The Roots of Racism and Prejudice

 

The sinister Christian women of the Deep South

In a recent poetry group, one participant composed a poem ending with a wish that “deep South evangelicals” would “pray for forgiveness for their myriad sins and continual hypocrisy.”

I felt obliged to send her a private note pointing out that this is hate speech. Something published, outside private conversation, that could promote hatred of an identifiable group. Would it sound all right if it read:

“I hope the Jews will pray for forgiveness for their myriad sins and continual hypocrisy.”?

“I hope the Muslims will pray for forgiveness for their myriad sins and continual hypocrisy.”

Or substitute Buddhists, or Hindus, or followers of “aboriginal spirituality.” 

It would be acceptable, true, if written by an evangelical from the Deep South about evangelicals from the Deep South; Christians are good at accusing themselves. But this poet was a Canadian secularist.

I warned her she could conceivably get herself in legal trouble here. And it is worth remembering that anything you put out on the Internet is forever. The political climate can change, and things that are socially acceptable now may not be in the future. What you say now can and may be used against you. 

It is unfortunately currently socially acceptable in Canada to express hatred towards Americans, people from the “Deep South,” and evangelical Christians. She managed to hit all three. That does not make it right. It was similarly socially acceptable to hate Jews in Hitler’s Germany.

Not that I believe there should be “hate laws”; but hate speech is nevertheless an ill thing.

This was her response:

“Yes, I'm aware, and I specifically said "deep south" and not all Evangelicals. And since the re-election of the felon, I am so angry that I don't even care what people think about that. The religious right in the deep south have been planning Project2025 for years, just waiting for the right guy to help them achieve it. Transactional Trump gave them what they wanted, including on SCOTUS, in exchange for votes - and now many millions are and will suffer because of it: the LGBTQ, women in general, pregnant women with complications and will die (and already have), legal immigrants to the US - yes, I've read from credible sources that even legalized citizens from South America have been getting their papers ripped up and they're carted out of the country like criminals ... by the biggest crooks are in the WH, who released the Capital Hill criminals who killed police officers and security personnel - here he is, carting out Venezuelens, many of whom are hard-working, tax-paying folks who lived in the US for many years. 

“I could go on, but I won't. … I appreciate your advice. I am just too mad right now to be sorry about my activist poetry. 

“So, yes, although I have always been against hate speech, I find myself hating the religious right of the US south. But my poem pales in comparison to much that comes out of the felon's mouth.”

Let’s take a closer look.

To begin with, this, surely, is a perfect example of just what she accused the evangelicals of: hypocrisy. She is opposed to “hate speech,” but she has a right to it, because she is angry. Assuming she also shares the view on the left that hurting someone’s feelings is a serious crime, here she nevertheless reserves the right to herself to say what she likes, and “not even care what people think about that.”

She thinks her criticisms are fair, because she said “Deep South,” not all evangelicals. Yet “Deep South evangelicals” is just as much an identifiable group as “evangelicals.” I wonder if she actually has no concept of individuality or individual responsibility. So she has no concept of why racism or prejudice is wrong. This seems possible on the modern left.

“The religious right in the deep south have been planning Project2025 for years.”

Project 2025 itself claims it is a “broad coalition of over 100 conservative organizations.” Not just the “religious right,” then. Its primary sponsor is the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. Not the Deep South. Of course, they might be lying. These could all be front organizations. We could get into conspiracy theories here.

“Transactional Trump gave them what they wanted.” 

It is not clear whether Trump is influenced by the proposals of Project 2025. He says he is not. On the one hand, why wouldn’t he be? He’s a conservative, and the Heritage Foundation is a leading conservative think tank. Think tanks exist to give policy advice. On the other hand, conservative policies are conservative policies; it also seems reasonable to assume that Trump’s policies would be about the same whether or not Project 2025 existed.

Our correspondent must next explain why there is something wrong with the concerns of the religious right, and why there is something wrong with the policies proposed by Project 2025.

She proceeds:

“Including on SCOTUS.” So she is referring to Trump’s appointment of “originalist” justices to the Supreme Court.

Originalism means you interpret the text of the constitution in light of what the framers must have intended, based on historical knowledge.

This applies to abortion, for example: since abortion was medically possible when the Constitution was written and adopted, and was illegal, and such matters were reserved to the states, it seems unreasonable to assume they intended to make abortion a human right. Therefore, no more Roe v. Wade.

She objects to originalism because it leads to a conclusion she does not like.

Here’s a logical problem: our correspondent laments that Trump appointed these judges “in exchange for votes.” First, doing things for votes is more or less what happens in a democracy; so what’s the objection? Other than that the vote went against her own desires. Which must supersede both the popular will and the constitution?

One begins to suspect that narcissism is the key to the modern left.

Second, “Deep South evangelicals” are a relatively small proportion of voters. Many other groups must have consented. Including large numbers of women, an absolute majority of the population. Why not blame women?

There must be some other special reason to hate “Deep South evangelicals.”

“The LGBTQ” will suffer from “it.” 

