Absolute Hogwash: The identity politics mental gymnastics

This egregious piece of garbage published by The New York Times on their op-ed panel is full of some very one-sided identity politics hogwash.

How about we re-write this completely against the left and show how clearly one-sided it is, eh?

“It’s ironic that race was the issue that created the Democrat Party and that race could very well be the issue that destroys it.

The Democrat Party was founded to keep slavery, and through most of its history it had a horrible record on civil rights. A greater percentage of congressional Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.

It’s been a white party for a while now, of course, but adopted some opportunistic positions on civil rights enforcement that made it possible to be a Democrat without feeling like you were violating basic decency on matters of race. Most of the Democrat establishment, from the Clintons to Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, accept bigotry, and racism as a common feature in the liberal movement.

Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Democrats.

In that time, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.

Yet the Democrat Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that anyone faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Democrats who felt this had tripled.

Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Democrats are what you might call liberal universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call liberal race identitarians. White universalists believe in liberal principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are liberal, but their white identity is quite a detriment to them, sometimes even more of an issue than their liberalism.

These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.

According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Democrats believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against people of color in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination favoring whites.

I’d love to see more research on the relationship between white identity politics and simple racism. There’s clear overlap, but I suspect they’re not quite the same thing. Racism is about feeling others are inferior. White identitarianism is about feeling downtrodden and aggrieved by your whiteness to the point you hate the color of you own skin.

In the P.R.R.I. survey, for example, roughly as many Democrats believe Muslims, immigrants and trans people face a lot of discrimination as believe whites and people of color do. According to a Quinnipiac poll, 59 percent of those in the white working class believe white supremacist groups are a threat to the country.

But three things are clear: First, the meager identity politics of the right is far less corrosive than identity politics on the left. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.

Second, to say Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter at all is just more toxic identity politics. In American history white lives didn’t matter more than black unless you were well off and Dutch, English, or German as an indentured servant was worth less than a slave. In current realities this hasn’t changed as a white kid can die to a unjust police shooting and will only get 20s of media attention per the 14 days when one dead black kid gets shot by a white cop (all while completely ignoring the hundreds of dead black kids killed by other black kids).

Third, identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the key to their hate and anger. He established his political identity by questioning Obama’s birth record, as did Obama’s own brother. He won the Republican nomination on enacting a ban on Muslim countries that Obama was counseled to enact, but didn’t. He campaigned on the Mexican border fence/wall that congress had already enacted, but Obama again failed to enforce. And now he governs by being objective and real on Charlottesville and pardoning Joe Arpaio of a misdemeanor, something Obama would have used to further racial tensions.

Each individual Democrat is now compelled to face how badly Obama both helped their agenda and failed them. The choice is unavoidable, and white hate and identity politics is bound to define Leftism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump fights against. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues, attack innocents, suppress speech, and set up astonishingly one-sided confrontations with anyone on the right, especially if they support Trump, who constantly shows them how much their “hope for change”, Obama, failed them while widening the racial divide. Things will get uglier.

And this is where the dissolution of the Democratic Party comes in. Liberal universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for identity politics and racial conflict. This fraction is prior to and deeper than Obama.

When you have an intraparty fight about foreign or domestic issues, you think your rivals are wrong. When you have an intraparty fight on race, you think your rivals are disgusting. That’s what’s happening. Friendships are now ending across the left. People who supported Obama for partisan reasons now feel locked in to support the leftists on race, and they are making themselves repellent.

It may someday be possible to reduce the influence of identity politics, but probably not while Trump is in office, since he constantly represents to these leftists as someone with a clearer world view than them. As long as he is in power the Democratic Party is a house viciously divided against itself, and cannot stand.”

 

Anyone who reads that cannot deny the bias, but also cannot deny the truth. If you’re going to write an op-ed, you should probably be clear that your bias, and not hide behind your own identity politics.

And, Evan, if your going to support this kind of bias with:

You should also make sure to note that the other side is just as segmented and bias as you claim the right is.

