"That Hamas isn’t fighting for justice—but for something closer to National Socialism."
And that's why checkbook liberals support Hamas. Hamas is totalitarian. Progressivism is totalitarian. Neither recognizes the need nor the right to individual freedom of thought. People who think are the enemy, just for thinking.
"every innocent life lost lies at the feet of Hamas.." YES! And the people who fund Hamas/Houthis/Muslim brotherhood including Biden/Obama and their followers!
I wholeheartedly agree with you. On all points. I cannot understand the most recent murderous onslaught of Jewish people and why/how a great many people defend it. Please keep writing about this.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Your post reminded me of another Substack-er's post from 'bad cattitude' by El Gato Malo
"if you are your ideology, then to your mind no one who fails to accept your ideology can accept you. they are other, they are enemy, and you perceive them as attacking the very core of your being and your identity. there can be no compromise, no accord and it rapidly (of necessity) rarifies you into an echo chamber where only those who constantly reaffirm you can be your friend and any deviation from orthodoxy is not just an attack on you, but proof that the orthodoxy (that everyone not consciously “woke” is structurally against you) was correct."
Add me to the El Gato fan club! Subscribers get the Sunday Memepool pieces that feature some of the best memes anywhere. Large and small "l" libertarians will enjoy it immensely.
"The other was managing a conditional relationship that expires the moment disagreements intrudes."
I think it's worse than that. It's mean-girl ideological extortion. As Neil Peart wrote about cliques in the Rush song "Subdivisions", conform or be cast out.
And THAT is one of the main factors that made me write this. The illusion of neutrality and that anything that falls out of that opinion is bad enough to end a relationship.
Things like this have always Benn there. But since the lockdowns they seem to be more frequent in all domains.
What I am seeing are people abusing Popper's Paradox of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) to be intolerant of ideas they find offensive, and results in overly rigorous and onerous purity tests and bubbled thinking. The abuse comes from the fact that advocating offensive ideas is qualitatively different that trying to materially implement or impose them (which is where the Paradox lies), something that Popper notes and the abusers ignore. The abusers think that the Paradox entitles them to excommunicate those with ideas they do not like to begin with, and thus become a monster.
I have friends that are socialists. I find socialism to be highly offensive. But I won't let that stop a friendship, at least on my part. I'm not afraid to do battle with ideas, though.
"That Hamas isn’t fighting for justice—but for something closer to National Socialism."
And that's why checkbook liberals support Hamas. Hamas is totalitarian. Progressivism is totalitarian. Neither recognizes the need nor the right to individual freedom of thought. People who think are the enemy, just for thinking.
They're so driven by post-modern marxist ideas of oppressed-opressor that they can't help but fight a suicidal war on out own culture.
“What would you do if you had the man who murdered your family at gunpoint, and he was holding his baby?” I aim for the head.
"every innocent life lost lies at the feet of Hamas.." YES! And the people who fund Hamas/Houthis/Muslim brotherhood including Biden/Obama and their followers!
I wholeheartedly agree with you. On all points. I cannot understand the most recent murderous onslaught of Jewish people and why/how a great many people defend it. Please keep writing about this.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Your post reminded me of another Substack-er's post from 'bad cattitude' by El Gato Malo
"if you are your ideology, then to your mind no one who fails to accept your ideology can accept you. they are other, they are enemy, and you perceive them as attacking the very core of your being and your identity. there can be no compromise, no accord and it rapidly (of necessity) rarifies you into an echo chamber where only those who constantly reaffirm you can be your friend and any deviation from orthodoxy is not just an attack on you, but proof that the orthodoxy (that everyone not consciously “woke” is structurally against you) was correct."
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/having-ideas-vs-being-ideas?utm_source=publication-search
Thank you!
My wife has been a follower of El Gato for a few years. Great writing.
I love his writing style, his humor - I like it the way I take my coffee - BLACK - and his analyses and perspective are at the top of the heap.
Add me to the El Gato fan club! Subscribers get the Sunday Memepool pieces that feature some of the best memes anywhere. Large and small "l" libertarians will enjoy it immensely.
He is so clever and the depth of his analysis is profound.
"The other was managing a conditional relationship that expires the moment disagreements intrudes."
I think it's worse than that. It's mean-girl ideological extortion. As Neil Peart wrote about cliques in the Rush song "Subdivisions", conform or be cast out.
And THAT is one of the main factors that made me write this. The illusion of neutrality and that anything that falls out of that opinion is bad enough to end a relationship.
Things like this have always Benn there. But since the lockdowns they seem to be more frequent in all domains.
What I am seeing are people abusing Popper's Paradox of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) to be intolerant of ideas they find offensive, and results in overly rigorous and onerous purity tests and bubbled thinking. The abuse comes from the fact that advocating offensive ideas is qualitatively different that trying to materially implement or impose them (which is where the Paradox lies), something that Popper notes and the abusers ignore. The abusers think that the Paradox entitles them to excommunicate those with ideas they do not like to begin with, and thus become a monster.
The "It's A Good Life" episode of The Twilight Zone explains this very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVeQ9KRn44Q
I have friends that are socialists. I find socialism to be highly offensive. But I won't let that stop a friendship, at least on my part. I'm not afraid to do battle with ideas, though.
One of my best friends and I disagree on most political things. But we're still very close, because the placed the friendship ahead of the politics.
For a good analysis of the unintended consequences of Popper's Open Society. I recommend R.R. Reno's "Return of the Strong Gods".