It is not clear what “it” is—the Supreme Court or Project 2025 or Trump. She does not specify how LGBTQs will suffer. And I would question whether there is any such group.  L’s have no particular interests in common with T’s, for example, and are commonly at loggerheads over washroom use. G’s worry that the current T push is castrating G’s. Many refuse to identify themselves with their sexual preferences or as “LGBTQ.”

Without elaboration, I cannot reasonably guess what she’s on about.

“Women in general” will suffer.

Again the impending oppression is unarticulated. But as noted, women form a majority of voters, and have the power to save themselves if this is so awful. 46% of them, according to exit polls, voted for Trump.

“pregnant women with complications … will die (and already have).”

She does not specify how this will happen. Presumably because states are now free to pass laws that make it illegal to treat women who have ectopic pregnancies and the like. 

This claim appears to be true. I used Grok to check, presumably not a left-wing source. Some women in Texas have been refused treatment by doctors afraid of possible legal liability; some have died. Maternal death rates have apparently risen in states with restrictive abortion laws.

This is alarming. But it is also obviously not the intent of such laws. Presumably it can be addressed by redrafting the laws, and educating doctors as to their legal responsibilities. 

You might be able to put some blame here on overzealous evangelicals in the “Deep South” who pressed for such laws, too hastily drafted. I’d be more inclined to blame the legislators and the doctors.

“…legal immigrants to the US - yes, I've read from credible sources that even legalized citizens from South America have been getting their papers ripped up and they're carted out of the country like criminals.”

Grok, which synthesizes all net sources, says this has never happened. Some US citizens have been mistakenly detained, until their citizenship was established. None have been deported.

Trump “released the Capital Hill criminals who killed police officers and security personnel.”

Grok confirms that no police or security personnel were killed at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. This is a commonly repeated falsehood on the left.

“Here he [Trump] is, carting out Venezuelens, many of whom are hard-working, tax-paying folks who lived in the US for many years.”

No doubt there are Venezuelans in the US who are illegal immigrants, have been here for many years, have paid taxes, and are being or will be deported. However, they are still criminals; they are in the US illegally. Paying taxes does not permit or waive punishment for crime.

“My poem pales in comparison to much that comes out of the felon's mouth.”

She gives no examples. To say that some Mexicans are rapists, or that some Haitians eat cats or dogs, or that Covid came from China, is not hate speech. These are simple statements of fact, even if erroneous, and provable. 

So can we understand from all this where the hate is from? Given its incoherence, I think the real key must be something left unspoken: I say it is a hatred of Christians. Everything else is constructed to justify it. This springs from the same font as the eternal hatred of Jews: because either represents the morality as divine mandate, and so is anathema to a guilty conscience.

Scapegoating always follows this pattern. 

The Real World of Discrimination

 

A typical caricature of the "eternal Jew." Always thinking, God forbid.

The image of Harvard’s black female president refusing to condemn calls for the genocide of Jews—and yet, everyone expects, able to retain her job, despite revelations that she plagiarized parts of her doctoral thesis-- is a neat visual representation of an important truth. Although we falsely conflate them, discrimination against Jews and discrimination against blacks (or women) are fundamentally opposite phenomena.

One never or rarely hears of anyone ever calling for the extermination of blacks or women. If anyone did, the outcry against them would be monumental. If there are occasional claims that someone somewhere once did, if traced back, they turn out to be false claims. The same could be said for aboriginals. If anyone ever called for their extermination, they would be hated more than Simon Legree. (And nobody apparently ever said “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” That was a slander used against US General Sheridan precisely because it would destroy his reputation if believed.)

But one hears often of calls or sees actual attempts to wipe out Jews. Also, men, Irish, and East Asians. This is not just so in recent “woke” times, either. This is a historical constant.

Society as a whole readily sees fit to give blacks, or women, or aboriginals, special advantages: scholarships, affirmative action programs, easier sentencing in court, extra government benefits.

Society never considers giving Jews, men, Irish, or East Asians any such special advantages. The suggestion would be met with scorn or rage.

These two lists are not exhaustive; but "minority" groups always fall into one or the other decisively: the Jewish side, or the black side.

Antisemitism is fuelled by envy and malice: Jews are hated because they seem superior to the rest of us. So too, if to a lesser extent, men, East Asians, or the Irish. Discrimination “against” women, blacks, or indigenous people, in precise contrast, is almost always done out of good intentions, and is meant to be for their benefit. These groups are loved because they are looked down on as inferior. Nobody hates another for being less then they are; they hate for being better.

Not that this discrimination has ever been good for blacks or women or Indians. It is a deprivation of moral agency, and fosters passivity. People do not thrive as pets. But it also prompts them to complain the loudest about discrimination. Once one ha become accustomed to special treatment, one feels a deep injustice whenever it is not forthcoming. When, by contrast, one is accustomed to being discriminated against, one tends to learn to take it silently as one’s fate.

Opposite motives, opposite actions--and opposite results. The Jews manifestly do unusually well despite severe persecution; such as a widespread and systematic attempt to wipe every last one of them out within living memory. The Japanese have recovered from total defeat and Hiroshima within the same time period. The Irish have recovered from the holocaust of the Great Hunger a hundred and fifty years ago, civil war as recently as the 1990s, and are now the richest nation in Europe. Yet blacks are supposed to have never been able to recover from slavery a hundred and fifty years ago—a custodianship justified at the time as for their own benefit. Women cannot recover from a wolf whistle. And indigenous people have supposedly never recovered from the trauma of first contact.

We need to make the clear distinction between malicious persecution, and misguided charity.

Clown World

 

So what are the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, recently controversially honoured by the LA Dodgers, all about?

The Dodgers, and their other deenders, will say they are a charitable organization. Which they are—they promote AIDS education and hand out free condoms. But this does not excuse them if they are also promoting hatred towards some identifiable group. The Taliban also does charity work. The Mafia did. So did the Nazi party. It’s good PR for wicked people.

According to Wikipedia, the group was founded in 1979, as a performance troupe. Their public performances and public protests, then, are their raison d’etre. They diversified into charity work once the AIDS epidemic began to ravish their homosexual community. And their proposed solution—essentially, use a condom—is arguably not the best advice. It might have caused more deaths than it prevented.

Their performances, their name, and the nun’s habit are obviously meant to ridicule the Catholic Church.

But why whiteface? 

Had they chosen blackface, the charge of racism would have been obvious.

You might argue that they were trying to look like clowns, not white people. But then, why do clowns have white faces? When old-time entertainers put on blackface, wasn’t it to mock black people, to make them look foolish? They were blackface clowns. Isn’t the principle the same for whiteface clowns?

But, you might argue, aren’t the perpetrators themselves already white? Are they mocking their own race? And if so, isn’t self-mockery okay?

Not all ”white” people are particularly pale. The English, let alone continental Europeans, are markedly darker in complexion than those living further north, the Irish, the Scottish, the Scandinavians. Are they mocking themselves by making their faces paler, or one or another of these other racial groups?

Why does the classic clown have red hair? Isn’t this mockery of a genetic characteristic concentrated in Northern Europe: in the Irish and Scottish in particular?

Clarabell the Clown

Of course it is. Whiteface clowns are racist if blackface clowns are, in the same way. The Irish have traditionally been held in contempt in the English-speaking world. 

In particular because they are Catholic.

Bozo the Clown

Live public performances in clown makeup of course have an additional benefit: they attract children.

Is it all starting to make a perverse sense?

Ronald McDonald

Community

 

Avonlea Village, Cavendish,, P.E.I.

Dave Rubin, who is gay, recently and properly said on air, “There is no such thing as the LGBTQ community.”

Your community is the people you run into on a typical day, the people you spend time with. Most naturally, the folks on your block. 

Other than sex, gays do not have anything in common. No number of one-night stands adds up to a community. Nor does a solitary couple. And gays have nothing in particular in common with lesbians, or transsexuals; no more than the average straight male.

Similarly, except for those who go to the same mosque, Muslims in Canada are not a community. Except for those who live on the same reserve, indigenous people are not a community. Unless they attend the same women’s club, feminists are not a community. Mariposa is a community. Avonlea is a community. Cabbagetown is a community.

These false so-called “communities,” moreover, are used to cut us off from our communities: from seeing and celebrating all we have in common with our neighbours. They promote hostility towards anyone who is different from us. They alienate.

Anti-Catholic Hate Crimes

 

Is Preferring White Meat Prejudiced?

 

“Friend Xerxes writes”—this has become the usual start to my Sunday sermons.

This week, friend Xerxes writes that “prejudice – racial or otherwise – can be defined only those on the receiving end.”

And he cites as example an incident that proves the opposite. He had three Jamaican guests to Christmas dinner, and asked if they wanted white or dark meat. They all chose dark meat, thinking he was referring to their skin colour.

In fact, prejudice can never be reliably defined by those on the “receiving” end; because prejudice speaks to motive, and none of us can read minds.

Only the person accused of prejudice knows for certain whether the charge is true. 

Xerxes goes on to say “I can never know if I’m expressing unrecognized prejudices unless someone points them out to me.”

Yet I do think we all must know when we are being prejudiced. Prejudice violates the essence of morality, which is the awareness of human equality (“do unto others”); we are all capable of understanding this simple principle, and we all have a conscience. 

It is close to a perfect contradiction to suggest we can be unaware of our own prejudices—that we can think a thought without knowing we are thinking it.

Of course, there is real prejudice in the world—lots of it. One good example is the claim that only “white” people can be prejudiced. Another is that certain groups are “indigenous.” Or that only “black lives matter.” Or that “men” cause violence. Or that this ethnic group owes reparations to that ethnic group. Or that fetuses are not human.

And so it goes, generation to generation.

The Bigotry of the Left

 

Michael Knowles has recently lost a sponsor for his podcast because, a few years ago, he expressed the opinion that being a man who believes you are a woman, or vice versa, is a mental illness.

On another occasion, he was berated on Fox News, and the network apologized, for saying Greta Thunberg is mentally ill.

Isn’t there an obvious problem here?

If you consider it an intolerable insult to say someone is mentally ill, what does that say of one’s attitude towards the mentally ill? 

That their existence is intolerable. That they are to be dismissed from the conversation.

It seems that, on the left at least, this is the standard view.