This is also about the liberal perception of violence and how it relates to political change
“ The liberal is so preoccupied with stopping confrontation that he usually finds himself defending and calling for law and order, the law and order of the oppressor. Confrontation would disrupt the smooth functioning of the society and so the politics of the liberal leads him into a position where he finds himself politically aligned with the oppressor rather than with the oppressed.”
“ The liberal is so preoccupied with stopping confrontation that he usually finds himself defending and calling for law and order, the law and order of the oppressor. Confrontation would disrupt the smooth functioning of the society and so the politics of the liberal leads him into a position where he finds himself politically aligned with the oppressor rather than with the oppressed.”
I had a discussion with a liberal the other day; I was discussing how statements in media can be misleading and used BLM as an example. I pointed out that the media constantly talks about BLM violence but that BLM protests were over 97% peaceful; his response?
Don't treat that response the way they want it to be treated: as a "Gotcha! BLM deserves to be suppressed if they aren't the perfect victim".
You know that the violence of the state is reciprocated even to a much myopic and miniscule degree is only natural and justified to constant state repression and violence. So long as injustice and severe repression remain, where the nominal avenues for redress of grievances are ignored or delayed, where civility fails, violence and extremism become potent seeds in the fertile ground of political alienation and powerlessness.
These people are just reactionaries without the obsessive anger against the oppressed. You shouldn't "reach out" to these people or invest any time further when they reveal their reactionary sympathies, but there is always an off chance that a comment can catalyze a change of opinion in the future within their own minds; react to those comments "Ah so there was still violence?" by putting them on the spot: (might be too wordy)
"Protests are supposed to be disruptive and chaotic. does that mean you support extrajudicial police killings because there was - nor could there ever be - the peaceful protest movement that changes policy but does not challenge power?"
Liberals roleplay as good people, and shaming them, bullying them, and putting their opinions on the spot will force them to choose a side in their own mind because if you pretend long enough you eventually inhabit that role.
I've joked about it before, but what if the Christian God was satan disguising himself as a creator-God? Therefore encouraging people to be as evil as they want because the only real sin is being abnormal. I'm pretty sure that if the "true" Christian God and the devil both showed up in every town square, God preached good and the Devil preached doing evil, Fox News will be yelling about the left trying to destroy "the core satanic values of our country" with a straight face.
If you look at the history of human mythology there is arguably some basis for this
Originally the Judeo Christian Islamic monotheistic god was the storm god of a larger pantheon before displacing the rest of the gods to become the only one
Beyond that the history of storm gods themselves is deeply tied to the mythology of dragons as almost all of them are dragon slayers in their mythology going back to Marduk
The history of dragon mythology is also important here, the oldest myths of dragons who were called dragons come from Asia specifically China and in those myths the dragons were benevolent and empathetic beings who care deeply for humanity and wished to alleviate human suffering by ending droughts and famines so that the people could eat
When the myths of dragons moved from east to west something happened and the script was flipped, the dragons were now cast as the villains of the story first hoarding water then treasure and women
Arguably the original dragon myth came from African mythology though the Rainbow Serpent wasn't called a dragon she shares many characteristics with the dragons of Chinese mythology
In the myth the Rainbow Serpent created the whole world, the oceans were made from her own blood that she freely spilled, the rivers and other bodies of drinkable water from her breast milk, then she created all life on this planet all the plants and animals including humans
Finally she gave humanity a task, to care for all life on this planet and preserve the delicate balance of nature and before she left she gave us a warning, that if we were to fail in this task she would return not as a creator but as a destroyer and then she would recreate the Earth but this time without humans
What I'm saying is that much of the bullshit Jordan Peterson may actually have some basis in reality but that he's picked the wrong side, the side of evil storm gods
Arguably the original dragon myth came from African mythology though the Rainbow Serpent wasn’t called a dragon she shares many characteristics with the dragons of Chinese mythology
In the myth the Rainbow Serpent created the whole world, the oceans were made from her own blood that she freely spilled, the rivers and other bodies of drinkable water from her breast milk, then she created all life on this planet all the plants and animals including humans
Finally she gave humanity a task, to care for all life on this planet and preserve the delicate balance of nature and before she left she gave us a warning, that if we were to fail in this task she would return not as a creator but as a destroyer and then she would recreate the Earth but this time without humans
That's the best version of Posadism I've ever heard. :posadist-nuke:
Originally the Judeo Christian Islamic monotheistic god was the storm god of a larger pantheon before displacing the rest of the gods to become the only one
"Henotheism" is the term I've seen used there, where you have what is basically a monotheistic religion existing with a mythos that is still pantheistic.
reminds me of
—Kwame Ture (born Stokely Carmichael)
Oh yeah, we’re Ture-posting in here
https://hexbear.net/post/248149
This is also about the liberal perception of violence and how it relates to political change
“ The liberal is so preoccupied with stopping confrontation that he usually finds himself defending and calling for law and order, the law and order of the oppressor. Confrontation would disrupt the smooth functioning of the society and so the politics of the liberal leads him into a position where he finds himself politically aligned with the oppressor rather than with the oppressed.”
