Videos: Portland ‘Whiteness’ event calls for $20 trillion in reparations from white people, slams capitalism

Leave a comment

This is from Conservative Firing Line.

Blacks have been receiving reparations since LBJ’s Great Society started giving them welfare.

On Thursday, Laughing at Liberal’s Michael Strickland posted several videos from another “Whiteness History Month” event at Portland Community College.  In these videos, the presenter advocates white people pay up to $20 trillion in reparations to blacks over slavery and a host of perceived wrongs.

But that’s not all.

Strickland wrote:

According the speaker, a “study last year published by social science quarterly, that the estimated amount of reparations owed to African people in the U.S. is $14.2 trillion. White people owe reparations but not only for the enslavement of Africans, they owe reparations for the ongoing colonization of Africans in the United States. And YES magazine published this really good story last year called ’40 Acres and A Mule’, and would be at least 6.4 Trillion today, in addition to the $14.2 Trillion for enslavement It’s not enough for whites to say ‘we agree with or support reparations’, we could say today ‘yeah this sounds good, let’s put some pressure on the government to pay’. What are we doing to change the material relationship that we have to oppressed Africans in the United States? How are we acting today in material and measurable ways? So when we pay reparations right now, this goes to the struggle of Africans people for power, so that they can get that $14.2 Trillion check, but also so that they can build a dual contending power. So that they can have programs that benefit African people who have been prevented, by the existed system, for gaining access to the resources that are necessary for life… White people in the U.S. are European colonizers on stolen indigenous land, that the entire European nation of white identity lives off the stolen labor and resources of colonized Africans and all other oppressed peoples of the world, who are the majority of humanity. White people are actually the minority. As well as other animals and the planet itself, it’s also an environmental (???). All white people sit on a pedestal of the oppression of African people. All white people have benefited from the accumulated value of the slave trade. All white people benefited from the European colonization of Africa. We all benefited from the European genocide against the indigenous people of the Americas and in effect, their land. All white people have a different relationship with the police than the black community. And all white people have a responsible to end our

complicity with this social system that murders and oppresses in our name. All white people have the responsibility to stand in solidarity with the African liberation. Now this is not ‘white guilt’. The call for reparations is based on a material understanding of history. It’s a scientific eval system of white Europe and white people have wealth and power, and it’s on account of this dialectal parasitic relationship with Africa that all African people, in all other nations colonized by white power. By parasitic, once again, we’re talking about the dialectic of the host and the parasite. The parasite lives off of the host, to the detriment of the host.”

Keep in mind the current Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is just over $17 trillion.

Here’s a couple of videos from the presentation:

In this video, the speaker claims that race was invented as an instrument to promote racism:

There’s more of this madness over at Progressives Today, and can be seen here.

Again — if you have children in this alleged “school,” get them out — fast.


Why History Can’t Get Custer Right

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Political Correctness and white guilt is why history can not get it right about Gen.George Armstrong Custer.



Love or hate General George Armstrong Custer, there’s one thing Americans haven’t been able to do: ignore him. 138 years after his death during the June 25-26 Battle of Little Bighorn — his passing a tragedy, or just desserts, depending who you ask — Custer is as famous as ever. He is mentioned in books, articles and in the media far more often than at the height of his fame when he was alive, and his durability in the public eye is comparable to another controversial military maverick, George Patton.

In Custer’s day, people had a more nuanced, realistic view of the “boy general.” This changed after Little Bighorn, a shocking Indian military victory that came when many Americans already considered that chapter of frontier history over. The aura of heroic tragedy from that battle clung to Custer for almost a century after his death, burnished for decades by his devoted wife Libbie, who defended her husband against all naysayers. Uncritical biographies followed the dictum that when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. Popular mid-20th century portrayals of Custer, such as by self-avowed Custer buff Ronald Reagan in “Santa Fe Trail,” and most famously by Errol Flynn in “They Died with Their Boots On,” captured his boyish spirit, charm and bravery.

So Custer, the unblemished hero, was asking to be knocked from his pedestal. Once he became a superhero, it was a short step to transform him into a super villain. As political correctness took hold of American culture the crimes of the frontier experience — both real and imagined — were heaped on Custer’s head. As the 1969 Native American manifesto said, Custer Died for Your Sins.

Custer went from the immaculate tragic hero to the equally false guise of incompetent, genocidal Indian killer. In the 1970 satire “Little Big Man,” Richard Mulligan played Custer as a self-important, delusional fool, an image which many took at face value. In 2009’s “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,” Bill Hader’s Custer was a blustering klutz who laments, “I will always be famous for my biggest failure.” At least in the movie, he was one of the good guys.

There were other variations on the theme. In “The Last Samurai,” former U.S. cavalry trooper Nathan Algren, played by Tom Cruise, touts the politically correct line that Custer was a “murderer,” an “arrogant and foolhardy” officer who “fell in love with his own legend” and got his men killed. But old-school Samurai warlord Katsumoto, played by Ken Watanabe, is impressed that Custer went into his final battle outnumbered ten to one. “I like this General Custer,” he said. “I think this is a very good death.”

In the Vietnam War film “We Were Soldiers,” Lt. Col. Hal Moore, commanding the unit descended from the battalion wiped out at Little Bighorn and portrayed by Mel Gibson, wonders aloud, “What was going through Custer’s mind when he realized that he’d led his men into a slaughter?” Sgt. Major Basil Plumley, played by Sam Elliott, growls, “Sir, Custer was a pussy. You ain’t.” The expression soon appeared on bumper stickers and t-shirts. But even if the real-life sergeant Plumley said it, which is doubtful, it is far from the truth. Custer was well-known for his bravery and steadiness under fire. As Abraham Lincoln said, Custer led every charge “with a whoop and a shout.” To paraphrase the real Hal Moore, whose men nicknamed him “Yellow Hair” in homage to Custer, the only thing they had in the Ia Drang Valley that the 7th Cavalry didn’t at Little Bighorn was air support.


The real Custer was a young underachiever, the charismatic, lovable rogue at the bottom of his West Point class whose Civil War battlefield exploits rocketed him to rank and fame. His repeated, desperate charges at Gettysburg against superior numbers of Jeb Stuart’s Confederate cavalry made him a national hero. At the surrender at Appomattox he was a bronzed, hard-eyed, 25-year-old major general who had seen action in many of the largest, most significant battles of the war.

But after the war Custer faced mundane service on the frontier, at lower rank and without the energizing prospect of imminent action. In contemporary terms, he transitioned from major combat operations to counterinsurgency. As Gen. John Gibbon said, glory on the Plains meant “being shot by an Indian from behind a rock, and having your name wrongly spelled in the newspapers.”

He fought in fewer battles the next ten years than he did in the last year of the Civil War. And Custer’s victories — most notably at Washita in 1868 — were as much condemned as heralded. It was a difficult life for a natural born warrior, and Custer had trouble adapting. He turned into a martinet on post, suffered a humiliating court martial and was smacked down by President Grant for meddling in Washington politics. But he was always looking for the final, career-capping major battle, the fight that would enshrine his name in history forever. And at Little Bighorn, for his sins, he found it.

James S. Robbins is the author of The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero from Regnery Publishing.

Read more:

Can We All Stop Pretending to Cherish the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot UpDate.

Many support the Civil Righs Act because of white guilt and not wanting to be called a racist.

Some people support the Civil Rights Act out of ignorance because if they knew what was it it then would oppose the Civil Rights Act.



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 turns fifty this year so expect to see a lot of pundits and politicians tripping over each other to show more reverence for the law than the next guy. Based on the hushed tones of respect with which most people talk about the law you’d think they actually support it.

Most people only think they support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they don’t know what it contains and because portions of it go unenforced. Another reason people support the CRA is because they don’t want to be called racist. The power of that word—racist—to close minds and mouths is unparalleled.

But there are plenty of good reasons to oppose this lousy, unconstitutional law that have nothing to do with racism. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater broke with his party when he voted against the act, though not because he was racist. As a Phoenix city councilman, Goldwater supported, and even wrote a large check for, an NAACP initiative to desegregate the city. He also voted for The Civil Rights Act of 1957. Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 bill was threefold: that it represented an unconstitutional power grab by the feds, that it would be an endless source of litigation, and that it would force sovereign citizens to engage in involuntary economic transactions. The senator has been proven right on all three counts.

If liberals want to demonstrate their love of the CRA they could begin by following it; the whole thing, not just the parts that they like. The law bans discrimination in government and private commercial enterprises (which they erroneously label “public accommodations”) based on five protected categories: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

Liberals still support discriminatory practices based upon three of these categories—race, sex, and religion.

In regards to race and sex, liberals favor policies that give preference to women and racial minorities as a means of redressing historical grievances. Unfortunately for them, the law they claim to love so much does not contain a “redress of grievances” loophole no matter how much they wish it did. A preference for blacks is just as illegal as a racial preference for whites; a preference for women is just as illegal as a preference for men.

Discrimination based upon religion has become a hot button issue with the rise of the homosexual movement which most often encounters resistance from religious people. Getting them fired from their jobs is an effective means of chilling speech, which is exactly what the tolerance bullies want. Yet terminating people for their religious beliefs remains illegal under the CRA. Theoretically, at least. People are fired for their faith all the time.

Take for example the high profile case of Phil Robertson, the “duck commander,” who landed himself in hot water last year because of his remarks about sin which included homosexuality. He was nearly fired, which would have been illegal under that hallowed law that everyone always pretends to revere. No adverse action may be taken against an employee for holding a belief if that belief is religious in nature. It doesn’t matter if such a belief is abrasive to a segment of the population or to the employer. The purpose of nondiscrimination laws is to protected unpopular minorities.

A liberal might counter that such a rule is ludicrous because there are a lot of religions in the world and some of them have some pretty outlandish beliefs. A Muslim man might remark to his female co-worker that she looks like a whore because she doesn’t wear a hijab on her head. Anyone could say anything and simply claim religious protection!

Yes, they could. See how stupid nondiscrimination laws are? Under federal law today, firing a Muslim for proclaiming his female co-worker a whore is illegal. The fact that the CRA’s religious protections go largely unenforced explains why this doesn’t happen.

Because liberals still want to think of themselves as opponents of discrimination they must formulate mechanisms for relieving their cognitive dissonance. Any sane observer can see that their opposition to religious discrimination in the abstract is a poor fig leaf for their support of religious discrimination in application.

One such mechanism for facilitating their doublethink is to claim they aren’t discriminating against Christians per se when they fire a Christian for his religious beliefs, because they have other employees who also self-identify as Christians. This type of flimsy “protection” doesn’t really protect religion at all but rather sectarian affiliation. According to the liberal (mis)interpretation of nondiscrimination law, a person cannot be fired for adhering to a certain sect but if he actually ascribes to its creed he’s a goner.

The CRA makes no such distinction. In fact, it explicitly states that beliefs and practices are contained within the definition of the word “religion.” And rightfully so. A religion is nothing but a set of beliefs and practices. If they aren’t protected then the law is a sham.

If liberals were administered a healthy dose of truth serum they might stop lying long enough to tell us what they really mean—they don’t really like laws that prohibit religious discrimination because religion is silly superstition at best, violent and repressive at worst, and thus not worthy of protection. They don’t say that because it makes them sound like bigots, which they are. They would also tell you that they don’t really oppose discrimination based on race or sex as long as the victims are always men of fair complexion.

Why then do they pretend to hold this ill-conceived law in such high esteem? The short answer is that they haven’t read it and it’s selectively applied only against people they despise. Beyond that, they like to imagine that if they had been of age five decades ago they would have been civil rights warriors toiling for the passage of this bill against a bunch of bigoted white segregationists. If they only knew how much they resemble those bigoted white segregationists they might take a different view.

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here:

A Raaaaaacist Post

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Proud Hillbilly@From The Caer.


In 1654, a Virginia court issued a ruling concerning the servant John Casor, who had,Anthony Johnson charged, been taken from him by Robert Parker:

 “The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master … It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.”

Casor was returned to Johnson, his slave for life or until Johnson chose to sell him, making Johnson the first to legally own a black slave in the Virginia Colony. The irony of this is that Anthony Johnson was a black man himself.

Johnson was born around 1600 in Angola, Africa, an area with tribes that had been active slave traders for centuries. As was common, he was captured by another tribe and sold to a slave trader, eventually arriving In the Virginia Colony in 1621, where he was bought by a tobacco farmer as an indentured servant, which meant his obligation, while much like slavery, had a time limit on it.

When his period of indenture was over, Johnson received some recompense and became a well established farmer himself.

It seems that you can’t turn around without some race-baiter calling someone who disagrees with them a racist. I’ve become convinced that to some people the fact that I breathe makes me racist. Along with that is a pervasive sense of entitlement. White people held slaves so white people are bad.  You are white so you owe me.  And, by the way, in the interest of diversity you aren’t invited to the party.

A group of Caribbean nations are getting ready to sue European nations for reparations for slavery. I can understand reparations to the living who were harmed by an action, but the whole slavery reparation thing is in the same realm of ridiculous as “no whites allowed” is. Do the descendants of black slave owners like Anthony Johnson have a moral obligation to pay reparations to the decedents of black slaves? Does the white part of mixed-race people owe their black part reparations? The issue of reparations pops up In the U.S. periodically as well.  Some families, like mine, gave lives and blood for the North in that little disagreement in the 1860s that resulted in the abolishment of slavery. I rather feel that, quite aside from never having owned a slave myself, that alone wipes my line’s slate clean and leaves us owing nobody anything. If we are going to get into descendent paying descendants for ancestral actions, maybe the Jesse Jackson owes ME.

And while the race hustlers make a good living off of white guilt and black enslavement is talked about and played off of endlessly there’s a significant piece of slavery history that is completely ignored: at the time Johnson was suing for the return of his black slave, thousands of white slaves were being poured into the colonies in the form of Irish slaves. According to John Martin at Global Research:

“The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English, and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.”

I’m a descendent of English rulers AND several Irish lines.

 Great-great-great-etc. Grandpa Henry III of England.

So it makes me wonder: how much does the Plantagenet in me owe the Paddy?

College plays the race card, literally, in anti-whiteness play called ‘The Race Card Project’

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Parents with children in college you need to check into

what is being taught in their children’s colleges.

Hillsdale College is one of the best at giving students a

well-rounded education without the leftist agenda.


A public university hosted a theater productions in which actors lamented their whiteness, whined about “all white spaces” in American society and claimed that striving for color blindness is tantamount to racism.

That university is the University of Oregon, which hosted an adaptation of “The Race Card Project,” last semester, according to Campus Reform.

The production is based off the work of former NPR host Michele Norris, who runs a website that encourages people to play their own personal race card by coining a six-word sentence about their experiences with race and posting it on her blog.

“How would you distill your thoughts, experiences or observations about race into one sentence that only has six words?” reads Norris’s website.

At UO’s production, student-actors were given considerably more than six words.

“I’m never asked about hot sauce,” revealed one of the students, an Asian woman — an apparent indication that society is explicitly racist.

Another performer, a white male, details how he once held the view that since he never chose to be white, he was not responsible for the actions of other people. Thankfully, a university education set him straight.

“I’m learning,” he said. “Being white in America comes with this legacy all its own, and while I may not know why I am white, I know that I can help change that legacy.”

Some of the participants managed to express more mature views on race — that it shouldn’t matter, that it is a shoddy way to define someone, and also, that it will be a “total non-issue when the aliens arrive.”

Norris’s website also contains some enlightened commentary on race, albeit in six-word nuggets. “Put your color aside; think bigger,” urged one, written by Karen Schneider, also of the University of Oregon.

The Daily Caller’s “race card” was submitted to Norris’s website but has not yet been published. The DC wrote, “People: Individuals, not racially predetermined automatons.”

Read more:

%d bloggers like this: