Saturday, July 23, 2016

NAZI PARTY PLATFORM VS. REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORMS (You Might Be A Nazi)




During this election cycle, people have been throwing the word NAZI around as if it means someone who disagrees with your political views. It is an affront to those in Europe and America who died as a result of the ideology to use that word in that manner. Nazism had it's roots in Marxism and Socialism. And it was totalitarian. People are still alive that lived through WWII and it is an affront to them to call people NAZI. If you do that, you are without conscience. And you need to actually learn what the Nazis stated that they wanted and what they actually did. They were not the same thing.

“The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes”― Adolf Hitler
The truth of the matter is that there are some similarities in what both candidates stated policies are and Nazi Socialism, but there are also many things that are dissimilar. The major difference is in what the Nazis actually did.

On face value, the first several demands on the Nazi Party 25 Point Program give the appearance of being similar to Donald Trump's immigration policies, that is not necessarily to say that it is similar to Republican Party policy on immigration.

Yes, the Nazis wanted to expel anyone who was not Aryan, and deny citizenship to anyone, particularly Jews, who wasn't Aryan.

Donald Trump does not call for the expulsion of non-Americans. He calls for a temporary halt on the immigration of Muslims, and for people from Mexico and South America to follow the Rule of Law when they come to America.

The Republican Party Platform calls for the Rule of Law, and also states: “ The greatest asset of the American economy is the American worker. Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of our national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.”

“In this country, the rule of law guarantees equal treatment to every individual, including more than one million immigrants to whom we grant permanent residence every year. That is why we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it.”

As far as the wall that Donald Trump calls for, that is nothing new. In fact there was a law enacted by Congress way back in 2006, for a double-layered fencing along the border, called the Secure Fencing Act of 2006. It passed by a vote of 80-19. That means quite a few Democrats voted for it.

The Republican Party Platform does call for it to be built.
Donald Trump's position on immigration can be found here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

But as you can see, there is nothing here to call for any racial mistreatment of anyone. No concentration camps or internment here.

The Founding Fathers were against indiscriminate immigration. That's a fact.
“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”--Alexander Hamilton.

"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."--Alexander Hamilton
If that's not Nationalism, I don't know what is.

George Washington felt that immigration should be limited to “useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.”

“In proportion to their numbers, they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent mass.”--Thomas Jefferson.

But as a matter of fact, in places like Colorado, Hispanic Mexican Democrats were in favor of Japanese internment camps because so many of them had died during WWII.
The Japanese Internment Camps and the Secure Fencing Act of 2006 are just a few ways Democrats supported limits on immigrants.

The Nazi Party was against capitalism and free trade. Those are two things that the Republican Party very much supports.

The Republican Party Platform calls for regulatory reform in order to create jobs and reduction of taxes. “The bottom line on regulations is jobs. In listening to America, one constant we have heard is the job-crippling effect of even well-intentioned regulation. That makes it all the more important for federal agencies to be judicious about the impositions they create on businesses, especially small businesses.”

Now here is where things get interesting, since it is most frequently liberal Democrats who throw the word Nazi around.

“Democrats believe we are stronger when we have an economy that works for everyone—an economy that grows incomes for working people, creates good-paying jobs, and puts a middleclass life within reach for more Americans. Democrats believe we can spur more sustainable economic growth, which will create good-paying jobs and raise wages. And we can have more economic fairness, so the rewards are shared broadly, not just with those at the top. We need an economy that prioritizes long-term investment over short-term profit-seeking, rewards the common interest over self-interest, and promotes innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Now here is Nazi Platform on the same subject.
“We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.”

“Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.” Unearned income refers to income from owning property, inheritance and pensions. Pretty much like the Occupy Movement wants to get rid of.

“We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.” Now look back at the Democratic Platform: “rewards are shared broadly, not just with those at the top”.

“We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.” – Nazi 25 Point Program

Again, notice the Democratic Platform's comment about the middleclass, above, and this: “We believe that today’s extreme level of income and wealth inequality—where the majority of the economic gains go to the top one percent and the richest 20 people in our country own more wealth than the bottom 150 million—makes our economy weaker, our communities poorer, and our politics poisonous.” “ Democrats believe we must break down all the barriers holding Americans back and restore the basic bargain that built America’s mighty middle class:”

“The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [StaatsbĂŒrgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.”--Nazi 25 Point Plan

“Democrats know that every child, no matter who they are, how much their families earn, or where they live, should have access to a high-quality education, from preschool through high school and beyond.” “Democrats know that every child, no matter who they are, how much their families earn, or where they live, should have access to a high-quality education, from preschool through high school and beyond.”

“ Democrats will invest in early childhood programs like Early Head Start and provide every family in America with access to high-quality childcare and high-quality preschool programs.”

Note the Nazi “as early as the beginning of understanding”.
“The Democratic Party is committed to eliminating opportunity gaps—particularly those that lead to students from low-income communities arriving on day one of kindergarten several years behind their peers.

“The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.”

Note the Nazi reference to, “We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.”
It's not necessary to quote the exact wording of the Democratic Platform here; Everyone knows that the Democrats supported Obama Care.

“We firmly believe that the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street must be brought to an end. Wall Street must never again be allowed to threaten families and businesses on Main Street.”

“We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.” --Nazi 25 Point Program 
Userers are bankers
.
“Corporate profits are at near-record highs, but workers have not shared through rising wages. Profit-sharing is linked to higher pay and productivity. That is why, working with business, labor, and other stakeholders, we will incentivize companies to share profits with their employees on top of wages and pay increases, while targeting the workers and businesses that need profit-sharing the most.” 

“Democrats will not hesitate to use and expand existing authorities as well as empower regulators to downsize or break apart financial institutions when necessary to protect the public and safeguard financial stability, including new authorities to go after risky shadow-banking activities. Banks should not be able to gamble with taxpayers’ deposits or pose an undue risk to Main Street. Democrats support a variety of ways to stop this from happening, including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall as well as breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to the stability of our economy.”
Democratic Platform

“We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.” --Nazi 25 Point Program
Social Security

The Nazis supported Social Security. “We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.”

“And as the party that created Social Security, we believe in protecting every American’s right to retire with dignity.” Democratic Platform

“Democrats will expand Social Security so that every American can retire with dignity and respect, including women who are widowed or took time out of the workforce to care for their children, aging parents, or ailing family members.” ----Democratic Platform

“While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system. Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non- partisan actuary’s reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now.” --Republican Party Platform
Federalized Troops
“We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.” Nazi 25 Point Plan
“.. we believe that military and police forces should support democracy, not subvert it.” “We will work with police chiefs to invest in training for officers.” “the creation of national guidelines"

Despite saying this: “ You’ve got mayors whose police force is outgunned by the criminals and the gang-bangers.” Hillary also said: “ “I think that when you have police violence that terrorizes communities, that doesn’t show the respect that you’re supposed to have from protecting people in your authority, that can feel also terrorizing,” she said.

She’s basically saying police are terrorists.

“ "There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. And that requires a very clear agenda for retraining police officers, looking at ways to end racial profiling, finding more ways to really bring the disparities that stalk our country into high relief."

“The deaths of Alton and Philando drove home how urgently we need to make reforms to policing and criminal justice...how we cannot rest until we root out implicit bias and stop the killings of African Americans."

“ We all need to try as best we can to walk in one another's shoes, to imagine what it would be like to sit our son or daughter down and have the talk about how carefully they need to act around police because the slightest wrong move could get them hurt or even killed. “

“ We need national guidelines about the use of force, particularly lethal force. “

“ That’s why again, I reiterate a call for national guidelines. We have 18,000 police departments, some of them are very small, some of them are not very well trained. Some of them don’t really have the resources that are necessary to keep training and retraining. “
Both parties support the reduction of incarceration.

“In the past, judicial discretion about sentences led to serious mistakes concerning dangerous criminals. Mandatory minimum sentencing became an important tool for keeping them off the streets. Modifications to it should be targeted toward particular categories, especially nonviolent offenders and persons with drug, alcohol, or mental health issues, and should require disclosure by the courts of any judicial departure from the State’s sentencing requirements.” --Republican Party Platform

“Democrats are committed to reforming our criminal justice system and ending mass incarceration.”--Democratic Platform

“Despite improvements as a result of Republican nominations to the judiciary, some judges in the federal courts remain far afield from their constitutional limitations. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Judicial activism which includes reliance on foreign law or unratified treaties undermines American law. The sole solution, apart from impeachment, is the appointment of constitutionalist jurists, who will interpret the law as it was originally intended rather than make it. That is both a presidential responsibility, in selecting judicial candidates, and a senatorial responsibility, in confirming them. We urge Republican Senators to do all in their power to prevent the elevation of additional leftist ideologues to the courts, particularly in the waning days of the current Administration. In addition to appointing activist judges, the current Administration has included an activist and highly partisan Department of Justice. With a Republican Administration, the Department will stop suing States for exercising those powers reserved to the States, will stop abusing its preclearance authority to block photo-ID voting laws, and will fulfill its responsibility to defend all federal laws in court, including the Defense of Marriage Act.”

“While freedom of expression is a fundamental constitutional principle, we must condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence.” --Democratic Platform

In other words,  they want to interpret the Constitution rather than enforce it. That leaves a lot of room for suppressing the press and media and free speech.
“We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.”
"I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected — but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be,"
There’s that tendency to reinterpret the Constitution rather than enforce and uphold it.

“With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.”--Democratic Platform

The point with this is that like Hitler, they intent to enforce strict gun control and probable confiscation despite sort of saying otherwise. They stop short of saying that you have a constitutional right to bear arms by sayig that “gun ownership is a part of the fabric of many communities.”

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”--Adolf Hitler “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”--Adolf Hitler

“To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens.”--Adolf Hitler

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” --Adolf Hitler, 1935, The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

Some people say Hitler never said that. But the fact remains that the German government, under the Weimar Republic, before him had already enacted gun control laws in an effort to control the Nazi and Communist parties. The Nazis just added to them to control the Jews. They actually loosened the laws so that Nazis and the military could have them, making it easier to control the people. They also enacted gun confiscation in occupied countries.

“As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” --Adolf Hitler

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

I love this quote. “As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.”--Adolf Hitler
In case you don't understand what that means, it means that don't admit that your opponent might be right about anything, because if you do, you might have to admit there are some flaws in your position. That's about as liberal and as leftist as it gets.

The point here is that while there are some similarities to Nazism in both parties, the Republican ones are being misinterpreted, and the Democratic Party has a lot more similarities than the Republicans do, including Donald Trump. Stop being a dumbass and read. Above all stop diluting the evil that Nazism was by calling everyone that disagrees with you a Nazi or a racist. Free your mind and the rest will follow.

“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.”--Adolf Hitler

“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” ― Adolf Hitler

Thursday, July 14, 2016

JANE ELLIOTT, SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR OR QUEEN OF BRAINWASHING?

JANE ELLIOTT, SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR OR QUEEN OF BRAINWASHING?
How One Woman Invented White Privilege

July 14, 2016

You have probably never heard of Jane Elliott. But you've probably been effected by her ideas. You can read some about her here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott But what you need to know is that she did a sadistic and manipulative social experiment in her classroom back in the 1960's. It was filmed several times. But if you have seen any of it, it is most likely the ABC film of it. There are shortened sections of it available on YouTube. But on PBS under Frontline, there is an episode called, A Class Divided. She says you should watch it to see what effect her experiment has on children for the rest of their lives, how as adults they can never go back to being what they were before the exercise. And she's obviously proud of it. She thinks they are better off for having gone through it because they now understand what it's like to be black and how much suffering they have to go through because we as whites force it on them.

She says she came up with the idea the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. She came to the conclusion that he was killed due to our whole society being racist. She believes we are all racist and that the best hope of changing this is with children.

The next day one of her students came into her classroom and asked, "Hey, Mrs. Elliott. They shot that King yesterday. Why'd they shoot that King?" When all of the other students were in the classroom she asked, "How do you think it would feel to be a Negro boy or girl?" "It would be hard to know, wouldn't it, unless we actually experienced discrimination ourselves. Would you like to find out?" The students were enthusiastic about this idea and she had counted on it and planned what she was going to do.

This is how she set up the experiment. She divided her students up according to those with blue eyes and those with brown eyes. The first day those with brown eyes were given power and status. When people are subjected to this experiment, the first group receives rewards and favoritism. They are even allowed to join in on the taunting and insults that the blue eyed group are subjected to. The next day she reversed the roles. Now it was the blue eyed students who were in the favored position. Only there is a difference. They are reluctant to mistreat the brown eyed students because they understand what it feels like. She saw this as proof that black people's underachievement was due to white racism. If you reversed the position of whites and blacks, whites would become underachievers too. "We had one (brown-eyed) girl with a mind like a steel trap who never misspelled a word until we told her that brown eyes were bad," she told a campus audience years later.( "Jane Elliott Attacks Racism in UNCP Address," University Newswire, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, October 10, 2002). This was the beginning of diversity-training as an industry.

But her experiment is based on the supposition that all white people are racist and that they must be reprogrammed to accept their guilt and change because of it. That being fortunate is wrong if everyone is not as fortunate as you.

Jane Elliott says that we should educate people rather than indoctrinate them. The word indoctrination is often used in connection with religion, but not always. Indoctrination--to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs.--Merriam-Webster. Other definitions include the idea of force. Indoctrination is the process of forcibly inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine) by coercion. She says that in this country we don't educate students. And her definition of educate is one who is engaged in leading people out of ignorance. Martin Luther King disagreed with her. “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.”-- Martin Luther King, Jr. But she is an indoctrinator. She seems to think that what she is doing is teaching empathy.

Her claim to be the benevolent teacher is belied in her manner and shown for the brainwashing that it is. I found this quote on her website, and it's pretty accurate. "It won't help much to be prepared to face Jane Elliott. This elderly woman will tear down any shield. Even we, the spectators in BLUE EYED, can't get rid of this feeling of uneasiness, embarrassment, anxiety and utterly helpless hatred when she starts keeping people down, humiliating them, deriding them, incapacitating them. No doubt about this: for three quarters of the time in this documentation Jane Elliott is the meanest, the lowest, the most detestable, the most hypocritical human being hell has ever spit back on earth. But she should be an example for all of us". - Stuttgarter Zeitung


Apparently, we aren't irredeemable as a race, because we can still be taught. And we do require being taught and she's just the one to do it. We are all in denial about our racism and we tell ourselves that it doesn't exist. She was interviewed by PBS in 2002 and had this to say, "We are constantly being told that we don't have racism in this country anymore, but most of the people who are saying that are white," she said. "White people think it isn't happening because it isn't happening to them."

Her claim to fame began soon after that. Some of her students wrote essays about the experiment that were published in the local paper in her town of Riceville. Iowa. This garnered her a guest appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. People all over the country were angry that she would subject her students to this.

The people in Riceville weren't happy and still aren't. She says she has been threatened with firing by the school board and angry parents. She also said she was Riceville's only “nigger lover”. She says her students were harassed too. And all this anger only served to further convince her that white people needed to be reprogrammed.

ABC television produced the half-hour documentary, in 1970 "Eye of the Storm," in which she is show demonstrating her experiment on her class. During the same year, she did a demonstration of it at a White House Conference on Children and Youth. PBS also did a documentary in 1985 called, "A Class Divided." Progressives quickly accepted her methods as a way to further their own beliefs and agendas.

She retired a few years later, and began teaching her ideas in the corporate world. She said at one time she was making $6000 a day from companies, the government and institutions. Her videos cost $225 a piece. How did she sell the idea to them?

She convinced them that a work force that was free from racism would have higher morale and therefore bring in higher profits. This was also true of government agencies. With affirmative action being instituted, there were more minorities in those sectors of employment.

A Supreme Court ruling in 1986 said that employers could be sued for damages if there was a hostile work environment even if there was no intent to harm the employees. Companies were sued for allowing any racial bias at all. And it was expensive. Lawyers and the Department of Justice cost companies huge amounts of money. If your company lost one of these suits you could be subjected to heavy fines and your company had to put diversity plans into practice, overseen by the DOJ.

In order to avoid the bad publicity, it was easy to convince them that diversity-training was cheaper even if unpleasant. Enter Jane Elliott. Her training films that started with “Eye of the Storm” and “A Class Divided” were followed up by "Blue-Eyed," "The Angry Eye," "The Stolen Eye," and "The Essential Blue-Eyed." “Indecently Exposed,” “Eye Opener,” and “Wide Eyed.” Her videos are promoted on the web by the National MultiCultural Institute in Washington, DC. They are a consulting company for diversity-training. She also has her own website. http://www.janeelliott.com/ Business Training Media, Inc., which sells "The Essential Blue-Eyed" for $299.99.

Government and Universities use her videos too.

She teaches or lectures things that are false and she will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with her. She has a very forceful, overbearing and rude manner about her. After you read some of her arguments, watch some of her videos and you will see what I mean. In a 1998 interview with an Australian Internet magazine, Webfronds, she said: “You're all sitting here writing in a language [English] that white people didn't come up with. You're all sitting here writing on paper that white people didn't invent. Most of you are wearing clothes made out of cloth that white people didn't come up with. We stole these ideas from other people. If you're a Christian, you're believing in a philosophy that came to us from people of color.”

English developed from Germanic dialects spoken along the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, Jutland, and Southern Sweden by Germanic tribes known as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. In the fifth century, the Anglo-Saxons settled Britain and the Romans withdrew from Britain. I will agree with her on paper. The Egyptians had papyrus, but the Chinese invented paper. NĂ„lebinding is Danish in origin. It means literally "binding with a needle" or "needle-binding". We call it felt. There are examples of it that date from 6500 BC. But nobody knows for sure who invented cloth because cloth deteriorates. We didn't steal ideas from other people. It's called cultural exchange and it is as old as mankind. It goes back to the time when humans were nomadic and would encounter peoples from other areas who did things differently. There are a few things that we have invented that minorities benefit from too. Classical music, parliamentary government. There are too many literary contributions to name.

She says white people invented racism too. It's a fact that the ancient Mesopotamians had slaves. One would imagine they justified this with racism.

It would be hard to estimate the damage done by programs she is associated with. With her morally superior attitude she accuses us all of being morally complicit. If we are complicit in anything, it is in allowing liberals to take control of our government and society.


I am going to tell you some of the things she says and address the ones I can.

She says that the curriculum taught white superiority and that she refused to teach that and that she also refused to teach that there were different races. I don't know how to disprove this. But I know that I was not taught that I was superior to other races in public school.

She says that the idea of different races originated about 500 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition. And that we have to wipe that idea out of our students heads. She says we are all members of the same race whether we like it or not. The Bible explains where all of the races came from and it a lot older than 500 years old. The ancient Hebrew people were prohibited from mixing races. (Deuteronomy 7:3-4 “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
Biologically, we are very similar. But to say that biologically there is only one race, denies DNA evidence. A scientist can tell you the racial heritage of a person by looking at their DNA. A lot of scientists will tell you that you can't do this because everyone's DNA is so similar. But mitochondrial DNA does have differences that can be used to determine when an individual's ancestors left Africa. In 2003, Tony Frudakis developed a test called DNAWitness and he used it to help the FBI determine the race of a serial killer. But it's not used much because, it's expensive and because it's not politically correct. The theory is that it could be expanded. "Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it's not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test," says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association. A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect’s Race, But Police Won’t Touch It

I'm not saying that people should be discriminated against because of those differences. But a teacher should know better than to say something that isn't strictly true.

She says that the reason white people don't want people of color to have power is because we are afraid they will do to us what we have done to them. How then does she explain Barach Obama?

She says that we still have slavery in the form of all of the young black men who are in prison for victim-less crimes. And she says that it is due to the Three Strikes law. According to her, Bill Clinton instituted it because he needed somewhere to put all the young men of color to get rid of them. The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. How is a violent crime victim-less? There may be more blacks sent to prison under this law, but they are also the ones committing the majority of the violent crimes. Blacks commit about 52% of violent crimes but they only make up 13% of the population.

She says we should have offered them the choice to go to school and get an education instead of sending them to prison. Why should the American people pay to educate them as a reward for crime? I completely agree with the idea that paying for education is cheaper than supporting uneducated people in the long run. But that needs to happen before they become criminals.

She said that prisons make money for a community by employing about 300 people. But what about the costs to the community to house and take care of the inmates? The Vera Institute of Justice released a study in 2012 that found the aggregate cost of prisons in 2010 in the 40 states that participated was $39 billion. The annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,286 per inmate. New York State was the most expensive, with an average cost of $60,000 per prison inmate.

She says that white people take it as a personal insult that black people have survived and that many of them have been successful . That's kinda funny because in saying that, she acknowledges that not all black people have been unable to succeed because of the supposed institutional racism. Some of them are able to do the same thing as everyone else, rise to their own personal challenges. Black people did not create affirmative action by themselves. They did not free themselves from slavery. Some white people are actually proactive in their survival and success.

She says that we are afraid because we know that within 30 years, at the current rate of population growth, we will be a minority; and we are afraid that we will be treated the way we are treating other people now. She says we should fix this by treating people better so that we can have a better future.
She attempted to speak on white people's perception of Christianity in America, saying basically, that we think Mary was pale and blonde and that Jesus was too. She then proceeded to tell another lie. She said that the Bible says that Jesus had feet of bronze and kinky woolly hair. The feet of bronze thing comes from the Bible saying that his feet shined like bronze. John was describing a vision he saw of Christ in heaven, no longer in his earthly form. Revelation 1:14- 15 New Living Translation: His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And his eyes were like flames of fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice thundered like mighty ocean waves. The reference to wool was to the white color. There is nothing there saying kinky, woolly hair, as in texture. And the bronze meant the metal bronze. Not dark colored skin. Jesus was a Jew. In (Leviticus 19:27) they were commanded not to cut their beards or the hair on the sides of their head, like right in front of their ears. This is why Orthodox Jews today wear those long curls in front of their ears. Other than that, we can only speculate on what he looked like according to what other Jews in his community looked like. Because the other descriptions of him in the Bible say, “(Isaiah 53:2)He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” (Psalm 45:2) Thou art fairer than the children of men.That likely means he beautiful as opposed to fair complected. But it isn't due to physical appearance but inner beauty. (Lamentations 4:7) "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more swarthy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than coal;" as referring to eye color.” That would indicate that he was fair complected, possibly relative to the color of other people around him. He had dark eyes as well. Not that I would give it any credence, but the Koran says that Jesus had curly hair and a ruddy complexion. And other writers say his hair was lank, indicating straight hair.

It really doesn't matter that Medieval depictions of Christ were European. Because there were also contradictory opinions of learned writers. Some of them describing him as short and ugly. And others saying that from a theological point of view he had to be beautiful. The point she was trying to make was that we think we have a straight line to God because we think he looks like us. Some people probably do, because they are just like her, they never read the Bible before passing on incorrect information. She and the black people who agree with her misquote the Bible because they want Jesus to look like them too so they can relate to him better. If you buy into the Black Christ theory, it is possibly that some of his ancestry was black. Some of the men in the Old Testament married women of other nationalities and races. Whatever he looked like, it probably wasn't either black or white. For someone who is supposed to be an educator as opposed to an indoctrinator, she certainly says a lot of things that are false and easily disputed.

I just love the racist generality of her saying that white people all have the same beliefs when it comes to religion. People would jump up and down if I said that about blacks. The truth is neither blacks or whites as a group behave in a very Christian manner. But many individuals live exemplary lives.

She says that when you talk to people you are less likely to be prejudiced toward them. And yet she says all of these things that are prejudiced. And she doesn't talk to people she brow beats, shames and berates them.

She says the Bible talks about the family of men and doesn't talk about people of all these different colors, that we are all members of the same race. She said this right after going out of her way to lie and indicate that Jesus was black, which is a race. I've already addressed the inaccuracy of this statement.

The host who is interviewing her says a lot of racist things too. Between the two of them, they say that the reason white people point out Martin Luther King as a role model for black people is because he is dead, that we don't get to tell them who they should look to for a leader, and that white people in power killed him. She says that we weren't smart enough to know that he would become a martyr if we killed him. And that he stood not for equality but treating people equitably. Then goes on to say that the Constitution doesn't guarantee equal rights, but equitable treatment under the law. I don't think she's read it. It doesn't say either. I don't know whether she is saying EQUATABLE or EQUITABLE. The first means two things that are similar or comparable. The second means fair, impartial, or proportionate. Since she says the Constitution doesn't guarantee things to be equal, I will assume she was saying EQUITABLE. Because equal does mean the same amount.

As I said, she must not have read the Constitution. The second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal. Although it isn't part of the Constitution, it is still part of the basis it was written on. The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word equal in section 1. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. We almost had an amendment called the Equal Rights Amendment. She is free to interpret the Constitution however she wants to. But the fact remains, neither equitability or equality are guaranteed in the Constitution in any other area than treatment under the law. So if there were to laws enacted to insure equality, we would have been free to treat people unequally according to the Constitution. But any laws enacted have to be applied equally to everyone. Anywhere there isn't a law to constrain us or give us guidelines, we are free to treat people unequally. I guess Constitutional Law doesn't play much into being a 3rd grade teacher, but it is something that every American should be familiar with so that when someone says something incorrect like she did, you will know it.

She says that white people are scared to death that if one black man was able to gain enough political power to become POTUS that others can get organized and do the same thing. But at least 49% of white people voted for him in 2008 and 39% of white people voted for him in 2012. So not all white people are scared of him.

She says that Donald Trump means to take America back to the way it was before civil rights and equal rights, back to the 1950's. But he wrote a book about it and it seems to be a feasible idea to stick to what he says it means. “We need a government that is committed to winning and has experience in winning,” Trump writes in “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.” “This book is about how we do that.” “We will have the strongest military in our history, and our people will be trained with the best weaponry and protection available,” he writes. “We’ve dumbed down the curriculum to the lowest common denominator,” Trump argues. “In many schools, we’ve eliminated grading entirely and diplomas have been practically devalued into certificates of attendance.”

He rails against the federal programs Common Core, No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, which “allow progressives in the Department of Education to indoctrinate, not educate, our kids.”

Trump consistently argues the competitive advantage remains with private enterprise.

“In Washington, D.C., I’m converting the Old Post Office Building on Pennsylvania Avenue into one of the world’s greatest hotels,” he points out.

“My home in Palm Beach, Mar-a-Lago, was once the greatest mansion in the country, but its previous owner, the United States government had let it deteriorate,” he writes. “Nobody had the vision to see what it could be. I restored it, rebuilt it, and now – go online and see what I’ve accomplished there. We brought the property back to the greatness it once was – and then made it better!”

Trump believes in restoring law and order,“both on the street and in our courtrooms,”. And he believes that we should do that by supporting law enforcement and providing them with the equipment and training needed “to protect themselves and our honest, hardworking citizens”. He also believes we should put judges on the bench who understand the Constitution and leave lawmaking up to the legislators.

“Crippled America” reminds citizens that the strongest middle class in the history of the world has been built not by relying on government handouts but by unleashing the creative intelligence and determined ingenuity of the people.

“Making America Great Again begins at home,” Trump concludes. “It means restoring a sense of dignity to the White House, and to our country in general.

“The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world,” he writes. “The president is the spokesperson for democracy and liberty. Isn’t it time we brought back the pomp and circumstance, and the sense of awe for that office that we all once held?”

It really isn't relevant whether you support that or not. The point is this woman says so many inaccurate things and assumes so much prejudiced nonsense it is difficult to take her seriously when she sets out to educate others on the injustice of racial prejudice.

A lot of the inequality she rails against come down to money if you really think about it. At one point during her interview, she jokes about the fact that she gets paid large amounts of money to give speeches. She's been on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" at least five times. She's personally led diversity-training sessions for General Electric, Exxon, AT&T, IBM, and other major corporations, plus federal agencies such as the Department of Education and the U.S. Navy. She's lectured at more than 350 colleges and universities. She's been the subject of television documentaries. A Disney made-for-TV movie about her life reportedly has been in the works since 2003. Textbook publisher McGraw-Hill has listed her on a timeline of key educators of history, right up there with Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Horace Mann, Booker T. Washington, Maria Montessori and nearly two dozen others. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1019. I've pointed out how she makes $6000 per lecture she gives and that she makes A LOT of money marketing her videos.

She doesn't seem too ashamed of her white privilege.

Not everything written about her is very flattering. Alan Charles Kors, a distinguished historian at the University of Pennsylvania who has written a thorough and perceptive analysis of the movement Elliott embodies, describes her as the “Torquemada of thought reform.” And he’s not alone. Linda Seebach, a former columnist for the former Rocky Mountain News (perhaps it couldn’t survive her retirement) wrote in 2004, quoted in a Smithsonian article, that Elliott was a “disgrace” and described her exercise as “sadistic,” adding, “You would think that any normal person would realize that she had done an evil thing. But not Elliott. She repeated the abuse with subsequent classes, and finally turned it into a fully commercial enterprise.” The BBC said that her training style is “uncompromising, brusque and authoritative. She tells her captive audience, she is their “resident BITCH for the day – Being In Total Control Honey.” Strong critics of Elliott, such as Carl F. Horowitz call her the “Dominatrix of Diversity” who wages “…psychological warfare against employees – more specifically, white employees….”.


If she lies about so many things or is just wrong about them, how in the world is it a good idea to allow her to teach people about how we are all racist?







Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The Myth Of White Privilege

The Myth Of White Privilege

Wanda L.Thacker 7-13-2016

I want to start this by stating emphatically, I am sick to death of being expected to apologize to ANY ethnic minority for ANYTHING.

I read a post by a Facebook friend today. It contained a video of a woman named Jane Elliott attempting to make a point about racism. She says that because nobody would stand up and say that they wanted to be treated like black people in America that they are willing to accept it. Of course not many people would be willing to stand up in front of a group of people and disagree with her, and she knew it. And there is another one of her berating a female student about racism, and then making her apologize to all of the black people in the class. The videos were put on Facebook by Occupy Democrats. She's an old, self-hating bitch and a bully. She wants the rest of us white people to hate ourselves too. I recommend watching them, but they made me angry on several levels. One the liberal self hate that is being perpetrated on white people through educational institutions, and two, the fact that a teacher is being such a bully. It doesn't matter whether she is right or believes something to be true. The role of a teacher is to encourage critical thinking, not to tell you what to think and believe and ridicule you for not doing it.

The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.-- Martin Luther King, Jr.







I am going to encompass some of what I replied to the post here, because it made me think, not because I am angry about the post. It is the situation in the world right now that I am pretty pissed about. And I refuse to empathize with black people more than I do with anyone else. Because to do so would be too much like admitting I had done something wrong in the first place. I'm not admitting to a wrong I'm not guilty of for the sake of political correctness. I empathize with everyone. It's in my nature to sympathize with the underdog. And I was taught morals.

I’m going to use a lot more general terms here than I’m usually in the habit of doing. I’m going to say things like “they” and “black people”. I’m doing it to make a point and because it is so often done when people are speaking about white people. We are spoken of as if we all do, say and believe the same things.

They (black people and the white people and Jews who supported their cause) marched and protested and preached from the pulpit for 150 years to get desegregation and now are being led by a bunch of militant idiots who want to take 4 or 5 states over and form their own country within a country and reinstate segregation.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/10/exclusive-new-black-panther-leader-country-within/ Basically the New Black Panther leaders are angrier and louder, just like Jane Elliott in these videos. And the regular black people are afraid to stand up to his opinion just like that white girl in the video. White people, like those in the first video, won't stand up either because they have either been taught to be ashamed in school, college or in mainstream media. I would absolutely have stood up in both classes. I'm not ashamed. I've never been racist. And I don't back down from an argument. One thing I know is this: the depth of anger you feel, the volume of your voice, or how certain you are that you are right prove the veracity of your argument.  
 The reason our country is a representative republic is so that the minority and the minority opinion is represented. Democracy is mob rule.

"Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths."— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”— Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) Lawyer, Secretary of the Treasury & Secretary of State

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent."—  Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S

Here is a Facebook post by Dr. Mauricelm-Lei Millere he's a Black Panther and he also started the African American Defense League.

Who is Jane Elliot and what makes her the moral authority of white privilege?

She has been teaching "diversity" since the 60's.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott She started out teaching 3rd grade students about racism, the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Here's a video of her talking about it. How Do You Identify Racism? The Angry Eye with Jane ElliottHow Do You Identify Racism? The Angry Eye with Jane Elliott




But her basis for her theory is faulty.

She segregated her classrooms, then manipulated her students by dividing them into two groups. She gave one group more privileges based on their blue eye color and then manipulated them into mistreating the less privileged group with brown eyes. Now here's where the fault in her theory comes in. She is presupposing that they would have mistreated the other group if left to their own devices. Some might have, but others most likely wouldn't have.

After a few days she had the two groups to change status, much like what is happening in society right now. We are being told that we have to feel so guilty about whatever status we have to the point that we give it up to anyone who is of a real or perceived minority. Supposedly, the mistreated group, with brown eyes, wasn't as mean to the other group when they switched places and were now in the more privileged position, because they knew what it felt like. But we are seeing that not to be what actually happens in practice.

Why is this? It is because people without morals will always bully when they get power over someone else. They don't learn empathy. They learn to envy that position of power and come to the conclusion that they will feel better about their own situation by exerting power over someone else. That's how domestic violence is perpetuated from one generation to the next.

Black people are pretty bad to mistreat each other, which goes to show that, although they should understand what it's like to be mistreated and therefore be more empathetic, it doesn't work that way. African Americans were victimized by intimate partners a significantly higher rates than persons of any other race between 1993 and 1998. Black females experienced intimate partner violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced intimate partner violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 2.5 times the rate of men of other races.(http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics/Race_Ethnicity_Statisitcs.html)http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics/Race_Ethnicity_Statisitcs.html You can take two things from those statistics. There needs to be a male role model in the home to teach men not to be violent, and many black women, who are held up as the backbone of their society, really suck at being empathetic. For black men to be abused 62% more than white men, it's black women in the form of mothers and wives/girlfriends that are perpetrating it. In short the prisons being full of violent young black men is directly caused by black women. There's a reason that black serial rapists tend to victimize black women. Some of them hate black women who they see as their abusers.

Black people are always wanting white people to apologize for what was done to their ancestors on plantations and talking about the legacy of it. Well, one of the biggest legacies of it is that black women were abused by their masters and in turn were abusive to their children, who in turn carried on that legacy of abuse. They didn't learn empathy, they learned bullying and the exercise of power over others. They learned that it's easier to take power than to earn it. In many instances, we don't have so much a racism problem as a morality problem in America. And you can't teach it by Jane Elliott's methods. They really aren't going to have much luck at getting other people to treat them however they think they are entitled to be treated, until they treat each other like human beings.
In that vein, lets look at the issue of their racism toward each other. Chris Rock is one of the most racist entertainers there is out there.See Dear Chris Rock Your Asian Joke Wasn't Funny http://xtribune.com/2015/chris-rock-just-made-some-racist-comments-that-should-have-every-white-person-furious/

He did a whole documentary on the subject called Good Hair. It's about how black people with straighter, so called “whiter” hair enjoy greater status and the lengths they go to to get straight hair. The same thing is true of lighter skinned black people. I'm not talking about how people of other races treat them, but how they treat each other. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=548303&page=1)

Supposedly, this started back on the plantations, where the masters treated the lighter skinned offspring that they had fathered, better. But what did the blacks do when they got off the plantations? Instead of correcting the behavior, they perpetuated it on themselves. Look at Beyonce Knowles. Her skin isn't the darkest and she either straightens her hair or wears wigs, and they are blonde. And yet she's supposed to be some sort of advocate for a whole race of people. It's ironic that when black people try to make themselves look lighter and blonder that is called a personal choice, but if a white person wears corn rows or dread locks or listens to rap music, that's cultural appropriation. All black people aren't the same. When one of them gets held up as speaking for them all, isn't that being prejudiced? I don't claim to speak for all white people. I can only speak for myself and to my own experience. I'm not going to judge all black people by the stupid things some of them do. So, why is it alright for me to be judged guilty of something someone else does? The logic that people like me aren't doing enough to stop the “systemic racism” and are therefore guilty because of it, doesn't hold water when you take into consideration that more black people are killed by other black people than by police. Especially, when you factor in those other forms of black on black racism already noted.

With the issue of racism, people often stray into semantics. Supposedly, bigotry, prejudice and ignorance are different than racism. We are told that black people can be prejudiced toward whites and have ignorant opinions about them. But racism is something that exists not just on an individual level but also on an institutional level, or so we are told. Speaking of appropriation, I think they have appropriated the word racism.

Racism is being defined as a system where white people as the majority is benefiting from oppressing blacks. And they say we all benefit from it whether or not we want to, and therefore are guilty. This is simplified by the term “white privilege”. But Merriam-Webster defines prejudice as: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. Ergo, if black people admit to prejudice, they are racist.

If you say, hey wait a minute my ancestors were oppressed and persecuted too, they counter with, yes, but in America white people weren't slaves, or forced to segregate, or at least not at the same level as blacks have been. It becomes an argument of, your misfortunes are not as great as ours, so therefore do not count.

They argue that white people don't have job discrimination, and are not brutalized by police or are not sent to jail or the penitentiary at the same rate as black people do. They say that in our country they don't have equal power, or status or opportunity. If you disagree with any of those points, they say you are in denial about your white privilege. And the very fact that you argue is held up as proof of your racism. You know, if I have privilege, I'm not apologizing for it.

As far as status and opportunity are concerned, this country was built by people who came here as minorities, from places where they were persecuted, only to be discriminated and treated as second class, only to struggle and rise above it. Many of them were indentured servants. In the mid to late 1700's when the German immigrants were coming into Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin wrote that they were inferior to white English people and worried that the English culture would be lost because of their different culture. He wrote all sorts of prejudicial things about them. And similar things happened when Irish immigrants came.

Black people say there is no such thing as reverse racism. A lot of white people would then say, not so fast, what about affirmative action? So, let's look at that in the area of college scholarships. There have been statistics quoted that say white people are 40% more likely to get a private scholarship than black students.

The thing to keep in mind about scholarships is this: there are more white people, so it stands to reason that statistically, more of them will apply for and receive scholarships. That's just common sense. If there is a pizza and everyone gets the same size slice, but there are more white people in line for a slice, more slices are going to be given out to white people. That can be twisted to say that because black people didn't get as many slices, they were discriminated against. It doesn't seem to matter that they get the same sized slice. That's why we have affirmative action. Affirmative action essentially forces some of the white people to get out of line so that more black people can get into line.They don't compare say, 200 whites and 200 blacks to the total available scholarships. They compare say 200 whites and 30 blacks. You can't do that and have an outcome where whites aren't being penalized for their race.

Whites make up 69.3% of the students There are 6.2% of white students that get private scholarships and 4.4% blacks getting them. This means as a group there are 63.1% of white students NOT getting private scholarships. As you can see, white people are only getting 1.8% more private scholarships.
But the same study said that white students were 40% more LIKELY to get a private scholarship. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't reflect that white students make up 61.8% of the population. And black students only make up 14%. It doesn't make any difference what the rest of the figures show. The only thing anyone is going to hear is that random 40% figure.

To revert back to the pizza analogy, yeah if there are more of us, it's more likely that we are going to get the scholarships. It's not surprising that some white people feel they are penalized by affirmative action. Who cares what the likelihood is, the important thing is the end result. Basically, the study shows that white people are getting a slightly higher amount of scholarships, but gives absolutely no basis for where they come up with that 40% more likelihood of receiving a scholarship from, and the point is irrelevant anyway.

Looking at another statistic, the study says that whites get 65% of total funding even though they only make up 61.8% of the student population. That's a difference of only 3.2%. Blacks make up 14% of the students and they get 11.9%. That's a difference of 2.1%. So whites get a little more than they should and blacks get a little less than they should. There could be a million reasons for those differences that have nothing to do with racial privilege. One might be grades and another might be as simple as they apply for them.

About 1/3 of white and Asian students that got PELL grants had high grade point averages, but only about 1/5 of blacks did. So in effect, this is what the problem is. It's not money, it's how hard you work for what you get. The white students are getting better grades and their reward for it is that black students with lower grades get almost as many grants and scholarships. You can check this stuff out yourself. (http://www.finaid.org/scholarships/20110902racescholarships.pdf) The bottom line is blacks get almost as much money by percentage of student as white people do, but they don't do it based on grades. The system is rigged. It should start out based on grades, and then from within that group be allotted according to race if race is going to be a factor at all. It may be purporting to level the playing field according to race, but it handicaps whites according to grades.

The idea of quotas and preferential treatment is counter to the American dream. And in 1978, the landmark Regents of California v. Allan Bakke case made racial quotas unconstitutional. Most Americans support affirmative action, but most whites are against preferential treament according to race. Affirmative action seeks to eliminate racial bias, but preferential treatment isn't the same thing.Americans Support Affirmative Action Not Minority Preference

I want to come back to that whole cultural appropriation subject again. If white people do anything that black people do, it's cultural appropriation. And if they wear straightened or blonde hair or lighten their skin, it's supposedly so that they can survive in our world and conform to our ideas of beauty. Do, they not realize that if white people mimic something from black culture, it's because they found something from within it to admire, and maybe they are including blacks into their idea of beauty? If they weren't being so negative, they would realize it's a compliment. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. White people are exposed to the same media influences as black people.

When it comes to black on white crime, they resort to semantics again. They say that black people killing white people isn't hate crimes, because it isn't due to the “system”. Again, the argument is that to be racist it has to be something to do with the “system”. But that doesn't fit with the legal definition of a hate crime. The FBI has defined it as “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” There's nothing in there about the “system”. If that's the rule we have to live by, then it's the rule they have to live by.

I will just go ahead and include the statistics for black on white crime and blacks killed by police at the same time, since we have to have the “system” involved in order to prove racism. Blacks make up 13% of the population, but commit about 50% of the homicides. Between 1980 and 2008, they committed 52% of the homicides. Whites committed 45%. That's DOJ statistics. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf). More recent statistics are similar. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. (https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats)

Between 2011 and 2013, 38.5 % of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. That is three times the 13% black population. Black men make up around 3% of the population. Yet they are responsible for the vast majority of these crimes. That's
an astonishing statistic.

Here's a good place to insert some Chris Rock racism. Speaking about police brutality, he said, “It’s not that it’s gotten worse; it’s just that it’s part of the 24-hour news cycle,” Rock said of police brutality. “What’s weird is that it never happens to white kids. There’s no evidence that white youngsters are any less belligerent, you know?”

Even though blacks and whites commit a similar number of crimes, whites are almost twice as likely to be killed by police. (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/) Between 1999 and 2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. Again blacks make up only 13% of the population and yet the number of crimes is nearly equal to that committed by whites. The number should be much lower.

Even though white people outnumbered blacks five to one, blacks commit 8 times more crimes against whites than whites commit against them. This is from FBI statistics from 2007. A white male is 40 times more likely to be assaulted by a black male than a black man is to be assaulted by a white male. Interracial rape is almost totally black on white. (http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.html)

This inclination to commit violent crime is precisely what causes more blacks to be in confrontations with police in the first place. It's just common sense that if most of the calls to police are coming from black neighborhoods, and the calls are concerning blacks committing these violent crimes, then of course they are more likely to have an altercation with police.

Black Lives Matter perpetrates the story that black people being victims of these police encounters is because the police are racist. Racism plays into it but it's only one element of the situation.

Blacks argue that they are targeted and framed for crimes by the police because they are racist. But according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, it is the victims who identify their attackers as black and not the police. (Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic [4 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of the American MosaicFront CoverCharles A. Gallagher, Cameron D. LippardABC-CLIO, Jun 24, 2014)

Poverty is one of the causes of blacks being more likely to commit violent crime because it makes family breakdown worse. And I have already addressed the abuse rates in black households. But pop culture also idealize it. A study conducted by the Prevention Research Center of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Berkeley, CA, showed that young blacks that listened to rap and hip hop were more likely to abuse alcohol and commit violent crimes. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5390075) And the liberal media justify this violence as they did after the riots in Ferguson.

As I earlier stated, white people are accused of being in denial when we say we aren't racist and we don't have white privilege. Police brutality is definitely a problem, not only for blacks but for everyone. But blacks are also in denial of the fact that the have a part in the problem of police brutality. As long as they refuse to admit that blacks committing violent crimes is a problem, the situation is never going to be solved.

Black Lives Matter, The New Black Panthers and other political leaders and protesters, along with the liberal media are responsible for the continued violence and the resultant police brutality against black people.

How is it that I as a white person supposedly benefit from racism? Well black people say things like, white people are all much wealthier than we would have been if we hadn't stolen land and used the free labor of black people to our benefit. And that the financial success of the country is both directly and indirectly linked to slavery. That would mean that as American citizens, they also benefit from slavery financially. They rationalize that their poverty is entirely due to slavery. And that all wealth that white people have is due to slavery. And we supposedly all get paid more for the same job and amount of work than they do. And we have less unemployment because we are less likely to be fired and more likely to be hired. The Century Foundation’s Working Paper Series says that when you account for racial differences in age, sex, marital status, occupation, state of residence, and other factors that there is just a 5% gap in the unemployment rate between blacks and whites. Those statistics don't tell you why there is a difference, only that there is one.

Statistically, black children are more likely to grow up in poor neighborhoods or to come from poor families. This in turn causes them to be stressed, to suffer from deprivation and neglect. They are frequently being raised by uneducated single parents who don't have good parenting skills. But there are programs in place to teach them things like to read to their children and to take them for regular checkups at the pediatrician. WIC is one such program. Some of the blame here again comes down to priorities and morals. Whatever your station in life you can choose to be happy with what you have. And if you neglect your children, that is not someone else's fault.

We get to live in better neighborhoods with better schools and because we have a better start in life, we do better in school. That one is easy to counter without even using statistics. If you live in a nicer neighborhood, you pay higher taxes, regardless of your income and that tax base pays for nicer schools. And it's against the law to keep black people out of a neighborhood or building based on their race. Even Donald Trump has been sued over it and lost. I'm not saying that it's not a fact that being poor actually causes changes in brain wiring. And this follows them the rest of the way through childhood meaning that they are less likely to go to college. But that is why there are early childhood learning programs. It's to try and counter the problem. It's not as if people are ignoring the problem. This all somehow translates into them being more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. I guess it's because being poor is an excuse to resort to crime to make money.

They even gripe because we live longer. Black men live five years less on average than white men. Again this goes back to their start in life. They are more likely to be born as low birth weight babies. The infant mortality rate is nearly double too. But this is because they are more likely to be born to unmarried teen mothers who are uneducated, poor, and less healthy. And they are less likely to get prenatal care. Despite Planned Parenthood, black women use less contraception than white women. There is no indication that any systemic racism causes this. There are programs to help unmarried women of low income get contraception, and prenatal care. Some of them may not qualify, but some white women don't either. I understand that if you are poor, you don't eat well and nutrition effects both the brain development of a child and their health. But this doesn't change the fact that part of this viscious cycle is the fault of blacks too. Because of this bad start in life they have more health issues the rest of their lives like obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes. But again, it's not as if nobody is addressing the issue. With Obama Care, there has been a significant change. It made preventive care more affordable and concentrated on several other areas in which black Americans have lagged health-wise, including a projected expansion​ of maternity coverage to more than 390,000 black women. But the one of the greatest causes for black men living shorter lives than white men is homicide. Homicide accounts for almost as many deaths as heart disease and more than cancer. CDC Causes Of Death For Black Men I've already shown that they die from killing each other many times more than being killed by anyone else.


They say that the system never works in their favor. I have already established that sometimes racial preference in the name of affirmative action works in their favor. This system that is so terrible provides many of them with Section 8 housing, with SSI and Footstamps. If they work, they pay into and receive the same Social Security and Social Security Disability that white people do.

Just because I believe all men are created equal doesn't mean I believe their journeys in life will all be the same or should be. I haven't had to worry about whether I would be hired based on my race. I never had to worry about whether or not I would be accepted into a college based on my color. It is arguable that many white people have a head start. But it is also arguable that many of them have reached a hand back and tried to pull their fellow man up with them. Saying that all people are racist because they benefit from racism is akin to saying that all white people are guilty of the murder committed by one man. Or all black men are guilty of the murder committed by one black man.

Black people have an issue with white people being so called colorblind.You know the thing where white people say that you should be blind to color/race. I am not colorblind. I see very clearly that there are racial and cultural differences. I think that is magnificent. I have always thought it was well meaning stupidity to say that we are all the same. I think all of the uniqueness within humanity ought to be celebrated. They keep telling us that we can't just be passively about not discriminating, that we have to be actively trying to end inequality. But nobody tells you how they want you to do that. A good case in point was when the Black Lives Matter told white people to go home from their demonstrations.

White people are faulted for believing that if you work hard you can achieve much. We are told that our success doesn't have much to do with all that effort we put in, that the American dream isn't real. They say things like out of the 400 richest people in America, Oprah is the only black one. Why doesn't anyone ever check to see where those people started out in life? Supposing they inherited their wealth, where did their relatives start out and what did they do to achieve that wealth. If Oprah had children, would she not leave her money to them? Racial dynamics may have played into it. But negating a person's hard work is disingenuous. My mother's ancestors came here from Germany in the mid 1700's. They were escaping religious persecution. When they arrived in Philadelphia, they worked there for about seven years before they were able to buy land in Virginia. They worked that land for several more years before moving further into Virginia and buying other land. Nobody gave it to them. I just do not agree that they were able to do that because of slavery. They fought during the Revolutionary War. And several more generations later, they fought for the North in the Civil War. There is nothing in that narrative that suggests a benefit from slavery.

Here are some of the more silly ways that I have found on the internet that I am found guilty of white privilege.

  1. Band aids come in flesh color, white flesh color. I don't know anybody who is the color of band aids. But if the companies who make them think we prefer that color, and they are in business to make a profit, it makes sense that they would market to us, since there are more of us. It's simple supply and demand.
  2. The shampoo at hotels is of a type made for white hair. And somehow it's because we expect it to be. When I go to a hotel, I either bring my own shampoo or I go somewhere in the vicinity of it and buy some. It has never occurred to me to think hotels were supposed to provide me as a white person with white people shampoo.
  3. I can buy pantyhose in my color pretty much where ever I look for them. Seriously? There are about 50 million different colors of pantyhose and a lot of the time I buy black pantyhose to go on my lily white legs.
  4. They don't put my haircare products in an area designated as ethnic. I couldn't care less which isle my haircare products are in. When I went to Myrtle Beach, the drug store I went to to buy shampoo had way more ethnic products than white ones and I noticed it, but it didn't bother me.
  5. I can purchase travel size bottles of haircare products as most drug stores. Again, who cares. If I couldn't I would go to the one that did have them. I'm not buying that most drug stores in black neighborhoods only sell products for white people.

If these are the kind of advantages I'm supposed to be happy about, I got screwed. I want better advantages.

Here are some more:
    1. People don't assume that I got where I am because of my race or affirmative action. No. But they do assume it's because of my privilege.
    2. When I was taught history in school, I was supposedly only taught white history. I wasn't taught about any of the contributions that black people made to the country. This is unadulterated bull excrement. I went to an upper middle class predominantly white school. But we were absolutely taught things about black people. And all of the pictures in the books weren't of white people.
    3. National monuments are only of white men in places like Washington D.C. Well of course, they were the founding fathers. There weren't any black founding fathers. If they only represent white history, then why do they only reflect the early years of the country? Every doggone town in America has a Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.

Ben Shapiro wrote an essay called "Why White People Seek Black Privilege." He addressed the topic of white people having privileges they didn't earn. If you are born into a wealthy family, that might be an unearned privilege. Both blacks and whites can have those. Being born smart or tall or athletic is an unearned advantage. But what if you are born “white in a rural backwater in West Virginia”? That isn't an advantage over being born the son of Colin Powell, he points out.

There are things within our culture that glorify black culture. Black History Month, BET and things of that sort are reverse racism. All black television shows don't bother me. They have been around forever. But The BET Awards is different. The black actors participate in award shows with people of other races and then on top of that have awards specific to blacks on BET. Samuel L. Jackson won a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2016, at the BET Awards. He is worth $170 million dollars. I don't think that award means as much to him as all that bank. He could make do without that award and sleep well at night. But award shows are at best mildly entertaining to me, black or white. So, I really don't worry a lot about them. It just became an issue when a bunch of black actors decided they were going to boycott the white awards shows because they feel underappreciated. Give me a break. Will Smith is worth 200 million dollars.

They say that we don't need a white history month because all history is white history. That's stupid logic. There are other races after all. History is the history of mankind. Black History month is supposed to be about history in America. Yet there are people being taught about like Nelson Mandela. He's not American. If Apartheid were being taught in a history or social studies class, they wouldn't leave him out. But that's world history. There are people who were Jazz musicians being taught about as black history. They don't teach about musicians of any other race as history. I learned about Mozart in music class, not history. And he was European. They never ever implied in my music classes that black people made no contribution to music either directly or by omission. And black scientists and inventors, were taught about in my history class. I learned about George Washington Carver and Eli Whitney. It makes much more sense to me to integrate whatever black people think needs to be taught about during Black History Month into the regular curriculum. Otherwise, we need to have Hispanic-Latino Month and Asian Month and the list goes on. There are only 12 months. The United States Census officially recognizes six ethnic and racial categories: White American, Black or African American, Native American and Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and people of two or more races. By my count, we should be having four other special months. The most interesting one would be the month for bi-racial people. There are so many variations in that category.

How do black people benefit from black privilege? Before you start jumping up and down, there is a list for this too.

  1. The NAACP. There is no National Association for the Advancement of White People. That would be racist.
  2. Black people think it is perfectly acceptable to call white people things like “honky” and “cracker”. But we better not use the “N” word.
  3. The NBA is racist because 90% of the players are black. You can't say it's because they earned it. Because white people aren't allowed to claim they earned their privileges.
  4. Have you ever heard of “affirmative grading”? That's when college professors hold black students to lower standards than whites.
  5. If you aren't successful in any other field in life, you can build an entire career out of complaining about being black and call it activism. That works so well Rachel Dolezar pretended to be black so she could cash in on it.

You might say this list is ridiculous, but so is the other one.


It is entirely possible to acknowledge that racism exists, while not agreeing that I am guilty of it. I may have benefited from the way things are in the world, but that doesn't mean I should feel guilty. There's not a black person living in a housing project who if they won the lottery would feel guilty for it. I think white people should feel compassion for their fellow man and to try and better the lives of anyone they can. But they should do it because it's the right thing to do, not because they are guilty or ashamed.

One decided disadvantage to being white is having to answer for all of the ills of the world as if we created them each and every one all by ourselves. This myth is being foisted upon the American people at our so called institutions of higher learning. If you type white privilege into a search engine, a lot of the web addresses that come up have .edu at the end. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/whiteness05.htm. This University of Dayton site says white persons have a "special freedom or immunity from some [liabilities or burdens] to which non-white persons are subject[.]" There was also a conference held earlier this year to discuss white privilege. http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/. Apparently white people have meetings to aid each other in better experience their collective shame.



If I have white privilege, I'm not going to try to justify it. But I'm not going to apologize for it either. Check yourself.

Ezekiel 18:19-20 ESV “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Lamentations 5:7-8 ESV “Our fathers sinned, and are no more; and we bear their iniquities. Slaves rule over us; there is none to deliver us from their hand.”