This is not hard, but so many people do not get it, especially the “social justice” Left.
If you believe “Hate is the problem” you are part of the solution.
If you believe “THEIR hate is the problem,” you are part of the problem.
Let me state that another way:
If you are part of Dr. King’s “Dream” and you judge people by the content of their character (and other merits), you are part of the solution.
If you are not part of that dream and you judge people on the color of their skin (or gender, etc.), to assign either inferiority or “privilege,” you are part of the problem.
Continue reading “Part of the Solution? Or the Problem?”
“The law of gravity is nonsense. No such law exists. If I think I float, and you think I float, then it happens.”
—O’Brien, talking to Winston Smith in 1984
Grievance scholarship is ideologically focused scholarship, not legitimate inquiry into topics like race or gender. In that sense, grievance studies are no different than university study under a totalitarian regime like Naziism or Stalinism. Or Big Brother. The point of inquiry is not increased knowledge, it is to advance the ideology. It is propaganda to advance the Big Lie. Grievance studies professors are not so much liberal arts scholars but missionaries: they do not exist to investigate the world but to change it.
The Big Lies around which all grievance studies are organized is the theory of intersectional group oppression and its solution—“equity.” They are just-so stories appropriated from Marxist theory that contain a kernel of truth, but also massive, fatal flaws. The theory’s essential purpose is to justify the ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) of the theorizers. You can tell this by simple reasoning: “Hate” in itself is not a societal problem for grievance theory. Only the supposed hate of men for women or whites for blacks is a problem for society. The very real hatred of (some) women for men and (some) blacks for whites is never an issue. Continue reading “Grievance “Scholarship””
fas·cism | \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Definition of fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
The people who think Donald Trump is a fascist generally do not know what they are talking about, because they cannot define fascism. They tend to accuse Trump of racism and then conflate racism and fascism. Alternatively, they call Trump a dictator and then conflate that with fascism. There is slim evidence he is either racist or dictatorial, and in any case, there is more to fascism than those two factors.
On the other hand, no one suspects the Regressive Left of being fascist because fascism has historically been considered a right-wing phenomenon, a perception reinforced by leftist rhetoric. Is this a false perspective? Are there possibly stealth fascists lurking on the Left? Continue reading “Who Are The Real Fascists?”
Hello? The main plot of Harper Lee’s iconic novel revolves around a false rape accusation, and the main message was essentially not to judge a book by its cover (mostly race in this case). But despite generations of avid readers, “Anti-racism” and “anti-sexism” are now the new racism and sexism. Atticus Finch would never deprive someone of a human right like presumption of innocence based on their race or gender. Maybe they thought it took place in an alternate universe…
1 originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often followed by to)
As a white person who is indigenous to the United States of America, I wish all my fellow natural born citizens a happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day!
But that makes me wonder, why does the pro-immigrant Left think it is progressive to celebrate native, natural born citizens over immigrant ones?