Tag Archives: white guilt

“Healing From Toxic Whiteness” – Social Justice And Religion

You won’t be surprised to hear that besides toxic masculinity, sectionable intersectional feminists have come up with the concept of toxic whiteness. In fact, Everyday Feminism is holding a free workshop for those interested in healing from it. It might not involve the handling of live snakes, convulsions and speaking in tongues, but the message is the same – you were born a sinner, you must repent, convert and make amends in order to be saved from yourself.

Like original sin, toxic whiteness goes unnoticed without the sufferer presenting any symptoms; however, akin to chlamydia, that doesn’t mean that it’s not there. In fact, it largely affects those who’ve never suspected they have it – all white people who have not yet repented of their melanin privilege, that is.

And doing healing work in community and not alone makes a big difference. So having a separate anti-racist healing space for white people, led by a person of color who can hold them accountable, is important for white supremacy to be dismantled.

Much like manginas, self-flagellating white people who have not committed one racist act in their entire lives seem to be affected by some sort of masochism, acting as vaseline to help the Marxist bullshit funnel slide down their throats more easily.

What radical socialists want is an enormous mass of converts, regardless of the type of guilt they insidiously instill into their minds. The so-called privileged are not the enemy but a recruitment pool of gullible fools who cannot see beyond adopting a trendy facade, even if the end result is the opposite of what they claim to be supporting – division, segregation and the breeding of actual racism.

It’s difficult to ignore the cult-like nature of social justice activism, if only for the crazed, manic looks it imprints on some people’s faces.

Submit. Repent. We will teach you. Will will heal you. We will deliver you from evil and show you the right path. Fight the good fight with us.

I for one am opposed to the notion of anyone being racist without knowing it or in spite of constantly analysing their potential racism. It seems to me that the people going to that type of event are the last ones needing “reeducated” in that sense.

The whole thing is reminiscent of how Christians go through their every word and thought with a fine-tooth comb, in search of any trace of sin, despite knowing they had no foul intentions to begin with.

Some become fevered with the obsession of being able to participate in changing the world, when in fact they cannot even get passed their own daily trivialities, such as microaggressions or, where Christians are concerned, anything from having wanked the week before to having sworn at an asshole in traffic.

Social justice activism demands total submission and dedication, 24/7. 

People are advised to disassociate from their significant others for contrary views, Scientology-style.

When some of them realise the farce they allowed to take over their existence, it will be too late to undo the damage done to their personal lives, never mind their sanity.

 

 

 

Disgusting Cult-like Training: “I Am A Racist”

For anyone who still doubts there is actual brainwashing going on by the “progressive” left – have a look at this. It’s a step-by-step guide on how to realise you are a racist, as it appears that if you’re “privileged” enough to be born white, you are one by default.

It involves repeating mantras inside your head until you finally crack and label yourself as such, even if you’d never thought you were one your entire life. Repeat to yourself enough that you are guilty and you will eventually end up believing it.

First, there is the prepping.

So cut yourself some slack if you have internalized racist ideas. It doesn’t mean you are bad; it means you watched Peter Pan as a kid (or the thousands of other biased films and television shows). It means you were likely raised by folks who too fled racism.

Then repeat the following:

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

And that statement can be true, as long as you complete this next step.

Notice at first the article seems to address those who knowingly have internalised racist ideas; however, the next step, titled “unearth your racism and challenge it”, proves it also addresses those who have never associated themselves with this notion. So basically this is for everyone.

Most of our racial biases go unnoticed. There’s even a name for them: Implicit biases, which can be defined as the “thoughts about people you didn’t know you had.”

Remember that smog? It means our bodies are full of polluted thoughts. Even mine. Even yours.

But you are never going to unearth these biases until you finally pick up the shovel. In other words, it takes work – deliberate and sustained effort.

You must actively bring your implicit biases to the surface. (There’s even a test for them here!) You must actively challenge the stereotypes you have internalized (which generally don’t hold up). You must actively learn about microaggressions and cultural appropriation so that you aren’t perpetrating them.

Do the work, and you won’t be able to help but repeat the inevitable:

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

To start with, I do not believe in the concept of a self-deprecating genuine racist; it’s a contradictory notion. Not only are these people full of themselves enough to believe they are genetically superior to millions or billions of others; they are also angry and have destructive aspirations. This article clearly does not address them.

Also, I do not believe in the concept of a racist who doesn’t identify himself/herself as such. You cannot hold extreme views and not be aware of it; it’s nonsensical.

This is a brainwashing endeavour seeking to convince everyone that if they look hard enough, they will find the bigot within, repent and be saved, much like sin is treated by religions by examining one’s every thought and feeling.

