#even when people attribute the conflict to white supremacy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 2 years

Note

How would you explain crt and its impact to someone in five minutes or less? I want to explain it to my family, but don't have the time to make a full presentation.

If you want to explain Critical Race Theory to them in about 5 seconds, just show them this picture.

Need more? Let's do a 30-second elevator pitch.

At its most simplistic, Critical Race Theory can be quickly - but incompletely and inadequately - understood as Marxism (inheriting its conflict theory and superstructure concepts) but with class replaced by race, and white supremacy acting as the superstructure. White people are the oppressors, black people the proletariat, there's sometimes room for a bourgeois middle-class for brown, Asian, other non-white people, but the fundamental principle is "anti-blackness." Everyone is socialized to just accept this, and undoing all this oppression will require a full-blown revolution, since it's rotten to the core. "Woke" is the critical consciousness that "sees" this hidden "code of the Matrix."

Let's see if we can smash out a 5 minute version. I'm going to cite sources, but they're footnotes or external links.

Deep breath...

Critical Race Theory is the notion that liberal, secular democracies, but the USA in particular, have been founded and built for the benefit of white people, and to the exclusion and detriment of non-white people, but particularly black people (see: DiAngelo, below on "anti-blackness"). Racism, they say, is the underlying basis for American society and on which America was founded (see: 1619 Project). All white people benefit from this system (see: DiAngelo, below) All white people are racist. (see: above)

It posits that even the purportedly and scrupulously neutral language of the US Constitution is set up to uphold this system, as it acts as a form of plausible deniability when brown and black (& etc) people are prevented from succeeding. (see: Delgado/Stefancic, below)

It is postmodern in nature, which is, by design, hard to explain or define, but you need to know only two basic principles: that knowledge is socially constructed and related to identity groups - that is, it has the values of the identity groups of the people creating it (white knowledge, black knowledge, male knowledge, female knowledge, etc), thus objectivity (e.g. science) is a myth (see: Sensoy/DiAngelo, below); and that claims to knowledge are an expression of power rather than an expression of truth.

Theorists are less interested in what's true and more interested in who benefits from that truth claim - white, male knowledge has been privileged, hence why we have been socialized to trust white, male, rational, evidence-based science (see: Bryn Mawr) to further white interests, while the "knowledges" of other categories (black, indigenous, women's) such as feelings, traditions, storytelling, have been ignored or denied. (see: Science Must Fall?, Venezuelan embryology)

Certain qualities and values (see: the NMAAHC infographic) of modern, liberal society, such as individualism, being on time, science, objective, rational, linear thinking, the written word, delaying gratification, hard work, merit and the notion that "intent matters" are cast as aspects of "white cuiture" or "whiteness." It further posits that these values are forced upon racial minorities for whom these qualities are alien and unnatural, and the process of doing so is "white supremacy." (DiAngelo). That is, these values are bad, or at least, oppressive.

It denies the individual and the universal human experience explicitly (see; Crenshaw, Sensoy/DiAngelo), and is collectivist in nature. Everything is attributed to categories, and individuals experience everything about their lives through those categories. (see: Crenshaw, DiAngelo, and Sensoy/DiAngelo) It has concocted language to deal with those who reject its claims: white people are "fragile," (DiAngelo) black people have "internalized oppression" and "false consciousness" (see: Marxism) and aren't "authentically black." (see: Nikole Hannah-Jones, compare: Erec Smith)

Honorary membership in the "whiteness" club is granted to groups who embrace and further this "white supremacy", such as Jews, Italians and sometimes Asian people. They work to uphold this "white supremacy" to keep black and brown people in their place, as well (see: Delgado/Stefancic, below).

Racism is the "normal science" of American society and everywhere, at all times. (Delgado/Stefancic) Every interaction between all humans involves exertion of power - men onto women, white onto non-white, etc, etc. "The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?” (see: DiAngelo, "Basic Tenets, below) This is what they mean by "oppression." Because society is designed to grant white people power, only they can be racist. Black people are oppressed and without power, therefore they can't be. ("Basic Tenets").

Because everyone is socialized into this system, everybody just treats it as "the way things are" and the way everybody acts is to unconsciously uphold this oppressive dynamic. We are all merely puppets, keeping each other in our respective places. ("Basic Tenets", also Delgado/Stefancic)

Racism is the sole and only (and only acceptable) explanation for all racial disparities in US society (see: Kendi, below. also: Washington STEM Summit. compare: Lyell Asher, John McWhorter and Roland Fryer for multivariate analysis with respect to education outcomes). This is what "systemic racism" means.

Perhaps the most important thing anyone needs to know about CRT is that to address America's problems, it rejects and opposes the "content of their character rather than the color of their skin" (liberal, universal humanist, definition below) approach of reducing the social significance of skin color (often termed "color-blind"), and demands the opposite: "sse color" increasing the signficance of skin color, aka "color-conscious." (Delgado/Stefancic, DiAngelo "Dangerous", below)

It is the job of the Critical Race Theorist to look for these hidden, unconscious power dynamics, which are simply assumed to be there, identify them, call them out and "disrupt" them. ("Basic Tenets") Being "woke" means developing this "critical conscious" (in the Marxian sense), scrutinising and close-reading the minutiae of everyday life to find what it presupposes (see: Microaggressions). Intentions don’t matter (”Basic Tenets”).

There is no "not racist" (DiAngelo, Kendi); you can be actively "antiracist" ("Basic Tenets", Kendi) which is not merely being against racism, but rather committing "lifelong" to their particular program of activism which amounts to religious proselytism ("Basic Tenets", also John McWhorter); if you're white you're simultaneously still also racist. Saying you're "not racist" is admitting you're "racist' because you're not actively antiracist (Kendi).

It is paranoid, anti-science, shallow and juvenile, divisive, deliberately and explicitly illiberal and antiliberal (definition below) (Delgado/Stefancic) and sits atop mountains of "scholarship" (see: Grievance Studies probe) which is circular, presuppositional, presents no evidence, no statistics, is untestable, unfalsifiable, and asserts that even suggesting it should be is itself white supremacist.

It is also extremely relevant that it is most certainly not "just about teaching about slavery and racism" (Delgado/Stefancic). And particularly that this "movement" is opposed by very many black and other minority status people (see: Free Black Thought, FAIR).

Time?

Quotes

May be useful to show the scripture in the authors' own words to prove this is not a misrepresentation or strawman.

Some of these use what "The Woke Temple" calls the "Kleenex" definition of CRT: it might be arguable about whether it's technically a Kleenex, but it's from the tissue family.

As even the quote from "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" reveals, even "crits" themselves don't agree. It's sort of like Xianity in that way, and denial likewise usually takes the same form of a No True Scotsman fallacy. "tHaT's nOt tRuE cRt!!"

Let's start with a definition of Liberalism, since it's important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy.

i.e. the basis for the Constitutions of liberal, secular countries, including the USA.

---

From: Delgado/Stefancic, "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction"

"The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious.

Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law."

"What do critical race theorists believe? Probably not every member would subscribe to every tenet set out in this book, but many would agree on the following propositions. First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational—“normal science,” the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country. Second, most would agree that our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material. The first feature, ordinariness, means that racism is difficult to cure or address. Color-blind, or “formal,” conceptions of equality, expressed in rules that insist only on treatment that is the same across the board, can thus remedy only the most blatant forms of discrimination … The second feature, sometimes called “interest convergence” or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it.”

"As mentioned in chapter 1, critical race scholars are discontent with liberalism as a framework for addressing America’s racial problems. Many liberals believe in color blindness and neutral principles of constitutional law."

"Critical race theorists (or “crits,” as they are sometimes called) hold that color blindness will allow us to redress only extremely egregious racial harms, ones that everyone would notice and condemn. But if racism is em- bedded in our thought processes and social structures as deeply as many crits believe, then the “ordinary business” of society—the routines, practices, and institutions that we rely on to effect the world’s work—will keep minorities in subordinate positions. Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery."

"Crits are also highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights. Particularly some of the older, more radical CRT scholars with roots in racial realism and an economic view of history believe that moral and legal rights are apt to do the right holder much less good than many would like to think. Rights are almost always procedural (for example, to a fair process) rather than substantive (for example, to food, housing, or education). Think how our system applauds affording everyone equality of opportunity, but resists programs that assure equality of results."

"Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply in- grained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent."

“Another aspect of the construction of whiteness is the way certain groups have moved into or out of that race. For example, early in our history Irish, Jews, and Italians were considered nonwhite—that is, on a par with African Americans. Over time, they earned the prerogatives and social standing of whites by a process that included joining labor unions, swearing fealty to the Democratic Party, and acquiring wealth, sometimes by illegal or underground means. Whiteness, it turns out, is not only valuable; it is shifting and malleable.”

---

“I am Black” takes the socially imposed identity and empowers it as an anchor of subjectivity. “I am Black” becomes not simply a statement of resistance but also a positive discourse of self-identification, intimately linked to celebratory statements like the Black nationalist “Black is beautiful.” “I am a person who happens to be Black,” on the other hand, achieves self-identification by straining for a certain universality (in effect, “I am first a person”) and for a concommitant dismissal of the imposed category (“Black”) as contingent, circumstantial, nondeterminant. There is truth in both characterizations, of course, but they function quite differently depending on the political context. At this point in history, a strong case can be made that the most critical resistance strategy for disempowered groups is to occupy and defend a politics of social location rather than to vacate and destroy it.”

-- Kimberle Crenshaw, "Mapping the Margins"

---

https://robindiangelo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Anti-racism-handout-1-page-2016.pdf

Racism is a system that encompasses economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that institutionalize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between White people and people of Color. This system is historic, normalized, taken for granted, deeply embedded, and works to the benefit of whites and to the disadvantage of people of color (Hilliard, 1992).

Basic Tenets of Anti-racist Education

• Racism exists today, in both traditional and modern forms • All members of this society have been socialized to participate in it • All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions; intentions are irrelevant. • No one here chose to be socialized into racism (so no one is “bad’). But no one is neutral – to not act against racism is to support racism. • Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done • The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?” • The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect. If you are white, practice sitting with and building your stamina for racial discomfort.

---

From: Robin DiAngelo, "White Fragility"

“Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly. For sociologists and those involved in current racial justice movements, however, white supremacy is a descriptive and useful term to capture the all-encompassing centrality and assumed superiority of people defined and perceived as white and the practices based on this assumption. White supremacy in this context does not refer to individual white people and their individual intentions or actions but to an overarching political, economic, and social system of domination. ”

“In this chapter, I will address the uniquely anti-black sentiment integral to white identity. In doing so, I do not wish to minimize the racism that other groups of color experience. However, I believe that in the white mind, black people are the ultimate racial “other,” and we must grapple with this relationship, for it is a foundational aspect of the racial socialization underlying white fragility.”

“I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist, or in the “choir,” or already “gets it. ... “White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetrate racism, but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so.”

“I am often amazed at what I can say to groups of primarily white people. I can describe our culture as white supremacist and say things like “All white people are invested in and collude with racism” without my fellow white people running from the room or reeling from trauma.”

“To put it bluntly, I believe that the white collective fundamentally hates blackness for what it reminds us of: that we are capable and guilty of perpetrating immeasurable harm and that our gains come through the subjugation of others. We have a particular hatred for “uppity” blacks, those who dare to step out of their place and look us in the eye as equals.”

“The smallest amount of “racial stress is intolerable—the mere suggestion that being white has meaning often triggers a range of defensive responses. These include emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and withdrawal from the stress-inducing situation. These responses work to reinstate white equilibrium as they repel the challenge, return our racial comfort, and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy. I conceptualize this process as white fragility. Though white fragility is triggered by discomfort and anxiety, it is born of superiority and entitlement.”

“However, a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. This does not mean that we should stop identifying as white and start claiming only to be Italian or Irish. To do so is to deny the reality of racism in the here and now, and this denial would simply be color-blind racism. Rather, I strive to be “less white.” To be less white is to be less racially oppressive. ... I can build a wide range of authentic and sustained relationships across race and accept that I have racist patterns.”

“There is a curious satisfaction in the punishment of black people: the smiling faces of the white crowd picnicking at lynchings in the past, and the satisfied approval of white people observing mass incarceration and execution in the present. White righteousness, when inflicting pain on African Americans, is evident in the glee the white collective derives from blackface and depictions of blacks as apes and gorillas.”

“For example, I was invited to the retirement party of a white friend. The party was a pot-luck picnic held in a public park. As I walked down the slope toward the picnic shelters, I noticed two parties going on side by side. One gathering was primarily composed of white people, and the other appeared to be all black people. I experienced a sense of disequilibrium as I approached and had to choose which party was my friend’s. I felt a mild sense of anxiety as I considered that I might have to enter the all-black group, then mild relief as I realized that my friend was in the other group. This relief was amplified as I thought that I might have mistakenly walked over to the black party! All these thoughts and feelings happened in just a few seconds, but they were a rare moment of racial self-awareness. The mere possibility that I might have to experience not belonging racially was enough to raise racial discomfort.”

Chapter 11: White Women's Tears

“Many of us see emotions as naturally occurring. But emotions are political in two key ways.”

“White women’s tears in cross-racial interactions are problematic for several reasons connected to how they impact others. For example, there is a long historical backdrop of black men being tortured and murdered because of a white woman’s distress, and we white women bring these histories with us. Our tears trigger the terrorism of this history, particularly for African Americans. A cogent and devastating example is Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old boy who reportedly flirted with a white woman—Carolyn Bryant—in a grocery store in Mississippi in 1955. She reported this alleged flirtation to her husband, Roy Bryant, and a few days later, Roy and his half-brother, J. W. Milam, lynched Till, abducting him from his great-uncle’s home. They beat him to death, mutilated his body, and sank him in the Tallahatchie River. An all-white jury acquitted the men, who later admitted to the murder. On her deathbed, in 2017, Carolyn Bryant recanted this story and admitted that she had lied. The murder of Emmett Till is just one example of the history that informs an oft-repeated warning from my African American colleagues: “When a white woman cries, a black man gets hurt.” Not knowing or being sensitive to this history is another example of white centrality, individualism, and lack of racial humility.”

(TBH, this entire chapter is sociopathic.)

---

https://archive.ph/2orfM

‘Whiteness Studies’ Professor Says White People Who Treat All Races Equally Are ‘Dangerous’

A guest lecturer at Boston University said last month that white people who judge others as individuals instead of by their skin color are “dangerous,” according to a report in the College Fix.

...

DiAngelo said that when she hears people say they are colorblind, they are revealing their own ignorance. “This person doesn’t understand basic socialization,” she said. “This person doesn’t understand culture. This person is not self-aware.”

“And I need to give a heads up to the white people in the room,” DiAngelo said. “When people of color hear us say this, they’re generally not thinking, ‘Alright, I’m talking to a woke white person right now.’ Usually some version of eye-rolling is going on, and a wall is going up.”

“My friend Erin Trent Johnson — she says, ‘When I hear a white person say this, what I am thinking is: ‘This is a dangerous white person. This is a white person who is going to need to deny my reality,’” DiAngelo continued.

---

From: Ibram X. Kendi, "How to Be An Antiracist"

“So let’s set some definitions. What is racism? Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities. ”

“The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “antiracist.” ... “There is no in-between safe space of “not racist.” The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism.”

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

---

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/

"To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."

-- Ibram X. Kendi (2019)

---

From: Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, "Is Everyone Really Equal?"

“Many of these movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The logic of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow.”

“All the dominant ideologies in society support willful ignorance. The ideologies of meritocracy, equal opportunity, individualism, and human nature we described above play a powerful role in denying the current of privilege and insisting that society is just.”

“All Whites who swim in the cultural water of Canada and the United States are socialized into psychological, institutional, and economic investments in upholding the racial system that privileges them. This socialization is not something we had a choice about nor is it something we can avoid. At the same time, this does not mean that we can’t challenge our socialization and work to overcome it, although this takes a lifetime of commitment.”

“A third related ideology supporting the dominant group’s right to its position is individualism—the belief that we are each unique and outside the forces of socialization. Under individualism, group memberships are irrelevant and the social groups to which we belong don’t provide us with any more or fewer benefits. The ideology of individualism explains gaps between dominant and minoritized groups (in education, health, income, and net worth) as the result of individual strength or weakness. Therefore, those at the top are there because they are the best, brightest, and hardest working”

“Developing critical social justice literacy requires a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process.”

“One of the key contributions of critical theorists concerns the production of knowledge. Given that the transmission of knowledge is an integral activity in schools, critical scholars in the field of education have been especially concerned with how knowledge is produced. These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective, neutral, and universal. An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that objectivity is desirable or even possible. The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed. When we refer to knowledge as socially constructed we mean that knowledge is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it.”

“[The] scientific method (sometimes referred to as “positivism”—the idea that everything can be rationally observed without bias) was the dominant contribution of the 18th-century Enlightenment period in Europe. Positivism itself was a response and challenge to religious or theological explanations for “reality.” It rested on the importance of reason, principles of rational thought, the infallibility of close observation, and the discovery of natural laws and principles governing life and society. Critical Theory developed in part as a response to this presumed infallibility of scientific method, and raised questions about whose rationality and whose presumed objectivity underlies scientific methods.”

#ask #Critical Race Theory #Critical Theory #neoracism #Robin DiAngelo #Ozlem Sensoy #Jean Stefancic #Richard Delgado #Ibram X. Kendi #white supremacy #wokeness as religion #wokeism #woke #woke activism #cult of woke #religion is a mental illness

13 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 4 years

Text

The anti-racism consulting industry does deserve both some sympathy and some credit. Its intention, to prod white Americans into more awareness of their own racism, is beneficent. And their premise that white people are often unaware of the degree to which racial privilege has enabled their success, which they can mistakenly attribute entirely to merit and effort, is correct. American society is shot through with multiple overlapping systems of racial bias — from exposure to harmful pollution to biased policing to unequal access to education to employment discrimination — that in combination sustain massive systemic inequality.

But the anti-racism trainers go beyond denying the myth of meritocracy to denying the role of individual merit altogether. Indeed, their teaching presents individuals as a racist myth. In their model, the individual is subsumed completely into racial identity.

One of DiAngelo’s favorite examples is instructive. She uses the famous story of Jackie Robinson. Rather than say “he broke through the color line,” she instructs people instead to describe him as “Jackie Robinson, the first Black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.”

It is true, of course, that Robinson was not the first Black man who was good enough at baseball to make a major-league roster. The Brooklyn Dodgers decided, out of a combination of idealism and self-interest, to violate the norm against signing Black players. And Robinson was chosen due to a combination of his skill and extraordinary personality that allowed him to withstand the backlash in store for the first Black major leaguer. It is not an accident that DiAngelo changes the story to eliminate Robinson’s agency and obscure his heroic qualities. It’s the point. Her program treats individual merit as a myth to be debunked. Even a figure as remarkable as Robinson is reduced to a mere pawn of systemic oppression.

One way to understand this thinking is to place it on a spectrum of thought about race. On the far right is open white supremacy, which instructs white people to fight for their interests as white people. (Hence the 14-word slogan, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”) Moving to the left, standard-issue conservatism tends to discount the existence of racism and treat all problems in pure color-blind terms, as though racism has been banished. To the left of that is standard liberalism, which acknowledges the existence of racism as a problem that complicates simple race-neutral solutions.

The ideology of the racism-training industry is distinctively to the left of that. It collapses all identity into racial categories. “It is crucial for white people to acknowledge and recognize our collective racial experience,” writes DiAngelo, whose teachings often encourage the formation of racial affinity groups. The program does not allow any end point for the process of racial consciousness. Racism is not a problem white people need to overcome in order to see people who look different as fully human — it is totalizing and inescapable.

Of course, DiAngelo’s whites-only groups are not dreamed up in the same spirit as David Duke’s. The problem is that, at some point, the extremes begin to functionally resemble each other despite their mutual antipathy.

I want to make clear that when I compare the industry’s conscious racialism to the far right, I am not accusing it of “reverse racism” or bias against white people. In some cases its ideas literally replicate anti-Black racism.

Glenn Singleton, president of Courageous Conversation, a racial-sensitivity training firm, tells Bergner that valuing “written communication over other forms” is “a hallmark of whiteness,” as is “scientific, linear thinking. Cause and effect.”

This is not some idiosyncratic oddball notion. The African-American History Museum has a page on whiteness, which summarizes the ideas that the racism trainers have brought into relatively wide circulation.

“White” values include things like “objective, rational thinking”; “cause and effect relationships”; “hard work is the key to success”; “plan for the future”; and “delayed gratification.” The source for this chart is another, less-artistic chart written by Judith Katz in 1990. Katz has a doctorate in education and moved into the corporate consulting world in 1985, where, according to her résumé, she has “led many transformational change initiatives.” It is not clear what in Katz’s field of study allowed her to establish such sweeping conclusions about the innate culture of white people versus other groups.

One way to think through these cultural generalizations is to measure them against its most prominent avatar for racial conflict, Donald Trump. How closely does he reflect so-called white values? The president hardly even pretends to believe that “hard work” is the key to success. The Trump version of his alleged success is that he’s a genius who improvises his way to brilliant deals. The realistic version is that he’s a lazy heir who inherited and cheated his way to riches, and spends most of his time watching television. Trump is likewise incapable of delayed gratification, planning for the future, and regards “objective rational thinking” with distrust. On the other hand, Barack Obama is deeply devoted to all those values.

Now, every rule has its exceptions. Perhaps the current (white) president happens to be alienated from the white values that the previous (Black) president identified with strongly. But attaching the values in question to real names brings to life a point the racism trainers seem to elide: These values are not neutral at all. Hard work, rational thought, and careful planning are virtues. White racists traditionally project the opposite of these traits onto Black people and present them as immutable flaws. Jane Coaston, who has reported extensively on the white-nationalist movement, summarizes it, “The idea that white people are just good at things, or are better inherently, more clean, harder working, more likely to be on time, etc.”

In his profile, Bergner asked DiAngelo how she could reject “rationalism” as a criteria for hiring teachers, on the grounds that it supposedly favors white candidates. Don’t poor children need teachers to impart skills like that so they have a chance to work in a high-paying profession employing reasoning skills?

DiAngelo’s answer seems to imply that she would abolish these high-paying professions altogether:

“Capitalism is so bound up with racism. I avoid critiquing capitalism — I don’t need to give people reasons to dismiss me. But capitalism is dependent on inequality, on an underclass. If the model is profit over everything else, you’re not going to look at your policies to see what is most racially equitable.”

(Presumably DiAngelo’s ideal socialist economy would keep in place at least some well-paid professions — say, “diversity consultant,” which earns her a comfortable seven-figure income.)

Singleton, likewise, proposed evolutionary social changes to the economy that would render it unnecessary to teach writing and linear thought to minority children. Bergner writes:

I asked whether guiding administrators and teachers to put less value, in the classroom, on capacities like written communication and linear thinking might result in leaving Black kids less ready for college and competition in the labor market. “If you hold that white people are always going to be in charge of everything,” he said, “then that makes sense.” He invoked, instead, a journey toward “a new world, a world, first and foremost, where we have elevated the consciousness, where we pay attention to the human being.”

Whether or not a world along these lines will ever exist, or is even possible to design, is at best uncertain. What is unquestionably true is that these revolutionary changes will not be completed within the lifetime of anybody currently alive. Which is to say, a program to deny the value of teaching so-called white values to Black children is to condemn them to poverty. Unsurprisingly, Bergner’s story shows two educators exposed to the program and rebelling against it. One of them, Leslie Chislett, had to endure some ten anti-racism training sessions before eventually snapping at the irrationality of a program that denigrates learning. “The city has tens of millions invested in A.P. for All, so my team can give kids access to A.P. classes and help them prepare for A.P. exams that will help them get college degrees,” she says, “and we’re all supposed to think that writing and data are white values?”

Ibram X. Kendi, another successful entrepreneur in the anti-racism field, has a more frontal response to this problem. The achievement gap — the long-standing difference in academic performance between Black and white children — is a myth, he argues. The supposed gap merely reflects badly designed tests, he argues. It does not matter to him how many different kinds of measures of academic performance show this to be true. Nor does he seem receptive to the possibility that the achievement gap reflects environmental factors (mainly worse schools, but also access to nutrition, health care, outside learning, and so on) rather than any innate differences.

Kendi, like DiAngelo, argues that racism must be defined objectively. Intent does not matter, only effect. Their own intentions are surely admirable. But the fact is that their insistence on denying that America provides its Black children worse educations inhibits working toward a solution. Denying the achievement gap, like denying the gap in how police treat white and Black people, seems to objectively entrench racism.

It’s easy enough to see why executives and school administrators look around at a country exploding in righteous indignation at racism, and see the class of consultants selling their program of mystical healing as something that looks vaguely like a solution. But one day DiAngelo’s legions of customers will look back with embarrassment at the time when a moment of awakening to the depth of American racism drove them to embrace something very much like racism itself.

2 notes · View notes

z3r0-f4ilur3 · 4 years

Text

The Record Begins With a Song Of Rebellion

First Draft Of the Capitalist Surrealist Writing Project. Steal and appropriate, critique and interrogate, with the author's full endorsement and permission. Looking (back)(for)wyrds After the Bush interregneum and the long, terrible, progress destroying Reagan years, the American empire had something like a moment of hope. Riding high on the peace dividend and a delusion of idealism among the donating classes, the economic aristocracy which in effect was the senior partner in “American Democracy” (and so duly represented in both parties) and the voter was a paternalized junior to be both petted and protected had selected the Clinton dynasty. The grand bargain between labour and capital against the state resulted in the bitter fruit of the Bush years, as Conservatives paternalists rightly mocked the Clintonian urge to middling action on domestic issues while gladly partnering with him to rob labour at large. While a wealth transfer had already been going on as part of a trend for the better part of a century, this phase in which a semi-coherent ruling class dynamic of the donating classes and the government service classes became visible. It is beyond satire now, but this was not always so visible, as racism, white supremacy, American exceptionalism, various fundementalist and conservative (as well as equally harmful, supposedly liberal versions of the same) religious beliefs; Turtle Island was rife with reasons for temporary cross class solidarity in order to oppose an other or to advance an idealistic goal.

And yet moments of class consciousness and solidarity have perenially emerged, from the “grassroots” as the insiders like to say. They frame the people as “the base” or “the grassroots” and narrowly target their interests to make people find conflict with each other. It is irrelevent (for this missive) whether this is a conscious, semi-conscious, or unconscious process; it is enough to notice it happening. Despite this, moments in the pre new-modern (to be defined later, promise~) politics that predate terms like Black Lives Matter or Trans Rights are Human Rights show that these movements represent an unbroken chain of revolutionary attempts at self-consciousness and conscience transformation that coincide and are just as important as any history of violence. The Ides of March, and the campaign of anonymous internet citizens against Scientology, represents such a moment. Occupy Wall Street was such a movement. “We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Used To It!” was such a phrase. The many quotes attributed to names like Mandela and James Baldwin; the Black Panthers, the revolutionary feminists, the Hippie movement, down back to the (In the American mind) hoary days of yore when the Wide Awakes would march a brass band around the houses of pro slave Senators.

It is a poor yet accurate summation to say that the ‘present’ (a dubious notion) political reality is the sum of all of these and more; a reader can orient themselves to the history of late stage capitalism by the growth of the donating classes influence and the acceleration of their detachment from society at large. Moments which also impact this reality are the donating classes sense of pessimism about the future; the devaluing of nearly all forms of labour, the increasing visibility of law enforcement brutality; the list can be referenced in the moment to moment, wide eyed and angry reporting of self-matyring, news-junkie amateur journalists found anywhere online, the shocked and angry expressions of young activists at protests and the weary, numbed faces of the old. Up and down the class system, there has been a wide spread death of hope.

Enter the climate crisis.

Before climate consciousness achieved real steam, our escatological fears were (mostly) confined to the realm of human action or cosmic events unimaginable (and unrelatable) to the modern person’s experience of life. For decades, the effects of climate change were reported to a world told not to care. As Terrance Mkenna said, ““The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it’s only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse.”

The impact of this can and will be expanded upon, but it is safe to say that the bubble has been popped. Whatever finds popular currency within the dialogue around it, that the climate is changing rapidly in ways inemical to human society at large/at present is true by material impact; people everywhere have experienced some negative result of the changing conditions, and there is a rising anxiety in the classes who cannot afford an escape pod or fortress bunker that the people they’ve entrusted themselves to intend to withdraw to safety and abandon them, or even expose them to more harm in order to “make more of the earth’s carrying weight available in the reclamation” (this kind of talk is not alien to them, though this specific quotation is my own invention.

It is important to acknowledge that the bubble has popped. It is the exclamation on Capitalist Realism; it is the moment of awareness, that encounter with a death of hope, in which Capitalist Surrealism, our phenomenological experience of the Capitalist Real, is born. While this Surrealist stage is both uncomfortable and has deleterious effects on the human condition, it represents the chink in the armour of banality and inertia, and the diminishing politics of the powerful. The sense that anything, absolutely *anything,* can happen to you, is both incredibly terrifying, and when looked at squarely, an opportunity for radical freedom.

It is this radical freedom that we see ourselves invited to in the many facets of human expression and convention which have experienced an awakening of new consciousness (or the restoration of old ones. Beliefs, ways of interacting with the world, and surviving are no longer benefited by or even neutrally treated by their operating environment anymore; if the complete weight of propaganda in circulation at the moment could be translated into sound, it would present an impenetrable and unlistenable wall.

It is that environment that individual ideologies not sanctioned by the operating environment have struggled against; all of them now have new life and vigor because despite that wall, and the spectacle societies which generate them, the literal truth of material impacts trump all prior arguments. With awareness of most likely outcomes of the climate crisis on a sliding scale, we see radicalization and existential depression of all varieties spike; the answers they attempt to generate to these apparent conditions lack hope in broad but uneven spikes along that scale of awareness, with the suicidally depressed expert climatologist and the radical anarcho-primitivist sharing the same ontological space in orientation to that crisis.

This project, among other things, is an attempt to generate an alternative answer (what that project consists of is entirely based in literature and mutual aid, the oldest Christian platforms for emancipatory action.) Terms like Solarpunk and Cloud City Futures approach but fail to capture the spirit of an alternative answer, mostly with an appeal to the world of aesthetics, a dubious method for summoning change at best. Terminology alone, or even in tandem with education, is also not sufficient; the noise environment they enter into immediately drowns out the creators meaning, especially if these terms are successful and gain currency with the wealthy.

Rather, we must articulate the positive from all our apparent negatives: The apocalyptic futures we anticipate cannot begin actually describe the terrain of the future, and the apparancy of our material conditions impact on our lives is now drowning out the sound of the standing ideologies. This is a brave time, where people blaze trails for others to follow out of the collapsing structures of the past and into the dwelling places of the new future. Our experience of reality, though surreal, has now unlocked an awareness of an apparent power: making meaning.

It is with the tools of meaning-making that these, who are the heirs of their elders, queer and colour revolutionary and indigenous land defender and abolitionist, pioneer the hopeful vistas of the future. It is necessary that they *be* hopeful; it was the Buddha who taught that people deceived by Samsara may be “deceived” by the apparent gifts of pursuing enlightenment, the majority of which are ancillary incidentals not to be meditated on. The king calls his indolent heirs out of the burning palace with a promise of gifts; when they arrive, they protest the lack of gifts, but it is in his embrace of them we realize they are the gift, and their survival was worth the promise of chariots and ponies.

But there must also be chariots, and ponies; luxuries, and finery; the grim tools of “defense” and all the things the human animal finds comforting in their resting environment to assure them of its stability. In the Dao De Jing, (Though Mueller butchers the poetry,) the Sage articulates this and describes how to create it: “Let there be a small country with few people,

Who, even having much machinery, don't use it.

Who take death seriously and don't wander far away.

Even though they have boats and carriages, they never ride in them.

Having armor and weapons, they never go to war.

Let them return to measurement by tying knots in rope.

Sweeten their food, give them nice clothes, a peaceful abode and a relaxed life.

Even though the next country can be seen and its doges and chickens can be heard,

The people will grow old and die without visiting each other's land.” A.C. Mueller Translation, The Dao De Jing, Attributed to Lao Tzu

It is as naked an appeal to a return to the life of the community and the village as can be found. A return to idigenous ways of being, which speaks to the preservation of folk ways, while the reality that the sage is administering them (even if only by moral teaching) shows a potential for new ideas to be instanced; innovation is not a property innate to the colonizing and walled world, and memetic culture and the society of truth-telling through representation around it reflect callbacks to this desire. The political movement around Land Back, while perennial to the causes of indigenous people, crystalizes an actionable answer for individuals and collectives to support. Its cousins in other colour movements, many of them representing indigenous people displaced by imperialism in the first place, are also generative of positive futures; it is a fact of history that as the rights of people classified as “minorities” are raised, the general quality of life for all in society rises, with the exception of those who could never be touched but by the highest tides.

These movements and moments of consciousness are their own inestimable goods, not mere ends for the would be conscious person to hijack for their goals. This is in fact a position inimical to the success of any of these movements; grifting starts at home, and it is the white leftist who is more easily conquered by the white liberal, since neither of them have conquered their own whiteness in the first place. But that supporting them generates positive benefits for all can only be argued against if you value the lives and comforts of some over others; those who value the general benefit first can see a clear path.

It is that clarity that gives meaning makers license to create the vistas of the future. It is the “Mandate of Heaven” that endorses the artists, a general operating license to create. Because the material impact of the present is louder than the noise of Capital, there an outburst of fertility and growth, the very seeds of hope, breaking out in the midst of this Surrealism. It is with the tools of meaning making, and the canvas of the crisis, that people escape the real.

#capitalist hell #Capitalist Surrealism #newfuture #say anything

4 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 5 years

Link

Zionist historical revisionism constructs an erroneous presentation of Israel as accommodating a left-to-right political milieu, the left-flank of which amenable to a peaceful resolution of “the conflict”, instead of recognizing the entirety of Zionism, including its “liberal” faction, as inherently white supremacist, settler colonialist and genocidal.

The supposed left, “liberal” wing of Zionism, comprising Israeli political parties, non-profit organizations and media organs in Israel and outside it, serves to promote Zionist propaganda, which renders occupation, apartheid and genocide of Indigenous Palestinian people palatable to audiences in Israel and worldwide.

Liberal Zionism intrinsically promotes reactionary regimes and interest groups, which share Zionism’s ethnocentric, xenophobic, misogynistic and hyper-capitalist worldviews, including Trump’s United States, Bolsonaro’s Brazil, Duterte’s Philippines, Orban’s Hungary and Modi’s India, among others.

Why is it important to recognize and dismantle liberal Zionist propaganda?

The Zionist “left” in Britain

The corruption of the Zionist “left”, i.e. liberal Zionism, and its ensuing damage to democracy is evident in the UK Labour Party.

Electronic Intifada’s Asa Winstanley has reported extensively on the development of this manufactured crisis, which exemplifies the dangers of a major anti-Semitic Zionist propaganda fallacy – the conflation of Zionism with Judaism and its effectiveness in torpedoing social justice.

In fact, a recent Al-Jazeera documentary – The Lobby – exposed the extent to which the Labour Party has been infiltrated by Israeli/Zionist interests via The Labour Friends of Israel.

Jackie Walker, an anti-Zionist, Black Jewish ex-Labour Party member and vocal supporter of Jeremy Corbyn was recently expelled as a result of this fallacious campaign on trumped up charges of “anti-Semitism”. Chris Williamson is the most recent example. Additionally, in a blatant attack on press freedom, Labour revoked Winstanley’s press pass for its upcoming conference.

The Zionist “left” in the US

The fiasco involving Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib has become a teaching moment for pro-Palestinian activists.

An important lesson from the campaign, outlined by Noura Erakat and Fadi Quran in their recent article, is the evident lack of Palestinian sovereignty both in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in spite of Israel’s claims to the contrary.

Thus, Israel’s self-aggrandizing, manufactured image as “the only democracy in the Middle East” is once again rendered null and void, in line with its crimes and long list of discriminatory laws.

Similarly, the banning of Omar and Tlaib has exposed once again Israel’s white supremacist nature, consequent to its Christian Evangelical, anti-Semitic origins and supporters.

Further, the targeting of Omar and Tlaib demonstrates the powerful threat of intersectional politics to reactionary regimes. In fact, the Zionist Reut Institute and the US-based Jewish Council for Public Affairs quickly recognized the danger intersectionality poses to their discriminatory colonial agendas.

However, no less important than these, is a crucial lesson quickly whitewashed – the campaign against Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib was instigated by a liberal Zionist editor at The Forward – Batya Ungar-Sargon – opportunistically picked up by corporate Democrats, and unsurprisingly adopted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump and a host of American-Zionist lackeys as a wedge issue to split their opposition.

It is all too easy to blame Trump and his racist supporters, including within the Israeli government, for the campaign against Omar and Tlaib. Yet whitewashing liberal Zionist culpability sets the stage for additional smears instrumentalizing the “new anti-Semitism”, i.e. the canard that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, including against progressive front-runner for the Democratic nomination for President – Senator Bernie Sanders.

Notably, Sanders is a liberal Zionist himself, yet has conveyed support for Omar and Tlaib, as well as harsh criticism against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli apartheid policies. The UK example suggests Sanders’ surge in the race and his (relatively) pro-Palestinian rhetoric will likely lead to an increase in Zionist-led attacks on his intersectional campaign, including against grassroots supporters. In fact, concurrent to Sanders’ recent rise in the polls, liberal Zionist Haaretz published an anti-Semitic opinion piece echoing fascistic propaganda, calling Sanders “the last Jewish Bolshevik”. Sanders, of course. is a Democratic Socialist far closer to an FDR-style, new deal Democrat.

The Forward has played a major role in the smear campaign against progressive Democrats Omar and Tlaib. In addition to its initiation by opinion editor Ungar-Sargon, who has been working assiduously to jam Zionism down the left’s throat, or else, senior columnist Peter Beinart whitewashed the outlet’s culpability.

Beinart blamed Omar for being “wrong”, “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” for her accurate tweet describing the corrupting influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on politics in Washington, and praised her for her unnecessary apology, while conveniently shifting blame from The Forward’s dishonest liberal Zionism and its allegiance with corporate Democrats to Trump’s grotesque anti-Semitism and Republicans such as Lee Zeldin. Remarkably, in a masterful display of false equivalencies and straw man fallacies, Beinart did not mention Zionism at all, a likely prerequisite for safeguarding his position as a CNN commentator. Just ask Marc Lamont Hill. Unfortunately, Omar decided to promote Beinart on her Twitter feed.

Beinart’s column also demonstrates what is perhaps the most egregious of liberal Zionist contortions – the promotion of the fallacy of “the occupation” existing since 1967, not 1948, i.e limited to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. This false assertion, also echoed by the American Jewish progressive group IfNotNow, erases the rights of millions of Palestinians in the shattat, including their right to return home.

The Zionist “left” in Israel

A careful examination of the Zionist/Israeli political spectrum leading up to parliamentary elections on September 17th, including the “opposition”, reveals an assortment of reactionary parties seeking power without providing any hope for equality and justice for Palestinians. Even the anti/non-Zionist Joint List, recently showed a desperate interest in working with the Zionist “left”, to the dismay of many.

To quote Israeli dissident Ronnie Barkan:

While a so-called leftist discourse in Israel is usually perceived as revolving around liberal and humanistic values, no discussion exists concerning the deeply-rooted supremacist character of the state, its inherent anti-democratic nature, nor the fate of those who have been disenfranchised, oppressed, subjugated and terrorized for the past seven decades by Israel — the Palestinians.

In an article for (wait for it) The Forward, Stav Shaffir – previously of the liberal Zionist Labor Party, now of the Democratic Union Party – engaged in some break-neck political yoga in an effort to smear the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, while attempting to maintain her faux-left cred.

In another recent piece, Yossi Gurvitz accurately demonstrates the inherent contradictory nature of “left” and “Zionism”. Here, Gurvitz laments the deal brokered between the liberal Zionist Meretz party and corrupt war criminal and ex-PM Ehud Barak to form the Democratic Union Party, which also includes BDS-bashing Shaffir. Gurvitz’s impressive survey of Barak’s crimes falls short when he attributes Meretz’s selling out as a “wish to be, for once, on the winning side”. Gurvitz correctly identifies the reasoning as flawed yet does not lay out the hard truth, in which liberal Zionists opt habitually for apartheid over equality and naturally assume their role as propagandists while lambasting the adoption of an ideologically consistent, left-wing, anti-Zionist stance.

Significantly, the anti-Zionist, anti-racist framework intrinsic to the BDS movement and other campaigns, has yielded far more impressive gains for Palestinians than any collaboration with white saviors and/or liberal Zionist entities. In fact, a principled anti-Zionism, with a focus on BDS provides real hope for Palestinians, Jews and others seeking an end to the ongoing injustice between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.

An intersectional alliance between all victims of white supremacy, including Palestinians, Black and Brown people, women, Indigenous groups, immigrants, the disabled and others, effectively exposes and dismantles all Zionist propaganda, en route to the promotion of equality and justice for all.

#zionism #anti-zionism #israel #leftism #socialism #communism #political left #judaism #anti-semitism #palestine #electronic intifada #white supremacy #racism #racial supremacy

4 notes · View notes

sdlpp · 2 years

Text

My grandmother’s Hands-healing national trauma through psychological process

My Grandmother’s Hands is a New York Times best seller written by Resmaa Menakem on racialized trauma and the pathway to mending our hearts and bodies. In this book, the author talks about racial conflicts and discriminations through the aspects of psychology. He believes that the reason why racial discrimination and conflicts cannot solve can be attributed to the existence of white-body supremacy laid within the lizard brain, a part of human brain that is more premier than the cognitive brain. The lizard brain helps human and even animals protecting themselves by decide whether they should flee, fight or free when we might face potential danger. And the reason why such white-body supremacy exist in our lizard brain can be traced back to traumas we and our ancestors once occurred. Even if we may not face the real danger, such dangers itself will be recorded into our brain so that our brain can handle them when we come across such dangers. Our lizard brain may also collect similar data incautiously from what we heard and see, and also from ancestors so that we can better survive in the society. In this case, it is impossible to heal the racial conflicts just through political and social movements that can only influence the cognitive brain but not the deeper lizard brain.

In the first chapter, the author set the definition of white-body supremacy. He argues that such definitions are more social than biological: the white-body supremacy is formed from the collective social and cultural experiences among different ethnic groups in the United States. In this case, a Kenyan citizen who has never been to the United States or a new arrival in American from Cameroon or Haiti may not find the contents in the book applies to him, while less power white bodies from the British Isles-serfs, Puritans, factory workers, the Irish or so on may experience the same trauma the black people may face.

Also in the first chapter, the author classified three types of bodies, the white one, the black one and the police one. It is possible for one person to belong to none of the three catalogs, and it is also possible that they belong to more than one above catalogs. The author also argues that everyone not only African Americans are the victims of white-body supremacy. According to author’s previous experience as a trainer in the Minneapolis Police Department，White people may also feel that black people may scare them, and African American off-duty cops may also feel scared when they were pulled over by other police officers, especially when they were driving fancy cars.

0 notes

livingwithlucie · 4 years

Text

3 True psychology experiments and what they tell us about human behaviour.

I’ve always had an interest in psychology and why people act the way they do and if nature or nurture plays the biggest part in making us who we are. Some of my favorite topics when studying psychology was biological, behavioral, and forensic psychology. In this post, I want to talk about 3 psychological experiments, who’s procedures were shocking, yet the outcomes caused us to have a deeper understanding of why we act the way we do.

Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

We can’t talk about psychological experiments without discussing Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. In August 1971 Professor Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University wanted to test the theory that personality traits are the main causes of conflict and mistreatment between prisoners and guards. There were 2 groups, knows as ‘roles’ that 24 volunteers were places into. One was ‘prisoner’ and the other ‘guard’, and they were dressed accordingly to those roles. Zimbardo gave himself the role of ‘superintendent’. The idea was for the guards to create a sense of powerlessness among the prisoners. Four out of 12 of the guards became sadistic, stripping prisoners and humiliating them. The conditions of the ‘prison’ were left unsanitary and the prisoners were left sleeping on concrete floors. There was a string of mental breakdowns, outbreaks of sadism, and hunger strikes. Zimbardo became so immersed in the experiment he did not realize how out of control the experiment had become. The experiment was supposed to last a total of two weeks, however, ended abruptly after only 6 days.

So what does this tell us about human nature? Zimbardo’s experiment tells us that certain institutions and environments can form certain behaviors. The situations you are put in can influence how you behave. The guards were put in a position of power and they played into their roles of being the guard, causing them to act in a way that may be in a way that completely opposite to how they react in their everyday lives. It shows us that seemingly good people can turn into perpetrators. Along with this, it more likely does not support the idea that a person's individuals traits may not be the cause of their behavior, but rather the situation they find themselves in.

Side note: there is an excellent film about this experiment!

The Third Wave (1967)

This experiment was designed in a California high school by Ron Jones. Jones was struggling to explain to his students how the German population could accept what the Nazi’s were doing during World War II as his students were finding it difficult to understand. Over the course of the experiment, Jones implemented an authoritarian atmosphere in his class, emphasizing discipline, and community with the intention of it mirroring the characteristics of the Nazi movement. By the third day, the student had complied with his command, even creating a salute involving a cupped hand similar to that of the Hitler Salute. The experiment began to take on a life of its own and began to spread across the school. They were given the task of creating a banner to stop nonmember entering and to initiate new members. The original 30 students had now become over 200 students, most of which did not even take the original class. Some of the students even began reporting other members to Jones, who had established himself as the leader. By the fourth day, Jones decided to end the experiment as his concerns grew that it was slipping out of his control. Jones ordered the student to attended an announcement at noon on Friday. On the day of the announcement, the student was presented with a white screen where Jones had Tod the student that they had willingly created a similar sense of supremacy to that of the German people during the Nazi regime.

This experiment illustrates the horrifying idea that those within the SS were not sadistic but rather very normal. What I mean by this is, experiments like this have taken place to try and show how anyone can fell into being complicit when it comes to having an authority figure. Take Milgrams experiment for example, where participants were made to inflict pain through a (fake) electric shock, and being encouraged to carry on despite the person being shocked claiming they were in a lot of pain. As humans, we fall into this trap of following those who we believe to be of authority.

The Bystander Effect

The Bystander Effect was popularised by social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley after the infamous 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. Kitty Genovese was a 28-year-old who’s murder became a catalyst for what we now know as the Bystander Effect. Kitty was stabbed to death outside her apartment and dozens of neighbors stood by and failed to step in or to call the police. Latané and Darley attributed the effect to two factors:

Diffusion of responsibility: the more witnesses/onlookers there is the less responsibility those around the situation feel.

Social influence: people look to those around them on how to react to a situation.

It is normal for people to freeze in times of shock or witnessing an attack, this can be a response to fear. People can feel they are too weak to intervene, or that the inactivity of those around them can make people feel like they are not needed in a situation. Often times when there is a crisis people may not understand what is going on, and during processing the events around them, they will look to other people to determine what is an appropriate response. When those around them are not reacting, it can send a signal that there many not need to be any action needed.

Sources

https://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/10-bizarre-psychology-experiments/

https://www.boredpanda.com/psychology-behaviour-experiments/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/bystander-effect

#psychology #experime #shocking #effect #bystander #zimbardo #experiment

0 notes

jamr0ck83 · 4 years

Text

Say What You Need To Say

As we emerge further into this current era of Black Lives Matter protest and activism, it occurred to me that many of the terms that we've been using to discuss what is currently going on in America and what has been going on for centuries are not well understood by many people, especially non-POCs. On one of my previous blog posts, someone replied to it (thanks, btw) and innocently but incorrectly defined colorism. And that made me realize the importance of everyone and especially white allies being given the opportunity to learn what these important terms mean so that they can then use them appropriately as they continue to advocate for change. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it is a good place to start for those who want to ensure that they understand what we are advocating for and how they can aptly convey that message. ⋆﹥━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━﹤⋆

Antebellum - literally means "before the war"; in America, this term is most associated with the era of slavery in the American South before the onset of the Civil War and subsequent emancipation of slaves and is often referred to with nostalgic undertones which many Black Americans see as problematic slavery romanticism

Bias - when a person favors one perspective or group of people over another; does not need to be based on race or ethnicity Example: I am biased against those who refuse to acknowledge that Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player to have ever played the game. (That’s right; I said it. Fight me.)

BIPOC - a relatively new acronym that stands for "black, indigenous, and people of color" and includes all non-white people who have suffered at the hands of systemic and explicit racism in a dominant, white society; but specifically highlights black and indigenous people, noting their long history of combating slavery, genocide, and European colonialism Note: It turns out, even I was using this term incorrectly, and I had to defer to information provided by both The New York Times and Dictionary.com for help with this one. I’m definitely learning new things, just like everybody else.

Black Power - a slogan that was popularized by civil rights activist Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) in 1966 to accentuate the need for Black Americans to seek and exercise the agency needed to advance the pursuit of black equality Note: I referenced Encyclopedia Britannica for the year noted above and the correct spelling of “Ture”.

Civil Rights Movement - generally refers to an era that occurred in the middle of the 20th Century during which African Americans and their allies actively protested through marches, boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides, and other methods to advocate for African Americans, particularly the South, to reap the full benefits of their previously established citizenship rights

Colored - a term once used to officially categorize non-white people; in America, this term most often referred to African Americans, but has largely been abandoned since the mid-20th Century, and modern-day usage is considered offensive Note: This word appears as a part of the acronym for the NAACP, which stands for “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People”. In this context, no offense is generally taken, given that the organization’s origins are dated fairly early in the 20th Century.

Colorism - when a culture and the people within it have embraced a standard of beauty that celebrates those of any race with lighter skin tones because they more closely align with traditional European ideas regarding what features are most attractive

Karen - a term coined by Black America to identify white women who routinely utilize their privilege to instigate trouble or aggression against people of color who are largely innocent of any wrongdoing; this includes instances of being dishonest about a person of color being a legitimate threat in order to invoke fear within that person of color and ultimately establish her power and authority as a white person over them Note: Some white women have attempted to decry this term as a racial slur, but said assertions have largely been ignored, and the term is now widely used by those in the black community as well those of the larger American society who abhor Karen-like behavior.

Microaggression - ideas and statements directed at people of a marginalized group that, on their face, appear to be neutral or even complimentary but are actually reflections of internalized biases that have informed someone’s impressions of that particular group of people; examples include complimenting black people for speaking eloquently, referring to America as “a melting pot”, teachers who fail to prioritize learning how to pronounce a student’s name even after being instructed how to do so, and complimenting boys for showing leadership traits while admonishing girls for being “bossy” Note: Ideas for solid examples were aided by referencing a page on the University of Minnesota’s website as well as a page on the Messiah University’s website.

Negro - another term for black people that was once popular in the United States and used for categorization purposes but has more recently been deemed antiquated and offensive when used Note: This word also appears as part of the acronym for the UNCF, which stands for “United Negro College Fund”, and like the use of “colored” in “NAACP”, is not considered offensive in this context.

Oppression - the act of subverting the growth and progress of a particular group of people often based on the biases held by the predominate group in power Note: Despite the insistence of those who denied the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, being asked to socially distance, remain at home as much as possible, or wear a mask in public in the name of preventing the spread of a deadly illness IS NOT an example of oppression. They are confusing their distaste for not being able to do as they please in order to serve the greater good as losing their civil liberties, most likely because they have had no prior experience having actually lost their civil liberties.

POC - an acronym which stands for "people of color"; it encompasses those of all non-white backgrounds including black, Asian, Latino, and indigenous populations

Prejudice - when one holds a pre-established belief of particular groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or similar social categories; the person with this mindset often believes that those who do not share the common attributes with which he or she identifies is therefore less worthy of having their humanity acknowledged and respected Note: This does not require one to exert power such as with racism. Therefore, people of color CAN be guilty of exhibiting prejudice against white people.

Racism - an umbrella term used to describe a system of beliefs in which those who are in power value their own race ahead of the needs and importance of other races and believe they are wholly deserving of this power; without power, there is no racism

Reconstruction - refers to the period of American history that occurred after the Civil War during which specific initiatives were implemented to ensure that Black Americans who were no longer enslaved were able to establish themselves as free persons and exercise their citizenship rights. This included efforts by Northerners to prevent former Confederate Southerners from exercising retribution against the formerly enslaved and working to establish ways in which Black Americans could exercise political power. This period was cut short, however, due to many reasons but largely because continued involvement in Southern affairs no longer appealed to many Northerners, and they had grown tired of issuing the necessary funds to pay for its continuation. This failure directly contributed to the establishment of the Jim Crow South and other policies that greatly inhibited the advancement of Black Americans after emancipation.

Reverse Racism - a fallacy; often used to describe an instance when white people believe that a person of color, specifically in America, is inflicting pain and suffering in some way upon white people solely due to their race; despite the assertions of white supremacy apologists, this is not a real phenomenon, because a key component of racism is power, which people of color in America DO NOT have

Stereotype - ascribing a specific characteristic or trait to everyone who belongs within a particular community to further insinuate that they are all the same; they can be positive ("Americans are all rich") or negative ("Black people do not like to read"), but they are often oversimplifications of complex individuals within an even more complex culture and are, therefore, largely inaccurate

Systemic Racism - a specific subset of racism that refers to the ways in which practices of subjugation have been embedded into the core fabric of a system and continuously upheld in order to deny people of certain races access to opportunity, prosperity, and power

Systematic Racism - a specific subset of racism that goes beyond just the bigotry and hateful acts of individual people who are racist but also includes a larger structure or methods through which these racist people can thrive and continue to exercise their bigotry and even join forces

White Fragility - a term that refers to the prevailing sense among people of color that, historically, white Americans have been catered to and placated to the extent where now many of them greatly object when they no longer experience such treatment; it is, in part, the perception that some white Americans believe everything revolves around their comfort and feelings, and ideas and initiatives in conflict with that should be avoided at all costs Note: This term also refers to a tendency described by author Robin DiAngelo in which some white people become defensive when asked to discuss issues of race and racial inequality and “lack the racial stamina to engage in difficult conversations”. While I concede the validity of this definition, I also contend that the aforementioned issues are also at play. As such, when I use this term in my writings, I am referencing my more encompassing definition. Perhaps that’s not “allowed”, but it’s my blog, so I’ll do what I want. 😁

White Guilt - a sentiment in which white Americans acknowledge that racism still exists in America and might thus feel compelled to act in ways that they feel will atone for that, even if those acts are themselves couched in racist ideology; it can also prevent white Americans from wanting to hear or learn more about past transgressions against people of color because doing so is uncomfortable for them

White Privilege - the benefits that come with being white in America that allow for one's advancements to not be inhibited by one's race; it does not mean that white people do not deal with their own forms of adversity, but those impediments to their success are not based on the color of their skin

White Supremacy Apologists - those who may not necessarily subscribe to overtly racist ideology themselves but continue to allow and make excuses for those who do; they may also lend their support to policies and practices that are more covert instances of racism which hide under the guise of more innocent pretenses such as opposing initiatives like forced busing in order to integrate schools and claiming that this stance is due to a desire to preserve “neighborhood schools”

White Tears - a term that is also associated with white fragility in that, once a white American has experienced that aforementioned discomfort or perhaps is confronted for exhibiting racist behavior, they will sometimes weep or otherwise display visible sorrow that is not necessarily reflective of feeling regret for the harm they have caused others as much as it is self-pity now that people are upset with them in ways that might lead to additional consequences previously not anticipated

Womanism - a term coined by author Alice Walker to encompass the activism of black women who have found themselves to be left of out the gains of feminism because they are not white and the gains awarded to black men in the name of civil rights because they are not men.

