Beliefnet
At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

The world stopped as everyone and their mother in Big Media (of both the “liberal” and “conservative” varieties) pounced upon Roseanne Barr last week for a sophomoric tweet in which she identified Valerie Jarrett, former senior adviser to Barack Obama, as the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and The Planet of the Apes.

Because Jarrett is partially black (this was news to some of us), Roseanne’s critics pulverized her for her “racist” and “hateful” tweet, exiling her from Respectable Society, while ABC cancelled her show.  The usual suspects on the left seized upon Roseanne’s tweet as proof that the rise of Donald Trump has “normalized” racism.

As evidenced by, most recently, its treatment of Roseanne’s tweet, the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC) is tireless in its efforts to fortify the matrix that it has spent decades constructing.  It is a parallel universe to the one that most of us inhabit, a mirror image, a false reality.

In RIC’s matrix, every white person, however troubled or disadvantaged, reaps the immeasurable benefits of what it calls “White Privilege.” At the same time, every black person, however materially, professionally, and socially advantaged, suffers daily the bitter stings of “White Racism.”

Blacks are perpetual victims while whites, even the most well-intentioned, are racist oppressors.

The racial reality, though, is dramatically otherwise.  Because of its sheer ugliness—it is often horrifying—many prefer to hide their eyes from it.  Yet it is also fear of coming under fire by RIC operators that self-styled “anti-racists” would prefer to condemn a 60s-something year-old white woman who everyone else is condemning than address real instances of racial hatred.

And this is because racial violence in 21st century America is perpetrated overwhelmingly by the members of the one group that RIC extols above all others: blacks generally, black males specifically.

Of the roughly 560, 600 violent crimes involving blacks and whites, blacks are victimizers at least 85% of the time. Whites, in contrast, victimize blacks but 3.6% of the time.

Of the 256,000 or so crimes of violence involving blacks and Hispanics, blacks are perpetrators nearly 83% of the time. Blacks, however, comprise less than 5% of the victims of Hispanic criminals.

Numbers aside, countless instances of underreported black-on-non-black violence put the lie to RIC’s matrix.

For example, few Americans are familiar with the names of Reagan Tokes and Brian Golsby.  Tokes was a psychology major at Ohio State University who was just a couple of months shy of receiving her bachelor’s degree when, on the evening of February 8, 2017, she encountered Golsby. According to Ron O’Brien, the Prosecutor of Franklin County in Ohio, Tokes was made to endure “a night of terror.”

Golsby, a convicted sex-offender, was canvassing the north area of Columbus searching for prey when he saw Tokes leaving the bar/restaurant at which she worked.  Golsby abducted Tokes and forced her to drive to an ATM machine.

Along the way, he raped her.

After he had finished raping and robbing Tokes, Golsby shot her twice in the head.

After murdering her, the criminal drove around in the victim’s car before he made attempts to destroy it.

The national media have not covered this incident at all and local Ohio media fail to expressly mention one salient fact:

The robber-carjacker-rapist-murderer with a record for sex offenses is a black man—and his unsuspecting victim was a young white woman.

One suspects that had the racial roles in this case been reversed everyone in America and beyond would be intimately familiar with its details.

To add insult to injury, Golsby initially lied about not having sexually assaulted Tokes, even going so far as to have possibly invented someone on whom he blamed the rape.  Moreover, he was wearing a GPS ankle monitor the night that he ended Tokes’ young life because he had just been released from prison a few months earlier!

Just last month, Jeremy and Paola Goldberg, 35 year-old restaurant owners from New Jersey, decided to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary with a night in New York City.  They just left a Broadway theater when “a crazed man,” as the New York Post put it, spat on Paola immediately before pummeling her husband, hospitalizing him.

The “crazed man,” 40 year-old Derrek Boyce, is black.  His victims are white.

With 31 prior arrests for crimes ranging from theft, robbery, assault, harassment, and criminal possession of a controlled substance, Boyce already had an extensive criminal record.  As recently as November of last year, Boyce was arrested in East Harlem for repeatedly punching a 28 year-old man while attempting to rob him of his phone and wallet.

In May, a woman and mother was attacked and beaten by a group of “teens” while walking in her own neighborhood in Las Vegas.  These are the same “60” or so “teens” who continue “terrorizing” residents despite the efforts on the part of the latter to reach out to their parents and notify police officers.  Yet the mayhem continues.

The teens are all black.  Those who they victimize are all white.  Yet the little coverage that this situation has received conveniently neglects to mention its obvious racial dimensions.

Or have you ever heard of Frederick D. Scott?  Scott, a 22 year-old Burger King employee who resides in Kansas City, Missouri, was arrested last August.  Scott, who is black, is charged with murdering six middle-aged “hikers and dog walkers,” as the Washington Post describes his victims.

And to this publication’s great credit, it also notes another germane detail: The murder victims—five men and one woman—were white.

According to the Post:

For a year, the walking and biking trails snaking through south Kansas City, Mo., were plagued with bloodshed.

Beginning in August 2016 and continuing deep into the next year, the bodies of hikers and dog walkers were found dead along the city’s Indian Creek trail or on nearby roadways. They were all shot. They were all middle-aged. They were all white.

Previously, Scott at one point had threatened to shoot up his high school and “kill all white people.”

Despite knowing all of this, police “have not publicly addressed a possible motive for the killings, racial or otherwise.”

Had this serial murderer been white and his victims black and had he been on record for having once expressed a desire to kill all black people, there isn’t an individual in the country, much less amongst the authorities investigating the murders, who would hesitate to declare him a “racist” and “supremacist.”

That things are otherwise in the real world, given that the predator is black and his victims white, is to be expected given the omnipresence and omnipotence of the Racism-Industrial-Complex.

 

 

 

How times have changed.

Love him or hate him, everyone and anyone who is genuinely interested in achieving “transparency” owes President Donald J. Trump an eternal debt of gratitude, for had it not been for his meteoric political rise, it would still be possible for some to doubt the existence and profound corruption of the Government-Academic-Media-Entertainment complex (GAME).

Courtesy of President Trump, this phenomenon is now axiomatic.

In the Age of Trump, those who not long ago labored inexhaustibly to convince their respective constituencies that they were mortal ideological enemies have pulled back the curtain on this act so as to fulfill their sole objective:

Stopping the Great Disruptor, Donald J. Trump.

For example, Max Boot has long been recognized by friend and foe alike as the quintessential neoconservative, a tenacious military interventionist whose support for George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”—and every American military engagement for which this has served as the pretext—has been uncompromising.  Yet Boot, doubtless because he is an outspoken Never Trumper, now appears in the pages of the unapologetically anti-Trump Washington Post.

And in his most recent editorial, Boot accuses Trump of “normalizing racism.”

In December of 2017, in an essay published by Foreign Policy, Boot claimed that for years he had been “a smart-alecky conservative who scoffed at ‘political correctness,’” but “the Trump era has opened my eyes” on the reality of “white privilege.”

Boot represents the GOP-Neoconservative Media Axis—what I call “Big Conservatism,” or “the Big Con”—insofar as he is a self-styled conservative who spares no occasion to ingratiate himself to recognizable leftists by renouncing Trump and his supporters as “racist.” George W. Bush, John McCain, Megan McCain, talk radio host Michael Medved, Mitt Romney, the writers at National Review, and a whole lot of other self-described conservative (neoconservative) politicians and commentators have seized every available opportunity to do the same.

For reasons that I’ve listed repeatedly, I am usually the last person to hurl the “R-word” at others.  The main reason that I refrain from doing so is that the term, perhaps from overuse, has become all but meaningless.  However, if a white “racist” is not someone who habitually endorses actions that lead to the destruction of millions of non-white men, women, and children, then there is no white racism.

The point, though, is that Max Boot and every one of his Never Trumping neoconservative fellow travelers have repeatedly appropriated their substantial resources for the express purpose of waging war.

Almost without exception, these wars have been waged against Third World peoples of color.

Although Boot and his comrades labor inexhaustibly to convince The New York Times and The Washington Post of their unmitigated contempt for the “bigotry” and “racism” of those to their right, it is the latter who have no moral alternative but to unequivocally condemn the racially and religiously charged imperialism of neoconservatives like Boot.

Boot claims to have belatedly arrived at the revelation that he has “white privilege.” Whether this is an expression of sincerity or but another attempt on Boot’s part to posture for the left is anyone’s guess. At any rate, that the hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, orphaned, and displaced brown and Islamic peoples whose fate was sealed by the very wars for which he was the loudest of cheerleaders didn’t suffice to awake Boot from the dogmatic slumbers of his ethnocentric ideology, makes it all but a foregone conclusion that Boot remains a champion of the same neo-imperialism that he’s always favored.

Max Boot is the proverbial textbook illustration of the Big Con in another critical respect:

He is morally unserious.

