Balestrem

The system doesn’t protect victims, it protects aggressors in the majority. It frames the foreign as a threat as a diversion tactic.

The question is: can the public realise this and demand change that is necessary or will the public accept the lies they have been fed and believe the propaganda that it is „immigrants, drag queens and trans people who are the threat to children and women“.

It is all connected: the rich and wealthy invested in child and sex trafficking, SA, think they need to pass on their genes, because they are somewhat superior to other men. When all they want is access to other people, without consent, they are inherently inhumane and immoral and think those virtues are deserving of being passed on. The idea that such an essence of a character is something to be „admired“ or to be prolonged should disgust people. It instilled the tale of continued abuse. It is woven perfectly into the tale of patriarchy because it rewards exactly this kind of behaviour.

My family and I have a weird relationship. It’s hot and cold, up and down, plagued by ignorance, emotionally absent or unavailable people, verbal fights and arguments.

For the first time they actually tried to do better, were quiet at heated situations but also not the same and this time it just felt off. It felt weird, unfamiliar. I know this is my brain sensing something is off, because I am not used to this atmosphere.

They would still talk over me, be dismissive of lots of my decisions, but they listened, when I called them out on it.

They asked me multiple times if I wanted to stay a bit longer, I felt their yearning for connection with me. I think they felt it, too... The growing distance, the rift between us. The silence, the miscommunication, my hurt, my pain. They regularly reassured if I felt okay, if I enjoyed my time with them.

But yet they had other plans with their friends, so they would not have been around, if I had stayed longer. Because I was not invited to the events of their friends. I would have sat home alone.

I cannot help myself, but feel guilty for leaving so early this year. Yet I need to remind myself, that this is for the better. It might feel unfamiliar, but it was ultimately the right decision. Or so I want to believe… anyways.

Maybe people can improve and become better to a certain extent. Maybe it’s not as improved as I would desire, but maybe it’s enough to establish or maintain a relationship in a more distant way, that makes me feel safer in the long run. This is just me rambling but I kind of need to get these feelings and thoughts off my chest. Like a diary.

Truth is no longer a measurable thing, it has become something construed that can be redefined by any individual, based on their individual perception. It is not entirely strange to watch this unfold, as the usage of AI makes it harder to distinguish between fact and fiction for many. Along with that we were raised to understand ourselves as individuals within western societies. It only seems logical, that people think they can redefine the truth. They hold the power to determine what is, because they could be whatever they want, they could achieve whatever they put their mind to. Manifestation of the mind.

It feeds a narrative that is actually originated in a form of dominance itself: the dominance of discourse. One belief is that truth can be altered through force, by enforcing a narrative that is not based in fact but in fiction. If you have enough devote followers it becomes a form of truth within that circle of people. Take holy scriptures in religions for example: people choose to let other people decide what is right and wrong, what is truth or fiction. They can give away a form of responsibility and live in blissful ignorance, because the presented reality becomes simplified by a chosen few who align with the status quo of fascism.

Judith Butler talks about „Grievability“ where the enemy is villainised and considered a mere corpse, not worthy to be mourned. It continues the fight against that group and it fuels in part the dehumanising aspects all sides tend to play into.

To situate myself: I am in no way above this. I don’t mourn the death of people who wronged me. It would be weird to mourn an abusive parent for example, simply because they hold the title „mother“ or „father“. A title does not make a life worthy to mourn and grieve for. At least not to me. It is the legacy you left behind.

The reason why people mourn lost lives at school shootings for example is, because children are perceived as innocent, pure, their life still ahead of them. They were stripped of that chance by a radicalised shooter. Despite the fact that children at the school are strangers, we mourn them, because of what they could have become.

With Charlie Kirk a lot of people found his legacy to be clearly harmful to specific groups. His „openness to dialogue“ encouraged a violent and disrespectful speech towards minorities. Through language we word the world around us and we legitimise the way others talk about others.

People ask for compassion towards an individual that only showed collective compassion to those he deemed worthy of it. Compassion is measured through actions and words we use and do. And the man has not shown unconditional compassion to everybody. That is evident and well documented, thanks to his own recordings.

People who do not wish to grasp these concepts are part of the problem. They think titles such as „father“ are enough of a reason to mourn someone. It is an authoritarian belief that a mere title gives you value. He participated in the prolonging of bloodlines and fathered offspring. That alone is enough to be mourned to some, rightfully so. Whether or not he treated people with respect and dignity collectively is not placed as a factor in the equation of whether or not a person should be mourned.

And to those who wish to diverge and showcase their lack of comprehension of the matter, claiming that anywhere in this post „it was justified to murder someone“: you‘re desperate to make something up, so you don’t have to sit with the fact that people might not like the legacy another person has left behind and therefore refuse to mourn. Refusing to mourn someone and celebrating or justifying their murder are two completely different things. You’d much rather point the finger and continue the cycle of casting people out, rather than understanding what makes people not mourn another person. People prefer perpetuating the ideology of you vs. me / us vs. them, because people believe there is only one way to go about life.

The reason for why this is tolerated is, because it is something that is obvious, relatable, it is usually a temporary cause of inconvenience and will most likely be solved. You will heal, go to court, the person will easily be arrested or go to jail. It’s a simple story of good and evil or a simple story of misfortune, that is easy to grasp.

If you talk about abuse, people claim the subject is heavy. It becomes too much to bear, too much to handle, too intense. Mechanisms on how to prevent the story from being told unfold. „That’s something you shouldn’t talk about in public!“ „There is probably another side to this story!“

The reasons for why those reactions come up are really interesting. For one, a person might lack the emotional intelligence and empathy to cope with a complex situation like that. They might have never experienced it, because they grew up in a happy home and cannot imagine that parents could abuse their children. Another reason could be that it triggers the listeners and it is a way to cope, by pushing the conversation away. They don’t wish to open Pandora‘s Box and prefer to live in blissful ignorance. Realising that your parents might have made a mistake, would mean you had a conflict that you need to address. A conflict you didn’t think you had.

Another reason could be that people don’t like to grasp concepts of power dynamics. Because abuse is just like exploitation and discrimination. It is linked to power dynamics. They are subtle, hard to recognise, inherently complex, disguised under good intentions, hidden behind alternate motives. Power dynamics give structure and protect the status quo. Men who commit sexual assault get to treat women as property, dominate others, feel empowered and prevent women from making their own choices. Women who hold up the dynamics by committing to the Queen Bee Syndrome, where they hate on other women, because younger women can only get jobs because of DEI, claim that success comes from hard work, ignoring factors like the glass ceiling or how unconscious biases lead to preferences of people who are similar to you, leading to promotions given to not the most competent but the boot lickers and those who are the most alike with the person in charge.

Recognising such patterns means to go inward. Recognising the oppressor within you. Because we all have these parts ingrained in us, as they are part of our world and our culture. Be it the abusive parent, the manipulative friend, the racist stereotypes thrusted upon us through media, the ableist mentality to think every building is accessible (although it’s more accessible to everybody) the indoctrination that queer people will go to hell and are evil or that women are worth less than men or that men are inherently evil and should therefore be collectively mocked.

Abuse, manipulation and power is held up through the masses who commit and decide that such values need to be upheld. Recognising these patterns of oppression means for people to shift their gaze, to live consciously, aware. They have to be „woke“ so that they can recognise what is happening, call it out, and provide support and assistance - if possible. A lot of people prefer to not live with such an awareness. People prefer to keep things lighthearted, easy going. They claim „live, love, laugh“, put a bible quote in their bio but don’t realise the hypocrisy of their quote and their holy scripture, they are being part of an oppressive system that puts them down as well and prefer the familiarity of that community. It takes courage to stand up against values that you were taught to be right. It takes courage to speak up, it takes courage to speak truth to power.

We see repercussions, how protestors are being carried away who protest against war in different areas. We see how truth is warped and twisted. We can ignore it and keep living in the ignorance, hoping that oppression will not creep up on us, or we can act up against power and don’t wait until more people have been hurt. Don’t wait until there is almost nobody left to stand with you, act up now, that masses are rallied up with you, so you can defy the people who prefer to remain in power and don’t have your best interest at heart.

I recently had this debate with a group of friends, where I pointed out how women often times commit to care work and do unpaid labour, because they are sort of seen in these care taking roles and men don't see themselves as responsible for care work. I stumbled upon what I felt to be a great difference between straight and queer people, that is a feeling of belonging or community. I think there is a huge divide in building community, which is something that queer people do, but straight people don't do so much.

I have the impression that heterosexual people often don't have a feeling of real, authentic community and no good network of friends. Because when i go into my queer spaces I would feel confident enough to claim that I have 15 really good friends who I would trust with everything. When I meet straight people they usually have a far smaller circle of close friends, they replace them more often and their friendships are often very superficial, from what I get told and get to see, whenever I am around. They always feel a bit more guarded.

So I wondered if this feeling of community is something that queer people or other marginalised groups of people do and pay more attention to (for example: I know that in the US communities of POCs might often feel more connected with each other). I feel like straight people are not really investing into building a community and are more focused on building a family of "mother, father, child(ren)" and become sort of closed off, instead of integrated into a bigger picture of what our society is.

Building community consists of creating a home, where everybody feels welcomed, where people are included, where empathy is a major component. Whenever I am with my parents or with straight friends, I find myself in situations that follow a strict set of rules, like "we are going to talk, then there will be food, then we will talk some more, followed by some tea or coffee and then you shall leave". It does not feel inviting to be with those people, it feels generic and superficial at times and my aunt who is straight but has a huge community built around her, always points out, how everything has a plan and how she never feels welcome at other people's places, but everybody keeps telling her, how her home feels so nice to be at. I think a lot of straight people have forgotten how to build a community and what the actual benefits of a community are and how they can help raise children for example, making children not a job of the individual family, but more so a job for everybody in the community - because after all: it takes a village to raise a child.

Our current world becomes more focused on the individual, right? Capitalism sort of enforces the idea we are all individuals who are also responsible for our suffering and we have to make sure we are feeling good and optimise ourselves blah blah blah.

When I was small I never really fit in with boys. I am queer as hell and fitting in… it never worked out. I always stood out. Other guys would literally always try to impress the leader of their group (aka today’s “aLphA maLe” with serious issues). And now as a grown up I feel well situated, because I can be myself (more or less: not too queer in certain public places or I’ll be in danger). While a lot of men still try to impress and follow their high school bully idols (Andrew Tate for example) and try to be less of an individual and be more of a blended mass that all looks the same. I mean look at the photos of “nights out with the boys” where they are all dressed the same. No one really dares to stand out and if they do they are singled out for it. I know that because it is what happened to me and I could observe such behaviours directed towards others. Most men built relationships based on such conformity. And sure those cliques also exist in women’s spaces, but from my experience they are less common with women than with men.

Usually women are allowed to more individual freedom. I know cliques where some go on a vacation on a boat, others prefer to go hiking, some do yoga, while others like riding horses and others prefer to ride a bike or some just like to stay at home and watch TV. They don’t all wear the same outfits either. But then… women’s fashion has also been more colorful and variable.

I think that might also be a reason for why straight men struggle with today’s society. Because now that a lot of people got the memo to be themselves, a lot of men don’t seem to grasp the concept of that and don’t know how to be not part of a “pack”. They don’t understand how to function without that group setting and its dynamic. I mean if they don’t have a group to compare people to, they will be overwhelmed. Their groups give them structure and orientation on what is right in the world.