“To begin with, you need to understand what it really means to be a socialist. Only then can you understand that putting the word “democratic” in front of “socialist” doesn’t change anything.”
“I can’t help but share this amazing anonymous smackdown of the odious cult of social justice”
Have you ever heard people complain about American imperialism? Yet, for all that imperial aggression, I still see no empire. Are Americans that incompetent? Heck, the United States itself isn’t even organized as a national government but a a federation. They can’t even bring their imperial ambitions to bear on the continental US.
As for the middle east, Amir Teheri of the New York Post shows a distinct absence of imperial settlement. Neither Islamic nations nor Islam, however seem likely to return the favor.
Roman catholicism always presented a problem for the NAZIs. As a center of moral values, it was a challenge to Hitler’s absolute power. Worse! the very teachings were directly opposite to the NAZI ethos and they held the loyalty of many Germans. Clearly, Hitler needed to deal with this.
I had been told that the pope of the day was friendly and indulgent of the new regime. This always struck me as hard to fathom, given the obvious clash of ideology. I thought it more likely the the church was keeping its head low to avoid a military showdown in Rome or a persecution of its German priests or faithful. Nope, wrong on both counts.
It’s true that not all speech is protected under “freedom of speech”. It’s an old category of law that has had powerful critics since day one. The exceptions, therefore, are well established.
- True threats, of which bullying may sometimes be included.
- Speech integral to criminal conduct
According the US supreme court, these are, “‘well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.’ Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942).”
What is not included in legitimate jurisprudence is “hate speech”, generic bullying or microagressions.
Linked to it here. Now excerpted down to 5 pages.
Do you ever get the feeling the feminists have got it wrong? It’s not just the disdain for men. That part is no surprise. No, the movement has a lousy understanding of what makes women happy. This isn’t about choosing sides in a battle. It is about utter cluelessness of human nature.
Their influence affects all of modernity. In response, you can immerse yourself in classics, try to overlook, rage or engage the nonsense; or (lately) look for wisdom in the manosphere (or “red pill”). The manosphere, alas, is a rough place, with many diverse nooks: including men bitter at women, men who’ve lost interest, whose interest is purely physical, nihilistic types as well as nurturing and caring types, many atheist, some anti-christian and some christian. A large swath of the men want to use their people skills to bed as many women as they can manage. Some say only fools offer any more commitment to a modern women. A fairly small group wants a society of happy marriages and figures the red pill can restore it.
Dalrock especially fully understands the concepts while being openly christian and, though appalled with contemporary church, unambiguously biblical. Meek servitude from their man frustrates women and kills their feelings of romance. Focus on the Family’s mystery of unhappy wives is the end game of fitness tests. The principles of Christian marriage are contrasted to modern church leaders. Headship is like game. Who’d have thought that pastors’ marital counsel would be upstaged by pickup artists?