Classical liberalism is under attack—not only from the woke left and far-right but from within.

I’ve spent my career opposing identity politics, which requires defending the principles of equality under the law and individual rights. But many of my former colleagues have thrown those ideals under the bus to defend their preferred ethnonationalist ideology: Zionism.

Their hypocritical defense of Zionism threatens to undermine the fight against identity politics here in the West.

In this 🧵 I’ll expose the hypocrisy of prominent leaders in the anti-identity politics movement, using their own words. To truly understand the hypocrisy of the individuals I’m going to call out, you first need to have a thorough understanding of what “identity politics” and “Zionism” are and why they’re fundamentally incompatible. My essay goes through all of that in-depth. I encourage you to jump over there now. wetheblacksheep.com/p/you-cant-be-…

🚨 REFUTING @TheOmniLiberal ROUND 2: Destiny responded, so let’s go through this. 🧵

First, let’s point out what Destiny fails to respond to, which is his wild misrepresentations of my original arguments on his stream. Even if everything Destiny is saying now were correct (it’s not), those misrepresentations were malicious and paired with childish ad hominems. He ought to concede that he misrepresented me and my views, and apologize for falsely maligning my character to his hundreds of thousands of viewers. This is not the behavior of a decent person who actually cares about improving the situation on the ground in Israel/Palestine, whichever side of the conflict you’re on.

He also fails to address the point from this tweet, in which I press that if he’s going to claim I “don’t understand enough to responsibly speak on the issue,” and that if he concedes that if he knew less than me when he started speaking publicly, then he must apply the same standard to himself or treat me equally:

Note here that I’ve just pressed Destiny on a claim he didn’t respond to, showing that you can just as easily stop people from dodging questions over text as over video, contradicting his argument in this first new tweet of his. I think it’s much more likely that, rather than Destiny believing live video is objectively the best medium to get to the truth, he prefers having content for his stream and being in a format that plays to his strengths and diminishes mine.

Moreover, if you actually care about getting to the truth, bringing in new but relevant sources would be a benefit to written debate. It’s only a cost if your goal is to “win” against a person rather than actually identify correct ideas.

https://x.com/JosephJakeKlein/status/1805005772331602229

In this tweet, Destiny’s makes logical leaps at multiple points, failing to justify the argument I criticized from @mcmoynihan.

DESTINY CLAIM #1: “If it is a person (or people) acting on behalf of larger organizations that support it, then the conflict grows and the other supporting organizations must be considered when taking action against those who perpetrated the crime.”

LOGICAL LEAP: It’s unclear how acting “on behalf of a larger organization” makes it more justified to “come into your home and kill you, your wife, your whole family, etc.” as Moynihan implied. Your wife and family are local civilians and not related to actions against foreign state-funders who helped perpetrate the crime.

DESTINY CLAIM #2: “These were not simply individuals, these were individuals that were acting on behalf of larger organizations, organizations whose funding is also international. This means that the response to ensure that these individuals can’t act against has to happen with the understanding that these larger organizations are all involved in the conflict. It’s not enough to simply capture or apprehend the individuals responsible, rather the entire structure must be fought against.”

LOGICAL LEAP: It’s unclear how the need to fight the “entire structure” makes it more justified to “come into your home and kill you, your wife, your whole family, etc.” as Moynihan implied. The “entire structure” is in a completely different country.

Destiny also moves the goal posts by stating, “None of this is to say that is justifies a certain number of civilian casualties, or ever justifies the explicit targeting of civilians, just that a person receiving direction and support from a larger entity obviously means that entity will be considered in victim’s response to the belligerents action.” My original critique was that Moynihan was in fact justifying the attack on the “wife, whole family, etc.” because of the financial support from a larger entity (Qatar).

Let’s also note Destiny’s movement of the goal posts. He originally claimed that I was incapable of understanding Moynihan’s words and thus had “severe cognitive issues.” This remains clearly falsely, and I deserve a concession and apology from Destiny for it.

🚨 REFUTING @TheOmniLiberal'S ATTACK ON ME: Yesterday Destiny streamed himself watching my & @briebriejoy's debate against @EliLake & @mcmoynihan at @diss_dialogues, along with a portion from my debate response video. It was interesting to say the least… Destiny pauses the video every few seconds to issue rebuttals in the middle of sentences, filled with insults, and what appear to be emotional meltdowns.

Going through his entire debate watch down would be too much given my debate response video was already 5 hours long, but here’s my rebuttal to everything he says while watching the response video. 🧵🔽 In this clip, Destiny accuses me of having a “severe cognitive issue” and having half a brain for allegedly being incapable of understanding the words that were coming out of Moynihan’s mouth, or how Qatari funding would impact Hamas’s military capabilities.

It’s pretty wild to me that Destiny can hear my words and not understand what I’m very clearly criticizing. As I said directly, I can’t find “the logic” behind Moynihan’s thinking. Here was the conversation:

Kisin: “If you come into my home and I kill your wife, and then I come into your home and kill you, your wife, your whole family, etc., isn’t there a point at which that ceases to be just?”

Moynihan: “Well, it depends if your wife is killed by an organization that is supported by sovereign states like Qatar and have enormous amounts of funding and essentially have an army.”

The missing logic in this answer is why this action becomes more just if the organization is supported by sovereign states. No one yet, including Destiny, has answered what it is about being an independent insurgency vs. being state-backed that changes the moral calculus.

Obviously I could just as easily redirect Destiny’s name-calling right back to him for not being able to understand the words that were coming out of my mouth, but I’d much prefer receiving an actual answer. Anyone who can comment with a syllogism proving the moral difference, please do.

There are many brilliant Christians. There are many Christian scientists I deeply admire, and many Christian philosophers (like Aquinas) who valued and advocated aspects of reason and rationality.

They did these things despite their faith, not because of it. I was not raised Christian, but Jewish (a religion I especially dislike). Rabbis too think they value reason, and their supposed logical deductions from the Bible is the Talmud.

But when you reason down from incorrect and unquestionable premises, you’re just wasting time.

Why the right-wing desperately needs more atheism 🧵🧵🧵

The rise of woke ideology is often considered by its opponents to be a result of religion’s decline. In the absence of the deeper meaning from traditional religions, a new “secular” religion has arisen to provide it. 1/10 I fully agree. As @JohnHMcWhorter explains in “Woke Racism,” Critical Social Justice has all the features of a religion.

This leads most on the Right to the conclusion that if the decline of Judeo-Christianity is the cause of the problem, then it’s also the solution. 2/10

A brief history of the @ADL’s previous definition of racism, apparently posted following 2020’s riots.🧵🧵

The idea that racism is not just prejudice or discrimination by race, but must come from the power group of white people was started by white high school teacher Pat Bidol.

https://twitter.com/StrangelEdweird/status/1488948189478674437

Here’s an image of where that “Power + Prejudice” definition first appeared in a curriculum written by her in 1970. A simple bullet point, with no explanation for why it was justified to be a definition of racism.

So why was it there? And how did it catch on?

Yesterday @iamjohnoliver & @LastWeekTonight put out an episode criticizing how American schools teach the legacy of American racism. While Oliver pointed out many valid examples of bad education underplaying slavery which need correction, his solutions are terrible. Oliver defends @NYTimes & @nhannahjones’ 1619 Project as a credible source of history. It isn’t, having been debunked by numerous highly respected historians, including famed American history scholar Gordon Wood. Watch @RobMontz & I’s video:

https://twitter.com/DangerousDocs/status/1257542535251140608

1/ Here is a scary and dangerously realistic scenario for how America breaks down and enters a new civil war within the next few election cycles. THREAD. 2/ As Critical Social Justice ideology sweeps the Left, eventually 51% of Democratic voters will support a candidate who explicitly believes any inequalities in outcomes between races is proof of systemic racism, and government must equalize all outcomes. theepochtimes.com/james-lindsay-…