#racial collectivism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

yakourinka · 2 years

Text

(late post-guide ahead musings, kind of a long rambly post, part 1?)

I feel like Laterano being peaceful and its residents' wacky wild wild west uwu antics has caused some people to miss just how fucked up Laterano actually is - it's the most fucked up place on Terra in my opinion.

There are the more obvious reasons: racial supremacy that is implicit in their religion, "lesser" races practically serving as adoring errand people and soldiers for the Sankta:

What I can only call as racial segregation: Shit Sucks Everywhere At All Times for the Sarkaz but this is (to the best of my knowledge) the first time we've seen a government officer/cop go I SPOTTED A SARKAZ, GIT'ER at a person who, as far as they know, is a street peddler.

Also they hunt Sarkaz in the wild for sport apparently. (I'm aware that the Sarkaz also fight them, but you'll notice that Sarkaz are in a lot more disadvantageous situation than the Laterans.)

KFC Pope also brushes upon this with the fire analogy in the last chapter (if you give out too much of Laterano's light the place will burn out etc.), but Laterano refuses to share its resources with other nations (despite, hilariously, trying to pull a United Nations shit on their land) because:

(This is also Andoain's Joker moment.) Now consider that they have the resources to waste to the point that you can blow shit up everywhere provided you fill the paperwork and it will get fixed, and the entire city constantly smells of sugar and vanilla.

Putting all of this against the background of Shit Fucked Everywhere that is Terra and you get what is essentially a resource-hoarding ethnostate full of nice, wacky people.

It's also no coincidence that there's a noticeable emphasis on sweets - you might remember a similar thing from Dossoles (and other real world examples cough South America) with coffee and sugar: 1) it's a luxury 2) it keeps people happy and content and wanting more. Which brings me to the next point: The emotion sharing thing.

Everything about Laterano is socially engineered in a way to keep its people content in this proverbial cage. The people here can't even tell when they're in danger, which is simultaneously funny and fucked up:

See, you live in the Saved Land. Your feelings are not private because you're all hooked up on the Holy Hivemind. You feel rather encouraged to keep feeling content and happy and not think too much because your distress will be detected and shared by other people. You are now an anomaly. Ezell returning home after letting Cecelia go is some twilight zone shit because he's seen some fucked up stuff, is confused and in distress and everyone he meets on his way home is like hey man why don't you have a little snack and relax? why don't you have some cake and coffee my guy ha ha? And he has no way of processing his own mental state or articulating himself to anyone, despite the hivemind.

(completely my personal opinion here but I ended up liking Fia and Mos substantially less after the event because Laterano and its weird as fuck extreme collectivism are uncomfortably fucked up to me. like I respect a single-minded to the point of idiocy, rage-filled woman usually, like them even, but Laterano's just way too fucking weird and Fiametta being like yeah so what bitch? to everything Patia and Andoain was saying was, while funny, also unlikable. also Mostima is drinking buddies with the Pope! what the fuck)

I've seen some more positive/funny interpretations of It, the god in the Papal Basement, but what with the hivemind thing I can't help but think of the only other case of hivemind+singular god in Arknights, the Seaborn. Why did It let the incident between Mostima, Lemuen and Andoain happen, but swiftly cancelled the "shoot someone else and you're out" rule the moment Andoain and KFC Pope were shooting at each other? Is it because Andoain is/was essentially a cultish missionary spreading Its word, and the Pope is kinda essential to keeping Laterano stable? Assimilation by consumption versus assimilation by faith?

There's probably a lot more shit you can say about Laterano, like Adnachiel being ostracized because his halo is kinda not straight, what about the infected Sankta, etc., but I'll stop. Laterano's fucked up, man.

#arknights #guide ahead #andoain #fiammetta #mostima #ezell #long post

400 notes · View notes

nostalgicamerica · 1 year

Text

A Re-Declaration of Independence

Jeff Goldstein

Be it so understood:

I refuse to “unpack white violence.” I reject the idea that my existence “perpetuates white power structures.” I will not — and in fact cannot — “examine my implicit biases.” I’m an individual. I refuse to grant determined interpretive communities authority over my being. My meaning is mine. It is what makes me me.

I’m not taking any “journey” to “discover” the impact of my “privilege” on “black and brown peoples.” I will not become “anti-racist” or “anti-fascist” to satisfy your demands. I reject Cultural Marxism. I am an individual. I’m not defined by my color, my religion, my sex. I’m Jeff.

I will not “respect your pronouns” or “celebrate” your “queerness.” I am hostile to your sexualizing of children. I reject your neologisms, your “triggers,” and your desire to control my speech. I know who and what you are: you are my presumptive master, or else the Useful Idiot who empowers him. But I will grant you and your ideology no power over me.

I reject “equity” because it is collectivism disguised as virtue. I reject “inclusivity” because it is inorganic, superficial, and contrived. I reject mandated “diversity”: I will not surrender to the Crayon Box Mafia, nor to the gender changelings who pretend I am a construct answerable to their whims.

“Cultural appropriation” is merely culture: it expands to include, and it makes up the very fabric of a pluralist society. There’s no such thing as “digital blackface.” My whiteness is not “violent”; my sex is not “oppressive”; my religion doesn’t concern you; and my children are not yours to mold. Your beliefs will not be imposed on me. The State will not parent my sons.

“Queer theory” is “critical race theory” is “critical consciousness” is the Marxist rejection of the individual as individual. Cultural Marxism is determined to raze norms, sow chaos, tear families asunder, and reduce being to collective conformity. I reject its premises as fully as I reject its adherents. I will not comply.

I will not mouth your slogans. I will not denounce on command. I am not your tool, and you are not my minder. I reject your social hectoring. I find abhorrent your authoritarian urges. I laugh at your disingenuous outrage. From me you will receive no apologies. I reject your premises entirely, and I hereby reclaim my time.

My speech is my own. I reject each of your excuses to silence me. I don’t ask for your protections. I can filter information without your interference, and I despise your presumption to protect me from myself.

I am your sworn enemy, as you are mine. I will not perform for you. I will not read from your script or dance in your follies. I utterly reject your revisionism, your ahistorical impertinence, your presentism, your self-appointed expertise. I will not bow before your theorists, nor admire your social prophets.

I am not a disease. My existence doesn’t “warm the planet.” I’m not interested in your “sustainability” concerns. I am not yours to manage.

I won’t eat your bugs, live in your pods, surrender my cars, or without consent be packed into your cities. I reject your charity. I unmask your intentions. I know what a woman is; I know that any member of any racial group can practice racism; I know that 2+2=4, regardless of how contingent you wish to make reality. I despise your ideology. I refuse your relativism. You are not the Elect, and I am not answerable to the various neuroses you wear as badges of honor.

I know you better than you know yourselves. You are conditioned. Programmed. Automatons who believe themselves sentient beings. Your intolerance of “hate” is not a virtue. It’s a ruse. An excuse to practice your own intolerance and luxuriate in your own hatreds. You are a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are that which you claim to despise, and I am that which you claim to be.

I see you. Clearly. And I aim to misbehave.

I strive to be self-sufficient. I honor the founding ideals of my country, and I work to live up to their measure. I recognize the great fortune of my birth. History does not frighten me. I reject your blood libels: I am not responsible for that which I didn’t do, nor are you victims of what was never done to you. I will not proclaim your goodness while knowing your evil.

I am a free man. You wish to take me from me. You will fail. I will win. And God willing, I will live to spit on your graves.

*This is copied verbatim from https://jeffgoldstein.substack.com/*

72 notes · View notes

cheonmamatousakura · 3 months

Text

Being made to read Atlus Shrugged again, I think one of the main reasons why the story, let alone its philosophy is utterly so uncompelling is that it has no grounding in reality. Whenever it tries to talk like a manifesto it sounds utterly melodramatic because the world it has made up is generally the opposite of the actual issues that are faced in reality. To oversimplify it that of inequality.

One can tell that part of the reason that rich right wingers like it so much is because it makes up a world in which they would be oppressed for having lots of money and what they believe to be their meritocratic and intellectual merits that too aren't based in reality with all their wealth being on the backs of exploited labour.

Atlus Shrugged creates a world of ungrounded oppression where things such as the abstract idea of love and acting upon it is limited. One might relate it to homophobia or romeo and juliet or some other thing, but it is rather just love in general, focused entirely on how sad it is that straight people can't get it on beyond for procreation. It is something that rings even more hollow today than it did back then to be fair, but rather than grounding it with any context it is instead made into the abstract in a bizarro or opposite world that would rather make up a reality for you to get mad at than have any grounding of the existing one with existing oppressions that are all the more enraging to anyone who has dealt with or sympathized with an actual struggle in their lives.

The only things that seems even a little grounded in reality is the mention of eugenics and the relagation of the eldery or old as useless members of society, but even then there is hardly if any commentary on capitalism and how it defines humanity and its value based on labour value that can be exploited by capital or any racial or racialized aspects of eugenics. Instead it is the vague idea that all people are oppressed by evil equality and collectivism in what reads like a cartoon world version of what better dead than red types thought the ussr was at the time, an evil cartoon world you'd think even red scare poisoned people would think is at least a bit silly.

Again, you can see why Atlus Shrugged is so popular to right wingers and rich people, and of course they tend to be white men for socioeconomic and social appeal reasons. It imagines a world where you can be oppressed by all these things that actual oppressed people might be oppressed over in actual, real contexts even if you're the very group of people that are oppressing them. You too can be oppressed as a cisheterosexual white man for your love of a cisheterosexual white woman! You're so oppresed for being smart and cool and good at everything and everyone's keeping you down for being rich and smart and cool and good and popular, just like in real life!

It's a fantasy for people to pretend like they're oppressed for things that they're very much not, and might not have ever experienced actual oppression to begin with, and gasses them up in their minds for being so smart and innovative and pats them on the back for being selfish and not caring about others. To do so, it must be as fantastical as possible, as ungrounded by (though not untethered from) the real world as possible. Of course the work was made in a historical, socioeconomic context that can be examined through historical materialism and so on, but Atlus Shrugged would very much wish that it couldn't, perhaps because it would be too collectivist to examine the world and its context and how society is based on real class struggle and not a fictional meritocracy struggle of individuals.

#atlus shrugged #literature

2 notes · View notes

oleworm · 1 year

Text

This is low-hanging fruit, but as much as I engage with the author's more interesting ideas (with Unamuno it's the contradictions that he identifies in Western Christianity, and being present in the social world vs. the value given to asceticism and isolation, or the creations of the mind vs. the creations of the body, that is, the creation of biological children, isn't this as old as Plato? Old as Hesiod? I misremember) it always gets me out of the reading for a second when one of these early to mid-century authors alludes to the racial nature of the personality and the society that these personalities conform.

At least in two separate paragraphs he's losing his shit about Europe ≅ the West ≅civilisation ≅Christianity being overrun by communism≅collectivism≅Orientals ≅Asiatics≅Buddhists (the Buddha nature). Abuelo, ya es hora de que vayas a morir.

5 notes · View notes

louce123 · 1 year

Text

« On pouvait peut-être voir aussi l’effondrement d’une esthétique en fait ; de ce que j’appelle une esthétique, donc un régime de la sensibilité, comment on perçoit collectivement le monde… puisque l’esthétique, je ne parle pas là uniquement de l’art mais plutôt du régime du sensible.

Du coup, j’ai senti à un moment donné quand il y a eu l’incendie de Notre-Dame qu’effectivement il y avait cette esthétique —que j’appelle petro-sexo-raciale. Qui dans les modes de production fonctionne par les énergies fossiles et dans les modes de reproduction fonctionne par les binarismes homme/femme, héterosexuel/homosexuel, mais aussi par une taxonomie raciale hierarchisée.

(…) Etait en train quelque part de brûler et de s’effondrer et donc c’est vrai que pour moi c’était presque comique voir la folie que ça a suscité (l’incendie en lui même) et aussi la manière dont les autorités puliques ont voulu tout de suite la reconstruire à l’identique. Alors que justement il y avait dans cet effondrement, dans cette forme de destruction peut-être l’invention d’une nouvelle esthétique qui était plus juste, plus en accord avec notre temps disjoncté.

(…)

Face à cette fragmentation, à l’explosion des formes de connaissance de la modernité, la philosophie ne suffit pas.

En tout cas la philosophie telle qu’on la connaît. Il y a là aussi une débinarisation, c’est à dire une rupture de cette différence traditionnelle entre la théorie/la pratique, le corps/l’esprit, la philosophie et la poésie etc… donc du coup la philosophie devient poésie la poésie devient cinéma le cinéma devient peut-être musique, vous voyez, c’est aussi peut-être comme ça que les artistes contemporains travaillent aujourd’hui. »

Paul B. Preciado — interview sur France Inter à l’occasion de la sortie de Dysphoria Mundi, novembre 2022

#paul b preciado #dysphoria mundi #notre dame

4 notes · View notes

victims-of · 8 months

Text

Why did Nazis call themselves National Socialists?

The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, or "Nazis" for short, to appeal to a broad range of supporters and to create a sense of unity and collectivism within their party. However, it's important to understand that the term "National Socialist" can be misleading because the policies and ideology of the Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, did not align with what we typically associate with socialism.

Here are some key reasons why they adopted this name:

Populist appeal: The use of the term "socialist" was intended to attract working-class voters and gain their support. At the time, socialism and workers' rights were popular movements in Germany, and by incorporating the term into their name, the Nazis aimed to capture some of that support.

Deceptive marketing: Hitler and his propagandists were skilled at manipulating language and imagery to appeal to a broad audience. By presenting themselves as "National Socialists," they could appear as champions of both the nation and the people, masking their true intentions.

Political opportunism: The Nazis were primarily a far-right, nationalist, and authoritarian movement. While they incorporated elements of populist rhetoric and social welfare policies into their platform to attract a wider following, their actual policies were fundamentally anti-Semitic, militaristic, and expansionist. Their main focus was on creating a racially pure and authoritarian state, not on promoting socialist economic policies.

Confusion and manipulation: The use of the term "socialist" in their name allowed the Nazis to confuse and manipulate political opponents and voters. Many people who may not have fully understood their ideology could have been drawn to the party based on the name alone.

In practice, once the Nazis came to power in Germany in the 1930s, they suppressed labor unions, persecuted socialists and communists, and implemented policies that favored big business and the wealthy elite. These actions were in direct contrast to the principles of socialism.

In summary, the Nazis called themselves National Socialists to appeal to a broad range of supporters, capitalize on popular political trends of the time, and manipulate the perception of their ideology. However, their actions and policies in power were far from being genuinely socialist.

#ww2 history #manipulation

1 note · View note

stephenjaymorrisblog · 2 years

Text

Jeremy Peña Saved Me from Suicide

Stephen Jay Morris

10/16/2022

Scientific Morality©

There are so many ways of escapism from negative current events. What’s your pleasure? Sex? Drugs? Music? Dancing? Booze? Video games? For me, it’s being a front row spectator of competitive sports on TV. In that world, there’s never a mention about the Donald, or of Evangelicals disrupting a school board meeting. No...during game time, I am far, far away from that shit. The only controversy, if any, is over an umpire’s call. It’s a good way to spend time during a hot, summer afternoon.

Autumn is upon us now, which means MLB playoffs! The outcome will result in the two teams that face off over seven games of the ultimate show, the fucking World Series!!!

You see, it’s not toxic masculinity that drives me to watch such contact sports; it’s about team work, and heart and soul. It’s about individual achievements through symbiotic relationships with collectivism. Without each other, there can be no victory. This is applicable to all endeavors in life.

Also, there is the issue of the underdog. I have always been a fan of the underdog. There is a basketball team in Los Angeles, the L.A. Clippers. In the 90’s, they couldn’t get arrested. They were always in last place. But I stuck with them and still do. Over the years, the team improved markedly, to the point where they get into the playoffs, but always fail to make it to the championships. Well, someday.

Now, back to baseball. The Seattle Mariners haven’t won a World Series since 1990. That’s a long time! I was drawn to the team because of that fact. During the first round of the ALCS playoffs, they were playing against the Houston Astros. I usually have no interest in that team. However, their manager, Dusty Baker, is somebody I really care about. I remember him when he played for my home team, the L.A. Dodgers, in the 70’s. Later, he managed the Chicago Cubs and almost took them to the World Series. Then, he managed another underdog team, the Washington D.C. Nationals. He took that team out of last place. But—and it’s a big but—he never won a World Series. A man after my own heart.

On October 15, Game 4 between the Seattle Mariners and the Houston Astros started at 4:00 p.m. It was broadcast over cable TBS. Both teams had great pitchers. After the first inning, there were no hits. At the end of the 7th inning—no score! At this point, I was yelling at my T.V. set, “Can’t anybody hit the God damn ball?!” I even started to use racial epithets and yelled sexist remarks at the players. I stayed with the game up until the 10th inning. Nothing!

Disgusted, I left the game and watched some drive-in, gore movie. After some time, I was curious about who’d won, so I returned to TBS. The stupid game was still on! It was the 14th inning!! After that, I kept going back and forth between the movie and the game.

I think it was 10:15 p.m.--in the 18th inning!!--when a young player named Jeremy Peña stepped up to the plate. He’s a 25 year-old rookie, born in the Dominican Republic. I didn’t expect much from him. At this point, I was thinking about overdosing on sleeping pills. He swung his bat and the ball flew into the backfield seats! It was finally over! The Houston Astros advanced to the second round of the ALCS playoffs, and having done so, they set a six-in-a-row AL record!

I felt sorry for the Mariners’ fans; they’d all stayed to the bitter end. I guess, as they say, there is always next year. But I was happy for 73 year-old, Dusty Baker.

Also, Jeremy Peña saved me from suicide.

#baseball #sports #postseason #stephenjaymorris #poets of tumblr #baby boomers #anarchism #satire #autobiography

1 note · View note

1929crash · 3 months

Text

Wife-beaters and T Roosevelt

TR evidently wanted women enslaved and forced to reproduce–so long as they are not beaten by hubby! For THAT we have proper officers of THE law. Roosevelt’s usual style was to express support for two opposite things in a single breath. This enabled wags favoring either of the two contrary positions to brag that Teedy was in favor of their demands. Mr Dooley’s example is the clearest: “The…

View On WordPress

0 notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 5 months

Text

By: Salomé Sibonex

Published: Dec 5, 2023

Until just a few years ago, I didn’t feel like I had a place in this world. That’s over 25 years of wondering why my life didn’t look more like the lives of people around me. Even my thoughts were different from the thoughts of people around me, for better and for worse. Before most people were using social media for anything besides posting pictures of food, I was accusing people of cultural appropriation. Insecurity, naivety, and intelligence are a dangerous combination.

In the last few years, I’ve lost my naivety, improved my insecurities, and kept the intelligence (this too, is a dangerous combination). Where I once played along with destructive leftism, like using any political disagreement as an excuse to attack people and consequently suppress my underdeveloped sense of self, I now follow a different compass.

Something changed in me after watching people who endlessly argued that words were violence suddenly defend real violence–mobs ganging up on individuals–if it was done in the name of BLM. The leftist ideas I previously scooped up on social media had gone from fringe to mainstream and were playing out in front of me; now executed in the real world, they were spilling blood with no remorse. The familiar feeling of being the odd one out returned. I knew this was a situation where I was compelled to do the unpopular: voice an opinion no one else seemed to hold. But this time, I was driven by my values instead of my insecurities.

I couldn’t see it from the peer group and media landscape I was in, but I wasn’t the only one finding lines they wouldn’t cross. Speaking out against people misusing the pursuit of racial equality to justify destruction led me to others who were also willing to go against the herd. I discovered principled individualist thinkers like Ayishat Akanbi. But there were many other people still finding the strength to speak up.

The years 2020 and 2021 will be remembered for many reasons, but perhaps the most inspiring is that many people found their voice. I started to notice a pattern: a unique type of person willing to bear insults and isolation rather than go along with bad ideas. These people are the black sheep and they show up any time a group starts going off the rails.

We saw doctors like Jay Bhattacharya speak out against vaccine mandates and lockdowns; we saw black intellectuals like Ayishat Akanbi and Africa Brooke speak out about anti-racist ideology and cancel culture; we saw academic biologists like Colin Wright speak out against the spread of a gender ideology that denies the existence of two sexes; and we saw a surge of people calling themselves “politically homeless” as a rejection of the rigid political identities being pushed on them. My years of always feeling like the odd one out ended when I found other people who weren’t afraid to be black sheep too. We’ve been too caught up in the madness to notice, but we’re living through a renaissance–not just of the individual–but of the individual who dares to defy the group.

In a time when destructive collectivism threatens to steamroll over individual freedom, understanding the psychology behind the black sheep concept will help us overcome it.

One of the earliest and most famous psychological experiments about the black sheep effect was conducted in 1988. Researchers had Belgian students rank four distinct groups by their likeability: likable Belgian students (in-group), unlikeable Belgian students (in-group), likable North African students (out-group), and unlikable North African students (out-group). Who would offend you most: an offensive person who’s more or less similar to you? This question adds a crucial element to the equation: identity. It wasn’t the unlikable North African students who the Belgian students found most unlikable, it was the other Belgian students. The black sheep effect explains some of the ugliest group behavior around. It’s how you end up with leftists calling liberals “nazis” and white “anti-racists” diagnosing any black person who challenges them with “internalized racism.”

The black sheep effect is dependent on another concept: social identity theory. This theory explains how our group identity informs our individual identity. When your group is challenged by someone from within, it isn’t just your group, but your sense of self that’s challenged. Research has found that people are more likely to lash out at ingroup members who deviate from their group’s norms than outgroup members. It isn’t men who challenge a feminist’s identity the most–it’s women who don’t agree with the feminist narrative.

The key to understanding the black sheep effect is understanding the motives that drive people to hate deviant ingroup members: it isn’t you, it’s them. Even if you’re correct in pointing out that “anti-racism” contradicts the humanistic philosophy that made the civil rights movement successful, as a black person who rejects “anti-racism,” you’re a more dangerous threat to the stability of the anti-racist movement than actual racists. This dynamic is crucial to understanding the black sheep effect today: punishing black sheep isn’t necessarily motivated by people deeply caring about their cause or simply having another perspective. The black sheep threatens the ego of people who gain their identity from that group–often at the expense of progress.

Destructive groups pursue the same, singular goal above all else: self-preservation. Unlike a group of gardeners, a group of feminists is more likely to become destructive because their individual identities are more deeply informed by their group identity. It’s a bigger statement about who you are to label yourself a feminist than it is to label yourself a hiking enthusiast. This might be the most dangerous and yet least recognized element in today’s surge of collectivism.

The stated goal of a group is not always the true goal of that group. The best way to discern the true goal of any person or group is to look at their actions more than their words. People do what they are most motivated to do; people say what they think is most expedient. When we saw anti-racist activists say that they were concerned about the hardships and inequality faced by black Americans, but we also saw them encourage and praise riots that led to arrests, death, and community destruction for those same people, the stated goals of the group didn’t align with its actions.

Similarly, neo-conservatives claim to care about protecting Americans, but consistently send Americans to die in unnecessary wars; feminists claim to care about empowering women, but push women to adopt cynical, victimized outlooks; leftists claim to care about the poor, but insist the only solution to poverty is destroying the economic system that’s lifted the most people out of it. In all of these groups, the gap between stated goals and true goals isn’t just hypocritical–it’s blatantly counter-productive. More than ever before, it needs to become common knowledge that actions speak louder than words, especially for political ideologies.

A lot of the groups that are fighting to control us are primarily fighting for nothing more than their self-preservation. And when a group is more interested in its own existence than the achievement of its stated goals, chaos follows.

These are the foot soldiers you’ve met online today who will attack anything endlessly. They are the people you’ve seen in viral protest videos who rabidly yell about a problem while offering no reasonable solutions. These symptoms reveal a group has entered a death spin of self-preservation for its own sake.

Healthy groups are genuinely concerned with the variety of perspectives their members have on how to achieve their stated goals. You can see this in any productive business where leaders engineer ways to get honest feedback from employees. Anyone who cares about effectively achieving a goal isn’t just open to criticism, they’re hungry for it. They know about concepts like Johari’s window, which explains that every individual has blindspots other people can fill in. When people are searching for solutions, any input on how to better solve the problem is welcome.

A group that tolerates its black sheep is more effective because it avoids becoming an echo chamber, where new ideas are kept out and stagnation is inevitable. Because the black sheep is a part of the group but tends to be a person with a unique vantage point or an unusual background, they can offer the most accurate and creative suggestions. The black sheep is a treasure to any effective collective: a genuine member with insider knowledge who’s different enough to fill in the crucial blindspots that members too immersed in the group can’t see. It’s why conversations between feminists and liberal women who reject that label could offer a fountain of insight into women’s needs today, but it’s also why that conversation is rare.

The black sheep’s strength isn’t just the unique perspective they offer to their group, it’s also the red flag they raise when that group attacks them. Any group that can’t tolerate constructive criticism from those who share its goal is no longer primarily pursuing that goal–it's pursuing self-preservation at the expense of that goal.

Black sheep are the canary in the coal mine. The treatment they receive from their group reveals if that group is doing the necessary reflection to hold rational beliefs and stop destructive beliefs from spreading.

Leftism today is the perfect example of a group that’s lost its mechanism for hitting the brakes on counter-productive ideas. Instead, many leftists hunt for the nearest heretic to punish for minor deviations, like mixing up someone’s pronouns, not using “inclusive” language, or failing to perform the correct level of collective outrage over the latest issue. This practice has been going on for so long in online leftist spaces that most of the heretics being picked on aren’t actually black sheep–the genuine black sheep with considered differences were pushed out long ago. Today’s targets are merely making naive mistakes, but are picked apart by other members desperate to reinforce their own in-group status. When a group has run off all its black sheep and is finding stand-ins for ritual punishment, you can be sure that group is on a path of destruction.

When I started publicly criticizing the destructive elements of leftism, I had no other political group to call home while doing so. I knew the ideology was wrong, but I still felt the pressure to mince my words and tread lightly enough to avoid becoming the next target of a social mobbing. I’d seen how individuals were torn apart in the virtual public square by anonymous attackers joining together to fuel a fire that would burn its victim in 1,000 different ways, 1,000 different times. While I’d much rather be attacked by a cyber mob than a real one, there’s something uniquely freakish about watching a digital effigy of yourself be spit on and ripped apart for all the world to watch.

For a while, I was torn between truth and fear; I wanted to speak clearly, but I knew that would put me clearly in the crosshairs of people with nothing to do but ruin my life. Once I realized that safety at the expense of integrity is a hamster’s life, I felt ready to bear the consequences of fully pursuing my values. Suffering in service of something meaningful didn’t exactly feel nice, but it felt powerful. Suddenly, bearing the emotional tantrums and attempted abuse from strangers was the obvious choice.

When I learned to see myself as a black sheep, it felt like the missing piece of a puzzle. A life that had always felt unusual suddenly made sense. I was exactly where I belonged all along–the odd one out who held a mirror to the others. If you want to develop your own perspective on life, you have to stand in places that few others are. Humans have created symbols since the beginning of our history. We look to them for meaning to bring it to our own lives. The black sheep is a powerful symbol; it encapsulates both the problem of our time and the solution. Perhaps more people would trust their gnawing sense that something’s wrong and push back on destructive groups if they realized they aren’t just the odd one out–they’re exactly where they’re meant to be.

#Salomé Sibonex #Salome Sibonex #individualism #tribalism #identity politics #collectivism #religion is a mental illness

10 notes · View notes

beinglibertarian · 4 years

Text

ANC Mismanagement of the Lockdown Show It’s Time For Change

Is it not time that South Africa’s voters pushed back against tyranny and government theft?

Since 27 March, the ruling party has made our lives miserable. In their eyes they have been protecting us from coronavirus infections. But as with everything else they’ve tried to do in the past 15 years, they have failed. On 26 March, the President announced the lockdown which would begin the next day. In…

View On WordPress

#African National Congress #collectivism #Coronavirus #corruption #COVID-19 #Election #Elections #government intervention #Lockdown #Racialism #racism #voting

2 notes · View notes

queerbrownvegan · 2 years

Text

How do we navigate climate doomism? At young ages, many Black, Indigenous, and People of Color are taught to normalize pain from social, racial, or environmental injustices. These injustices have influenced the understanding of BIPOC on how they can react in both external and internal situations. BIPOC often find themselves silencing their pain while continuing to exist in an extractive capitalist system designed to oppress marginalized communities. Climate Doomism is a popularized term that has risen on social media by predominately media news outlets exclaiming that there is no hope left in the future for the planet, or some variation of the sentence. While it was originally heralded as a method to inform others of the severity of the crisis, it lacks the valuable narratives and perspectives from resistance movements and Indigenous cultures, and as such, inspires apathy. We can refer to climate doomism as the defeatist perspective born from our path to ecological destruction from anthropogenic actions and systems created by human society. Climate doomism is often used as a scare tactic to disempower collectivized communities on their journey for environmental liberation. Most often not, climate doomism is never specific in addressing the role of white supremacy and capitalism, and how it has contributed to global environmental injustice. The same scientists who have done extensive research on climate and the environment are the same ones that often fail to communicate the information in an accessible way to communities that are the most impacted. In fact, it's not that communities don't know what's happening because they already know and often experience the impacts, but there is a large culture, educational, and language barrier. Researchers are heavily trained in methodologies, analytical skills, and communication with other scientists, yet they don't receive culturally extensive skills to translate to communities. The climate crisis has been happening for many countries, generally framed at the beginning as global warming, then to climate change, and now the climate crisis or even climate chaos. The West has played a huge role in silencing narratives from countries that have been the most exploited. How can we center the resilient narratives within our most impacted communities? -queer brown vegan

411 notes · View notes

philosophicalconservatism · 3 years

Text

The Purpose Of Division Is Domination.

