Before the coronavirus pandemic, the CDC was too busy fighting racism to do its job. As the vaccine rolls out, the CDC decided to build the vaccine waiting list around affirmative action

Who gets to live or die? Much like in Nazi Germany, it helps to be a member of the right race.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has announced that the priorities for distributing vaccines are to prevent death, preserve society, and help those facing "disparities", and then maybe, "increase the chance for everyone to enjoy health and well-being."

Vaccine distribution is to be guided by four principles, one of which is to fight "health inequities" and another is to "promote justice". It's not the CDC's job to fight for social justice, but to fight viruses. Having failed miserably at its one job, which it chose not to do, it's instead pursuing racial equity eugenics by tackling "health inequities" for "racial and ethnic minority groups".

The CDC and NIH had turned to the National Academies to produce A Framework for Equitable Allocation of Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus which falsely claimed that "COVID-19 illnesses and deaths are strongly associated with race" due to "systemic racism" and that a "vaccine allocation framework" had to reduce these "health inequities" with affirmative action.

The report noted that the "committee anticipates that the criteria will, in practice, tend to give higher priority to lower-income individuals... and Black, Hispanic or Latin, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities."

A government agency had paid for and was making use of a report which would decide who was to live or die based on race and income. And no one was willing to say a word about it.

Tennessee's Department of Health had already announced that it would be using the National Academies report and intended to dedicate 10% of the vaccines to SVI "vulnerable" areas.

The eugenics strategy of public health had been baked in long before the pandemic with the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index. SVI was supposed to help rush aid during a natural disaster to those who might need it the most, but SVI added race as a "vulnerability" to create affirmative action disaster relief. During a hurricane, your odds of getting help increased if you were in a minority area. And it decreased if you ranked higher on the SVI because you had more income.

This was bad enough. But now vaccine distribution will be driven by the SVI’s numbers.

At least 26 states are going to be using SVI for the vaccine rollout. Not all of them are planning to use it to decide who gets the vaccine based on their race. Some intend to use it, as originally intended, to spread awareness, but other states are going all in on racial equity eugenics.

Ohio’s vaccination plan indicates that state health authorities will focus on "equity" and will use federal guidance to "ensure equity in distribution" and address "racial and ethnic disparities".

In Tennessee, "priority will be given to areas in the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index".

Minnesota's vaccine distribution guidelines put promoting justice in second place and warned that vaccine doses will be allowed based on the needs of health care personnel, nursing home residents, and SVI areas. The Minnesota guidelines define “other attributes to be considered in prioritization” as including, “people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups who are

disproportionately affected by COVID-19”: treating minority status as a medical vulnerability.

That’s how ‘health equity’ medicalizes minority status and turns it into a medical disability.

States that don’t use the SVI may actually be using even more outrageously racist guidelines. California’s Community Vaccine Advisory Committee began with proposals to have groups that were the victims of "historical injustices" be first in line for the vaccine. The committee consists of medical groups, as well as radical leftist groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, several unions, and assorted minority activist groups. CVAC put “equity” second on its priority list.

Vaccine equity eugenics hit the public eye when a New York Times article quoted Harald Schmidt, a German academic who had worked for Germany’s Ministry of Health and the European Parliament, and acts as an adviser to UNESCO and the World Bank's Population and Reproductive Health Unit, suggesting that minorities should go ahead of older people.

“Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt was quoted as saying. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”.

"Dr. Schmidt" has an MA in Philosophy from the University of Munster, the academic home of one of the most notorious Nazi eugenicists who worked under Mengele, and also boasts a PhD in Health Policy from the London School of Economics.

Like Jill Biden, he’s not a doctor, but that didn’t stop the Journal of the American Medical Association from publishing a paper co-authored by Schmidt titled, “Is It Lawful and Ethical to Prioritize Racial Minorities for COVID-19 Vaccines?” which gamed potential affirmative action eugenic court cases by focusing on factors like "geography, socioeconomic status, and housing density that would favor racial minorities de facto, but not explicitly include race."

While Schmidt has gotten the bulk of the attention, the paper was also authored by Michelle A. Williams, the dean of Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Larry Gostin who heads the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Schmidt, as well as his co-authors, took part in the Vaccine Allocation and Social Justice event, along with Philadelphia's Deputy Health Commissioner, a strategic adviser to the Davos-based Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiatives, along with top state health officers from Tennessee, California, and Illinois.

And Nancy McClung: a former nurse who serves on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Ethical Principles for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine.

The research materials included a paper co-authored by Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obamacare architect and a prominent proponent of triage, who had already co-authored another paper, which had warned that while directly prioritizing race "would likely be ruled unconstitutional", the better approach would be "considering vulnerabilities that, while possible for people of all races, are commonly produced by racism".

Finally, Emanuel noted that, "disparities could be further reduced by avoiding prioritization strategies, such as age-based preference, that risk widening racial and socioeconomic disparities."

The paper co-authored by the man who wrote Why I Hope to Die at 75 was saying the same thing Schmidt had said, but coded in the ambiguous language of public policy. The elderly should not get access to the vaccine earlier because they are on average more likely to be white and wealthy and saving their lives first would widen “racial and socioeconomic disparities”.

A decade after Obamacare opponents were ridiculed for warning about death panels,national and local governments are following triage measures that decide who lives or dies by race.

The CDC evolved and deployed this policy while Republicans were at the helm, and did nothing.

It’s not too late to stop it.

President Trump can clean house at the CDC and take as many of the decisions about vaccine policy out of its hands as possible. Republican governors and legislatures should stop letting the same experts who have botched the pandemic every step of the way use SVI for the vaccine.

Whatever happens this time around, using tools like SVI creates a horrifying legal and medical precedent in which medical treatment gets allocated based on minority status. As socialized medicine digs deeper into medical decision making, this will become the norm.

Beyond the pandemic, waiting for a kidney transplant, hip replacement surgery, or a scarce medication will be determined by medicalizing privilege and treating minority status as an illness in greater need of care and ‘whiteness’ as a sign of health privilege that requires less care.

Affirmative action is merging with death panels to transform equity into triage. If we don’t stop it, it will kill us. Reverting to the worst abuses of segregation will kill our souls and then our bodies.

Maintaining its proud commitment to printing all the news that will divide Americans by race, sex, and creed, the New York Times published a list of what it claimed were the "922 of the most powerful people in America" while claiming that only 20% of them are people of color.

The term “people of color” is already ambiguous enough with white professors, grad students, and NAACP presidents claiming to be black. But the New York Times’ racial list, a thing reeking of Nuremberg and Goebbels, put the paper in charge of deciding who is a person of color by marking them with yellow. It’s a good thing no notorious racist ideology had the same idea.

(The Times had previously published a list of members of Congress who had voted against aiding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terrorist regime by marking Jewish members in yellow.)

Like all racist Rohrsarch charts, the Times’ racial list says more about it than about America.

A statement from a DA blasting the MBF for freeing a rapist wouldn't usually be extraordinary, except that Rollins, whose campaign was backed by George Soros, was supposed to be different. Not only had Rollins run on a pro-crime platform promising not to prosecute shoplifting, breaking and entering, and resisting arrest, but she had reacted to the Black Lives Matter riots with a hysterical rant about her rage and the white community.

Rollins had dismissed the damage from Black Lives Matter riots because it "could be fixed".

And then the Massachusetts Bail Fund freed Shawn McClinton, a convicted sex offender, who had been accused of raping a woman a few weeks after he was let go, leading Rollins to snap.

In the Black Lives Matter era, everything is too problematically white, including white wine.

As every single industry from cereal to dental supplies engages in its own ritual reckoning with a country so systemically racist that every part of its system is hysterically confessing to racism the way teenage girls in Salem confessed to witchcraft, the hangover is hitting wine country.

The whining about the whiteness of wine is overflowing at every high end publication.

"Too White Wine," moaned the Financial Times.

The column by Jancis Robinson, who received an Order of the British Empire for writing about wine, began by tweeting her, "shame at the lack of ethnic diversity in the world of wine."

Perhaps Jancis could give her FT column and her OBE to a more deserving minority.

African albinos, Hindu gods, and Chinese architects.

These three things and about three million others have been accused of suffering from a plague of whiteness. The colonists of Salem saw witches everywhere and the modern racist witch hunters see ‘whiteness’ everywhere they look. Whitenessphobia may be the great mental illness of our time.

To Whitenessphobes, everything has a “whiteness” problem.

Headlines like, "Climate Activists Confront the Movement's Whiteness Problem," "The Enduring Whiteness of the Fed", and "Commercial Real Estate has a Whiteness Problem" show the sheer scale of Whitenessphobia which is triggered by everything from the Federal Reserve to Greta Thunberg

But you don’t have to actually be white to fall victim to “Whitenessphobia”.



In Africa, people with albinism are being blamed for the coronavirus pandemic.

"It is the perceived whiteness of people with albinism. It is being interpreted that they are carriers of what is seen as a white man's disease. It comes from China where people have fair skin in the African mindset," Dr. Charlotte Baker, the head of the Albinism in Africa Network, explained.

Whiteness can mean Africans being blamed for a Chinese disease because pigmentation is relative.

Harvard's Graduate School of Design was accused of "institutionalized whiteness" because Mark Lee, the chair of the Architecture Department, had stirred outrage by saying, said, “I see the GSD as the most Eurocentric school in America, and that is really our strength."

Lee is Chinese. GSD’s previous dean was Persian. But you can be Chinese or Persian and still spread “institutionalized whiteness”. Or you can be a Hindu deity and be accused of excessive whiteness.

After Shaun King, who really is too white, accused depictions of Jesus of being too white, the Hindu gods also came under fire for their whiteness. "We must also ask why Hindu deities are so light skinned," Rupa Subramanya, a former Wall Street Journal columnist, demanded.



And, in the era of Black Lives Matter, it doesn’t matter how black you are, you can still be accused of whiteness. Terry Crews, who grew up in Flint, Michigan, and made it big in the NFL, is being accused of centering and upholding "whiteness". A Los Angeles Times column claims that Aunt Jemima was "selling whiteness". The brand can be accused of many things, but selling “whiteness” isn’t one of them.

A Psychology Today article claims, “the concept of Whiteness was imported from Spain and Portugal.”

White people, it seems, didn’t exist until they were invented in the 16th century by Latinos, who are considered a minority. And if Latinos are the original white people, then aren’t white people minorities?

The Atlantic even worries that, “Asians and Latinos could begin to vanish into whiteness.”

And then we’ll never get them back.

But if it can happen to Terry Crews and Hindu deities, it can happen to anyone. Whitenessphobia has become an extended Eddie Murphy routine, but there’s no joke and no one is laughing.

Any random thing can be accused of whiteness at any given time for not being diverse enough.

The London Olympics have been accused of a “velodrome of whiteness” for not attracting black cyclists and Harper’s Wine and Spirit was indicted for its “silence on race and diversity in the UK wine industry in light of the global Black Lives Matter movement following the murder of George Floyd.”

After all, if there’s anything that George Floyd’s death ought to wake us up to, it’s the lack of diversity in the UK wine industry. And in the London Olympics. Not to mention commercial real estate and curling.

Curling, a sport that even most sports fans can’t grasp, and which seems to exists just to punish casual viewers of the Winter Olympics, is fighting to eliminate its “whiteness” problem. The problem, lies with bagpipes and "Scottish paraphernalia hanging in curling clubs" reinforcing the "dominant whiteness.”

But having a diverse organization or even being a minority is no defense against Whitenessphobia.

What is "whiteness". A better question is what isn't whiteness. Like a Rorschach inkblot, it’s anything and everything because Whitenessphobia is about the mental state of the ‘phobe’, not his target.

"Whiteness is severely under theorized," an NBC News Big Think piece worried, "leaving millions unaware of a history whose constant characteristic is change."

Believing that the thing you hate is constantly changing, that it is both evil and amorphous, pervading everything and yet almost impossible to pin down, is a core element of conspiratorial bigotry.

Whiteness is white people even if they “think of themselves as individuals without a meaningful racial identity”. It’s also Chinese architects, Hindu gods, and black people who don’t want to hate white people. It’s Japanese consumers who purchase skin whitening products and African-American intellectuals who believe in free speech. Whiteness can sneak up on you when you aren’t hating.

Or at least hating enough.

