Nice Racism

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

I do not fully understand “racism”.

I grew up in a time when aboriginal children were sometimes being taken from their families “for their own good”. Everything “we”, the white rulers of the land, were doing in relation to aborigines was “for their good”. Today, on the contrary, one is often confronted with an aboriginal’s story of the trauma that was one of the thousands of what is now termed “the stolen generation“. Many white Australians only became aware of the impact of that practice on the indigenous people in 2002 with the release of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence.

My first experience as a target of racism was when I was touring central China. It was innocuous enough and I laughed along with it. But at the same time I could not deny that there was a little gurgle deep down in my gut that felt a little unpleasant. I asked my Chinese companion why some people seemed to be so curious and smiling among themselves as they looked across at me in a community meal hall. I was wearing shorts, and it was explained to me that someone had said I looked like a monkey because of my hairy legs and arms.

My second experience was soon after I was employed at the Singapore National Library. I don’t believe any of the local citizens and employees there would think they had a racist bone in their bodies. But on an institutional level, when statements were made at a “high level” of conceptualization — NOT at a personal one-on-one level — I was made to feel that my place as a white westerner was somehow tolerated only on sufferance. I was needed for my specialist skills and experience and the sooner my tenure was over the happier they would all be. Australians, I very quickly earned, were reflexively viewed through negative stereotypes, and my own personality and habits that defied those stereotypes made no difference to those perceptions. (I had been asked what things I found problematic with my work environment and I said that Singaporeans “work too hard” — they would almost as a rule work way past the official “knock off” time and seem to give their lives for the corporation and only go home to their families when absolutely necessary, usually quite late at night. The response indicated that I was a “typical” lazy Australian who loved to go on strike at the drop of a hat, gamble, drink and be generally work-shy. My immediate impulse was to argue the point but the environment at the time made that inappropriate. Everyone laughed at “the Australian” and “the virtue” that he saw as “a problem”.)

So as a white Westerner — and as nothing more than a tourist or temporary worker — I have experienced very mild forms of what have felt to me to be some kind of racial prejudice.

My point is that in neither of the above experiences would I have suspected any of the commenters as having the slightest awareness of any racist undertone in their remarks. Had I challenged them on their views I am convinced that they would have denied outright having any racist attitude at all. They were only joking, after all. They liked me personally. So why did I have that little unpleasant gut feeling each time? I smiled and responded as a friend and suppressed my gut gurgling so they would have no reason to notice it.

Robin DiAngelo (Wikipedia)

Today I listened to an Australian national radio podcast talk by Robin DiAngelo. I do not know if I can agree with every statement she made about “nice racism” — The ‘nice racism’ of progressive white people — but I don’t know yet if that’s because I haven’t thought through my own ideas thoroughly enough or if some of her views really are missing the mark by just a fraction of an inch or millimetre. She has her critics and these are candidly addressed in the podcast. But I am still left thinking.

But there is one comment of hers that I certainly could relate to:

“You’re going to have to educate yourself. 

If the thought leaders in this field, for example, are using the term “white supremacy”, and you think that’s a really harsh term, and a terrible term, and you don’t understand why they’re using it, then rather than ask us not to use it, see it as, “Well, I need to get up to speed because I must be missing something. They’re using this with comfort, and they’re talking about something that’s different from what I think this is about”, and so, we’re back to the humility that I necessarily am missing something, because this is arguably the most complex, nuanced, sociopolitical dynamic of the last several hundred years. 

Around 23 mins of https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/the-nice-racism-of-progressive-white-people/14087776

In her most recent book she writes:

Our racism avoids the blatant and obvious, such as saying the N-word or telling people to go back to where they came from. We employ more subtle methods: racial insensitivity, ignorance, and arrogance. These have a racist impact and contribute to an overall racist experience for BIPOC people, an experience that may be all the more maddening precisely because it is easy to deny and hard to prove. I am constantly asked for examples, so here are a few: . . . . 

• Not understanding why something on this list is problematic, and rather than seeking to educate yourself further, dismiss it as invalid.

Excerpt From: Dr. Robin DiAngelo. “Nice Racism.” Apple Books.

In case you are wondering what the other examples are, I copy and paste them here from DiAngelo’s book, Nice Racism:

• Confusing one person for another of the same racial group
• Not taking the effort to learn someone’s name; always mispronouncing it, calling them something that’s easier to pronounce; making a show of saying it, or avoiding the person altogether
• Repeating/rewording/explaining what a BIPOC person just said
• Touching, commenting on, marveling at, and asking questions about a Black person’s hair
• Expecting BIPOC people to be interested in and skilled at doing any work related to race
• Using one BIPOC person who didn’t mind what you did to invalidate another who did
• Calling a Black person articulate; expressing surprise at their intelligence, credentials, or class status
• Speaking over/interrupting a BIPOC person
• Lecturing BIPOC people on the answer to racism (“People just need to . . .”)
• Bringing up an unrelated racial topic while talking to a BIPOC person (and only when talking to a BIPOC person)”
• Blackface/cultural appropriation in costumes or roles
• Denying/being defensive/explaining away/seeking absolution when confronted with having enacted racism
• Only naming the race of people who are not white when telling a story
• Slipping into a southern accent or other caricature when talking to or about Black people
• Asking for more evidence or offering an alternate explanation when a BIPOC person shares their lived experience of racism
• Making a point of letting people know that you are married to a BIPOC person or have BIPOC people in your family
• Not being aware that the evidence you use to establish that you are “not racist” is not convincing
• Equating an oppression that you experience with racism
• Changing the channel to another form of oppression whenever race comes up
• Insisting that your equity team address every other possible form of oppression, resulting in racism not getting addressed in depth or at all (“It’s really about class”)
• Including “intellectual diversity,” “learning styles,” “neurodiversity,” and personality traits such as introversion/extroversion in your diversity work so that everyone in your majority-white organization feels included
• Gossiping about the racism of other white people to BIPOC people to distinguish yourself as the good white person
• Using an experience as the only white person in a group or community to say that you’ve experienced racism (which you call reverse racism)
• Telling a BIPOC person that you witnessed the racism perpetrated toward them but doing nothing further
• Equating your experience as a white immigrant or the child of white immigrants to the experiences of African Americans (“The Irish were discriminated against just as bad”)
• Using your experience with service learning or missionary work in BIPOC communities to present yourself as an expert on how to address the issues experienced by those communities
• Loving and recommending films about racism that feature white saviors
• Deciding for yourself how to support a BIPOC person without asking them what they want or need
• Claiming to have a friendship with a Black colleague who has never been to your home
• Being involved in your workplace equity team without continually working on your own racism
• Attending your first talk or workshop on racism and complaining that the speaker did not provide you with the “answer”
• Asking how to start a diversity consulting business because you attended a talk and found it interesting
• Focusing your diversity work on “increasing your numbers” with no structural changes and equating increased numbers with racial justice
• Blocking racial justice efforts by continually raising a concern that your organization is “not ready” and needs to “go slow” to protect white people’s delicate racial sensibilities
Not understanding why something on this list is problematic, and rather than seeking to educate yourself further, dismiss it as invalid

Excerpt From: Dr. Robin DiAngelo. “Nice Racism.” Apple Books.

It’s that last one that got to me and made me pause and wonder. We all know others who fall into that category and have probably been there ourselves at some time. So I am forced to rethink the other points I find myself disagreeing with. That doesn’t mean Robin DiAngelo is right all the time, but the questions she raises are of concern to some people so maybe I need to think them through more fully.

One comparison that came up in that radio interview was the response of a husband who says he cannot be racist because he married a black woman, and the converse for the wife. DiAngelo pointed out that a man marrying a woman does not prove that he is free from sexist or patriarchal (and anti-feminist) biases.

It’s a topic I keep returning to and wondering if I have really understood all its complexity. Individually we may not be racist but we are part of a community and perhaps that’s where we have to wonder about our unconscious biases and how they influence systemic words and actions.

Other reading that surfaced from listening to the above:

  • Anderson, Carol. White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide. Bloomsbury, 2016.
  • DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Penguin, 2019.
  • Eddo-Lodge, Reni. Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race. Bloomsbury, 2017.
  • Hamad, Ruby. White Tears/Brown Scars. Melbourne University Press, 2019.

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

20 thoughts on “Nice Racism”

  1. Yes, educating yourself is very important. Europeans and people of European descent have caused every problem with humanity.


    And on and on and on.

    Not knowing or caring about any of this is what makes people of European heritage racist. From violent subjugation to global warming caused by greedy people of European descent, Europeans and people of European heritage caused every ill in the world. That is not only racist but completely ignorant. Yet, the rest of us, the non-Europeans, have to deal with it because they are still the ones with the power.

    1. You talk as if there was something special about Europeans. As if other races never did anything like that. This is not the case.

      Believing that only white people are racist and violent to other races is to indulge in fairy-tale notions about human nature. Believing that only white people owned slaves, or were greedy is insulting to the reader’s intelligence as well as being nonsense.

      Europeans simply had the technology to do it on a grander scale than anyone else.

        1. Other peoples tried or wanted to. The Mongols for example. And violence is universal.

          Europeans had the technology. That’s all. Don’t feel smug because “your” side just happened by accident not to be technologically advanced enough to follow through on its leaders’ dreams of conquest.

  2. “DiAngelo pointed out that a man marrying a woman does not prove that he holds on to sexist or patriarchal (and anti-feminist) values.”

    I guess you meant, “…that he is free of sexist…”?

    1. It isn’t reverse racism if it has always happened, still happens today and the people in power don’t care. If the Native, black, Asian or Hispanic people were in power and keeping everybody else down with no concern, I would be railing against them. People are people not matter which “race”, creed, color or national origin. What makes a difference is who has the power and how they use it. There is still grave injustice in 2022. Even in Australia, the native people who lived there for over 70,000 years, well before the Europeans arrived, have been kept down.

      I live in the United States where the police murder many innocent black and Native people especially men. In this country, the Native people live in poverty on small, poor pieces of land with no employment and the black and Hispanic people live in impoverished areas that we call developments or ghettos. These people have little chance in life. Asians have been discriminated against so that they are afraid to walk the streets because they will probably face violence from white people. Even white Jewish people are facing violence from people of European descent.

      Put yourself in our shoes. Think about what it would be like if you were in any of these situations. I just want the people in power, the white people, to take notice, understand and go in a direction that will help to ensure equality for all people no matter what their ethnicity. I don’t believe that this is asking too much. It is only fair.

      And, for the record, I don’t hate white people. I see some making strides to understand and to change minds for the better but I still see the majority wanting for themselves and wanting to exclude those who are not like them.

      1. Oh Yes! The old, “I don’t hate white people…,but let me give you my racist opinions about them.” You went even further by using the racist, leftist definition of racism to absolve yourself of any guilt for your racism by pretending that a person must have this undefined, magical thing called power. Whatever this power thing is, is something only white people have and you surely don’t have any of it?

      2. This is classic racist thinking. You want to punish people because of the colour of their skin because it’s the same as the skin of some other people you don’t like. You judge people by their membership in a group they had no choice to be in. If they are white you demand proof that they are not bad people.

        Never mind all the white people with no power (oh, except for Jews. How nice of you to make an exception for them); they don’t matter. Why? Because of their skin colour.

        Are you seeing your problem yet?

        There is a theory knocking around at the moment that the solution to racism and sexism is an equal and opposite amount of racism or sexism. But prejudice (literally judging before knowing) is an unsigned quantity. Two amounts of racism just means double the racism.

        People like yourself are dancing to this tune, increasing division and promoting prejudice to the advantage of demagogues like Trump and Putin – and well-known Europeans like Kin-Jong-Un, Paul Kagame, Bashar al-Assad, and *self-declared god* Obiang Mbasogo of Equitorial Guinea.

  3. That last point on the list is a red flag to me. Let me re-phrase it:

    “Not completely agreeing with my viewpoint makes you a racist.”

    Really? Jog on. There are several items on the list which are deeply dubious and certainly not cut and dried. In particular the reference to the Irish. As far as I can see that amounts to “you can’t be the victim of racism if your skin is white” which is flat out bullshit. I can assure you (from Northern Ireland) that white-on-white racism is very real and serious enough to end in death, and any Pole living within the province will testify to that, let alone the natives.

    1. That only counts if you live in Northern Ireland. I live in the United States where being Irish, whether North or South, is a badge of honor. Many cops and firemen are of Irish ancestry. That has been the way in the U.S. for centuries.

      Maybe it is different where you live but I have to see it mostly from where I live with just a smattering of elsewhere.

      1. You’re right. There has never been any cases of systemic anti-Irish sentiment in the US.

        Maybe you need to learn some history before you make sweeping generalisations.

  4. Thanks for the Post Neil

    It’s a huge topic.
    Important – involved in founding global society for the near and perhaps distant futures.

    “I do not fully understand “racism”.”

    I think this is a very good starting point.
    “racism” in quotes, indicates something beyond the traditional definitions which we all know and understand.

    I think “FULLY understanding racism” requires going back to the philosophical creation of western society. World view, values and beliefs of western society have always been influenced by and in some areas almost completely made and shaped, through philosophical planning, narratives and political systems.

    The above is a key point.
    Unless one knows the objective history of the philosophical creation of religion and politics in western society one does not have some key true preconceptual facts from which to optimally view and consider real and very serious possibilities.

    An important western civilisation plan and narrative that we are learning about on this blog and elsewhere, is the ‘Plan in Plato’, that founded Judaism and hence also Christianity and Islam. Over half the planet is statistically Christian or Moslem. (Ref: Wikipedia)
    Philosophical planning and narratives have massive long term impacts, they are of vital importance. Viewing and objectively understanding western society without at least some objective philosophical knowledge of it is like small children trying to understand the wider realities of adult society. They just can’t understand. Gaining greater width and depth of the objective realities involved is just something we all, always need more of.

    When it comes to racism, the Holocaust narrative carries the same Ideas in the biblical narrative of evil personified and most vehemently condemned. A couple of parallels in the bible are Satan and perhaps the Anti-Christ in revelation. Also the Sodom and Gomorrah tales creating the Idea that homosexuality and sexual immorality are so evil those in Sodom and Gomorrah deserved and thus were destroyed by a rain of burning sulphur from Yahweh. (Gen Ch 19)

    Philosophically planned stories created beliefs, that certain attitudes and behaviours and even some characters are PURE EVIL (caps indicating platonic/mental Forms/Ideas). Philosophical narrative unquestionably made and shaped many such beliefs and attitudes for thinking and living in western society. I used to think homosexuality was evil, not because I had thought about it for myself but because of the stories and laws in the bible, i.e. because of indoctrination to philosophical narrative. An online interaction, presumably with a homosexual, helped change my mind. Sorry getting side tracked, back to understanding racism.

    Neil’s Chinese and Singapore experiences of ‘racism’ involve nationalist views/beliefs. I think they are good examples showing this nationalist part of racism and also the point he emphasised i.e. that the racism was subconscious.

    In Fichte’s 17 lectures, ‘Characteristics of the Present Age’ (Berlin winter 1804/5) Transition from, philosophical control using the religious genre, to a more natural and realistic genre, mentions doing things for real. Such as really knowing what people have done rather than relying on an admission to police because someone is afraid of eternal damnation for not confessing their crime. Fichte’s, philosophically planned, German national schooling was a major thing discussed and brought about through these lectures and the next series titled, ‘Addresses to the German Nation’ delivered in Berlin, winter 1807/8 the second series especially promoted schooling centred on The German Race.

    Transition from the religious genre of philosophical narrative is given as a central reason for the new Prussian/German schooling. Ch 17 specifically talks of the ‘Religious Sense’ being forcibly separated and then transplanted into the present state of mental culture. And Ch 17 soon after makes it clear, this was only possible through the new schooling. (Point: Fichte’s schooling was designed to transplant the ‘Religious Sense’ i.e. to make a new genre and system for philosophical influence.)

    So what does this have to do with racism?
    (Thank you, I’m glad you asked.)
    Fichte’s new schooling was centred around “The German Race!”
    Don’t miss that point.
    We’re looking at understanding “racism”.
    The core reason for Fichte’s schools was to enshrine and promote The German Race.
    Hitler’s fanatical German Nationalism and the resulting Holocaust narrative was founded on the philosophical writing and planning of Johann Fichte.

    I suggest thinking about that.
    What plan do many current beliefs and Ideas about white supremacy, Nationalism and the PURE EVIL of the Holocaust trace back to?
    Who is credited with writing that plan?
    What are we told he was?

    There’s more:
    In lecture one of ‘Characteristics of the Present Age’ Fichte mentions a World-plan as a fore-ordered, although only gradually unfolding progression, where each successive period is determined by the preceding. And note, the idea of doing things more for real while transitioning from the religious genre is expressed and promoted in Fichte’s Lectures.

    Laying it out in a line:
    Fichte’s real schools created Hitlers real German Nationalism, demonised in narrative into a thing of pure evil with real Historical Nazi groups Characters and victims – the Holocaust.
    Continuing the line:
    The above has enabled the creation of seemingly reality derived beliefs, across the world today. These are being used in the further development of racism, supremacy, nationalist beliefs etc. And at our point in time, this line of narrative based belief and world view is being talked about and moved in certain ways by people like Robin DiAngelo and taught in schools over the planet yet prohibited as illegal in others.

    The creation of this new, non-religious narrative, is in major ways truly real, and that it contains some of the same IDEAS in the Christian narrative, is factually manifest.
    It fits the gradual, slow planned unfolding mentioned in Fichte. Fichte’s new German schools indoctrination produced a primary example of race based nationalism. In our time this defines the evil of nationalism and makes way for the next stage i.e. global unity.

    The progression of ideas is straightforward.
    In the narrative:
    The German pinnacle of nationalism led to white supremacist genocidal actions in the Holocaust. Thus Nationalism is evil. Nations as a valid society organising Idea is now ‘Reasonably’ required to humbly let go of its ‘racism’ and give way to the World-plan for Global unity.

    We see that the previous stage, set the necessary narrative and Idea foundation, for the next. This not only fits what Fichte wrote about the ‘World-plan’. It fits what his philosophical plan for German schools did. It is a very ordinary thing to point out that a plan and what came to pass match, indicating causality.

    It’s worth noting the Holocaust narrative involves the Jewish race. And the artificial creation of Jewish History and scriptures was involved in the much older, ‘Plan in Plato’. I think this may be significant in various ways but it’s so touchy a subject that just mentioning it may have already triggered some readers. I think it’s probably a good idea to follow the Ideas in the Holocaust and how they have been applied in influencing thinking and actions toward peoples and races. (But which stories were true and which one’s weren’t. Ah … they were all true. … Even the lies? … Especially the lies. See proper quote and link below.)

    If this is a new form of philosophical narrative as I’m suggesting then the illegality of Holocaust denial in some countries and the threat of Legal prosecution for mentioning it anywhere amounts to a non religious form of blasphemy laws. A long time ago I watched a series of videos called “Buchenwald a Dum Dum Portrayal of Evil”. It was very boring and monotone but seemed to be someone genuinely examining aspects of the portrayal of evil in the official western world narrative. It was back before I checked all I could but I do remember checking some details. Link:

    The millennia of western society conquest, subjection and enslavement of other nations/races has created societal/racial superiority/inferiority conscious and subconscious views and thinking. In short, a very serious racism problem. Now that things seem more in the final stages of what Fichte terms the World-plan,(philosophical rule of the world) those attitudes need to be corrected so a real Global Unity can become a prime governing Idea for society.

    So what is “racism”?
    The Fichtian philosophical roots of the real things done to create a major definer of racism; Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the Holocaust narratives, is necessary to see what racism philosophically and, historically i.e. truly is. (But … but, um … the Nazi party and the killing of Jews, the pictures of the bodies in ‘death camps’ and the insane German Nationalism in Hitlers speeches, it was all real! This just isn’t a narrative Dave. Yes, that’s one of my points, the philosophical method of constructing societal narratives now, can involve planning out the narrative desired and then doing it for real and then use the planned and really enacted actions to base narratives laden with ideas that seem unquestionably rooted in reality, but which in reality, truly were philosophically planned and designed to carry age old ideas like pure Evil Personified and the justification of immediate condemnation, just like in bible tales. Those looking for easy to see obvious narratives carrying ideas like in the bible need to become aware that it has all been upgraded and has become more sophisticated and effective.)

    I think the above provides some of the necessary objectively true and real context and some very reasonable if true, vitally important possibilities, for getting an accurate and truly useful view of “racism” and how is it being used in current discussion and in schooling students across the planet. And it gives me some foundations for starting to open out and look at some of what Robin DiAngelo discusses.

    Getting this stuff wrong, I think, means succumbing to philosophical deception on a much higher order of effectiveness than Christian/Moslem religious genre deception. Unwitting belief in this more effective upgraded philosophical deception is the norm for much of current western ‘Global’ civilisation. Those in an Age are blind to its influence upon them.

    I think Robin DiAngelo has a very high level of philosophical awareness and is using some very true and real facts to further the gradual unfolding of the philosophical World-plan. I think what she’s doing goes back to Hitlers German Nazi racial supremacist inspired beliefs, then to Fichte’s Lectures in the Berlin in the winters of 1804/5 and 1807/8 and before that to Plato and Christianity and to the very roots of influence and control of western society using philosophical planning and narratives. Which in my view have never stopped but just developed, improved and transitioned to become more deceptive and powerful.

    I will unpack and discuss a couple of things I see going on in DiAngelo’s ‘Nice Racism’ interview.

    I think I can shed some light on a couple of things in Robin DiAngelo that are not covered in the same way elsewhere and that fit in with and use the type of knowledge and thinking often seen on this blog. So that might be worthwhile.

    Love all the other comments and discussion.

    Have a GREAT day everyone!

    A final point which I absolutely love:
    Quote from Star Trek Deep Space 9. Link:

    Dr Bashir: What I want to know is out of all the stories you’ve told me which ones were true and which ones weren’t?

    Mr Garak: My dear doctor, they’re all true.

    Dr Bashir: Even the lies

    Mr Garak: Especially the lies

    Once it is known a story is a philosophical narrative what is true and what is fabricated becomes secondary in a sense. The main facts to be seen are the IDEAS in the story and how they affect and push or move the mind in thinking and living. The the IDEAS if seen for what they have done and how they were created or what they will do and where they will take society, can tell us much.

    Now some of the philosophical symbolism in Star Trek. …. hm better not go there, too powerful, too clear and mind opening.


    1. My viewpoint on racism is this.

      Human beings are social creatures. They group themselves together. They have two ways of reacting when they encounter other groups. These are to include the people from the other group or to exclude the other group. Excluding is us versus them. This is human nature. Survival is of paramuont importance. Maslow’s Hierarchy explains that physiological needs, then safety are the basic needs of human beings. Survival is first. Anything that could present a threat to survival is met with the flee or fight response. This is very basic psychology. This is survival of the fittest.

      In psychology, studies have been done where one person was given control of another person. In almost all cases, the person who had control took advantage of that power and used that power to harm the person who was controlled. I would refer you to the Milgram experiment at Yale University. Unfortunately, man has learned to go beyond the basic need of survival. Man learned to ensure that he would be able to hold power over other groups even though there was no threat to his safety. It was his perceived threat to safety. This is what greed and selfishness are. This is actually sociopathic and sometimes psychopathic behavior. I want what I want. I don’t care about you. I will conquer and subjugate you for what I want. I will use you for what I want. I will kill you if I choose to do so. This, unfortunately, is what happened with colonialism. As the colonists traveled around the world, they colonized which was to subjugate the groups of people who they encountered. So, from a desire to gain power and wealth, the colonizers determined that they had the power to travel the world taking land and resources while subjugating and murdering other human beings as they wished. The extreme contol and murders were psychopathy.

      Since the 15th century, this viewpoint has dominated societies around the world. It is not that there was not colonization or slavery in past civilizations. It is that it outweighs everything else in society today. The capitalist system is based on this. Dog eat dog. Look at how workers are treated by corporations and how workers are attempting to fight back through unionizing. Look at how this is an important point in politics. Look at what greed has done to the world.

      Global warming is an excellent example. In 1959, the “Energy and Man” symposium, a petroleum conference, was held at Columbia University in New York. At this symposium, Edward Teller, a renowned scientist, warned petroleum industry executives of the fact that global warming would occur if petroleum products continued to be used. He may have been the person who coined the term “greenhouse effect”.

      Excerpts from theconversation.com “What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words” published: October 28, 2021 are below.

      “By the late 1970s, the American Petroleum Institute had formed a secret committee called the “CO2 and Climate Task Force,” which included representatives of many of the major oil companies, to privately monitor and discuss the latest developments in climate science.”

      “Back in 1979, Exxon had privately studied options for avoiding global warming. It found that with immediate action, if the industry moved away from fossil fuels and instead focused on renewable energy, fossil fuel pollution could start to decline in the 1990s and a major climate crisis could be avoided.”

      “But the industry didn’t pursue that path. Instead, colleagues and I recently found that in the late 1980s, Exxon and other oil companies coordinated a global effort to dispute climate science, block fossil fuel controls and keep their products flowing.”

      We still have energy companies disputing the validity of the science of global warming while our world rapidly moves toward catastrophe. The ice sheets are melting at a much faster rate than first anticipated. Sometime soon, sea levels will rise hundreds of feet and flood coastlines. We will have other pandemics because viruses not seen for 15,000 years have thawed out of melting glaciers. Man has no immunity against these viruses.

      Man decided that his wealth was more important than the survival of future generations including his own. Greed actually stems from fear. Even though a person has more wealth than he needs, he still fears his demise. So, he seeks security by any means including deceit, unlawful behaviors and harming others to ensure his own safety.

      Michael W. Austin Ph.D. at psychologytoday.com, “The Grip of Greed”. Posted December 11, 2010, wrote the following. “The anxiety and restlessness we feel when we long for some possession, and the false assurance that upon gaining it we’ll be put at ease and satisfied places us in a literally vicious circle. By contrast, the virtue of generosity is most present not only when we share, but enjoy doing so.”

      Donald Trump decided to take power from the American people. He had no concern for anyone but himself. He said that he loved the poorly educated, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9F6EAMPky4. He used people to gain votes then to attempt to gain dictatorial power of the United States. The January 6th insurrection is a case in point. He had no concern for the representatives at the Capitol, the people who he deceived into doing his bidding or even his own family members who tried to stop him from causing the insurrection. He had already committed fraud previous to becoming President. Trump lied constantly. He called truth lies and lies truth. After leaving office, he removed Top Secret documents which could be used by enemies of the United States. He applauded Putin when he invaded Ukraine. He is the perfect case study in sociopathy.

      The desire to dominate caused the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, the Waco seige after the empowerment and violence of David Koresh, the mass murder of the members of the Peoples Temple, every war that has ever been fought and many more immoral and unethical acts that have occured on earth.

      The DSM-5, at https://bobmschwartz.com/2018/06/20/dsm-5-antisocial-personality-disorder-sociopathy/, defines Antisocial Personality Disorder (Sociopathy) as follows. “Antisocial personality disorder is a pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others.”

      The Diagnostic Criteria is the following:

      A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

      Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

      Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

      Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

      Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.

      Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

      Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.

      Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

      Not only is this the case for Donald Trump but it has been the case for numerous individuals from time immemorial. Currently, it has a very strong and powerful grouping of people all fighting to maintain control of the United States. These are the Conservatives, the Christian Nationalists and the other White Nationalists along with the misguided people who naively follow them. Those wishing to maintain the status quo, which is the definition of Conservative, will go to any length to maintain their power and wealth against anyone who attempts to seek justice and equality. We now have two groups in the United States. They are the Sociopaths and the ethical people who seek the moral highground which is liberty and justice for all.

      So, racism boils down to those who desire to maintain their hold on the country while precluding others from taking their rightful place in society. The is the us versus them viewpoint. If they get theirs, I might lose mine.

  5. Hi Diana

    Absolutely beautiful. Thank you.

    I love anyone and everyone’s honest point of view and world views. It’s not as if they can be something they aren’t and expecting otherwise is expecting dishonesty. I happen to think pretty much everyone’s base value is truth. And sharing, listening and discussing is how we get refine, clarify, confirm, reject etc.
    I have some other things I want to get happening but intend to reply to some things you have brought up. I’ll agree and disagree and bring up some possible facts and reasons for my differences and be very happy for the beautiful reply and opportunity to converse.
    IF the things you consider to be real and true, are true,
    THEN your Reasoning from them is obviously very moral showing you to be very truth based and moral. I love that.
    Many years ago, (it seems like another life time) I had a website called Informed Integrity. The front page had a ‘tag-line’ expressing the notion that everyone basically thinks and lives with integrity to what they consider true but it’s often not a truly informed integrity.
    Attitudes open to alternative views and evidence are necessary if we are to receive correction and live more in integrity to objective truth.
    Our minds are amazing things. It can be impossible to change how we see things without certain information and after encountering and thinking about some info, our minds can change even if we don’t want them to. Our minds have a mind of their own. lol.

    I could have a responsive reply for you in about a week.

    Cheers and
    Have a GREAT day Diana M!

  6. Here in the United States, discourse about racism is extremely complex and multi-layered. In particular, in US discourse the word “racism” is used to refer to two related but distinct phenomena.

    First there is ideological racism, what you might call racism proper. This is racism as an idea – the notion that humans can be usefully categorized into “races” with distinct stereotypical characteristics. Racial stereotypes are not necessarily overtly negative or derogatory, and it is in fact common for racist people to claim that when they indulge in stereotypes they are actually honoring or being complimentary toward others. But in reality these ideas are still harmful because they promote false images and reinforce an unequal structure of society.

    This leads to the second definition of racism, the “structural racism” which has been the subject of intense discussion on the American left in recent years. This refers to the material fact that society is, objectively, de facto segregated – whether individuals like it or not, separate and unequal conditions prevail. The key point here is that an action may contribute to these conditions regardless of the motives behind the action. Often, the motives behind an action involve a messy mixture of idealism and self-interest. The real estate market in the United States is a high-profile example. Residential segregation is deeply entangled with subjective perceptions of the “quality” of neighborhoods and its effects on property values. An individual buying a house may or may not be personally prejudiced – but racism is built into the transaction anyway, since the price paid reflects the forces of supply and demand – forces that reflect widespread prejudices about “good” and “bad” neighborhoods that often involve racism. (Buyers usually believe they are justified in seeking a home in a “good neighborhood”, especially if they believe it will be healthy for their children. But in chasing that goal they reinforce the status quo.)

    The bottom line that many US anti-racist activists have drawn is that “structural racism” systematically benefits whites regardless of anyone’s personal opinions. People of every race hold all sorts of subjective prejudices – but the overall structure of society is racist in a particular direction: the system as a whole objectively, materially benefits the white majority at the expense of minorities. The $64,000 question, of course, is what to do about this chicken-and-egg problem.

    1. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. The more I encounter remarks relating to race issues the more I sense the need for something that was seriously lacking when I was much younger — the ability to listen to the voices of all concerned. In the past, for instance, there were few Australian aboriginal voices that were heard on issues affecting them, and those that were heard were often representative of only a small part of the Aboriginal people, or were filtered through the dominant white-society paradigms.

      I like the way society seems to me to be moving slowly in a more open direction where opportunities for all affected voices to be heard are increasing — though opposition to that direction is also fierce, unfortunately.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading