Is America Ashamed of its Flag? The Politicization of the Stars and Stripes

The U.S. Army's prestigious Academy at West Point has made the decision to remove the "Duty, Honor, Country" motto from its mission statement. In its place will be "Army Values", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. The words "Duty, Honor, Country" has been part of West Point's code of conduct and its celebrated oath since 1925.and is just as venerated as our flag.

On March 11th, 2014 in St. Leon Indiana, a student named Cameron Blasek, was told to remove his American flag from the back of his pickup truck. Blasek, a senior at East Central High School, was hauled in front of the school principal and told that his flag was unacceptable and could not be displayed while on school property. Failure to do so would be grounds to be written up for subordination (which I presume is a big deal, at least to the principal)

The student refused and even cited chapter and verse from the school handbook as to what's permissible and what's not. Meanwhile, word got out and spread like wildfire throughout the entire school (as gossip is known to do in high school). The following day, the principal announced that they were reversing their decision and dropping the matter, but not before other students showed up flying their own American flags!  No explanation from the principal was ever given as to why he thought flying an American flag was not acceptable. Kudos everyone for standing up to bullying, even if it was the school principal!

In August 2023, "Jaiden", a 12 year old attending The Vanguard School in Colorado Springs Colorado, showed up wearing a Gadsden Flag patch sewn onto his backpack. Many of the teachers seemed to disapproved of this early American flag and eventually one teacher ordered him to remove it as being "disruptive to the classroom environment".

One of the teachers mistakenly claimed that the flag had "origins with slavery" (let's hope she doesn't teach history). In truth, it was often referred to as the 'Tea party flag". However, others reported that the only "disruption" was how excited the other students were at seeing the flag (probably because it had a snake on it). 

The young man  refused to remove the flag and as a result, his parents were brought in and despite giving the teacher in question a short history lesson about the flag, the matter was reported to the Vanguard School Board of Education. They called an emergency meeting to discuss whether displaying a symbol of the American Revolution on a personal backpack was permissible or not.

The incident was picked up by the local media and the next thing you know Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) weighed in on the issue and reiterated what Jaiden's parents had said concerning the history of  the flag and the fact it had nothing to do with slavery. Governor Polis called this a "great teaching moment" (presumably for the history deficient teacher and members of the school board). Ironically, the flag's iconic motto, "Don't Tread on Me" was intended to warn the British not to ignore our liberties.  

The Gadsden flag with its familiar gold background and rattlesnake, is one of the first American flags of the American Revolution. Founding Father, Ben Franklin, even recommended it for our first official national flag. The naval version of the flag, with its red and white stripes in lieu of the gold background, is still flown on the bow of the U.S. Naval warships.

The final decision was that Jaiden was allowed to keep his Gadsden flag on his backpack. As an aside, it didn't take long after the decision was made for other students showing up with Gadsden sticker and put them all over their lockers. Way to go everyone, especially you Jaiden!

in 2016, the principal of Travelers Rest High School in South Carolina told students that they were prohibited from waving U.S. flags at their upcoming football game. In addition, the flag would not be flown outside of the school stadium. The reason? The opposing team was made up of mostly Hispanic students and the principal was afraid that a display of national pride would hurt the feelings of the other team.

The backlash from the school alumni, students, and the community immediate and loud. Nevertheless, the principal, Lou Lavely responded by saying that the presence of the flag could be seen as "taunting" and "unsportsmanlike" as well possibly provoking a hostile environment. However, school officials disagreed with Lavely and reversed his decision.

At the end of August 2021, a video showed up of a teacher for the Newport-Mesa Unified School District getting her class started for the day. As with most schools across America, this usually includes everyone standing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, except on this occasion the teacher had a different idea.

The teacher, Kristen Pitsen, thought it would be a great idea to say the pledge to the rainbow colored LGBQT "Progress Pride" flag instead. When asked where the American flag was by students, Ms. Pitsen said it was "lost" but she'd try to find it. The video was, oddly enough, posted on Ms. Pitsen's own TikTok account. The video has subsequently been removed as has Ms. Pitsen.

The video was widely reported, including to the School Board and despite this being California, Ms. Pitsen was removed from the classroom pending further investigation. Ms. Pitsen taught English at the Back Bay HIgh School. Other reports indicate Ms Pitsen had previously posted videos of collection of LGBQT flags in her classroom and Ms. Pitsen saying in one video, "I pledge allegiance to queers".

As an aside, Ms. Pitsen apparently doesn't take saying the Pledge of Allegiance very seriously. She allegedly said in a  now deleted video, "I always tell my class to stand if you feel like it, don't stand if you feel like it, say the words if you want, don't say the words if they don't want to". In this case, the students stood but didn't say the pledge.

The spokesperson for the Newport-Mesa Unified School District said that all the LGBQT flags have been removed. They also posted on their webpage "showing respect for our nation's flag is an important value our district instills in our students and it's an expectation of our employees. We sake this matter seriously and are investigating and addressing it".  So do we.

In a related incident which occurred just a month later in September 2021, a Oregon teacher decided to take down the American flag too. The reason? "It stands for violence and menace and intolerance",  at least according to Ms. Gail Grobey. She also added that the flag is "the most political symbol there is".

Ms. Grobey is another English teacher Newberg High School in Newberg Oregon and former president of the Newberg Education Association. Ms Grobey went on to say that she's attempting to activate her union into opposing a recent ban on all "overtly political" symbols on school ground. This ordinance specifically includes Black Lives Matter and LGBQT flags and symbols.

She thinks that if these flags are banned, then so to should the American flag.  Accordingly, she has removed the American flag from her classroom and added that "Big Brother wants to control what we support or what we talk about". The Black Lives Matter is a political and social movement which many people believes symbolized hatred and racism.

The LGBQT and its symbols represent a different sexual orientation which certain segments of the population find offensive, mainly due to religious reasons. However, in a secular nation like ours, one's religious beliefs are purely theirs to act on but they don't apply to everyone else.

Thus you can oppose something because they offend your sense of morality, but you don't get to force everyone else to go along. They can, however, vote against proposed LGBQT bills or choose not to associate with members of the gay community, they can't make everyone else do the same. Nevertheless, LGBQT is still a political and social movement.

In the case of the U.S. flag, this is our sovereign flag. It was chosen to represent the American People, not the white European Americans. Not the Hispanic Americans. Not to Asian Americans. Not Black Americans. Not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, pagan, or agnostic Americans. 

It represents all Americans. And yes, some terrible things have been done under that flag (Native Americans come to mind as well as our attempts to overthrow popularly elected governments), but far more awe inspiring and magnificent things have too including the 1794 Slave Act which prohibited slaves from being brought to America.

