Enter your keyword

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

White People Aren’t Human

By On February 23, 2021
The Nation of Islam may be the largest racist religion in America. It is certainly the most influential with Louis Farrakhan’s original Million Man March drawing some 400,000 racists and allies of the hate group, including a young Barack Obama, who would later be photographed as a senator with the black supremacist leader at a Congressional Black Caucus event.

House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, the third highest ranking Democrat, and the kingmaker who got Biden the Democrat nomination and the White House, had thanked Farrakhan for, "offering up a number of precepts that we ought to adhere to.”

Clyburn is one of a number of congressional Democrats who have Nation of Islam links.

Despite a history of violent terrorism by the Nation of Islam and its spinoff groups, its racist theology which believes that white people are subhuman devils who will be killed off, and its antisemitism and conspiracy theories, the hate group is also incredibly culturally influential.

Black Nationalist theology, politics and culture are built on the ideas of the Nation of Islam.

Raphael Warnock, the Senate Democrat from Georgia, said, “its voice has been important for the development of black theology.” He neglected to mention that he meant black nationalist theology of the kind trafficked in by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor, a Farrakhan supporter, and another ally of Warnock’s whose bigotry the Democrat politician had defended.

Culturally, a long list of musicians and other entertainers are fans of the Nation of Islam. The violent racism of Amiri Baraka (“dagger poems in the slimy bellies of the owner-Jews”), (“I got the extermination blues, jew-boys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured”), and (“Rape the white girls. Rape / their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats”), distilled Nation of Islam theology into poetry.

“Jews double crossers stole our secrets crossed the white desert to spill them,” the former Poet Laureate of New Jersey wrote in The Black Man is Making New Gods. "The fag’s death they gave us on a cross… they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves.”

This is a brief summary of the narcissistic black supremacist theology of the Nation of Islam which believes that an evil Jewish mad scientist named Yakub (Jacob) used eugenics to create Europeans, Indians, and Asians from the original black master race after leaving Mecca.

That Baraka is remembered as a respected poet, that his hatefilled rants that would have made Goebbels blanch are taught in academic settings, is a tribute to how black nationalism mainstreamed hatred and the racist theology of the Nation of Islam into academia.

One of the most fundamental beliefs of the Nation of Islam is that white people aren’t human.

Some may remember Malcolm X ranting about white devils, at least until he dropped the NOI, in part over its alliance with the KKK, converted to normative Sunni Islam and was murdered by the Nation of Islam, but treated it as a commentary on segregation and racism in America.

That’s a dangerous mistake.

The Nation of Islam literarily believes that white people are an illegitimate race of devils created by a mad scientist who are “made by nature a liar and a murderer”. That belief is no longer confined to the racist hate group. It spilled into what Warnock misleadingly calls, “black theology” and into the foundational texts of what is even more misleadingly called “antiracism”.

As antiracism has taken off on college campuses and at major corporations, the old NOI belief that white people are not human has become the heart of a new breed of diversity training.

A Middlebury College lecture titled, Facilitate the Demilitarization of White Bodies, argues that, "Whiteness must be demilitarized so that bodies designated as ‘White’ might become human."

Antiracist rhetoric that defines white people as non-human is commonplace in academic settings. For example, a University of St. Thomas course titled, “Becoming Human”, insists that “The only way to “become human” is to confront the legacy of white supremacy”. Its implicitly oppressive message is that people of all races and creeds who don’t define their sense of self through the warped funhouse Marxist mirror of critical race theory are not truly human.

Online antiracist seminars offer white people the ability to “Re-Become Human” by “healing from internalized whiteness”. While antiracism buries its dehumanization of white people and minorities opposed to the toxic racism of critical race theory under a slew of academic jargon and intersectional buzzwords, its underlying worldview is cultish and derived from a racist cult.

The Nation of Islam adopted and inverted racist white supremacist ideas. Its theology is a grabag of random elements looted from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, along with a Science Fiction racialism assembled in an era when pseudoscientic mythologies had begun to pervade popular culture and breeding a master race through eugenics appeared to be on the horizon.

Antiracism not only doesn’t teach you how not to be racist, but is a bad copy of a bad copy of the KKK, which the Nation of Islam had allied with, and Hitler, whom black nationalists from Marcus Garvey to Louis Farrakhan had admired, run through an academic jargon filter.

Critical race theory is built around black nationalism. That’s why it explicitly rejects Martin Luther King Jr’s call for brotherhood and instead champions racial separatism and original sin. And black nationalism is just a copy of white nationalism complete with a master race and inferior races. The difference between racism and antiracism is that racists don’t deny they’re racist.

The much more fundamental difference between liberal tolerance and leftist antiracism is that the former believed that the core issue was hatred while the latter formulated it as power. That Marxist reading of race was destined to defeat the religious inflection of the old liberalism.

At stake are irreconcilable questions about hate, equality, and the nature of the society we want.

The old civil rights movement argued that we could achieve equality by letting go of hate. Black nationalist movements and their leftist allies found hate uplifting and didn’t want equality. The fusion of tribal racial hatred on one side of the partnership and Marxist reductionism on the other birthed a racist movement dedicated to perpetuating racism while calling itself antiracist.

Antiracism offers both black nationalists and white leftists what they want. Black nationalists receive uncritical affirmations of racial superiority and a license to hate, while white leftists are encouraged to dismantle their civilizations from buildings and statues to language and mores, in the name of combating a concept of whiteness that encompasses thousands of years of history.

The pivot for both sides is an idea copied from white supremacists by black supremacists.

The racist origins of antiracism are why its ideas inescapably manifest as racism. A movement whose guiding lights are racial supremacy and racial inferiority is not going to stop being racist, even if you pack it with academic jargon and then make sure to put “anti” in front of the “racism”.

The only way to pass off antiracism as anything other than racist is by redefining racism.

Antiracism, like every form of racism, distinguishes between justified and unjustified hatreds based on the moral superiority of one group and the moral inferiority of other groups.

Declaring white people to be less than human because they’re racist isn’t antiracism.

It’s still racism.

Nor is it some sophisticated idea processed through academia. It’s an argument put forward a century ago by the Nation of Islam, along with its fantasies about mad scientists creating the moon and white people, while its Shabazz leaders used Africa to breed a superior master race.

Racism is not, as white supremacists and their black supremacist imitators argue, our destiny. Hating other people is a choice that we make. Stopping it doesn’t require training, consultants, or a curriculum. Like any bad behavior, we can choose to stop it any time we want to.

Antiracism doesn’t stop racism. It enables the bad behavior while pretending to be fighting it. It’s the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey while labeling it “anti-whiskey”.

Confusing the issue with jargon, or by treating whiteness and blackness as not just races, but social concepts that permeate everything, doesn’t change the racist outcome. And the best evidence of whether an idea is racist is whether spreading it leads to more or less hatred.

Antiracism has made America a lot more racist and racially divided than it was in a long time.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, February 21, 2021

The Racist Origins of President Trump's Impeachment

By On February 21, 2021
“We are not in favor of giving a vote to the negro, because we believe that he is not fit to enjoy that right,” Senator Allen G. Thurman once said.

These days, even while Democrats topple the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, two men that Thurman hated, the old dead racist has become the basis for the unconstitutional Democrat campaign to impeach President Trump after leaving office.

Thurman, who was picked by the Democrats as their nominee for Vice President, had played a major role in the sole case of the Senate deciding to impeach a public official after leaving office. The Democrat case for impeaching President Trump rests on that one case.

And on Thurman.

Legal partisans have spent weeks debating whether President Trump can be impeached after leaving office. Every single one of these analyses is heavy on rhetoric and light on precedent.

There’s a very good reason for that.

Impeachment exists to remove officials who are in office. The brilliant legal scholars who argue otherwise might want to put down their law books and check a dictionary. Impeachment shares its origin with the more commonplace word, ‘impede’. The whole point of impeachment is to impede public officials from holding office by using legislators as investigators and courts.

The post-office impeachment arguments remind me of the movie, Gus, where a mule is allowed to play professional football because the referee can’t find anything in the rulebook that says the players can’t be mules. Every argument for impeaching President Trump comes down to the same position that mules can play football because the Constitution never says they can’t.

“It makes no sense whatsoever that the president or any official could commit heinous crimes against our country and then defeat our impeachment powers and avoid the vote on disqualification by simply resigning," Senator Schumer argued.

Like saying, “You can’t fire me, I quit”, that gets the same result.

The purpose of impeachment is removing an official from office. If he quits, then he’s removed. And if he committed “heinous crimes” then a court of law could try him for those offenses.

Democrats are obsessed with removing President Trump from an office he no longer holds, but their only precedent for that is the impeachment of Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War, who was tried and acquitted by the Senate after leaving office.

“The Senate convened a trial, and voted, as a chamber, that Mr. Belknap could be tried ‘for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.’ The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity,” Schumer blotivated. “The history and precedent is clear: the Senate has the power to try former officials.”

Schumer is quoting a resolution by Senator Allen Thurman, who opposed President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and campaigned against allowing black people to vote. But that’s just the old Democrat habit of refighting the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Even while accusing President Trump of sedition, the Democrat cause is wedded to sedition.

The Democrat precedent for impeaching President Trump is a resolution put forward by a Senate Democrat who had opposed the Grant administration because he was a violent racist. Senator Thurman had previously delivered a speech to the Democratic State Convention in West Virginia declaring that Republicans wanted "to put the heel of the negro upon the neck of the white man" with the 14th Amendment.

That’s the Constitutional scholar on whose resolution the Democrat impeachment crusade rests.

If Schumer and the Democrats are going to use Thurman’s resolution as a constitutional precedent, making him the arbiter of what the Framers thought, then they must share his opinion of the 14th Amendment and allowing black people to vote. That would be consistent.

Eight years before the impeachment of Belknap, Thurman was warning that there would be another civil war, leading to "a war of races in the South and the extermination of the negro".

Thurman went on to argue that black people were inferior, couldn’t be allowed to vote, and that they were little more than brutes who would be killed if they kept demanding equal rights.

This is the author of the Democrat precedent for trying President Trump after leaving office.

Senator Thurman’s opposition to President Grant and attempts to smear his administration had everything to do with his racism and support for the Confederacy, rather than the rule of law.

The sole Democrat precedent for post-office impeachment comes from a racist who was threatening the country with a second civil war, and the extermination of black people, and was waging a political war against President Grant because he had defeated the Confederacy.

It’s not just Schumer. The Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution have been widely quoted.

Every time the media trots out a legal expert to explain why President Trump can be impeached, he turns to the Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution as if they were the Constitution.

The legal experts, like Schumer, don’t discuss how the Belknap trial concluded.

There were only enough votes to impeach Secretary of War Belknap in the first place because legislators argued that Belknap had resigned to avoid impeachment. But the Senate acquitted Belknap because its members believed that a former official couldn’t actually be impeached.

Impeachment failed because 23 senators voted, “not guilty for want of jurisdiction.”

Not only did the Belknap trial fail because Schumer was wrong, but the entire premise doesn’t even apply. Had Belknap’s term naturally expired, there would have been no impeachment.

It was only because Belknap had so blatantly resigned to avoid impeachment that his behavior was so provocative that he was illegally impeached to avoid creating a bad example.

When your only real precedent for trying a former president in American history is one case from 1876 of a cabinet official that was highly controversial at the time and ultimately failed, you’re gonna need a whole lot more precedents to actually impeach a former president.

Especially when your only real basis for it is a resolution by a Democrat racist seditionist.

Impeaching elected officials can be political theater or serve a legitimate purpose. Impeaching former officials is never anything except political theater. That’s true of the campaign to paint the Grant administration as corrupt which helped pave the way for a Democrat revival by smearing a generation of Republican officials associated with the Grant administration as crooked thieves.

The ultimate goal of that plot was the restoration of Democrat power and of segregation.

Democrats failed to make their case in actual courts, but holding hearings and an absurd impeachment tainted President Grant and Republicans in the eyes of the American public. Grant would labor, even while dying of cancer, to finish his memoirs, provide for his family and redeem his reputation from the Democrat smear campaigns of Grant Derangement Syndrome.

That’s the playbook that Democrats are following in their campaign against President Trump.

If the Democrats believe that President Trump is actually guilty of committing the crimes for which the Constitution says that can be impeached, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", then why not bring them into a court of law?

Democrats and their legal hounds have generated numerous investigations. New York has been drowning in blood while Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance have spent their time inventing new Trump investigations. And those haven’t fared very well.

The US Attorney’s office in Manhattan is done with the “Individual-1” investigation that Democrats had been claiming would “lock up” President Trump. But surely if the Democrats claim to have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, their allies in the FBI and among federal prosecutors would be happy to see them. Why settle for a mere impeachment and disqualification when the Democrats could finally fulfill their dream of seeing him behind bars?

Especially when they’re almost certain to lose their latest impeachment again in the Senate.

Instead, the Democrats claim that they have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but clearly don’t expect these “high crimes and misdemeanors” to be actionable in an actual court.

Courts try people for actual crimes. Impeachments are political proceedings.

Every single presidential impeachment in our history was a political proceeding. The proliferation of impeachments and attempted impeachments in recent American history is a symptom of partisan abuse of legislative powers, not of higher ethical standards.

The Framers of the Constitution wanted impeachment to be taken seriously.

Impeachment was meant to keep the government clean, instead the government is hopelessly dirty, and impeachment has become a tool for making it even dirtier and keeping it dirty.

The Democrats are turning America into Venezuela, endlessly borrowing and spending money that doesn’t exist, while keeping the streets full of soldiers, and using security powers against political opponents, while their Big Tech oligarchy suppresses opposition political speech.

Washington D.C. is full of razor wire and military checkpoints through impeachment. Impeachment may be doomed, but it provides another justification for extending a manufactured state of emergency. And if any violence does take place, that will extend the D.C. occupation.

Even Chief Justice Roberts, no friend of the Trump administration, has refused to preside over what he clearly doesn’t think is a legal presidential impeachment process. The same Democrats who universally voted for an unconstitutional 25th Amendment coup couldn’t care less. When you’ve got troops in the streets and control over the government, the law is what you make of it.

Those are high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe the impeachers should impeach themselves.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

AOC Blamed Trump for Assaults on Elderly Asians; The Attacker was Muslim

By On February 18, 2021
When a video of an assault on a 91-year-old Asian man went viral, the media and civil rights groups were quick to blame President Trump for using the term, “Chinese Virus”.

"We stand with our Asian American & Pacific Islander community against the rising tide of racism and hate crimes that have been stoked to a fever pitch, much of amplified by the actions of our last president," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted another false accusation.

But when the perpetrator was arrested, he turned out to be Muslim.

Yahya Muslim had allegedly attacked a 60-year-old man and a 55-year-old woman the same day. His arrest told a larger story about why Asian people are really being attacked in Oakland.

Muslim had been convicted of "assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury" in October 14, 2020 and was let off with an "unsentenced term". He had also been convicted of the same charge in 2015 and got off with probation. Had he been locked up, the 91-year-old man he attacked would have been safe. California’s Democrat establishment and its media allies falsely blamed Trump for their own support for criminals like Muslim at the expense of their victims.

Oakland’s Chinatown had suffered over 20 attacks against the elderly and women in two weeks.

The wave of attacks against Asian people in Oakland, like the previous attacks in New York that I documented, are being carried out by minorities with a criminal record, not by conservatives.

The cause of the crisis is a crime wave fueled by Democrat support for career criminals.

California Democrats legalized shoplifting. Some of the videos capture criminals boldly stealing money and property from stores while knowing that nothing is going to happen to them.

And nothing does.

Some of the criminals escalated their attacks from robbing stores to mugging the elderly. And the same Democrat politicians who supported legalizing robbing stores expressed concern.

But when Democrat DAs free criminals as soon as they’re arrested, when they even bother arresting them at all, when someone like Yahya Muslim could be convicted twice of "assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury" without ever serving time, that’s inevitable.

In January, there were 15 murders in Oakland, up from only one murder in January of last year.

The Oakland City Council had voted to create a task force to defund the police department by half. The actual defunding proposal was narrowly voted down with Councilwoman Sheng Thao voting for defunding. A month later, after a murder at a Starbucks, Thao was calling for the police to walk the beat again.

“Let’s commit to shifting at least $25 million from OPD to community programs and services that truly keep us safe,” Councilwoman Nikki Fortunato Bas had argued.

“We need to invest in those other types of safety,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez had argued in favor of police defunding.

How safe does anyone in Chinatown feel?

Biden’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, told reporters at a briefing that her boss was very concerned and had signed an executive order protecting Asians. That won’t do much good because Kristen Clarke, Biden’s black nationalist pick to head civil rights at the DOJ, opposed fighting civil rights violations by black perpetrators. That would include Muslim and most of the Oakland attackers.

Before Muslim's arrest, John C. Yang, the head of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), a leftist group, had been one of the loudest voices blaming President Trump.

The AAJC, like its Jewish counterparts, has worked to sell out the people it claims to represent for leftist causes, supporting Yale's policy of affirmative action discrimination against Asian students, and now opposes police protection for the Asian-American victims of crime.

In response to the wave of attacks, Yang claimed that, "increased police presence isn’t necessarily going to solve the problem" and claimed to be worried "about over-criminalization of communities," calling instead for "community-based solutions, assistance for the victims, assistance for the businesses that are damaged.” Anything except dealing with the criminals.

Meanwhile local business owners are hiring armed guards, forming volunteer patrols, and calling for a larger police presence. The disconnect between what Asian store owners in Oakland actually want and the media’s insistence on quoting Yang amplifies the disconnect.

Chinatown community members have been accused of “anti-blackness” for talking about the violence they’re facing in a city and state that no longer believe in fighting crime.

The problem is not, as Yang claims, “the virus of racism”, but the virus of crime.

In San Francisco, Vicha Ratanapakdee, an 84-year-old Thai man, was murdered in San Francisco by Antoine Watson who shoved him, causing the elderly man to hit his head, and then kept going. The victim's family described it as a racially motivated assault.

Soros DA Chesa Boudin promised them justice. Considering that Boudin's idea of justice is freeing all the criminals, that's not very likely. A local news station reported that 85% of San Francisco residents said that they feel unsafe. Boudin and the pro-crime policies of criminal justice reform, which put criminals ahead of their victims, are a big part of the problem.

Even while CNN, CBS, NBC, and other major media outlets falsely tried to connect President Trump to the attacks, it’s their own political movement that is at fault for the violence.

“The perpetrator in some cases has been African American,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said. “And as an African American woman, as the mayor of your city, I am here to hold everyone accountable.”

Accountability has become a nebulous social justice term. It’s wormed its way into cancel culture and has been used to describe restorative justice alternatives to the justice system.

The criminals don’t need to be held accountable. They need to be arrested and locked up. It’s the politicians who embraced police defunding and who keep releasing criminals who need to be held accountable for making cities unsafe, and for costing lives by empowering criminals.

What is happening to Asians in Oakland is the same thing that’s been happening to Jews in Brooklyn. The long series of viral videos showing random assaults and muggings against both groups is the result of living under Democrat leaders who have decided that crime and racism by minorities don’t exist and that policing them is racist.

There would be no rash of assaults if the DAs and the police were allowed to do their job.

Democrats love talking about hate crimes, but there’s no ‘hate crime’ without a ‘crime’. Fighting hate without fighting crime leads to lots of press conferences and not a whole lot less.

The social justice activists, reporters, and politicians who jumped on the Oakland assaults tried to blame President Trump, but when the perpetrators turned out to be exactly the same people on whose behalf they had been fighting for years, they quickly backed away from the issue.

Until next time.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tried to blame President Trump for the attacks on elderly Asians in a city whose politicians did their best to champion police defunding. If she wants someone to blame for the wave of crime against a vulnerable community, she can look in the mirror.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

No Objectivity Please, We're Leftists

By On February 17, 2021
The American Left has never been this in love with science and the class of experts who claim to dispense it. Any of its obsessions gains a glow of legitimacy when it attaches, “according to science” somewhere in the sentence, usually preceded by “do this” or “if you aren’t.”

And yet there’s a great deal of interest in science in China, but it’s on the way out in America.

STEM is on the social justice chopping block, under siege on and off campus with demands for equity and diversity, that also translate into less science and more social justice. Science is denounced by social justice squads as the work of dead white men and the new leftist ideology rejects the idea that the sum of 2 and 2 consistently add up to anything except systemic racism.

Seattle public schools contend that western math is “used to disenfranchise​ people and communities of color.” A University of Illinois education professor insisted that, "mathematics itself operates as Whiteness."

"Our research papers turn into media releases, books and legislation that reinforce anti-Black narratives. In STEM, we create technologies that affect every part of our society and are routinely weaponized against Black people," Shut Down STEM insisted. “The evidence of systemic racism in science permeates this nation,” Science, the journal, claimed.

The inherent problem with science is that it requires objectivity. And objectivity is the thing that leftists hate for the same reason that any cult does. Objectivity asserts that we can find the truth by stepping back from our beliefs and emotions in any field from journalism to particle physics.

The Left insists that we don’t transcend our biases through objectivity, but subjectivity.

The politically correct way to discover the truth is by understanding your white privilege and deconstructing the history of human civilization, not by searching for evidence or proof.

Truth comes not from objective facts, but from the subjective “lived experiences” of oppressed minorities whose suffering acts as the revelation of truth. This isn’t truth in the scientific sense, but in the religious sense, with minorities as martyrs revealing our sins to us with their suffering.

To be objective, lefties insist is just to deny your prejudices and evade the important work of checking your white privilege in response to the revelation of minority suffering in America.

But if objectivity is impossible, and scientific objectivity is just whiteness and colonialism, then the only legitimate science is one that asserts that leftist beliefs and values are absolutely true. The Soviet Union attempted to police science, upholding Lysenkoism because it offered a vision of science as the Communist hierarchy wanted it to be, rather than as it was, while suppressing Cybernetics because it offered a vision of reality that the Party elite found threatening.

Communist bosses liked the idea of an easily malleable agricultural system, but disliked the notion of robots replacing workers. The actual science was secondary to the ideological biases of ignorant ideologues who were convinced that they already had access to a higher truth.

Sound familiar?

The Cold War pitted Western scientific objectivity against Eastern ideological subjectivity. And objectivity won. It won to such a degree that scientists in Moscow or Shanghai don’t bother consulting ideological texts like Stalin’s articles or Mao’s sayings before doing research.

But, objectivity is dying off in the West.

Accusations of “whiteness” are to American academia what denunciations of reactionary, cosmopolitan, or idealism were to Soviet scientists. These signals serve the same function, warning scientists that they’re treading on ideologically dangerous territory by pursuing the truth.

So why does the Left claim to love science when it hates it and is threatened by it?

Marxism started out as a bastardized impersonation of a pseudo-science. Time and countless revisions hasn’t improved it any. The Left loves the idea of science, as long as it reflects its agendas, and remains subservient to its crackpot ideas. Just leave the objectivity out of it.

The same war rages in journalism.

“American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity,” Wesley Lowery of the New York Times ranted.

Moral clarity is what the Communist apparatchiks also wanted. Their morality and their clarity.

Contrasting moral clarity and objectivity asserts that we can either be moral or search for the truth, but we cannot do both. Moral clarity demands unquestioning allegiance to a belief system. And that belief system must permeate whatever work we do, otherwise our work is immoral.

This quintessentially Communist idea was once relegated in America to certain cultural and academic bywaters, but is now becoming the central requirement for operating in public life.

It’s why corporations have rushed out absurd statements endorsing Black Lives Matter.

Morality, in leftist ideology, comes from politicising everything because the central struggle of humanity, which used to be class, and is currently race, and might, tomorrow, be sexuality, pervades everything in a pseudo-religious struggle for the redemption of mankind.

To be apolitical or objective is to deny the revelation that we must all join the struggle.

What is at stake is more than abstract ideas. The legacy of the Enlightenment divided individual morality from objective truth. Morality became personal and communal, instead of collective, and those beliefs became all the more precious when confronting a universe that did not always reflect them. The reaction to that universe destroyed the faith of some and upheld the faith of others. And some of those who lost their faith used false reason to manufacture another one.

That is where the Left came from. Its ideas sought to fuse together a collective morality and reality by insisting that it had discovered the principles that would make the world into utopia.

The seduction of the pseudo-scientific and pseudo-religious cult of the Left is that it offers theocracy without god. Its followers believe that they are battling for a moral order that is absolutely true, and that submitting to that moral order will resolve the conflicts of theodicy, restoring a moral universe that accords with our moral views. This is the tragic lie of the Left.

The utopian kingdom of heaven never arrives. The worse things get, the more society has to be purged of its evil ways to atone for its social sins. Pre-revolutionary era ideology reduced social failures to a single root cause, but even once the revolution arrives and the root cause of class warfare or racism is done away with, the system begins hunting for someone else to blame.

That is what we are living through now.

In its pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific folly, the Left believes that suffering, that of its martyrs of class or race, or of the designated oppressors, represents truth. It attacks science by insisting that the suffering of the working class or of trans people of color represents a truth beyond the flawed reasoning of the human mind to which everyone is obligated to kneel.

