Topics

Racial greetings brothers and sisters and RaHoWa!

After a break from the computer spurned by the loss of my beloved German Shepherd among other personal misfortunes I have decided to return to the Internet.

The past few months I have been in a deep state of depression and sadly resumed some of my former bad habits but after some personal reflection I have returned to my daily studies of the Holy books, the Creative lifestyle, and Salubrious living.

I must say that it is great to see so many active new members and I look forward to meeting and talking with you all once again.

Although I am still not ready to enter the public scene as a Creator I will do what I can from the side lines to help our great religion and people move forward towards a Whiter and brighter future.

RaHoWa!

Br. Brent

[It's horrifying to imagine kids being "proud to be white."]

There is at least two lines in this article that will make your blood boil. I have underlined them.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/output/print

See Baby Discriminate
Kids as young as 6 months judge others based on skin color. What's a parent to do?

By Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman | NEWSWEEK

Published Sep 5, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Sep 14, 2009



At the Children's Research Lab at the University of Texas, a database is kept on thousands of families in the Austin area who have volunteered to be available for scholarly research. In 2006 Birgitte Vittrup recruited from the database about a hundred families, all of whom were Caucasian with a child 5 to 7 years old.

The goal of Vittrup's study was to learn if typical children's videos with multicultural storylines have any beneficial effect on children's racial attitudes. Her first step was to give the children a Racial Attitude Measure, which asked such questions as:

How many White people are nice?
(Almost all) (A lot) (Some) (Not many) (None)

How many Black people are nice?
(Almost all) (A lot) (Some) (Not many) (None)

During the test, the descriptive adjective "nice" was replaced with more than 20 other adjectives, like "dishonest," "pretty," "curious," and "snobby."

Vittrup sent a third of the families home with multiculturally themed videos for a week, such as an episode of Sesame Street in which characters visit an African-American family's home, and an episode of Little Bill, where the entire neighborhood comes together to clean the local park.

In truth, Vittrup didn't expect that children's racial attitudes would change very much just from watching these videos. Prior research had shown that multicultural curricula in schools have far less impact than we intend them to—largely because the implicit message "We're all friends" is too vague for young children to understand that it refers to skin color.

Yet Vittrup figured explicit conversations with parents could change that. So a second group of families got the videos, and Vittrup told these parents to use them as the jumping-off point for a discussion about interracial friendship. She provided a checklist of points to make, echoing the shows' themes. "I really believed it was going to work," Vittrup recalls.

The last third were also given the checklist of topics, but no videos. These parents were to discuss racial equality on their own, every night for five nights.

At this point, something interesting happened. Five families in the last group abruptly quit the study. Two directly told Vittrup, "We don't want to have these conversations with our child. We don't want to point out skin color."

Vittrup was taken aback—these families volunteered knowing full well it was a study of children's racial attitudes. Yet once they were aware that the study required talking openly about race, they started dropping out.

It was no surprise that in a liberal city like Austin, every parent was a welcoming multiculturalist, embracing diversity. But according to Vittrup's entry surveys, hardly any of these white parents had ever talked to their children directly about race. They might have asserted vague principles—like "Everybody's equal" or "God made all of us" or "Under the skin, we're all the same"—but they'd almost never called attention to racial differences.

They wanted their children to grow up colorblind. But Vittrup's first test of the kids revealed they weren't colorblind at all. Asked how many white people are mean, these children commonly answered, "Almost none." Asked how many blacks are mean, many answered, "Some," or "A lot." Even kids who attended diverse schools answered the questions this way.

More disturbing, Vittrup also asked all the kids a very blunt question: "Do your parents like black people?" Fourteen percent said outright, "No, my parents don't like black people"; 38 percent of the kids answered, "I don't know." In this supposed race-free vacuum being created by parents, kids were left to improvise their own conclusions—many of which would be abhorrent to their parents.

Vittrup hoped the families she'd instructed to talk about race would follow through. After watching the videos, the families returned to the Children's Research Lab for retesting. To Vittrup's complete surprise, the three groups of children were statistically the same—none, as a group, had budged very much in their racial attitudes. At first glance, the study was a failure.

Combing through the parents' study diaries, Vittrup realized why. Diary after diary revealed that the parents barely mentioned the checklist items. Many just couldn't talk about race, and they quickly reverted to the vague "Everybody's equal" phrasing.

Of all those Vittrup told to talk openly about interracial friendship, only six families managed to actually do so. And, for all six, their children dramatically improved their racial attitudes in a single week. Talking about race was clearly key. Reflecting later about the study, Vittrup said, "A lot of parents came to me afterwards and admitted they just didn't know what to say to their kids, and they didn't want the wrong thing coming out of the mouth of their kids."

We all want our children to be unintimidated by differences and have the social skills necessary for a diverse world. The question is, do we make it worse, or do we make it better, by calling attention to race?

The election of President Barack Obama marked the beginning of a new era in race relations in the United States—but it didn't resolve the question as to what we should tell children about race. Many parents have explicitly pointed out Obama's brown skin to their young children, to reinforce the message that anyone can rise to become a leader, and anyone—regardless of skin color—can be a friend, be loved, and be admired.

