#pseudo secularism

[forgotten-bharat]

Let's talk about the idolized Aurangzeb. What he did and why is he considered great?

We will be focusing on the destruction of temples and hindu genocide done by him to debunk claims deny that this.

By the order of Aurangzeb (1645 AD) according to Mirãt-i-Ahmadî, Temple of Chintaman situated close to Sarashpur (Gujarat) and built by Sitaldas jeweller was converted into a mosque named Quwwat-ul-lslam (might of Islam) (1645 AD.) A cow was slaughtered to 'solemnize' the 'ceremony'.

Slaughtering a cow was a heinous choice, cow being one of the holiest animal in Hinduism. As well as, Hinduism prohibits animal slaughter, to do it right where their place of worship used to be where now stands a Mosque was simply to mock and destroy the souls of the indigenous population. The Pandits and Cows were always their main targets.

This was done before he even became the king, he was just a prince at this point.

When he became the king he sent Mir Jumla on an expedition to Cooch Bihar. Mir Jumla demolished ALL temples in that city and erected mosques in their stead. The general himself wielded a battle-axe to break the image of Narayana.

Mirãt-i-Ahmadî continues, In 1666 AD, he ordered the faujdar of Mathura to remove a stone railing which had been presented by Dara Shukoh to the temples of Keshav Rai. He explained: “In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple!”

You can still argue that Islamic Colonization simply had a political motif and not a religious one, if that would have been the case, none of the indigenous people would have been harmed, none of them would have been forcefully converted, their heritage would not have been destroyed right in front of their eyes, their schools and texts would have been burned. This is downright evil and was done in the name of Allah by all the Mughal tyrants.

“The richly jewelled idols taken from the infidel temples were transferred to Agra and placed beneath the steps leading to the Nawab Begum Sahib's (Jahanara's) mosque in order that they might be “pressed under foot by the true believers”. Mathura changed its name into Islamabad and was thus called in all official documents.”

In the same year, Sita Ram ji temple at Soron was destroyed as also the shrine of Devi Patan at Gonda. News came from Malwa also that the local governor had sent 400 troopers to destroy all temples around Ujjain.

According to Muraqat-i-Abul Hasan, civil officers, agents of jagirdars, karoris and amlas from Cuttack in Orissa to Medinipur in Bengal were instructed as follows:

“Every idol house built during the last 10 or 12 years' should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.”

(1672 AD) several thousand Satnamis were slaughtered near Narnaul in Mewat for which act of 'heroism' Radandaz Khan was tided Shuja'at Khan with the mansab of 3000 and 2000 horse.

(1675 AD) Guru Tegh Bahadur was tortured to death for his resistance against the forcible conversion of the Hindus of Kashmir. The destruction of gurudwaras thereafter is a well-known story which our secularists have succeeded in suppressing because the Akali brand Sikhs have been forging ties of friendship with Islam as against their parent faith, Hindu Dharma.

Mirãt-i-Ahmadî goes ahead: “On 6th January 1680 A.D. Prince Mohammad Azam and Khan Jahan Bahadur obtained permission to visit Udaipur. Ruhullah Khan and Yakkattaz Khan also proceeded thither to effect the destruction of the temples of the idolators. These edifices situated in the vicinity of the Rana's palace were among the wonders of the age, and had been erected by the infidels to the ruin of their souls and the loss of their wealth”. Pioneers destroyed the images. On 24th January the king visited the tank of Udayasagar.

His Majesty ordered all three of the Hindu temples to be levelled with the ground. On 29th January Hasan AN Khan made his appearance' and stated that “172 temples in the neighbouring districts had been destroyed.” His Majesty proceeded to Chitor on 22nd February.

Temples to the number of 63 were destroyed. Abu Tarab who had been commissioned to effect the destruction of idol temples of Amber, reported in person on 10th August that 66 temples had been levelled to the ground.’ The temple of Someshwar in western Mewar was also destroyed at a later date in the same year. It may be mentioned that unlike Jodhpur and Udaipur, Amber was the capital of a state loyal to the Mughal emperor.

Khafi Khan records in his Muntakhab-ul-Lubab: ‘On the capture of Golconda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as censor of the city of Haiderabad with orders to put down infidel practices and innovations, and destroy the temples and build mosques on the sites.’ That was in 1687 AD. In 1690 AD, he ordered destruction of temples at Ellora, Trimbakeshwar, Narasinghpur, and Pandharpur.

Aurangzeb also destroyed, Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Kashi, Uttar Pradesh - which considered as the most scared hindu temple and land.

In 1698 AD, the story was repeated at Bijapur. According to Mirat-i-AhmadT: 'Hamidud-din Khan Bahadur who had been deputed to destroy the temples of Bijapur and build mosques there, returned to court after carrying out the order and was praised by the Emperor.' As late as 1705 AD, two years before he died, 'the emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men' ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple.' Cow-slaughter at a temple site was a safeguard against Hindus rebuilding it on the same spot.

The saddest part is, all of this information, the bloodiest part of Indian History is never shown to the people, they grow up learning, Mughals were great emperors that built great things. When none of that holds any ounce of truth. It should be said without any censorship, these tyrants destroyed the culture, tradition and religions of India.

With all this information, if you're still defending these tyrants, if you still "want them around", if you still insist "it wasn't that bad", you absolutely do not care about "human rights", every activism you take part in is just performative. And I do not respect you or your opinion on any social issue.

[jewish-vents]

It is wild the number of goyim I see on this site openly admitting that they want to convert to Judaism so that they can try to convince Jews that we're not indigenous to our homeland and that acknowledging we are is evil.

We need to be honest about these people's goals. They are not prospective converts. They are goyim trying to infiltrate the Jewish community in order to convert us (whether it's to Christianity or this new religion of pseudo-secular Jew-hate, it's still an attempt at converting us). They are trying to worm their way into the Jewish community and pass themselves off as one of us so because they think that will get us to listen when they explain how we're just fundamentally evil, bad, terrible people who need to purge ourselves of everything Jewish.

It's fucking genocidal is what it is. And I'm actually using the word properly, unlike these fucks. Because they're not even hiding the fact that their goal is to stop Jews from being Jewish and eternally banish us from our homeland.

(And before someone flips out, no I'm not talking about actual converts. I'm talking about people stomping their feet and whining about how no one will take them on as a conversion student because they think Jews deserve eternal exile.)

My dad is Ojibwe, and if someone said to us "I really love your people and want to be one of you, please adopt me into your tribe, oh btw I don't think you're really indigenous to North America and you're committing genocide against white people by being here" we would call that person a racist lunatic. We need to start treating goyim who claim they want to convert but clearly hate Jews the same way. No more kid gloves. No more "uwu why don't you reexamine why you want this." They are racist lunatics who know exactly what they're doing and either think Jews are too stupid to see it or think we have some sort of obligation to let them do it anyway.

.

[krsnaradhika]

If you use the word ‘bhakt’ as a slur anywhere around me and my blog, you've lost all respect and your hinduphobia is dancing naked btw. No need to curtain that with pseudo-secularism and all those fancy ass terms. You're not the shit, you are shit. Hope that helps :)

[ghelgheli]

Recognizing this central ambivalence in regard to so-called Western values—whereby they are cast out as “postmodern authoritarianism” only to be embraced as the “true spirit” of societies to come—is essential to understanding the strategic significance of the anti-gender misappropriation of postcolonial language. This ambivalence sheds light on the fact that the superficial takeover frames the “gender ideology” colonizer not simply as the “West as such but [rather as] the West whose healthy (Christian) core had already been destroyed by neo-Marxism and feminism in the 1960s” (Korolczuk and Graff 2018: 812). Very often, the anti-gender misappropriation takes on a decidedly Islamophobic hue; for all their catering to anticolonial sentiments, anti-gender thinkers often claim that “gender ideology,” with its historical roots in anti-European “neo-Marxism and feminism,” goes hand in hand with the threat of (Muslim) immigration. A blatant example of this can be found in former Cardinal Sarah’s proclamation against the two unexpected threats of our times:

