I recently attempted to listen to the Dave Chappelle interview on the JRE podcast and, sadly, within the first ten minutes Dave proved that he was still an egregious racist. The essence of the discussion was Dave sucking Ghandis dick despite Ghandis anti-black work in South Africa. He also said that Ghandi was fighting white supremacy by working to liberate India through civil disobedience. These views of course are the only way that an egregious racist can rationalize Ghandis clearly racist actions. Note however how he blames white supremacy not British colonialism, as somehow all white people were evil instead of every country grabbing as much power as possible. Even his own statements contradict “white supremacy” or even racism being the cause of British colonialism. Like he explicitly stated Ghandi was trained as a lawyer in London. Which should immediately raise an eyebrow. How terrible are British “white supremacists” when they are training “brown” people in lucrative and high tier professions that they don’t even offer to their own race first? Next is that Dave admits Ghandi wrote racist legislation in South Africa, but was not racist because he wasn’t white? Apparently getting trained by white people and writing racist legislation for them is A-OK, as long as you yourself are not white. Also, how horrendous are the British white supremacists when they turn over governorship back to the Indian people they trained and invested in? We all know how bloody the American Revolutionary War was.
What makes this worse is this is how history is being taught through crt. No other society can hold blame but the mystical white supremacy. Slavic people spent over 2000 years as slaves and breeding livestock for tan and brown people, but apparently they chose to do so as they were the oppressors of the black, brown, and tan people who brutalized them.
I would when this is exactly what’s being pushed in schools and is already the “default” mentality being taught to black children.
Unfortunately, some people put a whole lot of stock in comedians. I don't know if it's still the case, but there was a period from 2008 - 2015 where something like 1/3 millennials reported primarily from satire shows like The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Such people would likely put plenty of stock in a comedians interpretation of history.
I mean modern comedy sets have almost all been edging closer and closer to funny cult sermons for years now, half of them are transparently begging to be thought of as the wise teachers with a sense of humour these days. It's no great suprise that a good portion of the feckless masses actually feel enriched because they were laughing long enough to actually pay attention for once.
Unfortunately once the haha's stop so does the thinking, and plenty of have people learnt how easy it is to lead an otherwise apathetic proportion of the population around by the nose with a few good punchlines.
Why do you think I am referring to modern entertainers as The New Priesthood? They ARE the new cult leaders.
You think he doesn't wield disproportionate influence over every day morons?
He's the least of the morons we should worry about.
Comedians are good at making fun of the ridiculous (i.e., destruction), but not necessarily very good at coming up with something that's good.
The first time I heard the words "political correctness" was out of the mouth of a comedian circa 1984, actually. He was talking about how "they" wanted to change the name of manhole cover to personhole cover, isn't that silly? Hahahaha!
You cracked the code.
Also applies to a lesser extent to alphabet people and females, as long as they are big on intersectionality, CRT and marxism.
Yup. Chappelle twigs the alphabet people, but parrots them on intersectional Marxism to a "T".
How can Gandhi be against white supremacy and colonialism when he maintained the democratic parliamentary system instituted by white colonizers? Where are all the Maharajahs that are integral to authentic Indian culture?
Something something, systemic racism.
inb4 someone points out that suttee was only outlawed because of those nasty cultural-imperalist Englishmen ...
Let's see if fundamentalist hindu india brings it back in defiance of colonization, and see what the sjws and hollywood has to say about it if they do.
The hindu caste sysrem is the most racist social system ever known.
That's a good one. Do your part to decolonize India by burning an Indian widow!
They've been doing that forever. The difference is, back then, it was pretty much entirely localized to TV/music/film/books. But now it has spilled out onto the Internet as well.
And let's not pretend the Internet wasn't a trashfire back then either. It's just a different kind of trashfire now and it takes a different set of skills to separate the signal from the noise.
Well, it used to be that celebrity voices were pretty much confined to shows or magazines you had to go out of your way to bother with, and interviews in either People or on The Tonight Show would be more or less curated, and Johnny Carson could cut someone off if they went too far off the rails.
Now, with social media, they can go as far off the rails as they like, and fill millions more ears than they used to reach with their personal opinions. And there seems to be more people who actually give a shit about what they have to say, which is why they can be on the brink of becoming a new kind of priesthood, insofar as being arbiters of morality goes.
Perhaps it all traces back to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
Even in Sticks and Stones which I thought was pretty hilarious and spot on about everything else, he played up the tired old "white people don't want black people having guns" trope. He said watch how many white people turn against 2A once they see black people carrying weapons. It's a worn out unoriginal schtick even if it were true.
In this case, yes. Because he wants to place the blame on Whitey. In other cases, if talking about say a Tim Scott, who is a total race hustler under some circumstances (as are a lot of GOP types), writing supposedly racist legislation, then they most certainly will blame him for it.
It's all about what is most convenient at the moment. Don't expect logic.
Well, it led to millions of deaths due to the fact that the Labour government wanted it done quickly and over with. But that was not out of animus against darker skinned people.
It's completely logical... if you examine it only from a tactical perspective.
I didn't know that.
So, can they like, not fuck up?
During World War II, the Labour ministers were some of the most loyal allies to Churchill and his resistance to Hitler, as opposed to some of the Conservatives (like Halifax and Chamberlain) who wanted to appease Hitler and later make peace after the disaster in France.
Other than that, I'm sure you don't like it, but the NHS apparently led to a great improvement in the health of common British people.
It's not that I don't like it, it's that I doubt it.
Did the NHS improve the lives of people, or did medicine advance enough to improve the lives of people despite the NHS.
I have a similar position about the Soviet Union. Did the Soviet Union ever recover from the economic devastation of the Russian Revolution, or did the Soviet Union steal just barely enough technology to become a partially submerged boat that rises with the tide.
Considering that most British poor people did not have health insurance, it's not that odd that the NHS improved people's health. William L. Shirer reported before World War II that British soldiers seemed crooked and in poor health, while the German ones seemed in excellent state.
Of course, if you removed it right now, it would not have that much of a negative impact on people's health as it benefited people after World War II, because people are much richer now.
What tide precisely?
Not having health insurance has nothing to do with either health care costs or availability. If people in Britain weren't being given good medical treatment, the question isn't "why didn't they have health insurance?" The question is, what government intervention likely stopped them from being able to seek it or get it while it was in demand.
You haven't noticed any economic or technologic improvements on the Earth since WW1? He said sarcastically from the internet.
So, most of what the Left says is wrong, but there is something to talk about in regards to English Supremacism eventually turning into White Supremacism, and the Leftists revising everything and reversing the cause and effect.
White Supremacism as a concept has basically only ever existed in America. It's not really even appropriate to apply it to other continents, especially Europe, where despite the racialist right's desires, the concept is still utterly worthless to people who are significantly different.
However, American White Supremacism as a concept does have an origin to a kind of English Supremacist, or really Anglo Supremacist arrogance that you did find in England, and that the English always fucking carried with them through the Empire. The way I see it, the English seemed like they were always huffing their own farts about how great they were, and Anglicanizing was always a moral imperative, no matter how many people you fucking slaughtered. England was simply to pure for slavery, but the Empire had no qualms about it. England was a perfect country, it didn't matter that the Highland Scotts and the Irish were being utterly fucking genocided. Even the Americans, who explicitly claimed their rights as Englishmen, not Britons, were seen as a lesser form of English, frankly not entirely civilized enough to deserve those rights. And although there is officially no English parliament, the British parliament could be mistaken for one (at least until recent decades).
Then all of the sudden the Londoners and English supremacists would be stunned to hear that the Empire had fucking burned another city, or slaughtered another clan, or had done some other unspeakable act of violence, and it created a bit of a political shit storm... and then it was quietly brushed under the rug. Continuing the illusion that the English were just better than everyone, like those savages from France.
This attitude was basically adapted to the Americas because the Americans didn't want to call themselves English because a) they just left, b) being English didn't really do shit for most of them in the previous centuries, c) many weren't English anyway.
This is why, when you see the Left attacking "whiteness", they are often attacking English values represented by things like "The Protestant Work Ethic" and things like that. English values promote liberty and individualism as opposed to collectivism and authoritarianism. Hence why the Communists want to kill it, and associate it with a label they've already poisoned "white".
Thus, all English cultural actions are considered White cultural actions. That's why they can stand there and scream British Imperialism is actually White Supremacy: there is a partial link between Anglo Supremacism and British Imperialism, therefore they can work backwards and say that White Supremacy comes from Anglo Supremacism which is influences British Imperialism which therefore makes it White Supremacy. Or they can just give up and say, "hurr durr, whites benefit thus white supremacy".
However, what's funny is that you could actually argue that White Supremacism is opposed to English values and is Anti-Anglo Supremacism because White Supremacism is more inclusive than Anglo Supremacism. White Supremacism would have to uplift the Scotts, Irish, French, Germans, and Poles as much as they support the English... which Anglo Supremacism would not tolerate.