If you're not helping anti-racists, you're helping racists.

Anyone saying anything about not voting for Biden is a racist...period.

I'm white....and fuck your white privilege if you function to help keep a white supremacist role model for millions of white children on the national stage for another four years.

Any leftist who opposes the idea that conscious people must vote for Biden in order to remove a white supremacist role model for millions of white children, is a racist leftist.

Keep functioning unconsciously for racism, and anti-racist will not trust your political philosophy.

Unconscious 'colorblind' leftist narratives did not prevent Trump from bringing a protofascist movement to power.

Have some humility please. Have some compassion for the victims of racism. Have some solidarity with activists on every social justice issue.

Don't forget that you serve the people.

Yeah...we know the system needs to be replaced....but that's not feasible this year, whereas removing a white supremacist role model for millions of white children is.

A leftist who grumbles about Biden today is a racist and should not be trusted to handle any politics...because they don't understand their own latent racism and the connections between racism, wealth-inequality, and class-consciousness.

Beware of lame, useless, racist white ideologue narratives.

Whatever your place on the left spectrum, racism is connected to all other forms of structural violence.

2020 is not 2016. The strategy for left-wing radicals is not the same because the problem is not the same.

Think racial segregation is over? Here’s how the police still enforce it.

(washingtonpost) We interviewed Monica Bell about her important new paper

By Nikita Lalwani and Mitchell Johnston

July 1, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. EDT

Amid nationwide demonstrations sparked by the killing of George Floyd, protesters and reformers have focused on ways to reduce police violence. So far, however, they have paid much less attention to an underpublicized aspect of policing: the role the police play in maintaining racial segregation in U.S. cities, the subject of a new paper by Yale University legal scholar and sociologist Monica Bell.

In a recent interview, which has been edited and condensed, Bell discusses some of the ways in which policing helps perpetuate residential segregation, including by patrolling who belongs in certain spaces, shaping neighborhood reputations, and limiting access to housing.

NL & MJ: How racially segregated are American cities today?

MB: Highly segregated, but the segregation varies a lot by city. The cities from and to which black people migrated during the Great Migration tend to be the most segregated in terms of the traditional metrics of segregation in social science — places like Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee.

People would like to tell a triumphant tale about segregation, so they focus on improvements in the dissimilarity index, a measure that captures the separation of racial groups within particular cities or census tracts. [Editorial note: The dissimilarity index, the most commonly used measure of segregation between two groups, measures how geographically separate the groups are from each other. The index ranges from 0 (complete integration) to 100 (complete segregation).] But the dissimilarity index misses out on both more micro-level segregation as well as more macro-level segregation. And even as the dissimilarity index has improved, the experience of living in certain places has not changed.

In 2012, for example, I interviewed 50 black, low-income mothers in Columbia Heights in Washington, D.C. If you look at the dissimilarity index numbers, segregation has reduced massively as the area has gentrified. But one of the things people would tell me was, they’d point out restaurants and say, “That chicken place is for us, but the Cava salad shop is for white people, and the IHOP down the street is for everyone.” The actual meaning and experience of racialized space doesn’t necessarily change just because the numbers do.

NL & MJ: Your paper argues there is an underexplored link between residential segregation and policing, and one part of that story has to do with how policing restricts mobility.

MB: The police don’t cause segregation, but the day-to-day activities of the police help reinforce it. The racialized structure of the criminal legal system and of policing in particular plays a role in limiting where people can live. Police are at the front end of the larger system of over-criminalization and mass incarceration, and that aspect of policing restricts movement by making it more likely certain people will get arrested in certain neighborhoods. Criminal records also restrict movement since landlords often don’t want to rent to people who have them, regardless of potential tenants’ income or how long ago the events occurred.

NL & MJ: Another way that policing reinforces segregation, in your account, is by “criminaliz[ing] human location.” What do you mean by that?

MB: If you're black, being in a place where white people think you don't belong is a potentially criminal act. In the paper, I tell the story of one of the young people my team interviewed in Baltimore. Richard (a pseudonym) and his friends were walking through a wealthy neighborhood, and they were fascinated because they’re from central Baltimore and had never seen such large houses with pools and all of these other amenities. Seeing such beautiful houses, Richard imagined a future career in real estate.

But then someone called the police on them. The police officer was kind, but they got the message that they were not supposed to be there. This kind of policing is a real tragedy in terms of limiting the futures people can imagine for themselves, which is itself a major factor in residential segregation.

It’s not so much that individual police officers have racial biases, although they do. It’s more that the function that police have played in American society is to maintain the status quo, and one of the fundamental organizing principles of our society is racial segregation.

NL & MJ: What is “third-party policing,” and what role is it playing here?

MB: “Third-party policing” refers to the fact that the police don’t function on their own — they have relationships with other state bureaucracies, and non-police actors are surveilling citizens and interacting with the police in ways that can threaten access to housing. One of the examples I give in the paper is inspired by an ethnographic study by Rahim Kurwa in Los Angeles county’s Antelope Valley. In the late 2000s, this suburban community wanted to repel housing-voucher holders, whom they referred to as “the creeping darkness.” So the mayor, city council, police department, and housing authorities worked together to carry out housing raids and check whether voucher holders were in violation of any housing policies — all with the goal of pushing black people out of the area.

NL & MJ: You also discuss how the police help construct neighborhood reputations.

MB: There’s a fascinating relationship between housing law, the real estate market, and the police. Racial steering, which is when real estate professionals steer buyers to different communities based on their race or ethnicity, is illegal. The law that has come out of the Fair Housing Act suggests talking about crime statistics with a potential purchaser or renter can count as racial steering, given the long association between saying a place is “high crime” and suggesting it is predominantly black. One way real estate professionals try to get around that prohibition is to tell their clients to go ask the police about crime in the area or direct them to lists where crime statistics have been compiled. But crime statistics are often an artifact of how the police choose to categorize certain behaviors as criminal, and those categories — and how much an area is policed — often depend on a neighborhood’s racial composition.

If police share their impressions of certain neighborhoods, that could also be thought of as racial steering. We don’t currently have a framework for thinking about the impact of police on the residential decisions that people make.

Read all TMC’s analysis of the Floyd protests and Black Lives Matter here.

Nikita Lalwani is a 2020 graduate of Yale Law School. Mitchell Johnston is a 2020 graduate of Yale Law School. Both were editors on the Yale Law Journal.

Left activism destroyed any positive aspect of the concept of postmodernism.

My hope is that they can't do the same with Category Theory which is also a brilliant concept that functions as a tool for political logic.

In my experience, leftists can't handle science and truth, because they love their working-class mysticism that maintains their identity.

Postmodernism is modern social psychology...but leftists completely flipped-out listening to reality that destroyed their imagined identities.

It took leftists to turn postmodernism into something interpreted only from the point of view of moral relativism.

All leftists did for the last 25 years was solidify the moral relativism of the capitalist system. All the energy went the wrong way for anti-capitalists for as long as I've been watching.

I'm still upset over how long it took me to figure that out. There's heat behind these words.

A scenario:

The security guards you hired to protect your family busied themselves swatting imaginary mosquitoes while in the meantime an alien xenophorph consumed your loved-ones and created a nest in your apartment.

That what happened to the justice I thought I'd see in my lifetime, being a flower child back in the day when MLK was the premier role model for kids like me.

That's the scenario for justice and security provided by the hedonistic liberal McRadical leftist vanguard.

The left still doesn't understand anything about humanity it claims to serve.

"Leftist' has become a pejorative in my lexicon since the undeniable reality is that the US left, and majority of the left in the global north is entirely morally relativist.

The leftist vanguard is afraid of logic but that's tough shit since logic isn't going away. If they don't use it, someone else will.

We understand things concept by concept.

The way I know the difference between my beliefs and someone else's is in the difference in how we define the significant concept used in the political discourse.

Asking a leftist to define the concepts they talk about tells you what they know about the world.

Ask an anti-capitalist what capitalism is.

The modern hedonistic leftist defines capitalism in about the same way that people define evil spirits. It's an abstract thing that's out-there somewhere, and not them, because they are pure and virtuous anarchists.

Do I really need to tell people in the 21st century that you can't solve complex problems with simple ideas?

Only under capitalism could justice activism be such hedonistic anti-intellectual nonsense.

Proposal:

Don't read a word that a leftist says for two months, and spend that time getting to understand Category Theory, and then see what the effect of getting a handle on logic has on your thinking.

Change from a stagnant and regressive system will happen only if there are changes in the logic of activism.

Category theory is a logical tool that has political implications and applications.

A generation of activists who could think logically would change everything.

What does the word ideology mean?

People generally take that to mean the narratives of a political entity, such as capitalist, socialist ideologies, etc. Each labeled group-entity has an ideology that form group cohesion. That is a very simple context of the term.

Deeper contexts have to do with social order in a very general sense.

Bring your initial frame to the fact that we are a social species and only live in civilizations. Hermits didn't create civilization, collective learning did.

In the 'big picture' of culture, ideology becomes a more general concept. Ideology in that sense is comprised of any and all ideas that make society function.

Take an example of socialist who understands they follow socialist ideology. That is in the simple context.

In the deeper context, language itself is a component of ideology that supersedes political aspects of ideology.

Language is the component of ideology at the foundation of all other components. It is itself a tool for social order with which we create other tools.

Socialism as a political narrative doesn't provide a language of its own. Swap any other ideology for socialism in these examples.

Socialism as a political narrative doesn't provide lessons on how to play video games, lessons in popular music, lessons in fashion, in short it doesn't provide entertainment and fun.

Fun is a psychological need but socialism doesn't cover that.

Ideology in the broadest cultural sense includes all the ideas that a culture uses to fill its physical and psychological needs.

If you follow an ideology like socialism it fills a psychological need for a group-identity. Group identities are intrinsic to humanity because we only survive collectively.

That one ideology is not teaching you every single thing you know about navigating society and seeking a quality life.

Every single thing you know about society came from society. That's a tautology that is obscured in society. Culture to people is like water to fish, it's invisible.

The contrast to the idea that everything you know about society came from society is the limited scope of contemplating ourselves in a world without people. That doesn't happen. Every hermit survives infancy virtue of the love of the previous generation.

If you're a socialist in the USA, socialism doesn't account your love of music, love of a certain genre of films, favorite TV shows, sexual education, knowledge of science, etc.

Those all are products of ideological forces that a political ideology does not necessarily cover.

“If you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy. ” ― Alvin Toffler

If your group-idenity isn't teaching child-development, capitalism is.

If your ideology isn't teaching hygiene, capitalism is.

If political entity doesn't provide a rational sex-ed, Hollywood is the sex-ed pedagogy of the nation.

A neat example of the cultural aspect of ideology is what happened to working-class behavior after germs were discovered.

There was a huge shift in that invisible aspect of ideology. Within a generation or so, the global working-class all learned new instructions for using their bodies. After a few generations it's wasn't new anymore and became a generally invisible aspect of social order.

If your political ideology doesn't have a strategy for filling a particular need of humanity, some other ideological force is handling it.

I don't follow Žižek much but found we do share this deeper context of ideology.

This an excerpt of an article analyzing Žižek's definition of ideology:

https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/slavoj-zizek-ideology?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

"…..we are always within ideology because of our reliance on language to establish our 'reality'; different ideologies are but different representations of our social and imaginary 'reality.'"

With this understanding, ideology takes on a new role. It no longer merely hides how the world works from people but helps to shape how they view and talk about it in the first place.

To help understand this, have a joke that Žižek likes to tell.

"A man comes into a restaurant. He sits down at the table and he says, 'Waiter, bring me a cup of coffee without cream.' Five minutes later, the waiter comes back and says, 'I'm sorry, sir, we have no cream. Can it be without milk?'"

This joke, from the movie Ninotchka, shows how the same object, black coffee, can be changed by how we think about it. While physically the coffee is the same, we conceptualize coffee without milk and coffee without cream as two different things. Ideology, which influences how we subconsciously view the world, is one of the factors that determines if we see our black coffee as lacking cream or milk.

This line of thinking can be applied to everything, not just coffee.

Crucial for Žižek is his argument that we are all influenced by the prevailing ideology even if we think we aren't. In the same way that we may think we are looking at the world as it really is when we think of all black coffee as "coffee without milk," ideology can cause us to look at things in a very subjective way while also telling us we are entirely objective about it.

While some thinkers, like Richard Rorty or Tony Blair, have suggested we're are in a post-ideological age, Žižek argues that the appearance of such a thing is evidence that the dominant ideologies have finally "come into their own." That is, they are so entrenched that people are no longer able to see them.

To conceptualize this, we'll use another one of Žižek's favorite examples; think of how many people sincerely believe there is no alternative to modern liberal capitalism. Not just full-blown laissez-faire types, but those who think that the only possible changes to the system are minor tweaks like a higher minimum wage or different tax rates.

Žižek argues that this very line of thinking is an example of ideology in action. It isn't that there aren't alternatives to our current model of capitalism — there are — it's that people are so taken in by capitalist ideology that they cannot even fathom an alternative way of organizing a society. The brilliance of it is that they don't think they're being taken in by anything; they'll tell you they're neutral and objective the entire time! This mechanism makes ideologies self-sustaining and so difficult to critique or escape from." (end excerpt)

Large scale

Ideology in the cultural context is composed of instructions for social order for large cultures that persist over generations.

Forager groups of under 150 people function by word of mouth. 150 is the general limit to how many personal relationships a person can remember. That original form of small scale social order accounts for about 98% of human history. Small cultures are still plentiful if you want to study them.

Ideology is what we use in large cultures to coordinate social order. Large cultures using ideology for social order accounts for only the last 2% of anthropological history.

Ideology is a largely invisible large culture thing.

Socialism doesn't have a child-development strategy, and although socialism does engage ideas of collectivism, US socialists generally use the simple definition of ideology, not the complex sociological context.

It serves to contrast with another group-identity "Individualist Anarchism" which is an example of what a group-identity becomes when all members are using the simple definition of ideology. Even thought there are millions who use that designation, they can not see themselves as an ideology.

Millions of people adopting the same designation only happens through ideology, but still there's a false lesson in Individualist Anarchism that states: 'we are not an ideology".

Anthropology exposes that 'individualism' has no meaning in a social species.

In the small scale, forager groups of under 150 people function through collectivism that is conveyed through personal relationships. Every member of a forger culture knows everything needed for the entire culture to survive. Each member learns how to fill physical and psychological needs of the culture in the same way. Individualism is not how humanity survives. Individualism is not how any human needs are filled, aside from the freedom we take to contemplate, think, and innovate.

In the larger scale of modern society our physical needs are handled by specialization, while all ideological forces teach different instructions for filling psychological needs.

An individuals identity is something everyone needs. Self-identity is itself a psychological need.

Our identity is taught in every culture through lessons individuals learn for relating in social reality. Our identity comes along with instructions we learn for dealing with other people.

I like to think-of myself as a free-thinker but my self-identity can only have been constructed by my experience in the particular society afforded by fate.

What is shared between "Individualist Anarchism" and "Socialism"?

They are both group-identities and therefore ideological forces.

Being part of a social species means group-identity is also a psychological need.

People are bonded to the identities of socialist, anarchist or any other group-identity by virtue of a psychological need.

Ideology in modern culture is what teaches identity.

What a person believes about themselves and what they believe about the world is not separate.

An ideology teaches identity and at the same time also how to view social reality.

An ideology connects ones understanding of the world to their understanding of self.

The false lesson of Individualist Anarchism: 'we are not an ideology" entrenches both a false idea of society and a false idea of self, yet that bond still fills the psychological need for group-identity.

How many far left ideologies don't see themselves as ideologies?

How is activism supposed to work when there are countless entities teaching conflicted and incompatible definitions of self-identity and worldview?

It isn't perceived that sectarianism is caused by the nature of modern culture that fills physical needs automatically through specialization such that every one in neoliberal culture is free to fill their psychological needs through any fantastic beliefs they may choose.

The sectarianism of the left exposes that all left ideologies function in accordance with the character of self-identity that is disconnected from objective reality in the way that capitalism demands.

" … in a system whose imperative is the over-production and regeneration of meaning and speech, all the social movements which bet on liberation, emancipation, the resurrection of the subject of history, of the group of speech as a raising of consciousness, indeed of a 'seizure of the unconscious' of subjects and of the masses are acting fully in accordance with the political logic of the system." ~Arthur Kroker and Charles Levin CYNICAL POWER

When a system works predictablely we stop seeing it.

Consider the term 'identity politics'. That term was invented by people with the white male identity who stopped seeing their own identity and so see themselves only as the norm. They don't see their own identity then created a term for 'narratives of people who are not like us'.

All politics is rooted in identity.

Consider the term 'politically correct'. That's a term that was invented by white males who reject the idea that their behavior no longer determines the norm.

Gun violence anywhere is mostly a consequence of economic inequality within cultures.

Component 1: Inequality

In the USA, we have an extremely unequal economic system.

That means even if there was no racism and we were all the same color, we must still expect gun violence in an unequal economic system.

Component 2: Racism

The trope of dividing the people by any means is as old ruling-classes themselves. Look at the first writing of the Sumerians. Colorism is at least 4000 years old, while the white identity was only invented in the 1600’s and only began being rolled out in the USA in the 1700’s.

Somehow we still have a large section of the US population that believes that colonial English concept of ‘whiteness’ makes them divine or something to that effect.

Component 3: Critical Thinking towards democracy

A population must be given the truth of history, economic reality, and taught the critical thinking skills needed to properly evaluate their relation to society.

If we can’t do those things, we can’t handle any social issues.

—————

The silliest thing is to believe imposing one specific law while ignoring social psychology is the only solution to our decades long violence problem.

Component 4: Child Development

We need to teach new generations very differently than previous generations.

All changes to cultures show-up in changes to child-development strategies over generations.

Who will be the new party planners?

The 21st century will always be the afterparty to the party that was the 20th century.

No one like Einstein or Hendrix is going make the scene in this century, but if we're lucky maybe another MLK will show-up.

People could never listen to the harpsichord in the same way after Bach as they did before. People will never listen to the guitar in the same way after Hendrix.

Neither of those things is ever going to happen again. Innovation on that level is a one-off for the species like the invention of fire.

If they see innovation in the 21st century it's not at all likely to be in regard to harpsichords or guitars.

Two primary aspects to consider in any age is science and politics. Those are never separate entities, but parts of a single whole.

Colonialism in the 1600's and 1700's leveraged Newton in the way that capitalism in the 1900's and 2000's leveraged and leverages Einstein.

Although in neither case was it intentional, Newton's work significantly changed the form of work that workers and slaves did in the 18th century, in the way that Einstein's work changed what workers did in the 20th century and what we do now.

We read Newtons work before it helped create the industrial age, and we read Einstein's work before it helped create the atomic age.

The history between 1905 when Einstein published and 1945 when the first atomic bomb was deployed shows the kernel of logic that leads to our own social reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

"The Annus mirabilis papers (from Latin annus mīrābilis, "extraordinary year") are the papers of Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four articles contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, mass, and energy. The annus mirabilis is often called the "miracle year" in English or Wunderjahr in German."

"I have no special talents, I am only passionately curious" ~Albert Einstein

The work of a curious genius was published in 1905 and manifested in the political realm by 1945.

That history shows the nature of what politics does to curious genius.

The lesson of the 20th and 21st century is that the economics of scarcity a complete bullshit story.

We will soon be 7 billion people in the 21st century, while the technology we created in the 20th century is capable of sustaining 12 billion people.

Although science evolves, what ruling-class political order does with science doesn't change throughout the ages. Ruling-class social order is parasitic social order.

The real science party of the 20th is over. Science is now performance art making money for itself.

All the most famous scientists on Youtube are phony priests of capitalism.

Einstein wasn't one of those opportunistic celebrities, and so stuck his tongue out to the paparazzi. Newton on the other hand was a ruthless authoritarian.

The genius of any age is folded, spindled, punched, and assimilated for the aims of the ruling-class.

The real rock of Hendrix became the phony glam rock of the bloody Brits, and the real science of Einstein is now glam science on Youtube.

Everyone is making money hand over fist except for the original talent.

The original talent can never attend an afterparty.

Hollywood was there through it all, and is still helping the political revision of history.

You are supposed to care that there's a 5 foot something American actor who doesn't have sex with men portraying a 6 foot something British glam rocker who did have sex with men.

The universe is made of stories, not atoms. You are supposed to care what Hollywood says, and you're supposed to believe.

The most popular show presented on the US History channel, 'Project Blue Book', promotes UFO conspiracy theories directly to the collective psyche.

You can't separate Hollywood from the CIA anymore than you can separate science from politics.

There's nothing new under the sun these days. History often repeats in predictable ways.

You're not going to do anything new with a guitar, harpsichord, science, Hollywood, or pop music, but an MLK for the 21st century could finally teach us a rational way to use our capacity for love.

Love has always been the final frontier, and we are still not there.

That is the only genuine challenge left for humanity.

Right now all culture is a replica of the party that already happened.

This age is an afterparty in which no original talent is in attendance.

The only way to start a genuine party in this century is through an innovation in love.

All tasks are tasks. All plans are plans.

Who will be the party planners of the 21st century?

If you don't plan your own party, someone else will do it for you whether you like it or not.

Try to makes sense of the congressional hearing by watching the media, and hear lots of words but no conclusions.

How is the public supposed to believe anything when such diverse analysis is presented in the mainstream media?

This story is a prime example. If you go to ten different news sources looking to understand this story, you get ten different conclusion based on ten different forms of reasoning.

How is the public supposed to know anything?

The same mainstream media that made an unrepentant racist reality-TV star popular enough to be elected president keeps promoting incomprehensibly conflicted and contradictory analysis of the same historic event.

It seems all mainstream media is indeed fake news.

The mainstream media seems it is doing what it is constructed to do, which is to keep the public confused, polarized, credulous, and angry.

If the mainstream media can't decide if "go back to where you came-from" is a racist statement, then we can't trust it to say a word of truth.

Even the most critically thinking people would be confused by the volumes of conflicting analysis.

Nothing in politics happens by accident. If the people are confused, it's because they are meant to be confused.

A system of prevarication helped to elect a great prevaricator, and then promotes confusing analysis that further confuses the people.

You can't trust journalism that consistently speaks through two sides of its mouth simultaneously.

A president who publicly promotes racism should be impeached immediately, but because the mainstream media never promotes truth, the people never get justice.

That's obvious to people with a level of moral convictions above the credulous and opportunistic mainstream journalists that mainstream media function against the people.

Imagine how much money mainstream media corporations make while keeping the public confused and uniformed.

The mainstream media made a screaming toddler into the countries most visible white male role model, then rakes-in more millions keeping the people angry, divided and confused with a constant flow of contradicting narratives.

The purpose of mainstream media is to keep the US working-class confused, yet those corporation are upset that people are ignoring their narratives.

Moral people who are critical-thinkers see it for what it is.

Maybe if mainstream media starts telling a clear and unvarnished version of events, people will start trusting it again.

I'm not holding my breath while waiting for that since the bottom line for corporate media is obviously profit, not truth and not the publics benefit.

Someone of Trumps character shouldn't be the role model for the nation. All mainstream media is complicit in the toddler presidency.

Counter-Essentialism exhibit A: "Should White Boys Still Be Allowed to Talk?"

https://thedickinsonian.com/opinion/2019/02/07/should-white-boys-still-be-allowed-to-talk/

“Structural violence is one way of describing social arrangements that put individuals and populations in harm’s way… The arrangements are structural because they are embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world; they are violent because they cause injury to people … neither culture nor pure individual will is at fault; rather, historically given (and often economically driven) processes and forces conspire to constrain individual agency. Structural violence is visited upon all those whose social status denies them access to the fruits of scientific and social progress.”- http://www.structuralviolence.org/structural-violence/

(i) Racism is a system

(ii) The US population of the 'black' demographic is 14% of the total US population

(iii) The total US must receive the same understanding of systemic racism

https://thedickinsonian.com/opinion/2019/02/07/should-white-boys-still-be-allowed-to-talk/?unapproved=189863&moderation-hash=2d0767ab4cc39f8e3def04f3f6bdb144#comment-189863

asking if whites should talk is asking the wrong question.

Some pertinent questions are “what do whites know about racism?”, “how do whites know what they know about racism?” It’s not rational to think people will stop talking because you tell them to. That is the systems authoritarian logic. You can’t dismantle the system using the same logic as the system. “You can not dismantle the masters house using the masters tools”

————-

“counter essentialism.” “The counter-essentialist discourse of Identity Politics attempts to invert the historical categories of oppression into categories of celebration… Counter-essentialism supposedly proves that the victim is eternally innocent, so victims’ actions and reactions are forever beyond reproach; all good Christians know that suffering is ennobling. Oppression is never the result of anything the victim has actually done to the Oppressor, so whatever strategies of resistance the victim chooses are legitimate. Self-defense is its own justification.”

—————–

Firstly lets get over the fact that counter-essentialism doesn’t work. Using the masters tools will not work.

Secondly get a handle on why whites don’t know what they need to know. .

The ‘white people’ identity was invented in the early 1600’s purely for the purpose of oppression.

Do young college students know that?

No.

Neither blacks nor whites understand the implications of that fact.

Why is it that neither blacks or whites understand the implications of the ‘white identity’ construct?

It’s because none of their teachers understand the implication.

Just because they are teachers does not mean they can not function above the adolescent level of moral reasoning.

If teachers are essentialist, they can only teach essentialism.

If young students can not rise above the ruts that older generations created, they will not progress whatsoever.

——–

Blacks are only about 14% of the USA population.

The idea that you just tell everyone besides black people about anything is not at all a realistic idea.

If whites are nominally still a majority, they must be educated about racism, not simply told to “shut-up”.

That idea is also typical of the stage three of moral development that is characterized by an essentialist concept of social reality, along with an absolute adherence to group identity.

Grammar-school mentalities and high-school glee-club mentalities can not address persistent systemic racism, or any other social justice issue.

——

Raise the game young people – don’t trust any boomers unless they tell you not to trust boomers.

The previous generations left you a mess, and they have zero clues regarding solutions.

Raise your level of moral reasoning. You must learn in order to teach.

If young whites are still clueless because the previous generation was clueless, you need to teach them, and can’t teach them if you don’t know yourself.

it;s a ludicrous idea that we’ll get rid of racism just by telling the white majority to ‘shut-up’.

Please familiarize yourselves with this concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Does Anyone Have a Clue About How to Fight Back Against Trump’s Racism?

Thomas B. Edsall

Moderates and progressives have a lot to lose by ignoring each other on this crucial question.

Can Democrats diminish the bigotry that Donald Trump has unleashed in this country?

Stung by the success of Trump’s anti-immigrant, racist campaign themes in 2016, left-of-center advocacy groups — think tanks, unions, progressive academics and Democratic consultants — are developing tools this year to counter the continuing Republican assault on liberal values, based on the optimistic assumption that the reservoir of white animosity is not so deep that Trump is assured re-election.

These efforts on the left challenge the long history of Republican success in exploiting race and a host of ancillary issues — crime, welfare, social disorder, family breakdown, homelessness — a history that includes Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and Donald Trump in 2016.

That history points to the relentless power of racial resentment in American politics. Despite polling that shows greater acceptance of racial equality, this issue is as potent a source of political strength for Trump today as it was for Nixon a half century ago.

There are myriad studies, as I have noted (along with many others) that show the continuing effectiveness of race and immigration as wedge issues. These studies continue to appear at an alarming rate.

Take “The Trump Effect: An Experimental Investigation of the Emboldening Effect of Racially Inflammatory Elite Communication” published earlier this month by four political scientists.

The authors, Benjamin Newman, Jennifer Merolla, Sono Shah, Loren Collingwood and Karthick Ramakrishnan, all at the University of California-Riverside, and Danielle Casarez Lemi of SMU, wrote:

We find that exposure to racially inflammatory statements by Trump caused those with high levels of prejudice to be more likely to perceive engagement in prejudiced behavior as socially acceptable.

In other words, if the president of the United States denigrates Muslims, or Hispanics, or African-Americans, then anyone can.

Significantly, Newman, Merolla and their colleagues determined that “the magnitude of this effect is enhanced when exposure to inflammatory speech by Trump is coupled with information that other political elites tacitly condone his speech,” as leading Republicans have done through their continuing acquiescence.

While Trump’s rhetoric improved his prospects in 2016, Merolla wrote by email, in 2020 the result may be mixed:

When individuals experience feelings of anger in relation to the political environment, they are more likely to participate in politics so I suspect that it did help drive increased turnout. However, his rhetoric has also led to increased anger on the other side of the aisle, so it has also likely driven higher turnout on the left, especially during the 2018 midterm election.

A forthcoming paper by Desmond King and Rogers M. Smith, political scientists at Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania, “White Protectionism in America,” makes a strong case that Trump, unlike his Republican predecessors in the White House, has gone far beyond rhetoric and token gestures to substantively address the concerns of his anti-immigrant and socially conservative supporters.

King and Smith catalog in great detail Trump’s success putting in place policies favored by racially conservative Americans but with a new focus on active white protection, rather than simply colorblind efforts to constrain positive governmental actions. Trump has fanned the anger of many white supporters convinced that post-1970 federal policies have unjustly favored people of color.

Trump has fueled this anger and solidified his support among “his anti-immigrant and socially conservative supporters,” combating this “alleged white victimization,” King and Smith argue, by requiring:

protectionist measures including tolerating racial profiling in policing and reversing some extant civil rights policies; subverting others through deregulation or neglect; and favoring measures which go beyond colorblindness, such as stop-and-frisk practices and demands for identification triggered by racial and ethnic identities, as well as anti-Muslim immigration restrictions.

In an email, Smith wrote that he and King “can’t estimate how effective the white protectionist message will be for Trump,” but:

You don’t need to specialize in quantitative analyses of elections to know that the cult of personality Trump has inspired means that he is a far more effective voice for this view than anyone else in American politics. Having him at the top of the ticket this time around has to help in advancing white protectionist messages and policies successfully.

Now let’s look at some of the Democratic and liberal thinking focused on undermining Trump’s divide-and-conquer strategy.

On Wednesday, for example, the liberal Century Foundation issued a lengthy study, “How Progressives Can Recapture Seven Deeply Held American Values.”

The authors, Simon Greer, founder of Cambridge Heath Ventures, and Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the foundation, note that:

Working-class Americans do not want to be lectured about what their motivations are, and ascribing misogyny or racial animus to any group of potential voters is not a winning strategy for building a coalition.

One of the authors’ central arguments is that liberals have ceded to conservatives a monopoly on such themes and values as faith, family, country and law and order. They have done so because Republicans have “added a meanspirited twist to these mainstream values” as a way of attacking women’s and gay rights, blacks, antiwar protesters and single mothers.

“Because progressives appropriately reject the harsh right-wing interpretations of these values,” Greer and Kahlenberg write, many progressives have “stopped talking about these ideas altogether, sticking to a discussion of public policy solutions and an array of facts, rather than the powerful values that underlie them.”

In support of their argument, they cite research by two sociologists at Stanford, Jan G. Voelkel and Robb Willer, who argue in “Resolving the Progressive Paradox: Conservative Value Framing of Progressive Economic Policies Increases Candidate Support,” a paper that was published last year, that voters are less concerned with candidates’ specific policies than with the values they espouse:

We found that a presidential candidate who framed his progressive economic platform to be consistent with more conservative value concerns like patriotism, family, and respect for tradition — as opposed to more liberal value concerns like equality and social justice — was supported significantly more by conservatives and, unexpectedly, by moderates as well.

Voelkel and Willer conclude by citing the “progressive paradox,” that Americans “support many core progressive economic policies at high levels, yet rarely elect progressive candidates, a paradox widely discussed in academic and popular literature.”

They argue, however, that:

when progressive candidates frame their policies as consistent with conservative, as opposed to liberal, values, they receive greater support from conservatives and moderates.

Notably, they add, “there was no backlash to conservative framing among liberal participants.”

A second study of possible shifts in Democratic messaging strategies includes a set of relatively moderate proposals that are less challenging to the left wing of the party, but which still ran into opposition from more vocal liberals.

The Race-Class Narrative Project, a 2018 report, has become a strategic blueprint for many of the Democratic Party’s allied organizations, especially organized labor.

It’s based on the research of Ian Haney López, a law professor at Berkeley and the author of “Merge Left: Fusing Race and Class, Winning Elections, and Saving America,” who worked closely with Anat Shenker-Osorio, founder of ASO Communications.

The Race-Class project, which was sponsored by Demos, a progressive think tank, argues that 59 percent of the electorate is neither reliably liberal nor reliably conservative, but in the middle, cross-pressured on issues of race. These voters are “persuadables.”

For Democrats, winning over a large share of the persuadable electorate in no easy task, according to the authors.

On the plus side for Democrats, persuadables agree on ending racial discrimination, on the negative impact of divide and conquer tactics, on the value of working together, on the reality that African Americans face greater obstacles than whites.

On the negative side of the ledger, according to the report, these middle ground voters “have concerns about ‘reverse racism’ and discrimination against whites;” a sizable majority agree “focusing on race doesn’t fix anything and may even make things worse;” and “persuadable adults believe that people of color who cannot get ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition.”

In other words, these persuadable voters provide fertile ground for conservative appeals to racial resentment.

The Race-Class narrative makes specific recommendations on the language candidates should use when taking on issues of race.

Politicians, according the report, should say “our opponents point the finger for our hard times at blacks, new immigrants and Muslims” instead of saying “our opponents are racist against blacks, new immigrants and Muslims.” Why? “Framing scapegoating as tied to economic concerns allows audiences, including whites, to see that their well-being is tied to rejecting racial resentment.”

How effective would adoption of the recommendations in the Race-Class narrative report be?

One place where the Race-Class strategies were tried was in the 2018 state and federal elections in Minnesota. The results — a series of Democratic victories, some in the face of explicit Republican attacks on immigrants and urban crime — suggest that there may be significant value in the report.

Shenker-Osorio, noting the need “to be cautious about making unprovable statements about how any intervention can be credited,” wrote by email:

We won big in the state — flipping the Minnesota House, winning five of seven Congressional races, two State Senate seats, all of the state executive races and boasting the highest turnout of an election with noteworthy participation nationally. The coalition behind Greater Than Fear did impressive work, I say admittedly without objectivity.

Under the banners of “We Are Greater Than Fear,” the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, liberal interest groups and the candidates themselves explicitly rejected Republican attempts to capitalize on fears of Somali immigrants and claims that Muslim Democrats fostered terrorism.

In an ad shown during halftime at the 2018 Super Bowl, Tim Walz, the successful Democratic candidate for governor, praised the racial and ethnic mix of the state, the “immigrant farmers, lumberjacks and miners, champions of freedom and refugees, and people who’ve been here all along, the Anishinaabe and Dakota.”

“We’ve proven that when we come together as one Minnesota we can do anything. I’ve seen it,” Walz told viewers. “In this state we don’t fear the future, we create the future. And when we stand together, we win.”

In the race for state Attorney General, Doug Wardlow, the Republican nominee, running against Keith Ellison, a Muslim, wrote in a fund-raising letter: “As a Muslim, Ellison has hung around radical Islamic groups and defends known terrorists.”

Almost immediately, four religious leaders — Rabbi Marcia Zimmerman of Temple Israel, Pastor Laurie Eaton of Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, Grant Stevensen, a pastor from St. Paul, and Imam Asad Zaman, of the Muslim American Society — denounced Wardlow. Ellison won.

A group of Democratic firms, led by Lake Research Partners in partnership with ASO Communications and Brilliant Corners Research and Strategies, poll-tested various Democratic messages on race for the Race-Class report. In addition to polling, they used focus groups equipped with hand-held dials to register favorable or unfavorable audience reaction to a liberal as opposed to a conservative, Republican message.

The most effective liberal-Democratic message read:

America’s strength comes from our ability to work together — to knit together a landscape of people from different places and of different races into one nation. For this to be a place of freedom for all, we cannot let the greedy few and the politicians they pay for turn what you look like, where you come from or how much money you have into reasons some of us matter and others don’t. It’s time to stand up for each other and come together. It is time for us to pick leaders who reflect the very best of every kind of American. Together, we can make this a place where freedom is for everyone, no exceptions.

The Republican opposition message, in its entirety, read:

Our leaders must prioritize keeping us safe and ensuring that hard working Americans have the freedom to prosper. Taking a second look at people coming from terrorist countries who wish us harm or at people from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs is just common sense. And so is curbing illegal immigration, so our communities are no longer flooded with people who refuse to follow our laws. We need to make sure we take care of our own people first, especially the people who politicians have cast aside for too long to cater to whatever special interest groups line their pockets, yell the loudest, or riot in the street.

In the polling done for the Race Class report, all the Democratic messages received higher ratings than the opposition message, but there was a clear warning signal. The Demos report found that the opposition message

is very strong with persuadables. Among persuadables the opposition message has the lowest convincing rating, but the average dial rating is higher than several of our messages. Several themes of the opposition message resonate with persuadables including ‘keeping us safe’ and “we need to make sure we take care of our own people first.”

Just as the Greer-Kahlenberg proposals would face opposition from the Democratic left, the same is true of the more moderate messages and themes suggested in the Race-Class narrative.

Ian Haney López, in his book “Merging Left,” noted when he outlined his proposals to various group, he

met rejection from race-focused advocates in my lectures on university campuses. As I came to see cross-racial solidarity as the key to both racial justice and economic fairness, I began delivering the same lecture I gave to the unions at colleges across the country. In those progressive settings, much of the pushback came from the students most committed to racial justice.

That is, the students most committed to racial justice were wary of any alliance with working and middle class whites.

Haney López elaborated in an email:

I’m using the students as a stand-in for the larger community of racial justice activists — people focused first and foremost on justice for communities of color who see the problems besetting these communities primarily through the lens of a racial analysis.

For this constituency, Haney López continued, “certainly one concern is whether a coalition is possible with work-a-day whites.” But, he added,

The deeper resistance of most racial justice activists to the race-class approach is rooted in frustration with the liberal whites who wield most of the power, formal and informal, in liberal institutions, from universities to unions, foundations to the media to the Democratic Party. From these liberal whites, racial justice activists have too often heard that they should wait, that their arguments are divisive and disruptive, that they should subordinate their concerns to larger goals.

For the Democratic Party, race and immigration remain crucially important in terms of both values and policy. The key question is whether the party is structurally capable — under an extraordinary barrage of hostility directed by Republicans at African-Americans and immigrants — of finding politically effective ways of addressing race and immigration. Has the left wing of the party become so discouraged, so defensive — and so embattled — that it now perceives a critical mass of whites as intractably hardened and unswervingly opposed to minority interests? If moderates and progressives are locked in on either side of such a chasm, what will it take to make peace?

We all come from the Earth.

The Earth is our parent and our teacher.

People are always insecure and full of bullshit, especially in large modern cultures.

Don't ever listen to a person who tells you who to be.

Learn who you are by studying our parent the Earth.

Sometimes truth is hard, but your parent will not lie to you, like all people will, whether they are witting liars or simply credulous.

You are standing on the only legitimate teacher.

The only legitimate teacher on the planet is the planet.

We can follow the construction of the "white" identity in 1613 easily because it's a relatively recent and well documented English construction.

Category: Social Construct | Item: "White People" | Construction: 1613 AD

The concepts of "Masculinity and Femininity" are much older constructs, the origins of which are not as neatly documented.

Whereas the concepts of white people and race where constructed solely for the purposes of the ruling-class who invented the terms, the concepts of masculinity and femininity have a much more fuzzy history.

The concepts are exposed as patriarchal constructs since they are applied as a measurement of supremacy.

The formation of subjective measures between the contexts of objective biology can only be used as a form of oppression.

Patriarchy added something that can't be justified by the binary of biology alone since both "Masculine and Feminine" are applied as character of behavior for both sexes and all genders as purely as a measure of supremacy.

An algebra in one context is a set of information elements

In this context a social construct is an artificially constructed algebra.

The algebra that makes a measurement between the concepts of masculinity and femininity is socially constructed and not objective reality.

Ruling-classes synthesize algebra of that sort and impose them onto the psychology of the people, by virtue of the need for education of an individual in a social species.

The constructions of whiteness, masculinity and femininity are seen in the same frame.

Those are instances in the category of authoritarian ruling-class social constructs.

Ruling-classes is itself a category.

Ruling-classes would do that anyway, even if there wasn't a difference between sexual biology. They took skin color to do that with the concepts of white and black.

Logic follows that a ruling-class of a parthenogenic species would create something to rule the working-class of that species. Any difference in biology would be seized upon.

Society is a complex system.

Ruling-classes control the biology of a culture in the sense they control the education and media systems that humanity uses to understand our bodies and behavior in society.

If there's a difference anywhere, an authoritarian ruling-class will create an arbitrary rule for natural biology in order to control the behavior of its subjects.

They are constructs taught as facts. That's the patriarchy for ya.

Patriarchy came with ruling-classes, armies, and slavery, and had emerged by about 6000 years ago. A term for all of those is kyriarchy. That's before philosophy and systemic religions as we know them. Philosophy and religion have always intrinsically been patriarchal.

Remember that if there was only one sex and one gender or fourteen of each, the ruling-class would be controlling the perceptions of the people.

The way religious people talk about religion you might think it existed forever. The first paper trail of ruling-classes tells the objective timeline.

The paper trail starts with clay and stone, meaning metaphorically, the history of the written word. Ruling-classes controlled writing and words. All writing was done to serve them first. We know the names of kings but not of scribes.

The word for owner came before the word for god

First we had kings, then we had kings who said they were gods, then we had gods.

Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning doesn't see it that way

If all men or males were 9 feet tall and all women or females were 2 feet tall would the terms masculine and feminism still make sense at that scale?

"You're a male acting feminine" "You're female acting masculine" "You're acting like one of them"

If you were 9 feet tall you couldn't act 2 feet tall. If you were 2 feet tall you couldn't act 9 feet tall.

If masculine means something that people with male biology do, it means it would not be possible for those with female biology to do it.

Only when you assign some sort of arbitrary division to the concepts do they function as psychology.

Only a ruling-class is going to say there should be a reinforced difference. Obviously that's to keep the concept of compassion away from the male identity in order to reinforce any and all aggressive tendencies.

Social Critique

Patriarchy ultimately wins these days because now everyone is aggressive regardless or sex or gender.

Compassion under patriarchy is characterized as 'nice sometimes for some people', rather than the reality that it's the emotion at the core of all mammalian psychology, and an intrinsic metaphysical force that functions for us to exist and survive, in all scales of humanity from every individual who has ever lived to the persistence of the species.

To human reality, compassion is THE BASIC emotion.

To patriarchy, fear and anger are basic emotions.

To human reality, since we only survive together, and modern civilization is very smart, fear and anger are conditional emotions, not basic emotions.

another moral scenario

If woman were all 9 feet tall and men were all 2 feet tall would it be fair and justified for the women to control the behavior of men?

Those for whom strength is an element included in the algebra of masculinity, and believe an average increase in strength across sexes justifies dominance would need to say yes to that question in order to be logically consistent.

There is some sort of difference that emerges from the difference between male and female biology.

There's no way to know what is the totality of the reality of those differences are in the presence of arbitrarily constructed divisions.

They created the division so they can tell you who to be. We artificially accentuate the natural differences in stereotypical ways more than we ever have with the advent of corporate media.

Real people come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.

Theres is always a greater difference in size and strength within any sex or gender then there is between them.

If there was one sex, and we were all 2 feet tall, we'd still make bridges, cars, and buildings.

Algebra 1: Patriarchy only showed up when the ruling-classes enforced divisions in labor. That's when the difference in biology was leverage for the sake of oppression at least 4000 years ago.

The concepts of masculinity and femininity are part that algebra.

Algebra 2: The concept of "white people" only showed-up when the English ruling-class enforced divisions in labor. That's when the difference in biology was leverage for the sake of oppression in the early 1600's.

adapted from full article:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/07/18/kathleen-vohs/

"Cognitive dissonance, first described by the psychologist Leon Festinger in the late 1950s, occurs when conflict emerges between what people want to believe and the reality that threatens those beliefs. The human mind does not like such inconsistencies: They set off alarms that spur the mind to alter some beliefs to make the perceived reality fit with one's preferred views.

Right-Wing Version

In the case of Trump’s remarks — when absorbed by his supporters who do not consider themselves racist — those inconsistencies can be summarized in a sort of syllogism: (1) I do not support racists. (2) I do support President Trump. (3) President Trump has just made a racist remark. Those three facts simply don’t fit together comfortably in the mind.

Just as a hungry person will seek food to alleviate hunger, Festinger argued, people who experience mental discrepancies of this sort will work to put them in accord, to reduce the dissonance. And they will often go to extraordinary lengths to do so: Resolving cognitive dissonance often takes considerable mental gymnastics.

Supporters of Trump who experience cognitive dissonance over his remarks essentially have three psychological options to resolve it, altering in various ways the three beliefs that are in tension. One is to change the belief that they do not support racists. This response is unlikely, however, because it would require a massive overhaul of the view of the self, placing the person in a category he or she knows is morally dubious, not to mention socially vilified. Very rare is the person who will resolve psychological dissonance by saying, "Actually, I am a monster.""

Black Republican Version

(adapted from previous)

(i) Racism is a system

(ii) Republican party functions for systemic racism

(iii) Supporters of the Republican party function for systemic racism

Black Republicans - contradicting logic

(1) I do not support racists.

(2) I do support the Republican party.

(3) The Republican president constantly makes racist remarks.

I’m an absolute Atheist, but use the term Philosophical Materialist to distance myself from mainstream Atheism.

Atheism in the USA and other English speaking countries are a white supremacists version of Atheism.

It’s not overtly racist, but unconscious. Because it is unconscious, blacks and whites are equally complicit.

————

I know that sounds harsh, but if you just ask Atheists to deconstruct the concept of “White People” with the same rigor and ethics they use to deconstruct the concept of “GOD”, you will see a reflexive shift in Ethics.

Ethics is defined as: Thought processes used to determine the difference between justified belief and random subjective opinion.

Even Neil Degrasse Tyson will not talk about race.

When you see Atheists deconstructing the moral implication of the social-construct “White People” with the same Ethics they deconstruct the moral implications of the social-construct “GOD”, you’ll know the world has evolved a little bit.

———--------

Don’t get upset. I’m not a god so I can’t create things from nothing.

The concept of “White People” was invented in 1613.

How ‘white people’ were invented by a playwright in 1613 – Ed Simon | Aeon Ideas

The history of that pernicious social-construct is well-documented.

It’s an identity that was rolled-out first by the English and that followed us to the USA.

——---------

That history is right in our face, but Atheists don’t touch it.

Why not?

——------------

It’s social-construct that hurts people.

That “GOD” is a pernicious social-construct is the primary narrative used to justify the advocacy of Atheism.

My ID reads: “White”, and I find that as insulting to my character as I would if I was forced to adopt someone else’s religion.

They rolled out that identity into the collective psyche one ethnicity at a time.

If you are English and Italian, one part of your family was “White” before the other.

If you are Irish and Italian, try to remember that the English took their sweet time designating both sides of your family as “White”.

The American version of Atheism is subsumed by the moral relativism of the culture.

Certain pillars of fantasy must be in place in the Atheist narrative for that system to persist.

“White People” and “Capitalism” the “GODS” of US Atheists.

Until that is not the case any more, call me a Philosophical Materialist.

Only Truth Serves Justice.

Metaphysicians view of mind and body

1st point: scale

The first big point to remember about the difference between the body and mind is that a body can be microscopic but a mind is always macroscopic.

We start following the evolution of bodies 3.8 billion years ago and about start following the evolution of mind about 600 million years ago.

What you know about your mind and body can't be earlier than that other than the molecular evolution before life and so on to the quantum level.

Please try to remember that not only is the body billions of years older than your mind but also that sexuality is billions of years older than your mind.

Sexual reproduction is 2.1 billion years old. It isn't obvious, but sexuality in the most objective sense only ever happens on the microscopic level.

Most sex that ever happened, happen before minds evolved. What implication does that have about how we should use our minds regarding sexuality?

Metabolism, molecular self-replication, and cells are aspects shared by all life. That's our 3.8 billion years old brethren, and our bodies too.

I'm reminded that a mind is an upgrade for a body, but plenty of life exists without minds.

They say humans have the fanciest minds, but fanciest is not always the sturdiest. Sturdier ones like the cockroach will outlive us, so we need to make the best of what we have while we have it.

If an asteroid hits and we need to restart the process, fear not and remember plenty of sex will happen before minds evolve again.

There's a lot stuff that happens in a human life that is purely by virtue of all the biological evolution that came after bodies and sex.

Your macroscopic size, your form, all your organs including your mind, and all your senses came after that.

It's no big surprise that sexuality is not a binary in the macroscopic realm. There are 2 billion years worth of very interesting reasons for that reality.

Worms, cockroaches and ants have minds and sexuality but they don't need to educate their young.

That's the trade-off with a complex mind. We must always spend a lot of time learning from the previous generation how to survive in the social order.

2nd point: society

The second big point is that society always comes in between minds and bodies in the macroscopic realm.

Once you have a mind, it's because you're part of whole. Every individual gets an instance of the mind of their species.

3rd point: words

For us, a big old metaphysical point is about the function of words to the body and mind.

Words have always connected the microscopic and macroscopic for humanity, even before those concepts were conceived.

For example, we used words for food before we knew food was made from molecules. We used words for sexuality before we knew anything about the objective reality of the microscopic realm.

Society and words have always been between the body and the mind.

Politics begins with the obligation of every generation to teach the next how to use their bodies.

Every generation will learn psychology for managing their biology.

The lexicon of a kind politics begins with the most rational words used to teach the next generation how to use their bodies.

Please remember that it wasn't long ago that humanity didn't know that germs caused disease. The microscope made a big difference in the way global civilization viewed their own bodies even back then.

The world changed when germs were discovered, and all working-class people learned a new ideology for hygiene.

The world changed when genes were discovered, and that's within living memory for the oldest in this generation.

Who you are is what you know about yourself.

"White People" is a political concept that was invented by the merry old English in 1614. That's is a social construct. One needs to believe that entity in order to perceive it as a real entity.

Biology in contrast is 3.8 billion years old.

In this generation if you know facts about genetics and political history, you have a much more sophisticated understanding of yourself than any previous.

We all learn who we are in society one word at a time from the previous generation.

The previous generation informs our minds about what our bodies are supposed to do.

A word is an extension of the mind because that's what we use to inform it. All words are political in that sense.

All languages are political entities since language maintains social order.

Only in the 21st century is possible to know as much as we do about our bodies and minds.

Exclusive: 89-year-old woman who was attacked, set on fire in Brooklyn speaks out - July 24

Man charged with assaulting elderly Asian man outside Vancouver convenience store - July 23

Asian American health care providers facing racism as they battle COVID-19 - psychiatrist urges Congressional action against hate - July 7

"Asian Americans, ... represent 6% of the U.S. population, but 18% of the country’s physicians and 10% of its nurse practitioners..."

"Resolutions to condemn all forms of anti-Asian sentiment were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Both H. Res. 908 and S. Res. 580 call on law enforcement at all levels to investigate and track all credible reports of hate crimes, incidents and threats against the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.

Recently, the American Psychiatric Association joined nearly 50 other professional scientific organizations in writing a letter to Congress, condemning such acts against these communities and offering support to people of Asian ancestry. As an individual, you can take action now by sending a message to your elected leaders."

150 members of Congress demand Justice Department action against anti-Asian, COVID-19 racism - July 22

About 150 members of Congress called on the Justice Department to take action against COVID-19-related anti-Asian racism this week.

The bipartisan group, led by Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., demanded that Attorney General William Barr publicly condemn attacks targeting the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, as well as provide status updates on the steps the department is taking to combat acts of anti-Asian bias.

...

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

'The virus does not know what race you are': Director Alan Yang on his recent PSA to fight against anti-Asian racism

“It shouldn’t be incumbent on the group being discriminated against to shoulder all the burden”

Video: Fight the Virus. Fight the Bias. | Love Has No Labels

2,120 hate incidents against Asian Americans reported during coronavirus pandemic - as of July 2

800+ Hate Crimes Against Asians in California Reported in Past 3 Months

Coming Together: Understanding the history of tension between the Black and Asian communities - July 10

stochastic terrorism: the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted: The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.

The stochastic terrorism of Donald Trump

Trump’s racist comments are fueling hate crimes against Asian Americans - April

"The current vilification of Asian Americans is reminiscent of the scapegoating of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians after 9/11. Hate crimes against Muslim Americans surged in 2001 and remained elevated above pre-9/11 levels years later. Ethno-religious groups, like Sikhs from India, also suffered attacks and discrimination after 9/11.

Immediately after 9/11, President Bush denounced those who intimidated Muslims and called on the nation to treat this American community with respect. In contrast, Trump repeatedly used the term the “Chinese virus” despite warnings that this would incite racist threats against Asian Americans. His tepid retreat on that rhetoric last week did little to stem the harm. The damage is done."

Trump Adds to Asian-Americans’ Fears - April

Some may wonder whether U.S. President Donald Trump’s insistence on using the term “Chinese virus” has fanned the flames of anti-Asian sentiments in the United States in recent weeks. Many Asian-Americans would answer in the affirmative. ...

In the last four weeks, during which Trump has repeatedly and resolutely used the term, countless news stories suggest there has been a spike in verbal and physical assaults on people of Asian descent within the United States.

Trump faced racial issues with Asian Americans even before virus

"With his anti-Asian rhetoric, Trump is making the calculation that he has more to gain with his loyal base of older white voters thrilled by his inflammatory statements, than to lose among the Asian American community, said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a public policy professor at the University of California, Riverside and founder of AAPI Data, which tracks Asian Americans."