White Privilege

In thirty-four years of living in America, I have never faced the problem of radical racial resistance from committed individualists, many of whom fall within the conservative camp. They have mostly accepted me as an individual and treated me as an equal. My race to them was neither a qualifier nor a disqualifier, but a sociological marker which, as far as I could tell, was irrelevant to how I performed. In my experience with far-left progressives there exists an insidious racism that is often hard to diagnose. Their sense of their own whiteness required black helplessness and inadequacy to shore up a sense of guilt, which would then prompt action on their part, from which they could seek redemption and contrition.

There is unbridled hubris behind such psychic exploitation, because one needs to posit an inferior before one can masochistically experience redemption from some perceived wrong one has inflicted against another. That wrong, which the so-called progressive feels she or he has wielded, is white privilege.

Earth hath no greater self-righteous and moralistic avenging angel than the progressive afflicted with a sense of wrongful white privilege. So, what did I do in the face of the holder of this white privilege? I committed the worst crime possible: I communicated that it was a farce. I laughed at it, made it clear I was unharmed by it, rendered the holders irrelevant, and incurred their repressed but seething wrath. Hell also hath no greater fury like a far-left-progressive rejected for his or her redemptive gestures. Why? Because if the moral meaning and purpose of your existence as a far-left liberal rests on my suffering and victimization as a black person, then you will need me to suffer indefinitely in order to continue to cull some meaning and purpose from your life.

If I reject your help on the grounds that I will not let you expropriate my agency on behalf of my life, that I will cultivate the virtues in my character that are needed to emancipate my life from the hell you imagine it to be, then I’ve annihilated your meaning here on earth. I’ve identified your moral sadism in the relief of my suffering and named the moral hypocrisy of your life. It was never about me all along. It was about your redemption.

These alt-left individuals suffer from annihilation anxiety because black freedom signals the death of the very sociopolitical relevance of the far left, and not just in black lives, but in all forms of social engineering. Liberals who have staked their identity on black oppression, victimization, and suffering are moral sadists because in order to continue justifying their existence, they must continue to wish to see black people suffer under racial oppression. They expropriate the agency of racial minorities so they can speak for them, to them, and, in essence, determine who among them is qualified to count as their racial spokesperson.

The sense of superiority is unmistakable. People who regard other people as their moral equals either leave them alone to make their own way, or, when they are aggrieved, address the injustice quietly and move on after it is resolved.

A far-left liberal friend of mine recently told me that she was disturbed by my views on race.

“Yes, we all need to take responsibility for who we are. But, let’s face it, this message rings more hollow in some cases than in others,” she declared. “Your main message that blacks need to take more responsibility for their own lives saddens me; it seems to put the emphasis in the wrong place. Is your message to women, too, that they just need to stop whining and start succeeding?”

Since I had not been aware of women besides those who were very privileged, elitist, and those entitled who were whiners, I never bothered to respond. For the most part, ordinary working women in America, possessed of a deep, independent, and pioneering spirit, are not and have never been whiners, for they know that America remains the best place in the world to be a woman.

There is something nefarious simmering behind the motivation of the so-called progressive sector among the left-wingers for black emancipation. In my early years as an immigrant in the United States, and working up to three jobs to put myself through college, there was definitely an unmistakable and discernible attitude being directed at me.

Who was I not to be harmed or victimized by white privilege? How dare I not be a victim? How dare I deny them that power of identifying me as a victim and then emancipating me? What possessed me to have so large an efficacious agency that I could usurp and circumvent the power of this disguised form of white supremacy exercised by progressives?

Here is what I admire about individualists who identify, often, as conservatives. They know that one dare not possess the temerity and impertinence for finding them guilty simply for being white, and they know that any privilege they possess, whether it is brilliance, beauty, or physical prowess, is simply wasted if not exercised. If whiteness is a privilege, as is maleness, then what do people expect white people or men to do about them? Act black? Feminize themselves?

There is an antidote (especially for those who are black) if you are traumatized by what you experience as “white privilege.” Though I hate to cast any virtue in racial monikers, I would, nevertheless, say its name is: Black Excellence! Excellence in one’s character and excellence in the cultivation of one’s intellect are the best remedies for the fear of being overwhelmed by whatever magical powers one imagines that whiteness today can exercise over the lives of free people in a free society. Moral and skill perfection as goals to strive for provide one with an aspirational identity that is always in a process of perpetual development in concert with one’s fellow compatriot.

The so-called social privilege leveraged by another person cannot inflict harm on a person who believes in the inviolate certainty of his or her moral and skill efficacy. Those who chronically complain of the unfairness of white privilege not only lack basic self-esteem, they also suffer from an appalling inability to either take an inventory of their own privileges that they are failing to cultivate or, worse, they regard the cultivation of the virtues that would indeed make them privileged as politically inexpedient since it would rob them of their victim status. But, a deep commitment to a life of lived excellence is not an inoculation against anyone’s privileged existence. Dignified lives are not in competition with one another. They each have their own unassailable integrity and indubitable individuality.

I have never complained about white privilege. I have never taken it seriously as having any real causal pull in my life, nor do I trust those white people who prate endlessly about white privilege to black folks or guilt trip among themselves about its so-called deleterious effects on black lives. I have never feared it is because I have never thought white people had any volitional power to control the manner in which I shaped my moral character, nor have they influenced my intellectual skill set in any shape or form. I simply perceive reality clearly and correctly: whatever is codified socially as white privilege is and has always been weakened by the force of my personal will, my values, the unquestionable set of excellences I have developed in several areas of my life, and the habituated virtues of my soul. These have always added up—even when I was a poor and struggling student—to a very privileged existence and rarefied life.

If black victimologists hate America by virtue of their suffering and historical exclusions from mainstream society, then left-wingers can gain street credibility by enlisting their black brothers- and sisters-in-hatred in solidarity. What the bourgeois alt-left lack in personal oppression, they make up for in their righteous indignation over the plight of black victimization. And, since black victims often lack the institutional resources to showcase their suffering and perceived hopelessness to a large audience, what better way for left-wingers to make themselves useful than by atoning for their social insignificance and irrelevance by creating a performance on behalf of the victims?

In the end, I have only my indisputable agency to stand on. It has a universal shape to it. It can navigate a multiplicity of registers and, above all it is not an existential problem. Rather, it is the very inoculation and bulwark against those who would view me as a problem to be solved.

Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy and Honors Distinguished Faculty at DePaul University in Chicago. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of four books, including “We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People” (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). Follow him on Twitter @JasonDhill6

 Share

Central Banking is Socialism

Last week, the Federal Reserve responded to Wall Street’s coronavirus panic with an “emergency” interest rate cut. This emergency cut failed to revive the stock market, leading to predictions that the Fed will again cut rates later this month.

More rate cuts would drive interest rates to near, or even below, zero. Lowering interest rates punishes people for saving, thus encouraging consumers and businesses to spend every penny they make. This may give the economy a short-term boost. But, it inhibits long-term economic growth by depleting the savings necessary for investments in businesses and jobs. The result of this policy will be more pressure on the Fed to indefinitely maintain low interest rates and on the Congress and president to create another explosion of government “stimulus” spending.

Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren has suggested that Congress allow the Federal Reserve to add assets of private companies to the Fed’s already large balance sheet. Allowing the central bank to buy assets of, and thus assume a partial ownership interest in, private companies would give the Federal Reserve even greater influence over the economy. It could also allow the Fed to advance a political agenda by, for example, favoring investment in “green energy” companies over other companies or refusing to purchase assets of retailers who sell firearms or tobacco products.End The FedRon PaulBest Price: $2.18Buy New $5.68(as of 09:55 EST – Details)

Mr. Rosengren’s proposal to allow the central bank to “invest,” in private companies seems like something one would hear from democratic socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders. This is not surprising since the entire Federal Reserve system is a textbook example of socialism.

The essence of socialist economics is government allocation of resources either by seizing direct control of the “means of production” or by setting prices business can charge. Federal Reserve manipulation of interest rates is an attempt to set the price of money. Federal Reserve attempts to set interest rates distort the signals sent by the rates to investors and business. This results in a Fed-created boom, which is inevitably followed by a Fed-created bust.

Economic elites benefit when the Federal Reserve pumps new money into the economy because they have access to the money created before there are widespread price increases. Artificially low interest rates also facilitate the growth of the welfare-warfare state.

The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies harm the average American by eroding the dollar’s purchasing power. This forces consumers to rely on credit cards and other forms of debt to maintain their standard of living. Many Americans are unable to afford their own homes because they are saddled with student loan debt that can even exceed their income.

Since the bailouts of 2008, there has been a growing understanding that the current system is rigged in favor of the elites and against the average American. Unfortunately, popular confusion of our system of Keynesian neoliberalism with a free-market economy, combined with a widespread entitlement mentality, has led many Americans to support increasing government control of our economy.

The key to beating back the rising support for socialism on both the left and right is helping more people understand that big government and central banking are the cause of their problems and that free markets in all areas — and especially in money — is the solution. It is important that the liberty movement put pressure on Congress to cut spending and rein in or, better yet, end the Fed.

We Are Not Going to be OK

“Senate Democrats’ coronavirus bailout plan could give each American $4,500”, according to Fox Business.

Is giving every single American $4,500 a good thing?

You bet! Free money! Yay! That can NEVER be a bad thing, right?

In an economy where all schools have closed indefinitely, all bars and restaurants are closed indefinitely, and most economic activity, from Wall Street to the suburbs to Main Street simply STOPS, what are people supposed to do after they have spent the $4,500?

What are they supposed to spend it ON? Clothes or supplies for school? Vacations on planes that aren’t flying? Resorts that won’t be open for the summer? At bars or restaurants, all closed until further notice? How do you spend $4,500 under a state of martial law, which the Governor of California has suggested is coming? Or under the probable lockdown coming in New York City — once the literal center of the universe? What good will $4,500 do you under martial law? Snowflake America is not ready for any of this.

It was easy to delude ourselves that money grows on trees when we actually HAD TREES. If money can come out of an almost non-existent economy, shut down thanks now to our government, then why don’t we all simply stop working and take not a mere $4,500, but a trillion dollars per person from the government? Why not? It’s America, right? Our government can do anything. Get rid of Donald Trump? Sure! Put Joe Biden in there. He will make it all happen!

Is it possible — even just a tiny bit possible — that our federal, state and local governments have overreacted to coronavirus … just a little bit? Did it really make sense to create an even bigger catastrophe in order to avoid one? What have the lockdowns and shutdowns accomplished? What good is being healthy when the collapse of the economy will soon make us all prefer not to be alive? This can’t continue.

This is madness. It’s literally psychosis. It’s madness that can no longer work even on its own terms. I am frankly speechless, at this point. People will just have to learn the hard way. There’s not much else to say.

It’s not going to be OK. Not unless we open up our economy again. The vast majority of us are still healthy, and the vast majority of the minority who get sick will get well. That’s what the FACTS tell us! Convince me that an indefinite, or even permanent shutdown of America, is warranted by what we know about coronavirus. Nobody has yet. If you’re worried about hospital beds for the flu, then let hospitals become profit centers instead of largely wards of the government. Give people tax holidays, and a break from government. Instead, we’re getting as much government as Venezuela has. And the results are going to be exactly the same. Don’t believe me? Look around. —Michael J. Hurd

History of Socialism

Senator Bernie Sanders’ call for socialism has resonated among many Americans, particularly young Americans. They’ve fallen prey to the idea of a paradise here on Earth where things are free and there’s little want. But socialists never reveal what turns out to be their true agenda. Let’s look at the kind of statements they used to gain power. You’ll note that all of their slogans before gaining power bore little relation to the facts after they had power.

Vladimir Lenin promised, “Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.” That’s Friedrich Engel’s prediction about “the withering away of the state.” Lenin also promised, “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification,” and “No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses.” Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, said, “Advance towards socialism cannot but cause the exploiting elements to resist the advance, and the resistance of the exploiters cannot but lead to the inevitable sharpening of the class struggle.” He also said, “Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union,” and that “Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.”

Then there’s China’s Chairman Mao Zedong, who said: “Socialism must be developed in China, and the route toward such an end is a democratic revolution, which will enable socialist and communist consolidation over a length of time. It is also important to unite with the middle peasants, and educate them on the failings of capitalism.” Mao advised: “A communist must be selfless, with the interests of the masses at heart. He must also possess a largeness of mind, as well as a practical, far-sighted mindset.”

Cuban dictator Fidel Castro said: “Capitalism has neither the capacity, nor the morality, nor the ethics to solve the problems of poverty. We must establish a new world order based on justice, on equity, and on peace.” He added, “I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating… because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition.”

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez promised: “I am going to do my best to try to create a country in which children are not living in poverty, in which kids can go to college, in which old people have health care. Will I succeed? I can’t guarantee you that, but I can tell you that from a human point of view it is better to show up than to give up.” Adding, “I am convinced that the path to a new, better and possible world is not capitalism, the path is socialism.”

His successor Nicolas Maduro said: “Fidel Castro represents the dignity of the South American continent against empires. He’s a living legend: an icon of independence and freedom across the continent.”

Bernie Sanders’ statements are not that different from those of Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez and other tyrants. Sanders says, “Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America,” and “We need to change the power structure in America, we need to end the political oligarchy.”

Stalin’s campaign didn’t mention that he would enact policies that would lead to the slaughter of 62 million people in the Soviet Union between 1917 to 1987. Mao Zedong didn’t mention that his People’s Republic of China would engage in brutal acts that would lead to the loss of 76 million lives at the hands of the government from 1949 to 1987. The late Professor Rudolph J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documented this tragedy in his book “Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900.”

Because socialism is a fight against basic human nature, it requires brute force in the attempt to reach its goals. The best warning about socialism comes from Aesop, who said, “Those who voluntarily put power into the hands of a tyrant … must not wonder if it be at last turned against themselves.” We shouldn’t ignore Martin Luther King Jr.’s warning, “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. –Walter J. Williams

COVID Giving Power-Hungry Politicians a Field Day

Federal and state governments are shutting down essentially everything, indefinitely. The most vibrant and energetic economy in human history is grinding to a halt, and the cratering of the stock market reflects this. Yet only certain selected businesses will be given subsidies for compensation. How fair or economic is that? And in an economy closer to collapse each day, where is the money supposed to come from?

Larger companies will be expected to take many of the hits. But consumers will pay for these hits through higher costs and/or more limited goods and services. When will we stop pretending that when politicians do things “for” us, it’s we the productive who are paying? Politicians produce nothing. Economically they are parasites, and morally they are thieves. Frederic Bastiat, a French economist, called it legalized plunder.

The only good thing a government can do for us is protect our freedom and individual liberty. This is the last thing any of our elected creeps seem to consider. None of these frenetic mandates are making us healthier. Doctors and science will do that–only if they are left the hell alone. It’s a bidding war right now to see who can be the coolest tyrant. Only a nation of cowardly wimps thoroughly ignorant of their own inalienable rights would tolerate it. Too many of us are pitiful sheep.

The law of unintended consequences is always implicit in any government action. Our Constitution was not about giving unlimited and unilateral power to any Governor or President. And yet here we are. It’s not going to stop, and my prediction is much of it will not be temporary. Sure, a lot of businesses will reopen when officials feel like letting them. But they will love the power we let them get away with exercising in our open-ended national emergency, and power is like a drug to most of our politicians. They will not let it go.

The damage to our economy could be with us for years, or even permanently. Our freedom, such as it still existed, will never be the same.

But hey, it’s coronavirus. I guess that excuses everything.–Michael J. Hurd

Bill Clinton’s Predatory Anxiety Management

Bill Clinton claims he had extramarital/predatory sex in order to “manage my anxieties”, resulting from the pressures of the presidency. Insert sigh here.

Since I’m a therapist, people are asking me: Is that plausible? Does one feel compelled to have predatory or extramarital sex in order to manage one’s anxiety?

Certainly. A serial killer murders people in order to manage his anxiety. A thief steals to manage his anxiety. Dishonest, corrupt people have a lot of anxiety, just like a lot of very good people suffer from anxiety. Anxiety is not limited to good people. When you’re at war with justice and reality, as bad people are by definition, then of course you’re subject to anxiety.

Clinton plainly hides behind a psychological excuse to avoid responsibility for his actions. Remember that he wasn’t just guilty of extramarital sex. That hardly matters, because he and Hillary clearly have a sham marraige, based on the pursuit of power more than any genuine commitment or emotion. These are hollow, really soulless people.

Clinton was also guilty of sexually predatory behavior. In other words, he imposed and pushed himself on women again and again. You can debate at what point this becomes rape. In politics, we have come to understand that it’s NEVER rape if it’s a leftist or Democratic politician, while it’s ABSOLUTELY rape if there’s so much as an accusation against a Republican one. Donald Trump is considered a rapist for admiring a woman’s body parts in a private conversation he didn’t realize was being taped; Bill Clinton is NOT considered a rapist even though there’s evidence he pushed himself on women again, and again, and again. I consider Bill Clinton’s behavior predatory morally and psychologically, regardless of the legal status.

The Clintons will go down in history as the power couple of excuses. In a healthier culture, they would not have gotten anywhere. They represent the attitudes of people who live their lives in similar ways. They root for the Clintons, because by letting them off the hook for everything to do, they kind of let themselves off the hook, too.

It’s the moral and psychological inversion of hero worship. With hero worship, you admire an objectively wonderful or beautiful achievement. “If he or she can achieve this great thing, then I can achieve MY goals and aspirations too.” Hero worship is motivating and uplifiting.

People who admire the Clintons are admiring them for their victimhood, all the while disregarding how they bring ALL of it on themselves. Why else would they admire the Clintons, when there are so many other people actually worth admiring?

I find it sickening. I thought we were done with the Clintons, but it seems we will never be done with them, not so long as they are alive. They will go to their graves, and probably even shout from their deathbeds, “It wasn’t my fault. It wasn’t my fault.”

As a mental health professional, it sickens me even more to see such power-lusting hacks like the Clintons hide behind the curtain of “anxiety management” as a way to excuse the terrible things they have done — things more terrible than Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades, for sure.

The Clintons got away with murder, metaphorically and probably literally. And now we have to sit and listen to them on their therapy couches in old age. Hit delete now.

Michael J. Hurd

250th Anniversary of Boston Massacre

Solemn ceremonies and a protest marked the 250th anniversary Thursday of the massacre in Boston that helped spark the Revolutionary War.

A wreath was laid at the grave of the five victims of the fateful conflict, and colonial re-enactors fired their muskets in salute during a morning tribute organized by the Daughters of the American Revolution. The event is the first of a number expected to take place across the country in the coming years to mark the anniversary of the war for independence.

In the afternoon, black and Native American activists staged a “death procession” from the massacre site to Faneuil Hall to protest “persistent racism” in Boston and elsewhere. Protesters renewed calls for the hall to be renamed in honor of Crispus Attucks, a man of African American and Native American descent who was the first person killed in the Boston Massacre.

“We will not forget the sacrifices that you made, becoming martyrs for liberty,” said Laura Kessler, of the Daughters of the American Revolution, after she’d read out the names of the victims at the morning commemoration at the Old Granary Burial Ground in downtown Boston.

Attucks is often cited as the first casualty of the American Revolution, and Faneuil Hall, where prominent Bostonians debated independence from Britain, was built by a wealthy merchant and slave trader.

They also called for changing the state flag and seal, which depict a Native American man, a colonist’s arm brandishing a sword and a Latin phrase that reads, in part, “By the sword we seek peace.”

Gov. Charlie Baker, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, the president of the Boston branch of the NAACP and other dignitaries were set to speak at an evening ceremony at the historic Old South Meeting House near the massacre site.

The Boston Massacre took place on March 5, 1770, as a mob attacked a British soldier in front of the downtown Customs House on a snowy evening.

The solider was among roughly 4,000 troops occupying Boston in order to enforce new tax laws imposed on the American colonies, according to the Daughters of the American Revolution.

British soldiers opened fire on the crowd, killing Attucks and four other men: Samuel Gray, James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick and Patrick Carr.

Two of the soldiers were eventually found guilty and branded. The victims were posthumously hailed as heroes, with thousands turning out for their funeral procession and their burial together.

The story of the bloody street brawl, meanwhile, stoked anti-British sentiment throughout the colonies, thanks in large part to widely circulated engravings by Paul Revere depicting the British soldiers as the instigators of the conflict.

John Adams, who defended the British soldiers at their trial and later became the new nation’s second president, said the massacre was when the “foundation of American independence was laid.”

Four years later, irate Bostonians staged their infamous Tea Party, dumping British tea into the harbor to protest Colonial rule.

The following year, in 1775, American and British armies clashed in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, during the first official battles of the Revolutionary War.