Victims of Privilege
The Boston Globe's Racist Anti-White Columnists
Man With Newspaper (L'Homme au journal), René Magritte, 1928
A person of reason cannot intellectually embrace stereotypes and double standards, whereas a person of ideology can and does embrace them. The enemy of ideology is reason, and vice versa. Boston Globe "culture columnist" Jeneé Osterheldt is clearly and sadly (for journalism and culture) an embracer of ideology. Her column, "The safety of privilege," contains a number of reason-deficient faults, which evidently reflect those espoused by the Boston Globe.
Osterheldt states, "I am a Black woman in America. We know better than to trust America as a safe place." But all black women do not necessarily think alike. Conservative black women like Candace Owens, for example, do not think like Osterheldt. Do all white women somehow trust America as a safe place, especially those who have been beaten, raped and/or robbed? Stereotypes are by nature faulty. Why does the Boston Globe embrace them and those who push them? "...it's important to acknowledge that for Black people, America has never been a safe place," argues Osterheldt. Well, today is not pre-Civil War yesterday. Moreover, life itself is not necessarily a safe space. Because I am a white male does that somehow make me safer walking in a black neighborhood in America? Again, stereotypes are ineluctably faulty.
Osterheldt quotes black Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley to support her claim: "The experiences of Wednesday [the assault on the Capitol] were harrowing and unfortunately very familiar in the deepest and most ancestral way, and that includes for you know [sic] all Black Americans." But the ancestors of all black Americans were not all slaves, which clearly is Pressley's "ancestral" stereotype implication. In fact, some ancestors were black slaveowners [over 1,000 in Louisiana] and black slave traders, and some were not at all connected to slavery.
Osterheldt states, "Law enforcement officials knew white supremacists were coming to 'fight like hell' at their president's request." But her implication is deceitful. Nothing in Trump's speech indicated he meant those three words literally, nor were all the protesters "white supremacists." Osterheldt then states, "Yet they [officials] did not see it as a threat worthy of the militarized tactics they deployed on Black Lives Matter protesters." She fails to mention that BLM protesters, prior to the deployment of "tactics," had already demonstrated in other cities with violence and looting, whereas Trump demonstrators had not. Moreover, all the facts regarding the assault on the Capitol have yet to be ascertained. It is said that some of the Capitol guards assisted the entry of protesters. If true, were they Democrat or Republican-controlled guards? Or both? In fact, why does Osterheldt omit mention that one of the "white supremacists," who was arrested and charged, was in fact black BLM rioter John Sullivan? Why does she fail to mention at all the huge damage caused last summer by BLM rioters, far more than that caused at the Capitol? Well, for her, the narrative is far more important than truth.
Osterheldt states somewhat confusedly, "The GOP speaks of unity and healing as if they haven't conflated Christianity with supremacy, as if destruction hasn't rolled off their tongues in the name of power and president number 45." What does she think of newly-elected black Christian Senator Warnock? What does she think of Islamic supremacy? Or how about neo-Marxism with supremacy? And isn't Biden the one who is talking about unity and healing, while simultaneously belittling Trump supporters?
It is actually quite challenging to attempt to dissect some of Osterheldt's statements, including the following: "When you feel entitled to safety, you feel entitled to commit acts of terrorism in the name of patriotism." Now, what the hell does that even mean? Because of my white skin color, I do not somehow feel entitled to safety, nor entitled to commit acts of terrorism? Osterheldt argues: "You [white folk] are disillusioned into thinking equity is a danger to you because America has made safety a luxury item for white folk." Is that not a fool's statement? Because I am a "white folk," how does that guarantee me the "luxury item"? If that were true, then why did three blacks attack, beat, and rob me in Baton Rouge a decade ago and why did The Advocate refuse to report on that assault? It seems to me that those like Osterheldt do NOT want equity at all. They want Affirmative Action inequity and BLM, certainly not White Lives Matter, nor All Lives Matter. They want left-wing riots to be okay, while right-wing riots not to be okay. Is that equity? Well, only in the Orwellian sense.
Osterheldt states, "You [right-wing white folk] toss around words like unity without mention of justice." Yet isn't that precisely what the new Democrat regime is doing now? Where is the justice in impeaching Trump a second time without providing any clear evidence for the trial? Where was the Russian-collusion evidence for Mueller's hugely expensive trial against Trump? And what about the Bidens making millions of dollars off of Biden's position as VP? Justice does not mean push it under the rug!
Osterheldt states, "The criminalization of black girls starts as young as age 5. A study by Georgetown Law found for Black boys, that bias starts around age 10. In Mass., Black girls are nearly 4 times as likely to be disciplined as white girls." Disciplined because of mere skin color (not wild behavior) in Massachusetts, a Democrat-Party stronghold? Osterheldt does not mention black crime at all. She simply mentions black victimization over and again. "In Boston, where Black folk are a quarter of the city's population, we account for 69 percent of police stops." So, the implication is that Democrat-Party controlled Boston police stop people because of their skin color, not because they might have been speeding, driving without tail lights, peddling drugs, or whatever else. In Osterheldt's imagination, there are only black victims, no black criminals at all. "I have been racially profiled by security in my own workplace [Democrat-Party Boston Globe]," she claims. But how not to think she has become so paranoid regarding white people, cops or whomever, that anything could be deemed racially profiled, including a simple look from a non-POC?
Osterheldt then cites Trump again: "Just remember this: you're stronger, you're smarter, you've got more going than anybody. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us, and you're the real people. You're the people that built this nation. You're not the people that tore down our nation." Well, precisely how did those words incite a "seditious riot"? Osterheldt does not say. Trump was, I assume, referring to the BLM/antifa seditious rioters who burned, looted, and destroyed millions of dollars of property, not to mention the people who died during those riots.
Osterheldt concludes, "I live loud and happily in spite of fear. I know safety not to be a place, but what I make it and who I build it with. I know peace to be mine to claim in my spirit until freedom is real and it rings." Reading her column, one would think, unless one were an ideologue, that Osterheldt was somehow not a black-privileged Boston Globe columnist, graduate of Norfolk State University, and Nieman Fellow at Harvard, but rather a black victim without voice, someone living in poverty and/or who was beaten and robbed or raped by white nationalists. Too bad the Boston Globe would never, in the name of equity, publish this critique. And, in the name of equity, Osterheldt will surely be happy about that.
Two days after Osterheldt's op-ed, yet another anti-white racist screed appeared in the Boston Globe, White people now realize white supremacy is coming for them. Its "lesbian activist" author Barbara Smith is purportedly an "independent scholar." Yet one must wonder how she can possibly consider herself to be "independent," when all she does is manifest full dependency on identity-politics ideology. I'd written several counter-essays regarding yet another racist privileged black female Boston Globe columnist, Renee Graham, including Racism, Racism, Racism Ad Nauseam, Ad Infinitum, Ad Obscurum" and "Black Racists with Press Badges." I'd also cartooned her with Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory (see "The Journalists—Racism Here, Racism There, Racism Everywhere"). McGrory, of course, refuses to publish my criticism of his stable of black-privileged columnists. Thus is journalism today.
In any event, Smith argues, regarding the protest at the Capitol, "Now that white people realize white supremacy is coming for them, they're paying more attention. It is good that white people have noticed that peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors are treated more harshly than white insurrectionists." And yet those peaceful BLM protesters behaved with Antifa proponents, as mentioned, as mob rioters and looters across the nation, inciting violence and destruction of millions of dollars of property. How can a purported "scholar" reject such a reality? Also, "insurrection" is not necessarily the negative term the Democrat Party wants it to be. An "insurrection" against those seeking to destroy liberty can indeed be a positive term. Smith argues, "America will move closer to becoming a failed state" because of white privilege and purported systemic racism. In fact, isn't "failed state" precisely what she and Neo-Marxists are striving for and seemingly succeeding at creating? How does a "scholar" manage to do nothing but echo Democrat-Party talking points, including "mob attack on the Capitol orchestrated by white supremacists, fomented by the white nationalist president"? If Trump were indeed a white nationalist, why did he continue to deny that constant character assassination by Democrat-Party operatives? How precisely was he a white nationalist? If black nationalist BLM/Antifa proponents support Biden, does that automatically render Biden a black nationalist?
Logic and reason are the enemies of ideology, no matter how scholarly. Smith's name-calling, absence of concrete statistics, and echoing of proven lies hardly qualifies her as a scholar at all. She characterizes Trump as "unbridled bigotry," which actually seems more like an accurate portrayal of herself (psychological projection). She argues Trump portrayed Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists, implying ALL Mexicans. Yet he clearly did not imply that at all in his statement on illegal immigration. Just the same, some of them who cross into the US are indeed drug dealers and rapists and murderers. How can a scholar be so willfully blind? Smith argues, "It was obvious that 'Make America Great Again' meant 'Make America White Again'." Of course, the reality of MAGA was not that at all, but rather, for example, to bring back jobs, to stop bowing to the CCP, to stop rampant illegal immigration, to stop sending millions of dollars to American enemies like Iran, to decrease energy dependency on foreign nations, and to end the PC-Marxist takeover of the country. Smith excels at accusations without providing any concrete proof of the assertions, as in "The fact that 74 million people witnessed four years of overt racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, attacks on immigrants, corruption, and incompetence, yet voted for it to continue, points to how deeply embedded the ideology of white supremacy is." Now, why didn't she also mention Russia, Russia, Russia?
Smith concludes her hate-whitey screed with yet another lie, "The incoming Biden administration sees reconciliation and healing as priorities, so I will say it one more time: There will be no actual healing in this country until white supremacy is vanquished." Clearly, Biden and his team are not at all into "reconciliation and healing"! If they were, they wouldn't be impeaching Trump a second time, nor would they be belittling over and again 74 million people as white supremacists. One fact Smith will never be able to digest is the fact that horrible white men created the Bill of Rights, unique on the planet, which enabled those like her, who hate America, to speak their minds in public with impunity in America. Sadly, the Boston Globe has become an incessant shoveling machine of filth in an effort to force an anti-freedom ideology down the throats of Americans.
Civil war, which Smith mentions, seems a lot more probable than unity in America, especially with those like her constantly bellowing racism at white Americans. The division is immense and ever growing.
Have you sued the Sturgis Library?