Black Lives And Other Matters (People Can Learn A Lot From ‘Everybody Hates

Chris’)

People would be smart to consider what they would like to see as a result of the destabilization
of the state. It seems we are about 4 years behind the patterns of behavior of the Americans
with regards to political correctness and the calls for a 'revolution'. But it seems unclear to me
how such a revolution could occur, and not become a total disaster. If we agree that black
people are disproportionately represented in positions of power, that may be a fair observation
statistically. It's not something I have observed personally, but that does not mean by enlarge
of application upon the country that there is not truth in this.

I would therefore hope that the acquired 'improvement' in conditions in society would be that
we are able to visualize people's humanity with greater clarity, and select competent people for
positions of power, not only because they're black, but also because they're 'not white', there is
a slightly different meaning between the two. The biologic opposite of racism, is surely the
material for drastic recognition of human beings with a multitude of talents to benefit from and
share. How the system absorbs the talents of people based on prejudice is part of the debate.

The philosophy of Black Lives Matters protestors cannot be considered simplistic. The
pathology of the debate is that 'if you trace history, you expose elements where people of
particular races are oppressed or greatly benefit as a result of their appearance'. I say
appearance, because I think the 'safe' learning outcome of these protests needs to be
recognition of general humanity, and not a trade-off of privileges argued through history,
because this ignores personal responsibility, and part of the human existence is to grow as a
result of adversity. For example children being raised in single parent households is a new
phenomena on today's scale of many Northern European and North American countries, and
the susceptibility to crime and compelled decision making by children raised in such homes has
consequently flexed societal orders. We are not only a product of our communities but more
directly influenced by our household. There are most likely studies about why people behave
nestled inside the nurturing of serotonergic stimuli at a young age.

The stumbling block of these protests is 'where do we establish the new parameters of what is
acceptable in the modern place and time?' Because currently we are in danger of disrupting the
order of history, and failing to acknowledge the common benefits it has given us, including the
benefit to compare and learn from previous schemas of doing things so not to repeat ourselves
with what has been known to cause suffering in a previous time. After all, the success of
humanity at a fundamental level is broad development of mind/body correlation, where people
establish a psyche based on the rhythm of their external surroundings.

Are these surroundings racist?

The answer in my opinion is, 'maybe' but only if you're looking to round off the edges of your
self serving argument. The danger is the exposition of unrelative facts to appease a view that
we can rewrite history by excusing the parts we don't like! That is the exact thing the protestors
say is the problem! If history in it's 'current form' is unacceptable and racist, the duality is that
we entrust infinite time prevailing before us to be rewritten and interpreted by postmodern
ideals that have a tendency to jump and synchronize with technological/scientific modes of
thought, and then perhaps civil liberties in general could become greatly eroded. Who is to say
that in fifty years meat consumption will be viewed as deplorable, and meat consumption will
be removed from acceptable human discourse. History may become automatic and available
for purchase by the markets, formless and untraceable. THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE WHEN YOU
PRODUCE CONVINEIENT STRAINS OF FRUIT THAT ARE SEEDLESS FOR EXAMPLE, IS THE MEANS
TO PRODUCE SUCH PLANTS IS TO CLONE THE SAME VARIETIES FROM CUTTINGS, THEREBY
REMOVING THE PROCESS OF GROWING PLANTS FROM SEED, CREATING IDENTICAL PLANTS,
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT IF YOU ERRADICATE ALL THE OTHER SEEDED VARIETIES IN
FAVOUR OF SEEDLESS VARIETIES, THEN THE EVOLUTION OF THE GENETICS IS NOT ALLOWED TO
HAPPEN ORGANICALLY, AND WHEN DISEASES EVOLVE TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN CONDITIONS
OF SURVIVAL THEY CAN ATTACK CLONED SPECIES AND WIPE OUT ENTIRE SPECIES, BECAUSE
THERE IS NO VARIATION IN THE GENETICS POOL FROM CO EVOLVED SPECIES FROM SEEDED
VARIETIES, THE BIOMETRICS ARE DESTABALIZED.

When a statement so obvious is presented in front of you, the answer can seem so simple that
you'd be irrational not to agree with it. Of course black people's lives matter, and there are
systemic nuances all over the world where people who look or act a certain way are trimmed
off, or isolated because they are conceived as 'dangerous' or below humanity to contribute. The
answer is not a simple one, and the ramifications of thinking the answer is simple are so wrong.
People have worshipped symbolic representations since immemorial, and they grow to worship
symbols as incapsulating everything they believe in, but to think in such terms can make you a
paradox of what you believe, seeing as your thinking can therefore be considered inflexible to
anything that you believe a symbol does not represent. By my estimations Black Lives Matter is
a symbolic reference to a large subject that should be discussed, but how you reinstate equity is
a complicated subject, just to 'give people who qualify more' is shaded with so many sub
groups, that the concession is almost unending.

Ideas such as intersectionality view a human based an array of 'impairments' or setbacks

against various groups in society. I prefer in my own mind to see people as equal creatures that
are comprehended based on the ways they act according to their enlightened impulses. You
could say that people are products of an ill society, and their adverse behaviours are not their
fault, and they need to be 'saved' and not dragged through the dirt. There's some truth in such
a consideration, but to accept people's adverse behaviours would need to be demonstrable and
redeemable over time, and if people never learn from the way they treat others what then?

Carl Rogers used the term 'unconditional positive regard' in his therapeutic work, where to
understand his clients required him to see the best in everyone, as this would establish a
trusting bond where the client would be able to discover their own answers by talking profusely
in terms of where they've gone wrong, to reflect on poor actions, and to diagnose themselves
as to why those actions are not acceptable, to view themselves and others through this same
lens of 'unconditional positive regard' ie 'self love'. This is the reflective human who is awake to
the way they are treated, and then how they treat other people. I would point out that there is
now a type of people who use this philosophy in a cunning way, where if they reel off a script of
privileges they have, they can be considered as 'PC', South Park done a brilliant season on this
subject! Proper worth a look, and makes you think about the authenticity of whether someone
believes truly they are reflecting positively, or whether they are concerned with obtaining
power, and use political correctness as a vehicle to get there.

There seems to be a group of people out there that think there is a serious imbalance that
needs to be addressed, and the proposition is that race plays some part in the selection of
applicants for positions of power in the country. There are many segways at this point, seeing
as this essay is concerned with the British 'chapter' of the protest, but also draws on the idea of
race more generally. Some of them point to totalitarian danger if they are not considered, I
have listed some below:
• Social media may have become so powerful, that it is able to use relative collections of
facts to support any agenda, and these agendas are so powerful they are able to
convince people to take to the streets. I thought the same, and continue to think that
way about the implementation of house arrest and social distancing rules relating to
Corona. (It seems unlikely we live in an exceptionally hostile time, surrounded by the
static of heightened danger, but now this static is delivered to our minds by evermore
efficient means, leading us towards the idea that we are our own worst enemy.)

• There will be a rise in tribalism. People who do not feel obliged to support Black Lives
Matter for one reason or another will shift further towards association with people of
extremely opposing views, creating a fissure in general discourse, this is driven by the
claim that to not participate in some form of recognition of Black Lives Matters removes
you from the discourse. Very dangerous beyond belief, and further buttresses my claim
of the power of social media. Social media may now have a dictum of power whereby to
drive the biological goal of social media is to compel total engagement, maintain your
virtual soul by gesturing at every cause under the spotlight. PUT A BOARDER OVER YOUR
PROFILE PICTURE FOR THAT BUILDING IN FRANCE, FOR TERRORISM SOLIDARITY, I
SUPPORT NORWICH CITY, I SUPPORT AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, I AM NEGAN.

• A compelling psychological theory is Goldberg's (1990) '5 personality traits theory',

which is a useful predictor in how people may perceive situations based on their ethics
and values system. 'Agreeableness', which is one of these five traits pathologizes that
agreeable people are excellent in care positions as they are able to empathize
particularly well with people's situations. Agreeable people are altruistic, modest,
straightforward, compliant and of a tender mind, this means such people are 'prosocial'
and more open to new experiences. The price they pay for such qualities (you always
have to pay a price) is that they are less likely to consider structural implications of their
actions. They will leave the decision making to the higher ups, have a difficult time
saying no, and do not wish to upset the status quo. So if such people are the directors of
our discourse, it seems plausible that people currently in positions of power could
manipulate such people easily, PERHAPS EVEN CREATE A 'NEW NORMAL'.

• The cost of ripples in the water is worth considering. Virtue is what role models should
display, and of course they are!!! Meghan Markle is a strong proponent of 'the only
wrong thing is to say nothing', were her exact words. Not to cast judgement on hers or
many of the other famous people who are weighing in on this subject, but they live in
the globalized abyss. They connect with their fans on social media platforms, and their
voices have an impact on the entire world. They have a strong interest to support the
extinction of homogeny, and replace it with one of them trying on a dress, or how to
 make lasagne (I know because I watched one episode of 'Cooking With Paris').

• There seems to be a duality where race is concerned. I know for example that my Great
Nanny was raised in a Romany Gypsy culture, although my Great Grandad was from a
working-class family from Norwich who were incredibly poor, he wrote a book about it.
On my Mum's side, my Great Nanny and Great Grandad lived and died in a very
interesting time where there was infidelity and a lot of what may be labeled by ‘the
modern standard’ as ‘patriarchal behavior’ by my Great Grandad towards my Great
Nanny, on both sides there was immense poverty, as was common for most people in
the late 19th century ‘by modern standards’. They are my genealogical culture, and
presumably the way I look and act has influence from all my descendants in various
proportions, and I am a diluted mix of many things. I am one thing, but I have an
autonomy in the parameters of the time I inhabit to become a new thing, whilst
considering where I've come from!
• The final thing to address is whether I am even entitled to speak about this seeing as I
am white, and probably lower middle class if I had to fall on the spectrum. Because I
don't know what it's like to live in an adverse world conditioned by previous cultures of
colonialism and slavery, but are these subjects not also a part of the discourse? And I
cohabit the same planet and the same communities as everyone else. I had this
conversation the other night with some friends. When I went to Cambodia I was paying
twice as much for everything as Cambodian people, I am sure of this because I went
around with some Cambodians for a few days and I shouted the bill for a few meals, and
the price of 3 meals were the same as what I'd paid for a single meal before. It was
because I was a rich westerner so I was obligated to pay a tax you could say. I visited a
vastly different culture and was treated differently to a local. The same can be true if
you go anywhere abroad, so language is another identifier of how someone may be
treated. I suppose that just because I'm 'Joe Wright' I go through life advantaged in
some regards, and disadvantaged in others. Because of my height, my intelligence (or
lack of), my lack of wearing shoes sometimes (got me kicked out of Tesco once because
they wouldn't be insured if I got glass in my feet for some reason). I exist in a reasonable
equilibrium which is England, a country that goes to greater lengths than most to
correct injustice from a centralised standpoint. No country has produced better
theologists than England. Huxley, Russell, Darwin, Newton etc.

If you stand in your own shoes you start to realise your own trade off (but don't go to Tesco
barefoot), where you are top of the pile in some circles, and nearer the bottom in others.
Welfare systems, universal healthcare and various other things attempt to address this 'equity'.
And that is where the claim is that black people are considerably offset in the equity they
receive. The abhorrent traits of lasting, systematic racism in the USA has swam across the
Atlantic, and now the United Kingdom is considering its own race question. Britain has had its
own problems with racism as I'm sure there were slaves here, and more recently the Windrush
Generation. I have never been to America, but I'm guessing there is not a more diverse place on
this planet for people. That’s a place founded on immigrants who saw America as the place to
expose their talents, and now their chickens are coming home to roost. Because it now seems
that the crossover of ideals is creating a battlefield. The Africans bought over on boats against
their will are feeling the systematic 'heat' of a country that still thinks in racist terms, if the
pacifier is the first addiction in infancy, then second is extrapolated American Nationalism, the
rules were written by white people. But the question is what is a high-resolution way to think of
this, and to find an answer which does not lead to a civil war inspired by facebook memes? It is
fine to say the origins of something have evil constituents, but is it so simple as to recondition
history, destroy the bits we don't like and benefit without regard from the bits we do like, and
who decides this, what do we learn? If you make a tough decision that's the best decision for
the most people at a given time, then does that mean fuck everyone else from that decision? I
thought you cared?

The human gene pool is pretty much a miracle. Billions of lifeforms have evolved and given
birth, struggled against the brutal conditions of existence so that you can read this. We are not
all good, and we make bad decisions, probably even based on the premise of evil, indulgence
and the unrelenting power of the ego. But then we realise our potentialities and make vast
contributions to the world and each other based on the tools we have in our hand at any given
moment. Personally I want to be regarded as a whole, where I've made poor judgements, acted
badly at times, I don't want those to be ignored, but considered points from which I have grown
and improved my perception of reality. To white wash and make everything true, made from
nothing but virtue seems like an evil idea where everyone's plastered to a chair, being fed anti-
depressants, seeing as their ability to cope with adversity has become weak, ARTIFICAL
INTELLIGENCE.

Are Black People second-class citizens in the first world? What to do about this? How is this to
be proven? And how do we not start handing out random quotas where any subsection of
society can claim power imbalances that demand addressing with employment quotas,
university placement quotas etc? Because the paradox is that this subject does not create
equality, it simply takes a few calibration weights off the other side, and you end up with
people that are not necessarily competent in positions of power, but their profile of
circumstances means they qualify for a place above someone more suited for the role.
I don't want to apply it specifically, but the 'Pareto Principal' shows that mass society tends to
place 20% at the bottom, 20% at the top, and 60% more or less up and down the rungs in the
middle, the principal is old and has been tried across a number of topics such as sport, health
care and poverty. This principal does not do justice for extremely intelligent people born into
highly adverse circumstances, of which I have met several in different social work roles. In fact
it is sad to see how people born with high IQ's, but were subjects of extreme abuse will struggle
to get a suitable education to extract knowledge, while managing their hypervigilant
behaviours. There are many provisions that can be put in place to help such cases, to develop
and nurture intellectual capacity, while establishing coping mechanisms where behaviours may
inhibit learning, and there are more or less successful cases, and people who struggle
immensely to shake off the adversities of abuse, and may never reach the potential of their
elastic functionality. Perhaps this would infer the subject of the responsibility of the individual
to determine how they want to manifest in the world, or likewise you may believe that the
illness of society has befallen abused people, and we are all collectively responsible for the
experiences of each other. In fact probably the existence of life is rooted partly in such a
debate.

For now people should not destroy monuments, and they would do well to not forget
democracy, which is currently thought to be the best solution of a bad situation of measuring
collective will. Protestors are opening up pandora's box, and they will convince themselves that
the only way to close the box is to become a martyr for their cause. They may be on a one-way
street, where the normalization of chaos is louder than the rationality of peace, because
ironically they believe in a 'them and us' scenario where you are either caste as 'Black Lives
Matter' or you're ignorant. We could say that many famous monuments across the world were
built by slaves, or those on the lower rungs of society, and before we know it we have turned a
race to the top into a race to the bottom.