One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Professor Declares 'Whiteness' A 'Disease'
Page 1 of 2 next>
Nov 23, 2015 10:10:13   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
Preaching h**e in higher education.

I had always looked upon my six-year-old son as a blessing.

But now I realize that he is a disease.

My wife, my parents, my grandparents, and every member of my family, both living and deceased, are likewise a disease.

But if you are reading this right now, and you are white, you should know that your children and all of your loved ones are also a disease.

So implies a University of Colorado education professor, Cherly E. Matias, in the most recent edition of Teaching Education, a peer-reviewed journal.

In “‘Why Do You Make Me H**e Myself?’: Re-teaching Whiteness, Abuse, and Love in Urban Teaching Education,” the author insists that “the racial achievement gap” and other racial disparities are “symptoms” of “the underlying diseases of r****m and Whiteness” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

Matias explains that while the “inclusion of socially just philosophies in the curriculum is indeed essential” in order “to meet the needs of a growing urban populace,” such philosophies “can mask the recycling of normalized, oppressive Whiteness.”

Thus, it is imperative, Matias maintains, to “deconstruct Whiteness, abuse, and love in teacher education.”

The problem, Matias assures us, is that by “denying race during white childhood via a color-blind ideology,” w****s leave “lasting emotional scars, impressions that perpetuate the institutional silencing of race in teacher education.” Urban students of color are made to “endure a r****t educational system and daily racial battle fatigue.”

But the difference between this “r****m” and that faced by students and other “people of color” in the past is that the former is “color-blind r****m.”

The author maintains that “until teacher education programs make confronting and exploring Whiteness a priority, they cannot truly love their urban students of color as complete beings and so deny humanity full and just consideration” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

And it is a disease that w****s spread through their embrace of….color-blindness.

Let this sink in.

Matias is hardly an anomaly in today’s academy. In fact, her thought is quite typical of the hard-left zeitgeist that passes for enlightened thinking among liberal arts and humanities professors at institutions of “higher learning” all over the country (and beyond).

Matias draws on what’s known as “critical race theory” (CRT). Given the heavily politicized nature of the contemporary academy, it should come as no surprise that CRT is a racialized version of Marxism and all of the rage among legions of academics.

Just as Marx and Engels sought to supply a comprehensive vision—an ideology—of the world by explaining (or explaining away) all of history and culture in terms of impersonal economic processes and the relations of “power” that they generate, proponents of CRT as well endorse a similar form of reductionism.

Only here, it is primarily race that serves as the “substructure” of society, and while economics continues to play a vital role in determining asymmetries of “power” between social groups, race and “r****m” are the determining factors.

As such proponents of CRT as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic inform us in the introduction to their Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, CRT differs from more “traditional civil rights” approaches inasmuch as it “questions the very foundations of a liberal order, including e******y theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

To put it more exactly, CRT holds that “r****m is ordinary, not aberrational[.]” It is “the usual way that society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.” Moreover, “r****m” serves the “material” and “psychic” interests of both “white elites” and “working class w****s.”

“R****m” is omnipresent.

Yet it is omnipresent not in the sense that all white individuals are consciously “r****t”; “r****m” is omnipresent in the sense that it is systemic and, hence, largely unconscious.

Another especially noteworthy respect in which CRT reveals both its Marxian impress and its political character is its emphasis on “activism.” Delgado and Stefancic are blunt in expressing their interest in “studying and t***sforming the relationship among race, r****m, and power.”

To repeat what was said above, both parents of college-bound children and taxpayers should know that the Cheryl Matiases and Richard Delgados of the world are not only well-represented in academia; their thought saturates the liberal arts and humanities.

It should also be clear by now that, by design, CRT (not unlike every other department that has been invented for the sake of advancing g****r and racial identity politics) is self-immunized against the very possibility of refutation. And this is because it is meant to preempt argument. Consider: If w****s think as w****s or collectively, then they are guilty of “r****m.” Yet so too are w****s “r****t” if they insist upon judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, i.e. if they endorse a “color-blind ideology.”

No matter what, the game is r****d in advance to convict all w****s of “r****m.”

Proponents of CRT, in their singular (obsessive) focus upon distributions of “power,” betray their end game: It is they who seek power. In fact, they seek a monopoly on power.

This is the objective of all who rely upon “Newspeak.” The great philosopher Roger Scruton explains: “Newspeak occurs whenever the main purpose of language—which is to describe reality—is replaced by the rival purpose of asserting power over it.”

While Newspeak “sentences sound like assertions,” the t***h is that “their underlying logic is the logic of the spell.” Newspeak is talismanic, not persuasive. Its language is meant to blind us to what’s right in front of our faces, to render us oblivious to reality.

Scruton quotes Francoise Thom, who observed that c*******ts used Newspeak “to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.” Ditto with CRT.

Newspeak is notable, Scruton remarks, for its “use of nominalizations instead of direct verbs, the lack of indexicals, the preference for the passive voice and impersonal idioms, the replacement of predications with comparatives, the ubiquitous imperative mood.”

In other words, Newspeak trades in impersonal, highly general abstractions, i.e. “isms.” Critical Race Theory is a textbook illustration of this: The individual is swallowed up, his or her intentions dissolved before the omnipresence of “s******c r****m.”

It is with this, parents, that your children are being inundated. Dear taxpayer, it is for the sake of subsidizing this anti-intellectual drivel that you labor.

But let’s get even more exact: White parents and taxpayers are paying the salaries of faculty and administrators so that the latter can turn around and declare to the next generation that they are a “disease.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260875/professor-declares-whiteness-disease-jack-kerwick

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 10:16:14   #
reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.
 
Hey JMHO I enjoy your post , but after about 1/3 of reading this self hating fool , I decided not to even entertain this mans self loathing rant . I truly think the Universitys across the nation need to clean house .

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 10:16:53   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
reconreb wrote:
Hey JMHO I enjoy your post , but after about 1/3 of reading this self hating fool , I decided not to even entertain this mans self loathing rant . I truly think the Universitys across the nation need to clean house .


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 10:22:48   #
DamnYANKEE
 
reconreb wrote:
Hey JMHO I enjoy your post , but after about 1/3 of reading this self hating fool , I decided not to even entertain this mans self loathing rant . I truly think the Universitys across the nation need to clean house .


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 10:23:18   #
Ve'hoe
 
at 6 yoa,,, they are a blessing,,,

When they turn 14 and begin to eat like locust,,, you will understand what the plague was all about,,,

Eating machines!!


JMHO wrote:
Preaching h**e in higher education.

I had always looked upon my six-year-old son as a blessing.

But now I realize that he is a disease.

My wife, my parents, my grandparents, and every member of my family, both living and deceased, are likewise a disease.

But if you are reading this right now, and you are white, you should know that your children and all of your loved ones are also a disease.

So implies a University of Colorado education professor, Cherly E. Matias, in the most recent edition of Teaching Education, a peer-reviewed journal.

In “‘Why Do You Make Me H**e Myself?’: Re-teaching Whiteness, Abuse, and Love in Urban Teaching Education,” the author insists that “the racial achievement gap” and other racial disparities are “symptoms” of “the underlying diseases of r****m and Whiteness” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

Matias explains that while the “inclusion of socially just philosophies in the curriculum is indeed essential” in order “to meet the needs of a growing urban populace,” such philosophies “can mask the recycling of normalized, oppressive Whiteness.”

Thus, it is imperative, Matias maintains, to “deconstruct Whiteness, abuse, and love in teacher education.”

The problem, Matias assures us, is that by “denying race during white childhood via a color-blind ideology,” w****s leave “lasting emotional scars, impressions that perpetuate the institutional silencing of race in teacher education.” Urban students of color are made to “endure a r****t educational system and daily racial battle fatigue.”

But the difference between this “r****m” and that faced by students and other “people of color” in the past is that the former is “color-blind r****m.”

The author maintains that “until teacher education programs make confronting and exploring Whiteness a priority, they cannot truly love their urban students of color as complete beings and so deny humanity full and just consideration” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

And it is a disease that w****s spread through their embrace of….color-blindness.

Let this sink in.

Matias is hardly an anomaly in today’s academy. In fact, her thought is quite typical of the hard-left zeitgeist that passes for enlightened thinking among liberal arts and humanities professors at institutions of “higher learning” all over the country (and beyond).

Matias draws on what’s known as “critical race theory” (CRT). Given the heavily politicized nature of the contemporary academy, it should come as no surprise that CRT is a racialized version of Marxism and all of the rage among legions of academics.

Just as Marx and Engels sought to supply a comprehensive vision—an ideology—of the world by explaining (or explaining away) all of history and culture in terms of impersonal economic processes and the relations of “power” that they generate, proponents of CRT as well endorse a similar form of reductionism.

Only here, it is primarily race that serves as the “substructure” of society, and while economics continues to play a vital role in determining asymmetries of “power” between social groups, race and “r****m” are the determining factors.

As such proponents of CRT as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic inform us in the introduction to their Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, CRT differs from more “traditional civil rights” approaches inasmuch as it “questions the very foundations of a liberal order, including e******y theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

To put it more exactly, CRT holds that “r****m is ordinary, not aberrational[.]” It is “the usual way that society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.” Moreover, “r****m” serves the “material” and “psychic” interests of both “white elites” and “working class w****s.”

“R****m” is omnipresent.

Yet it is omnipresent not in the sense that all white individuals are consciously “r****t”; “r****m” is omnipresent in the sense that it is systemic and, hence, largely unconscious.

Another especially noteworthy respect in which CRT reveals both its Marxian impress and its political character is its emphasis on “activism.” Delgado and Stefancic are blunt in expressing their interest in “studying and t***sforming the relationship among race, r****m, and power.”

To repeat what was said above, both parents of college-bound children and taxpayers should know that the Cheryl Matiases and Richard Delgados of the world are not only well-represented in academia; their thought saturates the liberal arts and humanities.

It should also be clear by now that, by design, CRT (not unlike every other department that has been invented for the sake of advancing g****r and racial identity politics) is self-immunized against the very possibility of refutation. And this is because it is meant to preempt argument. Consider: If w****s think as w****s or collectively, then they are guilty of “r****m.” Yet so too are w****s “r****t” if they insist upon judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, i.e. if they endorse a “color-blind ideology.”

No matter what, the game is r****d in advance to convict all w****s of “r****m.”

Proponents of CRT, in their singular (obsessive) focus upon distributions of “power,” betray their end game: It is they who seek power. In fact, they seek a monopoly on power.

This is the objective of all who rely upon “Newspeak.” The great philosopher Roger Scruton explains: “Newspeak occurs whenever the main purpose of language—which is to describe reality—is replaced by the rival purpose of asserting power over it.”

While Newspeak “sentences sound like assertions,” the t***h is that “their underlying logic is the logic of the spell.” Newspeak is talismanic, not persuasive. Its language is meant to blind us to what’s right in front of our faces, to render us oblivious to reality.

Scruton quotes Francoise Thom, who observed that c*******ts used Newspeak “to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.” Ditto with CRT.

Newspeak is notable, Scruton remarks, for its “use of nominalizations instead of direct verbs, the lack of indexicals, the preference for the passive voice and impersonal idioms, the replacement of predications with comparatives, the ubiquitous imperative mood.”

In other words, Newspeak trades in impersonal, highly general abstractions, i.e. “isms.” Critical Race Theory is a textbook illustration of this: The individual is swallowed up, his or her intentions dissolved before the omnipresence of “s******c r****m.”

It is with this, parents, that your children are being inundated. Dear taxpayer, it is for the sake of subsidizing this anti-intellectual drivel that you labor.

But let’s get even more exact: White parents and taxpayers are paying the salaries of faculty and administrators so that the latter can turn around and declare to the next generation that they are a “disease.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260875/professor-declares-whiteness-disease-jack-kerwick
b Preaching h**e in higher education. /b br br ... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 10:26:26   #
Ve'hoe
 
If you want to really know what this moron is talking about,,,, and how liberalism is the disease,,,, read this one

The Tears of the White Man: Compassion As Contempt
by Pascal Bruckner





JMHO wrote:
Preaching h**e in higher education.

I had always looked upon my six-year-old son as a blessing.

But now I realize that he is a disease.

My wife, my parents, my grandparents, and every member of my family, both living and deceased, are likewise a disease.

But if you are reading this right now, and you are white, you should know that your children and all of your loved ones are also a disease.

So implies a University of Colorado education professor, Cherly E. Matias, in the most recent edition of Teaching Education, a peer-reviewed journal.

In “‘Why Do You Make Me H**e Myself?’: Re-teaching Whiteness, Abuse, and Love in Urban Teaching Education,” the author insists that “the racial achievement gap” and other racial disparities are “symptoms” of “the underlying diseases of r****m and Whiteness” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

Matias explains that while the “inclusion of socially just philosophies in the curriculum is indeed essential” in order “to meet the needs of a growing urban populace,” such philosophies “can mask the recycling of normalized, oppressive Whiteness.”

Thus, it is imperative, Matias maintains, to “deconstruct Whiteness, abuse, and love in teacher education.”

The problem, Matias assures us, is that by “denying race during white childhood via a color-blind ideology,” w****s leave “lasting emotional scars, impressions that perpetuate the institutional silencing of race in teacher education.” Urban students of color are made to “endure a r****t educational system and daily racial battle fatigue.”

But the difference between this “r****m” and that faced by students and other “people of color” in the past is that the former is “color-blind r****m.”

The author maintains that “until teacher education programs make confronting and exploring Whiteness a priority, they cannot truly love their urban students of color as complete beings and so deny humanity full and just consideration” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

And it is a disease that w****s spread through their embrace of….color-blindness.

Let this sink in.

Matias is hardly an anomaly in today’s academy. In fact, her thought is quite typical of the hard-left zeitgeist that passes for enlightened thinking among liberal arts and humanities professors at institutions of “higher learning” all over the country (and beyond).

Matias draws on what’s known as “critical race theory” (CRT). Given the heavily politicized nature of the contemporary academy, it should come as no surprise that CRT is a racialized version of Marxism and all of the rage among legions of academics.

Just as Marx and Engels sought to supply a comprehensive vision—an ideology—of the world by explaining (or explaining away) all of history and culture in terms of impersonal economic processes and the relations of “power” that they generate, proponents of CRT as well endorse a similar form of reductionism.

Only here, it is primarily race that serves as the “substructure” of society, and while economics continues to play a vital role in determining asymmetries of “power” between social groups, race and “r****m” are the determining factors.

As such proponents of CRT as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic inform us in the introduction to their Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, CRT differs from more “traditional civil rights” approaches inasmuch as it “questions the very foundations of a liberal order, including e******y theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

To put it more exactly, CRT holds that “r****m is ordinary, not aberrational[.]” It is “the usual way that society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.” Moreover, “r****m” serves the “material” and “psychic” interests of both “white elites” and “working class w****s.”

“R****m” is omnipresent.

Yet it is omnipresent not in the sense that all white individuals are consciously “r****t”; “r****m” is omnipresent in the sense that it is systemic and, hence, largely unconscious.

Another especially noteworthy respect in which CRT reveals both its Marxian impress and its political character is its emphasis on “activism.” Delgado and Stefancic are blunt in expressing their interest in “studying and t***sforming the relationship among race, r****m, and power.”

To repeat what was said above, both parents of college-bound children and taxpayers should know that the Cheryl Matiases and Richard Delgados of the world are not only well-represented in academia; their thought saturates the liberal arts and humanities.

It should also be clear by now that, by design, CRT (not unlike every other department that has been invented for the sake of advancing g****r and racial identity politics) is self-immunized against the very possibility of refutation. And this is because it is meant to preempt argument. Consider: If w****s think as w****s or collectively, then they are guilty of “r****m.” Yet so too are w****s “r****t” if they insist upon judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, i.e. if they endorse a “color-blind ideology.”

No matter what, the game is r****d in advance to convict all w****s of “r****m.”

Proponents of CRT, in their singular (obsessive) focus upon distributions of “power,” betray their end game: It is they who seek power. In fact, they seek a monopoly on power.

This is the objective of all who rely upon “Newspeak.” The great philosopher Roger Scruton explains: “Newspeak occurs whenever the main purpose of language—which is to describe reality—is replaced by the rival purpose of asserting power over it.”

While Newspeak “sentences sound like assertions,” the t***h is that “their underlying logic is the logic of the spell.” Newspeak is talismanic, not persuasive. Its language is meant to blind us to what’s right in front of our faces, to render us oblivious to reality.

Scruton quotes Francoise Thom, who observed that c*******ts used Newspeak “to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.” Ditto with CRT.

Newspeak is notable, Scruton remarks, for its “use of nominalizations instead of direct verbs, the lack of indexicals, the preference for the passive voice and impersonal idioms, the replacement of predications with comparatives, the ubiquitous imperative mood.”

In other words, Newspeak trades in impersonal, highly general abstractions, i.e. “isms.” Critical Race Theory is a textbook illustration of this: The individual is swallowed up, his or her intentions dissolved before the omnipresence of “s******c r****m.”

It is with this, parents, that your children are being inundated. Dear taxpayer, it is for the sake of subsidizing this anti-intellectual drivel that you labor.

But let’s get even more exact: White parents and taxpayers are paying the salaries of faculty and administrators so that the latter can turn around and declare to the next generation that they are a “disease.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260875/professor-declares-whiteness-disease-jack-kerwick
b Preaching h**e in higher education. /b br br ... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 10:31:26   #
Olden McGroen Loc: Texas
 
JMHO wrote:
Preaching h**e in higher education.

I had always looked upon my six-year-old son as a blessing.

But now I realize that he is a disease.

My wife, my parents, my grandparents, and every member of my family, both living and deceased, are likewise a disease.

But if you are reading this right now, and you are white, you should know that your children and all of your loved ones are also a disease.

So implies a University of Colorado education professor, Cherly E. Matias, in the most recent edition of Teaching Education, a peer-reviewed journal.

In “‘Why Do You Make Me H**e Myself?’: Re-teaching Whiteness, Abuse, and Love in Urban Teaching Education,” the author insists that “the racial achievement gap” and other racial disparities are “symptoms” of “the underlying diseases of r****m and Whiteness” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

Matias explains that while the “inclusion of socially just philosophies in the curriculum is indeed essential” in order “to meet the needs of a growing urban populace,” such philosophies “can mask the recycling of normalized, oppressive Whiteness.”

Thus, it is imperative, Matias maintains, to “deconstruct Whiteness, abuse, and love in teacher education.”

The problem, Matias assures us, is that by “denying race during white childhood via a color-blind ideology,” w****s leave “lasting emotional scars, impressions that perpetuate the institutional silencing of race in teacher education.” Urban students of color are made to “endure a r****t educational system and daily racial battle fatigue.”

But the difference between this “r****m” and that faced by students and other “people of color” in the past is that the former is “color-blind r****m.”

The author maintains that “until teacher education programs make confronting and exploring Whiteness a priority, they cannot truly love their urban students of color as complete beings and so deny humanity full and just consideration” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

And it is a disease that w****s spread through their embrace of….color-blindness.

Let this sink in.

Matias is hardly an anomaly in today’s academy. In fact, her thought is quite typical of the hard-left zeitgeist that passes for enlightened thinking among liberal arts and humanities professors at institutions of “higher learning” all over the country (and beyond).

Matias draws on what’s known as “critical race theory” (CRT). Given the heavily politicized nature of the contemporary academy, it should come as no surprise that CRT is a racialized version of Marxism and all of the rage among legions of academics.

Just as Marx and Engels sought to supply a comprehensive vision—an ideology—of the world by explaining (or explaining away) all of history and culture in terms of impersonal economic processes and the relations of “power” that they generate, proponents of CRT as well endorse a similar form of reductionism.

Only here, it is primarily race that serves as the “substructure” of society, and while economics continues to play a vital role in determining asymmetries of “power” between social groups, race and “r****m” are the determining factors.

As such proponents of CRT as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic inform us in the introduction to their Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, CRT differs from more “traditional civil rights” approaches inasmuch as it “questions the very foundations of a liberal order, including e******y theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

To put it more exactly, CRT holds that “r****m is ordinary, not aberrational[.]” It is “the usual way that society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.” Moreover, “r****m” serves the “material” and “psychic” interests of both “white elites” and “working class w****s.”

“R****m” is omnipresent.

Yet it is omnipresent not in the sense that all white individuals are consciously “r****t”; “r****m” is omnipresent in the sense that it is systemic and, hence, largely unconscious.

Another especially noteworthy respect in which CRT reveals both its Marxian impress and its political character is its emphasis on “activism.” Delgado and Stefancic are blunt in expressing their interest in “studying and t***sforming the relationship among race, r****m, and power.”

To repeat what was said above, both parents of college-bound children and taxpayers should know that the Cheryl Matiases and Richard Delgados of the world are not only well-represented in academia; their thought saturates the liberal arts and humanities.

It should also be clear by now that, by design, CRT (not unlike every other department that has been invented for the sake of advancing g****r and racial identity politics) is self-immunized against the very possibility of refutation. And this is because it is meant to preempt argument. Consider: If w****s think as w****s or collectively, then they are guilty of “r****m.” Yet so too are w****s “r****t” if they insist upon judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, i.e. if they endorse a “color-blind ideology.”

No matter what, the game is r****d in advance to convict all w****s of “r****m.”

Proponents of CRT, in their singular (obsessive) focus upon distributions of “power,” betray their end game: It is they who seek power. In fact, they seek a monopoly on power.

This is the objective of all who rely upon “Newspeak.” The great philosopher Roger Scruton explains: “Newspeak occurs whenever the main purpose of language—which is to describe reality—is replaced by the rival purpose of asserting power over it.”

While Newspeak “sentences sound like assertions,” the t***h is that “their underlying logic is the logic of the spell.” Newspeak is talismanic, not persuasive. Its language is meant to blind us to what’s right in front of our faces, to render us oblivious to reality.

Scruton quotes Francoise Thom, who observed that c*******ts used Newspeak “to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.” Ditto with CRT.

Newspeak is notable, Scruton remarks, for its “use of nominalizations instead of direct verbs, the lack of indexicals, the preference for the passive voice and impersonal idioms, the replacement of predications with comparatives, the ubiquitous imperative mood.”

In other words, Newspeak trades in impersonal, highly general abstractions, i.e. “isms.” Critical Race Theory is a textbook illustration of this: The individual is swallowed up, his or her intentions dissolved before the omnipresence of “s******c r****m.”

It is with this, parents, that your children are being inundated. Dear taxpayer, it is for the sake of subsidizing this anti-intellectual drivel that you labor.

But let’s get even more exact: White parents and taxpayers are paying the salaries of faculty and administrators so that the latter can turn around and declare to the next generation that they are a “disease.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260875/professor-declares-whiteness-disease-jack-kerwick
b Preaching h**e in higher education. /b br br ... (show quote)
=========================================================

By this black activist's standards of "whiteness" and "white privilege"...shouldn't we (whities) all be in the upper 1%?

I mean, if it's such an advantage to be white, then I should've been ushered right to the top by virtue of my skin color, right? I should've been born into wealth and privilege on day one.

While I'm doing very well, there are b****s in my company that are in higher management positions than I. I must take this matter to the CEO immediately and demand a much higher position based on my whiteness. It's my right.

Thank you black professor for opening my eyes to the injustices that I've suffered silently all these years. No more suffering. I demand a top executive position in this global company that I am part of. No longer should I be relegated to middle management. I demand my right to share in the 1%.

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 10:43:57   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
Knock off all federal subsidies and other federal funding till they clean up their Institutions of indoctrination.
All this horse s**t would come to an abrupt halt.


reconreb wrote:
Hey JMHO I enjoy your post , but after about 1/3 of reading this self hating fool , I decided not to even entertain this mans self loathing rant . I truly think the Universitys across the nation need to clean house .

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 11:05:52   #
EL Loc: Massachusetts
 
JMHO wrote:
Preaching h**e in higher education.

I had always looked upon my six-year-old son as a blessing.

But now I realize that he is a disease.

My wife, my parents, my grandparents, and every member of my family, both living and deceased, are likewise a disease.

But if you are reading this right now, and you are white, you should know that your children and all of your loved ones are also a disease.

So implies a University of Colorado education professor, Cherly E. Matias, in the most recent edition of Teaching Education, a peer-reviewed journal.

In “‘Why Do You Make Me H**e Myself?’: Re-teaching Whiteness, Abuse, and Love in Urban Teaching Education,” the author insists that “the racial achievement gap” and other racial disparities are “symptoms” of “the underlying diseases of r****m and Whiteness” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

Matias explains that while the “inclusion of socially just philosophies in the curriculum is indeed essential” in order “to meet the needs of a growing urban populace,” such philosophies “can mask the recycling of normalized, oppressive Whiteness.”

Thus, it is imperative, Matias maintains, to “deconstruct Whiteness, abuse, and love in teacher education.”

The problem, Matias assures us, is that by “denying race during white childhood via a color-blind ideology,” w****s leave “lasting emotional scars, impressions that perpetuate the institutional silencing of race in teacher education.” Urban students of color are made to “endure a r****t educational system and daily racial battle fatigue.”

But the difference between this “r****m” and that faced by students and other “people of color” in the past is that the former is “color-blind r****m.”

The author maintains that “until teacher education programs make confronting and exploring Whiteness a priority, they cannot truly love their urban students of color as complete beings and so deny humanity full and just consideration” (italics added).

Whiteness is a disease.

And it is a disease that w****s spread through their embrace of….color-blindness.

Let this sink in.

Matias is hardly an anomaly in today’s academy. In fact, her thought is quite typical of the hard-left zeitgeist that passes for enlightened thinking among liberal arts and humanities professors at institutions of “higher learning” all over the country (and beyond).

Matias draws on what’s known as “critical race theory” (CRT). Given the heavily politicized nature of the contemporary academy, it should come as no surprise that CRT is a racialized version of Marxism and all of the rage among legions of academics.

Just as Marx and Engels sought to supply a comprehensive vision—an ideology—of the world by explaining (or explaining away) all of history and culture in terms of impersonal economic processes and the relations of “power” that they generate, proponents of CRT as well endorse a similar form of reductionism.

Only here, it is primarily race that serves as the “substructure” of society, and while economics continues to play a vital role in determining asymmetries of “power” between social groups, race and “r****m” are the determining factors.

As such proponents of CRT as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic inform us in the introduction to their Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, CRT differs from more “traditional civil rights” approaches inasmuch as it “questions the very foundations of a liberal order, including e******y theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

To put it more exactly, CRT holds that “r****m is ordinary, not aberrational[.]” It is “the usual way that society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.” Moreover, “r****m” serves the “material” and “psychic” interests of both “white elites” and “working class w****s.”

“R****m” is omnipresent.

Yet it is omnipresent not in the sense that all white individuals are consciously “r****t”; “r****m” is omnipresent in the sense that it is systemic and, hence, largely unconscious.

Another especially noteworthy respect in which CRT reveals both its Marxian impress and its political character is its emphasis on “activism.” Delgado and Stefancic are blunt in expressing their interest in “studying and t***sforming the relationship among race, r****m, and power.”

To repeat what was said above, both parents of college-bound children and taxpayers should know that the Cheryl Matiases and Richard Delgados of the world are not only well-represented in academia; their thought saturates the liberal arts and humanities.

It should also be clear by now that, by design, CRT (not unlike every other department that has been invented for the sake of advancing g****r and racial identity politics) is self-immunized against the very possibility of refutation. And this is because it is meant to preempt argument. Consider: If w****s think as w****s or collectively, then they are guilty of “r****m.” Yet so too are w****s “r****t” if they insist upon judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, i.e. if they endorse a “color-blind ideology.”

No matter what, the game is r****d in advance to convict all w****s of “r****m.”

Proponents of CRT, in their singular (obsessive) focus upon distributions of “power,” betray their end game: It is they who seek power. In fact, they seek a monopoly on power.

This is the objective of all who rely upon “Newspeak.” The great philosopher Roger Scruton explains: “Newspeak occurs whenever the main purpose of language—which is to describe reality—is replaced by the rival purpose of asserting power over it.”

While Newspeak “sentences sound like assertions,” the t***h is that “their underlying logic is the logic of the spell.” Newspeak is talismanic, not persuasive. Its language is meant to blind us to what’s right in front of our faces, to render us oblivious to reality.

Scruton quotes Francoise Thom, who observed that c*******ts used Newspeak “to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.” Ditto with CRT.

Newspeak is notable, Scruton remarks, for its “use of nominalizations instead of direct verbs, the lack of indexicals, the preference for the passive voice and impersonal idioms, the replacement of predications with comparatives, the ubiquitous imperative mood.”

In other words, Newspeak trades in impersonal, highly general abstractions, i.e. “isms.” Critical Race Theory is a textbook illustration of this: The individual is swallowed up, his or her intentions dissolved before the omnipresence of “s******c r****m.”

It is with this, parents, that your children are being inundated. Dear taxpayer, it is for the sake of subsidizing this anti-intellectual drivel that you labor.

But let’s get even more exact: White parents and taxpayers are paying the salaries of faculty and administrators so that the latter can turn around and declare to the next generation that they are a “disease.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260875/professor-declares-whiteness-disease-jack-kerwick
b Preaching h**e in higher education. /b br br ... (show quote)


Wish we could drop these (what I kindly call) people off the face of the earth and start over with normal people.

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 11:14:56   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
reconreb wrote:
Hey JMHO I enjoy your post , but after about 1/3 of reading this self hating fool , I decided not to even entertain this mans self loathing rant . I truly think the Universitys across the nation need to clean house .


The universities do not need to clean house, they need to fumigate and remove all of the diseased cockroaches like this professor. Al he/she professes is h**e for those who are good, loving and care more about character than color. The vileness that is displayed here comes only from the forces of evil. Unfortunately there is something about evil and baseness that looks so inviting until you are mired in its quicksand and unable to get out.

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 11:18:54   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
OK, now it's time to rebel openly and vigorously. Let's begin with "White is beautiful" followed up with, "White l***s m****r." I want a "White Caucus" in the congress and preferential treatment - educational and employment opportunities for w****s. Then I want a magic wand that will instantly turn i***ts like these jerks into b****s that are blacker than coal.

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 11:35:12   #
Ve'hoe
 
I'm gonna go burn down a w****s only market,,,,,, anyone know where one of those is????


padremike wrote:
OK, now it's time to rebel openly and vigorously. Let's begin with "White is beautiful" followed up with, "White l***s m****r." I want a "White Caucus" in the congress and preferential treatment - educational and employment opportunities for w****s. Then I want a magic wand that will instantly turn i***ts like these jerks into b****s that are blacker than coal.

Reply
Nov 23, 2015 11:40:33   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
Dats a coo question mun. 8-)

Ve'hoe wrote:
I'm gonna go burn down a w****s only market,,,,,, anyone know where one of those is????

Reply
Nov 24, 2015 11:01:01   #
erbarr Loc: Southern California
 
I'am so tired of this poor me BS! Those b****s who get off their ass and make something of their life, bless you. I wish you would give insight to those who think society owes them everything. I want I want. Get off your ass and try, instead of blaming everyone for your misfortune.
The other thing that bothers me is the police situation where you all think all cops are after you. If you get pulled over, put your hands on the steering wheel till the cop gets to the car. If you are trying to get something or moving around, he may think you're going after a weapon.
Yes sir, no sir goes a long way. I know it's hard to do that but it will have a positive result. Do what you are asked to do. But some of you get cute and give them a problem. That is when thing get out of control.

Reply
Nov 24, 2015 12:20:45   #
77Reaganite Loc: Athens, GA, United States
 
How idiocy is a disease!! Anybody that would believe that nonsense deserves to be indoctrinated or brainwashed to be koolaid drinkers.The only problem is they won't drink the tainted koolaid to rid us of their stupidity.The grievance culture we have today is pervasive in all walks of society.I hope these kids know that employee's are watching these protests on campuses all over the country.They're watching the social media sites as well those kids will never be able to find work then i guess they'll r**t because they can't understand why they can't get a job.Then you'll have to tell the i***ts that what they did at college is the reason they can't get a job. If i were a parent of one of these kids i'd knock them up side the head and ask them why they are disturbing kids right to learn,speak or anything.These kids have to learn just like everybody elese that life isn't fair that making mistakes are a part of life.This is the wussification of America at it's finest on display all around Colleges near where you live and every American.These bastions of c*******m and socialism makes me puke!!! I say we exile them now because when the s**t does literally hit the fan i will use these i***ts as body sheilds.They'll be to stupid to know what going on.Just as they are now.This futhers my belief that liberalism is a mental disorder.Read the book by Michael Savage it's a fun read.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.