America Conservatism Race relations Truth

Charlottesville Violence Only The Beginning Unless We End Identity Politics

Rod Thomson

This was all so obviously inevitable, the predictable result of divisive identity politics perpetrated on the American people — the exact opposite of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Unfortunately, it won’t end in Charlottesville. The alt right and white supremacists, the Antifa and BLM groups — none of whom represent the best or even the good in America — will arm up, plan and ramp up the hatred and divisiveness. Because that is what comes from slicing up Americans by every conceivable grievance.

And instead of calling us higher, to the vision of America as a shining city on a hill, too many Washington politicians will do their best to take personal advantage of the situation. And already have. Democrats have been doing that for years by carving Americans along race, ethnicity, gender and income and pitting them against each other to get the votes of the aggrieved. It’s a directly dis-unifying strategy. Trump appealed to the backlash from that and while he is not a white supremacist, there’s no doubt he attracted their support.

Let’s get a couple of points clear. The alt right is not principled conservatism, or at least the racist elements are not. White supremacists are definitely not conservative. The rally in Charlottesville was ugly and unAmerican in its very origins, long before the violence broke out Saturday. Racists’ actions are hateful and should be called out — whether by whites or blacks or browns or whomever.

But there’s the problem, the step back to see a broader context for Saturday. According to many Americans on the left, particularly in academia, blacks actually cannot be racist because they are a minority and were oppressed by whites in the South 50 years ago. It’s true that they were, but the idea that racism can only come from the majority is nonsensical. Are only blacks racist in South Africa where they are the huge majority? Of course not. Hispanics, the left claims, cannot be racist because they’ve been oppressed by whites all the way back to the initial European settlers — which is not really historically accurate, but it still works to divide. Only whites can be racist by this theory. Yes, that is precisely what the thought-leaders on the left preach and teach, and it works to be wonderfully divisive.

So this did not happen in a vacuum on Saturday. Let’s also be clear on plain human nature. A nation cannot tell an entire class of its people — in this iteration, white males — that they are the source of the country’s evils and have no legitimate opinion on entire swaths of issues. From college campuses to social media, white males are told to check their privilege, sit down and shut up. Literally. That is as unAmerican as the Charlottesville marchers.

If blacks are not supposed to listen to whites because they are white, and Hispanics are not supposed to listen to whites because they are whites, and women aren’t supposed to listen to white men because they are men (I know, it’s not consistent but it is part of intersectional politics, see below) then how does this possibly end well?

To put a fine point on the obvious, it doesn’t.

To think there would not be a backlash by some in the target group was naive at best. Purposeful at worst. To think that when violence was being perpetrated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, that violence would not be perpetrated by white supremacists, was naive at best. Purposeful at worst.

Why purposeful at worst? Because there is a long line of philosophy on the far left that in order to overthrow the strong national order in the United States, American society must be foundationally destabilized.


Saul Alinsky’s real life radicals

Saul Alinsky was a fairly vile, anti-American radical leftist revolutionary who was deeply influential on the lives of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. This is really important.

In 1971, Alinsky wrote the seminal work for bringing down a stable, democratic America in “Rules for Radicals.” That Alinsky dedicated the book to Satan tells you a lot:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

Alinsky wrote that ethics, integrity and morals should be shunted aside for the purpose of the revolution. He believed that the long-term strategy of pitting segments of society against each other would undermine the nation and lead to the opportunity for, shall we say, “fundamentally changing” the country — in President Obama’s words.

In an interview with Playboy magazine in 1972, Alinsky said: “All life is warfare, and it’s the continuing fight against the status quo that revitalizes society, stimulates new values and gives man renewed hope of eventual progress. The struggle itself is the victory.”

Continuing fight. The struggle itself is victory.

Why is Alinsky so important? For one, he is still a favorite on college campuses. But more importantly, he is a favorite among leading Democrats today. Barack Obama worked directly with Alinsky organizations and taught seminars on his tactics as a community organizer — one of the methods Alinsky promoted in his book. Organize various groups to fight those in authority.

Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on Alinsky, personally interviewing him for her paper. Alinsky was so impressed by her that he offered her a job, but she chose a different opportunity.

Alinsky specifically urged the division of society into many parts so one part takes from the other part to create “change” — and remember, change is both the method and the goal. That’s precisely what Obama did as President and the general platform of not just Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic Party. I know this sounds partisan, but it is a principled part of today’s progressives and their party. Fundamental change by pitting segments of Americans against other segments of Americans — not principles of liberty or rights, just division and strife.


Obama and Black Lives Matter

Moe reality is that American blacks had a rough go of it for the first three-quarters of America’s history. From slavery to Jim Crow, American blacks have had extra hurdles in pursuit of the American dream, and it is a stain on the country that it was so. That they also suffered under a level of police brutality, primarily in Southern states, is also a fact of history. That there could be lingering resentment over this is understandable, if not laudable.

And racism remains…among all people groups because the reality is that it is a dark element in human nature. It is immune to skin color.

However, we were moving in a positive direction in the 1950s and 1960s. Institutional and societal racism were declining in the United States and the Civil Rights successes in the 1960s were high points in leaping forward. Race continued to play a smaller role in the 1970s, but there was also a rising tide of race grievance where people who claimed to be civil rights leaders in the mold of Martin Luther King, were actually closer to race hucksters acting to greatly enriched themselves while pretending to be about civil rights.

By the 1980s, blacks had become a permanent, uniform voting bloc for Democrats — ironically, given that a larger percentage of Republicans supported the civil rights laws than did Democrats. And the Democratic Party was seeing the electoral benefits of dividing and pitting American against American, a la Alinsky.

Fast forward to 2008. As the first black president, Barack Obama had the unique opportunity to bring racial healing in another great leap forward, and many whites hoped he would do that. Many voted for him specifically in hopes of finally moving beyond race and truly embracing King’s dream.

But remember, Obama was an Alinsky-ite. That philosophy never called for healing, but for a continuing fight against authority — even though Obama was the nation’s ultimate authority as President.

A fair reading of President Obama’s eight years in office is that he made race relations much worse, typically by leaping to conclusions without the facts and actively alienating virtually all police and many white Americans — including some of those who voted for him.

From the Beer Summit to Trayvon Martin to Ferguson to Baltimore, in every instance of conflict between blacks and police or blacks and whites, Obama took the opportunity to deepen black resentment of whites, institutions and cops. Society was stacked against them. It was a poisonous response.

One result was the creation of Black Lives Matter, whose entire mission seems to be to create unrest and dissatisfaction through selective protests — but to do actually nothing in terms of saving black lives. BLM’s actions oppose the principles Martin Luther King espoused, but they are in lockstep with the ones Saul Alinsky espoused.

Of course, there have been bad shootings of blacks by police, and some cops have been arrested and convicted for them.

But Alinsky’s rules do not call for letting laws and the justice system work. They call for destabilization through division and violence to undermine the order of the nation, and BLM is a player in that.


College campus cults and intersectionality

American universities have become a hotbed for identity politics which are enforced through special treatment and speech codes — none of which seem in any way to be Constitutional.

College campuses have “safe spaces” that act as anti-free-speech zones. You cannot say anything that might offend another — and that depends on the other’s definition of what is offensive. Tricky. Other campuses have flipped it to free-speech zones, allowing the First Amendment only in a small, cordoned area that students can avoid. Echoing Orwell’s 1984, Speech codes are common.

And it is on college campuses where all of the Alinsky-ite divisions have been categorized and prioritized into a hierarchy of who bears the greatest grievance. It’s called “intersectionality.”

This is the study of intersections between groups representing different forms of oppression and discrimination. It is used to bind together various aggrieved groups into a political weapon. So feminists and gays and blacks may band together to protest an issue where say, transgenders were not getting fair treatment. This makes them more powerful and is precisely what Alinsky instructed in getting minority groups to create a majority influence and overturn the power structure.

But does a white feminist from the suburbs have the same aggrieved status as a poor black transgendered woman? No!

So intersectionality sets up a pyramid of the aggrieved with women, Hispanics, blacks, gays, transgendered, handicapped, fat, short and everything else. White males are not among those on the pyramid because someone has to be the oppressor. If a person is contained in two or more of these categories, their aggrieved status increases. White females are at the bottom, unless they are transgendered then they rise.

The queen of the pyramid might be a short black transgender female in a wheelchair. Unassailable, according to intersectionality.

It’s tribalism at its most pernicious. It serves to divide and weaken the nation’s foundations because none of it has anything to do with the U.S. Constitution or universal truths for all mankind.


And so…Charlottesville

For years I and others have been warning that this ugly divide-and-conquer identity politics was going to inevitably lead to some dark places in American culture. And so it did on Saturday, as it was building to from Ferguson.

By now most everyone has heard that a “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va. turned violent and deadly on Saturday. It was spawned out of attempts by leaders in Charlottesville to take down a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The demonstration of a weird amalgamation of alt-righters, Confederate sympathizers, white supremacists, KKK-ers and veterans seemed relatively peaceful, if distasteful. The white nationalist flags were ugly. But Black Lives Matters and Antifa showed up in force and both sides had helmets and primitive weapons. Eventually things got violent, which seems like was ultimately the point, perhaps for both sides.

(Ironically, the black-clad Antifa stands for anti-fascist while the group uses fascistic tactics across the country. They are a slice aligned with left, but not always owned by the left.)

Things got really ugly and tragic when a car was driven into the crowded street, apparently aimed at the Antifa and BLM group, with horrific results.

But forgive me if this entire picture does not look a bit like what Alinsky was teaching in Rules for Radicals, a handbook of the activist Left and leaders in the Democratic Party.


The only solution is Martin Luther King’s dream

Martin Luther King was truly one of the great men of his era and a prophet of what is needed to heal this country. His loss was incalculable and I fear we continue to reap the results of it.

In his famous and powerful “I have a dream” speech in 1963 in Washington, D.C., King said, in part:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

“And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

“Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

That is the only American society that can endure. We must choose: The principles of Martin Luther King or the principles of Saul Alinsky.

Rod Thomson is a former journalist, author and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

America Immigration Race relations Truth

America is Not Racist, According to Millions of Eager African Immigrants

Rod Thomson

Like any other country that is truly multicultural — and few if any are as diverse as the United States — America has its race-based challenges. Some are real and some are politically ginned up, but they all become hurdles to a more unified country.

However, maybe the best measure of where America really stands in the world comes from the choices of black African immigrants. Native Sub-Saharan Africans, by their actions of free movement, seems to have judged that America is not racist — or is perhaps the least racist country in the world offering the greatest opportunities.

This conclusion stems from one breathtaking fact: America is the most popular immigration destination for Africans. More than European nations, than Asia nations, than South American nations. More than any other country in the world. It’s not even close. Further, America is becoming geometrically more popular with black Africans every decade.

The New York Times did a story on the phenomena, but either missed or ignored the import of what the actually data means. Their angle was how the immigration was affecting the makeup of New York City boroughs, and they ran it in the New York Region section, not nationally. In fact, you rarely see this data as national news. You decide why.


A shocking slavery comparison

However, the Times story did make this jarring and rather astounding number comparison:

“Between 2000 and 2010, the number of legal black African immigrants in the United States about doubled, to around one million. During that single decade, according to the most reliable estimates, more black Africans arrived in this country on their own than were imported directly to North America during the more than three centuries of the slave trade.”

What? Yes. More black Africans voluntarily chose to come to America in one decade than were forced to during 300 years of slavery. That hardly sounds like a nation with terrible race-relations — at least in contrast to the rest of the world.

And that is the important caveat.

America’s race relations definitely need to improve — and it is on all races to make that happen. But throughout history this has been a global problem. So today, according to the people who have choices of where to immigrate, the fact that they choose the United States in increasing droves suggests that compared to all the rest of the world, we may have the best race relations. Certainly the best race relations and economic opportunities combo.


Geometric rise in black immigration to America

According to a new study from the Pew Research Center, as of 2015, there were nearly 2.1 million people living in the U.S. who were born in Africa. That number is up from 880,000 in 2000 and only 80,000 in 1970. By 1970 Jim Crow was completely eliminated in the South and the Civil Rights Acts were passed.

Monica Anderson, a research associate and the author of the study, said the numbers are doubling every decade, and she expects that trend to continue.

“In 1980 only 1 percent of refugees admitted to the U.S. were from an African country and today that share is about 37 percent,” she told Voice of America in an interview. Consider that. The rate of Africans immigrating to the United States as a portion of our immigrant, legal immigrant, population is 37 times higher than it was less than 40 years ago.

Interestingly, guess which state is the top destination for black African immigrants? California? No. New York? No.


Why a southern, conservative state like Texas, which is supposedly anti-immigration? Specific reasons were not given in the research. But it does not seem hard to surmise.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel


Still the land of opportunity

Opportunity matters.

Immigrants, legal immigrants, don’t come here looking for handouts and government benefits. They still see America as the land of opportunity, where they can make a better life for themselves and for their children. And Texas is one of the best states for immigrants who want to work hard to get ahead and seize opportunities.

This is all completely countervailing to the views of many in elite American institutions, such as the media, Hollywood and the federal government in D.C. In those circles — and among those they influence — America continues to to be an ultra racist country that elected Donald Trump based on racism.

You can see such stories on virtually a daily basis in national news, online mainstream media sites and in your local media outlets. But they are at odds with this immigration reality — which they all but ignore.

Seeing America as ultra racist considering the state of the world has long seemed fictitious, a political opportunity for many to pit the races against each other in search of money, power and votes. It worked well for some black “leaders” such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Jr. and new black lives matter leaders such as Deroy Murdock and others. But it is not true. Other causes are driving poverty and violence in many American cities.

And now we can see in black people’s actual life choices from the African continent, it appears even more clearly not to be true.

Race relations Truth Welfare

Why Poverty MUST Be About Racism, Not Marriage

By Rod Thomson

Virtually every Trump voter, reluctant Trump voter or defender of any policy or appointment of Trump, is being hit with one or more of the following personal accusations: racist, misogynist, bigot, homophobe.

Or maybe you exist as the trifecta. In many people’s minds, the three-part combo of white and male and Christian has become the bane of all that is wrong with society — the real cause of the nation’s problems.

Like most things we tackle at The Revolutionary Act, this is not just wrong thinking. It is irrational, emotion-based and anecdote-reliant, driven by a cultural misinformation machine and ultimately dangerous to the people they claim to want to be helping.

For instance, a recent Facebook debate on poverty focused almost exclusively on racism in the United States. We interjected data definitively showing that the strongest links to poverty are single moms, not graduating from high school and not taking a job, according to the moderate Brookings Institute.

These factors apply to whites, blacks, Hispanics and surely all of the rest of humanity. So the solution is not blaming entrenched institutional racism — which has now become a tiny rump of what it once was — but to tackle the ultimate causes. The solution is connecting personal choices to outcomes.

Now, try posting that on Facebook. The responses are irrational, emotion-based and anecdote-reliant. A recent fad is to be labeled a “scold.” Anything except the actual merits of the point.

> Irrational: “What about the men who get these single moms pregnant!?!?! This hatred of women is why Hill lost.”

> Emotional: “I’m a single mom and the proud daughter of a single mom! Quit telling me I’m the problem!!!”

> Anecdote-reliant: “Plenty of kids succeed coming from single-parent households. Look at Ben Carson.”

There you have it. Toss out the scientific data — actual facts — and fall back on irrational charges, emotional defenses and Ben Carson.


This is why we cannot make any headway against poverty despite our enormous wealth and mind-boggling wealth transfers.


The welfare failure

We’ve transferred $22 trillion to poorer Americans since launching the war on poverty in 1964, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis. And yet official poverty numbers have hardly budged at all.

Robert Rector, one of the authors of the NCPA study, wrote: “If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.” Got that? We could write a check to each poor person annually to get them out of poverty — five times over!

OK, so this just must to be excruciatingly clear: the 80 government welfare programs (which does not include Social Security and Medicare) are definitive failures in doing anything to affect poverty. There can be no argument about that. Doing more of what has failed for 50 years is doomed to further failure.

So why do we keep doing it?


The problem of marriage morals

Because to actually fix the problem we would have to declare certain things as true and proclaim the necessary ownership of personal choices.

First, out-of-wedlock births are first-line causes of poverty (as is divorce — and that is stepping on a lot of toes) and that leads to pre-marital sex being at the very least a risky step toward poverty. As that is often conducted unprotected and in the heat of passion, particularly with young people, it is better to not have sex outside of marriage.

Well that’s starting to sound an awful lot like some puritanical Bible-thumping — and the culture drivers in our country simply cannot abide by such a thing. In fact work and personal responsibility also have a bit of a biblical ring to them.

After spending much of the 20th century trying to break down Judeo-Christian moral sexual norms — and we are now all the way up to gay marriage and transvestite men using the women’s room — no one is willing to talk about the need for sexual self-control and fidelity. And certainly no one wants to talk about sex outside marriage being wrong. Watch any TV show or movie. The opposite is glorified, and the image painted is that everyone does it.

But if we did talk about sex only in marriage, and promoted it like we promote the ongoing sexual “revolution,” we would take a huge step toward defeating a lot of poverty. At least, that’s what the actual facts suggest.

But we won’t. Because we don’t want to. So we blame racism because it is cheap, easy and available and makes many feel morally superior.

And poverty remains as it has ever been. Transferring $22 trillion changed nothing. And another $22 trillion won’t, either.

Race relations Truth

Black Lives DO Matter! Therefore Promote Faith, Family


It’s impossible to get away from the decimation going on in black communities in major American cities. The rioting and looting, the astonishing and unabashed lawlessness, the bitter racist hatred by some, and the overall lack of hope in the American dream.

The natural question is: Why? What in the world has happened?

The ugly legacy of slavery is often cited, followed by the Jim Crow laws in the South. There may well be remnants of those injustices, but American blacks were moving further away from those remnants until about 50 years ago. Walter Williams, an esteemed black economist at George Mason University, points to something much more recent, with compelling statistics and his life story.


He was brought up in the projects in Philadelphia in the 1940s and 1950s, a time when racism was certainly more rampant and Jim Crow laws enmeshed in the South. But he writes the projects that were all black were so safe that people left windows open and often went to bed with doors unlocked. He never saw a cop inside his schools the whole time. Within two generations, doors were locked and bolted and windows were barred in the very same project, and 400 police officers now patrol the hallways of Philadelphia schools. Crime stats similarly reflect this nose dive in the black community.

The wrong turns

Williams and many others point the finger of culpability at the disintegration of the black family and waning influence of the church. When faith and family fall apart, society falls apart. The advent of federal programs that take the place and responsibility of fathers through welfare combined with a societal revolution against Judeo-Christian moral norms to wreak havoc.

Since the heavy advent of both of those dynamics, the black family has gone from solid and strong to an endangered species. Illegitimacy in 1938 was 11 percent for blacks and 3 percent for whites. Today it has soared to 73 percent for blacks and 30 percent for whites. This epidemic alone creates catastrophic forces, not the least of which is young black men with no male role model, no example of what it is to be a responsible man, and just enough money from the government to keep them from having to work — stealing their purpose and hope. This toxic brew is everywhere, but shows up most in the depressing crime and prison stats for young black men.

And while the percentage of people saying they regularly attend church in the black community remains high, the church itself has become such a politicized institution that the media seek out black pastors to speak on political issues, while political candidates always make the rounds to those churches during election season. This dynamic of political involvement is true in white churches (alas, that they are thusly separated) but like the illegitimacy rate, at a lower level. Such politicization undermines the spiritual authority and power of the Christian church.

Williams is far from alone. Similar stories are told by many older, successful blacks such as Thomas Sowell, a black economist at Stanford University who grew up in poverty in rural North Carolina; Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins who grew up in of poverty in Detroit’s inner city; Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court justice who grew up in poverty in rural southern Georgia; Condoleeza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State who grew up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama; Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza who grew up in poverty in Atlanta; Larry Elder, lawyer, author and radio host, who grew up in poverty in South Central L.A., and many others.

Enter human nature

But we humans are loath to blame ourselves for our circumstances. It’s a universal truth. We all look for someone else to self-righteously blame. The rich. The boss. Bad schools. Terrible parents. And so on. And there are those who will seek to take advantage of this human nature and provide avenues for blame outside ourselves. In the case of the plight of inner city blacks, the blame has most recently fallen to cops — interestingly, including black cops. This has benefitted politicians and movement leaders while actually enabling the poor behavior. But even though there are a few bad cops, it is irrelevant to the root causes.

This explains how a city like Chicago can have 500 murders in a year, almost entirely black on black, with nary a peep from the black-supported politicians and black leaders — including the nation’s first black president. And yet Milwaukee up the road will spiral out of control with riots and violence when a black police officer shoots an armed black man trying to get away. It makes no sense — except through the lens explained above.

It also makes the solutions to the problems blacks face radiantly obvious — but politically punishing.

However, the price of doing nothing is not the occasional black man killed by police, it is the thousands of blacks killed by other blacks, a gut-wrenching number of them children. It is the absence of avenues to better lives. It is the loss of hope among so many inner-city blacks — perhaps the greatest loss to the human soul.

If Black Lives Matter and politicians will not address these root causes, then others need to.

(The cover picture of Tyshawn Lee, a young boy murdered in gang violence, represents the true, massive violence against blacks: That done by other blacks, including to children.)