We live in the era of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, where lies become facts, and two plus two equals whatever our masters tell us it does. The only real difference is that the Ministry of Truth has been outsourced to the private sector – the legacy media.

The legacy media have taken it upon themselves to not only Memory Hole everything which doesn’t fit their narrative (and consciously colluded to do so), but to declare that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

Their two-year campaign of outrageous lies of “Russian collusion” was thoroughly busted, but that hasn’t stopped the legacy media from doubling-down on their truly Big Lie – that Donald Trump is a racist. Like “Russian collusion”, that claim is an utter falsehood. Even worse, the real racists in this story are the legacy media and the left (apologies for repeating myself) themselves.

Long before the El Paso massacre, Donald Trump’s political opponents accused him of sowing “division” with his “racist language”.

The US President “exploits race”, “uses race for his gain”, is engaged in a “racially divisive reprise” of his 2016 campaign, stokes “racial resentments” and puts “race at the fore”, The New York Times has reported over the past several months.

Yet Trump rarely uses racial categories in his speech or his tweets. It is the media and Democratic leaders who routinely characterise individuals and groups by race and issue race-based denunciations of large parts of the American polity.

The New York Times has less cause to point fingers than anyone. Despite her well-highlighted, years-long tirade of racist invective, the NYT appointed Sarah Jeong to their editorial board. But Jeong’s unhinged race-hate is merely par for the course in the media.

Some examples: “As race dominates the political conversation, 10 white Democratic candidates will take the stage” (The Washington Post); Trump’s rally audiences are “overwhelmingly white” (multiple sources); your son’s “whiteness is what protects him from not being shot” by the police (senator Kirsten Gillibrand); white candidates need to be conscious of “white privilege” (South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg); “white supremacy manifests itself” in the criminal-justice, immigration and healthcare systems (senator Cory Booker); “Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri” (senator Elizabeth Warren); whiteness is “the very core” of Trump’s power, whereas his “predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness” (Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic).

Liberal opinion deems such rhetoric fair comment, even obvious truth, not “racially divisive”.

Try substituting “black” for “white” in any of those, and see what happens. Actually, we already know, thanks to Candace Owens, who tried re-tweeting some of Sarah Jeong’s racist rants, and replacing “white” with “Jew”. She was instantly suspended. The left circle-jerk themselves for being “anti-racist,” when the fact is that they are racist to the core. In complete denial of Martin Luther King Jr’s “dream”, they judge everyone by nothing but the colour of their skin.

According to the academic template, to criticise a “person of colour” is inevitably “about race”. Buttigieg ran afoul of this rule after firing South Bend’s black police chief for secretly taping officers’ phone calls. The idea that the mayor fired the chief because he was black is absurd, yet Buttigieg inevitably faced charges of racial insensitivity. Likewise, advocates and the media deemed Trump’s non-racial denunciation of Baltimore’s leadership racist. Never mind that the victims of the city’s almost daily drive-by shootings are black. Race shields minority politicians from criticism.

The worst of this is not just the vile racism of the left, but that they are encouraging the very thing they claim to loathe. The more the left tells white men that their colour and their sex are their only defining characteristics, the more some white men are going to believe them.

If “whiteness” is a legitimate topic of academic and political discourse, some individuals are going to embrace “white identity” proudly…the dominant culture is creating a group of social pariahs, a very small percentage of whom — already unmoored from traditional sources of meaning and stability, such as family — are taking their revenge through stomach-churning mayhem. Overcoming racial divisiveness will be difficult. But the primary responsibility rests with its main propagators: the academic left and its imitators in politics and mass media.



Help Support Conservative Media

The BFD is truly independent News & Views. We are 100% funded by our audience. Support the Conservative Media you love today by subscribing.