Truth, it tells us, comes from empathy and guilt, not from stepping away from our emotions.

How we feel about something can represent a moral truth. But what we do about it requires objective reasoning. The Left’s rejection of that reality is why it always ends up failing.

The Left exploits other people’s misery for power and ego. It doesn’t want answers. It wants to transmute idealism into hate, fear, and guilt. That’s why it hates truth. Its bastardization of religion and science is a lie and its prophets and experts never explain their failures.

Objectivity enables a moral society to solve its problems. The Left is at war with objectivity because it doesn’t want those problems solved. Objectivity would take away its power.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Monday, February 15, 2021

John Kerry Emitted 302 Tons of CO2 to Save the Planet

By On February 15, 2021
In his last year in office, Secretary of State John Kerry was touting the fact that he had traveled over 1.06 million miles and spent some 96 days in the air in the course of 3 years. The archived State Department site tallies Kerry's total record at 1,417,576 miles and 126 days in the air.

Kerry spent more time flying in 3 years than the average American would in 50 years.

When the Air Force Boeing 757 which ferried Kerry around the world broke down for the fourth time, the media and the foreign policy establishment treated it as some sort of accomplishment.

That might have amounted to something if the ketchup gigolo had done anything in that time except jet around the world to give speeches about the importance of not jetting around the world. Kerry kept racking up miles by flying to Morocco to address the 22nd UN Climate Change Conference, to Indonesia to deliver a speech denouncing unbelievers in global warming, and to Paris to warn that the earth was about to be destroyed if people didn’t stop living like him.

Kerry’s flights would have powered all the appliances in 50 American homes for a year.

"It's the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle," Kerry recently retorted when a reporter asked him about flying his private jet to Iceland to receive an environmental award. Environmentalists don’t fly coach or even first class. They jet set.

But sometimes you have to destroy the environment to save the environment.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry racked up 302 tons worth of CO2 emissions just from his flight time. Americans would have to burn 100 tons of coal to match the CO2 emissions from Kerry’s jaunts to save the world from people wanting to fly on vacation or heat their homes.

And as Biden’s new ‘Climate Envoy’, Kerry will soon be filling the sky with even more hot air.

Everyone from Moscow to the Middle East knew that Kerry was full of hot air, but not even they would have guessed that John Forbes Kerry was full of 302 tons of hot air. Don’t just think of Kerry as a politician, but as the Exxon Valdez with a “Save the Whales” sticker on the hull.

Biden’s ‘Climate Envoy’ recently argued that coal, oil, and gas workers needed to make better choices and make solar panels. In 2004, Kerry had won the endorsement of the United Mine Workers of America by promising to protect coal jobs. The UMWA didn’t even bother trying to endorse Biden, just as it didn’t try endorsing Obama or Hillary in 2012 and 2016.

The Democrats are militantly anti-coal now. Hillary Clinton had vowed to destroy coal and Kerry thinks coal miners ought to move to China and get jobs constructing toxic solar panels there.

But while the Democrats may be anti-coal, they’re pro-mansion and pro-private jet.

After the Obama regime ended, Kerry went back to using his own private jet to flit around the world, give speeches, and accept awards. Iceland was just one stop on the Kerry world tour.

And then it was back to one of his portfolio of mansions.

“Local sea levels are rising twice as fast as the global average,” Kerry claimed in 2015. Two years later, he and his wife bought a seven-bedroom waterfront house in Martha’s Vineyard.

Much like jetting everywhere, that’s just the sort of island property that a man who sincerely believes that global warming is causing the oceans to rise and flood the world would buy.

Kerry’s homes, like the jet set lifestyle, clash with his apocalyptic environmentalism.

"I don’t see it as all tragedy at all. I mean, yes, there will be tragedy associated with it. It’ll be hard for some people to give up homesteads and move away," Kerry, speaking as Biden's new "Climate Envoy", argued. "So yes, life will be different, but it doesn’t have to be worse."

Not when you can afford to pay for the carbon offsets the way that Kerry does.

It’s not easy being ‘green’. But you don’t have to be green, as Kerry told a reporter in Iceland, "if you offset your carbon, it's the only choice for somebody like me.”

Paying someone else to be ‘green’, which is what carbon offsets amount to, is the modern equivalent of the Civil War practice of allowing the wealthy who were drafted to pay poor people to fight in their place. Life won’t be all that different for John Kerry, aside from giving up an estate on Nantucket for one on Martha’s Vineyard, because he’ll pay the poor to be green.

Trading coal for solar raises energy prices. Attaching carbon taxes to everything will make the cost of living impossible for millions. Air travel will become a thing of the past. For most.

“What I'm doing, almost full time," Kerry whined in Iceland, "is working to win the battle on climate change, and in the end, if I offset and contribute my life to do this, I'm not going to be put on the defensive." And it’s not as if any reporter outside Iceland would dare to even try.

John Forbes Kerry is flying around the world like Superman, fueled by hot air and carbon offsets, to save the world from the rest of us who irresponsibly drive to work and run our air conditioners without caring about the environment. While John Kerry goes through enough CO2 to cover 60 Americans driving their cars for a year because he cares about the environment.

All these years after Vietnam, Lt. Kerry, who collaborated with the Viet Cong to stop a war and launch a political career, is still destroying things to save them. And if these things, whether it’s the people of Vietnam or the planet, never get saved, he still gets rich and famous.

Meanwhile he emits enough CO2 to account for 100 tons of coal while fighting coal with jets.

When John Kerry first got the State Department gig under Obama, he divested a number of resources including millions worth of the Sustainable Technologies Fund which the media described only as a “green energy-oriented private equity firm” while leaving out a key detail.

Leaving out key details when it comes to the dealings of Democrats is the new journalism.

The Sustainable Technologies Fund was co-founded by Andre Heinz: Kerry’s stepson.

“The emergence of new policies and laws aimed at aligning our economic system of production with our environment’s carrying capacity,” STF’s site tells potential investors. “Understanding and predicting the desired goals of such policies is key to an optimal market strategy.”

No doubt.

The conflict of interest here didn’t go away with Kerry and his wife shedding their financial interest in Andre’s Swedish green energy fund. Much like jetting everywhere while lecturing the proles on setting their thermostat too high isn’t vaporized by carbon offsets.

“The time it takes me to get somewhere, I can't sail across the ocean. I have to fly, meet with people and get things done," Kerry argued. The rules never apply to the elites. They can’t. Not when those elites, like John Kerry, are saving us from ourselves by taking on the privileges that we are no longer allowed to exercise for ourselves in the name of the greater good of mankind.

And what sort of skeptic would begrudge the elites from jetting to save us from the jets?

Going ‘green’ is great when you’ve got private equity funds and private jets. It’s a lot less fun when you’re a British pensioner freezing to death in the winter or a French senior citizen dying of heatstroke due to the lack of air conditioning. Greenness means factory workers making $20K a year paying for the Teslas of upper class Californians. It’s oil and gas workers losing their jobs at the behest of environmental consultants pushing Chinese solar panels.

And it’s John Kerry flying a private jet to accept another award ten thousand miles away while emitting enough CO2 to heat an American home. If Biden still lets Americans heat their homes.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, February 14, 2021

Biden Takes "Death to America" Terrorists Off Terror List

By On February 14, 2021
The Biden administration responded to protests against its stolen election by embedding a domestic extremism office into the National Security Council. The man in charge of making it happen, Joshua Geltzer, had previously denied that Black Lives Matter was a terrorist threat and had attacked the Trump administration’s response to Antifa and BLM violence in Portland.

That means that the only domestic extremists the NSC will be fighting are Republicans.

Even while the Biden administration is preparing to double down on Obama’s abuse of the national security state to target his political opponents, it’s also giving real terrorists a pass.

Joe Biden, whose biggest bundlers included the Iran Lobby, announced he was ending support for American allies fighting the Houthis, and then went even further by preparing to remove the terrorist organization whose motto is, “Death to America”, which took American hostages and tried to kill American sailors, from the list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The motto of Iran’s Houthi Jihadis is, "Allahu Akbar, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam." The Houthis took over parts of Yemen as a result of the chaos unleashed by Obama’s pro-Islamist Arab Spring. Since then they’ve been engaged in a protracted war while causing a local famine by confiscating food from the local population.

Last year, the Trump administration had finally secured the release of three American hostages, Sandra Loli, an American aid worker who had been held for 3 years, another American who had been held for a year, and the body of a third American, in exchange for 240 Houthis, including three dozen Islamic terrorists who had been trained in the use of missiles and drones by Iran.

