Black Lives Matter

[Shake me up Judy]

38 minutes ago, finlo said:

 Once had a south African woman demand that I 'fill ma caa up boy' even though I was also a customer at the petrol station,

You should've acted the kaffir Finlo just for the fun of it.

And filled it up with diesel.

[quilp]

https://unherd.com/2020/06/why-dont-black-lives-matter/

I found this article interesting and thought-provoking. It offers an insight into the disparities of wealth-development experienced by Black nations and the experience of Black people in general and possible ways to level up equality of opportunity and outcome beneficial to all. It'll be too long for the ingrained short attention spanners but worth a shot to those thinkers with a genuine interest in possible solutions to world order. 

[FDR]

12 hours ago, hampsterkahn said:

There are still some  of us around  who will have encountered some of the “ex-colonials” who settled here in the fifties and sixties.

 

I know this type and you'll probably find it's their grandchildren who are running most of these anti-racist groups. Despite the rhetoric and change of language, the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree. They're racist to the core and inciting racism on purpose and positioning themselves into these movements as an excuse to wield power over black (or other coloured) people. All they're doing is re-enforcing white patriarchalism under bourgeois white command. I've noticed if you bring up post-colonial theory on women's role in white patriarchalism, they go quiet. They have no answer to it, because they're actively engaged in acting out the role of participators and functionaries under the colonial system. They're re-enforcing the notion that other colours (the idea of race on colour lines is a pseudoscience invention of British imperial ideology) are not capable of representing themselves or ruling themselves, but need them. They think white people like themselves are indispensable and necessary to speak for the coloured people, because deep down they look down on them, because they are in fact closet racists. They anti-racist league are the biggest bunch of racists you'll ever meet.

[FDR]

On 7/3/2020 at 4:12 PM, quilp said:

Ha, the old racist and drama queen got himself sacked. Quite right, really... 

David Starkey is not a racist. I recommend people go and listen to that entire interview because it was very insightful. 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, FDR said:

I know this type and you'll probably find it's their grandchildren who are running most of these anti-racist groups. Despite the rhetoric and change of language, the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree. They're racist to the core and inciting racism on purpose and positioning themselves into these movements as an excuse to wield power over black (or other coloured) people. All they're doing is re-enforcing white patriarchalism under bourgeois white command. I've noticed if you bring up post-colonial theory on women's role in white patriarchalism, they go quiet. They have no answer to it, because they're actively engaged in acting out the role of participators and functionaries under the colonial system. They're re-enforcing the notion that other colours (the idea of race on colour lines is a pseudoscience invention of British imperial ideology) are not capable of representing themselves or ruling themselves, but need them. They think white people like themselves are indispensable and necessary to speak for the coloured people, because deep down they look down on them, because they are in fact closet racists. They anti-racist league are the biggest bunch of racists you'll ever meet.

BLM's co- founders are three black females.

[FDR]

20 minutes ago, Gladys said:

BLM's co- founders are three black females.

I wasn't talking about BLM but the wider protest and virtue signaling movement on this side of the Atlantic. 

That being said, I don't believe for one moment that those three founded BLM.  

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, FDR said:

 

That being said, I don't believe for one moment that those three founded BLM.  

You could have a point there, and I thought much the same. However, they are the publicised founders.  

Organisations with very laudable aims are often infiltrated by factions with less than honourable intent.  The Black Panther movement, for example, which started with very sound objectives to end the discriminatory treatment of US blacks, ended up being torn apart by internal power struggles, helped in no small part by the FBI. (You will notice that I am watching a lot of documentaries at the moment, but BLM told us to educate ourselves which I am doing.)

The Black Panthers had 10 clear objectives; BLM has a diatribe of unintelligible trigger statements. 

 

[quilp]

3 hours ago, FDR said:

David Starkey is not a racist. I recommend people go and listen to that entire interview because it was very insightful. 

https://www.salisburyreview.com/blog/starkey-freedom-of-speechs-kristallnacht/

 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

On 7/4/2020 at 10:02 AM, TheTeapot said:

Its just part of the standard shite that falls out of Rudy's gob. Anyone who uses him to reinforce their point is a nutter.

I'm not sure that you should be using Rudy's name to reinforce your point. I certainly wouldn't.

[FDR]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

The Black Panthers had 10 clear objectives; BLM has a diatribe of unintelligible trigger statements. 

 

Trigger is the key word here. In the training material of these activist groups, there is a process of "trigger" followed by "escalation". Those are just two of a number of stages in their activist strategy. Different groups in a much bigger network operate at different levels of the process. Groups like BLM function mainly in the escalation stage: they're there to throw fuel on the fire, make things worse, get everybody riled up in different locations. This is also why some activist groups use deliberately provocative and obnoxious terminology like "white privilege": they know it's meaningless and winds people up so doesn't really accomplish everything other than fan the flames. Which some might say means they're doing their job wrong, but fanning the flames and making things worse IS the real objective. They want to antagonise people and cause division. It all plays into the overall agenda which is to first get us into these little collectives (or balkanisation) within society which will serve to undermine the existing institutions like the nation-state and later on be amalgamated under one global collectivist system. They're bypassing national systems, undermining individualism and national identity, and creeping in with global identities (identity politics is a globalist movement). 

[John Wright]

38 minutes ago, FDR said:

Trigger is the key word here. In the training material of these activist groups, there is a process of "trigger" followed by "escalation". Those are just two of a number of stages in their activist strategy. Different groups in a much bigger network operate at different levels of the process. Groups like BLM function mainly in the escalation stage: they're there to throw fuel on the fire, make things worse, get everybody riled up in different locations. This is also why some activist groups use deliberately provocative and obnoxious terminology like "white privilege": they know it's meaningless and winds people up so doesn't really accomplish everything other than fan the flames. Which some might say means they're doing their job wrong, but fanning the flames and making things worse IS the real objective. They want to antagonise people and cause division. It all plays into the overall agenda which is to first get us into these little collectives (or balkanisation) within society which will serve to undermine the existing institutions like the nation-state and later on be amalgamated under one global collectivist system. They're bypassing national systems, undermining individualism and national identity, and creeping in with global identities (identity politics is a globalist movement). 

Exactly what you do here TJ, then?

[Max Power]

9 hours ago, Gladys said:

You could have a point there, and I thought much the same. However, they are the publicised founders.  

Organisations with very laudable aims are often infiltrated by factions with less than honourable intent.  The Black Panther movement, for example, which started with very sound objectives to end the discriminatory treatment of US blacks, ended up being torn apart by internal power struggles, helped in no small part by the FBI. (You will notice that I am watching a lot of documentaries at the moment, but BLM told us to educate ourselves which I am doing.)

The Black Panthers had 10 clear objectives; BLM has a diatribe of unintelligible trigger statements. 

 

I am doing the same, and the more I see, the less support I can find in my heart for this whole movement. I am not, and never have been a racist and I refuse to be preached to as if I am and have my history rewritten to satisfy the false sentiments of an uneducated racist mob!   

Edited July 5, 2020 by Max Power

[gettafa]

10 hours ago, Gladys said:

(You will notice that I am watching a lot of documentaries at the moment, but BLM told us to educate ourselves which I am doing.)

 

Perhaps one day the only resources available to educate yourself may well end up being what the BLM, or whoever, wants you to be exposed to.

[Shake me up Judy]

12 hours ago, FDR said:

David Starkey is not a racist. I recommend people go and listen to that entire interview because it was very insightful. 

Just watched the interview but it appears to have been edited to remove the offending remark. What remains is David Starkey at his best and well worth an hour of your time. I didn't know he'd lost his partner a few years ago so he gets quite emotional for a moment or two. I don't believe he's a racist either, but he speaks as he sees it. 

[Kipper99]

15 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Just watched the interview but it appears to have been edited to remove the offending remark. What remains is David Starkey at his best and well worth an hour of your time. I didn't know he'd lost his partner a few years ago so he gets quite emotional for a moment or two. I don't believe he's a racist either, but he speaks as he sees it. 

Just a Misogynistic, bitter, twisted, old, flaming,  queen then? He’s got previous form  for racism.  Thoroughly unpleasant individual.