4 ms·
I see references to other people's beliefs in Germanic/Anglo-Saxon/English/etcetera supremacy. I do not see clear evidence that the author supports such suprema
by hax0ron3 4y ago
I see references to other people's beliefs in Germanic/Anglo-Saxon/English/etcetera supremacy. I do not see clear evidence that the author supports such supremacy.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoYeah, if the article ended there, then you'd think, that's pretty standard history. Instead it goes on and talks about how after WWII people reacted against that, and then makes vague noises about how all that "revisionism" has been proved wrong by recent genetic findings but you're not allowed to talk about it because the woke left control academia. And then you see the other writings where Mongolian Nazis are being praised as being based, western liberals are attacked for being too concerned with Neo-Nazism and so on. Or publishing old research papers that argue that reducing heirarchy will destroy society and the elite need to maintain their superiority to save civilisation from democracy. I mean it's not particularly subtle, but sure he's not at Kayne "I love hitler" levels of blatancy, so if you want to pretend to ignore it then that's an easy option.
- hax0ron3 4y agoI mean, do the woke not control academia? What do other writings have to do with evaluating the truth or falsity of this one? To me it seems pretty obvious that modern Western academia is an environment where certain ideas get censored based on factors other than whether they are true or not. This is not a new phenomenon. Before the woke controlled it, other power groups did. The woke are just the latest in a long line of ideological groups to control academia.