racism

Writer’s CBS Resignation: Thank a Self-Righteous Leftist

Writer’s CBS Resignation: Thank a Self-Righteous Leftist

By Erik Rush •

Here’s a story that garnered some coverage in the establishment press, but which definitely needs to be addressed in the proper context because it is disgraceful and disgusting: A well-accomplished, well-respected black man was recently forced to resign from his job for using the dreaded n-word in his place of employment.

The word was reportedly used in context, which means that it was not directed at an individual. This is only part of what makes this disgraceful and disgusting. Suffice it to say that most conscientious folks find that word distasteful, but said in context, I personally don’t find it offensive in the least, regardless of the race of the person uttering it.

The point here being that when a distasteful word uttered in context becomes as troublesome in the workplace as a person exposing himself to a co-worker, we have a problem.

Earlier this year, novelist and screenwriter Walter Mosley quit the CBS drama “Star Trek: Discovery” after getting a formal complaint about him having used the dreaded n-word in the writer’s room. Following this, Mosley penned an account of the incident in an op-ed for The New York Times.
Long story short, Mosley is an old-school black guy with rough edges who speaks the way a lot of old-school black guys with rough edges

speak, especially when the creative juices are flowing—and it doesn’t matter who happens to be in attendance. Apparently this triggered some hypersensitive, putrid little snowflake at CBS who filed a complaint with the Human Relations department.
According to Mosley, the individual who complained was someone in the writer’s room, but he was never informed as to this person’s identity.

When most people who aren’t mincing, hypersensitive little snowflakes are offended by someone’s words or actions on the job, they typically take the issue to the offender. If they can’t straighten the issue out between the two of them, one or the other might take the problem to the Human Relations department. In most places of employment with HR departments (like CBS), when someone has a problem with another on the job, there’s a thing called moderation which they use to get the lay of the land and determine if anyone involved has violated the law or the company’s policies and procedures. Excepting very rare cases, they do not allow parties to remain anonymous.

Judging by his rhetoric, most of Mr. Mosley’s sensibilities lie in the liberal realm, but he has very strong beliefs regarding self-expression. He doesn’t believe that the Confederate flag should be outlawed, for example, nor that any person’s speech should be stultified simply because it makes someone else uncomfortable.

Make no mistake: In the end, this is not about race at all, it just happens to involve a black man and a racial epithet. What it’s really about is the atmosphere of hypersensitivity and censorship in which we are all increasingly operating, and this is being driven solely by far left radicals. Since Mr. Mosley happened to be working in an environment dominated by such people, unfortunately he ran afoul of their orthodoxy.

This is also about those on the left aggressively advancing their doctrine with all of the cavalier self-righteousness and sense of invulnerability of a Deep South bigot in the early 20th Century harassing a random black man for fun. As has become apparent over the last few years, there is no lie to big to tell, no calumny too damning to level, no tactic too amoral or illegal to employ in the name of socialist ascendancy.
“[T]he easiest way to silence a woman or a man,” Mosley wrote in ‘Times his op-ed, “is to threaten his or her livelihood. Let’s not accept the McCarthyism of secret condemnation.”

These days, threatening or destroying someone’s livelihood has become an essential weapon in the left’s arsenal. We’re all aware of the high-profile individuals whose livelihoods and fortunes were destroyed defending themselves against the illegal machinations of Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, but there are many whose livelihoods have been significantly damaged as a result of that cavalier self-righteousness and sense of invulnerability on the part of leftists.

Conservative media outlets have been a major target of tech giants’ censorship for some time, and even moreso since Donald Trump came to the presidency. As a result, the fortunes of many alternative media venues and those who work with and for them have turned very much for the worse. This is not widely discussed, perhaps as a point of pride, but also because we’re not a bunch of whining, putrid little snowflakes who can’t abide adversity, contrived and inequitable though it may be.

In the meantime, we have those on the far left who are attempting to dictate the use of gender-neutral pronouns and advancing the inclusion of sexual deviance in primary school curricula. We have the widespread doxxing of conservatives and Trump supporters being advocated even by Democrat lawmakers, and people of faith being accused of hate crimes for engaging in heretofore normal, inoffensive behavior. Draconian censorship on social media and online advertising platforms has become the norm. In similar fashion to that in which blacks were once viewed as inferior simply because they were black, whites, males and heterosexuals are increasingly being characterized as inherently evil simply for possessing those traits.

As always with the left, the consequence for disobedience is being labeled as a bigot, in which vandalism of one’s property or assault upon one’s person remains very much on the table.

Based on the progression observed in every other nation in which socialists have come to power, we know how this plays out. Our sense of inclusion, fair play, compassion and adherence to the rule of law have become liabilities, because these are the very things our enemies are using against us.

Rather than offering my opinion as to what I believe our course of action ought to be under these circumstances, I’ll leave the reader to carefully consider the previous paragraph and come to his or her own conclusions.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Civil War Preferable to a Democratic President

Civil War Preferable to a Democratic President

By Erik Rush •

It would be difficult to argue that the political environment in America has not grown significantly more toxic and hostile over the last several years. I pointed out in my column of two weeks ago that the political left cites the culture of the Trump administration for the recent deterioration in race relations. Similarly, the left blames the culture of the Trump administration for this dramatic downturn in civility. Again (as I detailed in the earlier column), this decline actually began during the Obama administration, and represents the left’s reaction to the popular rejection of socialist policies by the electorate.

The fear and desperation of those on the left cannot be understated. With the ascendency to the White House of an individual who could relate to average Americans, had the nation’s best interests at heart and who sought the dismantling of the corrupt Beltway machine, the political establishment faced a threat it had never before seen. This fear and desperation accounts for the augmented hyperbole and venom coming from the left, and the incomprehensibly absurd charges being leveled against President Donald Trump and his supporters on an hourly basis.

We have never before seen as much incendiary rhetoric, calumnies and fearmongering coming from powerful Democrats and their co-conspirators in the press, the entertainment industry and the activist community. Hardly a day goes by without a prominent liberal mouthpiece citing “irrefutable evidence” that President Trump and all of his supporters are vehement racists and fascists, that the president rose to his position via dishonest and unlawful means, and that he and his supporters represent an unprecedented threat to the future of our nation.

The Orwellian propaganda (which Nineteen Eighty Four author Orwell derived from the Third Reich and Soviet Union as the model for the government in his novel) emanating from the left is at an all-time high. “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” the phrase frequently attributed to the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, has evidently become the left’s standard operating procedure.

On Aug. 11, Fox News’ Brit Hume took to Twitter, blasting Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for claiming last Friday that Michael Brown, the young black man who was shot and killed by Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson in 2014 after assaulting the officer, was murdered in cold blood. Hume pointed out the abject fallacy of the claim, then chastised the two senators for the incendiary nature of their rhetoric, asserting that it did “nothing to calm racial tension in this country.”

Due to our nation’s history and our collective sensibilities, a racist is one of the worst things a person can be in America. It follows that baseless charges of racism are among the worst calumnies that one can level against another. Despite this, those on the left are dispensing such charges against President Trump and his supporters with a dizzying vigor, along with allegations of their proclivity toward homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, Nazism, fascism, and so forth. Leftist mouthpieces are instructing their followers to “destroy” Trump supporters, and the instance of left-on-right violence has far outpaced that of the reverse.

If this fire hose volume of lies and histrionics sets the engaged conservative or libertarian off balance (and it definitely does me), one can only imagine the overstimulation and cognitive dissonance it has the potential to produce in the rank-and-file unaffiliated voter. Many of those who succumb to the left’s rhetorical vitriol may be among weak-minded people, but the weak-minded do have the right and the capacity to vote. For the most part however, the battle lines have been drawn; it is unlikely that too many people who don’t believe President Trump is a racist will be convinced otherwise between now and November 2020, nor will any of those already convinced of this change their minds.

Suffice it to say that all of this is going to make for a very interesting fifteen months ahead.

Apart from acknowledging that the Democratic party was indeed the party of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow, whatever the party once was, it is clear that the party now represents America’s garbage. I will qualify these as the maladjusted, indolent, emotionally-stultified, covetous misfits who believe that others owe them an existence, immigrants who come here not to assimilate and contribute, but to drain our resources and contribute to crime, civil unrest and social decline, and deviants who wish to subvert our moral fabric to accommodate their proclivities.

The power brokers on the left already know that their divisive rhetoric has the potential to set Americans at each others’ throats; this is why they are dispensing it so freely, and why they have mobilized the above fringe groups like never before.

These facts, along with the incomprehensibly destructive, hard-line socialist policies being touted by the 2020 Democratic presidential field, the left’s “ends justifies the means” deportment and the history of socialist regimes from the early Twentieth Century on clearly illustrate the imperative for utterly neutralizing the political left in this country, and at this point I would say by any means necessary. A protracted civil war would be a superior outcome to this cabal gaining political preeminence, and as dangerous as the left claims Donald Trump is, the next Democrat president—whoever they are, and whenever they come to the office—will represent a level of danger to this nation exponentially greater than even Barack Obama represented in 2008.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Despicable Race-Baiters Are All On The Left

Despicable Race-Baiters Are All On The Left

By Erik Rush •

At present, there are a lot of people shaking their heads at the alacrity with which accusations of racism are currently being bandied about. This is for a variety of reasons. One is that baseless charges of racism undermine legitimate ones. Another is the potential for serious conflict given the sensitivities many Americans still possess on the subject. Finally, it dishonors those Americans who struggled against institutional racism throughout our history, some paying the ultimate price.

In the case of President Donald Trump alone, to date literally hundreds of politicos, activists and celebrities have accused him of racism. Many have done so repeatedly, despite the fact that in nearly four years as president and decades in the public eye, not one person has been able to present one scintilla of evidence that Trump is a racist. Some have gone so far as to claim that all of the president’s supporters are racists. This is eminently laughable, because if we count those who do support Trump, we’re easily talking about at least half our adult population.

While the political left would like the casual observer to believe that the uptick in racial tension we’re seeing is top-down and coming from the culture of the Trump administration, it actually began during the early days of the Obama administration.

How Obama and his surrogates deliberately stoked the fires of racial tension was chronicled in great detail in this space during his tenure as president. From Obama’s claims that police “acted stupidly” when they arrested his friend Henry Louis Gates, Jr., through former Attorney General Eric Holder’s interference in the dispositions of the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin shootings and much, much more, Obama set the stage for re-establishing the idea that we are an institutionally racist nation—something I even said he was likely to do in my book, Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal—America’s Racial Obsession.

Thus, the increase in racial tensions we’ve seen since Donald Trump became president is only a continuation of that campaign. It would have continued unabated even if Hillary Clinton had become president, only with a different face.

A major objective of the left is division, and we can see via the relevant timeline and the dynamics at hand that although Trump became a handy scapegoat for charges of racism, the hyperbole and accusations were born of the left’s fear and desperation in the face of the electorate’s rejection of Beltway politics and socialist policies.

Last week in this space, I detailed the story of a segment of white small business owners in New York City who are currently being driven out of business by far left racist activism. The requisite research for the article proved unequivocally that this campaign was well under weigh in 2015, which indicates that its inception came about long before Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the GOP nomination.

The article also referenced an even broader emergent and pernicious counter-culture of anti-white bias wherein whites no longer have to demonstrate racist proclivities in order to be considered racists. It is clear that, via the press, activism and the entertainment media, the left seeks to inculcate the belief into every American of color that racism is somehow “built into” every area and system within our society.

Phrases such as “decolonization,” “structural racism” and “implicit bias” are now worming their way into common use among fringe leftists—unfortunately, that appellation includes just about every politically-active individual in our larger cities these days.

Since many people of color have been corralled over the years into enclaves in which progressives hold political power, many have bought into the mantra of an institutionally racist America. As a result, racial hypersensitivity is at an all-time high. Earlier this month, a prominent young black Chicago broadcaster lost her ever-lovin’ mind on social media over a sticker a private individual had on their vehicle. In part, the sticker depicted a noose, but so eager was this incomprehensibly ignorant snowflake to attribute it to nascent white nationalism that she didn’t bother to research the item, which is actually a protest sticker against gasoline prices that’s sold in convenience stores. It is borne by untold thousands of vehicles owned by people of all shades across the country.

This race-baiting has already gotten well out-of-hand and, as I’ve said previously, being cowed into silence by the left is not a sustainable modality in which to operate. The race-baiters are not only despicable beyond description, they are a clear and present danger to our domestic tranquility, and they must be fought.

For Trump’s part, I am confident that he will continue to handle his racialist detractors brilliantly, as he did recently in revealing the political duplicity of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and the worsening squalor and corruption in his Maryland district.

For our part, we must continue to stand firmly by the truth that the only thing racism is “built into” these days is the playbook of the political left, and act accordingly.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
‘Doula Wars’ Driven by Far Left Racist Gangsters

‘Doula Wars’ Driven by Far Left Racist Gangsters

By Erik Rush •

There is currently a war being waged in New York City in the area of reproductive health, and it involves that city’s community of doulas. For those unfamiliar with precisely what a doula does, I’m going to suggest that the reader look it up in the interest of brevity. In a recent Netflix special, Asian-American comedian Ali Wong described the doula as “a white hippie witch that blows quinoa into your p**** to Keyser Soze all the pain away” during childbirth—and the tone of Wong’s reference is actually quite germane to the topic at hand.
The war of which I speak reflects in microcosm the larger war of cultural subversion that is being conducted by the radical left across every geographic and demographic area in America. As we have seen, there is no tactic too depraved to be employed in this pursuit, and these unethical and occasionally criminal antics are being supported, rather than condemned, by government and a sympathetic establishment press.
A July 19 article in New York magazine celebrated the fact that last month, “a bill quietly passed through the New York State Legislature that puts birth workers, commonly known as doulas, on a path to becoming professionalized in the eyes of the state.” Considering the intrusiveness of New York’s emergent nanny state policies and its legislature’s proclivity for passing laws that legalize such things as infanticide, this is a prospect that should terrify any doula. Indeed, some doulas and doula certification organizations are alarmed for these reasons, and because the bill was passed with minimal input from the doula community. The bill’s language is also confusing and the description of its reach and requisite certification requirements are equally obscure.
Far more disturbing is the culture of activism that has sprung up within this profession. The New York magazine article discusses such topics as a shortage of “doulas of color” and the high instance of maternal mortality among women of color, but it addresses these in the context of institutional racism somehow being at the root of these problems.
Digging deeper, it is plain to see that this activism—all arrayed in the finery of deep concern for expectant mothers—is nevertheless being driven by far left racist and racialist activists, and is clearly intended to promote racial division.
Ancient Song Doula Services, an extremely active organization cited in the article, is advertised as one “focused on providing services to women of color and low-income women.” It also provides various forms of certification for doulas. Granted that doula services and doula education should be widely available for women of color and low-income women, but a close examination of Ancient Song’s website evidences the outfit as being the Trinity United Church of doula advocacy and education. Their “Our Focus” page states that their goal is “to shift the narrative and address implicit bias and racism within maternal and reproductive health.”
Such language is of course part and parcel of far left racial orthodoxy, and one finds that in the culture of New York City, the idea of a woman of color being attended by a white doula is increasingly being framed as inherently racist. Perusing the various articles and advocacy websites reveals that these activists are of the mind that institutional racism is rampant in America; the rhetoric being bandied about in these places could have easily come from the mouth of Rep. Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez (D-NY) or Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).
It gets worse. The activism of those ostensibly advocating for women of color and low-income women has been vigorously targeting and demonizing white and “cisgendered” doulas for professional destruction—unless they have acknowledged the innate evil of their whiteness and demonstrably embraced the LGBTQ agenda in its entirety.
Katy McFadden, a Brooklyn doula, blogger and self-described “reproductive justice activist and maternal-infant health expert,” is one of the latter. Employing such phraseology as “White Saviorism,” “Toxic White Optimism” and “Negligent Racial Discrimination” on her blog, McFadden reveals herself to be one of those disgustingly “guilty” white liberals who has bought into the prevailing and potent New York brand of leftist doctrine, hook, line and sinker. Her blog boasts that she has partnered with Ancient Song Doula Services to “understand white supremacy” and “organize against it.”
It gets even worse. Not only are white and ideologically-errant doulas being singled out, but there is a spirited ongoing effort to include “trans” individuals within the doula community. This means that if you are a pregnant woman who requests an appointment with a doula, you are increasingly likely to have Bernie show up dressed as Brenda, rather than Brenda herself. Social media now features “queer birthworker” groups; chat rooms and message boards covering the local industry are now abuzz with the wisdom of “trans” doulas, “trans non-binary doulas of color,” and other LGBTQ-isms.
The New York magazine article even quotes a self-described breastfeeding advocate and doula whom, upon the author’s investigation, was discovered to be a male transvestite.
Some of these people appear to be at least as dedicated to demonizing white, biologically female doulas as they are to promoting their own inclusion in the industry. Their disdain for whites and “binary” individuals is quite fervent; their tone and character more resembles that of Antifa than a community of conscientious birth workers.
Where it get really weird is in the budding advocacy for expectant trans individuals. I shudder to think who these people might be, but in similar fashion to the New York magazine article, pregnant people are typically referenced in discussions among these folks, rather than pregnant women.
As a result, many established white doulas in New York City have lost their livelihood over the last couple of years. Some may not even know why. Those who provided the dizzying volume of material from which this article is derived are reticent to go on the record, given the vicious nature of the activism attendant to this phenomenon.
Like the gangsterism currently being employed by tech giants to marginalize everyone right of center on a global scale, the New York “reproductive rights” activists referenced here are engaging in behavior that is not only unethical, but probably qualifies as racketeering.
This is all sad and ironic, given that the women in New York who pioneered this work did so out of compassion and a desire to serve in their chosen vocation. If the character of people driving this activism at present is any indication, considering the legendary corruption and bureaucracy endemic to New York, many of the women about whom activists are allegedly so concerned are likely to wind up being served by insincere, incompetent and possibly dangerous individuals.
Unfortunately, since it’s New York, we probably shouldn’t expect anyone in government or law enforcement to address the issue until women of color in New York start suffering adverse health issues—and even then, it’s likely that these will be attributed to the racism of whites, rather than the racism of the left.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Dems’ ‘Poison Pill’ Pandering to Black Americans

Dems’ ‘Poison Pill’ Pandering to Black Americans

By Erik Rush •

It’s hardly a secret that those in the field of 2020 Democrat presidential hopefuls are pulling out all the stops with some of the most outrageous giveaway proposals in order to coalesce support among intellectually indolent identity groups. Some of these are being rehashed—such as pledges to institute reparations for slavery for black Americans—but inasmuch as all are being presented as newly-minted, and some folks may not be of sufficient age to have seen them proposed in the past, revealing these for what they truly are is, at this juncture, a prudent measure.

Most of the grander schemes that far left Democrats propose have the redistribution of wealth (confiscation of taxpayer dollars) as a major objective, although this is never discussed. Those with the most rudimentary understanding of economics know that universal “free” healthcare or higher education would lead to economic stagnation the likes of which we’ve never seen; those proposing these policies simply hope that the economic folly and dire consequences will be handily overlooked in light of the enticing promises of free stuff.

Pete Buttigieg, the celebrated mayor of South Bend, Indiana whose chief qualification for political office is apparently a proclivity for preferring sexual relations with other males, is one of those vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. On his campaign website, Mayor Pete has rolled out a comprehensive plan for ameliorating all of the woes of blacks in America. Called “The Douglass Plan” (after former slave, social reformer and statesman Frederick Douglass), it promises to resolve or advance such issues as health equity and justice, schools, black history, criminal justice reform, equal employment and business opportunity, public health, infrastructure, environmental justice, voting rights, the Electoral College and fair political representation—all as they relate to black Americans.

Curiously, all of this is framed as though these are issues about which Buttigieg is uniquely enlightened and uniquely qualified to address.

Apart from the shameless usurpation of Douglass’s name (as an escaped slave, Douglass himself was vehemently anti-Democrat, that being the party of slavery at the time), the page reads like one of those interminably long web ads for some cheesy weight loss program or plutonium-powered flashlight. Like Obamacare, if one reads between the lines, it’s easy to see the stealth money and power grabs therein.
More significant than the grandiosity and narcissism inherent to this plan is the fact that all of the problems cited on Buttigieg’s webpage from which black Americans suffer can be directly traced back to the policies of liberal Democrats. Further, most of them were instituted expressly to keep blacks socially and economically disenfranchised—and seeking aid from their Democrat overlords—in perpetuity.

An even more outlandish and dangerous policy proposal has been made by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). Two weeks ago, Harris unveiled a $100 billion plan she promised to advance as president to increase black homeownership. Speaking at the 2019 Essence Festival in New Orleans on June 6, Harris called home ownership “historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth in our country,” and pledged to “remove barriers that black Americans face when they go to qualify for a home loan.”

This “investment” by the federal government (taxpayers) “to put homeownership within the reach for those who live in redlined communities” may sound attractive to struggling black families who’ve been convinced that rich whites are the reason they can’t afford to own a home or who aren’t aware that redlining (race-based lending criteria) is illegal, but there’s an even bigger problem here than Harris’s duplicity or the inordinate percentage of economically-challenged blacks:

It’s already been tried, and with disastrous results.

Nearly all Americans who can read remember the subprime mortgage crisis and the economic implosion of 2008, from which many are still recovering. This can be directly traced to The Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 federal law ostensibly designed to encourage banks to help meet the needs of low- and moderate-income borrowers. The law was repeatedly tweaked by both Democrat and Republican lawmakers and administrations over the ensuing 30 years, largely to ingratiate politicos to those low- and moderate-income borrowers, but the machinations of some involved had far more sinister motives.

As I and others noted repeatedly during the Obama years, The Community Reinvestment Act was horribly abused by certain lawmakers and activists, some of whom were closely following the Cloward-Piven strategy of Orchestrated Crisis. This was a protocol that called for overloading the public welfare system in order to precipitate an economic crisis so profound that it would lead to a replacement of our government with a hard line socialist one.

Subsequently, irresponsible mortgage lending—particularly to lower-income ethnic minorities and the marginally solvent—was encouraged, and many banks were threatened with litigation by unscrupulous lawmakers and activist groups if they failed to comply. Some of these groups (most notably, The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN) had very close ties to the Obama cabal, and some were card-carrying communists. The financial crisis which came to a head in October 2008 following widespread defaults on these loans had worldwide implications and, despite the economic woes suffered by millions as a result, certain Democrat apparatchiks cashed out to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the fray.

To this day, the only economists who contend that The Community Reinvestment Act did not play a major part in this crisis are those firmly ensconced in the far left camp.

Long story short: In addition to the tiresome Democrat refrain of soliciting money and power in order to fix problems that they have in fact created for black Americans, the potential for devastating consequences attendant to superficially attractive proposals such as the ones floated by Buttigieg and Harris are clear. Many of these have, as Cloward, Piven and their acolytes acknowledged, hastening the fall of capitalism as their chief objective.

Which, as we know, is what the left has always been about…

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Black Billionaire ‘Victims’ and Their Leftist Overlords

Black Billionaire ‘Victims’ and Their Leftist Overlords

By Erik Rush •

Norman Vincent Peale, the Christian philosopher and author of the best-selling book “The Power of Positive Thinking,” is credited with having coined several axioms that have become fairly commonplace in the American lexicon.

Among these is the phrase “We tend to get what we expect.”

While this may seem somewhat trite, many will concur, outrageous fortune notwithstanding, that there’s a lot to this saying. In general, people who expect positive outcomes tend to experience more of them—and of course, the reverse often bears out as well.

Last week on CNN, retired NFL tight end Martellus Bennett and “CNN Tonight” host Don Lemon were discussing members of the Boston Red Sox visiting the White House to celebrate their World Series victory with President Donald Trump in the context of Bennett having opted out of a White House visit when the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl with Bennett as a player.

Bennett’s responses spoke to his belief that although many white players in pro sports do show solidarity with black players who decry alleged racism, they cannot understand what black players experience as black men in America, “even though we have money.”
Pretenses to victimhood like these are a noxious political device, even if men such as the Bennett brothers remain unaware of this fact, and that they are themselves being played (pun intended).

Martellus Bennett is the brother of Michael Bennett, an activist, author and defensive end for the New England Patriots. Both are of a generation of young black men (even though the former has already retired) who grew up indoctrinated into the belief that the same system of institutionalized racism that existed in America prior to the Civil Rights Movement still exists today.

I cannot tell you what it was like to be a black man in 1935 or 1955 because I hadn’t yet been born. My direct experience, which began in the 1960s, reflects a time when there was still a great deal of inequity existing in the area of race, but also a time where there was a great deal of hope and the knowledge that things were improving—quickly—because many people were fighting valiantly for that cause.

This has not been the case for many blacks who came of age after the Civil Rights Movement. As this period came to a close, the political left increasingly co-opted the civil rights agenda, with powerful white liberals, their high-profile black lackeys and activists increasingly controlling the narrative on race. Racist white boogeymen were everywhere; blacks could count only on liberals and their largesse to save them from an imminent return to segregated water fountains and politically-sanctioned lynchings.

Naturally, blacks’ alignment with Democrats and the ensuing socioeconomic malaise blacks suffered as a result of this served to artificially “validate” the idea that blacks were still being systematically oppressed—because in the context of the previous paragraph, they were.

Black Americans were no longer being demoralized by your archetypal bigoted “white crackers,” but by the political left. Unfortunately, this was nearly impossible for them to discern, due to the carefully-crafted propaganda and systematized cultural indoctrination being imparted by the educational system, media, activists and, of course, the widespread corruption of the black church via Black Liberation Theology.
Martellus Bennett and Michael Bennett were born in 1987 and 1985, respectively. The brothers have been massively successful—which one would think quite against the odds in such a racist nation. By their words and their NFL knee-taking practices, it is clear that they’ve taken to their indoctrination very well.

The problem is that neither have a frame of reference for what real racial inequity is. Driving around in a luxury automobile in a state of self-induced, paranoid hypervigilance doesn’t count, I’m afraid.

Institutional racism and the use of excessive force on the part of police are inacceptable. It has been proved definitively however, that in most of the extremely rare cases in which white police have used deadly force against unarmed blacks in recent years, the black individuals in question were engaged in behaviors which put them at risk of contact with the police in the first place.

As I’ve pointed out previously, my nearly innumerable observations involving blacks and law enforcement evidenced that in the majority of instances in which a law enforcement officer contacts a black person, the latter invariably acts with anything from indignation to outright belligerence, whether that individual is a street dealer or a Ph.D. Considering the paramilitary modality in which law enforcement officers must operate, this is probably one of the most unintelligent deportments anyone of any color might adopt.

Conversely, I cannot count the instances in which, as a teenager and young adult, I was contacted by rude and belligerent police officers whom I knew were bigoted morons, and in which the situation was handily defused simply via my being polite.

With blacks in America lined up behind the power brokers of the political left, nothing in the way of overtures toward parity will ever be sufficient, because their socialist overlords will deem any and all measures insufficient whilst continuing to keep blacks disenfranchised. Neither reparations, increased entitlements, socioeconomic strides, legions of black multimillionaires and billionaires—not even the election of blacks to the highest offices in the land will suffice. Blacks will continue to believe and claim that they are second-class citizens, even if no one else views them as such.

Most unfortunately, they will continue to expect questionable treatment and, by their overall deportment, many will continue to get it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Blacks Blind to Their Own Cultural Enslavement

Blacks Blind to Their Own Cultural Enslavement

By Erik Rush •

Considering the media firestorm surrounding actor Jussie Smollett being charged and subsequently released for perpetrating a potentially dangerous hate crime hoax, I thought it would be appropriate to weigh in with some race-related reality to give some context.

Jussie Smollett is probably too young to understand how his actions dishonored those who sacrificed in the cause of racial equality over the course of our nation’s existence. In school, I imagine he wasn’t taught anything remotely resembling reality on the subject of history, particularly in this area. Factor in Smollett having been raised in the entertainment industry from childhood, and we can see how unlikely it is that any sense of moral obligation he might have harbored could have survived.

As distasteful as it is for me, I occasionally engage in “media slumming,” this meaning that I expose myself to media that I would never watch for enjoyment in order to remain informed as to what’s going on in media venues. I don’t have broadcast television, nor do I participate in the ripoff of cable TV, but I do have streaming services through which I can glean a fairly decent representation of what’s afoot in broadcast TV.

Similar to the inescapability of superfluous homoerotica, pro-LGBTQ messages and anti-Trump snark pervading TV and films these days, the America-as-an-institutionally-racist-nation message has also taken on new life over the last couple of years. Case in point: Over just the last year, I’ve viewed more TV dramas than I can count in which characters bemoan Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and a host of other real-life black Americans being murdered by racist cops.

Such laments are abject mythology, but when one is in that passive mode of being plugged into the brainsucker box for entertainment purposes, the ensuing effects can be quite insidious.

I was having a discussion with some people on social media the other day on the topic of how the genres of hip-hop and rap debase black people, particularly black women. I offered that while I certainly concur with this assessment, it’s only a small part of the ongoing campaign of the left—and to some extent, our government—to keep blacks culturally enslaved. This is actually a theory I began developing in my teens, when I saw the music being marketed to blacks becoming less mainstream and increasingly geared toward hedonistic and narcissistic themes. Perhaps I noticed this because I’m a lifelong musician, as opposed to being remarkably intuitive.

I paused bemusedly after having employed the phrase “cultural enslavement.” I don’t know If I coined it then and there, and I don’t need the credit, but it’s bloody brilliant regardless.

Cultural enslavement is essentially what the political left has imposed upon blacks since the Civil Rights Movement. I have written previously about some of the federal government’s efforts to keep blacks on the proverbial plantation as popular sentiment around the existing racial inequities in America began to change; these included F.D.R. and Harry Truman conspiring with unions to use entitlement programs to keep black men from taking union jobs, and of course the deleterious effects entitlement programs have had on black families in general.
It’s been said that prior to the Civil Rights Movement, blacks were probably one of the most socially conservative groups in America. Occasionally, someone will point out how stable black communities and families were prior to this period, when wholesale government intervention into race-related issues and the explosion of entitlement programs took place. This is certainly accurate, despite leftists being quick to offer catty little mincing retorts in these cases: So, are you saying that blacks were better off under Jim Crow and segregation—hmm..?

I often proffer the argument that America is not an institutionally racist nation in the sense that black activists and liberals maintain it is. America is indeed an institutionally racist nation however, in the sense that since the Civil Rights Movement (which I’m using as a temporal landmark, not a cause), blacks’ identity has been dictated by liberal whites and their black lackeys, and this has been actualized largely through the entertainment industry. I went into great detail on this topic in my book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.”

In short, since the late 1960s, blacks in America have learned how to behave and who to be from TV sitcoms, films and the music industry.
Of even more significance is the fact that blacks have learned from these media sources how to relate to other racial groups, and how other racial groups relate to them. The worldview they adopted as a result has been extremely disadvantageous to them, and was predicated upon the desire of influential liberals to influence how blacks relate to just about everything.

More recently, young blacks have been indoctrinated en masse into the sociopathic culture of the lowest-of-the-low in the black community: Criminals. In addition to the gratuitous use of profanity, more often than not the themes of rap and hip-hop purveyors are narcissistic in the extreme, antisocial, anti-authority, misogynistic and racist. The attitudes represented within these themes have been adopted by young blacks in the same manner in which young whites assume the attitudes of their music idols.

Unlike Mötley Cruë however, which promoted the abstract if morally ambiguous “Sex ‘n’ drugs ‘n’ Rock ‘n’ Roll” lifestyle, in their lyrics, rappers routinely showcase their disdain for authority, multiple baby mamas, dealing drugs, and killing people—even police.

The cure? As simplistic as it may sound, like so many of the threats we face from the hard left, it’s going to come down to people waking up to the reality of what’s going on. In the case of black Americans, with so many remaining mired in the orthodoxy of the left and the Democrat Party, I see this as being a particularly difficult if not an extremely unlikely proposition.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Will Jussie Smollett be Held Accountable?

Will Jussie Smollett be Held Accountable?

By Erik Rush

Hours before Jussie Smollet turned himself in to Chicago authorities, this commentary appeared in WND.

When black singer, actor and gay activist Jussie Smollett was allegedly assaulted in Chicago on Jan 29, the act was widely denounced across the political continuum. While those of more measured rhetoric called for the prosecution of those involved, many prominent leftists immediately blamed the incident on a culture of intolerance that, they say, is being advanced by President Donald Trump.
Once upon a time, those in the public eye took great care with regard to what they said in public, if only as a point of credibility. Things aren’t always as they appear, and being seen as having rushed to judgment during a media firestorm just doesn’t speak to one’s intelligence. Despite this, very few of those alleging a Trump connection to the Smollett attack exercised such restraint; histrionics ruled the day once this story broke.

Now, when the Jussie Smollett story did break, there were some who considered the possibility that the attack had been staged, either by leftist operatives or by Smollett himself, in order to lend credence to the threadbare claim that America is an institutionally racist nation, and that having elected a bigot like Trump proved this. Very few who courted this idea articulated their hypotheses, and those who did were rather low key about it.

Why would anyone think that Smollett or the politically-kindred might stage such an attack, particularly considering the prevailing sensitivities in America around issues of race and intolerance in general? Because given the left’s track record, this is precisely the sort of craven, deceitful act that is in keeping with their sinister character.

As many are now aware, the Smollett story began to unravel over the weekend when the news of Chicago police examining new evidence connected to the alleged assault came to the fore. It quickly became evident—unless we have a really elaborate conspiracy within a conspiracy here—that Jussie Smollett himself paid two extras from his Fox TV show “Empire” to carry out the “attack,” expressly to gin up racial tensions attendant to the current campaign against the president and his supporters.

So let’s say we acknowledge that Smollett is an individual of low character simply because he’s a dedicated lefty. Why would someone who’s secured an enviable position in such a competitive industry court the ignominy of having been beaten up on the street, as well as being condemned as a hate crime hoaxer should his perfidy be discovered?

Let not those of us who condemn the left for their summary and cavalier appraisal of others (particularly us) fall short in our understanding of what makes them tick.

Once again, we must look to character. Jussie Smollett has been in the entertainment business since he was ten years old, acting in many films such as “The Mighty Ducks” and Rob Reiner’s “North.” As I have attested from personal experience, those who become ensconced in that insular entertainment industry bubble from an early age often become singularly scary people. The tragic lives and deaths of many once-popular child stars stands as testimony to this fact. Those who survive can become even scarier with regard to their worldview and perceptions of themselves.

Thus, it isn’t too difficult to see how a popular but perhaps deeply insecure young actor might choose two aspects of his public persona—his ethnicity and his sexual orientation—and qualify them in such a manner as to engender public sympathy. Further, to do so in a way that would advance a favored political agenda.

In support of this argument, it is now being reported by news sources in Chicago that Smollett’s motivation for staging the January 29 “attack” may have been the failure of an earlier staged incident to gain the desired media traction. Apparently (according to CBS 2 Chicago), a letter containing a white powder of some sort addressed to Smollett was delivered to a Chicago set where “Empire” was filming just days before the January 29 staged assault.

At this point, even some of the prominent lefties who supported Smollett have articulated their disgust with his alleged actions, and I applaud them for this. There are good reasons why our nation holds certain sensitivities around race, and it’s because many good people have sacrificed over many years to improve race relations and conditions for the once-disenfranchised. A spoiled, middle-class puke like Smollett wouldn’t be aware of this, partly because he wasn’t around at that time, and because accurate representations of our history are no longer taught in schools.

Smollett has now “lawyered-up,” expressing the requisite outrage and mortification through his attorneys and pointing to his further victimization via accusations that he orchestrated the assault.
An attack such as the one Smollett claimed had been perpetrated upon him is a serious crime which carries heavy penalties. Fraudulently reporting such a crime is also a criminal offense, with very good reason. The potential for dangerous escalation in the wake of such charges is very real.

It has become abundantly clear in recent years that laws, rules and ethics hold no sway over those on the left. Those quaint conventions are for the “little people,” not them. This of course would provide further motivation for Smollett having staged the January 29 incident, but it also gives rise to the question of whether or not he will be held accountable in any manner if he is indeed found to be culpable.

While the Chicago authorities and the FBI are said to be investigating the “white powder” letter and the January 29 attack, there’s no telling whether or not these will lead to a just disposition. In the meantime, the producers of “Empire” and the network (Fox Broadcasting) announced this week that they intend to keep Smollett on as a series regular.

Originally published in WorldNetDailyate crime

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Harvey, the Left, and ‘Environmental Racism’

Harvey, the Left, and ‘Environmental Racism’

By Erik Rush •

As surely as the thunderclap follows a flash of lightning, it was inevitable that the inescapable human misery brought about by Hurricane Harvey would result in further baseless accusations of racism on the part of those on the left against President Donald Trump, as well as allegations of institutional racism as a pervasive influence in America. At present, it may be too early to tell how far this could go, but there’s every indication that the option of a full-blown defamation campaign is still on the table.

Why might one anticipate such an outcome? As I articulated last week, leftists have demonstrated that they are determined to associate alleged racism with just about anything they can, particularly if it will aid them in characterizing President Trump as a racist. On August 25, the Daily Kos suggested that the hurricane itself might be racist, since it was “poised to disproportionately impact blacks in Texas,” and that the story was somehow being covered up. Apparently, President Trump’s failure to expeditiously fill leadership vacancies at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and the Department of Homeland Security (which oversees FEMA and the Coast Guard) is also part of this conspiracy.

Another conspiracy: Citing the catch phrase “environmental racism” several times, the Huffington Post said on Tuesday that flooding in Houston typically “hits poor, nonwhite neighborhoods hardest” because nonwhite residents have been deliberately crowded into neighborhoods that are most likely to flood. Who knew?
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), who represents Texas’ predominantly black 18th District, is a caricature of the black Democrat politician and has seldom missed an opportunity to decry institutional racism where there’s been no indication of such a problem.

In 2011, Lee claimed that Republican members of Congress were making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race. Earlier this year, she demanded that Congress to call for federal civil rights investigations into the hanging of bananas from nooses at American University in Washington, which civil rights activists associated with a black woman having ascended to the position of student body president for the first time in that school’s history.

As we know, several similar occurrences in the recent past were ultimately attributed to leftist agitators rather than white racists.

Early this week, as a downgraded Hurricane Harvey stalled off of the Texas coast after making landfall over the weekend, Rep. Lee urged President Trump to declare a state of disaster ahead of the storm This was admittedly somewhat alarmist at that point in time, but obviously doesn’t rise to the level of race-baiting. On Friday, Lee’s office said that it was “too early to draw conclusions on the President’s response” to the hurricane (which had yet to make landfall at that time), suggesting that the congresswoman was anticipating Trump’s response to the storm with a jaded eye.

It may appear cynical on my part, but it would not take too much misfortune coming the way of black Houston dwellers (or any blacks in the hurricane’s path) for Rep. Lee or other prominent liberals to mobilize the activist community in the cause of blaming President Trump for said misfortune.

This very thing occurred in August of 2005 when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. In that instance, the state and the local government under black New Orleans mayor Clarence Ray Nagin, Jr. dismally failed that city’s residents, but the blame for black denizens’ suffering was placed squarely on the shoulders of President George W. Bush. Black activists, liberal politicians, and celebrities came out in force to accuse Bush of everything from delaying aid to the city to having employed black ops technology to generate the killer hurricane in the first place.
Two days ago, eight members of President Donald Trump’s National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) resigned, ostensibly over his response to recent race-related incidents in Charlottesville, Virginia. This was a pretext, of course, in the ongoing drive on the part of Washington establishment types to characterize the president as a racist.

“When asked about the horrific violence in Charlottesville, you failed to denounce the intolerance and violence of hate groups, instead offering false equivalences and attacking the motives of the CEOs who had resigned from their advisory roles in protest,” the council members said in a resignation letter to Trump.

The quoted statement was an out-and-out falsehood – as have all statements been thus far in this calumnious campaign. Following the Charlottesville incidents, Trump did in fact denounce the actions of demonstrators in the strongest terms.

Last week, I also said that since white nationalists possess a miniscule amount of political clout in America compared to the political left, it is folly to consider them a serious threat, particularly since it is the latter who’ve been calculatedly compromising Americans’ liberties. From their proclivity to employ Orwellian levels of propaganda and social engineering, to rewriting history (in their campaigns to remove Confederate monuments from public display, for example), to their penchant for violence, they are clearly the ones embracing deceit, terror, and tyranny.

The dangerous irony here is that those on the left, from progressives to hard-line radicals, have been exploiting their First Amendment liberties in order to neutralize those very liberties as regards their fellow Americans. I have repeatedly cited this fact as justification for disregarding these liberties where it applies to the left – if not concerning policy, at least in principle.

So, how might a political party, an administration, or a voting bloc go about politically disenfranchising the left? That’s the question every right-of-center individual in America ought to be giving the deepest consideration at this juncture.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns