It is simply baffling that the most powerful people in the world are able to talk about “threats” without defining them.
What is “systemic racism”?
What is “white supremacy”?
What exactly are we even talking about here? Does anyone know?
Listening to these people talk is like trying to decipher the physics of an M.C. Escher drawing.
The way they describe it is clearly designed to paint a vague picture of something that does not actually exist.
It is problem-solving 101 that you have to define your terms. Failing to define terms means, as a matter of fact, that you are acting maliciously.
- The military came out and said “the greatest threat we are facing is from some other country”
- The health authorities came out and said “the greatest threat to medical health is a medical condition, a syndrome or a disease”
- A corporation came out and said “our biggest competition is coming from another company.”
You could also do this in the positive, given that definitions and clear language is simply a basic aspect of communication.
For example, if:
- Walmart said: “our biggest seller this year was an item”
- A nutrition expert said: “the healthiest food you can eat is a consumable food item”
- A corporate CEO said “our best performer this month was a member of our staff”
Vague and unspecific, undefined language does not communicate information, and the purpose of language, at least when used by men, is to communicate information.
And yet, as the term remains undefined, the head of the UN is now claiming that the big global threat is “white supremacy.”
White supremacy constitutes a “trans-national” threat, the UN secretary general has warned.
Antonio Guterres also said racist groups had exploited the coronavirus pandemic to boost their support.
The danger was growing by the day, he told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday.
He said: “White supremacy and neo-Nazi movements are more than domestic terror threats. They are becoming a transnational threat.
“Today, these extremist movements represent the number one internal security threat in several countries.
“Far too often, these hate groups are cheered on by people in positions of responsibility in ways that were considered unimaginable not long ago.
“We need global coordinated action to defeat this grave and growing danger.”
Mr Guterres’ comments appeared to be a jab at Donald Trump, who encouraged his supporters on the far-right on a number of occasions such as when he told the Proud Boys group to “stand back and stand by” during a presidential election debate.
See, it is left up to the media to try to interpret this statement.
And the interpretation is: The Proud Boys?
If that is the definition of “white supremacy,” then why is it called “white supremacy”?
The Proud Boys were a good old boys’ drinking club that supported Donald Trump, and then their leader, Gavin McInnes, resigned, and a black man working as an FBI informant took over the group and turned it into a paramilitary organization.
So the correct definition of the threat would be “multiracial right-wing paramilitary groups run by the FBI.”
So this would be the headline in The Independent:
But what was the threat? Specifically? The media might interpret the language of the UN chief by specifying the group that appeared to be the topic of discussion, but they will not explain the threat.
I don’t think that the Proud Boys are going to continue on as a group, given both the fed crackdown and the fact that most members are probably not comfortable being a part of a group that is run by an FBI agent while being cracked down on by the FBI. But even if they had continued on as they were, what would be the threat so grave that the head of the UN considers it one of the greatest threats the world faces?
It’s Bigger Than the Proud Boys
The message from the government, the media, and these ultra-government groups like the UN is that this “white supremacy” thing goes beyond FBI-run paramilitary groups, and permeates every aspect of society. It is somehow linked to “systemic racism.”
It is something akin to the schizophrenic notion of “shadow people.”
The Secretary went on to explain that the threat of “white supremacy” permeates all of Western society.
The refusal to define “white supremacy,” while also labeling it a major threat, can only mean that they want to use this term to mean whatever they want it to mean at any time. Basically, anything that white people do can now be defined as “white supremacy,” and thus be a threat.
This creates a society of paranoia, on both sides:
- White people are constantly on edge, wondering if anything they do can be construed as “white supremacy”
- Nonwhites are in a constant state of fear of “white supremacy” being out to get them, without understanding what specifically it is (blacks in particular will simply suppose it is anything that white people do that they don’t like, which is many, many things)
It is so transparently designed to cause endemic social decay that the only way they are managing not to be called out for it is that they control absolutely every institution of power. If they didn’t have that power, then people would be like “why are you trying to destroy society by polluting it with paranoid fantasies?”