The Boots of the world compete with one another over who can come up with the greatest number of adjectives in condemning the allegedly “racist” remarks of a public figure on whom the left has set its sights.  Yet they continue to advocate on behalf of literally homicidal policies, of actions, that result in seas of blood for legions of non-white men, women, and children.

If “racism” and “Islamophobia” have any meaning at all, then surely Max Boot and his fellow neoconservatives, given that their imperialist ideology is almost invariably directed toward Muslims and people of color, are guilty of these moral transgressions in spades.

Back in January, Joy Reid, of MSNBC, accused National Review writer David French of arguing that nuclear war was worth risking because “it will only kill Democrats and minorities.” Reid is a disreputable person whose intellectual dishonesty renders her unfit to be a public figure. She radically misread French.  That being said, given that French is an Iraq War veteran, and since he does indeed write for a publication that not only vigorously advocated for this war that by now virtually everyone recognizes for the catastrophe that it is but which, to this day, refuses to apologize for its part in promoting it, can it be any surprise that some would interpret French as viewing the loss of non-white lives as a price worth paying for a war that he and his neoconservative colleagues regard as “just?”

When National Review writer Kevin Williamson was hired by left-leaning The Atlantic, the leftist rag Mother Jones blasted Williamson and NR for their “race problem.”  To make the point, Kevin Drum alluded to a 2014 piece of Williamson’s in which the latter, in an ostensible critique of the Democratic governor of Illinois, superfluously offered a depiction of black underclass existence that featured an anti-white black kid using ghetto-slang, a kid who Williamson said made “the universal gesture of primate territorial challenge.”

By the lights of this Mother Jones commentator, Williamson’s “primate” reference in his description of the conduct of a black youth convicts him and, by implication, his editors at NR of having a “race problem.”

Mother Jones, but one more clog in the vast machinery that is the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC), has zero credibility on questions regarding race and “racism.”  However, given NR’s extensive track record of advancing preemptive invasions of foreign lands, the Third World countries of peoples of color who, most recently, tend to be overwhelmingly Muslim, it is not surprising that Williamson and his benefactors are susceptible to charges of racism (and Islamophobia).

So as to avoid any misunderstandings, it should be noted in no uncertain terms that the neocons’ leftist critics are disingenuous.  That they are concerned only with defeating those Republicans who happen to be in power at the moment should be obvious from two facts:

First, leftist Democrats have favored the very same imperialist war-mongering for which neocon Republicans are known.  Barack Obama, for instance, launched over 100,000 drone attacks on seven (Third World, non-white countries) over an eight year period. No other American president has launched war in that many places over that long a period of time.

Second, for decades, leftists spent all of their time demonizing George W. Bush, John McCain, and every other Republican national figure for their imperialism and racism (and everything else).  Now, though, and through the prism of Donald Trump, leftists like Bill Maher claim to have discovered “a new found respect” for those who they once reduced to the status of devils or things.

The bottom line is this: No one, least of all those libertarians and traditionalist conservatives who, at considerable cost to their own livelihoods and reputations, have long resisted the unnecessary and unjustified destruction of the lands of people of color, should be subjected to lectures on racism by Max Boot, National Review, and like neoconservatives.

Relative to neoconservatives, the hands of those on the old right are as pure as the driven snow.  Moreover, the old right has defined itself to a significant extent by its efforts to spare the lives of countless numbers of non-white, often non-Christian, men, women, and children who neoconservatives threatened with their militarist, imperialist policies.

No, neither Max Boot nor any of his ideological ilk have an ounce of moral capital with which to pontificate on matters of race, religion, and “racism.”

 

Roseanne, one of the most popular series of all time and the most highly rated show at the present moment, has been unceremoniously cancelled by ABC because of a single tweet—a “racist” tweet, according to everyone in Big Media, including and tellingly Big Conservative media—fired off by its leading lady.

Roseanne Barr tweeted on Tuesday that Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to Barack Obama, looked like the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and The Planet of the Apes.

Jarrett, as it turns out (and this was news to some of us) has some African ancestry. Thus, Barr’s ape reference in connection with Jarrett has been ruled by Respectable Society as an act of—what else?—racism!

Not only is this an act of racism, it is an unequivocal act of racism. It’s racist-“hate!”

Those in Big Conservative media are busy complaining (as usual) about “the double standards” of their leftist counterparts.  Yet they have been just as tenacious in condemning Barr for her “racist” tweet as the latter.

Some thoughts:

First, there is a vast, omnipresent industry in this country that few people are willing to recognize for what it is: the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC).  The agents and profiteers of RIC absolutely need to further the perception that what they call “racism” is an incorrigible, “systemic,” “structural,” or “institutional” feature of daily American life.  The term “racism,” though spoken of as if it had a unitary, self-evident meaning, is used in wildly disparate contexts: From Nazis to the Klan to Paula Deen and, now, Roseanne Barr, apparently, a racist is a racist is a racist.

Obviously, however, a term that’s been made this elastic has been divested of meaning. A definition is in order.  But this is exactly the point:

The Titans of RIC—activists, academics, Diversity consultants, politicians, and a whole lot of other folks—cannot permit closer inspection of “racism.”  The term must remain chameleonic. Its value derives precisely from its abstract character, its readiness to be enlisted in the service of the cause of the day.

We cannot approach this controversy within which Barr has embroiled herself without understanding it in the light of RIC, an industry more immense than any other and from which untold numbers of people regularly reap benefits of every conceivable sort.

Second, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Barr’s tweet was not obviously racially-charged, let alone “racist.”

For starters, she remarked on Wednesday that she didn’t even know that Jarrett was black.  This is eminently credible, for neither did I know that Jarret is (partially) black.  In any event, it’s far from clear that she is of any African ancestry. This being said, if it’s not “racist” to liken Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump to monkeys, since they are not black, then shouldn’t it follow that neither is the same kind of remark aimed at a person who is believed to be non-black “racist?”

Furthermore, let’s suppose that Barr knew that Jarrett was black.  So what?  Unlike “nigger,” which has a history explicitly, uniquely peculiar to blacks, derogatory monkey references to humans have no such history.  It could’ve easily been the case that Barr likened to an ape, not a black woman, but a woman who happened to be black.

In calling Jarrett, who in no clear way possesses any Afro-centric features, the offspring of apes Barr could’ve intended to call attention to what she took to be Jarrett’s unattractiveness, or maybe her incompetence or idiocy. That is, she could’ve been motivated by the same sorts of considerations that animate the critics of Reagan, Bush, Trump, and other whites to mock them through ape analogies.

Third, the readiness with which the elites of Respectable Society, in one voice, convicted Barr of the worst of offenses of which a white person can be convicted in today’s world, requires either an inability or an unwillingness to think through this issue all of the two minutes that it takes.  Doubtless, many talkers and scribblers are not especially bright.  Others, though, are driven first and foremost by their aching desire to be accepted by the Politically Correct Master Class, that Respectable Society of which they consider themselves members.

Fourth, the speed with which Roseanne Barr, of all people, is being reduced to persona non grata over this one incident is a revealing commentary on the times.  She is among the most famous living people, a female Jewish Democrat who infamously grabbed her crotch during the playing of the national anthem decades ago. She is no conservative and but a qualified Trump-supporter whose new show is hardly the reactionary statement that her right-leaning admirers have made it out to be.

And everyone knows it.

To prove that they are not simply trying to ingratiate themselves to the agents of RIC, that they aren’t virtue-signaling, all of those who are now trying to distance themselves from Barr should forego every penny that she ever made them.  Those at ABC, as well as her fellow cast members and those who worked behind the scenes for her show, should pledge to return every penny of the blood money that they earned courtesy of this frothing-at-the-mouth Racist!

For the record, I’ve never been a fan of Roseanne Barr, and I’ve never been among Roseanne’s viewers.  But the truth is the truth, and the truth is that the Racism-Industrial-Complex is a juggernaut that never sleeps.

Roseanne is just the latest one of its prey.  

David Cole is an internet writer whose most recent piece, “In Grudging Praise of White Racists,” provides much food for thought.

Cole’s thesis is actually quite simple: While he personally has no use for “right-wing white racism,” he thinks that we may need to allow it a public space for no other reason but to let the “white nationalists, white supremacists, and sieg heilers” to function as a check of sorts on the “leftist Nazism” that is very rapidly becoming mainstream.  Only if the latter is permitted to clash with the former will the majority of Americans recognize both expressions of “extremism” for the ugly specimens that they are.

The general thrust of the author’s thinking deserves sympathy: His point is gotten easily enough.  Still, his analysis breaks down at several points.

First, Cole’s position reflects the extent to which “leftist Nazism” has gained control of the minds of even its self-styled opponents, folks like Cole.  Kendrick Lamar, to whose treatment of a young white woman at one of his concerts Cole presents as an exhibit of “left-wing racism,” doubtless acted like a classless jerk.  The conduct of those leftist commentators who lionized him for castigating and humiliating this white fan for publically singing along with Lamar the racially-charged lyrics of one his pieces after he had invited her on stage to do so are no less classless and contemptible.

Still, they most definitely do not deserve to be lumped in with Hitler’s Nazis.  Nevertheless, it’s not difficult to discern why Cole is given to hurl charges of “Nazism” at his opponents.  Though historically and morally indefensible, politically speaking this reduction of one’s opponents to the status of Nazis has proven to be an especially viable strategy.

The problem for the Coles of the world is that it has proven to be a successful approach only for those on the hard left, i.e. those on whom Cole (rightly) sets his sights on his piece.

And this brings us to the next problem with Cole’s assessment:

In every conceivable respect—socially, culturally, economically, politically, and even psychically—there is no parity between the two varieties of “racism” to which he alludes.  The left’s “Nazism” long ago went mainstream.  In fact, such has been the fortunes of the left that not only is it culturally and politically acceptable to demonize white people; it is respectable to do so.

In 1967, Susan Sontag referred to white people as “the cancer” of the human race.  Admittedly, rarely do we hear public figures using language quite this explicit in their campaign to demoralize and dehumanize the white majority.  Yet the campaign remains in full force and the sentiment that powers it is one and the same as that expressed by Sontag over a half-of-a-century ago.

To put this point another way, Cole’s argument, like that of virtually every person on the right who insists upon turning leftists’ weapons of choice against them, utterly fails to accommodate one not-so-tiny detail.

It’s called the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC).

This is among the largest, quite possibly the largest of industries in America.  It is rapidly becoming among the largest industries throughout the Western world.  There is no aspect of American life into which it hasn’t spread its many tentacles.  Indeed, it is omnipresent.

Politicians, Democrat, Republican, and in between, make sure to grease the wheels of RIC, whether they’re espousing nonsense about the country’s having been founded upon a “proposition” of Equality; praising a cardboard cut-out of Martin Luther King, Jr., a politically-useful fiction that they’ve invented by isolating a few lines from King’s “I Have a Dream” speech; focusing only on the problems of illegal immigration while pretending that legal immigration is problem-free; supporting or refraining from criticizing race-based preferential  treatment policies for blacks; and ignoring the astronomical rates and often horrific nature of black-on-white criminality while speaking of blacks as victims, either of “racism” (if the speaker is a Democrat) or the Welfare-State (if one is a Republican).

Of course, given that trillions of dollars have been spent on the War on Poverty since the 1960s, a war launched principally on the basis of rectifying centuries of discrimination against American blacks, this too is a central feature of RIC, one to which anyone who aspires to be successful in politics knows that he must defer.

RIC has completely saturated our educational system, from kindergarten through college.  Public institutions are obviously most directly affected, but neither have private schools escaped its gravitational pull.

Christian churches have been infiltrated by RIC.

The media, both the standard “mainstream” or “legacy” media as well as its “right-wing” alternative, what some refer to as “Conservatism Inc.” and what I call “Big Conservatism” (or the Big Con), facilitate RIC.

And, obviously, throughout the arts, the entertainment industry, RIC is on full display.

As I write this, ABC cancelled the highest rated prime time series, Roseanne, because its leading lady tweeted that former Obama adviser, Valerie Jarrett, looks like the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and The Planet of the Apes. Although Roseanne has insisted that she didn’t know Jarrett was black (and who would know this just by looking at Jarrett?), and although she apologized, her tweet has been unequivocally condemned by Big Media, “liberal” and “conservative” alike, as unadulterated “racist hate.”

The Racism-Industrial-Complex never rests.

Cole’s generally sound goal notwithstanding, what he apparently doesn’t grasp is that insofar as he insists upon accusing those to his right and left of being Nazis and racists, he reinforces the very juggernaut whose influence he wants to diminish.  The idea that “racism” is the worst of all transgressions, coupled with the notion that right-wing “white supremacists” pose a culturally-significant threat—ideas that Cole seems to endorse—are leftist fantasies.  They are the fuel for the engine of the Racism-Industrial-Complex.

Cole does, however, seem to be on sturdier ground when he suggests that we would be better off divesting Political Correctness of its sting by assuming a more nonchalant attitude toward it.

Yet we will also stand a better chance of starving the beast by refraining from making some version or other of the argument ad Hitlerium at every available opportunity.