Tumgik
#Multicultural white Supremacy
opencommunion · 2 months
Text
white usamerican liberals pretend they want a multicultural society until the multiculturals start talking about how we’re victimized by colonialism and white supremacy. you say you love your diverse city and then harass people with family in palestine for not voting for the man committing genocide against them?? if you want “diversity” you have to swallow the reality that people of color are also human and have our own perspectives and priorities and loved ones to protect, if you want an “international community” you have to treat people outside europe and its white settler colonies with the same respect as your own community, and if you can’t do those things stop claiming to be anything other than a white supremacist
7K notes · View notes
quotesfromall · 8 months
Text
A national fantasy is the very way nationalists inhabit, experience and conceive of their nation and themselves as nationalists. The nationalist in this construct is always a nation-builder, a person whose national life has meaning derived from the task of having to build his or her ideal homely nation, a national domesticator. This is why the most vocal nationalists are often people who feel unfulfilled in other fields of social life. Nationalist becomes the means of giving one's life a purpose
Ghassan Hage, White Nation
0 notes
wakewithgiggli · 8 months
Text
youtube
0 notes
angiethewitch · 2 years
Text
I think we need to talk about racism in the welsh independence movement.
my friend is an indy wales activist. she loves her country. she is extremely outspoken about welsh independence and does so articulately. then she got married to a man who is Hispanic and her last name changed from a recognisable welsh name to a Hispanic name. she has been told she has no right to an opinion on welsh independence and she has suddenly been "othered" because her last name has changed.
with welsh independence gaining more traction, more and more racists have been finding refuge. they see wales as a white country oppressed by the evil institution. they are using it to further their own ideals of white supremacy under the cloak of legitimacy that is welsh independence.
yescymru, in their manifesto, states that we want to take more refugees. we don't want a white ethnostate. but this has been conveniently ignored by racists who want to take this movement about our independence and sovereignty of our own land and turn it into a white supremacist utopia.
we must make the indy wales movement unsafe for racists. not only do they harm our cause, but they make it actively unsafe for poc to be here. I love multiculturalism! I love going to bangor and seeing people from other countries, my best friend is a Korean immigrant, I love hearing about her culture, I love eating at ethnic restaurants, i love seeing different religions and ideas and cultures and traditional dress. indy wales isn't about returning to medieval ideas, it's about a new wales with new opportunities for all while not under the oppression of the english.
we must challenge and expel racists and racist ideas from this movement. if this movement becomes a racist one, I don't want to be a part of it. I don't want welsh independence off the back of racism. I would rather another 200 years of fighting than welsh independence that was built off racism.
this movement must not become a safe place for nazis.
927 notes · View notes
rhaenyras · 5 months
Note
I don’t know what to do with the realization that none of these extremely graphic images, videos and accounts of dead, burnt, bloody, beheaded, deformed, decaying bodies of children, women, and men appeal to western empathy for the very simple reason that these bodies are not white and Christian.
it's like the true intolerant racist hypocritical ethnocentric nature of western civilization has been laid bare in front of our eyes after a few decades of staged open-minded "multiculturalism" masking during which we were tricked into believing otherwise and now the very few of us who are disgusted by the inhumanity are left to bear the weight of the fundamental life-altering knowledge that our entire society and culture rest on white christian supremacy. i am not naive and delusional, I'm just tired and a bit disheartened.
13 notes · View notes
Tumblr media
By: Tabia Lee
Published: Mar 26, 2023
DR TABIA LEE: Accused of 'whitesplaining'. Told students are either 'victims' or 'oppressors'. And then fired as diversity chief... my grim story of how woke extremists are taking over America's colleges
-
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs on college campuses are being turned on their heads.
Instead of promoting creative new ideas, fairness and welcoming spaces, DEI departments have been hijacked by ideological extremists to enforce ideological compliance.
Believe me, I should know.
In August 2021, I was hired to lead an institution wide transformation as a faculty director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education at De Anza Community College in Cupertino, California. As a life-long teacher, dedicated to pursuing diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, and equity and equality in education this was a dream come true.
Unfortunately, my dream job quickly became a nightmare. And ultimately, I was fired.
I have now come to recognize that adherents of 'critical social justice theory' at De Anza College, who view all social dynamics through a lens of power and privilege, also use it as a cudgel to beat down and silence anyone with whom they may disagree.
Even I, someone who some may assume would be on the side of so-called 'social justice warriors,' was too heterodox in my thinking. And I was bullied out.
To be clear, I am not a liberal or a conservative, nor a Republican or a Democrat. I don't identify as a radical, progressive, or feminist. I have spent my life avoiding labels. I am an educator, scholar, humanist and critical thinker. And it is people like me who are – sadly – being chased out of education.
During the hiring process at De Anza, I was told that the previous leadership running the Office of Equity was 'too woke' and alienating people. Their approach was apparently very aggressive. They would 'call people out,' and accuse them of racism.
It was a sentiment echoed by multiple individuals in over 60 hours of conversations that I conducted to assess the needs of the campus. Many expressed discomfort with the college's intellectually oppressive culture and rigid ideologies.
Tumblr media
So, I assured the hiring committee that my approach would be different. As I have all my career, I pledged to create spaces of inquiry where diverse and even divergent viewpoints could be heard would be welcomed and accepted. It is my belief that through this process, people can find areas of commonality and work together in the best interest of students.
Little did I know that this approach would be considered a threat by De Anza College ideologues. And conflict erupted almost immediately after I was hired.
I discovered that fellow faculty and administrators were using definitions for White Supremacy that I was not familiar with. To me, White Supremacy is associated with White Nationalism, the KKK, and Neo-Nazi organizations.
Instead, at De Anza College, White Supremacy was often associated with qualities, such as being on time, objective thinking, using written communications, setting an agenda, and demonstrating a sense of urgency.
These beliefs were aligned with the work of a scholar named Tema Okun and these re-definitions of White Supremacy were not only perpetuated at De Anza College but throughout the California Community College system.
I set out to engage with the De Anza community to develop a better understanding of various words and practices.
I questioned why De Anza's official communications capitalized some student racial categories and not others. For example, the word 'black' was capitalized, while the word 'white' was not. I questioned the use of terms like 'Latinx' and 'Filipinx' to refer to people of Latino and Filipino descent. In my years of experience working with Spanish-speaking and working-class communities, not once did the community ever use those terms to describe themselves.
I believe that terms like 'Latinx' are manipulations of language that originated in the Ivory Tower of academia.
But when I raised these topics for exploration, there was never constructive engagement. Instead, I was put under the spotlight and accused of being aligned with right-wing extremists.
For attempting to set an agenda for meetings, I was accused of Whitespeaking and Whitesplaining and supporting White Supremacy.
As a faculty director, not an administrator, I assumed that I would be permitted all of the academic freedoms of speech and expression that a tenure track position is usually afforded. I was wrong.
In fact, my tenure review process was subverted by ideological extremists, who used it to harass, bully and eventually fire me.
I now have a better understanding of the dominating ideology at work at De Anza College and throughout many of our California Community Colleges.
Unfortunately, a few bad actors working under a banner of 'Critical Social Justice' are subverting the tenure review processes and creating an ideological litmus test for career advancement.
A tenure review process, or any teacher evaluation process should be an objective, evidence-based process. In my case, it was used as an authoritarian enforcement mechanism.
It is my great fear that if folks pushing Critical Social Justice ideology have their way, faculty in California Community Colleges will be required to profess allegiance to certain rigid ideas.
Faculty will be forced to commit to embedding these ideas into their course curriculum. They will be compelled to state their pronouns and demand that all members of their classroom do the same. They will have to view every student as a victim or an oppressor.
There is a reason why these faux-academics insist on chasing free-thinkers out of their midst – it is because they cannot defend their own ideas.
I hope that by sharing my story, I can shine a light on this issue. And since coming forward, I have been contacted by many people, who say they've experienced the same treatment.
Too many faculty members in California Community Colleges are afraid to question this emerging Critical Social Justice ideology. Too many are afraid to question or resist lest they be labeled a racist or worse. 
History has shown us that authoritarianism advances through a reliance on intimidation and the compliance of a majority that cowers in fear.
To the educators out there, I encourage you to keep asking questions and promoting critical thinking. There are resources out there to protect your civil liberties. And I want you to know that you are not alone.
30 notes · View notes
zoya-nazyalenskys · 3 months
Note
I think it’s about the symbolism bc Targs are supposed to be white supremacy coded. They do incest but don’t have incest features like Hapsburg chins because of their blood of the dragon. Same reason why they reject the melanin in their blood most of the time, but sometimes the melanin seeps through like with the dragon twins. That’s why a Valyrian supremacist like Daemon ignores his daughters.
i don't think it works quite like that lol if their valyrian blood magically rejected melanin then the velaryons wouldn't be black since they're also valyrian, the show targs cannot be white supremacists if ryan condal said that valyria was a multicultural empire so they would not care about skin colour, they'd only care about the hair colour (since they removed the purple eyes rip) and ability to bond with dragons
and also on daemon it's canonically said that he only ignores rhaena because her egg didn't hatch (which yeah totally makes sense for a man who was 16 when he bonded his dragon lol) and he was shown to have a loving relationship with baela in episode 6
5 notes · View notes
naturalrights-retard · 8 months
Text
In the United States the majority of the population remains white despite 58 years of mass immigration of non-whites.  Despite remaining a large majority, white Americans are not only being replaced but are being disappeared along with their history.
You no longer see white families in corporate ads.  If a family is shown, it is a black man, white woman and mixed race children, or it is an Asian woman, white man and mixed race children. A white family has been given negative meaning as a statement against “diversity.”  Diversity has trumped the basis of a nation state, which is a homogeneous population.  A diverse, multicultural population is a Tower of Babel, not a nation. Without a common culture, there is not a common interest.  Without a common interest, there is no nation, only a geographical boundary.
Ever since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created racial quotas in defiance of the statutory prohibition in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, white Americans, especially heterosexual males, have been second class citizens in law.  It has been legal for 59 years to discriminate against white heterosexual males in university admissions, employment, promotion, and protection by law.
Recently, the US Supreme Court ruled that race-based university admissions are impermissible and inconsistent with the 14th Amendment.  The ruling is a half century too late.  Discrimination against white Americans is now institutionalized.  Blacks are a small percentage of the population, but they are over-represented in positions of power.  For example, the Secretary of Defense is black. The incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is black. The Superintendent of the US Air Force Academy is black, and all three agree that there are too many white officers in the US military. They have announced an official policy of discriminating against white military personnel by denying whites promotions in military rank.  This is a fact, not a “conspiracy theory.”  It could not be more clear that despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, discrimination against white Americans will continue unabated.
White people are being demonized out of existence, and they are helpless, despite being a majority in an alleged democracy, to do anything about it. To protest demonization is to defend whiteness which is regarded as proof of white supremacy. It is regarded as racist for a white to deny his guilt.
6 notes · View notes
peter-rabbit-esque · 11 months
Text
is anyone else deeply uncomfortable with Australia being added to Eurovision?
As an aussie, here's a couple things:
1. The inclusion of Australia in a "European" competition posits us as nothing more than a British Colonial outpost.
2. Given the current political climate, it is especially not a good look. First Nations People are still fighting for basic recognition in their own country, and the Referendum for a Voice to Parliment is mere months away. Without veering too far into conspiracy territory, it feels like fishy timing.
3. After decades of media reinforcement telling Australians we're a "tolerant, cohesive, multicultural society", our inclusion in *Euro*Vision sends the complete opposite message. For all Australians, Indigenous and Non-Indigenous, randomly adopting a "Eurocentric" angle to join Eurovision just makes no sense for our national identity.
4. It makes Eurovision look bad. It's no longer a competition celebrating the talent of a unique geographical area and the cultures within it. When we add Australian what we're saying is: "This is a competition for white people and countries we consider to be ethnically white". Pretty uncomfortable right?
It screams neo-colonialism and wh*te supremacy so loud.
If they're gonna add Australia, they may as well include ALL multicultural/western nations. The United States, Canada, New Zealand etc. And even beyond that, because having a competition consisting only of white majority countries is extremely sus. Following this logic Eurovision should go on to add every single country on Earth who wants to join and become an International contest instead.
What is the alternative? Foster a weird, blurry wh*te supremacy-adjacent sing-along?
I don't think anyone wants that.
8 notes · View notes
gwyoi · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
Americans were the ones to popularize the term people of color due to the pervasive nature of white supremacy that effects all of the multicultural groups that aren’t white so……… what the hell are you trying to say here.
11 notes · View notes
monzaaasharl · 6 months
Note
Hi this isn’t an attack on you but it’s frustrating to see the lack of critical thinking in some of these discussions about the tweets. A lot of people are saying “well Alexandra is mixed race she can’t be racist” and that is such a generic blanket statement because 1) mixed race people and POC can be racist especially if they have a lot of internalized racism and are white passing/have close proximity to whiteness 2) Latina is not a race, latinas come in all different colours and white latinas exist (e.g Anya Taylor Joy, Jenna Ortega, etc.) 3) race and ethnicity in Latin America is very nuanced because the Americanized perception of race has been imposed on the rest of world particularly in English media. So while people from Latin American countries are painted as an “other” or “a foreigner to be feared”, some of them are just as white as Americans in the Midwest. Argentina for example, has a population where 97% are either have 100% or mixed European descent. Mexico on the other hand is more diverse with most people identifying as mestizo.
I don’t want to speculate on her race since it’s not my place. I’m just tired of seeing people trying to simplify something that has a lot of complexity.
Also the tweets that I’ve seen, are not great to put it mildly. One in particular really soured my opinion of her. I could understand if it was in reference to preserving cultural heritage by avoiding white washing, but the way that tweet is written and from that page… it’s giving white nationalism and supremacy ideologies. It specifically attacks multiculturalism which is a conservative tactic that a certain regime in Germany used a lot. That also doesn’t go into the more recent ones about what’s happening in France but that’s a discussion for another day.
But I would expect a rich sheltered young woman from Monaco to have those views. I wouldn’t be surprised if Charles and his friends have similar views. Ultimately people from a place of privilege have those views because they live in a different reality. So while I have decided that I’m not super fond of her and will not be interacting with content related to her, I’m not surprised.
I completely understand what you're saying, and I've probably not said what I've wanted to in the right way.
I understand that people from Latin America can be any race. What I sort of thought was that maybe she wouldn't have done that since maybe she's in a minority group being Latinas living in france, I suppose. I honestly don't know how to say what I want in the right way. But feel free to correct me or tell me your opinions.
Also, I do agree with you with the fact that she's quite privileged, and maybe that has something to do with her views, and honestly, I wouldn't be completely surprised if maybe Charles and his friends had similar views.
But thank you for this because I've def learned something from this 🫶🫶.
5 notes · View notes
misscandor · 9 months
Text
Personal Thoughts with a Disclaimer
While I still believe the real truth about the American “Civil War” is not what we (meaning both Americans and non-Americans) have been taught for political reasons and the numbers of people who are now learning about this unfortunate truth are growing every minute, I must say I don’t support the views of the more reactionary and extreme right views of some people who is a part of this dissent. Especially when it comes to minorities (For example, believing the majority of black people are violent and savages which is far from the truth and minorities are dumb), extreme white nationalism with a nasty mix of white superiority feeling (I have nothing against of being proud about your ancestry and ancestors no matter what your racial background is (I’m all for it), but I don’t support the mindset of believing one race is better than the others. I’m not only speaking about white supremacy, but I’m also speaking about black supremacy, latin supremacy, Asian supremacy, Middle Eastern supremacy, etc.), and hardcore religious Christian fundamentalism (I’m spiritual with a Christian background myself, but the religious Christian fundamentalism can be a bit much for me).
I was inspired to write this short impromptu because in the past few days, I dug another rabbit hole in regards to the American “Civil War” and American Southern heritage in general and I saw some views on some political dissent sites in regards to American Southern heritage and history that didn’t sit right with me. They are free to believe what they believe in when it comes to these views, but I’m staying away from them that with good reason.
Fortunately, these problematic views are few and everyone else has common sense and very respectful of differences of opinion for the most part.
P.S. These same folks with these extreme right views would be in a rude awakening when they eventually find out how multicultural the South was before the American Civil War and how mainly African American and European American cultures influenced each other during that time. That and how most Southern blacks, some Native American tribes, Hispanics/Latin, Jewish and even Asians supported and/or fought for the Confederacy.
And fyi, I’m not for extreme left views either, but that is another post for another day.
3 notes · View notes
baeddel · 2 years
Note
very cool writeup of thoughts on nick land! semirelatedly, clicking on that gr review by Paul led me down a whole rabbit hole of his reads... but nothing i saw on his page seems to indicate that he's more than just a heidegger scholar (which, y'know), so was curious what you saw that indicated he's a race realist, conservative christian etc.
thanks! this is going to be a post rant where i write down the racist things a racist guy said. it will contain racist, antisemitic stuff, but it will not teach you anything important about white supremacy, antisemitism, or anything else. so don’t bother reading if you aren’t morbidly curious about one bad person who uses the internet.
on race, his (negative) review of Jaynes‘ Bicameral Mind gives it away; he says that some non-western people have no interiority, and then he links to a 'psychiatrist' talking about working with non-westerners and how similar they are to children. and if you click around that guys blog it gets worse, and you assume this is a guy Paul reads bc he quotes him approvingly. this is the most damning in terms of racism. in his review of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? he says, offhandedly, that 'Europe will almost certainly be muslim by 2080.' i don't know if there is any kind of serious demographic projection that would make that statement innocent but it had the whiff of 'the great replacement' to me. i said 'race realist' mostly because it was two words and the other descriptors were two words ('racist' is one word and doesn't alliterate), but i guess it implies a specific ideology i don't know he has. that's the danger of writing in a 'literary' way! be warned!
i say conservative Christian bc he explicitly criticizes liberal, multicultural, secular tolerance in his review of Transcendent Unity of Religions (im not defending the book from the main point of his review, which he sounds right about to me). the position he takes in that review places him, i do believe, to the 'right' of the Vatican on ecumenism.
on being a Nazi revisionist, in his (otherwise very positive) review of Knausgaard’s My Struggle he criticizes Knausgaard for calling Heidegger a “committed Nazi”, saying it just shows Knausgaard didn’t read enough on the subject. then he retells Heidegger’s political career like this:
Heidegger, who was somewhat naïve politically, briefly joined the Nazi party in 1933-34 with the aim of helping to shape it into something far better than it was (a noble goal, certainly) and realized very quickly -- far more quickly than many of his peers -- that the party was not redeemable, at which point he consistently (and as carefully as possible without getting arrested) attacked Nazi principles in his lectures up through the 1940s.
this is an outright lie. Heidegger didn’t leave the party in 1934, he resigned his position as rector in 1934. he was in the nazi party until 1945, when the nazi party was dissolved. his own explanation for why he resigned the rectorate, which he wrote in a letter in 1945, was that he resigned it “in favor of being effective in an official capacity”, that is to say, to spend more time on other areas of party membership (which doesn’t seem to be the real reason lol). he served on a legal board along with other nazi intellectuals like Schmitt and Rosenberg until 1936. and while he does seem to have made criticisms of the nazi party, they weren’t over the holocaust, extrajudicial killings, anything like that; just the kinds of things you might disagree with other party members on as a party member. he still wore his swastika pin everywhere (wiki). and if you go read his letters (some of the damning bits are here) you can see he was enthusiastically positive about the nazis beginning 1931, and writes nostalgically about them after the war. here is a good blog post from another Heidegger scholar which goes into more detail about Heidegger’s political antisemitism and how it relates to his philosophy, towards the end.
some of this evidence relies on the ‘black notebooks’, Heidegger’s diaries, letters, and drafts, which were published in 2016 and caused a massive controversy in Heidegger scholarship. im talking about a huge shitshow. Paul made his goodreads account in 2017 and was still defending Heidegger as a poor little meow meow in 2019, when he wrote that review. i mean, the timing. it’s not just that he’s defacing history. you start to wonder why he’s a former Heidegger scholar.
his other bit of nazi apologia is his review of the Eichmann trial transcripts, where says it would be ridiculous to ask the people driving the trains full of jews to Auschwitz to refuse to drive, and therefore its even more ridiculous to ask Eichmann not to send them there. essentially asking us to morally repeal the Nuremberg trials. they were just following orders, and its crazy to ask someone not to follow orders! well, i don’t think its crazy. i think you’re a nazi sympathizer, “Paul”, if that’s even your real name!
well i thought that was all, but when i went back to get the links i found a few more. one is a review of Shrier’s Irreversible Damage which is critical of it for being disorganized but opens by saying that the claims are “obviously true.” well, if i haven’t damaged his reputation enough, this is the nail in the coffin. becuse they’re not “obviously true”, they’re psuedoscientific. they’re from exactly the kind of fringe he was calling the 'speculative realist’ milieu, a hermeneutical circle of crank sexologists who only cite each other. why go on and on about tell me where did you get your phd and can you speak six languages and when did you last watch C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate before i’ll listen to you, and then act completely credulous about the scientific value of a mumsnet survey? you know why he’s like that, by the way—its not even because Negarestani is progressive or whatever. it’s because Paul has a hateboner for artificial general intelligence!
he also says Scott Alexander is “the world’s greatest blogger” “though shoutouts to Moldbug!” i’m done with this guy. you can keep him!
11 notes · View notes
telumendils · 1 year
Text
“The Master of Arts (M.A.) in Counseling Program at [REDACTED] is committed to affirming the diversity of our communities, engaging in multiculturally competent, socially just counseling practices, and liberation of all people experiencing oppression. [...] The Counseling Program is committed to acknowledging, confronting, resisting, disarming, and disrupting White supremacy and all forms of oppression and marginalization.”
the way i am simply so into this concept. 
2 notes · View notes
hewholivesinhisname · 17 days
Text
Is Social Justice good or bad?
On one hand, I tend to believe in social justice. On the other, I have this other opinion which is that I don't think that social justice can really be upheld by society or people in general.
Why is that?
Lack of responsibility
It is possible for example that everyone goes around and just spontaneously protects minorities for instance, but that is not the "natural" thing for people to do.
Most people are part of some tribe or group or other and see outsiders as inherently dangerous with perhaps at least some good reasons. People have limited intellect and someone unfamiliar might hurt them.
Thus, just as a stranger in a house might not get a warm welcome even if someone is well intentioned they might be viewed with suspicion.
In order to get along and respect differences, people have to have a strong belief in multiculturalism and that is pretty rare I think outside of America. In America, we just sort of assume that everyone should get along despite differences.
We also have respect for things like trans rights and such. However, not all cultures are like that and America also genocided like, all the indian land which was not very multicultural of them. In the 18th and 19th century though, it was kind of radical though for whites to think of themselves as white. It wasn't until the 20th century really that people even thought of themselves as "human."
So, we can be optimistic and think that the social justice warrior types will win, but the left eats its own as the saying goes. In leftist circles you can never be radical enough which means that there's this element of "mob violence" about it. Some people are more socially just than others and you can kind of just never win.
Darkmatter2525 made a clip on this:
youtube
People who are leftists have this kind of extreme tendency to silence debate and out people who have ANY sort of right leaning views, which drives people to right or in the worst instance alt-right, where they tend to adopt all the racist, misogynist and hateful views the left hates.....because the left attacked them.
Now, I think that they are basically right about a lot of things: white patriarchy really does suck most of the time. But I'm white and I want a family. As god, I want to be in charge. Should I only be allowed to be in charge or have authority if I am a trans disabled otherkin?
Jews kind of need white supremacy on some level even though it sucks just because it can hide Jewish power. The whites are always complaining about this, but the Jews are god's chosen people and God is most often a Jewish man. So White Patriarchy can end with God's supremacy a lot of the time- at least in theory.
The other things is that social justice people, like all people tend to want to be in charge, however the nebulous concept of authority and the call for "equality" within social justice circles makes it hard to decide who exactly should be in charge of what and what ideals they are specifically fighting for.
Into this nebulousness anarchism can spring up followed by rule by money followed quickly thereafter by rule by evil as "social justice" can hide monetary supremacy and rule by the evil very easily. All the evil need to do is pretend to espouse social justice principles while promoting rule by social constructs and "the system"
Most social justice movements do not want to put goodness and the poor as first concepts though. Nope. They want it to be women. which is a terrible group to trumpet in my opinion because everyone is nice to women anyway. As soon as the roles of men and women reverse, women take all the jobs, the birthrate plummets, guys start fighting each other and maybe we get an emperor if we are are lucky and he sires another dynasty.
An awful lot of poltical entities however just end with one dude in charge with a big harem and of course the social justice people specifically do NOT want one dude in charge. In order to avoid that you would need to make sure the guys don't fight which means making sure their needs are taken care of and they don't take extreme risks to not be on the bottom.
But do social justice people want this?
The idea that social justice movements need to make MEN, especially old white men like myself as the primary focus seems absurd to them even though statistically we make up 99% of the prison population, 80% of the homeless population etc. When blacks end up in prison they take it as a sign of "systematic racism" but when white men end up getting fucked....that's not racism or sexism at all.
That doesn't exist.
Again, this is why it's so rare to find men who are willing to endorse social justice. The "social justice" warriors think that 50% of the population don't matter. In order to be taken seriously men must be lumped into a category of "the poor" and even then mostly people want to offer services to poor women.
Now, Audre Lourde, I remember specifically she did say that lower class men should be included in the category of social justice.
And, of course, they want Palestine, not America or Israel.
is Palestine a good country? Well, Palestine is the remnant of . My name Pell is remeniscent of Pelasgian and Palestine and Pelasgian are related as is Philistine and Pelasgian. I suspect that the Palestinians aren't really bad people in some ways- they are the people's choice though and the people.....well, the people seem to prefer demagogues, grifters, leaving the rich alone, mob violence and they are kind of just copying the Jews but in reverse. Palestine isn't doing it's own thing. It is
I dunno, maybe it is better than America or Israel. The Jews don't really follow god and America is kind of the same way. Honestly, it feels like America is the Evil's country. So, yeah, if you can only look good next to arguably the two most evil countries in the world you probably aren't all that good.
I mean, I think this sums it up nicely:
youtube
Social justice warriors just kind of replace good with "bias" then they have, I guess a reverse order of who is the "most oppressed" based on, uh, characteristics like race and shit. It's not meritocratic or effortocratic or anything at all. It can just spiral into victimhood games.
What would it take to make inclusion work? Well, having very clear standards about what sorts of actions are good and bad helps quite a bit. however, if you really want to be inclusive, you might not be able to have that "single standard" because that standard might be above and beyond some people. So you just kind of have to grade on effort towards contributing to society and try to treat individuals and groups with as much kindness and compassion as possible.
Since it's social though, I think individuals get lost there. It's about the group, not the individual.
It's kind of funny to me that all the people in the social justice warrior cartoon are white though, because this is exactly the kind of thing white people do: find a cause, then get violent about it. which brings up another thing: there's something very white about social justice warriors even though supposedly it defends minorities.
Like, blacks would not necessarily use the tactics of screaming, shame, violence and doxxing to support black rights nor would these necessarily be the tactics that first would be taken up by indigenous people. I mean, they might work of course. At some point you have to realize that power never gives up power by itself, but it's just the sort of white thing to do to champion social justice specifically so that whites don't have to give up power.
They aren't evil though.
They aren't.
Jeff
which is why ultimately I might have to support the social justice warriors, because it's pretty hard to sway public opinion and the social justice warriors are really the only alternative morality to the "system" that most people would understand and accept.
The system and it's evil master doesn't like women, doesn't like blacks, doesn't like trans people, doesn't like polyamorous people, doesn't like lesbians, doesn't like indigenous people.
It doesn't like anybody.
Harpo- Oprah Winfrey- possibly #15?
Romanus- Pope Francis
Scimitar- Obama
Guru-Eckhart Tolle
Mason- Joel Osborn
Palpatine- Ratzinger prob #66
0 notes
world-love-government · 2 months
Text
When they ask you about White Supremacy
One thing I don't hear enough from people is how even the Canadian Government and its interests represent White Supremacy! I am of course talking about the British Crown and the historical white supremacy it represents, especially in colonialism. What's more powerful, wealthier, and known to everyone like the British Crown? It's sort of playing 5D chess with people because after all, Canada and Trudeau are both cornerstones to multiculturalism and multiracial society. The permanent infrastructure of British Crown however is always there serving one of the oldest white male hierarchy's of the world. Will we go beyond the petty material loyalty in representation? If few people have the eye for this than I suppose they have it. Now you should understand there are "right" answers to white supremacy, and then there's the right answer they don't want people to think about. Its very difficult thinking of competitive expressions of white power/supremacy outside of the British Crown. Its not about the corporations like the marxists may tell you, its not about labour, its not about identity outside of the identity of the Crown. This represents colonial, historical wealth that some would argue should be redistributed to the colonized, or other methods of distributions. Anyway so next time someone discusses the topic with you, don't forget to tell them you have to overthrow the King of England if you're serious about it! Until then - LOVE, CUTE, NICE!
0 notes