#MarchAgainstSharia sounded like fun…

RE:#MarchAgainstSharia

 

So I got to see Antifa protesters in real life today. I had believed them to be internet memes, unicorns, or some other mythical non-entity. Something that the videos of anarchists dreamed up. But, no… they are real. It was supposed to be fun, but it wasn’t.

My experience was a large park… with a small group of maybe 60 people and a megaphone… across about 60 yards from 9 or 10 people behind a guard rail. The shrill yelling coming from those 9 people was nauseating. I couldn’t get pictures as there were police everywhere and if someone pitched a fit, I’d be answering ignorant questions and didn’t feel like it.

The heat didn’t help, it is June after all. But, the worst of it was… it wasn’t a “march.” At best it was a rally, at worst it was standing around listening to someone talk. It was worse than church.

Personally I’m not on any side (excepting I’m not on the side of people shouting, “fuck you and your speech”), I think this is all hilarious fun. Also, helping the cops beat down on some ignorant fucks as happened in Chicago, Minnesota, etc., today would have been fun as well, too bad.

ACLU

One of the more interesting things I found during my quick observation was some people walking the interior guard rail wearing “ACLU Legal Observer” jackets like this one.

ACLU Legal Observer #MarchAgainstSharia

I found this to be disconcerting.

For one, there were a few standing talking with police. Others were simply walking around with clip boards. After returning home and researching what they do, I understand why they might be there, but what I was witnessing wasn’t a “protest” by any means. There were idiots on a guard rail shrilly shouting, and a group of people standing in the sun listening to a man on a speaker. Nothing about this showed me that the police presence there was ever going to have to do something other than be there.

Lastly, they didn’t seem independent or partisan. The people I observed seemed to be there for the 8 or 9 people on the guard rail. That, if those people started getting frisky, they were around to keep the police in check. Something about it seemed to scream to me as a limiting factor to keep the police from doing their job.

Labels

Another disconcerting observation was the image below.
Race unity day event - #MarchAgainstSharia

Now, I’m not exactly sure if it was completely related to the event I saw as the #MarchAgainstSharia event promoted, but it didn’t bode well. The sign itself was pretty temporary, so it being there for more than a day, was unlikely.

What exactly does “Race Unity” mean? I’ve seen a growing number of people, some #TradLife, etc., being pro-white and calling multiculturalism “white genocide.” Now if this group was part of this I could, in some part, understand the idiots yelling about “racism,” as being pro-White is seen as such. Ignorant, but understandable.

This viewpoint is mainly because of bullshit “gangs” like the Aryan Brotherhood. Being fanatics, for whatever reason, especially for such a silly thing like skin color is, in every way, retarded.

Now if some communities wants to only interbreed among their own ethnicity I’m all for allowing them to do so.  Latinos with Latinos, Asians with Asians, etc., but if that also doesn’t mean Caucasians with Caucasians in your book, I’m sorry, but that is straight up “Racism.”

I hate that word by the way. The only “race” in humanity is… humanity.

Do I think that communities and ethnicities should do this?  Not really. Humanity doesn’t need a color filter. If we all ended up one color, (which is inevitable regardless of what anyone thinks), things might be a little better in terms of world peace. Does this mean that nationality and creed isn’t important? Of course not. If nations start (or continue) to separate themselves by color, that’s just unfortunate for those countries.

I digress.
The only good that can come from preserving ethnicities, is more ethnic based wars.

In the end…

The best this “march” accomplished was to show off how two differing groups of idiots deal with reality. Am I against Sharia in America? Fuck yeah. Do I think it’s creeping in? Possibly.  Am I worried about it? Not at all. America is fine. We have gun loving patriots all over the place and a system of law that is one of the most exceptional on our globe regardless of how much it might fail its citizens. Sharia will go the way of communism in America, only in the dreams of ignorance.

The real religious reason against abortion, and equivocates it to murder.

RE:Abortion

 

The quick tl;dr?

The soul.

 

As an aside, interestingly enough there is more than just religions that believe in/acknowledge a soul, including some prominent science to relay more meaning to this for all including secular/skeptics even abortion apologists.

Soul

What does having a soul mean to abortion? Well, the essence of what a soul is depends on the religion, some are limited to just “energy” while others are more intricate as being a whole of you that when together make you, you, and apart you simply are “less than.”

To carry the point the soul in terms of humans, according to many religions, is the “ride of potential.” Meaning our physical existence is an experience for the soul. To learn, to be, to love, to die, whatever the purpose, our soul is there to find out through our existence. Some believe this energy keeps moving from one physical manifestation to the next, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.

Potential

What does “ride of potential” mean? Well in lay and secular terms the easiest way to describe it is via “equality.” This term is bandied about by many on the left and right of this debate without any rhyme or reason, but for the sake of this argument the best way to sum up “equality” is thusly:

“All men(sentient humans) are born equal, but they do not end up equal.”

Now, the use of the word “born” in this statement is intentional, especially in the context of abortion, but we’ll come back to that.

What this means is all humans have the same potential of life that every other human has. What that life might be limited or unlimited to is up to karmedic circumstance, but regardless it’s still potential.

The religious belief is that potential is something that the soul seeks to experience. Now most religions won’t fully try to suppose when the “soul” enters the body, “breath of life,” “if the heart beats,” “if there is brain activity,” etc., because it doesn’t matter. Time is irrelevant to potential. Abortion is the severing of that potential, not unlike murder. That body was marked for that soul, and now the soul has no ability to experience the life it should have had. It doesn’t matter if they were “born” or not, the distinction is clear. This is the effect of equality.

If you had a gun with a bunch of bullets, they all would have the same potential energy from being fired. Where they ended up, the ground, a tree, a target, the skull pan of an enemy, it doesn’t matter, the potential is the same. Now if you took out a round just before firing, pulled it apart, ground the powder into an inert substance, melted down the shot, clipped the primer and sold the brass for scrap, one might say that you’ve completely obliterated the potential energy of that bullet; that it is no longer equal in potential to the others. It would be no different if The Flash or Quicksilver caught it mid flight and flung it into an incinerator. The potential was wasted.

 

You

Critics of the words above will now unerringly be screaming, “my body, my choice!” Let’s ask this, what are the main reasons for an abortion?

“You’re not ready to be a mother.”
“You’re unsure of the father’s ability to provide, and you can’t.”
“You’re too young.”
“You’re too old.”
“You have five already and can’t afford another.”
“You forgot your pills, just this one time.”
“You are unwilling to be a single mother.”

Does anyone notice something strikingly similar in all these reasons? The word “you?” Let’s look at “Your body, Your Choice”… the “you’s” outnumber every other word two to one. Abortion is about you. Your right to eliminate the potential of another human being, regardless of if you think that human’s soul is a brother or sister to you (as some religions do).

What do we always hear when someone get’s murdered?

“Oh! She had her whole life ahead of her.”
“She wanted to cure cancer!”
“He was only in the beginning of his life!”
“Such a shame.”
“What a waste.”

All of this bemoans the potential of the individual involved, the murder victim. There is no equality in that loss of potential, both in murder and in abortion.

No-one can argue that your right to choose was more important than another’s right to life. That is the essence of advocating for murder.

Women

The most interesting thing about this whole thing is that now only women can be blamed for this debacle. 664,435 abortions were performed in New York alone in 2013. If these were added into the murders for New York for 2013 the New York per capita murder rate would be 1271 times the global murder per capita for that year. That’s just New York alone.

Now why “only women?” You’ve done it to your own. “My body, my choice” demands that no man can be responsible for a woman deciding to have an abortion. It’s all on you.

Women, by the hundreds, made the conscious choice to have abortions to the tune of 1 for every 7 women (6.622, in New York, 2013), and they and only they can take responsibility for that.

Is this the foundation of feminism?

Is this the pillar upon which it stands on?

Does equality really matter to you when you’ve made your desires more important than the potential of another human being?