BRETT: We were talking about cancel culture, and we were talking about woke and the idea that everything has to change because we’re declaring it must change. By edict, by declaration, everything must change. Do you know that professors are now calling for the abolishment of the physics term “quantum supremacy”?
“Quantum supremacy” has to be gotten rid of inside of physics because we’re fighting racism. Who knew that physics could take on the quality of racism or prejudice or any of those things? Who knew that? Well it just so happened we reached out to a physicist, not just any physicist, a physicist that really knows his stock-in-trade for a comment about this. This physicist who is a PhD in physics is Jack Mroczkowski.
He knows a little something about this, and when asked for a comment about jettisoning the term “quantum supremacy” in an effort to fight racism, he said the following: “The suggestion that the term quantum supremacy is linked to racism is ludicrous. The term ‘supremacy’ is correctly being used to describe a certain type of computer whose operation is fundamentally based on quantum principles.
“The descriptor, ‘supremacy,’ was inserted for technical comparison with standard silicon-based computers which are not based on quantum principles but on binary logic states. The term supremacy in the article is not at all being used to compare humans where that in fact would be objectionable.” Well, you know, Rush spoke about this, about why it is that Democrats want to see the world through race-colored glasses.
This is back in 2014.
RUSH: Yes, I confirmed that I am right. I generally don’t have to confirm that, but in this case I did. Racism is essentially a belief. It’s words. It’s thoughts. Racism is not — now, it can be action that results from beliefs or thoughts, but you simply can’t charge somebody of being a racist because of what they do. For example, Cuban seeing somebody on the street that threatens him who happens to be wearing a hoodie and may be black, so he leaves, that does not make him a racist because he took that action.
You’d have to find out what he believes. You’d have to find out what he thinks, what his belief system is. But you can’t simply say because he had a fear and ditto on the other side of the street with the skinhead tattooed Nazi-like figure. He had a fear. You’re never gonna be able to prove what he believes unless he admits it to you. See, the whole point of all this, the reason why the Democrats led by Obama see the world through race-colored glasses is the election coming up.
It’s their primary tool to turn out their base and their voters, because they don’t have anything policy-wise that’s going to do it. So they’re gonna resort to what they always resort to, their fear and all of the injustices and the inequalities and the unfairness and the lack of justice and all of those things that they use to convince all their voters that life is hell. And it’s just miserable, and the only way that you’re gonna stand a chance of being less miserable than you are is if you let the Democrats fight these battles for you by punishing the people making you miserable. And that’s essentially what they’re advocating.
Now, when Obama made his race speech back in 2008, do you remember why he had to do that? There’s a preacher by the name of Jeremiah Wright. And Obama had refused and refused and refused. Finally, the pressure became immense. The Drive-By Media, believing that he was the messiah, wanted him to make a statement on race and forever define the way it was going to be judged, seen, treated, dealt with, by our country and the world. And so he did. And it was in that speech that he referred to his white grandmother as a “typical white woman.”
Now, since we’re talking about the definition of racism, if you say in a speech about race, that your white grandmother is a typical white woman, is there a belief system undergirding that statement? Well, it’s an important question because that’s where you get to the real heart of racism, is a belief, a belief in superiority and inferiority and all the things that are attached to it. And he kind of stepped in it, so he had to explain what he was talking about. He loved his white grandmother, she’s great, but she’s a typical white woman. (interruption) Yeah, it gives away a lot.
He also said in that speech, historic race speech where we were lectured to on race, he said, “I can no more disown Reverend Wright than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in the world. But a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street and who, on more than one occasion, has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes and made me cringe.” So he could not disown Reverend Wright, but he threw his grandmother under the bus.
But if Senator Obama had no problem with it, why should we? Anyway, get used to more of this, and that’s probably not any kind of a brilliant prediction, because it’s one of the two or three primary things that the Democrats have left. The last thing in the world they’ll ever permit is a colorblind society. If you remove from their arsenal the charge that their opponents are racist, you take away over half of their power. So they don’t ever want to actually be something that’s solved. And they don’t think it ever can be. They think it’s institutional and part of the founding of the country.
BRETT: So that would raise the question, then, if we’re get rid of monuments, if we’re getting rid of statues, if we’re getting rid of names on schools, right? Remember they’re getting rid of Abraham Lincoln’s name on the side of a school, Ulysses S Grant’s name on the side of a school. If they’re getting rid of all those things — all those monuments, all those designations, those names that are used for military bases, what have you — then what’s the ultimate objective?
So if you purge all this and you purge all the history and it’s gone and future generations don’t learn about that history and why it was wrong to do this or to do that, then what’s the net take-away, other than just a remaking of the different sort of historical monuments and markers and statues and things like that? This speaks right to exactly what we’re talking about.
What Rush is talking about right there goes back to the Alexi McCammond story, goes back to the story there’s no redemption, goes back to… So if we’re to believe what then-Senator Obama was saying about his grandmother, she would have no way to make amends and become a better person, a bigger person, a more inclusive person.
And if you take away the hope that somebody can be redeemed, if you take away the hope that somebody can change, then not only are you gonna fundamentally transform, say, our cultural institutions and norms, but you’re also gonna put into question things like rehab centers where you go to get off of drugs or to give up alcohol or whatever addiction it might be.
If you are born this way — you cannot improve, you cannot change, your mind is wired this way — then what is the point in trying to aspire to be a better person? And that’s the ultimate challenge, isn’t it? Because a progressive believes that humanity — air quote, “humanity” — can improve the plight of humans.
But if your inclination is that and it’s locked and you can’t be redeemed, then what’s the point of trying to progress in any way, shape, or form? And I’m well aware that progressives are not progressive. They’re regressive in many, many ways when it comes to your freedom and liberty. But you eliminate any risk of hope taking root.
It’s really something to think about.