Posts Tagged ‘systemic racism’

BIZARRO AMERICA

September 28, 2020

When I was a kid, I use to read Superman comics. Some of the issues featured a story line where the antagonist was an inverse copy of our red-caped hero-in-tights: bizarro world Superman. It was all childish fun. Now we’re in bizarro America, and it’s not fun at all.

A conservative friend of mine recently discussed politics with her daughter, only to be dishonored with the younger adult’s dismissal of her as a cult member. It made me think of how often Leftists employ the psychological defense of projection, and of how widespread it has become. They’ve adopted fascism by deciding what is “hate speech” and are attempting to stifle free speech by cancellation and intimidation and defining non-believers as fascists. They’ve adopted and disseminated the concept of intersectionality which is attempting to foist policies designed to force outcomes to match the prevalence of skin color while calling non-participants racist. And they’ve resurrected the ghost of racism past to redefine the present to accomplish their ends.

Racism is so abhorrent to the vast majority of modern Americans, that it can be weaponized. In a country overcome with remorse for its problematic past, an avowedly Marxist group saw an opportunity to replace social class with race and use it to forward its agenda of fundamental change. Black Lives Matter, Inc was born. With Leftist incantations, it conjured the demonic apparition of systemic racism from the grave of US history to terrorize anew, to create the illusion of a United States still standing on the necks of its black citizens (to which Biden has publicly attested). Biden and Harris have also publicly sided with violent criminals resisting arrest and against our heroes doing a dangerous job. Even clear, factual evidence fails, again and again, to discredit the cries of “systemic racism.” The nose ring of “racism” and “white privilege” has now led too many unsuspecting Americans further down the dusty, well-worn path toward increasing government control and fundamental socialist change.

While ostentatiously pointing out every stupid or crass remark the president makes and ignoring his minority-elevating accomplishments, previously sane people on the Left are making increasingly outrageous comments. Senate minority leader Schumer calls filling Justice Ginsburg’s seat an act that will “defile” and potentially “destroy” the Senate while some of his party members threaten to add blue states and “pack” the Supreme Court. House majority leader Pelosi advises Biden to skip the debates because this would “legitimize” them and because Trump “stalked” Hillary during the 2016 debates (ignoring the elaborate 2 year Russian collusion hoax on Clinton’s behalf that will likely prove to be a greater scandal than Watergate). The hysterical Left sees the Right as a cult. But they don’t debate with facts, ignoring or burying them, instead resorting to ad hominem attacks. And many of the smart people I know and love are swept along with them. For me, it’s like looking into a mirror at a bizarro world. Some of these bizarro converts, I’m convinced, could be cured, perhaps simply by listening to a single conservative source backed by real facts (someone like Ben Shapiro comes to mind). The others, I fear, are lost in a phantom world of past racism and a threatened reality of future socialism.

If you think the specter of America’s past can’t devour the present, and the future, keep watching. It’s occurring right before your eyes … or behind your back.

AMERICA DIDN’T BECOME GREAT BY ACCIDENT

July 27, 2020

America has been the greatest world power in history. The relatively young nation achieved a preeminence in influence, wealth and power in an astoundingly brief period of time. Despite those denigrating this as evil, there is a wealth of historical evidence to the contrary that is suppressed or buried using anti-American rhetoric (a few examples: overcoming slavery at great human cost, defeating Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan, and aiding in the fall of the USSR). But that argument is not the point of this rant.

I posit that the rapid ascendance of the US on the world stage occurred precisely because of the values upon which the Union was founded, and a common bond between the people that allowed it to function throughout most of its history as a cohesive nation. First, it was unique in affirming that the government existed to serve the people, rather than the other way around. Second, its Constitution was built on negative rights intended to restrict the government, rather than positive rights, which were acknowledged to come only from God. Third, it employed an economic engine of capitalism, which, when unencumbered, allows the individual to benefit from his/her hard work in proportion to demand for goods and services as determined by free trade. This combination of factors fuels the true engine for success: innovation. People haven’t flocked to America in droves since its inception because it’s a racist nation built on inequity, but because it’s a forum in which, if you have a good idea, you can achieve unimaginable levels of success, regardless of you race, creed, or socioeconomic status. While politically-motivated groups would have you believe otherwise, there is no caste system here. And this is demonstrated almost daily by the “victimized” millionaires decrying the system that made them rich and privileged.

