Upper and Lower Class Citizenry in the United Kingdom.
The government categorises you as "protected" or "unprotected". You are then treated differently.
>The Sovereign Individual: a unique and unprecedented political concept.
Once upon a time, our island was the bastion of a classic liberal keystone; that each and every person is a sovereign individual regardless of creed, colour, or name. The closer and closer our liberal democracy got to applying that more and more broadly, recognising each and every person as a sovereign individual, equal in the eyes of the law, our society grew greater. More people had access to more opportunity, which inevitably led to more abundance. For hundreds of thousands of years, since the beginning of mankind, humans were ruled by our basest, vilest and most primal of forms of friend or foe recognition, centred around those characteristics; enemies spoke a different language, or had a different skin colour, or had different surnames, or had different religious beliefs.
This value, derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs that all people are made in the image of God, and that they had “God given” rights, is the foundation of so many elements of a Western liberal democracy. It underlines our justice system, enshrining in law that no elite may escape prosecution, vice versa, and that one is innocent until proven guilty. The value of sovereign individualism also underpins the right to self-determination, something our American cousins would refer to as “the American Dream”, or more formally, “the Pursuit of Happyness”. It means we can pursue our personal objectives without interference from the government. Most importantly it means equality in all of these philosophies because the government cannot treat you like a mouthpiece of a particular group or category that they decide you’re in.
But deep in the depths of socialist academia lurked an insidious belief system that would grow, bit by bit, to capture the government, the bureaucrats, and corporations, tricking them into abandoning this most precious and hard-fought liberty. So convinced in their moral superiority they are, and so steeped in good intentions (and some not so good), they feel a direct obligation to wage their enlightened Jihad to bring about the socialist utopia.
In this article I will be exploring the new and interesting ways the government, captured by socialist ideology, is regressing our civilisation from the liberal free market economy, back in time, sacrificing the liberties and the dignity that was hard-fought for by our ancestors. Back in time, to where a small government has massive power and authority over your country’s wealth, over your life, where different pieces of legislation and different rules apply depending upon the category you are stuffed into in the eyes of the government.
Firstly, I will introduce the reader to the basics of what intersectionality in the United Kingdom looks like, and what ideological justifications the ethno-socialists use. Second, we will explore the concept of intersectionality, and its many flaws and failures in history. I will argue that intersectionality, at its most unlimited in power, is a key ideological factor in most genocides. Third, I will expose how widespread the abuse of power is already, and go through some particularly egregious examples. Fourth, we will explore the philosophy of intersectionality, its in-built flaws and the insane Soviet-style results that come of it. Finally, I will talk about the most frightening aspect of intersectionality; the fact that it gives the government a very powerful weapon, that will always inevitably be used to exploit and abuse of all its people. We will close with, as usual, some small actions that you the reader can take to help substantiate change, and to fight against granting the government the mandate to see you not as an individual, but as a mouthpiece of your creed, colour, or heritage, sharing in the guilt or shame as those they lump you in with.
>You are no longer a person. You are a mouthpiece of your group.
The British government, over the last 2 decades, has moved away from that key cornerstone of liberal democracy; now, some animals are more equal than others. For the first time in recent memory, we have stepped backwards into a base and primitive form of thinking. You are no longer that sovereign individual, with the God-given right to be left alone to pursue your own objectives in a free society. The government has decided that everyone is the member of a group, and that the most effective way to rule over an egalitarian and equal society is to associate guilt, crimes, responsibility, shame, and indignation to those that belong to those “politically incorrect” groups.
This belief system denounces, above all else, the quadfecta of evil: the “white”, male, heterosexual, Christian. You who belong to this group are now designated as evil, and by right of the characteristics you were born with, or identify as, you have extra work to do in order to rid yourself of this sin you were born with. You must be re-educated to adopt the current approved ethnicity belief systems adopted by the government. By the crime of your born characteristics, you’re no longer just a person, you’re a rapist, a patriarch, a tyrant, a slaver, an oppressor, a racist. You’re dripping in the shame of the great racial conspiracy, “white privilege”. You’re a beneficiary and a proponent of an evil male oriented world.
BUT DO NOT BE ALARMED! For the small price of your dignity, your mind, your actions, your money, your votes, your loyalty, you can be freed of this filthy sin you were born with. Just throw yourself down and chant the proclamations of the great inquisition of intersectionality.
The belief system conversely (and perversely) associates the opposite characteristics with victimhood, oppression, dignity, and deserving of sympathy and (in most cases) government funds. The intersectional idea almost treats you as a pathetic person, who cannot function in the “oppressive structures” set up by those most disgusting and evil of racial and gender characteristics as described above. “They” are directly responsible for perpetuating your lack of success. It is at “their” feet falls the blame for your failures, your problems, your anxieties, and your troubles. You are not only free of the responsibility of where you are, but even crimes you commit are not your fault; the evil people made you do it, forced your hand, because of their contemptible systems that they created. If you steal, if you are arrested, if you fail, if you die, it is again the responsibility of those people who possess truly the most reprehensible of racial and gender characteristics.
The ideological justification for this new government approved “ethnicity hierarchy” that is being imposed top-down from elite institutions are… vague and usually steeped in (surprise) lies. First, it relies on a belief that the “straight white male” is a naturally predatory species, uniquely responsible for the grossest of crimes on the most innocent and indefensible of people. Second, it relies on a belief that the indigenous history of this island is also uniquely responsible for objectively more suffering than any other civilisation in history. Third, it relies on a belief that all of the systems of government created by the indigenous people are still today uniquely responsible for great crimes and oppression on people alive today. Finally, you must also be under the delusion that those individuals who are so unfortunately born with the most evil of personal characteristics also (even unconsciously) actively sabotage those “others” by raising each other above the other classes. This bizarre and racist conspiracy theory is colloquially known as “white privilege”. These are the intersectionalist justifications for the signalled virtues and espoused political beliefs of the “politically correct”, and the justifications for the laws and regulations that divide you from the good people and categorise you as a bad person.
>Intersectionality is the primary ideology behind all genocide.
It would have been difficult to get such a deep hatred in any society without the intersectional “us” and “them” approach to relations between citizens. Ancient history across the whole planet is almost exclusively the routine of conquering your enemies, committing a total genocide, taking survivors as slaves, razing their settlements, destroying their culture, raping the women, killing the children, erasing their language, and worse. That’s an accurate portrayal of our past. In our most recent history, we have many well understood examples of how intersectional “us” and “them” narratives have driven neighbours to hate each other over allegations made by race baiting intersectionality. It’s important to see the parallels between the racial divisions caused and exacerbated by intersectionalist ideology.
We’ll just kick off with the obvious and most often quoted example, the Nazi’s in Germany during the mid 20th century. Such a political movement would have been impossible without intersectionality. Naziism took hold in a desperately poor Germany, bringing about a compassion for those “poor, oppressed, ordinary hard-working Germans”, who suffer at the hands of a “privileged, oppressive, tyrannical” class of people most associated with the Jews. It was with the cloak of intersectional compassion for the oppressed Germans that would eventually reveal the dagger of intersectional hatred. This ideology grew and grew until children in schools were being taught that the German kids were in ways different to the Jewish kids, that the Jewish kids had some kind of “Jewish privilege” that oppressed the Germans. The universities would effectively “cancel” the Jewish professors, resulting in them fleeing the country. A kristallnacht or two would remind those oppressive Jews that these oppressed Germans weren’t having it anymore. Bit by bit, those German equivalents of today’s “social justice warriors” would create new ways to demonise entire groups of people outside of the Germans themselves. The intersectional story played out in its entirety too; eventually, if you weren’t a Nazi, you weren’t “German enough”, and you would be the “Uncle Tom” version of a German if you realised what was happening. The parallels are frightening.
Moving to 1994 in Rwanda; tensions are boiling over between Hutus and Tutsis, the two major groups that make up Rwanda. Their ethnic difference is essentially nothing, but enough to drive enough hatred for a genocide that is almost unique in the sheer volume of perpetrators. For a long time, Tutsis were seen by the Hutus as an exploitative class, keeping Hutus poor. Hutus were told Tutsis were arrogant, lazy, responsible for the oppression of Hutus. Tutsi children were taught that Hutus were inferior to Tutsis, teaching them that Hutus were naturally violent and dangerous. For most of Rwanda’s modern history, everything from politics, to radio sermons, education, news, and entertainment, all focused very much on ensuring that there was a deep-rooted intersectional “us” and “them” belief system ingrained in society. It resulted in many different civil wars and revolutions. The genocide was sparked by the assassination of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana, a Hutu, who was killed by a small group of Tutsi extremists. From there began a genocide so utterly devastating and widespread that it was impossible to stop. Soldiers, police, civil servants, neighbours, family, friends, all took up arms against Tutsis. So many of those killings were from knives and machetes. It was near impossible to stop. It was the logical “final solution” of intersectional ideology: no “enemies”, no problems. If any part of any of the literature about the bravery of so many people, such as Hotel Rwanda, taught us anything, it’s that just like Germany in the mid century, most Hutus and Tutsis did not in fact hate each other, and Hutus gave their lives to defend innocent Tutsis. For them, there was no intersectionality, just a duty to defend their neighbours from those that would cause them harm.
To quick fire two more examples of intersectional hatred playing a role in genocide, we could look at the following. The Khmer Rouge, who in 1975 Cambodia would identify people as belonging to different “groups”. If you were a member of a group deemed unwanted by the Khmer Rouge in their goal to reach an agrarian communist utopia, you would be killed. The Chinese Communist Party had spent decades trying to erase the Uyghur Muslim population in the rural north; after being crushed so hard for so long under the communist boot, some extremists committed a terrorist attack. The entire group were painted as terrorists, and the Communist Party began re-educating, sterilising, imprisoning, and torturing those Chinese who belonged to that group, and finally have destroyed their culture in its entirety, even taking their children and ensuring the next generation will never know anything about their ancestors, language, religion, or history.
All of this suffering is impossible without the intersectionality of “us” and “them”. It would have been impossible in a nation that believed all of its citizens were sovereign individuals, and not simply avatars of a group. We should never let this base and primitive approach to understanding people around us become the norm, and we should rightly ridicule people who do.
>Give me your papers. Hmm, it seems you are NOT in fact “protected”.
A bizarre video was shown a few times at conferences at one job I’d worked before. It was 3 black schoolgirls and 1 indigenous schoolgirl talking about how “white people” view black women as fair game for rape. It’s an especially bizarre claim considering how this is neither statistically correct, nor have I ever even heard of such a notion in culture or society. What’s more, it’s an odd statement considering that anytime I’ve ever heard excessively negative and nasty language used about black women, it’s usually coming from black rappers. Add to this the fact that “white women” are constantly referred to in rap music as sexual conquest trophies, and little else. And yet, here in this video, British schoolchildren are espousing the racist nonsense that they’ve been taught by ethno-socialist teachers. How was it permitted for these children to be given lessons in racist nonsense? And then to be paraded in front of a camera, with a token native girl blushing in embarrassment at the whole conversation? It’s the same as this one time, one black girl at a party made a comment “but I guess I’m just another nigger to the white man”, and I felt sorry for her, going around seeing enemies wherever she went. The party itself was attended by half a dozen distinctly different ethnicities; who could possibly have convinced her that such hate lay around everywhere she went?
It’s not just politically correct, but in fact highly fashionable today to say the cruelest and most baseless things about the native population of Britain. It started small at first but has now become so insidious that you see it in so many facets of British life; Women’s English football team? Too white. OK to be “white”? That’s not acceptable language. British history? Dead white men. Indigenous British Londoners? They’re not “representative” of London. RAF Pilots? No indigenous people please. Royal family? Too white. Proud of your heritage? You’re far-right. Natives waiting for social housing? Foreigners first. Remember that Coca-Cola training that got leaked - be less “white”? It is a constant barrage of anti-indigenous hatred that is so highly fashionable these days amongst the metropolitan elite. It comes off as a type of extreme classism from the native elite in London; to denigrate themselves is fashionable, and even more so, to denigrate the less educated, often rural or more conservative people of the island is the height of ideological fashion. These metropolitan elitists believe they can get ahead of the race hate, take control of it, and “ally” themselves in this culture war against the poorer natives. How often do you see it celebrated that natives, and especially native men, are being pushed out of the workforce?
Most of this can be encapsulated in the term “anti-racist”. Ibram X Kendi defined it as “more discrimination today to make up for discrimination yesterday”. It’s not “enough” for ethno-socialist elitists that you’re polite, kind, respectful, and open-minded (as if there’s any right to demand people be any of those things), but as an indigenous Briton, you’re obliged by the elitists to be “re-educated”. You must be “re-trained” because you were born racist, because by the colour of your skin you are born naturally evil, and you must be pushed into the ethnic dogma that is indigenous cultural hatred. Everything your ancestors built must be “dismantled”, despite how effective those systems have been in creating one of history’s most egalitarian societies. Concepts such as responsibility, hard-work, good time-keeping, dressing smart, waking up early, liberal colourblindness, respect of authority, plans for future, delayed gratification, self-reliance, objective rational linear thinking, quantitative emphasis, all of these have been deemed again and again by elite educational institutions as “whiteness”. And they make no secret about it, it is easy to search online this bizarre conspiracy theory that these particular things are “white”. Can you believe that they say this, with no sense of irony, that they’re implying that “non-white” people can’t keep good time, don’t work hard, don’t delay gratification etc.? Or that they have no obligation to? It is precisely these “systems” that anti-racism seeks to eliminate; maths is racist, education is racist, meritocracy is racist, policing is racist, prisons are racist… and all of this apparently coming from the “anti-racist” crowd. You’d need multiple Masters degrees to be this daft. It’s akin to treating being “non-white” like it’s a physical and mental disability. To the rest of us, that’s just more racism.
What’s more, is that a lot of your tax money, most of it gleaned from the natives, is being used to fund anti-indigenous hate groups through grants from the DCMS. Remember the codes they use; when they say “dismantling systemic racism”, they mean exactly what we discussed in the last paragraph. When they say “racial equity”, they’re talking about an ethno-socialist intersectional mandate for government to erase the indigenous systems and cultures. They work hard to expand definitions of racism and “hate crime” so that more and more things can be included in their remit. The concept of “hate crime” itself is dubious in nature; you are a higher class citizen deserving of more legal protections from the same crime committed upon an indigenous straight male. It’s the ridiculous concept that if someone is beaten up, the perpetrator would be in more trouble if the victim belonged to one of the higher levels of citizenry.
There are also now “non-crime hate incidents” that get recorded by police and placed on a record with your name. There’s no appeal, there’s no jury, no judgement, simply a social credit score black mark is attached to your name forever making your life more difficult for what the police admit is a non-crime. It’s a unique threat to indigenous people especially as the accusation of racism alone is enough to get it put against you, giving enormous legal power to non-indigenous people.
The biggest irony, the diamond encrusted, tap-dancing elephant in the room, is that the indigenous are being held to an impossibly high standard; they are all being demanded to be angels, where the standard for their behaviour is well beyond the standards one might expect from 95% of the rest of the world, where racism isn’t just a word, but the singular way of life. What a Chaucerian fraud it was for an Indian politician to accuse the UK of racism; India, a country that literally has a caste (AKA a race) system inbuilt into their legal structures, where there are certain races in India deemed “untouchable”. Indigenous Britons can be just as backwards as anyone from anywhere else in the world, and to hold them to an impossible standard far above everyone else is in itself a projection of white supremacy.
>Ebony and Irony.
Let’s just get straight into smashing the evil conspiracy theories about men and the indigenous British in particular. Men are not the most privileged of the sexes, and it’s a fair perspective to say that it’s not been that case for a very long time. They’re more likely to be victims of violent crime, die at work, commit suicide, become homeless, be addicted to drugs… the list goes on. They also work harder, putting in more hours, fewer sick days, more likely to move for a promotion, more likely to take a risk that pays off, as well as infinitely more likely to take critically important dangerous work that is more likely to kill and maim them. Christians are not the most successful or wealthy religious group in the UK, not by a long shot. Heterosexuals as a group label itself is dubious considering you’re trying to put 92-95% of the entire population as some kind of group. People you may refer to as “whites” aren’t even the most successful group by a long shot - migrants of Ghana or China, Jews, and Indian Sikhs are enormously more ahead of the indigenous population in practically every measurement.
One of the most oft-cited justifications for extremist identitarian politics is in “pay gaps”. But only some “pay gaps”, as apparently not all “pay gaps” are created equal. The height “pay gap”, for instance, is greater than race and gender combined. There’s also an eye colour “pay gap”, a religion “pay gap”, a political leaning “pay gap”. There’s no end to the number of ways we can judge “pay gaps”. Regarding the gender “pay gap”, Thomas Sowell pointed out that the difference between sexes wasn’t even anything to do with sexes per se, and that the majority of the “pay gap” disappears when you differentiate married and unmarried women. It’s a stark reminder of the uselessness of most univariate statistics. In a 2019 article for the Hoover Institution, Sowell wrote:
"The gender pay gap is often cited as evidence of discrimination against women. However, the data shows that the gender pay gap is largely due to differences in occupational choices and work hours between men and women. For example, women are more likely to work in lower-paying occupations, such as teaching and nursing, and they are more likely to work part-time. When comparing never-married men and women with similar education and work experience, the gender pay gap disappears."
And yet all businesses in the UK of a certain size are demanded to produce Gender Pay Gap reports, many of which you can see at the bottom of websites next to other links. For example, you can see this on McDonald’s website, proclaiming their adherence to such an assinine intersectional belief, right next to their report that lets you know they don’t actually use slaves to make your burgers.
What’s more, I would also challenge the belief that perpetrators of crime are somehow representative of whatever group we choose to put them in. When a group of teenage boys beat up two homosexual females on a bus, is it “straight white men pose a danger to homosexuals”, or is it “fatherless and uneducated little thugs pose a threat to everybody”? When a transexual female to male enters a Christian school with a machine gun, shooting many children, is it “transexuals pose a threat to Christians”, or is it again “highly distressed and emotionally-out-of-control individuals pose a threat to everybody”? When a group of Muslims take bombs into an Ariana Grande concert, detonating them and killing and maiming far too many people, most of them little girls from all around the world, is it “Muslims pose a threat to little girls” or is it “terrorism is a threat to everybody”? I put it to the intersectionist types that it is never the intersectional group that is responsible for some kind of general threat against another intersectional group, but that individuals in moments of great mental sickness themselves that are a threat to everybody, and that these types of people permeate all groups.
Irony is fast becoming a running theme in intersectional politics; a fun one to point out to these people is that if one must insist on breaking down people into race, gender and class, it is in fact “white”, working class males who have the worst intersectional results of all. They are more likely to be victims of crime, most likely to become criminals, most likely to die alone, most likely to die by suicide, they earn the least money, have the fewest qualifications, and are the most likely to be addicted to drugs or alcohol than any other intersectional group. Does it really help that our education system, our bureaucracy, and our mainstream news outlets constantly refers to all of them as tyrants-in-waiting, rapists, patriarchs, racists, white supremacists, uneducated, privileged, and guilty of supposed historical crimes committed by people who vaguely appeared to look like them?
The entire concept of intersectionality is the most classic example of a philosophical ouroboros. In simple terms, class-based belief systems eventually defeat their own logic. It means the belief that people can be categorised (both legally and socially) into different specific groups, and sub-groups, and sub-sub-sub groups, will wind up right back at the key classical liberal cornerstone; everyone is unique and deserving of their sovereign individuality.
The key component in all of these regressive belief systems is that people are not treated as individuals by the government. People are treated as stooges of their intersectional group. Laws, regulations, culture, and education all converged to create increasingly extreme intersectional narratives, each time granting more and more license to government and people to become intersectional in their approach to their relationships with others. You’re not meeting a new friend, you’re meeting a “race X” person. This isn’t just anybody, they’re a “Y”. You can’t act like that, this person is a “Z”. Don’t you raise your voice, you “A” “B” “C”. It’s ironic that it seems so clearly ignorant in our everyday interactions with people to act in an intersectional manner; yet there are tax funded powerful organisations constantly at work giving the government the tools to be exactly that level of ignorant. The difference? They have guns, police, prisons and courts. Truth is, when you give the government this power, when you grant the government license to become intersectional in its approach to society, you’re all in danger.
>If you give the government a stick, they will eventually batter you with it.
I want to put it to the intersectionist types that they are making the most classic of political blunders; they are granting the government the mandate and the authority to grow this easily abused and expanded system of regulating your life differently depending upon your politicised characteristics. They are most certainly the “useful idiots” of the regime, granting the government powers that will eventually be used against them. At some point in the future, either a political opportunist will exploit those powers, or parties unsympathetic (or even hostile) to the current intersectional orthodoxy will eventually take over. The end result? As we’ve explored in the previous section; there’s no limit to how the government can use these powers to exploit and abuse its people. Whatever mandate you grant the government to do to one group of people will eventually be used against you. That is precisely when it will be too late for you.
What’s more, these powers incentivise current and emerging politicians to become corrupted. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This isn’t just a fun phrase; it’s a universal truth. By continuing to grant the government more and more power, not only will the current politicians receive these new weapons of exploitation and abuse, but there will be an almost magnetic incentivisation for more and more ruthless politicians to fill in those power vacuums, and use these most effective of exploitation tools to consolidate power further into the hands of a smaller and smaller group. This is how the spiral always starts, and it will get worse.
In school, you are not equipped with the knowledge and the tools to take on the intersectionist types; but worse than that, the schools go out of their way to promote the racial and gender conspiracy theories that demonise entire identities. It means people come out of school being taught what to think, and are not taught how to think. They repeat the feel-good slogans taught to them, not ever really understanding how dubious their propositions are, never learning about their own history and culture in good faith from people that don’t see them as any of those miserable epithets that I don’t care to continue repeating.
It is this double-action, like a revolver, that puts a bullet in the head of all of the rights and liberties that thousands of generations of indigenous Britons fought so hard for. To free themselves from the whims of Kings, to break the chains of serfdom, to smash the ruling classes, to expand the rights and liberties from the hands of the elites, and ensuring that enshrined in our culture was a belief that all people were of equal value in the eyes of God, deserving of their God given rights, free from those tyrannical ethno-socialists that seek to abuse you into submission to their orthodoxy.
>TAKE ACTION.
They want you to believe false things. They want you to espouse things you know to be lies. Some of the most effective ways to fight anti-indigenous hatred and ethno-socialist intersectional belief systems is simply through language.
Anytime someone wants to drag you into these bizarre racial belief systems, just let them know that you don’t share any of their ethnicity heirarchy ideas, and that you’re more oriented to believing that people are equal. And it’s a good line to stick to; you’re not giving in to their framing of your ethnicity. You’re not engaging in race ideology.
In terms of other actions, one of the most effective simple and quick actions you can take is to find your MP, link this article, and to explain that as their constituent, you do not believe in any of their race ideologies, and that you want to return to the cornerstone of our democracy; that you are a sovereign individual with natural rights, and not the avatar of a group.