Systemic Racism’ — And Why I Am Sick of Hearing It


Muda69
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://spectator.org/systemic-racism-people-of-color/

Quote

I am sick of it. I really am sick of it.

I understand, better than most, what prejudice is. When I was a boy, I went bowling with friends. Someone else put chewed gum on my seat as a practical joke. I did not see it, and I sat on it. It ruined my pants. It never came off. My parents’ finances were lower middle class, and they could not afford at that time to buy me new pants. As I stood up, with the chewing gum on my pants at the bowling alley, a laughing teenager from a few lanes over yelled, “Jew bastard!” I was maybe seven years old.

Around age 12, one Saturday — Shabbat afternoon — I was in the park with friends. We were playing ball. Suddenly, a group of teenagers came riding on bicycles into the park, swinging metal bicycle chains, yelling “Jew bastards!” and “Kikes!” We started running away from them. It was time for me, a Kike and a Jew bastard, to learn karate and self-defense.

Years later, one Sunday night I was on the IRT subway train from Brooklyn to Manhattan, returning to Columbia where I went to college, after having spent my Shabbat (Sabbath) weekend with my mother (of blessed memory) and sisters, as I did every Shabbat. It was 90 minutes on subways and buses from Columbia every Friday to be home with family on Shabbat, and 90 minutes every Sunday night back to college. On the train I did my assigned weekend readings. As I was reading, suddenly a person grabbed the yarmulka off my head and yelled, “Jew bastard!” He was with two friends. I never have forgotten the image. The train was about to stop, and they were laughing and about to exit the train car — with my kipah.

Maybe my reaction would have been different if my sister, Debbie, had not hand-crocheted that kipah. Maybe my reaction would have been different if I had stopped to think rationally. But that was a last straw. I jumped up from my seat, slammed my book, ran at the three of them, and karate-kicked the fellow who was holding my yarmulka. I kicked him in a part of his body that rendered a serious question whether he ever would have children. He fell to the floor, clutching at what remained of his reproductive organ, as the train stopped and the car door was opening. I yelled at the top of my lungs, “Never again!” I was not thinking of the Holocaust but of the chewing gum and the teens on bikes with those metal chains. The two friends of my assailant fell off the train car, and I kicked the other one — the one moaning and screaming with a suddenly high voice — off the car.

...

I have encountered prejudice all my life. I wear a yarmulka, and that makes me different. My law school — UCLA — held graduation the year before mine on the holy Biblical Festival day of Shavuot. When we asked them to reschedule on grounds that Orthodox Jews could not attend, they would not. In my law school first year, my professor of criminal law would not allow me a “make-up date” to take an exam that fell on Yom Kippur. The UCLA Law School placement office scheduled all my job interviews with prospective law firms to fall on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot of my second year. When I brought the scheduling mishap to their attention, their response was, “Tough luck.” Later, as a professor at UCI Law School, I was approached by a law student whose contracts law professor had announced that anyone who misses any class session all term would suffer a reduction in his course grade, and that professor would not allow that student to miss class on Rosh Hashanah. Later, perspicaciously seeing where the greater society was headed, I voluntarily signed up for the first or second time the university offered a certificate course in “Diversity Training.” Each week we learned about another demographic group in our society — Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Gays, Women, the Elderly, Indo-Asians — and then we would bond as a group each week at a group lunch at a restaurant themed around that group: a Black “Soul Food” restaurant, a Mexican restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Indian restaurant. I privately approached the program director and said, “Y’know, for all the sensitivity and group bonding, you are isolating me as an Orthodox Jew. All the group meals are at non-kosher restaurants where I cannot eat, and all the gatherings are on Saturday afternoons, Shabbat, the day of my Holy Sabbath, so I cannot attend.” He looked at me — this master of sensitivity and diversity — and said, “We cannot accommodate everyone, Dov.” That’s how I learned about diversity. I not only have a formal Certificate in Diversity Sensitivity from the University of California, but I also know what it means.

So I am sick of hearing about diversity and sensitivity. I am sick of it. You know how I succeeded in my life? I did not whine about anti-Semitism. I did not tell all my classmates and professors and my readers that “you all owe me” for all the times I was called a “Kike” and a “Jew bastard” and a “Christ killer.” That you owe me reparations and you owe me compensation for the reduced grades I suffered for classes and tests missed on Sh’mini Atzeret and Simchat Torah. Rather, ya wanna know how I succeeded? I’ll tell you:

Like my mom and dad, both of blessed memory, and like all other members of my family, and like all my Orthodox Jewish friends, I never relied on a favor or compensatory advantage from government or institutions. I just knew I had to work harder and do better than others, such that “they” would not be able to keep me out even if “they” wanted. I had to get SAT scores in the top five percent in the country to be sure I would get into Columbia. So I did. To get into the law school of my choice, I had to get LSAT scores that blew the ceiling off, so I scored in the 99th percentile. No one was gonna give me Affirmative Anything. To get a judicial clerkship, I figured I would have to get onto law review, so I worked even harder than that and got named Chief Articles Editor of law review. (I confidentially was told later by two people on the outgoing law review editorial board, who had been at the vote where I was selected for that honor, that I actually had been one of the two finalists for Editor-in-Chief of law review, but that I had lost the vote because four people openly said they could not vote for an Orthodox Jew since he does not work on Saturday.) To get into a top 20 law firm, I needed a resumé that showed law review and federal judicial clerkship. To write for The American Spectator, I had to have writing skills that would impress Melissa Mackenzie and Wlady Pleszczynski and just enough snark to impress Bob Tyrrell. To be a law school professor, I had to have pedagogical skills that rapidly would make me too good not to hire and — in this era of cancel culture — have the self-discipline in the classroom to hide my beliefs from the rabidly leftist faculty members always on the prowl, looking for conservative professors and G-d-fearing adjuncts to extirpate.

 

So I am sick of it.

Like almost every other Caucasian in this country, I do not owe a thing to anyone “of color.” My two Bubbies (grandmothers) and two Zeydes (grandfathers) fled to this country from Poland and Russia in the period between 1881 and 1914, one step ahead of the Cossacks and Muzhiks who killed Jews in pogroms while yelling “Zhid!” and “khristos ubiytsa.” My ancestors — unlike Kamala Harris’s ancestors — did not own slaves. Rather, they were the society’s quasi-serfs, living behind ghetto walls. When my parents of blessed memory were born here in the 1920s they did not know slavery — they were too busy starving during the Depression, one step removed from being homeless and evicted with their virtually penniless parents. My Bubbie sold eggs on a street corner to get through it, and she stored the day’s leftover stock in her small Brownsville apartment; my mother of blessed memory would recollect all her life the memory of an apartment that perpetually smelled from eggs and how she therefore feared ever bringing a suitor to her home to meet her parents.

We grew up in a home that was free of prejudice. My parents taught me that all people are created equal in G-d’s eyes. Most all American Caucasians evolved to a color-blind value system. By the year 2008, just before Obama was elected, this entire country, except for society’s outlier, was free of prejudice. Everyone was equal. America never was about equal outcomes but about equal opportunities. With the 1978 Bakke case having been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 30 years earlier, the United States had offered discrete minorities two generations of extra advantage to get into college, to own businesses, to enter professions. American cities were electing Black mayors. Two generations of Americans never had seen a segregated bathroom or bus or lunch counter. This country had achieved racial harmony. It was not that long ago that racial harmony existed.

And then we got Obama. What kind of “White-privileged systemic racist” country voluntarily elects a Black — with no demonstrable background other than having been a community organizer and an undistinguished one-term senator — to be their president? Has France elected a Black prime minister? England? Scotland and Wales? Italy? Germany? Spain? Poland? Russia? Has China ever had a leader who is not Chinese? Japan a leader who is not Japanese? Korea a non-Korean?

This country was built in part with the terrible Original Sin of African slavery. And yet more White American men gave their lives fighting to end slavery than have died in all other American wars combined. And it ended more than 150 years ago.

It ended more than 150 years ago.

The leftist mainstream media brainwash half this country, while the leftist social media brainwash even more than half of the Millennials and the Generation Z sorts who think Cardi B is their answer to Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. But it all is lies. This country is not “systemically racist.” Obama changed the tone and tenor, destroyed the civilization, corrupted the national culture. He wanted to be transformative, and he was. He fooled a nation, the most racist-free, open, and tolerant society that ever was — into believing it is “systemically racist.” A society that let a bigot and hater like Ilhan Omar come in from Somalia. A society that allows a rabid race-baiter like Al Sharpton, who instigated street pogroms that resulted in deaths, to have a national TV show.

Do you ever notice that White leftists lead promoting the Big Lie — the New York Times 1619 Project, Hollywood, academia, the mainstream media? Do you ever notice that they do not give up their own jobs so that Blacks can have them? That is the trick — the old Three-Card Monte: if you are White as alabaster, but you keep moaning about “systemic racism,” maybe the people of color will not notice that you control all the positions of influence and power they covet? That you run the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN. Give them a few token slots, hand them an Oscar or two — and maybe they will not notice that it is you, the Hypocritical White Leftist Power Infrastructure at the universities, in Hollywood, at the mainstream media, running Silicon Valley and social media, who actually hold the reins of power and run this country, determining — by wielding your influence and control of the media and over the minds of the mediocrities who cannot find news stories outside of Facebook and Twitter — who wins presidential elections, which tweets may appear on White-privileged Jack Dorsey’s Twitter and White-privileged Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook and White-privileged Jeff Bezos’s Amazon Web Services and Washington Post.

I am sick of it.

The road to success in America is — and always will be, unless Democrat “progressives” have their way and degrade us into socialism — by self-help. If you rely on government to pull you up, you never will be equal to The Man because no one who gives charity, whether it is called “welfare” or “food stamps” or just-plain “entitlements” — will ever make you richer than they are. If you want to break barriers, you have to take advantage of all that America offers and make yourself indispensable in some way, leaving others unable to deny you. If you want better COVID prevention, get the darned vaccine instead of complaining about racism. Stop firing people who say a two-syllable word that starts with “N” when they simply are making a legitimate point or even trying to teach others about the evils of racism. In this perverted society, it is totally OK to say a once-forbidden word that starts with “F” — even on TV.  Another word, referring to a woman’s private organ, that starts with “C.” No one gets reprimanded for that. But let a decent professor say a Chinese word that merely sounds like the forbidden word, and he is fired.

Here is a prophecy: If things do not change, and if those who historically faced prejudice before Obama and before Bakke intend to rely on blaming the Innocent and on extolling cultural trash like Cardi B and on “canceling” good people who are prejudice-free simply because the offenders believe in free enterprise and in self-help, believe in the Word of G-d and that there are only two genders, then 50 years from now the same disadvantaged groups who today rely on blaming instead of self-help will then be at the same exact rung on the social order that they are today, just as 50 years of racism-free society and Great Society “entitlements” have not accomplished equality of results today, even as newcomers from Asia entered this country these past 50 and 60 years and leap-frogged those already here.

As someone who has faced discrimination all my life, and has succeeded more than my parents and Bubbies and Zeydes of blessed memory ever could have dreamed — as have all my siblings and as did my former wife, Ellen of blessed memory and her family — I know firsthand the secret to the American Dream: Don’t rely on the government for equal results because the government only will botch most things it touches. Rather, rely on yourself for self-help and your immediate network of family and friends, and the people at your church, cathedral, synagogue or temple, and private sources for a boost when needed — and understand that all you need to do to succeed in America is to be good at something valued by others: whether it be LeBron James and Kobe Bryant at basketball, Jackie Robinson and Henry Aaron at baseball, Aretha Franklin and Michael Jackson at singing … or Thomas Sowell in economics, Ben Carson in medicine, Colin Powell in military leadership, the late Herman Cain in food entrepreneurship, Shelby Steele in philosophy, Stanley Crouch in culture, Richard Parsons in business, Obama in community organizing, Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan in race-baiting, or anyone else in any imaginable field whose story of success came from long hours of hard work and determination — and knowing that “systemic racism” is a canard adopted only by losers who are doomed always to be losers … or by their White liberal overlords hoping that no one notices them playing Three-Card Monte to retain their reins of control.

Wise words.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Kill me now 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cardi B.... who 12 year girls look up to...  theme Poor boys don't get no p***y .  On one hand it is vile but on the other it is kind of funny if you really think about it. It's like a old coach said years ago, "that p***y is good but eventually you have to get out of bed and go to work." Any higher level management job requires you to sell your soul to the corporation. Twenty four, seven and 365... you are told you put in the time to get the job done. Yes the pay is great but the tolls on your life are high. Its a lifestyle choice some make; however, it is their choice.  It is just plain ignorance to make light of ones religion no matter what it is. You might not agree but everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice. There were a ton of good points in this piece but again there is evil on both poles of liberal and conservative factions, I believe moderation is the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So an LEO pulls a guy over for expired tags, runs the name and finds there is a warrant for his arrest related to a misdemeanor firearms violation.  Asks the individual out of the car and starts to place him under arrest when the individual begins to attempt to flee.  The LEO mistakenly pulls her lethal weapon and pulls the trigger resulting in the offender's death.

Absent race - the LEO should be suspended or fired, potentially charged resulting in jail time - which is most likely gonna happen.  But since the offender was black, this LEO was obviously a racist pig who needs the heaviest book thrown at her for just wanting to kill blacks - and protesters need to loot because of it.......

If it were a white man, the public response would have been "well he shouldn't have tried to run".....

Tell me I'm wrong.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, swordfish said:

So an LEO pulls a guy over for expired tags, runs the name and finds there is a warrant for his arrest related to a misdemeanor firearms violation.  Asks the individual out of the car and starts to place him under arrest when the individual begins to attempt to flee.  The LEO mistakenly pulls her lethal weapon and pulls the trigger resulting in the offender's death.

Absent race - the LEO should be suspended or fired, potentially charged resulting in jail time - which is most likely gonna happen.  But since the offender was black, this LEO was obviously a racist pig who needs the heaviest book thrown at her for just wanting to kill blacks - and protesters need to loot because of it.......

If it were a white man, the public response would have been "well he shouldn't have tried to run".....

Tell me I'm wrong.....

You are not wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2021/04/14/minnesota-police-union-official-blames-daunte-wright-for-death/

The head of Minnesota’s largest police union slammed local officials over their handling of Daunte Wright’s police shooting death — as he blamed the 20-year-old victim for the fatal encounter.

“This is going to be an unpopular statement,” Brian Peters, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, told WCCO news talk radio Wednesday. “Daunte Wright, if he would have just complied. He was told he was under arrest. They were arresting him on a warrant for weapons. He set off a chain of events that unfortunately led to his death.”

“I’m not excusing it,” Peters continued. “But what we’re seeing in policing these days is that non-compliance by the public.”

The controversial statement comes one day after Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon and Officer Kimberly Potter, who shot and killed Wright during a traffic stop in the Minneapolis suburb Sunday, both resigned.

Bodycam footage shows Potter yelling, “Taser! Taser!” before she fired off a single round from her service weapon, mortally wounding Wright.

