Right, of course it's going to be a political movement, it's demanding societal change to institutional and systemic racism, and symbolic victories like corporation hashtags, awareness and even statue toppling aren't really enough. Of course there are going to be some corporations who balk at this, all they're comfortable with is making a statement that doesn't affect their bottom line, not get involved in a group for change. So I don't particularly care that 'some organisations will distance themselves' because they will be on the wrong side of history.

 

The UK is still a racist society, and not just the explicit racism that Starkey above shows, maybe not as bad as America, but not as equal in opportunity as you'd like to think it is.

 

As for the other wider political angles, this goes with the territory. While it doesn't have to be the focus of the movement, how can you demand justice for all iin the West at the same time that a Western-backed Israeli government is planning to annex Palestinian territory? And the big one, how can you level the centuries of demographically racist class gaps that saddled black and other non-white people with a far lower social class without running up against some of capitalism's philosophies?

 

If you want this Black Lives Matter movement to truly move towards equality, it has to touch on ideas that the liberal democratic status quo would balk at. And I don't mean revolution or socialism, I mean it has to be able to consider true change to the system in intersectional ways, because everything effects everything else and there won't be an end to systemic racism without it.

Indeed I mean capitalism was basically built on slavery.

 

It's the same with nationalism in Ireland. Look at Fianna Fáil/Gael(all the one party now). They are right of centre populist parties as Ireland has been an independent country for 100 years but SF are a left of centre social Democratic Party. Them and the Sdlp on an all Ireland basis should be centre right also and many of their supporters would be in one of the other parties without partition but due to the civil rights movement they have inevitably settled on the centre left ideology.

 

Same with civil rights as a whole it would inevitably lead to an independence movement.

Right, of course it's going to be a political movement, it's demanding societal change to institutional and systemic racism, and symbolic victories like corporation hashtags, awareness and even statue toppling aren't really enough. Of course there are going to be some corporations who balk at this, all they're comfortable with is making a statement that doesn't affect their bottom line, not get involved in a group for change. So I don't particularly care that 'some organisations will distance themselves' because they will be on the wrong side of history.

 

The UK is still a racist society, and not just the explicit racism that Starkey above shows, maybe not as bad as America, but not as equal in opportunity as you'd like to think it is.

 

As for the other wider political angles, this goes with the territory. While it doesn't have to be the focus of the movement, how can you demand justice for all iin the West at the same time that a Western-backed Israeli government is planning to annex Palestinian territory? And the big one, how can you level the centuries of demographically racist class gaps that saddled black and other non-white people with a far lower social class without running up against some of capitalism's philosophies?

 

If you want this Black Lives Matter movement to truly move towards equality, it has to touch on ideas that the liberal democratic status quo would balk at. And I don't mean revolution or socialism, I mean it has to be able to consider true change to the system in intersectional ways, because everything effects everything else and there won't be an end to systemic racism without it.

 

To advocate change you need everyone on board, as soon as you start on a crusade to rid the world of capitalism and free Palestine you immediately alienate the cause and the movement just decides to alienate itself as people who are not on board with their political angle will just not support the movement. There will be no moment in history if you don't find common ground with the political landscape - as great as socialism may be in practice it's rejected, time and time and time.. and time again. There is no appetite for socialism in the West. That's not to say we can't adopt some principles which would benefit us, but it's just not going to happen.

 

Defunding the police s a terrible mantra, we have already defended the police over the past 10 years and surprise surprise crime rates have shot up. And the Jewish community have been very supportive over BLMUK, because rightly so they understand racism and are still fighting it after 2000 of continued persecution. The BLMUK leader thinks UK politics are gagged about Israel, I mean what a ludicrous statement to make when it's the one of the most talked about foreign policies. It's dangerous to start posting stuff like this as it encourages anti-semitic behavior which is irony as the Leader of BLMUK is inciting racism himself. It's the same way Labour did shite under Corbyn, you need to find common ground to further society instead everyone is too bothered fighting their own personal agendas instead of working towards a compromise.

And how about the political landscape find common ground with the people who are protesting, who have been failed by the system because of its implicit racism, a racism that sees constant disrespect from white people in UK society, from Windrush to increased vulnerability to COVID?

 

side note: Time and again I do not advocate for revolutionary socialism and yet you take every chance to bring up the idea that I am, that it can never work and we should never expect anything better from our society, I'm advocating that capitalism, a famously unequal system, should be as egalitarian as it possibly can. I understand optics, but in this case I really don't think that it applies.

 

Who is the 'leader' of BLMUK? The person with access to the Twitter account? It's not a political party looking to get elected, it's a decentralised movement and one that is enjoying incredible non-partisan support. The few overly zealous actions of an individual are not going to dog the calls for antiracism. But even if some people do get turned off, what is it going to do the movement? Not much, probably. They'll still be out there, protesting. Their supporters will continue to demand changes. And eventually, enough changes will be made to satisfy some of them. These other issues should be protested too, and can be worked into the momentum of the progress movement as and when they can be to prep people for fighting against those injustices also.

 

I really think I need to state strongly that I do believe in taking time with this to ensure it is popular, not the 'white moderate mythical concept of time' but enough time to have as many people as possible advocated and on board for this. I just don't care if woke corporations who figured a blithe message of solidarity was enough fall silent, that's not going to stop it. I want people to be convinced that these are injustices, to ensure the most popular support. But I think most of the young and minority groups understand that already.

Interesting that Boris, like Raab, has said he wouldn’t take the knee. It’s ODD that they find it so difficult to say they would, given lying usually comes so easy to them.

 

Maybe they’re worried about alienating their racists.

Interestingly lots of people are beginning to distance themselves from the Black Lives Matter movement now in the UK, mainly due to the fact the BLMUK leader is trying to add political movements to the mandate as well as moral & social cause. Hard position to be in, there is still lots of work to be done but I really do think big organiations and figures will begin to distance themselves now.

 

Its totally a marxist movement, heck the founders of BLM are admittedly trained marxists. I really want nothing to do with this movement, but nice of them to pretend its about black lives, makes it easier to guilt trip people into adhering to their "cause". If I wanted to live in a communist regime I'd move to one of those failed states. Its a very far left ideology, and people aren't even aware of it. Whether its BLM or Antifa... intersectionalism is a cult, and these are the "useful idiots" that the marxist agenda loves to call.

 

 

 

Even back in the 80s they were talking about it, by an ex-KGB member talking about the way they act, but I guess the marxist movement penetrated western society even quicker than they expected. The USSR truly won. And we are treading quickly towards a revolution, and after they win, these social justice people (which I was for the longest time), will be lined up. Because yeah, your free speech for social justice wont be tolerated when things wont go according to what you want in the future, but by then its too late. But yeah, let's keep being super fake woke, tearing down statues, banning books, changing meaning of words, banning free speech, and erasing history. That worked really fine in the past...

Edited July 3, 20205 yr by Euphorique

Right-wingers do have a tendency to call anything remotely left 'marxist' though.

 

If I'm being completely honest, I do fear that BLM UK taking strong stances against Israel and endorsing other left causes will only turn the wider population against it. It's not for me to say to POC 'this is how you lead this campaign' but I don't want issues of anti-Semitism (which is a concern) to overshadow the point of BLM.

Well i'm not a right winger and I consider it perfectly alligned with marxist ideology, a quick look at their agenda and beliefs. But then anyone these days that isnt far left is "right wing" and a "nazi" it seems, even if you're a minority like me, which is also part of the agenda to silence free speech from people who disagree with their movement.

What more proof do you want? The founders admitted they were trained marxists, I mean that's self explanatory. At this point if y'all would rather be blind to their agenda, then if this ends up effing us from behind, well you're accountable for dooming us all.

Edited July 3, 20205 yr by Euphorique

Euphorique, with all due respect, you sharing videos from noted oil baron-funded radical Christian neocons PragerU and a channel called "Quick Red Pills" is pretty indicative of your intentions or bias. PragerU especially is repeatedly factually wrong.

 

I also don't know what you mean by 'trained' Marxists, no one trains Marxists unless just reading him is considered that. In which case, I recommend it over these channels, it's a much better use of your time. You're not going to get radicalised by reading Kapital once, in fact you'll probably get bored first.

 

There's a lot to unpack here. First off, have some of the founders ascribed Marxist ideology as part of their ideology? Yes, and that's fine. It's not a destructive ideology on its own. Like I said above, how often do you hear about the founders? They're not going to be installed in power if the BLM movements succeed. Far from it. There is no way that they will be in a position to push for a revolution. They might make some rich people uncomfortable for a while, and I can live with that. Is it a broadly left-wing movement? Yes. There are lots of left-wing movements that do not have an end goal of a repressive Marxist-Leninist state (most of them, there are only a few weirdos who want that and we HATE them). And I would count an antiracist movement that seeks to make minorities equal among them.

 

Incidentally my least favourite thing about people using Marxism as in effect a slur to get out the old red scare (which is what you're doing here) is how it demonises an entire wing of academia that takes a very interesting and intellectually valuable way of looking at the world that can analyse a wide variety of subjects, from literary criticism to sociology to international relations. But that's mainly mentioned to back up my point that having Marxist views is not a necessarily subversive stance or wrong in our society. I hold some Marxist views. I disagree with parts of that theory on others. Particularly the ways to bring about a revolution, which I am not currently for.

 

Even back in the 80s they were talking about it, by an ex-KGB member talking about the way they act, but I guess the marxist movement penetrated western society even quicker than they expected. The USSR truly won. And we are treading quickly towards a revolution, and after they win, these social justice people (which I was for the longest time), will be lined up. Because yeah, your free speech for social justice wont be tolerated when things wont go according to what you want in the future, but by then its too late. But yeah, let's keep being super fake woke, tearing down statues, banning books, changing meaning of words, banning free speech, and erasing history. That worked really fine in the past...

 

Couple more things I'm going to cover, firstly free speech. I'm really for free speech. Other leftists I know of also are. We're just also firm believers in the paradox of tolerance, so would welcome efforts to ban speech that seeks to harm the rights of others. And our system of capitalism is in agreement with us there, Reddit and Youtube and Twitter have been banning a lot of far-right demagogues in recent weeks, effectively destroying their reach. This is good, because it is proven that this is the most effective way to stop them spreading their ideas, the net result of which is to create a group of people who end up harassing women and minorities because they follow whatever their chosen demagogue says and believe all the racist dogwhistles they spew out. Is it good that big tech companies are in control of what is said? No, but for now the pendulum is in favour of those who want a good future for all. We'll keep an eye on it.

 

And yeah, your slippery slope that... takes banning books leading to a communism where bad things happen and everyone goes up against the wall (?) I don't know what to say there. Some people are being 'fake woke' and I've been arguing against that here because I think it's ineffective! I think what would be far more effective would be listening to BLM demands.

 

Finally, intersectionality. Another word I fear a lot of people have been made scared of. It's crucial. I'm not for lone class consciousness without acknowledging the important role that race has on your prospects. I'm also not for radical lib woke antiracism that creates a few good individual anti-racist moments but does nothing to fundamentally change the system, letting the racism perpetuate after they finished. Each must recognise the other, the liberals shouldn't demonise the working-class nor vice-versa. Then you can have a recognition that your privilege differs depending upon your identity. Black + a woman? You have two reasons why society is going to be cruel to you because of who you are, compared to one for black men or white women. Now of course not all forms of privilege are equally limiting, but THAT is intersectionalism. A recognition that groups fighting for the rights of minorities should work together, because they are stronger together. It's not a cult, it seeks to bring in all of society, no matter the ideology. Anyone against it either wishes to divide these groups so they end up competing with each other and are less effective at changing society, or has been convinced by someone who does.

The UK is still a racist society, and not just the explicit racism that Starkey above shows, maybe not as bad as America, but not as equal in opportunity as you'd like to think it is.

 

I disagree with a lot of Starkey's comments. I particularly took issue with the fact he seemed to single out British black people as having become Americanised, but society as a whole in the UK to some degree has anyway.

 

But I did agree somewhat with the point he said about there being few black historical figures in the UK. The comparison he made between Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole was a somewhat valid one but what he failed to mention of course Nightingale was able to have a higher position than Seacole in the nursing hierarchy because she was white.

I disagree with a lot of Starkey's comments. I particularly took issue with the fact he seemed to single out British black people as having become Americanised, but society as a whole in the UK to some degree has anyway.

 

But I did agree somewhat with the point he said about there being few black historical figures in the UK. The comparison he made between Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole was a somewhat valid one but what he failed to mention of course Nightingale was able to have a higher position than Seacole in the nursing hierarchy because she was white.

 

Right, to be clear, I skimmed through the interview, and it is the argument that aspects about Seacole's life have been exaggerated because progressive historians want a 'black historical hero'? This is a difficult angle to engage on, because the lack of black historical figures is based on the wider system continually being racist.

 

(and found another choice quote..."patriotism, one dare not speak its name, gay love now of course never shuts up" :mellow: remind me why I'm attempting to engage with this crank?)

 

And then it comes down to the purpose of history, and teaching history. Starkey seems to be desiring a "correct" presentation of history, which of course means the history taught by colonisers that he grew up with, and is bemoaning that that is going to be altered for political reasons. History is not an objective subject. Our society chooses what it should emphasise and how it should present past events (and current historians are constantly rewriting our perceptions of it, that's... their job...). And in this case, focusing on some of the few black figures who did great things despite racism against them is very valuable for getting black people, or anyone who has faced adversity, interested in the subject.

Euphorique, with all due respect, you sharing videos from noted oil baron-funded radical Christian neocons PragerU and a channel called "Quick Red Pills" is pretty indicative of your intentions or bias. PragerU especially is repeatedly factually wrong.

 

I also don't know what you mean by 'trained' Marxists, no one trains Marxists unless just reading him is considered that. In which case, I recommend it over these channels, it's a much better use of your time. You're not going to get radicalised by reading Kapital once, in fact you'll probably get bored first.

 

There's a lot to unpack here. First off, have some of the founders ascribed Marxist ideology as part of their ideology? Yes, and that's fine. It's not a destructive ideology on its own. Like I said above, how often do you hear about the founders? They're not going to be installed in power if the BLM movements succeed. Far from it. There is no way that they will be in a position to push for a revolution. They might make some rich people uncomfortable for a while, and I can live with that. Is it a broadly left-wing movement? Yes. There are lots of left-wing movements that do not have an end goal of a repressive Marxist-Leninist state (most of them, there are only a few weirdos who want that and we HATE them). And I would count an antiracist movement that seeks to make minorities equal among them.

 

Incidentally my least favourite thing about people using Marxism as in effect a slur to get out the old red scare (which is what you're doing here) is how it demonises an entire wing of academia that takes a very interesting and intellectually valuable way of looking at the world that can analyse a wide variety of subjects, from literary criticism to sociology to international relations. But that's mainly mentioned to back up my point that having Marxist views is not a necessarily subversive stance or wrong in our society. I hold some Marxist views. I disagree with parts of that theory on others. Particularly the ways to bring about a revolution, which I am not currently for.

Couple more things I'm going to cover, firstly free speech. I'm really for free speech. Other leftists I know of also are. We're just also firm believers in the paradox of tolerance, so would welcome efforts to ban speech that seeks to harm the rights of others. And our system of capitalism is in agreement with us there, Reddit and Youtube and Twitter have been banning a lot of far-right demagogues in recent weeks, effectively destroying their reach. This is good, because it is proven that this is the most effective way to stop them spreading their ideas, the net result of which is to create a group of people who end up harassing women and minorities because they follow whatever their chosen demagogue says and believe all the racist dogwhistles they spew out. Is it good that big tech companies are in control of what is said? No, but for now the pendulum is in favour of those who want a good future for all. We'll keep an eye on it.

 

And yeah, your slippery slope that... takes banning books leading to a communism where bad things happen and everyone goes up against the wall (?) I don't know what to say there. Some people are being 'fake woke' and I've been arguing against that here because I think it's ineffective! I think what would be far more effective would be listening to BLM demands.

 

Finally, intersectionality. Another word I fear a lot of people have been made scared of. It's crucial. I'm not for lone class consciousness without acknowledging the important role that race has on your prospects. I'm also not for radical lib woke antiracism that creates a few good individual anti-racist moments but does nothing to fundamentally change the system, letting the racism perpetuate after they finished. Each must recognise the other, the liberals shouldn't demonise the working-class nor vice-versa. Then you can have a recognition that your privilege differs depending upon your identity. Black + a woman? You have two reasons why society is going to be cruel to you because of who you are, compared to one for black men or white women. Now of course not all forms of privilege are equally limiting, but THAT is intersectionalism. A recognition that groups fighting for the rights of minorities should work together, because they are stronger together. It's not a cult, it seeks to bring in all of society, no matter the ideology. Anyone against it either wishes to divide these groups so they end up competing with each other and are less effective at changing society, or has been convinced by someone who does.

If that isn't a *mic drop* moment then I don't know what is.

(and found another choice quote..."patriotism, one dare not speak its name, gay love now of course never shuts up" :mellow: remind me why I'm attempting to engage with this crank?)

 

I thought I heard him referring to 'gay love' in that quote but wasn't sure what he said.

BLM might become a ‘extremist’ organization over here alongside ISIS. :)

Dawn Butler accused the MET of institutional racism after they stopped her and her friend in their car — the MET has since admitted to making a mistake.

 

Of course, Britain is one of the 'least' racist countries, which is why people are sending her abuse, #sackdawnbutler is trending on Twitter, and numerous conspiracy theories are making the rounds.

Some people were starting to rag on Starmer for being beaten to his defense of Dawn Butler by the... PM. He's now spoken out on it, I hope he can learn from that and be quicker off the mark, that could have been pretty bad if we were closer to an election.

 

The incident itself is terrible, some among us are often terrible to BAME public figures (and who knows what to those who aren't public figures). The descent into conspiracy theories just shows how many conservative people have become detached from reality in defense of the indefensible should it happen to be on their side.

The reaction to it, and to BLM in general, really makes me want to just delete rUK. Most of all, i am sick of people from the majority telling minorities that the UK is not *insert -ism/-phobic here* when the experience of those minorities is clear evidence to the contrary.

Euphorique, with all due respect, you sharing videos from noted oil baron-funded radical Christian neocons PragerU and a channel called "Quick Red Pills" is pretty indicative of your intentions or bias. PragerU especially is repeatedly factually wrong.

 

I also don't know what you mean by 'trained' Marxists, no one trains Marxists unless just reading him is considered that. In which case, I recommend it over these channels, it's a much better use of your time. You're not going to get radicalised by reading Kapital once, in fact you'll probably get bored first.

 

There's a lot to unpack here. First off, have some of the founders ascribed Marxist ideology as part of their ideology? Yes, and that's fine. It's not a destructive ideology on its own. Like I said above, how often do you hear about the founders? They're not going to be installed in power if the BLM movements succeed. Far from it. There is no way that they will be in a position to push for a revolution. They might make some rich people uncomfortable for a while, and I can live with that. Is it a broadly left-wing movement? Yes. There are lots of left-wing movements that do not have an end goal of a repressive Marxist-Leninist state (most of them, there are only a few weirdos who want that and we HATE them). And I would count an antiracist movement that seeks to make minorities equal among them.

 

Incidentally my least favourite thing about people using Marxism as in effect a slur to get out the old red scare (which is what you're doing here) is how it demonises an entire wing of academia that takes a very interesting and intellectually valuable way of looking at the world that can analyse a wide variety of subjects, from literary criticism to sociology to international relations. But that's mainly mentioned to back up my point that having Marxist views is not a necessarily subversive stance or wrong in our society. I hold some Marxist views. I disagree with parts of that theory on others. Particularly the ways to bring about a revolution, which I am not currently for.

Couple more things I'm going to cover, firstly free speech. I'm really for free speech. Other leftists I know of also are. We're just also firm believers in the paradox of tolerance, so would welcome efforts to ban speech that seeks to harm the rights of others. And our system of capitalism is in agreement with us there, Reddit and Youtube and Twitter have been banning a lot of far-right demagogues in recent weeks, effectively destroying their reach. This is good, because it is proven that this is the most effective way to stop them spreading their ideas, the net result of which is to create a group of people who end up harassing women and minorities because they follow whatever their chosen demagogue says and believe all the racist dogwhistles they spew out. Is it good that big tech companies are in control of what is said? No, but for now the pendulum is in favour of those who want a good future for all. We'll keep an eye on it.

 

And yeah, your slippery slope that... takes banning books leading to a communism where bad things happen and everyone goes up against the wall (?) I don't know what to say there. Some people are being 'fake woke' and I've been arguing against that here because I think it's ineffective! I think what would be far more effective would be listening to BLM demands.

 

Finally, intersectionality. Another word I fear a lot of people have been made scared of. It's crucial. I'm not for lone class consciousness without acknowledging the important role that race has on your prospects. I'm also not for radical lib woke antiracism that creates a few good individual anti-racist moments but does nothing to fundamentally change the system, letting the racism perpetuate after they finished. Each must recognise the other, the liberals shouldn't demonise the working-class nor vice-versa. Then you can have a recognition that your privilege differs depending upon your identity. Black + a woman? You have two reasons why society is going to be cruel to you because of who you are, compared to one for black men or white women. Now of course not all forms of privilege are equally limiting, but THAT is intersectionalism. A recognition that groups fighting for the rights of minorities should work together, because they are stronger together. It's not a cult, it seeks to bring in all of society, no matter the ideology. Anyone against it either wishes to divide these groups so they end up competing with each other and are less effective at changing society, or has been convinced by someone who does.

 

Left wing media is factually incorrect and deceitful many times, so that applies to any source depending on what you believe in. But official government sources do not support most of the things organizations like BLM love to shout out as factual. You have moderate liberals like Tim Pool on youtube who go over inumerous news sources, and debunks a lot of the left wing media lies. People are starting to realize that we are being lied to. 2020 is a mess, but the veil has been lifted on left wing hypocrisy, and also their true agenda for the world.

 

BLM doesnt need to be a political party in power if its already a branch of the democrat party. Its already in power, more so than ever. Donations to BLM go to ActBlue, the money is going to rich people in power like Bernie Sanders. So much for helping black people... This is the same DNC that supports antifa rioters and insurrectionists, I can't be much more disappointed in the new left that will do anything and protect any criminal to stay in power. BLM openly supports rioters and looting cause apparently that is "reparations" to them. The toppling of statues, which the media made it seem like it was just "problematic" people even though reviewing past historic figures and applying them a 21st century moral code is highly dubious and pervasive way to revise history, they also toppled abolitionists and teachers.

 

Of course you dont need a revolution if you indoctrinate several generations and these generations get into power, whether its institutions, media, companies, Hollywood, etc. They already have those beliefs and impose them on others. A quick look at Teen Vogue's twitter feed for example, and how they want to abolish police, prison, capitalism and private property, all while praising Marx, says it all really. Marxism's end goal is always to bring upon the revolution, whether peacefully through indoctrination, or by force. It reduces the individual to their designed group. It didnt work with the working class, but seems to be working a lot better with the post modernism critical theory applies to it, to pit everyone against everyone. George Soros must be proud on how well he's doing, by how much he's been funding corrupt DA's that are dropping charges against insurrectionists and criminals, such as Kim Foxx, I can even link you the documents. No wonder these cities are dying and people are fleeing. If you think this wont lead to a communist regime, then you're terribly naive. It's been the plan all along. Venezuela was also said to be very stable and look at how fast it tumbled. When your enemy gives you inside information to their agenda, you better believe it.

 

 

That isnt free speech though. Its one thing to threaten someone with physical violence, its another to censore speech that you might find offensive. Who dictates what's offensive? Today we're even censoring online the word "women" cause it might be offensive to some people. Where does it end? Everyone walking on eggshells and self censoring, and even if you mess up, you still pay the price. Regardless if that mess up was now or 10 years ago. And its funny that places like twitter only censor right wing vitriol, but not the same effort is done to silence the left. Seems very hypocritical. I've never received more hatred online than from the far left BLM types. Nasty people with nasty behavior. First it was just censoring far right, then it was conservatives, now even moderate centrists are being centrist. The purge is real and its a never ending black hole of cancel culture and ostracization. But good luck with allies like Danielle Muscato flying your flag for diversity and inclusion, while promoting online harassment and bullying at the same time.

 

Intersectionality to me functions as a religious cult. Black women are the priestesses. Bonus points if they're trans or muslim. They hold the most power, so they get the most say in any situation. Even when they talk shit and are factually wrong, it doesn't matter, because they are the ones that need to be heard. And if you're a black women who doesn't agree with the insane stuff some of them speak, you're ostracized and demonized, accused of being a nazi and fascist - talk about devaluing words... so I don't believe or comply with their systems of oppression designed to divide and conquer. Most people don't want to go back to segregation, but it seems like that is the way BLM wants the new world order to return to that, but shuffled with different people in power positions.

 

It does function as a cult. You have commandments (doctrine), the sins (privilege), redefining words like racism, censoring others that were never offensive to begin with to the majority of the population, and using many buzzwords that only the woke left use, which is typical of a cult - most of these people spew them, like they're reading a script they've been taught, which is why when you disrupt their chain of thought, they have a brain fart. Every time something negative is done to a minority, its because they're a minority, and not because of some other reason. A black man killed by a white man? Racism of course. Only possible explanation. It's also why being racist, sexist, or whatever towards a majority group is now not only acceptable, but even encouraged. And there are too many examples these days of how the media sweeps it under the rug. No way would people be supporting this movement if they knew their full agenda and goals, especially black America.

 

Thank god I've broken free from those chains in my mind. I mean you do you, but I'm glad not be part of the new "woke" left. Felt like I dropped 100 pounds of regressiveness and constant misery. No more victim mentality and putting my sexuality first. We're living in the part of the world that gives us the most freedom and where we have the most tolerance and acceptance. I'm not oppressed whatsoever. I find myself far happier in the center of the political spectrum these days. Hopefully you people will allow me to stay here in the middle, who knows, with how censorship is going, we're all labelled nazis these days, so I might be censored and exiled.

 

 

I mean this guy goes into far more detail and explains far better than I do on how we got here, and where we came from. I could post a bunch of images of what is being promoted in name of BLM, NMAAHC, but what's the point. Seems like this is just a far left-wing echo chamber nowadays. We just have fundamentally different ways of viewing the world. I think marxism and especially neo-marxist mixed with post modern critical race theory is the most racist lense to view life. And dehumanizing too. But I guess according to BLM, me valuing the individual over the collective is white supremacy, so what do I know... clearly they are so morally superior to me.

Edited August 12, 20204 yr by Euphorique

I wouldn't even know where to begin with that.

Edited August 12, 20204 yr by blacksquare