On the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. To use a slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS.” . . . From these two radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist disintegration in the secularized West [and] the pseudo-family of ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy [and] female subservience. (Sarah 2015)

Sarah aggressively draws up a dual picture of the true enemy—the biopolitical survival of the family is threatened on the one hand by excessive secularization and sexual freedom, and on the other by “ideologized Islam’s pseudo-family,” which marks the degraded and uncivilized counterpart to Christianity’s proper tradition. This discursive construction of “terrorist look-alikes” as possessing an excessive, uncultivated, and dangerous sexuality yet again plays into the same fundamental racialized mapping of progress that colonial gender undergirded (Puar 2007). This rhetoric is mirrored by Norwegian right-wing politician Per-Willy Amundsen (2021) when he writes that:

I will never celebrate pride. First of all, there are only two sexes: man and woman, not three—that is in contradiction with all biological science. Even worse, they are allowed access to our kids to influence them with their radical ideology. This has to be stopped. If FRI [the national LGBT organization] really cared about gay rights, they would get involved in what is happening in Muslim countries, rather than construct fake problems here in Norway. But it is probably easier to speak about “diversity” as long as it doesn’t cost anything. (Amundsen 2021; translation by author) Here Amundsen draws on the well-known trope of trans* and queer people “preying on our kids” while at the same time reinforcing the homonationalist notion that Europe, and in particular Norway, is a safe h(e)aven for queer people—perhaps a bit too much so. In his response to Amundsen, Thee-Yezen Al-Obaide, the leader of SALAM, the organization for queer Muslims in Norway, aptly diagnoses Amundsen’s rhetoric as “transphobia wrapped in Islamophobia” (as quoted in Berg 2021). Amundsen mirrors a central tenet of TERF rhetoric by claiming to be the voice of science, biology, and reason in order to distinguish his own resistance to “gender ideology” from the repressive, regressive one of Muslims. In this way, his argumentation, which basically claims that trans* people don’t exist and certainly shouldn’t be recognized legally, attempts to come off as benign, while Muslim opposition to “gender ideology” is painted as destructive and anti-modern. This double gesture, which allows Amundsen to have his cake and eat it too, is a central trope in different European iterations of anti-gender rhetoric. In France, for example, such discourse claims that, “while ‘gender ideology’ goes too far on the one hand, the patriarchal control of Islam threatens to pull us back into an excessive past. Here of course, ‘Frenchness’ is always already neither Muslim, nor queer (and certainly not both)” (Hemmings 2020: 30). Therefore the French anti-gender movement sees itself as the defender of true Western civilization, both from Western “gender ideology” and from uncivilized “primitives” who are nevertheless themselves victims of “gender ideology.” A similar dynamic plays out in Britain: “Reading Muslims as dangerous heteroactivists and Christians as benign points to how racialization and religion create specific forms of heteroactivism. . . . Even where ‘Muslim parents’ are supported by Christian heteroactivists, they remain other to the nation, and not central to its defence” (Nash and Browne 2020: 145). In the British example, it is clear that white anti-gender actors represent themselves as moderate, reasonable, and caring—often claiming that their resistance to the “politicization” of the classroom has nothing to do with transphobia and homophobia.

Is “Gender Ideology” Western Colonialism? Jenny Andrine Madsen Evang

[a-very-tired-jew]

Being a secular Jew in places where there aren't a lot of Jews to begin with.

This has been on my mind a lot these past few months. I am originally from the Philly area, which has a large Jewish population, and grew up surrounded by secular and religious Jews. However, in pursuing my career I've moved across the USA and lived in the South East, the Midwest, the Great Plains, and the Central Southern region. In all of these areas I have been the only Jew my new social circle has met, and on every occasion they have this perceived stereotype of what a Jew is that is contradictory and they don't even know it. I've stated before that I grew up in the Reconstructionist movement, but in all honesty I have always been a secular Jew and neither myself nor my family practiced Halaka (even my Conservative grandparents didn't, nor did my great-grandparents). Part of this is due to the culture in the north east, the pseudo-assimilation, and the integration of Jewish culture with many other cultures. I grew up eating cheesesteaks and hoagies from Jewish delis. I worked in a deli that sold kosher products on one side and cured pork products on the other. Bagel sandwiches with bacon? Absolutely. Were there people who kept kosher in my community and social circle? Of course, but they got a steak sandwich instead of a cheesesteak and we thought nothing of it. But moving out of the area? Hoo boy. I would eat bacon and goyim would absolutely freak out on me. "Aren't you Jewish?! YOU CAN'T EAT BACON!". Not realizing that there were Jews who didn't abide by those rules. They would then tell me all about Judaism from the TV they watched and/or other media they consumed, and it'd always have a scene of secular New York Jews eating pepperoni pizza. They literally had an example right there in front of them and they didn't understand. I remember even bringing it up to a friend and they went "wait, pepperoni is made from pork?" That alone made me take psychic damage. So this is for my goys out there who seem to think every Jew keeps dietary laws and restrictions. We don't. We have nothing against those that do either. We're all one big tribe with a lot of variety in it. But we do all have IBS and are lactose intolerant.

[missmisandrytabletalk]

If somebody wants to know how patriarchy looks like post-secularism in the modern times, then pls proceed to watch the Indian film "Animal".. but a pirated version on an illegal site ofc cause u don't want those sick filmmakers and writers to profit off of this abhorrently wicked of a misogynistic crap. I can't believe the bollywood industry has still not put a ban on ANY of the films this arsehole of a director has created. And the major thing that irks and concerns me is that how in the world any of those female actresses have agreed to work with a chauvinistic bigot on a film that glorifies and romanticises domestic violence, marital rape, cheating/illicit affairs, objectification of women, daddy issues, mental disorders, men having viking-like demeanour and a fuck boi persona & justifies child abuse, homicides, assault & mistreatment of women, inculcating Islamophobia and the list literally goes on. And then they are the same women you see advocating for equality and preaching about feminism like nah babe you should take your pseudo and performative feminism somewhere else cause this ain't doing shit! This is why i say that we NEED misandry more than anything in this world. This would be our only redemption arc.

[forgotten-bharat]

Maharani Durgavati

Durgavati was the daughter of King of Bundelkhand, married to Raja dalpad of Gondwana, in Madhaya Pradesh.

Soon, tragically Raja died and Queen Durgavati with her 5 year old toddler stepped up to the throne. She managed the whole kingdom exceptionally well, as recorded by Akbar’s historian. The kingdom did not suffer any major setback even after their king died.

Gondwana was a rich kingdom, with a beautiful queen which became the target of the Mughals. They didn't wanted to simply take the kingdom under their control, the commander Asaf Khan also “wanted to touch the beauty of Gondwana”.

In 1564, Asaf Khan marched with 10,000 cavalries towards Gondwana, Rani Durgavati marched with 5,000 men to the battlefield.

She led the army well and killed about 500 enemies, she came out victorious by the end of the day, later she purposed to “surprise attack” the enemies or “Gorilla Attack” but none of the council members agreed to that.

By the next morning, Asaf Khan’s army was in a much better place and the fighting continued for 3 exhausting days. By that time only 200 of her men were left but the thought of giving up never once crossed her mind. Her bravery and courage never wavered.

During the battle, one arrow pierced her temple and another pierced her neck, causing her to lose consciousness. When she opened her eyes, the inevitable defeat was clear.

Instead of falling in the hands of men that had nothing but lust for her and would eventually throw her in Harem with other women, that previously were queens of conquered kingdoms that Mughals kept as sex slaves, she took our her dagger and killed herself to save her honor and prevent invaders from doing heinous things to her body, her martyrdom day (24 June 1564) is commemorated as “Balidan Diwas”.

The Mughal army then marched to the fort to loot it's treasure. They found staggering amount of gold pots full of gold, jewels, expensive stones etc.

When they opened a room, it was full of burnt bodies of women that commited Jauhar upon hearing the news of Rani’s defeat. These women committed Jauhar to save their honor and to prevent the Mughals from taking them as sex slaves, unfortunately 2 women were still alive, stuck behind a large wooden block that saved their lives. These two women were then taken to Akbar's court and predictably put into Harem.

[whereserpentswalk]

I once heard a gay Christian tell me my anti-Christian posts in queer tags made them feel like a Jewish Nazi. Which is interesting because that's exactly how I want queer Christians to feel, all the time.

There should be no place within the queer community where they feel comfortable or safe openly pushing a pseudo-religion that has done nothing but victimized and oppress us. They should be treated just like queer conservatives and queer capitalists, the fact that the bigoted belief system they're part of isn't secular shouldn't matter.

Liberation movements have become so obsessed with marketability that they've forgotten what almost every liberator in the past understood: that the priest was as much our oppressor as the business owner and the noblemen.

[sag-dab-sar]

The Need to Recognize Christmas' Preferential Treatment 🎄

Christmas is seen as "stolen" from pre-Christian traditions or described as "not really Christian". Some of it is legitimate (e.g with specific local or national folk traditions), a lot of it is pseudo-history (e.g Mithras birthday, an entire Christmas tree, lights) but frankly neither actually matter. Because, in our modern world, Christmas holds a prestigious place due to Christianity.

.🔹.

Here are examples that showcase Christmas' ubiquitous, unquestioned place in many Culturally Christian nations and why we need to recognized its ubiquity:

Appropriation of Judaism, re-imagined for Christmas exists like this. @/koshercosplay has basically an infinite amount of examples to use for these posts and even gets sent asks of more examples.

There is no Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or other religions' holidays reserved as an official federal holiday in the US. So all non-Christian religious holidays are labeled as "accommodations" while Christmas is a given.

While my post targets the US because thats were I am from, this isn't US only. Christmas is a public holiday in a large protion of countries around the world (see map).

Hallmark Christmas movies, that are made by the dozens at this point and are a US Christmas staple, are propaganda longing for a better ""family friendly"" white washed Christian version of America that never existed.

Hallmark has added anti-semitism into it's Christmas movies.

A Hanukkah presentation was banned in a Florida school meanwhile the same school was celebrating Christmas activities and decorations. Justified by Florida's Parental Rights Bill ("Don't say gay" bill) "obligating us to follow the 5th grade standards [...] At this time, a Chanukah presentation is not in our standards." It was only reversed to to social media outcry.

Something similar also happened in a Vancouver school where Christmas decorations were allowed because they "aren't religious" while Hanukkah ones were explicitly denied.

Fasting and breaking for prayer during Ramadan is seen as an inconvenience to employers, who need "guidance" on how to "accommodate" their Muslim employees. And has led to Muslims being straight up fired. Whereas Christmas decorations, events, or music in a work setting is fine.

Universities won't hold classes on Christmas but will reverse their practice of not holding classes on Yom Kippur & Rosh Hashanah because not holding classes on those holidays is "intended to insure greater continuity in the academic schedule and minimize course disruption for students." Those two holidays are a debate at the university— Christmas is never a debate.

Not holding classes on Eid al-Adha is also controversial! This also included reversing the decision to not have classes. The decisions to not hold classes on the holiday is a debate at the school board— Christmas is never a debate.

To make it all worse in the US: Christian Nationalism is dramaticlly increasing x x x

.🔹.

No matter what pagan-ness or secular aspects can be found in Christmas it has a privileged special place in our culture— that is afforded to no other religion— specifically because it is Christian. There are a few examples where this isn't the case (e.g Japan) but those are very few and far between

In my strong opinion: if you choose to celebrate the holiday, as a Christian or non-Christian, you should recognize the special spot & privilege it has.

You shouldn't dismiss that fact and the above examples because "pagan origins" or "celebrating it in a secular way"

Maybe next time when your classmate, your child's classmates, or you sibling's friend want to put up Hanukkah decorations in school next to the Christmas ones you can speak against the school administration that bans it, or against the teacher who gets upset at the idea.

Or perhaps you can be the person at the school board meeting who points out that Christmas isn't any more special than Yom Kippur or Eid al-Adha so why are those debatable when Christmas isn't.

Recognizing these things is not raining on Christmas' parade nor does it mean you should feel guilty for celebrating, its simply a matter of expanding you view of the world and learning the obstacles other people face.

.🔹.

P.S

Recognizing its preferential spot is paramount imo but if you'd also like to touch on the history of the matter:

Here is some info on the "Christmas is stolen" argument, as well as tracing secular and religious history of the holiday.

The origins of Christmas and its traditions are marred with psudeo-history plastered all over news websites, blogs, and supposedly reputable sources. But many of this comes down to secondary sources citing each other in a loop without primary sourcing. Here is an example of how that can happen (not xmas related).

-

-Dyslexic, not audio proof read- | -repost-

[franki-lew-yo]

It says so much about Ben Shapword as a person that he was threatened enough by Bluey to greenlight Chip-Chilla.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but nothing about Bluey is striving for being ''progressive'', at least not by rightwing standards. It's no Owl House or Steven Universe. Outside of the ep where Bluey makes a French friend and the Heelers celebrating Easter I can't ever recall the concept of religion, ethnicity or heritage being important in the series. Don't think I've ever seen a gay couple or pride flag in the background, neither. Obviously I don't think the show being made for little kids and/or about anthro dogs means you can't talk about concepts like that, it's just that Bluey doesn't even attempt that. In fact because it IS made for and about small children I would argue that's the reason there's no big talk about money problems in the show and all the characters seem well-off.

My point is, unless Steiner/Waldorf schools became a tool of the left when I wasn't looking (they're not; Waldorf schools teach pseudo science and are sometimes antivax. Hopefully not in Calypso's class but yeah now you know what to look for when you google 'waldorf school controversies'), Bluey is about as 'woke' as modern day Peanuts or Illumination. It's inherently nonthreatening and non-confrontational of bigger concepts outside of what's universal to kids and the kid characters. It'd be interesting if they had a LGBTQ character or a talk about (dog?)race and culture, but overall the show seems 'safe' from that stuff that makes conservatives cringe. So at first glance you think Chip-chilla is just a "want to cash in/draw people away from sinful mass media"-thing. Still disgusting but honestly par for the course. Christian programing meant to be a 'safe' alternative to nasty secular shows isn't new.

And then, it dawns on you:

Bluey gets confused for a boy by those who don't watch the show, kind of like how people misgender Bambi, Tweety or Peppermint Patty sometimes.

Chili and Bandit both work and have equal time to be the at-home parent with their kids.

Dailywire is offput by a girl character not being definitively feminine from first glance. Dailywire can't stand the idea of a man being a home husband. They not only see these standard lifestyles as threatening, but that this alone is trying to 'push' something on them when it's just, you know, trying to depict accurate home life of most kids.

What hope do trans people have even existing in the world when a cis girl without eyelashes is a threat to you? What kind of person looks at a dad (who isn't even a fulltime homehusband) having a nurturing relationship with his kids and thinks "DEGENERATE!"

I don't have to answer. You all know the kind of person.

On a happier note: I'm very curious how Bluey would go about addressing that real world representation I was talking about. I think that could be done well but, considering how the exercising episode was received by some adults, no doubt there'd be controversy. And I mean controversy inside the communities they're talking about, not pundits like Ben who'd have a heartattack over a progress flag being in the background that's never even addressed by anyone. I can see an adult character walking off with their same-sex partner or maybe a new classmate who's muslim and wears a hijab just being there and some people being concerned they're not handling it right/well enough. Which is probably why the writers just have steer cleared of it, I think.

If there's one gift Benny boy gives us all it's making us realize that that kind of discourse is always preferable the one where garbage people have no care for others.

[probablyasocialecologist]

From the 1950s through Goldwater to Romney, the modern American right has had three major legs: anti-New Deal and welfarist libertarians, white social conservatives, and anti-Communist or pro-interventionist Hawks. Conservative politicians like Ronald Reagan deployed the metaphor of a three-legged stool to describe the intellectual and popular coalition of the modern American right. This coalition assumed hegemonic status in the 1970s and 80s through Nixon and Reagan. They agitated for and achieved many long-standing conservative objectives: rolling back the welfare state, implementing tough-on-crime policies, and remaking the judiciary to advance social conservative policies.  From this old-three legged stool, a new coalition has emerged. This new coalition consists of national conservatives, committed to the idea that America should abandon liberalism for a kind of ethno-religious nationalism. There are also post-liberals, who argue instead for a commitment to a right-wing communitarian universalism bordering on theocratic integralism (or sometimes just slipping over). They overlap with national conservatives in many respects, but reject the ethno-nationalist framing for a more universalistic perspective-often centered around Catholicism. Its possible this might wind up being a largely theoretical dispute, but it could become more in the event that the post-liberals aren’t capable of appealing to non-Catholic, let alone non-Christian, ethno-nationalists. The third leg of this stool is what I’ve called the Nietzschean right. The Nietzschean right, as exemplified by figures like BAP and Richard Hanania, is more secular and appeals to pseudo-scientific arguments about the need for a typically male and white (though there are some exceptions) elite to gain greater power in America. In BAP’s case this takes the form of arguing for fascism or, as he puts it, “something worse,” in a rather trollish way. Hanania is a bit closer to the mainstream. He argues for a capitalist Nietzscheanism where entrepreneurs aren’t subjected to democratic constraints in their pursuit of the kind of “greatness” that has taken Elon Musk’s X to new heights. They conflate the idea of Nietzsche’s superman with the idea of the entrepreneur. Never mind that Nietzsche himself (1844–1900) posited the artist-philosopher as the ideal superman and was largely contemptuous of businessmen.

[krsnaradhika]

Quick note : Hindus did not demolish the Babri masjid. We deconstructed it. There's a difference in there. The report of KK Mohammad Sir and he himself in multiple interviews say that he stands with the OGness of Rama Lalaa on his birthplace. The mosque very much did have temple remains and the appearance of Rama Lalaa in there wasn't a right-wing move. The supreme court of India has anyway given land for the mosque at some distance from the janmabhoomi so it's a win-win for both the communities now ig. All the butthurt people crying over the deconstruction should also note that Rama Lalaa isn't some non-violence icon of our religion so kindly shut up. Saying that - "He wouldn't have wanted the temple because a mosque stood there once and y'all broke it" is plain stupidity because he himself said - "Janani janmabhoomishcha swargaadapi gariyasi." Both his mother and his motherland are more dear to him than any heaven. Shri Rama did hold up weapons in the favour of what is right when fighting numerous demons and proceeded to threaten the ocean into drying it lest it doesn't heed to him, after a three day penance. The prev governments here were very minority appeasing. One of them even got as far as to saying Shri Rama was fictional when we have plenty evidences of him being a venerated ancestor of ours. All of them fell on their fours when Rama Lalaa won his case in the supreme court. They don't give a shit about the majority sentiments here being oppressed (Hindus have a history of being oppressed even when we're in majority, in our homeland. Are we debating on that now? Oml). Babar should not have done what he did, so yeah like Hindus were just taking back what is rightfully ours. (For the sake of secularism and brotherhood, shouldn't they be understanding our sentiments as well? It has to go both ways, no?) We have been waiting for around 500 years for our god to come back to a palace from a tent and the pseudo-liberal meltdowns are personally very enjoyable to me. You should prolly save those tears for Mathura and Kashi case too. Ram mandir kisi ke baap ke paison se bana nahi hai. Hindus contributed to it. Temple towns were a thing in ancient India, still many of them exist in the south because the north has suffered voraciously due to invasions, never forget. No tax money has been used in the construction of the Rama temple. Hope that helps.

[tomswifty-fr]

in all seriousness i am a complete and total christmas hater. wretched miserable farce of a pseudo-secular holiday.

the chairs my only solace

[eye-in-hand]

I really hate commenting on intracommunity issues between the different branches of Judaism. I really fucking hate it. But what I hate more is when people sit there acting like their shit don't stink

Really wish orthodox Jews would stop saying they don't see reform converts as real Jews as if they have the final say or monopoly on Judaism. As if they're the ultimate authority. Sorry, my rabbi and congregation say I'm Jewish and the antisemites also think I'm Jewish so. We all end up in the same place idk what to tell you.

And we're allowed to criticize orthodox practices. It's not an attack on orthodox Jews. I swear you say one thing about how orthodoxy has harmed you and people immediately get pissed off at you for calling it out (not just converts. I've had plenty of talks with reform Jews who grew up Orthodox and had a lot of insecurities because of that. My Rabbi has flat out said there's a lot of unlearning of harmful orthodoxy that needs to happen, and I 100% agree.)

There are real issues in the Orthodox movement, and while I'm glad things sound like they're getting a little more progressive, we can't sit here and pretend there aren't problems that are more inherent in orthodox movements than other ones. And this pseudo authority is annoying. Reform Jews are real Jews. Patrilineal Jews aren't "converting", they're born Jewish just as much as Matrilineal Jews are. They can be as connected or disconnected as any other Jew. Jews in inter faith marriages are real Jews. Secular Jews are real Jews. You are not the gate keepers of jewery, all Jews get a say in who is and isn't Jewish.

Are there problems in the other branches? Yes. But we're allowed to talk about how orthodoxy has harmed us without that disclaimer.

So while I don't need your approval on my Jewish identity, you constantly going around saying "sorry, you're not a real Jew unless you follow my specific idea of what being a Jew means" is such a slap in the face to all the hard work reform converts put in. Sure it's not exactly the same as an Orthodox conversion. But it's still living a Jewish life whether you like that or not.

Judaism is about interpreting the texts and the laws. Reform Jews interpret things differently. That doesn't make them less valid than orthodox Jews. That's the whole fucking point. Get this religious purity shit out of here. It's condescending and unnecessary.

And I say this as someone who's interested in converting to Orthodox jewery, but I can't. Because I live in rural America and the closest synagogue is an hour+ away and it's reform. The next one after that is reform. And so is the next one. The closest Orthodox Jewish community is over 6 hours away. I can't afford that shit. And not just that, but I'm trans. And I've already been told on online Orthodox Jewish spaces that "well you were born a woman so you still have to do what the women do" fuck that transphobic shit I'm a fucking man, and I will live my life as a Jewish man.

I love Orthodoxy. I love a lot of its ideas. But it is not accessible to me and never will be unless there's significant changes to how the movement treats LGBT+ or Jews they "don't approve of."

Reform Jews are real Jews. It's a Jewish movement made by Jews for Jews. The conversion process is valid, ya'll are just full of yourselves. No Jew is more Jewish than the next. We are all living a Jewish life because we are Jewish and we are alive. It's not a fucking competition.

[notthesomefather]

Reminder: Queerness and trans / non-binary identities have existed in secular societies and spiritual practices across the world for as long as we’ve been on this blue marble we call home. The terminology was different, and there certainly hostilities to navigate depending on era and culture, but these concepts are not new. Queerness and gender non-conformity did not pop up “within the last ten years.” Bigotry and selective pseudo-research will never erase us.

[elbiotipo]

One of the most annoying things when I was doing my research for the worldbuilding in flat worlds posts is that every thing I searched for something I was hit by a wall of OH THIS MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE THE EARTH ISN'T FLAT FLAT EARTHERS ARE DUMB. I KNOW, I'm not a flat earther, I'm searching for worldbuilding purposes. People imagine there's a whole movement of millions of Flat Earthers when most of them are trolls and there's like, five dudes who really believe in that shit.

Another interesting thing is that there's a lack of religiousness involved, at least, not a clear one. Because like I said in the post, there is a very complex biblical model of the cosmos (which is hinted at in the Bible, but explicted in the non-canonical Book of Enoch), but they don't believe on that, they actually believe in some sort of alternate pseudo-science (barely involving religion if any) that's hidden by the, UN, or something. One would think a modern flat earther would say "well GOD made it that way" in a spiritual way, but it's all very secular, they try to explain their conspiracies with (pseudo)science.