Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Identity Politics

Angry Feminist made worse by politically correct sympathy

Published

on

54 Views

In a New York Times piece dated 13 March 2018, a clearly distraught woman wrote this letter to a page called “The Sweet Spot”:

Dear Sugars,

How do I deal with my anger toward men? I go to therapy, I’m on anti-depressants and I’m trying to practice self-care. But I’m still angry. I don’t think it’s unwarranted. I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice. We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but our president is an alleged sexual predator. Men are socialized to be condescending toward women, and even the few who check themselves often fail.

The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late. I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain. In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Justifiably Angry Feminist

What follows are excerpts from the responses the lady got. See if you can catch the trap. I will help by bolding a few of the problem phrases.

Steve Almond: Your letter made me think of James Baldwin’s famous formulation that to be African-American in this country “and to be relatively conscious, is to be in a rage almost all the time.” You have every right to be angry with men who have harmed you, in word or deed. No man can understand how it feels to grow up female in this culture, especially not an affluent white man like myself. We are largely ignorant of what it’s like to be economically, socially, professionally and sexually bullied. Having said that, your essential beef here really isn’t with men, individually or as a population. It’s with patriarchal thought and behavior, those monstrous forms of privilege by which men control women. The deeper question we need to reckon with is why boys and men are socialized to derive their self-worth from the denigration and domination of women. The symptoms of this mindset — discrimination, abusive behavior, rape — are infuriating. But beneath this rage lurks a deep sorrow that belongs to all of us…

… Abusive men are beginning to be held to account, which is to say: Women are being believed. But there’s still a vast segment of our population that refuses to confront the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault. They’ve chosen, instead, to normalize and even lionize cruel and predatory behavior. In my view, this moral regression — like the resurgence of overt bigotry in our political discourse — marks the panicky response of a dominant culture feeling the tremors Cheryl alludes to… But this style of thought is also nourished by a consumer culture that profits from sowing doubt. Men are indoctrinated to associate power with predation, and women with seduction and submission. This paradigm, epitomized in the simulated pleasure of hetero-normative pornography, will only begin to diminish in force as we reject the dishonesty of a sexual discourse founded on misogynistic myths.

… Anger is a proper response to injustice. But so is empowerment, as Cheryl suggests. Place your faith in the feminist philosopher ‘bell hooks’ (pseudonym for Gloria Jean Watkins). “Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion,” she observes. “A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.” Any man worth your time will recognize this, and will come to see that the forces seeking to control women seek to control him, too. This does not mean that men will cease to disappoint you. The patriarchy wasn’t built in a day; it won’t be dismantled in a day either. Nor do any of us move through life free of our darker impulses. They invariably emerge in our most intimate relationships. But there are men in this world capable of owning their self-doubt rather than turning it against women. You deserve such a man. We all do.

And from the other respondent:

Cheryl Strayed: Your rage is justified, Angry Feminist. I won’t list all the reasons why because you already did that quite well. We both know the list of injustices goes on. It stretches around the globe and dates back through all time. Strangely, it helps me to remember that. Perhaps remembering that will be solace for you too. Here’s why: there’s no way to make an accounting of that infuriating list without seeing also that progress has been made. I know your most immediate fury is rooted in the specific problem you have in your own life — the question of how you can love (or even find) a man when so many have wronged or disappointed you. But sometimes our most particular sorrows are eased ever so slightly when we take a broader view. The fact that your anger can even be expressed in the terms that you’ve expressed it is evidence, to me, that change is afoot. The reasons you cite for your anger — the high incidence of sexual assault, the misogyny of our president and the nation that elected him, the sexism that even enlightened men (and women) enact — aren’t topics being discussed on the margins anymore. They’re being addressed far and wide, loud and clear. And many of our most powerful institutions and assumptions about men and woman are being rocked, if not yet toppled, by that discussion. Take heart in that.

… I can’t predict if you’ll ever find a man who treats you like an equal, but I can say you’re more likely to find one if you seek love from a place of personal power rather than desolation. We change our lives (and sometimes the world) by deciding to do things differently than we’ve done them before. Perhaps for you, Angry Feminist, that means reframing your justified anger. Right now, your rage is a simmering pot of despair that can do nothing but sink you. If instead you can direct it down channels that empower you, it will serve a powerfully important purpose in your life. This could be as small as speaking up rather than remaining silent when you observe sexism or as big as getting involved with an organization or cause whose mission is gender equity (and you might even meet some good guys there). It’s incredibly difficult not to feel burned by the patriarchy. We have indeed been burned. But, as we know — around the globe and through all time — the best things rise from the ashes.

[Emphases mine]

So, what is wrong here?

The main thing is the mindset of the “Angry Feminist.” I did not highlight anything in her letter because I wanted to come back to this directly. But let’s make a list of problems, restating her sentiments in her letter:

First, she says only how she thinks she is right:

How do I deal with my anger toward men?

  • I go to therapy
  • I’m on anti-depressants 
  • I’m trying to practice self-care 

But I’m still angry.

  • I don’t think it’s unwarranted.

Then, she talks about how everyone else and everything else around her is wrong:

  • I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice.
  • We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but…
  • our president is an alleged sexual predator.
  • Men are socialized to be condescending toward women
  • even the few who check themselves often fail.

The third aspect is how “no one understands” her pain.

  • The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late.
  • I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain.
  • In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

And then, we have the dilemma:

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Angry Feminist has boxed herself in, and the man and woman, though well-meaning in their response, will not help her at all. At best, they will only help her deny her rage and hide it a little, all the while never truly changing.

Why is this so?

Feminism as we see in Angry’s example is a psychological problem of self-victimization that is extremely attractive and very difficult to undo except with direct confrontation. And because of the usual American social construct we have, we are simultaneously taught to be polite, to regard women as the (physically) weaker sex and therefore in need of protection. This is a traditional view and it still persists among men. We derive a large part of our sense of nobility from it.

But feminism takes this nobility and turns it against us, because the feminist is angry at men simply because they exist, and the men want to try to help the feminist stop being angry. We may try to do so by being more noble, and more kind, but this almost never works with a feminist woman. The feminist alternately loves the kindness of the man and despises it, and this is an unstable emotional framework, and it can induce fear in men.  That fear in men to aggravate the feminist is such that he will not confront her for being completely bonkers, to directly confront such a deranged person, any real direct message usually doesn’t happen. The usual result is that the man flees in some way, and the woman feels once again justified in her anger because “the man let her down” in her view.

The truth is she drove him away because he had to either flee her wrath or die from it, or go crazy and do something horrible. And the real tragedy of feminism is that getting the woman to recognize her own part in causing this is next to impossible.

Our intrepid New York Times people both gave into this pressure, and started giving Angry useless and emotionally placating statements, none of which have the power to heal the woman from her condition.

St Paul, from the New Testament, had a terrific understanding of the human condition. Many feminists are quick to arouse their anger because one set of instructions he gave regarding marriage said this:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24, NIV translation offered)

As one reads this, even non-feminists could easily imagine feminist heads exploding everywhere. What is even more significant is that we probably expect most American women’s heads to explode. This is because this sort of feminism has become quite strongly entrenched in society, so much so that we don’t easily see it.

But St Paul did not stop here. So the feminists ought to read a little farther to find out what the men have to do. And, admittedly, men also need to read this:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,  that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Ephesians 5:25-29, NIV)

So, what does this mean, “Love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her…”

Well, Christian believers know that Christ died for his people. His giving himself was to give himself all the way to death. So, the image St Paul paints is, “Husbands, be prepared to die for your wives, in the image of Christ dying for his Church…”

But it is easy for men influenced by feminism to misunderstand this as a call to a type of servility to the will of women. This is wrong. Christ did not do whatever the Church wanted. He founded it and formed it in leadership, and died as its leader. It is a bit more like being a general in battle than a slave to a master.  St Paul continues:

For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife seethat she respects her husband.

We emphasized this last sentence because it is the summary. The command is for the ultimate in respect, each for the other.

Angry Feminist never got this instruction. Both her respondents cowtowed to her rage and didn’t bring it to this teaching. And that is pretty common, as even many Christian believers in our day have no idea what this section really means.

But now that you have read it, you may begin to develop the idea. This leads to the revelation of the great lie at the end of the lady’s letter. Her signature:

Justifiably Angry Feminist

She is not justified at all. In fact, she is completely in the wrong.

So, what might we say to Angry Feminist?

One thing must be understood. The first time she reads or hears this, she will explode with anger and refuse to read the rest. So, it would take everyone around her being on the same page until her ego cracks enough for her to begin to be teachable. Here is our attempt:

Dear Angry Feminist,

You may completely disagree with what you are about to read. But we have seen your problem, and we have seen its solution, and it works. So, we suggest you read and re-read our response over and over until something opens in you.

