Forget "Triumph of the Will" — the most insidious authoritarian propaganda comes in the form of schmaltz
The movies are hokey-dokey and unrelateable, but calling them "F̵̧̜̜̝͐͠ͅa̴͔̲̗̒̀̾͝͠s̵͈͂͋̃c̸̛͖̟͆̾̉͜͠i̷̛͚̙̥͎͗̊̑͠ͅs̴̛̺̊͛͆̇t̵͕͕͔̎͐ ̴͇̲͓̬̦͌̎̑̕͝p̷̝͇̽̐̀r̵̞̭͗͑̀̌o̵͎͙͐͗p̶̛̥͂̓͘a̵̯͇̯̳̍͒̈ğ̴̨̩̆̀̚͝ḁ̸͗̚ṇ̸͗̄̈́̚͝d̴̩͕͙̰̫̐à̸̧̬̰͚̥" is really reaching.
Are these people actually afraid of hokey-dokies?
What kind of pussy shit is this?
The article starts off with how Hallmark pulled an ad with a lesbian kiss because they said they didn't want PDA, then people pointed out they had straight kisses, then Hallmark apologized and attempted to placate the critics with "we're committed to diversity and inclusion".
"Running down this year's schedule of Christmas movie offerings is like a trip into an uncanny valley of shiny-teethed, blow-dried heteronormative whiteness, with only a few token movies with characters of color. It's like watching 'The Stepford Wives,' but scarier, since the evil plot to replace normal people with robots is never actually revealed."
Again I go back to the post about inclusiveness. Watch things you like, don't watch things you don't like. Hallmark is nothing more than a content ghetto for conservative middle-age women.
"Hallmark movies [...] constitute the platonic ideal of fascist propaganda"
DW-WORLD.DE spoke film expert Gerd Albrecht about movies in the Third Reich and the fate of party-loyal filmmakers after World War II.
I'll hear out the comparison to escapist films approved by Goebbels...
"The first and foremost aim of National Socialist films was to entertain. They were intended to be escapist and offer reassurance in the face of everyday hardships. The further that these films were removed from reality, the better they functioned in National Socialist terms. Almost all references to political life and the everyday life of the viewers were missing. Any critical reference to contemporary reality was forbidden."
I can see how that would make sense, but the idealism and distraction from the contemporary reality isn't unique to Fascist cinema, but characteristic of cinema in any authoritarian regime. Soviet cinema, also highly regulated by the government, offered a highly idealized and curated view of reality. Are we going to kid ourselves that government-approved cinema in an authoritarian state is going to allow subversion or cultural critique?
Authoritarianism of any stripe relies on constant maintenance of a common lie through all channels of information.
That's not to say that idealism or entertainment for entertainment's sake, that's not engaging in any critical social commentary whatsoever, is bad. It's just a variation of art that - like any other form of art - only becomes bad when it's weaponized.
"There was a prevailing sense of optimism, as socialist realism's function was to show the ideal Soviet society. Not only was the present glorified, but the future was also supposed to be depicted in an agreeable fashion. Because the present and the future were constantly idealized, socialist realism had a sense of forced optimism. Tragedy and negativity were not permitted, unless they were shown in a different time or place. This sentiment created what would later be dubbed 'revolutionary romanticism'.
Revolutionary romanticism elevated the common worker, whether factory or agricultural, by presenting his life, work, and recreation as admirable. Its purpose was to show how much the standard of living had improved thanks to the revolution. Art was used as educational information. By illustrating the party's success, artists were showing their viewers that sovietism was the best political system. Art was also used to show how Soviet citizens should be acting. The ultimate aim was to create what Lenin called 'an entirely new type of human being': The New Soviet Man. Art (especially posters and murals) was a way to instill party values on a massive scale. Stalin described the socialist realist artists as 'engineers of souls'.
Common images used in socialist realism were flowers, sunlight, the body, youth, flight, industry, and new technology. These poetic images were used to show the utopianism of communism and the Soviet state. Art became more than an aesthetic pleasure; instead it served a very specific function. Soviet ideals placed functionality and work above all else; therefore, for art to be admired, it must serve a purpose. Georgi Plekhanov, a Marxist theoretician, states that art is useful if it serves society: 'There can be no doubt that art acquired a social significance only in so far as it depicts, evokes, or conveys actions, emotions and events that are of significance to society.'"
So, are Hallmark movies authoritarian?
Perhaps if they were the only sort of content available, broadcast with the intention of brainwashing a state to glorify all things blonde and hokey-dokey while distracting from war crimes.
If the media is creating content for the sake of creating ideological conformity and distraction from the ruling class' crimes, is it less insidious if it has Black and gay, and innapennent womyn characters?
Furthermore, leftists had been promoting moral relativism and open-mindedness until they got control of the media and academia. Then that went out the window. While they're losing the culture war, they're promoting "everything has to question the status quo of society". If the US were to become a leftoid one-party state, how much do you think they would be telling people to question the status quo then?
"There's plenty of reason that empty-headed kitsch fits neatly in the authoritarian worldview. It's storytelling that imitates the gestures of emotion without actually engaging with real feeling. The Hallmark movie steers clear of the real passion or deeper emotion that tends to be the engine driving more artful fiction. Characters who have real feelings, after all, can prompt empathetic reactions in the audience, and empathy for others is the greatest single threat to the authoritarian mindset. And so schmaltz walks through the paces of "love" without touching on any of the messy but compelling realities of it."
Hallmark movies are simply not of good quality, and their target audience is apparently fine with that level of abstraction.
It's not that deep.
"Instead of characters driven by real feelings, therefore, the guiding hand of 'normalcy' pulls the characters along through narratives — and unsurprisingly, that idea of 'normalcy' doesn't have a lot of room for the true diversity of American experiences."
Because Hallmark movies are basic movies for basic people who probably had very "normal" experiences.
"Hallmark movies, with their emphasis on returning home and the pleasures of the small, domestic life, also send a not-at-all subtle signal of disdain for cosmopolitanism and curiosity about the larger world,..."
Hallmark movies are made for people who are from small towns. If they liked city life and cosmopolitanism, they would live in a city and not be watching Hallmark movies.
It's like the article's author thinks there shouldn't be movies by and for hokie-dokies because she doesn't like them.
"[...]which is exactly the sort of attitude that helps breed the kind of defensive white nationalism that we see growing in strength in the Donald Trump era."
Orange man bad.
"If you don't believe me, listen to authoritarians themselves. At the Federalist,[...]"
The Federalist is an openly-Christian journalistic outlet, just so we're on the same page.
"[...] which is ground zero website for generating frankly fascist 'culture war' arguments, [...]"
Wait, you mean The Daily Stormer...?
"[...] Hans Fiene argues that, 'culturally speaking, Hallmark Christmas movies are noticeably Christian.'
By this, Fiene isn't talking about characters who actually go to church or pray — even self-identified conservative Christians don't want to see that — but a set of patriarchal and authoritarian values that are more about white evangelicals defining themselves as an ethnic group, and not about a genuine feeling of spirituality."
"The movies always depict a 'heroine who begins the story loving her self-involved life in the city chooses family and a life of self-sacrifice in her hometown,' he writes,"
Self-sacrifice is a Christian feminine value via the archetype of Mary, so of course a Christian would praise it. What is the point?
"arguing that it's the 'last remaining hideout' for those who want a fantasy of a world where 'the cynicism and immorality of modern life aren’t allowed.' By 'cynicism and immmorality," Fiene explains he's talking about 'fornication' and acceptance of 'sexual deviants,' by which he means LGBTQ people."
Same-sex relationships and sex out of marriage is immoral per the Bible/Torah and Koran. That's not my opinion, that's literally what they say, so don't shoot the messenger. If you believe otherwise, you are free to watch literally anything else.
"Still, it's critical to be mindful of the role that Hallmark movies are actually playing in our society. The very fact that they're presented as harmless fluff makes it all the more insidious,[...]"
Hallmark movies should be rated X.
"[...]the way they work to enforce very narrow, white, heteronormative, sexist,[...]"
If someone else wants to subject themselves to that, what's that got to do with you?
"provincial ideas of what constitutes 'normal.'"
"iM bEtTeR tHaN eVeRyOnE bEcAuSe I LiVe iN a CiTy"
There are large swaths of the country where "normal" means your community is "White" and homogeneous, you're Christian, you're heterosexual, and the goal of your life story is marrying someone from your hometown and having kids, and they lived happily ever after. Just because that doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it's invalid and people shouldn't be allowed to make poorly-produced, sentimental media about it.
To be clear, my problem with woke media isn't that it simply exists. People can make whatever stories they want, and in a free - truly non-authoritarian - marketplace of ideas it wouldn't be a problem. My problem is that woke media is so fucking ubiquitous and "wokeism" is the only publicly acceptable point of view per every powerful institution in the West.
The author seems to imply that only White, straight, Christian males can be authoritarian, while rainbows, "diversity", and grrrl power are the opposite and inherently cannot be used for authoritarian means.
This game that authoritarians play is as old as Communism and Fascism itself. Leftists and Stormfags both represent as each other as the antithesis of their viewpoint. Leftists label everyone who disagrees with them as "Fascists", meanwhile neo-Nazis are like "Did you city legalize street shitting? Did a drag queen flash his dick and balls at your school children? Were you refused monoclonal antibodies because you're White? Man, I got a fever and the only cure is ň̵̮̰e̷̤̪̦͌o̶̙̣̫̩͌̓-̵̭̳͎͎̗͑̏̍͊͠F̴̧̥̾̇̍͝ͅã̶̮̳̋̓̕s̷̨͖͍̮͂̕͘ċ̴̛̭̲̑ͅį̷̬̈́̒͆̈̿s̷̱̄͂͒̓̚m̷̱̗̈́̄̑. I bet you wish the Axis won WWII now, don't you."
The difference is that neo-Nazis are basically the peanut gallery, while leftists control everything in society except, apparently, the Hallmark Channel.
It's the same shit-idiot utopian mental retardation, except what group do you want to scapegoat:
- White people, men, Christians, and capitalists
- [insert ethnic minority group], women, queers, and capitalists
The opposite of Fascism isn't leftism/Marxism/Communism/etc. which in turn isn't the opposite of Fascism. The opposite of authoritarianism is anarchism roughly what the Founding Fathers tried to create in response to monarchial authoritarianism which presented many of the same problems as any other sort of authoritarianism. The more we departed from that model, the more everyone's lives began to suck.
It seems that in mainstream conversations about Nazism, specifically, it's taken for granted that the ethnic persecution wasn't the first, initial directive.
The NSDAP's "purity" focus was on health and environmentalism - beautification, cleaning up pollution, extermination of vermin, etc. - before they got to the point of literally declaring some people directly equivalent to rats, parasitic worms, lice, etc. and advocating for their extermination, alike. The Nazis believed that not only was that person believed to be vermin considered lower than a dog, cow, etc. (thus the vegetarianism and the whole to-do about Hitler liking animals), but that there was a moral obligation to physically remove them much like nobody would think to leave a tick on their body, or let a lice infestation go unchecked.
The Lightning And The Sun by Savitri Devi describes this from the Nazi's own point of view. The "lightning" referring to brutal and decisive action and "sun" being someone more idea-oriented and warm, with the ideal man embodying both, though most being more one or the other. It was a surreal read, like some piece of stalwart, iron-fisted Klingon or Yautja philosophy. My shadow is attracted to the idea of violence as a basic human need, strength through strife, and capital-N Nature as a Lovecraftian entity of relentless and cold R&D that destroys and digests all but its most optimal creations. However, when she evokes Nazism, Hitler (the sun), Goering (the lightning), etc. by name and it's like "Wow, yikes, ok, people actually believed this IRL."
In a Jungian sense, malevolence is when the shadow either goes unacknowledged ("I'm a Good Person (TM), I would never do something like that") or unacknowledged and uninhibited. You're not a Good Person (TM), you've just never been in a situation where you could be bad. Another problem with Devi's philosophy is that even if Nature is an entity of prejudiced, utilitarian creation and destruction, completely apathetic to human ethics as it creates more impressive types by purifying the dross from its creation, that's not a role for any human to assume or intervene in, as the Nazis believed they should (or other authoritarians did; see also, Trofim Lysenko's attempt to force wheat to grow in the winter, among other things, that resulted in famines; or Mao's Great Leap Forward). Nature creates great things through its destructiveness. When humans act out of pocket and attempt to ape Nature, work in contradiction to nature, or appoint themselves as a cosmic judge, it has repeatedly created results that are anywhere from things that create mild imbalance in the world to "manmade horrors beyond your comprehension".
And now, a musical interlude...
"When the grey storms rose on the windy plain
And the Corn Mother sang for the springing grain
They carved the chalk downs on the hill
The Grey Host rode and it's riding still
When the eagles came with their wings outspread
And the hard roads rang to the legions dread
The wall ran straight from coast to coast
Under the starlight rode the Host
When they came from the north with their axe and plow
And the one-eyed god hung from the bough
Nine nights between the earth and sky
These are the Hosts come riding by
When clambering bells and chanting priests
Proclaimed the dead god from the east
And churches rose on every hand
Still the Grey Host rode the land
When gold was god and labor cheap
And they herded men like dogs herd sheep
Through furnace, glare and smoky mill
The Grey Host rode and it's riding still
Through towered blocks and littered streets
Where sirens wail and dottirs sleep
Where hope lives god only knows
All the gods died long ago
Still the Grey Host rides through the dead of night
And the city's a shadow unto their sight
For beyond the mist of centuries
Still shine the stars and the ancient tree"
-- "The Ride", Blood Axis
I can't help but think of this poem/song about the history of Britain -- "same shit, different day". Whether we're talking about some sort of pre-modern warlord, a theocratic monarch, an industrial-age robber baron, a dictator from the age of class warfare and eugenics, or NWO technocrat, these aren't essentially different. They are, speaking in woo terms, inhabited by a demon that spans time and place. Perhaps there is a temptation for someone who has associated tyranny with a king to feel free and not recognize the same demon in the robber baron promising prosperity and opportunity until it's too late. When the robber barons have shown their nature, that's the new face of tyranny, so people don't initially recognize the demon in the dictator who says he's going to clean up the country and fight against the robber barons.
So now, tyranny is passing onto its next manifestation, and we're distracted with images of Hitler or Stalin, while there are sociopathic rich and arrogant powerful idiots men promising utopia, claiming they will save use from cataclysmic environmental and social disaster, change human species with technological enhancement and gene therapy, and promising "you will own nothing and be happy". In each of these ages of tyranny, there have been people who see clearly but when there is a backlash against tyranny, the teams consist of a minority of freedom fighters versus a majority comprised of fence-sitters and those who want to keep the existing order. Sometimes, the tyranny simply implodes, as it inevitably will, due to cumulative disruptions in its contrivances.
As I said at the beginning, Hitler didn't start like "My first act as Fuhrer shall be: Exterminate the Jews and Slavs" and then everyone cheered. Apart from the fact that Goering, not Hitler, was the prime mover in genocide (why Devi praises him as the "lightning"), the NSDAP started with cleaning up the factories and addressing the physical health of the country. I'm not sure whether it was the plan all along, as if the NSDAP were systematically acclimating the German people to the idea of condoning genocide by frogpotting them, of if there were a feedback loop occurring between Hitler and the German people; however, the progression started with exterminating vermin, then dehumanizing certain categories of people, and culminated with the physically removal of those people as was done with the rats, using the same rationales.
Vermin isn't our problem, but it's concerning to me how we seem to be following the same ideological trajectory with the coof and the almost ritualistic and magical obsession with purity and cleanliness which surrounds it. We're at the point where people are being put into what amounts to concentration camps such as those in Australia and elsewhere, excluding the unvaccinated from public life, and using very problematic language such as "For the unvaccinated, you're looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm" from the Biden Admin, or Macron admitting he wants to "beat down/shit on" the unvaccinated.
It's the same doctrine of purity, except oriented about something other than the "Aryan" race because even as successful as ideas about "White privilege" are, open racial genocide, even in the "opposite direction" is still something enough people are squeamish about to not get totally on board.
The coof is exploitable because it's novel and it doesn't map to known faces of the tyranny demon. Promises of technology are- well, if technology made life better, then more technology more quickly will make life more-better and it's just a 1-way trip to paradise. What if we put the technology in our bodies? E U P H O R I C !
What's the maskurbator cult have to do with technocrats? It's not a secret that the technocrats (except Elon Musk, who is a technocrat, just not part of the in-crowd) have designed the pandemic response, facilitated the vaccine, and have profited from the lockdowns. They specifically name vaccines, in general, as part of their plan for utopia. Organizations like the EU support the technocrats, and I doubt it was a coincidence that their feasibility study for vaccine passports began in 2019, the same year the coof virus found its way out of the lab.
Much like SPAM emails like "Your relative is a Nigerian prince and he died! Send your bank account info to receive your $5,000,000 inheritance!" I suspect the vaccine is less the tool it claims to be (also not a death sentence), and moreso a sorting device. The SPAM emailer doesn't want skeptical people involved in his scam. The technocrats want followers who are relatively immune to cognitive dissonance posed by the constant stream of conflicting information related to the vaccine and its effectiveness. They want someone who wore a suit/prom dress to get the vax believing it would make them immune to the coof, then go down the line 2 years later to "Fully vaxxed people are dying of COVID, but here's why that doesn't mean the vaccine doesn't work" and not have any mental alarm bells go off.
People who went along with the program but abandoned ship after after 1-2 shots because things weren't adding up are now counted as the dreaded UNVAXXED, to be wished "severe illness and death" and threatened to be shidded on by their statesmen. They have sorted themselves out of the group of desirable followers. SHUN! SHUN! SHUN THE NON-BELIEVER!
So, we're getting to the point that someone - a teacher, so advising and making decisions regarding other people's children for 8 hours a day by the way - locked her 13 year old son in the car trunk to drive him to get a coof test. Thankfully, the situation seemed to be handled somewhat as the sort of insanity it was. She was put on leave from her job (she should be fired IMO) and fined for child endangerment. Is there anyone out there who might see this and think "She was just trying to do the right thing! She meant well!" I would like to hope not, but we've seen other instances of this type of insanity.
It's insane - and concerning - to me that the coof is more threatening to that person than her son suffocating, or dying if she were to get into an accident. I don't know if this person has pets, does she put them in the trunk? Let's assume the worse and say she yeets the dog/cat carrier in the trunk and thinks thats normal. A human with the coof is equivalent to a non-human animal to her if the correct way she thinks to transport him is in the car trunk. Furthermore, it's her son, not a friend or a rando off the street. I don't have kids but I'm married, and it seems normal to me that when someone you love in your immediate family (however you choose to define that) is having a problem, there should be a sense of prioritizing that person over external things, a certain extent of willingness to make sacrifices and take personal risks for that person, etc. I'm not saying you have to be a long-suffering martyr without boundaries, but I've heard people express that they would literally die for their kids. I don't know what they would do if they were actually put in a predicament, but this lady would apparently risk her son's life to not fall ill with something that could present as a common cold, maybe like a bad flu.
For emphasis, this person is in charge of other people's kids 8 hrs a day. If she's on administrative leave, there's an implication that she will return to teaching. If she's willing to dehumanize her own kid, what would she do, or allow, with regard to someone else's. Most parents - even some questionable ones - manage to not have child endangerment charges. So, if you have a teacher who has that on their record, they're being paid $50-60k/year of taxpayer money to be more incompetent than a below-average parent. I think she needs to learn to code.
We've moved past attempting to control the virus itself. "Experts" even admit that it's endemic, that Omicron has mild/milder symptoms, that it's not necessary to quarantine as long as before, that people can return to work symptomatic, etc. Where we're at now is a focus on controlling people and one of the methods for doing so is dehumanization. It's made possible because there is a segment of people who seem to be fully conditioned to believe that people who are unvaccinated, people with the coof, people who don't wear masks, etc. are subhumans and it's okay to segregate them, threaten them, remove the ability to earn money, prevent them from buying necessities like food, track them, forcibly remove them from their homes, deploy police to beat them up, etc. and disregard any concept of the right to bodily autonomy.
But that's all okay because "unvaccinated" isn't a race, a religion, or a disability. It's a personal choice and they're just being held accountable.
I really hope that this retardation gets challenged and shut down before the NWO technocrats find their "lightning" man.
Teens might tell you that TikTok is a comfort zone where they can discuss relevant issues free from adult judgement because all other teens are going through the same thing.
If anyone's been picking up on my subtle dogwhistles concerning Italians and the Romans, stereotypically speaking, Italians are The N-Word(TM)s of White people. I can say that because I'm Italian a strong innapennent Black womyn. Everything bad in Europe and the West happened because people kept trying to recreate the Roman empire.
However, when you're an idiot on Tik Tok claiming the Roman civilization didn't exist, I'm gonna have a problem. If Rome didn't exist, then who fucked up Catholicism? Who (basically) invented misogyny in the West (apart from the Athenians, who the Romans copied, and poorly)? Who destroyed the cultures of tribal Europe? Who poisoned the world with lead mining? What inspired the total head-assery that is the part-Germanic, part-Romance, part-Greek English language?
I don't care what her main points are, and I'm not going to refute them, because that's what other people have been doing and giving her limitless attention. That's the trap of The Internet.
If I didn't know what Tik Tok was and I watched it for the first time, I would think it was a place for people to say things that are wrong in an authoritative and condescending tone of voice.
"It always blows my mind to talk to people who have invested their entire lives in the study of ancient Rome"
That's the thread.
"Sadly, while academics wasted their time debunking the claims, including her suggestion that Hadrian’s wall in Britain ‘wasn’t Roman,’ nobody had bothered to look back at the TikToker’s track record. In June she claimed Alexander the Great was actually a woman and in October another of her videos claimed Jesus Christ could be translated to ‘clitoris healer.’"
Maybe she's a genius and the world's most successful troll.
ADD: It slipped my mind while I was writing this, but I will persist in my rambling.
I don't know if anyone remembers Antique YouTube, or something like AlbinoBlackSheep or NewGrounds...Hell, even MySpace helps prove my point.
There was very little content moderation*, no algorithms, no botting, etc. What did people go on YouTube go to watch? Stupid videos. "Crazy Frog", "Charlie Bit My Finger", all the YTPoops...
I don't blame YouTube for being weird about sexual content because their site was a superior porn-viewing format, and "videos on the internet" might as well have been a possible euphemism for porn for that time.
If someone had something of value to contribute, the fact they filmed it with a potato could be forgiven. Good content doesn't have to always be good quality from a logistical standpoint. The neat thing about the internet was how ruthless people could be with their comments if something was stupid. Apart from a minority of trolls who will be unnecessarily abusive no matter what, bullying is just a crude way of delivering helpful information. The bullying caused people to either leave the platform or innovate.
I forget where I saw this take, but it was something to the effect of the Explore page on YouTube being like an alternate reality where humor wasn't invented yet.
What does that have to do with this w*man on Tik Tok?
I think she's the logical conclusion of an ecosystem where the quality and nature of the attention you get isn't a determining factor in your ersatz "success". Your only two options are: charismatic mouthpiece of the ruling class, or being as annoying as possible (but not too spicy) because a view is a view, a click is a click, etc.
I ragged on Nick Avocado as being the same thing, earlier, but at least he's entertaining.
TikTok seems to be inundated by a a lot of dumb shit, but it's not even dumb in a funny way. It offers nothing beyond provoking people to open the DM or whatever like "I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND STUPID." It's this chick saying Rome didn't exist, or someone "educating" their viewers about their fake mental disorder, brain-dead SJW takes about something like "the White Heteropatriarchy won't tell you the first helicopter was invented by a pansexual, polyamorous, transfeminine, BIPOC Muslimah" -- all in that same didactic, condescending tone of voice that all Tik Tok bullshitters seem to talk with.
The problem isn't that they've been consistently lacking in opportunities to have their views challenged. There's also some evidence that suggests that the Tik Tok algorithm intentionally gives the West its most retarded content as a psyop, while giving Chinese children shit like science experiments, patriotism, etc. Call it weapons-grade stupidity.
An app where you can make short videos dancing and pantomiming to sounds is something that should be considered relevant to children. If TikTok weren't Chinese spyware, it would be something that should have an upper age limit. Yet in reality, there's abundant content on TikTok created by adults and older teens that makes the app unsuitable for children.
Where we are as a culture is that we have childish shit that's monopolized by retarded adults. This is TikTok, this is superhero movies, this is most video games, Harry Potter or what the fuck ever is the new that since apparently JK Rowling has been cancelled for being a transphobic Nazi, etc. I'm not trad or against enjoying things, but at some point, everyone has to "put aside childish things" because it's like--
Imagine a Discovery Zone that's supposed to be for kids, but it's actually patronized by a bunch of drunk, swearing, crude, sexual adults in superhero costumes getting mad when someone brings an actual child there and says "Can y'all tone it down?". That's the state of the fucking world right now.
Watching Metatron, I came across a video of his interaction with the aforementioned w*man.
This person is best off ignored and not engaged with, yet he attempted to debate with her, but he's not me so...
Her response: "I didn't watch any of his videos but here are the reasons Metatron is a Fascist/White supremacist."
Apparently this is what she does when someone attempts to debate her, instead of offering any real rebuttal to their points. It's probably because people who have an interest in history as it was and not a revisionist who paints it as one would prefer it to be - where Charlemagne was a Black Muslim and Cleopatra was a trans woman, and the Vikings raided the monasteries because they were LGBTQIA++ activists, etc. - essentially conflict with the pozzed view of the world that wants everything revised so that nobody who grew up with woke media, went through the woke educational system, can never know that the world was anything but woke. If they knew wokeness was a new phenomenon, they would have alternatives and possibly go down the rabbit hole asking why is wokeness only to discover that wokeness is the biggest social construct of them all and, essentially, a candy-coating for tyranny.
Her rationales consisted of hits such as:
"How dare you imply there weren't Black Legionaries"
"How dare you imply that homosexuality as something one is rather than something one does is a modern concept"
"You're an Italian who likes samurai stuff and Fascist Italy was allied with Japan, therefore you are a Fascist"
"You suggested that rule of law should be exercised against violent criminals, therefore you are an authoritarian"
That video came up in my feed. I didn't bother watching it. She's obviously trolling him, and he took the bait. Moral of the story: Don't feed the trolls.
Seriously, I don't understand why anyone cares what some lady on Tiktok thinks. It's like when Ali G interviewed Buzz Aldrin and asked him what his response was to all the people who think the moon doesn't exist. Aldrin's like, "...what?"
It's unsustainable to chimp out every time someone is wrong on the internet. You might as well do a lethal dose of coke all at once and die, because that's your stress level over time when you get emotionally involved with retard after retard after retard after retard worldwide who collectively generate hundreds of terabytes of dumb takes per second that we should all be glad that corporations and the occupying Communist government of West Taiwan waste billions on IT infrastructure to facilitate.
I was initially going to write a post about leftoids' schizophrenic view of Western vs. non-Western traditionalism. The bar for what is considered acceptable and what is considered barbaric, misogynistic, bigoted, patriarchal, etc. in the West is much lower than for non-Western immigrants. What is viewed as a harmful social construct for European cultures, in need of dismantling, is just a part of others' cultures.
Every criticism the left makes concerning Evanglical Christians can be applied to Islam and the more conservative flavors of Judaism. Christianity and Judaism literally have the same source material, and the Koran is just the edgy fanfic, the first couple chapters of which consist of Mohammad "Last time on Dragon Ball Z"-ing the Old Testament with added commentary about what he thinks the Jews fucked up in every given situation. I should really continue reading to see if the Jews ever stop living rent-free in his head.
"Everyone who came before me was stupid and wrong, so I'm going to make my own religion, and there will be no need for any religions after it. Also I'll mention multiple times about killing people who refuse conversion," Yep, not psychotic at all.
As far as Jews are concerned, I find that's a very mixed bag. It used to be that criticizing Jews or Judaism for any reason was harshly judged as "anti-Semitic" but I find more often that Jews are being grouped with "White people" and are more acceptable targets of criticism, except when they're not. It seems to depend on where the criticism stands relative to the woke narrative. According to wokeism, Muslims are more oppressed than Jews, so Jews will be classified as "White" where they come into conflict with Islam. But where Jews are in conflict with Europeans, wokeism takes the Jews' side and the Jews are no longer "White".
A great example is that hijab - even a niquab worn with gloves, which covers the whole face - is framed as stylish, empowering, equalizing, feminist, CuLtUrE, etc. but Catholics wearing veils to church or "dressing modestly" means the woman is self-hating broodmare being used as a tool of the patriarchy. Both things are professed to be worn as a symbol of belief, and as boner retardant.
It's even more bizarre when viewed in contrast to the mainstream view that's promoted to young, sheltered girls (and gays, arguably) that they shouldn't have to modify their clothing choices to avoid attracting sex pests, or that the solution to sex pests is pointing out their no-no square.
Wokeness is holding three contradictory beliefs at once and thinking that's fine.
Anti-racist group plans counter-rally against “provocative” parade condemned by Stockholm Pride and LGBT activists.
"Pride Järva is organised by Jan Sjunnesson, a former editor-in-chief of Samtiden, a web-magazine owned bySweden Democrats (SD), the anti-immigration party that became the third largest political party in the Swedish parliament following the 2014 general election."
I can't imagine why.
"They believe the agenda behind this parade organised by the far-right is to try to provoke Muslims in the predominantly immigrant areas."
Whenever a pride parade provokes Catholics in somewhere like Poland, the Catholics/Poles are the problem; but when it provokes Muslims in Sweden, the pride parade is the problem.
Also, I appreciate that they dance around the issue of "Islamic migrants are no threat to queer people, that's just a far-right talking point," then admit the Sweden Democrats were trying to "provoke Muslims in predominantly immigrant areas".
Remember when Trump attempted action on some resolution to globally decriminalize homosexuality? 70 countries in the world impose some penalty on homosexuality, including the 9 above (all majority-Islamic) which punish using the death penalty, e.g. the "throw gays off buildings" meme.
"Grenell links support of the initiative to decriminalize homosexuality with his frequent criticism of Islam and of Angela Merkel’s migrant and refugee policies. That approach exemplifies what scholars call 'homonationalism,' a term originally coined by political scientist Jasbir Puar. Homonationalism, she argues, uses 'progressive' claims on gay rights to justify exclusionary forms of national identity. Western societies are portrayed as better than other, 'backward' societies to justify anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant politics."
We're just making up words now, I guess. Whatever helps you cope with the cognitive dissonance of supporting feminism, LGBTQ, and Islam at the same time while slamming US Evangelicals and Slavic Catholics as misogynists and homophobes for having milder beliefs than the average, garden-variety Muslim...
I remember at that time, SJWs were complaining that this measure was colonialist and racist in nature.
"The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook. In her essay, 'Can the Subaltern Speak?' postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak coined the term 'White men saving brown women from brown men' to describe the racist, paternalistic process by which colonizing powers would decry the way men in power treated oppressed groups, like women, to justify attacking them. Spivak was referencing the British colonial agenda in India. But Grennell’s attack might be a case of white men trying to save brown gay men from brown straight men, to the same end."
A State Department spokesperson said the U.S. "unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality."
But when the US, again under Trump, voted against a UN resolution banning the death penalty for things like homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, etc. that was a problem?
The US government's statement on the matter was that when they voted, those contexts weren't given and they understood they were voting whether to ban the death penalty. I don't think that makes sense, but the decision is less important than the contradictory reactions from leftoids. Either they want the US to take some sort of action on behalf of queers living in theocratic countries, or they think it's racist colonialism.
Anyway...It's a fair argument that the parade wasn't organized in good faith, but if homophobia is unacceptable, it should be such in all situations. If some communities are respected in wanting or not wanting pride parades, all communities should be allowed to choose. Please pick a fucking position.
"'I am not homophobic, the media made these remarks about me. I used to be bisexual, now I am married to an Indian woman, so I am not racist either,' he said."
I guess do with this what you will.
"Al Jazeera spoke to Mohammed Noor, a resident of Tensta for over 20 years and a member of the local ruling Social Democrats party.
'I have the right to my ideology,' Noor said. 'I shouldn’t be forced to agree with any other ideology or way of life..."
I completely agree. If only Social Democrats - not to be confused with Sweden Democrats - treated it as a two-way street. They can do what they want, but people who don't have the same views get labeled far-right and silenced.
I don't know much about Swedish politics. What I found about the Sweden Democrats is that they started out ambiguously far-right, founded by former NSDAP members, attracting NS skins, and using symbols and slogans similar to self-identified far-right political groups, such as Britain's National Front which continues to have openly neo-Nazi and Strasserist leadership and members, and uses an adapted form of the German Nazi flag -- a red flag with black "NF" logo in a white circle. However, Sweden Democrats had reformed in the 80s-90s, officially disavowing Nazism and Fascism, supporting policies (particularly regarding sex, gender expression, and sexuality) that do not align with far-right standards, and identifying themselves as center-right.
Back to Mohammad Noor:
"'We live in a country that has freedom of speech. Everyone should be allowed to express themselves. However, with that freedom comes the responsibility not to insult any other group.'"
> freedom of speech
> not to insult any other group
Pick one and don't give me any shit about "Free speech is speech you're allowed to say, not the freedom to say whatever you want."
Why is it so important to not insult anyone?
There are many stances on speech. You can say "I will only allow speech that is true or is at least not false," "...all speech except CP, false crime reports, and salient threats," "...only speech that doesn't contradict [insert religious text/ruler/ideology]," "...only speech that is ~nice~," etc.
Why is ~nice~ the highest criteria for appraising speech?
Who decides what is ~nice~?
Except ~nice~ isn't apparently even the criteria, and you can see the difference in how those who portray ~nice~ as the metric for judging how acceptable speech is talk about people they disagree with. Niceness and basic civility-in-discourse go completely out the window, so was it ever about niceness?
Anyway, leftoids' inability to make up their minds and continuous self-contradiction is why I can only conclude that they're either malevolent or retarded. Or both. Both is not uncommon.
I suspect that women, queers, the disabled, ethnic minorities are only valuable to the leftoids - really, the ruling class to whom the leftoids are useful idiots - in so far as they can be used to subvert and destroy the old order of things - family structures, culture and customs, ethnic identities, life histories, values - that's getting in the way of the ruling class creating their own power paradise where they can create any standards they want and do whatever they want with no consequences. That is the pattern of the contradiction.
The good news is that parents can take action to compensate
"My daughter’s friend was recently alarmed when she was told that her two-year-old must wear a mask in preschool. Her little girl already struggles to make herself understood, and her mother worries that the mask will make it harder for her daughter to be understood and that she will have trouble telling what her masked peers and teachers are saying."
Toddlers are unintelligible and I'm not sure how much they understand of adults, let alone other unintelligible small people. Being understood vs. not serves as positive or negative reinforcement for language use. What happens when a baby who might be frequently using language correctly isn't 1) receiving reinforcement for expressing themselves correctly because their mask is muffling the high frequency sounds that adults are already less sensitive to, and 2) unable to see others' faces to see them speak?
"We discovered that babies begin lip-reading at around 8 months of age. Crucially, the onset of lip-reading at this age corresponds with the onset of canonical babbling, suggesting that babies begin lip-reading because they become interested in speech and language. By lip-reading, babies now gain access to visual speech cues which, as Janet Werker and her colleagues at the University of British Columbia have shown, are clearly perceptible to them. So, the lip-reading now enables babies to see the visible speech cues that they need to figure out which face goes with which voice. Of course, babies cannot access visible speech cues if others are wearing masks."
TIL lip-reading for communication - not just to tell who is making noises - was this important for babies.
"Intriguingly, we also found that bilingual Spanish- and Catalan-learning babies lipread more than their monolingual counterparts, indicating that bilingual babies rely more on visual speech cues to help them keep their two languages apart."
"Overall, the research to date demonstrates that the visible articulations that babies normally see when others are talking play a key role in their acquisition of communication skills. Research also shows that babies who lip-read more have better language skills when they’re older. If so, this suggests that masks probably hinder babies’ acquisition of speech and language."
"in contrast, when home and unmasked, we should engage in as much en face communication with our babies as possible so that they can see and hear our talking faces in their full splendor."
It's concerning that it even needs to be said.
I have no doubt there are deranged psychopaths somewhere in an urban center of a blue state who make everyone wear masks in their own homes.
[TANGENT INCOMING! TANGENT INCOMING!]
It's difficult for either parent to stay home, and it's normal to move far away from parents or inlaws, so a lot of kids are interacting in a daycare more than in their homes. What's a young child's day like -- wake up at 5, go to daycare from 6 to 6, come home and eat dinner or whatnot until 8 then go to bed? It's really unnatural for children to not be interacting with their parents or relatives for most of the day. People use daycare because the other option is no children so I'm not shaming them whatsoever. Society put them in that position, and I'd argue deliberately. One of the Rockefeller sons did an interview with Joe Rogan in the 90s or 00s, where he said one of the benefits of women's economic freedom was that they could be forced into the workforce to provide a larger tax base.
There are many paths that this situation could have taken. Ideally, it would be to make the option to work or raise kids open to either parent, or allow two people to have a legitimate double income together. However, what we ended up with was two less-than-half incomes. I see women, themselves, getting blamed for this as "women doubled the work pool so the market was just responding to the same amount of money available for twice as many workers". However, women didn't go into all fields and double the size of all labor pools. It's become more acceptable for men to become nurses and now 10% of nurses are men, but the salary for nurses has increased. Likewise, about 13% of engineers are women, and engineering salaries have also continued to rapidly increase, so it's not that women devalue jobs simply by working them.
Where did all these women go? They went into low-skill social/care and clerical work like they did in the 50s when they still could be fired for getting married or pregnant, and weren't allowed to work nights or lift more than 10 lbs. That's not even counting the pozz jobs like "freelance journalism", "influencer", or anything in all the newly-invented fields of social science now. I would guess that clerical work wasn't devalued by the increase in women in the field, but the rise of automation and specialization that meant the jobs a clerk or secretary used to do have been spread out among other titles or eliminated entirely -- women being permitted to enter this field happened after clerical work already became devalued.
Childcare, due to the staff-to-child ratios and the certificates and insurance that must be maintained, is simply not profitable enough to pay higher salaries even though it can cost most of a daycare worker's whole salary (about $25k...what a lot of low-skill pink collar work is valued at) to keep a child in daycare for a whole year. This too, I believe is intentional. The government created the regulations (not all totally bad) that make it difficult for private sector daycare to operate efficiently. The next logical step is for the planarians to demand "free" daycare, which the government would then have unlimited money from the tax base for, as well as being able to regulate the types of people hired and any pre-K curriculum the daycares provide with little interference.
I substitute in schools with a mask on and my son is sent with one.
"One school I subbed at required masks on for more activities than outlined in the Utah school mask mandate. This school made no exception for PE, special education, and for speech-delayed children."
That's actually fucked up. Remember when the teacher tied the mask to a disabled girl's head so she couldn't take it off?
"During PE, the children dropped their masks more frequently while jumping and they had difficulty breathing."
Nerds Some adults intentionally wear masks while exercising to adapt to the slight hypoxia of high altitude, but the advice is to remove the mask if it causes lightheadedness, dizziness, fatigue, discomfort, or anxiety. Voluntarily playing chicken with something like that is fine for adults who know their limits and can accept risk, but forcing children to wear masks for exercising and chastising them for removing the masks because they're listening to their bodies is problematic.
"I had greater trouble understanding the children with speech difficulties in the special education classroom. And they had trouble understanding me. We said 'what?' a lot. Sometimes we gave up on communication entirely. For children with special needs, this increased their frustration and meltdowns."
This situation is clearly not intended to be abuse, but the essential "I/O" of this situation is the same as certain types of intentional psychological abuse. If you want to make someone frustrated and apathetic, build up an understanding of desirable behavior then punish it.
"While wearing a mask, my throat hurts at the end of the day."
Probably because she's yelling all day so everyone can hear and understand her. I don't know if 7-8 hours of subtle hypoxia, or faster air from breathing harder(?) to get the same oxygen can cause some sort of throat irritation.
"Kudos to teachers and other staff who do this every day! I used a cough drop to soothe my throat tonight. While I had a sinus infection and sore throat the last weekend of September, I drank warm water with honey and lemon juice. It soothed my throat, so I may need to try that for 'mask throat.'"
Here's a question: if you get a sinus infection from breathing in a mask you have to wear at work - which are known to be very dirty if re-used over and over, or rolled all over desks, purses, and car interiors - and your employer doesn't provide a fresh mask every day and the paper bags the CDC says to store them in when not in use, are you entitled to worker's comp?
It might feel like I'm splitting hairs, but when it comes to everything related to COVID, there's a lot of basic stuff in terms of health, wellness, and social interaction (among other things) that's gone out the window.
COVID is mild or asymptomatic in children without comorbidities, but traumatizing their mental and social development is just "part and parcel" of living in ThE nEw NoRmAL oF a CoViD wOrLd.
You can kill yourself, get beat and raped by your partner, get hooked on meth, or become an alcoholic or clinically obese, but don't worry, because at least you didn't catch a flu-like virus. It's all worth it in the end. It's to keep us all safe and do the right thing.
I saw this video just now and felt like sharing. It's the unifying thread between wokeness and maskurbation, summed up in 20 minutes. It's called "weaponized compassion".
Feels sort of like the same vein as Peterson's phrase from 2017, "You don't care about the poor, you just hate the rich!" (which might have come from Orwell). Or rather, "You don't care about saving lives, you just want money and power". Judas says the lady should have sold the perfume and given the money to the poor. Sounds a lot like how white men should step aside and let marginalized groups take power. "You'd like that, wouldn't you, you little shit?", Jesus may as well have said.
Religious connotations aside, though ironically this whole thing is being treated like a religion, it's like: they don't actually want to "eat the rich", they just want to round up peons to do all the heavy lifting to take out their competition. The blatant hypocrisy is the message of most of the threads and meme's I've posted; and that's how it's framed.
"Do this or you're a bad person."
But we have to start asking them why they're not fucking doing it themselves.