My Response to "Violence is not the Answer" in Protests, Pt 2

This is continued from another post... HERE.

Why should we not take the high road when protesting hate?

Simple answer: Because we have the high road as an option.

Not so simple answer:

The high road is still available to people who don't agree with the VBH (Very Bad Haters) who oppress and suppress entire populations of people for a multitude of reasons, primarily (but by no means exclusively) the sins of being born with A) genetics that are less European than they find acceptable, B) a sexuality and/or orientation that is not cis-het, C) not a penis.

We can still fight it. We can still do this. We aren't in the midst of an actual military war, which is where we (the whole damn world) ended up when we (the US) ignored Germany's VBH takeover of Europe for YEARS. Let's not repeat that SNAFU.

Code what?

Most organizations that have a code system (green, yellow, orange, red) have stuff that they do BEFORE it gets to code red. The goal is to NOT get to code red. But here we are talking about things like they are code mellow-yellow, when oppressed minorities are telling privileged folk it's more like code burnt umber. If you don't think violence belongs in protests, you are probably not one of these groups being murdered or tortured on a daily basis. Just saying.

Silencing Voices

This means that by not acknowledging how very bad and even desperate it is (because we may not be experiencing it ourselves - privilege defined), we are actually SILENCING the voices of those who most need us to hear them.

At war

Additionally, outside of the whole military conflict aspects, this is a war. A social war. It is a fight for rights, and people are DYING. Literally dying. (Let me google that for you - ran out of words to link.)

This is a war, and wars produce veterans. And veterans carry scars, both physical and psychological.

Why do we thank veterans for their service? Because they suffered brutalities of battle on behalf of those who couldn't, those who wouldn't, and those who came later.

The truth about heroism (hint: it's shadow work)

We want to believe that because our cause is just, we can accomplish our goals with no collateral damage, no injury to innocents or innocence, no lasting scars because we are on the side of right.

THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS.

This isn't an epic fantasy with a hero would comes out unscathed. We will be damaged. And we will be heroes, not because of adherence to some stupid code of honor that has us facing the same crap villains time and time again (looking at you, Batman). We will be heroes in a way that cannot be ackowledged, because it is too damn dark and depressing.

We must fight this fight with fists because it WILL damage our souls. We must fight this fight because by doing so, we step up and take the bullet that would spread and damage other generations. We step up when we don't have to and take SOUL DAMAGE so as to give those already oppressed a little respite.

This isn't white light and unicorns, people. This is the fact that the ones who fight the good fight usually don't make it out okay - be it physically, psychologically or spiritually. We are injured in the fight, and it's worth that injury to still fight.

That's why it's hard. That's why it's heroic. That's why it's shadow work.

My Response to "Violence is not the Answer" in Protests, Pt 1

There are finite ways to make a protest effective, particularly in situations where one side has significantly more systemic power (read: white, able-bodied, male, cis-het, rich, Protestant, etc.). If you are going to protest against a powerful group, you have to make it painful to them.

Luther, being the first Protestant, specifically...
Lutheren

I have to point out that BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES IN POWER, most of what you can do to make it painful is illegal. This is not a coincidence. This is how systemic power works.

I also want to point out that the religious power group in the US is the Protestants, who got their name literally from the fact that they PROTESTED the Catholic Church's systemic power. Thus the circle is complete.

The truth about peaceful protest

IF the power group has a conscience, cares about its reputation, etc, you can attack them through shame. This was how Gandhi did it. But before you start nodding your head about how Gandhi had it right, let's go through the WHOLE process.

Gandhi: *smiles*
Churchill: Ah, bloody hell...

See, Gandhi counted on British shame, which is pretty reliable. His entire protest method was based on PR. The non-violence part was the most important, but not because of any aversion to violence. It was so, when you were beaten and probably killed, it couldn't look like you deserved it.

Let me repeat that, you laid there and let them KILL YOU so they couldn't argue accidental death in self-defense. Then, because Brits (love ya!) are very proper and mannered (in general), they would be ashamed of this.

I'm gonna just sit here a minute while you try to apply that same situation to neo-nazi broflakes. Take your time; I'll wait...

...

...

Active protests, outlined

Another way to protest and make it painful is to actually hurt someone. I don't usually recommend this, but...

I'm lying. I always recommend punching nazis. There are dozens of other ways to make it physically painful to the people in power: 

• Damage their business/financial holdings - This one is tricky. Vandalism and looting can hurt people other than the business owners. Mostly employees, customers, etc., and they are likely innocent. If destroying stuff isn't your thing, you could instead mark the business as a financial resource for a Very Bad Hater (VBH). Kinda like in Inglourious Basterds, when they carved a swastika on the foreheads of nazis who defected to save their own skins. Let their choices have consequences by helping people know their icky secrets.

  

  As the synagogue in Oberramstadt burns during
  Kristallnacht (the "Night of Broken Glass"),
  firefighters instead save a nearby house.

• Damage their ability to be gainfully employed - talk about turnabout. Most people can't fight the crap situations they are in because they are working on surviving in a world that doesn't prioritize hiring them over the power-holders. By making it difficult for the power-holders to get/keep a job, they are put into the same position. (See Charlottesville neo-nazis for how this works.) This is another way for there to be consequences to VBHs.

