Here it comes again, a train of thought triggered by one or more of the articles that I read each day.
Today, that seed of thought was planted by a Wednesday post here on Pesky Truth by CW, and nurtured by another article in the same vein on American Thinker.
It’s the black-white thing again. It’s a subject that I write about frequently because, contrary to some opinions, there really is an ongoing conversation about racism. Some will say that what we are doing is not actually conversing, it’s more like a political campaign. And, in many respects, that’s true. It’s not two parties communicating with each other; each speaking, then listening and trading thoughts so that each may understand the other’s position, it’s more that each side is trying to gain influence.
Nevertheless, an honest conversation is not what’s happening. There are tens of thousands of words thrown about daily, but both sides are talking past each other and amid the discourse, there is discord that muddles the discussion. Part of the problem is that black activists define the conversation (that they say they want) as “we talk, you listen.”
Racial problems are consistently in the spotlight, getting wide exposure whether the trigger is an NFL quarterback’s repugnant decision not to recognize our national anthem as a symbol of a free America, or the latest outlandish escapade by Black Lives Matter (BLM).
Yes, Colin Kaepernick has the freedom to not stand in recognition of the lives that have paid for that freedom. But his detractors also have every right to condemn Kaepernick’s actions and to show their disgust via any legal means they may choose to employ.
Many who expound on the racial issue will support or condemn both sides equally to be seen as not “taking sides,” but that’s a cop-out, a submission to being politically correct, and it’s just not true.
I believe (and the evidence supports) that BLM is more interested in sowing seeds of discord in America than it is in actually reducing the number of black lives that are sacrificed every year to violence – and mostly black-on-black violence at that. If BLM really wanted to reduce the killing of young black men, they’d direct their energies towards inner city blacks, not police.
University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest data from the FBI and Centers for Disease Control and found this uncomfortable fact:
For every black man — criminal or innocent — killed by a cop, 40 black men were murdered by other black men.
Wouldn’t it make more sense and get more bang for their protest budget if they exerted their influence on other blacks, especially in the inner cities? Wouldn’t you think that they’d recognize that they had more natural leverage with other blacks than with police? That has to be viewed as evidence that reducing violence against blacks isn’t really their priority.
Of course, one can’t just listen to the rhetoric; the words will always sound good, as if their intent was righteous. It’s better to think of them as politicians and consider their statements with the same skeptical cynicism that you’d afford a politician running for office. In other words, don’t believe a word they say and only half of what you see with your own eyes.
Instead, look at their actions. Look at who is funding their actions. Consider their stated goals and determine the value of their goals. Some of the goals for the Movement for Black Lives (an collective of 50 black organizations, including BLM) can be seen HERE. If you haven’t actually seen what the activists will demand during the “honest conversation about race,” you need to take the link and see for yourself. With these demands as the start of their negotiating positions, you’ll see what the racial activists want when that “honest conversation” comes about.
As most of my readers know, I’m an old dude and I’ve been around the block a few times. In my opinion, racism is worse today than at any time during my lifetime. I grew up in the fifties when segregation was still the norm. With the exception of the KKK, most whites treated blacks with more respect back then than is afforded today by black activists towards whites. I’ve seen gradual improvements in relations between blacks and whites since the days of segregation, progressing through “separate but equal” until I felt that the country was well on its way to a de facto equality.
My perception is that racial harmony was at its zenith right before Barack Obama was elected. Of course some blacks were still mistreated by some whites, but a certain amount of racism is human. It occurs everywhere between any two races depending on who are the “haves” and who are the “have nots.” It’s only human for there to be a certain amount of “us against them” between any two groups – it’s not limited to black and white. I don’t believe that the Utopian concept of a society without any discrimination will ever exist.
But, in general, racism was not as prevalent as it is today, nor as aggressive or violent and I firmly believe that Barack Obama, our first black president, is (at least partially) at fault.
He’s been quick to fan the flames of racism and reluctant to help quell them. When he was elected, many felt that the very fact that a black man was elected to the highest office in the land was a signal sent by millions of whites who voted for him, that racism was on its way out.
He should have been a unifying leader and could have gone down in history as the black president who unified the races. He could have been a black Abraham Lincoln. But he chose otherwise. He was quick to take sides, even before all of the evidence was in, and in every case, his statements caused more harm than good.
It’s become evident that president Obama’s goal was never peace and prosperity; it was and is the general disruption of our United States. Remember? He promised to “transform” the country?
It’s become obvious that he believes that a more socialistic form of government would be preferable to capitalism and his leftist mindset continues to treat our Constitution, our Congress, and the laws of the land with disdain. He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, but obviously that oath meant nothing to him.
He is a leftist following a Cloward-Piven strategy who believes that the way to transform the United States is to first bring it down by overloading its social infrastructure and when all is in shambles, ride in to the rescue when the people demand that something be done. That’s when a more socialistic form of government would be introduced as being the solution.
That is also the method of choice employed by globalists like George Soros who, through his Open Society Foundation, funds leftist entities every year with millions of his dollars. He recently granted $33 million to Black Lives Matter. Why would he do that if they weren’t committed to the same goals? Soros benefits when countries are in upheaval, it enables him to exert more control on them, simply by aiding factions that he can influence with his money.
Globalists like Soros need dissention and disruption; a smoothly operating government and relatively satisfied citizenry have no need for the solutions that he encourages. It is to his benefit for blacks to believe that they are being prevented from gaining their fair share of the American Dream by white racists.
It is my firm belief that if a poll was taken of large numbers of “ordinary” black and white families with both moms and dads present and specifically excluding inner city residents, I think we’d find that the two races aren’t really that far apart.
It’s my belief that those blacks most susceptible to the leftist black agitators are those in the lowest economic group and those least likely to be educated and working jobs. Where do we find a concentration of economically poor, undereducated, most likely to be in gangs, and on various forms of welfare? Where else but in the inner city, and not coincidentally, those inner cities are most often under the control of leftist democrats. It’s not by accident, it’s by design. For leftists to succeed, the country must be in turmoil.
It’s akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy when inner city black children are raised in a household without a father present and left to their own devices. They gravitate to gangs, develop a disdain for education and generally aren’t qualified for any gainful career, except crime. Without a job, they turn to crime for their money and it inevitably becomes their lifelong career. There are a limited number of blacks in those inner cities who are responsible for the drugs, gangs, a disdain of education, rampant abortions, and single-parent households (usually without a male role model). The inner cities are the origin for most of our racial troubles.
I believe that the conversation that would be beneficial to both races is one that would prevent any influence by black activists, and that includes Jackson, Sharpton, et al. We’ve seen the evidence that they’re not helping blacks in any meaningful way, they’re just pursuing the acquisition of political power.
Let’s let the millions of otherwise silent and ignored black families who want less crime, better education (like school choice), more job opportunities, fewer black abortions, and fewer unmarried teen births have their say.
And I believe that most white Americans will listen and that will be the start of an honest conversation about race.