Sunday, July 20, 2014

Progressive racialism Part I

In the current international and domestic class warfare nothing is as important as considerations of race since race is the cover for marxist political activism and the Alinskyite weapon of first choice to silence the opposition.
Oppressor oppressed class warfare in the original marxist narrative is now morphed from an economic/class dialectic to a racial/ethnic grievance dialectic one.
Class warfare is defined in terms of race and any question of policy, politics, or science/intellectual inquiry is loaded up with race. I would disagree with Eric Holder that no one talks about race–race is everything, but the discussion and the lexicon, the playing field, and the outcome are all controlled by the left, and the race grievance specialists. Propagandists represent a very well prepared group and they roll the usual opposition from the right with the help of a lap-dog and sympathetic media.
So how did that happen, why has race captured the culture as the dominant consideration? Zombie explains how race and racialism has become the important driving force but also how we may be mistaken about motivations of the left. He believes that invidious racism underlies much of the leftist core belief system.
The race card argument is always on the mind of the media and politicians, but this is about something more insidious and game changing. Zombie thinks that the left is even more racist and xenophobic than we can imagine. I believe he is right.
Zombie has outlined the underlying racialist/racist motives of progressives on some of their pet political policy projects. The list goes from gun control, food nannyism, climate, welfare, affirmative action, trash, and abortion to statism.
Each entry follows the same format as described in the into by Zombie:
BOLD: Name of topic.
In yellow: A neutral description of the exact proposal which progressives champion.
In red: The progressives’ stated justification or explanation behind their position, which hides their real purpose.
In red: The inaccurate theory which conservatives mistakenly assume must be the actual progressive motivation.
In green: The true racist reason underlying the progressive policy.
Plain text: Additional notes on the origins of the progressives’ racist attitude and how it led to this specific policy proposal.
If you want to just skim the essay and only read the highlights, then simply look for the green sections and skip the rest. Otherwise, read the whole thing to get a clear step-by-step explanation of the actual racist motivations driving each progressive position.
Progressive position:
Restrict access to guns as much as possible; ultimately ban and confiscate them all.
False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
Gun violence is a scourge on society; easy access to killing machines unnecessarily facilitates murder and crime.
Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives want to disarm the populace to prevent armed resistance to the eventual imposition of a leftist totalitarian police state.
The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White urban liberals are deathly afraid of black gangbangers with guns, but are ashamed to admit this publicly, so to mask their racist fears they try to ban guns for everyone, as a way of warding off the perception that their real goal is to target blacks specifically.
The basic dividing line in American politics is not (as it once was ) North vs. South, nor is it (as many people now assume) Coasts vs. Flyover Country, but rather Urban vs. Rural:
The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either — virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it’s about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy — or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants. …The only major cities that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election were Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City.
Or put more simply: In modern America, liberals live in cities; conservatives live in rural areas. And what else is concentrated in cities? African-Americans, and gun violence:
The 62 center cities of America’s 50 largest metro areas account for 15 percent of the population but 39 percent of gun-related murders.
Putting all these statistics together, we see that large cities have high concentrations of white liberals alongside gun-using black criminals. And yet it is specifically in Democrat-voting big cities where most of the gun-control measures are proposed. Why is that? Are the white progressive urban dwellers afraid of rootin’-tootin’ cowboys? Of backwoods deer hunters? Of hillbillies with shotguns? No: the average white progressive has never even met a cowboy, a hunter or a hillbilly. And frankly, progressives couldn’t care less if rednecks own guns, because progressives aren’t physically afraid of rednecks on a daily basis. Instead, they are afraid of gun violence at the hands of their fellow city-dwellers, the urban African-Americans who commit a wildly disproportionate percentage of the gun crimes in America.
Progressives don’t want to ban guns to disarm resistance to any upcoming police state; that idea has never even occurred to them. Instead, progressives want to ban guns because progressives are afraid of black people.
But God forbid that progressives’ racist motivations be exposed publicly. So to make the gun-control bans appear even-handed and race-neutral, progressives must try to ban guns for everyone, even though the bans are in reality aimed at one specific group. Rural gun-users are just collateral damage of a policy that actually targets inner-city blacks.
Progressive position:
Impose punitive taxes on all sugary or unhealthy junk food to discourage its consumption; also implement a variety of regulations targeting fast-food chains and producers.
False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
To improve the overall health of the general public, we should economically pressure people to have a better diet by artificially inflating the price of any food which is bad for them.
Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives are control-freaks who derive pleasure from micro-managing everyone’s lifestyle; they particularly delight in banishing the exact kinds of food normally enjoyed by “average Americans,” just out of spite.
The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
Progressives believe that black people are too dumb to make healthy food choices.
The white liberal elites who propose and vote for junk food taxes (and other food-related regulations) are not the kind of people who even eat junk food; instead, they paternalistically and presumptively try to dictate what other people should and should not eat. Embedded in this attitude is the unspoken assumption that the people doing the dictating (the liberal elites) are smarter than the consumers who unwittingly choose to eat unhealthy food. And who are those consumers? Disproportionally it is African-Americans, as we are frequently reminded by a steady stream of academic studies, articles in magazines and political rants all coming out of the progressive camp. The entire implicit message of this liberal “food politics” movement can be summed up as: Black people are too stupid to make wise nutrition decisions, too childish to resist enticing packaging and ads, and too illiterate to read labels. We white progressives must therefore intervene and in the role of loving parents help blacks learn to like broccoli nummy num num good for you!
Progressive position:
Institute a variety of penalties, taxes and incentives all designed to discourage production and use of carbon-derived energy by industrialized nations.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
This is not a political position: it’s simply a scientific fact that if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels then the resulting greenhouse gases will render the planet uninhabitable.
Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
This so-called “crisis” is just the latest in a long series of fabricated environmental pseudo-crises not based on fact but on an irrational Luddite loathing of civilization; your wildly exaggerated hysteria about “global warming” is merely a mechanism to manipulate and control the citizenry and cripple the economy.The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
The civilizational “white guilt” motivating the voluntary wealth transfer to undeveloped nations derives from deep racist assumptions about the innate shortcomings of backward peoples.
Viewed globally, the real long-term consequence of all the “climate change”-related policy proposals is to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the First World developed nations to the Third World underdeveloped nations, while simultaneously crippling the ability of the developed world to maintain its economic dominance.
What could motivate this seemingly suicidal economic policy by First-World progressives? In a word: Guilt. Specifically, “white guilt” by Europeans (and those descended from Europeans) for having unfairly exploited backward regions and non-white peoples over the last few centuries to establish white economic hegemony over the rest of the world.
This rationale is openly discussed at the annual United Nations Climate Change Conferences, where representatives of Third World nations demand payback and reparations for colonialist exploitation, and where the descendants of those colonialists grovel in abject apology for the wrongdoings of their ancestors.
But deeply embedded in those apologies and guilt is a racism that far surpasses even the naive racism of yesteryear.
If you enter into competition with a rival you deem approximately equal in skill to yourself, and then you win fair and square, then it would never occur to you to apologize for winning nor would you feel guilty about it — because it was a fair fight. On the other hand, if you compete against and then easily defeat an opponent whose very nature you believe makes them inescapably inferior to you — for example, getting in a fistfight with a small child — then afterwards you might very well feel guilty and apologize for taking advantage of a lesser opponent who had no chance against you due to their inherent inadequacy.
So when a modern progressive apologizes for his ancestors’ past colonialist dominance, he is really saying: “I’m so sorry that we smart organized aggressive white people took advantage of you lesser peoples whose inherent cultural and intellectual shortcomings made you incapable of fending us off: it wasn’t a fair fight, and I apologize.”
In other words: Apologizing is an unconscious backhanded way of declaring your innate superiority.
If these modern progressives felt that their ancestors had achieved global dominance by defeating rivals of equal stature, then there’d be nothing to feel guilty about, and thus no need to pay reparations and hence no need to devise the “climate change” crisis and attendant suicidal economic policies.
Maybe these insights have merit? Gut reaction from me is that they would still like to use race as a rhetorical tactic to get the upper hand, and they have going way back to marxist infiltration and the march into the institutions of the west and particularly America in the 30s. There’s a reason why the marxists were active in civil rights that had nothing to do with their concern about civil rights–it’s a winner in the debate contest about how evil white people and capitalists are, how evil free market capitalism is, how important the state can be in achieving JUSTICE.
Always remember the march of the statists is to the beat of JUSTICE through state authority.

No comments:

Post a Comment