They say you can tell about someone lot by the company they keep — I suspect you can tell even more by the company they don’t. So, I’m sort of proud to say that I was suspended many times from Facebook, before I was banned permanently.
One of my suspensions was for posting a photo of Enrique Tarrio. No comment, just a photo.
Yes, I was banned from Facebook for posting a picture of a black man wearing a baseball cap.
Why? Because Enrique Tarrio is the leader of the Proud Boys, who apparently, cannot even be seen on Facebook. Supposedly, a “far-right”, “white supremacist” group. Wait, I hear you say — a Puerto Rican-born black man heading a white supremacist group?
How are we to reconcile the fact that white supremacists are increasingly ethnically diverse?
This oxymoronic conundrum has recently been confusing Cristina Beltrán.
Beltrán is an “intellectual”, of course (albeit a very low-ranked one). Which makes it almost compulsory for her to believe fervently in ideas that to us lesser folk seem completely self-contradictory.
Her ‘analysis’ of our society and culture is that whiteness still remains precisely the problem. But what we are dealing with is not mere whiteness. It’s not a whiteness that, as the word initially implies, is something to do with the colour white. What we are observing is… wait for it… “multi-racial whiteness”.
Yes, you read that correctly. She might as well have promoted the idea of cold heat, or damp dryness.
But, as “intellectuals”, particularly of the left, are wont to do, when the plain meanings of your words are obviously self-contradictory, just change the plain meanings of words.
Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
Which might lead we lesser minds to wonder why Beltrán and her lunatic fellow intellectuals don’t just use a simpler word, say, “discrimination”, instead of “whiteness as a discriminatory worldview”?
We might also conclude that, if she is prompted to correlate a skin colour with a negative quality — in this case, discrimination — then she is, in fact, just a plain old racist.
Perhaps the academy know that if identity politics were removed from their ideas, they would be seen too easily for what they are: plain old country-destroying communism. It’s either that or she’s racist.
Spectator Australia
But “anti-racism” is the post-60s New Left’s foundational ideology. In their worldview, racism is the ultimate moral evil. If they were to concede that they were racist, they would, by their own standards, be guilty of the most heinous evil.
Instead, the left, in the immortal words of Jim Goad, have their heads “so far up their own asses with the idea that they are unimpeachably good” that it’s a wonder they don’t collectively suffocate (we can only dream).
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD
