Ilana Mercer, American Renaissance, September 14, 2017
Tucker Carlson and his guest Dan Bongino raised what you might call a look-away issue: Looting.
As the two looked on at footage of looters in post-Irma Florida, TV talker and guest volunteered that “this” was “not about race.” “This,” presumably, being a reference to the looting.
Here was one of those, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?” moments.
Messrs. Carlson and Bongino were watching an embarrassingly uniform group of outlaws in action:
Mr. Carlson even went on to quip that the looting landscape comprised not mothers in search of diapers and infant formula, but people dressed to the nines in gold chains.
If the “gold-chains” allusion is not a proxy for race in our navel-gazing nation, what is?
What, then, is one to take away from these obfuscations coming as they do from our side? That looting can “strike” anyone? That anybody can “catch” looting from Florida’s contaminated flood waters? (Incidentally, wastewater infrastructure is buckling under, due in large part to unmanageable population growth. Immigration is stinking up Florida. Literally.)
Please don’t tell your viewers that flaws of character marring individuals in certain groups in significant numbers are a systemic, societal, structural problem. That argument is taken. It’s the case made by Cultural Marxism and its watered-down political offshoots of multiculturalism and political correctness.
In a manner of speaking, when conservatives hearken back to the “Democrats'” Welfare State to explain away the color of crime; they, too, are making the Cultural Marxist argument.
Recall how blacks rampaged through Milwaukee, hollering their white-hot hatred for whites? “He white. Beat his shit,” yelled one hoodlum in footage featured on “Hannity.” But crime, race and the reality of such racial hatred was quickly averted in the ensuing discussion. Instead, Mr. Hannity and Sheriff David Clarke blamed . . . Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Or, something like that.
To go by the doctrine of Cultural Marxism, looting in Florida and elsewhere is black because blacks are locked-out of American institutions. Never mind that the black agenda (perspective and attendant claims) is echoed throughout the culture (in music, art and film), transmitted by the education system (at primary, secondary and tertiary levels); is repeated by most media, most think tanks, by the publishing industry and by public administration. Why, Sen. Tim Scott, a black Republican, has just read President Trump the riot act over the president’s comments following the events in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Metaphorically speaking, free African-American politicians and activists are boiling the bones of their enslaved ancestors to make soup. The suffering of slaves is being exploited posthumously to shape discourse in politically advantageous ways.
As ostensible outsiders, blacks (gays, feminists and the antifa-Idiocracy, too) are compelled, in Cultural Marxism, to continue upending what remains of America’s staid, stifling institutions.
For a central tenet of this institutionally victorious form of Marxism is that middle-class values — the kind that built America — are evil and fascistic. (Also fascistic are monogamy, the nuclear family, heterosexuality, whiteness, conservatism, Christian conservatism, the quaint idea of good and bad, God and the Ten Commandments. Like Regan MacNeil, played by Linda Blair in “The Exorcist,” any symbol of goodness will send a Cultural Marxist into paroxysms typical of the possessed.) Thus, does Cultural Marxism march on, an ill-founded, purely political construct that appeals not to empirical evidence and reason, but to the roiling, base emotions of rage and resentment.
In its triumphant march through this country’s institutions, Cultural Marxism’s representatives have sought to eviscerate bourgeoisie morality. One such middle-class idea upon which an entire justice system once rested was that the individual bore responsible for his crimes — not a political structure, conjured by well-fed communists in academia, in a thinly veiled push to supplant traditional morality.
On the BBC News, age-old truths have long since been replaced with the abstractions mentioned. BBC anchors exculpated the looting in Florida, and elsewhere in British territories, with reference to desperation, disparity and . . . slavery. To the BBC’s editorializing “news” anchors, blacks don’t commit crimes, but are driven to commit crime by an inherently unjust white society, in which power relationships are rigid (so ossified as to elevate a black man, Barack Obama, to the presidency).
Overall, conservatives are to be commended for upholding the principle of individual responsibility irrespective of skin color. But in the same way that it’s obvious the left-liberal BBC News has become a creature of Cultural Marxism, it should be plain to see that where conservatives reduce the reality of crime to a political theory — too much welfare, too little capitalism, not enough Trumpism — they’re flirting with Cultural Marxism lite.
Writes polymath Ron Unz: “[T]he statistical relationship between race and crime so substantially exceeds the poverty/crime relationship [poverty being one of those societal structural impediments, I presume] that much of the latter may simply be a statistical artifact due to most urban blacks being poor.” To discount the immutable reality of race and crime in urban America is to discount “the real-world impact of these grim statistics.”
Never-ever are righteous individuals within a community to be fingered for what the wicked among them do. Still, seekers of truth should be able to talk about trends within communities without fearing a loss of reputation and marginalization. The kind of trends social science measures. Or, once measured.
Provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, generalizations are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources — one’s life and property — are best invested. (pp. 41-42)