Runyoga: Från arisk blodsmystik till nyandlig självutveckling

Rune yoga is a spiritual practice based on the idea that the Runic alphabet can be used for spiritual and magical purposes. Based on an interpretation of the Runes where every letter in the alphabet is considered to contain within it a source of mystical powers Rune Yoga uses techniques inspired by Indian yoga to channel these forces. While contemporary Rune Yoga has become a part of Heathen and Alternative Spirituality that attracts people from a variety of Ethnic background the origin of the practice lies within the Ariosophical movement, a racial form of Esotericism that developed in Germany and Austria in the early 20th century. In this article the origin of Rune Yoga within the Ariosphical movement is presented, how it was integrated in ideas about Aryan racial supremacy. The article continues to show how Rune Yoga later migrated to North America and became a practice used within a non-racial milieu and what aspects remained from the original Ariosophical movement. The article argues that while some aspects of Ariosophical thinking remains within Rune Yoga the racial aspects have ceased to be important. Rather than focusing on race modern Rune Yoga focus in self-improvement for the individual and there is a lack of collectivist goals.

Kaap(s) van Goeie Hoop ? Ussen trots en skuldgevoelens, oordrag en dekonstruksie: vorms van Afrikaner identiteit‑ballingskap na apartheid

Die Afrikanergemeenskap het, sedert 1994, ‘n dubbelsinnige verhouding met sy kulturele eienskappe gehandhaaf, wat deur die Christen‑nasionalistiese regering was gebruik as ‘n alibi om rasseheerskappy onder apartheid te regverdig. Hulle word nou gesien as afwykend, en ervaar as sosiale stigmas. Sommige lede van die gemeenskap lewer sterk kritiek van die verlede en vind die patriotieses raamwerke weer uit om vir hulle in lyn te bring met die nuwe liberale demokratiese waardes van vandag. From 1994, the Afrikaner community members experience an ambiguous relationship with their cultural attributes, used as alibi by the Christian‑nationalist government to justify racial supremacy under apartheid time. Today, these characteristics are seen as deviant and lived as social stigmas. Some Afrikaners vividly criticize their past and try to recreate new patriotic frames which fit today liberal and democratic values, as shown in this article. Depuis 1994, la communauté afrikaner entretient un rapport ambigu avec ses attributs culturels, utilisés comme alibi par le gouvernement nationaliste‑chrétien pour justifier la suprématie raciale sous l’apartheid. Ils sont aujourd’hui perçus comme déviants et vécus comme des stigmates sociaux. Certains membres de la communauté s’emploient à formuler de vives critiques du passé et à réinventer les cadres patriotiques pour les faire coïncider avec les nouvelles valeurs libérales démocratiques dominantes aujourd’hui.

“You Will Not Replace Us”: The Melancholic Nationalism of Whiteness

This article addresses recent strains of white nationalism rooted within anxieties over demographic replacement (e.g., “the Great Replacement”). More broadly, the article argues that the contemporary politics of white grievance cannot be reduced to an ahistorical desire for racial supremacy. Rather, these anxieties represent the political reflex to perceptions of loss on the part of historical white majorities—a loss that takes a distinctly melancholic form in both discourse and practice. To understand white nationalism as a melancholic politics is to recognize the pathologies that stem from its underlying psychodynamics. At the affectual level, for instance, the subject of white grievance is constituted as the subject of politicized rage through its organizing narratives. And ultimately, the politics of melancholic whiteness raises significant challenges for a democratic polity. Most fundamentally, the melancholic fixation upon loss forecloses the futurity required by a democratic politics. Upon diagnosing these destructive pathologies, the article goes on to propose alternatives to approach civic change in less destructive, more democratically generative fashion.

Segregating Social Strategies and the Sequestered Women in Bama’s Sangati

The evils of racial supremacy, patriarchy, feudalism, imperialism, colonialism, castism, class contrasts are legally dispensed with unquestionable authority to perpetuate inequality through institutionalized sanctions. The ubiquity of male dominance and its burgeoning evils paradoxically became the causes of the recession. The recent centuries have given rise to resistance literature that break all barriers and shatter all shackles. Dalit literature, like Black literature, was born from the deep rooted dignity of the “others” to assert themselves, and is characterized by a new level of pride, militancy, creativity and the eagerness to use writing as a weapon to expose and to strike back.

Contemporary Views of Liberal Democracy and the 2016 Presidential Election

ABSTRACTWhat are Americans’ views on liberal democracy? Have their attitudes changed since the 1950s? How do their attitudes about liberal democracy shape political behavior, such as vote choice? We replicated McClosky’s (1964) seminal study on a module to the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Our exploration of 26 survey questions reveals both continuity and change in Americans’ attitudes toward liberal democracy. Whereas Americans have become more hostile toward some standard democratic procedural rules of the game, we also find that they harbor more tolerant attitudes toward racial and ethnic equality. We subjected respondents’ answers to an exploratory factor analysis, which reveals three distinct dimensions regarding democratic values: elitism, authoritarianism, and racial supremacy. We find that elitism and racial supremacy significantly influenced political behavior in the 2016 presidential election and note that these factors contributed to mass unrest in 2020, exposing fault lines deeply rooted in America’s contentious political history.

Autophagy

What follows is a proof as to why, at its origin, the articulation of any doctrine of racial supremacy harbors an internal contradiction. The notion of racial supremacy suffers from its own predicament for, by its inconsistency, Whites cannot be “White.” This proof has the added benefit of illustrating that it is precisely because of the unattainability of “White”-ness that there is so much animosity. This essay’s framework explains why this animosity is externalized toward those, who by the terms of that system, and by name alone, are barred access to this transcendent category—transcendent, thus, not of this world. With outstretched hands, attempts to enact supremacist notions in the world make for a hell of definitions. White is somehow defined as a noncolor color that has no means of defining or justifying itself, save by or through others. As such, its distinction from others falls apart, devouring itself by the very terms of its articulation.

Symbolism and the Thirteenth Amendment: The Injury of Exposure to Governmentally Endorsed Symbols of Racial Superiority

One of the debates often encountered by native southerners centers around our historical symbols. There are heated opinions on both sides of the issue as to what these symbols mean and whether they should be allowed to be displayed. The latter question has begun making its way into the courts, with many southern symbols and memorials being accused of promoting the philosophy of racial supremacy. Despite the growing public concern, modern courts refuse to rule on the question. They claim they are forestalled by Article III’s standing requirement that plaintiffs must have suffered a concrete injury in fact. They state that merely asserting offense at a message does not meet this requirement, even if the message is offered by the Government. In this article, I show that holding to be incorrect. The Constitution provides certain absolute rights that the government may not infringe upon. One of those rights is the right to be free from slavery, which the courts have expanded to include all of its badges and incidents. Though courts have gone back and forth on what constitutes a badge of slavery, a historical look at the Thirteenth Amendment shows that amongst the things the drafters intended the definition to include was the philosophical message of racial supremacy if it is communicated by the government. In my article, I demonstrate that the scope of the Thirteenth Amendment includes a ban on the governmental endorsement of racial supremacy, including endorsements made in the form of symbols. I show that mere exposure to such a message is the unique form of injury that a violation of that right creates and, as such, is a concrete harm on which Article III standing can be based. Finally, I provide a workable test for determining whether a particular exposure to a symbol of racial superiority possesses all the elements necessary to constitute an injury in fact for the purposes of standing.

Provincializing Whiteness

Provincializing whiteness—this deconstructing move lays bare the absolute power of racial supremacy that faculty of color housed in communication studies and other departments have faced in US academia. Yet, acts of racial supremacy reveal how provincial that way of thinking is. There is a plethora of her-his-stories that are better suited to coexistence and tolerance without privileging Western modernity.