Bloggers led by the Breitbart team have been hard at work researching Professor Derrick Bell, the man to whom Obama exhorted his classmates to open their hearts and open their minds – the man who Obama literally embraced, and whose books he assigned when teaching at The University of Chicago.
The picture they’re painting is not a flattering one:
Bell: USA Must Admit We’re Permanently Racist “Racism is permanent”
Barack and Michelle Obama have marinated in Professor Bell’s brand of toxic, Marxist, racialist garbage their whole lives – and it shows.
It has culminated in a Presidency that has deliberately divided the nation along class and racial lines, although Obama deceptively told America when he was running for President in 2008, that he had always been against reparations.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.
The man with a serious chance to become the nation’s first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.
“I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently.
As Doug Ross points out, race and gender quotas in “financial reform”, the DOJ’s racialist civil rights policies, and racial preferences in Obamacare are among Obama’s policies of racial division and racial preference. Reparations are clearly part of the unspoken agenda of the Obama administration, just as we feared they would be, in 2008.
Self loathing white liberals have no problem with reparations because they’ve bought into critical race theory hook, line and sinker.
As Dan Riehl explains, it is a dangerous and insidious mindset that has taken hold in broad segments of society:
The fact is, Bell and the left have been extremely successful in injecting their strain of thinking into the American mainstream; so much so, it is perhaps even now dominant. We see it as liberal, or progressive thinking. But it’s what’s beneath it that is so dangerous and wrong-headed. Emphasis mine.
One his best-known parables is “The Space Traders,” which appeared in his 1992 book, “Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism.” In the story, as Mr. Bell later described it, creatures from another planet offer the United States “enough gold to retire the national debt, a magic chemical that will cleanse America’s polluted skies and waters, and a limitless source of safe energy to replace our dwindling reserves” in exchange for one thing: its black population, which would be sent to outer space. The white population accepts the offer by an overwhelming margin….
Not everyone welcomed the move to narrative and allegory in legal scholarship. In 1997, Richard Posner, the conservative law professor and appeals court judge, wrote in The New Republic that “by repudiating reasoned argumentation,” storytellers like Mr. Bell “reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.”
That Bell and the left used parable, or allegory to inject a dangerous mindset into American law and culture was a stroke of genius. One can’t argue otherwise, as it’s been so effective. But that’s not what’s dangerous about Bell and Obama. What is dangerous is the underlying assumption upon which their thinking is based. That is, all peoples are driven by self-interest, including as groups, or races. Consequently, American whites – and American Jews – are by definition racist and no amount of reason, or logic can ever change that. Because blacks are a minority, Bell holds that they are at critical disadvantage and an Obama in the White House is the only way to combat that by compelling Americans to act in a certain manner through law and regulation.
In Bells’ eyes – and, I’d argue, Obama’s, all white Americans, including Jews, are inherently racist and will only care, help or do anything about blacks when it is in their own self-interest as whites to do so, or when compelled by government. So, when people call Bell racist (anti-white) or antisemitic, they are doing it because of the way Bell addresses and judges them as a group. That’s also what makes Bell precisely what those critics call him; it is he and his progressive compatriots, including Obama, who only see people in groups forever divided by socio-economic, racial, or other lines.
The thinking allows the self-loathing whites who have accepted the premise that they’re morally inferior to blacks, to feel morally superior to those of us that don’t accept that premise..It allows them to project their sick, twisted, racist, feelings onto a grieving person who doesn’t have a racist bone in her body.
To those of us who already believed that liberalism is a mental disorder – all of this makes a certain amount of sense.