Enter your keyword

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

White Men are Terrible, Insists Author Abandoned by Her Black Father

By On June 30, 2021

Ijeoma Oluo spends a lot of time complaining about her single white mother who took care of her when her black father returned to Nigeria and never came back.

Like Obama and Kamala, Ijeoma built a marketable identity by identifying with a father who abandoned her. But the author of such racist texts as So You Want to Talk About Race and Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America takes it even further by identifying as Nigerian-American. The Nigerian part is very hypothetical as she was born and raised in America, and her Nigerian father left when she was a year old and broke his promise to return.

White people are absolutely terrible, Ijeoma, who is half-white, insists.

"I have never been able to escape the fact that I am a black woman in a white supremacist country," Oluo declaimed at the beginning of So You Want to Talk About Race. The ugly racialist book never broke through the way that Robin DiAngelo or Ibram X. Kendi did, but it was a modest success and is regularly featured at corporate critical race indoctrination sessions.

Like other pop critical race theory texts, Oluo began the book by berating the leftist white women who were its target audience. It’s a topic she had practiced with her mother.

The woman who raised her and her brother, when they were abandoned by their black father, is a favorite topic for both siblings. But where Ahamefule Oluo, a jazz player and comedian, has done shows honoring his mother while emphasizing the subjective nature of race as he found that people in Nigeria saw him as white, Ijeoma Oluo has taken the opposite approach.

Ijeoma’s mother is a popular topic and punching bag. In essays and books, she decries her mother’s ‘whiteness’. “Our mom never thought that our blackness would hold us back in life—she thought we could rule the world. But that optimism and starry-eyed love was, in fact, born from her whiteness,” she complains in So You Want to Talk About Race.

When her mother asks, “How come you never identify as white, too? I mean, you’re half white”, she retorts that "I did not feel that whiteness was something that any person with brown skin and kinky hair could inherit". Lots of white people have kinky hair. Certainly plenty of half-white people, like Ijeoma, do. And Ijeoma is obsessed with white supremacy’s threat to her hair.

Touching her hair, she rants, "is a continuation of the lack of respect for the basic humanity and bodily autonomy of black Americans that is endemic throughout White Supremacy."

Your average white supremacist probably doesn’t want to touch non-white people’s hair.

But for all the attention that Ijeoma lavishes on complaining about her mother’s insufficiently woke views on race, she never mentions her father in So You Want to Talk About Race. At one point she rants, “If our mothers were raped by white men and we were born with lighter skin, we could almost be seen as attractive.” But her mother was white and married an African student.

Ijeoma’s father was 53, but apparently told her mother he was 30 years old. After abandoning the mother of his children with a toddler and a one-month old baby, the African chief and doctoral student went back to his own country and promptly impregnated a woman there.

Her brother describes him as a “selfish and contemptible man”. Ijeoma instead wrote her second book, Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America. Her first book is full of shots at her present mother while her second book attacks an imaginary white father.

Mediocre was released by a Hachette imprint, alongside such critical race theory rants as Vicky Osterweil's In Defense of Looting (The French publishing giant also suppressed Julie Burchill's Welcome to the Woke Trials and fired Kate Hartson who had published pro-Trump books.)

An imprint named after a 19th century upstart French leftist publisher, Louis Hachette, a white man, released a mediocre book claiming that there was a crisis of white male mediocrity.

The incredible mediocrity of Moses, Hippocrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Albert Einstein might give some people pause, but Ijeoma explains that, “when I talk about mediocrity, I talk about success that is measured only by how much better white men are faring than people who aren’t white men”.

Success becomes mediocrity, and mediocrity becomes success.

Sadly for Ijeoma, Mediocre was mediocre and failed to match the success of So You Want to Talk About Race. Ijeoma had gambled that there was an audience of white leftist women who wanted to hear that white men were awful without enduring attacks on themselves.

Ijeoma had underestimated the masochistic tendencies of the average white leftist woman.

Mediocre’s author imagines that she’s an “exceptional talent”, writing that, “most women and people of color have to claw their way to any chance at success or power, have to work twice as hard as white men and prove themselves to be exceptional talents before we begin to entertain discussions of truly equal representation in our workplaces or government.”

What exceptional talents has Ijeoma shown beyond bashing white people on the internet?

Mediocre is a random mess of intersectional clichés and historical sketches from periods that she clearly doesn’t understand as tries to roll them into her argument. “Stalin ended up being another white man who would distort entire movements to serve his purposes,” she insists.

That’s almost coherent compared to chapters where Ijeoma leaps from attacks on cowboys to complaining about Bernie Sanders supporters on Facebook. None of this has much to do with the book’s supposed theme of white male mediocrity. The only common thread is that white men are terrible because they’re white and they’re men.

White male conservatives are evil, but so are white male leftists who only join causes to maintain their power. White men are locked “into cycles of fear and violence” and the “white male glorification of violence has saturated our action films”. It’s a curious claim for a woman whose African father wrote his thesis on the Biafra-Nigerian Civil War and whose country, which she identifies with, has been in the middle of one kind of civil war or another for generations.

Women have to “divorce ourselves from the lure of proximity to white male power” even “when those white men are our friends, our husbands, our fathers, or our sons,” Ijeoma Oluo argues.

And yet Ijeoma followed her father, the “Honorable Chief Dr. Sam Oluo”, into political science. While her brother courted her father’s disapproval by playing music, she tried to imitate her absent father. And has spent her life making excuses for him and his culture.

When as a teenager she contacted Nigerians on the internet and they began to scam her, she processed it as the "legacy of colonialism" so that "every white person scammed out of their life savings felt, in a way, like a bit of retribution for the ravages of colonization and slavery."

Except that the Nigerian scam artists were just as happy to scam her as they were anyone else.

“My Nigerian father was Catholic for the same reason why he spoke with a British accent,” Ijeoma snapped on Twitter. “Because his oppressors forced him to.”

Why did he abandon her? Probably because of those white oppressors. Like her mother.

There’s a story there about racial identity and hatred, gratitude and ingratitude, and the primal way that children can identify with a father who isn’t there while hating the mother who is.

But it’s not a story that Hachette would publish or Ijeoma Olou would be likely to write.

Last year, Ijeoma posted a tribute to the white grandfather who had not abandoned her when her black father had. "My father returned to Nigeria when I was two and was more of a story than an actual person in my life. But my grandfather, my Bob Bob, loved me so completely that I never felt lacking.”

The photo that came with it showed an older white man holding a young black girl in his arms.

Later that year, she published Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America.

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, June 28, 2021

Obama and the Broken Nation He Made Come Of Age

By On June 28, 2021
Barack Obama turns 60 over the summer. The AARP cover with Barry posing next to a basketball and a shelf of bestselling non-fiction books he hasn’t read can’t be too far away.

Once the symbol of youthful hipness, the former boss of Hope and Change now lectures “young people” on what they should be doing. His legacy is being carried forward by 78-year-old Biden and the 81-year-old Pelosi. That’s above the average age of 80 of the House Dem leadership.

The average age of the Biden cabinet is two years older than President Trump’s cabinet.

The gerontocratic technocracy uses AOC as its younger foil, but she’s been a stalking horse for Bernie Sanders who will hit the big 80 in the fall. The big donors behind the American Left are even older with George Soros due to hit 90 the same month Obama gets to 60. The even bigger reservoirs of cash flowing into the leftist machine are coming from the foundations of men who were born in the 19th century like Henry Ford, John D. MacArthur, and John D. Rockefeller.

That’s about right for a 19th century ideology whose followers keep trying to make it look young.

Youthful leftism is anarchic. It’s CHAZ, BLM, and Antifa. It’s open air heroin markets, smashed store windows, and political assassinations. Turning that anarchy into collectivism requires hysterical propaganda and rallies that appear anarchic, but are actually tightly controlled, ideas that seem edgy, but are actually the work of men who were born during the age of the steam.

If you think Bernie’s old, Karl Marx celebrated his 203rd birthday in May.

Obama’s policies have aged as badly as Marx, Biden, or their front man. But instead of moderating as they grow older, they only grow more radical. Obama equivocated on gay marriage, while Biden entirely erases the existence of women by calling them “birthing people”. Obama covertly weaponized the government against conservatives, while Biden is doing it openly. Everything from election rigging through H.R.1 to indoctrinating every government employee with critical race theory is happening more openly and blatantly under Biden.

Youthful leftist revolutions break the system while leftist gerentocrats impose the tyranny.

Making tyranny look like freedom requires hefty doses of chaos and outrage that make it appear that the system is being broken when it’s actually being built up. Or as George Orwell wrote in 1984, “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.” The revolution is the thing it’s revolting against.

