Now in Obama's America it's "unfair" to be white

[vector7]

Only black reporters allowed in Georgia mayoral race event

SAVANNAH, Ga. | Race was front and center on Wednesday night during a meeting coordinated to garner support for just one black candidate in Savannah’s mayoral election.

With signs stating “Black press only” on the doors of the church where the meeting was held, white reporters were barred from entry, while black reporters for at least two television stations were permitted inside.

The event was coordinated by the Rev. Clarence Teddy Williams, owner of the consulting firm, The Trigon Group, who declined to discuss the entry policy.

Former Savannah Mayor Edna Jackson declined to comment before going inside, as did Chatham County Commissioner Chester Ellis.

“This is not my idea,” Ellis said.

Savannah Alderman Estella Shabazz, who also attended, said that she had once owned a newspaper and she was a member of the black press, but she declined to comment on the policy barring white reporters from going inside.

While notes were allowed, photos, video and audio recordings were prohibited during the event, according to Stephen Moody, an African-American reporter with WJCL, who was allowed entry. Another reporter from WSAV who attended the meeting was told she could stay because she was black, Moody said.

Shirley James, the African-American publisher of the black-owned Savannah Tribune, was also seen going into the meeting.

Savannah Alderman Van Johnson, who is one of three African-Americans who have stated their intention to run for mayor, said afterwards that during the meeting he had talked about his vision for an inclusive and progressive Savannah. With regards to the discriminatory policy at the door, Johnson said he believed people have the right to assemble and determine the rules of their assembly.

“It’s not my meeting,” Johnson said. “I was asked to come and give a statement, so I came and I gave a statement. What I said in there, I’ll say out here.”

Louis Wilson, who said he is going to run for mayor again after an unsuccessful run in 2015, also spoke during the meeting about his priorities. Afterwards, Wilson also declined to discuss the press restriction.

“I didn’t plan the meeting so I can’t comment on that part,” he said. “I came to say what I had to say.”

Former state senator and representative Regina Thomas, who has announced her own campaign, did not attend the meeting. In an interview earlier this week, Thomas said she believes she can win, even if there is another black candidate.

“I’m encouraged every day by people of all persuasions,” Thomas said.

Meeting attendees were given a handout reporting the ethnic composition of Savannah’s population, as well as a vote breakdown for the 2015 election, when incumbent Jackson was defeated in a run-off by current Mayor Eddie DeLoach.

Also distributed was an editorial in the black-owned Savannah Herald titled “United We Win, Divided We Lose” that was written by former Mayor Otis Johnson. In the piece, Johnson called on the black population to organize itself to increase its influence over what happens in the community, starting with the mayor and council.

“If we come together and decide what we want and who we believe will work best for us to get it, then we have a chance to advance,” he said.

[vector7]

Reparations Shakedown

Indicting white Americans for "America’s original sin.”

April 8, 2019
David Horowitz
120


In 2008, the election of Barack Obama was universally hailed as an historic breakthrough event - the first African American presidency in American history. Great expectations were raised for what was then billed as the beginning of a new “post-racial era.” A decade later these expectations have not been fulfilled, and – worse – have been frustrated by the spread of “identity politics” – the most tribalistic, color - conscious and divisive attitude to dominate the public square since the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 outlawed discrimination on the basis of skin color.

An early sign of trouble in the new racial paradise was Obama’s designation of Al Sharpton - the nation’s second most notorious racial demagogue - as his “chief adviser” on race. As racial tensions in the nation’s streets intensified, this designation was fleshed out by over 80 Sharpton visits to the Oval Office, by far more than anyone else’s. It was further reflected in the White House’s embrace of extremist groups like Black Lives Matter and in the not-so-subtle White House covers for violent attacks on local law enforcement.

With Obama’s exit from office in 2016, the fury and violence of Ferguson and other beleaguered cities have faded, but the spirit of racial division remains and flourishes in the menu of Democratic demands. It was most recently manifest in a new Democratic ritual as the 2020 roster of Democratic presidential hopefuls has made a pilgrimage to Sharpton’s National Action Network conference to kiss the kingmaker’s ring and sign on to his list of outrageous demands. Most prominent among these is reparations for slavery to be paid by people who were never slave owners to people who were never slaves, 154 years after the fact.

The reparations demand is pure racism: Recipients will be paid on the basis of their skin color even if, like Kamala Harris, their ancestors were actually slave owners. It will be paid by people who had no historical connection whatsoever to slavery, and it will be paid by the very government that sacrificed 350,000 mainly white (and Christian) lives to abolish slavery and lead the world in doing so.

The real agenda of the reparations movement is clear. It is to indict white Americans for what Cory Booker and other leftist demagogues call “America’s original sin.” It is part of the Left’s assault on the Christian founders of America – an assault justified by a completely bogus version of history. Black Africans were not enslaved by white Christians. They were bought at slave auctions in Ghana and Benin where they had already been enslaved by Black Africans. It was the Christian crusader William Wilberforce who – for the first time in 3,000 years - declared slavery immoral and launched a campaign to end it. It was another white Christian, Thomas Jefferson (whose statue is a current target of leftwing ignoramuses, who wrote into America’s birth certificate that all men are created equal and have a God-given right to liberty. Within fifteen years of the Declaration most of the northern states had freed their slaves. It took less than a generation to complete the process, but at the horrendous cost of 350,000 Union lives.

The reparations campaign is a campaign to bury the fact that white Americans freed Black slaves who were originally put in chains by Black Africans and Muslims, and that the white Christian males who created this country are responsible for ending slavery and creating the most inclusive, tolerant and equal society on earth. It is a campaign to make Americans ashamed of their country, so that its enemies can more easily destroy it. Americans whose forbears declared their independence in 1776 and created a new nation conceived in liberty can be proud of their record on slavery. It’s demagogues like Sharpton and Harris and every other 2020 presidential hopeful in the Democratic Party who should rightfully be ashamed.

[vector7]

Democrats Call for ‘Counter-Insurgency’ Against Whiteness

Gregory Hood
American Renaissance
April 12, 2019

Congressional hearings were a day of infamy.

Democrats want a “counter-insurgency” against white advocacy. Republicans want to prove they aren’t racist. White nationalists are a serious threat to this country—and they mustn’t be allowed to speak for themselves.

These were the messages from this week’s chilling hearings on “white nationalism” in the House of Representatives. The propaganda was crude, and the statistics from the ADL were embarrassingly deceitful.

Corporate media made statements more outrageous than those from Democrats. “How pro-Trump Republicans became white nationalist apologists—and Hitler revisionists,” said Haaretz on Twitter, promoting an article accusing the GOP of “worshiping” fascism. Newsweek gave birth to this fantastic headline: “Donald Trump Jr. praises Candace Owens [of Turning Point USA] for her defense of Hitler comments.”

Congressman Tom McClintock was alone in making a principled defense of the First Amendment. He condemned the effort “to set up government or corporate officials to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.” Otherwise, congressmen, tech executives, and most witnesses took it for granted that big business and the government must restrict speech, allegedly to prevent violence. Congressmen David Cicilline, Joe Neguse, Jamie Raskin, and Congresswoman Karen Bass all cited the Anti-Defamation League’s phony statistics to justify censorship. Not one Republican disputed them.

Others cited a dubious “rise in hate crimes.” Candace Owens was the only witness to point out this is a fluke of changed data-gathering. Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason has made the same case.

The hearings were not about “data” or history. They were about blame. Several witnesses and congressmen said the president was partially responsible for the rise of white nationalism because he won’t condemn it. Yet one of the witnesses read out loud Donald Trump’s uncompromising condemnation of neo-Nazism: He said “they should be condemned totally.” The Democrats ignored it.

Eva Paterson of the Equal Justice Society was among those who repeated the lie that the president will not condemn white nationalism. She also said he called Mexicans rapists, which is not true. She claimed Donald Trump had “recently called asylum seekers animals.” She was referring to a viral tweet that made this claim. The president was talking about MS-13, not asylum seekers.

Miss Paterson also called for a “joint law enforcement-civilian task force” and “an organized counter-insurgency strategy” against white nationalism. Her claim that there are no “lone wolves” and that there is instead “an organized white nationalist group around the world that is being connected” is like Cold War talk about a “monolithic Communist conspiracy.”

The sole definition of “white nationalism” came from Eileen Hershenov, who called it “one of the many euphemisms for white supremacy.” The “core ideology” is “fear of the imminent genocide of the white race,” supposedly because of mass immigration and orchestrated by Jews. Miss Hershenov obviously intended to suggest that any opposition to mass immigration is “white nationalist” and “white supremacist.” Still, it’s interesting that even according to a hostile source, “white nationalism” isn’t about ruling or hurting other people, but resisting dispossession.


Eileen Hershenov

The focus on emotion rather than data was typified by including as a witness Dr. Muhammad Abu-Salha, the father of two Muslim women killed by a white man, Craig Hicks. Dr. Abu-Salha’s loss was terrible; several women representatives began crying when they questioned him.

However, it’s unknown whether Mr. Hicks acted on race or religion at all. He was reportedly infuriated by a long-standing parking dispute. The ADL did not even mention the case in its 2015 “Murder and Extremism Report.”

If brutal murders that cross racial lines are reason for congressional hearings, whites have been on the receiving end for decades. Anti-white statements from journalists, academics, and politicians as well as insulting portrayals in the media certainly contributed to some of these killings.

The murderer of Brittney Watts said he did it to “spread the message of making white people mend,” and is just one of countless examples. Yet there will be no hearings on anti-white messages in the media or universities, nor about open incitement to violence against whites on the internet . No Democrat congresswomen will cry for the cameras over the victims. Instead, to cite black columnist Leonard Pitts’s response to the “Knoxville Horror” murders, all we get is “cry me a river.”

Testimony over the FBI’s investigation of “black identity extremism” also reflects a double standard. This term was in a leaked FBI report to describe black groups that appear to be targeting police. Witness Kristen Clarke argued the movement is “not a real threat.” “It harkens back to the dark days of our federal government abusing its power to go after civil rights activists during the heyday of the civil rights movement,” she said.

This is ironic, coming from someone who, along with many others, called for censorship, surveillance, and repression against dissidents.

Representative Karen Bass, without naming him, alluded to Rakem Balogun (legal name Christopher Daniels), a supposed “black identity extremist” and political organizer who was arrested by the police on gun charges. Despite (or perhaps because of) extreme Facebook comments, such as mocking murdered police officers, Mr. Balogun has gotten largely positive press. There are sympathetic portrayals in The Guardian, New York Magazine, and Vice, among others. Mr. Balogun may indeed have been targeted for his political views.

However, many of those defending him are urging even more harsh treatment for white advocates. Vice wrote a story cheering when Facebook and other social media companies banned Faith Goldy, but Facebook still has a support page for Mr. Balogun.

Miss Goldy was specifically condemned by several congressmen. David Cicilline complained Facebook did not act quickly enough to remove her and demanded details on “proactive steps” the company could use to “identify leaders like Faith Goldy and preemptively remove them.” In response, Neil Potts of Facebook assured Congress that “there’ll be no praise, support or representation of her on our platform going forward.” She is to be a non-person, apparently. Congresswoman Madeleine Dean also complained about Faith Goldy and expressed her “disappointment” that Facebook was so slow to act.



Congressman Hank Johnson, who supported a black ethnostate in college, said “many white nationalists have used misinformation propaganda to radicalize social media users. . . .

How is YouTube working to stop the spread of far-right conspiracies intent on skewing users’ conception of fact and fiction?” Alexandria Walen of Google/YouTube replied that for content “on the borderline,” certain features are removed and it can’t be recommended to users (this frequently happens to AmRen videos). Thus, the world’s dominant media corporation admits it is deliberately suppressing certain political messages. Hank Johnson even complained that there is no way to prevent people someone from using the messaging service “WhatApp” to spread “hate speech.”

With the notable exception of Congressman McClintock, the Republicans at the hearing were cowards. They repeatedly tried to change the subject and complain about Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s alleged anti-Semitism. Otherwise, they joined in the hysteria over “white nationalism.”

Republican Congressman Don Collins thanked the chairman “for the opportunity for us to once again condemn white nationalism” and cited his party’s sanctions against Congressman Steve King. “American values share nothing ideologically with white nationalism,” he added. Eva Paterson of the Equal Justice Society refuted this in her opening statement, when she claimed the “Founding Fathers knowingly and consciously embraced slavery and white supremacy,” though she did not address Congressman Collins directly.

Republican Congressman Guy Reschenthaler boasted that the first time he ever spoke on the floor of the House was “to condemn white nationalism and white supremacy,” something of which he was “very proud.” He also bragged that the Republican Party stripped Steve King of all committee seats. Democrat Val Demings replied that “it took them [Republicans] over a decade to take any action against one of their own who had a reputation of making disparaging remarks.”

During the height of the McCarthy era, Communists could speak for themselves before Congress. “White nationalists” had no voice. Black conservative Candace Owens, who repeatedly accused the Democrats of exploiting blacks, was the closest thing whites got. Based on phony statistics, half-truths, and outright lies, elected officials in a supposedly free country openly demanded the use of corporate power to censor ideas.

This was a show trial against the entire concept of white identity. If such a hearing were held in Russia or China, Americans would call it a farce to justify persecuting an unwanted group. This is what we face today in our own country. This was a day of shame—not for white advocates, but for Congress and for America.

=========================================

[vector7]

Candace Owens at White Nationalism Hearing: Biggest Scandal Is Democrats Keeping Minorities ‘Perpetual Victims’

PENNY STARR

9 Apr 2019

Candace Owens, the communications director with Turning Point USA, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday that the topic of the hearings — white nationalism — wasn’t the true issue and that the biggest scandal is the Democrat Party’s fear-mongering to “brown people” and keeping minorities “perpetual victims.”

Owens, who said in her opening remarks that she is a Democrat who supports President Donald Trump, said Democrat policies have harmed blacks.

“The biggest scandal in American politics is that Democrats have been conning minorities into believing we are perpetual victims all but ensuring our failure,” Owens said.

Owens also said the hearing was more about the 2020 election than white nationalism, which she pointed out was much worse in the United States than during the lifetime of her grandfather, who was with her at the hearing.

“He grew up in an America where words like racism and white nationalism held real meaning under the Democrats Jim Crow laws,” Owens said.

“The hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes,” Owens said. “It’s about fear mongering, power and control.”

“It’s a preview of the Democrats’ 2020 strategy,” Owens said.

“Reparations and white nationalism,” Owens said. “That is the Democrats’ preview.”

Later in her remarks, Owens said she has suffered continuous mocking and hatred from Democrats because she is a conservative, including many calling her the N-word and “Uncle Tom.”

She said she came to her conservatism by studying history without the filter Democrats have put on racism in the United States, including the Party’s opposition to ending slavery and its involvement in the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy.

The committee, led now by the Democrat majority, wrote about the hearing on its website:

“This hearing will examine hate crimes, the impact white nationalist groups have on American communities and the spread of white identity ideology,” the committee’s website states. “The hearing will also foster ideas about what social media companies can do to stem white nationalist propaganda and hate speech online.”

“Communities of color and religious minorities have long been subject to discrimination and have been targeted by groups who affiliate with ideologies of hate,” the website states. “White identity groups have a long history of oppressing racial and religious minorities and promote individual expressions of violence with the aim of preserving white racial and political hegemony.”

[vector7]

The War Against White People

By Philip Carl Salzman
April 29, 2019



Anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture. Not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter, for whom statements such as “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter” are racist. Our highest leaders sing the same song.

Presidential candidate Barak Obama said of working class, white voters in 2008, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Not to be outdone by Obama, Hillary Clinton castigated half of Donald Trump supporters as “a basket of deplorables” who were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.” Clinton was not talking about Trump’s black, Asian, and Hispanic supporters; she was talking about millions of his white supporters and her fellow citizens.

And what could be more mainstream than the New York Times? In 2018 it appointed Sarah Jeong to its editorial board. Jeong was born in South Korea in 1988 and emigrated at the age of three when her parents came to the United States to study. She became a U.S. citizen in 2017. Jeong, a graduate of the University of California Berkeley and Harvard Law School, had expressed publicly many interesting opinions about white people. Here are only a few:

“Dumbass f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

It’s “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

I’m “just imagining being white and waking up every morning with a terrible existential dread about how I have no culture.”

“Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling bilious goblins?”

“Have you ever tried to figure out all the things that white people are allowed to do that aren’t cultural appropriation? There’s literally nothing.”

“The world could get by just fine with zero white people.”

The Growing Threat of Repressive Social Justice]

The Times Explains:

The Times said Jeong did not really mean those mean things she said. Jeong herself said, “As a woman of color on the internet, I have faced torrents of online hate,” so her statements were just a ‘right back at you’ response. Usually, the Times is very tough when employees say things they disagree with. Perhaps vilifying whites is not something it disagrees with. As well, there were many defenses of Jeong by “progressive” writers, such as Beauchamp at Vox, and Reihan Salam at The Atlantic.

It is surprising that Jeong, who has benefitted by taking degrees at two of America’s greatest universities and been hired by the premier American newspaper, should hold whites in such animus. It would be difficult to make a case that Jeong herself has been disadvantaged by racism. Even less justifiable by discrimination are the cases of whites who have made anti-white declarations. A white Rutgers professor, James Livingston, shared on Facebook his feelings about whites:

OK, officially, I now hate white people. I am white people, for God’s sake, but can we keep them — us — us out of my neighborhood? I just went to Harlem Shake on 124 and Lenox for a Classic burger to go, that would be my dinner, and the place is overrun by little Caucasian assholes who know their parents will approve of anything they do. Slide around the floor, you little shithead, sing loudly, you unlikely moron. Do what you want, nobody here is gonna restrict your right to be white. I hereby resign from my race. Fuck these people.

The debate at Rutgers and beyond about whether Livingston’s words were racism or free speech was not very enlightening, in part because they were both free speech and racism. From his comments, it appears that Livingstone was more irritated by teenagers than by whites. So why did he not complain about teenagers, as most of us parents do, rather than attack them as white? The answer must go deeper than a discussion about racism vs. free speech.

[The Feminist Mission to Undermine Heterosexuality]

Dreaming of White Genocide

One final example. On Christmas Eve 2016, Professor George Ciccariello of Drexel University in Philadelphia, “was” in the words of CNN “dreaming not of a white Christmas, but of a white massacre.” What were Professor Ciccariello’s words? “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.”

How did we get to this place, in which hating white people, the majority of Americans, not to mention wishing them all murdered, is deemed a virtue? The answer is that our liberal democratic culture emphasizing individual freedom and equality has transitioned, particularly among university and media elites in large cities and on the coasts, to a new culture that classifies and treats people by race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. Some observers have called this new culture “victimhood culture,” others have called it “diversitarian culture,” but most generally it is referred to as “social justice” culture.

“Social justice” culture replaces the individual with census categories and ranks these categories on a hierarchy of power and a converse hierarchy of virtue. Categories are distinguished between those with power, which are oppressor categories, and those without, which are victim categories. Intersectionism is a tool encouraging the accumulation of credits for belonging to multiple victim categories.

The origins of “social justice” culture are in the 1970s. The Women’s Movement of the previous decade morphed into the ever more radical Feminist Movement, which framed social relations in the gross categories of patriarchal male oppressors and blameless female victims. Understanding and knowledge were deemed to be “positional,” biased by one’s social position, so that no man could understand women, and, as the discussion developed, no middle-class woman could understand a working-class woman, and no white woman could understand a woman of color, no urban woman of color could understand a rural woman of color, and so on ad infinitum reductio ad absurdum.

Identity and subjectivity became the standard for knowledge, with science, especially biology, rejected, and objectivity derided: “Objectivity is just male subjectivity.” Feminism thus contributed to postmodernism the rejection of objectivity and celebration of subjectivity. “Truth” no longer exists; “each person has her own truth.”

By the 1970s, some of the 1960s counter-culture and anti-war activists had become professors, and some among them became the last people in the world to believe in Marxism. From that time, Marxist anthropology, Marxist sociology, Marxist political science, and Marxist geography became an important fixture in universities, where Marxism remains today, sometimes camouflaged by post-USSR labels such as “critical anthropology” or “political ecology.”

[Race and Gender Studies Kick Shakespeare Out of Class]

The Marxist idea of opposed economic classes, capitalists and proletarians, which in theory drove history through their conflicts, while not popular with the American public of any class, contributed to “social justice” culture the idea of oppression between category classes.

Assumptions Can’t Be Challenged

Feminism and Marxism in teaching, research, and scholarship sought out illustrations to confirm their unquestioned presumptions. Neither feminism nor Marxism has been open to evidence that might challenge conclusions or raise doubts about their assumptions. In this sense, they are not frames of open research, but self-validating ideologies that cannot be questioned. Both are political programs, and their advocates activists; both are meant not to understand the world, but to change it. Marx was quite clear on this: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in CSqvarious ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

“Social justice” ideology has absorbed the legions of feminism and Marxism, classing people in gross demographic categories: male, female; white, black, other people of color; hetero, homo, bi, trans; Christians, Jews, Muslims, South Asians, etc. Categories are then ranked in power: males, whites, heteros, and Christians have power and are oppressors of those without — females, non-whites, LGBT, Muslims. The point of “social justice” ideology is to undercut the power and oppression structure, to relieve the powerful of their sinful oppression, and the oppressed of their terrible wounds. This is seen as an ethical fight:
virtue is with “social justice” activists working for the welfare of the belabored, and against the power of the oppressors. Opponents of “social justice” are deemed to be evil.

However, individuals are regarded as evil not because of their attitudes or actions, but because of the structural position of the category to which they belong. White skin is equated with white supremacism. In fact, it is well documented that individual prejudice has declined remarkably, as shown in repeated surveys, and in interactions, e.g., the rapid growth of interracial marriages.

But this cuts no ice with “social justice” activists who argue that whites are still superordinate and therefore are, by virtue of being white, racist. Sociologists have helpfully invented the concept of “structural racism” to describe the statistical advantages on average that whites have over blacks.

One principle useful to activists that comes from this is that whites are deemed racist even if they are not personally prejudiced and do not discriminate because they belong to the powerful oppressors. In contrast, blacks, Asians, or non-white Hispanics who hate white people are not racist, because they do not have power. Thus, uniquely, whites are evil racists.

“Social justice” theorists have concluded that any statistical differences in status or assets between whites and blacks must be due to discrimination. This is unproven, as there are at least a number of other important influences that have not been taken into account and assessed as alternative explanations. One reason to doubt the discrimination explanation is that other unpopular minority populations are highly overrepresented in universities and prestigious professions. Furthermore, the historical facts are that blacks, Hispanics, and females have for decades received preferential treatment, being granted admittances and jobs at the expense of better qualified white male and Asian candidates.

[How Nine Universities Pander to Campus Radicals]

“Social justice” theorists consider no alternative explanations of racism, and, in their view, denial of racism proves racism. The “social justice” solution is to ensure that all minorities are given preference in all jobs, positions, and organizations, at least until they reach their percentage of the population in every organization, irrespective of individual talent, achievement, merit, and suitability. This forced equality of result is dignified by terms such as “diversity” and “inclusion,” although for everyone included because of his race, someone else is excluded because of her race, for everyone included because of her gender, someone else is excluded because of his gender, and for everyone included because they belong to an “underrepresented minority,” others with superior credentials will be excluded. That is “social justice” “inclusion”!

No Concern for Truth

The epicenter of “social justice” is colleges and universities, which have jettisoned the impartial quest for truth, and replaced it with gender, race, and sexual preferences and advocacy, and restrictions on speech lest someone have to hear ideas that he or she disagrees with or have one’s feelings hurt. It is not an accident that two of the white anti-white haters quoted above are university professors, and that the other anti-white hater has two degrees from elite universities.

There are entire identity “disciplines,” such as women’s studies, black studies, and queer studies, whose raison d’etre is to advocate for females, blacks, and LGBTs. Their narrative has been adopted wholesale in the humanities, especially English and history, and the social sciences, especially sociology, an early adopter, and anthropology. In Canada “Indigenous Studies” rules, with whites labeled “colonialist settlers.”

Ditto the Canadian humanities and social sciences. And since most North American university administrators come from the “progressive” social sciences and humanities, they are fully onside with making “social justice” the priority, even appointing legions of “social justice” administrators, given such titles as “diversity and inclusion officers.” This “progressive” corruption of universities, however, is leaking into the rest of society, undermining liberal democratic values.

“Social justice” advocacy always entails vilification of whites, males, and heterosexuals. In the intersectional sweepstakes, white hetero males are awarded minus three points, which means three points of oppressor evil, while black lesbian females are awarded plus three points, three points of victimhood virtue. White straight females do not do much better than white males, granted minus two points, two steps down into oppressor evil.

[How Social Justice Undermines True Diversity]

Increasingly, courses are offered that focus directly on whites and men, but not to celebrate them. Reformed leftist and culture critic David Horowitz told the Washington Post in 2013, “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women and white studies attacks white people as evil.”

University of Kansas students will soon be able to study the rise of the “angry white male.”

The college course, called Angry White Male Studies, will dive into “the deeper sources of this emotional state while evaluating recent manifestations of male anger” in the United States and Britain since the 1950s.

The course catalog description states: “Employing interdisciplinary perspectives this course examines how both dominant and subordinate masculinities are represented and experienced in cultures undergoing periods of rapid change connected to modernity as well as to rights-based movements of women, people of color, homosexuals and trans individuals.”

Not to be outdone, Webster University plans a re-education camp, a la Communist China and North Korea:

Webster University in St. Louis, Missouri, with the beginning of the spring semester in full swing, plans to operate a “safe space” in the fall of 2019 for recovering white people to admit that they are, by virtue of being white, anti-black racists. Only whites are welcome in these meetings, where students can confess to their racism and their white privilege. Note that it is presumed that being racist is simply part of Caucasian DNA, and since “students of color” can’t be racist, they have no need to go to such meetings.

Vincent Flewellen, chief diversity officer (and by virtue of his being the “chief” officer of diversity at Webster University, it is obvious that there are multiple staff involved in such work, which explains partly why tuition continues to rise at American colleges and universities), is developing a program, based on a book entitled Witnessing Whiteness: The Need to Talk About Race and How to Do It.

[How Social Justice Undermines True Diversity]

At Arizona State University, a course labeled “The Problem of Whiteness” is “concerned with dismantling white supremacy in part by understanding how whiteness is socially constructed and experienced.” The professor expanded on this theme: “White supremacy makes it so that white people can’t see the world they have created.”

Some Whites May Have to Die

The University of Georgia graduate student and teaching assistant has expressed strong views about whites:

Osei-Frimpong is outspoken on social media and on his YouTube series The Funky Academic.

In one example of a comment that has since been held against him as racist or violent, Osei-Frimpong said that “some white people may have to die for black communities to be whole in this struggle to advance freedom.” The California native also once said that he feels as if he’s around a “bunch of sociopaths” among whites in the South.
[Emphasis added.]

What are the chances that he has not expressed anti-white views in his teaching?

According to the Washington Post, thirty or more American universities, including Princeton, UCLA, New Mexico, U of M Amherst have offered courses in whiteness studies. Teaching and research often overlap with other anti-Western themes, such as postcolonialism and orientalism. Anti-racist activists are prominent in the field.

A central concept in whiteness studies is so-called “white privilege,” which all whites allegedly benefit from, and which makes all whites racists. It is common today for white university students to be told to “check your privilege,” and to defer to students of color. For example, At the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, “the university’s Office of Student Life papered the campus with posters inviting students to “check your privilege” and listing examples of privilege such as being white, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, Christian or a native English speaker.”

What objections can be raised to “white studies”? The comments quoted at the beginning of this essay show that critiques of white people easily morph into hatred of white people and anti-white hate speech, skating on the edge of inciting violence against whites, even to the point of praising the prospect of white genocide.

There are also legitimate objections to the kind of analysis offered by “social justice” advocates. The use of gross census categories, such as gender and race, to explain social patterns is to ignore both individual and category diversities. Individuals in each category range in characteristics over multiple continua, and to treat men or women or white or blacks as of they were all the same is the erasure of individuals and ludicrously crude.

It is obviously ridiculous to say that a working-class white boy raised by a single, poorly educated parent is privileged in relation to a black boy in a middle-class family, brought up by two educated parents. As one parody of “wokeness” puts it, “Only last weekend we berated a white homeless man sitting outside Taco Bell for his appalling lack of self-awareness regarding not only his own privilege but his flagrant disrespect towards cultural appropriation.”

To treat gross census categories as if the only possible difference between categories is power flies in the face of everything we know about human cultures. Different cultures, or racial and gender sub-cultures, convey different assumptions, beliefs, values, and goals. It is undeniable that some cultures strongly encourage education and entrepreneurship, while other cultures are less oriented in those directions.

The great racial injustice claimed by “social justice” enthusiasts is an artifact of demanding equality of results in all areas of life, and labeling as “institutional racism” the lack of equality of results. But results in each field come from motivations, capacities, and dedication, and the choices that individuals and members of populations make. Claiming that differential results is solely, or even mainly a result of racism is an injustice to people’s choices and contributions, and a denial of truth and reality.

Whites make up the majority in the U.S. and Canada. In a democracy, the will of the majority is supposed to be respected. To vilify, discount, and discriminate against the majority on behalf of much smaller minorities, e.g., blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population, is highly undemocratic. And, for “social justice” advocates who claim the moral principle of absolute equality, how is it an advance of equality and civility to exchange anti-black for anti-white bigotry, and anti-female for anti-male discrimination?

Philip Carl Salzman

Philip Carl Salzman is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at McGill University, Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a Director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.

[vector7]

Anderson Cooper: Decline of White American Demogzhraphic Is “Exciting”

Posted at 11:30 am on August 15, 2019
by Brandon Morse

The weird thing about the “rise of white supremacy” obsession the media has going right now is that they’re doing and saying things to put themselves so far on the opposite side of white supremacy that they end up becoming racist against white people, even if they themselves are white.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper is one such anchor who recently called the demographic decline of white people in America “exciting,” and then immediately mentioned how it would make white supremacists angry.

He said this during his show on Wednesday night while speaking with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos.

“The idea that, you know, whites will not be the majority, I mean, that’s — it’s an exciting transformation of the country, it’s an exciting evolution and you know, progress of our country in many different ways,” said Cooper.

Ramos agreed with Cooper and added that this is a positive development.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6TaOyNuP6g
21 secondss

I’m not going to give any heed to the argument of what is and isn’t considered racism. Racism is racism, whether you’re racist to a black person or a white person.

And what we just watched was racism.

Cooper didn’t call the development “interesting,” or treat it with any kind of neutral or fact-based language. He called it “exciting.” That’s a word you use when talking about about a future event you’re looking forward to, like a concert featuring your favorite band or a vacation to a tropical location.

Despite its popularity right now, racism against white people is awful. The erasure of its culture should be considered bad just as it would be considered if any other culture were steadily being wiped off the map. If it were any other kind of race, you’d see days of appreciation or awareness pop up.

Cultures change, and that’s a natural thing that happens. Why it’s “exciting” to see white culture disappear, however, is sinister at its heart. You’re essentially applauding the disappearance of a people. If, for some reason, it were the Hispanic population that was disappearing from America and Cooper had called it exciting, he’d be tarred and feathered for his racism.

However, racism against whites is not only okay, but it’s also encouraged in today’s society. I find that awfully disturbing.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...phic-exciting/