There has been a paradigm shift over the last few years involving millions of young people in the Western World. A shift that brings about loneliness, depression, hatred and self-loathing. That rids those same young people of empathy, compassion and the ability to forgive. Which robs them of their beauty and dignity.

This indoctrination into the destructive aspects of the human psyche has occurred through the subtle drip-feeding of Marxism, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality and Identity Politics. Victims of traumatic experiences (and some not so traumatic) are hailed as ‘survivors’ and ‘warriors’. A person who shuns their own sex is deemed ‘brave’. A person who cannot perform a task under pressure is no longer incompetent, but ‘strong’ for admitting they’d rather ‘look after themselves’ than do what needs to be done.

Such people are none of these things. They are desperately, hopelessly lost. And the biggest problem for the future of these young people is they don’t even realise it. And they will need those few remaining who see the world clearly to help them and guide them. This will not be easy.

But where did this ongoing ideological phenomena start? In many ways, it’s been around since the 19th Century. At least, that’s the age of the oldest component of this Chaos Engine.

In 1845, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published ‘The Holy Family’, a critque on the ‘Young Hegelian’s’ which served as the basis for polticial divides of Right/Conservative and Left/Libertarian. The primary criticism Marx held against Hegel’s ideal was that the ‘Spirit’ of society was held together by money and capital not social relations. Social relations came about as the result of an exchange of money and/or capital. Therefore, people are divided before being put together in a manner that benefits one group of people who hold the majority of the money and capital but not those who do not hold much in the way of money or capital. To gain those, the lower groups must exchange labour for money and capital. Marx believed this setup of a society was ‘alien to a truly human life’ whereas Hegel dubbed this the ‘civil society’, ‘the battlefield of private interest’ and that the state/government was heart of a nation’s life and spirit which he termed ‘the actuality of concrete freedom’. Conversely, Marx saw this as oppressive and exploitative and that ‘true freedom’ began with the ‘free development’ of the ‘social individual’ which would lead to the ‘free development of all’. In short, the path to a free society began with allowing an indivdual to develop themselves. If every individual developed themselves then all of society would benefit for, collectively, society would have developed as the result of individual development.

Marxism:

And, in many ways, this aspect of Marxism reigns true today. One person who starts at the bottom of the development ladder and works up benefits not only themselves but the organisation they are developing with which, in turn, can benefit the nearby community. This has been true for decades. You do the work, you get the rewards and everyone else benefits. We call it Capitalism and it was seen as a one size fits all solution for socioeconomic progress incorporating elements of Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc.

When I was still living with my parents, I paid digs. 20% of my wages went to my mum and dad. The added revenue stream was not essential to keeping the house afloat but the extra income did allow for certain improvements to be made around the house or a few more treats to be purchased. This increased when my sister started paying digs. The society of the family developed through the development of the individual. This development slowed when I moved out, then all but stopped when my sister did. With my dad having recently retired, there is unlikely to be further development as my dad did not develop himself through his career whereas I have been. Therefore, my parental society will stagnate. Any children I have will benefit from my development as I will continue to improve thus they will be improved as a result. That’s how I interpret the constructive aspect of Marxism. My development benefists my immediate social entity but it also benefits the wider society as I can afford a certain level of goods and services which, in turn, helps create meaningful relationships.

But it’s the less savoury aspects I’m looking at here. Marx’s true freedom already existed. It was called Communism.

In Communism, there is no class and all property and wealth are communally owned. It was here that Marxism really took off when Marx and longtime collaborator, Friedrich Engels, published ‘The Communist Manifesto’. The main tenet of the text was to reject the Christian aspects of prior communist philosophies and usher in scientific and materialist ones. The general idea, as I understand it, being that class and religion were the main cause of human struggle throughout history. Marx sought to put an end to that.

This was tested by Vladimir Lenin in 1922 when he took power over the former Imperial Russian territories and formed the Soviet Union. Over time, the regime was adopted by predominantly Asian nations such as China, North Korea and Vietnam.

For these versions of Communism to work, the individual must give up their land, wealth and property so it may become part of the communal collective. But what happens when they don’t give it up?

They are removed. Permanently.

Be it the Gulags of the USSR, the ‘Great Purge’ of Stalin, Cambodia’s ‘Killing Fields’ or, the worst of all, Maoist China’s ‘Great Leap Forward’, the result was famine and death. Even those who managed to escape and surive were still subjected to repressions in the forms of restricted freedoms of speech, religion, ownership and engaging in any unsanctioned form of commerce.

The results speak for themselves and are well documented so, I won’t go any further. However, what I want to look at is the intent versus the execution. My understanding of what Marx wanted to achieve was to, in effect, grant everyone the Physiological and Safety/Security Needs from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Land was created by Mother Nature, God, Allah or whichever deity you prefer, therefore should be available to everyone in accordance to need. A farmer will need more land than a suregeon ergo the farmer receives more so that his labour can benefit society. If everyone is provided with a house, no one needs to spend the time and money required to come up with a deposit for a mortgage to then spend 15-30 years paying it off.

What I believe Marx wanted to achieve was to provide these base-level items so that humanity could concentrate on what was really important about the terribly short time we’re on this planet for. Friends, family, accomplishments, and reaching one’s full potential. Instead, the interpretation was twisted by power-mad control-freaks who had no intention of putting in the work required to achieve Marx’s ‘true freedom’. Instead, people were stripped of their homes, land and basic human rights so that they may all be equally deprived and starved of anything worthwhile.

As eutopian as Marx’s theory was, it only talked about needs. But what about wants? Genuine human needs are few in the West. In a true Marxist world, once people were given some land and a house, a lot of people would just stop. Why bother going any further when the simple goal was just handed over? It’s really around 10% of people that push beyond what they need and end up being the true innovators of society. It is here where I believe Marxism and Communism failed. They do not cater to wants. They are a restriction.

However, if we take ourselves out of the 19th and 20th Centuries and bring ourselves to today, there’s plenty of want to go around. In the Western world, few people actually need anything. Unemployment is, generally, low in many Western countries and the biggest concern for many working people is what time their next cup of coffee is due and how much charge they have left on their phone. Going by that, it would appear we’ve reached some form of Marx’s ‘True Freedom’. In reality, it’s certainly not the case.

Critical Race Theory:

The second component of my Chaos Engine. Initially, this came from a framework of legal analysis in the 1970’s whereby the basic tenet was that race was a social construct (does that mean skin colour is a social construct?) and that racism was not solely a product of prejudice or bias from an individual but that it is embedded into legal systems and policy. If you have heard of Systemic Racism, this is where it stems from.

The general understanding of this line of thinking is that, by assuming the very legal system an individual is part of is inherently racist, you come to the conclusion that ‘the system’ is intentionally rigged against those not indigenous to that country or, at least, rigged against those who haven’t inhabited the country for as long. In the case of CRT’s country of origin, we’re talking Harvard University in the USA ergo the system is white, supports white people and is against non-whites because the majority of the population is white.

This led to the critical race theorists to put people into two camps: ‘Oppressed’ and ‘Oppressor’. To get there, the theorists called for more focus on group identity (the opposite of how Martin Luther King Jr. wanted racism to end when he said people should be judged on their character not their skin colour) over universal, shared traits (none are given).

Or would it?

Given America’s federal court system wasn’t signed in until 1789 by George Washington and the percentage of white people being 90% for much of the century, it wasn’t until 1790 that the black population totalled 19.3%. However, the Naturlisation Act of 1790 limited naturalisation to  “free White person(s) … of good character”. It wasn’t until 1870 that the act was extended to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent”. It may well have been a case of misguided ignorance that saw the lawmakers of the time grant the majority more rights. After all, how many black lawmakers were there in 18th Century America?

It is without doubt that black people in America have suffered great hardships. Having previously been property of slavers, the former slaves and their successors were not fully recognised as people until 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed. At this point, having looked through several historical documents and articles, I have seen evidence for this case. And yet, nothing actually explains why a legal system created by white Americans is explicity racist against blacks.

This has also given the theorists the basis to assume that all white people are racist. This then begs the question that, if all white people are assumed racist, doesn’t that make those doing the assuming racist too? By discriminating against white people at a time when there’s more tolerance and acceptance in the world must surely be an act of immense cowardice? And let’s not forget this theory was allowed to be dreamt up within the walls of one of the most prestigious universities in the world. As a result of it’s own tolerance, acceptance, encouragement, support and open-mindedness, the university is repaid by students now seeking to tear it down from the inside because it’s ‘racist’.

And it’s not just Harvard. In Douglas Murray’s ‘The Madness of Crowds’, the case of Yale professor Nicholas Christakis (2016) was discussed at length to highlight just how far the indoctrination had come. A video, whilst available, can be viewed here:

If you watched the video, you’ll have seen the struggle of the students in accepting their professor as nothing other than racist and discrimanatory. Everything from remembering names to regular students not able to form an opinion on their tutor to demanding apologies when one is not warranted, this video shows how far this ideology has spread and rooted itself in America since its inception in the 1970’s.

And it started because Nicholas’ wife and fellow lecturer, Erika, sent an email responding to requests asking for guidance on Hallowe’en costumes. In effect, she was questioning the students abilities to make informed decisions on their own and quite rightly. They’re young adults except, as I see it, they’re being crippled by ideology regarding certain Hallowe’en costumes as cultural appropriation or racist in some way. Here’s an excerpt from the email:

“Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity—in your capacity—to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?” she asked. “What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment? Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that.”

A petition was created to garner support that Hallowe’en costumes beget violence. A fuller account of this incident can be found in this article from The Atlantic, published May 26th 2016: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/

One young woman in the video declared her belief that Yale is not an edcuataional facility but a home and that it was Mr. Christakis’ responsibility to make her and her fellow students comfortable.

When I read about that incident in Douglas Murray’s book then watched the footage, all I could think of was how this incident was similar in some ways to when I undertook my Masters. I didn’t go a prestigious university but some of the same rules applied. I paid £5,000 for my Masters in Banking, Finance and Risk Management and was one of four Scots on the course for the academic year ’09/’10. The Europeans paid the same as Scotland charged EU citizens friendly rates. The African and Asian students, however, paid £30,000.

Guess who had the louder voices when it came to demands on teaching quality, material, one-on-one time with lecturers, etc.

And so, is it a surprise that students at Yale, an Ivy League university, command such power over a lecturer and professor? According to CNBC the average annual cost to attend Yale is $75,925 and the average professor salary is $214,009 per year (Glassdoor).

If we take the attendees from the video, I believe there are, comfortably, 40 students surrounding Professor Christakis.

Regardless of how their degress are funded, the group represents a minimum of $3,037,000 against Christakis salary. Whilst not disclosed from anywhere I could find, being a Sterling Professor, it could be estimated that he’d be earning $300,000 a year putting him safely between the average and upper payscale of his role. In accounting terms, that’s $3,037,000 of revenue against an expense of $300,000. Who do the university listen to?

It’s a short clip and there are many others out there from different angles which piece together about 2 hours of footage. It should be noted that this video may not be wholly representative of the individual students. But, it can’t be denied that this behaviour is cause for concern. Whilst Nicholas got to keep his post, his wife did not.

Whilst not American (I’m Scottish living in Scotland), I pay attention to this because, generally speaking, any policy, ideology or behaviour that takes hold in America tends to migrate to Europe about five years later.

And I’m seeing it.

Between 2019 and 2020 I worked at a leading UK law firm. As a senior member of staff, I got invited to all manner of meetings. Two of which were for Diversity and Inclusion. The current hot topic within UK organisations.

As with many things in my life, my imagination conjures images that reality simply can’t match. I was expecting a constructive discussion on how the firm was going to implement such a policy i.e. how many ethnic and sexual minorities did the firm plan to employee across its offices in the name of equality? I was expecting figures along the lines of a fairly equal split of one third women, men and trans. Within that, equal splits of heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and other sexualities. On the ethnicity side, equal split of white, black, asian, Jewish and hispanic. I was expecting dates, timelines and plans for implementation as well as why it was happening.

Too much to ask within a professional environment? Of course it was. No such structure could ever possibly be given in a country with 96% white and 4%  Asian, African, Caribbean, Black, Mixed or Other (Scotlands Census 3rd August 2021). Currently, no such figures exist for Scotland on sexuality although there will be a question on sexual orientation in the next census. All that exists at present is data on how the respective populations are split across various age groups. But, if anything like ethnicity, I’d wager the bulk of the population is heterosexual with a very small minority being LGBTQIA+.

Back to the law firm. In those D&I sessions, there was, of course, no discussion on how such a policy would be implemented. The reality being that a large number of stright, white men and women would need fired to allow for other ethnicities and sexualities to be given the newly freed positions. It would result in the biggest instance of positive discrimination where the replacement workforce may not be as good as the one being replaced. And companies tend to hire based on compentence not a political checklist.

Back to the sessions. There was a lot of empty talk about the ‘need’ to be more ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’ and that this must be met with ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’. Interesting how such topics are popular at the very point in human history where people, generally in the developed world, are at their most tolerant and accepting. No discussion on the why it was important. It just was.

We were then put into breakout rooms where we had to come up with ways of how ‘we’ and the firm could do more to be accepting and tolerant of those unlike ourselves. Items on the lists included: having Pride celebrations in the office; a world food day (understandably, a popular one); Drinks from around the world (also popular); LGBTQIA+ book groups; LGBTQIA+ seminars to allow members of the community to explain to heterosexuals how the alternative sexualities work.

From that first session, the general theme I could see was a subtle, insidious instructions telling the audience they weren’t good enough at being tolerant and acceptance because afterwards, came the initiatives the firm planned to put in place. None of which were at all realistic.

The second session was more about storytelling. Members of the ‘diverse and inclusive’ minorities came on the webinar to take us through various experiences. A particulary memorable one was a black, American woman who went to describe, what she termed, a ‘microaggression’. I was aware of the term but for those unfamiliar, I’ve provided this definition from Merriam-Webster:

‘ a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority)’

Of course, the issue with this is you have to prove the person was acting with prejudice before you accuse them of performing a microaggression.

The woman at the second webinar went on to detail an incident whereby a white man approached her having seen her wearing bright nail polish. I think she said it was yellow or orange. Regardless, it caught the man’s attention. He asked her ‘You people sure love your bright colours, don’t you?’

This was the alleged microaggression. If I was her, I’d have taken the opporunity to maybe educate the man on why the bright colours were being used i.e. was it personal preference or something to do with the culture? Instead, the woman neglected to say what she did, or didn’t, say to the man and continued to preach about how terrible it was she was prejudged for wearing nail polish of a certain colour.

To an extent, I could see her point. I used to wear heavy metal t-shirts on dress-down days at work. Some would ask me about them out of genuine curiousity. Others didn’t bother because it either didn’t matter to them or they didn’t care. From my perspective, the man in her story could have been curious and genuinely interested in her culture but she perceived as a minor act of hostility. It could have, however, been a warning. She neglected to mention where she was working at the time of the incident. If at another law firm, then nail polish is perfectly normal for women to wear. If she was at a food prepartion facility then such a question would be a gentle but assertive reminder of the rules.

My point here is that telling a story presents only one perception of a given context. Those providing that perception tend to not use facts, but feelings. And this brings me on to the third component of the Chaos Engine.

Intersectionality:

If Critical Race Theory is largely based in the idea that the legal system is inherently racist at its core then intersectionality is the next level cousin that says that there’s not one kind of discrimination but it’s more a spectrum and a hierarchy all at once.

In the 1970’s, black feminist scholar-activists, many of whom were part of the LGBTQIA+ community, sought to create a theoretical framework which would serve as a model for other women of colour as a vehicle to broaden the scope and definition of feminism.

During the final decades of the 20th Century and first decade of the 21st, these women published many groundbreaking works that highlighted the dynamics which exposed the systems which defined women’s lives.

This theory of intersectionality was popularised by law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the pioneers of Critical Race Theory, of Cornell University (1981), Harvard (1984), the University of Wisconsin (1985) and UCLA (1986-). In her works, she explained how people that are “both women and people of color” are discrimated against and marginalised by “discourses that are shaped to respond to one [identity] or the other,” instead of both. In other words, society is geared to have one set of values held against women and black people but not a black woman. My interpreation of this is that a black woman is treated as either a woman in which she is held to the prejudices of her sex, or she is black and thereby held to account by the prejudices of her race.

What this theory has alleged to have exposed is that a black woman receives additional discrimination because she is black and a woman ergo the discrimination stacks and compounds. So, for example, there are two women. One straight and white and one black and LGBTQIA+. Both are working class and live in a developed nation like the US, UK, Europe, Australia, etc. The theory suggests that whilst both may rank as poor on the economic hierarchy, the straight, white female would rank higher in other areas such as ethnicity where she wouldn;t experience racism given the majority of developed countries’ populations are white. She also wouldn;t face discrimantion over her sexual preference as she’s deemed valuable by the male and female population of the country in being willing to bring about the next generation. The black LGBTQIA+ woman however would be discriminated against for being poor, black and not wanting to be with men at all or not be with men exclusively ergo classism, racism and homophobia. The straight, white female would only experience classism until, that is, she married and produced a child with a man of higher social and financial status.

I would like to reiterate and highlight that this theory and the one before were created by black students at leading American universities, namely Harvard. I would also like to point out that, in the case of Prof. Crenshaw, were the American legal system truly racist she would never have gotten into the legal system as a black woman to be able to understand it enough to write books and teach other students about how the system she was granted access to is inherently racist. Were it truly skewed against black people (note that Asians, Hispanics and Jews are not included) then not a single black person in the developed world would be allowed to hold any position of influence, wealth or power. Prof. Crenshaw reached her position the same way as her non-black counterparts did. Through grit, determination, ambition, drive, networking and intellect. Without looking at her background, I daresay a nice wad of cash from the family pot would have helped. So, it would seem a bit rich that white people are being dictated to that they’re inherently racist because the systems upon which they live their lives under were created by white people with little to no consideration for black people.

What is curious to note is that it was women, and feminists at that, of colour that created this theory as an alleged means to highlight the injustices across races and sexualities. In reality, it’s going to create more divisions amongst women. To say that a black lesbian undergoes more discrimintation than a straight, white woman may be true in some areas, but it does create a new problem.

A victim hierarchy.

The intersections are nothing more than a scorecard to check who is the most discriminated against. Once you start on the path of glorifying victimhood, it’s a descent into chaos. Rather than taking constructive measures to overcome any discriminations that may be faced, people who embrace this doctrine will hide behind legislation like the scared child hides behind their mother’s skirt. If accepted and absorbed by the wider populace, there will be a whole people bread on cowardice but wear it like a badge of honour like those of my generation would have done after having beaten the school bully in a fight. This is not something to be proud of. It has been created by people who have perceived themselves as victims (Please. They were at Harvard.), they created a theory but rather than lock it away and never mention it again like an ideological nuclear bomb they must prove their theory is correct and so shove it down the throats of anyone of high enough standing who could be easily influenced. This was the strategy that saw Hitler rise to power. It’s the same strategy only it’s being done to tear America down from the inside. Once America is ruined, it will be Britain then Europe.

Further to this, the same feminists that created this theory are effectively saying that all women are not equal despite a lot of the Feminist Movement being about equality for women with men. And yet here, we have a theory that says women are not equal but there are levels of discrimination to which women can be subjected to. That is then categorising people by group identities which brings us to…

Identity Politics:

The fourth and final component of the Chaos Engine. It is, in my view, the culmination of the previous three. The Death that comes from Famine, Pestilence and War. The Famine created by the adoption of Marxism and Communism. The Pestilence of Critical Race Theory and it’s intent on infecting society. And the War that Interectionality will bring by encouraging people to become identifed by their groups and traumas and not their bravery in overcoming them.

Identity Politics then sees the Death of Western Civilisation in its current form. It sounds bleak. It sounds extreme. But let me explain.

The West is predominantly about encouraging the idea that a person can achieve whatever they desire. Of course, they must work for it, but if they do and they succeed, they will have carved an identity for themselves. Should they develop further, they will, going back to Maslow, get the opporunity to self-actualise and reach their potential. This is the highly privileged position the West allows as it’s compiled of dozens of nations that include the oldest developed continent of Europe and thus has gone through its larger trials and come out much better for them. Those nations dubbed developing have not gone through the seismic growth spurts partly because the West and the regimes that run these nations find it equally beneficial that the rate of progress remain slow. Another part is that certain areas of the world haven’t been able to carve the same level of identity due to being in a constant state of war and conflict. I speak mainly of Africa and the Middle East.

But within our developed nations, the idea of identity isn’t thought about so much. You could say it’s taken for granted. Few people think about what it means to be of a particular country, race, sex or sexulaity. For many, they ‘just are’ and that suits them. No questions asked.

It was under the guise of Political Correctness that the subtle attacks on identity began. Certain jokes weren’t allowed. Certain comments were no longer permitted. In a lot of cases, the need for regulated change was valid. Was it really necessary to use racial slurs when in the presence of another human being whose skin was a different colour? Did they need to be abused and marginalised because either they or their parents were born in another country? No. Of course not. If a white Brit went to certain parts of Africa or Asia, they’d experience far worse than namecalling and the odd beating. That is not to diminish what some immigrants into Britain have experienced or to their poor experience down as somehow lesser. People come to Britain because it’s a highly prized nation with a wonderful history of tolerance, patience and acceptance. They come for jobs and the hope of a new, better life. Not to be shouted at in the street or assaulted just because they’re from Sudan, India, China or wherever that’s not Britain. We have to hold ourselves to a much higher standard and, I think, over the last 20 years things have improved in that respect.

But what I’m seeing in America with the Identity Politics is the inverse of the very thing I’ve just discussed. It takes the previous three topics and creates a new hierarchy. One where the victims/oppressed are graded and all sit beneath the primary oppressor – the straight, white male.

With its Marxist base, the new hierarchy creates a system which seeks to split out humanity into groups based on ethnicity and sexuality then hold their alleged ‘oppressor’ status against them. There will be no forgiveness, mercy or compassion in this system because God does not exist. There is no church. There is no Christ, Mohammed or any other deity to pray to. It is a system where you are accused of sin just by existing. Your status as a victim is based on how far away you are from the Supreme Evil of the straight, white, male who answers to the Almighty Capitalism. Grit, discipline, sacrifice, compromise will no longer be signs of a strong character because there will be no character. Only pastiches and facades masquerading as brave having made little to no effort to have done something truly remarkable either for themselves, their loved ones or their community. They will seek to undermine true bravery with their narcissism and hate. Their incompetence, self-absorbtion and self-obsession will be a beacon of indoctrination.

If this ideology is allowed to come to pass in America, it will signal the start of the Chaos Engine. It will then spread to Europe where the oldest developed nations will become infected and spend more time discussing how to eradicate discrimination in the workplace when little to none exists. Already, children are being taught about whether they should swap genders. Here in Scotland, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is proposing legislation where children as young as 16 can change their gender identity and pronouns without parental consent or knowlege. To add to that, Scottish Trans seems to believe the proposal ‘fails to provide any process for trans children under 16-years old to apply for a gender recognition certificate with aid of parental or guardian support’ (https://www.scottishtrans.org/our-work/legislation/gender-recognition-reform-bill/). Why would a child under 16 need to apply for such a certificate? What kind of evil lunacy believes that children should have their innocence stripped away and replaced with perverse sexualisation all in the of ‘equality’, ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’.

Our enemies are watching with glee as the West will tear itself apart and begin its descent into a mindless pit to Hell. China, North Korea and Russia will not need to fire a shot. We’ll let them take us over because they operate under Communist and Socialist dictatorships. We’ll gladly unburden ourselves of our individulaity to embrace the true freedom of subjugation for the greater good. We will never know love, laughter, fun, joy, pleasure, relaxation, safety, security or structure ever again. We will have failed to better ourselves and the consequence will be to reduced to nothing more than a slave.

Africa and Asia started the practice of slavery. The West ended it with the UK abolishing it in 1833, then France in 1848 then the United States in 1865. And in less than 200 hundred years, we could be walking right back into the shackles and leashes of those that started it.

The Western way of life has been too good. We have grown fat in our bodies, minds and souls. We have become lazy because there is no need for us to compete for anything. There is a job for everyone; there’s a school for everyone; there is money for everyone. The overwhelming majority of Western people already have a version of Marx’s ‘true freedom’.

But despite this, people complain. They don’t want to sweep streets, deliver newspapers and collect bins. They expect the more capable, effective and competent to pick up these jobs because they think they’re so special that such ‘menial’ tasks are beneath them.They need to keep their talent for something worthy of it. And then they complain that the more capable, effective and competent person has been promoted over and over. And now, those people have been given Identity Politics and everything that comes with it to use as a perfect excuse to get the power and privilege they want without doing any of the work to earn it. They will be blind to their arrogant and ignorant ironic hypocrisy as they demand better treatment because of some alleged inherent discrimination whilst they work in an office of some major corporation who hired them because they got a university degree.

What I think this will result in is a larger-scale version of events that have been playing out certainly for the last 20 years, but likely far longer.

If this indoctrination is successful, the West will be on a long, slow decline. And it starts from the top. In the US, President Joe Biden is happy to allow anything slide. In France, President Macron has stood firm and refused to allow these ideologies in. In the UK, there is division with Scotland having already snuck some elements through whilst Westminster is debating.

But why is this a topic of discussion in the first place?

How I see it is that these theories, particularly the latter three, are being pushed by their academic creators because they want…no….they need their theories to be proven correct. They have positioned themselves within the very systems they say are inherently against them so they can tell the people in those systems they are inherently racist and biased against anyone who isn’t white. They have to prove their theories are correct otherwise they’ll be written off by their peers. And they can’t have that. And yet, in over 40 years, how much evidence have they gathered to show that white people and their systems are against, specifically, black people? Very little. I haven’t seen a process flow that highlights the differences between a Black legal system and a white one. A system, by design, is impartial and neutral. It operates as per the designers parameters but it does reflect the organisation of people that created it. If a legal system is racist against black people, they would all be in prison because the laws created by the white people would have significant bias towards the liberty of whites over blacks to the point that black people would be locked away with no life whilst whites get to have theirs.

It could be argued that these academics are working with the likes of Antifa and Black Lives Matter to try and obtain ‘proof’. In the tragic case of George Floyd last year, the video evidence showed a white police officer kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck. What it also showed was that Mr. Floyd’s life wasn’t worth saving as no one attempted to push the officer off Mr. Floyd. Instead, he was sacrificed so that the activists had some evidence of systemic racism in America. How excatly did his Black Life Matter? How did his Human Life Matter? It’s interesting that Mr. Floyd’s being meant more as alleged evidence than it did as a human. Maybe the activists felt his life was worthy of such sacrifice. If that was the case, why not have one of the activists offer themselves as a sacrifice for the greater good like a cultist would their deity? The sad answer here, I believe, is that Mr. Floyd was chosen because he was a low income worker who had been in prison several times. In other words, he was no one which made him a perfect candidate for sacrifice. Isn’t it interesting how these groups will happily eat their own to prove a point? Because, as the Joker aptly pointed out when sending Gotham into chaos in The Dark Knight, it’s about sending a message. A message that white people, whilst at their most tolerant and accepting time in history, are all oppressive racists and should be made to feel shameful and guilty over their ancestors transgressions. White Guilt is now being used to force people ‘awake’ from their ‘white privilege’. Is it privilege if a race of people has spent centuries of war, disease, famine and death to build themselves as a nation and as a power within the world? Is it privilege that a race of people stopped fighting each other and actually worked together to give themselves better lives? To quote John Quincy Adams:

‘I have to study politics and war so that my sons can study mathematics, commerce and agriculture, so their sons can study poetry, painting and music.‘

That’s not the words of someone who intends on being racist. Those are the words of someone intent on progress. On ensuring that the life of each and every successive generation is better than the last. The problems of many people in the West are trivial compared to their parents, grandparents and especially their great grandparents. Heck, my current gripe is sorting out powerline adapters to ensure stable, reliable internet. In my great grandparents time, they’d be at war fighting to defend their nation so that I, three generations later, can have my powerline adapter problem. That’s privilege

As I see it, these academics and activist groups are hellbent on destroying the lives of those who are a generation or two ahead of them, culturally and developmentally. I think the resentment comes from these disparate generations living and working alongside each other. For me, I come from a family that has a strong farming background. Last generation of intensive farmers belonged to my great grandparents. My grandparents were in hotels, hospitals, aviation and textiles as a housekeeper, nurse, engineer and carpet fitter/salesman. My mum was a dental nurse then housewife after my birth. My dad was a salesman of metal, advertising and forklifts before ending his working life as an administrator of an industrial fabrication company for the oil and gas industry. Then there’s me. Went to university and have worked in finance, technology and, currently, a government authority. I couldn’t have gotten here without the previous generations of my family having worked hard as they did so I could be taught their grit and discipline which has allowed me to merge academia with a practical, pragmatic work ethic. I’m acutely aware of where I’ve come from but very aware of where I want to be. I want to get there constructively through building meaningful relationships and learning from those who are better and more experienced than me so that I may better myself.

However, I have felt hatred and resentment towards people from more privileged backgrounds. But I was depressed, anxious, stressed and felt trapped.

I.

Me.

Singular.

I did feel, at times, that the world was against me. But when you’re currently in a destructive mindest, other people pick it up. And if a manager or colleague gets a bad impression from you, they’re going to be wary. They’re going to think you’re unstable. In truth, it’s because you are. And I was.

And I believe this is the case with these academics and activists, only on a much larger scale. They see a race of people who’ve been in a country for a century or two, or thousands of years and they don’t seem to pay any attention as to how exactly that civilisation came to be. They just want it and they want it now. They don’t want to put in the time and effort required because that will mean the current generation won’t get the rewards. They would have to sacrifice themselves to allow their children to move further along so their children can improve and so on and so on until the newer race within that country is on level terms with the older.

But why do that when it’s faster to tear the older race down, kick them out and take their place. After all, the quickest way to get rich is to steal. And certainly, that’s how many of our ancestors got their wealth. But we learned it was wrong. Yet, these academics and activists would seek to encourage people to hand over their privilege out of fear, guilt and shame even though they themselves (I talk of the majority) haven’t done anything. Check this article from the New York Times as an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/style/white-guilt-privilege.html

You know what it is. It’s parasitic. It’s watching someone work for their earnings, buy a nice house, car, etc then burst through the door, accuse the owner of wrongdoing, demand they hand owership over then kick them out pushing those people into the position previously occupied by their accusers. That’s what a lot of this is. A transfer of power under the guise of oppressive racism where people are categorised under victim headings and awarded the appropriate compensation to counter the oppression they have/have not undergone. It’s Marx’s ‘True Freedom’ idea twisted once again to suit the narrative of those that wish to implement it. ‘True Freedom’ should be to elevate all of society, not merely swap the advances made by one societal section with another section that didn’t create those advances. That’s not how I interpret the idea. That’s just tyranny in a different uniform and the sooner more people see through this cowardly attempt to destroy Western Civilisation, the sooner we can work towards maybe achieving something closer to what Karl Marx intended. But then, wouldn’t that oppress those who seek to oppress? The cycle would just continue. As such, I don’t think humanity is at a level where it deserves ‘True Freedom’ but we can’t lock an idea away once it’s been spread around unlike dangerous chemicals, weapons and technology. Those, we can bury and destroy with only a handful of people knowing of their existence. And once they die, that’s it. It’s gone. But an idea? As V said, ‘Ideas are bulletproof’. All we can do with a widespread idea is work with it which requires cooperation, communication, compromise, effort, negotiation and agreement from all involved. If we can’t come to peaceful terms and come to an arragement which appeases most of those involved, we will be in a civil war. Something our ancestors actively worked to eradicate the need for.

And should we find ourselves figthing with one another, the enemy will creep up unnoticed, strike and we’ll be forced into a whole new way of living. One which most of us haven’t experienced. And if it comes to that and if there is a God, pray He help us because, by then, we’ll all be slaves.