Pilloried
March 1, 2019
THE Virginia governor’s wife leading students around the governor’s mansion made the mistake of asking a teenager to imagine the experience of a slave:
The tour guide handed raw, prickly cotton to some young black students who were part of a group visiting the oldest operating governor’s mansion in the country, one that was built with slave labor. She asked them to imagine what it would be like to be a slave picking the crop.
What made the request only more shocking, a mother of one of the children said, was who was asking it: Pam Northam, the wife of Ralph S. Northam, the embattled governor of Virginia, who is trying to repair his relationship with African-Americans after a scandal over a racist yearbook photo and an admission of wearing blackface.
But, taking all this seriously if you can (more and more the news reads like it was written by bright 14-year-olds and the normal adult has to strain to adopt the same mentality and immaturity just to understand what is going on), wouldn’t Mrs. Northam have been wrong to have handed the cotton to a white student?! That would have suggested that a white person could identify with the experience of a black slave. For years there has been a praiseworthy effort to make the experiences of African slaves part of famous historic sites, such as Monticello. Now as it turns out this effort was meaningless. For even if a white person refers to the existence of slaves they have committed a moral crime.
Mrs. Northam joins the ranks of those (including her husband and a Maryland state legislator) who have been publicly berated and bullied not because they have hurt anyone, not because they have been proven to be ordinarily unfair to others, but simply because they have violated the rules of racial politics, which say that a white person must never be caught in the act of acknowledging the existence of other races except if they are pointing to the superiority of those other races.
The farther we get from slavery, the farther we get from times when people dressed in blackface, the more guilty whites become. Only whites suffer from Original Sin. And there is no sacrament to cleanse them.
— Comments —
Eric writes:
[B]ut simply because they have violated the rules of racial politics, which say that a white person must never be caught in the act of acknowledging the existence of other races except if they are pointing to the superiority of those other races.
Zman would call it “heresy” of the American religion! I love how he frames it. We have to act as if being called a racist, or a white supremacist, is like being accused of being not kosher, or not halal.
Do you care if you don’t keep kosher? I don’t. Do you care if your food is not halal? I don’t? Us whites have to start not caring when we commit heresy in the sick secular religion of multiculturalism.
Terry Morris writes:
The farther we get from slavery, the farther we get from times when people dressed in blackface, the more guilty whites become.
I have two recommendations on this ungrateful and downright absurd (and dangerous, when you get down to it) state of affairs: (1) Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society; (2) VFR’s Rules on How to Protect Yourself from Black Violence and White Political Correctness.
As to the first, I believe your statement above-cited really amounts to a variation on the “law” which I won’t attempt to improve upon for the time being.
Someone (whom I would say is on the cusp of becoming a traditionalist) recently wrote of his disappointment in the complete lack of common sense displayed by the white store clerk in Chicago who apparently didn’t notice something might be amiss when two guilty-looking, guilty-acting black men decided to ‘hide in plain sight’ the fact that they were procuring items for the commission of a crime.
Now, it is a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of white people in America have never read VFR, nor are therefore familiar with the aforementioned laws and rules. But neither need they be familiar with them in certain instances. After all, these rules were written by persons whose experiences alone had taught them the “do’s” and “dont’s” of dealing with black America.
In answer to the author’s vexation over what he (wrongly, in my estimation) deemed to be an obvious and severe shortage of common sense in the white clerk in question, I simply cited numerous recent cases in which blacks had been acting strangely and afterward became hostile and belligerent when confronted and asked to produce identification or otherwise leave the premises in question. For example: Starbucks; the several incidents on college campuses; the illegal barbequeing incident in a San Francisco park; the Kellen Winslow Jr. incident in San Diego; the incident at the convenience store in Santa Fe NM; the several swimming pool incidents, etc.; Michael Harrington and Monique Judge at THE ROOT. Need I say more? Perhaps for those unfamiliar with those two names and the publication they write for.
Harrington and Judge are very vocal and forthcoming about their hatred of white people, and their intentions to destroy as many of us as they can in lieu of the establishment of a federal law outlawing whites ‘using the police as their own concierge service,’ in Judge’s words, to unjustly harass or otherwise incarcerate the altogether righteous and innocent people of her race. Yes, you read that right. These people are actually and really lobbying for a federal law aimed specifically at whites who call law enforcement in an attempt to circumvent black criminality. In the meantime they have promised to use every means available to them to destroy any white who violates this yet-to-be enacted law.
It matters not to these two feral blacks that, e.g., the young black man in the Santa Fe case was indeed acting very strangely, as though he were casing the place, waiting for the right moment to pounce. To Judge’s polluted mind, such behavior should never be noticed by the clerk if and when it is a black man raising one’s suspicions.
Meanwhile, the attendant in question might well have prevented a robbery, or worse, by confronting this character and asking him to leave, then calling police when he became hostile and belligerent. But since she so rudely circumvented his ability to make good on his likely intentions, Ms. Judge took up the mantle and did it for him.
The teller’s identity was soon exposed, death threats and other threats of violence were soon leveled against her, and of course she was later fired from her job, all of which is becoming all too predictable and familiar in what Larry used to refer to as BRA (Black Run America). So, with respect to the store clerk in Chicago, for example, I’m hedging my bets on the greater probability that she was not oblivious to what her ‘lying eyes’ were telling her, not at all. But rather weighed the advantages and disadvantages of speaking up in a proactive way, and decided it not worth putting herself and her family through all of that aforesaid, deciding it best to remain silent instead.
P. S. Regarding the Santa Fe, NM incident, I would be remiss if I did not point out that, over the course of my adult life, I have been asked numerous times by female convenience store clerks to ‘please stay here until he leaves.’ “He,” in every case, being a suspicious looking, suspicious acting character whose behavior (particularly his hanging around in the store for no good reason) caused the several white female clerks great distress and alarm. As well it should have. In the great majority of these cases, “he” was a black man acting very strangely as I said. In every single case I did as I was asked, and in every single case it is noteworthy that “he” abruptly made his exit and went on his way as soon as he realized I wouldn’t be leaving the premises until some time after his departure.
Laura writes:
The basic problem here is not racial.
It’s religious.
I’m not sure why these incidents of black crime are relevant. The story about Pam Northam was not made into a major political issue by blacks. We do not live in a Black Run America. The issue with Pam Northam is not black violence. It is the Jewish media tarnishing “Christians.”
If Pam Northam was a transgender, she would not have been attacked by The New York Times. Her whiteness wouldn’t matter. This little faux pas, in the eyes of a black mother, would never have been made public.
Mr. Morris writes:
Maybe. We have seen liberals throw their own under the bus before, and we will see it again. As long as (s)he is white, she’s fair game. But you’re right to say we don’t (actually) live in a “Black Run America.” Blacks could not “run” America if they would. I suppose I should have made that distinction in my comment. Here is a link to a VFR entry hashing that out.
Laura writes:
I don’t believe it is true that as long as she is white she is fair game. Do you really think so?
If she was an open lesbian, she would not be fair game. If she was a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she could be as white as snow, but not fair game. If Ginsburg handed a piece of cotton to a black student, she would not have been pilloried in the press, even if the mother of the student had complained.
This is part of Jewish Run America’s longstanding campaign of defamation and revenge against Christianity. This is the only plausible explanation for the venom with which offenders like Northam are attacked. I am not saying that Northam is a pious Christian or anything. (According to Wikipedia, the Northams belong to a black Baptist church.) But that doesn’t matter. The problem is she is not anti-Christian enough.
