Alt-Facts of The Alt-Left

2. Institutional Racism.

As part of my series on persistent lies, told by the left, I’m writing about something that will inevitably lose me a few friends. And that’s institutional or systemic racism. This concept that the world is inherently rigged against people of color, and that all the major instruments of society exist to benefit straight white men is nothing new. And in days gone by it was to an extent true. Before the civil war, women’s suffrage, universal enfranchisement, civil rights and anti-discrimination, there were certainly many organizations and cultural institutions set up to benefit white men, and those that didn’t were at least benign in their affect on white men’s lives. But 160 years of reform has changed things. To suggest otherwise is so insane it’s hard to full fa

If you’ve had the misfortune of reading any leftwing publication like HuffPo, Salon, Jezebel or any other intersectional toilet paper in the past few years, you’ll no doubt have heard of “institutional” or “systemic” racism. If you’re lucky enough to have avoided these, allow Sri Lankan born British race activist, A. Sivanandan to sum it up. “Institutional racism is that which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions — reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn.” And “If racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or practices, that institution is racist whether or not the individuals maintaning those practices have racial intentions.”

Did you get that? According to the regressive left, for policy, institution or practice to be racist, all it takes is the outcome to have disparate affects on different races.

By this rational anything could be considered racist. Lets say tomorrow a law is introduced. One person, let’s call him John abides by it, the police leave him alone and he goes on with his life. While another we’ll call Paul, doesn’t abide by the law and is sent to prison or fined. By the rationale of the regressive left, if John is white and Paul is of a different race, it’s racism. If Paul is Paula, it’s sexism. If Paul was born a woman, transphobia. It Paul has a crush on John, Homophobia. It’s utterly absurd.

To be honest you can stop reading here if you like. I’m just going to prattle on with a whole lot of evidence after this, but if you’re interested….

The Evidence

What Evidence?

Traditionally in western society, when it comes to evidence, as usual, the regressive left is light on hard, quantifiable stats, entirely devoid of reproducible studies, and even disturbingly lacking in verifiable examples. Even by already pathetically low evidentiary standards of the regressive left, this topic is remarkably low on verified examples.

When asked for evidence or examples of systemic racism, they usually try to shift the question and get into vague ideas of invisible prejudice, perceptions and stick to emotional appeals, anything to avoid a discussion of substance or addressing the elephant in the room. And that elephant is there are no laws in America that are explicitly or implicitly racist towards black or Latino people. (There are some the actively disadvantage Asian American, but more on that later)


When pushed they use isolated incidents, some based on faulty reporting and misinformation, and every so often they manage to find case with clear and apparent racism, using it as an example of a broken system. Regardless of whether the individuals involved were punished for their wrong doing, they will dig in their heels, claiming, without any evidence that this happens every day. In their mind, this rare case we heard of is the norm, we simply haven’t heard of the rest.

In today’s media environment, in which every death of a black man at the hands of law enforcement creates a media firestorm and ratings bonanza. Why The NY Times or CNN would ignore such a case apparently isn’t a question they deem worth answering. Once again they have drawn the conclusion that the existence of fringe racists demonstrates that society as a whole is racist, even when these racists are condemned by the media and society at large.

So regardless of how society reacts to these rare occurrences, the fact that any member of society might harbor problematic views condemns us all. It’s worth noting these same people would blow a fuse if you find any link between Islam and violent jihadism, in spite of the fact that a very significant minority of Muslims support the actions of fundamentalists.

Unfortunately, these leftists ignore what are undoubtedly the most pertinent factors and behaviors Black and Latino Americans are more likely to engage in that lead to harsher sentences. They seem to believe that White, Black, Latino, Indian and Asian Americans are all behaving exactly the same way, but this is simply not true.

Statistically, if you have a White and a Black defendant in front of a judge for the same crime, their circumstances and past will have significant impact upon the way the judge will administer the punishment, and none of these are racial. These include character assessments, sentencing guidelines for multiple felonies, and likelihood to reoffend. These are applied on a case by case basis, and not by skin. So when one segment of the community is statistically more likely to be involved in exploits and activities that carry stiffer punishments, the result in a disparity in sentence length between the races is to be expected. And this is due to the difference in behavior and culture that exists in our society, not the difference in skin tone.

For example, if the black and white defendant are charged with the exact sam crime, the white defendant is statistically more likely to be employed, have finished high school, have private counsel, have character witnesses, be a first time offender, and have family in attendance. He is also less likely to have resisted arrest, have been arrested in the past, have been involved in a violent crime in the past, have lied to police in the investigation, have drugs, unlicensed weapons or open containers of liquor on their person at the time of the arrest for the crime in question and less likely to have committed the crime in the presence of children.

Beyond that, when looking at offenders facing a judge overall, black defendants are more likely to be facing charges that carry minimum sentences and more likely to be involved in a gang. Naturally, these also drastically increase the length of the sentences that these offenders receive as opposed to the perpetrators of other crimes.

Now the influence of socioeconomic circumstances on the individuals undoubtedly plays a role in why they commit crimes that result in these increased penalties, but that does not mean it is racist.

In spite of that evidence, they tend to simply claim that although that may be true, the reason that the laws that carry stiffer punishments affect minorities more, is due to racism. So they point to laws and policies that have lead to large numbers of black and latino people being imprisoned, at a rate far higher than white people. The fact that these minorities could simply not break these laws and that would prevent them from being imprisoned for violating them.

Crack vs Cocaine

A law that is often used as an example of institutional racism, disparity in sentencing guidelines between crack cocaine and cocaine. The guidelines recommend and in some cases compel, judges.treat 1 gram of crack cocaine in the way they would 12 grams of powder cocaine. In the past this ratio was as high as 100 to 1. This is often misinterpreted to mean that between somebody caught with 1 gram of crack cocaine, will receive 12 times the fines and prison time as someone found with a gram of cocaine hydrochloride. It does not. But it is undeniably treated far harsher.

They argue this ratio exists to punish black people because crack is most often consumed in low income black communities, where as powder cocaine is widespread amongst the white elite. Now of course the laws contain no explicit references to race, skin color or culture, as any law or government institution found to be prejudiced would immediately be dissolved by the Supreme Court. Likewise, any police officer, district attorney, judge, legislator or anyone else in the employ of the state is constitutionally forbidden from considering race in policing, charging and sentencing.

Another significant fact often overlooked by the left, is that it was mostly black mayors, black churches, black majority city councils and community leaders, who first called for and lobbied to increase the severity of sentencing in crack cases. And they didn’t do it to punish their own community. In 80's and early 90's when crack arrived in their communities, they saw the social and economic fabric of their neighborhoods being ripped apart and sought the assistance of the justice department and Presidents George HW Bush and Bill Clinton to fight the epidemic.

Most importantly, and contrary to contemporary leftist doctrine, crack cocaine is substantially different to powder cocaine. It is consumed and sold in a way drastically different to powdered Coke, has a far higher propensity to cause overdose and a significantly lower entry level price point. None of these factors are a result of race.

Stop and Frisk

No policing procedure has garnered as much opposition from the left as New York City’s infamous “stop and frisk”. I’m fairly confident the vast majority of Americans would fail to name another police policy or procedure. The policy has been so misinterpreted and distorted that it’s origins, legality, usage and most the fairness of its application.

Contrary to the belief often held by liberals and just about everyone outside of New York, “stop and frisk” is not a law, and it wasn’t first implemented in the aftermath of 9/11. In fact, New York and the NYPD weren’t even the first city or police department to have a stop and frisk policy. But most important of all misunderstandings and incorrect information, it is not racist, and was not used to unfairly target minorities. That said, there were certain officers and even whole stations in which racism and profiling was rapant.

Officially, “stop and frisk” in NYC was known as the “Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for weapons.” with the legislation and guidelines for its enforcement and implimentation found in section 140:50 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law. The legal precedent for the procedure was established in the case of Terry vs Ohio. This case enabled the police to perform what is often called a Terry stop; in which and officer may temporarily detain, frisk and question an individual, without probable cause to arrest, if the officer has a reasonable to suspicion the suspect may have committed, be in the process of committing, or intending to commit a crime, or when questioning any member of the public for the officers own safety. It is for this reason that stop and frisk is considered a search for weapons which are illegal to carry under most circumstances in New York City.

I have read the Terry Vs Ohio ruling, and the New York criminal procedure law 140:50, neither of which contain any mention of race. So where does this meme of racist “stop and frisk” come from? As is often the case with left wing activism, a misinterpretation and massive oversimplification of the data seems to be the route cause of this belief. But extremely irresponsible distortion of that same data and reckless obfuscation of the actual law and procedure by Black Lives Matter activists has created the vitriolic resistance to the practice. The tragic irony of this misinformation, is that it has created more animosity and distrust between police and young black men. This in turn has increased the number of police involved deaths of the same young men these activists purport to protect.

On every level government, it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their race, gender, age or sexual preference.

There are a few exceptions. The first group are designed to protect the group being discriminated against. For example, people over the age of 35 can’t join the military. And until recently, women couldn’t either, and gays couldn’t be openly gay.

The other exceptions are the broad and reaching regarding affirmative action laws and title IX education laws and guidelines. Without exception, these are designed to benefit women and minorities.

