This video (not my own) warns of "genocide". I'm skeptical about 'white genocide'. Would beavers want to completely wipe out trees? That would be super stupid. Its obviously not in the interest of the 3rd World, nor of non-white ethnic minorities, to eliminate whites, as whites provide so much foreign aid, technology, welfare and affirmative action. I've traveled in many 3rd World countries - including Muslim countries - as a solo traveler. A very vulnerable position. If they had wanted to kill me, they could have done so many times.
He did make the point that there is a lot of anti-white propaganda. Is this to encourage genocide or to empower the ruling classes? Leftists cause violent crime, hence fear, hence more laws,
hence more power for politicians - and less freedom for all of us.
Much of the original PC ideology, which was proposed in a famous speech 1963, was a beautiful philosophy. Unfortunately, it has since been corrupted and exploited – often to nefarious ends. This report uses PC arguments to show how hypocritical and damaging PC-ness has become.
The symptoms of an oncoming genocide are motivated by this woke obsession with the past. Should we be obsessed with the past? Wouldn't we be better off being obsessed with the present and the potential future?
Spreading hateful propaganda about certain ethnic groups is not a good strategy for racial harmony. It was part of the old divide-and-rule strategy. These days one-sided, misleading propaganda, taught by Western media and by Western schools, encourages crime, discourages diligence and incites hatred. It benefits politicians – and also criminals. This propaganda is the principal driving force of modern PC-ness. Some say PC-ness, or wokeism, is the ‘new morality’. Some even call it a hateful, new cult. For the most part, it never praises, only condemns. It has no saints, only sinners. It relies heavily on propaganda and the silencing of opposing views. It benefits bullies and other selfish people. It makes people of certain races think they will never succeed – so discourages many from trying. What kind of ‘morality’ is this?
IS IT ETHICAL TO REWARD BULLYING?
While PC-ness favours groups with aggressive representatives, it neglects the poorest, most marginalized people.
…
Who is more worthy of compassion? Those who are the more needy or those who make the most hassle? Who are the PC-privileged i.e. the groups held in the highest esteem by the PC? The PC grant the greatest esteem and privilege to groups with aggressive advocates, who have rioted and/or performed other terrorist activities. In short, they have compassion for groups who effectively have armies with soldiers – not brave soldiers, but soldiers nonetheless. Riots get a lot of media attention. So, if you have a riot, and then tell sad stories to the journalists, you can cause feelings of guilt. It’s a great ploy. This is probably why there is an obsession with injustices committed over a century ago – they still cause feelings of guilt and so can still be used for the manipulation of the masses. Most of the riots involve vandalism, looting and assaults on those who offer little or no resistance. This often includes assaults on vulnerable people (who are not guilty of whatever ‘offenses’ caused the riot) and/or throwing bricks and bottles at police – who are not allowed to throw such objects back. Is it ethical to reward this by granting privileges to the groups the bullies appear to be fighting for? Is it appreciated? Do any of them say ‘thank you for your PC-ness’? Many think PC-ness is generally motivated by fear. If fear causes you to appease bullies, while disregarding the truly disadvantaged, you are cowardly and selfish. There are other groups, like the homeless, the psychologically handicapped and the elderly, who have problems with discrimination and marginalization – yet don’t have soldiers or armies. This makes them less advantaged than those who do. In addition to that, they don’t get the media bias, media blackout of their embarrassments and other forms of affirmative action which are granted to the PC-privileged groups. Shouldn’t PC privilege be granted to the least advantaged groups? Is it right to reward bullies while neglecting real victims? Liberal policies not only neglect to poorest people, they increase their victimisation. The homeless are very vulnerable so are often the victims of violent crime. Do politicians fight crime by targeting the PC-privileged? Certainly not, it often involves targeting the poor. Homeless people are often detained for very trivial offences. Modern PC-ness hurts the poor in several other ways, which I’ll mention later.
So, while the original PC proposals were about being compassionate towards the poor as well as being friendly, non-hateful, non-racist and non-judgemental, modern PC-ness encourages bullying, hurts the poor and involves racial scapegoating.
