Absolutely excellent! I restack-quoted almost the entire post, paragraph by paragraph. You really got to the heart of the matter, and it's a problem rooted in our deranged postmodern metaphysics and morality, which tried to counterfeit Christian charity but without involving Christ. So instead we have this bizarre Utilitarian universalism, where the interests of hypothetical foreign millions outweighs the interests of the flesh-and-blood people you share a home and neighborhood with, and you signal your superior virtue by making your heir some fashionable charity operating in the 3rd-world, rather than your own kids. It really is completely unnatural. And it's an ideology that's easily manipulated by a psychopathic ruling class, which is probably why it gets so much institutional support and favorable mainstream media coverage. It is truly insane.
What they need to be taught is that MAGA can be more benevolent to foreigners than our policy Bomb and Invite.
Mexico teeters on the edge of failed state status because our leaky border makes crime so profitable -- in Mexico and countries further to the south.
Printing out Petrodollars in order to finance perpetual trade deficits is effectively collecting tribute from the rest of the world.
Russia has suffered three devastating invasions from the West since 1800. Russia is going to be belligerent unless there are some fairly neutral buffer states between Russia and the West -- regardless of the leadership.
The best foreign aid we could give would be to become energy independent again.
"leftists hate their own people because, deep down inside, they hate themselves."
I don't think this is true (though since it is a blanket statement, it may be true in some cases), I think the root cause of Leftist oikophobia is the wounded amour-propre that disaffected intellectuals and other sad misfits feel in liberal-democratic-capitalist societies, because in the case of the former, liberal capitalism doesn't bestow the right to rule on aspiring philosopher-kings just because they've read so many books (which is why intellectuals swooned for the Soviet Union—it may have been a dictatorship, but it was a dictatorship that took intellectuals seriously!) and in the case of the latter because liberal capitalism generates inequality and inequality creates (or reinforces) binaries like smart/stupid rich/poor successful/unsuccessful and even pretty/ugly, which of course exists everywhere but in free societies gives higher status to the attractive/successful (and wounds the feelings of everyone on the wrong side of each binary).
I think another clue is how Orwell described this same phenomenon:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during 'God save the King' than of stealing from a poor box."
I don't think these people (and their fellow travelers) necessarily hated themselves, they really most hated NOT HAVING THEIR INHERENT SUPERIORITY recognized. The Universalist scoffing at the Particularist is someone implicitly saying: "Any rube can love nation, family, God, but I'm so sophisticated I love ALL nations, families and Gods."
Leftism is a romantic raging against all the inherent cruelty and injustice of existence, just dressed in different ideological garb depending on the time and place and depending on whether you see yourself as a leader of the Glorious Revolution or a devoted foot soldier.
Excellent article! Love how you acknowledge the way nations are families writ large. The longer I watch events unfold, the more deeply I believe that everything boils down to blood and soil. The rootless cosmopolitans teaching us that these fundamentals don’t matter are implicitly advancing the cause
Almost all members of Congress voting for the latest round of funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, many of whom in the House of Representatives boisterously and brazenly waving Ukrainian flags after passing the latest round of grift spending are all of military service age in Ukraine! (It is now a broad band width of ages 12 to 95 over there) The question every American ought be asking these demented children is "When are you leaving? When are you joining the fight?" News flash, the conflict is lost for Ukraine. Russian forces as they have in the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries started their campaign off badly. But they have this nasty habit of learning from their mistakes. They have reformed and reorganized their force structure, to suit this conflict. Notably this is the same terrain that they reclaimed from German Nazi war fighting units in 1943 and 1944. Odessa means SOMETHING to them. Crimea means SOMETHING to them. So they are going to prevail, and what is lost in all the BS flying around the halls of Congress, is that this conflict is now one of industrial attrition. They are on war footing, we are dying our hair pink and purple.
