This is what Anti‑Racism sounds like - get used to it
At around 15:30, on Thursday, 7 January 2016, at Tunbridge Wells Library, a White male (sitting with a friend using PC4, in the chair for PC3) refused to move from this chair to allow me to use PC3 - after my asking him politely to do so (hear attached audio). (PC3 had been booked for me by a member of staff.)
He arrogantly suggested I use the chair in front of PC2, but I pointed‑out the rather obvious fact that if someone uses PC2, then they will have no seat. He then suggested I use the seat for the Computer Buddies - but, then, where would they sit? I was clearly addressing someone of limited intellectual ability and achievement.
I then asked the same member of staff who booked PC3 to ask him to move. At first, she offered to book another computer, but I demurred; preferring to use the original computer she booked me; to avoid being placed in the position of the Black man having to kow tow to the White - for no good reason.
He still refused to move at her request and lied (hear attached audio) about my being impolite to him, in the first instance - I then immediately entered anti‑racism mode, in direct response to his playing the Race Card in the White environment of the library. Because he had no rational defence for his socially‑inferior behaviour, I made it very clear what I thought of him, in words that could not - under any circumstances - ever be misunderstood. I have no time, nor obligation, to enter into a negotiation (every time I use a UK public service) with a White supremacist about the civil & human rights I already possess. If Whites have not already figured‑out what equality means, they never will.
I also took photographs of him (attached) and he hid his head; revealing his tacit understanding that he was in the wrong - otherwise, why hide his head? (A member of the library staff once verbally implied to me [see 30-05-2015] that there existed a video surveillance system in the library, so this may avail him nothing.) In any case, at no point did he explain (without resorting to lies) his rather obvious desire to obstruct a Black man going about his lawful business.
Other White customers and staff entered the fray by siding with the White malcontent (no surprise there, given the prejudicial nature of White culture). One White male implying that the virtue of White women must not be sullied by hearing swear words - as if White women were somehow mentally‑retarded (& in need of protection from Black men). Racism, which leads to people being killed, is somehow (in the White mind) much less worse than swearing in public - which kills no‑one. And yet Whites behave as though the anger they incite is a threat to Western civilisation! - so why incite it?
Focusing on trivia is the moral inversion of a people who clearly have their ethical priorities back‑to‑front. It is also an unintelligent way to change the subject, since politeness only benefits the racist; while fighting fire‑with‑fire (my preferred method) wastes as much of their time as they wish to waste of mine. Such a focus also attempts to effectively‑legalize racial‑discrimination by trying to deliberately‑provoke Black people with whom Whites do not wish to share the same public space. Whites evade this issue by claiming that they can tell Black people how to act in public - more of the same racism Whites deny exists - while allowing contumely Whites to run roughshod over Black people’s rights.
Whites are not threatened by White supremacy (they benefit from it), so they can pretend never to see it as being a threat - in stark contrast to those who are disadvantaged by it. This means a Black person can be publicly‑abused, but woe betide them if he calls any White supremacist a
cunt. This is an unwritten rule Whites never have to follow, since they are never racially‑abused by Black people. I am happy to allow myself to be provoked, because it affords me the opportunity to offer free, hard‑to‑forget lessons to those who still have much to learn about race‑relations. And it is better than putting my fist in their faces, which would clearly be a disproportionate response in this case.
As a White female member of staff stood in my way for God‑knows‑what reason (technical assault?), it was then demanded that I leave the library and never come back that day. Since I was offered a low opinion of Black people to my face (that Blacks have no rights Whites need respect) I offered my, very clearly expressed, view of Whites; resulting from such unprovoked incivility and hostility.
Racist incidents will continue to happen, so long as White people are unwilling to muzzle the racist dogs that their particular ethnic‑upbringing encourages. In particular, those who think that public space exists for the venting of private prejudices, in the hope that Black people will be handicapped by having to live in perpetual fear of being harassed for the non‑crime of being Black; making it my job - out of self‑respect - to punish them for such superstition. The only equality and fairness here is to fight back, on the basis that: If non‑Blacks get in a Black man’s way, they are racist - unless they have good reason for so doing.
As Black people have had to become used to the existence of White supremacy - in order to survive and overcome it - Whites will have to get used to anti‑racism, since any violation of the principle of live‑and‑let‑live can result in a response every bit as nasty. The advantage for Blacks is that anti‑racism is ethical, because it is based upon the principle of self‑defence; while racism is immoral, because it is not. If Whites are not required to act in a reasonable and civilized manner, why is anybody else?
As I mentioned in my e‑mail of 5/6/2015?, I am happy to take the legal risks implied by my behaviour (under the Public Order Act 1986), in order to clear the White trash from my path - upon which they have no lawful business being.