The world's longest suicide note. Introduction What's the real impact of the left's psychological crusade against white males? I'm a white male from the lower classes. That means I grew up poor and in a very adverse environment. I experience not only poverty but of violence, crime, persecution, discrimination, racism, a seriously broken home, extreme social isolation and bullying among other hardships and struggles. I have some disabilities that aren't obvious where I'm still expected to join in society with everyone else such as a limited field of vision and either Asperger's Syndrome or an equivalent social deficit. The hypersocial or rather hypersocialist environment that's being created is not only hostile against men in general who naturally lack social support but one in which people such as myself can hardly exist. Nor would I want to exist in such a hostile and perverse environment. Loads of men around here have become depressed then either drunk themselves to death or into despondency and rejection from society. I'm also doing the same myself. The future? What's my future? I'm very talented at what I do professionally, among the top tiers. It is however an intellectual occupation that requires my full mental focus. It's an intellectual workload which is particularly vulnerable to psychological stress. I deal in things like engineering engineering and efficiency. According to the media skills like mine present only in the lesser proportion of the population are desperately needed to save the planet. I can't do it any longer. It used to be my opium. Now I have no motivation at all. Am I going back to work? No. Why should I return to work when I'm only going to experience discrimination for being a white male and after there's just been a massive demoralisation campaign against white males for doing too well in employment? If I go into work, do well, perform at well above average, bring up the average, get paid above average then I'm committing a heinous array of crimes against statistics. I'll be doing "a racism" or "a sexism". If I am working then who am I really even working for at the end of the day? I'm on strike. For the rest of my life. All this time attacking white men for their working and now all of a sudden it's all get back to work? If the media is so smart and can work everything out why don't we put them in charge and everyone else can just stay at home watching television. If I'm in a race with four people and I do my best, then I come in first a meter ahead, I can't do anything to get anyone else to come in further ahead, that's on them. I don't think the media really understands what it's asking for. The only way to close these gaps that works reliably and is easy would be for white men to commit more crime and earn less, to be more of a burden on the system. That's the only thing the people being addressed can truly do. To understand just how twisted and bizarre this kind of thinking is that we see in the media and political establishment is then surely women aren't committing enough crime so surely we need them to do more crime to close the gender gap in incarceration so that the statistics look right. What will the economy look like when white men say screw this, the social contract is broken, I'm not playing your game any longer? What future is being created for me? This society is against me, it hates me guts, it doesn't want me, why should I contribute to it? Why should I continue paying taxes or solving problems that no one else can solve? I can simply get diagnosed with depression then continue drinking myself into an early death of ill health like everyone else. Otherwise I can simply starve to death. That's the pattern that we're falling into and as I've already pointed out it's not just me. My alcoholism will likely land me in prison sooner or later due to a growing inability to see any point in self control or caring about what happens to me. The complete absence of behavioural regulation of our overlords is so atrocious why should I care to regulate mine? If I'm going to be criminalised anyway because of my race and gender then what's the point of trying not to be a criminal? The deterrent we now face is being sent from prison into prison. I'm told I'm supposed to be building up this country or rebuilding it but into what and for who? The plans I've seen are for something worse. What do I get out of it or people like me? Nothing. We're building a system for a master class and a slave class. One where only a few masters and then people who like being slaves will be happy. I don't want to build a sado-masochist society for who knows who in the future. Both being male and having low social conformity means that we can't exist in environments with ridiculous limitations where every thing you say is scrutinised and turned into a thought crime against humanity that's worse than genocide. My purpose in life or yours? I'm an atheist and not religious. I appreciate freedom but the political regime imposed by the elite is becoming as oppressive and as strict as the Catholic Church at its worst. Christian socialism which demands altruism from everyone and the dissolution of self, the thing altruism is supposed to serve. That is, to turn everyone into a mindless soul to create some larger corpus. Society has become so judgemental taking any and every opportunity to penalise it's like spending your entire life in court on trial. I can't exist like that or in that kind of society. I don't have any kind of future in this country. Everything I have to think, say and do has to be against my interests and for someone else's. This is a new kind of dehumanisation and slavery. My whole purpose in life imposed by the upper class and political elite is supposed to be to do everything possible to improve the lives of some sacred cows with no expense to myself and my own life spared. This isn't a country I want to live in. I mean that in both meanings of the term. Death is no longer something to be feared but a release from a society where a privileged few get to offload their negativity onto the masses without restraint. It's not like living in Britain, it's like being gang pressed into Oxfam or something. We should rename England to Oxfam and change the flag to match. The demands the media are making, with all their wealth and influence are things they can afford but are deadly to impose on those with less that cannot afford the level of "kindness" and "sacrifice" that people who live in an unrealistic world where they offload all the dirty work and the blame for immoral situations on others. They are constantly taking everything from us and squeezing us until there is nothing. White Utopia We have a prejudicial upper class who are overrepresented in positions of power that assumes that all white people are like them with the same level of opportunity and security. They then impose impossible burdens on everyone. They forget things like that in society, men are actually more vulnerable than women. There's a reason for having to be more robust, to have more mass, to have to do more work to achieve sufficient security and access to the benefits of society. The principle the ruling class operates upon is that all white people live in a utopia with no need or want for anything. Politically, the only people that seem to exist in the minds of our ruling class are "minorities". When it comes to all of the bad things I've experienced in life It's not those things on their own that cause me distress. I can get along with life. What turns that into a mental illness is the media. It will not stop going on about how I've had it good and telling me I've done things I haven't done. Every time I'm cast as something I'm not it's a trip down memory lane to unbury something that should be left alone. I don't want to have to trawl through my life's hardships unnecessarily in every social interaction to establish a position in the pecking order based on who is the most hard done by. It's the same non-stop extreme psychological bullying and torment I suffered growing up. If your spouse were doing what the media does to people then it would be domestic abuse. There's only so much abuse any person can take before they snap or can no longer find any enjoyment and purpose in life. Privilege What right does any academic have to say that they know me better than I know myself even though they have never met me and then that because they believe they know it all that they have the right to turn me into their personal slave giving orders and saying that I owe some kind of a debt? What right do they have to take anything from me? Academics are in a most privileged position, that's for certain. They do not live in normal society nor are they likely to take part in it to any great extent. They live in bunkers of privilege that are safe and secure. I come from what's called a deprived background. The names often shift to try to frame it in an often overly polite way so as to evade any kind of mistaken prejudgement. The downtrodden, the disadvantaged, the unfortunate and so on. Underprivileged is another such term. One for which I have previously been officially categorised under by the local authorities who run schemes to identify the most needy or however you'd like to put it. The term privilege is probably one of the worst ways to put it because rather than reduce or remove negative judgement it displaces it unto the remaining category. My favourite term is the less well off. Direct and to the point. It doesn't say any more or less than it needs to. To establish that I'm underprivileged they examined each person specifically. I provided a number of details which they also checked themselves and was recognised as underprivileged. That means that I had some access to various assistance. This process did not consist of simply receiving a form to fill in that asked if I was white, yes or no, if yes then I'm privileged. When it comes to establishing who is or isn't privileged, academics can either shut up or get a real job in measuring "privilege" (eligibility) at a local authority. Fake News Donald Trump did not introduce the concept of fake news to me. He has however made the label stick. I've traditionally stuck to terms such as lies or propaganda. Trump is not at all unique in witnessing and then reporting this phenomena. Millions of people see it. It's there for all to see. This is one of the reasons Trump resonates with everyday normal people. He exists largely in the same reality. Fake news is a substantial reason I don't want to live in a society like this. It's like if I had to live in Saudi Arabia or something like that as an atheist. Everyone around me believes in insane nonsensical things, in various earthbound deities such as magically infallible institutes. I'm in a society where my brain isn't acceptable. It's increasingly more so like it would be being a gay under ISIS. I have some intimate understanding of fake news. In an earlier job where I was paid to create various things, it turned out that I was actually helping to fabricate a story in the press, which went worldwide then leading to debates on legislation in parliament. The problem is, the entire thing was fake. It was a money making scam primarily. Prior to this I was aware of there being lies and so on. Over time, just from seeing things in the news and then looking it up, virtually everything is fake and an obsession with petty trivial matters. Virtually everything people believe these days in general is a lie. I'm surrounded by people who all believe these things, repeat the mantras, etc but it's all either lies, fallacies, bad reasoning, non-news, irrelevant or minutia. Because of my Asperger's Syndrome and access to the internet, I always get somewhat obsessed and look somewhat more deeply into things that other people would. It's nearly always very easy to find out that these things are wrong. Propaganda - North Korea I've seen around fifty news articles on North Korea all of which turned out to be lies, from virtually all major outlets saying the North Korea threatened to attack when that never actually happened. Not only did North Korea not make such threats officially, the news turns out to in fact refer to things seen in North Korean opinion pieces rather than anything like an official declaration of war given to the UN or anything like that. In all cases, what was actually said is that North Korea would defend itself or retaliate if attacked. Though North Korea may have its problems, the media's portrayal of it is consistently inaccurate. Treating accusations as confirmed when they are not. People being reported as executed that later turn up alive. The overall purpose of lying about North Korea like this isn't to solve the situation amicably. If anything, journalists seem absolutely desperate to provoke a war. Quite often people do not examine their own words on the subject. A journalist will try to put down the North Korean leadership by saying it's just doing it for survival. The implications of that are actually a threat against the North Korean leadership and that's the problem itself. The assumption the journalist tends to instil is that it's an internal threat to their survival but purely by weighing in and not staying neutral the journalist participates in being a foreign threat against the North Korean leadership. The media conjures up an implausible image of North Korea. One where virtually everyone is starving to death, for years yet without actually starving to death. It's also presented as in complete ruins and yet is able to build nuclear arms and maintain a military threat. In reality, conditions in North Korea are fair compared to most developing countries. A likely purpose of this propaganda is to present everyone in North Korea as already dying and the country already in ruins to condition people to accept a military solution which could kill millions and destroy the country. Historically it also has some origin in exemplifying the failures of communism sometimes to the point of exaggeration. There are many tropes repeated over and over that are likely not true and are manipulation. For example the reporting that China only supports North Korea because it's worried about starving refugees doesn't make any sense. This is more likely to try to generate the sentiment that China won't support it or perhaps even to try and manipulate China into not backing it. The media often reports routine events in North Korea as if not so. Both North Korea and the USA run routine drills. They don't always announce when they're going to happen ahead of time. Every time this happens it's reported in a context as though it's always presented as some new provocation. The media often doesn't report on something that's always happening at some frequency and then out of the blue instead of ignoring it report it as though it's something that didn't happen before and now does. This particular instance is stranger as they repeatedly report on it but as though each occurrence is a new escalation rather than just more of the same old. The media have little deterrent against advocating for war against North Korea. From their perspective war very likely wouldn't adversely affect them. When war happens abroad, it doesn't really happen from their frame of reference. It's all just headlines and text at the end of the day for most people. The windfall for a war in North Korea for journalists is enormous. It would provide a huge source of content and traffic. Propaganda - Transsexuals The murder and suicide rates for transsexuals? Lies. The suicide rate is not 40% and the murder rate is not 1 in 12. What disturbs me is how strongly people believe these things and how difficult it is to show them otherwise. When I first heard those figures I didn't have any reason to doubt them nor was in that frame of mind. However just even thinking about it for a little while and I realised those absurdly high rates just do not make any sense so looked into it. I looked into this very deeply. The murder rate of transsexuals is somewhere between that for males and females, which you might expect given they're ambiguous. There isn't any significant increase other than in areas where there's an increase for everyone, usually when involved in crime and sex work in certain unsafe areas which is a different problem. For suicide the highest I could find doing the mathematics properly and looking at large available datasets is a 4% lifetime risk of suicide. It may be much lower as this was an effort to find the highest rate. There are so few transsexuals it's difficult to actually get a reliable figure. This statistic may also be increased where the messaging encourages them to commit suicide (sort of, go on the meds and transition or toss a coin and if it comes out heads then you know the rest). The causal factors for transsexual suicide are extremely complex. Hearing about their status constantly in relation to suicide is likely the biggest cause of ideation. This was easily shown across various studies where you saw rates of thinking about suicide (considering it for example) in transsexuals, skyrocketed to figures of 60% and sometimes reaching 80% in surveys after a particularly widespread reporting campaign on transsexuals and suicide ideation. This is broken science where the way you're measuring is causing the thing you're measuring. Measuring suicide ideation in transsexuals caused suicide ideation in transsexuals. The shocking part is that I looked at one western region, the suicide rate was around 60-70 transsexuals over a span of a few years and around 70000 white males for the same time period. Furthermore, I discovered that for a white male with my circumstances the life time chances of suicide were well over 10%. The rate may actually be 40% for white males with my characteristics. Can I have my free stuff now and become a martyr if I die? I'd like my characteristics to be fetishized please. There are other lies that most people seem to believe around transsexuals, these are often more subtle. For example, people believe it's all one disorder, Gender Dysphoria. It's not. That's not even a really fully fledged discrete condition. It's just a symptom and someone being transsexual can be the result of all kinds of underlying conditions and surrounding circumstances. This includes social, psychological, neurological and hormonal. Something as simple as the changes involved in aging, particularly menopause, can contribute toward it. All of this leads up to one enormous lie that there's some kind of emergency involving the plight of transsexuals to be urgently addressed with no efforts spared. There never was. The only crisis you have now is the subsequent one caused by this fake crisis. You would think that the left wing political establishment works in favour of transsexuals. Instead they have committed one of the greatest medical scandals in recent history amputating the breasts and genitalia of young people unnecessarily in the name of transsexual rights but ultimately only to serve their own political ends while lining the pockets of plastic surgeons. There's little pressing political concern in respect to transsexuals barring the aforementioned issue where many of them are now victims of gross medical malpractice. It's just not a primary issue other than in feminist intersectionalism which is a mathematical, statistical, logical and moral fallacy. There is a more valid form of intersectionalism but the feminist form is not it, it's an imitation that's over applied as a formulaic formal theory of how to calculate the proper way in which to be prejudice. If anyone things that this campaign has been good for transsexuals then answer me this: How is telling them they have to fully transition amputating themselves or commit suicide taking their choices off the table except the most extreme any good for them? Political incompetence There are a few areas in legislation with some variability for different regions where things are fuzzy or transsexuals are left out. Generally however across the west transsexuals are already very well covered and catered to in law, sometimes actually with greater privileges over everyone else. Where there are deficits or dilemmas, they're either not all that pressing or the problem is far larger than just transsexuals such as anti-discrimination laws that are poorly structured or written while also leaving out a huge number of potentially relevant categories. It's not like discrimination laws say thou shalt not discriminate at all unless it's transsexuals. Usually it's the other way around. You may not discriminate against these things but everything else is fair game with the one saving grace usually being that indirect discrimination tends to make it safest and best to simply hire properly and not risk any discrimination though this is a double edges sword and can backfire in the wrong society. This is another great example of just how appalling our politicians are. Often instead of passing legislation properly they're cheating with things like rewriting the dictionary or letting charities (NGOs, tax avoiding political lobby firms) invent and interpret law rather than any kind of democratic apparatus. Personally, I don't have any particular interest in advancing the interests of transsexuals above those or anyone else. It's just such an unimportant, vacuous and boring topic like celebrity gossip. I'm much more concerned with how disproportionately they are represented in things like the media and politics getting in the way of real life for everyone, transsexuals included. When they're trying to pass legislation, often only for the benefit of transsexuals and potentially giving them more rights rather than equal rights making it transsexuals versus everyone else then yes that's often going to be blocked. Any politician doing their job problems is going to ask what about everyone else or and how does this balance their rights between the rest of the constituency? If you say hey, transsexuals are missing from this legislation, what else is missing then propose legislation that makes everyone's lives better rather than worse purely for the benefit of transsexuals then it's going to have a fairly good chance of passing. Instead you have politicians artificially creating impasses either leaving things out that needed to be there or bolting things onto bills that don't need to be there only so they can get their own way serving their own interests blocking everything then only breaking barriers in the same way that a thief breaks and enters causing immeasurable damage to our legal and democratic processes. Everything they do at this point is a dirty trick to game the system so as to get things that they aren't supposed to be able to get. I'm not sure that we have any real politicians or lawmakers at all at this point. All of our systems are dominated by cheaters who have the competitive edge when allowed to get away with it. Propaganda - Hate Crimes I've been a victim of crime a few times including serious assault and in that case I never got to talk to anyone in the police. This experience is shared by nearly everyone around me on some level. Any crime like theft, burglary, etc then it's probably not even worth contacting the police. Sometimes they'll let people go or just drop the case when there's ample evidence. I see a lot of crime in general around where I live. There's been all this massive reporting on things like rises in hate crimes, which later turn out to be "hate incidents" which is an attempt to try to conflate the way you feel about things or thoughts as crimes. When I've been a victim of crimes and so many other people with no ability for the police to do anything (we really need to start investing in private policing) it's extremely disturbing to see things like the police handing out hate crime t-shirts. You'll be a victim of a crime and never get to see a police officer or investigator because they're too busy then the first time you finally see one they're doing that. I checked the crime statistics on this at the time. There were a couple hundred thousand assaults per year. A couple hundred of them were hate crimes. This is another clear example of just how detached from reality people in this new political religion are. You don't need data for this. It's just life. What kind of life of luxury must these people live in to be so clueless about crime other than what they hear in the media? The news in this case was very clearly fake. They had just had a big drive to get people to report on as much "hate" as possible knocking on more doors than ever. Surprise, you get more reports of hate crimes. Random reports of hate crimes from often anonymous members of the public are not even actual crimes let alone "hate crimes". This has happened multiple times. These tsunamis of hate crimes have never actually happened. The only thing that has happened is a tsunami of talking about it in the media. We also have routine reports of hate crimes that are made to sound severe but turn out either petty or to be hoaxes. There's been a particular wave of reporting claiming a surge in violence to Asian people by white supremacists only there's no substantial change in the crime rate for Asians and anything to do with white supremacy in terms of crimes against Asians is virtually non-existent. As with all other categories, the vast majority of assaults are motivated by something else including racial tensions between various races that the media wants to pretend doesn't exist as though non-white (BIPOC, BAME, black/bwown, etc) represents a single monolithic block unified in being defined primarily as being exploited by the evil white people. Defund the police and hate crimes are completely out of touch with the reality for common people. The situation is so bad in terms of crime and lack of policing that the question of how much is spent in taxes on the police and how much more would each person have to pay as a private tax or a kind of insurance for a private police force in their area to keep crime in check. There's a lack of policing so they have to prioritise. The media is trying to steer that toward policing their political adversaries rather than real crime. At what point do we say no further? When someone won't be charged for murder if the victim voted to leave the EU? Propaganda - White Supremacist Terrorism Because the media abuse the term "White Supremacist" and similar terms to apply so broadly I will have to be specific. There's a claim that most terrorism comes from white people and white causes. Disturbingly, this is a case where not only the media is lying but also the FBI. There are unreliable statistics suggesting this, often ignoring that white people are a larger proportion of the population but additionally when you look into the list of incidents that count toward white supremacy "linked" terrorism, most of them don't conclusively fall into the category or terrorism or white supremacy might be arbitrarily associated but not a relevant factor. In the case of the Charlottesville incident, we can see in the footage what looks like a case of road rage rather than any kind of premeditated terrorism. A driver trying to get somewhere in a moment of frustration, after their car is hit with an object, slams the pedal, having lost their temper. The driver had anger issues and mental health issues including a hair trigger temper. In court the driver effectively pleaded no contest giving the impression that all the specific charges levied were valid which is not the case. There's never been any evidence to show that the driver had any intention of going there to drive into a crowd of people. In another case, the El Paso shooting, on reading the manifesto of the shooter it's not clear the writer himself knew his motive. The manifesto is scatter shot and makes some jibes and can't be taken seriously. It does however also indicate environmental extremism as a motivator. Though it won't often be openly said, Climate Change activists are often concerned with overpopulation and are aware of the birth rates across the world. They also have a problem with immigrants in particular coming to America for a level of quality of life that they see as unsustainable and draining of the planet's resources. Climate Change activists are very aware of the difference in carbon footprint between a Mexican in Mexico and a Mexican in the USA. As to the true motive of the shooting, this is unclear, Climate Change activists also have a motive for pinning their acts of terrorism on Trump for pulling out of Climate Change agreements. There was a subsequent mass shooting later with some bizarre elements and mysteries to it by someone with ties to environmentalism. The shooter, perhaps accidentally, killed their sibling. The case appears to have disappeared from the conversation in the media. Whether there is a connection or not is unclear. I don't know all of the cases in their list but picking out a largely random sampling of a few like this that I know about and not because they're deemed to be something other than ad advertised and most turned out to not truly qualify as white supremacist terrorism. Some are more dubious than others. The mischaracterisation of tragedies like this should concern everyone. If genuine threats are mistaken for something they aren't then this hinders not only prevention but recovery as there's no real closure in these cases. Fixing it... It's very important in these cases to figure out what really went wrong. If mistakes are made in determining what went wrong then the measures introduced to stop them are likely to be unnecessary and counterproductive. There is a similar such debate with no-knock warrants in the bizarre case of Breonna Taylor. Whether or not no-knock warrants are good or bad or when they are appropriate is another subject. In the case of Brianna Taylor a no-knock warrant is often attributed as the cause of the accidental shooting of Taylor. There are conflicting reports as to if a no-knock raid was actually executed or not in spite of acquiring the warrant which reportedly was escalated to a no-knock warrant after fake evidence was presented. When the raid was executed, an occupant of the house was able to get up, throw on some garments, grab their gun and stand ready in the hallway to shoot whoever was coming through the door which raises questions about how that was possible if a no-knock warrant was executed. Whatever really went wrong in this case, it looks like there's more to it than the no-knock warrant. It doesn't make much sense leaving the question: Does anyone think that any bills proposed to try to prevent the same thing from going wrong again are going to work? This is a concept that must apply to all cases. All cases need to be investigated and accurately analysed to properly inform lawmakers and law enforcement. It appears as though the Federal Borough of Investigation isn't actually able to investigate. There is routinely a very big difference between what the internet says, the media says, even the courts say and what the evidence says in these cases. It's probable that the FBI is taking information from the media and then publishing that in a case of circular reporting rather than examining the evidence in each case itself. When you don't know how something is broken then how can you fix it? If you don't know that you don't know what happens then? There is a tendency for people to replace some problem with their own personal problem such as not getting their own way or what they want all the time such as in an election. There's a strong element of this in the way the media reclassifies problems as something else which is usually something they don't like. This is no good for anyone in the long run and interferes with the processes that we need to run a functional society. These mistakes are not only made with incidents involving white people. Many years ago an attempted attack by a Muslim student was widely attributed to Islamic terrorism. The fundamental underlying cause is most likely mental illness. The student was in a vulnerable category, likely having PTSD due to their original environment and an intensified threat sensitivity. Though there is strong evidence for the student having suffered severe paranoia, they were not radicalised directly by any Islamic source. Instead they had been radicalised academically and politically by their professor and political sources that said that white people are going to exterminate Muslims in the USA citing things such as headlines presented as negative against Muslims. The student talked about how white people were out to get rid of Muslims like him, making specific references to the political material he'd been exposed to in class and from other sources such as the media, academic publications and politicalized charities. What's left out in the media is that this youth was radicalised at the cost of their life through their studying the political ideology of Islamophobia and not purely through their mental illness or through their study of the Koran. The average reader of the news has to put themselves in the shoes of the journalist and ask would they have an easy time writing up that element of the case? Details are often there in the media but it's left to the reader to make the connections. When the media does make connections, they are often spurious. Propaganda - Jimmy Saville I never heard of Jimmy Saville until way after his death and the following media storm. Everyone is automatically treating it as a matter of fact the he was a child molester and a paedophile. I've never seen a single credible accusation to this effect. At most, one or two frames of him perhaps being a bit touchy over several decades though nothing really decisively untoward happening. All I've seen are rumours then the assumption that they must all be true because he can't defend himself. He's creepy, well known, certainly to have a number of people that don't like him and for any man working with kids you can expect people to accuse them of things like that to inflict damage. What I see is a social phenomena, not any kind of established fact yet people treat it as such. Evidence On face value the whole thing is not credible. Things like necrophilia and the huge scale of it. Supposedly he did it brazenly on a massive scale. Yet all the testimony and claims I've heard fall short. Very little in terms of reliable witnesses or anything like that. The story that he magically got away with it because of his celebrity status or white privilege or something just doesn't sit well with me. That's more magical thinking than reality. The whole thing just seems like a distraction from Rotherham or something similar. I can't determine Saville as innocent, however that applies to everyone. When it comes to anyone I can't know that they haven't done something I haven't seen. This is why we have the presumption of innocence because otherwise everyone might as well be found guilty. I've not seen any proof that Saville was guilty. There's not only no proof but when I've looked this up, there's not a shred of actual decent evidence either. As for the evidence, none of it is really any good. The problem is these accusations weren't organic and independent. It's not like Saville was someone no one knew then lots of people who didn't know each other and had no mutual contact or anything in common made reports. When it comes to famous people, well you can probably find a few women having lived in Iceland all their lives who'll swear Trump molested them when he's never been to the country. This is especially so if you offer an incentive to do so. The only thing we have is hearsay that was almost certainly provoked or sequestered. It wasn't just like any celebrity he's going to have to contend with libel, jealous people, the few inevitable mad people that will come forward when you're known to millions and millions of people or the natural accusations that a man working with children will attract. There's a fairly obvious sequence of events that leads to this. He dies so he has little to no libel protection. The media has a field day. Reports against him to the police when he dies don't simply come out of the blue. They coincide with a campaign to get people to make reports, mentions of it in media and the internet, etc. It's very clearly an induced phenomenon. You do things like put the call out for people with any information on Saville to come forward and they get to be on TV then you get what you ask for and more. The allegations against Saville are actually quite few in number. If they were against a normal person who isn't well known or anything they might be significant. However, for celebrities it's different. I'm pretty sure that if you do a search for records of allegations and claims or memories of claims too absurd to go on record in the UK, you'll probably find a fair few for Big Bird from Sesame Street and some for Michael Jackson. When police do actually get some hard evidence they're not shown to not act. There are cases where a celebrity might hand in a laptop for repair and then illegal material is found. The legal system is far from perfect but in this case there's no real evidence of any kind of failing. The narratives given are often self defeating such as that he threatened people with libel suits. If you're not libelling someone it tends to be difficult to be threatened by that. Scientifically, the pattern of evidence here just does not match a prolific sex offender. What I see are always correlations with other alternative explanations and a shape of evidence that looks a lot like that for UFOs where there's this cutoff point in the quality of evidence that's telling. Not everyone's brain works like that but I tend to notice things such as UFOs always seem to ever be only one to a hundred pixels in size intuitively and get a sense that something isn't right. In these cases it's disappointing because you always want to find out or see more. There's always that flag going off in your head where you're getting more but you're not getting more. In the case of Jimmy Saville there's a video they claim of him sexually abusing a teenager live on camera on top of the pops. We can't actually see what happens other than that something made a teenager next to Saville jump. Everything stops short just before the point at which you can confirm anything. I'm actually glad this video wasn't a case of the dead pigeon in the bag sketch because I don't actually want to see sexual molestation and that's not what's in the video. The woman's testimony in the matter isn't very compelling either when it comes to what we can't see. She's been questioned in a suggestive way as to interpret the events as sexual abuse when it sounds like in reality she might have sat on his hand and there wasn't actually any sexual abuse or anything. Clips of this video don't include the lead up to her jumping around and that tells me that most likely it's because the moments before give a very different picture. Saville was a wrestler but also back then culture was different and there were different cultural standards. In one video he has a black girl in a headlock and this is just normal messing around for the time. Today cultural standards are far stricter and people are significantly more reserved. There are a lot of claims along these lines that are incredibly vague and look like they're not really inappropriate just close to it or would be considered so today where people are more sensitive and more prejudiced about things like that. There's always antics and messing around back then on top of the pops the main theme of which was sex (and still often is in music) and it's also a very sexually liberated time compared to today. In one video on Top of the Pops a band member puts his hand on the top of the head of another member and scratches it, acting up for the camera. Things like this are happening all the time. I'm not seeing anything going on that's actually wrong (no groping even) but through the modern lens someone could be convinced to interpret things incorrectly due to modern standards where if in doubt then it's inappropriate. In that segment of the entertainment industry, borderline misbehaviour and harmless shenanigans is part of the social phenomena. It's easy to then look back at that and claim that things were inappropriate. If the best they have is a piece of footage where you can't actually see what's going on but at the most might simply be a sat on a hand mishap then they don't have anything. I could probably entertain the notion that Saville might be somewhat more touchy for our standards sometimes causing awkwardness unintentionally but then if we're going to go down that avenue then by the same standards Joseph Biden is one of the most prolific sex offenders in recent history. Whenever we hear things like sexual molestation and sexual abuse we tend to imagine something terrible. Whenever I read reports about Saville and those also associated with him that are accused they nearly always turn out to be something relatively mild, potentially misunderstandings and so vague as to make it impossible to pass judgement. One acquaintance of Saville is described as though it's a matter of fact they abused boys by throwing money on the floor then inappropriately touching them as they scrambled to get it. That doesn't leave me with any kind of sense of something having gone on there that was truly heinous. I'm left guessing what that scene might look like and it could be a hundred and one things most of which I wouldn't consider sexual abuse or any kind of criminal complaint. The standards here are so obscure that I'm left wondering if perhaps we should not investigate the millions of people who might have smacked a naughty child's bum or some such. By the standards I'm seeing we would criminalise most of the male population and even a good portion of the female population. More strangely, lets say hypothetically he was a sex offender and used his celebrity status. What part of that is going to help him cover his tracks the best? Well as a celebrity he's going to get a fair few false allegations virtually guaranteed. False allegations are an excellent cover. When the media starts to give allegations as much credit as it's doing so then it's not helping matters. What you have to ask is has anyone actually done the science and asked an investigator what it's really like? I would imagine they might come in in the morning and sit at their desk with a pile of cases. They'll go through them and another allegation against Noel Edmunds, oh look here's another allegation against John Major, another one against Jesus Christ, all go in the junk pile. The media is presenting things as unusual that are not, like Saville saying he had contact with some investigators he'd refer to these two and they'd handle it. Most likely that's the case. Any celebrity is going to be a little bit of a nuisance for the police in regularly coming up as a suspect in allegations. Whenever a kid is questioned what the person looks like, then they'll usually choose some face they've seen a lot on TV or something for comparison. It's almost always with the kids: Did the suspect look more like Blue Peter presenter A or Blue Peter presenter B? You would be shocked just how often celebrities end up in police reports simply due to being well recognised faces. Theatrics The media portrayal after the fact is bizarre. There's a film claiming to be a recreation casting Saville as some particularly ugly monster. However in his youth Saville and when he's supposed to have done most of this he is actually an attractive man despite his dubious sense of style (ultra camp) and was probably groped a fair few times himself. He's also certain to have made quite a few men jealous of him. Perhaps he'd poked a few men's girlfriends and wives. He probably didn't need either of those when he could have had a bit of yours whenever he wanted. It's very clear that certain portrayals of Saville are a twisted parody being dished out on unsuspecting people by the media and their audience is not in on the joke. It's now April's fools every day of the year in the media. For example, declaring Saville's guilt on the basis of him eating a banana when asked intrusive questions about his sex life in general. At least in that particular case I think the joke is fairly obvious to many people but in other cases it's much more subtle. Such as Louis Theroux saying he caught Saville on camera sexually molesting a girl when all we really see is him giving a friend or something like that a hug. The people doing this to you are sometimes laughing at you and what you'll go along with. The banana skit looks like journalists wanting to say it's all baloney but can't say it openly. It may also be a deliberate gaffe left in as a clip to attract people to the documentary. This kind of trial by the media is a complete farce. The documentary is blatantly fake and one of many such copycat documentaries. Though people look at Saville's estate as a profit motive, they overlook what's likely to be millions in revenues from traffic and conversions. Libelling Jimmy Saville in the media is big business. If someone says they knew Saville was a paedophile all along and then when asked how they say it's because he ate a banana then they didn't know anything. What I don't understand is why the media doesn't make the obvious connection with Saville potentially being homosexual or bisexual. The cigar might not be a cigar and I don't understand how the media misses that eating a banana is not simply a symbol of sexuality but when a man does it homosexuality. The questions the interviewer was asking in the news article that seems to be satirical are illegal to ask usually under the Equality Act. I don't believe that's necessarily the case for interviews but it is recognised as private and that should make people think about what's really happening in that interview because in that case Saville is in a spiritually sense being sexually molested by invasive questions into his sex life. Quite often when there's a fake news campaign one of the telling features is that there are avenues of obvious and valid conversation that are mysteriously not explored. There's very little chatter about this but when I investigate more deeply it does look like there is evidence that Saville was either homosexual or bisexual. This appears to be mysteriously swept under the rug when usually the media makes a lot of noise about the sexual orientation of celebrities. A lot of people think that Saville not having a normal family life and being obscure about his sex life is suspect. There's a simple explanation for that. Not everyone wants to come all the way out of the closet. Sometimes the fake news isn't what they're reporting but what they're not reporting. There's often a gaping great big hole that doesn't make any sense. The fake news always reports on one tiny thing extremely disproportionately to the exclusion of everything else that's happening and very nearly the entirety of the rest of reality. I can't say for certain that Saville never did anything wrong. I can't say for certain that he ever did either. What I do know for certain is that none of the people in the media saying he was for certain can know for certain either. They don't actually care about problems such as sex abuse or paedophilia. It's all about cashing in on the story. These are people who would most likely would have wanted Saville to have been a serious and prolific sex offender for real because that's far more lucrative for them. Propaganda - BLM There are so many lies when it comes to BLM that it's hard to know where to start. The big overall lie is that this is an organic black movement or that it represents black people or that it's in their interest. BLM exists at the leisure of the elite classes. It's shaped, permitted, enabled, supported, facilitated and funded by people at the top who are predominantly white. BLM is an immediate own-goal against its own claims. A normal system wouldn't tolerate BLM's nonsense. An anti-black system certainly wouldn't tolerate it. Yet there is a real example of a racist system then it's that BLM exists as a movement orchestrated by those at the top of the system to use the black race for political purposes. When CEO's put a BLM logo next to their brand logo, who do you think that's really about? When all of the biggest institutes go to bat for BLM what does that say when they are the system? What right does Harvard have to repent for everyone else's sins? If they're a racist institute then they should repent for their own sins. Who do they think they are? Jesus? What gives a Harvard professor the right to confess my sins? Impersonating me based on identity because we're both white? I'd call this identity theft. I would call that a form of white supremacy coming out of academia. BLM does have this knack of accidentally revealing things when going after the wrong white supremacy (something that isn't). I don't like to racialise problems that aren't racial because I'm not a racialist. If however I am to entertain the notion of let us consider the overall situation for the black population and consider if there are reasonable ways to improve that then I've never seen anything BLM brings up actually offer up any kind of serious discussion or proposals. I've not even seen any kind of analysis of the problem. I looked into crime in America including in relation to black people. It appears that over a ten year period at least a trillion dollars and probably much more was spent on crime. This means that a large number of people are paying other people to commit crime, often the smuggling of contraband, on their behalf. This creates the opportunity for vast criminal enterprise in the USA. It means that a life of crime really can pay and that a career criminal may be a serious profession. Black people are often targeted both directly and indirectly for this profession. If there's going to be racist hiring policies anywhere then it's going to be in the criminal underground. There's lots of debate to be had about drug reform but ultimately there's no pressing need to be paying for so much of this crime. Quite often it really is in part the consequence of great wealth and having more money than you know what to spend it on. If you really want to make a difference then the question that needs to be asked is how to defund crime? Take that trillion dollars and instead of it being spent to create commercial opportunities for crime spending it on creating legal opportunities then the transformation of the less well off or poor segment of the population would be miraculous. It would disproportionately benefit the black population. If we're to ask some real hard moral questions about this and politics then where do we stand on all of Joseph Biden's children investing in crime with their rich celebrity lifestyle of hookers and cocaine? White consumers of illicit goods are a significant driver behind BLM and only really care about black people having encounters with the police because it's interfering with their supply. You will never hear the media ask questions like this. They're very protective of their drug runners. As a result, the person who really killed George Floyd by supplying him with drugs isn't even going to be sought after. Though in many ways the moniker "Saint George Floyd" well represents the way people behave, it's not about George Floyd but what he represents, it's really about them and their preferences for recreational drugs which pits them against law enforcement. The death toll from illegal drugs over a five year period is comparable to that of COVID-19 cumulatively to date and perhaps matches it. These drugs don't purely cause death due to overdose but an array of knock-on effects. They also cause damage to lives and society at large in many other ways. Liberals exclusively blame the law and while there are certainly areas for improvement none of their proposals are realistic nor truly explore the problem. The mistake they fundamentally make is to take any kind of personal responsibility at all out of the equation. This is a toxic blame game where a large segment of society can't accept personal responsibility. The media has not only significantly contributed to BLM's existence but also assisted it in causing all the harm and damage it can by covering up what the movement really gets up to. To say that the movement turned ugly is misleading. It's on a leash, whose leash? A deadly movement If BLM were merely a series of lies then that would be one thing. In reality BLM is a deadly movement made so significantly due to the radicalisation of people by deceptive and inciteful content in the media. Using lies and atrocity propaganda to make out that their opponents are doing terrible things that they are not. Operating under the auspices of the BLM movement people have murdered and assassinated several Trump supporters. This includes murdering people in other protest movements. It has also murdered people virtually at random including many black people such as David Dorn. Several of the movement's activities have been generally reckless. One man had his skull partially caved in when a statue was torn down. Tearing down heritage monuments is a crime against humanity and a hate crime. In this incident it appears to have been approved by an extremist left wing identitarian political official or rather someone who is supposed to be in a certain sense an agent of the law. When the movement thought it would be a good idea to have a party doing dance routines in the middle of a motorway in the middle of the night without proper safety measures as a meaningless act of "Civil Disobedience" this caused a major road incident where body parts could be seen strewn over the road. This political class appears to believe that Civil Disobedience entitles them to do anything they like. A blank cheque to commit any crime that they like. I believe this is in part a result of indoctrination in schools which fails to educate people on the nature of Civil Disobedience and Civil Rights. This activity is that of a cult and mars the struggles of real champions in the past. The scale of death and destruction resulting from the media's effective call to arms has been nearly completely ignored by the mainstream media. In this matter the media is not passive. There is a relationship between what the media does and what BLM does. When the media fails to acknowledge the bad things the movement does they are giving their approval which will lead to more bad things being done. A Litany of Lies Every case BLM brings up is false. That is, it tells a story that's not the real story. Often skirting over key details to make their case skirts over the details you'd need to make the case they're making leaving me to wonder what is their real case? ● They said Martin Trayvon was lynched and executed for wearing a hoodie. In reality he had got the jump on someone and was beating the person who shot him when he was shot. Trayvon himself escalated the situation to warrant the use of lethal force. ● They said Eric Gardner was executed for selling illegal cigarettes. He almost certainly died of natural causes and the officers involved clearly did not intend to kill him. ● They said Michael Brown had his hands up. It turns out he was charging the officer after having already engaged in a fierce battle with the officer. ● They said Tamir Rice was not recognised as an adult because he was black and was shot for playing with a toy gun. He was of adult height and weight. The gun had been modified to appear as a real one and he pointed it at the cops in a case of unfortunate timing at a compromising moment. ● They said Breonna Taylor was shot while sleeping in her bed. In reality she happened to be standing behind someone who opened fire and shot a police officer then diving away leaving her in the path of the return fire. ● They said Rayshard Brooks was shot for being asleep in his car. In reality in a sudden burst of rage he attacked the officers grabbing their arms and was shot moments after trying to shoot a pursuing officer in the face with a taser. ● They said Ahmaud Arbery was shot for being out on a jog. In reality he had trespassed onto a property and then got the jump of someone with a gun. This is a fraction of cases all of which BLM has misconstrued. Virtually all of them are just tragedies that escalated and should provide learning lessons. The lesson that the media appears to be teaching black people is how in tense situations to act to get themselves shot or make things worse. Humans are flawed beings and sometimes encounters can lead to death. If you want to answer the question of did these people deserve to die, well that's a less and no answer. The media seems to love to promote people who didn't deserve to die but ended up in a situation where that had to happen doing the same thing over and over. I'm not racist so when a black person asks me about these cases and what to do or not to do to get shot or for things to get out of control I simply tell them don't do what the media tells you to do if you don't want to get shot, you're best bet for survival is to do what the officer of the law tells you to do. The media is telling black people it's alright to try to beat up a police officer and take their gun or whatever you can get on a whim. I'm a selfish person with no special love for other people whether they're black or not but even I'm not that much of a sociopath that I'd tell a black person some wishy washy stuff that's unrealistic setting them up to fail. The media disgusts me. All truly bad criminals should be afraid of the police. It's what they deserve. The press is trying to make all black people truly afraid of the police like a criminal has to be. That's racist, sick and sadistic. I don't really even care about the racist part that just happens to ring their ears. It's the sheer callous and sadistic hatred for a fellow being that someone would have to have to do that to anyone that sickens me. If you can do that against a personhood wrapped in a black skin you can do it against any personhood. Most of these cases do raise interesting questions and legitimate debates but none the media will ever share with you. That's what elites are. They take everything good and only throw us the leftovers. In every single case they present, if I were the father of the people killed and educating them I would have told them not to do what they did beforehand. There's generally a pattern to the lies. Find someone who died accidentally or was killed based on their own behaviour, take the sequences of events, find something innocent they did, leave out everything else and then say it was an execution because the person was black. In reality virtually all of these cases come down to behaviour. This has taken a twist into the bizarre where there's no longer even an element of deception. Instead they are simply presenting their twisted values up front. One example being a case where a teenage girl was shot while inches away from stabbing another in the facial region. These lies are distorting our values where once someone tells what the person really did before getting shot they insist that it's still wrong and refuse to correct their position. This has resulted in a criminal mentality spreading across society. Missed Opportunities What really upsets me about this is that for all the bad BLM had done, the one or two revelations and wins it has scored are censored. In fact it's often branded a hate crime to bring up the actual faults in legal systems that BLM has revealed. An innocent man, Derek Chauvin, was convicted in plain sight using blatantly obvious tricks such as mistaking the median for the mean and getting lucky that the defence didn't ask too many questions. On seeing this my faith in the legal system, especially procedure abuse, has completely changed. If they can do that in plain sight and get away with it then what are they getting up to out of sight? We're blind to nearly everything that goes on in this system unless breaking the law ourselves. If there's one good thing the BLM has done for all the harm and damage it's to raise awareness that we need to pay more attention to our plumbing. This doesn't justify it. Other people have done the same without going to any kind of extraordinary lengths other than presenting to me a mistrial where the person later turned out innocent. However, when they're trying to criminalise event talking about the one or two actual examples of the legal system failing to be presented resulting from BLM's activities then you get a real sense of just how despicable the real supporters of the movement behind the levers of power really are. If we put aside what BLM has done wrong this is one opportunity for it to redeem itself particularly when it backfires against the masterclass that's really behind BLM. The prosecutors in both the Derek Chauvin case and the Kyle Rittenhouse case should have been scandalised and rapidly disbarred. Further to this, all of their prior prosecutions must be examined. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind seeing politically corrupt show trials like these that there are many people, including black people, who have been wrongfully prosecuted by these corrupt officers of the court. Anyone given special powers must come under scrutiny. Show me a cop and I'll say so what? Show a cop or other officer of the law actually doing something wrong and most people will be opposed to that. What I'm seeing here is a pattern where front line cops are rarely really the problem. There are things that can go wrong there but what I'm seeing is happening all in the parts of the legal system that are less visible and higher up in the chain of command. Though the malicious prosecutions against Chauvin and Rittenhouse are clearly motivated in part by anti-white racism, the immediate problem I see is simpler. What I see are bad people. Propaganda - Kyle Rittenhouse There are so many lies about Kyle Rittenhouse that it's easier to instead tell the real story. The real story and how much it differs from what's in the press would blow people's minds, if only it were permissible to publish it. To tell the truth and the real story is officially classified as prohibited hate speech on many major internet platforms. Though the true story is predominantly corrupted by the left, the A versus B mentality also limits the right in their ability to see the true story as well. The true story could be pieced together quite easily within days after the event yet the media and even the prosecution in his case never did this. Instead they concocted a false story of a white supremacist terrorist going to a peaceful protest and then embarking on a mass shooting. Background In Kenosha there was an incident where the police fumbled in restraining an out of control man. The result was that they had to shoot him in the last possible moment to prevent him creating a far more dangerous situation. This might involve a hostage situation or a police chase of a vehicle driven by someone that appears to be under the influence with many young children inside. Alternatively he may have had the opportunity to source a weapon creating a chaotic struggle and shootout in the immediate vicinity of a number of children. A bi-stander recorded this incident and to the uninitiated it wouldn't make sense to have shot the person in that situation. The result was a series of protests. Though the immediate premise for the protests was incorrect, it's a fundamental right to protest and complain even if it turns out to be wrong. What was to be expected from this in a normal situation would be a largely peaceful protest, with a small portion comprising far left violent extremists that the police would be able to deal with while allowing the rest of the protest to do its thing. Many protests tend to be like this. Whatever cause there is, if there's any kind of participation then the first in line tend to be the worst in line. However, these were not normal circumstances. The protest was against the police. There's a guaranteed group that's against the police and that is a constant. The worst of the worst, real criminals. Lockdown measures really put the squeeze on the off the record economy and society. Drug addicts had to face Cold Turkey. Criminals couldn't burgle with houses always occupied. Drug dealers had very little opportunity to peddle their wares. Criminals had also been allowed out of jail. No government scheme or analysis took this into account. The result was that a very large contingent of criminals, often ex-cons, attended and shadowed the protests using them as a cover to wreak havoc on the city. This itself interfered with the right of the people to protest. City leaders were too afraid to acknowledge and address this through fear of being labelled racist or being seen to be too heavy handed, further inflaming tensions. They should have communicated appropriately and also put in emergency requests for more manpower/crowd control. Instead they allowed the city to be sacked, demolished by roving bands of criminals over and over while they just stood by like nothing happened. I've personally been in a situation like this. It's extremely distressing when your city is being systematically destroyed for no good reason. These criminals did not choose targets involved in the dispute. Instead they hit civilian targets opportunistically. They also hit medical facilities. In normal circumstances we would look at this as akin to war crimes (they would be in a fully recognised war). The mainstream media did not cover this. Instead it insisted that they were peaceful protests and anyone that raises any protest of their own against it must be a white supremacist further suppressing people's right to protest. Many people in and around Kenosha became frustrated with this. They arranged to gather and get between the crowd and potential targets to deter the wanton destruction, rioting and looting. They had no interest in interfering with the protest or getting in its way. They never placed themselves in the path from where the protest started and where it intended to end up. Instead they got between the crowd and places that had no business to go toward. One of these people was Kyle Rittenhouse. As an extracurricular activity he spent time cleaning up vandalism to the city and saw a future in serving the city. It was where he worked and trained. It was vital to his future as a child or adolescent about to enter adulthood and it was being systematically demolished. The Shooting One of the criminals gate-crashing the protest was Joseph Rosenbaum. He has previously spend a decade in prison for raping at least one prepubescent boy and abusing others. In prison showed a consistent problem with disobedience as well as developing a taste for arson. He reportedly was living in destitution and stalking a previous partner, presumably in Kenosha. He has also recently attempted suicide and was mentally ill. Hours prior to attending the event he had attempted to get his medication from a pharmacy but it was closed due to the rioting and looting. Though there were standoffs and shout outs the groups of criminals and volunteers respected reasonable enough boundaries effectively protecting the city and inhibiting activities that exceed peaceful protest with one known exception. Joseph Rosenbaum, most likely suffering an acute mental health crisis, insisted that the volunteer defenders shoot him and attempted to force the issue before being pulled back. In his state he was not only suicidal but singular in that purpose failing to regard the impact of those around him. Had he succeeded in that moment he may have triggered a shoot out in a crowded situation. He was either not able to conceive of the impact on those around him or didn't care. Further into the night there were other encounters including the prevention of a potentially deadly attack on a gas station and a case of arson utilising a mobile trash bin. These interventions successfully prevented the destruction of the city without loss of life up until there was an opportunity for Joseph Rosenbaum to go after Kyle Rittenhouse and force a confrontation that would force Kyle Rittenhouse to grant Joseph Rosenbaum's deathwish. Now finding himself in a dangerous scene, Kyle Rittenhouse made an escape to safety toward the police line. As Kyle Rittenhouse did so, he was attacked and fell. He was then further attacked by members of the crowd some of which were likely to have been understandably confused as to the nature of the shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum. Once it became clear to members of the crowd that attacking Kyle Rittenhouse would get them shot, they backed off and left him alone to allow him to complete his exit as the crowd tended to the wounded. Conclusion Once you're aware of the true story it becomes apparent that Joseph Rosenbaum was the key culprit in the particular scene setting off a domino effect and is responsible for self endangerment as well as the endangerment to others that followed. However, when we look even more broadly at the events the true act of endangerment is that of medical outlets not being off limits in what amounts to civilian targets. To some extent, this is a case of rioters and looters shooting themselves in the foot. Kyle Rittenhouse is obviously innocent. Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz may have some diminished culpability due to having a reasonable basis for confusion. On the other hand, it should have been obvious this was not an active shooter and there's no reasonable basis in this situation for that claim to be made. We don't need to mince words. What various members of the crowd and possibly those in the same groups as Joseph Rosenbaum did afterward was an attempt to lynch Kyle Rittenhouse. This raises some serious questions where the involved parties must be held to account: ● Why didn't the media turn on criminals haunting what would otherwise be a manageable protest with minimal damage instead leading to a major crimewave instead? ● Why didn't officials do more to protect the city such as requesting more manpower instead leaving it to volunteers? ● Where's the discussion about attacking not only civilian targets but medical facilities? ● Why didn't the prosecution drop charges it either had no evidence for or where they had found exonerating evidence? Propaganda - European and British ethnic origins There have been a large number of ahistorical and pseudoscientific publications as well as displays in museums and theatrical documentaries. These all have a shared objective of both covering up immigration policies in living memory as well as to permit a continuation of said policies. To rewrite living history requires a special level of perversion. Their narratives are thus: ● To portray Europe as having always been the way it is now rather than the result of recent and ongoing policies. ● To redefine being a true European as being a member of a homogeneously mixed race comprising the new population that is recently being imported rather than comprising bloodlines tied to the region going back tens of thousands of years. ● To define present Europeans and their race as being immigrants with no territorial rights or distinctions from any incoming peoples. ● To redefine true Europeans as being people from outside of Europe sort of returning home in a sense. All of this revolves around an anti-indigenous sentiment resulting from a political insistence on sticking to immigration policies that are unpopular. A common lie in the media is that there's a meaningful pro and anti immigration polarity. There's no such even-split. Normal everyday common sense people like immigration when it's good and dislike it when it's bad. The split is between people who support good immigration and people who believe that all immigration is good as part of an irrational belief system which will always result in bad immigration. It's hard to understand why this doesn't just click with people. To take Trump as an example, if you look at his wife then it should be immediately obvious that he knows how to get the best out of immigration. You would expect that he's probably going to make immigration great again. That means looking at it qualitatively not just quantitatively. The media commonly misleads by only interpreting things quantitatively rather than qualitatively. What should really worry people about this is that this kind of racial territorial dispute isn't new. It happened between Germany and Poland leading up to the war. The same kind of pseudoscience was used then to justify extremes as well just as its being used now in the media to establish a premise that it's manifest destiny for people of other territories to occupy ours without restraint. I personally like immigration in moderation. Everything in moderation is a popular wisdom in these lands. The ideology that is being propagated by the media is specifically against moderation and against consent. The latter component is why the shift we're seeing is increasingly anti-democratic and authoritarian. Contemporary Colonialism This is not a new phenomenon. This comes from the top down. The wheels of power and influence. This is modern day colonialism and institutionalism. The massive redistribution of human resources to server nationalistic purposes for those who truly control and own the nation. It's very much the same apparatus, impetus and methodology that drove the slave trade. As with immigration, nationalism isn't something we can classify as good or bad automatically. The question is what kind of nationalism? It's not a matter of nationalism or no nationalism but our nationalism and their nationalism. Our nationalism consists of us, the people and our nation. Others are welcome to join when we afford it and when it is appropriate. Their nationalism consists of them and their nation of which they don't want us to truly have any part of. This is inherently why they seek to strip us of nationhood. In doing so the nation doesn't simply disappear. They still hold reign over the territory. This is a repossession for them and a dispossession for us into an effectively stateless class. They have a country, we don't. They have a democracy, we don't. They have rights, we don't. The ultimate end is that we are to be once again owned in a new feudal society. I want to raise a crucial point here. What's more economical? Raising a child in the UK which takes inordinate time and money or simply importing someone already fully grown for free from abroad? This is the same choice faced when choosing slavery. Who are you? Really? Revisionist History A common lie is to misrepresent continents and regions conflating modern or often contrived regions with ancient regions. The media loves to talk about Africa as a whole so as to create confusion between North Africa and the rest of Africa. North Africa in terms of its people and culture is historically far closer to Europe than it is to sub-Saharan Africa. This is still the case even today. There's a big difference between some very small number of people crossing the Mediterranean into Europe, an extremely tiny number of people crossing the Sahara then the Mediterranean into Europe in ancient history and the modern migration we see today. Every time the media says there were Africans in historical Europe the follow up question should always be which Africa and how many? The same lie is applied to the way we define modern Europe treating the near-East and Asia as more different than they really are. Europe has changed a lot over history due to glaciation and with it European peoples moved around. Glaciation squashed Europe down in a sense then it rebounded. Exactly where Europe ends and where Asia begins isn't a perfect science. Often when the media says Asia what they really mean are parts of Russia that as landmasses defined by natural barriers better qualify as a continuation of the European basin and subcontinent rather than any Asian subcontinent. Once again the question should be which Europe and which Asia? A claim made by certain outlets is that Britain was always "multicultural" since the Roman era. The correct term is in fact multiracial though this is not a correct way to describe historical Britain. Though Roman's may have brought a few exotic people, these were not from as far afield as presented and nor present in any significant number. There's very little genetic trace in Britain from the Roman occupation and administration. The scale of modern immigration that has occurred over a mere handful of decades is set to have a genetic impact comparable in proportion to that of the Anglo Saxon invasion (a drawn out process that ultimately spanned perhaps a century or two) of which there's no other comparable event in British history prior to modern immigration. Cheddar Man is a subject of continuing hoaxes and scientific fraud. It was once claimed that a descendant had been found but this turned out to be due to both low quality genetic sequenced and a false assumption that a common haplotype represents a line of descent rather than some common ancestry. It has been reported that this was the "First Briton". This is most certain to be untrue. It's unknown how his skeleton arrived in Britain and there's also certain to be people present in Britain prior. At the time, Britain hadn't even fully formed as the land mass it is today and most likely did not possess a persistent population. It is claimed that Cheddar Man was black with blue eyes. This is the result of scientific fraud and incompetence. The tool used to determine this is unreliable with modern populations let alone ancient populations. It struggles to tell people with a Chinese complexion from people with a decisively black complexion. The tool also darkens European people, myself included when I inserted my own DNA which is relatively close to that of Cheddar Man's. To understand how broken the tool is, it says that if you mix someone from east Asian with a European there's a good chance the child will come out black. To make matters worse, the researchers put in the wrong value for the SNP rs6119471 when using the tool (HIrisPlex-S) turning him from intermediate to dark or black. The black result is simply wrong and the mistake of a typo made when using the tool. This tool has a number of pitfalls leading to data entry errors being more likely than not. It is used widely in assessing archaic genomes from Europe and is likely responsible for incorrectly or unreliably turning several European genetic fossils into a black phenotype. Due to this, there are likely dozens to hundreds of academic publications (often mistakenly called scientific papers) that are invalid. The improper use of this tool amounts to modern day phrenology. In a similar prior round of propaganda, a fossil dubbed Kostenki was presented as the first European. In reality this appears to be an extinct lineage separated by ten thousand years or more that modern Europeans don't descend from. He was deemed to be European not because of any true genetic heritage but because it was felt that he could be described as mixed race owing to having components from some groups in or around Europe that separated and then recombined during various stages. The logic the media is applying in this case is that if you take someone from Nigeria and pair them with a Han Chinese mate, then breed their child with a native American then you get a European. In reality a + b + c is not the same as x + y + z. In genetics sometimes a + b + c doesn't always truly equal a + b + c as that's a gross simplification that only achieves equality through ignoring the differences. In genetics you're not adding them all up but bits of them for example. A similar set of errors are made in trying to define something as it is now by as it was. The implication is usually to say that because things were different before that gives a specific party free and exclusive licence to unconditionally make things different again according to their grand design or as a by-product of some other agenda. If that's the case, who gets to decide what changes we make? Somehow, by making this kind of argument the media thinks that it's not us. Britain used to be mostly covered in impenetrable sheets of ice. Does that then make it right to make it so once again? Perhaps while we're at it should we not bring back smallpox and the plague? When it serves the media it will make these mistakes in reverse. That is to say things such as the people who are living in the Near East are representative of the people who have always lived there and have remained unchanged. In reality people have moved around in other places as well. They have also genetically diverged since. The media will like to say things like that we came from Syrians or that we came from Africans so as to suggest that we came from the modern form or something like that. Between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans today, we share ancestors perhaps some fifty thousand or more years ago who would have only been in one place at the time and happened to be in Africa. Quite often the media exploits limitations in language. It is correct to say that Africans came from Africans and that Africans didn't come from Africans. It's also valid to say that Africans are Africans and Africans are not Africans. Language doesn't always narrow down meaning to a single possible one. The media loves to say something with two possible meanings, one true and one false then have people mix up whether the statement as a whole is true or false by mixing up possible meanings. Fighting Ghosts (whites) The necessity of all this is non-existent. There's no meaningfully extreme, prevalent or likely to take hold "No black people allowed." movement in respect to immigration in the west. There is however some potential for racial tensions to occasionally show when larger numbers of people who happen to be black are crammed into already crowded conditions where there's already contention and only so much to go around. In spite of this, Europeans are overwhelmingly tolerant and accommodating. There's also no major taboo or objection to interracial relations in our society and especially not from the white population. Certain cultures which are predominantly not western do still maintain a great deal of control over relationships. This is usually a bit of a fringe issue but if the issue is to be taken up then that's where to start. Half the white males in my immediate family within one or two generations above have imported wives from east Asia. Older white men with oriental wives are all over the place. You see race mixing all over the place. It's not some controversial thing. I've had interracial relations and it didn't even enter my mind until the media started dredging up the topic of race mixing going as deep down as long forgotten 18th century French debates on the matter then characterising me as a type of person which does not match my episodic memory recall nor what I seek out in a partner. In all of these cases, when you examine their opponent and the problem they are claiming they're against none of it really exists. Of the points I have listed are necessary to justify the presence of even a single black person or immigrant in Europe nor any reasonable amount in line with reasonable policies and the public consent. I would think someone believing these falsehoods have to be true to authorise any kind of immigration or race mixing is actually racist. The question we then have to ask is what are they really trying to achieve? Though perhaps in this case it's not simply what the thing is but the scale of it. The policy mistake made with immigration isn't a complex one. It's an addiction to replacement immigration. Typically we expect decent immigration policies with mild to moderate levels. Just the right amount for mutual benefits and to get the most from the least before diminishing returns set in. The more immigration the less you get out of it. Perhaps once in a few decades there may be a cause to have a reasonable round of replacement immigration. This typically applies in a crisis and to cover a deficit. Essentially special circumstances. A little like how every few decades you might be able to afford a large deficit for a crisis and then debt that you can pay off before the next crisis. The policy mistakes of the left have us doing replacement immigration every single year back to back for over two decades now on top of what was already a maxed out ambient immigration rate. When you're importing people every year like this, now dependent on imports rather than locally reproducing the inevitable result is the eventual replacement of the existing prevalent population (the local population) with an imported population. To go to such an extreme isn't something to be taken lightly especially in this day and age where we no longer live in chaos. Very serious moral and ethical concerns are raised by unnecessary policy and mismanagement that in effect achieves the same ultimate outcome as genocide. You have a ruling class that is presiding over a system that is wiping out its own people through perpetual population decline and various feedback loops such as a replacement immigration addiction. Because this also effects cultural and ethnic genocide or ethnic cleansing which are extreme taboos there's a desperation among those implicated in this protest to deny it. People fail to appreciate is the genocide denial often reaches its peak and is most dangerous when a genocide progressing, not after the fact. There are various reasons why people aren't trained well or conditions to recognise this kind of genocide: ● Most research and education around genocide is fake and not particularly useful. Students tend to learn to recognise genocide in a fairly superstitious, formulaic and superficial way. Studies are quite often focused on things other than the genocide itself with various untested assumptions about causative processes. ● This genocide is in a certain sense being self-inflicted. It's predominantly a subset of the indigenous population imposing it on all or most white people rather than being directed between two obvious distinct groups. This kind of setup particularly where there are groups within groups tends to be more convoluted and harder to understand. Elite class nationalists support a country as a virtual entity like a corporation where if you swap out all white workers and replace them with something else then to them that makes no real difference as long as they are functionally equivalent or believed to be. ● Rather than being explicit or directly intended this genocide is a side effect of the system and policies at present. Someone might usher in huge waves of immigration to prevent a collapse of the financial system propping up the property bubble. In respect to the impact of that on demographics they may be either unaware or apathetic. It has evolved into a deliberate genocide retrospectively as people try to defend the indefensible either denying or accepting it. ● The genocide is a prolonged process over a number of generations without the typical bloodshed. People are often confused as to which part of examples of historic genocide were wrong. Common examples of genocide tend to involve additional crimes in their execution. A genocide is usually wiping out a particular category of people that's fairly distinct or substantially diminishing them. Though people are correct in calling it white genocide as in the genocide of white populations whether or not it's white people or not tends not to be the most important distinction. It generally doesn't matter which race it is, [racial] genocide is wrong. The most important thing to recognise is that there is a ruling elite that can inflict anything it wants upon the masses including genocide and will do so if it can get away with it. I would urge caution in mistakenly characterising this in the broader sense as a threat to white people. The specific individuals and entities behind this are a threat to humanity. The media incorrectly presents this as a black versus white conflict or some other similar racial conflict between white people who are politically right wing versus other races. This is a gross mischaracterisation. It's a political conflict between white people who are collectively self destructive and white people who don't want to be a part of that. There is a kind of toxic whiteness that needs to be combatted and that's that when the traditional example of racism became something they could no longer get away with rather than giving up racism they changed to a version that they could overtly get away with. They found that if they did it to other white people that they don't get into as much trouble. What the media won't openly say is that if the people finally get their way democratically it's not non-white people who have something to worry about. It's millions of ideologically radicalised white people that have something to worry about. Propagandists are not protecting any particular protected characteristic or perceived vulnerable group among the general population. They are protecting themselves. The media paints a picture of there being a white majority split into two, left and right. Then that the right are going after non-white people and the left are getting in the way. In reality a specific version of the left that is grossly in the wrong is putting non-white people in between them and everyone else. When the media is fighting growing popular opposition to something then it's probably an extreme. The more extreme something is, the more legitimate popular opposition it'll gain and the more oppressive of the populous the media must become. What I don't understand is that the left is dying because of its unreasonable positions on things like immigration. Rather than acknowledging fault for its own mistakes it's blaming the voters for recognising them. Politically in a situation like this it seems so easy to do a 180 and turn things around with nothing other than a reasonable position on immigration. Why is that so difficult? The extent to which the establishment is getting things wrong doesn't fall into the category of easy mistakes to make. In these cases it should be easy to get it right. You have to make a real effort to mess things up so badly. There is a vicious cycle of the left royally screwing up immigration creating the anti-immigration they're now fighting themselves and in the process only making things worse. They're ruthlessly trying to crackdown on anti-immigration when they're the ones creating it! I don't understand how it's possible to suck so hard even if you tried. A lesson in life that must be learned is that sometimes if you made the mistake in the first place then you're certainly not qualified to fix the mistake. Being able to do something doesn't always mean being able to undo it. These people can't put two and two together. I regularly see them fret that they keep doing more and more but the problem still keeps growing. There's more and more of this so called racism. A normal person would have the common sense to notice the correlation between their efforts and the following outcomes, leading them to ask if they might not be the ones who are causing it. People who keep lowering the bar on racism while at the same time asking why it is on the rise are beyond help. Propaganda - Canadian Indian Residential School System A recent genocide hoax in the media has been the residential school system in Canada. Though I am not a fan of how various parties handled things in the new world in relation to the native populations, there's a claim of a genocide here that's almost certainly incredulous. This is based on a small number of unmarked grave sites with a fair proportion of children in them. Though the media makes out that because they are unmarked there's something untoward going on, this is not at all an unusual phenomena a couple of centuries ago. Even as of late, my grandfather in Britain is buried in an unmarked grave simply because the family was that poor. The claim of there being a genocide in which children were killed fails to consider child mortality in history where in most of the world very few offspring survived to complete puberty. Children died more often than not up until the previous century. Even in many parts of the UK which also had similar compulsory education mandates, mortality rates for children were staggering. The school system in Canada very likely reduced mortality rates for native children significantly. Given the mortality rates there are some several thousand missing graves. In many respects the system was an act of charity albeit one also seeking to inappropriately install a new culture and religion on the children. The claim that children in any meaningful way died because of this system simply does not make any sense. It treats the situation as though children never died at all in the nation unless sent to one of these schools. In reality if they weren't taken into one of these schools then they had a very high chance of dying before being able to grow up. This conflicts with the political position on children and vaccines where even a single death is said to justify vaccinating all of them. When this school system was put in place it's very much like the social care system of today which can remove children and take them into care if it's believed that their lives are in danger. Propaganda - Left Outs The areas I've covered are merely a tiny proportion of all the lies that people believe. I've had to leave out many areas to keep this book to a reasonable length. Many could be a book in and of themselves. I will briefly cover a number of topics here. The media regularly claims things are impossible that are not. There is a claim in the media that they can prove that there was no significant fraud in the 2020 US presidential election. This claim is impossible. The margins are tight, the system had enormous changes rushed in at the last moment that significantly hindered the ability to detect fraud and there's insufficient data to be able to make a claim of there being none. To make this claim you would need to be God. You would need to be able to see everything. There is a tendency in the media to insist on facts where you would need a time machine or an all seeing eye to really know. The media seems to forget that while it might be all seen it's not all seeing. A similar claim was along the lines of that the system had perfect security. The media call any opposition to this "The Big Lie". That itself is part of a real big lie which is that their political opposition has anything to do with our adversaries in the second world war. This is their lie on multiple counts. The reality is that scientifically that the test didn't actually produce a result. This is likely to be confusing to the layman. In a scientific experiment we try to work on the amount of noise or the margin of error. We even try to work out our uncertainty in these measurements. In the US presidential election the results were well within a plausible margin or error which means they may have been dictated by noise in the system rather than the actual result. This is a problem beyond who one or who lost that emerges from the election system and the circumstances surrounding it. When people are too focused on which side they're on there's no acknowledgement of the fact that the process produced a null result that can't be truly certified due to insufficient confidence. This is not an error that can necessarily be corrected retrospectively with things such as audits leaving us with potentially an eternal mystery. This is one that the media desperately wants to close but in reality you can't close it. For so long as it goes unrecognised the system is going to produce contentious results again and again. The media also made the claim that it was impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to have come from the laboratory. This was provably false and it was also provable that an origin from scientific activity is not improbable. This was common knowledge before the pandemic. The claims coming from the media once again required special powers. I've already written extensive literature on this subject elsewhere and was one of the first to break the story in the first months of the pandemic. I've had to leave out certain topics such as the coverage of Donald Trump and politicians in general because entire volumes could be written on it. Things like Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton were absolutely dreadful candidates. Rather than acknowledge this and that there was a problem with the Democratic Party candidate pool as well as primaries they all focused on attacking the Republican Party's primary choices rather than their own. It's important to understand that the information that dominates in the human mind in general, not simply in academia, the media and so on, is predominantly false. Nearly all media criticising Trump has been disingenuous. Not because there's nothing to criticise but because if the media were proportionate and accurate then they wouldn't be able to make him out to be anywhere near as bad as they would like to. I've read through lists people have made of hundreds of cases where they think Trump has been racist or has lied. Every single case turns out to be wrong. For the most part these are misinterpretations. Other cases leave out context or details to make their case. Perhaps one of the most disturbing pieces of propaganda was a fake medical diagnosis claiming Trump had a neurological condition that Adolf Hitler also had and that made Hitler able to do the things that he did. Many people missed the lies about Libya. We did not simply enforce a no-fly-zone but went to war with the country. Much like Bush repeating his father's legacy in Iraq, Clinton as Secretary of State repeated her husband's legacy of Yugoslavia (winning a war with airpower alone) but in Libya. When we see these repeats where you have a dynastic political elite reliving the past it stands out as fairly obvious. Gadhafi wasn't killed in a popular uprising by his people but by a pinpoint NATO airstrike. Much like in Yugoslavia boots on the ground consisted of a random rabble of all sorts including Islamic extremists often armed by our secret services. The war against Libya has left it fractured much like Yugoslavia. Very few people are unaware that the Syrian war was not a Civil War. It was a genocidal holy war of the Muslim majority, Sunni Muslims who draw jihadist fighters from a pool of 1.4billion against a minority Muslim ethnic sect a hundred times smaller. The media narrative was that this was a one sided war against civilians. On face value this should strike anyone as absurd and inconsistent. Whenever hearing something such as that the soldiers are machine gunning children down in the street at protests then on face value that should be treated as incredulous. Why do such an irrational act? There's usually more to the story or an entirely different story. When Trump was elected, ending Clinton's foreign policy and defunding the war, the media with its regime change ultimatum turned its attention to Trump. With COVID-19 I really don't know where to begin. The media has failed on every aspect. In such a crisis the media becomes a critical facility and needs to snap out of it. Instead they doubled down on their games vying for media rule trying to control everyone dictating to them what they had to do, making policy decisions and medical decisions for people they're never even met and have no right to give orders to. Every single negative from COVID-19 from loss of life to loss of liberty the press is implicated in it. All they had to do was stick to pure information and self doubt always double checking themselves instead of being over confident and playing stupid political games. They had one chance to shine and they blew it. I bet they will be awarding themselves medals and trophies in a year or so anyway declaring themselves heroes. There are so many falsehoods in the media that to cover it would mean generating at least as much content as the media has produced in the last couple decades. The media regularly spins things around until they're back to front. If people knew the truth they would realise they were on the side of something they would not have consented to getting behind if they had been properly informed. Racism If someone asks me what's the main political issue for the left then I'm not going to say something like housing, equality or a reasonable minimal standard of living. Instead parties such as the Democratic Party and Labour Party should rename themselves as "The Anti-Racist Party". Otherwise the reverse psychology parties. Such a name would be meant in the same way as the Ministry of Truth or Little John. Racism is not a useful entrypoint into the real issues that anyone faces. Instead it racialises everyday issues and itself transforms the debate into a racist one. The purpose of this is to often minimise issues. This is really a case of being workshy. Low Intelligence Racism can be either accidental or deliberate. Various things can cause it including personality defects, mental illness, traumatic experiences, poor upbringing and ideology. What academia will never tell you however is that one of the largest factors correlating with racism is low intelligence. When it comes to not being racist, the more intelligent a person is the less able they are to do it. I run the risk of being misleading here. It's not at all guaranteed that someone with lower intelligence will be racist but there is a major causal relationship. To be somewhat more specific, a high rate of cognitive errors in various domains coupled with things like overconfidence or poor adaptation to someone's own cognitive limits are heavily involved in racism. Someone who is less intelligent will not only more often believe they are not being racist when they are but they will also more often believe others are being racist when they're not. This can be confounded with lowest common denominator consumer culture that attempts to reach and be compatible with everyone thus leading to a society operating at an artificially induced minimal cognitive state. To exemplify this I will simulate political discourse. This will be between two MPs. MP A is a white political cultist pretending to be black having suffered life changing cranial injuries after having been severely educated. MP B is a normal person. ● MP A: Black people are more adversely affected by late running trains! ● MP B: Why does that matter? ● MP A: Because it's racist! ● MP B: Why is that racist? ● MP A: Because Sir Important Sounding Name (might as well just have said God) said so when aggregate statistical differences between black and white people favour white people! ● MP B: So what you mean is that you don't know and to ask Sir Important Sounding Name? ● MP B: Unfortunately he's not here. I doubt we can get a hold of him. ● MP A: As a person of blackness I also have personal experience of this hardship. ● MP B: The other day you told us you've never had to go on a train in your entire life! ● MP B: Even if you were more adversely affected, whether black or white it's irrelevant, you would be adversely affected, it's bad either way so what difference does it make? ● MP A: This scientific study proves that I'm far worse off and have suffered because of it! ● MP B: That's not a scientific study, that's a brochure from a charity and probably just a questionnaire sent to their mailing list. ● MP B: How do you even know the data is accurate and the experiment done properly? ● MP B: How did they collect their data? Is it self reported? ● MP B: Did they measure all possible adverse effects? ● MP B: Is it quantitative or qualitative? ● MP B: Does it refer simply to experiencing the late arrival of trains more or worse consequences? ● MP B: Does it break down the data in to things such as which train stops? ● MP B: Is there a train station that's particularly bad in a predominantly black array accounting for most of the difference? ● MP B: How does the difference even matter if we simply focus on the problem itself? ● MP B: If we do that and black people happen to benefit proportionately more then what's the problem in that? ● MP B: Are you saying that we should exclude white people from consideration of this problem? ● MP B: Are you saying that if the person is white and there's a problem then it doesn't count? ● MP A: Questioning racism is racist! MB B can expect to be heckled, harassed and bullied out for racism being made to have to apologize and resign. In this case MP A now has a shot at the prime minister's seat as they are fawned over by the media for having been the victim of racism in Parliament. It should be obvious for anyone with a grain of sense to see where this went wrong. Bring up the problem of trains being late and most people will either jump straight on board with that or lend an ear. Add an additional unnecessary element of a race in such as way as to give it exclusive priority (while claiming that somehow exclusivity is inclusivity) and you've introduced the problem along with an impasse. This is almost like deliberate sabotage. There's an element of cowardice in this. If I felt the need to specifically bring up that more black people proportionately were struggling then I'd just bring that up as it's own issue. This is a kind of emotional blackmail consisting of "support this bill or you're a racist". Tying things together seems to be one of the many different kinds of real white fragility we see especially on the left when it comes to approaching anything that might concern race. It gets so tiresome particularly in that they do it to everything. The way I see it is that when anything comes up and they want to turn it into a conversation about black people, what they really want to do is to talk about black people non-stop every moment of the day for the rest of time. I just don't understand it. It's like they have a constant beat in their head that just goes "black people black people black people black people..." in their head. It's like that's their psychological heartbeat or their brainbeat. Whenever I look at what these white people do I always think that if I were exactly the same as I am apart from being black I would be really creeped out and disturbed. In white politics the tradition is to have two groups of white people debating an issue and then for one side to make it somehow about black people when it's not. Typically, a white person actually takes the place of a black person, in a kind of political theatrics or stealth black face speaking for their black friends as though they're the only person on the planet who knows someone who is black. The insinuation of white politicians pretending to be black while simultaneously being stupid is disturbing. I'm sadly accidentally guilty of the same in this example. though not in a truly harmful way, by making A a white MP pretending to be black directly rather than the phone a black friend methodology more often employed in politics. I don't do that myself so I'm not really good enough to faithfully reproduce it. People of low intelligence tend not to notice something is up when two groups of white people are arguing about something that need not be about race at all and somehow despite no black people being present the argument becomes between black people and white people. People with higher intelligence will tend to more often notice people being racist when they think they're not. None of this would be so much a problem if people didn't have such a severe attitude toward anything that even looks like it might be racist with no relation to reality, actual harm, intent or otherwise. Academia will not tell you that the real white fragility is on the left which at this point is just too emotionally unstable and over sensitive to deal with it. They should be relieved from the burden rather than being pressured into having to be anti-racist. Being human means being disabled and urging people to have to do things that they simply cannot do reliably is a severe form of abuse. A stupid person will be racist because they wont understand how things like averages work and assume they apply to things, including themselves. A woman of low intelligence that is a millionaire through inheritance may think that they have somehow lost out when they hear claims of there being a pay gap between men and women. The difference between people who are outraged by pay gap claims and those that are not is significantly linked to whether they are stupid or smart respectively. Many people are completely unaware of when they're dealing with the unintelligent. There is a large communication gap compounded by it being possible for two people to be talking about completely the same thing in terms of the words they use but behind the meaning of the words may in fact be talking about two different things entirely. This is very common with the meaning of the average. Low intelligent people often operate according to the principle that the average is the rate per person in the group and the same for everyone. Sometimes even when they can explain what the mean is and know what it means they can't use it properly in their reasoning. The way the media talks about different races and identities is as though they are incorporated. That is, as though the individual is the category and the category is the individual. The media talks as if all black people share one bank account and then all white people share the same bank account. They do this with virtually everything including criminal records. It's often not appreciated that people with heavy conditioning see things very differently. On the one hand many people suffer blindness and on the other the human perception system tends to hallucinate seeing what isn't there through misinterpretation. Something that intellectuals fail to realise is that when they make comments such as if some such group such as the Republicans are trying to be racist then they're doing it wrong often makes no sense at all to their intended audience. Such people often see racism where it isn't but to them it's as real as anything else. A couple of decades ago racism was reduced near to its minimal realistically achievable level and no longer a significant or widespread problem. In terms of improving things at that point requires an enormous amount of talent and skill which the general public lacks. This is not just the point of diminishing returns. The point of diminishing returns is sometimes a bit misleading. We don't usually use it to refer to the point where the benefit to cost ratio starts to shrink. Instead we use it to refer to when the benefit no longer warrants the cost. This is often well beyond the true point of diminishing returns. Basically, what we should say is diminished returns. You might then assume there's a point where if we keep spending more and get nothing or next to nothing out of it. Systems are not so simple. Quite often there's always a proportionate output for any input. In these systems where you reach the point of diminished returns but keep spending you start to get negative returns. We can see this in the modern era. The drive to drive down racism is driving up racism. There's an assumption that this will be reverse-racism. Things are more complex still. You can have both reverse and forward racism at the same time. Racism isn't always such that one race gains at the expense of the other. It is however very often such that it does in some way affect both races which do not exist in isolation. Quite often when someone gets something wrong everyone loses. Certain efforts in teaching racism can backfire. When you're telling kids what you think racism is, even if you get it right, well you have to tell them what it is and how to do it. They might not use that in the way that you might intend. Propping up members of a race rather than letting them get there on their own can create dependency and a feedback loop where they have to be propped up more and more. Though not in relation to race, I've made these kinds of mistakes myself in senior and management positions. One of the biggest mistakes I've made is always fixing someone's mistakes rather than leaving it to them. Modern white racism I've seen so many cringe scenes from other white people where I've just thought, has this person even for a moment put themselves in the black person's shoes to consider what they're subjecting them too? Scenes such as a white woman in the queue before a black person and a moment occurring permitting chatter then her suddenly saying things that are racially inspired about how she's against all this anti-immigration and thinks Trump is terrible too. In this case I'm thinking: look if you want to flirt just flirt it's not hard all you have to do if you want to keep it simple is say "Do you want my number?". On the other hand I'm thinking she's acting afraid like the black guy is going to beat her up or something because of all this stuff and she has to vindicate herself. I'm sitting there watching this going down and no matter how hard she tries everything she does makes me think damn that's racist. I can't imagine the black person in the queue would be any different. You sort of get stuck in morbid fascination watching this strange dance where the more they squirm the more they sink into the quicksand. In these situations you ask yourself what am I even seeing? I think the problem with modern racism and what's left over is that it's so disturbing and unpleasant that it's very hard to recreate in such a way as to easily share the experience with others. When people do these things that are so embarrassing to even watch it makes you wish you didn't have any sense of empathy. For the person actually doing it, if they weren't broke to begin with then they are now. Denial of Reality What we're seeing is often called gaslighting. Labelling it doesn't really get the point across. It doesn't share the real experience of living under non-stop denial of reality attacks. There are various patterns in this, the biggest being that people who do this tend to be psychologically abusive. I see people who have the wrong relationship with their politicians, brands, newspapers, etc. They believe their abuser's lies. You can often send someone to the therapist and when asked about what upsets them that's not on the television you get a very strange response. I've observed someone watch the television and then get really upset about something that's irrelevant and never happened to them like a child crying when someone dies in a cartoon. This isn't healthy or natural. I can disconnect from hearing certain bad things like that. It's almost like these magic boxes are a kind of schizophrenia. The voices coming out of the radio and the television are telling people bad things. The problem is this isn't merely a small number of people afflicted by it. The phenomena is so pervasive that even if I cut myself off from things that aren't actually happening to me and that's just noise I'm still surrounded by people who cannot. It's like being an atheist in Saudi Arabia. Even if I ignore the Koran, the fact that everyone else around me takes it seriously fundamentally changes my life for the worst. When I'm hearing someone shout at me in the street that I don't belong in this country (England) because I'm white and that the BBC said we stole the land from black people then you start to get a sense of the very real impact these things start to have on the ground. This not only impacts people around me but also policies which start to impact me. Societal shifts that turn me into a second class citizen in my own country. My purpose in life is now supposed to be to turn Britain into a great place for Muslims to live in. As for the rest of us, our lives don't matter. Narcissism Very few people truly understand pathological narcissism in all of its forms and why it's so destructive. Narcissism is often linked to a hypersocial mentality which can allow it to perform very well competitively for an individual in a social scene but at the ultimate expense of everyone else. There are a few kinds of very destructive narcissism which can converge to create a hostile and toxic social environment. Both can be extremely dangerous on their own. Combined they are catastrophic. Stealth Narcissism When narcissism is difficult to detect or fully perceive this hides the danger until it finally presents in the form of a catastrophe allowed to fully play out. This kind of narcissism can be invisible in plain sight. It can be highly appealing allowing the narcissist to climb the social ladder when people on the whole fail to look beyond the surface. We're familiar with narcissists obsessed with their physical appearance. In reality you have many other kinds of narcissists. Rather than being good looking it's about looking good or coming across as a good person. Their narcissism might revolve around something such as being kind. Throughout history moral narcissism has turned good causes into a mockery. In examining ideological tyranny including religious dogma there's a recurring theme of moral supremacy. The person is trying to look good in terms of things such as their actions and what people think they have done. That is, to maintain the appearance of having done good deeds. It's very easy for people to fall for this kind of narcissism without seeing it for what it really is. Many people think of narcissists as wanting to look good but it's also about not being able to tolerate looking bad. They may also have an incorrect perception of what looks good to others or may impose their perception on others failing to appreciate that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We often forget that it's not always about looking good for its own sake. Narcissists are usually hypersocial and it's about being liked. It's about popularity and social status. Blind/Internalised Narcissism In this kind of narcissism the person is blind to their own faults. They lack a certain self awareness. They have either an absence of self judgement or one that is excessively biased toward themselves. Specifically negative self judgement. This kind of narcissist is unable to see their own flaws in the mirror or has a completely distorted perspective on their own flaws. This is the kind of narcissist that can never admit to doing any wrong. This kind of narcissism isn't immediately obvious. It's not purely someone's physical appearance but applies internally. Either they cannot accept responsibility, always blaming others, or cannot even see when their thinking is wrong because they think so much of themselves they're self blind to the potential for any kind of error. This kind of narcissist lacks internal self regulation. This effect is often self reinforcing. They make so many errors as a result without being able to prevent themselves from doing so or quickly correct themselves afterward that they very quickly reach the point where they've created more of what it is they couldn't handle seeing in the first place, their own mistakes. These kinds of narcissists often also can't control their feelings. Their lack of internal control tends to end up with them trying to control things externally instead of regulating their feelings. Collective/Externalised Narcissism There is a broad category of narcissist who for a range of reasons will inflict their narcissism on others. The obvious example is those who try to make themselves look good by making others look bad. There are also collective narcissists who will say rather than "I need to look good." instead "We need to look good." recruiting everyone else into their cause. There are also identitarian narcissists. In their mind anything that makes their group look bad also makes them look bad. For a white person, to be seen as being racist is particularly bad for their image in our society. There is a far stronger stigma for being seen as being racist if white. It doesn't matter if the white person is actually racist. If a narcissist is white and they have a collective identity where they tar each category with the same brush then they will seek out to try to not look bad by trying to make white people not look racist. To them a category such as a race is incorporated making a corpus or body. They treat it as a single person. Such a narcissist may also have a condition similar to OCD or anorexia where it's simply never enough. They may have a body image disorder that they map onto the greater bodies they perceive themselves to be a part of.
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-