You are who you think

In a television interview following the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision recognizing citizens' right to marry within their sex, George Takei chose not to celebrate, but rather to give us all a picture of a sore winner.

His features stormy and his voice quivering with anger, Takei slurred decision opponent Justice Clarence Thomas as a "clown in blackface" who had no business sitting on the Supreme Court.

A firestorm erupted on social media, and George Takei did later offer an apology for his jaw-dropping slur.

But what the famed gay activist did not apologize for, also voiced by him during that interview, was an ideological philosophy much more hostile and potentially of far greater dangerousness.

By hurling the "clown in blackface" slur, Takei implied that Thomas was somehow "not really" black because of his ideas.  And Takei went farther, charging that by authoring an opinion the actor did not feel to be sufficiently representative of his racial background, Thomas had "abdicated and abandoned his African-American heritage by claiming slavery did not strip dignity from human beings."

Thomas had in that dissent asserted that dignity is innate and cannot be stripped away, even by horrible circumstance.  And George Takei surely understood that.  His intentionally counterfeit rendering, then, belied an invalidating willingness to tailor facts to prejudice's design-pattern.

On MSNBC's Now With Alex Wagner last January, human rights attorney Arsalan Iftikhar attacked Louisiana governor/Republican presidential nomination aspirant Bobby Jindal.  In Iftikhar's estimation, Jindal sought voter appeal by ignoring his own Indian descent: "trying to scrape some of the brown off his skin."  (To Iftikhar, human rights do not seem to include freedom of thought.)

MSNBC banned Iftikhar from future appearances.  But as reported by Twitchy, the same struggling cable channel on July 1 issued a Twitter post euphemizing Takei's "clown in blackface" slur of Thomas as the actor merely "calling out" the justice for his dissent.

Using racial rhetoric in political debate received implicit sanction from virtually all mainstream print and TV media outlets; they simply did not cover the Takei story until his face-saving apology of several days later.

Unsurprisingly, Takei's initial racial slurring of Thomas also went unmentioned by such partisan websites as Buzzfeed, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress, and the Huffington Post, which once recommended a Ralph Nader article of mine.  (Credit for online research goes to the Federalist website.)

Interestingly, conservative news and opinion sites that are frequently attacked by opponents as "bigoted" did give the controversy coverage.  These included Twitchy, Townhall, Red State, the Daily Caller, and Raw Story.  The Fox News Channel and Washington Times also spotlighted Takei's racial attack.

Rachel Dolezal and Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner are other recent examples of the mainstream media asserting the concept of race and gender as fluid and dependent on philosophy, not nature.

There have long been in American politics forces who found race and gender effective tools for inspiring divisions in the larger American population.  And surely that will for the most part continue to be.

But in the cases cited above, and others, we can detect a calculation that fractiousness and warring separateness can also be realized by ideologically motivated "identity reassignment."

In that fanciful pretense, it is believed that one's inner thinking determines outer self – reality be damned.  And it is a logical extension of the traditional white male liberal mindset that was sure its proponents could best determine the needs of racial minorities and women – rather than those parties themselves.

Now, any white liberal who so chooses can "become" of a different race or gender.  All that is thought required is the appropriate idea set.

Imagine that.