In timing sure to make things awkward at the UN where the Security Council just voted down the United States’ bid to extend the weapons embargo on the Islamic Republic, Tehran has unveiled a new ballistic missile named after Gen. Qassem Soleimani, killed last January in a US drone strike.
“Iran displayed locally made ballistic and cruise missiles – a move certain to anger the United States as it prepares to demand that all UN sanctions be reimposed on the country,” Al Jazeera reports. State media featured a ballistic missile launch test in the desert Thursday.
The other missile is named after Iraq’s top Shia militia leader who was killed in the same convoy while traveling with Soleimani through the Baghdad airport, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
Defense Minister Amir Hatami touted the ballistic missile’s range of 1,400km (or 600 miles), with the cruise missile at an estimated 1,000km (400 miles), which flies in the face of Washington’s demands that Iran shut down its advanced missile program.
Indeed the Iranians almost seem positively boastful, choosing this moment to show off the new missiles as a thumb in the eye to the United States, given it was only last Friday night the UN vote was announced wherein the US utterly failed to achieve its objective. The only “yes” vote the US could muster in its favor was from the Dominican Republic.
“Missiles and particularly cruise missiles are very important for us… The fact that we have increased the range from 300km to 1,000km in less than two years is a great achievement,” Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said on the occasion of the new weapons roll out Thursday. “Our military might and missile programs are defensive,” he emphasized.
Though Iran hawks have consistently warned these ballistic missile pursuits go hand in hand with Tehran’s alleged nuclear weapons aspirations, and could be used to attack US allies like Israel or even American bases in the region (as happened earlier this year in response to the Soleimani assassination), it must be remembered that the two countries immediately bordering Iran on either side have both been attacked by the United States and are still being occupied.
In the aftermath of the George Floyd killing, protests erupted across dozens of cities in California with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets, and despite the raging coronavirus pandemic they were cheered on loudly by the state’s liberal elite with some of the most prominent Hollywood actors taking daily turns to voice their support for the protesters while condemning anyone who did not side with the BLM movement, even when so frequently it devolved into violent rioting and looting of innocent bystanders. All of that abruptly ended, however, when BLM invaded Beverly Hills chanting “eat the rich.” That’s when the police quickly showed up and immediately cleared out all the protesters.
But while such NIMBY hypocrisy has long been a fixture of the ultra-liberal Golden State, nothing compares to what just happened in Chicago whose Mayor Lori Lightfoot – best known for encouraging local BLM protests, going so far as saying that black lives are “more important that downtown corporations” after the unprecedented looting that took place last week – defended the Chicago Police Department’s ban on protesters being able to demonstrate on the block where she lives, telling reporters Thursday that she and her family at times require heightened security because of threats she receives daily.
Yes, Mayor Lori is all about BLM protests… as long as they are literally not in her back yard.
Lightfoot refused to elaborate on the specific threats according to the Chicago Tribune, but said she receives them daily against herself, her wife and her home. Lightfoot also told reporters that comparisons to how the Police Department has protected previous mayors’ homes, such as Rahm Emanuel’s Ravenswood residence, are unfair because “this is a different time like no other.
“I think that residents of this city, understanding the nature of the threats that we are receiving on a daily basis, on a daily basis, understand I have a right to make sure that my home is secure,” Lightfoot said, failing to grasp the simplest truth that all citizens of “her” devastated city also have a right to make sure that their home is secure although unlike Lightfoot they don’t have the local police to protect them. Because when it comes to outrageous liberal hypocrisy, things get complicated.
Lightfoot and Chicago police Superintendent David Brown were asked at an unrelated news conference about a Tribune report noting police have banned protesters from demonstrating on her block in the Logan Square neighborhood, ordering officers to arrest anyone who refuses to leave. The directive surfaced in a July email from then-Shakespeare District Cmdr. Melvin Roman to officers under his command. It did not distinguish between the peaceful protesters Lightfoot regularly says she supports and those who might intend to be destructive, but ordered that after a warning is given to demonstrators, “It should be locked down.”
Activists and police sources could not cite instances when the city repeatedly locked down her predecessor Emanuel’s block against protesters. The Kenwood block where former President Barack Obama lived with his family when his primary residence was in Chicago was shut down for access only by residents after his election.
But Lightfoot said such comparisons “don’t make any sense,” after Brown referenced the ongoing coronavirus pandemic – which she has repeatedly overriden as a concern when BLM protests are to be held – as well as civil unrest that have flared since the George Floyd killing at the hands of Minneapolis police.
“I’m not going to make any excuses for the fact that, given the threats I have personally received, given the threats to my home and my family, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure they’re protected,” Lightfoot said. “I make no apologies whatsoever for that.
It wasn’t clear if Lightfoot would apologize to all those millions of Chicago residents who – just like her – are trying to avoid threats against their own families by angry, violent looters; looters whose despicable actions Lightfoot has repeatedly turned her eyes away from in hopes of peak virtue signaling.
According to the Chicago Tribune, since the order, and even for a time just prior to its writing, Chicago cops have repeatedly blocked protesters’ access to the block with groups of officers and barricades. Police have often kept protesters contained at the nearby corner of Kimball and Wrightwood avenues, though one standoff between activists and officers last month saw police go as far as bringing in an armored vehicle in case things got out of hand.
Aside from the expanded police presence to block protesters from reaching her home, Lightfoot already receives 24/7 protection from cops including officers stationed at the residence. Worse, the aggressive overpolicing of the self-absorbed hypocrite mayor has often siphoned away resources from the area’s police district, some sources with knowledge of the situation told the Tribune, leading to quiet grumbling.
Both Lightfoot and Brown noted there are laws on the books banning residential protests, but Brown acknowledged the Police Department does not always enforce them. Brown said the city tries to give “wiggle room” for protesters.
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Brown also cited instances where peaceful protests have been “hijacked” by agitators as reason for keeping demonstrators off Lightfoot’s block.
“We have seen very peaceful First Amendment protests for the most part but embedded in each of those protests have been very violent people. And they’re embedded. They put up umbrellas. And they come for a fight,” Brown said. “So we have to prepare for what we’ve seen.”
You certainly do, and so do all the other millions of Chicago residents and yet under Lightfoot’s directives it will be a miracle if Chicago has a police force this time next year… besides those cops of course stationed at Lightfoot’s house to protect the (soon to be former) mayor from the protesters she herself has repeatedly egged on.
While the man sat on the ground apparently texting on his phone, one of the rioters who had initially confronted him ran up from behind and kicked him in the side of the head, rendering him unconscious. Shouts of support for Black Lives Matter can be heard as other rioters began examining the man. A woman can be heard shouting multiple times to call 911 as the man lay bleeding on the street. Police did not arrive on the scene until after the crash and the violence had already occurred. When the police began attempting to tow away the man’s vehicle, the crowd started accusing them of “protecting white supremacists.”
A motorist was dragged from his car, forced to the ground, and beaten unconscious by Portland Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA rioters on Sunday night, as lawlessness continues to reign with no law enforcement in sight.
The so-called rioters in Portland and Seattle, BLM and ANTIFA domestic terrorists, are not only a pathetic bunch of cowardly pack animals, they are also filled with the spirit of Antichrist. You are an idiot if you think any of what they’re doing is being done to stop fascism or racism, because these people are fascists who use racism as a weapon. This is lawlessness, this is anarchy, this is absolute planned systemic violent assault.
The videos I have placed below are violent in the extreme and filled with profanity, but I have included it to show you the depth of depravity that these reprobates operate on. I want you to watch these videos multiple times, so you will know what to do should they form a line on the street where you and your loved ones are driving. You should watch the videos enough times to be able to answer the question of “should I stop or not stop” if I find them blocking the road. If you watch the videos enough times, you will have no trouble answering that question. Just picture yourself as the man sitting on the curb, the answer will come to you immediately. I was able to answer that question 3 seconds into the second video.
It’s Time To Open Your Eyes To The Fact That The Spirit Of Antichrist Is Now Here And That We Are At War Whether You Want To Be Or Not
Portland Rioters Drag Man from Car and Beat Him Senseless
FROM BREITBART NEWS: The incident was reported and shared by Andy Ngo, editor at-large of the Post Millennial. The scenes are graphic. Ngo then shared a tweet of the moments immediately preceding the assault, where the driver can be seen apparently trying to explain how and why his vehicle crashed. He is then made to sit while others search his vehicle. After trying to get up, the man is violently shoved to the ground.
Then, while the man sat on the ground apparently texting on his phone, one of the rioters who had initially confronted him ran up from behind and kicked him in the side of the head, rendering him unconscious.
Shouts of support for Black Lives Matter can be heard as other rioters began examining the man. A woman can be heard shouting multiple times to call 911 as the man lay bleeding on the street. Police did not arrive on the scene until after the crash and the violence had already occurred. When the police began attempting to tow away the man’s vehicle, the crowd started accusing them of “protecting white supremacists.”
Portland is entering its 81st consecutive day of riots as demonstrators have moved beyond attacking federal courthouses and have now entered into residential areas. The condition of the man who was knocked unconscious is unknown.
A coalition of more than 2,700 high-profile evangelicals spanning the fields of science and religion have signed onto a statement billed “A Christian Statement on Science for Pandemic Times,” which warns against the politicization of the new coronavirus and urges Christians to take appropriate action against it, including taking a vaccine when it’s ready. BioLogos was founded by U.S. National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, a devout Christian geneticist, and his wife, to foster discussions about the harmony between science and biblical faith.
These people will steal your blessed hope if you let them, my advice to you is to not let that happen. They want to make you take the COVID vaccine as well, should you trust them? Nope.
We warned you about the vaccine, we told you this was coming and now it begins to rear its ugly, ugly head. The New World Order has determined that the entire world needs to be vaccinated, and that is exactly what they will attempt to do. It will go a lot easier, though, with the help of the lukewarm Laodicean church. Allow me to introduce you to BioLogos, a consortium of evangelical sellouts who won’t rest until every Christian takes Bill Gates syringe of poison, and receives an implantable biometric ID chip.
“But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.” Mark 13:9 (KJB)
There are so many things happening now, it is easy to miss it, but if you look closely you will see it. COVID is not going away, COVID is a real virus but it has been weaponized to bring you into submission. To beat you into submission with crashed economies, forced lock downs, mandatory mask wearing, steep fines and prison time for non-compliance. The America that will exist on the other side of this is not an America you will recognize. It will be a brutal, dystopian place that the last two decades of apocalyptic zombie movies have prepared you to accept. Only the zombies will be real, if they have their way, the zombies will be me and you.
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:20,21 (KJB)
Please visit the BioLogos website, and read every page, this is what a Laodicean sellout looks like. They want to “educate you” how science can be compatible with biblical Christianity. You will enjoy the section where they teach you how compatible evolution is with biblical creation. They will steal your blessed hope if you let them, my advice to you is to not let that happen. They want to make you take the COVID vaccine as well, should you trust them? Nope. This is their official COVID statement, you should read it, all of it. Know your enemy.
SHOULD YOU DO AS BIOLOGOS SAYS AND TAKE THE VACCINE? BEFORE YOU ANSWER, CLICK HERE FOR A MEMORY REFRESHER
2,700 evangelicals warn against politicizing coronavirus, urge Christians to take vaccine
FROM THE CHRISTIAN POST: A coalition of more than 2,700 high-profile evangelicals spanning the fields of science and religion have signed onto a statement billed “A Christian Statement on Science for Pandemic Times,” which warns against the politicization of the new coronavirus and urges Christians to take appropriate action against it, including taking a vaccine when it’s ready.
“We are deeply concerned about the polarization and politicization of science in the public square when so many lives are at stake. The word ‘science’ has become a weapon in the culture wars. Scientists are vilified and their findings ignored, while conspiracy theories go viral. Sadly, Christians seem just as susceptible to these trends. Thoughtful Christians may disagree on public policy in response to the coronavirus, but none of us should ignore clear scientific evidence,” the statement published online by the nonprofit organization BioLogos says.
“WE CALL ON ALL CHRISTIANS TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS AND SUPPORT SCIENTISTS DOING CRUCIAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ON COVID-19.”
BioLogos was founded by U.S. National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, a devout Christian geneticist, and his wife, to foster discussions about the harmony between science and biblical faith. Collins was honored earlier this year with the Templeton Prize, a financial award of $1.3 million for his storied career using science to advocate for the “integration of faith and reason.”
Some of the influential evangelicals who have already signed the statement include: Bishop Claude Alexander, senior pastor, The Park Church, Charlotte, North Carolina; National Association of Evangelicals President Walter Kim; William Phillips, a distinguished professor of physics at the University of Maryland who was a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize of Physics “for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light” in 1997; and Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
THE SIGNERS AFFIRM THAT THEY “UPHOLD THE AUTHORITY OF GOD’S WORD AND SEE SCIENCE AS A TOOL TO UNDERSTAND GOD’S WORLD.”
The statement comes in the wake of the fragmented response in the Christian community to the coronavirus which has fed skepticism about how it has been handled and challenged advice from public health officials on issues such as the wearing of masks to stem the spread of the disease.
BioLogos urges Christians to wear masks, get vaccinated, correct misinformation, work for justice and pray.
“Mask rules are not experts taking away our freedom, but an opportunity to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves,” it says. “Christians are called to love the truth; we should not be swayed by falsehoods. Get vaccinated against COVID-19 when a safe and effective vaccine is available and as directed by a physician. A large fraction of the population needs to be vaccinated to develop the ‘herd immunity’ which protects the immuno-compromised and others who cannot be vaccinated.”
The International Center for Technology Assessment is placing its bets on a leak from a lab in Wuhan.
“After considerable research, including a thorough review of the selected research materials and discussions with experts in the field, we have come to agree with the view that the virus causing COVID-19 did not evolve naturally but rather is the product of one of the high-security bio-medical laboratories in Wuhan, China,” the group said in a statement issued last month. “We believe that there is a preponderance of circumstantial and scientific evidence demonstrating that the ‘laboratory virus’ hypothesis is not only possible but probable. By contrast, recent refutation of the hypothesis that the virus originated at a Wuhan wet market and new findings that the virus has not been found in nature despite significant effort to do so, makes the view that the virus evolved naturally unlikely.”
“No dispositive finding on the virus’ origin can be made without a full review of the records and logs of the Wuhan high security laboratories involved, which the current stance of the government of China makes improbable. Nevertheless, in coming to a conclusion as to the probability of its laboratory origin, ICTA understands that it is critical that any analysis of the origin of this catastrophic contagion be apolitical and constructive. ICTA’s work in this area is not intended to blame individual scientists or any country, but rather to help provide the insight, and encourage the action needed to spare humanity from a series of future man-made pandemics that could surpass the current one in transmissibility and lethality.”
Andrew Kimbrell is executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment.
“Let’s start with the probability – more likely than not – that the COVID-19 virus is a lab created virus – from one of the two labs in Wuhan China,” Kimbrell told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last month.
“Let’s take a look at the virus itself.”
“Is there anything about the virus that would indicate one way or another? The other four categories are more circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is fine in a court of law.”
“One is – location. Where did it happen?”
“Two – precedent. Has anything like this ever happened before?”
“Three – warnings. Did anybody warn that this might happen?”
“And four – cover-up. Did the labs and the Chinese government try to cover it up?”
“Those are the five categories that I would ask your friends and skeptics to go through carefully before they use words like conspiracy or baloney. And later on I will go through why some of them are using those terms. We will get into the corporate support for these people and why you are getting this misinformation.”
“Let’s go through it. It is undisputed that this is a chimeric virus that has never been seen before. It’s a hybrid virus “
“The bat coronaviruses that are closest to COVID-19 are lacking two incredibly important things that COVID-19 has that make it so dangerous. One is the proteins that spike the cell – the spike proteins. The spike proteins that are on COVID-19 are completely different than those on the bat coronaviruses that are closest to it otherwise. Then there is the furin cleavage site. This is something that allows the virus to get inside the cell and have the cell mechanism reproduce it. That does not exist in this group of bat coronaviruses.”
“You have a basic bat coronavirus and you have two things that have been added to it. The spike protein is closest to an animal called the pangolin. We do know that somehow this bat virus was infected by at least two other animals and then went into a human host. And for that virus to be the way it is, it had to happen simultaneously.”
“We have a hybrid virus never seen before in nature, it had to have been infected simultaneously with these other elements that make it more dangerous – make it more infective and more transmissible.”
“There is no theory about how they got in there. They used to think it was the wet market. That has been completely debunked, including by the Chinese government. No one believes that anymore. That explanation was a smoke screen put up by the Chinese and Americans who want to support that idea.”
What are the chances it happened naturally?
“Someone will have to come up with a scenario. It sounds almost like a joke. A horseshoe bat, a pangolin and some other creature met in a bar in Wuhan and somehow simultaneously infected them.”
“I haven’t seen any scenario of how that happened or where that happened. But we know that had to happen. It happened somewhere. It either happened in nature or it happened in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or it happened at the CDC lab in Wuhan.”
“That is undisputed. Then at the end of May, Nickolai Petrovsky and his team in Australia said – let’s see if we can find a creature that might have an affinity for this. That way we might find the animals that might have come together to create this virus. Their conclusion was that they could not find it anywhere else in nature. These are objective researchers. They are not Trump supporters. That study made it even more difficult to accept the natural theory.”
“Meanwhile, we know that this was exactly the kind of work that was going on at one or both of the Wuhan labs. They call it gain of function research. I call it gain of threat research. They were taking NIH money, through the EcoHealth Alliance to do exactly this. And they did exactly this. They added different kinds of protein spikes. They mixed and matched various viruses. They genetically engineered them. They infected a number of animals. They put them into human cell cultures to increase the threat.”
Why were they doing this research?
“The point of the research was to collect all of these bat viruses from 1,000 miles away from Wuhan and bring them back into their labs. The bat coronavirus was also the basis for the first SARS outbreak. They collected the bat viruses and brought them back to the labs. And then we are going to see what it would take for them to become really dangerous. What would it take? The idea was – if we can show what it takes in a laboratory for them to become incredibly dangerous then maybe we can predict that happening in nature. And then maybe we could have vaccines or interventions and be ready for the next pandemic.”
It was a way to develop vaccines?
“No. It was a way to develop a potential pandemic virus that might have occurred in nature at some point in the future. By having it, they would be able to think about what intervention strategies might work against this virus, which is now only in the lab, not in nature.”
“They would say – we’re trying to not have the next pandemic. And there are a couple of problems with that argument. I sent you an article by Marc Lipsitch at Harvard and Tom Inglesby at Johns Hopkins. They pretty much demolished this argument. They say – there are hundreds of combinations of coronaviruses that could happen in nature. The idea that you can pick one or two and that is going to be the one that nature comes up with is like winning the lottery. And then to create a vaccine for a non existent virus – except in your laboratory – no one is going to do that. They are going to wait to see what happens in nature.”
“This whole gain of threat research, there are many reputable scientists now saying – it gives you no information, it’s not useful for vaccines, it’s not useful for anything except for the curiosity and interest of this small group of scientists who do this research.”
“Meanwhile they are creating novel pandemic viruses.”
“Let’s get back to the list.”
“Location. Why did this happen in Wuhan? Of all the cities in China. Of all the areas where bats are – and they are nowhere near Wuhan, they are 1,000 miles away. Of all of the cities it could have happened in, of all the small towns it could have happened in, why did it happen in Wuhan? What are the odds of this happening in Wuhan naturally versus happening in Wuhan because researchers there were doing exactly the kind of research that would create it? What are the odds of that? If I was in court, I would say that’s a very strong indicator that it happened in the labs. And in the interview with Shi Zhengli, she was so surprised. Why would this happen in Wuhan? And that’s why she got so nervous. Check that in favor of the lab theory.”
“Two is precedent. Was there any precedent? Yes. In 2003 and 2004, the original SARS virus was leaked four times from Chinese laboratories. It was reported in Science magazine. So, we’ve already had a leak of SARS 1. And a couple of people who worked in that laboratory died in 2004. We have a precedent with the SARS virus.”
“What about warnings? There were numerous warnings. UPMC Center for Health Security looked at ten nations including China. In 2016, they found inadequate training and inadequate safety personnel in China to secure biosecurity.”
“In 2017, there is an article in Nature where scientists say they are very concerned about a biosafety level 4 laboratory in China doing all of this controversial research. We don’t feel they have the experience or the expertise to do that.”
“In 2018, we have the cables from the U.S. State Department saying – we are in this lab in China and we are very concerned that they are not taking appropriate precautions. And we are hoping that the United States government is coming to help them because this could be a very bad result. That was reported on by Josh Rogin in the Washington Post. You can read these cables.”
“In 2019, the Global Health Security Index for the very first time looks at biosecurity for 195 nations. No one has ever done anything that comprehensive. They found that China was not even in the top fifty of the most biosecure countries.”
“NBC reported that in October 2019 there was cell phone silence at the Wuhan lab. They were concerned that might have had something to do with an accident.”
“You had all of these warnings. You had precedent. Then you have a massive cover-up. Milton Leitenberg in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists goes over that cover-up in great detail in an article in June titled “Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly.”
“Leitenberg goes over the cover-up in detail. China orders the virus destroyed. They punish those who were publishing stories about it. They refused to make any records from the labs available. They put out disinformation that it came from a U.S. military lab.”
What about the so called batwoman?
“The Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli. She works at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She says she didn’t sleep a wink for days, fearful that the virus came from her lab. But now she assures us that it didn’t come from her lab. She may be right or she may be wrong. I don’t know. It may have come from the other lab or from someone else working there. But she herself was so frightened about the possibility that her research had created this pandemic that she didn’t sleep a wink for days. That’s enough to say to me – that research should never happen.”
What you call gain of threat research was banned for a while, correct?
“That’s correct. Gain of function research is used for different kinds of research. If you were to be working with a plant and were trying to get the plant to fixate nitrogen better, that would be gain of function for that plant. There is nothing wrong with gain of function research. But to use the term as they do is dishonest. The term gain of function sounds innocuous. Gain of function – that doesn’t sound bad.”
You don’t want to ban gain of function research.
“I don’t want to ban gain of function research. I’m going to take away the double speak and call it what it is – gain of threat research on potential pandemic viruses. That’s what I want to ban. No one in the world should be doing gain of threat research on potentially pandemic viruses. It’s the definition of insanity.”
“In 2014, the Obama administration declared a moratorium on any federal funding of gain of threat research. The reason they did this was because two researchers – Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Wisconsin – were working on the H5N1 bird flu, which had a 60 percent mortality rate, but was not transmissible through the air. It killed a few hundred people, but because it was not transmissible, it didn’t go very far. But they decided they were going to try and turn it into a transmissible virus and publish their results.”
“With a 60 percent mortality rate, if that virus escaped, you have a potential 1.6 billion casualties.”
Did they actually turn it into a transmissible virus?
“According to them, they did yes.”
What are the ethics of turning that into a transmissible virus?
“Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health said this ‘We have accepted principles, embodied in the Nuremberg Code, that say that biomedical experiments posing a risk to human subjects should only be undertaken if they provide benefits that sufficiently offset the risks – and if there are no other means of obtaining those benefits. Although these experiments don’t involve people directly, they do put human life and well-being at risk.’”
There are white people who are not as powerful as the system of white people — the caste system that’s been put in place — but they still, no matter where they are on the rung, or the ladder of success, they still have their whiteness. … Whites have a leg up. You still have your whiteness. That’s what the term “white privilege” is. It means that whiteness still gives you an advantage, no matter. “It is the fundamental issue,” declared Oprah of racial assumptions.by Geoffrey GriderAugust 4, 2020
“Whites have a leg up. You still have your whiteness. That’s what the term ‘white privilege’ is. It means that whiteness still gives you an advantage, no matter what”, Oprah said.
It is astonishing to me to watch so many black entertainers and athletes become rich and famous, who get to live a life of luxury that 95% of the people in this country will never know, and then trash the very system and the very people that gave them that success. Billionaire Oprah Winfrey is one of those people, and she wants the world to know that if you’re white then you have to be a racist because, well, that’s just the way it is. Excuuuuse me?
There is an effort underway by the Liberal elites, a demonically-inspired attack to cast Caucasian people as racists, not for anything they’ve said or done, but merely because they are ‘white’, and ‘white’ is bad. Why is Oprah Winfrey doing this? It has nothing to do with the color of her skin, it has nothing to do with ‘ending racism’, for her very position is racist in the extreme. So what then?
It is because Oprah Winfrey is part of the privileged elites who are working to tear down society and bring in the New World Order. The name of her network, called OWN, is NWO backwards. NWO stands for New World Order. Any questions?
Oprah Hosts White Guilt Session: ‘Whiteness Gives You an Advantage No Matter What’
FROM BREITBART NEWS: Billionaire media mogul Oprah Winfrey declared in an episode of her eponymous series, The Oprah Conversation that “whiteness” and “white privilege” afford unspecified benefits to white people in the “caste system” of America.
In an episode entitled “Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man: Part 1” — featuring former NFL linebacker Emmanuel Acho and drawing its name from Acho’s YouTube series of the same name — Oprah Winfrey invited several white people to discuss “racism,” “white privilege,” and “whiteness.” Oprah praised her white guests for accusing themselves of being “racist.”
THERE ARE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AS POWERFUL AS THE SYSTEM OF WHITE PEOPLE — THE CASTE SYSTEM THAT’S BEEN PUT IN PLACE — BUT THEY STILL, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE ON THE RUNG, OR THE LADDER OF SUCCESS, THEY STILL HAVE THEIR WHITENESS.
WHITES HAVE A LEG UP. YOU STILL HAVE YOUR WHITENESS. THAT’S WHAT THE TERM “WHITE PRIVILEGE” IS. IT MEANS THAT WHITENESS STILL GIVES YOU AN ADVANTAGE, NO MATTER.
“It is the fundamental issue,” declared Oprah of racial assumptions.
The Wrinkle in Time star invited Seth, a self-described Jewish man from Manhattan, New York, to describe his “awakening” to his own “racist” self.
“YOU’VE BECOME ‘WOKE’ DURING THIS PERIOD, AND REALIZED IN THAT AWAKENING THAT YOU ARE RACIST, RIGHT?” ASKED OPRAH. “I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED.”
Seth replied, “I was born in the 70s. I was born and raised in Manhattan. I’ve always considered myself to be liberal. Now I’m not only a friend of people of color but also an advocate for [them], but this this movement over the last month has been powerful.”
Seth indicted himself as a “racist” who is aspiring to become an “anti-racist.”
“I realized that I couldn’t be not racist,” continued Seth. “I realized that I either was a racist or an anti-racist, and I wasn’t — I’m not — an anti-racist.”
Lisa, a Minnesotan-turned-Californian, attributed “biases” to all white people, warning of “unconscious biases that white people — that we as white people — have.”
Emmanuel Acho said whites living a “white” life become “part of the problem”:
HERE’S WHAT I TOLD MY FRIENDS WITH THEIR WHITE CHILDREN. I SAID, “Y’ALL LIVE IN A WHITE CUL-DE-SAC, IN A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN A WHITE CITY, IN A WHITE STATE. IF YOU WERE NOT CAREFUL. YOUR CHILDREN WILL LIVE THEIR WHOLE LIFE WHITE, AND AT [THE AGES OF] 26, 27, THEY’LL END UP BEING A PART OF THE PROBLEM, BECAUSE YOU JUST LET THEM AND ALLOWED THEM TO LIVE A COMPLETELY WHITE, SHELTERED, AND CULTURE-LESS LIFE.
America is “run” by whites, claimed Acho.
“As a black person, white people — the proverbial phrase of white people — they run America, CEOs, Fortune 500 companies, execs, ownership,” Acho stated. “They run America. Not an individual white person, but collective white people.”
Emmanuel Acho declared, “I firmly believe that if the white person is your problem, only the white person can be your solution
“Until and unless our leaders become signatory to the BREATHE Act — to legislation that eliminates the federal government’s ability to give multi-million dollar grants to militarize police forces; dismantles punitive like ICE, Border Patrol, and the DEA; ends the use of surveillance systems being used to target protesters; and bans the use of police agencies to suppress political dissent — the Democratic Party of today will be remembered as the party of complicity. The party that refuses to sacrifice its own creature comforts and material securities to ensure it walked the walk. So before you leave today, I want you to answer this question for yourselves: Which side of history is my party actually on?” – Patrisse Cullors, Marxists co-founder of Black Lives Matterby Geoffrey GriderAugust 1, 2020
The nationwide push led by Black Lives Matter to defund the police is part of a larger radical agenda expressed in the group’s own manifesto which openly seeks a revolution to topple the U.S. capitalist system and its replacement with a socialist-style government replete with universal income, collective ownership, and the redistribution of wealth.
I am not against taking a long, hard look at how America’s police force is set up, and making reforms and changes as needed, that’s common sense. I am not against reviewing the policies and procedures of ICE and the DEA, and make sure that those agencies are functioning fairly and properly. Groups invested with that much power should be watched carefully and adjusted accordingly should they start to stray from their founding mandates. But why on earth would someone want to get rid of these three groups? The answer is clear and obvious.
Black Lives Matter, a domestic terror group if ever there was one, wants to defund the police and abolish ICE and the DEA in order bring in an oppressive system of black supremacism. Black Lives Matter, declaring that ‘whites are evil’ and ‘must be overthrown’, are rooted in the Communist Party ideals, whose heros are Marx, Stalin and Lenin. Marx was a radical Communist revolutionary who inspired blood-thirsty killers like Lenin and Stalin to rise to power and oppress the people.
Patrisse Cullors proudly says that she and her two fellow Black Lives Matter co-founders are ‘trained Marxists’, and that alone should give you all the reason you need to reject the demands of these BLM domestic terrorists. If Joe Biden wins in November, as you will read below, that will ensure that at least some of the radical legislation called for by BLM will be passed into law.
The radical BLM co-founder was addressing the Democratic National Convention’s (DNC) virtual party platform meeting on Monday, only weeks before the start of the summer convention. Cullors told the panel “without making the necessary recommitments and revisions, can any of you here truly stand up and say, ‘my party is the party of principles?’”
Cullors also expressed a non-compromising attitude toward adopting some of the most radical policies:
UNTIL AND UNLESS OUR LEADERS BECOME SIGNATORY TO THE BREATHE ACT — TO LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO GIVE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR GRANTS TO MILITARIZE POLICE FORCES; DISMANTLES PUNITIVE LIKE ICE, BORDER PATROL, AND THE DEA; ENDS THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS BEING USED TO TARGET PROTESTERS; AND BANS THE USE OF POLICE AGENCIES TO SUPPRESS POLITICAL DISSENT — THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TODAY WILL BE REMEMBERED AS THE PARTY OF COMPLICITY. THE PARTY THAT REFUSES TO SACRIFICE ITS OWN CREATURE COMFORTS AND MATERIAL SECURITIES TO ENSURE IT WALKED THE WALK. SO BEFORE YOU LEAVE TODAY, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR YOURSELVES: WHICH SIDE OF HISTORY IS MY PARTY ACTUALLY ON?
In a call following her remarks, Cullors told Axios that she and other activists are “playing the long game” and that “even if we get Trump out in November we will still be having this same conversation about police violence with Biden in office.”
Cullors also added that earlier this month, the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) policy team met with members of Biden’s campaign to discuss the BREATHE Act.
The BREATHE Act:
Formulated by the radical Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) — a coalition of more than 150 organizations and championed by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) — the bill, posted on breatheact.org, is broken into four sections that focus on reforming federal institutions and policies.
The first section calls for moves such as divesting from police agencies like the DEA and ICE, dramatically reducing the Department of Defense budget, ending life sentences and mandatory minimum sentences, closing all federal prisons and immigration detention centers, and decriminalizing and retroactively expunging both state and federal drug offenses.
The second section calls for federal grants to incentivize local jurisdictions to decarcerate jails and/or defund police forces, close detention facilities, abolish state gang databases, remove police from schools, repeal all juvenile offenses, eliminate all court fees and forgive past debts.
The section also calls for a new program that would send trained civilian specialists, rather than police, to respond to 911 calls in order to reduce unnecessary contact between law enforcement and community members.
The next section calls for allocating new money for social equality in communities that provide equitable funding for all schools; developing school curricula that examines the impacts of colonialism, genocide against indigenous peoples and slavery; closing youth detention centers; and providing a lifetime of free access to education for undocumented immigrants, including those who are currently or were formerly incarcerated.
The final section calls for reparations for those incarcerated, including enfranchisement to vote; creating a public financing program for campaigns powered by small-dollar contributions; incentivizing states to increase voter turnout; and allowing undocumented immigrants to vote in local and state elections.
Biden-Sanders unity task force on criminal justice reform:
Unsurprisingly, many of the BREATHE Act’s demands resemble recommendations made by the Biden-Sanders criminal justice task force.
The task force recommendations include ending the use of private prisons and detention centers — including for immigration offenses; ending cash bail; abolishing the death penalty at the federal level; making all sentencing reforms retroactive to allow for individualized resentencing; incentivizing jail and prison closures as populations decline; restoring the right to vote for all formerly incarcerated individuals; reinstating government-subsidized grants (Pell Grant eligibility) for previously incarcerated individuals; conditioning the receipt of federal funds on the automatic expungement and sealing of juvenile records; and federal funding to create a civilian corps of unarmed first responders such as social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals to handle non-violent emergencies.
Breitbart News previously reported that the task force on criminal justice reform, charged with shaping Biden’s public policy agenda and intended to guide the party’s 2020 platform, was composed of extremist members with radical views directly tied to organizations that believe America is inherently racist and must be fought through radical transformation.
Biden, long seen as a moderate, has earned plaudits from progressives in recent weeks for the aggressive recommendations made by the Biden-Sanders unity task force.
“THE COMPROMISE THEY CAME UP WITH, IF IMPLEMENTED, WILL MAKE BIDEN THE MOST PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT SINCE FDR,” SANDERS TOLD MSNBC AFTER THE TASK FORCE RELEASED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS.
Sanders added that there was a “real honest effort” to find a compromise between left-wing supporters of Sanders and establishment Biden backers.
Patrisse Cullors radical revolution:
Breitbart News previously reported on the M4BL and its extreme vision for what a “true American revolution” would look like, with Patrice Cullors warning the DNC platform committee that if the Democratic Party is not careful, they risk losing the great opportunity to lead our country.
As reported, the nationwide push led by Black Lives Matter to defund the police is part of a larger radical agenda expressed in the group’s own manifesto which openly seeks a revolution to topple the U.S. capitalist system and its replacement with a socialist-style government replete with universal income, collective ownership, and the redistribution of wealth.
Additionally, Breitbart News documented Cullors — whom the DNC platform committee embraced — as the protégé of a communist-supporting domestic terrorist for over a decade, spending years training in political organizing and absorbing the radical Marxist-Leninist ideology which shaped her worldview.
Biden embracing the revolution:
On Tuesday, Biden reiterated that he would be “one of the most progressive presidents in U.S. history” during a rare question-and-answer session with the press after a speech on racial equality in Wilmington, Delaware, as Breitbart News reported.
Biden’s promises of a fundamental transformation have been made on several occasions, including:
May 4: Biden calls coronavirus an “incredible opportunity … to fundamentally transform the country.”
May 11: Biden says America needs “revolutionary institutional changes.”
June 2: Biden calls for America to fight “systemic racism.”
July 4: Biden promises to “transform” America and “rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country.”
July 9: Biden vows he will put an “end to the era of shareholder capitalism.”
July 13: Biden promises “systemic” and “institutional” changes.
On Friday, former congressman Phil Gramm noted in TheWall Street Journal that Biden had taken a hard left turn since securing his party’s nomination, adopting the socialist agenda of former rivals Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. As a result, Gramm said the election was no longer a referendum on Trump, but a referendum on the survival of America
The National Catholic Reporter is notorious for parroting the positions of the Democrat Party even when they contradict clear teachings of the Catholic Church, and over the years has pushed for abortion, same-sex marriage, women’s ordination to the priesthood, an end to celibacy, and greater restrictions on religious liberty and conscience objections. It is unsurprising, therefore, that among Rep. Ocasio-Cortez purportedly “Catholic” values one discovers a full-bore embrace of the Democrats’ advocacy of taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as a “human right.”by Geoffrey GriderJuly 28, 2020
The progressive National Catholic Reporter (NCR) has declared Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to be “the future of the Catholic Church” noting her frequent references to “Catholic values” and her “passion for justice.”
The National Catholic Reporter may be a Liberal Progressive outlet, but it is absolutely the direction that Pope Francis has been steadily taking the church that Rome built in 325 AD. The conservative Catholic voices are growing softer in volume and fewer in number as the highly-energized, ‘new Catholics’ began to take control.
“I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” Deuteronomy 30:18,19 (KJB)
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez as a speaker is very hard to listen to as she rambles, mostly incoherently, through the Progressive agenda she is constantly seeking to push forward. But it is not hard to understand her position on abortion, as she has stated that clearly and frequently. AOC wants women to be able to murder their babies, at taxpayer expense, up to the moment they are due to be born. This is the woman that the National Catholic Reporter is raving about.
“And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!” Revelation 18:16-18 (KJB)
National Catholic Reporter: Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is the ‘Future of the Catholic Church’
FROM BREITBART NEWS: In an op-ed Monday, NCR’s executive editor Heidi Schlumpf praised Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as a “rock-star millennial leader of the left” who “grew up Catholic and even wrote about how her faith influences her views on public policies such as mass incarceration, for a Catholic magazine.”
As I listened to her “stunning speech” on the House floor last week, “I was struck by how often it referenced Catholic values,” Ms. Schlumpf wrote.
The National Catholic Reporter is notorious for parroting the positions of the Democrat Party even when they contradict clear teachings of the Catholic Church, and over the years has pushed for abortion, same-sex marriage, women’s ordination to the priesthood, an end to celibacy, and greater restrictions on religious liberty and conscience objections.
It is unsurprising, therefore, that among Rep. Ocasio-Cortez purportedly “Catholic” values one discovers a full-bore embrace of the Democrats’ advocacy of taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as a “human right.”
Ocasio-Cortez hasslammed attempts to pass legislation protecting unborn children, insisting that they are about “owning women” and establishing theocracy in America.
“ABORTION BANS AREN’T JUST ABOUT CONTROLLING WOMEN’S BODIES. THEY’RE ABOUT CONTROLLING WOMEN’S SEXUALITY. OWNING WOMEN,” SHE TWEETED IN 2019. “FROM LIMITING BIRTH CONTROL TO BANNING COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED, US RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE WORKING HARD TO OUTLAW SEX THAT FALLS OUTSIDE THEIR THEOLOGY.”
Laws criminalizing or restricting the killing of infants reveal that a woman’s right to receive an abortion “threatens a core element underpinning right-wing ideology: patriarchy,” she added. “It’s a brutal form of oppression to seize control of the 1 essential thing a person should command: their own body.”
Last year, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez went further still, launching a petition to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used for abortion.
Insisting that “abortion is health care,” Ocasio-Cortez said the Hyde Amendment “disproportionately harms low-income Americans and people of color just to suit the interests of anti-choice zealots.”
“It’s estimated that over 60,000 women are forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies every year just due to a lack of access to care. In a modern, moral, and wealthy nation such as the United States, that is unacceptable,” she wrote in an email to supporters, adding that access to abortion is “non-negotiable.”
“But thanks to partisan sabotage and zealotry, women across the country are losing access to this constitutionally protected right,” she said. “That ends now. We’re going to fight to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and let people access the care that they need,” she added. “Sign your name if you stand for repealing the Hyde Amendment.”
Dr. Robin DiAngelo, the bestselling author of White Fragility, claims to believe in accountability. DiAngelo used to list the “racial justice” organizations she donates to as part of her extensive “accountability statement,” including a monthly “land rent” paid to the Native American tribe that used to occupy Seattle.
But when the Washington Free Beacon began contacting the organizations she listed as recipients of her largesse, DiAngelo scrubbed the site, removing their names and the dates of her giving from the public domain—a version of the page remains available through the Internet Archive after briefly being unavailable due to what the site said were technical issues. The page was edited again as recently as Friday, when DiAngelo wrote she would begin donating 15 percent of her after-tax income, “in cash and in-kind donations,” starting next month—suggesting she had not previously, as the page exhorts, given a percentage of her income large enough that she could “feel it.”
This about-face is odd for a woman who has made her career demanding white people not respond defensively in hard conversations. DiAngelo vaulted to superstardom upon the 2018 publication of her book, White Fragility, which argues that all whites are racist and any rejection of that fact is only further evidence of it. To address racism, DiAngelo argues, requires the sort of anti-bias instruction she is selling.
The nationwide racial outcry that has followed the killing of George Floyd has supercharged the Diversity and Inclusion industry, and DiAngelo may be its greatest success story. While she has likely made over $2 million from her book, the speaking circuit is where she is cleaning up. One of the speakers bureaus that represents her told the Free Beaconthat a 60-90 minute keynote would run $30,000, a two-hour workshop $35,000, and a half-day event $40,000.
Even before the George Floyd protests reinvigorated demand for so-called anti-racist instruction, the New Yorker had dubbed DiAngelo “the country’s most visible expert in anti-bias training.” But the eye-popping numbers underscore how she has turned her academic theories about white racism into a multimillion-dollar empire of anti-imperialism. She owns three homes and is an international jetsetter.
DiAngelo did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this article.
DiAngelo’s clients, according to her website, range from Amazon and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Unilever and the YMCA. DiAngelo reportedly charges up to $15,000 per session—a March 2019 appearance, for example, costthe University of Kentucky $12,000, as well as a $5-a-minute phone-call fee. Recent virtual events run up to $175 a ticket. The eight to ten private events DiAngelo says she speaks at each month likely net her at least $1.5 million annually.
Her book, which made the New YorkTimes bestseller list in its first week and currently occupies the number-two slot, has only added to her success. DiAngelo’s publisher said it has sold 1.6 million copies, one million this year alone. Given a conservative 8 percent in royalties, that would mean the book has made DiAngelo over $2 million.
Such lucrative gigs put the white DiAngelo on par with several prominent black commentators on race. Boston University’s Ibram X. Kendi, whose book has jockeyed with DiAngelo’s on the bestseller list, charges $150 for tickets to public events and $25,000 for a one-hour presentation, his representatives told the Free Beacon. Former Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates has charged between $30,000 and $40,000 for public lectures.
DiAngelo has presented herself as a classic American rags-to-riches story, offering vivid details of a childhood spent in profound poverty. Those details are not always consistent—in a 2006 paper, for example, DiAngelo claims she “left home as a teenager and struggled to survive,” seeing “no path out of poverty other than education.” But in a recent New York Timesinterview, DiAngelo claimed to have run away from home but says she “didn’t get far,” and she didn’t enroll in college until she was in her mid-30s. Neither of DiAngelo’s sisters responded to requests for comment.
Her path out of poverty did come through education: a B.A. from Seattle University, then an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Washington. The latter was collected under the tutelage of Professor James A. Banks, the “father” of multicultural education, and earned for a 300-page thesis on the “master discourses” of whiteness.
By the time DiAngelo landed an associate professorship at Westfield State University, outside of Springfield, Mass., she was entrenched in anti-bias training. As early as 2007, she co-taught a class with Darlene Flynn, a leading figure in Seattle’s social justice community.
She may have seen opportunity in a growing industry. The Diversity and Inclusion business was thought to be worth $8 billion as of 2003; by 2005, 65 percent of big companies offered diversity training.
Demand has risen since, and she has reaped the benefits. Public records indicate she owns three homes, all bought before White Fragilitywas published: a four-bedroom bungalow and half of a duplex in Seattle (her daughter, nearing 40, occupies the latter), and a cabin in rural Washington, where DiAngelo and husband Jason Toews relax with friends who, at least on Toews’s Instagram, appear to be exclusively white. Tax assessments put DiAngelo’s cumulative housing wealth at roughly $1.6 million, in the vicinity of Coates’s $2 millionBrooklyn brownstone.
In the past three years, DiAngelo and Toews, who as of last September served as DiAngelo’s administrative assistant, have backpacked through Thailand, visited Romania, and toured South Africa.
DiAngelo’s wealth is jarring in part because of her criticisms of white privilege. It is also surprising given that available evidence suggests the anti-bias training she peddles does not work.
A review of nearly 1,000 studies of anti-bias tools found little evidence that they have any impact. In fact, recent studies suggest anti-bias training’s primary effect may be to encourage discrimination: Firms with diversity training end up withfewer minorities in management, and field research finds that training both reinforces stereotypes and increases animosity against minority groups.
But DiAngelo’s concept of “white fragility” offers an answer to that academic evidence: The negative responses whites express when told they’re racist are simply evidence that they lack “racial stamina”—and indicate that more $40,000 anti-bias sessions are necessary.
Her advice to white people looking to “shift their thinking and alter their actions” is to engage in more self-education, particularly of the sort she sells. Doing so, she told NPR, “will be lifelong”—an effective way for an already wealthy woman to keep her clientele.
This sales pitch is working. White Fragilitytops reading lists from corporationsand prestigious universities. Reading groups from Washington, D.C., to South Euclid, Ohio, are discussing it. And the proceeds all flow to a woman who has made a career arguing that white people like her are inescapably, intolerably privileged—an injustice you can only remedy by buying her book.
Amid a nationwide call for anti-racist education,White Fragilityby Robin DiAngelo has gained massive popularity and university endorsement.
The book, which shot to the top of best-seller lists following the death of George Floyd and subsequent widespread movements, has been highlighted on recommended reading lists by universities nationwide, including Ivy League schools such as Cornell, Harvard, and Yale.
Campus Reform decided to find out why.
The angle that sets this book apart from similar texts is likely its development of “white fragility” as the catalyst of all racial conflict.
White fragility, according to DiAngelo, is a phenomenon that occurs when people of color confront white people on race-related issues. Categorically, white people will react with “a range of defensive responses,” which include “emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and withdrawal from the stress-inducing situation” and which “work to reinstate white equilibrium as they repel the challenge, return our racial comfort, and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy.”
This behavior, DiAngelo clarifies, “is born of superiority and entitlement. White fragility is not weakness per se. In fact, it is a powerful means of white racial control and the protection of white advantage.”
Essentially, she argues that white people’s distaste for racial confrontation is responsible for perpetuating white supremacy.
Additionally, DiAngelo recognizes that white people do not like to be classified at large under a broad category, and she predicts throughout the text that white readers will reject her arguments because of this sensitivity, which is a tendency that they must simply learn to overcome.
DiAngelo makes the case that “racism is deeply embedded in the fabric of our society,” saying that all racist acts stem from institutional racism. This means that “only whites can be racist” because “in the United States, only whites have the collective social and institutional power and privilege over people of color.” She acknowledges the occurrence of individual racist acts, but says such actions are “part of a larger system of interlocking dynamics.” Consequently, according to her standards, racism is a behavior unique to white people that cannot be demonstrated by people of color.
Not only have all white people demonstrated racism, DiAngelo says, but they are doomed to do so indefinitely.She suggests that there is no way for white people to grow up without being racist, because white parents cannot raise their children in such a way that they do not benefit from and perpetuate racism in America. Not only that, but white parents cannot teach their children not to be racially prejudiced, and if they train their children not to express racism verbally, they are only teaching censorship.
Further, she suggests, race always influences a situation, so there is nothing coincidental about the color of someone’s skin and any conflict in which they are involved: “On some level, race is always at play, even in its supposed absence.”
Another concept DiAngelo redefines is that of white supremacy.
“White supremacy describes the culture we live in, a culture that positions white people and all that is associated with them (whiteness) as ideal. White supremacy is more than the idea that whites are superior to people of color; it is the deeper premise that supports this idea—the definition of whites as the norm or standard for human, and people of color as a deviation from that norm.”
Under this description — which neglects to acknowledge the impact of its traditional connotations, such as ties to the KKK — all white behavior can be categorized as not only racist but also as white supremacist. No one likes to be broadly categorized, but the author anticipates that and understands such behavior to be yet another manifestation of white fragility.
DiAngelo asserts that black women were unable to vote until 1964, explains that “there was no concept of race before the need to justify the enslavement of Africans,” and ultimately descends into reflecting on the nature of white and black identity.
“White is a false identity, an identity of false superiority. In that sense, whiteness isn’t real. The dream is the ‘perfect world,’ unpolluted by blacks. If whites are to construct this world, blacks must be separated through state violence. Yet they still must exist, for the existence of blacks provides the needed other against which whites may rise. Thus, white identity depends in particular on the projection of inferiority onto blacks and the oppression this inferior status justifies for the white collective.”
The book’s primary points, distilled:
· White people must acknowledge the grim consequences of their actions, although they are far too frail to do so
· White people are responsible to repair a system in which racism runs rampant, although nothing they can do will ever be enough
· White guilt is unhelpful because it does not advance any real change, although white people must reflect seriously on the extent of what they have done
· White people should be appalled at what they have brought about, although ‘white women’s tears’ only exacerbate the situation and reinforce white privilege