Laura Ingraham has long had a reputation for overt racism. We’re sure everyone has seen what sure looked like a NAZI salute at a speech in front of a gathering of Republicans. She has been so overt that she now has to show a bit of caution when delving into racism and white supremacy, even on Fox News. She likes to bring guests on to do the actually articulate what Laura believes.

Laura knows that the rise in anti-Asian crimes is a problem because these types of situations often lead to pressure on white people to change, namely give up some of their auto-privilege in society. But again, this is so important to Laura that people have noticed and it’s much safer for her message to come from guests. But have no doubt, it is her message.

On Wednesday night, Laura used an article published in The Conversation – one which put most of the blame for increased Asian crimes on white supremacy, even in cases where the attack is perpetrated by someone who isn’t white. Ingraham snarled, “How does that work.”

Well, as Crooks and Liars points out, Laura could have read from the article and at least set the reasoning out accurately, whether Laura agreed or not. Had Laura read from the article, her audience would contemplate how “it works” this way:

White supremacy is an ideology, a pattern of values and beliefs” wrote Jennifer Ho, Professor of Asian American Studies at University of Colorado, and “anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-Black racism.” Based on her studies, she has concluded, “The dehumanization of Asian people by U.S. society is driven by white supremacy and not by any Black person who may or may not hate Asians.”

The gist of the article? Without white supremacy over Asians, there really wouldn’t be any “supremacy.” Thus, even if a Black person commits the act or hates Asians, it still all goes back to white supremacy over Asians.

Now, we have our doubts about the above argument. But Laura could have at least explained the reasoning in the article for consideration. But she didn’t do that.

In this case, Ingraham asked Federalist contributor Helen Raleigh to “explain” what Ho meant. In other words, to do the actual propagandizing. B-roll footage of “Minnesota on edge during 4th night of protests” assisted the Blacks Behaving Badly messaging.

Raleigh got right to it. She even concern-trolled about Blacks’ dignity:

RALEIGH: By blaming white supremacists for all these race-related crimes, it has two negative effects. One is it strips away agencies of both Black people as well as Asian Americans, it strips away our ability, our decision-making ability. It basically actually ends up endorsing the very white supremacist theories that those critics, you know, try to condemn. That’s one.Second is by blaming everything, every crime on white supremacy, it actually has been used by left-leaning radical activists and the politicians to justify doubling down on social justice-based policies instead of making [an] effort [at] reducing crimes so our communities are not any safer.

Umm, we have our doubts about the argument, but not based on that bullspit. That is true propaganda to whitewash white supremacy. No one blames “everything” or “every crime” on white supremacy, and even Raleigh and Laura know that, but they want that message out there because it makes every white person the victim, they’re blamed for everything. As to actual white supremacy, ah, YES, we “left-leaning” activists – who are not “radical” except to racists – YES we do use it to justify “pushing” (not doubling down) on policies based on social justice.

Do we need to point out that social justice policies would reduce crime? Across every nation, every ethnic group, every religion, etc., the only direct correlation between violent crime and a group of people is… poverty. Look at any country no matter the racial or racist breakdown. Alleviating poverty (a big part of social justice) will alleviate a lot of white, black, Asian, Hispanic, crime, all crime – that’s how to make our communities safer.

But damn if they are going to do any “justice” for “social” reasons, which is what “social-justice” means. They have managed to make it a bad word on the right. But who is against “justice” for groups of people?

Laura is against justice for groups that are not white because white supremacy and racism don’t work without keeping all others “down.”

****
Peace, y’all
Jason
[email protected] and on Twitter @JasonMiciak