Yup, they're also fixating on the wrong word. My problem with this little effort is the word "force" - but lefties are generally actually fine with that - provided they're the ones doing the forcing.
Lefties fixate on "religion", because Social Justice is a jealous god. They cannot abide the idea that there may be higher commandments than the social rules they seek to impose, and they really dislike the idea that those rules might be written down, because to a SJW, rules are malleable things, intended to be sword and shield depending upon the relative social statuses of the people wielding them.
No it wasn't. That shit was a side show compared to the fact that the Socialist government blew up the economy, that the Russians had invaded in the 1920's and caused a communist insurrection in Berlin to support the invasion, and that the "Hunger Chancellor" who actually fixed the economy had cut programs that the predominantly socialist people of Germany thought they should still be able to have.
The National Socialists biggest argument was that they were a complete alternative, almost centrist, party that would keep the benefits of Socialism, Progressive Nationalism, and institutionalize the Volkish movement (which was an ahistorical revisionism of German history into myth).
The degeneracy of Berlin was just that: Berlin being weird. What most Germans didn't like were the Berliners blowing up the economy and supporting a Russian invasion. The germans liked the 'benefits' of Socialism because they were under the impression that a socialist society was an inherently advanced society, but for some unknowable reason, their economy kept dying. So, they wanted an alternative to Communism, and Democratic Socialism, and evil-backwards-reactionary-thinking Capitalism that all the experts thought would be a really good idea. Well, they found it.
With all that information, if you compare it to today, would you say increased degeneracy is linked to an ineffectual and incompetent government that cannot effectively rule.
Makes logical sense, if you have no inclination to focus on the best for your people rather than yourselves, why not also delve in hedonistic practices.
I actually disagree, it's slightly different, but related.
It is actually that Authoritarianism, if left to fester long enough, or expanded into every aspect of a society to the point of Totalitarianism, will actually create both incompetence and degeneracy which leads to it's inevitable collapse.
This is because when an authoritarian seeks to maintain power for himself, he can't allow his subordinates to challenge his authority. The only way he can protect himself from revolution is dependency. The best way to control someone is vice. If you promote someone who is too incompetent or unskilled to replace you, they will be absolutely loyal, and contented with their position. If you promote someone who has a vice, you can control that person by controlling their access to that vice.
If you are a department head, and you promote someone who isn't smart enough to do your job as your assistant manager, he'll never challenge you because he needs you. Better yet, if he's already too stupid to do his job, but you're smart enough to do both, then he will be deathly loyal because he's at a position of unearned status and wealth because of you. If you promote someone who is a drunkard to the deputy manager position, and he knows that the only reason he keeps his job is because you keep protecting him from being fired for showing up drunk, then he will remain deathly loyal. The security of your position is absolute.
Now, apply that to an economy of scale.
You hire the drunkard as your direct subordinate, and he's loyal to you for your protection. The drunkard hires a thief as a direct subordinate who is loyal to the drunkard for his protection for corruption. The thief hires an incompetent to protect his authority and hide his theft. The incompetent hires a complete retard. The retard hires a criminal. The criminal hires a pedophile.
All the way down the line, each position of power is secured by worse and worse corruption, degeneracy, and incompetence.
The degeneracy isn't the cause. The degeneracy is a necessary aspect of authoritarianism. The degeneracy is mechanism of control.
Hunter Biden isn't the way he is because he's powerful. In fact, he has no power. He is a literal monetary vehicle for his father. Hunter is a slave. His degeneracy is a weapon wielded against him as a mechanism of controlling him.
Fixing the degeneracy is effectively impossible, because it is the power structure that is demanding it. This is why we are ruled by retards, the mentally ill, pedophiles, and addicts. All of them are easily controllable, but the people who should be in charge and controlling them are gone. All we are left with are the final phase of the inevitable collapse of such authoritarianism: groups of retards, invalids, degenerates, and thieves squabbling among each other as the whole system implodes on itself because the delicate racket of protectionism is without proper guidance.