• Shame them for speaking their beliefs - again tricky. Some say that this is how we get the ideas festering in secret. But the problem is, if we let up on the shame, anyone who held these beliefs in secret slowly grows to believe that it is their right to ACT on the beliefs that they just whispered online before. This one works best in conjunction with other methods. It is also important for preventing or at least minimizing the spread of these beliefs and creating more VBHs. Many people become VBHs because they are looking for a solution and someone tells them about this thing instead of kicking their asses and telling the broflakes to grow up. Make it harder for people to find the whiny, buck-passing solutions for their problems.

• Physically hurt them, just not TOO badly - this is where punching nazis comes into play. Most people are gonna be just fine after being punched. It doesn't often lead to permanent physical injury. But, as physically abused wives everywhere know (yeah, I just went there), you stop talking if you get hit every time you open your mouth. Make them rethink espousing their VBH beliefs to impressionable young people (see reasoning above).

I'm going to continue this in another post... HERE.

Summary of a Workshop: The Intersection of Magic and Consent

 I gave a workshop (three actually) at the 2015 Heartland Pagan Festival. It was a great experience, and eye-opening in many ways. I formatted my workshops as discussions (yes, all of them), and each of them went in a different direction than I had predicted. But it was wonderful!

I am attempting here to summarize, with a bit of additional commentary, what the discussion ended up being for my workshop: The Intersection of Magic and Consent. Feel free to use the questions posed here for your journaling, or respond to specific questions in the comments below.


I'd like to start by being specific about the purpose of this workshop. I don't believe that the Pagan community has finished the discussion about consent in regards to magic and energy work. I'm not here to say whether some things are right or wrong. I'd much rather talk about the things that should be considered.

There are a few ways in which magic and energy can conflict with a person's consent. I'd like to open the discussion with a question: how many of you have had a situation where someone did a spell or energy work on you or for you, and that made you feel like there was some violation of your body or energy, or that your voice was ignored?

There is one type of energy work that I believe always requires consent. That is any type that requires an invasion of body space. If there is touching involved, does the intent of the magic trump the person's right to not be touched?

I don't think it does, simply because it isn't just an energy work at that point. We see a lot of people in the community who violate body space without asking simply because they are "healers". What ways have you seen this happen? How do you deal with this invasion of body?

Now I'd like to get really deep into this. I want you to think for a moment of a time when you may have done this to someone else. I want you to think about why you felt that it was okay, since I'm assuming you never intended to overstep.

What are your perceptions of this? How does this perspective change how you feel about people who might overstep boundaries with you? How does it change how you might approach them about this?

As a parent, I have (and still do) often use a variety of energy work on my children. I used calming energies on them as infants and toddlers, and I use healing energy on them when they are sick or injured. I do the same with my husband. I don't often specifically ask for their permission in doing this, it is just a part of other care-taking activities, such as holding/hugging, applying creams and medicines, etc.

How does this fall into the magic and consent ideology? Do you have a line about who these things can be done to? Or what types of energy you will use on people?

The most interesting thing about this topic is that it resists being a black&white issue. It is an ethical discussion with many shades and variations. The best way to explore this topic is to discuss the various beliefs and lines-in-the-sand, without being judgmental.

I will leave you with a final word: If someone specifically places a boundary for the use of magic or energy work on them, do not ignore their wishes. Refusing to allow someone energetic-body autonomy is a true violation of consent.

Warlock: To Be or Not To Be

“Some men who are Wiccans are reclaiming the name “Warlock” in the tradition of women reclaiming the name “Witch”. Warlock is commonly said to mean oath breaker. What do you think? Can it/should it be reclaimed?” - Pagan Blog Prompts

Cute, but evil... right?

 Wow, what a topic. I decided to weigh in on this mostly because of how solid my answer is, though it is usually mitigated by the "politics" of other people's beliefs.

To me, the answer is simple: use whatever you want to; just don't complain about it when you have to explain YOUR meaning to everyone and their dog.

There are many people, particularly Pagans/Wiccans, who have this firm idea that certain words mean just one thing. This, I understand, to a point. Using just the right word for the meaning you wish to convey is a practice I fully participate in.

Whatever you do, don't
call him a "wanker"...
seriously, do you SEE
the gun?!?

The issue I have is when this is taken to the point where words are not allowed to evolve. I speak English, a language that wouldn't exist without the evolution of words, by co-opting words from other languages, stringing multiple languages together (which is pretty much how English originated), or using words that mean one thing and using them to mean another (fat/phat, anyone?).

We use phrases and words in ways that, literally, make no sense. We get used to slang from one generation and invent new slang for the next one. Even someone from the early 1900s would have a difficult time understanding us today. The deviation of the English language in America vs. Britain is practically a one-liner joke... to both sides of the Atlantic.

I am woma-an, hear me roar!

We have "reclaimed" words throughout civil evolution, including the feminist sisters: "witch" and "bitch." Why shouldn't we reclaim warlock?

If words have power, their power is in the meaning and imagery that the word invokes. This is why words can cut you down or build you up. Why "\ˈī\ \ˈləv\ \ˈyü\" can heal all wounds, rather than being a string of less-then-random syllables. When we talk about "reclaiming" words, we are talking about CHANGING the meaning and imagery, the POWER, of those syllables that make the word in question.

"I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." Mother Teresa 

If words have power, wouldn't the most powerful thing we can do be to change the meaning, the power of words to something better?

The old meaning for "witch"...

The new meaning for "witch"...