STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Resurgence of Racism and Its Consequences
By Daily Bell Staff - November 26, 2015

Remembering Woodrow Wilson's racism isn't enough. It's much easier to condemn one man's racism than to confront the institutional and cultural racism that haunts our nation. – USA Today Opinion

Dominant Social Theme: Racism needs to be opposed in all its forms. If people want to clump together, they should be forcibly separated.

Free-Market Analysis: What is racism? USA Today is available to enlighten us. This article by Eric S. Yellin, an associate professor of history at the University of Richmond, makes a number of points about the subject.

Racism, as we wrote earlier this week, is becoming a fashionable topic once again thanks to the Black Lives Matter movement. And this USA Today editorial makes reference to a student protest at Princeton that "called attention to the fact that one of their university's famous graduates and leaders, Woodrow Wilson, was a racist."

Actually, when we read this news item, we weren't upset at all. Wilson, from what we can tell, was a horrible man and a worse president. What concerned us was that once again Thomas Jefferson's reputation was being smeared as an inevitable outcome of race-based politicking. Just as some students want to expunge the memory of Wilson, so others want to do away with any commemoration of Jefferson.

There is no doubt that Jefferson did many bad things in his life, as humans often do. And slavery is an especially horrible thing. But the one REALLY good thing (a historical good) that Jefferson did, in our opinion, was to write the Declaration of Independence that attributed the existence of human rights to the Almighty rather than to other human beings.

This ringing declaration has been giving elitists fits ever since because many people in power are not satisfied unless they can tell you what to do with the presumption that you will be forced to do it. This only works if ultimate power resides with the state.

Jefferson's Declaration simply and forcefully rebutted the notion of the omnipotent state. But in the 21st century, much that is old is new again. It is obvious that a rump group of activists as well as mainstream historians and politicians won't rest until Jefferson's reputation is so thoroughly discredited that the message of freedom in the Declaration becomes discredited as well.

That's the plan anyway, from what we can tell. We argued in our previous article that Black Lives Matter, for all of its appearance of a spontaneous movement, is actually a resurgence of the kind of program that was created in the 1960s and reportedly funded by US elite circles and even intel agencies to take advantage of the burgeoning "counterculture."

Anyone who lived through the 1960s remembers the famous phrase, "Don't trust anyone over 30." LSD, the drug of choice, was apparently manufactured and refined by the CIA. Timothy Leary, LSD's proponent, had US intel affiliations as did many other "leaders" of the day.

We are meme watchers and trend followers, and we think we see a resurgence of the same kind of social manipulation that took place in the 1960s. Hillary is running on a kind of hyper-feminism, and Black Lives Matter – for all the nobility and appropriateness of many of its stated goals and objectives – may well be part of this resurgence.

Of course, Yellin doesn't seem to see it this way, though his editorial certainly makes a good point: Erasing the memory of a single individual from history, no matter how odious, represents a misreading of the position of the body politic.

He writes:

But the racism that pervaded [Wilson's] government and his nation was the work of ordinary Americans, too. It was the result of a developing institutional racism and a long-standing racist culture that cannot be pinned on one "great man" alone.

… The lessons we draw from the student activism at Princeton and across the country must not be about the actions of singular bad men only. They must force us to consider the broad and often quotidian effects of the inequality that pervades many of our national institutions.

We're a bit suspicious of this analysis because it seems organized around changing institutions rather than individuals. A libertarian perspective would be that institutions don't need to be changed, so much as defunded and done away with.

Yellin writes that, "History is so much more than the battle between mean racists and righteous anti-racists, and confronting it can only bring justice when we attend to its complexities …"

Good point! In fact, it is one that The Daily Mail might have heeded before it presented a survey back in 2013 on the world's most "racist countries." We stumbled across this article the other day and it is such an obvious example of a sociopolitical meme that we wanted to bring it to readers' attention.

How do you determine the world's most racist countries? Simple enough: The survey asked people "if they would want neighbors of a different race."

Based on this stunningly simplistic question, Jordan and India were named "the world's least tolerant countries, and the U.S., Britain, Canada and South America are among the least racist."

More:

The global social attitudes study claims that the most racially intolerant populations are all in the developing world, with Jordan and India in the top five. By contrast, the study of 80 countries over three decades found Western countries were most accepting of other cultures with Britain, the U.S., Canada and Australia more tolerant than anywhere else.

… The data came from the World Value Survey, which measured the social attitudes of people in different countries, as reported by the Washington Post … The multicultural U.S. is among the least racially intolerant countries, according to the data. Other English-speaking countries once part of the British Empire shared the same tolerant attitude.

This is surely a meme in the making, or at least a trial balloon since it was first launched in 2013. Perhaps it has been abandoned as effective propaganda given the ludicrousness of the data. It is surely hard in this day and age, with the US blowing up countries around the world, to promote its "tolerance."

When it comes to racism, the concept is so clouded with emotion that it is difficult to come up with a simple definition. We would argue, for instance, that culture is innately cohesive. Are people who want to live with others who share their habits, rituals and beliefs innately racist?

By defining racism from the perspective of people living next door, you're at least attacking cultural cohesion. And perhaps this was the point. If you can define culture as innately racist, then you can justify its removal. Is that what's happening in Europe today and in the US, too?

In the hands of internationalists, racism is surely a tool that breaks down nation-states on behalf of globalism. In fact, humanity is replete with emotional behaviors that can easily be exploited.

Increasingly, we see "divide and conquer" strategies playing out, especially in the West. The outlook, we would suggest, is one of increasing social tension, bitterness and ultimately violence.

After Thoughts

If you agree with this analysis, your "human action" is certainly required. But please, don't join up with a large group or "national movement." Do it on your own, at least to begin with.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • FreeOregon

    What if dialog is a better answer than reciprocal intolerance?

    Racism and airbrushing history are Jungian scripts.

    We each can change our personal life script. Collectively these are culture.

    Change yourself first. Set an example. Treat others as you expect others to treat you. Over time many will.

    Force and threats of violence are counterproductive.

  • Without ‘the state’ there would be no legitimatised use of force to make people’s actions not be ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ or ‘homophobic’ etc. And so, instead, a natural order would form and prevail. This was one of the matters I pondered and returned to whilst coming to accept and understand that statelessness is necessary and optimal for a properly functional human social order. The question was: how could ‘minorities’ be protected from ‘discrimination’ in a stateless society. The answer is not to offer a resolve to that supposed requirement but to understand that the question itself is invalid.

    The supposed validity of the question is a premise advanced by ‘the state’ to help engender and consolidate a need for the existence of ‘the state’ to provide this function in society. This role helps not only ‘the state’ to perpetuate, (that minorities believe without the protection of ‘the state’ they would be subjected to discrimination so therefore, they believe, the perpetuation of ‘the state’ is essential for their continued well-being and protection), the role also allows ‘political factions’, within the state, to assemble a ‘majority of minorities’ to then act in union against the actual, real, social majorities.

    In having ‘the state’ act against the true social majorities (supposedly on the behalf of their ‘anointed’ minority groups) it mean that ‘the state’ uses violent force and the threat of force to ‘make’ the majority behave in a manner they would not freely opt to do. This causes deep distortions to social order which is then exemplified because it suits ‘the state’ to consolidate ever widening factions too, who believe that they are also dependent on, or want, perpetual ‘state’ force for their specific situation to be protected, preserved, advanced and respected.

    So it suits the state to fill their territory with an ethnically and culturally disparate population, to have a large population living in subsidised housing, to support single mothers, to have a significant population dependent on welfare, to give ‘respectability’ to non-heterosexuals, assure government workers of pensions, women the power to make fathers pay for them and their children no matter what and so on. It also, therefore, suits ‘the state’ to continuously add to these such factions comprising this state dependant element, to even cause endless frictions between each and all, so that then ‘the state’ is necessary to always remain as the ‘only’ solution to the apparent disorder that would result in the absence of rulers.

    If, for example, it is that the natural, preferred, human social order is: to just live as nations of ethnically similar people; why not allow that resulting, stable, social order arise? I am somewhat doubtful that that is the real natural universally preferable situation for modern cultured human societies but it is very difficult to measure as so much of our past cultures were dependent on rulers usurping this intrinsic tendency and building nationalism in the people as a binding force for ‘state’ perpetuation, influence and, of cause, unity to support war.

    Now the social order is to be directed towards ever-deepening social union of the peoples and nations of the world. Purportedly such global-union is a drive towards ‘a world without wars’ and for technocracy: the effective ‘scientific management’ of the global population and resource (the arguments against which is a separate matter to that being addressed here). In order to allow ‘the state’ to dictate, within a supposedly representational democratic process, to bring about the changes required, the voice of the majorities need to be repressed else such a union will be rejected as would a socialist society, and, I consider the continuation of the cult of the religious belief in ‘the state’ itself.

    • dave jr

      I pretty much agree with your post and would like to take it a step further in identifying what hides behind the fabricated persona of “the State”.
      .
      Is it not a mindset, belief, practice and support of authoritarianism? Sure there is safety and economic efficiency in numbers and perhaps this is what drives the concept. There needs to be a fundamental understanding that there is a line toward the drive to collectivism, before which everyone is still free to associate, or not, with groups, and terminating at right to self defense. Beyond that line is the beginning of aggressive, pre-emptive authoritarian behavior which acts to unravel all the benefits gained before it.
      .
      The authoritarians come in all shapes, color, race, economic class, and intensities. They are all around us. Heck, I have some in my own family. As always, honest assessment, clarity of thought and truth as demonstrated by the rightful outcomes of speech, writing and action is key. To the degree that authoritarian minded people are served in institutions like formal education, media, banking, government and even business; to that degree, any societal potential is destroyed and lost in furtherance of “The State”.
      .
      Today EU, I am thankful for your efforts, other commenters and our host, the DB too.

      • What truly hides behind the ‘fabricated persona of ‘the state” is the desire to gain the advantage over human society only possible through rule (which is the assumed right, for those acting as ‘the state’, for the use violent force to enforce their dictate, the dictate of ‘the state’).

        The ‘mindset, belief, practice and support of authoritarianism’ is an outcome of, perhaps core to, the belief in the legitimacy and utility of ‘the state’. The belief is indeed rooted in the concept that there is ‘safety and efficiency in numbers’ and that concept is absolutely true – every apparently feasible task undertaken in human society, from making a pencil to building a city, from writing a word to filling a library, is the cumulative product of many, past and present. Without benefiting from the ‘safety and efficiency in numbers’, of those past and present many, the simplest tasks for human society would be momentous challenges for the individual. Cooperation is fundamental to human society, is perhaps the fundamental definition of what human society is.

        What is not true is that to achieve any of this advantage, delivered to human society through cooperation, is that it is necessary to have ‘the state’. ‘The state’ is the ‘great usurper’, it takes whatsoever it can from wherever it can and says “I did this, you could not do this without me, I am great, you need me”! And, as Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels said: If you tell a lie big enough & keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

        There is no line to draw for a sweet young girl, with doe like eyes, between being a little bit pregnant or massively pregnant. If she is pregnant she is pregnant. End of, pregnant, pregnant. PREGNANT. If it appears as though she is just a little bit pregnant, just you wait, and not long too! She will be massively pregnant because that is what being pregnant means. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.

        There is no line to draw for a wooden house, with a warm kitchen, a leaky roof and a little bit of dry-rot. The house has dry rot and it will only spread, sooner or later, the infestation will grow and grow. It is inevitable.

        The same is so for a human society which has ‘the state’. It will grow. It only can ever grow. It is very much like an organic entity, it is preprogrammed for survival, if it was not it would be extinct already. Indeed every earlier version of ‘the state’ that had a preponderance for extinction has already gone and what is left is like the alligator or the cockroach, built for survival and to self-perpetuate.

        Because ‘the state’ is its own boss, reserves for itself alone the use of force to exert its dictate, is preprogrammed to perpetuate only and in the most robust means for its assured continuation; it cannot and will not be limited. Nor is it a baby growing or a bit of fungus in an old shack. ‘The state’ is a leviathan that consumes the productive energy of humanity and will only die if it has consumed and destroyed everything.

        The one defence against this certain fate is to see the belief in the legitimacy and the utility is false, engendered, and see that the belief itself is not rational but is induced, indoctrinated, the product of a mass hypnotic effect. To see this requires an understanding that: 1/. ‘the state’ cannot legitimately have a ‘right’ to use violence to force its edict, when no individual has that right, 2/. ‘the state’ is not the best way for human society to thrive, it is the worst way and is the cause of the greatest harm in every area it embroils itself within and 3/. that ‘the state’ is the tool of oppression developed to control humanity by a small dynasty who are using it, and other measures, to progressively usurp the lives, freedom, productivity, spirit and wealth of humanity along with control of our planet itself for their benefit alone. It is a very dangerous time indeed, hidden in plain view, seen only for those who have accumulated sufficient knowledge to look and see how the trick is being played.

  • pcnot

    Discrimination, sometimes based on race, is often classed as bad–there are laws against it. But I ask you, if I’m not allowed to discriminate, how shall I determine my friends?

    They can pass all the laws they want, but people will seek out their own kind.

    • Ron Mortimer

      Excellent point you make about people seeking out their own kind. Seems like everyone is allowed to do that except white people!

      • Is it really only me
        that likes t’ join
        Eskimos for tea?
        The blubber and blabber
        is such good fun,
        that I wonder why
        I’m the only one!

        • Ron Mortimer

          EU

          Are you eskimo by any chance??lol

  • dave jr

    DB, I can see the relevance now.
    .
    Nonetheless, the central tenant to slavery is the arbitrary claim of ownership over another mans’ labor, effort…life. In this regard, all productive people have become slaves under threat of the IRS whip and other centralized authoritarian economic controls, no matter ones race or skin color.
    .
    Perhaps the racist card needs to be kept in play as a diversion from the condition?

  • Sydney

    The Ancient Corporate exists and is employing its strategies to continue to consolidate wealth and power into more centralized (their) hands. There strategies in many instances promote the artificial and oppose the natural world and the better angels of our natures.

    Racial differences are like all other differences (except one, more on that below), superficial. These differences are artificially magnified, by the people who maintain power with divide and conquer and distraction from the criminal entity they comprise. Of course the problems are created by the same criminal element that then professes to provide solutions. The solutions always have the common denominator of less rights and prosperity for you and more for them and their cronies. They know better than you, yes?

    The individual (of any color, or race, or religion or nationality or sexual identity, or sexual preference, or socio/economic demographic, or political identity, or ideologic identity) is pursuing what the perceive is their own self interest. In so doing they need to get along with whoever they associate with and go along with their associates preferences. If its the government/state and the currency/debt power structure behind the government/state, then the individual carries out that entities preferences, to get compensated, of course, typically with the currency of the realm.

    There is one difference that does matter. It is the individuals chosen identity as a individual or as a member of a group. This choice that every individual makes (consciously or not) is critical in determining where that individual directs their energy. Once the individual gives up their identity as an individual they are then part of a group and their entire world view of good/ bad and right/ or wrong is referrenced by their identity as a member of that group. In this way the most vile behavior and crimes against humanity or crimes against the individual can be justified to “promote the greater good” of the group that individual identifies with. Of course the perpetrator or the one who is complicit can not be called out for personal responsibility as he/she is an anonymous member of the group and if you don’t like the group, and if you side against the group in question (even on behalf of the innocent victim, the individual), well then you are a hater, don’t ya know?

    The source of evil is the individual choosing to give up their identity and empathy for the individual in favor of identifying with a group. They then reset their internal compass of what is good/bad, right/wrong once centered on the individuals rights to then be referenced in regards to the greater good of the group they now identify with. Caiaphas himself said “it’s better for you that one man (innocent tho he may be) should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” Give up the innocent individual if you have to for the good of the group and your own personal status within the group, and all is forgiven apparently.

    So yes, Thomas Jefferson is notable for the emphasis he placed on individual rights being an endowment from the Creator rather than the government/state.

    However ultimately it was Jesus Christ that defined the reference point of right and wrong as being clearly centered on the infinite value of the individual, every individual! Implicit in the value of the individual is that individual’s FREEDOM to choose. Without the individual as a reference point, there remains nothing but tyranny from the hierarchy of the group one belongs to AND the conglomerated hierarchy of all the different groups that individuals allow themselves to be divided into. The ancient corp, the eye, and that ancient corp’s god, eternally stand in opposition to the infinite value of the individual.

    There seems to be only one group perhaps ? that resists the predation of the ancient corporate in any meaning full way and that is Christendom or Christian monarchy, or Christian culture and civilization?, which is near extinction. Before anyone references history please remember history is written by the victors who are in firm control and who ultimately champion those who without restraint promote the ancient corp and vilify those who resist or take the side of the individual. It may be the ancient corp has only one group as its enemy. That is the group that uses the infinite value of the individual as a measuring stick of good and bad, right or wrong. May be it was Christendom which held at is central world view the infinite value of every individual as the foundation of any judgement of good/bad, right or wrong. This is why a national identity based on a majority, of white (in numbers and cultural and religious heritage), Christian, heterosexual, nuclear family promoting people has been vilified without restraint while every other group and identity receives accolades and abundant government financial support ultimately from the currency mafia power structure standing behind it.

    Before the “anti-white” chorus arrises please consider the financial hierarchy and financial support of all the crimes for which “white people” are punished. Clearly judging people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin doesn’t apply to the individual white person or hasn’t for quite some time. Before you judge each individual white person for the crimes of the “white man” PLEASE follow the money, and the EMPIRE it generates, directs and fuels. Where does the money come from to perpetrate the crime. And where does the money go that is generated from the crime. Ultimately group crimes, organized crime, requires capital, don’t they. Assuredly it must be very expensive to promote terrorism or any ongoing criminal enterprise. Assuredly these crimes can traced back to the ancient corp and the government/state/empire and currency power structure it controls.

    In any event it is hard not to consider what exactly is the reference point? Is it the individual with infinite value and rights or is it the corporate “greater good”? This reference point may be the origin of the struggle and perhaps of more relevance determine the direction of current events. Maybe no group is good and the individual should disdain any group participation. Or maybe the only group worth being a part of is one that champions the rights and infinite value of every individual human being. Would it be overly optimistic to ponder that with high quality web content provided at sites like the DB it is within the realm of possibility that individuals over the span of the earth will awaken? Could it possibly be that if a new world order does arise the foundational element would be esteem for the value of the individual, each and every individual. Is it possible that a new age would be one where the esteem for the individual in each human heart soars high above any worn out esteem for the ancient corporate or any artificial group identity? One thing is for sure, no one can predict the future. So maybe.

    Thanks for a great web site and best wishes.

    • Thank you.

    • Ron Mortimer

      Sydney

      Are racial differences as superficial as you say?

      One other point….do we get to ‘choose’ our identity? As Schopenhauer said “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.” i cannot see how anyone could change their identity consciously any more. for example, than they can enjoy food that they hate or like something they despise..

      Yet another point…..humans are group oriented because groups offer protection(amongst other things). Alone man is vulnerable. Two people can beat one. Two hundred can beat one hundred and so on. Group allegiance and loyalty is the price of protection.

      • Sydney

        Are racial differences as superficial as you say? —–Perhaps not. However the emphasis on the differences are probably artificial. The emphasis on differences may be promoted solely to create division and distraction from each races common opponent. This opponent is at the very top of the pyramid of the system of currency and credit that empowers themselves over others. Of course that common opponent, at the very top, may indeed be a different race, I suppose.

        Do we choose our identity?——perhaps not. However I would submit for your consideration that if one chooses to side with the individual, the individual may have a chance. If one chooses to be a member of a group, above and beyond any consideration for the individual, or humanity in general, that imperils the rights of the individual. Unless of course the group one profess’s to be a part of holds the infinite value of the individual in highest regard as opposed to the interests of the corporate. It would seem this sentiment was once very prevalent within the US and likely can make claim as the basis of greatness the US ever possessed. This particular group identity is the greatest threat to the current power structure, I suppose. As the economy deteriorates I would bet many lower tier corporate members and/or their cronies will more and more identify with the individual.

        Also more to your point I believe many who would naturally side with the individual choose not to simple due to pragmatic considerations that ultimately lead to despair or an unpleasant “Dream Time” reality described by the DB where you sell your identity (and often what you hold dear) to get along with the empire. Initially it works out until later you find yourself living a life that you find to some degree repugnant.

        Protection?—— in the end, as only one group monopolizes power (the empire fueled by mystery babylon system of state protected irredeemable currency/credit/debt) the only protection anyone outside of those in alliance with the corporate empire is to hold the individual and that individuals rights as the highest reference point in any evaluation of right or wrong, good or bad.

        Could a group that holds this golden rule and the rights of the individual in highest esteem over the corporate exit without corruption? I guess I don’t know. If recent history is any guide perhaps not. But who believes the history books anymore? So maybe.

        Thank you for your interest in my comments and your response.

        Best Wishes.

  • jackw97224

    There should be a T-shirt with a picture of Al Sharpton and the caption: Black “Lies” Matter! Recall Tawana Brawley?

  • Libertarian

    This sums up part of the problem. There may be more to all of this than what we yet know.

  • bouf

    “But the one REALLY good thing (a historical good) that Jefferson did,
    in our opinion, was to write the Declaration of Independence that
    attributed the existence of human rights to the Almighty rather than to
    other human beings.”

    This is a patently false statement. Jefferson wrote ‘by his creator’ – turns out my father was my creator. Jefferson’s language implies that I have rights granted by my parents, as a result of my being – not from any ‘Almighty’. Any ‘Almighty’ is merely a stand-in phrase for the elites that the DB otherwise so forcefully opposes.

    • Wow, you have an unusual interpretation of the Declaration. See here for one that puts Jefferson’s ideas within the context of his time.

      http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

      • bouf

        Unusual, may-be. But recall that Jefferson was not even a deist, as many claim. To be an avowed atheist was even more dangerous then than it is now, if the concept ‘atheist’ was even well-known at the time. If he had subscribed to the ‘Almighty’, perhaps such a view would have made it into his most important work. Instead of ‘our creator’, Jefferson used ‘his creator’. Just like the interpretation of Law in general, the difference of using one word rather than another can make the same sentence vastly different in its meaning. .02.

    • Bruce C.

      That’s ridiculous.

  • Steve Phillips

    Spengler was right. The West is in terminal decline. The concept of a nation is based upon a grouping of people who share common language, culture, myths, history, and aspirations for the future. Dilute all of this with immigration (whether voluntary or involuntary), and over time, the character of the nation alters, with some subgroups resisting alteration, some working for a more rapid change, while others alter at different rates and dimensions. Ultimately, the division can become so serious that intractable differences arise, calling into question the continuation of the nation in an historically recognizable form. Today, the US is beset with a large black underclass which has never truly been invited to the larger societal table; been betrayed by politicians, both white and black, to keep the vote in the right direction for maintenance of the status quo; and to provide a cheap pool of manual labor (increasingly now provided by Hispanics). The “black lives matter” (blm) leadership is no better, and perhaps worse than what came before. To be successful, a group must appeal to a broad customer base, and have ready access to raising funds from many sources. The blm movement essentially cuts out any potential supporter who is not black, and essentially can raise funds only from extreme left organizations or individuals. Hood rats are typically, impecuniously on the dole. And the black middle class generally has more in common with middle class whites than they do with the “rats.” I would suppose that blm has a very limited, but violently spectacular life, and will have an ultimate effect upon widening the gap between whites and underclass blacks, perhaps forever. Are they for looting and burning the stores in their own blighted neighborhoods, racial separation, or for securing financial reparation (which will accrue largely to their “leadership”)? No one knows! How can one hope to heal divisions within a society when blm calls for, in effect, submission of the whites to persons of color, white racial suicide, overt and permanent racial separation, or a monstrous payout that will be siphoned off at the top? Add the immense invasion of no-intention-to adapt-“refugees” from the Middle East, and we have a witches’ brew in this country which can only fester, and soon bubble over the edge of the cauldron. And our political leadership of both parties (actually a single party with two factions) has no ready answer to healing our worsening illness.

  • Praetor

    The thing about race and the future. What will be written about 2008 to 2016, with the headline caption stating ‘ at this time of great racial divide, the U.S. had a black president’. So, what will the history books say about this? I surmise, the history books will lie as they do about past history. The books will be written by those who instigate and propagate the racial divide. They won’t explain the divide and concur strategy of those in power at the time, but, will more than likely explain it as the white race saw itself as superior over all others. What a shame never the truth be told. And all this suffering so they can continue to cheat and steal their way to more power. Sick Freaks of Nature, they are the anomaly, they are the ones with the abnormal DNA. TPTB, yeah!!!

  • tom nogaro

    racism: saying black lives matter, not all lives matter. short and sweet.

  • Umberto Indicci

    There is no equality anywhere in the universe.
    Even basic elements differ as to time, space and vector.

  • Bruce C.

    None of these subversive arguments would gain any traction if so many people didn’t feel so guilty. Too many accept the basic implied premises.

    When I first became aware of the “Black Lives Matter” slogan I assumed it was in response to the sudden widespread awareness that 97% of black homicides were by other blacks. That stat serendipitously arose when analyzing the frequency of blacks killed by cops. I thought it was a plea to other blacks to stop killing each other, or maybe to stop having kids out of wedlock, or “fathers” abandoning their responsibilities, or to stop identifying with slavery.

    Evidently it doesn’t seem to mean that, but why not?

  • Bruce C.

    Another thought: Maybe the rally against Woodrow Wilson should also include his support for the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank (“the Fed”) and the IRS/income tax. Maybe if those two things can be linked to racism then they’ll get removed too.

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.