Conspiracy Theories 101 Series
Part 10 of 12:
The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017
*Note: All individuals and organizations receive 3 full days of pre-publication notice.
*Note: By Jewish people/Jews, I'm referring to Israeli ethnicity, not Judaist believers.
*Note: The use of the terms genotype and phenotype is not in their proper scientific use, but it will suffice for mainstream science.
*Note: All dollar figures are in US dollars unless specified otherwise.
*Note: I use the term liberal trifecta to refer to liberals in general, liberal/progressive/neo-liberal media outlets, and Democrats.
Just as Christians and new age conspiracy theorists refuse to see a conspiracy against women, many refuse to see a conspiracy against visible minorities. I don't know any major conspiracy theorist that advocates a GSIG conspiracy against women and/or visible minorities. Not a single one.
But the conspiracy is very real in the past and present. By the end of this article, there should be no doubt in your mind that a GSIG conspiracy against visible minorities exists in the 21st century.
Christian conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones wrongly believes that Christianity ends slavery:
And it was the Christians that began to end slavery and empower women. 
Sorry, but both the Union and Confederates are racist and sexist. Prior to the end of slavery, many white Christians believe that slavery is part of the Christian god's plan. Everyone has their place. Sadly, for visible minorities, that place is at the back of the bus.
Prior to 1865, visible minorities are bought and sold as commodities by religious white people. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have deep roots in the slave trade. Religious believers should keep that in mind when they claim that our god loves everyone equally in the 20th - 21st century.
Even after the civil war, white Christians still continue to see visible minority Christians as inferior beings in the eugenics era. It's really only after WWII does the tide begin to shift. But even then, it still takes another 25 years for most white people (including Christians) to have relative equal relations with visible minorities in general.
The best that major conspiracy theorists can muster is that the global elites want a race war. Yes and no. While GSIGs do want to turn different ethnicities against each other, there's a larger framework where people in WE society continue to see visible minorities as inferior beings. Of course, they don't say such things, but many of them still believe it.
Aside from the race war claims, many white Christian conspiracy theorists believe that white privilege doesn't exist or that they're proud of it. If you're not in the know, allow me to show you what white privilege looks like in the 20th - 21st century:
In 2016 Brock Turner gets 6 months (only serving 3 months) in jail for assault and attempt to rape.  He blames the WE college culture of casual sex and drinking.  His dad even defends his actions.  Both the father and son are scum. In a different world, it would only take one phone call to deal with such garbage privately.
The key thing to remember is that Turner could have gotten 14 years in jail. Why the lenient sentence? Because of his white privileged status. He doesn't get leniency because of his non-criminal past. Visible minorities (and black people especially) who don't have a criminal record would never get such privileged lenient sentences.
In 2017 John RK Howard gets 300 hours of community service with probation for forcible penetration with an object into a black developmentally delayed teenager.  If a black student forcibly penetrated a white developmentally delayed with an object, he would be in jail for a long time. The white student doesn't get jail because of his white privilege.
In 2017 Lavinia Woodward will most likely not receive a jail sentence for stabbing her boyfriend with a bread knife because the judge rules that it will damage her future medical career. 
Umm...what? This is what white privilege looks like. If a black woman does the same thing against her white boyfriend, you can bet money that she would receive a jail sentence, regardless of her potential medical career.
And just in case you're not in the know, the judges giving out these sentences are usually white. And between these white judges, there's an unspoken agreement. White people have to give other white people a helping hand in the courts in order to rise above inferior visible minorities. Of course, they don't say it like that, but that's what their rulings imply.
And then there are white people who love their white privileged status:
Tal Fortgang (student at Princeton)
"Check your privilege," the saying goes, and I have been reprimanded by it several times this year.
...But I do condemn them for diminishing everything I have personally accomplished, all the hard work I have done in my life, and for ascribing all the fruit I reap not to the seeds I sow but to some invisible patron saint of white maleness who places it out for me before I even arrive. Furthermore, I condemn them for casting the equal protection clause, indeed the very idea of a meritocracy, as a myth, and for declaring that we are all governed by invisible forces (some would call them "stigmas" or "societal norms"), that our nation runs on racist and sexist conspiracies.
...Behind every success, large or small, there is a story, and it isn't always told by sex or skin color. My appearance certainly doesn’t tell the whole story, and to assume that it does and that I should apologize for it is insulting.
...I have checked my privilege. And I apologize for nothing. 
Christina Ling (student)
There is really so much more to be said about why "white privilege" is actually quite advantageous and should be respected. As an ethnic minority individual, I'll never really know what it is like to be white, so I can only posit my own conjectures based on my personal experiences and observations of white people. I suppose any of my criticisms would be invalid anyway, as they likely stem from deep-seated jealousy of the white race and an inner longing to be white. I can only hope that my future generations can embrace and perpetuate this "white privilege" by marrying into the race until all traces of my Chinese descent have been dissolved. 
Gary Heavin (Chairman of Curves International)
I was a millionaire at 25 from working hard. Then I was bankrupt at 30 for stupid mistakes. But then a billionaire at 50. So I guarantee you, there was no privilege involved...or luck for that matter. The harder I worked the luckier I got perhaps. 
Kurt Schlichter (Lawyer and Columnist)
Call: "Check your privilege!"
Response: "What you call 'privilege' is just me being better than you."
They won't like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like "Check your privilege" are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity.
Don't follow them. Mock them.
...The plain fact is that what they understand to be "privilege" is really just what regular people understand is a "consequence." It is a consequence of hard work, of delaying gratification and of sacrifice.
What they say is privilege is what we say is a reward for doing more with our lives than waiting for Uncle Sucker to refill our EBT cards. "Privilege" is a result of not being a human sloth, of not doing drugs, of not having kids we can't afford...
...Check my privilege? I just did, and it's doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get...a job. 
Clearly, Schlichter is cracked in the head.
Paul Joseph Watson (Infowars)
I love my white male privilege. 
The very word slave is derived from Slav. Slavic white people who were taken as slaves by Muslims in Spain in the 9th century. 
Sorry, but the Arab/Muslim slave trade is not about skin color. It's about religion. The transatlantic slave trade and slavery by white people in the past is due to the inferiority of non-whites. And black people tend to be the lowest of the lowest for the global slave trade in the past.
White people in WE countries begin to wind down the slave trade in the 1800s because that's how long it takes for them to finally give a sh*t about the rights of visible minorities (with other countries following).
Sure, you can say that white people end slavery due to religion, but it's global religions that create/justify slavery in the first place. That's how the Problem Reaction Solution (PRS) works.
Alex Jones (Infowars)
And it's time to throw off the guilt...I don't care if you're white, Hispanic, black, most people are mixed, it doesn't even matter. I'm a little bit Native American. What does it even matter? 
Alex Jones is a little bit Native American? Oh dear god. I'll deal with this issue in the Aboriginals section.
In regards to the new age movement and extraterrestrials, apparently, many of the loving and benevolent ones are white skinned. An interesting observation.
Black and brown extraterrestrials don't evolve high enough. Sorry. And the TV series Star Trek seems to reinforce these ideologies with the Klingons being brown skinned and uncivilized. Another interesting observation.
Contrary to what you may believe, white privilege is not some mysterious invisible force that permeates society. It's an ideology (non-physical) that exists because of racism.
Allow me to be clear. If you're white and love your white privileged status, your ideologies are racist. Why? Because you're saying that it's okay that visible minorities in the past are suppressed, enslaved, tortured, or killed by white people for the sake of the nation/progress.
On the other hand, white people shouldn’t feel guilty for having white skin. Why not? Because you're born into that white family. You can't really change it (aside from Vitiligo or potential gene editing). But you can change your perception of that white privileged status.
Hence, the distinction of not feeling guilty for being white. But still feeling guilty for the past suppression, enslavement, torture, and killing of non-whites.
And yes, I'm aware that many white people who claim white privilege doesn't exist are Jewish and talk about the holocaust. What happened to their white privilege in the concentration camps? It's a fair question. And that leads us into white people discriminating against white people for various unfalsifiable ideological reasons.
While Jews are discriminated against for thousands of years, it only occurs because of religion (Judaism), not because of ethnicity. It occurs because the Hebrew god says that Jews are the chosen people.
Anytime you're the chosen people, you can expect that all of the other non-chosen people are not going to be happy about your exalted status. Hence, the discrimination against Jews throughout millennia and tapering off in the Enlightenment era (aside from the holocaust).
Using a poker analogy, I'll see your Jews in concentration camps and raise you Jews living a high white privileged status in the Enlightenment era and prior to WWII, serving in the highest public or private sector positions.
After WWII, the overt discrimination against the Jews ends (with minor anti-Semitic flare ups). From then on and continuing today, Jews again reach the highest positions in the public and private sector in WE society. That white privileged status doesn't extend to visible minorities.
Barak Obama wins the US election in 2008 because Bush Jr. f*cks up the country so badly. Any and all change is welcomed and desperately needed then. It's a shame that Obama does little to nothing to help the black community. And they punish him (rightly so) by not voting for Hilary Clinton in the 2016 US election.
While many white people talk about earning minimum wage and working hard as a young adult, a visible minority young adult wouldn't be able to get that same job, let alone complain about the wages. While white people talk about tough times in making ends meet, the credit scores of many visible minorities aren't good enough for mortgages:
Credit reports and scores are not race neutral. Rather, they embed existing racial inequities in our credit system and economy – to the point that a person's credit information serves as a proxy for race.
For decades, banks have systematically redlined black and Latino neighborhoods, refusing to make conventional loans or locate branches in non-white and lower-income areas...
...People and communities of color have been disproportionately targeted for high-cost, predatory loans, intrinsically risky financial products that predictably lead to higher delinquency and default rates than non-predatory loans. As a consequence, black people and Latinos are more likely than their white counterparts to have damaged credit. 
However bad the situation is for a white person, it's worse for a visible minority. The poorest white person while have an easier time rising to the top than the poorest visible minority. A white person can be at the right spot at the right time and be promoted or catch a break.
A visible minority in the same spot at the same time won't be promoted or catch that break. A white person that goes bankrupt will be given a second chance to rise to the top. A visible minority that goes bankrupt will not be given that second chance. That's the difference. That's white privilege. If you're still unsure Google "Jane Elliot experiment," and see white privilege in an interesting setting.
Thankfully, the liberal gadfly Bill Maher is aware of white privilege:
...in the last decade 90% of the people who tried heroin for the first time were white...I'd like to remind white people something very important they may have forgotten. You're white. Cheer the f*ck up.
...think of all of the advantages you have. Cops don't shoot you for having your hands in your pockets. When people follow you around a store it's because they want to help you find something. Major party presidential candidates aren’t proposing to deport you.
...You can be a complete f*ckup and people will still hire you. Studies show that white applicants with a criminal record are as likely to get hired as black applicants without one.
...And whites are still first in line for legacy admission to colleges, and businesses, and politics because the well connected parents of white people, tend to be white.
Also, you're more likely to be the boss. Fortune 500 CEOs are 97% white. 
Affirmative action and quotas are government tools to combat this white privileged status. Of course, a good deal of white people are up in arms about such policies:
...another 2009 poll, from Quinnipiac, found that 55 percent of voters favored ending affirmative action for minority racial groups in hiring, promotion, and college admissions. But drill down: Just a quarter of whites supported continuing the programs, a whopping 78 percent of blacks did. Hispanics were evenly split.
When someone says that most Americans oppose race-based affirmative action, what they really mean is most white Americans oppose it. 
...adult white people don't really care about meritocracy; what they care about is making sure that spots in top colleges are going to white kids, who they assume do better on tests than members of other racial and ethnic groups.
...Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.
When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions...
...White adults only want to play on an even field if they're for sure going to win, like the little white boy who wins at the end of every board game commercial. 
A Canada Revenue Agency worker alleges his employer discriminated against him because he had the misfortune of being born a white man.
Joe Bate, 40, is representing himself in the Federal Court case. He claims he was an "efficient and productive" appeals officer for CRA, outshining many of his colleagues.
But instead of being promoted, he says his employer used the Employment Equity Act to pass him over.
...He said the Employment Equity Act was passed in 1986 to ensure inclusion in the workplace of four groups — women, visible minorities, aboriginals and persons with disabilities. But, he said, it excludes "one specific group."
"What a vicious cycle of discrimination," he said. 
The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department's civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants... 
Allow me to be clear. These views are racist. The people may deny it, but to be against affirmative action you're really saying that you love your white privileged status. And if you love your white privileged status, you're really saying that it's okay for white colonizers to suppress, enslave, torture, and kill visible minorities in the past for the sake of development.
Just because you may not be aware of the rational consequences of your racist ideologies doesn’t mean that you’re not responsible for knowing them.
And yes, I'm aware of visible minorities also against affirmative action. But you needn't bother with them. These people are usually ones that have already made it to the top (relatively speaking).
To be fair to Trump, he can argue that he's merely taking a page from California since they prohibit affirmative action in public institutions in the 1990s. Yes, California, the Mecca for liberals bans affirmative action.
While the ban doesn't apply to private corporations like Hollywood or Silicon, you can start to get a sense of why things are they way they are in California in regards to visible minority opportunities.
To be fair to white people, many of them have the same deep seated problems in their childhood like anyone else. We can roll our eyes at their white privilege and mid-high social/economic/financial status. But you need to think from the perspective of a child. As a child experiencing a harsh life, you won't understand white privilege (nor should you).
You only understand the pain that you're experiencing (emotional or physical). And pain is pain. Though we can talk about the unique pain that different people experience, at a basic level, everyone understands pain and can relate to people because of that pain, regardless of socio-economic status or ethnicity.
Visible minorities can roll their eyes at the pain that white people experience. But from the perspective of a child, such an action is disingenuous.
And then there are the conspiracy theorists that advocate foster care for visible minority women considering abortion. Unfortunately, government run foster care isn't any better. Why not? Because many white people and people in general don't want to adopt visible minorities, especially black or brown babies. Why not? One reason is because they're not cute enough.
While most people would never say this out loud, many potential foster parents don't believe that black or brown babies are cute. And no one wants to adopt an ugly baby. Don't believe me about black and brown babies in foster care? See for yourself:
42 per cent of children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto were black, in a city where only 8 per cent of children are black.
"Throughout the consultations, participants reminded us of the enormous human suffering caused by the systemic racism in the child welfare system," says the report... 
If they're lucky enough to get adopted by foster parents (usually white), they'll face the usual stigmas:
Alex Landau, a 25-year-old from Denver, remembers his first racial encounter. He was four years old, an African-American boy scuffling with a white boy on a Denver playground. "And he said 'Not all white kids like to play with black kids;'"remembers Landau.
...Meanwhile Landau spent much of his adolescence gelling his hair straight and wearing long sleeves and pants in the summer to cover up his dark skin..."I think my parents were under the impression that we were living in this post-racial era where police were not racially profiling," says Landau.
...The officers grabbed Landau and started hitting him in the face. When he came to, his blood was all over the grass and he couldn’t see out of his right eye. "Where's your warrant now, you f—ing n—–?"
"It only takes one or two people calling you a n—– to stick. The difference is that when a black person is called a racially charged name, they go home and get the love and support from parents who look like them. I went home and got that same love from people who looked just like my tormentors. This was the beginning of trying to figure white people out. Who are the good ones? Who are the bad ones? How do I know?" 
As an Orthodox Jew, I've sensed prejudice at times, but never in a way that I felt harmed me personally. I've never directly felt the impact of systemic racism, and have usually thought about race in the abstract.
That changed after my wife, our children and I welcomed two foster children of color to our family. For the first time in my life, racism has become personal.
...When our white, biological children were born, we were overwhelmed by offers to cook for us, celebrate with us and give gifts to the babies. When our foster children of color arrived, some of the same people became more distant and less supportive. Maybe that's because we’re not their biological parents, but I sense something else. A few times I've ventured out into my neighborhood and felt other people staring — Is he really their father? I could almost hear them thinking. 
And god help you if you're black and adopt a white foster care child/children:
As a black father and adopted white daughter, Mark Riding and Katie O'Dea-Smith are a sight at best surprising, and at worst so perplexing that people feel compelled to respond. Like the time at a Pocono Mountains flea market when Riding scolded Katie, attracting so many sharp glares that he and his wife, Terri, 37, and also African-American, thought "we might be lynched." And the time when well-intentioned shoppers followed Mark and Katie out of the mall to make sure she wasn't being kidnapped. Or when would-be heroes come up to Katie in the cereal aisle and ask, "Are you OK?"— even though Terri is standing right there.
...The number of white families adopting outside their race is growing and is now in the thousands, while cases like Katie's—of a black family adopting a nonblack child—remain frozen at near zero.
...African-American parents are still largely viewed with unease as caretakers of any children other than their own...
...The child of a local prostitute, her toddler tantrums were so disturbing that foster families simply refused to keep her. Twelve homes later, Katie was still being passed around.
...Dallas Cowboys All-Pro linebacker DeMarcus Ware and his wife, Taniqua, who faced a barrage of criticism after adopting a nonblack baby last February.
...Katie, too, has sometimes struggled with her unusual situation, and how outsiders perceive it...she's often dealing with normal kid teasing with a nasty edge. "They'll ignore me or yell at me because I have a black family,"... 
If you're a visible minority and adopt a white child, be prepared to get dirty looks. On the one hand, it will be an enlightening experience. All of those dirty looks are coming from people with racist ideologies, even if they won't admit it to themselves.
As that foster parent, you may see yourself as taking care of another human being, racist white people see an inferior visible minority responsible for a superior white person. And in their minds, that's a problem.
And those dirty looks will also be coming from racist white Christians and white Christian conspiracy theorists. Even if they don't give you dirty looks, a few days will pass by and you'll get a knock on the door from police and/or social services claiming that there was a typographical error in giving you a white foster child.
To be fair to Western-European (WE) governments, all of them usually treat foster care children in general as garbage. But black and brown foster children have it worse because most foster parents don't want them.
This is one reason why the abortion rate is higher for visible minorities in general. They can see the sh*tty life for their future child or decide that it's better just to end it. I'm not judging. I'm just saying.
Interestingly enough, many visible minorities are Christians and have to deal with the stigma of Christian abortions. But many continue to go forward with the abortion because they know that their future child will have a garbage life in the foster care system. While I'm a 3rd trimester pro-life advocate, I understand why many visible minorities choose abortions instead of adoptions.
As a 3rd trimester pro-life advocate, I err on the side of having the baby and putting them in foster care if necessary. Why? Because it's better to give life the chance to overcome their obstacles.
While 8/10 people won't overcome GSIG conditioning from society, religious, political, or cultural influences, all humans are still capable of overcoming it. Why? Because of consciousness. Consciousness is the one tool that enables people to go beyond their conditioning (see Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Society & Culture in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
While many people erroneously believe that racism ends in politics with the advent of US President Obama, in reality it doesn't. Aside from Obama not helping out the black community in his 8 year term, his lack of efforts give rise to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.
Personally, I don't think Americans will ever elect another black or visible minority president within the next decade (unless he's running against a female candidate).
The racist policies of the US government in the past (after the abolition of slavery) are unreal. Aside from eugenics, the right to vote (because the 15th amendment was ignored), and general discrimination, visible minorities have no real say in politics at the highest levels.
In the US, the highest position for a visible minority is on the US Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor are the two visible minorities out of nine justices.
In the UK, aside from never having a visible minority prime minister, there isn't a single visible minority on the UK Supreme Court. That's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because GSIGs represent a racist power structure where white people are superior to visible minorities.
Only white people can successfully govern the hordes of visible minorities. They should be on their knees thanking us for our tireless efforts.
In Canada, it's the same as the UK. There isn't a single visible minority on the Supreme Court of Canada. And even with all of its political correctness and love for visible minorities, Canada has never had a visible minority prime minister. But it would be interesting if Jagmeet Singh of the NDP becomes the first in Canada's 2019 federal election.
And the lack of visible minorities on the Supreme Court of Canada or as the prime minister isn't accidental. It's intentional. Why? Because the government of Canada is just a British colony under the Queen of England/Canada (see Constitutional Oaths in Whistleblowers: True Patriots of Humanity).
In the eyes of the UK monarchy, visible minorities are inferior to white people. Hence, they can't be allowed to govern. There's no such thing as a visible minority monarchy in all of WE society.
Again, this is a common theme throughout WE society. Yes, there's room for visible minorities at the kids table, but not at the adult table where executive decisions are made. When big money is on the line...when national policy is on the line...visible minorities can't be trusted to govern themselves. Only white people can govern them properly.
Getting back to the US, aside from the horrors of racist policies, in the 1960s and '70s it's black house servants that are responsible for serving white people in the White House (brought out by the 2013 film The Butler).
The fact that black house servants shut their mouths and pretend that they don't have a view on black civil rights is a fine piece of GSIG conditioning. Unethical of course, but you have to give respect when it's due.
While many people paint Trump as a racist, he's not. He just doesn't like government handouts to visible minorities. He wants them to earn it and rise above the odds. What he doesn't realize is that visible minorities can work just as hard but will never be promoted to the top because of their skills.
If they're lucky, they'll be promoted to the top because the corporation needs to fill a quota and present a friendly diverse face to the public/consumers.
But I'm not against quotas/affirmative action either. Why not? Because change never happens voluntarily. White people don't voluntarily give visible minorities equal rights. Visible minorities have to protest and take it by force. After all the protests and death, white people grudgingly give it to them and pat themselves on the shoulder.
The same is true of the corporate hierarchy. Visible minorities are welcome at the bottom rung to fill the diversity quotas. Though I may not like it, these people need these jobs in order to pay rent, utilities, and food bills. Aside from white people not wanting to do various low-level jobs, diversity quotas are the main reason why many visible minorities have jobs.
Ending the quota/affirmative action system, like Trump intends to do, will mean that visible minorities will have to go back to relying on white people's good nature. Yah...no. That's never worked out well for visible minorities in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future.
And just so you know, Trump's efforts to take away affirmative action is not a move from the deep state. It's an action by Trump because one, he's personally against affirmative action (though not racist), and two, he needs almost all white people on his side in 2018 and 2020.
While many white people won't admit it, they want an end to the affirmative action/quota system. Why? Because they currently feel disempowered. Objectively speaking, they're not disempowered, but subjectively, they feel that they are. Anyone who plans to take on racism must understand this point.
Again, some people are racist, while others aren't. The end result (voting for Trump) may be the same, but the reasons why a person votes for him changes the action itself. Philosophy 101/Immanuel Kant 101.
Dinesh D'Souza is correct in his 2016 documentary Hillary's America about past Democrats voting against the abolition of slavery and starting the white supremacist movement. Just as birth control has an ugly past with Margaret Sanger being a eugenicist, Democrats have an ugly pro-slavery past. That's not alternative history, that's history.
While many liberals will call fake new on anything they oppose, a good deal of official history is complete bullsh*t. Sometimes the actions are bullsh*t. Sometimes the end results are bullsh*t. And sometimes the reasons why are bullsh*t.
The tragedy is that all of this bullsh*t history is taught to children in schools as fact. And that's propaganda. But liberals tend to skew their perception of reality when it involves their ideologies. It's for the good of the nation. Again, contrary to what you may believe, conditioning and ideology, not truth, is king, be it in the past, present, and the near future.
Contrary to what you may believe, many liberals are just as racist as white conservatives. Don’t believe me? The evidence is in trade agreements. Aside from all of the criticism about trade agreements, in the end, liberal media outlets will fall into line with GSIG conditioning. GSIGs want trade agreements to destroy national industries. Why? Because corporations are king. Kings have empires, not borders.
But liberal media outlets don’t care about this reason. Generally speaking, they support trade agreements because it supposedly means empowering people in developing nations. And I can understand their argument. Nothing exists over there. Sh*tty jobs are better than no jobs. We'll put pressure on our government/corporations to ensure better conditions. It's not a bad plan. A decent short term solution.
But in the end, it's disempowering. Supporting NAFTA or TPP or other trade deals usually means that production can be outsourced to the cheapest bidder. And the cheapest bidders are in Mexico, India, China, and Vietnam. And most of these workers get low pay, a terrible work environment, and no financial/economic security.
Liberals who support trade agreements are really saying that workers in Mexico, India, China, and Vietnam have a lower value than workers in WE countries. It's like a geographic form of racism.
While I'm sure that many of these workers count themselves lucky, and may even feel empowered in their sh*tty jobs, that's not genuine empowerment. That's just WE society handing scraps to developing nations and workers in developing nations deluding themselves into liking it. All with the support of the liberal trifecta. And that support isn't accidental. That's intentional.
But let's get back to the issue of racism being ingrained in WE governments. Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) is racist and sexist and is an advocate for white supremacy during his presidency. The same is true of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt (also a Democrat) and Lyndon B. Johnson (also a Democrat).
To be fair, Nixon and Regan are also racist during their terms but hide it to various degrees. Today's Republicans don't like to be surrounded by poor visible minorities. Jesus would weep at their treatment and attitude toward visible minorities.
Prior to the 13th Amendment (1865), slaves (visible minorities) don't count as a full human being (3/5, 60%). Oddly enough, slavery is still allowed in the US prison system. The 13th amendment doesn't apply to low-medium criminals (which are mainly visible minorities).
I don't know of any maximum security prisoners doing hard labor in the fields. But if you commit a low level crime and you’re black, you're back in the cotton fields in the 21st century. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
If most prisons were filled with 90% of white prisoners, you'd see white activists actively trying to repeal that slavery loophole. But since most prisoners aren't white, many white people turn a blind eye to it. That's GSIG conditioning at its best. Unethical of course, but you have give respect when it's due.
And just in case you think that this is an American or North American problem, take a look at all of the leaders in European countries. How many visible minorities do you see at the top? None. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Aside from the GSIG racism script, many Europeans believe in diversity, but only at the bottom, with white people at the top governing them.
Remember, GSIGs have been suppressing visible minorities for thousands of years, either with chains, whips, bullets, eugenics, soft and hard drugs, aboriginal residential schools, and a lack of opportunities.
The typical white person retort is that visible minorities have the same opportunities as everyone else, and they have affirmative action. And yet, even with affirmative action, white people continue to get ahead while visible minorities stay at the bottom. It even shows up in the education system.
While visible minority teachers will be hired to fill the quota system, they're less likely to be promoted to the top. And even if they are, they'll have to work extra hard to get there, and super extra hard to keep the job. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
Teachers from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds (BME) face an "invisible glass ceiling" that limits them from being taken seriously for senior staff jobs, new figures suggest.
A questionnaire sent out to more than 1,000 BME teachers revealed concerns they were being given projects rooted in stereotypes rather than encouraged to take part in wider teaching roles.
..."(Schools) don't realise that ethnic minority children need role models from their own group," one black secondary school teacher said, giving evidence for the report.
"If the children see SMT [the senior management team] as being all white and the cleaning staff from ethnic minorities, that is all they aspire to be. Especially if they do not see people around them or members of their families in senior positions."
..."Our survey found that BME teachers were not only overwhelmed with the mountain of paperwork but they are also beaten down by the everyday 'microaggressions' in the staff room and the low expectations and support by senior staff in their schools.
"This has led to BME teachers feeling undervalued, isolated and disillusioned with their careers." 
Many black teachers across Ontario still face racism on the job, according to a new study of educators, half of whom said they believe being black has hurt their chance of promotion. Some told of hearing the 'N' word used in the staff room and being mistaken for a trespasser.
"I had a supply teacher tell me I am not allowed to park my car in staff parking," said one of the 148 black educators across 12 Ontario school boards surveyed for a report to be released Friday.
...Of the black teachers, principals and vice-principals surveyed, one-third said they believe they have been passed over for advancement because they are black. Some 27 per cent said racial discrimination by colleagues affects their day-to-day work life and 51 per cent said they believe anti-black bias at their school board affects who gets promoted.
...The report included numerous anecdotes of "micro-aggressions...the everyday slights, insults and indignities" that imply black teachers don't belong...
...Another was "told I should steer away from too much black history in the class as black history is not important when no black students are present."
On arriving at a new job assignment, "colleagues asked if I am a new caretaker." 
The York Region District School Board (YRDSB) is apologizing to Charline Grant as part of a settlement of the human rights complaint she launched after being called the "N-word" by a former board trustee.
Prior to the racial slur, Grant had come forward with allegations that her son was discriminated against because of his race at his Woodbridge-area school.
Other allegations from other parents surfaced over the past year, leading to a review by the Ministry of Education that in April described a "culture of fear" and found "systemic discrimination" at the school board. 
If you're a visible minority teacher at a school with maybe 75% of visible minority students, you have a chance of being the principal or vice principal. But if it’s below 50%, you have no chance. And just in case you're wondering, most principals in Aboriginal communities are white.
And all of this is with affirmative action/quota system. I'm sure that you can imagine what it would be without it. Again, during the civil rights movement, black people don't politely ask white people if they're ready for change.
They don't ask them permission to sit in the white section to be served. They just do it. That's how change happens. Whether it will be a success or not depends on the support or lack of support they receive from visible minorities and white people.
And then there are visible minority students:
A recent study from Northwestern University corroborates Agostini's experience, suggesting that the stress of racial discrimination may partly explain the persistent gaps in academic performance between some nonwhite students, mainly black and Latino youth, and their white counterparts. The team of researchers found that the physiological response to race-based stressors—be it perceived racial prejudice, or the drive to outperform negative stereotypes—leads the body to pump out more stress hormones in adolescents from traditionally marginalized groups.
...What emerges is a picture of black and Latino students whose concentration, motivation, and, ultimately, learning is impaired by unintended and overt racism. 
...In many states, school districts that serve minority populations receive less state and local funding. These schools tend to have less-experienced teachers. Students of color face disproportionately tough discipline compared to white students.
...What's more, many black and Latino families report feeling like schools aren't even trying to educate their children. This feeling was particularly acute among black parents, whose kids attend schools with mostly white teachers, with 50 percent reporting feeling this way. 
As the theory goes, with white and Asian students consistently at the top of math-achievement rankings—and black and other nonwhite students continuously trailing behind—teachers start to expect worse performance from certain students, start to teach lower content, and start to use lower-level math instructional practices. By contrast, white and Asian students are given the benefit of the doubt and automatically afforded the opportunity to do more sophisticated and substantive mathematics.
..."we're not looking for gifted (students) within predominantly black settings, and we're constantly looking for giftedness in white settings...whiteness is impacting how and where we see mathematics ability." The opposite also holds true, he added, with more targeted interventions for white students who are struggling in math and fewer for black students "possibly because we expect (them to struggle.)"
...For African Americans, for Native Americans, for Latinos in mathematics, we attribute something internally to the child or internally to the culture that's making them achieve lower. We don't do that for white students...producing some deficit idea about who whites are." 
And then we have the Flint water contamination. Interestingly enough the budget cuts occur in visible minority neighborhoods. One of the main reasons for the Flint water contamination is racism from municipal officials. They're just poor visible minorities. They'll take whatever scraps we give them.
If you think that this contamination would have occurred in a mainly poor white area, you're deluding yourself. Be it politics, education, or basic essential services, racism is very much ingrained into the power structures in 2017.
And then there's war. When a WE government goes to war, political correctness is paused and white people (in government, industry, and the public) get to vent their racist ideologies as temporarily accepted racism.
Sometimes, all of the political correctness is too much, even for white people. That's a perfect background environment for a war to take center stage. Why? Because a good war is an excellent tool to release suppressed rage and ideologies. It's worked very well in the past and will continue to work well in the future.
In war, people don't have to be nice to each other or politically correct. They can call a black solider a n*gger. They can call an Asian a yellow chink bastard, or a Jew a filthy cheap Jew. While you may think that applies to soldiers, it also applies to the population of the warring governments. War is an excellent tool for the public to vent their racist ideologies.
To be fair, I don't really blame them. As a visible minority, I'm aware that many people have racist ideologies and suppress them on a regular basis. But suppressing core ideologies/emotions will prevent any significant growth and development from occurring in ones lifetime.
These people will be stuck in a politically correct world without growing. And if you're not growing as a human being, the odds of you being happy or making others happy will decline significantly. Don't believe me about war being a release for racist ideologies? See for yourself:
When David Oshiro, who is Okinawan American and grew up in Hawaii, lay wounded and bleeding in Vietnam, his fellow Americans were reluctant to put him on the helicopter.
"I had to whip out my dog tag and say, "I'm an American,' " he said. "They'll get all the black and white guys before they get the Asians out."
...While he was at basic training in Fort Ord, a sergeant asked him and several other Asian Americans to dress up in black pajamas, the get-up of the Viet Cong, to show recruits what the enemy looks like. Oshiro refused.
...Once he got to Vietnam, he said one sergeant seemed to have it in for him, calling him racist slurs, threatening him with a gun, even waking him up in the middle of the night with a bayonet at his throat.
"I still have a lot of anger and rage toward whites who come off with that attitude, a lot of prejudiced attitude," Luke said.
..."A lot of times, black soldiers took them in, protected them, made friends with them, versus people of other ethnic backgrounds... 
During World War II composers turned to certain musical forms that, while not popular at the time, reinforced the racist elements found in anti-Japanese songs. Furthermore, songwriters borrowed not only from anti-Asian images but also from African American stereotypes, which popular composers and performers had produced since the nineteenth century. A handful of African Americans, however, also participated in creating racist images of the Japanese, but with their own agenda that was tied to the state of the African American community.
...Popular notions of Japanese religious practices and racial inferiority, as well as child and animal imagery, appeared in anti-Japanese songs. Lyricists glossed over religious differences among Americans in order to present a classic struggle of a good (and apparently Christian) United States against an evil enemy in the form of the "heathen" Japanese...
Consistent with an earlier belief that Asians, particularly immigrants to the United States, represented a "Yellow Peril" that threatened to overcome white populations in the Far West, composers used color to denote the racial difference between the Japanese and Americans and implied that all true Americans were white...
...in the nineteenth century racists frequently represented African Americans and Irish as animal-like to highlight their inferiority…The difference here is that the animals in anti-Japanese music were not to be simply despised; rather, the songs used animal images to help justify killing Japanese. To dehumanize the Japanese enemy, songwriters frequently depicted them as primates, such as "monkeys" and "chimpanzees"...
...the equation of all Japanese with vermin obscured the differences between civilians and the military, as well as between men and women. Through these racialized terms, lyricists and composers justified the systematic extermination of their enemy, allowing the United States to commit unspeakable acts. 
Wartime racism was expressed at all levels of American life. Politicians and military men, newspaper cartoons and editorials, regularly depicted the Japanese as apes, monkeys, mad dogs, rats, vipers, bugs, beetles, lice, and other sorts of creatures that needed to be exterminated. War correspondent Ernie Pyle, transferred to the Pacific in February 1945, found that unlike the enemy in Europe, who was "horrible" but still human, here the foe "were looked upon as something subhuman and repulsive"...In a diary note made at Potsdam, President Harry Truman termed the Japanese "savages"... 
...the effort to depict Muslims as something other than "real Americans" has long been a centerpiece of the US political climate in the era of the War on Terror. When it was first revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration was spying on the communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, a Bush White House spokesman sought to assure everyone that this wasn't targeting Real Americans, but only those Bad Ones that should be surveilled (meaning Muslims the Bush administration decided, without due process, were guilty)...
...when the Israelis attacked the Mavi Marmara flotilla in 2010 and killed 9 people including the US-born teenager Furkan Dogan, some conservatives insisted that he was not a Real American because his parents were Turkish and he grew up in Turkey…
...Does anyone doubt that if Obama's bombs were killing nice white British teenagers or smiling blond Swiss infants - rather than unnamed Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghans and Somalis - that the reaction to this sustained killing would be drastically different?
...the NYPD's shockingly invasive and indiscriminate surveillance program aimed at Muslim communities in New York and New Jersey…Would anyone tolerate having such sweeping surveillance programs infiltrating Jewish or Christian communities in the US? 
All of this accepted racism continues in the past with the Soviets and in the present with people in the Middle East, and all visible minorities in WE society today. Every time a bomb kills visible minorities, an angel gives WE people permission to vent their suppressed racist emotions. Every time an Aboriginal youth commits suicide, closet white racists gain an extra spring in their step.
To be fair to these racists, I do recommend venting. I don't believe in censorship of any kind, even ones that are hateful and directed toward me personally or me as a visible minority. Why not? Because it's a genuine action.
A racist pretending not to be racist is a disingenuous action. And the disingenuous life is not worth living. Why not? Because no significant growth and development can occur.
If you're racist and super rich, live a luxurious lifestyle with a high social status but pretend not to be racist...you'll never experience any significant growth and development in your lifetime. As a philosopher, my allegiances are to objective falsifiable science and ethics (which is a grey area).
But as a human being, the genuine growth and development of humanity and individually are very important to me. And racists can't be genuine if they're pretending that they're not racists.
I've covered scientific racism in a few of my books (see Philosophy of Science in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Racism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities). But I'll quickly summarize a few things and touch on a few other things. I'm already over 13,000 words and this is only the third subsection. Christ.
Just in case you're not in the know, most white people for all of time have been racist toward visible minorities, and that extends to science and medicine. Aside from racist philosophers, racist scientists and doctors are the norm in the past and still exist today.
Google "racist scientist" or "racist doctor" and the results will speak for themselves. Eugenics of the past (started by WE scientists, not the Nazis) is just ideological scientific racism in action.
And yes, Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) is a racist. No amount of political correctness from liberal media outlets (Washington Post and HuffPost) is going to change that. It's a complicated legacy.
Sorry, but racism isn't complex. It's very simple to understand. She was a product of her time. Sorry, but that's not a legitimate reason. Why not? Because consciousness is able to go beyond all conditioning. No ideology is set in stone.
In 2009 Hilary Clinton (as US Secretary of State) accepts a Margaret Sanger award.  That's not exactly the best move to gain visible minority votes in 2016. While Planned Parenthood today is NOT a racist institution, the rates for abortions by visible minorities are much higher than white women:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Largely missing from the debate, though, is discussion of abortion's racial disparity: Although rates among Hispanic and African-American women have decreased along with the rest of the country, they remain significantly higher than the national average. 
Kudos to the Atlantic for touching on the issue. Most liberal media outlets turn a blind eye to the issue. And no, it's not that white women are having less sex then visible minorities. In WE society, women of all ethnicities are having (more or less) the same amount of sex and using the same amount of birth control measures (aside from Aboriginal women).
And yet, the birth control campaigns are more targeted to visible minorities. Your child will have a sh*tty life if you let them live. You don't want that. Just end it and move on with your life. Of course, they don't say that out loud, but that's what they believe.
What they're really saying is that we want more beautiful white people to be born because white people are superior to all other races. While such words are unspoken, they exist nonetheless. And ignoring that existence is what prevents significant growth and development from occurring in regards to racism. Political correctness and censorship will never lead to the end racism.
While I advocate for radical dualism as a solution (see Racism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities), if people aren't willing to listen, racism will forever be part of humanity's destiny.
It doesn't matter if humanity starts to explore the stars and finds intelligent sentient life. Yes, we'll move forward in theory, but our level of consciousness will remain the same as it is today and in the past.
To be fair, I can understand white people wanting less visible minorities to be born in WE society. As a brown visible minority I see more brown people than I want to see on a daily basis in Toronto. In the past, I even go to Rome and walk into a pizza shop and see Sri Lankans behind the counter. Their first question is...where you from my friend?
Oh dear lord.
Why are you here? How did you get here? I came here to see beautiful white people and their culture. Of course, I don't say such things out loud. While I strive to live a genuine life, from time to time my actions are disingenuous as well.
Aside from abortion and higher rates of c-sections for visible minorities (see Infertility & Pregnancy in Philosophy Reborn Part V: Naturally Unhealthy Big Gov't, Big Ag, Big Industry), racism exists in the supposed amoral world of WE medicine. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
The number of clinical trials in developing countries has surged in recent years but the legal and ethical frameworks to make them fair are often not in place...
...For the pharmaceutical industry, the attractions are the lower costs and the availability of "treatment-naive" patients, who are much less likely to have been previously exposed to drugs or trials.
..."Less stringent ethical review, anticipated under-reporting of side effects, and the lower risk of litigation make carrying out research in the developing world less demanding,"
...Places such as South Africa – where mostly vulnerable poor with low literacy levels are recruited and the culture is to accept authority without question – are fertile land for ethical misconduct... 
The report included the case of clinical trials in Uganda between 1997 and 2003, when women taking the anti-transmission drug Nevirapine experienced thousands of serious adverse effects (SAEs). These symptoms went unreported and testing was allowed to continue, resulting in the (also unreported) deaths of 14 women. In Hyperabad, India in 2003, eight test subjects died during the testing of the anti-clotting drug Streptokinase. The worst part, though, was that the subjects did not even know that they were part of a trial.
...In Kano, Nigeria Pfizer tested a new drug called trovafoxacin on children infected with meningitis without informing their parents; five died in treatment. While this case dates back to 1996, deceptive research practice is still alive and well.
...patients from India's lowest caste…placed in drug trials without their informed consent…The power of the white coat, the elevated role of the doctor throughout the world as a demi-God who has the power to save lives, is one that is being taken advantage of in India where doctors enroll their trusting and often uneducated patients in risky drug trials, at a profit of course. These trials led to 438 deaths in 2011 alone. This kind of misinformation will not show up in the data released by GSK. 
...It is well-established that blacks and other minority groups in the U.S. experience more illness, worse outcomes, and premature death compared with whites...
...Doctors take an oath to treat all patients equally, and yet not all patients are treated equally well. 
You need to remember that prior to the last 50 years, most WE doctors and scientists believe that visible minorities are inferior to white people and should be treated as such (regardless of their medical oath to do no harm).
And let's not get into doctors that work for intelligence/military agencies and oversee various forms of enhanced interrogation. Their oath is worth less than the paper it's written on.
While many WE doctors today don't cause harm, they intentionally turn a blind eye to visible minority patients in pain relative to white people in pain. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because many WE doctors and scientists hold racist ideologies and refuse to believe that it’s a problem.
While laws against interracial marriages are no more, the racism still exists:
In March, a white man fatally stabbed a 66-year-old black man in New York City, telling the Daily News that he'd intended it as "a practice run" in a mission to deter interracial relationships. In August 2016 in Olympia, Washington, Daniel Rowe, who is white, walked up to an interracial couple without speaking, stabbed the 47-year-old black man in the abdomen and knifed his 35-year-old white girlfriend. 
One of my friends said she and her husband got the question so frequently, often long before more traditional small talk—such as "How do you know the hosts?" or "What do you do?"—that depending on the setting and her sense of humor that night, she might reply with a straight face: "Strip club." They are both successful executives. She is black and he is white. She would of course always come clean, after everyone enjoyed an awkward chuckle. (They didn't meet at a strip club, but through their jobs, like most Americans.)
Having been together over a decade, the idea rankles her that they can still walk into a room and be viewed as an oddity, but a same-race couple on a first or second date are viewed as though they obviously fit together. 
And just so you know, some Aboriginals are very much against interracial dating. So much that they don't want such couples living in the same Aboriginal community.  That's hardcore racism.
If you're liberal and think that visible minorities can’t be racist...you need to wake up from your delusional ideological slumber. Many Asians are super racist to black and brown people. Google "Asian racism against blacks" and see for yourself.
Interestingly enough, many Asian women date white men. Why? Aside from love, many Asian women see white men as the pinnacle of achievement. Why? Because they want to be seen as white.
Being white is more than just skin color. It's about white culture and white social status. I'll get into this issue more in the Visible Minorities that Want to be White subsection.
Hollywood has a long history as a racist institution with its movies. Even though slavery is officially abolished in the US in 1865, racist movies continue in the past and present:
Song of the South, 1946, Disney
Gone with the Wind, 1939, MGM
Mandingo, 1975, Paramount Pictures
Fantasia, 1940, Disney
The Littlest Rebel, 1935, 20th Century Fox
Goodbye Uncle Tom, 1971, Euro International Film & Cannon Film Distributors
Tarzan the Ape Man, 1932, MGM
Legend of Tarzan, 2016, Warner Brothers
Breakfast at Tiffany's, 1961, Paramount Pictures
The Mask of Fu Manchu, 1932, MGM
Allow me to be clear. Hollywood is a racist institution in the past and in the 21st century. Don't believe me? You should by the end of this subsection.
But Hollywood itself is an artificial construct. It has no intentionality to do or say anything on its own. When I use the term Hollywood I mean producers/studio executives in Hollywood. People who have the power to green light a film and make the final call on who gets the lead roles.
And with that, let's get into Hollywood movies.Take a look at any blockbuster movie in the last decade. By blockbuster I mean a movie with a production budget of over $100 million (USD). What you'll find 90% of the time is white actors/actresses playing the lead roles.
Sure, there will be visible minorities as supporting characters, but that's more of a token role to show that the studio isn't overtly racist in their casting (see Racism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).
Sure, casting directors will put open ethnicity into the casting call, but 9/10 times the position will go to a white actor/actress Why? Because it's just for the sake of appearances.
The producer and studio executives don't want to seem overtly racist so they open the casting call and have all ethnicities audition for the role. But 9/10 times they've already decided that the role will go to a white actor/actress.
Aside from overt racism, in order to understand racism in the 21st century you need to understand perception vs. reality. It's not about the facts. It's about how the facts are perceived by the public/audiences/consumers.
