#i believe in glenn close supremacy

[greenofrain]

God I'm so glad we got a light episode today. Freddie Wong is the funniest man alive.

[mitigatedchaos]

On Having “Whiteness”

(~2,200 words, 11 minutes)

Summary: A metaphysics of “Whiteness” has overtaken actual sociology in the Democrats’ popular consciousness - blinding them to racial interventions that might actually work and taking them off the table of political discussion.

-★★★-

Donald Moss - On Having Whiteness, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (emphasis mine)

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.

So both @arcticdementor [here] and @samueldays have linked me to this allegedly “peer-reviewed” article.  The Federalist has a bit more context, but it doesn’t really make the situation better.

Race Theory Problems

Obviously, this is a work of sloppy thinking.  The categorization of “white supremacy culture” or “whiteness” used by people like this is vague handwaving that describes being bad at management as “white supremacy culture,” and which in general labels universal human problems, like organizations being resource-constrained, or people being impatient, as somehow uniquely “white.” 

But this sort of article is really what I mean when I say that social justice’s approach to “whiteness” is about “spiritual contamination.” 

Samueldays called it “the ‘I’m not touching you’ of inciting race war,” and I may cover more of his response to it later.  Suffice it to say, it has the same general kind of problems as “stolen land” arguments (where an entire present population’s living area becomes undefined), unbounded “reparations” arguments where no amount of transfers by the designated oppressor are considered to clear the debt, and so on.

This is exactly the sort of material that conservatives are seeking to remove government funding for and prohibit from use in employment training.  This is the kind of material that the Trump Anti-CRT executive order prohibiting racial scapegoating was meant to cover.

Race Theory Definitions

This kind of stuff is, of course, not really defensible, so usually at this point people will argue that 1), “that’s not real critical race theory,” and then 2), “it’s just a few weirdos.”  For those, I would say...

1) If it’s not real “Critical Race Theory,” then what is it?

We can’t measure or disprove Moss’s proposed “Whiteness,” and this malevolent psychic entity said to “deform” white people obviously isn’t based on a comparison with other human populations or historical periods.  When it comes to “insatiable” appetites, one study argued that the Mongol invasions killed so many people that it showed up in the carbon record.

At best, it’s sloppy race science as practiced by an amateur, like twitter users idly speculating whether whites have ‘oppressor epigenetics’ - but with the veneer of official status.  And it has similar risks to proposing that there is such a thing as biologically-inherited class enemy status, and other collective intergenerational justice logic.

Presumably, the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association is intended as a journal of science, or at least serious scholarship, and not of bad racist poetry with no rhyme or meter.

Moss provides a relatively pure example of whatever-this-is. I need to know what it’s called, so we can get rid of it.

Race Theory Prohibitions

2) If it’s just the product of a few race-obssessed weirdos, then it won’t hurt to get rid of it.  So get rid of it.

The actual text [PDF] of the Trump Anti-CRT order does not ban teaching about the Trail of Tears, or Jim Crow, and so on, and both of those topics were taught in school before this recent wave of whatever-this-is was popularized.

Trump’s order banned teaching that any race is inherently guilty or evil due to the actions of their ancestors, and the level of resistance to this has been bizarre.

These teachings don’t seem to provide gains in relatively objective metrics like underrepresented minority test scores (or at least that’s not something I’ve seen - and the continued opposition to standardized tests suggests proponents do not expect it to), so it’s unclear just what of value is going to be lost here. 

Collateral Damage

Samueldays wrote,

Because right now the conservatives talking about "critical race theory" as they fire in the direction of Moss et al. are very important in preventing another race war and you have a moral duty to help them aim, not throw smoke for Moss.

Right now Conservatives are assessing just how much stuff they’re going to have to rip out to make “standardized tests are racist” and “it’s impossible to be racist to white people” stop.  While this may not be the message that Liberals are intending to send, it is the message that many people are receiving.  (I discuss problems with both, and some alternatives to handle them better, in another post.)

Liberals need to get out in front of this.  Sooner is better.

If Conservatives think that they have to gut hostile work environment law in order to avoid their children being taught that they’re permanently morally contaminated by their race, and Liberals have no means to actually close race gaps within a 4-8 year period (and right now it’s slim pickings on that front), Conservatives are just going to gut hostile work environment law.

Aether

From their perspective, why not? 

Everything in the world is only six degrees of separation from something racist.  Anything in the world can be tied to something racist.  (So can anyone.)

But nowhere in this pervasive atmosphere of tying things to racism are there solutions.  There are guesses based on correlations.  Proposals.  But usually when you reach out to grab them, to really get a grip on whether it’s correlation or causation, they dissolve in your hands.  The few that do have any solidity to them are moderate in their success (such as Heckman’s involvement in the Reach Up & Learn study in Jamaica) - and don’t appear to be based on the same style of thinking as shown by Moss and others.

It isn’t just that trying to turn combating an invisible, non-measurable, unfalsifiable, parasitic psychic force into an actual political program would inevitably be oppressive and totalitarian.  It isn’t just that articles like Moss’s are an in-kind donation to the 2024 DeSantis Presidential campaign for that very reason.

It isn’t just that unfalsifiable Metaphysics of Whiteness content like White Privilege Theory has been found to lower sympathy for the poor, and that present diversity training doesn’t work...

Race Content Crowding

This stuff is crowding out legitimate scholarship.  I don’t just mean in terms of funding, tenure track positions, or high-flying magazine coverage - all limited by their nature.  I mean among the base.  I have been interrogating Democrats on Twitter for months, and not a single one has been able to cite a strongly-demonstrated intervention that’s being held back, or even a past one that was conclusively demonstrated to be effective.  They can often recite a list of racial grievances on cue.

Tucker Carlson could run boomer_update.exe on a list of every educational failure since the 1970s, and they would be reduced to sputtering accusations of racism against people who increasingly don’t care.  He could do this tomorrow.  The only thing that prevents this is Tucker Carlson’s conscience.

I discovered the Reach Up & Learn program through Glenn Loury - described as a ‘conservative.’ Scott Alexander, attacked by the New York Times crew, brought some success with multivitamins to my attention.  When I first heard about the Perry Preschool program, I believe it was from someone well to the right of him.

About the only one brought to my attention by the Democratic establishment constellation proper was lead removal, and the gains on that are probably getting tapped out.  The frame it was proposed in was not Critical Race Theorist, as this was likely in 2012. 

As it stands, I’m more likely to find something that works from someone the New York Times would disapprove of than someone they wouldn’t.  Or, as Wesley Yang wrote,

Reality has been contrarian for a while.

Succeed Early

Even if we suppose that Conservatives are inherently racist, Liberals have a duty to support interventions that work.  In fact, the more that Conservatives are a seething, undifferentiated mass of uniform racial hatred, the more important it is that Liberals stick to racial interventions that work, because nobody else is going to fix the problem if Liberals get it wrong.

It isn’t just a matter of resources per year.  It’s also a matter of time.

From Heckman’s website,

Although Perry did not produce long-run gains in IQ, it did create lasting improvements in character skills [...] which consequently improved a number of labor market outcomes and health behaviors as well as reduced criminal activity.

Even if we propose an unlimited amount of funding (which is not the case), people and politicians only have a limited amount of time and attention each year.  Newspapers only publish so many issues with so many pages each week.  Television programs only cover so many hours for so many viewers each day.  Even the dedicated can only read so many books in a year.

Even though the Perry intervention was imperfect, and the sample size was not as large as desirable, every second Democrat I talked to should have been able to answer the question “can you name an effective intervention?” with “what about Perry Preschool?”

Every year that we have entire cottage industries working on and popularizing contentious, ineffective, and backlash-provoking Metaphysics of Whiteness content, based on oversimplified oppressor/oppressed binaries, or theories in which power is held collectively by races as monolithic blobs (rather than modelling power as a network of relations between individuals, in which an individual of any background might be destroyed by the racialized relations in their environment), is another year we haven’t spent that energy on finding or implementing something that actually works.

