Tag: authoritarianism

bookmark_border“F*** your dead” – the atrocity done to the Lion of Atlanta

Posted on by Marissa

It’s been several years since the atrocity that was done to the Lion of Atlanta, but I saw this Instagram post about it recently, and I felt the need to share my thoughts.

“F*** your dead,” wrote the excuses for human beings who committed this atrocity. And of course, “BLM.” 

The excuses for human beings also crossed out the word “Confederate” from the phrase “unknown Confederate dead” on the monument. 

Translation:

F*** anyone who differs from us in any way. F*** anyone who differs from the norm, from the majority.

Only our lives matter. No one else’s. No one’s feelings, perspective, or viewpoint matters, other than ours. 

Anyone who differs from us in any way needs to be erased from existence, as if they never lived at all.

Only bland, mundane people who conform to social norms and mindlessly comply with authority should be allowed to exist. 

The only people who deserve to be honored, memorialized, or respected are those who look and think like us.

Those are the attitudes of the excuses for human beings who committed the atrocity towards the Lion of Atlanta. 

And those attitudes are the antithesis of diversity, the antithesis of inclusion, the antithesis of tolerance. 

I say: 

F*** you, excuses for human beings who wrote these things.

F*** your contempt, hatred, and intolerance for anyone who differs from you in any way. 

F*** your bigotry.

F*** your authoritarianism.

You demonstrate that supporters of the BLM movement are the real bigots, the real racists. 

Our society should have unanimously and unequivocally condemned this movement the instant its slogan was found graffitied, alongside profane insults, on the Lion of Atlanta. 

Yet despicably, our society did the opposite. 

Society’s embrace of the movement responsible for this and countless similar atrocities is an injustice worse than words are able to convey; it is the worst injustice imaginable. 

bookmark_border“The flag of traitors and losers”

Posted on by Marissa

“The flag of traitors.”

Yes, the flag of people who thought for themselves, and resisted authority, as opposed to practicing obedience, compliance, and mindless conformity.

I’m not sure why you consider that to be a bad thing.

“The flag of losers.”

Yes, the flag of people that you oppressed and harmed. That flag of people that you actively inflicted pain on, using your power, strength, and wealth. The flag of people whose land you invaded. The flag of people whose rights you violated. The flag of people that you forced to remain part of the same country against their will.

I’m not sure how that makes those people and their flag bad, and you somehow good.

The fact that you would call the Confederates “traitors” and “losers,” as if these things are insults, means that you are a bully, a bigot, a conformist, and an authoritarian.

The fact that the Confederates “lost” does not reflect badly on them. It reflects badly on you.

bookmark_borderImagine holding the exact same views…

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Being Libertarian (@beingalibertarian)

100% correct.

As is the first comment on the post, which reads as follows: “How come whenever I talk to my non-Democrat (Republicans/Libertarians) friends they’re capable of mutual conversation of differing political opinions, and can critique those they vote and support for and their policies. But my leftist/Dem friends aren’t capable of criticizing anyone in the Democrat Party, policies, etc. It’s almost like they’re a cult or something and incapable of individual and critical thinking” (comment edited slightly by me for typos)

Bingo.

bookmark_borderDavid Trone believes that people like me shouldn’t be allowed to exist

Posted on by Marissa

Horrific, agonizing pain. My limbs feel like lead, my stomach feels sick, my lungs feel like they’re filled with rocks. I am crushed beneath an avalanche of grief, sadness, and anger. The agony is like a knife that stabs me in the heart. The entire world is dark, horrifying, disgusting. It feels as if my soul is being eviscerated, as if I will never experience happiness again. 

This is something I’ve experienced hundreds of times over the past four years. 

In this most recent instance, this pain was directly caused by Rep. David Trone, who despicably sponsored a bill * – known as HR 7474, the Robert E. Lee Monument Removal Act – which would turn the Antietam (Sharpsburg) Battlefield into yet another thing whose entire purpose is to send the message that people like me shouldn’t be allowed to exist. Yet another place in which I am not welcome, yet another area of society in which I cannot participate, yet another part of our physical world that would be altered in order to ensure that I cannot feel represented or included. 

Despicably, Trone said of his act of vicious cruelty and aggression: “I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort to ensure Antietam honors our nation’s victory over the Confederacy rather than memorializes historical figures who fought to break up the Union and restrict fundamental human rights.”

As if forcing people to remain part of the same country against their will somehow doesn’t restrict fundamental human rights. As if inflicting on another human the type of pain that I described in the first paragraph of this blog post somehow doesn’t restrict fundamental human rights. As if decreeing that only one side in a war deserves to be honored, only one perspective acknowledged, only one story told, only one viewpoint reflected, somehow doesn’t restrict fundamental human rights. 

To “ensure Antietam honors our nation’s victory over the Confederacy” completely defeats the purpose of even preserving the battlefield as a historical site, both because the entire concept of a battle requires that there be two opposing sides, and also because there is no benefit in something existing when the very attribute that made it beautiful, distinctive, and remarkable has been destroyed. 

David Trone would like Antietam to be transformed from a historical site honoring a battle and the soldiers who fought there, into yet another monument to authoritarianism, compliance, and mindless conformity, into yet another piece of propaganda designed to send the message that any person who differs from the mainstream, from the norm, from the majority in any way, has no right to exist. 

As if sending this message somehow doesn’t restrict fundamental human rights.

David Trone’s decision to introduce this bill is an attack on me as a human being. It is an attack on me because I am different, because I do not fit in, because I see the world differently from most people, because I have different interests and passions and values and ways of thinking than the majority. Because I am different, the Robert E. Lee Monument represents me. It makes me feel included. It makes me feel that people like me are allowed to exist. By attempting to remove it, David Trone is attempting to turn the Antietam Battlefield into yet another instrument in society’s war against people like me. Yet another thing that used to make me feel represented and included, now turned into a cudgel to beat me with. Yet another tool for society to use to hammer home the brutal and intolerant message that I do not deserve to exist because I am different. 

Tell me again, why does America need another monument to authoritarianism, compliance, and mindless conformity? Why does America need yet another memorial honoring the same bland, mundane, and meaningless values that people are already bombarded with every day, in every facet of life? 

Tell me again, what is the point of the Antietam battlefield even existing, if its existence does nothing other than to stab my heart, punch me in the gut, stomp on my face, and inflict horrific and agonizing pain?

Pardon my French, but fuck David Trone. He doesn’t care a whit about fundamental human rights. If he did, he would campaign passionately against vaccine mandates, gun control, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, and the use of full-body scanners at airports, to give just a few examples. Each of these policies restrict fundamental human rights vastly more severely than anyone from the Confederacy ever did.

How dare David Trone pontificate about fundamental human rights while simultaneously going out of his way to violate them?

How dare he go about his life as if nothing is wrong, while his actions inflict horrific and agonizing pain on other people?

It is mentally exhausting and demoralizing that acts of vicious cruelty and aggression, such as this one perpetrated by David Trone and his 6 co-sponsors, continue to happen. I am tired, I am angry, and I am exhausted. I don’t deserve for this pain to be inflicted on me, and David Trone has no right to inflict it. Despicably, he pontificates about “fundamental human rights” while actively violating mine. 

I learned from a quick Google search that David Trone has a wife and several children. How would he like it if his wife and children were beaten, strangled, dismembered, burned, and had their limbs sawed off and their bodies cut to pieces as he was forced to watch? That might sound sadistic, outlandish, excessive, ridiculous… but it has been my reality for the past four years. Perhaps if this happened, David Trone would experience a tiny fraction of the pain that I’ve experienced. Maybe then he’d have a shred of empathy for the people he’s harmed. Maybe then he’d work towards enacting policies that would compensate me for the pain I’ve suffered, rather than actively inflicting even more of it.

* as well as 6 other members of Congress who co-sponsored this bill

bookmark_border“Election deniers” and presuming what you are trying to prove

Posted on by Marissa

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Defiant L’s (@defiant.ls)

I came across this post from “Defiant Ls,” which shows not only the blatant hypocrisy of Rep. Anna Eskamani and so many others who share her political views, but also their disturbing practice of presuming the truth of what they are trying to prove.

In particular, the use of the term “election denier” demonstrates the intolerance and authoritarianism of the left.

When you call someone a “denier,” you are presuming that the thing in question is true and therefore that the person is wrong to deny it.

The use of the term “election denier” presumes that the election was legitimate.

The use of the term “Holocaust denier” presumes that the Holocaust happened.

The use of the term “climate denier” presumes that climate change is occurring.

The use of the term “science denier” presumes that the scientific findings in question are correct.

I could continue giving more examples, but I think you get the point.

The problem is not the act of claiming that an election was legitimate, or that the Holocaust happened, or that climate change is actually occurring. In fact, I would probably agree with these claims. The problem is presuming these things. A person should never presume the thing that they are trying to prove, no matter how obvious they believe that thing is.

If you believe something, you need to state it, as opposed to presuming it.

If you believe that a person is wrong, you need to state that, as opposed to presuming it by calling that person a “denier.”

Presuming the truth of what you are trying to prove implies that there are no possible views that a person could have, other than your own. It doesn’t even allow for the possibility of alternative views existing. And that is the ultimate in intolerance and authoritarianism.

bookmark_borderThe authoritarianism of removing Trump from the ballot

Posted on by Marissa

As almost everyone knows, the state of Colorado decided last month to disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the Republican primary.

In making this decision, the Colorado Supreme Court cited section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which bars from federal office anyone who has engaged in “insurrection or rebellion.”

This provision was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, and its use against Trump reflects the same authoritarianism that the 1860s United States used against the Confederacy.

Contrary to the assumptions of almost everyone, insurrection and rebellion are not bad things, but good things.

Insurrection and rebellion are acts of resisting authority. They are acts of courage. They are the manifestation of thinking for oneself, as opposed to mindlessly complying with authority and conforming to social norms.

Therefore, insurrection and rebellion are morally good things. They should be praised and encouraged, not condemned and punished.

Just as it was wrong for the Union to wage war on the Confederacy for attempting to leave the country and form a new one, it is equally wrong for courts to disqualify Trump from the ballot for standing up to an oppressive, unjust, and wrong system.

Both Donald Trump and those who fought for the Confederacy engaged in insurrection and rebellion.

In other words, both Trump and the Confederates demonstrated courage and moral goodness by standing up for what is right, even when it was difficult and unpopular to do so.

Both Trump and Confederate historical figures deserve to be honored, not punished, by our society.

bookmark_borderGavin Newsom’s repugnant statement

Posted on by Marissa

“Defying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California’s data-backed gun safety efforts ‘repugnant.’ What is repugnant is this ruling, which green lights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds – spaces which should be safe for all. California will keep fighting to defend our laws and to enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution. The lives of our kids depend on it.”

So said California governor Gavin Newsom in response to a court ruling protecting people’s fundamental right to bear arms (source here).

Literally everything about this statement is wrong. 

First of all, “common sense” has nothing to do with which laws should exist. Morality is the only factor that determines which laws should exist, and moral right and wrong are determined by logic, not by common sense. 

Similarly, it makes no sense to characterize laws as “data-backed,” as Newsom does with regards to California’s rights-violating laws, because data has nothing to do with which laws should exist. Morality is the only factor that determines which laws should exist, and moral right and wrong are determined by logic, not by data. No amount of data can justify laws that violate people’s rights. 

As for the fact that the ruling “green lights the proliferation of guns” in various places… so? Possessing guns is a fundamental right; therefore people should be able to do so in any place that they choose. I’m not sure why Newsom considers it to be bad for people to be able to exercise their fundamental rights.

I’m also not sure why Newsom specifically mentions hospitals, libraries, and “children’s playgrounds” as places in which the possession of guns would allegedly be particularly bad. I don’t see anything about these places that makes possession of guns any more problematic than it would be in any other place. 

Additionally, I take issue with Newsom’s claim that the aforementioned spaces should be “safe for all.” As I mentioned above, I’m not sure why he singles out these particular types of spaces as ones in which safety is particularly important. But more fundamentally, it is wrong to claim that any spaces ought to be “safe for all.” It is, in fact, impossible to determine what even constitutes a space being “safe” in the first place. In all spaces, in all situations, and at all times, there is always a risk of something bad happening. Risks vary, of course, based on various factors and based on the specific type of bad thing one is trying to avoid. But it is impossible to have a zero percent chance of something bad happening. Safety exists along a continuum, with some spaces and situations being safer than others. Safety does not exist as a binary concept, with a clear dividing line between “safe” and “unsafe.” Any attempt to draw such a line would be arbitrary and therefore not based in logic. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to speak of anything as being “safe” or “unsafe;” it only makes sense to speak of some things as being safer than others. 

Which brings me to my next point: there is no such thing as a right to safety, the thing that Newsom wishes to enshrine in the Constitution. In order for such a right to exist, one would first need to determine the dividing line between what is considered “safe” and what is considered “unsafe.” But as I explained above, there is no logical place to draw such a line, and therefore no logical way to determine what constitutes being “safe,” because safety is not a binary concept, but rather a concept that exists along a continuum. In order for a “right to safety” to exist, there would need to be a certain level of safety that all people have a right to. There would need to be a threshold above which the level of risk cannot go without constituting a violation of people’s rights. But such a level, such a threshold, would necessarily be arbitrary and not based in logic. Therefore, a right to safety does not exist.

Another reason why a right to safety does not exist is that enforcing such a right, as Newsom wishes to do, necessarily requires violating the rights of others. The perfect example of this is Newsom’s policies regarding guns, which were the subject of the allegedly “repugnant” court ruling. Newsom believes that the right of people to own and possess guns should be violated in order to increase safety, something that he characterizes as protecting the supposed right to safety. However, owning and possessing guns is a fundamental right, because people have a fundamental right to purchase any products that they wish with their money, as well as a fundamental right to carry any items that they wish on their person. The existence of a “right to safety” would mean that these fundamental rights would need to be trampled on, further proving that no such thing as a right to safety exists. 

By alleging that a right exists which actually doesn’t (safety), Newsom is denying that a right exists which actually does (owning and possessing whichever objects one wishes). Newsom is therefore violating people’s rights with his policies and statements regarding guns. This makes it interesting indeed that Newsom characterizes his actions as “fighting to defend our laws.” In reality, Newsom is not defending anything; he is aggressing against innocent people by violating their rights. This – and not the court ruling – is what is truly repugnant.

Finally, it is ageist of Newsom to conclude his statement with the sentence, “The lives of our kids depend on it.” Newsom seems to be implying that the lives of kids matter more than the lives of adults, because he mentions the former but not the latter. Why do the lives of adults not matter to Newsom?

In conclusion… No, Governor Newsom. The court was right. To call the violation of people’s rights repugnant is not “outrageous;” it is correct.

It is your rights-violating laws that are repugnant, and not the ruling striking them down.

It is your statement, in which you call a ruling protecting people’s rights “repugnant,” that is itself repugnant.

To respect people’s rights is a basic moral obligation. There is no universe in which fulfilling a basic moral obligation could accurately be characterized as “repugnant,” and Newsom should be ashamed of himself for characterizing the court’s ruling this way.

Newsom is literally saying here that it is repugnant not to violate people’s rights.

And it is appalling and horrifying that any person, let alone the governor of a state, would say or think this. 

Violating people’s rights is repugnant, not protecting them.

bookmark_borderThe United States is a totalitarian dictatorship

Posted on by Marissa

I haven’t yet posted about the horrendous state of affairs involving Donald Trump being arrested and charged with crimes for expressing unpopular views and challenging the results of an election.

Please do not mistake my lack of posts on this topic as apathy about the topic, or worse, tacit approval of the events that have happened.

Rather, I have been so upset, angered, and physically sick to my stomach about what has happened that I have been unable to put my thoughts into coherent words and sentences.

In this blog post, I will attempt to do just that, because it is important to make it clear that I am not even remotely okay with what has happened, and continues to happen, in this country.

To put it bluntly, but in my opinion 100% correctly, the United States is a totalitarian dictatorship.

Over the past three and a half years, I have witnessed:

  • The election of a president of the United States who believes that he has the right to require people to undergo medical procedures
  • A nationwide campaign of obliteration of all public art that represents minority cultural and ideological groups and that allows members of such groups to feel accepted and included
  • Mass arrests of dozens of people for the “crime” of holding a protest that advocated for an unpopular cause
  • The arrest of a former president for the “crimes” of expressing unpopular views and challenging the results of an election

I state unequivocally that the things that are happening in the United States today, and that have been happening in the United States over the past three and a half years, are completely unacceptable, and I condemn them fully and completely.

What is happening in the United States is nothing less than a war on dissent. A war on unpopular minorities. A war on human diversity. A war on individualism, on individual rights, on liberty, on freedom. A war on the entire concept of being different, of being a rebel, of resisting authority, of thinking for oneself.

And the worst thing about this war is that the people who are most fiercely waging it are portraying themselves as fighting for diversity and inclusion, and their opponents as intolerant, discriminatory, and racist. Those who have most ardently advocated against respect for fundamental rights are portraying themselves as fighting for liberty, freedom, and bodily autonomy, and their opponents as authoritarians, Nazis, and fascists.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The people who advocate for the removal of Confederate statues and the replacement of Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day are the people who are truly intolerant, who are truly genocidal, who are truly discriminatory, who are truly racist.

The people who demand the violation of the fundamental right to decline medical intervention, who demand that all people’s bodies be forcibly penetrated against their will – and make no mistake, that is exactly what proponents of vaccine mandates have been demanding – are the people who are truly authoritarians, who are truly fascists.

The United States today is run, dominated, controlled by people with no moral compass and no logical consistency, people who practice a form of hypocrisy so blatant, so appalling, and so profound that it is shocking to witness.

The very same people who demanded that everyone’s bodily autonomy be taken away, and condemned those who dared to stand up to them as morons, idiots, racists, white supremacists, and fascists, did an about face to immediately commence pontificating about the importance of bodily autonomy, and accusing their opponents of taking away liberties and freedoms, when the Supreme Court made a decision that jeopardized unfettered access to abortion.

The very same people who praised and fetishized “resistance” when it came in the form of destroying public art that represented minority cultural and ideological groups (making these acts of destruction the exact opposite of resistance), viciously insulted as “insurrectionists” and “rioters” those who engaged in actual resistance to authority.

And when it comes to historical figures who engaged in actual resistance to authority centuries ago, the very same people described above condemn those historical figures as “insurrectionists” and “traitors,” and therefore unworthy of honoring or celebrating.

The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are appalling. The people who run, dominate, and control the United States are using words to mean the exact opposite of what the words actually mean, and acting as if this is perfectly normal and the people who dare to question them are the problem.

People are ridiculed for using the word “tyranny” to characterize the things that have been happening in the United States… but it is 100% correct to characterize these events as tyranny.

I would argue that it is ridiculous for someone to claim that the things happening in the United States do not constitute tyranny.

The condition of the United States since 2020 has been one of authoritarianism, of tyranny, of totalitarianism, of complete intolerance for both human freedom and human diversity.

In the United States today, we live in a society that values conformity and compliance above all else, a society that is not only indifferent towards, but actively hostile towards, liberty and individual rights. Society demands that everyone be the same, that everyone follow the same norms, that everyone undergo the same medical procedures, that everyone live in the same way and think in the same way. It is treated as self-evident that everyone must undergo the procedures recommended by the medical establishment, everyone must follow the advice given by experts, and everyone must live under the policies that scientists decide will make people safest. What matters is that people follow norms, trust experts, and obey authority. What matters is that people silence their own feelings and perspectives and instead grovel at the feet of those deemed less “privileged” than themselves. No one is allowed to dissent, to rebel, to defy, to resist, to question authority, to think for oneself, to live in a way that deviates from the norm, or to be different from the majority in any way. These actions and attributes, which in my opinion are synonymous with being honorable and good, are instead equated with moral badness by a society that values nothing but conformity and compliance.

That is what I see happening in the United States today.

It is not acceptable. It is not even remotely close to being acceptable, and never will be. And I don’t want anyone to interpret a lack of writing on this topic, or the presence of writings on other topics, as acceptance. Because acceptance is the antithesis of how I feel about what is happening in the United States today.