A few months ago, Tucker Carlson had University of Connecticut Professor Matthew Hughey on his show. They engaged in a predictably superficial Liberal/Conservative “debate” on immigration, which perfectly encapsulates current Establishment ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjV9Vxgg5r8
The discussion centered around liberal Tweedledum Hughey’s lecture called “Make America White Again? The Racial Reasoning of American Nationalism,” which purported to show that Trump’s election “was neither coincidence nor [a] fluke accident, but a natural and purposeful consequence of a social, political, and economic commitment to white supremacy.”
Tweedledee Carlson, the Conservative, predictably enough, regurgitated the same old plabum that America can’t be racist because it is the storied land of opportunity and democracy, letting in many more non-white immigrants in recent decades.
Tweedledum’s retort, which is true enough, was that importing migrants had always been a way for capitalism to drive down wages (“for the benefit of the ruling class”, we would add).
That was the crux of the “debate” — a repetition of “America is a great democracy” and “America is a country of white supremacists”. Both neglected to dig deeper.
Carlson asked his Liberal foe for a definition of without any follow up. As most of the masses are aware, “White surpemacy” is a buzz word with specific emotions and meanings attached to it, but Professor Hughey defines it his own way. “What I mean by white supremacy . . .” says Professor Tweedledum, instead of trying to honestly and objective define a term with a very definite history. Here are his four pillars of white supremacy:
(1) beliefs in nonwhite dysfunction and pathology;
(2) a white patriotism that loves “America” and hates “the state;”
(3) a sense of whiteness as Messianic paternalism; and
(4) a palpable commitment to the nation that whiteness is under attack
This is the major reason, according to Professor Tweedledum why Trump won the election. How does he know this? There are many intelligent reforming liberal leaning individuals out there that did not vote for Clinton and preferred Trump only because he represented a rejection of both parties. The msm support for mass immigration ought to be a red flag. It should be a rule of thumb by now that whatever garners significant msm (and DC) support is for the benefit of the ruling class and probably not good for the masses.
Could it be that propaganda creates very real racism, and that blaming the target for believing in the propaganda they are intended to believe, takes heat off the ruling class? Racism, Hughey let slip, is a “palpable device“. This is one of the pillars of stupidity of Liberals and Conservatives. They have been trained to view the tool as the primary cause of negative social outcomes, thus taking pressure off the higher orders. In the world of Tweedledum and Tweedledee the hammer rules its user. The Conservative says “government is the problem” not those who use it and manipulate it. The Liberal blames racists, not the agenda of powerful forces that benefit from them.
Identity politics makes personal feelings legitimate material for objective analysis and judgment (insofar as that is possible at all). This manufactured conflict distracts from the ruling class and its agenda.
None of this was explored in the “debate” on white supremacy. Professor Tweedledum define this terms applied it to the nation and they went back and forth with “yes” and “no”. Liberal and Conservative played their part.
Neither partisan cared to distinguish between white supremacy and white privilege. The term “white privilege” never even came up. No distinction was made between the two, lest the viewer get the mistaken impression that Professor Hughey was implying — for Liberals — that all whites are supremacists, or — for Conservatives — that Liberals are just bleeding heart moron apologists.
White supremacy is an ideology, while white privilege is a social condition. White supremacy is the active promotion of the “white race” as superior to all others. White privilege is a set of circumstances that serve many white people better than others, often in subtle ways. That does not mean those enjoying white privilege are white supremacists. One may enjoy white privilege without being a white supremacist. On the other hand, white supremacy may appeal to poor whites for whom white privilege holds little meaningful value, and is cold comfort to the soul. Perhaps they are racists because they have so little white privilege to protect. Neither cog tried to clarify these terms for their audience, and therefore, they did not challenge the “integrity” of the Liberal and Conservative labels.
And again, it need not be the actual conscious agenda of the individual to support their superiors. The imbibing and acceptance of Establishment labels over a lifetime makes the individual’s thoughts compatible with, or indistinguishable from, Establishment norms.
Either of the two partners could have taken the other down easily. Carlson could have answered Professor Tweedledum’s assertions that Trump’s election was due in large part to “white supremacy” by pointing out that many prominent black commentators, and indeed, Clinton a decline in black turnout or stay home, that Trump won 194 of the 207 counties that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012, or that Obama won more of the popular vote than both of them. Tweedledee neglected to mention that Bernie Sanders consistently topped Clinton and Trump, and had him beating Trump by a greater margin. (not to mention Bernie had the nomination stolen from him).
As our Conservative Tweedledee host could have said, “that’s the problem with you ivory tower academics! You take things out of context to suit your theories! The public knows that Obama has done nothing but perpetuate the status quo. Isn’t that a factor here? Tucker could have pointed out that in the aftermath of the biggest crash in economic history Barak Obama did nothing. It was one of the biggest thefts of wealth from the black community ever. Is Obama a white supremacist, or trapped in profit logic paradigm dedicated to enriching the ruling class?
Instead, all Tweedledee Carlson could do was repeat a variation of “if America is so racist why would we let in so many non-white people?”
Tweedledum replies that migrants, whether forced or not, were always welcomed for their wage-cheapening skills. Then curiously, to Us at least, this very liberal professor brings up “free market” ideology: “white supremacists” need migrants to do the work “they don’t want to do”. Apparently whites rather their children starve than take a job that is supposed beneath the “white race”. Thus We justify unemployment and the evil of the white masses.
“. . .need migrants to do the work they don’t want to do.” Hmmm. . . That sounds a lot like what co-founder and former Nike CEO Phil Knight said to Michael Moore in “The Big One”. In the movie, the portly film maker asked the sneaker mogol to open a factory in Flint, Michigan. Phil viewed a video produced by Moore, showing a group of Flint residents imploring Knight and his company for jobs.
After watching it, he said, “. . . given choice, Americans really don’t want to work in shoe factories. I still really believe that.”
“But, I’ve just showed you —”
Knight interrupted, “They said they did. And I think any unemployed person will say ‘that I would like any job.'”
Is that white supremacy or more profit logic?
Tweedledum and Tweedledee did not delve into the matter of job outsourcing, which is part of wage depression, along with msm sanctioned mass migrations (why would whites want to get rid of their well-paying jobs?) Both Liberals and Conservatives believe in the mantra that workers are “needed” to do work Americans “don’t want to do”. Professor Tweedledum now amends that to “white Americans” (Moore’s video many races). Does the professor believe the white masses don’t want to do work while the black masses do? Hughey may sincerely care for the actual plight of migrants, but he he is doing the bidding of the ruling class agenda. He had drunk the Establishment Kool-Aid.
While Tucker stuck to his failed “why-would-America-let-them-in-if-we-were-racists?” line, he could have delivered another devastating blow, which no one in msm, of course, including Liberals, have mentioned.
We must not forget that these immigration issues, so central to today’s established orders, comes on the heels and continuing saga of austerity, particularly in Europe and the U.S. Does this make sense?
Greece, the poster child for economic austerity rape, has seen a terrible rise in suicides. Now, with the rest of Europe, they face tremendous pressures from the EU to let in hundreds of thousands into their countries.
We could ask what Professor Tweedledum’s Liberal allies think about that. Professor Tweedledum acknowledges that migration has primarily been about wage suppression. What about austerity embracing countries encouraging encouraging mass immigration? How do Liberals think migrants will be treated, when they accept the mass poverty of their own citizens?
Neither Tweedledum nor Tweedledee veered from their well appointed route. One downplays racism, the other overemphasizes it, meanwhile We keep fleecing the masses. It is a big con job. Imagine the mob. On behalf of their masters’ syndicate, Liberals and Conservatives orchestrate an accident. A car and a truck, filled with supplies and food for the masses, collide. The syndicate owns the Liberal and Conservative drivers just as they own politicians. And after crashing into each other, the drivers get out and feign an argument, while Our other minions empty out the truck. When the masses asked how they got robbed, Tweedledum blames Tweedledee. Thus, the show goes on while the foundations crumble around us. This not good for anybody’s health — the ruling class or the masses’.