You can't keep the system and fix the degeneracy. You have to destroy the whole system.
Like Sodom.
In fact, Christianity seems to make the most sense in identifying this issue. The 7 deadly sins are vices that actually make you easy to control by others. It's worded along the lines of being tempted by Satan, but it's also why the Christians keep looking around and saying the world is Satanic. They're right: it is. The world is ruled by a racket of vices that keep only the worst in power.
Weird, isn't it, that the areas that attempt to go full socialism - such as Berlin in the 1920s - always have as a solution to the complete degeneration of society that results of "more socialism"?
This is the point. All socialism inevitably seeks to correct the problems of socialism with socialism.
The idea that socialism is inherently morally degenerate is the result of the Fabian Socialists exposing the west to the longest period of cultural demoralization in history. That's the strategy of the "New Left". On the other hand, the "Old Left" didn't want to wait for that period of demoralization, and had enough power to just kill everyone who disagreed, and create their Year Zero moment themselves. As a result, Eastern Europe and the Soviet sphere of influence showed Communism as inherently morally traditionalist to their Communist morality from Year Zero.
The National Socialists biggest argument was that they were a complete alternative, almost centrist, party that would keep the benefits of Socialism, Progressive Nationalism, and institutionalize the Volkish movement (which was an ahistorical revisionism of German history into myth).
I hate using the word Centrist because it doesn't make sense in a modern context. They were explicitly a revolutionary party, but they saw themselves as an "all of the good parts" middle-ground between Communism and Capitalism.
Modern connotations of centrism implies that they would have been anti-revolutionary or reformist, but they were openly revolutionary. Hell, it's why they dissolved the constitution, and pledged to due so in their elections.
Their own description of "third way" is actually more apt than "centrist". The framing doesn't make sense objectively, but if you're a socialist who accepts a pure political binary between Communism and Capitalism, it does.
That's what I meant when I said that the Communists engaged in an insurrection. Antifa was always a Communist insurgent group, and was actively engaged in massive political street violence at the time, and even long before the NSDAP showed up.
Yeah I'm pretty sure family family-run whore houses and women or children being nothing more than a cheap commodity for foreigners was just "berlin being weird". Kys pedo apologist
It's cute that you think Europe wasn't degenerate when it was always America that had a much stronger religious center since the first settlers.
Even then, you're imposing an modern immigration problem in Germany to where it was in the 20's.
For Fuck Sake, the historical record is pretty clear that even when Bismark was in charge, a whole slew of his cabinet were homosexual. The degeneracy of Berlin was many decades old and only got worse under socialism. Which other socialists (like yourself) used as a weapon to gain power.
It's not like you National Socialists were any better. There was a reason the Nazi Youth organizations kept getting 15 year old girls pregnant, you were just hoping that pregnant girls and a welfare state could give you enough soldiers to fight off the Russians. It wasn't.
I just commented about you posting pedophilia apologism and suddenly you start calling me a nazi assuming who I am and what I stand for while doubling down on it all L O L
You made up a bunch of random shit when I was talking about the fact that the Nazis gained popularity because of the appeal of socialism without the downside. Sit down, faggot.
That's because this comes from the subreddit "The right can't meme" so all they do is take rightwing memes and edit them...which ironically just proves once again the left can't meme.
So this likely originally showed the fag-worshipper slippery slope.
The difference being: laws separating Church and State prevent step three and on, while Wokism hides itself and slips into these very schools without ever being called out as the doomsday cult it is.
If you want to see if Nazis were Christians, actually look at the Nazi religion. It's not a Christian, it's weird "Cult of The Aryan" kinda looney shit.
Not only that, Hitler wrote extensively about how much he hated Christianity and thought that it was a weak religion that made you a cuck. And the only reason he couldnt get rid of it was because there were so many Germans who were worshippers that it would be more than a little obvious.
Considering he took only the wrong lessons from Nietzsche, who fundamentally thought Christianity was a kind of slave-mentality moral framework, it's not a surprise that Hitler wouldn't like Christianity.
Heck, his biggest real electoral threat came from German Catholics.
If he had tried to openly remove Christianity from all of Germany (rather than subverting it into the Nazi religion), he would have been seen as too similar to the Communists.
It is interesting to me that although the Catholics never posed a big problem in Italy, and the Catholics even joined with the Fascists in Spain (even forming Falangism), it seems like National Socialism violated something in the Catholic germans' principles.
Fundamentally, I think that unless a Socialist makes space for Catholicism, it's just going to be treated as a rival religion.
The round table talks had little context and are subject to arguably deliberate mistranslation, abridging, and framing (to delegitimize him to english speaking countries who might have been on the fence about WWII, who were largely Christian at the time; Thus, among other collective psycho-sociological efforts, they sought to bury any chance of a counter narrative seeding and any
meaningful association with him), beyond that I don't know where you might extrapolate these "extensive" writings. Goebbels and others maybe, but the bulk of Germans were absolutely Christian/Catholic, as was the Fuhrer, though it would make sense that he would fall away from the faith because a profound criticism of Christendom was bouncing around the interoccular of philosophy at the time along with the undeniable factor of social pressure from his cohorts.
What can be said of Christendom? It is not a worldly faith. If you are doing anything less than the anabaptists and the Orthodoxy then you're essentially doing it wrong. Though, the 25 points of NSDAP are in no way a contrast to the values of mainstream Christianity, in fact, the 24th point contradicts you entirely.
They were actually one of the only political factions that seemed to try and hunker down and just survive outside of the war, but were stuck within Germany, without ever trying to collaborate. Meanwhile: the Communists either died or joined the Nazis, and the Socialists just mildly complained that they weren't in charge.
Honestly, the DemSoc complaints in the war can be basically summed up with: "This isn't real socialism! Gobbels is lying! The economy would work better with Socialism that was funding what I want!" and that's about it.
The likes of Evola were welcomed into and loved by many in Nazi Germany. If you've ever read Evola, you'll know that he had no time for Christianity, and was a big promoter of Neo Paganism.
Like how could anyone believe Nazis were pro Christian…. The ideaology most closely associated with hating Jews for some reason are big fan of a religion whose savior is a Jew.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Jesus of Nazareth would have been a jew both ethnically and culturally. Hell, at best you could argue he was demanding reform to a jewish establishment which had aligned itself with the romans for power (and after being repeatedly crushed in rebellions).
Islamofascist isn't a term for National Socialists, it's a term for Jihadists.
Sayid Qtub's writings actually kind of do show a sense of Fascism in "Social Justice In Islam". But, it's not because he's a dedicated Fascist. It's because a Jihadist state literally does make the state God and the epicenter of all moral thought. Both are even rejecting materialist frameworks. The Fascists and Jihadists just ended up at the same conclusion, but the former had to invent a metaphysical concept of a nation, where the latter simply re-asserted Muslims as a nation.
There is some historical precedent to this, but the same applies to the religion of THE MESSAGE, and we are much further down that slope at the moment.
The slippery slope of feminism, if someone wants to draw it, although the timeline doesn't really work because a lot of their radical ideas now originated 50-60 years ago.
"Give us the vote!"
"Let us force people to hire us"
"Let us kill babies"
"Let us talk about how we want to kill millions for their gender"
"Let us force boys to listen to how they're evil for not being female"
"Let us accuse people of rape without evidence"
"Let us cut your child's dick off"
"Let us force your child to take something we designed to kill boys"
The US is here
"Let us murder grown men"
The UK is here
"Let us start a war to force young men to fight in it because they're too strong for us to kill them ourselves"
James Lindsay just did a talk bringing up the point that the whole "gender" concept, which acted as a trojan horse for the rest of Wokism, only became popular because early feminists jumped on it as a shortcut to "gender equality".
They really are the beginning of the Wokist denial of reality. Sex equality is false, as "TERFs" will tell you, although they also want all the "good" parts of it. But now we can't even question it, even though we know that women cannot compete with top tier men, both physically and in other arenas like chess or go.
