Mimsy Were the Borogoves

Editorials: Where I rant to the wall about politics. And sometimes the wall rants back.

The left’s vicious racial shaming

Jerry Stratton, March 27, 2019

Is this fair? Occupy Democrats white privilege meme

This is a lie, designed to create racial hatred in America.

There’s an old saying that when a Republican does something wrong, the fault is on the Republican Party, but when a Democrat does something wrong, the fault is on America. It’s a variation of the name that party game, where a Bob Filner’s party is hidden deep if mentioned at all, and a Democrat like Virginia’s Governor Northam is reported as a Republican as soon as he shows up in blackface and his wife starts handing out cotton.

This goes back to the founding of the Republican Party and its opposition to the racial politics of slave-holding Democrats. Democrats wanted to break up the Union. So they accused Lincoln of wanting to break up the Union.

Projection is not just a river in Egypt.1 The left loves to project their faults on the rest of America.

In the wake of Jeremy Northam’s blackface, Elizabeth Warren’s redface, Ilhan Omar’s antisemitism, and other racist and sexist scandals among Democrats, the left is desperate to divert attention from their own failures by blaming America. This recent meme decries white privilege, not among the elite like Northam and Warren, but among everyone else. It compares two people without a job who endangered their children. One, a black Arizona woman who left her children in the car while she was at a job interview, had her child taken away and was sentenced to jail; the other, a white Arizona woman who got high and drove away with her child on the top of her car, kept her child and got probation. The hashtags? Black Lives Matter. White privilege.

It is worse than fake news. It uses real names of real people and makes up the rest. Both women were sentenced to probation for about the same period of time. Both had their children taken away. Arguably, both should have. Regardless of how you feel about leaving kids in cars, Phoenix, Arizona, is not the place to do it.

All the obvious examples of privilege from Democrats, and they had to make up lies about private individuals obviously going through bad times. For all their failures, these women are clearly struggling through serious issues, did not need the publicity, and were probably hurt by the left’s lies.

The left doesn’t care. They don’t care about the individuals they hurt.

A simple search of each woman’s name provides several accounts of how each received probation. There was no need to post these lies—if their goal was to fight racism. The people who created it knsw its a lie. The people who repost it don’t care whether it’s a lie, and so don’t bother to verify it. That this is an example of fair treatment, not biased treatment, is something to hide. When I provided a link to a local Phoenix newspaper with more information the poster deleted their post, ensuring that nobody among the poster’s circle could learn it’s just lies. It wasn’t posted to help. It was posted to hurt.

You might think, of course, that someone who claims to care about unfairness would have left the post up along with an apology for hurting the people mentioned in it, or removed the post with an explanation so as to halt the spread of hurtfully fake news.

The left doesn’t care. They don’t care about the individuals they hurt. It wasn’t posted to address racism. It was posted to create racism. It was posted to increase racial discord in America, and stop the hemorrhaging of votes from Democrats.

Occupy Democrats and the people who pass on their memes know what they’re doing, and they do it because the left’s infatuation with racism and racist behavior is not about stopping racial discord. Judge them by their actions—by the actions of the Northams, Omars, Warrens, and the people who create and post these lies—and it is clear that they want racial discord. They lie in support of it. They hurt people in support of it.

Racial discord is more important to the left than any concern about political lies or homeless women in tough situations.

I was recently in the position to get a copy of Dinesh D’Souza’s Big Lie, so I went on Goodreads to see if there were any substantive reviews. One that appeared to be substantive quoted D’Souza as saying “in 1860, the year before the Civil War, no Republican owned a slave; all of the four million slaves at the time were owned by Democrats”. The reviewer went on to state that this:

…is nonsense and historically wrong. Francis P. Blair, Sr., of Silver Spring, Maryland, owned slaves and helped create the Republican Party …

That seemed like a good test of whether the book was worthwhile or not. If D’Souza had done so little research as to miss a slave-owning party founder, the book wasn’t worth getting. It seemed odd, however, that a slaveowner would help create a party founded solely on halting the spread of slavery out of the South and ensuring that slavery died in the South, so I did some research. I found a book by a Walter Barlow Stevens, Missouri, the Center State, that reproduced Francis Blair’s manumission document for all four slaves in his household. The book dated the document to June 28, 1859. Blair was not the only slaveowner who joined the Republican Party and thereafter ended slavery in his own household; U.S. Grant did the same, also before 1860.2

So it seemed that D’Souza was correct, or at least that Blair was not a counter-argument to D’Souza’s claim. But, I have no idea how reliable Missouri, the Center State is, and considered the possibility that this reviewer had better sources. So I wrote:

Regarding Blair, D’Souza may have been right, or at least, Blair may not be a counter-example. According to Missouri, the Center State Blair had freed his slaves by the end of 1859. If correct, he would not have been a slaveowner in 1860.

Was the reviewer’s response to provide a better, contradictory source? To acknowledge that that part of the review was incorrect?

No. The response was another of the vicious lies in the arsenal of the left.

It is also an historical fact that, since 1964, the national Democratic Party embraced fully the struggle for civil rights and that those Southern Democrats who couldn't stomach the change switched parties to the Republicans.

This is just lies, and I expect the reviewer knows it. There were all of two Democrats who switched to the Republican Party in the period between 1964 and 1975: Senator Strom Thurmond and an obscure member of the House who lost his election soon after he switched.3

Strom Thurmond does indeed seem to have been a horrible person: when he was a Democrat. But after he became a Republican?

In 1971, Thurmond was among the first southern senators to bring blacks on to his personal staff in Washington; he also began to nominate an increasing proportion of them to the horde of federal posts on which any senator has a say. In 1982, he supported moves to proclaim Martin Luther King’s birthday a national US holiday—no big deal to the world at large, but a remarkable stance in South Carolina. In 1995, in a gesture that would have been unthinkable only a decade earlier, he was guest of honour at a Washington function to celebrate the successes of racial integration.

The Republican Party seems to have a beneficial moral effect on former Democrats, and the example would seem to counter the argument that Thurmond switched in order to remain racist. Clearly, there was no mass exodus of racist Democrats to the Republican Party. Republicans continued the politics of Abraham Lincoln, of civil rights based around “encouragement to industry and enterprise”; Democrats adopted a political patronage model, what Lincoln would have called “[bestriding] the necks of the people—not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden.”4

The fact is, racism outside of the left’s small circle of leadership is no longer a problem in the United States. We only have to look at the sad affair of Jussie Smollett. He had to pay someone $4,000 in Chicago to assault him. Not only couldn’t he get racially attacked in one of the most violent cities in America, beating up blacks turns out to be one of those jobs Americans won’t do. He had to pay Nigerian immigrants four thousand dollars to get beat up in Chicago.

The left’s strategy of identify politics requires hatred. Without race hatred, identity politics doesn’t work. When racial discord is so obviously receding that a black man can’t get beat up in Chicago without paying thousands of dollars to make it happen, the left needs to restore hatred or lose elections. Their lies are only going to get worse, and more violent, as we get closer to 2020.

Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. — Abraham Lincoln (Speech at Chicago)

In response to 2019 in Photos: For photos, memes, and perhaps other quick notes sent from my mobile device or written on the fly during 2019.

  1. Stolen, I believe, from The Macalope.

  2. Grant had one slave; his manumission documents are dated March 1859. See page 34 of Missouri, the Center State.

  3. If you count 1975, there’s also John Jarman of Oklahoma, but his switch appears to have been entirely symbolic; he never ran as a Republican, so we have no idea how Republicans in Oklahoma would have treated him in a primary; for that matter, Albert Watson, the other of the two Democrats who switched, lost his election five years later; he only won two elections as a Republican in an area where Republicans normally didn’t even bother to run a candidate. Southern voters do not appear to have switched parties any more than Southern politicians did.

  4. For an analysis of the salutary effects of the Lincoln model and the destructive effects of the Democrat model, read Thomas Sowell.

  1. Mob science ->