Xenophobia - a term that reflects either an individual's or a culture's belief that the race and ethnicity that is predominant in a particular country is superior to others, and those who do not belong to that predominant culture but wish to emigrate to that country are unwelcome; often denotes fear and/or hatred as a motivating factor Note: I referenced Dictionary.com to help me craft a more comprehensive definition.

⋆﹥━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━﹤⋆

I figure that’s enough for now. If needed (or requested), this list can be revisited and updated to include more pertinent terms. I hope this was helpful in some capacity as we all work to navigate this new more inclusive, more accepting, and less hateful America that we are actively trying to mold.

#BlackLivesMatter #BLM #womanism #womanist #LanguageOfRevolution #therandomthoughtsofmybrain #DefiningTerms #SayWhatYouNeedToSay #LifetimeLearning #WhatDoesThatMean #InformedActivism

0 notes

supremacy-1914-hacks-download · 5 years

Text

Supremacy 1914 Hacks

Supremacy 1914 Hacks Download

From developer Bytro, Supremacy 1 - The Wonderful War is a WWI-themed strategy game which is established to start subsequent month for mobile gadgets. All round there is a good deal of depth to Supremacy 1914 and it has a huge replay value. There are a great deal of players and a really good forum local community surrounding it as nicely as in game chat attributes. For a straightforward hunting match it truly is engaging and there are so many various and exciting items that you can do, it truly is value the time to seem at.

The position of naval electrical electrical power was an accelerant to war, as exemplified by the excellent Anglo-German naval rivalry prior to conflict. It has been extensively analyzed by a broad range of historians, and is bounded, in influence, from the late Arthur Marder's The Freeway Supremacy 1914 Hacks Down load For Free of charge to War, 1904-1914, the preliminary of his epochal multivolume examine From the Dreadnought to Scapa Movement (London: Oxford University Push, 1961) to Jan Rüger's The Wonderful Naval Match: Britain and Germany in the Age of Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge School Push, 2007).

Students often bemoan their deficiency of impact: embarrassing book product sales figures and the like. However my review of American textbooks exposed that historians of the twentieth century exerted an massive affect on the way Americans have occur to comprehend their heritage. The final results are painfully evident. Their perform possibly filtered down into educational institutions, as interpreted by educators, directors, and popular authors, or appeared directly: Ph.D.-skilled scholars wrote many of the textbooks I read. To value why white supremacy stays such an integral portion of American society, we need to recognize how much it suffused our teaching from the outset.

Even so, one particular of the a good deal much more unique aspects of Supremacy 1914 is that every tiny thing occurs all in genuine time. When you deliver your troops to stroll throughout to battle toward one more region, they will have to walk there and it normally requires twelve - fifteen hrs to get there. This may perhaps be also slow paced for some avid players, even though I admire the realism that has been established into Supremacy 1914. Its a match that you require to keep track of your improvement day-to-day and I can think about players can appreciate this recreation for moments if not months on stop.

The fight over a proposed monument to black mammies” exposes the lie of folks who clarify Accomplice monuments as innocuous celebrations of Southern heritage. Missing Result in memorials are hurtful common community symbols of white supremacy. Consider about that most Accomplice monuments were not erected by grieving widows or kin swiftly Supremacy 1914 Hacks For Free Supremacy 1914 Hacks soon after the Civil War. A vast majority experienced been place up in the eighteen nineties and early 1900s by Southern whites hoping to justify the spread of Jim Crow even though erasing the legacy of Reconstruction, a time when African-People in the usa experienced acquired citizenship and voting rights.

Supremacy 1914 Hacks - Highlights & A Hundred And Fifteen,087 Reviews

Goldrick, James (1992) "In Protection of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technological innovation and British Naval Coverage 1889-1914," Naval War School Overview: Vol. the "apartment" poem he refused to "learn" (see Vl. Vasilenko's assessment of Mandelstam's Stikhotvoreniia 1928 in Izvestiia, July six Supremacy 1914 Hack, 1928). See also the debates on Acmeism in Literaturnyi Leningrad in 1933-34. In this respect, Mikhail Bulgakov's designation of his novel's protagonist as "grasp" signifies an attempt to restore the term's conventional honorable connotation.

In the typical set up of the free approach and browser recreation Supremacy 1914 you have to struggle as one of about 30 rulers for the duration of the time period Supremacy 1914 Hacks from 1914 to 1918 in World Supremacy 1914 Hacks Tool War 1 for the control earlier mentioned the territories all around the Atlantic Ocean: from North The united states to the Urals and from the North Cape to North Africa.

Supremacy 1914 The Great War Strategy Android Activity is a game shocked by Globe War I. This method activity can be played on a Personal computer. Bytro Labs will start a cell merchandise in the get pleasure from retailer and is at recent even now Pre-indication-up. Supremacy 1914, also referred to as S1914, is a multiplayer on the entire world extensive net approach match proven in the Very first Supremacy 1914 Hacks Globe War. Advancement hack para supremacy 1914 on the recreation commenced in 2006 by BytroLabs and remained in beta till 2009 when the original product was formally released. Supremacy 1914 at present has a good deal a lot more than eighty,000 outlined avid gamers, and was named Browser Match of the Yr 2009. In early 2010 the significantly predicted new interface was introduced and has been adopted up by a lot of typical updates to it adhering to participant suggestions.

McKibbin spends substantially time detailing how the Conservative Party managed to define by itself as the celebration of countrywide consensus in the nineteen twenties, turning into the predominate get jointly of the nineteen thirties. While he spends some time on why Labour's 1945 electoral victory have to not have been a shock, McKibbin is shocked Supremacy 1914 Hacks For Free that he could trace the primary turning absent from the Conservatives to Labour to the end of Might potentially by way of the slide of France: We are remaining with the unpleasant basic truth that, as I see it, the cease of the Conservative political and ideological supremacy-irrespective of who was the beneficiary-was extraordinarily sudden” (p. 117).

47. Cf. Mandelstam's "On the Interlocutor" (1914, SS 2), which develops thoroughly a important simile for Mandelstam: a poem is in contrast to a letter sealed in a bottle that a reader in posterity shall "providentially" find out as one thing dealt with to himself. Observe that chapter three of Eugene Onegin, where the phrase oblatka seems, was composed in 1824, exactly a hundred many years before Mandelstam's poem.

#supremacy 1914 hacks goldmark #Supremacy 1914 Cheat #Supremacy 1914 Hacks #supremacy 1914 hack #supremacy 1914 #Supremacy 1914 Hacks Download #Supremacy 1914 Hacks Tool

0 notes

socialcoldstreams · 5 years

Text

Should we respond to Portland riots with even more violence?

Who are Proud Boys?

In August of 2019, a group called Proud Boys traveled to Portland, Oregon with the purpose of instigating a conflict. The Proud Boys are described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white nationalist, anti-Muslim, misogynistic hate group. Other, lesser known groups with potentially similar philosophies joined them in Portland.

Please read the lengthy SPLC description above – Proud Boys is not a nice group. Their only purpose in coming to Portland was to incite violence and a riot. The Mayor said “they could not articulate why they were here” although it seems obvious: to incite a riot. They did not get a riot because Portland provided 1 police officer for every two protestors, costing local taxpayers millions of dollars in direct costs, and a significant drop in economic activity as downtown businesses closed and the city’s mass transit system was completely disrupted. The Mayor says Proud Boys intended to economically hurt the city.

In response, other groups that fall under their own self described banner of “antifa” engaged with the Proud Boys in civil disturbances (the official term used by the Portland Police). Both groups – Proud Boys – and Antifa – are violent groups, contrary to how each attempts to spin themselves as peaceful or only responding to attacks.

Who is Antifa?

Antifa is not a particular organization nor does it have a specific ideology other than a preference to apply violence towards those they disagree with. Antifa is short hand for “anti fascist”.

CNN describes “Antifia” as assemblies of people with an often far left agenda and belief that violence is justified. As CNN quotes,

“Antifa activists feel the need to partake in violence” ….

“And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don’t believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece.”

The author of the Antifa Handbook and co-organizer of Occupy Wall Street writes in the Washington Post that Antifa is:

“a radical pan-leftist politics of social revolution applied to fighting the far right. Its adherents are predominately communists, socialists and anarchists who reject turning to the police or state to halt the advance of white supremacy.”

….

“Antifa are autonomous anti-racist groups that monitor and track the activities of local neo-Nazis. They expose them to their neighbors and employers, they conduct public education campaigns, they support migrants and refugees and they pressure venues to cancel white power events.

The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists.”

Antifa did not begin with Trump. The same groups took part in the 1999 Seattle “World Trade Organization” riots and six days of rioting and property damage (to Portland businesses) after the November 2016 Presidential election, shutting down a city where 74% of voters selected Clinton, not Trump.

Those riots were over issues not involving white supremacist hate groups (the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, which many social media posts cite as justification for 2019 violence, occurred in 2017).

Time Magazine writes that “antifa” is said to lack a coherent message – some times it is about fascism, sometimes it is about capitalism, or globalism, or climate studies, or gender issues or something else.

Antifa appears to be – mostly – people who are angry at many different things and “will employ militant tactics or violent means such as vandalism”.

In other words, vigilante and mob justice from angry people – using other violent groups as an excuse for more violence.

A symbiotic relationship has formed between violent white supremacists and violent Antifa, with the former intentionally instigating conflict (by picking Portland, Oregon where there would be a large antifa response), and Antifa then responding.

What is a Fascist?

(Do also read the SPLC summary above to understand what the Proud Boys and related hate groups are about.)

The Washington Post explains fascism and notes attributes of Trump programs (“Muslim ban”, for example, or autocracy) and similar features of Mussolini’s fascism. (Many of the features apply to other political leaders, past and present too.)

What Trump “… offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence.”

These are traits also exhibited by Mussolini and Hitler (and other leaders).

“Fascist” As Defined on Social Media

“Fascist” as seen on social media, however, is much simpler, as Michael Kinsley explains:

“it means no more than “somebody I don’t like.” It is an all-purpose epithet, usable by anyone against everyone from university deans to Fox News anchors.”

Antifa is primarily a group of angry people. In that context, it is easy for angry people to name call others as “fascist” (or a Nazi, as the two terms are used interchangeably on angry social media posts). Once the enemy is delineated as sub-human, any response goes.

Antifa, itself, adopts some of the methods of fascism (see #3, “Glorification of violence and readiness to use it in politics”, #4 “Fetishization of youth” and appeal to youth, #8 “Self-definition by opposition” and #10 “…tendency to purge the disloyal” as elements adopted by Antifa, but note they do not associate with other elements of fascism.)

How Does This Relate to Social Media?

A review of tweets during and after the incidents in Portland shows that, frequently, “fascist” is, as Michael Kinsley says, name calling of someone you think you disagree with. And once you have labeled the target, anything goes. The terms “fascist” and “Nazi” are intended to dehumanize the target, thereby justifying violence against them.

This item was shared into my social media feed:

I noted that as someone who has had multiple traumatic brain injuries, I found this advocacy of violent head injuries disturbing (and violates the terms of service on most social media platforms). I was then accused of being anti-Obama (confusing my 1000+ hours working to fix defects in the Affordable Care Act as “anti-Obama”) and then implied that if I was unwilling to (violently) respond to the Proud Boys in Portland, then I was a Nazi and a coward. (See #10 above, I must be purged!)

Wow.

As I reviewed hundreds of tweets on these Portland protests, I found many advocating more violence. Many, if not most, – contained factually incorrect information and were frequently from people with uncontrolled rage and little logic.

Many antifa supporters on social media cite the example of Portland local and white nationalist Jeremy Christian as an example of right wing murderers and violence – he is accused of murder and goes to trial in 2020 – as justification for violence in Portland. But Christian supported Bernie Sanders for President in 2016, illustrating the difficulty in categorizing targets, plus the propaganda methods of cherry picking and assertions. Some cited the mass murderer in El Paso, Texas as justification due to the shooter leaving behind a hate fueled, racist manifesto and his support of eco-fascism. There were mentions of the Gilroy mass shooting and that murderer’s alleged right wing ideology – but the FBI says reports of his alleged right wing ideology were wrong.

Others said Proud Boys kills people, citing Charlottesville (2017) but say Antifa has never killed anyone (injuries and property damage by antifa are acceptable). The families of those killed by mass murderer Connor Betts in Dayton, OH may have a different view as he supported Antifa, Sanders and Warren.

Social media is filled with “What You See Is All There Is” evidence – by leaving out conflicting information, you can pretend to prove your point, whatever it may be.

Related: Hate groups like Proud Boys are labeled “right wing” and groups like “Antifa” are labeled left wing. In reality, neither are right or left – those labels are applied for political purposes, to denigrate others and fuel more outrage.

The factually incorrect information (all sides of this) gets shared and soon becomes a “fact” (even though not true). This is, in effect, propaganda that encourages others to adopt the agendas of the parties in the conflict. Because so much of it is emotional, it leads to outrage, which in turn leads to more conflict, more anger and more violence.

Social media is ground zero in the activities of these groups espousing violence (Proud Boys, etc, Antifa).

The extreme level of rage present in many of these posts are not mentally healthy for the poster or the drive by targets.

As someone whose brain has been bashed many times, conflict and rage, like that exhibited in these posts is upsetting and causes anxiety and significant discomfort for me. Undoubtedly, this occurs to others as well. This is not healthy nor is it leading to productive solutions – these posts are causing more targets to become emotionally enraged and off balance.

Social media has become a conduit for the expression of rage – and in some cases, encouraging others to actively engage in violence – often based on falsehoods passed along on social media as truth.

Rather than seek meaningful solutions, these outrage festivals lead to ever increasing violence and the spread of more (factually incorrect) propaganda messaging on social media.

Is it any wonder that Proud Boys and movements like antifa are filled with angry people?

Returning to the item above, about the accusation that I am a Nazi and a coward for not being willing to engage in violence – I am old enough to remember when progressive thinkers advocated non-violence (and were opposed to wars). Today, we have self described left wing groups saying violence is not only justified but essential. As 1999 and 2016 showed, violence is justified against anyone you disagree with, not just hate groups. It’s just angry people being violent.

If you don’t subscribe to this call to violence, then you too are a Nazi. That sounds like hate speech coming from those who oppose hate speech.

Do violent protests work?

Not often. In fact, non-violent protests are twice as effective as violent protests. Most people abhor civil violence. Protestors who engage in violence turn the public against those perpetrating the violence. Violence has not been an effective strategy, and as demonstrated empirically since 1999, has led to more violence – not workable solutions.

The violence is often misplaced – and even targets those sympathetic to their cause. Who then become less sympathetic to their cause.

If you have read this far, you hopefully see the lack of logic in social outrage. Its akin to middle school name calling and problem solving – just beat’em up and let’s beat the crap out of those who don’t join us too.

This, sadly, is the state of social media. The noise to signal ratio is high when it is flooded with such garbage and the promotion of hate and violence. Twitter, Facebook, etc, are the enablers of both right wing and left wing hate speech.

None of the actions of Proud Boys or Antifa are leading to de-escalation or solutions. Instead, each engages in activities that lead to more violent outbursts. Both groups have failed to achieve their goals. So what do they do? Engage in more outrage and more violence.

Are Their non Violent Ways to Address Racist Groups like Proud Boys?

I once lived in a town where an “Aryan Nations” group of racists obtained a parade permit. The community responded by holding half price movie showings at local theaters, half price ice skating at local ice rinks, big family events in local parks, and tremendous sales at local retailers and malls. This strategy literally sucked the oxygen out of the racist parade. There were more press people present to cover their parade than there were bystanders.

They were ignored and lacking attention they eventually faded away.

This is one way that racist hate groups can be addressed without resorting to violence. There are undoubtedly others.

Should we respond to Portland riots with even more violence? was originally published on SocialPanic

0 notes

justcolorpiethings · 8 years

Text

Two-Color Combinations

White: Organized, Blue: Intelligent, Black: Shameless, Red: Forceful, Green: True

(work in progress) *

White-Blue Morality Order | Logic Technology

Goal: Peace + Omniscience = Universal Concord

Defining Aspect: Order + Logic = Laws of Man + Intellectual Theory = Authority

Method: Law + Intellect = System

Strength: Structured + Intelligent = Meticulous

Weakness: Uncreative + Inactive = Inhibitory

White-Blue is defined by its adherence to concepts of Good and Truth. This color believes in absolutes and should-bes. The moral absolute of Peace, the epistemic absolute of Knowledge, all these things are objective and imperative, forming a vision of singular purpose I call Universal Concord. "One truth prevails." This notion holds for White's morality as well as it does for Blue's logic. Thus White and Blue's goal is an 'ideal of one ideal,' aimed at a singular reality that puts an end to all doubt and conflict. This goal is constituted by Authority, which White-Blue embodies.

Authority means White-Blue takes its orders from principles and facts, never feelings. White-Blue is nothing if not "correct," if not prepared for every responsibility. As it upholds authority, White-Blue commands obedience. Those who disagree with White-Blue are just ignorant children, mistaken, who must be led to the straight and narrow with a proper lecture. All White-Blue's opponents are just unfortunate in this way, missing either the knowledge or respect of relevant Authority. White-Blue handles this ignorance with either compassion or condescension, but always relentless exertion. Through industrious effort, White-Blue builds systems for the use of every being, in Concord.

The mechanism of White-Blue is the systems-thinking of administrators, legalists, and technicians. All problems are solved by carefully reasoning about how they work, and applying consistent, reliable tools and procedures. Practice is a watchword for White-Blue. Knowledge and strategy are complemented by preparedness and rigour. The goal of this color is a timeless world where perfect behaviour is down to a science, and so its way of life consists in mastery of details.

The strength of White-Blue is that it has the patience and care to get every last detail perfectly correct, which works out well for it considering the pace at which such humourless toil goes. White is prepared and disciplined, and Blue has the smarts and data. When these colors get their ducks in a row, it's curtain call for the opposition. Not even misdirection is more than a temporary setback for such proficiency.

This insistence of proficiency is something I cannot pass without special emphasis. White-Blue must be understood with this: that its creed is the same as its competence. For no other color does it matter how good it is at striving for its goal. That's wholly independent of the value attached to the attempt. But for White-Blue, it has no justice if it lacks the know-how. It has no right, without being right. This of course figures in White-Blue's characteristic weakness.

If White-Blue's strength is doing things by the book, its weakness is its complete unwillingness to deviate from the book. Blue wants information and verifiable plans. White does nothing without objective justification. The color-pair will pass up blind fortune just to finish dotting the i's, to keep with the strict definition of some procedure it is not 100% sure works otherwise. It is a lack of individualism - of willingness to just "see what happens." White-Blue's method depends on its competence, which inhibits the color where that competence is lacking. It confronts the unknown so cautiously that it even hinders its allies; and conversely, White-Blue's enemies breathe a sigh of relief knowing that its procedures always delay mobilisation for a good while.

White-Black Morality Order | Parasitism Amorality

Goal: Peace + Omnipotence = Security

Defining Aspect: Morality + Amorality = Exaltation

Method: Order + Parasitism = Laws of Man + Selfishness at the expense of others = Exploit

Strength: Structured + Shameless = Cold-blooded

Weakness: Uncreative + Paranoid = Corrosive

White-Black's goal is security against harm and deprivation. It's about assurances - a power that suspends conflict and need; or a peace in supremacy. Peace and power are the ultimate insurance, and White-Black overcomes their contradiction for the sake of a sterile life, free from want. To see the contradiction, look no further than the welfare of others. In Peace there is elaborate equality, but Power means unilateral control. To go beyond the intersection requires a choice. White-Black does care about others - part of the classical analysis of happiness is to be able to provide for one's companions, after all - but the ideal of equality is disappointed by White-Black's methods. A subtly different ideal of spirit takes its place.

To get a grip on a "sum" for Morality and Amorality is about a 500-word job. Beyond the other four antipodal sums, these two elements are codified in our culture as perhaps no others have ever been: the battle of socialism versus individualism. This plays out in symbols. Liberty. Law. Money. Fair play. White-Black is driven by these and many more abstractions. I have adapted the word 'Exalt' - "1. to raise in rank, honour, quality etc.; 2. to praise; extol," - to mean the attribution of larger-than-life significance, and to define White-Black. Look at White's symbolism. As the proponent of the most complex system of values of all the colors, White depends on every possible kind of mental reinforcement to keep its adherents acting how they should act and thinking how they should think. This is Structure. Religion and purity concepts (like guilt) target thought directly; ceremony and ritual dictate actions while guiding the mindset to where these actions come naturally. Ritual loses out on practicality, but what it builds is community. Now meet Black, a pragmatist. Black worships opportunity. Community can be opportunity, but it can also be a drag. Black despises obligations, and would rather use laws for their penalties than hope to forge a lawful cooperation. It is a firebrand for the eager procurement of any and all strength, to hold the strongest seat in any room - but by the same token, Black can exalt community religiously as well. It's a cost/benefit spread. See how both colors play up the urgency of their ethics. Behind the divisiveness you hear, they hold common loathing for "cruel, senseless Nature." Both colors exhort individual responsibility, with the archetype of the heroic grasp of Fortune. They praise traits of gumption, and glorify decisiveness. They honour detached judgment. And they're very particular that you should exalt the same things. If everyone valued the right things, then struggle would be replaced with order. The proper lot of everyone would be unchallenged, and control could even be quantified. In the final, fighting would be done not with blood, but with bank books. White-Black wants more than society; it wants a whole culture, of security and debt. The only price for such a world is mercy.

The only course for Morality and Amorality to take together is if White-Black turns the ritualisms of Moral Law upon society's cheats and leeches. Harsh judgment, distilling the vindictiveness in both colors, realizes individual opportunity while clamping down on the borrowers and hangers-on. In this way, the group rallies around Moral Law, used as a scythe to part weakness and infighting from individual ascendancy. Note, this keen usage comes from dropping the precept of Mercy, usually defining of White. White's agenda is transformative, training others and itself to obey laws; Mercy is the patience for that transformation. But that philosophy cannot reconcile to individualist self-reliance. All is waste that's idle; opportunity and survival alike must be snatched from the Void. Those who cannot make peace with the group, the Moral Law pulverizes.* Refusal to co-ordinate is denounced as an attack, on welfare and on everyone's way forward. White-Black has no mercy to spare. It defends the law, seeing in its letters the only guard against pandemonium.

*(I don't think this is an in-group. An in-group stops at an arbitrary point. White expands the Moral Law to all. Explaining how Black tolerates community at all is a necessary subgoal, but that account will not explain White.)

White-Black's methods to ascendancy are various, but they are like building blocks, visible in the foundation of White-Black's society. By the Pie, White-Black's tool is parasitic lawfulness, but that's obscure. "Exploit" is apt, in three respects. White-Black creates a demanding society, which it Exploits for all its worth, of course. Mark Rosewater proposed the 'shaky trust', but, as mentioned above, White-Black binds its community with rituals. Calling attention to everyday interaction makes people think twice about betraying each other. A system of rights is only a few pieces more, so I reject the shaky trust, and revise it as mercilessness. We see from this that predictability is a virtue to White-Black. White-Black's love of Order also leads it to pacifism. Black won't fight to the death if it will lose. It's a skeptic, who knows even ruthlessness is no guarantee of victory. It and White size up threats, and try to find the least painful road to the end of violence. This strategy makes White-Black master of stalling. It is well-practiced staring down threats while advancing its agenda elsewhere. The trope of the ruthless businessman is associated with cunning risk assessment; find this in Black, combined with White's tactical doctrine, and you have a color that is particularly good at ploying every little battle. If the enemy overexerts itself, then it is vulnerable; ambiguous setups, defensive tactics, and overall strategic diligence test the aggressor's cohesion and resolve, Exploiting where either falters. Where White-Black lacks decisive power, it fights efficiently. A war of pins and needles is still a victory if it is won. The final "Exploit" is the fullest, in vampirism. Capitulation is preferable to struggle - among friends, that goes double. Equality is just a chaotic variable. Tyranny clarifies all roles. A peon may face great debt, but he is insured not to be quashed like a foe; thus we have Mark Rosewater's "tough love." Who in White-Black's tribe will work the most, but those who resist obligation the least? Those who can follow all the rules and still reap value head and shoulders above the rest can expect to enjoy the fruits. Without Mercy, what matters isn't that the rules are fair. It's that they exist.

White-Black's strength is its suitability to the machine malevolence of its process, which is to say, the invariable punishment of its enemies for any way in which they do not conform. Severe, yet pristine, White-Black practices carefully and is unflinching in securing whatever it needs. Meditative readiness meets selfish, shameless action. To its enemies, self-concern tempers regimentation to yield a chilling depth of malice, actively concerned with their ruin and subjugation. White-Black is like a razor - unassuming, even familiar, but easily fatal if put to that use.

The ultimate downfall of White-Black is its totally life-depleting nature. White and Black are haunted by whatever in the world they cannot contain in an easy conceptual box. Where a Paranoid outlook turns inflexibility into prejudice, White-Black's life becomes a colorless drudgery punctuated with defensiveness. Where once there was vitality, there will be dreadful ritual. Friendships become obligations. Gestures become tributes. Veiled in politics, Black's brutality finds an outlet, factionalizing and weakening the whole. And the environment in which White-Black operates is transformed into so much itemized profit, and the rest exists as hazard to be torn down. Mark Rosewater characterized this color as 'fractured from within', but my analysis goes beyond that, to say not only does White-Black corrode its relationships, it corrodes its world, and it corrodes its very livelihood, all for the ideal of Security.

Black-Red Parasitism Amorality | Chaos Emotion

Goal: Omnipotence + Freedom = Independence

Defining Aspect: Amorality + Chaos = Selfishness above all else + Spontaneous Action = Anarchy

Method: Selfishness + Action = Selfish Action

Strength: Shameless + Forceful = Enthusiasm

Weakness: Paranoid + Short-sighted = Panic

Black-Red wants to live in an unqualified, unconstricted, totally selfish, present moment. The goal Freedom is about subjectivity. Feelings, tastes, motives, attitudes, and so on make up the subjective experience of self, and they are what Red defends in the whole, inviolate package termed "I". "I" am an original; and Independence lifts both censure and weakness from the trail "I" blaze through the world. There is no cause more personal. Omnipotence serves Black its material desires without mediation. Freedom is self-acceptance greater than Green's - it is the choice to let motives just be. These goals align. Omnipotence breaks moral boundaries. Freedom breaks mental boundaries. Black-Red does whatever it pleases, and chases whatever its heart commands. It feeds its demons without differentiation, to become its own person, entirely separate from the judgment or acceptance of others.

To reach such total Independence by degrees, Black-Red's bearing is toward Anarchy. Black-Red will follow no law, command, or ritual that would delimit its freedom to exercise its wishes. It casts aside rules like rotten food. Rules, says Black-Red, only control people without controlling any payoff for them. They're "a bad joke" (The Dark Knight, 2008), just the artifacts of "schemers trying to control their little worlds." Black-Red is not a schemer. Chaos abandons preconception and calculation, replaced by spontaneity, chance, and even creation. The goal is to keep up with life's curve-balls, and enjoy something along the way. The manner of total lawlessness is, of course, to "just. . . do things."

Black-Red is your every self-serving motive, unleashed; your every whim, indulged; and your every opinion, enacted. The means are completely obvious. Act selfishly! Act for the exercise of your own independent power, which is the sole criterion of good in the life of the Self. Seize power and revel in the indulgences afforded you. Do not ponder, do not doubt, just do what you want. Felicity waits on the other side of commitment.

This color's greatest ability is the momentum behind Enthusiasm: its intense, effusive absorption in its chosen occupation. As a motivated individualist, Black-Red does whatever the situation calls for, in immediate terms. It has no policies to hold it back, no host of constituents to consult, and no complex morals to evaluate at the question at hand. What Black-Red chooses, it does full-throttle. In leisure, this is passion and exuberance. In war, this is rapaciousness and bloodlust. Black-Red never distresses itself trying to be consistent, either.

That's the other thing about Black-Red - it can pivot on a dime. It is its own master, free to reinvent itself every instant. Starting from zero is as easy as any other day, when all of life is labelled 'risk'. Don't mistake its momentum for inertia.

Black-Red's weakness is the state of Panic which its focus on desire permits. Paranoid and Short-sighted, Black-Red acts on the most pessimistic interpretation of the situation, as it appears to it presently. Beyond just acting alone, Black-Red acts without any light of principle to guide it, or any concept of tendency or reliability in the world apart from individual actions. It repudiates such things, as more of the "rules" that its Anarchy rejects. Thus it acts only in the moment, burdened by all its needs, but only haphazardly making provisions for itself. Panic takes its toll. Black-Red lives life very high-risk, and is so easily the cause of its own ruin.

Black-Green Parasitism Amorality | Instinct Interdependence *

Green-White Instinct Interdependence | Morality Order *

Green-Blue Instinct Interdependence | Logic Technology

Goal: Growth + Omniscience = Unfettered Development

Defining Aspect: Instinct + Technology = Natural Decisions + Intellectual Application = Adaptation

Method: Interdependence + Logic = Natural Survival + Intellectual Theory = Co-evolution

Strength: True + Intelligent = Insightful

Weakness: Naive + Inactive = Careless

Growth and Omniscience both are mental and material transformations. Hurry not to reduce Green-Blue to that dichotomy. Growth is Green's choice of life over death, energy over decay. You either "get busy living, or get busy dying," and Nature is an exemplar of vigorous and fruitful activity, everywhere capable of new generation. The promise is that this strength is already yours, if only you accept it. That mentality, acceptance, is Blue's bane. Though not the same as inaction, it is the minimum of agency: something like 'letting things happen'. Blue's business with knowledge is to maximize its agency (an optimization alternately called "perfection"), preferring the choice of choice itself. To that end, the essential implement is the mind - that infinitely plastic organ, which information and training can anneal to meet any purpose. The interests of these colors align, if the attitudes do not. Green-Blue wants development. This is the flowering and cross-combination of resources that produces energy, particularly at the collective level. This is a metaphor of pollination, and it's intricate, but it is crucial to understand Green's ideals. You could note, also, development is a process; for Green-Blue, process is the goal. It is unselfish. It is even, to the extent that it is procedural, based in faith - faith in that vigour of natural generation already mentioned. That is the development I mean. The increase of knowledge and techne, the growth of energy, these are variations on the same. The greatest possible outcome, in Green-Blue's view, is not to become so preoccupied with "perfect" that you miss the opportunities right in front of you. That's Growth and Omniscience: the release of energy to engage potential - outside the conception of this or that rationality. Throw yourself into your life, and your eyes will be open enough that you can steer away from woe and more toward success. In that light, Green-Blue's median goal is efficacy, and that demands the attitude of Adaptation.

Adaptation is a response that transcends a very old question, represented in Green-Blue's cores of Instinct and Technology. It's the question of identity. Technology is the doctrine of blank slate: that people and things can be redesigned. Instinct appoints Nature as optimal, affirming that deliberate design is a tangle in Her course. The key factor is intention - it distinguishes design from change. Green accepts change; change happens all the time. Acting to change, rather than acting to do, is what threatens Green. Thus Green busies itself with its process, preserving the natural matrix. This isn't antithetical to Blue. Accepting who you are and believing in what you might become are complementary - and the intersection is, "apply yourself." Don't prejudge the meaning of your life. Green's words, "become what you are," are a rally to action, not away from potential. 'Design' is the verbalization of a free will, yes; but to be changed for the better, at the end of the day, is what counts. To be changed is to sustain feedback, so that's Green-Blue's answer to identity: not how you are, neither how you might want to be - just what you are made to become. Learn by doing. Green-Blue just has to prick up its ears, and it will notice what to do.

Much of the foregoing has diagrammed a way of life for Green-Blue. Those are the ideals; there yet has to be a methodology for drawing out that way of life in an uncooperative world - but there's the anomaly. Green-Blue's methods are unique in that Green-Blue's obstacle is really itself. Nature is a giver to it; a teacher; a trainer. Nature can do no wrong! What this color has to do is defeat fear and ego. Interdependence and Logic come to hand, what can be said about those? Those tools both are schematics of a connected universe. Logic arranges the world with cause and effect. It understands outcomes as proceeding from knowable qualities of things. By this faculty, Blue can pursue its goals analytically, piece-by-piece. Interdependence rejects independence. It arrays the particular upon the universal - that means Green sees every particular thing as made possible by the sum of all things. This is the Holism that gives Green courage. With Interdependence, Green foregoes the need to compute a "final solution" to its problems; instead, its responsibility is to safeguard the eco-system supporting all solutions. Again this is intricate, but - consider the theory of evolution. Darwin's conceptual innovation was recognizing the ecological context to be, simultaneously, the constraint on fitness and the vehicle generating the instances of fitness. Green's Interdependence writes large this formula of "pluralistic problem-solving," without necessarily assuming the science of it. So Intellectual Theory reasons through each hardship, speculating and inventing answers to many possible worlds. But with respect to Interdependence, it doesn't defeat hardship as if to oust it; the ecosystem remains. Green-Blue's ally, as iterated already, is the exercise of a good struggle. The path of least resistance is only a folk notion; the cycle of organisms contesting each other's endurance is sustainable, the leisurely reap of sucrose is not. 'Co-evolution' captures this cyclicity, of adaptation to adaptation, ratcheting up performance on all sides. Blue sees this as improvement backed by knowledge. Green sees this as getting into the right role, remaining in touch with its environment. Green-Blue Adapts by literally meeting challenges just on the verge of its capabilities. Blue walks away with more knowledge, Green contents having found a niche.

These methods have a cost, in that it empowers, or even relies on, a challenging adversary. Green-Blue engages with situations on the brink of danger, playing with its very life, but that's not the maddest thing it does. The mad thing about Green-Blue is that it even creates perils to face. Green stubborns through countervailing pressure. Blue fancies the opportunities on the other side of fear. Only in that narrow band, where the difficulties just exceed its skills, can Green-Blue find the knowledge it seeks. So it looks for these challenges. It creates them. And when Green-Blue's liberties outpace its emergency reserves - or when its head just isn't on straight - then that might not be a good thing.

At last, if there's something Green-Blue is good at, it's learning. With the merest hint, Green-Blue can piece together any situation. It is both collected and clever, aware of its flaws, cautious of its vices, and a wise economizer of its mental resources. Learning also means transformation. As a truly outstanding mental force, Green-Blue readily faces facts. It is Intelligent enough to comprehend them, and True enough to confront them. Green's power is its ability to act without working against itself. Strength comes from Truth. Blue adds deliberation - conscious course-correction to stay on target, and stay constructive. Where there is normally a hole in Blue's analysis of its own motives, Green lends insight to Blue's plans, becoming matchless in understanding itself. Wisdom correlates with a faculty by which the mind appropriates itself, and Green-Blue has appropriated all of its mental powers, to use concentration, contemplation, wit, and reason as the situation calls for. Truly is Green-Blue the philosopher color.

The weakness of such brilliant mental and physical activity is callousness. Naivety is foolish trust, of the world to right itself. When Blue ignores the material, present, and actual for the mental, future, and possible, it places itself in jeopardy. But this color has a deficiency of fear. It has a hands-off approach to details, and so projects can run away from it. Of its well-being, Green-Blue is like Epictetus, a stoic: too willing to let go of something valued just to preserve dispassion. It bears with difficulty only all-too-well, coping and enduring instead of sidestepping the struggle. There is a deficiency of emotion. Equipped with more than ample foresight, Green-Blue is still fundamentally incautious. Carelessness is something a little more, though. Toward others, its emotions are kept slow and cold, unmoved by adversity and its consequences for the unprepared. Despite its great-souled character, Green-Blue is, at best, unconcerned with whether others sink or swim. Green-Blue is the real elitist of the color wheel, making no apology for Nature and manifesting no compassion outside its bounds.

Blue-Black Logic Technology | Parasitism Amorality

Goal: Omniscience + Omnipotence = Dominion

Defining Aspect: Technology + Parasitism = Intellectual Application + Selfishness at the expense of others = Manipulation

Method: Intellect + Selfishness = Subversion

Strength: Intelligent + Shameless = Resourceful

Weakness: Inactive + Paranoid = "Puppeteer's complex"

Blue-Black's purpose is perfect knowledge and absolute power - total control. Knowledge makes concepts possible. Power makes desire actual. To see into the world, and its workings, and have every opportunity at hand, is perfect knowledge. To make those worlds of possibility convulse, and give up just one outcome, if it's the one I command, is the force of absolute power. By these ends, Blue-Black can become anything, can produce anything, can deny anything. This illimitable dream is not hard to understand, but, perhaps being all too clear, it is easy to discount the role played by the ideology that births it. That ideology is Manipulation, which paints how Blue-Black relates Self and World.

Whatever it does not possess, or it does not choose for itself, is Blue-Black's enemy. Parasitism denounces another's gain as my loss; in so doing, the claim is laid for Black to take everything for itself. Intellect's Application frames knowledge for my use in transforming things; in so doing, the stage is set for Blue's transcendence of itself. To Blue-Black, the world is not created as it should exist, and the first problem with it is that the world exists separate from Blue-Black's wishes! The difference of reality from desire is the one evil with which Blue-Black concerns itself, and that is the task of Manipulation: to twist everything in the world to the dominion of Self.

From the Self comes the Will, viz. the desires that make an individual. Blue-Black champions the Will, choosing according to its desires, transforming the blank slate to whatever it dreams, consulting no outer rule or master. In archetypal terms, the Will is unchangeable; unbowed by circumstance, it imposes its dictum: "I will." The World, as World, is a place of limitation to Will, but Blue-Black defies that. Its dreams - supreme power, ultimate knowledge - defy all circumstance and limit, bursting World's horizons with regard only to the aspiration of its Will. That same regard, uplifting, holds the world in contempt. Nothing of the status quo deserves respect; not morals or traditions, nor fears nor weaknesses are to go unbreached. Dominion is not a prank; Blue-Black presumes to claim the world, throwing it under to serve its desire. This view multiplies Blue-Black's enemies, but also opens up reality as a vast means to an end.

As its ends are control, so its beginnings are to take control. Control *means* the overreach of one's compass. Already spoken for is the innate power over oneself called the psyche, which is flawed even as it is bounded. Control per se begins where this fallibility ends. Furthermore, control is theft. Nothing can serve two masters, nor is dispossession ever borne amiably. Dominion is not to steal flawed power, then. It can only be cause-and-effect, by means of which Blue-Black inverts the bounds of the psyche, perfects its control, and deposes the natural order as lawgiver to Creation. Intellect grasps the cause, profanity compels the effect. When matter is ruled this way, it is machinery - reliable and prized. To Subvert a living being entails theft of its self-determination. As forewarned, the psyche contends with many inroads (e.g. deceit, coercion, incitement, provocation), yet the effectiveness of each teeters on the balance of information for beguiler and victim. If counteraction hinges on awareness, then Blue-Black's first goal is to obscure its intentions. Thinking in reverse, Blue-Black defends its autonomy via elaborate deception: it sheds all emotion, principle, or sentiment that can tie its hands, and dissimulates to have those same things. Foremost of all, it ever delves to know circumstances more deeply than anyone else.

"Resourceful" is only a pale image. Blue-Black has the willingness, and often comprehension, to use any device, and that counts for a lot more than the quantity of its assets. It has the intelligence to be discretionary in what and when it strikes, and the audacity to tread out lying, stealing, and killing over and over again. Thus is its surgical focus, as Mark Rosewater says, both "vicious yet subtle. Ruthless yet careful. Brutal yet secretive." Worse, its self-advancement toolbox recurses on itself: it analyzes information, identifying the greatest opportunity, which empowers it to control more and more, which gains access to more information. . . and the process feeds back. Moreover, the world is sculpted at every stage. That is, the world is changed to realize Blue-Black's desires, and to be a more suitable instrument to realize its desires with. This burgeoning power is hindered, however, by Subversion's flaw.

Blue-Black cannot function without controlling everything. The puppeteer's complex is something MaRo explained, although he didn't explicitly treat it as Blue-Black's great weakness. From him: "It is this threat of being at the mercy of someone else's desire that drives blue/black to do what it does. This means that blue/black has to constantly undermine everyone else's agenda. Subtly, of course. It has to be the puppet master constantly pulling the strings of those around it." This contempt for being in a situation of another's control, or no one's control, draws out its hand, seduced to meddle if just for meddling's sake. What irony for a color that values self-control so much. But the flaw is even worse than that. Intellect feeds paranoia, convincing Blue-Black that enemies abound, one step ahead of every plan. Blue-Black constantly second-guesses itself, even its own motives, spending so much of its great capacity on formless troubles - and the more it gains, the more it fears to lose.

Blue-Red Logic Technology | Chaos Impulse *

Red-Green Chaos Impulse | Instinct Interdependence *

Red-White Chaos Impulse | Morality Order *

4 notes · View notes

theliterateape · 4 years

Text

Squaring the Circle: Tips on Managing the Chaos

by Don Hall

“Goddamnit. How do you manage to cope with all of this...chaos in the world and still stay optimistic? I don’t think you’re stupid but maybe you’re just too stupid to see how bad things are getting.”

It’s true. Maybe I am stupid. I’ve certainly been called worse by both political extremes since...well...as long as I can remember. If I am stupid, I’m definitely too dense to recognize it. Managing chaos, living in uncertain times, is just that. Managing and living.

Back in 2015, Alice Kim and I were a dysfunctional couple. That relationship was a constant source of tension and did some damage to both of us. I did, however, learn many things from it and from her. One gift she gave me was the idea of reframing things to see a different angle. I have always been on the outside of things and perpetually looking for that contrarian point of view but that was as much about fueling conflict as it was about the frame.

As a theater artist, my work was inspired by DADAists and the legend of Andy Kaufman. Framing society as a series of ongoing behavioral experiments. Pushing buttons on people to see how they would react. Not so much instigating mean-spirited pranks but close enough to bear that definition.

Alice’s view was that one could gently shift the frame on a given situation. Reframe reality because, for most of us, reality is cemented in our perception of it.

2020 seems to be a real shitshow. Trump is still in office. A pandemic rages throughout the globe. Massive unemployment and the coming of our second Great Depression. A video of George Floyd being murdered by a police officer has been seen 800 million times by one million people. Protests for civil rights. Alt Right terrorists joining the protests to foment the idea that these protests are really riots. While in the back of the queue, we still contend with pending climate disaster, crumbling credibility on the World Stage, an almost maniacally conservative federal court system, and an increasingly powerful and poisonous cancel culture that now seems more like a raging wildfire consuming every and anyone who bothers to even question the orthodoxy of the Extreme Zealots of both White Supremacy and Critical Race Theory.

We’re fucked.

Reframe.

There is actually little evil in the world (if you choose to see things in the binary Good & Evil mode) but metric tons of stupidity and selfish interests. While brutal cops are a problem and the mostly accidental murders of citizens by police are motivated by incompetence driven by lived experience bias, the vast majority of people are merely focused on themselves without much thought put into how their actions affect others. Not evil but certainly fucking annoying.

That guy who parked in two spots isn’t evil, he’s a selfish asshat. The guy who makes a racist joke to make his Black co-workers laugh isn’t evil, he’s just a bigot but one trying to find a way into his 1970’s version of race relations in an increasingly fed up world.

Most people are motivated by what they perceive as good intentions despite their born-in tendency of stupidity and selfishness.

Further, simply looking at the history and progress the world has made gives us a macro-view of things. That more objective scene demonstrates that in the past fifty years we are living longer, healthier lives, literacy is at an all-time high, being gay is no longer stigmatizing in many cases, Black incarceration has declined dramatically, police killing people has declined dramatically, women are more empowered, run more businesses, and are increasingly being elected to public office.

Is there still suffering? Of course. Everyone (even the white people) suffers. The question to ask is not Who suffers more? which invites nothing more than an Olympiad of Victim Status but For what reason are people suffering? Nobody should be insulted, attacked, threatened, etc. but we live in a country of 330 million people and that Shangrala is not realistic in any meaningful way. If we (as in society of free thinking but incredibly stupid and selfish people united by the Grand Experiment in Diverse Democracy) hope to stand up against hateful ideas, we have to be willing to sacrifice a bit.

Uncertainty and chaos are no more bad than good. They simply are.

Most aspects of our lives are completely beyond our control and the attempt to control them is like lighting the candle scented “Frustration” while sipping the “Disappointment” cup of tea.

Living for thirty years in Chicago was instructive to this point. The weather in Chicago is the perfect incarnation of Chaos at Play. On any given day during any given month there could be thick humidity and stifling heat, pouring rain, sleet, or thirty below zero skin-cracking freeze. If control is your bag, living in Chicago could likely drive you insane just trying to be fully prepared for going outside.

How does one handle it?

The cliché is to Expect the Unexpected which is some fucking feel-good bullshit as it is easy to attribute to wisdom and completely unhelpful. The more substantial answer comes in three parts:

Always have the worst case scenario in mind while simultaneously understanding that the Vegas odds of that same scenario are heavily favored against it.

Actively lower your expectations in keeping with how unrealistic your wants actually are.

Realize that no one owes you anything — not respect, not deference, not politeness — nothing. The world owes no one anything because the world is designed in every way to make it difficult to survive.

Number one is pretty easy. Over the years of reframing, I’ve trained myself to ask that question: What is the absolute worst case possible?

Take the civil unrest at play right now. The worst case scenario is a full-out war between those protesting for substantial police reform and the police. The police have all the military-grade weapons which would be Kent State meets every school shooting plus some The Purge impunity. That is highly unlikely to happen because while we are stupid and selfish, for the most part, no one really wants to be in a firefight if it can be avoided.

Number two is probably the most taxing. In an age of instant satisfaction — fast food, same day delivery, instant messaging — dialing down our expectations is a pain in the ass. Our emotions dictate so much of how we behave and our emotions are an erratic, messy, impulsive roommate in our head. There’s no shame in feeling the Big Feels but acting upon those feelings is like taking advice from a dude masturbating into his hat while singing nonsense songs about BitCoin conspiracies. Not a great road map to solid decision making.

Number three is kind of an extension of number two. In a democracy, we believe we have rights. Our rights are guaranteed. We feel like we can demand fealty to these rights from everyone around us but the fault in that logic hits the record scratch when we are confronted with everyone demanding their rights at the same time. Adding to that the simple truth that things like pandemics and earthquakes give no fucks whatsoever about your unalienable rights and it just works out better to assume you deserve nothing, are owed nothing, that your rights are as fragile as your credit score.

If there is a fourth reframe to consider it is limit the things you take personally. Most people don’t have much concern for you or your existence as most people in a planet of billions are abstract rather than concrete. George Floyd is concrete because we saw him die on video. Black Lives are abstract because the concept lacks specificity.

Like it or not (and in direct conflict with the notion that there are enemies at every gate) most people are not so much against you as they are for themselves.

Finally, do your level best to explore perspective. Reframing requires looking outside of your lived experience and looking at things from another’s.

Donald Trump is a horror on a daily basis. Stream The Madness of King George and realize that other people have had it worse and survived.

COVID-19 is a scourge that is upending the carefully laid table of society. Go read up on plagues throughout history to gain understanding that these things are simply not the end of all things but the beginning of new things.

Abolishing the Police is a great idea until, like the small neighborhood of well intentioned white liberals in Minneapolis who decided to no longer allow police on their blocks only to suddenly have their public park filled with occupying drug addicts and carjackers, you kind of need someone to call when the shit hits the fan.

Reframe. Relax. Go to sleep and wake up. Eat something. Do something nice for someone without hopes for reward or social media kudos. Drink some water. Make a few bucks. Do it again tomorrow.

#Reframe #Managing Chaos #Pandemic Behavior

0 notes

friend-clarity · 4 years

Text

Jew-hatred by the Left

Letting Anti-Semites Be Their Guide by Karys Rhea and Keren Toledano, Commentary, April 2020

It is incumbent on both the left and right to root out the Jew-haters in their midst. But, it is Leftists who mostly hold the reigns of power and it is Leftists who deny abundant evidence that anti-Semitism is endemic to Palestinian society. Anti-Semitism has been a fundamental part of Islamic culture for more than a millennium.

A strange notion has found purchase in progressive circles. It holds that nominally marginalized and oppressed groups, most notably Muslims and African Americans, cannot themselves espouse hateful views. According to this thinking, white people maintain a monopoly on hate, and every expression of hate by someone who is nonwhite is linked to some form of white or Western influence, whether colonialist, capitalist, or Christian.

This idea is also frequently embraced by those doing the hating. Consider the strain of anti-Semitism endemic to Palestinian society, where government-run television, media, textbooks, and mosques encourage violence against Jews, praise Hitler, characterize Jews as "apes and pigs," and deny the Holocaust. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, widely taken to be the most moderate wing of Palestinian politics and the best chance for a partner in peace with Israel, recently released a video claiming that Jews "led the project to enslave humanity" and that Jewish behavior is responsible for anti-Semitism.

To many on the hard left, this moral inversion fits comfortably with Marxist theories about class struggle and power. When a class of people is deemed to lack power, their misdeeds are recast as noble efforts to obtain that power—even when those misdeeds might include terrorist acts against innocent civilians.

Never mind that the historical record is wholly at odds with Fatah's explanation for Jew-hatred. Islamic anti-Semitism has been a fundamental part of Middle East culture for more than a millennium. Long before capitalism and Western colonialism, Jews were treated as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," under Islamic law, and they endured frequent pogroms, humiliation, and brutal oppression. Thus, denying the historical record is a necessity if one is set on absolving the wicked.

The lengths to which some will go in their denial is exemplified by a New York–based progressive organization called Jews for Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ). Founded in 1990 by the academic and activist Marilyn Kleinberg Neimark and the activist Donna Nevel, JFREJ claims it is inspired by Jewish tradition to dismantle racism and economic exploitation. On its website, the organization highlights its work with Black Lives Matter and its efforts to fight Islamophobia and dismantle ICE, among other things.

JFREJ cofounders Marilyn Kleinberg Neimark (left) and Donna Nevel (right) JFREJ has published a guide called "Understanding Anti-Semitism" that takes readers through the leftist looking glass into a world where oppressor and oppressed bear little resemblance to their real-life counterparts. It is worth looking at this organization's rhetoric as it helps shine a light on the current pathways of anti-racist activism and how it acts as a cover for Jew-hatred.

The authors of "Understanding Anti-Semitism" blame Christian dogma and hierarchies for the creation of Jew-hatred while writing off centuries of anti-Semitism in the Arab-Muslim world. They even reframe the dhimmi status imposed on Jews, casting it as a "protection" of the sultan. And while they acknowledge that this protection was bought through heavy taxation and that it facilitated "sporadic attacks, forced conversions and mass killings of Jews," they claim that no specific "anti-Jewish ideology" persisted in the Arab-Muslim world because, after all, other non-Muslims were also oppressed. How the presence of additional prejudices makes anti-Semitism less bigoted is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Muslim anti-Semitism culminated in nearly 1 million Jews of Araby ethnically cleansed, forcibly dispossessed, and expelled from their homes in the 20th century alone.

It is telling that the JFREJ guide discusses "Islamophobia" but omits mention of the persecution of Christians currently rampant in the Arab-Muslim world. It misleadingly blames "white Christian nationalism" for the vast majority of domestic terrorist attacks in the United States, conveniently ignoring that 2019 saw roughly an even number of casualties at the hands of white-nationalist terrorists and jihadists. JFREJ also doesn't mention that in 2017 alone, groups such as al-Shabab and the Taliban carried out nearly 11,000 Islamist attacks worldwide, resulting in 26,000 casualties.

JFREJ exonerates Muslims and racial minorities wholesale for anti-Semitism. Just as JFREJ exonerates Muslims wholesale for anti-Semitism, the group exempts racial minorities for it as well. In an interview with the Democracy Now radio show in late December, JFREJ executive director Audrey Sasson referred to New York City's recent onslaught of anti-Semitic attacks as a manifestation of white nationalism—despite the fact that the majority of incidents were perpetrated by African Americans. In the December 28th stabbing attack on five Hasidic Jews at a Hanukkah party in Monsey, New York, for example, the assailant was a 37-year-old black male who reportedly Googled topics such as "Why did Hitler hate Jews," "Zionist Temples in Staten Island," and "Prominent companies founded by Jews in America."

Some leftist Democratic politicians have dabbled in similar scapegoating. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for example, claimed that the rash of hate crimes in New York City was a "right-wing" problem. On Twitter, Representative Rashida Tlaib blamed "white supremacy" for the Jersey City shooting at a kosher supermarket that took the lives of three Jews and a non-Jewish police officer, even though both perpetrators were African Americans and one was affiliated with the Black Hebrew Israelites—a black supremacist and anti-Semitic hate group.

De Blasio later backtracked on his comments, and Tlaib deleted her tweet. But JFREJ has upheld the notion that there is no anti-Semitism apart from white supremacy, including retweeting an article from the socialist magazine Jacobin that claimed the best way to fight anti-Semitism "is to reject the centrist idea that anti-Semitism transcends politics," and declared it was "pernicious" to point out that Jew-haters exist on the left and the right.

Yet every week, it seems, another video appears on social media, or in the news, showing a black American verbally or physically attacking a visibly Jewish victim. The attacks range from anti-Semitic tirades to throwing objects, spitting, beating, stabbing, and shooting. Indeed, one could rightly describe these frequent and vicious assaults on Jews as a slow-motion pogrom.

JFREJ rails against "white Jews' preoccupation with black anti-Semitism." What is JFREJ's solution to this problem? Apparently, the first step is to deny that it is happening at all. The group's website claims that the real issue is "white Jews' preoccupation with black anti-Semitism," stoked by "a false narrative...that focuses on conflict between white Jews and black non-Jews." And who does the organization see as the true "architects of this conflict"? Get ready for it: "Ku Klux Klan terrorists in the South forcing African-Americans to flee to northern cities"—Ku Klux Klan terrorists, that is, who were last active a century ago.

The second part of the solution is no less confounding. In Sasson's recent interview, she said: "Our focus is to build solidarity with other groups targeted by anti-Semitism." Other groups targeted by anti-Semitism? The very formulation defies intelligibility.

But it is revealing nonetheless. Sasson's true intention is to deny that anti-Semitism—understood as a specific hatred against Jews—even exists. JFREJ subordinates the uniqueness of the Jewish plight to a larger narrative about racism—one that ironically excludes the Jews. This explains why, at New York City's January 5th "March Against Anti-Semitism," JFREJ chose to publicize the event as a generalized rally against "hate." In their promotional material, they even mentioned Islamophobia before saying a word about anti-Semitism.

JFREJ effectively denies that anti-Semitism — understood as a specific hatred against Jews — even exists. What we see here are leftist Jews leveraging their "Jewishness" to perpetuate a logical and moral perversion. In a similar fashion, the November 2019 issue of Jewish Currents featured Vermont senator and Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders conflating the fight against anti-Semitism with Palestinian liberation: "The forces fomenting anti-Semitism are the forces arrayed against oppressed people around the world, including Palestinians....The struggle against anti-Semitism is also the struggle for Palestinian freedom."

Once anti-Semitism is grouped with bigotry in general, it can be ignored in favor of more fashionable concerns: namely, systemic racism in the United States. In her interview, Sasson asserted that attacks on Jews, if committed by minorities, arise from "rightful anger about real problems." Since black Americans are perceived to be a marginalized group, their hate crimes must be rationalized as an understandable, if misguided, rebellion against oppression—as opposed to the manifestation of anti-Semitism that they are.

By this reasoning, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan—who famously compared Jews to "termites," called Jews "bloodsuckers," "great and master deceivers," and the "enemy of God and the enemy of the righteous"—hates Jews because of some misplaced grudge against the system. And so when Farrakhan refers to Hitler as "a very great man" and attributes gay marriage, abortion, and anal sex to the "Satanic influence of the Talmudic Jews," he is merely reacting to the evil of the white, Christian West.

In actuality, what we know about the Nation of Islam and groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites is that their members have been actively enlisting people of color for decades, setting up shop and drumming up hatred in local communities. They preach that Jews are to blame for the plight of African Americans and draw an equivalence between black suffering in the U.S. and Palestinian suffering in the Middle East. This line of anti-Semitism gained particular strength after the assassination of Martin Luther King, a Zionist and friend of the Jews. King's tragic departure from the national conversation paved the way for his views to be overtaken by those in the tradition of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, who wedded his ideas on black power to a sci-fi version of Islam and made anti-Semitism an enduring feature of the Nation of Islam.

JFREJ has actually aligned itself with Farrakhan supporters. On its website, the group proudly states that it lets the priorities of the marginalized groups with which it partners "guide [its] actions." Thus JFREJ has partnered with two former leaders of the Women's March: Tamika Mallory, an African American, and Linda Sarsour, a Muslim American. Both women have voiced admiration for Louis Farrakhan. And Sarsour's record of anti-Semitic statements in the name of Palestinian activism is well-known. She has said, for example, that Israel is "built on supremacy" and "on the idea that Jews are supreme to everybody else." She also tweeted: "Nothing is creepier than Zionism." Sarsour earned an approving retweet from former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke when she tweeted: "Israel should give free citizenship to US politicians. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the American people." But, as one headline on JFREJ's website says, "JFREJ Stands with Linda Sarsour (Again, Always, with Love)." If people like Sarsour guide JFREJ's actions, it's no wonder that the group whitewashes hate crimes against Jews.

JFREJ prizes its "alliances" and readily dismisses the sins of its allies. Above all, JFREJ prizes its "alliances" and readily dismisses the sins of its allies—even when those sins run counter to the group's stated beliefs. In her interview, Sasson rightly described anti-Semitism as a "tool that punches up against Jews, in that it portrays Jews as powerful." But this is precisely the conspiracist brand of anti-Semitism espoused by anti-Israel groups such as IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace, with whom JFREJ partners. These outfits rely on an anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist framework that sees the Jewish collective (i.e., Israel) as the oppressive power and that equates Zionism with Palestinian suffering.

Either Sasson is displaying willful blindness or she has been corrupted by the very suggestion she claims to condemn: that Jews are the oppressor class, and Palestinians their hapless victims. The latter stance seems more convincing given the activist left's penchant for pitting the powerful against the weak. As John-Paul Pagano has written, if Jews are perceived as the oppressor class, then overt anti-Semitism becomes "easy to disguise as a politics of emancipation," and punching up at Jews becomes "a form of speaking truth to power."

While it is true that abusers are often themselves the victims of abuse, and that a person's experience of oppression may contribute to the ways in which he oppresses other people, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that this is somehow exculpatory. And while it is laudable to condemn all forms of bigotry, there is something obscene about automatically holding up the perpetrator of a hate crime as a victim and subsequently elevating his grievances above the violence done to the actual injured party. Regarding such violence, Sasson's vigilance is wanting. On Democracy Now, she argued against greater security measures for Jews and claimed that the "answer to what is happening is not more policing."

Anti-Semitism has long been a feature of extreme left-wing and Islamist ideologies—from Soviet Communism to Hezbollah's exterminationist creed. As everyone knows, it has also been a feature of fascism and Nazism. It is incumbent on both the left and right to root out the Jew-haters in their midst. But some progressive groups have instead embraced them—as a display of progressive virtue, no less. As is often the case when bigotry is given the gloss of victimhood, it is the Jews who will bear the brunt of the abuse.

Karys Rhea is a fellow at the Counter-Islamist Grid, a project of the Middle East Forum. Keren Toledano is an artist and writer based in New York City.

1 note · View note

wahooo0-blog · 5 years

Text

a pretty fab annotated bib

Coleman, Gerald D. “Is America Going to Pot?: We Need to Weed through the Pros and Cons of Marijuana Use before Rushing into a Decision on Its Legalization.” U.S. Catholic, vol. 79, no. 5, May 2014, pp. 23–27. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=CPLI0000585550&site=eds-live.

Coleman writes that there is a generational divide to the acceptance of marijuana. Age is the strongest predictor in attitudes towards marijuana legalization, according to Coleman. He explains that young adults (18-29) are more than twice as likely to consume marijuana than seniors (65 and older) who believe that marijuana legalization is a sign of America’s decline. Coleman also writes about the legalization of marijuana in many states. In 2013, Colorado and Washington state became the first states to allow recreational marijuana consumption following referendums. Colorado projected to make 67 million in marijuana taxes in 2014, the first 40 million would be earmarked for school construction. This is an example of the good that can be done through marijuana taxes. By legally selling and taxing marijuana, we could put marijuana tax money back into communities most affected by unfair drug laws and unjust policing. Marijuana taxes could also boost the economies of poor states, especially those in the south where marijuana can be grown readily. According to Coleman, federal laws prevent legal marijuana merchants from using bank accounts or credit cards, forcing a multimillion-dollar business to operate in cash. This is the most dangerous aspect of the legal marijuana business, according to Coleman. Coleman also notes the plethora of benefits attributed to medicinal marijuana. However, most marijuana revenue is from recreational marijuana, which many people still take issue with. Many Americans believe marijuana should be legalized for medicinal uses, but not recreationally. The federal government needs to at least decriminalize marijuana to end disproportionate policing when it comes to marijuana.

“Drug Scheduling.” DEA, www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling.

The United States Drug Enforcement Agency organizes drugs, substances, and chemicals used to make drugs into five distinct categories or schedules depending on the drug’s medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential. A drug's position on the schedule largely impacts one’s conviction if they are caught with the possession of certain drugs. For example, a person arrested for the possession of marijuana would likely face a longer, harsher sentence than someone arrested for the illegal possession of Xanax because marijuana is a schedule one drug whereas Xanax is a schedule 5 drug. The organization of the drug schedule is hotly debated because many of the drugs’ placements on the schedule do not correlate with their actual danger or risk for dependency. LSD, marijuana, ecstasy, and peyote are all listed in the schedule one category, but there have been no recorded overdoses on any of those drugs. The DEA would like you to believe these drugs are at high risk for dependency and have no accepted medical use, but this is untrue for most of the drugs listed on the schedule one category. For example, marijuana has recorded medicinal benefits and one can not become chemically addicted to marijuana, unlike many of the other drugs on lower schedule categories. The position of peyote on the drug schedule is also contentious because of its use in Native American ceremonies. Many believe its position is used to target Native American communities. Cocaine, methamphetamine, and many prescription opiates are listed on lower drug schedules despite their high risk for dependency and abuse. There have been no changes made to the DEA drug schedule in years, which many take issue with because of the rise of opiate overdoses and growing rates of abuse benzodiazepines (Xanax) among teenagers.

Goldstein, Margaret J. Legalizing Marijuana : Promises and Pitfalls. Twenty-First Century Books ™, 2016. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1283710&site=eds-live.

In this book, Goldstein gives readers a different perspective on marijuana users. Most people think of the stereotypical stoner in coming of age films, but Goldstein writes of a family in Colorado who gives their daughter a non-mind-altering form of marijuana to control her seizures, which has saved her life. Up until taking medical marijuana to control her seizures, she would suffer hundreds of seizures a day. She had tried many common powerful treatments] but nothing worked. Doctors told the family to prepare for their daughter's death, but after taking medical marijuana for months, the number of seizures she suffered monthly was reduced greatly. She now only has a few seizures a month, mainly in her sleep and she can live a pretty normal life. This family is extremely lucky to live in a state where medicinal marijuana is legal, if they had lived in a state where it was illegal, their daughter could’ve died. Goldstein also explains how even though many states have legalized marijuana, it is still very illegal at the federal level because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that when federal and state laws conflict, federal laws take precedence. This allows the federal government the power to enforce anti-marijuana laws even in states where it is legal. Goldstein notes that in the past ten years, the DEA has conducted numerous raids on medical marijuana operations in California. This is interesting, considering mainly republican lawmakers oppose marijuana legalization. Aren’t conservatives for State’s rights?

“Marijuana Arrests by the Numbers.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2019, www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 52% of all drug arrests were for marijuana in 2010. These were not drug kingpins, rather they were people with small amounts of marijuana. Of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests from 2001 to 2010, 88% were for simply having marijuana. Aside from marijuana being relatively harmless, many would argue the over-policing of marijuana is a waste of taxpayer money and police powers, especially when there are worse crimes being committed and more dangerous drugs being used. The note that police aren’t arresting drug kingpins is important because police aren’t looking at helping communities when they arrest an individual carrying drugs, they are only seeking to punish the individual. This only leads to more harm to communities suffering from police targeting. If the police wanted to help communities, they would focus more on kingpins, those who introduce drugs to communities. The American Civil Liberties Union also found that black Americans are far more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. This is despite white and black consuming marijuana at roughly the same rate (white people actually consume more marijuana). It is noted that black Americans are nearly four times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession. I’m many U.S. states, black people are 7.5 to 8.5 times more likely to be arrested for having weed. This discrepancy in data has led many, including the ACLU, to conclude that police target communities of color in drug arrests. Arrests are expensive. Getting caught with marijuana could lead to losing a job or public benefits, which hurts communities. States waste well over three-million dollars every year enforcing marijuana laws according to the ACLU. Imagine the good it would do if that money were put back into education, or helping communities of color prosper.

McGinty, Emma E., et al. “Public Perceptions of Arguments Supporting and Opposing Recreational Marijuana Legalization.” Preventive Medicine, vol. 99, June 2017, pp. 80–86. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.01.024.

Essentially, McGinty explores the results of a 2016 national survey designed to answer two main research questions: (1) How do Americans perceive the relative strength of competing arguments about recreational marijuana legalization? (2) How are perceptions of argument strength associated with public support for recreational marijuana legalization? It compared the attitudes of people living in states where marijuana was still illegal and states where marijuana was legal and compared the attitudes of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. The results showed that 54% of Americans supported the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. This was for reasons including federal research limitations on schedule 1 controlled substances and the novelty of recreational marijuana laws. It is worth noting that Americans are being asked whether they support or oppose marijuana legalization without sufficient research into public health consequences. However, the lack of research is caused by the DEA’s placement of marijuana in the schedule 1 category. McGinty notes that the best available research shows that marijuana legalization could lead to increased rates of cannabis use disorders and death due to driving while under the influence of marijuana. There is also some research that suggests that recreational marijuana legalization could have beneficial public health consequences such as reducing prescription opioid overdoses. McGinty writes that one of the largest public health concerns regarding marijuana legalization is how well regulatory schemes will prevent underaged people from illegally accessing marijuana. Another big concern is that marijuana’s legalization would create a new powerful industry that puts profit before public health, like the tobacco industry.

McNearney, Allison. “The Complicated History of Cannabis in the US.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 20 Apr. 2018, www.history.com/news/marijuana-criminalization-reefer-madness-history-flashback.

In this article, McNearney describes cannabis’s complicated history in the U.S. She writes that initially cannabis was produced in the early colonies for hemp, to create rope, cloth, and paper. In 1619, a law was made in Virginia requiring cannabis to be grown at every farm in the colony. McNearney states that cannabis in the form of hemp was considered a proper form of currency in many colonies. Contrary to popular belief, the early North American economy was rooted in cannabis production. Eventually, hemp as a material to make clothing fell out of fashion as cotton gained popularity but following the Civil War, cannabis was becoming an increasingly popular ingredient in medicines and tinctures. Cannabis or Marijuana continued to gain popularity in the United States as Mexican refugees brought marijuana to the states fleeing violence. In the 1930s, it’s popularity would expand to the black jazz community. Crackdowns on marijuana began during the Great Depression after Prohibition. McNearney states that straight-laced bureaucrats wanted to turn their attention to Marijuana which was commonly used by Mexican and black communities. They painted the drug as something hurting the country and worsening the Great Depression. By 1931, twenty-nine states had outlawed marijuana and in 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, essentially making the plant illegal in the United States. This may have been what led to the unjust policing relating to communities of color, which still exists to this day. “Reefer madness” would continue in the 1950s, as parents began to worry about their teenage children consuming the drug.

Murray, Robin, MD, M.Phil, MRCP, MRC Psych, et al. Marijuana and Madness. [Electronic Resource]. Cambridge University Press, 2012. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat07712a&AN=flc.230340&site=eds-live.

First, this book begins with an overview of how cannabis works in the brain. This is followed by reviews of how cannabinoids other than THC (the psychoactive component of marijuana) affects the brain’s cannabinoid system. In looking at this, the increasing potency of cannabis is considered. It is noted in the book that the increasing potency of marijuana cannabis has been obscured in the debate of marijuana’s legality. However, it is worth noting that there is little evidence that suggests more potent marijuana could cause problems. For the most part, the book concentrated on the impact of marijuana on schizophrenia. It is recorded that long term effects of cannabis on the brain structure and neuropsychological functions in humans may mediate processes involved in the generation of psychosis. The book notes that one of the clinical conundrums of cannabis is the discrepancy between the benefits reported by cannabis users and the expression of schizophrenia noted by clinicians. The possibility that genetic predispositions to psychiatric disorders like Schizophrenia coupled with heavy marijuana use could lead to the development of schizophrenia in certain individuals. The book also explores the impact that cannabis has on depression and bipolar disorder, stating that it has been found that cannabis can help or hurt those suffering from those disorders. I’m the end, it is noted that the effects marijuana has on schizophrenia and other psychological disorders are “acute,” meaning they are minor. The author also takes a look at the impact of pubertal exposure to cannabis by examining animal studies. It also discusses the implications of marijuana legalization on mental health services, health education, and public policy.

Rojas, Andrea S. Marijuana. [Electronic Resource] : Uses, Effects and the Law. Nova Science Publishers, 2011.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat07712a&AN=flc.234873&site=eds-live.

In this book, Rojas examines the uses, effects, and the laws surrounding marijuana use in the United States and other parts of the world. She first notes it’s medicinal issues, but then writes about marijuana use and it’s a correlation with developing schizophrenia, especially in those suffering from mental health issues. Rojas raises concerns about the increasing potency of cannabis and less safe ways of cannabis consumption coupled with increased rates of cannabis misuse disorders. She clarified that cannabis misuse disorders are characterized by consumption/smoking methods and purchasing habits. Rojas also considers cannabis use and adolescents, when she writes that in societies where marijuana use is heavily dissuaded, teenagers are more likely to abuse marijuana. She uses Italy as an example, where Italian adolescents are among the most likely to consume marijuana in Europe. The book also delves into some of marijuana’s history. It is noted that Cannabis sativa was one of the first plants cultivated by man and was used to great a plethora of illnesses and was used by adherents of some religions. Rojas then lists the many physical effects involved with marijuana consumption, including dry mouth, tachycardia, and psychomotor retardation. It is worth noting that all of these effects normally subside after coming down. She also lists psychological effects like anxiety, drowsiness, and depression which also normally subside. Rojos writes that there is no pharmacological treatment for marijuana misuse disorders and that psychosocial interventions are of great importance in the treatment of marijuana misuse.

Rowe, Peter. “For Moms Fighting against Drug Policies, a New Year’s Resolution.” San Diego Union-Tribune, The (CA), 5 Jan. 2018. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=n5h&AN=2W61287194246&site=eds-live.

This article raises many arguments contrary to common beliefs held by parents. Rowe, the author interviewed Gretchen Burns Bergman, a mother, and co-founder of A New Path (Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing). Bergman argues that the War on Drugs is destroying families. This is the case in many communities of color across the United States. In these communities, people of color are far more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, despite white people using drugs at the same rates. Drug laws and disproportionate policing been detrimental to communities of color because even misdemeanor drug offenses can impact employment, which in turn affects economic mobility and security. This has only exacerbated poverty seen in many communities of color caused by hundreds of years of systemic racism and oppression. Bergman claims we need a therapeutic, rather than punitive, approach to drug treatments. She also calls against “zero tolerance” policies and schools in workplaces, saying that that they become a pipeline to prison. She claims zero-tolerance programs should be reoriented away from punishment, and instead focus on treatment for substance abuse. As a society, we need to decide if we would rather help and uplift struggling communities, or just expand our nation’s already massive prison population. Bergman also provides some anecdotal evidence as to why zero-tolerance policies are so bad. She states that her son fell into heroin addiction after being arrested for possession of marijuana when he learned how to shoot heroin behind bars. Many see prison as a cure-all for the delinquent, struggling members of society, but this is not the case.

Vasquez, Margie. Marijuana : Medical Uses, Regulations and Legal Issues. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2016. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1226236&site=eds-live.

In this book, Vasquez takes a pretty in-depth look at the medical uses, regulations, and legal issues surrounding marijuana. She first gives the reader some background information about cannabis Sativa and how it works in the brain. She also explains that according to Achievement Motivation Surveys and results on the Apathy Evaluation Scale, that marijuana use has no significant impact on one's motivation, which is contrary to popular belief. Many perceive marijuana users as lazy and not motivated. She then dismantled the DEA’s argument that marijuana has no medical use. She states that studies have shown that marijuana can control chronic pain, nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, wasting syndrome associated with AIDS, and a plethora of other health conditions. Vazquez also notes that the studies showed that the alleviating benefits outweighed any negative side effects of the drug. She also makes the point that patients have a right to all beneficial treatments and it is a violation of human rights to deny them. The long term effects of marijuana consumption are becoming more of a concern as more and more states legalize the drug. However, federal laws restrict research into marijuana, so there is a huge deficit in information regarding its long term effects. Vazquez states that some studies show a risk of long term cognitive marijuana impairment while other studies show no correlation between marijuana use and mental and physical difficulties later in adulthood. Regardless, more research needs to be done. The federal government needs to change the laws just so the medical community can effectively research its effects, so we can create more, just laws surrounding the drug.

0 notes

ethelbertpaul444-blog · 6 years

Text

5 Movies Where Everyone Ignores The HUGE Actual Problem

Movies have cool events like magic and secret cultures because that nonsense is inexplicable, exciting, and a great way to camouflage slothful publish. Sometimes in the pursuit of a nifty setpiece or a tacky impact, a movie will accidentally toss out an Earth-shaking revelation that utters the actual plot look like a Goop post guest-written by Jaden Smith. For illustration … 5 In Liar Liar , Jim Carrey’s Son Is A God In Liar Liar , Fletcher Reede finds that he’s abruptly unable to lie, so he reacts all questions by blurting out the most offensive version of the truth — you know, the only possible alternative. Eventually, he finds out that this is all because he frustrated his son, Max. When the notoriously flaky Fletcher fails to show up for Max’s birthday party — after predicting him he would — his son’s only birthday wish is for his father to stop lying. And it operates . Universal Pictures He afterward starts the same look where reference is recognizes he could have wished for projectile boots. div > This is not some intersperse universe in which it’s regular for birthday wishes to come true. Sure, 1997 Los Angeles was mystical in its own, but more in the “heroin and frosted tips” gumption than “legitimate sorcery.” And yet when Fletcher locates out he’s been birthday-cursed, he doesn’t react by wondering all he’s ever believes in and dreading the divinity he has apparently birthed into the world; he simply gets the kid a brand-new patty and asks him to turn the wish. Like it’s all normal, vexing kid stuff. Some babes dye on the walls, some restrain minds. Read Next 4 Scary Moments In History That Were Worse Than You Recognized But the counter-wish doesn’t make, and the movie makes it clear that the reason for this is that Max’s heart isn’t in it. Remember, it’s not his birthday anymore, and that conveys Max can award himself bids at will, as long as he certainly symbolizes it. It’s not only Fletcher who blithely rejects the implications of the sorcery wish minor — at Max’s next birthday defendant, the light-coloreds go out, and when they come back on, Fletcher’s making out with his ex-wife, to their mutual stun. They ask him if he utilized a had intended to troop them back together, with nary a discover of the “kid who sends adults to the cornfield” horror that should accompany such a question. Universal Pictures “Make me two brothers. Now.” 4 In Stranger Than Fiction , There’s A Supernatural Serial Killer At Large In Stranger Than Fiction , Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an IRS auditor who wakes up one day to find his entire life chronicled by the disembodied articulate of a British maiden. After a while, Harold realizes that he’s starring in a novel that’s currently being written, and that the author intends to kill him. Harold is understandably upset, so he teams up with Dustin Hoffman to track down the author and cause her to pardon him. Spoiler: She does, though she still runs him over with a bus. Happy fairly ceasing, right? Columbia Painting Columbia Image “Next time, satisfy write me in a plaza that has universal heath care.” div > Not if you’re any of her other personas. The entire intellect Harold believes he’s going to die in the first place is that this author has killed every single prime attribute she’s ever written about. Were those people real too? Did something go wrong with Harold, or did those people too have free will and the capacity to experience terror in the face of fatality? There’s more. Harold doesn’t notice his life is being narrated until he’s in his 40 s. Does the author create her characters into existence with implanted storages like a replicant, or does she plainly hijack real people’s lives? Neither prospect is good, only a different flavor of horrible. Did she breathe life into these beings, exclusively to disembowel them in a Wendy’s bathroom somewhere? Or did she witness a mother of four sweeping the street and impel her to jump off an office build later? Everybody in the film has truly be more worried about this woman’s ungodly supremacy to create and destroy human life whenever she feels like. Maybe there’s a metaphor in there somewhere, but until they figure out what’s going on, they should at the least avoid public transportation. 3 In Pleasantville , All The People In Your Tv Are Real In Pleasantville , the main references inadvertently bring themselves into a virtuous ‘5 0s sitcom, expecting the the identity cards of the family’s teenage “childrens and” literally fetching complexion to the world through the ability of ‘9 0s mode and basic human rights. They and their life are so real that Reese Witherspoon decides to stay in Pleasantville, while Tobey Maguire returns to our world, presumably with some heavy brand-new pertains. Are all the people on TV real? Are the stories really happening to them? It’s not like “person lives a ordinary, delightful life” is a popular television assertion. Does he not have some kind of ethical responsibility to find a way to hop into every Law& Order serial and save those people? New Line Cinema What alibi is he going to give to the real-world law and order to explain the going of the sister he was frequently learnt fighting with? div > Are there alter or latitude actualities where the dragons and unnecessarily naked sorceress of Game Of Thrones subsist, and if so, why isn’t he trying to go there instead? Is it all the murder and genital mutilation? It’s maybe all the murder and genital mutilation. 2 In Live And Let Die , Witchcraft Is Real Live And Let Die is the James Bond movie wherein 007 fightings the massive scheme committing like, every black person in Northern america, who are all cooperating with each other to get the white man fixed on heroin. Needless to say, the movie did not senility well. Too needless to mention: This was a Roger Moore joint. But the weirdest stuff in this very weird collect of things is that two of the evil Dr. Kanaga’s bodyguards are quite clearly magical, and nobody seems to care. div > Solitaire has 100 percent excellent clairvoyance through the purposes of applying tarot placards, and her power is also directly inherited, passed down from mother to daughter( they only lose it if they likewise lose their virginities, which is approximately 40 percent of what Bond is there to do ). Naturally, Bond settles the best interest MI6 might have in a lawful psychic below the interests of his penis. Then there’s voodoo priest Baron Samedi. The reputation pretends to be a simple entertainer, but the buster can’t live. Even after Bond throws him in a casket fitted with snakes, he comes straight back to life and snags a go on Bond’s train. Even by Bond guidelines, it’s a stupid clevernes, and it’s never addressed again in the whole franchise. div > Bond managed to find incontrovertible proof that witchcraft subsists, hitherto in the 16 movies that are consistent with, we never see anything even remotely superhuman, Daniel Craig’s smoldering noses notwithstanding. 1 In The Indiana Jones Series, Every Single God Exists Over the course of three stimulating escapade films( and one CGI cutscene concerning a Disney ace ), Indiana Jones has always been focused on one thing: going prized historic artifacts to museums. What he should have been focusing on was his true greatest discovery: religion is jolly. All of it. Lucasfilm Lucasfilm Lucasfilm Lucasfilm “Yup. Even Scientology.” div > Jewish artifacts can defrost Nazi faces, Hindu death hotshots can perform real trickery, and divinely polluted water from the Holy Grail can mend the sick. By right on, Dr. Jones should be out telling the world that every idol is awfully, thus culminating religious conflict eternally and accompanying conciliation on Earth. Alas, he’s an archaeologist( ish) first and foremost, so his only priority is shoving all of this stuff in display cases so grade-schoolers can cough on it. Gods can wait — there are children to be assumed! Riley Black didn’t want a Twitter note, but a birthday wish forced him to get one. Jordan Breeding likewise writes for Paste Magazine, the Twitter, himself, and with the desire to create beings into thin air only to smack them with a bus. Nathan Kamal lives in Oregon and writes. He co-founded Asymmetry Fiction for all your myth necessitates . i> If you adoration this article and miss more content like this, subsidize our site with a call to our Contribution Page. Please and thank you . i > b> Read more: http :// www.cracked.com/ article_2 5312 _5-movies-where-everyone-ignores-huge-actual-problem. html http://dailybuzznetwork.com/index.php/2018/06/21/5-movies-where-everyone-ignores-the-huge-actual-problem/

0 notes

nicholemhearn · 7 years

Text

Why the Logic of Populism Favors Amnesty for “Dreamers”

One of the indispensable books of our moment is What Is Populism? by Jan-Werner Müller, a political theorist at Princeton. Müller maintains that populism has two essential elements: anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. Anti-elitism is a standard feature of progressive, egalitarian politics. Think Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn. But anti-elitism doesn’t add up to full-throated populism without an exclusive, anti-pluralist conception of national identity. Here’s Müller in an interesting interview:

Today, we read in virtually every second op-ed piece that the world is witnessing a growing alienation between elites and the people, or that across the West there is a “revolt of the masses” against the establishment. However, not everyone who criticizes elites is a populist (in fact, any standard civic-education book will positively encourage us to be critical citizens). Rather, populists always claim that there is a homogeneous, morally pure people of which they are the only authentic representatives. For them, it follows that all other contenders for power are corrupt or in some other way immoral. Less obviously, they hold that whoever does not support them among citizens does not properly belong to the “real people.” Think of Nigel Farage celebrating the Brexit vote by claiming that it had been a “victory for real people” (thus making the 48 percent of the British electorate who had opposed taking the U.K. out of the European Union somehow less than real — or, rather, questioning their status as members of the political community). …

[O]ne remark [of Trump’s] at a rally in May passed virtually unnoticed — even though that statement clearly showed the populism at the heart of Trump’s worldview: “The only important thing,” he said, “is the unification of the people — because the other people don’t mean anything.” Like all populists, Trump engages in a certain form of exclusionary identity politics (which is not to say that all identity politics has to be populistic): he decrees who belongs to the real American people and who doesn’t. What is unusual is the openness with which he has incited hatred against minorities in this process.

The logic of this “exclusionary identity politics” bears on Trump’s conflicted attitude about ending DACA in way that isn’t immediately obvious.

Why did Trump have Jeff Sessions announce that DACA will end in six months, but then immediately admit that this might not actually happen should Congress fail to deliver a permanent solution to the legal status of “Dreamers” (i.e., undocumented kids whose parents brought them the United States without legal approval)? Why did Steve Bannon, of all people, disagree with the administration’s decision to rescind DACA? Trump and Bannon’s relative leniency about Dreamers is counter-intuitive, but I think it follows from some of the same ideas that make populist nationalism so nasty. Indeed, the same populist logic that encourages the moral de-nationalization of “un-American” fellow citizens seems to me to recommend embracing culturally American non-citizen kids. Ironically, this may make vehemently anti-immigrant populists more sympathetic to Dreamers than some standard, non-populist Republicans.

The key, I think, is that citizenship, and the sort of “immigration status” at stake with the demise of DACA, are distinctly legal notions. But populist nationalism isn’t legalistic. As Müller suggests, it’s sentimental and cultural.

As I put it in a 2013 Economist piece, well before Donald Trump was a glimmer in the GOP’s eye:

The energetic ideological base of the Republican Party is a nationalist, identity-politics movement for relatively well-to-do older white Americans known as the “tea party”. The tea party is interested in bald eagles, American flags, the founding fathers, Jesus Christ, fighter jets, empty libertarian rhetoric, and other markers of “authentic” American identity and supremacy. That America is “a nation of immigrants” is a stock piece of American identity politics, but the immigrants that made America America were, well, not Mexican, and spoke English, or at least Pennsylvania Dutch. Sorry Mexicans!

The right-populist construction of national identity offers a criterion for membership in the “homogeneous, morally pure people” that is based on distance from an implicit cultural ideal of Americanness. Insensitivity to citizenship or legal nationality is a side-effect of the populist’s primarily cultural test of inclusion.

Somalian Muslims with poor English rank dismally on the populist’s Great Chain of Americanness, but there are plenty of American citizens of who fit that description. The possibility of this kind of mismatch between legal and cultural/moral citizenship is essential to the internal logic of populist politics. An exclusive notion of “the people” that discounts juridical technicalities allows populists to psychologically de-nationalize fellow citizens, and this catalyzes a morally alchemical transformation: democratically unconscionable measures to disenfranchise political opponents become duties necessary to the achievement of popular “sovereignty.”

On the other side of the equation, consider the case of my father. He was at a certain point in his life a white, Christian, Anglo-Nordic, native English-speaker enlisted in the United States Army—but not legally American. Anglo-Canadians like my Dad are better “Americans,” in the populist identity politics sense, than tens of millions of actual American citizens. Letting literal foreigners through the net is sort of a bug of the populist mental model, but mostly it’s a useful feature that tells you which immigrants to favor. Consider that Trump didn’t catch flak from his base for his Slovenian immigrant wife, because she’s “American” enough. However, Trump’s supporters, and Trump himself, exploited Jeb Bush’s marriage to a Mexican immigrant to question his loyalty to the interests of genuinely American Americans.

The populist notion of national identity is a creature of whimsical imagination liberated from history. An important historical fact about the United States of America is that a large swathe of it once literally was Mexico. When Mexican territory became American territory in 1848, oodles of Mexicans became Americans (they didn’t cross the border, the border crossed them!) and Spanish colonialism, and the Spanish language, became central elements of our national origin story. Work on the San Miguel mission, the oldest Christian church in the United States (in a state called, um, “New Mexico”) began in 1610, a decade before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts. To the historically literate, then, Spanish North American, or “Mexican,” is a basic, original American type. Nevertheless, Columba Bush comes off as somehow less American, in populist terms, than Melania Trump, despite the fact that Slovenians didn’t begin arriving in the United States until the 1880s.

Similarly, the typical black American has much deeper American roots than the typical white American. Trump himself, whose grandparents were all foreign-born, is an excellent example of relatively shallow white American roots. And, of course, American culture to a great extent just is African-American culture. Yet populist nationalists are fond of statues honoring literal military enemies of the United States of America, who killed U.S. soldiers en masse in defense of the enslavement of black Americans. And American populists aren’t fond of the idea of replacing an image of the slave-owning, native-murdering Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with an image of Harriet Tubman, an indisputable hero of American freedom who repeatedly risked death liberating fellow Americans from enslavement.

Taking American history seriously is exactly what Trumpian populists are trying to avoid, so it’s not surprising that the populist ideal of American identity fails to acknowledge the unimpeachable historical credentials of blacks and Mexicans as basic, authentic American types. But it’s impossible to completely ignore the living human proof of American history, so the populist hierarchy of American identity is forced to accommodate it a little.

For blacks, the main qualifying attribute is the embrace of right-populist ideology, which we might as well call Americanism. Anti-pluralistic populism is monocultural, but can tolerate individuals whose ancestry deviates from the ideal of American identity, as long as the assimilate to Americanist monoculture. The adoption of Americanism means rejecting identification with the (multicultural and thus un-American) Democratic Party and rejecting racial “identity politics”—the controversial idea that centuries of brutal subjugation based on racial identity continues to harm black people, and that it’s not okay to ignore this. Acceptance of African-Americans into the fold of “real” Americans, conditional on becoming Republicans who consider America’s history of racist oppression water under the bridge, allows white-identity populists to believe themselves when they deny that you need to be white to be a full-fledged American.

Hispanic and Latino Americans can also get into the club through assimilation to the white-centered Americanist monoculture. But because Hispanic and Latino Americans are mostly “whiter” than African-Americans, and less likely to harbor historical grievances, the requirements of membership are less demanding. Mainly, inclusion in the authentic people here means being ideological about “speaking American” and “assimilating,” having a steady job, and being hawkish about illegal immigration.

Which brings us, finally, to the case of Dreamers. Most (but by no means all) Dreamers are culturally American Mexican citizens, who bear little personal responsibility for their lack of legal status in the United States. Because populist nationalism is cultural rather than legalistic, populist American-identity nationalists have a hard time coming down hard on Dreamers.

For example, here’s Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, one of America’s most vehement anti-immigration activists, talking to Rachel Martin on NPR:

MARTIN: So I want to touch on something you just mentioned. Do you think that the issue of the so-called DREAMers, these 800,000 people who were brought here as children – do you think this can and should be treated separately from the bigger debate over immigration reform in this country?

KRIKORIAN: Sure. I mean, that’s – they’re clearly the most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants. The point is that they’ve grown up here. They not only didn’t decide to come here on their own, they grew up here, and their identities have been formed here. It really is a special case.

For Krikorian, there’s nothing really objectionable about Dreamers. The fact that they are immigrated illegally is much less important than the fact that “their identities have been formed here,” and they are therefore culturally American. The only problem with matching Dreamers’ American cultural identity with legal immigration status, and possibly citizenship, is that it might encourage future illegal immigration. It’s significant that Krikorian treats the amnesty for Dreamers as fait accompli, and mainly wants to use it as a bargaining chip to amp up border security, reduce future levels of legal immigration, and restructure the system to better accord with populist nationalist cultural priorities.

And this all makes total sense. Advocating the deportation of Dreamers isn’t just cruel and unpopular. It confuses the legalistic and cultural sense of national identity in a way anathema to the logic of populism. The idea that our claim to the rights of membership in the American political community are rooted in cultural identity, rather than in mere legal citizenship, is what justifies the populist politics of delegitimizing and disenfranchising internal enemies of “the true, pure people,” even if they’re legally American. To argue that it’s okay to deport Dreamers because they aren’t technically American is to deny that cultural nationality ought to be the politically controlling factor. And this amounts to admitting that legal citizenship is sufficient, and that the cultural markers of “Americanness” are therefore unnecessary, to qualify as a full, rights-bearing member of our democracy’s sovereign chorus. But that’s the negation of populist anti-pluralism.

That’s why Trumpian populist conservatives, who don’t care a whit about “the rule of law,” may be less conflicted about naturalizing Dreamers than standard, non-populist Republicans, who are much less xenophobic, yet much fussier about legal process. The political fight isn’t going to be about whether Dreamers should get amnesty. It’s going to be over the restrictionist policies American-identity nationalists demand in exchange.

—

Will Wilkinson is Vice President for Policy at the Niskanen Center

The post Why the Logic of Populism Favors Amnesty for “Dreamers” appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/logic-populism-favors-amnesty-dreamers/

#nicholemhearn digest

0 notes