The Extreme Racsim of CRT and the Left

 Proverbs 24

30 I walked by the field of a lazy person,

the vineyard of one with no common sense.

31 I saw that it was overgrown with nettles.

It was covered with weeds,

and its walls were broken down.

32 Then, as I looked and thought about it,

I learned this lesson:

33 A little extra sleep, a little more slumber,

a little folding of the hands to rest—

34 then poverty will pounce on you like a bandit;

scarcity will attack you like an armed robber.

 

If one is to take CRT  (Critical Race Theory), as it is being taught in K-12, the question needs to be asked, what do the positive social behaviors of western culture with the accusations of“white-supremacy"; examples are showing up on time, the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) “worship of the written word,” “individualism” and “objectivity” "competence". "merit", "integration", equality,  and even "diversity". CRT is a race obsessive belief system, that started in US Law Schools, but quickly expanded into the humanities and is now being forced in public schools (K-12) that teaches racial hatred and  tribalism, where one's identity or tribe defines them, resulting in white supremacy and racial; one could actually say that CRT creates a white supremacy worldview where it did even exist before. And this is not even necessarily of social construct, but a result of your birth, or a birth right so to speak.   It also teaches that western culture has rigged society from it's inception in a way to keep the white race in power and  oppress minorities, specifically blacks. The idea that one can be born an oppressor is the same argument Hitler made about the Jews, so you have CRT and groups like antifa and BLM, embracing the most chilling aspect of NAZI fascism.

Much of this is warmed over Marxism Critical Theory where economic inequality, is replaced with racial oppressor vs the oppressed; in essence it's about giving up individual freedoms in the name of the security and fairness rabbit hole; IOW everyone be economically reduced to the lost common denominator with equal oppression. What has been added is the racism that has always been endemic in leftist intellectualism, specifically against blacks.. The fact is the left views blacks as inferior, so any argument of  equality of opportunity is moot in the mind of the left Intelligentsia. What is the point of a level playing field if one the of the teams is so inferior that are simply incapable of winning, regardless of any advantage or lack there of. If one looks at the history of western culture, there has always been a emphases on intelligence, aka cognitive ability. But if you are of the belief that blacks lack the cognitive ability of other races, than one could say, as does the left, that the deck is always been stacked against blacks even when equality of opportunity exists. BTW, I say blacks because the left has concentrated on the black race for the majority of their rhetoric (eg BLM) and it is the black race that is the primary victim of Democrat and left wing racism.

In many ways CRT is simply a hyper version of what has been called the soft racism from the left (BTW there is no such thing as soft racism, it is just as hard core racist as southern Democrat slavery). For years, Democrats in the US have insisted that blacks simply can not compete against whites, with or without a level playing field, hence affirmative action and black studies,  programs designed to circumvent the lack of preparedness for higher education, much of which is due the poor education and the lack of socialization of blacks in Democrat run cities. These government run ghettos, where gang warfare, rampant drug use, poverty,  and a lack of family structure, has lead to a lack of education and a predisposition towards the lack of personal responsibility, based on ones victim-hood. For decades blacks have been told they are not to blame for their anti-social behavior, yet their anti-social behavior is the primary barrier that stops blacks from becoming part of mainstream America and economic prosperity. This is true, even though the leadership demographics of these run these cities, are almost always a large black majority, yet the social justice warriors of CRT blames the oppression of  blacks is the result of them having been excluded from positions responsibility and power. This history of the destruction of the black family and culture due to the lefts belief in black inferiority was well documented by Lawrence Soloman   Systemic Racism Exists

So what does CRT offer? The answer is chilling; social disintegration and racial hatred in the name of fairness. The end game is of course Communism; make western culture the scapegoat of the fact that life lacks fairness, lie about the fact that blacks are excluded from power and decision making and offer up totalitarian forced equality (aka equity) as the answer. In other words fairness at all costs, even if it destroys the free world and makes everyone hate each other to do it. But even worse, by creating the myth that one can be born racist solely on ones identity,  CRT  teaches children how to be racists, instilling in them something akin to racial hatred in the name of indoctrination toward a political belief system that has always been based on lies. "They knew what they were doing was a lie. I knew what they were doing was a lie. Everybody here knows what they were doing is a lie. They know that we know they’re lying and yet they continue to lie and they lied and they lied and they lied." If the 20th century taught us anything it is the end result of totalitarian utopia is worse than death, it is living hell

More about the false narrative about the"Southern Strategy"

A while ago I wrote an essay regarding the  The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Recently I had an occasion to revisit the subject.

There is a difference between a platform and a worldview. Millions of people do not just decided one day that they will forsake a premise of their life long value system against racism, and decide they want to be racists to get more votes. It is more than intellectually dishonest to propose such a thing, it is ludicrous. As has been seen over and over, people with solid moral compass, attempt to maintain their course (and even if they fail they still no what is right and what is wrong); it is those with abhorrent and selfish values, that believe people are inferior to them, that often times seem the light and change their moral compass. Further the whole idea of the Southern Strategy is Republicans took over the Democrat oppression of blacks, something there is no evidence of. In fact during the 1960s Republicans took control of Presidential elections no state and local elections. So regardless of who Southern racists voted for President, the Democrats would stay fully in charge of the state and local government for decades.

The whole Southern Strategy revisionist history was nothing more than identity politics, pushed by the likes of the extreme left wing by people such as Paul Krugman (Krugman says the Dixiecrats became Republicans, but fails to mention the Dixiecarts Party was founded and dissolved in 1948. So somehow the ex- Dixiecrats waited some 16 years to become Republicans. The truth is all the Dixiecrats fell back into the Democrat party and only 3 ex-Dixiecrats actually switched sides in the 1960s and became Republicans. The point is numerous historians and political scientists have written exposés on the false narrative of the flip/ flop Southern Strategy.

"Political scientist Nelson W. Polsby argued that economic development was more central than racial desegregation in the evolution of the postwar South in Congress.[104] In The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South, the British political scientist Byron E. Shafer and the Canadian Richard Johnston developed Polsby's argument in greater depth. Using roll call analysis of voting patterns in the House of Representatives, they found that issues of desegregation and race were less important than issues of economics and social class when it came to the transformation of partisanship in the South.[105] This view is backed by Glenn Feldman who notes that the early narratives on the southern realignment focused on the idea of appealing to racism. This argument was first and thus took hold as the accepted narrative. He notes, however, that Lassiter's dissenting view on this subject, a view that the realignment was a "suburban strategy" rather than a "southern strategy", was just one of the first of a rapidly growing list of scholars who see the civil rights "white backlash" as a secondary or minor factor. Authors such as Tim Boyd, George Lewis, Michael Bowen, and John W. White follow the lead of Lassiter, Shafer and Johnston in viewing suburban voters and their self interests as the primary reason for the realignment. He does not discount race as part of the motivation of these suburban voters who were fleeing urban crime and school busing.[10] " wikipedia

 "If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. History Lesson: Racist Democrats and the Big Lie

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

The Myth of the Southern Strategy (2)

The "Southern Strategy" Myth

Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

"Their Democratic Party home during America’s most horrible years of racism and bigotry – murder and; mayhem – hatred and terrorism – intolerance and exclusion. But let’s take a look at how many Dixiecrat segregationists became Republicans after 1964. Only these three (3) switched parties, how surprising!

Gov. Mills E. Godwin, Jr. D-VA
Sen. Jesse Helms, Jr. D-NC
Sen. Strom Thurmond D-SC"

Did the Democrats and GOP “Switch Sides” after the Civil Rights Act in 1964?

I'ts Time for Democrats to Come Clean on Their Racsim

Democrats want the country to forget is they are the cause of all the civil unrest in the country. The Blackman's psyche was all but destroyed during the more than 100 years of slavery by the Democrats, and the result of that damage continues through today. Under the Democrats Blacks were bought as slaves; oppressed, beaten, raped, work to death and even murdered with impunity, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this.The usual Democrat response when confronted with this, is it's just history and has no bearing on today; really? Why don't you ask the Black-man if  being enslaved 150 years ago still matters.

After a bloody civil war the Northern armies, lead by the Republicans, finally defeated the Democrats, but the Democrats were not willing to end the oppression of the Black man. During times of reconstruction, the Democrats created new rules to oppress Black. Jim Crow laws (enforced by the KKK) were meant to put Blacks in their "place," resulting in voter suppression and discrimination in all areas of the society, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. The Democrats were also the craftsman of segregation, pushing oppression under the auspices separate but equal; and again yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. This is the stain on the soul of the Democrats; and in some bizzaro world, Democrats seek to demonize conservatives. There is nothing that conservatives have ever done that even comes close to the inhumanity from the Democrats during the years of Slavery and Jim Crow and Segregation. And even now, Blacks have again been segregated in high crime cities run by Democrats.

After years and years the Democrats keep assuring they're the only ones that care about the Black-man, but their station in life continued to deteriorate. There was a hope that the first Black President would finally get them off the merry-go-round of poverty, broken families, high crime and unemployment, that Blacks have endured under the care of the Democrats. But no. Under Obama the Black-man's poverty rate increased along with unemployment; even as the economy started to recover and jobs vacancies started to open up, instead of foster employment for the Black community, Obama is bringing in 100,000s of immigrants, ignoring that these immigrants will take the very jobs that blacks need. Liberals may say subjectively that Republicans are racists because of their speeches and policies, but we know Democrats are racists because we have history and the consequences of their stewardship of the Black-man. And even if Democrats have turned over a new leaf, it does not alleviate them from the responsibility of what they have done; they can not transfer blame to the Republicans and/or try to re-write history to absolve themselves.

There is a fairy tale the Democrats like to tell. They say the southern Dixiecrats joined the Republican party, and that led to the Republicans becoming the racist party that they are. Really!  You have the Republicans with 100 year head start on civil rights, against the Democrats with a 100 year record of slavery and racism. Then in the 60's the Republicans after a 100 years of civil rights promotion, decided to become the most racist political party, in order to capture the southern racists vote. Simultaneously, the Democrats with their 100 year record of racism, decided to become the party of civil rights. What an incredible story! Unfortunately the timeline just doesn't add up. You see the Dixiecrats, ie the States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. They formed in 1948 to try and remove the Truman's name from the ballot in the south and replace it with their own. While this resulted in the Dixiecrats winning Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, but to everyone's surprise Truman won regardless. The Dixicrats were dissolved and it's members filtered back into the still very still very racist Democrat party of the South. Now jump seven years, and the Democrats say that the Dixiecarts became the racist Republican party. The other issue, besides the Dixicrats having dissolved their party 7 years earlier, is that while the Southern states did begin to vote for Republican presidential candidates, it would be several decades before the Southern Democrat's hold on the state houses would be wrested away by the Republicans, and the South was finally free of Democrat racism.    

It's no wonder that Blacks are angry and lashing out at the representatives of the status quo; the police. But it is the Democrats that control the status quo in these cities, but instead of taking responsibility, they demonize the police who are only doing what they are ordered to do by the Democrats! The Democrats will never be able to undo the damage they have done to the Black-man; there is no "re-start"  with this. Today the Democrats keep ripping of the scab of racism and blaming it on the Republicans, who really have nothing to do with it. And the Black-man will never raise up out of their current station in life, until the Democrats start treating the Black-man as equals instead of a voting block.

The Biggest Lie of 2014; "Hands up, Don't shoot";

In 2013 the biggest lie of the year was, "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it." The biggest lie in 2014 has got to be, "Hands up, don't shoot." From the very beginning the Ferguson narrative that a seasoned veteran police officer murdered a unarmed suspect that was surrendering simply didn't pass the smell test. This narrative was first perpetrated by several questionable witnesses and soon after the autopsy results put  "Hands up, don't shoot" in a very questionable light; predictably however the main street media ran with the story and police Officer Darren Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department became ground zero for police violence against blacks. This also attracted the likes of  race-baiter  Al Sharpton, who continues to monetarily profit by stoking the fires of racism and black vicitimism. Well the DOJ report is in and it categorically refutes the  "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative, placing Michael Brown as instigator and controller of his own destiny. The left then adds insult to injury by claiming blacks have a right to the false narrative because of the discrimination they have experienced at the hands of the police; that it is the fault of the police that the false narrative was embraced. It would seem that the police internal affairs have enough trouble trying to investigating what might be real claims of police misconduct, then have to defend themselves from imaginary police conduct.

 "According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway," the inquiry states, "Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground...There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson's stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety,'' the report concludes. DOJ Ferguson Inquiry; Another interesting point is the majority of honest witnesses that testified to the truth had been constantly threatened to lie and maintain the falsehood of the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative. Ferguson Grand Jury Witnesses often Cited Fear in Testifying.  But this is certainly no surprise to anyone. The left, in league with the main street media has made an art form out of fabricating narratives and stoking the fires of racial unrest. Who can forget the New York Times describing George Zimmerman a white Hispanic, in order to make the Trayvon Martin shooting a black/white issue; and NBC alters a 911 audio tape to make it sound like George Zimmerman was a racists. It's no great secret that a large percentage of American blacks have been relegated to live in isolated black identified neighborhoods that offer more violence, weaker schools and fewer jobs than  whites of the same economic class; and this is where black cognitive dissidence  comes in. Democrats have continually given blacks nothing more then lip service, keeping them marginalized by maintaining their victim mentality and taking for granted the black voting block while they turn their attention to Unions and court liberal rich political donors.

The big lie from the left is how the police discriminate against blacks and due to institutional racism the black man can not succeed in America today. While racism has not disappeared, the police still go where the crimes are being committed and socioeconomic reality of blacks is they commit more crimes than whites. It is not racism that holds the black community down, it is the result of the systematic destruction of the black family and the left passing off black crime as acceptable civil disobedience (not to mention the misogyny of gangster rap) . Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. It's much easier to blame the cops than to face the reality that progressive social engineering with the black community has been a disaster.

 If you’re going to correctly compare the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t just compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police...Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger  Dangerous Distortions of Cops Shooting Blacks. Instead the left continues to forward the "Hands up, don't shoot" fallacy; that young unarmed black men are being routinely murdered by the police, when the fact is it's a very rare occurrence; in a country of 300 million people, one might be surprised to learn that the number of (ruled) justifiable killings by police (which is the vast majority) is usually less than 400. So, considering the social and racial damage done,  the attempted coercion of witnesses to lie and the fact that the powers that be knew it was a false narrative, "Hands up, don't shoot" is certainly the leading candidate for the biggest lie of 2014.

Deconstructing the Trayvon Martin Murder Trial and Aftermath Part 2; the Blogosphere

Update #1 I submitted a much condensed letter of this piece to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, which they published. Here is the letter and the blog exchange that followed.

"So in your book, whoever brings a gun to a fist fight wins." "You are being absurdly simplistic to make such a blanket statement."

Zimmerman had right to self-defense 

In a letter to the editor, Liz Camarie proclaimed the lesson learned from Trayvon Martin's death is no one should be allowed to carry guns? Really? The next tactic of the anti-gun zealots appears to be an attack on the right of self-defense; Peter Klotz implied that self-defense is always racially biased murder and can never be justified. There is a saying that "God created man; Sam Colt made them equal." But the Liz Camaries and Peter Klotzes of the world would prefer the weak fall victim to the brutish. Zimmerman shot Martin because Martin was on top of him, banging his head against the sidewalk. While the prosecution tried to minimize the injuries, one or two more slams of Zimmerman's head against the concrete could have resulted in his death; by shooting Martin, Zimmerman probably saved his own life, but apparently to some, there are lives more valuable than others. Brad Goodwin, Live Oak

Mitch Alsip · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

Brad - So in your book, whoever brings a gun to a fist fight wins. 

 Brad Goodwin · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

You are being absurdly simplistic to make such a blanket statement.The issue was Zimmerman did nothing to provoke Martin other than follow him and call the police. Zimmerman had followed numerous other suspicious suspects of different races yet none resulted in a violent altercation until Martin decided to jump the "crazy ass cracker." At some point when you're being beaten down you have the right to protect yourself. Zimmerman was on his back with Martin on top of him so he could not run away. Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head against the cement; I've had this done to me and it invokes a certain level of panic; in criminal case slamming someones head against the cement is a felony and considered "Assault with a Deadly Weapon". Every incident needs to be taken on it's own merits; certainly people are beaten to death all the time. When an assault raises to the level of a felony and life threatening, the victim has the right to deadly force to protect himself; even if the victim is a White Hispanic and the aggressor is a 17 year old black teenager.

 geepierces (signed in using yahoo)

Brad Goodwin - I wasn't there, were you? How can you say, "Zimmerman did nothing to provoke Martin other than to follow him and call the police" ? We have no IDEA what transpired prior to the alleged events.

Roy McAlister · Top Commenter · Luthier at Self Employedgeepierces, "We have no IDEA what transpired prior to the alleged events" We know there is zero evidence to support your theory that Zimmerman did anything illegal to provoke assault & battery. All evidence and witness accounts indicate neither of these guys broke any laws...until Trayvon committed battery on George. Tell me what non-physical, legal act justifies that level of assault?

 Brad Goodwin · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California
geepierces, to say we have no idea what happened is wrong. First we know for a fact that prior to this incident Zimmerman reported numerous suspicious suspects and called the police on them. We also know that during all those reportings, he never contacted or harassed any of them. Zimmerman's defense presented the narrative I presented and called witnesses to show what evidence there was was consistent with Zimmerman's statements after the fact. The prosecution tried to poke holes in the narrative and failed and Zimmerman was acquitted. It makes no sense to suggest another narrative simply because this one is not politically correct and has also not withstood scrutiny in a court of law. In other words, this is the only narrative we have that has withstood scrutiny to use to determine if there was a violation of the law; regardless it is also this narrative the race baiting media and Al Sharpton's claim is the result of racism.

Several days later the Sentential printed a response letter

  NRA's stamp on gun that killed Trayvon Martin

A 190-pound man with a gun tackles and kills a 140-pound kid with candy he just bought at the store. All of America is a witness to this crime and can do nothing. Because the kid was black the KKK will laugh until their hearts are content. The kid holding that sign in the newspaper saying "Am I next?" knows what's going on. The NRA has their stamp on that gun.

Clay Collins, Soquel

  "You and the media also seems to have missed that in early 2011 Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty "disgusting" and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments."

 

Again you have the liberal left exaggerating and fabricating reality. First Trayvon Martin was not an 12 year old kid coming back from the candy store (the Skittles and Coke notwithstanding), we has a 17 year old, almost a man who liked to wear wife beater T shirts, flip off his computer cam, smoke marijuana and party with his girlfriend. These are certainly no reason to demonize or kill Martin, but it does show his level of sophistication. Further as mentioned, Zimmerman's height/weight was 507/ 185 lbs; Martins was 6'/ 160lbs. You and the media also seems to have missed that in early 2011 Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty "disgusting" and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments.Wikipedia. There is also the fact that the KKK was a southern Democrat organization that appeared during reformation; this of course was after a bloody civil war fought almost exclusively because the Democrats were against freeing their slaves. There were also Jim Crow laws and voter intimidation that Southern Democrats so often compare to requiring ID to vote, but were also the result of Southern Democrats racism and southern segregation. And lets not forget the 3/5ths rule that forced the North to count Southern slaves as if they were voting free men. What America has been witness to is Democrat demonization, race baiting and fabrication of the facts to create racial distrust and polarization. The poor kid holding the sign will be just one more victim of the likes of Al Sharpton and liberal Democrats that feed and are empowered by spreading the lie of the hopelessness black victimism and black separatism. Are their racial crimes in America? Of course, but just like the boy who cried wolf, if the Al Sharptons and liberal Democrats interject race into every multi-race incident, the real civil rights crimes become buried under a pile of non-related incidents were information has been fabricated, participants demonized, and races separated. Good job Mr Collins, good job

  "There is also the fact that the KKK was a southern Democrat organization that appeared during reformation; this of course was after a bloody civil war fought almost exclusively because the Democrats were against freeing their slaves. There were also Jim Crow laws and voter intimidation that Southern Democrats so often compare to requiring ID to vote, but were also the result of Southern Democrats racism and southern segregation. And lets not forget the 3/5ths rule that forced the North to count Southern slaves as if they were voting free men".

Matt Blechar · Top Commenter

Clay Collins, nothing like throwing out the race card when racism doesn't exist in Martins case. The main fact about this case was that Trayvon was beating Zimmermans head against the concrete endangering his life, Zimmerman acted to save his life with a gun which he had every right to BY LAW. Can we expose and really look at Trayvon for who he was at the time? He was a criminal thug, that used drugs, got kicked out of his parents house, got kicked out of his High School because he got caught with stolen jewelry HE STOLE. Wake up, he wasn't this innocent KID you and all the other race baiters claim he was.

 Will Sharp · Top Commenter

Matt you know only one side of the story because the other person is dead. But only an idiot (or a foxpublican) would think that if the kid had shot zimmerman that he wouldn't have been arrested. And we know that zimmerman decided to get out of his vehicle and confront Trayvon against what he was told by dispatch. Bottom line zimmerman got away with murder because their was a lack of evidence according to the jurors who have spoken out.
And of course since your source is conservative media your unaware that your boy zimmerman was charged with at least 3 assault cases prior to him killing an unarmed 17 y/o.
One of the assault charges was "resisting a police officer with violence". Now what do you think is worse a 16 y/o who got busted with a small amount of pot or an adult with 3 charges of assault? Here's my source for you and other nra dumb@$$es
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite

 RealityCheck SantaCruz · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

Will Sharp - At least get the facts straight from your own source. 3 charges are not '3 cases'. And there weren't even three charges. There were two (from the same incident) which were dropped. In the other case, there were no charges, only mutual restraining orders. Then you ignore Martin's priors (dropped, or never brought.)
In the end, both acted stupidly, but only Martin acted criminally, and it was his bad luck that the guy he assaulted was armed.

Brad Goodwin · Top Commenter · Santa Cruz, California

Will Sharp, again you misstating Zimmerman's crimes. #1 he was never arrested or charged with domestic violence; the two simply filed mutual restraining orders and there absolutely nothing that would indicate he committed a crime, since any evidence of Domestic Violence requires a mandatory arrest. #2 the two so-called felony charges and your three cases, were all the result of one incident and one push, where an underage and intoxicated Zimmerman, of a police officer; one push and the charges were later dropped. As you have also said only one person really knows what happened, yet you are content with fabricate your own scenarios to match your world view. Given the fact, which was entered into evidence and not contested by the prosecution, that Zimmerman had called on and followed numerous suspicious persons, yet never harassed or confronted any of them. Zimmerman said he exited his car because he has lost sight of Zimmerman and wanted to see where he went, not to confront him. While this may seem a self serving statement, it is consistent with his past behavior. Your whole attitude is typical liberal fabrication of facts and demonization of anyone or anything that runs counter to their separatist and polarizing world view.

Rascism from Marxism; the New Struggle

This is the most unabashedly one sided article I have ever written; for which I am unapologetic. The reason is to present a contrast to the black victimization and Marxists theology that has permeated our society for the last 30 years. Progressives and most black activists have done whatever they can to stifle any meaningful dialog on race in order to maintain this theology. The narrative is all whites are racists and only whites can be racists. This self serving contention preaches that racism can only exists if the racist has some avenue of control over the victim of the racism. This has been used to excuse a tremendous amount of black racism. The obvious hypocrisy and double standard of this belief not only ceases any dialog on race, but has resulted in the quasi-Christian Black Liberation theology, that espouses a Marxist and race based dogma called collective salvation.

There can be little doubt that the current Progressive left, an outgrowth of the Progressive movement of the early 1900’s, is a product of Marxism. The premise they embraced was government by “intellect” or the Intelligentsia. When Marx wrote his manifesto, he was not preaching a theory or purposing a way of government. Marxism was considered one of the highest forms of scientific enlightenment and was not viewed as revolutionary but inevitable evolution. What truly excited the educated left was the idea that the control of the world would be taken from the rich industrialist factory owners and given to them. This has been the reason why such a failed socio-economic theory as Marxism has maintained such legs. Marxism foresaw a time not to far in the future where the workers would unite and overtake their oppressors. Of course the workers could never be allowed to make their own decisions about their lives, so necessarily the Intelligentsia would need to go beyond just taking the place of the previous owners of production. The Intelligentsia would extend their control of the hopelessly uneducated workers through a process of re-education; a re-education that would destroy individualism and replace it with a state worshiping collective. Again you see over and over, a Progressive class seeing themselves intellectually superior to both the factory owners and workers, believing it is their destiny to take control and assume power over both. It is the tyrannical belief that the world is in need of a totalitarian ruling class and due to their intellectual superiority, science had destined that they will rule. Question this destiny and one is met with the condescension, typical of all Marxist when one suggests a cause for the worker's struggle other than capitalism.

As the Second World War came to a close, the fledgling pre-Great Depression middle class exploded, dashing the hopes of the Progressives quickly attaining power. The only weapon they had left, which was class warfare tended to ebb and flow without any real coalescing results. The Progressives continued their domination of the Democratic Party, with the possible exception of John Kennedy. In the 56 years from President Eisenhower 1953 to Bush 43 ending 2008, Democratic Presidents accounted for only 20 of those years. During those years the Democrats had two one-term presidents, Johnson and Carter and a case can be made that the only truly successful presidency was that of Bill Clinton (and it appears the Democrats are well on their way to another failed one-term Presidency with Presidency with Obama). It is also common knowledge that Bill Clinton’s progressive policies were so despised that it resulted in the biggest reversal of party majorities in congress during a single mid-term election cycle. Termed the Republican Revolution, the Democrat’s lost 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate, gaining the majority in both the House and Senate. These losses caused Clinton to drop the majority of his progressive agenda and move decided to the right; so far to the right that Republicans complained he was co-opting the Republican platform.

One reason was Marxism has never able to get a foothold in the United States is the individualism that is built in to our founder’s documents. With Marxism espousing collectivism and end of individual liberty, even during the Great Depression, American workers preferred to ride it out in misery rather the relinquish their freedom to a questionable theory of promise of security. By the end of the 1960’s Progressives had started to change their argument from one of class warfare to one of race. This concept emerged as the dominant Progressive mantra and tactic by the end of the turbulent 1960’s. During this time America woke up to the institutional racism that was oppressing blacks in the country resulting in the paradigm shift Martin Luther King Jr had faith would occur; racism did not disappear, but to the vast majority that were not racists, they realized a portion of King’s dream, by acknowledging racism we they saw it and voicing their disapproval. Further America also came into its own as they protested in increasingly large numbers against an increasingly unpopular war. Also during this time the young college Progressives tore off their outward trappings showed them selves as the Marxist radicals they are. Misinterpreting the anti-war sentiment as a call for revolution, they violently tore at the America values offering nothing but serfdom to another form of their self described tyranny. With the end of the Vietnam War also came the end of the failed Marxist revolution in America, which was really nothing more than a Progressives fleeting fantasy.

What did emerge, as I previously stated was a new rhetoric of racial economic disparity. Louis Loflin (an original but edgy thinker in the vein of Camille Paglia) describes Marxism, as a pseudo-religion applying race are their new dogma and here describes the Progressives’ new race narrative, “Paul Baran is the author of The Political Economy of Growth (Monthly Review Press, 1957). For the first time in Marxist literature, Baran propounded a causal connection between the prosperity of the advanced capitalist countries (white for the most part) and the impoverishment of the Third World. (non-white) Prior to Baran, no Marxist had ever suspected that capitalism was the cause of the poverty or poverty based on race. (Or in the case of America, it went along racial lines.) So they went from class to race.” How Marxism Became Racism The real irony of course is the history of both Marxists and the Democratic party has always been on the wrong side of history when it comes to race. During the civil war it was the Democrats that fought to retain slavery, after the war they instituted the Jim Crow laws and fought long and hard to maintain segregation, and later you have Woodrow Wilson re-segregating the army, setting civil rights back 50 years . Even Lyndon Johnson, so praised by the Progressive left for passing the civil rights legislation in the 1964, was the Democratic senate leader who crushed a similar bill in 1957. Further the 1964 bill had to overcome a block of 18 Southern Democrats and a 14-hour filibuster by Robert Byrd (D). As far as Marx went, his pro-white rhetoric and a strong belief in Eugenics is legendary and considered by some the epitome of racism. As with everything else, Marx's racism was accepted by the Progressive Intelligentsia as having it’s basis in science and not bigotry; almost by definition to be a Marxist is to be a racist. As a result the Progressives have tried to re-write history to try and hide their atrocious legacy of bigotry and racism.

Interestingly, it was not until the Obama Presidency that racism was brought out of its socio-economic shell, and used to discourage opposition to the Presidents Progressive policies. Prior to that, more specifically starting with the Reagan Administration, it presented itself by condemning tax cuts for the rich. Regardless of the fact that economic stimulus are far more effective when given to the upper 2% that control most of the wealth in this country, tax cuts to the rich has continually been vilified by Progressives, often caricaturized as rich white CEOs sitting on an continually growing stack of money. The absurdity of this narrative is the fact that the rich do not view money as a means to consumption like the majority of Americans, but a means to an end; money is to be re-invested to make more money. During the Clinton Presidency this rhetoric waned and then reappeared with the Bush 43 Presidency and his tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

When President Obama came into office, the Progressive were finally able to extend their racism narrative into all aspects of Progressive policy. Although there has never been a time in American history where Marxist philosophy, re-distribution of wealth and re-education has been discussed in such positive terms by a standing President or Administration, the Progressive narrative remained the same; all opposition to the policies of our first black president is the result of racism. There was never an acknowledgement of the disingenuousness of the President and the chasm that developed between what he promised and eventually delivered. Instead, the Progressives, showed their long suppressed distain for the American people and their (as George Soros coined) "excessive individualism.” But once again the Progressive overreached with their continued race baiting, resulting in an extremely disillusioned populace. What was touted as hope and change has resulted in a war of pejoratives by the intelligentsia and progressive media against the American people. The Progressives had hoped they could use the America’s sensitivity to race to silence dissention to their agenda. What they discovered however is the American people where much more comfortable in their skin then the Progressives thought. The American people have already had the race dialog outside the Progressive purview and have deemed themselves not racists, so they were not about let the Intelligentsia, who by all accounts are barely able to suppressed their own racism, define the narrative.

Think Your Racist? Think Again

Are you a racist? Odds are if you are asked such a question, especially if you are white, you will admit to a certain amount of racism; and you would probably be wrong. The reason is the issue of racism has been re-defined to allow progressives to continue to forward their agenda. This definition started in the 60’s with the civil rights movement. The progressives at the time did a very good job of subverting the idealism of the civil rights movement for their own agenda. One has to only look to Martin Luther King Jr, who, rather than declaring America a racists nation, he had faith in the opposite, that Americans would stand up against racism and only needed to be motivated by bringing the issue to the forefront. When Martin Luther King demonstrated for social justice, he was demonstrating for an even playing field, not re-distribution of wealth. Lost to most in this subversion, was the racist anti-black agenda of the progressives that harkened back to Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger. While the Eugenics movement may be gone, there was still the likes of Robert Byrd and other Southern Democrats who fought tooth and nail to stall the elimination of segregation. In redefining racism, we were told that racism exists any time one looks negatively upon a person of color. Added to this was an exception for racist blacks that one could not be a racist if the racism does not negatively affect the disparaged race. This of course is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. The sole purpose for this redefinition is to make it racists to disagree with the redistribution of wealth. This racial institution reached it’s pinnacle as progressive now play the race card anytime someone disagrees with President Obama’s repeated redistributive policies. Those that would use race for their political posturing are the true moral inferiors. Eric Holder attempted to take the progressive moral high ground with his statement, "In things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways essentially, a nation of cowards." This would have been an obvious farce, had his hypocrisy not become such a conundrum to those that have bought so seriously into their own rhetoric.

So what does the redefining of racism look like? Well, lets start with a reasonable and historically accurate definition of racism. Racism is simply the hatred of a race or culture, based solely on that race or culture. Defining racism in this way, most would say they are not racists. But the progressives would not be empowered with such a definition, so they their rhetoric was re-directed away from the Jim Crow of Southern Democrats, and toward a more receptive audience of whites concerned they were engaged in defaco- racism as the result of institutional barriers against blacks. But rather than educate and work to eradicate these barriers, progressives latched onto the scheme of redefining tribalism as racism; tribalism being the the aspect of human nature that makes one feel safer with those that are similar in appearance. A typical progressive attitude would ask if you would feel safer sharing the street with a white or black. If someone said they would feel safer with someone of either race, the progressive would pronounce you a racist. What really separates the racist from tribalism is hatred. "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. Robert Byrd, 1944; see the difference?

Yet the progressive would tell you that prejudice, or to pre-judge a situation based on the race of a person is racists. I have actually heard air headed college students say that if you are walking through a tough neighborhood and you see a group of Hispanics or Blacks in what might be suspected as gang attire, loitering on a street corner, it is racist to pre-judge them as dangerous; that until they have proved themselves as undesirables, you should accept them as friendly. If you buy into this than you are already dead and not reading this; or you may consider yourself a racist; alive, but a racist. It is stupidity with a purpose; redefining a million years of tribal instinct, as racism. Still there is more. For if the only purpose of redefining racism was to bring to light the need to judge not by tribalism but by character, than the end might justify the means. But the end is much more diabolical, for the ends of progressivism is also enslavement. Best summed up by President Obama’s Information (or truth) Czar, Cass Sunstein. “As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that ‘people’ as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to ‘nudge’ them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as 'education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness'". Cass Sunstein; Obama's Truth Czar

So, if a sense of self-preservation tells you to be careful during questionable circumstances, you’re not a racists. To be color blind does not mean you do not notice or acknowledge a person's race or culture. It means you do not judge the content of persons character based on race or culture. If you hate blacks, because of the color of their skin, you are a racists. If one of the first things you notice about a new acquaintance is their race or skin color, but that quickly fades to the content of their character, than race or skin color are really not an issue for you. If you meet someone new and you want to kill them because you learn they are Jewish, then you are a racist. If you are suspicious of the tattoos on the arms of your new Hispanic neighbor and later rejoice for him and his family that he has reformed his life, then you understand redemption. If you view the world as black or white, nig#er or cracker then you are a racist and a fool (as are all racists). Are there shades of gray? Of course. But they are overshadowed by our “exceptualism;” the very reason progressives latched on to racism is due to the depth of Americas sensitively to it; if the truth be known, most have reached the point that Toni Morrison described where "race exists, but it doesn't matter". It is past the time when we let others define our view of each other and race. In a time of supposed post racism in this country, we have a black president who seems to see everything through a prism of racial divide and a liberal press that has conspired to divide this country equating racism to any political debate. If someone asks you if you are a racists and you don’t hate because of race then the answer is no. If someone plays the race card and falsely calls you a racist, tell them they’re wrong. That you know you are not a racist; you don't need to prove anything, because it’s not their call; it is yours.


Print Page