Like those launched at the USS Mason.

The Houthis lived up to their “Death to America” slogan by repeatedly launching cruise missiles at the USS Mason which had been protecting shipping in the area. And they lived up to the second half of their slogan by ethnically cleansing the remaining local Jewish population, locking them up, and confiscating their homes and land. Local reports stated that the Houthis were “cutting off water & electricity to Jewish homes and preventing Jews from purchasing food."

“No Jew would be allowed to stay here,” one of the Jewish refugees said.

The Iran-backed Islamic terrorists fight using 18,000 child soldiers. The soldiers, many abducted, some as young as 10, are taught to hate America and to kill enemies of Iran.

None of this stopped Biden’s State Department from taking the Houthis off the terror list.

“Secretary Blinken has been clear about undertaking an expeditious review of the designations of Ansarallah,” the State Department claimed. “After a comprehensive review, we can confirm that the Secretary intends to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist designations of Ansarallah.”

‘Ansarallah’ or ‘Defenders of Allah’ is what the Houthis call themselves. Blinken had only been confirmed on Tuesday. By next Friday, he had already somehow completed the “comprehensive review”, amid all the other minor business like China, Russia, and a global pandemic, and decided that the Islamic terrorists whose motto is “Death to America” aren’t really terrorists.

How can the Biden administration deny that Islamic Jihadis backed by Iran who attacked Americans are terrorists? The State Department claimed that this, “has nothing to do with our view of the Houthis and their reprehensible conduct, including attacks against civilians and the kidnapping of American citizens." Not to mention the attacks on the USS Mason.

But the Biden administration isn’t even going to pretend to care about attacks on our military.

The Bidenites are claiming that they're taking the Houthis, whom they don't deny are terrorists, off the list of designated terrorist groups because of the "humanitarian consequences".

That’s a lie, no matter how often you hear it in the media, because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would be providing licenses to “humanitarian activities conducted by non-governmental organizations in Yemen and to certain transactions and activities related to exports to Yemen of critical commodities like food and medicine.”

That’s despite the fact that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen was caused by the Houthis.

Nevertheless the media, echoing propaganda from the Iran Lobby and Qatar, a close terrorist ally of Iran, has falsely claimed that the Houthis are the victims of the Yemen famine. A number of politicians, mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, as well as various aid groups, have pushed this same disinformation campaign about the causes of the Yemen famine.

America and its allies have spent billions providing food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid to Yemen. That aid has been seized by the Houthis who have used it for their own troops or to resell on the black market. This is a familiar problem from Syria to Somalia, and aid groups have refused to honestly address their complicity in aiding the terrorists who caused the crisis.

There’s no money in admitting that the aid an organization is providing is being seized by the terrorists, prolonging the conflict and worsening the humanitarian crisis. Some aid organizations share the same goal as the Houthis of worsening the crisis because it boosts their donations.

That’s why international aid organizations don’t want to talk about the Houthis taking their food donations, or about their use of child soldiers. “It’s a taboo,” an anonymous aid official had said.

When Secretary Pompeo announced that the United States was finally designating the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization, the United Nations took the lead in claiming that it would cause a humanitarian crisis. But the UN's World Food Program had already admitted that its food shipments weren't getting to the starving people because the Houthis were intercepting them.

The Middle East director for UNICEF also admitted that the Houthis were seizing food.

An Associated Press investigation found entire stores seling "cooking oil and flour displaying the U.N. food program’s WFP logo." The former Houthi education minister said that 15,000 food baskets that were supposed to go to hungry families instead went to the Houthi terrorists whom the Biden administration is defending. Massive amounts of aid have been pumped into Yemen, and the famine has only grown worse because the Houthis have used starvation as a weapon.

The only way to end the famine is to end Iran’s grip on Yemen through its Houthi terrorists.

That’s obviously not what Biden or the Democrats have in mind. The loudest Democrat voices against designating the Houthis as a terrorist group have a troubling history with Iran.

"Reversing the designation is an important decision that will save lives and, combined with the appointment of a Special Envoy, offers hope that President Biden is committed to bringing the war to an end,” Senator Chris Murphy tweeted.

Murphy had been among the loudest voices against the designation.

And Murphy had met with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif last year. That same year, he had advocated lowering sanctions on Iran for “humanitarian reasons”. Biden had also joined the push to use the pandemic as a pretext for reducing sanctions on the terror state.

That same year, the Left succeeded in forcing out Rep. Elliot Engel, one of the few remaining pro-Israel Democrats, and replaced him with the militantly anti-Israel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, whose election was backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her antisemitic ‘Squad’.

Engel, who had served as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was replaced by Rep. Gregory Meeks, a strong backer of the Iran Deal. Meeks’ position was cheered by Iran Lobby groups. As far back as 2009, Meeks had declared at a hearing, “I have developed a tremendous appreciation for the work of the National Iranian American Council. I am pleased that we will hear the perspective of NIAC’s President, Mr. Trita Parsi.”

Emails released allegedly showed Parsi telling Iran's Foreign Minister, "I am having a meeting with Gilchrest and Meeks, and they asked for our assistance in getting some communication going between the parliamentarians."

Speaking to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the official state news agency of the Islamic terrorist state, Chairman Meeks allegedly stated that he was willing to travel to Iran and had been engaged in dialogue with Iranian legislators.

Meeks took the lead in attacking the designation of the Houthi Islamic terrorists as terrorists, arguing that, “No solution in Yemen will be sustainable unless the Houthis are involved.”

And that gets at the real reason why Biden and Democrats oppose the designation.

It’s not about humanitarian aid, which would have kept on going anyway, only to be stolen by the Houthis. It’s about supporting Iran’s bid to take over parts of Yemen in order to control shipping and tighten the grip of the Islamic terrorist regime over the entire region.

The ‘diplomatic’ solution advocated by Biden and the Democrats would finalize Iran’s grip over parts of Yemen. Designating the Houthis as terrorists would get in the way of another in a series of Islamist dirty deals with Iran that began with Obama and that will continue on under Biden.

Even while the Democrats insist loudly that the Houthis must be part of the solution in Yemen, they just as vocally cry that the Republicans must be isolated and eliminated in America.

The Democrats militarized D.C. with an armed occupation and are criminalizing political dissent. They have claimed that one riot, after a year full of them by their own activist wing, requires a permanent state of emergency that will be run through the National Security Council.

The Biden administration is not only taking the Houthis, and likely other Islamic terrorist groups, off the terror list, it’s putting the domestic political opposition on its terror list. This is an extension of the same Obama policy that illegally shipped foreign cash to Iran even while it was using the NSA to spy on pro-Israel members of Congress and on the Trump campaign.

The Democrats are happy to fight terrorism by designating their domestic political opponents as terrorists while removing the “Death to America” Houthis who have kidnapped and killed Americans, who fired on the USS Mason, and ethnically cleansed Jews, from the terror list.

And what do the Houthis plan to do with their newfound support from the Biden administration?

In addition to sanctioning the Houthis, the Trump administration sanctioned three of their leaders, beginning with Abdul Malik al-Houthi. The Houthi leader has made it clear that he intends to build up the same missile program that was used to attack the USS Mason.

“To have rockets that could reach far beyond Riyadh, this is a great achievement,” he said, referring to the Saudi capital.

He also promised to send terrorists to fight against Israel.

“Many of Yemen's tribesmen are ambitious to fight against Israel, and they are looking for the day to participate along with the freemen of the Islamic nation against the Israeli enemy,"

This is the terrorist group that the Biden administration and the Democrats are bailing out even while they’re criminalizing the Republican political opposition as terrorists.

“Death to America” is something that the Houthis and their Democrat supporters can agree on.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Southern Poverty Law Center Eliminates Black Hate Groups Category Because That's Racist

By On February 10, 2021
The Southern Poverty Law Center claims it’s dedicated to fighting hate. But some things are more important than fighting hate.

Like “equity”.

In the name of equity, the SPLC announced that it’s shutting down its black nationalist hate groups category like the Nation of Islam. After “doing the internal work of anti-racism”, the SPLC will no longer list black racist hate groups because “the hate is not equal”.

Even racism requires its own equity.

The SPLC’s move dismantles the last remaining shred of credibility of the organization, but it also comes after Democrat politicians and activists, including Senator Cory Booker and Kamala Harris pressured the FBI to stop monitoring black nationalist hate groups before several murderous antisemitic attacks by members of the Black Hebrew Israelite hate group.

Despite these terrorist attacks, the pressure is still on in the media and among Democrat activists to keep the FBI from monitoring black supremacist and nationalist hate groups.

Activists had targeted the SPLC because, despite its bias, untrustworthiness, and sloppiness, its listings are widely used by law enforcement and by internet platforms deciding what qualifies as a hate group. The SPLC’s statement mainstreaming black supremacist hate groups repeatedly attacks the FBI and claims that these groups are actually the victims of law enforcement.

It also argues that black nationalist hate groups “are not made up of only Black individuals”.

“We reject federal law enforcement’s false and misleading contention regarding threats from Black separatists,” the SPLC statement insists. It pads this out with woke buzzwords and intersectional jargon to dodge the simple fact that it’s legitimizing black racist hate groups.

The SPLC had formerly tracked black nationalist hate groups through a ‘separatist’ category because a number of them, including the Nation of Islam, have wanted their own apartheid state. In its statement, the SPLC insists that there’s nothing wrong with racial secessionism.

“Black separatism was born out of valid anger against very real historical and systemic oppression” the SPLC argues. In Elijah Muhammad’s Message to the Blackman in America, the Nation of Islam leader explained that separatism was needed because white people were racially inferior “devils” and that "separation must come between god's people and the devil".

"Reverend King has made it clear that he never wants the black man to rule, because he knows it will be 'just as dangerous as white supremacy,'" Muhammad ranted. "This shows that all black people should disregard anything that a man like that says.”

"We must never substitute a doctrine of Black supremacy for white supremacy. For the doctrine of Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy," King had argued.

The Democrats, the media, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have adopted Muhammad’s position over King’s position, rejecting the wrongness of black supremacism.

Democrat politicians like Senator Booker have insisted that black nationalist violence doesn’t exist. “You said both ends of the spectrum, as if there actually is a movement of black identity extremism: it's almost creating this reality,” Booker had berated the head of the FBI.

Even the Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t ready to adopt Booker’s imaginary woke world in which a century of violence never happened and the Black Liberation Army, the Black Hebrew Israelite terror attack in Booker’s own state, the murder of 5 police officers in Dallas, the NOI and its splinter groups, like YBMB, and the murder of Malcolm X, never actually existed.

We live in a time when the murders of 8 people, the assaults on hundreds more, and the wrecking of communities to the tune of $2 billion by Black Lives Matter can be described as “mostly peaceful”. But even the SPLC’s new antiracist equity mandate hasn’t made the leap.

The SPLC admits that “some Black nationalists have committed violence against Jewish communities, but those are fueled by antisemitism, not separatism”. And it will stop listing black nationalist groups by race, but class them under antisemitism and homophobia. But racial separatism and antisemitism are symptoms of the racist beliefs of black nationalism.

“The Jew is behind the integration movement, using the Negro as a tool,” Malcolm X, Muhammad’s disciple, had told the head of a local KKK group and a Democrat candidate.

The NOI’s racialist texts insist that America is evil because its immigrants “came from the lower class of European people” followed by Asian immigrants who created “one of the most mixed people” because they had “freedom to worship” and were not compelled to be Muslims.

Black nationalists copied white nationalist beliefs and just flipped the races. That’s why the Nation of Islam and other black nationalist groups have worked with the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

The racism revisionists insist that black supremacists are fundamentally different than white supremacists, but they never explain how they’re different in their beliefs, only their root causes.

The Left swears by its sociology of root causes, but root excuses don't change beliefs.

White supremacists and black supremacists have the same basic beliefs, they’ve worked together, and they have the same apartheid state goals. The only difference is that the Southern Poverty Law Center excuses one and attacks the other. That’s only defensible if you believe that some kinds of racism are justified while others are not, and that the only real racism is power.

And that’s what the SPLC falsely claims, “in our endeavor for racial justice and equity, it is imperative that we adopt an understanding of racism grounded in nuance and the realities of racial power dynamics. Racism in America is historical, systemic and structural.”

Spot the nuance and racial power dynamics in black nationalist Stokely Carmichael declaring that, “I’ve never admired a white man, but the greatest of them, to my mind, was Hitler.”

Or Farrakhan calling Hitler ''a very great man.''

The SPLC’s Marxist critical race theory analysis of racism reduces it to power dynamics. Redefining racism as a “systemic” phenomenon replaces actual racism with renaming San Francisco schools that have acronyms to fight “white supremacy”. And then the SPLC can’t even pretend to be tracking hate groups, only those groups that it deems part of the system.

The absurdity of one of the wealthiest non-profits in the country (that has “poverty” in its name) pretending that the trailer park dwellers of the Klan represent “systemic racism” while insisting that Farrakhan, who got his photo taken with Obama at a Congressional Black Caucus event, is a helpless victim, takes the discrediting of what’s left the SPLC’s credibility to a new level.

The SPLC refuses to use the term “black nationalist” or “black supremacist” to describe black supremacist hate groups like the NOI which, literally, insist that they are the master race.

Elijah Muhammad’s Message to the Blackman in America laid out the creation story of the “white race” as coming from a mad scientist named Yakub who discovered there were "two people in him, and that one was black, the other brown" and "he could make the white, which he discovered was the weaker of the black germ" in a breeding program to make "brown” people.

Nation of Islam theology claims that "after the first 200 years, Mr. Yakub had done away with the black people, and all were brown. After another 200 years, he had us all yellow or red" and then finally "an all-pale white race of people" who were “made by nature a liar and a murderer”.

White people, Asians, and Indians, and most black people, according to black nationalists are illegitimate races, with white people, who are the least black, being the most evil.

This isn’t mere separatism. If that’s not racial supremacism, what is?

The Southern Poverty Law Center, founded by a Klansman’s lawyer, which has falsely accused many conservative organizations, including the David Horowitz Freedom Center, of racism has finally made its peace with racism in the name of antiracism.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, February 09, 2021

150 People Were Shot in Chicago Since Illinois Sent the National Guard to D.C.

By On February 09, 2021
After shooting deaths shot up 75% in Chicago, Governor Pritzker announced that he was dispatching 500 more National Guard troops to fight “the dark forces of racism” in D.C.

Washington D.C. may be suffering from “the dark forces of racism” since it’s currently in the hands of the party of racism, slavery, and segregation, but those National Guard troops would do a lot more good in Chicago where 81%, the majority of shooting victims, are black.

Around 150 people have been shot since Pritzker sent the troops to D.C. instead of Chicago.

After the billionaire governor took a break from working on his Wisconsin mansion to dispatch 200 National Guard troops to protect Joe Biden from being attacked during the inauguration, 29 murders were perpetrated in Chicago. There was nothing for the Illinois National Guard to do in D.C. where the biggest threat to Joe Biden’s safety remains pulling a dog’s tail in the shower, but deploying those troops could have been used to save lives back home in Chicago.

D.C. does not need the National Guard for anything except political theater. If Governor Pritzker wants to protect Joe Biden, he doesn’t need hundreds of soldiers, he just needs a good nurse.

And maybe a dog trainer.

"We must root out the dark forces of racism," Governor Pritzker declared, and, "disinformation".

Soldiers don't root out "disinformation". Except maybe in China, Cuba, and apparently, Chicago.

The latest weekend began with 18 people being shot in Chicago. Instead of fighting Republican political opponents in D.C., the National Guard could actually stop real violence in Chiraq.

Pritzker’s administration claims that the hundreds of National Guard personnel are needed to help secure the Capitol. The Capitol Police have over 2,000 sworn officers, an ‘unscalable wall’ surrounds Congress, and all of that is backed by the D.C. cops, the Park Police, and thousands of National Guardsmen from sleepier states like Vermont and Rhode Island. If all of that isn’t enough to secure Congress from a few hundred protesters, then maybe it’s time to give up.

The Biden banana republic theater in D.C. of soldiers, walls, and razor wire is sending a troubling message to Americans and to the rest of the world. But it’s also costing lives in Chicago and in urban areas that could actually use some National Guard support.

Murder rates have shot up by 50% in major American cities. Police departments are outmanned, outgunned, and are bleeding personnel at record rates as officers head for the exit.

In Michigan, Governor Whitmer sent hundreds of National Guard personnel in January to D.C. to ensure “a peaceful transition of presidential power”. There are now 1,000 members of the Michigan National Guard in D.C. until March because the “transition” still isn’t peaceful.

D.C.’s political arenas in the Imperial City are their usual corrupt and peaceful selves, but Michigan’s troubled urban areas could use some of those 1,000 soldiers on their streets.

In one recent Flint shooting spree, a 57-year-old woman was killed, and four others, including an 11-month-old baby, were wounded. If only Governor Whitmer had cared as much about that baby as she does about bolstering the Democrat military occupation of Washington D.C.

While shootings continue to devastate Philly, Governor Wolf insists on keeping 450 Pennsylvania National Guard members in D.C. after initially dispatching 2,350 members.

Governor Wolf claimed that all those soldiers were needed to "ensure the safe and peaceful inauguration" of Biden. Now that Biden is safely and peacefully banning women’s sports from the Oval Office, why are hundreds of soldiers still there? To protect him from female athletes?

Even as violence surges in New York City, Governor Cuomo sent another 542 members of the state’s National Guard to D.C.

That’s after a year in which shootings rose 97% and murders shot up by 45%.

"Our federal government is facing a host of challenges unlike any in modern history, and it needs to be able to conduct its business safely for the sake of all Americans," Cuomo claimed.

The only federal legislators to be physically assaulted by political extremists have been Republicans who were attacked by Democrats: Including at the infamous baseball charity shooting spree. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who claimed that she was nearly murdered, is perfectly safe. So is the rest of New York’s delegation of grifters, radicals, and crooks.

The same can’t be said for New Yorkers who are under assault by the criminals set loose by Cuomo, De Blasio, and other Democrats who prioritized thugs over law-abiding citizens.

The federal government is safe. New Yorkers aren’t.

The Democrats are determined to maintain this show of force while proceeding with an unconstitutional impeachment of President Trump to send a message that this is a banana republic in which a usurper tries his predecessor in a trial presided over by his own man while soldiers stand guard to suppress political protests and intimidate political opponents.

The D.C. occupation must end.

If the Democrats want to send troops somewhere, their own cities are in desperate need. Gang violence is claiming the lives of a generation of black youth. Meanwhile the National Guard are also being used to manage the pandemic. Diverting soldiers from that task may also cost lives.

Instead, Democrats have prioritized intimidating Americans over saving American lives.

While their own people, men, women, and children, continue to die in Chicago, Philly, Detroit, and New York City, the only thing they care about is a military show of force in D.C. Their banana republic occupation persists in D.C. while the dying continues in their own cities.

Sadly, even the deployment of the National Guard to D.C. hasn’t made the city any safer.

While thousands of soldiers were deployed to protect Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, an 85-year-old man was violently beaten on the train, a 15-year-old boy was shot and killed, and a mass shooting killed 1 man and wounded 4 others.

But the cops were busy investigating the vandalism of a Bernie Sanders mural as a hate crime.

Just like the thousands of soldiers, they weren’t there to keep ordinary people safe, but to protect the political agendas of the Democrat ruling class with fascist political theater.

The National Guard could have been used to actually save lives in D.C. Instead, Democrats used those soldiers to threaten Americans while making them sleep in cold parking garages.

That’s another reason why the D.C. occupation needs to end.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Monday, February 08, 2021

Cancel Culture and Affirmative Action are Means of Controlling Access to the Middle Class

By On February 08, 2021
Liberal critics of critical race theory often act as if it’s a mysterious cult that emerged out of nowhere, while its conservative critics tie it to a history of academic Marxism. That’s true, but doesn’t explain why it has suddenly become so pervasively established in our culture.

Politics can be downstream of culture, but political culture is downstream of politics.

The resurrection of black nationalism and critical race theory are two faces of the same electoral strategy by a political movement now inextricably tied to black voters and white elites.

When Obama beat Hillary, he didn’t just transform America, he shed the last vestiges of the Democrat working class white vote and recreated the party as a coalition of urban elites, immigrants, and minority voters on the model of Tony Blair’s Labour Party in the UK. This “neo-liberalism”, as lefties like to call it, found its own Corbyn in the form of Bernie Sanders who put on a show of attacking the white urban elites who dominate a former working class party.

Democrats use critical race theory to deter leftist insurgencies and police the middle class.

The Obama strategy traded the working class white vote for increased black and minority turnout. Since Hispanic voters are much less politically reliable than white voters, the Democrat electoral strategy narrowed down to maximizing black voter turnout. When black voter turnout faltered, as it did in 2016, the Democrats took a beating. But in 2020, black voters made Biden the nominee over Bernie even though he was backed by a majority of white and Hispanic Dems.

Then they handed Democrats control of the Senate.

Obama had initially portrayed his candidacy in MLK terms as ushering in a new post-racial era of national harmony. Then, once in office, he pivoted to the old black nationalism of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, using his office as a platform for falsely accusing America of racism.

The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, under the guiding hand of the Obama administration, touched off race riots around election years to generate black voter turnout. Midterm elections usually bring out more white than black voters. The race riots were meant to change that by compensating for Tea Party populism with a new black nationalist movement.

The race riots manufactured a national racial crisis to boost voter turnout by making black people feel threatened and to silence the middle class and white lefties threatened by the steady flow of jobs out of the country, and the concentration of power in a leftist oligarchy.

Working class concerns about open borders and immigration had been dropped by the Democrats even before they officially dropped the working class vote. Bill Clinton, Blair’s political peer, bluntly told working class Democrats that the jobs were not coming back, and that they needed to send their children to college, change their culture, and join the new elite.

But college was no longer a reliable ladder into a shrinking middle class. A generation had been told that they needed “computer literacy” to function in a new economy, but by the time “learn to code” became a taunt, the tech industry was offshoring and importing cheap immigrant labor.

By the end of Obama’s time in office, the American software engineer was on the same pathway as the American factory worker, tasked with training his foreign replacement before being fired.

The new economy was heavily administrative. It would cheerfully offshore manufacturing and engineering jobs, but not the diversity specialists and managers serving as political commissars. White male jobs that depended on skill and reliability became endangered, while jobs in which fitting in at an office was more important than traditional work skills became more reliable bets.

Critical race theory became the damoclean sword hanging over the heads of the suburban middle class. Like Orwell’s 1984, the members of this ‘middle party’ were bludgeoned with a campaign of political terror so that they wouldn’t have time to think about the system they were administering. The political enunchization of the administrative middle class had the same function in Orwell’s fictional dystopia and in the entirely real dystopias across the country.

The new elites are unconcerned with the proles laboring over the actual product, but deeply worry about the political reliability of the administrative class that is their means of control. They don’t care what the workers believe because they earn too little and there’s little leverage over them, but they are obsessed with maintaining their power through the administrative class.

Critical race theory had its moment at the perfect time to offer sinecures to its own organizer class who were being embedded into every workplace in the country. But it also warned the suburban middle class to avoid being seduced by President Trump’s economic populism. The political interrogations of the struggle sessions suppressed any questions about the country.

It also shut down the leftist insurgency. When Bernie Sanders first ran against Hillary, he rejected identity politics and open borders. After a campaign of harassment by black nationalist activists with puppet strings going back to the Democrat establishment, Sanders became an even bigger enthusiast of racial tribalism and illegal migration than Hillary had ever been.

That cut him off from the working class white vote and cost him any shot at the White House.

The future of his movement was outsourced to the identity politics populism of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and the Squad for whom racial tribalism comes ahead of economic populism.

Intersectionality prioritizes racial Marxism over economic Marxism. Elements of the Left have rebelled against the political correctness and cancel culture of racial Marxism, but in a political culture where AOC is the face of the populist Left and Bernie gets to appear in memes, the audience for the non-racial Marxism of the alumni of The Intercept is limited to conservatives.

Meanwhile, critical race theory is doing what it’s supposed to do by polarizing America along tribal racial lines and along class lines among white people. White suburban moms attend book clubs discussing White Fragility and other critical race theory texts as a form of networking. Having the right politics is crucial to your career in a variety of fields. Not all of the signs asserting that in this house the inhabitants believe in science, love, and black nationalism, are voluntary statements of belief. They’re people flying the new post-American tribal flag to fit in.

Black turnout has been crucial in some races, but it hasn’t made up for Democrat losses. It’s why Democrats took such a beating in local races once again in 2020. Mark Zuckerberg and the Democrat donor class can throw a fortune at only some races. And without the massive infusions of cash, the Democrats are more likely to lose locally in much of the country.

Democrats weaponized critical race theory to play on the insecurities of a shaky suburban middle class. While manufacturing workers may fear that their jobs are about to be sent to China, suburban middle class office workers have come to fear being stigmatized for violating the confusing and incomprehensible dogma of the new antiracism.

The 2020 election pitted economic fears based on globalism against economic fears based on political correctness among the white middle class. And while President Trump won the white middle class, enough of those suburban moms reading White Fragility voted their new creed.

