#racism is a weapon of mass destruction | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

intersectionalpraxis · 5 months

Text

I need more people to understand the gravity of this.

⚠️Content warning: mentions of Nazism and the Holocaust⚠️

Zionism and Fascism -sometimes the lines blur.

We have yet another haunting display of (neo)Nazis marching out in the open -something we have seen an increase of across the globe (but especially in Western and European countries) over the past decade, and has especially heightened during the pandemic with recruitment being done online very quickly, alarmingly so [The Southern Poverty Law Center is a great resource to continue your research on this as well].

We have seen an increase in young white men being radicalized and joining (neo)Nazi groups and many extremist white supremacist affiliations because they see everyone who does not look like them as a threat, and they have been historically and are currently violent and murderous.

For those of you who still think Israel is in the right, despite being an occupational force breaking COUNTLESS international laws and has been ethnically cleansing Palestinian people for decades and has been mass accelerating a genocide against Palestinian people since October 7th of this year... please take a look at these (neo)Nazis, -with whom operate under the belief that they are a superior race, and invoke ultranationalism, racism, and xenophobia to normalize their dangerous and oppressive rhetoric -and with whom vilify, threaten, and perhaps actually harm ANYONE who tells their their ideologies are violent and depraved... think about these parallels to the 'goals' of Zionism, please.

You have Nazis out at the same time as Zionists are... each, respectively so, filled with genocidal apologists... it's terrifying.

To the Israeli Jewish people who support Israel; to those who see Palestinian people as a direct threat to their safety and security -I'd check your own neighborhoods first. Because THIS is what anti-Zionist Israeli Jewish people and pro-Palestinian liberation Jewish people and activists all around the world have been saying all along -and so many of you are still SO ignorant to the real dangers -real Nazis and white supremacist terrorist groups that do active harm... and it's just so disturbing.

I was also going to post this earlier today (I wrote this the other day then THIS happened):

Auschwitz Memorial... just supported the genocide of millions of Palestinian people. They regurgitated Israeli propaganda and lies, called Israel the sole and perpetual victims despite being a violent settler colonial force, with whom has used weapons of mass destruction against defenseless civilians. Israel has committed and is committing war crimes, and is NOT self-defending -they are executing a Zionist plan which involves ethnically cleansing Palestinian people... and the audacity to say Hamas is exploiting the 'people of Gaza,' when Israel uses Hamas as an excuse to BOMB the hell out of everything in sight, and kill over 12,000 Palestinian people... it's just... how out of touch of reality are these privileged and bigoted people?

In the span of a few days, seeing Nazis take to the streets, and the Auschwitz Memorial is more preoccupied with this... I'm baffled.

End the occupation, ceasefire now, and free Palestine!

#feminist #feminism #israel is an apartheid state #palestine #social justice #freepalastine🇵🇸#free gaza #free palestine #israel is committing genocide #anti zionisim #history #israeli settlers #israel is a terrorist state #israeli apartheid #settler colonialism

141 notes · View notes

cock-holliday · 10 months

Text

Cropping out anon's manifesto about the differences between ra/dfe/minism and liberal feminism and why one is superior to the other because...

Fuck both!

Yeah liberal feminism sucks ass, hasn't moved goalposts very far if at all, and like most liberal policies relies on groveling rather than action. Doesn't mean fash-collaborating "feminism" is the only other option, though I know y'all love your binaries.

I employ principles of intersectional feminism, particularly along the ideals of transfeminism and anarchafeminism. Hey whoa 3 whole schools of thought we didn't mention!

Ra/dfe/minism appeals to people because it is motivated by anger. Anger at the system, anger at personal trauma, anger at injustice and misogyny and violence...and then rather than becoming a tool for liberation (like intersectional feminists argue, like transfeminists argue, like anarchafeminists argue) it becomes a tool of repression.

The two biggest issues with ra/dfe/minism is that it 1. conflates "patriarchy" (a system) with "men" (individuals) and 2. relies entirely on upholding the carceral state to make progress.

Ra/dfe/minism has moved a rightful critique of patriarchy to a critique entirely of men. Or rather..."men". RFs feel emboldened to BE the one policing rather than being policed. The urge to come out from under a system's thumb is understandable, the desire to inflict your anger onto others is not.

Women who are "too close" to Men are seen as traitors. Butches who present too masculinely, those who go on hormones, those who get top surgery or go by he/him pronouns are traitors. It doesn't matter to RFs if you ARE a woman, if you're doing it wrong you are "helping the patriarchy". God forbid you decide you ARE a man, then you are a massive traitor. Or you are attracted to men and LIKE men then you are a massive traitor. Bi women are traitors. Trans men are traitors. Transmascs are traitors.

You'd think with how many women and women-adjacent folks they push away, RFs would be desperate for allies, so trans women and transfemmes would be welcome, right? In some cases, outright no (TE-RF) in others at the very least they are on thin ice or have to then prove she isn't "one of the bad ones" to join. As if trans women wouldn't already be isolated by Divine Wombynhood and Holy Pussiness.

The RF perspective on vaginal phrases is a pretty good indicator of where shit went wrong. A movement that wanted to normalize a shamed body part warped into a movement where pussy=woman=good, penis=bad=man. A penis is a weapon of mass destruction, it is for violence, penetration is violence, it is conquering. A morally neutral body part got vilified in the quest to normalize another. Because RFs do not want equality or normalization. They want to be in charge. They want to flex power. They want to be the ones to lash out. It is understandable to come out of adolescence angry at the injustice of womanhood. But while intersectional feminists recognized that all women are bound by misogyny--albiet in different ways--and transfeminists recognized the misogyny trans women face and cis women face are born of the same system, and anarchafeminists recognized that the true enemy of freedom along with patriarchy is forced heirarchy...RFs just see anyone who isn't exactly like them as an invading force.

Men can never be allies in a fight that affects them too because men are inherently evil because of...penis, hormones, masculinity, IDing with maleness...take your pick. Women who like men can never be included in the fight because "men are the enemy."

Men are not the enemy. They can be. So can women. A pro-choice man is more of an ally than an anti-choice woman any day. The issue is the system of patriarchy. Like the system of homophobia. Like the system of racism. Like the system of transphobia. Like like like. They are interconnected struggles. You can't separate women's issues from trans issues from gay issues from Black issues.

RF lenses refuse to ever consider other factors than gender in analyzing oppression. Cis women can be the oppressor of trans women. Straight women can be the oppressor of lesbians. And yes, white women can be the oppressor of Black men. And they rely on patriarchy to do it. Women are helpless meek victims who need protected and have no autonomy, so a Black man looks at you wrong he's a villain. The societal issue at play here isn't "ohhhh so women are bad then, not men?" it's that patriarchy is a system anyone with any axis of power can leverage as a weapon.

So they do. White women sometimes rely on police brutality to settle scores with Black men. They recognize this method doesn't work with white men, without ever questioning what is the difference. Or not caring. Or not Karen. All advocacy under RF is tied to punishment. Death penalty advocacy. "Kill your local rapist" "Kill your local pedophile" "Kill groomers" it's a revenge fantasy, not a liberatory movement!

The system is what happened to you and rather than ever challenge the system, you just want to point it towards who you think deserves the violence. You never imagine that moving away from the violence is possible, or worth trying for.

I saw a post once condemning the idea that "feminism helps men" which mostly hinged on the idea that "under feminism, men will lose that cushy pay gap". The post went on to say "feminism will not help men but they should still support it." Well, under that short-sighted take, feminism "won't help women" then either. White women would get paid the same as women of color, and lose their "cushy pay gap."

Intersectionality would level the playing field for everyone, which means women with power to flex would lose it too. Which is a good thing. Anarchafeminism says no one should have power over anyone else, and combating systems of power relies on dismantling it.

Unless of course you were relying on still maintaining power over other women, while then gaining power over men, in which case, that's not "feminism" that's just taking your share of the white supremacist pie.

#ask #anon ask #rf

71 notes · View notes

zalrb · 9 months

Text

Oppenheimer Review

OK let’s start with things I didn’t quite care for:

1. The exclusion of Indigenous and Japanese people, which has been a well-detailed criticism on Twitter and in articles:

“The Pajarito Plateau, where Los Alamos is located, was indigenous homeland for multiple villages of Pueblo people, as well as more than 30 Mexican American families who owned ranches and farms[...]”

We can get into a discussion about which movies are made and how studios would rather fund movie after movie about the ‘tortured white male genius’ than a movie about the Pueblo people or the effects of the bomb on Japan. We can talk about the general boredom of seeing these movies over and over again. But I think that’s a larger conversation. That’s a conversation about which stories TPTB determine get told, that’s a conversation about the systemic racism and barriers in Hollywood and filmmaking because it’s not surprising that a Nolan film didn’t feature BIPOC or nuanced depictions of BIPOC. Nolan is going to Nolan. Dunkirk is an entirely whitewashed film. It is so typical of a Nolan film that I was surprised John David Washington was in Tenet (which I have not seen) and this isn’t to defend him or to let him off the hook, this is just to say that conversation is about the systems in place that allow for Oppenheimer to be a movie while not showcasing other stories, which this person has also indicated

The defense for Nolan’s omission has been Oppenheimer is about Oppenheimer but I don’t think that defense holds.

Considering that it is first and foremost a character study about a man with conflicting morals, a man who “famously” told Truman that he feels like he has blood on his hands. Considering the movie is meant to take us into the mind of this man, we’re supposed to see what tortures him, what lies heavy on him, considering that there is a scene where he is confronted with the carnage and the destruction of his invention, considering that in the movie Oppenheimer told Truman they should give the land back to the Indigenous peoples, glossing over the injustices and the atrocities undercuts the fact that this is supposed to be deep dive character study, because Oppenheimer helped cause these things. That’s the point. A pivotal point in the movie comes when Oppenheimer is being asked over and over again when he had moral qualms about the H bomb considering that he made the atomic bomb and whether or not he had quandaries then and the fact that there was a history of people suffering because of this bomb before it dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would emphasize that question. It’s not a full character study.

Another defense has been that the omission was purposeful as a condemnation of what they did and how they didn’t think about the consequences or thought about the consequences and ignored them/didn’t care about them but there are ways to do that. We can see people being displaced from the land and then afterwards Oppenheimer going to Los Alamos declaring there’s nothing around. If this movie is also about his ego and his tunnel vision and about the dangers of building weapons of mass destruction and their consequences, we can see what the testing of the bomb did to communities while they celebrate the success of the test, it would simply drive the point the movie is making home, it would make it more poignant and complete. When Oppenheimer gives that victory speech after the bomb was dropped, he keeps seeing the people around him burned or dead or crying, there’s no reason why his speech couldn’t at least be intercut with the realities happening in Japan at the time.

Outside of it is simply right for these stories to be showcased and acknowledged, there are too many reasons why Oppenheimer could’ve and should’ve shown these aspects for me to really find any defense viable.

2. I also don’t expect nuanced depictions of women in a Nolan movie but the female characters in this movie are so laughably one-dimensional that I feel like it would’ve been less offensive for him to just not include women at all. Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh do as much as they can with the material they’re given but they’re really not given much and when we’re meant to gain insight into Kitty’s (Emily Blunt) emotional state and to see what the hearing of Robert is doing to her, it’s when he admits on record to sleeping with his ex-wife Jean (Florence Pugh) when he was with Kitty so it’s Kitty imagining him having sex with Jean in a very uncomfortable and entirely unnecessary sex scene. So it’s actually quite funny talking about Oppenheimer and Barbie at the same time because Oppenheimer proves one of Barbie’s points about the way women are perceived and treated through the way the Kens are portrayed in the first 30 minutes of the movie because Kitty and Jean are around to serve Oppenheimer’s plot and Jean actually dies, she commits suicide, and the implication is that while she was suffering from mental health issues, Oppenheimer cutting ties with her led to her death so in the movie anyway, a female character literally dies because the male protagonist is no longer in her life.

Alright, things I liked.

1. Cillian Murphy. Cillian was magnetic onscreen. The beauty of what he can convey with his eyes, it was mesmerizing and he does such a good job playing the charismatic womanizing egocentric asshole but does an equally good job portraying depth, portraying vulnerability and betrayal and guilt and remorse. He inhabited this role, it was great watching.

2. RDJ! RDJ is indeed an actor so watching him in the few Marvel movies that I did watch just always had me like *sigh* they’ve flattened you so it was really fun seeing him really dig his teeth into a role and also seeing the way he changes throughout the movie, particularly the third act when you realize his personal vendetta against Oppenheimer and how his true colours kind of start bleeding through, it was very well done.

3. It was surprisingly funny? Like not laugh out loud funny even though there were moments where I did indeed LOL i.e. “I’m a self-made man.” “I can relate to that.” “Really?” “Yes, my father was one.” the wit and the back and forth and the riffing I quite enjoyed. Seeing all the scientists place bets and get into arguments, I quite enjoyed that.

4. I don’t care for Matt Damon, he annoys me, so when I saw him in the trailer I rolled my eyes and when I saw his introduction to the movie I also rolled my eyes but he and Cillian had a good chemistry so over the course of the movie, I ended up enjoying his scenes with Cillian because they worked so well together and they establish a lot of about that dynamic and they feel comfortable with each other. Although I think my favourite dynamic was Oppenheimer and Isidor. I don’t like Casey Affleck though so that “reveal” just had me like ugh, why.

5. The score. The SCORE. Ludwig Göransson did a beautiful job with the music, giving the movie a sense of scale and tension, it was fantastic.

6. It felt like three hours but it felt like a three hours well spent.

28 notes · View notes

opinated-user · 9 months

Note

If Lily were remotely interested in actually combating fandom racism she'd focus on other characters in TOH and not just the white one she hates. If you're complaining about a white guy all the time, that's not progressive, because you're still discussing a white character and making him the center of attention instead of celebrating the stories of POC in the cast.

