Support Revolver By Going AD-FREE–Donate HERE to fund investigative journalism

CHECK OUT THE NEWS FEED—FOLLOW US ON GAB—FOLLOW US ON GETTR

America had a hearty laugh mixed with mild horror this week when it learned that the Biden Administration is planning to distribute free crack pipes to drug addicts for the sake of “racial equity.”

The $30 million grant program, which closed applications Monday and will begin in May, will provide funds to nonprofits and local governments to help make drug use safer for addicts. Included in the grant … are funds for “smoking kits/supplies.” A spokesman for the agency told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and “any illicit substance.” … Applicants for the grants are prioritized if they treat a majority of “underserved communities,” including African Americans and “LGBTQ+ persons,” as established under President Joe Biden’s executive order on “advancing racial equity.” [Washington Free Beacon]

We had another chuckle when the propaganda press tried to “fact check” the completely true claim as “mostly false.”

It was funny, and a fitting sign of how embarrassing and pathetic America’s federal bureaucracy has become. But while it’s fun to laugh at the Biden Administration fighting “racism” with free crack pipes, let’s not forget about a far more disturbing and ominous case of racial discrimination in the provision of public goods.

Suddenly, and with shockingly little public discussion, debate, or even acknowledgment, America has become a country where medical treatment is granted, or denied, on the basis of skin color. Specifically, it’s become a country where it is acceptable to send white people, and only white people, to be the back of the line, for reasons of fighting “systemic racism.”

Shortly after the new year, Aaron Sibarium of the Washington Free Beacon shone a light on anti-white medical policies adopted in New York, Minnesota, and Utah:

In New York, racial minorities are automatically eligible for scarce COVID-19 therapeutics, regardless of age or underlying conditions. In Utah, “Latinx ethnicity” counts for more points than “congestive heart failure” in a patient’s “COVID-19 risk score”—the state’s framework for allocating monoclonal antibodies. And in Minnesota, health officials have devised their own “ethical framework” that prioritizes black 18-year-olds over white 64-year-olds—even though the latter are at much higher risk of severe disease. [WFB]

Tucker Carlson covered the story on Fox, and a week later President Trump joined the chorus as well. That coverage in turn brought a series of sinister “fact checks” that sought to “debunk” the story’s premise.

[T]here is no evidence they being sent to the “back of the line” for COVID-19 care as a matter of public health policy.

Trump distorted a New York policy that allows for race to be one consideration when dispensing oral antiviral treatments, which are in limited supply. The policy attempts to steer those treatments to people at the most risk of severe disease from the coronavirus. [AP]

But shortly after that, the story largely faded from public attention. With the Omicron wave waning and even blue states eager to repeal Covid health theater ahead of election season, the saga of multiple states deliberately discriminating against white Americans for treatment is already being forgotten by the right. Most who do mention it simply see it as an opportunity to hammer the left politically. At most, some conservatives demand policy changes, as detailed in Politico:

The issue is gaining steam in both the establishment and MAGA activist wings of the party. Sen. Marco Rubio is among several lawmakers pushing the Food and Drug Administration to rescind the recommendation, calling it “racist and un-American.” Former President Donald Trump during his rally in Arizona earlier this month claimed that the Biden administration is “denigrating white people to determine who lives and who dies.” The Wall Street Journal recently ran an editorial blasting New York’s version of the policy as “unfair and possibly illegal” and warned that “Democrats could pay a lasting political price” for it. Former White House policy adviser Stephen Miller, who is suing New York over the policy and threatened legal action against Minnesota and Utah, railed against the efforts as “unconstitutional, immoral, and tyrannical.” [Politico]

All these reactions fall short. It is time to be bold, and start treating anti-white discrimination in medicine for what it really is: a heinous crime.

Far from there being “no evidence” of whites being sent to the “back of the line” for Covid care, that is exactly what New York was doing with its policies regarding monoclonal antibodies. New York’s policy required at least one “risk factor” in order to receive antibody treatment, and the policy explicitly declared that being any race except white was a risk factor. This decision wasn’t based on any genuine weighing of the demographic numbers. If it was, the policy wouldn’t include Asian ethnicity as a risk factor, since Asians have fared better than whites in combating Covid. And if it was, the policy actually wouldn’t exist at all, because multiple studies have found that Covid-19 racial gaps vanish after controlling for other clinical factors that medical workers could be tracking instead.

Even New York itself admits the policy wasn’t ground in any serious modeling. The justification given in the state’s own memo is that “longstanding systemic health and social inequities” justify putting whites last. In other words, it’s Critical Race Theory applied to health care: Whites have had it better, so they deserve to get it worse. The Associated Press has continued to pump out “fact checks” justifying this explicitly racialist view of American health policy.

Some conservatives are taking aim at policies that allow doctors to consider race as a risk factor when allocating scarce COVID-19 treatments, saying the protocols discriminate against white people.

…

Medical experts say the opposition is misleading. Health officials have long said there is a strong case for considering race as one of many risk factors in treatment decisions. And there is no evidence that race alone is being used to decide who gets medicine. [AP]

This excuse would never work elsewhere in American life, or here for that matter if the races were simply reversed. For decades, American life has been ruled by the doctrine of disparate impact, where even unintended differences in racial outcomes are treated as massive civil rights violations:

Disparate impact is the legal theory that a policy or practice can be illegal under civil rights law even if nobody is actually treated differently on account of their race. That is, even if a policy is totally race-neutral and meritocratic on its face and in its execution, it can still “perpetuate” a “racist outcome” which our brutally unjust clown regime labels discrimination, or as they call it, “disparate treatment”.

…

Shockingly, the legal doctrine that would eventually bring this entire nation to its knees was invented, whole-cloth, by a 1971 Supreme Court decision called Griggs v. Duke Power.

In Griggs, an employer required employees seeking promotion into middle management to have a high school diploma. Technically, the policy also required passing two aptitude tests, but this ultimately wouldn’t matter. When a black employee sued under a brand new legal theory tantamount to what today critical race theory (CRT) activists call systemic racism, the Supreme Court took the CRT argument’s side, and ruled that even the high school diploma requirement created an illegal “disparate impact.”

To recap: because white folks tended on average to have high school diplomas more often than black folks, the Supreme Court actually decreed that no employer can require high school diplomas.

Technically, with disparate impact, there are certain limited defenses like the doctrine of “compelling business necessity.” Inevitably, the Supreme Court had to invent even more legal fictions to prevent the country from collapsing under the absurdity of its new pet legal doctrine. But we don’t need to get into that for the purposes of this piece.

Today, not even the most well-thought-out defenses can stop activists from filing multibillion-dollar lawsuits, and most legitimate defenses are ill-equipped to stop lawsuits before the discovery stage, at which point every institution gets held at financial and existential gunpoint.

READ THE REST: Pentagon Introduces New “Diversity Rules” Allowing “Scalp Tattoos” and Beards… What’s Next, Crossdressing?

Could you imagine the AP racing to defend a country club that used race as “one of many factors” for admission? Or a housing co-op? Of course not. The Associated Press and other fact-checking deboonkers aren’t providing actual rebuttals to Sibarium’s article or the others that have followed in its wake. They are simply speaking the language of power, the tongue which lets them vomit out the most shameless elisions and inconsistencies without a care. There is no concern about whether any of this is true or makes any sense. The law of the land is what they say it is. And what they say is that whites get treated last, just like they get to be punished in school admissions or scholarship applications or government contracts.

So, what is the proper response to this? Treat these policies for what they really are, and prosecute their creators for anti-white hate crimes. Public officials in Utah, Minnesota, and New York chose to give potentially life-saving medical treatment to some, while denying it to others, on the most flimsy, half-baked justifications imaginable.

At a minimum, white Americans were stripped of their dignity and labeled second-class citizens. At worst, people died because of Critical Race Theory as applied to healthcare. This is not simply bad policymaking. It is already, at this very moment, a crime. The offense is already illegal under federal law, under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [Dept. of Justice]

This law is already used dozens of times per year, as the main federal weapon for prosecuting police who use excessive (or “excessive”) force. For instance, while Derek Chauvin has already been convicted of murder for kneeling atop George Floyd as he died of a fentanyl overdose, the three other officers present at the scene are all on trial for depriving Floyd of his civil rights simply for not getting Chauvin off Floyd’s neck. When a local jury acquitted four Los Angeles police officers of assault for beating Rodney King, the federal government swooped in and charged them with violating his civil rights, leading to two convictions and two multi-year prison sentences.

In the prison system, guards have received multi-year prison sentences for showing “willful indifference” to the medical needs of inmates.

The same thinking ought to apply here. A prison warden who gave medical treatment only to white inmates, but not black ones, or who concocted half-baked reasons for giving white inmates preferential treatment, would and should be harshly punished. There is no reason the same thinking should not apply to health officials deciding who will receive medicines that the government has a monopoly on the distribution of.

Who should be charged? A good place to start might be the names listed at the top of New York State’s death memo sending whites to the back of the line: Acting health commissioner Mary Bassett, and acting deputy executive commissioner Kristin Proud.

Mary Bassett
Kristin Proud

If the policy was entirely the work of Proud and Bassett’s underlings, without their knowledge or oversight, it shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out. And it should be figured out, as surely as we should identify the public officials responsible for any deliberate racially discriminatory policy. Of course, the above offenses are federal crimes, and the Biden Administration controls the Department of Justice, so we can’t expect federal charges to be brought now. So be it. Demand such charges now to win the moral argument in the court of public opinion, and then actually bring them when the DOJ is once again occupied by those who want to prosecute criminals. Or, hunt for similar laws at the state level, where they exist, and use them on officials who have copied New York’s tactics.

This may all sound insane and unthinkable. But it shouldn’t. The only reason that American police officers are going to jail for killing black criminal suspects, while American health officials are not going to jail for deliberately denying white people health care, is because of the moral imperialism of the progressive left over American life. As Revolver wrote during the fiery summer of 2020:

We currently live under a regime of left-wing moral imperialism.

As defined by the left itself, “moral imperialism is the imposition of a set of moral values onto a culture that does not share those values, either through force or through cultural criticism.”

…

Racism once meant overt discrimination or antagonism towards someone of a different race. Later, it came to include offenses like using slurs or indulging in racial caricature (stereotyping). Then, “racism” also came to include opposition to policies like affirmative action. Eventually, racism was also equated with support for race-neutral policies, like strict criminal justice or enforcing national immigration laws. Today, it is racist to oppose favored status for “oppressed” races, and any system that does not provide for statistically equal and representative outcomes is guilty of systemic racism. Anyone who supports such a system is themselves racist.

The definition of racism may always change, but the solution never does. The left must be given total power, and its enemies must be subservient or destroyed.

READ THE REST: To Save Civilization, Stop Kneeling Before the Left’s Moral Imperialism

Revolver would like to once again issue the challenge it delivered a year and a half ago: If Americans want to beat their corrupt and illegitimate ruling class, they must stop granting it the power to define good and evil. 

Granting or denying medical care based on race is a monstrous evil, and under American law at this very moment, it is a monstrous evil that can be criminally prosecuted. Nobody needs to wait for any journalist, professor, or Soros prosecutor to give them permission to do so. Act boldly and with authority, with the confidence of those who know their cause is just.

Support Revolver By Going AD-FREE–Donate HERE to fund investigative journalism

CHECK OUT THE NEWS FEED—FOLLOW US ON GAB—FOLLOW US ON GETTR