From “the black face of white supremacy” to “white supremacy comes in all colors,” progressives keep changing yet another definition purely for political purposes, abandoning principle for saying whatever they feel will advance their radical policy goals.
We ended 2022 with the mainstream media deciding without evidence that exercise and obesity have their origins in white supremacy. This conclusion was arrived at via a deep textual analysis of history, completely devoid of any actual history. The new year brought yet another new theory: White supremacy is no longer white. Instead, it has morphed into a diverse, dare I say a rainbow coalition, united in their desire to be close to the benefits of “whiteness,” or at least so says The Los Angeles Times in a column headlined, “White supremacy comes in all colors. 2023 will make this impossible to ignore.” The column takes the form of a conversation between two presumably woke individuals, “Columnists Erika D. Smith and Anita Chabria look back and look ahead to the new year, as antisemitic rhetoric and hate crimes continue to change our understanding of the way political turmoil crosses demographic lines.” The conversation began with Ms. Chabria noting, without any sense of irony, “Erika, you and I have been talking for a while about how people of color find their way into conspiratorial, far-right movements. Last year, you wrote about Larry Elder being the ‘Black face of white supremacy’…So were you surprised to hear Republicans of color from other states mimic his inflammatory rhetoric on the campaign trail in 2022?” Ms. Smith dutifully replied, “Not really. It’s depressing, but certainly not surprising.” Yes, it’s “certainly not surprising” that white supremacists, who have for generations been defined by their belief the Caucasian races are superior to all others, now come in all races, which would mean these other races are agreeing they are inferior. After all, the defining feature of white supremacy is the word “white.” The online encyclopedia Britannica defines it as “beliefs and ideas purporting natural superiority of the lighter-skinned, or ‘white,’ human races over other racial groups.” Are we really supposed to believe that other ethnicities have agreed that whites are really superior and should be supreme?
Not quite, Britanica goes on to note that there is a more “contemporary usage,” wherein a phrase with a specific meaning now no longer has that meaning or any meaning at all. In fact, it means whatever progressives would like it to mean, describing “some groups espousing ultranationalist, racist, or fascist doctrines.” This, of course, is a radical redefinition of the term that no one – and I mean no one – outside of progressive circles has embraced. This doesn’t prevent Ms. Smith and Ms. Chabria from continuing as if it were perfectly normal to have a rainbow of races committed to the white supremacy project. After asserting without evidence that antisemitism, which has been rampant in progressive ranks for decades from Louis Farrakhan to Jesse Jackson to Al Sharpton to Ilhan Omar and “it’s all about the Benjamins,” has somehow become “entwined” with the “great replacement” and “groomer” conspiracy theories, Ms. Chabria insists, “What those theories also have in common — and what’s relevant to understanding people of color embracing extremism — is that they all purport to be about protecting the traditional family structure. And by that I mean straight men in power and women happily subservient to their alpha males. That’s a seductive world view for a certain type of guy, regardless of race. It uses Christianity as its justification, melding the whole mess with Christian nationalism. There’s a lot of overlap in these ideologies, and a lot of flexibility.” We have not seen melding of this sort since alchemists sought to transmute iron into gold in the middle ages. To begin with, the idea that modern America is stocked with “women happily subservient to their alpha males” is so absurd it’s difficult to comment on it without breaking out into fits of laughter. Women outnumber men in college by almost 60% to 40%. As of 2019, women were the primary or even only earner in 41.2% of families. The University of Texas found that 70% of women can expect to be the primary financial provider for at least a year before their children turn 18. Where are all these subservient women of all colors, white or otherwise? They simply do not exist. It’s a myth, a fable perpetuated for political purposes to act as if the United States was stuck in the 1950s. Perhaps before making these ridiculous claims, the columnists might have spoken to a few conservative women to learn the facts. They are not housebound, barefoot, pregnant, or wearing corsets anymore. Then we have the conclusion that there is “a lot of overlap” and “flexibility” in these ideologies, which can’t help but be interpreted as flexibility for progressives to keep changing the meaning to whatever suits their political needs of the moment. More black people and minorities achieving positions of power and influence in the Republican party? Let’s just call them white supremacists, however ridiculous, because “just like white supremacy can co-opt people of color, misogyny can lure plenty of women who support those views of masculinity and family” as Ms. Chabria explains in a conveniently circular argument.
Of course, even they are aware that not everyone might be on board with this radical redefinition. She continued to note, “I think some people still see that kind of extremism as different from white supremacy. What do you think?” Ms. Smith responded rather blithely with yet another indication that the entire discussion lacks any coherence except to attack political positions they disagree with, “I’d have to agree. At this point, I actually think the definitions of ‘extremism’ and ‘white supremacy’ are completely muddled.” What does that even mean? Extremism is not related to any specific ideology, indeed cannot by the very nature of the term which is neutral in its conception. Does she not think Antifa, which conducted months of coordinated riots in 2020, attacked federal buildings for weeks on end, and declared an autonomous zone in Seattle is extreme? Does she think the abortion zealots that firebombed and vandalized somewhere around 20 non-profit centers just last year or the nutcase that attempted to assassinate a sitting Supreme Court Justice are not extreme? How about sitting members of Congress that support ending federal prisons, releasing all the prisoners, abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and throwing the borders wide open? Are those people not extreme as well? Apparently not, because the definitions have become completely “muddled” – intentionally, by progressives like Ms. Chabria and Ms. Smith who are incapable of answering a basic question clearly. Ms. Smith herself noted that she got a lot of “grief” when she claimed that former Republican gubernatorial candidate, Larry Elder, a conservative black man was the black face of white supremacy. Many asked the obvious, how can someone be a black white supremacist? “Simple,” she replied. “White supremacy is an ideology, a hierarchy of racial power that has been an integral part of this country since its founding, whether Americans want to acknowledge it or not. Anyone of any race can be a prop, a tool or an enabler of white supremacy — and there have always been volunteers, because proximity to whiteness often pays. That’s not to say people of color are a monolith of left-leaning political affiliation. There have always been Black and Latino conservatives, for example.” As you might imagine, this was followed by a monstrous “but” because the obvious truth couldn’t be allowed to stand on in its own, “as Republicans continue their quest for non-white candidates and influencers, hoping to prove — usually in the most superficial ways — that their party isn’t racist, the people who are making money off this divisiveness are increasingly out in the open. 2023 will make this impossible to ignore.”
Actually, what’s impossible to ignore is how nakedly political all of this is: How about all of the people making millions of dollars from the woke industrial complex? Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, Xan Tanner (son-in-law to Attorney General Merrick Garland), and others all became wealthy from their “proximity” to Critical Race Theory and anti-racism. Corporate and government America has literally showered them with cash, paying thousands upon thousands dollars to conduct training seminars, produce content, publish books, speak at conferences, etc. Why is that good and just? Why are we to trust any of them when the same exact logic clearly applies? The idea that proximity to whiteness, as in white supremacy, is the pathway to power and riches in modern America does not even remotely comport with reality. We live in a world where corporations literally fall all over one another to puke out woke nonsense on a practically daily basis. Can you even name the last time any person in a position of corporate power outside of Elon Musk has taken a non-progressive stance on anything in public? Of course not, from the NFL to Disney with Dungeons & Dragons in between, everyone is competing to be the most woke company on the planet, even at the expense of angering a large percentage of their own customers. Why would they do this if proximity to white supremacy still paid as it might have a hundred years ago? They wouldn’t, and surely Ms. Smith and Ms. Cambria know this. They would simply prefer to lie about it for political ends because this is really about power over principle. Reasonable people can agree that there are troubling racial disparities in this country that should be fairly addressed. Those same people can in good faith disagree on the best means to address them. This is the difference in a debate between principle – in this case, that the races in America are not yet as equal as they can be for various reasons – and policy – in this case, that the progressive high tax, maximum government control, and abhorrence of natural rights and private property is the only way to achieve more just outcomes.
Progressives have conveniently merged the two, crafting a straw man argument from whole cloth wherein if you disagree with their tax the rich, no cash bail, open borders, empty the prisons, or whatever other insane plan they come up with, you are in fact a white supremacist even if you’re not white. We see this in progress Squad member, Representative Cori Bush, insulting newly minted Republican Representative and conservative black man, Byron Donalds last week, using the same abhorrent “prop” language. As balloting for Speaker of the House was underway, some Republicans backed Byron Donalds as a potential candidate over Kevin McCarthy. If they had their way, Representative Donalds would be the first black person elected Speaker of the House, which would obviously be a huge achievement and the breaking of a classic glass ceiling. Representative Bush couldn’t have this, however, and made her position that being black requires being a progressive plain, tweeting, ‘FWIW, @ByronDonalds is not a historic candidate for Speaker. He is a prop. Despite being Black, he supports a policy agenda intent on upholding and perpetuating white supremacy.” In other words, if you believe tax rates should be a little lower and the federal government should be a little less involved in your day to day life, or if you are proud of your country’s history and question the rapidly changing definition of gender – coincidentally changing about as quickly as white supremacy – you must be a white supremacist. It’s insane. It’s insulting. It should be mocked and shamed at every turn this year and however long it takes.