Others think it's better to say nothing at all about the president's race or ethnicity—because saying something about it unavoidably teaches a child a racial construct. They worry that even a positive statement ("It's wonderful that a black person can be president") still encourages a child to see divisions within society. For the early formative years, at least, they believe we should let children know a time when skin color does not matter.

What parents say depends heavily on their own race: a 2007 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that out of 17,000 families with kindergartners, nonwhite parents are about three times more likely to discuss race than white parents; 75 percent of the latter never, or almost never, talk about race.

In our new book, NurtureShock, we argue that many modern strategies for nurturing children are backfiring—because key twists in the science have been overlooked. Small corrections in our thinking today could alter the character of society long term, one future citizen at a time. The way white families introduce the concept of race to their children is a prime example.

For decades, it was assumed that children see race only when society points it out to them. However, child-development researchers have increasingly begun to question that presumption. They argue that children see racial differences as much as they see the difference between pink and blue—but we tell kids that "pink" means for girls and "blue" is for boys. "White" and "black" are mysteries we leave them to figure out on their own.

It takes remarkably little for children to develop in-group preferences. Vittrup's mentor at the University of Texas, Rebecca Bigler, ran an experiment in three preschool classrooms, where 4- and 5-year-olds were lined up and given T shirts. Half the kids were randomly given blue T shirts, half red. The children wore the shirts for three weeks. During that time, the teachers never mentioned their colors and never grouped the kids by shirt color.

The kids didn't segregate in their behavior. They played with each other freely at recess. But when asked which color team was better to belong to, or which team might win a race, they chose their own color. They believed they were smarter than the other color. "The Reds never showed hatred for Blues," Bigler observed. "It was more like, 'Blues are fine, but not as good as us.' " When Reds were asked how many Reds were nice, they'd answer, "All of us." Asked how many Blues were nice, they'd answer, "Some." Some of the Blues were mean, and some were dumb—but not the Reds.

Bigler's experiment seems to show how children will use whatever you give them to create divisions—seeming to confirm that race becomes an issue only if we make it an issue. So why does Bigler think it's important to talk to children about race as early as the age of 3?

Her reasoning is that kids are developmentally prone to in-group favoritism; they're going to form these preferences on their own. Children naturally try to categorize everything, and the attribute they rely on is that which is the most clearly visible.

We might imagine we're creating color-blind environments for children, but differences in skin color or hair or weight are like differences in gender—they're plainly visible. Even if no teacher or parent mentions race, kids will use skin color on their own, the same way they use T-shirt colors. Bigler contends that children extend their shared appearances much further—believing that those who look similar to them enjoy the same things they do. Anything a child doesn't like thus belongs to those who look the least similar to him. The spontaneous tendency to assume your group shares characteristics—such as niceness, or smarts—is called essentialism.

Within the past decade or so, developmental psychologists have begun a handful of longitudinal studies to determine exactly when children develop bias. Phyllis Katz, then a professor at the University of Colorado, led one such study—following 100 black children and 100 white children for their first six years. She tested these children and their parents nine times during those six years, with the first test at 6 months old.

How do researchers test a 6-month-old? They show babies photographs of faces. Katz found that babies will stare significantly longer at photographs of faces that are a different race from their parents, indicating they find the face out of the ordinary. Race itself has no ethnic meaning per se—but children's brains are noticing skin-color differences and trying to understand their meaning.

When the kids turned 3, Katz showed them photographs of other children and asked them to choose whom they'd like to have as friends. Of the white children, 86 percent picked children of their own race. When the kids were 5 and 6, Katz gave these children a small deck of cards, with drawings of people on them. Katz told the children to sort the cards into two piles any way they wanted. Only 16 percent of the kids used gender to split the piles. But 68 percent of the kids used race to split the cards, without any prompting. In reporting her findings, Katz concluded: "I think it is fair to say that at no point in the study did the children exhibit the Rousseau type of color-blindness that many adults expect."

The point Katz emphasizes is that this period of our children's lives, when we imagine it's most important to not talk about race, is the very developmental period when children's minds are forming their first conclusions about race.

Several studies point to the possibility of developmental windows—stages when children's attitudes might be most amenable to change. In one experiment, children were put in cross-race study groups, and then were observed on the playground to see if the interracial classroom time led to interracial play at recess. The researchers found mixed study groups worked wonders with the first-grade children, but it made no difference with third graders. It's possible that by third grade, when parents usually recognize it's safe to start talking a little about race, the developmental window has already closed.

The other deeply held assumption modern parents have is what Ashley and I have come to call the Diverse Environment Theory. If you raise a child with a fair amount of exposure to people of other races and cultures, the environment becomes the message. Because both of us attended integrated schools in the 1970s—Ashley in San Diego and, in my case, Seattle—we had always accepted this theory's tenets: diversity breeds tolerance, and talking about race was, in and of itself, a diffuse kind of racism.

But my wife and I saw this differently in the years after our son, Luke, was born. When he was 4 months old, Luke began attending a preschool located in San Francisco's Fillmore/Western Addition neighborhood. One of the many benefits of the school was its great racial diversity. For years our son never once mentioned the color of anyone's skin. We never once mentioned skin color, either. We thought it was working perfectly.

Then came Martin Luther King Jr. Day at school, two months before his fifth birthday. Luke walked out of preschool that Friday before the weekend and started pointing at everyone, proudly announcing, "That guy comes from Africa. And she comes from Africa, too!" It was embarrassing how loudly he did this. "People with brown skin are from Africa," he'd repeat. He had not been taught the names for races—he had not heard the term "black" and he called us "people with pinkish-whitish skin." He named every kid in his schoolroom with brown skin, which was about half his class.

My son's eagerness was revealing. It was obvious this was something he'd been wondering about for a while. He was relieved to have been finally given the key. Skin color was a sign of ancestral roots.

Over the next year, we started to overhear one of his white friends talking about the color of their skin. They still didn't know what to call their skin, so they used the phrase "skin like ours." And this notion of ours versus theirs started to take on a meaning of its own. As these kids searched for their identities, skin color had become salient.

Soon, I overheard this particular white boy telling my son, "Parents don't like us to talk about our skin, so don't let them hear you."

As a parent, I dealt with these moments explicitly, telling my son it was wrong to choose anyone as his friend, or his "favorite," on the basis of skin color. We pointed out how certain friends wouldn't be in our lives if we picked friends for their color. Over time he not only accepted but embraced this lesson. Now he talks openly about equality and the wrongfulness of discrimination.

Not knowing then what I do now, I had a hard time understanding my son's initial impulses. Katz's work helped me to realize that Luke was never actually colorblind. He didn't talk about race in his first five years because our silence had unwittingly communicated that race was something he could not ask about.

The Diverse Environment Theory is the core principle behind school desegregation today. Like most people, I assumed that after 30 years of desegregation, it would have a long track record of scientific research proving that the Diverse Environment Theory works. Then Ashley and I began talking to the scholars who've compiled that very research.

In the summer of 2007, led by the Civil Rights Project, a dozen scholars wrote an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting school desegregation in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle. By the time the brief reached the court, 553 scientists had signed on in support. However, as much as the scientists all supported active desegregation, the brief is surprisingly circumspect in its advocacy: the benefits of desegregation are qualified with words like "may lead" and "can improve." "Mere school integration is not a panacea," the brief warns.

UT's Bigler was one of the scholars heavily involved in the process of its creation. Bigler is an adamant proponent of desegregation in schools on moral grounds. "It's an enormous step backward to increase social segregation," she says. However, she also admitted that "in the end, I was disappointed with the amount of evidence social psychology could muster [to support it]. Going to integrated schools gives you just as many chances to learn stereotypes as to unlearn them."

The unfortunate twist of diverse schools is that they don't necessarily lead to more cross-race relationships. Often it's the opposite. Duke University's James Moody—an expert on how adolescents form and maintain social networks—analyzed data on more than 90,000 teenagers at 112 different schools from every region of the country. The students had been asked to name their five best male friends and their five best female friends. Moody matched the ethnicity of the student with the race of each named friend, then compared the number of each student's cross-racial friendships with the school's overall diversity.

Moody found that the more diverse the school, the more the kids self-segregate by race and ethnicity within the school, and thus the likelihood that any two kids of different races have a friendship goes down.

Moody included statistical controls for activities, sports, academic tracking, and other school-structural conditions that tend to desegregate (or segregate) students within the school. The rule still holds true: more diversity translates into more division among students. Those increased opportunities to interact are also, effectively, increased opportunities to reject each other. And that is what's happening.

As a result, junior-high and high-school children in diverse schools experience two completely contrasting social cues on a daily basis. The first cue is inspiring—that many students have a friend of another race. The second cue is tragic—that far more kids just like to hang with their own. It's this second dynamic that becomes more and more visible as overall school diversity goes up. As a child circulates through school, she sees more groups that her race disqualifies her from, more lunchroom tables she can't sit at, and more implicit lines that are taboo to cross. This is unmissable even if she, personally, has friends of other races. "Even in multiracial schools, once young people leave the classroom, very little interracial discussion takes place because a desire to associate with one's own ethnic group often discourages interaction between groups," wrote Brendesha Tynes of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

All told, the odds of a white high-schooler in America having a best friend of another race is only 8 percent. Those odds barely improve for the second-best friend, or the third-best, or the fifth. For blacks, the odds aren't much better: 85 percent of black kids' best friends are also black. Cross-race friends also tend to share a single activity, rather than multiple activities; as a result, these friendships are more likely to be lost over time, as children transition from middle school to high school.

I can't help but wonder—would the track record of desegregation be so mixed if parents reinforced it, rather than remaining silent? It is tempting to believe that because their generation is so diverse, today's children grow up knowing how to get along with people of every race. But numerous studies suggest that this is more of a fantasy than a fact.

Is it really so difficult to talk with children about race when they're very young? What jumped out at Phyllis Katz, in her study of 200 black and white children, was that parents are very comfortable talking to their children about gender, and they work very hard to counterprogram against boy-girl stereotypes. That ought to be our model for talking about race. The same way we remind our daughters, "Mommies can be doctors just like daddies," we ought to be telling all children that doctors can be any skin color. It's not complicated what to say. It's only a matter of how often we reinforce it.

