Sunday, August 18, 2019

"Racism" is the New "Russia"

Friends, today I bring you an article that artfully demonstrates what you and I have long known: that the agenda of the mainstream media is to defeat President Trump.  For three years they seemed to believe that Russia-gate would be the sword with which they would slay the dragon of Trumpism.  Those false hopes have evaporated, so it's only natural that the Left would go back to the deepest well they have: racism!  If you can't beat Trump with allegations of corruption, or sexual harassment/assault, or collusion, or obstruction of justice, well, why not just call him a racist, oh, a thousand times a day until the American people believe it?  It's not a subtle plan, but, by sheer repetition, the liberals and the Democrats might just get their wish.  Time will tell.  Anyway, read on, and never underestimate how utterly deluded the Left has become on the issue of race -- to the point that they believe their own vicious propaganda about conservatives, Republicans, and white people.  As Trump would say, SAD!  Just sad.

In other news, Britain is continuing its descent into PC madness by implementing its ban on advertisements containing "harmful gender stereotypes".  I hate to see fair Albion degraded by such nonsense, but it's a sign of the times, and in many ways the Europeans are afflicted with a worse case of political correctness than we Americans are -- and that's saying something!


  1. Dr. Waddy: I consider anything that MSNBC says to be completely discredited because they employ Al Sharpton. That speaks for itself.

    I'm starting to see cartoons and commentary expressing some misgivings about the relentless misuse of the term racism. It is assumed by those who casually wield it to be self evident, unassailable and guaranteed to bring condemnation to the accused. But gradually, as virtually everyone is effected one way or another by this outrage, doubt about its credibility becomes very widespread. It is clearly expressed by those who advance the concepts of "white privilege" and "microaggression" that the entire white race is at fault and in its entirety deserves to be called "racist". That is bound to be resented by those who know they wish minorities well, many of whom proved that in the privacy of the voting booth in 2008 and 2012.

    People who accuse others of "racism", are obligated to define it and most of them think they do not have to do that. If they do offer a definition it may be only one of the myriad of meanings this term has assumed and it may well point right back to them. If they can define it creditably they must then be ready to point out the specifics of how it applies to the accused in an objective manner. Again, most of them aren't up to it; most of them fall back on emotion, which quickly consumes them.

    Frankly more and more people are catching on to this seeing of the reckless use of the term "racism" as condemning the accuser, not the accused. There are responsible ways to address racial injustice in discourse which assumes courtesy, if not necessarily respect, for the views of others and does not presume to work an automatic advantage for the accuser. As more and more are wronged by the misuse of the term "racism" the closer it will be to esconcement in the atavistic historical lexicon of such terms as "Know Nothing"and "Separate but Equal".

  2. That's an interesting perspective, Jack, and undoubtedly true, to a point. Among conservatives I have little doubt that the term "racism/racist" has acquired a hollowness that renders it generally ineffective, and perhaps even counterproductive. The question is whether this is true of most Americans. That is hard to say. Polls indicate that a majority of voters believe President Trump is a racist. That can't be good. Huge numbers of voters are also quite comfortable assuming racism in many of our most important institutions, including, naturally, the police. The opposition to Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration is largely founded on the view that it is "racist" and "anti-immigrant". So I agree that charges of racism are over-used and may be losing credibility, but I still think they have saliency and power. The collusion fantasy did considerable damage to President Trump, drip by drip. "Racism" could do -- already has done -- great harm as well. Many voters simply won't give Trump the time of day because he's a "racist". They might otherwise be persuadable.

    1. I agree Dr. Waddy; the voters are quite comfortable with the term racism, I also agree that the term itself is being overplayed. However, with that said, I think that word has a lot of power. I wonder how much staying power that word will have in the coming months? I wonder if the dems are overplaying their hand? I wonder if there are many more folks like us who see it for what it is worth?

      Great points Jack. no sense in me repeating, grin.

  3. Dr. Waddy: re - the regretable advance of PC in the "Sceptered Isle" the fount of our liberty and prosperity: Isn't funny how the left excoriates we who dare to question the absolute truth of "human generated global warming"(some of them seek to make its expression a criminal offense) but who are committed to expunging, by force of law, soon even criminal law, any doubt as to the absolute and unquestionable congruence of being a man and being a woman.

    Recently adopted British law expresses concern about images "likely to cause serious or widespread offense" but all but explicitly limits this to offense to liberals and leftists; offense to anyone among the benighted opposition is clearly held dismissable.

  4. Dr. Waddy: Now, they enacted a ban on an ad which they say depicted the inability of males to care for children, on grounds not of its incredibility but of its "suggestion that such a stereotype is inclusive". Therein, they disingenuously fall back on the common sense view that where stereotypes are wrong is in their assertion that they define ALL members of a given group.Very slick that!. They purpose distraction from their antiintellectual and, in power, totalitarian presumption that all stereotypes of groups they exalt (eg. blacks, women, gays) are BY DEFINITION inclusive. And that justifies in their mind consummate suppression of ANY criticism,on any grounds, especially those deemed to be stereotyping, of any member of those groups. Their goal is, in step with this totalitarian anthem, to crush any opposition to their unassailable wisdom. AHHH, where have we seen this kind of insane fanaticism before? The murderous 20th century perhaps?

  5. D. Waddy: The question you raise is of fundamental importance; does a decisive portion of the electorate consider President Trump a "racist" (whatever the hell that means after fifty years of leftist misuse). Will that cause them to vote against him?

    First, some may see his "racism" not as a comprehensive condemnation of minorities but rather as an understandable reaction to what they see as an overindulgence in the "rights" of certain groups, to the undeserved disadvantage of condemned groups, in form, if not necessarily in intention (eg. Affirmative Action, which demonstrably discriminates against whites and males). Such groups may well favor other approaches to justice to populations historically oppressed, should they present consequences provable other than by emotion and intimidation. But the left,in its ineluctable determination to have its way, sniffs at that.

    And so the die is cast. This will be fought out on the political and, we must hope not, actual battlefield. It appears that mutual trust and agreement may be ruled out by leftist intransigence.

  6. Linda, good question: how many times you can cry "Wolf!", or "Fire!" in a crowded theater for that matter, and still be taken seriously? There's no question that the sting of a charge of racism is less than it used to be, but as you say it still hurts. President Trump needs to work very hard to ensure that, when he IS accused of racism (which is inevitable), the charge won't be automatically credible because of his gaffes. He needs to tow the line in some respects and mouth his enthusiasm for "diversity". Reaching out to people of color won't hurt either, and it might even produce major political dividends.

    Jack, it's so true that the Left's embrace of "science" and "facts" is selective. They surely don't want to hear about the biological basis for gender and sex.

    Naturally the British advertising standards folks don't want to crush all stereotypes -- that would be a fool's errand -- just the "harmful" ones. What could go wrong, right? Egad!

    Jack, you've put your finger on the key questions: do most voters consider Trump a "racist," and what do they think a racist is? If they think a racist is someone obsessed with race and hostile to certain racial groups, then logically they should reject the Democratic Party as racist. Logic, though, I fear, is only part of this conversation.