Racism
Sexism
Feminism
Socialism
Conservatism
Liberalism
Syndicalism
Corporatism
There are so many -isms, and it seems like all of them matter to whatever degree people care about.
But do they?
I would say the root "ism" of them all boils down to a simple word that embodies what the purpose of them all are is Imperialism.
All racists, anti-racists sexists, feminists, socialists, etc. or those who identify as activists, fighters of, or believers in such "isms" desire to speak for and dictate to the multitude, no matter what they believe for or against.
Rhetorically, no one really wants to "have a conversation" any more than "do what's right." It isn't morality being debated or pursued, it's results.
Feminists want to achieve specific objectives and achieve a subjective moral leadership. They want power. Equality and Fairness are rhetorical, but the dialectic ledger of what they seek is no different than any imperial rule of the past. There would have to be a ruling elite to dominate the misguided masses that need you, a bureaucracy to administrate it, a military / police to enforce it, and a secular or religious clergy to ensure moral conformity, while punishing traitors and heretics.
Let's face it, believers and fighters of the "isms" of our day.
You want to rule. You want power. You want to be an Emperor or Empress, and for your vision to be the light the world depends on, like a lighthouse on the shore.
How you specify your version of Imperialism is semantics. You want the throne.
And silly things like nationality, families, and traditions are just obstacles. Who cares what your family or extended family has done for however long?
You know better.
So my perspective I'm offering is that if you subscribe to or are intent on fighting an "ism," you want to play the game of Empire.
If you want to build a family that has everything that matters in common and associate with other families that have a similar way of life, pledging to defend that from those who would violate your autonomy, then you play the game of Nation.
I argue they are mutually exclusive. Nations cannot be diverse. Empires are, by definition, diverse.
So if you pledge to a cause other than Nation, can anyone truly describe it as different than Empire?
If you're a Conservative, why stop with just the people you agree with? Don't they need some Freedom(TM) in their lives?
If you're a Socialist, why stop with just the people you agree with? Don't they need some Equality(TM) in their lives?
If you're a Feminist, why stop with just the people you agree with? Don't they need some Misogyny(TM) removed from their lives?
I challenge everyone on this board that doesn't play the game of Nation to debate me on this.
Prove that you would not install your vision upon as much of the world as you can possibly could.
Sexism
Feminism
Socialism
Conservatism
Liberalism
Syndicalism
Corporatism
There are so many -isms, and it seems like all of them matter to whatever degree people care about.
But do they?
I would say the root "ism" of them all boils down to a simple word that embodies what the purpose of them all are is Imperialism.
All racists, anti-racists sexists, feminists, socialists, etc. or those who identify as activists, fighters of, or believers in such "isms" desire to speak for and dictate to the multitude, no matter what they believe for or against.
Rhetorically, no one really wants to "have a conversation" any more than "do what's right." It isn't morality being debated or pursued, it's results.
Feminists want to achieve specific objectives and achieve a subjective moral leadership. They want power. Equality and Fairness are rhetorical, but the dialectic ledger of what they seek is no different than any imperial rule of the past. There would have to be a ruling elite to dominate the misguided masses that need you, a bureaucracy to administrate it, a military / police to enforce it, and a secular or religious clergy to ensure moral conformity, while punishing traitors and heretics.
Let's face it, believers and fighters of the "isms" of our day.
You want to rule. You want power. You want to be an Emperor or Empress, and for your vision to be the light the world depends on, like a lighthouse on the shore.
How you specify your version of Imperialism is semantics. You want the throne.
And silly things like nationality, families, and traditions are just obstacles. Who cares what your family or extended family has done for however long?
You know better.
So my perspective I'm offering is that if you subscribe to or are intent on fighting an "ism," you want to play the game of Empire.
If you want to build a family that has everything that matters in common and associate with other families that have a similar way of life, pledging to defend that from those who would violate your autonomy, then you play the game of Nation.
I argue they are mutually exclusive. Nations cannot be diverse. Empires are, by definition, diverse.
So if you pledge to a cause other than Nation, can anyone truly describe it as different than Empire?
If you're a Conservative, why stop with just the people you agree with? Don't they need some Freedom(TM) in their lives?
If you're a Socialist, why stop with just the people you agree with? Don't they need some Equality(TM) in their lives?
If you're a Feminist, why stop with just the people you agree with? Don't they need some Misogyny(TM) removed from their lives?
I challenge everyone on this board that doesn't play the game of Nation to debate me on this.
Prove that you would not install your vision upon as much of the world as you can possibly could.