The only time Lily ever made a video that was start-to-finish praise of any POC was when it was Kuvira, a dictator who ran reeducation camps, created a weapon of mass destruction and threatened to murder everyone who disagreed with her. That was years ago.

It took her ten years to write one black main character.

Until her video on The Princess and the Frog this year, she had never talked about a piece of media focused on black people, even though she claims to be left-leaning. Being willing to watch things centered on black people is such a low bar even most conservatives clear it by accident.

In her infamous writing tips thread, she said that you should only have one cishet white character and a really good writer will have only one cis, one het, and one white character. (This rule is ridiculous for large casts, but I will acknowledge for the core main cast it's a perfectly applicable idea.) She has never written anything that doesn't have a majority white cast. Regularly her writing writes out existing POC rather than center them.

She claims to be Native not even based on blood quantum, a practice the Cherokee people and many others do not believe in, but based upon having thick black hair. She isn't recognized by the tribe. She does not educate anyone on anything pertaining to indigenous issues and didn't even mention Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women until she talked about how if she was murdered she'd be one of them. She has never written a Native character or talked about Native characters in media.

When movies that have a majority black cast come out, she disses on them.

When anything is made by Asians, she will dismiss it, not acknowledge that different Asian cultures exist, and center whiteness (such as only ever talking about Raya and the Last Dragon in terms of Lindsay Ellis, a white woman (who she then straightwashes on top of centering)).

When a POC such as Luz is anything other than cheerful and joyous, they are, to her, totally devoid of worth and ridiculous.

If Hunter were black Lily would focus on Amity instead, because she always, always devalues POC and redirects her attention onto a white person. When she made a black OC, it was in order to beat up some white people, romance a white person, and adopt white kids. She cannot, under any circumstances, create anything that focuses entirely on POC with the sole exception of focusing on a light-skinned WOC dictator whose war crimes and crimes against humanity she not only excused but viewed as cool.

She does not fight fandom racism.

She partakes in and upholds it.

Even if her fans can convince themselves all the people she's abused are liars, even if they're not aware of her past, I genuinely do not know how anyone can look at her work and not see how blatantly racist this woman is. Her only black characters are all tied to slavery, with white characters being the victims of slavery and black people benefiting. I grew up in a racist family and I am doing a lot of work to deprogram myself. It's not easy and I have a lot I haven't learned. But even I, even as a preteen writing stories, never wrote something that messed up, because it simply never would have crossed my mind to reverse victim and offender in the context of slavery.

Watching Stitch is her "I have a black content creator I watch/friend" moment the way many people in fandom/the real world use that as their get-out-racism-accusations-free card, but it's insufficient.

If she doesn't want to be seen as racist she needs to stop being so blatantly racist. It's not hard.

but it's hard for her, because that means admitting that she needs to do work on herself to get ride of all the biases she has and she alreay barely puts any work on her channel.

#lily orchard

23 notes · View notes

black-paraphernalia · 9 months

Text

Did Nathaniel Alexander invent the folding chair? Nathaniel Alexander Inventor of a Folding Chair - ThoughtCo On July 7 1911 an African-American man named Nathaniel Alexander of Lynchburg Virginia patented a folding chair. According to his patent Nathaniel Alexander designed his chair to be used in schools churches and other auditoriums. His design included a book rest that was usable for the person sitting in the seat behind and was ideal for church or choir use.

Fast Facts: Nathaniel Alexander

Known For: African-American patent holder for a folding chair

Born: Unknown

Parents: Unknown

Died: Unknown

Published Works: Patent 997,108, filed March 10, 1911, and granted July 4 the same year

Patent 997108 is the only invention on record for Nathaniel Alexander, but on March 10, 1911, his application was witnessed by two people: James R.L. Diggs and C.A. Lindsay. James R.L. Diggs was a Baptist minister from Baltimore (born in 1865), who was a member of the Niagara Movement, and holder of an MA from Bucknell University and a PhD in Sociology from Illinois Wasleyan in 1906.

in fact, Diggs was the first African-American to hold a Sociology Ph.D. in the United States. The Niagara Movement was a Black civil rights movement led by W.E.B. DuBois and William Monroe Trotter, who assembled in Niagara Falls, Ontario (American hotels barred Blacks), to discuss Jim Crow laws following the Reconstruction.

Folding chairs allow the space to be used for other purposes when there is not a class or church service.

LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL

OUR ANCESTORS ARE SAYING " NOW THAT IS A NEW MEANING TO THE SAYING HAVE A SEAT, WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT"

LITTLE DID NATHANIEL ALEXANDER REALIZE IN 1911 HIS INVENTION WOULD BE USE AS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT WOULD MAKE THE ANCESTORS PROUD.

HOW IRONIC IS THIS

" ANCESTRAL BEAT DOWN" TOOK PLACE AT THE MONTGOMERY DOCKS IN ALABAMA - THE RIVERBOAT IS CALL THE HARRIOTT AND THE DOCK WAS A SLAVE TRADING PORT.

The Harriott was a slave ship back in the 1700s. From 1798 to 1805, it carried thousands of slaves to Barbados and then back to Liverpool. However, it was owned by Barton & Co and also cruised between Liverpool and Africa. It now serves as a relaxing cruise and is one of Montgomery's tourist attractions.

SO ALL THE ANCESTOR ARE STANDING SMILING PROUD

AT BLACK PARAPHERNALIA BLOG WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY FORM OF VIOLENCE OR PERPETUATE THE BEHAVIOR OF WHAT WAS NOTED. WE HAVE ENDURED AND SUFFERED FOR CENTURIES OF THE WS AND THEM ENTITLE MANNERISM, AGGRESSIONS, BEHAVIORS AND VIOLENT RACISM. THIS IS A NEW ERA IN THIS 21TH CENTURY WE SAY NO MORE - WE ARE SICK AND TIRED, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND WILL NOT TOLERATED ANY SUCH BEHAVIORS, NOT TODAY SATAN. MOREOVER, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT WE SHOULD AND MUST DEFEND AND PROTECT ONESELF...... LIKE IN THE WORDS OF OUR ANCESTOR MALCOLM X *BP*

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

youtube

ALL VIDEOS ARE UNDER THE FAIR USE ACT AS LISTED ABOVE

BLACK PARAPHERNALIA DISCLAIMER - PLEASE READ

#black paraphernalia #this is america #THIS IS A SMALL TOWN #FOLDING CHAIR #nathaniel alexander #MAKING THE ANCESTORS PROUD #by any means necessary

20 notes · View notes

agentfascinateur · 5 months

Text

Support for Palestinians from 1300 artists, stars and entertainers:

To the Arts and Culture Sector,

We write to you as artists and cultural workers united in our commitment to justice, dignity, freedom, and equality for all people in Israel / Palestine. We hold every life to be precious, and we grieve every death.

The scale of violence unfolding in Gaza demands our collective attention and action.

Members of Israel’s far-right government are openly calling for ethnic cleansing.

The use of starvation as a weapon of war, along with denial of water and electricity, is cruel beyond words.

The wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure, the bombing of hospitals, schools, churches and mosques, the killing of 14,500 people in a matter of weeks, amount to a policy of collective punishment against the Palestinian people. The United Nations and hundreds of legal scolars have called on the international community to prevent genocide.

As artists, we cannot remain silent in the face of such egregious violations of international humanitarian law.

While catastrophe unfolds, we have observed a glaring absence of statements of solidarity with Palestinian people from most UK arts organisations.

We find it deeply troubling and, frankly, indicative of a disturbing double standard that expressions of solidarity, which have been readily offered to other peoples facing brutal oppression, have not been extended to Palestinians.

Such a discrepancy raises serious questions about bias in the response to grave human rights violations.

Far from supporting our calls for an end to the violence, many cultural institutions in Western countries are systematically repressing, silencing and stigmatising Palestinian voices and perspectives. This includes targeting and threatening the livelihoods of artists and arts workers who express solidarity with Palestinians, as well as cancelling performances, screenings, talks, exhibitions and book launches.

Despite this pressure, artists in their thousands are following their conscience and continuing to speak out. Freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights is the backbone of our creative lives, and fundamental to democracy. We remind cultural organisations and their funders of their obligation to uphold the right to freedom of expression and to uphold their commitment to anti-discrimination.

As artists and cultural workers, we stand in solidarity with those facing threats and intimidation in the workplace. The arts sector must urgently align its actions with its stated values of justice and inclusivity, and to refuse the dehumanisation of Palestinian people.

We call upon the arts and culture sector to:

– Publicly demand a permanent ceasefire.

– Promote and amplify the voices of Palestinian artists, writers, and thinkers.

– Stand up for artists and workers who voice their support for Palestinian rights.

– Refuse collaborations with institutions or bodies that are complicit in severe human rights violations.

To stay silent in the face of mass injustice and worsening humanitarian crisis would be an abrogation of moral duty. To actively silence the principled artists and workers who do fulfil this responsibility is a failure to meet legal obligations on freedom of expression and anti-discrimination. Many artists are refusing to work with institutions that fail to meet these basic obligations.

The struggle for freedom from racism for Palestinians and Jews is one of collective liberation. We refuse to pit one community against the other, and stand firmly against all forms of racism including Islamophobia and antisemitism.

In the spirit of justice, equality, and the shared values of the arts, we urge you to take a principled stance.

15 notes · View notes

dailyadventureprompts · 2 years

Note

I don’t know if this is valid as it’s not an adventure request, but DMs were closed so it wasn’t possible to check in advance.

What is your position on campaigns/adventures that are very direct parallels to colonialism? Somewhat broad question but I’m curious where you stand on the subject, especially since opposing ‘foreign explorers use violence to extract wealth from less developed peoples’ is about as mainstream as D&D gets.

ALT

Heavy Topics: Colonialism

I find this question so interesting because for a long long time d&d was a game that was (at least tangentially) very pro-colonialism what with the scientific racism built into the lore about how the lesser monstrous races should be culled, curtailed, or corrected. People thinking that Anticolonialism is a hallmark of the game means that somewhere along the way there’s been some kind of seachange, either in the playerbase or the greater culture and it’s happened over the course of my fairly short d&d playing lifespan.

I’m going to go into lots of detail on this below the cut, but TLDR: While D&D has never specifically endorsed colonialism, the game used to have driving factors that were direct holdovers from the imperialist tradition: a dynamic of inherent superiority for those peoples deemed “good” Just like in our own history, these drives were seen as heroic but seem to have rapidly fallen out of fashion leaving an uncomfortable gap at the heart of the hobby.

As for adventures that involve colonialism, they’re fine, just do your research and make sure you’re not glorifying or tacitly endorsing genocide. A lot of great stories can be told against the backdrop of mass exploitation, just be extra cautious if you’re going to try and directly reference/evoke something that happened in our own world.

First, Lets talk about supremacy: In the earliest days of d&d, the world was divided into two sides, law and chaos, with law taking on everything that could be considered good and nurturing, and chaos taking on all that was wicked and destructive. It was this meme, but literal:

ALT

I don’t think I need to tell anyone this, but that sort of ideology is the worldview of an oppressor, one who thinks their own nation/religion/ethnicity is right and chosen and all others are inferior. It’s also the same sort of cartoonish black/white morality you see in today’s fundamentalists: my enemies can’t just be wrong, they have to be doing the most evil things I can imagine ranging from being authoritarians to practicing human sacrifice and being in league with the literal devil. That’s why the argument “(depiction of monster fantasy race X) isn’t racist, (X) are literally embodied evil and thus its ok to kill them” should never hold any water because it’s the exact same narrative that’s been trotted out over and over to justify IRL genocides on various scales.

The old monster manuals used to go out of their way to talk about how various species of monstrous humanoids ( which is totally not a synonym for “lesser races btw) spoil their environment just from living within it, that they make nothing of real value, no art no tools, and what weapons they have are either crude constructs or stolen from their betters. The obvious connection here is that the players should feel no qualms about walking into their lands and putting them to the sword so that “real” people can make use of those lands, or at least to stop their encroachment on the party’s own territory. And here we get to the root of the issue: in trying to create a world in which it is ALWAYS right for our heroes to slaughter their way through hundreds of enemies, the evolving mythology of d&d over nearly 50 years adopted the exact same talking points used by the villains of our world whenever they felt like they had slaughter their way through hundreds of other human beings to get what they wanted. As one of those people who others would slaughter in the pursuit of a “pure” world, I have a big problem with that.

Surprisingly, grey morality leads to way less implicit hate crimes: If two cultures are going to war it’s not because one side is evil and the other is good, It’s because that’s what people in a resource-scarce environments have always done, especially when they were desperate or their leaders saw a chance to acquire more power. I can look at the reign of one history’s greatest warlords: Genghis Khan and say “I think him executing whole cities and making pyramids out of their skulls was an atrocity” without thinking the people of the Mongolian steppe have and always will be servants of the dark lord Baphomet, demon prince of slaughter. If we abandon the justifications built into the game to make killing always a good thing, what we end up with is a diverse gaggle of fantasy species that can be played off against one another when building a setting. Sure, some of these groups may HATE eachother and even commit unforgivable acts against one another, but by removing the lore based condemnations of one group we end up creating a world where that hate and those unforgivable acts aren’t implicitly justified.

Art

#dnd #dungeons and dragons #adventure #5e homebrew #homebrew adventure #heavy topics #racism #colonization #writing #writing advice #DM advice #dm tips #dm tip

250 notes · View notes

ch3rryscented · 5 months

Text

There is so much misinformation about Israel and Palestine and Zionism and the Zionist are all just like “we deserve a state! We’ve been persecuted for too long! We should have a home” but what about the holocaust survivors that yall treat like shit in Israel and here??? Telling them their lineage should have ended with the holocaust because they don’t agree with killing Palestinians?

What about the majority of EUROPEAN and White-American Jewish ppl in Israel who are stealing land by people who has lived their for GENERATIONS?????? What about the Palestinians? The children being taken as hostages, smashed to death because of the rubble the explosions, or babies dying in hospitals that are supposed to be safe spaces for civilians? Their schools? And Palestine is not the first land to be chosen as your “Holy Land”, would yall have done the same to Argentinians?

#1 question: why should innocent children suffer so you can be apart of the white colonizer club when white people don’t even like you?

Every time yall talk, and say you deserve land u don’t ever say “well everyone deservers their own land”. We can all read between the lines and know you dgaf about Palestinians lives and the sacrifice being made so YOU can be comfortable. You are hostile towards them! You have believed the false stereotypes and racism against middle eastern and Arabian cultures to fuel this ethnic cleansing of the Middle East. Just so you can get a piece of the colonizer pie (which YOU won’t. Israeli leaders are psychopaths and all they think about is themselves NOT their citizens, the Israelis hostages, no one).

You sold yourselves out to align with white supremacy that’s being funded with weapons of mass destruction and destroying the planet. Shame on you! If u were actually descendants of survivors you wouldn’t be doing this nor supporting it.

#but what do I know?#I never trust white adjacent folks to begin with #the “ethnic whites always end up selling out #free palestine #free gaza #is not real #Palestinians just want their land back #how is that antisemitism????

10 notes · View notes

littleapocalypsekitten · 8 months

Text

For people browsing the 9/11 tag and seeing the phrase "Freedom Fries" and not knowing Whisky Tango Foxtrot that is, from an old hag who was there: Those weren't actually directly a part of 9/11 - that didn't happen on the day or anything. The Freedom Fries thing came sometime afterward (I forget the timeframe, a few months?) when President George W. Bush pushed for a war in Iraq as part of a general "War on Terror" that looked not only to root out Al Qaeda, but to go after Iraq on the idea that they had a secret stash of Weapons of Mass Destruction and that the United States needed to do a pre-emtive strike war ("Shock and Awe") to keep ourselves safe. Not everyone was on board with this. I remember being fiercely anti-Iraq War even in my younger, stupider days because it didn't strike me as fair (and much more war-crimey) to do a pre-emptive strike without any actual evidence of the alleged WMDs. More Americans than you think felt this way, even some who were traditionally conservative. (This was the event that turned me from conservative to liberal / got me started toward left-leaning, actually). Anyway, one of the people not on board with U.S. foreign policy at the time was the President of France (I can't remember who it was. Chirac?) He criticized Bush and his administration over the war. Right-leaning politicians then demanded that Americans start calling French Fries "Freedom Fries" as a way of continuing to have our fries and eat them, too, while snubbing France. I am dead serious. We, as a people, were supposed to start shunning French things. To enjoy French things was seen as unpatriotic, almost as much as if you enjoyed Middle Eastern things. Yes, there was racism, and lots of it, what do you expect? It was in the vein of calling sauerkraut "liberty cabbage" back in the WWI and WWII days to divest it from Germany. Restaurants were calling their French fries "Freedom Fries" for a while. It was catchy, it was gimmicky. It didn't last. (And, by the way, there were no WMDs).

#9/11 #freedom fries #old person storytime #george bush #george w. bush #dubbya

7 notes · View notes

spider-xan · 9 months

Text

Actually, between re-watching the LXG (2003) film and how some of the critical discussion of the Oppenheimer film has started veering into 'making up a guy who doesn't exist' territory instead of critiquing what was actually in the film, I'm thinking again about the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics where like, look, I have plenty of issues and criticisms with the choices Moore and O'Neill made and have written before about how the attempt at satire failed at times by replicating the bigotry it set out to critique instead of critiquing it, but it's often frustrating trying to engage in discussion and analysis about it bc like the Oppenheimer situation, rather than criticizing the many existing problems, people end up railing against things that never happened or claim it supports X when it doesn't?

To give an example, for all of its faults, the Oppenheimer film is very obviously anti-nuclear weapons and paints the man himself as a moral coward with zero convictions, yet people will claim it's a USA! USA! jingoistic film that frames atomic bombs as super cool awesome weapons and Oppenheimer as a badass hero; it reminds me of when the League comics are explicitly anti-British Empire - the opening line that frames the first volume is about how the British Empire cannot differentiate between its heroes and monsters, and we see that in who gets recruited and what the League does in the name of queen and empire - yet it's not uncommon to see people claim that Moore and the comics are pro-imperialism bc the heroes ('heroes', again, see the earlier quote about heroes and monsters) work for them and do bad things; again, I have written many times before about the failure of nailing this satire and critique bc of the racism, sexism, etc. that just plays it straight, but there are also times where it does get it right - and come to think of it, similar to Oppenheimer, there is blatant critique of weapons of mass destruction being deployed on civilians for an alleged 'greater good' as a great evil in Volume 2, yet that gets interpreted as the narrative being pro-mass murder bc the protagonist was involved and anything the protagonists do must be something the writer agrees with.

Anyway, this is just rambling late-night thoughts and not a formal essay, though maybe I'll have more organized thoughts later.

#lxg #league of extraordinary gentlemen

10 notes · View notes

edwordsmyth · 1 year

Text

Email: [email protected] to endorse the below statement as an individual or organization. "We call on all people of good conscience to stand in solidarity with the movement to stop Cop City and defend the Weelaunee Forest in Atlanta.

On January 18, in the course of their latest militarized raid on the forest, police in Atlanta shot and killed a person. This is only the most recent of a series of violent police retaliations against the movement. The official narrative is that Cop City is necessary to make Atlanta “safe,” but this brutal killing reveals what they mean when they use that word.

Forests are the lungs of planet Earth. The destruction of forests affects all of us. So do the gentrification and police violence that the bulldozing of Weelaunee Forest would facilitate. What is happening in Atlanta is not a local issue.

Politicians who support Cop City have attempted to discredit forest defenders as “outside agitators.” This smear has a disgraceful history in the South, where authorities have used it against abolitionists, labor organizers, and the Civil Rights Movement, among others. The goal of those who spread this narrative is to discourage solidarity and isolate communities from each other while offering a pretext to bring in state and federal forces, who are the actual “outside agitators.” The consequence of that strategy is on full display in the tragedy of January 18.

Replacing a forest with a police training center will only create a more violently policed society, in which taxpayer resources enrich police and weapons companies rather than addressing social needs. Mass incarceration and police militarization have failed to bring down crime or improve conditions for poor and working-class communities.

In Atlanta and across the US, investment in police budgets comes at the expense of access to food, education, childcare, and healthcare, of affordable and stable housing, of parks and public spaces, of transit and the free movement of people, of economic stability for the many. Concentrating resources in the hands of police serves to defend the extreme accumulation of wealth and power by corporations and the very rich.

What do cops do with their increased budgets and their carte blanche from politicians? They kill people, every single day. They incarcerate and traumatize schoolchildren, parents, loved ones who are simply struggling to survive. We must not settle for a society organized recklessly upon the values of violence, racism, greed, and careless indifference to life.

The struggle that is playing out in Atlanta is a contest for the future. As the catastrophic effects of climate change hammer our communities with hurricanes, heat waves, and forest fires, the stakes of this contest are clearer than ever. It will determine whether those who come after us inherit an inhabitable Earth or a police state nightmare. It is up to us to create a peaceful society that does not treat human life as expendable.

The forest defenders are trying to create a better world for all of us. We owe it to the people of Atlanta and to future generations everywhere to support them."

#manuel teran #tortuguita #defend atlanta forest

17 notes · View notes

magnoliamyrrh · 6 months

Text

also like. i think its very fair to be horrified at the state of the world and how we treat each other, god knows i am, but something i was talking to a friend awhile back about is that its also..... kinda amazing that weve even gotten this far and that we care in the first place u know?

like. throughout most of history people have been warring w each other, tribal wars, wars between kingdoms etc. genocide and war and colonialism aint some sort of ordeal invented by the evil white man it is massive massive amounts of human history. war, genocide, sieges, famines, ethnic clensing, fighting over land and resources, taking peoples over, ruling over them, enslaving defeated ppl and assimilating them, and anyone whose looked at world history can tell u that. this has happened a million times throughout history all over the planet.... and while i am certain there were people who opposed, i also doubt many ancient societies were having Widespread discourse about how oh man were living on the land of the ppl we killed isnt this kinda fucked? or like oh man we took over these ppl, isnt that kinda fucked actually? hey,, maybe we shouldnt do this?

.... or like. slavery. which has existed for thousands upon thousands of years. and certainly, there were people who opposed to it, and there were slave revolts, and plenty of other stuff.. but it went on legally and socially accepted in vast parts of the world for thousands, upon thousands of years. hell, many times ppl who would complain abt being enslaved themselves were also enslaving...... and like..., to an extent its kinda amazing that today we live in a world in which socially, many ppl no longer agree with it. they care about it. they feel bad about it, they feel bad about what has happened?? ?? like generally speaking while yes slavery is numbers wise a worse issue than ever,, most random ppl living their lives today aint for it?????

. or like. racism, ethnic hatred, and tribalism. which has existed everywhere in different forms on this planet. and sure, theres always been ppl who opposed it, its also been very normal in a lot of the world in some form since forever....... and yet would u look at that, there Are So many people today who maybe they aint perfect cuz noone is, but they wanna be better. they care, theyre trying

..... or like... a million other things... and again its like yea, obviously, theres so much shit today happening which is just horrible and at times at a larger scale and worse than in the past......... but.... if one takes a look at history and the human psyche throughout it....... i think my friend was right when he said, its kinda miraculous weve even gotten to where we are now really. we expect so much of each other and everyone, but god damn in the context of everything,,,, in some ways, we aint doing too bad. those in power are doing the same shit theyve always done just on a globalized scale with weapons of mass destruction and more ways to exploit....... but... More Random People probably care than ever

2 notes · View notes

thoughts-of-ghanashyam · 8 months

Text

𝕬𝖗𝖙𝖎𝖋𝖎𝖈𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖎𝖓𝖙𝖊𝖑𝖑𝖎𝖌𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖊 𝖛𝖘. 𝕮𝖔𝖓𝖘𝖈𝖎𝖔𝖚𝖘𝖓𝖊𝖘𝖘

At least since the broad masses have discovered artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT and the like, the market around the topic of AI is booming.

Humans are thus taking another hurdle on their way to becoming faster, better, more artificial and supposedly more perfect. It feels like there are new possibilities, improvements and enhancements to be discovered in this segment almost every day. "The machine" can search for information on any topic in a matter of seconds and compose an answer that can rival competent college-level term papers - likewise, it can create digital works of art that most users could never create themselves in this lifetime - provided the prompts entered are coherent and understood by the machine.

With this leap in development, opinions are also splitting on whether AI is a "savior" or the "ultimate evil." Suddenly, dystopian stories à la Terminator, in which a supercomputer overrides the orders of human developers, takes over weapons systems, and nearly wipes out the human species through global destruction, don't seem so far off. Although I use this technology myself from time to time, I also see it as a double-edged sword in a way. So I can't classify it as either salvation or diabolical - the truth, as so often, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

All gloomy predictions are ultimately based on the simple idea that artificial intelligence can become more intelligent than humans themselves. In this context, the question arises as to what intelligence is and what distinguishes the "human biomachine" from the "AI machine" in this respect. In my humble opinion, no machine is intelligent in the human sense - not even the human brain, because neither can experience anything in depth. The essence of human consciousness is experience itself. Therefore, human potential in conjunction with our deep spiritual levels exceeds any machine. One only has to be aware of this fact or learn to recognize this for oneself in essence.

Because in the end the machine always only imitates - however much faster than the human being. We have already experienced this leap several times in our evolution - for example at the beginning of industrialization, when the steam engine took the previous activities of man ad absurdum. The same scenario played out on a different level with the introduction of the first computers. And although these computers have repeatedly made quantum leaps in recent decades and demonstrated computing powers infinitely superior to those of humans, the supposed "knowledge" is based only on the processing of huge, ever-growing volumes of data.

But the machine doesn´t "know" the creative process of computing as such - just as little does it possess real creativity or intuition. It merely imitates knowledge, which is not the same thing. And even if artificial intelligences are meanwhile developing independently, all basic information is based on already existing information.

With a little optimism, artificial intelligence could lead to a future in which its vast data-processing capabilities could help predict natural disasters, make all kinds of transportation more efficient, and so on. I don't even want to go into the many other pros and cons here, nor into the factors around pessimistic aspects such as the possible spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, election and / or consumer manipulation, and so on. Because this would go beyond the scope - besides, it is not really what I am concerned with in these lines.

Ultimately, all positive and negative aspects spring from the dualistic human mind - as do all kinds of bigotry, racism, sexism and other value systems. What began with gossip has culminated today on the Internet and on social media platforms. Ultimately, however, it´s not the Internet that gives rise to bodyshaming or bullying, for example - it's merely an output channel that reflects the current level of consciousness of its users.

Accordingly, the Internet does not have a state of consciousness, just like AI, because they are not conscious. AI can record, mix, combine, and recombine audiovisual data and information of any kind in fantastic ways, but human consciousness is infinitely more than data and information. In fact, "information" is a concept that had no reality until the human mind created it. It is the same with our individuality or our "individual self" - for this too is in principle a purely illusory construct of the mind, which sees itself as something separate.

For example, from a Buddhist perspective, it is not possible to separate the self from its environment. The Buddha says in the Lankavatara Sutra:

"Things are not what they seem… Deeds exist, but no doer can be found" (Majjhima Nikaya).

This does not mean that nothing is real. It means that our mind's projections of reality are illusions and that the elements in the universe that make up everything physical that we see - solid, liquid, gas, etc. - do not exist when broken down to a subatomic level. And this is not a philosophical or purely spiritual view, but cutting-edge science. Broken down to its essence, this means that ultimately all things on a subatomic level are made of the same energy, the same origin - just in different manifestations.

This idea should not be lost sight of in all current developments - because a loss of this awareness would mean a far greater danger in the current context around artificial intelligence than AI itself.

Due to the exponential development of technologies, we are constantly exposed to new, external stimuli and challenges. And our, comparatively very slow, evolutionary development, especially the mental one, can hardly adapt to this - or keep up.

We shift our personal reference points more and more outward, towards these technologically generated stimuli, and thus run more and more the risk of forgetting the core of our true being, indeed of our whole being. Through this constant shifting of reference points, we are also increasingly going into separation - both from ourselves and from everything around us. In the long run, this also means an increased potential for loss of our universal dharma, which in turn negatively impacts our individual as well as our collective karma.

Driven by the additional desire to simplify certain processes, tasks or activities, if at all possible, the current human dilemma is intensified - we thereby massively increase the daily audiovisual stimuli that enter us from the outside. This, in turn, causes our mind to become more and more erratic and to run on a kind of "continuous fire mode". A massive strain that has contributed a significant amount to skyrocketing mental illnesses such as burnouts or depression in recent years.

In this way, we shift our self and our search for happiness further and further into the outside world, relying more and more on machine or digital solutions, which in turn are devoid of any soul, intuition and genuine creativity. We focus on supposed perfection, even if this may not correspond 100% to our own imagination or even to "reality".

Now one can argue of course in such a way that also man could secure his survival in the context of his evolution only by copying certain behaviors and develop accordingly. However, this happened - and always happens with the corresponding consciousness of the experience - on the one hand within the framework of the action itself as well as the mental and energetic aspects connected with it. All this has also a not insignificant share in the individual as well as collective cause-effect principle of karma.

If, on the other hand, we rely too much on machine-generated approaches to solutions, this can certainly lead to a considerable stagnation, if not reduction, of our own potential together with the corresponding conscious experiences. In this context, therefore, we usually find ourselves in an unconscious downward spiral, unless we succeed in creating an appropriate balance that brings us into a healthy equilibrium between mind and technology.

In my eyes, it would therefore be advisable, with all the possibilities that these technologies offer us, to place a parallel increased focus again on looking inward more frequently and more intensively and thereby also withdraw the senses through "Pratyahara". Pratyahara", the fifth limb of the classical Ashtanga Yoga (Raja Yoga) system, is primarily about disciplining the senses (such as taste, sight, hearing, smell, touch) and the mind through a proactive withdrawal from one's sensory center - the perception center in the brain.

It has already been described in the Upanishads that

"Only the seeker can experience absolute reality who, though he has ears, does not hear, though he has eyes, does not see, and even though he lives in this world, does not perceive it by preventing his inner perceptual centers from cooperating with the outer sense organs."

The mind still perceives the stimuli, but it no longer reacts immediately. It can remain in silence. Through this withdrawal, sensory impressions generally become more conscious and controllable in the long run. It is therefore not a matter of limiting the senses - on the contrary: the mind is thereby trained to perceive subtleties which would otherwise remain hidden from the senses, or which we have increasingly lost in the modern world.

We are so much more than we think we are - at the same time we are less individual than we would like to be. When we manage to become aware of the inseparability of being in this universe and recognize our true essence, we glimpse our true nature. And to realize one's nature is to realize the nature of everything. And by that I don't mean the ego, but the part of our being that lies beyond it and usually acts subconsciously.

By looking inward, we can learn to rediscover and explore this very unconscious part of the mind, of being. In this way we can gain new experiences of what it means to experience ourselves, to deal positively with our energies and to proactively open its subtle levels or its gates for us. By opening these gates we can also activate deep-seated potential in the form of knowledge, intellect, concentration, creativity and intuition - potential that we have never "learned" in the classical sense, but that has always been there - so basically it is only "uncovered" or "activated".

Haven't you sometimes wondered where sudden creative ideas or inspirations come from? Inspirations which for example spontaneously and very subtly warn you of a certain action and thus protect you from possible disaster? They happen suddenly, without you being able to control it knowingly!? Exactly this unconscious potential, combined with the act of experiencing, is what sets us apart from artificial intelligence. This potential rests in each of us and possibly goes back to the very source from which our energies originated and of which they are still a part. The energy that is the foundation of all our existence and at the same time connects us with everything.

How one wants to call this source is up to everyone - because whatever we call it, in the end this is also only a spiritual concept. A concept of something that is so wonderfully abstract that it exceeds our rational mind and basically cannot be put into words or described. It should only be important that we recognize with awareness - that we carry this unlimited potential within us and that it cannot be replaced by machines - so we should not even try to strive for it.

So let's just try to become more aware of ourselves again - and thus also of the deep connection with everything that surrounds us. In the end, this awareness contains one thing above all: immeasurable love.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to be constantly in love with everything, rather than in a permanent, individual separation? Wouldn't it be incredibly liberating if it were no longer relevant whether we were female, male or trans? Whether we are atheistic, spiritual or religiously inclined, black, white, brown or whatever? Or even whether we would be human or animal?

Wouldn't this elementary insight be a real spiritual revolution? And what exactly would this deep insight move for possibilities in areas of science as well as artificial intelligence? I believe that there would then possibly be considerably less reasons for dystopian fears, further technlogy-induced threats or a constant, self-separating humanity. In any case, it would be a healthy balance between collective spirituality and science - and this would also have a positive effect on all of our karma.

So each of us could go on this personal, inner journey to discover our own essence including the love inherent there. And yes, this essence and love is always there - in every living being - even if it is all too often overlaid by negative layers of individual and collective karma. But be that as it may - basically there is nothing to lose, but a lot to gain.

I myself am still on this path of introspection and balance. In the process, with a lot of patience and in the form of constant mind training, integral yoga and meditation, I was able to let some traumas go in peace, break cyclical behavior patterns and thus come a little closer to my essence, my true "I"…or should I say "we". It is also important to say that good and loving gurus / teachers are indispensable on this path - as guides, contact persons or companions. Good friends and / or a community / Sangha also facilitate the path by a lot, give support and motivation.

In the end, however, you have to find and follow the right path yourself - because no two people are the same, and accordingly every path is different.

However, the goal is and always remains the same - it is basically a journey home!

At this point I can only emphasize how liberating such steps feel, especially in this time. However, it takes patience and stamina - and especially when it comes to meditation and yoga, these factors should not be seen in the current "lifestyle" context. It is not so much about rest, relaxation and body-conscious, Pilates-like activities. These are just incidental phenomena, but they should never be the sole goal. The goal should be real empowerment, learning to control the mind (because usually it is rather the other way around) and creating a clear awareness.

Because only this awareness is the key to unleash your own potential. Potential that no machine can imitate - neither today - nor in the future!

Thank you for reading!

Hari Om Tat Sat.

2 notes · View notes

opinated-user · 1 year

Note

Lily in one of her videos decrying redemption arcs: "Villain fuckers will excuse anything!"

Lily in her video on Kuvira: "She looks and sounds more reasonable than everyone in the room. You could, in theory, have a perfectly benevolent dictator."

Setting aside her ongoing insistence that her haters, her fans, people who like varying tropes, people who like different ship dynamics, and the AI child of her own OCs wants to fuck constantly and fuck everything, she realizes she salivated over a woman who made Weapons Of Mass Destruction, had reeducation camps and who was in everything but name a fascist dictator, right?

Eh, who am I kidding? She had her black OC be whipped by a sexy white lady and raceplays as a sexy skimpily clad Native woman while accusing others of raceplay. At this point everything she's so lacking in self-awareness that telling on herself is practically her bread and butter.

the real question then with LO is not when she's projection but when she isn't. don't forget too that at this point LO has defended dictators (pushing for "benevolent dictator", a term made up to justify colonialism), written way too many dictators who explicitely commit genocide for never a good enough reason (Lord Ryder because someone from Earth offended him, alaina because of a made up disease that could have been quarantined and treated before genocided), justified slavery (Pokemadhouse, the house elves) and treat black people as nothing else but props to defends herself against her own racism ("i can't be racist, i dated a black woman"). "villain fuckers" know and fully own that their fave has done evil things for whatever reason. LO does her character do the most heinous acts known to mankind and be treated as heroes. which one sounds more abhorrent?

#lily orchard

13 notes · View notes

canichangemyblogname · 1 year

Text

When I tell people that the United States is a failing state, people often scoff. Because they're imagining an Armageddon in their heads, something Chernobyl-style or Purge-style. They're imagining the images coming out of Haiti and Yemen and Syria of burned-out cars and shelled-out buildings and children lying in hospitals, so thin it looks like there's barely flesh on their bones. They're imagining their government tying people up to posts on the side of the street and leaving them for dead, they're imagining "security forces" beating people to death and the spray of automatic gunfire in the streets.

They're saying, "That happens to other people. It doesn't happen here." They're really thinking, "That doesn't happen to white people."

We have watched for decades as police beat and execute black people in the street and throw them in cells to leave them for dead. We have watched the justice system fail for decades. We have watched the empty promises of emancipation manifest right before our eyes. And we have done little to provide the people of this country with equitable public services. In fact, just to spite integration and civil rights, communities defunded many public services. Community centers? Privatized. Electricity and water? Privatized. Natural gas? Privatized. Student loans? Privatized. Airports? Privatized. Bus and rail services? Privatized and scaled back to make room for the private car. We've also been witnessing the increasing privatization of medical services and educational services. Our history is full of the privatization or corporatization of public services with the purpose of pricing people out, namely black and brown people who have been prevented from building generational wealth.

Did you know that the inability to provide public services is a marker of a failed state?

How about the loss of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force? The erosion of legitimate authority? The erosion of decision-making processes? Uneven economic development? Concentrated wealth? High inflation? Mass violence? Ethnic or racial violence? Religiously-motivated violence? Police brutality? Collapse of the middle class? High debt? Insurrections or riots? Resource shortages? Lack of access to drinkable water? Hight debt? How about environmental destruction?

When I tell people that the United States is a failing state, I am making a commentary on how our racism will lead us to complete political, economic and social collapse.

There are several indicators that the non-profit Fund for Peace uses to look at the functionality of a state, including the following questions:

Do private militias exist against the state?

Is there paramilitary activity?

Do private armies exist to protect assets?

Are the police considered to be professional?

Is violence often state-sponsored and politically motivated?

Is the government dealing well with any insurgency or security situation?

Are there accusations of police brutality?

Is there a high availability of weapons?

Is leadership representative of the population?

Are there factionalized elites, tribal elites and/or fringe groups?

Is there a sense of national identity? Or are there calls for separatism?

Does hate radio and media exist?

Is religious, ethnic, or other stereotyping prevalent and is there scape-goating?

Does cross-cultural respect exist?

Is wealth concentrated in the hands of a few?

Is there a burgeoning middle class?

Does any one group control the majority of resources?

Are resources fairly distributed? Does the government adequately distribute wealth through its tax system and taxes?

Is the Judicial system representative of the population?

Are victims of past atrocities compensated or is their a plan to compensate them?

Are war criminals apprehended and prosecuted? Do the public feel they are properly punished?

Are there feelings of or reports of ethnic and/or religious intolerance and/or violence?

Are groups oppressed or do they feel oppressed?

Is there a history of violence against a group or group grievance?

How are intertribal and/or interethnic relations?

Is there freedom of religion according to laws and practiced by society? Are there reports of violence that is religiously motivated?

Are there reports of vigilant justice?

Are the reports of mass violence and/or killings? Are there reports of violence that is racially motivated?

What is the government debt?

How are the interest rates – actual and projected?

How is the inflation rate – actual and projected?

What is the productivity?

How is the unemployment – current and rate of unemployment?

How do people view the economy?

Do the laws and access to capital allow for internal entrepreneurship?

Is there a large economic gap?

Is the economic system discriminatory?

Does economic justice exist?

Are hiring practices generally fair – legally and the perception of others?

Do equal rights exist in the society?

Are there laws protecting equal rights?

Is the education provided relatively equal?

Is there a housing system for the poor?

Do ghettos and slums exist?

Is there a relatively high proportion of higher educated people leaving the country?

Is the middle class beginning to return to the country?

Does the government have the confidence of the people?

Have riots occurred?

Is there evidence of corruption on the part of federal officials?

Do political rights for all parties exist?

Is the government representative of the population?

Have there been recent peaceful transitions of power?

Are elections perceived to be free and fair?

Are there reports of politically motivated attacks and assassinations?

Are there reports of armed insurgents and attacks?

Have there been terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings and how likely are they?

Is the population growth rate sustainable?

Is population density putting pressure on areas of the state?

Is there a high likelihood or existence of diseases of epidemics?

Is the food supply adequate to deal with potential interruption?

Is there a short-term food shortage that needs to be alleviated?

Is there are high likelihood of droughts or is there currently a drought?

Do sound environmental policies exist and are the current practices sustainable?

Is a natural disaster likely, recurring?

If a natural disaster occurs, is there an adequate response plan?

Has deforestation taken place or are there laws to protect forests?

Does resource competition exist and are there laws to arbitrate disputes?

Is there access to an adequate potable water supply?

Are refugees likely to come from neighboring countries?

Are there resources to provide for projected and actual refugees?

Are there sufficient refugee camps or are refugees integrated into communities?

Are there reports of violence against refugees?

Are conditions safe in refugee camps?

Are IDPs likely to increase in the near future?

Are there resources to provide for projected and actual IDPs?

#racism #white supremacy #U.S. politics

9 notes · View notes