The Motives for ALL Criticism, Legitimate or Not, made by an Out-Group Speaker (Even if based upon a Universal/ Race Non-Essentialist principle) has been Weaponized and Must Subsequently be Perceived/ Heard by Members of the In-Group with Weaponized Motives Assigned to the Speaker as Subjective Racism (or Anti-Semitism). No Caritas is Granted the Speaker's Motives. He is an Outsider who Seeks the Group's Destruction, so I must constantly assert my "right to exist".
The In-Group has a tin ear when it comes to Receiving, Let Alone Accepting, Out-Group Criticism. The motives of Critics Have been POLITICALLY Weaponized, and can no longer accepted as Objective Criticism. They Must ALWAYS be Subjective Criticism. The Universal human, and the position of Universalism/ Universal Principle itself, is Denied. The Nazi (Schmittian) Us-Them/ Friend-Enemy Distinction is ALWAYS in Force.
Zionism does NOT Recognize as Valid the Universalism of Western Nationalism. There is only Israel vs. Barbarians. And Barbarians CANNOT be Trusted!
You Cannot Eradicate Racism from a Society when Many of its' Minority Sub-Group Members hold it as a 1st Principle. Anti-Racism Pogroms Against Specific Subgroups is Not a Viable Strategy. Amor Caritas Is the Only Option.
Augustus St. Gaudens, "Amor Caritas" (1898)
14 comments:
maga = Odium crudelitas.
Meden agan!
Translation: tibi, non mihi.
No, its' meden agan. Which includes "progress" towards the eschaton.
Classical liberalism, not libertinism.
Creative destruction, mass deportations, hate, economic chaos, deliberately driving wealth disparity, a unitary executive with an executive above the law, fake charges directed at political enemies, etc are NOT meden agan. They are the opposite.
Meden agan. Ecclesiastes 3.
btw - Wasn't Trump the one charged?
Tibi non mihi...
Minus: Meden agan. Ecclesiastes 3.
Right. You reject both.
donald trump should have been charged more quickly. Merrick Garland was too timid. He was the wrong choice for AG. It should have been Glenn Kirschner or someone like him. I guess Joe Biden thought he owed him due to him not getting the Supreme Court gig. But Merrick Garland should currently be on the supreme court. He would be, if not for Mitch McConnell. Barack Obama should have declared that Mitch was declining to advise and consent and appointed him, then let republicans sue. One thing about trump is that he acts boldly, that's for sure. Unconstitutionally and illegally, but boldly.
What democrats need is a presidential candidate with the charisma, intellect, foresight, guts, and compassion of FDR.
Garland was a weak sister AG, a very poor selection by Biden. Very poor indeed.
Obama shoulda and coulda, but being a man of integrity, unlike trump, he choose to honor the process of our democratic institutions. Something trump has no respect for.
So you're saying Democrats need another racist conniving crooked politician like FDR, eh Leslie? FDR was very popular with the KKK. He passionately hated Japanese people and wanted the Japanese permanently banned from living in all of North, Central and South America. You want a power hungry crooked politician in office, eh?
No, he is referring to donald trump being a racist conniving crooked politician.
As for your claims about FDR... they are largely BS.
🤖Via Copilot...
👉Claim 1: “FDR was very popular with the KKK.”
Verdict: Not supported by historical evidence. The Ku Klux Klan in the 1930s did not support Franklin D. Roosevelt. The KKK’s influence was already declining by the time FDR took office in 1933.
The Klan tended to oppose Roosevelt because: they disliked his support for Catholics and Jews in his administration. They opposed the New Deal’s federal expansion. They were hostile to his alliances with urban, immigrant‑heavy Democratic machines. There is no historical record of the KKK endorsing FDR or being “very popular” with him.
👉Claim 2: “He passionately hated Japanese people.”
Verdict: Oversimplified and misleading.
Here’s the factual context: FDR did sign Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. This decision is widely criticized today as discriminatory and unjust.
However, historians attribute the order to: wartime fear. Military pressure. Racism present in the U.S. at the time. Political calculations.
There is no evidence that FDR advocated a personal, ideological hatred of Japanese people as a race. His actions were discriminatory, but the blog comment exaggerates his personal views beyond what the historical record supports.
👉Claim 3: “He wanted the Japanese permanently banned from living in all of North, Central, and South America.”
Verdict: False.
There is no historical documentation that FDR ever proposed: banning all people of Japanese descent from the entire Western Hemisphere. Deporting Japanese Americans permanently. Or any policy resembling this.
The U.S. government did pressure some Latin American countries to detain or deport Japanese nationals during WWII, but this was driven by wartime security fears, not a hemispheric racial ban, and it was not a personal initiative of FDR.
This claim appears to be an internet myth with no primary‑source support.
👉Claim 4: “FDR was a racist.”
Verdict: Historically complicated, but the blog comment oversimplifies.
Most historians agree: FDR held some views that reflected the racial attitudes of his era. His administration made decisions (like internment) that are now seen as discriminatory. He also appointed the first Black federal judge, supported the Tuskegee Airmen, and worked with Black leaders like Mary McLeod Bethune.
So the truth is mixed and context‑dependent — not the caricature presented in the comment.
👉Claim 5: “FDR was crooked.”
Verdict: Opinion, not a factual claim. There is no evidence of criminal corruption by FDR.
Critics have accused him of: expanding executive power. Bending political norms. Using patronage networks. …but these are political interpretations, not factual findings of wrongdoing.🛑
Rat boy has always been full of BS. And it will no doubt remain so.
Post a Comment