1. Apartheid was a good target by the proto-wokescolds with almost zero risk of reprocessions due to the basic decency of the white man’s culture. Any success of the system that increased quality of life over black-ruled African countries was an uncomfortable observation that shouldn’t be observed to maintain rightthink. It had to go.
2. North Korea and most wokescolds are ideological soulmates for which any finger-pointing has three fingers pointing back. Causing any real trouble for NK could end in poisoning, at best, or facing the uncomfortable questions about the real-world performance of your missile defense and iodine distribution network.
I don’t know if this is the reconciliation he was looking for.
setnaffa
3 years ago
There was, in point of fact, little actual difference between Cecil Rhodes raacist Progressive policies (including Apartheid and the destruction of what passed for culture in what is now Zimbabwe) and those of any other brand of leftist. They are all ruthless, brutal, and totalitarian. Rhodes wanted a nominally “British” railroad running through nominally “British” colonies from Capetown to Cairo. With himself as mastermind and Governor-general. The Rhodes Scholarship was established to preserve the ascendency of Anglo-Saxons above so-called lesser races.
No doubt, there are some Koreans now thinking about a nominally “Korean” railroad from through nominally “Korean” territory from Busan to Beijing.
If we condone the enslavement of any group of people for political reasons (i.e., “wrongthink”), we essentially approve the enslavement of us all for any reason or the mere whim of any bureaucrat.
Speaking of the Koreans in work camps, why isn’t that in the news?
And why was Disney getting a pass over their use of Uighur slaves on Mulan?
The answers are the same. Doesn’t advance the Revolution.
1. Apartheid was a good target by the proto-wokescolds with almost zero risk of reprocessions due to the basic decency of the white man’s culture. Any success of the system that increased quality of life over black-ruled African countries was an uncomfortable observation that shouldn’t be observed to maintain rightthink. It had to go.
2. North Korea and most wokescolds are ideological soulmates for which any finger-pointing has three fingers pointing back. Causing any real trouble for NK could end in poisoning, at best, or facing the uncomfortable questions about the real-world performance of your missile defense and iodine distribution network.
I don’t know if this is the reconciliation he was looking for.
There was, in point of fact, little actual difference between Cecil Rhodes raacist Progressive policies (including Apartheid and the destruction of what passed for culture in what is now Zimbabwe) and those of any other brand of leftist. They are all ruthless, brutal, and totalitarian. Rhodes wanted a nominally “British” railroad running through nominally “British” colonies from Capetown to Cairo. With himself as mastermind and Governor-general. The Rhodes Scholarship was established to preserve the ascendency of Anglo-Saxons above so-called lesser races.
No doubt, there are some Koreans now thinking about a nominally “Korean” railroad from through nominally “Korean” territory from Busan to Beijing.
If we condone the enslavement of any group of people for political reasons (i.e., “wrongthink”), we essentially approve the enslavement of us all for any reason or the mere whim of any bureaucrat.
Speaking of the Koreans in work camps, why isn’t that in the news?
And why was Disney getting a pass over their use of Uighur slaves on Mulan?
The answers are the same. Doesn’t advance the Revolution.
Choose carefully.