The end of history keeps arriving only to vanish like a mirage when the youth reach for it.

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," Obama told his followers. Two years later, he privately snapped, "What does he think I'm supposed to do? Put on my f------ Aquaman gear and swim down there myself with a wrench?"

Thirteen years have passed and if the planet has begun to heal, Democrats won’t admit it.

The moment of epochal change can never be allowed to arrive because it would interrupt the permanent crisis. Salvation is always here and also always out of reach. But there’s always a new generation available to be fooled again because they know the past doesn’t matter.

History is radically revised every generation not just for what it teaches, but for what it doesn’t.

A revisionist history work like the 1619 Project doesn’t just impose a radical new racist history, it displaces the past. Another revisionist history will come along to displace the 1619 Project because manufacturing history churn is vital to destroying any continuity with the past. All the academic lenses being swapped one for the other like a mad ophthalmologist leaves a new generation with a lot of theories, but no clue that they’re being indoctrinated into a lost cause.

The Left has no new ideas. Like Hollywood, it makes old ideas seem new by rebooting them, by making them appear hip and trendy, and by destroying a meaningful connection with the past. And that way audiences don’t realize they’re just seeing the same movie remade over again. What might be creative bankruptcy in a movie theater is a more seriously sisyphean problem described by Churchill as, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

But how does a new generation learn from a past that isn’t allowed to exist on its own terms?

Demonizing the past is a convenient way of obscuring it. The only thing students are taught about the past is that it was a horrible time, its people backward, its customs savage, its learning wicked, its institutions racist, and its ideas horrifying. In postmodern history, the past exists only as a cautionary tale gleaned for historical struggles that fit into the new narrative.

History is an incomplete present whose revolutions were never fully fulfilled. It’s a revolutionary story of a world ruled by villains until they were overthrown by the forces of good. And this revolution against history must continue until all of the past is negated by the present.

The destruction of statues and burning of books forces ‘presentism’ for the past to conform to the dogmas of the moment. The biggest problem with the past isn’t that it’s politically incorrect, but that it’s repeating itself. The Black Lives Matter movement transparently harkens back to the 70s. So do most of the radical social impulses in which the Left cloaks its real power agenda.

The revolutionary chaos is doomed to fail again, but each oscillation breaks the country more.

The social activism is window dressing. A proper Marxist regime has little use for militant minorities, feminism, gay rights, police defunding, transgender bathrooms, pipeline protests, abortion, or any of the other issues the radicals have been using to waste our time. If you doubt that, go look at how many of any of the above you can find in China, Cuba, or North Korea.

The Russian Futurists vowed to throw the art and literature of the past overboard from the “steamship of modernity”. But the Bolsheviks were not looking for disruptive art and when the revolution arrived, modern art was tossed overboard and the former revolutionaries settled down to producing socialist realism and recreating the art of the past for the Soviet Union.

After a brief permissive period, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality and insisted on traditional marriages and roles for women. Those feminists who resisted were soon shown their place with one of the more notorious free love figures being forcibly married off by Lenin.

The dictatorship had eclipsed the revolution and the past was quickly rewritten all over again.

As Obama approaches his sixtieth birthday, the age at which Khrushchev struggled for control of the USSR and Mao launched his Great Leap Forward, two events that would require a good deal of historical editing, our American past is already being rewritten. Only those who are at least in their thirties will remember that there wasn’t a racial crisis before Barack Obama.

And there hadn’t been such a crisis for a generation before he took power.

Our racial crisis is not a legacy of 1619, but of 2008. Obama’s victory was not a revolution against a crisis, but the revolution that created the crisis. To a new generation, the racial crisis is a permanent feature of life. They have always lived under the crisis and expect to always live under it. That is why critical race theory and white privilege rants have become so pervasive.

Without a generation coming of age in a world shaped by the toxic idea that all white people are evil and all minorities are victims, no one outside academic circles would have willingly accepted them. And if that generation seems all too easy to radicalize into supporting the most insane policies, that’s because it grew up in a world defined by the hysteria of manufactured crises.

The world as they know it is doomed by melting ice caps, the rich getting richer, and the genocide of black people at the hands of the police. Every radical program is backed by a sense of urgent crisis which is killing people and destroying the future. They can’t imagine a present without the crisis and don’t remember ever living in a world not defined by crisis.

As Obama gets closer to his AARP cover, a generation lives in the world that he made.

Like Obama, his radical political movement speaks endlessly about the past, but has no actual past. Its past is always being reinvented and retold through new narratives, but with no facts.

The Obama revolution has come and gone. We have skipped past it to the Soviet Union of Chernenko and Andropov, of gerontocrats building the tyranny with the beams of revolution. The decline is everywhere as the theories fail, the factories close, and the stores stand empty.

The youth are being rallied to cheer for the revolutionary tyranny of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer who are promising a new era in history no one believes in anymore. Since the election their cause is no longer free college, it’s federalizing elections through H.R.1.

Federalizing elections, eliminating the filibuster, and packing the Supreme Court are compelling issues in Washington D.C., but the regime plotting new coups has little to say to the ordinary people facing high prices for gas and bread. Land, Bread, and Peace has given way to a race for total power over the country as the revolution of Hope, Crisis and Change comes of age.

There’s no change without crisis, and without hope, there’s only hate.

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, June 27, 2021

Did Amazon’s Critical Race Theory Push Lead to a Racist Assault on a Customer?

By On June 27, 2021
Ever since Amazon created its own delivery service, the blue vests of its drivers and the dark blue trucks with the monopolistic giant’s arrow have become as ubiquitous as UPS brown or FedEx purple and orange on every street and highway in America. And with good reason.

Amazon’s package volume is expected to surpass UPS and FedEx as a host of men and women in blue rush to deliver orders from Chinese third party sellers and drop shippers.

But on the first Friday of June, a delivery in California instead ended in a violent assault.

Usually Amazon rips off customers, companies, and entire countries, but it doesn’t beat them. This time there was an exception as Itzel Ramirez, an Amazon driver in her twenties, was caught on video violently assaulting a 67-year-old woman who had asked about her package.

While Ramirez claimed self-defense, the video shows her assaulting the elderly woman from behind, punching her in the back of the head, and seemingly using a key ring in the assault. The beating caused the victim to collide with the door and reportedly left her with a broken nose.

It was not the first assault by an Amazon driver on an elderly person caught on video. An Amazon driver had previously assaulted a 73-year-old man in Miami Beach. But this time the Amazon delivery person had used a politically correct slur thereby turning it into a hate crime.

Ramirez had accused her victim of “white privilege”.

Despite that slur, she has not been charged with a hate crime. In a state where critical race theory is being forced into schools and on employees of major corporations, it’s not likely that a violent racist echoing an official dogma that demonizes white people would be held accountable.

Amazon claimed that the violent assault on one of its customers “does not reflect the high standards we have for drivers" and assured everyone that "this individual is no longer delivering Amazon packages.” But it may be worth examining what Amazon’s standards really are.

Like every Silicon Valley company, Amazon has gone all in on critical race theory.

The Amazon assault happened the same year that Jeff Bezos, the company's founder and CEO, announced that he was stepping down. Bezos was ruthless, cruel, and amoral, but beyond using the Washington Post to become a D.C. power broker had less interest in conventional corporate virtue signaling.

Andy Jassy, his right-hand man who will replace him as CEO after being in charge of Amazon's cloud platform, is a more traditional Big Tech wokester.

Jassy falsely accused police departments of "murdering black people", supported illegal aliens, and made the decision to shut down Parler. His wife is a Bernie Sanders donor.

The incoming Big Tech CEO has vowed to focus the company on “diversity and more inclusion.” If its employees weren't feeling abused enough by having to pee into cups, Amazon mandated that all employees complete a 90-minute "Strengthening Our Culture of Inclusion" program.

Amazon had already banned non-inclusive language like "blacklists" (which didn't stop it from blacklisting all sorts of people), but now it was going further with identity politics affinity groups and its Conversations on Race and Ethnicity (CORE) events featuring extremists and racists.

CORE events packed thousands of Amazon employees into massive meetings to be accused of racism by a series of racist and extreme leftist speakers.

The Big Tech monopoly’s first CORE event had already featured Robin DiAngelo, whose famous idea is that white people are all racist and evil, as well as Carmen Perez, the Farrakhan supporter who served as one of the leaders of the Women's March before being forced out.

Amazon also invited Ijeoma Oluo, a self-described “internet yeller” who had written a book arguing that “white male mediocrity” is a theme throughout history. That’s exactly the message that a company of white male engineers needed to hear. Oluo had berated her own mother, who raised her after being abandoned by her Nigerian academic father, over her “white privilege”.

Also at Amazon’s first CORE was Michael Welp whose White Men As Full Diversity Partners stirred a backlash when its training at Lockheed described white men as racists and privileged.

Welp was also present at the second CORE event while stigmatizing white people.

Alicia Garza, a co-founder of the racist black nationalist hate group Black Lives Matter, appeared on a CORE panel together with DiAngelo and Perez.

Also there was Latasha Gillespie, the head of global diversity and inclusion at Amazon Studios, who has claimed that police murder black people while ranting about "white privilege".

The second CORE event also included rabid hatred for America with Edgar Villanueva showing a slide that described America as being based on colonization and genocide.

What impact did all of these racist and hateful ideas have on Amazon employees?

Amazon, like many other major corporations, has submerged its employees in the dogma of critical race theory. And while this is meant to lead to the discrimination and mistreatment of white employees in the name of equity, could it also lead to violence against white people?

The Big Tech monopoly has relied on independent contractors to build its delivery network. However Amazon also exercises a great deal of control over these drivers. And as its statement after the “white privilege” assault in California shows, it ultimately controls their employment.

Amazon has embedded equity into its Delivery Service Partner push and encouraged existing employees to become DSPs. Did any of its existing racist CORE programming have an influence on the cultural ecosystem of the DSP that employed Itzel Ramirez?

That is unfortunately a question that no one in the media appears to be asking.

The rise of the DSP system paralleled the rise of critical race theory at Amazon. Even while Amazon was finding new ways to virtue signal, it was also finding new ways to exploit workers.

Amazon’s DSP program evades accountability for delivery drivers like Ramirez who wear its blue vests and drive its vans, but who are actually working for small contractors, many of them minorities, who are being deliberately kept small so they can never compete for a better deal.

The Big Tech giant will insist that it had no responsibility for the assault on one of its customers by a racist driver who had absorbed the critical race theory slur of “white privilege” that Amazon had endorsed by featuring racist figures and rhetoric at its CORE inclusion events.

Amazon’s white leadership encourages racism against white people while remaining insulated from minority workers who might want to lash out at the nearest white person they can find.

When BLM and Antifa created CHAZ in their Capitol Hill Occupied Protest zone, the epicenter was about a dozen blocks away from Andy Jassy's 1906 mansion on the outskirts of Capitol Hill. But there's a world of differences between the local small businesses that were terrorized by black nationalists and anarchists in CHAZ and the sedate tree-lined street of multi-million dollar Victorian homes where Jassy and his pro-Sanders designer wife comfortably reside.

The incoming Amazon CEO may rant about the police and his home may boast the ubiquitous "Black Lives Matter" "No Human is Illegal", and "Science is Real" lawn sign prefered by wealthy woke suburbanites, but his estate is protected by a spiked gate and high walls disguised by massive hedges. Defunding the police is an experience to be lived out by other, poorer people.

Some people may be beaten by Amazon’s critical race theory drivers over their white privilege, but Amazon executives have spiked gates to make certain they’re not the ones being beaten.

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, June 24, 2021

A BLM Supporter Tried to Kill a Police Officer: That's the Terrorist Threat We're Not Discussing

By On June 24, 2021
Briana Sykes spent over a year broadcasting the racist hate of the Black Lives Matter movement. Last year, she reposted a message from Senator Bernie Sanders, promoted by BLM activist Shaun King, stirring up anger over false claims about Breonna Taylor, who was killed when her drug dealer boyfriend opened fire on police.

“Our criminal justice system is racist,” the Sanders smear of the police falsely claimed.

Shortly afterward she posted an anti-police cartoon distributed by the Black Berner Coalition.

Briana promoted a Black Lives Matter "economic boycott" and the claim that BLM rioters were "compelled to burn s___ down" because they're an "oppressed group".

Over the summer, the same account linked to Briana Sykes spread disinformation that the Trump administration had "literally killed hundreds of protesters in front of the White House". The #DCBlackout hoax was spread by pro-BLM accounts. It was not clear who was behind a seeming attempt at inciting violence, but researchers suspect it was an enemy government.

And then after over a year of hate and Bernie Sanders memes, Briana Sykes tried to murder a police officer at a Juneteenth parade in Flint, Michigan.

According to authorities, Briana drove up to a police officer and opened fire on him. The officer shot back, wounding the 19-year-old woman. While the officer wasn’t hit, according to a black eyewitness, he “fell to the ground crying because… he didn’t want to do whatever he had to do.”

A fellow officer, black, is seen assisting him on the video.

Cell phone video appears to show that the unnamed white officer was still trying to give her a chance to surrender, shouting, “Show me your hands!”

Risking his life to avoid another police shooting didn’t pay off. It happened anyway.

The local BLM chapter’s social media responded to the shooting with hate and incitement.

“We have been inculcated to accept Native Black people being MURDERED at the hands of “PROTECT AND SERVE”!“ one poster shrieked. “WE ARE NOT IGNORANT! We also call for first degree murder charges and that this killer cop’s pension be forfeited!”

Briana Sykes died at the hospital and now authorities are trying to figure out her motive.

But the motive is all over her social media which is littered with BLM anti-police hate. Some of that hate intersects with Bernie Sanders material. The two vectors of radicalization are clear and outside the new domestic terrorism guidelines drawn up by the Biden Administration.

Senate Democrats, led by Senator Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, had already pressured the FBI to stop monitoring black nationalist hate groups.“So, you no longer use the term Black Identity Extremism,” Booker had grilled FBI Director Christopher Wray. “That's great news.”

It was terrible news for local police and the Jewish community in Jersey City which came under attack by two black nationalist terrorists. But the new Biden domestic terrorism guidelines compound the problem that may have led to the mass shooting at a Jewish supermarket by separating out white nationalists while classifying black nationalists as “anti-government”.

The Biden terrorism guidelines describe Micah X. Johnson, the black nationalist activist who murdered 5 white Dallas police officers, as an anti-government extremist. Johnson was one of a number of BLM supporters who killed or tried to kill police officers. Briana Sykes is just the latest. And while Democrat House members have celebrated Capitol Police personnel, they’ve shown no interest in the hundreds of police officers wounded in their BLM race riots.

That’s because the Democrat establishment is deeply entangled with the racist hate group.

In Flint, the scene of the latest BLM terrorist attack, Mayor Sheldon Neeley had created a Black Lives Matter Advisory Council for the local police and had joined the hate group's local rallies. Chief Phil Hart had forced Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation training on the police.

Pandering to the black nationalist pro-crime hate group backfired in Flint, as it did everywhere else, with a 32% increase in murders while non-fatal shootings doubled. By the time the Juneteenth parade arrived there wasn’t much to celebrate in Flint. Just more killing.

What role did the promotion of Black Lives Matter by Flint Democrats play in the radicalization of Briana Sykes? And what impact did the Bernie Sanders fanbase, who have become notorious for promoting disinformation and extremist material, have on her state of mind?

In 2017, James Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter, opened fire on Republicans at a charity baseball game in D.C. The FBI covered up the terrorist attack by falsely claiming that Hodgkinson had been trying to commit suicide and had not been targeting anyone despite his possession of a target list and a conversation in which he specifically sought out Republicans.

Hodgkinson, like Briana Sykes, had spent a lot of time spreading hate on Facebook. He had even belonged to a group named, “Terminate the Republican Party”.

It’s likely that this latest shooting by a radicalized Bernie Sanders supporter will be treated the same way. But even while the Biden administration defines Trump supporters as terrorists, the Bernie Sanders base and Black Lives Matter remind us who the real terrorists are.

What made Briana Sykes open fire on a police officer? The answer is right in front of us.

Democrats and their media are inciting violence against the police. It can’t come as a surprise when someone takes their big lie that police officers are racist killers and acts on it.

Briana Sykes was an ordinary product of her environment. She spent her time online listening to music celebrating violence and imbibing political propaganda demonizing the police. We don’t know exactly what went through her mind, but after being told for years that police officers plot to kill black people, she might have decided that any officer she saw was coming to kill her.

While the media has demanded that Facebook and other social media platforms censor conservatives, it has shown no interest in shutting down the kind of leftist disinformation that may have radicalized Hodgkinson and Sykes. That’s because it’s their disinformation.

Briana’s death will only feed the cycle of extremism as BLM supporters use her death to transform her into a martyr to their racist cause. Like any terrorist organization, the death of its own people fuels the BLM momentum. Every black person killed in a confrontation with a police officer incites more violence and more payouts. The ugly reality of Briana’s death is that she died trying to murder a police officer so that the Democrats who ruined her city and state can rig more elections, and so that BLM leaders can buy more mansions.

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, June 22, 2021

The Small Secessions of the New Civil War

By On June 22, 2021
That a battle over Atlanta would play nearly as pivotal a role in the country’s second civil war as it did in the first might have surprised few historians. What might have surprised them is that the battle would involve civic meetings rather than bullets. There are plenty of bullets in Buckhead, a part of Atlanta coping with runaway crime under the pro-crime rule of Mayor Keisha Bottoms, and those bullets have inspired local residents to secede and form their own police force.

Buckhead is not the first part of Atlanta to try and secede. Sandy Springs had already successfully seceded from Atlanta and a number of cities in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, have tried to break away to form Milton County. These efforts to escape the blight and corruption of Atlanta aren’t new, but Buckhead’s fight to escape Atlanta’s pro-crime government has captured the imagination of millions of Americans from one coast of the country to the other.

The cold civil war is being shaped not by national, but local secessions like the one in Buckhead as neighborhoods try to secede from cities, cities from counties, and counties from states in a powerful struggle by conservative and centrist communities to define their own way of life.

Most Americans might associate Roswell with UFOs, but a proposed bill by Senator Cliff Pirtle of Roswell would have allowed it and other counties located near Texas to secede with the possible intention of joining the Lone Star State. In Oregon, 7 counties voted to secede and join Idaho, Weld County is considering seceding from Colorado to join Wyoming, and western Minnesota has seen proposals for its counties to leave and unite with South Dakota.

Secession talk isn’t new. Northern Californians have kept the dream of a breakaway state named Jefferson alive for generations. The Democrat machine illegally suppressed a ballot measure that proposed to split California in three. The secession proposals that succeed are more modest and limited in scope. Breaking up states may be a moonshot, seceding from states might be an uphill battle, but the rate of local secessions is growing rapidly.

The most popular form of secession is also the smallest and involves school districts.

An average of 5 school districts secede every year. And while such secessions may get less publicity than plans to split up entire states, they’re commonplace and effective. They also represent the same trend of communities escaping the social and political wreckage of urban rule. Even as Democrats go to war against the suburbs, the suburbs are fighting back.

The political geography of the new civil war is a tug of war between Democrats seeking to concentrate authority in as few places as possible and an opposition seeking independence.

While Democrats and their media complain about the electoral college and the composition of the Senate, the nation and its states are largely ruled by a handful of metropolitan areas. The wealth that buys and sells elections nationwide mostly flows out of New York and California, and, more specifically, out of New York City and Silicon Valley. Geographic regions of less than 1,000 square miles in total rule a nation of 3.8 million square miles with an economic fist.

The meltdown of the urban areas drove suburbanization. And the spreading blight of urban areas into suburban communities due to the concentration of statewide political power in the cities has led to a secondary exodus from suburban bedroom communities to other states.

California not only went blue, but it ‘blued’ Colorado, Wyoming, and a range of other states. The final casualty of California’s blue wave may even end up being Texas. New York has had a similar effect, not only regionally, but even to the south, driving an exodus to Atlanta.

The tide of blue state invasions has the potential to transform the state of states and the nation.

Neighborhoods and school districts seceding from failed urban centers are trying to halt the problem at its source. Rural counties, especially in western states, are pushing back against larger demographic invasions that have transformed smaller states into miniature Californias.

Polls show that most people prefer to live in communities with people that share their values. As politics becomes more tribal, the number of neighborhoods with an even share of lawn signs for both parties is decreasing. In a political system that forces cake makers to bake cakes, indoctrinates elementary school students with radical views on race and sexuality, and cancels anyone who doesn’t go along, coexistence with a radical leftist system is no longer an option.

Secession is. The new civil war is being fought locally. It’s not a regional movement, but a communal one. What brings together rural areas and suburban communities is a desire to control their own way of life and escape the destructive centralization of urban regimes.

The new civil war isn’t being fought between the North and the South, but between the cities and the rest of the country. It’s an economic and social war whose objective is independence.

That’s why the smallest scale secessions have paradoxically been the most successful.

Whether it’s the Buckhead movement or the Texas Senate passing a bill allowing Lake Austin residents to secede from Austin only to see it die in the House, the secessions are gathering strength. But so is the Left's battle to stop them through lies, racism smears, and judicial fiat.

Just because the public votes to create a separate school district or a city doesn't mean that it won't be blocked by Democrat activist judges who decide to override the will of the people.

The attempt by Gardendale to secede from the failed Jefferson County Public School system in Alabama was illegally blocked by federal judges. The Left is struggling to block the creation of the city of St. George in Louisiana with equally illegal lawsuits. But the pace of secession proposals is only growing as more communities struggle to escape abusive governments.

And as Democrats seek to illegally rig elections across the country with H.R.1, to transform the government city of Washington D.C. into a state, and to exercise total control over every local decision through its massive urban bureaucracy, the rate of secessions is only increasing.

Some only seek to restore control over local schools and police forces to communities, while others strive to reconfigure the borders of states to enable rural representation.

Though the term ‘secession’ and the idea of dividing a land summons to mind civil war, the more apt analogy may be the original secession of the United States from British rule.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

America’s revolutionaries wanted self-government on their own terms. Their modern descendants are breaking away from New York and San Francisco, from Big Tech and Wall Street, the way that their ancestors sought to escape from London and its mercantile interests.

The fundamental issue at stake in the secessions is whether communities will be governed centrally or locally. Democrats and their media have worked to cloud the issue with false accusations of racism, but it’s not only white neighborhoods that are talking secession. A generation ago, black Boston residents proposed to create the breakaway city of Mandela. That movement has recently come in for a reexamination. It’s time to reexamine all of them.

The new generation of secessionism is driven by the unbearable pressure imposed on communities by the expansive ideological programs of radical leftist technocrats which leave little room for either individuality or human needs. Rather than learning from the profound failures of urban areas during the pandemic, all they learned is a need for greater control.

Secession is the natural human response to the control freak madness of cities which control entire states. Communities are confronting radical power grabs by taking back the power.

The cold civil war is being fought in civic meetings. The battles are local and the battle maps cover streets rather than continents, but it is a conflict driven by the impetus of revolutions and civil wars in which one people, as Jefferson wrote, seeks to part ways with another, not to rule over them, but to be free of their thievery, their abuses, and their tyrannical rule.

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, June 21, 2021

Biden’s Terror Strategy Defines Republicans as the New Terrorists

By On June 21, 2021
As the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaches, Joe Biden has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to fight Al Qaeda. Instead he’s going to fight other Americans.

The Biden administration’s newly released National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism mentions Al Qaeda only once in its 30 pages. Even though the FBI continues to break up Islamic terrorist plots against America, the document only defines Muslims as victims.

Just last month a Seattle Muslim convert was arrested. The convert had discussed driving a "semi-truck" through "the gay pride parade in downtown Seattle". Even though the arrest came shortly before the anniversary of the ISIS massacre at the Pulse nightclub, both Biden and the media ignored the potential plot and the fact that the Pulse shooting was Islamic terrorism.

“I wish to see the kuffar (non-Muslims) as I kill them, I want to strike terror in them and make Allah pleased for doing so,” the Seattle convert had boasted.

That same month another Muslim convert pled guilty to plotting to attack an Ohio synagogue and murder a rabbi. A third Muslim convert in Brooklyn was also sentenced that month for promoting terrorist plots against Americans. American converts to Islam are a major source of recruits for domestic terrorist plots. Despite that, Biden’s strategy ignores their existence.

In a flashback to the Clinton era, the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism claims that the only serious terrorist threats come from the militia movement and racists.

And the only racists whose existence the Biden administration will admit to are white racists.

Micah X. Johnson, a black supremacist who murdered 5 police officers in Dallas, is described as an “anti–authority violent extremist”. Racist and supremacist terrorism can only be practiced by members of the majority against “minority populations”. It can’t work the other way around.

Antifa is also rolled together into “anti-government”, a category that encompasses the militia movement, black supremacists, white anarchists, and everyone who isn’t a white racist.

Islamic terrorists, like the three in May, don’t even make the list.

The two categories, anti-government and racists, tell us little about the actual domestic terrorist threat, but a great deal about the Biden administration’s agenda for exploiting terrorism.

Either you’re with the Biden administration or the “anti-government extremists”.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism redefines the terrorist threat as coming first and foremost from political opponents of the Biden administration. And it defines that threat as a primarily political and ideological battle rather than a violent threat.

The new strategy doesn’t come up with any new ideas for fighting terrorism. Its ideas fall into the murky territory of preventing terror through everything from internet censorship to critical race theory. Biden is rebooting Obama’s CVE or Countering Violent Extremism program to target Americans in a battle of ideas against “misinformation” and “racism”.

This also defines the administration’s two approaches: indoctrination and suppression.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism redefines domestic terrorism as a domestic ideological struggle against people who disagree with Biden and his partisan party.

The strategy’s concluding sentence speaks of “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories that can provide a gateway to terrorist violence.” It warns of “an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse” and cautions that, “today’s digital age requires an American population that can utilize essential aspects of Internet–based communications platforms while avoiding vulnerability to... harmful content deliberately disseminated by malicious actors online.”

The binary model is a choice between people who believe everything the media tells them or terrorists. Fighting terrorism requires a national security system that indoctrinates its citizens.

The strategy blithely notes that “the Department of Homeland Security and others are either currently funding and implementing or planning... digital programming, including enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills, as a mechanism for strengthening user resilience to disinformation and misinformation online for domestic audiences.”

A one-word term for this is ‘propaganda’.

The “broader priority” is “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation” on the internet.

Elected officials don’t address “polarization”, they’re a product of it. They enhance faith in government by keeping their promises instead of indoctrinating and censoring the people.

Governments that suppress “misinformation” to fight “polarization” are totalitarian states.

The Democrats and their media had previously blamed President Trump’s election on “misinformation”. The new strategy blames “misinformation” for domestic terrorism.

And the best way to fight “misinformation” is with suppression and indoctrination.

The strategy document suggests that the Biden administration will be engaging in more “robust” efforts to “assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service”. It defines “private–sector online platforms” as the front line in this new suppression campaign.

But censorship is very 2016. The 2021 terrorism strategy is much more ambitious than that.

The Biden administration will only acknowledge two terrorist threats. The first threat comes from “anti-government extremists” which justifies a crackdown on any kind of political opposition and a suppression of “conspiracy theories”. The second threat comes from racists which creates an urgent need to tackle “the threat posed by domestic terrorism” with “substantial efforts to confront the racism that feeds into aspects of that threat”.

That “means tackling racism in America” with a civics education that covers “when racism and bigotry have meant that the country fell short of living up to its founding principles”.

That’s code for embedding critical race theory in schools to teach students that America is evil.

It’s hard to think of anything more likely to encourage new recruits to ISIS and other terrorist causes than divisive racist materials that devalue our country and our common heritage.

But the strategy is also much more ambitious than that, “prioritizing efforts to ensure that every component of the government has a role to play in rooting out racism and advancing equity.”

It’s easy to miss the significance of what the Biden terrorism strategy is doing here.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism has defined domestic terrorism as being caused by conspiracy theories, misinformation, racism, and hostility to the government. Fighting domestic terrorism means recreating the government bureaucracy and its policies around “equity” and the agendas of “critical race theory” while rooting out their opponents.

Just as Biden’s purge of the military defined military readiness and national security around a willingness to embrace critical race theory, identity politics, and hatred of America, this new counterterrorism strategy makes it the basis for national security across the government.

Every arm of the government is not only being tasked with imposing the racial discriminatory and wealth redistribution elements of “equity”, but with viewing any opposition as terrorism.

Or a gateway to terrorism.

The Obama administration abused national security to target its Republican political opponents by falsely accusing them of treason and acting as foreign agents of Russia. With Biden appeasing Putin, the Russian smear is no longer viable, but the domestic terrorist smear is.

The new strategy document will serve as a basis for using national security to target Republicans as domestic terrorists.

The Biden doctrine creates a phantom terrorist movement of conspiracy theories and misinformation that is as vaporous as the Russia smear and seeks to tie any violence to political opponents who engage in “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”.

Since the Democrats and their media have defined virtually any disagreement as “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”, most conservatives can be accused of terrorism.

What that will do is make it much easier to surveil and monitor political opponents by manufacturing networks that are based around “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”.

The strategy document begins by redefining terrorism from an organized, even in the loosest sense, movement to “lone actors” who “mobilize to violence with little or no clear organizational structure or direction.” The document skips over the vital question of whether they are part of any movement calling for terrorism, instead it claims that their “fluid” ideologies “connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation”.

The Biden administration has turned away from dealing with domestic Islamic terrorists with a clear connection to a terrorist movement like ISIS to defining ideas as dangerous without regard as to whether those ideas, theories, or movements are actually calling for violence.

By discarding the existence of any actual terrorist movement or infrastructure, the Biden administration has set a very low bar for defining terrorism and an even lower bar for complicity.

There doesn’t have to be any linkage between the perpetrator of a violent attack and the conservatives who will be blamed for acting as a “gateway” with their “conspiracy theories”.

This will mean censorship and deplatforming, but also surveillance and worse things.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism defines political opponents and anyone resistant to critical race theory or who questions the government as either a gateway to terrorism or possibly even inciting terrorism. This strategy will be used to target conservative non-profits through the IRS, to remove conservative speech from the internet, and to surveil hundreds of thousands of conservatives on the pretext of fighting domestic terrorism.

While Islamic terrorists continue to plot actual attacks, Biden is plotting to terrorize Americans.

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, June 20, 2021

How HBO Max Went Woke and Broke on BLM

By On June 20, 2021
After a former Hollywood Foreign Press Association president shared my Front Page Magazine article about the BLM Hollywood connection, WarnerMedia executives sent a boycott letter to the foreign press organization behind the Golden Globes. Their outrage was understandable.

My article had cast a light on the ties between Warner and Black Lives Matter. No one had crawled harder and deeper into bed with the racist black nationalist hate group than the company that shared little more than a name with one of Hollywood’s signature studios whose name to most people still brings to mind everything from Bugs Bunny to Casablanca.

The Warner brothers were conservatives while a typical billboard for HBO Max, Warner’s streaming effort to compete with Netflix, urges audiences to subscribe and tune in to an adaptation of Ta-Nehisi Coates's racist black nationalist tract “Between the World and Me”.

“Between the World and Me” featured Coates describing the firefighters and police who risked their lives to rescue people on September 11 as “not human to me” and “menaces”.

"Their new name has no real meaning divorced from the machinery of criminal power. the new people were something else before they were white--Catholic, Corsican, Welsh, Mennonite, Jewish," Coates writes in “Between the World and Me”.

While HBO Max pulled and then restored “Gone With the Wind” over its "racial prejudices" complete with a disclaimer lecture, and Turner Classic Movies, owned by Warner Bros, launched a series condemning classic movies like “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” (Mickey Rooney's buck teeth), "My Fair Lady" (misogyny), and "Psycho" (transphobia), it promotes the worst possible hatred of white people with million dollar contracts and massive billboards.

Warner Bros rewarded Coates’ racism further by having him write the script for a black Superman. Possible directors include Shaka King, the director of the Black Panthers propaganda flick, “Judas and the Black Messiah”, who had declared, “I haven’t needed white people to care about what I do in years now” and “a centrist is, in many ways, more dangerous than a white nationalist, because they’re really silently propping up the system”.

HBO Max’s’ Between the World and Me includes Alicia Garza, a co-founder of BLM. Garza is one of two BLM co-founders who is at home at Warner Bros. The Warner Brothers Television Group had signed a production deal with Patrisse Cullors: a self-described Marxist.

The BLM deal happened the same month that Channing Dungey became the Warner TV chair.

As ABC Entertainment boss, Channing Dungey had made the decision to fire Roseanne from her namesake show for comments critical of Obama crony Valerie Jarrett. Dungey jumped to Netflix, bringing along Scandal’s Shonda Rhimes who went on to create “Bridgerton” for Netflix, and worked with Barack Obama’s Higher Ground agitprop production company.

Dungey was one of the signers of the boycott letter.

“Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, all those deaths coming in quick succession — I think it’s opened up an entirely different conversation that particularly in Hollywood, coming in the wake of #MeToo, I think everyone is realizing that the business has been built on some systemic wrongs that need to be righted,” Dungey told Variety.

The nature of the systemic wrongs in an industry that took Dungey from a production assistant to the destroyer of genuinely talented people like Roseanne may be harder to define. But she’s a symptom of a larger problem at Warner Bros which has gone all in on black nationalism.

Along with Dungey and Rimes, Warner Brothers lured away black nationalist director Ava DuVernay with a $100 million deal. DuVernay’s “13th” series for Netflix had falsely accused America of slavery due to the high number of black people convicted of crimes in prison.

But Warner Bros also had no problem scraping the very bottom of the black nationalist barrel.

After signing Cullors, it cut a deal with Kimberly Latrice Jones, a BLM activist who made a viral video in support of looting.

"There’s a social contract that we all have, that if you steal, or if I steal, then the person who is the authority comes in and they fix the situation. But the person who fixes the situation is killing us. So the social contract is broken. And if the social contract is broken, why the f*** do I give a shit about burning the f***ing Football Hall of Fame, about burning a f***ing Target?" the activist ranted.

"Far as I’m concerned, they could burn this bitch to the ground, and it still wouldn’t be enough."

The unhinged racist rant helped get her a book deal, a movie deal, and a deal with Warner which under AT&T has been happily burning the company and its brand down to the ground.

Warner also signed a multi-year deal with Phillip Atiba Goff whose thesis adviser was Cornel West and is the author of "Saying 'No' to Whiteness", to produce social justice content. Dungey described Goff as “a leading voice of moral clarity on critical issues facing our society”.

In the rush to elevate anyone shouting about the evils of white people, HBO Max is littered with basement garbage that looks like the work of college students laboring on public access TV.

You can find “Random Acts of Flyness”, a typical episode of which is titled, "They Got Some S___ That'll Blow Out Your Back". The Terence Nance variety show features a "family mourning a high-profile case of police violence" and asks "does the Second Amendment apply to black people". One mock commercial features Mad Men’s Jon Hamm touting “White Be Gone” which promises to help those who are suffering “from white thoughts”.

In a sign of just how far Warner had toppled its intellectual properties into the gutter of black nationalism, it tried to turn over the Looney Tunes franchise to Nance to direct “Space Jam” with Ryan Coogler, of the anti-police agitprop “Fruitvale Station”, acting as producer. Coogler, who went on to direct Marvel’s black nationalist Black Panther fantasy, also produced “Judas and the Black Messiah” for Warner celebrating Black Panthers leader Fred Hampton.

But you can also find HBO pushing “Beah: A Black Woman Speaks” about Communist activist Beah Richards who played a major role in the We Charge Genocide smear to divert attention from Soviet crimes by falsely accusing America of genocide.

And if you thought John Oliver or Stephen Colbert weren’t political enough, Wyatt Cenac's “Problem Areas” is a string of diatribes about racism and social justice. Cenac is a Daily Show veteran who jettisons much of the format and instead lectures audiences about racism.

HBO Max is struggling to catch up to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+, but the actual numbers show that it's far behind. While the service claims 44 million subscribers and touts ambitious plans to reach 150 million people by 2025, these numbers are suspect.

Earlier this year, activations stood at only 17 million. HBO Max no longer reports activations making its numbers meaningless. By the spring, AT&T had disposed of HBO Max and the rest of its Warner package by merging the whole mess with Discovery’s programming.

The deal also dumps CNN into Discovery under its CEO, Democrat donor David Zaslav.

While AT&T put the best possible face on this move, the $4 billion dollar bet had not paid off. And Warner’s massive investment in black nationalist programming had thoroughly failed.

HBO Max’s biggest bump came from its decision to dump “Wonder Woman 1984” on the platform at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. The movie, starring Gal Gadot, a pro-Israel actress under fire by critical race theory activists, was the antithesis of the new intersectionality. The second biggest came from the Friends reunion: a show under fire for its lack of diversity.

Despite HBO Max’s massive investment in black nationalism, its successes were all too white.

While all of its big streaming platforms rivals, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Disney+, and Paramount+ invested in black nationalist narratives to varying degrees, none did so as belatedly, futilely, and relentlessly as HBO Max which threw away its brand and its future.

WarnerMedia may have boycotted the Golden Globes, but subscribers boycotted its service.

Warner bought into Black Lives Matter and built its content brand around militant black nationalism and anti-white racism. While AT&T’s CNN was touting the looters, AT&T’s HBO Max was being looted. Like so many other companies, after the woke comes the broke.

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, June 16, 2021

The Whiteness of Woke

By On June 16, 2021
“If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention” the bumper stickers on a thousand SUVs in the upscale bedroom communities of dysfunctional cities read. “Deutschland Erwache,” the National Socialists used to shout in the streets of Munich. Woke compresses it all to one word.

Wokeness means believing that politics is all there is to life. And nothing is whiter than that.

Those minorities who form the backbone of the activists and voting blocs of identity politics don’t care about politics. Identity politics is politics to white wokes and identitarianism to minorities. Critical race theory is only a theory to white people. To everyone else, it’s tribal hatred.

Political theories are abstractions. Tribal identity is very real. Wokeness is concerned with getting white people to buy into tribal identity as a political abstraction rather than a real force.

White wokes turned race into the abstraction that is whiteness. What is whiteness? It’s unconscious cultural habits and ways of thinking. The notion that race is a set of ideas rather than a tangible reality would be vocally denied by both white and black racial identitarians.

The consequence of race as an abstraction is the transracial idea that minorities can become infected with internalized whiteness and the spread of multiracial whiteness. If minorities can become white, it follows that white wokes can become minorities by shedding their whiteness.

Whiteness is a racial consciousness, but based on Marxist power relations, not blood and soil, or genetics, let alone the crude resentment of the ‘other’ that lurks at the heart of raw tribalism.

Critical race theory hijacks racism and racial identity to replace it with Marxist theories.

White wokes use critical race theory the way that elites always used Marxist theories to compete with more successful people of their own upper class. Class warfare was never about the rise of the oppressed: Lenin was a member of the nobility, Mao’s father was a landlord and a money lender, and Castro was a wealthy law student whose father owned a plantation.

Critical race theory is designed to thin out the overproduction of elites. It’s a weapon against meritocracy by the same mediocre cliques looking for a shortcut in the competition. Executives force critical race theory into workplaces to shut down ambitious younger rivals. Suburban soccer moms of dumber kids go woke and push it into schools to even the playing field.

What's whiteness? As the Smithsonian Museum of African-American Culture's chart of "white culture" put it, whiteness covers everything from a serious work ethic to self-reliance, rational thinking, delayed gratification, achieving goals, being on time, and, finally, "competition".

Get rid of academic standards, intellectual seriousness, punish success, and the mediocre woke white elites who first created quota systems a century ago have much more of a shot at the top.

The inherent assumption of class warfare was that the proles were too backward to be a competitive threat. The racist assumption behind critical race theory is that black people can’t compete. If the wokes thought otherwise, they would be denouncing black people as racist the way that Asian-Americans and Jews are repeatedly accused of racism and privilege.

Being accused of group privilege isn’t an insult: it’s a backhanded compliment. Wokes pander to those groups they think of as inferior and attack those groups they see as competition.

White wokes embrace anti-white racism the way that wealthy white lefties championed class warfare. It’s not self-hatred, but hatred of more successful members of their group by enlisting those below them whom they don’t see as competitors to bring down more successful rivals.

But the identitarian racism they’re cultivating among minorities is not theoretical or hypothetical. And neither is the response among working class whites whom they once courted and abandoned. Racial consciousness may only be a theory to woke elites, but it’s not theoretical to the people they’re pitting against each other. Identity politics is only politics to elites, it’s identity to everyone else, and in a country losing the commonalities of religion and patriotism, it’s lethal.

Building a Marxist flavor of racism makes elites Marxists and everyone else racist.

Critical race theory is meant to force white people to see themselves as an ‘other’ and to legitimize the idea of minorities viewing white people that way. Whiteness studies as an academic discipline exists to ‘other’ white people and minorities who can be accused of suffering from multiracial whiteness on account of their success or resistance to dogma.

Otherness undermines empathy and ethics. It licenses everything from hatred to violence to genocide. The more we view people as less than human, the more likely we are to do everything from cut them off in traffic to steal from them and even kill them. National media narratives demand sympathy for George Floyd or Breonna Taylor while refusing to cover the victims of crime because critical race theory denies that they deserve sympathy or humanity.

Ideas have horrifying consequences and leftists have a long history of failing to understand the murderous implications of their self-serving abstract intellectualizations. Only when millions of bodies start piling up do they occasionally begin to wrestle with some sort of moral reckoning. And even then, the reckoning is quickly shelved before it ever really comes into being.

Some Communists turned on the Soviet Union after the Hitler-Stalin pact and the revelations of Stalin’s crimes. Fewer have accepted any kind of moral reckoning for the millions killed by Mao, or the Cambodian genocide, not to mention generations of massacres in Latin America. Nearer to our own time, you won’t find a proponent of Obama’s foreign policy who has even dared to suggest that the Arab Spring was a catastrophic disaster that may have killed a million people.

The body count for Black Lives Matter is estimated as at least 4,000 when you account for the massive increase in murder and crime rates. Most of those would likely be of black people.

Being recruited into a war of liberation by white wokes comes with a high body count. And the blood price isn’t being paid by corporations who sent out emails about George Floyd or sorority sisters holding up ACAB signs. Just as they’re not the ones who paid the price for the collapse of the family or the social structure of both black and white working class communities.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Great Gatsby, "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness." But there are fewer places to retreat to in a completely polarized society.

Elites retreat into abstractions. They buy a copy of Robin DiAngelo’s book and Zoom into the latest call of the white allies caucus at their workplace knowing that they may not be good at much, but they are good at undermining those who are actually good at something. But the rising tide of tribalism is not an abstraction for those for whom identity becomes humanity.

Woke is very white, but its vastness is illusory. The woke elites control corporations and institutions, but what woke is feeding isn’t abstract discrimination, but violent racism.

In California, an Amazon driver beat an older lady who asked her about a package. The minority driver had accused her victim of possessing "white privilege" before attacking her from behind. This is what critical race theory actually looks like outside the suburban bubble of social justice dinners and struggle sessions which, grueling as they are, are at least non-violent.

Last year, Amazon forced every employee to take diversity and inclusion training. Even as the Big Tech monopoly is looting the American economy by selling it out to China, it's doubled down on virtue signaling, promising to go 'green' by 2025 and building an HR infrastructure of 'equity'.

Amazon's new CEO Andy Jassy is a militant leftist who had previously ranted that, "If you don't hold police depts accountable for murdering black people, we will never have justice and change.”

The monopolistic tech giant subjects workers to Conversations on Race and Ethnicity (CORE) when it isn’t forcing them to urinate into cups. The speakers at a Big Tech CORE hatefest included BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, Farrakhan fan Carmen Perez, and Robin DiAngelo.

But critical race theory looks very different in the conference room of a monopoly trying to launder its destruction of the country’s economy so that its former CEO can go off into space by bringing in a few racism profiteers to berate managers about their white privilege than on the street where abstractions of whiteness give way to vicious beatings of elderly white women.

Beyond academic wokeness is the gritty racial identitarian reality of tribal violence and murder.

While Amazon and other Big Tech monopolies compete with each other on woke virtue signaling, and Robin DiAngelo adds another million to her bank account, people are being beaten and murdered in the streets of American cities. While Jeff Bezos and other woke elites go off to space, woke translates into tribal hatred and violence down here on earth.

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, June 14, 2021

Kamala Went to Guatemala for Regime Change, Not Illegal Migration

By On June 14, 2021
In March, Joe Biden announced that Kamala Harris was going "to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle" to stem illegal "migration to our southern border".


According to Biden, "she’s the most qualified person to do it."

This confused everyone including the White House, Kamala Harris, and even the media which spent the next few months clarifying exactly what her job was and how she was going to do it.

Anonymous officials told CNN that afterward, "Harris' aides appeared to 'panic'".

At their joint press conference, Kamala Harris dubiously claimed that "we can chew gum and walk at the same time". While Texas officials demanded that she visit the border, Kamala instead vowed to focus on diplomacy with the countries the migrants were coming from.

Unlike President Trump, Biden was not going to secure the border. The border would be wide open and illegal aliens would be dispersed across the country. An agreement to keep the migrants in Mexico, Trump’s biggest immigration win, was shredded. The only plan to deal with the huge border surge was addressing the “root causes” of migration. But the only real root cause is that America is richer than Mexico and other countries south of the border.

While the Biden administration got to work making America as poor as possible, Kamala was dispatched to impose Marxist regime change on Latin America in the name of the illegal aliens.

The trip didn’t go well from the start.

Air Force Two took off and then had to come back due to a landing gear problem.

Just like in the primaries, Kamala has always had trouble sticking the landing.

"We all said a little prayer, but we’re good,” Kamala told reporters.

Kamala claims to be a black Baptist, is married to a secular Jewish man, grew up attending Hindu temples, and asked an aunt before an election, "Please pray for me, break coconuts at the temple." It’s hard to imagine what she was praying to. Probably the only one thing she believed in that has come through for her: Willie Brown.

The media told us that Kamala Harris was a member of Amos Brown's leftist Third Baptist Church. That's fine, except that the church is in San Francisco, and Kamala has lived in a Brentwood mansion, and the church is in decline due to the lack of black people in the area.

But if you can believe that Kamala is “the most qualified person” to engage in diplomacy with countries she can’t find on a map and solve their social problems, believing that she’s a devout parishioner of a church 350 miles away should be a breeze for any devout Democrat.

On the second Air Force Two, Kamala finally landed in Guatemala to jeers from an angry mob.

"We are not on the same side of the coin. It is obvious," Guatemala's President Giammattei had earlier told CBS.

After President Trump left office, Giammattei complained that, "The message changed to, 'we are going to reunite families and we are going to reunite children'" and "the very next day the coyotes here were organizing groups of children to take them to the United States."

He urged the Biden administration "to send more of a clear message to prevent more people from leaving."

President Giammattei is a staunch law and order conservative, and if he appeared to be undermining Kamala, it was because she had spent months undermining him.

In May, Kamala met with a number of leftist opponents of Giammattei, including former Attorney General Thelma Aldana, who had targeted conservative politicians with corruption charges, before herself being charged with corruption. Instead of returning home to face those charges, she received political asylum in the United States. Her social media is full of praise for Kamala Harris’ trip to Guatemala, and her promises to end "corruption" in Guatemala.

Behind the mutual charges of corruption is a struggle between the Left and Right, with socialists and narcoterrorists on one side and military officers and free marketers on the other.

Kamala and the Biden administration are choosing to stand with the Left.

That’s not exactly surprising. Neither were the angry protesters that greeted Kamala at the airport waving banners and signs reading "Kamala, Mind Your Own Business", "Kamala, Go Home", "Kamala Trump Won", and “Kamala Stop Funding Criminals".

Those signs might have been confusing to Americans who get their news from the media bubble which left them completely unprepared to understand what was really going on.

Guatemalans saw her as prepping a leftist coup by backing leftist organizations and activists.

And they were fighting back.

Kamala Harris blamed the migrant crisis on "corruption, violence and poverty, the lack of economic opportunity, the lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience, the lack of good governance." Two of those are very obvious code words for regime change.

A few days ago it was announced that Kamala’s trip would be about “anti-corruption” efforts.

Aside from some leftist prosecutors, Guatemalans are not coming here over government corruption. But did anyone really think that Biden wanted to reduce illegal migration?

The Left is adept at killing two birds with one stone.

In this case, it’s using a border crisis to impose leftist regimes on Latin America.

Behind the anti-corruption push is a movie to restart the UN’s International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) backed by Soros activists. Most Guatemalans would prefer to be ruled by their own elected officials, not by the United Nations, Soros, or Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris quickly announced that the DOJ will create an anti-corruption task force that will provide "case-based mentoring to the Guatemalan Public Ministry, including the Special Prosecutor Against Impunity (FECI)" and "a rapid response capability to deploy U.S. prosecutors and law enforcement experts to provide mentorship to develop corruption cases."

This amounts to deploying DOJ assets to help local lefties take down conservative politicians.

That’s why Biden described Kamala as “the most qualified person to do it." Unlike much of the administration, she has a background as a prosecutor. And that’s her real job in Guatemala.

“One essential ingredient of our priorities must be to fight corruption,” Kamala Harris declared, while standing next to President Giammattei . “That has been one of our highest priorities.”

Everyone who’s seen the leaked Hunter Biden material knows how committed Willie Brown’s girlfriend is to fighting corruption. It’s been a while since there was a dirtier administration.

But fighting corruption in Latin America doesn’t have anything to do with corruption. In a thoroughly corrupt system where everyone steals and takes bribes, it means regime change.

Kamala isn’t in Guatemala to stem the flow of illegal aliens, but to impose a leftist regime. And that regime will create the crisis conditions that will lead even more migrants to come here.

It’s a win-win scenario for the Left. And a lose-lose crisis for America.

Republicans need to understand what the Guatemalan protesters jeering Kamala’s visit were telling us. The Biden administration isn’t fighting to stop illegal migration: it’s plotting to make it worse while turning over much of Latin America to Marxist narco-terrorists and Iranian allies.

If Biden and Kamala succeed, then a dozen Venezuelans will rise south of the border. And millions of illegal aliens will cross an unprotected border to overrun the United States.

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, June 13, 2021

Biden’s War on Jerusalem

By On June 13, 2021
A decade ago, Vice President Biden paid a visit to Jerusalem.

Like any trip by an emissary of the Obama administration, it wasn’t a goodwill tour, but a combination of a provocation and a shakedown. While Biden was in Israel, two construction projects received partial approval in a multi-stage process from the City of Jerusalem.

Biden responded by staying up in his hotel room and refusing to come down for an hour.

When he did come down, he hugged Netanyahu and assured him, “Just remember that I am your best f____ friend here.”

Biden’s definition of friendship is the backstabbing kind because after that he and the entire Obama administration began attacking Israel over a decision made by a local urban agency.

"It was not only an insult to Biden, but an insult to the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ranted. Then she spent two hours yelling at Netanyahu over the phone.

“I was often the ‘designated yeller,’” Hillary would later brag about her relationship with Israel.

"There was an affront, it was an insult," David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser falsely claimed.

The media launched a disinformation campaign falsely claiming that Prime Minister Netanyahu had deliberately caused a Jerusalem urban planning committee to reach a decision on housing in two areas that until then no one had even been paying much attention to.

One of those housing projects was going up in the Shimon HaTzadik (Simon the Righteous) neighborhood named after the last true high priest who had dissuaded Alexander the Great from putting up an idol in the Temple.

The Jewish neighborhood had been built in the 19th century. In 1936, Muslim rioters drove out the community while shouting, "Allahu Akbar" and "Ibtach Al Yahood" or "Kill the Jews".

This was the first modern Muslim attempted genocide of the indigenous Jewish population of Israel. A British truck driver recollected a massacre in Tiberias in which "the bodies of children, apparently set alight with gasoline in a nursery, were still smoldering" and "the naked bodies of the women exposed the evidence that the knives had been used in the most ghastly fashion."

In 1947, the Muslims came for the Jews of the neighborhood again and they fought back with the few weapons they had. Then British forces came along and disarmed the Jews to "keep the peace". The Jewish population fled again. Jordan's Arab Legion, under British officers, seized half of Jerusalem, and ethnically cleansed its Jewish population Some of the homes in Shimon HaTzadik (referred to by Muslims as Sheikh Jarrah after one of Saladin's colonizing invaders) were used by the UNRWA to settle Muslims in violation of international law.

The other housing project in Jerusalem in Ramat Shlomo was set to be built on uninhabited land that not even the PLO was claiming as its own.

This was what Biden, Hillary, the Obama administration and the media were howling about.

Obama used fake outrage over Jews living in Jerusalem to engineer the beginning of the Democrat Party’s break with Israel. Biden played a key role in staging an international incident to manufacture a narrative in which Israel was somehow provoking a conflict with Obama.

11 years later, Biden is so short of ideas that he went right back to the same neighborhood.

The Muslim squatters planted by UNRWA in Jewish homes have refused to pay rent to their owners or leave. After two generations of court cases, Israel’s Supreme Court was moving to issue a final decision. The Islamic terrorists of the PLO and Hamas used this as a pretext for a murderous campaign against Israel. And everyone from Biden on down has warned Israel against actually following the law and allowing the Jewish owners to reclaim the property.

Biden funded Iran, backed the terrorists inside Israel, and then warned the Jewish State against “provoking” them by allowing Jews to take part in a parade or allowing courts to follow the law.

On May 10th, well before the fighting began, Biden's people ordered Israel not to evict any of the Muslim squatters and to cancel the annual Jerusalem Day celebrations. Netanyahu tried to appease Biden by rerouting the parade and asked the Supreme Court to postpone a decision.

Despite these efforts at appeasement, the Islamic violence escalated anyway. But that hasn’t stopped the Biden administration and its media allies from blaming Israel anyway.

That’s how this game of diplomatic Catch 22 with Israel always works.

The Supreme Court, which is independent and doesn’t answer to either Biden or Netanyahu, refused to halt the eviction case. That hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from continuing to make illegal demands that another nation’s supreme court should refuse to follow the law.

But Biden is also moving to open a consulate for the ‘Palestinians’ in Jerusalem to counteract the embassy that President Trump moved to Jerusalem. The consulate would violate Israeli sovereignty and would be illegal under United States law. Neither bothers Biden.

There’s also no reason to set up a consulate to the terrorists in Jerusalem except to violate Israeli sovereignty over the city and stake a claim to the Jewish city for Hamas and the PLO.

The Palestinian Authority operates out of Ramallah. The Russians and Chinese have their diplomatic missions in Ramallah. That’s not out of sensitivity to Israel, just common sense.

Biden wants to set up a consulate to the PA miles away from the terror state regime that he wants to have close diplomatic relations with. State Department personnel told the media that during the war they thought they were “flying blind” without a consulate. But a consulate in Jerusalem puts them no closer to Abbas and the Palestinian Authority’s government than the embassy they already have in Jerusalem does. If Biden wants a consulate close to Abbas, he could erect one in Ramallah. Otherwise the consulate could operate out of the embassy.

Secretary of State Blinken claims that Biden wants a consulate in Jerusalem "to be able to more effectively engage not just the Palestinian Authority, but Palestinians from different walks of life, the NGO community, the business community, and others.”

Countries don’t have diplomatic relations with NGOs and businesses, but with countries. France doesn’t operate a consulate to Coca Cola or the Sierra Club.

But if Biden and Blinken want to “engage” the non-profit NGOs that are funded by the State Department, the European Union, George Soros, and other anti-Israel billionaires to wage a campaign against Israel, they can just open a consulate in D.C., Brussels, or the Open Society Foundations in Berlin. And the Muslim “business community” of the 600 Hamas millionaires in Gaza, (falsely depicted as an “open air prison” in the media’s disinformation campaign) would be best engaged by opening a consulate in Gaza City right next to the AP’s offices.

There’s no legal or rational reason for Biden to open a “Palestinian” consulate in Jerusalem.

Biden wants a terrorist consulate in Jerusalem for the same reason that every Democrat White House insisted on keeping the US embassy in Tel Aviv 40 miles from the actual location of the Israeli government in Jerusalem. The State Department didn’t complain it was “flying blind” through multiple wars by refusing to have close access to the Israeli government.

It was more important to make a point by refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The Soviet Union and European media made a point of referring to Tel Aviv as shorthand for Israel’s government the way that we would refer to London as shorthand for the British government which was like insisting that the White House is really in Boston.

Deutsche Welle, Germany’s state-owned broadcaster, falsely captioned a recent photo of Blinken and Netanyahu meeting in Jerusalem as “Blinken met with Netanyahu in Tel-Aviv”.

It’s not just Iran that refers to Israel as “the regime in Tel Aviv”.

That’s the denialist mindset behind Biden’s push to open a terror consulate in Jerusalem. Biden’s people, especially his pro-terrorist point man Hady Amr are, as the State Department often accused Israel of doing, “creating facts on the ground” for the PLO and Hamas.

And no politician has been more hypocritical and dishonest about Jerusalem than Biden.

In 1990, Biden co-sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 which condemned "ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem".

Two decades later, Biden became a key figure in attacking the right of Jews to "live in all parts of Jerusalem".

In 1992, Biden co-sponsored Senate Consecutive Resolution 113 stating that "Jerusalem must remain an undivided city" and in 1995 co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act declaring that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city" and "be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel". All the way back in 1984, Biden was saying, “I happen to support this move”, but “I think it is the wrong fight to make it this time.” And it always went on being the wrong time.

When President Trump called Biden’s bluff by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, Biden conceded that “I wouldn’t reverse it. I wouldn’t have done it in the first place.”

Biden promised to open a consulate to the “Palestinians” in Jerusalem and he’s on it. The proposed consulate has no legitimate government function because it’s not in Ramallah.

The only purpose of the consulate is to undermine President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem.

After years of enthusiastic speeches at AIPAC, Biden offered a sonorous video in 2020 warning of a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza and telling Israel that it needed to stop Jewish "settlements".

Biden threatened Israel that if it didn't keep Jews from living on land claimed by the terrorists, it would "choke off any hope for peace" and undermine support from Democrats.

During his campaign, Biden promised, “I will reopen the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem”.

He’s not reopening it to “engage Palestinians”, but to counter Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. After decades of pretending that he supported recognizing a united Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, Biden is doing everything he can to undermine Israel’s presence in Jerusalem.

In 2013, Biden told AIPAC that he was jealous because Obama "gets to be the one to say ‘This year in Jerusalem'". In 2021, he’s promising, “This year in Jerusalem” to the terrorists.

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.


Blog Archive