These slaves, which I should remind some, were captured, beaten, and sold by other African tribes. Europeans didn't traipse through the jungle in search for victims. This was done by African tribes (who had been doing it long before Europeans ever showed up. They were sold to other Africans as well as the English, Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese slavers along with Arabs. As an aside,  I've yet to hear the outrage and demand for "reparations" from these African tribes who preyed on their own people and who were most responsible for the slave trade in the first place.

What about the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote, the Emancipation Proclamation in 1864 which followed on the heels of the British Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 which effectively ended slavery in the West? Throughout Mankind's long history on this planet, never had this been done on this scale and economic impact. Meanwhile, slavery continued in Africa (and still does), the Middle East (and still does) and parts of Asia (and still does).

There was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the establishment of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board in 1975 to help protect migrant workers, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and Clean Water Act of 1972, and many more. And, of course, we're still trying to work through other issues as a nation. Things often don't happen the we think they should, but that doesn't mean we stop trying. That's why we still show respect to the American flag despite its checkered history, otherwise where does it stop?

If there can be BLM flags in classrooms, public streets, or in government buildings, why not Hispanic flags (especially the nationalist Chicano "Aztlan flag?) After all, Hispanics are our largest minority and projected to the largest population segment within the next 30 years.  Besides, much of what's Western America belonged to Mexico well into the early 19th century. 

What about Asians or Pacific Islanders? They have a strong presence on the West Coast and deserve representation too. Don't forget too that Japanese-Americans suffered the indignity of being forced into prison camps and the loss of the basic rights for merely being Asian. 

Personally, I think if anyone deserves special recognition it's Native Americans. They dealt with attempted genocide, countless broken treaties, planned starvation, repeated evictions of their land, discrimination, and forced settlement on reservations no better than rural ghettos which suffer from many of the same issues as inner city ghettos---rampant crime, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty, poor schools, high unemployment.  A lack of electricity, running water, and indoor plumbing is still not uncommon on many reservations. 

Why shouldn't Christian flags be flown on government property? That's our dominate religion and there are many who believe America was intended to be a "Christian nation". But if we allow them, why not the Jewish "Star of David"? Their influence on our nation is undeniable.  But why not Muslim, Buddhists, Wiccan, or atheist flags?  Because only the American flag unites all elements of society. There is one flag to represent all Americans just as their is one national anthem for all Americans. 

Nevertheless, that doesn't prevent some elements of society from still attempting to discredit national pride and its most basic symbol of America, our flag. The only flag which deserves to be flown or displayed in government buildings, public schools or on public property is the Stars and Stripes.  There are plenty of other places to display flags belonging to social moments, including private residences and property.

In closing, let me leave you with a quote from our 26th president, Teddy Roosevelt (and my personal favorite), which he delivered in 1912. It's just as true now (or maybe more so) and it was 112 years ago:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Student says school told him to removeAmerican Flag from his truck

Colorado school is forced to let student keep Gadsden flagon his bag after teacher ordered him to remove it....

 

Teacher removed after Having The Class Pledge of Allegianceto the Pride Flag

Oregon teacher removes American flag from classroom, says it stands for 'violence, menace and intolerance'

The American Flag Was Banned at a South Carolina High School

GOP Lawmakers: Flying a Pride flag, a BLM flag, 'has no place inside our government buildings'

The Pronoun Wars: The Coming of a New Generational Conflict?

How should you react when you're introduced to someone, such as a potential job candidate, as "Zie", "They", "Hir" or similar salutary title? Are you taken back or perhaps try to suppress an amused smile or smirk? 

What about when you're at a social gathering and refer to someone as a male or female and you're informed that your "gender assumption" is disrespectful. They go on to say that there are 72 genders, not two. You should first inquire to how they identify before assuming they're male or female. How do you react?

In today's labor market, employers are going to find more and more examples like these walking through their doors. Federal and state labor laws have clearly defined your limitations. In today's "politically correct" social environment, you risk the possibility of a lawsuit or social censure ("cancelled")  if you don't handle the situation correctly.

There have been several instances where companies have risked serious damage to their customer base by being labeled "chauvinistic" or "patronizing" over something as innocuous as holding the door or pulling out a chair for a female.  Repairing one's public image can also be highly expense, often involving the services of a specialty PR team equipped with lawyers and social media experts, and a long term endeavor. But in the short term, protests and online campaigns to discredit you or your company can take a significant toll on your bottom line.  

Some groups chalk up the issue of gender identity, along with the so-called "body art" as nothing more than generational rebellion, something which has been going on since the beginning of time. Therefore it will pass and there's no need to really need to take it too seriously. In the 1950's social rebellion often nothing more than "bobby socks", 'ducktales", and customized fast cars.  By the 1960's, it was "make love not war" and "flower power" and "sex, drugs, and rock n roll" in the 1970's.

The message of the rebellion was often transmitted through magazines, newspapers, social interaction, and, of course, word of mouth contact (which typically involved a change of vocabulary to set them apart from the previous generation and create a new sense of identity). Movies and especially music helped with the transformation. Both were essentially, for instance, with the growth of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

It's never changed and likely will never change, and yet employers found ways to adapt, but this seems to be different because of the extreme nature of the "rebellion". Previously, it was mostly just music, cloths, long hair and beards, and a pseudo-primitivism in the form of communes. As they matured, many decided to "clean up" and conform rather than "tune in, turn on, and drop out" of society. Albeit late to adapt, much of their lifestyle went mainstream thanks to the marketing industry looking to cash in.  

Today, technology has evolved to the point where the message can bypass societal buffers or gatekeepers such as newspaper or magazine editors, radio program directors, or music executives. Smart phones, the internet, and so forth can almost instantaneously send images around the world. They can call together protests or "rushes" in minutes. No more need for leaflets and waiting days.      

Tattoos were once the domain of bikers, sailors, construction workers and the seeders aspect of society. Proper society avoided not just tattoos, but even those with tattoos! Today we commonly see not just tattoos on biceps and forearms, but nearly full body tattoos which encompasses hands, legs, feet, neck, the face, plus the ever popular and nearly ubiquitous "tramp stamp"!   

Body piercings aren't just two or three earrings, but giant ear inserts which look more like the hose washers than a piece of jewelry.  Eyebrows, nostrils, lips, and even tongues! A few even go to extremes by trying to change their entire appearance into something akin to a mythical creature.

But unlike simply getting a haircut and a change of clothes, some of these "personal statement" ornamentations aren't going away. Nevertheless, time is not going to be kind to many of these individuals as the body graphics fade and warp thanks to ageing and gravity.  Meanwhile, how are  your client and customer base going to react  to these representatives of your company, be it a cashier, a salesperson, a onsite tech advisor, or a manager?    

