Thursday, May 10, 2012

Racial privilege

For many generations, America, land of the free and home of the brave, has sought to retain a fluid class system which has ensured that aristocratic, predetermined privileges do not remain with one race, group or class.  The civil rights movement of the 1960s was based on the premise that everyone, regardless of race or class, should have access to the American dream of climbing the social and economic ladder.  In fact, the great human rights movements of the past have been based on the concept of equality before the law and equality of opportunity regardless of gender, religion, social class or race.

Until recent times, that is.  For since the advent of affirmative action and multi-culturalism, both of which initially were supposed to be ways of making sure all races and classes had access to social and economic advancement, America is increasingly aristocratic in its composition, with privileges being handed out according to race and class rather than according to merit.

The weird case of Elizabeth Warren is a classic example of privilege according to bloodline gone amok.  Though a pink skinned, blue eyed blonde, Ms. Warren has ludicrously claimed that because she has 1/32 or 1/64 Native American blood in her veins, she therefore is Native American/Indian.  Therefore she is entitled to privileges.  As Victor David Hanson observes:
"The trivial Elizabeth Warren "high cheekbones" fraud nonetheless offered a draw-back-the-curtain look into the gears and levers of our national race industry. The real story is not that the multimillionaire liberal (and one-percenter) Warren fabricated a Cherokee identity for over a decade (to the delight of her quota-thirsty universities), but rather the notion that if a pink blond at Harvard can get away with faking a career-enhancing minority identity, then anyone, anywhere, can -- or rather often has."

Warren's attempt at fakery is nothing new.  How often have pretenders to royal thrones come forth?  How many people claimed they were the offspring of a king, a duke, a baron or a prince? Some forty candidates for the throne of Louis XVII, deceased son of Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI, claimed to be the dead dauphin.  A similar mob of pretenders, among them Anna Tchaikovsky (aka Anna Anderson), claimed they were the lost Anastasia of the Romanovs.

How many in South Africa and in the United States once attempted to pass for white in order they gain access to privileges denied them for no other reason than race?

One can scarcely blame them for so doing.  Apartheid in any form is a wretched and dehumanized business, but the point is that it is also tragic to see the achievements of the civil rights movement have now been turned so topsy-turvy that claim to minority racial status is a way to attain privileges not necessarily earned nor merited.  It is sad to see so much pretending and fakery substituted for the American ladder of opportunity.  Too many are, yes, great pretenders.

But today's pretenders have their avid supporters, as have pretenders of the past.   Elizabeth Warren, self-proclaimed Native American, has had the full support of Harvard University, whose officials were anxious to prove they were interested in fulfilling their minority quotas.  

In another travesty, politically correct toadies allowed the ritual slaughter of an American eagle as a tribute to ethnic diversity, thus granting hunting rights to new aristocrats while declaring such rights off limits to the rest of US commoners without the proper bloodlines and religious rituals.  One is reminded of the hunting rights for royalty declared, for instance, by Henry VII's first Parliament in 1485, which made unauthorized hunting in prívate forests a felony punishable by death, fine or imprisonment.

The politically correct in favor of ethnic privilege in turn were followed by the avaricious and pompously self-righteous UN, which proclaimed the lands of America, including Mount Rushmore, should be restored to native tribes, who are now to be heirs because of their ancestors' previous occupancy.  Should the UN's wishes prevail, one can only imagine the ethnic Gold Rush as platinum blondes and pale redheads stampede to stake out claims to Native American ethnicity.

The new royalty comprised of exotic genetic pedigrees including fake Native Americans like Warren has largely been achieved by another pillar used by royalty for centuries, namely, an appointed bureaucracy characterized by nepotism and corruption, an organization which has a vested interest in maintaining the privileges of a royal few at the expense of many.

Included in a mix which is a sure recipe for the demolition of the fluid and merit based American social and economic ladder is a large dose of guilt handed out to those deemed unjustly privileged because of past and present social and economic sins, real or perceived.

For at the heart of the attempt to create a new royal class based on ethnic bloodlines is the desire to punish the largely white majority for its sins, past and present.  There is a desire among some like Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan  to eliminate the bloodline of the "oppressor" by turning the tables on the race now automatically deemed guilty because of skin color. This generation and those of the future are to pay for the sins of the fathers, a concept once alien to America, but which has gained traction over the last generation.

The Judeo/Christian theological principle that every human being is capable of good or evil and that each person, no matter what tribe, race or class he or she belongs to, is accountable to God for his or her sins is to be jettisoned.  Classes deemed virtuous by reason of ethnicity are to prevail over guilty majorities. The result of the race industry may turn out to be a new royal order in America, a right to elevation above other races and classes because of bloodline.

In other words, the detested concept and actuality of privileged hierarchy will not disappear.  It will just assume a new multi-cultural, minority identity.

This is not the American way or dream.  This is the attempt to say DNA trumps merit.  This is ossified aristocracy revived.


California to Ban Therapies That Try to Turn Gay People Straight

A 1st Amendment violation?

 California lawmakers are poised to vote Tuesday on a first-of-its-kind ban on a controversial form of psychotherapy aimed at making gay people straight.  Supporters say the legislation is necessary because such treatments are ineffective and harmful.  “This therapy can be dangerous,” said the bill’s author Sen. Ted Lieu.

He added the treatments can “cause extreme depression and guilt” that sometimes leads to suicide.

Conservative religious groups emphatically reject that view of sexual orientation therapy and say the California bill would interfere with parents’ rights to seek appropriate psychological care for their children.  “While this is a direct assault on everyone’s freedom it is also a not so subtle attack on religious liberty,” the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality said in a statement.

The debate comes as gay rights issues take the spotlight around the nation.  Over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden said he is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex couples getting the same rights as heterosexual couples.  In North Carolina on Tuesday, voters are expected to decide whether to make it the 29th state to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.  And in Colorado, a measure to extend civil union protections to gay couples faces a looming deadline in the state Legislature.

The California bill would prohibit so-called reparative therapy for minors and force adults who chose to undergo the treatment to sign a release form that states that the counseling is ineffective and possibly dangerous.

AB1172, sponsored by Equality California, was expected to go to its final committee hearing Tuesday afternoon and will go to the full Senate if approved.

Lieu says attempts to pathologize and change people’s sexual orientation should be treated akin to smoking and drinking: harmful activities that adults can choose to participate in, but children cannot.   “We let adults do all sorts of stupid and risky things, but we ban dangerous things for young people,” Lieu, D-Torrance, said in a telephone interview.

He was inspired to take up the issue by a cable news documentary featuring people whose parents had attempted to change their sexual orientation. The doctor featured in the show “was evil,” he said.

Interest in the religion-based therapy appears to have surged in recent years.  Exodus International, the world’s largest Christian referral network dealing with homosexuality, now refers people to 260 groups across the country, up from about 100 a decade ago. The organization has 35 ministries and churches scattered around California, from the Central Valley to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mainstream mental health organizations say people shouldn’t be seeking out groups like Exodus at all.  The American Psychological Association said in 2009 that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy.

The association cited research suggesting that efforts to produce the change could lead to depression and suicidal tendencies, and stated that no solid evidence exists that such change is possible.

The American Counseling Association and American Psychiatric Association have also disavowed the therapy. And the psychiatric association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders nearly 30 years ago.

Conversion therapy penetrated the national consciousness last year when former Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann was questioned over whether the Christian counseling business of her husband provided therapies that attempted to change gays and lesbians.

Last month, psychiatrist Bob Spitzer retracted his widely-cited 2001 study that found that “highly motivated” people could change their sexual orientation, and apologized to the gay community.

The measure would likely face legal challenges from opponents who say it is unconstitutional.   Lieu says he addressed free speech issues by excluding clergy from the legislation.

Gay rights advocates say such a ban would constitute a major milestone, and could lead to similar legislation across the country.


1 comment:

TheOldMan said...

"Lieu says attempts to pathologize and change people’s sexual orientation should be treated akin to smoking and drinking: harmful activities that adults can choose to participate in, but children cannot".

So paedophelia should also be treated as smoking and drinking? After all, it's a type of sexual orientation.