Like religious leaders, they claim to be inside your head, to know you better than you know yourself, seeking to bring you on the right path.

The point is: Racism is bigger than one person; it’s not about you.

At the same time – and I don’t think this is stressed enough – individuals make up systems.

White individuals can become cashiers who make the checkout line an unpleasant experience for shoppers of Color. White individuals can become teachers who don’t recognize the brilliance of their students of Color. White individuals will invariably make up many hiring committees, holding the keys that open the doors to upward mobility.

Thus, it’s crucial to analyze how the individual interacts with and connects to the institution.

All of this is redundant considering the fact that the addressee in this case is not even aware of having racial biases, thus having to fish for them in the abyss of their subconscious mind – never mind being an overt racist likely to cause trouble to others in the form of hiring discrimination or “unpleasant experiences”, whatever that means.

If it’s not about me, then leave me the fuck alone, why don’t you. Except it is aimed at every single individual who can be manipulated into thinking they are guilty of something they never took part in.

Of course, there is a reason to all this besides causing needless mortification.

Dismantling these systems will require action. Awareness and education are certainly part of the process but, alone, they are not enough.

Once this imaginary guilt is established, the fun part comes – enrollment in their social justice activism, to wash away the sin that was never committed. They want to inflate their numbers by pulling at the heartstrings of gullible strangers to help them “change the world”. Just like a good old-fashioned cult.

Racial injustice infects pretty much every facet of our world.

This fact can be overwhelming, but it also makes it relatively easy to find a struggle to join. Maybe it’s at your workplace, in your child’s school, in front of your computer, or on the streets during rush hour. 

There is no shortage of ways to act. In fact, in a search engine of your choice, type the words “White people fight racism” and you will find endless articles with ideas (many of which are compiled here).

It’s quite something when the people behind a movement (an intended Marxist revolution in this case) manage to convince the masses to join them not on the basis of hope and positivity but to redeem themselves as human beings.

“Decolonial Love” – Politicising Your Hormones

If you’re one of those people who worry about discriminating against others by exhaling carbon dioxide, with the aid of intersectional feminism you can reach a whole new level of devotion: you can now fight oppression by politicising your romantic relationships.

All you have to do is rewire your brain in order to only experience attraction towards individuals in social categories classed as underprivileged. Sounds easy, right…? Forget the fact that this has no discernible purpose under the Sun – your only goal in life should be the application of feminist principles in every little thing you do, say or even experience internally (while reassuring yourself that feminism is not actually a cult).

If you need to alter your brain chemistry and subconscious mind in order to manipulate your attraction criteria, so be it. Your hormones are supremacist.

During his speech, Diaz introduced the concept of decolonial love with an “apocalyptic proclamation”: “We’re never gonna get anywhere as long as our economies of attraction continue to resemble more or less the economies of attraction of white supremacy.”

In other words, if we cannot change the thinking around who and how we love, as a society, we’ll stay stuck in the ideology of colonialism.

Making our love decolonial is a necessary step to a completely decolonial self, because if we don’t let go of our privileges and closely examine how the forces of oppression play out in our love lives, we are powering the existing injustices of the world.

And the existing forces of oppression for decolonial lovers to fight are numerous: patriarchy, heterosexism, skinny worship, classism, ableism, and what Diaz aptly calls “pigmentation politics.”

In other words, by feeling sexually, emotionally, intellectually attracted to people who are considered privileged – white, heterosexual, “cisgender” etc – we are contributing to the perpetuation of injustice against other categories. As if somehow the community – or the world at large – owned each one of  us down to the bone marrow, holding us accountable for decisions regarding our personal happiness, which have no impact on others. You can’t get more fanatically socialist than that.

These people must live and breath oppression theories every second of their day; they are so high on their own fumes they don’t realise how much these fantasies of micromanaging each individual are straying from human nature.

In former communist countries, each citizen was expected to be completely subjugated to the ideology of the party; to be immersed in it and energised by it. No intrinsic value was to be held in higher regard and no other loyalty was to be prioritised – not even to family members. As such, even small choices made daily were filtered through what the party wanted from an ideal citizen. The same mentality is shared by this so-called social justice crowd.

Your personal happiness means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hail the matriarchy; everything for the cause! Your entire life should be a shining example of a devoted, practicing feminist – and nothing else.

Some people think it means reserving our love and respect only for people of color (POC) or queer (LGBTQIA+) folks — or especially queer folks of color. That is not the case, as only loving any group of people can fall into exotification or fethishization.

All throughout, the author remains concerned only with the object of the debate, namely those who are more worthy of love than others – never with those she is asking to rewire their hormonal drive in some weird bid to exclude the “privileged” from their desires, which is extremely racist, by the way. What is this supposed to achieve, again? Who would this help and how? The “especially” points out that there is a rank of desirability based on how many oppression badges someone can collect. And the warning follows closely – love them very much, but not too much, as too much would also be insulting.

Since the LGBT community is mentioned, may I ask how a gay person only loving gay people is guilty of exotification or fetishisation? I imagine she would not demand that straight folks reserve their romantic interest for queer folks or vice-versa. So this fetishisation caper doesn’t make any sense between categories which do not interact on a romantic level.

It appears that a significant swathe of the addressees of this moralising piece must be the ones singled out as less lovable – white, heterosexual, “cis” people.

The concept of love as decolonial is not opposed to loving someone deemed desirable by society (in other words, an individual who is able-bodied, conventionally attractive, wealthy financially and socially, and/or comes from a first world country).

The issue is when we are only attracted to those kinds of people and not open to making a romantic or emotional connection with others.

Can I also ask why are anyone’s preferences an issue stretching farther than their private lives ? Whose business is it exactly? Where a person comes from matters for very logical reasons, in terms of the culture they were brought up in. There could be major discrepancies based on that.

I can’t believe I even have to say this, but people don’t actively choose whom they are attracted to. It’s an instinct. What they do with that is a whole different matter – yet that does not alter their initial drive and intrinsic selection criteria.

Just as no one actively chooses to be gay or straight. In fact, LGBT activism is based on the idea of following one’s natural inclinations in terms of attraction, while resisting societal pressures to live conventionally. Whether or not they see themselves as revolutionaries defying the status quo, these lefties are still trying to pressure others regarding a very personal matter. There are trying to set moral norms in an area which needs no intervention or regulation.

Anyhow, the disclaimer was a blatant lie, as you can read below.

The first step to addressing the colonial mindset is awareness. Awareness is key to retraining our reflexes and stopping habits in their tracks.

When I first came to the US, I had a crush on every blond-haired, blue-eyed boy in my class. In my way of thinking, those were the characteristics of a good person. Clearly, I had been exposed to some white supremacy in my early years in China. But when I realized what was at work that magnetized me — and many others — to whiteness, I was no longer so helplessly attracted to those traits.

While questioning what we take for granted can be hard work, it is made exponentially easier if we have practice.

Therefore, this whole movement is not concerned with the inclusion of certain categories but the explicit exclusion of others. Or rather, the exclusion of a specific one, I should say.

Due to this presentation, an individual who “likes Asian women” may think of that as a “preference,” when in reality, it’s a learned form of prejudice that’s based on fetishizing an entire group of people. The same can be said if you rule out an entire race as unattractive or unsuitable. In both cases,it is the stereotype that is deciding, not you.

Excuse me…? What was it you were saying about white people and making a conscious, successful effort to stop being attracted to them, because of colonialism? Isn’t that ruling out a race as unsuitable? Isn’t that letting the stereotype decide? Incredible double-think.

For example: If we are less emotionally invested in our partners, we may end up with the upper hand in the relationship while the other person feels powerless.

There are ways to de-escalate the commitment level without making the other person feel disrespected or powerless. If you communicate your level of commitment clearly, and the other person is still willing to engage in a relationship based on that knowledge, then neither person is taken advantage of.

Treating romantic relationships as pure power dynamics is par for the course with feminism, which rejects the idea of actual love. That’s why, even though “investing emotionally” was involved, the author shies away from the word “love” and uses less intense ones which make the situation seem less personal.

Even in equally committed relationships, it is good to check in about how empowered and respected you feel by your partner and vice versa.

Why not, check in regularly, to verify both parties are still satisfied with the arrangement. Fill out an “equal partner” satisfaction form every month and rate the empowerment you are experiencing.

Engage your decolonial muscles. Build them up. Because we want it to be a fair fight between the reflexes we have inherited and the ones we have chosen for ourselves.

Again – to what avail would this “fight” take place, if not the complete submission to SJW principles, against one’s own natural inclinations?

For the time being, it seems producing these grand ideas vigorously engages people’s decolonial muscles.

The Cultural Appropriation Of Food -Idiocy Beyond Belief

Again, the rationale found on that website almost leaves me speechless. Some people must have very little to worry about in life.

In case you were at ease thinking you could dodge the PC squad, having checked all your privileges and self-flagellated just enough to placate them, guess again – you could also be guilty of oppressing ethnic minorities through what you eat.

Cultural appropriation is when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed. (…)

With food, it isn’t just eating food from someone else’s culture. It might not be appropriation if you’re White and you love eating dumplings and hand pulled noodles. Enjoying food from another culture is perfectly fine.

But, food is appropriated when people from the dominant culture – in the case of the US, white folks – start to fetishize or commercialize it, and when they hoard access to that particular food.

In other words, it’s fine to enjoy it now and then, just don’t enjoy it too much, sell it or try to popularise it if you can. Even if by selling and making it popular you are employing members of the culture you are supposedly oppressing (let’s be serious; major restaurants selling foreign food tend to employ people who are experts at making it). If you’re a white restaurant owner, that is a no-no. Forget the fact that you’re creating jobs.

By buying and consuming the food, it is implied that the average customer, who is probably just curious (also a sin without paying due reverence to the culture, as you will later read) also takes part in the ongoing oppression of that community – and is therefore guilty of supporting colonisation.

When a dominant culture reduces another community to its cuisine, subsumes histories and stories into menu items – when people think culture can seemingly be understood with a bite of food, that’s where it gets problematic.

Who even does that?

Who claims to understand a culture just by liking a foreign dish? That’s the first I’ve heard of it – because it’s insane. Perhaps the author is confusing people’s lack of information, which can be just the same with or without liking said dish, with claiming expert status, which I doubt anyone in their right mind would do.

Here are some dining behaviors that are culturally appropriative when it comes to food.

So this is linked to consumption directly, not even to the unethical sourcing of ingredients (which is a just cause for boycotting) or commercialisation.

Usually, we re talking about Thai, Vietnamese, Indian, Ethiopian, and Mexican food –places where food is cooked by the brownest people. (…)While food from Western Europe is still connected to ethnic roots, ethnic food has become reserved only for ethnicities that are perceived as exotic and foreign to White folks.

No; that’s just her interpretation of it. It is a generic term with a generic meaning. And even if this appraisal was accurate, what would be morally wrong, in the mind of a rational person, with wanting to try exotic foods? Human beings are naturally curious; they enjoy new experiences.

While food can connect people together and also serve as a way to learn about cultures other than our own, what happens is that food becomes the only identifier for certain places. (…) Entire regions become deduced* to menu options and ingredients without any thought to the many different communities in these places. There’s a loss of complexity and cultures end up getting homogenized.

*That must be a typo; she must have meant reduced.

No; that’s what happens in egocentric countries where ignorance is viewed as normal, like (awkward cough) the USA. It can can affect all races, ethnic minorities and creeds. You don’t normally see other tourists in talking excessively about the one thing they know about the country they’re visiting – as that shows they don’t know much at all. Of course, that is also a stereotype and can have little meaning nowadays, in the age of information. Again, that’s still not a reason to avoid foreign dishes.

They end up getting homogenised in that person’s head. Is that really such a problem for the rest of the world? Does if affect anyone outside of it, aside from (maybe) hearing ignorant comments from time to time? And if that person never went near foreign dishes, would they be less ignorant? 

In seeking “authentic” food, we’re hoping for a truly immersive experience into another culture. The food experience, whether in a restaurant in someone’s home city or as part of a trip somewhere else, comes to represent a larger experience with that culture and community.

Says who? Wanting authentic food is just that – wanting it to taste genuinely as it is supposed to and not be poorly cooked, in order to leave you with the wrong impression. Who mandates that it’s more than having a meal and people are seeking “immersive” experiences when they visit a restaurant? How immersive could they be, realistically?

Unlike what progressives think, not everyone overanalyses every bastard triviality, every bastard second of the day.

In addition to this, she mentions visits somewhere else – which means that not even when investing in a visit to a foreign country are you allowed to seek and enjoy authentic food in good conscience. Never mind that you saved up for the trip and do get to interact with the culture somewhat. You’re still meant to feel guilty about this.

And here’s why:

The impacts of historical and ongoing colonization are devastating to many cultures, and many “authentic” “ethnic” cuisines are connected to histories of colonization.

Translation – don’t you dare eat something without researching its history (of the recipe, that is, as hopefully anything in there is fresh enough not to have a very long history). And if you do research it and revere it enough to dare eating it, make sure you pray over it first. If somehow you are brave enough to cook it yourself, make sure you add some guilt as a final touch. You know – for things you didn’t do.

If you love a dish and think it’s delicious, great! If you’re searching for a place that serves a particular dish, also great! However, seeking “authenticity” fetishizes the sustenance of another culture. The idea of the “authentic” food experience is separated from reality. It also freezes a culture in a particular place in time.

Let me attempt to understand this.

If members of your (dominant) culture should not be allowed to prepare and commercialise it, because that would be immoral, your only moral resort would be to buy it from members of the culture it originates from. Which would make it authentic. However, seeking authenticity is a form of fetishism. This makes no sense. I mean, it makes even less sense than the rest of the article.

Context matters. For example, asking if I’ve found any hand-pulled noodle joints that I like in the area is different than asking if I know authentic hand-pulled noodle joints. The difference is that what you’re seeking is one person and one place to represent an entire culture for you.

Again, complete nonsense. It’s only logical to assume that in the second situation they’re also asking you about a place nearby, in order to go there, not about a place from overseas. There is no difference, aside from introducing the word “authentic” into the question and unwittingly triggering you (to be labelled cultural fetishists undeservedly).

There is no one right way to eat something and no one perfect dish to eat. People from different cultures all have their own food preferences, too – the unique ways their families make something or the way they prepare their own meal. It’d be like me asking, “Hey, what’s the most authentic way to eat a hamburger?”

That applies to your home, absolutely. However, in public, things are not that simple. There are different types of implements for a variety of foods and, as snobbish as that is, in certain places, ignorance means you automatically make an ass of yourself, to the amusement of everyone around you. You can’t really watch people eating, as that would also make you a weirdo. The friend who asks you how to eat something almost definitely just wants to avoid being embarrassed, and perhaps embarrassing you by association as well.

Don’t constantly treat your friend of color as your food tour guide. We’re happy eating our cultural foods with you, but that’s not what our entire friendship should be about.

And who even suggests that if you’re often asked such questions – because you presumably know better than other people in your group – you are some token food tour guide…? Honestly, those who are so suspicious and so jumpy about everything  others say… well, they are lucky if they manage to have friends in the first place. Most people would run like hell at the fist sign of sanctimoniousness.

When people think they’re being adventurous for trying food from another culture, it’s the same thing as treating that food as bizarre or weird.

Well, maybe it is.The 100 year egg is mentioned at the beginning of this article. Most people in the west would not even take a chance with an egg that was slightly out of date and many people cook it thoroughly in order to avoid getting Salmonella. The smell of rotten eggs makes most westerners want to vomit. The centenary egg, besides being incredibly disgusting to think of, must pose a health hazard to people who are not used to it (though I’m not sure even Salmonella could live inside that thing for a hundred years). It looks like something fished out of a bin after rotting there for a fortnight. Very hot chilies are another example, some of them being painful to eat. It would not be strange to read somewhere “I had two Bhut Jolokias today and survived.”

What I noticed about progressives in general is that they just want to drain the fun out of each human experience. Down to the last drop. They seek to shame people for everything they enjoy, almost worse than mainstream religions.

The person outside of the culture becomes the person with “insider” knowledge about this exotic, other culture. The theme of “Westerner as cultural connoisseur is rooted in imperialist ideas about discovering another culture and then making oneself the main character in the exchange. “I was transformed by my trip to [fill in the blank].”

In other words,this is a diluted form of imperialism. You’re not allowed to be the main character in a story about you eating strange food – it is immoral to describe a personal experience as a personal experience. And again, the author has this bizarre idea that whoever does it automatically assumes they’re an expert on said culture.

When food gets disconnected from the communities and places its from, people can easily start forgetting and ignoring historical and ongoing oppression faced by those communities. America has corporatized “Middle Eastern food” like hummus and falafel, and some people might live by halal food carts, but not understand or address the ongoing Islamophobia in the US.

Good grief. Now food is politicised as well. Soon there will be nothing – and I mean nothing – that won’t require analysing through the feminist lens.

Eating food from another culture in isolation from that culture’s history and also current issues mean that we’re just borrowing the pieces that are enjoyable – palatable and easily digestible.

One should absolutely learn everything about a culture before they dare order a take-away. Which would make them fairly knowledgeable, to think of it – the very thing the author of the piece resents. According to her, one should not claim to have inside knowledge just because they’ve tried a dish – but at the same time, should not try it before becoming thoroughly accustomed to that culture. Which one is it? Perhaps both? Perhaps trying to find out as much as possible but feigning ignorance? What a shamed, cornered and self-conscious individual one would have to be to fret over all these non-issues.

(…) However, it’s critical for us to reflect on how we perceive the cultures that we’re consuming and think about the relationships between food, people, and power.

Colonization and gentrification are directly related to the appropriation of food. We also need to begin educating ourselves on issues and event that impact the communities that we’re drawing our meals from.

Yes, that is the first thing on the agenda for people who have a lot of work to do and grab a bite on the run.

The second paragraph almost sounds as if by borrowing recipes and ordering from foreign eating venues you’re literally stealing off of someone’s table.

What a strange preoccupation and what a strange article.