Add “Equity” To The Intentionally Dishonest Cover-Words Being Employed In Progressive Disinformation And Propaganda


Racism is Equity

Yesterday I was talking with my sister, who worked for years in the Justice Department dealing with the refugee mess, about the intentional use of “immigrant” as a word for “illegal immigrant” in order to warp political debate and confuse the public. She blames ignorant journalists, but then she is something of a progressive, and tends to the Hanlon’s Razor explanation of deliberate deception by what the U.S. now calls “journalism.”

The latest diabolical use of language to justify the unjustifiable is the media’s weaponization of “equity,” which most of the public equates with “equality” thanks to a deficient education system. Equity is the quality of being fair and impartial. In law, equity now means the judicial imposition of measures to prevent damage, as when an ex-employee who agreed otherwise is prevented from competing with a former employer.

A front page article in the New York Times a week ago read “Biden’s Efforts At Race Equity Runs Into Snags,” the “snags” being those evil racist white conservatives. “No part of President Biden’s agenda has been as ambitious as his attempt to place concerns about equity squarely at the center of the federal government’s decision-making,” we are told. But what the article, and many, many other media reports and enthusiastic pundit columns call “equitable decisions” are in fact straight up racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination is not equity and can never be equity, but we are currently under a severe brain-washing effort to make us think otherwise.

From the Times article:

In late May, Syovata Edari, the owner of CocoVaa Chocolatier in Madison, Wis., was told she would receive $50,000 from Mr. Biden’s government, courtesy of the president’s efforts to ensure that pandemic relief aid for struggling restaurants and food businesses would be distributed equitably. But three weeks later, she instead received an email that broke the bad news: The award had been rescinded thanks to a lawsuit filed on behalf of white restaurant owners that successfully challenged the program’s policy of prioritizing applications from women and people of color. The check she was counting on would not arrive. “It doesn’t surprise me that once again these laws that we fought and died for, that were intended to benefit us — to even the playing field a bit more — are being used against us,” Ms. Edari, who is Black, said, referring to the Constitution’s equal protection clause. “You can’t promise something and then take it back.”

Wow! What breathtaking confusion and hypocrisy! The lawsuit was filed because the government giving benefits to one race and gender and not another for no reason except color and chromosome distribution is a slam-dunk violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, and only a cynical and irresponsible administration seeking to create division and racial animus would represent it as otherwise. Eadari is trying to evoke “equity” Bizarro World-style by the assertion that it is “unfair” to “promise something and then take it back.” Thus, in the now routine mental gymnastics of antiracism racism, it is ‘inequitable’ to make an illegal and discriminatory pledge and not follow through on it.

The Times goes on…

“The small-business program that prioritized people like Ms. Edari was forced to change its rules last month after challenges by white Americans who say the policy is racist. And around the country, Republicans are promising to tie the president’s equity efforts to a broader culture war during the 2022 midterm elections, arguing that Mr. Biden is doing the bidding of liberal activists who believe that all white people are racist. On Capitol Hill, the $1.9 trillion relief package Mr. Biden pushed through in March, known as the American Rescue Plan, included money for health care, child care and poverty programs that disproportionately benefit minority groups, underserved communities and women.”

Being a now partisan and completely untrustworthy mouthpiece, neither the reporters nor their editors made any efforts to point out the logical and legal problems with the above, nor to avoid the bias the wording used perpetuates:

  • White Americans don’t “say” the policy is racist. A policy that favors one race over the other is racially biased—the Times is using an expanded version of “racism” that allows progressives to demonize “disparate impact”—-and not only whites have said so: check the Supreme Court.
  • “Republicans pounce!” The party will use the racial discrimination underlying Biden policies as a campaign theme because white Americans don’t like being discriminated against any more than black Americans, nor should they.
  • If the $1.9 trillion relief package Biden pushed through in March included money for health care, child care and poverty programs that disproportionately benefit minority groups, underserved communities and women, then that package is discriminatory and unequitable by definition.

The propaganda effort to make Americans think that discrimination based on race is “equity” is pure Orwell, and it is the duty of everyone who wants to preserve the Constitution to make this clear to their less language-, law- and ethics- literate neighbors.

8 thoughts on “Add “Equity” To The Intentionally Dishonest Cover-Words Being Employed In Progressive Disinformation And Propaganda

  1. Maybe the Democrats and the radical Left (but I repeat myself) should go ahead and adopt “Helter Skelter” as their theme song. That seems to be where they’re leading.

    • And DID YOU KNOW that “Helter Skelter” is the name of a roller coaster at a popular British amusement park? “When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
      Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
      Till I get to the bottom and I see you again…”

      Talk about an innocent song being perverted for a dastardly purpose…

  2. Not long ago, someone wrote to Miss Manners about how the children she used to babysit for are now graduating high school and she has been acknowledging them with cards. She asked Miss Manners if she should also send cards to their younger brothers and sisters, who she did not babysit, when they graduate, as well, so as not to make them feel ignored.

    Miss Manners apparently misunderstood the question by remarking how ridiculous the current trend is of bringing extra gifts to a party for the siblings of those who are actually having a party (apparently, it is now a thing to bring presents for siblings when going to someone’s birthday party) and she was correct to do so, but the original question ran in the same vein. The Letter Writer does not owe anyone else a present either now or later.

    I have started calling expectations to the contrary Equity Gifts which I define as:Unearned rewards given out of a misguided sense of what constitutes fairness.

    • I have an MIL and an aunt who use this very approach to birthday parties and it drives me insane. I have several children and I WANT them to see their siblings (or cousins) getting gifts and attention when they aren’t, because you learn that everything is not about you. Sure, there may be tantrums at two and three, but that is also part of life. Instead, despite my extensive protests to the contrary, they all get gifts every party, because “they are too young to understand why someone else gets a present when they don’t.”. It is no wonder to me, when this is considered the norm and appropriate parenting/grandparenting and apparently has been for years, that most people are as spoiled as they are. If we can’t even learn to accept that there are times when someone else is going to get things that we don’t, and from our parents at a young age when these things are less painfully taught, how are we ever going to handle someone else getting that raise. Envy becomes and really has become the new normal.

  3. If legislators stopped using race and gender and other demographic information as proxies for identifying who is and is not disadvantaged by social prejudice (or by the scars in society’s social connection networks from historical prejudice), they could find criteria to write laws that would accomplish their social goals while also being Constitutional and not based on racial or gender discrimination. I’m disappointed that they’re apparently to stubborn to think laterally enough to realize that.

    Alternatively, they wrote it to be unconstitutional on purpose so they could accomplish nothing and keep their constituents struggling and desperate while making themselves look good and Republicans look evil. Place your bets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.