by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” —George Orwell
In America today it is difficult to tell the truth without being accused of a variety of sins and marginalized. When speaking truth is no longer effective, there is no purpose in speaking it. This is the reason truth-tellers are being marginalized. It is a way of shutting down truth, which, of course, makes it easy for the ruling oligarchs to control explanations in order to achieve their agendas.
Identity Politics is hate-based. It is no different from Marxist class war. It would be naive to expect any different outcome than Lenin’s class war that exterminated many. The lesson of history is that whoever is demonized is dispossessed or killed. It is the human way. When hatred is unleashed, it runs its course.
Thinking about my recent columns about the prospect of white genocide, the hatred of white people that has shown its ugly head is actually volcanic. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/24/multiculturalism-brings-us-the-knockout-game/ How else to explain the national eruption of hate speech by the media, websites, Democratic Party, and universities against President Trump and white people the minute the El Paso shooting was reported? There wasn’t any disagreement except Tucker Carlson, and he was sent on “vacation” for saying that white supremacy is a hoax.
White supremacy is a hoax. Why was the hoax created if not to be used to demonize white people? If people, including many whites, were not believers in this hoax, how could Carranza, the Mexican-American who heads the New York City school system, use the public school system to conduct a campaign against “toxic white supremacy culture.” Here we have the use of public money to cleanse America of “white toxic culture.” So how are whites supreme when “white values” are being cleansed out of the culture?
Why is the NY Times committing itself not to better news reporting after the Russiagate fiasco, but to “reframing” America as a racist country beginning in 1619? To intelligent people, this sounds silly. But to the New York Times this is real. The executive editor of the NY Times sees it as the Times’ duty to demonize Americans of British and European descent and to misrepresent them as racists who built a country on slavery. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-goal-for-new-york-times-reframe-american-history-and-target-trump-too
The New York Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, told the Times employees that the Times was shifting its focus from Russiagate to Trump-the-racist. Note why Baquet characterizes Trump as a racist. Trump is a racist because the US has immigration laws and it is the duty of the president to enforce the laws of the US. If Trump did not enforce the immigration laws, he would be failing to perform his duty. According to Baquet, Trump is a racist simply because he enforces the immigration laws of the United States.
If Baquet doesn’t like immigration laws, why doesn’t he use the NY Times to lead a campaign to repeal the immigration laws instead of leading a campaign to brand Trump and the American people racists? If the Democratic Party doesn’t like immigration laws, why don’t they introduce bills to repeal the laws instead of blocking the president from enforcing the laws? If we don’t need borders, we don’t need a military.
What the NY Times should be writing about is the creation of hate in America and its own contribution to the creation of racial and gender hate that divides the American people. Why is the New York Times preaching hate? Why is the New York Times a propagandist for hate-preaching Identity Politics, the ideology of the Democratic Party and the liberal/progressive/left, when it is supposed to be a newspaper?
Different peoples can live peacefully together as Jews, Christian, and Muslims did in some parts of the Middle East until the Israeli Zionists radicalized the Arabs. When extremists and trouble-makers arrive on the scene everything changes. South African whites and blacks were more or less co-existing under black rule until a second black party appeared and fought for power by advocating more punitive measures against the white population.
In the American South relations between whites and blacks were put on the wrong foot by Reconstruction (1865-1877). For Northern fanatics who hated the South, Reconstruction was not about restoring infrastructure and food production. It was about reconstructing white people who had been demonized and reconstructing their demonized society. The history of Reconstruction was written by the victors and hides the abuse of Southern people that led to the rise of the KKK as a resistance movement. The North was so intent on punishing the South that the North neglected the harm Reconstruction did to race relations in the South. The Jim Crow laws that segregated the races were passed in the immediate aftermath of Reconstruction and reflected the South’s bitterness from Reconstruction. For 12 years southerners had experienced life under black rule supported by the Union Army and had experienced humiliations encouraged by vindictive Union officers. Jim Crow laws were the unintended consequences of Reconstruction.
As time passed, whites and blacks began building workable relationships, white bitterness had faded, and the races were more or less getting along until the holier-than-thou northern liberals arrived preaching hatred in the 1950s and early 1960s and bringing another Reconstruction.
Parents in the South with school children experienced forced school desegregation as a Second Reconstruction. Suddenly kids who could walk to school in 10 minutes were being bussed for hours into unknown neighborhoods so that black kids could go to school with white kids. The Northern liberals’ idea that blacks could only succeed by being associated with whites always sounded very racist to me. Regardless, the result was the destruction of public school education. Homogeneous class rooms filled by students of roughly the same motivation and values were replaced with towers of babel full of different classes, races, motivations, and values. Standards had to be lowered to accommodate such an uneven mix. Teachers lost control of classrooms. Parent-Teacher-Associations ceased to function as schools became distant from home. This destroyed the cooperation between parents and teachers and they became enemies instead of allies. Discipline broke down and police became a fixture in public schools. The many differences in students intensified bullying and fomented racial antagonism. Kids lost free time to long bus rides.
When I look at public education today compared to the one I got, there is no resemblance. We were taught to think for ourselves and that a free country required free minds. Today a free mind is the last thing a public school permits.
The northern liberals did not understand, or care to understand, that southern schools were neighborhood schools, and neighborhoods were segregated not by race but by economic class. Middle class kids went to school with middle class kids. They didn’t know rich kids or poor kids. There were some integrated southern schools in poor neighborhoods. Remember “The Little Rascals.” There were some integrated Southern neighborhoods. I lived in two: the New Orleans French Quarter and Old Town Alexander, Virginia.
Segregated water fountains and busses had their origins partly in Jim Crow laws and partly in medical reasons and practical considerations. Infectious diseases were a problem prior to antibiotics. Blacks, being generally poorer, lived in less sanitary conditions. The separation of water fountains was a measure to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases as were laws prohibiting spitting in the street. These laws might have been medically ineffective, but they reflected beliefs at the time. By my time, it was simply established practice, and no one thought about it. Why is it a privilege for white people to have their own water fountains, but it is not a privilege for blacks to have their own water fountains?
If infectious diseases were a concern, restaurant and hotel segregation would be explained by the same concerns as water fountains. Keep in mind that today people try to avoid hospitals that are known to be infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I remember when women dreaded car travel, because gasoline station toilets were seldom clean and people believed you could catch venereal disease from toilet seats.