The NBA Rejects Diversity - Why?

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
The NBA Rejects Diversity - Why?

Re-reading some of my other ‘General Discussion’ threads, I sensed, that it might appear, that I have an agenda. Which is not necessarily a bad thing and it being not illegal. But I find that if you have a stern agenda, it will invariably cloud your thinking.

So, I asked my wife, to review all of my 'General Discussion' threads, posted within the last month or so. Because, sometimes you can express notions inelegantly and in doing so, you may seem to propose ideas that you did not intend or worse, misrepresent what somebody else said. Or, with great passion and zeal, you can take a wrong turn, a slip of logic and you suddenly manifest notions that you did not intend, confusion is the mind killer.

So, I asked my wife to be honest with me, I insisted she was honest. Because, oh lord and dearie me could the world do with a few tea spoons of honesty right now. But generally, it is the case, that the patient, does not care very much for the medicine. 

This is by far the longest essay I’ve written in a good while. So please do be hydrated before attempting to complete the full read through. Life is either too long or too short for such things, I don’t know which one is true.

But the way my wife viewed it and, in her opinion, which might have been somewhat biased, she said I was merely commentating, after observing these potent political forces. It is not yet, illegal to disagree. So, my rejection to these ideas she felt came across as long, but then it is a serious topic and not easily can you analyse it in say, six snappy chapters.

It is essential to define your terms, because these sociological cadres and ideological arguments are not merely an existential threat. When passionate about a topic, it is so easy to fall prey to a diatribe or two. But diatribes have their place, they can be informative, a little painful or even ridiculous. But they also possess the power to reveal unpleasant realities. I hope to define just what I am refusing to adhere to, the thought process known as ‘Woke’.

I truly do hope, to in some small part, show as best I can articulate, how these hypocritical forces of 'anti reality Woke think' are not only deliberately destabilising our society, but mean it
critical harm. These ideas of ‘Woke orthodoxy’ are oppressive even though they would have us think them benign.

Because beneath the veneer of 'inclusivity' and 'equality' exponents of 'Woke' are ready and eager to 'no platform' you. Indeed, to chastise and admonish any deviation from the acceptable orthodoxy of 'Wokism'. When somebody says 'It is illegal to offend me' I feel everybody's freedom is being eroded and our ability to speak out and to think is not only being challenged and but removed.

I can only cite, oppressive regimes like China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and of course Iran where this idea that you can go to prison for 'offending' something or someone is dramatically and evidently enforced.  I am not a revolutionary and it shouldn’t even be remotely controversial to reject and resist tyranny. It should not be thought of as 'an agenda' to highlight some of these very noticeable corrosive ideas that are inherent in 'Woke Evangelicalism', ideas that have steadily consumed Western academia, media and society as a whole. 

We must not continue to pretend that these 'Woke Evangelicals' and 'Critical Race Theory' lecturers are just harmless raggedy vegans. A less than amiable Italian authoritarian in the 1930's said of his political stratagems that one must...

"...cloak oneself in absurdity and so laughing, nobody hears the guillotine fall..."

It has gone beyond the stage where we ridicule advocates of 'Woke Orthodoxy', believing them to be confined to 'Gender Studies' drama classes. Because these calamitous ideas are now mainstream and you can go to 'prison' for 'offending' the ideologies of these people. So, I feel we must resist this intolerant mono-thought, group think, group identity politics. We must begin to resist now, in every day narratives and our actions. BLM say ‘silence is being complicit’ well in this case I feel the tone is right, but their application is wrong. If we remain silent to this ‘Woke’ despotism, then we are complicit. We at some point, preferably now, we must resist ‘Woke doctrines’ as strenuously as they resist reality. 

Because, if they do prevail and it appears, they at least could do so in our life time. Such a calamitous shift away from logic, reason, severe debate and freedoms, toward aggressively oppressive narrow thought processes and a rejection of hard biological facts and historical truths.

Well, that will bring about dramatic alterations to Western civilisation, that's undeniable. Sooner or later, they are going to find what you say 'offensive' and they will be at your door, demanding you adhere to party policy group think and what will you say to them?

The question is not necessarily why is there no diversity in basketball. But the question I am more interested in, is why is there no celebrity driven, twitter-Guardian led campaign howling and raging about this lack of diversity? 

It seems a minor thing, black males dominate it is not a global issue and surely not racism, maybe I'm just desperately searching for a cause; you dismiss me and you could argue that. Yet, if you reverse the numbers and if white people, or white males in particular happen to dominate in any area of Western society then 'critical race theory' advocates will say this is undeniable proof of systemic racism. 

Recently, a popular American talk show host, she used to be a
singer, well she claimed chess was institutionally 'racist' because there
were too few black Grand Masters'. We hear this type of argument constantly, but nobody applies it to baseball, American football or basketball. So, when you observe this level of denial and hypocrisy, when you put this 'ready denial of reality' into the context of modern ideologies like 'Wokism', or 'political correctness', it is actually very alarming. 

Because please do ask yourself, how is there no clamour for equality in basketball...but now suddenly chess is racist because there does not at this time happen to be an ‘acceptable’ number of black participants. There are numerous Indian and Chinese GM's, but strangely enough this does not seem to count – I don’t know why.

The NBA ethnic break up is roughly as follows:

74.4%
black male athlete.

23.3%
White male athlete.

1.8%
Hispanic male athlete.

0.2%
Asian male athlete.

The NFL ethnic break up is as follows:

68%
Black male athletes.

28%
White male athletes.

4%
Other.

The MLB ethnic break up is as follows:

70%
black male athletes.

17%
White male athletes.

11%
Hispanic male athletes.

2%
Other.

Nobody finds this to be a sign that a system of ethnic exclusion exists or that these numbers are remotely peculiar or troublesome - why?

I have never heard of a campaign demanding more ‘inclusivity’ in any of these sports, despite there being a clear and identifiable deficit of Asian involvement. So, given that 'Woke' doctrine informs us how numbers don't lie, surely this factual data proves, beyond doubt, that a system of racism is structurally preventing Asians from being included in basketball?

Indeed, in basketball the group that profits most must be held accountable, that is how it works in 'Woke Political Theory'.

The average yearly salary of an athlete in the following organisations are as follows:

NBA:
$7.8 million

MLB:
$4.5 million

NFL:
$2.9 million

(Source;
Sporting Intelligence 2018.)

So that would be black males who profit most then, clearly because Le Bron James and his colleagues are not poor men. Clearly, if the system appears to favour black males, as it seems to do and at the expense of Asian participants. Then those that profit from a lack of diversity, the black athletes. They clearly must support, perpetuate and endorse this lack of equality of outcome in American sports - surely?

In 2017, Kenyon Martin criticised a Jeremy Lin for having dread locks. Mr Martin said it was absurd and

"...somebody should remind this damn boy, his last name is Lin...come on man, lets we stop
this man, these people, man..."

The media referred to this as being 'a racially overtoned rebuke' and it was 'troublesome' but not racist. Think about that - it wasn't racism, oh no. A black male, who are the majority force in American basketball, publicly spoke about somebody's heritage, a participant from a minority. This, despite the fact Mr Kenyon Martin had his body covered in 'Chinese Writing' to symbolise whatever he thought it was.

If you reversed those ethnicities, would the media be so eager to call it 'racially over-toned rebuke'? If a member of a dominant majority, black male athletes in this case, attacks a minority that is power and that is racism. Because that is how 'BLM' protestors and critical race theory lecturers explain it to us. That is all the evidence they need. They say, power is racism - but in this case, because it is a black male abusing a Chinse male, oh now it is merely a 'racially over-toned rebuke'.

BLM do not seem to acknowledge the disparity in basketball. Yet, they will try to negate and besmirch Western society as being 'racist' because of 'white majority' power hierarchies. That is how 'Wokism' operates when it considers there to be too few black faces in government or big business or even music/film awards show. If there is not the required number of black participants then it must be as a result of prejudice and systemic racism, nothing else, this is always true - but not in basketball, don't apply it to basketball.

This idea is espoused as a marvellous and forward-thinking ideology. One that promotes inclusivity and diversity in ALL facets of human life and society. It can be seen as a virulent socio-political phenomenon which will not tolerate any kind of dissenting opinions or criticism. If you possess the temerity to resist and openly reject ‘Wokism’, then people will rage and scream at you. It is not hard to find this type of thing occurring, some people have even lost their jobs.

How tolerant and inclusive is that do you think? So, if you saying or think something, these ‘Woke Prophets’ don’t approve of, you may lose your job, and you can be arrested. So, we are all free to think as we wish…so long as we think what we are told?

These types of earnest ideological Quislings, will produce quantities of
esoteric Guardian articles. Which is akin to defending Veganism, by quoting the World Vegan Magazine. They will ‘tweet’ and cut & paste all kinds of spurious and random non peer reviewed data, which never holds up to scrutiny.

They will assert political intimidation if they can and obfuscation if nothing else works. Their arguments do not readily or remotely align with actual seen reality, that the majority of us see and feel. So, I will try, to write about this broken equation of thought and I know some people will feel they must refute it! Yet not know why or even how, only that they must deny it.

We all have our own sensitive ideological world view. Occasionally it aligns with current events and this is pleasing. But, 'Cancel Culture' is unashamed violent censorship disguised as freedom. Which translates into modern 'Woke Hysteria, which is the ability to advertise just how virtuous and tolerant you are, to express how liberal and progressive you are.

Whilst you brutally demand other people’s rights to other ideas are cancelled and political ideas you don't approve of are absolutely forbade. How a person can hold those to incompatible notions is a mystery to me. It is baffling how this mind set operates, but it tends to lend itself well to emotionally stunted peoples who exist primarily on social media for social media praise.

These types, well they must be seen, to be seen saying what is now acceptable. We can also identify this 'Woke Hysteria' in people who are disinclined to think critically and who are deeply fearful of being revealed as not holding the acceptable opinion, at any given
moment on any given event. So, nothing like Nazi Germany then, no correlation at all.

But we live in an era, where to cancel reality, is seen as a progressive means of social justice - people support this concept and don't pause to doubt its validity. There can be no more critical processes allowed. You must only listen to people who think just like you, and who applaud you for this, and you who applauds yourself in return for thinking just
as you are told.

The question is how and why? It amounts to this way of thinking...

‘I don’t like this fact, I don't like that historical truism, I am not
enamoured with reality. So, on your behalf, I am going to erase it
entirely. Without being asked to, I am going to cancel this, and violently
no-platform that. I protest and dismantle, for your own good. Now, it is
undeniable that I am good, therefore everything I do and everything that I say must also be good and only bad people would oppose me!'

People operate like this! I am adamant you will have encountered this mind set on social media or in your private everyday life. So, I will highlight how basketball rejects diversity, because it is a perfect example by which to reveal the modern Woke tendency to deny that which they
don't like, to reject readily known facts, truths and mundane biological
realities.

Reality is being replaced with a collective denial and this type of psychosis in denial supports not only ‘Woke’ ideological frenzy, but historically it as permitted all manner of crimes against human freedom and thought. Why?

Because it's easier not to think, it is also tempting to just say what somebody not only wants to hear, but demands you say. It is easier to pacify an aggressor than to challenge them. This is a good short-term strategy, for a quiet life. But it has immense long-term perils. To engage and to think is problematic when you encounter ‘Woke’ acolytes. So, the crux of my thread;

‘Why and how is basketball allowed to reject diversity.’

It’s not just basketball, it is that there is a pervasive ideological mindset that goes along with this type of hypocrisy. Basketball is immune to calls for diversity, which is odd, especially when, it is abundantly clear to us all, that everybody else must adhere to and enslave themselves to it? 

'Critical race theory' advocates, argue that a lack of diversity is directly
linked to lack of power.

They argue that power is racism. So, if black people have no power, they can't be racist. That is the thread of their doctrine, no power no ability to be racist. Further to that, 'Woke Orthodoxy' claims that a lack of diversity is evidence of a ‘oppressive white superstructure’ that deliberately inhibits inclusion, so as to best profit ‘white hegemony’.

So, a lack of diversity we are told, definitely highlights the existence of a prevailing subconscious bias inherent in systems of prejudice - this is universally true, individuals don't matter remember, only your group identity. Can we and does anybody apply ‘critical race theory’ doctrine to baseball or American football. Nobody does this and you mustn't talk about the lack of diversity in the aforementioned sports and indeed you must perform some hilarious mental gymnastics and blame 'white supremacy' for black majority sports.

Some will ignore this point, and actually claim that a lack of diversity in basketball is a good thing for Asians. Because apparently, it allows them to concentrate on academics. I've heard this argument put forward by staunch Guardian readers no less. They defend racism, by being boldly racist, they refute stereotypes, by employing stereotypes. 

Because if you continue not to think about it, black male basketball all-stars are victims. They are an oppressed majority, who happen to be millionaires. How are they oppressed, well ‘Critical race theory’ asserts that this is because black males feel they must excel in sports because of ‘Western perceptions of them’ and so they take to sport, so as to avoid the oppressive ‘systemic racism’ of life in America or Western culture as a whole. 

The same people argue this, who say Asians are better off studying.

So, are East Asians in particular choosing STEM courses to avoid the 'systemic racism' in the NBA, MLB or NFL? It appears systemic racism, doesn’t apply, even when it clearly does apply. So, it comes down to this, sports or institutions that are dominated by the black individuals are not subject to the same criticism or public analysis as sports or institutions that are dominated by other ethnicities.

Critical race theory is a doctrine of persecution, prejudice and overt racism – yet it is openly taught in our Universities and colleges. Odd, because 1930’s Germany a very similar doctrine was also publicly disseminated in a very similar fashion and all resistance to it was met with frenzied howling intimidation. I’ve never heard of anybody insisting that there is a quota system whereby Hispanic or Asian athletes are given precedence via ‘positive discrimination’ and so can be fairly represented in basketball or politics for that matter.

Spike Lee never proposed making a film about plucky and talented Asian basketball players rejected and beat down by the oppressive black supremacist systems inherent in basketball. I have never heard of any group or political entity criticising this numerical over representation of black athletes.

Nobody speaks about this 'black privilege' in sports and nobody demands that it be dismantled and redistributed fairly. Yet, ‘Woke’ idealism states, that if one ethnicity or group (it is always just white) dominates in any system, then that this is undoubtably a sign of systemic racism within that system. This imbalance, highlights an unfair process of inequality inherent in the system. Does this only apply to 'white' participants in sports they dominate - it would appear so?

American sports produce more millionaires a year than China, so is this the face of modern persecution? Because it appears that systemic racism turns a blind eye to fiscal rewards, which is an odd thing for a system built on racism and oppression to do. Or could it be that there is an ideology at work that will simply not engage with the reality of the NBA? 

I shall digress a little now into other sports, because this peculiar inability and refusal to accept reality is spreading and there seems to be ZERO criticism of it by the Main Stream Media.

Lewis Hamilton is potentially going to sign a contract with Mercedes worth £120million – but this is not power nor privilege apparently.

Despite this reward, Lewis is constantly claiming that Formula One
is racist, why does he make this claim – he makes this claim because there is a disparity over representation of ‘Caucasians’ in Formula One and this must mean Formula One is racist, not that ‘Caucasians’ seem disposed to driving fast. Do you see the immediate problem here, after reading the stats for basketball, baseball and the NFL, can you see the glaring contradiction in the mindset of ‘Woke orthodoxy’ and BLM polemics?

Lewis is given a platform and he loudly cites, that because there are not enough black faces in Formula One, then it is an absolute irrefutable fact that Formula One is racist, despite his being chose to sit in the absolute fastest most reliable machine Formula One has ever seen. That car is more advanced and swifter than any other vehicle, and Formula One is so racist they chose Lewis Hamilton to sit in it – something just doesn’t add up. This idea that a lack of representation is clearly a sign of racism, simply does not apply to American basketball, American football or American baseball – why?

Another example, Sol Campbell in football/soccer is always claiming black people are not equally represented in top flight management, this is racism. He has managed many teams and not done overly well, but he is given a platform to assert that black people are not given a chance because of their skin colour. Despite the fact Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira are always finding new jobs after each new failure.

Nobody, to my knowledge has taken Hamilton’s and Campbell’s idea that lack of one particular ethnicity or the success of one particular ethnicity in a given sport or social context means clear inherent racism and applied this idea to basketball. Why is that do you think? Why is there only an issue with inclusion and diversity when it is ‘white’ people excelling? The media enables the overtly racist ideology that Nick Cannon and others so boldly promote. The media appears to be trying to discourage racism, by encouraging racism.

The NFL is a no-go area and is deemed perfectly fair and inclusive, despite the reality that it blatantly favours one specific ethnicity. You will find 'excuses' for the over representation of black males, but you won't find criticism of this. For it appears to me, that it is a taboo subject and it must not be judged by the same standards or criteria that we judge other sports. Other sports where it is noticeable that non-black athletes excel.

One argument that surfaces every time regarding this apparent inequality between Asian, White and Black athletes is one which is very dangerous but is advocated regularly by ‘NBA apologists’ is this…

‘Black athletes are genetically superior, so that is why they dominate!’

I’d pause for a moment and ask yourself if you feel at this point in the essay, that this proposal is true? Does evident success in one field automatically mean a genetic superiority by the victors? Nick Cannon and Kristen Clarke support this world view. The media by not lambasting these clowns, enable them to regurgitate their foul prophecies and so this peculiar mindset of Caucasian Quisling Syndrome and overt Black Supremacy seem to feed of each other.

You might agree with this notion, that is fair I feel, but it is also fair to say that it should immediately raise many red flags. Because the assertion is that one ethnic group has a ‘genetic superiority’ to another and this is self-evident based on success in that chosen field. You will notice how this ‘thought process’ of legitimate genetic superiority can only ever be deployed in defence of inequalities perpetuated in black majority sports.

It is essential that this be acknowledged here and now, because later on, you may feel differently. I say that, because using this blueprint that success can be attributed to a ‘genetic superiority’ creates a superiority hierarchy. This superiority hierarchy is employed to forgive the NBA, but it immediately becomes racist if you apply it to either Asian or European intellectual achievements throughout history.

Once again, the hypocrisy of the ‘Woke’ doctrine is appalling, yet once again the media do not challenge this and politicians are too feeble to openly express revulsion at such incredulous hypocrisy. I feel most of you will begin to see where my question is now becoming ever more relevant. We have black individuals, advocating black intellectual and spiritual superiority and nobody appears the least bit concerned by this, if anything such ideas are being encouraged. I shall provide some small historical context…

In 1802 Englishmen, Richard Trevithick conceived of and built the very first steam locomotive.  By 1812 the basic design had many variations and in only ten years had been improved upon and made commercially viable, most notably by Matthew Murray of Holbeck, England and some argue this instigated the Industrial Revolution and so ushered in the modern era. The 19th Century is dominated by European engineering and scientific excellence. Is this racist?

In Africa at this time, the 19th Century, no equivalent innovative
technological revolution was present. Nor was it present in South America or East Asia, or South Asia. Now, the absence of this in African culture is put down to racism, oppression, colonialism. Despite the fact there were no signs of any such creative frenzy prior to the Portuguese arriving in West Africa in the 15th Century. The innovative necessity and ground work just were not there. But irrespective of historical reality, this is racism.

Now, some might say, over representation of Caucasians in global technological genius is an example of what – systemic racism? Remember, in basketball when one ethnicity dominates, this is a sign of clear and obvious genetic superiority and those who deny this are jealous at best or inferior specimens at worst.  Do you feel we can apply the same process to historic scientific success?

The same process by which Liberals dismiss the ethnic disparity in basketball, baseball and American football. It is just a case of clear ‘genetic superiority’? Now, if a disparity so evident can be dismissed by relying on a proposed inherent genetic hierarchy of success, that seems to justify a lack of inclusivity in basketball. Would you be so bold as to apply the same mode of thought to global achievements in philosophy, medicine, literature, military success and civilisation building?

So, we look at engineering and scientific innovation and Nobel prize successes? Jewish Nobel prize winners are statistically way above what you’d expect given the Jewish population on Earth. So, can you say ‘such and such a group do so well, because they have a genetic predisposition to doing well’. I cite basketball, clearly if one ethnic group is overrepresented, then this is not ‘systemic racism’ at all. We have proven this; it is just a genetic superiority on their part.

Suddenly nobody is as eager to promote genetics as a reason for over representation and achievement. Would you then advocate the premise that it is not in fact ‘system racism’ that prevents black males from excelling in academia? Maybe, the answer can be found in this ‘Woke’
hierarchy of evident genetic predisposition.

According to 'Critical Race Theory' and Wokism, any inequality can be easily explained using this thought process of genetic inheritance. As we have seen with basketball, success manifests itself as a result of genetic superiority not systemic prejudice. Would you say this is an acceptable thought process – I will guess that you are likely feeling uncomfortable and thinking ‘no, it is not
acceptable’.

My question is why is…

‘They’re genetically superior’.

Acceptable in regards to black males and basketball, but not historical global academic advancement and discovery made by Caucasians or Asians, or even Jewish men and women. Why, because, it is seemingly all the explanation you need to justify the severe lack of diversity in American Basketball, but you can’t apply it to any other facet of human excellence.

Excellence in basketball where 74.4% of players are black males, despite the fact black males only account for 6.3% of the US population. If you applied these numbers and evident disparity to say, ‘white males’ in business or science or politics. Then people of a ‘Woke’ and intolerant mind set would use these numbers as a clear sign of institutional bias and racism.

So, my question is, why do we not hold basketball to the same standards
that we appear to hold anything and everything else where white people are deemed to be too numerous? The answer might be because ‘black people can’t be racist’. Do you feel at this point that, it is true to say ‘black people can’t be racist’ would you openly advocate this position?

I invite you to read on…

Nick Cannon, an American celebrity of sorts. On his podcast, was reported as saying that 'white people are sub human' on his podcast that he spoke on. I request you find it and listen for yourself. Basically, the idea being that, 'white people' are just savages and can't really invent anything for themselves. It is bizarre podcast, but do listen. There is a school of thought that white people are inferior to and afraid of 'Melanin gifted peoples' – hence slavery. Already the contradiction is startling. White people are so inferior to black people, that white people perpetuated slavery of black people? Arab slave markets were active in Africa long before Europeans arrived; so do we hold Arabs to the same bizarre illogic and constant scrutiny of historic morality or lack thereof?

His co-host/guest, I don’t know which, but who knows with pod casts; well Mr Richard Griffin, aka 'Professor Griff', agreed whole heartedly, he got quite excited discussing ‘black genetic superiority’. There was virtually no criticism from the main stream media or any politician of note. This entire podcast, by and large was largely ignored. In comparison to what you’d see if a white male and his co-host/friend espoused the virtues of ‘white genetic superiority’.

Both Griff and Cannon say that black people are the true master race; keep in mind that this was a podcast. There racial dogma, is not unlike a certain political party in Germany at the onset of the 1930’s. I keep coming back to this point, but it is horrifyingly similar. After this podcast, which the Guardian referred to as being just...

"...controversial..."

Once again, the comparison to events of the 1930’s is undeniable. Men like Cannon, Griffin and Jackson use the same terminologies, bigotry and rely heavily on misrepresented or flawed academic texts that are spread by the ‘Black Hebrew
Israelites’.

Cannon also said that black people, have ‘super powers’ (he neglected to say if these powers applied to scientific study and innovation) because of their master race genetic traits and because of their super Melanin. He said it on his podcast and he was temporarily released from a few positions, only to assume them again on the quiet.

This is not a fringe notion in America, this ‘black supremacy’ has many advocates in the celebrity and academic world.

They do not hide it, and they do not hide because they know they will not be judged by the same standards as say ‘white’ people or ‘Chinese’ people that dared to advocate a supremacy for their own special interest group. Nick Cannon is many things, but he is not a scientist, a geneticist or an historian, but you know, he might be a racist.

Both Cannon and Desean Jackson said that black people are the true Jews, this idea comes from the discredited terrorist group 'Black Hebrew Israelites’ who were once derided and mocked but have now in the 21st Century gained political and academic authority. Both Cannon and Griffin were admonished for their ‘apparent’ anti-Semitism, but not their overt and loud anti-white racism. It was reported by a main stream liberal media outlet as being…

“…problematic for the necessity and image of the black civil rights movement, equality and the ongoing struggle against white supremacy…”

Notice how black racism and black supremacy was side stepped entirely and actually, somehow despite the fact two black men said racist things, in reality it is ‘white supremacy’ that is the real issue here, oh yes, of course. After this podcast was criticised, by the Jewish community in America and beyond. Desean Jackson tweeted this quote he attributed to Adolf Hitler - Jackson happily tweeted…

"...because the white Jews know, that the Negroes are the true children of Israel and to keep Americas secret, Israel will blackmail America. They will extort America, their plan for world domination won't work if the Negroes know who they were. The white citizens of America will be terrified to know, that all this time they have been mistreating and discriminating and lynching the children of Israel..."

When Mr Cannon was eventually questioned on his beliefs, the lack lustre and apologetic comments from the Guardian was not directed toward Mr Cannon and his proposal that ‘white people are sub human’ it was his anti-Semitism that seemed to inspire the most hand wringing and desperation to forgive from the liberal elites. They began making excuses for him, before he even stopped talking.

This podcast caused a minor ripple in the news, nothing notable at all especially given the bedlam we would have seen if the ethnicities were reversed.  When Mr Cannon was invited, they did not demand anything of him, he was asked to explain himself and he was afforded the time to do, he said this in his defence…

“Are you forcing me to say the words ‘I’m sorry’?” he asked. “Are you making me bow down..."

He inferred that any apology would be akin to slavery – I don’t know how he made this link, but he did. It is almost like, some feel that they can be racist and if they are remotely challenged, they can blame ‘slavery’. It does appear that way. Well, Mr Cannon was not pleased, he seemed irked that he should be made to apologise for his racism and he saw this as a kind of surrender to white supremacy, despite the fact he called white people ‘sub human’ and ‘inferior’ and ‘afraid’. I read the article and I thought, so are white people afraid and inferior genetically and spiritually, or are we superior bullies and military colonisers?  

Nick Cannon said it was a 'bowing down to racist pressure'. Now, I ask you, is there a political movement today, primarily focused on race that demands people, bow down, or maybe take the knee in solidarity when American criminals are confronted by the law? Is there a movement, whereby if you refuse to bend the knee, you shamed and publicly
lambasted? 

Both Mr Griffin, Mr Cannon and Mrs Clarke along with Desean Jackson perpetuate and validate the notion of segregation in America. They actually insist upon it – but this segregation is not simply from white people, but ALL OTHER ethnicities and religions. So, Asian, East and South, Hispanic, Islamic and Jew and White people. The media does not challenge these ideas and so all of their rhetoric, which is in part inspired by the flawed ideas of Frances C Welsing, gains momentum.

No, it's not racist when a black person says it or writes it. Just like the NBA is not racist when 74.4% of the participants are black, despite the fact black males make up less than 7% of the overall population. See how some notions and disparities are instantly forgiven if they favour one special group – this is what I mean by Wokism utterly denying reality for their own ideological hysteria.

Remember though, black people can't be racist and the real problem is 'white supremacy'. That is how the media reported it. This idea and quote, is not proudly and publicly disseminated by Neo Nazi’s or fringe supremacist groups in Russia, or Brexit voting constituencies int the United Kingdom.

It is most vociferously expressed by members of the black community in America and they have platforms dedicated to this type of thing. Even on YouTube advocates of ‘black supremacy’ are never held to account by the ‘Woke Evangelical’ social justice warriors. There is a movement, inspired by ‘liberal’ dogma and regurgitated by social justice warriors, that seems determined to revise not only all of human history as illegitimate, but also refuses to condemn blatant racism, if it is committed by a perceived minority or special interest group.

'Woke Politicians' genuine or false, it doesn't matter. Will loudly and proudly insist on inclusivity and diversity, they do this, so as to advance their own superior moral standing. So, they bend the knee to ‘contemporary ideologies’ and this adds momentum to hysteria and the boldness of men like Nick Cannon and women like Patrisse Cullors and racist neo anarchist movements like BLM. The game plan is, that you intimidate ordinary people into adhering to your version of reality. 

Then you move into academia and you educate children into unthinking repetition of your ideology. Then you infiltrate the media and political establishments. Who now must demonstrate complicit obedience first and foremost or face the backlash of twitter denunciations and ‘violent’ riots? Personally, sadly, I can think of at least one other political ideology that endeavoured to achieve this (not so much twitter denunciations, but my point stands) in the 20th century with appalling and destructive consequences for the world.

Wokism and Critical Race Theory purport pseudo-academics, who spend all their energies attempting to delegitimise reality and to dismiss history. This is attempted, so as to delegitimise our very cultural identity. But it is also partially based on the presumption, that ‘black people can’t be racist’. These two things manifest themselves in a sense of political entitlement that is poisoning an entire generation. Patrisse Cullors, is a co-founder of BLM, was reported as saying on her podcast that...

"...white culture is oppressive and it marginalises our voice, white people can no longer say 'I am not a racist' because it is in their blood culture and they must be their culture, the two can't be separated peacefully...Trayvon Martin was a victim of 'white culture' this is what we must understand; all white people support systemic racism because it supports their supposed superiority. As a trained Marxist I see violence and politics as inseparable, and our aims are political power...our unified voice must be violent and political and it must
take the streets..."

How do you begin to challenge this level of hypocrisy, foul hearted hatred and delusion?

Firstly, is this not aggressively advocating a position, not too dissimilar to the philosophies of a deranged and irate Austrian in 1930’s Germany. Remove ‘white’ and simply add Jew. Remove ‘Marxist’ and put National Socialist. So, if systemic racism, is the evident and inherent bias resulting in the proliferation of one specific ethnic group at the detriment of others. When you apply the ‘Woke’ definitions for racism, bigotry and systemic bias against them, you find something startling…hypocrisy.

Then you come to see how, the data and numbers that these ‘Woke Evangelicals’ produce to justify their violently undemocratic movements, their anti-social behaviour and academic jargon, are bogus destructive propaganda.

Secondly, ‘black people can’t be racist’, the media enables this false notion and so directly validate the pernicious claims made by Nick Cannon and Kirsten Clarke. If you don't have power, you can't be racist, this is a fantastic nonsense. But apparently because 'black people' don’t have power, anywhere in the world, they can't disparage somebody based on their skin colour - this is evidently untrue. 

Power is the stimuli for oppression and racism, the filibustering Michael Eric Dyson says this often, with clownish and ludicrous verbosity.

Thirdly, ethnic tensions have been the catalyst for numerous conflicts around the world. Wokism, tends to only focus on those events involving white people asserting tyrannical control over indigenous others. However, you might not be surprised to know, racism appears in every culture across the globe. 

Now, in Africa on the Mauritania–Senegal border and in border towns throughout the 20th Century, Moorish Mauritanian herders and migrating Senegalese farmers have been coming to blows over grazing rights and more poignantly, ethnicity.

In the eastern and northern provinces of Mauritania - Tiris Zemmour,
Adrar, Tagant, and Hodh el Chargui - there is continuing violent ethnic
tension. With the racial slur 'Murzyn' being used to separate those with deep
black and light brown skin. But black people can’t be racist according to
‘Critical race theory’. Once again, the brazen and freakish capacity to deny reality should trouble you, because it troubles me.

In Nouakchott 2018, two Mauritanian policemen savagely beat a Senegalese boy to death. The incident was filmed and the Mauritanian officers repeatedly used racial slurs, ‘Murzyn’ being but one that was claimed to have been over heard. The incident caused sporadic localised rioting from the minority Senegalese community. Rightly, they were enraged by the ongoing racism of police brutality. Who has the power here, the boy or the heavily armed police officers?

If you use racial slurs and beat somebody to death. Who has the power here, and is this type of hate crime racist? Yet, once again, if you apply the ‘Woke’ definition of racism and power, to say a subject like African ethnic genocide or the religious holocausts in operation in the Middle East, we discover yet more hypocrisy and a program that asserts
and reaffirms this idea of ‘bigotry of low expectation’, which is ruinously racist.

That is to say, have you tried protesting in Tehran, have you been to Bamako? The incident in Nouakchott was deemed a hate crime. So, a North African being racist and using his authority as a police officer to oppress a fellow African. Yet I didn’t see a worldwide movement, did you? I saw no mainly 'peaceful' looting or ‘peaceful’ firebombing of privately owned family businesses, did you? No media out let report the largely ‘peaceful’ burning down of police stations and the destruction of entire city blocks, did you? 

In the USA, Minneapolis, 2017 a white female, Justine Damond was shot dead by a black police officer Muhamed Noor. Justine had phoned 911 to report a possible intruder and was shot dead in America by a police officer in Minneapolis. 

I saw no gleeful tearing down of historic statues in the capital cities of the Western world. I saw no knee bending by millionaire sports stars and politicians and celebrities, I ask you again, did you - if not why not?

The topics you cover and your perspective are very valid. No one can logically argue against what you say. The proof is everywhere and it is known as "the great replacement".

The only agenda I can see in your writings is that you constantly harp back to the 1930's while completely ignoring your own British history. A history of death and destruction unmatched by any.

 

You are the first person to respond, I find this peculiar. Not that you responded, but the fact you alone have done so. But the fact you did, well this is wonderful. You voiced your point of view and it was politely made, which immediately endears you to me.

Because I was becoming a bit concerned that on a 'Writers Website' a platform saturated with creative people who are potentially of an above average level of articulation and so more inclined to writing than the general populace and yet...not one person had thought to respond. So, I am happy you thought to respond...but...

But when you write...

"...you constantly harp back to the 1930's while completely ignoring your own British history. A history of death and destruction unmatched by any..."

I feel, we both know this is not an accurate assessment of history; now it is not a case of ‘they did wrong, we did wrong, two wrongs make a right’. This is a very silly point of view, but it is one oft repeated as a means to some how deter the mentioning of wrong done by others. It is a cold hard fact, that the British Empire gave more to the world than was taken away. The 'Woke Zealots' can't accept this; they cannot think in terms other than violent totalitarian certainty - history to 'Woke' types, is nothing more than odious opinions and vacuous band wagons that they have not yet discovered. 

So, bad is bad, always bad!

Good is good always good!

For 'Woke' doctrine is absolute and everything must be black and white, quite literally. For them there can be no grey area of nuance or balance, thought or judgement. So, if Empires are bad, then it follows NOT ONE of the many genius global civilisation altering inventions of British men and women in the Imperial age must be of any use to anyone. This is so fantastically stupid a notion to hold in the mind, I can only assume those that do, do not have minds.

SqualoDiTerra, your claim that British atrocities, for they did occur, are somehow unrivalled, unmatched, is simply bizarre and I hope to show you why. I must assume, you have studied zero history of any other culture, that has ever graced this Earth. For, clearly your presumption of universal and total British guilt, is evidently false and sadly it hints at a certain bigotry on your part. Or, I hope this is the case, simply a lack of knowledge, I don't know yet - I hope you respond and offer a defence.

Humans are violent by nature; this is our nature and it is not open to criticism by 21st Century moralists. It is simply how you become an apex predator. Chimpanzees are notoriously violent, it does not make them 'good' or 'bad' those terms don't apply, Now, you my friend seem to want to give this ‘innate violence’ a specific nationality. That nationality being British, this is evidence of a glaring prejudice on your part. If you must insist on having a 'worst empire ever', than I feel you have missed out some posssible candidates.

There is a reason I 'harp on about' the National Socialism of the 1930's and not the atrocities committed by Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist Cambodia. My thinking is not simply on corpses piled, although grim that certainly is. It is more about how ideologies, can make otherwise good and rational people do negative things. Such as cowardly bend the knee to tyranny. I hope to somehow show you this, at least in part. The British Empire, truly began around the late 16th Century and it came to an end, probably in the mid-20th century. So, not even the longest Empire known to human kind. But, this world you enjoy (Global pandemic aside) this world is better because the British Empire existed.

Of European expansionism - Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain had considerable empires and DO NOT suffer such cultural accusations as you have directed against British Empire, that being of "...death and destruction unmatched..." sadly by the end of this reply, that sentence of yours is going to appear specious at best, thoroughly ludicrous at its worst. I feel history and the facts will acquit Britain of this claim you have made against her, I invite you to learn about British inventors and artists, and I invite you to read 'Intellectuals and Society' by Thomas Sowell. It's a crucial factual read and helped me develop my current world view. There are lots of facts in it, solid dates and powerful quotes, in short, it is wonderful stuff. 

So, the British had an empire of roughly 400 years. But it wasn't always so, from Roman invaders, to Germanic, Nordic and Norman invaders. Maybe they were not invasions in the sense of cultural replacement, but the early Celts and later Anglo-Saxons knew a hierarchy had been established and they, for the time being were at the bottom of it. So, early history for the British was not so promising, nor so splendid. There was much toil, death and slavery. 

Yet, despite those severe incursions and invasions a very creative and warrior like people emerged. From the 10th century onward these Britons built a wondrous global Empire. Yes, that Empire was one of territorial expansion and grim war, conquest and you name an empire that wasn't. But, with the British, there came dire war…but also epic creativity and invention.

The British were neither saints nor demons, you can't categorise any ethnic group as being 'all evil' or 'all good', it's inane to do so and only those with a severe and perfidious agenda even bother to try. I invite you to name one empire that was free of sin? It takes a very special and powerful people to build an empire, they are difficult to construct and more so to maintain. That it is why so few ethnic groups do it and why those that didn’t quite manage it, now feel empowered to admonish and dismiss those ethnic groups that did. So, if you could name one global empire free from wrong doing, they may now cast the first stone of moral superiority and I am proven wrong.

It is accepted, that the oldest continuous empire was the Ottoman Caliphate/Sultanate. It lasted from 1299 up until around the 1922, with the last Ottoman Sultanate Mehmed VI fleeing Constantinople. Islam expanded at the tip of a blade and the conscription of defeated foes - the Ottoman Empire was a fascinating example of this. Now, it is a fact, that one of the many horrors directly attributable directly to the Ottoman Empire was, The Armenian Genocide.

This was the systematic mass murder and ethnic cleansing of ethnic Armenians from Anatolia and adjoining regions by the Ottoman government during World War I. Total number of deaths, is put as high as 3million and as low as 2million. There is simply no comparable event in British history, not in Ireland and not in India; whereby a program of ethnic cleansing was clearly and visibly the policy of government. So, we move on...

The Japanese Imperium existed from roughly 1868 to 1945. In 1937 an event occurred in China, known as the ‘Rape of Nanking’. I would not suggest looking at archived pictures of this event, they are brutal. Babies were bayoneted, an estimated 77,000 women were raped and the death count varies, but most sources have it between 200,000 and 300,000 – dead children, women and men. Japanese Imperial forces also butchered civilians in Singapore, Malaysia etc etc. There is simply no comparable event in British history,

From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war! So dogged was their ferocious malevolence, that only successive atom bombs brought them to reason. There is no comparable event in the entire history of the British people, the numbers involved here are astronomical. So, when you write...

"...British history. A history of death and destruction unmatched by any..."

I feel, you've not grasped history to its fullest. Now let us visist African History. Immediately slavery becomes our focus. But, if you study the policies and empires of African Kings and war lords, it is immediately clear, that they played the most direct role in the African slave trade. The kidnapping of adults and the stealing of children for the purpose of selling them, through intermediaries into a life of heavy labour, toil and sorrow.

'Woke Fantasists' can't and won't concede this fact of pre European African history. But, it is just a fact and you can go research it - I hope you do. It is estimated that over 20MILLION East Africans alone, so not South or West Africans, just the East. Well around 20million were sold into slavery by indigenous African rulers throughout the many centuries before and after European arrival. Mauritania was the last official nation to actually make slavery illegal, that was in the late 20th century. May I point out, no nation on Earth made slavery illegal, before the British did. In 1833 Britain would not permit slaves to be sold or transported in her vessels or territories. In 1844, it is reported that over 2million East African children were sold into the Arab slave markets via the Indian ocean. Yet, somehow the 'Woke Zealots' still heckle and condemn even the banning of slavery, accusing Britain of smug self congratulatory praise - you can't find common ground nor reason with ideological madness. 

The overwhelming majority of African slaves, DID NOT cross the Atlantic in British ships, no. In truth and reality, most went into the Arab, North African slave markets. The arrival of Europeans in the 15th Century did not start the beginning of the African slave markets, such markets had been flourishing since the mid to late 4th century. African Zulu Kings saw slaves as not only a means of war, but also economic advancement and a key facet in expanding their dominions. Many slaves were usually from a different ethnic group (this is a key point) than those who captured them, whether enemies or just neighbours; African Kings were not the victims of slavery, they were the orchestrators.

"...British history. A history of death and destruction unmatched by any..."

You see why your claim is maybe not as robust as you originally thought. Now, we can switch out attention to North America and the era immediately preceding the arrival of Europeans. Now, if you don’t read any history at all about this period, you’ll have come to feel that the Plains Indians and the Pueblo Indians were amiable, peace loving tribes, living off the land in harmony with nature – this is a big lie, just absolutely NO!

Example of why, one tribe, the Kiowa, a 'first nation tribe', well, before there were any Europeans in North, central America, the Kiowa would raid neighbouring tribes, steal their food and tools, burn down their homes, no small punishment when the weather was so bitterly against you. The Kiowa were known to strangle all the women, not just any woman of child bearing age. So, teens to women in their twilight years, would be butchered dead. With the very young girls, say anywhere between just born and 8 years old, would be kept as captives - you'd call them slaves. This was a process of systemic genocide. This genocide was widely practiced by all Plains Indian tribes. The startlingly efficient logic being, if there are no women, then no young warriors to exact revenge. Made sense to them, who are we to judge? 

Now, we move to the Comanches, this Native American tribe would capture young girls and women and cut out their wombs out, not necessarily to kill them, just to make them unfit for child bearing. Now, I feel these Comanche soldiers, were no medical experts. Just a blade and the time to cut them right out. This is documented and it was not a one of event, it was the accepted and much adhered to practice of war at that time. They did this, so their enemies could not produce warriors – a very common idea. A strategy designed to not only stagnate, but eradicate enemy tribes. This went on for hundreds of years, well before savage Europeans brought their savage ways.

Sometimes the butchered women would sadly bleed out on the prairie, other times they'd stagger back to their villages and die. Could you possibly imagine, how many wombs were cut out over a thousand-year period? 

"...the Comanche would not suffer other tribes to cross their rivers, they'd exterminate any tribe that came into their territory; Comanche's practiced a very efficient form of ethnic cleansing and their territorial rivers were always expanding..." Professor M. Sheridan 'The War against History.'

I fear you are not offering a balanced account of history, that way peril awaits you friend. You must show a clear and well researched narrative and your assertion that British history is the most violent, the most anything really, is incredibly flawed and borderline propaganda, and it does seem like you have do have an agenda.

"...British history. A history of death and destruction unmatched by any..."

I feel at this point, you might be thinking '...oh, yeah I was over zealous in my denunciation of British Hitory...' I mean, you can always delete your sentence; but it would be better to actually study. I dare say you could re-word it, if you like, but you probably don't want to do this, nor should you really. Lack of knowledge has formed your opinion, not lack of spirit. 

If I was you, I would embark on a period of intense study, then come back and see if your initial idea about Britain still holds true. If after some extensive research, which is not simply to list British malpractice, I never denied British troops committed woeful deeds. What I object to is your '...death and destruction unmatched...'. But, if you hold to your current view point, after some heavy reading, then okay fine - yeah, that's okay. But, at least after heavy study, you'll come to at least acknowledge the incredible and genius contribution to world science, technology, engineering, medicine, art that the Scots, Irish, English and Welsh made.

But, I know for sure, you are certainly not alone in approaching history from this very narrow anti British blue print. Because, there has been an attempt by the ‘Woke Left’ to edit, revise, substitute and dismiss not only British achievements, but those of 'White European Culture' entirely. Hence why you seem ignorant of achievements made by the British. It is not feasible to dismiss British influence upon human affairs, I promise you it is not possible. But the 'Woke Authoritarians' will try anyway and they will occasionally convince one or two people. However, the one saving grace is that, a person must really exhibit an astoundingly low I.Q. to remotely believe this new wave ‘Woke History’ agenda.

"...to further our immediate goals, it is essential that we silence rational criticism, so we must make loud and irrational denunciations of every aspect of history we find inconsistent with our agenda…" Josef Goebbels.

 

 

 

That was a very long answer. I don't even know where to begin. I'll just say that reserching history is a hobby of mine so I'm not ignorant on this topic. Nor am I ignorant of British contributions to civilization. Wars, conquest, slavery, colonization, plundering etc. have always been an integral part of human existence throughout history and throughout the entire planet. I'm very well aware of this and the excellent examples you provided are not new to me. I just go a step further and include British atrocities as well. But never have I thought that the Brits were unique in this other than their scope.

As far as me being biased against the British, not at all. I am only biased against the British speakers and lectureurs I've listened to who all seem to read from the same script. The latest being Declan Hill. The script is as follows. Organized crime = Italians, spies = Chinese, terrorists = Muslims, racists = Germans. Never once acknowledging their own past. Now I see many reporters with English accents vilifying Chinese "colonialism" in Africa. It's just so hypocritical.

In conclusion, I believe it's great and healthy to be proud of your people and culture, but finger pointing others while ignoring your own past discretions will only draw attention and criticism.