I'd like to have a frank discussion around rights and responsibilities via the sexes. Voting was always tied to the draft, but you can't simply say "draft women" because they aren't able to function as soldiers (imagine deploying someone to fight away from a well stocked base for long periods of time who needs tampons or they can't function). Working is tied to caring for family but women generally only take care of themselves; why should they be allowed to work without their husbands permission?
I know it seems misogynist but, if so, then so is reality. Women have a lot of things harder than men. The irony is that we have no problem recognizing this some of the time, such as how domestic violence and family courts openly favour women, and "period equity" giving women extra resources due to biological reasons. But heaven forbid we discuss the things that benefit women for no reason.
Firstly, feminism is the blatant brainchild of elite men. The very tenets don't make sense if a woman was the origin.
Secondly, the entire goal of feminism was about increasing tax revenue, and that worked. Women will now advocate for the ability to work their back to the bone as a way to "stick it to the man", which results in them lining the "man's" pockets.
Looks at pride month flag in primary school classrooms
I'm sorry, what was that you were saying ... ?
That’s what I was thinking. These people have no self awareness
Yup, they're also fixating on the wrong word. My problem with this little effort is the word "force" - but lefties are generally actually fine with that - provided they're the ones doing the forcing.
Lefties fixate on "religion", because Social Justice is a jealous god. They cannot abide the idea that there may be higher commandments than the social rules they seek to impose, and they really dislike the idea that those rules might be written down, because to a SJW, rules are malleable things, intended to be sword and shield depending upon the relative social statuses of the people wielding them.
Noooooo, thats not a religion! Only rightwingers believe in religion!!
Now come here Timmy and pray to Saint Troon of the million genders.
Kneel before the icon of St. George of Fentanyl!
it has nothing to do with religion, it's called being a decent human being! 👏
It's not politics, it's human rights!
Wasn't part of the reason for the growth in Nazism in Germany was because of the degeneracy that was happening to the point you had child prostitution
So how about you stop being such open degenerates demanding public attention, and then you don't have to fear a huge backlash and camps?
No it wasn't. That shit was a side show compared to the fact that the Socialist government blew up the economy, that the Russians had invaded in the 1920's and caused a communist insurrection in Berlin to support the invasion, and that the "Hunger Chancellor" who actually fixed the economy had cut programs that the predominantly socialist people of Germany thought they should still be able to have.
The National Socialists biggest argument was that they were a complete alternative, almost centrist, party that would keep the benefits of Socialism, Progressive Nationalism, and institutionalize the Volkish movement (which was an ahistorical revisionism of German history into myth).
The degeneracy of Berlin was just that: Berlin being weird. What most Germans didn't like were the Berliners blowing up the economy and supporting a Russian invasion. The germans liked the 'benefits' of Socialism because they were under the impression that a socialist society was an inherently advanced society, but for some unknowable reason, their economy kept dying. So, they wanted an alternative to Communism, and Democratic Socialism, and evil-backwards-reactionary-thinking Capitalism that all the experts thought would be a really good idea. Well, they found it.
With all that information, if you compare it to today, would you say increased degeneracy is linked to an ineffectual and incompetent government that cannot effectively rule.
Makes logical sense, if you have no inclination to focus on the best for your people rather than yourselves, why not also delve in hedonistic practices.
Well ... to your first point, look at Rome and its supposed degeneracy prior to and during its fall.
Same with the ancient Greeks, specifically Athenians.
Even when there's documented evidence that there were laws on the books that tried to curb such evil.
I actually disagree, it's slightly different, but related.
It is actually that Authoritarianism, if left to fester long enough, or expanded into every aspect of a society to the point of Totalitarianism, will actually create both incompetence and degeneracy which leads to it's inevitable collapse.
This is because when an authoritarian seeks to maintain power for himself, he can't allow his subordinates to challenge his authority. The only way he can protect himself from revolution is dependency. The best way to control someone is vice. If you promote someone who is too incompetent or unskilled to replace you, they will be absolutely loyal, and contented with their position. If you promote someone who has a vice, you can control that person by controlling their access to that vice.
If you are a department head, and you promote someone who isn't smart enough to do your job as your assistant manager, he'll never challenge you because he needs you. Better yet, if he's already too stupid to do his job, but you're smart enough to do both, then he will be deathly loyal because he's at a position of unearned status and wealth because of you. If you promote someone who is a drunkard to the deputy manager position, and he knows that the only reason he keeps his job is because you keep protecting him from being fired for showing up drunk, then he will remain deathly loyal. The security of your position is absolute.
Now, apply that to an economy of scale.
You hire the drunkard as your direct subordinate, and he's loyal to you for your protection. The drunkard hires a thief as a direct subordinate who is loyal to the drunkard for his protection for corruption. The thief hires an incompetent to protect his authority and hide his theft. The incompetent hires a complete retard. The retard hires a criminal. The criminal hires a pedophile.
All the way down the line, each position of power is secured by worse and worse corruption, degeneracy, and incompetence.
The degeneracy isn't the cause. The degeneracy is a necessary aspect of authoritarianism. The degeneracy is mechanism of control.
Hunter Biden isn't the way he is because he's powerful. In fact, he has no power. He is a literal monetary vehicle for his father. Hunter is a slave. His degeneracy is a weapon wielded against him as a mechanism of controlling him.
Fixing the degeneracy is effectively impossible, because it is the power structure that is demanding it. This is why we are ruled by retards, the mentally ill, pedophiles, and addicts. All of them are easily controllable, but the people who should be in charge and controlling them are gone. All we are left with are the final phase of the inevitable collapse of such authoritarianism: groups of retards, invalids, degenerates, and thieves squabbling among each other as the whole system implodes on itself because the delicate racket of protectionism is without proper guidance.
You can't keep the system and fix the degeneracy. You have to destroy the whole system.
Like Sodom.
In fact, Christianity seems to make the most sense in identifying this issue. The 7 deadly sins are vices that actually make you easy to control by others. It's worded along the lines of being tempted by Satan, but it's also why the Christians keep looking around and saying the world is Satanic. They're right: it is. The world is ruled by a racket of vices that keep only the worst in power.
Weird, isn't it, that the areas that attempt to go full socialism - such as Berlin in the 1920s - always have as a solution to the complete degeneration of society that results of "more socialism"?
This is the point. All socialism inevitably seeks to correct the problems of socialism with socialism.
The idea that socialism is inherently morally degenerate is the result of the Fabian Socialists exposing the west to the longest period of cultural demoralization in history. That's the strategy of the "New Left". On the other hand, the "Old Left" didn't want to wait for that period of demoralization, and had enough power to just kill everyone who disagreed, and create their Year Zero moment themselves. As a result, Eastern Europe and the Soviet sphere of influence showed Communism as inherently morally traditionalist to their Communist morality from Year Zero.
Vee's dissection of a modern candy commercial that survived the old Communist regime shows the "conservatism" of the old Communist regimes.
This is correct. Here is their 25 point plan
I hate using the word Centrist because it doesn't make sense in a modern context. They were explicitly a revolutionary party, but they saw themselves as an "all of the good parts" middle-ground between Communism and Capitalism.
Modern connotations of centrism implies that they would have been anti-revolutionary or reformist, but they were openly revolutionary. Hell, it's why they dissolved the constitution, and pledged to due so in their elections.
Their own description of "third way" is actually more apt than "centrist". The framing doesn't make sense objectively, but if you're a socialist who accepts a pure political binary between Communism and Capitalism, it does.
Don't forget antifa running around committing terrorism
That's what I meant when I said that the Communists engaged in an insurrection. Antifa was always a Communist insurgent group, and was actively engaged in massive political street violence at the time, and even long before the NSDAP showed up.
Yeah I'm pretty sure family family-run whore houses and women or children being nothing more than a cheap commodity for foreigners was just "berlin being weird". Kys pedo apologist
It's cute that you think Europe wasn't degenerate when it was always America that had a much stronger religious center since the first settlers.
Even then, you're imposing an modern immigration problem in Germany to where it was in the 20's.
For Fuck Sake, the historical record is pretty clear that even when Bismark was in charge, a whole slew of his cabinet were homosexual. The degeneracy of Berlin was many decades old and only got worse under socialism. Which other socialists (like yourself) used as a weapon to gain power.
It's not like you National Socialists were any better. There was a reason the Nazi Youth organizations kept getting 15 year old girls pregnant, you were just hoping that pregnant girls and a welfare state could give you enough soldiers to fight off the Russians. It wasn't.
I just commented about you posting pedophilia apologism and suddenly you start calling me a nazi assuming who I am and what I stand for while doubling down on it all L O L
You made up a bunch of random shit when I was talking about the fact that the Nazis gained popularity because of the appeal of socialism without the downside. Sit down, faggot.
Women being shitty people is regularly available in the present day, you retard.
That would require self discipline on the part of the wicked.
Every day I wish the right actually was the boogeyman leftists conjure. And every day I am disappointed
That's the very slope the fag-worshippers are following, frankly.
That's because this comes from the subreddit "The right can't meme" so all they do is take rightwing memes and edit them...which ironically just proves once again the left can't meme.
So this likely originally showed the fag-worshipper slippery slope.
Uh-huh, I think the thing they're really mad about is that they're not tax-exempt .. yet.
The difference being: laws separating Church and State prevent step three and on, while Wokism hides itself and slips into these very schools without ever being called out as the doomsday cult it is.
Ah yes, the National Socialist Christians.
If you want to see if Nazis were Christians, actually look at the Nazi religion. It's not a Christian, it's weird "Cult of The Aryan" kinda looney shit.
Not only that, Hitler wrote extensively about how much he hated Christianity and thought that it was a weak religion that made you a cuck. And the only reason he couldnt get rid of it was because there were so many Germans who were worshippers that it would be more than a little obvious.
Considering he took only the wrong lessons from Nietzsche, who fundamentally thought Christianity was a kind of slave-mentality moral framework, it's not a surprise that Hitler wouldn't like Christianity.
Heck, his biggest real electoral threat came from German Catholics.
If he had tried to openly remove Christianity from all of Germany (rather than subverting it into the Nazi religion), he would have been seen as too similar to the Communists.
It is interesting to me that although the Catholics never posed a big problem in Italy, and the Catholics even joined with the Fascists in Spain (even forming Falangism), it seems like National Socialism violated something in the Catholic germans' principles.
Fundamentally, I think that unless a Socialist makes space for Catholicism, it's just going to be treated as a rival religion.
The round table talks had little context and are subject to arguably deliberate mistranslation, abridging, and framing (to delegitimize him to english speaking countries who might have been on the fence about WWII, who were largely Christian at the time; Thus, among other collective psycho-sociological efforts, they sought to bury any chance of a counter narrative seeding and any meaningful association with him), beyond that I don't know where you might extrapolate these "extensive" writings. Goebbels and others maybe, but the bulk of Germans were absolutely Christian/Catholic, as was the Fuhrer, though it would make sense that he would fall away from the faith because a profound criticism of Christendom was bouncing around the interoccular of philosophy at the time along with the undeniable factor of social pressure from his cohorts.
What can be said of Christendom? It is not a worldly faith. If you are doing anything less than the anabaptists and the Orthodoxy then you're essentially doing it wrong. Though, the 25 points of NSDAP are in no way a contrast to the values of mainstream Christianity, in fact, the 24th point contradicts you entirely.
Gee I wonder what could have given him that idea.
There were plenty of Catholics martyred the camps, thrown there for putting God above the state.
They were actually one of the only political factions that seemed to try and hunker down and just survive outside of the war, but were stuck within Germany, without ever trying to collaborate. Meanwhile: the Communists either died or joined the Nazis, and the Socialists just mildly complained that they weren't in charge.