But let's really get into it. How many black (African American) actors/actresses do you know of that have lead roles in Hollywood blockbusters or Hollywood movies in general on a regular basis? For black actresses, it's zero. Sure, you can argue that Zoe Saldana makes the cut, but aside from Guardians of the Galaxy (where she's green), she's not in regular or blockbuster Hollywood movies.
What about Halle Berry? Ah...yes the light skinned dilemma. This is a touchy issue for many visible minorities. But I'm not here to sugarcoat the issue for you. I'm here to present it to you and you can take it any way you want.
Black people with super dark black skin (like Don Cheadle) face a different level of racial discrimination than people with light brown skin (like Will Smith). People with light brown skin (like myself) face a different level of racial discrimination than dark skinned brown people (like people from Sri Lanka or Pakistan). Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean and such) face a different level of racial discrimination than brown or black people...and such.
The general rule of thumb is that the darker the skin, the higher the racial discrimination. The darker the skin, the lower amount of opportunities you'll receive today. But this is only true to a degree because racial discrimination isn't just about skin pigment/amount of melanin in your skin. It's also about culture and social status.
Hence, Mexicans, Asians, and Aboriginals (who all have white skin, sometimes even lighter than WE white people) face racial discrimination in all of their jobs. How many Mexican, Asian and Aboriginal actors/actresses do you know that have lead roles in regular/blockbuster Hollywood movies? I'd be surprised if you can think of five.
In terms of Asians, the only reason why you may think of Jet Li, Chow Yun Fat, Michelle Yeoh, Donnie Yen, and Ken Jeong is because of Jackie Chan. Chan is the initial pioneer who opens the Hollywood door for other Asian actors/actresses.
And if you read about Chan's life, Hollywood rejects him early on despite his great comedic and acrobat fighting skills. It's only due to super hard work and perseverance that Hollywood takes a chance on him with Rumble in the Bronx and the rest is history.
While I disagree with Chan's political views passionately, I respect what he's done for Asian actors/actresses and visible minorities as a whole in Hollywood. Sadly, in the larger scheme in 2017, his efforts don't amount to much in terms of Asian actors/actresses as lead roles in regular/blockbuster Hollywood movies. I recommend watching the Safe music video  by Dumbfoundead (Jonathan Park) in order to get a better understanding of the issue.
And what about black men in regular/blockbuster Hollywood movies? You have Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Jamie Foxx, and Samuel L. Jackson. And no, Kevin Hart and Idris Elba don't make the cut. Why not? Because they're on a hot streak. It happens from time to time in Hollywood. But it never lasts.
And no, Laurence Fishbourne, Morgan Freeman, Djimon Hounsou, Don Cheadle, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Terrence Howard, Martin Lawrence, Ice Cube, Morris Chestnut, Keith David, Tracy Morgan, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Taye Diggs don't make the cut either.
A few blockbusters in the past don't necessarily mean lead roles for regular/blockbuster movies in the future. It means regular supporting roles. Everyone has their role. Black people just have a lower role in the Hollywood food chain. You understand of course?
And just to put this into perspective, there are more white actors with the name Chris or Christian than black actors who get lead roles on a regular basis:
Chris Pine (Star Trek)
Chris Pratt (Guardians of the galaxy)
Chris Hemsworth (Thor)
Chris Klein (American Pie)
Chris Evans (Captain America)
Christian Bale (Batman)
Chris O Donell (Robin in old Batman movies)
Christian Slater (Will Scarlett in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves).
And just to keep you thinking, the Big 4 black Hollywood actors aren't getting any younger. In fact, if you look carefully at Hollywood and black actors, you'll see that there are no young black men being groomed to be A-list actors like the Big 4. The only black actor that has potential to be an A-list actor is Kevin Hart.
Liberal media outlets are very much aware of the lack of diversity lead roles. They usually don't use the term racism because they're politically correct p*ssies. But they still write copious amounts of articles on the issue.            
However, those articles rarely translate into significant action from them or the public/consumers. All of those great liberal diversity ideologies don't translate into actions such as boycotting a movie or a slate of Marvel or DC superheroes movies for their lack of major visible minority superheroes. Why not? Various reasons.
One, going to the movies is a cultural/social activity. And two, liberals rarely put their ideologies into practice.
If you're against Wal-Mart's anti-union policies, are you going to stop shopping there if you're on a budget? No.
If you're against Monsanto and GMOs, are you going to stop buying cheap GMO produce if you're on a budget? No.
If you're against sexual violence, are you going to stop watching Game of Thrones and Westworld? No.
If you're against Hollywood's lack of visible minorities as major superheroes, are you going to stop watching superhero movies? No.
Why not? On the one hand you have your ideologies. On the other hand you have reality. Ones ideologies tend to fit into reality, not the other way around.
The liberal trifecta won't boycott movies with their lack of visible minorities as lead characters because the liberal trifecta believes that visible minorities can only be successfully governed by white people. They don't say that out loud, but that's what they believe.
And no, the leftover superheroes don't count (Blank Panther and War Machine). Is there going to be a black superman, an Asian batman, or an East Indian Spiderman anytime soon? No. Why not? Because Hollywood doesn't want their major characters played by visible minorities.
Why not? Because Hollywood (the producers and studio executives) are racist. They don't want inferior people playing their strong cultural characters. It would cheapen our characters and our brand. You understand of course?
Hollywood doesn't come out and say this. Instead, they hide behind the claims of we need to give the audience what it wants. And it doesn't want visible minorities playing lead superhero characters. Why not? Because many white people are also racist and will vehemently argue against visible minority superhero characters in anonymous comments/blogs.
Significant change won't come voluntarily. It comes by force. Ice Cube, Queen Latifah, and Tyler Perry do their own thing and bypass the Hollywood studio system in terms of funding their own productions. And I respect them for doing so.
Instead of playing the Hollywood game and trying to score a supporting role in a major movie, they're carving out their own paths. It may not be financially or culturally successful as a whole, but their solutions are commendable and deserve respect.
Hollywood isn't going to voluntarily give visible minorities lead roles because they've turned over a new leaf. If they give it at all, most of the time, it's just for purposes of branding. Public perception is a key issue in corporate branding.
While Hollywood may not want visible minorities in lead roles, they need to appear as if they do in order to win over public perception. We want to give visible minorities these roles but the market and our profit margins won't let us. You understand of course?
And then there's the Oscars so white scandal in 2016 with numerous white actors defending, justifying, or turning a blind eye to racism in Hollywood (see Racism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).
And then of course, there's Hollywood outcast Shia LaBeouf's racist claims.  While LaBeouf claims that he's dealing with alcohol addiction, such things can only bring out that which you have inside of you (see the Mental Health Industry in Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Big Pharma & Big Media).
LaBeouf's fall from grace is pretty sad. But everyone loves a good comeback. Robert Downey Jr. makes a spectacular comeback and is now one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood. Even M. Night Shamalyan makes a comeback from his stinker films The Last Airbender (2010) and After Earth (2013). Of course, the odds are against LaBeouf's comeback. Both Downey and Shamalyan have real talent. The same cannot be said for LaBeouf.
Still not sure about racism in Hollywood? Even if a Hollywood movie with visible minorities gets the green light, it will have a glass ceiling for the production budget. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
*All production amounts are in USD and from Wikipedia.
*Production budget for movies with all/mainly black lead characters
Flight, 2012, $31 million
Deja Vu, 2006, $75 million
Fences, 2016, $24 million
The Equalizer, 2014, $73 million.
Ali, 2001, $107 million
Seven Pounds, 2008, $54 million
Hancock, 2008, $150 million
I Am legend, 2007, $150 million
I Robot, 2004, $120 million
Bad Boys, 1995, $19 million
Bad Boys II, 2003, $90 million
Concussion, 2015, $57 million
After Earth, 2013, $135 million
The Pursuit of Happyness, 2006, $55 million
Collateral Beauty, 2016, $36 million.
A Thousand Words, 2012, $40 million
Imagine That, 2009, $55 million
Meet Dave, 2008, $60 million
Norbit, 2007, $60 million
The Haunted Mansion, 2003, $90 million
Daddy Daycare, 2003, $60 million
The Adventures of Pluto Nash, 2002, $100 million
Dr. Dolittle 2, 2001, $70 million
Nutty Professor II: The Klumps, 2000, $84 million
Life, 1999, $80 million
Dr. Dolittle, 1998, $70 million.
The Kingdom, 2007, $70 million
Ray, 2004, $40 million
Sleepless, 2017, $30 million
Breakin' All the Rules, 2004, $10 million.
Madea's Big Happy Family, 2011, $25 million
Boo! A Madea Halloween, 2016, $20 million
A Madea Christmas, 2013, $25 million
Diary of a Mad Black Woman, 2005, $5.5 million
Madea's Family Reunion, 2006, $6 million.
The Call, 2013, $13 million
Catwoman, 2004, $100 million.
Samuel L. Jackson
Coach Carter, 2005, $30 million
Black Snake Moan, 2007, $15 million
Snakes on a Plane, 2006, $33 million
Shaft, 2000, $46 million.
Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son, 2011, $32 million
College Road Trip, 2008, unknown, but most likely very low
Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins, 2008, $35 million
Big Momma's House 2, 2006, $40 million
Rebound, 2005, $33 million
Black Knight, 2001, $50 million
Big Momma's House, 2000, $30 million
Top Five, 2014, $12 million
I Think I Love My Wife, 2007, $11 million
Death at a Funeral, 2010, $21 million
Head of State, 2003, $35 million
Pootie Tang, 2001, $7 million
Down to Earth, 2001, $49 million.
About Last Night, 2014, $12.5 million
Soul Plane, 2004, $16 million.
When the Bough Breaks, 2016, $10 million
The Perfect Guy, 2015, $12 million
Not Easily Broken, 2009, $5 million
The Perfect Holiday, 2007, $20 million
The Cave, 2005, $30 million
Half Past Dead, 2002, $25 million
The Brothers, 2001, $6 million
Two Can Play That Game, 2001, $13 million.
Barbershop, 2002, $12 million
Barbershop 2: Back in Business, 2004, $30 million
Barbershop The next Cut, 2016, $20 million
Ride Along 2, 2016, $40 million
Ride Along, 2014, $25 million
Are We Done Yet?, 2007, $28 million
First Sunday, 2008, (unknown budget but most likely very low)
XXX: State of the Union, 2005, $60 million
Are We There Yet?, 2005 $32 million
Friday After Next, 2002, $10 million
All About the Benjamins, 2002, $15 million
Next Friday, 2000, $11 million
The Longshots, 2008, $23 million.
The Best Man, 1999, $9 million
The Best Man Holiday, 2013, $17 million
Brown Sugar, 2002, $8 million
The Wood, 1999, $6 million
How Stella Got Her Groove Back, 1998, $20 million
Rent, 2005, $40 million.
Cuba Gooding Jr.
The Fighting Temptations, 2003, $30 million
Boat Trip, 2002, $20 million
Snow Dogs, 2002, $33 million
12 Years a Slave, 2013, $17 million
The Butler, 2013, $30 million
The Karate Kid, 2010 $40 million
Moonlight, 2016 $4 million
Girls Trip, 2017, $27.7 million
Code Name: The Cleaner, 2007, $20 million
Biker Boyz, 2003, $24 million
Hotel Rwanda, 2004, $17.5 million
Pride, 2007, (unknown budget but most likely very low)
Get Rich or Die Tryin', 2005, $40 million
Hustle & Flow, 2005, $2.8 million
Think Like a Man, 2012, $12 million
Think Like a Man Too, 2014, $24 million
Lottery Ticket, 2010, $17 million
ATL, 2006, $20 million
Little Man, 2006, $64 million
How High, 2001, $20 million
Straight Outta Compton, 2015, $50 million
Beauty Shop, 2005 $25 million
Baggage Claim, 2013, $8.5 million
No Good Deed, 2014, $13 million
Almost Christmas, 2016, $17 million.
Only 7/108 (6.5%) of these movies have a budget over $100 million. None of them have a budget over $200 million. But if the leads are white actors, money just opens up. George Lucas says it better:
George Lucas is quite frank about why Hollywood studios turned their backs on his Tuskegee Airmen action film, Red Tails: they didn't want to put money into a film featuring an all-black cast.
..."They don't believe there's any foreign market for it and that's 60 percent of their profit...I showed it to all of them and they said 'No. We don't know how to market a movie like this.' " 
I'm sure that someone could even create a loose formula where the darker the skin color, the lower the production budget. The more black lead characters, the lower the production budget. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
One of the compromises by Hollywood is to pair black actors with white ones in order to justify the budgets:
Manchurian Candidate, 2004, $80 million
Enemy of the State, 1998, $90 million
Men of Honor, 2000, $32 million
The Hitman's Bodyguard, 2017, $30 million
Fist Fight, 2017, $25 million
Save the Last Dance, 2001, $13 million
The Dark Tower, 2017, $60 million
Nurse Betty, 2000, $35 million
Event Horizon, 1997, $60 million
Miami Vice, 2006, $135 million
Bad Company, 2002, $70 million
Focus, 2015, $50 million
Blue Streak, 1999, $36 million
Traitor, 2008, $22 million
In the Mix, 2005, (unknown budget, but most likely very low)
Training Day, 2001, $45 million
What's the Worst That Could Happen?, 2001, $60 million
National Security, 2003, (unknown budget but most likely very low)
Django Unchained, 2012, $100 million
Law Abiding Citizen, 2009, $53 million
Collateral, 2004, $65 million
Annie, 2014, $65 million
Hitch, 2005, $70 million
Wild Wild West, 1999, $170 million
The Spirit, 2008, $60 million
Jumper, 2008: $85 million
Freedomland, 2006, $30 million
The Man, 2005, $20 million
Central Intelligence, 2016, $50 million
Changing Lanes, 2002, $45 million
Instinct, 1999, $80 million
Formula 51, 2001, $27 million
Unbreakable, 2000, $75 million
The Negotiator, 1998, $50 million
The Soloist, 2009, $60 million
I Spy. 2002, $70 million
Chill Factor, 1999, $70 million
Cop Out, 2010, $30 million
Showtime, 2002, $85 million
Get Hard, 2014, $40 million
What Dreams May Come, 1998, $85 million
American Gangster, 2007, $100 million
Radio, 2003, $30 million
Bowfinger, 1999, $55 million.
Only 4/44 (9.1%) have budgets over $100 million. None of them have budgets over $200 million. The most expensive film ever made is Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) with a production budget of over $400 million.
There's no way that Hollywood studios will spend $400 million on a visible minority lead movie, let alone $300 million or even $200 million. The reality is that a blockbuster movie with white people as the lead characters has no ceiling. Only movies with visible minority lead characters have a ceiling. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
And Hollywood has a way of sticking with failure. Despite massive box office flops or bombs, Hollywood continues to give Nicholas Cage, Pierce Brosnan, and Colin Farrell lead roles in regular/blockbuster movies.
Why? Because they have star power. And why do they have star power? Because they're white. If a white male fails at anything in this life, 9/10 times they'll be given a second and third chance. White people deserve all opportunities in this life because they're superior beings. You understand of course?
While Hollywood can argue that Mexican, Asian, Brown, Black, and Aboriginal actors/actresses don't have the star power to justify blockbuster production budgets, they can't get the star power because they're constantly being denied lead roles. The famous Catch 22:
I want a job.
You have no experience.
I can't get experience if no one gives me a job.
Visible minorities can't get the roles because Hollywood (producers/studio executives) won't give it to them. Again, that's not accidental. That's intentional.
My apologies for constantly saying the term that's not accidental. That's intentional. The repetition is meant to help your powers of realization/understanding. You need to start realizing that none of these executive decisions about the lack of visible minority castings are accidental.
You need to realize that there's no such thing as unconscious or subconscious racism. There's only racism and different forms of expressing it. If a person isn't aware of their own racist ideologies, that's because they don't care to know or don't believe that it's a problem.
There will never be a Hollywood Lucy (2014) movie with a black or Asian woman. Why not? We can't show visible minority women in strong roles. That's not what we're selling.
Julia Roberts is the lead in many films that either flop or bomb at the box office. But she still gets lead roles on a regular basis. Why? Because white people deserve second, third, and all the chances that the white Christian god gives. Or, they deserve all the chances that evolution (which selects for white superiority) offers. You understand of course?
Visible minority females would never be given that many chances. While the racism of white people against black people is very different from Asian people, in Hollywood, it's all the same. Inferior beings play inferior characters.
And then there are the producers and studio executives that green light everything and make final decisions on casting. Obviously, this is the heart of racism in Hollywood. Take a look at the Hollywood Reporter's Producer Roundtable sessions:
2016/ 2017: No visible minorities.
Matt Damon, Frank Marshall, Marc Platt, Darren Aronofsky, Emma Tillinger Koskoff, and Todd Black.
2015/2016: 1 visible minority.
Steve Golin, Ice Cube, Scott Cooper, Simon Kinberg, Stacey Sher, and Christine Vachon.
2014/2015: No visible minorities.
Peter Chernin, Cathleen Sutherland, Marc Platt, Emma Thomas, John Lesher, and Eric Fellner.
2013/2014: No visible minorities.
Mark Whalberg, Charles Roven, Pam Williams, Michael De Luca, Dede Gardner, and David Heyman.
In a request for comment I ask the Hollywood Reporter:
1. In your last four producer roundtable sessions, you only have 1/24 visible minority producers (Ice Cube) as a participant. Do you believe that 1/24 producers on your show over a 4 year time span represents racism in Hollywood at the producer/studio executive level?
They don't respond.
1/24 works out to 4.2%. 95.8% white and 4.2% visible minorities definitely represent racism in Hollywood producers/studio executives. If you don't think so, you're living in a dream world or you’re wrapped up in your ideological bubble.
Should Hollywood make space for visible minorities? Yes. Will they? Only with concerted public pressure. But even if they do, is that space really genuine or is it just token/quota/affirmative action? I believe it's the latter.
Why? Because most white people believe in space for visible minorities, but only at the bottom rungs. They really believe that only white people can be at the top governing visible minorities. Of course, they'll never admit such things, but that's what many of them believe.
And no amount of liberal media articles and diversity workshops is going to change the racism in Hollywood. While audiences vote with their dollars at the box office, movies are a cultural fixture in WE society.
Hence, there will be no significant changes in box office revenue due to a lack of visible minority actors/actresses. The only genuine and long term solution is to change the ideologies via radical dualism (see Racism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).
But a more practical solution after radical dualism would be to create a default casting structure for lead roles with higher levels representing more diversity:
*Note: Asian - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malaysian, Singaporean, Indonesian...
*Note: Brown - East Indian, West Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan...
*Note: White - Western European, (including Jews).
Trio level: black, white, Asian.
Quad level: black, white, Asian, Mexican.
Penta level: black, white, Asian, Mexican, Brown.
Hexa level: black, white, Asian, Mexican, Brown, Aboriginal.
I doubt that anyone in Hollywood will take this structure seriously, but there's no harm in mentioning it. To be fair, you can also argue that space for visible minorities from the token/quota/affirmative action perspective is genuine because that's how society works. Government A implements policy X and the people react to it.
White people in the past intentionally suppress visible minorities through racist polices in WE society. Visible minorities respond with the civil rights movement. Governments then react to the civil rights movement and create the quota/affirmative action system.
And that's where we are in WE society. Most visible minorities are happy with the quota/affirmative action system if it's implemented in their geographic area. Though it may not reflect a genuine will of white people making space for visible minorities, that's life. Bills need to be paid. Is it better to argue for your principles in poverty, or to compromise as the token visible minority with a moderate living wage? It's a personal call for everyone.
Sadly, the Trump administration is starting to chip away at the affirmative action system. While many people argue its merits, others are trying to dismantle it and let the chips fall where they fall.
But all visible minorities know how that will end. They'll have to work extra hard in order to prove that they're not inferior to white people, with their white employers judging them more harshly. It's a losing situation for visible minorities, but a winning situation for white employers at the top of the corporate pyramid. That's just life. You understand of course?
But again, this is where we are today in 2017. Visible minorities are still fighting for jobs at the lower rungs. While there's some public pressure for visible minorities at the highest rungs, white people in general and liberal media outlets tend not to push the issue too much. Why not?
Because many liberal institutions don't have visible minorities at the top. It's just white people telling visible minorities what they should or shouldn't be doing. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
In the future, with concerted public pressure, the battle will be for affirmative action/quota system at the top corporate rungs. Of course, that will be followed by questions of whether it's deserved or token. Even if it's token is it still genuine?
Will visible minorities at the top be a genuine reflection of white people believing that visible minorities can succeed at the top? Or, will white people judge them more harshly if they fail? Lots of questions, lots of debate, and lots of sound bites for mainstream media outlets. There are so many potential directions that nothing is certain, aside from the fact that visible minorities will have a long uphill battle in their future.
Another interesting characteristic about Hollywood/TV is the writing. In the past, many shows only have white writers. Even if the characters are visible minorities, the writers have all been white in the past. It's only in the last decade that things have been changing, again due to public pressure and a corporation's public image.
Personally, I'm like most writers. If it works it works. As a Guyanese-Canadian writer, I write for all of my characters and their diverse ethnic backgrounds. How? Personal experiences and the internet. It's not that difficult.
Yes, it would be nice to have black people writing about the black stories instead of white writers, but in 2017, on a major TV show or movie, the end results will be insignificant for most viewers. Most viewers are looking at the plot, not the minute details that you would only get from a visible minority writer telling a story about visible minorities.
The main advantage that visible minority writers have over white writers in telling a story about visible minorities is their powers of observation and personal experiences. Their personal experiences will more or less suffice in regards to visible minority characters. But their powers of observation in looking at and understanding white culture will also suffice.
My apologies if this sounds insincere to white people, but white culture isn't rocket science. While white European culture is more nuanced, white North American culture is very easy for first generation and second generation visible minorities to understand.
Visible minorities can observe and put ourselves in white people's shoes with a pretty good level of understanding. And yet, many white writers aren't capable of putting themselves in our shoes.
Though white writers know about the alienation, second glances, discrimination and overall racism that visible minorities face, they don't understand what it feels like. That's where visible minorities have the advantage. They have observation and personal experiences on their side.
Hence, it would make sense to see visible minority writers as having more value than white writers in the writing process. Rationally speaking, this should translate into higher wages.
Interestingly enough, from time to time Hollywood pushes out another slavery film under the pretense of we have to tell these stories. Yah...no. In the digital era, people around the world are quite capable of being aware of all the facets of slavery. They don't need another Hollywood movie/TV show to help them understand. If people aren't aware of slavery, that's because they don't care to know about it.
But that won't stop HBO's upcoming show Confederate. It's about the Confederates leaving the Union and slavery being the law in the 21st century. Fabulous. That's clearly what visible minorities need right now (forgive the sarcasm).
It's being written by the white writers of Game of Thrones along with two black writers. Writing about slavery being legal in the 21st century will only add fuel to the white supremacy movement.
But even with the death of a woman at the hands of a white supremacist in August 2017, HBO is still pushing ahead with the show.  At least Amazon's upcoming show Black America has potential with its plot of giving black people their own sovereign nation as reparations.
Again, every few years Hollywood puts out a new movie/TV show with slavery themes and black people being call n*ggers. It's almost as if white Hollywood producers want to remind black people of their inferior socio-cultural status.
While black people have rebranded the term n*gger with n*gga, the use of the denigrating term n*gger is always in play in Hollywood. In his standup, Chris Rock says that there's only three cases when white people can say the term n*gger...during sex, a rap song, or a robbery. 
Oddly enough, there's a fourth case, Hollywood movie slavery scripts. Every few years, there's another Hollywood movie with white people calling black people n*ggers. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Ghosts of Mississippi (1996)
Jackie Brown (1997)
Men of Honor (2000)
Hart's War (2002)
Amazing Grace (2006)
The Secret Life of Bees (2008)
The Help (2011)
Django Unchained (2012)
12 Years a Slave (2013)
The Butler (2013)
The Hateful Eight (2015)
It's almost as if these movies are created just so white actors can say the word n*gger and white racist moviegoers can repeat it.
And just to be clear, white actors/actresses don't gloss over their n*gger lines. No no no. They lay into it with passion and scorn. Not the friendly n*gga term, but the denigrating n*gger term. But we have to do it. It's in the script. Very true. It is in the script. And the script has been approved by the director, producer, and studio executives.
I can even see white actors/actresses in their trailers rehearsing their n*gger lines and really laying into it. I'd bet they could even go to a major store in a white community and start saying n*gger this and n*gger that. The crowd would initially be shocked, but they'd get comfortable very quickly. It's okay. It's part of a new movie script.
I would bet that the white crowd would volunteer to help practice the lines. I can see white people and even non-black visible minorities laying in the term n*gger while helping an actor/actress to rehearse their lines. Saturday Night Live (SNL) should do a skit about this.
It's almost as if white Hollywood gives white supremacists and white people in general a bit of breathing room for their slavery dialogue of n*gger this and n*gger that. Since they can't say such things publicly, Hollywood does it for them. Fabulous. Only Hollywood could create a template for other studios and film/TV production companies to get away with using the term n*gger in the 21st century.
And movie theatre venues and TV networks won't censor the term because it's an integral part of the script. Brilliant. I wonder how many times white actors/actresses in HBOs Confederate will be saying the term n*gger through flashbacks of the past and modern times. Only time will tell.
Should white Hollywood executives make space for visible minority writers, actors, directors, and producers? Yes. But at the moment, the space is just token/affirmative action. It's still better than nothing.
But it's not genuine because it doesn't reflect a genuine change in the ideologies of white Hollywood producers/studio executives. But that's IF Hollywood allows them space at the table. Take it from infamous Canadian comedian Russell Peters on Larry King:
The whole movie and TV industry is like high school. And if you're not in with the cool kids you're not ah...doesn't matter how good you are...you're just not in with the cool kids. 
As all visible minorities know, we can't wait for white people to voluntarily change their ideologies. If visible minority artists want token space from white Hollywood producers/executives, they'll have to force their way in, even if it makes white people uncomfortable.
If visible minority artists don't want to compromise their craft, they have to create their own space, along with their own production and distribution companies. Such actions will be difficult in 2017 with Hollywood cannibalizing itself through mergers and acquisitions, but no one said life was going to be easy.
To be fair to Hollywood, they’re f*cked no matter what they do for visible minorities.
Is the bad guy a visible minority? You're racist and holding back visible minorities.
Is the good guy white? You're racist and holding back visible minorities.
Are the supporting characters visible minorities? You're racist and holding back visible minorities.
But it's also fair to say that the lead roles for blockbuster movies/TV shows only have white actors/actresses (Transformers, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter).
It's almost as if visible minorities don't exist in medieval times. Of course, in the mind of many closet white racists, they don't exist. And even if they exist, they don't really matter.
While there are visible minorities in sports, entertainment, media, and industry in general, they exist at the lowest rungs. Even black sports athletes who get paid big money are just entertainment commodities for the global public.
And who owns these puppets via corporations? White people. Take a look at your favorite sports team, Hollywood studio (movies/TV), media outlet, and industry in general, and 99% of the time, you'll find that the owners are white people. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
And this applies to liberal media outlets as well. Take a look at the owners and/or board of directors and more often than not, most of them are filled white people. Why? Because many white liberals don't believe that visible minorities can govern themselves or a corporation properly.
That's something only white people can succeed at. Of course, they're not going to say this out loud, but that's what they mean when the owners/board of directors are filled with mostly white people.
However, conspiracy theorists tend to exaggerate from time to time. Such is the case for Bill Cosby. In 1992 Bill Cosby tries to buy NBC but fails. According to some conspiracy theorists, this is why GSIGs try to destroy his career starting in October 2014 via Hannibal Buress.
Unfortunately, the conspiracy is complete nonsense. Yes, many white owners/board of directors don't want to sell their corporations to visible minorities. And yes, white bank owners/board of directors/ managers are less likely to give visible minorities loans to buy out white corporations. God forbid visible minority corporations (aside from China) buying out multinational corporations owned by white people.
But Cosby's fall from grace is not the fault of white corporate America. It's due to his overinflated ego and socio-cultural status. When you're as big as Cosby in the past, it's difficult for women to say no. And no, Hannibal Buress isn't a shill of the deep state. The allegations against Cosby gain traction because of a February 2014 article in Gawker. 
While Cosby is legally innocent due to a mistrial in July 2017, regardless of future trials, Cosby has been and always will be the father of comedy for visible minorities. Visible minority comedians really begins with Dick Gregory and Cosby and moves it forward with Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Russell Peters, Kevin Hart, and Aziz Ansari standing on Cosby's shoulders.
For the record, Richard Pryor's comedy (with no censorship) is a significant contribution to free speech and against censorship in comedy. And for the record, Charlie Chaplin is and always will be the founder of comedy in the visual arts and the king of comedy.
However, Cosby's advocacy toward black empowerment is his most valuable contribution to humanity as a whole. And the conspiracy theory of taking down Cosby because of advocacy of black empowerment has slightly better merit than the NBC conspiracy.
Before I get to the racism in Silicon Valley, I want to get into the Young Turks (TYT). TYT is a progressive media outlet. They use the term progressive instead of liberal because of their advocacy against Democrats being funded by Big Industry. But I find the distinction barely significant. Unfortunately, TYT seems to have taken a page from academic philosophers where more labels equals a greater understanding. Such nonsense.
But generally speaking, if Brietbart and Infowars is the alternative media for the conservative side, TYT is the alternative media for the liberal side. While it's already known that conservative media outlets don't advocate diversity, liberal media outlets on the other hand vehemently advocate diversity.
But that's just on the surface. If you take a look at them, their employees aren't really diverse. It's just white people at the top or getting most of the airtime. I'll use TYT as an example.
TYT is a for-profit media outlet created by Cenk Uyger. That for-profit status alone is enough to question TYTs claims about not wanting corporate money. But we’ll get into that in the *Media article. While TYT claims that it supports diversity, its regular commentators look pretty white:
Aside from them, Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian can pass for white. While this is a touchy subject it can't be ignored. Many visible minorities have very light skin and could pass for white people. Does this mean that they don't count as visible minorities? Yes and no. Genetically, yes, but socially, no. I'll give you a real example, US Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren:
Warren says, yes, she is, and points to "family stories" passed down to her through generations as evidence.
"I am very proud of my heritage," Warren told NPR in 2012. "These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw. This is our lives. And I'm very proud of it."
In that account and others, a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American. (However, the legitimacy of those findings has been debated.) 
If you Google images of Warren, you'll see that she looks very much like any other white woman. There are no traces of Aboriginal features in her appearance. But let's pretend that the 1/32 Aboriginal/Native American lineage is correct (Canadians use the term Aboriginal/First Nation instead of Native American). Does that 1/32 make her Native American? It depends on who you ask.
If you're asking Aboriginals, for some of them, if one person is Aboriginal way down in the family line, it counts. For official Aboriginal status in some First Nation communities, there's a limit to the level of dilution from past generations. For some non-Aboriginal visible minorities and white people in general, if a person looks white, they'll be perceived as white, regardless of any past Aboriginal ancestry.
The battle is between genotypes vs. phenotypes. Genetics vs. social constructs. Facts vs. the perception of facts. Aside from my excessive use of the term That's not accidental. That's intentional...If you don't understand the distinction between facts/reality and perception of those facts/reality, you won't understand anything in life. You'll be aware of things. But you won't understand.
Perception is key because all of us are looking at the world through a subjective lens. Your perception of a car crash isn't the same as another person. Why not? Aside from powers of observation, perception is highly influenced by ones ideologies. On the surface, everyone sees the same thing (a car crash). But in reality, they interpret and reinterpret that memory based on their ideologies.
But let's get back to the issue at hand. Warren claims she's Native American. Is she correct? It depends on your ideologies. For me personally, no, she doesn't count as Aboriginal. Even if she is 1/32 Native American genetically, if it doesn't show in her physical appearance, the general public would perceive her as a regular woman. And I argue that this would be the correct perception.
This is such a touchy subject that even the Washington Post doesn't want it:
The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" page has actually decided against judging the issue at all, offering "no rating" and, in a piece Tuesday, suggesting "readers to look into it on their own and decide whether Trump's attacks over Warren's background have merit." 
When even the Washington Post refuses to touch the issue, that's how you know that there's a limit to political correctness. There's only so much bullsh*t you can get away with before people start questioning your statements.
On the one hand, the Washington Post wants to demonize Trump and build up Clinton (prior to and after the election). On the other hand, the Washington Post doesn't want to be insensitive to visible minorities. Hence, they take a hands-off approach.
In the end, you have white owners and white management of the Washington Post claiming to speak for the interests of visible minorities. But I just see it as white people telling visible minority staff and readers what they should or shouldn't be doing. Some call this the legacy of colonial genocide. I just call it racism.
Racism isn't just about overt racist actions. It's about the ideology of one ethnicity/race being superior to another. And in the corporate world of the 21st century, that ideology takes the form of visible minorities not being promoted to senior management/executive level.
Instead of empowerment, it keeps visible minorities in their place. Liberal media outlets such as the Washington Post and TYT are not empowering visible minorities. They're suppressing their potential and keeping them in line. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
But what really pisses me off (sorry, I need to vent), is that Warren uses her 1/32 Native American ancestry to fit a visible minority quota for law school:
Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being "Native American." They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory.
...Brown [Scott Brown] told WCVB in Boston that he didn't condone their actions, but said "the real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure." 
On the surface, you have the liberal trifecta advocating for the interests of visible minorities. But in reality, it's just white people (like Warren) telling visible minorities what they should and shouldn't be doing. Some call it the legacy of cultural genocide. I just call it racism.
Now that we have a better understanding of light skinned visible minorities who can pass for white people, we can continue in our visible minority analysis of TYT. While there are Asian and black visible minorities on the show, white commentators (and those who would pass for white) get the most airtime. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
And then we get to Uygur and Kasparian's views on the affirmative action/quota system in regards to the Seinfeld diversity issue:
Kasparian: I can't stand the criticism of...oh you know, this show doesn't have enough black people, or enough Asian people, enough Native Americans...like...everyone just needs to calm down...Like if you start having these quotas, it's not a good thing.
Uygur: When it's forced it’s so stupid. We wound up having the most diversity in the world here at the Young Turks but we didn't force it. It just...that's how it turned out to be. 
Umm...what? Quotas are not a good thing? When it's forced it's stupid? These people are cracked in the head. They don't understand that significant change doesn't come voluntarily. Civil rights don't come voluntarily. It comes because black people force the change. Why? Because prior to that, equal opportunities exist in theory, but not in reality for visible minorities.
And diversity at TYT? They must be high if they can't see the dominance of their white/would pass for white commentators. While Uygur and Kasparian appear to fight for the plight of visible minorities in Hollywood or Silicon Valley, in reality it's just for the sake of appearances. And you can prove that by looking at TYT's mostly white/would pass for white commentators.
In regards to the Seinfeld diversity issue, both sides are correct. Yes, comedy is comedy. As a man of comedy myself, comedy is comedy. And if you're not funny, people won't be interested regardless of ethnicity/race. However, as a visible minority man of comedy, I can see the lack of opportunities for visible minority comedians.
In reality, visible minority comedians aren't necessarily given the same opportunities as white comedians. And even if they're given opportunities at the lowest rungs, the odds of them getting their own show are very slim.
Aziz Ansari's Master of None show is the exception. Unfortunately, many white people who are NOT racist and achieve high status, don't understand the plights of 99% of visible minorities. Good intentions, but a lack of understanding in how to help/change the situation for the better.
Kasparian even doubles down on her anti-affirmative action stance in regards to Silicon Valley:
I think the hardest thing about hiring practices and making sure you are taking diversity into account is that all of a sudden you find yourself picking token members of each community. And I hate that. I want the emphasis to be on skill...Unfortunately, what complicates that we all have subconscious biases against certain groups. 
Sorry, but there's no such thing as the subconscious, subconscious bias, or subconscious racism. The subconscious is merely a term created by psychologists to describe an automatic response program. Sorry, but that's just regular learning.
If you do action X more/reinforce X on a constant basis, it will appear to be automatic. But it's only automatic because of your conscious intent to make it automatic. Just because you're not aware of the ideologies in your mind doesn't mean that you can justify it as a subconscious bias. And just in case you're wondering, yes, you can change any ideologies that you don't want running in your mind (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
And for those of you not in the know, psychology is not a real science. Why not? Because the theories are not falsifiable. All of those brilliant psychological models are unfalsifiable ideological science. It has no basis in objective science. None whatsoever. And no amount of statistics can transform it into a real science (see Philosophy of Science in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and The Mental Health Industry in Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
Many white people/people who would pass for white lament the emphasis to be on skill instead of race/ethnicity. In theory, that's a good idea. In reality, that skill level is filtered through the employer's perception of race/ethnicity. Why? Because a lot of white people are closet racists.
In their job, they act normal, but behind closed doors, they're super racist. Most visible minorities are well aware of this in the 21st century. Just as black people in the past have to put on two faces (one for working with white people, and one for home life), many white people today are doing the same.
Unfortunately, the first of anything for visible minorities in a white corporate environment will be token. The token slot is disingenuous because it doesn't represent a genuine desire for white people to welcome visible minorities in senior management.
BUT...and it's a big but, that token slot is necessary to crack open the door to allow more visible minorities in, and hopefully by then, white owners/board of directors/managers will then hire more visible minorities based on their skill, with the desire to help them succeed potentially becoming genuine. Until that scenario occurs, quotas, affirmative action, and token slots are the correct actions to open the executive level/board of directors/owners door.
And then we have lawsuits alleging racism against media outlets and Silicon Valley companies:
Troubles at Fox News compounded yet again on Tuesday, with the emergence of new allegations of racial discrimination at the company coming less than a week after the ouster of the network's star Bill O'Reilly.
Eleven current and former Fox News employees filed a class-action lawsuit in New York against the network, accusing it of "abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial discrimination." 
Palantir, a Silicon Valley company with ties to Donald Trump, has agreed to pay $1.7m to settle a government lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against Asian applicants.
The $20bn data analytics company, co-founded by Peter Thiel, one of the president's advisers, has not admitted wrongdoing in the settlement, which comes at a time of increasing debate about discrimination in the tech industry.
The payout, negotiated by the Trump administration’s Department of Labor (DoL), comes amid concern in Silicon Valley over the immigration and labor policies likely to be enacted by the White House. 
While some may call this a win for justice, when you make billions in profit, losing $1.7 million means almost nothing. And this settlement (like all settlements) comes after the usual claim that we will vigorously defend ourselves against these salacious charges. Oh please.
Take a look at any corporate settlement and then look for an article with the initial charges and you'll see the same bullsh*t line. And the Silicon Valley lawsuits continue:
Oracle is being sued by the Labor Department for allegedly paying white men more than their counterparts and for favoring Asian workers when recruiting and hiring for technical roles.
...Oracle refused to comply with the Labor Department's investigation, which began in 2014, such as refusing to provide compensation data for all employees, complete hiring data for certain business lines and employee complaints of discrimination, according to the federal agency. 
And then we have the supposed corporate racial misunderstandings:
ESPN issued an apology and explanation Tuesday after airing a live version of a fantasy football auction that some people felt was racist.
The segments featured an auctioneer offering NFL players, some of whom were African American, up for bid to a group of fantasy football players, most of whom were white men. For many people, this came too close to resembling a slave auction. And the segment came two days after deadly violence around a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. 
The color of a wig cap being sold on Walmart.com was described using a racist term [n*gger brown] — and quickly, the hate-speech product description went viral.
The language in the product being listed and sold by a third-party vendor through Walmart.com has since been removed... 
The skin care brand Nivea set off a controversy this week with an ad featuring the phrase "White is purity," again finding itself accused of racial insensitivity over a campaign that seemed to be embraced by white supremacists.
...One Facebook user paired the ad with a screenshot from a 2011 Nivea campaign, featuring a well-dressed black male clutching the Afro of a mannequin’s head. The tagline, "Re-civilize yourself." Nivea apologized for the campaign, calling it "inappropriate and offensive." 
White is purity? Re-civilize yourself? Yup...sounds about right. That's pretty much what I expect from white Corporate America. And the racial misunderstandings continue:
Pepsi has apologized for a controversial advertisement that borrowed imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement, after a day of intense criticism from people who said it trivialized the widespread protests against the killings of black people by the police.
The ad, posted to YouTube on Tuesday, shows attractive young people holding milquetoast signs with nonspecific pleas like "Join the conversation." The protesters are uniformly smiling, laughing, clapping, hugging and high-fiving.
In the ad's climactic scene, a police officer accepts a can of Pepsi from Kendall Jenner, a white woman, setting off raucous approval from the protesters and an appreciative grin from the officer. 
All racism and police brutality can be cured by white people drinking Pepsi? Bless your heart Pepsi. SNL is kind enough to do a hilarious parody skit of the racist Pepsi ad. 
If it's not apparent by now, regular white people see themselves as saviors to inferior visible minorities.
We're here to save black people from police brutality.
We're here to save Mexicans and Asians from discrimination in Hollywood.
We're here to save Aboriginals and their dumb backwards culture.
Wherever you go, the script is the same. Regular white people are saving visible minorities from the bad guys or themselves. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. Even white people who want to help visible minorities in general believe that they're superior to them and have an obligation to help the inferior visible minorities.
More often than not, we're just a sympathy case to make white people feel better about themselves. Anytime you see white people leading the charge against an oppressor, it's usually because white people believe that only they have the proper faculties/characteristics to deal with the situation.
To my white friends who genuinely want to help the plight of visible minorities...stay the f*ck in the background. Instead being the savior of poor visible minorities all around the world, give visible minorities the tools they need to empower themselves and able to fight their own battles.
You won't get any credit, but you'll know that you’ve made a genuine difference to the plight of visible minorities. Afterwards, you can have your dark chocolate, a glass of red wine, pat yourself on the shoulder, and call it a day.
Only by empowering visible minorities to take control of their own destiny can white people ever truly help visible minorities. Anything else is just sympathy/racist sympathy.
The racist message to visible minorities is clear from all sectors of WE society.
You can stand on the shoulders of great white inventors. But you can't be one yourself.
You can be a journalist. But you can't own a major media outlet.
You can be an actor or a writer in Hollywood. But you can't own a studio or be a famous producer.
Again, none of this is accidental. All of it is intentional. The sooner you realize this, the sooner real progress can be made.
And now we can really get into the racism in Silicon Valley. And it's not pretty:
At Twitter, blacks and Latinos make up only 6% of all employees, and that's hardly unique.
As much as venture capitalists tout themselves as risktakers, many of them are looking to make money in familiar ways, with familiar faces: white boys armed with all of the right cultural catchphrases.
"So when someone fits the pattern — white or Asian, went to Stanford, then went to Google — they'll say, 'That person knows what they're doing,' or 'They'll figure it out either way,'" Joseph said. "And they'll write that person a $2 million check."
But when people of color who don't fit the typical template come along, even ones with Ivy League educations and sterling business experience, they don't get the benefit of the doubt.
...Some investors within Silicon Valley's homogenous culture found it so difficult to imagine an AfricanAmerican male as a CEO that Matt Joseph's pitch meetings included scattered comparisons to random black celebrities from outside technology. 
In May last year, a stunning report claimed that a computer program used by a US court for risk assessment was biased against black prisoners.
...Compas and programs similar to it were in use in hundreds of courts across the US, potentially informing the decisions of judges and other officials. The message seemed clear: the US justice system, reviled for its racial bias, had turned to technology for help, only to find that the algorithms had a racial bias too.
...as our computational tools have become more advanced, they have become more opaque. The data they rely on – arrest records, postcodes, social affiliations, income – can reflect, and further ingrain, human prejudice.
...tech companies spent somewhere between $20bn and $30bn on AI, mostly in research and development.
...It has led to a decade-long AI arms race in which the UK government is offering six-figure salaries to computer scientists. 
Computer programs being racist against visible minorities? Yup...that sounds about right for Silicon Valley. I wouldn't be surprised if the first AI is racist to visible minorities and exterminates us...right before white people find a way to shut it down. Tragic and hilarious. And the racism in Silicon Valley continues:
Just last week, Facebook...founder Mark Zuckerberg condemned the behavior of some of his employees for crossing out "black lives matter" on the walls of Facebook's headquarters, replacing it with "all lives matter."
Just 1% of Facebook's tech workers are black. It's only slightly better -- 3% -- in non-technical roles. In 2014, just 2.9% of its new hires were black...
It's a similar story at other big tech companies. Despite publishing diversity reports and expressing a desire to increase minority hires, they haven't shown a measurable improvement over the last few years.
...Like Facebook, just 1% of Google's tech workers are black.
...I've heard many similar anecdotes from others in the tech industry while reporting on diversity in Silicon Valley. Black tech employees have recounted being mistaken for a secretary to being told to add a white person to their team if they wanted to raise capital. 
Google has apologized after its new Photos application identified black people as "gorillas."
On Sunday Brooklyn programmer Jacky Alcine tweeted a screenshot of photos he had uploaded in which the app had labeled Alcine and a friend, both African American, "gorillas."
...At Google, seven out of 10 employees are men. Most employees are white (60%) and Asian (31%). Latinos made up just 3% of the work force and African Americans just 2% — a far cry from fulfilling the mission of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to have their company reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of its users in the USA and around the world. 
Goggle's advanced software identifies black people as Gorillas? Yup...that sounds about right for Silicon Valley. But let's not blame it all on Silicon Valley's racial discrimination. We can also blame it on Canadian companies as well:
Members of Canada's tech community saw Trump's move as a rejection of the diversity on which they felt their industry was built and decided to speak out.
...But when CBC News sought to gauge what this commitment to diversity looks like in practice, Canada's tech community had remarkably little to say.
In May, we asked 31 Canadian technology companies if they collected data on the diversity of their employees, and if so, whether they would share this data with CBC News.
Only two companies...were willing to do so.
...As recently as 2016, we learned that just 145 of Facebook's nearly 8,500 employees are black. We learned that 12 per cent of Apple employees are Hispanic, versus just four per cent at Google.
...Among the industry's biggest players, there has been little progress in recent years.
The overwhelming majority of companies declined to participate while two of the biggest names in Canadian tech, BlackBerry and Hootsuite, did not respond to multiple requests for comment...The reluctance to talk numbers isn't unique to Canada. In the U.S., high-profile companies such as Tesla, Snap and Spotify still haven't released reports. 
The man in charge of Montreal's 375th anniversary celebrations is apologizing that a commercial for the festivities depicts only white people.
Nakuset, cochair of the Montreal Urban Aboriginal Community Strategy Network, said the video doesn't reflect the reality of Montreal.
"I think people don't know there are 26,000 urban Aboriginal Montrealers. We are here, and we are multitalented, doing all different kinds of work...and yet, people don't recognize us," she said.
... "We were not consulted. Our projects were put forward, and they were denied," she said. 
The solutions by liberal media outlets are hilarious. Aside from diversity workshops, they try to take it from a financial point of view. Lack of diversity hurts your bottom line. Umm...what? Sorry, but that's false. Visible minorities will continue to buy Silicon Valley products/services just like everyone else, regardless of whether they employ visible minorities or not.
We don't really care who's making the technology as long as it works and is good quality. As I say time and time again, the problem isn't with ones actions. It's the ideologies. Ideologies exist behind the actions. Change the ideologies and you change the actions. The mechanism isn't rocket science. The problem is getting the person to switch their ideologies from racist to non-racist. My long term solution is radical dualism. What's your solution?
Let's get right into it. Trump's 2016 win was the moment that white supremacists have longed for. One pure white king to rule them all without any regard for anyone but white people. The promise land.
Some white racists want a true white homeland. Others want exclusionary opportunities. Others want both. And some want more than that. It's tough to generalize, but when writing about any type of group you have to generalize and lump people into categories that are not necessarily accurate.
With the election of Trump, white supremacists feel that they can finally throw off the liberal shackles of political correctness and bring their racism out into the open. It's a bold move. And oddly enough, one that I recommend. Allow me to explain.
In the 8 years under the Obama administration, white supremacists and your average white racist more or less keeps their views to themselves and don't cause much of a fuss (aside from isolated incidents). With America's ingrained racism, white supremacists could have caused a lot more problems. But they didn't.
While holding your ideologies in or not translating them into actions for 8 years is impressive, it's not a genuine action. If you don't believe in X, don't pretend that you do. If you believe in Y, be honest about your belief in Y. Holding in ones ideologies is not only disingenuous, but prevents real growth from occurring, at the individual and global level.
While liberal white people think that white racists should just get over it, that's not going to happen. Genuine change doesn't occur (in the past or present) because of political correctness. It occurs because a person becomes aware of why they hold ideology X and whether that reason, that why, is still valid.
The events in Charlottesville, Virginia are just a microcosm of the larger issue. And contrary to what the liberal trifecta claims, the situation won’t be resolved by political correctness, censorship, or education. Ideologies transcend all of those structures.
Ideologies are not physical things. They can't be killed or destroyed. They can only be suppressed, dormant, or expressed. There's no in-between. And white supremacists believe, rightly so, that this is the correct time to express their ideologies after suppressing it for 8 years and longer.
White supremacists have been waiting for a strong white man to lead them back to the glory days of white supremacy/nationalism...where only beautiful white people matter...where they get priority over everyone else...where they're the only ones who shape and define history. And yet, objectively speaking, white people already have these characteristics in the past and present:
Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Machivelli (founders of WE philosophy/governance/structure)
Issac Newton (physics)
Albert Einstein (physics)
James Watson (discover of DNA)
Luc Montagnier (discover of HIV virus)
Elon Musk (creator reusable rockets and hyperloop idea)
Tim Berners-Lee (creator www protocol and first web browser)
Mark Zuckerberg (creator of Facebook, social communication revolution)
Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier (gene editing...debatable due to courts).
All of these inventions/services/ideologies are created by WE white people (including Jews). It's not unfair to say that white people are more or less responsible for the world we live in today. While it's created on the backs of slaves, it's white colonizers that conquer visible minorities in the past. Not the other way around.
I hate to admit it, but white supremacists have a strong argument in favor of seeing themselves as the creators/innovators that move humanity forward. You may not like hearing that, but you can't deny history and reality.
Oddly enough, white supremacists feel disenfranchised because of visible minorities. When in reality, real visible minorities (not including Jews), have no significant power in WE society. People of color are not holding back white supremacists. Sorry, but we don't have that kind of power. And yet white supremacists feel that we do, or that we have access to that power. Hilarious and tragic at the same time.
Objectively speaking, a white man can go from homeless to a billionaire in less than 5 years (through legal means). But a visible minority wouldn't be able to achieve that. They might be able to achieve it in a decade, but only through illegal means. Why? Because white privilege is a real thing. It exists at every level of infrastructure in WE society.
White people will be given as many chances as they need in order to succeed, whereas visible minorities will usually be given one, two if they're lucky. Worse, any chances that visible minorities get won’t translate into empowerment or greater opportunities.
It will only translate into a mediocre lifestyle and/or token status. And token status and a comfortable living are much better than nothing. But there's no comparison to the seismic opportunities that white people will be given.
But that's objectively speaking. Subjectively speaking, low-mid income white people feel that they're second class citizens to visible minorities. Why? Because visible minorities are being given priority via affirmative action domestically. Internationally, visible minorities overseas are taking white people's blue collar jobs in every sector via NAFTA and trade deals in manufacturing, technology, and financial services.
Many racist and non-racist white people feel that their culture and identity are disappearing. And with the Syrian refugee crisis, it's understandable why they would think that with the advent of welfare checks to refugees.  
These blue collar workers live simple lives and earn a living on the sweat of their brow. Taking those opportunity away from them via trade deals was a mistake. If you take opportunity X away from People A, you have to fill the void with something else. If you don't, you're going to have bitter resentment, leading to racist ideologies, and finally leading to white supremacy and potential race wars.
And this applies to racist white people who are atheist or religious. Under the larger banner of white supremacy, atheism or religion is just a different path. There are many religious white racists just as there are atheist white racists. Their ideologies of superiority is what links them. Be it god or evolution's hand, white is the best in their eyes. When atheists take out god, in theory there's room for visible minorities. But in reality, there isn't.
You need to remember that prior to the abolition of slavery, white Christians justified slavery. At the time, the Christian god loves only white believers. Apparently, non-whites at the time don't matter. And the same is true for Darwinian evolution.
The Darwinian movement is one of racism mixed with science. And this gets translated into government policy via eugenics, which is seen as objective science at the time, only later to be reinterpreted as ideological. It's a shame that many scientists in the past and present don’t use falsifiability and prediction as the main characteristics of objective science (see Philosophy of Science in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
The events in Charlottesville are the straw that breaks the camel's back. The liberal trifecta is deluding themselves if they think that the worst is over because Steven Bannon is no longer in the white house. To be fair to conservatives, the liberal trifecta can be just as violent as the conservative right.   
Do you think that white racists who have suppressed their racist ideologies for 8 years or more are just going to pack it up and call it a day because one person died? Yah right. After the liberal shaming that causes these people to lose their jobs, where do you think they'll go?
Once you've taken away all forms of security and destroyed someone's life socially and economically, what do you think they’re going to do? They're going to move deeper into the white supremacy movement because they have no place left to go. If employers won't hire them, they'll turn to the loving arms of their white racist brethren. And that's a completely rational choice.
And then the free speech argument gets interesting. This is where liberals get conflicted. While they believe in free speech, they also want to defend visible minorities against hate speech because we're so vulnerable and sensitive. Who wins? While the liberal trifecta (more or less) believes that hate speech trumps free speech and shouldn't be allowed, I'm the opposite. Free speech always trumps hate speech and censorship.
Why? Because my loyalty (aside from being with my future family that doesn't yet exist), is to the growth and development of humanity. And humanity can't grow if the free speech of white supremacists is censored/suppressed. The greater the censorship, the greater the lack of growth occurring. Why? Because censorship in all forms equals suppression. And suppressing ones speech can never lead to growth.
While society doesn't expect you to take a bullet for your ideologies, if you can't handle offensive content, you're lacking in character. You'd have better luck living in a Buddhist monastery with your thin skin.
Of course, you don't have to kill your emotions. You can have your emotions and welcome free speech at the same time. If the content hurts you, reflect on the reasons why. This is another way of creating your purpose in life.
Reflect on the things that cause you pain in your life and ask yourself why and use that as a springboard in creating a purposeful life. If you don't like the pain, but don't want to deny their right to free speech, what's your solution? Every obstacle is a potential opportunity for your growth and the growth of humanity.
When white supremacists say that visible minorities should be killed, I would defend their right to say that in public, on a blog, or on a YouTube video. Why? Because it's a genuine belief. And if they kill someone or attempt to do so, they should be killed in return. There's no room for this life in prison bullsh*t and showing these people compassion by letting them reflect on their actions while serving the prison industry.
Humanity, at our current level of development, can't help these people (see The Death Penalty & Jail in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities). The best route for everyone (even if they don't admit it) is a quick and painless death. I recommend a bullet to the head.
If liberal p*ssies can't do it, I'll pull the trigger for them and go to bed after some nice organic green tea. If you're shocked by these words, that's only because you've been conditioned to become squeamish p*ssies.
When white supremacists say that visible minorities should be segregated, I'll defend their right to say that in public, on a blog, or on a YouTube video. Again, we can't grow as a species if we censor content that we don't like. If we create the technology to take us out into the stars, we'll be taking all of our racism, sexism, and censorship with us. We have to deal with it now. And censorship is not the correct way to deal with it.
Radical dualism is my long term solution. My short term solution is quotas, affirmative action, visible minority owners/board of directors of multinational corporations, and harsh penalties for criminals. What's your solution?
Interestingly enough, the segregation argument shouldn’t be easily dismissed. During the civil rights movement, Malcolm X advocates for segregation in order to achieve black empowerment. MLK Jr. doesn't support segregation and welcomes integration in order to achieve peace and equality.
Black empowerment vs. peace and equality? The black community of the past chooses MLK's vision. Was that the correct decision? In the 21st century, we don’t really have equality. We have visible minorities at the bottom rung and white owners/board of directors at the top (21st century slavery).
We have peace overall, but only at the cost of black empowerment and the lack of empowerment of all visible minorities. Which path should have been chosen?
The empowerment of black, Hispanic, brown, and Aboriginal people doesn't exist in the 21st century on any level whatsoever in WE society. And no, the election of Obama doesn't lead to the empowerment of visible minorities. Why not? I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.
But getting back to the white supremacy movement, if they really get organized, the liberal trifecta should be careful. Everything that you do can and will be tracked by white supremacists who have nothing to lose and willing to die for the cause. While this picture may seem far off, in reality it's not. As the liberal trifecta continues to shame white racists at protests, they're also planting the seeds of their own destruction. Blades sharpening blades.
Will it lead to violence? Yes. Will it lead to death? Most certainly. But that's how change occurs in the 21st century. That's the level of development we're at. If a hot button issue like race doesn't lead to death, nothing will be resolved. It will just smolder with the next generation of extremists. Oddly enough, it's only after both sides experience massive losses, do we lose sight of our extreme positions and care more about living, regardless of ideologies.
The exception is Muslim extremism of course. When you believe in fairytales in the afterlife and a holy war, everyone on the planet is put at risk. Muslim extremism or White supremacy? Which is the greater threat? It would be nice if these two camps could finish each other off and let everyone else get on with their lives. But that would be too easy. And no one said life was going to be easy or fair.
And just in case you're wondering, all of those statues of Confederates should have been removed over a century ago. Keeping them up glorifies racism and slavery. History is history. No one's denying their actions. But you don't need to glorify racists. Keeping them up sends a signal to white supremacists that racism is secretly okay, as long as you don't call it racism.
If governments leave the statues up, they might as well create a statue of black men with chains around their neck being whipped by a white slave owner. Why? Why not? It's history. Closet racist politicians and incompetent liberals only add fuel for racists as they defend the statues or the naming of schools after racists.
And then there's the demographic argument. There are more of them than us. Our nation is filled with inferior unclean heathens. In reality, the 2016 US population of white people (not including Hispanics or Latinos) is 61.3%. 
But let's pretend that the ratio is 50/50 or 40/60 for white people, do white supremacists then have an argument against affirmative action or quotas? No. Why not? Because power lies at the top (owners/board of directors). And the top is usually all white.
It doesn't matter how many visible minorities are at the bottom. White CEOs and board of directors are the new slave owners, with visible minorities plowing the technological/ manufacturing/media fields in the 21st century (including liberal organizations).
White supremacists and the Jewish issue are quite fascinating for visible minorities. While we regard Jews as white, white supremacists don’t regard them as white. What else would they be? Apparently, the term Jew counts as its own classification with White, Black, Brown, Asian, and Hispanic.
How? If you keep repeating a false ideology long enough, it sticks. That's why racism and sexism last so long. They're all based on unfalsifiable ideologies, all with the backing of so-called objective science in the past. White supremacists could even argue that the science today isn't really science because it's been muddled with political correctness.
But the relationship between Jewish people and black people is complex. On the one hand, some Jews consider themselves to be a visible minority like black people and do their best to help them by giving them jobs and supporting their rights in the past. On the other hand, most black people feel that Jews are just as white as anyone else and resent their own employee status while Jewish people are the owners/mangers/board of directors.
While both walk in solidarity in the past, only Jewish people have ascended to the upper echelons of government and industry today due to their white privileged status. This is something that black people (and all visible minorities in general) will never experience.
And this doesn't include the perceptions of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Nor does it include black Muslims vs. black Christians. Older Israelis vs. the younger Israeli generation. Nor does it include the Black Lives Matter (BLM) position on Israel.
All of these side issues complicate the situation because the main issue is about the social, economic, and financial status of Jewish people relative to real visible minorities today, including the perception of the situation by the global public. It's genuinely complicated.
For white conspiracy theorists, the Jewish issue is a quagmire. If they support Israel, they're seen as a shill serving their Jewish overlords. If they support Palestinians, they're seen as supporting Islam. They're f*cked either way.
Personally, I'm anti-religion, especially anti-Islam. So if I have to choose, I lean toward the Israeli side. And of course, if the Jews become an accepted target of vilification from 21st century white supremacists, all visible minorities will be next. Hence, the kinship between visible minorities and Jewish people.
But even though I lean toward the Israeli side, I still believe that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the German government, and the French government are enemies of free speech for their hate speech laws. The ideology that criticism of the Israeli government represents racism (even from actual visible minorities) is laughable. And I would include the US government on this list if they pass the Israel Anti-Boycott Act.
Of course, many visible minorities take the opposite position because they feel that Arabs are the visible minorities and are being persecuted in Israel. And that's the rub. The discrimination/visible minority status is relative to geography.
In China, Chinese people are not a visible minority. But in the US they are. In the Middle East (aside from Israel), Arabs are not a visible minority. But in Israel they are. Geography and political boundaries changes the power dynamics.
One of the usual claims from white supremacists, white conspiracy theorists, and white conservatives in general is that visible minorities play the race card too much. And to a degree that's true.
One of the few advantages that visible minorities have (if you can call it an advantage) is that visible minorities can play the race card when things aren't going their way. And many times they're correct. But sometimes a situation can appear to be a racist, but in reality it's not. It's just the way the optics look.
The reason why using the term advantage is questionable is because it's entirely dependent on the liberal trifecta in WE society. Liberals are the ones that will listen and put pressure on corporations or governments about racial issues. Conservatives today would turn a blind eye to racial issues without pressure from the liberal trifecta.
This is why I mention in many articles that liberals are not intelligent enough to govern. But they are suitable to be the official opposition or conduct investigative journalism. When it comes to racial and gender discrimination, liberals are the ones who will actually listen.
If liberals didn't exist in WE society, white Christians would claim that every person has their place in the eyes of the Christian god, and the role for visible minorities would definitely be inferior to white Christians. Much of society in the past, present and future is highly dependent on each other. Take out one sphere of influence/pressure/conditioning and it changes the entire game.
And now we get to the super sensitive topic of Aboriginals. If you're not in the know, let me refresh your memory. Colonials of the past nearly wipe out Aboriginals/Natives in North America with germs and mass genocide.
After the Enlightenment period, the Canadian government decides not to kill Aboriginals directly, but do it culturally through residential schools. Residential schools take place from the mid 1800s at the hand of John A. McDonald (Canada's first prime minister), and only ends in 1996.
And just to piss off liberals and Aboriginals from the get go, I need to let you know that there are positive and negative aspects of residential schools for Aboriginals. What? It was all horrible. You're a horrible uneducated person. No, I'm not. I worked in Northern Aboriginal communities in the past. I know what the f*ck I'm talking about (unlike do-gooder liberals). Allow me to explain.
In the beginning and up to the 1970s-'80s, residential schools were hell with the intentional cultural destruction of Aboriginal culture. That's the negative part. That's not up for debate.
However, after the 1970s-80s, some priests in the Catholic Church who administered the residential school system decided not to enforce the cultural genocide policy. The policy was still on the books at that time, but they didn't enforce it. What was the result? A regular education with positive experiences (more or less since we're dealing with the Catholic Church).
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that residential schools had good intentions in the past or present. The intentions have always been to disempower Aboriginals. The Catholic priests of the past choose to carry out that intention. Some of the priests in the '70s-'90s chose not to carry out that intention. That's the difference.
I know it sounds unbelievable. Liberal media outlets in Canada only claim that the negative exists. They're wrong. They're just saying that because they feel guilty for their role in enabling cultural genocide.
Remember, media outlets are more a less a product of their time in the past. The racism in liberal media outlets in the past run very deep. Their political correctness and advocacy for visible minorities is due to their liberal ideologies. But it's also due to their past guilt in upholding the racist infrastructure at the time.
How do I know about the positive experiences from Aboriginals in residential schools? Because I lived in Northern Aboriginal communities for a time. They told me their stories directly. They don't say it publicly because that's not the message that liberal media outlets want to hear.
More often than not, it's easier to give the people what they want instead of the truth. It's disingenuous, but understandable given the harsh life Aboriginals have faced in the past, present, and will continue to face in the future.
And now we can move forward in the claim that GSIGs (via WE governments) intentionally want to disempower Aboriginals in the past, present, and future. Why would they want to do so? I actually don't know the answer. I have a feeling, but no evidence to back it up.
Generally speaking, Aboriginals don't pose a threat to anyone. There are very few Aboriginal terrorists (aside from eco-warriors). Aboriginal spirituality isn't a threat to any other religion. If you think that today's Aboriginals believe in the sacredness of the land, you've never lived in an Aboriginal community.
You don't want to see the amount of garbage, maggots, rotting meat, shit, and sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. It's not pretty. But it's more or less glossed over by liberal media outlets. That's not what we're selling. We're selling Aboriginals as victims for life.
As I've mentioned many times in past articles. Yes, you can be a victim of physical, emotional, cultural, and mental abuse. But in the 21st century, that doesn't mean that you have to be a victim for life. In the digital age, your ability to empower yourself and go beyond your conditioning has never been stronger.
But if you listen to feminists and liberal media outlets, you'll stay a victim for life. And that's not growth. If you want to grow, you need to face your trauma, find meaning in it, and move forward. How you do that is your business.
If you don't know where to start I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
Getting back to Aboriginal spirituality/culture, it's more or less dead today. Yes, Aboriginals will put on their drum dances and argue that their culture is alive and strong, but I would argue the point. I know some Aboriginal communities where Catholicism is mixed into Aboriginal culture and has now become part of its culture. I'm not judging. I'm just saying. It's not right or wrong. It's just an observation.
And while many Aboriginal communities would argue their strong culture, I would question what it's relative to. Does your culture have deep roots relative to the culture 10 years ago? How about 50 years ago? How about 100 years ago? How about prior to Colonial contact?
Is Aboriginal culture today as strong and deep rooted as it was prior to Colonial contact? And the honest answer is no. It's not even close to it. Nor is it even a shadow of it. Why not? Because even the shadow has been lost due to the intentional GSIG conspiracy to suppress Aboriginal empowerment in the past, present, and future.
The only way to get those deep roots back is not through books or talking with elders. It's through Aboriginal spirituality. But what is Aboriginal spirituality? What are the defining ideologies of Aboriginal spirituality?
Unfortunately, no book or person can give you that answer. It can only come from within, through spiritual experiences. Again, if you're lost I recommend radical dualism. You only need an honest desire to better oneself. Everything else can be learned.
Aboriginals need to remember that there's no amount of money/settlements that can stop the suicides in the community.
There's no amount of social programs that can stop the chronic sexual abuse in the community.
There's no amount of biased sympathetic reporting from liberal media outlets that will help lessen the pain.
There's no amount of government regulation that will enable better relationships between Aboirginals and various levels of government.
You can't really help someone if they don't know who they are. Everything has to begin with the individual. The desire to better oneself. If this desire is forced by white people and liberal media outlets, it won't be genuine.
Real change starts with one person and can snowball into an avalanche. It's up to Aboriginals if they want to better themselves and their communities or live in the current welfare system that exists.
And to my Canadian taxpayer friends, you don't want to know how your taxpayer money is being spent in Aboriginal communities. It will only cause more headaches. Again, significant change won't come from political legislation or from anonymous donors giving Aboriginals money.
The desire to better oneself and face past trauma is not an easy decision. But it's the only way Aboriginals can move forward. Non-Aboriginals can only give Aboriginals the tools they need to get to this decisive point. Everything else is up to them.
But maybe I'm moving too fast. Allow me to show you the evidence that proves the conspiracy of GSIGs suppressing Aboriginal empowerment in the past and present:
...To the Frenchman in Canada the Indian became a purveyor of raw furs, a backwoods fighter of great skill, and a soul to be saved.
...the Jesuits had given up the seminary experiment [in the 1600s] "for good reasons, and especially because no notable fruit was seen among the savages"...
...theorists and pedagogues in France...professed to believe that the primitive Indian, seeing the material advantages of European civilization would seek to emulate the Europeans...
...They had no real interest in the Indian as a human being, except insofar as he contributed to the material wealth of the colony...
...The treaty system was quite frankly a policy of expediency. It was designed to forestall between the Indians and whites over land, to facilitate the spread of white settlements, and to maintain the traditional military alliance with the Indians. It was not intended to help the Indian adjust himself culturally or economically.
...The bitter destiny towards which they move is cultural extinction, or to put it more mildly, cultural assimilation.  (1952 article)
Nutritional experiments were carried out on malnourished aboriginal people in the 1940s and '50s with the federal government's knowledge…
...Instead of improving the food available to all 300 Cree in Norway House, the doctors decided to give nutritional supplements to just 125.
Two years later, researchers noted an improvement in the health of the group given the vitamins.
Recent research by Canadian food historian Ian Mosby revealed that at least 1,300 aboriginal people — most of them children — were used as test subjects in the 1940s and '50s by researchers probing the effectiveness of vitamin supplements.
...Subjects were kept on starvation-level diets, and given or denied vitamins, minerals and certain foods. Some dental services were also withheld because researchers thought healthier teeth and gums might skew results. 
The Law Society of Upper Canada said this week these issues were "exposed" in the discipline case of Kenora lawyer Douglas Keshen, who faced a number of allegations pertaining to residential school survivors seeking compensation from the federal government for the years of abuse they suffered.
On Tuesday, after about 26 hearing days, the regulator announced that both sides had come to an agreement and that it was putting a stop to the discipline hearing.
Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations communities in northern Ontario, told the Star he was very disappointed with the outcome in the Keshen case, saying survivors have told him that they feel "like they’ve been left hanging."
"I would say the law society was more interested in protecting the interests of Doug Keshen, rather than the survivors," he said. 
As I've said many times before, the justice/legal system in WE countries is garbage. Granted, it's better than nothing, but it's still garbage. Take a look at sexual assault, defamation, or criminal cases and you'll see the futility of a garbage justice system.
Generally speaking, if you have enough money and can hire the most expensive lawyer, you’ll be okay. And that's not justice. That's merely the appearance of justice. The fact that you even need a lawyer is only because the justice system is mercilessly complex. Why is it complex? Because it's an archaic system designed to benefit corporations, GSIG interests, and screw you over in every way imaginable.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the military courts. In the US it's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This banana court was created in 1950. How was it created? Out of thin air. Under various constitutions, politicians can create courts and justice systems out of thin air with a new bill, votes, and presidential signature.
And what do these courts do? They merely interpret/reinterpret law based on society at the time. Courts have no power to actually create laws. That job goes back to the incompetent and corrupt politicians. That's not justice.
Even the separation of civil and criminal is a joke. While someone can lose a criminal case, they can win in a civil suit, all because of two different standards of evidence. That's not justice. That's merely the appearance of justice. The fact that you see the separation of civil and criminal court as normal is powerfully disturbing. But then again, that shows you the power of GSIG conditioning.
If I could, I would love to crush the current justice system. But I don't have that kind of power. At best, I can crush some organic cherry tomatoes in the backyard. To be fair, one person or a select group of people shouldn't have that power.
That power should only reside with the people, not incompetent and corrupt governments, courts, and judges speaking for the people. And the only way that the people can change the justice system is in a skoparxism government (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics and Philosophy of Law in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
Oddly enough, a person's word no longer has any meaning anymore. In the past, a person's word had value. If you break it, you won't be doing business with anyone. But today, words mean almost nothing. Today, we have to create contracts and legislative bills in order for words to mean something. And even with the contracts and legislation, it's meaningless without enforcement/action.
As a society, we've gone from valuing our word/keeping our promise to words having no significant value, either out loud or on paper. This means that our growth and development as a species is moving backwards, not forwards. Technology is merely covering up our lack of growth and backwards regression.
As always, it's up to you if you want to do something about that. If you're not sure where to begin I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
But let's get back to conspiracy against Aboriginals in the present:
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson conceded before a group of First Nations leaders on Wednesday that there are racists inside his police force, a surprising admission welcomed by indigenous people, who say it is key to addressing the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women.
"I understand that there are racists in my police force. I don't want them to be in my police force," Paulson said to chiefs and other First Nations delegates...
..."We encounter racism every single day," said Grand Chief Doug Kelly, leader of the Sto:lo Tribal Council in British Columbia. "Some of the worst racists carry a gun and they carry a badge authorized by you, Commissioner Paulson, to do the work." 
...Evergreen Certificates, targeted in a report this month from B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer that found a "racism of low expectations" in B.C. public schools. And they are fast becoming a flashpoint in the debate over aboriginal education in this province.
Bellringer said aboriginal students are being held back, prevented from achieving higher graduation rates, because the system just doesn't expect much from them.
She notes that a disproportionate number of school completion certificates are handed to First Nations students in B.C. every year. Also known as Evergreen Certificates, they're a recognition of scholastic effort, rather than baseline achievement required for high school graduation.
Evergreen Certificates are not diplomas. They "do not give access to post-secondary education" nor are they "the equivalent of a graduation certificate in the job market," notes the auditor general. 
Allow me to be clear. If you have low expectations for your child, don't expect great stuff. Expect low to average character/actions. Yes, the child/adult can go beyond their conditioning via consciousness, but whether they'll do so is unknown. Under the current circumstances and conditioning, it's highly unlikely.
But let's continue with the GSIG conspiracy against Aboriginals:
The economic crisis on many of Canada's Indian reserves has become a meal ticket for the "Indian industry" — an army of consultants, lawyers and accountants who are sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of First Nations and from federal government coffers.
One-quarter of the country’s 616 First Nations are in trouble, many of them crippled by "unmanageably high" debt. Ottawa has resorted to dispatching the Indian industry to partly or completely take over 83 of the 157 most indebted First Nations.
...This, even though the federal government gives about $7 billion a year to First Nations and has added 2,000 bureaucrats to Indian Affairs over the past 15 years.
...This despite decades of criticism and recommendations from entities including the Auditor General of Canada, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the United Nations Human Rights Council, conditions on Canada's reserves remain a blight on the country. 
$7 billion a year and the situation is still a complete wreck? And that's just for one year. And that's from a 2010 article. And that doesn't include billion dollar Aboriginal settlements (all from Canadian taxpayer dollars). Oh dear god.
As I say time and time again, Canadian taxpayers really don't want to know how their money is spent in Aboriginal communities. As Canadian taxpayers, you have a right to know, but you really don't want to know. It will only cause more anger and headaches.
Again, there's no amount of money, be it millions, hundreds of millions, or even billions that can solve the problems in Aboriginal communities. Why not? Because there's a GSIG conspiracy to disempower visible minorities (especially Aboriginal and Black people). The quicker you realize this, the quicker significant actions can be taken to rectify these issues.
The situation is so bad for Aboriginals that corporations and all levels of government have to do damage control on a regular basis in order to prevent racist actions/the appearance of racist actions that keep popping up in their current treatment of Aboriginals. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
A Canadian Tire employee seen getting physical with an Indigenous customer refusing to leave a store in Regina is no longer with the company, a spokesperson says.
Kamao Cappo, an Indigenous elder, said he was shopping for a chainsaw when the employee accused him of stealing.
Cappo disagreed and refused to leave the store. He posted two videos to social media that show the exchange with the worker growing increasingly heated.
At one point, the employee is seen pushing Cappo up against a shelf. He then pushed him toward the exit, with Cappo sliding on his feet. 
Canada's Minister of Public Safety says he's concerned Indigenous people in Thunder Bay, Ont., appear to have lost faith in the city's police service.
Last month chiefs representing more than 70 First Nations in northern Ontario called on the RCMP to take over investigations into the deaths of Indigenous people in Thunder Bay. The call came after a seventh Indigenous teen was found dead in a river in the city. 
A City of Montreal employee mistakenly destroyed earlier this week an Indigenous totem meant to be part of the First Peoples' Festival, sparking anger on social media.
"How could they so easily tear up and destroy what was clearly a work of art that was practically finished?" said Jalette. 
The man in charge of Montreal's 375th anniversary celebrations is apologizing that a commercial for the festivities depicts only white people.
Nakuset, cochair of the Montreal Urban Aboriginal Community Strategy Network, said the video doesn't reflect the reality of Montreal.
"I think people don't know there are 26,000 urban Aboriginal Montrealers. We are here, and we are multitalented, doing all different kinds of work...and yet, people don't recognize us," she said.
... "We were not consulted. Our projects were put forward, and they were denied," she said. 
Montreal's La Ronde amusement park says it has removed a carousel horse depicting an Indigenous man’s severed head in a bag.
The move comes after several complaints, including one by a resident of the Kahnawake Mohawk reserve near Montreal who shared a photo of it online this week. 
Generally speaking, the most racist Canadian cities to Aboriginals and visible minorities in general are Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina, and Montreal. And the conspiracy against Aboriginals continues:
No criminal charges will be laid against five so-called "Proud Boys" who disrupted a Mi’kmaq ceremony in downtown Halifax on Canada Day, the Royal Canadian Navy says.
Rear-Admiral John Newton said Thursday that an investigation has wrapped up with no further actions taken against the members, although they remain on probation and must adhere to unspecified conditions.
...The "Proud Boys" — known for matching black polo shirts often worn by members — was founded in the U.S. by Gavin McInnes, a Canadian who helped establish Vice Media and is now an outspoken, right- wing political pundit.
...A Facebook post from the Proud Boys Canadian Chapters Thursday struck a triumphal and defiant tone in reaction to the navy's actions.
"We win, our brothers in the Halifax 5 are returning to active military duty with no charges, let the SJW (Social Justice Warriors) tears pour," it said. "Proud of our boys." 
When the Canadian Armed Forces don't care if their soldiers disrespect Aboriginal customs, enough to warrant punishment, that's how you know that the Canadian government doesn't give two sh*ts about Aboriginals. They just have to appear as if they care for the sake of appearances. As a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces (private recruit) I apologize to Aboriginals that no punishment occurs.
And the discrimination against Aboriginals continues:
Auditors got suspicious when invoices showed a mental-health professional working with Indigenous patients had billed Health Canada for more than 28.5 hours of counselling in a single 24-hour period.
After painstaking analysis of hundreds of invoices, Health Canada abruptly terminated its agreement with the woman late last year when auditors reported she had overbilled taxpayers for up to $360,255.
...But a heavily censored 46-page audit report, dated May 31, 2016, shows the woman was paid to counsel residential-school survivors and others in the Ontario region. The report says it's unlikely she actually provided all the services claimed for all her patients.
It's the ninth case since 2009 involving Health Canada overpayments for health services allegedly provided to First Nations and Inuit patients, who are not covered under provincial or territorial health plans.
The latest overbilling brings the total overpayments reported to Parliament to more than $12 million in the last seven years... 
The death of another indigenous teenage girl from a Thunder Bay group home has intensified demands by First Nations leaders for an inquest into why their children are dying while in child protection.
Due to a lack of mental health and child protection services in northern Ontario, many youth are taken out of their communities and placed in group homes hundreds of kilometres away from their families.
...All of Ontario's chiefs passed a resolution last week at a special assembly in Gatineau, Que., demanding an inquest be held because of the disparity in child welfare services for children who live on-reserve compared to kids who live in non-First Nations communities. 
In a ceremony honouring leadership on Indigenous issues at Rideau Hall, Gov. Gen. David Johnston has apologized for calling Indigenous people immigrants to Canada.
Johnston was referring to his comment during an interview with CBC Radio's The House Saturday. "We're a country based on immigration, going right back to our, quote, Indigenous people, unquote, who were immigrants as well, 10, 12, 14,000 years ago," he said.
A firestorm of criticism on social media ensued as some said the comment revealed a deep-seated colonial mentality. 
Ottawa police Sgt. Chris Hrnchiar will be demoted to constable for three months and will undergo sensitivity training for making racist online comments about the death of Inuk artist Annie Pootoogook.
Hrnchiar pleaded guilty in November to two counts of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act. One charge relates to knowingly using racist comments and the other centres on commenting about an open investigation.
In September, a few days after Pootoogook's body was identified, Hrnchiar posted from his Facebook account in the comments section of an Ottawa Citizen story that her death "could be a suicide, accidental, she got drunk and fell in the river and drowned, who knows."
In a second post, Hrnchiar wrote "much of the Aboriginal population in Canada is just satisfied being alcohol or drug abusers."
...In issuing the penalty, Kelly also pointed to Hrnchiar's 30-plus years of exemplary service. 
Even 30 years of service doesn't negate a person's racism. Closet racism is a very real issue. Most people are smart enough not to get caught. And in their minds, they’re not racist.
Personally, I believe that racists in WE society are moving to the point where if someone calls you a racist, they'll eventually be able to respond with so what. And that's powerfully disturbing. That's a step backwards in the growth and development of humanity. We're not there yet. But I feel that it's coming.
And the GSIG conspiracy against Aboriginals continues:
People in the small Dene community of Wrigley, N.W.T., want to know why two brand new homes have been sitting empty in their community for more than a year, despite a serious housing shortage.
It's a situation even the N.W.T. Housing Corporation admits doesn't make sense.
The new houses are "market units," reserved for professionals who can afford market rent, which is set at about $1,600 a month.
..."So we have people living in houses with mould conditions, and rotting floors and walls, and third-world conditions, yet there are these units around Wrigley that are brand new and empty. And there are even homeless people in Wrigley."
...However, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation only provides operation and maintenance funding for 2,800 public housing units in the territory, so every time a new unit is added, the Housing Corporation has to remove another, Williams said. 
The couple, along with their five grandchildren, were evicted from their fourbedroom unit this past September.
...In January, the N.W.T. rental officer issued a decision ordering them to pay accumulated rent arrears of $41,708.54 or face eviction.
...There were 10 people living in their fourbedroom unit. The couple care for five grandchildren; the youngest is one and a half years old.
...Once they left their housing unit, the couple attempted to stay with their older son, who also lives in public housing.
...Adzin says public housing officials had found out they were staying with him and warned her son that he and his family could also face eviction if they remained in the residence.
Adzin says most relatives and friends that they can rely on also live in public housing. She says she is afraid of telling anyone where she stays for fear of getting them into trouble with the housing authority. 
While I try not to speak ill of people, sometimes it's unavoidable. I hope that most of the NWT housing officials burn in their white Christian hell. And the racial discrimination against Aboriginals continues:
Around 1 a.m. on January 29, Barbara Kentner was walking with her sister Melissa on a residential street in Thunder Bay, Ontario, when a dark grey car with tinted windows drove past them.
An object was lobbed out the window and the sisters say they heard one of the passengers shout, "I got one."
Many Indigenous residents report having bottles and eggs thrown at them. More troublingly, many say they can't go to the police with their concerns, because the police won't take them seriously — or might, in some cases, be part of the problem. 
"There's certain incidents when I was with a group of friends and we got pulled over and (it's) 'Everybody get out of the vehicle and get on the ground, on your knees, this and that' and you know, I'm just coming home from work," said Karmen James Omeasoo, an Indigenous hip-hop artist who goes by the name Hellnback and works with at-risk children in remote communities. Omeasoo said he's been pulled over by police whenever he drives around with a group of friends, but it's something he has become used to.
"It's so normal that I don't look at Winnipeg as a racist city because it's just like it's almost just normal," he said. "That's just the normal-ness of it." 
The study suggests aboriginal people experience racism from health-care workers so frequently that they often strategize on how to deal with it before visiting emergency departments, or avoid care altogether.
Some doctors have been compassionate, she says, but others have been rude — kicking her bed when they want her attention, or asking if she drinks or does drugs. She hasn't had any alcohol for two decades.
"You go to a clinic, and they don't treat you as a human being. You're somebody that's wasting their valuable time, that they could be spending on somebody more deserving of the health-care system," says McFadden.
"If I'm somebody with white skin — if I'm somebody that looks like their relative, their auntie, their grandmother — I don't believe they would treat me that way." 
To all of the racist doctors in the Canadian government healthcare system, you can burn in your white Christian hell as well. Aboriginals need to realize that government, police, doctors, hospitals, public institutions, and most of the white people that run the operations dont care about you. They only care for the sake of appearances.
It doesn't matter how many Aboriginal suicides occur on reserves or in child protection. They simply don't care. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but realizations are never easy. Even with all of the inquires, commissions, and death of Aboriginals, almost nothing has changed. Still don’t believe me about the GSIG conspiracy against Aboriginals? Don't worry, there's always more evidence:
Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation, also known as Grassy Narrows, often makes headlines for its fight against the mercury poisoning. But few have heard of a tiny community called Wabaseemoong, also called Whitedog, just downstream.
Located approximately 100 kilometres northeast of Kenora, the community still grapples with the lingering effects of the methylmercury poisoning — a condition known as Minamata disease — which many blame for birth defects that appear in children in their community.
...Kimberly McDonald, 31, of Wabaseemoong First Nation, describes the burning discomfort in her feet as phantom pain. She was born without toes — just small stubs without nails.
...For the pain she must endure for the rest of her life, McDonald receives $250 a month from the Mercury Disability Board, a governmentcontrolled body that determines who is suffering from mercury poisoning and the compensation they'll receive on a monthly basis. 
On Jan. 22, 2015, Maclean's magazine published a story that labelled Winnipeg the most racist city in Canada. The story elicited a mix of criticism and praise from people across the country.
Almost a year on, what's changed?
..."There hasn't been a lot of institutional change, but there's been a lot of committees formed, there's been a lot of open dialogues, mayoral forums. But for the most part, the institutional change will take a much longer time." 
But Trudeau, whose government earlier this year adopted a United Nations resolution recognizing the right of Aboriginal groups to "free, prior and informed consent" on economic projects in their territories, said Ottawa doesn't recognize the unconditional right of First Nations to unilaterally block projects.
"No, they don't have a veto," he said of the three major nations — the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh — who oppose Kinder Morgan. 
The independent investigation into this issue was launched after several Indigenous women in Saskatoon came forward alleging they had been coerced into consenting to tubal ligations after giving birth.
...However, a closer look at these recommendations reveals similarities to virtually every other colonially constructed report, and the same calls for action in relation to repairing the wrongdoings of intrinsically violent and patriarchal customs.
Reports to supposedly safeguard the wellbeing of Indigenous peoples — and more specifically, the wellbeing of Indigenous women — have been constructed for decades, with little progress. The outcome usually includes a generic public apology, along with a list of tasks that are more often than not left on the shelves, forgotten, as well a monetary settlement for victims to no longer discuss the issue. 
Activists demanding action on the First Nations youth suicide crisis stalled traffic trying to head east out of Winnipeg on the Trans-Canada Highway Friday afternoon.
...Driver Devin De Ruyck waited 45 minutes as he tried to get to Steinbach, Man. Once he learned about what the group was protesting, he said he was supportive. 
This is what Aboriginal issues are worth to most Canadians. A 45 minute delay. After that, most Canadians will tune out.
Allow me to be clear. If all of the Aboriginals in Canada died or just disappeared tomorrow, the Canadian government (federal, provincial, and municipal) and most of its white employees would experience a joy unheard of.
That infinite joy would cleanse their entire body of the burden that Aboriginals impose on them. They'll even write magnificent sonnets and operas from their infinite joy. That's how much the Canadian government despises Aboriginals.
Just because the winds have changed with a Liberal government in Canada, doesn't mean that significant change in Aboriginal issues is occurring. At least the evil Harper government takes a strong position against the lack of financial transparency in Aboriginal communities with his transparency bill in 2014.
While Aboriginals and liberal media outlets deplore the transparency legislation, with some even calling it racist , Canadian taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent in Aboriginal communities.
Simply put, if Canadian taxpayers hypothetically pulled their money from Aboriginal communities tomorrow, every single Aboriginal community would shut down (no exceptions). If you don't know what co-management is, you'll find out very quickly when looking at Aboriginal finances.
As the bill becomes law, media outlets add fuel to the fire in their blunt assessments of how Canadian taxpayer dollars are spent in Aboriginal communities. And it's not pretty by any means.    
With the election of the Liberal Trudeau government, they cancel the enforcement of the transparency act.  Today, liberal media outlets try to undo their guilt and shame by giving Aboriginals sympathetic coverage. Again, it's understandable. But don't call it objective reporting. It's as subjective as it gets.
All of those ugly articles about First Nation communities paying huge amounts of money to some chiefs and not being accountable for Canadian taxpayer money are (more or less) gone. Why? Because that's not what we're selling. We're selling public sympathy and positive coverage of Aboriginals. Again, it's understandable. But it won't help Aboriginals. None of it will cause any significant change.
The intentions are good, but real genuine change can only come from the desire of Aboriginals to better themselves and resolve their past and present emotional trauma. And while you may think that everyone wants to better themselves and face their demons (be it imposed or created by them), that's just for the sake of appearances.
Most people have no real interest in growth and facing their demons. Why not? Because if you're lucky enough to reach the promise land of the middle class, you're less likely to rock the boat and risk going back to low income status.
Empowerment leads to genuine growth, understanding, empathy, and a desire to move forward for the sake of bettering oneself, your community, and humanity. Genuine empowerment, empathy, and understanding represent the end of racism, sexism, inequality, poverty and such. And this is not a script that GSIGs want to advocate. Hence, the disempowerment of visible minorities.
But do all or most Aboriginals feel intergenerational trauma from residential schools, either directly or indirectly? It depends. Negative influences will always come at you (with or without residential schools). How you react and deal with those influences and whether you allow it to have a significant effect on your life is relative to each person.
While you may not be able to control a negative action/event itself, you can control how you perceive it and how much influence it will have on your thought process and/or character development. Again, not all negative experiences are bad.
If you think that your god only gives you positive experiences and the devil gives you negative ones, you're living in a fantasy religious world. If you think that only positive experiences have meaning while negative ones don't, you're living in a fantasy new age world.
If you believe that life in general has meaning, then everything has to have meaning. You can't rationally pick and choose what has meaning and what doesn't. Just because you don’t understand why negative experiences occur in your life doesn't mean that it doesn't have meaning. If a person seeks to better themselves, they're able to peel back the layers of conditioning and perceive old events through a new perspective.
Negative experiences, while tragic, can be a tool for learning/appreciation. If you've never experienced significant hardship or trauma, it's difficult to have a reference point on what others experience or how you want to cultivate your purpose in this lifetime.
But let's get back to Aboriginal issues in the present. In October 2017, the major issue for Aboriginals (aside from youth suicides, lack of health care, and lack of housing) is assigning blame to the architect of the racist Aboriginal residential system.
The two architects are Public Works Minister Hector-Louis Langevin and John A. Macdonald (Canada's first prime minister). That usually makes for an awkward conversation about Canadian values and celebrating Canada Day. But it's best to hear it through their own words in the past:
If you wish to educate these children you must separate them from their parents during the time that they are being educated...If you leave them in the family they may know how to read and write, but they still remain savages.  (Langevin)
When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are savages, he is surrounded by savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training and mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write... Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence.  (Macdonald)
Separating a child from capable and loving parents in general is traumatic and unethical. But separating a child from capable and loving Aboriginal parents is beyond taboo. There's a good reason why teenage pregnancy is not frowned upon in Aboriginal communities.
Life (human, not animal) is sacred. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are prior to the birth (even rape). Most Aboriginals believe that human life is sacred. Even if they can't care for the children properly, most Aboriginal family members will help out.
The problem is that entire families in Aboriginal communities are broken emotionally. And a broken family is no place for a child. Sadly, foster care is no place for an Aboriginal child as well. Either way, the Aboriginal child is potentially screwed from the start. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
Why? Because GSIGs are intentionally suppressing the development of visible minorities, especially Aboriginals. You need to stop deluding yourself with liberal conditioning and thinking that it's all accidental and just a big misunderstanding. All of the racist actions toward Aboriginals have been intentional. The quicker you realize that, the quicker real progress can start.
Regardless of the statements of Langevin and Macdonald, both the provincial and the federal government refuse to take off Macdonald's name from schools and buildings/statues.  Oddly enough, some Aboriginal politicians even support keeping their names on the schools and keeping the statues in place. 
Allow me to be clear. These people are apologists for racists. If you allow statues/naming of schools of people that advocate racism, you're either a racist yourself or an apologist for them. You might as well have statues glorifying apartheid in South Africa or statues glorifying the Armenian genocide.
But they were a product of their time. Sorry, but you can't use that as an excuse for racism. While many people never go beyond the dominant conditioning of their time, people are quite capable of doing so.
Just because racism is the norm in the past doesn't mean that you can say I was only following the crowd. Every adult is responsible for their own choices. If you choose to give your power away to society/conditioning, that's on you.
Interestingly enough, religious beliefs in the past and present act as a framework to justify racism, sexism, and inequality. While Christians, Catholics, and Christian conspiracy theorists talk about their loving and just Christian god, there's no love or justice during the genocide of Aboriginals at the hands of white colonizers.
There's no love or justice from the Christian god during the Armenian and Rwanda genocide.
There's no love or justice from the Christian god during the Nazi holocaust.
There's no love or justice from the Christian god during the illegal US invasion of Iraq.
There's no love or justice from the Christian god during the Syrian civil war.
Oddly enough, one Christian conspiracy theorist is brave enough to talk about the injustice from their loving Christian god. And it's Alex Jones:
...[I'm] surprised god didn't really hear that call [love and peace from Native Americans]...because some bad things were done to those people. 
Jones addresses what many Christians choose to stay silent on. When in doubt, they prefer to say God moves in mysterious ways. Or, we can never understand his will. Or, if they're backed into a corner, Native Americans/Aboriginals were idol worshippers. They got what they deserved.
It's hypocritical because when things are rosy for Christians, they loudly claim that it's the will of God. He's so loving and merciful. What a joke. Kudos to Jones in having the balls to question why the Christian god shows love to some cultures and not others.
It would be nice if more religious people allowed that level of questioning in their lives. But then again, most religious people are cracked in the head. And the ones that aren’t are usually fakes. They're religious in name only for the sake of appearances.
It's hilarious and tragic that most Christians are visible minorities even when the Christian god doesn't really seem to care about them. Hence, religion is more of a survival mechanism. Better to believe in god and have the support of a religious community.
In regards to the spiritual aspect, believing in a mythical loving and just god usually gives people peace of mind. Those bastards that wronged me in my life. They'll get theirs at the gates of heaven when God judges them.
Like I said, peace of mind. And I'm not against someone's peace of mind, as long as it's within ethics. Religious ideology is understandable and contradictory at the same time.
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement is a reactionary movement against the mass killing of unarmed black men by police officers. But it's also a movement to fill the void left behind MLK Jr. Sure, there's Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and Barak Obama.
While all of them talk a big game, none of them have considerable power (or choose not to use that power) to empower the black community. Remember, the BLM movement is created during Obama's term.
The problems in the black community are old and widespread. While Aboriginals can claim unequal treatment from white colonizers beginning in the 1600s, black people have been enslaved by white people for practically all of recorded history (minus the last 150 years).
Even after the abolition of slavery, the legal oppression of black people only ends in the 1970s. And even after that, the social, economic, and financial oppression of black people still continues in the 21st century. That's what the BLM movement is fighting against. They're fighting against the GSIG conspiracy to disempower black people all over the world. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
The battle against white oppression/racism is an upward battle for all visible minorities, especially black people. And there's no right or wrong way to fight oppression. While many people condemn the violence that BLM seems to advocate, I don't. What? You're a horrible person.
Contrary to what you may believe, violence will forever be part of humanity's destiny. Even IF...and it's a big IF, we grow and develop as a species and as beings of consciousnes, violence will still be part of our humanity. Thinking otherwise is delusional.
The reason why I would give visible minorities a free pass into violence against white oppressors/racists is because it would be disingenuous not to do so. In the past, white people are allowed to kill and openly discriminate against visible minorities. But today, white people in all systems of power call on visible minorities to use your words. Umm...what?
That's basically saying that white violence against visible minorities in the past is acceptable, while visible minority violence against white racists is unacceptable. That's disingenuous. All of the people who claim that non-violence is the answer in solving racism, sexism, and inequality are living in their ideological bubble wrapped world.
They're not living in the reality that visible minorities live in. Why not? Because most liberal pundits/owners/boards of directors are white. They'll never understand the feelings of visible minorities because of their white privileged status.
It's very interesting that the black community chooses MLK's vision of integration vs. Malcolm X's vision of segregation. Which path leads to the empowerment of black people? The answer is definitely not MLK's integration vision. There are zero empowered black people that wield any significant level of power in MLK's vision today. Zero.
And no, Barak Obama and US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn't count. Why not? Because they're not actively empowering the black community. They're just enjoying their positions of power for themselves, either financially or socially.
It reminds me of White Christian pastors that believe in the Jesus wants me to be rich doctrine. I despise such pastors. These are fake Christians. Jesus wouldn't recognize any of them as real Christians. Even the Christians of ancient or medieval times wouldn’t recognize today's Christians as genuine.
Forgive the tangents. I have a lot of anger to displace. There's a good reason why I choose to see the world through a lens of comedy. Without it...oh dear god. To be fair, I have a very loving and playful inner child. But let's get back to integration vs. segregation.
While MLK's vision of integration and peace is a failure in terms of empowering black people, I don't advocate for segregation of visible minorities. But an argument can still be made for segregation.
During the segregation era, the black community was more or less thriving relative to their own community. They had good jobs, housing, education, and social status. Again, all of this is relative of course. It was far from the best jobs, housing, education, and social status possible, but it wasn't as bad as the ghettos that exist today.
And this is an interesting issue. One of the differences between poor white and black people is malevolent destruction. Poor trailer trash white people are not malevolent or actively seeking the destruction of white culture or their white trailer trash neighbors.
But black people who live in the ghettos will actively seek the destruction of their neighbors or elsewhere in a malevolent manner via drugs, prostitution, or blackmail. That's a significant difference.
Black thugs today are actively seeking to rebrand black culture as one of violence, prostitution, and drugs. That's a huge problem. Just as liberal media outlets ignore/turn a blind eye towards Aboriginal on Aboriginal violence, they do the same for black on black crime as well. Why? That's not what we're selling. We're selling white people as the bad guy.
And no, you can't use the conditioning argument. You can't say that poor black people don't know any better. Not in the 21st century. In the digital information age, help exists in every form, and on every level for visible minorities.
If black people don't want help and choose a destructive path, like Aboriginals, that's on them. Morally speaking, personal responsibility trumps conditioning any day. Legally speaking, conditioning trumps personal responsibility in our current WE justice system.
The reason why I don't support segregation is because it's a step backwards in the growth and development of humanity. I'm interested in humanity moving forward, not backwards. Segregating into different fiefdoms may empower a small amount of people, but it will prevent humanity from moving forward.
However, black and even white separatists can argue that empowerment can only be achieved through segregation. White people and Chinese people are segregated for a very long time and achieve incredible levels of empowerment.
But Aboriginals or black people in Africa are also segregated for long periods of time in history and fail to achieve the same level of empowerment. It's an interesting and touchy observation.
But regardless, if you're against segregation today, you should have a good reason, a good WHY as to why you're against it. Being against segregation because it's the norm is not a genuine position. And to complicate things, MLK's vision of integration has failed to empower the black community as a whole, be it in WE societies or in Africa.
There are very few black people in positions of power that are empowering the black community. The only two people I can think of are Louis Farrakhan and Bill Cosby. Farrakhan's way is through the path of Islam. Sorry, but you can't empower someone through a religion of submission.
And just so we're clear, that applies to the women that support white supremacists/white racists in general. It's an act of submission, not empowerment. Generally speaking, white supremacists are threatened by a strong woman. Period. Women only have value to these men as baby making machines and raising kids.
And if anything goes wrong with that child rearing, guess who's going to bear the brunt of it? God help homosexual children in a white supremacist household. But then again, the Christian god apparently doesn't like f*ggots. Ah...the benevolent mercy and love of the Christian god. Truly remarkable.
One of the consequences of Muslim submission is that white people (and all rational people in general), are scared of it. Contrary to what the liberal trifecta wants you to believe, Muslims in general are cracked in the head.
Declaring jihad against anything and everyone, and killing civilians and children, are truly acts of scum. And Muslims that secretly endorse such actions are scum as well. They just lack the courage and conviction to get their hands dirty over their religious beliefs.
And all of this is taking place under the backdrop of liberal journalists trying to whitewash these horrible actions as having nothing to do with the peaceful religion of Islam. These liberals are definitely cracked in the head.
Oddly enough, the only credible person left in the black empowerment movement is Bill Cosby. While Cosby is still on trial for sexual assault (innocent until proven guilty), his work to empower black people to take responsibility for their lives is incontrovertible.
While some will criticize him for being a rich black man imposing his values on poor black people, Cosby is genuine and knows that empowerment equals success. It may not be financial success, but it's success nonetheless.
Cosby is not a black separatist, but he knows that integration has failed. His black liberal critics can criticize him all they want, but they'll never be the editor-in-chief, or the owner, or a board of director of the very same liberal institution they work for. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
Why? Because there's a GSIG conspiracy to disempower visible minorities. It may sound unbelievable to you at first, but when you think it through, everything else makes sense. And once you have a decent grasp of the big picture, you can finally take genuine actions to change the situation.
Cosby's recommendations of taking responsibility for ones actions, proper parenting, and getting rid of black ghetto culture influences are excellent short term wins. But the long term wins will only become reality when visible minorities change their mindset to empower themselves via their purpose in life.
If you don't know where to begin in finding/creating your purpose in life, I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
And no, Jay-Z isn't empowering the black community. The issue of black rappers is an interesting one for the conspiracy theory movement. Some black conspiracy theorists see black rappers like Jay-Z as sellouts for being owned by Jews.
Again, most Jewish people today just want to help black people. On the one hand, Jewish people and white people in general see it as empowering black people. On the other hand, some black people and visible minorities in general see it as white men controlling visible minorities.
Aside from the fact that Jewish people today will never understand the issues that black people face due to their white privileged status, the relationship between visible minorities, especially black people and Jewish people is complicated in the 21st century.
Of course, individually speaking (without all the labels), it's just a human being trying to help another human being. It's a shame that all of our labels today are causing more pain than healing.
The reaction against BLM is interesting. The most famous reaction is the All Lives Matter movement by white racists (even if they don't see themselves as racists). Even as unarmed black people are still getting killed by police officers in 2017, the All Lives Matter movement is still going strong.
I don't need to tell you how bad it is to be born black in 2017. Aside from the overt racism by white supremacist, the indirect racism by others is worse. Knowing that a person is racist is one thing. But thinking that person isn't racist when they really are but hide it is moving into sociopath levels.
And that's where we are today. We have closet racists denying visible minorities jobs, housing, and services all because of their race/ethnicity. What's worse? Being killed directly by white people in the past because of race? Or, being killed emotionally, mentally, socially, and financially by white people today on a chronic basis, at all levels of society?
You can easily Google "police kill unarmed black man" or "discrimination against black people" and you'll get your evidence.
I don't need to show you references of the FBI actively trying to destroy the black empowerment movement in the past.
I don't need to show you references of all the unarmed black men who have died at the hands of police/in their custody.
I don't need to tell you that mass incarcerations of black people turn one-time petty criminals into lifelong thugs.
I don't need to tell you that the current WE justice system/police give chances to white people if they make a mistake but don't give any meaningful ones to black people.
I don't need to tell you any of this because you should already know it. If you don't know this, then you choose not to know about it for whatever reason. But what you may not know is that all of this is part of a broader GSIG conspiracy against visible minorities.
The evidence is already in front of you in the previous subsections. You can see the appearance of equality vs. actual equality. You can see the equality policy on paper and the opposite in reality.
You're not blind. You just choose not to make the overarching GSIG conspiracy conclusion because you don't want to be seen/see yourself as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. I understand. You don't need to tell others that you're a conspiracy theorist.
You don't need to go public with that stigmatized label. I can do that. Though you don't have to go public with the conspiracy theorist label, you need to be aware of the GSIG conspiracies if you want to make the world a better place for others.
Again, BLM is an attempt at justice and to fill the void in the black community leadership. BLM is NOT a black separatist movement. While I support BLM, sadly, it won't succeed. Why not? Because most white people don't care if black people die.
In fact, most white people would dance for joy if all black people on the planet dies or disappears tomorrow. Why? Because they're racist and don't want black people to be a drain on WE society via welfare and Medicaid (which is taxpayer funded).
And not only white people, but many non-black visible minorities are also racist to black people. And don't think that black people don't already know this. They know it. They know that a large amount of non-blacks (white and visible minorities) don't give a f*ck about them.
And that's a tough cross to bear. Can you imagine walking to the store knowing that the person walking towards you doesn't really care if you live or die? For the sake of appearances, they'll care. But you know that they don't really care.
While it's noble for BLM to want the US justice system to be just towards black people...it's a pipe dream. Generally speaking, if you're wronged in the US, you'll get your justice. But only at the cost of your reputation, health, finances, and social status.
If you're a visible minority, you'll be lucky if you get any justice at all. And even if you do, it'll be token justice. Just for the sake of appearances.
And now we can finally get to the last touchy and dicey issue, visible minorities who want to be white. Sound unbelievable? See for yourself:
But her vehement denial hasn't stopped the conversation around her skin colour, mainly because she has gone from someone many Indian women could identify with, to just another pale-skinned Bollywood star.
...A 2014 Morgan Stanley report found that for nearly half of Indian consumers who took part in a survey, the most important attribute in a skin cream is its ability to lighten skin colour.
While superstars like Shar Rukh Khan and Hrithik Roshan have been endorsing fairness creams for nearly a decade now, several younger actors have started speaking out against India's obsession with fair skin. 
She uses skin lightening creams which are popular with many Afro-Caribbean, African and Asian people, despite repeated health warnings.
Some of the products contain toxic chemicals, such as hydroquinone, which may cause skin irritation, bleaching, or even infection, when applied in excessive quantities.
...I didn't really want to destroy my skin.
But if you ask me: 'Would you still have stopped, if it hadn't done any harm?'
Trust me, no! Why would I stop? 
Since his retirement from baseball in 2009, Sammy Sosa skin color lightening to a whiter shade has been keeping him relevant in the news.
...Time Magazine spoke with a dermatologist in Chicago who speculated that some of the stark differences in the lightened color occurred because Sosa was overcompensating. WebMD warns that an overcompensation of changes to Sammy Sosa skin pigmentation can result in mercury poisoning and permanent "liver" spots.
While Sosa defended the vampire look by stating that photos made him look lighter, and in person the difference would not be as noticeable, he continued to appear whiter as months went on. 
While we have debated whether other celebrities like Beyonce and Rihanna have actually lightened their skin or if the magazines that featured their images had photoshopped their complexions, with Kim, there surely can be little question.
It looks as though she has lightened her once black-girl-brown complexion to one that’s not so brown at all. Her hair is longer, straighter, blonder. Her once round nose now thin. Even her eyes sit differently on her face. She’s changed, in ways that words can’t even begin to capture. And it hurts.
...And all over that world, people of color use a variety of chemicals to lighten the complexion of their skin. In fact, wherever there are people of color—Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and the United States—there is skin bleaching.
In places where the majority of the population has browner or darker skin, wearing relatively lighter skin provides social advantage; and for women particularly, the social advantage that comes with having lighter skin is being seen, and thus treated, as more beautiful and attractive. 
Bleaching, whitening, lightening. Whatever you call it, the business of cosmetic enhancement to make dark skin look paler continues. Creams, pills and surgical treatments are used across continents by darker-skinned ethnicities hoping for a whiter complexion. But the problem, like most of those thrown up by the cosmetic industry, is often seen as largely as the concern of women.
...I was shocked to learn that the dancehall artist Vybz Kartel – never one to shy away from a commercial venture – is launching a range of cosmetics this month, including his own brand of skin lightener. It's something of an (un)natural progression from the musician's decision earlier this year to lighten his own skin and the launch of his own "cake soap", a traditional Jamaican product intended for white clothes but which is reportedly misused to alter skin colour. 
For some visible minorities, they believe that by lightening their skin they'll have a better chance at succeeding in a white man's world. And they would be correct. Hollywood actors/actresses, and music celebrities are under enormous pressure to lighten their skin.
Obviously, Hollywood producers don't say it outright, but the message is clear. If you want more lead roles, you're going to have to lighten your skin. You know, something we can market, sell, and make a profit on.
In theory, all visible minorities face discrimination. In reality, light skinned visible minorities that can pass for WE white people (like Dwayne Johnson/The Rock), don't experience racial discrimination.
Their genotype is one of a visible minority, but their phenotype can pass for a white person. The racial discrimination that light skinned black people experience is very different from the racial discrimination that dark skinned black people experience:
Juanita [Judy Juanita, former Black Panther]: Colorism—meaning one's color affected one's destiny within the black community, and people of lighter complexion received preferential treatment...
I would say I don't think it was a mistake that Kathleen, Elaine, Ericka Huggins—and even Angela Davis, if you want to go that far—were all fairer-skinned. They were beautiful in a more acceptable way. And when I say acceptable, I don't even mean acceptable just to a white mainstream society, but maybe, at that point, more acceptable to blacks also. 
The racial discrimination that brown people experience is very different from the racial discrimination that Asians experience. The racial discrimination that Aboriginals experience is very different from the racial discrimination that Metis experience (if they experience it at all).
But let me explain that last one. Oh dear god. I hope I still have Aboriginal friends after this article goes online...but I doubt it. But that's what happens when you strive to be genuine in your words and actions.
The term Metis is a term that means mixed ancestry, white and Aboriginal. Until a few years ago, Aboriginal women in Canada lost their official Aboriginal status if they married a white man. By doing so, they gained the status of Metis.
Today, Aboriginal women no longer lose their official Aboriginal status when marrying non-Aboriginals. Hence, the term Metis is a dead term. In one sense, there's no more Metis because the laws change.
But in another sense, there will always be more Metis being born because Metis people will continue to have Metis children. In 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized Metis as a legitimate "Indian" along with Aboriginal, Inuit, and non-status Indians. 
In theory, there's no bad blood between Aboriginal (full Aboriginal ancestry) and Metis (mixed). In reality, there is. Allow me to explain why. If a white man and Aboriginal woman have a child, the child will undoubtedly look Aboriginal. So that's the first generation.
If the first generation child has a child with another non-Aboriginal partner, they'll more or less still look Aboriginal. That's the second generation. But if the second generation child has a child with another non-Aboriginal partner, that's when it gets fuzzy.
While the genotype definitely has Aboriginal elements, the phenotype may not express those and cause the child to look completely non-Aboriginal. This is the third generation child.
And let's pretend that this third generation child, now an adult, definitely doesn't look Aboriginal but has Aboriginal genetics regardless. They fill out a job application and checkmark the visible minority box. Is that a problem? Yes. To who? To Aboriginals who look Aboriginal. And it's a dicey argument.
On the one hand, in this example, there's no doubt about Aboriginal ancestry. You could even use a fourth generation child instead of the third if you want, but the results would be the same. The third generation child definitely has Aboriginal ancestry (that's not in question). But the child doesn't look Aboriginal.
In this example, the public/average person perceives the third generation adult to be non-Aboriginal. If the adult continues to advocate for their visible minority status, full Aboriginals would start to resent them. And the resentment is understandable.
The third generation adult doesn't face any racial discrimination because of their non-Aboriginal appearance, while full Aboriginals do face the discrimination on a regular basis. And that's a problem.
Both are genuinely Aboriginal and advocate for their Aboriginal heritage, but only one faces racial discrimination. Which one is in the right? Like I said, it's a touchy issue. Both sides have genuine arguments, but only one is looked at favorably in the eyes of the public. Should we be checking visible minority boxes based on genotype or phenotype? Ancestry vs. the perception of appearance.
There are many light skinned/white visible minorities. Mexicans/Latinos have very light skin. Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and such) have skin whiter than WE white people. Even with that light skin, there are very few famous Asian actors/actresses/celebrities in Hollywood. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
What's missing? The perception of being white. Having white skin but having the appearance of an Asian person isn't good enough to succeed in a white man's world. Having light skin and looking Mexican doesn’t change a person's view about Mexican culture. You can't just have white skin. You have to look like a WE white person to get ahead in this world.
Of course, this can only be done by people with money. Michael Jackson is the perfect example. Jackson is born with the genotype and phenotype of a black man. Jackson dies with the genotype of a black man but with the phenotype of a white man. Allow me to be clear. Jackson is definitely ashamed of being black. Don't believe me? listen to his longtime friend and music producer Quincy Jones:
It's ridiculous, man! Chemical peels and all of it. And I don't understand it. But he [Jackson] obviously didn't want to be black. 
All of Jackson's children (regardless of what they say) are most likely not his biological children.    A child of a black man and white woman will have features (phenotype) that looks black. None of his children have features that show his black ancestry.
Of course, there are many good reasons for using sperm donors and surrogates. But one reason that can hide behind the more rational reason is that Jackson doesn't want to be the father of child who looks black.
I don't have any direct evidence for this claim so it's just a conspiracy theory. But if you want to add more fuel to the fire, you can say that the white music producers that manage Jackson advise him to use a surrogate. See how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory?
Again, there's no direct evidence for this, but it's not impossible considering what Jackson does to look white. I don't mean his vitiligo condition. I mean the work he has done to his hair, nose, and facial structure:
He started out modestly enough — by just wanting a different nose. In the end, after up to 100 procedures, he was desperately trying to repair the damage done by reckless and botched operations and injections.
Michael Jackson, surely the most infamous example of the perils of cosmetic surgery, spent 30 years trying to achieve his idea of perfection.
...After Erhardt's new chin was revealed, Jackson went on to have this operation several times.
Despite his initial nerves, Michael also had Botox, fillers, bleached his skin, had cheek implants and lip augmentation. He changed the shape of his nose to the point that it was so narrow the airways were blocked. 
None of that facial surgery is necessary due to the burn accident in 1984. But he does it nonetheless. For Jackson, the natural ethnic black look isn't perfect enough for him. And if it's not good enough for him, why should it be good enough for young black youth?
Don't misunderstand though. I believe that Michael Jackson is the single greatest performer on the planet. But he was cracked in the head in his quest for perfection and beauty. Let me give you one final example of visible minorities who want to be white. Asians.
While Asians have white skin even whiter than most WE white people, they don't exactly look white. What's their solution? Marry into a white family so their kids look WE white:
There is really so much more to be said about why "white privilege" is actually quite advantageous and should be respected. As an ethnic minority individual, I'll never really know what it is like to be white, so I can only posit my own conjectures based on my personal experiences and observations of white people. I suppose any of my criticisms would be invalid anyway, as they likely stem from deep-seated jealousy of the white race and an inner longing to be white. I can only hope that my future generations can embrace and perpetuate this "white privilege" by marrying into the race until all traces of my Chinese descent have been dissolved.
If that doesn't work, you can always give allegiance to white supremacists and neo-Nazis:
...the Donald Trump-loving Tequila has gone on to become a conspiracy theory-embracing Nazi, unapologetically calling herself an "alt-reich queen!" on her Twitter bio and appearing at the white nationalist National Policy Institute conference this past weekend.
...Along with penning her massively misguided manifesto "Why I Sympathize With Hitler: Part 1," the reality TV star shocked fans by posting a photo of herself holding a gun and wearing a Nazi armband while posing in front of Auschwitz in 2013. 
If that doesn't work, you can admire white people for their beauty and pretend that you're white on the inside:
When Wang Ge, a business school student, wakes up, she often asks herself, "What would Ivanka do?"
That would be Ivanka Trump, the eldest daughter of President Trump, a woman Ms. Wang has never met but worships.
...But in China, Ms. Trump is widely adored.
...She is called a "goddess" on social media. A video of her daughter singing in Chinese went viral, attracting tens of millions of viewers. Working mothers have latched onto Ms. Trump's brand of have-it-all feminism. 
And then we get to Japanese people who want to be white. Oh dear god. I don't think I'll ever have any Japanese friends after this article goes online. And that's tough considering the fact that I love Japanese anime. But if I strive to be genuine in my actions and words, I have to say it.
If you look at Japanese anime, you'll find that all of the main characters look like WE white people instead of Asian white:
Uzumaki Naruto – Naruto series
Uchiha Sasuke – Naruto series
Uchiha Madara – Naruto series
Hatake Kakashi – Naruto series
Uchiha Itachi – Naruto series
Jiraiya – Naruto series
Tsunade - Naruto series
Orochimaru - Naruto series
Kurosaki Ichigo - Bleach
Kuchiki Rukia - Bleach
Urahara Kisuke - Bleach
Zaraki Kenpachi - Bleach
Hitsugaya Toshiro - Bleach
Sosuke Aizen – Bleach
Kuchiki Byakuya – Bleach
Abarai Renji – Bleach
Monkey D. Luffy – One Piece
Roronoa Zoro – One Piece
Gon Freecss - Hunter × Hunter
Killua Zoldyck - Hunter × Hunter
Kurapika - Hunter × Hunter
Re-l Mayer – Ergo Proxy
Vincent Law – Ergo Proxy
Major Mira Killian – Ghost in the Shell
Batou – Ghost in the Shell
Eren Yeager - Attack on Titan/Shingeki no Kyojin
Mikasa Ackerman - Attack on Titan
Armin Arlert - Attack on Titan
Jean Kirschtein - Attack on Titan
Levi - Attack on Titan
Edward Elric - Full Metal Alchemist
Yugi Mutou - Yu-Gi-Oh!
Seto Kaiba - Yu-Gi-Oh!
Goku – Dragonball series
Vegeta - Dragonball series
Gohan - Dragonball series
Yagami Light – Death Note
L – Death Note
Amane Misa – Death Note
Not a single main character looks Asian/Japanese. Not one. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because Japanese animators/people in general like to see themselves as WE white people. What they can't achieve in reality, they create in fiction.
This is why the whitewashing of live-action anime (Ghost in the Shell and Death Note) has no argument. It's not that Hollywood only wants to cast white actors/actresses in these live actions (though they do). It's that the character themselves already look like WE white people. It only makes sense for WE white actors/actresses to play the roles.
But then again, maybe all of this is a big misunderstanding. Perhaps Asians don't really want to be like WE white people. Rather, they see themselves as the original and true white people, while WE white people are merely imitations of them.
In this theory, the Asian white (instead of WE white) represents the highest rung on the evolutionary ladder. Asian white, not WE white is supposed to be the dominant ruler of the planet with people imitating them, not the other way around. An interesting theory.
And last but not least, we finally get to global aid. White people giving money to poor visible minorities in developing countries. We're so compassionate with our money. Yah...no. As you should know by now, giving massive amounts of money to poor people won't solve the main issues.
Money (especially debt) has zero power in being able to solve any significant problems. The aid money is just for the sake of appearances. To be fair, it's not just a lot of money. It's a f*ckload of money. It's over $60 billion of aid money in 2000, increasing to over $140 billion in 2016. 
That's over a trillion dollars just from the last decade. And that's the point. Even a trillion dollars isn't enough to end poverty. Why not? Because money has zero power in being able to solve inequality, poverty, racism, or sexism. Zero power.
Significant change can only come from ideologies of empowerment and purpose. That's where it begins. If you don't have empowerment and purpose, you have nothing of value in this life (aside from eternal love of course).
In August 2017 Bill Gates donates $4.6 billion (USD) to charitable causes.  While liberals praise his actions, it won't cause any significant change in developing nations. If trillions of dollars can't lift people in developing nations out of poverty, a few billion won't either.
Gates' push for GMOs and family planning on people in the developing world, isn't one of compassion. It's one of profit and serving the interests of GSIGs. Nothing more.
The claims of compassion and ending poverty are just cover reasons for the sake of appearances. If you learn nothing at all from reading this series I would be happy if you understand the difference between reality and the perception of reality, and genuine actions vs. disingenuous actions even when the end results look the same.
Allow me to be clear. Liberal philanthropists, the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN aren't solving any significant problems in the 21st century. 70 years later and it's (more or less) the same old sh*t.
It's the same ads/commercials of starving people in developing nations. The attempt to transform visible minority developing nations into developed ones is merely for the sake of appearances. There's no genuine intent to do so.
The manipulation exists in order for you to believe the lie. To believe that the current system works. To believe that you live in a democracy. And while you foolishly believe such things, rich and powerful white people and GSIGs will continue to dominate the planet through an ideology of disempowerment.
How long will it take for you to realize this?
How long will it take for you to change your ideologies?
How long will it take for you to finally take significant actions to change the GSIG script of disempowerment?
 To Seek Political Power: A Fool's Errand. YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, May 10, 2017.
 Stack, Liam. In Stanford Rape Case, Brock Turner Blamed Drinking and Promiscuity. New York Times. June 8, 2016.
 Miller, Michael, E. 'A steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action': Dad defends Stanford sex offender. Washington Post. June 6, 2016.
 La Ganga, Maria L. Idaho judge rules attack on high school football player was 'not a rape' or racist. Guardian. February 25, 2017.
 Davies, Caroline. Student who stabbed boyfriend may avoid jail as it would 'damage her career.' Guardian. May 16, 2017.
 Fortgang, Tal. Why I'll Never Apologize for My White Male Privilege. Princeton Tory. May 2, 2014.
 Ling, Christina. In Defense of White Privilege. HuffPost. November 1, 2016.
 White Billionaire Explains Why White Privilege Is A Myth. YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, March 9, 2016.
 Schlichter, Kurt. I Checked My Privilege, And It's Doing Just Fine. Townhall. May 12, 2014.
 I Love My White Male Privilege! YouTube video. Posted by: Paul Joseph Watson, March 2, 2016.
 DEAR BLACK PEOPLE (BuzzFeed is Cancer). YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, May 8, 2017.
 Ludwig, Sarah. Credit scores in America perpetuate racial injustice. Here's how. Guardian. October 13, 2015.
 Bill Maher on White Privilege. YouTube video. Posted by: BCflyzz, March 4, 2016.
 Graham, David A. Americans Oppose Affirmative Action for Race, If You Only Ask White Americans. Atlantic. May 31, 2013.
 Ryan, Erin Gloria. White People Hate Affirmative Action Unless They Benefit From It. Jezebel. August 13, 2013.
 Doucette, Chris. White worker says Canada Revenue Agency discriminated against him. Toronto Sun. October 28, 2015.
 Savage, Charlie. Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions. New York Times. August 1, 2017.
 Monsebraaten, Laurie, et al. Ministry-funded CAS report urges overhaul to keep black kids out of care. Toronto Star. September 29, 2016.
 Valby, Karen. The Realities of Raising a Kid of a Different Race. Time. Unknown date.
 Yanklowitz, Shmuly. I'm a white foster parent seeing racism through my black and brown children's eyes. Washington Post. July 12, 2017.
 Dokoupil, Tony. What Adopting a White Girl Taught One Black Family. Newsweek. April 22, 2009.
 Pells, Rachael. Black and ethnic minority teachers face 'invisible glass ceiling' in schools, report warns. Independent. April 14, 2017.
 Brown, Louise. Black teachers still face racism on the job in Ontario. Toronto Star. May 29, 2015.
 Dunn, Trevor. In wake of racism scandal, York school board says 'sorry.' CBC News. May 18, 2017.
 Anderson, Melinda D. How the Stress of Racism Affects Learning. Atlantic. October 11, 2016.
 Klein, Rebecca. More Parents Of Color Think Racism Is Holding Back Their Children In School. HuffPost. May 3, 2017.
 Anderson, Melinda D. How Does Race Affect a Student's Math Education? Atlantic. April 25, 2017.
 Chao, Julie. Asian American vets can't forget Vietnam War racism. SF Gate. April 2, 1999.
 Moon, Krystyn R. "There's no Yellow in the Red, White, and Blue": The Creation of Anti-Japanese Music during World War II. Pacific Historical Review. p. 334, 337-338, 340-341.
 Rosenstone, Robert A. Review: Racist War for Civilization. Reviews in American History, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 1987. p. 470.
 Greenwald, Glenn. The racism that fuels the 'war on terror.' Guardian. March 25, 2013.
 Vance, Kevin. Sec. Clinton Stands By Her Praise of Eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Weekly Standard. April 15, 2009.
 Dutton, Zoe. Abortion's Racial Gap. Atlantic. September 22, 2014.
 Ethics left behind as drug trials soar in developing countries. Guardian. July 4, 2011.
 Kelly, Stephanie. Testing Drugs on the Developing World. Atlantic. February 27, 2013.
 Tello, Monique. Racism and discrimination in health care: Providers and patients. Harvard Health Publications. January 16, 2017.
 Holland, Jesse J. Interracial couples still face hostility 50 years after landmark Loving legal case. Associated Press. June 11, 2017.
 Goff, Keli. The Ongoing Stigma of Interracial Dating. Daily Beast. September 15, 2014.
 Birkbeck, Tanya. Kahnawake mixed couple subject of 'marry out, stay out' protest. CBC News. May 2, 2015.
 Dumbfoundead - SAFE. YouTube video. Posted by: DUMBFOUNDEAD, May 26, 2016.
 Nyren, Erin. 'Whitewashing' Accusations Fly as Zach McGowan Cast as Hawaiian WWII Hero. Variety. May 9, 2017.
 Horn, John and Smith, Doug. Diversity efforts slow to change the face of Oscar voters. Los Angeles Times. December 21, 2013.
 Diversity in Movies Largely Unchanged Despite Increased Awareness, Study Finds. Associated Press. July 31, 2017.
 Friend, David. Female-led 'Doctor Who' stokes conversation about lack of visible minority heroines. Canadian Press. July 18, 2017.
 Robinson, Joanna. Is a Disappointing Ghost in the Shell the Nail in the Coffin of Hollywood Whitewashing? Vanity Fair. April 2, 2017.
 James, Meg and Ng, David. In Hollywood, Asian American actors see few lead roles, and pay discrepancies when they land one. Los Angeles Times. July 8, 2017.
 Haar, Kara. Industry Execs Discuss Hollywood's Diversity Gap at Entertainment Finance Forum. Hollywood Reporter. March 3, 2017.
 Horn, John, et al. Unmasking Oscar: Academy voters are overwhelmingly white and male. Los Angeles Times. February 19, 2012.
 Ryan, Maureen. Peak Inequality: Investigating the Lack of Diversity Among TV Directors. Variety. November 10, 2015.
 Garza, Frida. The little we know about the 6,000 Academy members who vote on the Oscars tells us a lot. Quartz. January 20, 2016.
 Easter, Makeda. 'We just want Hollywood to hear us': Film students on the future of their craft. Los Angeles Times. March 3, 2017.
 Klowden, Kevin and Jackson, Jessica. Women and Minorities are Hired Less, Paid Less in L.A.'s Creative Sector (Guest Column). Hollywood Reporter. March 3, 2017.
 Shia LaBeouf Apologizes for Racist Tirade, Says He's Struggling With Addiction. Associated Press. July 13, 2017.
 Fernandez, Sofia M. George Lucas: Hollywood Won't Finance an 'Expensive Movie' With an All-Black Cast (Video). Hollywood Reporter. January 11, 2012.
 HBO defends 'Confederate' following Charlottesville deaths. Fox News. August 15, 2017.
 Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger. HBO. 2008.
 Russell Peters on "Larry King Now". YouTube video. Posted by: Larry King, August 7, 2014.
 Scocca, Tom. Who Wants to Remember Bill Cosby's Multiple Sex-Assault Accusations? Gawker. February 4, 2014.
 Krieg, Gregory. Here's the deal with Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage. CNN. June 29, 2016.
 Jerry Seinfeld Caught By The Sensitivity Police. YouTube video. Posted by: The Young Turks, February 4, 2014.
 Facebook Has An Unbelievable Lack Of Diversity. YouTube video. Posted by: The Young Turks, June 26, 2015.
 Ember, Sydney. 11 Sue Fox News, Citing 'Intolerable' Racial Bias. New York Times. April 25, 2017.
 Levin, Sam. Palantir to pay $1.7m over accusation it discriminates against Asian applicants. Guardian. April 26, 2017.
 Guynn, Jessica. Oracle sued by Labor Department for paying white men more. USA Today. January 18, 2017.
 Schilken, Chuck. ESPN apologizes for fantasy football segment that auctioned off players, including African Americans. Los Angeles Times. August 16, 2017.
 Uffalussy, Jennifer Gerson. Walmart Removes Racist Term Used in Third-Party Product Description. Yahoo Beauty. July 17, 2017.
 Tsang, Amie. Nivea Pulls 'White Is Purity' Ad After Online Uproar. New York Times. April 4, 2017.
 Victor, Daniel. Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter. New York Times. April 5, 2017.
 SNL - Pepsi Commercial_Skit. YouTube video. Posted by: Clevver News, April 10, 2017.
 Smith, Jack. Founder Matt Joseph Reveals the Racial Biases People of Color Face in Silicon Valley. Mic. March 22, 2016.
 Buranyi, Stephen. Rise of the racist robots – how AI is learning all our worst impulses. Guardian. August 8, 2017.
 O'Brien, Sara Ashley. Silicon Valley engineer: 'We're in a really precarious moment with race relations.' CNN. March 3, 2016.
 Guynn, Jessica. Google Photos labeled black people 'gorillas.' USA Today. July 1, 2015.
 Braga, Matthew. Canadian tech companies say they value diversity — but what are they doing about it? CBC News. July 11, 2017.
 Organizer apologizes after ad for Montreal's 375th features only white people. CBC News. November 22, 2016.
 Abedi, Maham. Refugees In Canada Rely On Welfare, Odd Jobs To Repay Debt To Federal Gov't. HuffPost. March 2, 2017.
 About 4,000 asylum seekers to receive welfare cheques: 'Quebec has responsibilities.' Canadian Press. August 24, 2017.
 Hersh, Joshua. Extremism experts are starting to worry about the left. Vice News. June 15, 2017.
 Fuller, Thomas, et al. 'Antifa' Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right. New York Times. August 17, 2017.
 McCreesh, Shawn. Antifa and the 'Alt-Left': Everything You Need to Know. Rolling Stone. August 19, 2017.
 Quick Facts. US Census Bureau. 2016.
 Stanley, George F.G. The Indian Background of Canadian History. Report of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Historical Association, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1952. p. 14-16, 18, 21.
 Aboriginal nutritional experiments had Ottawa's approval. CBC News. July 30, 2013.
 Gallant, Jacques. Discipline case shows 'law society has a lot to learn' about indigenous issues. Toronto Star. April 26, 2017.
 Mas, Susana. Bob Paulson says he doesn't want racists inside RCMP ranks. CBC News. December 9, 2015.
 Hutchinson, Brian. Aboriginal students face 'racism of low expectations' in B.C. schools. National Post. November 25, 2015.
 Popplewell, Brett. An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage of many Canadian reserves. Toronto Star. October 30, 2010.
 Taylor, Stephanie. Canadian Tire worker who threw out Indigenous man accused of theft no longer an employee. CBC News. July 29, 2017.
 'Angst' over police in Thunder Bay, Ont., 'diminishes' Canada: Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale. CBC News. June 13, 2017.
 City workers accidentally destroyed artwork dedicated to missing and murdered Indigenous women. CBC News. August 11, 2017.
 Banerjee, Sidhartha. Montreal amusement park pulls carousel horse showing Indigenous man’s severed head. Canadian Press. August 18, 2017.
 No charges in Halifax 'Proud Boys' incident as servicemen return to duties: navy. Canadian Press. August 31, 2017.
 Beeby, Dean. Counsellor overbills $360K for care of First Nations patients in Ontario. CBC News. November 25, 2016.
 Talaga, Tanya. Fourth Indigenous girl dies while in child protection. Toronto Star. May 9, 2017.
 Tasker, John Paul. Governor General apologizes for saying Indigenous people were immigrants. CBC News. June 19, 2017.
 Ottawa officer demoted for racist comments about Annie Pootoogook. CBC News. December 7, 2016.
 Winkler, Marc. New homes sit empty in Wrigley, N.W.T., despite desperate need for housing. CBC News. June 6, 2017.
 Mandeville, Curtis. Eviction leaves Behchoko family of 7 scrambling. CBC News. November 16, 2016.
 Bambury, Brent. Thunder Bay's Indigenous community says hate crimes are common and racism in the police force isn't helping. CBC Radio. March 31, 2017.
 Racism in Winnipeg: How do police treat Indigenous and black men? Panel weighs in. CBC News. July 12, 2016.
 McCue, Duncan. Racism against aboriginal people in health-care system 'pervasive': study. CBC News. February 3, 2015.
 Troian, Martha. Neurological and birth defects haunt Wabaseemoong First Nation, decades after mercury dumping. CBC News. September 20, 2016.
 Institutional racism in Winnipeg will take longer than 1 year to fix, professor says. CBC News. January 18, 2016.
 O’Neil, Peter. Trudeau says First Nations 'don't have a veto' over energy projects. Postmedia News. December 20, 2016.
 Landry, Andrea. Coerced sterilizations are more than an attack on mothers; they're an attack on Indigenous nationhood. CBC News. August 2, 2017.
 'Good intent and with good spirits': after 45-minute travel delays, protest on eastbound Trans-Canada ends. CBC News. June 30, 2017.
 Stick, Charmaine. I starved myself for financial transparency at Onion Lake Cree Nation. CBC News. December 14, 2016.
 Bourbeau, Jacques. Attawapiskat First Nation must repay $1.8 million, government says. Global News. November 28, 2014.
 De Souza, Mike. Disclosure of First Nations salaries raises eyebrows. Toronto Star. July 29, 2014.
 Larkins, David. More chiefs' salaries posted to federal website. Winnipeg Sun. November 5, 2014.
 Transparency Act: Resource company payments to First Nations unveiled. CBC News. December 14, 2014.
 Harris, Kathleen. Carolyn Bennett reinstates funds frozen under First Nations Financial Transparency Act. CBC News. December 18, 2015.
 Beeby, Dean. Memo raises doubts about who was 'architect' of residential schools. CBC News. August 13, 2017.
 Ballingall, Alex. Sir John A. Macdonald: Architect of genocide or Canada’s founding father? Toronto Star. August 24, 2017.
 No plans to remove John A. Macdonald's name from federal properties, Trudeau says. CBC News. August 28, 2017.
 Tunney, Catharine. 'Everyone has warts': Indigenous MP supports John A. Macdonald's name on schools. CBC News. August 26, 2017.
 The Truth About Satanism and Trump. YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, February 25, 2017.
 Kajol is no longer the "dusky" Bollywood rebel—and that's a serious problem. Quartz India. December 23, 2015.
 'Bleaching destroyed my skin.' BBC News. June 12, 2009.
 Cheskis, Danny. The History of Sammy Sosa Skin Lightening. Sport Mockery. November 8, 2014.
 Blay, Yaba. Lil' Kim's Lighter, Whiter Skin Is a Sad Indictment of Racism. Daily Beast. April 25, 2016.
 Bakare, Lanre. Is skin bleaching in danger of becoming a trend among men? Guardian. September 7, 2011.
 Hix, Lisa. Black Panther Women: The Unsung Activists Who Fed and Fought for Their Community. Collectors Weekly. December 2, 2016.
 Smith, Joanna. Supreme Court recognizes rights of Métis and non-status Indians. Toronto Star. April 14, 2016.
 Hall, Katy. Quincy Jones: Jackson 'Obviously Didn't Want To Be Black.' HuffPost. August 1, 2009.
 Kelly, Tom. I'm the father of Michael Jackson's children and I'll take a DNA test to prove it: British actor who says his girl looks just like Paris. Daily Mail. May 5, 2013.
 Stark, George. Michael Jackson 'confessed Mark Lester was the father of Paris and Prince' four months before he died, claims friend. Daily Mail. June 25, 2013.
 Fryer, Jane. 'I tried to get through to Paris but her mother told me to eff off': Why the Oliver! child star who claims he's the biological father of Michael Jackson's daughter is banned from seeing her. Daily Mail. May 19, 2017.
 Revealed: Scalpel by scalpel, how Michael Jackson destroyed his looks in 100 operations...and how he'd have looked without surgery. Daily Mail. February 6, 2015.
 Lisi, Brian. Five moments in Tila Tequila's journey from forgettable MySpace star to full-blown, science-denying Nazi. New York Daily News. November 22, 2016.
 Hernandez, Javier C. The 'Goddess' Yi Wan Ka: Ivanka Trump Is a Hit in China. New York Times. April 5, 2017.
 Net ODA, constant 2015 USD millions. OECD.
 Neate, Rupert. Bill Gates gives $4.6bn to charity in biggest donation since 2000. Guardian. August 15, 2017.