Last year, we discussed the controversy over the acting Northwestern Law Dean declaring publicly to “I am James Speta and I am a racist.” He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced, “I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better.” The public confessions reflect the view that all white people are racist due to their race and privilege — a view contested by some as itself a form of racial intolerance or bias. Now one of Brandeis’ Assistant Deans, Kate Slater, has triggered a similar controversy after declaring “all white people are racists.” Slater is the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
Slater defines her role as helping “White people conceptualize what sustained anti-racism can look like with the ultimate goal in mind: liberation from oppression for Black people and people of color.” Ironically, this is an effort to get “white folx” not to fear critical race theory which clearly did not work with a number of conservative sites:
I have a different take on this controversy from some who have denounced Slater as engaging in simply another form of “race baiting.” I agree with Slater that we should be debating this issue. This is a view among many academics and should be respected as a good-faith understanding of the source of racism.
The problem is that critical race theorists and advocates often insist that we must have a dialogue on race but it tends to be more of a diatribe. For an academic to voice opposing views on such issues is to risk investigation, re-training, or even termination, as we have discussed in past cases. The only dialogue allowed in these sessions tends to be the willingness to accept the underlying premises rather than alternative viewpoints. Indeed, most sessions are treated as “trainings” to address “whiteness:” and “white privilege” rather than debating if this view is itself racially intolerant. The same is true at corporations like Lockheed where top executives were sent into mandatory training to address “white male culture” and “white male privilege.”
Slater says that she seeks “an understanding of race and racism through honest and frank conversations” but it is clearly a discussion premised on the assumption of all white people being racist and “whiteness” being hateful. It is designed to be more therapeutic and transformative for white people than a real debate of the assumptions and stereotypes underlying this aspect of critical race theory.
It is a loss in my view and inhibits true evolution of viewpoints and assumptions. I accept that I many be blind or insensitive to racial bias or privilege, but I have serious concerns over the bias shown in some of these lectures and supporting material.
Colleges and universities were once places where controversial subjects could be debated in a passionate but civil exchange. Assumptions were challenged and data reviewed. That is not happening on many of the issues that face us today. Certain subjects are treated as off-limits. We have been discussing the targeting of professors who voice dissenting opinions about the Black Lives Matter movement, police shootings, or aspects of the protests around the country from the University of Chicago to Cornell to Harvard to other schools. Students have also been sanctioned for criticism BLM and anti-police views at various colleges. Even a high school principal was fired for stating that “all lives matter.”
I obviously follow a robust view of free speech that is out of vogue today. I have no problem with extreme views being voiced on campus so long as schools allow countervailing views also to be voiced. For that reason, I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.
We cannot make true progress unless we are able to speak openly and freely on such subjects. Many disagree with the views of academics like Slater but few faculty members are willing to raise such disagreements openly on campus. To do so is to risk being labeled as an example of reactionary white privilege and hostility. Without such freedom to challenge underlying assumptions or viewpoints, these sessions will be viewed as indoctrinations rather than real discussions of race in society. That will serve to silence many but convince few.
I have ‘splained to you before. And I shall ‘splain to you again. There are no such things as “newspapers,” “journalists,” “schools,” “colleges,” or “universities” anymore. There are only Leftist Indoctrination Entities (“LIEs”). It’s all about the creation and dissemination of propaganda, and the destruction of freedom. That’s the principle at work in this story and in the countless others that will follow. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden, “One [such story] is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad of instances and applications?”
The great cartoon “Make Mine Freedom” explained the dangers of Leftist Indoctrination Entities. The warning in it was valid 80 years ago when “Make Mine Freedom” was created. And it’s true today: “When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.” Here’s the cartoon for your edification. Once shown in schools a long, long time ago, when education was actually a major goal of schools, “Make Mine Freedom” is, of course, banned today.
What racial privilege does the teenage son of an opiod addict have in a town without any jobs, and a school with low test scores, born to a single mother home in a trailer park? He can’t coherently string a sentence together. He probably started getting tattoos and gauges in his ears.
Is there some sort of membership card he can present to get a bunch of money? Can he get out of going to jail for dealing meth with his white privilege card? Is he going to have a successful life because he’s pale?
Judging anyone’s station in life, their character, or their finances based on skin color is racist. “White privilege” is a euphemism for racism against white people. It’s also shaded with subtle racism against blacks, because it is based upon the premise that black people can’t make it because they’re darker skinned. Latinos can get ID just fine, but Liberals think it’s just beyond the capability of a black person. An Asian or a Latino can come here with nothing, but make it to the middle class within 10 years, but black people apparently need to be supported by white people forever. White people need to pay reparations, give them their houses, let them steal from their businesses or burn them down when they get mad. Liberals think black people can’t possibly be expected to follow the law, obey police commands, not fight with police, or not riot when they’re mad.
Honestly, the racism against both whites and blacks underpinning BLM, CRT, and the ensuing tangle is appalling.
Think for yourself. You can judge someone based on the content of their character. You don’t need some Liberal to Lib-splain to you that this person is bad because they’re pale, good because they’re black, a (insert racist epithet) if they’re a black conservative, or to prevent a black person from talking to a black cop. This last is such a common phenomena that it’s regularly commented upon. A black person will start talking to a black cop, and some white Liberal will walk up and tell them not to talk to that cop.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
What racial privilege does the teenage son of an opiod addict have in a town without any jobs, and a school with low test scores, born to a single mother home in a trailer park?
The same racial privilege as the wealthiest, most-privileged White: NONE.
Any privilege any White may have comes from factors (wealth, connections, etc.) other than race. Trump
Excuse me: Donald Trump is Exhibit A for the thesis that Whiteness conveys no privilege even to a billionaire. Quite to the contrary, whiteness is a burden, much more so than it was in Kipling’s time..
Karen! I see you met my neighbors, the 2 crackheads from hell, that should have never been rented to in the first place.
Luckily, 6 months of getting jolted out of bed screaming earthquake, earthquake…to realize it’s just the crackhead living below you slamming doors and braking stuff…will give you a lot of life perspective, oddly enough.
Count your blessings, as they say.
But to be succinct, he wasn’t sporting a white privilege card, as a white male with face tats.
Maybe the white privilege came when he was beating the sh*t out of his gf and the baby was screaming bloody murder. Of course, the cops can’t even seem to get here fast enough. And she fell down mysteriously and he was just saving here.
But they’re gone now. Evicted. The woman is in rehab, compliments of State Govt CPS.
The guy needs help, therapy, rehab, brain reprogramming.
He was born to a white crackhead single mother…never had a chance from the start.
Sometimes you just don’t win the family lottery. 🤷 white, black, brown, you name it.
Anyway.
OK, parents. Think really hard. Have you been scrimping and saving to send your children to college, only for them to experience racism and harassment based on skin color? Do you want any professor who expresses bigotry or hatred towards white people to teach your children? It should be obvious that you don’t save up thousands of dollars to send your children to bad influences.
Vote with your wallets, people.
Reward universities that focus on higher education, and critical reasoning, over those who choose to become madrassas of the Woke. Your kid can learn how to be an activist on their own time.
I think I am beginning to understand CRT. Everyone is either privileged or a victim of systemic racism. Am I correct?
Yep we used to call it the class struggle of Marxism. Now we just call it by the name the new Marxists coined.
Marxists also coined a different terminology back in Gramsci’s time: victim classes and oppressor classes.
When critical race theory advocates talk about an open exchange, their sole intent is for their enemies to self identify so they can send one of their minions to kill you.
If/when civil war comes which they promote (whether wittingly or not) these university scholars, created by tax dollars in publicly supported academia, shall hopefully be the first to earn their well deserved dirt nap.
The irony is that they self-identify with never-before seen magnitude of hubris.
I refuse to identify as a “white” person on any questionnaire or form; instead, as a descendant of grandparents and great-grandparents who came to the USA from Lithuania, I check “other” and state “American” or “European-American” or “Lithuanian-American.” Depending on my mood! White is one of many colors and I don’t believe it identifies my skin or my heritage as a 2nd/3rd generation “born in the USA” person. I still recall when, as a 17 year old enrolling at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh PA, a form asked my “nationality” – and I answered “American.”
I do the same. My wife is an immigrant from Southeast Asia and I was born in the Southwestern United States. Nobody can figure out what the heck I am most of the time anyway, and trust me, these (very nearly always white, privileged, Progressive) Critical Race cowards don’t have much to say to us when we are out and about together, either. CRT is a joke, it is a cult, it is a cancer, and the leadership they claim doesn’t exist is well aware of those facts. They are the ones who are terrified, not the other way around.
Once again I say to the Professor: no, you are not blind, you are not a dinosaur. What you and those like you are, is sane.
Jonathan: One of the hardest things for an alcoholic to acknowledge is that he/she suffers from alcohol addiction. That is why at AA meetings you have to stand up and say: “My name is John and I’m an alcoholic”. The first step in recovery is to acknowledge the problem. For those who suffer from racist thinking it is the same problem. I know from personal experience. I grew up the beneficiary of white privilege. I was well into my twenties before I began to study the history of racism and how in so many ways I benefited from being white. Fortunately most young white people today don’t have blinders on like I did growing up. That’s why they joined the “Black Lives Matter” movement last year and protested the murder of George Floyd and the racist practices of police departments around the country. There is a growing awareness that racism is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. Even my three young granddaughters, barely in their teens, vocally express their opposition to racism, anti-LGBT and transgender bigotry. When they and their friends come over to the house for a swim in our pool it looks like a meeting at the UN! A lot of progress has been made but not enough.
Which brings us to the subject of your column and how the Deans and faculty at Brandeis are trying to address racism. You object to Kate Slater use of terms like “whiteness” and others you say “rankle many”. No doubt you are also rankled. Now you do make a revealing admission: “I accept that I many (sic) be blind or insensitive to racial bias or privilege”. No kidding! That said you still think the teaching about racism and white privilege suffers from “bias”. You have no problem with “extreme views being voices (sic) on campus so long as schools allow countervailing views to be voiced”. What might those “countervailing” views be you want discussed on campuses? Maybe it’s the right of conservatives to actually dispute that racism is a problem that needs addressing through the teaching of “critical race theory”? This could be the only logical conclusion of your argument. Of course, we know that racism is an existential problem in this country–in housing, education, medical care, voting, aid to black farmers–and the list goes on. Donald Trump proudly wears his racism on his sleeve by welcoming the support of white-nationalist racist groups. But Trump’s supporters refuse to accept that Trump is a “racist”. They are in denial and refuse to acknowledge their own racism. And racist GOP state legislators, are carrying out Trump’s racist agenda by passing laws to make it more difficult for Black people to vote next year and in 2024. This is in pursuit of a “white privilege” agenda that seeks to hold onto white power. And this is why the teaching of “critical race theory” is important as a disinfectant against continuing racism in this country. But like the alcoholic who refuses to admit his addiction, I don’t think you are really ready to acknowledge the problem or eschew your own white privilege.
Your zealotry blinds you. 12 stepism is cultish because it imputes to itself who is in-group, and shuns the scientific method. ‘Critical race theory’ is not a theory. It is a system of authoritarian control that functions much like a cult.
you sure like to hear yourself write…have a talk with Larry Elder…Morgan Freeman…Denzel Washington…racism ends when we STOP talking about it!!!
Let me lie you down on my couch and explain things to you. You are counting on creating racism to get rid of racism. Things don’t work that way. You also neglect to think about all those people living in this country that are white and have a history of being victims of racism. Do you honestly believe that racism only occurs to black people? Do you think BLM should destroy black neighborhoods where black people live and work? Don’t you think that is a bit unhinged?
Dennis McIntyre:
Hey Dennis there is no systemic racism in this country. Hasn’t been since the mid-60s. I defy you to point any out with names and dates. George Floyd wasn’t racism and his lawyer said so. It likely wasn’t even a crime but we’ll have to wait until the Minnesota and SCOTUS rule for that. You radical liberals want to destroy this country and your neo-Hitler Youth seem to support you at your swim-ins I see, but the fact that is nothing is going to change because you don’t have a monopoly on what every panty-waist dictator needs – control over speech and guns. Both are immovable objects in your quest to destroy this country and thankfully we’ll use both to crush this Marxist Revolution. First with our mouths and keyboards and then with our guns, if needed. False charges of racism are your tool to start a race war. Here on the ground I don’t see the black-white animus you claim exists. I see people of all races living together. The only ones I see hopping mad are the deluded ones like you and yours. You wanna play revolutionary, I’d suggest you quit lecturing and start revolutionizing. Then when you’re out in the open you’ll be fair game for whichever Amendment remedy suits us.
“nd racist GOP state legislators, are carrying out Trump’s racist agenda by passing laws to make it more difficult for Black people to vote next year and in 2024. ”
********************************
Name one. More conclusory myth from the liars club.
Just as not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic who needs to admit a problem, not every white person is racist and need to be indoctrinated that the color of white are oppressors. Do you believe all white people no matter what country they live in are racists or just those who live in the US?
“What might those “countervailing” views be you want discussed on campuses?”
For starters: That you don’t combat racism with the vicious notion that an individual is defined by his race. That CRT is a deterministic ideology that subverts an individual’s free will. That unearned guilt is psychologically destructive. That CRT’s tribalism divides individuals into irreconcilable factions of warring racial groups. That collectivism, which is what CRT promotes, is not the cure for racism — individualism is. That the secular version of original sin, CRT, is just as destructive as is the religious version. That CRT is part of an alien ideology imported from Germany.
Dennis…you are in a competition with the proverbial Christmas Turkey!
Brandeis Dean Declares “Yes, All White People Are Racist.”
Well, duuuuh!
And your point is?
Oh, yeah, Americans enjoy freedom of speech, thought, religion, belief, press, publication, assembly, segregation and every other conceviable, natural and God-given right, freedom, privilege and immunity per the 9th Amendment.
America is all about freedom, you dullard!
Winners win. Losers loose. Merit will out!
You fraudulently and maliciously conflate property damage and bodily injury with “racism,” “discrimination,” etc.
Let the chips fall where they may.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.
Brand Us “Racist” University
Darrenisms.
Hear, hear!
“It is a loss in my view and inhibits true evolution of viewpoints and assumptions. I accept that I many be blind or insensitive to racial bias or privilege, but I have serious concerns over the bias shown in some of these lectures and supporting material.”
Professor Turley, I assure you that you are not blind or insensitive to racial bias or privilege and that you are right to be concerned with these lectures and the materials they disseminate.
In any serious scholarly or legal discussion which is concerned with examining and understanding objective realities, one must first agree upon what reality is under discussion and the meaning of the terms being employed. That is difficult to do when it comes to questions of race because there is no universally accepted meaning for the term ‘race’ (or ‘racist’) and no universal history of ‘race.’
A ‘biological’ definition based on a person’s physical appearance is overly broad, e.g., the Caucasian “race” would include ‘Hispanics’ from Iberia and ‘peninsulares’ from Latin America, as well as many Middle Eastern and North African peoples.
Geographical definitions are also very broad, and therefore largely meaningless, e.g., Asian includes Japanese, Chinese, Malays, Vietnamese, and others who not only do not resemble one another, but who have different histories, cultures, and institutions.
As a historical term, race has often meant ‘nation’ or ‘people,’ e.g., Slavs. The Yugo-Slav” movement excluded Russians, Poles, and Czechs, but brought some “South Slavs” under a single ‘nation’ state which disintegrated after 1990 because while racially related, the Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Serbs, and Macedonian did not really get along. Italians, Bohemians, and Hungarians were also once ‘races,’ which is why there are disparaging terms for each in English. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, Woodrow Wilson railed against ‘hyphenated’ Americans, while professors at elite schools wrote learned studies warning against miscegenation with Slavs and Latins, who were given to drink and generally inferior to Anglo-Saxons. Immigrants changed their names from Bijelac and Bianco to White so they could pass for Anglo-Saxon and join fraternities and sororities, have a chance of being hired by top law firms, succeed at business, and marry outside their ‘race.’
Culture can also define a ‘race,’ e.g., German, French, Italian, Spanish, or American. Yet while Wyoming, Alabama, and New York may share a language and political institutions, their histories and customs differ as greatly as those of Prussia, Bavaria, and Saxony, or those of Provence, Brittany, and Gascony, or Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
Europeans were never a single race until CTR cast them all as ‘white,’ nor were Africans, until BLM decided they all were black. Yet Libya and Egypt have nothing in common with Angola or Congo except a continent, and while Qaddafi created the African Union, the people and states of Africa do not share a common language, religion, history, or institutions; they are distinct ‘nations’ living in different states. We may tend to view them as a single “African” ‘race,’ but that is a mistake no African would make. Ask a Rwandan or someone from Tigray or Tripoli or Mali.
When used politically, race is usually defined in whatever way the person using it feels will promote the policies they favor.
Not until there is an agreed defintion on what you mean by ‘race’ can you have a rational discussion. Until then, you can only have slogans, assertions, tirades, accusations, confessions of guilt, and declarations of purity and superiority.
Advocates of CRT, like BLM activists and others who employ ‘race’ as a political term, accept only their definitions of race, which are congruent with their ideological assumptions. Consequently, you will lose any discussion you might have with them once you have accepted their definitions. If you do not accept their definitions, you will simply be dismissed (and condemned) as a racist because the one thing that they do not tolerate, other than whites, is a rigorous intellectual encounter. They do not debate; they speak ex catedra, like the Pope or the clerisy of John McWhorter’s Elect, who have recast John Calvin’s spiritual predestination as a racial imperative.
History and theory are wonderfully complex things; it is such a shame to reduce them to black and white talking points.
The irony is that those who say all white people are racist are right, but they leave off the rest of the statement which is “ALL people are racist!” It is a fact of humanity that people, regardless of what they might say, prefer their own race, whatever it might be. In many cases “racism” is carried down to a particular caste. For example, many Asian cultures – including China, India and Japan – brand members of certain castes as “untouchables.” Another irony is that the real meaning of “racist” isn’t what the media and, now, academia, represent it to mean. In the English language, any word with “ist” added means someone who practices a particular “ism” or profession. “Ism is added to nouns to mean a practice, philosophy or belief – i.e. communism, Methodism, baptism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism, Progressivism. Those practice communism are communists, Methodism are Methodists, baptism are Baptists, etc. It is a fact of human nature that people prefer their own kind. We’ve had forced integration in this country since the 1960s but most blacks prefer to be around other blacks – they settle in black communities, attend black churches, drink in black bars, eat in black restaurants in many cases and even send their kids to predominantly black schools. The real issue is not how people feel about another race, it’s what they do with them. If they exclude members of another race from something solely because of their race, it is a problem. If they include them regardless of how they feel about them, it’s not. The real issue is tolerance, not belief.
This is a good, strong dose of truth to start from. There is ample research with infants to document that “self-similarity preference” is innate or a combination of innate-imprinted, i.e., not needing to be learned or taught culturally.
But, many Americans accept this, and aspire to more fully realizing a post-racial meritocracy in America.
Being a self-segregating society might satisfy some primal social instinct, but North America has been a huge genetic blender for 500 years, and those of us willing to put aside colloquial racial IDs and instead embrace the complexity of genetic heritage tests know that multi-racial mixing is the norm, and racial purity the exception and a myth (or false narrative).
Racially-integrated meritocratic institutions, whether pro sports, music, comedy, TV entertainment are the face of America. Churches, schools, housing neighborhoods are catching up….witness the exodus of the black middle class to suburbia.
You say “forced integration”, but there was a societal consensus in the late 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s to voluntarily integrate. Without that broad consensus, there wouldn’t have been the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s.
Why do Americans generally support racial integration?…because anything exclusionary would be divisive, petty and run afoul of our ideals pertaining to upward mobility of the individual through merit.
Your the RACIST you hate all white people
There is a clear alternative to CRT which is much less organized with books, academics and consultants. It goes by various names…”common humanity” or “universal self-awareness learning”. The theme is universalization of the challenge facing the individual to become more self-aware of how social instincts toward “us” vs. “them” thinking subtly infuses conscious thoughts and decision-making.
What I like about these names is the way they frame the problem in a positivist voice.
CRT would be doing much better if it could rid itself of negative thinking. Is that possible? It seems the foundation of CRT is rooted in diving people into groups of oppressors and oppressed — indulging the very “us” vs. “them” instinct that the universal humanity approach calls out as the core challenge facing the individual. The CRT lexicon is built around villanization and demonization — “whiteness” used as a term with a negative connotation. It would be a miracle if positive thinkers within the CRT jauggernaut somehow convinced the negativists to lose the shame and blame angle.
Under the universal approach, the solution falls on individuals to become more mindful (self-aware) of innate cognitive effects that sometimes undermine ability to reach out and connect socially across racial lines. Being universal, these vestigial tribal instincts affect everyone the same way, and thus there is a process of self-awareness learning that can be put forth as actionable at the individual level.
Under our current “loudest voice” media landscape, it’s an uphill for the positivist, universal mindset to be expounded. It’s especially important for young people to hear it, so they have a choice between negative and positive thinking.
The real issue is that CRT is bogus. It’s a theory dreamed up by a Chicano activist/scholar, probably while he was on a Peyote trip. His very radical beliefs have been adapted by racist blacks to advocate their own desire to achieve dominance. CRT is not accepted because it’s a lie, as are most theories related to “race.”
Enlightened debates about cultural history were once considered useful in academia, but that’s changed now. American culture is in a war with itself, and it’s drawing blood every day. There’s no shortage of “scholars” debating the history from 1619 or 1776 or 1787 or 1861. But where will it lead us non-scholar citizens? The lines are drawn, so the “debates” will only complicate things and slow down the process. The structure of our constitutional government is doomed, let’s face it. I don’t know what will succeed it, but you can bet on this: the People will decide on a new structure, and it won’t be based on its “whiteness”, “blackness” or some multi-hued rainbow. Let’s hope that some kind of real leadership comes along, or it won’t be pretty.
Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, said…there always comes a time to pick a side…I have picked mine…Clarence Thomas is my hero…
When will Slater resign her position so that it may be filled by a Black person?
Don’t just talk about it. Take action on your white guilt. Quit your jobs and make way for them all to be filled by People of Color.
Privileged White people: Be the ‘quit’ in Equity.
“The same is true at corporations like Lockheed-where top executives were sent into mandatory training to address address “white male culture” and “white male privilege.”
If you want to see what Lockheed is teaching its executives about white privilege, you can find another great story here by Christoper Rufo. A few weeks ago Rufo outed Disney’s new woke agenda.
https://christopherrufo.com/the-woke-industrial-complex/
Woke and morally broke. Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination. While bias is intrinsic, prejudice is progressive. One step forward, two steps backward.
Diversity [dogma], not limited to racism, sex-ism, is a progressive condition breeds adversity.
A self-declared racist is holding his onto his job? Why is there no outcry to drive him out? Maybe because he fits their desires? So if that is the case, maybe they tolerate racists…..
Kate needs to learn the hoary African proverb that if you don’t want to be eaten, don’t poke the lion with a short stick. If she does, I’m all eyes, popcorn and bemusement. If not, she affects me and mine about as much as a downpour in Mozambique.
Why anyone would give a platform to this kind of racism and racist is beyond me, but thankfully I can just skim through her epistle of hate for whites, relegate her to the trash bin of humanity and keep on keeping on knowing that I’m bound to see an end to this stupid one way or the other. Hopefully, Kate will too – under a bridge somewhere or behind a barricade. Either way works for me.
She is either a [rabid] diversitist or personally profits from the leverage and progress of the racist, sexist, ageist, classicist racket.
Sniper in a different zip code?
Reminds me of this putrid view of man:
Be like a flatworm. Let others squash you. Grow a new segment. Let others squash you, again . . .