Tag Archives: racism

The Alt-Right Fetishising Eastern Dictatorships

It’s something you’d have to see to believe – some who lament the “tyranny” of today’s left have developed a fascination with countries like Russia and Belarus.

Sifting through hundreds of comments below documentaries such as this one, revealing a system much like Ceausescu’s Romania, was a baffling experience. The blood-curdling accounts of people threatened with arrest for watching anti-system plays, the imprisonment of political dissidents and candidates, the assassination attempts, the executions and torture, the disappeared who have never been heard from again.

All this to some means absolutely nothing, compared to the fact that “in the UK you’re not allowed to bash gays or be racist anymore”. All this, compared to the drama of the persecuted “white cis heterosexual man”, is a side issue.

“Minsk is the cleanest capital in Europe”, some say. “The streets are safe and people are happy there; pay no attention to western propaganda; liberals are the true fascists.”

“I love how this documentary is like “this place is an evil dictatorship” and people look insanely happy.”

How deluded can these people be?

Just because it doesn’t happen in front of their eyes on a daily basis, while they’re on holiday, they’re willing to claim it’s not an issue. Guess what – communist Romania did a great job of creating an idyllic image while these horrors were going on in the background. In public, everyone laughed and clapped enthusiastically, and had to be seen smiling, while privately terrified of what could happen to them for having told a joke in a pub. To this day some around the world take that “happiness” as genuine.When are they going to stop believing those who claim a dictator is widely loved, for fear of losing their lives if they say otherwise?

Why must those who suffer brutality, genuine censorship and having family members murdered be spat in the face by basement-dwelling skinheads who call their situation “ideal”?

To some, Belarus sounds like paradise.

“They didn’t submit to the Jewish plan of flooding Europe with immigrants.” “You are not forced to adopt the gay agenda there.”

How fucked up must someone be, and how central to their life must it be to bash gays or be racist, to claim they’d rather live among KGB kidnappings and executions than endure the diversity of western liberalism?

That is why sane people are adverse to socialist states, shitheads. Because of what has happened and continues to happen in places like Belarus.

How can those who complain about Twitter bans drool over living in a place where one is arrested and tortured for having the wrong opinion? How can they even make that comparison?

Russia is an even greater example of popular misconception, as Putin has, paradoxically, become the hero of “free speech advocates” who “oppose the Soros-sponsored agenda of leftist censorship”.

What it boils down to, for these muppets, is that even though such countries are suffocated by human rights abuses, people there still have the crucial “freedom” to be bigots, which to them seems to be everything that matters.

 

Enough Pandering To Actual White Supremacists

In every clash of ideologies there is a large palette of nuances of grey, usually overlooked by both sides when posturing on their key issues. Hence the idea of analysing all possible aspects in a neutral manner.

However, there is at least one exception – when the clash involves any ideology based on racial supremacy, which seeks to reduce humanity to no more than packs of mammals fighting over territory, a phase humanity is said to have transcended a long time ago (but apparently hasn’t completely).

There is no redeeming aspect or nuance in being a race supremacist. It is the absolute lowest denominator in any society. The drive towards tribalism can be understood in certain contexts, but not this one.

After the events in Charlottesville, US, when, at a white nationalist rally where violence erupted between marchers and protesters, a woman was actually killed by a disturbed right wing extremist who purposefully ran into people with his car, the reactions were, paradoxically, mixed.

As praised as the first amendment in the US constitution is, giving the right to free speech to anyone on any matter, one must rationally admit that a march based on racial supremacy is, in and of itself, incitement to violence.

Analyse and dissect it all you want – that it what is boils down to. And when such elements freely congregate and propagandise, nothing good comes of it. Because it simply can’t. It is the most base, irrational, anger-fueled drive a person can have, and should not be alimented by any means. It borders on (and sometimes even is) murderous rage, blended with the sickest type of utilitarianism.

There is no silver lining. As much as “free speech advocates” (whose devotion is questionable when joining ranks with the right) like to throw stones at the radical left, which overall has damaged its image through acts of violence of its own, this is not debatable. No one is blowing this out of proportion. These are actual racists. Not someone making an inadvertently offensive comment or a potentially offensive joke, to be picked on for no reason. Actual torch-wielding racists, looking for concrete results and political backing.

And still, commentators claiming to be moderate wrack their brains to defend Trump’s half-hearted condemnation “of both sides”. Because they support Trump. Normally, outside of these circumstances of belonging to a clique and having to defend it at all cost, I think those same people would be very quick to disavow any such gathering.

In the Trump-supporting-yet-supposedly-not-alt-right alternative media, especially online, things carry on as usual, with issues such as the demands of irrational feminists and “regressive leftists” being treated as a priority, when it is clear that at least in the US the radical right has become a major problem, emboldened by the establishment’s tacit approval.

The idea that Trump’s election would cause such consequences was treated as ridiculous last year, with believable rhetoric – and yet it’s all happening. It seems the “ridiculous” “hysterical” left actually had a point.

 

 

 

Nosferatu Eats The Daily Mail

In case the title reads a bit odd, the comparison between the mythical un-dead and avid consumers of this publication seems increasingly warranted. In this section of the food chain, Nosferatu gorges on Daily Mail articles, in his unsatisfied craving to in fact consume other humans – and it, in turn, gorges on the small remnants of his brain, without which it could not survive. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

The far-right press, for some time, has had to at least nudge its audience in order to draw out racist, xenophobic or generally spiteful attitudes in relation to an event. That is no longer the case, apparently.

Its faithful disciples exhale contempt to the point of no longer seeing beyond their fixations, regardless of what the discussion centres on.

Gentrification has been intensely discussed in recent weeks, after the tragic fire which engulfed Grenfell Tower in London, as a result of the disparity between the very rich and poorer residents of the area. After an announcement was made that survivors would be housed in flats they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to afford, some people’s reactions were indeed very surprising and reminiscent of past centuries, rather than our current year.

It’s not often that the worst manifestations of snobbery are freely displayed in an open space, giving the values the west pretends to espouse. In this case, it occurred in the most unexpected of circumstances, namely the imperious need to rehouse victims of a fire as soon as possible.

“My service charge bill – and it’s a low one this year – is £15,500. I would feel really resentful if someone got the same thing for free. I feel sorry for those people but my husband and I work very hard to be able to afford this. And for someone to get it for free, I would move.”

One has to wonder what is, concretely, being done to this woman. How would her fine life be affected exactly? How would it benefit her if she left her home? The only conclusion is that A, the insult is so extraordinary her mind cannot cope with it, or/and B, she can only mingle with her own social stratum, even if no one would actually force her to mingle but merely to breathe the same air, from a comfortable distance.

And if one does give her the benefit of the doubt for feeling some injustice because of her hard work, by reading subsequent comments one sees without a doubt that some people do, in this day and age, simply refuse to mingle with those who are not as rich as them. These are people who benefited from higher education, who presumably traveled around and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. And yet, all these possibilities were not enough for them to fully develop as sentient human beings. Sifting through the comments was fairly disturbing yet sobering at the same time.

All these comments scream “those people are lower than us; we know them to a tee; they are a different breed and do not deserve to breathe the same oxygen as we do”.

  1. I’m sure the residents of these super-posh developments are just itching to take in a large, loud black mama JUST like Diane Abbott! Wait ’til they all start playing their music loudly and their kids make loads of noise! Watch the fallout!

2. I fear the entitlement attitude will only get worse due to constantly having those in the media and socialist left that everyone is equal. Housing such people in these luxury apartments will end in tears as they become more and more disconnected  from a community than bears no resemblance to their background  or social position, alienating both the private and social housing occupants.

Translation: they will alienate the rich just by existing in their proximity, as they are a different species. Apparently, there is no chance under the sun that people can coexist in the same building unobtrusively or get along very well in this situation.

3. It has nothing to do with not having as much money, that is so simplistic. It is to do with these people not sharing in the same culture background. Many can hardly speak English, many are Asylum seekers, refugees and worse still illegal immigrants, who come from third world countries who will be living next door to people who are paying for the privilege of living in such an area. Surely everyone when buying a home eventually choose a home by doing research on an area, types of neighbors, crime rates etc…And it appears it’s wrong that one should want to be able to choose when they’re spending money out of their own pocket.

Needless to say, these are pure assumptions. The only thing this person knows for sure is they were paying a lower rent and were not as well-off as the other residents of the area. Which by definition must mean all of the above, in their view.

4.To put it simply this Country is overloaded with immigrants to the point where the identity of white British people has and continues to be wiped out. Therefore its time all immigration was halted for the time being to allow the rightful owners, the white British people to recover their numbers.

Using an event of this type, corroborated with racial stereotyping, in order to rant about immigration.

5. To people who are criticising this woman including this radio person.  What would you say if all of these moved in next door to you for free?  Nothing at all, and you would welcome them?  Yeah right!
6.They are deserving to be rehoused permanently in suitably sized accommodation, but not necessarily in the same Borough ….. in any Borough where there is accommodation and where social housing rents are similar to Grenfell.  Otherwise, who’s going to take up the slack with the substantial increase in rent for Kensington Row?  The public purse of course and not just for a few months, but permanently.
Which is not even the case, but never mind. This obsession with preventing a group of people from – Heaven forbid – living in accommodation which is “too good for them” is truly disturbing, as if it were done on a national scale.

7. Where is the heart – to have true heart you need to be able to understand that not all people are the same or equal, this does not mean they are not entitled or should not receive compassion, empathy and a caring approach to help re-build their lives again, but by suggesting we are all the same, when “realistically and logically” we are not, demonstrates we have a long way to go before we resolve the real problems and issues in our country.

8. Because £15.5k per annum is the going rate for service charges.  A block I know in SW11 charges £18,500 p.a. – that’s for 24 hr concierge, private refuse collection, someone at Reception all day to take parcels in for the residents and ensure no stranger just walks into the building, gardener, maintenance,  and many other services. Are you suggesting that the Grenfell people should also get this service?  You cannot be serious …… for what reason?  It is divisive to promote a better standard of living for migrants who have not yet contributed to the Exchequer above your own population.

9. And after years of working for very wealthy people I learned this:  Wealthy people want to be amongst other wealthy people only. They do not want to be part of a mixed socio-economic try-out ,especially at such close quarters which I believe would be next door to their prestigious apartment block.  Why do you think such prestigious blocks are built in expensive areas such as W14 in the first place?  Shelagh Fogarty is being more than usually dim.  Let’s not mix up the personal tragedies suffered by people from Grenfell with their eligibility to live in Kensington Row.

“Eligibility to live…”  Perhaps this person would admit they were not “eligible” to live in a death trap, but for Heaven’s sake, not “eligible” to move ranks that much! These people seem so sure of themselves, when nothing is guaranteed in life, not even the continuation of life itself, not even for one day. They must not spend an awful lot of time contemplating how short life is and what really matters at the end of the day.

10.This has nothing to do with people shouting racist or snobbery, but can we truly alter the demographics of a whole country, small community culture beyond all recognition where people who have worked to be able to choose where they want to live, the type of community they want to live in, the type of people they feel they relate, share the same values, outlook and commonality with. I find many people overlook the fact that many communities are being changed so much, than when the media film or interview people the community could easily be a third world shanty town. This is fact, NOT a ridicule of the people, we all revert to who and where we come from, and you cannot change an Asylum seeker’s or illegal immigrants background, the way they live by installing them in a luxury flat in Kensington.

The issue to this individual doesn’t seem to be the one at hand, which is a crisis, but somehow, as a goal in and of itself, to transform those people, making them suitable for a posh area. You just can’t make some of this stuff up.

11. Totally agree with the lady on the phone. I don’t even understand why the poor are living in the most expensive districts of the country. The past generations must have sold the right to live there for £££’s. Just being born in an area doesn’t automatically entitle you with the right to live there.

Paraphrasing someone who replied, partly to serve the rich, who might be forced to wipe their own behinds in every way, were it not for the poor who provide them with needed services. Of course, one might argue the poor can always commute. They don’t have to live, what an outrageous notion, right under those snooty noses. They spoil the view.

Although to think of it, the acrid comments were still more polite than those of these thoughtful readers, renowned for their intellectual capacity, since they read The Sun.

Another suggestion might be to build a new block of flats where the ruins once stood and then decant them all back although I wouldn’t like to see the state of some of the luxury flats then.

What’s wrong with trailer parks, certainly an upgrade to a bombed out piece of rubble in the desert.

These people have basically won the lottery, they’ll never have to work again and all the rules no longer seem to apply to them.

Out of pity for the laptop I might vomit on I will stop pasting quotes, undecided which ones were more despicable – the pure venom written by intellectually challenged individuals or the cynicism and snobbery of the well-to-do.

You might wonder what is wrong with these people. Is there something in their water?

 

“Healing From Toxic Whiteness” – Social Justice And Religion

You won’t be surprised to hear that besides toxic masculinity, sectionable intersectional feminists have come up with the concept of toxic whiteness. In fact, Everyday Feminism is holding a free workshop for those interested in healing from it. It might not involve the handling of live snakes, convulsions and speaking in tongues, but the message is the same – you were born a sinner, you must repent, convert and make amends in order to be saved from yourself.

Like original sin, toxic whiteness goes unnoticed without the sufferer presenting any symptoms; however, akin to chlamydia, that doesn’t mean that it’s not there. In fact, it largely affects those who’ve never suspected they have it – all white people who have not yet repented of their melanin privilege, that is.

And doing healing work in community and not alone makes a big difference. So having a separate anti-racist healing space for white people, led by a person of color who can hold them accountable, is important for white supremacy to be dismantled.

Much like manginas, self-flagellating white people who have not committed one racist act in their entire lives seem to be affected by some sort of masochism, acting as vaseline to help the Marxist bullshit funnel slide down their throats more easily.

What radical socialists want is an enormous mass of converts, regardless of the type of guilt they insidiously instill into their minds. The so-called privileged are not the enemy but a recruitment pool of gullible fools who cannot see beyond adopting a trendy facade, even if the end result is the opposite of what they claim to be supporting – division, segregation and the breeding of actual racism.

It’s difficult to ignore the cult-like nature of social justice activism, if only for the crazed, manic looks it imprints on some people’s faces.

Submit. Repent. We will teach you. Will will heal you. We will deliver you from evil and show you the right path. Fight the good fight with us.

I for one am opposed to the notion of anyone being racist without knowing it or in spite of constantly analysing their potential racism. It seems to me that the people going to that type of event are the last ones needing “reeducated” in that sense.

The whole thing is reminiscent of how Christians go through their every word and thought with a fine-tooth comb, in search of any trace of sin, despite knowing they had no foul intentions to begin with.

Some become fevered with the obsession of being able to participate in changing the world, when in fact they cannot even get passed their own daily trivialities, such as microaggressions or, where Christians are concerned, anything from having wanked the week before to having sworn at an asshole in traffic.

Social justice activism demands total submission and dedication, 24/7. 

People are advised to disassociate from their significant others for contrary views, Scientology-style.

When some of them realise the farce they allowed to take over their existence, it will be too late to undo the damage done to their personal lives, never mind their sanity.

 

 

 

Disgusting Cult-like Training: “I Am A Racist”

For anyone who still doubts there is actual brainwashing going on by the “progressive” left – have a look at this. It’s a step-by-step guide on how to realise you are a racist, as it appears that if you’re “privileged” enough to be born white, you are one by default.

It involves repeating mantras inside your head until you finally crack and label yourself as such, even if you’d never thought you were one your entire life. Repeat to yourself enough that you are guilty and you will eventually end up believing it.

First, there is the prepping.

So cut yourself some slack if you have internalized racist ideas. It doesn’t mean you are bad; it means you watched Peter Pan as a kid (or the thousands of other biased films and television shows). It means you were likely raised by folks who too fled racism.

Then repeat the following:

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

And that statement can be true, as long as you complete this next step.

Notice at first the article seems to address those who knowingly have internalised racist ideas; however, the next step, titled “unearth your racism and challenge it”, proves it also addresses those who have never associated themselves with this notion. So basically this is for everyone.

Most of our racial biases go unnoticed. There’s even a name for them: Implicit biases, which can be defined as the “thoughts about people you didn’t know you had.”

Remember that smog? It means our bodies are full of polluted thoughts. Even mine. Even yours.

But you are never going to unearth these biases until you finally pick up the shovel. In other words, it takes work – deliberate and sustained effort.

You must actively bring your implicit biases to the surface. (There’s even a test for them here!) You must actively challenge the stereotypes you have internalized (which generally don’t hold up). You must actively learn about microaggressions and cultural appropriation so that you aren’t perpetrating them.

Do the work, and you won’t be able to help but repeat the inevitable:

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

To start with, I do not believe in the concept of a self-deprecating genuine racist; it’s a contradictory notion. Not only are these people full of themselves enough to believe they are genetically superior to millions or billions of others; they are also angry and have destructive aspirations. This article clearly does not address them.

Also, I do not believe in the concept of a racist who doesn’t identify himself/herself as such. You cannot hold extreme views and not be aware of it; it’s nonsensical.

This is a brainwashing endeavour seeking to convince everyone that if they look hard enough, they will find the bigot within, repent and be saved, much like sin is treated by religions by examining one’s every thought and feeling.

Like religious leaders, they claim to be inside your head, to know you better than you know yourself, seeking to bring you on the right path.

The point is: Racism is bigger than one person; it’s not about you.

At the same time – and I don’t think this is stressed enough – individuals make up systems.

White individuals can become cashiers who make the checkout line an unpleasant experience for shoppers of Color. White individuals can become teachers who don’t recognize the brilliance of their students of Color. White individuals will invariably make up many hiring committees, holding the keys that open the doors to upward mobility.

Thus, it’s crucial to analyze how the individual interacts with and connects to the institution.

All of this is redundant considering the fact that the addressee in this case is not even aware of having racial biases, thus having to fish for them in the abyss of their subconscious mind – never mind being an overt racist likely to cause trouble to others in the form of hiring discrimination or “unpleasant experiences”, whatever that means.

If it’s not about me, then leave me the fuck alone, why don’t you. Except it is aimed at every single individual who can be manipulated into thinking they are guilty of something they never took part in.

Of course, there is a reason to all this besides causing needless mortification.

Dismantling these systems will require action. Awareness and education are certainly part of the process but, alone, they are not enough.

Once this imaginary guilt is established, the fun part comes – enrollment in their social justice activism, to wash away the sin that was never committed. They want to inflate their numbers by pulling at the heartstrings of gullible strangers to help them “change the world”. Just like a good old-fashioned cult.

Racial injustice infects pretty much every facet of our world.

This fact can be overwhelming, but it also makes it relatively easy to find a struggle to join. Maybe it’s at your workplace, in your child’s school, in front of your computer, or on the streets during rush hour. 

There is no shortage of ways to act. In fact, in a search engine of your choice, type the words “White people fight racism” and you will find endless articles with ideas (many of which are compiled here).

It’s quite something when the people behind a movement (an intended Marxist revolution in this case) manage to convince the masses to join them not on the basis of hope and positivity but to redeem themselves as human beings.

“Decolonial Love” – Politicising Your Hormones

If you’re one of those people who worry about discriminating against others by exhaling carbon dioxide, with the aid of intersectional feminism you can reach a whole new level of devotion: you can now fight oppression by politicising your romantic relationships.

All you have to do is rewire your brain in order to only experience attraction towards individuals in social categories classed as underprivileged. Sounds easy, right…? Forget the fact that this has no discernible purpose under the Sun – your only goal in life should be the application of feminist principles in every little thing you do, say or even experience internally (while reassuring yourself that feminism is not actually a cult).

If you need to alter your brain chemistry and subconscious mind in order to manipulate your attraction criteria, so be it. Your hormones are supremacist.

During his speech, Diaz introduced the concept of decolonial love with an “apocalyptic proclamation”: “We’re never gonna get anywhere as long as our economies of attraction continue to resemble more or less the economies of attraction of white supremacy.”

In other words, if we cannot change the thinking around who and how we love, as a society, we’ll stay stuck in the ideology of colonialism.

Making our love decolonial is a necessary step to a completely decolonial self, because if we don’t let go of our privileges and closely examine how the forces of oppression play out in our love lives, we are powering the existing injustices of the world.

And the existing forces of oppression for decolonial lovers to fight are numerous: patriarchy, heterosexism, skinny worship, classism, ableism, and what Diaz aptly calls “pigmentation politics.”

In other words, by feeling sexually, emotionally, intellectually attracted to people who are considered privileged – white, heterosexual, “cisgender” etc – we are contributing to the perpetuation of injustice against other categories. As if somehow the community – or the world at large – owned each one of  us down to the bone marrow, holding us accountable for decisions regarding our personal happiness, which have no impact on others. You can’t get more fanatically socialist than that.

These people must live and breath oppression theories every second of their day; they are so high on their own fumes they don’t realise how much these fantasies of micromanaging each individual are straying from human nature.

In former communist countries, each citizen was expected to be completely subjugated to the ideology of the party; to be immersed in it and energised by it. No intrinsic value was to be held in higher regard and no other loyalty was to be prioritised – not even to family members. As such, even small choices made daily were filtered through what the party wanted from an ideal citizen. The same mentality is shared by this so-called social justice crowd.

Your personal happiness means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hail the matriarchy; everything for the cause! Your entire life should be a shining example of a devoted, practicing feminist – and nothing else.

Some people think it means reserving our love and respect only for people of color (POC) or queer (LGBTQIA+) folks — or especially queer folks of color. That is not the case, as only loving any group of people can fall into exotification or fethishization.

All throughout, the author remains concerned only with the object of the debate, namely those who are more worthy of love than others – never with those she is asking to rewire their hormonal drive in some weird bid to exclude the “privileged” from their desires, which is extremely racist, by the way. What is this supposed to achieve, again? Who would this help and how? The “especially” points out that there is a rank of desirability based on how many oppression badges someone can collect. And the warning follows closely – love them very much, but not too much, as too much would also be insulting.

Since the LGBT community is mentioned, may I ask how a gay person only loving gay people is guilty of exotification or fetishisation? I imagine she would not demand that straight folks reserve their romantic interest for queer folks or vice-versa. So this fetishisation caper doesn’t make any sense between categories which do not interact on a romantic level.

It appears that a significant swathe of the addressees of this moralising piece must be the ones singled out as less lovable – white, heterosexual, “cis” people.

The concept of love as decolonial is not opposed to loving someone deemed desirable by society (in other words, an individual who is able-bodied, conventionally attractive, wealthy financially and socially, and/or comes from a first world country).

The issue is when we are only attracted to those kinds of people and not open to making a romantic or emotional connection with others.

Can I also ask why are anyone’s preferences an issue stretching farther than their private lives ? Whose business is it exactly? Where a person comes from matters for very logical reasons, in terms of the culture they were brought up in. There could be major discrepancies based on that.

I can’t believe I even have to say this, but people don’t actively choose whom they are attracted to. It’s an instinct. What they do with that is a whole different matter – yet that does not alter their initial drive and intrinsic selection criteria.

Just as no one actively chooses to be gay or straight. In fact, LGBT activism is based on the idea of following one’s natural inclinations in terms of attraction, while resisting societal pressures to live conventionally. Whether or not they see themselves as revolutionaries defying the status quo, these lefties are still trying to pressure others regarding a very personal matter. There are trying to set moral norms in an area which needs no intervention or regulation.

Anyhow, the disclaimer was a blatant lie, as you can read below.

The first step to addressing the colonial mindset is awareness. Awareness is key to retraining our reflexes and stopping habits in their tracks.

When I first came to the US, I had a crush on every blond-haired, blue-eyed boy in my class. In my way of thinking, those were the characteristics of a good person. Clearly, I had been exposed to some white supremacy in my early years in China. But when I realized what was at work that magnetized me — and many others — to whiteness, I was no longer so helplessly attracted to those traits.

While questioning what we take for granted can be hard work, it is made exponentially easier if we have practice.

Therefore, this whole movement is not concerned with the inclusion of certain categories but the explicit exclusion of others. Or rather, the exclusion of a specific one, I should say.

Due to this presentation, an individual who “likes Asian women” may think of that as a “preference,” when in reality, it’s a learned form of prejudice that’s based on fetishizing an entire group of people. The same can be said if you rule out an entire race as unattractive or unsuitable. In both cases,it is the stereotype that is deciding, not you.

Excuse me…? What was it you were saying about white people and making a conscious, successful effort to stop being attracted to them, because of colonialism? Isn’t that ruling out a race as unsuitable? Isn’t that letting the stereotype decide? Incredible double-think.

For example: If we are less emotionally invested in our partners, we may end up with the upper hand in the relationship while the other person feels powerless.

There are ways to de-escalate the commitment level without making the other person feel disrespected or powerless. If you communicate your level of commitment clearly, and the other person is still willing to engage in a relationship based on that knowledge, then neither person is taken advantage of.

Treating romantic relationships as pure power dynamics is par for the course with feminism, which rejects the idea of actual love. That’s why, even though “investing emotionally” was involved, the author shies away from the word “love” and uses less intense ones which make the situation seem less personal.

Even in equally committed relationships, it is good to check in about how empowered and respected you feel by your partner and vice versa.

Why not, check in regularly, to verify both parties are still satisfied with the arrangement. Fill out an “equal partner” satisfaction form every month and rate the empowerment you are experiencing.

Engage your decolonial muscles. Build them up. Because we want it to be a fair fight between the reflexes we have inherited and the ones we have chosen for ourselves.

Again – to what avail would this “fight” take place, if not the complete submission to SJW principles, against one’s own natural inclinations?

For the time being, it seems producing these grand ideas vigorously engages people’s decolonial muscles.

Obsessed With Race

Being called a racist today is one of the most feared labels, as one can’t really defend themselves with anything but “I’m not” – aside from pathetically invoking their friends of different backgrounds as arguments, which most people I trust would stay away from. There are so many sources elaborating on this concept, taking it to the moon and back, clinging to anything they can come up with, no matter how ridiculous.

Intersectional feminism partly deals with racial oppression. Not necessarily apartheid or genocide in some countries (past or present), discrimination in the workforce or anything palpable; these are rarely mentioned. What is mentioned very often and plies on SJWs’ specialty – feelings – is the harm caused by offensive comments. Given the broad scope allowed by subjectivity, one can consider just about anything offensive.

Right now, the end to this likeness of a caterpillar infestation, which devours everything in its path, is not in sight yet.

Although the titles below are self-explanatory, reading  the articles can put you in a trance, as they defy the most basic logic. In this twisted maze, there is only one certainty – if you’re white, you are guilty of racism. Regardless of you denying it or not even believing it. After all, who the hell do you think you are, claiming to know what’s in your own head? Progressive rhetoric itself becomes tainted when coming out of your hypocritical mouth.

Here’s why refusing to see colour doesn’t actually mean you’re not racist (which is nonsensical, like saying here’s why being alive doesn’t actually mean you’re not dead).

Among the reasons given is that not seeing colour ignores someone’s cultural background and heritage, denying them their uniqueness – as if taking an interest in someone’s culture had anything to do with the melanin in their skin. As a side note, in similar articles you can read about how being too interested in someone’s culture fetishises and “exotifies” them. Perhaps if you figure out just the right amount of interest you can show (not too little, not too much) you might just escape the labelling.

Here’s what a “white saviour” is (and why it’s the opposite of helpful). It starts with “volunteering in African countries”. Apparently even that is disingenuous, to the comfortable middle-class feminist. I was under the impression that folks go there to do actual community work, like helping to develop infrastructure. Skimming through the projects on the very first website I clicked on, that seems to be accurate. It’s not a “feel good story”, as the article claims. Bricks and mortar are not made from feelings.

My logic is that volunteering has nothing to do with race and everything to do with wanting to help those who need it,  while risking one’s safety (in politically unstable countries) as well as being exposed to health hazards one’s body might not be able to cope with. Unbelievably, feminists think their endless diatribes are more useful than the actual building of safe water systems or hospitals.

“When white people say they’re progressives” – The perfect reply to fake allies . Translation, the perfect reply to people we think are fake allies. And that reply is a longer version of I think you’re full of shit. Which is fair enough – I personally believe self-labelled progressives are full of it. However, it is the racially-obsessed militant clique that creates these types’ need to keep proclaiming their “ally” status in the first place. Without this constant push, people would just be people; they wouldn’t divide the world into “allies” and the rest.

However, this one takes the crown. The feminist guide to non-racist flirting with women of colour .

It’s some of the most illogical, constipated nonsense I’ve ever laid eyes on. The imagined dialogue is so far out you can just tell the whole issue is made up for the sake of creating acrimony. Consider the situation of a guy meeting a woman he likes and flirting with her. If this guy really was racist, he wouldn’t do that in the first place. There; problem solved.

Instead, the author explains for about 20 paragraphs that as a white guy he is bound to have toxic attitudes and will doubtlessly behave like a jerk, even without meaning to, as the patriarchy has brainwashed him since birth. This poor, hapless individual does not stand a chance with a woman of colour without her precious hopscotch tutorial. It’s not like he just might treat all women the same way and doesn’t need any dating advice, because he is, you know, an adult.

So unless you’ve deliberately worked to unlearn what these oppressive systems have taught you, you’re probably working with some unconsciously hurtful ideas about how to approach a woman of color.

Dating advice however is a euphemism. This reads more like how to deactivate a human landmine.

  1. Don’t focus only on her race

I honestly doubt anyone would do that openly, even if secretly that is their preoccupation. It’s beyond stupid.

You probably hate to be “blamed” for the actions of your ancestors, but the truth is, white men throughout history have really fucked this one up for you.

So she’s judging this guy’s presumed attitude due the actions of his ancestors, from hundreds of years ago. I’m sorry; who was supposed to be the racist here…?

For instance, have you ever watched pornography featuring Black women? Don’t be embarrassed – I have, too. And sadly, it’s difficult as hell to find porn that doesn’t market and depict us with demeaning characterizations like “Jungle Booties” or “Ebony Whores.”

Perhaps white women doing porn are portrayed as saintly virgins…? If you’re looking for morality or something to uplift your spirit, pardon me but the last place you look is pornography. Everyone is debased there, with moral expectations out the window.

Okay, so all you know is that she’s a woman of color, but you’re not going to open with a line about her race. So what will you open with? Think about your goal here – are you relating to her or are you othering her? After all, if you’re trying to establish a connection, you’re not going to do that by essentially saying, “Hey, I noticed you’re Black.”

No, that’s not all he knows. He knows whether he finds her attractive, her approximate age, her behaviour in that context (how inhibited she might be, for instance if she dances or sits by herself, if she talks a lot, if she seems approachable or seems to have a bridge pillar up her backside etc).

The only reason the author assumes he’s obsessed with race is that she is obsessed with race herself – that’s how she analyses everything this guy might do or say through the lens of him being born white. In fact, race has turned into some kind of OCD at this point.

2. …But don’t act like you can’t see her race

This is where it gets from plain stupid and presumptuous to downright twisted.

Now before you go avoiding any mention of race at all, let me clarify. Focusing only on a woman of color’s race is a problem, but it’s okay to acknowledge that you are, in fact, aware that she’s a person of color. In fact, it’s a hell of a lot better than saying things like “I don’t see color.”

Should you also acknowledge the fact that she only has one head? And one mouth and only two eyes, positioned where eyes normally would be?

It’s cool to be treated like you’re special, but the idea that a woman is different simply because she’s Asian is not so great.

So is she different or isn’t she? I really don’t follow.

It essentially means that you’ve internalized what the mainstream media and other dominant institutions have told you – that white is the default identity, and anyone who’s not white is abnormal. So if you’re telling a woman that you don’t “see” her race, you’re implying that you only find her attractive because you see her as the default race, white, and noticing that she’s not white would be a bad thing.

So basically, “all people are equal” would turn into “I’m just pretending all people are white so I can like them better”. It’s the first time I’ve ever come across such an argument. This also implies that a white man should relate differently to women according to their race, as approaching them in the same manner would somehow mean he sees them as white. There’s a mindfuck to decipher.

Don’t treat her race like it’s something to be ashamed of, something she’d have to “overcome” in order to get your attention.

At this point she already has his attention (he is approaching her), and plus, I’d love to hear a chat-up in a pub which centres on a woman overcoming her race or ethnicity.

Be thoughtful about how you acknowledge a woman’s race – which means not saying any of these things: “What are you?” “I’ve heard Latinas are wild in bed.” “I may look white, but I’m a Black guy in my pants, if you know what I mean.”

Right. Because that’s exactly the type of thing you’d say to someone you just met. I wonder if the person who wrote this has ever been around people before. And that’s coming from the female version of Mr Bean – but still sane enough to notice one does not approach others in such manners.

Say you meet a South Asian woman. A common pitfall is asking “Where you from?” and not accepting an answer like “Arizona.”

Not accepting as in what? Thinking she’s lying? Right enough; immigration is so new around those parts; it’s not like the US is a nation of immigrants from all corners of the Earth.

There are better ways to learn someone’s background and allow her to share about her identity on her terms. One great way to do this is by following her lead. If you seem genuinely interested in getting to know her, there’s a good chance that her background will naturally come up in a way she’s comfortable with. For example, if you asked me where I’d like to travel, I’d probably tell you I’d go to my father’s home country of Trinidad and Tobago. Then you could ask any number of respectful questions about when he immigrated to the United States, and what my Trinidadian roots mean to me – without ever having to perpetuate xenophobic ideas about immigrants.

Why stop there with the indications? Why not write down the exact list of respectful questions, with intonation guides included? Is this for people with Asperger’s only? And God forbid you should ever bring anything up out of curiosity, before she is “ready” or “comfortable” to talk about her ethnic background. God forbid you should ever go near such a sacred subject as where she’s from; it would be like asking at what age she lost her virginity.

3. Don’t assume she’s interested in talking to you

Unfortunately, society encourages men to believe women are always sexually available to them. For example, romantic movies often show men interpreting a woman’s “no, thank you” as “try harder, and eventually you’ll get me.”

Of course the obvious question would be why would you assume; however,  subsequent paragraphs show the true nature of this point.

If she’s not interested, it’s not because she’s being “oversensitive.” It’s not even necessarily because she doesn’t find you attractive, or assumes you’re going to do something racist, or has any other impression of you being a “bad” person because you’re white. The real problem isn’t just you. It’s the fact that women have to deal with being objectified all the time, and for women of color, that often includes a combination of racism and sexism.

Every woman of color has developed her own boundaries throughout her lifetime to protect herself from the impact of this constant weight.

Sometimes that includes turning down a polite stranger who’s trying to flirt – no matter how respectful he is.

Boundaries are not a form of discrimination against you. They’re an essential part of self-preservation for people from marginalized communities. She’s developed them for the sake of survival.

In other words, women of colour are allowed to be plain racist and reject someone on the sheer basis of their skin. It’s not racism; it’s “self preservation”, even if that man has nothing but good intentions. The woman being chatted up is to be understood if she engages in the generalisation and dehumanisation of a prospective partner  – the exact behaviour the author urges the white man not to engage in, throughout the entire article. Furthermore:

If you’re frustrated with this, direct your anger to the systems of white supremacy and patriarchy that put this burden on women of color. Don’t get angry at us for doing what we have to do to maintain our personal comfort and safety.

Right. Unashamed – in fact, proudly proclaimed – double standards.What a huge pile of dung, for lack of a better comparison.

4. Don’t use the same lines as everyone else

Take, for example, the white men who say something along the lines of, “So, how do you feel about white guys?” …. He’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t see anything in me beyond my race, and he’s even categorizing himself as no different from a general idea of what “white guys” are like. To me, that communicates that he’s not promising any kind of experience that I haven’t been offered many times before.

OK – so it’s totally kosher for her to be obsessed with his race and with her own, but not all right if he’s preoccupied by the same dynamic. And what is “a general idea of what white guys are like?” This whole paragraph is so dismissive, generalising and racist.

Are you flirting with her because you find her “exotic” or because you truly appreciate her beauty? Will you treat her based on the way the rest of society tries to define her, or will you look beyond her appearance to connect with her as a person?

How can this paragraph closely follow the one pasted above? Am I going insane or is she accusing one side of the attitude she tolerates, if not encourages, in the other?

The key to everything including gauging if a woman of color is interested, knowing her boundaries, building a connection, and finding an original way to relate to her is all the same –listening.

Not as easy as it sounds, when dealing with the race-obsessed. If you listen to his kind of talk for half an hour, you just might need medication to keep your neurons from imploding.

So you’re not the only one who has some unpleasant lessons to unlearn. You’re committing to doing better, and that’s what’s going to make the difference.

You’re committing to doing better; what a lovely way to humiliate someone. Let’ s pat Bisquit on the head; surely he meant to use the litter box and surely he’ll do better in the future. We just need to educate him, kindly and generously. And aren’t we angelic to do so!

I already think you’re pretty cool for sticking with me through this guide to learn how to be respectful.

No shit! I need a cigarette.

Learning To Tell The Difference

Much of the acrimony in society today – and always – has to do with the oversimplification of political debates, turning many who would otherwise mind their own lives into rabid enemies, needlessly clashing, verbally and sometimes even physically, as a ripple generated by ideas people in high places have thrown at them. As expected, those in charge, who orchestrate this violent division, remain untouched by its effects.

   This post, which is the first of many of the same type, is based on the mass inability to tell the difference between those who draft up hate speech legislation and those the legislation claims to protect/ speak for.

The ridiculous level of offence taking we currently face (on issues such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation  and identity politics in general) seems deliberately organised in order to create strong conflicts within society (who benefits and why is subject to anyone’s speculation). One is egged on to choose sides between the left and the right, the right defending free speech and objectivity, while the left claims to seek the protection of those who appear vulnerable – which is a valid point, as vulnerability does exist; however, many compellingly argue that leftist campaigns are themselves the reason why extremism is oozing into the mainstream.

In multicultural societies, people might  adapt to each other naturally to a greater degree if it weren’t for the constant hyping of their racial and cultural differences; this hyping had been a staple of the far right until recently, when the left took over, to do a much better job due to their wider platform and influence. I sincerely believe most people would not give a shit about race if society at large just stopped bringing it up every two seconds, inventing a new micro-aggression per week.

Instead of giving everyone a voice, the left stifles the opinions of those who do not want to be defended or represented through censorship; these voices are seldom heard, facing bullying and threats on a frequent basis. There’s nothing political zealots (and cults) hate more than one of their own who does not sing in tune with the rest of the choir. Thus we end up with an awkward way of relating to each other, always wary of causing offence, and these people are caught in the middle, disagreeing with the agenda yet being treated as if they were themselves part of it. They are treated as hypersensitive, entitled barrels of gunpowder waiting to be lit up any second, just because others started political agendas in their name.

And of course, hard-line nationalists and race puritans are milking this with both hands, making more proselytes by the day, failing to see that we are being manipulated into hating each other. It works like this. First, the left picks a ridiculous trifle to make a fuss over, such as a common term which might be suggestive in terms of race, gender etc. Then the far right reacts with outrage, winning more people over, as they are shocked and tired of the carry on.Then the minority in question starts responding to the far right, with the backing of the media. Then society at large starts debating this initial hot air and becomes divided, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left, concluding that “the issue does matter”.

Undoubtedly, this conflict does not unfold without individual victims.

First, this fist-in-the mouth attitude the left has, of provoking them and not letting them respond, will infuriate some to the point of turning them into hooligans. They will make victims out of innocent people, targeting them randomly with violence at bus stops, on back alleys and wherever convenient, based on easily identifiable traits such as skin colour, dress style, foreign language or accent. Disenfranchised and aggravated by their peer group rhetoric, they will get angrier with every perceived micro-aggression and at some point see themselves against a homogeneous group of adversaries, attacking them blindly, regardless of their age, behaviour or vulnerability. These Katie Hopkins types boosted by testosterone and physical strength, once over that line of humaneness, are capable of anything.

Secondly but just as tragically, innocent people will be persecuted with fines, jail time or character assassination for a few words, either explicit or ambiguous, which will reverberate over their families, affecting many lives, all sacrificed on the altar of the left’s “tolerant” world view. The fact that some don’t understand how unreasonable that is- not to mention typical of totalitarian systems – is truly frightening. The same people who congregate in their hundreds of thousands to support campaigns for the liberation of political dissidents in non-democratic countries will gladly  see someone rot in jail in their hometowns, for uttering half a sentence.

Thirdly, and very alarmingly, organised neo-Nazis are seeing their ranks inflate across Europe, like smelly water rising in a drain; at some point it will flood the streets and the whole place will stink. Unlike hooligans the community dislikes, shouting abuse on the bus on the way back from the pub, these people write manifestos and organise demonstrations to prove their popular support. Whilst a decade ago they were inches short of a joke in most countries, it’s impossible to ignore them nowadays; there are so many groups with an expanding platform. Unfortunately, most people feel the need to run towards a group for protection and representation; when infuriated with the left, instead of abandoning the political scene altogether, they flee straight into the arms of these characters.

In any mass conflict, in today’s world anyway, opposing sides do not evolve organically, being nudged and prodded and thrown red herrings until they end up taking their anger against their peers – other confused and manipulated people.