Поделитесь этой историей в Интернете.

Это очень важно.
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ КОРРЕКТНОСТЬ - ЭТО ЖУЛЬНИЧЕСТВО.
В этом отчете объясняется, как «политкорректность» была искажена, чтобы причинить вред тем, кому она была предназначена, и предоставить власть преступникам и правящему классу.
Исходными идеями политической корректности, или вокизма, было сострадание к бедным и / или маргинальным слоям населения.
Однако это было искажено. Современная политкорректность во многом вредит бедным и маргинализированным слоям населения. Более того, он использовался в интересах тех, кто не является ни бедным, ни маргинализованным.
Те, кто больше всего выигрывает от современной политкорректности, - это организованные преступники и сомнительные политики.
Политическая корректность приводит к насильственным преступлениям, следовательно, страх, следовательно, больше законов, следовательно, больше власти для правящих классов - и меньше свободы для простых людей.
Односторонняя, вводящая в заблуждение пропаганда, которую преподают западные СМИ и западные школы, поощряет преступность, препятствует усердию и разжигает ненависть. Это приносит пользу преступникам, а также политикам.
Некоторые говорят, что политкорректность или пробуждение - это новая мораль. Некоторые даже называют это ненавистным новым культом. По большей части он никогда не хвалит, только осуждает. В нем нет святых, только грешники. Что это за извращенная мораль? Хвала благочестию поощряет благочестие. Призывает ли отсутствие похвалы набожность?
ЭТИЧНО НАГРАЖДАТЬ БУЛЛИЙСКОЕ?
Политкорректность отдает предпочтение группам с агрессивными представителями, но игнорирует самых бедных и маргинализированных слоев населения.
Политически корректная идеология предоставляет наибольшие привилегии группам с агрессивными защитниками, которые устроили бунт и / или совершили другую террористическую деятельность. Беспорядки привлекают много внимания средств массовой информации. Итак, если вы устроили бунт, а потом рассказываете журналистам грустные истории, вы получите сочувствие общественности. Это отличная уловка. Вероятно, поэтому существует одержимость несправедливостью, совершенной более века назад - они все еще вызывают жалость и поэтому все еще могут использоваться для манипулирования массами. Большинство беспорядков связаны с вандализмом, грабежами и нападениями на тех, кто практически не оказывает сопротивления. Это часто включает нападения на уязвимых людей и / или бросание кирпичей и бутылок в полицейских, которым не разрешается отбрасывать такие предметы. Этично ли вознаграждать это, предоставляя привилегии группам, за которые, похоже, борются хулиганы? Есть и другие группы, такие как бездомные, инвалиды и пожилые люди, которые имеют проблемы с дискриминацией и / или маргинализацией, но не имеют агрессивных боевиков, сражающихся за них. Это делает их менее привилегированными, чем агрессивно представленные группы. Разве права доступа к ПК не должны быть предоставлены наименее обеспеченным группам?
Этот отчет не расистский, он антирасистский. Он бросает вызов лживому, лицемерному и весьма проблематичному расизму, который основные средства массовой информации не могут должным образом рассмотреть - и часто поощряют. Прочтите весь этот отчет, прежде чем судить меня. В этом отчете я буду ссылаться на группы людей. Не думайте, что приведенные мной примеры обязательно типичны для всех членов упомянутых групп. Во всех этих группах есть хорошие и плохие.
Как путешественник по миру, я встречал много дружелюбных и гостеприимных людей в черных и мусульманских странах, но на Западе государственные школы, публичные библиотеки и основные средства массовой информации разжигают ненависть к Западу.
Уровень безработицы среди чернокожих, который был примерно вдвое выше, чем среди белых, как до, так и после движения за гражданские права 60-х годов. Разрыв в доходах также практически не изменился. Расовая дискриминация была законной до движения за гражданские права. Было ли движение очень полезным? Стоило ли все насилие?
Многие западные народы копируют Америку. Американская расовая политика очень похожа на политику «разделяй и властвуй», использовавшуюся в Британской империи. С 1960-х годов наблюдается значительный рост насильственных преступлений, за которым последовали более строгие законы, за которыми последовало значительное увеличение количества заключенных - до такой степени, что к концу 1990-х годов в Америке был самый высокий уровень лишения свободы в мире. Разжигание ненависти к большинству населения посредством одностороннего освещения в СМИ, сокрытия преступлений против этнических меньшинств и откровенной лжи вызывает ненависть. Эта пропаганда ведется не только в основных средствах массовой информации, она ведется в публичных библиотеках, финансируемых за счет налогов, и преподается в государственных школах.
Насильственные преступления значительно выросли после движения за гражданские права 60-х годов, за которым последовало усиление правоохранительных органов и рост числа заключенных. Хотя движение должно было помочь чернокожим, оно привело к увеличению количества заключенных.
Пример откровенной лжи - это Википедия, в которой говорится, что причиной сегрегации в Америке было «превосходство белых» (тщеславное представление о превосходстве). Если понятие превосходства было проблемой, то почему люди с физическими недостатками не изолированы? Многие люди так или иначе считают их низшими. Нет никаких существенных доказательств, подтверждающих это утверждение. Существует множество доказательств того, что это было мотивировано необходимостью обеспечения безопасности. Малькольм Икс сказал: «Но единственное постоянное решение - это полное разделение или получение нашей собственной земли в нашей собственной стране. Все другие действия приведут к насилию и кровопролитию». После того, как сегрегация в Америке прекратилась, число насильственных преступлений резко возросло, оно продолжало расти и достигло своего пика в 1990-х годах - после того, как были приняты многие более жесткие законы. Более того, если бы сегрегация была мотивирована «превосходством белых», Мартин Лютер Кинг назвал бы это причиной прекращения сегрегации в своей знаменитой речи «У меня есть мечта». Он этого не сделал. (Википедия поддерживается благотворительными пожертвованиями. Они разжигают ненависть, прося подачки.) Критикуя превосходство белых, многие левые практикуют его форму. Держать белых на более высоком моральном уровне, чем у черных, - это превосходство белых. Многие левые заявляют, что массовые убийства в рамках геноцида в Руанде в 1994 году были не по вине людей, которые их осуществили, а по вине политики бельгийских правителей «разделяй и властвуй», которые прекратили править Руандой 26 лет назад. . Подразумевается, что зарубить кого-то до смерти мачете, потому что с их родителями обращались лучше, чем с вашими родителями, оправдано, если вы черный. Как будто нападавшие были беспомощными зомби, доведенными до насилия. Если бы я был черным, я бы счел это покровительственным и оскорбительным. Особенно в свете того факта, что принцип «разделяй и властвуй» практиковался в большей части мира - но, как утверждается, он не привел к массовым убийствам, связанным с геноцидом, где-либо еще, кроме Руанды и соседней Бурунди. Итак, если «разделяй и властвуй» было причиной массовых убийств, связанных с геноцидом, почему такие убийства не происходили во многих других местах, где применялся принцип «разделяй и властвуй»?
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ ПРАВИЛЬНОСТЬ - ХОРОШИЙ ПУТЬ
ЗАРАБОТАТЬ УВАЖЕНИЕ?
Многие считают, что политическая корректность мотивируется страхом, а не дружелюбием. Итак, каковы мои идеи, как помочь разным сообществам уживаться? Настоящее равенство было бы хорошим началом. Еще одна хорошая идея - не препятствовать конструктивной критике. Я обнаружил, что лучше ладил с видимыми этническими меньшинствами, когда начал откровенно и открыто говорить о расовых проблемах. Как изложение фактов, которые я изложил в этой статье. Как мы все можем ладить, если не говорим открыто о таких проблемах? Это поднимает вопрос об уважении. Как хорошо завести и сохранить друга? Чтобы удовлетворить их волю, когда они угрожают вам или нападают на вас? Западные правительства отреагировали на расовые беспорядки, предоставив деньги и привилегии сообществам, поддерживаемым мятежниками. Большая часть негатива, проявляемого черными на Западе, по-видимому, коренится в неуважении, то есть в том, что они бросают грязные взгляды, используют неуважительный тон голоса, постоянно жалуются и критикуют, упоминают плохие вещи, которые белые сделали давным-давно - как будто это есть что-то, что нужно делать с вами, проявлять неблагодарность, когда вы делаете им одолжение, разговаривать с вами свысока, подслушивать ваши личные разговоры, перебивать вас, когда вы разговариваете, брать вещи со стола, который вы используете - не спрашивая вас, сокращая очередь и т. д. Я разговаривал с чернокожими, которые считают политкорректность «двуличной», «фальшивой» или «трусливой». Как белых, нас поощряют, в основном, через средства массовой информации, но также и через другую пропаганду, а иногда и другими способами, чтобы быть политкорректными. Неудивительно, что политкорректность превратилась в навязчивую идею белых. «Новая мораль» почти замена религии. В молодости я тоже был политкорректным. Я обнаружил, что, когда я не был политкорректным или более напористым, я не только лучше ладил с чернокожими, но и находил, что меня больше уважают. Эй, это кажется логичным, не так ли? Почему вы должны уважать кого-то, чья «мораль» проистекает из шумихи в СМИ и другой пропаганды - и заставляет их становиться слабыми и неуверенными?
Самые ненавистные и жестокие расисты - левые.
Ссылки на Гитлера со стороны левых часто лицемерны. Гитлер подавлял свободу слова и пропагандировал насилие. Он считал, что сильные должны преобладать над слабыми, и сделал определенную расу людей козлами отпущения за недостатки Германии. У современных левых есть похожая идеология. Они подавляют свободу слова и пропагандируют насилие. Большая часть политически мотивированного насилия в Америке (где зародилось левое движение ПК) осуществляется левыми. Большинство жестоких нападений на людей, принадлежащих к другой расе, чем нападавшие, совершаются на белых. Большинство жертв этих нападений - слабые, пожилые, бездомные, инвалиды или иным образом уязвимые люди. Белых делают козлами отпущения за недостатки и уровень преступности определенных этнических меньшинств - тогда как на самом деле уровень преступности и уровень бедности высоки в странах, где эти меньшинства составляют большинство. Левая идеология гитлеровская и лицемерная.
Более того, европейские «законы о разжигании ненависти» фактически дискриминируют по признаку расы и религии, потому что они обслуживают только тех, кто поднимает много шума, когда их критикуют. Таким образом, «законы о разжигании ненависти» на самом деле помогают ненавистникам, отказывая другим в праве на свободу слова. Жители Восточной Азии, белые, буддисты, христиане и индуисты обычно не поднимают большого шума, когда их критикуют. А вот представители других рас и религий. «Разжигание вражды» может быть невинной конструктивной критикой. «Разжигание вражды» определяется количеством получаемых возражений. Итак, люди, предлагающие полезную конструктивную критику, могут быть наказаны просто потому, что другие люди не любят критику. Эти законы эффективно обслуживают одни расы и религии, дискриминируя других. Им отказано в свободе выражения мнения. Односторонний репортаж разжигает ненависть. Давайте не будем забывать о искажении информации о кризисе рохинджа в 2017 году в основных средствах массовой информации, об отключении средств массовой информации о терроризме, предшествовавшем кризису рохинджа, и о нападениях на буддийских монахов, последовавших за искажением информации.
СКАЗАТЬ, ЧТО РАСИЗМ ПЛОХО, ТОЛЬКО В ОТНОШЕНИИ ОПРЕДЕЛЕННЫХ РАСОВ ЯВЛЯЕТСЯ РАСИСТОМ.
Некоторые утверждают, что они антирасисты, но говорят, что анти-белый расизм - это нормально. Это очень расистский взгляд. Анти-белый расизм - это расизм. Более того, это одна из самых проблемных форм расизма в наше время. Основная причина - вводящие в заблуждение СМИ. Многие антибелые расисты - белые. Существует много поддержки анти-белого расизма и расистского понятия «исторической ответственности». Если вы белый, ваши предки, вероятно, были порабощены римлянами. Должны ли мы все поехать в Италию и требовать благосостояния и компенсации? Считаете ли вы оправданным отомстить уязвимому итальянцу? Если бы на вашу бабушку напали чернокожие, вы бы почувствовали себя вправе издеваться над уязвимым черным человеком? Конечно, нет. Это расовый козел отпущения, но большая часть общественности поддерживает его, когда это делается с белыми.
Основные СМИ пытаются связать правую ксенофобию с массовыми убийствами. На протяжении всей истории массовые убийства чаще всего происходили, когда имело место крупномасштабное вторжение на территорию людей другого племени, религии или культуры. Во многих случаях ксенофобные люди - это люди, которые хотят избежать насилия. Это люди, которые хотят остановить массовые убийства. Так что во многих случаях ксенофоб на самом деле предотвращает массовые убийства.
Люди, которые возражают против массовой иммиграции в свою страну или просто возражают против нелегальной иммиграции в свою страну, называются расистами или ксенофобами в основных средствах массовой информации и левыми. Основные средства массовой информации и левые разжигают ненависть к ксенофобам, указывая на худший сценарий развития событий, то есть нацистскую Германию, и подразумевая, что это цель или результат большинства форм ксенофобии. Можно взять наихудший сценарий для многих вещей - включая влюбленность, которая в некоторых случаях приводит к массовым убийствам, и сказать: «О, вот что произойдет!» очернять влюбленных. Знаете, это просто глупо.
МНОГИЕ ЛЕВЫЕ ДЕМО В ПОДДЕРЖКУ ПРЕСТУПНИКОВ
ПОЧЕМУ НЕТ ДЕМО ПРОТИВ ПРЕСТУПНИКОВ?
ОБРАЩЕНИЕ В ПРЕСТУПНОСТЬ ПОДДЕРЖИВАЕТ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЕ В СМИ
Движение Black Lives Matter призывает к лишению полиции денег и легализации наркотиков. И то, и другое будет способствовать преступности и сделает правоохранительные органы более привлекательными для масс, что, вероятно, предоставит больше власти правящему классу.
Многие левые пытаются найти причины заклеймить любого, кто с ними не согласен, «расистом», «сторонником превосходства белой расы» или «нацистом». Это как мальчик, который кричал волком. Что интересно, связь между питьевой водой и расизмом определенно существует. Каждый, кто пьет воду, хотя бы изредка будет судить о своей расе. В наши дни трудно воспринимать левых всерьез. Особенно, когда в одном предложении они утверждают, что являются антирасистами, а в другом выражают расовые предубеждения.
Интересно отметить, что в Америке и других странах Запада расовые беспорядки почти всегда вознаграждаются «благожелательной» пропагандой, другой политикой, способствующей преступности, и / или финансовой подачей местных меньшинств. Права геев приобрели политически корректный статус только после знаменитых «беспорядков белой ночи» 1970-х годов. Правительство пытается поощрять беспорядки?
Либеральная политика привела к увеличению количества заключенных.
В то время как «проснувшиеся» (также называемые либералами, левыми, ПК или политкорректными людьми) известны тем, что озабочены группами, которые считаются бедными и / или маргинализированными, те, кто на самом деле являются беднейшими, наиболее маргинализированными людьми (то есть бездомными ) не относятся к тем группам, которые пробудившиеся считают приоритетными. Вместо этого проснувшиеся отдают предпочтение тем, кого представляют злобные и / или жестокие боевики. Это разжигает ненависть и насилие. Это вызывает страх, поэтому заставляет принимать больше законов и расширяет возможности правящих классов. Они защищены, поэтому вряд ли станут жертвами. Обычно от этого страдают бедные или средний класс. Они более уязвимы, их можно встретить в общественном транспорте и прогуливающихся по улочкам.
Странно, что людей отговаривают критиковать или ставить под сомнение проснувшуюся идеологию. У пробужденных есть что скрывать? Как мы все можем ладить, если не можем говорить открыто?
Поделитесь этой историей в Интернете. Это очень важно.
Подробности см. В прикрепленном PDF-файле:
Я преобразовал PDF в формат фотографий.
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.
(If you don’t want to read the whole report, read the last three paragraphs.)
One-sided, misleading propaganda, taught by Western media and by Western schools, encourages crime, discourages diligence and incites hatred. It benefits criminals – and also politicians.
Some say PC-ness, or wokeism, is the new morality. Some even call it a hateful, new cult. For the most part, it never praises, only condemns. It has no saints, only sinners. What kind of twisted morality is this? Praise of piety encourages piety. Does a lack of praise encourage piety?
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 privilege to groups with aggressive advocates, who have rioted and/or performed other terrorist activities. Riots get a lot of media attention. So, if you have a riot, and then tell sad stories to the journalists, you get public sympathy. It’s a great ploy. This is probably why there is an obsession with injustices committed over a century ago – they still get pity and so can still be used for the manipulation of the masses. Most of the 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 PC 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.
Black unemployment rates, which have been roughly double those of whites, both before and after the civil rights movement of the 60s. The income gap has also shown little change. Racial discrimination was legal before the civil rights movement. Was the movement very helpful? Was it worth all the violence?
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 and vulnerable. 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.
Violent crime rose significantly after the civil rights movement of the 60s, this was followed by more law enforcement and a rising incarceration rate. While the movement was supposed to aid blacks, it has resulted in higher incarceration rates.
An example of an outright lie is Wikipedia saying the reason for segregation in America was ‘white supremacy’ (a conceited notion of superiority). If a notion of superiority was 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 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 'divide-and-rule' was practiced in much of the world - yet is not alleged to have resulted in genocidal mass killing anywhere else except Rwanda and neighboring Burundi. So, if 'divide-and-rule' was the cause of the genocidal mass killing, why did such killings not 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 an 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 LEFTIST DEMOS ARE IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINALS
WHY ARE THERE NO DEMOS AGAINST THE CRIMINALS?
CALLING FOR A MEDIA BLACKOUT OF BLACK CRIME SUPPORTS CRIME
The Black Lives Matter movement calls for defunding the police – and the legalization of narcotics. Both of which will encourage crime and make law enforcement more appealing to the masses, which will probably grant more power to the ruling class.
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 financial handouts 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?
Liberal policies have led to higher incarceration rates.
While the ‘woke’ (also called liberals, leftists, PC or politically correct 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?
Wokism causes other problems too. A common excuse that police use for neglecting to deal with ethnic minority criminals is that they don't want to be called racist. 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 police officer who has never been called a racist and I will show you a police officer who hasn't done their job.
"DON'T SAY THAT!"
The politically correct way to deal with ethnic crime is to hide it or make excuses for it. This encourages crime, for obvious reasons.
In these PC times, why is it legal to discriminate against the homeless? Its 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, many 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. The journey to the West involves crossing many countries in which asylum can be claimed. So, while they might have been productive members of their countries, they are encouraged to come over to the West and become criminals. Removing the talent from a poor increases poverty 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 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.
There is public support for racist bullying - if the victims are a certain color. A good example of this is the Jena 6 case, in which there was massive support for a 6-on-1 unprovoked assault in which the victim was kicked, repeatedly, in the head, when down.
There is a claim that the ‘refugees’ who get to the West will send a lot of money home and make the 3rd World rich – yet the 3rd World doesn’t appear to be getting significantly richer as a result of this. Some, in the 1st generation, will send money home to ‘mom’ – but will subsequent generation send money home to cousins?
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 3rd World countries, like Indonesia, where the environmentalists were defeated and the deforestation and overfishing were allowed to resume, the countries did not become 1st 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. In fact, by destroying or depleting natural resources, it can bring poverty to later generations.
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 confusing 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.
Intellectuals: Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell have pointed out that the civil rights movement has had many negative side-effects.
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 famously said before that: "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. He says blacks do not make slums - but most world travelers, with any intelligence at all, 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. Its also interesting to note that, while poverty and slums are common amongst blacks in Africa, they are uncommon among the many East Asians, South Asians and whites who live in Africa. MLK was a world traveler – and he wasn’t stupid. So, using "white society" and "the white man" as scapegoats appears to be… a bit unrealistic, shall we say?
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? And what would be the outcome? Gaining a new enemy? What's the best way to make a friend? To be 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 and illegal 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.
Let’s get back to subject of the 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 Alabama 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, in some ways 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 priveleges 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 black 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 relative 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 Civil Rights bill 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 woman, 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, frequent allegations of racism 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. 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 impractical – and dagerous.
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 every foreign you move to, 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.
Don't believe the hype. You can make it.
The left is selling a false narrative.
Try showing a little appreciation for what's been done for you. I myself was a white liberal, saw that people were ungrateful and they didn't appreciate me being a liberal. So I gave the matter some thought – and started to see PC-ness for the scam that it is.
How do criminals use media to gain support? Largely by deception. Riots gain the attention of the media. Sad stories are told to journalists, which arouse public sympathy. If a journalist should point out inaccuracies in the sad stories, the journalist is called a racist. References to history are also made. Some opponent say “The fact you got to dig into history, shows you’ve got nothing to blame on me.” But references to history still work for the manipulation of the masses – and . There was a British Black Power movement in the 80s. This involved several riots. A main complaint was that the police were stopping and searching blacks a lot. However, several outlets of the British media gave both sides to this story. They pointed out the police had reasons for this. The militants said their crime rate was entirely due to racism on the part of the “racist white majority” in Britain, as were their levels of productivity and prosperity. Some journalists pointed out that their crime rates, and rates of productivity and prosperity, were consistent with those of places where blacks were the majority, such as Africa and the Caribbean.
CRIMINALS USE MEDIA TO MANIPULATE THE POLICE
.
It was also pointed out that there was a lower tolerance to crime in these areas - that British blacks were therefore getting away with a lot of things that they wouldn't get away with in their home countries. The militants didn't like this reporting, it belied their claims. They liked to criticize, but they didn't like to be criticized. So, they claimed it incited hatred towards blacks, and had a demonstration in London, in 1985, on Fleet Street, the street of the press, against freedom of the press. There was no significant evidence that the press had caused hatred towards blacks. Most Britons already knew of the crime rate among blacks. The British media, overall, probably reduced hatred, as it said that most blacks had no criminal records. So, the British media corrected some stereotypes. Still, the militants got their way. In 1986, a new British law was passed which restricted freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. In real terms, it meant that you couldn't criticize the crimes of non-white criminals. In Britain, your freedom of speech on these issues is now taken away, even when your motive is clearly to stop crime and/or stop racism. Spreading false messages, while repressing criticism and other opposing views, is a strategy which has been used by the Third Reich – and other highly oppressive regimes. The claim that the disclosure of the black crime rate is likely to incite hatred towards blacks is not true.
Another terror attack in London.
Is this because they are unfairly targeted? No, its not. If the police ignore their crimes, they are, in fact, unfairly privileged.
Mainstream media creates the impression that only blacks get shot by police. Most of the people, in the USA, who are shot by police are white. Still, there is a disproportionately high number of blacks getting shot but this is not surprising as a high crime rate causes many of them to come into conflict with police. The overwhelming majority of people who are shot by the police are criminals. So, by blaming the police, these demonstrators are barking up the wrong tree. If you reduce the black crime rate, you’ll reduce the number of blacks shot by the police. So, BLM should demonstrate against the criminals – not the police.
There are logical explanations for the anti-white policies which are so common in the West. Governments could be directly responsible. However. one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. While some see crime, others see revolution, a change in power. George Washington was seen as a criminal by the British government. When I see the videos of Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Pan-Africanist Stokely Carmichael and Black Panther Huey Newton, I see that they were clever and articulate. It is interesting to note that they were all criminals too, at one time or another. Many white Americans have deep seated views that races are entities and that racial compensation, a form of racial retribution as it is a payback, is appropriate. Such views are racist and I can see how these clever men simply made use of these views. I’m sure they would have known that this strategy would result in more crime, and that the crime would ensure that those in power would not only be afraid to interfere but would also gain, and would therefore be less likely to interfere. While the revolution has resulted in many poor people going to prison, organized criminals are unlikely to do much time in prison. If they provide some advantages for the poor, the poor will still support them. I talked to a Norwegian who boasted of his ancestors conquering western Europe, then he added “Well, we didn’t conquer it, but we could do what we wanted.” And why conquer, when you can control? It costs far fewer lives. Still, it could lead to micro-chipping the masses, in such a way that every movement of every resident could be tracked by satellite. So, it could be used to catch assailants who flee the scene of the crime. This would great way to cut attacks on strangers, and other violence. If that happens, it will probably happen slowly, like criminals being chipped at first. In the event that VEMs get a seemingly high proportion of the chips, there might be a lot of pressure put on the government to treat everyone fairly. Still, if you are a black drug lord, you would not be likely to be arrested. A crackdown on drug dealers in white areas would mean more business in your ghetto. So, it would be an advantage for the 'ruling class' of the ghettos too.
DIGGING INTO HISTORY IS A GOOD PLOY FOR GAINING PITY – HENCE THE POWER TO MANIPULATE PEOPLE
…
What is sad is that it’s the poor who pay the price – not only in the West but in the 3rd World too. The hateful, leftist media is broadcast worldwide. Some African and Caribbean countries, and other countries, rely heavily on tourism for much of their income. Causing locals to be hostile towards tourists is unlikely to improve their economies.
IS PC-NESS A GOOD WAY
TO EARN RESPECT?
.
There are many people who believe that PC-ness is motivated by fear, not by friendliness. 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 discourage constructive criticism. I find I got along better with visible ethnic minorities when I started speaking frankly and openly about racial issues. Like stating the facts I’ve stated in this article. How can we all get along if we don't speak openly about such issues? This brings up the issue of respect. What is a good way to make and keep a friend? To cater to their will whenever they threaten or attack you? Western governments have reacted to race riots by granting money and privileges to the communities supported by the rioters. Much of the negativity displayed by VEMs in the West appears to rooted in disrespect, i.e., giving dirty looks, using a disrespectful tone of voice, making constant complaints and criticism, mentioning bad things that whites did long ago - as if it has something to do with you, appearing ungrateful when you do them favors, talking down to you, eavesdropping on your private conversations, interrupting you when you’re having a conversation, grabbing things off the table that you are using – without asking you, cutting the queue, etc. I have spoken to VEMs who feel that PC-ness is ‘two-faced’, ‘false’ or ‘cowardly’. As whites, we are encouraged, mainly via the media, but also via other propaganda and sometimes in other ways, to be PC. Not surprisingly, PC-ness has pretty much become a white obsession. A ‘new morality’ almost a replacement for religion. I too was PC in my younger days. I found that, when I was not PC, or was otherwise more assertive, I not only tended to get along better with VEMs, I also found I was respected more. Hey, that seems logical, doesn’t it? Why should you have respect for someone who’s ‘morality’ comes from media hype and other propaganda - and causes them to become weak and non-assertive?
While I believe in freedom of expression with regard to constructive criticism, I don't support lies or one-sided, misleading slander. I don’t support criticizing, or blaming, people for things they cannot help either, like things which happened before they were born. The race-hate propaganda in our schools, public libraries and mainstream media (including social media, like Facebook) is a highly problematic form of racism. There was a movement in the USA to stop teaching CRITICAL RACE THEORY in the schools. This is a step in the right direction. As CRT causes racial hatred and prevents some people from even trying to ‘make it’. I myself am no stranger to prejudice. I’ve resided in 11 countries other than the one I was born in. In fact, I only spent 3 years of my life in my country of birth. I speak with an American accent, which makes me susceptible to Ameri-phobia (being associated with some of the more negative aspects of America). I have encountered prejudice myself – and I don’t have all that PC-ness and affirmative action to protect me. There is a lot of anti-American prejudice. Some of this might have had a negative effect on my success. However, if I were to spend a lot of energy accusing other people of being the cause of my failures, it would divert my attention from solving my problems.
At the end of the day, life is too short to dwell on negativity. While negative criticism might be useful for improving societies, it is important to also remember the good things and to express one’s gratitude for the good people who have befriended you and/or helped you. A large proportion of my friends have been non-white – even when I was in white countries. There have been many black and brown people, in the West, who have given me rides when I hitchhiked. I am grateful for this. This is quite commendable considering the media and other propaganda which teaches them to hate me. One day at Bradford College, in England, I was assaulted by a group of South Asian guys. Three other students, two of whom were South Asian, defended me verbally. The attackers stopped. When I reported to the college security afterwards, two South Asians also made reports on my behalf – without being asked. And what did the college security do? Nothing. They knew who the attackers were as the attack was on camera. The security staff who dealt with my case were all white. So, I got more support from the South Asian students, who were not being paid to help me, than from the college security who were. I am grateful for this. Very grateful. I have spent much of my life living in multicultural cities. I love multiculturalism but not when it includes disrespect and hostility. Let’s do what we can to improve things. -JD