The secret of brainwashing is that the best way to feign belief in something is to believe it.

Republicans had won over working class whites by taking on China’s economic warfare, open borders migration, and offshoring jobs. But the critiques of political indoctrination and cancel culture were largely limited to rhetoric. President Trump’s executive order trying to root out critical race theory from federal workplaces and federal contractors was mostly ignored.

An Obama judge blocked it and Biden reversed it, while calling for “unity and healing”.

Republicans have failed to reckon with critical race theory, not just as a set of ideas to rail against, but as an electoral reality. The Obama administration had understood that there would be a price to pay for jettisoning the white working class and replaced it with a new coalition. That new coalition depended on capturing the Republican suburban white base through political indoctrination and repression crowdsourced not just through social media, but workplaces.

The last two elections showed off the emergence of a new coalition between white elites and minorities which uses critical race theory as a ladder offering admission to the middle class.

Affirmative action and cancel culture are the twin doors governing access to the middle class.

Republican populism championed farmers, engineers and workers threatened by globalism, but it’s also going to have to take on the cause of a suburban middle class threatened by forces much closer to home, not with mere rhetoric, but with real policies and real consequences.

This is the new civil rights movement.

When black people were discriminated against, Republicans and some Democrats built a massive legal machine that brought almost every establishment in the country under the shadow of federal law. Much of the country is now being discriminated against, repressed, and threatened by a political system more national and even more overwhelming than segregation.

If Republicans rise to that fight, because it’s the right thing to do, they will also strike at the electoral axis of the new Democrat coalition with a new civil rights movement.

The Democrats haven’t built this weapon of political terror because they just felt like it. Nor did they decide to do all this because of something an academic once wrote in a book. It’s not a random ideology, but a sophisticated strategy for winning elections and controlling the country.

When President Trump took on immigration, he connected with millions of people who felt cut off and fueled a new Republican wave. But he didn’t do it just with talk, but with action. He promised to build a wall, to ban terror travel, and to implement specific policies and and results.

That’s what a new civil rights movement needs to connect with millions more who feel cut off.

Republicans took on open borders. That battle isn’t over. But if they don’t take on critical race theory, the Democrats will use their new coalition to turn America into Europe: a nation of sullen former workers in the Rust Belt, and frightened middle class urban workers, just trying to fit in, while remaining subservient to an expert class fighting ideological crises as the nation is destroyed.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, February 07, 2021

What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Gun Control

By On February 07, 2021
A social ill takes place on three levels: the object level, the individual level, and the social level.

Take alcoholism. There’s the object, alcohol. There’s the choice that the individual makes to drink the alcohol. And, finally, there’s the social problems that can be blamed for widespread alcoholism.

The gun control movement operates in the same object-oriented space of the prohibitionist movement. For prohibitionists, the problem was gin. For the gun control movement, it’s all about the guns. Get rid of the gin and the guns, and the underlying problem goes away without having to do anything else.

While the old prohibitionism of sin substances, liquor, drugs, and pornography has been ridiculed and its legal infrastructure dismantled, the obsessive certainty that guns are inherently corrupting holds sway. The lefty media insists that the only solution to gun violence is prohibitionism and more prohibitionism.

Yet the argument for blaming guns is much weaker than the one for blaming drugs or alcohol. Alcohol and drugs are addictive compounds that shape how we think. Guns, unlike alcohol and drugs, aren’t addictive. Nor do they influence behavior. Their relationship to us remains an external one.

And object-oriented prohibitionism is the least meaningful way of looking at a social problem.

In the prohibitionist and anti-prohibitionist discourse over gun control, the familiar choice between civil rights and mass death dominates the debate. It’s the same framework that the Left rejects when it comes to crime and national security, but embraces on the issues of environmentalism and guns.

Guns do kill people in the same purely mechanistic sense in which alcohol, drugs, or rat poison do. But guns are a means, not a motive. They don’t explain why gun violence happens, only how it happens.

Above the object level is the individual level. Guns don’t really kill people; killers do.

Tackling a social ill at the human level explores the moral and mental state of the individual. Modern society is secular and scientific rather than moral, and reduces human evil to a medical condition. Mental illness explains the behavior of some killers, but others have no explanation other than evil.

The gun control argument insists that we ignore the moral and mental nature of the killer by contending that without guns, he wouldn’t want to kill, wouldn’t be able to kill, or, in the most rational version of the argument, wouldn’t be able to kill large numbers of people. None of those claims are actually true.

Gun violence is how people kill. It’s not why they kill. Nor is it the only way to commit mass murder.

Most gun violence is still gang violence. Mental illness isn’t killing 5 or 6 people in Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore over the weekend. The media overlooks regular mass shootings in major cities, while zooming in on unusual mass shootings in suburban communities. That’s because the gun control movement really doesn’t want to talk about the social component of gun violence and organized crime.

Usually, the Left loves root causes. It can trace any individual dysfunction to the problems at the heart of a society. But when it comes to guns, it refuses to look past the physical object, while blaming everyone responsible for the existence of guns, from firearms manufacturers to the NRA. But blaming everyone involved with the existence of an object is not an examination of the root causes of its misuse.

The prohibitionists weren’t dealing with the root cause of alcoholism by busting up gin mills. The latest attacks on firearms manufacturers have just as little to do with the problems they claim to care about.

The social crises of alcohol and drug abuse had at their root cause social dislocation and a lack of purpose. No amount of prohibitionism, a negative, will provide people with a meaningful life.

The white suburban shooter and the urban black gang member lack purpose and meaning. Banning guns won’t stop them from killing. Nor will it turn their lives around. It’s the act of a society that doesn’t want to address what is wrong on the inside and instead clings desperately to waging war on externalities.

Americans used to have access to firearms on a scale that would horrify any contemporary crusader. Shootings weren’t treated as a problem caused by being able to buy a handgun in a hardware store, but as a sign that civilization, whether in an urban slum or a western town, had broken down.

In the age of government, uncivilized behavior is treated as a sign that regulation has broken down. But regulations control what people do. Not who they are. Murder is not first and foremost a regulatory failure, and only occasionally a mental one, but it is universally a moral one.

When social problems are reduced to objects, then people are also objectified. The killer pulls the trigger in the same mechanical way as the gun fires. He has no more of an inner life than his tool. The only solution is equally mechanistic: get rid of all the guns, and no more people will be shot. It’s a solution that ignores the realities of human ingenuity and depravity. It works for machines, not people.

But when we look at the individual and the social level, we can see both positive and negative options. The false choice between civil rights and mass murder that the gun control movement offers us is replaced with seeing prevention not in terms of how to take away something, but how to add value.

The gun is the least relevant and the least interesting aspect of why a killing really takes place.

On the social level, many killers are part of a real or virtual social community which affirms their crimes. It is no coincidence that mass shooters cite their predecessors as inspirations or that gang violence takes place within a territorial network of criminal communities and theological gang religions. Killing in these contexts is not just a method; it’s a culture. It has its own moral code. One that is antithetical to ours.

A moral and cultural conflict cannot be fought and will not be won with impersonal regulations.

On the individual level, the killer is driven by impulses. The gun is how he chooses to actualize those impulses. But mass killers have driven cars and trucks into crowds. They’ve started fires and set off bombs. How is not the most important question when it comes to a killer. The question is why.

And yet we spend very little time talking about the social infrastructure and moral state of the killer. Instead, the gun control movement, which dominates a political party, an ideology, and its associated institutions -- including academia and the media -- obsesses endlessly about the mechanics of the kill.

It compares America to other countries, as if nations and cultures were as interchangeable as mechanical moving parts, and asserts that the solution is making them interchangeable. The killers are also assumed to be interchangeable. What drives them to kill is not internal, but external. Anyone, at any time, the gun control movement suggests, can turn into a killer when faced with a tempting gun.

If murder is a mechanical problem, then it’s hopeless. Forget the guns. Everyone has a car or can get their hands on one. Accelerants are available in every store. Knives are casually sold everywhere.

If we are truly savages, then no amount of regulation will restore civilization. The killings will continue.

A civilization’s fundamental laws are moral. Its true strictures are not external, but internal. Their power lies in the moral and social order. Crime and violence are a sign that our moral and social orders have broken down. No amount of regulations can civilize savages. And few regulations are needed for civilized men. What fundamentally separates the Left and the Right is the understanding that man is not an ape or a machine. And that his ills cannot be solved with the mechanical tinkering of regulators.

Gun control and gun violence are both expressions of the amoral and inhuman worldview of the Left.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.



Follow by Email