The role of armed resistance and guns in the Black Freedom Struggle is one of America's hidden histories. The mainline Civil Rights Movement was publicly non-violent: this was essential for Dr. King's strategy of public shaming and provocation. It is also important to note how the Black Freedom Struggle's demands were/are remarkably centrist while simultaneously being radical in opposition to American Apartheid.

If it was widely known by the white American public that the Black Freedom Struggle included a component of armed self-defense (which included the Deacons for Defense, Rob Williams, other groups and individuals, and how even Dr. King's home contained firearms for his own protection) the moral certainty and superiority of the movement over the defenders of Jim and Jane Crow would have been jeopardized.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to discuss that hidden American history during a great conversation with Professor Mark Grimsley on the podcast series for my site We Are Respectable Negroes (WARN).

Over the last few weeks, the left and right-wing media have discovered the role played by armed resistance in the Civil Rights Movement (and longer Black Freedom Struggle) with the release of Charles Cobb Jr.'s new book This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible.

Media as varied as NPRThe RootAlternet, as well as Right-wing propaganda operations such as Hot Air and Breitbart, have reacted with a mix of surprise, fascination, and joy to Cobb's observation that:

I'm very much concerned with how the history of the southern freedom movement or civil rights movement is portrayed. And, I'm very conscious of the gaps in the history, and one important gap in the history, in the portrayal of the movement, is the role of guns in the movement. I worked in the South, I lived with families in the South. There was never a family I stayed with that didn't have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others, that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe and all you have to do to understand this is simply think of black people as human beings and they're gonna respond to terrorism the way anybody else would.
The novelty of Cobb's claims about black armed resistance are compelling because they stand against a white washed, childish, and flat version of the Civil Rights Movement, a narrative which robs it of complexity and ignores the radical politics that were the movement's beating heart.

In reality, as part of the long Black Freedom Struggle with origins dating back to the 17th century, the war against Jim and Jane Crow was an insurgency that involved many different actors, agendas, and theaters of struggle. Americans like simple stories; the effort to fold the Black Freedom Struggle into liberal consensus politics necessitates that some of its aspects are emphasized while others are left as footnotes and books known mostly by historians and archivists.

The Right-wing media's interest in Charles Cobb Jr.'s book This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed reflects a broader political agenda that fetishizes guns and is determined to sacrifice America's children on the altar of the gun gods. However, because contemporary conservatism is mated with white supremacy, such a relationship and idealization of "negroes with guns" does not neatly cohere.

The Gun Right's effort to stop any effort at reasonable gun control--or to treat gun violence as a preventable public health problem--finds cover behind the nobility of the Civil Rights Movement. If lions and American icons such as Brother King, the Freedom Riders, and other resisters can be somehow linked to the gun, then to criticize "gun rights" is "racist", and by extension a crime against human "liberty" and "freedom" as couched in the struggle against Jim and Jane Crow.

The facts are not kind to the Gun Right's insincere efforts to piggy back off of the Black Freedom Struggle. Movement conservatism has embraced the Neo-Confederacy and its language, ideology, and symbolism of Jim and Jane Crow. The white racists in the South are now solidly Republican.

Movement conservatism's racist bonafides in the post civil rights era and the Age of Obama are many (see: Birtherism; voter suppression; the Southern Strategy; the embrace of the Confederate Flag; the language of "Secession" and "nullification"; overt white racial appeals and "dog whistle politics"; etc.).

In all, the White Right and the Tea Party GOP of today are more likely to have used guns against African-Americans (and others) who were fighting for their rights in the Civil Rights movement than to have been marching with them.

For example, research on racial attitudes, gun ownership, and concealed carry laws has revealed a clear relationship between symbolic racism and racial animus by whites towards African-Americans. Here, white gun owners and supporters of concealed carry laws are more likely to be racist towards black people.

As a complement to the above findings, it is important to highlight how stand your ground laws are both racist in their application and enforcement, and are part of a long tradition of de jure and de facto rules and practices which empowered and enabled whites in the South and elsewhere to use guns as a means of controlling, terrorizing, and murdering people of color in order to maintain a white supremacist racial order.

Movement conservatives and the Gun Right like the idea of black freedom fighters with guns in the abstract. They do not like "negroes with guns" as neighbors. Nor, does the White Right embrace the principles and goals of the Black Freedom Struggle that armed resistance during the Civil Rights Movement helped to sustain and protect.

The knot of hypocrisy, racism, and conservatism is not easily untied.

Consider the following.

If two black men in the "New Black Panther Party" were a source of white rage and terror on Fox News and throughout the Right-wing media echo chamber, imagine the panic and "threat to national security" hysteria that would be ginned up if Cliven Bundy and his goon squad of "freedom fighters" were African-American.

The Gun Right's sick and twisted fantasies of white masculinity often involve using guns to stop "black" criminals and to suppress "urban uprisings".

As such, the online sewers of the White/Gun Right have produced such gun porn as the widely read "How America's Cities May Explode in Violence" in which "brave" white men with firearms protect suburban domesticity from blood thirsty rioting crowds of blacks and Latinos who are running amok because their food stamps and welfare monies have been suspended.

One does not have to think very hard about how the narrative surrounding the Trayvon Martin case would have been inverted by the White Right and the Right-wing echo chamber if Martin was armed and stood his ground against George Zimmerman, a man who hunted down and killed him for the "crime" of walking while black in a white neighborhood.

The Gun Right is part of a network of relationships that comprise movement conservatism in the post civil rights era. This alliance is tied together by hostility and racism towards people of color. A thinking and critical person should be immediately suspicious of any efforts by the White Right to claim ownership over, or to praise, any aspect of the Black Freedom Struggle. Why? The freedom and full equality of African-Americans is antithetical to the deep investment in white supremacy and white privilege which sustains and gives life to movement conservatism and the Tea Party GOP in the Age of Obama.

 

Once again, the Right-wing in America shows us who they really are. We should not be surprised.

On Monday, the "serious" thinkers at the Heritage Foundation hosted a panel on the faux Benghazi scandal. A Muslim-American woman named Saba Ahmed dared to ask a question about the panel's stereotypical assumptions regarding people of her faith. They harangued and bullied her. The Benghazi fetishists in the audience clapped with approval.

American movement conservatism is racist and xenophobic. In a healthy political society, the treatment which Ahmed received at the Heritage Foundation would be an outlier. It is not. Bigotry and racism are the trademarks and brand name of the Republican Party in the Age of Obama. To deviate from those values would cost the Republican Party the support of its voters.

The ugliness of the Tea Party GOP and its media is now expected by the America people. Thus, there is no consequence or substantial punishment for their bad behavior. Moreover, because of the extreme political polarization that the Right-wing media has helped to nurture, create, and expand, there is a whole public which embraces such bad behavior as proof of ideological purity and virtue. Compromise and civility are markers of weakness for the authoritarian bullies on the Right. Normal politics is imperiled because the basic principles that make it possible are no longer mutually shared across the divides of party and ideology in the United States.

Saba Ahmed's treatment at the Heritage Foundation has been much-discussed. However, the more interesting, and I would suggest even more important aspect of Monday's events, is the role played by panelist Brigitte Gabriel.

People buy the sizzle not the steak. Pointing out the ugly Islamophobia of the American Right-wing as exemplified by the Heritage Foundation's panel on Benghazi is easy and satisfying.

The more useful task is to detail who the players and participants are in a episode of political theater. Because politics is professional wrestling, every member of the show has a role to play.

The role can be explicitly detailed and told to the participants on a panel, news show, rally, or like event. The participants' performance can also be a direct reflection of their temperament, track record, and style.

The most "entertaining" moments in political theater are likely a function of both those variables.

Brigitte Gabriel, born Nour Saman, is a professional bigot and bomb thrower. Brigitte Gabriel's own (and some say discredited) personal life story as a Lebanese Christian whose family was threatened by "Islamic militias", gives credence and legitimacy to her Islamaphobia and hatred.

Brigitte Gabriel is proof of my observation that like black conservatives, women who hate feminism, and gays and lesbians who hate themselves, one of the easiest and fastest ways to become rich in America is to be a member of a marginalized group and to publicly criticize and disparage said group for the benefit of the Right. Professional excuse-making for the bigotry of movement conservatism is great work if you can get it.

Brigitte Gabriel's guiding principles in that role are summarized by her quote that she speaks up for, "what many in America are thinking but afraid to say out loud, for fear of being labeled a racist, bigot, Islamophobic, or intolerant."

Brigitte Gabriel is the character she embodied on the Heritage Foundation panel.

It is rumored that mafia hit man and serial killer"The Iceman" Richard Kuklinski was initially hired to be a leg breaker and debt collector. However, Kuklinski so enjoyed violence and hurting people that he was not able to moderate and control his behavior. Killing was joy for him.

The Right-wing propaganda machine deploys the likes of Brigitte Gabriel as the tip of the spear for their racism and bigotry in post civil rights America. The verisimilitude of her anti-Muslim bigotry is real because she is being herself "with the volume turned up".

[Saba Ahmed's role in the theater that was the Heritage Foundation panel, and Republican politics more generally, is very curious as well.]

"Public opinion" is not natural. It is shaped, massaged, and manufactured by elites and other actors. If the American people want to understand why the public discourse has become so ugly and coarse, and the political system so broken, they will need to ask basic questions about the players and stars in the show. Suspension of disbelief by the audience is the foundation, the buy-in, for a good and entertaining movie, play, TV show, or book. When pushed to the extreme, such a habit is a disservice to the common good and a healthy political culture and society.

The masses are asses. They were not necessarily born that way, someone had to teach them to behave in such a manner.

Earlier this week, I outlined how the Right-wing media will use Goebbels' principles to lie about and obfuscate the basic facts regarding the Las Vegas white supremacist shooters. Right-wing media "watchdog" and "advocacy" group Accuracy in Media took the bone dangled in front of them: apparently, Jerad and Amanda Miller are actually "Left-wing" "liberals" because they support the legalization of marijuana, and any effort to connect them to movement conservatism is a ploy and trick by the "liberal media." Cliff Kincaid offers up the following Right-wing comedy-propaganda:

John Avlon’s dishonest column on the cop-killers in Las Vegas should be studied by journalism students as an example of how to exploit a tragedy for political purposes. It is a shame he gets on CNN as an “analyst,” which gives him undeserved authority and prestige, when he deliberately confuses and misleads people. In this case, he tried to blame conservatives for the murders of two policemen. His Daily Beast column carried two titles, one of them being, “The Bonnie and Clyde of Ultra-Right Hate.” He said Jerad and Amanda Miller killed two metro cops while shouting, “This is a revolution!,” and then they “flung the Tea Party’s favorite coiled snake Gadsden flag and a swastika on the still-warm corpses and then moved to a nearby Walmart to murder a shopper before turning the guns on themselves.”
The reference to the Gadsden flag being “the Tea Party’s favorite” was an obvious effort to link the Tea Party to the murders. The flag dates back to the American Revolution and is used by various groups and people to protest Big Government. Miller’s notion of “Big Government” was a government that interfered with his marijuana smoking. A simple search of stories about his background revealed a series of confrontations with law enforcement over his drug habits.
Avlon wrote that Miller’s Facebook pages “detail a descent into a murderous rage, railing against a tyrannical government and parroting talking points from fright-wing radio hosts such as Alex Jones and militia movement groups such as the Three Percenters while ‘liking’ the pages of conservative activist groups ranging from the Heritage Foundation to Freedom Works and the NRA. Miller’s profile picture was a skull wearing an American flag bandana against a backdrop of crossed knives over the word ‘Patriot.’”

To lie so consistently and so brazenly takes a remarkable amount of discipline. I commend Cliff Kincaid for his efforts. Once again, groups such as Accuracy in Media demonstrate that the Right-wing echo chamber is akin to a trough urinal where a bunch of men with small penises are complementing each other on their "huge" lingams while mixing the streams of their pee together.

The Right-wing media is following a script designed to satisfy and make comfortable its authoritarian viewers. As such, the Right-wing echo chamber attracts ignorant people whose ignorance is in turn amplified and reinforced by the "news" sources they watch, read, and listen to. Goebbels is smiling. He wrote the playbook. It is hiding in plain sight for anyone who chooses to read it.

What shall we do with the white people...again?