This isn’t just an individual failure by Democrat voters, who typically have day jobs to focus on - it is a failure by the institutions who are supposed to inform and guide them.  This institutional failure likely contributed to the popularization of Metaphysics of Whiteness content in the first place.

Okay, now what?

Donald Moss is a crackpot.  Metaphysics of Whiteness content is unfalsifiable.  The idea that there is a psychic parasite of “Whiteness” is not a legitimate field of study; it’s parasociology.  The idea that “a sense of urgency” is “white supremacy culture” isn’t much better. [1]

We already tried isolating this content to obscure corners of academia, where individuals with high racial attachment could write about it.  It leaked out. 

We need to get this stuff out of the popular consciousness to make room for stuff that might actually work.  The best way to do that may be to cut off the source.  Since Donald Moss is a crackpot, perhaps it’s time we started treating him, and everyone else like him, as what they are.

People involved in Metaphysics of Whiteness content, like Donald Moss, need to be (figuratively) grabbed by the shoulder, and firmly, but politely, told to stop.  Society has been recklessly handing out race-colored glasses to the general population since around 2014, resulting in a rise in amateur race science, of which both right-wing Twitter users memeing about Italians and Metaphysics of Whiteness participants like Moss are examples.  If they do not stop, they must be stripped of institutional authority.  Metaphysics of Whiteness content is unfalsifiable and we should not be certifying it.

If institutions refuse to reduce the authority of Metaphysics of Whiteness practitioners, those institutions must have their accreditation penalized, and their government funding reduced or eliminated, just as if they insisted on producing study after study on magic or ESP which failed to yield results.  If they do not comply, they must be replaced.

It’s possible that Metaphysics of Whiteness content might have had some obscure, niche function in terms of the exploration of the idea space. 

However, as it has displaced popular knowledge of interventions that might work, and the attention given to them in the political system, Liberals should seek to surgically remove it, at the very least until some more effective interventions see the political light of day.

If not, Conservatives will attempt to remove it with a bludgeon.  "They described an entire race as ‘voracious, insatiable, and perverse,’ and here’s the citation for the exact page where they did that,” is perfect material with which to abolish entire departments.

-★★★-

[1] If we go a bit farther out, scholars of “Decolonization” argue that the field is wholly unconcerned with “settler futurity,” a phrase not much less ominous than describing “whiteness” as “incurable.”  It seems that their entire job should be to answer the very difficult questions they have decided not to.

[96thdayofrage]

The anti-racism consulting industry does deserve both some sympathy and some credit. Its intention, to prod white Americans into more awareness of their own racism, is beneficent. And their premise that white people are often unaware of the degree to which racial privilege has enabled their success, which they can mistakenly attribute entirely to merit and effort, is correct. American society is shot through with multiple overlapping systems of racial bias — from exposure to harmful pollution to biased policing to unequal access to education to employment discrimination — that in combination sustain massive systemic inequality.

But the anti-racism trainers go beyond denying the myth of meritocracy to denying the role of individual merit altogether. Indeed, their teaching presents individuals as a racist myth. In their model, the individual is subsumed completely into racial identity.

One of DiAngelo’s favorite examples is instructive. She uses the famous story of Jackie Robinson. Rather than say “he broke through the color line,” she instructs people instead to describe him as “Jackie Robinson, the first Black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.”

It is true, of course, that Robinson was not the first Black man who was good enough at baseball to make a major-league roster. The Brooklyn Dodgers decided, out of a combination of idealism and self-interest, to violate the norm against signing Black players. And Robinson was chosen due to a combination of his skill and extraordinary personality that allowed him to withstand the backlash in store for the first Black major leaguer. It is not an accident that DiAngelo changes the story to eliminate Robinson’s agency and obscure his heroic qualities. It’s the point. Her program treats individual merit as a myth to be debunked. Even a figure as remarkable as Robinson is reduced to a mere pawn of systemic oppression.

One way to understand this thinking is to place it on a spectrum of thought about race. On the far right is open white supremacy, which instructs white people to fight for their interests as white people. (Hence the 14-word slogan, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”) Moving to the left, standard-issue conservatism tends to discount the existence of racism and treat all problems in pure color-blind terms, as though racism has been banished. To the left of that is standard liberalism, which acknowledges the existence of racism as a problem that complicates simple race-neutral solutions.

The ideology of the racism-training industry is distinctively to the left of that. It collapses all identity into racial categories. “It is crucial for white people to acknowledge and recognize our collective racial experience,” writes DiAngelo, whose teachings often encourage the formation of racial affinity groups. The program does not allow any end point for the process of racial consciousness. Racism is not a problem white people need to overcome in order to see people who look different as fully human — it is totalizing and inescapable.

Of course, DiAngelo’s whites-only groups are not dreamed up in the same spirit as David Duke’s. The problem is that, at some point, the extremes begin to functionally resemble each other despite their mutual antipathy.

I want to make clear that when I compare the industry’s conscious racialism to the far right, I am not accusing it of “reverse racism” or bias against white people. In some cases its ideas literally replicate anti-Black racism.

Glenn Singleton, president of Courageous Conversation, a racial-sensitivity training firm, tells Bergner that valuing “written communication over other forms” is “a hallmark of whiteness,” as is “scientific, linear thinking. Cause and effect.”

This is not some idiosyncratic oddball notion. The African-American History Museum has a page on whiteness, which summarizes the ideas that the racism trainers have brought into relatively wide circulation.

“White” values include things like “objective, rational thinking”; “cause and effect relationships”; “hard work is the key to success”; “plan for the future”; and “delayed gratification.” The source for this chart is another, less-artistic chart written by Judith Katz in 1990. Katz has a doctorate in education and moved into the corporate consulting world in 1985, where, according to her résumé, she has “led many transformational change initiatives.” It is not clear what in Katz’s field of study allowed her to establish such sweeping conclusions about the innate culture of white people versus other groups.

One way to think through these cultural generalizations is to measure them against its most prominent avatar for racial conflict, Donald Trump. How closely does he reflect so-called white values? The president hardly even pretends to believe that “hard work” is the key to success. The Trump version of his alleged success is that he’s a genius who improvises his way to brilliant deals. The realistic version is that he’s a lazy heir who inherited and cheated his way to riches, and spends most of his time watching television. Trump is likewise incapable of delayed gratification, planning for the future, and regards “objective rational thinking” with distrust. On the other hand, Barack Obama is deeply devoted to all those values.

Now, every rule has its exceptions. Perhaps the current (white) president happens to be alienated from the white values that the previous (Black) president identified with strongly. But attaching the values in question to real names brings to life a point the racism trainers seem to elide: These values are not neutral at all. Hard work, rational thought, and careful planning are virtues. White racists traditionally project the opposite of these traits onto Black people and present them as immutable flaws. Jane Coaston, who has reported extensively on the white-nationalist movement, summarizes it, “The idea that white people are just good at things, or are better inherently, more clean, harder working, more likely to be on time, etc.”

In his profile, Bergner asked DiAngelo how she could reject “rationalism” as a criteria for hiring teachers, on the grounds that it supposedly favors white candidates. Don’t poor children need teachers to impart skills like that so they have a chance to work in a high-paying profession employing reasoning skills?

DiAngelo’s answer seems to imply that she would abolish these high-paying professions altogether:

“Capitalism is so bound up with racism. I avoid critiquing capitalism — I don’t need to give people reasons to dismiss me. But capitalism is dependent on inequality, on an underclass. If the model is profit over everything else, you’re not going to look at your policies to see what is most racially equitable.”

(Presumably DiAngelo’s ideal socialist economy would keep in place at least some well-paid professions — say, “diversity consultant,” which earns her a comfortable seven-figure income.)

Singleton, likewise, proposed evolutionary social changes to the economy that would render it unnecessary to teach writing and linear thought to minority children. Bergner writes:

I asked whether guiding administrators and teachers to put less value, in the classroom, on capacities like written communication and linear thinking might result in leaving Black kids less ready for college and competition in the labor market. “If you hold that white people are always going to be in charge of everything,” he said, “then that makes sense.” He invoked, instead, a journey toward “a new world, a world, first and foremost, where we have elevated the consciousness, where we pay attention to the human being.”

Whether or not a world along these lines will ever exist, or is even possible to design, is at best uncertain. What is unquestionably true is that these revolutionary changes will not be completed within the lifetime of anybody currently alive. Which is to say, a program to deny the value of teaching so-called white values to Black children is to condemn them to poverty. Unsurprisingly, Bergner’s story shows two educators exposed to the program and rebelling against it. One of them, Leslie Chislett, had to endure some ten anti-racism training sessions before eventually snapping at the irrationality of a program that denigrates learning. “The city has tens of millions invested in A.P. for All, so my team can give kids access to A.P. classes and help them prepare for A.P. exams that will help them get college degrees,” she says, “and we’re all supposed to think that writing and data are white values?”

Ibram X. Kendi, another successful entrepreneur in the anti-racism field, has a more frontal response to this problem. The achievement gap — the long-standing difference in academic performance between Black and white children — is a myth, he argues. The supposed gap merely reflects badly designed tests, he argues. It does not matter to him how many different kinds of measures of academic performance show this to be true. Nor does he seem receptive to the possibility that the achievement gap reflects environmental factors (mainly worse schools, but also access to nutrition, health care, outside learning, and so on) rather than any innate differences.

Kendi, like DiAngelo, argues that racism must be defined objectively. Intent does not matter, only effect. Their own intentions are surely admirable. But the fact is that their insistence on denying that America provides its Black children worse educations inhibits working toward a solution. Denying the achievement gap, like denying the gap in how police treat white and Black people, seems to objectively entrench racism.

It’s easy enough to see why executives and school administrators look around at a country exploding in righteous indignation at racism, and see the class of consultants selling their program of mystical healing as something that looks vaguely like a solution. But one day DiAngelo’s legions of customers will look back with embarrassment at the time when a moment of awakening to the depth of American racism drove them to embrace something very much like racism itself.

[gifsbysimplysonia]

This is the most difficult thing I have had to write since joining Stonewall a decade ago. And not because I lack the words. And not because I’m tired—and I am tired.

No, this is challenging because e-comms are supposed to be concise. Easy to digest. Because attention spans are short. Especially when it comes to Black suffering. This is challenging because even nonprofit culture, informed by doctrines of capitalism and white supremacy, expects good leaders to set themselves aside, to offer an objective yet discernably human voice when representing an organization. To become a vague “we.” To strengthen the brand. And to sell that brand—to win and retain support—a leader must have wide appeal. Which I have found is usually code for white appeal.

But today, I have too much to say. And it might be winding and complex, hard to swallow. What does solidarity even mean when the fight is for me? I cannot set myself aside. Today, true to Pride, I choose my truth, not appeal.

This is my protest.

In 2015, a white donor sent me an email that I will never forget. Or delete. They had been invited to a discussion forum we organized on the topic of anti-LGBTQ police violence and had a few ruminations for me, as they put it. After assuring me that the NYPD was not our enemy, they went on to say: “I'm concerned that, as you change the face of Stonewall, it doesn’t become an anti-establishment fringe organization, which may alienate the mostly white gays and lesbians who are the backbone of financial support.��� Message received: “You’re Black. And this thing you’re doing has you dangerously close to being too... Black. And if you’re too Black, you might lose white people and Stonewall will collapse.”

Now, as it stands, Stonewall’s ethos of thoughtfully centering the most vulnerable in our community and the issues causing the greatest harm has not positioned us as a fringe organization. And we have been able to count on our increasingly diverse supporter base to advance that work. Thirty years in, our mission is more focused than ever, and we have been quite successful in our efforts to bring along as many people as possible, including the donor who sent that email. Following a long exchange, I convinced them to come to the forum and, as a result, they were inspired to begin a journey of self-education. Eventually, they even came around on the subject, recognizing and readily denouncing abuses by state actors. So why have I kept their original email? Well, it’s a powerful case study in transformation. But it’s also a poignant reminder that as a Black person, and as a Black leader, challenging anti-Blackness will always be part of my job description, whether written or not.

So, here I am.

I feel indescribable pain seeing their names, from George Stinney, Jr. to George Floyd, Ahmaud to Tony, Marsha to Breonna. Black lives taken. Amid constant reminders to vote, I feel pain seeing Black people casually expected to respect and have faith in systems that predate our access to formal political power in this country. I feel pain seeing cities I love and have lived in burn, knowing that not even their ashes can raise our dead. I feel pain seeing millions of Black people in pain. Elders, children, family, friends, and total strangers, all seeing themselves hanging from the same damned tree. I feel pain seeing our outcry at having knees on our necks immediately become heady debate about theories of change. Where is that expertise when we are not in the streets pleading for our lives? Imagine the mountains we could move if all that intellectual capital were used to preserve life, our most valuable possession.

This pain I feel is old pain, born before my body. Deep, generational pain, revisited again and again and again. It came to me when I read that email in 2015, warning me to mind the brand. I felt it in that café in 2013 as a well-to-do, well-intentioned gay white man, just as I was set to take the helm here, told me not to use the words “racial justice” when describing my vision for Stonewall. I have felt it for the past 2,467 days working in LGBTQ philanthropy, where Black-led fights for healthcare, housing, and freedom itself still go underfunded, despite missions, like ours, to change that. This pain is connected because the problems are connected.

But make no mistake, this pain is also a teacher.

This pain has taught me to use the words we, they, and all with precision when talking about injustice.

This pain has taught me that protest is always about bearing witness and only sometimes about winning.

This pain has taught me that there is absolutely nothing peaceful about bearing witness to systematic violence and murder. If you have done it, then you know; any peace surrounding such protest, does not belong to the protestor.

This pain has taught me that, often, when we say “peaceful” we mean something else entirely. Calm. Composed. Compliant. Conforming. Constructive. But “peaceful” is the default for a reason.

This pain has taught me that growing hurts, discomfort and pain are not the same, and systems do not change without disruption.

This pain has taught me that healing is the only thing that exists outside of the binary of destruction or creation.

To be Black in this country is to be close to pain. To be Black and conscious in this country is to know the lessons of that pain. To know that people will step on my back to reach their higher selves. But also to know that my back is strong. Strong enough to carry collective dreams forward. Black leadership matters not only because Black lives matter, but also because Black leadership is itself a triumph. An undoing. An overcoming. A unique alchemy, turning pain into power. Black leadership moves us closer to solutions.

At Stonewall, we embrace philanthropy as a way to fuel those solutions. Likewise, we embrace philanthropy as love in action. We believe that if you love Black people, then you show it. Trust Black women. Honor Black trans leadership. Speak and act against violence against Black trans people. Fall back and let Black people lead. Invest in Black-led organizations and campaigns and ideas, even if they take aim at you. Fund racial justice. Keep funding it. Center it. Learn the difference between justice, accountability, and punishment. Learn to identify and interrupt microaggressions. Acknowledge your own anti-Blackness. Uproot it and then scorch the earth.

So, here we are.

This is the beginning, hopefully. Where we end with Black Power, and where I say our names:

Ms. Major. Tanya. Kiara. Gabriel. Sasha. Olympia. Tourmaline. LaLa. Maxwell. Kimberly. Tiq. Ola. Elle. Sean. Raquel. Ceyenne. Alisha. Achebe. Naa. Ana. Beverly. Mustafa. Maura. Cleopatra. Kim. Robert. Mandy. Andrea. Clarence. Imani. Kierra. Rashad. Kenyon. Cara. Jose. Yoruba. Glenn. Will. Andre. Zakiya. Geoffrey. Roz. Antoine. Ejeris. Amber. Cardozie. Julian. Titi. Christian. Isaac. Cymone. Yvette. Derek. Nevin. Maryse. And on and on and on.

May the list go on until peace is ours.

Jarrett Lucas Executive Director

[cineste]

A Disappointing Crop of Oscar Nominations [rev]

The oddsmakers have Roma winning, and I agree that it should - pure cinema, as Hitchcock would say - but Green Book will win because it has all those comfy, timely liberal sentiments the Academy loves: an American white man and an American black man learn through helping each other that humanity transcends race on a journey, both literal and figurative, of self-discovery.  Alas, every single scene is completely predictable, and there is not one single interesting shot in the entire film, though one could easily be sucked in by the 101 nostalgic colours. Of course many have also read the film not as a joint discovery, but as a white man's redemptive journey by way of a discovery of otherness and a black man's necessity, not necessarily desire, to be welcomed into a white world - a not untenable perspective. It still fails as film.

As compensation, Roma will win Best Foreign Film, and Alfonso Cuarón Best Director and for Cinematography - all unequivocally deserved.

Glenn Close will win Best Actress and Rami Malek will win Best Actor.

Mahershala Ali will win Best Supporting Actor, though it should go to Richard E. Grant for actually being a supporting actor. Shouldn’t Ali have been considered for a Best Actor since he was unequivocally co-driving the film’s narrative?

Regina King will win Best Supporting Actress.

The Favourite will win for Production Design.

Shouldn’t all three actresses in The Favourite have been nominated for Best Actress? Weisz and Stone were not supporters; they were co-drivers.

Ethan Hawke should have been nominated for Best Actor for his brilliant performance in First Reformed. Hopefully Schrader will win for Best Screenplay.

Contrary to what some have said, Lady Gaga cannot act. She has absolutely no screen presence, and in every single scene, we know she's “ACTING.” [Yes, I’m referencing SNL from a few years back.] It remains astounding that she received a nomination for Best Actress. Ditto for her “co-star” Bradley Cooper as Best Actor. Of course neither really had meaningful dialogue or a half-decent script with which to work. Was everybody high when A Star is Born  got nominated for Best Picture or Cooper for directing? 

And It’s hard to believe that either A Star is Born or Green Book received nominations for their screenplays. Among many classic weaknesses such as telling rather than showing, gaps in character development, and highly predictable plot points, they both give us disappointing conventional sentimental Hollywood endings. I mean, really? Our hero nobly sacrifices himself by way of suicide so that his Star may continue her wondrous career ascension, having more or less been directed to do so by her agent and thereby ironically undermining the self-sufficiency and value of that very act. And do I really have to explain that white on black hug in the final scene of Green Book, or such dialogue as “Let’s get this man a plate?”

BlacKkKlansman undermines itself by its unnecessarily didactic coda. It is a film that does not have enough faith in viewers to draw their own conclusions about race and white supremacy.

In my judgment, with the exception of Roma and The Favourite, none of the nominated films compares to last year's extraordinary crop in terms of either cinematic practice or storyline. What a falling off!

[ma-at-thought]

Story-Time With Ma’at

White Supremacists and Nazi Bingo

I actually had to sit here for a minute and stare at this title. I’ve written about a lot of things on Tumblr, but even just a few months ago, I wouldn’t have thought I’d be writing a current events piece on fucking Nazis. Given the content, this will be a long time-traveling story-time.

Let us go back in time, to my innocent years fresh out of high school.

There I sit, at the computer. It’s not my computer of course, but it’s the first home computer I ever had access to. Ah, how I remember those buzzes and pwings that heralded incoming internet connection. I scroll through the chat rooms that have been created that day on Prodigy, and I stumble across one for white supremacists. Curious creature that I am, I go in.

It was really boring. I can’t honestly remember what was being discussed in there. It certainly wasn’t anything relating to white supremacy. It was just people who happened to be white supremacists chatting about whatever was happening on the news, or talking about a TV show, or sharing stories about their lives. I was very baffled; by the chat name, I should have been bathed in vitriol about the more colorful people in the country. But nope, just people talking like ordinary people.

I finally get curious enough to send a private message to one of them. I pick the most articulate one, and open the conversation stating that I am not a white supremacists, but want to understand what was going on with such a thing. I even tell him that I’m half Hispanic, a lie to see if he changes how he speaks with me.

Spoilers: It didn’t change how he spoke to me. I ask him how my mixed race would influence his behavior, and he tells me that he wouldn’t marry or have a child with me. That’s it. I ask him about concepts like ethnic cleansing and he is disdainful of the very idea. All he cares about in relation to other races is that his bloodline be “pure”, and there is no reason to do any harm to anyone over it. It was his choice to not marry or have a child with someone non-white, you see, but he has no problems working with or interacting with any people of color. I find that to be very weird (and a potential start for a modern Romeo / Juliette story,) but not harmful or violent like historical Nazis or the KKK is. I thank him for his time, he wishes me well, and that was it.

Let us go further back, to my 8th grade year.

Schindler’s List is released. My 8th grade class has a field trip to go and see the movie for educational reasons, and we’d spend the next two days in history and religion (Catholic school) classes discussing it.

That movie is awesome. In the sense that it fills you with awe. Do you know how hard it is to keep a bus full of 8th graders quiet? Well, on the trip back to school, it is easy as pie, because literally nobody says a word. Complete silence. And if you’ve seen the movie, you understand why. If you haven’t seen the movie, I strongly recommend it. It isn’t something people want to see, but it is something people need to see.

And we’re solemnly lined up, still shrouded in quiet, to file into our class room when it came time for the 6th and 7th grade classes to switch rooms. They knew we’d been going to see the movie, and some want to ask us questions. Most of them are hushed, like we were, wanting to know what happened, wanting to be told about this masterpiece of sorrow. But one boy comes up to me, grinning like an idiot. He flat-out asks me “How many boobies did you see?!”

I don’t even think. I punch that kid in the face hard enough to send him staggering backwards. I didn’t even know why I did that, and when the principal asks me, I just repeat what he’d said. And when I tell her what prompted the punch, she looks appalled. An act that would normally come with a three day suspension was instead recorded with a single note of the act, because most of the education staff was utterly horrified that anybody would even think such a thing. 

About a week later, we are all gathered in the auditorium for announcements. Parents are invited to this meeting as well. As it turns out, there is a planned KKK march coming up, and the school staff wants to discuss options for us. Our school is on the route, and while we don’t have many kids of color, everyone is still very concerned about this, and what our few non-white students would experience if the KKK happened to come by during recess. 

In the end, it is decided that the safest thing to do is to close the school that day. The teachers ask our parents to not show up to this “parade” either; they feel that the best way to show these hooded assholes they aren’t accepted was to have them marching down completely empty streets with no one to yell at. Most of the public schools take our lead and cancel school that day too. Some people joke (in that somewhat non-humorous, mildly disturbed way) that school is cancelled on account of ‘heavy snow’.

We spend our day at home researching the KKK and the Nazis, so we will all have class discussions on the matter the next day. And as far as I know, those paraders really did march to nearly-empty streets.

And one last trip further back in time. I am right around seven years old.

Her name is Ruth. She and her husband are friends of my grandparents, and came over to our house (my grandparents raised me) to play Bridge every couple of weeks. I’ve known her for most of my life, and years before had been given an explanation for why her arm was crippled. I understood what Polio was. She’d been very sick when she was young, and was lucky she didn’t die because of it. 

So here all these old folks were, waiting for the fourth couple to show up so they could play a card game I do not understand to this day. I'm sitting on the couch with Ruth; I'm not allowed to hang out in the room once the game started, but my grandparents are just fine with me socializing before it begins.

I don’t know.. maybe I just never saw Ruth wearing short sleeves before. She usually wore long-sleeved blouses and sweaters, but today she’s wearing a short-sleeved white shirt beneath her jacket, and she’s taken the jacket off. We’re chatting, because she’s a very cool adult who is all about socializing with kids, and then I see her tattoo. I’m shocked, because tattoos were strange, and mostly on younger folks. I reach out and touch the blue numbers on her inner forearm and ask why she got them.

The whole room goes silent, which is enough to make me shy away; I thought I’d done something wrong. All eyes are on this couch. But apparently, Ruth is prepared for this question. And so that day, I learned about Nazi concentration camps, and how Jews were rounded up and labeled with a numbered tattoo. I learned how she got Polio in the first place. The Bridge game was put off for about an hour, as these adults talked to me about this dark time in history, let me ask questions, and tried to help me understand these events well beyond what history classes taught seven year old kids.

And now, we come back to the present.

In this particular present, Nazis are still relevant. Two days ago, I discovered that a few people I was friends with on Facebook had Nazi inclinations. At first, I thought they were posting pro-Nazi political cartoons to mock them, but as it turned out, I was wrong. I kept trying to discuss the matter with them, mostly because I was desperately hoping that I was incorrect in starting to think they were Nazis, but it wound up being like a game of Nazi Bingo. 

They call the Nazi symbol the NSDAP flag. They believe that banning immigrants is the first step to making America better, and don’t think it should stop there because people of color are making trouble. They treat the Nazi Party as though it was a worthwhile and acceptable political platform. They talk about how no violence or imprisonment or lists would be necessary if there wasn’t so much active resistance to their ideals. They’re white. BINGO!

In truth, though, I do see a problem with what’s going on today, from “the good guys”, and that’s the over-liberal usage of the term “Nazi”. Not all white people are Nazis. Not all Republicans are Nazis. Not all who voted for the Mad Mango are Nazis. Not even all white supremacists are Nazis (though all Nazis are white supremacists. It’s sort of a prerequisite.)

Political parties do not equate to Nazis. (Unless it’s the Nazi party, which I half expect to show up on ballots in some places.) I know quite a few Republicans who are horrified by what’s going on. Even ultra-conservatives are outright comparing Bannon to Nazis. You don’t get much more right-wing than Glenn Beck, for example, and he’s declared Bannon to be similar to the Nazi propagandist Goebbels. My grandparents were Republican and if they were alive today they’d be absolutely livid about our current government. 

As for the Outrageous Orange, many people did vote for him because they liked some of what he had to say, and were certain that there was no way he could enforce the rest. You can recognize those guys now; they’re wide-eyed and shaken, regretting their vote. And believe me, I understand the “I told you so” urge. But let’s not label them as Nazis. They’re horrified, and they Do Not Want what is happening; many want to try and stop it. They don’t want four years of this.They don’t even want four months of this. They could help ensure that we don’t have to deal with that, but if we keep calling them Nazis, it’s going to drive them away. They didn’t understand before the vote, but they absolutely understand now.

I support punching Nazis. I’d like to do it myself, but there aren’t any in my immediate vicinity. There have been some political comments going around about how anybody can be labeled as a Nazi to excuse violent behaviors toward them. Those comments are correct; I’ve been seeing little hints of that here and there, and we can’t let that keep happening. Anybody who supports ethnic cleansing, be it through deportation, denials to immigrants, or violence, qualifies for Nazi-hood, and therefore punching. Anybody *coughBannoncough* who insists on being prepared for a religious war and tries to ‘rally the Christian soldiers’ against Islam (or really, any religion or skin color) qualifies for Nazi-hood, and therefore punching. But just being Republican, or voting for the Crazy Carrot, aren’t enough to qualify as punchable Nazis. 

Violence isn’t the answer, not when it’s applied in a blanket manner over whole groups because of the actions of some members. Call your Senators; you can look them up here. Call your House Representatives; you can look them up here. All of us should have learned from history, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that our Cheeto-In-Chief and his Cabinet of Horrors are ignoring history entirely. Tell the government officials that represent you in House and Senate that this is wrong, and ask them what they plan on doing about it.

[thisdaynews]

Trump’s Grand Display of Isolation

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/trumps-grand-display-of-isolation/

Trump’s Grand Display of Isolation

When Donald Trump arrived on the National Mall on Thursday, accompanied by his wife Melania, Vice President Mike Pence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford, and acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, the mood in the VIP tentwas subdued. In the moments before his arrival, perhaps because of the rain, or perhaps because of the higher-profile crowd closer to the podium, the chants of “U.S.A.” heard on the Mall never quite reached the necessary volume to sustain themselves or spread beyond small corners.

The event, for all its fanfare, had little of the boisterous joy that you feel on a typical July 4 on the Mall. The rain didn’t help.The president’s appearance gave it more weight and pomp than usual. Some of that weight came from the contradictions ofthis president choosing at this time to speak at this location, one as close to sacred as any in America’s secular religion.

Story Continued Below

Trump staged his speechin the shadow of a monument to a president who spoke of “malice toward none,” a message nearly the opposite of his own political strategy; he was just a stone’s throw away from a memorial to American dead in Vietnam, a war he had avoided.

One of the many unusual things about this Fourth celebration was itsVIP tents; I watched it from thesecond of four separate areas reserved for VIPs, a dozen or so rows from the podium but with a view of the president somewhat obscured by a decorative military personnel carrier. Around me werenumerous service members and their families; closer to the president, and among the multiple military honor guards, were men and women with bars on their starched sleeves indicating the number of combat tours they had served, most at least two or three, others even seven or eight.

Speeches are as notable for their omissions as for what they include, and Trump’s were manifest.Unlike other presidents speaking at moments of national tension, there was very little effort from Trump to show how the nation’s disagreements had been resolved by Americans who reached across divides. In Trump’s remarks, it seemed enough for Trump to simply mention they had been overcome.

There was mention of Lewis and Clark, but no mention of their native guide Sacajawea. There was mention of God, and Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg, but none on Lincoln’s meditation in his Second Inaugural on the Lord’s justice, and perhaps his punishment, for the sin of slavery in hundreds of thousands of American dead.

There was even mention of Martin Luther King Jr. speaking in 1963 from the spot that Trump did yesterday evening, but nothing about the racial and economic divides that he worked to repair, or the work yet to be done before America shall overcome. There was mention of a Catholic nun who has long served the needy in Washington, D.C., but none about young migrants, most of them Catholic, and whether their needs were being met. And in Trump’s call to national service, encouraging young Americans to serve in the military, there was no hint of humility or irony that he had not chosen to do so.

In his recognition of Americans, both living and deceased, it was possible to detect afeint towards comity. Trump extolled the service of John Glenn, one of the first astronauts and also a long-serving Democrat. Of course, Glenn was from Ohio, a state Trump must take again to win another term in 2020.

Trump’s speech and the “Salute to Service” itself was rescued, or at least energized, by celebrations of each of the military services. But even here there was a noticeable absence in Trump’s telling of their history and what it revealed about America’s. He spoke almost entirely about American military power without reflecting on the power of America’s example—the example that those servicemembers strive to uphold—and how the nation has inspired other countries across the world in their own marches to greater dignity and freedom.

Trump’s vision of the singular importance of America’s military supremacy was driven home in scores of some of the most sophisticated military platforms flying low over the Lincoln Memorial. He was right about the fly-overs: They were magnificent. What Trump saw in them, exactly, is harder to know. TheNew York Times’ Maggie Haberman had an apt description of the particular appeal this kind of event has for the president. She covered the president’s visit to Paris on Bastille Day two years ago when he was the guest of French President Emanuel Macron at a military parade and lavish display of French military capabilities. “It was like watching a kid with a new LEGO set,” she told CNN.

In the run-up to the speech, the idea of all thatmilitary equipment on the mall struck many people the wrong way, but it’s not as unprecedented as it sounds. It was on the Mall as a boy, nearly 30 years ago during the brief era of good feeling after the first Gulf War, that I was first mesmerized by military hardware. President George W. Bush had also chosen to honor the Armed Forces there in May of 1991.

On the weekend of that celebration, my grandfather, a first generation American and journeyman mechanic from New England, came to Washington to see my sister receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. I remember nothing about the Mass but can vividly recall riding the D.C. metro to what was dubbed “The National Victory Celebration” with my grandfather.

I remember most from that day walking up with him to what must have been an Abrams tank, and my grandfather’s patient description of how a tank’s tracks functioned and the maintenance they must have required. Also, almost in passing, I remember him telling me something I never heard from him again: about how his Jeep had rolled over during his own training for service in the Second World War. The young man next to him died. His own injuries were severe enough to keep him from further service.

The story’s significance did not dawn on me until years later. My grandfather was a diehard Republican and archconservative who brooked no criticism of America’s freedoms at home, or of its behavior defending it abroad. But even he, from his own experience, knew the service did not come without sacrifice and loss, not all of it defined by courage and valor but some of it painfully random and unnecessary.

What Trump could not have imagined when he scheduled today’s “Salute to America” is what it ended up emphasizing—not just deflecting focus from the triumph of America’s story of independence, but directing it toward the contradiction and tragedy of Donald Trump. No president in modern history has more often emphasized the virtues of our military’s courage, honor and valor, and done less in his political or personal life to exhibit them. The selfless service that is at the heart of American heroism, either military or civilian, he has rejected in his approach to his family, community and politics.

Whatever motives the president had in making himself the center of attention on a day dedicated to the nation’s independence, the event became a testament—unintended, but evident to anyone there—to his isolation. When the president craves a crowd, or believes he needs one to demonstrate his popularity, he calls on America’s service members. Unless what he asks for is immoral or illegal, they have to answer.

A sizable crowd came to the mall of their own volition as well. But this was intended as a national spectacle, andwho was watching? With none of the major television networks covering it and most Americans presumably enjoying festivities in their own back yards and neighborhoods, the president was speaking largely to himself, the main character in a play staged at his own command, deeply and publicly alone.

Read More

[sbknews]

New Post has been published on Superbike News

New Post has been published on http://superbike-news.co.uk/wordpress/jake-dixon-does-it-again-to-share-wins-with-haslam-at-knockhill/

Jake Dixon does it again to share wins with Haslam at Knockhill

It was one all in Scotland today as Jake Dixon became the fourth different race winner in the 2018 Bennetts British Superbike Championship with a stunning victory in the opening race of the day at Knockhill before Leon Haslam claimed the victory in the race two.

In the opening race Dixon launched into the lead, forcing his way ahead of Leon Haslam, Glenn Irwin, Josh Brookes and Buchan, but the championship leader was instantly on the attack and he made a move at the Hairpin.

The leading five – Haslam, Dixon, Irwin, Buchan and Bradley Ray edged ahead, but Dixon was looking for his opportunity. Buchan though had other ideas and he targeted a move on Dixon at the Hairpin but it wasn’t enough and he had to tuck back behind the RAF Regular & Reserves Kawasaki.

Dixon was pushing Haslam and the JG Speedfit Kawasaki rider made a mistake at the Hairpin which put him slightly wide and Dixon didn’t need an invitation as he carved his way ahead on a tighter line.

Buchan also had Haslam in his sights and the pair almost collided on the exit of the Hairpin as the pair dragged up the hill to the line, with the FS-3 Racing Kawasaki rider then holding the advantage to push the JG Speedfit Kawasaki rider back into third place.

However Haslam was post race promoted to second ahead of Buchan who received a one position penalty for an undertake under the yellow flags between turn two and three.

Irwin held off Ray on the leading Be Wiser Ducati with the Tyco BMW pairing of Michael Laverty and Christian Iddon fighting all the way through the race but Laverty had the advantage at the finish line.

In race two Haslam returned to the top, hitting the lead when race one winner Dixon had a huge moment, which he then fought to come back from in the closing stages of the race.

Dixon led the pack on the opening lap from Buchan, Ray, Haslam and Glenn Irwin, but soon Ray had pushed his Buildbase Suzuki into second place and was ready to fight for the lead.

Haslam had meanwhile moved up to third by lap four with a move on Buchan into the Hairpin and then he had Ray in his sights. However Ray was soon to come under fire and Haslam made his move with Buchan also making a pass to push the Buildbase Suzuki rider back two places in a single lap.

The Buildbase Suzuki star was later forced to retire into pitlane with a technical problem, shortly after Brookes had also been sidelined on the McAMS Yamaha, putting him out of a potential top six finish.

At the front Dixon and Haslam were duelling for supremacy, trading blows with three moves within as many corners, but a huge moment cost Dixon; he dropped back behind the JG Speedfit Kawasaki and then tried everything possible to regain the ground over the closing laps.

Haslam held the advantage to the finish line ahead of Dixon by 0.215s with Buchan celebrating a double podium finish, after securing the team’s first in the opening race, when he crossed the line in third place on the FS-3 Racing Kawasaki just ahead of Glenn Irwin.

The Tyco BMW battle continued into the second race with Laverty again finishing ahead of Iddon at the chequered flag with Richard Cooper holding off the challenges of Andrew Irwin for seventh place.

James Ellison and Peter Hickman completed the top ten as the championship focus now moves to Brands Hatch for the next round of the season.

Bennetts British Superbike Championship, Knockhill, Race one:

Jake Dixon (RAF Regular & Reserves Kawasaki)

Leon Haslam (JG Speedfit Kawasaki) +1.917s

Danny Buchan* (FS-3 Racing Kawasaki)

Glenn Irwin (Be Wiser Ducati) +2.779s

Bradley Ray (Buildbase Suzuki) +4.421s

Michael Laverty (Tyco BMW) +6.903s

Christian Iddon (Tyco BMW) +7.501s

Josh Brookes (McAMS Yamaha) +7.611s

Richard Cooper (Buildbase Suzuki) +9.304s

Peter Hickman (Smiths Racing BMW) +14.458s

* #81 – 1 position penalty – overtaking #91 under yellow flag between T2 & T3

Bennetts British Superbike Championship, Knockhill, race two:

Leon Haslam (JG Speedfit Kawasaki)

Jake Dixon (RAF Regular & Reserves Kawasaki) +0.215s

Danny Buchan (FS-3 Racing Kawasaki) +1.891s

Glenn Irwin (Be Wiser Ducati) +5.228s

Michael Laverty (Tyco BMW) +9.183s

Christian Iddon (Tyco BMW) +9.623s

Richard Cooper (Buildbase Suzuki) +10.216s

Andrew Irwin (Be Wiser Ducati) +10.523s

James Ellison (Anvil Hire TAG Yamaha) +16.356s

Peter Hickman (Smiths Racing BMW) +17.859s

Bennetts British Superbike Championship standings after Knockhill:

Leon Haslam (JG Speedfit Kawasaki) 210

Jake Dixon (RAF Regular & Reserves Kawasaki) 136

Bradley Ray (Buildbase Suzuki) 112

Glenn Irwin (Be Wiser Ducati) 105

Shane Byrne (Be Wiser Ducati) 98

Danny Buchan (FS-3 Racing Kawasaki) 95

The next round of the 2018 Bennetts British Superbike Championship take place at Brands Hatch on July 20/21/22. For more information visit www.britishsuperbike.com

Jake Dixon (RAF Regular and Reserves Kawasaki) Race one winner “I am over the moon to have won today. I need to thank the RAF Regular & Reserves Kawasaki team, this has been coming for a while now and it feels extra sweet to do it again at Knockhill.

“Leon got away and then Danny Buchan showed me his front wheel and I thought it was time to get my head down. I bridged the gap back and then applied the pressure and he made a mistake so I cut down the inside and got my head down.

“Race two was a frustrating end to the race because I honestly thought I was going to be kissing the tarmac! It wasn’t great and I will have to change my underwear!

“I had to bridge a gap again to Leon which I did, but it was just a little too late and maybe if I had another lap it could have been a different story. We can try again at Brands Hatch that’s for sure!”

Leon Haslam (JG Speedfit Kawasaki) Race two winner “I’m happy with the result in both races this weekend. We had a few problems in race one with some back-shift issues, which I believe cost us the win. We were still struggling a bit in race two but it was a really good battle so I’m really pleased to have taken another win.

“The team did a great job all weekend once again, we’ve extended our lead in the championship and I can’t wait to get to Brands.

“I’m heading straight to Suzuka now for testing before the main Suzuka race at the end of July.”

[republicstandard]

Harvey Weinstein and the Death of 'Liberal' America

Weinstein is a goner. Everyone knows it. It would be a great surprise if the man stands trial. The weird thing is, we all knew about Hollywood. Hell, the exact behavior of Weinstein and people like him is a trope so well engrained in our culture that porn movies that riff on the behavior rack up millions of views.

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published on my now permanently banned Medium.com account on October 13, 2017. It was read over 100,000 times on that site. It is still accurate in my opinion, so I have republished it here. Strange how yet again we hear of an FBI investigation beginning, but never ending. ~A.S

As ever, hypocrisy underpins everything. Berated from the podium of award ceremonies, we, the plebs, the cattle, the consumers, we are instructed. Don’t be sexist. Don’t be racist. Black lives matter. The liberal elites are better than you. Much better. We are rich, you are not. We know what is best, and if you disagree with our agenda, who cares. We are gods.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

They look down on our petty behavior and sneer, and turn their eyes aside when their friends behave in ways that truly are deplorable.

That is the attitude that allowed Weinstein to bugger his way through busloads of wannabe starlets. The glitterati Cosa Nostra has a vow of silence that protects them all. I’ll keep your secrets, you keep mine, and the gravy train keeps running. The cattle buy their tickets to see the movies we make, and who cares about a few broken women along the way.

As Actress Sophie Dix said:

“I was very, very vocal about it at the time. I didn’t want to own it. I wanted people to take it away from me. But I was met with a wall of silence. People who were involved in the film were great, my friends and my family were amazing and very compassionate, but people in the industry didn’t want to know about it, they didn’t want to hear.”

They didn’t want to hear. Rose McGowan was right to call out Ben Affleck. Oh, well done Ben; you told Weinstein to stop. Guess what? You weren’t convincing, and then it turns out that, at best, you’re a sleaze yourself. He said he’s saddened and angry about Harvey. Yeah, Ben. Us too.

Now that the FBI is involved, who else is in line to be toppled by the sizable domino of Weinstein?

Meryl Streep

Meryl is a national treasure, a confidant of Harvey Weinstein, and outspoken figurehead of the industry. If there’s a progressive cause, she’s there to lend a voice. Such a darling, she will happily slather on orange facepaint and a suit to impersonate Donald Trump and sing, at the top of her lungs:

“Problem now with society, we’re all hung up on propriety … She can sample my Measure for Measure.”

Wow, sure seems like she knows exactly what she’s talking about here. Donald Trump must be a bad guy, after all, this is Meryl Streep. She would know.

“I didn’t know about these other offenses: I did not know about his financial settlements with actresses and colleagues; I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts,” she said. “And If everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.”

Isn’t that precious. The mainstream media, who have chased conservative scandals with the perspicacity of a coke-crazed Glenn Close character, would surely have reported on such widespread abuse.

So Meryl is off the hook. No one would believe that someone whose career rose in parallel with Weinstein’s could possibly have heard what literally everyone else knew to be true.

Ben & Matt & George & Quentin & Brad & Leonardo &….

Ugh. White supremacy hand signals too.

Here’s what is confusing me, Mr Affleck; I wonder if you could help me out. So, when Brad tells Harvey to back off Gwyneth, and when Ben tells Harvey to knock it off, but it keeps going for decades- what’s up with that? Was it just because Harvey and his peccadillos kept you rolling in cash? Is that why you prostituted your morals?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure you convinced yourselves at the time that you tried. The feminists claim that they don’t need no man, and you guys are of course ready to back up anything so long as you don’t have to actually act. Act, as in, take action. Not the act that you snakes have been putting on for 20 years or more, pretending that your industry isn’t riddled with criminals.

Here’s the thing. Any man in the real world, we see some guy assaulting women- he’s toast. Or at least he should be. Imagine this- ten men know about a sex offender living on their street. They watch as he creeps on the local girls. They don’t report it, they don’t kick his teeth in; a couple of them say, hey- that’s not cool please stop.

The sex offender pays them off and carries on.

What would you think of these men? Are they heroes? Great actors, philanthropists and role models? No.They are spineless worms. It’s not PC to say anymore but one of the roles of man in human society has always been to protect women from danger, which mostly comes from other men. Have we just decided to say f-ck it? Is that the price of equality?

Would you stand by while women are abused? Would someone being rich and powerful prevent you from beating the hell out of them if they assaulted your daughter? I would like to think not. I think any man worth a damn would drag Harvey Weinstein through hell for half of that.

So, why is Hollywood so divorced from reality that men stand by as girls young enough to be their daughters are abused by men old enough to be grandfathers? It boggles the mind. How corrupt. The hypocrisy stinks.

Let us all remind ourselves never to give another cent to Hollywood. These movie stars are either cowards, complicit or literally the dumbest people on Earth.

That’s a lot of movie stars scrambling to overturn American democracy to prevent the will of the people being recognized. I do hope none of them knew about Harvey. That would be unfortunate.

The Clintons & The Obamas

This should be open and shut. Hillary says she was sick and appalled when she found out. I’m sure she was, but I don’t think that Hillary found out with the rest of us about her donor Harvey Weinstein.

Are we to believe that a former President and a former Secretary of State not once was told about Weinstein? Do these people not vet their supporters before reciprocating the support?

Of course they do.

A man comes up to you and gives you a cheque for $100,000. He says he believes in your cause. He asks for nothing, but you thank him in public and say he is great. You later discover that man is a criminal, and not just a petty thief, his crimes are an open secret.

Yeah, I don’t think so either.

Barack Obama was ready to send his daughter to intern for Weinstein this year. Are we to believe that the Secret Service conducted no vetting prior? This is the daughter of a president.

But that, of course, is the problem. These girls that Weinstein abused were not presidents daughters. They were just girls who wanted to be famous. So, Barack, Hillary, Bill, Michelle. In my view, you all took money from Weinstein. You all had access to the most powerful information gathering network on the planet.

But, you knew nothing, of course. Sickening. Saddened. Someone else’s problem. Someone else’s daughter.

Good luck, FBI.

Maybe it is a vain hope that the FBI is going to do a serious job on Hollyweird.I don’t see how just picking at the threads of this case and applying some rudimentary common sense can result in anything but the utter destruction of the industry as we know it.

But, of course, money talks and bullshit walks. With so much filthy lucre paving the streets, Hollywood elites will remain so.

Plausible deniability, omerta, I never knew, it was a rumor and I hoped it was wrong, by the way, I’m a feminist, #TheResistance.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The liberal elite is utterly hypocritical. We’re all hypocrites. It is human nature to be hypocritical. What makes us feel sick though, is when hypocrites monetize their hypocrisy. From an ivory tower, we are told about how bigoted we are for not being progressives. The cloistered demi-gods spit on you for being working class and voting in your own interests. Donald Trump is a sex criminal, they cry. No evidence is ever provided, but you are a bad person for supporting him.

Meanwhile, behind closed doors, they know. They all know about Harvey.

The hand-wringing will be long and drawn out, as Hollywood and CNN examine all of us for their crimes. It must be toxic masculinity, or whiteness, or some such. The Oscars will dedicate 2018 to female directors and producers, ideally, Womyn-of-Color and the fireworks will be bright.

Ben and Matt and Leo and Brad will be there, and they will applaud. So will Hillary and Bill and Barack and Michelle. And here we are, the plebians, told that we are morally inferior. Ethically compromised. The deplorables.

We should always remember that those who make character judgments about their opponents based on nothing are usually guilty of that flaw themselves. The liberal elite has accused Donald Trump of being the worst kind of sex offender for over a year. Now we see that the snake pit is not at Trump Tower at all. It never was. The whole charade played out on sound stages on the Miramax Studio lot.

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech- but it doesn't come cheap! Will you make a small donation towards our running costs? You can make a difference by clicking here.

If you love free speech, we are building the platform for you! Read about how we are building FreebirdTV, open source video hosting with no thought-policing.

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the nerds.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2Hcd9ob via IFTTT

[torreygazette]

Why Compare the BHI and the KKK?

The latest social media spat within Protestantism surrounds a statement made by the known celebrity apologist Dr. James White involving the BHI and KKK.

The Black Hebrew Israelites (BHI) are a fairly new sect that has developed in the religious world—particularly America. Multiple positions they hold are counter to historic Christian views. Some articulations of their views are nuanced but the primary focus is that Africans and others impacted by the Atlantic slave trade are the true Israel (e.g. "Hebrews") and thus God’s chosen people. They reference Old Testament prophecies to establish this, but after this generic premise, a chasm between different sects arise. For the purpose of this article I will mention the extreme viewpoints of some in this camp:

White people will be slaves and oppressed in New Heavens & New Earth

White people are the Edomites and evil

Other extreme comments can be found regarding violence to white people, who they view as evil. They also believe in observance of the Old Testament laws and thus have a works righteousness dynamic—they oppose any reformation soteriology. There are hardly any connections to of historic orthodox, catholic Christianity.

With many criticisms of doctrine in the camp of the BHI, it remains hard to equate them with the doctrine and historical actions of the KKK. This is what makes Dr. White's comment so historically invalid and reprehensible. I quote:

“These people are racist in a way that make the KKK look like amateurs, in comparison to these guys. They get away with it because they are of a different color and you can be racist if you're that color.  But … this is the worst example of using and abusing religion as a cover for racism that you’ll ever see.”

The majority of Dr. James Whites followers have decided to insert the word “today's/modern time” to justify the claim that the BHI has more impact and growth than the KKK/white supremacist in our present communities:

The original statement—“the worst example…that you’ll ever see”—in Dr. White’s quote shows that this is not limited to the current time period, but even if we ignore close to hundreds of years and focus merely on recent history is this claim true? Dr. White highlights the religious tones of the BHI but relatively ignores that the KKK has claimed to be a “Christian” organization throughout its tenure. As recently as 2014, a leader of the Traditionalist American Knights of the KKK argued that they are a “Christian” organization. It is an extreme claim that BHI as a group are the worst example of using and abusing religion as a cover for racism—let alone to the extent of making the KKK seem like amateurs.

Political Examples

In 2015, a radical group that goes by Anonymous released documents outing possible/potential KKK members. This list includes people like Frazier Glenn Miller, convicted of the murder of three people at a Jewish site in Kansas 2014 (still pretty recent). The list has been shown to not be entirely accurate, but it still demonstrates a noticeable KKK present in the United States of America that is unmatched by BHI. Wikipedia has sources for a list of purported—and relatively recent—politicians associated with the KKK:

Robert Byrd, Hugo Black, Edward Jackson, Rice Means, Clarence Morely, Bibb Graves, Clifford Walker, George Gordon, John Tyler Morgan, Edmund Pettus, John Brown Gordon, John Clinton Porter, David Duke, Benjamin F. Stapleton, Warren G. Harding, Harry S. Trueman.

This list includes politicians from the 1920’s until the 1980’s, ending with David Duke, a guy that (poorly) attempted to run for president. Yes, he lost, but to even be considered a possible candidate for president of the United States shows a level of societal influence and impact that no member of the BHI has ever had. President Trueman's (1945) connection to the KKK is not solid, but circumstantial evidence has created a likelihood that he was connected to this domestic terrorist group. Pure numbers show that even with the recent growth of BHI it is nowhere near ingrained in the fabric of American society as the KKK and white supremacist thought.

Recent Examples

On June 17, 2015, a young white male named Dylann Roof entered into a bible study at an African Methodist Episcopal church. He sat there as if genuinely attempting to fellowship with these beloved saints. Ultimately, he shot and killed nine people in that church. Later, reasons for the shooting became known because he confessed a desire to start a race war. Other details have come out showing the murderer posing with symbols of white supremacy and neo-Nazism.

Considering I write this is 2018, I hope this event is not dismissed as out of “today’s context” by people attempting to limit the scope of Dr. White's claims. If the theoretical impact and growth of BHI supposedly exceeds the KKK, I’d expect to hear about the BHI community committing mass genocide or having a serial killer in their midst. As of yet, that is not the case. Yet, it is not a mere theory of a Christian apologist personality that nine funerals were held to lay these saints to rest.

Further, how much actual history do we have to ignore to force a context that makes this statement true? During my lifetime there are multiple examples of terror by the KKK.

On June 7, 1998, James Byrd was murdered by three white supremacists in Jasper, Texas. They dragged his body behind a pickup truck on an asphalt road. What led to this tragedy? Nothing but hate for black people, the same ideology that fuels the KKK. Mr. Byrd accepted a ride home and was murdered. Not just murdered but tortured. They beat him severely, urinated and defecated on him, and chained him by his ankles to their pickup truck before dragging him for approximately 1.5 miles. One of the murderers had a patch that showed his affiliation with a gang of white supremacist known as the Confederate Knights of America. This gang is directly tied to the KKK. For a group that some claim has a lack of influence and decreasing violence in recent decades, examples like these show otherwise.

Similarly, the last recorded lynching by the KKK was in 1981. The lynching of Michael Donald. His body hung from a tree in Mobile, Alabama. No matter what his accused crime was, the United States does not conduct law and order in this manner with no trial taking place. This type of terror has never been attributed to a BHI group.

We can disagree with the BHI's theology and their vile comments, but are we really going to compare words and threats with funeral services and actual death? Even if words are to be compared with actions, there are white supremacist groups that talk just as vile as BHI. It is only a broken logical process that assesses a position which says horrible things as worse than a position that says similar things and has actually fulfilled its threats.

1981 is not so long ago. This lynching happened during my lifetime. Michael Donald was born in 1961 and more than likely he’d still be alive today! The grandmother and grandfather of my kids are still alive and were born around this same time period. How can we state that this reign of terror is not apart of the current context when people born the same year are still alive and active today?

I truly believe the statements made by Dr. White and currently defended vigorously by his supporters are horribly wrong. No matter what spin is put on the statement, it is false and playing off of stereotypes concerning black people in America—the anger and dangerous black male stereotype to be exact. There is no way a verbal threat can be categorized as worst than actual violence. Each example listed in this piece shows actual violence done in the name of white supremacist thought. Even if we limit the scope to say “Dr. White, meant it in today's setting,” we have two murders of people linked back to this thought process (Dylann Roof and Frazier Glenn Miller). We also have the last known lynching being recorded in the lifetime of middle-aged people in America. The only way to prove Dr. White’s claim to be true is to throw out all of history.

Ignore the white supremacists' marches in 2017 and every other example prior to January 1st, 2018, there are still white supremacist groups that say things just as vile and evil as the worst Black Hebrew Israelite quotes. One is left asking why or specifically how this group is defined as the worst! Unfortunately, I can only conclude that this is race baiting at its finest. There is no basis to support Dr. White's comments. He will dig his heels in even more and so will his followers. The fact is that his claims are false.

All of this is similar to how he dug his heels regarding the last racial divisive issue when he grabbed almost every stereotype to apply it to a Black kid that littered and flipped off the cops. (Stereotypes such as “it’s a 70% chance he never met his father,” “he would be the father to kids he will not support,” and other baseless claims.)  Calls for repentance were ignored. He simply got support from his favorite black friends to justify his statements and no repentance ever came forth.

To conclude, I’d like to state that the is no way Black Hebrew Israelites are the worst example for using religion as a cover to hide racism. I do not know if Dr. White is a racist or not, but I do know that with a platform as far-reaching as his, I pray he uses his words and accusations more carefully.

[glennprempehwhoami-blog]

18/ 05/ 2015 - Black Culture

People tend to close their ears when I talk about racial issues. That’s because they’re uncomfortable about hearing the truth. They don’t want to believe that they contribute to a racist society.

As a kid, I knew I was black but I didn’t know the things that came with being black. I hate that I listened to the microaggresion that was constantly thrown my away.

“Don’t sit in the sun too long! You’ll get too dark!”, “Where did Glenn go?”, “You look burnt.”

Those are all things that have been said to me by both black and white people. I knew I was dark but I was constantly being told that I was in a negative connotation. I started to believe it.

I’m lucky I just disregarded the hate. Some black children get so caught up in these colorist remarks that they start to bleach their skin to become lighter. I’m glad I didn’t.

However, I don’t place all the blame on these people. Some people just don’t know any better and are racially ignorant.

I blame society for being built on white supremacy. Colorism is a product of white supremacy. Racism is a product of white supremacy. History has proven to us that the lighter you are the more privileged you are.

Through it all, I still wouldn’t trade my blackness for anything else in the world. My melanin is writing it’s own story, and it will be heard by many.