Affirmative action laws were brought in after civil rights to help black people enter organizations that did, back them, have long histories of systemic discrimination. And given these organizations included colleges, government bodies, fortune500s and non-government bodies that received taxpayer money, many believed their needed to be systems in place to proactively ensure they did not discriminate. Back then, without exception they were top down hierarchies, with enormous discretion over who they admitted, ran by all white boards, so it’s easy to see why people thought additional protections were necessary. But this is no longer the case.

In 2017 a black kid to get into college with grades that no white or Asian kid would even stand a chance with. These bodies are ran by mostly liberals and are socially rewarded for finding and promoting women and minorities.

Title IX laws were originally designed to ensure colleges weren’t discriminating against women’s sports. But somehow they have morphed into a bizarre series of laws and guidelines used to expel male students for even the accusation of sexual wrongdoing. Even when the male student is proved entirely innocent, if he’s white, and the complainant is a woman of color, you can bet your ass he’ll be expelled.

So with all these structures either favoring minorities or neutral, why do people still believe the system discriminates? What’s happened here?

People have confused a history of racism with racism. They have confused inequity with inequality. The believe that if two people end in a different place, they must have had different rights and privileges. But ask yourself, have you ever heard of two siblings who grew up in the same house, and one ended up more successful as the other? But the rationale of the left, one sibling must have had different rights and opportunities and has nothing to do with how they used their rights and opportunities.

And there are an endless list of people happy to make a buck perpetuating this lie. And they do well, TV shows, book deals, movie deals, massive speaking fees, and paid to appear as a pundit and for profiles on cable news. Far too many are even paying themselves huge wages from nonprofit organizations they set up to rob well intentioned, unsuspecting fools.

Franschesca Ramsey of MTV and Comedy Central who pushes the narrative of the evil cisgender straight white male(like her husband) destroying America, free speech, hair and food and helped push MTV to place where they made this garbage video. make the dumbest most hateful video.

Liberals will defend anyone, no matter how despicable provided they wear a hijab and are a little bit ethnic.

Linda Sarsour, one of the founders of the women’s march who the New York Times call the Brooklyn Homegirl in a hijab.

While she claims to be a fighter of islamophobia, a feminist and advocate for racial equality, a cursory look at her statements and actions reveal something else altogether. She has relentlessly attacked Islamic reform advocate and humanitarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Even calling for her to have her genitals removed, knowing full well Ayaan was a victim of female genital mutilation as a child.

She has also praised Saudi Arabia’s Sharia Law and treatment of women, condemned Israel and claimed you can not be a feminist and support Israel. Even though Israel is the only nation in the Middle East in which women have full and equal rights to men. Basically, she has proved the worst of the Alt-Right conspiracies to be accurate. Liberals will defend anyone, no matter how despicable provided they wear a hijab and are a little bit ethnic.

Shaun King, the possibly white black activist is no stranger to controversy. His charities mysteriously lost all the money. Money he raised to help save black lives. In a lengthy post he denies any involvement and poorly attempts to account for everything. I could less about the fact he seems to be white, it’s his endless lying, race baiting and shifting the blame to white men that is cause for concern.

The day after the Election, and on Inauguration Day, he tweeted and retweeted false story after false story about supposed bigoted Trump supporters attacking innocent minorities.

Of course, as was obvious to anyone who isn’t completely biased that these people were liars or trolls creating hoaxes. But Shaun has drank so much of his own cool-aide, he believes this crap. In his world he’s black, he’s oppressed, roaming bands of thugs in red hats are ripping of hijabs, drinking Red Bull, murdering black guys, culturally appropriating hip hop culture and banning women from leaving the kitchen.

He’s either insane, incompetent or the most cynical man on earth. Yet for reasons I’ll never understand, people still trust and listen to this charlatan.

Honorable mention to Black Lives Matter founder Johnetta Elzie who suggested the shooting of 5 police officers in Dallas was a false flag operation.

Tiffany Melecio who interrupted a vigil for the 49 victims of the Orlando shooting to chastise the crowd for attending the vigil but not her rally’s. She was also scared to speak, because the crowd was white.

Yusra Khogali, BLM toronto founder who shut down a gay pride parade and refused to let it start up again until the organizers promised to never allow police floats. Because she seems to believe there are no gay cops, or cops who support the gay community, or cops who aren’t vicious murderers. She also called the ultra liberal Canadian Prime Minister a white supremacist and called all white people subhuman. All in all another great person.

So where do we go from here? How do we resolve issues of race when the loudest voices in the room have a vested interest in telling us that problems are worse than they are? When clowns and psychopaths are respected more than scientists and civil rights activists? We tell the truth. Even when it’s uncomfortable and it loses you friends (like this post will undoubtedly lose me). Because why be friends with someone you don’t trust enough to be honest with.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.