Calling Bullshit on the UUA: Why only 40%?

Has it struck any of the readers of this blog as odd that an institution that has given itself completely and wholly to the psyop work of anti-racism, and has decried the white supremacy psyop culture that it finds in its midst, that the UUA Board has set the goal of UUA staffing at only 40%?

Reddit, as always, has something interesting to say about this whole thing. Goal: 40% of UUA Leadership and Management to be People of Color. It's a worthwhile read.

And here's the UUA World's gushing piece, here.

I keep coming away feeling like the whole thing is playing out like a psyop. Seriously, just look for yourself:

If the goal is truly to dismantle the perceived "White Supremacy Culture" from the UUA, will piecemeal efforts truly achieve their goals?

It seems to me that a lowly goal of 40% is designed to drag this whole thing out for a decade or more. Because once the "revolutionary, groundbreaking" goal of 40% is reached, they will discover that 40% isn't a majority. 

Here's the problem, having a goal of only 40% maintains "white supremacy." 

I know that basic math is not the forte of anyone on the UUA Board, or of the UUA Staff for that matter, but here it is: 100% - 40% = 60%. So, if the goal is actually reached and 40% of people working at the UUA are people of color, that still leaves 60% non-people of color.

So, again, I have to ask myself if the goal of 40% people of color at the UUA isn't just something cosmetic? It seems designed to stretch out the problem and keep white supremacy in play at the UUA.

"White Supremacy" makes a great devil hand-puppet in the yarn the UUA likes to spin. It keeps everyone in line. But what would happen if they actually took care of the problem?

If the UUA were to actually take care of the boogyman of white supremacy culture, for instance by instituting a goal of 51% or greater people of color at the UUA, they would have to find something else to use as a bogeyman when they want to frighten their "stakeholders" into doing their bidding.

However, in setting the goal at a ridiculously low 40%, one wonders if the goal is not so much to appease "stakeholders" as to mollify slaves. Could this be the case? If it is, what does that say about the validity of "white supremacy" culture at the UUA? Maybe it really does need to be dismantled.

40% isn't a majority, it isn't even close. To present 40% as some revolutionary act, when the reality is that it still keeps people of color in the minority and oppressed, is verbal sleight-of-hand. In other words, it's complete bullshit made to look like something worthwhile. How much gold spray paint did it take to cover that turd? The whole thing nevertheless smells like hypocrisy. 

Maybe we need to ask Rev. Rob Eller-Issacs. Wasn't he on the UUA Board when the whole 40% thing was instituted? 

Or maybe we need to ask Rev. William Sinkford, who was used by the UUA's propaganda arm to sell the bullshit here in the article and photo published by the world. [Article Here]

Seems to be selling more white supremacy to me.

For those who want to make this hypocrisy seem like a bargain, please remember that 40% is people of color... all people of color. Not just black people, or latin people, or native people, or (whatever) people... no, it's everyone, absolutely everyone. All People of Color at 40% compared to Non-People of Color at 60%. 

Still seem like a bargain?

Now, divide up the 40% into the various identity groups, and each shareholders' stake gets smaller, much smaller. It's conceivable that with four different stakeholder groups, that each identity group would only get 10%. More stakeholder identities and we're looking at less.

Stakeholders, or slaves? Is this a revolutionary gesture, or, are your murmurings merely being quelled? You tell me.

Have the shit-peddlers sold you more shit? And did you buy it? At what cost?

Cheap Advice That Will be Ignored Because of Institutional Hubris:

My cheap advice to the hoo-hahs at the Unitarian Universalist Association is really this simple, shit or get off the pot.

Institute a revised goal of 51% or greater people-of-color.

That would show you're actually serious about dismantling systems of oppression and white supremacy culture at the UUA. 

Everything else appears cosmetic.

Or, maybe that's the fucking point and has been the whole time.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

By the way, I'm aware that the fires surrounding Rev. Todd Eklof have been fanned. We'll be examining this further. 'Til then.

The Debacle of GA '19: Those Who Refused to Sign

I've heard from several people close to Rev. Todd Eklof. The reports are that he's getting it from all sides.

In our last piece, we looked at who signed, and asked the question if any of them had read the book first, or at all. [The answer to that query: some read the book while the vast majority did not; it seems that all claim to be experts on the contents of the book, however.]

In the lists of those who signed the essential book ban and character assassination of Rev. Todd Eklof, there are some striking omissions. Given that to be fully, completely, irrationally on-board with the anti-racism psyop initiative is the only way to have a career in UU-land, it is surprising that some key names are not on the various petitions.

Why?

In the current hysterical atmosphere at the UUA not signing a popular petition makes one stand out. The ideal at the UUA that it wants all congregations to adopt is groupthink. It makes very little sense not to sign a petition.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to refuse to sign particularly if you have been one of the architects of the current situation.

Why for instance is Rev. William Sinkford not on either list? 

He was our first "black" president. This was a fact screamed from the rooftops. 

He was also brought back when Rev. Peter Morales was  shit-canned to be part of a tripartite (trinity?) occupying presidency. This is not ancient history. The man is labeled a leader, is brought back to lead after the ousting of his successor, and yet, does NOT sign a letter denouncing the racism of a book that is being treated as if it came from Satan's bowels. 

What's up with that?

Does Rev. Sinkford not find the book racist? If he doesn't find the book rayciss, maybe he should say so.

Does he not believe that Rev. Todd Eklof is racist? If he doesn't find Rev. Todd Eklof rayciss, maybe he should say so.

Rev. William Sinkford was a driving force for the "justice" of anti-racism work. In fact, he was one of the main pushers and beneficiaries of anti-racism in the UUA. 

Why, when his colleague, friend, and campaign manager, the Rev. Rosemary Bray-McNatt signed the UUMA letter, would Rev. Sinkford not sign it?

Can you see how this is a big omission?

Is he having second thoughts? 

Is he beginning to look at what he's wrought and questioning his role?

Nah... Rev. William Sinkford seems incapable of holding an opinion that hasn't been carefully handed to him. Ask any member of his congregation. [That's what some of them are saying.]

Is Rev. William Sinkford racist?

Maybe he did his part, helped to fertilize and plow the ground from which this harvest of toxic fungus grows, and having done his part, handed the reigns over to the useful idiots and true believers who will complete the process. He's no longer needed, he fulfilled his role as a key player in the anti-racism psyop initiative. 

And having done his part fades into the night. If you let him. Why are you letting him?

Or maybe people realize that trans-racial grandpa has nothing relevant to say anymore? 

If this is true, he may simply never have been approached.

Another name that is noticeably absent from this list is that of Rev. Rob Eller-Issacs. Rev. Rob "Anti-Racism" Eller-Issacs is not a signatory?! What the fuck is up with that? I mean the man's been on the ground floor of this stuff since the candidacy of Rev. John Buehrens for president, and was part of the closed-door meeting that gave BLUU 5.3 million of the UUA's money... with no strings attached! And he didn't sign? 

It's like he wants to be invisible. Well, I suppose cockroaches hate the light.


This one's getting long and will need to be continued... Just wanted to let you all know I haven't forgotten about these motherfuckers. And then there are those ministers who have connections to the Spokane church, none of whom signed. Yeah, there's more to come.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead