Month: January 2016

“The Oscar Apartheid”: Why “diversity” is bad for oppressed people

You might have heard all the outrage which the Oscar caused by nominating 20 actors who were all white for the second year in row. Dissatisfaction was expressed all over social media. George Clooney expressed his dissatisfaction as well. Other actors like Will Smith wanted to boycott the Awards. All because of the lack of representation of racial minorities and other groups such as people who are disabled, LGBT community, etc…


However, one did manage to say the truth: Sir Michael Caine. And I respect him for that:

“In the end you can’t vote for an actor because he’s black. You can’t say ‘I’m going to vote for him, he’s not very good, but he’s black, I’ll vote for him’.”

He wants nominees to be picked based on talent. Not based on race or gender or something which they didn’t choose themselves. Any person with common sense would want that.

I bet he got a lot of hate from those “radical leftists” because nowadays, saying the truth is not allowed.

This issue of diversity and representation of minorities is not only pushed in the Oscar. It is being pushed everywhere in our daily life, no need to dig too much or do excessive research to find out.

For example:

“Future US president should be a woman”

So that’s the only criteria for a person to be eligible to become a president? To be a woman?


This lady will make the worst president if you ask me…

I’m not American anyway so let me talk about my country. Here in Lebanon, NGOs, “civil society” and so on  call for the “representation of women and youth in the parliament”. Well, here’s an unpopular opinion: our MPs should be chosen based on their merit, not sex or age. Or you’ll just put women there even if they aren’t qualified; just because they’re women?!

I’m not saying we don’t already have unqualified people in the parliament – of course we do! But shall we make it worse by adding more unqualified people? We definitely have qualified women I’m sure – but the main criteria for those who call for representation of women is that the candidates are…women.

Let’s leave politics for a second and go back to the movie industry. “Radical leftists”, “social justice warriors” and online “activists” keep on calling for representation of minorities in the movies, TV shows, etc…They judge movies/shows based on how much of their main characters are representative of different groups.

Writers of the ABC show “Once Upon A Time” get slandered a lot on social media and called names, because the majority of the characters in that show are – guess what – white. Except Regina whom those keyboard warriors call a “woman of color” because the actress who plays her role is Latina…even though technically she’s white (are they colorblind or what?), see for yourself:


Admire her talent! NOT her ethnicity or gender!

Why does it matter so much what the color of the skin is? The only thing that is supposed to matter is that the actors are professionals and the characters are rich in personality and have an interesting storyline. Who gives a damn whether they’re black or white or whatever? “Radical leftists” and fanatic keyboard warriors do.

And then they start saying “haven’t the OUAT writers heard of diversity? For heaven’s sake we’re in the 21st century!” Well honey if you have a problem then don’t watch the show and stop whining. Do you expect the show to add for you characters just for the sake of diversity even if the actors are bad (“who cares, they’re colored!!”) or the characters don’t have a proper storyline?

Or go ahead, show us your talent, make your own story and put in it queers and “women of color” as much as you want!

Let’s talk about the famous animation blockbuster, Disney’s Frozen. It caused many objections because “oh damn, another white Disney princess”.


For Odin’s sake the story of the movie takes place in ANCIENT NORWAY. What did you expect the Norwegian princess to be, black? Because to hell with history for the sake of diversity and representation of minorities!!! Some even wanted the princess in Frozen part 2 to come out as a lesbian…yeah right, as if there were openly lesbians in ancient Norway.


Some even started drawing Elsa as they imagine her if she were a “woman of color”:

Image source

Nice drawing, but… If you want an African princess I’d be more convinced if she wore an actual traditional Africa dress…this Frozen dress is too European…


Here are ideas for you guys.

(Images found here, here & here)

And I’m not a fan of Disney but it’s not like they never had a “woman of color” as the heroine in animations… Pocahontas, anyone? (it got criticism for historical inaccuracy but that’s not the point here).

So back to our topic – what is all this about? Why is all this pushing for “diversity” which:

  1. contradicts history
  2. appoints nominees, actors, politicians etc based on things they don’t themselves choose instead of merit or talent?

Who benefits from all this? Is the Oscar some kind of an “Apartheid” regime so that they call for integration of “people of color” in it?

And most importantly – what do actual, ordinary “people of color” gain from this “diversity”? Or let me use the expression “people of third world countries” because “people of color” sounds racist especially when used for Arabs, because we’re white, and in fact some of us are even “whiter” than Europeans. Many Latinos as well are white (like the actress mentioned above) and it’s also racist to call them “PoC” just because they’re not as white as Europeans.

If the next Disney princess is black, how would this benefit black people? The US has a black president for God’s sake, did this improve the situation of black people there? Definitely no, it even became worse.

It’s like those “activists” and NGOs who pretend to be “pro-Palestinian” but all they’re busy with is begging Alicia Keys and Madonna to cancel their concerts in israel. Because once those concerts are cancelled, the whole problems of Palestinians would be magically solved, wouldn’t they? 

The reason why this united-colors-of-benetton-type diversity is pushed by NGOs is that they want to make oppressed people all over the world (in western countries and in their own countries) be busy with useless pseudo-causes which won’t benefit them, such as representation in the media and so on… to divert their attention from the main issues which directly affect them: globalization, capitalism, dictator rulers imposed by western governments on third world countries, israeli occupation of Palestine, etc… and to make them feel like the west compensated for them for all those years of slavery and colonialism, by – guess what – diversity.

In short, this “diversity” is bad for the oppressed people. And for all people. And no, keyboard warriors, it’s not some “white male afraid of losing his privilege”. Middle-Eastern female here. We DON’T want this diversity!






NGOs Stink: They Turned Revolution Into a Trend.

Note: I wrote this in Arabic few months ago back then when You Stink was active, but haven’t posted it. Now I decided to post a translation of it so that more readers would understand and relate.

Few weeks ago, I received on Facebook, from one of my classmates in university, an invitation to join a page for students from our university who participate in You Stink protests. I ignored it for two reason. The first is that I previously sent them invitations to a page I admin (which has nothing to do with You Stink or politics) and they didn’t join, so I decided to treat them the same way. The second reason is that I didn’t want to be associated, in any way, with those who claim to be starting a revolution while the truth is that they serve embassies and foreign interests.

Currently, in Lebanon, the loyalty of youth and students switched from allegiance to political parties and sects to those campaigns which suddenly appear out of the blue and organize protests while we know nothing of whoever finances them. Most of the Lebanese youth – if not all, backed those protests as a trend. And whoever does not follow the trend remains an outcast, not in harmony with his or her peers, same as whoever does not join these protests, or at least shows support to them on social media. Those “revolutionaries”, despite their lack of experience, want to run the country in their own way…or to be specific, the way they were instructed from embassies and foreign think tanks and NGOs.

They pretend to support freedom of expression, but if anyone talks to them about anything that doesn’t involve demonizing the whole Lebanese government with all its ministers and Parliament members (the corrupt AND the non-corrupt ones), they show their true colors. They won’t say straight in your face that your opinion is worthless or unacceptable, but if you raise suspicions about whoever supports those campaigns and activists financially, they will answer:”OMG, you are against freedom of expression!”. If you tell them that hastily generalizing ALL politicians who participate in the government to be corrupt is a fallacy, they will answer:”OMG, you’re a sheep obeying the system!”. It is the same as when you say you support Palestinian resistance against israel, they answer:”OMG, you’re pro-violence and against peace!”. In short, critical thinking would lead them to use the means of intimidation as a response.

Talking about the war on Syria or the war on Yemen to them is like talking to a wall. Because they don’t care about those humanitarian causes. They only care about causes which are dictated to them by foreign NGOs, such as the environment, anti-corruption, etc… so they become busy with relatively small problems in comparison to what the whole area is facing. Fighting corruption, abolishing the Lebanese sectarian governmental system and saving the environment are necessary, but they became a trend instead of a cause. A trend leads nowhere, it just disappears soon to be replaced by another, while a cause might lead somewhere by the efforts of those who support it.

“Revolution” became a trend restricted to coffee-shop activists who hang out and sit in front of the laptop and call on social media for getting to the streets. And when it is time to get to the streets, they put on “Anonymous” masks, Batman costumes and artificial colorful hair which clowns wear in circuses, while raising banners with slogans that are sometimes lame, sometimes funny, and other times compare politicians to Game of Thrones characters. Then they upload photos of all that on social media so that the whole world would see the creativity of Lebanese youth in expressing themselves, and unfortunately this creativity is being used for lame slogans instead of something that would really benefit the country. If I campaigned for those protests and spread photos of them on social media, I would write this description:”Remember that this is not a Halloween party, this is a revolution! A genuine revolution of the suffering Lebanese people, even Batman himself joined it!”. Of course this is just sarcasm, because every time the suffering people try to revolt, they get infiltrated by “social media revolutionaries” and this would lead to tragic consequences like those we witnessed in the Arab Spring.

Ignoring the invitation to join the FB page of protesters from university was not enough, I had to avoid all social media because it got filled with such revolutionary idealism propagated by coffee-shop activists. I decided not to go with the trend. And whoever doesn’t go with the trend gets intimidated directly and indirectly. Gone are the days of freedom of expression. Gone are the days when having different views would be considered as enriching for the society. One has to think zillion times today before saying his or her opinion for fear of being called names because freedom of expression is not allowed, unless you express the trendy views. The youth became a mercenary army in defense of this “political correctness” and whoever doesn’t join the mercenary army is deemed “un-progressive”. Supporting the Lebanese armed resistance against terrorism (whether it is the terrorism of groups like ISIS or the terrorism of israel) became “un-progressive”. Being “progressive”, to the followers of the trend or “fashion victims”, means obeying the will of foreign think tanks and NGOs while pretending that it is the will of the people.

Being intimidated is bad, but being a fashion victim is worse. Trying to convince them that what they’re doing is the exact opposite of progressiveness won’t work, because the trend became a core part of their personalities, and depriving them of it is like depriving them of a part of themselves.


Note: If you came across this post and felt offended, remember that dismissing the truth (about You Stink activists receiving professional training in activism in foreign institutions) because it conflicts with your ideology is offensive, not to me, not to any individual, but to the moral principles of truth and transparency. I’ve heard again and again the argument of “we’re just fed up with trash being piled up on the sidewalk and polluting the atmosphere, we’re fed up with corruption, with sectarianism, with not being able to get things done unless we pay a bribe, with not being able to get a job unless we have connections…” trust me, I’m more fed up with those than you, but those who started that movement – as well as other similar movements in the Arab world and everywhere – are NOT normal fed up citizens.

I read once that a man was standing somewhere next to a You Stink protest, just watching, without actually being IN the protest. A journalist asked him “why don’t you join them?” And guess what he answered! He said “I’m not well-dressed for that!”. Not well-dressed…to participate in a protest, that is – supposedly – a revolution of the people.

I’ll leave you with this to think about for yourself. Peace.