April 18, 2021 - Robin DiAngelo – university diversity lecture
Recently I had the privilege of attending a seminar on diversity and racism, presented by Robin DiAngelo herself. The opportunity came via an invite from my alumni association, for which I am grateful.
DiAngelo is not the typical anti-racism advocate that travels about lecturing whites on their privilege or decrying every little alleged micro-aggression or instance of police brutality, she is the reigning high-priestess of anti-white advocacy. Though she stands on the shoulders of anti-white giants, most of whom are Jewish, DiAngelo has managed to enchant her audience and cast a wide net with her Kabbalist spell.
The seminar was not what I had expected in some ways, but exactly as expected in others. Opening statements were made by a university president and a provost who assured us that we would not be "doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past," referring to public policies such as the common practice of racially restrictive housing covenants, school segregation, allowing businesses and organizations the basic Constitutional right of freedom of association, and so on. Both university officials went to great lengths to assure the audience knew DiAngelo's book, White Fragility, spent 85 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list. Perhaps at one point a book being on the NYT list meant something, but much like Nobel prizes and Ivy league admissions, the list is a political and social tool, access is granted through nepotism and bribery, not merit. It was an excessive bemoaning that was odd even for academia. It seemed that this indicated to the presenters that there is a changing tide in the USA, they were very excited to live in an era where a book about how awful whites are as a people (while simultaneously denying whites are a people at all), and due to their alleged crimes, both historic and contemporarily, they must give up their remaining power and privilege in society and their lives, to non-whites.
I was a bit surprised at how openly and freely the opening presenters spoke about race and their vision for the country. They had no hesitation in saying things like non-whites should have no debt upon graduation and they would work towards this goal, or that there should be more non-white professors on tenure tracts. They spoke with zero fear of any pushback coming from any direction. There was a certain duplicity to the messages, they would talk of "challenging the system" and of "white supremacy," while openly advocating for the displacements of whites, trusting they would have no opposition in the process.
In ways the presentation and lecture from DiAngelo were shallow and vapid, her reciting trite platitudes we've all heard incessantly as if they were somehow original or groundbreaking concepts. Then she would surprise me with something so radical I would sit there wide-eyed and thunderstruck.
DiAngelo started her lecture by saying "I'm white" and "my fellow whites, we need to challenge this system" within the first 15 seconds of speaking. All right, you have my attention.
The tone of the lecture was set by asserting everything is too white to the mostly white, college-educated, liberal audience. She presented slides and commentary to the effect that Congress, sports team owners, interns in the White House, the media, academia, and business leadership, every aspect of society is too white, according to DiAngelo.
White?
When speaking about the media, Television, films, books, and music, DiAngelo said, and I fully agree with her that, "those who write and direct films are our cultural authors, shape how we see ourselves, and others." She then presented a slide at which I struggled to not laugh out loud at the absurdity. According to DiAngelo, the group that owns the media, including the news, Hollywood, music industry, book publishing, and the owners of professional sports teams, are "white" men. I will not spend time belaboring this point or doing much more than a quick, back-of-envelope calculation and brief search. According to the Atlanta Jewish Times, at least 10 of the 32 professional football teams are owned by Jews.[1]
From The Forward, “There are only three Jewish players in the NBA, and no Jewish head coaches. Yet nearly half the principal owners of NBA teams are Jewish, as are the league’s current commissioner and its immediate past commissioner.”[2]
The major news agencies, film production studios, and major music labels, which DiAngelo claimed are owned by "whites", are nearly all Jewish, from the LA Times; How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.[3]
The three major record labels are Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music, the CEO of Universal is Lucian Grainge, Jewish, the Chairman of Warner, the one running the company, is Michael Lynton, the Vice-Chairman is Len BLavatnik, both Jewish. Rob Stringer, the CEO of Sony Music is Welsh.
From the quick search and quicker math, it appears that from NFL ownership to the heads of Hollywood studios range from 30%-90% Jewish representation.
DiAngelo went on to mention that the majority of NBA and NFL players were not white, 70% or more are black, while the team ownership was not majority black, asserting that ownership should match player representation. I was initially taken aback by the blind hypocrisy and obvious internal contradiction – how could a person explain that the professional athletes, making millions of dollars per year in a system of "white supremacy", deserve to be in that position due to hard work and talent and being the supposed best at what they do, yet claim that ownership of the teams is somehow unfair? And if the ownership of the teams is disproportionately Jewish, not white, does that mean the Jews are benefiting from white privilege and should give up the team ownership?
Then I realized later I was interpreting what DiAngelo was communicating all wrong. She was not making an argument that the talented or gifted or best should have the elite and privileged positions in society, that was never a consideration. DiAngelo is simply making an argument about power, which is that she believes whites have the power in society, and it should go to non-whites. That's it. There is no other underlying philosophy to her work beyond a naked power grab. The rest, all that is built on top of this foundation of wanting power to be stripped from whites is merely a way to achieve that aim.
