Rising Racism of the Right

From churchmouse: "How could any pastor who preached the word of God be so consumed with so much hate, jealously and divisiveness?..."

So if I grant you your original premise (I don't), your Christian solution is tit for tat, hate for hate?

Can you explain your theological basis for this position?

The "professor gone wild" episode involving Harvard professor Henry Lewis Gates, Jr. has generated enormous media attention, but few, if any, commentators have tried to explain why this distinguished African American professor "lost it." Having personally encountered numerous black affirmative action professors first hand, let me offer an explanation that transcends this particular incident. First, Gates is the classic black "empty suit:" the articulate, well-attired, well-credentialed, superficially scholarly African American who is really an imposter, an actor playing a role. Gullible white outsiders (but not professors in "real" academic departments), are just easily conned by fancy vocabulary, name dropping and similar ruses.
Second, empty suit impostors enjoy what I call intellectual diplomatic immunity on all matters touching on race, a sense of intellectual entitlement that probably began in college, where "compassionate" white professors knowingly tolerate stupid class comments and shoddy papers to "help" strugglers admitted by affirmative action. Of the utmost importance, well-socialized whites simply learn that it is impolite, even potentially dangerous, to dispute these dubious assertions. It is as if empty suits were cars with "DPL" (diplomat) license plates and therefore immune from speeding tickets. Indeed, the more transparent the mendacity, the higher the speaker's social standing, and the greater the white acquiescence in both.

For example, how many times have these empty-suit black "experts" glibly explained away black crime by insisting that police disproportionately target African Americans, or that blacks perform poorly on standardized tests, since all tests are culturally biased? Or opine that African Americans are virtually debilitated psychologically by white-held "dangerous" stereotypes about their IQ, work habits, or impulse control? Or that corporations and universities still refuse to hire capable blacks despite intense government pressure? Much of Black Studies is little more than such fabrications dressed up in academic jargon. It is not the mere foolishness of these pronouncements that draws our attention; what is remarkable is that whites seldom, if ever, confront the outrageous assertions from the empty suits, let alone defend themselves against baseless charges.

Observing the race-related double standard can be painful for whites. In a public debate over dreadful African American SAT scores a black expert might rave and rant about invisible racism, a Euro-centric curriculum, the lack of black role models and mentors in schools, inattention to the unique learning style of blacks and similar explanations, but it will be a rare day if he or she is called upon to offer any scientific proof. By contrast, his debate opponent will immediately be excoriated if he even dares hint at IQ differences, though copious, detailed citations are immediately provided. Our empty suit imposter will predictably respond with "How can you possibly say that? We all know that no such evidence exists!" The counter-charge--where is your scientific evidence?--will be casually side-stepped, since how can a white tell a well-credentialed black about the black experience.

This immunity has two major consequences. First, the absence of rebuke only strengthens the pontificator's flawed version of reality. An entire class of people will now occupy a fantasy land; blithely making it up becomes a way of life, a barely noticed habit. Recall President Obama telling his Cairo Muslim audience about how Muslims contributed so much to the building of America, including sports and the civil rights movement. And even that there are seven million Muslims in America. Surely somebody must have read this speech beforehand, but who will bell this cat? To differ in such circumstances is not just the normal give and takes of intellectual argument; objections indicates disrespect ("dissing"), and the stronger the "disrespect" the more vehement the outrage. The process feeds on itself--savvy whites learn that to disagree with those possessing diplomatic immunity only invites avoidable trouble, and like a creature without any predators, the empty suit grows increasingly self-confident, pompous and addicted to deference.

Second, the physical presence of these self-possessed experts renders public intellectual honesty virtually impossible. The empty suit is a human intellectual neutron bomb--his very presence kills off all disagreeable ideas while leaving physical reality intact. At most, a few whites hearing crackpot assertions may sarcastically whisper disagreements to close-by friends or, more likely, later express bewilderment to trusted confidants. Public disagreement is always muted, most likely a quibble than a direct challenge. If the empty-suit, diplomatically-protected speaker states that white suburban schools out-perform black inner city schools because since they spend more money (a bald-faced lie), the typical "challenge" during Q and A might be, "Is money the only factor in academic accomplishment?" The well-socialized white would never, ever say, "Your statistics are hogwash, many black-dominated schools far outspend white schools, and the worst performing but well-funded schools are in places like Washington, D.C. and Newark, N.J. where nearly all the students, teachers and administrators are black. What about Utah where whites perform well despite about average school funding? How do you explain that?"

No doubt, such a "hostile" question would bring an embarrassed silence and scowls from blacks in the room. Rather than receive a serious, detailed answer (probably beyond the speaker's ability in any case), the questioner would be chided for his impudence. Thus understood, public "Dialogues on Race" or "Conversations" where these protected empty suits assemble are ceremonial professions of faith, cathartic events in which educated blacks gain a modicum of psychological satisfaction by berating hapless white devils. It is no accident that these speeches often occur in black churches and have a revivalist "Amen, brother" flavor. Speakers also gain opportunities to "be important," burnish professional resumes, practice their impersonation skills and otherwise gain legitimacy as a race spokesman (an achievement far more important than getting the facts right).

To return to Gates and his "gone wild" confrontation, it is no wonder that some working-class, uniform-wearing white who earns a small fraction of his Harvard salary is instinctively judged stupid, disrespectful, and impudent--even a racist cracker--when questioning the highly self-esteemed, often honored professor in his own house. This is not about law enforcement; it is about an artificially inflated ego that has gone unchallenged for decades. Of course Gates said to the cop, "Do you know who I am?" That somebody, let alone a white policeman, might question him and demand his ID, assaults his very persona, like giving the Pope a speeding ticket. What's next? A lowly Harvard undergraduate demanding Gates supply statistical evidence that the U.S. is hopelessly mired in racism or that the legacy of slavery explains the poor academic performance of blacks? This is all about proper deference, not a burglary investigation. Recall the similar "how dare you?" fury when Harvard President Lawrence Summers told Cornel West, another empty suit professor with DPL plates, to stop trying to be a rap star and do serious scholarship. West was outraged over this dissing and quickly decamped to Princeton where he once again enjoys immunity from reality.

Is this a problem to be corrected? Should whites try to speak knowledge to stupidity? Might roving "truth squads" shadow these black pseudo experts and publicly confront them? This might be tempting, even beneficial for public debate but silence is best. On balance, white anguish aside, these exasperating rituals may be socially beneficial, the best way of coping (odious though it may be) with a hopeless mess. The black intellectual class is kept happy, at relatively little cost (notwithstanding high university salaries for their airhead pontificating), convinced that they are respected serious "scholars," while whites continue on, doing their own, legitimate academic work. In any case, intellectually upgrading these empty suit scholars would be a waste of time--there are no remedial Ph.D. programs.

Openly challenging these diplomatically protected persons can even be disastrous. Just imagine the social damage if the immunity from criticism were withdrawn, that is, if there occurred an onslaught of rock-solid rebuttals when a putative black scholar claimed once again that blacks are unfairly targeted by racist cops. Or if affirmative action university job candidates were grilled about their research, in the same way that white or Asian candidates are hauled over the coals. Such intellectual challenges to the empty suit would indisputably demonstrate that he is in over his head, a fool who cannot master logic, let alone statistics and scientific evidence. This would cause public humiliation ("disrespect"), the puncturing of an inflated ego, and, worse, a public demonstration that blacks cannot intellectually measure up to whites. The charade would be exposed and the upshot could only be yet more anti-white anger and resentment, as well as increased litigation against various institutions for failing to meet minority recruitment targets.

Thus, on one hand, the Gates episode brings to the surface what has been occurring for decades--intellectually sub-par blacks endlessly shielded from a disconcerting reality in a well-intention effort to create racial diversity. On the other hand, accepting that unpleasant reality may be a more prudent course of action than fighting it.

Christians are told to love their enemies but also are told to abhor evil. That's the rub. Do most Christians hate blacks. No many voted for Alan Keyes a black. I voted for Glenn Poshard a democrat. No the problem is not democrat, blacks, or Jews, or gays but SIN and that is something that God hates so if Obama has policies that are Christian then Christians should support him but if he support unrighteous policies those policies should be hated and vigorously opposed.