In Book II of the Republic Socrates treats the gods as beings about which men can have natural knowledge, e.g. that they are all-good, changeless, etc.; but in Book IV he abstains from making any modifications to Greek religious rituals on the grounds that these cannot be…
Notice that communism is the "scavenger" that arrives *after* something has died and begun to decay, which means that something that came before socialism and communism killed Western civilization.
Some who uncritically repost this quote may not like that insinuation.
The use of “our communities” and “community members” to describe illegals gives the game away. For the Leftist, the relevant community is not the American nation (whether ethnically or legally defined) but rather the emergent cosmopolitan aggregate of people from anywhere.
It is absolutely going to happen because if it doesn't, the United States will cease to exist.
These people are not an American in any possible way. We share nothing in common except a landmass, which they seek to dispossess me of. We have no shared history, no shared ancestry, no shared worldview, no shared culture, no shared telos, and no shared desire to tolerate the other’s vision for what this country should look like in the future.
America isn’t large enough to accommodate people like them and people like me, and I will support any political movement that manages to denaturalize and deport them.
Public schooling is a great illustration of this passage from The Fountainhead. Education is one of those "soft" industries, like healthcare, where caring too much about it makes practical men feel kind of womanly. So they let the government pour slime in kids' ears for 16 years.
You can imagine an immigration debate that didn’t have the voting dimension, but the voting dimension just completely deranges things. We’re importing people who 2-1 have an entirely different vision of the country than I do. And your response to me is that I should welcome them and get to work trying to convince them to have different politics?
This of course makes absolutely no sense. It’s obviously ludicrous.
The Right needs to shift to understanding itself as fighting for truly political (in the Schmittian sense) victory rather than policy achievements, which, again, should only be thought of as attributes accompanying the substance of regime change.
Related dynamic with parliamentary/party democracy which Schmitt also perceived: party politics only works when the competing parties see each other as disagreeing about means to what are fundamentally the same ends, or at least when all share a common sense of identity…
The Schmidtian "friend / enemy distinction" is massively misunderstood - it's a distinction between groups that share a moral framework and implicit within that share a dispute resolution mechanism (friends) and groups that do not (enemies)
At this point in our society many engaged, aware people no longer view our dispute resolution mechanism as something that produces results that should be morally respected; many groups have grown that have conflicting and mutually exclusive moral beliefs. The associated lack of moral respect for any larger societal framework and that people increasingly recognize this implies that the constraint on group conflict is merely pragmatism
Massive conflict is brewing
The dynamic is unstable, of course, and the only way out, after a certain point of no return is surpassed, is total victory by one side or the other. “A house divided” &c…
If you can’t tell that this is the elite consensus, then I don’t know what to tell you. I’m telling you guys, if you want to be seen as smart by all the elite human capital, it’s very easy to identify the views that they think are the correct and reasonable ones. You could start a Twitter account in which you repeat those things back to them and they will love you for it.
I always laugh when people call me (or anybody else) stupid for holding some contrarian view, as though it’s, like, difficult to ascertain and repeat the “correct” opinions.
Nothing’s easier!
@SidPolitics You aren't supposed to talk about how influential Jewish-Americans are, so it's hard to explain why October 7th shifting Jewish elites from, say, 70-30 left to 60-40 left made a huge overall difference on issues like wokeness, immigration, and affirmative action.
@DBlossius With Pagans, one day St Paul is bad because he was an anti-life celibacy advocate and the next one it's because he was a wifeguy family life advocate lmfao.