I ask that question when white men commit mass shootings. I ask that question when Right-wing domestic terrorists kill innocent people. It is unfortunate, that in the aftermath of Sunday morning's murder spree by two white supremacists in Las Vegas, I am forced, once more, to ask said question.

Mass shootings by white men, as well as Right-wing domestic terrorism, have become events akin to those in the classic comedy Groundhog Day.

Unfortunately, there is nothing humorous of funny about how white Right-wing domestic terrorists have shot up Jewish community centers, planted bombs, seen a spike in their numbers since the election of Barack Obama, are coddled and encouraged by the Fox News echo chamber and the Republican Party, and now--with Tea Party regalia, Nazi bonafides, yelling "this is a revolution!"--they kill three people during a brazen daylight attack on Sunday in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Las Vegas shooters were so contemptible that even the racist welfare king Cliven Bundy, and his band of anti-Obama brigands, apparently felt that they were too "radical" for their low tastes.

The Right-wing echo chamber helped to spawn the mass shooters named "Jared" and "Amanda".

Birtherism, an embrace of the neo-confederacy, a worshipful attitude towards the Confederate flag (i.e. "the American Swastika") and the CSA, along with an open embrace of anti-black affect and white racial resentment in a concerted effort to delegitimate the United States' first black president, are the "polite" face of American white supremacy in the first decades of the 21st century.

The Republican Party is a white identity organization.

Complementing this claim, social scientists have highlighted how the Tea Party, a herrenvolk organization motivated by white racism under the guise of "taking our country back"--which begs the question "from who?"--creates a sense of white racialized self-interest among its members. Moreover, Tea Party organizations are a way for "old school" white supremacists to recruit new members from the angry white men (and women) who constitute the more extreme elements in the Republican Party.

The Las Vegas murder spree is a clear act of domestic terrorism by members of the White Right.

Of course, the Right-wing media and its acolytes will find a way to spin and distort the facts.

"Jared" and "Amanda" placed the Gadsden flag, what is now a Tea Party icon, on the body of one of their victims; the shooters yelled "this is a revolution!" while committing murder, a seditious slogan that echoes within the Right-wing echo chamber; Nazi paraphernalia was found in their home; and the Las Vegas shooters sought out a natural alliance with Cliven Bundy and his thugs.

The Right-wing media machine will re-frame the Las Vegas shooting spree in keeping with the principles outlined by Joseph Goebbels and his genius insights about how to manipulate the mass public.

The Fox News echo chamber will chose to either:

1) ignore the events in Las Vegas;
2) highlight those tragic events as an example for why concealed carry gun laws should be the rule of the land;
3) offer the default answer: this is all somehow Barack Obama's fault;
4) advance a lazy, intellectually bankrupt, and morally empty deflection: black people in Chicago shoot each other all the time!;
5) argue that these people are "sick" and "crazy", so why are we even talking about their politics?;
6) lie and commit an intellectually rapacious and craven assault on the historical record by suggesting that white supremacist Nazis are in fact really "liberals".

The most fringe elements of the Right-wing media machine and its base will default to a standard script wherein the white supremacist Las Vegas murder spree is presented as a "false flag operation", one conducted by "liberals" to discredit conservatives with the goal of undermining "gun rights".

When Richard Hofstadter's timeless and brilliant work on "the paranoid style" in American politics is mated with Right-wing bigotry and "conspiranoid" delusions, no ready antidote is available.

Racism and conservatism are the same thing in the post civil rights era. They are the beast with two backs: the American people will need more than a garden hose to stop their deranged coupling.

Alas, all that reasonable folks who care about the Common Good can ask is, once more, what shall we do with the white people? And when will there be a "national conversation" about white people, guns, mass violence, and Right-wing domestic terrorism.

I know that the answer is "never". The humanistic and patriotic concerns driving the question remain nonetheless.

What shall we do with the white people...again?

I ask that question when white men commit mass shootings. I ask that question when Right-wing domestic terrorists kill innocent people. It is unfortunate, that in the aftermath of Sunday morning's murder spree by two white supremacists in Las Vegas, I am forced, once more, to ask said question.

Mass shootings by white men, as well as Right-wing domestic terrorism, have become events akin to those in the classic comedy Groundhog Day.

Unfortunately, there is nothing humorous of funny about how white Right-wing domestic terrorists have shot up Jewish community centers, planted bombs, seen a spike in their numbers since the election of Barack Obama, are coddled and encouraged by the Fox News echo chamber and the Republican Party, and now--with Tea Party regalia, Nazi bonafides, yelling "this is a revolution!"--they kill three people during a brazen daylight attack on Sunday in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Las Vegas shooters were so contemptible that even the racist welfare king Cliven Bundy, and his band of anti-Obama brigands, apparently felt that they were too "radical" for their low tastes.

The Right-wing echo chamber helped to spawn the mass shooters named "Jared" and "Amanda".

Birtherism, an embrace of the neo-confederacy, a worshipful attitude towards the Confederate flag (i.e. "the American Swastika") and the CSA, along with an open embrace of anti-black affect and white racial resentment in a concerted effort to delegitimate the United States' first black president, are the "polite" face of American white supremacy in the first decades of the 21st century.

The Republican Party is a white identity organization.

Complementing this claim, social scientists have highlighted how the Tea Party, a herrenvolk organization motivated by white racism under the guise of "taking our country back"--which begs the question "from who?"--creates a sense of white racialized self-interest among its members. Moreover, Tea Party organizations are a way for "old school" white supremacists to recruit new members from the angry white men (and women) who constitute the more extreme elements in the Republican Party.

The Las Vegas murder spree is a clear act of domestic terrorism by members of the White Right.

Of course, the Right-wing media and its acolytes will find a way to spin and distort the facts.

"Jared" and "Amanda" placed the Gadsden flag, what is now a Tea Party icon, on the body of one of their victims; the shooters yelled "this is a revolution!" while committing murder, a seditious slogan that echoes within the Right-wing echo chamber; Nazi paraphernalia was found in their home; and the Las Vegas shooters sought out a natural alliance with Cliven Bundy and his thugs.

The Right-wing media machine will re-frame the Las Vegas shooting spree in keeping with the principles outlined by Joseph Goebbels and his genius insights about how to manipulate the mass public.

The Fox News echo chamber will chose to either:

1) ignore the events in Las Vegas;
2) highlight those tragic events as an example for why concealed carry gun laws should be the rule of the land;
3) offer the default answer: this is all somehow Barack Obama's fault;
4) advance a lazy, intellectually bankrupt, and morally empty deflection: black people in Chicago shoot each other all the time!;
5) argue that these people are "sick" and "crazy", so why are we even talking about their politics?;
6) lie and commit an intellectually rapacious and craven assault on the historical record by suggesting that white supremacist Nazis are in fact really "liberals".

The most fringe elements of the Right-wing media machine and its base will default to a standard script wherein the white supremacist Las Vegas murder spree is presented as a "false flag operation", one conducted by "liberals" to discredit conservatives with the goal of undermining "gun rights".

When Richard Hofstadter's timeless and brilliant work on "the paranoid style" in American politics is mated with Right-wing bigotry and "conspiranoid" delusions, no ready antidote is available.

Racism and conservatism are the same thing in the post civil rights era. They are the beast with two backs: the American people will need more than a garden hose to stop their deranged coupling.

Alas, all that reasonable folks who care about the Common Good can ask is, once more, what shall we do with the white people? And when will there be a "national conversation" about white people, guns, mass violence, and Right-wing domestic terrorism.

I know that the answer is "never". The humanistic and patriotic concerns driving the question remain nonetheless.

The Right-wing media machine cannot resist an opportunity to connect the 70th anniversary of D-Day with the faux Bergdahl “scandal”.

The Right-wing media is comprised of various elements such as think tanks, websites, social media, talk radio, and of course, Fox News.

Their collective goal is to disorient the American people by creating an alternate reality for conservatives—one that exists separate and apart from empirical reality--while advancing their political agenda.

My claim is not conjecture: research has shown that watching Fox News actually leads its viewers to be less informed about current events, as well as less knowledgeable across a range of other issues.

As such, the Right-wing media’s desperate efforts to smear Barack Obama are obvious and lazy.

For example, on Friday the Drudge Report and the Right-wing "news" site Weasel Zippers featured a story about how Barack Obama was shown—oh the horror!—apparently chewing bubble gum at some point during the D-Day ceremonies in France.

For the White Right, Barack Obama is an illegitimate black usurper who stole “their” White House. Thus, all of his actions stink of “incompetence” and “disloyalty” towards the United States of America.

No effort is too great for the White Right in its "struggle" to "take their country back".

In the post civil rights era, the Republican Party is sick with white racism; movement conservatism is intoxicated by white supremacy. For that political imagination, the gum chewing black president is “disrespectful”, “arrogant”, “low class”, and “uppity”.

The “black dandy” man child cannot, by definition, be President of the United States of America.

Historically, “their” country was white by law. Slavery and white supremacy were birth defects of the Constitution and Founding. Jim and Jane Crow remained the rule of the law until they were torn down by the Black Freedom Struggle.

As made clear by both their rhetoric and behavior since the election of Barack Obama, the White Right is desperate for a return to that world of white lies, white dreaming, white violence, patriarchy, female subordination, and white domination over people of color.

The National Review participated in the Right-wing media's "smear Barack Obama on D-Day" campaign as well.

They managed to find a disgruntled D-Day veteran at the anniversary celebrations in France.

Mr. George Ciampi declined the White House’s invitation to attend a private meeting with President Obama honoring America’s D-Day warriors. When queried by the National Review about his non-attendance at the event, Mr. Ciampi responded in the following way:

George thought about it for awhile and concluded he just couldn’t. “I have so many issues with the president’s policies, including the most recent ones,” he told me ruefully. “I just couldn’t convince myself to do it.”

He is not alone. The recent Bergdahl prisoner swap in which five hardened Taliban terrorists were released from prison is rubbing a lot of the military veterans attending D-Day events the wrong way. “It’s not that we don’t want to respect the commander-in-chief,” one told me sadly. “It’s just that he makes it so hard to do so.”

The members of the “Greatest Generation” are the most loyal consumers of Fox News and the Right-wing media.

Its fictions of Birtherism, “Benghazi”, the Tea Party political Right-wing paraphilia, clamors for impeaching Obama, histrionics about “Obamacare” and “death panels”, and now the “Bergdahl scandal” have sucked them into a dreamworld.

Sadly, too many members of the Greatest Generation are victims of a disinformation campaign that would have made Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for the Nazi Party, proud, validating his dictate that:

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

Goebbels’ rules for propaganda are the foundational principles and reason d’etre driving the Fox News Right-wing media.

Furthermore, Goebbels suggested the following rules for manipulating the public:

Black rather than white propaganda must be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

Propaganda must be carefully timed.

The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment.

A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness.

Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.

They must evoke responses which the audience previously possesses.

They must be capable of being easily learned.

Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

Inevitably, some readers will retreat to "Godwin's Law", crying foul, that a reference to the Nazis was evoked in a discussion of the Right-wing media machine.

Protests and complaints do not by themselves invalidate a claim.

Fox News's slogan is "fair and balanced". In reality, their coverage of the news is neither fair nor balanced. More broadly, the Right-media tells its devotees that they are offering the "truth", acting as an “antidote” to the liberal media. But, there is no liberal media, only a corporate mainstream media.

The Right-wing media presents itself as an antidote against “liberal bias”. In reality, the Right-wing media is a toxin to American civil society and the public sphere, poisoning them through extreme political polarization and disinformation which is designed to generate rage and alienation among voters.

The rage which is created by the Right-wing media machine is not unfocused: it is directed at some type of Other such as people of color, the poor, working classes, immigrants, women, gays and lesbians, Muslims, etc. who are depicted as enemies of "real (white) Americans".

It is unfortunate that the Greatest Generation were able to beat the Nazis and their allies during World War 2, but in so many ways their clear thinking and common sense have been defeated and broken by Fox News and the Right-wing media machine.

Goebbels must be smiling.

I have written a series of essays about Elliot Rodgers.

In the 24/7 news cycle, topics are treated with drive-by grace: they are discussed briefly and then the next “if it bleeds it leads” subject is the object of focus.

I have continued to write about Elliot Rodger because his murder spree is a concentrated example of so much that is wrong with American society: gun culture, consumerism, racism, woman-hating, crude sexuality as power without an appreciation for the erotic, White Supremacy, broken masculinity, a failed mental health system, and white privilege are channeled through his tortured life and gross actions.

There is a satisfaction that comes with “connecting the dots” about an issue of public concern in a way that garners acknowledgement and affirmation from the public and those in the pundit classes.

However, there is also a sickening sadness that comes with being correct about the nature of an event--how White Supremacy and whiteness hurts white people and others--that had death and destruction as a result.

Here, I wrote about how the mainstream media has, quite literally, white washed the Elliot Rodger saga, subsequently ignoring his manifesto, to remove any reference to how White Supremacy and internalized racism were major factors in his murder rampage.

My observation has been echoed and built upon by several other writers (most notably a recent piece in Al Jazeera by Dexter Thomas). Nevertheless, it remains an outlier opinion.

As evidence of how our discussions of the role that internalized white racism played in Elliot Rodger’s murder spree, and the mainstream media’s gross neglect in discussing such an obvious fact, I point to the NY Times' piece "Before Brief, Deadly Spree, Trouble Since 8".

There, the authors offer a rich and compelling narrative about Elliot Rodger’s mental health issues that led to his killing six people near Santa Barbara, California.

How many times is racism or internalized White Supremacy mentioned in the Times' recent story? Zero.

Moreover, the photo accompanying The NY Times’s story features a picture of Elliot Rodger, as a child, with his hair dyed blonde. Rodger’s hair color is presented as a curious fact, one unmoored from the larger context of his life, and the decision to kill people in a misogynistic and racist rage that he wrote extensively about in his diary.

Elliot Rodger desperately wanted to be a “fully white” man. As he detailed in his manifesto, he both idealized and idolized Whiteness.

And as he wrote in his manifesto, Elliot Rodger’s decision, with parental consent, to change his hair color to “look less Asian” is dead center in the mania that drove a self-hating white Asian to kill.

The mainstream American news media reproduces the white racial frame and the White Gaze. In addition, the American news media also helps to socialize citizens into a set of values about “appropriate” values and beliefs about the nature of social reality.

The decision makers in the American news media are also overwhelmingly white and male.

As a fact, this is not necessarily a problem. However, to the degree that such an arrangement results in a narrow, distorted, and myopic view of social reality which reinforces Whiteness and White Supremacy, those demographics can be extremely dangerous to the Truth.

Was there a pitch meeting where the role of racism and White Supremacy in the context of Elliot Rodger’s murder spree was discussed and then discarded? Who knows? In the writing of "Before Brief, Deadly Spree, Trouble Since 8", did a junior editor point out the obvious contradiction and question posed by a picture of a self-hating Elliot Rodger with blonde hair and a story which does not mention his internalized racism? I am unsure.

The famous sociolinguist Noam Chomsky has written extensively and persuasively about how the mainstream media's coverage of events is constrained within a narrow set of rules and scripts about what is considered “appropriate” for the public discourse. These rules do not need to be discussed in order to be acted upon. They exist, are understood to be real, and like many manifestations of Power, make themselves known by virtue of the consequences felt by those individuals who dare to bend or break them.

In the post civil rights era, a moment when a black man is President of the United States of America, it is acceptable for the mass media to discuss incidents of gross and ugly racism. On some occasions, a smart and especially talented journalist can find a way to sneak a discussion of institutional racism into the public discourse: Ta-Nehisi Coates' recent piece about the crimes committed against black Americans by their own country is one such example.

Yet, to talk in an honest and direct fashion about the role of race, White Supremacy, and aggrieved white male entitlement in mass gun violence remains outside of the boundaries of what constitutes “polite” public discourse.

I would like to be able to laugh as I watch American opinion makers avoid discussing the influence of internalized White Supremacy and racism in Elliot Rodger’s wicked and evil behavior. In all, they are avoiding the role of white racism in Elliot Rodger’s behavior almost like it is a hot rivet that has fallen down the back of their shirts while innocently walking past a construction site manned by buffoons.

In avoiding the fact of White Supremacy’s relationship to Elliot Rodger, the mass media is offering up a racialized version of classic comedy routines by The Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy.

I want so very much to laugh. I cannot. Why?

I am concerned and worried about the mental and spiritual well-being of my white brothers and sisters and how White Supremacy does so much harm to too many of them. In that sentiment, I am like most black and brown Americans; I am their best friend because I am willing to tell them the truth when others are not.

Once more and again, what is The NY Times, and the supposedly "liberal" media, afraid of in their reporting about Elliot Rodger? Why are they running away from the role that White Supremacy and internalized racism played in his deeds?

The 24/7 news cycle is not interested in finding the truth about a given matter, and then subsequently offering up useful information that can in turn be used to create an educated and informed electorate.

Instead, the mainstream corporate news media is driven by superficial discussions of topics of public concern that can drive ratings.

As I wrote here and here, Elliot Rodger should be a focal point for a discussion of broader issues about race, gun violence, gender, and mental health issues. Apparently, those most obvious concerns and questions are verboten on the Right...and even among some on the "Left" who have internalized the norms of "colorblind" racism.

Neither white conservatives nor white liberals want to talk seriously about white privilege and Whiteness as it relates to Elliot Rodger: it would seem that both sides are largely in agreement about the necessity of protecting the nobility and innocence of Whiteness and White Masculinity.

I am fascinated by how race has not been more central to the mainstream media's discussion of Elliot Rodger's murder rampage. By comparison, the conversation about Elliot Rodger and gender is much more sharp and enlightened.

However, there has not been, with a few exceptions, a focused discussion of how Elliot Rodger, a white Asian, internalized white racism and White Supremacy against people of color, and then acted upon it through misogynist violence.

Nor have I witnessed a conversation in the mainstream media about Elliot Rodger, the question of "mixed race" identity, and the specific mental health challenges around self-esteem and anxiety which some members of that group may experience because of their "racial" identities.

My claims are precise and careful: I am not arguing that self-identified "mixed-race" or "biracial" people are more prone to mass shootings, gun violence, or the like. No. The data do not support such a claim.

Rather, I am interested in how the media is not talking about how Elliot Rodger, a version of the tragic mulatto figure, a self-hating Asian-American with deep levels of internalized racism, had those feelings mated and mixed with (likely) preexisting mental health issues, and then committed mass murder based on his racist and sexist motivations.

The mass media seeks out simple explanations for complex problems. As such, discussions of race and racism are flat, ahistorical, and lack nuance. In the case of Elliot Rodger, it would be both easy, and also a public service, for a news program to feature a panel discussion with psychologists, historians, mental health practitioners, anti-racism activists, and (other) social scientists to discuss how internalized racism can lead to violence.

I am transparent. I have dated and loved across the color line. I did so without apology or regret.

One of my rules for a long-term relationship with someone who is not black is that we must eventually have a conversation about the racial identity of our potential offspring.

I am a Black American. My children will be Black Americans. Regardless of the "racial" identity of their mother, our/my/her children must be given the spiritual, intellectual, emotional, moral, and philosophical armor to navigate a white racist society. I have that basic obligation as their father.

Those children will be black and may have a white, Asian, Hispanic, or First Nations, mother. One identity does not make impossible the other. Ultimately, I would consider myself a failure as a father if my "mixed race" child came home, confused that someone called him or her a "nigger", as they imagined themselves to not be a black person.

Did Elliot Rodger's parents give him a talk about survival strategies, race, and identity in a manner appropriate for his life as an Asian-American man?

More generally, why is the mainstream media not discussing questions of internalized white racism and mental health?

Elliot Rodger was/is a white man.

For some people, this fact is very controversial and upsetting.

As I wrote in 'The True Alpha Male': The Santa Barbara Mass Shooting, Elliot Rodger, and Aggrieved White Male Entitlement Syndrome, when the bad behavior of white people is publicly called to account, said person’s relationship to “Whiteness” is rarely discussed.  

To be forced to include white mass murderers, madmen, and Right-wing domestic terrorists as part of the tribe is very uncomfortable and disconcerting.

This is understandable: what reasonable person would not want to excommunicate them from their community and affinity group?

Only white folks have such a luxury in the United States: a black rapist, thief, or murderer is de facto a representative of “the black race” with its “bad culture” and “pathologies”. There is no parallel for whites. The white murderer, thief, rapist, or mass shooter is an outlier, “mentally ill”, or some type of deviant whose behavior reveals nothing about white people en masse.

The boundaries of Whiteness and white privilege are heavily policed: bad people are “them”; good people are “us”.

Part of the appeal of “race” as a heuristic device and decision-rule is how it offers simple answers to complex social questions.

Despite what white supremacists and their allies would like to believe, race is a social construct with little to no biological basis. There is one race: the human race. Human beings have not existed long enough to be divided up into distinct breeds like dogs.

In the West, a person’s “blood quantum”, phenotype, or skin color has been, and continues to be used to calculate their location within a society’s racial hierarchy.

Stereotypes and assumptions related to behavior can also be neatly triangulated relative to race as well.

The question “what are you?” is often less an existential matter about consciousness and agency, than an effort to locate a given person within a society’s racial order.

The phrase “he or she ‘looks’ ‘Asian’, ‘Black’, ‘Hispanic’…” is a quick shortcut and decision-rule for slotting people into an arbitrary racial group—with the incumbent benefits and liabilities that come with that group membership.

Thus, the frustration/fascination when a person’s perceived racial identity does not match up with the stereotypes and expectations that dominant society projects onto them.

Race is complicated. Race and racism have a history. Both are inventions. They are not natural arrangements of power between groups of human beings. Consequently, race is a combination of law, day-to-day practices, “common sense”, arbitrary distinctions, habits, culture, “science”, and norms which have power over life chances.

As such, conceptions of race and racial identity reflect the political and social questions of a given era: they are a type of social witchcraft and mysticism.

For example, because of the “one drop rule”, a black American can get on a plane, fly to Brazil, and then magically be transformed into a “white” person because that country’s racial norms dictate that “one drop” of white blood makes you anything but “black”.

Likewise, during the American slave regime and then Jim and Jane Crow, a “black person” could move between races (literally crossing over from black to white and back to black again) by crossing state lines.

South Asians are darker in complexion than many if not most Black Americans. Yet, they are considered “white”, i.e. “Aryan” in terms of racial classification.

Over several generations “non-white” European immigrants such as the Irish, Italians, Slavs, Poles, Jews, became fully “white”. In the present, new research is calling attention to how Hispanic-Americans are increasingly choosing to identity themselves as “white”.

How do we locate Elliot Rodger within this complex story of race and identity?

Like gender, race is a type of performance.

It is a performance which can be sincere, authentic, stereotypical, deviant, natural, subversive, grotesque, beautiful, or ugly.

For example, there are about 40 million different ways to be black. This includes the young person who has internalized the ugly lie that he or she is “acting white” by being a serious and responsible student. By comparison, “acting black” also includes the studied grace, dignity, and black respectability of Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America.

There are likely as many ways to perform race (and ethnicity) as there are people in the United States.

The immigrant who is going to assimilate by being even more “American” than his native born fellow citizens, the “white negro” who acts “black” in order to upset his parents or to be “cool”, the Sikh who dresses up like Captain America in order to challenge narrow conceptions of who counts as an American, the Red State rural white voter who drives a pickup truck, watches NASCAR, and displays the Confederate flag, as well as the white suburbanite who is desperate to earn their WASP bonafides by joining a country club and going to the “right” schools, are all, in their own ways, performing race.

Race, gender, class, and sexuality are the dominant socio-organizational categories in American and Western society. They are the social and political air we breathe; to ignore how those categories influence our lives and personal identities is to deny empirical reality.

Elliot Rodger constructed an identity for himself as “Eurasian” and proceeded to internalize American society’s cues and lessons about power, privilege, race, and gender. He then lived out his own particular understanding of what it means to be white and male in the United States.

Elliot Rodger demanded and expected power and control over others. He saw respect from others not as something earned but rather as a birthright. Elliot Rodger’s life is the very definition of unearned privilege and advantage. In his desperate search for validation and affection from his white father, he projected and acted on a particular type of elite, dominative, aggressive, white masculinity and sense of entitlement.

While some would like to focus on the fact that he has an “Asian” mother as leverage for discounting his Whiteness—one of the intellectual weak spots of the White Right and the race science crowd is an obsession with “pure races”, which are non-existent, yet remain an intellectual fixation for white racists—Elliot Rodger was performing white masculinity as he understood it.

Whiteness is an identity based upon maintaining a superior power relationship over people of color.

Whiteness is not just a reflection of “biological race” or assumed racial group membership by virtue of parental or family lineage. Whiteness is a political project with its own set of values and normative assumptions about how society should be organized.

Elliot Rodger’s diaries contain numerous examples of white racial animus and hatred towards people of color. He wrote that black people were a lower type of human being:

“How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more.”

He was disgusted that his “racial inferiors” had access to white women. People of color were basically “kaffirs” to him--inferiors to someone of his racial stock.

Elliot Rodger wrote online how:

"Today I drove through the area near my college and saw some things that were extremely rage-inducing. I passed by this restaurant and I saw this black guy chilling with 4 hot white girls. He didn’t even look good. Then later on in the day I was shopping at Trader Joe’s and saw an Indian guy with 2 above average White Girls!!! What rage-inducing sights did you guys see today? Don’t you just hate seeing these things when you go out? It just makes you want to quit life."

Elliot Rodger also felt no sense of linked fate or affinity with Asian-Americans: his identity as a “white” man, with “white blood” pulsing in his veins, elevated him above those he considered “lowly” Asians.

He also disparaged an Asian man who posted pictures of himself with a white woman:

"Full Asian men are disgustingly ugly and white girls would never go for you. You’re just butthurt that you were born as an asian piece of shit, so you lash out by linking these fake pictures. You even admit that you wish you were half white. You’ll never be half-white and you’ll never fulfill your dream of marrying a white woman. I suggest you jump off a bridge."

Elliot Rodger’s particular version of white male identity dictated that he was superior to people of color in all ways—and the greatest offense was their not respecting his control over and access to white women’s bodies. Dominance and power over people of color was one of the central ways that Elliot Rodger understood his identity as a man.

Elliot Rodger both idealized and idolized Whiteness and White Masculinity.

Rodger wrote in fawning and obsessive language about his desire to be accepted among the “superior” white men who had sexual access to the white women he coveted. Elliot Rodger dyed his hair blonde in order to look more like a white person.

In describing that experience, he wrote how:

"This revelation about the world, and about myself, really decreased my self-esteem. On top of this was the feeling that I was different because I am of mixed race. I am half White, half Asian, and this made me different from the normal fully-white kids that I was trying to fit in with. I envied the cool kids, and I wanted to be one of them. I was a bit frustrated at my parents for not shaping me into one of these kids in the past. They never made an effort to dress me in stylish clothing or get me a good-looking haircut. I had to make every effort to rectify this. I had to adapt.

My first act was to ask my parents to allow me to bleach my hair blonde. I always envied and admired blonde-haired people, they always seemed so much more beautiful. My parents agreed to let me do it, and father took me to a hair salon on Mulholland Drive in Woodland Hills.

Choosing that hair salon was a bad decision, for they only bleached the top of my head blonde. When I indignantly questioned why they didn't make all of my hair blonde, they said that I was too young for a full bleaching. I was furious. I thought I looked so silly with blonde hair at the top of my head and black hair at the sides and back. I dreaded going to school the next day with this weird new hair.

When I arrived at school the next day, I was intensely nervous. Before class started, I stood in a corner franticly trying to figure out how I would go about revealing this to everyone. Trevor was the first one to notice it, and he came up to me and patted my head, saying that it was very "cool." Well, that was exactly what I wanted. My new hair turned out to be quite a spectacle, and for a few days I got a hint of the attention and admiration I so craved."

He was happy that his hair and features were not like that of those other racially marked, and to his eyes, inferior “full blooded” Asians. The first victims in his murder spree were his Asian roommates, men whom he considered weak and vulnerable. In many ways, Elliot Rodger’s manifesto is a love letter to Whiteness and white people. Like a spurned lover or obsessive fan, Elliot Rodger turned on them because he did not feel fully accepted by his racially idealized and idolized community as a “real” white man.

The cultural economy of sex and race played an important role in Elliot Rodger’s obsession with white blonde women.

White women are among the most protected classes of people in the United States. White women are also represented as the most desirable and attractive type of woman by the mass media. Elliot Rodger’s fixation on “blondes”—as an idealized female form—reflected the lessons about race, sex, and desirability that he learned as a young man in American society.

It is important to highlight how Elliot Rodger was not obsessed with women in general. He did not fixate on black women, Asians, or Latinas. Rodger’s fetish for white blonde women reflects broader (white) American (and global) cultural norms: colorism remains a powerful force in black and brown communities around the world.

Elliot Rodger’s sexual obsession exists within a broader social context. Recent research at UCLA-Berkeley has revealed how black women are considered the least desirable potential partners on online dating sites such as OK Cupid. And although black women are more likely to be victims of kidnapping and assault, crimes against them (and other women of color) are grossly under-reported by the mainstream news media. By comparison, what has come to be known as “missing white woman syndrome” is a trope that dominates news coverage.

Elliot Rodger’s obsession with white blonde women was an extension of a type of white masculinity that views white women and white femininity as prizes to be desired, protected, objectified, and controlled.

Wait a minute! Elliot Rodger’s mother was Asian! How can he be white!

These predictable (and tired) objections reflect a desire for simplicity in how race is conceptualized and discussed.

Whiteness is malleable.

Elliot Rodger is a white man with an “Asian” mother. Allowing for how race is constructed in a very different way for African-Americans, Barack Obama is a black man with a white mother. Moreover, Rodger’s Asian ancestry would be of no concern if he did not commit mass murder: there would be no reason for those who police the boundaries of Whiteness and white privilege to jettison him from the clan.

However, Elliot Rodger’s “Asian” identity could be central to solving the puzzle that is his violent and murderous masculinity.

Asian men are routinely depicted in a feminized and asexual manner by American popular media. In the American racial imagination, Asian men have variously been the source of moral panics about “white slavery”, stereotyped as alien Others and traitors, or as sexual deviants (see the recent Hangover movies and the "Leslie Chow" character). Historically, American masculinity has been inexorably tied to a particular type of “rugged”, “independent”, and “robust” type of white male identity.

Elliot Rodger, as detailed by his manifesto, was enraged that he could not reach the epitome of white masculinity that American society has constructed as unattainable for someone racially marked (and stigmatized) as Asian.

Roger’s search for “alpha male” status left him in a state of racial limbo.

He embraced Whiteness as a set of values, habits, and beliefs; Elliot Roger thought of himself as a type of white man.

African-American literature has a stock character called the “tragic mulatto”. In some ways, Elliot Roger is a parallel type of figure: he lacked a properly integrated sense of racial self and identity. He was/is a tragic “mixed race” white Asian who worshiped Whiteness, yet could not attain it in the manner, and to the degree, he desperately desired.

Most important, Elliot Rodger embodies the worst aspects of American society.

He was easily able to purchase a gun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition which he then used to kill six people. Once more, the fetish for the gun, and a perverse gun culture that links gun ownership to masculinity, led to murder.

Elliot Rodger was a misogynist and a sexist.

Elliot Rodger’s hatred of women drove him to kill because he felt denied his “natural” right to control women and men’s access to their bodies.

Elliot Rodger was a racist. He felt that he was superior, by virtue of his parentage and over-identification with Whiteness, to African Americans and other people of color. Elliot Rodger’s embrace of Whiteness—as de facto white supremacy—fueled and legitimated, in his mind, a murder spree because his racially privileged rights of birth were denied him.

Elliot Rodger was empowered by classism and a profound sense of entitlement and power over those he deemed “beneath” him. Just as some members of the American 1 percent believe that they are imperiled, and thus facing some type of “Holocaust” and “oppression” at the hands of the “takers”, Elliot Rodger was the ideal-typical spoiled brat, born on the 3rd base of life, yet angry at the world because he thought that he in fact had hit a home run.

Elliot Rodger was rageful because he was denied, at least in his mind, his natural place in the American social order as a rich white man. Aggrieved white male entitlement syndrome led him to commit murder.

As an astute commenter wisely noted on the social media site Twitter, there are many landmines in America who are similarly primed and ready to explode.

Are the American people ready and prepared for more Elliot Rodgers? And how will too many of its citizens explain away the ugly synergy that is racism, classism, guns, and sexism when it kills again?

As I often ask, "what shall we do with the white people?"

When an "Arab" or "Muslim" American kills people in mass they are a "terrorist". When a black person shoots someone they are "thugs". When a white man commits a mass shooting he is "mentally ill" or "sick".

Whiteness and white privilege are the luxury to be an individual, one whose behavior reflects nothing about white people as a group.

There will be not be a national discussion of a culture of "white pathology" or how white Americans may have a "cultural problem" with their young men and gun violence. The news media will not devote extensive time to the "social problem" of white male violence and mass shootings.

Elliot Rodger, a rich, white, entitled, young man allegedly shot and killed (as he apparently hunted them down) six women while driving his BMW around Santa Barbara, California late last night. Like Adam Lanza, this would appear to be a case of aggrieved white male entitlement syndrome, one which has led to a murderous and tragic outcome.

I have written about what I term "aggrieved white male entitlement syndrome" onseveral occasions.

In a complementary manner, William Hamby offers up a sharp synthesis of how rage and white male privilege come together to create monsters:

Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel (2010) proposed a mechanism that might well explain why white males are routinely going crazy and killing people. It's called "aggrieved entitlement." According to the authors, it is "a gendered emotion, a fusion of that humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back. And its gender is masculine." This feeling was clearly articulated by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre. Harris said, "People constantly make fun of my face, my hair, my shirts..." A group of girls asked him, "Why are you doing this?" He replied, "We've always wanted to do this. This is payback... This is for all the sh*t you put us through. This is what you deserve."

At the risk of getting too existentialist, I'd like to propose a very simple and elegant explanation for not only school shootings but a host of other barbaric acts in recent years: White men are having a crisis of both aggrievement and entitlement. One need only look at the 2012 election season to see less brutal but equally mind-numbing examples of white men going mad because they are losing their power. The "Republican Meltdown" is a perfect example of men who previously had all the control escalating to madness when that control was lost...

The thing is, losing power hurts. That's the "aggrieve" part of aggrieved entitlement. It's one thing for a bunch of white men to feel hurt because they are no longer the kings of their own private castles, rulers of all they survey. It's another thing for them to feel like they're entitled to power, and more importantly, entitled to punish others for taking it away. And that -- aggrievement plus the feeling of entitlement -- is what may well drive people like Adam Lanza to these horrific crimes.

Elliot Rodger apparently explained his rage and "alpha male" bonafides as reported by police officials in the following way:

"Bill Brown, the Santa Barbara sheriff, said that “written and videotaped evidence” obtained by the authorities “suggests that this atrocity was a premeditated mass murder”.

“There’s going to be a lot more information that will come out that will give a clearer picture of just how disturbed this individual was,” he added.

Asked about the specific video by Rodger, the sheriff, called it “evidence that we believe is connected to this crime”.

In that recording, Rodger spewed forth his plans to wreak murderous revenge for his failure to find a girlfriend. “Tomorrow is the day of retribution,” the man said. “The day in which I will have my revenge against humanity.”

After detailing how “girls have never been attracted to me,” he threatened to “slaughter” members of a college sorority house – a group for female students - and then “take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there”.

In comments interspersed with sickening laughs and chuckles, he said: “I’m 22 years old and I’m still a virgin. I’ve never even kissed a girl.  

“College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. But in those years I’ve had to rot in loneliness. It’s not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me. But I will punish you all for it.”

“I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male."

And just as in Adam Lanza's case (and others) there will be no "national conversation" about why white men are 30 or so percent of the United States population and approximately 70 percent of those who commit mass shootings.

Any brave soul who dares to talk about white masculinity, white privilege, and gun violence will be hounded by the Right-wing's dogs--a media machine that cares nothing for the truth. Many otherwise decent, smart, and fair-minded white folks may also recoil at the thought that Whiteness and White Masculinity can be dysfunctional and violence. When an entire social structure has been erected to reinforce the lie that white folks are "normal", and those "Others" are "deviant" or "defective", it can be very difficult to break out of that haze of denial. Such an act requires a commitment to truth-telling and personal, critical, self-reflection which Whiteness, by definition, denies to most of its owners.

White privilege and Whiteness hurts white people. Aggrieved white male entitlement syndrome is killing white folks' children, wives, daughters, sons, fathers, and mothers. Yet, White America stands mute.

Again, what shall we do with the white people...especially if they are so unwilling to help themselves?