The oppression Olympics – follow the money

Intersectionality has become a woke mantra for the oppression Olympics

As a society we cannot look anywhere without someone or some group claiming some type of victimization. Words like “marginalized”, “oppressor” and “racialized” have become part of the verbal tool-kit of the race and gender hustlers who, make no mistake, aim to profit from weaving, at best an exaggerated story and at worse a largely fabricated narrative.

There are far too many examples of this disingenuous story-telling on which to shine a light so I will just select three to examine. Buckle up, this may get bumpy.

FREE -FREE PALESTINE! (from Hamas?)

Ever since the October 7 attack by a group of Hamas-led terrorists I have had a desire to take in information from both sides to create an informed opinion. Forming an opinion is quite easy. You seek out a diversity of opinions on a subject and determine the credibility of not only the material but the source. What I have found on one side is a subset of that dogmatic toolkit of words I mentioned in the opening.

Me and my friends often played drinking games (shh, don’t tell my kids) where we would be forced to take a drink every time we heard a word. I do not suggest you do any version of this game with the words “genocide” or “occupier” or “settler colonialism” or “apartheid state” as the triggers to take a drink when you watch any interview featuring a pro-Hamas… oops, I mean pro-Palestinian speaker. I promise, should you play this drinking game, you will be face first on the floor after a few sentences from the person speaking in support of the Palestinians.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have sympathy for the innocent Palestinians caught in the literal cross-fire of the current conflict between Hamas and Israel (note, I do take issue with the portrayal by the media and politicians of women and children as “innocents”. The assumption from this is that NO women and NO children have/are participating in terrorist activities. That is just patently not true and is designed to play on the emotions of the public.). However, unlike the group of students at Harvard who signed a letter, before the bodies of Israelis (many of whom were civilians) slaughtered on October 7 had even been counted, laying FULL responsibility on Israel – I have critical thought on my side. Turning Israel into the demon in the October 7 massacre, while seemingly justifying the actions of the attackers is in a word… absurd. There is absolutely no justification for the barbarism that occurred on October 7 in Israel. Full stop.

Further to the discussion of the oppression of the Palestinian people in Gaza, who really is oppressing them? Since 2005 when the Israeli government unilaterally exited from Gaza the real oppression of the citizens of that tiny strip of land truly began. You see, Hamas who were elected to govern Gaza in a free election in 2006 have done nothing to improve the life of Gazans. Unless you believe that somehow building a network of terror tunnels beneath Gaza or launching rockets into Israel somehow has improved the life of the average person living in Gaza.

Hamas, which ironically was founded not as a  radical Islamic terrorist group but as a humanitarian aid organization, has done nothing but make life unbearable for the people who put them in power. International aid and support poured into the region after 2006 and most of that has been used not to build infrastructure to support the possibility and hope of a new Palestinian state but rather to fund a truly genocidal goal – the eradication of Israel.

There has been much discussion of Israel’s “blockade” (take a drink) of Gaza by those on the pro-Palestinian side, especially but not exclusively on university campuses. Do some of these useful idiots who masquerade as intelligent students not realize that prior to October 7 thousands of Gazans travelled freely to Israel for work? Do they also not know that one of the border entry points into Gaza, the one at the southern city of Rafah, is controlled by Egypt and NOT Israel? Have none of these people heard of Google?

The leaders of Hamas have profited immensely from the oppression narrative. Many of these individuals are not in the devastated Gaza strip wondering when the fighting will stop but rather they are living in the lap of luxury in Qatar. Remember, follow the money.

I do believe that Palestinians living in Gaza have been oppressed. The question is who is the oppressor? For me (and many rational people) the answer is obvious… Hamas.

D.E.I. (Division – Exclusion – Indoctrination)

OK, I cannot take credit for coming up with the acronym above but it sure does accurately capture the true meaning of the DEI movement that has swept through our society. Nowhere is DEI actually about “diversity”, nor “equity” nor “inclusion”- no matter what the claims in support of this belief from the race hustlers.

What is “diversity”? To the aforementioned race hustlers of the world diversity can be judged by one shallow characteristic – skin colour. OK, yes disabled or LGBT (I refuse to add the rest of the alphabet to the acronym. Consider it my silent hetero protest against the identity politics madness) are also included as a nod to how they have allegedly been oppressed. Now, if you are a trans/disabled/black woman you are at the top of the oppression spectrum known by progressives as intersectionality and thus are coveted by employers, politicians, media and advertisers.

Here is the problem. None of these traits which make up each person operate in a vacuum. Would Lebron James’ or Barack Obama’s family be more disadvantaged than a poor white family from Appalachia? Would the gay black woman who grew up in an upper middle class family in the Forest Hill  area of Toronto be more oppressed than a poor white straight man living in Winnipeg? According to the logic of the race hustlers the answer is a resounding… yes.

The idea that we cannot look beyond immutable characteristics of individuals such as race and sex to help form a real understanding of how that person is or is not oppressed, seems counter-intuitive. Some of the poorest municipalities in the United States are majority white areas. Also, academics such as Thomas Sowell have pointed out that married black couples have far greater household income on average than single parent white households. These two facts support the truth that disadvantage is not necessarily connected to the colour of a person’s skin. Cultural factors such as an absence of fathers in the household or a generational reliance on welfare are just two factors which should be part of the discussion.

The dogmatic doctrine of DEI has led to companies making it a central factor in hiring. Many employees are required to participate in “anti-racism” training (brainwashing?) which at the core is designed to identify the oppressed class and the oppressor class. Simply put, if you are a white straight male you are by default, a member of the latter group. Those in the group need to “recognize their whiteness” and “check their privilege”.

The so-called oppressed group has been told that they are victims. Everything is always about race. According to leading anti-racism academics like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo racism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink. Absolutely everything that happens in our society can be traced back to race. Any rational person can see how divisive this ideology can be. Labelling anyone as part of the privileged or disadvantaged group before knowing their stories, which have played a part in shaping their lives, removes any nuance to the debate.

Behind this movement is the almighty dollar. I have pointed out before how many billions of dollars are now dedicated to DEI initiatives. Companies have added entire departments dedicated to promoting this divisive doctrine. Post-secondary institutions now have disciplines and departments fully dedicated to pushing this agenda. Courses like Gender Analytics: Gender Equity through Inclusive Design or Human-Centred Design for Inclusive Design offered at the University of Toronto are just some of the now common cult-like DEI offerings at so-called institutions of higher learning.

There is some hope that the identity politics which has taken hold is being challenged and the pendulum will swing back to a place of sanity. Chris Rufo, a conservative pundit, has coined another acronym – EMC (Equality: Merit: Colour-blindness) which is beginning to receive widespread support. This is the concept that these three pillars should be the over-arching consideration for companies and universities when the hire/promote/admit individuals. What a novel concept – the most qualified candidates will get the job/promotion/spot in a program REGARDLESS of their group identity – equality instead of equity.

The US Supreme Court also cast a vote for the EMC side of the debate by striking down the common use of affirmative action admissions at post-secondary institutions. (The irony of affirmative action admission standards is that it disproportionately negatively impacted Asians more than any other group. So much for white privilege) Hopefully, the Supreme Court ruling will help turn off the DEI money faucet.

BLM (Buy -Luxury-Mansions)

Looking back at the events of 2020 I believe that a fire was ignited. Some will say that it was a purposeful fire – like a controlled burn. I maintain that the fire was more like wildfire – devouring everything in its path, an out of control conflagration, one which society is collectively still fighting to get under control.

Some may argue that this actually began in 2017 when the #MeToo movement gained momentum with a some high profile cases. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Matt Lauer were just three celebrities who were exposed as abusers. These A-list celebrities made it easier for women (and in a few cases, men) to come forward with their stories of abuse.

However, if MeToo was the kindling, George Floyd was the gasoline which caused the societal blaze we are still dealing with today. The problem is that, as it is with many causes, there are those who seek to sow false narratives and profit from these narratives. In the case of the tragic events surrounding the death of George Floyd those people have become known in many circles as “race hustlers”.

These race hustlers are comprised of both individuals and groups. At the top of the food chain of these profiteers is one group that was founded over ten years ago but only gained widespread acceptance in the wake of the George Floyd incident. That group is of course Black Lives Matter or BLM for short.

I mentioned these leeches in the previous section on DEI but I did not provide a definition. Let me step back for a moment and explain the meaning “race hustlers”. When you think of a hustler you get an image of a con artist who has one real goal – to separate a “mark” from their money. So a race hustler is simply someone who uses race to profit in an unsavory way.

I remember all the black squares appearing on social media in the wake of George Floyd’s death. I also remember anyone like me who said let’s wait to hear the whole story before we make a conclusion being publicly shamed and ridiculed for not getting in line with the narrative that white police officers were “hunting” young black men on the streets of the United States, and yes even here in Canada. Rationality and critical thinking made me conclude that this narrative was not only false, it was dangerous and divisive.

The black squares on social media paved the way for the race hustlers (the black square and the response to those who resisted to post it reminded me of this scene from a Seinfeld episode). They had been given the legitimacy to push their narrative which led to the majority of the population in many western countries to feel a collective guilt for the death of George Floyd. Guilt often is wielded by some to get the public to open their wallets.

For those of you who go grocery shopping or to the LCBO to grab a bottle of wine, think how often you are greeted by a request for a donation to a variety of charities. It doesn’t stop with the more formal requests inside the store but it often continues with you being greeted by a request from presumably homeless individuals for money as you exit the building. I have learned to numb myself to the feeling of guilt when asked for money regardless if the request comes from a legitimate charity or a less fortunate person because if I didn’t say “no” I might soon become the person looking for help.

The death of George Floyd led to the type of guilt gouging mentioned above multiplied many times over. The difference this time was that the guilt was coupled with judgement for those who didn’t feel right about what was going on around them. The emotion of the events had led people to just throw away their ability to question the legitimate nature of those who seemed to be sowing the seeds of guilt and division. The proverbial fox was in the hen house.

BLM collected, by some calculations, almost $100 million USD in less then one year. Wallets were not just opened, they were emptied. And it wasn’t just guilty individuals, it was corporate guilt as well. Companies, big and small, were falling over each other to give to BLM or other similar charitable organizations.

So what happened to all that money? It went to help at-risk black communities or fund programs designed to improve the lives of those experiencing “systemic racism”, right? Guess again. The money donated has essentially evaporated and the only real beneficiaries seem to be individuals connected with BLM. Don’t believe me, read it for yourself .

I could write multiple posts about the shadiness and outright fraudulent activities of BLM but I don’t want to get mired in the muck of this (Marxist) organization. Let me just say I am glad that I was one of those that kept his wallet firmly closed to this corrupt organization.

All three of the cases briefly outlined above have one cynical thread in common – cash. Remember these sage words of wisdom before you support any initiative – and definitely the three discussed in this piece – “a fool and his money are soon parted”.

One Dad With a Blog

The Power of Words

Readers may find it curious (or maybe some even a tad hypocritical) that I am following up a post in which I essentially said that society needs to grow a thicker collective skin as it relates to offensive language, with an entry that seems to say the opposite. However, I am going to make the case that some words are used to emotionally wreck a person or – in the case of what I am going to explore – an entire group of people.

Anyone who knows me is keenly aware that I love a good debate. That being said, I tend to stay on the sidelines and observe/listen when I believe I may be in over my head on a particular issue. Tell me that Toronto is the centre of the hockey universe and I will give you an exhaustive list of why it is Montreal. Ask me my opinion of the plight of the indigenous people of Australia and I will likely sit silent and listen so that I can at least have a rudimentary understanding of the situation.

When a group of Hamas terrorists (yes, I can use that term as most western governments have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization) entered Israel on October 7 of last year with the expressed purpose of murdering, raping and kidnapping Israelis, I took notice. I knew a little about the decades-long conflict but not enough to be more than a casual and concerned citizen.

I decided in this world where information is available at our fingertips that I wanted to delve into the history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I sought information from both sides of the political fence. I think this is always important in order to form a fulsome view of any topic. Reading/watching material from academics/authors/pundits who only validate your position will simply just create information silos.

I still do believe that facts, and not feelings, should be the sole factor in determining one’s position on any subject. The problem in today’s world is that feelings/emotions seem to drive the narrative on many issues – including the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The narratives surrounding the most recent conflict are where facts and emotions diverge and when we can truly see the power of words.

For the sake of this discussion I am only going to make reference to terms and words that are being widely used by the pro-Palestinian supporters in the public and media. I am not going to get into an historical analysis (although, those trying to deny that Jews are indigenous to the area in dispute is worth a simple word in response to the claim… ridiculous.) of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What I would like to demonstrate is not only how inaccurate the use of these words/terms is but also how offensive and inflammatory they are to anyone of Jewish descent. I am going to go through these words in a clinical way and compare how they are being widely used to the literal meaning of each.

Concentration camp

This term has been become largely synonymous with the Nazis during World War II. According to jewishvirtuallibrary.org the Third Reich opened its first concentration camp in 1933 when it began operation of 110 camps. Research shows that between 1933 and 1945 the Nazi regime established approximately 42,500 camps. These camps operated under various mandates. According to the above referenced site “These camps were used for a range of purposes including: forced-labor camps, transit camps which served as temporary way stations, and extermination camps, built primarily or exclusively for mass murder.

The term “concentration camp” has been co-opted and the meaning twisted (and I would argue sanitized) by pro-Palestinians to elicit an emotional response and create sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. The problem is that anyone who is probably over the age of 50 is only one generation removed from descendants who have real knowledge of what constitutes a concentration camp. The images of emaciated bodies of Jewish prisoners, the piles of shoes and belongings of individuals at camps who were rounded up like cattle before being shipped to camps, where many would not survive, were indelible images some of us will never forget. With all due respect to the situation in Gaza – what is happening there does not come close to what we historically recognize as a concentration camp.

Genocide

According to my research, the first known use of the word genocide can be traced back to the Holocaust. The origin of the word was created by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959). He coined the word to describe the systematic eradication of the European Jews by the Nazis. The term has become internationally recognized and has a specific list of requirements that need to be met in order for the term to be accurately applied. The following link What is genocide? gives the full list and provides some context for the word and its proper use. Without getting in to too much depth, the Israeli offensive in Gaza does not come close to meeting the internationally recognized requirements to be defined as a “genocide”.

Ethnic cleansing

We constantly are hearing pundits, academics, politicians and members of the media use this word to describe the events in Gaza following the October 7 massacre perpetrated by Hamas militants in Israel. The irony of the use of this phrase by the pro-Palestinian side should not be lost on the rest of us. The fact that in the wake of the October attack that leaders of Hamas said their goal was to carry out these type of murderous acts “again and again and again…” could be taken as a clear desire to carry out an “ethnic cleansing” of the Jewish population in Israel.

So what does “ethnic cleansing” mean? First, we must point out that according to the United Nations the term is not recognized as a crime under international law. Also from the UN, I discovered the origin of the use of the term – “The term surfaced in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the former Yugoslavia and is considered to come from a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian expression “etničko čišćenje”. ” (For more context please click this link ethnic cleansing meaning and origin).

In the wake of the war in Yugoslavia in the early 90s, the UN made an attempt to define ethnic cleansing. The UN created a Commission of Experts who concluded “that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

What is not entirely clear is how many of these items from the exhaustive list created by the UN Commission of Experts must be present to define an act of ethnic cleansing? Clearly, it is somewhere north of one or most nations on the planet would be guilty of ethnic cleansing at some point in their history. Yes, Israel has engaged in some of the acts listed but then again so to has Hamas. The term ethnic cleansing, with no clear definitive measures, is a relatively useless and ambiguous term. Anyone who uses it will likely be unable to define it in any substantive way and therefore using it is part of a performative literary dance designed to illicit sympathy, in this specific case, for the Palestinians in Gaza.

Conclusion

Words without proper context and meaning are often used specifically in a rhetorical sense. Just because someone who seems intelligent (Dr. Norman Finkelstein comes to mind) uses words like “genocide” or “concentration camp” or “ethnic cleansing” does not mean they are utilizing the words correctly or dare I say “intelligently”.

Further, it is my opinion that using these words is done with a specific purpose in the context of the Israel-Palestinian dynamic. Think about the three terms I referenced in this post. What do they all have in common? They all can be understood intimately by Jews around the world who are well aware what the meaning of a “genocide” or “concentration camp” is because their people lived through (and so many died during) the Holocaust.

I would ask anyone who uses these terms (or accepts them as truths) in the latest chapter of the Israel-Gaza conflict to look up the definition of another term that has become popular lately – “gaslighting”. That is precisely what you are doing to Jewish people.

One Dad With a Blog