The Occupy Movement, in turn, was created by the Canadian far-left movement magazine Ad Busters. The Wikipedia article on the magazine lists these 4 people as the leaders:
Ideas have authors. Ideas have consequences. Either the 1% is a reasonable shorthand for talking about social inequality, or it's not. If it is then it certainly makes sense to talk about who makes up the 1%.
If it's not a useful idea for talking about social inequality then: where were people in condemning it over the last five or six years, as it's become almost a household term?
The same is even more true of the concept of White privilege.
Did Lonnie Nasatir, the regional director for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), at any point make any statements against scapegoating the 1%? About the nefarious concept of White privilege which demonizes an entire group based on ethnic identity?
Will Lonnie Nasatir even now denounce it?
Doing a little web searching it's interesting to see that earlier this month the the school was promoting a speech about a far-left reporter, and the promotion freely used the terms "white privilege" and "male privilege". The link can be found here The flyer ends:
Questions of race and sex split open American society, revealing both its dark underbelly, as well as opening eyes, freeing imaginations, and putting white privilege and male privilege (not to mention U.S. national privilege) on the defensive. Halsell’s world view, schooled in Cold War liberalism, Southern paternalism & white supremacy, and domesticity, begins to unravel especially after her stint in Vietnam, and even more so when she turns her attention to the U.S., its ghettos, reservations, borders – and finally to Palestine.In their statement the administration decries the message of the posters - but at the same time is promoting nearly identical messages in lectures, and presumably other class room material.
Why the double standard? Why is it OK for some people to continually make broad generalizations about one group, White people, of extremely dubious accuracy (there are many poor whites in America who experience no privilege in their lives) but a campus crisis when another group makes similar, dubiously accurate, statements about another group.
The double standard is obvious and appalling.
Here's my musings... Have you ever talked with white "elites" who love to travel to third world countries? Then come back and speak with wonder about young children who would scrape the 'bird shit' off their boots? And how horrible it smelled and how young the children were and how they would 'tip' them a quarter or dime...and how poor everyone was??
Or the part in Elie Wiesel's book, "Night" where villagers threw bread scraps to people dying of hunger and thirst - as much to watch the humiliation of humans in cattle cars fighting over small bits of food as to actually feed or help their fellow humans?
When I see white "elites" fawning over blacks - the more criminal and degraded 'the better' - or want to degrade themselves to 'their lessors'... I see the same evil. Decent people don't encourage dependency, play up artificial differences, or wallow in indignities. Liberal 'elites' do all of the above.
That's where the 'double standard' comes in. These so-called 'elites' would never treat poor whites like this because they don't 'get off' on our poverty. We remind them of where their families likely (really) came from...and it wasn't the "London/royalty" side of Pensacola...(a minor issue with the "Morning Joe" show...
Anyhow, what's your take on the double standard and why it exists...