It’s supposed to “spark conversations” about racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

<An artistic mural has been installed at the University of Southern California that declares “dismantle whiteness” in big, black and white capital letters, one part of a larger display designed to spark conversations regarding “racism, sexism and xenophobia,” according to its creators.

The mural was designed by the feminist artist collective When Women Disrupt in conjunction with students in the class “Women: Designing Media for Social Change.”

Recently installed at an entrance to the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism building, it depicts large sketch drawings of four women of color on walls flanking the doorway with the words “DISMANTLE WHITENESS AND MISOGYNY ON THIS CAMPUS” posted on the ceiling above it.

snip

One of the keyterms on it is “Whiteness” and is described as “Distinct from being white, whiteness refers to an unmarked and unnamed place of advantage, privilege or domination; a lens through which white people tend to see themselves and others; an organizing principle that shapes institutions, policies, and social relations.”

The flyer also lists some background of When Women Disrupt, described as “an intersectional feminist artist collective.”

snip

According to an article in The Daily Trojan, several students were not satisfied with the location of the artpiece, as they believe it should have been placed in a more highly traversed area. USC student Claire Porter blamed the administration.

“It’s placed in a very hidden area of campus where it’s not usually seen and I think that speaks to the administration and how they want to frame and direct the conversation and the impact — the fact that it is inward-facing not outward facing — all of these factors are intentional from the administration and I think this project would have been much more powerful if the artists were given more freedom,” Porter said.

snip

According to an USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism post on Facebook touting the piece, the “work was sponsored by the Institute for Diversity and Empowerment (IDEA) and USC Visions and Voices as part of USC Annenberg’s ‘Off the Wall’ series of multi-media art installations.”>

https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shouts...

F Liberals and all those cancerous Social Democrats

Peace (BTW: I am a moderate-fiscal conservative)

<An artistic mural has been installed at the University of Southern California that declares “dismantle whiteness” in big, black and white capital letters, one part of a larger display designed to spark conversations regarding “racism, sexism and xenophobia,” according to its creators.>>

Thank you kindly for that recommendation. I appreciate getting great book recommendations.

Scroll down to the second article, <Life at 50>.

It begins with an interesting chart for the average ages at which we reach our peaks for various things.

Chess: Age 31.

Chess: Age 31.>

Tell that to Korchnoi!

<Salary: Age 48.>

<“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler explains. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.”>

Isn't that just like your typical angry, man-hating feminist? They have the same personalities as drunks, minus the alcohol.

<“Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military,” former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman recalls. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.”>

Unlike Trump, who goes out of his way to mix it up with the regular folks. Hillary is a toxic woman and the people knew that. That's one reason she lost in 2016, despite the plausible possibility that millions of illegals who wanted to stay voted for her.

<“Hillary didn’t like the military aides wearing their uniforms around the White House,” one former agent remembers. “She asked if they would wear business suits instead. The uniform’s a sign of pride, and they’re proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was actually really offended by it.”>

In the white house, she was only the president's wife, not the president! That's our white house, not her white house. Where does she get off being such a nasty, pushy broad?

Imagine being married to that insufferable woman?>

Hillary is the paragon of the entitled elite. That's where she gets off being nasty and pushy.

Recall in 2007 she thought the stars were aligned for her ascent to the presidency. The sitting president was unpopular, and had lost the Congress the year before. So it was the Dem's cycle.

And in walked Obama, relatively new to the game, to take the nomination. It took HRC a long time to concede the nomination. A week or more after the voters had decided it.

She viewed the nomination as hers. Who was this upstart to take it, without paying the dues?

Is this assessment wrong? I don't think so. I think the 2016 election cycle proves it. Hillary wasn't going to let the will of the electorate take away *her* rightful prize a second time.

So she and DWS conspired to rob Bernie. Before Democratic voters like me ever got to cast any ballots, HRC has a huge lead in "super delegates" (read: party cronies and elites).

So the obstacle for Bernie was already high. And many passionate Bernie supporters rightly withheld their support from HRC in the general election, because of this very anti-democratic elitism that she used to take what she wanted. She wasn't going to risk Bernie repeating the Obama methodology.

I said it before - 2016 was a toss up for me. Usually, all the GOP clowns disqualify themselves (in my eyes) during the GOP primary debates. And they all did again in 2015, except for one man.

Trump. Every time he opened his mouth to talk policy, it was good! He proposed true changes that America needed.

<IhaveToTellYouImaBRAINDOCTOR: When I opened the internet, I got genuinely frightened. You see I have been monitoring Russian news...>

LOL

They're <FRIGHTENED>.

Liberal men who have been 100% cucked love to say how frightened they are. How scared they are. How <vulnerable> they are. It's this thing that libs do. They're "not afraid" to "admit" to their (magic word coming) vulnerabilities.

They make me sick. "Oh, I was so frightened..."

How weak and disgusting is that?

Again, he didn't "appreciate" being <frightened>!

It just bubbles out of them.

Can't you just hear a woman talking like this? Trying for a moment. Imagine some woman saying it:

<I didn't appreciate being frightened...>

Isn't that so unmanly?

I'm just observing libs in the wild, among themselves, like watching ants go to and fro in the ant farm.

How does a MAN get online and say to the world in a public forum, "I didn't appreciate being frightened..."? I mean, how do they do that and have NO SHAME about it?

Do they think they need to become unmanly liberal cucks in order to be an intellectual? Do they see intellectuals as unmanly, weak, effeminate liberal cucks and mold themselves after that?

I don't know.

"Oh, I'm SO frightened...."

"Me too, you're not the only one you know. I'm frightened too..."

"Oh yes, we're frightened together, and, isn't this manly?"

technical draw chessforum (kibitz #8395)>

See!!??

When these guys see a man standing at the urinal, they think>:

https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...

<Christian nationalism has played a central role in the popular rise of Donald Trump and will continue to do so, according to a new report by three US sociologists.

At the time of his election as president, Trump was 'for many Americans, a symbolic defense of the United States' perceived Christian heritage' says the report, Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election published in the journal Sociology of Religion, by Andrew L Whitehead, Samuel L Perry and Joseph O Baker.

And those who voted for Trump – including famously some 80 per cent of white evangelicals – valued the perceived return to US Christian identity, with the appointment of hard-line Christian social conservatives in key administration positions, ahead of almost anything else, according to the paper. Trump
ReutersDonald Trump enjoys the support of evangelical leaders

'Data from a national probability sample of Americans surveyed soon after the 2016 election shows that greater adherence to Christian nationalist ideology was a robust predictor of ...>

A very interesting find indeed, but if anyone was reading my posts 2 years ago, they would already have been introduced to this notion. I could see this taking shape long before everyone else.

The following are from my posts in 2016.

<Trump is running a campaign based clearly on nationalism, anti-political correctness and common sense. He's something of a Christian Nationalist. >

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #206915)

<Nationalism does not necessarily imply fascism. I see Trump as a Christian Nationalist, which is exactly what we need right now, while tolerating his liberal positions.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #213750)

<Trump is leading the western world with his bold, unafraid message of Christian nationalism and anti political correctness.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #219594)

<I think Trump tapped into Christian Nationalism, but that might be what you guys are saying in a different way.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #238249)

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.n...

Again, he didn't "appreciate" being <frightened>>

What stood out to me was this:

<along with countless others>