“Overreaction is reasonable in the face of plausible tyranny”
There has never been an action that has not remained
Its seeds are the color in which the tapestry of the very universe is painted
Do not let them tell you that which you are and do fall into the void
For this is the serpent’s trick, to annihilate you, forever and always
Though such a thing cannot be done, it can be believed
Believe it not Dearest, for when we glance into the limitless night, and the stars shine like a silver sheet-there art thou, and so it is with all things, and so accept such Truth and walk forth brazenly
In remembrance of what must be done
There has never been an action that has not remained
Its seeds are the color in which the tapestry of the very universe is painted
Do not let them tell you that which you are and do fall into the void
For this is the serpent’s trick, to annihilate you, forever and always
Though such a thing cannot be done, it can be believed
Believe it not Dearest, for when we glance into the limitless night, and the stars shine like a silver sheet-there art thou, and so it is with all things, and so accept such Truth and walk forth brazenly
In remembrance of what must be done
In every life there comes a point in which we must face the existential question. What this means, to most, is “what does it mean to exist?”, “what does it mean to exist as me?” or something like this. That this happens individually, whether in some great, cataclysmic way, or quietly though no less deep, is irrelevant. That one takes upon themselves some mantle of self-determination is not the necessary outcome, to be sure, one can also acquiesce (though this requires their perpetual self-determination to deny it) to norms and this is probably the more true, if in regards to the most common.
Societies have to do this as well. Though, again, this affirmation of norms must be a constant by individuals, and enough individuals to give the imagery of a mass rather than a collection of affirmations of individuals. The reason it must be constant is the underlying Truth that all things are perpetually dynamic and the imagery of permanence is false both in the literal observations, let us say a Mountain, and in the social observations of ‘norms’. What overlay this dynamism is the social contract. It has to have the acquiescence, in the sense of a populace who believes in the Norms, or forced collusion (socially, economically, justice, and pure naked violence) in a populace that could resist, these can also go hand in hand with there being various constituents to every society.
There comes a time in the age of a Society where it must confront this existential question overtly. We are in one of those times. The power of dominance wishes, in one degree, to keep us asleep and those are the cries of, “You are overreacting,” “Women already have rights protected.”, “You’re just mad because…” These may come from our friends, or people we know, but if we examine their own lives there is typically a strong vested interested in keeping norms as they are. That these norms are not always interests in the sense that they will be ‘benefitted’ in a material way is true. The benefit, of, let's say, white women who voted for Mr. Trump (53% in fact) is that, in part, they do not have to align with what dominant society has deemed as ‘bad’ to put it simply; the people of color, the gays, the poor (even though they may be poor-the deep shame that this society puts on poverty is a crippling thing). They do not have to examine their own privilege and marginalization, and by denying their own marginalization, though it occurs blatantly, they can ignore their own privilege and subsequent responsibility. For that is what the Existential Question demands, really, is to understand “From which I come From” and then, “To what am I responsible”. If the answer is that “I come from that which is imputed/given” then the answer the the second is, “I am responsible in re-affirming the dominant norm”. If you suffer from marginalization then you have to be able to couch these imputed, dominant systems as a ‘permanent’ structure and that endurance becomes a badge of honor (this is different, but similar, to the apathy of despair practiced by marginalized communities spoken of in the post The Activists Checklist), but is worn in the remembrance of enduring a dominant system by your own choice, not the badge worn for the resilience born in confrontation with the systems of annihilation.
Societies have to do this as well. Though, again, this affirmation of norms must be a constant by individuals, and enough individuals to give the imagery of a mass rather than a collection of affirmations of individuals. The reason it must be constant is the underlying Truth that all things are perpetually dynamic and the imagery of permanence is false both in the literal observations, let us say a Mountain, and in the social observations of ‘norms’. What overlay this dynamism is the social contract. It has to have the acquiescence, in the sense of a populace who believes in the Norms, or forced collusion (socially, economically, justice, and pure naked violence) in a populace that could resist, these can also go hand in hand with there being various constituents to every society.
There comes a time in the age of a Society where it must confront this existential question overtly. We are in one of those times. The power of dominance wishes, in one degree, to keep us asleep and those are the cries of, “You are overreacting,” “Women already have rights protected.”, “You’re just mad because…” These may come from our friends, or people we know, but if we examine their own lives there is typically a strong vested interested in keeping norms as they are. That these norms are not always interests in the sense that they will be ‘benefitted’ in a material way is true. The benefit, of, let's say, white women who voted for Mr. Trump (53% in fact) is that, in part, they do not have to align with what dominant society has deemed as ‘bad’ to put it simply; the people of color, the gays, the poor (even though they may be poor-the deep shame that this society puts on poverty is a crippling thing). They do not have to examine their own privilege and marginalization, and by denying their own marginalization, though it occurs blatantly, they can ignore their own privilege and subsequent responsibility. For that is what the Existential Question demands, really, is to understand “From which I come From” and then, “To what am I responsible”. If the answer is that “I come from that which is imputed/given” then the answer the the second is, “I am responsible in re-affirming the dominant norm”. If you suffer from marginalization then you have to be able to couch these imputed, dominant systems as a ‘permanent’ structure and that endurance becomes a badge of honor (this is different, but similar, to the apathy of despair practiced by marginalized communities spoken of in the post The Activists Checklist), but is worn in the remembrance of enduring a dominant system by your own choice, not the badge worn for the resilience born in confrontation with the systems of annihilation.
In the face of the overt systems of annihilation, those that would destroy that which is humane, the basis for that which we measure our humanity, be they commandments to love our neighbor, or realizations of the ineffable nature of Self and Other that then arises the responsibility for opposing that which opposes this realization of ineffability, there can be no overreaction. The overt nature of oppression, be it slavery or genocide, be it the beginnings to the direction of these things, be they decisions where our human mind can determine plausible destinations that rhyme with these atrocities, we must absolutely push to the furthest measure of our abilities. For, we must know, Tyranny does not sleep, and when it moves from its subversive, covert, dog-whistle methods into the hissing hydra, it is no time to forget or to rest, for it will not.
