Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Diversity doesn't make racial differences magically disappear

The point made below is unusually realistic for The Guardian but the author still has no idea why it is so.  He is perfectly right that minority/majority status does little to make one prosperous or not.  Whites are a prosperous majority in the USA and a prosperous minority in Brazil.  How come?  Shouldn't being in a majority always mean dominance in various ways?  Why are some minorities prosperous?

The fact that majority/minority status does not determine your wealth or other advantage, seriously undermines the common Leftist claim that American blacks are poor only because whites keep them down.

The fact is that it is your personal competence at economic tasks that generally dictates your economic status.  In general, whites are better at doing things that other people are willing to pay for -- so will always be richer than the less economically competent.  And why are whites more competent?  If you look at average IQ scores the answer is plain.  Whites are much smarter in general and they get it from their parents

Short of a race war that will not change. And majorities don't always win wars either, as the Hutus found out

We can’t screw our way beyond racism. Many think mixed-race babies and browner demographics will automatically usher in a post-racial world. They interpret the projections of a “majority-minority” shift in our nation – now set to take place in 2044 – as a sign of guaranteed progress. Changing faces in the US are seen as anti-racist destiny. But don’t overestimate the power of this post-racial cocktail.

Jordan Peele’s brilliant film Get Out reminds me of the importance of questioning overly optimistic narratives of racial progress. Made by someone who has been open about being biracial and married to a white women, this film creatively uses the genre of horror to depict the persistence of racism through a story about an interracial couple. In many ways, it can be seen as a strident critique of a liberal brand of racism that has blossomed in the post-Obama era.

The perspective that multiracial demographics naturally erode bias and inequality tends to lack historical and global perspective. Consider Brazil. There, white people are a minority – but are still dominant. Despite being outnumbered, their incomes are more than double than that of Afro-descendants; white men are also vastly over-represented in Brazil’s new government.

If more mixed people guarantee greater tolerance, then Brazil – and most of Latin America – should be a racial paradise. Although a great degree of ‘mestizaje’ or racial mixing has taken place since the time of conquest, Indigenous and Afro-descendent people in Latin America remain disproportionately poor, discriminated against, and locked out from opportunity.

Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, in his book Racism without Racists, has speculated whether the racial order in the US might eventually resemble that of Latin American and Caribbean nations. In this case, white supremacy and racial stratification will continue to operate in the US even as it becomes a “majority-minority” nation.

Even the idea of a “majority-minority” shift obscures the fact that the US will be better described as a racial plurality. It’s not as if non-whites constitute one homogenous group.

The legacy of blanqueamiento (“whitening”) in Latin America demonstrates that ideals of multiraciality can run alongside white supremacy. This theory, widely adopted and practiced by Latin American nations at the turn into the 20th century, encouraged racial mixing for the sake of moving entire populations towards whiteness. This is a reminder that desires for a mixed future can be, and have sometimes been, grounded in anti-blackness.

To be sure, all of this does not discredit the importance of diversity and the unique perspectives that people of multi-ethnic/racial backgrounds possess because of their social location. Speaking of the consciousness of the mestiza, Chicana thinker Gloria Anzaldúa writes: “In our very flesh, (r)evolution works out the clash of cultures.”

People with mixed backgrounds can disrupt notions of purity that undergird race and synthesize vast cultural traditions. People with mixed backgrounds can also internalize and carry out racism.

Instead of reducing mixed people to being inevitable harbingers of a post-racial future, there needs to be an acknowledgement of agency in how mixed people choose to relate to the problem of racism and how society, in turn, chooses to receive mixed people.

Merely looking optimistically into the future erases the past that the US has with multiraciality. The figure of the “Tragic Mulatto/a” arose in US literature and film precisely because our racial architecture is based upon a series of denials. Speaking to the West Indian Student Center in London in 1968, James Baldwin captured this incisively:

“What is really happening is that brother has murdered brother knowing it was his brother. White men have lynched Negroes knowing them to be their sons. White women have had Negroes burned knowing them to be their lovers … the American people are unable to face the fact that I’m flesh of their flesh, bone of their bone.”

Baldwin exposes the naïve belief that racial intimacy and mixture are some inevitable bulwark against racism.

Demographics are not destiny. Having a multiracial background may no longer be necessarily tragic but it is not automatically heroic.

What is the racial future of this nation? As a social construct tied to political and economic power, racism has proven itself adept at employing difference to prolong its entrenchment. Notwithstanding Trump’s efforts to engineer a white nationalist future, where we go from here is not determined. It’s up to us. It depends on what we all decide to do.


Indoctrination of Children Knows No Bounds

The Boys & Girls Clubs of America has new guidelines about being more friendly to LGBTQ kids. It's not friendly
If your community has active chapters of the Boys & Girls Clubs, it’s likely you know the organization as one devoted to assist children, offering educational support along with sports and recreational opportunities. The nonprofit established in 1906 also offers character and leadership development programs for children ages six through high school-aged. The group’s website touts the resources for youth to “offer programs and services to help young people succeed in school, develop leadership skills, and maintain healthy lifestyles.”

All sounds good so far, right?

Yet a 100-page, rainbow-colored document with gender symbols of men and women morphed into new-fangled signs to represent additional sexual categories — complete with the Boys and Girls Club of America logo on the cover page — demands questions be asked and answered of the proposal stamped in all capital letters, “LGBTQ Initiative.”

These 4,300 clubs serving more than four million youth are “community-based and led by professional staff.” Are these “professional staff” offering children support to enhance their academic performance and instill the values of achievement or is there an effort to indoctrinate children through activism absent academics?

The introduction to this “toolkit designed to create understanding, introduce inclusive language and highlight recommended practices” declares that its implementation is to take “steps to ensure Clubs and BGCA-affiliated Youth Centers are safe spaces” and “create a shared understanding” of the LGBTQ lifestyle.

That’s a likely refrain. But let’s keep looking at the “toolkit” to understand that it’s more than simply responding to children who may present with gender confusion — it’s proactive.

On page 51, the declarations are made that club staff/administrators/volunteers will “refrain from using heteronormative language and stereotypes or generalizations,” will “not use gender normative language and stereotypes,” and will “educate youth, staff and families on correct LGBTQ terminology, including culturally appropriate terms.”

Question: For the Christian members of the Boys and Girls Clubs, do the professional staff educate on the correct faith-based terminology that avoids cultural appropriation that might offend them?

And, you might wonder, what exactly is included in the approved list of “correct LGBTQ terminology” and “culturally appropriate terms”? That begins on page 53 in the Appendix featuring a “Full List of Terms.” Here are a few approved terms for discussions in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America’s inclusion efforts:

Cisgender — (adj.) Describes a person whose gender identity and biological sex assigned at birth align (e.g., identifies as a man and was assigned the biological sex of male at birth).
Fluidity: …describes an identity that is a fluctuating mix of the options available.

FTM / F2M — Abbreviation for female-to-male transgender or transsexual person.

Lipstick Lesbian — (noun) Refers to a lesbian with a feminine gender expression. Can be used in a positive or a derogatory way. Sometimes used to refer to a lesbian who is assumed to be (or passes for) straight.

Skoliosexual — (adj.) Being attracted to genderqueer and transsexual people and expressions (people who don’t identify as cisgender).

Ze/Hir — (pronoun) Alternate pronouns that are gender neutral and preferred by some trans people. Pronounced/zee/ and/here. They replace “he/she” and “his/hers” respectively. Alternatively, some people who are not comfortable with or do not embrace “he/she” use the plural pronoun “they/their” as a gender neutral singular pronoun.

Nothing says after-school or summer learning for K-12 students like gender neutral pronouns, huh? And, don’t forget to use your initiative posters and flyers for club display to generate discussion! There are even handouts for the young lads and lasses, or, um, human specimens to take home for study. There are even “activities” included in the toolkit to structure lessons for students to “understand the world through the lens of an LGBTQ youth.” One of them, “Coming Out Stars,” involves role-playing the process of revealing your LGBTQ identification to friends and family.

There’s an urgent lesson to be learned and applied.

Most often, gender disorientation pathology is the result of some sort of abuse and is often linked to fatherlessness. The homosexual agenda teaches this type of behavior through deliberate indoctrination of a set of values that are absolutely contrary to the chromosomal and DNA science of biology. They, in effect, become heterophobic gender deniers.

Dr. Michael Brown of the Line of Fire radio program wrote Friday at Townhall, “Yes, Gay Activists Are After Your Children.” The effective plan is being implemented by the political Left, especially indoctrinating our school-aged children. The article cites specific examples of efforts through schools, school teachers and after-school programs and clubs that validate “alternative” sexual choices. This even includes drag queens reading to kids in libraries, as well as mandatory K-12 classes in California covering LGBT history.

Recently, Michelle Cretella, M.D., president of the American College of Pediatricians and a practicing pediatrician with 17 years’ experience, wrote an eye-opening piece in The Daily Signal that was self-explanatory. In her article, “How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse,” Dr. Cretella exposes how this indoctrination has seeped into medicine with virtually no scientific support.

In a damning statement proving that public opinion is now displacing biological science, Cretella notes, “What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.” She concludes, “Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage. These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse.”

The practicing physician challenges in her final statement, “It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.”

Whether in the Boys & Girls Clubs, in our schools, or in our children’s doctors’ offices, it’s time to end this indoctrination of a sexual preference and an individual choice as definitive science and reality. Be aware of what’s being taught to your children through public institutions and professionals who should stick to academics and abandon their activism.


Listen This Time or HUD Will Destroy Your City

America's homeowners should be shaking in their shoes. The federal government has decided that people who have worked, saved and planned so they can buy homes in nice, safe neighborhoods of their own choosing, are racists. They charge that it is a "social injustice." The government now claims that it's unfair unless everyone can have the same, whether they earn it or not. And it doesn't matter whether they can afford such a home. We're told that it's racist to deny someone an equal home, just because they don't have the money for it. White privilege, don't you know.

You may be watching the "Black Lives Matter" protests taking place on city streets around the country. You may be alarmed that such violence can happen in your downtown. And you may wonder what is behind such activity. Well, get ready for the same kind of threats and violence to possibly come directly into your own neighborhood simply because you have a nice house.

Does that sound far fetched? Well you need the details on how the federal Housing and Urban Development agency (HUD) is working to enforce its new rule called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

Social Justice is the name of the game under AFFH. That means the rule of law is dismissed in favor of "fairness." Social Justice is enforced on us using pure emotion, basically operating on the level of a twelve year old girl in a pet shop who doesn't like seeing the puppies with their sad eyes looking out from a cage. "Let the poor little doggies out," she cries. Social Justice is purely based on redistribution of wealth. Your wealth. That's money you worked for, saved, invested, and protected for YOUR needs; YOUR dreams; YOUR future.

"SELFISH," cries the social justice mongers. Why should you have so much when others have so little? Never mind that you had to save your money while forced to pay 50% of it in taxes that theoretically went to those less fortunate. The fact is, there is no "justice" in such a policy. Envy, desire, jealousy and theft are much closer to the truth.

Do you think that sounds harsh. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Property Owner, tell me how harsh this sounds! As reported by John Anthony of Sustainable Freedom Lab:

    First HUD is forcing every community which is applying for its grants to complete an "Assessment of Fair Housing" to identify all "contributing factors" to discrimination. These include a complete break down of race, income levels, religion and national origin of every single person living there. They use this information to determine if the neighborhood meets a preset "balance," determined by HUD.

    Second, HUD demands a detailed plan showing how the community intends to eliminate the "contributing factors" to this "imbalance."

    To produce the community's plan for compliance, HUD rules demand that a wide array of "interested parties" participate in its creation, just to assure community input and to keep things fair, of course. These include civil rights groups, affordable housing developers and civic activist organizations. They call this "civil society." All have a specific, left-of center agenda and a definite interest in the outcome.

    Once the plan is prepared, then the community is required to sign an agreement to take no actions that are "materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing."

    Once the community provides answers as to how they will implement the grant under these guidelines to HUD's satisfaction, then they will receive the grant.

These are the rules your locally elected representatives are forced to agree to in order to get that "free" grant money. And nearly every city council and county commission in the nation has already taken such grants.

Now ask yourselves, just why HUD would be so insistent in demanding that the community tie itself to the so-called civil rights groups in order to get the grant. The answer to that question is diabolical.

You see, if the community hesitates to comply in any way; perhaps local voters decide to turn down a program, or there aren't enough local funds to fully comply, then HUD has a secret weapon waiting for them. Lack of compliance, in HUD's eyes, results in law suits over civil rights violations.

The civil rights groups them become a useful tool. They start protests and demand "fairness." They get on television. They pressure city hall. And to the rescue comes HUD with its own law suits.

Baltimore, Maryland became one of the first cities to feel such pressure and threats as the NAACP sued Baltimore over alleged housing segregation. The NAACP argument was that Section 8 subsidized housing programs "bunch people together, and that only fuels more crime and other problems."

The solution, says the NAACP is to "integrate the poor among wealthier families." Outrageous as it sounds, such social justice mongers actually accuse those living in affluent neighborhoods of "self segregation for white privilege."

The pressure from these groups, along with the massive force of HUD backing them, has resulted in Baltimore being forced to agree to spending $30 million of tax-payer dollars over the next ten years to build 1,000 low income homes in affluent neighborhoods. The result will be a destruction of property values and the loss of equity for the homeowners. In short, destruction of earned wealth, leading to destruction of the middle class. That's what socialism does. It creates more poor.

On top of that, Baltimore has moved to destroy the property rights of landlords by denying them the ability to not rent to people who can't afford their properties. Of course the government doesn't say it that way, preferring to pretend that denying people who can't pay for your property as "discrimination." And who will pay the landlord when he is stuck with the bill? The only result will be fewer landlords and fewer choices for housing.

In Portland, Oregon, the infamous "poster child" of federal Smart Growth development policies, the city council has now unanimously approved a new tax to raise $12 million per year to pay for "affordable housing." "The lack of affordable housing is the greatest crisis facing our city right now," says Commissioner Dan Saltsman. Perhaps he should take a long look at the twenty year Smart Growth history of Portland in which massive amounts of land were locked away to limit the "sprawl" of the city. This lead to land shortages, which led to bans on single family homes, which led to the need for massive high rise apartment buildings, all of which led to higher costs and shortages of homes. Now, they have a "crisis "of low income housings. Their solution now is another tax on construction, driving up housing costs even more.

Do they ever learn? Government control over every aspect of our lives, as demanded by socialism never works. High costs, shortages and sacrifice are the only result. It has never been different wherever it has been enforced.

Now HUD is rushing to enforce AFFH with a vengeance. HUD has raced to make Westchester County, New York the example for more suits. Right out of the new HUD playbook, a private civil rights group called the Anti-Discrimination Center sued the county under the Federal False Claims Act, claiming Westchester County lied when they filled out the HUD compliance form for their grant. Since there is no official definition of "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" the definition is whatever HUD declares it to be. There is no way for the local government to win such a suit. The result of the suit against Westchester County was $62.5 million - a sum greater than all of the community development and related funding received by the county from HUD.

More suits are being filed against communities across the nation as HUD steps up its enforcement and local officials are scared, wondering what they can do to fight back, if anything. Some have tried to stand up to HUD, refusing to comply. But once the law suits are filed, and the "community organizers" start their pressure, most have quickly backed down.

Let's make one thing clear. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s made it illegal to bar people from neighborhoods based on their color or ethnic background. It guaranteed them the opportunity. But it said nothing about forcing people into neighborhoods to live beyond their means. No one, no matter their color or ethnic background, has a right to force their way in to a neighborhood they can't afford. Instead, they must do the same thing those who already live there did; work, save, invest and prepare. Then no one can stop them. It has noting to do with race or some perceived special "privilege."

For twenty years we opponents of Agenda 21 and Smart Growth have warned of the dangers of taking these HUD grants. We were ignored and called conspiracy nuts. The result now is that HUD has taken the gloves off. There is no longer a pretense that any kind of local control over spending the grant money exists. HUD now controls your community. Property rights are dead, property values are dying, and the local officials you elected to guide your community have been rendered irrelevant by HUD mobsters who have come back to collect.

So what do local community representatives do? First and foremost STOP TAKING THE GRANTS!!!!! Second, stand up to these thugs who intend to rule our communities. Stand up to the law suits and stand up to the pressure of the special interest groups. In short, represent your community as you were elected to do. And finally, you might try listening to those of us who have studied these policies for decades instead of the slithering snakes of the American Planning Association and their ilk who fill their own pockets with those grants.

Our American liberties are counting on local and state officials to start standing on your own two feet and represent US, instead of cowering in a corner because you sold us down the river.

The American Policy Center is now working with officials who want to understand and fight back to save their communities. Recently we held a conference call for such officials. Here is a link to it so you can hear first hand of the dangers you are facing and some solutions for you to fight back. Perhaps this time you'll listen.


Australia: Leftist racist gets some of his own back

Leftists have the strange idea that you can attack racism by being racist.  For a prominent and well-paid Asian to be anti-white in Australia is obnoxious.  What gives him the right to judge people by the colour of their skin and defend others who do?

Australia's race discrimination commissioner has been told to buy a plane ticket to Laos if he is so concerned about white people being prevalent in politics and the media.

Sky News presenter Rowan Dean has taken exception to Tim Soutphommasane for telling a Senate committee there are too many 'Anglo-Celtics' in parliament.

With Sudanese-born Muslim youth activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied soon moving to London, Dean has suggested the French-born public servant move to Laos, which his parents fled in 1975 as the Pathet Lao communists stormed to power in the small, landlocked South-East Asian nation.

'Tim, if you don't like it, join Yassmin, hop on a plane and go back to Laos where I doubt you will find the taxpayer paying you $300,000 a year to lecture bigotry and racism which is what you are doing by attacking Anglo-Celtics,' he said.

Dr Soutphommasane, a former Labor Party member and political staffer who gets paid $330,000 a year by taxpayers, told a Senate committee parliament and corporations were too 'Anglo-Celtic'.

Dean, who also edits the conservative Spectator magazine, has previously praised Vietnamese refugee and ABC presenter Anh Do as an example of assimilation working.

However, when it came to Dr Soutphommasane he was scathing, saying his parents probably came to Australia from Laos via Paris for its Anglo-Celtic values after their son was born in 1982.

'I'm sure that they didn't mind coming to a country where Anglo-Celtics had died, given their lives to create the peace-loving culture that we have,' Dean said.

Dr Soutphommasane last week blasted the media, at a multicultural forum in Perth, about its treatment of Ms Abdel-Magied, who stirred more controversy last month by saying democracy didn't represent her because most faces in parliament are white.

'People may have disagreed with Abdel-Magied but some of the vitriol directed at her had a clear racial tinge,' Dr Soutphommasane said.

In a submission to a Senate committee looking at 'Strengthening Multiculturalism', the Australian Human Rights Commission, which Dr Soutphommasane is part of, urged the government to create a federal agency to collect data and report on diversity within leadership positions.

The Turnbull Government has not endorsed the idea of ethnic recruitment targets.

'While Australia is highly socially mobile, there is an underrepresentation of cultural diversity in positions of leadership, as well as in the media,' the AHRC said.

'The commission believes that increasing cultural diversity in leadership and in the media would strengthen Australia's multiculturalism.

'A lack of diversity in leadership and in the media could conceivably lead to a perception of what it is to be 'Australian' that does not reflect our multicultural character.'

The AHRC noted: 'The ethnic and cultural default of leadership remains Anglo-Celtic' and warned the nation 'may not be making the most of its cultural diversity.'

Their submission also quoted a study carried out by Screen Australia which found non-Anglo-Celtic groups were being underrepresented on national television dramas.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: