Change is occurring all over the place and your ideology and belief system is no exception. In the last two or three years there has been a widespread acceptance of a number of ideas that many of us normal people never thought even a raving lunatic would ever admit to having merely crossed their mind.
Many of us have been overwhelmed at the speed with which certain rational principles have not only been brushed aside but now suddenly become utterly immoral. Some have been caught off guard having said something that in their ignorance of the new belief system they thought was completely innocuous, but was in fact an inexcusably offensive remark that only someone with the moral compass of Adolf Hitler or worse, Donald Trump, would say, and utterly shocked at the rapid and brutal response that may have cost you your livelihood and brought you the scorn and contempt of all decent members of humanity and left you largely abandoned by family and friends.
Did you hold the door open for a women again?
What was morally virtuous in the past, may now be unspeakably vile today. Progressivism never stops just because your common sense tells you it’s completely stupid.
I thought therefore, to help out those who so need, by bringing together a (by no means exhaustive) list off all the official, authorised and approved beliefs and attitudes that comprise the ideology you’re supposed to have. Granted, it’s no magnificent feat of morality like coming out as gay or transgender to a society that holds those who do as so heroic as to be considered displaying the height of courage, but after years of trying unsuccessfully to be alternatively gay and transgender, I’ve had to settle for this meagre and insignificant act of virtue.
So welcome to your new ideology. Please strap yourselves in and prepare for turbulence. Congratulations on accepting these truly moral beliefs unthinkingly and uncritically. If you have any questions please ignore them. If you meet anyone who does not share this ideological system, all you need to do is shout repeatedly at them anything that will remind them of the low moral stature they possess, due to their non acceptance of what are obviously the correct moral beliefs.
Here then, are some of the correct beliefs and the essential things you need to know about them.
White Privilege, Institutional Racism and Unconscious Bias
White privilege is when white people benefit from the mere fact of their whiteness. Only the most cursory look at all the studies will show you how minorities are worse off by almost any standards. They are poorer, less educated and have lower paying jobs. They are more likely to be stopped by the police and end up in prison.
And it’s because they are not white.
After all, how was the West built. Let me remind you. It was on the backs of slaves and minorities or via colonisation. The common denominator being that white man may have built the West, but he did so by stealing the wealth and resources of other people.
It is true that the colonised and minorities had little in the first place, so there was not much to steal, and that white man must have achieved something by himself in order to march across Europe and steal said resources in the first place. White people turned their counties into democracies and brought about the Industrial Revolution, which together might well be responsible for the higher standard of living and prosperity we all enjoy relative to our ancestors or those without one of the two above. But keep in mind, they did steal stuff, and that’s all that matters. Just because what they stole was only a minor contributing factor to the success of the West doesn’t mean we can’t argue that since something was not morally upright about what white man did to achieve his success therefore everything about it is entirely evil.
Also, you could argue that the colonised countries weren’t exactly full of morally upright individuals who wouldn’t have dreamed of attacking their neighbours and taking whatever they could, or that if some blacks were sold into slavery by other black people then they too come from a culture that’s not quite perfect. It may well be true that in the past everyone was just as bad as everyone else and the only difference between white man and everyone else was that he won. But let’s not focus on the negative of us being sore losers and jealous of what other people have, but on the positive of guilting white people into giving us a free ride through life.
So stealing from minorities is why white people have a better financial situation than blacks and other minorities.
Then came the it’s-all-changed brigade.
They claim that nowadays there’s little racism. Certainly there’s not enough to get in the way of the equal opportunity that exists for blacks and other minorities to achieve the same financial situation as white people. They claim it is the bad decisions of black people and the wallowing in victimhood that is encouraged by many leaders of the black community, which is the cause of the worse circumstances of black people. People point to the fact that black people are not finishing high school or that there are huge numbers of single parent mothers, as the cause.
Now it’s true that there are no racist laws like there used to be. It’s true that there are far fewer instances of people saying overtly racist things to black people. It’s true that racism will earn you social excommunication, and the media would pounce on any and all examples and condemn it and attempt to destroy the perpetrator’s life. However, if we start with the unshakable premise that there must be racism, and the undeniable fact that there are no racist laws and far less racist behaviours than in the past, then there is only one conclusion a rational person could possibly arrive at. Namely, that the racism is so deep that you can’t see it. It’s deep inside institutions and deep inside the unconscious of white man. It’s so deep that you’re utterly unaware of it. It’s so deep you feel like you’re not a racist.
But you are.
Therefore, it’s the institutional racism and unconscious bias of white people that is holding black people back. Not any bad decisions.
The reason it seems that black people make bad decisions is because of the still unshakeable principle that racism exists and always will exist. Since a good decision by a black person will not help, as the unconscious racism of the white man will always get in the way of a black man’s success, there is simply no point in a black person even trying, until all white men know their place, back off, cower in a corner and let minorities do whatever they want.
Now you may wonder, if there is unconscious bias, which means a lack of awareness of your own racism, perhaps black people are racist towards white people? Wouldn’t that make an inroad into our moral superiority and the whole basis of this particular belief system? Fortunately there is a solution to this problem but it does mean changing the definition of racism. In the past racism used to mean prejudice or discrimination against someone based on their race, but recently a caveat has been added. If you’re discriminating against a people who feel so guilty about their past racism that they will let you walk all over them for the rest of their existence, then any racism against them is perfectly ok.
Now, it’s important to understand, that white privilege does not only refer to the better financial circumstances that white people are fortunate to inherit from their hard working parents, but also to the fact that society is subtly geared towards white people, just because they happen to be a majority in their own country.
Films are more likely to have a white person playing the leading role. Adverts are more likely to be geared towards engaging white people. Plasters are made so that they blend in to a white person’s skin but will stand out like a black eye on a white person, on a black person’s skin. Try to understand how disenfranchised a black person must feel about these types of things.
Do you have any idea what it’s like for someone to be the only black person in the room? And as black people are a minority in the West that’s a highly likely occurrence! Any feelings of self-consciousness are merely an indication of the unconscious bias against them that they are able to sense.
White people are able to feel affirmed by being around other white people, and as whiteness is seen as the norm, white people feel a level of comfort in their lives, that black people simply can’t. And no, this affirmation can’t be done by ideology. A black person believing in freedom and equality and not murdering and stealing, living among white people who all see these beliefs as the norm, is not enough. It can only be done via people with the same skin colour.
The only solution to this is for a white person to check their privilege. This means admitting that they have unearned advantages over others – even though the goal of every parent is to create a state of unearned advantage for their children, and deferring to minorities in every possible way whenever they can. It also means that the descendents of a culture that at one time were oppressors, even if their specific ancestor was not, should completely defer to the descendant of a known victim regardless of the fact that the wider culture they came from even if not as bad as the oppressing culture, came in a close second.
Coincidentally, not only are all our institutions inherently racist they are also patriarchal. Meaning that not only is society geared towards benefitting white people over black people, it is also geared towards benefiting men over women.
And just like white men oppressed black people and other minorities, white men also oppressed white women.
Again, let’s look at the past.
Many years ago, when there was no technology and no machines to do everything for us, the work was divided in such a way that those who were physically stronger would do the work that required more physical labour. It is true that in those days, men were stronger than women. Men built the houses and women cleaned them. Men hunted and gathered the food and women cooked whatever they brought back. Men went to war to defend their homes and families and women … stayed at home … to look after the children who would have otherwise gotten in the way.
Even if a woman was able to do certain physical jobs or found a job that did not require physical labour, being a woman was still a disadvantage. After all she was likely to get pregnant. Going through childbirth meant she might die and at the very least need a lot of time off work. She would then be the one lumbered with looking after the children because of her more nurturing disposition and the fact that you sent the stronger of the two out to make the money.
The fact that men were not stuck at home bearing and looking after the children but rather out having fun at work down the mines, naturally lead to men being in charge of … well everything. And if men had all the power and women did not, that means women were oppressed by men.
And just because it wasn’t so easy to have an equal distribution of power in the pre technological era, doesn’t mean we can’t condemn the men of that time and circumstances for it from our point of view where we’re lucky enough that technology has levelled the playing field enough that such a distribution of power is more natural.
So men doing all of the important jobs naturally gave them all the power and is how the Patriarchy came to be.
And as with White Privilege, here too we have the it’s-all-changed brigade.
Here too they claim that nowadays there’s not much sexism and that whatever sexism there is, is not enough to get in the way of the equal opportunity that exists for women to achieve the same as men. Here too they claim that it is the different life decisions women make that mean they end up in lower paying jobs.
But while sexism seems to have decreased, the truth is that it has not. For just like with racism, the existence of sexism is also an unshakeable premise, hardwired deep within men. They may think that they think women are equal, but they could not be more wrong.
And if we start with the unshakable premise that men are sexist, then there is only one conclusion a rational person could possibly arrive at as to why women choose to work at lower paying jobs. Namely, that even if it was their decision, the reason why they decided this was due to society subtly influencing women via the culture, media and the like, to be a particular kind of person. And who is in charge of society? Men! Men are still oppressing women, just more subtly than in the past, which is why women are expected to be more nurturing and emotional, and why women are expected to behave in a feminine way and prefer people over things. Women have been shaped by society – in other words men, to have the sort of temperament that leads them straight into a secondary role.
Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that White Privilege and The Patriarchy are based on two unshakable principles about racism and sexism that we’ve only assumed to be true but not actually proven. Surely, that’s not a strong basis for upholding these beliefs?
And that’s true, but since not assuming the accuracy of these two unshakeable principles would leave us having to concede that black people make bad decisions and women make different choices than men simply because they are different from men, and that would leave us with little to do for the black community apart from encouraging black people to take responsibility for their lives and nothing to do for women, and consequently we would be unable to feel morally superior about anything and have to close down all our activist groups and put a lot of people out of work, and leave true activists of the past with nothing to do with their time, it is unquestionably better that we do assume these two unshakeable principles, so that we can prove white men are racists and sexists, and therefore be able to start an ideological battle, so that those of us who have the privilege of living in a time and place of relative comfort and ease, can soothe our conscience about the fact that we have more than those in the third world and feel as if we have contributed to the progress of humanity like our ancestors did, and achieve some major moral victory.
Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome
Equality of Opportunity is when everyone has a more or less equal opportunity to try and make the best life for themselves. Equality of Outcome is when mummy and daddy … I mean the government, ensures we all have the same amount of toys and treats … I mean ensures we all have the same amount of money.
Now it is true that Equality of Opportunity was once very useful indeed. Historically speaking there was inequality of opportunity, where the upper classes of society and the aristocracy had all the power and money on the backs of the majority of people who were mere serfs and had almost nothing and little opportunity to change their circumstances. Democracy and freedom revolutionised society and gave everyone the same chance to succeed at whatever they wanted.
That was a great first step, don’t get me wrong, but this does not work for minorities and women as the inherent racism and sexism of white men means that we have not yet achieved Equality of Opportunity.
Therefore, it is imperative that we have Equality of Outcome. After all, it was not these people’s bad decisions that caused them to end up with so little. As has already been made clear, the fault actually lies with white man, so we have to make it up to the minorities. After all, the fact that at some stage we bombed them or colonized them or did something unpleasant to them and stole all their non-existent resources that then made us wealthy enough to be able to conquer them in the first place, despite that being a minor blip in their long and bloody history of being mercilessly barbaric to each other anyway, does make us completely responsible for their welfare from now until the end of time.
Another problem is that under Equality of Opportunity, for the most part, only the responsible and hard working people will be financially secure and achieve success. This is a system that benefits those with skills, talents and abilities. There is appallingly, little provision for all those who are not responsible and hard working or for those with little or no talents or capabilities. The inherent evil of the system of Equality of Opportunity is that it guarantees that all the useless members of our society and the professional moaners and groaners will, in all likelihood, end up with nothing or very little. How can that possibly be a moral or ethical system?
Now I know that some argue that Equality of Outcome only encourages further irresponsibility and laziness, as people won’t make any attempts to succeed on their own if they know that government will look after them, but this is wrong. As has already been mentioned minorities have little incentive for hard work in the first place, not because their present irresponsibility and laziness masks a lack of capability which would be made starkly clear once they fail at the simplest of jobs, but because of the obstacle of white man who is still getting in the way. Besides, we must all face feelings. How can you expect anyone to put in a hard day’s work while they are jealous of other people having more than they do?! That’s too much to ask of anyone.
As for Equality of Outcome discouraging the responsible and hard working, as many economists suggest it would, all I can say is, if only. A drop in the financial status of such people would close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is far easier to close this gap by discouraging the responsible and talented than by getting lazy people off their collective behinds or helping the useless people to achieve something. It is critical to understand that more important than raising the standard of living for as many people as possible, is ensuring a lack of jealousy by reducing the amount of income inequality. Everyone earning $10,000 a year is much better than some earning $60,000 a year while others earn $60 million a year!
It may discourage big business, but that’s ok. They’re all evil anyway. They just want to increase their own profits which in turn will increase the amount of income inequality and as has just been explained, that is a terrible thing.
And yes, this move towards Socialism and away from Capitalism may ruin our economy and lower our standard of living, but we’ll have our higher standard of moral virtue. Who needs money to go out and enjoy life, when you can sit in your one room apartment and bask in the glow of your moral superiority.
By the way, this move towards Socialism is only to be implemented within the various countries of the West. If it was implemented on a world-wide basis then there is a danger that those who would be on the receiving end if it were only implemented in the West, would now be on the giving end, and that would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise.
Another advantage with moving to a system of Equality of Outcome is that one can redress any other imbalances as well. For example, men dominate the workforce and make up the vast majority of CEOs and the wealthiest of people. Again, this is not the fault of women – the real culprit has been mentioned many times already. But the point is that Equality of Outcome could ensure we have equal numbers of men and women across all fields and at all levels. Surely we all agree that superficially this would be a wonderful thing.
Some people ask, that surely Equality Of Outcome is at the expense of Equality of Opportunity and freedom. To ensure that a given field which traditionally has more men than women is now equal, you will have to force some men out and some women in? That is true, but I ask you, since you can only have one or the other, and as Equality of Opportunity leaves so many lazy and talentless people with nothing, isn’t it the more moral choice to ensure there is Equality of Outcome? Even if we have to institute laws that allow the government to stop too many men from becoming engineers and force them to become nurses and prevent too many women from becoming nurses and force them to become engineers, that inroad into our freedoms is appropriate as the goal is worthwhile. Once equality has been achieved we will be able to start trying to dismantle the tyranny we will have created to bring it about.
Others ask that while it indeed would be great to have equal numbers of men and women in every field, if men are better at some things and women are better at others, if men want one thing and women want another, wouldn’t it be better to leave it at that, working with some kind of meritocracy, rather than force both fields to have equal numbers of men and women and opening everyone up to all sorts of incompetence? The answer is that equality is our goal. That’s what makes us stand out. That’s what makes us morally superior. It is much better to live with equality in a broken and incompetent society than with any kind of inequality in a competent society. Additionally, there is no such thing as men being better than women at some things and no such thing as women being better than … sorry I seem to have lost my train of thought. As for men and women wanting different things, that, as has already been mentioned, is a matter of social engineering which Equality Of Outcome will cure.
Equality of Outcome is a much nicer system than Equality of Opportunity. Which system allows you to feel good about yourself? The one where you just let everybody loose to try and do their best with their lives and see what happens, or the one where you actively ensure that everybody goes home at the end of the day with something? Which system gives you more power … I means allows you to participate more? The one where you let everybody get on with it and only intervene when one person is wrongfully getting in another person’s way, or the one which lets you play Robin Hood and take money from someone who might be connected to someone else who once did something wrong, and give it to another person who is related to yet another person who once had money stolen from them? I know which one I would choose.
Diversity and Multiculturalism
Now there are two types of diversity. Good diversity and bad diversity. Diversity of thought and racial diversity.
It used to be that diversity of thought was considered a good thing. Everyone could have their own opinions and beliefs about something. They could be debated in public and the listeners would decide for themselves which side made more sense. But let’s face it, that has been a failed experiment. Not everyone made the right decisions! All diversity of thought showed us was that many people cannot be trusted to arrive at the correct conclusions by themselves.
Additionally, it used to be that it wasn’t so bad if you had the wrong opinion. One could still work and hang out with people that had a different opinion, because having the wrong opinion simply meant they had different beliefs. Nowadays it has become clear – after having been told so, that having the wrong opinions proves you’re completely evil, and, even if they are your best friend or members of your close family, must be expunged from society. Yes, lots of work to do! Can’t help that we love it!
That’s why the system had to change. Now we ensure that people always get it right and don’t have any wrong and evil opinions, by telling them what to think. No more diversity of thought. Only one opinion about a given subject is allowed and you will be told it by the appropriate authority.
If you’re one of those who still like thinking for themselves, that’s totally fine too. As long as you arrive at the permitted conclusion. If you don’t, there’s still no problem. You will be outcast socially and condemned as a moral pariah until you come around to the correct opinion.
Nowadays the only good diversity is racial diversity.
It’s always important to make sure that in every institution or organisation, from government, to T.V shows, to your group of friends that you have included as many different minorities as possible. It doesn’t matter if they are over represented relative to their numbers in society, or if they do not deserve to be there at all due to lack of merit or capability or even if they happen to be a genuinely unpleasant person to be around. We must remember the reason they are not well represented in society is not because they are a minority or because they have been kept down by an erroneous victim mentality, but because we discriminate against them. We need to make up for that, not by creating equality for everyone, but by letting them discriminate against us for the same amount of time that we discriminated against them. Isn’t that equality?
It is also vital to understand that all cultures are equal to our own. Yes, it may be that people come from a culture where violent crime and rape is more frequent and not seen as the appalling crime it is in our culture. Yes, they may come from a religion that believes women are second class citizens and non-believers are worse than monkeys and can be treated in any way you like. But that’s all irrelevant. The doctrine of equality says that whatever our differences, we are all unthinkingly equal in every way. Therefore they should be allowed to come into our countries because even though mixing a culture that believes in freedom with a culture that doesn’t will obviously lead to war, they are still equal to us. Besides, it wouldn’t be nice to the small innocent children they are raising to hate us.
Don’t think for a moment that they should try and make their own countries into more pleasant places to live. That they overthrow their oppressors, create a fair and equal society, educate as many as possible and raise the standard of living. No! That is a hugely difficult and dangerous task and one that most of these people are simply not up to. After all, when they come to our countries many can’t get the easiest of jobs. These are people who need to spend their lives living off the welfare state, so of course they’re not able to reform their home countries! Come on, isn’t that obvious!
Finally on this, a word of warning. You mustn’t do or say anything that a violent culture decides insults them. No, not because their violent tendencies may make them riot and loot and show them to be the vile and primitive savages that they are. That’s not the reason. Anymore. I mean how else do you expect a culture that has been so unaccepted in Western society just because it believes in the violent suppression of all other cultures, to react to such criticism! No, the reason you must not do this is because it’s far easier to get good people to not point out glaring existential problems in a manner that is known to be effective, than to get a large religious group that is entrenched in your country who start violent riots whenever it thinks someone might have criticised it, to refrain from doing so.
Use your head.
Instead we must respect people of all faiths, even if they believe in a vicious and cruel god, who will eternally torture anyone who doesn’t believe something that looks totally dodgy, demands you do strange and peculiar rituals, and wear ridiculous clothes, in order to get into a heaven where you get to do what you really wanted to do on Earth all along.
And no, they don’t have to respect us. Their god said so.
Microaggressions and Hate Speech
From Wikipedia: A microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group.
For example the fact that my computer has underlined the word microaggression in red, is a microaggression towards me, implying that I am from a group of people who do not know how to spell. And I have to take this from a computer programme. Although the truth is this actually proves the programmer remiss in not updating the programme with all the new philosophies.
Damn Word 2007.
I joke of course. A real example might be if someone says “Where are you from?” where the prejudicial insult is “You’re a foreigner.”
Now I know what you’re thinking – which is ironic given the point I’m about to make. How do you know what the microaggressor meant? We don’t actually know what’s going on in other people’s heads, so how can you say that he (white only) meant to highlight the fact the person was an immigrant and was different from everyone else, presumably in a bad way, and not simply genuinely interested in the place they came from?
The answer is simple. As has already been explained, all the problems of minorities are due to our racism and sexism. Where Equality of Opportunity redresses the balance financially, we still have to be concerned about the underlying racism and bigotry. This is not as simple as ensuring there are laws against discrimination of any kind, because of the unshakeable premise that racism and bigotry exist deep in our psyche, hardwired into our brain, and is unconsciously manifest in behavior as microaggressions.
So even if you think you’re actually interested in where they come from, you’re not. You’re a racist.
And even if there is some tiny possibility that the person is not a racist even deep down and was actually making an innocent comment, it is obvious that we don’t need to worry about such an outlandishly, unlikely possibility. Additionally, we can’t take the risk of looking like we are not doing all we can to eradicate racism. As our entire ideological system is built on assuming racism and sexism, any indication to the contrary by not immediately clamping down on the teeniest whiff of said racism and sexism, may cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down. So our default position is to err on the side of caution and if it is at all possible to interpret an innocent statement in a negative and derogatory way, then we have to assume that was its intention, even if the one true non-racist white man is wrongly lynched in the process.
Now I know that insults are subjective, so how are you to know if something is a microaggression. That’s a point people use to try and show this whole idea to be nonsense. But they are missing the whole point. As the goal is to eradicate racism and bigotry it is unquestionably better that people walk around wondering whether something they say may be considered mildly bigoted and then not say it just in case. If avoiding bigotry is always on the mind, we will soon obliterate it. The bigotry obviously, not the mind. For obvious reasons.
There is a concern amongst white men that this will lead to some minorities pretending to be outraged over nothing simply to have power over them. But this of course is false. Just because a white man feels it’s nothing, doesn’t mean that it is so. In fact, the outrage of the minority proves the racism or bigotry of the white man in the first place. And even if the minority is pretending to be outraged over nothing, we still have to condemn the white man due to the principle mentioned above of ensuring that we look like we are doing all we can to eliminate racism and bigotry.
It is true that the PC method hasn’t worked so far. Our society has spent decades ramming this very thing down everyone’s throat. Political correctness was foisted on everyone in order to effect changes in attitudes and eradicate racism, but somehow, we are more racist and bigoted than ever before – not because minorities are more demanding than ever before, but because we have finally become aware that racism is far deeper than we initially thought. So our original approach to eradicating racism and bigotry via policing language was correct, just not extreme enough. In practical terms this means we have to be even more aggressive in our attacks against even the minutest amount of racism – ie. microaggressions. If there is even the slightest possibility that a member of a minority group thinks that you may have thought about saying something that sounds even remotely similar to a racist comment, then we must all fight to condemn the statement, the person who said it, his friends and family and show all those minorities how much we despise even the merest hint of a whiff of racism.
Hate speech is the big brother of microaggressions. This is where the deep seated racism and bigotry comes out in an overt and obvious way. Of course all the criticisms of microaggressions are levelled at hate speech as well but can be debunked in the same way.
There is an additional criticism of hate speech over microaggressions though, due to the fact that far more has been done to clamp down on it. For example, the London Metropolitan Police has an entire unit dedicated to dealing with hate speech both online and in actual life. The criticism is that the police should not be dealing with hate speech when knife crime and acid attacks are on the rise. But that’s utterly absurd. Since there are far more hate speech crimes than violent crimes, it stands to reason that more time and money be spent on that.
Back to microaggressions; we don’t have to stand for them either. Some have decided to define microaggressions as a form of violence that should be dealt with accordingly. Yes. 2018. If we can put a man on the moon then we can show how speech that super sensitive people find offensive is actually violence. To be honest, I’m a little unclear on exactly how the logic for that goes, but hey, if it means I can punch you in the face for being rude to me, its fine by me.
Personally I would have argued that microaggressions are not a form of violence but rather a minor expression of racism, which has to be eradicated in the usual way. This would not allow for violence but at least it would make sense. In any case this is not official policy and must therefore be ignored – which is official policy.
Cisgender and Gender Fluid
Cisgender is when you’re lucky enough that your sense of personal identity corresponds with your actual biological sex.
Gender fluid is when your sense of personal identity is not fixed and in line with your biological sex.
Now the first question you newcomers to this ideology are obviously asking is what the hell is personal identity and what on earth does that have to do with sex or gender which used to be the same as sex.
Well yes, but you see as already mentioned, progressivism never stops just because your common sense tells you it’s completely stupid.
This is the perfectly natural consequence of your new ideology. Here are the steps in the progression. We start with the fact that the problems of minorities are the fault of white man. This, as a second step, demands from us, almost as penance, that we do anything necessary to redress the imbalance we caused. Since this means trampling over an amount of logic, we have to promote, in step three, subjective feelings over objective evidence, for example assuming an innocuous comment is latent racism because a black person feels bad when you say it. Finally, in step four, the doctrine of equality returns once again to ensure that all subjectivity is at least equal to, if not more important than facts.
Of course you can’t just destroy any old objectively correct thing with subjectivity. You can’t look at the sun and call it the moon just because you feel like it. However all those concepts with a subjective aspect are now under scrutiny.
In this case the concept of male and female. Yes there is an objective aspect that can’t be disputed. Biological sex. You are physically a man or physically a woman. However, men and women are also different psychologically, emotionally and behaviourally, but these differences are not binary, rather, they have infinite variations along a spectrum. Everyone will have different amounts of each aspect and no two people will be exactly the same. This area is not specific and precise in the way biological sex is, and therefore open to subjectivity.
And so we end up with personal identity. One person’s experience of being a man or woman will be completely different to another’s, and therefore you can express your gender identity in any way you wish.
Now the question is who cares? Just like everyone has a unique life experience that makes up their entire personal identity and we don’t put a label on that, or start an ideology around that idea, why would we care how people identify when it comes to gender? Granted we are asked more times whether we are male or female than about our overall personal identity, but that is only so that information can be gathered to contribute to our overall scientific knowledge about biological differences.
Well, if you’ve read up until this point in this excruciatingly long article, then you should know the approximate direction the answer to this will take. It is based on our desire to eradicate any sort of bigotry.
You see there is now a fifth step. Once we have promoted subjective feelings of gender in step four, step five says that we must now modify in light of that, our unshakable principle that men are sexist towards women, which is only accurate in a two gender system. Now that we see there are far more than two genders, the modified unshakable principle is that men are sexist towards anyone who is not a man. It’s not that they are specifically sexist against women, but against any type of non man. This means we have actually discovered that men are far more inherently sexist than we initially thought. And this of course must be dealt with.
Some argue that gender fluidity is merely a white person’s escape route into victimhood. They say this would benefit them in two ways. Firstly, because this ideology does more to help past victims and make life difficult for all those who are still trying to oppress them, creating a pseudo victim group would put them at an instant advantage. Secondly, this ideology takes victims and puts them on a pedestal. After all once history has shown us who the bigots were and were not, we can take all the victims and show them off as the virtuous non-bigoted individuals they are. And who wouldn’t want that!
But this is silly in the extreme. This idea, not the entire ideology. Do you really think that people would go through all sorts of difficulties and obstacles, like cutting off their genitalia, taking hormone blockers, dressing weirdly, dying their hair and making youtube videos about how different and victimized they are, just so that they can have some minor debatable benefit? Surely if they were that motivated, they would have just gotten on with their lives in the first place.
Islam Is A Religion Of Peace
This one is easy.
Firstly in order to truly understand the religion one has to know Arabic well and have studied the Koran and the Hadith for at least forty years. If you haven’t then you can’t say Islam is a religion of violence because how would you know.
And even though many Muslims don’t actually speak Arabic and most haven’t studied the Koran and the Hadith for forty years, they are despite that, able to assert Islam is a religion of peace. After all, it’s simply implausible that they don’t know their own religion.
They must do. They’re Muslims.
That rule about being unable to understand Islam unless you can speak Arabic and have studied it for forty years only applies to non-Muslims. Like the jizya tax and all the dhimmi laws.
As for non-Muslims who maintain Islam is a religion of peace without falling foul of the above rules, well there is another exception. Namely, that you can know if Islam is a religion of peace without knowing much about it. You only need the language and years of study if you want to prove something we don’t like.
That doesn’t make any sense, I hear you say. But you’ve forgotten we’re dealing with religion. It doesn’t have to make sense. In fact, the less sense it makes, the better.
That’s why it’s perfectly in order for Western governments to declare unequivocally that Islam is a religion of peace. Because it is making the correct choice.
Secondly, if Islam is a violent religion why aren’t all 1.5 billion of them trying to blow themselves up?
I mean obviously the women aren’t allowed to without a man’s permission, so their non blowing themselves up proves nothing, but that still leaves 750 million male Muslims who’s non blowing themselves up proves that their religion doesn’t want them to do that. Not that they’re cherry picking the rules by not blowing themselves up yet still hating the infidel. They’re religious people. You can trust them not to do that.
And obviously the non-violence of children wouldn’t prove anything either. No one expects children to blow themselves up. For goodness sake, those children wouldn’t even know how. They haven’t finished their training camps yet!
No, it’s obvious, because that’s what we’ve been told, that Islam is a religion of peace. Yes, there are an unknown number of radical Muslims and there is Islamic extremism, but they don’t properly represent the religion. You see, there are so many schools of thought in Islam that it’s hard to know how many schools of thought there are in Islam. Obviously only those ones that fit in nicely with Western ideology and its teachings of democracy, freedom and generally being nice to one another, will be the real Islam. All the others are not real Islam.
And even if you find yourself on the receiving end of Islamic violence, try to remember, whilst your life flashes before your eyes, that even though he is screaming allahu akbar, he is not killing you because the Koran told him to.
Unless you’re an infidel or Jew in which case the Koran did tell him to kill you.
But even though the Koran told him to kill you, and his screaming allahu akbar as he’s doing so is a huge clue as to his motivations, know that he’s not killing you because the Koran told him to do so, but for a completely different reason.
Socio-economic. Geo-political. Israel. You asked him whether it was really god who hates the infidel or just Muslims really pushing their own team. Either way there is no causal link between the Koran and Islamic violence. After all, why would you kill someone? Because of divinely inspired instruction or because someone has stolen your money?
And if people point to all the Islamic violence across the world to prove it‘s a religion of violence, all I can say is to remind them who the real culprit is. If Muslims are angry and violent, it must be because of what white man has done to them. We have seen clearly that white man is deeply and fundamentally riddled with bigotry, so it’s not surprising we have found one more victim.
Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces
Trigger warnings are statements that alert the reader or viewer that they are about to see or hear something they may not like.
Safe Spaces are places that individuals can go to be free from conflict, criticism and the like.
Yes, it does seem a little childish, but a little thought will show you how these two concepts are actually sensible, reasonable and even necessary.
It all starts with your new ideology, whose objective is as already stated, to eradicate all forms of inequality wherever it finds it and has to resort to ignoring one or two inconvenient facts, and promoting subjective feelings over objective truth, to achieve this noble and moral goal.
It is only natural therefore, that after so much importance, weight and significance has been placed on a person’s subjective feelings, and after years of being told how it was only their opinion that mattered and not hearing anything to the contrary, any sudden exposure to new ideas that contradict their subjective beliefs, could cause such tremendous devastation and trauma that they would have to lie down for the rest of the day.
To solve this problem, it is advised to warn people of what may be coming and if necessary allow them to escape to a safe space, if they choose to remain unaware of anything that might show the empty nature of their personal beliefs. Because it is completely unfair to ask people to accept an ideology that for whatever noble and moral reason has decided to work with subjective feelings and to ignore objective facts, and to then leave them at the mercy of those who may present said facts to them!
This is the reason why we have to just accept the various beliefs that make up your new ideology unthinkingly in the first place. Since its major weakness is objective truth and critical analysis, it is imperative that we stay as far away from those two things as possible. Trigger warnings and safe spaces are two of our most essential tools that we can use to ensure that we keep at bay all inconvenient facts and ideas.
This is also the reason why there is no point in debating with anyone who disagrees on the basis of objectivity or facts. The whole point is to abandon truth in favour of a greater morality. Like religion, just without god. The only response to someone who disagrees is berating them loudly for their low moral standard and to show them our morally superior behaviour that demands we regularly descend into animal-like behaviour in order to maintain that higher standard of morality. That way their desire to be morally superior to other people will blind them to any inconvenient facts and they will readily accept your new ideology as their own.
Therefore if we can’t teach in the schools and colleges the logical reasons why our position is correct and all other opinions are wrong, if we’re going to do away with all critical thinking and analysis and replace it with the, just-accept-what-you’re-told-and-shout-it-repeatedly-at-anyone-who-disagrees approach, then we’re going to have to find some tool to arm our students with, should any foreign idea begin to penetrate the defences we have spent years meticulously building up around the thinking-for-yourself part of the brain.
It’s basic fight or flight. And we need both options available. Sometimes the fight doesn’t go according to plan and even though you’re screaming as loudly as you possibly can, you can still hear what the other person is saying. At such times you’ll need to find the closest safe space where you can hide from the inconvenient truths.
White Privilege means that white people are inherently racist.
The Patriarchy means (white) men are inherently sexist.
Equality Of Outcome and Diversity is our way of redressing the imbalances created by our past immoral behavior.
Gender Fluidity is the perfectly natural consequence of this ideology and the result of putting greater emphasis on subjective feelings over objective truths. And of course further proof that (white) men are inherently sexist.
The idea that Islam is a religion of peace is obviously true when we only accept the version that fits with Western ideology.
Fighting Microaggressions and Hate Speech is how we will eradicate racism and bigotry.
Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces are methods of protection against objective truths.
The Underlying Principles:
- White man bad everyone else good – for two reasons, because he’s white and because he’s a man.
- Everything wrong in the world is because of him. They are the abusers and everyone else are the victims.
- Everyone and everything is equal and we have to do whatever it takes to redress any imbalance in equality even if that means promoting subjective feelings over objective truths.
- Accepting the beliefs of this ideology makes you morally superior.
- Anyone who does not is evil
Now I know that some of these ideas are unusual. Perhaps even ridiculous. But these are the beliefs that every decent person should have.
For the time being.
Because in two or three years time, these ideas will be hopelessly outdated and wickedly immoral.
That way, we’ll always have someone to tell off.