"I believe that the public death of Christianity was the death of the west and how dare you imply members of other faiths were disproportionately responsible for this."
"I believe that egalitarianism is death of the west but that a disproportionate number of a different ethnoreligion being responsible for modern regime ideology made no difference in what that ideology is."
"Okay, so maybe they were the criminals but we let them do it so, really, aren't we equally responsible?"
Now, I'm a Catholic moralist not an HBD materialist so perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the HBD types have no real grounds for saying "this system will produce the same results if we proscribe the Jεws."
(My take is the E. Michael Jones take: said ethnoreligon provided an excuse for what the most degenerate members of our ruling class wanted to do. Them doing it led directly to them being exlipsed in power BY the ethnoreligion.)
(The former ruling class's vices can indeed be blamed partially on the system which they presided over but, as the Greeks teach us, all political forms have their characteristic vices)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is what I was tweeting about before. Progressives are congenitally incapable of imagining a world that isn't current-year America. (even non-American progressives, hence hilarious spectacle of things like Hong "reddit" Kong using Hollywood posters to protest the Chinese)
"Another world is possible," they exclaim, but they never seem to be able to actually imagine one.
For real, I was watching and think "okay, so the judge (Liet Kynes) and herald of the change are both played by blaqs. Maybe that ethnicity is one that's used in-universe as the Emperor's direct servants?" and then Jamis is black for no reason lol
Glorantha really has ruined speculative fiction for me.
Ultimately, libs live in a kind of crypto-econometric world where everyone is always making the best possible rational and moral choices given their circumstances and the only way to change actions is to change said circumstances.
This is why they hate "racists," "homophones," etc.: living refutations of their panglossian positivism.
Note how "blaming him," according to these people, never involves punishing said capitalist for being an accessory to to the violation of immigration laws. (this would be "fascism")
One of the most insidious faults encouraged by modern education is the tendency to immediately dismiss the points of authors whose train of logic isn't apparent to the reader.
1/?
We assume that "oh, he was just a diversity hire/old racist/etc." and therefore that there was no train of logic to begin with. It's transparent propaganda and, deep in the Republican party headquarters or the SPLC, that those people would freely admit that they're grifters. 2/?
Not without reason because there are, of course, a few people like Chris Rufo or Arthur Chu who openly admit they have no principles but winning. But their admission demonstrates uncommon stupidity on itself. Most genuine idiots (e.g
John Rawls) honestly believe. 3/?