General Harrier X. Condemnation the Second

So ... from what I gather, there's still some confusion about certain things. I'm not sure exactly, but ... uhm. Well, whatever. Sometimes people think things should go one way while actually they don't ... according to some at least ... and ... I just happened to have a thought.

We all - all around the Globe - exist in our individual cultural bubbles. There sure was an age of Enlightenment, but I think we - those that can speak to or of it - can agree that this has come to a shrieking halt. The thing being, that the momentum of Enlightenment, in terms of the scientific method and the availability of discoveries that were to be made, propelled us forward - socially, culturally and such - but now it would seem that those that have not been a part in it cry out to basically reclaim their role in society.

It is a very broad subject matter. At the very least is Education, how we treat it, what we expect from it, what we expect from ourselves and our offspring and ... possibly more, something worth a discussion.

In all this, as also from my own position, I see that there is one thing that shouldn't be overlooked. So, when we speak of the war against Science - the growing polarization from an analytical perspective - there's a lingering, perhaps subversive drive of returning to the 'old status quo'. And it should be noted that as we phrase it like this, it is in deed the 'old' status quo. Disregarding this, has people presume that the way things were is somehow still how things are ... thus, figuratively, speaking of a way - or a foundation - that no longer is.


This I think is very much due to what I would call 'bad actors'. Corrosive forces that would - at least in the abstract - do all in their power to break the pillars of our Liberal, Enlightened society. Science and Art being two of them. They would however not succeed, or have succeeded, if there were no vulnerabilities. That's not to say that our ways suck or sucked - like the Human Immune System it we might have been utterly amazing at not sucking. But also like the Human Immune System ... it isn't infallible. So much should however be obvious.


So, previously I was shifting the blame onto stupid people. But the true blame certainly is to be held against the perpetrators, not the victims.

But the situation is somewhat tricky. I mean, we would hold the justified blame against the perpetrators, were it not for the stupid people that have arisen in their defense. That's the thing. We thought that we had entered an age of Enlightenment, having attained near Utopic living conditions, but yet were completely blindsighted by what at first glance appears as a group of people that don't want that! People who appear to want things to be as they were in the 'DARK' ages. And while we at first ... we might say ... arrogantly believed that these were but a few crazy people ... we were perplexed to see that group grow ... day by day.

And still. While we try to tell them how stupid that is, we - not understanding the problems at hand - subversively expect them to return to the old ways; Which they apparently have grown to thoroughly reject. For various reasons.
Perhaps Medicine or the understanding of Human wellbeing has become too sterile and artificial.
Perhaps Left leaning, Liberal politics have become too blind to the ideological imbalances that yet surround it now more clearly than ever.
Perhaps there were overall more assholes that just waited for another Fascism to occur than we thought.

With that and more, it's difficult to keep tabs on everyone and everything. Though I might be asked to give sources for this or that opinion of mine - I want to pull the 'divine superiority' card. Like so, it doesn't matter where you are on whatever spectrum; You join me: Cool, you don't: Not Cool!
Unless I think it fair to forgo such distinctions.

---

Condemnation

So - here's the thing: The whole discussion around what we, as leftists, condemn is an utterly ridiculous farce. Like, as if we are the ones that have to distance themselves from sentiments of violence. I mean, we do - but that actually goes without saying. Unless you're a tankie I suppose. But ... let's ... leave that aside for now.
Like, back when the Hamas people did the thing - I of course thought it was horrible. But the very next thing that went through my head was the accurate prediction for how the Israeli government would react. And seeing first images of it - I thought it was "just as" (if not more) horrible. Especially given how many people would cheer it on. Like ... how do you think Nazi Germany got to the peak of its infamy?

And us speaking against what Israel started to do there, was challenged by the idea of "do you not condemn what Hamas did?". So, let me put it this way: If I condemn what Hamas did from a principled position, why would I not also condemn what Israel did/does? But sure, if I only condemn Hamas because they're "filthy" or whatever, then sure I'd have no qualms with such savagery when Israel does it. Like, they use "real" ... "clean" weapons. Is that it?
Like, oh, they have proper/expensive uniforms. "Obviously they must be the good guys".

And then, here we are YET AGAIN. And the way I feel about it, I neither condemn nor condone what happened to the Orange man. It's just ... "yea, whatever!". My position being "go fuck yourself". Like, as if - being on the left - my opinion matters to "the media" for anything other than getting misconstrued into something that gets even more people into the bends of fascism.

And that is how the high standards we have been living by, or raised with, have gotten screwed over. Where we find people from the left and the right - and we act or accept or assume that it is "the dangerous leftie" that has to distance themselves from violence.

While, in reality: If I were to properly distance myself from violence - well, I'd have to be a leftie telling people how batshit crazy those on the right are!


Which takes us to the part that this whole thing is actually about. The part where we/I have to defend those claims; Because those on the right are so thoroughly convinced that they are the good guys. Except for those that aren't, but we all got black sheep amongst us, don't we?

So, how do we know that Trump is a fascist? How can we say, that people who vote AfD are actual Nazis? I mean, here I want to differentiate: A Fascist is a Nazi that knows they're a Fascist; And a Nazi is simply a Fascist that doesn't know that yet.
Like Hitler was a Fascist, but not everyone who voted for him was - probably; Yet making them inevitably a Nazi.

So, let's start with "Ground Zero" - the USA. Here we are then, some odd month after the US Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade; A Supreme Court decision that has for quite some time prevent US States from enacting Abortion Bans. And how do we act like this decision was legitimate?

Like, on what basis would the "SCOTUS" (Supreme Court of the United States?) justify that decision? Well, there sure are words - but what's their value? If the majority of the USA is against it? Thinking their reasoning behind it to be nonsense?

A serious question, but also just a rhetorical one. What I'm getting at is the argument and sentiment that US Republicans have put forth against "Mob Rule". I want you to understand how that is an inherently anti-democratic sentiment. Democracy is inherently about the rule of the Majority. So, saying that it's bad because people don't know what they do or want ... that's anti-Democratic.

And sure, "we" kind of let that slide and that's how we messed up. Except ... it's more like 'we' never had the tools to not let that slide to begin with.
Possibly a flaw of Democracy, but more a flaw of human imperfection. It's like we didn't see it coming - and ... yea, that was ... not so great.

And that's also basically where we're at these days. Regardless of nationality; Are there groups, everywhere, that work from a position that delegitimize democratic rule. They cry foul when democracy deligitimizes their position, and yet their basis of argumentation is that all the rest is in support of a dictatorship. Or whatever flavor of it.
So, they didn't want to accept that COVID was real or serious, they don't want to use the proper pronouns, increasingly they want to get rid of the gays and voting rights for women - and all while stubbornly insisting on some kind of degeneracy that these things create when not opposed.

And yea, not to argue with that for now, being generous I have to wonder: So, let's say that all those people who yet somehow vote for these people seriously don't want to do genocides - I must yet ask, like - for my own safety, how they imagine this opposition to play out.


I mean, in my mind it'll lead to schools where children learn that the Earth is Flat, that being gay is a Sin, that people who masturbate go to Hell - like ... the Dark Ages except that the wealthy elites have a lot more sophisticated Technology, this time around.

So, maybe I won't get killed - like, right away. But I'd have to live closeted, I suppose, because ... what else is this opposition going to get at? So, I have to be closeted - because if I don't ... then ... yea. What?

So, let's say I'd only have to go to prison. I must yet wonder: On what basis? I mean - we can talk about science all day long; We don't get anywhere if only one side truly cares for it. They talk of an ideological infiltration - but in fact are they the ones that take positions that outrule science that would go to confirm certain things. Just like the ban on abortion in the USA outrules any better medical advice that would require an abortion.

Whatever the worse case scenario versus reality would be - the tendency is clear! It is OPPOSITE to where we should be going!

Else you're telling me that just because people THINK, or BELIEVE, that a thing is bad we should outlaw it to the point of getting law enforcement involved.

"But the Immigrants!"?

Democracy

When talking with people and the emergence of these extremist groups, I've heard - on multiple occasions - that there's no sound alternative. Except for ... whatever other party there is. It doesn't make sense to me - unless taking the whole "return to the old status quo" part into consideration.

And so, all I can propose is to create Gnostic parties; And to be better than whatever Christian/Religious or atheistic or whatever groups there are. But for that to succeed, people would first have to know and understand what we're on about. And I'm afraid that I'm still leagues away from being able to compose a proper political agenda in that regard.
I however like to think that most of it is up to the individual. To put their vote where their mouth is. Once they come down from their various psychosis'. Fear or hate induced psychosis'.

Like, first of all - leaning against fascism. Focusing on science and science communication. Focusing on enlightened and fair politics. It shouldn't be that difficult!
I mean - in this day and age EVERYTHING seems to be a function of ideology first; And politics second. Well, until it's politically expedient not to.


And so I struggle. On the one hand side the matter of the fact is incredibly simple. We have to work out what the new Status Quo is going to be. And not giving it to crazy nut-jobs would be like ... high up on my personal priority list.


And by the way: For me personally, if I were in a position where I could call for Genocide or Violence - I'd be in a position comfortable enough to not do so. Generally speaking. I mean, we have to be on the same page here. And before I want to think about possible threats like terrorism and the need to maybe do some self-defense ... I want to worry about bettering the odds for peacefully transitioning into a new age of Enlightenment.


And that's that.
But I digress.

Condemnation the Second

I do condemn violence, which is why it's difficult for me to deal with subjects that seem to carry an implicit need for it. The Bible is controversial like that itself. The duality between the Old and the New Testament can be viewed as such. A Duality. One rooted in the rule of Law; The other in Mercy. One spawned Kings that would constantly find ways into being at odds with others - and the other spawned an Age of Darkness due to a consuming violence that overpowered its good teaching. And yet - here we are - aware of these things.

We may ask ourselves, what we want to teach our children. Do we want to teach them that it's OK to look for reasons to be violent and dismissive? I mean, we might only have the best of intentions and do all in our power to be justified - regardless of how wrong we are - but eventually the wrongs we build our reality on come haunting its very foundation.

It is in deed difficult, except when it's not. We're all individuals, effectively free to do as we will. We don't because of consequences; But eventually all that, the concept of Leadership, is just in our heads. That's by the way what fuels fascism. The fact that a bunch of mindless brutes eventually have an easy way towards overpowering the peaceful majority. The Rule of Law being dismissed unless it's their rule of law. Criminals until they're the ones writing it.

So, I would hope that you can see through the BS - and come to the understanding that we need to focus on peaceful solutions, if we truly intend to stand by our condemnation of violent solutions.


And apart from that, so ... we eventually have the power to outlaw Fascism. Hypothetically at least. It's been a discussion - and ... a weird one at that. I mean, I was of the oppinion that outlawing Fascism was effective; And that allowing them to participate in the democratic process is like opening the floodgates to a potential revival.
Like, what other tools do we have to oppose individuals that cannot be reasoned with? People who will keep on telling lies and putting forth hateful rhetoric?

What are we doing when we draw lines that must not be crossed - but don't do anything when they are getting crossed?

We're failing! At something. But I believe that it's not always obvious.
I mean, for once should we retain the ability to say things that might be wrong - to then figure out whether or not they are. And if in the end however it comes down to ideology; Well, we have to make sure that we understand why we believe what we believe.


So - I'm down for a revival of Gnosticism. All in all and overall.