During 2020, Gareth wrote a series of articles for Politics Over Coffee's Patreon subscribers. Here are those articles.
The War Inside His Head
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 10.06.2020
Towards the end of last year, I was sitting with a group of people talking about politics, as was often the case with this group of people. One person taking part was someone who holds many right-wing nationalistic beliefs. A person who believes that Milo Yiannopoulos makes a lot of sense and Andrew Bolt is a brilliant writer. At one point during this conversation, he stated – with compete sincerity – that he believed white men were the most persecuted group in the world today. I have known this person for a while now and his comments didn’t surprise me, anyone who listens to him for long enough will pick up the white-supremacist lingo that litters his political talk. The “white man is the true victim” narrative is a central theme of the far-right. To be sure, he isn’t the type of white-supremacist that would be seen goose stepping in a march, nor would he carry a tiki torch, but he will talk about such things as his love of western civilisation. This is race-coded language for, “I prefer a white world”, and whilst I am sure that he would probably never throw an actual Nazi salute, in his mind’s eye, I am positive the Sieg Heils are plentiful. What struck me about his comment wasn’t so much that it was widely inaccurate, especially within the context of a country like Australia, but it displayed a misunderstanding of the privileged societal position he was granted access to simply for the colour of his skin.
Since European settlement, Australia has strived to be a white, heterosexual, male-centric and Christian nation. This has not only been the dominant social narrative - one which helps shape the nationalistic understanding of what it is to be an “Aussie” – but the driving force behind the actions of multiple governments, authorities and citizens. For example: during Australia’s early history, successive Australian governments sanctioned the genocide of the indigenous population, authorities implemented the strategies designed to achieve this goal, which was a goal widely supported by good Christian Australian citizens.
For one group to become dominant, others have to be subjugated. If a country is to be made white, then skin tones other than white have to be oppressed, vilified and turned into the barbarian at the gate so they are rejected at every level. For example: many would have us believe that Muslims are here to install Sharia Law across Australia, even though Muslims have been here since the Gold Rush and make up roughly 3% of the current population. I guess they are just biding their time, waiting in the shadows to make their move. Uh-huh. This type of narrative has played out for centuries and has been directed at multiple groups. Just to drive the point home: once upon a time the Irish, a group that is generally whiter than the whitest of white bread – was vilified for being the wrong type of white. From this point alone, we can see how racism is used to benefit one group who want to gain and maintain power, to the detriment of all others.
Over time, the privilege that goes along with being a member of the dominant group becomes normalised. Because it is pervasive, it soon becomes seen as the natural order of things, even though it is a wholly manufactured hierarchy. For many who fall within the privileged category, a sense of entitlement can develop, one that can be felt at either a conscious or unconscious level. For many, this form of dominance and power becomes intertwined with their sense of self. This can be seen in people who are deeply nationalistic. What it means to be Australian, as dictated by the dominant social narrative, also becomes an intrinsic part of who they are. Their identity and ego is tied up in the concept of what it is to be, in this case, Australian. This immediately highlights one glaring flaw: people have placed a crucial part of their identity – the part that makes them feel like they belong – in an external idea that they have no control over.
Social narratives change. What it was like to be an Australian in 1950 is very different to what it means in 2020. If a core part of my identity is connected to an era of Australia that promotes whiteness, Christianity, “traditional marriage” and heterosexuality, then I am going to find Australia in the 21st Century incredibly threatening. Not only is the nation under threat, but so is my identity. The search for the self is the search for an understanding of identity that is persistent through time. Of course, we grow and change throughout our life, but our identity – who we are – once found, persists. For those who place their sense of self in something that is completely external to them like nationalism, there is a constant clash between who they are and what is continuously changing around them.
This is one of the core reasons why many move towards rigid ideologies. A changing world is seen as a threat to their nation and themselves. Instead of looking within to understand that fear and sense of dislocation, they hold on tighter to what was and look at what is as a direct threat. For example: many men find comfort in the hierarchal system of patriarchy. When patriarchy is challenged, instead of engaging with the idea that subordinating women is wrong, they attack feminism as a form of social cancer, that feminists are simply angry dykes out to destroy men and all they really need is a good fucking. Power will do whatever it takes to protect itself, whether that is through a government apparatus such as the police (many women were arrested during the suffrage movement) or through those wishing to protect their own personal sense of power and self.
Those who cannot accept the changes begin to feel like they are the ones under attack. This develops a persecution complex and highlights the dramatic difference between perception and reality. To put it simply, white men are not being persecuted, especially not within Australia. The theory of white persecution can be easily debunked by the experiences of those, like myself and many others, who are not exposed to the daily persecution of white men that is apparently well underway. If white men were under attack, if we were legitimately the most persecuted group on the planet, then it would not matter if I believed that it was happening or not – it would still happen. My desire to dismiss an oppressive reality does not stop that reality being imposed on me, should it be real. The reason I am not being persecuted is because I am not part of a group that is being persecuted. For many, giving up privilege can indeed feel like persecution, but in reality it just a levelling of the playing field. The world is naturally pluralist and diverse. It is unnatural to have one group sit dominant over all others. It is also unrealistic to believe that oppressed groups will stay that way forever.
This sense of persecution – which is in effect, playing the victim – leads many to minimise the legitimate experiences of others and (without a hint of irony) begin to victim blame. This is a common tactic used by those who wish to deny the legitimacy of another’s suffering because of an incorrect perception that it reduces their own standing in society. To critique a system that they rely on for a sense of security, self-esteem and position would be to directly critique themselves. But to deny another’s experience because of incorrect assumption, misses the point of the oft-quoted phrase, “a rising tide lifts all boats”. It also lacks empathy, which is often incorrectly labelled as weakness. Of course, when a crime is committed by someone who ideologically aligns with this person, a myriad of excuses are made to minimise the impact of what has occurred. For example: Fraser Anning victim blaming Muslims for being massacred by a white right-wing terrorist.
Understanding the privilege that Australia society affords me, without having to do anything other than being a white male, is an essential component of understanding and confronting Australia’s racist past and our contemporary racial divides. We can all participate in the conversation about race, but we have to understand our place within that conversation. Does my voice hold as much weight as the voice of an indigenous Australian? No. Does that mean I should be excluded from the conversation? No. Does that mean I have to feel guilty about being white? No. My opinion is not lessened by my understanding of where I am positioned within a larger conversation. My opinion is lessened, by my own actions, when I assume that because I do not hold the power within that conversation, then I must be the one being persecuted. That in and of itself, offers us a window into the way society is structured; if I don’t have hold the power, then I must be oppressed, because that is what people in a position of power do.
Towards the end of last year, when I was sitting with a group talking about politics, I did not attempt to change the mind of my Andrew Bolt loving acquaintance. I sat there and tried to understand him. I tried to work out why he believed the incorrect things he does. What I found was someone who was, at their core, scared. I found someone who was holding onto a lot of unresolved anger. I found someone who did not know who they genuinely were. I found someone who had found a sense of belonging and power within the ideas of white-supremacy. I found someone who was so fragile that when that sense of power and belonging was threatened by change, instead of looking within, he perceived a world that was actively moving against him and his fellow white men. To him, a war against those who looked like him had begun. To me, it was clear the war was not being raged anywhere except inside his own head.
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 10.06.2020
Towards the end of last year, I was sitting with a group of people talking about politics, as was often the case with this group of people. One person taking part was someone who holds many right-wing nationalistic beliefs. A person who believes that Milo Yiannopoulos makes a lot of sense and Andrew Bolt is a brilliant writer. At one point during this conversation, he stated – with compete sincerity – that he believed white men were the most persecuted group in the world today. I have known this person for a while now and his comments didn’t surprise me, anyone who listens to him for long enough will pick up the white-supremacist lingo that litters his political talk. The “white man is the true victim” narrative is a central theme of the far-right. To be sure, he isn’t the type of white-supremacist that would be seen goose stepping in a march, nor would he carry a tiki torch, but he will talk about such things as his love of western civilisation. This is race-coded language for, “I prefer a white world”, and whilst I am sure that he would probably never throw an actual Nazi salute, in his mind’s eye, I am positive the Sieg Heils are plentiful. What struck me about his comment wasn’t so much that it was widely inaccurate, especially within the context of a country like Australia, but it displayed a misunderstanding of the privileged societal position he was granted access to simply for the colour of his skin.
Since European settlement, Australia has strived to be a white, heterosexual, male-centric and Christian nation. This has not only been the dominant social narrative - one which helps shape the nationalistic understanding of what it is to be an “Aussie” – but the driving force behind the actions of multiple governments, authorities and citizens. For example: during Australia’s early history, successive Australian governments sanctioned the genocide of the indigenous population, authorities implemented the strategies designed to achieve this goal, which was a goal widely supported by good Christian Australian citizens.
For one group to become dominant, others have to be subjugated. If a country is to be made white, then skin tones other than white have to be oppressed, vilified and turned into the barbarian at the gate so they are rejected at every level. For example: many would have us believe that Muslims are here to install Sharia Law across Australia, even though Muslims have been here since the Gold Rush and make up roughly 3% of the current population. I guess they are just biding their time, waiting in the shadows to make their move. Uh-huh. This type of narrative has played out for centuries and has been directed at multiple groups. Just to drive the point home: once upon a time the Irish, a group that is generally whiter than the whitest of white bread – was vilified for being the wrong type of white. From this point alone, we can see how racism is used to benefit one group who want to gain and maintain power, to the detriment of all others.
Over time, the privilege that goes along with being a member of the dominant group becomes normalised. Because it is pervasive, it soon becomes seen as the natural order of things, even though it is a wholly manufactured hierarchy. For many who fall within the privileged category, a sense of entitlement can develop, one that can be felt at either a conscious or unconscious level. For many, this form of dominance and power becomes intertwined with their sense of self. This can be seen in people who are deeply nationalistic. What it means to be Australian, as dictated by the dominant social narrative, also becomes an intrinsic part of who they are. Their identity and ego is tied up in the concept of what it is to be, in this case, Australian. This immediately highlights one glaring flaw: people have placed a crucial part of their identity – the part that makes them feel like they belong – in an external idea that they have no control over.
Social narratives change. What it was like to be an Australian in 1950 is very different to what it means in 2020. If a core part of my identity is connected to an era of Australia that promotes whiteness, Christianity, “traditional marriage” and heterosexuality, then I am going to find Australia in the 21st Century incredibly threatening. Not only is the nation under threat, but so is my identity. The search for the self is the search for an understanding of identity that is persistent through time. Of course, we grow and change throughout our life, but our identity – who we are – once found, persists. For those who place their sense of self in something that is completely external to them like nationalism, there is a constant clash between who they are and what is continuously changing around them.
This is one of the core reasons why many move towards rigid ideologies. A changing world is seen as a threat to their nation and themselves. Instead of looking within to understand that fear and sense of dislocation, they hold on tighter to what was and look at what is as a direct threat. For example: many men find comfort in the hierarchal system of patriarchy. When patriarchy is challenged, instead of engaging with the idea that subordinating women is wrong, they attack feminism as a form of social cancer, that feminists are simply angry dykes out to destroy men and all they really need is a good fucking. Power will do whatever it takes to protect itself, whether that is through a government apparatus such as the police (many women were arrested during the suffrage movement) or through those wishing to protect their own personal sense of power and self.
Those who cannot accept the changes begin to feel like they are the ones under attack. This develops a persecution complex and highlights the dramatic difference between perception and reality. To put it simply, white men are not being persecuted, especially not within Australia. The theory of white persecution can be easily debunked by the experiences of those, like myself and many others, who are not exposed to the daily persecution of white men that is apparently well underway. If white men were under attack, if we were legitimately the most persecuted group on the planet, then it would not matter if I believed that it was happening or not – it would still happen. My desire to dismiss an oppressive reality does not stop that reality being imposed on me, should it be real. The reason I am not being persecuted is because I am not part of a group that is being persecuted. For many, giving up privilege can indeed feel like persecution, but in reality it just a levelling of the playing field. The world is naturally pluralist and diverse. It is unnatural to have one group sit dominant over all others. It is also unrealistic to believe that oppressed groups will stay that way forever.
This sense of persecution – which is in effect, playing the victim – leads many to minimise the legitimate experiences of others and (without a hint of irony) begin to victim blame. This is a common tactic used by those who wish to deny the legitimacy of another’s suffering because of an incorrect perception that it reduces their own standing in society. To critique a system that they rely on for a sense of security, self-esteem and position would be to directly critique themselves. But to deny another’s experience because of incorrect assumption, misses the point of the oft-quoted phrase, “a rising tide lifts all boats”. It also lacks empathy, which is often incorrectly labelled as weakness. Of course, when a crime is committed by someone who ideologically aligns with this person, a myriad of excuses are made to minimise the impact of what has occurred. For example: Fraser Anning victim blaming Muslims for being massacred by a white right-wing terrorist.
Understanding the privilege that Australia society affords me, without having to do anything other than being a white male, is an essential component of understanding and confronting Australia’s racist past and our contemporary racial divides. We can all participate in the conversation about race, but we have to understand our place within that conversation. Does my voice hold as much weight as the voice of an indigenous Australian? No. Does that mean I should be excluded from the conversation? No. Does that mean I have to feel guilty about being white? No. My opinion is not lessened by my understanding of where I am positioned within a larger conversation. My opinion is lessened, by my own actions, when I assume that because I do not hold the power within that conversation, then I must be the one being persecuted. That in and of itself, offers us a window into the way society is structured; if I don’t have hold the power, then I must be oppressed, because that is what people in a position of power do.
Towards the end of last year, when I was sitting with a group talking about politics, I did not attempt to change the mind of my Andrew Bolt loving acquaintance. I sat there and tried to understand him. I tried to work out why he believed the incorrect things he does. What I found was someone who was, at their core, scared. I found someone who was holding onto a lot of unresolved anger. I found someone who did not know who they genuinely were. I found someone who had found a sense of belonging and power within the ideas of white-supremacy. I found someone who was so fragile that when that sense of power and belonging was threatened by change, instead of looking within, he perceived a world that was actively moving against him and his fellow white men. To him, a war against those who looked like him had begun. To me, it was clear the war was not being raged anywhere except inside his own head.
Some Small Steps To Fight A Big Problem
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 29.04.2020
There comes a time in every man’s life where he has to admit defeat and say, okay – I’m going to write something that is related to Covid-19. However, since Olly and I talk about the impact of the virus at great length on the podcast, I thought it would be a good idea to tackle this from another angle. One of the most emotionally crippling elements of an event like this, is the overwhelming sense of dread that the event is too large to overcome. This anxiety is increased when you take into consideration the far reaching questions Covid-19 raises about animal agriculture and our capitalistic system in general.
Capitalism and animal agriculture are topics that can, and often do, fill multiple books that end up being numbered sequentially, which are then bundled into volumes. So, the point of this article is not to directly engage with these complex issues, but to suggest two things that I believe can help create change, both within yourself and the world.
The writing below is by no means meant to be an exhaustive look into these two areas, but act as a primer of sorts. If they do strike a chord, I strongly recommend taking the time to do some thorough research.
MINIMALISM
Minimalism is a way of interacting with the “world of things” that can be incredibly rewarding. It is also a lot harder to embrace than one would suspect. I started thinking about moving towards a minimalist lifestyle when I stumbled across a documentary on Netflix called, ‘Minimalism: A Documentary About The Small Things’. It grabbed my attention immediately and about six months ago, I decided that I would genuinely start moving towards minimalism. I decided that I would not take it to the extent of calling myself an actual minimalist, but at the very least, I was willing to wholeheartedly embracing its ethos and practices.
At its core, minimalism is about reducing physical and non-physical clutter. This can be as simple as removing an overwhelming amount of social media apps from your smart phone, getting rid of some old clothing or be as involved as sitting down, mapping every cent that comes in and goes out with the goal of eliminating wasted expenses. Minimalism is the process of understanding what you can and cannot live without.
In this regard, I have found the process to be far more emotionally complex than I had anticipated. For example, I have a Super Nintendo that I have owned since I was nineteen years old. I know that I have had it since I was nineteen because my girlfriend at the time bought it for me on my birthday that year. I have both good and bad memories of that relationship, a relationship that was an important part of my life, but I do not hold an eternal flame for my ex. Yet, there it sits all these years later, unplayed and gathering dust. I know one day I will probably donate it to my Op Shop, but not yet. Such are the complexities of our emotions.
The overall benefit of minimalism is twofold. On a personal level, the process of decluttering brings a sense of emotional clarity. Some people have described a sense of lightness filling them up as they remove items that have persisted in their life yet remained unused. I can attest to this. Even if you do not commit fully to minimalism, simply asking yourself the question, ‘do I need this?’ can be incredibly powerful. Next time you are in a store and find yourself impulse buying an item – or any item for that matter - pause for a moment and ask yourself whether or not these items are truly needed. Marketing tries very hard to disengage our rational mind, taking a few seconds to question a purchase can sometimes be all that is needed to short circuit those efforts.
Secondly, continuing to purchase items for the sake of having the latest (insert item of choice here) creates a glut that will often find its way into landfill. The pollution that is caused by the creation and transportation of these items is immense. Very often, cheaper items found in chain stores like K-Mart are created in factories that mistreat their workers. If you purchase a brand new pair of shoes for $5, or a new kettle for $7 – speaking bluntly, someone in Bangladesh is being fucked over. What I have decided to do is purchase my items (clothing, furniture etc.) through Op Shops. I am lucky in that I actually manage an Op Shop, but even if I didn’t – buying second hand helps fund programs that assist the disadvantaged as well as being a great way to get your (good quality) second-hand items to others and away from landfill.
The encouraging thing about my move towards minimalism is that even if the Super Nintendo stays, I have removed enough items from my life, and donated enough (good quality) items to my Op Shop that overall, I have still reduced my physical possessions considerably. And that is a very important point to remember; do not let perfect be the enemy of good. If an item means something profound to you, keep it. There will be plenty of other items to give away.
VEGANISM
Anyone who has listened to the podcast for any length of time will know I am an advocate for animal-rights. I have been vegan for over two years, having been vegetarian for 13 or so years before that. Whilst I initially went vegan for the animals, I have found that this choice has also had a positive impact on the environment, my finances and of course, helped lessen the suffering of animals.
There are a multitude of reasons to go vegan, but I will touch on the three that I feel are most relevant to our current times.
1: Animals are sentient beings. They feel fear and love, have complex social interactions, form bonds and all of them have a strong desire for life. The way that animals express these very relatable qualities may be different to how we express them, but it is important to realise that different does not mean inferior. Animals are deserving of equal consideration when it comes to living a life that is free of fear and harm. To birth, raise, enslave and kill billions of animals within a system that denies their autonomy and reduces them to objects for purchase and profit, is morally indefensible.
The majority of developed nations have a population that is affluent enough to afford a vegan diet. In fact, if you cut out meat, fish and so on, and move to a whole food styled diet, the overall cost of your food bill will drop in a meaningful way. The belief that a vegan diet is expensive is driven by the expense of meat alternatives. Faux-meat burgers and sausages are delicious, and they are a better option than consuming the flesh of an animal that didn’t want to die, but like quality cuts of actual meat, they are quite expensive.
To reduce those costs, simply move to a whole foods vegan diet that does not include meat alternatives, or only have those delicious burgers or sausages every now and then. If you can purchase the majority of your food from a farmers market, then that is even better. I have found that the prices at a farmers market is generally equal to a supermarket chain like Coles and Woolworths, but you are directly supporting local businesses and the quality of food is better overall. From my experience I would rank the quality of fruit and vegetables as follows, 3: supermarket, 2: farmers markets and 1: home grown.
2: Diet. The basic question is; can you live a full and healthy life without eating animal products? The answer is, yes. This is my life and I only have one. If a vegan diet was harmful, I simply wouldn’t follow it. Vegans get their daily nutritional requirements– yes, even protein – from a huge range of foods. If you are worried about your B12 levels, then take a supplement. The topic of B12 supplements often leads to the question, if a vegan diet is so good, why do you need to take a supplement? Again, we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. No diet is perfect. A junk food vegan is still going to have high cholesterol just like anyone else. Supplements are not the devil they are sometimes made out to be. For example: plenty of athletes who eat meat also take supplements. Many people who eat animal products take supplements every day.
3: The demand for animal products is quite literally killing the planet. Animal agriculture accounts for 15% of the total carbon emissions that are driving climate change. Also, Covid-19 would not have been possible without the unhygienic conditions at the Wuhan wet market. Combine these conditions with the multitude of animals that were keep in close proximity to each other and humans, the ideal setting for a novel coronavirus was set.
There is no Covid-19 in a vegan world*.
Why? Because there is no consistent interference with the animal world like there is when it comes to small and large scale animal agriculture. These types of viruses only become a reality when humans either venture into an animals environment or bring that animal into ours. This is what happened with bats when they were brought into the wet market in China. In this particular case, the virus that originated in bats, mutated and jumped to another animal (experts suspect Pangolins) before mutating again and infecting humans. The evolution of this coronavirus would not have been possible if it was not for the unsanitary and cramped conditions of the market. Remove the demand for animals and you remove the conditions that made Covid-19 possible.
The larger problem is, these types of conditions are not limited to wet markets around the world. They exist in our very own backyard in the form of battery cage farms, dairy farms and slaughter houses. On top of that, many of the animals that are raised locally are then exported overseas, often in horrific conditions, and find their way into slaughter houses that are breeding grounds for further viruses. Animal agriculture is a global business and so, the problems that come with it are global.
As I mentioned at the start, in no way should this article be considered an exhaustive look into minimalism and veganism. The goal was to show how changes to our daily habits can have a lasting and positive impact on ourselves and the world. If nothing else, I hope you are now intrigued enough to look into veganism and minimalism, if you are not already. All up, I have found both to be very rewarding.
* This is not to suggest that viruses would cease to exist if everyone should turn vegan.
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 29.04.2020
There comes a time in every man’s life where he has to admit defeat and say, okay – I’m going to write something that is related to Covid-19. However, since Olly and I talk about the impact of the virus at great length on the podcast, I thought it would be a good idea to tackle this from another angle. One of the most emotionally crippling elements of an event like this, is the overwhelming sense of dread that the event is too large to overcome. This anxiety is increased when you take into consideration the far reaching questions Covid-19 raises about animal agriculture and our capitalistic system in general.
Capitalism and animal agriculture are topics that can, and often do, fill multiple books that end up being numbered sequentially, which are then bundled into volumes. So, the point of this article is not to directly engage with these complex issues, but to suggest two things that I believe can help create change, both within yourself and the world.
The writing below is by no means meant to be an exhaustive look into these two areas, but act as a primer of sorts. If they do strike a chord, I strongly recommend taking the time to do some thorough research.
MINIMALISM
Minimalism is a way of interacting with the “world of things” that can be incredibly rewarding. It is also a lot harder to embrace than one would suspect. I started thinking about moving towards a minimalist lifestyle when I stumbled across a documentary on Netflix called, ‘Minimalism: A Documentary About The Small Things’. It grabbed my attention immediately and about six months ago, I decided that I would genuinely start moving towards minimalism. I decided that I would not take it to the extent of calling myself an actual minimalist, but at the very least, I was willing to wholeheartedly embracing its ethos and practices.
At its core, minimalism is about reducing physical and non-physical clutter. This can be as simple as removing an overwhelming amount of social media apps from your smart phone, getting rid of some old clothing or be as involved as sitting down, mapping every cent that comes in and goes out with the goal of eliminating wasted expenses. Minimalism is the process of understanding what you can and cannot live without.
In this regard, I have found the process to be far more emotionally complex than I had anticipated. For example, I have a Super Nintendo that I have owned since I was nineteen years old. I know that I have had it since I was nineteen because my girlfriend at the time bought it for me on my birthday that year. I have both good and bad memories of that relationship, a relationship that was an important part of my life, but I do not hold an eternal flame for my ex. Yet, there it sits all these years later, unplayed and gathering dust. I know one day I will probably donate it to my Op Shop, but not yet. Such are the complexities of our emotions.
The overall benefit of minimalism is twofold. On a personal level, the process of decluttering brings a sense of emotional clarity. Some people have described a sense of lightness filling them up as they remove items that have persisted in their life yet remained unused. I can attest to this. Even if you do not commit fully to minimalism, simply asking yourself the question, ‘do I need this?’ can be incredibly powerful. Next time you are in a store and find yourself impulse buying an item – or any item for that matter - pause for a moment and ask yourself whether or not these items are truly needed. Marketing tries very hard to disengage our rational mind, taking a few seconds to question a purchase can sometimes be all that is needed to short circuit those efforts.
Secondly, continuing to purchase items for the sake of having the latest (insert item of choice here) creates a glut that will often find its way into landfill. The pollution that is caused by the creation and transportation of these items is immense. Very often, cheaper items found in chain stores like K-Mart are created in factories that mistreat their workers. If you purchase a brand new pair of shoes for $5, or a new kettle for $7 – speaking bluntly, someone in Bangladesh is being fucked over. What I have decided to do is purchase my items (clothing, furniture etc.) through Op Shops. I am lucky in that I actually manage an Op Shop, but even if I didn’t – buying second hand helps fund programs that assist the disadvantaged as well as being a great way to get your (good quality) second-hand items to others and away from landfill.
The encouraging thing about my move towards minimalism is that even if the Super Nintendo stays, I have removed enough items from my life, and donated enough (good quality) items to my Op Shop that overall, I have still reduced my physical possessions considerably. And that is a very important point to remember; do not let perfect be the enemy of good. If an item means something profound to you, keep it. There will be plenty of other items to give away.
VEGANISM
Anyone who has listened to the podcast for any length of time will know I am an advocate for animal-rights. I have been vegan for over two years, having been vegetarian for 13 or so years before that. Whilst I initially went vegan for the animals, I have found that this choice has also had a positive impact on the environment, my finances and of course, helped lessen the suffering of animals.
There are a multitude of reasons to go vegan, but I will touch on the three that I feel are most relevant to our current times.
1: Animals are sentient beings. They feel fear and love, have complex social interactions, form bonds and all of them have a strong desire for life. The way that animals express these very relatable qualities may be different to how we express them, but it is important to realise that different does not mean inferior. Animals are deserving of equal consideration when it comes to living a life that is free of fear and harm. To birth, raise, enslave and kill billions of animals within a system that denies their autonomy and reduces them to objects for purchase and profit, is morally indefensible.
The majority of developed nations have a population that is affluent enough to afford a vegan diet. In fact, if you cut out meat, fish and so on, and move to a whole food styled diet, the overall cost of your food bill will drop in a meaningful way. The belief that a vegan diet is expensive is driven by the expense of meat alternatives. Faux-meat burgers and sausages are delicious, and they are a better option than consuming the flesh of an animal that didn’t want to die, but like quality cuts of actual meat, they are quite expensive.
To reduce those costs, simply move to a whole foods vegan diet that does not include meat alternatives, or only have those delicious burgers or sausages every now and then. If you can purchase the majority of your food from a farmers market, then that is even better. I have found that the prices at a farmers market is generally equal to a supermarket chain like Coles and Woolworths, but you are directly supporting local businesses and the quality of food is better overall. From my experience I would rank the quality of fruit and vegetables as follows, 3: supermarket, 2: farmers markets and 1: home grown.
2: Diet. The basic question is; can you live a full and healthy life without eating animal products? The answer is, yes. This is my life and I only have one. If a vegan diet was harmful, I simply wouldn’t follow it. Vegans get their daily nutritional requirements– yes, even protein – from a huge range of foods. If you are worried about your B12 levels, then take a supplement. The topic of B12 supplements often leads to the question, if a vegan diet is so good, why do you need to take a supplement? Again, we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. No diet is perfect. A junk food vegan is still going to have high cholesterol just like anyone else. Supplements are not the devil they are sometimes made out to be. For example: plenty of athletes who eat meat also take supplements. Many people who eat animal products take supplements every day.
3: The demand for animal products is quite literally killing the planet. Animal agriculture accounts for 15% of the total carbon emissions that are driving climate change. Also, Covid-19 would not have been possible without the unhygienic conditions at the Wuhan wet market. Combine these conditions with the multitude of animals that were keep in close proximity to each other and humans, the ideal setting for a novel coronavirus was set.
There is no Covid-19 in a vegan world*.
Why? Because there is no consistent interference with the animal world like there is when it comes to small and large scale animal agriculture. These types of viruses only become a reality when humans either venture into an animals environment or bring that animal into ours. This is what happened with bats when they were brought into the wet market in China. In this particular case, the virus that originated in bats, mutated and jumped to another animal (experts suspect Pangolins) before mutating again and infecting humans. The evolution of this coronavirus would not have been possible if it was not for the unsanitary and cramped conditions of the market. Remove the demand for animals and you remove the conditions that made Covid-19 possible.
The larger problem is, these types of conditions are not limited to wet markets around the world. They exist in our very own backyard in the form of battery cage farms, dairy farms and slaughter houses. On top of that, many of the animals that are raised locally are then exported overseas, often in horrific conditions, and find their way into slaughter houses that are breeding grounds for further viruses. Animal agriculture is a global business and so, the problems that come with it are global.
As I mentioned at the start, in no way should this article be considered an exhaustive look into minimalism and veganism. The goal was to show how changes to our daily habits can have a lasting and positive impact on ourselves and the world. If nothing else, I hope you are now intrigued enough to look into veganism and minimalism, if you are not already. All up, I have found both to be very rewarding.
* This is not to suggest that viruses would cease to exist if everyone should turn vegan.
Hate Speech
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 04.04.2020
SECTION 1: WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?
Hate speech is not to be confused with offensive comments, gestures or actions. An individual may say something that many people find truly offensive, yet it does not automatically mean that the comment qualifies as hate. Whilst it is tempting to label their language in such a way, the reality of the situation is not always black or white, as I will demonstrate later on. The key ingredient in defining hate speech, as opposed to just an offensive or ignorant comment is intent. The main intention of hate speech is to cause harm to a specific target; it is speech (which comes in a variety of forms) that is capable of cultivating or inciting hatred of and towards a specific person or group.
Hate speech is also more than belief informed by ignorance, though ignorance is surely a part of the recipe. Hate speech is a combination of intent to harm others, ego, a misplaced sense of tribalism and action. Action is the bridging word here. I have known people who have held some incredibly racist views. They truly believe that the colour of their skin makes them superior to others in a multitude of ways (ignorance). However, this deeply held belief does not translate into negative action towards those very same people they deem inferior. It is an internal belief system they hold for reasons that are their own, yet it remains internal. This is not to say these thoughts aren’t toxic, but since they are not being acted upon, they remain misinformed and racist yet benign.
When people take their ignorant beliefs of superiority and make the decision to act upon them in a way that is intended to harm others, those beliefs have turned malignant. This is hate speech. Here we have a toxic combination of ignorance, ego and tribalism combined with the conscious decision to engage in behaviour that is designed to reduce the social standing of a chosen target. These actions reduce the victim’s basic right to expect a sense of safety and equality. It is also an attempt to silence their voice through intimidation. Through these actions, those who use hate speech aim to gain a position of power that is both personal (ego) and social (tribalism).
SECTION 2: THE IMPORTANCE OF RECOGNITION
Since the rise of identity politics in the 1960 and ‘70s, greater attention has been placed on the importance of individual expression. This focus acts as a deconstruction of rigid social norms and an acknowledgement of fundamental elements of human behaviour. That is, there is a plurality of human expression and, within all of us an innate desire to be honest in that self-expression. The reality is that part of the confidence required for honest self-expression relies on a sense of dignity and security that is gained through the social sphere. The loss of that dignity, one of hate speech’s most fundamental goals, reduces the social standing of the target and can instil a deep sense of inferiority and self-loathing. The reasons to fight for an inclusive society are numerous, and a topic for another article, but the fact remains: once a group or individual is given freedom of opinion, desire and culture, they thrive in a way that is both positive for them and society.
The importance of and connection between identity and social discourse becomes self-evident when realising we are social creatures. We absorb messaging from our environment on both a conscious and unconscious level. My identity, both in child and adulthood, is negotiated through my interpretations of interactions between others close to me and the world at large. My social experience as a white child is markedly different than that of a black child – even though our family lives may have been exactly the same. I have never walked into a store and felt like my skin colour means I may end up stealing. I have never been in an interview and felt like being male may stop me from getting a job. If a black child is constantly informed by society that all of “his kind” are criminals, without the proper filters to understand this racially biased information, the child may internalise the information and grow up to believe that to be true. With enough reinforcement through repetition, the information is naturalised within the person’s belief system and acted out through self-monitoring. A belief system has been built which was never the black man’s to begin with. This is not to dismiss personal responsibility, but to demonstrate how powerful discourse can be in conditioning people to conform to rigid ideas. It can shape a life that is extraordinary, or consign a whole group of people to oblivion.
Political philosopher Frantz Fanon’s famous work, ‘Black Skin, White Masks’ puts forth his personal struggle of what it’s like to be black within a white world as he attempts to free himself from the shackles of “blackness”. Fanon talks of the power of social discourse and the construction of, “the black as not a man”. Within this discourse, black men are not human; they are primitive, animalistic and incapable of true reason. The constant pressure that is applied through this discourse pushes down on even the most confident of intellectuals, which Fanon was. His work chronicles the fight to deny the internalisation of the socially constructed black man and the struggle to be honest to who he truly is.
Fanon’s experience, and the experience of many others, shows us that hate speech is not only the actions of individuals or groups but that its source and power can also be found in the institutions that govern us. Hate speech is often fed to society by politicians and political parties who wish to gain and maintain power and, should they gain their desired position, proceed to order society in a way that fits their ideological frame work. The most obvious modern example of this being Donald Trump. Hate speech that is disseminated by those within a position of authority (adding a sense of legitimacy – deserved or otherwise) and often supported by media allies (Donald Trump’s messaging would not be as powerful without Fox News) is not only absorbed by the target as a reason to feel inferior and fearful, but also by the perpetrator as a reason to feel justified in acting upon their hateful beliefs. Discourse is powerful and it is amplified when it comes from those in powerful positions seeking to do harm.
SECTION THREE: THE WELL ORDERED SOCIETY, HATE SPEECH AND EQUALITY.
According to moral and political philosopher John Rawls, a well ordered society is one whose, “basic structure is regulated by principles of justice and inhabited by people with an effective sense of justice”. But, can a society be both ugly and well ordered? Can the marketplace of ideas be possible in a society that is also inhabited by those with a sense of justice? Can hate speech be permissible in a society that promotes the ideals of liberal democracy?
Thanks to decades of activism, fundamental rights are applied to a much wider range of people. While the security of those rights exists within a fragile system, generally speaking – and acknowledging that we still have a long way to go - people are far less likely to be terrorised and humiliated on the grounds of being different. Difference in 2020 is not simply tolerated but embraced at a greater level than ever before. So, we must ask the question – can an individual who holds a racist view not only be tolerated, but embraced? For example: is it acceptable for a person to hold the belief that someone like President Barrack Obama is inferior to them simply for the colour of his skin? Simply put, yes. Their right to hold that belief is different to my agreeance with it. What an individual believes is something that can never be governed, and whilst it may be deemed offensive, an individual’s beliefs are theirs to own. Dictating what beliefs should be present within the minds of others is a violation of their perception of the good life.
Of course, freedom of speech is not the freedom to hold those beliefs unchallenged. To use a clichéd expression, “your right to say something stupid is my right to call what you said stupid”. But more than this, when ignorant remarks are used with the intention to hurt another, there needs to be consequence. Simply put, there is no such thing as absolute free speech as that would result in speech that goes unchallenged and without consequence. When this occurs, the end result is those who hold the most power end up having the loudest voices. That is always bad for minority groups and anyone deemed “other”.
Where hate speech laws should be enforced is when the beliefs of an individual or group are put into action in a way that removes the social assurance of another. Though the line between speech that is offensive and hate speech may be thin, I will put forth this model as to where I think the hate speech lines should be drawn.
1: Individually held beliefs.
2: Public expression of beliefs ß not as black and white as we may think.
3: Intent.
1: As previously stated, individual belief cannot be governed.
2: The public expression of ideas considered vulgar is not in and of itself enough to label those comments as hate speech. It is important to take into account who is doing the talking. For example, imagine passing a person in the street who is yelling vile, conspiratorial and racist anti-Semitic remarks whilst also calling for the death of Jews everywhere. Now, imagine those comments coming from someone who is clearly suffering from mental illness. Now again, imagine those words coming out of the mouth of a committed white supremacist. The white supremacist holds vile beliefs about Jews, beliefs that are often incredibly conspiratorial and obviously racist. The white supremacist also wants to see Jews wiped from the planet. Both are saying the same thing, but clearly, you cannot give the same weight to the words when you consider the difference between the two people saying them. The person doing the talking is just as important as the words being said. That is because it leads us back to intent.
3. As we have mapped out, intent plays a significant role in whether or not something can be deemed hate speech. This is why the example in point two was provided. The very same words spoken by a mentally ill person lacks the intent of a white supremacist.
CONCLUSION
Freedom of choice, expression, thought and definition of the good life are all cornerstones of a liberal democratic society. Yet, limits need to be placed upon what can and cannot be said – and that limit is: when hateful beliefs and words manifest into action that is designed to cause harm to others. As noted throughout this article, ignorance and hate go hand in hand. Now more than ever, we need a greater capacity to sit with ideas we find vile and challenge them with appropriate measures. Prohibition rarely works and simply because something is out of sight does not mean it is out of mind. Not only does the belief remain, but it has been forced underground where it sits unchallenged whilst festering in the minds of those who hold them. However, what we cannot tolerate is speech used with the intention to hurt another. This way each individual can claim a sense of social assurance and can feel safe in their pursuit of the good life. As Lyndon Johnson once remarked, “a man has the right to walk down a street, and not be insulted in front of his children”.
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 04.04.2020
SECTION 1: WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?
Hate speech is not to be confused with offensive comments, gestures or actions. An individual may say something that many people find truly offensive, yet it does not automatically mean that the comment qualifies as hate. Whilst it is tempting to label their language in such a way, the reality of the situation is not always black or white, as I will demonstrate later on. The key ingredient in defining hate speech, as opposed to just an offensive or ignorant comment is intent. The main intention of hate speech is to cause harm to a specific target; it is speech (which comes in a variety of forms) that is capable of cultivating or inciting hatred of and towards a specific person or group.
Hate speech is also more than belief informed by ignorance, though ignorance is surely a part of the recipe. Hate speech is a combination of intent to harm others, ego, a misplaced sense of tribalism and action. Action is the bridging word here. I have known people who have held some incredibly racist views. They truly believe that the colour of their skin makes them superior to others in a multitude of ways (ignorance). However, this deeply held belief does not translate into negative action towards those very same people they deem inferior. It is an internal belief system they hold for reasons that are their own, yet it remains internal. This is not to say these thoughts aren’t toxic, but since they are not being acted upon, they remain misinformed and racist yet benign.
When people take their ignorant beliefs of superiority and make the decision to act upon them in a way that is intended to harm others, those beliefs have turned malignant. This is hate speech. Here we have a toxic combination of ignorance, ego and tribalism combined with the conscious decision to engage in behaviour that is designed to reduce the social standing of a chosen target. These actions reduce the victim’s basic right to expect a sense of safety and equality. It is also an attempt to silence their voice through intimidation. Through these actions, those who use hate speech aim to gain a position of power that is both personal (ego) and social (tribalism).
SECTION 2: THE IMPORTANCE OF RECOGNITION
Since the rise of identity politics in the 1960 and ‘70s, greater attention has been placed on the importance of individual expression. This focus acts as a deconstruction of rigid social norms and an acknowledgement of fundamental elements of human behaviour. That is, there is a plurality of human expression and, within all of us an innate desire to be honest in that self-expression. The reality is that part of the confidence required for honest self-expression relies on a sense of dignity and security that is gained through the social sphere. The loss of that dignity, one of hate speech’s most fundamental goals, reduces the social standing of the target and can instil a deep sense of inferiority and self-loathing. The reasons to fight for an inclusive society are numerous, and a topic for another article, but the fact remains: once a group or individual is given freedom of opinion, desire and culture, they thrive in a way that is both positive for them and society.
The importance of and connection between identity and social discourse becomes self-evident when realising we are social creatures. We absorb messaging from our environment on both a conscious and unconscious level. My identity, both in child and adulthood, is negotiated through my interpretations of interactions between others close to me and the world at large. My social experience as a white child is markedly different than that of a black child – even though our family lives may have been exactly the same. I have never walked into a store and felt like my skin colour means I may end up stealing. I have never been in an interview and felt like being male may stop me from getting a job. If a black child is constantly informed by society that all of “his kind” are criminals, without the proper filters to understand this racially biased information, the child may internalise the information and grow up to believe that to be true. With enough reinforcement through repetition, the information is naturalised within the person’s belief system and acted out through self-monitoring. A belief system has been built which was never the black man’s to begin with. This is not to dismiss personal responsibility, but to demonstrate how powerful discourse can be in conditioning people to conform to rigid ideas. It can shape a life that is extraordinary, or consign a whole group of people to oblivion.
Political philosopher Frantz Fanon’s famous work, ‘Black Skin, White Masks’ puts forth his personal struggle of what it’s like to be black within a white world as he attempts to free himself from the shackles of “blackness”. Fanon talks of the power of social discourse and the construction of, “the black as not a man”. Within this discourse, black men are not human; they are primitive, animalistic and incapable of true reason. The constant pressure that is applied through this discourse pushes down on even the most confident of intellectuals, which Fanon was. His work chronicles the fight to deny the internalisation of the socially constructed black man and the struggle to be honest to who he truly is.
Fanon’s experience, and the experience of many others, shows us that hate speech is not only the actions of individuals or groups but that its source and power can also be found in the institutions that govern us. Hate speech is often fed to society by politicians and political parties who wish to gain and maintain power and, should they gain their desired position, proceed to order society in a way that fits their ideological frame work. The most obvious modern example of this being Donald Trump. Hate speech that is disseminated by those within a position of authority (adding a sense of legitimacy – deserved or otherwise) and often supported by media allies (Donald Trump’s messaging would not be as powerful without Fox News) is not only absorbed by the target as a reason to feel inferior and fearful, but also by the perpetrator as a reason to feel justified in acting upon their hateful beliefs. Discourse is powerful and it is amplified when it comes from those in powerful positions seeking to do harm.
SECTION THREE: THE WELL ORDERED SOCIETY, HATE SPEECH AND EQUALITY.
According to moral and political philosopher John Rawls, a well ordered society is one whose, “basic structure is regulated by principles of justice and inhabited by people with an effective sense of justice”. But, can a society be both ugly and well ordered? Can the marketplace of ideas be possible in a society that is also inhabited by those with a sense of justice? Can hate speech be permissible in a society that promotes the ideals of liberal democracy?
Thanks to decades of activism, fundamental rights are applied to a much wider range of people. While the security of those rights exists within a fragile system, generally speaking – and acknowledging that we still have a long way to go - people are far less likely to be terrorised and humiliated on the grounds of being different. Difference in 2020 is not simply tolerated but embraced at a greater level than ever before. So, we must ask the question – can an individual who holds a racist view not only be tolerated, but embraced? For example: is it acceptable for a person to hold the belief that someone like President Barrack Obama is inferior to them simply for the colour of his skin? Simply put, yes. Their right to hold that belief is different to my agreeance with it. What an individual believes is something that can never be governed, and whilst it may be deemed offensive, an individual’s beliefs are theirs to own. Dictating what beliefs should be present within the minds of others is a violation of their perception of the good life.
Of course, freedom of speech is not the freedom to hold those beliefs unchallenged. To use a clichéd expression, “your right to say something stupid is my right to call what you said stupid”. But more than this, when ignorant remarks are used with the intention to hurt another, there needs to be consequence. Simply put, there is no such thing as absolute free speech as that would result in speech that goes unchallenged and without consequence. When this occurs, the end result is those who hold the most power end up having the loudest voices. That is always bad for minority groups and anyone deemed “other”.
Where hate speech laws should be enforced is when the beliefs of an individual or group are put into action in a way that removes the social assurance of another. Though the line between speech that is offensive and hate speech may be thin, I will put forth this model as to where I think the hate speech lines should be drawn.
1: Individually held beliefs.
2: Public expression of beliefs ß not as black and white as we may think.
3: Intent.
1: As previously stated, individual belief cannot be governed.
2: The public expression of ideas considered vulgar is not in and of itself enough to label those comments as hate speech. It is important to take into account who is doing the talking. For example, imagine passing a person in the street who is yelling vile, conspiratorial and racist anti-Semitic remarks whilst also calling for the death of Jews everywhere. Now, imagine those comments coming from someone who is clearly suffering from mental illness. Now again, imagine those words coming out of the mouth of a committed white supremacist. The white supremacist holds vile beliefs about Jews, beliefs that are often incredibly conspiratorial and obviously racist. The white supremacist also wants to see Jews wiped from the planet. Both are saying the same thing, but clearly, you cannot give the same weight to the words when you consider the difference between the two people saying them. The person doing the talking is just as important as the words being said. That is because it leads us back to intent.
3. As we have mapped out, intent plays a significant role in whether or not something can be deemed hate speech. This is why the example in point two was provided. The very same words spoken by a mentally ill person lacks the intent of a white supremacist.
CONCLUSION
Freedom of choice, expression, thought and definition of the good life are all cornerstones of a liberal democratic society. Yet, limits need to be placed upon what can and cannot be said – and that limit is: when hateful beliefs and words manifest into action that is designed to cause harm to others. As noted throughout this article, ignorance and hate go hand in hand. Now more than ever, we need a greater capacity to sit with ideas we find vile and challenge them with appropriate measures. Prohibition rarely works and simply because something is out of sight does not mean it is out of mind. Not only does the belief remain, but it has been forced underground where it sits unchallenged whilst festering in the minds of those who hold them. However, what we cannot tolerate is speech used with the intention to hurt another. This way each individual can claim a sense of social assurance and can feel safe in their pursuit of the good life. As Lyndon Johnson once remarked, “a man has the right to walk down a street, and not be insulted in front of his children”.
Paula White and the Media’s Missed Opportunity
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 18.02.2020
I have a friend who doggedly works towards the center of most issues we discuss. He is constantly searching for perspectives that may have been overlooked due to superficial analysis, or ignored outright because the information at hand does not conform to a particular perspective. This could be viewed as fence sitting, but that would overlook a deeper drive at play. His approach does not avoid forming an opinion, but discovers, to the best of his ability; the true essence of the story whilst actively engaging with his own confirmation bias. It is a position more people should take. I thought about him recently, when I was reading the multitude of criticisms leveled at Paula White, the prosperity gospel preacher who leads the White House's Faith and Opportunity Initiative, for comments she recently made.
During a service at White’s megachurch in January, White said this:
“We declare any strange winds – any strange winds that have been sent to hurt the church, sent to hurt this nation, sent against the president, sent against myself, sent against others – we break it by the superior blood of Jesus right now. In the name of Jesus, we command all satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now. We declare that anything that has been conceived in satanic wombs will miscarry, it will not be able to carry forth any plan of destruction, any plan of harm.”
These are shocking words, especially the last few sentences referencing the miscarriage of “satanic pregnancies”. As expected, these words were quickly and widely condemned. Whilst the language of the criticism differed, the general theme can be summed up by the reaction of Father James Martin, an editor of the Jesuit publication America Magazine, who wrote:
“No pregnancies are satanic. Every child is a gift from God. No one should ever pray for any woman to miscarry. No one should ever pray for evil or harm to befall another person. Jesus asked us to pray for our persecutors, not to curse them. To love our neighbours as ourselves.”
The verdict was in! White is a monster that wishes death upon the unborn and does not care about the suffering that miscarriage brings. There is only one problem with this verdict: it is wrong. That is not what White said.
Before we go any further it is important to know a little about who Paula White is and what she does. White shot to fame in 2001 when her ‘Paula White Today’ evangelical television show put her face in the lounge room of millions of people across the United States. Her position as one of America’s leading Evangelical Christians was solidified when she became the senior pastor of the White Walls megachurch in 2009. She is an author and prosperity gospel preacher, a highly controversial form of theology.
In brief, prosperity theology is the belief that financial well-being and physical possessions are the blessings of God. The more you stay positive, preach the word and give generously, the more a person will receive the Lord’s blessings and grace. There is just one catch. There always is. The part about giving generously actually means, ‘give generously to MY church, for I am your connection to God, his love and your future happiness’. White has consistently talked up her direct connection with God, claiming at one point that the White House is holy ground simply because she, who is a conduit of God, has walked through it. White encourages her followers to send donations of up to one month's salary to her church. She has even gone so far as to tell her followers to take the equity out of their homes and send it her way. In January of 2017, White claimed that if people do not donate money, they would be directly punished by God.
It should be clear by now that prosperity theology, as preached by the likes of Paula White, Benny Hinn, Joel Osten (don’t get me started on that guy) and many others, is nothing more than predatory capitalism wearing a Jesus mask. It promotes the false promise of salvation through donations to vulnerable people. The theology's primary function - enriching con artists – is hidden behind the walls of what are basically tax-exempt corporations.
There is a reason as to why Donald Trump, who calls White a close friend and has been his spiritual adviser (ha!) since 2016, finds her so appealing.
I digress. This article is not primarily a dissection of Paula White, but a look at the missed opportunity by many in the press to take White’s remarks and use them to shed greater light on her cynical and greed fueled world. Ultimately, the chosen path for many reporters was one of intellectual laziness. This approach, which focused on the words and not their actual meaning, resulted in articles that were framed, intentionally or not, as partisan attacks.
Taken literally, White’s comments would suggest that she wishes countless women across the United States and the world to suffer the trauma of miscarriage. These miscarriages would put an end to any devil children being carried full term by (I suppose) devil sympathetic women. The world would then be saved from their evil plans of destruction and harm. Perhaps she was worried about another Adolf? And quite honestly, who hasn’t thought about the question, “what if Hitler was never born?”
Considering one of White’s rolls as the Faith and Opportunity Initiative leader is to help spread right-wing religious ideals throughout the White House and beyond, you could reasonably speculate that she may be talking about those children growing within the wombs of lesbian women. That’s not an unfair assumption, considering the company she keeps in the White House. However, White held a prayer vigil for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, where 43 people were killed and 53 wounded when 29-year old Omar Mateen walked into a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida with a high-powered rifle. Maybe she was talking about non-white babies? Again, a fair assumption, except White’s megachurch is proudly multicultural and also non-denominational.
I could speculate a thousand times over, but it would all be for naught. The fact is, White’s comments have little to do with actual unborn children. When she commands satanic pregnancies to miscarry, she is casting out any plans being conceived by evil forces in the name and blood of Jesus Christ. Yes, she absolutely preaches about her belief in a literal devil, in an evil that is at war with the forces of good and God, but in this particular case, she is speaking metaphorically. Unfortunately, that’s not a headline. In and of itself, that’s not a story. It’s sure as hell a lot less sexy than, “PAULA WHITE WANTS GOD TO KILL YOUR UNBORN DEVIL CHILD!”
The satanic pregnancies line used by White is most likely inspired by a passage from the book, 'The Mysteries of Life' written by preacher D.K.Olukoya. In it, Olukoya writes:
‘The enemy will not prevail. God may allow him to get pregnant up to the ninth month, but before the birth God will abort the pregnancy. This is why I know that every satanic pregnancy against your life shall be punctured, in the name of Jesus.’
White defended herself in a tweet, claiming her words were taken out of context.
"I was praying Eph 6:12 that we wrestle not against flesh and blood. Anything that has been conceived by demonic plans, for it to be cancelled and not prevail in your life," she wrote, adding in a second tweet: "That is- any plans to hurt people. Let's be clear what is really going on... this is a disingenuous attempt to use words out of context for political gain. I will just keep praying!"
And she’s right. In the search for a story that isn’t there, the press have created what is basically a partisan attack. All the articles that decry White’s out of context words can be used by followers of both White and Trump to point to another example of, “fake news by the corrupt lamestream media.”
I should make it clear; the press have not dropped the ball entirely on Paula White. There has been some excellent reporting on her many scandals, her general hypocrisy and con artist ways. But in moments like these, when White holds prominent positions within both the political world and American culture, click bait headlines and topics do more harm than good. No one has changed their opinion on Paula White because of her “satanic pregnancies” comments, and that is potentially the greatest tragedy here. There was an opportunity to educate through facts, but instead, we get content aimed at clicks.
White’s comments offered a doorway into a bigger story. And it’s not hard to map out that story. I have defended White’s comments, but in no way have I painted her as a sympathetic character. There is a reason why her church is multicultural and non-denominational: it offers a wider market. There is a reason why she prayed for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting: she appears sympathetic to a wider market. When White talks in tongues, she is not consumed by the spirit of the Lord. Nor is she like those old kung-fu masters, who have sold into their own bullshit, fooling themselves into believing they can control chi energy and fight off multiple opponents without touching them. White knows exactly what she is doing. She knows that talking in tongues adds a sense of validity to her supposed connection to God; and that helps when the inevitable requests for donations start up.
Paula White is many things, but more than anything else, she is a con artist who worships not at the foot of the cross, but at the giant pile of money she no doubt swims through Scrooge McDuck style every night. The press are important, the press are essential. But here, the press failed. They should have been more like my friend.
By Gareth Streistermanis © 2020
Posted: 18.02.2020
I have a friend who doggedly works towards the center of most issues we discuss. He is constantly searching for perspectives that may have been overlooked due to superficial analysis, or ignored outright because the information at hand does not conform to a particular perspective. This could be viewed as fence sitting, but that would overlook a deeper drive at play. His approach does not avoid forming an opinion, but discovers, to the best of his ability; the true essence of the story whilst actively engaging with his own confirmation bias. It is a position more people should take. I thought about him recently, when I was reading the multitude of criticisms leveled at Paula White, the prosperity gospel preacher who leads the White House's Faith and Opportunity Initiative, for comments she recently made.
During a service at White’s megachurch in January, White said this:
“We declare any strange winds – any strange winds that have been sent to hurt the church, sent to hurt this nation, sent against the president, sent against myself, sent against others – we break it by the superior blood of Jesus right now. In the name of Jesus, we command all satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now. We declare that anything that has been conceived in satanic wombs will miscarry, it will not be able to carry forth any plan of destruction, any plan of harm.”
These are shocking words, especially the last few sentences referencing the miscarriage of “satanic pregnancies”. As expected, these words were quickly and widely condemned. Whilst the language of the criticism differed, the general theme can be summed up by the reaction of Father James Martin, an editor of the Jesuit publication America Magazine, who wrote:
“No pregnancies are satanic. Every child is a gift from God. No one should ever pray for any woman to miscarry. No one should ever pray for evil or harm to befall another person. Jesus asked us to pray for our persecutors, not to curse them. To love our neighbours as ourselves.”
The verdict was in! White is a monster that wishes death upon the unborn and does not care about the suffering that miscarriage brings. There is only one problem with this verdict: it is wrong. That is not what White said.
Before we go any further it is important to know a little about who Paula White is and what she does. White shot to fame in 2001 when her ‘Paula White Today’ evangelical television show put her face in the lounge room of millions of people across the United States. Her position as one of America’s leading Evangelical Christians was solidified when she became the senior pastor of the White Walls megachurch in 2009. She is an author and prosperity gospel preacher, a highly controversial form of theology.
In brief, prosperity theology is the belief that financial well-being and physical possessions are the blessings of God. The more you stay positive, preach the word and give generously, the more a person will receive the Lord’s blessings and grace. There is just one catch. There always is. The part about giving generously actually means, ‘give generously to MY church, for I am your connection to God, his love and your future happiness’. White has consistently talked up her direct connection with God, claiming at one point that the White House is holy ground simply because she, who is a conduit of God, has walked through it. White encourages her followers to send donations of up to one month's salary to her church. She has even gone so far as to tell her followers to take the equity out of their homes and send it her way. In January of 2017, White claimed that if people do not donate money, they would be directly punished by God.
It should be clear by now that prosperity theology, as preached by the likes of Paula White, Benny Hinn, Joel Osten (don’t get me started on that guy) and many others, is nothing more than predatory capitalism wearing a Jesus mask. It promotes the false promise of salvation through donations to vulnerable people. The theology's primary function - enriching con artists – is hidden behind the walls of what are basically tax-exempt corporations.
There is a reason as to why Donald Trump, who calls White a close friend and has been his spiritual adviser (ha!) since 2016, finds her so appealing.
I digress. This article is not primarily a dissection of Paula White, but a look at the missed opportunity by many in the press to take White’s remarks and use them to shed greater light on her cynical and greed fueled world. Ultimately, the chosen path for many reporters was one of intellectual laziness. This approach, which focused on the words and not their actual meaning, resulted in articles that were framed, intentionally or not, as partisan attacks.
Taken literally, White’s comments would suggest that she wishes countless women across the United States and the world to suffer the trauma of miscarriage. These miscarriages would put an end to any devil children being carried full term by (I suppose) devil sympathetic women. The world would then be saved from their evil plans of destruction and harm. Perhaps she was worried about another Adolf? And quite honestly, who hasn’t thought about the question, “what if Hitler was never born?”
Considering one of White’s rolls as the Faith and Opportunity Initiative leader is to help spread right-wing religious ideals throughout the White House and beyond, you could reasonably speculate that she may be talking about those children growing within the wombs of lesbian women. That’s not an unfair assumption, considering the company she keeps in the White House. However, White held a prayer vigil for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, where 43 people were killed and 53 wounded when 29-year old Omar Mateen walked into a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida with a high-powered rifle. Maybe she was talking about non-white babies? Again, a fair assumption, except White’s megachurch is proudly multicultural and also non-denominational.
I could speculate a thousand times over, but it would all be for naught. The fact is, White’s comments have little to do with actual unborn children. When she commands satanic pregnancies to miscarry, she is casting out any plans being conceived by evil forces in the name and blood of Jesus Christ. Yes, she absolutely preaches about her belief in a literal devil, in an evil that is at war with the forces of good and God, but in this particular case, she is speaking metaphorically. Unfortunately, that’s not a headline. In and of itself, that’s not a story. It’s sure as hell a lot less sexy than, “PAULA WHITE WANTS GOD TO KILL YOUR UNBORN DEVIL CHILD!”
The satanic pregnancies line used by White is most likely inspired by a passage from the book, 'The Mysteries of Life' written by preacher D.K.Olukoya. In it, Olukoya writes:
‘The enemy will not prevail. God may allow him to get pregnant up to the ninth month, but before the birth God will abort the pregnancy. This is why I know that every satanic pregnancy against your life shall be punctured, in the name of Jesus.’
White defended herself in a tweet, claiming her words were taken out of context.
"I was praying Eph 6:12 that we wrestle not against flesh and blood. Anything that has been conceived by demonic plans, for it to be cancelled and not prevail in your life," she wrote, adding in a second tweet: "That is- any plans to hurt people. Let's be clear what is really going on... this is a disingenuous attempt to use words out of context for political gain. I will just keep praying!"
And she’s right. In the search for a story that isn’t there, the press have created what is basically a partisan attack. All the articles that decry White’s out of context words can be used by followers of both White and Trump to point to another example of, “fake news by the corrupt lamestream media.”
I should make it clear; the press have not dropped the ball entirely on Paula White. There has been some excellent reporting on her many scandals, her general hypocrisy and con artist ways. But in moments like these, when White holds prominent positions within both the political world and American culture, click bait headlines and topics do more harm than good. No one has changed their opinion on Paula White because of her “satanic pregnancies” comments, and that is potentially the greatest tragedy here. There was an opportunity to educate through facts, but instead, we get content aimed at clicks.
White’s comments offered a doorway into a bigger story. And it’s not hard to map out that story. I have defended White’s comments, but in no way have I painted her as a sympathetic character. There is a reason why her church is multicultural and non-denominational: it offers a wider market. There is a reason why she prayed for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting: she appears sympathetic to a wider market. When White talks in tongues, she is not consumed by the spirit of the Lord. Nor is she like those old kung-fu masters, who have sold into their own bullshit, fooling themselves into believing they can control chi energy and fight off multiple opponents without touching them. White knows exactly what she is doing. She knows that talking in tongues adds a sense of validity to her supposed connection to God; and that helps when the inevitable requests for donations start up.
Paula White is many things, but more than anything else, she is a con artist who worships not at the foot of the cross, but at the giant pile of money she no doubt swims through Scrooge McDuck style every night. The press are important, the press are essential. But here, the press failed. They should have been more like my friend.