Bill O’Reilly recently did a segment on his show pointing out the fact that he does not believe in white privilege because Asian Americans educationally outperform both whites and blacks in America—and they adhere more rigidly to a traditional family structure. What Bill O’Reilly fails to understand, however, is that changing the topic from white privilege to an irrelevant discussion of Asian Americans’ successes does not refute the existence of white privilege. One cannot disprove the existence of white privilege by pointing out that other minority groups do well in America. All it shows is that, through hard work and determination, it is possible to overcome discrimination and reach the top. But that is not a statement that most people, except the most extreme left-wingers, contend against.

Read the rest of this entry »

Michael Brown, an 18-year-old who was a few days away from starting college, was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri—a region with a prominent African-American population. The circumstances surrounding his death are still unclear; however, eyewitnesses have said that Michael Brown had his hands in the air when he was shot dead. As a result of the killing of Michael Brown, the city of Ferguson has been in uproar, and the anti-police sentiment is palpable. While most of the protesters have been peaceful, there have been some opportunists who used the disarray as an opportunity to steal from stores throughout the neighborhood. Of course, those who revel in presenting the worst images of black America have obsessively focused on the looting—as if the looting by some makes Brown’s death justifiable.

Read the rest of this entry »

Interestingly, Right Wing News has published a remarkably illiterate piece criticizing me for wanting “to put an end to black conservatism.”

Chidike Okeem wants to put an end to black conservatism. He believes that any black conservative who opposes  Affirmative Action or doesn’t cling to the Voting Rights Act as if it were the Bible is either inept or a fraud pandering to mainstream white conservatives. Typically, this is rhetoric spewed by liberal race-peddlers with a desire to discredit minority conservatives. He claims to be a conservative, yet his articles remain some of the most vitriolic, anti-right wing screeds I have ever read.

This is as honest an accusation as saying, “Person X wants to put an end to all medications for sick patients!” simply because that person expressed a desire to end the sale of fake medications. The title of my piece is The End of Artificial Black Conservatism. Dropping the word ‘artificial’ from the title of my piece in order to misrepresent my point takes intellectual dishonesty to an unparalleled zenith. The fact that this blogger has the temerity to suggest that I am being dishonest on race is ironic—especially when he cannot correctly characterize an argument. To be honest, however, such intellectual dishonesty does not surprise me. I carefully craft my essays to be logically hermetic. The best way to undermine my writings is to invent comical misrepresentations of my actual points.

Read the rest of this entry »

Aside from historical revisionism, the favorite tactic of white supremacists and white imperialists is divide and rule. Nothing makes white supremacists more eupeptic than pitting ethnic and racial groups against each other in order to effortlessly control them and maintain social power. In colonial Africa, divide and rule was the main stratagem that colonialists used to ensure that their interests remained unharmed. British imperialists divided Africa up in ways that made for efficacious colonies but would be next to impossible to function as autonomous states. The same is true about white supremacists and imperialists in India. The British deviously capitalized on the religious disputes between the Muslims and the Hindus in order to control the region. White supremacists, with rhythmic monotonousness, say that diversity does not work. They argue that it is harmful and destroys civilized societies. However, history demonstrates that one of the chief reasons why there are problems with diversity throughout the world is because of the unrelenting effort of white supremacists to strain intercultural relationships and exacerbate ethnic conflict.

Read the rest of this entry »

 _{A still shot from one of the many pointless reenactment scenes in this soporific film.}

Earlier today, since the World Cup is on a two-day break, I went to see Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie that has been relentlessly raved about by so many in the mainstream conservative media. This film by D’Souza is unmistakably one of the worst documentaries I have seen in many years—and I watch a lot of documentaries. It was dreadful.

D’Souza’s movie starts out by making you believe that he is about to deliver a monumental counterfactual history movie. From the onset, one would think that D’Souza was going to deliver a Niall Ferguson-esque look at the history of the world without America. The thesis of the documentary is supposed to be “What if America didn’t exist?” The movie did not answer this question. The movie essentially tries to answer “leftist” (read: historically accurate) claims such as: the enslavement of Africans existed and their stolen labor built the American empire, the extermination of Native Americans actually occurred, and California and Texas once belonged to Mexico. These are not controversial or disputed historical facts. Perhaps D’Souza’s documentary would be more appropriately titled Trying to Dispute Historical Facts.

D’Souza fulminates against Howard Zinn’s infamous historical work A People’s History of the United States. He points out there are many inaccuracies in the book (without ever telling us what any of those inaccuracies are). However, regardless of whatever anyone thinks about Zinn’s left-wing politics or his books, his work is inestimably better than the “scholarship” that led to this shambolic movie. America: Imagine the World Without Her packs the intellectual heft of an average troll video on YouTube. Unlike D’Souza who just tells you to hate books while using ad hominem attacks against their authors, I will tell you why D’Souza’s movie is nonsense.

D’Souza starts by pointing out the arguments that leftists make about America. He then says he is going to refute them. The problem is that he never does. His idea of refuting historical facts is by providing alternative facts that have little to no bearing on the facts that he is trying to refute. For example, to “refute” the claim that Native Americans were systematically destroyed by Christopher Columbus, he points out that Christopher Columbus predates America and was not American, ergo there is no way any of his actions can be an indictment against America. What D’Souza craftily omits to deceive his credulous audience is that Christopher Columbus is a national hero in America today. We are indoctrinated into believing the risible and fictitious history of Columbus being a great explorer who “discovered” the “New World” (despite the “New World” already having inhabitants). We still have a day devoted to Christopher Columbus. Trying to distance Christopher Columbus from America should also mean the jettisoning of Columbus Day. I doubt D’Souza would think that is a good idea, but he blithely dismisses Columbus as someone who predates America, while ignoring the unmerited god-like worship he receives in American society today. This nonsense from D’Souza is not scholarship or logical argumentation that can appeal to anybody with a triple-digit IQ. This is casuistic jingoism that appeals to unlettered rubes.

Read the rest of this entry »