🚨 The Secret Origins of Robin DiAngelo's White "Anti-Racist" Cult You've heard that it's impossible to be racist against white people. That all white people are inherently racist. That the only solution is to "do the work." Where did this all come from? You might know of Critical Race Theory, but there's another source for these ideas you've never heard about. I undertook an unprecedented investigation into the origins of these ideas, pulling documents and microfilms from university special collections and sending people into "anti-racism" workshops with hidden cameras. Here's a summary: • Stokely Carmichael, the Marxist-Leninist founder of the Black Power movement, kicked all the white people out of his organization and told them to "educate other white people" in his views. • Robert Terry, a white man, developed his philosophy of "New White Consciousness" based on Carmichael's views, explaining "we have met the enemy, and they are us." • After the Detroit riots of 1967, Michigan Governor George Romney engages in "riot insurance" by funding racially militant projects. • White K-12 educators receive this funding and teach New White Consciousness. One of these teachers, Alan Hurwitz, gets addicted to crack and becomes a famed serial bank robber. Another, Patricia Bidol, invents to "Power + Prejudice" definition of "racism." • These educators train with the NTL Institute, an organization founded by U.S. intelligence's former director of the "psychological warfare center for the Far East." There they learn psychologically manipulative education techniques that allow them to “form ideology for other people.” • The National Education Association, America's largest teachers union, trains teachers in these ideas nationwide. • Judith Katz, author of the infamous Smithsonian “Aspects & Assumptions of Whiteness” infographic, refines the techniques of "anti-racism" training and drastically increases their popularity. • Robin DiAngelo plagiarizes her predecessors' ideas wholesale, while citing none of them. All of this and so much more is exposed in my new book Redefining Racism, released TODAY. Learn more from the video below. Follow the link in the next tweet to read it for yourself. 🔽

It’s one thing to say that international law is an unenforceable fiction, which I broadly agree with. It’s another thing to oppose appeals to morality and justice (as represented in international law). If one is to support morality and justice, there is no alternative, and to do otherwise is evil. The Arab population wanted a state that they believed would protect their rights and interests. It’s immaterial from my perspective if that was to be under an independent Palestine or as part of another Arab state, which I’m sure Palestinians had differing opinions on. I’m not an expert in everything that happened in the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and I can’t speak in great detail to other displacements. What I can say is there’s one where families still hold the keys to their homes and want to return, and that any defender of classical liberal Western ideals must support that or be an immoral hypocrite.

The Zionists were the aggressors by virtue of trying to take political control of land in a way that gave them disproportionate control over the majority of the people who lived there. This was true from the earliest days of Zionism with their talk of population “transfer” (ethnic cleansing), and it remained true in 47 as was clear in the partition maps, where the proposed Jewish state had only the narrowest Jewish majority while the Arab state had an overwhelming Arab majority, thus giving disproportionately more land to the Zionists than the Arabs. There are versions of partition that could have been more fair that I would have a different opinion on, but those were not the one that was proposed. Additionally, the Zionists accepted partition provisionally, but wanted the whole land and there was good reason to believe they would not stop with what they were given. It’s worse than ironic how much Israeli rejection of the 2SS now aligns with Palestinian rejection of the 2SS then.

Saying “the right of the individual does not exist in nature” is about the most un-American statement possible. Appalling that you were given American citizenship without knowing the following words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In America, we believe our rights come before government, and governments are instituted to protect them. That you believe it’s the other way around, and that’s you explicitly believe Palestinians are only entitled to rights if and when they are allowed to form a government, is why you — and Zionist ideology broadly — is deeply un-American. Contra your propaganda, Israel is neither liberal nor a democracy. “Palestinians” are not all helpless victims. But many more individual Palestinians are helpless victims than Israeli Jews, and ANY state, including the Israeli state, is only just if it is securing the rights of the governed. Not keeping a whole population under endless military occupation with no rights. You fundamentally seem incapable of thinking past collectivist groups like “Arabs.” Even if the fault was on the Arab side (it wasn’t, and you’re not accurately reflecting the Arab position in pre-48 Palestinian, in which Arab representatives to UNSCOP stated clearly that Jews who were legal citizens of British Palestine would keep their citizenship and have equal rights with Arabs in the Arab majority state to follow), it wouldn’t justify the Nakba or whatever other historical atrocities you can cite (although India/Pakistan does not have a comparable set of facts anyway) because individual innocent civilians rights ought to be protected. It is the nature of evil that in order to justify one act of email, you must justify many more; it is possible instead to justify none. If you never shy away from a debate, then let’s get on a podcast and do it. I’m sure it wouldn’t be difficult to find a neutral party to host. You will lose badly.

Arab leadership was not morally or legally obligated to accept partition for civilian Palestinians to have a right to stay in their homes and not be expelled. If the American and Chinese governments went to war and America lost, is it ok for China to expel you to Canada, take your house, give it to a Chinese person, and never let you return? Also I’m 35, was sent to a Jewish school where we were taught to be Zionists for 12 years, have relatives in Israel, and spent about half a year there. I took 12 years of Hebrew and know well what Hasbara means. Meanwhile you’re their token paid propagandist.

The Boston Tea Party revolted over an ~7% tax on tea. Look at what we’ve become since.

Worth remembering.

Hmm… Which am I?

Getting ratio’d for this. Sorry, don’t care. Also Dave Chappell is one of the greatest comedians of all time, and J.K. Rowling the greatest YA author.