Experience Revolver without adsHide ads now
“Care and Feeding” is Slate.com’s regular parenting column. Given Slate’s readership, the column has published letters about 11-year-old transgender children and teen polyamorous dating. But recently, the publication published a stunning letter from a parent on the topic of her daughter’s education:
Dear Care and Feeding,
I am a liberal, White, upper-middle-class parent, and we live in a mixed-income, racially integrated urban neighborhood. When it came time to enroll our daughter in high school, we selected a school that was majority Black because it was close by, and we rejected the notion of getting caught up in which magnet school was most prestigious. Our daughter had a horrible time there—she was harassed so much that we had to pull her out, and other non-Black students there were victimized because of their race. I am struggling to make sense of the experience. I think she’s managed it well and hasn’t let it affect her general views on race, and I believe I’m doing the same, but mostly I am just so angry that our daughter had to endure this, and I feel guilty that I put her in this position. I also feel caught between friends who seem to want to say, “I told you so,” and those who seem to think that saying that she was the victim of racial harassment somehow makes me seem racist since it was at the hands of Black students. Maybe I should just chalk it up to bad luck, but how can I let go of the guilt and anger and all the other awful reactions I’m having to this?
—Hoping I’m Not a Karen [Slate]
In his response to Hoping I’m Not a Karen (let’s call her HINK from now on), Slate’s Jamilah Lemieux briefly makes the required sounds about bullying being unacceptable, feeling sorry for her daughter, blah blah blah. But after having done that, Lemieux quickly tells us what she really thinks: HINK’s daughter deserved what happened to her because of her race. The only thing she doesn’t deserve, in fact, is sympathy.
[R]ecognize that in an area like the one you live in—one that sounds like it is somewhere in the process of gentrification—an influx of upper-middle-class White folks can be absolutely devastating. After years of being told that your community was unimportant and unworthy of resources, you get to watch it become a “hot spot,” see investment that would have never been made on your behalf. Black folks, who once had “the hood” as a place to be surrounded by their own kind after long days of having to labor for White people, now have to watch Whites become the most affluent, and seemingly most content, residents of our ghettos.
In other words, HINK and her daughter are invaders guilty of “colonizing” a space their race wasn’t welcome in. Of course, as Lemieux makes clear, they were racist both when they didn’t live there (because they weren’t “investing” in the neighborhood), and when they chose to do so. Either way, they were the villain, because of their skin color.
Your daughter might not have done anything deliberately to harm anyone or to invite mistreatment, but her presence disrupts something truly fragile: the feeling of safety Black kids get from being with other Black kids. … They know the world is kinder to your child than it is to them. The combination of that knowledge, that pain, and their youth can be very volatile.
Given the epic amounts of interpersonal violence among American blacks, it’s unclear where Lemieux is getting her idea of “safety,” but we will overlook that to focus on her morally warped vision. HINK’s daughter didn’t have to do anything to deserve to be bullied. Merely existing with white skin was enough to make her an acceptable target.
Lemieux isn’t the villain of this story though. No, that would be the girl’s mother, who subjected her daughter to perfectly-avoidable misery for the sake of her political delusions.
HINK is clearly a woman already in the end stages of liberal brain rot. Maybe she didn’t want to “get caught up in which magnet school was most prestigious,” but her negligence goes beyond that. In her own letter, HINK admits that anti-white bullying in her daughter’s school is routine. That means even a cursory investigation beforehand would have made it obvious what HINK was getting her into. White students in America’s “diverse” public schools are a target. This fact has even appeared in scientific research, despite completely contradicting America’s national ideology of endlessly hunting for phantom white supremacy:
This study explores the relationship between school diversity, student race, and bullying within the school context. The participants were African American and Caucasian middle school students (n = 4,581; 53.4 % female). Among the participants, 89.4 % were Caucasian and 10.6 % were African American. The research questions examined the relationship between school diversity, student race and bullying behaviors, specifically race-based victimization. The findings suggested that Caucasian middle school students experience more bullying than African American students generally, and specifically when minorities in school settings. Caucasian students also experienced almost three times the amount of race-based victimization than African American students when school diversity was held constant. Interestingly, African American students experienced twice the amount of race-based victimization than Caucasian students when in settings with more students of color. [Springer]
We don’t think HINK really needed to go digging around in social science journals before sending her daughter to school. She should have just used her God-given brain. Contrary to the propaganda she might see in Slate, or CNN, or The New York Times, the world is not “kinder” to her child because she is white. Her child has actually become one of the only people it is acceptable, even praiseworthy, to attack purely on racial grounds. Last summer, the Times released an entire podcast blaming “nice white parents” for all the problems in American schools. We wrote about it at the time:
No matter what these white parents do, it’s always bad. It’s bad when they transfer into a non-white school, as in the first episode. But in the second and third episodes, they are vilified for not attending these schools as well. In the third episode, an amorphous blob of “white parents” are attacked for getting a gifted program created at a New York middle school. According to Joffe-Walt, non-white students were kept out by “biased questions” on tests, though not one such question is ever read for the listener.
This tone persists throughout all of Nice White Parents. Not a tone of hatred, per se, but one of disgust, and collective race-based condemnation. White families are “unreliable;” they “pay no attention to the actual voices and needs of families of color.” They are greedy: at one point Joffe-Walt says the key question for fixing schools is “how do we stop white parents from hoarding all the resources?”
HINK is a white progressive woman in a major city. She had all the facts needed to see exactly what it would mean to feed her daughter to a public school beast where, at the rare times children were taught anything at all, they would be taught to see her as the root of all evil. But she did it anyway. Why? Because adhering to liberal ideology was more important than caring for her own child.
Some religions require fasting. Some ask you to go to church and give alms to the poor. And some religions are destructive cults, requiring adherents to abandon their families or even commit suicide for the sake of a charismatic leader.
Many have observed that modern liberalism has become like a religion. It absolutely has, and more precisely, it’s become one of the most frightening cults imaginable. It’s a cult where adherents think almost nothing of sacrificing their own children to an ideological monster.
The inverted morality of child sacrifice in fact appears in multiple contexts in the contemporary West, with the the obvious and immediate example being abortion.
The advent of the Covid lockdown regime represents a new and particularly brutal addition to the catalog of Western liberal horrors, particularly in the context of inter-generational morality. While child sacrifice might be hyperbolic, there is unquestionably something perverse about a public policy that would destroy the mental health, dreams, lives and livelihoods of an entire generation of young people in order to (maybe?) allow octogenarians a few thousand more breaths of life.
Our society’s historically cruel and unusual willingness to sacrifice the young for the old does not exist within a vacuum of course. For one, it exists alongside the Globalist American Empire’s corrupt, senescent, dysfunctional and illegitimate geriatric ruling class. Like the late stage Soviet Union, the Globalist American Empire is also a gerontocracy.
Modern western society is liberal, atomized, individualistic, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-confessional in the extreme. A society such as ours that lacks any meaningful basis for cohesion will not have a common history nor will it have a common destiny. It should not come as a shock that a society so disconnected from a shared past and future will have a warped sense of inter-generational obligation — even one amounting to a modern version of child sacrifice.
There is one sense in which this “child sacrifice” comparison is exaggerated, perhaps even unfairly so. But there is another sense in which “child sacrifice” is too charitable as a descriptor of our modern societal practice. The whole purpose of sacrifice is to give up something valuable as a means of tribute. Just as there was nothing more precious as an innocent child, so was a child sacrifice the utmost act of obedience to the gods, in the case of many pagan societies.
The infamously misunderstood story of Abraham and Isaac in the Hebrew Bible ultimately rejects and attempts to overcome the actual pagan practice of child sacrifice. And yet the story is a powerful demonstration of Abraham’s faith in God precisely because he is willing to sacrifice paternal attachments to his God. If his son weren’t precious to him, the story would be meaningless.
Finally, there is the God’s sacrifice of his only son Jesus Christ, who according to Christian belief lived a perfect sinless life on earth, and died on this earth, to allow for the redemption of man’s sin. If Jesus were not sinless, and not the Son of God, the sacrifice could not have had the eternal redemptive significance that it does.
In its true form, the concept of sacrifice cannot be separated from selflessness and sacredness. Seen in this light, the modern practices described above cannot be seen as sacrifices in this sense, even in the pejorative context of the ultimate evil of child sacrifice. Far from being selfless, the child sacrifice that takes place according to our modern religion arises from the elevation of a new false religion of convenience above all else — a form of supreme selfishness. The convenience of an abortion is a great example of one of the sacraments of modern liberal ideology. In the case of HINK, the mother conveniently sends her daughter to a dangerous multiracial school to avoid feeling like a racist.
The twisted displays of child sacrifice in the modern West take place in a context of cowardice, convenience, and selfishness, so we might even describe them as anti-sacrifices for an anti-religion. The reigning ideology of the West might even be said to be an anti-religion for which no sacrifice is possible, because it allows for nothing sacred.