Later they were escorted out.
In between, they delivered their message. This space belongs to white supremacy, because this country belongs to white supremacy.
And now those who orchestrated it will pretend they had nothing to do with it.
Republicans caused this to happen, because they wanted it to happen.
The president.
The Senators.
The Representatives.
And their voters.
An open show that they care about nothing but domination. That is their politics.
The American Fascist Party.
Later they were escorted out.
In between, they delivered their message. This space belongs to white supremacy, because this country belongs to white supremacy.
And now those who orchestrated it will pretend they had nothing to do with it.
That's the message. Republicans have delivered it for decades, last year most notably in their Covid policy.
They're very consistent to it.
The American Fascist Party.
Yes. You are.
You just gave yourself an alternate reason to join. And you lend your support to the things an American Fascist Party does, which they do use, to deliver their promised atrocity.
But for millions of us, it wasn't a surprise. We've been watching what Republicans do and say.
An attempt to overthrow democracy was always the promise.
And still is.
They never cared about national security, corruption, freedom of speech, preventing terrorism, national reputation, deficits, rule of law, morality, or the constitution.
It was only ever about dominance.
The American Fascists.
https://t.co/paNiz9PFEw
They never cared about deficits, never cared about fiscal responsibility.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) October 26, 2019
They never cared about national security.
Never cared about corruption.
Or freedom of speech.
Or preventing terrorism.
Never actually even wanted to reduce abortions.
It was only ever about dominance.
Because enablement is part of abuse.
Unify with whom?
For what purpose?
And who gets left out?
Fascists won't unify with you unless you first accept their premise, which is that they matter and others don't.
And they'll only "unify" to bide their time.
More from A.R. Moxon
People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There\u2019s a magic trick that\u2019s going to get played on us every day during the 2020 election cycle. It\u2019s a fairly simple trick, once you see it.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) February 17, 2019
I\u2019d like to talk about leadership and governance.
And the compass, the navigation, the travel, and the corrections.
(thread)
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
Observe: the lie that "government" is a monolithic entity, from which we are somehow separate.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
#COVID19 didn\u2019t close churches. Government did.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 28, 2020
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
Bullshit.
I have family members all the way up the Fox News Facebook misinformation hole, and they didn’t get vaccinated because they felt respected; they got vaccinated because their children told them they wouldn’t get to see their grandchildren until they got vaccinated.
3 observations:
People don't tend to change their worldviews from a place of comfort.
When selfish assholes decide to behave like selfish assholes, the problem isn't that others aren't coddling their feelings enough.
Selfish assholes aren't everyone else's job to fix.
Selfish assholes would love for you to *think* they are everybody else's job to fix.
It puts them at the center and in control.
That means when they act like a selfish asshole, it's *your* fault. You should have been more persuasive. Daddy hits you because you made him angry.
Truth is, vaccine resistors are behaving this way because their feelings ARE being respected.
Malicious media entities created self-feeding networks that reassure selfish assholes they can be selfish assholes and still be respected.
Antvax, racist, sexist, all are welcome.
The way you make a selfish asshole stop being a selfish asshole is well known.
You draw a clear boundary and then you enforce that boundary. You tell them that their bullshit won't be tolerated, and then you don't tolerate their bullshit.
I think we all know that, actually.
I have family members all the way up the Fox News Facebook misinformation hole, and they didn’t get vaccinated because they felt respected; they got vaccinated because their children told them they wouldn’t get to see their grandchildren until they got vaccinated.
Vaccine resisters can\u2019t be persuaded if they feel disrespected | Opinion by @michaelbd https://t.co/nwszm47IOf
— National Review (@NRO) July 16, 2021
3 observations:
People don't tend to change their worldviews from a place of comfort.
When selfish assholes decide to behave like selfish assholes, the problem isn't that others aren't coddling their feelings enough.
Selfish assholes aren't everyone else's job to fix.
Selfish assholes would love for you to *think* they are everybody else's job to fix.
It puts them at the center and in control.
That means when they act like a selfish asshole, it's *your* fault. You should have been more persuasive. Daddy hits you because you made him angry.
Truth is, vaccine resistors are behaving this way because their feelings ARE being respected.
Malicious media entities created self-feeding networks that reassure selfish assholes they can be selfish assholes and still be respected.
Antvax, racist, sexist, all are welcome.
The way you make a selfish asshole stop being a selfish asshole is well known.
You draw a clear boundary and then you enforce that boundary. You tell them that their bullshit won't be tolerated, and then you don't tolerate their bullshit.
I think we all know that, actually.
Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.
Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.
Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.
"If they start canceling these American presidents, they're gonna come after Bible characters next. Mark my words" -- Fox News "news side" host Bill Hemmer pic.twitter.com/qTPV0NERv8
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 19, 2021
Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.
Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.
If you ever want to consider how committed our society is to the foundational lie that life must be earned, and those who fail to earn it must die, consider that the proposition “giving everyone money to spend would be bad for the economy” is widely accepted as truth.
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.
