Holy mackerel! Redux!
In this blog post, here, we pointed out that the great fortress that is the Race Grievance Industry — the RGI — appears to have developed some cracks. If you follow the RGI, you realize that they are absolutely monolithic, maintaining an ideological purity that they make massive efforts to keep absolutely inviolable. Step off the reservation, and you are anathematized immediately. Once and forever.
All that remains true, but now it appears that the anathematized are coming back and arguing about what caused their own exiling. In other words, they’re not taking the RGI’s censorship quietly anymore.
Here’s how it works — or at least how it used to work: Go onto a “black web site” (self-labeled) like Brotha Wolf’s, or Abagond’s (I sometimes refer to “Brotha Wolf” as “BW” for brevity.), and offer some disagreement with the premise of a blog post. If that disagreement goes against the holy tenets of the RGI, the reaction is swift, indignant and aspires to be devastating. It tends to be merely stupid.
One can dissent on the RGI blog sites, but only within very narrow confines: To post a valid dissent, you must say, for example, that the post didn’t go far enough in its condemnation of something or someone, and that the post was too kind to the target of the post. The blog owner then ashamedly admits that, yes, the dissenter is correct, he was just too nice, darn it! and didn’t go far enough in excoriating whomever or whatever.(1)
However, if a dissenter dares to disagree with the actual premise of a post, look out! The reason for this is that the RGI’s blog posts are always some whining variation of RGI holy writ. If you contribute to an RGI blog, like BW’s, you must not deviate from RGI holy writ, in any way. Period.
What is RGI holy writ?
- White racism is everywhere, and it permeates everything, even inanimate objects. This is the so-called “institutional racism.”
- Whites are evil… all of them. If they’re not overtly evil, then they’re not stopping the overtly evil ones from doing evil things, making them just as bad as the perpetrators.
- Rampant black crime is really the fault of whites, because the criminals are forced by racism to commit crimes. No further discussion of this can be permitted.
- The horrific black-on-black murder rate is also the fault of racist whites who developed the system of “white supremacy” within which blacks are forced to act and react as they do. No further discussion of this can be permitted either.
- All other social pathologies and problems among black people — poverty, government dependence, unemployment, drug use and distribution, lower achievement levels, lower education levels — are the fault of white racism for the same reason as #’s 3 and 4, above.
Disagree with any aspect of holy writ and here’s what happens: First, the dissident immediately finds himself branded as a racist white man. Then, as it sometimes turns out, if the dissident reveals that he is not white, or not even a man, the accusations take a different turn: he is brainwashed, a house n***er, or so beaten down by the system of “white supremacy” that he has become part of it, a victim of a kind of “Stockholm Syndrome,” or, of course, that he’s a liar, and is really a white man(2). Usually, the dissident slinks away, or does some kind of self-abasement to appease the enraged herd. If he persists in his dissent, he finds himself banned from the site. No real black person, you see, could possibly dissent against RGI holy writ!
While to a man or woman, the RGI will insist that black people are not monolithic in any sense, they also insist that all black people understand and agree that the country is overflowing with white racism. Ergo, if a dissident does not agree with that premise, he must not be black. Even if he’s black. Got it? The many people in the RGI with whom I’ve debated in the past few years, have all — no exceptions — insisted that black people are not monolithic, and then have become apoplectic with rage at the first hint of disagreement. Not one black person with whom I’ve locked horns has thought differently. Not one person with whom I’ve locked horns has been able either even to recognize that glaring contradiction or, of course, to explain it.
Mind you, there are black people who believe differently, but they are not members of the RGI. The RGI is absolutely rigidly, almost militaristically, monolithic in its thinking and its beliefs. This is not really all that surprising. The RGI is a subset of America’s political left-wing, which is comprised principally of grievance groups. There’s the RGI itself, of course, but also the Gay Grievance Industry, the Feminist Grievance Industry, the Hispanic Grievance Industry, the Immigration Grievance Industry, the Poverty Grievance Industry, the newly-constituted Muslim Grievance Industry, and many more.
All these groups have recognized that there is much money, fame, prestige and power to be had in complaining about how horrible things are in America. So, while they complain, they cash in. Apparently, there are some in their midst, however, who are starting to recognize this scam for what it really is, and who think that a scam is a scam is a scam and that it can’t be good for the country no matter what your political predilection(3).
Which brings us back to the aforementioned “Brotha Wolf.” Back on the 23rd of this month, he published a plaintive, whiny post that he titled “A Right To Speak.” (here) He originally entitled it: “A Right To Be Mad” as the URL indicates,(4) but apparently changed his mind.
Right from the get-go, the title is suspicious. Is BW trying to pretend that he is being denied his fundamental, constitutional right to free speech? That would be difficult to reconcile with his hundreds and hundreds of blog posts(5) — all available to the entire online world! — and his apparently busy presence on other social media. He is not, it seems, having any problems “speaking.”
He then goes on, ultimately, to say in a kind of pathetic, whimpering post, that those who disagree should just go away and leave him alone. His logic seems to center on the idea that his experiences give him the legitimacy to express his racist,(6) hatred-filled sentiments. He’s been hearing back lately that he has the right to say whatever he wants, but he doesn’t have any right to guarantee agreement from his readers, and this astonishes, stupefies, flummoxes, dumbfounds, perplexes and, especially, ticks BW off entirely.
Actually, no one — me included — begrudges him this. I’ve followed this blog in-depth for several years, and no one has ever suggested that BW should not have the right to say what he says, without repercussion. Not a single person, ever. So, what is BW’s beef? Simple: he wants to vent his spleen without ever encountering anyone who disagrees with him, because he is deeply emotionally invested in his irrational opinions.
No problem. He wouldn’t be the first person who got himself deeply invested in his own personal opinions. However, he is part of a vast tendency in America that truly has no interest in brooking any disagreement whatsoever with its beliefs. Brotha Wolf is just one of these, and he admits it in the post and in the comments that I’ve captured below.
Please note: I would have simply pointed you to the post, and to my dialogues with BW’s acolytes, but I was banned from his site long ago. I don’t blame BW for that. Even though I’m a white guy, I’m plainly much more informed about black America than BW is. However, I did notice a remarkable thing: I’ve been banned from quite a few left-wing web sites, merely for expressing my sentiments. I’ve never seen anyone banned ever from any right-wing web site or blog. Ever. No matter how rude, condescending, obnoxious or rude the person.
Personally, I’ve followed a simple rule: state my beliefs, back them up with generally-agreed upon facts, be unfailingly polite and … be nice. On every single left-wing web site where I did that I was banned. Needless to say, I was banned from BW’s blog long ago. I never even used bad words.(7) Not a single one. The remarkable thing that I noticed was this: left-wing web sites and blogs ban people from participating in them frequently. I’ve never seen a right-wing blog or web site ban a commenter. And, the right-wing web sites have faced a whole lot more noxious, troll-ish visitors than the militantly monolithic left-wing sites.
This says a lot about the American right, and the left and, of course, the RGI: the left is most concerned with maintaining ideological purity — on the left, all intellectual exploration must first pass ideological muster before even being acknowledged; the right is concerned mostly with understanding something.
In BW’s post, he gives kind of a pitiful “no mas,” suggesting that visitors simple leave him alone to express his racist sentiments. I’m not at all unsympathetic to that idea, except for one thing: he uses his self-expression to make vast, broad, sweeping statements, and at that point, ropes in the rest of America. Simply put: in BW’s rantings, he accuses me — as well as my brothers and sisters, my son and daughter — of being evil racist scumbags, simply because they’re white. At that point, he makes his content fair game, which brings us to another important point. In the time I’ve been following BW — several years now — almost none of the dissenters visiting his site, have attacked BW personally. There have been rare exceptions, but most dissenters have disagreed respectfully, politely and … nicely.
They were all banned if they persisted in their disagreement, or were unpersuaded by BW’s, and his acolytes’, emotion-laden and generally irrelevant “arguments.”
In BW’s post below there is the usual “Amen chorus” suggesting that [fill in RGI sacred tenet here] … but there is also “FreeThinker.”
FreeThinker is, apparently, a “brown girl.” At least she calls herself that. She dissents from the RGI holy tenets so, of course, gets banned. However, BW is, apparently, weary, and simply doesn’t allow her posts to see the light of day. How do we know this? Here’s the big surprise — “FreeThinker” has contacted us here at the increasingly influential Praetorian Writers’ Group. She(7) has indicated that she submitted several posts that didn’t even appear on BW’s blog. We have shown them here, where they would have appeared if BW hadn’t been afraid to display them. Now, please note that I’m taking FreeThinker’s word that she would have posted on BW’s blog, and that BW simply didn’t allow the posts to appear. I’m doing that because that certainly seems like BW’s modus operandi. FreeThinker’s claim is very credible. I’ve indicated where they would have appeared, and added my own comments.
In an additional note, I will meet with FreeThinker with the premise of the meeting to be: Might FeeThinker, be qualified/of a mind to join our small, but increasingly influential think tank. We are always on the lookout for new writers, and FreeThinker gives every indication that she is, indeed, a free thinker, with much of strong substance to say. And she says it well.
Now, BW used to be at least man enough to announce that he was banning someone. At which point, you could be confident that he’d submit a post indicating that he had banned someone and why, in his thinking, that person merited their fate. Not this time. Now, it appears, BW is simply not allowing blog replies to appear!
Holy Mackerel! Is the RGI so insecure in their thinking and beliefs that they can’t even allow dissenting voices to exist?
Bottom line: Brotha Wolf wants to be able to write scurrilous, defamatory, libelous, horrible things about an entire race of people — things that would cause him to turn purple with rage if directed at him or at black people — and for those on the receiving end just to shut up and let him vent. Furthermore, he doesn’t want any indication whatsoever that there might be — heaven forfend! — black people who might disagree with his racist flapdoodle. I’ve noticed this same thing on all the RGI web sites and blogs I’ve visited.
I’ve spent a lot of time and “ink” introducing BW’s post. So, I should probably just show it to you. Remember: BW has censored me, or else I’d simply link to the post. I’ve added my own comments [in square brackets and red font], as is my wont.
So, without further ado, here’s Brotha Wolf’s post and the subsequent comments:
— BEGINNING OF BW’S POST AND COMMENTS —
I’m not the best at debate. In fact, I’m not good at debating at all. I don’t use a lot of college-level words in my articles. [One wonders why not. He is a college graduate. It’s no secret. He claims it somewhere in social media. It’s a simple fact, however, that to be “good at debate” one needs at least to be familiar with one’s subject. BW expounds a lot on subjects with which, apparently, he has very little familiarity. If I didn’t know much about my subject, I’d be a pretty bad debater too.] I base my entries on events that are going on and use my own judgment based on a little research that doesn’t take a lot to do. To be honest, I don’t have the time to do extensive research like I want to, nor do I have a scholarly mind. And lets be real, there are more important places for such writings to be than on a simple blog such as mine. [In other words, BW’s knowledge of what he writes about is superficial at best. When you see the charges that he levels, you will understand quite easily that he needs to do one heckuva lot more research. The charges BW levels are very serious indeed — racism, violence, hatred, ongoing slavery and bias, continuing murders and other abuses, and more. Yet, then BW pretends that it is legitimate to make such damaging charges while admittedly doing only superficial research. This is at best highly irresponsible; at worst scurrilous and evil. These last two sentences of BW’s are really admissions that BW is a fraud. A man who is willing to draw terrible, vile conclusions about more than a billion people on admittedly superficial research, resulting in admittedly ignorant conclusions, as must all such “research.” BW surely didn’t want to confess to this, but he did.]
So, where am I going with this? Well, this is in response to certain commenters who, in literally so many words, have taken the time to express how wrong I am whenever an issue dealing that reflects who I am as a black person takes center stage and I write about it. I express my thoughts and emotions, but there are those who will not approve and will find something wrong with that. And I strongly believe that it’s because I’m a person of color who dares to talk about racism. [In all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of blog posts and comments that I’ve followed, never once has a single commenter suggested that, somehow, BW’s experiences are invalid, or worthless, or unimportant. There have been people — myself included — who have suggested that BW’s personal experiences are just that personal. They can’t legitimately be used to draw conclusions about an entire people in an entire country. Personal experiences are valid. They can help to add real understanding of the real effects of nationwide phenomena. It should be noted also, that BW is an admittedly racist “person of color” talking about racism. That’s a bit like a Nazi “daring” to talk about anti-semitism. Let’s face it, it takes no courage to be a black person accusing whites of racism. That is about the most gutless decision anyone — black or white — can possibly do.]
I don’t mind being told I’m wrong, but it gets on my nerves when the reasons why are mundane and weightless. And when I explain myself, it’s like talking to a broken record that repeats the same responses over and over. It’s like being told that my thoughts are worthless compared to the other person’s and that is the core of these isms and phobias against certain people that we have to deal with all the time. [And, again, no one ever suggested — that I saw — over hundreds and hundreds of posts, ever once suggested that BW’s thoughts were worthless. People did make the point that BW’s could not use his experiences to make any conclusions about the country as a whole. For that you do need things like BW’s obscure anecdotes, but you need global statistics as well. Whenever the contributors to BW’s blog did try to use statistics, they tended to be made up and transparently false. For example: one commenter said that white police were shooting and killing “millions of black people and then falsifying the police reports” every year. Of course, if that were true, then blacks would be wiped out in less than a generation. I’m not sure what BW means by “these isms and phobias,” but if he’s referring to a phobia against white people, then he should understand what phobia is: “ ” The key word here is: “irrational.” If it’s irrational, then you need to deal with it , and you need to cut it out. Everyone points out that one should not fear, for example, the number 13, or flying. Why? Because these fears are irrational and, read it well, go against the facts. The number 13 causes no problems; flying is still the safest way to travel, and, it seems pretty obvious, white racism ceased to be a big problem more than half a century ago. As for “mundane and weightless” reasons, BW has faced all manner of excellent observations and simply decreed them “mundane and weightless.” You’ll notice that BW provides no example of a “mundane and weightless” reason. If there were so many, it should be easy for him to provide one so that everyone can judge for himself.]
I’ve dealt with people, some claiming to be people of color, who told me that my focus is on a subject they felt was not important enough to mention. [An amazing phenomenon in the RGI! They are, it seems, constitutionally incapable of dealing with the ideas of someone who disagrees. For some reason, they can’t resist the temptation to engage in all sorts of irrelevant speculation about who the dissenter is. His skin color, education, background, location, knowledge level, trustworthiness, honesty, deep thoughts he may or may not be harboring. Things you might not even know about a close friend! There is an easy explanation for this, of course: the RGI can’t counter ideas, so they attack the holder. Resort to this smoke screen means further that the RGI is incapable of participating in an honest debate. When they call for an “honest debate” about race relations, they mean a “debate” in which anyone who might disagree with them, comes around to their viewpiont, admits his racism, and how wrong he was, and promises that he will support the RGI’s further efforts to keep racial tensions alive and hot.] I was told that racism wasn’t a big deal in this country, at least today. I was told that black-on-black crime was the real issue. I was told that black people were “out of control”. I was told this and that from those who seemed to can’t stand the subject of racism enough to want to virtually troll around and even derail topics.
Being told how wrong you are when you are a person of color discussing racism helps to kill the topic for seemingly personal and immoral reasons. Racism is a realistic subject that is just as important today as it was 40 years ago. When you have unarmed black people getting killed left and right by (mostly) white police, [Another example of RGI holy writ that is, simply, wrong. Unarmed black people are killed, in the vast, overwhelming majority, by other black people. However, this simple truth is something that BW cannot and will not face. ] for instance, racism becomes a possibility when it’s happening by the hundreds each year. [Again, BW’s assertion is easy to contradict with just a moment’s thought. “Hundreds” of incidents of racism — in a country of more than 300 million people is a frequency proving that America is the least racist country on earth — by very, very far. In a country of more than 300 million people, real racism would produce millions of incidents of racism each year.] I’ve yet to hear about unarmed white citizens murdered by black cops at the exact same frequency. Until that happens, it’s quite understandable, like it or not, that racism is a factor. [Do you know the incidence of white deaths at the hands of the police? Without that knowledge, there’s no way of knowing whether it’s racism, or, for example, a cover-up. The fact that we do hear about black deaths, in excruciating detail, is concrete evidence that the country is not racist. What is the thing that all supporters of a cause want the most? Easy: awareness of their cause. Is anyone in America really unaware of the RGI’s various causes? Seriously?]
The subject of racism is so heavy and complex that it tires a soul out, a soul who’s aware that it exists. [I’ll go along with that, but nothing tires the soul more than struggling against imaginary enemies.] But it’s even more exhausting trying to convince naysayers that it’s still going on, and they don’t believe you no matter how hard to try to prove it. [Note: in all the back-and-forths, no one ever said it’s not still going on. They did, however, make the point, pretty convincingly, that it’s not that big a problem anymore.] The truth is you can’t ‘prove’ racism to them, because they are stuck in denial. [See the previous note. This is a serious problem of the RGI: trying desperately to argue against points no one else is even trying to make.] It’s as if they are willingly blind and ignorant to the obvious. Nothing can make them consider otherwise. [Kind of interesting, coming from someone who has repeatedly said that nothing ever, forever, not ever, will change his mind about anything.]
However, the other truth is that there is no argument when it’s open and plain for anyone to see. There is no “other side” to consider when certain groups of people are being demonized and dehumanized daily. [There are always other points of view. As many as there are people in the world. But, there is a simple truth: black people are not being demonized or dehumanized daily anywhere. Quite the contrary, people in America are agonizing about what can be done to improve the prospects and lives of all black Americans. Period.] But they exhaust themselves trying to convince me and others that the issue of racism is a minor topic compared to whatever they think is considered more important.
That is why I end up banning them from my den. In the end, they’re trying to tell me that my thoughts don’t matter, and that my feelings are insignificant. [Again, no one ever said this.] In other words, I’m not supposed to get upset or scared whenever another black person is killed by a crazed cop. I’m not supposed to get angry that more and more young black folks are streaming to prison in record numbers for the most minor offenses. [Context needed: (1) Are whites streaming to jail also for minor offenses? (2) Are the blacks going to jail committing crimes? No one is suggesting that the America criminal justice system is perfect, but if it’s true that, as BW says, “young black folks are streaming to prison in record numbers for the most minor offenses” without understanding the context, that is perfectly meaningless.] I’m supposed to keep quiet when my people are constantly misrepresented in the media 24 hours a day. And I’m supposed to shut up when people bring up stupid reasons why people shouldn’t stand up against that and other forms of racism. [No one ever says this either. Everyone who has ever locked horns with people on BW’s blog has insisted that racism should be opposed wherever it appears. However, when BW admits he is a racist, he suggests that’s just okay, because it’s white people’s fault anyway. How is anyone supposed to counter racism, if there is some racism that’s okay, and other racism that’s not?]
We can not agree on the same thing. But when people start seeing that racism is not only real but terrible, maybe, just maybe there will be some progress. [More RGI strawmen. No one with any influence whatsoever has ever, at least in the past century, suggested that racism is not real or terrible.] Then again, not everyone is down with progress, and that is part of the problem.
— END OF BW’S POST AND COMMENTS —
Update: There have been a few new posts on this thread, none of them very intelligent. It’s worth noting, however, that “Lavern” jumped in and tried, weakly, to debunk what FreeThinker said above (Reminder: When FT pointed out how Lavern had pointed out all the successful black people in America.) Here is Lavern’s post, with, of course, our red, bracketed comments:
You forget that the White House has been LILY-WHITE for years and please don’t use my point about black people overcoming the many obstacles placed before them to aide (sic) your stupidity. Those people what there are of them got where they are in SPITE of discrimination that’s what I was saying. I’m pretty sure if you ask the people I was talking about they will tell many horror stories about the racism they faced on there path to a better life. Or do I have to remind you of all the blatant and subtle racism President Obama dealt with before and after his election? You are missing the forest for the trees my friend.
[Despite Lavern’s obvious illiteracy, it seems evident that what she says above bolsters FreeThinker’s point even more! Talk about progress! the White House is the home of a black man! To find the abuses and crimes to which the RGI constantly refers, you have to go farther and farther into the past. I’ve noticed a remarkable think in all the debates with the RGI: They spend the vast majority of their time bringing up the past. There’s a simple reason for this, of course: the evidence of white racism today is scanty at best. Read Barack Obama’s autobiographical writings, and it’s difficult to conclude anything but that his life has been filled with the exact opposite of discrimination from whites. It’s impossible, of course, to find examples of racism against Obama from the moment he came to widespread public attention. Quite the contrary. Talk about kid glove treatment! Especially by the very people who are supposed to be skeptical of the people in power: the media.]
(1) – Does anyone else see the parallels with left-wing totalitarianism around the world? If you look at Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism, Castroism, Titoism (the former Yugoslavia), Kim-ism (North Korea), Ho-ism (Vietnam) and on and on and on, the pattern never varies. The left takes power carrying the banner of ever greater “freedom,” then clamps down on anything resembling freedom, punishing generally with death, or with torture and incapacitation, any dissent. However, the dissent I described above — the authorities were too gentle on the enemy — is not only allowed, but encouraged.
(2) – Because it is still perfectly safe — and socially acceptable — to say the most disgusting things about white men. Therefore, if someone with whom you disagree becomes a bit difficult to bring down, just accuse him or her of being a “white man” (therefore a racist, sexist, etc…) and you have no further need to develop an actual argument to counter his. Yes, it’s the lazy way out, but there is nothing more characteristic of the RGI, and the American left, than intellectual laziness.
(3) – There are honest leftists, as we pointed out here, but we consider them “Conservatives-To-Be.” Honesty and leftism are incompatible characteristics. One will always destroy the other. Always. Either the honest person will sacrifice his honesty and become a leftist (generally for social acceptance purposes), or the leftist will recognize that he cannot be a leftist and continue to be an honest person, and therefore becomes a Conservative. Important Note: there is another vitally important component of leftism: intellectual laziness. That characteristic can allow the honest — but ignorant — leftist to remain ignorant, and in so doing, continue to be honest. He can continue to believe what is patently stupid, or dishonest, or wrong, or long-disproven, and remain an “honest leftist,” because he is too intellectually lazy to examine his own beliefs. These people are known as: “Professor,” and “Distinguished Professor,” and we outlined that process here. It’s a bit like the person who in 1491 believed — perfectly honestly — that the earth was flat. He was wrong, but he was honest. Today’s leftist is really today’s flat-earther.
(4) – WordPress automatically generates the URL based on the Headline that you give your blog post. The original title is reflected in the URL that WordPress gave BW’s first draft. Here’s the original URL in HTML: https://brothawolf.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/a-right-to-be-mad/
(5) – He’s been blogging since April of 2011, and his blog boasts of more than 310,000 views. He’s obviously “speaking.” It may be more accurate to say that he shows no indication that he’ll ever shut up! 🙂 And, in fact, we encourage his volubility. He, and others, are rich sources of insight into the ovine herds of the Race Grievance Industry. Also, he advertises his presence on twitter (here) where he announces that: “I howl for truth, justice and love. Visit my blog to see what’s on the mind of a black wolf. In a wolf’s den.” Follow BW’s blog, as I do, and you soon find out that “love” has very little to do with it, and that by love, BW means white-hot hatred. Needless to say, my understanding of BW’s blog’s content is that he really has very little interest in truth or justice either. We described the “justice” that interests BW here. It’s not justice at all, but rather revenge, free stuff, validation and excuses. However, it’s plain that BW is under no restraint as far as speaking is concerned.
(6) – Brotha Wolf freely admits that he’s a racist. He then justifies his evil by saying that he has no choice in white racism-riddled America. Some commentators on his blog have suggested that, just maybe, people who do bad things are responsible themselves for the evil they do, but that is, as shown in the RGI’s holy writ, against the narrative, and must be denied with high dudgeon, indignation, and rage.
(7) – That was easy. I don’t use bad words in my personal life either.
(8) – “FreeThinker” says she is a “brown girl.” I have no proof that she is, or is not, exactly what she says she is. However, in this hyper-sensitive environment, I don’t even know what “brown girl” means. Is she Hispanic, Indian, American Indian, Hawaiian, Polynesian, Micronesian, Indonesian, Filipina? Is she even a “she?” I have no idea, and I can prove absolutely nothing but, frankly, I don’t care. She’s a person. All that’s important is what she says, and what she thinks. If either of these things is objectionable in any way, then all that needs to happen is for someone to point that out, and back it up. Period.