MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘systemic racism’

The COVID Vaccine Is a Product of Systemic Racism

Posted by M. C. on May 10, 2021

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/the-covid-vaccine-is-a-product-of-systemic-racism/

By Walter Block

(This op-ed is written by a politically correct analyst, who will remain anonymous, but brought to you by Walter E. Block.)

I cannot in good conscience take the COVID vaccine. Why not? Because its producers are mainly toxic white males. 

We wokesters want a COVID vaccine created in a more inclusive manner. Yes, yes, we will include a few token toxic white male supremacists, evil though they be, but we want laboratories that “Look Like America.” That means proportional representation by blacks, Hispanics, women, the transgendered, the queer, the bisexuals, the handicapped (both mentally and physically), young people, old people, people of color, Indigenous Americans, Asian Americans, and the vertically challenged.

But the COVID vaccines have not been created in anything approaching an inclusive manner. Unless and until this occurs, we pledge not to avail ourselves of these vaccines.

Why is this important? We the downtrodden will not feel safe until and unless the laboratories of the nation are emptied of most (not all—we are moderates, not radicals) cisgender white males. They are exploitive wherever they go; they have colonized; they have enslaved; they have exploited workers. These capitalists have ruined the economy and the environment.

The reason minorities are not proportionately represented among chemists, biologists, epidemiologists, and medical scientists is that they have all too few role models to emulate. Given our boycott, this will soon change. On that happy day, future consumers will not have to be bitterly disappointed that these occupations are non-inclusive.

Here are the details. After a pause in the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, there are two COVID vaccines currently making the rounds. They are produced by Pfizer and Moderna, respectively. Who are the people associated with the creation of these COVID vaccines?

Pfizer lists the following individuals as being involved with vaccines: Nanette Cocero, William C. Gruber, Kathrin U. Jansen, Luis Jodar, and Nicholas Kitchin. Pfizer’s immunologists are Jean Beebe, Jeremy D. Gale, and Thomas A. Wynn. Those who study and cure rare diseases include Seng H. Cheng, Katherine L. Beaverson, Michael Binks, Christian Czech, Sarah Grimwood, Greg Larosa, John Murphy, and Clark Pan. Pfizer’s medical experts are Aida Habtezion and Mace L. Rothenberg. The team studying cardiovascular and metabolic diseases is comprised of Kendra K. Bence, Morris J. Birnbaum, Albert Kim, and Bei B. Zhang.

Of these people, only Habtezion, who is from Eritrea, is African-American.

Over at Moderna the executive committee consists of Stéphane Bancel, Stephen Hoge, Juan Andres, Marcello Damiani, Tracey Franklin, Lori Henderson, Ray Jordan, Corinne Le Goff, David Meline, and Tal Zaks. Moderna’s board members are listed as follows: Noubar Afeyan, Stéphane Bancel, Stephen Berenson, Sandra Horning, Robert Langer, Elizabeth Nabel, François Nader, Paul Sagan, Elizabeth Tallett, and Henri A. Termeer. Those on the scientific advisory board include Jack Szostak, Ulrich H. von Andrian, Michael Diamond, Ron Eydelloth, Rachel Green, Paula T. Hammond, Robert Langer, Sander G. Mills, Melissa Moore, and Ralph Weissleder.

An examination of their pictures reveals that only one of them, Hammond, is black. If this is not clear evidence of racism, then nothing is.

Blacks and African Americans comprise roughly 13 percent of the population of the United States. If their representation were even 10 percent of the people involved in creating COVID-19 vaccines, I would be satisfied. Exact representation is not required. After all, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association could never be considered racist, and their black representation greatly exceeds 13 percent. But this atrocious level of underrepresentation for black Americans in the COVID vaccine initiative cries out to the heavens for social justice.

“Equity” has not been even approximately achieved. 

So, our conscience dictates that we boycott Moderna and Pfizer’s products until and unless they engage in sufficient amount of skin color diversity and inclusiveness.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Biden vs. Biden on ‘Is America a Racist Country?’ – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 6, 2021

Biden is scrambling to keep one foot in every camp in his coalition by appearing to agree, at times, with them all.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/05/patrick-j-buchanan/biden-vs-biden-on-is-america-a-racist-country/

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.”

So declared Sen. Tim Scott, a Black Republican, in his televised rebuttal to Joe Biden’s address to Congress.

Asked the next day what he thought of Scott’s statement, Biden said he agrees. “No, I don’t think the American people are racist.”

Vice President Kamala Harris also agreed with Scott, “No, I don’t think America is a racist country.”

What makes these rejections of the charge of racism against America significant is that Biden and Harris both seemed to say the opposite after Derek Chauvin was convicted.

Biden had called George Floyd’s death “a murder (that) ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism… that is a stain on our nation’s soul.”

Harris had said much the same: “America has a long history of systemic racism. Black Americans — and Black men, in particular — have been treated throughout the course of our history as less than human.”

But which is the predominant view of Biden and Harris about the moral character of the country they were elected to lead?

Is it a vicious slander, as Scott implied, to call America a “racist country”? Or is America’s soul, as Biden and Harris said, so stained by “systemic racism” that this country has treated Black Americans “as less than human” for the 400 years of her existence.

Has America been a curse for the 40 million Black people whose numbers have multiplied 10-fold since the abolition of slavery in 1865, and whose freedoms and material prosperity have grown accordingly?

Or has America been a blessing to Black people?

This is not just a gotcha question.

For the clashing commentaries of Biden and Harris reflect an ideological divide within their own coalition over a most basic issue: Is America a good country?

We have been on this terrain before.

Between LBJ’s landslide in 1964 and the breaking of his presidency in 1968, the Democratic Party had split into three factions, all at war with one another.

There was the Lyndon Johnson-Hubert Humphrey establishment that controlled the presidency and the party machinery. There was the Robert Kennedy-Gene McCarthy-George McGovern anti-establishment and anti-war left.

And there was the populist-right George Wallace bloc, containing millions of flag-waving blue-collar Democrats in northern industrial states and Southern Dixiecrats who detested the leftist radicals on cultural and patriotic grounds.

That Democratic Party disintegrated in the convention hall and the streets of Chicago in August of 1968, opening the door to the GOP era of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Today’s Democratic Party encompasses three similar blocs.

There is the Biden liberal establishment that controls the media, the academy, the Congress, the administration. There is the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren-AOC progressive-socialist wing. And there is, today, a new militant and radical third force.

Included in its ranks are Black Lives Matter, antifa and protesters who burn Old Glory, tear down statues, monuments and memorials, assault cops, smash and loot stores and riot at will.

This is the “Abolish Ice!” and “Defund the Police!” faction of the party that detests the old America and favors open borders to alter it forever. This anarchic element is rendered moral sanction by journalists and politicians who share its malignant view of American history.

The Biden-Harris statements on the conviction of Chauvin were tailored to pander to this crowd.

Yet, in his address to Congress, Biden also made a statement that sounded like a Biden plagiarism of Trumpian nationalism:

“All the investments in the American Jobs Plan will be guided by one principle: ‘Buy American.’ American tax dollars are going to be used to buy American products made in America that create American jobs.”

Biden is scrambling to keep one foot in every camp in his coalition by appearing to agree, at times, with them all.

The problem: While one part of his party believes America is a good and great country deserving of loyalty and love, another believes America is racist in its soul — a land whose character is defined, as it has ever been, by white supremacy, white privilege and white rule of people of color.

This leftist rage, however, is partly rooted in urban myth.

Consider. Last year, in D.C., our nation’s capital, there were 200 homicides and 980 people shot, mostly Blacks.

How many were the victims of rogue cops or Proud Boys?

Can you lead a country about whose history you profess shame?

And how long will Americans follow leaders who appear to agree with those who hate what America was and, yes, what America is?

In 2020, Trump united the Democrats. But with Trump gone, Biden must do the uniting of his disparate party himself.

And his need to behave, at times, like a believer in the racial indictment of the America he grew up in is probably not something Joe Biden can credibly and indefinitely pull off.

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s Time to Focus on the Enemy Within, Not Without | Intellectual Takeout

Posted by M. C. on April 9, 2021

Unlike our president, vice president, Secretary of Defense, and “woke” military command, Putin has some noticeably redeeming features. He thinks marriage should be exclusively between heterosexuals, that males and females differ in socially significant biological ways, and that white people are not inherently evil. Believing and defending such politically inconvenient truths may be necessary for saving “the entire West.” It might be even more useful for this purpose than trying to relive the Second World War by taking on Russia and China.

What I’m recommending is a more sober assessment of the relative dangers that face our society. The war led by the state, the educational establishment, the media, large segments of corporate capitalism, and now the military against normal America seems far more pernicious than any danger that is coming out of Russia or China. We need a strategy for combatting the internal enemy far more desperately than we need more arms for fighting our foreign competitors.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/it-s-time-to-focus-on-the-enemy-within–not-without/

By Paul Gottfried

The reincarnation of Hitler in some national leader and the heroism of Churchill, both stand-by props of neoconservatives, rear their head again in a recent commentary by Daniel Gelernter.

Expecting neocons to abandon their continual reference of these props would be comparable to asking the Democratic Party to stop talking about “systemic racism” or Mike Pompeo to cease mentioning “our values.” Why give up rhetorical tricks that elicit applause and large checks from wealthy sponsors every time one makes use of them? But as I point out in my book on antifascism, those who engage in silly comparisons shouldn’t imagine that the weight of historical scholarship supports their games.

Gelernter gets giddy pulling out his exaggerated, anachronistic parallels between Putin “the murderer” and the evil Führer, the expanding Japanese empire between 1936 and 1941 and the present Chinese government. His description suggests that we are again thickly embroiled in the Second World War, with only the names of the villains having been changed to reflect the minimally altered circumstances. Munich in October 1938 comes back as another neocon reference point in Gelernter’s complaint that we have not armed ourselves to the teeth to combat the new Hitler. Any failure to be immediately ready for war against the neocon-designated enemy brings back memories (at least for Gelernter and his buds) of how “democracies” surrendered to Hitler’s demand to occupy the Czech Sudetenland in 1938.

Allow me to cite what may be Gelernter’s most lunatic statement in this trip down neocon memory lane:

Now imagine that you are Putin himself—a dictator, a murderer, an absolutely brilliant strategist. What would be your next move? Probably to invade one of the Baltic states to break up NATO. In theory, an attack on any NATO member should be treated as an attack on all. But if Putin senses that there will be no response, or a half-response reminiscent of the so-called Phony War, he can destroy the major barrier against Russia taking over Eastern Europe one country at a time. And the sad fact is that if we, in America, are not willing to go to war to protect Estonia from Russia—and I suspect most of us are not—then Europe and ultimately the entire West is at risk.

Here we are dealing not only with the return of Hitler in the person of Putin and the revival of Imperial Japan as the Chicom regime. We must also confront the likelihood that the “entire West is at risk” if a single Russian soldier crosses into Estonian territory. Where, Gelernter asks by implication, is the new Churchill, who will lead our armies to victory, if Nazi Russia decides to occupy Estonia? This, after all, is the greatest threat that now supposedly faces “the entire West.”

One might of course dispute this judgment and point to other far grimmer threats that now confront Western civilization. Like Thucydides and Aristotle, we might be led to the non-neocon conclusion that the greatest threats to governments or societies come from within.

That certainly applies to the Western world and to our own onetime country, which are in the grips of an ugly cultural and political war. Pardon me if I’m more concerned about preserving traditional gender roles or something resembling the family that I grew up in than I am with the Russian bête noire of such worthies as Gelernter, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and journalist Jake Tapper!

Unlike our president, vice president, Secretary of Defense, and “woke” military command, Putin has some noticeably redeeming features. He thinks marriage should be exclusively between heterosexuals, that males and females differ in socially significant biological ways, and that white people are not inherently evil. Believing and defending such politically inconvenient truths may be necessary for saving “the entire West.” It might be even more useful for this purpose than trying to relive the Second World War by taking on Russia and China.

We might also draw a distinction between predatory regimes like Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia—that romped all over the European continent exterminating indigenous populations—and today’s Russia and China, which are asserting traditional national interests. The latter can certainly create trouble, and I am not suggesting that no measures be taken if the Russian government tries to increase its control over Ukraine or if the Chinese government bullies Taiwan more aggressively. But even those aggressive actions would still not be of the same magnitude as Hitler’s armies overrunning Poland and France and murdering millions of their civilian population. Nothing indicates that Putin is about to do anything even remotely as brutal.

Nor is anyone denying that the Chinese government has treated ethnic minorities, particularly the Uyghurs in East Turkestan, quite brutally. We are therefore right to protest such inhumanities and put economic and diplomatic pressures on the Chinese to stop these misdeeds. But the appropriate measures called for in these cases fall far short of the total mobilization required to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II.

What I’m recommending is a more sober assessment of the relative dangers that face our society. The war led by the state, the educational establishment, the media, large segments of corporate capitalism, and now the military against normal America seems far more pernicious than any danger that is coming out of Russia or China. We need a strategy for combatting the internal enemy far more desperately than we need more arms for fighting our foreign competitors.

Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried is editor in chief of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. He is also the Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years, a Guggenheim recipient, and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Problem Is Systemic Victimhood, Not Systemic Racism | Chronicles

Posted by M. C. on March 1, 2021

Esolen goes on to call this “a self-perpetuating and self-destructive falsehood” in which “blacks, encouraged to look upon whites as inveterate enemies, begin to dress, talk, and act in antisocial ways.” Such behavior “keep[s] racism burning.”

That behavior, Esolen says, is pure cruelty. “Cruelty it is, because of what it does to those who think they have nothing to offer the world that is finer than their victimhood.”

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/the-problem-is-systemic-victimhood–not-systemic-racism/

By Annie Holmquist

I was a sheltered white girl working my way through my teen years, when circumstances suddenly threw me into regular contact with minority children and families in inner city Minneapolis. Although it was a bit of a culture shock and sometimes difficult, I quickly grew to love the time I spent teaching, talking with, and growing to love the kids from a range of racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

I’ve learned a lot of things over the more than 20 years spent with these children and their families. But one thing I’ve learned especially is that racism comes in more flavors than simply white against black.

It’s a little hard to know how exactly to term one version of this, but the best way I can think of is to call it “black-on-black racism.” This kind of racism came to my attention in the form of a single mother with several children. She was doing her best to get her life together, raising her children to be upstanding citizens, trying to live her own life in a morally upright way, holding down a job, and trying to climb the ladder of success. Yet in return for her efforts her fellow blacks accused her of “being white.”

Although I’m sure those comments hurt her greatly, this woman disregarded them and pressed on, trying to overcome her difficulties and get ahead in the world. Yet I’ve seen others who have had similar comments thrown at them give up, preferring to run with the crowd than be ostracized by their own community.

I am not the only person to have noticed this trend. Scholar and author Anthony Esolen highlights a similar scenario in the February issue of Chronicles, writing:

It is bad to be a young black man reading and enjoying Shakespeare, meeting the sneers of his black classmates, who call him ‘white’ inside. It is worse to be that fellow who could and should be in love with learning, having his heart cut out by the contempt, and courting indifference instead of interest, and failure instead of triumph. It is worst of all to be those who do this to him, confirming themselves in their own incapacity.

Esolen goes on to call this “a self-perpetuating and self-destructive falsehood” in which “blacks, encouraged to look upon whites as inveterate enemies, begin to dress, talk, and act in antisocial ways.” Such behavior “keep[s] racism burning.”

That behavior, Esolen says, is pure cruelty. “Cruelty it is, because of what it does to those who think they have nothing to offer the world that is finer than their victimhood.”

One might easily, and truthfully, respond that blacks were horribly wronged through slavery. But does this give them a reason to wallow in their victimhood? More importantly, does it give blacks justification for pulling their fellow blacks down, trying to keep them in the life of victimhood and oppression forever? I don’t see how that could possibly be the case. As Esolen writes:

Because blacks were enslaved 150 years ago, if your skin is dark now, even if you are not a descendant of those slaves, you get points as a ‘victim,’ regardless of whether your own poor decisions drag on you like a ball and chain. John Calhoun didn’t push the cocaine your way. Jefferson Davis didn’t get your girlfriend pregnant. Robert E. Lee didn’t tempt you to play video games when you should have been reading books.

We live in a time when accusations of racism are blasted in our faces and attempts to correct systemic racism exist at nearly every level of society, from the Biden administration, to Big Tech, to higher education. But do these ostensible attempts to correct the wrongs of the past and root out today’s racism only exacerbate the problem by teaching people that victimhood is good? And in encouraging the victim mentality, do we discourage responsibility, growth, and personal success for those trying to break free from a life of victimhood?

Maybe we’re focusing on the wrong thing. From what I’ve seen in the past, perhaps a focus on rooting out systemic victimhood—for all races—is the first step to stopping the systemic racism that allegedly plagues our society.

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist is the editor of Intellectual Takeout. When not writing or editing, she enjoys reading, gardening, and time with family and friends.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

America Is a Dead Man Walking Because American Youth, or Their Minds, Have Been Stolen – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 31, 2020

The anti-American, anti-Western civilization (dead white men), anti-white indoctrination (systemic racism) that is the main function of an American university education is filtering down into the high schools and elementary schools. The United States is perhaps the first country to use education to destroy its own future. 

Graduates of American schools need a decade to recover from the indoctrination. I propose that the legal voting age in the US be legislated at 30 years of age. Perhaps it would be best if the voting age was 40 years of age or even 50. By then at least some people have learned lessons from life. At 18 no lessons have been learned.

The United States is a screwed-up country.  It this regard, the US has few rivals.

The legal voting age in the US is 18 years of age, which is also the age of female sexual consent and military enlistment.  So at 18 years of age youth can affect the governance of the country, get legally laid, kill and die in combat, but are considered too irresponsible to imbibe alcohol and purchase a pistol from a licensed dealer until three years later at age 21.

An 18 year old can be sent off to war armed to the teeth, but cannot legally purchase a pistol in a gun store.  He or she can influence how we are governed but cannot purchase a drink at a bar or restaurant.

What does an 18-year old know about politics, life, anything?  Except in very rare circumstances, nothing at all.

The anti-American, anti-Western civilization (dead white men), anti-white indoctrination (systemic racism) that is the main function of an American university education is filtering down into the high schools and elementary schools. The United States is perhaps the first country to use education to destroy its own future.  Most certainly, the US is the first country to make multicultural existence impossible.  The Identity Politics of the liberal-progressive-left splits the country into hostile Identity Groups, some of whom have successfully cultivated victim status, which they use to oppress those without it, primarily heterosexual white males.

The anti-American, anti-white liberal-progressive-left has succeeded in brainwashing large swaths of American youth.  In America the best students for the country are no longer the A students.  The best students are the C students who are turned off by the indoctrination and just want to get on with their lives.  

It is the A students who are receptive to the demonization of their country and themselves.  These students have been targeted by the Democrats for massive voter registration.  They have been refocused on overthrowing the “orange-haired racist/misogynist” in the White House.

It is unfortunate that the future of the United States depends on brainwashed, ignorant youth full of self-assertion and confidence that they know best.

But it does.  Therefore, the United States is doomed.

The Russians and Chinese are likely the future rulers, if they can free their minds from the propaganda that the United States is the Hegemonic and Indispensable Nation empowered to rule by the End of History.

Fortunately for the rest of us, both Russia and China have gone through despotic eras that, apparently, the ruling elites themselves are tired of and want no more of.  

Liberation often comes, not from those who speak its langauage, but from those who have suffered its absence.

Graduates of American schools need a decade to recover from the indoctrination.  I propose that the legal voting age in the US be legislated at 30 years of age.  Perhaps it would be best if the voting age was 40 years of age or even 50.  By then at least some people have learned lessons from life.  At 18 no lessons have been learned.  

To allow people judged too irresponsible to order a drink or to purchase a pistol to influence, even determine, the governance of a country is mindless.

Especially in America.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Institutional Racism – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 26, 2020

When social justice warriors use the terms “institutional racism” or “systemic racism,” I suspect it means that they cannot identify the actual person or entities engaged in the practice. However, most of what might be called institutional or systemic racism is practiced by the nation’s institutions of higher learning. And it is seen by many, particularly the intellectual elite, as a desirable form of determining who gets what.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/walter-e-williams/institutional-racism/

Institutional racism and systemic racism are terms bandied about these days without much clarity. Being 84 years of age, I have seen and lived through what might be called institutional racism or systemic racism. Both operate under the assumption that one race is superior to another. It involves the practice of treating a person or group of people differently based on their race. Negroes, as we proudly called ourselves back then, were denied entry to hotels, restaurants and other establishments all over the nation, including the north. Certain jobs were entirely off-limits to Negroes. What school a child attended was determined by his race. In motion pictures, Negroes were portrayed as being unintelligent, such as the roles played by Stepin Fetchit and Mantan Moreland in the Charlie Chan movies. Fortunately, those aspects of racism are a part of our history. By the way, Fetchit, whose real name was Lincoln Perry, was the first black actor to become a millionaire, and he has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and, in 1976, the Hollywood chapter of the NAACP awarded Perry a Special NAACP Image Award.

Despite the nation’s great achievements in race relations, there remains institutional racism, namely the widespread practice of treating a person or group of people differently based on their race. Most institutional racism is practiced by the nation’s institutions of higher learning. Eric Dreiband, an assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, recently wrote that Yale University “grants substantial, and often determinative, preferences based on race.” The four-page letter said, “Yale’s race discrimination imposes undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular Asian American and White applicants.”

Yale University is by no means alone in the practice of institutional racism. Last year, Asian students brought a discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University and lost. The judge held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the lower personal ratings assigned to Asian applicants are the result of “animus” or ill-motivated racial hostility towards Asian Americans by Harvard admissions officials. However, no one offered an explanation as to why Asian American applicants were deemed to have, on average, poorer personal qualities than white applicants. An explanation may be that Asian students party less, study more and get higher test scores than white students.

In court filings, Students for Fair Admissions argued that the University of North Carolina’s admissions practices are unconstitutional. Their brief stated: “UNC’s use of race is the opposite of individualized; UNC uses race mechanically to ensure the admission of the vast majority of underrepresented minorities.” Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, said in a news release that the court filing “exposes the startling magnitude of the University of North Carolina’s racial preferences.” Blum said that their filing contains statistical evidence that shows that an Asian American male applicant from North Carolina with a 25% chance of getting into UNC would see his acceptance probability increase to about 67% if he were Latino and to more than 90% if he were African American.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) that read: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” California legislators voted earlier this summer to put the question to voters to repeal the state’s ban on the use of race as a criterion in the hiring, awarding public contracts and admissions to public universities and restore the practice of institutional racism under the euphemistic title “affirmative action.”

When social justice warriors use the terms “institutional racism” or “systemic racism,” I suspect it means that they cannot identify the actual person or entities engaged in the practice. However, most of what might be called institutional or systemic racism is practiced by the nation’s institutions of higher learning. And it is seen by many, particularly the intellectual elite, as a desirable form of determining who gets what.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Progressive Racism of the Ivy League – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

The taproot of progressive racism is LBJ’s Executive Order 11246. This altered the meaning of “affirmative action” from guaranteeing the equality of opportunity to bringing about an equality of “results.”

As for Yale and other Ivy League universities, it is an indictment of conservatives who have held executive power often in the past 50 years that they have not chopped federal funding for these bastions of progressive racism.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/patrick-j-buchanan/the-progressive-racism-of-the-ivy-league/

By

If the definition of racism is deliberate discrimination based on race, color or national origin, Yale University appears to be a textbook case of “systemic racism.”

And, so, the Department of Justice contends.

Last week, Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband charged, “Yale discriminates based on race… in its undergraduate admissions process and race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year.

“Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials…

“Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission.

“Yale racially balances its classes.”

Yale defends this admissions policy by claiming it considers the “whole person” — leadership, a likelihood students “will contribute to the Yale Community and the world,” and, says Yale President Peter Salovey, “a student body whose diversity is a mark of its excellence.”

Yet, somehow, when all these factors are considered, the higher-scoring Asian and white students invariably come up short, because the racial composition of Yale’s incoming classes remains roughly the same every year.

The Justice Department refused to wave its big stick — a threat to cut off tax dollars that go yearly to Yale. Incidentally, Yale sits on an endowment of some $30 billion — second only to Harvard’s.

A court case alleging that Harvard emulates Yale, or vice versa, and admits Black and brown students whose test scores would instantly disqualify white and Asian students is headed for the Supreme Court.

At the heart of this dispute over diversity are basic questions, the resolution of which will affect the long-term unity of the American nation.

Is discrimination against white students in favor of Black students with far lower test scores morally acceptable if done to advance racial “diversity”?

And, if so, for how long? Forever?

Is it praiseworthy to advance Hispanic applicants over Asian applicants with far higher test scores and academic achievements?

Why? What did these Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Vietnamese high school seniors do to deserve discrimination in the country to which their parents came where, supposedly, “All men are created equal”?

President Lyndon Johnson first formally introduced this notion of benevolent racial discrimination. Addressing D.C.’s Howard University in 1965, LBJ said in a speech written by Richard Goodwin, “We seek… not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.”

But what if equality of opportunity, an equal chance at the starting line, fails to produce equality of results?

What if Black Americans dominate America’s most richly rewarded sports such as the NBA and NFL, while Asians and whites excel in academic pursuits and on admissions exams at Yale and Harvard?

Why is it right to discriminate against working-class white kids from Middle America in favor of urban and middle-class Black kids in admissions to prestige colleges?

If so, what does social justice mean? Who defines it?

In California, the state legislature has put on the ballot a measure to overturn the ban on all racial and ethnic discrimination that was voted into California’s Constitution in Proposition 209 in 1996.

That prohibition reads:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

What Californians said in 1996 was: No discrimination means no discrimination.

Civil rights activist Ward Connerly, who is fighting the repeal of Prop 209, argues that while street mobs may be tearing down statues, West Coast liberals are tearing down the principle of equality.

It is the character of the republic that is at issue here.

If Asian Americans, outnumbered 5 to 1 by Black and Hispanic Americans, can be indefinitely discriminated against, this would appear to be the very definition of “un-American.”

And if white Americans, the shrinking majority of the nation and a minority in our most populous states, can indefinitely be discriminated against in favor of people of color, they will eventually embrace the tribal politics of race and identity that would risk the breakup of the union, as is happening in Europe and around the world.

The taproot of progressive racism is LBJ’s Executive Order 11246. This altered the meaning of “affirmative action” from guaranteeing the equality of opportunity to bringing about an equality of “results.”

President Donald Trump, before or after Nov. 3, should convene with Ward Connerly and ask him to redefine “affirmative action” to mean exactly what its original author, JFK, intended it to mean.

As for Yale and other Ivy League universities, it is an indictment of conservatives who have held executive power often in the past 50 years that they have not chopped federal funding for these bastions of progressive racism.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thomas Sowell: ‘Systemic Racism’ Has ‘No Meaning’

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2020

“It really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses,” answered Sowell, who added that the currency of the phrase reminds him of the “propaganda tactics” of Nazi Germany, where Sowell claimed that if a lie was “repeated long enough and loud enough” it would be widely believed.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/12/thomas-sowell-systemic-racism-has-no-meaning/

by Joel B. Pollak

Conservative African American economist Thomas Sowell says that the term “systemic racism,” which is central to the Black Lives Matter movement, has “no meaning.”

Sowell is set to appear on Fox News’ Life, Liberty and Levin on Sunday evening with host Mark Levin at 8 p.m. ET (5 p.m. PT).

According to Fox News:

You hear this phrase, ‘systemic racism’ [or] ‘systemic oppression’,” host Mark Levin told Sowell. “You hear it on our college campuses. You hear it from very wealthy and fabulously famous sports stars. What does that mean? And whatever it means, is it true?”

“It really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses,” answered Sowell, who added that the currency of the phrase reminds him of the “propaganda tactics” of Nazi Germany, where Sowell claimed that if a lie was “repeated long enough and loud enough” it would be widely believed.

Sowell, who recently turned 90, was born poor in North Carolina, and grew up in Harlem before attending the Stuyvesant magnet school and moving on to the Ivy League and the University of Chicago.

Initially attracted to the left, Sowell eventually rejected socialism in favor of conservatism. He has written some of the most important critiques of left-wing dogma.

In his 2005 book Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, Sowell observed: “Despite sweeping claims made for affirmative action programs, an examination of their actual consequences makes it hard to support those claims, or even to say that these programs have been beneficial on net balance — unless one is prepared to say that any amount of social redress, however small, is worth any amount of costs and dangers, however large.”

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2017, Sowell described President Donald Trump as “the first Republican who’s made any serious attempt to get the black vote by addressing problems that affect most blacks who are trying to do the right thing—such as education, which is such low-hanging fruit.”

On Life, Liberty, and Levin, Sowell added: “If the election goes to [Joe] Biden, there’s a good chance that the Democrats will control [Congress] and considering the kinds of things that they’re proposing, that could well be the point of no return for this country.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, is available for pre-order. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

George Soros Pouring $220 Million into ‘Racial Justice’ Movement

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2020

I suspect racial injustice isn’t the only thing that will be “dismantled”.

Will voting democrat and one world/UN government indoctrination be part of Soros’ “help”?

Hungarians won’t have anything to do with Soros. We should follow their lead.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/13/george-soros-pouring-220-million-into-racial-justice-movement/

by Joshua Caplan

Progressive billionaire George Soros’s philanthropic organization — Open Society Foundations — announced Monday that it will donate $220 million to groups focused on “racial justice.”

The organization plans on investigating $150 million alone into five-year grants for organizations aimed at achieving equal statistical outcomes between demographic groups in economics and criminal justice. The other $70 million is said to be going toward “more immediate efforts to advance racial justice.” Groups expected to receive funds include Black Voters Matter and Repairers of the Breach.

“It is inspiring and powerful to experience this transformational moment in the racial justice movement,” said Open Society Foundations president Patrick Gaspard. “We are honored to be able to carry on the vital work of fighting for rights, dignity, and equity for oppressed people the world over started by our founder and chair, George Soros.”

“This is the time for urgent and bold action to address racial injustice in America,” Alexander Soros, Soros’s son, said in a separate statement. “These investments will empower proven leaders in the Black community to reimagine policing, end mass incarceration, and eliminate the barriers to opportunity that have been the source of inequity for too long.”

The announcement comes after public records revealed Soros will double his 2016 election spending as part of a broader effort to help defeat President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.

As Breitbart News reported: “Soros has poured money “into the coffers of the Democracy PAC, a super PAC that passes money to other liberal PACs working to defeat Trump and congressional Republicans… [The] PAC has received $40 million, double the $20 million it received in 2016 throughout the presidential election.”

In April, Open Society Foundations pledged $130 million to fight the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic and “[push] back against government encroachment on political freedoms.”

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The New ‘Systemic Racism’ That Is Coming – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 11, 2020

No, again. Asians are 73% of the incoming class because they excelled
on the admissions tests in math, reading and science, and on the
essay-writing assignment.

They won admission to TJ not based on their ethnicity or race but
their academic excellence as demonstrated in standardized tests taken by
students all over Fairfax and surrounding counties.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/patrick-j-buchanan/the-new-systemic-racism-that-is-coming/

By

Before our Black Lives Matter moment, one had not thought of the NBC networks as shot through with “systemic racism.”

Yet, what other explanation is there for this week’s draconian personnel decision of NBCUniversal chairman Cesar Conde.

According to Conde, the white share of NBC’s workforce, now 74% and divided evenly between men and women, will be chopped to 50%.

Persons of color — Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and multiracial folks — are to rise from the present 26% of NBCUniversal’s workforce to 50%.

What does this mean?

White men will be slashed as a share of NBCUniversal’s employees from the present 38% to 25%, — a cut of one-third — and then capped to ensure that people of color and women reach and remain at 50%.

White men can fall below one-fourth of the workforce, but their numbers will not be permitted to go any higher.

To impose race and gender quotas like this on the workforce at NBCUniversal — half women, half persons of color — would seem to trample all over the spirit, if not the letter, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Why is Conde doing this?

“(W)e have a unique responsibility to look like and reflect all of the people of the country we serve,” he says.

But whence comes this responsibility, the realization of which means active discrimination against new employees because they are the wrong gender or race: i.e, they are unwanted white men?

America has succeeded as a meritocracy where excellence was rewarded, be it in athletics or academics. Our Olympic teams have triumphed when we send the best we had in every event.

This egalitarian and ideological revolt against excellence is also arising in Fairfax County, Virginia, at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which, concedes The Washington Post, “often ranks as the top public high school in the United States.”

Why does TJ have a problem? Writes the Post reporter, the school is “notorious for failing to admit black and Latino students.”

Does TJ discriminate in its admissions against Blacks and Hispanics? Is the school a throwback to the old days of “massive resistance”?

Of 486 students in the freshman class this fall at the school, the number of Black students is tiny, smaller even than the 3% of the class that is Hispanic. Is this yet another example of “white privilege” at work?

Hardly. Whites make up only 17% of TJ’s incoming class.

The problem, if it is a problem, is Asian Americans. Three in 4 members of the fall freshman class at TJ are of Asian heritage.

Why do Asian American kids predominate? Are they being admitted on the basis of their race or ethnicity?

No, again. Asians are 73% of the incoming class because they excelled on the admissions tests in math, reading and science, and on the essay-writing assignment.

They won admission to TJ not based on their ethnicity or race but their academic excellence as demonstrated in standardized tests taken by students all over Fairfax and surrounding counties.

Thomas Jefferson principal Ann Bonitatibus says of her school, “We do not reflect the racial composition” of the Fairfax County Public School System.

No, it does not. But so what, if Thomas Jefferson ranks among the top STEM schools in the entire United States?

And Bonitatibus’ comment raises a legitimate question:

Is it possible to reflect the “racial composition” of Fairfax Country and to remain “the top public high school In the United States”?

A related issue is up in California. In 1996, in a state referendum, Californians voted 55-45 to embed a colorblind amendment in their state constitution:

“The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Clear, coherent and colorblind.

The Democratic legislature, however, wants to be rid of this amendment as it outlaws the kind of racial and ethnic discrimination in which Sacramento wishes to engage.

An amendment is on the November ballot to repeal the colorblind amendment and allow California to start discriminating again — in favor of African Americans and Hispanics and against Asians and white men — to alter the present racial balance in state university admissions and the awarding of state contracts.

If this passes, more Hispanics and Blacks with lower test scores will be admitted to elite state schools like UCLA and the University of California, Berkeley, based on race, and fewer Asians and whites. Practices that were regarded as race discrimination and supposedly outlawed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will henceforth be seen as commendable and mandatory.

There will be racial and ethnic discrimination, as in the days of segregation. Only the color of the beneficiaries and the color of the victims will be reversed.

And that is the meaning of the BLM revolution, which might be encapsulated: “It’s our turn now!”

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »