Do you guys even understand politics ? Are you even interested in what’s going on with the world ? Or do you just stay in your small little bubble ? Keep crying over the Obama’s farewell. Keep fangirling over his photos with his wife and kids. Keep picturing him and Lady Obama as the “power couple” who fight for “social justice”. Why? Because he’s black, because he accepted gay marriage, because he’s “anti racist”.
Let’s face it, you are just like Jon Snow: you know nothing. While you kids say “goodbye Obama, goodbye justice, goodbye equality, goodbye sanity”, what would Syrian kids say? What would Libyan kids say? What would Yemeni kids say? What would Iraqi kids say? The answer is “goodbye bombs”.
I’m from Lebanon, and partly Syrian, I consider Syria as my second country. I can’t go there anymore because of the war. Syrian refugees came to Lebanon because of the war, and Lebanon doesn’t even have enough to sustain it’s own population, so how about other populations ?
Do you even watch the news ? Do you actually care about the third world or all this “anti racist” mumbo jumbo is just theatrics ? I’m not saying Trump would be any better. I’m just saying that when you mourn the Obama era, you tell the Syrian kids, the Libyan kids, and all the innocent people who are dying because of his wars that their lives do not matter.
But who cares ? Just go swoon over his photos with his wife.
To begin with, some would get sensitive now and say “you’re not black so you have no right to criticize Black Lives Matter, otherwise you’re racist and you hate black people”. Well, yes, I’m not black or African American, but if telling the truth is racist then there’s no hope for the world we live in. Don’t think that there are only two sides: either pro-Black Lives Matter or a white supremacist.
Show me a movement of black liberation from the black people, by the black people and for the black people (not from elite activists and liberal billionaires) then I would be the first one to support it.
So in the light of the recent events, there are suspicions that the “Black Lives Matter” movement is infiltrated, or the word that is often used is “co-opted”. To be clear, infiltrating or co-opting a movement means that the movement was originally genuine and grassroot, then it got hijacked by an outside factor which intervened and directed it to a different direction.
So is BLM co-opted / infiltrated or was it suspicious from the very beginning, since the days it was founded ? This movement, which started as supposedly a protest, a response, to the violence against African Americans, was founded by few black women. Let’s take a look at the background of some of these women, as well as that of other prominent BLM activists.
2. Opal Tometi: of Nigerian origin. BLM co-founder. Like Alicia Garza, her work was published in mainstream media outlets such as Time Magazine and Huffington Post. She participated with the UN’s “Global Forum on Migration” and “Commission on the Status of Women”. In 2013, she was invited to the White House to meet Heather Foster, Obama’s liaison on African American community. She runs “Black Alliance for Just Immigration”, which received $100,000 from the one and only one, George Soros, through his Open Society Foundations, in 2011.
5. Deray McKesson: BLM activist. He met Bernie Sanders and went to a Hillary Clinton rally. Not judging anyone here, but a supposed revolutionary would be aware enough that Hillary Clinton has nothing good to offer neither to the African American community nor to anyone except her elite friends. Back to Deray; Yale invited him as a guest lecturer on “Transformational Leadership”. The name of the course itself is suspicious. Recruiting NGO activists usually takes place at universities, as well as training them to be “leaders” and active in civil society. “Fabricating” and training student activists in such “laboratories” is typical nowadays, so instead of having leaders, or activists who emerge out of the aspirations of their own local community, we have faux-leaders and faux-activists emerging out of establishment NGOs aspirations. McKesson worked for “Teach For America“, an organization which basically recruits graduates to become teachers. If you skim through its list of donors you’ll come across some jaw-dropping names of big capitalist corporations and elite foundations such as Chevron, Bank of America, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Monsanto Fund, and… Goldman Sachs.
So, we basically have BLM founders and activists invited to the White House, participated in UN programs, promoted by elite media such as The Guardian, Rolling Stone etc, worked for “non-profit” organizations financed by the big corporations and/or by Soros, praised by university corporates as “transformational leaders”, promoting and promoted by the Democratic Party, as well as BLM organizations and media outlets themselves receiving funds from Soros. Such a movement that has dubious connections could not be much of the radical anti-establishment group we wished for.
The famous African American activist Assata Shakur, who BLM consider as an idol (or claim to do so), is wanted by the US government and accused by it of murder. She is NOT promoted in mainstream media, she’s denounced instead. She’s NOT invited to meet officials or presidential candidates; those see her as a criminal, and even a terrorist. Rulers and their media hate and defame true radicals, not promote them!
“Radical leftists” not so radical, after all. In short, controlled opposition. Black Lives Matter? More like Soros’ Dollars Matter. Not exactly saying that there are no good people whatsoever in this movement with good intentions. I’m sure there are, and they’re there because they got their hopes up about the movement not knowing who is behind it. So no, BLM is not “infiltrated”, however, it infiltrates.
What’s more shocking is that an israeli version of BLM, in israel, protested, in opposition to police brutality there against Jewish black people, at the same time when BLM protests erupted in Baltimore, USA.
Definitely black people in israel aren’t as privileged as white Ashkenazi Jews, but they’re both occupying the land of the Palestinians to which they have no right! So what about Palestinian lives? Don’t they matter? Even let’s not forget that African Americans as well are on a land which is not theirs, just like white Americans, the land is for the natives, the difference is that the ancestors of African Americans came there against their own will, as slaves.
So why did Soros and his globalist friends make such a movement emerge? Does Soros actually have compassion for black people and wants to help them get out of their suffering? Definitely no. Soros & Co do not care about African Americans. Black lives do not matter for them, and will never matter! Soros has an agenda which he wants to achieve through BLM. What is this agenda?
Probably US government is afraid. Afraid that a true movement for black liberation would come out and challenge them. So they and Soros created a movement which claims the cause and at the same time is supported by mainstream liberals. They want to infiltrate the black community, and their struggle for liberation, with movements and organizations similar to those who caused the “Arab Spring”.
And BLM aren’t really clear about their goals. Like, if their goal is to end police brutality, then let’s face it, police brutality is not only a problem of black people, white people also suffer from it especially if they are poor or homeless, also other ethnicities like Hispanics. So why only oppose police brutality against blacks, why not oppose police brutality against EVERYONE? And why not focus on other aspects in which black people are oppressed? Definitely they have other problems that are as important as police brutality (which isn’t the problem of them alone).
Moreover, one of the BLM organizations created the slogan “hands up, don’t shoot”. I do have issues with the BDS-ish “nonviolent resistance” and “civil disobedience”, however, if BLM claim to follow such a norm then why do they promote the thug life and gangster culture? This kind of culture is NOT revolutionary armed resistance, it is a stereotype created by the media to brand black people, so why embrace the stereotype, why not fight it? Malcolm X must be turning in his grave right now.
And sometimes the movement goes into extremes and turns to hating white people altogether. It could be a reaction to the racism existing in the US society, but blind reactions lead the cause nowhere. How would you solve racism with more racism? Especially, as mentioned before, that there are white people who are also oppressed, by the police. Instead of people of all races uniting against the government, they fight because of their skin color. Well done Soros, with the divide-and-conquer method.
So I’ll address this issue because I noticed that only right-wing and alt-right websites are complaining about it (for example here), and anyone who reads this blog would know that it supports neither right-wing nor alt-right, and someone other than them should talk about this. Basically, Soros Dollars Matter decided to antagonize the so-called “Western-prescribed nuclear family”. In the “Guiding Principles” section of their official website, in the “Black Villages” part, they consider their goal as follows:
“We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.”
Yes, the nuclear family living alone is a western thing, a tribe living together is the African thing, but this tribe * is * formed of a bunch of nuclear families, with mother, father and kids, so you can’t revive the tribal system if you dismantle the nuclear family and form some hippie-dippie communes. It’s really difficult to revive it and you solve nothing by “disrupting the western nuclear family structure”. The white and black elite in the US already stereotype poor black people and then enforce those stereotypes on them in their lives: thug life, drugs, gangs, family disintegration, moral degeneracy… and BLM is doing the same, promoting all this, but they do it under the pretext of “liberation”, because BLM ARE from the elite, by the elite and for the elite, and if you think otherwise then – sorry to break it to you – you’re brainwashed by the elite.
For those who don’t know what BDS is (though it’s hard not to know, they’re quite popular among activists), it’s an acronym for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions”. It is a campaign formed of several groups, NGOs, civil society organizations, who claim that they support the Palestinian cause by the way of “non-violent resistance”. What does that mean? Probably the idea comes from Gandhi, or the civil disobedience of Henry David Thoreau, or Gene Sharp (whose writings on “peaceful protesting” are considered as holy scripture for Otpor/CANVAS Institute which trains activists in “nonviolent protesting” from all over the world). In this case, concerning BDS, it means pressuring israel to end its “racist apartheid policies against Palestinians” by peaceful means, such as imposing economic sanctions, asking companies to withdraw their investments in israel, asking bands/singers to cancel their concerts in israel, asking academics not to lecture in israel, boycotting israeli products, boycotting brands/corporations that support israel, etc…
According to BDS, this method was followed against the apartheid regime in South Africa and it succeeded in pressuring it to end the apartheid system, so it should be applied to israel now. So what’s the problem with BDS and why are they infiltrators? It’s enough to say that its groups are funded by the businessman George Soros (who is famous for funding “activists” who caused destabilization in several countries where the governments stand in the way of US spreading its neo-liberalism everywhere) and by the EU as well. Proof on all that? Here, in a previous post :
I know the source I used is far-right israeli, but why doesn’t BDS deny the info there if it isn’t true? Why don’t they disclose their financiers and be transparent? And as a movement, BDS basically contradicts itself several times.
First, they consider that the “racist apartheid regime” in israel should end and then the whole issue of the Palestinian-israeli conflict would be solved. What is wrong with this is that what is happening to Palestinians is not “racism” or “apartheid” from the state of israel, it’s much worse than that – it’s genocide. By calling it apartheid, BDS trivializes all what the Palestinians are suffering from; all the occupation, genocide and crimes against humanity, and reducing them to a simple problem of apartheid and racial discrimination. So how about “end genocide” or “end occupation” instead of “end apartheid”? But no, this way the Soros and EU funding would stop and many faux-leftist activists would stop supporting BDS.
Also, post-apartheid South Africa isn’t really what we should want Palestine to become: South Africa still has a lot of security problems and racial conflicts as well – so if you think it’s the socialist utopia of equality, think again. Also, BDS is actually implying that the conflict in Palestine is between two groups of people (white people and people of color, or Jews and Muslims) which is not true. Palestinians are NOT an oppressed group or minority within a society like women or LGBTs or ethnic/religious minorities, they are the original citizens who got expelled from their homes and their country, and subjected to genocide. Applying the “identity politics” mess to the Palestinian cause makes no sense since it’s a humanitarian cause, neither an ethnic nor religious conflict.
“Identity Politics” should not be applied to anything; it is poison, fanaticism and racism, but BDS adopts it. Here is the BDS founder saying he “won’t take lecture from a white person” and that whites are the most violent race because of colonialism and World Wars… It may be a surprise to him but whites have also been subjected to genocide (The Irish? The Armenians?); not everything is about race and identity politics… Didn’t he mention the Holocaust as an example of white violence as well? Its victims were also white. And I know white people who are more genuine supporters of Palestine than him. And him not being lectured by a white person is a lie; Soros and the EU are all white people you know…
BDS activists also take pride in “teaching” Palestinians about resistance through boycotting. For example, BDS activists here in Lebanon go to Palestinian refugee camps and teach kids there about boycott. Boycott what, I have no idea… No israeli goods in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, and definitely no Starbucks, no McDonald’s, or any of those corporations that support israel…
So let’s get this straight – a European/American activist, or an Arab from the intellectual elite of educated faux-leftist activists, comes to educate the Palestinians about their own cause? The Palestinian people live their cause everyday! Whether they’re in the occupied territories, or Gaza, or West Bank, or abroad in refugee camps, their daily struggle for life is resistance. Their strong will to overcome the challenge is resistance. Their keeping of the keys of their original homes in Palestine so that they might return to them one day is resistance. They resist everyday by all means available to them. With a paper and a pen, with a stone, with a weapon, with whatever their hands can reach. So it’s not for you, hipster coffee-shop activist, to lecture them about resistance. Instead, the right thing to do is to sit with them, listen to them and learn from them.
Do I sound hypocritical? I criticized above the BDS founder for saying he “won’t get lectured by a white person” and then I myself say that European/American activists should not lecture Palestinians… what I meant is that those activists (and also Arab intellectual activists, not just foreigners) should not lecture (about boycott and “peaceful resistance” and all those buzzwords) Palestinians who suffer from the israeli occupation of their country and struggle everyday in their life: Palestinians who got kicked out of their homes, Palestinians who had their families murdered in cold blood right in front of their eyes, Palestinians who live in refugee camps abroad with horrible life conditions, Palestinians who live under siege in Gaza…Now tell me how is the BDS founder himself suffering from israeli occupation like the rest of the Palestinians? He gets money from foreign funders, belongs to the Arab intellectual elite, probably sits in air-conditioned rooms along with other salon-revolutionaries and coffee-shop leftists and they all discuss pseudo-Marxist mumbo jumbo. He was being racist and he doesn’t represent the Palestinian people in any way. And if you’re a “white person” who is wholeheartedly a supporter of Palestine (because it’s a humanitarian cause, not because it brings you foreign funding) then you have the floor to lecture him or any other Arab/Palestinian activist of this kind.
And now this is where BDS contradict themselves and do not clarify their priorities. They don’t support the two-state solution, they support the one state solution. And no, this “one state” is not a free Palestine, but a multicultural israel where Arabs have “equal rights” as Jews (as if “equal rights” could compensate for all the stolen lands and all the innocent people who were victims of the genocide).
Also, BDS state on their official website that they want israel to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied in 1976.
But if they’re in favor of the one state solution (which is israel, where Palestinians have equal rights as the rest of citizens) then what happens to the lands occupied in 1967 after israel withdraws as BDS wants? Since BDS doesn’t consider that those lands should become a Palestinian state on their own (BDS say no to two-state solution), should those lands have a kind of a local autonomy within the state of israel? Would Jordan annex them? BDS are not clear about that.
What is even more shocking is that the co-founder of Electronic Intifada (one of the biggest and most important BDS groups) suggested here that Israel should fully annex the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967:
“Given these realities, “The worst solution … is apparently the right one: a binational state, full annexation, full citizenship” in the words of settler activist and former Netanyahu aide Uri Elitzur.
This awakening can be likened to what happened among South African whites in the 1980s. By that time it had become clear that the white minority government’s effort to “solve” the problem of black disenfranchisement by creating nominally independent homelands — bantustans — had failed. Pressure was mounting from internal resistance and the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.
By the mid-1980s, whites overwhelmingly understood that the apartheid status quo was untenable and they began to consider “reform” proposals that fell very far short of the African National Congress’ demands for a universal franchise — one-person, one-vote in a nonracial South Africa. The reforms began with the 1984 introduction of a tricameral parliament with separate chambers for whites, coloreds and Indians (none for blacks), with whites retaining overall control.
Until almost the end of the apartheid system, polls showed the vast majority of whites rejected a universal franchise, but were prepared to concede some form of power-sharing with the black majority as long as whites retained a veto over key decisions. The important point, as I have argued previously, is that one could not predict the final outcome of the negotiations that eventually brought about a fully democratic South Africa in 1994, based on what the white public and elites said they were prepared to accept.”
One gets lost this way – what do BDSers want? israel withdrawing from 1967 territories or annexing them? You can’t have both at the same time, BDS.
And in that same article he seems to be giving israel instructions which help it gain legitimacy:
“Of course Israeli Jews still retain an enormous power advantage over Palestinians which, while eroding, is likely to last for some time. Israel’s main advantage is a near monopoly on the means of violence, guaranteed by the United States. But legitimacy and stability cannot be gained by reliance on brute force — this is the lesson that is starting to sink in among some Israelis as the country is increasingly isolated after its attacks on Gaza and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Legitimacy can only come from a just and equitable political settlement.”
Meanwhile, the official FB page of BDS says something totally different than what is written on their website (about demanding israel to end occupation of lands occupied in 1967)…
Let’s get this straight – on their website, they say israel should end occupation only in 1967 lands, but on FB, in ALL Arab lands… I know what you would think now, that it might just be a simple mistake and no need to make a big deal out of it. It could be either unintentional or intentional. If unintentional, then organizations which do not have their goals clear and unified are definitely ineffective and useless. If intentional then I’m sorry to say they are fooling people into supporting them based on their FB statement that all Arab lands should be freed, while their real purpose is that israel remains where it is but only withdraws from 1967 lands (and one of their activists contradicts this and says israel should “annex” those lands). This way BDS attracts and gains genuine supporters of a free Palestine who read only its FB page and are blind to its true intentions and think it supports a free Palestine, while at the same time it keeps its faux-leftist, faux-Marxist supporters who scream Identity Politics postmodern-ish gibberish and who want israel to stay and give “equal rights” to Palestinians and only end occupation in 1967 lands. If I remember well, this thing (gathering genuine well intentioned activists together with false ones) has a name: it’s called INFILTRATION.
And on the basis of cultural boycott of israel, they are so busy shunning foreign bands and singers who play in israel (such as here, here and here) and who most probably have no idea about what’s happening in the region; who don’t do anything political in israel, just go play a show there then leave… BDS should shun and denounce those instead:
Western governments who support israel politically or financially or of any kind and thus take part in the crime
Arab governments who denounce the resistance against israel and label it as “terrorism” and have diplomatic ties with israel
And the latest BDS campaign is targeting the hit movie “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice”… why? Because there’s an israeli actress in it who played the character of Wonder Woman. This actress was Miss Israel 2004 and served in both the israeli defense forces and the israeli army. BDSers objected to showing a movie in which there’s an israeli actress who openly supported the israeli war on Gaza .
But while BDS is busy calling for a ban on a movie with an israeli actress, do they know what movie is showing in theaters in Lebanon now? Son of Saul. It’s about an Auschwitz prisoner. Now this movie has an agenda, to show the Jews as victims so that people would think since Jews were oppressed in the past, they (Jews) are entitled the right to occupy Palestine and inflict genocide on Palestinians. This is why the media’s favorite thing is to show the horrors of Nazi Germany and the suffering of the Jews in it. When people sympathize with Jews, they would excuse israel’s horrible occupation and label anyone against it as “anti-semitic”. In short, this movie is propaganda (and it’s not the only movie like that, I can list many movies with similar messages). This movie is blatant brainwash straight in your face. It is not like “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice”; the latter is a movie with an israeli actress and many viewers wouldn’t even know there’s an israeli actress unless they google the cast; no propaganda or brainwash (all Hollywood is propaganda if you ask me, but the topic here is the Palestinian-israeli conflict and the hit movie itself has no propaganda of that kind) while Son of Saul is what should really worry BDS if they actually believe in all the boycott mumbo jumbo which they call for. But tell them that Son of Saul is propaganda; they’ll label you as an “anti-semitic”.
There is nothing wrong with boycott as a concept. If you boycott israeli products or don’t go to McDonald’s or don’t go to a show of a band who played in israel, it’s your choice, as long as you know that all this would help you more than help the Palestinians… If you don’t buy israeli dates or oranges from a supermarket this won’t put “pressure on israel to end racist policies”… remember, israel gets tons of aid and material and financial support from your own government, so “economic sanctions” and “cultural boycott” won’t matter to the zionist state and won’t pressure it. What might help the Palestinians is that you protest against your government’s support of israel and when the election comes, you do not vote for politicians who are pro-israel (this is hard in the US because all candidates are, but whenever it is possible…)
The world establishment infiltrates causes and directs them to its own benefit. An example mentioned previously here is the environmental cause, as well as the Palestinian cause through movements like BDS which are highly “politically correct” when it comes to “anti-semitism”; whatever that phrase means…probably means any ideology that is against the illegal state of israel and its genocide against Palestinians. The African American cause is no exception in infiltration, with famous pop singers promoting it and making it “cool”.
Usually NGOs are used to infiltrate causes, as well as celebrities, due to their popularity and “fanbase”. Never, ever put your hopes in celebrities (or NGOs) supporting your cause – because they don’t give a crap about your cause; they only care to please whoever controls them, whether it’s their management, sponsors, or record label. I know it is harsh, but true. Truth will hurt you, shock you, and even offend you. But better than the rosy image you fantasize about.
If those famous actors and singers were genuine supporters of any good cause that contradicts with the interests of the elite (which controls everything from the food you eat till what you see on TV), would they be promoted in the media? Would their music videos be played on MTV? Would their albums sell millions of copies despite them “artists” having little or no talent? Definitely no. The establishment (and the media) won’t promote a true revolutionary or a “dissident voice”. But it makes celebrities APPEAR rebellious anyway. Why? So that they can indoctrinate YOU.
The most recent example is Beyoncé, paying a “tribute” to African American revolutionaries through her performance in the Super Bowl Halftime show, with her stage dancers dressed as Black Panthers (African American radicals).
The activist Ajamu Baraka perfectly explained here what I think about the implication of Beyoncé’s Super Bowl performance; I have nothing else to add. In his own words:
“No folks, real opposition to this white supremacist, colonialist/imperialist order is not cool, or sexy. Being a black revolutionary means the possibility of death, it can mean facing decades of incarceration as a political prisoner, it can mean exile or the inability to make a living because your liberal friends consider you dangerous. It is facing the naked power of the national security state with its power to engage in extra-judicial murder with impunity, surveillance and infiltration.”
Yet, people still look up to B as “progressive” and view her as the mother goddess of modern African American feminism. Have they forgotten that she participated in a campaign to ban the word “bossy” (because it was considered as oppressive for women) along with Condolezza Rice who is the most un-progressive black women ever! And this censorship of of words and speech is not “progressive” or “empowering”, it is an Orwellian elite strategy to ban the freedom of expression. Its goal isn’t really to stop people from calling ambitious, charismatic women “bossy”… But it is to stop YOU from calling the elite “bossy”!
In short, stop looking up to B as “progressive”, whatever that word means, because faux-leftists ruined its meaning anyway.
Another elite puppet previously mentioned here is Azealia Banks. She compared African Americans to Jews, which follows the agenda to victimize Jews so that whatever atrocities they commit against Palestinians become forgivable. You might consider this view as “anti-semitic” or whatever but you know what, this is a space free of your “political correctness”. African Americans and Jews can not be compared, you know why? Here’s the difference: African Americans are oppressed but are not committing genocide against anyone, while Zionists are committing genocide in the name of Judaism and they feel they have the right to because of past oppression they have been through themselves.
And then, Azealia promotes the “New-Age” pseudo-spirituality saying that it will empower African Americans if they embrace it; assuming that it was their “Old Religion” before they became Christian (fun fact: New Age movements started in the end of 19th & the beginning of 20th century). The role of New-Age movements in the rise of faux-leftists needs a separate post on its own, so let’s just stick to our topic now.
Azealia, like Beyoncé, pretends to be “progressive” and rebellious and all the hip-cool anarcho-leftist labels you can come up with, while pushing the same old elite agenda concerning the israel issue, and promoting the New-Age thing that is a pseudo-religion which the elite wants the people to embrace instead of of Christianity, Islam… This is the same kind of false rebellion/controlled opposition which the elite wants us to follow instead of genuine grassroot opposition.
And then Azealia complains…
Really? Listen, dearie, if the establishment had any problem with you, would your videos be played on MTV? Would your songs be among the top hits? Would we even know you exist? You ARE a part of the establishment, being a black woman does not automatically place you among an oppressed social class. Don’t fool people to think you’re a female Malcolm X just because you didn’t get an award, while you ARE a part of the profit-oriented capitalist 1%.
And “opinionated black women”? Who is she kidding now? By the mainstream standard which Azealia herself abides by as well, Beyoncé also is an “opinionated black woman” while she drowns in awards, and performs in a huge event in which she promotes black revolution! What more could an “opinionated black woman” wish for?
Let’s move to Angelina Jolie, the philanthropic queen. She says she supports the Palestinian cause while her father, John Voight, is the biggest Zionist in Hollywood, and she herself is pretty much a hypocrite.
She says beautiful words such as:
“I respect all religions. What I don’t respect is when people use religion to attack others. I’ve met people across the world, in the middle of nowhere, who are just trying to survive and all they have is religion. In some way it helps them, and I wouldn’t take it away from them. There are also people who use it to hate and kill. I don’t consider them religious people.”
…and then she openly supports Syrian rebels. Don’t these use religion to kill?
When I see Arabs especially idolizing her all I think of is “sheeple” to be honest.
Oh, and dear Angelina, taking kids from Asia won’t make you the Mother Teresa of Hollywood.
Beyoncé (and Azealia) infiltrate the African American cause, and Angelina Jolie is for our Arab causes. The latter also supported a campaign called “KONY 2012”. Many celebrities such as George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey and others were a part of this campaign, which demands that the US interferes in Uganda because of some warlord there, whether he’s dead or alive, nobody knows. This is the exact modus operandi: make people THEMSELVES demand that the US spreads its “democracy” and “liberal values” everywhere, because of some warlord or a “dictator”.
Some would say that such celebrities caring for causes is not bad, they are using their popularity to gain support for good causes. But, again, what kind of “good causes” they are?
Is Jared Leto‘s support for the “rebels” in Ukraine and Venezuela (who are backed by the multi-millionaire George Soros and the US government through National Endowment For Democracy) a good cause? Is censoring speech a good cause? The African American cause is a good cause, but would performing a sexy dance in the Super Bowl halftime help African Americans in any way? You know whom that helps? Not African Americans – not anyone who is oppressed, but it helps the enemies of humanity, and of all free people and nations!
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.
“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”:
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…
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:
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!
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.
To begin, the person who caused me to write this post is the African American rap singer Azealia Banks. She’s known for being an activist promoting causes of black people and causing online controversy for her opinions. Also, she’s into the neo-pagan Wicca thing.
Once I mentioned Wicca on this blog in a post about The Mists of Avalon. It’s one of those neo-pagan New Age religions that were created in the 20th century and that mix magic with rituals and practices from many religions out there and create new faiths which appeal to hippies, fantasy/sci-fi fans, radical environmentalists and teeny girls who want to rebel against Christianity. Some followers of those new faiths claim that they were the “Old Religion” where the society was peaceful and matriarchal before Christianity came and imposed patriarchy. The truth is that the church did impose patriarchy, but before it was EQUALITY, not “matriarchy” or whatever…
Now let’s get back to the singer Azealia Banks. To quote her:
“I wonder if most of the black American Christians in the US know WHY they are Christian. I wonder if they even consider for a SECOND that before their ancestors came to the Americas that they may have believed in something ELSE.”
“But really, it’s all about magic. The most magical people are the ones who have to deal with oppression, because the non-magical are jealous. That’s why Jews and Blacks have been persecuted over and over again throughout history. because they have the most magic … all I’m trying to say is that black people are naturally born SEERS, DIVINERS, WITCHES AND WIZARDS. we have REAL supernatural powers, and the sooner we ALL learn to cultivate them and access them, the sooner we can REALLY fix sh*t.”
Okay, okay…First of all, yeah, most likely they weren’t Christian before they were brought to the American continent on ships. But “naturally born SEERS, DIVINERS, WITCHES etc…”? This is a plain cultural stereotype. What’s the difference between saying that and saying “all Muslims are terrorists, all Asians are nerds, etc…”? You might consider that which Azealia said not as a negative stereotype while others are, but stereotypes are stereotypes, whether positive or negative, and they’re all racist.
Second, this is NOT empowering to black people! Azealia is basically saying that black people can’t be empowered unless they embrace the New Age mumbo jumbo and they need it to be able to overcome oppression and without it they can’t. No dear, to overcome oppression they need to be aware of their situation, embrace their cause, struggle for it and follow the example of their respectful leaders such as Malcolm X, NOT follow the New Age thing which was NOT their religion before Christianity. If they wish to find out about their pre-Christian religion then they have to trace their ancestry back to Africa, which is difficult.
Third, why make parallel between black people and Jews? This is an agenda to promote Jews as an oppressed group so that the world may forgive them and excuse them for the atrocities they’re committing against the Palestinians. And before I get showered with the “omg ur so anti semetic” comments, I have nothing against Judaism as a religion. Inciting religious hatred would make me no different than ISIS.
And what Jews was she talking about? Does she mean Kabbalists? Those were rejected by the rest of the Jewish sects BECAUSE its followers practiced magic! So next time dear Azealia, educate yourself.
Azealia just exposed herself to be a Zionist infiltrating the African American cause (and the sad thing is that she’s not the only one). She wants African Americans to rebel against Christianity. Just to make one thing clear, rebelling against Christianity incites religious hatred which would make one no different than ISIS. What should be done is to rebel against colonialism that was committed in the name of Christianity. Otherwise, let’s also hate Islam as well due to what ISIS is doing. No religion commits atrocities. Only people do. Converting to a newly created religion wouldn’t solve anything. Reforming the currently existing religions would.