Selwyn Duke
El Paso and Trump? And what rhetoric causes the shooting of whites?
By Selwyn Duke
Ever since the El Paso shooting, talk of racism has been ratcheted up. Racism certainly is a problem, too, one accompanied by another problem: Those talking most about it appear to know least what it actually is. But try this on for size:
How about when you emphasize only the relatively rare killings committed by one particular racial group while ignoring murders in which its members are victims, in order to make it appear a unique threat?
For the uninitiated, that group would be whites. Of course, not only is the above happening with respect to them, but the El Paso shooting is also being used to demonize effective anti-illegal-migration rhetoric. The argument is that "Trump's racist rhetoric" inspired the murderer to target Hispanics.
But bearing in mind that white-on-minority murders are quite rare and not nearly as common as the reverse, let's ask a question: What kind of rhetoric caused the following killings?
Though not all involve murder, numerous other examples of black-on-white racial attacks can be found here, here and here.
If you're wondering what kind of people perpetrate these incidents, watch the video below.
No, the above is not from the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Speaking of today's anti-white party, however, will it ever have to answer for all the attacks on whites? Will people such as Tina Rutnick (a.k.a. Kirsten Gillibrand), Irish Bob O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and the rest of their fellow travelers be condemned for talking about white privilege and how America is supposedly a white-supremacist nation and their continual (whether explicit or implicit) impugning of whites?
For that matter, will academia, the media and entertainment be held accountable for pushing these prejudices? We know the answer. But let's now delve a little deeper.
It's unlikely there's a cause anywhere that hasn't had evil done in its name. There have been both "left-wing" and "right-wing" terrorists, running the gamut from environmentalists and animal rights activists to sovereign citizens and other anti-government types. For the wrong cause can be advanced in the wrong or right way (e.g., political lobbying), and the right cause can be advanced in the right or wrong way. Thus, a cause's worst actors are not at all a gauge of its validity.
It's also absolutely true that the rhetoric we use matters. Words are powerful, after all; hence the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword." Moreover, even proper rhetoric used to promote a good cause can inspire the deranged to violence.
Yet what are the implications of this? Should media not report on, and should we not inveigh against, child sex abuse in the clergy or the Boy Scouts because some unhinged individual might attack an innocent clergyman or scouting troop leader?
In this vein, it's safe to say that many (and probably most) of the attacks on whites wouldn't have occurred were it not for the anti-white critiques prevalent in politics, the media, academia and entertainment. And though the El Paso shooter convincingly explained in his manifesto that his anti-immigration views predated President Trump's rise, it's likely that anti-illegal migration rhetoric has sparked some kind of attack somewhere. Yet, again, none of this tells us anything about either type of rhetoric's validity.
But can it really be the case that a public figure is never morally complicit in violence associated with his rhetoric? Yet if the violence alone doesn't implicate him, what does?
Answer: his words' falsity.
In this post-Truth time, this simple reality is overlooked. Leftists are responsible for the attacks against whites because their rhetoric against them is pure demagoguery built on lies. What's the truth? In brief (a comprehensive refutation of caucaphobia is here), whites probably weren't the first to practice slavery or violate human rights. But they were the first to end slavery, and they birthed our modern concept of human rights in the first place. In fact, their Western Civilization can largely be credited with creating the whole modern world.
In contrast, it's a fact that we're subject to an "invasion," as Trump (and many before him, including yours truly) has put it. It is a fact that Democrats are facilitating this. It is a fact that they're doing it for political power.
It's also a reality that immigrationist social engineers are very happy to replace European-descent Americans with Third Worlders who they know will, upon naturalization, vote for leftists, as even Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson has pointed out. That the El Paso shooter also mentioned "replacement" doesn't make it any less true, not anymore than Ted Kaczynski's bombings changed what he warned about: the threat that technology (e.g., artificial intelligence) could possibly pose to man.
And why is this even controversial? The demographic shift is well-known – left-wing outlet NPR has called it "the browning of America" – and is no accident: It's the result of immigration policy the Left could change if it wanted to. It doesn't want to.
What the Left does want to do is use the El Paso tragedy to remove any remaining stumbling blocks to its immigrationist endeavors. Liberals now want "invasion" (and even "illegal alien") considered a racist term. This is nothing new, either, as the Left has already tried to demonize things such as "Build that wall!" chants and "MAGA" hats. The idea is that anything rhetorically effective for conservatives – anything that could possibly influence people – should be labeled racist and thus be out of bounds. (By the way, would this include anti-immigrationist remarks such as "Europe belongs to the Europeans," uttered last year by infamous "white supremacist" the Dalai Lama?) Hey, the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.
This is why all of us – President Trump, you and I – should double down. We are being invaded. The problem isn't those of us who warn about it, but the people making it happen.
Everyone has rhetoric. And if leftists can tell their lies, can't we at least tell the truth?
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
© Selwyn Duke
August 15, 2019
Ever since the El Paso shooting, talk of racism has been ratcheted up. Racism certainly is a problem, too, one accompanied by another problem: Those talking most about it appear to know least what it actually is. But try this on for size:
How about when you emphasize only the relatively rare killings committed by one particular racial group while ignoring murders in which its members are victims, in order to make it appear a unique threat?
For the uninitiated, that group would be whites. Of course, not only is the above happening with respect to them, but the El Paso shooting is also being used to demonize effective anti-illegal-migration rhetoric. The argument is that "Trump's racist rhetoric" inspired the murderer to target Hispanics.
But bearing in mind that white-on-minority murders are quite rare and not nearly as common as the reverse, let's ask a question: What kind of rhetoric caused the following killings?
- On December 7, 1993, a black man, Colin Ferguson, targeted white people with a handgun on a Long Island Railroad train, killing six passengers and injuring several others.
- One of two black snipers who killed whites in the Washington, D.C., area in 2002, John Allen Muhammad, said that he'd intended to murder six whites a day for 30 days. He believed that "the white man is the devil."
- In 2010, black man Omar Thornton targeted whites at his workplace in Manchester, Conn., killing eight.
- In 2016, black man Micah Xavier Johnson shot 12 Dallas police officers, killing five; he'd told authorities that he wanted to kill white people. (Barack Obama's anti-police rhetoric comes to mind here.)
- Black man Fredrick Demond Scott was charged in 2017 with the killings of two white men in Missouri and is suspected in the deaths of three others. He'd said that he wanted to "kill all white people."
- In April 2017, black man Kori Ali Muhammad, who'd called white people "devils" on social media, murdered three Caucasian men in Fresno with a .357 revolver.
Though not all involve murder, numerous other examples of black-on-white racial attacks can be found here, here and here.
If you're wondering what kind of people perpetrate these incidents, watch the video below.
No, the above is not from the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Speaking of today's anti-white party, however, will it ever have to answer for all the attacks on whites? Will people such as Tina Rutnick (a.k.a. Kirsten Gillibrand), Irish Bob O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and the rest of their fellow travelers be condemned for talking about white privilege and how America is supposedly a white-supremacist nation and their continual (whether explicit or implicit) impugning of whites?
For that matter, will academia, the media and entertainment be held accountable for pushing these prejudices? We know the answer. But let's now delve a little deeper.
It's unlikely there's a cause anywhere that hasn't had evil done in its name. There have been both "left-wing" and "right-wing" terrorists, running the gamut from environmentalists and animal rights activists to sovereign citizens and other anti-government types. For the wrong cause can be advanced in the wrong or right way (e.g., political lobbying), and the right cause can be advanced in the right or wrong way. Thus, a cause's worst actors are not at all a gauge of its validity.
It's also absolutely true that the rhetoric we use matters. Words are powerful, after all; hence the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword." Moreover, even proper rhetoric used to promote a good cause can inspire the deranged to violence.
Yet what are the implications of this? Should media not report on, and should we not inveigh against, child sex abuse in the clergy or the Boy Scouts because some unhinged individual might attack an innocent clergyman or scouting troop leader?
In this vein, it's safe to say that many (and probably most) of the attacks on whites wouldn't have occurred were it not for the anti-white critiques prevalent in politics, the media, academia and entertainment. And though the El Paso shooter convincingly explained in his manifesto that his anti-immigration views predated President Trump's rise, it's likely that anti-illegal migration rhetoric has sparked some kind of attack somewhere. Yet, again, none of this tells us anything about either type of rhetoric's validity.
But can it really be the case that a public figure is never morally complicit in violence associated with his rhetoric? Yet if the violence alone doesn't implicate him, what does?
Answer: his words' falsity.
In this post-Truth time, this simple reality is overlooked. Leftists are responsible for the attacks against whites because their rhetoric against them is pure demagoguery built on lies. What's the truth? In brief (a comprehensive refutation of caucaphobia is here), whites probably weren't the first to practice slavery or violate human rights. But they were the first to end slavery, and they birthed our modern concept of human rights in the first place. In fact, their Western Civilization can largely be credited with creating the whole modern world.
In contrast, it's a fact that we're subject to an "invasion," as Trump (and many before him, including yours truly) has put it. It is a fact that Democrats are facilitating this. It is a fact that they're doing it for political power.
It's also a reality that immigrationist social engineers are very happy to replace European-descent Americans with Third Worlders who they know will, upon naturalization, vote for leftists, as even Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson has pointed out. That the El Paso shooter also mentioned "replacement" doesn't make it any less true, not anymore than Ted Kaczynski's bombings changed what he warned about: the threat that technology (e.g., artificial intelligence) could possibly pose to man.
And why is this even controversial? The demographic shift is well-known – left-wing outlet NPR has called it "the browning of America" – and is no accident: It's the result of immigration policy the Left could change if it wanted to. It doesn't want to.
What the Left does want to do is use the El Paso tragedy to remove any remaining stumbling blocks to its immigrationist endeavors. Liberals now want "invasion" (and even "illegal alien") considered a racist term. This is nothing new, either, as the Left has already tried to demonize things such as "Build that wall!" chants and "MAGA" hats. The idea is that anything rhetorically effective for conservatives – anything that could possibly influence people – should be labeled racist and thus be out of bounds. (By the way, would this include anti-immigrationist remarks such as "Europe belongs to the Europeans," uttered last year by infamous "white supremacist" the Dalai Lama?) Hey, the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.
This is why all of us – President Trump, you and I – should double down. We are being invaded. The problem isn't those of us who warn about it, but the people making it happen.
Everyone has rhetoric. And if leftists can tell their lies, can't we at least tell the truth?
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
© Selwyn Duke
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
