Bush King
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2022
I always hate the term, especially when those who use it pretend that active genocides are occuring. I can't remember a single genocidal movement which didn't dehumanise it's victims and only refer to them as "bodies" or something equally disgusting. Something the Romantics get right is that, no, we aren't just physical beings. That's what makes us Human. While other species have shown signs of extra-physical actions, eg: Elephant spiritualism, we are the only ones who can create and expound on stories and discuss and feel something beyond our physical experience. Even the most secular societies produce men who believe in destiny or fate, a higher calling to some great purpose which needs fulfilling. Our entire lives are built around the fact that we have so mastered reality that mere survival is beyond our experience, and we can turn writing out a 300 page investment plan into two mansions, an inground pool, a Mercedes Benz and a Catholic school education.
Just like the slavers, all they see is a body. All they see is a physical form, and when something is only physical, it cannot create, it cannot contribute except in the barest of sense, it is a leech, it takes up space, it breathes preciously finite air and drinks ever dwindling water, it prevents by its mere existence the propogation and enjoyment of those who can feel, can love, can experience more than simply touch and filtered sound. I wouldn't be surprised if a genuinely genocidal radical movement appears in the future, ala Posadism but specifically in the "black and brown body" context- they will claim that these groups are experiencing so much hardship that they we have a moral imperative to kill them (nicely and quietly, of course) to end their suffering. Whenever I hear someone say "bodies" I just get flashes of Dachau, or a Soviet bureaucrat scribbling off numbers which end up killing millions in a famine, or a Nazi officer talking about "three thousand bodies have been liquidated". This is nothing but the talk of genocide; removing any and all references to these people as people. For all of Candace Owen's faults, the "plantation" idea is apt, they would be modern-day slavers, justifying their horrible actions with a veneer of charitable effort- just as the white American slave aristocracy justified their barbarous practises as "educating and preparing" the black race for civilised society. Even then, I would posit the slave owner was superior in character, from Robert E. Lee:
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
There is some endpoint, even if there is not a set date (and there of course never would be), and the slavers ultimately viewed it as a Christian mission that benefited blacks (though of course, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees). Many believed the blacks were, if nothing else, going to be saved in the afterlife. The modern plantation doesn't even given them that, it rejects the spiritual realm entirely for a temporal totality. Lee himself acknowledged the barbarity of the practise, the paradox of the enlightened and educated man with pretenses to some greater position bringing himself below his subjects in a non-physical sense by their treatment. Even the Talmud recognised that the master has a duty to the slave, where Western colonial slavery was instead modelled much more off the Roman model, the slave being property without rights, humanity, or their master obligated to their fair treatment. It was not transactional, labour in exchange for food, shelter and protection on a limited contract, but endless servitude at the master's discretion.
Ultimately, these two different mindsets are closer than either would like to admit. Both are upper-class, white, race-obsessive movements, both have some positive end goal, both end up brutalising their puppets and end up turning them into savage children, either through physical or mental means. As much as they throw "lived experience" out there, it should be telling the modern-day race philosopher rejects it when it does not conform to their critical theory on race, and invariably the front face of whatever group expounds it is a white woman on a million-dollars-a-year salary.
Just like the slavers, all they see is a body. All they see is a physical form, and when something is only physical, it cannot create, it cannot contribute except in the barest of sense, it is a leech, it takes up space, it breathes preciously finite air and drinks ever dwindling water, it prevents by its mere existence the propogation and enjoyment of those who can feel, can love, can experience more than simply touch and filtered sound. I wouldn't be surprised if a genuinely genocidal radical movement appears in the future, ala Posadism but specifically in the "black and brown body" context- they will claim that these groups are experiencing so much hardship that they we have a moral imperative to kill them (nicely and quietly, of course) to end their suffering. Whenever I hear someone say "bodies" I just get flashes of Dachau, or a Soviet bureaucrat scribbling off numbers which end up killing millions in a famine, or a Nazi officer talking about "three thousand bodies have been liquidated". This is nothing but the talk of genocide; removing any and all references to these people as people. For all of Candace Owen's faults, the "plantation" idea is apt, they would be modern-day slavers, justifying their horrible actions with a veneer of charitable effort- just as the white American slave aristocracy justified their barbarous practises as "educating and preparing" the black race for civilised society. Even then, I would posit the slave owner was superior in character, from Robert E. Lee:
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
There is some endpoint, even if there is not a set date (and there of course never would be), and the slavers ultimately viewed it as a Christian mission that benefited blacks (though of course, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees). Many believed the blacks were, if nothing else, going to be saved in the afterlife. The modern plantation doesn't even given them that, it rejects the spiritual realm entirely for a temporal totality. Lee himself acknowledged the barbarity of the practise, the paradox of the enlightened and educated man with pretenses to some greater position bringing himself below his subjects in a non-physical sense by their treatment. Even the Talmud recognised that the master has a duty to the slave, where Western colonial slavery was instead modelled much more off the Roman model, the slave being property without rights, humanity, or their master obligated to their fair treatment. It was not transactional, labour in exchange for food, shelter and protection on a limited contract, but endless servitude at the master's discretion.
Ultimately, these two different mindsets are closer than either would like to admit. Both are upper-class, white, race-obsessive movements, both have some positive end goal, both end up brutalising their puppets and end up turning them into savage children, either through physical or mental means. As much as they throw "lived experience" out there, it should be telling the modern-day race philosopher rejects it when it does not conform to their critical theory on race, and invariably the front face of whatever group expounds it is a white woman on a million-dollars-a-year salary.
A-G-P! Comorbid with B-P-D!
)