There is an ongoing effort to sail a "temporary humanitarian aid pier" to Gaza. The USNS 2nd Lt,John Bobo (Named for a US Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipient..posthumously) carrying parts of the pier, broke down enroute, a fire in the engine room. The US Army vessels carrying the rest of the gear, have broken down as well. They are stranded all over the Mediterranean Sea. But a couple of questions arise. Since when has the American State Department and and DOD every done anything temporarily in the last 70 years? How about the "temporary" self licking ice cream cone of Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan? Further why a structure of a military support nature for a humanitarian aid purpose? US Marines constantly do humanitarian support missions without a pier that resembles the pier placed in to service in Cherbourg en Cotentin France in 1944 after the Normandy invasion. Why would there be a need for a pier that can handle Abrams M1A2 armor? Or say 155MM howitzer cannon, and other track vehicles and rolling stock. Exactly, "Our boys and girls is being shot at in Geezer an we got git 'em the support day need!" Stop me if you have seen this movie. "Mr. President! The USS Maddox has been shot back at some patrol boats in the South China Sea!" "Did they shoot at us?" "No! But that's the point!" Land the Marines! Build the first self licking ice cream cone at Da Nang and crush the infidels...also known as Nationalists Viet Nam so to say.
And, people wonder why someone would light themselves on fire?
So because there's a story about Marines not using a pier, that means ships don't need a pier to unload goods.
Right.
But the real purpose of the pier is not goods of course but a way to send Arabs to Europe, where the children will soon be made to join the U.S. Black-imitating gangsta culture. Soros-funded ships and others will dock there and take on board any Palestinians who want to go.
Otherwise Biden could simply demand that Israel let through the huge number of trucks waiting in Egypt.
You bring up an interesting way to look at the “temporary” humanitarian aid pier. The way it looked to me, as a US Marine Infantry Officer was “here we go again” we get the US Military “camels nose under the tent” and all of a sudden the situation gets out of hand and things go from bad to worse to who knows how bad. Having been close to two Marines killed in the barracks bombing in Beirut, what started essentially as a “peace keeping” mission (oxymoron if ever there was one) turned into just a military mess. As usual no one took responsibility, one could say President Reagan took some heat, but the failure should have been root causes analyzed and an effort made not to repeat it. So much for that. My view on the pier is you don’t need it to get supplies in, tanks, artillery tubes and troops for sure, and now eyes wide shut, for sure if you have empty ships you can load human cargo onboard and ship it anywhere you want. One wonders where it all ends.
I think the plan is to try to inflate our way out of debt. Therefore, they must look for any excuse to print money. It's the only thing that makes any kind of sense. But maybe there is no logic here, and I'm just grasping at straws.
Regarding Starship Troopers, the movie turns it into leftist propaganda as much as possible. In the novel the insects are aliens who we can't live with, period. (And in the end of the novel mankind allies with the third known form of alien, who are humanoid, against the insects. But I digress.) But the movie states early on that humans encroached on an insect world, so the insects are simply defending themselves.
Faced with that you have a White man ridiculing the female speaker.
You also see an interview where a White man's face is twisted with rage as he tells the camera, "the only good bug is a dead bug!" And a White woman is cheering like a maniac when her children are stepping on bugs on the street.
In real life the beach in Los Angeles is littered with dead animals because the Mexican kids like to kill them, and Black kids love torturing snails to death. But in a movie Whites are the sadistic ones.
There is a news segment where a murderer is sentenced to death. He is of course a White man, looking like an ordinary White man, not a gang member.
A recruitment film shows a little boy saying "I do my part" while he stands in the same line as adult soldiers, causing them to laugh. The viewers are supposed to groan at the obvious and dumb propaganda. The viewers don't realize that they are the real victims of propaganda.
In the movie, but not the novel, it is a White general who has failed in his strategy, and he is replaced by a fat Black woman who leads the army to victory.
In the movie men and women are in the same units as soldiers and for no reason at all they take showers together in one big room. Blacks and Whites and Latinos, and there's no friction. Non-Whites are perfectly fine soldiers together with the Whites in the whole movie. Equality! Early in the movie we see a football match where men and women play together, the women being just as good as the men.
The one officer who fails at being a sergeant during the first contact with the enemy is of course a blond man.
The novel has another piece of propaganda however: Heinlein writes that women are the pilots because they can withstand the stress on their bodies better. Laughable.
The movie also has the psych officer dressed up like an SS officer. He is actually not presented in a bad way, but we have seen that the government is war-crazed and bad, and he coming to the battlefield is a representative of the higher-ups in the viewers' mind. A representative dressed like SS.
And despite all this leftists claim the movie is "racist" because they made the main character White. "In the novel he is a Filipino!" Um, except Heinlein only throws in on the very last page of the novel that the main character's family, when he grew up in Buenos Aires, spoke Pinoy.
Heinlein was a weirdo who threw in all sorts of things in his novels, so that's to be expected. It's always, "check this out, readers!" That doesn't mean the main character was Filipino before that very last page - or he was White and his family simply spoke Pinoy, which would be typical of Heinlein.
---------------------------
In another novel, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, the main character tells a little girl he would spank her if she was older. She then goes to live in another dimension for years to come back older, "So I can get that spanking you promised."
In Glory Road, the main character is declared a Hero after fighting with his sword in another dimension early on in the novel, and after that all the women want to sleep with him. When he and the woman he rescues - who turns out to be the empress of the universe - go to stay at a man's large farm, the man wants him to sleep with his daughters so they can have a Hero's children.
Heinlein was a cripple dreaming libertarian dreams where women and men have sex freely and casually like in any Marxist collective-living fantasy. Except in his right-libertarian society people would form an impromptu jury and vote to lynch a man who cut in line, because that's the only way to maintain order in their anarchist moon society.
In Starship Troopers the novel, the main character takes off his helmet during a live-ammo training session, and is whipped for it. In the movie it's instead because he gets a man killed during training.
In one novel an alien explains to the main character that actually, the presence of homosexuals in the human species is immensely important to the reproduction of the species, but the humans just haven't figured out the connection yet.
In The Cat Who Walks Through Walls a time-changing group goes back and forth in history to improve things, and they mention that they are now going back to make it so that the Persians win at Thermopylae. Tee-hee! And in another dimension, where some of them come from, the first man on the moon was from a private business, not NASA.
As in Glory Road and most of his novels, the story kind of peters out halfway through, simply being a vehicle for Heinlein's dreams about a moral, free-wheeling libertarian society. (But in Glory Road and Starship Troopers alike they live in a dictatorship. Except in both cases it's a dictatorship that leaves almost everyone alone. He was of the opinion that it's democracy that won't leave you alone, not an enlightened dictator.)
Heinlein was the ultimate right-libertarian, with free sex, all races mixed, and still moral responsibility, in a no-government society, as his dream.
"An active-duty member of the military killing himself on behalf of a foreign people who are often actively hostile to our own nation, and who are certainly completely culturally incompatible with us?"
But, he killed himself in support of Palestinians, not Israel. What an odd statement.
Your diatribe is simply more of the same. Pontificating about nothing. All the while inferring that your thinking is much more enlightened than those you demean. Typical Rightwing bullshit. The entire right has lost their minds.
I'm not sure it's fair to call Max Azzarello a leftist. He posted a lot on a _materialist_ leftist subreddit known for being against identity politics but—more than anything—he seemed ideologically against kleptocracy and thought the Clintons, both political parties and crytpocurrency were all major facets of American kleptocracy's ascendancy.
I continue to be fascinated by the effect ~"Jewish people" as a topic has on the corresponding cognition.
Post-modernism is similar, though less distorting in my experience. At least with post-modernism though we can turn to some reasonably authoritative writing on the matter, providing *at least the opportunity* to learn how amazingly misunderstood it is (and importantly: this misunderstanding *is not realized*):
In general I agree and clearly this libtard was perverse in his blanket preference for the Other over his own kind. Even so, 'my own kind' is very rarely synonymous with 'my countrymen' or 'my ethnic group', though there is some overlap. In fact, there are plenty of English people I can't stand (Russell Brand, Diane Abbott, Owen Jones, is a non-exhaustive list) and I can imagine a time, once the progressive liberal English education system has churned out enough Black Lives Matter-supporting clones, that I find myself siding with ANYONE, no matter their nation, race or species, that opposes this poisonous nonsense.
I therefore do have some sympathy for those who occasionally find themselves traitorously attaching themselves to the Other since their own are such unbearable gits. Mosab Hassan Yousef would be a case in point: a traitor but a good traitor.
Absolutely excellent! I restack-quoted almost the entire post, paragraph by paragraph. You really got to the heart of the matter, and it's a problem rooted in our deranged postmodern metaphysics and morality, which tried to counterfeit Christian charity but without involving Christ. So instead we have this bizarre Utilitarian universalism, where the interests of hypothetical foreign millions outweighs the interests of the flesh-and-blood people you share a home and neighborhood with, and you signal your superior virtue by making your heir some fashionable charity operating in the 3rd-world, rather than your own kids. It really is completely unnatural. And it's an ideology that's easily manipulated by a psychopathic ruling class, which is probably why it gets so much institutional support and favorable mainstream media coverage. It is truly insane.
Do you believe your models and methodology of thinking are not similarly flawed?
If they were, would you *necessarily* have a means of discovering it?
Liberals like to think of themselves as generous.
What they need to be taught is that MAGA can be more benevolent to foreigners than our policy Bomb and Invite.
Mexico teeters on the edge of failed state status because our leaky border makes crime so profitable -- in Mexico and countries further to the south.
Printing out Petrodollars in order to finance perpetual trade deficits is effectively collecting tribute from the rest of the world.
Russia has suffered three devastating invasions from the West since 1800. Russia is going to be belligerent unless there are some fairly neutral buffer states between Russia and the West -- regardless of the leadership.
The best foreign aid we could give would be to become energy independent again.
"leftists hate their own people because, deep down inside, they hate themselves."
I don't think this is true (though since it is a blanket statement, it may be true in some cases), I think the root cause of Leftist oikophobia is the wounded amour-propre that disaffected intellectuals and other sad misfits feel in liberal-democratic-capitalist societies, because in the case of the former, liberal capitalism doesn't bestow the right to rule on aspiring philosopher-kings just because they've read so many books (which is why intellectuals swooned for the Soviet Union—it may have been a dictatorship, but it was a dictatorship that took intellectuals seriously!) and in the case of the latter because liberal capitalism generates inequality and inequality creates (or reinforces) binaries like smart/stupid rich/poor successful/unsuccessful and even pretty/ugly, which of course exists everywhere but in free societies gives higher status to the attractive/successful (and wounds the feelings of everyone on the wrong side of each binary).
I think another clue is how Orwell described this same phenomenon:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during 'God save the King' than of stealing from a poor box."
I don't think these people (and their fellow travelers) necessarily hated themselves, they really most hated NOT HAVING THEIR INHERENT SUPERIORITY recognized. The Universalist scoffing at the Particularist is someone implicitly saying: "Any rube can love nation, family, God, but I'm so sophisticated I love ALL nations, families and Gods."
Leftism is a romantic raging against all the inherent cruelty and injustice of existence, just dressed in different ideological garb depending on the time and place and depending on whether you see yourself as a leader of the Glorious Revolution or a devoted foot soldier.
“I care more about one American being killed by illegal aliens than I do about the Israel/Palestine and Ukraine/Russia conflicts.”
And I thought I was the only one that felt this way.
Bravo ❗️
Excellent article! Love how you acknowledge the way nations are families writ large. The longer I watch events unfold, the more deeply I believe that everything boils down to blood and soil. The rootless cosmopolitans teaching us that these fundamentals don’t matter are implicitly advancing the cause
of their own blood and/or soil at our expense.
Almost all members of Congress voting for the latest round of funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, many of whom in the House of Representatives boisterously and brazenly waving Ukrainian flags after passing the latest round of grift spending are all of military service age in Ukraine! (It is now a broad band width of ages 12 to 95 over there) The question every American ought be asking these demented children is "When are you leaving? When are you joining the fight?" News flash, the conflict is lost for Ukraine. Russian forces as they have in the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries started their campaign off badly. But they have this nasty habit of learning from their mistakes. They have reformed and reorganized their force structure, to suit this conflict. Notably this is the same terrain that they reclaimed from German Nazi war fighting units in 1943 and 1944. Odessa means SOMETHING to them. Crimea means SOMETHING to them. So they are going to prevail, and what is lost in all the BS flying around the halls of Congress, is that this conflict is now one of industrial attrition. They are on war footing, we are dying our hair pink and purple.
