Why I Never Use the Slave Label ‘Black’ & It’s Antonym ‘White’, and Why You Shouldn’t Either? (Unless You’re Racist)

Consistency is a crucial component of morality. Without a fundamental consistency being applied to our social norms, there can be no true social harmony, no authentic order to our lives.

No admirable person is inconsistent in their views and opinions – we call such a person a hypocrite. The more inconsistent you are in your worldview, the more hypocritical you will become in your behaviour and the things you say.

No legitimate governance or social movement is inconsistent in its policies or objectives. “Do as I say, not as I do”, “two tier tyranny”, and “one rule for me and another for thee” are clearly not the best taglines for winning over the people to a campaign or cause.

Most of those in the public eye – and particularly politicians – were born to be hypocrites, but you should be setting your own moral bar much higher than theirs is set.

If the system is a hypocrite; inconsistent in its governance, policies or narrative – and you adhere to that system without constantly questioning it – then you become a hypocrite too. If you wish others to see you as trustworthy, plausible and judicious, you must always challenge, oppose and cease to comply with the system whenever it shows itself to be acting inconsistently.

Before we look at the blatant inconsistency in the use of these racist labels ‘black’ and ‘white’, let’s take a look at the underlying reason why these words are indeed racist.

A person cannot be racist towards someone unless they are able to identify them as a particular race. Facial features are certainly a primary identifying factor in respect to some races, but when it comes to the African race and the European race (particularly Northern European), skin colour is unquestionably the number one identifying factor.

This leads us to the uncomfortable conclusion that the two races that are most visibly identifiable by their skin colour are ‘labelled’ as those colours. As racism has always been a form of bigotry that is almost entirely based on visible identification, this labelling could not be more racially-charged if it tried.

If you haven’t fully grasped this yet, let me bring in the ‘consistency test’ to see if you would support the same primary identification labels being applied to other racial groups.

In times gone by, the Asian races were often labelled under terms that referred to the facial feature that most distinguishes them from other races – their eyes, which tend to be more narrow. Would you use a term that described this primary identification feature when talking about a Chinese or Japanese person? If you believe that to do so would be racist, then why would you accept being called ‘black’ or ‘white’, or calling someone else by those primary identification labels? How is labelling someone by the colour of their skin any different from labelling them by the shape of their eyes?

Jews – particularly ashkenazi jews of eastern European (Khazarian) origin – are another example of a race of people who tend to have certain facial features that have been used in the past to label them, both verbally and in the written word. Again, do you support this application of primary or dominant features of racial identification to refer to Jews or to define their race? If you don’t, then why do you think it’s OK to do so with regards to the African race or the European race? How is labelling someone by the colour of their skin any different from labelling them by the size of their nose, or mouth, or ears, or anything else?

Staying with the consistency angle, let’s step it up a gear.

If Africans are called ‘blacks’ and Europeans are called ‘whites, then what are the Chinese called? It sounds like a trick question, but there is no trick here. There is simply a choice between being consistent and being inconsistent. If you currently use the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ to define a couple of billion people in the world, then what could possibly be wrong with using the term ‘yellow’ to define a couple of billion more?

Then there are the Indians, who you should logically call ‘reds’, at least if you wish to continue to label all Europeans and Africans by their amorphous skin colour.

Let’s face it, how many people of African heritage that you know and define as ‘black’ are actually black in colour, and how many people of European heritage that you know and define as ‘white’ are actually white in colour? I raise this point because the historic weaponisation of these words is far broader than just being about colour, and very much adds to the underlying racist nature of this issue.

Be in no doubt that those who lurk in the shadows behind the social justice scenery have conditioned the populace to adopt these racist terms with ulterior motives in mind. Nothing sanctioned by the marxist-globalist propaganda machine is organic or exists without a shrouded and negative purpose concealed behind it in the shadows.

In the mid 16th century, the jesuits and jews were heavily supporting and funding the Portuguese slave trade from Africa to the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean, Central America and Brazil. Portugal and Spain were under the same monarch (under Spanish rule) until 1640.

It is even claimed by some that Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the jesuit order, gave the initial religious judgement to the Spanish monarchy, that Africans were less than human beings and were thereby not protected under God’s law. In turn, this judgement led to Portugal becoming the pioneers and pacesetters of the North Atlantic Slave Trade.

Working alongside the existing and longterm Arab/muslim slave trading operation within Africa, and collaborating with certain slave owning and warring tribes within the continent who were more than happy to sell their enemies on to the Portuguese, it is estimated that Portuguese slave traders transported almost 6 million Africans to Brazil, with about 40% of that total being transported even after Britain and America had taken the unprecedented and monumental step to outlaw slavery worldwide in the early 19th century.

When considering politics or history, it is always essential to understand that the crimes against humanity of both the present and the past are never the responsibility of the general populace, but solely that of the parasitic class and their social psychopathic allies.

Indeed, the suffering and diminished lives of those enslaved Africans are very much comparable to the millions who were forced to live in abject poverty and who suffered and died in servitude at the hands of the parasitic class in Europe.

Those who bankrolled slavery were not ‘the people’. Those who owned the slave ships were not ‘the people’. Those who owned the gold mines in Brazil and who owned the plantations in the Caribbean were not ‘the people’. Those Arab slave traders and African tribal leaders who sold on their slaves to the Portuguese slave traders were not ‘the people’. Exactly the same was true in the world of yesteryear as is true in today’s world. Those who are guilty of all the major crimes against humanity and against society are not ‘the people’!

In other words, when we talk of the origins of the North Atlantic slave trade being in Spain and Portugal, we must understand that 99% of the people in those nations were not responsible. Indeed, many who profited greatly from the business of slavery had no allegiance to those nations at all. They were the internationalists/globalists of their day.

If you ever blame an entire nation of people for the crimes of the past, then you must thereby include yourself in being jointly responsible for all the current crimes attributed to the nation in which you live today, even though those crimes are perpetrated by those who control the country, and not ‘the people’. As always, consistency is everything. If you’re not consistent, then you are a hypocrite.

Always remember, the people are never to blame for the crimes of the parasitic class and the psychopathic minority who are devoid of all empathy, and who make all the political, economic and social decisions that negatively impact your livelihood, your welfare, and your society as a whole. They conspire, they operate only for themselves, and they are the only ones ever to blame for all the chaos, death and suffering, both in the present and the past.

The ‘Enlightenment’ was an academic and institutional movement that existed in Europe between 1685 and 1815. It was the forerunner to what is known today as ‘reductionist science’ or ‘scientism. ‘Royal Societies’ and other such institutions were manufactured as dictatorial ‘authorities’ on social existence and thought, which aimed to reconstruct society in a wholly ‘materialistic’ form, whilst socially conditioning the populace to accept their worldview.

The word ‘enlightenment’ obviously means: to enlighten; to bring in more light and reduce the darkness. This often esoteric conflict between light and dark has gone on since time immemorial, but in the last 500 years it has taken on even more significance in the language and culture of the Europeans.

The meaning and symbolism of the word ‘white’ has positive connotations in most people’s minds such as: purity, virtue, light, cleanliness, truth, godliness and goodness.

Some common examples of the use of the word ‘white’ in this positive context include: white witch, white hats, white queen, white unicorn, white flag, white knight, white lie etc.

The meaning and symbolism of the word ‘black’ has very negative connotations in most people’s minds such as: depression, emptiness, darkness, fear, deception, aggression and evil.

Some common examples of the use of the word ‘black’ in this negative context include: black magic, black sheep of the family, black witch, blacklist, black hats, blackball, black widow, black cat, a black day, black sabbath, black water, black queen, black-eyed children, black market, black death, black ice, black hole, the black spot, black knight, black mirror, Black Wednesday, Churchill’s ‘black dog’ of depression and despair etc.

The Enlightenment – through its stated purpose and by its very name – had compounded this concept. To Europeans of the Enlightenment, all that was positive and ‘enlightened’ (scientific) could be seen, verified and understood, and thereby all that was unverifiable or mysterious was negative and ‘dark’.

Any place or people that existed in stark contrast to ‘Enlightened Europe’ was therefore ‘rationally’ seen as unenlightened, or ‘in darkness’, symbolically illustrated as being dark or black.

Africa wasn’t actually dubbed as ‘The Dark Continent’ until the late 19th century by the Welsh-American explorer Henry Morton Stanley. However, Stanley was merely coining a term that was well understood by the public of that day.

The idea of Africa as a dark and mysterious continent had largely come about through institutions of the Enlightenment requiring its ‘rediscovery’, due the ‘unverified’ nature of its existing maps.

This perception that sub-Saharan Africa was an undiscovered continent that was covered by dark impenetrable jungle with large parts of the map remaining blank, and occupied by tribes of dark people practicing ‘black magic’ and ‘the dark arts’, all fed into the promoted narrative that Africa and its inhabitants were ‘unenlightened’. This greatly benefited the parasitic class who – as always – wanted to exploit the people and resources of yet another area of the globe.

As previously stated, it was the Portuguese slave traders in Africa and their Spanish buyers in the Americas who had commercially pioneered the Atlantic slave trade.

As is always the case in commerce, the seller seeks to make the transaction as easy for the buyer as possible, and Spain ruled over Portugal at this time, and so it was the Spanish language that established the terminology that was globally used to label all African slaves from the 15th century right through to the 19th century.

Incredibly, this word used specifically to define and label ‘slaves from Africa’ for hundreds of years is still being applied 500 years on, but is now used to label all members of the African race along with their descendants. Of course, that word is ‘black’, or ‘negro’ in the original Spanish.

Clearly, those who controlled the slave trade in the 15th and 16th centuries, or at any other time in history, would not have used a complimentary term to generically label their slaves. The dehumanising factor has always played a pivotal role in normalising the abuse of people.

The slave traders and slave buyers could have simply called the commodity ‘African slaves’, but they instead decided on a single word to replace the two as a label that would endure for hundreds of years to mean a ‘slave from Africa’ – ‘negro/black’.

It is clear that the term ‘negro/black’ was purposefully chosen because it was understood to be derogatory, in respect to (as detailed above): one of the many connotations in relation to light vs. dark (good vs. evil etc); the Enlightenment’s ideological view of Africa and Africans compared to Europe and Europeans; or simply the skin colour being the primary factor of identification of the African ‘slave race’.

Of course, there are a number of other derivations of this racist way of labelling a person of African heritage. The most infamous is nigger (niger, nigga) but there is also spade, darky (darkie), crow, eggplant, powder burn, smoked Irishman, sooty, tar baby etc. All these racial slurs have one obvious thing in common. They all aim to dehumanise the targeted individual by collectively labelling him or her under their most distinguishing feature – the darker colour of their skin. It is plain to see that all these worst terms applied to ‘African slaves’ revolve around the colour of the skin.

However, not once throughout the centuries of slavery has the word ‘slave’, or derivations thereof, ever been involved in such offensive labelling, or indeed any generic labelling, of African slaves. That is quite simply because the word ‘negro/black’ means ‘African slave‘.

In contrast to this, apart from the word ‘white’ itself (probably first used in its racial context, as “white people” in Thomas Middleton’s 1613 play, ‘The Triumphs of Truth’), and the seldom used word ‘whitey’, there really isn’t the same historical use of pejorative terms for people of European heritage in regards to the colour of their skin.

It is clear that the number of derivations of the source term ‘negro/black’ that have been adopted through the centuries to further label and denigrate African slaves, coincides with the lack of the same derogatory alternatives when it comes to its antonym ‘white’.

This contrast is really only explainable by the fact that slave owners were at liberty to reinvent colloquially the ‘negro/black’ label they gave to their African slaves, whereas the African slave had no such right to do the same to their slave owning masters.

It should also be well noted that the first use of the term ‘white’ as a synonym for the European race was well over a century after the establishment of the term ‘negroes/blacks’ was first coined by the Spanish as a synonym for ‘African slaves’. This further illustrates that these two words were not formed at the same time, but that the term ‘white’ was formed as an antonym to ‘negro/black’ much later, in response to that racist label, which by 1613 would have become widely known throughout the western world as the default name for any ‘African slave’.

This is important when it comes to the current acceptance and global use of the terms ‘black’ to label anyone within the African race and ‘white’ to label anyone within the European race. There has been a huge effort to promote these two labels through politics, in the media, and via the consumer and entertainment industries.

It is very clear from the entomology that these two collective terms were not created in sync with each other to merely describe two races of people. Far from it. The word ‘negro/black’ was first given its usage in the late 15th century, but it took at least 100 years for the word ‘white’ to follow. The true origin of these terms will always rest with the initial and ongoing usage of the term ‘negro/black’, which unequivocally meant ‘African slave’, and not simply ‘African’.

Again, it’s imperative that this sinks in. When you call a person ‘black’, you are using an historical term that dates back over 500 years, and which for the vast majority of that time only ever meant ‘African slave‘. If you’re OK with that, then fine, continue to use it, but if you’ve now understood the veiled reality of this ‘power term’, you will hopefully refuse to use it from this point forward, and perhaps more importantly, refuse to be called it!

Almost everyone is ignorant to the ruse that has been imposed on them, so do not blame those innocent members of the general public who will use the word unwittingly, but when we talk about a racist ‘dogwhistle’, there really isn’t any word that is worse than this historically well understood term for ‘African slave’. Remember that fact, the next time someone calls you ‘black’.

The plain historical fact is that no African was called ‘negro/black’ until the slave traders labelled them as such. We know it was the ‘slave label’ because those who initiated the North Atlantic slave trade – the Spanish & Portuguese (Portugal was ruled by Spain at the time) – coined the label in their native language as ‘negro’.

Indeed, the word ‘negro’ was the term not only used by the Spanish to label all African slaves in Brazil, but was also then used by Americans and Europeans to label their African slaves. ‘Negroes’ became the generic term for slaves in the US, Canada, Europe and anywhere else that English was spoken.

The Boston News-Letter ran an advertisement in May 1771 that read “A Young House-Negro Wench of 19 Years of Age that speaks English to be Sold.” Anyone who read this at the time knew two things – that the word ‘negro’ was the generic term for ‘African slave’, and that the word ‘negro’ was Spanish for ‘black’. The advert is clearly not referring to a “House-African”, but rather a “House-Slave”. As we can see, the word ‘slave’ is not actually required anywhere in the advert because the reader understands that the word ‘negro’ specifies ‘slave’.

Indeed, most modern information sources for this term have now (interestingly) replaced the word ‘negro’ with the word ‘slave’, so when you look up the terms ‘house negro’ or ‘field negro’, you are most often going to find the term ‘house slave’ or ‘field slave’. You can see this as either a poor attempt to hide the fact that the word ‘negro’ was simply a synonym for ‘slave’, or you can see it as a straightforward admission that such historians who refer to the term ‘house slave’ simply regard it as interchangeable with ‘house negro’. Either way, we must come to the same conclusion – that the term ‘negro/black’ in this context has always meant ‘slave’.

Malxcolm X is one person who did use these terms in their traditional format, in his speech “The Race Problem” at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan on 23 January 1963. An excerpt reads, “…during slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro.”

Now, here’s the same excerpt but with the term ‘Negro’ simply translated to its English equivalent ‘Black’, “…during slavery you had two Blacks. You had the house Black and the field Black.”

Essentially, by translating to English, we know that Malcolm X is talking about slave terms (as the Boston News-Letter advert above clearly illustrates), but we can now also realise how that same slave label is still being used today, but now as the generic term for anyone who is of African heritage, with out any admission whatsoever of its original and longterm understanding to mean ‘slave’.

Be in no doubt whatsoever that from the 15th century until the 19th century, and beyond, the word ‘black’ in regards to a person, did not simply mean ‘African’, it meant ‘African slave‘.

So if you are of African descent and you hear someone calling you ‘black’, you are hearing the same generic slave label that millions of Africans in bondage have been called over the centuries, derogatorily, collectively defining them simply by the colour of their skin.

It doesn’t matter what language you say something in, if it’s the same word, with the same meaning, and the same history, it’s the same thing.

If I refuse to be labelled as ‘white’, which I do for the many reasons given above, why would anyone who is of African heritage ever accept being called by their 500 year long slave label of ‘black’?

Once you fully understand that ‘black’ has always been just another way of saying ‘negro’, and that ‘negro’ has always been just another way of saying ‘African slave’, you begin to realise just how much you’ve been conned by those who control the accepted social narrative. They have been persistently promoting the labels ‘black’ and ‘white’ through their media, their entertainment industries, their consumer multinationals, their political puppets, and their social justice movements.

Of course, as previously explained, when we are talking about the current covert targeting of the African race for dehumanisation labelling, the fact that the European race is necessarily being given the counter-label of ‘white’ – in order to facilitate the continuation of the ‘slave label’ being applied to Africans – warrants no guilt being applied to those of European heritage within the general population. The people are never to blame.

The European race may have been labelled with the more symbolically positive word ‘white’, but they are still being denigrated to a single collective defined by a crude perception of their skin colour.

You must always look up to the penthouses and the private jets, behind the political curtain, and follow the money to the Swiss mountain retreats and the central banks, in order to know who are the real criminals in society, and who is behind all the violence, the chaos and the division that we see around us today.

It is those trillionaires and billionaires who bankroll marxism-globalism and the left-hand-path of politics (and control the political right too) who are behind this targeted racist attack, by promoting the social norm that references all those of African decent by their slave label, whilst referring to all those of European decent by the long established antonym to that slave label.

For a deeper understanding of marxism-globalism, see the article ‘Marxism-Globalism – The Destruction of Patriotism and the Nation State’ and other New Moral Order™ articles on the evils of globalism.

There are three key reasons behind the marxist-globalist agenda to label all people of African heritage as ‘blacks’ and all people of European heritage as ‘whites’.

1. Psychopaths are naturally racist

Organised psychopathy is the layer of criminality that lies above organised crime. Essentially, anyone involved in manipulating global politics and global society from behind the stage show of puppet politics is a social psychopath, ie. they are completely devoid of all empathy.

These social psychopaths naturally align and conspire with one another, and particularly so in the higher echelons of the financial, political and social power pyramid.

Those with a total lack of empathy automatically lean towards a sense of extreme narcissism and pathological self-worship. The social psychopath looks down on everyone else in the same way that a normal person looks down on an inanimate object. The only difference is that the social psychopath must pretend to appreciate other people, in order to conceal himself or herself within society.

Grade A, unadulterated racism comes very naturally to those social psychopaths in the toxic wealth bracket of society. They will always use race as a weapon, and will love to be verbally racist, but only behind closed doors. Everything concerning the social psychopath is an act. That’s why so many of them end up in politics, Hollywood, the music industry, mainstream media, and performing as celebrities.

The parasitic class of organised psychopaths who orchestrate all wars and financial calamities, stage manage global politics, control the central banking system, and who own 90% of all the accumulated wealth on the planet (and who are constantly robbing the people of the remaining 10%), are exactly the same group of people who controlled and profited from the North Atlantic slave trade and who are today pushing the labels of ‘black’ and ‘white’ on Africans and Europeans.

Yes, the racism of the parasitic class is certainly a key factor in regards to the global promotion of the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ to collectively define over two billion people.

Their political ambitions also play a major part in why they want Africans to call themselves ‘black’ and Europeans to call themselves ‘white’.

2. Marxism-globalism’s agenda to destroy all Sovereign Nation States

Although racial supremacy is important to one or two powerful sub-groups within the parasitic class, the geopolitical objective of forming a marxist-globalist dictatorship takes priority when it comes to the social conditioning of the human populace.

It has long been understood by those who are true experts in global affairs (certainly not the mainstream media muppets and dupes) that all the wars, terrorism, political policies and social movements of the last 100 years have all been focused towards marxism-globalism’s core aim to destroy the existing world order and replace it with a ‘new world order’, which places the parasitic class in authoritarian control over the rest of human society.

It doesn’t matter whether you look at communism or corporatism, socialism or the central banks, its all controlled by the same dynastic families of the parasitic class and their organised psychopathy network.

It is this criminal network that is the ‘hidden hand’, which pulls the strings of all the puppet politicians. These ‘bad actors’ on the political stage are currently all working in lock-step as Fifth Column Globalists, and under orders to destroy your country – your Sovereign Nation Sate – from within.

There are many facets to this internal collapsing of your society, which you can further explore in the article, ‘Marxism-Globalism – The Destruction of Patriotism and the Nation State’.

The key Nation States that are currently being targeted for political, economic and social destruction (the marxist-globalist takeover) are the USA, Canada, Britain, the many countries of Europe, Australia and New Zealand – in other words ‘the West’. If these nations fall, the rest will then be targeted for the same treatment. The indigenous population (residents for over 200 years) of these currently targeted countries were almost entirely of European descent until the very late 20th century.

So long as people defined themselves (even just informally or occasionally) by their country of birth, this destruction of the Nation State would be very difficult to achieve, if not impossible. Patriotism is perhaps the biggest obstacle to the marxist-globalists attaining their New World Order dictatorship.

If a person of African heritage living in a country such as America was permitted to label themselves as ‘African’, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Kenyan etc (even casually), this would undermine the marxist-globalist doctrine of “a world without borders”, or in other words, a single global dictatorship without any Sovereign Nation States.

The marxist-globalists’ social conditioning steamroller has clearly succeeded in this objective to not allow anyone of African descent who lives outside of Africa to promote themselves as African or Nigerian etc etc.

It is important to understand that how you label yourself has nothing to do with the realities of citizenship, but only to do with the agenda to undermine existing cultures. Many people have dual citizenship, and most within the parasitic class simply don’t require a passport at all, no matter where they are born.

An Italian can live in Senegal, but he clearly does not label himself as Senegalese. He regards himself as Italian. Even many generation on, and centuries later, this would most likely remain the case. However, it is not the case with those of African descent who move to a ‘western’ Nation State. They are prescribed with the traditional ‘slave label’ of simply being ‘black’.

Those of African descent should be proud of their heritage rather than kow-towing to the many marxist-globalist controlled puppet celebrities, who wear the ‘black’ label either in total ignorance of its true derogatory and racist meaning, or with knowing deference to their puppet masters who control their earnings, careers and celebrity status.

Even if, as a person of African descent, you support the marxist-globalist objective to form a one world dictatorship (though I can’t imagine why you would), once you comprehend that the label of ‘black’ imposed on you has historically always referred to ‘African slaves‘, would you really want to retain that label, particularly knowing that anyone who is truly racist may well possess this deeper comprehension of the term, and will be more than happy that you accept the label?

3. The marxist-globalist favourite tactic of ‘divide and rule’

The tactic of ‘divide and rule’ or ‘divide and conquer’ has been a mainstay of marxist-globalist strategy ever since its satanic puppet Karl Marx gave his name to marxism, which established the false concept that the middle class (the bourgeoisie) was the natural enemy of the working class (the proletariat). Of course, it was the parasitic class that invented and funded all the fake ideologies of the political left-hand-path, because it was the parasitic class that has always been the one true enemy of both the working class and the middle class. In reality, the working class and the middle class have always been on the same side against those who hoard toxic wealth, and who persistently undemocratically manipulate and exploit society from the shadows.

Although the above example of the divide and rule strategy is marxism-globalism’s most major use of the tactic employed to undermine western society, there are a number of others that are now just as well recognised as being manufactured for the sole – but veiled – purpose of turning one identified (socially manufactured) collective against another, including: the political left against the political right (and vice versa), men against women, children and adolescents against adults, secularists against Christianity, the young adult against the traditional family unit, homosexuals and lesbians against heterosexuals, the obese against the physically fit, and many others, but of course, the one that has received the most publicity and antagonistic promotion in the last 70 years or so, has been anyone of non-European heritage, but particularly those of African descent being pitted against those who happen to be of European descent; aka ‘black’ against ‘white’.

By reducing the sovereignty of the individual down to the most collective groupings possible – monochrome skin colour, marxist-globalists have been able to weaponise race through manufactured and politically manipulated groups such ‘Black Lives Matter’. Given the historical reality detailed above, this could just as easily read ‘Negro Lives Matter’ or ‘African Slave Lives Matter’. Indeed if the same group had been formed 200 years ago, that is exactly what it would have been called because back then, just as now, the African people had been socially conditioned by the parasitic class to think of themselves, and label themselves, not as Africans, or as people of nations within that continent, but merely as slaves/negroes/blacks.

Anyone who has studied Soviet or Chinese communism (another component of marxism-globalism) will know how the individual must cease to think of himself or herself as being in any way sovereign. Instead each person is merely a nameless, faceless servant/slave to the communist ideology and the State. In other words, the individual ceases to exist, and the State and communist leadership are all that exists and matter. Those who succumb, become willing tools of that regime – weapons of political and social war.

If you see yourself as ‘black’ and you see the enemy as ‘white’, or vice versa, then you have already fallen into this trap, and have become either a willing or whit-less tool of the marxist-globalist propaganda machine.

Even if you do not see the other manufactured ‘side’ as the enemy, by accepting the label produced for you by the corrupted system, you are still acquiescing to the agenda, and assisting in its proliferation. Only by refusing to adopt its language of division do you escape the control.

In the 21st century, an individual is able to socially identify themselves as a rainbow coloured unicorn if they really want to, so why is it that over a billion members of the African race and over a billion members of the European race, and all those who are descendants of both, submit themselves to being collectively labelled as monochrome colours?

This willing acceptance to be placed within one manufactured collective identity or another is the epitome of “thinking inside the box”. Instead, it’s time to start thinking critically and with great discernment about everything that the system is telling you to do, telling you to say, and telling you to think. Question absolutely everything.

If I can make the bold stand to request that anyone who refers to me as ‘white’ should not do so, because of all the reasons I have given above, but most notably because I understand that its antonym ‘black’ has historically always meant ‘African slave’, then I would hope that others – of both African and European descent – would at least consider doing the same.