First, the money goes underneath the liberal politicians and their capitalist and fascist cronies. The Marxists got that wrong. They don’t serve capital - capital serves them.
Second, replace the religious types with media personalities.
Third, replace the diners with upper middle-class “managerial” types and move them one step up.
Fourth, move the goon squad one level down and - of course - replace them with pigs.
Not really. I don’t think religion was ever used to control people. Certain aspects of religion was used to justify certain classes hoarding the real means of control - which is always a material thing - but that makes religion no different than any other justification (such as nationalism or the belief in the so-called “free market”)
Marx himself had a pretty nuanced take on this - I’d say he was half-right about it. The Marxist-Lennists completely fudged it - as they do with almost everything - but even anarchists got this horribly wrong.
Even if you disagree with what I’m saying - and most leftists do - you still have to admit that the only way you control religion today is through media.
So you’re saying that trusted religious sources that tell people in person (believe it or not, going to church is not “media.”) what to believe does not control them and that’s only a left-wing view that trusted people control others? Really?
(believe it or not, going to church is not “media.”)
Do you know what happens to religious organisations or movements that starts to threaten the line laid down through the media by the status quo? This.
The example posted also nicely demonstrates just how easily the status quo can be threatened by religion.
Religion is a very important propaganda tool - but it doesn’t control squat. Control is a material thing - justifying that control isn’t.
If you could control people through religion you wouldn’t need goon squads to terrorize people into giving you that control in the first place, would you? Humans are not zombies - they can interpret religious ideas on their own just as they can political ones.
Religion is a very important propaganda tool - but it doesn’t control squat.
That must be why LGBT+ people are so tolerated in Muslim and evangelical Christian communities in countries where being queer is legal, right? They’re really tolerated and loved and no one in a church or mosque is telling them they’re evil, just the media. Because you can’t control people through religion.
There’s no need to go all reactionary atheist (a religion that has no churches or temples - but lots of media) on me - it’s not going to gain you anything.
I’ll explain it this way -
To be anti-LGBTQ+ is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
To be anti-religion is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
There is no contradiction here. If you think there is one, it’s your logic that requires examination.
Do you really believe that it’s religion itself that is (somehow) fundamentally threatened by homosexuality? Are you really going to try and tell me that Christianity grew inside the Roman empire because the Romans (of all people) were all closeted homophobes deep down?
Come now… I know you’re smarter than that.
If the Christian churches all over the west that align themselves with empire are peddling anti-LGBTQ+ narratives it’s because the embrace of LGBTQ+ people poses a threat to said empire - not Christianity.
I don’t think religion was ever used to control people.
Ignoring thousands of years of history where religion literally controlled people does not help the rest of your arguments. You clearly lack a wealth of knowledge on how society functions both in the past and in the now.
Ignoring thousands of years of history where religion literally controlled people does not help the rest of your arguments.
I’m afraid not - it’s you that is blithely ignoring history. Religion has been used to justify revolt as much as - if not far more - than it has been used to justify conformity.
I guess we’re beyond the point of merely calling this “edgelord atheism” now - I’d say that a better term for it would be fundamentalist atheism. And, like everything peddled by the right, it’s perfectly ahistorical and essentialized.
We need an updated version of this.
First, the money goes underneath the liberal politicians and their capitalist and fascist cronies. The Marxists got that wrong. They don’t serve capital - capital serves them.
Second, replace the religious types with media personalities.
Third, replace the diners with upper middle-class “managerial” types and move them one step up.
Fourth, move the goon squad one level down and - of course - replace them with pigs.
You don’t think religion is still used to control people?
Not really. I don’t think religion was ever used to control people. Certain aspects of religion was used to justify certain classes hoarding the real means of control - which is always a material thing - but that makes religion no different than any other justification (such as nationalism or the belief in the so-called “free market”)
Marx himself had a pretty nuanced take on this - I’d say he was half-right about it. The Marxist-Lennists completely fudged it - as they do with almost everything - but even anarchists got this horribly wrong.
Even if you disagree with what I’m saying - and most leftists do - you still have to admit that the only way you control religion today is through media.
So you’re saying that trusted religious sources that tell people in person (believe it or not, going to church is not “media.”) what to believe does not control them and that’s only a left-wing view that trusted people control others? Really?
Do you know what happens to religious organisations or movements that starts to threaten the line laid down through the media by the status quo? This.
The example posted also nicely demonstrates just how easily the status quo can be threatened by religion.
Religion is a very important propaganda tool - but it doesn’t control squat. Control is a material thing - justifying that control isn’t.
If you could control people through religion you wouldn’t need goon squads to terrorize people into giving you that control in the first place, would you? Humans are not zombies - they can interpret religious ideas on their own just as they can political ones.
That must be why LGBT+ people are so tolerated in Muslim and evangelical Christian communities in countries where being queer is legal, right? They’re really tolerated and loved and no one in a church or mosque is telling them they’re evil, just the media. Because you can’t control people through religion.
There’s no need to go all reactionary atheist (a religion that has no churches or temples - but lots of media) on me - it’s not going to gain you anything.
I’ll explain it this way -
To be anti-LGBTQ+ is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
To be anti-religion is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
There is no contradiction here. If you think there is one, it’s your logic that requires examination.
Who do you think tells them to be homophobic? Do you think it’s genetic or something? They get it from the churches.
Do you really believe that it’s religion itself that is (somehow) fundamentally threatened by homosexuality? Are you really going to try and tell me that Christianity grew inside the Roman empire because the Romans (of all people) were all closeted homophobes deep down?
Come now… I know you’re smarter than that.
If the Christian churches all over the west that align themselves with empire are peddling anti-LGBTQ+ narratives it’s because the embrace of LGBTQ+ people poses a threat to said empire - not Christianity.
Ignoring thousands of years of history where religion literally controlled people does not help the rest of your arguments. You clearly lack a wealth of knowledge on how society functions both in the past and in the now.
I’m afraid not - it’s you that is blithely ignoring history. Religion has been used to justify revolt as much as - if not far more - than it has been used to justify conformity.
I guess we’re beyond the point of merely calling this “edgelord atheism” now - I’d say that a better term for it would be fundamentalist atheism. And, like everything peddled by the right, it’s perfectly ahistorical and essentialized.
I like this one