Share Share Share

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A SCAM
PC-ness causes violent crime, hence fear, hence more laws, hence more power for the ruling classes - and less freedom for common people.
Defunding the police, an aim of the PC, will make law enforcement more appealing to the masses.
IS IT ETHICAL TO REWARD BULLYING?
While PC-ness favors groups with aggressive representatives, it neglects the poorest, most marginalized people.
The PC ideology grants the greatest charity and privilege to groups with aggressive advocates, who have rioted and/or performed other terrorist activities. Most riots involve vandalism, looting and assaults on those who offer little or no resistance. This often includes assaults on vulnerable people and/or throwing bricks and bottles at police – who are not allowed to throw such objects back. Is it ethical to reward this by granting privilege to the groups the bullies appear to be fighting for? There are other groups, like the homeless, handicapped and elderly, who have problems with discrimination and/or marginalization – yet don’t have aggressive militants fighting for them. This makes them less advantaged than the aggressively represented groups. Shouldn’t charity and privilege be granted to the least advantaged groups?
This report is not racist, it is anti-racist. It challenges the deceitful, hypocritical and highly problematic racism that mainstream media fails to properly address and often encourages. Read all of this report before judging me. In this report, I will make references to groups of people. Don't think the examples I mention are necessarily typical of all members of the groups mentioned. There are good and bad in all these groups.
As a world traveler, I encountered many friendly and hospitable people in black countries and Muslim countries - but, in the west, public schools, public libraries and mainstream media encourage hatred towards the west.
Many western nations copy America. American race policies are very similar to the 'divide and rule' policies used in the British Empire. There has been a significant increase in violent crime since the 1960s, followed by more strict laws, followed by a significant increase in the incarceration rate - to such an extent that, by the late 1990s, America had the world's highest incarceration rate. Inciting hatred towards the majority population via one sided media coverage, blackout of ethnic-minority crimes and outright lies causes hatred. This propaganda is not only in mainstream media, it is in tax-funded public libraries and is taught in public schools. Combining this with forced integration makes it easy to find an outlet for that hatred by bullying on the weak. Violent crime causes fear. When somebody's mother gets mugged or when somebody gets ganged up on by 6 people, one is likely to vote for more laws and stricter enforcement. This means more power for politicians.
An example of an outright lie is Wikipedia saying the reason for segregation in America was white supremacy (a belief that whites are superior to blacks). If a notion of superiority were the issue, then why were handicapped people not segregated out? Many people regard them as inferior in one way or another. There is no significant evidence to back this claim. There is a great deal of evidence to back the claim that it was motivated by a need for safety. Malcolm X said "But the only permanent solution is complete separation or some land of our own in a country of our own. All other courses will lead to violence and bloodshed." There was a large increase in violent crime after segregation ended in America, it continued to rise and peaked in the mid 1990s - after many tougher laws had been passed. Furthermore, if segregation was motivated by white supremacy, Martin Luther King would have given this as a reason to end segregation in his famous 'I Have a Dream' speech. This he did not do. (Wikipedia is supported by charitable donations. They are inciting hatred while asking for handouts.) While criticizing white supremacy many leftists practice a form of it. Holding whites to a higher moral standard than blacks is white supremacy. Many leftists make out that the genocidal mass killing in Rwanda in 1994 was not the fault of the people who carried it out but was the fault of the 'divide-and-rule' policies of Belgian rulers - who had stopped ruling Rwanda 26 years earlier. It is implied that hacking someone to death with a machete, because their parents were treated better than your parents, is justified if you are black. Its as if the attackers were helpless zombies driven to violence. If I were black, I'd find this patronizing and offensive. Especially in light of the fact that that 'divide-and-rule' were practiced in much of the world - yet is not alleged to have resulted in genocidal mass killing anywhere else except neighboring Burundi. So, if the 'divide-and-rule' was the cause of the genocidal mass killing, why did such killings occur in the many other places where 'divide-and-rule' was imposed?
THE MOST HATEFUL AND VIOLENT RACISTS ARE LEFTISTS
References to Hitler, made by leftists, are often hypocritical. Hitler repressed free speech and advocated violence. He believed that the strong should dominate the weak and he made a certain race of people scapegoats for Germany's shortcomings.
Modern-day leftists have a similar ideology. They repress free speech and advocate violence. Most of the politically motivated violence in America (where the leftist PC movement started) is carried out by leftists. Most violent attacks carried out against people who are a different race than the attackers are carried out on whites. Most of the victims of these attacks are weak, elderly, homeless, handicapped or otherwise vulnerable people. Whites are made scapegoats for the shortcomings and crime rates of certain ethnic minorities - when in reality, the crime rates and poverty rates are great in countries where those minorities are the majority. Leftist ideology is Hitlerian and hypocritical.
Furthermore the 'hate speech laws' in Europe effectively discriminate on grounds of race and religion because they cater only to those who make a great deal of fuss when they are criticized. So 'hate speech laws' actually help the hateful, while denying others a right to free speech. East Asians, Whites, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus generally do not make a great deal of fuss when they are criticized. Whereas representatives of other races and religions do. 'Hate speech' can be innocent constructive criticism. 'Hate speech' is defined by the amount of objection it gets. So people offering useful, constructive criticism can be punished simply because other people don't like criticism. These laws effectively cater to certain races and religions while discriminating against others. They are denied freedom of expression. One-sided reportage incites hatred. Let's not forget the misrepresentations of the Rohingya crisis in 2017 by mainstream media, the media blackout of the terrorism which preceded the Rohingya crisis and the attacks on Buddhist monks which followed the misrepresentations.
TO SAY THAT RACISM IS BAD, ONLY WHEN ITS AGAINST CERTAIN RACES, IS RACIST.
There are some who claim to be anti-racist but say that anti-white racism is okay. This is a very racist view. Anti-white racism is racism. Furthermore, it is one of the most problematic forms of racism in our time. A major cause is deceptive media. Many anti-white racists are white. There is a lot of support for anti-white racism and the racist notion of 'historic liability'. If you are white your ancestors were probably enslaved by the Romans. Should we all go to Italy and demand welfare and reparations? Would you feel justified in taking revenge on a vulnerable Italian? If your grandma was mugged by blacks, would you feel justified in bullying a vulnerable black person? Of course not. This is racial scapegoating - yet much of the public support it when it's done to whites.
Mainstream media attempts to link right wing xenophobia with mass killing. Mass killings, throughout history, have most often occurred when there has been a large-scale encroachment upon a territory of people of a different tribe, religion or culture. In many cases xenophobic people are the people who want to avoid violence. They're the people who want to stop the cause of mass killing. So, in many cases, the xenophobic have actually prevented mass killing.
People who object to mass immigration into their country or who simply object to a illegal immigration into their country are labeled racists or xenophobes by mainstream media and by leftists. The mainstream media and leftists incite hatred towards xenophobic people by pointing out a worst-case scenario - i.e. Nazi Germany - and implying that this is the goal or outcome of most forms of xenophobia. One can take worst-case scenarios for many things - including falling in love, which also has resulted, in some cases, in mass killing and say "Oh, this is what will happen!" to vilify people who fall in love. You know, this is just silly.
Many leftists try to find reasons to label anybody who disagrees with them a "racist", "white supremacist" or "Nazi". It's like the boy who cried wolf. Interestingly enough, there is certainly a link between drinking water and racism. Everyone who drinks water will, at least occasionally, make judgements based on race. It is difficult to take leftists seriously these days. Especially when they claim to be anti-racist, in one sentence - and then express a racial bias in another.
It is interesting to note, that in America, and other Western Nations, race riots are almost always rewarded with 'sympathetic' propaganda, other policies which facilitate criminality and/or hand outs to local minority communities. Gay rights did not achieve politically correct status until after the famous 'White Night riots' in the 1970s. Is the government trying to encourage riots?
While the woke, AKA liberals, leftists or politically correct (PC) people, are known for being concerned with groups who are thought to be poor and/or marginalized, those who actually are the poorest, most marginalized people (i.e. the homeless) are not one of the groups considered a high priority by the woke. Instead, the woke favor those who are represented by hateful and/or violent militants. This encourages more hatred and violence. This causes fear, so causes more laws to be passed and further empowers the ruling classes. They are protected so are unlikely to be victimized. It is usually the poor, or middle class, who suffer from this. They are more vulnerable and can be found riding public transport and walking on backstreets.
It is strange that people are discouraged from criticizing or questioning woke ideology. Do the woke have something to hide? How can we all get along if we cannot speak openly?
Some say wokeism is the new morality some even call it a hateful, new religion. For the most part, it never praises, only condemns. It has no saints, only sinners. What kind of twisted morality is this?
It is very strange that the woke cult displays little or no sympathy for the homeless. In addition to being discriminated against by employers, hatred is incited against us by mainstream media, by portraying an unpleasant minority of us as representatives of typical homeless people.
Why are we called junkies and lazy by mainstream media? Imagine the outrage is such allegations were made about certain ethnic groups - particularly those favored by the woke. There is a media blackout of crime committed by such groups. Why are we not given the same privileges? Where is the media blackout of our crimes and misdoings? Where is our media bias? Where is our affirmative action? Where are our state-funded housing projects? Where are our special college grants? Why is it illegal, in many places, to sleep out - hence criminalizing us?
While I point out injustices which are suffered by the homeless. I am not implying that homeless people only suffer injustice. Nor am I implying that everyone is anti-homeless. There are also good, hospitable people who help the homeless. For that, we are grateful.
Still there are many injustices which need to be pointed out. For example, there are many blacks who are not homeless but use facilities which are meant for the homeless. Many of them abuse the homeless while freeloading off homeless facilities. This seems hypocritical because they claim to be poor and marginalized yet bully on the poorest most marginalized people. Like the homeless, blacks depend heavily on the sympathy of others for their well-being. So you would think that they would be sympathetic to those who are worse off than they are.
Many homeless people work very hard, or otherwise make great efforts, for very small rewards. Like collecting disused cans, walking significant distances for food, water or other necessities and doing labor pool jobs - which require waiting for long periods, on a daily basis, to get temporary jobs. Begging, while not called work, is stressful, time consuming and pays very little. Would any of those big businessmen be willing to put out so much for so little? Most homeless people are not junkies but mainstream media makes a strong association between homelessness and heroin abuse and laziness. They make no such associations with groups who are privileged by the woke.
It is interesting to note that Muslims did not become one of the groups highly regarded by the woke until after the famous 9-11 attacks. It is also interesting that those attacks facilitated the passing of oppressive new legislation which, among other things, granted the government the power to detain people, indefinitely, without a trial and without allowing them contact with anyone outside - simply by claiming that they are terrorists. So, in 'the land of the free' the government can make people, whom they don't like, disappear. It is also interesting to note that the UN and EU have encouraged large numbers of Muslims to enter the western world since 9-11.
Is the luring of mass numbers of 3rd world migrants into the 1st world, in latter years, motivated by a desire to help the poor? That seems unlikely as the ones who make it to the west tend to be the wealthier, more talented ones. To remove the talent from a poor country is to increase that country's poverty.
How is encouraging people to become bogus refugees charity for the wealthy? First of all, the people who make it over here as 'refugees' are not the poor ones. Once they're here, they have to commit fraud and convince people that they have a good case - when in fact many of them don't. So while they might have been productive members of their countries, they are encouraged to come over to the west and become criminals. And also if you remove the talent from a poor country you increase poverty in that country and that makes it easier for big businesses to go over there and get cheaper prices. Once over here, since they were encouraged to become criminals to get in, many will probably end up being criminals and this causes more crime which means the public want more laws passed which means more power for the ruling class.
As I mentioned earlier, in the west, public schools, public libraries and mainstream media encourage hatred towards the west. Some non-whites become quite hostile in the west. Still, many of them don't - which is quite commendable considering the propaganda they encounter. Furthermore, there is more competition for jobs in the 1st world. So professionals from the 3rd world might end up with less dignified jobs. Nobody likes to admit to being unable to compete - and the propaganda makes out that the locals are to blame. Some of the migrants end up using soup kitchens, and other facilities, intended for homeless people. Some become abusive towards the vulnerable homeless people. So it's the poor who pay the biggest price.
It seems very strange that the woke practically disregard the poorest of the poor. Its as if they are more concerned with their own PC image - and in increasing the power of the ruling classes - than helping the poor and marginalized. How selfish.
I have been homeless several times. During the latest recession, I wrote a street paper. "Duhhh, What's a street paper?" you ask. It's a homeless paper or a homeless magazine. My street paper was sold by migrants (mostly eastern Europeans) in Scandinavia. I started selling the paper in 2008. It was an alternative to a Norwegian street paper which discriminated against non-Norwegian people.
During this time, I was the victim of fake news. I was invited to an interview with the local press. The final story claimed that the target group of my paper, i.e. the people who I preferred to sell my paper, were Roma people. This was not true. The journalists conducting the interview hadn't even asked me who my target group was. This implied that I discriminated against Norwegians.
I created the paper because the main street paper discriminated against foreign sellers. So I created the paper for everyone - and I got called a racist. This shows that people often misuse allegations of 'racism' to slander people whom they don't like. It shows how ridiculous political correctness has become.
PC-ness causes many other problems. In my paper, I pointed out that PC-ness is hampering the fight against child slavery by portraying it in a manner which is 'sympathetic' to exploitative parents.
Excuse me, if you find this report blunt, but after seeing a little girl being used to spread racial hatred in a news video in which MLK's granddaughter speaks at the march on Washington in August 2020, I decided to say what needs to be said.
As well as making claims of systemic racism, when racism against non-whites is illegal, the granddaughter of Martin Luther King also mentioned climate change in the hate speech I mentioned. I can really have some fun with that one. Why is it that mainstream media implies that carbon emissions are the only environmental problem facing the world today?
The mainstream, trendy environmental concern is greenhouse gases, not deforestation, habitat destruction, overfishing or over-hunting. This seems very strange. Is it because carbon emissions are a problem that can be blamed mostly on whites?
There is a lot of media which vilifies environmentalists, portraying them as rich white people who put out a lot of carbon emissions while telling others not to. This is a misrepresentation. There are many poor environmentalists and they come in different colors. It is only the rich ones who have a platform. Any journalist with half a brain knows this but they also know that the public have only seen the rich, white environmentalists because they are the only ones with platforms and journalists use this to vilify all environmentalists. They are further vilified with the claim that environmentalists keep the poor poor by stopping deforestation, overfishing and similar things which make money in the 3rd world. However, in many third world countries, like Indonesia, where the environmentalists were defeated and the deforestation and overfishing were allowed to resume, the countries did not become First World countries and are still dependent on foreign aid. So while political correctness is used to vilify environmentalists, it does not stop the poor from being poor.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BEGAN WITH HYPOCRISY
Martin Luther King, the godfather of PC-ness, was not quite what mainstream media makes him out to be. Mainstream media makes MLK out to be some kind of peaceful, benevolent teacher. He did have some good qualities. He did seem to have compassion for poor black people. He was a good speaker and he was a charming character. However, there are some unpleasant truths which mainstream media has ignored.
I was supportive of MLK until I saw an interview he had on the Merv Griffin show. He seemed very charming and he did have a sense of humor. When Merv Griffin asked him if he 'has fun' in New York, he said "I haven't quite discovered that side of New York. Being a Baptist minister, they keep me involved in other areas." But, later, Merv points out that while MLK denounces violence, he has been blamed for a great deal of it. MLK react to this by using deceitful analogies, which imply that it was whites, not blacks, who were responsible for the racial violence in the 60s. He also implies that whites are responsible for the poverty and slums in which blacks live.
Of course, we must remember that mainstream Western Society did - and still does - condone racism and hypocrisy on the part of certain ethnic groups. It could be that MLK was simply following the popular ideology. I might be that he was a good man who got corrupted along the way. He was, after all, a religious minister.
MLK denounced racism but made sweeping racist generalizations of whites. He said the "white man" is guilty of a series of crimes and is the cause of black crimes. He also trivialized anti-white violence and the black crime rate. He blamed whites, not a lack of productivity and not a lack of self-discipline, for black underachievement, poverty and crime.
MLK denounced violence while creating the conditions for violence. Violent crime increased dramatically after the civil rights bill was passed. He had an interesting opinion of race riots, saying “They are mainly intended to shock the white community”, in the speech mentioned below.
Was he grateful? MLK was seemingly anti-racist and peaceful at first, but later, after having many of his wishes granted, he said hateful things. For example, here is part of a speech he made at the American Psychology Associations’ annual convention in Washington, DC, in September 1967:
"The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society."
In this speech, he makes sweeping judgements of whites. He contradicted something else which he said "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". He is judging whites by their color. Was he implying that the victimization of people of a certain race is justified if other members of that race do wrong? Should this go both ways? Should I attack a vulnerable black, who has never wronged me, if I'm bullied by other blacks? He says blacks do not make slums - but most travelers know that if you visit Africa, the Caribbean or pretty much any black community in the world - you find slums. You also find levels of crime, squalor, achievement and productivity which are consistent with American ghettos. MLK was a traveler. So using "white society" and "the white man" as scapegoats appears to be a scam. Hitler used a similar scam.
He is blaming black poverty, squalor, underachievement, crime and violence on white people. However, the levels of these are similar in black countries where they cannot blame the "racist white majority". They are the majority.
What's the best way to make a friend? To make yourself appealing to that friend so they will want to be your friend? Or to lay guilt trips on them and bully them if they fail to meet your expectations? How about getting laws passed which force them to accept you?
Forced integration causes distrust. It causes a belief that friendliness is motivated by fear. Malcolm X said "If someone holds a gun on a white man and makes him embrace me--put his hand, arm, around me--this isn't love nor is it brotherhood. What they are doing is forcing the white man to be a hypocrite, to practice hypocrisy."
And what methods did MLK use to 'integrate' the races? Have you seen the film Stalking Laura with Brooke Shields? In the film Richard, the stalker, persistently inflicts himself on a woman who is not interested. He becomes violent and he blames her, the victim, for his violence. Like Richard the stalker, MLK used coercion to achieve goals. He too blamed the victims of violence for the violence they suffered.
Maybe the movie is not the best analogy because Richard the stalker actually loves Laura. Let's say there was a different version of the movie in which Richard is a male gold-digger who is interested in her money. Let's say Richard complains to the boss and the boss makes new rules, which forbid the rejection of stalkers - so Richard gets his way. Well, that's basically what happened with MLK. MLK staged 'sit-ins' and other intrusive activities. He got the government and the legal system to support him. MLK made it clear that money was a major motivating factor. If you see his speeches and interviews, it's clear that he's far more interested in the redistribution of money than in encouraging friendship between the races.
While we are on the subject of unsavory uses of children, remember that scene in the Russell Crowe film Gladiator where the bad guy uses a child as a shield when he approaches the gladiator? On May 2, 1963, teen-agers and children, some as young as six, marched in Birmingham to protest segregation. Violence erupted, arrests were made. Hundreds of children and teenagers were put into overcrowded jail cells. Still, kids were used in the demos the next day - and the day after that. Malcolm X criticized MLK for the event, saying that “real men don’t put their children on the firing line.” MLK, on the other hand, called it “one of the wisest moves we made.” It is said that the demos were peaceful, that the only violence was on the part of the police - but they say that about modern-day Black Lives Matter riots.
I know it seems inappropriate to criticize a guy who's been dead for over 50 years, but I am illustrating the point that political correctness was hypocritical from the start. Furthermore, there are many whites who have been dead for over a hundred years - who are not only criticized - but also have their statues pulled down.
So, did MLK succeed in helping the blacks? Yes but as black intellectuals such as Thomas Sowell and Larry Elder have pointed out, there have been many negative side effects.
While the use of 'sympathetic' propaganda raises pity, results in more hand-outs and facilitates crime, it also caused a lot of blacks to drop out, and not even try to succeed, because it teaches them that they will never succeed. It also incites racial hatred.
During the recession of the 80s, I became homeless, I could not get welfare because I had no address. One day I was sitting in front of a soup kitchen in Oakland, a notorious ghetto area in Northern California and a black guy asked me "Why don't you have a job? You're a white boy." He was implying that I had white privilege and that this would make it almost impossible for me to be unemployed. But in reality, he was far more privileged than me. The government provides tax-funded housing for blacks, so they have addresses and they can get welfare. I was unable to compete for jobs, but he had affirmative action on his side which made competition far far easier. I couldn't go to university because I didn't have the money but he could get special grants for this - just because he was black. Another advantage that he had, that I didn't have, was freedom of expression concerning racial issues. Another advantage that he had, that I didn't have, was media bias. They are always putting out 'sympathetic' stories about blacks, but blacked out stores which might make blacks look bad. There is a media blackout of black crimes. If you have such media on your side, you can use it to influence the police, influence politicians, influence the government and even to seduce people. A common method of Seduction is to call somebody a racist if you are rejected. When I was a teenager, I was in Oakland and I met a black guy who invited me back to his place, gave me some wine and asked me for a blowjob - and when I rejected him, yes you guessed it, he implied that I was racist.
MLK also caused an increase in welfare payments and massive amounts of money have been given away to ghettos. But still, after all those billions of dollars given to the ghettos and all that affirmative action and all that positive discrimination, most blacks still live in run-down, crime filled ghettos. The black unemployment rate is the same. This belies MLK's claim that discrimination was the main culprit. It was roughly double that of whites, in the USA, both before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - and still is today. The average wage gap has also changed very little since before it was passed.
Sure, one sees a lot more blacks in TV ads, there are a lot more black elected officials, but that does not really benefit the average black person. The black incarceration rate is much higher now than it was before the act was passed. You see a lot more black men with white women now - and that has contributed to single parenthood. In many urban areas in the western world, you'll see more black men out with white women than black men out with black women. But why don't you see the vice-versa? If you are a guy who is white, Asian, Indian or otherwise non-black, try socializing with a black woman when black men are around - and you might find out why. Or better yet, if you know a black women, try walking across an urban area, with her, when there are plenty of black men around. That's right, black women are effectively not allowed to have inter-racial relationships. How do you think they feel when they see black men with white women?
Also, the police have very little power in the ghettos due to a 'no-snitch' etiquette and the fact that many blacks simply won't cooperate with police investigations. Its not surprising that homicide by other blacks is the leading cause of death for young black men.
A common excuse that police use for neglecting to deal with black criminals is that they don't want to be called racist. This is a lame excuse because that's the first thing many criminals say when confronted by the police. Being called racist is part of the job. Show me a western, urban policeman who has never been called a racist and I will show you a policeman who doesn't do his job.
There is now a much higher incarceration rate in America than there was before the Civil Rights bill was passed. Not surprisingly, blacks make up a large portion of the prison population, due to their crime rate. By the late-1990s America had - and still has - the highest incarceration rate not only in the world but in world history. Well done, Martin.
The only people who have really gained from political correctness - other than the bosses if big corporations that destroy the environment - are politicians, criminals and exploiters of child slavery. Political correctness is rotten to the core.
What advice would I have for uppity, dissatisfied, accusatory blacks?
Stop pulling the same old scams. Think of something original. The word racist has already become boring and meaningless. Stop ignoring and repressing constructive criticism.
Why is it that everywhere you go, you tend to be more poor and have a higher crime rate than the locals?
There are now large populations of blacks in the Mideast, East Asia and Australia as well as Europe and the Americas and yes, the locals are "all racists", according to you. This is getting so old!
It appears that everywhere you go, you accuse the locals, particular the police, of being racist. You always blame the locals for your own misdeeds and shortcomings. It's as if the whole world is racist while you are blameless and innocent.
Don't blame discrimination for your problems, unless you have realistic evidence to back this claim. It seems improbable that Afro-phobic discrimination is a major factor, especially as it's illegal in many places and is highly taboo by today's standards.
Furthermore, in America, Canada, Australia and the European Union, blacks who are discriminated against can take it to court and win substantial amounts of money. Many have tried to do this in those places. But how many of those cases have actually succeeded? How many employers have been found to discriminate against blacks? What percentage of employers
have been found guilty?
I tried to find this information on the internet, but it's just not available. Why is this information not readily available on the Internet? Is this part of the scam?
Try working on your self-discipline. The main problems facing black communities worldwide - including famine - are all symptoms of a lack of self-discipline. Self-discipline can be improved. If you put as much time and effort into improving your self-discipline as you do in blaming other people for your problems, you could achieve wonderful things.
Also, are there many blacks or Muslims who are grateful for what they've been given? Try cultivating a more realistic mindset.
Try showing a little appreciation for what's been done for you. I myself was a white liberal, but I saw that PC-ness is a scam. I also saw that people were ungrateful and they didn't appreciate me being a liberal - so I gave up.
So, what are my ideas for helping different communities to get along? Real equality would be a good starter. Another good idea is not to block freedom of expression. I find I got along better with visible ethnic minorities when I started speaking frankly and openly about racial issues. How can we all get along if we don't speak openly about such issues?
If you want to read more about our friend MLK, see:
'Don’t criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too. Martin Luther King Jr. deliberately courted violence.' Simone Sebastian, Washington Post, 1 Oct 2015.
-James B Dixon