Babyboomers (1946-1964) were once most largest customer base out there. They were the ones with the deepest pockets, ran the most businesses or held the most senior positions in companies. They also had the most disposable cash of any generation before or since. However, with the youngest Boomer now age 59, many are quickly closing in on retirement. While Boomers were once the most vocal and rebellious of generations (think Woodstock), the majority have mellowed and become fairly conservative.

According to the latest Gallup poll on the topic, about 44% of Boomers are socially conservative. Another 27% are moderate, while just 17% remain liberal. Older generations, such "the Greatest Generation" (1901-1927) and the "Silent Generation" (1928-1945) remain a economic factor in the marketplace despite their declining numbers.

Perhaps it was the influence of the Great Depression, WWII, or the Korean War, that's the reason  the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation children are just as socially conservative as ever. 48% identify as conservative while 26% are social moderates. 15% of them still see themselves as liberal (I suspect this the "Dobie Gillis" or Beatnik portion of the Silents).

Currently, the largest demographic are the Millennials (1981-1996), but they aren't the latest. After the Millennials is Generation Z (1997-2012) and the Alpha Generation (2013-2025). Together, these three generations represent not just a future down the road, but the immediate near term. Millennials are already well into the labor market and entering the medical and legal professions.

Many have already started to  run for political office. Alexandra Ocasio - Cortez (D-NY) is perhaps the best known of her Millennial cohort. This is also the generation most responsible for the change in attitude toward socialism,  gender identity, body art, and even race.

While mixed racial relations having been occurring since time immoral, there seems to a growing trend in the U.S.  among these three generations. Mixed races were uncommon in 1940's and 1950's (and in some states, downright illegal), they still happened (the most common was white/European and Native American or Hispanic). Same goes for the '60's, '70's and even into the 1980's, which accounted for just 5% of births,  but then things began to change. As of 2015, 14% of all children born were mixed race. Now, nearly half---48%---of Gen Z is of mixed race.  

The Alpha Generation is still pretty young right now, with the oldest being about 10 years old. In addition, polling has suggested that the majority of mixed race individuals tend to vote Democrats because of perceived bigotry among conservatives and Republicans. Remember too that these three generations are among the largest registered Independent. Ideologically, they're split between their support of democratic socialism and libertarianism.

As an aside, when individuals with Latino and some other race  are factored in, they are projected to be the dominated race by 2050 with their population tripling. Latinos are currently the largest minority in North America, just behind white/Europeans. Blacks, once the largest minority, are currently the second largest minority and expect to fall even further behind. By 2050, they will be only slightly ahead of Asians, although in certain areas, especially on the West Coast, Asians will be the largest. 

These three generations---the Greatest Generation, the Silent Generation, and the Boomers--- are also the least likely to tolerate the gender related changes mentioned at the beginning of this article. So, it appears that we've reached a crossroad, or perhaps impasse among the six generations. The question, therefore, is whether we can cross this divide together or will it fundamentally divide us as we make this generational transition.

Although historically, the first two are the ones most associated with race inequality, they've done remarkably well in adapting, especially given that their great grandparents with the Civil War generation while their great grandchildren are likely to be of mixed race.  They also have had well over half a century of unprecedented social change to get use to.

While the Greatest Generation and the Silents laid the foundation, the Boomers were largely at the forefront in bringing those changes about. Everything from the Civil Rights Movement to the anti-war movement, the women's rights ("women's liberation"), gay rights, and other social movements such as the largely Hispanic led United Farm Worker marches, the environmental movement, Labor activism, the Grey Panther protests, and the Native American "Red Power" movement, did much to bring about not just fundamental social change in this country, but forced us to come to terms with our past and present.  

These movements led to a greater sense of tolerance and cooperation among diverse groups which otherwise would have had little to do with each other. it showed that we could work together to bring about real change. It forced a lethargic Congress to act.  But just how far should change go? Is there a limit to tolerance? As suggested in the beginning, how do you respond to someone insisting there are 72 genders or that they need to be personally address as "em" or some other nearly unintelligible word? 

The use of the term "offended" is often bandied about by Millennials, Gen Z and the Alphas. It seems like anything they disagree with, from a word, an item, an expression to political speech, is labeled as "offensive", requiring an immediate retreat to a "safe space", often free from whites, straights and especially while males,  who all are caustically categorized as "the oppressor class" with the same degree of distain that the Nazis had for the Jews in the 1930's, before the boxcars, the camps, and the ovens. Talk about being "cancelled". Even a glance can be labeled as a "micro-aggression".

Individuals attending Christian oriented schools now demand Christian symbolism be removed as being "offensive" as they cruise through school of a scholarship provided by the same school. They've even employed "Diversity Officers" to enforce compliance. I have to wonder if "papers" will soon be required from all of us.

Today, anyone who self-identifies as a female is supposed to be granted unfettered access to a biological woman's locker room or restroom. They are permitted to play in women's sports, despite inherent and unalterable biological differences. Is that fair (or safe) for natural women? Do we need to make provisions for those who self-identify as trees or cats?  How far are we to go in validating the fantasies of others? Aren't we doing more harm by reaffirming these delusions?

Their "revolutionary" predecessors of the '60's and 70's promoted free speech and expression. The current generations seek to silence those they disagree with "by any means necessary". They block traffic, loot, arson, shoplift enmasse, vandalize, loot, rudely interrupt people  attempting to peaceful dine out or blocking access to restrooms, and then claim their acts are peaceful. They claim to oppose fascism while adopting fascist behavior. They decry "cultural appropriation" instead of understanding it as cultural appreciation while committing the same imaginary crime. 

These same groups speak of diversity while rejecting it (hint: diversity is not ordering a taco at Taco Bell). They freely accuse others of prejudice while not seeing it in themselves. Racism isn't a one way street. It goes both ways. A few claim to demand "justice" for an injustice not done to them and which has long since been paid with interest. The real reason for their failures can usually found in the mirror.

One can be proud of their ancestry and culture while respecting, or even admiring the same of others. Their youthful eyes are yet willfully blind to the brutal truth that all Mankind is equally guilty of the same crimes. The only salvation of our species is our universal acceptance and forgiveness of our collective past transgressions. Such is inheritance of the noble ape.  

Today's would be revolutionaries lack the focus of Chavez's UFW or dedication of Drs. King and Abernathy's "Freedom Marches" which made their point without breaking a single pane of glass (though the same can't be said of their opponents). They certainly lack the bravery of the "Freedom Riders" who didn't commit one act of arson or vandalism although they endured it. The greatest acts of defiance were sitting in a bus seat and lunch counter or boycotting public transportation without impeding anyone else. They know tactics but lack organization. They have passion but not the compassion.

Of these wannabe anarchists, self-imposed outcasts, and social media rebels, I don't doubt they're totally committed to the shock value of their actions, be it outrageously dyed hair, body piercings that look like they were done by an "Iron Lady", being inked from head to toe while accusing others of crimes that belong to the past, opposing fascism with fascism, or self-identifying as a cat, have somehow missed the point.

They've failed to understand that there's nothing new under the sun, nor does the child inherit the sins of the parent. Change comes slowly, and only through planning and dedication. It happens by bringing people together, not driving them apart.  But perhaps it's merely the pride and arrogance of youth which they've mistaken for wisdom as has every generation before them and all those yet to come. 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

The Surge of Young Americans from Minority - White Mixed Families & Its Significance for the Future

 Earth Day 1970 was than a protest. It built a movement

United Farm Workers History

 

  

 

 

Resistance is NOT Futile: Defeating Social and Political Conformity

Conformity is the byword of any system whose intent is control of the masses. Your opinion or enthusiasm is of no particular interest to them, so long as they have your compliance and cooperation. In fact, no matter how powerful a system tries to project itself, ultimately it's power rests on your willingness to go along with the objectives of the system.

Of course, your compliance can be free given or it can be coerced as was the case under Chile's Augusto Pinochet or Spain's Franco on the Right or Mao in China and Kim Jung Un in North Korea on the Left. Conformity can encompass everything from similar thoughts to mirroring the "great leader" or dominant group, which can be a simple majority or an assertive minority.  In most instances, however, it is conformity of thought and obedience which counts the most.

We humans are hardwired to follow the herd, at least to a certain point. By working together, we are able to achieve a great deal. Our earliest ancestors tended to conform to functioning in a certain pattern of behavior when it came to planting crops, hunting in groups, building communities, and organizing armies, systems of government, and religion. Privately, they may have thought the chief or high priest was nuts, but they weren't about to say that out loud! Such sentiment could get you ostracized (which could be a virtual death sentence) to imprisoned.

Today, we tend to follow the herd, be it in a work environment or publically. Schools teach us not just how to get along, but also how to go along.  Adopting a "school spirit" teaches us to embrace a sense of loyalty for our "tribe". Non-conformists tend to get called out and/or punished.  We can still stand out and express our freedom of expression, but only within certain guidelines and venues.

In the military, individuality is frowned on. You're taught to act in a regulated and well ordered fashion. You are conditioned to accept orders without question. Obviously in the heat and fog of war, second guessing decisions can...and will...get people killed or maimed. You speak in a particular manner, which includes its own unique phrases and uses its own symbols to establish a well defined hierarchy.

A not dissimilar type of social grooming carries through to the business world as well. You follow the instructions of your boss, obviously within specific guidelines which have been established in part by the federal government, which also applies to your employer. Society too has its guidelines known as laws which are enforced by our legal system and is enforced by specially designated public employees. Those who fail to obey those guidelines can face punishment ranging from verbal reprimands to fines to being denied their freedom.

Our society runs on conformity. From our birth to our death we are conditioned to think and act a certain way. In politics, a Status Quo tends to rise to the top and jell over time.  Paradoxically, that creates a certain comfort and chaos. The comfort arises from the knowledge of knowing what to expect. The chaos results from the staleness as change or improvements become harder and more difficult to create. Society fails to remain current with technology and science.

What is now possible, thanks to advances in technology for instance may not make allowances morally. Just because we can to something doesn't mean we should do it, especially on a wide scale.  For example, in most cases we can keep a human being alive practically indefinitely thanks to advances in technology and chemistry, but morally should we? What about their quality of life or cognitive functions short term and long term?

But let's reverse that. Just because some ancient script deemed sacred by our ancestors centuries ago instructs one gender to dress or act in a certain way be adhered to in the present where it's a hindrance or doesn't reflect the norms of the current time? Maybe eating certain foods 2000 years ago were rightly prohibited because without proper refrigeration, preservatives and processing, it could make you extremely sick or  possibly kill you. Today we that's all changed. We can preserve food for days, weeks or longer thanks to changes in technology, including  the ability to safely transport them over long distances before they spoil, which required someone to challenge the prevailing mindset.

Once upon a time it was believed that there was no need to educate females. Education took time and was expensive. Besides, a woman's sole role was pretty much limited to a few general tasks, of which none require much more than a very basic level of education, or so it was thought. Males, on the other hand were seen as the principal breadwinners. Their level of knowledge extended over much broader areas than that of women. Therefore, not only should their education be capped, but so too should other functions like driving, voting, signing legal documents, or even owning property.

But for most of global society, time didn't stand still thanks to challenges to conformity. People have access to a much wider selection of food. Education is open to all, as well as life choices. Governments recognize that they must serve all members of society, not just a portion and that includes the right to drive, to vote, to hold political office, serve in the military, or be the president of a corporation.

A few repressive societies and religions still exist for which questioning the Status Quo or thinking for yourself is forbidden or an affront to God. Conformity must be maintained, not because it has proven itself better, more effective or because the Divine has certain dietary and dress preferences, but because questioning conformity threatens their power and control. It always comes down to that. Power and control. Assign to us your free will, do as you're told, and everything will be just peachy. 

It reminds me of that famous photograph of August Landmesser, a German dockworker at the Blohm+Voss Shipyards in Nazi Germany. The photo, taken in 1936, shows a sea of German workers giving the nazi salute at the launch of the ship, "Horst Wessel" with Hitler in attendance. Landmesser was polite and respectful, but decided not to join in. 

The reason was that Herr Landmesser had a girlfriend who just so happened to be part Jewish. Under the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, their relationship were prohibited. Landmesser chose love over conformity. 

Landmesser was charged with "dishonoring the race" and sentenced to two and a half years in prison and was then assigned to a military penal unit.  Sometimes resistance to conformity comes at a steep price.  But only we can decide if that price is to high. For our Founding Fathers, just as with Herr Landmesser, it was worth it. 

In U.S. politics (and I suspect politics around the world) we are given the illusion of choice while preserving conformity. We are told that we have choices to pick from, but only two. Should you ask "why?", you're told that no other choices are possible because they fall outside of the guidelines the Status Quo established for itself---not you---to protect its power. Thus you must conform with the "legal choices" presented to you.

Those two "choices" have already been selected and vetted while others who offer us new ideas have been sidelined. The districts have been drawn up by the Status Quo to virtually ensure at least which of the two parties will likely win. The Status Quo knows they'll protect the existing power structure in spite of their rallying cries of "change" or "reform". And should you still have any doubts, the news media will have taken the drudgery of thinking out of the equation for you and selected which candidates you should vote for. All you have to do is follow their recommendations.

Everyone, regardless of age, gender or race, economic class, knows at a certain psychological level that it's all phony. No one is actually going to "stand up" to anyone or anything.  The political apparatus has been engineered to prevent any real change from taking place.   Like the "Borg", your resistance to their conformity is futile, at least that's what they want you to believe.

