Last week America took a huge loss, and the Progressive racial narrative a huge win. (Phew! It’s okay guys, black-on-white racism and murder is doing just fine!) It’s a shame to even have to say that, but that’s the game we are playing. The funny thing is that the vast majority of Americans are united in their sadness and disgust over the Charleston massacre. But, there’s still too much right-wing extremism to stamp out to come together. Some parts of this country still foster a climate of hate that must be snuffed out before we can move Forward!
Blaming high profile murders or attacks on a right-wing climate of hate goes back to at least 1963, if not further. In the wake of the Kennedy assassination there were – and continue to be – proclamations that Lee Harvey Oswald was immersed in a culture of such frenzied anti-Kennedy malice that the vibes drove him to pop the President. After (Oswald assassin) Jack Ruby’s trial, Ruby’s lawyer Martin Belli popularized and perhaps coined the name “City of Hate” in reference to Dallas. He had lost the case and Ruby was sentenced to death. But in 1968, after Robert Kennedy’s assassination in Los Angeles, he took back his comments because LA wasn’t a “City of Hate” in his eyes and he didn’t want to apply a double standard. In June, 1968 the Dallas Morning News wrote,
“The man who called Dallas ‘the city of hate’ following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy had second thoughts about the statement here Wednesday…Belli said if he had the opportunity to change his description of Dallas he would call it a ‘city of intense civic pride trying to exculpate itself—the people felt in order to do this they had to convict Ruby’…Asked by Martin if this could be construed by Dallas residents as an apology, Belli replied, ‘if you want to construe it as an apology, I’ll accept that.’”
There is some cognitive dissonance in the charge that Oswald acted out of right-wing hate to kill Kennedy in light of a few well-known and often repeated facts: Oswald was sympathetic to the worldwide 20th century Marxist-Communist cause of world revolution. He had spent a few years as a defector living in the Soviet Union. He was known to be supportive of the Castro regime in Cuba – all of these not exactly right-wing causes. As historian John Schindler notes, JFK was a “…tax-cutting Cold Warrior who ran to the right of Nixon on national defense in 1960 and proved to be a lot less enthusiastic about civil rights than liberals wanted him to be once in office…” One wonders if these are the things that would drive right-wingers to kill. (If there were any such things, it might be the sentiments expressed in some letters to the Dallas Morning News before JFK’s arrival.)
Furthermore, as was written in the Warren Commission;
Possible Influence of Anti-Kennedy Sentiment in Dallas
It has been suggested that one of the motivating influences operating on Lee Oswald was the atmosphere in the city of Dallas, especially an atmosphere of extreme opposition to President Kennedy that was present in some parts of the Dallas community and which received publicity there prior to the assassination.403 Some of that feeling was expressed in the incident involving then vice-presidential candidate Johnson during the 1960 campaign, in the treatment of Ambassador Adlai Stevenson late in October of 1963 and in the extreme anti-Kennedy newspaper advertisement and handbills that appeared in Dallas at the time of the President’s visit there.404
The Commission has found no evidence that the extreme views expressed toward President Kennedy by some rightwing groups centered in Dallas or any other general atmosphere of hate or rightwing extremism which may have existed in the city of Dallas had any connection with Oswald’s actions on November 22, 1963. There is, of course, no way to judge what the effect of the general political ferment present in that city might have been, even though Oswald was aware of it. His awareness is shown by a letter that he wrote to Arnold Johnson of the Communist Party U.S.A., which Johnson said he did not receive until after the assassination. The letter said in part:
“On October 23rd, I had attened a ultra-right meeting headed by General Edwin A. Walker, who lives in Dallas. This meeting preceded by one day the attack on A. E. Stevenson at the United Nations Day meeting at which he spoke. As you can see, political friction between “left” and “right” is very great here. Could you advise me as to the general view we have on the American Civil Liberties Union?” 405
In any event, the Commission has been unable to find any credible evidence that Oswald had direct contact or association with any of the personalities or groups epitomizing or representing the so-called rightwing, even though he did, as he told Johnson, attend a meeting at which General Walker spoke to approximately 1,300 persons.406 Oswald’s writings and his reading habits indicate that he had an extreme dislike of the rightwing, an attitude most clearly reflected by his attempt to shoot General Walker.
I’m personally skeptical of the extent and prominence of the hate that supposedly pervaded Dallas in ’63. When I look around today and see all manner of legitimate dissent, discussion and disagreement labeled as hateful or hate speech, I have to wonder if a similar smear has happened here. I wasn’t alive then, but what I was alive for and clearly remember is hate towards George W. Bush, but the Left insisted that dissent was patriotic and thus protests against him or burning his effigy were justified. That sentiment is gone now in the Obama era. It leaves me to wonder if the same story is being told about 1960s Dallas. From what I can tell, Dallas certainly was experiencing a rough patch and it’s true that the city was hostile to President Kennedy. There is nothing wrong with that necessarily. Read and listen to Texans’ complaints of the time and you’ll find that there was nothing out of step with normal heated American political objection.
The theme of the right-wing climate of hate was most notably resurrected by Paul Krugman in the New York Times after Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in 2011. According to Krugman the shooting was made possible by “toxic rhetoric” coming from talk radio and Fox News.
“Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be ‘armed and dangerous’ without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.”
The charge, rife with double standards, was echoed across the media. Exhibit A was Sarah Palin’s crosshairs map. It turned out that there was no evidence of political motive in that shooting, but no visible Martin Belli stepped up to set things straight – let alone apologize.
The problem with the climate of hate is that it’s inherently subjective, cuts in all directions and ends up just a bottomless rabbit hole of innuendo. The American mainstream media, however, wants to make it out to only come from the Right.
For example, where were the calls for national discussion about the left-wing – or Islamic – climate of hate after the execution of NYPD officers Liu Wenjian and Rafael Ramos by a black Muslim? Did the chants for “dead cops” create a left-wing climate of hate for that to happen? Are Mayor DeBlasio’s remarks about how he talks to his son about police or his support for protesters responsible for it, or for the spike in crime in New York City? Is that happening in a left-wing climate of some kind? Are Al Sharpton or the President or the media responsible for the police slowdown in Baltimore which has led to a rise in crime, shootings and murder? Ditto for Chicago and other cities? If we go back to the 60s, should today’s far-left pro-Palestinian protesters and activists be held responsible for pro-Palestinian activist Sirhan-Sirhan’s assassination of Bobby Kennedy in LA? How about the case of this guy who allegedly said in a bank,
“I’m going to kill another cop. We should do it before Christmas. The cop should have been white that was killed. I always have a gun on me…They should have killed two white cops instead of the Hispanic and Asian if the guy really wanted to send a message…”
I could easily say progressives, liberals, leftists and Democrats must answer for every death caused by police slowdowns, families broken by welfare, hollowed out cities under Democrat governance, etcetera, but that would be kind of a stretch wouldn’t it? Pretty lazy right? So forgive me if I haughtily snort, chortle and scoff at the accusation that conservatives, whites, Republicans or America writ large “must answer for” Charleston. Different kinds of “climates” do influence people, but no one is forced by the zeitgeist to pull the trigger.
Curiously, the killer’s manifesto opens,
I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply because of the number of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would (sic) watch things that would make us think that ‘blacks were the real racists’ and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.”
Now, if I read that correctly, by the murderer’s own account his home, environment and the South are not racist. He himself says that the South and whites are not sufficiently racially aware – some climate of hate! He ends with “we have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.” Uhhh…isn’t that good? I hope to God we don’t have to listen to this kid spout off in court, but if asked, he’d probably agree that race relations are pretty good in the South now – that’s what angered him.
The Warriors General of the Department of Social Justice are always chiding us to have an honest conversation about race. For anyone with Google, it’s plain to see that anything but is acceptable. I wonder if we can honestly talk about the Charleston killer’s manifesto? Plenty of people seem to know what he stands for and who must answer for him, but what did he actually say?
(For the critical thinking-challenged, mob mentality-inclined, if you get your “news” and views from The Daily Show or Facebook memes: the following is in no way meant to endorse or condone what the killer did, or put a seal of approval on his beliefs – what he wrote is vile racism and I won’t repeat the worst parts. But there are parts I think might help us have a better, more “honest conversation about race.”)
The murderer systematically lays out his take on a few of the non-white races, starting with blacks (all errors are the original author’s),
Black people view everything through a racial lense. Thats what racial awareness is, its viewing everything that happens through a racial lense. They are always thinking about the fact that they are black. This is part of the reason they get offended so easily, and think that some thing are intended to be racist towards them, even when a White person wouldn’t be thinking about race…Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average don’t think about race in their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to.
Sound familiar? I mean, not like that’s mainstream legal practice in the US or anything, so I don’t know where you might hear it from. And how does this square with the charge of the climate of hate? He’s specifically lamenting the fact that he wasn’t living in that climate. As for his views on black crime, -sigh- well, you didn’t hear this from me, okay? but the little shit may just have some facts behind him. All of that aside, given the history of slavery, “black awareness” – when not adversarial and done in historical good faith – is not necessarily a bad thing in America.
Next up are the Jews, about whom he says,
Unlike many White nationalists I am of the opinion that the majority of American and European jews are White. In my opinion the issue with jews is not their blood, but their identity…most jews are always thinking about the fact that they are jewish…I don’t pretend to understand why the jews do what they do. They are enigma.
Well, I’ll leave that one there. Next up, the Hispanics:
Hispanics are obviously a huge problem for Americans. But there are good hispanics and bad hispanics. I remember while watching hispanic television stations, the shows and even the commercials were more White than our own…It is a well known fact that White hispanics make up the elite of most hispanic countries. There is good White blood worht saving in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and even Brasil.
Yeah but we all know those people aren’t really white. They’re spicy, flavorful whites with lime juice and salsa in their blood so let’s just keep moving right along, shall we? Finally, the East Asians. He says,
I have great respent for the East Asian races. Even if we were to go extinct they could carry something on. They are by nature very racist and could be great allies of the White race. I am not opposed at all to allies with the Northeast Asian races.
To sum up, he hates that blacks and jews are so aware of their identities and whites are not, but wants more racial awareness among whites. Right-wing climate of hate, or cultural Marxist climate of confusing identity politics? You decide.
If I may join in the pop-psychologizing for a moment, I think what we have here is a smart kid who got giddy and delusional when he found some hatefacts online that transgressed our current Progressive anti-white racial pieties. Isolated and probably over-medicated, dark clouds formed in his mind until he could no longer recognize that it was evil to do what he did. As for the gun question, he most definitely should not have been given one. But why isn’t the Left pushing for gun control this time? 6 words: he didn’t break any gun laws.
What is the left pushing? It’s pushing the Confederate flag in everyone’s face. The media waits with baited breath for the Republican 2016 candidates to take their stance on the flag. Why? It’s a Democrat flag, imbued with racist meaning by Democrats and raised in Southern capitals by Democrats. No one’s expecting Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley or Chaffee to weigh in on the flag. Everyone knows that absent Republicans doing anything monumentally stupid (one can dream), we’re going to have a Republican in the White House after Obama leaves – and potentially a Team Red dominated Congress. So, everything and anything must be thrown at the candidates in the hope that something will stick. Will it stick? It may for a good many people. But it’s hard to ignore the heavy smell of desperation coming from the media on this one.
The Kennedy assassination and Martin Belli’s broad stroke condemnation of Dallas may have birthed the trope of right-wing or Southern hate being a clear and present danger in America. Right up until today the Left follows his lead there. Yet, he ended up apologizing in the face of reality. Will the media and the Left continue to follow his lead and apologize for its smears, bigotry and “Southophobia” in the face of the reality of Charleston? Don’t hold your breath.
I have no real attachment to the Confederate flag other than the way it channels the American spirit of independence and leaveusthehellaloneism. I’m happy to see it stay or go. I want Southerners to decide for themselves, not the cries from the mob. It was white Democrat men that raised the flag in hate in South Carolina. It’s fitting that a Republican woman of color (if I may use such language) should be the one to take it down.
Anywho, a song for all my Yanks and Rebs who are fed up with all this:
THIS JUST IN: the latest on the debate over whether or not all Republicans, whites, Southerners and conservatives are