government/corporate discrimination against whites

I remember, back in high school, being upset that a quiz question asked what date Christmas falls on. I didn’t know, and this hurt my score. As an adult, I view things differently; scoring a bit lower on a quiz is a small price to pay for the benefit of attending schools that are representative of a functional culture – even if it’s not exactly my own culture.

It would appear that some Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan feel imposed upon because their children received invitations to an Easter egg hunt at school. According to the Christian Post:

Some Muslim parents in Dearborn, Mich., are upset over an “Eggstravaganza” Easter egg hunt invitation their children received from teachers at school because the event is going to be held on the grounds of the Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church.

Attorney Majed Moughni, the father of two public school students, said his son was uncomfortable about receiving the flyer from the Presbyterian church for their event on April 12.

“It really bothered my two kids. My son was like, ‘Dad, I really don’t feel comfortable getting these flyers, telling me to go to church. I thought churches are not supposed to mix with schools,’” Moughni told The Detroit Free Press.

Moughni said he’s uncomfortable with publically paid school teachers passing “out these flyers that are being distributed by a church. I think that’s a serious violation of separation of church and state.”

While separation of church and state is a worthy goal, it shouldn’t render public schools culture-free zones. When we speak of “public institutions” we should not lose sight of the fact that they’re supposed to represent a specific public. If we were to somehow succeed in catering our schools to people in general, without deference to any particular culture, we would be robbing our children of both their heritage and their childhood.

If we were to take the separation of church and state to its extreme, public schools would be dry, depressing, places. There’s a large grey area in our culture that, while not overtly religious in nature, has its roots in what passes for Christianity. Easter egg hunts, Christmas, graduation caps and gowns and St. Patrick’s Day are good examples of this. They’re part of American culture, and I see no harm in allowing schools to recognize them – without shoving them in our faces of course.

To the offended Muslim parents I say, you (or your parents) came to this country of your own free will. You benefit from our functional society and liberal government – which are offshoots of our culture. When you came to this country, you agreed to put up with this culture and, if you don’t like it, you can return to whatever Muslim-dominated country you came from. You’ll probably find that there’s less separation of religion and state in that country than you enjoy here.

Meanwhile, black women in the military are upset that new hairstyle regulation adversely affect them. According to Yahoo News:

New Army regulations meant to help standardize and professionalize soldiers’ appearance are now coming under criticism by some black military women, who say changes in the hair requirement are racially biased.

The Army earlier this week issued new appearance standards, which included bans on most twists, dreadlocks and large cornrows, all styles used predominantly by African-American women with natural hairstyles. More than 11,000 people have signed a White House petition asking President Barack Obama, the commander in chief, to have the military review the regulations to allow for “neat and maintained natural hairstyles.”

Some black military women, who make up about a third of the women in the armed forces, feel they have been singled out with these new regulations.

“I think that it primarily targets black women, and I’m not in agreement with it,” said Patricia Jackson-Kelley of the National Association of Black Military Women. “I don’t see how a woman wearing three braids in her hair, how that affects her ability to perform her duty in the military.”

Yes, there’s actually an organization called the “National Association of Black Military Women.” Their website states their goal as:

“To seek out, record, maintain and tell the historyof every Black Military Women...”

My advice to them would be to brush up on their writing skills, or at least hire a good editor, before putting together a website. I couldn’t help but notice that their president, Kathaleen F. Harris, seems awfully young to be retired. She must have been paid very well while in the military; I’m sure being black, and a woman, didn’t hurt her career.

Yes, being black and female can do wonders for one’s career, especially if it’s in a government job. If griping about hairstyle regulations is what now occupies them, clearly there’s not much in the way of real oppression to burden them. Is there an organization that works specifically for the benefit of white women in the military? Don’t be silly!

Can white Christians also be offended? As a matter of fact they can. Some Idaho parents objected when their school district included, as part of their official curriculum, a book that ridiculed Christianity and includes vulgar language. According to Yahoo news:

The largest school district in Idaho has banned from its curriculum an award-winning book about the struggles of a Native American teenager after complaints by parents that the novel was rife with profanity, racial epithets and anti-Christian rhetoric….

The book is described by publisher Little, Brown as a “heartbreaking, funny and beautifully written” tale about the experiences of a young Native American who leaves his troubled school on an Indian reservation in Washington state to attend an all-white high school in a nearby farming community.

I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that the book also includes anti-white rhetoric – but it’s not politically acceptable to object to the persecution of whites, because unlike Muslims or blacks, whites truly are an oppressed group (unless they happen to be well-connected of course).

Of the three aggrieved groups I cited above, the only one I sympathize with is the white Christians of Idaho. Does this make me a white-supremacist? Hardly. The “plight” of Muslim immigrants, who would rob school children of their culture, does not move me. Neither do I worry much about the military hairesy against black women (though I do feel that black women should be happy with their natural hair). But the cause of parents fighting a school district’s attempt to disparage their traditions, in their own native lands, is a worthy one.


In his recent Bloombergview article, Francis Wilkenson ridiculed conservatives for their  distorted demographic perceptions. He wrote:

In June and July, Latino Decisions conducted a national poll for the Center for American Progress and PolicyLink. The poll’s sample was especially large — 2,943 adults, including 1,319 non-Hispanic whites. In one question, respondents were asked to give their “best guess” about the percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. population…

Every racial group overestimated the size of the nonwhite population, which in reality is about 37 percent. “Asians had the most accurate estimates,” the survey report stated, “with respondents estimating an average of 43 percent — followed by whites with an average of 48 percent, Latinos with an average of 50 percent, and African Americans with an average of 53 percent.”…

On average, whites overestimated the nation’s minority population by 11 percentage points. Digging a little deeper, the poll showed that 59 percent of conservatives estimated the minority population at 41 percent or higher, with 33 percent of conservatives believing nonwhites account for more than half of the U.S. population, a demographic milestone that is still decades away.

Keep that figure in mind as you consider this result from the same poll report: “Sixty-one percent of white conservatives and 56 percent of whites ages 65 or older agree that discrimination against whites will increase due to rising diversity.”

So conservatives think the nation is already either majority or almost-majority nonwhite, and a majority of conservatives believes that they will be discriminated against as the nation becomes more nonwhite.

There was a time, before the days of television, billboards, movies and brochures, when peoples’ perception of reality was shaped by what they saw and heard in real life. Folks spent most of their time among their countrymen, working, socializing, worshiping and playing. It’s true that they were ignorant of foreign lands, but they were acutely aware of the goings on in their own villages and provinces. Medieval man might have believed that troglodytes inhabited far-away lands, and sea-monsters the waters, but he was an expert when it came to local matters.

Today, many people spend more time in front of the television than mingling among the locals. Furthermore, today’s cities are so populous that one cannot even rely on what he sees to gauge demographic trends; at any given time, all he’ll see is a specific subset of the population. So, while the modern city-dweller may not believe in sea-monsters or troglodytes, he can easily be fooled about his own immediate surroundings.

In my search for a particular item of clothing, a friend recommended my local Kohl’s. While I didn’t find what I was looking for at Kohl’s, I did notice a profusion of model images throughout the store. I have previously written about Target’s habit of under representing white people in its signage. Kohl’s is no different. Here are some images I snapped there.




I apologize for the poor image quality; the lighting was difficult and I used my cellphone. But, at least in the men’s section, very few whites are depicted. Blacks outnumber whites. Is Kohl’s trying to cater specifically to blacks? In the women’s section, the vast majority of images are of white, or Asian, models. It’s hard to see how this would benefit Kohl’s financially – but it’s easy to see the similarity to Target.

I don’t watch television, but I’ve viewed enough commercials (online) to know that non-whites are featured in numbers wildly out of proportion to their actual percentages of the population. Does Wilkenson have anything to say about this? I doubt it.

People like Wilkenson are responsible for the over representation of non-whites in the media, and in places like Target and Kohl’s. While they may not directly demand it, their attitudes (of promoting non-whites whenever possible) necessarily lead to such phenomena. It’s interesting that Wilkenson would ridicule people for perceptions that are a direct result of policies he promotes.



I once had a boss who suffered from “tanorexia” (tanning addiction). Though red of hair, her face was dark and leathery; it was painful to behold, and people would make morbid fire-survivor jokes behind her back. Her tan never faded, even through the coldest and cloudiest winter months.

This boss was noticeably biased against the few naturally darker-skinned employees under her authority, and accusations of racism bubbled to the surface now and then. When I mentioned, to the affected coworkers, that what we have here is probably not “racism” but jealousy, laughter was the response. This had never occurred to them and they didn’t know what to make of it. We all knew she had a tanning problem, and we all knew she treated her darker employees as second-class citizens; she kept us (yes, in her eyes I was “dark” too) as far away from herself as possible. But nobody had put two and two together.

Is dark skin (I’m not necessarily including very dark skin here) considered more attractive among whites in America? A 2010 ABC article reports:

The Jersey Shore uber-tan aesthetic may not be for everyone, but it seems that even for non-Guidettes, having a tan makes them sexier, according to a study from Emory University.

Researchers used the popular attractiveness-rating website to gauge whether “hotness” scores would change when the same woman was shown with her natural complexion and then with a tan.

Using Photoshop, 45 photos of women aged 21 to 35 were doctored to look tan. The original photos and the doctored versions were posted to the site at different times. The researchers found that the darker version was twice as likely to be rated as more attractive.

Of course, tan enthusiasts would say that you don’t need science to figure that one out.

“When I look in the mirror I feel more attractive when I’m darker, like my face is prettier. It’s 100 percent a confidence boost for me,” says Lauren Kafka, 31, of Miami, who uses a tanning bed three times a week to keep up her golden glow.

Are less attractive people jealous of more attractive people? At least among females, the answer is obviously “yes.” It’s not a stretch to say that some fair-skinned people are jealous of darker-skinned people – and that this jealousy can translate into perceived racism in a work environment.

If “racism” is at work here, then it might actually be the self-loathing that so many whites possess. They loath their white skin, they consider it ugly – and they envy those whose skin is a few shades darker. How ironic that the demonization of whites can lead to “racist” attitudes toward non-whites. How many “microaggressions” against non-whites can be laid at the feet of white guilt and white self-loathing?


A while ago I published an example of racial indoctrination from the Portland MAX. I wanted to follow up with a couple more examples. All told, there were only a few signs posted in the train, and the ONLY people depicted in positions of authority, or wearing suits and ties, were black. Here they are:


The creators of the second one made their intentions quite obvious. Their choice of white people, standing next to the black man, is telling. Directly to his right, as if bowing to his superior status and sexual prowess, is the pretty white female. To his left is the low-status white man, wearing shorts and a tank-top and standing by his bicycle.  He rides the MAX because it’s his only option. The black man, dressed in business attire, does so out of a sense of social responsibility and concern for the environment; he can clearly afford a car. Seated near this poster was an actual black man – looking mean and with most of his boxers showing.

Estonian politician Martin Helme recently made international headlines when he opined that Estonia should be a white country. According to the International Business Times:

An outspoken Estonian politician has a message for would-be immigrants: “If you’re black, go back.”

Martin Helme, a board member for the Conservative People’s Party, was speaking about immigration policies on a television show in Tallinn, when he said he wants Estonia to remain a “white country,” and that an influx of immigrants would lead to the “pillaging and raping” of Estonian towns.

Helme’s fears of African immigration are well-founded. Unfortunately, he has little to no power in Estonia. Regarding Helme’s political party, the article goes on to say:

Today the party is supported by only about 3 percent of the country and is not even represented in Estonia’s parliament…

Estonia is a small country, with only about 1.3 million people. In contrast, Liberia has a population of about 3.7 million people.

Liberia doesn’t have fringe politicians calling for it to remain a black country; this policy is already written into its constitution:

Article 27

a) All persons who, on the coming into force of this Constitution were lawfully

citizens of Liberia shall continue to be Liberian citizens.

b) In order to preserve, foster and maintain the positive Liberian culture, values and character, only persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent shall qualify by birth or by naturalization to be citizens of Liberia.

It goes without saying that if any country dared to even suggest a policy of limiting its citizenship to “persons who are Caucasians or of Caucasian descent,” the uproar would be deafening. The U.S. would instantly break off diplomatic ties with said country. Foreign aid to said country would be out of the question.

But this is what the U.S. Department of State has to say about its relationship with Liberia:

U.S. assistance and engagement is critical to Liberia’s short-term stability and long-term development. National elections in 2011 drew broad participation from the electorate, and paved the way for a peaceful transition to President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s second administration. But opposition and unrest surrounding the elections showed that security, political, and social conditions remain fragile, and that the government must continue to make progress in building and solidifying confidence in public governance, reenergizing reforms, and fostering tangible improvements in the lives of average Liberians.

U.S. Assistance to Liberia

U.S. assistance seeks to focus on professionalizing Liberia’s military and civilian security forces; consolidating democratic progress; improving capacity, transparency, and accountability of governance institutions; promoting broad-based and environmentally sustainable economic growth; improving access to high-quality educational and health services; and responding to the problem of narcotics trafficking in West Africa, while helping Liberia build capacity to plan, implement, and sustain its own development efforts in each sector.

Bilateral Economic Relations

Liberia is eligible for preferential trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. The country’s revenues come primarily from rubber exports and revenues from its maritime registry program. Liberia’s U.S.-owned and operated shipping and corporate registry is the world’s second-largest. U.S. exports to Liberia include agricultural products (with rice as the leading category), vehicles, machinery, optic and medical instruments, and textiles. The main imports from Liberia to the United States are rubber and allied products; other imports include wood, art and antiques, palm oil, and diamonds. The United States and Liberia have signed a trade and investment framework agreement.

Not only is there no outrage at its negro-only policy, but the U.S. actively aids Liberia, nurtures it and grants it preferential treatment. The fact that few persons of non-negro descent would ever want to live in Liberia is beside the point.

The only indignation we get, concerning aid to Liberia, is from the likes of Front Page Africa Online, where we read:

Between 2006 and 2010, five years into President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s first term, the Liberian Government reportedly received over US$2.5b in humanitarian aid and other official development assistance (ODA), excluding debt relief, from 16 government donors. The top ten government donors include the European Union (US$111.6m), the United States (US$77.8m)…
The United States became the first country to grant debt relief to Liberia, waiving the full $391 million owed to it by Liberia in early 2007…
In spite of all  the debt relief and donor assistance, Liberia remains extremely poor and fragile with a high vulnerability index score. The country is one of ten Sub-Saharan African countries ranked as poorest in the world, according to the Multidimensional Poverty Index. The 2007 Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) puts the percentage of people living in extreme poverty (living on less than a dollar a day) at 63.8%. In absolute terms, this means that the proportion of the population living below the poverty line is 1.7 million, with 1.3 million people or 48% living in extreme poverty.The 2010 Millennium Development Goals Report states that Liberia is unlikely to achieve the targets set for eradicating extreme hunger and poverty by 2015 (Goal 1). Worse still, the American business magazine, Forbes ranks Liberia 13th among the saddest countries in the world.

In other words, those millions of dollars, much of it from tax-payers, went into a black hole. Much of it probably helped fund tyrants and corrupt bureaucrats.

Can Liberia’s negro-only policy be justified because of past colonialism? This would be a stretch – since Liberia was never truly a colony. Its close relationship with the U.S. kept European colonialists at bay.

It seems likely that this “sad country” would have been a lot less sad had it been a European colony. At least that way, it would have had a solid infrastructure to build on.

There is no “racial equality” in nature, but I believe it’s in our best interest to draw attention to the government’s double-standards. Within this context, we should demand “racial equality” in government. If there ever comes a time when the U.S. government becomes colorblind, then we can recalibrate our strategies from there. Therefore, I have created a petition at the White House petitions website. Please follow this link and sign it:

Sign the petition to have the U.S. government cease foreign aid to Liberia, and cut off foreign relations with it, until it gets rid of its “negro-only” policy.

Now that George Zimmerman’s criminal trial is over, and he has been found not-guilty, he will discover that his woes have only just begun. There is already clamoring, from the usual sources, for the Department of Justice (sic) to pursue civil charges against him.

The NAACP, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other civil rights activists are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to press federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watchman who was acquitted by a Sanford, Fla., jury Saturday in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

“The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin,” NAACP President Ben Jealous wrote in a letter to Holder shortly after the verdict was announced. “We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.”

These so-called “civil rights” organizations carry a lot of clout. They have practically limitless resources at their disposal and they have no interest in the rights of white men, even white men who are actually “Hispanic whites” such as Zimmerman. But even if the federal government does not follow the example set in 1992, by prosecuting the officers with civil rights violations, Zimmerman will still be forced into hiding. Too many people are calling for his head. The media, including facebook (thank you Human Stupidity), have been inciting such violence from the start. When the major media outlets, and the federal government, want somebody dead, that person has reason to worry. It wouldn’t surprise me if Obama sent a drone against him – in the interests of “national security” of course.

Zimmerman already has roots in Peru; his mother is from there. He would probably be happier there, and a whole lot safer.

It appears that all 19 of the firefighters, who died recently in an Arizona blaze, were white men. Given the aggressive push to get more women and non-whites into fire departments, we might have expected somebody to complain that there should be more faces of color among the dead. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, nobody is so complaining.

Had there been a recruitment billboard for Arizona firefighters featuring those who died on that fateful June day, we would never hear the end of how “racist” and “bigoted” that billboard is. There would be demands for the resignation of whoever designed or authorized it. The billboard would be held up as evidence of how backward and narrow minded Arizona is. We would be reminded that this is the state that tried to enforce our border with Mexico and make life difficult for those who enter illegally.

But this is not a recruitment billboard. It’s an image of 19 white men who  tragically lost their lives. A google search for “dead firefighters” and “white” yields results that mention the “White House” and the “white van” that took away the bodies. Nobody seems to pay attention, or care, that all the victims were white. Diversity is the national religion of America, but its followers show apathy when there is no diversity among the dead. It wouldn’t surprise me if certain Afro-centric, and Latino, groups are privately rejoicing. For them, the white man is a demon, and no amount of heroism can erase the sin of his white skin.

Mother nature was to blame for those 19 deaths, but the silence surrounding the race of the victims shows a certain measure of acquiescence. Had they been 19 black men, they would have been doubly mourned: Once for having died as young heroes, and again for having died as black men. Blacks would have mourned the loss of their young black men, and whites would have joined in.

Incidentally, when people die in a conflagration, it’s called a “holocaust”.


I saw this sign at the airport in Dallas.


They made sure to depict two black men, oddly enough without a white woman beside either one. Instead, they placed her between two Hispanics. In the racially conscious world we now inhabit, a sign such as this sends a clear message: White men need not apply.

I have not seen Django Unchained; I refuse to support the movie industry with my hard-earned money. But I did read a review of it at American Renaissance. Some excerpts:

In a December 8 appearance on “Saturday Night Live,” the lead actor, Jamie Foxx, explained what the movie is about:

It’s good to be black. Black is the new white. In my new movie, I play a slave. How black is that? I have to wear chains. How whack is that? I get free. I save my wife, and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that? And how black is that?”

The crowd erupted in laughter, whooping, and applause…

One reviewer, Richard Corliss of Time, mentions Django’s reply when Schultz ask him to be his partner: “Kill white folks and they pay you for it? What’s not to like?” Mr. Corliss calls this “a tantalizing question.” Let us imagine a movie by Mel Gibson, say, in which someone is offered money to assassinate leftwing media types. Would he still think “What’s not to like?” was a “a tantalizing question?” Or would he wail in print about the murderous hatreds of the American Right?…

… As Steve Sailor has noted, a black posted a comment about the movie:

While whites are busy getting offended on our behalf, they miss completely why we are going to see this film. It’s a black man killing white people in masses. I will pay to see that every time.

I’ve seen this film 3 times so far and am going again Saturday night. It’s an awesome movie.

“Awesome” is another way of saying “inspiring.”, which tracks twitter messages, found this sort of thing:

“After watching Django, all I wanna do is shoot white people.”

“Still hype off Django. I’m gonna kill some white people today.”

“Django got me wanting to kill white people!”

“Django made me wanna kill so many white people.”

Reading this review, I could not help but be reminded of another article at American Renaissance, about the movie Machete, where we read:

In Hollywood’s latest anti-White film, the hero is a blood-thirsty illegal alien of Latino ethnicity who slaughters white people with a myriad of weapons. White people are presented as the “bad guys.” Even the trailer of the film {snip} begins with the militant Latino telling the viewers that he has a “special message” for the people of Arizona, who valiantly stood up for Western Culture and state sovereignty vis-à-vis a recent law that prescribed penalties for those who aid in the invasion of our country.

Both movies should be illegal, and all those involved with their production should be prosecuted for inciting violence. A defense that the movies are “works of fiction” should be countered with the fact that they are actually thinly veiled messages that are relevant to contemporary America. The messages are: White people are evil and you are justified in killing them as cruelly as possible.

I realize that this form of incitement is a legal grey area, and I’m certain that there will be a comment or two explaining why there can be no prosecution in such cases. But how does our society view such works as The Turner Diaries? It has been described as having incited actual acts of terrorism and crime. You will not find it at your public library. In contrast, you probably will find Machete at your public library. No doubt, Django Unchained will also be available there in a couple of years. A description of The Turner Diaries, at Amazon, reads:

At 9:02 am on Wednesday April 19, 1995, two tons of explosives ripped apart the federal office building in Oklahoma City and the psyche of America. The worst case of domestic terrorism in our history, this explosion killed 169 men, women, and children. The author of this book has written, If [this book] had been available to the general public . . . the Oklahoma bombing would not have come as such a surprise. It has been considered by the Justice Department and other government agencies as the bible of right-wing militia groups, and the FBI believes it provided the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing. Barricade Books has published it so America can better understand the cause of racism and extremism.

In other words, it is for educational purposes only. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if ordering it online will get your name added to a government watch list. For sheer psychological impact, a novel cannot come close to the power of a professionally-made movie. If The Turner Diaries was responsible for hundreds of deaths, movies such as Django Unchained and Machete are responsible for thousands. These movies are far more harmful than novels such as The Turner Diaries for another reason: They add fuel to a fire that is already there. Even before the release of these movies, blacks and Mexicans had been murdering whites at unprecedented rates. They build on an anti-white establishment that already used the full force of public schools, the federal government, “higher education” and corporate America (in other words, anybody with power) to promote the idea that whites are evil and “people of color” are good. The movies serve as effective means of reinforcing the hatred of whites that is pounded into our skulls from cradle to grave.

The Turner Diaries is the equivalent of giving a normal, healthy, man a gun and telling him to shoot his neighbors. Django Unchained and Machete are the equivalent of giving the gun to a deranged man, who is already enraged at his neighbors, and telling him to shoot them. Which scenario is more dangerous? It’s true that some readers of The Turner Diaries are already deranged, angry, individuals. But they represent a miniscule number of people when compared to the seething masses of hateful, vengeful, blacks and Mexicans. White violence against blacks and Mexicans is a rare aberration. Black and Mexican violence against whites is a way of life. The last thing we need is to encourage it even more.

Somehow I got signed up for the “Opposing Views” newsletter. I don’t know how; it just happened. “Opposing Views” appears to have a leftist bias, but they do have interesting articles once in a while, so I never unsubscribed.

Here’s a tidbit from the latest Opposing Views newsletter:

Kindergarten isn’t the place parents assume their kids will get their first reality check. It’s usually where kids can believe in magic and Santa and his elves and reindeer — where imagination is fostered and encouraged.

This wasn’t so for a Texas kindergarten teacher, whose only “dashing through the snow” this year was dashing the hopes and breaking the hearts of her 5-year-old students by telling them Santa isn’t real.

The parents of a 5-year-old girl received the unexpected news when their daughter came home from school one day and asked if Santa is real. (If any kids are reading this, it’s a dumb question. Of course, he is.)…

The mother, Susan Tietz Gammage, said she emailed the principal of the school to complain about the incident, who responded that he was “horrified” about the anti-Santa statements and that the teacher has been reprimanded and “given tools” to deal with the situation for following years.

So, if a teacher was reprimanded for telling her students (they are students, aren’t they?) the truth about Santa Claus, does this mean she’s not supposed to teach them the truth? Aren’t those kids at school (kindergarten is school, isn’t it?) to learn? Let me hastily add that I don’t believe it’s good form for a teacher to go out of her way to destroy his student’s religious faith, whatever it may be. There must be a list of topics the teacher is supposed to teach his students – and the myth of Santa Claus surely isn’t on that list. But if the subject just happens to come up, and if one of the children happens to ask about it, then I would expect the teacher to tell him the truth. Education is about the truth.

Those parents who feel strongly about their children believing in Santa Claus should send them to a religious school.

I couldn’t help but notice the phrase “anti-Santa”. When we promote race-realist concepts, concepts that are strongly supported by the latest science, we are accused of being “anti-black” or “anti people-of-color.” Stating a fact does not make somebody anti anything. I will qualify this by stating that if the teacher went out of her way to destroy the children’s belief in Santa, then this would mean she’s against the playful, and innocent, childhood concept of Santa Claus. In the same way, if I went door to door in a Mormon neighborhood and argued against the Book of Mormon, this would probably mean I’m anti-Mormon. But if the subject came up and I stated the truth about it, then all it means is I’m stating the truth.

Childhood innocence is up to parents to protect and gradually replace with wisdom and responsibility. Discovering the truth about Santa Claus is a lot like finding out about sex. If the parents introduce it with a smile, a hug, playfulness and love, then there is nothing traumatic about it at all – even if the child has already had his eyes opened by another and approaches his parents with questions (as in the above article). If the parents laugh a silly laugh, give the child an affectionate pinch on the cheek, and explain it in terms he can understand, then all is well. But if the parents show anger or stress, the child will pick up on this and become traumatized. There is very little a teacher can do, short of actual abuse, that a parent can’t make right. In fact, a teacher’s mistakes are often great parenting opportunities.

It’s a pity so many children attend kindergarten. Because of kindergarten, the most formative years are taken from the parents and given to strangers. It’s a pity because a parent’s main priority in life should be to raise his own child. It appears that public education has caused too many parents to forget the skill of parenting, as we can see from the parental reactions in the above story.

Truth be told, in many cases both parents are forced to work so that they can afford a house in a safe neighborhood. With both parents working, they have little choice but to avail themselves of public schools. It’s a cruel irony that they are forced to send their children to schools where the “wonders of diversity” are pounded into their heads – the same diversity that forced both parents to work in order to escape it, thus rendering them unable to home-school and making it more difficult to teach their children the dangers of diversity. At the same time, a big chunk of their earnings is expropriated in order to perpetuate, and expand, this diversity. It’s diabolical.

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers