The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Democrats and the War on ‘Whiteness’

Posted on | March 13, 2021 | Comments Off on Democrats and the War on ‘Whiteness’

Berea College in Kentucky has scheduled an event about “Trumpism and white citizenship as forms of white terrorism enacted against the majority of people living within the borders of the U.S. and beyond.” When this event drew national attention, the college defended the event as a “dialogue . . . essential to understanding racism and moving toward an anti-racist society.” As I explained last fall (“Are Americans Tired of Being Called ‘Racist’ Yet?”), this crusade against whiteness is driven primarily by politics — it’s about electing Democrats, pure and simple.

All this rage about “white supremacy,” “white nationalism,” “white privilege,” “white terrorism.” etc., has erupted for the same reason feminism was all the rage circa 2014-2016. We haven’t heard very much about heteropatriarchy the past couple of years, and why? Because feminism was being promoted in an attempt to help elect Hillary Clinton. When that failed, the activist Left and the Democratic Party brain trust had to figure out what went wrong. After a couple of years of examining exit polls and focus groups — while the “Russian collusion” hoax filled the media space — Democrats returned with the idea that “energizing” black voters by accusing Republicans of racism was their ticket to power.

To debunk this, it is simply necessary to point that, however “racist” Republicans are in 2021, they are certainly no more racist than they were in 2011, 2001, 1991, 1981 or 1971. That is to say, Republicans are no more in league with the “far right” now than they ever were. What has changed in American politics is not the Republican Party’s position on racial issues (or any other issues), but rather the fact that Democrats have shifted the focus of their propaganda campaign.

The problem with promoting anti-white rhetoric as a means to political power is that some people will actually take this seriously. Consider, for example, the case of Georgetown University Law School adjunct professor Sandra Sellers, who got fired for saying this on a Zoom:

“And you know what, I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks. Happens almost every semester. … And it’s like, ‘Oh, come on.’ You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy.”

Sellers is, I presume, a sincere liberal and the sentiments she expressed were not unsympathetic to her black students. She spoke of the “angst” she felt about the situation. John McWhorter examines this at great length and concludes that what Sellers was referencing was an effect of affirmative action “diversity” quotas at elite schools like Georgetown. In an effort to have a certain percentage of black representation in admissions, these schools are admitting black students whose abilities are disproportionately clustered toward the bottom of the range.

This is an effect of bad policy, which Sellers was discussing with a colleague via Zoom, in what she believed to be a private conversation. No one has demonstrated that Sellers said this because of malicious prejudice. But she might as well have called them “f***ing n****rs” (to quote an Oklahoma basketball announcer) as far as the cancel-culture mob is concerned. She’s fired just the same, you see.

Georgetown refuses to release data on student performance — this is a closely guarded secret, because the facts do not conform to the radical egalitarian worldview that justifies “diversity” quotas. Because elite institutions are concealing the truth about these academic disparities, the beneficiaries of these quotas become disgruntled and even radicalized, lashing out in anger at the “racist” system they blame for their problems.

This brings us to the case of Trinity College professor Johnny Williams. Three years ago, after a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on Republican congressmen, Williams sparked a firestorm by saying “let them f***ing die” because they are white. Williams was not fire for saying that, and now he’s written an op-ed column attacking “whiteness”:

[C]ontrary to my critics’ beliefs that whiteness is merely an identity — race and whiteness materialize as systemic white racism terroristic actions and practices with very real, tangible, and lethal effects.
Whiteness often goes unnoticed by self-identified whites in ways that divert them from considering their complicity in the daily white terrorism — wars, police and military occupations, poor housing, health, and education — directed at racially oppressed groups. …
Whiteness by its very definition and operation as a key element of white supremacy kills; it is mental and physical terrorism. To end the white terrorism that is directed at racially oppressed people here and in other nations, it is essential that self-identified whites and their whiteness collaborators among the racially oppressed confront their white problem head-on, unencumbered by racial comfort.

The cost to attend Trinity College is $73,920, including room and board.

Why would any white parent pay that kind of money to have their child subjected to such hatred? Fools and their money are soon parted.

We may assume that the parents who send their kids to these elite schools are Democrats, and therefore think it’s worth the price to have their children indoctrinated in the party ideology.



Comments are closed.