“The destructive action of totalitarian machinery is usually supported by a special kind of primitive social philosophy. It proclaims not only that the common good of ‘society’ has priority over the interest of individuals, but that the very existence of individuals, as persons, is reducible to the existence of the social ‘whole’; in other words, personal existence is, in a strange sense, unreal. This is a convenient foundation for any ideology of slavery.”
It always worries me how easily we slip into this common good mentality. And how quickly it is hijacked so you really do become a slave. It is something I am very sensitive to. I saw it coming a mile away during Covid. I knew they would invoke some notion the unvaxxed were putting others at risk.
I can understand why. But remember reality exists. People notice. The MPs may live in a bubble, but the rest of us do not. Every time they pull these stunts they demonstrate how tone deaf they are, how out of touch they are with normality.
For that reason alone they are not going to be our future.
They are creating a set of conditions that will destroy representative democracy just as they have more or less destroyed every institution. They imagine themselves clever. That we don't understand these things. But many notice.
The sentiment among Black individuals, including those of us with shared experiences and histories, is one of increasing resilience in the face of pervasive and relentless white supremacist fatigue, which is undeniably exacerbated by the implementation of initiatives like Project 2025. In a world where the echoes of the past resonate deeply, particularly for those of us who have witnessed the cycles of oppression and resistance, it is essential to acknowledge the understanding that this fatigue can manifest in ways that tempt us toward fortification and the instinct to organize in the face of perceived threats from white extremism.
However, I urge us to step back and reassess where we place our energies. This call is not just for self-reflection but a collective understanding, particularly among our esteemed veterans and retired law enforcement members, who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. While the instinct to stockpile and prepare for potential conflict is rooted in a history of vulnerability and survival, we must be careful not to mirror the very divisions and hostilities that white supremacist groups thrive upon.
Reflecting on the past is crucial. The lessons learned from the rise of fascism in Europe during the first half of the 20th century are particularly relevant. We must remember how marginalized communities, such as the Jewish population at that time, were scapegoated in a bid to solidify a dangerous ideology that sought to eliminate dissent and critical thought. Adolf Hitler and his associates drew inspiration from the Jim Crow laws and the treatment of Black Americans, seeing a model for dehumanization and systemic oppression. This history serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of hate-fueled ideologies—a cautionary tale that warns us against becoming entrenched in a cycle of violence and retribution.
As we navigate our current landscape, we must recognize that the stockpiling of resources and the organization of defense against white extremism, while born out of a legitimate desire for safety and empowerment, can inadvertently perpetuate the cycle of fear and division. Instead of arming ourselves for battle, let us channel our energies into building bridges and fostering dialogues to help dismantle the ideologies that threaten us.
Through education, community organizing, and coalition-building, we can reclaim our narratives and empower each other to resist oppression without resorting to the same tactics of fear and violence that our oppressors employ. It is vital to remember that our strength lies in our preparedness for conflict and our ability to engage in meaningful resistance through unity and understanding.
Let us strive for a future where our legacies are defined by resilience, dialogue, and profound transformation, rather than the imposition of harm and defensive preparations. By standing together against hate without succumbing to it, we can confidently forge a path toward security, justice, and peace for ourselves and future generations.
You are spamming this Substack with irrelevant nonsense unrelated to the article or the comments posted. Stop it or get banned.
You are free to respond sensibly to the material posted, including comments. But this is not a platform for adolescent race grievances. Grow up and post proper content related to the topic being discussed.
Although this is a brilliant synopsis of what is going on, it does fail to point out that what is being done is being done on purpose in order to degrade society to the point where we can all be enslaved and ultimately eliminated so the earth can be occupied by those who are behind it all.
Perhaps. That may indeed be their plan. But what matters is execution, not plans. Their plans are crazy enough, but the layer of society they must operate through are incompetent. So there is hope. It won't work.
It won't work because they are not smarter than the rest of us, although they are under that delusion. They may have money and power, but that won't get you respect.
I remember after the Iron Curtain came down, and the people who had been on the other side were allowed to speak out. It seems they were very aware that they were being fed propaganda, and really had no respect for those in charge. That's why the system failed.
It is widely understood the Soviet Union fell because everyone stopped believing their propaganda. By the end it was parroted by many but believed by none. When the myths propping up society collapse so does the society.
Today for us it is climate change, diversity, even government itself. As the foundations crumble regimes dig in harder. The media broadcast propaganda that no one can question. All of this precedes a collapse.
If you scroll just right, that meme with the puppeted mask-wearer reads:
"The least obey the best"
Subliminal programming hidden in memes or just random chance?
Central planning is great. Also, it is disastrous.
Central planning for where to put a nation-wide railroad-system yields awesome results as long as all the planners have "optimal efficiency with minimal destruction" as their top priority, as any patriot would. Anyone not a patriot will of course instead defer to their god of choice, be it Marx or The Market, and thus produce a poorer result if "optimal efficiency with minimal destruction" is the top principle. If "equality in the workplace" or "inflation +1% growth of profits per quarter" are put highest, well then you get something sub-optimal.
The example I used to use in class on occasion was toilet paper. Something we can all relate to and easily grasp.
Centrally plan the correct amount of tp per person per year? Impossible.
Centrally plan the regulations for what chemicals may be used when making paper? Possible.
(That regulatory bodies may be corrupted by politics, capitalism and everything in between doesn't change the above. Anyone thinking unregulated is best, do yourself a favour and study the 1800-1950 period, with an eye to exhausts, medicinal products, and pesticides.)
Religion: if your religion tells you that you by adhering to it is better than me, has power over me and that I must bow down before it? We have a problem. If the symbol is a cross or a crescent moon or a star I care not one used fig about. If you and your religion respects everyone's right to opt out and/or say "No thanks", then no problem.
And I look at the history of how adherents of religions have acted when they had their hand on the tiller and the whip-handle, when judging - same as when looking at ideologies. "Did ______ work when tried? How did _______ turn out?" and such. Excusing and rationalising by saying "it wasn't real XYZ!" is just what the commies do - "Real communism has never been tried". Oh yeah?
But the only /real/ iteration of an idea?
The one we know of empirically. Techbrocracy is no different.
Yes good point. It is not all bad. But those drawn to central planning are increasingly pathological characters. All that centralized power is tempting.
You left out the third option: self organization based on simple rules. It is often assumed by the managerial types the without central planning there would only be chaos. Reality doesn't work that way. If human groups are taught a set of simple rules, such as "The Golden Rule", and it's enforced by the culture, low lever organization will arise. You can't plan a railroad with it, but it handles most of the day-to-day interactions within society. We often call it "common sense", but it is really a set of simple rules so ingrained that we don't even need think consciously about them.
It works as a third position, not inbetween but as its own, certainly, but just as planned and unplanned have their limitations, so does spontaneous autnomous (or self organisation as you said):
It doesn't scale at all beyond tribal level societies, and it is very vulnerable to technological and social change, much more so than either of the others.
The trick would be what tasks, and at what levels of organisation, are the best handled by planned, unplanned or spontanenous. And that "the best" is by no means static - what was best planned at one point and in one place (Latifundias as a form of agriculture f.e.) may be best left unplanned in another (people following their herds over grazelands, Mongol-style) or self organised (Swedish fäbod-bruk, a form of seasonal pasture and crop growing).
What is missing, as Spiff talks about in a way, is humility and gentleness (and gentleman-ness!) among the managerial class. They are akin to shpeherds whipping their sheep to march in step, instead of focusing on the well-being and prosperity of the flock.
Yes, I agree with you 100%. Remember that what drove aristocrats to become noble was insults, perceived dishonor, or conflicts could lead to immediate death. There is no consequense for such actions in modern society, except perhaps a lawsuit. Recognising the type of organizational that would works best is analogous to the Serenity Prayer: O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other.
Mixing "defund the police" with "the government must act" is truly childish thinking in action.
All mandates (including private property) are ultimately backed by the threat of violence. About the only exception are religious communities which employ shunning in lieu of force.
Yes. It is all about force at the end of the day. My favourite example being women's rights; they can only be enforced by men prepared to commit violence 😜
Pieces like this put me in mind of many, many people I have worked with (though not alongside) over the decades, who would nowadays be called the managerial/laptop class. I was basically a project planner and manager - with a lot of hands-on work to actually implement those projects.
But there would always be this cohort of the aforementioned "managerials" who always seemed to be fully booked up at high-level strategic meetings or conferences but who never to my knowledge produced any output.
No reports or detailed documents of any sort. Nothing. Just flying off to London or other European capitals to meet their opposite numbers in other similar companies or outsourcers and suchlike.
I always thought it quite impressive that they managed to do so well for themselves in being paid for what seemed completely non- productive roles for so long, especially when departments were being trimmed of actual workers on a regular basis for efficiency savings etc.
It's almost magical, the instinct some people have for this kind of thing.
I quite agree. I have known a few myself. The polite term is to call them politicians; those capable of managing networks of contacts but producing little tangible work.
The corporate world is especially bad for this as their need for "governance" provides a place for the non-productive to manage the productive who do the work.
Our world is now run by the professional-managerial types. Whenever you see some of the videos from WEF conferences it is apparent these are non-productive people in the sense they cannot produce or create anything. So they dream instead and imagine our skills make us artisans and them the artists because they have a vision.
Alas, their world is coming to an end. How could it not?
Have you noticed that now that the customer is also expected to do their work, for free?
We are to use self checkout, push buttons for automated customer service, talk to chat bots, fill in surveys, etc... Maybe younger people don't realized how much of this used to be done by paid employees.
I agree. This is a bizarre turn of events. But I think it is part of a bigger shift where organizations increasingly do not work for customers or end users. Once bureaucratized they take on a life of their own. So they move away from serving needs.
So glad to read what I used to say to my friends who believe those in power are infallible. Great choice of memes! Survival mode here indeed☝🏼 What a bunch of dystopians and dangerous human beings.
Yes they are, but ultimately they will fail. Power and money gets you far, but not all the way. Their plans cannot work, so it is only a matter of time.
Buried in the bowls of the PMC cube farm, the section manager announced: "Those knuckle heads don't know what they're doing". Just because you don't know what they're doing, for fuck sake don't be confused, they know exactly what they're doing
I disagree. I think today's leaders are characterized by incompetence and arrogance. Some of their PR is good mind you, and that convinces many that they have superpowers they clearly do not possess.
All Western nations are in decline. All of them. We are not seeing Machiavellian brilliance. We are seeing elites completely lost to fantasy.
Michael Parenti was giving a talk and addressed this very issue, decade after decade after decade after decade, 40 plus years policy fail, you have to ask the question is it incompetence or is someone benefiting from all these failed policies, cui Bono, and we just had a master class in how this works, over the last 5 years only a hand full of ethical doctors put there head up and were hit with a hammer
I loved every word of this! You are right, these are the type of people who love to make lists and plans, but would never actually do anything. They are basically lazy, and being in a position to only exercise their mouths while spouting the approved agenda satisfies their inner insecurity.
They aren't very intelligent, although often highly educated, finding school to be a safe place to avoid actually doing things in life. Whatever is handed to them as the approved agenda from the approved people is all they need to feel "elite" and not have to think too hard.
What they really are to the people with the big money and nefarious agenda of control at the top are "useful idiots".
Yes they are definitely the useful idiot people. Blind to their prejudices and largely driven by a need for status. But imagine you are a billionaire with grand plans and these are the people you must work through. None of it will work, although they are doing a lot of damage.
Even if these visions are true, I’m not too worried. People are masterful at derailing even the most airtight plans, especially the ones designed in boardrooms far from reality.
📌 The wild card isn’t policy. It’s people.
⬖ Drafted while dismantling the master plan at Frequency of Reason: https://bit.ly/4jTVv69
Your sentiments appear to be deeply intertwined with a poignant longing for a past rooted in a specific form of white nostalgia—a yearning that evokes memories of an era frequently idealized, despite its glaringly oppressive realities and the severe injustices faced by countless marginalized groups. This nostalgic longing often revolves around a time marked by institutionalized racism and systemic oppression, particularly during the Jim Crow era in the United States. This significant historical chapter, which spanned several decades, is characterized by the comprehensive implementation of racial segregation, systematic disenfranchisement of Black Americans, and a pervasive denial of fundamental human rights not only to Black individuals but also to various other marginalized communities who faced discrimination and violence during this dark period.
These reflections of nostalgia often invoke a peculiar brand of selective memory that romanticizes certain aspects of life during those tumultuous times—whether they pertain to quaint traditions, closely knit communities, or the seemingly simplistic comforts of an age long past—while conspicuously avoiding a reckoning with the profound injustices, relentless suffering, and dehumanization experienced by countless individuals on a daily basis. This kind of nostalgic perspective tends to obscure the harsh realities of violence, poverty, and the ongoing struggle for dignity and basic rights that were integral to life under Jim Crow laws. It creates a dangerously skewed understanding of history that glosses over the suffering that defined this era.
It is crucial to recognize how such longing for the so-called "good old days" can obscure the brutal truths that characterized this dark chapter in American history. The consequences of systemic disenfranchisement, segregation, and marginalization faced by Black Americans were profound, as they were subjected daily to discriminatory laws and practices that were expressly designed to uphold white supremacy. The impact of these oppressive systems was far-reaching, leaving a legacy of inequality and injustice that continues to resonate through our contemporary social fabric. We are reminded that the echoes of this history persist, shaping societal interactions, perceptions, and the lived experiences of those affected.
To foster a more truthful and vibrant discourse concerning our shared history, it is imperative that we embrace a more nuanced understanding of the past. In doing so, we can begin to unpack the inherent complexities and contradictions that shaped our society, rather than succumbing to a simplistic and idealized version of it. This multifaceted approach involves acknowledging both the positive and negative dimensions of historical experiences—enabling us to grasp critical lessons that can better inform our present circumstances and guide our trajectory into the future. Rather than idealizing the past, we can learn from its shortcomings and successes, using this understanding to navigate the complexities of our contemporary landscape.
As we engage in discussions about race, identity, and the very fabric of our society, it becomes increasingly essential to consider the significant demographic shifts currently underway within the United States. Projections suggest that, by the year 2043, the white population in the U.S. is expected to transition into a minority status. This impending shift carries profound implications for social dynamics, cultural identities, and political power structures, highlighting the necessity for honest and open dialogues about race, privilege, and the enduring legacy of systemic inequities that continue to permeate our society today. Acknowledging these demographic changes provides an opportunity for collective reflection and growth, fostering an environment where diverse voices can contribute to a more equitable future.
Ultimately, fostering a collective commitment to understanding the past in its entirety is vital for creating a more equitable and just future for all individuals, irrespective of their backgrounds. However, we must also recognize that, for some, the principles of democracy can appear as a threat, especially as they advocate for diversity, inclusion, and the equitable distribution of power. Indeed, there are those who may yearn for forms of autocracy that promise control and dominance, echoing sentiments reminiscent of South Africa’s apartheid regime. History teaches us that such authoritarian systems, while they may conjure a fleeting sense of order, ultimately crumble under the weight of their own contradictions and the relentless pursuit of justice by those they oppress.
Looking to the future, the possibility of civil unrest in the United States might take on an entirely different character than what has been witnessed in the past. Speculative discussions about the potential for the next American civil conflict suggest that it might manifest through violent means, such as assassinations, bombings, and other forms of direct confrontation. This potential for brutal outcomes reflects the deep divisions and resentments that have festered over decades, underscoring the urgent need for reconciliation and healing, rather than division and discord. Such conversations are necessary if we hope to bridge the gaps between differing viewpoints and build a more cohesive society.
Therefore, instead of allowing ourselves to be mired in a nostalgia that obscures our collective responsibility toward equity and justice, we must confront these complexities with courage, honesty, and a deep sense of resolve. The path toward a more inclusive society demands that we acknowledge the full spectrum of our historical experiences and leverage this understanding to shape a future where democracy is not only preserved but celebrated for its inherent ability to foster liberty and equality for every individual. Engaging in candid discussions about our shared past, recognizing our privileges, and proactively addressing the remnants of systemic inequities are essential steps in this ongoing journey toward establishing a just society that honors the dignity of all its members.
For those interested in exploring these intricate themes further, I strongly recommend reading “How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them” by Barbara F. Walters, a scholarly expert whose insights may illuminate the complex factors at play within our current sociopolitical landscape. The ongoing demographic shifts only deepen the urgency of these discussions, serving as a stark reminder that the time for earnest engagement and transformative action is now.
In closing, it is essential to reflect on the question you pose: "What do you offer? Antagonism and genocide?" This rhetorical inquiry pushes us to confront the darker impulses that can surface in times of strife, compelling us to reject hostility and instead choose dialogue and understanding in pursuit of a more harmonious existence. It is through empathy and active engagement that we can aspire to craft a future that honors the dignity and humanity of all individuals, ultimately allowing us to emerge from the shadows of our past and into a more enlightened tomorrow.
That looks like it was written by AI. And I will respond this time as I did before. Why? Why should Americans do anything to accommodate the obsessions of "marginalized groups" who revel in being victims? There is nothing I can imagine that is more unamerican than expecting everyone else to do the heavy lifting. Do it yourself. No one needs to revisit anything. Life is unfolding now.
That is why the country is becoming fatigued. Ethnic minorities, women, gays, trans, the dyslexic, short people, the unusually tall, fat people obviously, and not forgetting mixed-race gender dysphoric demisexual MtF lesbians, one of the most abused groups in existence. Everyone can be a victim. All it does is weaken you, as some black thought leaders understand. No one is keeping you down as much as your learned helplessness. Get off the internet and get into the real world. You will find most people, regardless of ethnicity, are very decent and doing their best to survive.
So spare us the sob stories. No one's ancestors had it easy. And you seem to forget it was exactly one ethnic group that set about to abolish slavery, and they weren't African. One country in particular used its colossal might to stamp it out as best they could; the most expensive moral crusade in history.
Your analysis of my piece, and its obsession with race, reminds me of the radical feminists. They see everything through a radfem lens, so even humdrum events become narratives about the patriarchy or misogyny. A tragic way to live. Why not give the racist stuff a miss and learn to appreciate all that you have in your amazing country? It could change your life.
I think he is a real person. His feed is a constant set of observations about racist America, the country that invented affirmative action. Whatever its shortcomings, it was a sincere attempt to raise up blacks. All too easy to forget.
But it would seem they were right, no good deed goes unpunished. I think it is the ingratitude people are most annoyed with. So I suspect it is all changing.
I am averse to blocking generally, but in some cases you have to. You are correct he seems to be spamming. If it continues I will block him. If he addresses the article or comments that is fine.
📢 The notion of white male victimhood is a controversial theme in contemporary discussions on race, gender, and social justice, often characterized as a myth that has gained traction in recent political discourse. This concept posits that white men, in particular, are increasingly portrayed as the victims of societal injustices or marginalization, an argument that has been deftly utilized by Donald Trump and his allies to galvanize support among specific demographic groups. Central to this argument is the assertion that a pervasive narrative exists within sociopolitical conversations, claiming that white men are under siege, facing significant challenges and unfair treatment in a society that is ostensibly prioritizing diversity and inclusion initiatives. 💬
🤔 Proponents of the white male victimhood narrative argue that Trump and his supporters have expertly capitalized on this sentiment, effectively framing contemporary social movements—ranging from those advocating for racial justice, gender equality, and immigrant rights—as direct threats to the rights and status of white males. This strategic framing casts these movements in a negative light, suggesting that they unjustly strip away power, privilege, and opportunities from men who have historically occupied dominant positions within society. Issues such as affirmative action, shifts in immigration policy, and the transformation of traditional gender roles are often depicted as assaults on white men, stirring feelings of vulnerability and disenfranchisement among those who resonate with this victimhood narrative. ⚖️
🗣️ By invoking themes of victimhood, Trump and his allies have successfully tapped into the sentiments of segments of the population who feel increasingly disillusioned by the rapid pace of change in societal norms and the perceived erosion of traditional values. This rhetoric not only seeks to energize those who feel threatened by the evolving sociopolitical landscape but also serves a diversionary function, redirecting attention away from broader systemic inequalities and disparities that impact individuals across diverse racial and gender lines. In doing so, it fosters a sense of urgency and community among supporters, reinforcing a collective identity rooted in shared grievances. 🌍
🔍 Within this context, the notion of white male victimhood emerges as a formidable political instrument, enabling its proponents to construct a narrative that positions them as defenders of a beleaguered demographic. This portrayal often stands in stark contrast to statistical and sociological evidence which frequently challenges the validity of the claims made by its advocates, highlighting the significant structural advantages that white men continue to maintain in many realms of life, including employment, education, and representation in corporate leadership. 📈
⚡ As the myth of white male victimhood persists and is further propagated, it exacerbates divisions within society, generating an environment in which followers feel emboldened and validated in their grievances while simultaneously vilifying those who advocate for equity, social justice, and systemic reform. Through the lens of this narrative, the complex interplay between identity, power, and narrative construction in contemporary American politics becomes evident, revealing how certain groups can leverage perceptions of victimhood to foster cohesion and mobilize support. 🧩 Moreover, it is worth noting that despite the prominence of this discourse, white males continue to dominate corporate boardrooms, illustrating a profound disconnect between the narrative of victimhood and the tangible realities of power and privilege in the workplace. Thus, a critical examination of white male victimhood sheds light on the intricate dynamics that define not just American politics, but also the broader societal landscape in which these conversations unfold. 📊
The notion of returning to the era of Jim Crow symbolizes a twisted vision of a so-called utopia that stands in stark contrast to the values of equality and justice. This regressive desire to revert to a time marked by systemic racism and oppression reveals a deeply troubling perspective that romanticizes an age defined by segregation, discrimination, and the denial of fundamental human rights for countless individuals. It is a perverse illusion of an ideal society that, instead of promoting inclusivity and understanding, seeks to reinforce divisions and elevate one group at the expense of another.
The Jim Crow era was characterized by a series of laws and social practices that institutionalized racial discrimination, creating a rigid hierarchy in which African Americans were systematically oppressed. The idea of longing for a return to such a time is not just a nostalgic yearning for the past; it is an unsettling indication of a failure to recognize the atrocities and injustices that were commonplace during that period. By yearning for a return to Jim Crow, individuals are either willfully ignorant of the suffering it caused or are actively promoting a worldview that seeks to undermine the progress that has been made toward civil rights and social justice.
This yearning is often rooted in a desire for power and control, reflecting anxiety about changing demographics and a shifting cultural landscape. The pursuit of this so-called utopia reveals deep-seated fears of losing privilege and status, leading to a rejection of a more equitable society in favor of a regressive ideal that seeks to re-establish a social order predicated upon exclusion and oppression. The consequences of such a mindset are dire, threatening to unravel the hard-fought gains made toward achieving justice for all individuals, regardless of race, and casting a dark shadow over the values of diversity and inclusion that are foundational to a truly democratic society.
As for the question regarding the historical practice of white individuals castrating Black men, it is essential to understand this horrific act within the context of the systemic racism and violence that characterized the oppression of African Americans, particularly during slavery and the Jim Crow era. Castration was used as a tool of domination and control, serving not only as a means of punishment but also as a horrific assertion of power over Black bodies. It was a reflection of the dehumanization that African American men faced, reducing them to objects of fear and contempt in a society that sought to maintain white supremacy. This barbaric practice aimed to reinforce racial hierarchies by stripping Black men of their masculinity and rendering them incapable of challenging the social order imposed by a racist society. It underscores the lengths to which those in power would go to uphold systemic racism and maintain their dominance, perpetuating cycles of violence and oppression that would have lasting effects on generations of individuals and communities. Addressing the historical context and the implications of such actions is vital to understanding the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality in society today.
White nostalgia often evokes a longing for a simpler, idealized past, a time often depicted in popular media as being characterized by harmonious suburban life, strong family values, and an unblemished sense of community. A quintessential example of this yearning is exemplified in shows like "Leave It to Beaver," which aired in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This iconic television series presents an idyllic version of American life, where the problems faced by families are often trivial, and solutions are neatly wrapped up within a half-hour episode.
For many, "Leave It to Beaver" symbolizes a bygone era filled with seemingly perfect homes, backyard barbecues, and wholesome neighborhood interactions. The show follows the fictional Cleaver family and captures the innocence of childhood and the simplicity of family life, portraying a narrative that resonates deeply with those who yearn for a return to a time when life appeared straightforward and uncomplicated. The characters navigate their daily lives in a picturesque suburban setting, offering a nostalgic portrayal that ignores the complexities and struggles of the diverse society that exists outside the frame.
However, this nostalgic view often glosses over real social issues of the time, such as racial segregation, gender roles, and economic disparity. It paints a utopian vision that can be both alluring and misleading, suggesting that such a simplistic and harmonious existence was the norm for all American families when, in reality, many were grappling with significant challenges. This selective memory can foster a longing for a past that never truly existed for everyone, contributing to a sense of disconnection and disillusionment in the present day.
As we reflect on characters like Beaver Cleaver and his family, it becomes essential to critically examine what this form of nostalgia represents. It invites us to question: Are we yearning for a return to a past that truly embodies the values we claim to cherish, or are we simply idealizing a configuration of family life that conveniently overlooks the complexities of our collective history? In doing so, we acknowledge the dangers of white nostalgia—it can serve as a blinkered vision of the past, one that can hinder progress and understanding in our contemporary society.
Are you aware that throughout history, all races have faced oppression?
There were more white European slaves, kidnapped into slavery, in North Africa than there ever were black slaves in this country. Are you aware why we had to start a Navy, and why the Marine's refer in their song to the shores of Tripoli?
Some white homosexual plantation owners employed the brutal and inhumane practice known as buck breaking (butt breaking) as a means of exerting power and control over enslaved individuals. This abhorrent practice involved subjecting a strong male slave, often referred to as a "buck," to severe physical and psychological humiliation. The goal was to break the spirit of the enslaved man, demonstrating the owner’s dominance and instilling fear within the entire enslaved community. By publicly humiliating and degrading these individuals, plantation owners sought to reinforce the hierarchy of power on the plantation and deter any potential acts of rebellion or resistance.
The ramifications of such actions were profound, impacting not only the individuals directly involved but also the social dynamics among the enslaved population. Buck breaking was often accompanied by violence, showcasing the extreme lengths to which plantation owners would go to maintain their authority and control over their slaves. This horrific practice is a stark reminder of the moral depravity of slavery and the lengths to which individuals would go to oppress others, ultimately leaving deep scars on the collective memory and history of the affected communities.
💔 During the dark and oppressive era of slavery, when the lives of countless individuals were controlled and dictated by others, the wife of the plantation owner, often referred to as “massa’s wife,” would sometimes take advantage of her husband’s absences when he went away on business trips. During these times, she would seek out relationships with enslaved men on the estate. The term "fetch herself a buck" was a euphemism for engaging in these liaisons, in which she would find comfort and companionship in the arms of a younger enslaved man. This dynamic was complicated, marked by the power disparities inherent in the institution of slavery. While she may have had some agency in these moments, the underlying reality was that the enslaved men had little choice in the matter, as they lived under the constant threat of punishment and violence. These encounters carried with them not only the weight of personal desire and power but also the stark reflection of the cruel and exploitative nature of the society they inhabited. 🕊️
😡 Why did your grandfather and his men cut off the penises of Black men? Why did they also cut unborn babies from the wombs of Black women and stomp on them? The sexual perversion! The horrors...the horrors...the horrors! 😢
“The destructive action of totalitarian machinery is usually supported by a special kind of primitive social philosophy. It proclaims not only that the common good of ‘society’ has priority over the interest of individuals, but that the very existence of individuals, as persons, is reducible to the existence of the social ‘whole’; in other words, personal existence is, in a strange sense, unreal. This is a convenient foundation for any ideology of slavery.”
Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski
May 1983 essay Totalitarianism & the Lie
It always worries me how easily we slip into this common good mentality. And how quickly it is hijacked so you really do become a slave. It is something I am very sensitive to. I saw it coming a mile away during Covid. I knew they would invoke some notion the unvaxxed were putting others at risk.
The first moment I heard the term "non-essential", I knew it was an orchestrated coup against humanity.
Yes, non-essential businesses was the one I remember being shocked at. Who decides that? Who voted for this?
Alas, many are sheep. They played along. Fear is a powerful emotion.
The UK Parliament is now full of menopausal women with power.
Hence this week complete clown world bills of killing babies , Logan’s Run death cult bill.
Then women ministers voting against Pakistani rape gangs inquiry.
Totally deflated by it all.
I can understand why. But remember reality exists. People notice. The MPs may live in a bubble, but the rest of us do not. Every time they pull these stunts they demonstrate how tone deaf they are, how out of touch they are with normality.
For that reason alone they are not going to be our future.
They are creating a set of conditions that will destroy representative democracy just as they have more or less destroyed every institution. They imagine themselves clever. That we don't understand these things. But many notice.
I suspect the collapse is well under way.
Yes it is.
It’s unstoppable now.
Spengler, Glubb and JM Greer are all essential reading.
My home town MP is part of that gang.
She wouldn’t think twice about throwing someone into a Gulag prison camp for having an opinion.
I can believe it. I remember reading Glubb many years ago and thinking it a little pessimistic. We should have paid more attention.
The present is unsustainable, therefore there will be change.
Change is not always an improvement.
No, it's not. But we cannot go on as we are.
https://substack.com/@zanderevropa/note/p-166348315?r=1i8j6s&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Very interesting. Hard to disagree. I see some of that happening around me. Attitudes are hardening.
The sentiment among Black individuals, including those of us with shared experiences and histories, is one of increasing resilience in the face of pervasive and relentless white supremacist fatigue, which is undeniably exacerbated by the implementation of initiatives like Project 2025. In a world where the echoes of the past resonate deeply, particularly for those of us who have witnessed the cycles of oppression and resistance, it is essential to acknowledge the understanding that this fatigue can manifest in ways that tempt us toward fortification and the instinct to organize in the face of perceived threats from white extremism.
However, I urge us to step back and reassess where we place our energies. This call is not just for self-reflection but a collective understanding, particularly among our esteemed veterans and retired law enforcement members, who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. While the instinct to stockpile and prepare for potential conflict is rooted in a history of vulnerability and survival, we must be careful not to mirror the very divisions and hostilities that white supremacist groups thrive upon.
Reflecting on the past is crucial. The lessons learned from the rise of fascism in Europe during the first half of the 20th century are particularly relevant. We must remember how marginalized communities, such as the Jewish population at that time, were scapegoated in a bid to solidify a dangerous ideology that sought to eliminate dissent and critical thought. Adolf Hitler and his associates drew inspiration from the Jim Crow laws and the treatment of Black Americans, seeing a model for dehumanization and systemic oppression. This history serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of hate-fueled ideologies—a cautionary tale that warns us against becoming entrenched in a cycle of violence and retribution.
As we navigate our current landscape, we must recognize that the stockpiling of resources and the organization of defense against white extremism, while born out of a legitimate desire for safety and empowerment, can inadvertently perpetuate the cycle of fear and division. Instead of arming ourselves for battle, let us channel our energies into building bridges and fostering dialogues to help dismantle the ideologies that threaten us.
Through education, community organizing, and coalition-building, we can reclaim our narratives and empower each other to resist oppression without resorting to the same tactics of fear and violence that our oppressors employ. It is vital to remember that our strength lies in our preparedness for conflict and our ability to engage in meaningful resistance through unity and understanding.
Let us strive for a future where our legacies are defined by resilience, dialogue, and profound transformation, rather than the imposition of harm and defensive preparations. By standing together against hate without succumbing to it, we can confidently forge a path toward security, justice, and peace for ourselves and future generations.
You are spamming this Substack with irrelevant nonsense unrelated to the article or the comments posted. Stop it or get banned.
You are free to respond sensibly to the material posted, including comments. But this is not a platform for adolescent race grievances. Grow up and post proper content related to the topic being discussed.
Thank you, Spiff, for a most reassuring and encouraging view of our future.
I do believe they will fail. We must remember they are human. Their plans are hopeless too. Life will prevail.
From your lips to God’s ears! 😀
Although this is a brilliant synopsis of what is going on, it does fail to point out that what is being done is being done on purpose in order to degrade society to the point where we can all be enslaved and ultimately eliminated so the earth can be occupied by those who are behind it all.
Perhaps. That may indeed be their plan. But what matters is execution, not plans. Their plans are crazy enough, but the layer of society they must operate through are incompetent. So there is hope. It won't work.
It won't work because they are not smarter than the rest of us, although they are under that delusion. They may have money and power, but that won't get you respect.
I remember after the Iron Curtain came down, and the people who had been on the other side were allowed to speak out. It seems they were very aware that they were being fed propaganda, and really had no respect for those in charge. That's why the system failed.
Yes. It collapsed because no one believed it. Same for us. We are the new communist regimes, and run by the same incompetents.
Please elaborate on your assertion with greater nuance.
It is widely understood the Soviet Union fell because everyone stopped believing their propaganda. By the end it was parroted by many but believed by none. When the myths propping up society collapse so does the society.
Today for us it is climate change, diversity, even government itself. As the foundations crumble regimes dig in harder. The media broadcast propaganda that no one can question. All of this precedes a collapse.
If you scroll just right, that meme with the puppeted mask-wearer reads:
"The least obey the best"
Subliminal programming hidden in memes or just random chance?
Central planning is great. Also, it is disastrous.
Central planning for where to put a nation-wide railroad-system yields awesome results as long as all the planners have "optimal efficiency with minimal destruction" as their top priority, as any patriot would. Anyone not a patriot will of course instead defer to their god of choice, be it Marx or The Market, and thus produce a poorer result if "optimal efficiency with minimal destruction" is the top principle. If "equality in the workplace" or "inflation +1% growth of profits per quarter" are put highest, well then you get something sub-optimal.
The example I used to use in class on occasion was toilet paper. Something we can all relate to and easily grasp.
Centrally plan the correct amount of tp per person per year? Impossible.
Centrally plan the regulations for what chemicals may be used when making paper? Possible.
(That regulatory bodies may be corrupted by politics, capitalism and everything in between doesn't change the above. Anyone thinking unregulated is best, do yourself a favour and study the 1800-1950 period, with an eye to exhausts, medicinal products, and pesticides.)
Religion: if your religion tells you that you by adhering to it is better than me, has power over me and that I must bow down before it? We have a problem. If the symbol is a cross or a crescent moon or a star I care not one used fig about. If you and your religion respects everyone's right to opt out and/or say "No thanks", then no problem.
And I look at the history of how adherents of religions have acted when they had their hand on the tiller and the whip-handle, when judging - same as when looking at ideologies. "Did ______ work when tried? How did _______ turn out?" and such. Excusing and rationalising by saying "it wasn't real XYZ!" is just what the commies do - "Real communism has never been tried". Oh yeah?
But the only /real/ iteration of an idea?
The one we know of empirically. Techbrocracy is no different.
Yes, quite. But given a choice between bad central planning and none at all, I'll take none at all.
You could also put it like this:
Central planning amplifies the effect of the planned action;
No planning disperses the effects of the action taken
For the perfect example, look at how succesful military forces were and are organised, vs unsuccesful ones.
Yes good point. It is not all bad. But those drawn to central planning are increasingly pathological characters. All that centralized power is tempting.
You left out the third option: self organization based on simple rules. It is often assumed by the managerial types the without central planning there would only be chaos. Reality doesn't work that way. If human groups are taught a set of simple rules, such as "The Golden Rule", and it's enforced by the culture, low lever organization will arise. You can't plan a railroad with it, but it handles most of the day-to-day interactions within society. We often call it "common sense", but it is really a set of simple rules so ingrained that we don't even need think consciously about them.
It works as a third position, not inbetween but as its own, certainly, but just as planned and unplanned have their limitations, so does spontaneous autnomous (or self organisation as you said):
It doesn't scale at all beyond tribal level societies, and it is very vulnerable to technological and social change, much more so than either of the others.
The trick would be what tasks, and at what levels of organisation, are the best handled by planned, unplanned or spontanenous. And that "the best" is by no means static - what was best planned at one point and in one place (Latifundias as a form of agriculture f.e.) may be best left unplanned in another (people following their herds over grazelands, Mongol-style) or self organised (Swedish fäbod-bruk, a form of seasonal pasture and crop growing).
What is missing, as Spiff talks about in a way, is humility and gentleness (and gentleman-ness!) among the managerial class. They are akin to shpeherds whipping their sheep to march in step, instead of focusing on the well-being and prosperity of the flock.
Yes, I agree with you 100%. Remember that what drove aristocrats to become noble was insults, perceived dishonor, or conflicts could lead to immediate death. There is no consequense for such actions in modern society, except perhaps a lawsuit. Recognising the type of organizational that would works best is analogous to the Serenity Prayer: O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other.
Mixing "defund the police" with "the government must act" is truly childish thinking in action.
All mandates (including private property) are ultimately backed by the threat of violence. About the only exception are religious communities which employ shunning in lieu of force.
Yes. It is all about force at the end of the day. My favourite example being women's rights; they can only be enforced by men prepared to commit violence 😜
Pieces like this put me in mind of many, many people I have worked with (though not alongside) over the decades, who would nowadays be called the managerial/laptop class. I was basically a project planner and manager - with a lot of hands-on work to actually implement those projects.
But there would always be this cohort of the aforementioned "managerials" who always seemed to be fully booked up at high-level strategic meetings or conferences but who never to my knowledge produced any output.
No reports or detailed documents of any sort. Nothing. Just flying off to London or other European capitals to meet their opposite numbers in other similar companies or outsourcers and suchlike.
I always thought it quite impressive that they managed to do so well for themselves in being paid for what seemed completely non- productive roles for so long, especially when departments were being trimmed of actual workers on a regular basis for efficiency savings etc.
It's almost magical, the instinct some people have for this kind of thing.
I quite agree. I have known a few myself. The polite term is to call them politicians; those capable of managing networks of contacts but producing little tangible work.
The corporate world is especially bad for this as their need for "governance" provides a place for the non-productive to manage the productive who do the work.
Our world is now run by the professional-managerial types. Whenever you see some of the videos from WEF conferences it is apparent these are non-productive people in the sense they cannot produce or create anything. So they dream instead and imagine our skills make us artisans and them the artists because they have a vision.
Alas, their world is coming to an end. How could it not?
Have you noticed that now that the customer is also expected to do their work, for free?
We are to use self checkout, push buttons for automated customer service, talk to chat bots, fill in surveys, etc... Maybe younger people don't realized how much of this used to be done by paid employees.
I agree. This is a bizarre turn of events. But I think it is part of a bigger shift where organizations increasingly do not work for customers or end users. Once bureaucratized they take on a life of their own. So they move away from serving needs.
So glad to read what I used to say to my friends who believe those in power are infallible. Great choice of memes! Survival mode here indeed☝🏼 What a bunch of dystopians and dangerous human beings.
Yes they are, but ultimately they will fail. Power and money gets you far, but not all the way. Their plans cannot work, so it is only a matter of time.
How about that : intellectual intelligent idiots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqs8D3xfxsc
Legal Aliens are as much of a problem as Illegal Aliens.
Yes indeed. All the discussion of illegal immigrants is to avoid any discussion of legal migration which is at unsustainable levels all over the West.
"The key failing of this approach is mental models are by necessity simplifications of life."
Reminds me of the computer models that proclaim climate change will go exponential.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Absolutely correct. And the in is definitely garbage. But the midwits like their charts. Line go up, intervention needed; smugness guaranteed.
Utterly pathetic.
Buried in the bowls of the PMC cube farm, the section manager announced: "Those knuckle heads don't know what they're doing". Just because you don't know what they're doing, for fuck sake don't be confused, they know exactly what they're doing
I disagree. I think today's leaders are characterized by incompetence and arrogance. Some of their PR is good mind you, and that convinces many that they have superpowers they clearly do not possess.
All Western nations are in decline. All of them. We are not seeing Machiavellian brilliance. We are seeing elites completely lost to fantasy.
Michael Parenti was giving a talk and addressed this very issue, decade after decade after decade after decade, 40 plus years policy fail, you have to ask the question is it incompetence or is someone benefiting from all these failed policies, cui Bono, and we just had a master class in how this works, over the last 5 years only a hand full of ethical doctors put there head up and were hit with a hammer
This is gold.
I think we're in for a rough few years -- maybe a decade -- but I have hope for the world to come.
I do too. Much damage will be done. But mentally compromised dreamers won't be running anything.
Brilliant essay/thesis/post! I'm still cracking up regarding the "me, handing out memes when my social credit score doesn't allow Internet access"
I'm going to frame that one!
💯🎸💯
Help yourself 🤓 And thanks for your kind words. Share it wide and far.
I loved every word of this! You are right, these are the type of people who love to make lists and plans, but would never actually do anything. They are basically lazy, and being in a position to only exercise their mouths while spouting the approved agenda satisfies their inner insecurity.
They aren't very intelligent, although often highly educated, finding school to be a safe place to avoid actually doing things in life. Whatever is handed to them as the approved agenda from the approved people is all they need to feel "elite" and not have to think too hard.
What they really are to the people with the big money and nefarious agenda of control at the top are "useful idiots".
Yes they are definitely the useful idiot people. Blind to their prejudices and largely driven by a need for status. But imagine you are a billionaire with grand plans and these are the people you must work through. None of it will work, although they are doing a lot of damage.
Even if these visions are true, I’m not too worried. People are masterful at derailing even the most airtight plans, especially the ones designed in boardrooms far from reality.
📌 The wild card isn’t policy. It’s people.
⬖ Drafted while dismantling the master plan at Frequency of Reason: https://bit.ly/4jTVv69
I agree. The map is not the terrain.But try telling that to an academic. They do make pretty slick videos mind you.
Your sentiments appear to be deeply intertwined with a poignant longing for a past rooted in a specific form of white nostalgia—a yearning that evokes memories of an era frequently idealized, despite its glaringly oppressive realities and the severe injustices faced by countless marginalized groups. This nostalgic longing often revolves around a time marked by institutionalized racism and systemic oppression, particularly during the Jim Crow era in the United States. This significant historical chapter, which spanned several decades, is characterized by the comprehensive implementation of racial segregation, systematic disenfranchisement of Black Americans, and a pervasive denial of fundamental human rights not only to Black individuals but also to various other marginalized communities who faced discrimination and violence during this dark period.
These reflections of nostalgia often invoke a peculiar brand of selective memory that romanticizes certain aspects of life during those tumultuous times—whether they pertain to quaint traditions, closely knit communities, or the seemingly simplistic comforts of an age long past—while conspicuously avoiding a reckoning with the profound injustices, relentless suffering, and dehumanization experienced by countless individuals on a daily basis. This kind of nostalgic perspective tends to obscure the harsh realities of violence, poverty, and the ongoing struggle for dignity and basic rights that were integral to life under Jim Crow laws. It creates a dangerously skewed understanding of history that glosses over the suffering that defined this era.
It is crucial to recognize how such longing for the so-called "good old days" can obscure the brutal truths that characterized this dark chapter in American history. The consequences of systemic disenfranchisement, segregation, and marginalization faced by Black Americans were profound, as they were subjected daily to discriminatory laws and practices that were expressly designed to uphold white supremacy. The impact of these oppressive systems was far-reaching, leaving a legacy of inequality and injustice that continues to resonate through our contemporary social fabric. We are reminded that the echoes of this history persist, shaping societal interactions, perceptions, and the lived experiences of those affected.
To foster a more truthful and vibrant discourse concerning our shared history, it is imperative that we embrace a more nuanced understanding of the past. In doing so, we can begin to unpack the inherent complexities and contradictions that shaped our society, rather than succumbing to a simplistic and idealized version of it. This multifaceted approach involves acknowledging both the positive and negative dimensions of historical experiences—enabling us to grasp critical lessons that can better inform our present circumstances and guide our trajectory into the future. Rather than idealizing the past, we can learn from its shortcomings and successes, using this understanding to navigate the complexities of our contemporary landscape.
As we engage in discussions about race, identity, and the very fabric of our society, it becomes increasingly essential to consider the significant demographic shifts currently underway within the United States. Projections suggest that, by the year 2043, the white population in the U.S. is expected to transition into a minority status. This impending shift carries profound implications for social dynamics, cultural identities, and political power structures, highlighting the necessity for honest and open dialogues about race, privilege, and the enduring legacy of systemic inequities that continue to permeate our society today. Acknowledging these demographic changes provides an opportunity for collective reflection and growth, fostering an environment where diverse voices can contribute to a more equitable future.
Ultimately, fostering a collective commitment to understanding the past in its entirety is vital for creating a more equitable and just future for all individuals, irrespective of their backgrounds. However, we must also recognize that, for some, the principles of democracy can appear as a threat, especially as they advocate for diversity, inclusion, and the equitable distribution of power. Indeed, there are those who may yearn for forms of autocracy that promise control and dominance, echoing sentiments reminiscent of South Africa’s apartheid regime. History teaches us that such authoritarian systems, while they may conjure a fleeting sense of order, ultimately crumble under the weight of their own contradictions and the relentless pursuit of justice by those they oppress.
Looking to the future, the possibility of civil unrest in the United States might take on an entirely different character than what has been witnessed in the past. Speculative discussions about the potential for the next American civil conflict suggest that it might manifest through violent means, such as assassinations, bombings, and other forms of direct confrontation. This potential for brutal outcomes reflects the deep divisions and resentments that have festered over decades, underscoring the urgent need for reconciliation and healing, rather than division and discord. Such conversations are necessary if we hope to bridge the gaps between differing viewpoints and build a more cohesive society.
Therefore, instead of allowing ourselves to be mired in a nostalgia that obscures our collective responsibility toward equity and justice, we must confront these complexities with courage, honesty, and a deep sense of resolve. The path toward a more inclusive society demands that we acknowledge the full spectrum of our historical experiences and leverage this understanding to shape a future where democracy is not only preserved but celebrated for its inherent ability to foster liberty and equality for every individual. Engaging in candid discussions about our shared past, recognizing our privileges, and proactively addressing the remnants of systemic inequities are essential steps in this ongoing journey toward establishing a just society that honors the dignity of all its members.
For those interested in exploring these intricate themes further, I strongly recommend reading “How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them” by Barbara F. Walters, a scholarly expert whose insights may illuminate the complex factors at play within our current sociopolitical landscape. The ongoing demographic shifts only deepen the urgency of these discussions, serving as a stark reminder that the time for earnest engagement and transformative action is now.
In closing, it is essential to reflect on the question you pose: "What do you offer? Antagonism and genocide?" This rhetorical inquiry pushes us to confront the darker impulses that can surface in times of strife, compelling us to reject hostility and instead choose dialogue and understanding in pursuit of a more harmonious existence. It is through empathy and active engagement that we can aspire to craft a future that honors the dignity and humanity of all individuals, ultimately allowing us to emerge from the shadows of our past and into a more enlightened tomorrow.
That looks like it was written by AI. And I will respond this time as I did before. Why? Why should Americans do anything to accommodate the obsessions of "marginalized groups" who revel in being victims? There is nothing I can imagine that is more unamerican than expecting everyone else to do the heavy lifting. Do it yourself. No one needs to revisit anything. Life is unfolding now.
That is why the country is becoming fatigued. Ethnic minorities, women, gays, trans, the dyslexic, short people, the unusually tall, fat people obviously, and not forgetting mixed-race gender dysphoric demisexual MtF lesbians, one of the most abused groups in existence. Everyone can be a victim. All it does is weaken you, as some black thought leaders understand. No one is keeping you down as much as your learned helplessness. Get off the internet and get into the real world. You will find most people, regardless of ethnicity, are very decent and doing their best to survive.
So spare us the sob stories. No one's ancestors had it easy. And you seem to forget it was exactly one ethnic group that set about to abolish slavery, and they weren't African. One country in particular used its colossal might to stamp it out as best they could; the most expensive moral crusade in history.
Your analysis of my piece, and its obsession with race, reminds me of the radical feminists. They see everything through a radfem lens, so even humdrum events become narratives about the patriarchy or misogyny. A tragic way to live. Why not give the racist stuff a miss and learn to appreciate all that you have in your amazing country? It could change your life.
Excellent response to whatever A.I. wrote that utopian garbage.
I think he is a real person. His feed is a constant set of observations about racist America, the country that invented affirmative action. Whatever its shortcomings, it was a sincere attempt to raise up blacks. All too easy to forget.
But it would seem they were right, no good deed goes unpunished. I think it is the ingratitude people are most annoyed with. So I suspect it is all changing.
He's off topic among other things. He's trolling your feed to disrupt the flow of comments. You should consider blocking people who do that.
I am averse to blocking generally, but in some cases you have to. You are correct he seems to be spamming. If it continues I will block him. If he addresses the article or comments that is fine.
📢 The notion of white male victimhood is a controversial theme in contemporary discussions on race, gender, and social justice, often characterized as a myth that has gained traction in recent political discourse. This concept posits that white men, in particular, are increasingly portrayed as the victims of societal injustices or marginalization, an argument that has been deftly utilized by Donald Trump and his allies to galvanize support among specific demographic groups. Central to this argument is the assertion that a pervasive narrative exists within sociopolitical conversations, claiming that white men are under siege, facing significant challenges and unfair treatment in a society that is ostensibly prioritizing diversity and inclusion initiatives. 💬
🤔 Proponents of the white male victimhood narrative argue that Trump and his supporters have expertly capitalized on this sentiment, effectively framing contemporary social movements—ranging from those advocating for racial justice, gender equality, and immigrant rights—as direct threats to the rights and status of white males. This strategic framing casts these movements in a negative light, suggesting that they unjustly strip away power, privilege, and opportunities from men who have historically occupied dominant positions within society. Issues such as affirmative action, shifts in immigration policy, and the transformation of traditional gender roles are often depicted as assaults on white men, stirring feelings of vulnerability and disenfranchisement among those who resonate with this victimhood narrative. ⚖️
🗣️ By invoking themes of victimhood, Trump and his allies have successfully tapped into the sentiments of segments of the population who feel increasingly disillusioned by the rapid pace of change in societal norms and the perceived erosion of traditional values. This rhetoric not only seeks to energize those who feel threatened by the evolving sociopolitical landscape but also serves a diversionary function, redirecting attention away from broader systemic inequalities and disparities that impact individuals across diverse racial and gender lines. In doing so, it fosters a sense of urgency and community among supporters, reinforcing a collective identity rooted in shared grievances. 🌍
🔍 Within this context, the notion of white male victimhood emerges as a formidable political instrument, enabling its proponents to construct a narrative that positions them as defenders of a beleaguered demographic. This portrayal often stands in stark contrast to statistical and sociological evidence which frequently challenges the validity of the claims made by its advocates, highlighting the significant structural advantages that white men continue to maintain in many realms of life, including employment, education, and representation in corporate leadership. 📈
⚡ As the myth of white male victimhood persists and is further propagated, it exacerbates divisions within society, generating an environment in which followers feel emboldened and validated in their grievances while simultaneously vilifying those who advocate for equity, social justice, and systemic reform. Through the lens of this narrative, the complex interplay between identity, power, and narrative construction in contemporary American politics becomes evident, revealing how certain groups can leverage perceptions of victimhood to foster cohesion and mobilize support. 🧩 Moreover, it is worth noting that despite the prominence of this discourse, white males continue to dominate corporate boardrooms, illustrating a profound disconnect between the narrative of victimhood and the tangible realities of power and privilege in the workplace. Thus, a critical examination of white male victimhood sheds light on the intricate dynamics that define not just American politics, but also the broader societal landscape in which these conversations unfold. 📊
The notion of returning to the era of Jim Crow symbolizes a twisted vision of a so-called utopia that stands in stark contrast to the values of equality and justice. This regressive desire to revert to a time marked by systemic racism and oppression reveals a deeply troubling perspective that romanticizes an age defined by segregation, discrimination, and the denial of fundamental human rights for countless individuals. It is a perverse illusion of an ideal society that, instead of promoting inclusivity and understanding, seeks to reinforce divisions and elevate one group at the expense of another.
The Jim Crow era was characterized by a series of laws and social practices that institutionalized racial discrimination, creating a rigid hierarchy in which African Americans were systematically oppressed. The idea of longing for a return to such a time is not just a nostalgic yearning for the past; it is an unsettling indication of a failure to recognize the atrocities and injustices that were commonplace during that period. By yearning for a return to Jim Crow, individuals are either willfully ignorant of the suffering it caused or are actively promoting a worldview that seeks to undermine the progress that has been made toward civil rights and social justice.
This yearning is often rooted in a desire for power and control, reflecting anxiety about changing demographics and a shifting cultural landscape. The pursuit of this so-called utopia reveals deep-seated fears of losing privilege and status, leading to a rejection of a more equitable society in favor of a regressive ideal that seeks to re-establish a social order predicated upon exclusion and oppression. The consequences of such a mindset are dire, threatening to unravel the hard-fought gains made toward achieving justice for all individuals, regardless of race, and casting a dark shadow over the values of diversity and inclusion that are foundational to a truly democratic society.
As for the question regarding the historical practice of white individuals castrating Black men, it is essential to understand this horrific act within the context of the systemic racism and violence that characterized the oppression of African Americans, particularly during slavery and the Jim Crow era. Castration was used as a tool of domination and control, serving not only as a means of punishment but also as a horrific assertion of power over Black bodies. It was a reflection of the dehumanization that African American men faced, reducing them to objects of fear and contempt in a society that sought to maintain white supremacy. This barbaric practice aimed to reinforce racial hierarchies by stripping Black men of their masculinity and rendering them incapable of challenging the social order imposed by a racist society. It underscores the lengths to which those in power would go to uphold systemic racism and maintain their dominance, perpetuating cycles of violence and oppression that would have lasting effects on generations of individuals and communities. Addressing the historical context and the implications of such actions is vital to understanding the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality in society today.
White nostalgia often evokes a longing for a simpler, idealized past, a time often depicted in popular media as being characterized by harmonious suburban life, strong family values, and an unblemished sense of community. A quintessential example of this yearning is exemplified in shows like "Leave It to Beaver," which aired in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This iconic television series presents an idyllic version of American life, where the problems faced by families are often trivial, and solutions are neatly wrapped up within a half-hour episode.
For many, "Leave It to Beaver" symbolizes a bygone era filled with seemingly perfect homes, backyard barbecues, and wholesome neighborhood interactions. The show follows the fictional Cleaver family and captures the innocence of childhood and the simplicity of family life, portraying a narrative that resonates deeply with those who yearn for a return to a time when life appeared straightforward and uncomplicated. The characters navigate their daily lives in a picturesque suburban setting, offering a nostalgic portrayal that ignores the complexities and struggles of the diverse society that exists outside the frame.
However, this nostalgic view often glosses over real social issues of the time, such as racial segregation, gender roles, and economic disparity. It paints a utopian vision that can be both alluring and misleading, suggesting that such a simplistic and harmonious existence was the norm for all American families when, in reality, many were grappling with significant challenges. This selective memory can foster a longing for a past that never truly existed for everyone, contributing to a sense of disconnection and disillusionment in the present day.
As we reflect on characters like Beaver Cleaver and his family, it becomes essential to critically examine what this form of nostalgia represents. It invites us to question: Are we yearning for a return to a past that truly embodies the values we claim to cherish, or are we simply idealizing a configuration of family life that conveniently overlooks the complexities of our collective history? In doing so, we acknowledge the dangers of white nostalgia—it can serve as a blinkered vision of the past, one that can hinder progress and understanding in our contemporary society.
Are you aware that throughout history, all races have faced oppression?
There were more white European slaves, kidnapped into slavery, in North Africa than there ever were black slaves in this country. Are you aware why we had to start a Navy, and why the Marine's refer in their song to the shores of Tripoli?
Some white homosexual plantation owners employed the brutal and inhumane practice known as buck breaking (butt breaking) as a means of exerting power and control over enslaved individuals. This abhorrent practice involved subjecting a strong male slave, often referred to as a "buck," to severe physical and psychological humiliation. The goal was to break the spirit of the enslaved man, demonstrating the owner’s dominance and instilling fear within the entire enslaved community. By publicly humiliating and degrading these individuals, plantation owners sought to reinforce the hierarchy of power on the plantation and deter any potential acts of rebellion or resistance.
The ramifications of such actions were profound, impacting not only the individuals directly involved but also the social dynamics among the enslaved population. Buck breaking was often accompanied by violence, showcasing the extreme lengths to which plantation owners would go to maintain their authority and control over their slaves. This horrific practice is a stark reminder of the moral depravity of slavery and the lengths to which individuals would go to oppress others, ultimately leaving deep scars on the collective memory and history of the affected communities.
💔 During the dark and oppressive era of slavery, when the lives of countless individuals were controlled and dictated by others, the wife of the plantation owner, often referred to as “massa’s wife,” would sometimes take advantage of her husband’s absences when he went away on business trips. During these times, she would seek out relationships with enslaved men on the estate. The term "fetch herself a buck" was a euphemism for engaging in these liaisons, in which she would find comfort and companionship in the arms of a younger enslaved man. This dynamic was complicated, marked by the power disparities inherent in the institution of slavery. While she may have had some agency in these moments, the underlying reality was that the enslaved men had little choice in the matter, as they lived under the constant threat of punishment and violence. These encounters carried with them not only the weight of personal desire and power but also the stark reflection of the cruel and exploitative nature of the society they inhabited. 🕊️
😡 Why did your grandfather and his men cut off the penises of Black men? Why did they also cut unborn babies from the wombs of Black women and stomp on them? The sexual perversion! The horrors...the horrors...the horrors! 😢
Bravo!👏👏👏👏