Dr. Daryl G. Smith’s Imperative for Diversity (Part 2 of 3)

/22 Comments/in , /by

Part 1.

The Q and A

The first questioner noted that at a recent student meeting Whites who advocated an all-inclusive Student Union were “shouted down as being racist.  Clearly on campuses across the nation the White European-Americans have been disenfranchised and marginalized to the extent that these are now the students with poor self-esteem, because the system is not inclusive, but exclusive. Whites are denied the right to association and denied the right to be who they are! The pendulum of racism has swung this last century clear from one side to the other without ever centering!  The time is now to abandon the childish, well-worn, weaponized words like ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’, and to begin building on communities that can tolerate all the people they live with, including the majority that have been responsible for the unique contributions to the Western Civilization we enjoy.”  He went on, quoting from a statement she made earlier about her inclusivity clause:  “You stated that there is ‘not a single identity that you wouldn’t stand and fight for’.  If that’s the case, then will you help me here today with your administrative connections and expertise in the field in establishing a White student union on this campus?”

This seemed to disorient the professor, and her response seemed to shift from one explanation to another without completing her thoughts.  But basically she was saying that you have to consider the structure of the system as a whole. She agreed that not every White person is privileged — “There are a lot of poor [White] folks in the Appalachians.  And we should be standing… as a matter of fact if Martin Luther King had not been assassinated, he would have dealt with class issues.”

But she insisted that Whites have a whole host of privileges denied others. “Just as I have a privilege called walking I need to recognize that I have a privilege called Whiteness.  I don’t get followed.  My son doesn’t get stopped by the police.  That doesn’t diminish who I am.”

She also claimed that for Whites to have their own identity groups would be the same as being under “the banner of the Klu Klux Klan.”  And the fact is that White people still run the universities. “As you go up [to the higher echelons], look at the faculty, the demographics of most faculties are quite White, and it’s historically White male.  Now I’m not going to ban Whites or males … My son is one.  But if we don’t begin to understand the histories….” Read more

Dr. Daryl G. Smith’s Imperative for Diversity (Part 1 of 3)

/15 Comments/in /by

“Just as I have a privilege called walking, I need to recognize that I have a privilege called Whiteness!”  That was one of several points strongly asserted by Dr. Daryl G. Smith in her response to an audience question regarding the absence of any White Student Associations on campuses across the nation.  Prof. Smith, a Senior Research Fellow and Professor Emeritus of Education and Psychology at Claremont Graduate University, was giving her presentation at Cal State San Marcos on “Diversity’s Promise for Higher Education” to a group of about 40 minority students and a small cadre of curious community members.  Her speech and the accompanying slideshow were intended to publicize her book with the same name, subtitled “Making it Work.”

As a White man in my fifties, I sat through the twenty-minute Q and A session, particularly interested in how she would deal with perhaps the most profound issue facing American students today:  the myriad identities in today’s identity smorgasbord and how Whites should respond to it.

The professor’s walking-privilege analogy stresses that if not disabled, people are rarely cognizant of their abilities — they don’t normally recognize or even appreciate their common, typically human abilities.  In the same way, so the analogy goes, Whites don’t give a thought to the life-long perks they receive because of their European racial ancestry.

This is certainly a grave charge against White students forced to live and breathe the multi-cultural society that’s been thrust upon them. Born long after the Civil Rights Movement, they have been thoroughly conditioned and indoctrinated by forces like the mainstream media and the public education system on the evils of “racism” — but now they are told that they are still the problem and the struggle against them must continue indefinitely. Read more

The Simon Wiesenthal Center Trump Card in the Serb-Croat War of Memories

/34 Comments/in , /by
Zuroff

Ephraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, pictured in Croatia, 2007, at the main square in Zagreb

The Jewish and Serbian communities in Croatia have decided to boycott the official commemoration of their World War II dead, which is scheduled to take place in Croatia from April 15 to April 22 of this year. Their boycott was expectable. Over the last twenty years there has been an increasing effort among Croat historians and an array of nationalist politicians to downplay Croatia’s involvement in crimes with their National Socialist allies during World War II, while significantly increasing the numbers of casualties incurred by disarmed Croat NS-allied soldiers and civilians who were victims of Yugoslav Communist partisans after WWII.

Predictably, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its chief moral admonisher for  East  European governments, Ephraim Zuroff, are now playing an important role in reprimanding the Croat government and public for not emphasizing the primacy of Jewish victimhood — never mentioning massive post-war crimes committed by early Communist governments in Yugoslavia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. With his frequent criticism of East Europeans, who had allegedly failed to come to the rescue of persecuted Jews in war-torn Europe, Zuroff has managed to pit diverse nationalist narratives in East Europe against each other. The simmering conflict of World War II memories between Croatia and Serbia has again reached a boiling point with insults of “Fascists”, “Communists”, “anti-Semites” flowing around on both sides. From the point of view of international security, the relationship between Serbia and Croatia does not look good. It is at its lowest point since their bloody divorce following the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991. Read more

The Alt Right Is Right, FEDERALIST’s Tracinski Wrong, About American History (And Donald Trump)

/75 Comments/in , , , /by

anyconservativewhowavestosupporters

 

Previously posted at VDARE.

The Alt Right is busting out all over (two more Main Stream Media attacks today, here and here)! Some of of this is because Richard Spencer, head of the National Policy Institute, made the wise move of having high-profile public meetings in Washington, DC. But I think it’s more than that.

Donald Trump’s candidacy has resonated deeply with voters, to the point that his supporters are famously immune to the hostile MSM barrage. Mainly these are the (white) people who have been left behind by both parties—the Democrats and their Rainbow Coalition of the racially and sexually aggrieved advocating ever more immigration, multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and LGBT privileges; the Republicans with their unholy alliance between neoconservatives  traitorously promoting the interests of Israel, and the Chamber of Commerce/K Street/wealthy donors promoting free trade, outsourcing, cheap labor, Open Borders, etc.

That leaves the Alt Right as the only identifiable segment of the political spectrum with any kind of theoretical or ideological grounding that supports Trump.

To combat this new menace to Conservatism Inc., we have hit jobs like Robert Tracinski’s Yes, The Alt Right Are Just a Bunch of Racists in The Federalist [April 4, 2016] specifically professing to refute two articles that “run interference for the Alt Right”. [The Intellectual Case For Trump I: Why The White Nationalist Support? By Mytheos Holt, Federalist, March 30, 2016 and An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right, by Allum Bokhari & Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, March 29, 2016]

For all his intellectual pretensions, Tracinski [Email him] really depends on the knowledge that his audience can be stampeded by the “racists” smear. No need to do any heavy lifting. Nevertheless, I think his arguments, however disingenuous, are worth deconstructing as a case study in cuckservatism. Read more

In Praise of James Petras

/46 Comments/in , , /by

I’m thrilled to see that retired scholar James Petras is still punching above his weight. Last month he published yet another powerful essay on his website, this one explicitly bringing to our attention the whopping over-representation of one particular ethnic group at the top of America’s power structure. He begins: “Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court marks a continuation and deepening of the lopsided ethno-religious representation in the US judicial system. If Garland is appointed, Jewish justices will comprise 45% of the Court, even though they represent less than 2% of the overall population.”

PowerPetras, retired Bartle Professor of sociology at Binghamton University whose views are generally on the left, came to my attention nearly a decade ago when he released three books that were extremely critical of not just Israel but Jewry as a whole. First was the 2006 book The Power of Israel in the United States, followed a year later by Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants. Then, in 2008, came Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power. (For those interested, my forty-two-page review of The Power of Israel and Rulers and Ruled appeared in the Winter 2007–2008 issue of The Occidental Quarterly.)

Obviously, it’s rare to see such critical prose from an academic. Despite his stature and wide exposure, Petras has continued to this day his principled criticism of Jews and Zionism — and has not been silenced by the usual tactics. I’m impressed. Read more

Cameron tax bombshell and Tory civil war: Who’s dropping banana skins on the road to Britain’s EU Referendum?

/38 Comments/in , /by

The campaign to keep Britain in the European Union is unravelling by the day. The prospect of an easy win for the ‘Remain’ camp is vanishing, as a succession of banana skins and a brutal civil war in the Conservative party wipes out a poll lead that seemed unassailable just a few weeks ago.

None of this was supposed to happen; indeed, there was never even supposed to be an EU vote at all. When David Cameron promised an “in-out” referendum before the last UK general election, it was a cynical and empty PR stunt.

First, because he expected, at best, to end up leading another minority government, in which his Lib-Dem partners would block any such referendum.

Second, even if the unexpected did happen, there was big existing majority of the UK electorate (which, of course, is increasingly not the same as the actual British people) in favour of continued membership.

With the ‘Yes’ campaign backed not just by the government but also by most of the political elite, and massively funded by big business, there was no reasonable hope of this changing. Read more

Feckless European Leaders

/51 Comments/in , , , /by

It is impossible to exaggerate the complacency and irresponsibility of the ruling class in Europe today.

European leaders are not stupid, nor are they unaware. Consider the following speech from October of last year by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker:

I do not often cry, but when I look evening after evening at this long procession of refugees which remind me of those black-and-white images at the end of the Second World War which I saw when I was young, I sometimes almost cry. I do not like this Europe — this navel-gazing Europe, this Europe which is closing itself to the hopes and expectations of others. I love the Europe where hundreds of thousands of volunteers come to help, to support the refugees. Me, I know full well that we cannot welcome on our territories all the misery of the world, but we need to at least look at the misery of the world before acting.

We were able to end the Cold War. We were, and I am proud of it, able to fuse nineteen national currencies into a single currency. In fact, I am the only politician in Europe left who is among the signatories of the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union and the euro. . . . We must relearn how to be proud of Europe. We were able to end this tragedy where Europe was a continent of wars. We have peace. The entire planet admires us for this. Except sometimes, and more and more often, the Europeans.

We very often forget, my dear friends, that Europe is the smallest continent. The European Union is a territory of 5.5 million square kilometers. Russia, a European country, represents 17.5 million square kilometers. Our relative share of global gross domestic product is shrinking. Within a few years Europe will represent 15 percent of global gross domestic product. Already 80 percent of growth is taking place in countries outside the European Union. And we are already demographically very weak. We were at the beginning of the twentieth century, us Europeans, we represented 20 percent of the world population. Today, 7 percent and at the end of century among 10 billion men, women, and children, Europe will represent 4 percent. Therefore we are the smallest continent. We are demographically weakened and will remain so. . . . Therefore, the moment has not come for us to divide ourselves into leagues and national categories, the moment has to come to ensure that the European Union remains together, that it emerges strengthened from events and from crisis events. . . . And therefore, we must be careful to respect the nations. The nations who incidentally must remain internally united. There are too many divisions in Europe. No more must be added. Therefore, I would like that the whole of Europe remain coherent and remain consequential in its actions and not merely in its ambitions. [My emphasis.]

Read more