Proof that bigotry and stupidity are linked : Pittsburgh Indymedia

View article without comments

Proof that bigotry and stupidity are linked
by T. Feran Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 2:46 PM
tferan@plaind.com (216) 999-5433

A new study by a multiracial group of Dartmouth College researchers (published in the journal Nature Neuroscience) has found that bias toward people of another race, or people who are "different," can drain mental function and make people dumber.

Proof that bigotry can drain the brain
The Plain Dealer, December 12, 2003

You don't have to be stupid to be a bigot. But being bigoted will get you there faster. We now have actual proof of this connection. There has never been any lack of evidence demonstrating it.

Earlier this year, for example, as the United States was about to start bombing Iraq, a man in Geauga County rammed a Sheriff's Department car with his truck, causing $7,200 in damage. When he called the Sheriff's Department the next day to confess, he said he had become angry when he saw a deputy chatting with a man of Middle Eastern descent.

And he told them he had been "stupid."

Sen. Trent Lott said he made "a poor choice of words" a year ago, when he crowed that America "wouldn't have had these problems over all these years" if Strom Thurmond had been elected president, in 1948, on a Dixiecrat platform built on opposition to civil rights for black people. But even Lott's fans and fellow conservatives said his choice of words was worse than poor.

"What Lott said is utterly indefensible and stupid," Rush Limbaugh said. Various other commentators described Lott's comments as "pretty darn," "extraordinarily," "remarkably," "unbelievably," "incredibly," "almost inconceivably," "rather" and "just plain" stupid.

Rapper Eminem apologized last month for some racist lyrics he wrote in 1988. He said they were "foolishness" written when he was a "stupid kid."

Only last week, North Carolina congressman Cass Ballenger announced he will not seek re-election, and was sued for defamation by the country's largest Islamic civil liberties group, after saying the group's offices were full of women "wearing hoods," or headscarves, and were so close to the Capitol that "they could blow the place up."

Ballenger is the fellow who stirred up controversy a year ago for refusing to remove a black-faced lawn jockey statue from the front yard of his home, and for saying that then-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney had brought out "a little bit of a segregationist feeling" in him because "I mean, she was such a bitch."

He later apologized for what he called "pretty stupid remarks."

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Now we know why.

A new study has found that bias toward people of another race, or people who are "different," can drain mental function and make people dumber.

The study was published in the December issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience, by a multiracial group of Dartmouth College researchers. They used behavorial tests, which measure mental performance, and magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, which measures brain activity, to determine how white individuals respond to black individuals.

In brief, the researchers gave white subjects a test designed to measure subtle bias. Then they gave them tests of cognitive performance, after meetings with a black researcher and then a white one. Several weeks later, they gave the test subjects supposedly unrelated MRIs, while showing them images of black and white young people.

The conclusions: People who scored higher on the test of bias had a harder time, after an interracial encounter, with the mental performance test. And "racial bias predicted activity in the right dorsolateral prefontal cortex," a part of the brain linked to control of thoughts and behavior.

The researchers stressed they're not suggesting that brain scans can measure prejudice.

They also said that people who scored higher for "bias" may not be prejudiced, just unfamiliar and uncomfortable with people who are different.

But the effort to overcome their awkwardness may be taxing enough to leave them temporarily impaired or exhausted, unable to perform to their best mental capacity, "just as people get tired after lifting weights." The results, researchers said, suggest that racial bias can be bad for mental performance in an increasingly diverse society.

Going a step further, however, the study offers good news for people apologizing for things they've said or done. We no longer have to take it at their word if they claim they were "stupid."

Now they can prove it.

www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living/1071225308279164.xml

add your comments

i
by i Sunday, Dec. 14, 2003 at 9:11 PM

"Going a step further, however, the study offers good news for people apologizing for things they've said or done."

So let's hear the apology for you fucksticks salivating over Saddam's dick.

add your comments

STUDIES HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED
by Irv The Nirv Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 9:12 AM

That stupid is a prerequisite for being a Leftist.

add your comments

Nothing like being called stupid
by Speeling bee Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 10:55 AM

By walking shit who can't spell single-syllable words.

Sounds Like
by Irv The Nirv Tuesday December 16, 2003 at 09:17 AM

You just can't find it in you to obay the law. Better that you are not in this country. Have a nice day and say howdy to your new found terrorist loving pals in hte mid east. Not that you are a terrorist, but you are just a criminal. Maybe you can write to IMC after you get to teh mideast and talk about how wonderful it is over there fighting the Americans and how America is hte cause of all the oppression in the Arab world. But I diress. the real issue remains that you are a criminal and you are here illegally. I guess smoking dope and dropping 'roids isn't that cool after all. GOod luck wiht that INS thing. Don't forget to write

add your comments

OOOHH Good One There.
by Irv The Nirv Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 3:25 PM

If somwon kant speel of type thean they must be ignored.

Hey Asshole, you are still a stupid ignorant self-righteous leftist tod even if you can spell (or schpiel, as the case may be).

add your comments

Did I also mention
by Irv The Nirv Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 3:27 PM

That the guy is a criminal and should be deported to the f'ing Arab netherworld that you leftists love so much more than AMerica. VIVA SADDAM. Free Mumia. Free Saddam.

add your comments

more Leftist subterfuge
by Irving the unNirving Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 2:30 PM

This is more proof that the Left can't be trusted.

There's no mention that the Dartmouth "scientist' running the "study" is a black woman.

One of the basic tenets of science is that a true scientist will recognize his/her inherent biases, and either remove him or herself from the study, or acknowledge up front it's biases.

That said, why didn't the black woman do a study on blacks first???

This isn't true science, but more Leftist racism!

add your comments

Leftists are the true racists
by the unNirving Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 2:37 PM

Jennifer Richeson, the racist head of this "study", is the one seated.

Please, try and convince me this isn't truly a political exercise in Leftist hatemongering.

"Diversity" is code for hate of whites and heterosexuals and Christians.

add your comments

Oh you are so right, you're white
by paleskin Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 8:16 PM

Yes, that black woman HATES whities - why she looks absolutely disgusted to be surrounded by them four crackers.

See that serene look on her face? - that's code for revenge

See how she calmly reclines in the chair? that's code for aggression

See the relaxed way she includes herself with others? that's code for division

And you know who believes that?
Stupid people.
Racist people.
Stupid-racist people.

add your comments

must have struck a nerve of truth
by unNirving Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 9:59 PM

Address the simple truth that honest scientists will withdraw from studies or acknowledge their inherent biases.

Do you not question why whites only were the first in the "study"? Why not blacks only first? Or a mixture, which is what should have been done to begin with?

This is blatantly political, and aimed at unthinking idiots like you who chant "racist" like a freaking Borg without question.

Your post, and it's knee jerk reaction, is why I say the quality of Leftists is nearly nonexistent.

add your comments

The bias is yours
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 3:49 PM

So you argue with rhetoric and then demand science. How very convenient. Here's something that you can-t argue with, the truth...

Editorial co-author Andrew Karpinski, PhD, tells WebMD that the test may be an appropriate measure of racial bias, but bias does not necessarily imply prejudice.

"This test can point out differences in the way people react to different races, but prejudice usually means a negative attitude toward a group, and I'm not sure that this test has any validity as a measure of that," he says.

Instead of measuring negative attitudes, the test could simply be measuring unfamiliarity with a different racial group, he says.

William J. Gehring, PhD, who also co-wrote the editorial, added that the Dartmouth study findings could be misleading because the people who appeared to be the most racially biased may actually have been the ones who were most anxious about appearing prejudice.

In other words, if they perceived themselves as having scored poorly on the racial bias test they would be more likely to take extra steps to control their thoughts and behaviors during their interaction with the black study investigator.

"Concern that their racism was being assessed could easily have influenced their behavior," he tells WebMD.
MRI Can't Measure Prejudice

Richeson agrees that interpreting the IAT test is problematic, and she wants to make it clear that the findings do not suggest that racial prejudice can be measured using brain scans.

She tells WebMD that the Dartmouth researchers are currently doing similar tests, only this time they are measuring black people's responses to interactions with whites.

"We know that racial bias is negative for society and negative for the targets of the bias," she says. "But we never really talk about it as something that is negative for the person with the bias. These data suggest that when there is bias, there is a cognitive cost."

...So the next time you want to put your hateful words into a scientist's mouth, why don't you take the time to learn what they have already said.

216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:_J_7058I7dYJ:content.health.msn.com/content/art...

add your comments

hateful words
by unNirved Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 4:04 PM

I know exactly what the racist bitch said. I also know the study was done long before your November article date.

The cold hard facts are that Leftist are a bunch of racists. "Diversity" is racist to the core, and only a Leftist robot can't see it.

You, "durutti", are still an idiotic bastard, responding with nothing but knee jerks instead of critical thinking.

add your comments

Well, Slap My Ass and Call Me Jesse
by Irv The Nirv Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 4:42 PM

DIversity is racist. It judges people first upon their ethnicity, gender or race (or sexual orientation, or favorite hockey team, or shoo size, etc etc). It then applies a value to those traits over and above all other traits. Diversity says that if you are of some ethnicity or race you must be given the opportunity based soley on that trait rather than your own ability to distinguish yourself, since of course you could never do that on your own without the assistance of our diversity plan. "Oh yes, you quaint and helpless little person that is different from the rest of us, do not fear your difference. We welcome your difference and we do not treat you different because of that difference...we embrace you for your difference. Oh aren't we just full of ourselves and the world can see that we are better than the haters who do not respect diversity and only respect people based on their own individual character."

Diversity programs claim that a group is defined primarily by its ethnic, gender or racial characterisics. Racism is the belief that you can define an entire group of people based on that group's race (or gender or ethniciity).

add your comments

Cry for the lonely white man
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 4:48 PM

Diversity programs only came into being when white men refused to accept anyone else but their own.

Libertarian ideals don't work in the real world where white men still hold the reigns of power. Forced diversity is the only answer to white supremacy.

Then again, maybe you're one of them dumb, racist people that believes Rush Limbuagh was right about Donovan McNabb?

add your comments

why the Left must be stopped
by unNirved Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 5:32 PM

"Forced diversity is the only answer to white supremacy."

"Then again, maybe you're one of them dumb, racist people that believes Rush Limbuagh was right about Donovan McNabb?"

Forced diversity? Sounds like a Nazi talking, a variation on "purity". Or is it Fascism?

Hard to say. Actually I'm flabbergasted. Just when I thought the Left couldn't get any more evil....

add your comments

terrifying Leftist hypoocrisy
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 5:41 PM

condi_whitey.jpg, image/jpeg, 429x600

Keep in mind, everyone, that an incredibly dangerous Leftist said "diversity must be forced".

Also keep in mind that the extremely racist Left wants to keep the black man down on de old Plantation. If blacks want to advance themselves, they're ostracized and ridiculed. No "tolerance" and appreciation of "diversity" for conservative thinking blacks, not from the racist and oppressive Left.

The image above was taken from that weirdo "parody" whitehouse.org site, a known Leftist sewer.

add your comments

Are you a Strom Thrumond fan?
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 6:04 PM

"There's not enough troops in the Army to
force the Southern people to break down
segregation and admit the Nigra race into
our theaters, into our swimming pools,
into our homes, and into our churches."
-- Strom Thurmond, 1948

Diversity must be forced on those unwilling to accept it -- that's why Civil Rights led to Equal Opportunity Employment laws and the like.

Otherwise people like you would say, "It's my right to discriminate, to withold opportunities, and to treat unfairly against anyone I please." -- bearing in mind that the vast majority of people with the power to carry out those wishes are white males ... like Strom Thurmond ... like you?

add your comments

a question for durutti
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 7:00 PM

Are you a Robert Byrd fan?

My oh my, aren't we reaching out into - ahem - Left field, Little Precious?

add your comments

You have no counter argument, you have lost
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 7:17 PM

So how would you respond to Strom Thrumond's declaration? I would oppose and support Civil Rights legislation - would you?

"There's not enough troops in the Army to
force the Southern people to break down
segregation and admit the Nigra race into
our theaters, into our swimming pools,
into our homes, and into our churches."
-- Strom Thurmond, 1948

add your comments

grinding a cockroach under my heel - part 5215487
by loser detector Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 8:01 PM

Ask Condileeza Rice about how you Leftists feel about her "rights". "Diversity must be forced on those unwilling to accept it -- that's why Civil Rights led to Equal Opportunity Employment laws and the like."

Otherwise people like you would say, "It's my right to discriminate, to withold opportunities, and to treat unfairly against anyone I please." -- bearing in mind that the vast majority of people with the power to carry out those wishes are white males ... like Strom Thurmond ... like you?"

Not only are you a hypocritical Leftist racist pig, you are a Nazi. You're a Brown Shirt, fitting decor for raw sewage.

add your comments

You have no answer!
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 8:04 PM

You still haven't answered my question:

So how would you respond to Strom Thrumond's declaration? I would oppose it and support Civil Rights legislation - would you?

"There's not enough troops in the Army to
force the Southern people to break down
segregation and admit the Nigra race into
our theaters, into our swimming pools,
into our homes, and into our churches."
-- Strom Thurmond, 1948

add your comments

Leftists and the "Happy Darky"
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 9:10 PM

"BTW, conservatives accusing progressives of being "hateful" or "angry" is a great example of projection."
---------------------------------------

"It's my right to discriminate, to withold opportunities, and to treat unfairly against anyone I please." -- bearing in mind that the vast majority of people with the power to carry out those wishes are white males ... like Strom Thurmond ... like you?"

Actually, Little Nazi�, it IS my right to discriminate.

Life isn't fair, no matter how you "intellectuals" say otherwise. The Left sticks it's pious tits out and clucks about "rights" and "fairness" and the usual yawn inducing blatherings of mental toddlers, but it's amazing how they haven't read the morning paper and discovered that Evolution is still at work.

Fairness ain't shit in the Grand Scheme of things. The Universe itself won't think twice about hurtling a meteor at Earth, won't shed a tear if the whole of humanity is wiped out in seconds. (Womyn and minorities will be hardest hit, of course).

It's my right to hire who I trust, who I feel comfortable with, who my instincts tell me can do the job I need done. It's MY money, not yours, you Brown Shirt arm of the State. It's my right to give opportunities to who I feel deserve it, not because of the dictates of a dangerous Little Nazi�. It's my right to hire a black conservative too, regardless of the vicious attacks that will surely come from you racist pigs who want to keep the black man under the Leftist thumb.

And speak of the devil, Little Nazi�, why is the Left allowed to slur Condoleeza Rice as in that image? My understanding is that pious Leftists would blow their bladders if someone on the right had made something with "I'm fighting for Blackie" or whatever. Why do Leftists throw the "Uncle Tom" crap around with impunity, and try to hide their abject racism with bringing up and obsessing over Thurmond, while ignoring Robert Byrd? Why is that, Little Nazi�? Why not cheers and huzzahs for Rice making the historic strides she's been able to?

Could it be that sanctimonious ideologues can't stand that the Right gets the credit? I find that puzzling. After all, you supposed champions of the black man has been trying to set us lowly white righties straight for lo these many years, (never mind that the Republicans were the ones who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

My point, Little Nazi�, is that we on the Right have seen the light. We've seen the error of our ways, thanks to you Leftists torch bearers. So why aren't you happy? Why aren't you Leftists anointing Bush for having Rice and Powell in such high positions, for advancing people of color like never before?

You people really are confusing. If I didn't know better, I'd almost start projecting and think you're jealous to the point of anger, perhaps even red faced spastic rage of a newborn. You know, along the lines of "If I don't get the credit, then you stay down, you black ingrate!"

Looking at that image, I wonder if that's not the case�.

add your comments

winning counter argument
by paleface skinner Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 9:35 PM

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in West Virginia... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibility of rebuilding the Klan realm of W. Va?"

Byrd' letter to the Klan's Imperial Wizard, 1946.
-----------------------

Byrd on "race mongrels -

"[I will] never submit to fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather would I die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

1947 letter by Robert Byrd.

Byrd also filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he then voted against along with 20 other Senate Democrats.
-----------------------

Please continue with your obsession of Thurmond, but please also enlighten us as to your point.

add your comments

the klan was originaly democrat
by rick Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 10:53 PM

add your comments

You're mischaracterizations lead to prejudice
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:05 PM

If you re-read the posts carefully, you will note that I never mentioned anything about Liberals or Conservatives, Democrats or Republicans. I only mentioned Limbaugh and Thurmond as examples of racist attitudes contradicting self-professed Libertarian values.

add your comments

To Irving and his clan
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:13 PM

PS - Your oblique answer to my question needs to be verified:

"So how would you respond to Strom Thrumond's declaration? I would oppose it and support Civil Rights legislation - would you?"

I take it that you are telling me you would support Strom Thurmond's position and would protect Segregationist policies? Is that correct?

add your comments

lying cockroach
by cockroach stomper Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:22 PM

"If you re-read the posts carefully, you will note that I never mentioned anything about Liberals or Conservatives, Democrats or Republicans. I only mentioned Limbaugh and Thurmond as examples of racist attitudes contradicting self-professed Libertarian values."

You're backpedaling to try and pathetically save face, durutti. Where in the hell did Libertarian values come up?

Let's recap, shall we? This thread is about that blatantly racist Richeson and the racebaiting "study" that Jesse Jackson would be proud of. I came in here and called it for what it was. No matter your stupidity, it doesn't change the basic tenet of science that a true scientist tries his/her best not to bring in bias and distortion into any study. Richeson failed miserably, not that she tried very hard, and should be shunned by the scientific community.

You came in here, and since you had no logical response to what I said about basic science, stupidly tried to deflect criticism and started that same old tired ho-hum pious shit about the Left is the group that's all good and true and pure, blah blah blah, and for some crazy reason brought up Thurmond, as if you'd cutely make those on the right look bad. (Likely your little adolescent friends were looking over your shoulder, egging you on and giving suggestions. Thurmond was in the news the past couple of days, and usually you morons can pick out Britney Spears but not Cheney in a pile of pictures).

So I responded in kind by bringing up Byrd, and some of his more famous quotes.

So, since that is balanced out, we're right back to where we left off - Rice and Powell and others who are scorned and ridiculed unless they're Leftists. If they're conservative, then they're treated with racist attitudes from the racist Left, not respect and tolerance.

Summary - the "study" is a political farce, and so are sanctimonious racist Leftists who claim to be for the black man and woman, yet can't even conceal their disgust with them. (as per the racist and derogatory Rice image).

add your comments

You ARE a Segregationist supporter, right?
by paleface Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:34 PM

Your reading comprehension is clearly in need of help:

----------------------------
"Cry for the lonely white man
by paleskin Thursday December 18, 2003 at 04:48 PM

Diversity programs only came into being when white men refused to accept anyone else but their own.

LIBERTARIAN ideals don't work in the real world where white men still hold the reigns of power. Forced diversity is the only answer to white supremacy.

Then again, maybe you're one of them dumb, racist people that believes Rush Limbuagh was right about Donovan McNabb?"
----------------------------

add your comments

You ARE a Segregationist supporter, right?
by paleface Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:35 PM

add your comments

durutti's magnificent obsession
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:36 PM

Let's donate to the mentally ill, since it's the holiday season.

Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond
Strom ThrumondStrom Thrumond

add your comments

You ARE a Segregationist supporter, right?
by paleface Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:36 PM

add your comments

durutti's magnificent obsession
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:37 PM

Let's donate to the mentally ill, since it's the holiday season.

Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond
Strom ThurmondStrom ThurmondStrom Thurmond

add your comments

You ARE a Segregationist supporter, right?
by paleface Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:37 PM

add your comments

durutti's magnificent obsession
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:37 PM

add your comments

durutti's magnificent obsession
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:37 PM

add your comments

durutti's magnificent obsession
by Irving Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:37 PM

add your comments

Are you also a member of any white-power organizations?
by paleskin Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:49 PM

Well there is at least one thing we agree on -- that you are a fan of Strom Thurmond and a supporter of Segregation.

Are you ashamed of this fact?

add your comments

my last response to the brain dead
by Irving Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 12:02 AM

Durutti, I realize it's been really hard on you brain dead Leftists the past couple of weeks, what with Bush's trip on Thanksgiving, and the humiliating capture of your Daddy Sodom, but all the same, you need professional help.

Only someone incredibly mentally disturbed could take this thread into whatever cuckooland you're in.

The Right passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Left wants to keep blacks and other minorities down, or will attack them if they try to break away from your oppression. We know it. Everybody in the world knows it.

Live with it.

add your comments

You should be ashamed
by paleskin Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 2:26 AM

Again it is you who keep talking about the Left and Right, not I. Civil Rights goes way beyond petty political turf wars - it's a matter for all humanity.

You never did tell me if you are ashamed to be a supporter of Segregationist's Rights? Are you proud of Strom Thurmond and his speech from 1948?

add your comments

Diversity and MLK
by Don'tCallMeWhite Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 1:41 PM

Dr. Martin Luther King's Dream Is Killed By Diversity Politics !!!!

"I have a dream, that one day a man will be judged by the strength of his character and not by the color of his skin."

Your diversity politics forces EVERYONE to judge others by the color of their skin, their ethnic group or even their gender or sexual preferences. Diversity politics ignores such things as character or competency. Diversity for the sake of diversity accomplishes nothing.

add your comments

Reality challenged whie men
by paleskin Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 3:23 PM

Diversity programs only came into being when white men REFUSED to accept anyone else but their own. LIBERTARIAN ideals don't work in the real world where white men still hold the reigns of power. Forced diversity is the only answer to WHITE SUPREMACY.

"There's not enough troops in the Army to FORCE the Southern people to break down SEGREGAGTION and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." -- Strom Thurmond, 1948

You never did tell me if you are ashamed to be a supporter of Segregationist's Rights? Are you proud of Strom Thurmond and his speech from 1948?

I know Dr. Martin Luther King Jr fought against Strom Thurmond and Segregationist practices. Would you?

add your comments

Dear Paleskin
by Don'tCallMeWhite Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 5:08 PM

Hey, I don't care about Strom Thurmond, but whatever he was back when he and Senator Rockefeller where waling around in whtie sheets, he seemed to have reformed sometime after 1948. Regardless, I do not support his segregationist ideas. I would and have fought against racists and racist policies. very much inthe same way I continue to fight agaisnt racist diversity programs.

These diversity programs don't help us. If you get into a school or get a job thanks to some diversity crap, then your own credentials are forever suspect. Don't do me (or anyone else you deem incapable of competing without your diversity crutch) any faovrs. We are so far beyond this as a society, that every time this diversity stuff comes into the game it only moves everyone backwards, as if there is some need to continually remind the world that blacks are different from the rest of the people in the world. PAHLEASE !!

add your comments

You can't support both Equality and the Freedom to Discriminate
by paleface Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 6:17 PM

ONLY a white male would expect fair treatment under the law - and to act greivously injured when greeted unfairness instead.

TIME and time again, a small but powerful group of white males use America's freedoms to discriminate, dominate, and deficate upon any culture or people they do not like.

UNLESS we force these racists to accept all human beings, be they a different gender, color, religion or sexual orientation, they will continue to use their power to elevate the white man above all.

THEY use the banner of State's Rights, Freedom of Association, Libertarianism and a host of other political crutches to exercise legal loopholes which allow them to discriminate.

IF in the course of FORCING the racists to accept diversity a few white individuals experience unfairness, then it is only fair -- for the injustice felt by some groups of people has now progressed to all.

WHEN the racist white males cease to dominate the corporate and political worlds in their vast majorities, then TRYING to implement a color-blind society may be possible.

UNTIL then, to remove policies which protect minorites of ALL kinds from overt and subtle forms of discrimination, is to invite the BRYDs and THURMONDs of this world to reapply their HATE with vicious haste.

AND don't be so gullible about Strom Thurmond -- a man who refused to acknowledge his own flesh and blood for 78 years because she was of "mix-race" is a man who never escaped his own racial biases.

add your comments

Some Thurmond relatives call revelation a �blight�
by Jeffrey Gettleman Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 7:04 PM

While Essie Mae Washington-Williams says she feels ��completely free�� after revealing this week that she is the mixed-race daughter of the late Senator Strom Thurmond, several members of Thurmond�s well-connected family in South Carolina say they feel ashamed.

Mary Thompkins Freeman, a niece of the senator, said the revelation ��was like a BLIGHT on the family.��

��I went to a church meeting the other day and all these people came up to me and you could tell they didn�t know what to say,�� Freeman said. ��For the first time in my life, I felt SHAME.��

Freeman also said that HAD THE SECRET DAUGHTER BEEN WHITE, not the result of a long-rumored tryst between Thurmond and a black maid, ��it would be a whole other situation.��

��Strom rose to such stature, you just wonder how in the world this could have gone on,�� said Freeman, a retired teacher in Lugoff, South Carolina. ��My family always had help around the house. But it just seems Strom would have been ABOVE that.��

www.iht.com/articles/122236.html

add your comments

addicts
by shanice Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 11:02 PM

Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism.

ATTRIBUTION: Carl Jung (1875�1961), Swiss psychiatrist. Memories, Dreams, and Reflections, ch. 12 (1962).

add your comments

mental illness
by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Saturday, Dec. 20, 2003 at 4:53 PM

"ONLY a white male would expect fair treatment under the law - and to act greivously injured when greeted unfairness instead."

I find that this makes no sense whatsoever, since the poster is the one calling for forced diversity.

add your comments

proof that Leftists and stupidity are linked
by paleskin Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 10:15 PM

Only because of "progressives" could something this colossally insane be written, even in jest:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all...and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2004, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "America" in the Western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual orientation of the wished.

This wish is limited to the customary and usual good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. "Holiday" is not intended to, nor shall it be considered, limited to the usual Judeo-Christian celebrations or observances, or to such activities of any organized or ad hoc religious community, group, individual or belief (or lack thereof).

Note: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. This greeting is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. This greeting implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for the wished her/himself or others, or responsibility for the consequences which may arise from the implementation or non-implementation of same. This greeting is void where prohibited by law.

add your comments

There are many paleskins
by paleskin Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 1:55 PM

There are many paleskins. We do not all think alike.

Some paleskins want to maintain their position of corporate, congressional, and cultural dominance at all costs.

Some paleskins want diversity of opinion, of philosophies, of people.

Strom Thurmond was a paleskin of the first kind -- I'm a paleskin of the second. What kind of paleskin are you?

add your comments

what I am
by paleskin Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 3:27 PM

Why, I'm Robert Byrd, of course.

add your comments

cultural dominance
by Robert KKK Byrd Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 3:31 PM

Cultural dominance, as in Leftist racist forced diversity? BraveNewWorldOrderFighter, is that you?

add your comments

you really are stupid, aren't you?
by paleskin Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 3:43 PM

"Well there is at least one thing we agree on -- that you are a fan of Strom Thurmond and a supporter of Segregation.

Are you ashamed of this fact?"

Explain why blacks keep to themselves in workplace cafeterias, even though they can go wherever they want. Explain why they live in certain neighborhoods, even though they can live wherever they want. Explain why they keep to themselves in chirches, when they'd be able to go into any one they wanted.

Life is biased, life is racist, people favor their own kind, and even the blacks do it.

add your comments

"That's just the way it is"
by white is right Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 4:46 PM

Thurmond, beloved as "Strom" by generations of South Carolinians and who died last summer at the remarkable age of 100, fathered a child when he was in his early 20s with a 16-year-old maid in his family's household.

Their biracial daughter, born out of wedlock 78 years ago, has guarded their secret for at least six decades, throughout the most strident days of her father's segregationist history, even when he ran for President of the United States as a Dixiecrat on a segregationist platform.

Like millions of Americans, and I think especially Southerners, I am mesmerized by Essie Mae Washington-Williams's accounts of her relationship with her father. It was warm, she says, and she believes he cared deeply for her.

She and her father met privately over the years in his various offices and elsewhere, and he provided her financial support, often delivered by his aides. She once asked Thumond why he espoused such segregationist views, to which he replied, "That's just the way it is."

add your comments

"Diversity" is a Communist goal
by better dead than Red Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 5:20 PM

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Separate But Equal?
by UMKC School of Law Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 7:53 PM
law@umkc.edu 816 235-1644 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64110

The issue: Does the Constitution allow states to segregate schools or other public facilities on the basis of race or sex?

In 1954, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. "Racially segregated schools," the Court concluded, are "inherently unequal." The Court found support for its decision in studies that indicated that minority students learn better in racially mixed classrooms. Opposition to Brown was intense in some southern states. Governors stood in schoolhouse doors and angry whites terrorized blacks. In some places, such as at Little Rock's Central High, integration was only achieved after a powerful show of force by federal troops.

Striking down segregation is a good example of Forced Diversity.

Some white folks don't like non-whites and will do anything to keep them at a disadvantage. But when you force them to abide by the Consitution, they scream it's not fair - that their rights are being eroded.

The only people who fall for that line are other white folks.

Some black folks don't like white folks. Just ask Donna Brazile.

Or Reginald Denny.

Here's a prime example of an idiot Leftist, who blames it's fantastic stupidity on the United States.

In the revolting world of spam, among the penis enlargements and worse, are the money laundering frauds so palpably absurd you might think only idiots would fall for them. An innocent Scottish chemist's shop is the latest to be caught up in these Nigerian frauds. Victims were promised they would inherit an oil company in return for an up-front fee. The fraudsters used the pharmacy's address, pretending it was a bank, and now dupes from Norway, New Zealand and the US have been turning up in Thurso to try and get their money back. How could anyone be so stupid? Easily.

With embarrassment, feeling a fool, I admit I was a victim of a Nigerian fraud. Looking back now, I can't think why I was so easily taken in but I did make a reasonable check. A hand-written letter arrived from a Nigerian 14-year-old called Sandra. It was nicely written on a religious school's headed paper, though not too perfect, telling me her sad story. Both her parents had died and she had to complete her last two years of school. Her results were good, and it would only cost �100 a year for the last two years to cover the cost. I wrote back and I also wrote to her headmaster, whose name appeared on the school letterhead, at a PO box. He wrote back in more adult handwriting to say Sandra was indeed a needy and promising student, and he enclosed her last term's report. It was an impressive document, each subject carefully filled in by a teacher with different writing, giving an excellent but not over-the-top report, with some subjects subtly lagging a bit behind. So I sent a cheque for �200 and received another of Sandra's letters, a bit too full of God's mercy and Jesus's blessings for my taste. I had an idea I might keep in touch with her to see what became of her. If I had any doubts, �200 was a modest sum for all the effort a fraudster took to create these letters.

But it wasn't about the �200. Not long afterwards my bank received a letter with a perfect copy of my signature, giving my bank account numbers, asking for �1,000 to be transferred at once to a bank in Osaka, Japan. Luckily, the bank thought to ring me up and query it. It turned out that a host of recent scams had asked for money to be transferred to Japan and the police had alerted all banks. It took me a little while to work out how they got my signature and my bank details, but then it clicked. Sure enough, when I reported it to the police, they laughed. They knew the Sandra letters very well and the real purpose was to sting the victim's bank account. It happened again last week when my bank got another request for a �1,000 transfer to Japan and I do feel a fool. Looking back at the letters now, I can see it all. For heaven's sake, she even said both her parents had died of the ebola flesh-eating virus.

Some charities have been badly stung by letters from foreign lawyers telling them of dead millionaires who have left hefty bequests to them: the charity is persuaded with the aid of convincing false documents to put up substantial legal fees to access the cash, only to find there never was a bequest. But most of the scam emails everyone gets daily invite victims to participate in criminal deals, complicit with fallen corrupt dictatorships, never mind how vile the regime: the worse the regime, the more convincing the scam. Astonishingly, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) conducted a survey that resulted in an estimate that 1% of people initially contacted do respond positively. The particular combination of folly, greed and corruption is not as rare as might be expected.

A couple in my inbox yesterday are typical: Mr Davydov Sergey of the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation tells me that an American oil consultant died in an automobile accident leaving behind $30m. No relatives can be traced and the sum will revert to the Russian government unless I will stand in as next of kin. Just send my name, address and bank details; attorneys will draw up a fake will and I get to keep 30% of the proceeds. The other email comes from Maryam Abacha, wife of the deceased Nigerian former military ruler. As well as asking to put $40m into my account if I send her my bank details, she says she'd be happy to marry me too.

Everyone on email gets blitzed with these daily: offers come in from Qusay Hussein's financial adviser, holder of the missing $1bn from the Baghdad bank; bad Serbs and Bosnians; the Taliban and Afghan war lords; wherever illicit spoils need secret deals. Using real names of bank managers or politicians on the run, some are literate and urbane, others deliberately ill-spelled to fool westerners they are dealing with simple ignorant folk. In the average sting, victims hand over at least �22,000 in up-front "fees" or "bribes to officials" to ease the imaginary cash transfer. Most people don't report it: the police reckon they only hear the tip of the iceberg. After all, who would admit they agreed to launder Bin Laden's cash?

So who are these "victims"? The NCIS says: "Do not imagine that they are all humble little people, too stupid to know better, though some are. Many are millionaires and directors of businesses approached personally. They are life's natural risk-takers just doing the very things that made them rich in the first place." Just so. Should the police waste time on "victims" so venal and dumb?

The NCIS claims most of the scams orginate from Nigeria or the large global Nigerian diaspora. It began small-time in the 60s and mushroomed in the 90s, with large bundles of air-mails from Nigeria; two years ago it moved on to email. Why from there? "Clever, educated people with a long history as expert traders and dealers, they don't see it as criminal but as business. And they may think westerners deserve all they get."

The line between honest and dishonest business is easily blurred. We point fingers at Nigeria, this richest and best-educated country in Africa that should be a mighty power had it not been so catastrophically misgoverned, with legendary corruption. Yet what kind of global honesty is promoted, what model of good capitalism and good government? The US is about to hold another election that will be largely bought and sold by business and oil interests. Think of the corruption that US and UK conservatives carelessly unleashed upon the former Soviet Union in the name of extreme free market ideology.

The image of capitalism now being spread about the world is cowboy stuff: little gleaned from America extols the virtue of regulation, restraint and control. We reap from the third world what we sow: if some Nigerians learned lessons in capitalism from global oil companies that helped corrupt and despoil that land, it is hardly surpising they absorbed some of the Texan oil values that now rule the White House. Alas, the querulous, navel-gazing and increasingly non-internationalist EU seems in no mood at present to offer a different and better face of capitalism to the world.

How in the flying flip do we go from "I was duped by corrupt Nigerians from a lawless land " to "There you have it, that is why the Nigerians are corrupt and we are all suffering - AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES AND TONY BLAIR."

What an idiot this woman is. And she has the audacity to think she should be advising anyone on anything, let alone world political affairs.

HEY, sister you really are not to bright, but I am sure you have heard that before. Just in case you have been falling for those other popular scams, maybe I should let you know that he IS NOT going to die if you don't "release the pressure" right away, it IS NOT good for whitening your teeth, and you WILL end up sleeping on the wet spot..

Piece of advice for all of you leftist imbecylicals out there ... IF IT IS FROM NIGERIA THROW IT AWAY. DO NOT RESPOND.

...Although Thurmond provided financial support to his daughter throughout his life, neither publicly acknowledged the relationship before his death. To have done so would have ended his political career.

To have done so also would have cast light on a sordid, centuries-old tradition in the South of white men exploiting black women � women who could not say no. From slavery through Jim Crow, such exploitation was a rite of passage for many young men. Skin a paler shade of black among many African Americans is tangible evidence of the tradition.

The only thing different about Thurmond's role in this Southern way of life was the very public nature of his rank hypocrisy. This, after all, is the presidential candidate who proclaimed in 1948, "There's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches." (The bedroom, apparently, was another matter.)...

What, no obsessing with me? I'm a Leftist, after all. I don't like the Nigras either.

Thurmond is dead.

Jennifer Richeson the Race Huckster isn't.

Neither is Jesse Jackson.

Or Sister Souljah.

Or Al Sharpton.

Or Bustamante.

Or INSERT LEFTIST RACISTS NAMES HERE....

Thurmond is dead.

Jennifer Richeson the Race Huckster isn't.

Neither is Jesse Jackson.

Or Sister Souljah.

Or Al Sharpton.

Or Robert Byrd.

Or Bustamante.

Or INSERT LEFTIST RACISTS NAMES HERE....

Judge to hear motion challenging Alabama's tax system

BIRMINGHAM (AP) � A federal judge will hear arguments Jan. 8 on whether Alabama's tax structure, particularly its property taxes, is unconstitutional and racially discriminatory.

Plaintiffs in a long-running desegregation suit contend the state has not provided enough money to equalize higher education opportunities for blacks and whites because of racially inspired constitutional limits on taxes.

In 1991, the federal court ordered Alabama to remedy lingering inequities in its colleges and universities resulting from a history of segregation. Under that order, Alabama's historically black public universities have received additional money to make up for historic inequities, and traditionally white universities have been given money to recruit black faculty.

The plaintiffs argue that universities can't meet the goals of the federal decree, set to expire in 2005, without more money.

Lack of money from the state has driven up tuition cost, which most directly affects blacks because they make up a disproportionate share of Alabama's poor, the motion contends.

December 29, 2003 � Arthur Everett brings more than years of experience to the FBI's Chicago office as the assistant special agent in charge. He also brings diversity. Everett is the FIRST African American to reach the bureau's management ranks.

When Arthur Everett looks at photos of past Chicago FBI special agents in charge, he sees only WHITE faces. After 13 years of assignments in other offices around the country he knows diversity is a process that has not happened very quickly at the bureau.

"The discrimination in the bureau is NO DIFFERENT than discrimination that you would find anywhere," said Arthur Everett, FBI agent.

The 48-year-old Everett--an Air Force veteran with a masters degree in management--has come to Chicago to become the office's first minority race assistant special agent in charge...

The FBI has 11,633 special agents. Just more than 15% of them are female. Latinos make up 7.4% of the total force. Blacks are only 5.6%. Everett says his goal is to one day be a special agent in charge of an FBI office. His Chicago assignment is an important step in that direction.

only white faces
by race huckster detector Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2003 at 12:03 AM

Here's the actual text, you race baiter.
---------------------------
December 29, 2003 � Arthur Everett brings more than years of experience to the FBI's Chicago office as the assistant special agent in charge. He also brings diversity. Everett is the first African American to reach the bureau's management ranks.
When Arthur Everett looks at photos of past Chicago FBI special agents in charge, he sees only white faces. After 13 years of assignments in other offices around the country he knows diversity is a process that has not happened very quickly at the bureau.

"The discrimination in the bureau is no different than discrimination that you would find anywhere," said Arthur Everett, FBI agent.

The 48-year-old Everett--an Air Force veteran with a masters degree in management--has come to Chicago to become the office's first minority race assistant special agent in charge. He will have responsibility for the counter-intelligence effort and it's growing cyber-crimes program.

"Most homes now have personal computers. Those computers are being us as a tool, let's say, like bank robbers use guns to commit a robbery. Well crooks now use computers to commit robberies," said Everett.

The FBI has 11, 633 special agents. Just more than 15% of them are female. Latinos make up 7.4% of the total force. Blacks are only 5.6%. Everett says his goal is to one day be a special agent in charge of an FBI office. His Chicago assignment is an important step in that direction.

"I don't think that I would literally be doing my job simply by serving my country in the capacity of being an FBI agent. I think serving my community as a human being serves a much greater purpose," said Everett.
---------------------------

No sewer diver like you is going to convince me that you Leftists aren't the true racists. How long before Everett gets called an Uncle Tom like Powell and Rice?

Oh, and for your elitist dining and dancing pleasure, you can feed off of all the anti White and anti heterosexual menu you can stand. All you can eat, and kosher for all you self hating Jews.

http://www.maynardije.org/news/diversityheadlines/

Everett likely was given the job, not because he's any good at what he does, but because the race pimps demanded it. And like you said, soon enough he will be called a Tom.

The full article does not change the context of the snippet in the least. The Agent clearly states that the FBI is no different then any other organization confronting the legacy of a whites only world -- which is supported by the fact that he is the first non-white to reach the management level.

Here is the text that you added:

"He will have responsibility for the counter-intelligence effort and it's growing cyber-crimes program....
Most homes now have personal computers. Those computers are being us as a tool, let's say, like bank robbers use guns to commit a robbery. Well crooks now use computers to commit robberies," said Everett....
I don't think that I would literally be doing my job simply by serving my country in the capacity of being an FBI agent. I think serving my community as a human being serves a much greater purpose," said Everett."

Now this extra text certainly is interesting and informative, but it doesn't change the ascertion that a legacy of racism still confronts minorities.

And if you have been following this thread, then it should be obvious that "White makes Right" didn't die with Strom Thurmond -- it still haunts the living today.

I've been following this thread, tho not very closley. I too find ur bringing Thermund into the discusion a crummy tactic.

Richeson botched the study, blacks attack their own for trying to rise above, and nothing u say change the wieght of this thread.

The Nazis were of the Left! And today they're still wanting to kill the jews. Just witness all the Collaborators around the IndyMedias who post shit in favor of Arafat and the other terrorists.

"The study was published in the December issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience, by a multiracial group of Dartmouth College researchers. They used behavorial tests, which measure mental performance, and magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, which measures brain activity, to determine how white individuals respond to black individuals.

In brief, the researchers gave white subjects a test designed to measure subtle bias. Then they gave them tests of cognitive performance, after meetings with a black researcher and then a white one. Several weeks later, they gave the test subjects supposedly unrelated MRIs, while showing them images of black and white young people. "

__________

From this test process the research infers (and just as validly proves) that being in the presence of a black person can actually make you stupider. Consequently, after all the time that was spent with Ms. Richeson on this research, her colleagues have become so stupid that they actually believe their own research.

You just caused "paleskin" (AKA Sam or durutti or USS Liberty) to go into a very serious self mutilation mode.

I think the slang word is "cutting"?

What is self mutilation and other self abusive behaviors?

Called the �new age anorexia,� the practice of self-abuse or mutilating behavior is on the rise. It is estimated that one out of every 200 teen girls between the ages of 13 and 19 regularly practice self-abusive behavior with a reported 2 million cases in the US alone. But why? Why do these teens hurt themselves? To them, it�s sacred, it�s a secret and it�s their�s.

There are several types of self-abusive and mutilating behaviors. They include cutting, burning, wound interference and picking. Cutting is just as it sounds. The teen will use a razor blade, knife, broken mirror or a piece of glass � what ever they can � and �cut� their skin allowing it to bleed openly for several minutes. Burning is the practice of placing cigarettes, hot metal, lighters, or lit matches to the skin and causing a burn. The practice of wound interference is done by creating a wound, whether it is a cut, burn, bruise, or bump, and preventing it from healing by tearing, picking or pushing on the wound. Picking is done when a self-mutilator literally �picks� at their skin until a wound is created and bleeds.

Those that practice these self-abusive behaviors do so in an attempt to �release stress, pain, fear or anxiety.� Generally practiced by teen girls � but affects at least 11 thousand boys a year as well � the teen may feel out of control regarding their life and practice these behaviors in an attempt to regain that control. Some teens state that it �feels good to be in charge of your own pain when so many others try to do it for you.�

The teens that self-abuse are not the ones who get numerous tattoos or piercings; it is very difficult to identify a person who practices self-abusive behaviors out of a high school full of teens. These teens are generally good students, have normal or above normal appearances, are involved in school and after-school activities and have parents who are involved in the community. Most come from above average income levels and both parents may work outside the home. However, as they want to keep their secret, these teens will not usually participate in activities that require changing clothes at school � or will change in secret when no one is around � and may not have many close friends. Self-abusive teens tend to internalize any conflicts with friends, school or parents as they do not want to �cause trouble� for anyone. As a result, the fear, anxiety, anger, loneliness, sadness, isolation, frustration and emotional pain inside builds to a point where the teen feels they will �explode.� To prevent this explosion � and to deal with the emotions they are feeling � they cut, or burn, or pick in an attempt to �bleed them out.� This to them is a release and a coping mechanism; it�s how they deal with life and all it offers.

Signs and symptoms of self-abusive or mutilating behavior includes the presence of fresh, healing and/or scars from old injuries, a knife, lighter or matches in purse or book bag with no logically explanation for it�s being there, making excuses for injuries, wanting to do own laundry, locking self in bathroom for long periods of time with water running and the presence of a new injury upon leaving bathroom, blood or burn stains in the inside of clothing as well as becoming overly defensive when approached about the possibility of self-abusive behavior.

There is hope. Several organizations deal with self-abusive and mutilating behavior in an attempt to help those who harm themselves learn better coping mechanisms. Organizations such as �Don�t Cut,� �Self-Injury,� and �Self Abuse Stops Now� have both websites and 800 numbers where teens can get information and help. Treatment for these types of behaviors may include individual and family therapy as well as medications to lessen the anxiety and depression the teen may be feeling.

"The study was published in the December issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience, by a multiracial group of Dartmouth College researchers."

__________________

That group does not look very "multiracial" to me. They look like a bunch of white folk. Worse yet, they look like a bunch of white cllege professors intent on exorcising their own personal racist demons with a very unscientific scientific study. Of course, the whole academic world will fawn over the results of the study and will not be critical of this garbage at all, since the research group was headed by a black woman. That gives any race study that wants to demonstrate the existence of racism immediate credibility. They don't even have to do the study if they just do an abstract that foretells the outcome, appoint a black research leader, and then publish it as if it were fact.

Would be interesting to see just who originated the study. Was it Richeson? If so, why wasn't she condemned for her blatant racism?

Oh well, as I've said, this "study" reeks of Leftist racism. The Race Baiters and the Grievance Industry is very big indeed, supported by the lowly race hustlers like durutti/paleskin. Kinda like the Mafia needs bookies on the street corners.

Would be interesting to see just who originated the study. Was it Richeson? If so, why wasn't she condemned for her blatant racism?

The study was racist from the outset, and should never have gotten past the discussion stage. Whoever approved it and funded it should have their head on a platter. And Dartmouth should have whatever accredidation stripped.

To answer Irvings question:

"This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College."
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2003/11/17.html

The National Science Foundation
--------------------------------
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA
http://www.nsf.gov/

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent agency of the U.S. Government, established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and related legislation, 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq., and was given additional authority by the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885), and Title I of the Education for Economic Security Act (20 U.S.C. 3911 to 3922).

The Foundation consists of the National Science Board of 24 part-time members and a Director (who also serves as ex officio National Science Board member), EACH APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE U.S. SENATE. Other senior officials include a Deputy Director who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, and eight Assistant Directors.

The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center
---------------------------------
Dartmouth College, Hanover NH, USA 03755
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rocky/

The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College is a catalyst for public policy research, teaching and deliberation. Dedicated to providing an interdisciplinary perspective on policy-related topics, the Center fosters a commitment to the ideals of public service and informed public debate exemplified by NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER (REPUBLICAN), FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK STATE AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (FORD ADMINISTRATION 1974-1977).

The Center endeavors to:

* Develop undergraduates' potential for leadership;
* Support high quality research on policy-related topics;
* Encourage experiential learning in the policy realm;
* Foster campus dialogue about policy issues;
* Stimulate cross-disciplinary approaches to policy problems;
* Promote understanding of policy issues in the community beyond Dartmouth.

The Center pursues these objectives through a variety of programs, including administration of a Minor in Public Policy; an exchange program on political economy at Oxford University's Keble College; financial support for student internships; grants for faculty research and conferences; interdisciplinary faculty seminars and workshops; student leadership development opportunities; extra-curricular student organizations; and lectures and group discussions with distinguished visiting scholars and policymakers.

And "paleskin", who keeps defending this blatantly racist and political "study", is the most racist of all.

OOOHHHH, Sorry, there were two black women, not just one. Sorry, the other "woman of color" was not in the group picutre. You got me there. OOOOOHH you are the smart one. I guess a group of lilly whites and a couple of women of color qualifies as "MULTI" racial. Sounds more bi-racial. But hey, why would I expect this research group to know how to count.

And still the Race Nazi has from the beginning evaded this simple question - why wasn't the "study" done with all kinds of people? Why whites only first?

To repeat:

"Richeson agrees that interpreting the IAT test is problematic, and she wants to make it clear that the findings do not suggest that racial prejudice can be measured using brain scans.

She tells WebMD that the Dartmouth researchers are currently doing similar tests, only this time they are measuring black people's responses to interactions with whites."

Let's be honest, shall we? You are not interested in learning the truth, you would rather shout "NAZI" and type hateful words in place of the researcher's actual comments. I mean, you could ask them in a straightforward and honest manner, but I guess you never thought of that.

But just in case you happen to find the intellectual courage to address the Dartmouth hroup, you can direct your inquiries here:

Jennifer A. Richeson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Dartmouth College
6207 Moore Hall
Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: 603-646-0769
E-mail: jennifer.richeson@dartmouth.edu

Why didn't Richeson the Race Baiter study a mixture of people to begin with?

I fully expect an idiot like you to hem and haw and stutter, and perhaps even to say "ask her", instead of you being intellectually honest and admit the "study" was outright politically racist to begin with.

I repeat
by Leftist hatemonger detector Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2003 at 10:07 PM

"...anybody who claims to be color blind or not to have a racist bone in his or her body is at best pre-racist and has a longer way to go than the rest of us.' -- Roy Blount, Southern writer

You fucked up the page so normally adding a comment goes to that site you copied from. You have to select the add comment up the page before your post, dumbass. ;)

These "clinical research" studies are step one in pushing past the current hate crime laws into complete "thought crime" legislation. And only whitey will ever be found guilty of any thought crimes.

It only demonstrates the institutional stupidity of the race baiters that they do not understadn the diversity of European cultures. There is even a theory out there that claims that blacks can not be racists because they are victims of racism. What bullshit. They don't even understand the back in Mother Africa the indigenous peopels are uncontrollably racist. And that is a historical condition.

As for Europe, I think the Irish have been subject to racism for centuries at the hands of the British and Nordic cultures. The Poles have been subject to horrible racist crimes. Certain regions in Italy have been subject to racism at the hands of other Europeans and other Italians. The Serbs have been subject to and promoters of racism. The French have committed tragic racist crimes of ethnic indifference and are today subject to racism in the sense that they are the butt of everyone's jokes. And the Germany have an exquisitely racist history. So why are these studies completely blind to the multitude of cultural differences that so-called white america possesses?

And even Irving is about to become subject to some racism for his rather interesting gaffe of screwing up the comment link. How'd that happen. Bring back the old IMC software.

Well, I never said I was any good at HTML. I've learned my lesson not to simply copy from a source.

And where's "paleskin" the Race Nazi? You know, the one who came in here solely to attack me for pointing out the study was politically biased? The one who, when realizing it didn't really have a rational response, then resorted to race bating, asking me if I was a member of some supremacist group? The one who obsesses with Thurmond, and ignoring Byrd, who really was a member of the Klan? (Never mind the roots of the Klan is in the Left). Where's that "intellectual" who has nothing but emotionalism to rely on?

Oops, almost forgot - the Director of the NSF is a Clinton holdover. (Somebody remind me this isn't the National Sanitary Foundation, seeing as how the study is a steaming crock of shit).

http://www.nsf.gov/od/

Dr. Rita R. Colwell August, 1998 -present

The positions of Director and Deputy Director are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. NSF's statutory authority establishes a six-year term for the Director.

Well, lo and behold! Those two Klintonites look just a tad too much Caucasian looking for a Race Nazi like "paleskin" to tolerate.

I'm sure it will obsess with this fact, pick itself up and dust off after a monumental bout of "cutting", and regale us with the name of 6 feet under Strom Thurmond at least, oh, say a googolplex amount of times?

Gives new meaning to beating a dead horse, eh? Isn't there a law against such abuse of the dead?

Aren't we the lucky ones? "paleskin/Sam/durutti" once again blesses us with trying to alter the gist of the thread, that Leftists are blatantly racist, that the "study" is a farce, that it was approved and funded by Clinton holdovers.

Since "paleskin/Sam/durutti" doesn't have anything of value to add to the discussion, (other than it's obsessions with Thurmond, grande entertainment value, to be sure), now it drags out the trite, the moribund, the stale, the banal, the hackneyed, the clich�. One of the oldest and most boring plays in the Leftist pop psychology handbook is to claim that someone is a latent this and that.

Poor little "paleskin/Sam/durutti" has been relegated to posting the stereotypical Leftist tactic.

...A civil-rights ordinance in Philadelphia was passed in 1982 that prohibits discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity...

Other Pennsylvania cities, including PITTSBURGH, Allentown, Lancaster and Harrisburg, have similar ordinances. But there is no protection at the state level.

"This means two of 67 counties have basic civil-rights protections with a smattering of several cities," Addessa said.

"Outside those cities," Gross said, "someone can tell a gay man he can't be served at a restaurant, he doesn't want to rent to him or hire him, and there's NOTHING anyone can do."

So what's your point this time, Leftist racist?

I don't like homosexuals. I am biased against them. Life itself is biased against them, which is why there's male and female to continue the species.

Used to be the homosexists kept to themselves. We knew what Liberace was, or Paul Lynde, or Billy deWolfe, or Agnes Moorehead. We heard the rumors about Rock Hudson. We snickered and went on about our business, because they didn't affect us and they didn't try.

But now they're militant, and in broad daylight going after our children. And they're even so incredibly mentally disturbed that they want to catch AIDS, to wear it like a badge of honor, as if it'll give some sort of meaning to their sordid lives.

Homosexists think they can do whatever they damn well please with no repercussions.

Cry "homophobe" all you want, Little Precious�. It changes nothing. Leftists are dangerous to humanity, and somebody has to call your kind for what it is.

You're goddamned right I discriminate. Leftists use that word "discrimination" as a means of tearing down the very fabric of society. How about I want to steal from you? How about I want to kill you? Is it okay that I say you're discriminating against me, against my beliefs, against my "lifestyle choice"? How about I choose murder as a lifestyle choice? Seems downright logical to me, seeing as how bug chasers are elevated into Sainthood.

The word 'choice" reminds me of something - you Leftists are genocidal. You don't even respect life in the womb. Yet you want respect for bug chasers? Yeah, we know - when it comes to abortion you say shit like "they're not really people". So I'm gonna adopt Leftist logic and inclusiveness.

Homosexuals ain't really people either.

I don't think you surprised anyone by confessing to be prejudiced. By the way, you never did tell us which white power organization do you belong to?

I have another question for "paleskin" :

Since you're a Leftist, and seeing as how Richeson is your Golden Calf, answer this for me - how important was Richeson in the womb?

Was Richeson such a Golden....ahem Calf in the womb?

Can I murder you? Will you discriminate against my wishes? If so, you are biased too.

Please, tell me you're as pure as the driven snow, that there's not a biased molecule in your body.

Make us all laugh until we piss our pants.

Proof that bigotry and stupidity are linked

A new study by a multiracial group of Dartmouth College researchers (published in the journal Nature Neuroscience) has found that bias toward people of another race, or people who are "different" can drain mental function and make people dumber.

You never had a case, Race Nazi. All you could do was obsess with Strom Thurmond, because you couldn't or wouldn't address the fact the "study" was racially motivated.

Why not demonize Richeson? Why does her shitty scientific method get a pass? Because she's black? Then that makes you a racist! To you, honesty in science is secondary to promoting a racist Agenda.

You have steadfastly shown that truth and honesty in the pursuit of knowledge takes a back seat to Leftist Nazi Racism.

In exchange for lives being spared, was a deal made with Hitler to apply his policies to the non-chosen?

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/diversityisracism.shtml

Jan. 14, 2003

The Racism of "Diversity"

The notion of "diversity" entails exactly the same premises as racism�that one's ideas are determined by one's race and that the source of an individual's identity is his ethnic heritage.

By Peter Schwartz

President Bush faces an ideal opportunity to take a principled position on the issue of racial "diversity." As his administration ponders whether to support the legal challenge, now before the Supreme Court, to the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies, he should go further and raise a moral challenge to the entire notion of "diversity." Instead of timidly wavering on this question, in fear of being smeared by Democrats as racist, President Bush should rise to the occasion by categorically repudiating racism�and condemning "diversity" as its crudest manifestation.

It is now widely accepted that "diversity" is an appropriate goal for society. But what does this dictum actually mean? Racial integration is a valid objective, but that is something very different from what the advocates of "diversity" seek. According to its proponents, we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of minorities," as the MIT Faculty Newsletter puts it. "It is the only way to prepare students to live and work effectively in our diverse democracy and in the global economy," says the president of the University of Michigan. Minorities should be given preferential treatment, the university's vice president says, because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students, minority and majority alike."

These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines the content of one's mind. They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity, and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas," "Hispanic ideas," etc. What could be more repulsively racist than that? This is exactly the premise held by the South's slave-owners and by the Nazis' Storm Troopers. They too believed that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by his racial heritage.

Whether a given race receives special rewards or special punishments is immaterial. The essence of racism is the idea that the individual is meaningless and that membership in the collective�the race�is the source of his identity and value. To the racist, the individual's moral and intellectual character is the product, not of his own choices, but of the genes he shares with all others of his race. To the racist, the particular members of a given race are interchangeable.

The advocates of "diversity" similarly believe that colleges must admit not individuals, but "representatives" of various races. They believe that those representatives have certain ideas innately imprinted on their minds, and that giving preferences to minority races creates a "diversity" of viewpoints on campus. They have the quota-mentality, which holds that in judging someone, the salient fact is the racial collective to which he belongs.

This philosophy is why racial division is growing at our colleges. The segregated dormitories, the segregated cafeterias, the segregated fraternities�these all exist, not in spite of the commitment to "diversity," but because of it. The overriding message of "diversity," transmitted by the policies of a school's administration and by the teachings of a school's professors, is that the individual is defined by his race. What, then, is a more loyal adherence to that message than the desire to associate with members of one's own race and to regard others as belonging to an alien tribe?

If racism is to be rejected, it is the premise of individualism, including individual free will, that must be upheld. There is no way to bring about racial integration except by completely disregarding color. There is no benefit in being exposed to the thoughts of a black person as opposed to a white person; there is a benefit only in interacting with individuals, of any race, who have rational viewpoints to offer.

"Diversity," in any realm, has no value in and of itself. Investors can be urged to diversify their holdings�but for the sake of minimizing their financial risk, not for the sake of "diversity" as such. To maintain that "diversity" per se is desirable�that "too much" of one thing is objectionable�is ludicrous. Does unimpaired health need to be "diversified" with bouts of illness? Or knowledge with ignorance? Or sanity with lunacy?

The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies entirely in the individualism this implies. A racially integrated group implies that skin color is irrelevant in judging human beings. It implies that those who chose the students or the workers based their evaluations only on that which reflects upon the individual: merit. But that is not what the advocates of "diversity" want. They sneer at the principle of "color-blindness." Whether the issue is being admitted to college or getting a job at a corporation or being cast as an actor on TV shows, the "diversity" supporters want such decisions to be made exactly the way that the vilest of racists make them: by bloodline. They insist that whatever is a result of your own choices�your ideas, your character, your accomplishments�is to be dismissed, while that which is outside your control�the accident of skin color�is to define your life. Their fundamental goal is to "diversify"�and thus to undercut�the standard of individual achievement with the non-standard of race.

As a result of their efforts, the creed of "diversity" is metastasizing. There are now demands for "linguistic diversity," under which English teachers grant equal validity to ungrammatical writing�for "diversity" in beauty pageants, under which the unattractive are not discriminated against�for "diversity" in oratory contests, under which mutes are not excluded. These egalitarian crusaders for "diversity" seek to wipe out a standard of value as such. They want to negate genuine, life-serving values by claiming that non-values must be given equal status.

Is this the philosophy that will "prepare students to live and work effectively"?

Racial "diversity" is a doctrine that splits people into ethnic tribes, which then battle one another for special favors. If President Bush is eager to demonstrate his disagreement with the racist views of a Strom Thurmond, let him stand up and denounce all forms of racism�particularly, the one that underlies "diversity."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5124

The Diversity Fraud
By Bruce S. Thornton
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 17, 2002

Thanks to the efforts of the Center for Individual Rights, the Supreme Court this term will hear the legal challenges to the University of Michigan�s law school admission practices, which allow consideration of an applicant�s race in order to promote �diversity� among the school�s population. If the Supreme Court decides the case as it should, there is finally a real chance that the institutionalized racism and discrimination of Affirmative Action programs will be dismantled.

The decision will turn on an examination of the idea of �diversity,� the conceptual sleight-of-hand with which Justice Powell, in the 1978 Bakke case, rationalized the continuing use of race in college admissions even as he was compelled to acknowledge that most affirmative action programs at that time were simply naked quota systems in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act. Powell argued that only a �compelling state interest� could justify exceptions to the Civil Rights Act�s ban on discrimination by race, and that �diversity� and its presumed boons indeed was such a �state interest.�

Ever since it has been given the Supreme Court�s imprimatur, �diversity� has become almost a religious doctrine in universities and colleges, an article of faith accepted without any discussion or analysis of the idea, a mantra chanted whether the issue be admissions, hiring, or curriculum. In actual fact, this �diversity� is a dishonest and incoherent concept, masking an ideologically skewed interpretation of history in which the wicked white man has oppressed and excluded the dark �other.�

Proponents of diversity hide this ideologically noxious idea by using the old-fashioned bait-and-switch. Don�t worry, they soothe us. Their diversity is just about acknowledging and respecting the cultural differences that make up the wonderful mosaic of American society. But this issue of respecting the various cultures of America is nothing new. At the beginning of this century, the vast influx of immigrants from Slavic countries and the southern Mediterranean sharpened the conflict between what was then called �pluralism� and �assimilation.�

Nor were melting-pot assimilationists the only point of view heard. Pluralists at that time made the same argument the diversity folks make today, as can be seen in this statement from 1937: �No one culture contains all favorable elements, but each group that makes up the total American population has unique values, and . . . the nation will be richer and finer in its cultural make-up if it, the country, conserves the best that each group has brought.� The writer goes on to argue that �the fundamentals of their heritages be preserved for generations.�

For most of this century, then, there were those who argued against completely assimilating away cultural differences that they recognized were intrinsically valuable. But if the call to acknowledge and �respect cultural differences� is nothing new, then what really characterizes current �diversity� doctrine? Quite simply, the old identity-politics melodrama of white Western oppression, as can be seen when one considers the various contradictions and incoherent assumptions of diversity as it is actually practiced.

Real diversity is enormous in its variety, encompassing scores of ethnic groups, economic strata, regions, political views, and religions, to name a few, not to mention the various possible combinations of these categories. A poor, Catholic, Mexican-Indian immigrant farm worker, for example, has an identity quite different from that of a middle-class, suburban 3rd-generation mestizo Mexican-American. The fact that at a superficial level both can be labeled �Hispanic� doesn�t tell us anything about what each can specifically do to foster campus �diversity.� After all, the middle-class Mexican-American will probably have more in common with a middle-class white kid than with the Indian immigrant. Yet in the university, the second �Hispanic� applicant will be courted and presumed to offer more �diversity� than a poor rural white kid who probably resembles in many respects the Indian farm worker.

Here is the illogic of most universities� idea of �diversity�: it functions in terms of stereotypical, simplistic race-based categories that ignore all the other ways in which people are diverse, all the other benefits of those particular �diversities� that could enrich the university. Certainly most universities today, dogmatically secular and thoroughly materialist, could use the diversity that more religious believers could bring. And given that faculties overwhelmingly comprise liberal Democrats, a concern with genuine diversity surely would mean active recruitment of conservative Republican students and faculties. But I doubt the admissions officers at Harvard worry about having too few Christians or Republicans and thus missing out on their diverse perspectives. And the surest way for a candidate for a job in higher education to lose the position is to let slip any idea or belief even remotely conservative.

Moreover, of all the various categories of diversity, whether ethnic, economic, political, or religious, most universities are really interested in only a few, those minorities that the Civil Rights industry recognizes: Hispanic, black, Asian, and occasionally any Third-World �person of color.� It doesn�t hurt that these are also the groups with organized vocal lobbies adept at putting together telegenic demonstrations whenever an administrator does something they don�t like. Less politically connected groups, however, simply don�t count. Armenians were subjected to genocide in Turkey and discriminated against in California for decades, but they�re not considered to be as �diverse� as a black dentist�s son who grew up in the suburbs. Many other ethnic groups, such as Portuguese, Italians, Russians, or Poles, are lumped together into the meaningless category �white� and thus are deemed irrelevant for increasing campus diversity.

This brings us to the real basis for defining diversity: not the actual variety of Americans in terms of culture, religion, politics, or region, but participation in the exclusive club of anointed victims of white oppression. The black, the Hispanic, the Asian student�� all deemed to be victims of racist oppression no matter what their economic advantages or other differences�� are all courted in order to bring their experiences of oppression to the privileged enclaves of academe, where they can school teachers and fellow students alike about the crimes of white folks and their exclusionary prejudices. In other words, most academic �diversity� is really about white guilt and minority payback, a way for affluent educators to compensate for their privilege by bestowing noblesse oblige on token representatives of the oppressed minority �other� into whose neighborhoods the professor or admissions officer has no intention of venturing for five seconds.

The solution to the problems of diversity, however, cannot be solved simply by enlarging the number of privileged categories, as many schools have done in recent years. Such tinkering will merely obscure the most important objection to such superficial categorizing of people: that as far as a university is concerned, the only diversity that should be important is the diversity of individual minds.

http://www.adversity.net/Kodak/04_intolerance.htm

Kodak Raises Intolerance to a New Level

The two news accounts below clearly portray the clash between a conservative Christian Kodak employee's closely held beliefs, and Kodak's wide-open "support any non-white, non-hetero, non-male" diversity regime.

The case of Rolf Szabo vs. Kodak superficially involves an employee's polite objection to Kodak's enthusiastic promotion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered lifestyles in the workplace.

At a deeper level, however, Szabo vs. Kodak clearly depicts Kodak's totalitarian suppression (NOT inclusion) of all things which are conservative, Caucasian, male, heterosexual, European, and Christian.

Adversity.Net has excerpted two excellent reports about the Rolf Szabo vs. Kodak incident, below. WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag both present valuable insights into the Kodaquota Culture of Exclusion

Diversity of Opinion NOT Allowed
Part I
Based in part on the Joe Kovacs article "Kodak fires man over 'gay' stance"
in WorldNetDaily.com Oct. 24, 2002

Street entrance at Kodak Park manufacturing site Rolf Szabo has worked as a millwright for Kodak for 23 years.
He is straight, white, male and a conservative Christian.

He is also over 40 years old. Can you say endangered species?

Rolf Szabo was fired for politely objecting to a Kodak memo promoting a gay and lesbian "Coming Out Day" at Kodak's Rochester, NY headquarters.

Kodak calls their program for imposing politically correct thought upon its employees their "Winning & Inclusive Culture" program. The alleged purpose is to foster a certain type of diversity in the Kodak workplace. As you will see, Kodak's "Winning & Inclusive Culture" program does not tolerate diversity of opinions or viewpoints.

Immediately below is the emailed memo from Kodak to which Mr. Szabo objected in the politest terms.

Text of Kodak Memo, re: "Coming Out Day"

Today, Oct. 11, is the Human Rights Campaign's 15th annual National Coming Out Day for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered. If one of your employees elects to "come out" at work, there are several things you can do to help that person feel comfortable in sharing his/her orientation in the workplace:

Be supportive of the individual who wishes to share this information.
Acknowledge his/her courage to publicly share this personal information.
Respect the individual's privacy. Understand how broadly he/she wishes the information to be shared.
Acknowledge your level of awareness of this topic, and share your personal willingness to understand.
What can supervisors do in the work environment to support their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered employees who wish to be "out" to their supervisor or co-workers?

Be sensitive to the employee's language in defining their personal orientation.
Support the employee in displaying appropriate personal photos in the work setting.
Recognize and respect that not all (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) employees find it OK to be out at work. They should not be questioned or harassed about their sexual orientation.
Act quickly and responsibly if any anti-gay humor or negative comments are made in the workplace.
[Referring to the last two bullets, above, the memo continues]:

Keep in mind that such behaviors violate Kodak's Values as well as Kodak's Equal Opportunity Employment Policy, which all supervisors are responsible for maintaining in their areas. Specific examples are cited in your "Call to Action" training materials. Reported violations of this policy are to be thoroughly investigated. If verified, disciplinary action is to be taken.

Since the Kodak memo had been emailed, and since it included all the recipients' email addresses, Mr. Szabo was able to immediately send an emailed reply to all recipients (over 1,000 employees). Mr. Szabo's memo was short, direct, and inoffensive:

Text of employee Ralph Szabo's emailed response:

"Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you."

-- Rolf Szabo

Szabo didn't use any anti-gay epithets or slurs. Many, many Americans share Mr. Szabo's distaste for the particular lifestyle that Kodak was promoting. Many others don't. But there isn't room at Kodak for people who don't approve of these lifestyles.

According to the WorldNetDaily report, Kodak manager Randy Bakel quickly responded by sending another email to all the recipients in which he let it be known officially that Mr. Szabo was not getting with the "Winning & Inclusive" spirit of things, and that Kodak did not support Mr. Szabo's right to a different viewpoint:

Text of Kodak manager Randy Bakel's memo
apologizing for Szabo's "insensitive" remarks:

As you all know, our strategic thrust to build a Winning & Inclusive Culture drives us to behave in ways that value everyone regardless of differences. While I understand that we are all free to have our own personal beliefs, when we come to the Kodak workplace, our behaviors must align with the Kodak Values.

I apologize for the e-mail sent to all of you from Rolf Szabo this morning. Rolf's comments are hurtful to our employees, friends and family members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. This behavior is not aligned with the Kodak Values and, therefore, is not acceptable.

Being a "Winning & Inclusive" kind of place, Kodak just happened to have a contingency plan in place for dealing with dissidents such as Rolf Szabo.

Kodak Park offices and manufacturing facilities Kodak has a nifty little device they call an Employee Commitment Plan -- ECP in Kodak-speak -- under which employees who exhibit such troubling diversity of thought are required to state, in writing, (a) that they are sorry; (b) they won't do it again; and (c) that they will essentially submit to Kodak's political re-education camp in order to eliminate their improper thoughts and attitudes.
Kodak informed Mr. Szabo that if he didn't sign an Employee Commitment Plan he would be fired. Szabo refused to sign. He was fired.

According to WorldNetDaily's account, Mr. Szabo said "I would not submit and cave in to their trying to browbeat me into a confession."

Also according to WordNetDaily's account, Jim Blamphin, Kodak media relations manager, said: "The whole thing is true. This chap was asked to take part in a program that fosters inclusion, and he refused. ... Every possible definition of diversity is embraced by Kodak. This is a company that does not take these matters lightly."

[See Note 1 for links to the source material.]

[COMMENT: According to some surveys of Americans' attitudes toward homosexuality, anywhere from 20% to 60% of the American population find some aspect of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgendered lifestyles to be objectionable. Under Kodak's "Winning and Inclusive Culture" regime, that means that 20% to 60% of the American workforce is ineligible to work at Kodak. -- Tim Fay, editor]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diversity of Opinion NOT Allowed
Part II
Excerpted from the Ryan O'Donnel article
"Corporate Diversity Scam"
which appeared in FrontPageMag.com Jan. 27, 2003

"Under the guise of "diversity training," the intolerance of the political Left has penetrated corporate America. ... corporate diversity training has turned the twenty-first century workplace into a war zone.

"Despite their stated purpose, corporate "diversity" departments have demonstrated a fundamental lack of tolerance for any diversity in employee thought and have made basic decency in the workplace a matter of swallowing political correctness.

"This attitude of ideological intolerance reveals the most fundamentally frightening element of such diversity workshops: any opinion expressed that conflicts with the workshop teachings is inherently invalid and indicates "confusion," an unfortunate condition that requires further, more drastic indoctrination techniques. ...

"Back to the diversity programs: after any "confused" employees are identified, the diversity facilitator launches a multi-faceted assault designed to force the resisting individuals to conform. Tactics range from group pressure, in which the facilitator encourages politically-correct employees to pressure non-conformist co-workers into accepting the consensus view, to isolation in which the dissenting individual is ostracized from the group. ...

"Forbes Magazine reports that U.S companies spend as much as ten billion dollars per year on corporate diversity training. ...

"Has this vast industry improved conditions in the workplace? All signs say no. Harassment and discrimination complaints continue to skyrocket and workplace tensions increase. ... Worse, corporations have been intimidated to the point where an employee's ability to navigate the corporate ladder seems to center around "diversity" characteristics, as opposed to actual ability. This is a threat to the competitiveness of American companies � their Japanese and Chinese competitors certainly don't have to deal with this nonsense in Tokyo and Hong Kong.

"... [D]iscrimination and harassment complaints have risen a whopping 231% since 1991. The spike in corporate sexual harassment and discrimination issues does not stem from increased awareness, as those on the political Left would encourage us to believe. Rather, the same manufactured tension and paranoia that left the workplace susceptible to groupthink indoctrination has naturally led to an increase in harassment and discrimination issues.

"Occasionally a brave individual simply refuses to bend before the pressures employed by corporate diversity departments. On October 11th 2002, the Kodak Corporation, as part of the company's continuing "Winning & Inclusive Culture" campaign, sent out a memo to all employees regarding the Human Rights Campaign's annual "Coming Out Day."

"Among other things, the memo ordered employees to: 'Acknowledge your level of awareness of this topic, and share your personal willingness to understand. Acknowledge his/her courage to publicly share this personal information.'

"One employee, 23-year Kodak veteran and devout Christian Rolf Szabo took offense to the memo and emailed the company the following response: 'Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive.'

"Mr. Szabo's right to express his religious beliefs in the workplace is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. The "sex" mentioned in Title VII refers to gender based discrimination against a person. It contains no legal reference to homosexuality.

"However, the corporate thought-police have little use for Federal Statutes. Szabo was immediately reprimanded by his supervisor, who informed the entire company that, "our behaviors must align to the Kodak values [as outlined in the Winning and Inclusive Culture] campaign."

"Szabo was then asked to sign an employee commitment plan stating he regretted what he had written and outlining steps to prevent a similar incident from reoccurring. When Szabo refused to reconcile his Catholic faith with Kodak's Winning and Inclusive Program, he was fired.

"What is truly terrifying about the Szabo - Kodak incident is that Szabo was fired not because he violated any law or statute, but because he rejected the groupthink mentality demanded by Kodak. No longer is job performance or company loyalty sufficient for continued employment; an employee's core beliefs must now conform to a Leftist political agenda."

[See Note 2 for links to the source material.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes, References and Links:

Note 1-- Last known link(s) to the WorldNetDaily report:
Original:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29394
Copy of article:
http://www.dittohead.org/kodak_fires_over_gay_stance.%20html (some browsers may have trouble with this tag)

See also cached Google Link to same story:
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:GiYvuAjLiS4J:
http://www.dittohead.org/kodak_fires_over_gay_stance.
%2520html+kodak+diversity&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
[Return]
Note 2 -- Last known link to the FrontPageMag.com report:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5753

http://www.austinreview.com/articles/2003_04/diversity.htm

April 29, 2003

Diversity: By the Numbers
By STUART H. HURLBERT

Much of the rhetoric over racial preferences and their consequences for "diversity" lacks clarity for the simple reason that "diversity" is never clearly defined.

Some discussions of university admissions seem to consider "diversity" to be synonymous with "total percentage of admittees that is from 'underrepresented' minority groups." But that would hardly seem a good index of diversity, unless, for example, we are going to rate the student bodies of the historically black colleges in the Deep South as the most "diverse" in the nation.

There is no need to tolerate this vagueness and confusion. Quantification of the concept may be helpful in refining our questions and arguments and objectives.

Definition of Racial Diversity

Species diversity is a concept that has been quantified in various ways by biologists for the better part of a century, and the indices that have been developed are relevant to our issue.

One of the simplest and easiest to understand is what I called probability of interspecific encounter in a 1971 review paper (S. Hurlbert, 1971, The non-concept of species diversity, Ecology 52:577-586). For the present context we can call it the probability of interracial encounter (P.I.E.).

Consider students of R different races moving around at random, bumping into each other. One good intuitive measure of diversity is the probability that a given encounter involves two individuals of different races, rather than two individuals of the same race.Another good intuitive measure is the probability that, if you pick two students at random from the student body, they belong to different races.

These two measures are identical, and are calculated as: D = 1 - . P(i) �P(i), where P(i) is the proportion of students in race i, where i = 1,2,3,4,5. This is 1.0 minus the summation over all races of the squares of their respective proportions.

The measure can assume values between 0 (all individuals in same race) to D(max) = (1 - 1/R), or 0.80 if all 5 races are equally numerous in the student body.

The value of quantifying diversity in some simple, intuitively understandable way such as this is that it allows the misleading language to be recognized as such and critical issues to be framed in a more logical manner.

As this index has long been used in ecology for quantifying diversity in scientific, non-political, non-ideological contexts, it should have good standing among all parties in the present context.

Applying the Index

University of California admissions data, pre- and post-209 implementation, would be an appropriate data set to use here. But not having it at hand, let me just use two hypothetical data sets.

Larry Purdy tells me that the U.Michigan law school has claimed that "under-represented minorities" would drop from 14.5 percent to 4.5 percent of admittees without use of racial preferences, though he doubts the accuracy of the claim. Regardless, below are two sets of racial data for two sets of imaginary U.Michigan law school admittees, one group selected using preferences and the other selected without them.

Wh As Hi Bl NA Div.
W/O .80 .15 .02 .02 .01 0.34
With .72 .13 .08 .05 .02 0.46

Using this definition of diversity, we have shown that diversity is increased by 36% (= 100 x .12/.34) by use of preferences in the selection process in this hypothetical example.

One can label this increase as one pleases-small, large, or intermediate!

However, if diversity were to be maximized (D = 0.80)-as language of those favoring preferences often implies is the goal-then race-weighting in the evaluation process would have to produce a 135% increase in diversity over that yielded by a process that did not utilize preferences.

Misleading Language

The language that has unremittingly been used by the Michigan administration and its supporters of racial preferences talks as if diversity would be zero in the absence of preferences. They then go on to analyses that argue, in essence, that some diversity is better than zero. Duh!

Here are just a few quotes from a document "The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education", that is under "Information on Admissions Lawsuits", on the University of Michigan website:

1) See title itself!!

2) p.3: "education that takes place in a racially diverse setting is qualitatively different-as it turns out, better-from education that is undertaken in the absence of that diversity."

3) p.4: "the need for diversity in legal education is also pronounced."

4) p.6: "Professor Gurin's report provides conclusive proof that a racially and ethnically diverse university student body has far-ranging and significant benefits for all students."

Further promotion of this deceptive, all-or-none language is found in the op-ed piece by former U. Michigan president Lee Bollinger in the January 27 issue of Newsweek.

Reframing Some Issues

Perhaps the following matters should be emphasized:

1) The language of U. Michigan documents is consistently misleading in implying preferences are needed to produce diversity; there will be diversity in the absence of any use of racial preferences. One must ask whether or not this deception is intentional.

2) Analyses, such as that by Gurin, that purport to demonstrate the value of racial diversity are irrelevant because they address the wrong question.

The relevant question for those advocating preferences is whether the increment in diversity achieved by use of preferences has been demonstrated to have any positive value, let alone a value sufficient to counterbalance the negatives of racial discrimination against whites and Asians and of demeaning the status of minority students who got in under their own steam.

The question is NOT, Michigan spinners notwithstanding, whether students are better off in a university where D = 0.46 or one where D = 0.00. Universities where D = 0.0 do not exist.

The methodological and logical flaws in Gurin that Wood and Sherman have nicely documented are a separate matter, but also argue for dismissal of Gurin's report as nonsense.

3) There is no evidence that racial preferences leads to greater intellectual or viewpoint diversity on campuses. Indeed it can lead to less of this, and our index could, in principle, be used to document the fact.

If we classified students not only by race (5 types), sex (2 types), political beliefs (lets say, 6 types), and religious preference (lets, say 8 groups), then we now have 480 different "kinds" of students. We can now calculate a D value based on the proportion of students in each of those 480 categories.

Use of discriminatory preferences along only one of these dimensions now will have only a small impact on D, and it may well be negative with respect to diversity along any other dimension.

For example, women in general are "overrepresented" on university campuses these days. If we give preference to black applicants, that will cause further "overrepresentation" of women, because the university eligibility rates are much higher for black women than for black men.

Likewise, political "diversity" suffers if a university already strongly dominated by the political left, gives preferences to applicants from any group composed predominantly of persons on the political left.

There really is nothing new here conceptually.

"Celebrate Diversity" is as stupid a mantra as the human race has ever come up with. It certainly has nothing to do with honesty, respect, civility, integration, and equal opportunity.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/apr02/02-04-03.shtml

The Dangers and Frauds of Diversity

April 3, 2002

The INS didn't learn any lessons from its embarrassing approval of student visas for the two dead terrorists who flew the planes into the World Trade towers on September 11. The INS fouled up again when it granted "shore leave visa waivers" in Norfolk to four Pakistani crewmen who immediately disappeared and can't be found.
INS Commissioner James Ziglar now says, "The days of looking the other way are over." But why weren't they over by sundown on 9/11?

We are not reassured by the excuse that the INS lacks a computerized visa system, or by the reassignment of several low-level bureaucrats for "mistakes." The situation must be really serious when even Dan Rather gave a top-of-the-news slot last week to Attorney General John Ashcroft saying he can't find more than 1,000 illegal aliens he is trying to question.

The General Accounting Office reported on February 15 that immigration fraud is now so great that it "threatens the integrity of the legal immigration system," and that fraud in the process is "pervasive and significant." The GAO predicted that immigration fraud "will increase as smugglers and other criminal enterprises use fraud as another means of bringing illegal aliens, including criminal aliens, into the country."

The Bush Administration has yet to clamp down on the promiscuous issuance of student visas, even from countries that sponsor terrorism. The most visible sign of "homeland security" is the harassment of old ladies who travel on planes; I've had to remove my high-heeled shoes for intensive inspection five times since 9/11.

The elite colleges and universities lobby aggressively against clamping down on student visas because the foreign students are so profitable. They swell the numbers of graduate students who then bolster the universities' applications for federal handouts for "research." For example, Boston University now has 5,240 foreign students, researchers or professors.

It's a well-kept secret how much money the elite colleges receive outright from the federal government, in addition to billions of dollars in all sorts of student financial aid. Here is a sampling of the latest available annual figures: Johns Hopkins $793 million, Stanford $391 million, Harvard $349 million, Washington University (St. Louis) $347 million, MIT $301 million, Yale $300 million, Emory $248 million, Cornell $247 million, Duke $218 million, and Northwestern $204 million.

At least 40 percent of foreign students in the United States currently receive financial aid, and major colleges recently announced that they will substantially increase aid to foreign students. Think about that when the students in your family are going into debt because of exorbitant tuition rates.

Foreign students on untracked visas fit right in with the prevailing college ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity. As enforced by the campus thought police, multiculturalism means that all cultures (except our Western Judeo-Christian civilization) are equally good, and diversity means preferring immigrants from non-Western countries.

For example, the 1990 immigration law includes the Ted Kennedy- sponsored Diversity Immigrant Lottery. This lottery brings in immigrants who are 95 per cent from non-Western countries (England is not eligible), including all the nations listed as state sponsors of international terrorism (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea and Sudan).

The Luntz Research Companies conducted a survey this spring of the opinions of the liberal arts and social science faculty at Ivy League colleges and universities. The results explain the ideological indoctrination rampant on campuses today and prove that the colleges' sanctimonious accolades to diversity are dishonest.

Only 3% identified themselves as Republican, while 57% admitted they are Democrats. Only 6% identified themselves as conservative, while 64% said they are liberal and 23% moderate.

Here is how they voted in the 2000 election: 61% for Al Gore, 5% for Ralph Nader, 6% for George W. Bush, and 28% either did not vote or refused to answer. To the question "who do you think has been the best President in the past 40 years?", 26% chose Bill Clinton, 17% John F. Kennedy, 15% Lyndon Johnson, 13% Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan came in a poor fifth at 4%.

David Horowitz, who commissioned the survey, calls the biased faculty "institutional leftism." He says it is unfair for institutions that receive hundreds of millions of dollars and subsidies from the taxpayers to be so partisan in their hiring practices.

Another example of how pious platitudes about diversity in academia are a fraud is the mandatory student-fee system. At most colleges, this system puts an enormous pot of money (on some campuses up to a million dollars a year) into the hands of student leftists who allocate it mostly to leftwing causes.

The only bright spot on the college front is the federal court decision last year in Fry v. Board of Regents, which held the student- fee system at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in violation of the First Amendment because "it fails to conform to the principle of viewpoint neutrality in allocating fees." The University was enjoined from compelling students to pay those portions of student fees that fund expressive activities to which they object.

Phyllis Schlafly column 4-03-02

The Intellectual Errors and Political Dangers of Multiculturalism
Comments prepared for a debate sponsored by the Cosmopolitan Club, Santa Barbara CA
By Tom Krannawitter
Posted February 7, 2003

Let me begin by thanking Marcus Crahan and the Cosmopolitan Club for inviting me here to speak here in lovely Santa Barbara. (After my wife and I married in 1997, we honeymooned here in Santa Barbara at a wonderful hotel, the Montecito Inn, and I welcome any opportunity to come back.) I would also like to thank my interlocutor, Ms. Saveeni Kahn-Marcus of the University of California Santa Barbara's Multicultural Center, for agreeing to this debate. I come here today in a spirit of charity and gratitude�in the spirit of Aristotle, who once remarked that after all false opinions have been removed, what remains is the truth. It is my hope that my contribution will help reveal something of that truth, and that in turn I will receive the benefit of my own thinking on these subjects becoming clearer.

In the brief time that has been allotted me, I would like to discuss multiculturalism intellectually and politically. First Intellectually. How did multiculturalism become a doctrine so nearly universally accepted by educated elites?

Multiculturalism is on its face the study of many cultures. That there are many and different cultures that exist in our world today, and that have existed throughout human history�and that we might learn something from these cultures�is undeniably true. But multiculturalism represents something much more than that. To see this, we need to step back and recall an older way of understanding, in order to first make clear what multiculturalism is not.

Going back to the roots of the Western philosophic tradition, philosophy, or the search for truth and knowledge, begins with three premises, which are themselves indemonstrable, but which provide the foundation for any and all demonstrable propositions:

1. The first is the common sense notion that man finds himself in a world, a universe, a cosmos, that he did not create, and which he does not command, but of which he is a part.

2. The second is that there is an order to the cosmos of which man is part, evidenced by such common observations as the sun always rising in the East and setting in the West, or the fact that dogs always give birth to puppies, while human beings always give birth to babies, and there is never a mix up.

3. The third premise is that man by nature is rational, that the human mind is free to observe, think, and discover truths about the universe in which he lives�that man experiences himself as possessing the freedom to contemplate evidence presented to his intellect, and judge for himself what is more or less likely to be true.

These premises are the beginning point of philosophy, providing an objective standard of truth and falsity, right and wrong, because it is a standard that exists apart from the will of man. In fact, far being a product of human will, according to the classics, the natural standards of truth and right ought to guide human will, and human investigation.

This is a very general sketch of classical Western moral and political thought, though I should emphasize that while this body of thought is a feature of the West, or Western civilization, it never understood itself as Western; it assumed the possibility of discovering objective truths that transcend, and therefore are not bound by, place or time, because it assumed nature to be universal and unchanging.

For the past several hundred years, however, Western philosophy has been in a state of self-destruction. Certain modern thinkers zeroed in on the fact that the premises of philosophy are indemonstrable�that man cannot freely prove the cause of his own freedom; that as soon as man's freedom is understood to be the effect of one or more causes, it is no longer freedom. Thus modern Western philosophy began to deny man's freedom. Instead of searching for objective truth, philosophy has increasingly become a search for the causes of human thought and behavior, whether they are biological (e.g. Darwinism), economic (e.g. Marxism), or psychological (e.g. Freudianism). Though they disagree on the precise causes, these modern doctrines agree on the basic premise that human thought is nothing but an effect, and that there is no truth to be discovered by the human mind.

Multiculturalism is an offshoot of modern anthropology, itself a product of this self-destruction of Western philosophy. Anthropology, and ultimately multiculturalism, find their home in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an 18th Century thinker and writer who openly rejected the foundation of classic thought, and whose influence continues to dominate the humanities departments of most colleges and universities.

Rousseau posited that man by nature is not rational. Prior to political life, in what Rousseau called the "state of nature," men were solitary beings, having little or no interaction with one another. Therefore, argued Rousseau, pre-political, solitary man lacked language, because he had no need for language; and if man did not possess language, he could not possess reason. For Rousseau, man by nature is not altogether different than any of the irrational beasts. Man began to speak, and therefore think, by some chance natural catastrophe, such as an earthquake or volcano, that brought men together and forced them to interact with one another. From Rousseau's premise, the very nature of language, and the elements of human thought, reflect nothing but the environmental and cultural forces that produced them. All human language and human thought�moral, political, and religious�are the varying and purposeless effects of varying and purposeless physical causes.

Upon Rousseau's theoretical hypothesis�and I emphasize here that his theory was nothing more than hypothesis, though Darwin and his epigones have worked tirelessly, if in vain, to provide physical evidence of Rousseau's theory�arose the modern discipline of anthropology, the academic study of human cultures. From the anthropological point of view, it makes little sense to speak of reason as a fundamental faculty that distinguishes humans from non-human beings. Rather, reason becomes one of the many customs or habits of particular peoples living together in particular places at particular times. Instead of pursuing the truth about man and how he ought to live, anthropology, and its multicultural disciples, assume that reason is incapable of telling us how man ought to live, because reason itself is but an invention of different cultures. As evidence they trot out various examples of the many disagreements between different cultures about basic moral and political questions. From this multiplicity of perspectives, they conclude, there is no objective ground upon which we might judge or rank the many cultures of the earth�the "values" of each culture are equally valid compared to the values of any other culture.

This is the intellectual basis of multiculturalism, and its emphasis on "diversity" and "non-judgmentalism." As there are many interpretations of right and wrong, the only thing we can know is truly wrong is the belief that we can know true right from true wrong. It means, therefore, it is wrong to think we can objectively distinguish civilized peoples from barbarous peoples. To the degree to which the modern academy rests on modern philosophy, this is the basis for much of what is taught under the name "higher education."

Immediately, however, certain problems arise for the multiculturalist. First is the obvious fact that multiculturalism is a product of one culture, or sub-culture, modern Western philosophy. Consider that nowhere in tribal Africa, or in the Balkans, or among militant Islamists, or in Iraq, or in Communist China or North Korea is there any demand for multicultural "diversity." In short, multiculturalism is, itself, not multicultural.

Second is the fact that multiculturalism, built as it is upon a denial of universal human nature, appeals unwittingly to that classical premise in its focus of study. What, or who, after all, comprises the many cultures it studies and celebrates? Human beings. Were they to reflect on this simple observation, multiculturalists would recognize that Aristotle and the other classics might in fact have much to teach them.

Most problematic is the fact that multiculturalism claims to tell us something true about the human world, yet it is founded upon the denial that objective truth is possible. In its celebration of the diversity of cultural perspectives�and in its denial of any objective or true point of view�multiculturalism becomes just another perspective. That is, on its own ground, multiculturalism cannot defend itself as any more (or less) true than non-multicultural perspectives.

Let us turn to the politics of multiculturalism, and in particular what it means for American politics. Rejecting the waves of modern philosophy crashing down on Europe at the time, the Americans in 1776 attempted something never before attempted: they founded a nation upon a self evident truth, a truth bound up in the "laws of nature and of nature's God." As Abraham Lincoln reminded us at the Gettysburg cemetery, "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That proposition has been the single greatest cause of the rise of American freedom, happiness, and prosperity. The entire American experiment in free government stands or falls by the principle of equality, and whether Americans remain dedicated to the cause of defending it.

But Americans will not defend what they do not believe to be true. Under the influence multiculturalism, increasingly the upper intellectual ranks of Americans have come of the opinion that there is nothing they believe to be true, and they persist in teaching that to our children. Indeed, the most sinister aspect of multiculturalism, politically, is that it teaches American students and citizens to discard their loyalty to the United States, in the name of "diversity," and to abandon anything that smacks of "patriotism."

For a nation such as the United States, one dedicated to the natural rights of man, this is problematic�especially in a time of war. It is from multiculturalists that one hears the resurrected phrase, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Of course, even some multiculturalists winced when those "freedom fighters" crashed airplanes into their cities, murdering their friends and relatives. But not all of them. Today one can still read in the journals of the multiculturalist left, such as the New York Times or The Nation, that America was ultimately to blame for September 11th, and that we should focus our efforts on reaching out to the "others" who live and think differently than do we.

Some multiculturalists try to square patriotism with their multiculturalism by arguing that what unites Americans is our diversity. But the conclusion of this argument is unsustainable. Individual rights, religious and civil liberty, and the rule of law are either good, or they are not; a nation cannot affirm both simultaneously. Put another way, if America stands for everything, it can stand for nothing. As one multiculturalist intellectual extolled in the New Yorker last fall, "the whole meaning of American life is that there is no such thing as the meaning of American life."

Whether he rejects or redefines patriotism, the multiculturalist believes patriotism must be subdued and subordinated to the wider claims of multicultural diversity. One solution is to subject American patriotism to the multi-national, and therefore multicultural, control of international organizations such as the United Nations or the newly formed International Court of Justice. In the rare cases that a multiculturalist will support coercive action against one culture, that action must receive the blessings of the international community, the only source of "multicultural justice," regardless of the (im)moral character of the nations that might comprise the international community. For the American multiculturalist, America is ours, which means it is not the "other," which means American in itself cannot be worth defending.

When thinking about the politics of multiculturalism, we should recall that multiculturalism not only exercises leftist political influence, it is a product of those politics. Some multiculturalists try to defend the advent of the term "multiculturalism" as a new, positive way to speak about "diversity." In some sense this is true. But it was not by chance that the term "multiculturalism" was coined at the same moment, in the mid to late 1980s, when race-based preferences and quotas were coming under increasing public and legal scrutiny.

At that time, the arguments for remedying past discrimination and forcing racial parity in schools and businesses were failing to persuade the American people. Why should Americans of all colors today pay for the sins of some in the past? What do Americans of all colors today owe to the many fallen Americans who gave their last full measure of devotion to make America the free country it is? And who believes that all ethnic groups are equal in preparing their children for college or work? In their desperate search for a new defense of the discriminatory policies of affirmative action, liberals concocted the notion that without race based preferences and quotas, there would be no "diversity" in the classroom and workplace. Multiculturalism was intended to lend academic authority to the racial politics of affirmative action, as multicultural centers and departments began to spring up in colleges and universities around the country. This was the political basis for multiculturalism.

Let us conclude here. Intellectually, multiculturalism is indefensible. As I believe I have shown, it is embarrassingly inconsistent. It is refuted and undermined by its own argument. Politically, multiculturalism is dangerous. Multiculturalism represents nothing less than the political suicide of the West, and in particular the crown jewel of the West, the United States of America. Multiculturalism attempts to undermine the good principles upon which America is built, and it is corrosive of the patriotic spirit that fills the hearts of free men and women. Though it operates much more subtly, multiculturalism is no less a threat to our free institutions than the terrorists who attack our cities with airplanes. It is the test of the American people whether they have the intelligence to identify multiculturalism for the mistake it is, and the resolve to ensure that it does not triumph over this, the last best hope of mankind.

Tom Krannawitter is the Vice President of the Claremont Institute.

Right off Crockett completely ignored the fact the Republicans were the ones who pushed Civil Rights through in 1964. Instead he/she/it tried to slyly slide Johnson's name in there, in order to rope in the stupid and the uneducated and the young.

You posted sewage, more of that rewriting of history by Leftists. I've seen it many times when I put Bull Connor in a search. Amazing how on all those Black History sites and the like they never tell he was a Democrap.

And fuck Fortune 500 companies with no balls, who has let a Race Extortionist like that sewage Jesse Jackson to get by with what he has. And fuck Bush, Ashcroft, and every stinking Republican for letting that Race Nazi get away with what he has. And fuck you Leftist Nazis.

Now, as I remember that Roger O. Crockett was intellectually dishonest and wrote as if the Democraps were always the champeens of Civil Rights, why am I not surprised to see his face? And why do I imagine him as something akin to a propagandist under the tutelage of a Goebbels? (I ask the same about the Town Crier posting all this sewage as well).

Diversity is Evil, and Crockett is a propagandist. And posting something from Fortune Magazine or Business Week changes nothing. Whites and business are selling themselves out. They're abject cowards. They're Race Nazis, and they don't deserve me spending a dime on their products or services. I too can be a Rosa Parks, and boycott those fucks.

And I quote: "Whites and business are selling themselves out" - spoken like a true, blue, white supremacist.

So how goes the KKK membership drive?

Jeez, if you need any proof of this, all you have to do is read the comments on this site.

Jeez, Pittsburg, you should get rid of the comments section.......it's become a cesspool for the Busharon crazies......

Are they bigoted?
YES!

Are they stupid"
again, a rousing: YES!

What possible purpose to allow this site to become a breeding ground of blindlngly stupid, bigoted, hate?

What purpose does it serve, except, possibly to just remind us of what kind of folk are running this country, and supporting people like Sharon:

Nasty, evil, stupid, and cruel.

I suppose that reminder does serve a purpose, but still this comment section stinks

time to flush the toilet, and get this garbage out of IndyMedia........(same as LA did)

"LIBERTARIAN ideals don't work in the real world where white men still hold the reigns of power. Forced diversity is the only answer to white supremacy."

Funny, nobody raised hell when that comment was made several days ago by a non-white SUPREMACIST.

Being overly responsible for others feelings is a hallmark of mental illness. I come first. My survival comes first. Only then can I recognize someone else.

To think otherwise does nothing for the advancement of humanity. Evolution dies.

Stagnation and Death follows the Left wherever it goes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36473

Crying wolf and doing nothing
Posted: January 6, 2004

By Mychal Massie
� 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

As one year ends and we are granted to see another begin, some words of caution and a few thoughts.

A word of caution to pluripotent blacks and the race baiters who would keep them that way: Your specious arguments decrying the black condition are as vacuous and transparent as those of the boy who cried wolf.

In a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup-Poll of the most-admired man and woman in America, three of the top eight were black. One need not be a savant in sociological trends to conclude that 12.7 percent of the population could not of themselves bring this about. Ergo, it means that the so-called majority populi � i.e., white people � had the greater hand in accomplishing such recognition.

Of these three � Secretary of State Colin Powell, billionaire Oprah Winfrey and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice � note that not one of them punts, passes, kicks or dribbles. Missing from the list were the rappers, whiners and those who the liberal media pushes as leaders.

Reasonable minds need not be reminded of this, but, for the others, you should bear in mind that continuing to practice race barbarism in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is tantamount to spitting into the wind and expecting not to get wet.

The poll validates the fact that there is no substitute for hard work, academics and a positive approach. But, alas, I suspect some will continue to gravitate to the baneful, while hating and cursing true role models.

Hatred, resentment and lack of personal accountability never got anyone out of the "hood," but it has imprisoned many who reside there.......

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."

Adolf Hitler
"Mein Kampf" (My Struggle)

I suspect that "paleskin" is a member of the Nation of Islam, a follower of the black supremacist Calypso Louie.

Ride that Mothership, "paleskin". Just don't burn on re-entry.

Here's what happens when Leftist sewage runs the schools.

Where is that freak "paleskin", anyway? It's long past due to ram something up its Nazi ass and break it off.

------------------------------------------

School bans white girl with braids

Jane Perrone Friday March 18, 2005 The Guardian

The parents of a white teenager excluded from class because her braided hair broke school rules, claim the policy discriminates since two black pupils were allowed to have similar hair styles. Olivia Acton, 13, had her hair braided while on holiday in Fuerteventura, one of the Canary Islands, but she was turned away from classes in February because her new look broke her school's code.

Her parents are angry that the headteacher, Allison Crompton, allowed two other pupils, with African-Caribbean heritage, to attend school wearing their hair in braids because of their cultural and ethnic background.

Olivia's father, Michael Acton, said: "Olivia asked why and [the headteacher] replied 'it's not your culture'. Olivia said to her that that was racist. The [school] policy only bans 'extreme' haircuts. How can she discriminate between a white person [with] a haircut like that and a black person? If it's extreme for one, it's extreme for another."

The Actons are now locked in a row with Middleton Technology College, Rochdale. Olivia has been absent from the school since February 18.

Ms Crompton said: "We don't allow any extreme hairstyles at the school. We are a high-achieving school with high standards. We don't allow any street culture into school. If we didn't allow some leeway for their cultural and ethnic background I think it would probably be discriminatory."

The Actons' MP, Jim Dobbin, said he was trying to break the deadlock by asking the governing body to mediate. "I think the parents and Olivia have a genuine complaint."

The school said Olivia could return but only if she stayed on her own in the learning support unit. Her father insisted he would take the case to court. "If it has to go to court for racial discrimination that's what we will do."

Councillor Colin Lambert, Rochdale's education spokesman, said: "The school should concentrate on what goes into the students' heads not what is on their heads."

How many undesireables do you think are living in Kerry's and Kennedy's neighborhoods ? NONE ! Dispute that ya commie bastards.

PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Participate

Proof that bigotry and stupidity are linked

Billboard advertising white supremacist group to remain in Sumter