Gannon later said Potter, a 26-year veteran, thought she had grabbed her Taser instead of her firearm — although they are worn on opposite sides of an officer’s belt and vary radically in weight and appearance.

Their letters of resignation came in the wake of a city council vote late Monday to terminate Gannon, Potter and City Manager Curt Boganey.

“This is way over his head,” Peters said of Brooklyn Center Mayor Mike Elliott. “Both Curt Boganey and Tim Gannon were political pawns in whatever game the current mayor is playing. If I were the mayor, I would not allow the political activists to run the show.”

Wright’s death — just 10 miles from the site of George Floyd’s police-custody death on May 25 last year — has sparked widespread outrage and protests in Brooklyn Center and beyond.

State authorities are investigating the incident, and prosecutors in nearby Washington County, who took over the case, are expected to charge Potter as soon as Wednesday.

I couldn't agree more.  The LEO made the mistake by pulling the wrong weapon and will be punished severely for it - AS SHE SHOULD.  But it is the offender's fault for causing her to feel the need to pull ANY weapon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2021/04/14/the-truth-about-racism-cops-devine/

Who would want to be a cop in America? 

It’s open season on anyone who wears a badge, so no wonder recruitment is down, retirements are up and the streets grow ever more violent

By swallowing the false narrative of systemic racism, we have demonized and criminalized police while turning criminals into civil-rights martyrs. This won’t end well. 

By all accounts, the police shooting of a black man, Daunte Wright, Sunday during a traffic stop in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center was a stupid, horrible accident. But it’s not racism. 

The fact that it happened just 10 miles from where a former police officer, Derek Chauvin, is standing trial for the killing of George Floyd just makes the calamity unfathomably worse. 

The threat of extreme violence if Chauvin is acquitted already had the country on tenterhooks. 

But Wright’s death ensured the riots and looting came early. You would think, at such a time, that our nation’s leaders would find a way of lowering the temperature. But no. 

Former President Barack Obama, who could wield more influence for good than anyone, did the worst possible thing. Instead of using the opportunity to teach young men not to resist arrest, he fanned the flames of fear by falsely asserting that Wright’s death was racially motivated. 

It was “yet another shooting of a Black man . . . at the hands of police.” It showed “just how badly we need to reimagine policing and public safety in this country.” 

Yeah, well, we’ve been reimagining police for almost a year and the result is soaring crime, with black neighborhoods the worst hit. 

Democratic US Rep. Rashida Tlaib fanned the flames further. She tweeted that Wright’s shooting “wasn’t an accident. Policing in this country is inherently and intentionally racist . . . No more policing incarceration and militarization. It can’t be reformed.” 

So says the woman whose workplace is surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by thousands of police and military. 

These are the facts: This year to April 12, 52 black people were fatally shot by police, just three of whom were unarmed, and 109 white people suffered the same fate, five of whom were unarmed, according to a Washington Post database. 

Yet the media and allied activists only scream when police kill a black person. This leads to a distorted understanding of the problem, as a February survey by the Skeptic Research Center found. 

The majority of Americans, especially liberals, wildly overestimates the number of unarmed black men killed by police. For instance, 53.5 percent of those reporting “very liberal” political views estimated the number to be 1,000 or more deaths in 2019, when the actual number of unarmed black men fatally shot by police was 12. 

A lot of the media is invested in this false narrative and will not let it go, no matter how much mayhem it unleashes. 

For instance, before he resigned, Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon gave a press conference in which he mentioned the riots the previous night, and was shouted down by activists posing as reporters. “Don’t do that,” they scolded him. “There was no riot.” 

“There was,” he replied. “An officer was injured, hit on the head with a brick [and] was transported to the hospital.” 

Gannon was trying to be upfront when he released Potter’s bodycam footage and said she had mistaken her gun for her Taser. 

But the media was only interested in reinforcing their racism narrative. Wright was “driving while black” was a favorite headline. 

A Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist wrote that Wright was pulled over because he had air freshener dangling from his mirror. Still shots from the bodycam video show no air freshener existed from the start to the end of the police interaction. 

Pulling Wright over wasn’t racist. He was driving with expired license plate tags. 

Arresting him wasn’t racist. He had an open warrant related to an armed robbery case in which he allegedly choked a woman and threatened to shoot her. 

Wright should not have died, but racism had nothing to do with it. 

When he resisted arrest, jumped back in his car and attempted to escape, police had good reason to try to stop him. 

Kimberly Potter, the officer who shot Wright, clearly intended to tase him and not shoot him with her gun. 

The video shows her calling out, “Taser! Taser! Taser!” before firing. 

She was charged Wednesday with second-degree manslaughter. 

Due process is being followed. 

But the mob that showed up at her house baying for blood demands a different sort of justice, which the cowardly city council won’t refuse. 

The council fired Brooklyn Center City Manager Curt Boganey on Monday because he said Potter should not be hung, drawn and quartered by the mob, but deserved “due process.” 

Councilmember Chris Lawrence Anderson admitted she voted to fire Boganey for fear of reprisals from the mob. “He was doing a great job,” she told the Star Tribune. “I didn’t want repercussions at a personal level.” 

Of course, neither Floyd nor Wright deserved to die. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. 

But it’s worth noting that before their fatal encounters with police, both men had been charged over crimes involving aggravated violence to women. 

Floyd served five years in jail after entering a woman’s home and pressing a gun into her stomach during a robbery. 

The two victims called the police because that’s what we do when a crime occurs. Police are the thin blue line between violent criminals who take what they want from the weak. 

Yet now people protected by wealth or the security apparatus of the state are telling those victims that they are on their own. 

A world without law and order is a very scary place. 

No one knows that better than the migrants streaming over the southern border. They’re escaping from countries where the rule of law is a joke, but they haven’t yet figured out we’re on the same lawless trajectory.

Well stated.  Neither Mr. Floyd or Mr. Wright "deserved" to die, but blaming it on "racism" is flat wrong

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radical Chic Real Estate

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/radical-chic-real-estate-marxist-patrisse-cullors-black-lives-matter/

Quote

You might have heard that Patrisse Cullors, a self-described Marxist and a founder of Black Lives Matter, has gone on a real estate buying spree. Excerpts:

As protests broke out across the country in the name of Black Lives Matter, the group’s co-founder went on a real estate buying binge, snagging four high-end homes for $3.2 million in the US alone, according to property records.

Patrisse Khan-Cullors, 37, also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort where Justin Timberlake and Tiger Woods both have homes, The Post has learned. Luxury apartments and townhouses at the beachfront Albany resort outside Nassau are priced between $5 million and $20 million, according to a local agent.

The self-described Marxist last month purchased a $1.4 million home on a secluded road a short drive from Malibu in Los Angelesaccording to a report. The 2,370-square-foot property features “soaring ceilings, skylights and plenty of windows” with canyon views. The Topanga Canyon homestead, which includes two houses on a quarter-acre, is just one of three homes Khan-Cullors owns in the Los Angeles area, public records show.

More:

Last year, Khan-Cullors and spouse Janaya Khan ventured to Georgia to acquire a fourth home — a “custom ranch” on 3.2 rural acres in Conyers featuring a private airplane hangar with a studio apartment above it, and the use of a 2,500-foot “paved/grass” community runway that can accommodate small airplanes.

The three-bedroom, two-bath house, about 30 minutes from Atlanta, has an indoor swimming pool and a separate “RV shop” that can accommodate the repair of a mobile home or small aircraft, according to the real estate listing.

The Peach State retreat was purchased in January 2020 for $415,000, two years after the publication of Khan-Cullors’ best-selling memoir, “When They Call You a Terrorist.”

In October, the activist signed “a multi-platform” deal with Warner Bros. Television Group to help produce content for “black voices who have been historically marginalized,” she said in a statement.

She owns two more houses worth over $1.5 million. “Champagne socialist” doesn’t even begin to describe it!

So, last night Cullors went on a friendly TV broadcast to explain that she’s using her money to help black people … and the black people she’s helping are her family members. Seriously, that’s her argument:

 

In a fantastic interview with @marclamonthill#patricecullors explains how her home ownership and income don’t betray her marxist principles. It’s all for her family. pic.twitter.com/MPAo3ZE7JK

— #1 #SNOWFALLFX FAN IN LIFE (free Melody) (@VanLathan) April 16, 2021

 

Here’s a story about the interview, including an embed of the entire thing. Excerpts:

 

She referred to her treatment by the conservative media as “misogynoir.”

Cullors added later: “The point of the articles is to discredit me and also to discredit the movement. We have to keep focused on white supremacy.”

Phony, phony, phony. Race hustling and woke capitalism have been very, very good to Patrisse Cullors. Meanwhile, Twitter put black journalist Jason Whitlock in Twitter jail for daring to criticize the posh Marxist, and Facebook wouldn’t let its users share the New York Post article on Cullors’ property buying. The Post editorial board writes:

The $3.2 million real estate spending spree of BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors is newsworthy for two reasons. One, she’s an avowed Marxist, and as a public figure, it’s legitimate to question whether she’s practicing what she preaches. Secondly, as the article details, the finances of Black Lives Matter are opaque, a mixture of for-profits and tax-free nonprofits, and they don’t reveal how much its executives are paid. Are the people donating to BLM helping to pay for these properties?

We reached out to Khan-Cullors for comment before publication; she didn’t respond. After it was posted, her organization put out a statement saying yes, she used to take a salary from BLM, but doesn’t anymore, and the money she used to buy property came from her private income for book and development deals. Take the organization’s word for it. We added the response in full to our online article post-publication.

Then she accused us of being “abusive” and putting her at risk.

Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records.

Khan-Cullors’ lawyers apparently got a more sympathetic ear at Facebook, however, and five days after the article was published, it suddenly decided that it clashed with its “community standards.” “This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy,” Facebook writes.

This decision is so arbitrary as to be laughable. Does Facebook know how many newspapers, magazine and websites highlight the real estate purchases of the rich and famous? The next time People magazine covers Kim Kardashian’s latest mansion purchase, will it violate any community standards? How about running a picture of the resort Ted Cruz is staying at?

No, this rule has not been and will not be applied in any fair manner.

It again highlights just how much power these social media companies have over our lives, and our nation. They monopolized the market and became the main aggregators of news.

The Woke & The Powerful will always protect each other. Count on it.  It’s a racket.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://nypost.com/2021/04/29/sen-tim-scott-attacked-as-uncle-tim-on-twitter-after-gop-rebuttal/

Twitter allowed a racial slur about Sen. Tim Scott, the only black Republican senator, to trend on its site for hours after he was attacked as an “Uncle Tim” for saying “America is not a racist country” in his rebuttal to President Biden’s first address to a joint session of Congress.

The term began to trend on Twitter late Wednesday evening after Scott noted in his speech that he has been the subject of derogatory comments about his race because of his political views.

It wasn’t until Thursday morning that the social media giant stopped the attacks from appearing in its Trends.

Scott, in an appearance Thursday on “Fox & Friends,” slammed the use of the slur by his detractors, adding “you cannot step out of your lane according to the liberal elite left.” 

“Intolerance so often comes from the left with words like ‘Uncle Tim’ being used against me by the left, and last night what was trending on social media was ‘Uncle Tim,’” Scott said.

“It is stunning in 2021 that those who speak about ending discrimination want to end it by more discrimination.”

Toure, an MSNBC contributor, remarked on Twitter that Scott “gets called Uncle Tom by progressives. But he’s an Uncle Tim.”

He returned to Twitter on Thursday to elaborate.

“What makes Tim Scott an Uncle Tim? He has siblings and they have kids. Duh. Also he was on TV denying that America is racist thus aiding and abetting white supremacy,” he said in a post.

Controversial racial justice activist Tariq Nasheed used the term to say Scott was speaking “in bad faith” and to “protect white supremacists.”

“A major strategy of racists, is to incentivize one of it’s [sic] Black victims to act as the crash test dummy for white supremacy. When Uncle Tim Scott says America is not a racist country, he is fully aware he is speaking in bad faith. The purpose is to protect white supremacists.”

Conservatives came to Scott’s defense, with Republican spokesman Paris Dennard calling on Biden and the Democratic Party to denounce use of the slur.

“Sen. @votetimscott is an honorable man. He’s fought for Black Americans his entire life. HBCU funding, Criminal Justice & Police Reform, School Choice & Opportunity Zones. Bigotry should always be denounced. Biden & Democrats should denounce the disgusting use of ‘Uncle Tim’!,” Dennard posted.

Mollie Hemingway, an editor at The Federalist and a Fox News contributor, blasted Twitter for “choosing to trend a racist attack from the left” on Scott. 

“Twitter is still out here going out of its way to make racist attacks against GOP Sen. Tim Scott go viral. Apparently they want him to suffer for the crime of upstaging Biden via a highly effective speech. Disgusting,” she said Wednesday night on the social media site. 

Twitter finally blocked the phrase from appearing in Trends on Thursday morning.

“This is in line with our policies on Trends,” a Twitter spokesperson told Fox News.

“This means that at times, we may not allow or may temporarily prevent content from appearing in Trends until more context is available,” the spokesperson said. “This includes Trends that violate The Twitter Rules.”

The spokesperson blamed “an algorithm” for allowing “Uncle Tim” to trend.

“This algorithm identifies topics that are popular now, rather than topics that have been popular for a while or on a daily basis, to help you discover the hottest emerging topics of discussion on Twitter,” the spokesperson said.

Scott, in an appearance Thursday on “Fox & Friends,” said the “left has doubled down on this concept of liberal oppression.”

“Intolerance so often comes from the left with words like ‘Uncle Tim’ being used against me by the left, and last night what was trending on social media was ‘Uncle Tim,’” Scott said.

“It is stunning in 2021 that those who speak about ending discrimination want to end it by more discrimination.”

In his blistering response to Biden’s address, Scott said the president offered “empty platitudes” about national unity and blasted him for accusing the US of “systemic racism” in remarks following the conviction of former police officer Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd.

“Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country. It’s backwards to fight discrimination with different discrimination. And it’s wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.

“Original sin is never the end of the story. Not in our souls and not for our nation. The real story is always redemption,” Scott said.

 

What else would you expect from the left?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wcti12.com/news/local/monday-funeral-for-man-shot-and-killed-by-nc-deputies-rev-al-sharpton-to-deliver-eulogy

So the Reverend Al Sharpton is going to deliver the eulogy in NC for a convicted felon with a 180 page rap sheet who had just recently sold drugs to undercover officers and was shot dead trying to "run away" with an automobile leaving tracks for about 50 yards after hitting one (or more) officers with said vehicle.  

"How was he a threat to them officers, he had both hands on the steering wheel" one of his relatives lamented......

Both hands on the steering wheel......I kinda have to believe the vehicle may have been the weapon the officers were concerned about......

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.mediaite.com/news/ca-woman-tells-latino-cop-hes-a-murderer-and-says-youre-always-gonna-be-a-mexican-youll-never-be-white-during-traffic-stop/

CA Woman Tells Latino Cop He’s a ‘Murderer’ and Says ‘You’re Always Gonna Be a Mexican, You’ll Never Be White’ During Traffic Stop

 

By Michael LucianoMay 3rd, 2021, 8:45 pm
687 comments

Body camera footage from a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputy captured an interaction with a motorist who repeatedly told the officer, who is Latino, that he’s a “murderer.” The footage was posted by Fox News’ Bill Melugin, who says he has identified the woman in the exchange but is choosing not to release her name at the moment.

The ugly incident happened in San Dimas, CA on April 23 (assuming the body camera’s time stamp is accurate) when a deputy pulled over a motorist for allegedly using her cell phone while driving, which is against the law. As the officer approaches the vehicle, the driver says she was going under the speed limit, which he acknowledges and tells her that wasn’t the issue. “I pulled you over because–”

“You’re a murderer,” she interrupts while also recording him. Later, in true Karen fashion she asks, “And can you call your supervisor, please?”

The motorist accuses the deputy of “harassing” her, telling him, “You scared me and made me think you were going to murder me.”

“Ok, well, I’m sorry you feel that way,” he replies.

“Well that’s not just a feeling. You’re a murderer.”

“Ok.”

Later she says, “I’m perfectly legal and I’m a teacher.”

“Congratulations,” says the deputy.

“You’re a murderer.”

She later claims, “You’re threatening to kill me and my son,” who apparently is also in the car during the stop.

The deputy asks if the car she’s driving is hers.

“Yes it is. You’re trying to say I stole my own car because you’re jealous? Is that what that’s about?”

The deputy’s supervisor arrives and informs the woman she’s being cited only for using her phone while driving.

Supervisor: All you need to do is just get your signature. He’s only citing you for using your cellphone while you’re driving, that’s it.

Deputy: Here you go, ma’am. Sign here–

Motorist: For him being a Mexican racist? What is that name?…

Deputy: Just sign that citation, ma’am.

Motorist: Here you go, Mexican racist. You’re always gonna be a Mexican, you’ll never be white. You know that right? You’ll never be white, which is what you really wanna be.

Deputy: [Handing her the citation] There you go, dear.

Motorist: You wanna be white.

Deputy: Have a good day.

Motorist: You wanna be white so bad.

Throughout the exchange the deputy remains remarkably stolid. Melugin said on Twitter that Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told him that he’s “proud of his deputy for staying calm and professional during this interaction.” Melugin also notes that the San Dimas station of the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department doesn’t officially have body cameras yet, but this deputy invested in one for himself.

As for the motorist, Melugin reports she has been a professor at Los Angeles-area schools and that she has a history of filing complaints against officers. This time was no different. After the stop, she called the Sheriff’s Department to file a harassment complaint against the deputy.

 

No where in this story is the woman's race mentioned........in case you are wondering, she is a POC, African American, Black.......I truly don't believe this is what Dr. MLK had in mind

So SF was informed a number of years ago on this very forum that a POC couldn't be racist............AND - I think I have been vindicated......

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/20/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-journalists-interviews/5192857001/

CHICAGO  — Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced Wednesday that she will grant one-on-one interviews to mark the two-year anniversary of her inauguration solely to journalists of color, saying she has been struck by the “overwhelmingly” white press corps in Chicago.

“I ran to break up the status quo that was failing so many,” Lightfoot, who is Black, tweeted, also issuing a detailed letter to City Hall reporters on her decision. “That isn’t just in City Hall. It’s a shame that in 2021, the City Hall press corps is overwhelmingly White in a city where more than half of the city identifies as Black, Latino, AAPI or Native American.”

While the move isn’t unprecedented in recent years, it drew fierce scrutiny among the city’s press corps and beyond with members of the media quickly taking Lightfoot to task for her decision.

Lightfoot’s choice was made public late Tuesday when longtime WMAQ-TV political reporter Mary Ann Ahern, who is white, tweeted about it — a post that drew more than 5,000 comments. Some praised the mayor, while others were angry.

“I am a Latino reporter @chicagotribune whose interview request was granted for today. However, I asked the mayor’s office to lift its condition on others and when they said no, we respectfully canceled,” tweeted Chicago Tribune City Hall reporter Gregory Pratt. “Politicians don’t get to choose who covers them.”

Ahern voiced a similar concern about the mayor deciding who she’ll talk to and said it looked like Lightfoot was avoiding City Hall reporters she often spars with.

“To choose a reporter based on the color of their skin is really pretty outrageous,” Ahern said on WGN Radio. “Does she think I’m racist? Is that what she’s saying?”

But others, including The TRiiBE, a Chicago-based digital Black-oriented media platform that offered extensive coverage of civil unrest in the wake of George Floyd’s death, among other topics, found the anger over the mayor’s decision offensive.

“With this outrage, y’all are implying that Black and Brown journalists aren’t capable of asking the hard questions,” TRiiBE tweeted Wednesday, saying it got an interview the same day.

Taking office in 2019, Lightfoot’s tenure has been marked by racial inequality issues, including a Chicago teachers strike, city violence, the coronavirus pandemic and policing. In her two-page letter she recalled being on the campaign trail and being struck “by the overwhelming whiteness and maleness of Chicago media outlets, editorial boards, the political press corps, and yes, the City Hall press corps specifically.”

She noted the nation’s reckoning on racism but said it didn’t appear “many of the media institutions in Chicago have caught on and truly have not embraced this moment.”

“The press corps is the filter through which much of what we do in government is dissected and explained to the public,” Lightfoot wrote. “And yet despite the many talents and skills of our reporting corps, I fear this arm of our democratic system is on life support. The Chicago media leadership must evolve with the times in order to be a true reflection of the vibrant, vast diversity of our city.”

Journalism has long grappled with lack of racial diversity. More than 75% of newsroom employees are white, according to a 2018 Pew Research Center analysis of census data. In turn, reporters of color note they’re often shut out when scoring high profile interviews.

To counteract that, recent leading public officials have been intentional about giving interviews to journalists of color.

U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to lead a Cabinet department, granted the first interviews after confirmation to Native American journalists. The first sit-down interview Kamala Harris gave after being named vice presidential candidate was to The 19th, an outlet aimed at “elevating” women’s voices, including those of color.

Meanwhile in Chicago, other city leaders were critical of Lightfoot’s decision, including Alderman George Cardenas, who represents some largely Latino neighborhoods.

“How is that even true, be serious,” he tweeted in response to the announcement, saying it should be “corrected.”

Some media organizations said they were still being left out, including South Side Weekly. The nonprofit newspaper covers many heavily Black and Latino neighborhoods.

“Yes, for those who are asking, South Side Weekly did request an interview with @chicagosmayor and unsurprisingly received no response and no fancy letter. But we’ve never relied on the mayor’s script to do our groundbreaking work. So it’s just another day over here,” tweeted editor-in-chief Jacqueline Serrato.

So who is the racist here?  The Latino reporter who declined the interview saying "Politicians don't get to choose who covers them"?   SF for not knowing who?  The Mayor?  IDK

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2021/05/26/team-biden-wants-white-teachers-to-undergo-anti-racist-therapy/

Congress allocated nearly $200 billion in COVID-19 relief funds for K-12 schools over the past year. While this money was intended to help reopen schools and mitigate learning loss, President Joe Biden’s Department of Education is encouraging school districts to spend some of it on a different purpose: providing “free, antiracist therapy for white educators.”

The American Rescue Plan requires districts to reserve 20 percent of funds for “evidence-based” interventions that “respond to students’ academic, social and emotional needs” — a very sensible charge. But the devil is in the definition, and Team Biden’s guidance booklet for spending ARP funds suggests that students’ social and emotional needs include the disruption of “whiteness” and the propagation of critical race theory.

The “Roadmap to Reopening Safely and Meeting All Students’ Needs” explains that “schools are microcosms of society,” and, therefore, “intentional conversations related to race and social-emotional learning . . . are the foundation for participating in a democracy and should be anchor tenets in building a school-wide system of educational opportunity.”

The guidance links to the Abolitionist Teaching Network’s “Guide for Racial Justice & Abolitionist Social and Emotional Learning.” Social and emotional learning (or SEL), the network maintains, is traditionally built around five key “competencies” or “standards”: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision-making. By contrast, the “abolitionist” approach contends that traditional “SEL can be a covert form of policing used to punish, criminalize and control black, brown and indigenous children and communities to adhere to white norms.” Abolitionist SEL is “not a lesson plan,” but rather a “way of being that informs all aspects of teaching, learning and relationship-building with students, families and communities.”

To bring about this shift at the level of being, the document endorsed by Biden’s Department of Education urges districts to:

  • “Partner with and compensate community members to develop and implement abolitionist SEL models.”
  • “Remove all punitive or disciplinary practices that spirit-murder black, brown and indigenous children.”
  • “Require a commitment to learning from students, families and educators who disrupt Whiteness and other forms of oppression.”
  • Offer “free, antiracist therapy for White educators and support staff,” and “free, radical self/collective care and therapy for educators and support staff of color.”

Several of these recommendations are, of course, illegal under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Schools may not define a race as inherently oppressive or provide race-specific therapeutic services premised on race-specific mental illnesses. But the Biden DOE is proving that it cares less about safeguarding the spirit or letter of the Civil Rights Act than about advancing the tenets of critical race theory.

While parents are still waking up to the reality that Biden’s Department of Education wants to indoctrinate their children, no close observer should be surprised. After all, when Education Secretary Miguel Cardona served as commissioner of education in Connecticut, he insisted that “we need teachers behind this wave of our curriculum becoming ‘woke.’” When Deputy Education Secretary Cindy Marten led the San Diego Unified School District, she oversaw teacher training that accused white teachers of “spirit murdering” black students.

The question now is how politicians will respond. There is little doubt that if the Trump administration published guidance recommending that schools dismantle “blackness” and target black teachers for therapeutic intervention, Democrats would’ve rightly decried it as a manifestation of “white supremacy.” But to date, Democratic politicians have not raised many qualms about CRT indoctrination in schools.

For their part, many Republican state leaders have shown admirable initiative by introducing legislation to prohibit racial stereotyping and scapegoating. But more must be done. Districts will decide how to spend COVID relief funding over the next few months and must submit plans to their state education agencies.

State superintendents and governors should send out counter-guidance that draws a line in the sand: No matter what the Biden administration recommends, schools may not use public funding for purposes that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by racially discriminating against students or teachers.

Because only white educators can be racist.....Not sure "COVID Funding" should be used for teaching race in schools

 

 

image.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9665677/Man-racially-abuses-Asian-NYPD-officer-yelling-black-people-racist.html

Disturbing video has emerged showing a black man directing a string of racial slurs at an Asian NYPD officer during unrest in Manhattan's Washington Square Park over the weekend.

The unnamed man is seen in the expletive-laden video, which was uploaded to Reddit on Sunday, being confronted by a group of officers who appear to ask him to move from the road onto the sidewalk.

The man, dressed in a white T-shirt and a ball cap, appears to single out the Asian-American cop and unleashes a vile tirade at him: 'You’re not even from this country. You piece of s***. You f***ing ch**k!'

He repeats the offensive ethnic slur referring to a person of Chinese descent over and over again without drawing any response from the targeted officer.

Another cop tries to deescalate the situation and leads his colleagues away as the irate man continues to yell racial abuse.

Moments later, a man passing by on a bicycle overhears the slurs and calls out the abuser.

'Why you calling people ch**k, man? F*** you!' the cyclist yells at the man in the white t-shirt.

The man immediately turns on the biker, repeatedly yelling at him to 'suck my d***.'

When a bystander accuses the enraged man of being racist, he shoots back: 'black people can't be racist, you piece of s***.'

The man continues peppering the Asian-American officer with racial slurs as he and his colleagues walk toward the iconic Washington Square Park Arch.

The man boasts that he works 'for the state' and yells that he pays the officers' salaries.

As the NYPD officers disappear in the distance, the man turns toward the camera recording his rant and stresses that his offensive words 'don't go out to all Asian people,' but rather only to the police. 

'The cops are not our friends,' he argues.

He then repeats the assertion that 'black people cannot be racist.'

He adds: 'we could be prejudiced to prejudge something, but we cannot be racist; these motherf***ers  [the police] are racist.

'Whether you're Asian, Hispanic... or other than European, and you've joined the police force, you should know the oppression that is being placed out on our people. That's why I called him a ch**k.'

The NYPD addressed the recording of the foul-mouthed encounter, calling it 'disturbing' in a statement to the New York Post. 

'Each day, NYPD officers are expected to maintain a level of professionalism under an array of difficult circumstances,' a police spokesperson said. 'In this instance, an Asian police officer was subjected to an ugly onslaught of racial slurs and maintained his composure. However, it is disturbing to see this type of language used against any Asian person in light of the disturbing increase of Asian hate crimes citywide.'

New York City has experienced a wave of anti-Asian assaults since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic amid a broader spike in crime rates.

Over the weekend, Washington Square Park became the site of violent clashes between the police and people protesting a new 10pm curfew that has been put in place to crack down on large public gatherings, littering and noise, reported New York Times. 

Officers in riot gear were seen wrestling with protesters chanting 'abolish the police' while removing them from the park. The incident resulted in nearly two dozen arrests. 

It is unclear if the man in the Reddit video was part of the protest against the curfew.   

So "black people can't be racist" is a thing, which apparently justifies this individual's "prejudice" and verbal assault against an Asian LEO....... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

https://nypost.com/2021/08/31/liberals-take-on-larry-elder-for-california-comments/

The possibility that Larry Elder may win California’s recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom is generating acute anxiety in the mainstream media and among the activist left. Elder’s foes are responding with their favored means of destruction: by playing the race card.

Never mind that the nationally syndicated talk show host is black. A series of opinion columns and editorials have accused him of being a white supremacist, or at the very least a shill for other white supremacists. Elect Elder and California will reinstate Jim Crow, state Sen. Sydney Kamlager, a Democrat from Los Angeles, has warned.

The media have focused particularly on Elder’s views about crime and policing. The self-described “Sage from South-Central” maintains that criminals, not the police, are the biggest threat in the black community. According to Elder, the false narrative about lethal police racism has only led to more black homicide deaths.

“When you reduce the possibility of a bad guy getting caught, getting convicted and getting incarcerated, guess what? Crime goes up,” he said recently at a campaign event in Orange County.

Elder also rejects the charge that white civilians are gunning down blacks, as LeBron James maintained in a tweet during the George Floyd riots: “We are literally hunted everyday, every time we step outside the comfort of our homes.” Elder has a different take. If a “young black man is eight times more likely to be killed by another young black man than [by] a young white man,” Elder told the Orange County Republicans, then “systemic racism is not the problem.”

Such statements are anathema to the establishment left, deeply invested as it is in the idea that blacks have little agency in the face of ubiquitous white racism. Few subjects are more taboo in elite discourse than the elevated rate of crime among blacks, as it suggests cultural pathologies that — at the very least — complicate the victim narrative. To the left, black crime is little more than a racist fiction.

Los Angeles Times columnist Jean Guerrero claims that the crime statistics Elder has cited “over the decades to support his views and policy proposals are misleading, if not outright false, casting Black people as unusually crime-prone.” Black people are not “more inclined toward violent crimes,” nor do blacks “disproportionately victimize whites,” Guerrero wrote, citing Columbia law professor Jeffrey Fagan and other criminal experts. (Fagan was the plaintiff’s expert in a trilogy of lawsuits against the New York Police Department in the 2010s.) Fellow Times columnist Erika Smith sneered that Elder “keeps trotting out statistics that purport to show that Black people are particularly prone to murdering one another.”

Unfortunately for Elder’s critics, the statistics showing vastly disproportionate rates of black crime and victimization come from some of the left’s favorite sources. CDC data show that in 2015, for example, the homicide victimization rate for blacks age 10 to 34 (37.5 per 100,000) was 13 times the rate for whites (2.9 per 100,000). That disparity is undoubtedly much greater now, given the record-breaking increase in homicides since the George Floyd riots — an increase disproportionately affecting blacks.

Those black victims of homicide are not being killed by cops or whites. They are being killed by other blacks. In Los Angeles, blacks this year have committed 46 percent of homicides whose offender is known, even though they are just 9 percent of the Los Angeles population. Whites make up 28 percent of the Los Angeles population but have committed 4 percent of homicides, mostly involving domestic violence.

These data, reported by the Los Angeles Times, mean that a black Angeleno is 35 times more likely to commit a homicide than a white Angeleno. Homicide data are the gold standard for crime statistics. Alas for Jeffrey Fagan and the Los Angeles Times’ other experts, the statistical conclusion that blacks are “more inclined toward violent crimes” is indisputable.

What about the claim that blacks don’t “disproportionately victimize whites”? In 2019, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of criminal victimization, blacks committed 127,350 non-lethal violent crimes against whites, while whites committed 17,690 non-lethal violent crimes against blacks. In other words, blacks commit 88 percent of all interracial violence between blacks and whites.

Crime apologists argue that such disproportions are inevitable because there are so many whites in the US. But in cities where racial ratios are more commensurate, the amount of white-on-black violence remains negligible.

Occasionally videos and reports of interracial violence — flash mobs, knockout games, and brutal beatings and robberies — become public. If the races were reversed, there would be a national uproar lasting months; but such incidents get scant, if any, mainstream media coverage. They are the reason why the press has all but eliminated reporting on the race of crime suspects.

Such voluntary action is not enough to ensure public cluelessness about the reality of crime, however.

Gov. Newsom recently signed a law prohibiting California’s police departments from posting mugshots of arrested criminals if their latest crime was “non-violent.” The San Francisco Police Department has stopped posting mugshots of all criminals. Police Chief Bill Scott explained that doing so “creates an illusory correlation for viewers that vastly overstates the propensity of Black and brown men to engage in criminal behavior.”

Actually, mugshots document a real correlation. If the San Francisco Police Department could undercut that correlation by posting mugshots of white muggers, does anyone doubt that it would rush to do so?

Elder’s dismissal of Black Lives Matter claims about systemic police violence is also grounded in fact. Police officers are at greater risk of civilian violence than blacks are at risk of police violence. And a disproportionate source of that danger to cops comes from black criminals.

Fifty police officers have been murdered this year as of Aug. 25. In 2019, there were 697,195 sworn officers in the US. That employment count would be lower now, in light of the rush of officer retirements over the last year and a half and the inability of police departments to recruit replacements. Conservatively, using the 2019 number, however, those 50 officers represent a rate of approximately seven officers killed per 100,000 on the job.

Four unarmed blacks have been fatally shot by police officers so far in 2021, according to the Washington Post. (“Unarmed” does not mean compliant; the Post’s category includes crime suspects who violently resist arrest, pummel officers after knocking them to the ground, and continue fighting after being tased.) Those four black victims represent .0000085 percent of the nearly 47 million self-identified blacks, or less than one one-hundredth of one person killed by the police per 100,000.

A police officer is 875 times as likely to be killed on the job as an unarmed black is to be killed by a police officer.

Historically, blacks have made up over 40 percent of cop-killers nationwide — 43 percent between 2005 and 2013 — though they are, at most, 13 percent of the nation’s population. In New York City, blacks were responsible for 74 percent of the murders of on-duty New York Police Department officers between 1986 and 2020. In 2019, blacks nationally were over 37 percent of all cop-killers whose race was known.

Conservatively estimating that 40 percent of the cop-killers this year have been black, 20 officers would have been killed by a black suspect in 2021, for a rate of nearly three cops per 100,000 officers killed by a black. A police officer is 375 times as likely to be killed by a black suspect as an unarmed black is to be killed by a police officer.

Elder is breaking the taboos about black crime in an effort to save black lives. Police activity must be understood in the context of crime, not simple population ratios, since policing today is data-driven. Cops go where people are most being victimized, and that is in black neighborhoods. The police cannot protect black victims without having a disparate impact on black criminals.

But the lies directed against cops from the highest reaches of government have led the police to back off. The Los Angeles Police Department experienced a 43 percent reduction in arrests in 2020 and a 27 percent reduction in street stops. This year, through Aug. 21, arrests are down another 28 percent, compared with the same period in 2019.

Crime responded predictably. Homicides in Los Angeles through Aug. 21 are up 44 percent compared with the pre-George Floyd year of 2019; shots fired are up over 48 percent, and shootings up 44 percent. In Los Angeles County, homicides were up 111 percent this year through late May. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Latino and black victims account for nearly all the recent surge in homicides in Los Angeles.

Assaults on officers also rose in 2020. Since the George Floyd riots, officers in California have been shot at, assaulted with lethal projectiles, firebombed, and run over. In September 2020, longtime felon Deonte Murray walked up to the parked squad car of two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies and shot them both in the head as they sat inside. Bystanders cheered; anti-cop protesters continued the celebration later at the hospital, as the deputies struggled on life support.

Yet despite this open season on cops, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón declared in December 2020 that officers’ authority may be resisted with impunity and will not be prosecuted — a declaration that strikes at the heart of civilization itself, as Elder understands.

Trying to ensure that blacks get the policing they need in order to stay alive would not seem to be the gesture of a white supremacist, black or white.

If Elder were running as a Democrat, the press would be celebrating the possibility of California’s first black governor. Instead, we hear nothing about “shattering glass ceilings” or “diversifying” the ruling elite.

The New York Times ran an entire front-page article on Elder’s candidacy without once mentioning that he was black. (The article did claim in passing that Elder was an affirmative-action admit to Brown University, an unthinkable charge regarding a black liberal.) A column by Paul Krugman two days later was equally colorblind regarding the Elder candidacy.

Has the Times renounced identity politics? Only selectively. Adjacent to the Aug. 25 front-page article was a story on New York’s new governor, headlined “Hochul Breaks a Barrier and Pledges a New Era.” The story opened with the observation that “Kathleen C. Hochul became the first woman to ascend to New York’s highest office on Tuesday.”

Yet Hochul’s entry into the governor’s mansion in Albany does not even signify anything about gubernatorial voting patterns; she was not elected but slotted in after Andrew Cuomo’s resignation.

Black governors have been much rarer than female ones. Elder would lead the nation’s largest state and be just the third black governor ever elected in the United States, following Douglas Wilder in Virginia and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts.

Elder is indifferent to the silence regarding the “historic” nature of his candidacy. But the media’s effort to portray his run merely as a resurgence of alleged Trumpian racism depends on a shameful duplicity regarding crime and policing. As long as that duplicity remains in force, in the California governor’s office and elsewhere, the country will continue sliding toward anarchy.

Always humorous to see the left trying to play the race card against a black man.  He is just speaking the TRUTH.  Black on black homicides are way worse than white on black.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Critical Race Theory Is a Direct Attack on Market Freedom

https://mises.org/wire/critical-race-theory-direct-attack-market-freedom

Quote

Critical race theory (CRT) has become the cultural wedge issue of 2021. An important question is what will be CRT’s effect on the future of freedom.

Because CRT assumes a finite economic pie and posits all economic interactions as zero-sum, the continuing adoption of CRT in American society will necessarily lead the US away from free markets and further down the road to serfdom.

Critical race theory is a subset of critical theory. Critical theory is the world view which holds that oppression along race, class, and gender lines is the distinguishing attribute of Western civilization, both currently and historically.

As a variant of critical theory, critical race theory emphasizes racism in the “intersectionality” of race, class, and gender exploitation.

CRT’s view of historical change stands diametrically opposed to that of libertarianism and historical liberalism (i.e., “classical liberalism.”) Libertarianism attributes recent centuries’ monumental advances in wealth and the standard of living to the protection of individual natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Moreover, libertarians believe that economic freedom creates positive-sum exchanges among individuals and between racial groups and greatly expands a civilization’s overall economic pie.

Critical race theorists (CRTs) hold a fundamentally different perspective. CRTs believe that the world economic pie has mostly shifted, not grown, from the Third World to the First World since the advent of capitalism. CRTs maintain that racial oppression in the form of slavery, segregation, imperialism, colonialism, and expropriation of indigenous lands explains, for example, why the US today, with 4.25 percent of the world’s population, possesses 29.9 percent of the world’s wealth. Internationally, CRTs note that Western imperialism and colonialism extracted valuable resources such as slaves and oil from the Third World. To CRTs, imperialism and colonialism explain today’s Western economic prosperity. And within the US, CRTs hold that wealth and economic power have been appropriated by whites from blacks and Hispanics through slavery and segregation, and from Native Americans through the confiscation of aboriginal lands.

The primary metric used by CRTs in differentiating oppressor racial groups from oppressed racial groups is each group’s overall wealth and income. Because whites possess a disproportionately large share of wealth, power, and privilege in the US today, CRTs view whites as the oppressor racial group. Because blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans possess a disproportionately small share of America’s wealth, power, and privilege, CRTs view them as the oppressed racial groups. (Note that Asian Americans are highly inconvenient to the CRT orthodoxy, since they significantly outearn whites.)

For example, because blacks comprise 12.4 percent of the US population, yet are less than 12.4 percent of America’s doctors, lawyers, and engineers, CRTs claim the US is “systemically racist” against blacks. Since Hispanics and Native Americans are also underrepresented in America’s white-collar professions, CRT makes the same claim for these two groups.

CRT believes that concepts such as white supremacy, white privilege, and institutional and systemic racism are valid and applicable to the US, both currently and historically. Systemic racism means that it’s primarily “the system,” and not necessarily individual racists, that makes America a racist society today.

Because whites possess a disproportionate share of economic power, in the form of resources and income, and since CRT downplays the creation of new wealth, “the racist US system” today works inexorably to perpetuate white privilege and social and racial injustices. The economic disparities between whites and blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, according to CRT, remain locked in, and, short of robust affirmative action programs or even racial reparations, the racial playing field will never be leveled.

Along the same lines, CRTs either deemphasize the contemporary breakdown of the black family and urban black-on-black crime as reasons for black economic disparities or attribute the presence of these social phenomena to systemic racism itself. Unfortunately for its credibility, CRT often utilizes systemic racism as a circular tautology, employing the concept of “systemic racism” to whitewash any weaknesses in its paradigm.

An additional corollary to CRT is that members of oppressed racial groups cannot be individual racists themselves. According to CRT, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans lack the economic power relative to whites to be racist and discriminatory against whites.

Contrary to what most of today’s CRT adversaries claim, the ideas of CRT have been manifest since the 1950s. The Catholic Church’s liberation theology in Latin America beginning in the mid-1950s, the popular 1977 television miniseries Roots, Howard Zinn’s 1980 A People’s History of the United States, and protests against the 1992 quincentenary of Christopher Columbus’s arrival in North America all employed CRT ideas. Also, today’s affirmative action programs and racial reparations proposals are predicated on the assumptions of CRT. As early as 1965, in a commencement address at Howard University, President Lyndon Johnson spoke of using government to level the racial playing field because “freedom is not enough.”

CRT’s most noteworthy current venture is the New York Times’s 1619 Project, which "aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national narrative.” The 1619 Project holds that racial oppression, in the form of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, is a feature, not a bug, of American history.

Within the last year, efforts to publicize CRT by prominent opponents such as Christopher F. Rufo of the Manhattan Institute have made CRT a household word. Almost single-handedly, Rufo initiated successful efforts in nine Republican states to ban the teaching of CRT in public schools and to prohibit implementing the principles of CRT in government agencies.

Rufo’s remarkable achievements are largely due to his ability to equate CRT, not with the simple proposition that racial oppression is America’s distinctive characteristic, but instead with some of its most overzealous efforts. For example, in his research Rufo found that Seattle Public Schools taught its teachers that American schools were guilty of the “spirit murder” of black children; third graders in Cupertino, California, were asked to “rank themselves according to their ‘power and privilege’”; Sandia National Labs held a three-day camp for white males with the aim of “exposing their white privilege” and “deconstructing white male culture”; and the US Treasury Department hosted a training session in which employees were told that “virtually all White people contribute to racism.”

But the primary damage from CRT lies in its false assumptions about the source of wealth and power in America and the West, not the extreme examples Rufo cites above. Almost all Americans, including most CRTs, would disapprove of the measures Rufo has cataloged. Yet many Americans today do believe that free, capitalist societies are dog-eat-dog, cutthroat states of nature, a false dogma derived in part from CRT.

Rufo correctly recognizes that the vast majority of Americans today are neither neo-Marxist, anti-American, supporters of affirmative action, or adherents of CRT. Yet Rufo greatly underestimates the extent to which racial tolerance is a salient moral value for a majority of twenty-first-century Americans. Today’s Great Awokening is built to capitalize on this support; CRT benefits enormously from this reality. The $10.6 billion raised during the last six months of 2020 by “Black Lives Matter-related causes” is testament to this moral phenomenon.

Of course, liberty-minded people also support racial tolerance, but understand there is not a conflict between racial tolerance and individual freedom. On the other hand, many Americans are willing to sacrifice some fundamental freedoms, like free speech, due process, and property rights, and ostracize persons deemed insufficiently racially tolerant, to “level” the racial playing field. This is the basis of today’s cancel culture. For these Americans, combating systemic racism is their overriding moral goal, which for them trumps all concerns for the freedom of individuals.

Rather than supporting the banning of CRT in public schools and federal agencies, Americans should promote outlawing the collection of individuals’ racial and ethnic information on government forms at the federal, state, and local levels, including the decennial census. Private companies should immediately follow this lead. And before these efforts are complete, social media campaigns should be launched to discourage Americans from furnishing their racial and ethnic data to any government agency or private business. CRT cannot survive without the voluntary compliance of Americans supplying the state with their racial classification. A critical mass of 20–25 percent of Americans withholding their racial information on government paperwork would be the death knell for CRT generally and programs such as affirmative action and racial reparations specifically.

Americans need to recognize the grave threat that CRT represents to the future prospects for liberty. Because those Americans who accept CRT’s key moral conviction—that economic prosperity results from racial oppression, not individual wealth creation—will never fully embrace free minds and free markets.

Agreed.  Any form that asks you to state your race/ethnicity you should leave blank or just check "other".

 

Edited by Muda69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...