To be free of whiteness, if you’re a minority means hating white people. And if you’re white, you can only hope to escape whiteness by hating yourself. Like all conspiratorial bigotries, Whitenessphobia demands a constant vigil against the evil influence of that intangible thing which is always changing.

Sometimes it’s Eurocentric architecture, other times Freedom of Speech, or Canadian curling.

The victims of Whitenessphobia aren’t just white people. Learning to hate is bad for the bigots and the culture of Whitenessphobia embodied in racist texts like Between the World and Me or White Fragility, the endless hysterical invocations of resentment, victimhood and guilt, is poisoning a generation’s soul.

But conspiratorial bigotry is also bad for everyone else.



If Whitenessphobes limited their hatred to white people, based on a genetic test or some other racialist nonsense, their racism could at least be contained. Instead, Whitenessphobia can lash out at anyone.

By transforming their idea of whiteness from a race to a set of attitudes, Whitenessphobes have created a racist ideology that also ideologizes racism, attacking people of any race, including black people, for ideological offenses in racist terms. Ideological racism uses the familiar tropes of racial hatred, but its targets are chosen ideologically, rather than racially, even as it harnesses racial resentments.

"Parents have to parent, that children have to achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white," Barack Obama declared at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. A few years later, Jesse Jackson would accuse Obama of acting white.

As John McWhorter noted, "black nerds get called 'white' when white kids are around to furnish a basis for the comparison; the problem arises amidst integration."

Whiteness Studies is ultimately an academic way of accusing minorities of acting white.

Whitenessphobia deconstructs the original charge of acting white and rebuilds it as a massive conspiracy by 16th century Latinos, then by America’s Founding Fathers, Canadian curling and the British wine world to keep black people out, but also as a conspiracy to get minorities involved in their whiteness.

While Black Lives Matter and its allies put their Whitenessphobia forward as a desegregating impulse, its real purpose is segregation, refusing to take part in anything, including America and its anthem, until they are torn down and rebuilt absent of what the conspiratorial bigots deem to be its whiteness.

Whitenessphobia punishes any impulse toward unification. Colorblindness is one of its greatest sins, integration is a conspiracy to bring minorities into whiteness, and those minorities who don’t hate are accused of centering whiteness, institutionalizing whiteness, or other synonyms for acting white.

The Washington Redskins agreed to change a name that offended no one except white leftists, but the media, which always speaks with forked tongue, is demanding more sports scalps.

The Cleveland Indians have issued a statement whining that "the recent social unrest... has only underscored the need for us to keep improving as an organization on issues of social justice."

Remember when the Indians were just known for being cursed with the second-longest championship drought in sports, now they can be cursed for their commitment to social justice.

The curse used to be known as the Curse of Chief Wahoo, but he's already been purged for political incorrectness. And now the Indians announced that they're "committed to engaging our community and appropriate stakeholders to determine the best path forward with regard to our team name.” Those stakeholders won't be their fans or anyone who knows what baseball is.



But the purge of Indian names from sports is just getting started.

The Kansas City Star ran a piece declaring that, “It’s time for the Chiefs to defuse the cultural offenses they enable and reflect”. The editorial though quickly goes beyond blasting the Chiefs, to declaring that America is genocidal and that the Declaration of Independence is racist.

Spoiler alert. They’re not just coming for the Kansas City Chiefs, they’re coming for America.

Remember when American newspapers didn’t entirely consist of headlines that looked like they were badly translated from Chinese Marxist rants? Maybe it would be easier to rename the Chiefs, the Kansas City Marxists. We could call them the Reds, but that name is taken.

The Atlanta Braves have said that they aren't changing the name, but will consider getting rid of the tomahawk chop. But the only thing appeasement half-measures accomplish is putting blood in the water. And once social media piranhas smell blood, they’ll never stop until they drink it.

The Black Hawks are currently refusing to change their name, but are promising to, “expand awareness of Black Hawk and the important contributions of all Native American people.”

As if that will protect them from a mob of angry white leftists who couldn’t care less.

The culture war isn’t hitting sports because white lefties, some of whom claim to be Native American activists even though they have the blood quantum level of Elizabeth Warren, care about the feelings of American Indians, but because it gives them the power to terrorize people.

The movement has already moved north of the border to Canadian football where the Edmonton Eskimos announced that, after "an extensive year-long formal research and engagement program with Inuit leaders”, they’re currently keeping the name.

Boston Pizza, among other sponsors, is pulling out because a Canadian pizza chain founded by a Greek immigrant named after something it’s not, doesn’t want to be associated with Eskimos.

The lefty media has already moved beyond Indian names, sensing that well might soon run dry.

The Washington Post’s Karen Attiah, best known for helping turn Osama bin Laden’s old pal, Jamal Khashoggi, into a martyr, quickly put out a piece demanding that the Texas Rangers change their name because they’re symbols of white supremacy and law enforcement.

They’re “not so far off from being called the Texas Klansmen”, Attiah huffed.

That’s big coming from a Jeff Bezos employee who had tweeted that, "White women are lucky that we are just calling them 'Karen's' and not calling for revenge."

Maybe the team can move to D.C. and change its name to the Washington Post Racists.

"While we may have originally taken our name from the law enforcement agency, since 1971 the Texas Rangers Baseball Club has forged its own, independent identity," the Texas Rangers responded. As if anyone had confused the team with the law enforcement agency.



Not that it’s going to stop there.

Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Columbus are under attack. CNN is denouncing Mount Rushmore as a symbol of white supremacy. It’s only a matter of time until the Patriots, the Cowboys, the 76ers, 49ers, the Trailblazers, Nuggets, Spurs, and any names that reference American history, settlement and westward expansion, will also be banned.

That includes the Yankees and the Knicks, whose names are already forgotten national slurs.

The two New York City teams got their names from the slurs that the English settlers used to hurl at the Dutch settlers who wore short pants, or knickerbockers, and the slur John Cheese or Yan Kees, that the Dutch hurled back at the English usurpers. That won’t be the issue for the culture war mob, which doesn’t care about the slurs that different groups of white people called each other, but they both ‘problematically’ reference the European settlement of New York.

Both teams could change their names to those of local Indian tribes, but that’s already off limits.

Some media editorialist will, eventually, link the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Southern cavalier mythos and accuse them of white supremacy. The English Civil War would seem to have little to do with a Cleveland team, but King Charles I was involved in the African slave trade.

“The name Cleveland Cavaliers represents a group of daring fearless men, whose life's pact was never surrender, no matter what the odds,” the fan who won a contest to name the team wrote.

We’ll see how long that lasts.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers will come under fire once someone realizes that their namesakes were involved in the slave trade in ways that were far more brutal than anything in Virginia.

And if you’re going to get rid of them, the Pittsburgh Pirates will probably have to go too.

The Minnesota Vikings might seem safe, since the Vikings largely focused on European slaves, but they did deal in at least some African slaves, which would also put them off limits.

What names would still be safe? Birds, animals, colors, and the climate. Just avoid history.

And the safest names will be corporate brands. The Washington Redskins are trying to figure out what to rename their team because FedEx gave the Redskins an ultimatum. They might as well just call them the Washington FedExes to celebrate the new politically correct corporate oligarchy which enforces political discipline through firings, indoctrination, and ad campaigns.

A nation with no history, no mythos, and nothing to take pride in except for the million dollar losers at the local stadium is a lot easier for all sorts of people and organizations to rule over.

The simplest solution might be for every team to change its name to Black Lives Matter.

And when the Pittsburgh Heinz Black Lives Matters play the New York MetLife Black Lives Matters, it’ll be a little bit confusing, but that’s okay because no one will be watching.

After Black Lives Matter - Los Angeles, a hate group which has partnered with the Nation of Islam and whose lead organizer praised Farrakhan, led a protest that resulted in mass attacks on Jewish schools, stores and synagogues, the leaders of 22 left-wing Jewish organizations signed letters condemning not the attacks, but the Jewish leader who spoke out against the antisemitism of the racist hate group. They made no reference to the BLM attacks on Jews.

The letters singled out Mort Klein, the President of the Zionist Organization of America, for describing Black Lives Matter as, among other things, "antisemitic," "Israel hating", and "extremist". They did not offer a rebuttal to this accurate description because none is possible.

Instead, a letter signed by 16 members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, accused Klein of hate and divisiveness. The letter's signatories, including HIAS and Americans for Peace Now, included groups notorious for their hostility toward Israel.



A separate letter by a slate of militantly anti-Israel groups, including J Street, The New Israel Fund, which sponsors BDS hate groups, and T'ruah, which has led a soft BDS campaign against Israel, demanded Klein's expulsion from the Conference. That aligns with their previous calls for the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from historic parts of Israel.

The signatories to the letters by Conference members included the Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, National Council of Jewish Women, whose previous CEO had signed a letter in defense of Linda Sarsour and agreed to work with antisemitic and anti-Israel groups, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Women of Reform Judaism, and Rick Jacobs, the anti-Israel head of the Union of Reform Judaism.

Jacobs had previously welcomed Ayman Odeh who heads Hadash, a merger of the local Communist Party, and whose current Joint List coalition includes a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, and praised his, “inspiring vision”. But Jacobs doesn’t think that Klein has an inspiring vision, protesting that, “Black Lives Matter is at the center of one of the most critical fights for justice in our country”, while accusing Klein of “Islamophobia” and “racism”.

The Union of Reform Judaism has been a reliably anti-Israel voice in the Jacobs era.

Jacobs opposed moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and whined that, “Israel’s decision to bar U.S. Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar from entering the country is wrong”.

Last year, Jacobs attacked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for stating that Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria were "not inconsistent with international law". These rants, like so many others by Jacobs, were all issued in the name of the Union of Reform Judaism.

While the Union of Reform Judaism found time to issue multiple press releases in support of Black Lives Matter, against the Jewish State, on the vital Jewish issue of withdrawing US troops from the Turkish-Syrian border, and in defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar, Jacobs and the URJ failed to acknowledge or offer solidarity to the victims of black nationalist terrorist attacks against a synagogue in New York and a Kosher grocery in New Jersey.

The URJ and Jacobs did manage to issue a press release over the shooting in a Texas Walmart and will respond to bomb threats and synagogue shootings, as long as they're carried out by white nationalists. If your synagogue is attacked by a Neo-Nazi gunman, Jacobs and the URJ will acknowledge it, but if a Black Hebrew Israelite swinging a machete attacks your synagogue on Chanukah, Rick and the URJ will rush out a press release blasting Israel over something.

That’s the fundamental problem that Mort Klein was getting at. Jewish lives don’t matter to the URJ. Not in Israel and not in America. The only thing that matters is its left-wing politics.

While the Jewish community of Los Angeles witnessed its synagogues and schools vandalized and stores looted over Shavuot, Jonah Dov Pesner, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, was praising the "national rage" which saw bigots chanting "F____ Jews" and defacing the statue commemorating the Holocaust heroism of Raoul Wallenberg.

A URJ statement declaring that Black Lives Matter is a “Jewish value”, falsely accuses "white Jews" of perpetuating "the systemic racial injustices on which the nation was founded."

That’s a line that could have come from Farrakhan.

Even as Jacobs complains about divisiveness, the URJ is dividing Reform Jews by race.

The URJ's embrace of Black Lives Matter includes the worst elements of its philosophy, including mandated intersectionality for Reform congregations, dismissal of colorblindness, and black supremacist resource texts that include Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi, as well as James Baldwin's 70s essay, Negroes are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White.

There's even a White-Ashkenazi Awareness Checklist.

The racist movement here isn’t the ZOA. It’s the signatories to the anti-Klein letter.

When Jacobs and 15 other Conference members sign on to a letter urging Jews to stand up "against senseless hatred and divisive bigotry" and "not to search for ways to keep us apart", they might start by looking at their own embrace of divisive bigotry meant to keep us apart.

Mort Klein and the Zionist Organization of America are willing to address the everyday antisemitism that Jews in places like New York and Los Angeles have been experiencing. And they’re willing to do it even when the bigots aren’t members of a safely discredited ideology.

There’s no great courage in taking on Third Reich supporters in 2020. The time to do it was during the Holocaust while the FDR administration and Joseph Kennedy were warning American Jewish leaders to keep quiet about the mass murder of millions of Jews. Where were URJ’s marches, protests, and sit-ins while Jews were being shot and gassed?

Reform Jewish leaders had gone to Herbert Hoover and Roosevelt, asking them to issue a joint statement condemning the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The Republican agreed and the Democrat didn’t.

Or take it from Morris Waldman, the former rabbinic leader of the prominent Temple Anshe Emeth, and the long deceased executive vice-president of the American Jewish Committee.

"Some Jewish groups have some too many times protested against Hitlerism," Waldman complained.

Waldman is fondly remembered, within liberal Jewish organizational circles, as the "the first proponent of putting the human rights provisions in the United Nations Charter."

There can hardly be a better summary of the utter moral bankruptcy of the same folks now accusing Jews of racism and white supremacy for fighting against antisemitism.

The Zionist Organization of America is part of the proud tradition of Jewish groups that refused to kneel to political correctness when Jews were being attacked by politically correct mobs.

Black Lives Matter is antisemitic. Its leaders declare that they’re Marxists. Portions of the movement are openly aligned with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Synagogues and schools have been defaced and a Holocaust memorial was vandalized. But the organized kneelers are trying to silence any members of the Jewish community who speak out against antisemitism.

As the main targets of antisemitic violence, by either black or white nationalists, Jews and their synagogues need the police. By endorsing Black Lives Matter, the Union for Reform Judaism is undermining the safety and security of synagogues and worshipers across the country.

It’s time for URJ members to speak up and ask Rick Jacobs some hard questions.

Jewish history tells us that the real threat doesn’t come from those who speak too loudly about popular antisemitism, but those who remain too silent. There are far too many memorials and attacks on targets that carry no risk within their political cohort, and too little real resistance.

By speaking out, Morton Klein and the ZOA have offered real resistance to antisemitism.

Meanwhile, the Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, National Council of Jewish Women, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Jewish Women International, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Women of Reform Judaism, and the Union of Reform Judaism are complicit in covering up antisemitism and silencing those Jews who dare stand up to the vandalism of synagogues, schools, and Holocaust memorials by smearing them as racists.

Organizations that claim to speak for the Jewish community have sold it out instead.

The Jewish community does not need leaders who will accuse it of racism to score points at their Manhattan cocktail parties for the Public Art Fund, but real leaders who will stand up for it.

In an article accusing the Jewish community of racism, Rick Jacobs claimed that, “fighting racism and fighting antisemitism go hand in hand”.

We’ve seen a whole lot of the former and very little of the latter.

Fighting racism and antisemitism doesn’t go hand in hand when synagogues and schools are attacked, and Jews are shot, slashed and beaten.

The ugly truth is that Jacobs and other leaders of leftist groups would much rather fight Jews, whether in Israel or in America, than get up off his knees and fight for them. Fighting Jews is safe. Rehashing the rantings of Ibram X. Kendi and other fashionable black nationalists won’t get leftist leaders in trouble. Standing up to them over black nationalist antisemitism will.

Like their counterparts in the FDR era, they’re cowards and traitors, and they know it.

That’s why they’re going after the ZOA. There’s nothing that cowards hate more than brave men who stand up for the truth. The only thing more humiliating than selling out is knowing that there was another way. Rick Jacobs and the organizations targeting the ZOA want everyone in the Jewish community to kneel before the pogromists, the bigots, and the supremacist racists.

Their message is that if you don’t kneel, they will destroy you.

Over 2,300 years ago, there was a Jewish leader named Mordechai who would not kneel. For thousands of years, on the holiday of Purim, Jewish children have sung the name of a man who would not kneel to an antisemite. Kneeling is not extraordinary, refusing to do so is.

Many other Jewish leaders no doubt knelt. Their names have been lost to history.

Those Jewish leaders with weak knees today might ponder how they will be remembered.

The Harper's letter protesting cancel culture, while being too afraid to even put the name of the beast on paper, was doomed even before it hit the social media grinder.

After over two centuries of liberals being guillotined by leftists, it would be nice if they had learned something. Unfortunately American liberals have learned nothing from France in the 18th century, and Russia in the 20th century, as they set themselves up for a beating in 2020.

It doesn’t help that less than half of the Harper’s letter signatories are even liberals. Instead of making a case for liberal values, the letter is reduced to arguing that fellow allies shouldn’t be lynched for questioning dogma or accidentally falling out of step with the movement.

That’s not a defense of liberal values, but a plea to Stalin not to shoot quite so many socialists.



The Harper’s letter never names the ideas driving cancel culture, such as intersectionality and critical race theory, because its members are either too afraid to offer an ideological critique or because many of them agree with those ideas. Their dissent isn’t a liberal disagreement with the ends, but with the extremism of some of the means, and that’s why they’re losing.

The opposition to cancel culture is a mixed bag of actual liberals, traditional lefties who reject identity politics in favor of old-fashioned class warfare, and a cocktail party set that’s fine with the purges as long as they don’t go overboard and affect their friends and allies. This latter group is the first one to self-cancel and defect, followed by the liberals, and then the lefties.

Once upon a time, Bernie Sanders opposed identity politics.

Membership in the Democrat Party and in its allied post-liberal culture establishments of the media, academia, and the smart set requires getting on board with identity politics. The few liberal holdouts are becoming the Mensheviks and the lefty holdouts are the Trotskyists. Neither seem likely to enjoy a happy future under the spiked bootheels of intersectional Bolsheviks.

And an alliance between the two is difficult because they operate under very different premises.

Lefty holdouts argue, correctly, that identity politics is a convenient means for the existing establishment to hold on to power by substituting racial conflict for economic conflict. Put in a few minority CEOs, have Nike run ads about racism, and nothing really has to change.

The Trots have no problem with cancel culture. What they dislike is its trajectory and direction. They want to see capitalists hanging from lampposts, not white women lynched for dialing 911.

And the liberals don’t want to hang anyone from anything because it just isn’t very nice.

American liberalism began its slow death when it embraced identity politics. When liberals began validating tribalism, they dismantled the moral and intellectual premise of liberalism.

Black Lives Matter is just the idiot Marxist grandchild of the Black Panthers partying with upper crust Manhattanites two generations ago. The liberals who embraced radical chic, as long as it was wrapped in racial packaging, disavowed their movement and the rest is history. Now their children and grandchildren are being cancelled as the revolution catches up with them.

Identity politics created an exception to liberalism. And what was meant to be an exception is now swallowing up everything. The identity politics exception to liberalism is why free speech is vital until it offends someone, a free press is important until it prints something politically incorrect, and mob violence is to be deplored unless it’s the outcry of the racially oppressed.

When liberals create exceptions to liberalism, then liberalism disappears. That’s what actual liberals like Alan Dershowitz understand. Exceptions to a principle eventually become the principle. And the principle that compromised liberalism was that it didn’t apply to the oppressed. The radical leftist idea that liberals had rejected when it came to violent class revolution became acceptable when it came to race and then the rest of identity politics.

The essential radical idea is that a crisis cannot be met with anything short of radical change.

Liberals can only win a debate against radicals when they don’t just dissent from the means, but also from the ends. Those liberals who decided to support a dictatorship of the proletariat became Communist sympathizers and ceased to be liberals. Their occasional critiques of the mass executions and the gulags were as weak and ineffective as the Harper’s letter.

Mostly they carried the bloody water of the Marxist regimes that reflected their aspirations.

Those liberals who dissented, not just from Soviet repression, but from its totalitarian ends, who understood that the atrocities were not an occasional aberration, but the nature of the beast, carried the torch of liberalism during the dark days of the Cold War alongside conservatives.

The Communist pitch to liberals was that radicalism was needed because a liberal society would not work in Russia. Not with all those oppressed peasants and workers.

The fundamental premise of Black Lives Matter is that liberalism doesn’t work because it’s an invention of powerful white people. Equality, due process and open debate are invalidated by white people and institutionalized whiteness. A free society inherently privileges white people over oppressed minorities. And so a free society will oppress and enslave black people.

This isn’t an original argument.

The Communists made the same argument about free societies and workers. A free society would inherently privilege those who had wealth over those who did not. Free speech and a free press would mean very different things for a factory owner and for his workers. The only answer was to first forcibly equalize society by using the power of the state to purge the bourgeois and then, in time, a truly equal Communist society would emerge from the mass graves and gulags.

True liberals understood that this was a hypocritical argument for an endless totalitarian state.

And yet, a generation later, many liberals failed to rebut the same argument being made in racial terms. Now, Black Lives Matter’s “trained” Marxist leaders have gotten the leadership of what used to be the liberal establishment to accept that liberalism is systemically racist.

The defenses of cancel culture all come down to the argument that liberalism is racist.

Free speech privileges white people. So does a free press, intellectual inquiry, open debate, or not destroying people’s lives because they disagree with you. The oppressed, we are told, don’t have the physical endurance or the emotional energy to tolerate the trauma of disagreement.

Any liberal campaign against cancel culture has to challenge this exception to liberalism.

Cancel culture asserts that any disagreement, dissent, or even mistake, from Trump down to a liberal professor arguing in favor of free speech, is a traumatic form of oppression that is literally killing trans people of color, and must be immediately stopped by any means necessary.

This is the crisis at the center of the movement. And liberals have failed to meet it.

Cancel culture weaponizes rage, performative pain, outrage, and trauma. Its liberal critics resort to abstractions without ever mounting a serious effort to close the old loophole of liberalism.

Identity politics is killing liberalism because liberals have failed to shut down identity politics.

A real defense of liberalism must be that a free society is for everyone. The only people who find a free society oppressive are totalitarians. Cancel culture and its vanguard of Marxists, black nationalists, and assorted radicals find a free society oppressive because it restricts their freedom to destroy some people and force everyone else to conform to their ideology.

A free society isn’t racially oppressive, but it can be ideologically oppressive for totalitarians.

If the few remaining liberals want a free society, they will have to defend its moral legitimacy, not just through abstract principles, but by exposing the totalitarianism of the radicals warring on it.

Communists, Nazis, Islamists, and BLMers find a free society oppressive for the same reasons.

A liberal society requires people to choose freedom over power. Those who would rather have power than freedom will always find such a society oppressive and conspire to destroy it.

Under 400,000 slaves were brought to America. Those enslaved African people represented only 3.6% of the transatlantic slave trade. By the Civil War, there were under 4 million black slaves in America.

Over 20 million people were imprisoned by Soviet leftists in the gulag system.

While the peak slave labor population in the leftist slave camps was less than the peak slave population in the South, the death rate ranged from 5 percent to 25 percent depending on the period.

Under 2 million people died as a result of the brutal leftist system of slave labor camps and that was a fraction of the full number of people killed through various means by the Socialist system.

Gulag labor was murderous with prisoners sent to work in uranium mines or to labor outdoors chopping trees and digging canals in subzero weather with little food and less protection. At one gulag, prisoners labored in uranium mines, breathing in radioactive dust, and dying within two years of cancer and leukemia. The sick were then used for medical experiments by Socialist medicine before they died.

These horrors were not some relic of the Stalin era, but were being carried out as recently as the 1970s.



The 1619 Project of the New York Times falsely claimed that America was built on slave labor, but before that revisionist history project, the paper had run a Red Century project defending Communism when Soviet Socialism was, from Moscow University to the White Sea-Baltic Canal, built on slave labor.

At its peak, as many as 1 in 5 Soviet construction workers were convict laborers and massive slave labor projects like the White Sea-Baltic Canal, hailed as triumphs of socialism, killed tens of thousands.

When Senator Bernie Sanders visited the USSR, he gushed over its socialist achievements, such as the Moscow Metro. The massive system had been built by Stalin to showcase the achievements of socialism and the Putin regime restored the old plaque reading, “Stalin raised us to be loyal to the nation, inspired us to labor and great deeds”. But it wasn’t inspiration that built the Moscow Metro: it was slave labor.

"There's a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags," Kyle Jurek, a Bernie Sanders field organizer had argued, calling it a model for breaking Americans of their “privilege” by sending them to “go break rocks.”

Nobody would propose a return to the plantations, but forced labor is still popular with some socialists.

The Soviet Socialist system was built on forced labor, from the collective farms that peasants were not allowed to leave, to mandatory ‘volunteer’ brigades like those that helped build the Moscow Metro or harvested crops, to a massive slave trade in convict labor which built roads, tunnels, and canals, mined and did every form of dirty work, and was traded back and forth to Socialist civilian organizations.

The Soviet Socialist achievements that American leftists praised were the product of slavery.

While the Left demands that America make a reckoning for 19th century slavery, its leading figures, from Bernie Sanders to Noam Chomsky, were apologists for socialist slavery, and its leading institutions, from the New York Times to the Pulitzer Institute, both promoters of the 1619 Project, were complicit in covering up slavery and mass murder by their socialist allies in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Today’s ‘woke’ corporations, like Nike and Coca-Cola, benefit from slave labor in Communist China’s systems of labor camps, state-run and civilian factories, which encompass over 1 million people.

The brands telling Americans that they need a reckoning with slavery have their own reckoning.

Slavery has been a fundamental feature of the socialist regimes admired by American leftists expressed in murderous abbreviations from the Soviet GULAG to Cuba’s UMAP camps for Christians, to China’s RTL. The Khmer Rogue in Cambodia turned forced labor into genocide and this was not all that unusual.

Southern slave owners, especially once shipping in new slaves was banned, wanted to profit from selling slaves and this resulted in a high population growth among enslaved African people, while the Soviet Socialist gulags, like their National Socialist counterparts, extracted maximum labor from their prisoners with no interest in their physical survival. They knew where they could easily get more slaves.

The Nazis and the Communists operated unsustainable slave economies that always needed more bodies. National Socialist and Communist slave labor served a dual purpose, obtaining free labor for state industries (and in Germany, politically connected industries), and disposing of unwanted people.

The National Socialists used slave labor to clear away unwanted conquered populations, Jews, and others who were not official members of the Herrenvolk, while building up the industries of conquest. The Soviet Socialists also used the gulag system, along with mass starvation and executions, to clear away unwanted ethnic and national minorities, including again Jews, but also to purge their system.

The Soviet Socialists used slave labor to eliminate potential dissent and terrorize the population on a much larger scale because while the National Socialists had used mass murder to achieve racial homogeneity, they used it to obtain political homogeneity as the basis for their system.

Both the National Socialists and Soviet Socialists envisioned an endless supply of slave labor that could be obtained through conquest. The South had internalized slavery, while the Socialists externalized it.

Socialist slavery was not an aberration: it was the essential idea of Marxism and of Socialism.

Article 12 of the 1936 Soviet constitution stated that, "in the USSR, work is a duty" and that the "principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

That was based on an idea from Karl Marx, who had had described the ideal Communist society as a place where, "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." The message echoed the one placed over the gates of National Socialist concentration camps, "Arbeit Macht Frei" or "Work makes you free."

The Soviet Union, like other socialist regimes, had defined itself as a worker state. But the nature of work, where and how one worked, was defined by the institutions of the state. Slavery was the founding principle of socialism which defined life around labor, not for the self, but for the collective good.

“Socialism is the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism," Adolf Hitler had articulated in a Munich speech titled, Why We Are Anti-Semites.

Parasitism was the basis for forced labor in the Soviet Union and other Socialist regimes where the state defined who workers were and what legitimate work was. Citizenship in a workers’ state meant a willingness to labor on those terms. A failure to do so was parasitism which would be punished with redemption through labor. The “Arbeit Macht Frei” message of National Socialist concentration camps, derived from a 19th century novel about the moral redemption of forced labor, and the celebratory Soviet songs and poems of forced labor celebrated work as the true religion of a socialist state.

Southern slave owners justified the subjugation of human beings by asserting that forced labor gave meaning to inferior people, uplifting them from a degraded condition, and taking care of them.

Socialist slavery was based on the same premise and provided justification for Southern slavery.

"The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment," George Fitzhugh, one of the most vocal advocates for the Southern plantation, had argued. "Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form of socialism."

Fitzhugh believed that not only black people, but that most people should be slaves to protect them from the fierce competition of a capitalist society.

"With negro slaves, their wages invariably increase with their wants. The master increases the provision for the family as the family increases in number and helplessness. It is a beautiful example of communism, where each one receives not according to his labor, but according to his wants," he wrote.

The doctrines of Socialism helped inspire Southern slave owners to defend the plantation.

"Every plantation is an organized community," Rep. William Grayson had mused. "A phalanstery, as Fourier, would call it, where all work, where each member gets sustenance and a home."

Fitzhugh had also argued that, "a well-conducted farm in the South is a model of associated labor that Fourier might envy."

Charles Fourier, the utopian socialist who coined the term 'feminism', had wanted to wipe out the Jews by sending them to labor in his phalansteries, massive utopian communes, as his original vision of utopian socialist communes had given way to labor camps that would break the enemies of socialism.

Socialism is less efficient and produces less value, therefore it demands more cheap labor. Or slaves.

Socialist slavery begins with idealistic visions, but all the schemes based on willing cooperation fall through. The peasants cling to their land and have to be forced into communes. The workers don’t want to work and have to be compelled. The volunteers don’t show up and volunteering becomes mandatory.

The idealism turns into ossified academic jargon disguising the brutal reality of mass slavery.

America has spent centuries making a difficult and bloody reckoning with slavery. Its leftist enemies have rarely bothered to even make the effort, blaming crimes on individual leaders, on poor conditions, and on interference by America in hellholes like Cambodia that would otherwise have been utopias.

And, no matter how much we learn about the Socialist mass killings, rehabilitation is always waiting.

The Left has failed to make a reckoning with slavery. That’s why the media nods sympathetically at old Communists, and clucks over McCarthyism even as it cancels random people over minor missteps. Its preeminent revisionist historian, Howard Zinn, was a Stalinist, its preeminent thinker, Noam Chomsky, defended the Khmer Rouge, and Bernie Sanders, its presidential candidate, praised the products of Soviet slave labor. These are the crimes of apologists for a contemporary Confederacy: a slave empire that spread around the world, killing millions, and enslaving countless millions more in systems of labor camps that dwarf anything that any Southern plantation owner could have imagined.

Statues of Columbus and Jefferson are under attack, but a statue of the greatest socialist slave owner of modern times still stands in Seattle.

Vladimir Lenin had set up the system of gulags that eventually enslaved and killed millions. Lenin's plans had begun with "obligatory work duty" for class enemies, then evolved to the "most unpleasant forced labor" for members of the "propertied classes", and then to camps full of slaves laboring to build socialism who had been sent there for even the most minor of offenses.

As Feliks Dzerzhinsky, the architect of the Red Terror and the secret police put it, "Even now the labor of prisoners is far from being utilized on public works, and I propose to retain these concentration camps to use the labor of prisoners, gentlemen who live without occupation, those who cannot work without a certain compulsion, or, if we talk of Soviet institutions, then here one should apply this measure of punishment for unscrupulous attitude to work, for negligence, for lateness.”

The purpose of the concentration camp was no longer to punish class enemies, but to find slaves.

That Lenin’s statue still stands in Seattle is a testament to the reality that the Left has made no reckoning with its history of slavery. It has not repented of its crimes against millions of people.

The greatest slave empires of the modern era were not Southern, they were Socialist.

Conservatives have spent enough time defending the Founding Fathers. It is time to stop being on the defensive and attack the leftist proponents of modern slavery who propose to tear down their statues.

Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh are among the cities that have officially declared that racism is a public health crisis. A number of states are also moving in that direction. Senator Sherrod Brown intends to push a similar resolution in the Senate.

The medicalization of racism has been backed by the American Medical Association, whose heads have called on “health institutions and physician organizations to explicitly denounce police violence” and urged “clinics, hospital and healthcare providers to review and reconsider their policies and relationships with law enforcement”.

Considering the already fraught state of emergency rooms in urban areas where the victims and perpetrators of gang violence show up every weekend, that would be catastrophic. It would lead to fewer doctors, fewer ERs, and worse outcomes for black patients in urban areas.

But missing ERs and higher rates of young black men shot in urban areas are the AMA agenda.



The AMA statement claimed that, "law enforcement-involved deaths of unarmed black individuals were associated with adverse mental health among Black American adults."

It did not discuss what effect living in an area where people are routinely shot over the weekend has on mental health, or what the effect of shutting down the police and quadrupling the shootings would have on mental health. Not to mention on the physical health of those shot.

But the medicalizers of racism don’t care about the black lives they claimed to be defending.

"The APA believes that all forms of racism and racial discrimination affect mental health and well-being," the American Psychiatric Association argued.

"Racism is a longstanding public health crisis that impacts both mental and physical health," the American Nurses Association declared.

"Racism is a public health issue," the American Academy of Pediatrics tweeted.

Medicalizing racism adds a new dimension to an issue that has become ideologically defining to Democrats and vital to their grip on the political arena. While such claims are medically dubious, the layering of medical jargon over political issues has been routine in the battles over gun control and global warming. The AMA had already declared the Second Amendment a public health crisis and urged that America dismantle its nuclear weapons for “medical” reasons.

And, much like defunding the police, the public health crisis gimmick helps divert public funds to left-leaning organizations so that they can battle a crisis that they lobbied to bring into being.

But the medicalization of racism has more troubling implications for people of all races.

Public health experts have argued that they were right to oppose Reopen protests by conservatives, but support Black Lives Matter riots, because racism is a public health crisis.

As a widely recognized public health crisis, racism events would enjoy a unique status during the coronavirus pandemic by leveraging a real public health crisis against an ideological one. An Oregon county even exempted black people from wearing masks before being forced to retreat. Unofficially, such policies have been widespread in major urban areas, including New York.

Black people have been dying at a higher rate of the coronavirus. The Black Lives Matter rallies and racial exemptions are unlikely to have helped, arguments from public health experts to the contrary. But the medicalization of racism insists that the higher black coronavirus death rate was caused by systemic racism, and mass rallies are actually a way of fighting the virus.

That’s how the medicalization of racism can actually end up killing black people.

We actually don’t know why black men are dying of the virus at a much higher rate, and while there are a variety of medical theories focusing on chronic conditions and Vitamin D levels, the medical field has been bombarded with pseudoscientific claims about redlining and stress caused by racism. The acceptance of social arguments over medical ones can only obstruct the medical research that is necessary to actually understand the problem and offer real solutions.

Initial data tells us that some groups appear to be more vulnerable to the virus than others.

In the UK, Jewish men are twice as likely to die of the virus as Christian men are. That isn’t likely to have anything to do with antisemitism, redlining, or any of the other nonsense.

Undermining actual scientific research with social justice agendas hurts the people that medical research might be able to help. But the AMA, APA, ANA, and Democrats are more concerned with political agendas than the medical challenge of lowering black coronavirus death rates.

Calling racism a public health crisis and assigning blame for any and all problems to white people, will obstruct actual solutions while harming black people for a political agenda.

Generations of treating any problem in the black community as rooted in racism has made it hard to address social problems. Medicalizing racism will make it equally impossible to deal with health problems in the black community on any terms other than white racism and black victimhood. And medical problems are even less likely than social problems to fit this frame.

But the medicalizers of racism are perfectly happy with higher black death rates, whether it’s heart attacks or the coronavirus, because black misery upholds their political power. And the AMA, APA, and ANA choosing a political agenda over black lives is medical malpractice.

Some of the most notoriously corrupt urban areas in the country are just as happy to medicalize racism because it means that more money will flow into the pockets of special interests without improving the health outcomes for black communities in those areas by a single year of life.

These areas have operated for generations by treating black people like a stock they can cash in on by ‘shorting’ them repeatedly because the worse things get, the more money comes in.

Medicalizing racism gives them what they want politically while accomplishing nothing medically.

Declaring racism a public health crisis will amp up black victimhood and white guilt in ways meant to shift money and power further into the pockets and hands of the Democrat Party.

Americans have already seen how a public health crisis can be used to massively erode their constitutional rights. And they’ve seen how false claims of racism can be used to terrorize entire cities, silence dissent, and enact a national agenda. But what happens if you put the two together? That’s the big question mark at the tail end of declaring racism a health crisis.

Opponents of free speech have spent the past decade claiming that ‘hate speech’ causes literal harm. Medical backing for the claim that stress caused by racism is behind the higher death rates and medical conditions among black people is an argument for an end to free speech.

Traditionally, the red line for free speech has been actual harm. If politically incorrect remarks are held to be the medical equivalent of stabbing someone with a knife, the First Amendment disappears with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press as the first casualties, and Freedom of Religion following close behind, as all forms of ‘hate speech’ are medicalized.

The Democrats have built a political movement and now a religion around racism. This ideological cult harms both black and white people. And if its growing inroads into American life are not stopped, it will eliminate not only statues and place names, but the Constitution.