race politics

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
Springsteen and Soros and Blacks – Oh, My!

Springsteen and Soros and Blacks – Oh, My!

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine, marginally talented loudmouth rock icon Bruce Springsteen excoriated Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, calling him a “moron” and accusing Trump of offering “simple answers to very complex problems.”

Statements like this in the context of addressing political issues always make me laugh, because this convention is not only fallacious, but by design cultivates the perception amongst the public that they’re not capable of wrapping their enfeebled brains around such concepts, which are best left to the savvier, albeit profoundly corrupt ruling class. Springsteen, in his boundless ignorance, aids in perpetuating a belief that promises to dramatically reduce the chances of any of his fans ever realizing his level of success in any endeavor.

In actuality, the best answers to political problems are always very straightforward ones; comprehending the problems themselves is quite simple, really.

Escalating racial tensions that have come to the fore over the last eight years, and particularly over the last several months, have taken on special significance in light of the current election cycle. While the languid campaign of Hillary Clinton continues to regurgitate the same nebulous, failed remedies for the malaise affecting black communities and the institutional racism which is allegedly so pervasive in America, the political left has maintained that Donald Trump is an ardent racist despite the lack of any such charges having arisen against Clinton’s Republican challenger throughout his decades in the public eye.

It’s been established that the spike in racial tensions is a device of the Obama administration, which has systematically fueled the fires of racial animosity through Barack Obama’s opportunistic, inflammatory rhetoric. Policies telegraphed via Obama’s radical sympathies and pre-White House associations with radical black political organizations served to embolden militant blacks and set the stage for the tragic comedy that began to unfold almost from the day Obama was inaugurated. White House coordination with these groups, whether clandestinely or through government departments (like the actions of Eric Holder’s Justice Department in Ferguson, Missouri following Michael Brown’s shooting by a police officer) aided the process.

Grossly embellished accounts of alleged racism proffered by groups like Black Lives Matter, the press, the administration, and such gems as NAACP chapter heads being funded by and shilling for former Nazi collaborator and leading globalist George Soros effectively nurtured a climate of racial antipathy that now rivals periods in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.

As we have seen, leftist activists, politicos, and the press seized upon the shooting of an armed black man in Charlotte, N.C. by a black police officer last week. This resulted in blacks in that city rioting over several nights, citing race-based police brutality. How the shooting of an armed black man by a black police officer reflects race-based police brutality has puzzled a great many people, but it should not be altogether surprising given the agenda in play. If the actions of George Zimmerman (who was neither white nor a law enforcement officer) could be characterized as reflecting race-based police brutality after he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense in 2012, then why not the actions of a black police officer? In this age of the truth having no bearing on the argument at hand, then the fact that Keith Lamont Scott was killed by a black cop and not a white one is but a pesky, irrelevant detail.

As a result of the foregoing, conservative pundits from every sector of media have weighed in with in-depth analyses of recent events in this vein, as well as their potential effect on the upcoming election. Somewhat frustrating from the perspective of a desire to see a de-escalation of racial tensions and an increasing understanding of the designs of the left vis-à-vis race relations has been the shallow, obtuse approach of many of these conservative interests. Starting from scratch as it were, in their attempts to identify and analyze pertinent race-related issues that I identified and analyzed some time ago in my book Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession, they are actually forestalling a widespread understanding of the left’s objectives pertaining to race.

Earlier this week, my WND colleague Mychal Massie detailed the real reason for the Charlotte riots. Others noted the fact that while blacks were rioting in Charlotte over an incident in which an armed black man was shot by a black cop, the case of an unarmed black man shot by a white cop in Tulsa, Oklahoma during the same week generated comparatively little public outcry.

While some put this down to election cycle politics, I believe that this phenomenon can be explained in part by the left’s desire to reduce the efficacy of police departments in areas where there are large black populations. In so doing, more and more such communities will begin to resemble cities like Chicago and Detroit, where blacks are being gunned down by other blacks in staggering numbers, and law enforcement is hamstrung. Thus, the chaos, fear, and resentment in black communities can be handily perpetuated as leftist politicos continue to deliberately misidentify the causes and conditions.

Election season politics notwithstanding, the most precise appraisal of the racialist demagoguery we are currently witnessing is that it reflects the left’s efforts toward cultural balkanization (with the objective of coalescing political power through the action of discrete minority groups), fomenting civil unrest (with the objective of necessitating police state protocols), and the standardization of police policies and procedures to favor the leftist paradigm (with the ultimate goal of nationalizing police departments themselves).

You see, Bruce? Not so complex after all…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns