ex cathedra: Multiple choice

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Multiple choice

I read recently that when people, either individually or in groups, have serious disagreements, the default responses are usually to conclude that your opponent is a) stupid, b) crazy or c) evil.

Sounds good to me.

Does that make me close-minded, or, gasp!, a "hater"?

Sounds good to me.

2 comments:

Tarquin said...: One's opponent might be stupid AND crazy AND evil. Why limit it to one possibility?; 7:19 AM, June 26, 2011
OreamnosAmericanus said...: Sounds good to me! :); 10:40 AM, June 26, 2011

Post a Comment

Toward Our Future

What the sons of Europa need is a new religion: one that is as tribal, portable and survivalist as Judaism, as masculine, terrestrial and tough as Islam and as intellectually and aesthetically creative as Christianity...with a dose of the unflinching realism of the ancestral ways of the Greeks and Romans, Germans and Celts and Slavs..And for the larger Indo-European frame, something of the Indian capacity to combine an ultimate and philosophical realization of The One with a robustly mytho-poetic religion on-the-ground. Oh, and some of the psychological acumen of Buddhism.

Liberalism's Basic Flaw

Liberals believe that the chief role of the State is to force everyone to be equal, (ie, take vengeance on the successful). So when they are confronted with any group that they deem less well off than themselves, they are morally disarmed, completely and utterly. Any group that can achieve Victim Status is on their way to power and the (White) liberal's only job is to give them what they want, no matter how much that damages him. And nothing may ever be expected, much less demanded, of them in return. It's a recipe for suicide: no other outcome is possible.