race-baiting

The Truth of White Privilege

The Truth of White Privilege

By David Risselada •

I remember being introduced to the concept of white privilege while attending Northeastern State University in Broken Arrow Oklahoma. I was in a social work program where the professors were all left wing zealots working feverishly to influence the political opinions of gullible students. One day during class, one of the professors made the subtle suggestion that people had racist family members if they didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008. This was in 2010, during the Obamacare debates. From this point on the entire curriculum was dominated by the concept of a racist America whose white majority had special protections and privileges from institutions designed to benefit only them, while minorities were left to suffer. White men were referred to as oppressors, minorities were victims and every possible thing that could be wrong in their lives was attributed to white privilege. I understood at this point that this was part of a larger agenda to silence pro-American opinions and push forward a socialist agenda by dividing and conquering.

During the intro to social work semester students were required to write a position paper on white privilege. We were to read Peggy McIntosh’s’ White Male, White Privilege and offer our thoughts on the subject. My paper reflected my opposition to this nonsense by citing how programs like affirmative action can actually be harmful to minorities by selecting them purely on a required numbering system as opposed to a merit based system. This has led to highly qualified minority students being denied access to higher learning institutions simply because the school was in a hurry to meet the required quota. If this isn’t an institution based on racism I don’t know what is. As a result of my paper I was told I wasn’t fit to be in the social work profession because I didn’t believe in social justice and white privilege.

Today it is overwhelmingly obvious that there is an agenda to use race as a dividing tactic to bring America down and force a new system of government upon us. The left is determined to erase what they see as America’s racist history by tearing down monuments that they insist represent white supremacism. They won’t stop there, if they are successful in this endeavor they will keep pushing until our constitution is nothing but a burning heap of ashes.

The issue of race has long been used as a tool to divide nations and push unpopular agendas. The term racism itself was in fact, invented by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotskyto discredit all who stood in the way of the communist agenda. It is being used in much the same way now. Anyone who stands in opposition to the left’s attempts to discredit America and implement socialism is labeled as a racist who benefits from white privilege. The concept is so far out of hand that blond hair is now considered privileged.

Racism in America used to be considered hatred for someone simply because they are a different color or nationality. Today, the concept has taken on new meanings as it is considered racist to believe that minorities can be successful on their own without government programs. Minorities are taught they are victims and encouraged to hang on to this victimhood status. Black people who step away from this enslaving mentality are discredited as “Uncle Toms.” In one of my social work classes we discussed a lesson involving a depressed black woman. She was financially successful yet, depressed nonetheless. The lesson ultimately suggested that she could alleviate her depression by casting aside her desires to adapt to the white man’s world and embrace her historical roots of oppression. I vehemently opposed this idea and was shocked when people in class took offense to my doing so. I was arguing that a black woman didn’t need to be a victim and people in class were offended by that. That is the result of decades of leftist indoctrination.

The left works incessantly to convince gullible Americans that right wing conservatives are racist and full of hate. Most of us know that the history of racism in America can be traced solely to the Democrat party. The KKK was founded by the Democratic party. Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal government. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, an organization that kills over three hundred black babies a day, was a Democrat who advocated for the elimination of so called weaker races, and finally, President Lyndon Johnson instituted the great society program which ultimately did nothing less than enslave blacks and their future generations to government welfare. In reference to this program Johnson said he would get those ni**ers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years. Over fifty years later we have generations of black people living in run down ghettos whose districts are controlled by Democrats. They are dependent on government welfare and taught that there is no way that they can over come their oppression because of white privilege. Was this part of a larger agenda to perpetuate a permanent underclass that could later be used as a revolutionary army?

To believe in white privilege is to believe that one race is ultimately superior to another.  In other words, you would have to be a white supremacist in the first place to believe in white privilege. Do you believe minorities need special government treatment to get a hand up or do you believe they are just as capable as you are? Through the pushing of white privilege the left is trying to convince society that minorities need special treatment, that more money needs to be spent on programs to help them succeed. If the Democrats believed in total equality why would these programs be needed? The left has systematically destroyed the free will of black people by constantly teaching them they are victims. That is the truth. Now, their victimhood status is being used to launch and justify revolutionary violence based on the false notions of oppression. This is the truth of white privilege.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” 

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 0 comments
Blacks VS. Cops: ‘Alinsky’ Obama’s Doing

Blacks VS. Cops: ‘Alinsky’ Obama’s Doing

I had occasion to listen to a little talk radio yesterday, a couple of prominent hosts’ take on Barack Hussein Obama’s oratory at the memorial for the police officers slain in Dallas last week. Host Mark Levin was positively livid at how Obama insisted on purveying the “science is settled” argument regarding America being an institutionally racist nation in light of the venue, and how vile and despicable this opportunism was. Of course, I couldn’t have agreed more. Sean Hannity blamed Obama for stoking the fires of racial tension with his tendency to “rush to judgment” (his words) concerning instances of conflict between blacks and police.

While Obama has indeed stoked the fires of racism, rest assured that there have been no rushes to judgment involved whatsoever.

I’m not going to suggest that some months ago, Obama got on his infamous phone and told a minion to cultivate a cell of riled-up black activists, get them armed and insert them into the protest that would be ready to go on the next occasion that the police shooting of a black individual found its way into the national news cycle.

But for all practical purposes, it might as well have gone down in precisely that fashion.

Apropos the high-profile police shootings of black men in recent weeks: There may have been elements of criminality on the part of the cops involved in at least one of these instances, but as we’ve learned, innocence or guilt on the part of law enforcement officers in these cases hardly matters in the current political climate.

It’s undeniable that there is a direct correlation relative to Obama and the increase in tensions between blacks and law enforcement. In every instance during his presidency where a high-profile story of conflict between police and a black American captured the headlines, Obama’s response served to deepen blacks’ resentment not only at the police, but at the big, bad boogeyman of institutional racism, which by his accounts is as pervasive as it was in 1930.

But Obama didn’t say the things he’s said because he’s a buffoon. He said them expressly to deepen blacks’ resentment at the police and whites in general. There are two reasons for this. One has to do with the juvenile sense of retribution political radicals such as Obama feel; they believe that whites must collectively suffer in one form or another for the sins of their fathers.

The other has to do with the tactical objectives of international socialist power players inside and outside of Washington. In America, the strategies involved in grooming America for inclusion into the statist global leviathan over which they will ruthlessly rule with cartoony glee are partly rooted in the writings of iconic communist Saul Alinsky. This odious puke wrote a book called “Rules for Radicals,” which is a holy tome to people like Obama, Hillary Clinton and other notable “progressives.”

Ironically, Alinsky’s second “rule” essentially declares that there are no rules:

“The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

– Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”

Alinsky then goes on to cite the brutal acts carried out by those in the European anti-Nazi underground during World War II as blanket justification for assassinations, terrorism, destruction of property, bombings, kidnappings and the sacrifice of innocents in their pursuit of socialist goals in America.

Of course, in meeting with the Black Lives Matter group in the face of anti-police violence, Bathhouse Barry was attempting to legitimize this racist organization that has repeatedly advocated for the murder of police officers. In the meantime, he postures before the cameras, offering even more inflammatory rhetoric – whilst pushing for nationalization of police departments and more dilution of law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment protections.

In my book Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession, I pointed out that in the cases of police contacting black individuals with which I am personally familiar – and there are many – almost invariably, the latter responded with a marked belligerence to the initial contact. This is because of the paranoia and resentment that has been effectively inculcated into blacks culturally via education, activism, media, and the press.

Naturally, police officers sometimes react to this with a deportment of over-caution and a degree of fear.

As we are also seeing occur with international socialist leaders in Europe who are allowing the influx of hostile foreign Muslims into their nations, the Obama cabal has been gradually destabilizing American society by fostering enmity between blacks and law enforcement, as well as through the importation of our own crop of hostile Muslims and parasitic émigrés from south of the border.

Why have international socialist leaders set upon this course? Two reasons: political power – the emerging international socialist state – and ideology. In their Marxist racialism, they believe that the culturally bankrupt around the world should have their chance at abusing the evil Westerners (read whites) who exploited them and societies that are essentially troupes of monkeys as compared with those in the West ought to have nuclear weapons just because Western nations do.

Once the domestic unrest our leaders have generated escalates and gives rise to sufficient fear on the part of Americans, their expectation is that we will cry for security – much as we cried for health-care reform after the same socialists drove up the cost of health care over the course of a few decades. Many will actually welcome the draconian measures government will employ – with great reluctance, of course – in order to ensure that “security.”

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Campus Protests: The Left’s Nostalgic Astroturf

Campus Protests: The Left’s Nostalgic Astroturf

While Barack Hussein Obama’s mercenary army (otherwise known as ISIS or Islamic State) was busy committing atrocities in the region we were ironically taught was the Cradle of Civilization, insinuating jihadis amongst Middle Eastern refugees bound for Europe and carrying out a massacre in Paris, other surrogates were busy mobilizing those on university campuses toward increasing domestic instability.

Subversive leftist organizations have long maintained a presence on university campuses. Craven, intellectually dishonest interpretations of the First Amendment and the complicity of university faculty and staff have precluded these elements from being neutralized. Couple these with the intention of the Obama administration to accelerate America’s decline, and we have the 2015 Black Liberation Movement, university campus-style.

On Nov. 14, Paul Sperry, in the New York Post, penned an excellent exposé on how the radical group Organizing for Action (OFA, formerly Obama for America) “has trained more than 10,000 leftist organizers who, in turn, are training more than 2 million youths” in the tactics of the late communist icon Saul Alinsky. These “community organizers” have been holding “organizing summits” on college campuses in recent months.

Organizing for Action, the Black Lives Matter group and the George Soros-funded Democracy Alliance have all been overtly involved in the recent spate of race-related demonstrations on university campuses, which exploited two fake racial incidents at the University of Missouri as the “catalysts” for their protests.

According to the Post, students at Columbia University have complained that student activists (who are fast becoming known as “crybullies”) have initiated campaigns of intimidation against those who refuse to participate in their protest activities.

At the Dartmouth University library over the past weekend, Black Lives Matter operatives rioted and attacked white students.

One girl was pinned up to the wall as a group of BLM thugs shouted racial epitaphs in her face, terrorizing her in the process. The group of thugs marched through the library shouting insults such as, “F*^k you, you filthy white f*^ks!,” “F*^k you and your comfort!” and “F*^k you, you racist s#^t!” One hundred of the thugs made their way through the library in what they laughingly called a protest. Considering the cost of going to Dartmouth, it is unlikely that many of them are kept down by “Whitey.”

Conservative Firing Line, Nov. 16, 2015

It is certainly no accident that activities reminiscent of the 1960s campus protests are occurring at a time in which those who either romanticized those protests or participated in them (or both) now hold political power in America. The intellectually retarded, brainwashed offspring of that generation even look like throwbacks to the hirsute student activists of the 1960s (who were also heavily influenced by Marxists). I’m sure that orchestrating this fiasco struck a perverse nostalgic chord in some of those involved.

The counterfeit nature of this Astroturf movement for racial parity on college campuses aside, the capricious and infantile character of the activists and their demands reflect not only the capricious and infantile character of the worldview that has been instilled in them, but clearly indicates how pernicious their attitudes are.

Hundreds of Columbia students gathered at the South Lawn Thursday, and some speakers heckled bystanders who did not participate.

“Look at those guys playing Frisbee – that is the definition of privilege,” said one speaker.

Another student wearing a T-shirt with the words “Kill White Supremacy” called Columbia a “white supremacist institution.”

She led the crowd in a progression of chants including “I love black people,” “I love all black people” and “I love queer black people,” before adding “I love black criminals” and “I love black people who steal.”

The New York Post, Nov. 15, 2015

If one didn’t know how deadly serious they are, one might mistake this for comedy.

Impracticable demands for free tuition, fits of apoplexy over “racially insensitive” Halloween costumes and charges that the game of Frisbee is illustrative of white privilege – these are the aspirations and observations of black ignoramuses who were suckled on victimhood and instructed by communist “professors” such as Angela Davis, Bill Ayers and Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones).

As demonstrated by some blacks of prominence, these are people who, even after attaining considerable personal success, will continue to provoke racial tension and antisocialism.

Considering how other racially charged cases over the last couple of years have played out, it is probable that the student activists will ultimately be motivated into initiating widespread campus riots that will lead to an escalation of the police state modality in which our nation increasingly operates.

If the foregoing examples of narcissistic indulgence aren’t enough: Over the last few days, certain Black Lives Matter activists grabbed headlines with their outrage over the terror attacks in Paris on Friday, Nov. 13. They were incensed not because nearly 130 fellow human beings had been killed by terrorists, but because the incident had stolen their thunder. In order to establish some sort of moral equivalency, they began referencing fabricated slights against black students as “terrorism.”

These people cannot be considered citizens exercising their rights of free speech or free assembly. their hirsuteness notwithstanding, these are groomed enemy operatives who know exactly what they’re doing, even if they are intellectually challenged in the extreme.

We may not be able to stop America’s enemies from exploiting these incognizant students as useful idiots or even cannon fodder, but we can impede their momentum through refusing to acknowledge that they have a legitimate complaint in the first place – which is what the left always relies upon when they pull out the race card.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
The ‘Great Black Hope’ Who Threw the Fight

The ‘Great Black Hope’ Who Threw the Fight

Once again, some folks got a little upset at glitzy billionaire businessman, TV star and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump. Capitalizing on The Donald’s “controversial” November 2014 tweet declaring that since Barack Obama has done such a lousy job as chief executive, we were not likely to see another black president “for generations,” Jonathan Karl took up that line of questioning when he had Trump on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.

Despite his initial enthusiasm at Obama’s election, Trump said that the president “has done nothing for African-Americans,” and cited blacks’ declining income and errant youth as examples. In answer to why Trump believes we won’t see another black president for generations, he told Karl that this is because Obama has set “a very poor standard,” and a “very low bar.”

To elucidate: I believe Trump was saying that since the average voter perceives candidates very superficially, some will come to believe – even if subconsciously – that they’re liable to get the same performance from the next black presidential candidate as they got from Obama. Thus, they’ll be inclined to pass.

As indicated earlier, I have my doubts as to whether Trump intends to stick out the campaign any longer than it will take to polish up his brand. However, he’s being well-received by Americans across many demographics at present because he is articulating what people are thinking and feeling, rather than saying what he thinks they want to hear.

When Obama was elected in 2008, a lot of people wanted to know what I thought he was going to “do” for black Americans. My response was a suggestion that those asking the question might look to what Obama “did” for blacks in Illinois, or more specifically Chicago, in order to make that determination for themselves.

Not only have economic conditions for blacks tanked under this president, Obama is responsible for the deterioration of blacks’ outlook and collective self-image as well. Employing divisive and subtly racist rhetoric as well as radical surrogates (such as Al Sharpton, The New Black Panther Party and Black Lawyers for Justice), Obama has cultivated an attitude amongst blacks that is more belligerent and cynical than any we saw during the Civil Rights Movement.

After a three-month orgy of murder and other violent crime following the death of Freddie Gray (a black man who was mortally injured while in police custody this spring), the city of Baltimore has agreed to partner with federal law enforcement in an attempt to curb the outbreak in violence. Simply allowing the police to do their jobs is racist, you see, because when that’s the status quo, black criminals occasionally die.

My confidence that this plot was hatched in the White House and is an overture toward the implementation of Obama’s federal police force aside, the policies enacted by Baltimore officials (many black and all ultra-liberal) prior to Gray’s death, as well as during and after riots that occurred in its wake, were typical of those policies that invariably leave blacks alienated and angry.

Last week, it was determined that four members of a Dallas family who beat a pregnant 14-year-old relative over a period of six hours in order to induce her to have a miscarriage, then roasted the stillborn baby on a charcoal grill two years ago will not be charged with murder. This despite the state’s Prenatal Protection Act, a 2003 law designed to guarantee the rights of the unborn. Instead, the four will face the almost laughable lesser charge of “Engaging in Organized Crime.”

Now, why do you suppose the authorities decided to go that route with these defendants?

I’ll tell you why: Because they’re black. Dallas officials envisioned the kind of race-baiting circus civil rights activists (and pro-choicers for whom the unborn aren’t alive) might have turned that city into if they proceeded to prosecute four black people for the murder of an unborn baby. They decided they didn’t want any part of it.

Black Lives Matter? Only when it’s politically expedient. I could provide literally thousands of anecdotes illustrating the hypocrisy of politicians, government and activists who have a stake in perpetuating alienation and anger in black communities. As detailed in my book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” the following tragic comedy has been playing out, over and over, for decades:

  1. Policies in liberal-controlled urban black communities foster poverty and crime;
  2. activists bemoan cops not caring enough to protect poor black people;
  3. law enforcement steps up its efforts to do so;
  4. the same activists bemoan cops inordinately “targeting blacks” for arrest and prosecution.

As if it were Donald Trump dealing drugs and shooting black people in Baltimore, Chicago and Milwaukee …

Whether he is sincere or not, Trump’s message is resonating with people because it is clear to them that he at least pays attention to what is occurring in the lives of average Americans. If you’re paying attention, it’s harder not to care – unless you’re a narcissistic sociopath who is fundamentally disconnected with respect to other people. Barack Obama couldn’t be bothered with what is occurring in the lives of average Americans, and race is nothing more than a means by which he can foment division.

If Obama’s narcissism did not transcend notions of race, his Marxist worldview certainly would. Ethnic solidarity did not prevent Stalin from exterminating millions of Russians, nor Mao from exterminating millions of Chinese, nor any other Marxist despot from persecuting countless individuals of the same ethnic background as themselves.

So, when people talk about what Obama could have done for blacks, I almost have to laugh.

Almost.

Originally Published at WorldNetDaily

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Race-baiting: From the Slime to the Ridiculous

Race-baiting: From the Slime to the Ridiculous

The blowback from two recent grand jury decisions exonerating white police officers in separate cases wherein their use of force resulted in the deaths of black individuals has taken on a decidedly surreal tone. While to an extent we have grown to expect provocateurs like Rev. Al Sharpton and his ilk squeezing as much face time out of anything even remotely controversial in vein of race, the willingness of uninvolved (and often wholly uninformed) Americans in jumping on the bandwagon in this dark travesty is discouraging, to say the least.

Some have engaged in asinine, shallow displays of solidarity, such as the hands-up gesture on the part of five players on the St. Louis Rams football team, Singer Garth Brooks canceling a Thanksgiving appearance on NBC’s “Tonight Show” and Columbia Law School allowing students to postpone final exams due to “trauma” attendant to the grand jury decisions. Now, we also have the burgeoning “I can’t breathe” campaign, memorializing Eric Garner, who died after being placed in a chokehold by a New York City Police officer.

While some may argue that these gestures were harmless, they are indicative of a complete lack of critical analysis. Like the Ferguson rioters themselves, most of these people came to their erroneous conclusions despite the clear-cut nature of the Wilson-Brown case.

Some reactions were less harmless. Last Wednesday, student protesters at East High School in Denver, Colorado – ostensibly demonstrating in solidarity with the Ferguson crowd – actually cheered as a police officer on a bicycle was hit by a car and dragged underneath the vehicle.

As I’ve been saying for many weeks, agitators, operators, and politicos have been setting the stage for this tragic comedy since August. Activists and community organizers so vigorously advanced the idea that Michael Brown had been murdered by Darren Wilson that they have been able to parlay the incident – and subsequently the Eric Garner case – into a nationwide call to action against America’s institutionally racist police. Their rhetoric has been deliberately inflammatory, whether on the part of Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, who admonished Ferguson rioters to “Burn this bi–h down,” or Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who said prior to the Ferguson grand jury announcement that if the demands of protesters for the indictment of Darren Wilson were not met, “we’ll tear this g–dd–n country up!”

We cannot discount the influence of the press in this matter, however. They have not only been instrumental in shaping the flawed worldview of so many Americans, but were instrumental in validating the sentiments of those who wished to make the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner into hate crimes.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Is Obama about to create a race incident?

jesse-jackson-obama-7-15-08I don’t know if the following simply reflects standard operating procedure or, given past contrivances of the radical left and the current administration, a harbinger of things to come. In either case, we should probably know one way or the other in fairly short order.

Last Wednesday, in one of the most despicable displays I’ve heard in a long time, racial provocateur Jesse Jackson outlined a paranoid vision of America pertaining to race relations, misrepresenting the politics of one conservative politician and one conservative president, neither of whom were able to counter his slander because they’re long-deceased.

At Furman University in Greenville, S.C., Jackson claimed that former President Ronald Reagan and former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had been proponents of segregation. “Goldwater and Reagan – had they been successful, it would have been illegal for blacks and whites to play together on a Saturday afternoon,” Jackson said, claiming that the American South is “the land of the free, the home of genocide.”

Where the hell he gets off spewing such incendiary and inaccurate calumnies at this point in our history is anyone’s guess. That some still heed, let alone respect this creature is the real problem.
Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Racism