colonialism, racism, Imperialism & uh... 'Quakerism'

Note: I often have links set to open in a new tab & try to indicate that using the mouse hover popup. Last edit: 25 Jan 2026

( ^ pointer hover the gif image)

Note: This is a static website, so no cookies, notifications, etc.

I will clarify here that this man, Rob Wipond, is a narcissist prick. I've sat in hours of group therapies with people who have suffered the worst kind of abuses and crimes, and they appreciated my insight as well as my compassionate ear. If anyone has any issue with what I do then it's their own jealousy and ignorance. I will make a point to publicize what was requested of me by Rob's "people" without any of them ever acknowledging my position. Rob Wipond is all about defaming me and labeling my family as racist simply because they wanted to escape England (and people like him). I have nothing to be ashamed of. Matt Weatherford released his book for free and I paid for a copy as soon as he announced that he was planning to drop the price. That is what kind of person I am. Rob Wipond most likely never read the book even if it is about the same subject that he wrote about. He doesn't need to because Rob Wipond only cares about Rob Wipond. That is fine. Whatever. It is obvious to me that Rob Wipond and his peeps think of John Papola as the most wonderful kind of person and people continue remaining oblivious to what he did to his son. All these people making a living by complaining about society. People tend to feel the need to talk down to me because I was dumb enough to actually work for what I have.

earlier content...

Rob Wipond's personal insult aside here, apparently it's true that the word "colonialism" = "racist" so "colonist" = "racist" and Quakers (who were anti-slavery) were colonists so they were racist. Maybe they wanted slaves freed because they were too stupid and poor or whatever to own any themselves so there's like Benjamin Lay who'd stand out in (east coast) rainstorms with one bare foot to protest slavery. He also wrote anti-slavery literature which Benjamin Franklin printed and published. One of my great(x2) grandpas, Benjamin Franklin McCurdy, most certainly had his name for a reason. They were Irish Catholic, by ethnicity. I knew that much growing up. I think my grandparents made it a point to not directly associate to Quakers but on both my maternal and paternal side my grand mothers, both, would allude to the fact that our family was different in a way. They'd even teach me with examples or by illustration (I remember the "elephant and blind men" being one) and the message was clear that I was to never judge people by appearances. (Of course my father leans away from that a bit but was also the Colorado delegate for Dr. Ben Carson, so...)

One of my great grandpas, paternal-paternal, was named "Sherman" and I remember telling a friend of mine's cousin that once, he seemed to be quizzing me about my family (and I had been taught that was a "red flag", there were others too, phrases and whatnot that I was to be weary of anyone who used them, e.g., "you don't appreciate..."), but this young man started laughing, saying that I didn't even know anything about my own family. I knew of the existence of the Sherman tank but only associated the two as coincidence. The tank and my great grandpa were both named after the same famous Union general, is the point. I was supposed to be all proud of that fact (or something) from what that young man was explaining to me. My friend's cousin's family was well educated about the Civil War and that was also taught to me as a serious "red flag" where my paternal grandmother made it very clear to me that all I needed to know was "we won".

My grandmother told me that anyone who ever showed interest in the details of the era was to be avoided. I was taught the basics of the years following The Emancipation where even though technically the Black children could attend school they were often bullied (for example). I understood the concept that the freed slaves were granted freedom but were still deliberately oppressed. I had friends who were racist, in their way, but understood that was a sensitive issue for me. Any of my friends who met my paternal grandmother would be straight out told by her, in no uncertain terms, that she couldn't tolerate racism. When I explained to a therapist of mine the reasoning I had for joining the military he actually apologized to me because he realized that it was simply (from his professional assessment) that I was avoiding getting caught up in that kind of culture where I'd have to be more positive about racist idealogy. (The military still has the distinctive "classes" of officers and enlisted, but those exist independent of race.) To summerize here, one of the things that came out of my therapy years ago was that there were many times in my past, and it continues to happen now, where there would be people who want(ed) nothing less then for me to be labeled as racist which would mean that I have accomplished absolutely nothing in my life except to be a problem for everyone else which means that I just need to fuck off & die & go to hell in a handbasket (type thing).

Anyway, this linguistics expert has clarified that "colonialism is the practice of extending and maintaining political, social, economic, and cultural domination over a territory and its people by another people in pursuit of interest defined in an often distant metropole who also claim superiority." so once again I am to just give up. None of this would probably bother me all that much if it wasn't for the fact that my current landlady wants me to burn in hell since I must've had a really easy life and I must not deserve the assistance I receive. It seems like out of linguistics convenience there is need to label anti-slavery white people as racist. They're only some fringe sect of radical dumb crazy people so nobody has a problem with the inconsistency. The Quakers should have stayed in England and posited becoming firewood (type thing). Maybe I should point out here though, just as example, this man, was one who befriended me but also took advantage of me, even putting myself at physical risk to help him. He once used the n-word in an AA meeting we were at together, with me his "sponsor", and there was a man in the meeting who had once shared about being half-black (and it was obvious to me just by looking at him) so I approached that man and greeted him directly after the meeting. My friend, my only "sponsoree" to date, died homeless in Florida.

I suppose the other thing I could point out here about my family's ethnicity, to differentiate or distinguish it as being separate of what's considered white, and something I was teased about by various (intellectual) people who got to know me. It was something that I only fully understood myself in last few years from watching documentaries and the like. There is high rate of violent serial crimes, as well as other sensational murders, among the population of the mid-western U.S., or the Ohio River Valley is the region where my ancestors ended up settling. It was also that I fit the "profile" for that kind of thing (and is embarrassing for me to bring up) but what may surprise many people now is that it was back in 1986 even, when a shipmate of mine in the Navy began insinuating that he thought me as being dangerous in that way. I caught on to him and outright told him it wasn't funny. I most definitely told him that my parents had another son a few years before me who died as an infant because medical error (a not uncommon surgical procedure could've saved him but wasn't performed in time), but I'd explain to people like him in certain circumstances that I understood that my parents had already experienced their share of tragedy. I always kept that in mind. As a family we were aware of aberrant group social dynamics, or cults, etc. I was also taught to be weary of people who were extremely anti-government. Rob Wipond's book is anti-government in its way since the idealogy expressed is that it is wrong for a government to have a system in place to lock potentially dangerous people up. I've mentioned that here already but what I think is wrong is that there's misinformation proliferated about the intricacies of the processes in place to help suffering human beings. It is all just too sensational and morbid!

(Fine.) I've added new section and started on my new plan but soon realized that there's another issue that could be looked into that is in line with mental health community advocacy and is actually critical at this juncture. As a way of compromise (I'm not out to string anyone along indefinitely) I figured that I'd leave the book where it is and comment out the direct link in this page. I might as well mention this too, that I have Robert Whitaker's book online as well, behind password protection that I've shared once with the VA (oh, I know — they didn't care) but in it he mentions right away that the first asylum (for trauma'd people) was established by Quakers in the colonies. Anyway, I didn't know that and appreciated the information, as well as his help with uncovering VA abuses. The Quakers' association with psychiatry was culturally appropriated, in essence. Elsewhere I mention that I know of an ethnic culture that is aware of Society of Friends posit (of compassion, basically) and they will emulate it to the tee but then suddenly make it clear that their point is that only if it's not about a person or people of color. I also point out elsewhere ( drdino.org/ ) that there are those who want to argue about the simplist things, e.g., "flat-earthers", and their underlying motivation is racist. They intend the discussion to lead into that. It would be considerate to work on revision or preface to address my concern that I address in this website. The other issue I've alluded to here can be worked out.

Update... 23 Dec 2025

The latest... (a message from Rob Wipond via website contact)
"This is a heavily documented and widely written about historical reality — I merely summarize it."
If it is so heavily documented then it should be fairly short work to cite referrences for the claim. You then cite law intended to protect you but here I am, a disabled person and veteran, who is currently being harassed by a property manager who doesn't have legitimate licensing to follow through with the county civil court process to deal with their non-payment tenants. Instead the landlord(s) will threaten and defame me to force me to move so they can appear to be all about taking care of business. Illegal acts committed against me must be somehow my fault. See the difference? The people I'm supposed to notify of the crimes won't do anything except patronize me.

Text of message (excerpt)...

"In many cases, these psychiatrists did these things as part of efforts to help further certain goals of colonialism — such as by helping justify the whipping of slaves or the domination and control of Native Americans. This is a heavily documented and widely written about historical reality — I merely summarize it."

You still could've edited the book, it is in digital form after all, and you could've pointed out the simple fact that "not all colonists were racist" in some way but you don't consider it important since it's only me here, little itsy bitsy tiny whiney me, who takes issue with it and who am I to you and your publisher? Tell your publisher to sue me. Again, the very first thing I will bring up is that I have a spot in a VA National Cemetery, I am descendent of the colonists who you are labeling as all being racist (in your book still since you only explained more in your message to me personally, as to patronize me). I ended up going thousands of dollars in debt since I had to keep moving because of cruel property managers, and I'm on housing assistance so my father doesn't understand why I haven't saved money. (Of course I realized that the aspect of people with mortgages on houses they live in and a savings account too is paradoxical. Everybody plays same game. It's all about appearances!) Incindently, to save you trouble of reading anything I ever wrote, my legacy is that when I was young man I was raped by a man with intention to infect me with hiv and he thought it worked. I was never able to "plan for my future" since I could no longer imagine one. I worked in construction too, even with reconstructed ankle from military injury, and I did work that you would refuse to do. I helped a lot of people in my life and even saved some lives. (I once told a woman who was experiencing dissociative episodes and finding herself walking along railroad tracks at night that I thought she wasn't assessing her behavior correctly when she explained that she was convinced that her spirit-self wanted her to suicide. I said that it was more likely that she just wanted to walk but along streets gets annoying because of the cars, noise, headlights, etc., and she was grateful for my insight.) Here you are, like just about everyone else, who think of me as your punk ... you gonna teach me a life lesson... that you're in the position to teach me a life lesson... & you must be the very first person to ever get the idea to teach me a life lesson (type thing). You have no real creditials and you refuse to alter your writing where you call the founding fathers of my country "racists", in so many words. You are about a world-class prick, Rob Wipond! How about read Matthew Weatherford's book? It's free, and could provide you with insight as to what "the system" is like for people. He experienced similar to what I have, good & bad, and it'd be enlightening for you. Do that and edit the book or else have "your people" sue me so I can show off my grand-daddy's ribbons that he scored in the second war before he then ended up dying of hypothermia on my g'ma's porch, as well as my documentation for my Interring at VA national cemetery.

I'll point out too here that there was one occassion where my counselor therapist said under his breath "this is a farce", meaning that the time and effort he was putting into me wasn't going to amount to much (seriously) and here I am going out on a limb, going into debt even, and anything I do to attempt to provide information and evidence that if known about, could be extremely helpful for people who've suffered violent crime, childhood abuse, rape, etc. and ended up in the mental health system. In essence (and what really gets my goat here) is that this book and it's author are from perspective of family relation to a person in the system... so it isn't anything new on that level. If anything, all it does is reinforce an ideology that there are people in the system who don't belong in it, merely by their original social status in life. So there exists two social stratums of people and there exists a means to incarcerate innocent people who are potentially dangerous (to themselves and/or others) and that's against established civil rights since the key word is "potentially" since that is established by a practicing, licensed medical doctor who specializes in the particular discipline. The right to judicial process is circumvented and it's explained to the psychiatric patient that the lack of due process if for their own good. The patient is locked up, that hasn't changed in this example, so the patient has no other choice but to accept that as their new reality that they no longer share the same basic civil rights that others do. Of course the patient understands (in their way) that they no longer are included in the level of society that includes the human race, in general. It is confusing and frustrating concept and while reconciling that ideology to be congruent with the knowledge that the patient is actually a human being but people are convinced that they are not the psychiatric systems instills on the patient that it is their fault but just not how the people out in general population thinks it is, or how they do think it is their fault because all they need to do is take medication as prescribed for their life-long "illness". So there just exists a state of limbo for the patient that is the person's reality.

If I ever am sued by a publisher then the existence of this website will inevitably need to be acknowledged and again, I have a spot in a VA National Cemetery and there exists possibility that could still be taken away from me but (again) the ironic thing is that I ain't gonna be around to care! Instead of simply responding with a "Oh! Well good idea to point this out and I'll take care of it!", I get a "talk to the hand", or patronized and rebuffed, in other words. Obviously I need to contact the publisher to express my concerns and inform them that there wouldn't be any problem at all if the author merely corrected his lack of citation to his referring to my family as racists. I'd even help here by pointing out that there were members of "Religious Society of Friends" who owned slaves (and the 1920's mayor of Denver, Colorado, was a member of the Klu Klux Klan) but there is documented evidence of the pressure by other Quakers for all Society of Friends members to join abolishment cause, they conceded to the request, and to clarify the connection to the mentioning of Mayor Ben Stapleton, he also invited the NAACP to the city of Denver, Colorado to hold their convention. ← That fact is cited in the Wikipedia article about him. I also have a copy of the local history book with the information. The real point is for me that the racial issues of our society impact me on personal level and I often get labeled as some kind of bad person, bigoted or ignorant, whatever and I have my own advocacy cause so I don't need to be always challenged to discredit me. Just like anyone else who I'm in conflict with, instead of the person making a change that wouldn't be too difficult for them to do, they just continue to sadistically string me along to stifle my human right of free speech since in this case (again) the book wouldn't be included here if it weren't for the fact that the author is associating American colonists directly with racism without pointing out simple fact that original colonists were, at a large part, religious people who were persecuted in their originating countries. It all wasn't a homogenous movement to overtake other people and the author admits to that but just not in the book itself. The fact that I'm a descendant of original colonists who were not racist people is my reason to challenge the legitimacy† of the manuscript.
(† There is better word but I can't seem to think of it right now. This all gets so frustrating since I keep attempting to explain my points to various people in different ways as to avoid misunderstanding but then I continuously encounter people who thrive on the ongoing misunderstanding since it makes them feel so important to be engaging in the discourse.)

Oh... When I got out of the military (the rape event happened while I was serving), I was doing better for awhile. I got tested for the virus and it was negative so I began to accept that was the case. (There was a time when I wasn't sure that the test was completely accurate.) What then happened to me was that I was participating in an Alcoholics Anonymous group and there was a young woman in the group who had gotten infected with the virus. None of those people knew what happened to me, I didn't ever talk about the assult on me to anyone. At the time I was avoiding any interaction with women who I didn't already know. There was another woman in the group who was interested in me and I was oblivious to the fact but there were people in the local AA groups who began gossiping about me and they became convinced that I must be homosexual since I would not even try to connect with women in the groups. The young woman who had the disease (by that point) resented me since by form, I should've been the one dying. She got the idea to spit into a lukewarm cup of coffee of mine while I was in the restroom one evening in December, 1992, and I drank the remainder of the contents of the cup. After I had found out what happened I was outcasted from the recovery group(s), ostracized, and so I had no more social group that was conducive to recovery. I had friends at that time who were active users of alcohol and cocaine, even. I ended up falling into a depressed (morose) state and my father caught on to the basis of my fear, but in misconstrued way (of course) and privately suggested to me that I take my own life since he didn't want me around if I was going to be like that. (I was living with my sister and her sons at that point.) When I didn't he arranged a confrontation with me (like an "intervention", of sorts) and called police on me.

When police showed up I was crying and in an off-handed, colloquial way I told one of the officers to "shoot me and put me out of my misery" and that was enough for them to put me on seventy-two hour hold. When I was in the (psychiatric) hospital (I was there voluntarily at that point since it was either that or homelessness) the staff had made an agreement with my father that I'd be tested for hiv (I told them about the cup of poisoned coffee) and if it was negative then he'd allow me to go back to my sister's or otherwise he didn't want to have anything to do with me. I wasn't aware of the terms of that collaberation (which a counselor of mine later pointed out that was unethical of them) but the test was negative. I reiterate though that I still was not sure that the test was completely accurate, I thought it possible that I mutated the virus in a way to where it was mitigated enough to not show up in standard tests. At the time I didn't know to associate terms like "saturation" but in my reality (and this is what is critical to my narrative) I was certain that I was a carrier of a new strain of the virus that wasn't testing as positive with the test used. I was doing everything I could to get that point through to the doctors. If I was correct then there were already a couple of people who were possibly affected. I was concerned that the new strain wouldn't be acknowledged until enough people contracted it so the original process of the discovery of the disease would be repeated. Years went by until there was a counselor of mine who understood my problem. During that time I did best I could to maintain employment and live normally.

"start a conversation..." ? You are grandiose, Mr Wipond, thinking that I want to converse with you. I had already tried that route. It is very obvious that I take issue with the use of word "colonialism" and your directly associating it with "genetic superiority" or "white supremacy", in other words. I know that it is common, especially among Canadians, but it's a prejudicial word because it is meant to be. The prejudice is against people who are Christian and white but the clear association is that they must've been racist but too stupid to understand that (or whatever). In the case of Quakers (who were among first "colonists" so could be accurately categorized as such) the opposite was true where the "Religious Society of Friends" were anti-slavery. I had pointed that out already and as simply as I could. Don't take my word for it, research it yourself!

In short here... If my including the text of the book in question here is "illegal" then how come I haven't been charged with a crime? Why not sue me? Why not get your publisher to sue me? In case you are wondering the very first thing I will bring up is fact that I have a spot in a VA National Cemetery and if I was to lose that the ironic thing is that I'm not going to be around to care. See how that works? You write, publish, and peddle a book in my country and you defame people who were first settlers and don't mention that those same first settlers were escaping a country where they were being threatened with torture & death for not taking sides. They were caught up between Catholics & Protestants (I probably covered that part here already) but trying to be peacemakers was their only "crime".

I'm currently in a situation where I receive housing assistance with a VA program that is associated with my country's HUD housing assistance program, where mine is for veterans only and handled with separate division. I have now figured out (and have evidence to support this claim) that there are owners and managers of muti-unit residential properties (apartment complexes) who instead of dealing with hassle of going through the county civil court proceedings to evict non-paying tenants they focus on harassing a tenant on housing assistance to cause them enough frustration to coerce them into attempting to confront a landlord so that their distress can be labeled as ungrateful and disruptive so the landlord can get police involved to get the housing assistance recipient kicked out of apartment. That way the landlord appears to have control of the situation and seem to be compassionate to the people struggling to pay their rent. I get scapegoated and I've actually ended up in debt trying to maintain my housing since I've had to abruptly move twice to avoid altercations with landlords or vigilantes or whoever. I have a physical disability too and that is noted on my military discharge document. I show the landlords that and attempt to reason with them but they just laugh at me because I'm upset (because of schadenfreude).

It is possible to revise the book and then contact me with the update and I would be more inclined to comply with request but out of hubris it is only requested that I give up since I must be just jealous or crazy or what have you. The absolute reality is that your father, Rob Wipond, had lost his ability to have any kind of sexual relations so he would be jealous and then angry and then violent... not just "potentially violent" but actually violent. The reality exists to where if he was not medicated then he probably would've killed somebody. Maybe you, Rob Wipond. If you cannot admit to that fact then everything you write is nonsense and then also, in context, you're contention is that since your father was so intelligent, educated, white, etc. then that simple fact of life would not apply to him. I didn't really want to come straight out and mention that since it'd be hurtful but I see it as necessary now.

Text of message I received from Rob Wipond...

Can you please remove the copy of my book that you have posted illegally on your website at wipond.org?
You know, I'm happy to talk with you sometime if you'd like. I just find that you seem to be making some huge assumptions about me and about what I'm trying to say, and then running with your own assumptions so far that I become confused as to how it even links anymore to what I've written. So, if you can back up a bit and simply ask "What exactly did you mean by this?" Or "When you say this, did you mean that?", then that might be an easier place to start a conversation.
Rob Wipond

Update two: I spoke with my father earlier and a quick description of him is that he was the state delegate for Ben Carson when he was running and of course currently he is the epitome of a Trump supporter to where the president has a god-like status where he does no wrong. I explained what was happening with my landlord and told him the progress I made (a little, mind you, since the local police social working team I met with understood what I told them and just so happened that I first met one of them twenty-five years ago so she knew me and understood that we have same aquaintances) ... but my father basically informed me that because I have it so easy I should be rich and any issue I have with anyone is my own damn fault (in essence).

Original content...

I paid the US$14 for Rob Wipond's book, "Your Consent Is Not Required: The Rise in Psychiatric Detentions, Forced Treatment, and Abusive Guardianships", and it was all well & good ... excellent work ... so far ... until Chapter 6 and I get blindsided with his ignorant prejudice.

A normal person would really understand if they were in Rob Wipond's position that the reason his book is noticed is because he is writing about a demographic which he is not a part of; he's sanctimonious, is all. He's just another person profiting (Canadian coattailing cult) from other people's suffering. There he is writing about people like me but only responds in a respectful way to those who praise him. Dude is a narcissistic twit!

"American psychiatrists had a head start in developing ideas of genetic superiority through their close collaboration in colonialism." (My emphasis on the word colonialism.)

Update: May 10, 2023 - Ok, so I went & checked the reply (I have other things to do, young man ... it ain't all about you, dude) and of course he uses a word like "baffled" so I must be like "...baffling with bullshit", right? Cute! Anyways...

So the Quakers & their "humanitarian approaches", ok. So what's not to love? My understanding of early American history is Quakers were a core group involved with the colonization of the New England area and my genealogy reflects evidence that my ancestor was granted land by the king along the Delaware river... so yeah! How terrible, huh? There was a lot of land though & not very many people & the Quakers needed somewhere to go since the were being burned at the stake & all that "back home". The king must've had a heart.

If you think about it, any reasonable person wouldn't necessarily want to initiate violent conflict if it could be avoided. The settlers were mostly pacifists (Quakers & Puritans) but there was also conflict amongst themselves. There's probably an existing article that was written that substantiates my last statement but it would stand to reason that there would be disagreement (conflict) between the groups or else they'd be just one big group! (See how easy sociology is? I know; how cool, huh?)

The Quakers' conficts with indigenous people resulted in violence and there's documentation that both sides suffered. Of course the Native Americans were not of all the same mindset either so there would probably be peace with some but not others. There's the historical context here in that even though there was lots of land there wasn't much for people to do as distraction from daily life so there was strife.

So once again, considering the historical context of the time when communication was much slower and the fact that the Quakers were a pacifist culture they became anti-slavery early on but couldn't do much about it but a man named Benjamin Lay advocated for the slaves and even once stood out in the snow with no coat & at least one bare foot for hours to demostrate the plight of what slaves suffered. Benjamin Franklin printed Ben Lay's anti-slavery manuscript "All Slave Keepers That keep the Innocent in Bondage, Apostates". (I have a great(x2) grandfather named after Benjamin Franklin; here's an image of his WWI Draft Card.)

• Eliminating Slavery amongst Quakers | quakersintheworld.org
• We are against the traffik of men body The Germantown Quaker Protest of 1688 and the Origins of American Abolitionism | academia.edu
• First Quaker colonists land at Boston | history.com
• America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) | loc.gov
• Quaker Testimony for Peace, Introduction, Swarthmore College Peace Collection

Original Text...

As usual I can almost hear the "You're the only one with the problem..." which implies that I am being unreasonable, trite, picky, etc. ... Of course the "you're the only one ..." part is to exclude & isolate me ... maybe the contention is that I just need to swallow my pride ... why is it an issue since it's just a word? It is accurate and I just don't understand ... right? Well, accurate(?), sure ... sort of ... if you're just planning on completing the cultural go-all of persecuting Quakers. They were being threatened to be burned at the stake in 17th century England and they needed to go somewhere else. The Catholics & Protestants had their common enemies to scapegoat, was the problem ... yes, a problem for the Quakers ... huh? Oh, I know it wasn't a problem for anybody else & so the Society of Friends must've needed to be taught that proverbial life lesson ... that everyone else can agree that they're in the position to teach a Quaker a life lesson ... and it's just way too tempting since, try to avoid it as they might, Quakers make people feel stupid.

To elucidate here, the Quakers are a culture or religion that (the easiest way to explain it) is committed to put humanitarianism first and that it's understood that religion is misused to control & abuse people. We abhor dogma and only talk about things that we have an understanding of ... we don't mislead or distract others, etc. Our goal is spiritual harmony and peace since that would establish a safe, efficient and therefor substainable society. Equality is the most fundamental tenet. With their existence included in a study of U.S. history it becomes clear that they were the driving force behind the anti-slavery movement. We started a war against imperialism.

Over-generalization is rampant and imagining that all white people are of the same mindset, the critical race theory is in vogue but please don't assume that I challenge it, I was taught the basis of it when I was a child. I didn't identify as Quaker when I was young. I remember now that my paternal grandfather would mention things that were pertinent to specific established principles and I wouldn't quite understand ... I'm thinking that my grandmother (his ex-wife) didn't want me to take pride in any particular culture since I was too young to understand that pride is what's needed to be avoided. (Maybe more on that later.) I did know that my friends were not as knowledgable about the plight of Black people and their history in the country and my family was/is supposed to remind & be a good influence for those people who tended to lean racist.

There's an assumption that all white people get along and if any other white person treated me badly it was my own fault. I was outcasted at a young age and didn't finish high school due to the torment that I received. I was bullied and even was physically abused by a teacher that stood about a foot taller than me. My father considered the social problems that I had to be my fault. I ended up going to work in construction since it paid more even though I was intelligent.

I began reading Mr Wipond's book and he mentioned Scientology, I think a doctor (psychiatrist) asked him if he was a member of the organization is why. It seemed as though Rob had never even read L. Ron's thesis (how I think of his work, "Dianetics") and maybe Rob is like others and disregards the philosophy: "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it". In brief here the book points out our basic cognitive process of thought & memory association and that traumatic events in our lives affect us. (It's been a number of years since I've read it.) The other key point to the book (and why I refer to it as a thesis) is that L. Ron managed to side-step one of the most common issues, or obstacles really, in discussions of human behavior and that is Origin of Life. That wouldn't seem to be a common & important issue since it's about a vague, distant past but people feel need to introduce the theory of evolution into the conversation since it defies existence of a Creator or God and the institution of religion can be presented as the biggest culprit to every existing universal problem that humans face. (Religious people are stupid. Period.)

What people may not know is that L. Ron's book is still spiritual in nature but his idea of Creation is ... well, I'd just explain it as being in line with his main gig of a science-fiction writer. I don't fault him in any of that. He avoided unnecessary complication while keeping the idea that people are more than just flesh & bones. We have sentience, resilience, & purpose, etc.

Once the generalization is made that white people all benefitted from racism equally and any who would challenge that notion is part of the problem then of course any white person who's upset with the premise isn't taking on their fair share of blame. White people can be victims of bias (race) related violence, too. Then there's this doofus, Rob Wipond, from the "Great White(y) North" (Canada) where they brutalized the indigenous people as much or more than we did here in the U.S. ... in the States we had the Civil War going and when the Union won the Native Americans were on the warpath too (best I can explain it). Quakers are (mostly) pacifists and as I mentioned, they migrated from England and merely wanted to settle & live in peace. They'd still be raided, though. There are historical records of settlements consisting of Quakers that were attacked by indigenous tribes and their houses burned & women abducted. Were they expected to surrender and live a nomadic life as the natives did? The indigenous peoples did not have iron nails to build with.

What's wrong with the word "expansionism"?

Maybe this would be a good place to point out that the word "colonialism" is a loaded word. (I'm probably repeating myself here, but...) Although it's commendable that the honesty is there it's the overgeneralization that still reinforces the racial tension and ensues prejudice against the white people in the lower income social strata. There are different & conflicting narratives at work in this. One being that the white people in the low income bracket consist of irresponsible people who didn't have sense enough, or were ambitious enough to take advantage of their priviledge that they were born with; but there's an alternate possibility that they didn't want to partake in an oppressive demographic. (I can go into more detail about all of this later.)

The point is here that I am not the only white (looking) person to have been victimized by violent crime that was motivated from race or bias. It becomes so obvious that the white people of the higher income strata (& Canadians) that were detached from the violence (actually, my own father is in this category also) ... but they don't mind that there exists a demographic of other white people that were/are martyred, in a sense. Yes, that is a strong word but not really exaggeration. My postulate here is that the mental health system is well populated by the demographic I've described here. Because of the U.S. existing HIPAA law section of Information Excluded from the Right of Access, the evidence of this claim of mine here is unobtainable for me. This is a difficult concept to formulate and briefly explain but I'm sure I'd get bombarded with the counterargument that the word "colonialism" is inclusive of the effect that it all had on minority white people like the Irish Catholics (which some of my ancestors were), but if that information is included it's not very apparent.

So in short, due to my upbringing of being a family of strict non-racism (my paternal grandmother was a great influence for that posit), even some close friends of mine wanted to dissuade me from that principle. I once walked off of a job because I was expected to participate in scapegoating an indigenous co-worker by blaming him for damage caused by new employee that was friends of a popular white employee. When I was a veteran too, I was frequently challenged (scrutinized) on that point and on both issues (that could be combined by people that I opened up to who were "just wanting to get to know me") and the end result was that I was convinced I was a failure in my life. In truth I was physically abused by many average "law-abiding" people who were jealous of my insight & intelligence. It took years of therapy for me to believe what the licensed counselors & mental health care people were explaining to me (that I'm a good person and have always been a good person.)

Image above is screencapture of Rob Wipond's last reply to me. Text is: Yes, I remember you, too - And you're still making very little sense. But I'm getting the sense you don't like Quakers?

The following was previously included in another webpage of mine...

I will make myself clear on this point: there have been numorous crimes committed against me in my life. I was victim of a violent hate crime as a young man and it was psychologically traumatizing because I was targeted by a Black man merely because I look white. I told him afterwards that I didn't understand because I was raised to not be prejudiced. The man's eyes grew wide at that information and he took off. It was a violent attack on me but I didn't want to hurt the man, he was civilian and I was in the military, and in my hesitation he tried to kill me. A mental health therapist who has a master's degree, and about twenty years in the human services field, said to me that it was a miracle that I was alive after I had told him my history. (He wasn't exaggerating, he didn't do that.) One of the last crimes committed against me was when my old landlord (a wealthy real estate broker with a downtown firm) lied under oath in a local county civil court over a few hundred dollars. (I have the court transcripts!) My reason to take him to court was to call him out on shutting the boiler heat off. There was an elderly lady there that lived in a garden level apartment that complained to him about the heat all the time before she passed away. The landlord was abusive to the elderly lady but she was a white elderly lady so no one really cared. I lost the court case because he lied and my own family didn't even ask me what happened.

...

I have learned in my experiences interacting with other traumatized people that issues that I realize affect me negatively usually affect some others as well but I can sometimes explain or describe a concept or social dynamic where others have difficulty. I am not the only one in that position and there's a motivation for people who have experienced trauma & abuse to share their perspectives. There have been sociology studies and professional expert analysis and I make a point to study as much as I can. All of that can be to my detriment since my understanding of equity leads me to take what's been considered a liberal stance on some issues and I have even ended lifelong friendships with people who always would insist on a hard-lined, uncompassionate stance on social issues which I knew affected the disadvantaged in a negative way. Of course my credibility and knowledge is refuted by many of those people and so there has been a refusal by some of my old friends and/or acquaintances to ever support me in my advocacy. I had an old friend that seemed to attempt to console me a bit on one issue but on the issue with Elijah McClain there was silence from him ... ok, whatever; but then he eventually posted in support of police and I unfriended him. ⇽ That was my oldest living childhood friend that I unfriended over racism.

Of course it would be ideal if I could amass an accepted level of formal education to establish acceptable expertise (pay my dues) before submitting my opinion but that would be an impediment for me that I would hope could be avoided. Since sociology is, in essence, the study of all of our social interaction and dynamics, etc. then anyone can surely learn about it as an autodidact. By that same token then my assessment here of how racism affected me in my life, and my assertion that my personal experience and perspective could be helpful, can be evaluated by the reader as to my understanding of the subject. If that doesn't satisfy then I will finally reveal that my childhood inherited education regarding slavery included the origins of the people who were enslaved and what they suffered through before and after the Civil War. My grandmother once made it a point to discuss with me what people suffered through on the ships and she instilled on me that it's something that I must remember & always take into consideration.

...

As sensitive as this issue is for many and maybe even my own feelings of undeservedness and lack of confidence could be exploited to refute my credibility; if nothing else I will point out that I won't be budged off of my position as a commitment to an old friend of mine who's backgroud turned out to be just about opposite of mine (but he didn't discuss it much for my sake, it seems now); he was marginalized too though, since he was ugly as sin (to put it bluntly) and may have passed away already. I also am dedicated to it on account of my g'ma and what she endured and her influence. I will most likely make adjustments and I will also make additions.

There was another event that would qualify as "imitation" that helps exemplify the concept and provide a clearer definition as well as revealing possible resulting consequences. A local young Black man known to be a political and social activist was organizing and participating in protests of homeless encampment sweeps that the police and city services workers were conducting. The protesters contention was that the sweeps were human rights violation when actually it would be human rights violation to allow the encampments to continue indefinitely. (Yes, sometimes gov't needs to protect people from themselves since human beings cannot always be rational.) There was another assiciated health problem that existed during this time too with a body lice epidemic so the sweeps were critical to help eliminate the threat to the vulnerable, at-risk, disadvantaged human beings. The protestors also were impeding people from connecting to the available services that would help them! Since I am a human rights advocate I am not always against law enforcement and I ended up in the position of defending their actions on social media but I have also been unjustly brutalized by police in my past (an old therapist of mine knows about that) so the actions of the young, Black political protestor puts me in a position that is a bit dangerous for me since by credibility is threatened by being labeled a police sympathizer. The protestors' actions were violating U.S. Constitutional rights of vulnerable citizens who were in need of assistance but to explain that puts me in position to be scapegoated; and I was over all of that on social media since the grandiosity of the protestors' supporters causes them to insist that anyone who chooses to debate with them be completely dedicated to that one issue and be a culturally acceptable, indisputable expert. (These younger people are so narcissistic & arrogant that they accept nothing short of absolute perfection. I have experienced much trauma in my life so it will always be extremely difficult for me acquire the neccessary level of acceptance and respect to be that indisputable source, but my compassion spurs me forward regardless!)

Another recent controversy arose in my local area with the revealing that one of the city's old mayors was a member of the KKK. There began a vehement campaign to change the name of the redeveloped section of the city where the original main airport that was named after him had been. Seems like a reasonable and enlightened action to take. The problem is that there was an overwhelming misinformation, or more accurately, a defamation campaign associated with the cause, where the fact that the old mayor made a point to betray the organization and his actions helped end the Klan's control of the region was completely ignored. That old mayor also "...welcomed delegates to the NAACP convention" in June of 1925. There is a book in the local city library that covers the event regarding the old mayor's task force that was largely comprised of World War I veterans. I've included the excerpt of the relevant text of A Short History of Denver below.

The Denver Public Library carries a copy of this book. Excerpt from: A Short History of Denver | Stephen J. Leanard. Thomas J. Noel | Sept 20, 2016 | pages: 88, 89
Klan Downfall
"The Klan reached its high—water mark in 1924, when it saved Ben Stapleton from recall, elected Clarence Morley governor, and put Rice Means, a Klansman, in the US Senate. The magnitude of ts triumph, however, was matched by the speed of its downfall. Ironically, the Klan‘s destruction came not from its avowed foes such as Ben Lindsey or Philip Van Cise, but from one of ts most powerful allies— bland, bespectacled Ben Stapleton. By early 1925, he had soured on the hooded bigots, probably because he did not want to take orders from Locke and because he realized that some in the organization were far from the holy upholders of civic virtue they claimed to be. He recognized that some Klansmen drank and gambled, and he knew that the Klan—controlled police department was hobnobbing with the underworld.

Stapleton wanted to expose that unholy alliance but could not use the corrupt police department to do it. So he skillfully and secretly recruited honest cops, members of the American Legion (a veterans organization), and state policemen to make a strike force of around 130 men. For three months they planned their campaign. On Good Friday, April 10, 1925, Stapleton‘s little army raided speakeasies, brothels, and gambling dens, and in subsequent weeks they repeated the procedure. As the dust cleared, it became obvious that the Klan was not upholding Christian virtues. Locke‘s troubles multiplied when in May he was charged with income tax invasion. In June the national Klan organization moved to oust him. He resigned as grand dragon in July, by which time thousands of his followers were converting their robes into pilowcases. Klan members smoldered for years. The Denver women‘s chapter, renamed the Colorado Cycle Club, sputtered out of existence in 1915. But as an organized political force capable of swaying elections, the Denver Klan was dead by 1926."

John Galen Locke rejected Stapleton in June 1925, when the Grand Dragon split from the national KKK organization and formed the Minute Men of America. Also in June 1925, Stapleton officially welcomed delegates to the NAACP convention, and the city “put up street banners to herald the conference,” according to Goodstein. Over 1,500 delegates paraded through downtown Denver.
Excerpt from this Front Porch article: Who was Ben Stapleton? by: Melinda Pearson.