askchapo

borderline sephiroth posting here but fuck it, the bounds of liberal civility really do let these freaks off scot free for demonic shit and they aren't scared enough

I'm tossing around an idea where the Great Satan is the Dragon spoken about in Revelations. Trump is the beast of the West (had a head injury, mouth flows with blasphemies, has power granted to him by the Dragon), and AI is the beast of the Earth (it's literally made of minerals from the earth, it will make the world and all the people in it worship the first beast). The war being "waged against the saints" is actually the war waged against the Axis of Resistance, the fire he makes come down from heaven is air strikes, the miracles he deceives with are AI slop, the "Mark" is face ID if they don't just lean into it and chip us.

Turning the Evangelical obsession with Armageddon on its head. Rub it in their fucking faces. ^10^He that leads into captivity shall go into captivity: he that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

What my pastors always said is that the Antichrist would essentially have their own cult. It might be a political cult, but of course those are those nasty socialist liberals, not chuds.

I don't believe dehumanizing people is bad from some moral standpoint, or is somehow inherently 'fascistic', but I believe it clouds our analysis. These monsters are human. That's material reality. Humanity isn't some pure superior condition that only some human beings obtain. Systematic forces make fellow humans act like this. And make no mistake, this is not a call for mercy, nor misanthropic. It's a rejection of the mainstream moral that all human life is unconditionally valuable, and the lazy coping mechanism of dehumanization that arises when we want to justify the removal of "human rights" from a human. IDF soldiers are people, and because of their social role, it's important to kill them.

This clip from a documentary on the '43 Group (starting 17:19) makes an important, related remark about how delusion shapes action:

The fascists were victim of their own propaganda. For years, they'd created this image of the Jew as the little shopkeeper, the little tailor. They hadn't reckoned on the Jewish ex-servicemen [...], they didn't recognize these people as Jews. And suddenly they came up against these guys, they never knew what hit them. They couldn't change their point of focus. These weren't the Jews they had in mind.

Yeah, I probably got some wires crossed, but Fanon also talks about this in The Wretched of the Earth:

National liberation, national reawakening, restoration of the nation to the people or Commonwealth, whatever the name used, whatever the latest expression, decolonization is always a violent event. At whatever level we study it— individual encounters, a change of name for a sports club, the guest list at a cocktail party, members of a police force or the board of directors of a state or private bank — decolonization is quite simply the substitution of one “species” of mankind by another. The substitution is unconditional, absolute, total, and seamless.

We could go on to portray the rise of a new nation, the establishment of a new state, its diplomatic relations and its economic and political orientation. But instead we have decided to describe the kind of tabula rasa which from the outset defines any decolonization. What is singularly important is that it starts from the very first day with the basic claims of the colonized. In actual fact, proof of success lies in a social fabric that has been changed inside out. This change is extraordinarily important because it is desired, clamored for, and demanded. The need for this change exists in a raw, repressed, and reckless state in the lives and consciousness of colonized men and women. But the eventuality of such a change is also experienced as a terrifying future in the consciousness of another “species” of men and women: the colons, the colonists.

But, these two "species" aren't immutable:

The people who in the early days of the struggle had adopted the primitive Manichaeanism of the colonizer—Black versus White, Arab versus Infidel —realize en route that some blacks can be whiter than the whites, and that the prospect of a national flag or independence does not automatically result in certain segments of the population giving up their privileges and their interests. The people realize that there are indigenous elements in their midst who, far from being at loose ends, seem to take advantage of the war to better their material situation and reinforce their burgeoning power. These profiteering elements realize considerable gains from the war at the expense of the people who, as always, are prepared to sacrifice everything and soak the national soil with their blood. The militant who confronts the colonialist war machine with his rudimentary resources realizes that while he is demolishing colonial oppression he is indirectly building another system of exploitation. Such a discovery is galling, painful, and sickening. It was once all so simple with the bad on one side and the good on the other.

The idyllic, unreal clarity of the early days is replaced by a penumbra which dislocates the consciousness. The people discover that the iniquitous phenomenon of exploitation can assume a black or Arab face. They cry treason, but in fact the treason is not national but social, and they need to be taught to cry thief. On their arduous path to rationality the people must also learn to give up their simplistic perception of the oppressor. The species is splitting up before their very eyes. They realize that certain colonists do not succumb to the ambient climate of criminal hysteria and remain apart from the rest of their species. Such men, who were automatically relegated to the monolithic bloc of the foreign presence, condemn the colonial war. The scandal really erupts when pioneers of the species change sides, go “native,” and volunteer to undergo suffering, torture, and death.

These examples defuse the overall hatred which the colonized feel toward the foreign settlers. The colonized welcome these men with open arms and in an excess of emotion tend to place absolute confidence in them. In the metropolis, stereotyped as the wicked, bloodthirsty stepmother, numerous and sometimes prominent voices take a stand, condemn unreservedly their government’s policy of war and urge that the national will of the colonized finally be taken into consideration. Soldiers desert the colonialist ranks, others explicitly refuse to fight against a people’s freedom, are jailed and suffer for the sake of the people’s right to independence and the management of their own affairs.

Decolonization effectively dissolves the two species, making them into a single humanity again.

"featherless behavior"

behold a man!

Learn to put appropriate level of disgust into your speech, skill issue

People think them childish, but that’s because murican nuance brain, they are perfectly legible words