THE RIGHT MINDED

Let’s Generalize.

Anyone who aims to change anything more than their living room curtains have to generalize. There are more than 7 billion people on the planet. To form an educated opinion and not remain impartial we have to generalize. I've been told countless times not to generalise.  I believe the good intentioned reason for it, is because it discriminates against those who do not fit the profile. Very well, if I had to say Indians like cricket. I would in that case clearly be wrong. Because there are certainly some Indians who do not enjoy cricket. Therefore my above statement is incorrect and if I would host a cricket match in an Indian neighbourhood I would be discriminating against those that do not enjoy cricket and it would therefore be unwise to do so. Thus, I should host a rugby match in an Indian neighbourhood to accommodate those who do not enjoy cricket. (To a white liberal, I am being satirical.) Even after twisting the concept like that, it still reads as if it could work. But your ticket sales will reflect the truth. And you will clearly be disappointed in the turnout. So, when I say Indians like cricket, must I always add, "most Indians like cricket while some Indian people like football others like golf others like rugby etc. etc." Or will I add a * after each generalization and at the end of each article where I list the names and surnames of all the Indians that does not like cricket, like so "Indians like cricket*"

For every new Indian I meet I will assume he likes cricket, a little knowledge of his culture will improve our relations. It would be stupid of him to be offended by my assumption if it does not apply to him because he knows most other Indians enjoy cricket. (This was not satire, liberal, because I know you struggle to distinguish real from fake.)

I use the 'Indians like cricket' as a more neutral example of a concept. When I meet an African (Liberal and African, before you pop a vain and run around your living room yelling "Racist bastard! Doesn't he know all black people are made of rainbows and lavender!" finish reading the paragraph, then you can go leave a YouTube video response reminding us of slavery.) I assume he has the intention of deceiving and/or robbing me ("Not all black people yaddah yaddah!!!"). It comes from experience. The opinion was developed through 3 near death experiences from trusting them off hand and saved my life two times after adopting the attitude of generalization and helped me avoid countless more sticky situations. There were a few times where my caution was unnecessary and a black and liberal would expect me to focus on these exceptions, and again, make them the rule. My attitude saved my life twice, and has kept me out of trouble and criminals on their toes. A black or liberal can argue as they please, they can say what they will, they can give me books that will "shake my foundations". But my survival depends on my attitude and my attitude is shaped by experience.

All actions require preparation. Success in life depends to a very large extent on how well you prepare for the things in your life. Even unexpected adaptation becomes easier with preparation. Preparation is not damaging if not used. Only a fool sees preparation as a waste if not used. How do we prepare? We predict. How do we predict? Like Chess. We generalize. How do we generalize? By using experience and knowledge.

Germans are well organized. Indians like cricket. Chinese people speak Cantonese. These are generalizations. Why are these generalizations? Because they apply. They fit. They are generally found to be true. But not 100% of the times.

Banjos sound like drums. Fire is cold. Japanese dislike Anime. Koreans are good at drawing tables. These are not generalizations. Because they do not apply. They do not fit. They are not generally found to be true. But not a 100% of the times.

Thus, when playing the banjos we do not prepare for drum sounds. When jumping into fire we do not wear our swimming trunks. When speaking with Koreans you don’t first mention furniture. When choosing a sport to play with Indians, it’s wise to pick cricket. So, by generalizing we are prepared to take on these situations through experience and knowledge. If, it turns out, we spoke with an Indian who does not like cricket; it is his problem if he is offended.

Therefore, when walking in Mamalody at night, you don’t wear flashy jewellery and don’t carry a lot of cash. Why? You are not allowed to answer, because you are not allowed to generalize. If you need assistance in a state department like home affairs and you can choose to be helped by either a white person or an African. Which would you choose? You are not allowed to answer because you are not allowed to generalize. If you hear of a family being murdered by intruders, what do you assume the race of the perpetrators to be? Again, can’t answer, out of fear of being scolded for generalizing and being racist.

So, from these examples, we can now assume, that when the liberal world instructs us to not generalize, they mean not to generalize negatively about a certain race, particularly Africans. Would you then agree, That. Is. Bullshit? So the argument that generalizations are bad is false. It is simply a way of saying generalizing negatively, even if it is true and relevant, about  a race, particularly Africans, but not Whites is wrong.

Therefore, I generalize.