Shushing children when they make an improper remark is an instinctive reflex, but often the wrong move. Prone to categorization, children's brains can't help but attempt to generalize rules from the examples they see. It's embarrassing when a child blurts out, "Only brown people can have breakfast at school," or "You can't play basketball; you're white, so you have to play baseball." But shushing them only sends the message that this topic is unspeakable, which makes race more loaded, and more intimidating.

To be effective, researchers have found, conversations about race have to be explicit, in unmistakable terms that children understand. A friend of mine repeatedly told her 5-year-old son, "Remember, everybody's equal." She thought she was getting the message across. Finally, after seven months of this, her boy asked, "Mommy, what's 'equal' mean?"

Bigler ran a study in which children read brief biographies of famous African-Americans. For instance, in a biography of Jackie Robinson, they read that he was the first African-American in the major leagues. But only half read about how he'd previously been relegated to the Negro Leagues, and how he suffered taunts from white fans. Those facts—in five brief sentences were omitted in the version given to the other children.

After the two-week history class, the children were surveyed on their racial attitudes. White children who got the full story about historical discrimination had significantly better attitudes toward blacks than those who got the neutered version. Explicitness works. "It also made them feel some guilt," Bigler adds. "It knocked down their glorified view of white people." They couldn't justify in-group superiority.

Minority parents are more likely to help their children develop a racial identity from a young age. April Harris-Britt, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that all minority parents at some point tell their children that discrimination is out there, but they shouldn't let it stop them. Is this good for them? Harris-Britt found that some preparation for bias was beneficial, and it was necessary—94 percent of African-American eighth graders reported to Harris-Britt that they'd felt discriminated against in the prior three months.

But if children heard these preparation-for-bias warnings often (rather than just occasionally), they were significantly less likely to connect their successes to effort, and much more likely to blame their failures on their teachers—whom they saw as biased against them.

Harris-Britt warns that frequent predictions of future discrimination ironically become as destructive as experiences of actual discrimination: "If you overfocus on those types of events, you give the children the message that the world is going to be hostile—you're just not valued and that's just the way the world is."

Preparation for bias is not, however, the only way minorities talk to their children about race. The other broad category of conversation, in Harris-Britt's analysis, is ethnic pride. From a very young age, minority children are coached to be proud of their ethnic history. She found that this was exceedingly good for children's self-confidence; in one study, black children who'd heard messages of ethnic pride were more engaged in school and more likely to attribute their success to their effort and ability.

That leads to the question that everyone wonders but rarely dares to ask. If "black pride" is good for African-American children, where does that leave white children? It's horrifying to imagine kids being "proud to be white." [Look at the chutzpah of these writers!] Yet many scholars argue that's exactly what children's brains are already computing. Just as minority children are aware that they belong to an ethnic group with less status and wealth, most white children naturally decipher that they belong to the race that has more power, wealth, and control in society; this provides security, if not confidence. So a pride message would not just be abhorrent—it'd be redundant.

Over the course of our research, we heard many stories of how people—from parents to teachers—were struggling to talk about race with their children. For some, the conversations came up after a child had made an embarrassing comment in public. A number had the issue thrust on them, because of an interracial marriage or an international adoption. Still others were just introducing children into a diverse environment, wondering when and if the timing was right.

But the story that most affected us came from a small town in rural Ohio. Two first-grade teachers, Joy Bowman and Angela Johnson, had agreed to let a professor from Ohio State University, Jeane Copenhaver-Johnson, observe their classrooms for the year. Of the 33 children, about two thirds were white, while the others were black or of mixed-race descent.

It being December, the teachers had decided to read to their classes 'Twas the Night B'fore Christmas, Melodye Rosales's retelling of the Clement C. Moore classic. As the teachers began reading, the kids were excited by the book's depiction of a family waiting for Santa to come. A few children, however, quietly fidgeted. They seemed puzzled that this storybook was different: in this one, it was a black family all snug in their beds.

Then there was the famed clatter on the roof. The children leaned in to get their first view of Santa and the sleigh as Johnson turned the page—

And they saw that Santa was black.

"He's black!" gasped a white little girl.

A white boy exclaimed, "I thought he was white!"

Immediately, the children began to chatter about the stunning development. At the ripe old ages of 6 and 7, the children had no doubt that there was a Real Santa. Of that they were absolutely sure. But suddenly there was this huge question mark. Could Santa be black? And if so, what did that mean?

While some of the black children were delighted with the idea that Santa could be black, others were unsure. A couple of the white children rejected this idea out of hand: a black Santa couldn't be real.

But even the little girl the most adamant that the Real Santa must be white came around to accept the possibility that a black Santa could fill in for White Santa if he was hurt. And she still gleefully yelled along with the Black Santa's final "Merry Christmas to All! Y'all Sleep Tight."

Other children offered the idea that perhaps Santa was "mixed with black and white"—something in the middle, like an Indian. One boy went with a two-Santa hypothesis: White Santa and Black Santa must be friends who take turns visiting children. When a teacher made the apparently huge mistake of saying that she'd never seen Santa, the children all quickly corrected her: everyone had seen Santa at the mall. Not that that clarified the situation any.

The debate raged for a week, in anticipation of a school party. The kids all knew Real Santa was the guest of honor.

Then Santa arrived at the party—and he was black. Just like in the picture book.

Some white children said that this black Santa was too thin: that meant that the Real Santa was the fat white one at Kmart. But one of the white girls retorted that she had met the man and was convinced. Santa was brown.

Most of the black children were exultant, since this proved that Santa was black. But one of them, Brent, still doubted—even though he really wanted a black Santa to be true. So he bravely confronted Santa.

"There ain't no black Santas!" Brent insisted.

"Lookit here." Santa pulled up a pant leg.

A thrilled Brent was sold. "This is a black Santa!" he yelled. "He's got black skin and his black boots are like the white Santa's boots."

A black-Santa storybook wasn't enough to crush every stereotype. When Johnson later asked the kids to draw Santa, even the black kids who were excited about a black Santa still depicted him with skin as snowy white as his beard.

But the shock of the Santa storybook was the catalyst for the first graders to have a yearlong dialogue about race issues. The teachers began regularly incorporating books that dealt directly with issues of racism into their reading.

And when the children were reading a book on Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil-rights movement, both a black and a white child noticed that white people were nowhere to be found in the story. Troubled, they decided to find out just where in history both peoples were.

[Polls show atheists on the rise in America]

Great to see people waking up from the suicidal jewish mind-filth that is christ-insanity.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/26/polls-show-atheists/

Polls show atheists on the rise in America
DAVIE, Florida — When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Four years later, they've moved to a bigger place — still a bar — to hold their weekly meet-and-greets. Membership is up to almost 500, Darwin Day is in the planning stages and bumper stickers are on sale.

"There is no God, but ice-cream is great," reads one. "What schools need is a moment of science," reads another.

Atheist groups are growing all over the United States, challenging stereotypes and confronting what they consider a big backslide in the separation of church and state.

They are chatting online, picking up trash along "adopted" highways, and advertising on buses and billboards. In South Florida, they recently picketed a prayer meeting in a public safety building paid for with tax dollars.

"We're growing by leaps and bounds," said Bob Senatore, a retired teacher and one of the early members of the Florida Atheists and Secular Humanists, or FLASH. "The attitude is, 'If we don't do something about it now, we'll be living under a theocracy.'"

Polls show non-believers are on the rise in the United States, even in places like Florida, where, as Senatore sees it, "There's a church on every corner and a fish on every car."

The fish is one of the most common symbols of Christianity.

The American Religious Identification Survey recently found the number of people who claimed "no religion" had nearly doubled nationally over the last 18 years, to 15 percent. They were the only demographic that increased in all 50 states.

Some attribute the surge to outrage over former president George W. Bush and his courting of the religious right. Others mention a slew of best-selling books about atheism that have recently fueled debate.

But there's no doubt the Internet is playing a role too. It offers atheist dating services, and helps nonbelievers meet up — people who might otherwise remain "loners."

"To have a non-belief is not much to build a social group on," acknowledged FLASH member Jay Berman, a computer trainer and self-described Jewish atheist.

Berman said he wasn't looking to convert anyone to atheism, and takes a non-confrontational stance with religious friends.

"I'm happy to attend any religious observances where the food is good," he said.

For others, atheism is a cause. Along with freethinking and agnostic groups, they are beginning to lobby Congress on everything from stem cell research to civil rights.

The Secular Coalition for America represents 10 such organizations. Executive director Sean Faircloth said the coalition was particularly interested in bringing down state laws that give special privileges to religious-based services.

Groups like his took note when President Barack Obama nodded to "non-believers" during his inaugural speech.

"We've gone from where we essentially could communicate only with Congress, to now, where we have some open doors at the White House as well," Faircloth said. "I see tremendous progress and I feel real hope for the future, that you're going to hear more of us."

In fact, one of the biggest hurdles to political recognition for atheists may be their own free-thinking spirit.

"If a politician were to come out and say they were an atheist, I would be proud someone had the guts to do it," said Peter Ragona, a wedding photographer and member of FLASH. "But I would not vote for them just because they're an atheist."

According to the coalition, just one US lawmaker has gone on record as a "non-theist" — California Democrat Peter Stark.

As they work to crack stereotypes, atheists are sometimes encountering resistance. Last month, when FLASH erected a billboard stating, "Being a good person doesn't require God," a local woman led children in chants calling for the sign to come down. Owners of a nearby beauty supply shop complained business was suffering.

In Iowa, the transit authority removed atheist ads from the sides of buses after complaints from riders. Authorities later put them back up, after talking to atheist organizers. When a Christian driver refused to drive a bus bearing the ad she was suspended.

FLASH president and firefighter Ken Loukinen said he regularly receives hate mail.

"I've had some threats to blow up my truck," said Loukinen, who is also state director of the national group American Atheists. But, he added, "We'd rather spread information than complain about stuff. We want to dispel myths about atheists, myths about science."

Taking a page from the playbook of the gay-rights movement, some atheists say "coming out" will drive up membership all by itself, as other atheists realize they are not alone.

"There are many people in misery, emotionally torn apart by their doubts. I've been there," said Ronelle Delmont, a book reviewer and former belly-dancer at the Davie meet-up. Delmont started studying science and atheism 15 years ago. Carl Sagan became her hero.

"I found courage by finding other people," she said. "I'm now unashamed to say I'm an atheist."

MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are 'White' Racists... Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race.

Look at how they edit the video in order to keep the skin color of the AR-15 carrier hidden. Then they go on to talk about the rise of "hate groups" and on and on. All the while ignoring the FACT that the AR-15 carrier was a black man. This is a great video to send friends/family that aren't aware yet of how blatant the news is with their propaganda and lies.

Hello everyone.

As some of you may know I have been attempting to live as salubrious as possible. This has been my first real attempt at trying to change my lifestyle. The only real problem I have run into so far has been in dealing with my anger and hatred. I am 21 years old and I have heard it is natural for men my age to be angry but I feel like it is consuming me. It's not just hatred for the Jews but also for all the stupid people and my ancestors who sat by and let this country decay and be taken over. I just can't seem to get over this or even use it effectively (outside of the gym that is). I know that it is natural to feel this way towards my enemies but I feel hate towards members of my own family not to mention all the brain-dead whites out there.

I am hoping that some or one of you has been through this and can possibly give me some advice on how to control this or at least subdue it. Keep in mind I have only been "awake" since ~Jan 08. I am new to all of this so perhaps with time my feelings will fade? I really could use some help here. The past year I have had ways to temporarily deal with these feelings but in trying to stay in line with salubrious living I was forced to discard them.

Please, Brothers and Sisters, help me out here. It's impossible for me to talk about this with my family or friends (they could never understand) and could really use your help.

From page 8,

The Five Fundamental Beliefs of Creativity
To be memorized and repeated as a sacred religious ritual
by every Creator five times a day.

Based on the Eternal Laws of Nature, History, Logic and Common Sense
we Creators believe:

1. WE BELIEVE that our Race is our Religion.

2. WE BELIEVE that the White Race is Nature's Finest.

3. WE BELIEVE that Racial Loyalty is the greatest of all honors, and
racial treason is the worst of all crimes.

4. WE BELIEVE that what is good for the White Race is the highest
virtue, and what is bad for the White Race is the ultimate sin.

5. WE BELIEVE that the one and only, true and revolutionary White
Racial Religion -Creativity- is the only salvation for the White Race.

To the fulfilment of these Religious Beliefs we Creators forever pledge
our Lives, our Sacred Honor and our Religious Zeal.

Fulfilment should be fulfillment.

I know it's a small thing but I figured its good to catch these before they possibly get printed up.

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

by Britt Kennerly – Tue Jun 30, 9:40 am ET

PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) – For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.

"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090630/ts_alt_afp/scienceusreligionevolution_20090630134058

"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."

The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of the Bible to life."

Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.

Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches. (huh?)

Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.

"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

"I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."

Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.

The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.

Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.

"I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.

Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.

"I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things that are inaccurately portrayed," he said.

"And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized -- that if you don't accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth and life, you're contributing to the ills of society and of the church."

Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.

"This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it's just as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of science," he said.

The purposes of this thread are three-fold. Firstly, to document my experiences while making the switch from typical American diet to a fully Salubrious lifestyle as stated in WMB on pages 60 and 61.

What do we CREATORS understand by Salubrious Living?
Briefly we can spell it out in a few dozen sentences. 

1. We believe in living in accord with our human biological
heritage and in harmony with the Laws of Nature. 

2. This means eating fresh wholesome food in its natural state as
Nature has given it to us. It must be uncooked, unprocessed,
unpreserved and not tampered with in any other way. This further
means it must be organically grown, without the use of chemicals. 

3. Availing ourselves of a clean, wholesome environment — fresh,
unpolluted air; clean water; and the beneficial therapy from the
direct rays of the sun, every day. 

4. Some form of strenuous physical exercise several times a week. 

5. Rest and relaxation, both mental and physical, including sound
and efficient sleep. 

6. A form of recreation that is gratifying to our sense of
accomplishment. 

7. A sense of purpose, security and confidence to fuel our goals for
accomplishment and living the good life. We must have goals and
we must be motivated. 

8. Deliberate self-mastery of our life and our work. 

9. Gregarious living within the framework of our CREATIVE religion,
our White society and social intercourse with our White Racial Comrades.
We are social animals. 

10. Healthy expression of our sexual instincts. 

11. Living in a pleasing and healthful environment. 

12. We do not believe in the use of any "medicines", drugs or
chemicals as having any healing or therapeutic value. In fact, all
medicines, drugs, narcotics and chemicals are poisonous and toxic
to the human body. Furthermore, and for the same reason, we do
not believe in the use of vitamin, mineral, or enzyme supplements,
nor the use of artificial food coloring, preservatives, nor refined or
fragmented foods. 

13. We strongly believe in the practice of fasting as the best
means of ridding the body of accumulated poisons and toxins. We
are convinced that fasting is the most natural and effective means
the body has of overcoming all forms of disease, and restoring
itself back to health. 

14. Living in, and promoting a eugenic White society. This means
that we take particular care in not only assuring the perpetuation of
our precious White Race, but we take deliberate care that the
misfits are culled and that each generation advances to higher and
more salubrious levels, physically, aesthetically and mentally.

My second reason for starting this thread is to hopefully inspire others to become Salubrious with my results and experiences.

And lastly this will serve as a great motivator for myself. You all are some of the few people I still respect in this world and to shame myself in front of you all would be much worse than the cravings and other side-effects of breaking away from the diet I have followed my entire life.

Luckily, I am 21 years old so it is not as if I have spent a lifetime with these habits but breaking from them is very difficult all the same.

A couple of quick notes before I begin:
Please feel free to post suggestions, criticism, and anything else. This thread is not just for myself but I hope will help others.
I will be taking/keeping photographs of myself throughout this process for a sort of Before and After type of thing but I will be waiting to post those until a later date.

That's about it for my introduction post. Thanks for stopping by. Please check back as I will be attempting to update this at least bi-weekly with progress and results.

I found this list here: http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/08/list-of-jewish-people-that-help-control.html


MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News &
World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents
of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the
largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television,
great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with
Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public
Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed
by Clinton.

JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of
AOL-Time-Warner

NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News

JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming,
NBC

DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News

SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media
giant" (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and
MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and
Black Entertainment TV.

MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol
Cities, ABC.

RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London
Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)

MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS

DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS

JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS

DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and
Planning, CBS

SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment

LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment

BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.

SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications
and Chairman of Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture
Group.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.

BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.

PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's
News. Corp., owner of Fox TV

MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic,
which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore
credits Marty with being his "mentor."

ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times,
the Boston Globe and other publications.

WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the
Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com,
website monitoring "anti-Israel media."

RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington
Post

JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular
columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and
co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee
on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.

ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.

STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as
an expert on domestic terrorism.

DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the
New Times network of "alternative weeklies."

DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media
hedge fund

KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban
Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY
Times, New Yorker

BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner
of Universal Entertainment

KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent
agency, which represents 600 news personalities such
as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly.

TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.

MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL

WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div.
of AOL- TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment

JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2

SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment

GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment

STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks

LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment

JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment

MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good
Morning Miami"

DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good
Morning Miami"

HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America

AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures

JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American
operations

ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel
Communications

BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment

IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications

WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition

LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live

TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter

PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host

MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes

BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20

MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review

BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week

DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and
Washington Post, son of

CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington
Post

HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek

WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec.
Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco
Chronicle

PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco
Chronicle,

RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities,
San Francisco)

JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities,
San Francisco)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol
Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets

MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations

DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated
from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.

BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.

ANDREW LACK, president of NBC

DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins

DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker

NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York

HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New
Yorker

SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse
Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the
Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker;
Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City
Business Journals, business newspapers published in
more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in
cable television programming and cable systems serving
1 million homes.

Scary stuff but it does make sense considering Israeli first-hand experience with false flags, mass murder, and oppression.


"FEMA Administrator Fugate Meets Top Israeli Official To Discuss Emergency Management Issues

Release Date: June 30, 2009
Release Number: HQ-09-077a

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate met today with Maj. Gen. Yair Golan of the Israeli Defense Forces Home Front Command (IDF/HFC), continuing to foster a working relationship with Israel and bolstering the exchange of information on common emergency management practices.

Administrator Fugate and Maj. General Golan will serve as co-chairs of an emergency management work group designed to discuss problems and issues and to exchange information on a variety of topics such as long-term community recovery, exercise programs, policies and procedures.

"I look forward to working with my Israeli counterpart as co-chair of an emergency management work group to improve emergency management practices in both countries," said Fugate. "These partnerships are critical in ensuring that we are incorporating best practices and also working towards greater public preparedness."

The IDF/HFC partners with the Israeli National Emergency Management Authority (NEMA) on emergency management issues. IDF/HFC and NEMA work with FEMA under an emergency management work stream workgroup established under a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding with DHS."

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=48950

I have been noticing that several forums I visit have a section for blogging. I was wondering if there are any plans to add this feature? I have been thinking about making a blog to document my transition into a Creator and would like to do it here if possible. Thanks.

This is a video made by JTA.org, a Jewish news site, very interesting how they are so arrogant about it. I truly cannot understand how so many of our fellow whites have been so utterly broken down as to not see a threat of this magnitude that is also so clear before us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Fs73XZqm8&feature=player_embedded

I have a feeling yall will enjoy this. The author of this video has some great stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1158779/Thousands-Mexican-soldiers-pour-countrys-violent-city-crackdown-drug-gangs.html

Armed to the hilt, they came from land and air, determined to restore order to Mexico's most violent city.

Nearly 2,000 Mexican soldiers and armed federal police poured into the border town of Ciudad Juarez last weekend.

The city - just across from El Paso in Texas - has been ravaged by drug gangs. Just this month 250 people were killed there by hitmen fighting for lucrative smuggling routes.
Enlarge   War zone: Federal police check their guns as they get ready to board a plane from Mexico City to the lawless border town of Ciudad Juarez

War zone: Federal police check their guns as they get ready to board a plane from Mexico City to the lawless border town of Ciudad Juarez
Enlarge   Bringing out the big guns: Armed federal police prepare to patrol the streets as they arrive in Ciudad Juarez yesterday

Bringing out the big guns: Armed federal police prepare to patrol the streets as they arrive in Ciudad Juarez yesterday

Enlarge   Between federal police and Mexican Army soldiers up to 4,000 law enforcement officers swarmed the streets of Juarez over the weekend

Between federal police and Mexican Army soldiers up to 2,000 law enforcement officers swarmed the streets of Juarez over the weekend to join the 2,500 already there - and there are more to come

The soldiers' mandate is clear - and ambitious.

'This is to reinforce the operation in general ... to eradicate kidnappings, extortion, assaults and homicide,' army spokesman Enrique Torres said.

The soldiers are the first contingent of as many as 5,000 troops and federal police being sent to Juarez.
Enlarge   The deployment is part of a five thousand man troop increase planned for this city - given the unlucky title of Mexico's most violent

The deployment is part of a five thousand man troop increase planned for this city - given the unlucky title of Mexico's most violent

Enlarge   The deployment is part of a five thousand man troop increase planned for this city - given the unlucky title of Mexico's most violent


Almost 2,500 soldiers and federal police have been there for nearly a year, but they have failed to curb the violence plaguing the city of about 1.6 million people.

President Felipe Calderon's military operation is supported by the United States, which is concerned the violence could destabilize Mexico, a key trading partner, and spill over the border.

Mexico has deployed some 45,000 troops across the country to try to crush drug gangs, but clashes between rival cartels and security forces killed around 6,000 people last year.
Enlarge   The soldiers and police were flown in by air as well as driven in

The soldiers and police were flown in by air as well as driven in

It is my belief that there is a large portion of people currently seeking the truth on the internet.

As Creators we should take advantage of this. I sincerely believe that our religion is the best way to reverse the tide. This is why I really love what you all here at CA are trying to do.

Here comes the "but".

BUT the level of activism needs to be increased (and this is where newcomers like myself will be able to help).

Please don't take offense as I am in no way trying to discredit what you all have done. The websites are great and especially the main CA page is perfect for newly "awakened" whites like myself to learn quickly and efficiently about this great religion. This is perfect for what I would like to do over the next couple months (before I become active locally and while I build up some cash reserves).

Here is my overall plan.

The white activist movement online is HUGE. Throughout the internet we find many many different forums and sites devoted to causes very similar to our own. We also find many websites and forums dedicated run by "mainstream forces". Both of these variations can be used to further promote Creativity and it's overall message. My plan is to recruit new people through a variety of different posts as well as internet radio interviews/advertisements.

Time is running out comrades. If our race is to survive we must act intelligently and efficiently.

I will need help polishing off this e-activism plan but with your help I think we can do it.



First we need a list of sites that are pro-white and anti-jew.

I will start a list here please feel free to add to it:
vnnforum.com
stormfront.org
reasonradionetwork.com

Next some sites that are not specifically pro-white or anti-jew but that may have like-minded people.


ronpaulforums.com


As I mentioned earlier I will need help compiling proper lists but these will do for now.

From here we can go many different ways.

We could organize and all hit a single forum at once. Each playing different roles that will help pull in the lurkers as well as daily posters. This we will have to go over in more detail.

We could also just spread out randomly among the different sites and just kind of naturally work our message into the posts.

Another possibility is to do internet radio interviews. I personally know the founders of the site I listed above (reasonradionetwork). VG, I have listened to a couple interviews you did a while back and if you would like I can get you in contact with some of the producers from reason radio. These guys are growing exponentially and already have a decent viewer base.

Other ideas I have had include posting pre-fabricated messages in comment sections for internet radio shows as well as on "conspiracy" sites such as prisonplanet. Even if we only get a few people interested every little bit helps.

Also I don't know if this has been done before but I am willing to sponsor copies of NER and WMB to be sent out to various internet shows or pro-white bloggers. There is a huge difference in having these books in your hand and reading a .pdf file, trust me and I would be willing to front some of the costs of this idea.

Something else that I haven't really looked but that I read about on this site (Sorry I forget the poster) was writing on craigslist forums. This is a great way to get the message out locally but could also be used strategically by posting regular advertisements in high crime cities and areas. These people naturally are more racially aware and open to our program.

Sadly I have to run but thank you for listening to my ramblings. I had a bit of inspiration this morning after finishing NER for the first time and really wanted to get some of my ideas out there.

RaHoWa!

-Brent

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E4E781&show_article=1

Feb 18 12:36 PM US/Eastern
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

      WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," said Holder, nation's first black attorney general.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters.

"It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

He told Justice Department employees they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

Greetings my white brothers and sisters,

I am a recently "awakened" early twenties proud white man. I finished reading White Man's Bible a few days ago and although it may sound cliche it has changed my life. I'm not sure what else to post here other than that I am looking forward to learning more. Who knows, I might even be able to add some new information to the discussions. We face some great challenges in the coming years but I have a lot of faith that in the end we will be successful and once again restore the white race to where it belongs.

Take care everyone and stay safe.