Get PJ Media on your Apple

Zombie

Progressive politics is rooted in racism. Look carefully at most social or fiscal policies advocated by progressives and you’ll see that underneath their false public rationales lie hidden racist fears and assumptions — some of which the progressives may be too embarrassed to admit even to themselves, much less to the world.

In modern politics, everyone doubts everyone else’s sincerity. Each side automatically presumes that the other side presents a false public justification for its political views. And in most cases it is wise to doubt, because most public justifications are indeed lies — sometimes unconscious lies. But surprisingly often the hypothesized alternative “true” motivation guessed at by the opposing side is itself completely incorrect. Especially when conservatives come up with theories attempting to explain what to them are mystifying progressive obsessions. What conservatives don’t (yet) know is that under the surface, most progressive positions are motivated by racist attitudes and assumptions felt by white progressives, usually against African-Americans. Progressive positions often seem inexplicable to outsiders because the proposals emanating from them usually manifest as colossal social engineering experiments, which the progressives have only devised as a distraction from the shameful racist motivations at the core.

This essay will likely be eye-opening for conservatives, and infuriating for progressives, who often don’t know their own history and never contemplated the origins of their own belief system. But it’s time to finally bring the uncomfortable truth out in the open.

Below you will find eight separate entries, each focusing on a different policy pushed by progressives. Each entry follows the same format:

BOLD: Name of topic.
In yellow: A neutral description of the exact proposal which progressives champion.
In red: The progressives’ stated justification or explanation behind their position, which hides their real purpose.
In red: The inaccurate theory which conservatives mistakenly assume must be the actual progressive motivation.
In green: The true racist reason underlying the progressive policy.
Plain text: Additional notes on the origins of the progressives’ racist attitude and how it led to this specific policy proposal.

If you want to just skim the essay and only read the highlights, then simply look for the green sections and skip the rest. Otherwise, read the whole thing to get a clear step-by-step explanation of the actual racist motivations driving each progressive position.

 


 

GUN CONTROL

Progressive position:
Restrict access to guns as much as possible; ultimately ban and confiscate them all.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
Gun violence is a scourge on society; easy access to killing machines unnecessarily facilitates murder and crime.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives want to disarm the populace to prevent armed resistance to the eventual imposition of a leftist totalitarian police state.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White urban liberals are deathly afraid of black gangbangers with guns, but are ashamed to admit this publicly, so to mask their racist fears they try to ban guns for everyone, as a way of warding off the perception that their real goal is to target blacks specifically.

 
The basic dividing line in American politics is not (as it once was ) North vs. South, nor is it (as many people now assume) Coasts vs. Flyover Country, but rather Urban vs. Rural:

The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either — virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it’s about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy — or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants. …The only major cities that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election were Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City.

Or put more simply: In modern America, liberals live in cities; conservatives live in rural areas. And what else is concentrated in cities? African-Americans, and gun violence:

The 62 center cities of America’s 50 largest metro areas account for 15 percent of the population but 39 percent of gun-related murders.

Putting all these statistics together, we see that large cities have high concentrations of white liberals alongside gun-using black criminals. And yet it is specifically in Democrat-voting big cities where most of the gun-control measures are proposed. Why is that? Are the white progressive urban dwellers afraid of rootin’-tootin’ cowboys? Of backwoods deer hunters? Of hillbillies with shotguns? No: the average white progressive has never even met a cowboy, a hunter or a hillbilly. And frankly, progressives couldn’t care less if rednecks own guns, because progressives aren’t physically afraid of rednecks on a daily basis. Instead, they are afraid of gun violence at the hands of their fellow city-dwellers, the urban African-Americans who commit a wildly disproportionate percentage of the gun crimes in America.

Progressives don’t want to ban guns to disarm resistance to any upcoming police state; that idea has never even occurred to them. Instead, progressives want to ban guns because progressives are afraid of black people.

But God forbid that progressives’ racist motivations be exposed publicly. So to make the gun-control bans appear even-handed and race-neutral, progressives must try to ban guns for everyone, even though the bans are in reality aimed at one specific group. Rural gun-users are just collateral damage of a policy that actually targets inner-city blacks.

 


 

JUNK FOOD TAXES

Progressive position:
Impose punitive taxes on all sugary or unhealthy junk food to discourage its consumption; also implement a variety of regulations targeting fast-food chains and producers.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
To improve the overall health of the general public, we should economically pressure people to have a better diet by artificially inflating the price of any food which is bad for them.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives are control-freaks who derive pleasure from micro-managing everyone’s lifestyle; they particularly delight in banishing the exact kinds of food normally enjoyed by “average Americans,” just out of spite.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
Progressives believe that black people are too dumb to make healthy food choices.

 
The white liberal elites who propose and vote for junk food taxes (and other food-related regulations) are not the kind of people who even eat junk food; instead, they paternalistically and presumptively try to dictate what other people should and should not eat. Embedded in this attitude is the unspoken assumption that the people doing the dictating (the liberal elites) are smarter than the consumers who unwittingly choose to eat unhealthy food. And who are those consumers? Disproportionally it is African-Americans, as we are frequently reminded by a steady stream of academic studies, articles in magazines and political rants all coming out of the progressive camp. The entire implicit message of this liberal “food politics” movement can be summed up as: Black people are too stupid to make wise nutrition decisions, too childish to resist enticing packaging and ads, and too illiterate to read labels. We white progressives must therefore intervene and in the role of loving parents help blacks learn to like broccoli nummy num num good for you!
 


 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Progressive position:
Institute a variety of penalties, taxes and incentives all designed to discourage production and use of carbon-derived energy by industrialized nations.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
This is not a political position: it’s simply a scientific fact that if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels then the resulting greenhouse gases will render the planet uninhabitable.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
This so-called “crisis” is just the latest in a long series of fabricated environmental pseudo-crises not based on fact but on an irrational Luddite loathing of civilization; your wildly exaggerated hysteria about “global warming” is merely a mechanism to manipulate and control the citizenry and cripple the economy.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
The civilizational “white guilt” motivating the voluntary wealth transfer to undeveloped nations derives from deep racist assumptions about the innate shortcomings of backward peoples.

 
Viewed globally, the real long-term consequence of all the “climate change”-related policy proposals is to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the First World developed nations to the Third World underdeveloped nations, while simultaneously crippling the ability of the developed world to maintain its economic dominance.

What could motivate this seemingly suicidal economic policy by First-World progressives? In a word: Guilt. Specifically, “white guilt” by Europeans (and those descended from Europeans) for having unfairly exploited backward regions and non-white peoples over the last few centuries to establish white economic hegemony over the rest of the world.

This rationale is openly discussed at the annual United Nations Climate Change Conferences, where representatives of Third World nations demand payback and reparations for colonialist exploitation, and where the descendants of those colonialists grovel in abject apology for the wrongdoings of their ancestors.

But deeply embedded in those apologies and guilt is a racism that far surpasses even the naive racism of yesteryear.

If you enter into competition with a rival you deem approximately equal in skill to yourself, and then you win fair and square, then it would never occur to you to apologize for winning nor would you feel guilty about it — because it was a fair fight. On the other hand, if you compete against and then easily defeat an opponent whose very nature you believe makes them inescapably inferior to you — for example, getting in a fistfight with a small child — then afterwards you might very well feel guilty and apologize for taking advantage of a lesser opponent who had no chance against you due to their inherent inadequacy.

So when a modern progressive apologizes for his ancestors’ past colonialist dominance, he is really saying: “I’m so sorry that we smart organized aggressive white people took advantage of you lesser peoples whose inherent cultural and intellectual shortcomings made you incapable of fending us off: it wasn’t a fair fight, and I apologize.”

In other words: Apologizing is an unconscious backhanded way of declaring your innate superiority.

If these modern progressives felt that their ancestors had achieved global dominance by defeating rivals of equal stature, then there’d be nothing to feel guilty about, and thus no need to pay reparations and hence no need to devise the “climate change” crisis and attendant suicidal economic policies.
 


 

THE WELFARE STATE

Progressive position:
Maximize benefits and ease qualifications for all entitlement and social welfare programs; ultimately institute a “guaranteed income” for all U.S. residents.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
No one should starve or go homeless in a wealthy nation such as ours; we should always give a helping hand to those in need.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
The ever-escalating magnitude of unnecessary government handouts is just a backdoor route to socialism by confiscating more and more wealth from the productive class and “redistributing” it to the unproductive.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
The true goal of progressive-style cradle-to-grave welfare is to enslave blacks in a culture of dependency and thereby keep them mollified and also a dependable Democratic voting bloc.

 
The toxic addictive effect of an ongoing welfare system has been debated for centuries; as far back as the 1700s in England it was pointed out that giving free food to the lower classes both removed their motivation to work and also increased their numbers; abusing these sociological trends for cynical political advantage dates back even further, when Roman emperors handed out free bread to curry favor with the masses. In modern America, African-Americans disproportionally comprise the lower class, so progressives have devised a racist strategy of lifelong government dependency to not only permanently keep blacks at the bottom of the economic scale but also corrode their sense of self-sufficiency so that they always return to the Democratic Party just as the addict always returns to the pusher.

According to Ronald Kessler’s book Inside the White House, President Johnson explained the rationale behind his “Great Society” welfare programs thus: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” As there is no audio recording of this quote (which was reported second-hand), progressives have spent years trying to cast doubt on its existence, because it confirms the worst assumptions behind the justification for welfare. However, there are other audio recordings from the same era of Johnson obsessing over maximizing black votes and referring to them as “niggers” — for example, listen to this tape of Johnson complaining that he can’t prove black voters are being suppressed because “More niggers vote than white folks.” While this doesn’t conclusively prove he also said the disputed “200 years” quote, it does prove that he spoke in those terms, referred to blacks insultingly, and schemed about ways to maximize the black vote for the Democratic Party — all of which lend credence to the disputed quote’s likely veracity.

What can’t be disputed is that since the institutionalization of welfare, Johnson’s cynical racist vision has come true: generation after generation of inner-city African-Americans have indeed become completely dependent upon welfare, and consequently reliably vote Democratic because the Democrats vow to keep the handouts flowing.
 


 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Progressive position:
Give preferential treatment to African-Americans and Hispanics in college admissions and employment; ultimately impose compulsory “minority quotas” on universities and employers.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
The legacy of discrimination suffered by minorities is a terrible historical crime that needs to be reversed; a strong undercurrent of discrimination still exists in America and only by giving a boost to underprivileged minorities can we break the cycle of stereotype-confirming poverty.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Affirmative action is just a form of reparations under a different name, and a way to collectively punish all white people for the long-ago crime of slavery.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White progressives believe that blacks are intellectually inferior and will never be able to compete successfully in education and the job market, and so seek to create a permanent system in which the assumption of black inadequacy is the starting point for an insulting double-standard of judging blacks on a lower scale.

 
When Affirmative Action was first proposed in the 1960s it was touted as a way to reverse a long history of what had been up until that time real discrimination against various minority groups. At first, the regulations merely (and reasonably) stipulated that all groups be treated equally with no prejudice. Over time, however, the requirements escalated, first from “equal treatment” to “if two candidates of different races are identically qualified, then admit or hire the minority,” and then to “give minorities preferential treatment, even if they are less qualified,” and finally to “institutions must admit or hire a certain number of minorities, regardless of their qualifications and even if there are better-qualified non-minority candidates.” While the courts have since struck down some of the more extreme “quota” laws, progressives in states across the country and on a federal level still strive to preserve and further extend Affirmative Action wherever possible.

In an era when Jim Crow laws were still fresh in people’s memories, the original even-handed version of Affirmative Action made sense. But from the very beginning it was meant only as a temporary measure, to expunge any lingering unofficial racial discrimination after all remaining overtly discriminatory laws were wiped away nationwide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Starting in 1965, it was illegal to discriminate against minorities anyway, so technically Affirmative Action was not even needed — which is exactly why its backers began the process of escalation, to justify more extreme measures.

The first escalation was to redefine Affirmative Action not simply as a guarantee of non-discrimination, but instead as a way to reverse historical injustices: Since minorities (African-Americans in particular) had endured official disadvantages in the past, they should now receive official benefits, to help them overcome the continuing effects of economic hardship from the bad old days. If we allow more African-Americans into college and give them more high-paying jobs, the argument went, they can more quickly become middle-class and break out of the cycle of poverty. And once that happens, we will end the temporary Affirmative Action programs.

But as the years passed and the expected class mobility didn’t materialize as quickly as hoped, progressives pushed for more and more extreme Affirmative Action measures, until a line was crossed and “Affirmative Action” became little more than an ironic euphemism for overt discrimination against whites and Asians, especially in situations where there were a limited number of openings at prestigious institutions and yet some of the best candidates were being turned away because of the color of their skin. In the final twist, laws originally meant to prevent discrimination had become laws compelling discrimination — albeit against different groups.

Fifty years and several generations have since passed, and the days of official and even unofficial discrimination against minorities in education are but a distant memory. If anything, attitudes and curricula across the country are more minority-centric than they have ever been, and promising minority K-12 students are greeted with open doors, mentoring, scholarships and encouragement at every turn. While we may applaud that, this happy new status quo undermines any justification for maintaining Affirmative Action in college admissions and employment. No longer can anyone believably claim that minorities endure discrimination in school; so why does society continue awarding them benefits not merely denied to others but in fact yanked away from others?

The average non-racist sensible person believes that African-Americans could do just as well as members of any other race in education and employment, but that cultural attitudes in the black community are what prevents this from happening as much as everyone would want. And all the Affirmative Action in the world won’t fix this, because it’s a mere band-aid that in no way addresses the root of the problem. If anything, Affirmative Action contributes to the cultural problem by communicating to blacks that society expects less of them, and also that they need not strive for excellence because they’ve got a college admission or job awaiting them regardless of how hard they work for it.

Progressives, on the other hand, are that class of whites who think blacks will never ever perform as well as other races because, the progressive has concluded, blacks are just too dumb to succeed in a truly meritocratic society. To address this intractable problem, and simultaneously try to paint themselves as being “helpful” to blacks, progressives have established a degrading and humiliating system of low standards which apply only to blacks (and other “underrepresented minorities” as an afterthought). They give this insulting system the truly Orwellian euphemism “Affirmative Action”; the only thing affirmed by it is that the people promoting this system must have a truly low opinion of blacks. Critics have pinpointed this attitude as the “soft racism of low expectations,” but there’s nothing “soft” about it: By insisting on the permanent institutionalization of Affirmation Action, white progressives are declaring right up front that they expect blacks as a group to always fail due to their average lesser mental capabilities. There’s no other way to explain the progressive stance — even if some progressives are unaware of their underlying assumptions.

Studies have shown again and again that the way to raise performance is to raise expectations. Want African-Americans to succeed academically and economically? Expect excellence. Set high standards and high goals. When you lower the bar, you reveal that you have no faith in their potential.
 


 

PLASTIC BAG BANS

Progressive position:
Prohibit businesses from giving plastic bags to customers.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
Discarded plastic bags harm the environment and befoul the landscape; we should be kind to the Earth by using cloth or paper bags instead.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Leftists have an illogical phobia about plastic, because to them it symbolizes artificiality and consumerism; they’re trying to outlaw an extremely useful invention simply to make shopping and capitalism more inconvenient.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White progressives specifically want to stop inner-city blacks from littering, but don’t want to be perceived as racists who further penalize the black community for its behavior, so rather than focus on whom they believe to be the actual perpetrators of littering, they remove from everyone‘s hands any objects which might potentially become litter.

 
Litter is a problem confined almost entirely to urban areas (suburban and rural areas have much less litter); and the poorer the neighborhood, the worse the litter problem. Rather than admit publicly what they believe to be true — that inner-city African-Americans seem to more cavalierly discard their garbage on the street — progressives seek to solve the problem by penalizing everyone, even those who don’t litter, so that the anti-littering enforcement won’t seem to focus disproportionally on blacks, which would appear racist and discriminatory. In other words, even though progressives believe blacks are primarily to blame for littering, progressives — merely to protect their own public image — will make everyone suffer, rather than implement existing anti-littering laws against whom they think are the actual perpetrators.
 


 

ABORTION

Progressive position:
Make abortion as accessible as possible; ultimately remove all restrictions from abortion, eliminating any financial cost, social stigma, and legal constraints.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
Women should have control over their own bodies; legal and shame-free abortion is necessary for sexual freedom; medical choices are a private decision between doctor and patient.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives prioritize their own amoral selfish pleasure over the lives of others; abortion is just another way that the far left is trying to destroy the nuclear family; environmentalists see humanity as the only contaminant in nature; by rejecting God the left has embraced and revels in a culture of death.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
The movement to legalize abortion was from its inception intended as a way to decrease the black and minority population, and the statistics show that a highly disproportionate percentage of aborted babies are black. The desire to preserve “racial purity” and to prevent over-breeding of the “lower” races and classes was the overt and publicly pronounced goal of the pro-abortion progressive eugenics campaign in the early 20th century; only after eugenics fell from public favor did the leftists devise deceptive new narratives to justify abortion. White progressives still believe that blacks cannot control their sexuality and are too irresponsible to use birth control reliably, so the only way to keep them from overpopulating is to keep abortion legal and cheap or free.

 
A recent informal survey of well-educated pro-life conservatives, asked to identify what they think really motivates pro-abortion progressives, revealed what were far and away the five most popular theories:

• Hedonism and Selfishness — Progressives want consequence-free sex and the ability to indulge themselves without guilt or responsibility.

• Marxism and the Destruction of the Nuclear Family — The left seeks to erode the basic man-woman-child family unit because to do so is a necessary precursor for state control over the individual, according to Marxist theory.

• Environmental Extremism – Modern leftism is fundamentally anti-human and regards humanity as a plague infecting an otherwise pristine planet; abortion helps to rid the Earth of people.

• Transgression and the Lust for Power — Some people simply derive pleasure from the subversion of traditional values and engage in transgressive acts for the sheer anarchic joy of overturning entrenched social ethics.

• Evil and Moral Relativism — Having rejected God and the concept of moral absolutism, the left has embraced evil, which is always accompanied by a love of death.

While there may be a kernel of truth to some of these theories, the real explanation is much more prosaic and doesn’t involve guesswork, because it can be plainly found in the historical record: racism.

Wherever you go in the United States, you’ll find that African-Americans account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate percentage of abortions, sometimes at a rate four times that of whites.

Imagine if the situation was reversed and it was conservatives who championed a policy that directly resulted in the demographic genocide of blacks: we’d never hear the end of it, and it would be cited by pundits daily as conclusive proof that conservatives are racist. But when progressives in fact champion such a policy? Silence.

Is the sky-high rate of black abortion merely accidental? Or was it the long-term goal of the family-planning movement from the beginning?

The answer to this question has devolved into a fight over the motivations of one woman, Margaret Sanger, who was America’s leading proponent of birth control in the early 20th century and who founded the organization now known as Planned Parenthood. Why Sanger? Because she’s basically the only birth control advocate from the era who wasn’t blatantly racist; most of her colleagues in the eugenics movement just came right out and said society would be better off without so many non-whites. Only Sanger was able to construct a reassuring birth control narrative that didn’t focus exclusively on race. Modern pro-choice activists thus realize the need to protect her reputation at all costs, because if Sanger is shown to have had racist attitudes too, there are no other heroes left, and the entire movement will be sullied from its inception.

