Blessings beautiful humans!
For some reason, I've been using FB a bit recently (mostly because it is unfortunately the best place to keep up to date on the Rainbow Gathering.) Every now and then it creates a great opportunity for creativity to flow though, and I feel like this is one of those moments.
A friend had made a big post questioning some of the George Floyd -> Riots narrative. I left this first comment, and after a few minutes a mutual friend (who another friend had just recently mentioned went into full on left-rage on him the other day for not stepping in line with the "movement") jumped in. From there things got interesting, and I feel like the last comment here is probably the best response I've come up with to this question about "which side are you on?"
Me
Remember, George Floyd (besides Masonic ties and claims of assaulting women) was working with the road pirate who killed him for over a year, both security at a night club.
But it sort of takes away from the narrative of "black vs white" when the murderer and victim knew each other personally for quite some time. Was this about race? About cops being violent sociopaths? About some kind of debt, theft, sleeping with the other's lover? Who knows.
We don't know why this happened, but we do know that this wasn't just some cop killing some random black guy because he's racist.
Original Poster
Yup, yup.. I agree with this. Underlying happenings for sure.
I ended up hiding this post because there backlash was honestly too much for me on this one.
Me
Yep, FB is full of people just waiting for the chance to scream & rant at someone.
Truth is it's own reward :-)
Be well sister, lots of love!
Original Poster
Be well ♥️♥️♥️
Leftie Friend
Kenny Palurintano: correction, replace white with police...
Me
In that case, we've also got to replace "black" with "everyone" - It's either a conversation about racism (as implied by organization names like BLM), or it's a conversation about the fact that the "state" is simply an organized crime syndicate that claims a monopoly on force & sovereignty in a region.
If racism didn't exist as a concept tomorrow, if we could just snap that away, the police would still be shooting an average of 3 people per day, it would just be happening at a more equitable distribution across skin colors.
On the other hand, if we could snap away this class of people who are paid by stolen money, whose job it is to violate people, and who are never held responsible for their actions ("government"), then most of the violence on the planet would cease, prisons would be relatively empty (because there's no such thing as a crime without a victim), and human trafficking & pedophilia would come to a screeching halt.
Leftie Friend
Kenny Palurintano
Yes police vs everyone at a certain point but let us not be distracted from the fact that POC are targeted more often.
I’m confused at what your trying to get at with the rest of your comment, perhaps you were assuming that I don’t think that government is corrupt? To me it’s about both of those conversations. Racism in our country is very real and the fact that our government is corrupt is very real. As someone who enjoys abolitionist theory I say all this oppressive shit has got to go.
My question for you, what are your thoughts on this movement? It’s hard to tell...
Me
I'm not saying we should be "distracted" by one thing or another; I'm saying it's important to focus on 3 things when doing activist work (probably way more, but these 3 will lead to any others if followed properly):
1. Principles - These decide what kind of world we are creating through our actions. For me this is non-aggression, respect for sovereignty, and voluntary interaction (full consent culture.)
2. Root Problems - I was attempting to demonstrate with that example of "ending racism" or "ending the state", but as Eric July put it "Without the violence of the state, racism is just a bad idea"
3. Tactics - What are the most efficient & effective actions we can take, now and all along the way, that do not require sacrificing on our principles - "There is no ends but the means"My thoughts on "this movement" are hard to give. Do you mean BLM, Antifa, or...? When I use the term "the movement" I mean with everyone who has the desire and will to move towards a more free, peaceful, and loving world.
That's because as soon as we start talking about groups that are amorphous & decentralized, there will always be people with whom I disagree on principles, on identifying the root problems, and on tactics... and there will be people with whom I agree on any (or all) of those things.
I am in favor of everything that is moving the world away from the system of statism/authoritarianism (including democracy, capitalism & socialism) and all of the various types of oppression that it creates to maintain & expand its power. That said, there are many things (actions, organizations, etc.) that may well lead towards that world that I want to see, but which I personally would not take part in, because they violate my principles.
(I added this portion to the comment right after posting it)
Edit: I forgot to address the piece about government being corrupt. I don't think that term fits myself, as it gives the impression that "government" is a moral, justified, useful thing, that some bad people have corrupted (a bad conspiracy theory I would say - like saying the murderer cops are just bad apples.)"Government" has only ever existed to serve & protect the interests of the wealthy & connected few who make it up and pull its strings.
All government is some variation on the same myth that had people bowing to kings and queens - the myth that some people are above/outside morality, able to violate & control others as they will.
If a totalitarian king were the most centralized version (its not since they had lords, knights, Church, etc.) then "democracy is the most decentralized version (51% vote to exterminate 49% = acceptable genocide.)
But it's all the same thing. The belief that some person/group can have Authority over another, can violate another, without that other's explicit informed consent.
Thanks for reading folks! I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic, and specifically on my response. Anything that needs clarification? Anything you think I could have explained better? Do you feel there's some glaring error in my logic, or that I've missed an important piece of the puzzle?
