Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers

White Women Bad...

Although the media has always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today. We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.  Standards are out the window, I mean you read one story after another or hear it and it’s all based on one anonymous administration official, former administration official. That’s not journalism, that’s horseshit.

—Lara Logan, former “60 Minutes” correspondant, gang-raped in Egypt

“Powerful journalism on tap,” a self-congratulatory motto, is what the Boston Globe considers the product of its  journalists, who seem to be mostly ideology spinners, as opposed to unbiased rude-truth tellers. Now and then, I challenge the spinners.  “Black Racists with Press Badges” is one of those challenges, rejected by the Globe.  It concerned an anti-white racist op-ed authored by Renée Graham, assistant editor/columnist for the Globe.  Graham did not respond to it.  However, Marjorie Pritchard, Daily Op-Ed Page Editor, briefly responded:  

Since this is a direct rebuttal, I will forward it to our letters editor, Matt Bernstein, for consideration. Renée’s piece appeared in our opinion section. 

Bernstein did not respond.  For me, it seemed scandalous that an assistant editor for a newspaper, Graham, could continually write anti-white racist op-eds without being reprimanded.  For Pritchard, however, it was somehow excusable because, well, Graham publishes her racist diatribes in the opinion section.  Graham is a local Eugene Robinson (Washington Post), who also constantly scribbles unchecked anti-white, racist op-eds. Graham’s latest white bad/black good column, “White Women: from Slave Owners to Trump Voters,” argues: “Despite months of polls, few predicted that a majority of white women would shun Hillary Clinton in favor of a racist and misogynist who bragged about his non-consensual grabbing of women’s vaginas and faced multiple accusations of sexual assault and misconduct.”  Graham fails to wonder why those white women should have instead supported a proven corrupt political hack instead.  Not a word is mentioned about Hillary’s continuing saga of unaccountable corruption (e.g., bleach bit, the foundation, and the Mueller probe).  Also, Graham seems to believe that “accusations,” especially when they fit her narrative, are the equivalent of unquestionable guilt.  

When one is devoid of cogent counter-arguments, one tends to reach into the arsenal of ad hominem.  That’s what the Grahams tend to do.  The idea of “white supremacy,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility” has become an obsession for those like Graham, and obsessions always blind the obsessed to reason and facts apt to counter the obsession.  The latest Graham op-ed is an account of an interview with (a book advertisement for) black assistant professor of history (University of California at Berkeley) Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers, author of They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South, apparently required reading for Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, Democrat-party blackface poster boy.  Graham, of course, does not mention the latter’s connection to that party, which is evidently her party.  

Jones-Rogers shares the same anti-white bigotry as Graham and states, “I see time and time again in my research that when white women are given a choice, they overwhelmingly choose to be empowered by whiteness, and to embrace white supremacy.”  Now, what does that even mean?  And why did white woman Elizabeth Warren not do that?  Affirmative Action preference treatment, that’s why!   And might some black women like Jones-Rogers and Graham choose “to be empowered” by blackness, and to “embrace” black supremacy?  And where are the statistics to back the Jones-Rogers’ assertion?  And why doesn’t Graham, as a journalist, pose that question?

Jones-Rogers argues that “A small majority, but nevertheless an important majority of white women embraced Trump and what he stands for—embracing, ultimately, white supremacy.”  Sadly, she provides no concrete proof of that claim.  Graham does not demand such proof and declares, “With each election post-mortem comes the same refrain: a majority of white women vote against their own best interest.”  In other words, Graham’s is nothing but a Democrat-party-line monologue in which somehow identity politics, pc et al constitute the “best interest” for white women.  Ah, but Jones-Rogers argues, “They’re making a choice, and the choice is to invest in white supremacy.  They’ve drawn a line, and the line is a racial one.”  In other words, vote against the Democrat party, and somehow you vote for “white supremacy.”  Might the Democrat party today therefore be the party of black supremacy?  But clearly in the South, it was once the party of white supremacy and slavery.  Have the Grahams and Jones-Rogers forgotten KKK Senator Robert Byrd hugging Hillary?

But the Grahams and Jones-Rogers will rarely if ever evoke the reality of slavery because that reality inevitably upsets their rigid black good/white bad ideology.  They will not mention the many black slave traders and even slaveholders (over 1,000 in Louisiana), the relatively few whites who held slaves (5% or less), and the whites who were slaves.  After all, the term slave comes from Slav.  The Slavs were white!  

Graham praises:  “With her book, Jones-Rogers captures the echoes of what happens when America’s greatest atrocity — and who participated in it — is deliberately misunderstood and unchallenged.”  But again who participated in it?  Who are deliberately misunderstanding it, if not Graham and Jones-Rogers?  Whites and blacks, though relatively few of both races, participated in it!  The Democrat party had wanted slavery to continue.  Graham fails to mention that!  The Republican party ended slavery thanks to armies of mostly white soldiers.  Graham fails to mention that!  After all, white bad, black good. 

Graham joyfully agrees with Jones-Rogers’ assessment that white women “were not passive bystanders.  They were co-conspirators.”  Some white women were co-conspirators, NOT all white women, as that sentence seems to infer.  Just how difficult would it have been to add the word “some” to it?  “That’s also what they [white women] were, centuries later, when they helped put Trump in the White House,” concludes Graham, whose logic is severely crippled.  Ideology always cripples logic.  Graham needs to somehow open her hermetically-sealed (racist-obsessed) mind and let reason enter into it.  She needs to denounce black supremacy and black participation in the slave trade and the existence of non-white slavery today in Africa.  Sadly, she will likely not do that.  Hardcore ideologues rarely change.

Finally, the divide is ever increasing in America, thanks to the Grahams and Jones-Rogers and their identity politics ideology, to the point where perhaps only one solution exists.  Intense left-wing indoctrination with its tools of censorship, banning, and shaming has been the purported solution for quite a while.  But indoctrination, no matter how severe, cannot seem to eliminate truth.  Numerous examples of its failure to do that exist from the USSR to Cuba, China, and North Korea.  Perhaps the only solution today is to divide America, once and for all, into two separate nations:  a nation of freedom and a nation of left-wing indoctrination.  Many free slaves formed a separate country in Africa:  Liberia.  Why did they leave America?  Or rather why did many others not leave America?  And what has become of black-ruled Liberia today?  The Grahams and Jones-Rogers use the past—distort the past—, to stoke the flames of dissension… and by doing so maintain the power they wield.  The Grahams and Jones-Rogers are examples of black privilege, black fragility, and probably black supremacy.   (Thankfully, all blacks do not think as they do.)  They have voice.  We, the plebes, do not.  This counter op-ed will likely not appear in the Boston Globe for that precise reason.