There is an ongoing effort to sail a "temporary humanitarian aid pier" to Gaza. The USNS 2nd Lt,John Bobo (Named for a US Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipient..posthumously) carrying parts of the pier, broke down enroute, a fire in the engine room. The US Army vessels carrying the rest of the gear, have broken down as well. They are stranded all over the Mediterranean Sea. But a couple of questions arise. Since when has the American State Department and and DOD every done anything temporarily in the last 70 years? How about the "temporary" self licking ice cream cone of Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan? Further why a structure of a military support nature for a humanitarian aid purpose? US Marines constantly do humanitarian support missions without a pier that resembles the pier placed in to service in Cherbourg en Cotentin France in 1944 after the Normandy invasion. Why would there be a need for a pier that can handle Abrams M1A2 armor? Or say 155MM howitzer cannon, and other track vehicles and rolling stock. Exactly, "Our boys and girls is being shot at in Geezer an we got git 'em the support day need!" Stop me if you have seen this movie. "Mr. President! The USS Maddox has been shot back at some patrol boats in the South China Sea!" "Did they shoot at us?" "No! But that's the point!" Land the Marines! Build the first self licking ice cream cone at Da Nang and crush the infidels...also known as Nationalists Viet Nam so to say.
And, people wonder why someone would light themselves on fire?
So because there's a story about Marines not using a pier, that means ships don't need a pier to unload goods.
Right.
But the real purpose of the pier is not goods of course but a way to send Arabs to Europe, where the children will soon be made to join the U.S. Black-imitating gangsta culture. Soros-funded ships and others will dock there and take on board any Palestinians who want to go.
Otherwise Biden could simply demand that Israel let through the huge number of trucks waiting in Egypt.
You bring up an interesting way to look at the “temporary” humanitarian aid pier. The way it looked to me, as a US Marine Infantry Officer was “here we go again” we get the US Military “camels nose under the tent” and all of a sudden the situation gets out of hand and things go from bad to worse to who knows how bad. Having been close to two Marines killed in the barracks bombing in Beirut, what started essentially as a “peace keeping” mission (oxymoron if ever there was one) turned into just a military mess. As usual no one took responsibility, one could say President Reagan took some heat, but the failure should have been root causes analyzed and an effort made not to repeat it. So much for that. My view on the pier is you don’t need it to get supplies in, tanks, artillery tubes and troops for sure, and now eyes wide shut, for sure if you have empty ships you can load human cargo onboard and ship it anywhere you want. One wonders where it all ends.
I think the plan is to try to inflate our way out of debt. Therefore, they must look for any excuse to print money. It's the only thing that makes any kind of sense. But maybe there is no logic here, and I'm just grasping at straws.
Regarding Starship Troopers, the movie turns it into leftist propaganda as much as possible. In the novel the insects are aliens who we can't live with, period. (And in the end of the novel mankind allies with the third known form of alien, who are humanoid, against the insects. But I digress.) But the movie states early on that humans encroached on an insect world, so the insects are simply defending themselves.
Faced with that you have a White man ridiculing the female speaker.
You also see an interview where a White man's face is twisted with rage as he tells the camera, "the only good bug is a dead bug!" And a White woman is cheering like a maniac when her children are stepping on bugs on the street.
In real life the beach in Los Angeles is littered with dead animals because the Mexican kids like to kill them, and Black kids love torturing snails to death. But in a movie Whites are the sadistic ones.
There is a news segment where a murderer is sentenced to death. He is of course a White man, looking like an ordinary White man, not a gang member.
A recruitment film shows a little boy saying "I do my part" while he stands in the same line as adult soldiers, causing them to laugh. The viewers are supposed to groan at the obvious and dumb propaganda. The viewers don't realize that they are the real victims of propaganda.
In the movie, but not the novel, it is a White general who has failed in his strategy, and he is replaced by a fat Black woman who leads the army to victory.
In the movie men and women are in the same units as soldiers and for no reason at all they take showers together in one big room. Blacks and Whites and Latinos, and there's no friction. Non-Whites are perfectly fine soldiers together with the Whites in the whole movie. Equality! Early in the movie we see a football match where men and women play together, the women being just as good as the men.
The one officer who fails at being a sergeant during the first contact with the enemy is of course a blond man.
The novel has another piece of propaganda however: Heinlein writes that women are the pilots because they can withstand the stress on their bodies better. Laughable.
The movie also has the psych officer dressed up like an SS officer. He is actually not presented in a bad way, but we have seen that the government is war-crazed and bad, and he coming to the battlefield is a representative of the higher-ups in the viewers' mind. A representative dressed like SS.
And despite all this leftists claim the movie is "racist" because they made the main character White. "In the novel he is a Filipino!" Um, except Heinlein only throws in on the very last page of the novel that the main character's family, when he grew up in Buenos Aires, spoke Pinoy.
Heinlein was a weirdo who threw in all sorts of things in his novels, so that's to be expected. It's always, "check this out, readers!" That doesn't mean the main character was Filipino before that very last page - or he was White and his family simply spoke Pinoy, which would be typical of Heinlein.
---------------------------
In another novel, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, the main character tells a little girl he would spank her if she was older. She then goes to live in another dimension for years to come back older, "So I can get that spanking you promised."
In Glory Road, the main character is declared a Hero after fighting with his sword in another dimension early on in the novel, and after that all the women want to sleep with him. When he and the woman he rescues - who turns out to be the empress of the universe - go to stay at a man's large farm, the man wants him to sleep with his daughters so they can have a Hero's children.
Heinlein was a cripple dreaming libertarian dreams where women and men have sex freely and casually like in any Marxist collective-living fantasy. Except in his right-libertarian society people would form an impromptu jury and vote to lynch a man who cut in line, because that's the only way to maintain order in their anarchist moon society.
In Starship Troopers the novel, the main character takes off his helmet during a live-ammo training session, and is whipped for it. In the movie it's instead because he gets a man killed during training.
In one novel an alien explains to the main character that actually, the presence of homosexuals in the human species is immensely important to the reproduction of the species, but the humans just haven't figured out the connection yet.
In The Cat Who Walks Through Walls a time-changing group goes back and forth in history to improve things, and they mention that they are now going back to make it so that the Persians win at Thermopylae. Tee-hee! And in another dimension, where some of them come from, the first man on the moon was from a private business, not NASA.
As in Glory Road and most of his novels, the story kind of peters out halfway through, simply being a vehicle for Heinlein's dreams about a moral, free-wheeling libertarian society. (But in Glory Road and Starship Troopers alike they live in a dictatorship. Except in both cases it's a dictatorship that leaves almost everyone alone. He was of the opinion that it's democracy that won't leave you alone, not an enlightened dictator.)
Heinlein was the ultimate right-libertarian, with free sex, all races mixed, and still moral responsibility, in a no-government society, as his dream.
"An active-duty member of the military killing himself on behalf of a foreign people who are often actively hostile to our own nation, and who are certainly completely culturally incompatible with us?"
But, he killed himself in support of Palestinians, not Israel. What an odd statement.
Isn’t all this self immolation bad for the climate?
Your diatribe is simply more of the same. Pontificating about nothing. All the while inferring that your thinking is much more enlightened than those you demean. Typical Rightwing bullshit. The entire right has lost their minds.
I'm not sure it's fair to call Max Azzarello a leftist. He posted a lot on a _materialist_ leftist subreddit known for being against identity politics but—more than anything—he seemed ideologically against kleptocracy and thought the Clintons, both political parties and crytpocurrency were all major facets of American kleptocracy's ascendancy.
https://www.newsweek.com/read-max-azzarello-manifesto-about-lighting-himself-fire-trump-trial-1892368
Great piece big guy
I continue to be fascinated by the effect ~"Jewish people" as a topic has on the corresponding cognition.
Post-modernism is similar, though less distorting in my experience. At least with post-modernism though we can turn to some reasonably authoritative writing on the matter, providing *at least the opportunity* to learn how amazingly misunderstood it is (and importantly: this misunderstanding *is not realized*):
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
I wonder if humans will ever address the various "elephants in the room" that our culture and tall tales rest upon, just one of which is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
I am not optimistic, but I intend to have fun making the best of a bad situation!
In general I agree and clearly this libtard was perverse in his blanket preference for the Other over his own kind. Even so, 'my own kind' is very rarely synonymous with 'my countrymen' or 'my ethnic group', though there is some overlap. In fact, there are plenty of English people I can't stand (Russell Brand, Diane Abbott, Owen Jones, is a non-exhaustive list) and I can imagine a time, once the progressive liberal English education system has churned out enough Black Lives Matter-supporting clones, that I find myself siding with ANYONE, no matter their nation, race or species, that opposes this poisonous nonsense.
I therefore do have some sympathy for those who occasionally find themselves traitorously attaching themselves to the Other since their own are such unbearable gits. Mosab Hassan Yousef would be a case in point: a traitor but a good traitor.