Op Ed by James Madison of American Media Periscope
Identity politics is one of the most ugly methodologies that the malicious left uses to divide a nation whose national motto is ‘e pluribus unum’, or in common English ‘out of many, one’. The writings of both Marx and Lenin detail how to destabilize a state in order to facilitate a communist revolution. Both men wanted to pit people against each other so that they cannot unite under the banner of nationalism or shared identity and values. It is by no means any revelation to say that a nation divided against itself cannot stand and those who aspire to destroy the United States know this. A more recent figure, Saul Alinsky, wrote a book titled ‘Rules for Radicals’ which became the primer for those aspiring members of the counter culture who wanted to undermine the United States. The forward of the book even contains a dedication to Lucifer who the author sees as the first revolutionary. Mr Alinsky was a mentor to both Community Organizer Barack Obama and Graduate Student Hillary Clinton who wrote her Masters thesis on his work. Interestingly, Mrs Clinton’s thesis was titled ‘There Is Only the Fight…’ which should fairly clearly indicate the mentality of these people. Rules for Radicals dedicates substantial effort to focus upon identity established divisions. He gives the directive to ‘rub the resentments raw of a community’ which clearly shows the goal is to foment any and all points of conflict. He continues to state that an organizer, like Mr Obama was, must then ‘fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression… stir up dissatisfaction and discontent; provide a channel into which people can angrily pour their frustrations… your function is to agitate to the point of conflict.’ Yes, Mr Alinsky is the man who is admired by a former President and woman who came way too close to being President.
Given the briefest definition, identity politics seeks to force people to vote and hold views derived from their race/ethnicity/sex/etc. If that sounds like there is something askew, you have already begun to discern the problem. It makes no sense whatsoever that people who share one of the qualities mentioned must somehow arrive at the same socio-political conclusions. However, identity politics carries with it a far more malevolent corollary which is that people who do not adhere to the views that the purveyors of identity politics insist upon automatically become traitors to their own people. This is patently false as well as bizarre. Think about it in the most basic context. Does it make sense that two people of the same race who are raised in different locations, different family structures, different economic backgrounds, different religions and by parents of different values must somehow automatically arrive at the same conclusions? Absolutely not; it insults the intelligence. In fact, it clearly demonstrates why identity politics is a poison whose function is to force people into leftist political views because it is the leftists who will label and ostracize anyone who fails to obey their diktats.
Identity politics were regularly implemented at the highest level by President Barack Obama and its result have been catastrophic. In what may be a first for American Media Periscope, I will cite a CNN poll. CNN is probably the most reliable collection of leftist liars and losers on television who brainwash both of their viewers each day. On 5 October 2016, near the conclusion of Mr Obama’s second term, CNN took a poll about race relations and the results from this left wing pseudo-news outlet were still enough to indict identity politics for the pestilence it is. 54% of respondents said relations between blacks and whites have gotten worse since Mr Obama became president. Interestingly, 57% of whites believed this but only 40% of blacks agreed. How could this be possible? Here was a man who broke a barrier to become the nation’s first black President. My conclusion is simple, yet certain to generate controversy. President Obama was the Great Divider and unity and racial harmony were not his goals. Here is where you need to pay attention. Unity and racial harmony were only intended for those of a leftist political persuasion. If you need an example, find the video of the Trump Rally where CNN goes to an interview of a man named Frank Vick. The faces of the CNN hosts were shocked as Mr Vick, who is black, was wearing a Make American Great Again hat and chatting happily with the white man next to him.
American Media Periscope condemns racism of all forms but we do not accept racism by default. For example, just because a person is of a certain background, that person is not inherently a bigot. In fact, the entire concept of the United States is that something bigger than race must unite us. Remember the part about a nation brought forth ‘where all men are created equal’? Certainly it is a long road to achieving that lofty aspiration, but it is the belief in the USA as the land of opportunity where everyone has the right to aspire to whatever his or her ambitions are and to rise to a level commensurate with those people’s abilities and motivations. Additionally, if the United States was an inherently racist society, which it is not, why would the majority of our current immigrants not be from Europe? It makes no sense to suggest that incoming people would aspire to go to a place where they did not expect to have a better life than where they left.
Race is an obsession with the political left but their Waterloo came in the 2020 Presidential election. The left is absolutely unwilling to admit that President Trump gained a greater share of every demographic between 2016 and 2020 with the sole exception of… white males. They simply cannot process or admit this. It overloads their irreconcilable differences between racial obsession and reality.
In response to this, the left has postulated one of its most bizarre as well as bigoted new ideas. New York University Professor Cristina Beltran invented something she called ‘multiracial whiteness’ in an effort to explain how people of various backgrounds do not end up all voting for political leftists. She states that ‘multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color… and is a discriminatory worldview’. In common English, she is suggesting that people of color who do not aspire to leftism have been poisoned by white people which I personally find repulsive because it has the obvious implication that all whites are racist which is a lie. This is a University professor who appears to never have learned about how many whites were involved in abolitionist efforts to stop slavery, fought for the Union, how many supported or participated in civil rights demonstrations or who simply choose to have friends whom they never judge by color. Mrs Beltran’s assertion shows the she herself is the bigot.
Conservative black voices such as Candace Owens and Dr Larry Elder are persona non grata to this type of person because they have been successful in this nation and their achievements clearly debunk her hypothesis that every person of color must be disadvantaged and need political leftism to succeed. Professor Beltran would insult these examples of achievement by calling them politically white. Can you get more racist than that? If you are politically white in Professor Beltran’s eyes, you then are evil by default which I completely reject. If you need any more evidence of why identity politics is a poison, recall Candidate Biden’s claim that if a black person did not vote for him the ‘you aint black’.
Racism is human ugliness and Cristian Beltran in only making it worse in hopes of scoring more votes for her ideology. I can think of few things more untrue as well as injurious to our society and I encourage everyone to reject identity politics and proudly express the values that have made it possibly for people to come ‘Up From Slavery’, to use the title of Booker T Washington’s famous book. If Mr Washington could see this when he was writing over a century ago, he would regard identity politics as a giant step backwards into separation.