Friday, April 13, 2012


I know we're not supposed to pay attention to rabble-rousing, ignorance-inducing bilge like this Washington Times editorial by Jeffrey Kuhner, but it really is a piece of work:


Black supremacy is on the march. It is a poison that is spreading across our society, meeting little to no resistance. This must change. Otherwise, America will confront the real prospect of racial conflict.

The New Black Panthers are the tip of the spear. They champion black supremacy, hatred of whites, and militant Islam. They are the black version of the Ku Klux Klan -- bigoted thugs who practice vigilantism and mob rule....

I'm used to hyperbole regarding the New Black Panthers, who are all talk and no action, but to me, the Klan reference takes it to another level. Does this mean that if a fringe Jewish nationalist group threatens some gentiles, then never acts on the threat, we can call that a "holocaust"? What are the rules here?

The Tuskegee Institute says that 3,446 blacks were lynched in this country between 1882 and 1968; it's not clear how many of the lynchings were the work of the Klan, in whole or in part, but it doesn't really matter, because all of the lynchings were, by definition, "vigilantism and mob rule." And that's just some of what the Klan did to intimidate and brutalize African Americans. By contrast, the New Black Panthers have killed ... well, they haven't killed anyone, have they? They haven't wounded anyone. They stood around at a polling place once trying to look intimidating, but no one was actually intimidated. They've talked about violence and there's no violence. They made noises about George Zimmerman and nobody laid a finger on him until he surrendered to the authorities.

Kuhner brings in Jeremiah Wright (yeah, he's making speeches again -- oooh, speeches!), and then basically calls every other black person who's ever been the subject of a Fox News two minutes' hate a black Klansman by implication, by accusing them all of "black nationalism." Ultimately, Kuhner takes us to Buchanan/Derbyshire territory:

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan -- all are race-baiters and grievance-mongers who peddle a form of black nationalism. Instead of being ostracized, they are embraced and their behavior is rationalized by the liberal establishment. The N-word is routinely used by black rappers and musicians. It can never be uttered, however, by whites. Black-on-white crime is largely ignored by the media. White-on-black crime is turned into a national tragedy -- even when the alleged perpetrator is Hispanic, such as Mr. Zimmerman. Institutionalized discrimination against whites — affirmative action, racial quotas, and university admissions policies — has become a permanent feature of life.

Liberals are playing with fire. Multiethnic states -- the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia -- were torn apart by nationalist passions. Other major countries, including China, France, Britain, Spain, Canada and Nigeria, are under tremendous internal strain due to resurgent tribalism. America is no exception. The danger of black revanchism is that, if it remains unchecked, it may trigger a counterreaction among whites. For every Farrakhan there could be a David Duke. The New Black Panthers would then get what they want: a race war. And that battle will not end well -- for anybody, black or white.

I know, I know -- this is The Washington Times, which is much more of a fringe paper than it was in its Reagan-era heyday. But is this where mainstream right-wing rhetoric is headed? No more code words, and open calls to purge America of ethnic minorities? (After we're done purging the non-whites, should we send the Italians and the Irish and the Jews and the Germans back?)

And regarding the New Black Panthers: Every so often a story (e.g., ACORN) bubbles up from the right-wing media, and mainstream-media hand-wringers go on to argue that the mainstream press should pay more attention to stories coming from the right. I actually tend to agree with those hand-wringers, with one caveat: I want the mainstream press to pay attention to what's got right-wingers riled up so the nonsense can be debunked.

That's how I feel right now. I want there to be a big story about the New Black Panthers on the front page of The New York Times. I want that because I want the Times (or some other real news operation to tell us just how pathetic and ineffectual the New Black Panthers are and just how hyperbolic the right-wing scare stories about them are. In the absence of that, everything we hear about the New Black Panthers is alarmist. Could you blame a low-information swing voter for thinking there might be something to the stories? The truth needs to be out there. Just ignoring the hype and demagoguery is not making it go away.

(Kuhner article via Pam Spaulding.)


proverbialleadballoon said...

yes, steve, i could blame a low-information voter for believing there is something there. because that means said low-information voter is a willing participant in the con; he wants to be misled, wants to believe a fantasy without evidence, wants a bogeyman to pin blame on. the willing fool-ee may not be as much to blame as the fool-er, but still is a big part of the problem.

Bulworth said...

"The Tuskegee Institute says that 3,446 blacks were lynched in this country between 1882 and 1968; "

Currently reading a new book on Thurgood Marshall and one of the cases he defended in Florida. Many of these lynchings were gleefully witnessed by children throughout the South dressed "in their Sunday best".

Glennis said...

The New Black Panthers would then get what they want: a race war.

wouldn't that make all three of them awfully busy?

Tom Hilton said...

Holy fuckballs, that is some concentrated crazy stupid.

Anonymous said...

NBP = KKK like the Christian right = the Taliban.

Well, never mind.