The online arguments over the reality of Sanger’s racism produce a lot of heat but very little light. Her most combative progressive defenders dismiss nearly every quote attributed to her as an outright fabrication and pooh-pooh the rest as out-of-context willful misinterpretations. On the other side, her detractors have dredged up an impressive mountain of solid evidence about Sanger’s embrace of eugenics and an equally large mountain documenting Sanger’s associations with racists and her dalliance with racist theories.

The problem arises when anti-abortion activists try to pad out all the irrefutable evidence with a few too-bad-to-be-true Sanger quotes about the need to “exterminate” “negroes” — quotes which, upon closer inspection, were either originally said by others and merely re-quoted by Sanger (“The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit,” originally said by W.E.B. DuBois, later re-quoted approvingly by Sanger), or are open to interpretation (“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” which she did indeed write, although it’s not clear whether she was trying to suppress a false rumor or instead hide the terrible truth), or in a handful of cases seem to have been simply made up (“Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated,” a purported Sanger quote for which no reliable source has ever been found).

For the purpose of this essay I decided to ignore all second-hand accounts and read some original Sanger source material myself. It only took me an hour to conclusively document several egregious Sanger quotes, which (to keep this essay brief) I uploaded here as a separate post which you can read in detail if you need definitive proof. In short: Yes, Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist; yes, she sought to decrease the population of the “unfit” and “feeble-minded”; and yes, the unfit included not just “negroes” but also immigrants, foreigners and anybody except those of “pure native white stock.”

One of the problems in pinning down Sanger’s attitudes about blacks is that her public views changed over time. In the 1910s and ’20s she often casually cited “negroes” as examples of the very kind of “feeble-minded” “defectives” which needed to be sterilized or otherwise prevented from breeding; but by the 1940s her tone had changed considerably, arguing that it was for black people’s own happiness and health that they should have only as many children as they could afford.

Sanger herself acknowledged that in the 1920s she gave a speech about eugenics and abortion to the Ku Klux Klan, though she never specified whether she advised the Klan to limit the number of white babies in the world or instead reassured them that she was helping to decrease the black population. The fact that “a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered” immediately after her speech leads one to believe she hadn’t lectured them on the overpopulation of lower-class whites.

Even so, by the 1940s she had somehow reinvented herself as an advocate for black self-improvement. Had she changed with the times, or merely found a better way to package her toxic beliefs?

A key Sanger essay, overlooked by most researchers, published in 1921 and now hosted by the progressive New York University Margaret Sanger Collection, matter-of-factly spills the beans that her birth control activism is all a deceptive ploy, mere “propaganda” to sneak her real agenda — eugenics — into public policy:

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, by Margaret Sanger

…I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal, with the final aims of Eugenics. …

Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit”, admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

In another devastating essay hosted by New York University’s Margaret Sanger Collection, Sanger first bemoans the “multiplication of the unfit,” whom she then equates as being “those of low I.Q.,” and then concludes by noting that it is “negroes” who have the lowest I.Q.s:

All over the world, where the subject is studied, we find biologists concerned over the fall in the level of intelligence, and the increase in the number of those of low I.Q. …

Although the multiplication of the unfit is a world problem, we are here concerned with its impact on this country primarily.

The authors in questioning the possibility that such families may be producing children of superior quality point out that one must be optimistic indeed, to believe in such a possibility, if one may judge from intelligence levels in comparable groups elsewhere, which have been found uniformly below par.

The Charity Organization Society in New York in testing 451 representative children under its care found the median I.Q. 86. That of 821 children in Indianapolis was the same, while of 1,500 women admitted as charity obstetrical patients at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, 39% of the whites and 70% of the negroes were found to have a mental age of 11 years or less.

Clear enough? Sanger herself freely declared that birth control activism (which in the modern era has boiled down to the issue of abortion) was just a ruse to implement eugenic policies by another name — and her eugenic policies most definitely had a racial component.

 


 

NANNY STATISM

Progressive position:
The government should assume the role of a benevolent parent, guiding and prodding people to make better, safer and healthier decisions in their personal lives.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
The average person can become overwhelmed by the infinitude of options and often conflicting pressures of the modern world; by restricting people’s ability to choose bad options, we will enhance individual lives and improve society as a whole.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives derive sadistic pleasure from wielding power over people; leftism is not a valid political philosophy but rather a transparent justification for fascistic population control.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White progressives think blacks need constant monitoring and micromanagement to prevent them from misbehaving; but to avoid the perception that they are racists, progressives devise rules which restrict everyone’s freedom, even though the real goal is to control blacks.

 
Several of the entries above — junk food taxes, gun control, plastic bag bans, etc. — are examples of what has come to be known as “nanny statism,” a political philosophy of paternalistic government control which in the public mind typifies modern progressivism.

Do progressives really believe that all Americans need to be told how to live their lives? Well…no. This country managed to exist for 200 years during which time people were pretty much left to their own devices.

But that’s because for most of those 200 years most of the laws and regulations — including the absence of laws and regulations around most topics — were envisioned (to be historically frank) as applying to a mostly white population. As brutal and tactless as that may sound now, the fact is that until the second half of the 20th century the concerns surrounding black Americans (to the extent that they may have differed from those of white Americans) were pretty much near the bottom of the legislative priority list most of the time (Civil War excepted).

But over the last half-century, progressives and the progressive worldview have risen to legislative dominance, starting slowly in the 1960s and increasing in power and stridency in recent years, and suddenly the nation has become entangled in web of intrusive, inconvenient and sometimes downright insulting regulations all designed to manipulate, monitor and control our private decision-making and public behavior. Why now, and not before?

Here’s why: In conjunction with this rise in paternalistic micromanagement, white progressives have proudly stated that for the first time in U.S. history the concerns of blacks will now be given priority. And this is no coincidence. In fact, it is because progressives now aggressively push their agenda and because that agenda often concerns the behavior of African-Americans that we have seen an outbreak of nanny statism. The secret is this:

White progressives believe that black people are too dumb to make rational decisions on their own and too uncouth to behave civilly. So the progressive urge is to heap rules upon rules to control blacks and render them harmless to themselves and others. At the same time, progressives are terrified of being perceived as racist. So they hit upon a solution: Make rules which restrict everyone‘s freedoms, even though the progressives are actually targeting African-Americans. The collateral damage in this cynical equation — law-abiding citizens of all ethnicities — erroneously assume that the intrusive rules are aimed at them. But they’re missing the point: Progressives don’t enjoy restricting their own freedoms along with everyone else’s, but can conceive of no other legal mechanism to deal with what they see as misbehaving blacks while still appearing to be race-neutral.

Nanny statism is the modern progressive version of Jim Crow: regulations whose real intent is to oppress blacks, but now hidden behind the smiley-face mask of universal oppression.
 


 

February 14 has rolled around again, and we all know what that means — right?

No, you silly, not Valentine’s Day. That’s heteronormative and has thus been condemned to the dustbin of history.

And no, it doesn’t even mean V-Day, the rape-themed anti-holiday invented to promote Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues. V-Day has gotten stale.

Instead, February 14 is now 1 Billion Rising day, Ensler’s new dance-oriented hijacking of her own V-Day which was itself a hijacking of Valentine’s Day. The thesis behind 1 Billion Rising is that if the world’s one billion rape victims all rose up en masse and danced every February 14, then rape would cease to exist because unicorns and rainbows.

I attended San Francisco’s second annual 1 Billion Rising event, one of many similar events held in cities around the world.


We gathered in front of San Francisco’s City Hall at 4 p.m. for the ecstatic festivities. Would we reach one billion participants and stop rape forever?

I had previously estimated the attendance at last year’s event as somewhere around two thousand. But the 2014 1 Billion Rising, as shown by this overall shot of the pitiful crowd I snapped from behind the stage, was much smaller — a few hundred at most. This newspaper report says there were only 100 participants, while a more generous media estimate says “nearly 400″ at the high end, most of whom showed up late in the event to hear Black Eyed Peas rapper apl.de.ap spin records as the headlining attraction.

The event’s own official Web page reveals that only 71 people RSVPed, which seems about right, considering that well over half the people on hand were the organizers, performers, staff, volunteers, speakers and security.

Even an impromptu pillow fight flash mob, which happened at the same time as 1 Billion Rising just a short distance away in SF, drew a much larger crowd, driving home the point that Ensler’s depressing attempt to transform Valentine’s Day into a rant about rape hasn’t caught on, even in the most sympathetic political environment.

Organizers might counter my dismissal by pointing out that the San Francisco event is only one out of “hundreds” of 1 Billion Rising events around the world, but even their own promotional video, shown here as part of a TV news report, reveals that most of those other events are even smaller.

1 Billion Rising? More like a few thousand, grand total, worldwide. The problem with overselling yourself with a grandiose name is that when you fail to meet your promise, you look foolish. And unimportant. And small


In the final analysis, like all “protest movements” 1 Billion Rising is selling a product — in this case the notion that rape and wife-beating are an emergency crisis that deserves more attention and money than other crises — and to sell any product in America you need pretty girls. Except in this case they aren’t draped over the hood of a sportscar or putting on the season’s latest fashions; instead, they’re chosen to stand on stage and hold the official signs. Yet since the entire ethos of 1 Billion Rising is to oppose the objectification of women, well…am I getting dizzy or are the fumes of cognitive dissonance filling the room?

The point I made in last year’s 1 Billion Rising report remains true:

The main problem I have with 1 Billion Rising and V-Day and SlutWalk and all the rest is that they are purposeless — protests “against” a non-existent strawman. The only legitimate rationale behind having any kind of political protest is to support one side or the other in a contested ideological battle. But in this case, we’re protesting against rape, even though there is nobody in this country who supports rape.

Sure, there are rapists out there, but I kinda get the feeling none would go to a rally like this to have their minds changed, and they sure as hell don’t care what a bunch of protesters have to say on the topic (presuming on the off-chance that a rapist would ever hear of events like these, which is extremely doubtful). Rapists already know that rape is “wrong,” but somehow that knowledge never dissuaded them in the past. Furthermore, there already are laws against rape and sexual abuse — laws with amongst the most severe punishments in our legal system. So: everybody (except for psychopaths) already hates rape. Rape is already as illegal as it can be. Rape is universally loathed. What more do you want?

In response to my criticism, the organizers claim that the message of 1 Billion Rising is not directed at men/rapists, but rather at women/victims, and that the purpose is to “empower” victims and “raise awareness” of the problem. Take, for example, this quote from one of the organizers of the S.F. event:

“I stand here as a woman with my strength and power. And say it’s not okay anymore. We have to stop this,” Lyn Augstein said.

Critics have questioned the impact of the global dance initiative but in interviews published Friday, organizers declared the dancing has had a tangible impact.

In a press call with reporters, Ensler herself explained how this is all supposed to work:

“I had a vision that the one billion women who will be raped or beaten in their lifetime, I had a vision of them and all the men who loved them rising and dancing to end violence against women.”

Missing from these quotes is any explanation of how “standing here as a woman with my strength and power” and “rising and dancing to end violence against women” will miraculously translate into a lower crime rate. What we have here is a classic example of “magical thinking,” which confuses symbolic gestures with effective action. One is reminded of The Ghost Dance of the 1890s, in which Native Americans tried to stop the advance of Western Civilization by engaging in a series of dance rituals. Needless to say, the Ghost Dance was ultimately futile, as will be the dances of 1 Billion Rising.

Despite this, the joke’s on me, because Ensler has already raised $100 million to promote her dance project. Perhaps the name refers not to the number of participants, but rather Ensler’s fundraising goal: $1 Billion Rising out of your pockets into our bank account.

Enough with the overview. Let’s get down to details!


A group of hardcore radicals joined the 1 Billion Rising event but at first stood at the other end of the plaza from the main stage, where they announced through megaphones that they were going to tear up pornography and Bibles, to make the point that both Christianity and the sex industry are part of the patriarchy oppressing women, and equally to blame. They tore up porn and the wind scattered it around the plaza.


I came in close to try to see the torn-up Bibles too, but instead the porn just blew in my face.


After they left and rejoined the main event in front of City Hall, I sifted through their protest litter and discovered that they hadn’t torn up actual Bibles, but rather signs on which Bible quotes had been written.


Each attendee was handed a placard on which was printed “This is what JUSTICE looks like” followed by a blank area that we were supposed to fill with our visions of justice. Having completed the placards, we then had our souvenir pictures taken in the 1 Billion Rising photo tent.


Most of the messages were predictably feminine and psychological…


…but there were a few hardcore definitions of justice that were much more practical and effective and which I could therefore get behind enthusiastically (at least the nuts-and-bolts punishment part, not the passive-aggressive psycho-babble).


Planned Parenthood drew a small crowd by handing out free t-shirts. Except — there was a catch. In order to get your “free” t-shirt, you had to first sign your name on some petition they had. It later dawned on me: isn’t it illegal to pay people for signatures on petitions? And isn’t a t-shirt a payment-in-kind, a bribe of sorts?


Despite the borderline illegality of it all, they had plenty of takers, and soon all the t-shirts were gone, and the petition was filled with signatures. Hey, whatever it takes — right?

Pages: 1 2 3 | 67 Comments»

SF Protesters to Obama: Please Be a Dictator!

November 26th, 2013 - 10:59 pm

When Obama’s motorcade rocketed around San Francisco on Monday, very few locals even noticed his presence, and fewer still cared. The crowds awaiting him at each presidential fundraiser were by far the smallest I’d seen in over five years of covering his visits here. Ticket sales to at least one of the events were so sluggish that prices had to be lowered to fill the empty seats. Out in the street, rubberneckers and protesters had dwindled to the bare minimum. This is what happens when a hero disappoints: you don’t turn on him in anger, but rather just tune him out and move on to other interests.

Yet even with the small turnout, there was a theme amongst Obama’s protesters/supporters (supportesters?): They didn’t want him to change his political agenda — instead, they demanded that he assume dictatorial powers so that he could finally implement the radical plans with which they already agree. The message of the day was: Stop dilly-dallying around, Mr. President: Ignore the Constitution and just make The Revolution happen, as you promised!

That message would be disturbing enough all on its own, but it becomes much more disturbing when you suspect (as I do) that many of these pro-totalitarian protesters were astroturfed. In other words: Is the White House scripting/encouraging/guiding protesters on the left to beg him to become a dictator? So that later, he can explain, “I had no choice — the people demanded it!” Or is Obama simply telegraphing to his supporters that they should not be so disappointed when he throws in the towel and gives up even trying to achieve anything in his second term?

Let’s see what happened on Monday, and you can judge for yourself.


Obama’s first fundraiser of the day was at the Betty Ong Recreation Center, on the edge of San Francisco’s Chinatown. To deflect the constant criticism that he merely treats the city as a big ATM machine, this time he decided to give one “substantive” speech during the visit, on the topic of immigration. About 40 immigration activists showed up to — well, “protest” isn’t really the right word.


The leaders of the group handed out press releases to anyone who was interested.


As you can see in this zoomed-in image, they were urging Obama to “use his executive power” to simply declare immigration laws into or out of existence, bypassing the Congress and the democratic process.

Inside the event, the exact same thing happened — on stage! One of the human props standing behind the president during his speech suddenly started shouting at Obama to change immigration laws by imperial decree. Obama turned around and allowed the heckler to speak his mind, and then even let him remain on stage as Obama patiently explained that, as frustrating as it might be to activists, the president can’t simply wave a magic wand and make laws disappear. Needless to say, Obama was roundly praised for hearing the guy out, and for allowing him to stay, and then giving him a wise answer.

Was this simply a case of a human prop gone wild? Well, as was obvious to many viewers (watch the interchange in the video above and come to your own conclusions), the whole interaction was likely a scripted set-up: the heckler was a stand-in for all the activists to Obama’s left who are frustrated that Obama isn’t more “forceful” in exercising unconstitutional executive decrees; Obama’s response was not just to the one guy on stage but to all his frustrated allies on the far left. And of course it was all pre-arranged to make Obama look reasonable and heroic.

(The heckler, Ju Hong, claims that his outburst was spontaneous and unplanned; but considering that he was invited on-stage by the White House specifically because he was an Obama-supporting illegal immigrant, and considering how Obama not only let him go unpunished but then repeatedly used the outburst as a reference point in his scripted speech, Hong’s claims of “unrehearsed” are dubious.)

We’ll return to this first fundraiser in a moment, but let’s now jump ahead to the second fundraiser of the day, just an hour later at the new SF Jazz Center in the city’s Hayes Valley neighborhood.

This was a traditional fundraiser — no policy speeches, no human props, no press allowed. Just adoring devotees paying money to bask in his presence for a few minutes.

But here too, the same series of events unfolded exactly as they had at the first fundraiser: someone in the audience began heckling Obama to use “executive orders” to push the progressive agenda through — and once again Obama patiently explained to his most ardent fans that he just can’t do that, as much as they might want him to:

“Somebody keeps on yelling, ‘executive order,’” Obama said. “I’m going to actually pause on this issue because a lot of people have been saying this lately on every problem, which is just, ‘Sign an executive order and we can pretty much do anything and basically nullify Congress.’” When people started applauding, Obama said, “Wait, wait, wait. Before everybody starts clapping, that’s not how it works. We’ve got this Constitution, we’ve got this whole thing about separation of powers. So there is no short-cut to politics, and there’s no short-cut to democracy. We have to win on the merits of the argument with the American people, as laborious as it seems sometimes.”

Critics online immediately pounced on Obama’s claims of political impotence, pointing out that he has indeed repeatedly used executive orders to bypass the will of Congress, something he now says is unconstitutional.


Outside was a slightly larger cluster of our old buddies, the anti-Keystone Pipeline activists who have tailed Obama at every public event for the last two years.


But here too the protesters, who were in essential agreement with Obama on every issue, had one demand: That Obama “alone” set national energy policy, bypassing Congress, the democratic process, and the will of the people. Just like the immigration activists at the first fundraiser, and just like the hecklers at both events, these supportesters were frustrated that Obama hasn’t yet fully enacted all of his promised radical agenda via standard constitutional methods, so their proposed solution is for him to start ruling by decree — or “executive order” as it’s called, to make it sound more palatable.

But here’s the thing: as I noted during an earlier Obama visit to San Francisco, the anti-Keystone “protesters” are not opposed to his agenda — they are in fact part of his agenda, bit players in the White House’s endless political theater, giving him cover to make unpopular decisions, citing public opinion (as evidenced by these ginned-up “protests”) to justify his one-sided actions:

This explains how people who voted for Obama can be out in the street seemingly to protest “against” him. Turns out this whole protest was nothing more play-acting for the cameras, a group of faux protesters colluding with Obama to create a Potemkin “movement” which he can then cite as justification for making an unpopular decision he already wanted to make anyway. “I had no choice — there’s a mass movement against this pipeline! I must bow to the will of the people.”

I find it very disturbing that actual grassroots protesters would be willing to dispense with the U.S. Constitution and welcome a dictatorship simply in order to get their way on this or that specific political issue. (It might seem like a good idea at first, but that way lies tyranny.) Yet I find it even more disturbing that the Obama administration could be astroturfing (as in the case of the heckler) or at a minimum encouraging and facilitating (as with the anti-Keystone activists) the very “protesters” who call on him to assume totalitarian powers.


These socialized medicine advocates outside the second event don’t seem very well-funded, and so might be true grassroots protesters, but I’m quite sure that they too would be overjoyed if Obama simply made H.R. 676 become law by presidential fiat, even if so doing was unconstitutional and meant the end of representative democracy.

There are two ways to interpret these bizarre theatrical skits involving Obama and his supporters.

Innocent Theory #1 is that Obama is essentially announcing to his base via these symbolic heckling exchanges that he no longer has the political will to issue as many power-grabbing executive orders as he’s done up til now, and that The Revolution has been put back on hold. “Ram through the progressive wish list with brazen executive orders? Why, I couldn’t do that (any more, at least) — it’d be unconstitutional!” Theory #1, if true, would certainly be in response to plummeting poll numbers and the sobering reality that the Republicans are now almost certain to maintain control of the House of Representatives in 2014, meaning Obama is conceding that he has been effectively stymied, and is thus warning his supporters not to get their hopes up.

Sinister Theory #2 is that Obama is staging these repeated calls for him to assume dictatorial powers as a way to later justify his actions when he amps up and redoubles his unconstitutional executive orders. “I wanted to be a passive and humble president, I really did — but the public demanded that I seize power, so I had to obey the people!” Theory #2, if true, would be based on the fact that Obama is a lame duck president and thus immune from any need to remain “electable”: He could basically do whatever he wanted for the next three years, however extreme, and “get away with it” since he never has to run for office again and Congress obviously will never impeach him at this stage of the game.

To conservatives prone to fearing the worst from Obama I ask: Do you think Theory #1 is correct, or Theory #2?

To progressives calling on Obama to rule via executive order I ask: What’s more important — preserving our system of government, or winning political victories at any cost?

That’s the real dividing line in American politics today.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 | 116 Comments»

Islamic Terror in Kenya? Not According to the BBC

September 21st, 2013 - 7:42 pm

While a horrified world watches the images coming out of Kenya in the aftermath of the massacre at a Nairobi mall perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists, another less bloody but just as morally reprehensible atrocity unfolded online: the sickeningly biased coverage of the attack produced by some mainstream media outlets determined to provide cover for the jihadists.

The BBC’s lead story this afternoon was almost a study in journalistic malfeasance: an archetypal example of how left-leaning Western journalists will violate their own consciences — and the basic principles of reporting — in their relentless quest to hide the truth.

Such bias happens every day, and complaints about it happen just as often, but the sheer volume and speed of partisan reporting makes it difficult to highlight a single example. Even so, let’s pause for just a moment and dissect this typical specimen of ideological media spin.

The article under discussion can be found here — at least for now. Since media outlets often delete articles which they later find embarrassing, I can’t guarantee it will be online forever, so to preserve the evidence I took a screenshot, which you can see here.

Sections of the screenshot are pasted in below as illustrations.

How the BBC Intentionally Obfuscates the Facts

In traditional reporting, all the vital information in any news story should be featured right at the beginning, in an article’s three key elements:

  • The headline
  • The lede
  • The nut graf

Everyone knows what a “headline” is, but the other two terms are journalists’ lingo:

The “lede” in any story is generally defined as its first sentence. In a human interest feature story it’s allowable for the lede to be an anecdote or amusing observation — but in a hardcore news article like this the lede is always supposed to summarize the germane facts of the story. (The headline, of course, should be a condensed version of the lede.)

The “nut graf,” which is short for “nutshell paragraph,” is a single paragraph which gives all relevant information in a further elaboration of the lede. As expected, in news reporting the “nut graf” is always supposed to be the first paragraph of any story (although in feature journalism, which is not what we’re discussing here, the nut graf can appear later in the story).

So, what are the essential pieces of information about today’s Kenya incident? Most everyone (including the perpetrators) would agree that:

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists purposely targeted an exclusive mall in Nairobi frequented by non-Muslims in order to massacre infidels.

So: How does the BBC communicate this information to its readers in its headline? Behold:

Right off the bat, even in the headline itself, the BBC commits a litany of egregious and inexcusable journalistic errors.

The first and most obvious blunder is the missing subject. Who did what? Well, according the the BBC, an entity called a “shoot-out” committed mass murder in Nairobi. Note how there are no human actors in the headline. It wasn’t people who killed 11, it was an inanimate and leaderless “shoot-out” that killed 11.

This is a basic grammatical snafu which even freshmen journalism students quickly learn to avoid. But not the BBC, apparently.

On a second, more subtle, level, use of the word “shoot-out” implies that there were two equal combatants involved, and that therefore blame can be spread around to everyone. But as we know, it wasn’t at first a “shoot-out” — it was a group of terrorists massacring unarmed non-Muslims. (Only much later, after police arrived, did it devolve into a shoot-out.)

Since the BBC has been one of the world’s leading media outlets for nearly a century, and in previous generations set the global standard for news-writing guidelines, they have absolutely no excuse for writing a headline like that — they can’t claim “We’re new at this kind of thing” or “We’re just bloggers — cut us some slack.” No. The BBC literally wrote the book on how to write proper headlines. And if they write a poor headline like this, it must be on purpose.

Pages: 1 2 3 | 115 Comments»

Dear NSA

June 12th, 2013 - 9:52 am

To: doesn’t_matter@you’ll_read_this_regardless_of_the_address.com

From: zombie@z0mbietime.com
 

Dear NSA,

Constitution Allah Ackbar Tea Party bomb abortion patriot gun IRS Islam dog whistle Obama prayer tax surveillance.

There. Now that I’ve gotten your attention, can we have a chat?

If you have any pull with the American Psychiatric Association, could you please recommend to them that the psychological state formerly known as “paranoia” should be no longer defined as a mental illness? Asylums all across the country are filled with people whose only neurosis is the vague feeling that they are being spied on or followed by unseen powerful enemies. But now we know that everyone is being spied on every time they pick up the phone, buy something, use the Internet, or walk around in public — so it turns out that these “paranoid” patients aren’t delusional after all. It seems rather unfair to lock us them up and classify us them as crazy if our vague feelings of being stalked by the government turned out to be true.

To make sure you get this message, may I also say 9/11 Eric Holder birth certificate Bill Ayers drone Orwell Anonymous leak.

And in conclusion, just in case your algorithm has gotten overloaded, I’d like to not mention my private, personal opinions about the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Ninth Amendment (and you really don’t want to know what I think about the Sixteenth Amendment). For more information, please read the Fifth Amendment.

Thank you.

— zombie

PS — Tell the IRS that the best times for for my upcoming audit are Tuesdays and Thursdays, but unannounced visits from the EPA, FBI, OSHA or ATF would be more convenient on Monday afternoons or Wednesday mornings. And, needless to say, you can eavesdrop any ol’ time.

******

Cross-posted at PJ Lifestyle

President Obama arrived in the Bay Area on Thursday for his umpty-umpteenth round of fundraisers with big-money donors, this time to benefit the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

His first stop at the home of multi-millionaire tech entrepreneur Michael McCue in an upscale suburban corner of Palo Alto didn’t go quite as planned when protesters showed up and made a ruckus, despite the White House’s determined attempts to keep the location of the fundraiser secret.


At first the tree-lined street outside the fundraiser was calm and cheerful. Even Mike McCue himself (waving, in the white shirt) came outside to chat with the attendees standing in line to be cleared for entry by the Secret Service.


Millionaires sweltering in the hot sun, waiting to be patted down and searched by men in military uniforms; welcome to the 21st century. They must have appreciated the pep talk from their host.

No one there (except me) yet knew that a raucous protest was about to break out. For the moment, everything was calm.


Soon Mike even came over to where I was and started chatting with the neighbors, most of whom he seemed to be meeting for the first time. We exchanged pleasantries before asking him how one goes about becoming the host for a presidential fundraiser. He acted like it was a breeze, not much more difficult than picking up the phone and making a few calls and letting nature take its course. I guess it helps to be a fabulously wealthy tech entrepreneur and dot-com jillionaire.


But Mike was, in all honesty, a very friendly guy, though perhaps a bit in need of orthodontia. He noticed that one of his neighbors had set up a very cutesy all-American lemonade stand, the proceeds from which would all be donated to “support USA” (i.e., the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee).


He praised the “little entrepreneur” staffing the booth and even forked over the suggested $5 (!!!) for a tiny cup of lemonade, which (despite the misleading marketing gimmick of fresh lemons displayed in a basket) was actually just Minute Maid’s “Simply Lemonade” brand (see bottle at lower left) masquerading as home-squeezed.


“This is the best $5 sip of Coca-Cola subsidiary store-bought lemonade I’ve ever tasted!” he said (or something to that effect) to the local moms, who were still trying to grill him about Obama.


This being suburbia, the neighborhood toddlers gathered ’round and waved little American flags.

Now, if you’re locked into believing certain stereotypes about American political categories and class divisions and regional allegiances, you might be confused about all this. Are McCue’s neighbors and fundraiser attendees all rich elitist lily-white patriotic capitalist 1%ers — or are they hippy-dippy socialism-sympathizing liberal California Obama-worshippers? Ah, but you see, this is Palo Alto, where the answer is: Both.

Let me explain.


I took a stroll around the neighborhood to help me understand the vibe of the place. The Crescent Park area of Palo Alto is the kind of neighborhood where the smallest fixer-uppers sell for $3 million and the average resident drives a Maserati or a BMW.


Where Perfectly American Kids and Perfectly American Dogs wear perfectly cute little American flag hats while waiting to cheer the motorcade of an anti-American politician…


…while the paperboy delivers copies of Wealth magazine to people’s front lawns.


Where rows of brown-skinned valets patiently wait to park your car for you…


…that car being a BMW with “Wage Peace” and “Obama” bumpers stickers.


Where fabulously wealthy Stanford patrons will happily endure a body-search by the Bomb Squad for the rarified privilege of breathing the same air as Obama for one blissful hour.


And afterward buy a few souvenirs from the local button-peddler who showed up to sell…


…Che Guevara, Frida Kahlo (with her hammer-and-sickle) and Bradley Manning buttons to the Obama supporters.

Does that clear things up for you? Or is your head just spinning?

Yes, Palo Alto is one of those few places in America densely populated by the kind of citizens that don’t fit in to the traditional political framework: Rich radicals. These are not your hardcore Berkeley ideologues nor your violent Oakland revolutionaries nor even your smug San Francisco ironic hipsters. Nor are they top-hat wearing high society cigar-smoking paleo-Republicans. No, these are postmodern hypocritical millionaires motivated by a desire to not feel guilty about living their lives of luxury. And the easiest way to assuage that guilt is Vote and Donate Obama.

These people are not supposed to exist according to any standard model of the American landscape, but in fact they are Obama’s core constituency and what they lack in demographic heft they more than make up for in campaign contributions.

Pages: 1 2 3 | 65 Comments»

Karl Marx Was a Tea Partier

May 28th, 2013 - 1:31 pm

If you think of yourself as a Marxist or a progressive, you need to read this. (Tea Partiers may want to steer clear.)

Marxist theory can be summarized in two distinct ways.

The first view (held mostly by its detractors) is that Marxism is little more than the politics of resentment — a philosophical justification for the hatred of success by those who failed to achieve it. The politics of resentment offers three different methods for bringing its program of economic jealousy to fruition: Under socialism, the unsuccessful use the power of government to forcibly extract wealth and possessions from the successful, bit by bit until there is nothing left; under the more extreme communism, the very notion of wealth or success is eliminated entirely, and anyone who seeks individual achievement is punished or eliminated; and finally under anarchy, freelance predators would be allowed to steal or destroy any existing wealth or possessions with no interference from the state. Marx himself saw pure communism as the ultimate goal, with socialism as a necessary precursor, and perhaps just an occasional dash of anarchy to ignite the revolutionary fires.

But there is another, more intriguing and less noxious, view of Marxist thought that gets less attention these days because its anachronistic roots in the Industrial Revolution seemingly render it somewhat irrelevant to modern economics. Marx posited that factory workers should own the factory themselves and profit from its output, since they’e the ones actually doing the work — and the wealthy fat cat “capitalists” should be booted out of the director’s office since they don’t really do anything except profit from other people’s labor. Marx generalized this notion to “The workers should control the means of production,” and then extended it further to a national scale by declaring that the overall government itself should be “a dictatorship of the proletariat,” with “proletariat” defined in this context as “someone who actually works for a living.” The problem with this theory in the 21st century is that very few people actually work in factories anymore due to exponential improvements in automation and efficiency, and fewer still produce handicrafts, and the vast majority of American “workers” these days don’t actually create anything tangible. Even so, there is an attractive populist rationality to this aspect of Marxism that appeals to everyone’s sense of fairness — even to those who staunchly reject the rest of communist theory. Those who do the work should reap the benefits and control the system; hard to argue with that.

Although the “factory” is no longer the basic building block of the American economy, Marx’s notion that “The workers should control the means of production” can be rescued and made freshly relevant if it is re-interpreted in a contemporary American context.

Visualize the entire United States as one vast “company,” with citizens as employees and politicians and bureaucrats as managers. Everybody, in theory, works together to make the company successful. But there are two realities which shatter this idealized theory: first, only about half the employees actually ever do any work, while the rest seem to be on permanent vacation or sick leave; and second, our bureaucratic “managers” — just like the wealthy fat cats in Marx’s vision — simply benefit from the labor of others without ever producing anything of value themselves.

Now, this “company” known as the USA doesn’t operate in the way traditional companies operate. In our system, we create only a single product every year, a gigantic pile of money we call the “Federal Budget.” Each “employee” is free to engage in any profitable activity or profession of his choice, just so long as at the end of the year he (or she, obviously) adds his earnings to the collective pile, setting aside a certain amount for living expenses. The “managers” then decide how this gigantic pile of money is spent, presumably to keep the company healthy and strong.

The formula to determine how much each employee gets to keep for living expenses is called “the tax code,” and those who contribute to the national product are called “taxpayers.” The managers deciding how the pile is spent are “politicians,” who are chosen every two years in a shareholders’ meeting called an “election.”

This system worked pretty well for quite a long time — until recently. It is only within the last few years that something remarkable happened: The number of contributing “taxpayers” in the country for the first time has fallen to approximately 50% of the population. Meanwhile, the number of unemployed, retired, disabled or indigent citizens grew, as did the number of citizens who earned so little in part-time or low-paying jobs that they paid no taxes, as did the number of people laboring in the untaxed underground economy, as did the number of bureaucrats.

Pages: 1 2 | 48 Comments»

Progracists

May 8th, 2013 - 12:51 pm

What are “progracists”?

Progracists are people who continually classify individuals by “race” and yet can’t see how that is racist.

Progracists hate Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of an America in which people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” because progressive policies are based on race consciousness, ethnic division, and identity politics.

Progracists keep minorities addicted to government benefits and entitlements specifically to make sure they remain poor and economically enslaved, and therefore a reliable voting bloc.

Progracists always seek to restrict everyone‘s freedoms because they think that’s the only way to stop minorities from misbehaving — at least the only way to control minorities without looking like you’re targeting them specifically.

Progracists call Americans “cowards” for not discussing race enough; but when we do discuss it, they call us racists.

Progracists still promote “affirmative action” policies even half a century after racial discrimination was outlawed in schools because progressives racistly think minorities will never be smart enough to get into college on their own merits.

Progracists routinely spew blatant racist slurs at any blacks who have conservative opinions, openly calling them “house niggers,” “Uncle Toms,” and so on, and yet somehow continue to imagine that they themselves would never be perceived as racist for doing so.

Progracists think black mothers are too ignorant to know how to feed their own children, so progracists pass nanny-state laws dictating what is allowable to eat.

Progracists want to ban standardized tests because progracists think black people are too stupid to pass them.

Progracists don’t want you to remember that the Progressive Movement originally promoted eugenics as a way to weed out “undesirables” from society, including and especially minorities and the mentally handicapped.

Progracists never condemn blatant racism exhibited by fellow progracists.

Progracists intentionally gutted the American education system because they believed that only by dumbing down school could they eliminate the racial “achievement gap.”

Progracists implement blatantly unfair “set-aside” policies which guarantee lucrative government contracts to otherwise under-qualified minority-owned businesses — only to then award those contracts to sham companies with token minority figureheads, further enriching the white progressives who actually own the companies.

Progracists governing white-dominated universities and corporations often foreground minorities in their promotional materials, allegedly to encourage “diversity” and tempt more minorities to apply, but in reality to disguise just how all-white their organizations really are.

Progracists gasp in horror at Rudyard Kipling’s notion of “The White Man’s Burden,” completely oblivious to the fact that every modern liberal do-gooder cause is a direct descendant of Kipling’s call to action.

Progracists deem “Islamophobic” anyone who tries to rescue Muslim women from an oppressive culture, because progracists simply don’t care about Muslim women.

Progracists facilitate and justify inner-city violence and unrest, hoping to use minority criminals as unwitting shock troops to destabilize society and thereby pave the way for a progressive totalitarian state — but in the process make life miserable for all the law-abiding minorities in ravaged neighborhoods.

Progracists don’t want you to know that the progressive hero Margaret Sanger sought to legalize abortion specifically to reduce the population of minorities in America, as part of a eugenics program to protect the racial purity of whites.

The “soft racism” of progressives’ lowered expectations for minorities ends up being more pernicious and corrosive than their formerly upfront racism because back then they were at least honest about it.

Progressive hero and Democratic president Lyndon Baines Johnson once explained his rationale for addicting African-Americans to welfare and government handouts by saying “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Democrat Woodrow Wilson was the first progressive president — and he also introduced racial segregation and Jim Crow laws to Washington DC, claiming segregation was beneficial to blacks because otherwise they would be out-competed by superior whites; he even used the White House to promote the film Birth of a Nation and especially its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan; despite all this (or perhaps because of it), Wilson remains an iconic hero to modern progracists.

After progressive Delaware Senator Joe Biden described Barack Obama as the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean,” Obama actually invited Biden to be his Vice President.

Shortly before he made the seamless transition from Klan leader to progressive politician, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd said, “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Progracist journalist Mike Wallace once said on camera that blacks and Hispanics were too busy eating “watermelons and tacos” to read the fine print on their insurance policies.

In an attempt to decrease the number of minority babies being born, progracists go to extreme lengths to make contraception available to girls at younger and younger ages, since black and Hispanic girls are getting pregnant at a much higher rate than girls of other races, threatening the progracists’ white majority.

Progracists promote open borders and mass immigration not for any humanitarian concerns about poor people in foreign countries but only because they see new immigrants as a huge voting bloc to keep progressives in power.

Progressives never criticize black entertainers for constantly using the “n-word” because progracists hold blacks to a lower social standard than everyone else.

Progracists want you to forget that some historians have defined the Ku Klux Klan as “the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.”

Progracists think minorities in urban areas are too irresponsible to stop littering, so progressive-dominated local governments want to ban plastic bags for everyone even though most people don’t litter.

A growing number of African-Americans believe that progracists want to make abortion freely available to poor minorities specifically to commit slow-motion genocide of the black community.

Progracists always accuse everyone else of racism to deflect attention from their own racist policies and beliefs.

Barack Obama is an addict. And his drug of choice is the money showered on him by Bay Area billionaires.

The lure of endless cash and boundless adoration is just too much to resist, and so for the umpteenth time since 2008 he once again scheduled a fundraising trip through San Francisco, this time on April 3 to benefit Nancy Pelosi and her quest to reclaim the Speakership of the House: since Obama himself no longer needs campaign donations, all the money gathered on this trip would go to Democratic congressional candidates.

As soon as Obama’s Bay Area fundraisers were announced, activist groups began to schedule protests. But in the post-2012 era, none of these groups were conservative; instead, the protesters were all challenging Obama from the left, in an attempt to sway his policies ever more leftward.

The largest of the protests was announced by CREDO Action (along with the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and others) to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, a long-planned project to pipe heavy crude oil from Canada’s immense “tar sands” oil fields to refineries in the United States. Building the Keystone pipeline extension would go a long way toward making North America energy-independent and not as reliant on Middle East oil; but detractors (such as CREDO) oppose anything that benefits the oil economy, since usage of petroleum-based energy sources adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

This protest’s sponsor particularly aroused my interest because my very own parents are CREDO Mobile customers, and send ungodly sums of money to CREDO every month to pay for their scandalously overpriced cell phone service.

What is CREDO, you may ask? Well, in blunt terms, CREDO is a political activist group/phone company/SuperPAC/credit card brand/lobbyist/protest movement/for-profit enterprise which derives its income from reselling other companies’ phone and credit services to lazy and gullible progressives who are tired of thinking for themselves (such as my parents). The scheme works like this: CREDO buys Sprint/Nextel cell phone minutes in massive blocks, rebrands the Sprint service as “CREDO” service, then jacks up the price, and then resells it to willing suckers at sky-high charges.

Why in the world would any customer participate in this scam? Because CREDO uses all of its profits to aggressively promote left-wing causes. So, signing up for CREDO “phone service” is actually just an automatic way to essentially donate your money on a monthly basis to a progressive activist group. But CREDO is itself not a nonprofit (although it donates some small percentage of its income to left-wing nonprofit groups); instead, CREDO uses whatever money remains after paying its management and employees handsome salaries to directly engage in political activism of various sorts, almost all of it at the extreme left edge of “progressive.”


For people like my parents who are too old to keep track of the latest progressive fads and manias, but still want to feel relevant, CREDO provides a simple effortless mechanism to drain your bank account and give it to younger activists who presumably know what’s hip, politics-wise. And if you’re lucky enough to live in the Protest Regions, you can actually go hold up signs and chant at CREDO-approved events (as in the photo above featuring typical CREDO customers at Wednesday’s protest).

Anyway, just out of curiosity to see how my family fortune was being spent, I decided to check out how CREDO Action (CREDO’s street protest arm) operates.


Obama’s fundraising swing through San Francisco on April 3 would bring him to two separate events: One at his favorite SF hangout, the Getty mansion on Billionaires’ Row at 2870 Broadway in Pacific Heights, and immediately prior to that “a $5,000-per-person cocktail reception at the home of Kat Taylor and Tom Steyer,” who just happens to also be a billionaire and big-league Democratic donor. Now, the address of the Steyer/Taylor home was never given in any of the press releases about the events, so the media (along with me and obviously several other people) spent about 15 seconds on Google to uncover Steyer and Taylor’s address at 3030 Pacific Avenue, which, visible as the grey-and-white house at lower left in the photo above, turns out to be just a few yards from the Getty mansion (yellow-and-white, upper right).

It was therefore entirely logical to assume that Obama and the wealthy donors would start at one home and then likely walk the few yards downhill to the other one. Turns out, however, that we all got it wrong.


I knew from long experience tracking Obama through his many visits to the San Francisco cash machine that the streets around any location he’s scheduled to visit are blocked off. So I expected the 3000 block of Pacific to be closed to traffic; and yet when I showed up, the street was not only open, but there were media vans parked directly in front of the Steyer/Taylor home, and a small band of early protesters just steps away, unmonitored on the corner. I knew immediately that things were not going as expected.


I loitered around the media vans and chatted up some of the technicians, who willingly dished all the gossip. They said that all afternoon there had been caterers going in and out of the house at 3030 Pacific, and gardeners sprucing up the front, and this lured even more media to the block. But suddenly, about an hour before I showed up, the preparations had abruptly stopped, and word came in that the entire operation had been a ruse to trick media to set up camp in front of the wrong location. Turns out that Tom Steyer and Kat Taylor own another house a couple miles away in the Seacliff neighborhood which was the actual secret location of the cocktail reception. Sneaky! Even though the misdirection entailed twice the logistics, necessitating the securing of two separate neighborhoods instead of one, apparently Obama’s security team routinely engages in such convoluted deceptions to throw everyone off-base.


Yet the nearby streets leading to Billionaires’ Row on the 2900 block of Broadway were indeed blocked off, meaning the Getty event was still a go, so even though we protesters and media were disappointed that we couldn’t get a closeup view of the cocktail reception, at this late stage everyone decided we might as well hang around here and continue with the protest as planned for the main Getty fundraiser later in the evening.


Out of habit, I looped back around to a secret vantage point I had discovered during one of Obama’s earlier visits, and sure enough I was able to get a clear view of what I call the Presidential Tent being set up in front of the Getty mansion. This is the protocol for every Obama visit anywhere: His limousine will arrive at its destination, and enter into this special tent; the curtains will then be drawn, and he will exit the vehicle unseen, and travel along an enclosed tent walkway directly into whichever building he’s entering. Not for one second will he be exposed to the outside world.


By the time I got back to the protest zone at Pacific and Baker, the main political contingents had already arrived. The guy with the black hat and glasses was the Team Leader (or Alinsky-in-Chief, as I called him) of the Credo Action anti-Keystone crowd.


Over the next hour the crowd swelled from less than a hundred to nearly a thousand, as various mini-marches and regional groups arrived from every direction.


Eventually we took over the entire intersection next to Tom Steyer’s empty house. Whoopee!

Here’s where things get confusing. Try to wrap your brain around this:

Tom Steyer is a billionaire — but he’s a left-wing billionaire who just happens to be the primary deep-pockets funder behind the anti-Keystone XL movement. He is hosting Obama for a multi-million-dollar fundraiser, and has Obama’s ear. Furthermore, Obama himself at least mouths the verbiage of the anti-oil agenda, endlessly talking about “sustainable energy” and breaking our addiction to oil. The wealthy Democratic donors coo and purr and go along with whatever Steyer and Obama say. So it would seem that everybody inside the fundraiser is already opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline. But out on the streets are a thousand protesters demanding that…the president oppose the pipeline??!?!? But wait, that doesn’t make sense when we think of the traditional definition of a protest. In this instance, everybody on all sides of the “dispute” are already in complete agreement.

So what’s going on here? I discovered the surprising answer a short time later. Keep reading to learn the solution to The Mystery of Why Obama-Loving Progressives Are Pretending to Protest Against Him.


Across the street was a much smaller but relentlessly dedicated squadron of anti-drone activists from World Can’t Wait, an offshoot of the Revolutionary Communist Party who are far and away the most aggressive and persistent professional protest group in the Bay Area. They can almost always be easily identified by signs and outfits in their signature color of orange, derived from the color of the prison uniforms at Guantanamo Bay.

Unlike just about every other group here, they are unapologetically anti-Obama, merely because he now represents America and they are against anything American. They oppose all American presidents, on principle.

Interestingly, in the listing they posted for this protest (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/03/22/18734078.php), World Can’t Wait used a photo from and linked to my zombietime report about Obama’s first visit to Billionaires’ Row in 2008. Is that weird or what?


In addition to the anti-Keystone pipeline protest and the separate anti-drone protest, there was actually a third distinct protest officially scheduled that day: anti-Obamacare. This is the protest I had decided ahead of time to join up with, although if I had known how small this particular group was going to be (there were only about 25 of us as far as I could tell), I might have chosen differently. All the protests quickly merged anyway, luckily.

Of course, I was protesting Obamacare for being a backdoor to socialism, whereas they were protesting Obamacare for not nearly being socialist enough, but at least we agreed that it was one big mess, and were allies of a sort — the enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were.


These kind of public street protests have been common since the 1960s, and in all that time no one seems to have grasped their fundamental flaw: that protests almost always backfire because the organizers usually can’t control the messaging. So, for example, if some random guy shows up and displays an upside-down American flag, then it will look to passersby and media consumers as if your whole protest is anti-American. And frankly, if you allow such messaging at your protest, then you deserve whatever associations come with it, since by allowing it to stand then you apparently must be OK with it.

Imagine a counter-example: What would happen if a guy showed up at this protest wearing a KKK hood and carrying a big sign that said “Segregation Forever!”? Obviously he’d be kicked out of the protest, if not by the organizers then by the participants. So the corollary to this scenario is that any message you allow to stand in your protest will be perceived by observers to have your stamp of approval. Thus, if some freelance protester shows up unbidden with an anti-American message, yet the fellow protesters and organizers do nothing to quash the message, then they rightfully own the message as well, and whatever approval or condemnation from observers that comes with that ownership.


If someone at a Tea Party rally had held up a sign featuring the words “Obama” and “tar baby,” we’d see headlines screaming “Racist Tea Party Uses Racist Slur Against Obama!!!!!” But when such signs appear at left-wing rallies: Silence.

Of course, you, I, and the woman who made this sign know that the term “tar baby” is a merely metaphor for an intractable problem that only gets worse the more you fiddle with it, and is based on a character in the Uncle Remus stories — an actual doll made of sticky tar created to ensnare Br’er Rabbit. This literary reference was well-known and universally accepted as non-offensive until fairly recently. But (especially since 2008) race-baiters who know absolutely nothing of the term’s literary origins have decided that the term “tar baby” sounds racist, therefore it must be a racial insult, even though few if any actual racists ever used the term until the overly sensitive PC Squad declared it verboten — which predictably became a self-fulfilling prophecy as racists then adopted “tar baby” as an epithet just to piss off their opponents.

The woman with the sign, old enough to only know of “tar baby”‘s metaphorical meaning and therefore unaware of the cultural war over its purported racial overtones, just stood there obliviously.

What made it all especially funny was that the protest — as are all environmental protests — was whiter than an overexposed photo of a jar of mayonnaise in a snowstorm, yet the rally’s single solitary African-American participant stood directly behind her, glaring at the camera.


Credo Action’s protest style is entirely media-centric: Unlike perhaps more naive activist groups, Credo understands that the protest itself is meaningless — all that matters is the media coverage of the protest. The organizers made this perfectly clear in their online strategizing and on-site shouted instructions: pose for the cameras, try to make the crowd look as big as possible, occupy strategic intersections, and so on. But throughout all this the protesters were of course supposed to pretend that they were there to “send a message to Obama and his donors.” Unfortunately, they didn’t think it through very well, and I’m not sure any media consumers were fooled. For example, in this photo, the Presidential Tent is visible in the background in front of the Getty mansion. Now, if you really wanted to send a message directly to Obama and the wealthy attendees, you’d turn your banner around and have it face toward the tent so they could see it. But no — that’s not the goal. The goal is to be perceived by the media as trying to send a message to Obama; and to that end, you face the banner outwards so the cameras can see what it says.


Another bonehead move is to pose for souvenir photos in front of the media trucks. Look! I’m on TV! Sorta.


Remember: Nobody says “global warming” anymore. To even mouth those words marks you as a reactionary fascist. “Global warming” was briefly replaced by “climate change,” but even that has by now been relegated to the Dustbin of Yesterday’s Political Terminology. No, my friends, to successfully self-identify as progressive these days, you must say “climate chaos.” Actually, that’s wrong too, because to say it properly you must either append an exclamation mark or make it all capitals: CLIMATE CHAOS. (!!!!!!!!) As you can see from the banner, CLIMATE CHAOS causes droughts and floods, hurricanes and fires, because everything is in CHAOS! And it’s all caused by oil and profit.


CLIMATE CHAOS, in the form of a stiff breeze, even wrought havoc during the protest itself, almost blowing over one of the CLIMATE CHAOS banners, proving conclusively that CLIMATE CHAOS exists.


What will come next after CLIMATE CHAOS? I predict the most fearsome man-made meteorological phenomenon of all: Climate Stasis.

Can the Earth survive Climate Stasis? Imagine the horror, if you dare, of complete atmospheric stagnation, of no seasons, nothing ever changing, no wind, sailboats stranded mid-ocean, pollution building up around cities as the air stops circulating, and every regions’s weather always remaining the same! The horror!


Does anyone fall for the ol’ charismatic megafauna gag any more? Especially since the predictions that global warming was driving the polar bear to extinction have all proven to be false as their population continues to grow year by year?

But facts mean nothing when confronted by the tragic indisputable reality that A POLAR BEAR IS CRYING!!!@!!

Pages: 1 2 3 | 47 Comments»

1 Billion Rising San Francisco

February 15th, 2013 - 4:08 pm


February 14 used to be Valentine’s Day, but this year Eve Ensler hijacked the date to mark the climax of her worldwide anti-rape dance/protest known as 1 Billion Rising. I attended the San Francisco 1 Billion Rising rally, where “dancing is a revolution.”


When I first showed up at Civic Center Plaza, right in the middle of the protest someone was holding up a big sign with a Bible quote.

Oh wait, did I say Bible? My bad. I meant the Qu’ran. Silly me. Everyone knows that the Bible is anti-woman; thus it would be inappropriate to quote it at a feminist rally.


I thought perhaps her central location was a fluke, but I couldn’t have been wronger; the organizers then positioned Ms. Qu’ran and her sign directly behind the podium as the event’s keynote speaker and 1 Billion Rising top honcho Susan Celia Swan gave a speech (seen here with Supervisors David Chiu, Scott Wiener, and Jane Kim).


Then when San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (with the grey hair and glasses) came to the podium, she was positioned directly behind him as well, in THE prime messaging spot.


Yes, that’s correct: This wasn’t just a protest in front of San Francisco City Hall, it ended up being essentially an official act of government, as Mayor Ed Lee declared his endorsement of the action…


…along with the entire Board of Supervisors, most of whom gave speeches as well. Which is not really surprising, since most of them are to the left of Lenin, but still.


To blend in with the crowd, I picked up one of the many unused signs scattered about for participants to use.


The 1 Billion Rising event organizers had a tent in which participants were handed blank signs that read “I am RISING because…” and you filled out the rest. People could then either carry their personalized messages with them, or display them in a sort of gallery in a nearby tent. The example sign at the sign-up table said “I’m PISSED at the Oppressions!”

But despite the organizers’ valiant attempt at “message control,” as soon as you let people say whatever they want, things very quickly go off the rails. A brief visit to the gallery tent revealed some odd beliefs, such as…


“I am RISING because PG&E SmartMeters can explode, burn my house shatter my shoulder but can’t shatter my SPIRIT!”


“I am RISING because We must fight not to grow anymore Rapist. Heal Them with the power of Love Love!”


“I am RISING because I am a mother and my dauqntes will not live in fear!”


“The Drama Has to Stop!” Indeed. Couldn’t agree more.


The organizers posted a sign of their own at the front on the tent, essentially summarizing the Enslerite ethos:
“VAGINA is not a dirty word. Being a woman is a wondeful, beautiful thing!”


But most messages at 1 Billion Rising protests inevitably end up being what I call TTTs: Trite Tautological Truisms. This “protest sign” is a prototypical example. “Violence Sucks.” Wow! Bold notion. In other news, the nation’s physicists held a rally today to insist that “Gravity Attracts.”

The main problem I have with 1 Billion Rising and V-Day and SlutWalk and all the rest is that they are purposeless — protests “against” a non-existent strawman. The only legitimate rationale behind having any kind of political protest is to support one side or the other in a contested ideological battle. But in this case, we’re protesting against rape, even though there is nobody in this country who supports rape.

Sure, there are rapists out there, but I kinda get the feeling none would go to a rally like this to have their minds changed, and they sure as hell don’t care what a bunch of protesters have to say on the topic (presuming on the off-chance that a rapist would ever hear of events like these, which is extremely doubtful). Rapists already know that rape is “wrong,” but somehow that knowledge never dissuaded them in the past. Furthermore, there already are laws against rape and sexual abuse — laws with amongst the most severe punishments in our legal system. So: everybody (except for psychopaths) already hates rape. Rape is already as illegal as it can be. Rape is universally loathed. What more do you want?


Another TTT: “Rape Is Unacceptale” (sic). Was this ever in dispute? Can you find anyone, anywhere — at least in the Western World — who disagrees? Then what’s the purpose of stating it? Maybe at the next protest I will hold up a sign with the controversial daring manifesto: “Ice Is Cold.”


Another shocking claim.


The purpose of all this, the organizers might contend, is simply to get people to “Think About It,” as this Riser suggests. Yeah, OK, so I’ve thought about it: Rape is bad. Yep. Baddy bad bad. Now what?

All of this would make sense if there was a concerted drive on the part of the protesters to increase law enforcement efforts against rape and rapists. Stricter laws, longer sentences, more police officers, and so forth. Even I might get behind that.

But no.

Instead, some of the protesters demanded the exact opposite:


Ignore Their Laws: Respect Each Other” was the largest message in the rally’s street-chalking area. Presumably written by an extremely naive anarchist-leaning Riser, the thrust seems to be: We hate society and reject its laws, so to be consistent we have to reject laws against rape too: but despite that, we should all behave nicely anyway, because it’s the right thing to do. The problem with this, and with the entire anarchist worldview, and with the futility of 1 Billion Rising in general, is that there are bad people who will do bad things regardless of how many encouragements and blandishments you give them. This has been true since the dawn of history. And that fact — that bad people always violate social norms and moral dictates — is why legal systems evolved in the first place. Rapists don’t listen to reason, they can’t be shamed into stopping, so the only way to deal with them is to make rape illegal, convict them of the crime, lock them in prison AND THROW AWAY THE KEY.

But anarchists don’t want to hear that. They think, falsely, because anarchists are stupid, that people only misbehave because they exist in a rigidly structured, rule-bound, hierarchical society, and that if we only lived in pure free anarchy, then there would be no anger, and thus no misbehavior and everything would be peachy keen. Of course, in reality, any society-wide social experiment along these lines would last about 48 hours before everyone demanded the return of law enforcement.


But not at 1 Billion Rising. Here, cops are the enemy (at least to some of the participants).


Later, I saw traces of chalk messaging battles, so at least there was some disagreement: First someone wrote “Fuck the Police,” then a dissenter came along and tried to alter the message by changing “Fuck” to “Sp♡ok.” Yet another person came along and re-added “Fuck” in red above the message, to once again reaffirm “Fuck the Police.” And to make matters even more odd, when I tried to take a picture of it, some of the very people who likely wrote the message tried to block me by standing on it.


You see buddy, you aren’t the problem. You’re not a rapist. Any sane non-rapist man is “creating a culture of consent.” Policemen create a culture of consent. Old-fashioned values create a culture of consent. “Patriarchy” is a leftist canard dredged up from history as an excuse to overthrow existing society. Come to think of it, you are a problem, but that’s a different discussion.

Pages: 1 2 3 | 2 Comments»