What these slides displayed to me was that Jews are the ones who control an inordinate amount of power and wealth in society and control the media, as she alleged whites do. If Jews are white, then taking power and privilege and resources from whites also means talking from Jews, and if that was her position, antisemitism would be declared and her racket would dry up overnight. So her position thus must be to attribute Jewish wealth and success to whites alone, contend that whites must have their comfort and wealth removed, while Jews can retain theirs. In effect, the Jews would still be at the top, whites who are actually not in such a level of power as claimed, would see their material standings in society decline further, while the resources are transferred to Jews and non-whites.
In the middle section of the presentation, DiAngelo spoke to an audience of nearly 1,800, one of the largest in years of these diversity lectures, about "anti-blackness", a term I found to be an interesting deviation from the typical language of “bias” and "racism.” DiAngelo explained that while "racism" is something we all participate in, even if we disagree with it, anti-blackness goes a bit further and has a history of violence. She presented a slide listing all of the alleged crimes against blacks at the hands of whites, and remarked that it was "legal to murder black people in this country," a statement so absurd it’s not worth addressing, and hauntingly, "blacks have not been in a position to do this to whites..." while the slide was displayed. Really? They never do any of these things?
Next DiAngelo brings up the topic of racial socialization to exhibit how whites were "conditioned" to be racist from childhood, obviously ignoring all of the hard data about in-group racial preferences, even among infants.
She asked the audience to recall if their parents talked about "good and bad" schools and what that meant to them, as well as what anti-racism training they had in primary school. She went on, telling whites that if their wedding album was all white, they were comfortable with racism, the concept of wedding photos being too white came up several times, making others visibly uncomfortable. DiAngelo can make even the most woke-liberal feel guilty for being too white, to scowl at the thought that their "racist" parents wanted them in a "good school." Some of this I can agree on, if “racism” is defined as a system that separates races, a white person, even a devout liberal, comfortable in an all-white environment, is on some level in agreement with people like us.
Concluding her lecture, I was able to look through the window into the mind of a radical anti-white agitator with her mask was off, she felt safe here. DiAngelo noted that the majority of white people have no close friends that are non-white, and then proclaimed "a segregated life is not a valuable life." There are several ways one can interpret this.
DiAngelo continued to call herself white as if to convince those who might begin to question this person with curly hair, a protruding witch-like chin, horn-rimmed glasses, and hooked-nose might be something other.
"I'm going to expose us, I'm going to break with white solidarity," she said proudly with an insidious grin. I was again thunderstruck.
DiAngelo remarked that even "anti-racist" whites are very comfortable in a racist society, and that "we are not entitled to comfort and whites must become uncomfortable to progress." The slide of the alleged crimes against blacks rushed into my mind once again - rape, murder, slavery, employment discrimination, biased laws, mob violence… DiAngelo is suggesting that this is what may be in store for us, in our well-deserved future. A future that a white person is not entitled to any level of comfort in a nation their ancestors forged from nothing. It was then I realized that DiAngelo was not merely some anti-racist sociologist that is riding a wave of anti-white hatred, but something far more. DiAngelo is the high-priestess, the person responsible for getting elite whites in high positions in society to give up what is theirs, to hand it over to a racial out-group that has been told for generations they have been humiliated, abused, and extorted by whites, and that they should take what is "rightfully" theirs.
DiAngelo's presentation concluded, a university president, the host of the event thanked her, explained that as jobs are leaving the state en masse once again, we should not fear, but learn to "become citizens of the world" instead of trying to create jobs here or to prevent them from leaving.
The president then asked several curated audience questions to DiAngelo. One question was along the lines of "how can we make this university more anti-racist?" DiAngelo pitched her services of weekly one-on-one coaching with university top-brass, where she will spend an hour with them each week coaching them on what actions to take to turn the university against whites even more while making herself obscenely wealthy. Good gig, if you can get it.
Another question asked about how to engage others with these ideas who might not be so open to "giving up their privilege and comfort in society." The reply provided another window into the mind of a radical anti-white, in essence, it does not matter if a person does not accept this message, it is coming whether they want it or not, whether they discuss the issues or not, whether they are an ally to non-whites or not.
My overall takeaway and message from DiAngelo was “allow yourself to be ruled by those hostile to your interests, learn to deal with it, learn to like it, or you’re a bad person.” These are dangerous people with bad intentions.
An integral part of the parasitic strategy of both those above and below us is to guilt us in to handing over everything to them without much of a struggle. They do not have the moxie to take things form us the old way, so they will spend careers, lifetimes, an obscene sums of money to convince us to lay down and die. To let them replace us entirely, to not even consider becoming an elite in society, while they suck up all of the resources like a tick on an exsanguinated host.
Our goal is a simple one – replace all of them before they replace us, become our own elite once more, and hold firm to everything that is ours. This war is unconventional, but it is war all the same. I hope to see Ms. DiAngelo again. Perhaps next time she will be in the audience, I’d be happy to take any of her questions.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through this website. Continue to use this website as normal if you agree to the use of cookies. View our Privacy Policy for the details. By choosing "I Accept", you consent to our use of cookies.
Log in
Great essay. The ending is haunting. And hopeful.
Wonderful essay! Well done!