Your anger is because you have locked yourself in hell. However the key to get out is firmly in your own hands, and to change the hell, you will have to walk out. The locks are your resentments towards the men who tried to take advantage of you. Forgive them. Everyone on earth has the right to be wrong, and we unfortunately are. Forgive them because you do things wrong and expect to be forgiven as well, don’t you? Then you open the doors and simply walk out of hell.

Therapy is not therapy if the therapist merely affirms your anger. Your anger is the problem far more than the people around you are. Change your anger and the people around you will amazingly become better. Anti-depressants? These don’t help at all. They just aid and abet you in your sickness, and they give you the excuse to blame the world, which you cannot change, instead of looking at yourself and what you can change.

Some women think that they have the right to display their bodies any way they wish. We don’t know what your attitude is about this, but we can say that you probably would be highly disturbed if men went walking around virtually naked, wouldn’t you? They would be disrespectful to themselves and invite attention from depraved people who want only one thing. So, if you think you have the right to show your body as you wish, you are wrong. We all affect one another. And we attract people that are like how we act. Act respectful of yourself, and men who respond to you will be more likely to be respectful of you.

That being said, men are hard-wired to pursue women. So if a respectful man gives you flowers or holds the door open for you, or walks on the street-side of the sidewalk to protect you, that is his expression of dignity as a man who respects and values you as a woman. Feminism doesn’t allow for such actions, but that is the lie of feminism.

Finally, you are lying to yourself and those around you when you say that you want men to treat you as an equal. What you really want is for the men to somehow make restitution for the harms you have either really received or have perceived. They will never be able to make up for these offenses, because most of them are magnified in your own mind and heart to the point where you cannot even see men correctly.

The world is full of good God-fearing men. In the United States, they abound. But if you look at the world through feminist glasses, you will never see them. They also see you and your anger that you beat the world around you with, and they probably feel sad because they cannot make an approach to you.

Forgive others, and change yourself, and the world will become different. Continue to blame others and exalt yourself, and things will only get worse. 

This is the truth we have found. It is difficult, it is unpleasant at first, and it is no doubt a shock to you. But if you have actually succeeded in reading this response this far, it says you are capable of change. We wish you every blessing God can give as you work on yourself.

With love,

Red Pill Times

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Horrifying New York abortion law marks big Democrat push in US

New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont and Washington also wish to expand abortion access to truly barbaric proportions.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

To some nations in the world, the United States may appear to be overly “conservative” or “backwards” regarding its general position on abortion. Russia, China, Canada, and Australia all allow this practice in generally unrestricted terms. Europeans are generally allowing of first trimester abortions. Social attitudes about the practice vary, with Sweden being the most permissive in terms of attitude, but Russia being the place where a woman is most likely to have had an abortion.

While the legal position in the United States on abortion is generally legal under all conditions as determined by the outcome of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in the US Supreme Court, the social context of the practice is highly debated and generally disapproved of, even by those Americans who believe that the procedure should still be kept legal. One of the most emotionally satisfying statements in the US that actually summarized the attitudes of many “pro-choice” Americans was that of Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton’s statement that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.”

In other words, the legality of the procedure is one thing, and the promotion of the procedure is quite another. It was summarized in this thought: We think that to be in the position of determining whether or not to abort a child is a horrifying and extremely serious matter. However, we believe it to be safer if this procedure is kept legal, lest it actually become dangerous because of inferior resources if it were banned, and done clandestinely.

This point of view was generally accepted as a secular compromise to a horrifying situation. Far from the ultraliberal attitudes of progressive Europe, the United States remained a relatively conservative country, socially guided by Christian attitudes concerning the sanctity of life, even that life which is yet unborn.

All this has changed.

Starting with the signing of New York State’s “Reproductive Health Act”, many states are now moving towards ensuring that abortion is legal under all conditions, to the full term of pregnancy, even to the point where perfectly viable, birthed babies may be killed after delivery if the mother so desires.

This report from New York was immediately followed up by this news item from Virginia’s own Legislature, in its attempt to pass a similar law, made even more clearly brutal by Governor Northam’s defense and explanation of the procedure post delivery in which a living baby would be subject to being deliberately killed at the wish of the mother. 

This law, like the New York constitutional amendment allows the unborn, or just-born (and alive even though “aborted”), no human rights.

There is really no way this action cannot be seen for what it is: infanticide, a very particularly cruel form of murder of the innocent, on no further grounds than that the baby exists and that the mother does not want it.

We covered in another news piece how this ability appears to be the prize “right” of feminist women, who were represented in Congress by the infamous Women in White, who sat stone-faced as President Donald Trump appealed for Congress to make and pass a law banning late-term abortions.

However, the President’s request was well-met by conservatives in the House chamber, and indeed, even some pro-choices were set off their guard by the New York and Virginia legislative moves. Virginia’s attempt failed.

Abortion is legal in the US, and it is legal at any point in the pregnancy in many states. This is not often reported, probably because abortion is not palatable to public discourse when a fully-formed, living baby is to be the subject of this procedure. The national discourse has for years been “safely” diverted to what appears to be more metaphysical debate about the unseen processes in pregnancy, such as “when does life really begin”, and even “when does the embryo receive a soul?”

This is probably by design to avoid the much harsher realities that were exposed in New York, Virginia and Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont. All these states have either passed or are trying to pass laws that protect abortion rights, sometimes to similar extremes as New York’s law contains. However, many other states, such as Colorado, already allow full and late-term abortion procedures.

However, not every state in the US is trying to magnify abortion rights. Some are trying to limit this procedure, or even outlaw it entirely, should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court, a possibility that seems enhanced now with five “conservative” Justices on the US Supreme Court. States like Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, and even the aforementioned Rhode Island are seeking passage of laws to sharply limit or completely outlaw the procedure in this event.

CDC graph showing abortion rates per 1,000 US women from 1969 to 2014. Courtesy: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Guttmacher Institute.

Interestingly, both the abortion rate and the actual number of abortions performed in the US has fallen drastically in the time period between 1980 and 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention record that there were almost 1.3 million babies aborted in 1980, peaking at 1.43 million in 1990, before dropping again to 2015’s rate of 638,000. Numbers and counts vary by statistical poll, however, with 2017’s numbers showing 882,240 in this study. The common feature of declining numbers and rates is still evident.

Statistical sources on this issue were not able to explain the reason for the drop in both rate and number of abortions, but a speculation might be that some exposure to the reality of what abortion actually is has served to deter both unwanted pregnancy from even happening, and also to try to find a way to take care of human beings guilty of nothing more than their existence. Perhaps this is too generous an assessment, but it is one possibility.

President Trump was loud and clear on several occasions about his stance on the issue of abortion. His State of the Union speech featured his saying, “all children, born and unborn are made in the Holy image of God.” This was followed up by further comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, in which he continued to show a strong pro-life position.

Naturally, some pols dismiss this as nothing more than the President’s attempts to energize his base for the 2020 elections. To credit such opinions, it may indeed do this. But President Trump has really put his money where his mouth is in terms of governing as a conservative, or at least, common-sense oriented President.

The combination of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s legislation, the Virginian attempt and the March for Life, featuring its highly slurred story about Roman Catholic teenaged boys who were at the event, plus the President’s speech have made for a truly polarizing moment. To be sure, political winds in the US are so unruly now that longstanding position issues are now pushed aside in mere days, or even hours. However the mainstream media is hard-pressed to refute what happened here. The American Left tipped its hand, perhaps a little too much for even some who are ideologically liberal, and some of the harshest, most sinister aspects of their worldview were brought into focus.

This reaction extends even to both real-life and Internet commentary on such news pieces. Tucker Carlson took on uber-feminist Monica Klein on his program on January 30th, and their exchange, most notably Monica’s sheer fury, was a sign that the Left is energized on this subject, so much so that any sense of nicety has been discarded:

For Ms. Klein, this issue is a source of pure anger, as is clearly evident on her face. This was not a woman who was playing the ideological talking head for the news media hit; far from it. She really believes what she says, and has taken that fury to the point of irrationality.

Some comments on this issue appear in many publications that also reveal extremely fiery emotion on both sides. The rhetoric swings from “baby-killers” to “woman-haters” quite freely on this topic, and this is honestly a shame. Such emotional incendiary bombs are avoidances on both sides. While people call each other names, no one pays attention to the topic itself. This is, of course, by design.

When the real issue is looked at, as was shown so clearly in New York and Virginia, the topic of the value of human life shows its profound reality to everyone. If that happened often enough or long enough, it might change the substance of the conversation.

The result might then be a real change.

 

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Facebook: The Government’s Propaganda Arm?

The social media giant has a disturbing number of former Obama officials in key positions of authority over content.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Jeff Charles via Liberty Nation:


Imagine for a moment what it would look like if the federal government launched its own social media network. Every day, Americans could freely use the platform to express their views on everything from economic theory to the best tips for baking peanut butter cookies. They could even discuss their political views and debate the important issues of the day.

But what if the government were empowered to determine which political views are appropriate and which are too obscene for the American public? Well, it looks like this is already happening. Of course, the state has not created a social media network; they didn’t have to. It appears the government is using Facebook – the world’s largest social media company – to sway public opinion.

The Government’s Fingers In Facebook

The Free Thought Project recently published a report revealing that Facebook has some troubling ties to the federal government and that this connection could be enabling former state officials to influence the content displayed. The social media provider has partnered with various think tanks which receive state funding, while hiring an alarming number of individuals who have held prominent positions in the federal government.

Facebook recently announced their partnership with the Atlantic Council – which is partly funded by tax dollars – to ensure that users are presented with quality news stories. And by “quality,” it seems that they mean “progressive.” The council is well known for promoting far-left news sources, including the Xinhua News Agency, which was founded by the Communist Party of China. Well, that’s reassuring. What red-blooded American capitalist doesn’t want to get the news from a communist regime?

But there one aspect of this story is even more troubling: the government-to-Facebook pipeline. The company has employed a significant number of former officials in positions that grant them influence over what content is allowed on the platform.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy, prosecuted cybercrimes at the Department of Justice under President Obama. Now, he is responsible for determining who gets banned or suspended from the network. But that’s not the worst of it. He also spearheaded the company’s initiative to scrub anti-war content and “protest” movements. In a blog post, Gleicher wrote: “Some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption.” He continued, “We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people.”

The company has also hired others who served in key positions in the Obama administration. Some of these include:

  • Aneesh Raman: Former speechwriter
  • Joel Benenson: Top adviser
  • Meredith Carden: Office of the First Lady

To make things more interesting, Facebook has also hired neocons to help them determine the type of content that is being published. So if you happen to be a conservative that isn’t too crazy about interventionism, your views are not as welcome on the network as others. After all, how many times have you heard of people being banned for posting pro-war or socialist propaganda?

Are Private Companies Truly Private?

The notion that government officials could be using positions of power in the private industry to advance a statist agenda is disturbing, but the fact that most Americans are unaware of this is far worse. It would be inaccurate to argue that the government is controlling Facebook’s content, but the level of the state’s involvement in the world’s biggest social media company is a disturbing development.

This is not the only case of state officials becoming involved with certain industries. This trend is rampant in the certain industries in which individuals move back and forth between private organizations and the FDA. For example, Monsanto, an agricultural and agrochemical company, has been under scrutiny for its ties to the federal government.

It is not clear if there is anything that can be done to counteract inappropriate relations between the government and certain companies – especially organizations with the level of influence enjoyed by the likes of Facebook. But it essential that the public is made aware of these relations, otherwise the state will continue to exert influence over society – with Americans none the wiser.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Is nouveau racism righteous retribution or just insanity? [Video]

The weaponization of racism only creates division and violence, but liberals drive for power cares little about collateral damage.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

We know that nouveau racism has been on the rise in America, even though no one calls it by this name.

What is it? Nouveau racism is racism. However, it is that racism which is embraced by “minority” groups, like African-Americans, Latin-Americans, feminists, and any group that is not the target group of their invective: the European-originated, white, Christian male.

Tucker Carlson gives a solid introduction to this topic in his own words in his reflection about one of America’s leaders in the crusade of identity politics, Stacey Y. Abrams.

Nouveau racism is often considered as “righteous retribution” by liberals who practice it. The logic is simple: After all that the European white MEN perpetrated upon native American nations, and upon the African peoples who were forcibly seized and brought to the New World as slave labor, women, blacks and native Americans now ought to give the white men a good taste of their own medicine. Let them see how it feels to be treated like we were, the narrative says.

The only thing is that the descendants of those European white men have largely long since renounced racism. The passage of the Civil Rights Law in 1964 marked the turning point that really had already been reached. The Act merely formalized what for many was already a present reality. After that, racism was loudly and strongly denounced in public service advertisements in the 1970’s like this one:

In an even-handed way, many young people in the 1970’s learned that prejudice was wrong, and that the attitudes of the past, judging people by their religion or color was simply… wrong. The lesson was learned deeply, to the point where white Americans were uniformly horrified by slavery or racism. This was amplified by many movies and TV programs in the 1970’s and 1980’s that viscerally showed their viewers what it was like to live a life of prejudice, but it also increased the desire to never be that way.

Consequently, to most white people in America, one never refers to a black person as “black” or discusses it. The white person usually defers to anyone of color and will not discuss their skin color to prevent any chance of repeating the past  by making a prejudiced judgement.

It would seem fair to presume that with the exceptions of very tiny fringe groups, racism among European-bred white-skinned Americans is gone. Even the trope against Mexicans and “brown-skinned” people is one that most white Americans will not express. While there is often frustration expressed over Latin American immigrants not learning English, there is little to no connection between their skin color and a prejudged notion.

Racism among white people is a thing of the past. So, what do we see now?

According to the news media in the US, the assertion above is completely wrong, and in fact, white people are motivated by hate and the desire to continue to oppress and humiliate non-whites, especially the black man, Latin Americans and Native Americans. Further, there is a bevy of research that points at continuing attitudes being “hateful” and worse, that such people are worthy of nothing good – that they should be humiliated, brought low and stripped of their “white privilege.”

In fact, for the mainstream media, racism has never been so rampant in America.

The only problem is that this is simply not true. 

If anything, white people are very afraid of being perceived as racist, and this has opened the door for what is going on now.

This effort in the liberal press is their assent and promotion of nouveau racism, but like many such fearsome or incendiary topics, this one is not addressing a real problem at all. It is, instead, creating and fomenting a real problem in the country by agitating groups that are already touched by this sort of attitude, to become more extreme.

Nouveau racism seems to serve the purpose of maligning President Trump and Republicans overall, and though President Trump easily swats such nonsense attacks away by his actions, his party’s politicians in Congress often stumble when so accused.

One of the powers of this great weapon is to get a person so accused of racism to do two things: To assent to the horrors of racism and how those “maligned” by it have long suffered, and to go on the defense as though they had to apologize for being racist themselves. 

Of course, in most cases, there was no racism in the first place. But once someone apologizes for it, this has the effect of making them look like the allegation is true, and from that point a person’s reputation may be destroyed because of the accused person’s lack of honesty.

This form of attack is not limited to racism, of course. Feminists perfected the technique and successfully used it against many people until they tried it on Donald Trump, and again on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The forceful swatting away of the allegations by (now) Justice Kavanaugh and the simple admission of “I said it, I am wrong, and I am sorry” by Candidate Trump after the Access Hollywood recording attack gave the feminists nowhere to go.

The same tactic needs to be employed about racism in any form. As Tucker Carlson rightly noted, identity politics divides people into groups who are afraid of one another. Being kind and polite is a great thing. But being cowed into letting a possible accuser have their way all the time lest you be called racist is tyranny. It is not righteous retribution in any form whatsoever.

Fox Host David Webb said it very simply: ““our skin is an organ. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t formulate ideas.”

He is right. Also, nouveau racism is part of the victim culture. Applied to people who embrace it, they only ensure their own enslavement. As we noted in the article about David Webb, Areva Martin, a racist CNN reporter who accused Mr. Webb of white male privilege, made the assertion that white men talk about following the law because they are white and they can follow the law. But look where this assertion leads.

  • White men talk about following the law because they are white and they can do this.
  • They therefore do not understand black men and women, because black men and women are special cases (for Areva Martin, the CNN reporter, this was her argument)
  • Their special nature means that the arguments of following the law do not – and must not – apply to them
  • Apparently this means that black people are incapable of following laws
  • It means that they are incapable of taking personal responsibility for themselves
  • If this is so, then it also follows that someone must run their lives, which leads us to upholding…

Slavery! Hell, seen in this light, slavery is the only humane, reasonable and kind way to treat such people!

Nouveau racism is a lose-lose option. It can only lead to bitter division, senseless hatred, insanity and the disintegration of any society in which it exists.

Dr Martin Luther King said his dream was that a man be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

It appears that this good man’s observation is all-too-often, sadly ignored.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending