Who controls the past controls the future. In an age where the vast majority of the population gets its information from a Corporate Media that is owned by only a handful of players, the phrase “money talks” takes on new meaning. It now means that, even if non-billionaires are allowed to talk, few will listen. The Corporate Media’s grip on public opinion is such that censorship isn’t even necessary any more. To the extent that censorship is practiced, it’s probably more out of habit, or perhaps as a hobby. When something like 90% of the population gets all its “information” from approved sources, there’s only so much the other 10% can do in response.
We’ve seen how the Corporate Media, through selective reporting, misleading headlines, and strategically-placed details, has cultivated a specific narrative: That “white-supremacy” is the greatest threat to white civilization (AKA “Western Civilization”), that any expressions of white-solidarity are actually “hate,” and that certain symbols can only be viewed as “symbols of hate and intolerance.”
We’ve seen how government policy has acted upon this narrative, writing it into policies and law. We’ve seen how policeofficerslosetheirjobs for wrong-think – as defined by the Corporate Media.
In the latest twist, a mother in New York has been ordered to remove a Confederate Battle Flag from her property, or lose custody of her bi-racial daughter:
A judge recently ordered a New York woman to remove a rock decorated with a Confederate flag from her residence or risk losing custody of her biracial child.
In a 5-0 ruling, justices in the Appellate Division of New York State’s Supreme Court‘s Third Department, allowed a couple to retain joint custody of their biracial child but ordered the mother to remove the rock featuring the Confederate flag by June 1.
“As such, while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother’s right to display the flag, if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis,” Justice Stanley Pritzker wrote in the ruling on May 6.
According to the ruling, the parents, who were only identified as Christie and Isiah, were ordered to have joint custody of the child in 2017, but when an attorney for the child recommended that the mother’s home should be the child’s primary residence, the father appealed.
It’s noteworthy that the court was unanimous in this decision, and it’s possible that any dissenting judge would forfeit his own job.
It’s also noteworthy that the woman in question is far from a “white-supremacist;” we can safely assume that she’s white, and her ex is black – but her own attitudes are irrelevant to the court. All the court cares about is that its Corporate Media bosses have determined that the flag is a “hate-symbol,” and that it must, therefore, act accordingly.
What do we call it when government is beholden to an activist media? “Mediacracy?” I think this is as good a word as any.
I’m borrowing this answer, with permission, from Quora.
If Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today, would he assist “Black Lives Matter” succeed in their goals peacefully?
Paul White Answered:
Many conservatives have a romanticized view of Martin Luther King Jr. which entails him being some upright, morally pure man who singlehandedly managed to defeat racism by being nice and somehow managing to convince White people that race is irrelevant. Many liberals also have a romanticized view of him, though from the different perspective. They see him as merely another figure in the perpetual social revolution towards inevitable “progress”, and that he would as a result support all other movements in this perpetual march towards what liberals call “progress”. They point to the fact that conservatives of his day hated him and were against the riotous behavior of his supporters, much as many conservatives are against Black Lives Matter and their riotous behavior today.
Aftermath of riot of MLK supporters
BLM riot ongoing
The liberal analysis has a degree of truth, yes, conservatives did not like MLK back in the 1960s, but that is meaningless in relation to conservatives today. Conservatives are perhaps the most spineless demographic in the country, and so they adopt every liberal policy and idea after liberals push it down the public’s throat. Not only has this been seen with the 1960s social movements, but even much more recent phenomena, like gay marriage, or even more recently with transgenderism. While liberals are practically religious in their fanaticism and so they can normalize any idea they want no matter how absurd, conservatives are passive and just rely on whichever crazy liberal idea is fashionable to blow over, which of course never happens.
It also true that Martin Luther King Jr. despite being nominally Christian (I say “nominally” because he rejected the idea that biblical miracles, even when preformed by Christ happened or even could have happened) was quite socially liberal. I do not think he would be particularly socially conservative, he might have some reservations about the most extreme forms of sexual degeneracy one sees, like prepubescent drag queens dancing at homosexual bars and having grown men throw money at them as they sexualize themselves, but that would probably not be a deal-breaker for him, especially considering that his primary aim would be to promote the collective interests of his race, not social morality.
The conservative fantasy version of MLK is completely unfounded, even ignoring the plagiarism, adultery, and laughing at a woman getting raped in front of him by his entourage, politically speaking, he was not what conservatives make him out to be anyway. His attitude was not just “lets be equal to the White man and live and let live” as a he made it out in public, but he supported Whites paying Blacks for reparations for slavery, saying:
“No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. . . . The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement.”
He was also a supporter of mandatory racial quotas in employment, regardless of qualification, saying:
“For instance, if a city has a 30 percent Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30 percent of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas,”
On White people themselves, he had no kind words, saying:
“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn.”
This is quite ironic considering he had to rely on the goodwill of White people to rally behind him and support him and his agenda.
He was also warned multiple times by the FBI that his closest advisor, Stanley Levison,
was supported by the Soviet Union, and despite these warnings, he ignored them. The book Operation Solo: The FBI’s Man in the Kremlin by John Barron, which tells the story of an FBI agent who infiltrated not only the communist movement in the United States, but also various communist movements around the world, meeting with top leaders like Mao and Khrushchev. According to that book, Stanley Levison was not only supported by the Soviet Union, but was one of the biggest financial contributors to the Communist Party USA. It was in fact because of MLK’s consistent refusal to clean house of those with direct ties to the Communist Party and the Soviet Union that then Attorney General Robert Kennedy, himself sympathetic to King, allowed the FBI to begin spying on him to begin with.
King also relied on cooperation with the Communist Party, various of its members, as well as various front groups for both financial support and media outreach, despite many of them having direct ties to the Soviet Union, such as Aubrey Williams, James Dombrowski, Carl Braden, William Melish, Ella J. Baker, Bayard Rustin, and Benjamin Smith, and the Southern Conference Educational Fund, the Committee to Secure Justice for Morton Sobell, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and the National Lawyers Guild.
It should also be noted that the media back then, just as it does today, was completely on the side of the self-proclaimed “progressives” on the matter. In fact, without mainstream media support, which portrayed all the opponents of MLK as simply mindless, idiotic “racists” (already a taboo back then) and portraying King as a heroic figure of justice, love, and tolerance. Ironically, the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover,
supposedly super-duper racist and evil who wanted to stop King at every turn, refused to disclose to the public or the media (though the latter would probably not even report on it) the information they had gathered in their wiretapping of King, which would have certainly destroyed him. This serves as a lesson to conservatives for the future, no matter how much “fair play” you do, if you do not submit to the agenda of liberals, they will destroy you and your reputation anyway if you are opposed to them.
Ultimately, what MLK supported and believed in was not much different to what BLM supports today, except perhaps BLM is more explicitly vulgar about it, so yes, MLK would undoubtedly be a BLM supporter and activist were he alive today. Liberals would have no problem with the real MLK, as they correctly assess about themselves, whether conservatives would go along with the real him were he alive today simply because of the cult that has grown around him even though he is completely against everything they stand for is hard to say.
Personally, even when I was a conservative, I found the cult of Martin Luther King Jr., especially among conservatives, to be very cringeworthy. I didn’t have any problems with Blacks or other non-Whites, but I didn’t see him as being particularly heroic. Certainly he was no Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Davy Crockett, John Winthrop, Patrick Henry, or anyone like that. I hope that most conservatives are like how I was, and would stand up to King if shown the real version of him, but I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Really, it is only a matter of time before conservatives begin to worship BLM in the same way and for us to have a George Floyd Day in which we genuflect to his greatness.
That is, it is a matter of time unless conservatives actually grow a spine and begin to fight back.
So many companies have joined the zombie apocalypse of Wokeness that it would be easier to list the ones that maintain some sanity. As a matter of fact, my friend Diversity Chronicle, sent me such a list.
The latest to make headlines for discriminating against its white employees is Disney. From The Washington Examiner:
The Walt Disney Company’s mission to “entertain, inform, and inspire people” will now include lectures about race and white privilege, according to newly leaked employee training materials.
According to the “Reimagine Tomorrow” materials, described as a “diversity and inclusion program,” the Walt Disney Company is teaching its employees that America was founded on “systemic racism” and encourages a new employee to “take ownership of educating yourself about structural anti-Black racism.”
The new training materials also include concepts such as “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “white saviors,” “microaggressions,” and “antiracism.”
Additionally, the entertainment conglomerate urges its white employees to complete a “white privilege checklist” during their employment.
We can only imagine what form this “urging” takes, and how a refusal to acquiesce might impact one’s career. If you’re white, and you work at Disney, you should identify as “Latino.”
If you looked at the list of good companies, linked to above, you might have noticed that the list isn’t very long. Those companies are (often marginal) exceptions to the rule. We can randomly pick any American company on Wall Street, do a bit of research, and come up with some sort of anti-white behavior or policy most of the time.
This presents a dilemma for white-advocates; if we don’t invest our money, it will wither away due to inflation. If we do invest our money, we’re supporting entities that work toward our demise as a people. My philosophy has been to hold my nose and invest anyway, because a poor activist is not a very effective activist.
But Wall Street has a bad case of Down’s Syndrome; it seems that stocks are always down these days – probably due to Biden’s not-so-brilliant economic policies. Every morning, I arise from a fitful slumber, turn on my computer – and sure enough, stocks are down.
But now there’s hope. We can speculate on cryptocurrencies. I’d like to point out that if everybody stopped investing in the stock market, and put their money in cryptocurrencies instead, we’d all probably perish; at least in theory, the companies whose stocks we trade in actually produce something – even if it’s only entertainment (such as Disney). Most of my stocks are related to manufacturing, mining or other essential services. We need to eat, we need our electronics, our minerals, our clothing etc.
When we “invest” in cryptocurrency, our money isn’t supporting any product, service, or infrastructure. We can look at these currencies as “empty stocks.” But right now, I don’t care; it’s a way to put my money to work without supporting evil corporations – and so far, it’s been working out fairly well.
I’ve found my Spirit-Crypto: Ethereum! I say this because I have the reverse Midas touch. Every stock that I buy immediately gets a case of Down’s Syndrome – but not Ethereum. Of course, it could collapse tomorrow, and I’ll eat my words. So far, however, it’s been good to me, and if you can, you might consider wagering a modest sum in Ethereum. Don’t confuse it with “Ethereum Classic.” They’re not the same thing.
Note: I’m not a financial advisor. Be careful with your money, and never invest more than you can afford to lose.
White males go to the back of the line in applying for funds to rescue their bars, restaurants, and other venues eligible for federal relief for the impact of the coronavirus lockdown. This violates the equal protection under the law requirements of the United States Constitution, but it is nonetheless ongoing right now.
As part of Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is opening the application process by which owners of restaurant, bars, and other venues can apply for federal relief to help make up for the loss of revenue as a result of economic lockdowns spurred by the Chinese coronavirus crisis.(snip)
The relief, though, is being prioritized based on race, gender, and whether or not business owners are considered “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” White men, for example, who are not Veterans of the United States Armed Forces, are not eligible for “priority period” processing and funding.
Under the guidelines of the RRF, the SBA is giving priority processing and funding to “small business owned by women, veterans, or socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”
A small business concern that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more individuals who are:
Socially and economically disadvantaged (see below).
Applicants must self-certify on the application that they meet eligibility requirements
Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.
Economically disadvantaged individuals are those socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same business area who are not socially disadvantaged.
Individuals who are members of the following groups are presumed to be socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (including Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians); Asian Pacific Americans; or Subcontinent Asian Americans.
How Orwellian to refer to groups that are explicitly advantaged as “suffering from prejudice.”
I would encourage white restaurant owners to self-identify as “Hispanic” on their applications. I would also advise everybody to specifically patronize white-owned restaurants, and to avoid restaurants that are likely benefiting from unjust government programs. In the past, I’ve enjoyed Vietnamese restaurants, but going forward, I’ll learn how to make my own pho. Mexican food? I can make my own. Italian is looking better all the time.
Thomas Lifson, at American Thinker, believes that this law will be challenged in court. This would be a challenge, because (as I mentioned in a previous post) urban restaurant owners wouldn’t dare file such a lawsuit; to do so would mean boycotts, vandalism and physical threats against them and their families. Hopefully, there are still some restaurant owners in rural America who can safely challenge this law.
We’ve already seen how the State of Oregon, and the Federal Government, are shamelessly funneling taxpayer money into the hands of black citizens, at the expense of white citizens. It should come as no surprise that the City of San Francisco is doing the same. From The Washington Examiner:
San Francisco will divert $3.75 million from its law enforcement budget to programs assisting black business owners in the city.
The Office of Economic and Workforce Development will distribute funding to 17 community organizations, including the San Francisco African American Chamber of Commerce, the Center for Equity and Success, Inc., and the African American Arts and Culture Complex.
The funding is aimed at preserving black cultural events and establishing “Incubation Hubs” for small businesses in historically black neighborhoods. Community organizations that receive funding will also be tasked with providing technical assistance, advice, and training to small business owners…
The $3.75 million allocation is part of the Dream Keeper initiative, which will divert $120 million of the city’s law enforcement budget over two years to San Francisco’s black residents.
This is the third recent example of explicit anti-white (or pro-black) discrimination perpetrated by government agencies so far; no doubt there will be more. Additionally, there will be complaints from San Francisco’s Latino community that they’re being left out; such programs will be amended to include them as well.
When one race is forced to give up the fruits of its labor, so that it can be given to another race, it’s called “slavery.” If slavery was wrong in the past, then it’s certainly wrong today. Let us rise up against it any way we can!
Yesterday, I wrote about the State of Oregon’s brazen violation of anti-discrimination law. Not surprisingly, the Federal government is acting in the same spirit. From The Daily Wire:
A Chilton, Wisconsin, dairy farmer who has two prosthetic legs has joined four other farmers from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and South Dakota to sue the Biden administration regarding a $4 billion plan inserted into the Biden administration’s COVID relief program that allegedly forgives loans for farmers and ranchers who are black, native American, Hispanic, or Asian, but does not do the same for white farmers…
Adam Faust, the Chilton farmer who was born with spina bifida and milks roughly 70 cows on his 200 acres, told Fox 11, “’It was just out and out racist, and I really don’t think that there should be racism allowed in the federal government at any level.” Speaking on Fox News, he added, “I mean, racism against anybody is wrong. We can’t have a government picking and choosing who they are going to give any program to based solely on the color of their skin. … Everything that we have all learned growing up his racism was wrong, and now, all of a sudden, the federal government seems to think that racism is acceptable in certain ways.”
There is nothing “all of a sudden” about this; the Federal government has been discriminating against white people for a long time – as has been documented on this blog and elsewhere.
In my previous post, I pointed out that the only white-owned company that challenged the Oregon law is a logging company. The one urban-based company that challenged it is Mexican-owned.
In this case, it’s farmers who are impacted. Since farmers, almost by definition, live away from cities, they’re less vulnerable to BLM violence and intimidation; it’s unlikely that a BLM mob will visit a farm and destroy property or threaten workers.
People who live in larger cities, who own homes and businesses there, are vulnerable. Nobody will protect them when the BLM mobs come to get them. They can’t watch over their property 24/7, nor can they protect their kids at all times when they’re at school or at events.
This state of affairs means that few, or no, people will be able to challenge anti-white laws when those laws primarily affect the urban population. They’re sitting ducks with no protection, and no legal recourse.
The only possible answer is to organize private militias, which would show up in force to protect law-abiding citizens when their rights are threatened.
Oregon laws protect you from being discriminated against at work, in housing, and at places that do business with the public.
* It’s illegal to be fired or demoted, paid less, or otherwise treated differently based on your race, color, or national origin.
* You cannot be treated differently when looking for housing, applying for financing, or in other housing decisions.
* Your right to go to public places like restaurants, stores, and other public places free from discrimination is protected.
It’s clear as day that the law prohibits discrimination, in allocating financing, on the basis of race – and yet the State of Oregon rolled out a financial aid program last year that specifically applies to blacks, while excluding non-blacks. This was in clear violation of the law, but considering the political climate, it was far from clear that anyone would challenge it.
Fortunately, two companies did challenge it. From Oregon Live:
Organizers of the fund distributed $49.5 million to Black Oregonians, Black-owned businesses and Black-led nonprofits across 31 Oregon counties last fall, but they agreed to hand over their remaining funds to a federal court and stop allocating grant money in December after a John Day logging company and Portland coffee shop challenged the constitutionality of the state fund.
Obviously, due to BLM terrorism, few businesses are in a position to challenge such a law; they would be targeted for vandalism, assault and boycotts.
It’s worth noting that the owner of the coffee shop that sued is Mexican. Apparently, there were no white small-business owners who dared challenge this blatant discrimination against them. As for the logging company, it’s easy to see why they’re not as vulnerable as other businesses. Here’s an excerpt from another article:
“The pandemic’s harm to Great Northern should qualify it to compete in any government-aid program for businesses that have been affected by Covid-19. And yet the company is ineligible to receive a grant from the Fund because its owner is not Black,” the company wrote in its complaint, which was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Portland.
Conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, who has led high-profile challenges to the federal Voting Rights Act and to racial considerations in college admissions, said his organization is funding Great Northern’s lawsuit. The suit does not name the logging company’s owners, but Blum said they are white.
“This express use of race in distributing government money is unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional,” the complaint asserts. It names the Oregon Department of Administrative Services as a defendant. The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me that when a law is challenged as “unconstitutional,” the courts are supposed to decide whether it’s constitutional or not, and then act accordingly. But this is not what appears to be happening here.
Even though two companies found the courage to actually challenge the law, little came of it. Instead of the law being struck down as unconstitutional, which it obviously is, the courts awarded settlements to the two complainants, and paid off a handful of other non-black businesses that had applied for the grants:
As part of the settlement, Oregon is also using its own risk fund to pay grants to up to 1,252 non-Black applicants that sought funding through the program before Dec. 8. The court is continuing to hold an additional $3.5 million deposited by fund organizers until the state pays out those grants.
The State of Oregon is wasting no time resuming payments to black-owned businesses:
Organizers of the state’s $62 million coronavirus relief fund for Black Oregonians will soon resume distributing grant money after agreeing to a settlement with a John Day logging company that challenged the constitutionality of the unique state fund…
The Oregon Cares Fund distributed $49.5 million to nearly 15,600 Black individuals, 466 Black-owned businesses and 103 Black-led nonprofits last year before agreeing to suspend operations and hand over their remaining money to a federal court in December amid the ongoing legal challenge.
Let’s consider the situation:
Ongoing BLM riots targeting white-owned businesses, to the point where some businesses put “POC-Owned Business” signs out front.
The state government ignoring its own constitution, and passing a race-specific benefit package that excludes non-blacks.
The victims of this package are too intimidated to challenge the law.
The courts allowing non-black businesses that applied to be paid off, rather than immediately striking down the law.
According to Qur’an, Muslims are supposed to fast during Ramadan, but apparently, it’s okay to rape infidel women while fasting. From The Daily Mail:
A sex predator who struck five times in just 11 days as he tried to emulate serial rapist Joseph McCann is facing years in jail.
Abdallah Baballah, 25, stalked his victims as they left Tube stations or got off night buses and then told a jury they had all consented.
The Sudanese former Barking and Dagenham College student followed his first victim off a night bus in Newham at around 2.30am on a day in July, 2019.
Baballah said ‘Give me your phone or I’ll stab you’ before dragging the woman into a quiet street and raping her three times, jurors were told.
He stole cash from her wallet but returned her phone and identity cards.
(I’m not sure why the photo is distorted).
He’ll probably be a hero to other inmates during his brief stay in British jail. He’ll probably get a six-month sentence, followed by counseling and a small fine.
It is reported that women have few rights in Sudan, and that sexual assault is rarely prosecuted there. If so, then the women of Sudan should have our sympathy – but the fact that the British government allows predators like Baballa to enter the country shows how little it cares about the safety of British women.
In a sane world Baballa would serve several years of hard labor in a British prison, then be castrated and deported back to Sudan. Either that or a bullet to the head.
On the face of it, Zachary Faria’s recent editorial, at the Washington Chronicle, is spot on. Titled, “The surge in white supremacy is such a problem that people keep inventing examples,” it seems to build a solid case:
Some 400 former Jeopardy! contestants illustrated both points to perfection, demanding an apology from contestant Kelly Donohue for a gesture that, “whether intentional or not, resembled very closely a gesture that has been coopted by white power groups.”
That symbol was actually just a hand gesture to indicate the number three. Anyone who has watched a game of basketball at nearly any level of skill would recognize it. Donohue was indicating that he had won three times on the show, continuing the trend he started after his first and second wins.
But that didn’t matter. Apparently, more than 400 people who have been on Jeopardy! do not recognize the number three. But they do recognize what the Anti-Defamation League foolishly considers a hate symbol. Everyone wants to earn praise for pushing back on white supremacy. So much so that some people have to make up opponents to fight against…
The search for white supremacists is so rabid that a San Diego Gas and Electric Employee was fired for incidentally making that same hand symbol while cracking his knuckles. He was a Mexican-American.
When it comes to witch-hunts, our era is more dangerous than previous generations. Never has an apparatus of propaganda had such a powerful hold on the population, never has government had so many tools to control its population, and never has the population been so large that a steady stream of narrative-confirming stories can be harvested. It’s the perfect storm, and the only thing we have going for us is that bloodshed isn’t as acceptable as it was in the past… at least for now.
Faria’s editorial is a good one, in that it illustrates the excesses of our current witch-hunt. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go so far as to actually CONDEMN the witch-hunt. On the contrary, describing the Charlottesville protesters, he writes:
But it’s been nearly four years since the despicable collection of racist losers assembled in Charlottesville, Virginia. They were the outlier, not the norm.
It would have been helpful to point out that, by its very nature, Unite the Right included people of various ideologies, only a few of whom were toxic. Trump was right; there WERE good people there. By neglecting to point this out, Faria is actually supporting The Narrative, not criticizing it. In a perfect world, people like Faria would point out that white-advocacy is not only legitimate, but commendable. Instead, he implies that white-advocates are evil, but people shouldn’t be excessively alarmed, because there are actually very few of us.
As more and more whites become aware that there’s a campaign of genocide brewing against them, we’ll see increasing expressions of white solidarity. When confronted by such signs of rebellion, weak-minded people might conclude that Faria was wrong, and that “white-supremacy” is all around us, and a serious threat.
What do you think? Is Faria’s editorial a refreshing piece of journalistic honesty, or insidious propaganda?
Every couple of months, the City of Beaverton, Oregon publishes its newsletter – and predictably, each issue is increasingly pious when it comes to the Cult of Diversity.
We start this issue with an article titled “Downtown Welcomes Changes on 5th Street.” The third paragraph reads:
The city thrives as an ethnically diverse, welcoming city, where all its residents are an essential part of the Beaverton community but many existing residents increasingly struggle to remain in Beaverton. The city’s affordable housing activities focus on helping households experiencing homelessness; increasing quality affordable rental housing; providing homeownership opportunities, and developing policies geared toward ensuring Black, Indigenous and Communities of Color have access to these opportunities.
One wonders what policies will be developed in order to ensure non-whites have access; clearly, these policies will be above and beyond the routine policies, which are geared toward residents in general. One also wonders how much these policies will cost taxpayers, and how much they will adversely affect white residents. I’ve sent an email requesting specifics, and I’ll provide an update if they reply.
In an article titled “Public Safety Center Plaza Naming Process Update,” (pg. 6) we’re told that…
The city is committed to supporting inclusion by recognizing the contributions of communities of color and our shared history in public spaces.
In other words, there are only three possibilities here: Martin Luther King Plaza, Rosa Parks Plaza or Cesar Chavez Plaza. Alright, there are a few other possibilities, but those are the most likely.
Also related to housing, we find (also on pg. 6) “Inclusion Put First With New Housing Cohort.” “Inclusiveness” seems to be a common thread:
Intentionally engaging historically underserved and underrepresented communities in city decision-making processes is an important step toward advancing racial equity. As part of the city’s efforts to incorporate a variety of ideas and perspectives into the city’s housing projects and programs, the city established a new group that is composed of culturally and racially diverse community members with an interest in housing.
In partnership with Unite Oregon, the city formed the Inclusive Housing Cohort. Unite Oregon is a community organization led by people of color, immigrants and refugees, rural communities and people experiencing poverty to build an intercultural movement for justice in Oregon.
It’s obvious, even to the casual observer, that the vast majority of homeless people in Beaverton are white. Wouldn’t it be nice if white people were included in “inclusiveness?”
Finally, on page 14 we find, “Equity Strategy to Ensure Downtown Is an Inclusive Place.” We read:
A new project, the Downtown Equity Strategy (DES), is needed to guide these investments and other city initiatives to ensure that downtown Beaverton is an inclusive place for racially diverse and low-income communities…
Not once have I heard of “racially diverse” people being excluded, in any way, from downtown Beaverton. All this talk about “inclusiveness for non-whites” gives the impression that they’ve been somehow excluded until now. Why don’t they give us some examples?
It’s sobering to think that publications such as this one can be found, in their thousands, all across America. I’m willing to wager that not ONE OF THEM shows any concern for their white residents.