More like true-posting.
💯💯💯
I had a discussion with a liberal the other day; I was discussing how statements in media can be misleading and used BLM as an example. I pointed out that the media constantly talks about BLM violence but that BLM protests were over 97% peaceful; his response?
"Ah so there was still violence?"
I'm tired of trying to reach these people.
Don't treat that response the way they want it to be treated: as a "Gotcha! BLM deserves to be suppressed if they aren't the perfect victim".
You know that the violence of the state is reciprocated even to a much myopic and miniscule degree is only natural and justified to constant state repression and violence. So long as injustice and severe repression remain, where the nominal avenues for redress of grievances are ignored or delayed, where civility fails, violence and extremism become potent seeds in the fertile ground of political alienation and powerlessness.
These people are just reactionaries without the obsessive anger against the oppressed. You shouldn't "reach out" to these people or invest any time further when they reveal their reactionary sympathies, but there is always an off chance that a comment can catalyze a change of opinion in the future within their own minds; react to those comments "Ah so there was still violence?" by putting them on the spot: (might be too wordy) "Protests are supposed to be disruptive and chaotic. does that mean you support extrajudicial police killings because there was - nor could there ever be - the peaceful protest movement that changes policy but does not challenge power?"
Liberals roleplay as good people, and shaming them, bullying them, and putting their opinions on the spot will force them to choose a side in their own mind because if you pretend long enough you eventually inhabit that role.
deleted by creator
Yeah Satan gets a bad rap. All he ever really did was act as the prosecutor for Job's case and offer Jesus a real estate deal.
I've joked about it before, but what if the Christian God was satan disguising himself as a creator-God? Therefore encouraging people to be as evil as they want because the only real sin is being abnormal. I'm pretty sure that if the "true" Christian God and the devil both showed up in every town square, God preached good and the Devil preached doing evil, Fox News will be yelling about the left trying to destroy "the core satanic values of our country" with a straight face.
Is this what Gnosis is?
Yeah that's largely the idea of the demiurge
And if the antichrist is supposed to deceive people into thinking he's benevolent...
I HATE THE ANTICHRIST! :troll: I HATE THE ANTICHRIST! :troll:
If you look at the history of human mythology there is arguably some basis for this
Originally the Judeo Christian Islamic monotheistic god was the storm god of a larger pantheon before displacing the rest of the gods to become the only one
Beyond that the history of storm gods themselves is deeply tied to the mythology of dragons as almost all of them are dragon slayers in their mythology going back to Marduk
The history of dragon mythology is also important here, the oldest myths of dragons who were called dragons come from Asia specifically China and in those myths the dragons were benevolent and empathetic beings who care deeply for humanity and wished to alleviate human suffering by ending droughts and famines so that the people could eat
When the myths of dragons moved from east to west something happened and the script was flipped, the dragons were now cast as the villains of the story first hoarding water then treasure and women
Arguably the original dragon myth came from African mythology though the Rainbow Serpent wasn't called a dragon she shares many characteristics with the dragons of Chinese mythology
In the myth the Rainbow Serpent created the whole world, the oceans were made from her own blood that she freely spilled, the rivers and other bodies of drinkable water from her breast milk, then she created all life on this planet all the plants and animals including humans
Finally she gave humanity a task, to care for all life on this planet and preserve the delicate balance of nature and before she left she gave us a warning, that if we were to fail in this task she would return not as a creator but as a destroyer and then she would recreate the Earth but this time without humans
What I'm saying is that much of the bullshit Jordan Peterson may actually have some basis in reality but that he's picked the wrong side, the side of evil storm gods
That's the best version of Posadism I've ever heard. :posadist-nuke:
"Henotheism" is the term I've seen used there, where you have what is basically a monotheistic religion existing with a mythos that is still pantheistic.
Black Panther Gang Black Panther Gang
Hogs don't want assault rifles in their face.