Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Robert Wargas

Bio

July 15, 2013 - 1:21 pm

One of the more salient lessons to take away from the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman tragedy (and it is a tragedy on multiple levels) is that the bad faith of Race, Inc. knows no bounds. It is a ruthless, pitiless, greedy, bloodthirsty, and vicious perversion of what it claims to be. It is, remember, a profit-making industry in which there is much largesse and renown to be made. And just like any profit-making entity based on an ideology, that ideology will twist and transform and adapt under any and all circumstances to preserve its status. This means that, when its essential narrative is under fire, Race, Inc. must change the rules, if temporarily. Under normal circumstances, though Hispanics are strictly speaking not a race, they are treated as such to advance a particular narrative. Zimmerman, who has Peruvian ancestry, would be considered an Approved Victim under such circumstances. But these were not normal circumstances, so things had to change. For media purposes during this whole fiasco, Zimmerman was made into a white surrogate. Race is indeed socially constructed, but what matters is who’s doing the constructing.

After the not-guilty verdict was handed down, I tweeted: “So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it’s still white men’s fault.” This, being a tweet, was somewhat glib, but I was amazed at the response I got. (Rod Dreher at The American Conservative called it his favorite tweet of the night. Thanks, Rod.) It touched a nerve with people; they were sincerely shaking their heads over how this case could be turned into an example of white racism. Then we get articles telling us that “white supremacy” acquitted Zimmerman. There is no arguing with such people. As I’ve written before, arguing that “white supremacy” controls the American legal system is a conspiracy theory similar to antisemitism. There is no real argument against it because it is unfalsifiable: the purveyors of the theory recognize no limiting principle to their idea, no point at which they would concede a point by the opposition. That in itself could be the very definition of radicalism: the absence of a limiting principle. To these people, everything, from the rules of a jury trial to the statutes themselves to the grammar of standard English, is tainted by whiteness. There is no escape. That’s their logic.

The “white supremacy” charge comes partly from the allegation that Zimmerman profiled Martin because of the latter’s race. In theory, those who hold this view are motivated by the honorable notion that all people should be treated as individuals. In practice, however, the radical extent to which they’ve taken this view has led to the result that there cannot be ANY interaction between a black and a white in which the black is not in some way seen as the victim of racism. To the more radical opponents of the trial’s verdict, there is no possible way that Martin wasn’t profiled; that he was the victim of racism is as a priori true as that 2+2=4. This means, further, that there are no circumstances under which blacks are to be guilty of anything. Still further, any and all trials that involve blacks and whites are metaphysical travesties unless the black is ruled innocent and the white guilty.

You can see, then, how radical ideology, any radical ideology, poisons a legal system. The purpose of a trial is to present empirical evidence and facts, all held together by a logical narrative of events, to arrive at responsibility for a particular charge. (Radicals sometimes think “logic” and “facts” are themselves white constructs.) Radical logic, whether far-left notions of “white supremacy” or actual white supremacy as in the KKK, runs counter to that behind a fair legal system. For radicalism forces its adherents to hold particular views; all judgments are pre-determined. There is, therefore, only one fair outcome to any trial.

This is ripping the United States apart.

 

Robert Wargas is a regular contributor to PJ Media. A native of Long Island, he was educated at the City University of New York and Yale University, and has contributed reports and opinion pieces to Newsday and FrontPage Magazine on a range of topics. He also maintains an independent blog at http://robertwargas.typepad.com. Outside of his political writing, Wargas has worked as a professional historian for a large cancer-research institution, documenting the history of biotechnology since the 1970s. He can be reached at rwargas22@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @RobertWargas

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"You can see, then, how radical ideology, any radical ideology, poisons a legal system."

You were doing great up until that line.

Marxism is a radical ideology; when someone supports it all the way to its logical end-of-road, he is a Marxist "radical".

Liberty is also a radical ideology; when someone supports it to its logical end-of-road, he is a radical capitalist.

Of course, those end-of-roads are, um, radically different - but that's because it's not about "radicalism", it's about **what** one is radical about -- i.e. the ideology.

As Ali A. Rizvi explains

--"I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism." When you think of a left-wing extremist, do you think of a greedy capitalist? Would you imagine a right-wing extremist to be dedicated to government-funded social welfare programs? The "extremists" and strict followers of the Jain faith, which values the life of every being, including insects, don't kill more than their average co-religionists. Instead, they avoid eating foods stored overnight so as not to kill even the microorganisms that may have collected in the meantime. In a true religion of peace, the "extremists" would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme (and perhaps annoying) degree, not the opposite."--

"Radicalism" tends to be aimed at the Left by conservatives, while "fundamentalism" is flung by the Left at religion, and "extremism" is flung around by pretty much everybody - but the underlying error of all these uses is the same: it points to the degree of something with no regard for the actual something involved.

As such, "radicalism" and its cousins "fundamentalism" and "extremism" are all contentless assertion, a shouting at ghosts.

Rather, what those terms do tell you is the speed and force with which someone is heading for their end-of-road; it says nothing about what that end-of-road actually is.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Radicalism is when you recognize no limiting principle to the set of ideas to which you are absolutely committed. Could be Marxism or liberty or anything in between. Anything can be radicalized, and anything, even a belief in peace, can be turned violent by the right combination of radicalism and the belief that one is persecuted. There have been "peace activists" who have committed violence.

A fair legal system requires people let go of their own ideology to the extent that it allows them to make relatively objective judgments about things. This is not possible with hard-line committed radicals, who always know the answer before they see the evidence. Not all radicalisms are created equal though. I'd much rather be tried in a radical libertarian court than a radical Marxist one.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
This stupid non-standard commenting system (which can't even stop spam) ate the URL for Ali A. Rizvi's post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/an-atheist-muslims-perspective-on-the-root-causes-of-islamist-jihadism-and-the-politics-of-islamophobia_b_3159286.html
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
"the radical extent to which they’ve taken this view has led to the result that there cannot be ANY interaction between a black and a white in which the black is not in some way seen as the victim of racism."
And we come full circle: the inevitable out come is..Segregation. I don't feel that way and no one I know feels that way. But that seems to be where the Race Hustlers are headed. They are working toward a society where the Blacks are the Ruling Elite exacting their retribution on the Whites in a Separate and Unequal society much like 1870-1965.
Van Jones? Sharpton? Harris-Perry? Any comments?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
"And we come full circle: the inevitable out come is..Segregation."

And, if some of the black leaders had their way, PHYSICAL segregation. I remember reading that one of the early 60s black leaders, I think it was Malcolm X, who said blacks and whites couldn't live together and had to live physically separated. He demanded that the blacks be given California as their own private state and the whites could shove off and live in the other states. (Of course that was in the days when California was wealthy and prosperous, not on the verge of bankruptcy the way it is now. )

I'm not sure what territory the blacks would demand today but I suspect it would be much more than just California. Hmm, maybe we could give them the Blue States and see how things go....
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
And these are exactly the radicals running our country.

I wish we could give them their reparations - a one-way ticket back to Africa if they're so sure that nothing in this country can ever be fair for them because it's all tainted by the evil White Devil. Let them go home and see what they can make of it themselves.

Surely people have to be losing patience with this. I understand that things in this country were bad for them in the past, but at some point, you have to let go and move forward.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
aharris- Really? Did they come from Africa? Or from Orlando, Pittsburgh, Omaha? If they are sent back to Africa do I have to go back to Ireland? My fathers ancestors arrived in Chicago, through Canada, from Ireland ariund 1850. My mother's family came from Scotland in the late 1600's. Where do I go if I have to go back?
I understand the frustration but really? Does Obama go back to Kansas or Kenya?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
And those would be the only reparations - that trip to Africa.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I made the mistake of commenting on a forum over the weekend where one commenter said that this whole incident was about killing brown people. I pointed out that GZ is half hispanic and making a statement like that was idiotic. Well, that didn't go over well. Your tweet hits the nail on the head.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I thought I read that Zimmerman had one black grandparent, a Hispanic mother and that everyone else in his family tree was white. If that is true, he is only half-Hispanic if you stop at his parents. If you include his grandparents, he is 1/4 black, 1/4 Hispanic and 1/2 white. If you go back another generation, the proportions change yet again....

When will we get PAST all this race crap and just accept that we are ALL members of the Human Race, and stop right there! If we stopped trying to parse the Human Race into black, white, asian or whatever, we'd all get along a hell of a lot better. Where is the downside to my suggestion? Anyone?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nail, meet Hammer.

Mr. Wargas works in the construction field...
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All