#it's basically a Christianity-based fascist theocracy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anonymoustalks · 4 years

Text

You cant just oppress me for having different views, that's Fascism!!!!

(6-14-20) You both like politics.

You: heya

Stranger: Hello

You: anything on your mind today?

Stranger: No

You: fair enough ^^

You: any issues that you care about?

Stranger: Not really

You: is there a reason why you like this tag then?

Stranger: To talk about Politics

You: mhm anything particular about it?

Stranger: Anything

You: mhm do you have a particular political leaning?

Stranger: Fascist

You: ohh interesting

You: why fascism, btw?

You: I never really understood it

Stranger: Because it aligns with my values

You: your values being... strength? authority...?

Stranger: Strength, Honor, Spirituality, Race, Masculinity

You: I didn't realize spirituality was a big part of fascism

Stranger: Most people don't know anything about Fascism beyond something about the holocaust

You: fair enough

You: how did you learn about fascism?

Stranger: I read the Doctrine of Fascism

You: who is that by?

Stranger: Benito Mussolini and Gentile

You: oh is it good?

Stranger: It explains Fascism, it serves it's purpose

You: I guess so

You: are there like fascist communities out there?

Stranger: Not really

You: so it's mostly just you and yourself?

Stranger: I've known many other Fascists, but most of them are dead or in prison, so for now yes

You: ...how old are you?

Stranger: 29

You: I didn't realize that fascists end up in prison so easily

Stranger: Well we're Fascists living in a mostly liberal world

You: I guess so

You: I had a question about fascism actually

You: so... with many different fascist cultures... liking different racists... do you hate each other?

You: or do you get along because you're all kinda similar politically?

You: *liking different races

Stranger: Well this is a fundamental misunderstanding of our worldview

You: do you mind explaining more?

Stranger: So

Stranger: We don't hate each other even though we understand at some point we will have to kill each other

You: (wow that's dramatic...)

Stranger: To us that is simply reality, hatred is not necessary to accomplish this reality

Stranger: So why have any

You: I see

You: for me it's kind of difficult why so many cultures are transfixed with...

You: jewish people

You: idk

You: idk why the hate, in other words

You: *difficult to understand

Stranger: I don't hate jews

Stranger: The hatred towards jews came from the fact that many of them were Marxists

You: ah... I didn't know that

Stranger: Yeah I'm not surprised, most people don't know anything about Fascism but hate it anyways

You: what's your opinion of North Korea

You: are they more fascist or communist?

Stranger: They're just totalitarian. I wouldn't say they're either

You: so totalitarian =/= fascist

Stranger: Are you joking

You: idk, I really don't know much

You: I think of a long of strong personality figures who grabbed for lots of power in many fascist regimes

Stranger: Lol

You: sorry if I don't understand much

Stranger: It's not that you don't understand much you don't seem to know anything about it

You: yeah

You: so are there any countries today that are close to fascist?

Stranger: No

You: so what does a fascist state entail?

Stranger: That depends on the spiritual teachings in that particular race

You: hm...

You: I feel like I'm thinking about those religious states like iran

Stranger: What about it

You: idk just the wording of "spiritual teachings"

You: I think I'm just lost on what fascism means

You: like I think there are a bunch of countries that are fairly ethnocentric -- like I think Japan is pretty ethnocentric, right?

You: and other countries that have a powerful spiritual component

You: and others that emphasize a strong state power

Stranger: What's your point

You: do you mix them together and you get fascism?

Stranger: That's just right-wing populism

You: so what's the different between that and fascism?

Stranger: Fascism is not right-wing populism

You: So Wikipedia's definition is this: "Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." which is why I'm a little lost

Stranger: That looks like it was written by a liberal college student

You: ^^ so how would you describe it then?

Stranger: Fascism is the syncretic blend of the Super-World and the Material world

You: umm, I'm a little lost by that ^^

Stranger: You're going to have to be more specific

You: I have no idea what "syncretic blend" and "super-world" and "material world" mean

Stranger: Syncretism is a union or attempted fusion of different religions, cultures, or philosophies — like Halloween, which has both Christian and pagan roots, or the combination of Aristotelian philosophy with the belief system of the early punk rock practitioners.

Stranger: Picture that, but with the union of a spiritual belief with a lifestyle and society

You: what kinds of spiritual belief?

Stranger: That obviously depends on your religious beliefs

You: I'm just a little bit confused about how that's different from an authoritarian theocracy?

Stranger: The Super-World is the metaphysical source of the material world, like Heaven

Stranger: Because not all religions are authoritarian in nature

You: interesting

You: it's quite a lot for me to wrap my head around

You: so if they're not authoritarian... how do they maintain a strong regimented state/economy?

Stranger: Why would they need to

You: well, I thought fascism wasn't very tolerant of per say democratic discourse

You: so something needs to enforce the ruling law?

Stranger: As I said, not all religions are authoritarian

Stranger: That is their problem

Stranger: They will figure it out

You: I see... do you mind if I ask about your faith?

Stranger: I am a Christian

You: is Christianity authoritarian?

Stranger: Yes

You: why is it authoritarian if you don't mind me asking?

Stranger: We can start with the most obvious

Stranger: Jesus Christ is meant to rule forever as King over heaven

Stranger: When the Hebrews asked God for a King, he gave them one

You: okay I see

Stranger: Here of course we see a strong condemnation of rebellious behavior:

Stranger: Romans 13:1-7 New International Version (NIV) Submission to Governing Authorities 13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Stranger: This, is naturally and clearly authoritarian

You: thanks

You: how do you handle the many denominations of Christianity?

Stranger: Well if it was up to me I would have all of their churches destroyed

Stranger: Infact I would have all churches destroyed

You: I see... what denomination is your church?

Stranger: I do not go to church

You: okay so definitely not Catholic XD

Stranger: No, I am a Christian

Stranger: I follow the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of a church

You: mhm okay

You: so what happens if you have a lot of people who resist... your interpretation?

Stranger: That depends on the level of resistance

You: idk people who disagree on teachings that obviously I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak about?

Stranger: Is English not your first language

You: mhm it is

Stranger: What do you think "level of resistance" means

You: open rebellion?

You: protests?

Stranger: Are you a woman

You: uhhh why does that matter?

Stranger: This seems above your ability to fully grasp so it makes me think you are a woman

You: oh okay ^^;;

Stranger: Are you

You: so if I'm not, then it is okay for me to grasp?

Stranger: If you are not then you are just a very stupid male

You: sure let's go with that

Stranger: Answer the question

You: I'm trying to understand

You: I'll decline to answer your question

You: does that qualify as open rebellion?

Stranger: Yes

You: I see... it's not very an aggressive form of resistance though?

You: it's kind of petty, actually

Stranger: And

Stranger: "You cant just oppress me for having different views, that's Fascism!!!!"

Stranger: Exactly

You: hm?

Stranger: Are you autistic or something

You: sure

Stranger: You seem incapable of understanding basic things

You: It's not a subject I hear a lot about, so I'm asking a lot questions so I understand

Stranger: Good Lord

Stranger: I am not even talking about Fascism

Stranger: That is what I mean

Stranger: Your ability to communicate with other humans seems to be handicapped

You: maybe, it's omegle though so it's fairly low stakes

Stranger: Lol

You: I mean I don't think I'm wrong lol

Stranger: How could you even if you were

You: tell if I'm wrong?

You: I have no idea

You: I feel like it's hard to tell without other people telling you

You: and then you reflect based on what others tell you

Stranger: I have never relied on others telling me I am wrong to decide if I am

You: I'm not sure if "reliance" is the right word

You: I guess I would call it "feedback"

Stranger: I will be back

You: and then "reflect" on a day?

You: okay

Stranger: I am back

You: ok

You: can't find my laptop charger

Stranger: Let us talk about being stupid

You: sure

Stranger: Do you know why you are stupid

You: why don't you tell me what you think?

Stranger: Because you were not born to be a grand leader

Stranger: You are a simple person meant to lead a simple life

Stranger: In the modern world, because everyone is full of themselves and feed their ego incessently this is an insult

You: an insult huh?

You: so how can you tell if someone is destined for greatness?

Stranger: Yes, because everyone wants to be special

Stranger: A person that is destined for greatness is marked by 5 signs

You: I think Western culture is heavily individualistic

Stranger: 1. Ability to endure any amount of humiliation

Stranger: 2. Can see the bigger picture of things, and is not limited by the perspective of their life

Stranger: 3. Understands people well and can make them work together

Stranger: 4. Has the will and strength to endure all tragedies of life

Stranger: 5. Is not enslaved by their own personal nature

You: That's a very interesting list

You: where did you get it from?

Stranger: I just came up with it

You: oh, that's cool

You: the suffering and humiliation is notable to me

You: have you experienced a lot of it?

Stranger: Yes

You: can you tell me more?

Stranger: The list is too long

You: is there something that stands out?

Stranger: And most of it is not worth mentioning

Stranger: Because I have grown out of all of it

You: I imagine that it's not a bunch of small things?

You: it should be a big thing, right?

Stranger: The point is, I have moved on, it is in the past and that is where it will stay

You: I see

You: What do you mean by not enslaved by their own personal nature?

Stranger: "I'm tired"

Stranger: "this is too hard"

Stranger: "I want to have sex"

You: mhm okay

Stranger: "I'm hungry"

Stranger: "I want more"

Stranger: "I want less"

Stranger: If you are able to conquer your nature then you will master your body

Stranger: Think about Kings and Emperors in history

You: I guess that's good

Stranger: The worst ones are always depicted as the ones who only cared about pleasure

You: right

Stranger: The ones that only cared about expensive clothing

Stranger: Things like that

Stranger: A King cannot be a master of his people if he has not mastered himself

Stranger: This is why Jesus Christ went through all the temptations of sin, and the physical torture

Stranger: Why he gave up all his things and lived as a nomad

Stranger: In order to conquer His body

You: mhm

You: what is your life like right now?

Stranger: In what context

You: idk, just in general

You: it sounds like you live a very disciplined life

Stranger: I try to

Stranger: I am closer than I ever have been, at least

You: that's good!

You: so it sounds like you've been through difficult times, and things are heading upwards?

Stranger: Something like that

You: mhm that's great

Stranger: Well

Stranger: If I end up homeless it is still better than having a home without discipline

Stranger: So I don't think we have the same definition of upwards

You: homeless?

Stranger: You don't know what that means

Stranger: ?

You: well yeah I do, but how would you end up homeless?

Stranger: How am I supposed to know? Anything can happen

You: I guess that's true

You: you just seemed worried about bad things in the future

Stranger: Bad things?

You: You said "I don't think we have the same definition of upwards"

You: meaning that from my point of view, I may not think you are heading upwards?

Stranger: My soul belongs to Jesus Christ, what could possibly be a 'bad thing' when I already have everything

You: mhm right

You: do you ever get lonely?

You: without a congregation or anything?

Stranger: No I do not

You: why did you stop going to church?

Stranger: I had no purpose there except to see a girl, and I considered that to be a wrong reason

You: Ah, okay

You: what kind of changed your views suddenly?

Stranger: It is never sudden, everyday (if you are trying) a person becomes more and more aware of life and pays more attention. You eventually start learning and changing accordingly

You: mhm okay

You: it sounds like it's been a long journey for you then

You: and an isolated road to?

Stranger: I am isolated now, for good reason

You: coronavirus?

Stranger: No

You: because?

Stranger: Because

Stranger: It is easy to be a Christian when your friends are Christians

Stranger: It is easy to be a Christian when you hear teachings from the bible every sunday

Stranger: It is easy to be a Christian when all the events you go to are by other Christians

Stranger: I do not want to lead this life because of the people around me, I want to be a Christian because I choose to be

Stranger: I can only do this alone

You: it sounds sad to push away everyone close to you though

Stranger: I will give you a hint, there was barely any pushing

You: is there a way to choose to be Christian yet still be close to others?

You: oh

You: was it always that way or did something happen?

Stranger: Yes

Stranger: You just need to pick Christ first, and friends second

Stranger: I grew up with a lot of friends, so it was the opposite for me

Stranger: I am not rectifying this

You: Ah...

You: well, if you are happy now, I guess that's fine

Stranger: Happy?

Stranger: Happiness has never really been important to me, I don't really care about it

You: fulfillment then?

Stranger: Sure

You: okay

You: how old are you?

Stranger: 29

You: you live alone?

Stranger: No, I live with my mother

You: mhm is she well?

Stranger: She is fine

You: that's good

You: can I ask why you think the way you do about women?

Stranger: Because women are not suited to be leaders

You: I mean you seemed to think women weren't able to comprehend the things you were talking about?

Stranger: Yes

You: why is that?

Stranger: Because women are not suited to be leaders

You: I mean comprehending doesn't have to do with leading, does it?

You: They're different skill sets

Stranger: ...

Stranger: If you cannot comprehend it, it is because it is beyond your station

You: ...

You: I mean, comprehending a book is entirely different than leading an army

Stranger: This is exactly what I am talking about

Stranger: You are not even on the same page as me

Stranger: What I just said went completely over your head

You: Yeah it did

You: Are you suggesting that comprehension is essential to being a leader? That makes sense

You: But the inverse seems like a stretch to me

You: that being a leader is necessary to read books?

Stranger: No

Stranger: I am saying if you cannot understand what is being said, that is because you do not need to

You: oh, okay...

You: for some reason I had interpreted that as "unable to" versus "do not need to"

Stranger: Okay

You: so basically you believe people are destined for certain things?

Stranger: Yes

You: and there are certain signs that indicate you are destined for greatness?

Stranger: Yes

You: how does greatness manifest in different lifetimes and times?

You: I mean, you said for yourself that this isn't really a time for fascism

Stranger: When did I say that

You: well that western society isn't very kind to it

You: so it's a little hard to imagine a fascist society popping up in America in our lifetime

Stranger: So I'm here waiting for you to make a point

You: I don't really have a point?

You: I was hoping to understand how you view greatness

You: in a culture and society that doesn't appreciate your views?

Stranger: What does American culture and society have to do with how I view greatness

You: I sounded like you implied that you were destined for greatness, but I may have misread your meaning

Stranger: I am

You: so how will you be great?

You: I guess that's my question

Stranger: That remains to be seen

You: Do you have a sense of what direction it will be?

Stranger: It is more important to focus on the day and hour you are living in

You: that's fair

You: I guess it's true it's important not to get ahead of ourselves

You: I was wondering you had any specific goals or dreams

Stranger: Follow God, that is all I need to do

You: mhm

You: So it's kind of like God will show you the way when it's the right time?

Stranger: He always does

You: right

You: Do you come on Omegle a lot?

Stranger: When I have nothing else to do

You: Do you have any other hobbies?

Stranger: Training

You: working out or something more specific?

Stranger: Working out

You: Mhm I think that's good

You: does your mom still work?

Stranger: No

You: and yourself?

Stranger: I was employed, but I realized I was there for the wrong reasons and left

You: Ah... what kind wrong reasons?

Stranger: I was only going because I wanted to see a girl

You: ...Were there multiple girls?

You: The church one and also the work one?

Stranger: Yes

You: oh

You: And dating is sort of incompatible with your faith?

Stranger: No

You: It's a little bit harder for me to understand going to work for the wrong reasons

You: like I can understand going to church for the wrong reasons

You: but work I'm not sure if I understand

Stranger: How is it any different

You: Mhm, I feel like faith is different?

Stranger: It has nothing to do with faith

You: I mean I feel like you should go to church for your faith, not for romance

You: on the other hand, I don't really see anything wrong with liking someone at work

You: (or school or something else similar)

Stranger: I cant believe this has to be explained

You: sorry

Stranger: There was a girl at church

Stranger: I liked her

Stranger: I was only going to see her

Stranger: So I stopped

Stranger: There was a girl at work

Stranger: I liked her

Stranger: I was only there to see her

Stranger: So I stopped

Stranger: How is this confusing to you

You: I think I'm just not understand why you decided to stop seeing the girl at work

You: if you're able to keep working, that is

Stranger: Because I was not working

You: oh okay

Stranger: I spent most of my time talking to her

You: right

Stranger: And would regularly tell my manager to mind his business if he ever mentioned it

You: right

You: are you looking to get another job?

Stranger: No, I need to set myself right first before getting back into the world

You: mhm

You: I guess that's understandable

You: how does your mother feel?

Stranger: She is fine

You: it's good if you have a good relationship with her

Stranger: Yes

You: what kind of work did you do?

You: before?

Stranger: Industrial Labor

You: Will you be okay financially?

Stranger: Yes

You: That's good

You: I wonder what the coronavirus was like in your area

Stranger: I don't pay attention

You: how do you normally spend your day these days?

Stranger: Training and reading

You: What kind of reading?

Stranger: The bible and military history

You: Why military history?

Stranger: Because I like it

You: Ah okay

You: have you always liked it?

Stranger: Yes

You: favorite period?

Stranger: I don't have a favorite period

You: oh I thought a lot of people had a favorite battle or a favorite country/nation

Stranger: Okay

You: okay

You: well, if the conversation seems to be dying down, thank you for explaining things

Stranger: For all the good it will do

You: who knows, it was an experience for me, I guess?

You: in either case, I wish you the best!

Stranger: Lol

You: is it that funny?

Stranger: Yes

You: >.>

You: Why? Are you used to getting tons of hate or something?

Stranger: Because I am a Fascist. You hoping "the best" for me would most likely work against you

You: Mhm, I guess I'm taking my chances lol

You: to me you're still a person

You: living somewhere in America

Stranger: What does that have to do with anything

You: idk, I think our worldviews don't really align -- I kind of wish for everyone to find happiness

Stranger: Why

You: call me a pacifist or something idk

You: I dunno, do I need a reason?

Stranger: It just seems arbitrary to me

You: I'm not sure why I have the values that I do

You: they are somewhat important to me though

Stranger: They are strange to me

You: I guess

You: I suppose I don't have the strongest sense of self-preservation

You: I was slightly suicidal years ago

You: although I'm better now

Stranger: I consider people that commit suicide to be pathetic, depending on the reasoning

You: I didn't have strong reasoning, probably just generic mental health issues

You: in either case, having greater purpose of some kind makes me feel better

You: for me, being able to spread something positive is meaningful

Stranger: For me the only appropriate time to kill oneself is if you are about to be captured by an enemy

Stranger: If you are paralyzed

Stranger: If you can no longer walk

Stranger: If you lose your reproductive organs

You: These seem heavily honor-focused

Stranger: That is the kind of person I am

You: I seems like your honor means a lot to you, which I guess is honorable too

You: (my goodness the pun lol)

Stranger: Well

You: although I mean not sure if all of those things are worth a life, at least in my view

Stranger: I am a man, if I cannot protect the women in my life then I have no reason to live

You: I'm not really sure how to respond to that

Stranger: If a man cannot defend his people, then what is the point of his existence

Stranger: Seems pointless to me, better off just killing yourself

You: I think people can find things important to them over time

You: and I think we all experience loss

Stranger: It doesn't matter if they find something important to them

Stranger: They are useless if they cannot defend women

You: ^^ maybe some women don't want to be defended?

Stranger: What kind of woman would not want to be defended from an attacker

You: It is figurative in multiple different ways

Stranger: What?

Stranger: Why would a woman not want someone to defend her from an attacker?

You: I think some women don't want to be defended from unspecified "threats", if they have't asked for help

Stranger: So if someone is breaking into my home an tries to attack my mother, I need to wait for her to ask me for help?

You: nope, depends on the person

Stranger: It depends on the person?

Stranger: There are women out there that would get angry if you stopped a rapist from raping her?

You: I think I'm referring to less literal things than that, but I feel like this is a difficult conversation to have

Stranger: I do not find it difficult

Stranger: Again

Stranger: There are women out there that would get angry if you stopped a rapist from raping her because you did not ask her first?

You: I think I was somewhat reacting to this link: "If a man cannot defend his people, then what is the point of his existence"

You: If you failed do defend someone you love, I don't think they would want you to commit suicide

Stranger: You misunderstand me, yet again

You: likewise, I don't think that people always hold those expectations that men will defend women anymore

Stranger: A wife does not expect her husband to protect her?

Stranger: A mother does not expect her son to protect her?

Stranger: A daughter does not expect her father to protect her?

Stranger: A sister does not expect a brother to protect her?

You: I think there are circumstances that a husband can misunderstand what constitutes "protecting" his wife

Stranger: We are not talking about those circumstances

You: Someone more conservatively minded may consider that a a certain male friend that daughter has is a threat

Stranger: I do not care about that

Stranger: I know what I am talking about

Stranger: And that is all that matters

You: okay

Stranger: I am not interested in how others interpret it

Stranger: I am talking about what I am talking about

Stranger: Not how others would perceive that

You: okay

Stranger: So why are you bringing that up?

You: I dunno, it didn't sit very well with me for some reason

Stranger: You are against protecting the women you care about from attackers?

You: No, I think I had a different interpretation of your statement than you meant it

Stranger: What I said was very straight forward

You: I was just thinking of times when other people wanted things for me that I didn't want for myself

Stranger: You were thinking of a time someone broke into your home or raped you, and got angry at someone intervening?

You: Nope, we are thinking of different things

Stranger: What I said was straight forward

Stranger: How could you misinterpret it?

You: I think the mentality was similar to something else that I recognized

Stranger: So you accused me of something instead of asking me to clarify

You: Sorry; I think we just took "defended" to mean different things

You: Like for me I was thinking of the more figurative instances like: "I am defending your interests" "This is good for you" "That's bad for you"

Stranger: I never said anything like that

You: You didn't

Stranger: The exampled I gave were of paralyzed men or missing limbs or unable to walk

Stranger: It should have been obvious that when I said defending I was talking about something physical

You: Yeah, sorry, I think my own experiences just got in the way

Stranger: But instead your pathetic biases lead you into a conclusion that was erroneous

Stranger: Because you have a preconceived notion of what certain people are like

Stranger: Nothing to say?

You: Yeah, not really, sorry

Stranger: So what are you waiting around for?

You: I tabbed away briefly

You: I'm not sure what I'm waiting for

You: what about you?

Stranger: I am waiting for a response

You: I admit that I have baggage

You: I think a lot of people have baggage, and it leads to numerous misunderstandings

Stranger: I have absconded with mine. Why haven't you?

You: Hm? I don't always perceive it as a weakness though

You: I think we are the sum of our experiences

You: the good ones and the bad ones

Stranger: You are making me angry

You: sorry

Stranger: I cant stand when people blame their past for their behavior

You: what should I say instead?

Stranger: How about nothing

Stranger: How about you instead let go of the past and not let it dictate who you are

You: I don't exactly have a bad relationship with my past though

You: I like the way that my past has shaped the current me

Stranger: Why were you hesitant to tell me you are a woman

You: well let me scroll up

You: "This seems above your ability to fully grasp so it makes me think you are a woman"

You: ^ How would somebody not react negatively to that?

Stranger: Why would you hide it

You: Because I was annoyed for a moment and decided to be annoying in a brief moment

Stranger: Typical female behavior

Stranger: Passive aggressiveness and pettiness

Stranger: Did that annoy you too?

You: No, I'm not really that surprised anymore

Stranger: How old are you

You: 26

Stranger: I thought I was talking to a teenager

You: mhm, I've been told similar before

Stranger: Are you married

You: no

Stranger: Why not

You: why should I?

Stranger: Are you ugly

You: lol does it matter to you?

Stranger: Yes

You: sure, let's say I'm ugly then

Stranger: What do you look like

You: I don't feel any need to continue this conversation down this path

Stranger: Lol

Stranger: Alright then

Stranger: Does it make you uncomfortable

You: yes and no, but mostly no

Stranger: So what is the issue

You: I have my own moral standards too

Stranger: Do your moral standards prohibit you from talking about your face

You: pretty much

You: you can think of it as a high bar that makes it easy to define something black and white

Stranger: What is your race

You: loool

You: why do you suddenly care now?

Stranger: You said 'black and white' and it reminded me of something I forgot to ask earlier

You: lol

You: do you normally ask early on?

Stranger: Yes, it is important to know

You: lol I guess it's your fault for forgetting to ask

Stranger: Yes, so what is your race

You: I'm skipping this question and leaving it to you to interpret it in the worst way possible ^^

You: seems fun to me

Stranger: You are Asian

You: why would you think that?

Stranger: I am a racist. Determining race is inherent

You: it's kind of amusing to me that you picked asian

Stranger: Well if you must know

Stranger: You tend to take things a little literally, and you have a formal tone, and that is typical for Asians

Stranger: The way you respond to certain things suggests a very foreign cultural background

Stranger: All of that to me says Asian

Stranger: Oriental, rather

You: Fine, helpful of you to put it into words I guess

Stranger: Is it still amusing

You: Maybe?

You: I thought certain things were just me though

Stranger: So can you tell me your race

Stranger: If you are worried that I will make fun of you for it, I do not mock people anymore

You: nah, I won't share details

You: I'm a little stubborn in the sense that once I've decided something, I'm pretty adamant about it

You: but you are welcome to believe what you believe

Stranger: What is the purpose of not sharing that detail

You: it's an emotional defense mechanism for myself

You: there are certain lines that I do not cross on omegle

Stranger: I already said I will not mock you or use it against you

You: it is a rule that I hold myself to

You: that's not really the point

Stranger: Alright then

Stranger: Let us talk outside of omegle

You: lol and that is one of my rules lol

Stranger: Unfortunate

You: is it?

Stranger: I will not insist

Stranger: Yes

Stranger: I was starting to like you

You: I'm flattered, but I'm not interested in using omegle for those purposes

Stranger: What purpose are you referring to

You: mhm, getting to know people in the many ways that it means

Stranger: That is disappointing

You: I am actually rather distrusting and antisocial to some regards

You: in either case, I'm not interested in friends

Stranger: I understand

You: In either case, thank you for spending this time with me, and I feel like I was able to hear a lot

Stranger: Alright

You: best wishes to you and your mom!

Stranger: Lol

#omegle #fascism #misogny #racism #religion #transcript #strength #honor #spirituality #christianity #masculinity #politics #unemployment

1 note · View note

serenagaywaterford · 4 years

Note

Would love to read about your thoughts on symbolism on tht specially about that cross n.n I mean, you truly give it so much more richness to the show and characters, you make them more. I don't know it's just fascinating.

Like about Serena’s cross tattoo? Or about the symbol in general? I assume in terms of THT, but to be totally honest, I have NO idea why or how Serena even has a tattoo, let alone one of a cross when they’ve gone to great lengths to remove all mentions of Jesus from the dialogue in the show. There’s a few bits that pop as incredibly awkward because the show just blanks out mentions of Christ, but doesn’t replace it with anything else. (2x06 is one example when they’re saying grace and... it’s JUST SO WEIRD.)

Then there’s the stuff about hanging priests. I assume Catholic Priests. But the whole issue of what exactly the “Bible” is that Gilead uses is so confusing. Sometimes it seems like it’s only Old Testament, but then sometimes it’s got New Testament vibes, which is super weird since Jesus is kinda like the main feature of that whole thing. It could be like the Mormon bible I suppose. But getting an answer to that is likely never going to happen.

All I know is that they apparently removed the entire book of the Song of Solomon. (Since we know Eden was studying the shit out of her Bible, but she had no idea what Serena was talking about when she directly referenced Solomon.) This would imply (and most cultish religions do this) they pick and choose which books are included in their version of the Bible to suit their goals.

Where am I going with these thoughts?

I have no idea.

Sorry lol.

ANYWAY, yeah, it seems as if Jesus isn’t part of Gilead theology. Which on the one hand makes total sense, cos Jesus is SUPPOSED to be about love and compassion--two things Gilead cannot afford. Jesus’ teachings basically go against all the horrible shit people do to each other in Gilead. But I mean, so does a lot of Old Testament shit too. It’s just not very cohesive cos fascist governments based on religions never make sense. The religion is just a front for other more insidious ambitions.

SO, without Jesus, there is really no purpose of a cross or crucifix in representing that religion. Like, Christainity, Catholism especially, uses the crucifix because it’s literally referenced in the New Testament as the way they torturing and killed Jesus who allegedly “died for our sins”. Whatever the fuck that means and however the fuck that supposedly works. Many other denominations took the Jesus figure OFF the cross, and used it alone as a symbol. (Yes, a cross and a crucifix are technically different, but I use them interchangeably unless I’m specifically discussing the differences between the two.)

But in Gilead, there are no crosses anywhere, nor mentions of Jesus. You’d expect there to be if it’s a Christian theocracy. So, it’s not Christian? Like, if you literally don’t include Jesus Christ, it cannot be Christian. The only crucifix is the giant honking (engineering impossibility) of the Washington Monument thing in 3x06. And that was very jarring cos up until that point, there was no references to Christianity really at all in Gilead.

And that’s also why Serena’s tattoo is odd. Since Gilead is not a Jesus-recognised sect, she must have got it pre-Gilead. (Not to mention, I am absolutely certain women in Gilead cannot get tattoos lol.) But why? When? How? I NEED ANSWERS!

#but thank you also! i am just bursting full of garbage #and it happens to land in neat little piles on my blog occasionally #Anonymous

3 notes · View notes

solacekames · 6 years

Photo

Insurgent Supremacists – a new book about the U.S. far right By Matthew N Lyons | Sunday, April 01, 2018

My book Insurgent Supremacists: The U.S. Far Right’s Challenge to State and Empire is due out this May and is being published jointly by Kersplebedeb Publishing and PM Press. It draws on work that I’ve been doing over the past 10-15 years but also includes a lot of new material. In this post I want to highlight some of what’s distinctive about this book and how it relates to the three way fight approach to radical antifascism. I’ll focus here on three themes that run throughout the book: 1. Disloyalty to the state is a key dividing line within the U.S. right. For purposes of this book, I define the U.S. far right not in terms of a specific ideology, but rather as those political forces that (a) regard human inequality as natural, inevitable, or desirable and (b) reject the legitimacy of the established political system. That includes white nationalists who advocate replacing the United States with one or more racially defined “ethno-states.” But it also includes the hardline wing of the Christian right, which wants to replace secular forms of government with a full-blown theocracy; Patriot movement activists who reject the federal government’s legitimacy based on conspiracy theories and a kind of militant libertarianism; and some smaller ideological currents. Insurgent Supremacists argues that the modern far right defined in these terms has only emerged in the United States over the past half century, as a result of social and political upheavals associated with the 1960s, and that it represents a shift away from the right’s traditional role as defenders of the established order. The book explores how the various far right currents have developed and how they have interacted with each other and with the larger political landscape. I chose to frame the book in terms of “far right” rather than “fascism” for a couple of reasons. Discussions of fascism tend to get bogged down in definitional debates, because people have very strong—and very divided—opinions about what fascism means and what it includes. Insurgent Supremacists includes in-depth discussions of fascism as a theoretical and historical concept, but that’s not the book’s focus or overall framework. As a related point, most discussions of fascism focus on white nationalist forces and tend to exclude or ignore other right-wing currents such as Christian rightist forces, and I think it’s important to look at these different forces in relation to each other. For example, critics of the Patriot/militia movement often argue that its hostility to the federal government was derived from Posse Comitatus, a white supremacist and antisemitic organization that played a big role in the U.S. far right in the 1980s. That’s an important part of the story, but Patriot groups were also deeply influenced by hardline Christian rightists, who (quite independently from white nationalists) had for years been urging people to arm themselves and form militias to resist federal tyranny. We rarely hear about that. 2. The far right is ideologically complex and dynamic and belies common stereotypes. Many critics of the far right tend to assume that its ideology doesn’t amount to much more than crude bigotry, and if we identify a group as “Nazi” or as white supremacist, male supremacist, etc., that’s pretty much all we need to know. This is a dangerous assumption that doesn’t explain why far right groups are periodically able to mobilize significant support and wield influence far beyond their numbers. Yes, the far right has its share of stupid bigots, but unfortunately it also has its share of smart, creative people. We need to take far rightists’ beliefs and strategies seriously, study their internal debates, and look at how they’ve learned from past mistakes. Otherwise we’ll be fighting 21st-century battles with 1930s weapons. For example: because of the history of fascism in the 1930s and 40s, we tend to identify far right politics with glorification of the strong state and highly centralized political organizations. Some far rightists, such as the Lyndon LaRouche network, still hold to that approach, but most of them have actually abandoned it in favor of various kinds of political decentralism, from neonazis who call for “leaderless resistance” and want to carve regional white homelands out of the United States to “sovereign citizens” and county supremacists, from self-described National-Anarchists to Christian Reconstructionists who advocate a theocracy based on small-scale institutions such as local government, churches, and individual families. One of the lessons here is that opposing centralized authority isn’t necessarily liberatory at all, because repression and oppression can operate on a small scale just as well as on a large scale. This shift to political decentralism isn’t just empty rhetoric; it’s a genuine transformation of far right politics. I think it should be examined in relation to larger cultural, political, and economic developments, such as the global restructuring of industrial production and the wholesale privatization of governmental functions in the U.S. and elsewhere. We need to take far rightists’ beliefs and strategies seriously, study their internal debates, and look at how they’ve learned from past mistakes. Otherwise we’ll be fighting 21st-century battles with 1930s weapons. As another example of oversimplifying far right politics, it’s standard to describe far rightists as promoting heterosexual male dominance. While that’s certainly true in broad terms, it doesn’t really tell us very much. Insurgent Supremacists maps out several distinct forms of far right politics regarding gender and sexual identity and looks at how those have played out over time within the far right’s various branches. Most far rightists vilify homosexuality, but sections of the alt-right have advocated some degree of respect for male homosexuality, based on a kind of idealized male bonding among warriors, an approach that actually has deep roots in fascist political culture. In recent years the alt-right has promoted some of the most vicious misogyny and declared that women have no legitimate political role. But when the alt-right got started around 2010, it included men who argued that sexism and sexual harassment of women were weakening the movement by alienating half of its potential support base. This view echoed the quasi-feminist positions that several neonazi groups had been taking since the 1980s, such as the idea that Jews promoted women’s oppression as part of their effort to divide and subjugate the Aryan race. This may sound bizarre, but it’s a prime example of the far right’s capacity time and again to appropriate elements of leftist politics and harness them to its own supremacist agenda. 3. Fighting the far right and working to overthrow established systems of power are distinct but interconnected struggles. A third core element that sets Insurgent Supremacists apart is three way fight politics: the idea that the existing socio-economic-political order and the far right represent different kinds of threats—interconnected but distinct—and that the left needs to combat both of them. This challenges the assumption, recurrent among many leftists, that the far right is either unimportant or a ruling-class tool, and that it basically just wants to impose a more extreme version of the status quo. But three way fight politics also challenges the common liberal view that in the face of a rising far right threat we need to “defend democracy” and subordinate systemic change to a broad-based antifascism. Among other huge problems with this approach, if leftists throw our support behind the existing order we play directly into the hands of the far right, because we allow them to present themselves as the only real oppositional force, the only ones committed to real change. Insurgent Supremacists applies three way fight analysis in various ways. There’s a chapter on misuses of the charge of fascism since the 1930s, which looks at how some leftists and liberals have misapplied the fascist label either to authoritarian conservatism (such as McCarthyism or the George W. Bush administration) or to the existing political system as a whole. There’s a chapter about the far right’s relationship with Donald Trump—both his presidential campaign and his administration—which explores the complex and shifting interactions between rightist currents that want to overthrow or secede from the United States and rightist currents that don’t. During the campaign, most alt-rightists enthusiastically supported Trump not only for his attacks on immigrants and Muslims but also because he made establishment conservatives look like fools. But since the inauguration they’ve been deeply alienated by many of his policies, which largely follow a conservative script. Three way fight analysis also informs the book’s discussion of federal security forces’ changing relationships with right-wing vigilantes and paramilitary groups. These relations have run the gamut from active support for right-wing violence (most notoriously in Greensboro in 1979, when white supremacists gunned down communist anti-Klan protesters) to active suppression (as in 1984-88, when the FBI and other agencies arrested or shot members of half a dozen underground groups). This complex history belies arguments that we should look to the federal government to protect us against the far right, as well as simplistic claims that “the cops and the Klan go hand in hand.” Forces of the state may choose to co-opt right-wing paramilitaries or crack down on them, depending on the particular circumstances and what seems most useful to help them maintain social control. Insurgent Supremacists isn’t intended to be a comprehensive study of the U.S. far right. Rather, it’s an attempt to offer some fresh ideas about what these dangerous forces stand for, where they come from, and what roles they play in the larger political arena. Not just to help us understand them, but so we can fight them more effectively.

#far right #antifascism #definitely going to buy this book #insurgent supremacists #antifa #alt right

34 notes · View notes

ramrodd · 5 years

Video

youtube

What Did Jesus Mean When He Said He Would Fulfill the Law?

COMMENTARY:

Aron just claimed on Twitter that there are more than 7 signs in John. I challenged him to name them and to number how many there are. You guys seem to be profoundly ignorant of the numerology of the Bible, so this could be a teachable moment.

By the way, all Pro-Life Evangelical Spiritual Warriors defending the Salvation Gospel should be wearing your MAGA hats so we know whose team you are on. If I still had a hat, it would be a black Ranger beret I wore on patrol on the Ho Chi Mihn Trail, but I left it down at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial because .... well, because.

Like the doctrine of Solo Scriptura, the Law of Moses was an empty vessel. It was designed to illustrate what the spirit is not and deliberated left what the spirit is a void to be filled later. The Holy of Holies, with its carpet-thick veil, was an empty space for the spirit to occupy. It's like the empty chair at a seder, in case Elijah is party hopping and happens to stop by. Or the box the Aviator drows for the Littel Prince to keep his lamb safe.

Jesus is a test-tube baby, the catapillar in Plato's Cave who dons a chrysalis and emerges in all His Glory three days later as a butter fly.

The Beatitudes weaves a similar chrysalis around the spirit of the servant leader. The Sermon on the Mount is a TED Talk on becoming a servant leader, what those attributes are. They don't connect, logically, per se except that they each connect with the spirit of the servant-leadership. Like the balance of the biblical narrative, the Gospel of Mark advances the themes of the inerrancy of God's faithfulness. the epistemology, ontology and ethic of the Law of Moses, and the nature of duty, as examined in the sacrifice of Isaac and Abraham's duty to Sarah in regards to Hagar. The Gospel of Mark adds the living archtype of the Servant-Leader as the nature of command in a milieu of secular humanism, such as the Roman empire in 1st Century Judea. Jesus is the model of Servant Leadership of West Point with it's priorities of Mission:Men:Self of the Liberation Gospel.

One of the reasons why Christian apologetics has been operating at a disadvantage to Muslim and anti-theist critics is it's superstitious embrace of Solo Scriptura as the only source of High Criticism, much less personal spiritual growth. It's a forensic format, lacking the spirit. It's a deliberate appeal to what has become the post modern dialectical deconstruction that characterizes Marx's examination of Hegel and is basically an adversarial legal argument. I mean, when you start talking about gaming out the Lord's Prayer, it's an indication you have completely lost your way, theologically,

The good news, I suppose, for you is that you arern't alone. N.T. Wright has fallen victim to the same process fallacy. He has a real hard-on about the decadent influence of the Epicuriean ethos of the Enlightenment. He's never come out and said it, but I assume that he believes Christian Stewardship is defined by the many stoicism of Paul cruising the highways and biways of Asia Minor.

Zeno's discussion of stoicism and Epicurus and his Epicureanism are studies of the aspects of the spirit of Duty. Everybody is talking about Duty before Socrates defines Duty as a citizen existentially by drinking his Hemlock shooter. Melchizedek figures into this mix in some manner in the Mediterranean that begins the transition from societies based on Aesthetics of the theocracy to the Ethic of secular humanism. At 2000 BCE, Egypt was proving to be an epistemological dead end. It had all the social organization necessary to put a man on the moon, but they had wrung about everything they could out of the technology they used escaping the stone age but had stalled doing it bigger and better.

Unlike the author of Hebrews, I think Melchizedek is human and is a member of the same guild who would send wisemen to Bethleham 2000 years later to determine what they had wrought along this critical path. A similar critical path was set in motion across the Mediterranean into the Greek Penisula, the Etruscans and Carthaginian enclave in North Africa and it all came into focus with the Praetorian Guards of the Roman Republic. And the Holy Catholic Church of the Apostle's Creed is the synthesis of those two social spheres, the Law of Moses and the Roman rule of Law completed the transition from the Aesthetic of the Heroic societies of the warrior states, on the one hand, and the Ethical Aesthetic of the Jewish theocracy, on the other, to the secular humanism Paul's legal arguements in Romans suggests to his Roman interrogators during his first imprisonment.

And Duty is the one inerrant element of both social apparatus. Jesus clearly sees Himself acting to the same moral authority as Socrates and, this is essential to understanding the servant-leader ethos of the Gospel of Mark, the centurion in Matthew 8/Luke 7 recognizes the submission of Jesus to an identical moral authority he, the soldier, pays to Caesar at the top of his chain of command. It is exactly the same moral authority I voluntarily submitted to as a commissioned officer. Duty. And behind Duty is Yaweh, Queen of Battle. This is the essence of the Liberation Gospel.

So, this dilemma N. T. Wright perceives between Stoic and Epicurean philosophies is an example of the nature of the Fascist construct result from post modern dialectical deconstruction. It's like Supply-side economics: you begin with a dynamic whole, which may be paradox, such as the paradox of the Stoic-Epicurean aspects of Duty, and devolve them to dilemma and then forcee a choice between the horns of the dilemma. In the case of the dynamic relationship between Supply-Demand, you determine that Supply and Demand repesent systemic contradiction and force a choice to eliminat the contradiction, in the case of the Dialectical Materialism of Marxism you chose a Supply-side construct for social organizaton, and in the case of the Stoic-Epicruean aspects of Duty, you declare the decadence of the Epicrurean of secular humanism.

The confusion is caused because the spirit of Duty as the common anchor for either side of the dialectic. Fascism occurs when a synthetic process is delayed or prematurely terminated.

When I was going through the Ranger School, there was a motivational poster in the City Phase at Harmony Church with the legend: Instant Obedience - Self Discipline. These are the ideals the Ranger strives to exhibit by his/her commitment to Duty as defined by Duty, or, as a result of submission to the authority of the US Constitution. This is what the centurion recognized in Jesus. "Instant Obedience" occurs in the existential NOW in the manner that Abraham immediately began to make preparations to sacrifice Isaac. That's the Stoic side of the equation. "Self Discipline" is the state of constant high dressage necessary to ensure the efficacy of that "Instant Obedience". That's the Epicurean side of the equation. The "Eat, Drink and be Merry" side of the Epicurean life style is like that Zen proverb: "Before Enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood, carry water". It is a life style that reflects the ""semper vigilans fortis paratus et fidelis" context of the Republican servant leader, ancient and modern, which includes the contingency "For tomorrow, we may die" of the Liberation Gospel.

See, the thing is, I went to Vietnam on the basis of the Liberation Gospel and the people who had other priorities than military service or were scared shitless of going to Vietnam stayed behind with the Salvation Gospel of the Young Ruler who wanted to follow Jesus but went away in sorrow because he had great wealth. Salvation is the context of the republican servant leader engaged in the Liberation Gospel. It's why the motto of the US Army Infantry is "Follow Me!": when Duty calls, the ululations of Yaweh, Queen of Battle, demands "Instant Obedience" of the heart.

"Not in all of Israel have I found such faith": the most important verse in the Bible for the Liberation Gospel of the servant leader.

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses with absolute, existential clarity. That's what "Instant Obedience - Self Discipline" means if you have a Ranger Tab. If you're a Pro-Life Evangelical Spiritual Warrior, that's why you need to put on your MAGA hat when you're selling your version of Jesus: a little truth in advertising if you're selling the Theological Narcissism of the Salvation Gospel.

#transfromingamericafirst

0 notes