This assessment coincides with what is necessary to effectively validate the insurrectionist narrative.
It's a recursive discursive occurrence: Not only does it happen a lot, it also folds in on itself. That is to say, given that your own political arguments tend to rely on such superstitious outcomes, we ought not be surprised to find you banging on that if.
Not even a month ago↗:
Here's a line, for you: That's how we end up with fascism.
Wind back fifty years. Imagine an actual old-school tinfoiler. Or fluoride conspiracists. Now, let's put on our Boomer hats and just say it straight up: Leaving those folks in circulation, basic tolerance, the expectation of enduring the unwashed crazy uncle who damn well knows better than everyone else in the room, that's how we end up with fascism.
And, in 1975, the answer would have been obvious: You're joking, right?
Here's another one, historian Jeffrey Burton Russell↗, ca. 1977:
Similarly, if it seems absurd that this should be what leads to fascism, well, that's part of the point. Russell, as an historian, suggests something about how we discuss and understand history, but the choice to actually pursue falsehood, as such, is not inherent to his point. That is, Russell isn't necessarily wrong, but the principle identified in history is a different thing from the same idea carried forward into calculated practice.
Wind back fifty years. Imagine an actual old-school tinfoiler. Or fluoride conspiracists. Now, let's put on our Boomer hats and just say it straight up: Leaving those folks in circulation, basic tolerance, the expectation of enduring the unwashed crazy uncle who damn well knows better than everyone else in the room, that's how we end up with fascism.
And, in 1975, the answer would have been obvious: You're joking, right?
Here's another one, historian Jeffrey Burton Russell↗, ca. 1977:
The historical evidence can never be clear enough to know what really happened, but the evidence as to what people believed to have happened is relatively clear. The concept―what people believed to have happened―is more important than what really did happen, because people act upon what they believe to be true. (12)
Similarly, if it seems absurd that this should be what leads to fascism, well, that's part of the point. Russell, as an historian, suggests something about how we discuss and understand history, but the choice to actually pursue falsehood, as such, is not inherent to his point. That is, Russell isn't necessarily wrong, but the principle identified in history is a different thing from the same idea carried forward into calculated practice.
Anyway, it behooves us to remember what hides in superstition and uncertainty.