I recently came across a really interesting video by Academy of Ideas entitled "Why are People so Obedient? - Compliance and Tyranny". I've provided a link below. The video runs just 12:32 and it covers the nature of conformity and includes some simple suggestions on how defeat it at the grassroots level.

I encourage you to take some time to watch it. With the Presidential Election for 2024 starting to gear up, now would be a good time to learn about some of the things you can do.

 

Video: Why are People so Obedient? -Compliance and Tyranny (12:32)

Academy of Ideas

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

Scientists Found An Algorithm To Turn All Of Us Into Sheeple

The Tragic Story Behind One Man's Refusal To Salute the Fuehrer  

Why People Become Sheeple

  

The Non-Alignment Movement: The Key to Global Sustainability and Peace?

Most people know that following the end of World War II and the defeat of Axis Powers in 1945, a schism occurred.  The Western  Allied Powers split from its former partner, Soviet Russia. As former Prime Minister Winston Churchill so eloquently put it, an "iron curtain" fell across Europe, separating the West from the East in more ways than one and marked the beginning of the Cold War which lasted until 1989.

These historically independent countries, "liberated" by Soviet Russian forces from their Axis occupiers, were effectively sealed off from the West. They were deprived of the opportunity to choose a government and economic system based on the will of the people as per the agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences.

A few were permitted to have an "election", however only Communist candidates appeared on the ballot while in some cases votes were counted by pro-Communist officials, appointed by Soviet Russian political officers.  As Stalin famously said, "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how".

Although the four principal powers---France, England, Russia, and the U.S.--- had agreed on free and open elections, Soviet Russian forces quickly proceeded to flush out any nationalist, pro-democratic (including social democratic) or pro-capitalist supporters. All non-Communist newspapers and radio broadcasts were immediately shut down.

In lieu of a free and open democratic expression, Stalinism was imposed on the people. Any even suspected of opposing were arrested. A few were afforded the opportunity to "confess" their guilt through show trials and to have their families and friends publicly denounce them.

Most never went to trial. Instead, they were immediately detailed to the brutal work camps of the Gulag where, despite the length of their sentence, faced a life expectancy of no more than five years. Others were simply murdered. In short, one oppressive occupier merely replaced the other.

However, what many people don't know was that the world didn't fall neatly into two competing ideological camps, Western capitalism on one hand and Communism on the other.  There was a third alternative. It was called the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).  It sought a balancing act between the two great superpowers, the United States and its allies and the USSR and its supporters.

Formed in 1961, the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) was the collective brainchild of Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Yugoslav President Josip Tito, India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah, and Indonesian President Sukamo.

The movement eventually expanded to encompass 120 countries. It represented 58% of the world's population (or about 4.57 billion people) along with 36.1% of the world's habitable areas.  In terms of economic output, its member nations export roughly $4.499 trillion dollars in goods and services.

Among its agreed upon principals was the opposition of colonialism and imperialism, foreign aggression and occupation (militarily or economic), foreign domination, and any form of outside interference by a foreign nation or block of nations. It also opposed any form of apartheid.  Its emphasis would be on mutual cooperation and support. The movement was designed to represent a center path which avoided the Soviet Bloc and Western Bloc.

With the fall of the USSR and end of the Cold War, the movement appeared adrift and without a political purpose.  With only one world "superpower", it considered facing obsolescence like that predicted for NATO.  However, that perception quickly changed as new post-Cold War blocks began to form. China's rapid economic expansion too proved to be powerful alternative to Western hegemony. 

As a result, NAM adapted to the changing political and economic events. While retaining a policy opposing economic and political neo-imperialism and colonialism and supporting peaceful co-existence and mutual co-operation, it expanded beyond trade to include support to improve access to quality education, a reduction in global poverty, opposition to social injustice and gender equality.

For example, all but two countries in Africa (Sudan and Western Sahara) are members of NAM. Nevertheless, half of the countries in Africa's Sub-Sahara have poverty rates of 35% or higher (the international poverty rate is subsisting on less than $1.90 per day). By 2030, half of world's population living in poverty will be in Africa, followed closely by South Asia. As an aside, about 689 million people currently live in extreme poverty with about 3.4 billion living on its edge.

NAM also reiterated its strong opposition to cultural homogenization or the grafting of foreign influence on native symbols, culture, dress, medicine and so forth  while deliberately suppressing native language, values, traditions, or religion.  What does this mean?

A few good examples would be the forced homogenization of a nation hell bent on the self-created myth of "manifest destiny" on the culture and beliefs of native peoples like 19th century America, or the British Empire's attempt to "civilize" India, and the Catholic Church's forced conversion of indigenous populations. Sadly, history is chalk full of other examples.

Operating under the umbrella of the United Nations, NAM  has adopted policies such as self-determination of Puerto Rico and the Western Sahara, democratic reform of the UN's Security Council to make it more transparent and effective, broader expansion of technology to second and third tier nations, restructuring debt and trade agreements, and economic investment in poorer countries.    

Long term sustainability is also another major key goal for NAM members. This includes development of natural resources in a environmentally responsible fashion, as well as the development of sustainable housing, electricity, fresh water, and expanded healthcare. 

Of course there has been criticism, especially from the West (and particularly the United States). Some of criticism pertains to ongoing internal conflicts along ethnic and religious lines and political corruption while some members are in conflict with each other (such as Iran and Iraq or India and Pakistan) in violation of NAM's founding principles. Other criticisms points to a policy of self-interest at the expense of fellow member states and a lack of defined objectives for both the short and long term development of NAM. 

While one of the key principals of the Non-Aligned Movement has been gender equality, it's worth noting that none of its 31 chairmen since its establishment in 1961 has been a woman. Worse still is that several of its members deny even the most basic equality for women such as the right vote, hold public office, drive, own property, hold a job, or obtain an proper education.

Noncompliance with these archaic laws can in some instances result in public beatings or caning, fines, or even stoning. In a few countries, female genital mutation is tolerated (at least unofficially). Much the same can be said for the treatment of homosexuals. Doesn't say much for equality does it?

Lastly, the loudest complaint (which comes primarily from the U.S.) is that the Non-Aligned Movement has been especially harsh toward Western capitalism and yet lenient when it comes to Communism.  Doesn't sound evenhanded does it? But  when you consider that many of NAM chairmen have been Communist or Communist sympathizers, it makes sense that it would affect their credibility. 

Meanwhile, in a few of the member nations, political opposition groups are either restricted or outlawed while freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are curtailed (especially if its criticism of the government). Violators are often fined, tortured, imprisoned, and in some cases "disappeared".

Since these are predominately poorer countries, many feel they've been taken advantage of by the West, and there's likely some truth in this. Western countries have a long history of exploiting weaker nations. It's at the heart of colonialism (however, domestic "colonialism" is also to blame as one tribe or ethic group seeks to exploit a weaker one).  

Today, in the era of growing neo-fascist corporate globalism, we have a new form of colonialism where  governments are openly and covertly bribed (it doesn't sound so insidious if you think of it in terms of "corporate sponsorship"). This usually works since these corporations control not just the political parties, media, and finances of their country, but the domestic and foreign policies of their respective governments. It's all about control of and access to assets and resources.

So, while Neo-Cons on both sides are trying to rekindle a new Cold War, where does the Non-Aligned Movement go from here? Some see the movement as flawed from the beginning. They can't comprehend a non-aligned stance by any nation. Their political imagination is in black and white as if this was some playground game where you have to "pick a side".

It reminds me of America's deepening political abyss where Democrats and Republicans can't comprehend the non-partisan political stance of an Independent. Some will grudgingly "permit" Independents (who are the majority of voters) and third parties types the option of "leaning" Democrat or Republican as if they were closet partisans, which couldn't be further from the truth.  This is especially true of the corporate media and pollsters.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of nations today don't want a new Cold War. They don't want to be forced to align with a kleptocratic and yet fragile Russia, an imperialistic and unstable China, a fractured EU, or a failing American Empire (and they certainly don't want backwards theocratic state)  Many nations are rethinking capitalism as much as they are reconsidering socialism or even Communism in its present form.

Perhaps too it's time to find a whole new system.  One thing is for certain, no one system is right for everyone and that's why globalism will fail. Humanity, for all its technological arrogance, is still tribal, but that's how we're hardwired. We're also too self-serving, both individually and nationally.

Ultimately, we want what's best for us and damn the rest. That's why there are wars. It's also why we still have poverty on a global scale and millions starving in a world where 1.1% of the population controls nearly half of the world's wealth.  The ruling oligarchy may own the oil and gas but the poor have the matches.

The Non-Aligned Movement, for all it's (many) flaws recognizes our tendency towards self-interest and thus conflict. However, despite political and economic ideologies, ethnic and religious divisions, agrees to find ways to accept these differences and try to work together as best as possible.

The era of the one size fits all Pax Americana has ended. Any attempt to put Humpty Dumpty Uncle Sam back together again will fail just as utterly as any attempt to reconstruct Cold War alliances. Meanwhile, the more China attempts to impose its particular flavor of despotism on its neighbors and trading partners, the more it will be rejected in favor of human freedom. That too is part of our nature for we are a rebellious species.

At best we may see a world of loose regionalism and cooperation, but not at the expense of national interests or identity even if it's preservation means it balkanization to save some part of the original. Thus perhaps the Non-Aligned Movement may prove to be the best model to be emulated. 

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Latin America and the New Non-Alignment

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/12/23/latin-america-2022-nonalignment-world-cup-messi-migration/

 

Non-Aligned Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

 

World Data: Member States of the Non-Aligned Movement

https://www.worlddata.info/alliances/non-aligned-movement.php

 

NTI: Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/non-aligned-movement-nam/

 

No cold war, please: How Europeans should engage non-aligned states

https://ecfr.eu/article/no-cold-war-please-how-europeans-should-engage-non-aligned-states/

 

The New Non-Aligned Movement

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/the-new-non-aligned-movement

 

 

 

Red (White and Blue) Baiting

It appears the new tag word these days is "racist". If you don't agree with the official line, you're a racist. If you question what you're being told, then you're a racist.   If you're white (or Asian for that matter) and haven't publicly acknowledged and apologized your racial "privilege", then you're not just a racist, but one who supports a hidden racist system which has held others back while giving you all the breaks.

If you're white or Asian, did well in school, stayed out of trouble, and were generally successful in life, it was because of your racist privilege within a systematically racist system. Your success was the result of someone else being held down. It had nothing to do with your hard work in school or getting a job.

If you happen to be Hispanic or black, and you worked hard, overcame any of life's obstacles, got a good job (or even better, started your own business), then you betrayed your race. If you studied hard and did well in school, then you're guilty of "acting white". You did all this by adopting the mentality of the "oppressor class" (ie: whites or successful Asians). You were a "Uncle Tom" or whatever. 

 It had nothing to do with your desire to better your life, and by extension, your family's or even your community's. It had nothing to do with your determination, just as it had nothing to do with all those hours spent studying, working part time jobs, and effort to put yourself through college. Therefore, you have a obligation to renounce your success and use your influence and wealth to support those who wish to bring down the inherent racist system of the oppressors which made all your accomplishments possible.

Now, we have athletes refusing to stand for the national anthem. Instead, they turn their back or take a knee (long symbolic of submission). They make a fist and thrust it into the air as a sign of rebellion. We have Olympic hopefuls tell us they aren't interested in going to Tokyo to represent America, but, instead, to represent the all the "oppressed" of this nation because they "overcame" oppression. What has this nation done for them after all except send them to the Olympics?

 It seems to me that the very fact they were willing to put in the work that was required for their sport and now have the opportunity (and financial sponsorship) with the potential of making millions more through endorsements kinda defeats their argument don't you think?

No one is giving these athletes anything but the opportunity to prove themselves, and with effort and dedication, some made it. Yet, some of these sports entertainers (which, in truth, is what they are), who make millions, choose to kneel in disrespect during the playing of the National Anthem or turn their back on the flag and then complain when they are booed. Seems like they're talking out of both sides of their piggy bank. Poor me with all the endorsements, but it gets better.

Now we are starting to see individuals and a few groups like Black Lives Matter, calling for our flag to be changed. They claim that, somehow, the design and colors are "racist" (there's that button they keep pushing again). The flag, they maintain, represents white superiority.  According to the American Legion, the colors were chosen based on heraldic symbolism. The white stands for purity while the red represents hardiness and valor. The blue represents justice.

The 13 stripes stand for the original 13 colonies, while the stars represent each state. Officially, when the flag and its colors were adopted by the Marine Committee of the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia back on July 4, 1776 and adopted in 1777, the colors had no specific meaning. I guess they just liked the way it looked. But, as I said earlier, that's not all.

In addition to changing the flag for (as Coke executives infamously said) being "too white", the same folks want to change the National Anthem for the same reasons. In fact, some sporting venues have started playing "Lift Every Voice", which is the so-called "Black National Anthem" in lieu of the National Anthem. So, we're now expected to stand for this new "anthem" while taking a knee or turning our backs for our official National Anthem?  Not gonna happen as far as I'm concerned.  

There's nothing "racist" about the "Star-Spangled Banner", which was written by Francis Scott Key during the siege of Fort McHenry and the Battle of Baltimore, which was part of the War of 1812. In fact, if you read the lyrics, there's about our willingness to stand and fight for freedom; to defend, what was then a new nation. While the National Anthem is admittedly a difficult song to sing, and that may be reason enough to change it, there isn't anything "racist" about it.

Finally, to make matters worse, we are starting to see attempts to introduce something called "Critical Race Theory" (aka "CRT") which is supposed to replace the current academic curriculum  (which should be changed thanks to years of "dumbing down") and replace it with lessons allegedly designed to allegedly promote diversity, be it racial, religious, or gender, but at the expense of others.

 In short, CRT, which began as a academic theory about 40 years ago, claims that race and racism is part of an implied social contract which is biased towards whites (and Christians), and thus shapes not just the academics (especially in grades K-12), but also shapes the public's perception and conversation. As a result, non-whites are left out of the discussion.

The problem with CRT is that its sole purpose appears to be creating a false or distorted image of whites, society and, ultimately, the nation. However, this nation was created with the help of people from nearly every race, creed, religion, and gender on this planet. The building of America was, in the truest sense, a collaborative undertaking, and it still is.  We are still growing and evolving as a nation and society. That's something CRT and those who promote it fail to take into account.

Balance in academia, as in everything, is important. CRT does not offer balance. It lays out the same type of foundation that the Nazis and other authoritarian systems created in order to persecute a segment of the population. It reinforces the same mentality which alleges  "white superiority" and demands the need for whites to publicly acknowledge their "white guilt". And while you're at it, go ahead and denounce everything America has ever done and stood for. Being anti-American seems to be popular these days. 

There is no "white guilt" to acknowledge, just as there is no "white superiority". Each individual needs to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.  Slavery ended close to 200 years ago. Although Jim Crow laws (where they existed) ended in 1964, people of color managed to succeed before then, and they more than succeed nowadays. Look at any industry as proof.

The only racism I've seen of late has come from those accusing others of being racist. We see it in their message and by their actions, including defacing and destroying historical statues. Unfortunately, this form of racism also happens in schools as mentioned above, in the workplace, and now in politics. The media promotes it, albeit subtlety, and so do some churches or other organizations in high minority neighborhoods.

But that doesn't excuse the Tamir Rice or Andre Hill's of America. Their deaths (and those like them) are totally inexcusable. However, it wasn't racism which was at fault. It was poor policing skills and perhaps even incompetence. The same could be said of George Floyd. He was no saint and certainly not someone deserving a statue or mural, but that doesn't excuse his death. Breaona Taylor is in a similar boat. She didn't deserve to die, but she wasn't an innocent bystander either.

Bad behavior has results. Ignoring or not following instructions by a police officer is never a good idea, neither is running from them or thinking you're big and bad enough to take them on. Claims that fearing or refusing to do what an authority figure tells you is not a part of someone's "racial culture". That's an excuse, and a bad one at that.  Teach your children to respect authority figures at least enough to do as they're told. They might have a better outcome and live longer.

When it comes to sexual orientation, I don't think anyone really cares, especially people who are straight. The only ones who seem to have a chip on their shoulder are in the LGBQT community. From those I've spoken with, the only issue straights have is someone trying to make their orientation a big deal and wave it in everyone's face. I doubt anyone really cares. Just do your own thing and leave everyone else alone. 

America doesn't need more division. It needs to acknowledge the worth of each individual based on their actions and contribution to society. By the same token, society doesn't owe you anything because of any other factor than your willingness to work for what you want. Everyone should have the same opportunity, but no one should be guaranteed of the same outcome. There are those who are trying to divide America in as many ways as possible. A divided nation is a nation which is easy to manipulate and control.

Of course, America isn't perfect. We've faced some very serious issues in the past, but for the most part we've overcome most of them by working together. We still have some very serious problems, but many of those problems stem from the very people trying to divide us.  We have more in common than not. Where there are differences, we need to find ways to bridge them. Lastly, we need to restore America's Republic, and that means ending the Corporatocracy created by the Oligarchs. 

 

What is critical race theory?

Now is the time to stop playing the national anthem atsporting events

Macy Gray defends call for new flag: 'I love my country'

 

Making It Respectable To Hate America

Since Trump, hating all things American has become the latest "cause-celeb" . Not even during the turbulent 50's, 60's, and 70's has the hatred of America been so visceral; so palpable. None of this would be possible without the support and encouragement of the media, and that means without the accomplice of the six corporations which own the 96%+ of all media, promulgating their own agendas.  

Today, athletes kneel during the national anthem or otherwise disrespecting the anthem which has filtered down from pro sports to high school and Pop Warner. They, in turn, get upset with fans when we boo and jeer them or boycott the games.  It's not necessarily because we disagree with their politics, but rather for forcing us to indirectly participate in their protest.

Games are played for our enjoyment and paid for with our dollars, which also pays their multi-million dollar salaries. We didn't buy an overpriced tickets or tune in for a political event. We're there to watch a sporting event and to be entertained. That's what sports ultimately are---entertainment. If they want to express themselves politically, do it on their own time, not ours. How about off season?

Actors and athletes spout off their opinions on topics they have little or any real understanding of. Nevertheless, the media treats it as gospel. Millennials and Gen Z often mimic what they see without considering the full effect of an issue. That's what happens when you live in a bubble. It's not to say there aren't a few who actually take the time to research the topic they want to talk about first., but those individuals are rare and far between.

Lately, we've starting hearing form a small group of athletes and mediocre celebrities demanding that the flag and National Anthem be changed because both represent slavery. It takes a pretty misinformed mind to make the leap from the National Anthem, which was written at the Battle of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812, to slavery.  

As for the flag, in what way does it have any connection with slavery? The stars represent the states. The symbol of the star was chosen since it represents the heavens and divine protection. The 13 stripes represent the original 13 colonies. The red symbolizes the bloodshed by those who fought for this country. The white stands for purity and truth, while the blue represents justice.  Maybe they should step out of their echo chambers. Better yet, read a book or take a history class.  

The media calls protests which involve looting, arson, assaults, and wanton destruction of property "peaceful" and "organized" when it done by BLM or Antifa which are  anything but! Meanwhile, they call the protest of the Capitol on January 6th an "insurrection" or "attempted coup" without having the vaguest idea what an insurrection or coup attempt would look like simply because these were individuals on the Right who supported Trump. 

Personalities in Congress, ran away like a bunch of scared mice, only later claiming they were there, willing to "stand and fight" when in reality they were hiding behind locked doors and quivering under their desks like frightened rabbits. Meanwhile, AOC tells the media how afraid she was when, in fact, she was blocks away in a very safe and secure location.

To make matters worse, we're giving individuals who are blatantly racist air time and acting as if this is perfectly acceptable in the name of political correctness. They talk about "systematic white racism" and "white privilege" as if such nonsense actually exists. I'm not aware of any privilege. I've worked my butt off all my life. I paid for college by serving in the military (and ended up a disabled vet for my efforts). I've worked two jobs and made a lot of sacrifices to get where I wanted to be. I can say too,  that my race, and perhaps gender, likely cost me a job.

Everyone I know, regardless of their race or other identifier, put in the effort to get where they are in life. Now, perhaps, there are those at the upper tier of the economic spectrum getting some sort of systematic privilege, but I doubt it's because of their race and has more to do with good old fashion cronyism and class privilege., not to mention writing the laws which benefit them and those like them.

I don't hear anyone discussing how other groups, be it Hispanics or Asians, who've come to America, often with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, unfamiliar with the language, customs, or culture, and within a few years are relatively successful. 

Why is that? Is it because culturally they put a premium on education? Is it because of their work ethic; that they'll take any job and put in the hours? Is it because, for them, being on the public dole is seen as a social stigma? That's what most of our ancestors who came here did.  Instead, I hear about "repartitions" based on what happened to someone else almost two hundred years ago. 

What if there was some sort of financial reparations and if fails as did the "War on Poverty" of the 1960's? Then what? Who will be blamed? Without a strong desire to succeed, which first requires an educational foundation and a strong work ethic, few, if any, will see their economic standing substantially improve. Hope without effort will only lead to failure, and ultimately to despair and anger. 

To make matters scarier, some are now calling whites "parasites", a "disease" equivalent with a plague which automatically discriminates against non-whites, or an infestation which needs to be eliminated.  In addition, they are "demanding" that assets, like houses, cars, property, etc  be turned over to waiting black families when they die. These are the same terms that the Nazis used in talking about the Jews, and we all know how that turned out! They are also reflective of what's happened in places like South Africa or Zimbabwe. This is not the America anyone should want. 

Now, let's be honest for a moment.  Much of what I'm saying is what most of you wish you could say. I know it. You know it. So, why am I saying it? The answer is because we need an honest and open national conversation not just about race, gender, or social class, but what is expected of us as a society.

Although the intentions were good, I think America lost track of what it was all about starting in the 1960's, when we created legislation designed to lift the poorest among us out of poverty but instead broke up families; forcing males away from the families they created. We encouraged individuals not to work by providing them with more incentives to remain on public handouts than to work. In effect, we removed many of the opportunities they had to move up the social ladder.

As a society, we allowed a subculture to develop out of this which discouraged education; where "being smart" was the equivalent of "acting white"  which often resulted in ridicule, being ostracized, or assaulted.  This same sub-culture also gave them an economic way out--through drugs and crime where, in the worst case scenario, they would go to prison where, again, the system would take care of them, not to mention living off the social safety net which was intended to be temporary.

 While we need a social safety net, it must be aimed at providing a helping hand up, not becoming a lifestyle choice. Education is the key to success, but so is a stable family unit. That means legislation which promotes rebuilding the family unit; to make it economically worthwhile to remain together. It doesn't take a village. It takes a mom and dad committed to making it work and raising their kids right.

We need to stop giving these so-called celebrities and athletes more credit than their due. Hollywood is a fantasy land. They make a living playing make believe. I'm sure some are actually intelligent and informed; some, but far from all. They also live in world where they are paid millions. Very few would be willing to practice what they preach to the rest of us.  The same argument can be made for athletes.

Both groups can have a greater impact by giving some of their millions to specific charities as well as doing commercials or special appearances...but on their own time, not ours. Movies, TV, music, and even sports are entertainment businesses. We are there to be entertained, not lectured, especially on our own dollar.

There is nothing wrong with any media or organization catering to a specific group. It's called marketing. However, to tell one group that not only can they not do the same thing, but that they have to "share" with other groups who are afforded exclusivity is wrong. If there's a Miss Asian America, a Miss Native America, Miss Black America, or a Miss Latina (and there are), plus an all inclusive Miss America, but not a Miss European America, isn't that too discrimination? Then again, why should we have a "beauty" pageant at all? Isn't that a form of sexual exploitation? 

If there are magazines like Jet or Ebony aimed at black readers, then why not all racial or ethnic groups without exception? Same goes with movie and music genres or networks and radio stations. If there can be a BET or Telemundo network, why not a WET? If there can be professional and fraternal associations which cater to one group or another based on race (and there are many), then why are whites excluded? Should groups like these even exist? 

If there are scholarships or grants based on race or other demographics, then why not all races and demographics? For that matter, maybe scholarships and grants should be exclusively based on need and academic performance.  The same applies to academic majors.Why are there Hispanic, African, Feminist, and gay majors but not a European/white major? There aren't any professional or civic associations based on my race or orientation, yet there are such associations dedicated exclusively to other groups. Personally, I would eliminate most of these qualifications across the board, but that's not "PC". In fact, none of this is. 

If there is Black Heritage Month (February), Asian Pacific Heritage Month (May), Hispanic Heritage Month (Sept 15--Oct 15), an Arab American Heritage Month (April), or Gay Pride Month (June), why isn't there a European Heritage Month? Or Traditional American Family Month? If you allow for one, shouldn't you allow for all? Isn't that what we mean when we say "equality"?

As an aside, white males are an official minority in this country according to the Census Bureau. Within the next ten years, America will no longer have a majority race society. It will be virtually equal between Hispanics and whites followed by blacks and Asians (Asians will outpace blacks in some areas and may, within the next 25 years, surpass them altogether). So, if we're going for equality under the law, then it has to apply to everyone, not just one group or another even if one is no longer a majority.

The crux of our racial and other manufactured problems, as I see it, are this. We've permitted ourselves (perhaps unwittingly) to be divided, be it racially, class, gender, religious, political, or sexual orientation. We've allowed government to take away our self-respect and responsibility for our own successes or failures---"You didn't build that" (Obama). That has created universal resentment; a sense of "us vs. them" mentality. 

That will ultimately create a balkanized America, which, for the Oligarchs now in control, will make it that much easier to dominate and manipulate us until we're nothing but puppets. We must stop defining ourselves as hyphenated Americans and simply as Americans. A slight against one America should be a slight against all Americans. 

We cannot and must not pigeonhole ourselves based on all these artificial divisions which are tearing this nation apart. Meanwhile, though it may sound cliché, the Golden Rule---"so unto others as you would have them do unto you"---is still a pretty good guide to living together don't you think?

Kneeling during the anthem? Americans opinions have shiftedover the years, polls show

Zimbabwe's white farmers: Who will pay compensation?

The growing fight in South Africa over land and identity

Zimbabwe asks exiled white farmers to return home meets withskepticism