Pimping Racism, Top Down

The narrative is always the same: It's all your fault, racist. But Detroit is the poster child for Leftist blacks taking an industrial giant and destroying it, all on their own.

And Obama now IS Trayvon. So he says. Or was several decades ago. Sort of. Not really. Obama is as white as he is black, and he never was a ghetto youth. Except now he is/was/coulda been, or something. Black anguish must be created and then exploited. Never waste a (created) crisis.

The excusability of Victims for their antisocial behaviors is a standard trope in the narrative of the Left. Blacks shooting blacks are not an issue for the narrative except to be excused due to racism. The shooters are Victims, to be pitied as much or more than their real victims. All parties are Victims, then, of racism.

In his book, Intellectuals and Race, Thomas Sowell quotes James Baldwin:

"Baldwin, for example, claimed that blacks took the building of a subsidized housing project in Harlem as "additional proof of how thoroughly the white world despised them" because "People in Harlem know they are living there because white people do not think they are good enough to live anywhere else." Therefore, "they had scarcely moved in" to the new housing project, before "naturally" they began smashing windows, defacing walls, urinating in the elevators, and fornicating in the playgrounds."

From this perspective, anything negative that blacks do is the fault of whites. But however much Baldwin's picture might fit the prevailing vision of the 1960s, anyone who is serious about whether it also fits the facts have to ask such questions as : (1) Was there a time before the 1960s when it was common for blacks to urinate in public areas of buildings where they lived? and if not, (2) was that because they felt that whites had higher regard for them in earlier times?

To ask such questions is to answer them, and the answer in both cases is clearly NO!

Sowell again, on the Myrdal book, An American Dilemma, which set the leftist intellectual stage:

"If heredity was the reigning orthodoxy in the Progressive era, environment became the reigning orthodoxy of the liberal era. Moreover, "environment" usually meant the external contemporary environment, rather than including the internal cultural environment of minorities themselves. If minorities were seen as the problem before, the majority was seen as the problem now."

And,

"To the intelligentsia of this later period, racial problems could be reduced to problems inside people's minds, and especially to racism, not only simplifying problems but enabling intellectuals to assume their familiar stance of being on the side of the angels against the forces of evil - and morally superior to the society in which they lived".

It is the condescending moral superiority which drives the Leftist narrative, not rational observation or deduction.

”Apparently people are to think and behave as they have in the past and yet somehow get better results in the future – and if they don’t get better results, that is considered societies fault.”

The idea is promulgated that the blacks have a right to hate whites because their black behaviors are traceable to whites somehow. If blacks riot, it’s because whites don’t trust them not to riot. If gangs of black youth shoot up a neighborhood, it’s because whites don’t think that they are any better than that. If blacks approach you and you somehow flinch, it is definitely NOT because blacks have a general history of violence, it is definitely because you are a racist and have caused black violence.

Put a different way, apparently when a certain class of youths behaves in manner X, it is racism to expect members of that class to behave in manner X, regardless of their history of behavior in manner X. Further it is racial profiling for one to actually look for behavior X in members of that class.

Moreover, it is racism that induces behavior X in a certain class of youth; they are not responsible for their behaviors because their behaviors are due to the racism of whites. And they cannot be faulted because they are Victims, a part of a protected class, a class of which very little is expected due to their Victimhood.

Therefore, it is racism if a non-class member assaults (or defends himself from assault by) a member of a protected Victim class.

_______

Trayvon Martin was killed while beating a "white Hispanic’s" head into the concrete. We don't really know why. But. That was due to the racism of the "white Hispanic". That is the narrative. Trayvon was the Victim, being the black one who got shot during his attack.

Now, Obama IS Trayvon. If Obama must discriminate and abuse citizens, it's because of their racism. He has no choice in the matter; he IS the Victim.

Actually, Obama is closer to white than Zimmerman is. But as Glenn Reynolds predicted, the more Obama fails, the blacker he chooses to appear. He, the half-black leader of the free world, is the star Victim. He must be protected. The professional Victim. Due to racism. It's no doubt that it is purely racism that is causing the failure of ObamaCare and the demand of the unions to stop it. It probably was racism that lost the Middle East to sectarian radicals, and caused the death of American diplomats in Benghazi. Undoubtedly it is racism that is keeping unemployment so high. And it has been claimed all along that to criticize Obama is purely racist. There could be no other reason.

Just like there could be no other reason for shooting the person who is bashing your head into the concrete. Skull cracking is excusable due to the Victimization of the Victim Class by racists.

_____

I took the concept of Messiah/Victim/Oppressor as a consequence of several books, which included Paul Berman’s “Flight of the Intellectuals”, Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals”, Julien Benda’s “the Treason of the Intellectuals”, Hayek’s “the Road to Serfdom” and “the Fatal Conceit”, as well as Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society”, and “The Vision of the Anointed”, as well as "Intellectuals and Race".

The self-endowed moral superiority of the “intelligentsia” comes from the rejection of all standard, fixed moralities and replacing those relics of oppression with personally derived moral principles of which one is very proud and attached (even if they are relativistic). That attachment comes with the conceit (Hayek) that one is specially anointed (Sowell) due to the intellectual superiority of having rejected all other morality and logic (Johnson). Hence, considering their massive superiority and innate morality, the intellectuals are destined to save mankind. I.e., they are Messiahs. And they need, must have, Victims and their Oppressors, classes to be defined for salvation and to be controlled.

In the George Zimmerman case, the Left went berserk in creating a universal model Victim and a standard Oppressor. They even lied about Zimmerman’s race (actually Hispanic with ¼ black) and created a brand new designation: white Hispanic, a fiction still being used. Trayvon fit the narrative quite slickly as a picturesque young Victim, being unarmed at the time of his demise – except for his tendency to love fighting, a trait probably attributable to white racism, of course.

The narrative failed, at least the racism part failed under FBI scrutiny (they didn't get the memo with the narrative spelled out apparently), and the Left has gone ballistic. Zimmerman must be punished, even if it takes the rest of his life to do it. Zimmerman was force fit into the Oppressor category, and the narrative reigns high and mighty over and above judicial process.

But these people are not Messiahs, they are blood-thirsty ideocrats looking for cannon fodder to bolster their next agenda (elections next year). If the judicial process must be sacrificed at the Leftist altar, so be it. If a human gets sacrificed, so be it. If Zimmerman gets assassinated, so be it.

So the concept of being "Messiahs" is constrained to describing their personal self-image, not their actual actions. Now there is a better description of the Left.

In his recent book, “Bullies”, Ben Shapiro makes an incisive observation: The self-styled Messiahs are in fact, bullies. It works like this. The Left went out of its way to decry “bullying”, with Obama at the fore. What could be wrong with that? Here’s what’s wrong: the Left has defined all of its detractors as “bullies”, which means that they are (a) immoral, and (b) must be stopped. That allows the Left to bully its enemies because it is a highly moral cause – to stop bullies.

Says Shapiro,

”Their twisted logic was deceptively easy. Liberals [now they’re back to being called Progressives, of course] claim that they are all about protecting victim classes from bullies. Conservatives oppose liberals. Therefore, by definition, conservatives must be bullies. And bullies must be stopped.”

By bullying, of course. Don’t like me? I will have the IRS audit you, Obama “joked” time and again. We must take a gun to a knife fight; we must hit back twice as hard. We’ll show those bullies who is boss of this place.

Shapiro:

”It’s not a new tactic. Victims hold a cherished place in the liberal heart. With victimhood comes moral power, and the power to extort the supposed victimizers.”

This double mindedness is perfectly consistent with the Left redefining all terms which it wishes not to confront and have to deal with publicly. It's Pro-Choice and Pro-women's healthcare, not Pro-killing your progeny. And the anti-bullying bullying was implemented early on in Obama’s administration when the HHS’s Sebelius defined the tea party and other constitutionally oriented groups as “terrorists”, then submitting that list to state law enforcement to be on the lookout for. Anti-bullying bullying has now been found to exist not only in the IRS and Justice Departments but also in ICE, the EPA, the FCC, and so on. The entire US government has been rallied to attack the narrative's Oppressor Class, defined as "bullies".

The concept of defining “bullies” and then bullying them renders the Left not so much as Messiahs, but more as Avenging Angels of Highest Morals and Moral Authority. As such, they have no constraints on either their thought process or the morality of their avenging actions. All that matters is that the narrative be brought to life, to fruition, and collateral damage be damned. Especially if it is only damaging to white, gun owning, religious clingers who lose some of their Amendments to the constitution – an antiquated document written by privileged, premodern or modern, white men. All of those – privileged, premodern or modern, and white – are categories of Oppressors, which must be stopped because they are immoral. The Avenging Angels of Highest Morals and Moral Authority will let the defeated opponents know what their new, positive rights are. Those are the rights of which Obama has said he approves: liberty is too messy. It gets in the way of governing.

Addendum:



This is the face of one of the teenagers killed by Obama, who approves drone strikes on Americans. The face belongs to 16 year old Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, who, along with Samir Khan, both American citizens, were killed by drone "(along with a teenage cousin and five others at an open-air restaurant in Yemen)". This was done, of course, in the name of SELF DEFENSE, where Obama stands his ground to kill certain people even while allowing hordes of other foreigners to invade from the south with impunity.

Where is the hysterical outrage? Where are the Bash mobs? Where are the boycotts? Where is the constant media coverage? Well, there is no opportunity to further the Leftist narrative attached to this cold murder, and it was accomplished by an Avenging Angel under Messiahism; therefore it is a morally acceptable brutality.