Racist Doctor Goes On Tirade, Declares To Palestinian Immigrant “You Are A White Male! You Stop It, You Are A White Male!” To Applause At Public Meeting In Chicago

Susan Buchanan is a doctor and a trustee for Oak Park in Chicago, and at a recent meeting of fellow trustees, she berated them, including a Palestinian immigrant for speaking on racial equity and oppression during a recent board meeting using racist terminology, saying that they “never experienced” racism or oppression because they are “white,” and to the loud applause from the audience.

“You have been white from birth,” Buchanan told fellow trustees Dan Moroney and Deno Andrews. “Why are you arguing what is a system of oppression? You’ve never experienced one, so shut up! I don’t want to hear from you! Just stop Dan, just stop Deno. You are not oppressed and people in Oak Park and we are trying to recognize that as a community.”

Buchanan’s comments drew a round of applause from the audience.

“This mayor and this board is obviously not willing to face history,” she said. “We have a chance to make history. It is time for this community to face equity. Enough! And you stop it! You are a white male! You stop it, you are a white male!

Speaking to Oak Park Mayor Anan Abu-Taleb, a Palestinian immigrant, Buchanan said “Your skin is light enough. Stop it!”

Buchanan, a medical doctor who has served on the board since April, made the comments while discussing a motion to adopt an updated diversity statement.

“I think if we reduce these conversations to ‘nobody cares because you are a white male,’ I don’t think we’re doing this right,” Moroney replied to Buchanan. (source)

(source, source)

People will talk about racism and hate, and then as how such things happen.

This right here is a quintessential example of how people start to hate other people.

There is common strain of American thinking that sees the world in terms of a universal “black or white” mentality that, while rooted in a pursuit of justice, can and has been repeatedly hijacked to promote injustice of the worst kinds and then be unable to understand why certain problems started the way they did. The most common fashion is in the “seek-and-destroy” mentality found in the US, likely originating in the UK, where once an “enemy” is identified, regardless of the reason why such a thing is called the “enemy,” that it must be viciously persecuted without mercy until it is permanently destroyed and unable to regenerate.

The Anglo-Saxon displacement and massacre of the Picts, the destruction of the Church by King Henry VIII, the mass rounding up of poor people in parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland and sending them to the US, the massacres and mass internment camps (“Indian Reservations”) of the Indians in the US, the invasion and illegal robbery of Texas from Mexico, and the robbery of Spanish possessions in the Caribbean and East Asia, the Temperance movement, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and many of the anti-immigrant protests are either examples of actions or the mindset of this mentality. It is why eugenics was not created in Germany, but was a product of the UK by way of Darwin and was adopted and innovated greatly in the US, so much that it was Germany who took the ideas from the US and UK and simply brought them to their natural, logical ends.

This process is happening right now in the US with sodomy and Christianity by way of the Catholic Church. At this point in American history, the acceptance of sodomy is equal to good citizenship and patriotism. If one opposes the sodomites, one is immediately ostracized socially and economically to the point of being forever restricted from full social and cultural participation, and if one has a lot of business, it threatens one’s economic interests. This is socially supported and is being written into law.

In the case of the Church, the Catholic Church has never been accepted in the US, and Christianity at large, while accepted by many, has a tumultuous relationship with the US, where much of what is called “Christianity” is just a cover for American forms of nationalism. However, Christianity is in serious decline in the US, as the younger people are leaving religion and not returning, and even the Evangelical Protestant bloc, which is made up of multiple religious denominations, admits there is currently no way to stop this that has worked effectively.

Since Christian morality is anathema to most ideas of tribalistic power fights, and given the strong secularist currents in the US that have existed with her since her inception, there is likely to come a point when Christianity becomes a minority religion. Right now, the biggest protection of Christians is their numbers, which constitute a majority of people at least by nominal affiliation. Once this no longer exists, given the social trends, it will likely pass that Christians may find themselves in a first-century type scenario that is often lauded by Protestants but without comprehending the reality, which is that religious adherence becomes something done by choice under socially tenuous circumstances with the expectation of persecution and death at any moment. It is not an enjoyable or good way to live by any imagination.

This mindset described above goes through periods of ebb-and-flow just as the tides of the oceans so. Sometimes it is more prevalent, and other times less prevalent in the Anglosphere.

In the case of the above trustee from Oak Park, she was openly using extremely racist rhetoric against other people- “white people” -and with the support of the people in the audience.

Can one imagine if a “white” man said the same thing, but with the word “black”, “hispanic” or “asian” in its place? It would be national news.

But more than a question of “race”- it is the question of the acceptance of the above “seek-and-destroy” mindset.

In this woman’s mind, the “white man” is the “enemy”, who must be “destroyed” by way of saying that he does not have a place in society because of his race and gender.

This same phenomenon is taking place in the right wing right now, as it has been discussed extensively in the Shoebat archives.

What I speak of here is the result of something that started in the late 1990s with the Bush II campaign, which is the increasing polarization of American political and social discourse.

It is OK to disagree with people, and people sometimes use charged language. However, this is not an isolated incident, but a trend that continues to increase.

During the 1960s, when many people spoke about racism and its existence, which was undoubtedly true, the general trend of society was not to support, but to oppose it on all sides. It is arguable that the “Civil Rights Movement” had little to do with this, and as author Thomas Sowell has pointed out, has been at best of questionable help in improving “race relations”, for the trends that brought about integration and desegregation were in progress since the 1940s. As I have written before, the “Brazilianization” of the US- referring to the phenomenon of people’s of mixed backgrounds mixing with each other in an organic, natural, non-forced or coerced way -was inevitable due to the migrations of peoples to the US and their interactions. The “race” question is, like immigration, one of political manipulation by those without morals whose aim is often power, money, and eugenics.

When tribalism is combined with a “seek-and-destroy” mindset, a religious view of patriotism, and no real objective morality to serve as a barrier, it is a formula for social violence and disorder, if not in the immediate time, in the future. Problems always happen, but problems become compounded by other problems if they are not addressed, and it is then when people start to hate each other and want to eventually, if still left unmitigated or unresolved, start to find reasons to justify killing each other.

Social tension is being used right now to put people against each other, and then to have government and her contacts in finance and industry that support her to act as as mediator to “resolve” the conflicts by taking away people’s rights and making them more vassal-like than what they already are.

This is not a time for violent rhetoric and disorder, but for peace, as it is not about “submission,” but preventing an already burning fire from getting more out of control than what it already is.

Source