Always keep in mind that ideologies that work to divide human society racially, sexually, and otherwise ultimately function to justify state involvement and control (just ask the advocates of those ideologies themselves what they actually want). And ever increasing state control is inseparable from ever increasing economic control. Thus, these social ideologies have a natural affinity with the ideology of Socialism, and other forms of economic collectivism.

The notion of "systemic injustice" (of which race is just one category) is characterized by its belief in the fact that political and legal equality is not enough for human beings, and cannot lead to real liberty because it does not free men from the biased decisions, choices, and inclinations they make and have toward one another within the private/personal sphere (including unconscious ones). The only way that men can know true liberty is by means of a state which both oversees every detail of social life, and ultimately reinvents that social life in a way that represents true human "justice" and equality.

When the advocates of these ideologies tell you that (for example) you must believe in systemic racism in order to not be a tool of racism, what they are actually saying to you is that you must submit to their vision of the all powerful supervisor state. The ultimate purpose of divisive group ideologies is to make the state the indispensable unifier of human groups, and thus the ruler.

151 notes · View notes

shirkers2018dirsanditan · 2 years

Text

this is another great article. and it highlights the importance of a coherent commitment to global mass politics against imperialism and militarism and capitalism:

To be sure, some justifications for solidarity with Ukraine are flawed. Why should South Africans defend an idea of the West that has defined itself by excluding and subordinating people of color? Why defend an idea of democracy that has offered cover for a series of imperialist military adventures by the United States? One need not endorse these ideas—or all parts of the Ukrainian nationalist project—to express solidarity with human beings who are being shelled in an unprovoked attack.

we are up against heavy propaganda with this war in ukraine, on all sides, that is antithetical to peace, liberation, and collectivism. it is literally vital that we make clear not only what we stand for, but why. and that we make clear the inherent connectedness of the global masses - in ukraine, in syria, in afghanistan, in iraq, in the americas, in europe, and so on. one of the major limitations of discourse during any given global conflict is that it divides the worlds into countries and uses countries as a proxy to talk about people and human suffering. we "stand with" ukraine, afghanistan, iraq, russia, etc, and in doing that, we conflate the people with their governments, and compassion with nationalism. ukrainian politicians and the official news narrative is employing heavily nationalism and west-glorification. we have to present a narrative to challenge that. and people have, but they're alt press and they don't get much traction among either group of state apologists and nationalists.

other great highlights:

In the past few weeks, Russian information and disinformation services have hammered on the narrative that Russia is Africa’s loyal friend while Ukraine is full of racists and Nazis. Many of the 16,000 African students who were in Ukraine at the beginning of the conflict have tried to flee to neighboring countries. In transit and at the borders, they have faced serious racial and national discrimination, being—sometimes literally—shoved aside to prioritize Ukrainian refugees. Russia Today, the Russian government’s English language news service, has gleefully reported on racism at the Ukrainian border. Such discriminatory practices have given succor to those who wish to diminish Ukrainian suffering, reinforcing rather than rejecting the Western press’s habit of downplaying the suffering of other dehumanized populations.

Throughout the Cold War, apartheid propaganda—with help from sympathizers in the West—portrayed the ANC and SACP as the Soviet Union’s playthings, puppets and proxies, with no legitimate independent existence. The ANC and SACP demanded recognition for themselves as legitimate political actors and for South Africa as more than just another theater of the global Cold War, rebutting their opponents’ treatment of them as nothing more than a front for Moscow’s superpower ambitions. But recent statements from the ANC and SACP regard Ukraine’s democratically elected government in exactly the same way, only here Ukraine is a front for US-led NATO imperialism. Asked to clarify if the ANC sees Russia as an aggressor, Lindiwe Zulu named NATO as the responsible party for making Russia feel threatened. “The aggressor is US imperialism,” argued SACP Deputy Secretary General Solly Mapaila. “Russia has to defend itself.” And Ukraine? Ukraine’s existence—and the political desires and interests of Ukrainians—are simply irrelevant to a vision of politics that consists only of bad American imperialists and those who fight back. The suggestion is that imperialism is only imperialism if Americans do it.

#africa is a country #ukraine

10 notes · View notes