Search Results

I could easily begin this writing by describing my surprise at how so many liberals are buying into the ridiculous hype over this book, but that would be stating the obvious. The gross display of the bandwagon effect and its bus driver (Elie Mystal) driving his passengers further into ignorance of the US Constitution. Even more obvious is the fact that Mystal simply will not respond to any criticism of his book. His flagrant narcissism and lack of either academic or professional integrity simply will not allow him to admit that he is wrong on so many aspects he put forth in his book. Which makes him entirely incorrigible, shameless, stubborn, and wholeheartedly arrogant. Not to mention bigoted seeing as the entirety of the book is seen and written through the "Cry Wolf" #racism Syndrome. The following is, in part, my constructive criticism of his so-called guide to the US Constitution. A document he clearly does not understand in its making, design and the entirety of the debates and legislative history that went into its affirmation and the addition of the Bill of Rights (BOR). Chapter 2 focuses on the 1st Amendment of the BOR, which is clearly premised on "freedom of speech and expression," yet the entirety of the chapter is spent being critical of the "freedom of religion and exercise thereof" clause. The title infers bigotry is illegal even if Jesus orders you to do it. Well, that simply is not true. First off, bigotry is NOT illegal; and by extension neither is hate speech. Notwithstanding, basing the whole of this chapter on freedom of speech but premising it on freedom of religion results in a glowing false conclusion. Chapter 3, titled "Everything you know about the second amendment is wrong" is likewise based on a false premise, resulting in an equally achieved false conclusion. Within a few sentences he makes a completely false assertion about the events that took place at the Capital on January 6th. "Instead of using guns, the violent mob beat cops and killed one of them using blunt objects." No capital officer died that day. In fact, the only people that died that day were supporters of President Trump; specifically Ashli Babbitt. Mystal then rambles on about self-defense: "...self-defense is not mentioned once in the text of the Constitution." Neither is the right of women to have an abortion, yet Mystal is a staunch supporter of it, even citing the Constitution in support of it. But just like this book being seen and written through the prism of racism, he pulls the #racecard during his interview with none other than MSNBCs personal #bigot, Joy-Reid . Just because self-defense isn't mentioned doesn't mean it isn't intended, because it is in the historical context. In order for the people to defend a nation, we must first be able to defend ourselves. In other words, #selfdefense. Just like how women have the right to an abortion via the right to privacy in their medical status and decisions. Here is where Mystal really goes off the deep end regurgitating another poorly asserted argument through the prism of racism by Carol Anderson: "There was an original purpose to the Second Amendment, but it wasn't to keep people safe. It was to preserve white supremacy and slavery." This is so ridiculous on its face it is almost not worth dignifying with a response or retort, but prudence demands one. The root history of the second amendment can be traced back to free men defending their home, land and family rooted in self-defense (i.e. self-preservation). " The founding fathers drew from Biblical principles, English and American history, and English common law to present an amendment protecting the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms. At its center lie two core principles upon which both the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence were founded: the law of self-government and the right of self-defense. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to promote peace, prosperity, and liberty, both by protecting one’s life and property from invaders and by lawfully resisting a tyrannical government." The Meaning, History, & Purpose of the Second Amendment ~ The Imaginative Conservative Mystal then "retorts" the following: " The Second Amendment is in the Constitution because Patrick Henry and George Mason won a debate against James Madison. Henry and Mason wanted the Second Amendment in there to guard against slave revolts" Complete rubbish! If that were even remotely true, then the amendment would reflect that in the language and it simply does not. See the above quote and cited links regarding the #TRUE history of the second amendment, which has absolutely nothing to do with "preserv(ing) white supremacy and slavery." This next statement just demonstrates the sheer ignorance of the intent and purpose (i.e. red herring fallacy ) of the second amendment on Mystal's part: "The Founders didn't know that guns would be used in over half of the nation's suicides." What do suicides have to do with the price of Tea in China! Nothing! Even back in the days of the Founders people used single shot pistols and even rifles to commit suicide. It is not as if the Founders were ignorant of the capacity for people to take their own life, as human beings have done so for centuries with whatever tools where at their disposal to see it through. This is a not only a non-academic argument, it is also a non-legal argument against the Second Amendment. In fact, it is a rather uneducated one for someone so educated. Mystal once again goes down the Cry Wolf racism Syndrome path with the following ridiculous notion: "Gun rights are not about self-defense. They literally never have been. Gun rights are about menacing, intimidating, and killing racial minorities, if necessary." Reading this it becomes painfully clear that #ElieMystal knows absolutely nothing about the #SecondAmendment. This position, clearly seen and written through a divisive and racial prism is so patently absurd that I am not going to dignify it with my own written response. Rather, I will just cite evidence that conclusively disproves Mystal's victimhood mentality version of the intent of self-defense and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense Historical Roots of the Second Amendment Second Amendment: Doctrine and Practice "Noting that by the 1850s the perceived threat that the National Government would disarm the citizens had largely faded, the Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms became valued principally for purposes of self-defense, so that the passage of Fourteenth Amendment, in part, was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms." To Bear Arms for Self-Defense Chapter 7 is about stopping police brutality, but with other similar arguments on point, he ultimately fails to substantiate it. His (and those like-minded) narrative simply cannot be substantiated given the objective facts disclose an undeniable truth that directly contradicts their narrative. His positions are based solely on claims of racism and pulls out the race card: "Make stopping people because they're black an "unreasonable search." "Make shooting people because they're black an "unreasonable seizure." "The unnecessary destruction of Black Lives would stop." "But applying the Fourth Amendment as I suggest would make police officers think twice before killing black children." Where to begin discrediting all this flagrant nonsense. Before I do let me make one obvious truth crystal clear: TRUTH does not equal racism. Truth may hurt, you may not like the truth, but your feelings and/or misconceptions about reality won't ever change the truth. What Mystal proffers in this chapter is pure fiction, as much of the rest of his book is. The following is fact-based truth, like it or not. Starting with the last quote regarding police shooting black suspects, Mystal's assertion is completely false. Washington State University completed a comprehensive study that demonstratabley proved that law enforcement officers are more hesitant to shoot black suspects versus whites and Hispanics. If and when police do shoot a black suspect, it is because they were forced to due to the actions of that suspect. When the video doesn't fit their narrative, anti-cop protesters refuse to believe their own eyes "Mattson is guilty of nothing except electing to serve as a police officer during these woke times. He is also the “beneficiary” of slanted and loaded anti-police news coverage: the grist that helps to fuel activist rage. An armed white male shot while charging a police officer would never receive the level of press coverage or have clear-cut video footage of the appropriate dispensing of lethal force continue to be questioned." And yet Mystal's position on law enforcement and white Americans is that whites "want the police to be brutal," "white people want the police to act this way. They want them violent and unshackled from constitutional restraint." This is so ridiculous and just demonstrates that while he is so educated, he is also so incredibly stupid and quite obviously a bigot towards whites and law enforcement. The left, which includes some that I have seen on Twitter call Mystal "Black Jesus" refuses to read fact-based truth and accept the reality that Mystal is just wrong. The fact that the emotions interjected in the left's arguments resulting in their aggressive knee-jerk reactions simply will not change the truth. That truth being that they are wrong, that their emotive retorts are not supported by fact-based truths. The Toxic Narrative about the Police is Wrong "The data on police use of force predominantly reveal professionalism and restraint. Yet, as with so many aspects of America’s criminal-justice reform debate, context and nuance are regularly cast aside in favor of obfuscation and mischaracterization." A poignant truth about the black community that the left simply refuses to acknowledge let alone accept is the fact that half the black male population (3% of the total 6% total of the black male American population) commit over 50% of the entire nation violent person crimes (e.g., murder, non-negligent manslaughter, robberies, rape, etc.). Black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime in general; and yet blacks consist of roughly 13-14% of the population. Police go where the crime is, not where it is not. Police operate on offender profiling to stop crimes before they happen, or to find those who committed a crime. If a part of that offender profile involves their race or ethnicity, that is an obvious demographic applicable to the profile and has absolutely nothing to do with racial profiling , which has been illegal for decades. Mystal's statements about stopping people, using deadly force, and the application of the Fourth Amendment is easily debunked here: "Fourth Amendment Constraints on Searches and Seizures The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It does not specifically prohibit racial profiling, but courts would not consider stops and searches based solely on a subject’s race to be reasonable seizures because police have identified no individualized reason for suspicion. The Amendment has been interpreted to permit police to detain a person briefly for investigative purposes if an officer has a reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity may be afoot.” A mere “hunch” or inarticulable suspicion does not meet this standard. And “law enforcement officers must satisfy escalating legal standards of ‘reasonableness’ for each level of intrusion upon a person—stop, search, seizure, and arrest.” Courts have held that an officer cannot meet the Fourth Amendment standard by relying on a person’s racial appearance, alone, as grounds for reasonable suspicion. By contrast, the officer may use race, for Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10524 Congressional Research Service 2 example, searching for a person matching a suspect’s description and part of that description is the suspect’s race. That said, an officer’s groundless use of race by itself does not violate the Fourth Amendment; it is performing a search or seizure without individualized justification that violates this provision. As long as they can point to individualized justification, the personal motives of an officer are not a factor in the Fourth Amendment analysis. Police may pull over a driver for a traffic violation, even if they intend to search for drugs. The standard is an objective one. “[T]he constitutional reasonableness” of stops depends on the circumstances, not on the officers’ “actual motivations.” Racial Profiling: Constitutional and Statutory Considerations for Congress Now regarding Mystal's commentary about the unnecessary destruction of black lives via law enforcement interactions, it too is easily debunked. While half the black male population commits over 50% of the violent person crimes, of the victims of that violence, the vast majority are other blacks. Blacks also commit violent acts against other races more than vice versa. Blacks kill more whites every year than whites kill blacks. Blacks kill Asians more every year that vice versa. And blacks kill more blacks every year than any other race killing blacks. The only cause of the "destruction of black lives" is from other black lives taking other black lives. As such, the whole "Black Lives Matter" slogan is pure bullshit where blacks taking other black lives are concerned. Chapter 8 covers the Fifth Amendment and self-incrimination. Mystal believes and asserts the following: "Confessions should be unconstitutional. They shouldn't carry any force or effect. They shouldn't be used against defendants who recant later at trial." Even a lay person should read this and react with a face palm. This is just so obviously stupid it is hard to believe an educated person in the law would even make such a patently absurd argument. Gives meaning to how can smart people sometimes be so stupid!?! Mystal's reasoning behind this ridiculous assertion is the claim that confessions are obtained "sometimes coercively, sometimes violently, until they (the suspect) blurt out a statement against their own interests..." Now I will not deny that there have been some isolated case examples where police and prosecutors have been entirely too overzealous in their effort to solve a crime and hold someone accountable, but it is an exception to the rule. It is also an exception that doesn't just happen to people of color, it also happens to white people too. A recent and rather infamous example of that fact is the case of Steven Avery made notable by the Netflix series "Making a Murderer" Nevertheless, Mystal and the lefts claims regarding alleged police brutality is pure bunk and easily disprovable. Morality, Truth and the Police Brutality Narrative A look at the facts shows the left is propagating a false racist narrative Officer Lives at Risk Over False Narrative of Police Brutality Reviving the False Narrative on Police Narrative of Racist Police Killings Melts When You Know These Stats Numbers don't lie: New Study Upends Racist Cop Narrative Silence from New Rochell'e Elected Leaders on False Narrative from PBA on Police Brutality Video The Myth of Systemic Police Racism Barr says "epidemic" of police brutality against Black people is "false narrative" I could go on and on further debunking Mystal's racist anti-cop narrative, but I believe my point has been made. Chapter 12 focuses on the 14th Amendment, but one key part stood out for me. One sentence opining on the citizenship clause which is so wrong it is, well, just factually inaccurate. "Everybody born here is a citizen. Everybody. There are not people who are less citizens just because of where they came from, or how recently they became citizens, or where their parents were born." Mystal makes a very leftist simplistic argument with no foundation or basis in fact. Let me begin with what the 14th Amendment actually states, then I will explain why he is so very wrong in his interpretation of the citizenship clause. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment "Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country." Jurisdiction is the key word here, and the meaning within the context given, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Based on legislative history and existing law prior to the 14th's passage: "The 14th was just an extension of existing law. In 1866 , two years before the 14th Amendment, by U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised defined who is a citizen: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power … are declared to be citizens of the United States”" Allegiance to a foreign power where one was born, or when one renounces their citizenship by declaring their allegiance to a foreign power is what establishes non-citizenship under the 14th where "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is concerned. When illegal aliens cross the border, for whatever reason (e.g., travel on a Visa, requesting asylum, etc.), and pop out a child, it is automatically assumed that that child is an American Citizen. Fact of the matter, and as a matter of legislative history and legal intent, that child is NOT an American Citizen. Why? Because its parent(s) are beholden with allegiance to a foreign power, the country that they themselves were born in and are a citizen thereof. Therefore, every single child born to foreign immigrants who entered this country either legally (Visa, Passport for vacation, etc.) or illegally, they child born on US soil simply is NOT an American Citizen. But Democrats have ignored the 14th Amendment and have, by political fiat, granted unjust and unearned citizenship to children born to aliens who are under the jurisdiction (political allegiance) to a foreign power/country. So, it does matter where a child's parents are born where the 14th citizenship clause is concerned. As for the rest of the "less of a citizen" or "how recently they became a citizen" (i.e., naturalization) nonsense, Mystal is just babbling nonsense here. He's just flat out wrong. He has demonstrated in this chapter he has absolutely no comprehension of the history or intent of the 14th Amendment and how one becomes a citizen of the United States of America. Chapter 14 is titled, "Reverse Racism is not a Thing," and begins with the following rant: "Speaking just for me, I'm prejudiced against dumb people...who have had all the education and knowledge thrown at them, only to see it bounce off their information-resistant brains." This is about the only passage in the book I found hilarious simply because it just oozes irony on the highest point on the Richter Scale. Again, for someone supposedly so well educated at Harvard College and Harvard Law School, he is incredibly dumb when it comes to the US Constitution, and his book proves that fact beyond any reasonable doubt. While Elie Mystal claims the Constitution is " kind of trash ", well, it is not; but his book is most definitely trash ! It is pure fiction. It is bigoted. It is racist. It is narcissistic. It is self-serving. It is not scholarly. It is not authoritative. It's pure rubbish. And anyone who believes anything in this book is as dumb as Mystal. In fact, they are dumber. But then again, it is easy to dupe the masses happily lining up to buy the snake oil from grifters like Mystal. Idiocy is contagious, and elitists like Mystal know that. It is exactly how race hustlers stay wealthy while those they profess to represent continue to suffer. Shame on Mystal. Shame on anyone buying into his bullshit criticism of the greatest document every produced in the world, the U.S. Constitution. The very document that gives him the freedom to trash talk it without any repercussion. Try that in China, Elie. *Initial Draft

This chapter is really problematics, in particular, and it starts off on the wrong foot with a factually inaccurate assertion grounded in the absurdity of wokeness. "Many of us have been taught to believe that there are distinct biological and genetic differences between races." "The idea of race as a biological construct makes it easy to believe that many of the divisions we see in society are natural. But race, like gender, is socially constructed." Race is no more of a social construct than gender is. There are biological differences between the races, that is just a scientific, anthropological, genetic, psychological, and physiological fact. The same as there are differences between genders, male and female, the only two genders on the planet. But I digress, the discussion on gender is for another blog, not this one. The following are biological differences between the races: IQ and Human Intelligence The Racial Divide: Genetic Differences between Races Race and Physical Differences Major Physical Characteristics of Racial Groups I can go on and on with factually accurate scientific data further debunking DiAngelo's fallacious assertion that race is socially constructed. It is not. It is rooted in scientific fact. As such, it is one of many concrete arguments that debunk the infamous Critical Race Theory (CRT). This next part of this chapter is so absurd it is laughable. "... the US economy was based on the abduction and enslavement of African people, the displacement and genocide of Indigenous people, and the annexation of Mexican lands." The US economy was NOT based on the abduction and enslavement of African people, period. Slavery actually hurt the US economy. The US economy was NOT based on the displacement and genocide of Indigenous people. They were just collateral damage in the name of human progress. Yes, that is a crass thing to say, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, that is what happened. The US economy was NOT based on the annexation of Mexican lands. All three of these failed assertions just do not substantiate the underlining claim. The US economy was built upon the industrial revolution. Entreprenurial ventures. Inventions. Progess. Real estate purchases. So on and so forth. As a so-called sociologist, DiAngelo put forth this absurd claim that racial inferiority was "created" in order to "justify unequal treatment" and likewise triggered it. This is so patently absurd on its face that it is just counterintuitive to reality. All human experience is rooted in observation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe that an Asian child excels in school whereas an African student does not. That a white student excels whereas an African student does not. There is enough data that has been collected over the decades that firmly establish that blacks simply lag behind all other races. That is just a scientific fact. Racism has nothing to do with it. As I read on, I could not help but feel dumbfounded by the sheer ignorance of DiAngelo's juxtaposed concepts of racism, discrimination, and prejudice, all of her definitions were simply prima facie fallacious. Pure fiction, on her part. "Prejudice is pre-judgment about another person based on the social groups to which that person belongs." "Prejudice is foundational to understanding white fragility because suggesting that white people have racial prejudice is perceived as saying that we are bad and should be ashamed" "Most of us acknowledge that we feel some unease around certain groups of people, if only a heightened sense of self-consciousness." The following is a famous quote affirming a position held by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Even Jackson knew that whites were far less harmful than black Americans, his own race. He knew too that intraracial violence was more of a problem for the black community than was any measure of white racism. Notwithstanding, DiAngelo once again gets the definitions of key terms in this debate/discussion all wrong. "To understand racism, we need to first distinguish it from mere prejudice and discrimination." No, we do not. Each term is inherently different at its core. Racism is a false belief that one race is superior to another with no basis in fact. Prejudice is just simply misconceived notions or unreasonable preconceived judgments for one thing over another. Discrimination is merely a distinction between unlike things. Things that one prefers over another due to inate desires. That's it. DiAngelo goes on to claim that "Discrimination is action based on prejudice. These actions include ignoring, exclusion, threats, ridicule, slander, and violence." Wrong. Discrimination is based in personal and vicarious experiences, not prejudice. One cannot be prejudiced if they know not that which has the potential to be a danger to them. Knowledge makes us aware of our surroundings beyond immediate perceptions. I could not help myself but laugh when DiAngelo wrote the following: "Most of us cannot acknowledge that we do feel some unease around certain groups of people, if only a heightened seance of self-consciousness" Read her statement again and consider what Reverend Jesse Jackson declared he felt relieved when he turned around in a dark alley to realize it was white people. versus blacks. "Discrimination is action based on prejudice. These actions include ignoring, exclusion, threats, ridicule, slander, and violence." No, discrimination is not action based on prejudice. Discrimination is the cognizant ability to make informed distinctions or informed judgments. What DiAngelo should have said was Stereotyping is an action based on prejudice, as both require an uninformed, irrational reaction to a thing, something, or someone. "Most of us can acknowledge that we do feel some unease around certain groups of people, if only a heightened sense of self-consciousness." The following is a famous quote from Reverend Jesse Jackson: Anyone and everyone can acknowledge that they feel some unease around certain, or even from members of their own group of people. His fear is substantiated by decades of criminological data that firmly establish a certain segment of the black male community are incredibly violent, as Jesse Jackson well knows. "Everyone has prejudice, and everyone discriminates." That goes without saying, DiAngelo. Whites, blacks, browns, yellow, red... everyone discriminates but not without actual justification. A justification that even Jesse Jackson knows all too well. "Racism is a system." That statement is patently absurd on its face and counterintuitive to common sense. Let us look at the definition of racism and system, respectively. Racism - noun a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. System - noun an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole:a mountain system; a railroad system. any assemblage or set of correlated members:a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters. an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought:a system of philosophy. a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme:a system of government. any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure:a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge. due method or orderly manner of arrangement or procedure:There is no system in his work. Racism and System are mutually exclusive terms. Racism is purely an unfounded belief in superiority. A system is more ordered, informed, specific and with purpose. There is no purpose to racism. There is purpose to an efficient system. Racism does not make or equate to that of an actual system, by definition and/or purpose. The following passages from this chapter are patently absurd and draw absolutely false conclusions. "The system of racism begins with ideology, which refers to the big ideas that are reinforced throughout society." "These ideas are also reinforced through social penalties when someone questions an ideology and through the limited availability of alternative ideas." "Examples of ideology in the United States include individualism, the superiority of capitalism as an economic system and democracy as a political system, consumerism as a desirable lifestyle, and meritocracy (anyone can succeed if he or she works hard)." The glowing irony here is dumbfounding. The United States is the greatest social, cultural and self-governing experiment the world over. It is the pinnacle of the world where anyone and everyone wants to come here because of this country's successes and aforementioned ideologies. America is a success because of those ideologies. And yet DiAngelo decries we failed and because of America's greatness via those ideologies, that racism is still as bad as it was since the first African slave landed on the shores of the Eastern coast. What a joke. DiAngelo then goes off the rails with this crazy statement... "People of color [may] also hold prejudices and discriminate against white people, but they lack the social and institutional power that transforms their prejudice and discrimination into racism; the impact of their prejudice on whites is temporary and contextual." Temporary? Contextual? How temporary or contextual is this: Celebrities who got fired for "alleged" racism SDG&E Employee Fired Over Alleged White Supremacist Hand Sign is a Latino I could go on and on and on with one example after another of the bullshit trumped up fallacious allegations against any non-person of color (specifically blacks) that have been weaponized to destroy numerous innocent people's livelihoods and their family altogether. The factual inaccuracies and historical errors in this following statement are just bizarre: "Whites hold the social and institutional positions in society to infuse their racial prejudice into laws, policies, practices, and norms of society in a way that people of color do not." What a bunch of malarky. Blacks have been involved in social and institutional positions since the 1800s. Joseph Hayne Rainey - first black male Congressman, a republican, no less. There have been numerous people of color in the United States Congress, and yet the progressive left would have you believe otherwise. Mary Ellen Pleasant became one of the first black female millionaires, next to Madame C.J. Walker. Then there is Macon B. Allen, Lawyer and Teacher, one of the first black lawyers in this country. I could go on and on with a factually accurate historical recounting of all the people of color who made a very specific and direct impact in this country serving to categorically debunk DiAngelo's fallacious claims. But why bother, right? The leftists will just scoff at factually accurate historical truths. Those who hate the truth do so cause to them, truth sounds like hate. Therefore, they hate the truth. The rationale DiAngelo gives in this following statement is utterly dumbfounding. "People of color may also hold prejudices and discriminate against their own and their groups of color, but this bias ultimately holds them down and, in this way, reinforces the system of racism that still benefits whites." So, in other words, DiAngelo, a white woman, is ascribing the label of coon, Uncle Tom, sell out and the like to any person of color who rightly, intelligently, and factually calls out their own for the criminality and anti-social behavior that they exhibit and instill in their fatherless children, generation after generation. It is, factually, what leftist progressive white guilt liberals want. They are the true racists, not conservatives. Not honest innocent people of all colors trying to live their lives. Simply put, calling out those for their illicit behavior has nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with personal responsibility and accountability. The following claim by DiAngelo is so fallacious it is beyond fake. "Racism is a society-wide dynamic that occurs at the group level. When I say that only whites can be racist, I mean that in the U.S., only whites have the collective social and institutional power and privilege over people of color." Racism does not require group level participation. Any individual can and has the right to discriminate against those that are not a part of their group or personal persuasion; this is just a social-psychological fact of human interaction and groupthink. Moreover, blacks have as much social and institutional power as anyone else within their respective areas of their profession. In fact, as of late, blacks hold more collective social and institutional power and privilege over whites. "David Wellman succinctly summarizes racism as "a system of advantage based on race." These advantages are referred to as white privilege, a sociological concept referring to advantages that are taken for granted by whites and that cannot be similarly enjoyed by people of color in the same context (government, community, workplace, schools, etc.)." Well as previously detailed, Wellman needs to get a dictionary because that is not a summary or even a hint at what the actual definition of racism is. In short, he is factually inaccurate with that "summary." White privilege is a myth created by the left to deflect from personal responsibility and accountability from people of color. White privilege is just a myth, period. A "concept" is NOT a fact. It is at best a theory, at worst flatulence. The following are examples of actual privilege, black privilege, that gives blacks an advantage over whites: Being black gives you carte blanche to murder white people and the mainstream media, along with everyone else afraid to be called a "racist" turns a blind eye. Fact: less than 2-3% of the 13-14% black American population commits over 50% of the entire nation's homicides and non-negligent manslaughters. "A white college student was brutally stabbed to death by a black assailant last week, according to witnesses in a furniture store in Los Angeles, Calif." "Black man gets charged with murder after he killed white woman who was protesting for BLM." AND THE LIST goes on and on... Hell, even after the Wisconsin Christmas Parade assailant plowed through the crowd, that story was dropped like a hot potato within days. Why? Simple. He was black. #BlackPrivilege You can be a liar, antisemite, non-tax paying thief and shakedown companies for money over factually inaccurate claims of racism and get away with it, just like Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson and so-called Reverend Al Sharpton. Black Privilege. Sharpton bashes gays and STILL gets a television show on a cable network that champions LGBT rights. Go figure. "You can be arrested for crack cocaine possession and still finish your term as mayor." "You can threaten voters with bats at polling stations and never face prosecution by the DOJ" "You can be the first Representative to be censured by the House in 30 years for tax evasion and illegal campaign financing and still get reelected indefinitely" "You can be under investigation for voter registration fraud, have the entire warehouse of evidence be consumed in a mysterious fire, and get the investigation dropped." "You can sit in a Church for 20 years where the Pastor preached White Hate and Damned America and still become President of the United States." "You can make frequent trips to North Korea, hail the insane, murderous, tyrant of that country as a wonderful guy, and still be a loved celebrity in America." "You can trash a talented conservative black actress with hateful streams of racist and misogynistic threats and immediately go back to tweeting about the evils of racism and #waronwomen without being called a hypocrite." "You can wail about the injustice of one black youth being shot after attacking a Hispanic in Florida yet remain silent when 6 black youths beat a 78-year-old white man in revenge for that event." And last but not least (or the end of the exhaustive list), you can get caught in scandal after scandal, lie after lie, violate the Constitution, and break federal law with impunity without ever having to worry about being impeached. Obama ring a bell, anyone! This statement by DiAngelo is the crux of all white guilt mentality: "Being perceived as white carries more than a mere racial classification; it is a social and institutional status and identity imbedded with legal, political, economic, and social rights and privileges that are denied to others." Is it really? Or could it be because whites are simply not as violent as blacks and browns? Ever think of that! As previously stated, black males are roughly 6% of the 13-14% black American population and yet half that (3%) commit over 50% of the nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters. Browns, the extremely violent gangs like MS-13 need no explanation. Their infamy with violence speaks for itself. While whites may be the dominate percentage of the nation's population, statistically whites are less violent than people of color. That is just a verifiable criminological fact. And that fact has nothing to do with "legal, political, economic, and social rights and privileges" since people of color, namely blacks, have absolutely far more "privilege" than whites do in this country. This statement is pure bullshit on its face. "To say that whiteness is a location of structural advantage is to recognize that to be white is to be privileged position within society and its institutions - to be seen as an insider and to be granted the benefits of belonging... This position automatically bestows unearned advantages." What a crock! I am white. I had absolutely no advantage despite growing up in a middle-class lifestyle. While my father provided for our family, he was not exactly responsible, and he was mentally abusive. I had no future in the town I grew up in, so I took personal responsibility and accountability for my future and made a choice. A choice that resulted in what has manifested into a prosperous future and a comfortable early retirement. None of that happened because I am white, it happened because I made it happen through the responsible choices I made. There are blacks with less who are more fortunate than I. Yet some of them have not been as fortunate as I simply because they made less than desirable choices with their life. "Whites control all major institutions of society and set the policies and practices that others must live by." ... "Whites also produce and reinforce the dominant narratives of society -- such as individualism and meritocracy -- and use these narratives to explain the positions of other racial groups." One of the most irritating positions people on the left argue is the fact that it lacks an understanding of proportionality of aggregate numbers compared to other numbers. When more than 70% of the total population is one particular race of individuals, it is not only logical but also common sense that that dominate part of the population will invariably control most of the institutions of that society and set policies, practices and make laws that others must adhere to, regardless of race, gender, creed, religion or otherwise. And what, precisely, is wrong or detrimental to individualism and meritocracy? The individual has a lot to offer not only themselves, but others as well as society on the whole BASED ON their merit. I mean, a corner street drug dealer has nothing to offer anyone but misery and eventually death; be it their own or those they affect directly and/or indirectly. But a man (or woman) who stays the course, works hard, takes care of those close to them, and makes a difference in the world has merit and value to society. Sadly, as of late the criminal scum like George Floyd are praised and honored with memorials and statues while those with actual merit and put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve are ridiculed, scorned and discarded (i.e., - assassinated) like trash. Why? Because of white guilt liberal rhetoric like this scam artist and black liberal democrats who swallow this tripe hook line and sinker. As a result, American are berated with the following nonsensical unsubstantiated garbage: "For sociologists and those involved in current racial justice movements, however, white supremacy is a descriptive and useful term to capture the all-encompassing centrality and assumed superiority of people defined and perceived as white and the practices based on this assumption." ... "White supremacy in this context does not refer to individual white people and their individual intentions or actions but to an overreaching political, economic, and social system of domination." Again, proportionality is set aside for a sweeping hasty generalization fallacious argument attacking white people on the whole, an ad hominem argument, basically. The clear opposition to "whiteness" is the fact that those who are categorically ascribed the label as being "white" are the very ones who have moved western culture in a positive direction socially, economically, legally, prosperously, and globally while others simply feel left out because they failed to contribute to their fullest potential. Their lack of participation and feeling helpless to do so fuels the victimhood mentality that they are bombarded with by their so-called community leaders, democratic politicians and mainstream media peddling racist division and messages that they are utterly failures because of their race. "(Charles) Mills makes two points that are critical to our understanding of white fragility. First, white supremacy is never acknowledged. Second, we cannot study any sociopolitical system without addressing how that system is mediated by race." When you break everything down by race, whether or not race is even a factor in that breakdown, all you do is sow the seeds of racial paranoia that fuels further racial division premised on purposeful disinformation. Thomas Sowell said it best... "Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day." The likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson, Joy-Ann Reid, Ben Crump, Jeffrey "Shaun" King, Lee Merritt, Don Lemon, Jussie Smollett, and many more who thrive off of racial division, both personally as well as financially at the expense of those that they claim to help. "White supremacy describes the culture we live in, a culture that positions white people and all that is associated with them (whiteness) as ideal." When someone creates something that benefits the majority, if not all of humanity, is it not helpful, beneficial...ideal? As aforementioned, those ascribed the categorical label of being white are the very ones who have made the world a better place for all, despite the hiccups and shortcomings along the way. In the end, the world has been made better by those, who despite their shortcomings, still are the ones who took charge and made a difference that was helpful, beneficial and ideal for all of humanity. To complain about such progress is not only counterintuitive, but also counterproductive to the end result of that progress that benefits us all. "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." White supremacy being more than an idea that whites are superior to people of color? Um, that is the textbook definition of racism. So why not just call it racism; why create another term to say the same thing? The way blacks have been acting in America over the past decade, it has become abundantly clear that they think and believe that their race is superior to all others, which makes them racist, or a black supremist. The belief that one person's race is superior to another is transmittable to/among all races, not just Caucasians. Therefore, all races have the capability to believe they are more superior to any and/or every other race. That's just a fact of human nature, and blacks and browns are not immune from that fact. "This does not mean that people of color do not play a part but that the full weight of responsibility rests with those who control the institutions." Last I checked many of the democratic ran cities that have been the center of controversy over the past decade have been ran/operated by people of color, namely black Americans. If blacks are in control of the institutions in Ferguson, Baltimore, so on and so forth...then what does that say about them when the system there fails black Americans? "If the schools in your area were racially segregated (as most schools in the US are), why didn't you attend school together? If this is because you lived in different neighborhoods, why did you live in different neighborhoods." Children do not have a choice where they live, nor what school they attend. But while they are in the school, they do have the choice whom they associate with or not to associate with. People in this country have the freedom of association, to choose who they want to be around or not be around. There is no law, rule or otherwise that forces anyone to hang with anyone they don't want to hang with. It is precisely why black children have begun to separate themselves from anyone and everyone not black. Take the following stories, for example: Segregated Proms Segregated Dormitories Segregated Housing Then there are books being written about this very same thing, once specific book was written by Beverly Daniel Tatum Ph.D., "Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?" The hypocrisy of the left, white guilt liberals like DiAngelo, and racist black elitists who enjoy living off the misery of those they profess to help is beyond detrimental to this country.

Robin Diangelo, the author of "White Fragility," has made quite a name for herself writing a book that purports to address the difficulties in discussing matters of racism, targeting specifically white people as being the sole source of the problem. A problem she calls "The Devil. Racism. Another metaphor. Same difference." The foreword, written by Michael Eric Dyson, remarked that "white fragility...is an idea that registers the hurt feelings, shattered egos, fraught spirits, vexed bodies, and taxed emotions of white folk." As if Dyson couldn't be more bigoted with that statement alone, he went on further to erroneously claim the following: "In truth, their suffering comes from recognizing that they are white - that their whiteness has given them a big leg up in life while crushing other's dreams, that their whiteness is the dearest example of the identity politics they claim is harmful to the nation, and that their whiteness has shielded them from growing up as quickly as they might have done had they not so heavily leaned on it to make it through life." As of late, Dyson has become one of the most outspoken critics of white people putting him in the top five of racist bigots on television, with Joy-Ann Reid being #1. The previous comment(s) demonstrate nothing short of Dyson's psychological projection. One, well rather two of the most critical deficiencies in many, if not most of the rhetorical responses of black apologists is the fact that they never, ever hold their own accountable, personally or otherwise. There just simply is no personal responsibility or accountability within a certain segment of the black community. Despite Robin Diangelo and Michael Eric Dyson, among other white guilt liberals and black apologists, the fact remains that there is neither "white privilege" nor "white fragility." White people simply do not like talking about any subject matter that involves race simply because most blacks and other people of color (POC) are easily "offended" due to their emotive denial of both factually accurate world and American history. Moreover, the only privilege in this world is what an individual makes for themselves and their family. Nothing is handed to any normal person in America on a silver platter. That is reserved for the elitists who decry their struggles that make their life hard, while blaming those less fortunate than they for said struggles. Much of the premise behind this poorly written let alone incredibly unsubstantiated book by Diangelo rests on the following statement within the author's note (xiiii): "American wealth was built on the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendants." This spurious claim is entirely factually inaccurate. First and foremost, Africans put upon vessels to cross the Atlantic were not kidnapped by the owner(s) of those vessels, they were purchased. Purchased from African tribal lords who were the ones who actually kidnapped those enslaved and sold to the Dutch and Spaniards that brought them to the "New World." A world that included not only North America, but South America and the Caribbean islands where the vast majority of Africans were taken for slave labor. Less than 335,000 Africans were taken to the shores of North America. The remaining 10.7 million Africans that survived the Atlantic journey were taken to the latter locations. Of all the places Africans were taken worldwide for slave labor, there is no place, no country, where Africans and their descendants have had it best than in North America. And yet it is also the only place, the only country, where blacks scream the loudest about their past and wrongs done to them. Which is precisely why there is a large segment of the black population in North America that lags behind other black populations in other countries, to include Africa itself. Case in point, Africans who emigrate to the United States do far better 1st and 2nd (and so forth) generations than those Africans/blacks that are native born. Why is that? The answer will come in subsequent essays written and posted to this website. Please keep reading and learning from the information I intend to share here starting with the preposterous assertions put forth in "White Fragility" by Robin Diangelo. As time goes on, I will be reviewing other books and submitting essays on other subject matter related to the black American experience(s) in the United States.

Right from the onset DiAngelo gives her readers a factually inaccurate definition of racism: "racism...that includes the acknowledgement that whites hold social institutional power over people of color." THIS is the factually accurate definition of racism: racism rā′sĭz″əm noun The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes. Nowhere in that definition, one that has held for nearly 100 years, does not include, hint at or even remotely allude to any measure of social and/or institutional power of one group over another based on race. At its core, racism is the belief that one race is better than another. That's it. It has nothing to do with social and/or institutional power. Those in power change the institution every term based on their own agendas and prejudices, not to mention greed and lust for more power. Those are the two driving factors of social and/or institutional change via politics: greed and lust for power. Not racism. Whenever someone begins a theory based on a false premise, the conclusion is equally false. And to DiAngelo's on detriment, the entirety of her book and her concepts are all based on false premises that basically discriminate not against whites, but rather black Americans. Which is the a-typical modus operandi of white guilt liberals such as DiAngelo. The delusions are absolutely astounding, take this statement for instance: "White people in North America live in a society that is deeply separate and unequal by race, and white people are the beneficiaries of that separation and inequality." Will and Jada Pinkett Smith have a combined net worth of $400 million dollars. Your average white family's net worth is $141,000.00. So where exactly is the "separation and inequality" there? Oprah's net worth is $3.5 billion dollars. Again, where exactly is the "separation and inequality"? I can go on and on with numerous black American celebrities, professionals, scholars, so on and so forth who account for the majority of the black population that disproves DiAngelo's statement above. Fact is that whites make up 42 percent of America’s poor, blacks about 28 percent. Granted there are more whites than blacks in America, but proportionally whites are at a greater disadvantage than blacks, despite what the liberal progressive left and democrats are falsely claiming otherwise. DiAngelo goes on to describe "white fragility" as a means to an end towards "racial control and the protection of white advantage." Exactly what control and advantage does white America have over Barrack and Michelle Obama? Beyonce? Cardi B? Rhianna? Morgan Freeman? Denzel Washington? Thomas Sowell? James McWhorter? Clarence Thomas? Candace Owens? The list is long...and the answer is the same for all, none. Whites have absolutely no "racial control" over any of the aforementioned in the "protection of white advantage." None. Even when we look back in time, back to the late 1800s, what "racial control and the protection of white advantage" was there that stopped Madam C.J. Walker from becoming the very first female millionaire? The answer is the same as before, none. What about Booker T. Washington? W. E. B. Du Bois? Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander? Richard Allen? James Baldwin? So on and so forth!?! Again the answer is the same: none. The following passage found on page 4 of her book, the irony here clearly escapes DiAngelo... "Given our racial insulation, coupled with misinformation, any suggestion that we are complicit in racism is a kind of unwelcome and insulting shock to the system." Misinformation? That's laughable coming from her, given the glaring fact that the entirety of her book is nothing short or shy of pure "misinformation." Another ironic statement made by DiAngelo is both psychological projection and an inadvertent admission of her own guilt that she clearly doesn't even realize. "I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color." "White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us as having arrived." "White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetuate racism, but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so." Um, hate to break it to you DiAngelo, but YOU ARE a "white progressive." Here is a perfect example of DiAngelo's white progressive racism directed at black Americans: "Race will influence whether we will survive our birth, where we are most likely to live, which schools we will attend, who our friends and partners will be, what careers we will have, how much money we will earn, how healthy we will be, and even how long we can expect to live." Dr. Ben Carson's mother didn't believe in how race would influence her sons' lives. Despite dropping out of school at age 13 to get married, after being divorced when Ben was just eight years old, she took charge and raised her children to be strong, independent and intelligent members of society. Ben thrived and became a Neurosurgeon. Ben made his wealth, chose where he wanted to live, who his friends and partners would be, and how healthy he would be. Race had nothing to do with it. Never does, for anyone, regardless of race. Dr. Carson is but one example among thousands upon thousands of successful individuals: black, brown, yellow, red or even white. Bottom line, DiAngelo is nothing more than a white guilt liberal closet racist, as are all white guilt liberals. Together with liberal democrat blacks, they destroy any measure of peace and promises of the civil rights era Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. fought so hard to establish and preserve.

"Being seen racially is a common trigger of white fragility, and thus, to build our stamina, white people must face the first challenge: naming our race." Why do white Americans, or white people in general, need to "name our race"? We do not. It is not necessary. Only white guilt liberal progressives like DiAngelo make it necessary for the sake of political correctness. In this day and age, everyone regardless of their background knows exactly who and what they are and where they came from. No one needs to "name" their race. We know. They know. Everyone knows. The focus on race is evidence in and of itself of one's implicit racism. "Yet our simplistic definition of racism - as intentional acts of racial discrimination committed by immoral individuals - engenders a confidence that we are not part of the problem and that our learning is thus complete." "Many white people simply do not understand the process of socialization, and this is our next challenge." Yet again DiAngelo gives us a factually inaccurate definition of racism. Close, but not on par with what it truly is. Nevertheless, whites and blacks alike can be equally racist. One of the finest current examples is Joy-Ann Reid. Long time examples are Al Sharpton, Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson, and even whites who claim to be black can be incredibly racist towards whites like fraud Jeffrey "Shaun" King. All people, white, black, brown, yellow, etc. understand the process of socialization. There is no inherent challenge there. We learn it through social-psychology. It's called growing up, coming of age. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Occasionally DiAngelo says something actually factually accurate, like the following: "Individualism claims that there are no intrinsic barriers to individual success and that failure is not a consequence of social structures but comes from individual character." "According to the ideology of individualism, race is irrelevant." This is a truism. Individualism clearly establishes the fact that personal (individual) success is purely based on the initiative, drive, effort and conviction of the individual (character); and it has absolutely nothing to do with race or otherwise. One only gets out of life what they put into it. The following passage found on page 11 is quite telling, and should have awoken DiAngelo to a truth other than the politically correct garbage she put forth after the fact. "We gain our understanding of group meaning collectively through aspects of the society around us that are shared and unavoidable: television, movies, news items, song lyrics, magazines, textbooks, schools, religion, literature, stories, jokes, traditions and practices, history, and so on. These dimensions of our culture shape our identities." "We come to understand who we are by understanding who we are not." This is true, to a certain extent. Individuals still make their own individual choices (i.e. - free will) based on their character premised on their upbringing. That upbringing plays a very specific and direct role in how an individual turns out in life. And when you have a racial population with a 72% + out of wedlock birth rate (i.e. - fatherless homes), many young boys will become wards of the state via the criminal justice system. More than that, it also accounts for the longstanding epidemic of intraracial violence as well. For those born without fathers and numerous siblings, and for many without mothers who abandon them to their grandmother or aunt, they have no male role model. Their upbringing is comprised of other female family members as the male members are in and out of correctional institutions; as a result, their male peers are their primary role models. Inspiration that is undoubtedly negative and counterproductive to a positive and prosperous lifestyle. Hence the high rates of incarceration and involvement with the criminal justice among black and brown males in America. "We cannot understand modern forms of racism if we cannot or will not explore patterns of group behavior and their effects on individuals." Does this go both ways, DiAngelo? As of late blacks have been making it a point as a group to self-segregate from whites. Why? Because it is what they have been conditioned to do through the divisive racist rhetoric you and your cohorts (white & black) espouse. It is also the very reason why these two young women went on a racist attack upon two white males in the multicultural center on the Arizona State University (ASU) campus. Fortunately for the integrity of the campus and educational environment of ASU, the administration staff saw the blatant reverse racism for what it was and found them guilty of said offense. Despite that just finding, the two women further lambasted ASU for their ruling. A ruling that needs to be upheld, and in all honesty, the girls should be expelled for their follow-up response. Throughout the book DiAngelo makes some really bizarre statements that make absolutely no sense, like this one, for example: "...tackling group identity also challenges our belief in objectivity. If group membership is relevant, then we don't see the world from the universal human perspective but from the perspective of a particular kind of human.... Thus, reflecting on our racial frames is particularly challenging for many white people, because we are taught that to have a racial viewpoint is to be biased." In the previous cited example, it is clear that the two female ASU students' group identity was being challenged subjectively rather than objectively; and they both failed to see the world from the universal human perspective. That I get; but what I do not get is if people fail to see the world from that universal perspective, then they are left with "the perspective of a particular kind of human." What the hell does that mean? A... kind of human? This makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever.