April 20, 2021
Dear Friends and Family,
This segment (Segment 10) is the first segment of the next section of the Nihilism series: America’s philosophy. The segment will present the Traditional View (labeled Unionist in the excerpts) and the view of the Social Justice Advocates (labeled Disintegrationist in the excerpts). We will continue to look at the contrast of the two philosophies through multiple prisms in segments 11 through 16. At the conclusion of these sections, you be the judge on whether the traditional philosophy of America needs to be changed to that of the Social Justice Advocates.
My Takeaways:
The traditional philosophy is what we have lived by for the last 245 years. At its core is liberty, freedom, equality of opportunity under a set of laws, meritocracy, protection from tyranny by monarchs and protection of tyranny by the majority against the minority.
The Social Justice activists view is totally different and is built on the Critical Race Theory challenges to traditional beliefs and values as presented in segment 2. Critical Race Theory has expanded to sexual, feminist and disadvantaged theories of a similar nature as will be presented in Segments 12 through 15. They have been included in the Social Justice Advocates philosophy outlined in this segment which is designed to replace traditional philosophy. At its core the Social Justice Advocates contend the traditional philosophy and resultant system was created to bestow privilege and dominance to white heterosexual males and to oppress people of color, homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, and those of the female gender. They contend that traditional philosophy must be totally changed. Such changes must include: equality of all peoples in every aspect of life; equality of outcome – economic, social, dignity and respect of all peoples, as dictated by government, with the underpinning morality determined by judges. In so doing, government will guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights and equal outcomes, health care rights and outcomes, educational rights and outcomes, job rights and outcomes, housing rights and outcomes, and retirement rights and outcomes regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, or disabilities.
Note: How it is proposed to accomplish this philosophical change will be the focus of the third section of the series: America’s Culture, Segments 17 through 23.
Next:
Segment 11 is titled Social Justice Scholarship and Thought. The segment describes the “social justice movement” which is concerned with addressing and readdressing inequalities, particularly issues of class, race gender, sex, and sexuality. Most of the thought supporting the movement is derived from Critical Race Theory and the follow-on critical theories which sprung from it. The intent of the segment is to provide background for the various social justice efforts contained in this philosophical section.
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
This segment (Segment 10) is the first segment of the next section of the Nihilism series: America’s philosophy. The segment will present the Traditional View (labeled Unionist in the excerpts) and the view of the Social Justice Advocates (labeled Disintegrationist in the excerpts). We will continue to look at the contrast of the two philosophies through multiple prisms in segments 11 through 16. At the conclusion of these sections, you be the judge on whether the traditional philosophy of America needs to be changed to that of the Social Justice Advocates.
My Takeaways:
The traditional philosophy is what we have lived by for the last 245 years. At its core is liberty, freedom, equality of opportunity under a set of laws, meritocracy, protection from tyranny by monarchs and protection of tyranny by the majority against the minority.
The Social Justice activists view is totally different and is built on the Critical Race Theory challenges to traditional beliefs and values as presented in segment 2. Critical Race Theory has expanded to sexual, feminist and disadvantaged theories of a similar nature as will be presented in Segments 12 through 15. They have been included in the Social Justice Advocates philosophy outlined in this segment which is designed to replace traditional philosophy. At its core the Social Justice Advocates contend the traditional philosophy and resultant system was created to bestow privilege and dominance to white heterosexual males and to oppress people of color, homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, and those of the female gender. They contend that traditional philosophy must be totally changed. Such changes must include: equality of all peoples in every aspect of life; equality of outcome – economic, social, dignity and respect of all peoples, as dictated by government, with the underpinning morality determined by judges. In so doing, government will guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights and equal outcomes, health care rights and outcomes, educational rights and outcomes, job rights and outcomes, housing rights and outcomes, and retirement rights and outcomes regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, or disabilities.
Note: How it is proposed to accomplish this philosophical change will be the focus of the third section of the series: America’s Culture, Segments 17 through 23.
Next:
Segment 11 is titled Social Justice Scholarship and Thought. The segment describes the “social justice movement” which is concerned with addressing and readdressing inequalities, particularly issues of class, race gender, sex, and sexuality. Most of the thought supporting the movement is derived from Critical Race Theory and the follow-on critical theories which sprung from it. The intent of the segment is to provide background for the various social justice efforts contained in this philosophical section.
Happy Learning,
Harley
NIHILISM: GOOD OR BAD? – SEGMENT 10
THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY – EXCERPTS
THE AMERICAN CREED (Unionist View): The philosophy of the United States centers on three central principles: (1) The reality of natural rights (granted by God) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (2) The equality of men before the law, and (3) That government is instituted only to protect those preexisting rights and equality of men before the law.
We Have Individual, Natural Rights: The founding fathers based their belief in rights in the framework of natural rights. Why? Because rights that spring from human beings aren’t rights at all – they’re privileges that may be dispensed with at any time. Rights that emanate from a higher source are indeed unalienable; they cannot be given away, taken away, or infringed upon, because they come from a source higher than power alone. Those natural rights were considered inviolable by the founding fathers. And they lay the groundwork for the revolution by requiring that government be a protector of rights rather than the source of them.
All Human Beings Are Equal Before the Law: The founders understood the hypocrisy of declaring all men equal in a time of slavery; they understood they were not freeing black slaves, “They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit,” said Lincoln. Civil rights heroes from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced the same interpretation of the equality of mankind.
Governments Should Protect Preexisting Rights and Equality Before the Law: In the natural rights model, the locus of power lies in the individual, who becomes the repository of indefeasible rights. Government is merely the delegated guardian of individual rights; government has no power to invade those rights, lest it lose it legitimacy. Freedom, not virtue, is the goal of government; virtue is the goal of individual men, pursuing right reason.
The Unionist Philosophy of American Institutions: In order to ensure the protection of these inalienable rights and legal equality, the founders wrote a constitution. That constitution was designed to allow for action in cases of grave national need, as demanded by broad consensus; gridlock in cases of serious disagreement, to protect minorities from the tyranny of majorities; local control on behalf or local communities, but national protection of individual rights. The founders feared the tyranny of monarchs, but they also feared the “tyranny of the majority.” Nothing states that a democratic majority must represent the highest good. A government gone wrong is the most dangerous threat to both freedom and virtue. It’s just such a government that is likely to lead America down the path toward violence. To ensure that government would remain within its prescribed boundaries of the federal government, and federalism – state checks on federal usurpations.”
Conclusion: American philosophy rest on three fundamental, eternal, unalienable ideas. First, American philosophy rests on the belief that human beings have real, discernable individual rights. These rights cannot be given away. They do not come from the collective. Second, American philosophy holds it as self-evident that all human beings are created with equal rights. This does not mean that they have equal capacities or qualities, or that their results in life will be equal, or that they begin with equal opportunities. Third, American philosophy demands that government protect individual rights, not override them in the name of some greater good. These philosophical principles were put into practice by the Constitution of the United States, the most effective governmental founding document in world history.
AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY (DISINTEGRATIONISTS VIEW): The Disintegrationists alternative posits three specifics counters to the Unionist philosophy: that human nature is infinitely malleable, and thus carries no inherent rights; that equality before the law is injustice, and that equality in every aspect of life must be our goal; and that government is the only allowable mechanism for dispensing privileges and achieving equality of outcome.
We Are Infinitely Malleable, And We Can Be Remade Through Privileges: In the Marxist view, human beings were fundamentally creations of their socioeconomic structure. The truest nature of man was as a social animal; capitalism alienated man from others by focusing him on the acquisition of objects rather than his relations with others. Thus, communism would lead to the “return of man to himself as a social human being.” The Disintegrationist vision is certainly attractive. It offers the beautiful absolution of personal choice. More important, this view of human nature offers the possibility of a utopian eschaton in which all human beings will become perfect, their hearts transformed, their identities bound up in the collective, and themselves freed from both the desires of individual inquisitiveness and the judgment of others.
But there are opponents of this utopian vision. Those who insist human nature is indeed unchanging (unmalleable). They are uncaring, unfeeling, inhumane. They lack hope. They refuse to dream. They stand in the way of human happiness, which can only be found in the complete remaking of society – which, in turn, will remake humanity. The greatest and most obvious rebuttal to the Disintegrationist argument about human malleability lies in the obvious differences between men and women. These differences are not social constructs. They are not malleable. It is simple biological fact that men are not women, and that women are not men. Yet, Disintegrationists, maddened by the reality of human nature’s inflexibility, see those who maintain the reality of biological sex differences as a threat. This madness has even reached into the medical establishment. Increasingly, doctors across America are instructed to write patients’ self-identified gender rather than biological sex on their medical charts.
Disintegrationist deny the very notion of individual rights. Disintegrationists see preexisting rights as rights against the government – a chimera, or worse, as an actual impediment to the equality of outcome. Rights, in the Disintegrationist view, are an obstacle to societal happiness, and limit our greatest tools for achieving human transformation. Bernie Sanders stated in a speech at Georgetown University, “our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people a number of important constitutionally protected rights … Now we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, and right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.” This ever-expanding rubric of pseudo-rights comes at the expense of actual rights.
Equality Before the Law is Cruelty: Ardent advocates of slavery posited that innate human inequality provided a rationale for disparate treatment of human beings. Slavery, therefore, justified the “debased” nature of some and the “virtue of others. Liberty of individuals, instead of being equal in all cases, must necessarily be very unequal among different people according to their different conditions. As is turns out, it is nearly impossible to quantify or achieve “equality of opportunity given then different characteristics and origins of individuals; endless government tinkering is the result, and often to dire effect. Furthermore, seeking “equality of opportunity” through disparate treatment of individuals means violating the rights of some on behalf of others. But Disintegrationists maintain that all disparities result from societal injustice rather than human differences. This means that using logic, government intervention becomes never ending, since as it turns out, there will always be disparities between human beings.
The Disintegrationist philosophy therefore leads to this extraordinarily destructive logic: we must have equality of opportunity, which means unequal rights, because people are not inherently equal; any inequality in society is proof of inequality of opportunity. No system can survive under this logic: inequality of outcome is a feature inherent to humankind. But that’s precisely the Disintregationist point. The system must be destroyed. Equality before the law must knuckle under. Americans require discrimination to wipe out human inequality.
Governments Exist to Remake Humanity: The Disintegrationist philosophy believes that human nature is completely malleable, and that we have no rights apart from government – and therefore they hold that there are no “just powers,” and pure majoritarianism can simply uproot and purported rights. Worse, since government is designed no to protect rights to provide privileges, consent becomes of secondary concert; the aristocratic disposition of government is better for us, since people’s selfish exercise of rights must not stand in the way of the greater good. In practice, the Disintegrationist philosophy of government boils down to a government without limits, administered by bureaucrats without accountability.
The Disintegrationist Philosophy of American Institutions: Disintegrationists despise the constitutional order, which often requires honest men and women to recognize that their primary policy preferences may not meet with the requirements of the constitutional process. This makes government God. Thus, Disintegrationist despise the doctrine of delegated powers in government. They have sought to remove the checks and balances between the branches. The legislative branch has been freed, obviously to do nearly anything – Congress can regulate toilet fixtures and our showerheads, whether products are labeled “meat” of not, or how we obtain our birth control. Disintegrationist judges have taken up the mantle, placing their own personal morality above that of the Constitution and the legislature. They’ve flipped the script, suggesting that to adhere to the Constitution means to somehow undermine American values – that the Constitution was meant to create a mandate for judges to determine the morality of the nation.
Disintegrationist have insisted on the continued growth of the federal government as a check against state power. As the federal government become bigger and more powerful local communities lose control over their lives and must fight harder and harder to prevent domination by those who dismiss their values and concerns. The alternative to federalism isn’t national unity, but dissolution.
Conclusion: We are not gods, and simply do not have the capacity to rectify imbalances of innate individual qualities. We have the ability to treat everyone equally under the law; we have the ability to create government to protect individual rights. But we don’t have the ability to guarantee that even two kids the same age living on the same street will start from the same point; two children growing up in the same family don’t even start from the same point. We certainly don’t have the ability to ensure that everyone ends at the same point. Setting up all Americans as either purveyors of a hierarchical and discriminatory system or as victims of that system, we disintegrate the ties that bind Americans together. Rule from above by the “wisest and best” has rarely resulted in an expansion of human prosperity or freedom. Usually, it has resulted in the opposite.
Source: How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps by Ben Shapiro.
THE FEAR OF FREEDOM: In a truly free society, individuals are granted responsibility for themselves. Freedom necessitates that we learn how to provide for ourselves, contributing value in whatever form, to generate personal income. Conversely, slavery is the ultimate example of removing personal responsibility. Slaves were prevented from assuming any obligation to themselves. One year after passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson gave a historic commencement address to Howard University, where he asserted:
THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY – EXCERPTS
THE AMERICAN CREED (Unionist View): The philosophy of the United States centers on three central principles: (1) The reality of natural rights (granted by God) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (2) The equality of men before the law, and (3) That government is instituted only to protect those preexisting rights and equality of men before the law.
We Have Individual, Natural Rights: The founding fathers based their belief in rights in the framework of natural rights. Why? Because rights that spring from human beings aren’t rights at all – they’re privileges that may be dispensed with at any time. Rights that emanate from a higher source are indeed unalienable; they cannot be given away, taken away, or infringed upon, because they come from a source higher than power alone. Those natural rights were considered inviolable by the founding fathers. And they lay the groundwork for the revolution by requiring that government be a protector of rights rather than the source of them.
All Human Beings Are Equal Before the Law: The founders understood the hypocrisy of declaring all men equal in a time of slavery; they understood they were not freeing black slaves, “They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit,” said Lincoln. Civil rights heroes from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced the same interpretation of the equality of mankind.
Governments Should Protect Preexisting Rights and Equality Before the Law: In the natural rights model, the locus of power lies in the individual, who becomes the repository of indefeasible rights. Government is merely the delegated guardian of individual rights; government has no power to invade those rights, lest it lose it legitimacy. Freedom, not virtue, is the goal of government; virtue is the goal of individual men, pursuing right reason.
The Unionist Philosophy of American Institutions: In order to ensure the protection of these inalienable rights and legal equality, the founders wrote a constitution. That constitution was designed to allow for action in cases of grave national need, as demanded by broad consensus; gridlock in cases of serious disagreement, to protect minorities from the tyranny of majorities; local control on behalf or local communities, but national protection of individual rights. The founders feared the tyranny of monarchs, but they also feared the “tyranny of the majority.” Nothing states that a democratic majority must represent the highest good. A government gone wrong is the most dangerous threat to both freedom and virtue. It’s just such a government that is likely to lead America down the path toward violence. To ensure that government would remain within its prescribed boundaries of the federal government, and federalism – state checks on federal usurpations.”
Conclusion: American philosophy rest on three fundamental, eternal, unalienable ideas. First, American philosophy rests on the belief that human beings have real, discernable individual rights. These rights cannot be given away. They do not come from the collective. Second, American philosophy holds it as self-evident that all human beings are created with equal rights. This does not mean that they have equal capacities or qualities, or that their results in life will be equal, or that they begin with equal opportunities. Third, American philosophy demands that government protect individual rights, not override them in the name of some greater good. These philosophical principles were put into practice by the Constitution of the United States, the most effective governmental founding document in world history.
AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY (DISINTEGRATIONISTS VIEW): The Disintegrationists alternative posits three specifics counters to the Unionist philosophy: that human nature is infinitely malleable, and thus carries no inherent rights; that equality before the law is injustice, and that equality in every aspect of life must be our goal; and that government is the only allowable mechanism for dispensing privileges and achieving equality of outcome.
We Are Infinitely Malleable, And We Can Be Remade Through Privileges: In the Marxist view, human beings were fundamentally creations of their socioeconomic structure. The truest nature of man was as a social animal; capitalism alienated man from others by focusing him on the acquisition of objects rather than his relations with others. Thus, communism would lead to the “return of man to himself as a social human being.” The Disintegrationist vision is certainly attractive. It offers the beautiful absolution of personal choice. More important, this view of human nature offers the possibility of a utopian eschaton in which all human beings will become perfect, their hearts transformed, their identities bound up in the collective, and themselves freed from both the desires of individual inquisitiveness and the judgment of others.
But there are opponents of this utopian vision. Those who insist human nature is indeed unchanging (unmalleable). They are uncaring, unfeeling, inhumane. They lack hope. They refuse to dream. They stand in the way of human happiness, which can only be found in the complete remaking of society – which, in turn, will remake humanity. The greatest and most obvious rebuttal to the Disintegrationist argument about human malleability lies in the obvious differences between men and women. These differences are not social constructs. They are not malleable. It is simple biological fact that men are not women, and that women are not men. Yet, Disintegrationists, maddened by the reality of human nature’s inflexibility, see those who maintain the reality of biological sex differences as a threat. This madness has even reached into the medical establishment. Increasingly, doctors across America are instructed to write patients’ self-identified gender rather than biological sex on their medical charts.
Disintegrationist deny the very notion of individual rights. Disintegrationists see preexisting rights as rights against the government – a chimera, or worse, as an actual impediment to the equality of outcome. Rights, in the Disintegrationist view, are an obstacle to societal happiness, and limit our greatest tools for achieving human transformation. Bernie Sanders stated in a speech at Georgetown University, “our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people a number of important constitutionally protected rights … Now we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, and right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.” This ever-expanding rubric of pseudo-rights comes at the expense of actual rights.
Equality Before the Law is Cruelty: Ardent advocates of slavery posited that innate human inequality provided a rationale for disparate treatment of human beings. Slavery, therefore, justified the “debased” nature of some and the “virtue of others. Liberty of individuals, instead of being equal in all cases, must necessarily be very unequal among different people according to their different conditions. As is turns out, it is nearly impossible to quantify or achieve “equality of opportunity given then different characteristics and origins of individuals; endless government tinkering is the result, and often to dire effect. Furthermore, seeking “equality of opportunity” through disparate treatment of individuals means violating the rights of some on behalf of others. But Disintegrationists maintain that all disparities result from societal injustice rather than human differences. This means that using logic, government intervention becomes never ending, since as it turns out, there will always be disparities between human beings.
The Disintegrationist philosophy therefore leads to this extraordinarily destructive logic: we must have equality of opportunity, which means unequal rights, because people are not inherently equal; any inequality in society is proof of inequality of opportunity. No system can survive under this logic: inequality of outcome is a feature inherent to humankind. But that’s precisely the Disintregationist point. The system must be destroyed. Equality before the law must knuckle under. Americans require discrimination to wipe out human inequality.
Governments Exist to Remake Humanity: The Disintegrationist philosophy believes that human nature is completely malleable, and that we have no rights apart from government – and therefore they hold that there are no “just powers,” and pure majoritarianism can simply uproot and purported rights. Worse, since government is designed no to protect rights to provide privileges, consent becomes of secondary concert; the aristocratic disposition of government is better for us, since people’s selfish exercise of rights must not stand in the way of the greater good. In practice, the Disintegrationist philosophy of government boils down to a government without limits, administered by bureaucrats without accountability.
The Disintegrationist Philosophy of American Institutions: Disintegrationists despise the constitutional order, which often requires honest men and women to recognize that their primary policy preferences may not meet with the requirements of the constitutional process. This makes government God. Thus, Disintegrationist despise the doctrine of delegated powers in government. They have sought to remove the checks and balances between the branches. The legislative branch has been freed, obviously to do nearly anything – Congress can regulate toilet fixtures and our showerheads, whether products are labeled “meat” of not, or how we obtain our birth control. Disintegrationist judges have taken up the mantle, placing their own personal morality above that of the Constitution and the legislature. They’ve flipped the script, suggesting that to adhere to the Constitution means to somehow undermine American values – that the Constitution was meant to create a mandate for judges to determine the morality of the nation.
Disintegrationist have insisted on the continued growth of the federal government as a check against state power. As the federal government become bigger and more powerful local communities lose control over their lives and must fight harder and harder to prevent domination by those who dismiss their values and concerns. The alternative to federalism isn’t national unity, but dissolution.
Conclusion: We are not gods, and simply do not have the capacity to rectify imbalances of innate individual qualities. We have the ability to treat everyone equally under the law; we have the ability to create government to protect individual rights. But we don’t have the ability to guarantee that even two kids the same age living on the same street will start from the same point; two children growing up in the same family don’t even start from the same point. We certainly don’t have the ability to ensure that everyone ends at the same point. Setting up all Americans as either purveyors of a hierarchical and discriminatory system or as victims of that system, we disintegrate the ties that bind Americans together. Rule from above by the “wisest and best” has rarely resulted in an expansion of human prosperity or freedom. Usually, it has resulted in the opposite.
Source: How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps by Ben Shapiro.
THE FEAR OF FREEDOM: In a truly free society, individuals are granted responsibility for themselves. Freedom necessitates that we learn how to provide for ourselves, contributing value in whatever form, to generate personal income. Conversely, slavery is the ultimate example of removing personal responsibility. Slaves were prevented from assuming any obligation to themselves. One year after passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson gave a historic commencement address to Howard University, where he asserted:
Freedom is the right to share fully and equally in American society – to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.
He was correct. Prior to the abolishment of Jim Crow laws, black Americans had never been granted true freedom. Unfortunately, however, LBJ continued his address by stating, “But freedom is now enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying, ‘Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’” This was wrong. Dangerously wrong. Being freed was enough for black America. What black America needed in 1964 more than anything, was a commitment to education. The only available means for us to close the gap on the many areas that we lagged was through an exertion of hard work and study. Against this reality the president who granted us our rights told us, within the same breath, that we needed help from white Americans to get ahead. Just as soon as we were given personal responsibility, it was taken away. This ushered in a period of black victimization, which our community readily embraces to this day.
To be clear, the belief that white people are to assume all responsibility for black America’s shortcoming is a form of white power. One must believe in black inferiority to accept the thesis that black America is not responsible for any of its own shortcomings in a free society. Black Americans who do accept this narrative do so not because they are “woke” but because they are terrified. They are terrified to accept responsibility for their own lives. This deep-seated fear is exactly what spawned the period of black militancy that began just after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. At the very moment they were freed, blacks of that era recognized the burden of freedom and began searching for something to excuse their many shortcomings. And LBJ, in that momentous commencement address, delivered to them. Now blacks learned that even if they were free, they could still be victims. Shelby Steele, a black conservative author who grew up during this period, describes this phenomenon:
To be clear, the belief that white people are to assume all responsibility for black America’s shortcoming is a form of white power. One must believe in black inferiority to accept the thesis that black America is not responsible for any of its own shortcomings in a free society. Black Americans who do accept this narrative do so not because they are “woke” but because they are terrified. They are terrified to accept responsibility for their own lives. This deep-seated fear is exactly what spawned the period of black militancy that began just after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. At the very moment they were freed, blacks of that era recognized the burden of freedom and began searching for something to excuse their many shortcomings. And LBJ, in that momentous commencement address, delivered to them. Now blacks learned that even if they were free, they could still be victims. Shelby Steele, a black conservative author who grew up during this period, describes this phenomenon:
The greatest black problem in America today is freedom. All underdeveloped, formerly oppressed groups first experience new freedom as a shock and a humiliation, because freedom shows them their underdevelopment and their inability to compete as equals. Freedom seems to confirm all the ugly stereotypes about the group – especially the charge of inferiority – and yet the group no longer had the excuse of oppression. Without oppression – the group automatically becomes responsible for its inferiority and non-competitiveness. So, freedom not only comes as a humiliation but also as an overwhelming burden of responsibility.
Too fearful to rise to the challenge of outworking our opponents, we accepted the poison of the victim narrative that we see today. Rather than dealing with the burden of responsibility, we began to accept handouts. Or rather, we began allowing white Americans to create and illusion of progress.
Source: Blackout by Candace Owens (2020).
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
Source: Blackout by Candace Owens (2020).
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| 10_nihilism_long_the_american_philosophy_--_segment_10.pdf |