Honestly, the DemSoc complaints in the war can be basically summed up with: "This isn't real socialism! Gobbels is lying! The economy would work better with Socialism that was funding what I want!" and that's about it.
The likes of Evola were welcomed into and loved by many in Nazi Germany. If you've ever read Evola, you'll know that he had no time for Christianity, and was a big promoter of Neo Paganism.
I mean, what is the Volkish Movement if not Neo Paganism?
Like how could anyone believe Nazis were pro Christian…. The ideaology most closely associated with hating Jews for some reason are big fan of a religion whose savior is a Jew.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Jesus of Nazareth would have been a jew both ethnically and culturally. Hell, at best you could argue he was demanding reform to a jewish establishment which had aligned itself with the romans for power (and after being repeatedly crushed in rebellions).
Me neither, especially since my comment on Nazis did not like Christian’s got upvoted.
Islamofascist isn't a term for National Socialists, it's a term for Jihadists.
Sayid Qtub's writings actually kind of do show a sense of Fascism in "Social Justice In Islam". But, it's not because he's a dedicated Fascist. It's because a Jihadist state literally does make the state God and the epicenter of all moral thought. Both are even rejecting materialist frameworks. The Fascists and Jihadists just ended up at the same conclusion, but the former had to invent a metaphysical concept of a nation, where the latter simply re-asserted Muslims as a nation.
I wish.
Eh, 4 out of 5 have happened in recent memory in Western countries. Of course, that was with Islam not Christianity.
The Nazis hated Christianity
i wish we lived in just 10% of the world the left thinks we do. it would be so much better than it is now.
Hey, that's me
I’m ok with all of this.
But hey, you now have the freedom to enjoy your pedo tranny nignoged society.
This is why you need to ask people to provide evidence for their claims. That's the first step to validate any perspective.
You then have to be able to explain how the evidence and claim are linked, but most people can't even follow step one.
projection.
There is some historical precedent to this, but the same applies to the religion of THE MESSAGE, and we are much further down that slope at the moment.
That famous political party that was well known for their dedication to Catholicism, the Nazis.
The slippery slope of feminism, if someone wants to draw it, although the timeline doesn't really work because a lot of their radical ideas now originated 50-60 years ago.
"Give us the vote!"
"Let us force people to hire us"
"Let us kill babies"
"Let us talk about how we want to kill millions for their gender"
"Let us force boys to listen to how they're evil for not being female"
"Let us accuse people of rape without evidence"
"Let us cut your child's dick off"
"Let us force your child to take something we designed to kill boys"
The US is here
"Let us murder grown men"
The UK is here
"Let us start a war to force young men to fight in it because they're too strong for us to kill them ourselves"
Lithuania, the EU and Ukraine are here
James Lindsay just did a talk bringing up the point that the whole "gender" concept, which acted as a trojan horse for the rest of Wokism, only became popular because early feminists jumped on it as a shortcut to "gender equality".
They really are the beginning of the Wokist denial of reality. Sex equality is false, as "TERFs" will tell you, although they also want all the "good" parts of it. But now we can't even question it, even though we know that women cannot compete with top tier men, both physically and in other arenas like chess or go.
I'd like to have a frank discussion around rights and responsibilities via the sexes. Voting was always tied to the draft, but you can't simply say "draft women" because they aren't able to function as soldiers (imagine deploying someone to fight away from a well stocked base for long periods of time who needs tampons or they can't function). Working is tied to caring for family but women generally only take care of themselves; why should they be allowed to work without their husbands permission?
I know it seems misogynist but, if so, then so is reality. Women have a lot of things harder than men. The irony is that we have no problem recognizing this some of the time, such as how domestic violence and family courts openly favour women, and "period equity" giving women extra resources due to biological reasons. But heaven forbid we discuss the things that benefit women for no reason.
Firstly, feminism is the blatant brainchild of elite men. The very tenets don't make sense if a woman was the origin.
Secondly, the entire goal of feminism was about increasing tax revenue, and that worked. Women will now advocate for the ability to work their back to the bone as a way to "stick it to the man", which results in them lining the "man's" pockets.