Imagine that the government was pushing for a policy that would prioritize who lives and dies based on the color of their skin and their ethnicity. Also imagine that the media was advocating for such policy, arguing that we should take resources away from one group of people – based solely on the color of their skin – and give it to another.
Is there an adjective that comes to mind when imagining such a policy?
If you think really hard, it might come to you. Hint: It begins with an "R" and ends with "-ist."
You can stop imagining such a scenario now because it came to light this week that the CDC is considering prioritizing minority ethnic groups over individuals aged 65 and older. Why? The answer can be found in this full thread breaking down the CDC's own slide deck on the analysis of "science," "implementation," and "ethics" around the COVID vaccine distribution.
The thread is long, but the most essential info is the CDC's own data shows that prioritizing those over the age of 65 would lead to half as many deaths as other distribution scenarios. Despite this, however, under their "ethical" considerations the CDC weighs the consideration of racial disparities in its analysis, pointing to the higher co-morbidities in certain ethnic groups that have led to higher death rates and inferring that these groups have less access to healthcare.
At the same time, it says that those ethnic groups are "under-represented" in the 65+ group.
Translation: because the 65-and-older bloc is disproportionally white, special deference should be given to ethnic minorities as a form of racial equity. This, despite the fact those most threatened with death from the 'Rona comes not from an ethnic breakdown but age group:
The translation of the translation:
It's okay to not prioritize the most at-risk group with this vaccine because they're mostly white people.
Here's what the thread author had to say about this whole mess:
If you ever wondered what universal healthcare and bureaucratic death panels looked like, this is a real and scary taste. The government is here to "help," and that should scare us all.
The CDC will reportedly decide on its final recommendations and policy on Sunday. Considering the agency has a full page dedicated to "racial equity," I think we know which way that decision will go.
The media took the CDC's more-innocuous approach of slides, however, and ramped it up to a full-blown racial eugenics column. The New York Times specifically argued that we skip older populations because white people make up a majority of that group and are less valuable than other ethnicities because of historic social disparities.
This was from the New York Times:
"Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. 'Older populations are whiter,' Dr Schmidt said. 'Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.'"
Nothing to see here, folks! It's only fair that we value the lives of white folks less than others because of #History or something, right? Nothing like a little discrimination and oppression to solve discrimination and oppression!
Note that this quote advocating for discriminating based on skin color comes from an expert in ethics.
Here's another quote from an "expert."
"'To me the issue of ethics is very significant, very important for this country,' Dr Peter Szilagyi, a committee member and a pediatrics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the time, 'and clearly favors the essential worker group because of the high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers among essential workers.'"
Just like the experts said that nearly a year of lockdowns would save lives, they are now telling us that discriminating on race and ethnicity will save lives. Don't listen to that data and facts!
This may be factually wrong after all, but it's morally true because of #SyStEmiC rAciSm.
Except it's not even that.
Truth: Whenever you prioritize others solely based on wealth, gender, ethnicity, or other factors, you promote inequality and degrade the very Imago Dei present in all human beings.
If working with reconciliation projects in places like Rwanda has taught me anything, it's that you don't solve inequalities by degrading and taking from one group at the expense of the other. You show the groups how to push forward together and affirm the worth of all.
"For we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
This is what you get when you remove equality and replace it with equity: a bureaucratic prioritization of favored groups that may change daily. It is a horrendous policy that will lead to more suffering and death than you can imagine should we let it continue to propagate in the halls of power.
Equality, not equity, is the only way for a civilization to move forward.
Even within the premise that we should focus on "essential" workers regardless, the Times and those it quotes commit horrendous categorical errors. The CDC classifies about 100 million jobs as "essential," or 70% of the workforce. The makeup of that population is incredibly diverse – more so than any nation on the face of God's green earth throughout all of history.
The totally-not-racist Left, however, assumes that you can tell who the poor and impoverished are simply by looking at the color of their skin.
"Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,' said Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard, on why teachers should be excluded from the first rounds of vaccination. "Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers."
Yep, nothing racist there.
The Left also assumes that because white people do still tend to have a larger share of better-paying jobs, that this has nothing to do with them being the demographic majority, individual accomplishment, merit, and hard work, or strong frameworks of family, faith, and personal responsibility. This isn't to say that whites are by default harder workers – but to remove all of these extensive factors while pushing the narrative that everything is systemically racist is disingenuous at best and horribly malicious at worst.
Do you guys see yet how Marxist group-think such as Critical Race Theory is going to literally start killing people? It's already here and happening.
The Spectator article parodying this absurdity writes the logical conclusion of this philosophical garbage fire so well:
"Instead of some complex, burdensome calculation based on necessity and societal value, we can sort people into good and bad based on appearance. This is very progressive. And best of all, it can be applied everywhere."
The Standard goes on to mock the NYT writer further, pointing out how these "progressive" racial filters can be applied to vaccinating medical workers:
"With the Times's new Harvard-approved standard, we can just look up the Association of American Medical Colleges' demographic data for each medical speciality. With this data, and the Times's guidance, Cockburn can finally figure out which branches of medicine are essential. Emergency medicine, which is a staggering 70 percent white, is not a vital branch of medicine, and less essential than the merely 64 percent white plastic surgery. Who says medical ethics are complicated?
We need to stop this clown show, people.
P.S. Now take a brain break and enjoy our viral video "How to speak Bidenese" 👇