Remember that the unimaginably racist neo-Marxists have defined "whiteness" as "not being a total loser", or basically being someone of merit. With such an unimaginably racist viewpoint, everyone who isn't a total loser regardless of skin color, everyone of merit is "white". Because that's how they defined it, when they oppose "White supremacy", they're opposing the people of merit being supreme over those who lack merit.
Essentially, what they're calling for is a demeritocracy. They want people who are not of merit, people without self-control, people who don't work hard, people who don't have aptitude or skills or natural gifts to be in charge. This psychotic way of looking at the world fits with Communism, and you need to ask yourself if that's really acceptable to you. Why would we possibly want to be ruled by the worst of us when we can be ruled by the best of us?
A second question is: If you have a competition between a society that puts its best in charge, and another society that puts its worst in charge, which one do you think will be the better one to live in? Which would you rather live in?
Essentially, what they're calling for is a demeritocracy. They want people who are not of merit, people without self-control, people who don't work hard, people who don't have aptitude or skills or natural gifts to be in charge. This psychotic way of looking at the world fits with Communism, and you need to ask yourself if that's really acceptable to you. Why would we possibly want to be ruled by the worst of us when we can be ruled by the best of us?
A second question is: If you have a competition between a society that puts its best in charge, and another society that puts its worst in charge, which one do you think will be the better one to live in? Which would you rather live in?
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0