If you doubt that we’ve found the recipe for success, remember the old adage, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” China, one of the most anti-American powers in the world, engaging formally in the group-think that is now starting to gain ascendance here, and committing endless political/humanitarian atrocities that make US corruption appear like a penny-ante poker game to a Las Vegas casino, has been stealing our intellectual property for years. It’s not that they’re not smart enough (on average, academically, Asians outperform other ethnic groups, including Caucasians); it’s that a repressive society run by individuals who think they know how things “should” be will always, in the long term, stifle innovation and choose courses of action that the marketplace, both economically and of ideas, will take far longer to correct. The Chinese have also been smart enough to understand that a socialist economy wouldn’t cut it, but would fizzle out in decades. So they borrowed capitalism which they grafted on to the weak Communist root stock to buy time. And if you measure their success by whether they outlast the US and achieve world superiority, it might work.

I have no illusions but that in the long term the Chinese experiment will fail. History is on my side. Watch what will happen to Hong Kong once they begin installing the mainland China ethos. A country without innovation simply can’t compete in the long run against a free society. The short run, however, is a different animal. At the present time, the sociopolitical climate in America has become alarmingly divided, and the common values that have made us a nation, a potent force to be reckoned with, are failing. From E pluribus unum we’ve gone to E unum pluribus in the name of diversity. Forget the “one nation under God.” We’ve become balkanized, and the effects of this are evident in the heightened racial tensions (ironically following the election, twice, of the first black president) and violence. Equally important, America has now turned inward, providing an opening for tyrannical nations, with China the most important, to take advantage. If we don’t take our heads out of our … the sand, we will all get a taste of what a world without the United States at the helm is really like. And it will make our “systemic racism” look like, well, a penny ante poker game to a Las Vegas casino.

HOW IDEOLOGY CLOUDS THINKING

July 26, 2020

I did something I’ve never done before: called in to a radio show twice within the same broadcast. It’s a good, local show hosted by Dave Congleton. Dave is a liberal, not a Leftist, and a capable and generally fair interviewer. I caught the end of his discussion about whether the leader of the Black Lives Matter protest in San Luis Obispo that ended with the group blocking traffic on the 101 freeway should be charged and/or jailed. My brief suggestion at the end of the segment was to reverse the cause (i.e., make it about, say, anti-abortion or “build the wall”) as a test to demonstrate how much political ideology was influencing higher brain function.

In the next segment, David interviewed the head of a local San Luis Obispo intersectionality group who was making the argument for systemic racism. The discussion included references to County Sheriff Ian Parkinson’s recent speech that angered many, in which he acknowledged the presence of racism but didn’t see it here in SLO. The main thrust of the guest speaker’s “evidence” for systemic racism turned out to be the disparate outcomes socioeconomically of people of color that are universal, even in SLO. While Dave suggested “attitudinal racism” (what I call personal or individual racism) as potentially operative, this guest insisted both were in evidence.

I called in with the following counter-arguments: the election of President Obama, twice, the fact that 2 million blacks have emigrated to the U.S. over the past 50 years, and the fact that race relations seem to crop up as an issue every 4 years, just prior to a presidential election. In addition, I argued, disparate outcomes alone do not, a priori, prove the existence of systemic racism and I pointed out that black fatherlessness has rocketed from about 10-15% of families to about 60-70% since the 1950s, while only increasing to ~40% in white families, and that well-intentioned policies have encouraged this sad state of affairs within the black community (one of many contributory etiologies for the socioeconomic disparities). I suggested that reflexively pointing to systemic racism as the cause was a narrowly focused analysis. I expressed distress that this narrative is being used to destroy a great country at the time of the least systemic racism in history, and is turning the most color-blind generation in history into one that is highly race-conscious. His answer? Unsurprisingly he didn’t refute anything I said or even try to support the view of a systemically racist country. He tacitly assumed the concept of systemic racism needed no further buttressing, acknowledged the issues and facts I brought up without refutation, and stated that he wanted things to progress “faster.”

Prior to our interaction, he did cite one study to support his contention: Reportedly black students are cited for infractions at 3 times the rate of white students. There are data here to support disparate outcomes. (For data regarding more serious issues, such as white on black police shootings, please refer to prior rants.) It is arguable whether this should be interpreted as systemic or individual racism, or to what extent racism is playing a role. But I don’t believe the rules and regulations in this day and age explicitly target people of color, and, like everyone I know, would oppose any such attempts.

I must admit that despite the predictably underwhelming counter-response, I was surprised (and encouraged) that such a weak argument was espoused for systemic racism by someone regarded to be in a position of expertise. The lack of knowledge, and wisdom, is striking and sad. We should all stand shoulder to shoulder to snuff out any residual policies or activities contaminated by racism, which will likely exist “attitudinally” as long as we walk the earth as flawed humans. We should also unite in defense of a great country and a great system that should not be deconstructed because of misdirected anger.

THE PULSE OF THE COUNTRY—WILL THE ELECTION BE THE ARBITER OR A POSTSCRIPT?

June 18, 2020

I’ve said many times that we won’t know the net vector of the country’s beliefs and values until after the election. Current events may belie that statement.

The new anti-police ethos that’s sweeping the large, liberal cities, all Left-governed, will have consequences. Following Ferguson, MO, it predictably led to an increase in crime and murder that outstripped the loss of life from the event itself. (The recent protests will likely lead to deaths from COVID that also will likely dwarf any deaths from police brutality, but that’s a discussion for another time.) In the search for utopia in policing, the Left will once again throw out the baby with the bath water. Police will be fired and possibly put up on murder charges (without the usual investigation and due process) for what I’m learning may be normal responses with an adverse outcomes, as with the death of Rayshard Brooks (see postscript). Less lethal interventions such as tear gas and the carotid pressure maneuver, often confused with choke holds compressing the trachea, are being abandoned without documentation of risk/benefit. It is appropriate to explore rational additional or revised policies and training methods that may have been overlooked, as well as to investigate potential new weapons of non-lethal force (to supplant the old, when feasible), while still supporting the police and recognizing that we’ve come a long way in the past few decades and that further improvement is a process, with perfection a goal that can be ever more closely approximated but never achieved. Instead, there is serious talk of defunding and removing the police at a time of increased violence. If we took a time machine back 10 years, when the incidence of police brutality was equal or greater than today and recommended these “solutions,” we’d be regarded as crazy or extremist. The result of all of this hysteria, no matter how appropriate the initial message (i.e., anger toward police brutality), will clearly be and escalation in crime, and more murders. Drawbacks of law enforcement will disproportionately effect the minority communities. But as we’ve established in past rants, perception is everything. And if the Leftist leaders can convince enough people that it’s the right thing, it’s easy to suppress the statistics that say otherwise in a haze of righteous indignation and vociferous virtue-signaling.

The more police interactions there are, the more negative interactions in terms of actual numbers you will see, even if the percentage, as the data clearly shows, is extremely small relative to the denominator (this in no way excuses any acts of true police brutality and appropriate justice). And in the current climate, more of these interactions will be twisted so as to be perceived negatively, even when justified, further bolstering the numbers. With a preset narrative of a systemic problem, this will positively reinforce the belief, and the tension mushrooms. Now the police, who are further hamstrung performing a dangerous job and not only lacking support from the politicians that call the shots, but persecuted, will be second-guessing themselves in emergency situations, slowing their reactions, and we’ll see more of them wounded and killed (this will continue to be relatively underreported). They will find an already stressful job unacceptably onerous and many will quit. Young men and women who had been excited by the opportunity to serve will look at the political climate and turn their sights elsewhere. The reduced police presence will inevitably result in an increase in crime and murders, as well as an increase in sporadic incidents of police brutality with real or imagined (mostly imagined) cries of racism, in an endless, escalating loop. Not a pretty picture.

The reaction of what I call the “normals” will give some indication of their prevalence and willingness to act, hence a pre-election clue to the pulse of the nation. By “normals,” I’m referring to the people you would have met in the time machine a decade back. If a timely reaction, a response of support for the police is not strong and vociferous, it may signal that too many of our fellow citizens have bought the rhetoric that we’re a failed racist nation, our police are mostly corrupt racists, and fundamental change is needed. A schism this large between old and new values presages a failed state. It is possible that most of the “normals” are simply choosing to hold their tongues until the election. I’m not sure that will remain a viable option if the current crisis continues to accelerate over the next 4-1/2 months.

I don’t know about you, but the United CHAZ/CHOP of America is not a country I want to live in.

Postscript: As for Garrett Rolfe, the white police officer who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta last week, a few words are in order (and I’d like to state up front that a racial intent, like in so many of these cases, has been inferred without evidence, and this action could have been white on white or black on black and would have received only passing media attention in those cases): After being summarily fired by the city’s mayor, Rolfe has now been charged with 11 felony counts, including murder, by a DA currently under investigation for corruption and who is in the midst of a reelection campaign. Brooks, a convicted felon on parole, fell asleep in his car while in a Wendy’s drive-through queue and the cops were called. He failed sobriety testing and after a civil, lengthy interaction with the cops, as he was being cuffed, video footage shows he fought and brought both policemen to the ground, grabbed Rolfe’s taser, broke free and ran. During on-foot pursuit, Brooks turned around and fired the taser at Rolfe at which point the officer shot the fleeing felon. There are those who would, in the current climate, like to interpret this as an inappropriate use of deadly force. Conservative talk show host Ben Shapiro spoke to several law enforcement officers and recounted that all felt it was a justifiable action on the part of officer Rolfe. I spoke with a retired LA police officer I know and confirmed that shooting a fleeing felon is legal and permissible, although protocols in this scenario vary according to precinct and circumstance. In Atlanta, a taser is legally regarded as a deadly weapon, as stated by the same, aforementioned DA with respect to another, unrelated case. Besides the taser’s potential for serious direct harm, an immobilized police officer presents the obvious threat of the felon retrieving the fallen officer’s weapon and killing him and his partner. The prosecution in this case displays an inability to clearly evaluate circumstances involving white on black police interactions in a climate of heightened racial tension and also raises the question of personal, political motivations. There was no protocol-driven suspension followed by investigation, only a summary judgment to fire and pursue felony charges, in line with the current unfair narrative being driven relentlessly across the country of systemic law enforcement racism. Hopefully, when this case goes to a grand jury, as expected, saner voices will prevail. Seeing the rapid deterioration in clear-headed thinking in all quarters lately, I’m less optimistic.

THE CURRENT RACIAL NARRATIVE ENSURES ITS SURVIVAL—IN PERPETUITY

June 10, 2020

I thought COVID was scary. But it has a curve. Sure, it may return, but odds are we’ll get a vaccine or treatments, and herd immunity that will at least dramatically lessen the risk with time. Not true for our current state of racial tension. It has one of two dichotomous endings: Total destruction, or a new awakening, or “unawokening.”

The more I considered things, the more I realized that, under the present circumstances, it would be a good thing if we were still, as the wokescolds proclaim, a systemically/institutionally racist nation. Then, we could point to the policies and organizational structures that need change and perhaps quell the anger. But I’m convinced by the data that the current argument is little more than a straw man, a political ploy to fan the flames and us accrue power (the concept of “fundamental change” spouted by the Left), as reams of laws and regulations exist, and have existed for years, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. Sure, things can be tweaked; some have suggested that abolishing the policy of qualified police immunity that protects rogue law enforcement officers from punishment for bad behavior, and police unions, can further reduce the incidents of sporadic illegal police action and this is being addressed. The problem is that the current protests, besides decrying police brutality (a no-brainer we all agree with), rail about a vague notion of systemic racism and are light on specifics (except for the insane notion by Black Lives Matter of defunding the police). It’s hard to cite specifics when major policy gaps with regard to discrimination no longer exist, only bad people who disregard the law. Still, in the name of this straw man, an attempt can be anticipated to enact further laws and regulations, and while closing small loopholes (such as immunity) is good, the parallels to the gun legislation issue are obvious: Bad people will always ignore the law. Murder, mass or otherwise, and police brutality are already illegal, last I checked. If you impose restrictions so onerous that the police are afraid to act even when it’s appropriate, you will get a paradoxical increase in crime and mayhem, and a drop in the number of people willing to serve and protect.

So the current narrative of institutional racism, as I’ve previously laid out, is based on a tenous scaffold of specific instances where the law has been abrogated, and anecdotal stories. Examples of the latter category abound. Here are just a couple of examples: My friend’s daughter recounted to him a story of her friend who is married to a black doctor reporting being stopped 18 times, placing the wife in a constant state of fear every time her husband goes out. Or the following, posted on Facebook:

Facebook image

In this case, the person who forwarded it informed me that additional research indicated that, in this case, there may have been additional issues contributing to the disparate treatment (and that’s just one of the problems with using anecdotes as soundbites to advance an agenda). It is inarguable, and inexcusable, that there are instances of unfair sentencing corrupted by wealth and power, and that as a consequence minorities may be impacted disproportionally due to disparities of social/economic class. When no action is taken against a rogue judge and there is evidence of the same disparate treatment by socioeconomic class among people of the same race, if widespread, it represents a systemic problem of class, not race (if not widespread, again, it’s hard to make a case for an institutional problem). Yet those with an agenda will always cite race. That being said, to argue that there are no individuals in the judiciary (or in law enforcement) who are racist would be naive. But that is not proof of systemic racism. And, as the old saying goes, if you have a hammer, everything is a nail; when you view everything through a racial lens, you can see it lurking behind every tree. The take-away point is, anecdotal evidence is just that, and it’s pernicious, because it can never go away, making the false narrative self-sustaining. Sadly, there will always be another case of police brutality, some involving mixed race interactions, as there will always be another mass murder, hurricane, earthquake, and tsunami. While we can’t pass laws to prevent acts of God, we have passed scads of them to try to minimize institutional racism. And while they are imperfect, just as the humans who concocted them, we’ve come a very long way since slavery and Jim Crow. I know this because I grew up in the era of Jim Crow, and while it impacted blacks more profoundly in the South, there was a great deal of institutional racism north of the Mason-Dixon line that has been overcome. (It can even be argued that well-intentioned attempts to quash the remaining embers have been clumsy and have done more harm than good, but that’s a rant for another time.) And that’s where the lie lies: As things have improved, the activists have screamed more loudly of injustice. If systemic racism in terms of policy were still a thing, it should be measurable. So let’s look at the statistics:

Washington Post data from 2019 indicate 1004 police shootings, 804 which documented race. The breakdown was 371 white and 236 black, with the vast majority of perpetrators armed and black suspects significantly more likely to be armed, but more white suspects killed. There were 10 cases of unarmed black suspects shot and killed by police, 9 men and 1 woman (although depending on the definition, some estimate the figure is from 9-15). The specifics of the 10 cases are as follows:

1. Channara Pheap attacked policeman Dylan Williams (who was choked and tasered) before being shot, corroborated by witnesses; officer not charged.

2. Marcus McVae, career criminal wanted on drug dealing, fled by car and on foot, fought with a police officer, shot and killed; officer not charged.

3. Murzua Scott assaulted a shop employee, was approached by female police officer, charged at her and knocked her down, and she shot and killed him and was not charged.

4. Ryan Twyman was approached by 2 LA county deputies and he backed into one of them with his car; one deputy was caught in the car door and both opened fire; no deputy charged.

5. Melvin Watkins drove his car toward a deputy at high speed and was shot and killed; no charge filed.

6. Isaiah Lewis was naked; he broke into a house and then attacked a police officer. He was tazed but kept attacking and was shot; no charges filed

7. Atatiana Jefferson was shot by Fort Worth deputy Aaron Dean who was called on a non-emergency number after a neighbor saw Johnson’s door open and thought something was wrong. Body cam video showed Jefferson saw them approaching while she was holding a gun. Officer Dean shot her within seconds and was charged with homicide.

8. Christopher Whitfield, shot in Ethel, LA, grappled with black officer Deputy Glen Sims after robbing a gas station; Sims stated the gun went off accidentally during the scuffle and was not charged.

9. Kevin Mason was shot during a multi-hour standoff and claimed to have a gun and vowed to kill police with it but was found not to have a gun. He had been in a shoot-out with police years before.

10: Gregory Griffin was shot during a car chase. Officer Giovanni Crespo claimed he saw someone pointing a gun at him. Later a gun was found inside the vehicle but Officer Crespo was charged anyway with aggravated manslaughter.

So out of 4 deaths in a pursuit or standoff, 2 officers were criminally charged. On the other hand, 48 police officers were killed in 2019, more than the number of unarmed suspects of all races. To give perspective, in 2018, 7,407 black Americans were murdered in the US, usually by someone they knew. Tucker Carlson reported that statistics show that the number of police killings is dropping and 2019 is the safest year for both black and white suspects. I could not confirm these stats, but a search indicated that the total number of police shootings year-to-year since 2015 has not varied dramatically, probably a modest decline, so it would be a stretch to assume that the number of white on black police shootings has increased by a statistically significant degree since Oback Obama was in office (I looked for figures but was unable to find reliable numbers).

These statistics are not presented to excuse or apologize for police brutality or instances of racism. But they do not support a current milieu of systemic racism, which clearly existed for most of our history, nor do they refute the existence of individual acts of racism. I do, and will continue to oppose any demonstrable racism, as well as the divisive narrative of an America of 2020 as a bad, systemically racist country, a lie that willfully ignores the tremendous strides we’ve made toward equal rights, and threatens a nation built on the strongest system for ensuring liberty for people of all colors and creeds ever devised in human history.

DON’T TAKE THE KNEE—UNLESS YOU’RE A RACIST

June 7, 2020

Some of the most disturbing images to me were of citizens and police taking the knee before black activists. It’s pernicious, racist and destructive.

Fear of being labeled racist is understandable; anyone actively discriminating against or mistreating another based on skin color is committing an abhorrent sin. Using the threat of labeling someone who isn’t racist as such, to serve an agenda, is equally reprehensible, and immoral. But it has now become a standard political ploy. It’s so pervasive that it has cheapened the term and confounds our ability to root it out like the parable of the boy who cried, “Wolf!”. And giving in to this is appeasement.

You’d think historical precedent would have taught us. Pre-WW II, Neville Chamberlain (and he was not alone) became notorious for his feckless attempts at appeasing Hitler. Despite the disastrous results, the tactic of appeasement in the face of authoritarianism continues unabated. While Ronald Reagan remained steadfast against the naysayers in his opposition to communist totalitarianism, abetting the collapse of the Soviet Union, Obama chose an appeasement approach with Iran, providing payments that not only allowed them to continue disbursing funds to terrorist factions but likely staved off a similar economic collapse of the dictatorial, oppressive government. To view taking the knee as other than another example of appeasement of an authoritarian demand, two things have to be true: The first is that we are still the systemically racist nation the activists claim. To date I’ve seen little if any proof to support this assertion, and studies and statistics belie it; always cited as proof is our undeniably problematic past history with respect to our black citizens (a portion of which I’m old enough to have seen), which everyone (except small, evil fringe groups) agrees was unsupportable and immoral. Sporadic events of bad cops harming black individuals (some with a racial motive, but all attributed to racism in the current climate) will continue and should be vigorously prosecuted and the perpetrators punished, as in the current instance. These despicable events, when a racial motive is proved, such as with the sad recent case of Ahmaud Arbery, show that racism is alive and well, but they do not prove the persistence of systemic racism any more than do other pieces of heartstrings-tugging anecdotal “evidence.” It seems like just yesterday the “efficacy” of hydroxychloroquine against COVID was erroneously reported in the same manner. The second necessary component to support taking the knee is that all the people kneeling are knowingly or unknowingly racist and are or have been engaged in an ongoing effort to subjugate black people on the basis of their skin color (the “white privilege” argument). I reject both of these premises. And to assume that not obeying or remaining silent is a show of tacit approval of racism and police brutality, rather than a rejection of the above premises, is also wrong and immoral.

It takes courage to face the wrath of those voices, previously only associated with the far Left, willing to label you as racist for failing to cow-tow to their beliefs. Even many of the large corporations have caved; I just got an email from Walmart lamenting George Floyd’s death. While I share their despair, I object to the vague “push for change” the urge to build “a more inclusive society,” echoing the narrative of institutional racism eating at our core without citing specific policies that support the claim. To me, it rings hollow, like a mea culpa to sic the dogs of the Left on anyone but themselves. While taking the knee may, in the short term, tranquilize the beast, like the high of a short-acting opiate, it never lasts. The race baiters engaging in this despicable power-seeking behavior will be emboldened (as positive reinforcement is wont to do) and the demands will intensify. Unfortunately, not just the words, but the actions, up to and including violence, will also intensify. And my fear is that this will elicit a backlash that can be exploited as proof of further racism, especially if some or all of the violence comes from true, fringe racist/white supremacist groups, further aiding the activists’ push against all who dare defy the narrative. Such a positive feedback loop can rapidly destroy a country. So, if you genuinely believe you are racist and need to atone for your personal transgressions, far be it from me to tell you not to apologize in any way you deem appropriate. Feel free to protest police brutality (I’m with you, it’s bad), murder, or rape, or the many other human depravities we’re prone to, although I don’t know how demonstrating against things we all know are bad without citing specific policies that we need to change does anything other than proclaim our virtue, our membership in the “club,” or serve to support misguided, false, and destructive message.

Otherwise, stay on you feet and fight—for freedom, unity and everyone’s rights, regardless of skin color.