Would be curious if there was a longer clip with an explanation/rationale for that, but I doubt that he bothered giving one.
As one counterargument (among many), I'd refer him to 1st Corinthians 12. The whole chapter, honestly, but versus 20-21 sum up one of the big issues of DEI quite succinctly.
But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
All of it these days seems to be saying to men, especially white men, "I have no need of you"
I can already gather it, and you don't need a bible quote, because these people are less of your people (Christians), and more of my people (anti-theists).
It's going to be "Jesus reached out to everyone, not just the Jews around him, to save their souls. It was very inclusive."
Except that's not what DIE has ever meant. DEI is an effort by Race Communists / National Socialists, to re-order society along identitarian & sectarian lines, for the purposes of assigning collective guilt and privilege for perceived racial crimes, in order for a society to be more "equitable".
If Jesus was preaching DIE, it would be that the jews could do no wrong as a result of their oppression by the Romans, and that the Romans are an inferior, savage, child race, of mayo monkeys that society needs to regulate and control at an individual level because of their propensity to try and dominate others. The Romans, at every individual level, must admit their innate racial savagery and personally give money and power to each jew they see, even to the point of killing themselves.
He's intentionally using reductivity as rhetorical warfare:
Being a Feminist is believing women should have rights, bro
Being a Communist is just sharing with others, bro
Being a National Socialist is just being proud of your history, bro
Being a Socialist is just working well with others, bro
You've pathologized even having an identity and then wonder why people don't to sacrifice and work together with other like peoples.
Being a national socialist has nothing to do with dei Marxism egalitarianism which has more in common with tabula rasa blank slate liberalism which reduces nations and identities to something akin to mere clothing that people happen to be wearing when they are born.
It's not pathologizing an identity, it's avoiding being a fucking retard about it. Or more specifically, and back-stabbing subversive communist about it.
I'm aware that National Socialism isn't Marxism. I've read Hitler. That doesn't mean he's not a Socialist, or a Race Communist, or a Leftist. He is. Explicitly.
Would be curious if there was a longer clip with an explanation/rationale for that, but I doubt that he bothered giving one.
As one counterargument (among many), I'd refer him to 1st Corinthians 12. The whole chapter, honestly, but versus 20-21 sum up one of the big issues of DEI quite succinctly.
All of it these days seems to be saying to men, especially white men, "I have no need of you"
I can already gather it, and you don't need a bible quote, because these people are less of your people (Christians), and more of my people (anti-theists).
It's going to be "Jesus reached out to everyone, not just the Jews around him, to save their souls. It was very inclusive."
Except that's not what DIE has ever meant. DEI is an effort by Race Communists / National Socialists, to re-order society along identitarian & sectarian lines, for the purposes of assigning collective guilt and privilege for perceived racial crimes, in order for a society to be more "equitable".
If Jesus was preaching DIE, it would be that the jews could do no wrong as a result of their oppression by the Romans, and that the Romans are an inferior, savage, child race, of mayo monkeys that society needs to regulate and control at an individual level because of their propensity to try and dominate others. The Romans, at every individual level, must admit their innate racial savagery and personally give money and power to each jew they see, even to the point of killing themselves.
He's intentionally using reductivity as rhetorical warfare:
You've pathologized even having an identity and then wonder why people don't to sacrifice and work together with other like peoples.
Being a national socialist has nothing to do with dei Marxism egalitarianism which has more in common with tabula rasa blank slate liberalism which reduces nations and identities to something akin to mere clothing that people happen to be wearing when they are born.
It's not pathologizing an identity, it's avoiding being a fucking retard about it. Or more specifically, and back-stabbing subversive communist about it.
I'm aware that National Socialism isn't Marxism. I've read Hitler. That doesn't mean he's not a Socialist, or a Race Communist, or a Leftist. He is. Explicitly.
*They've...