You have to love this:
Why Baptists Should Support Muslims’ Right to Build Mosques…
Like Backus, modern Baptists must simultaneously be patriots and Christians, advocates for individual freedom of conscience while appealing to the souls of men to seek reconciliation with God. In this dual role, Baptists recognize that man’s ultimate good is union with Christ, that man is personally responsible before God, and that government is ordained by God. Everyone, including Muslims, is made in the image of God, possessing inherent dignity that is expressed in and through human capacity to hold sincere religious beliefs…
Given the present shift in American demographics, it might not be too long before the Baptists are once again a powerless minority. And this time, it might be Muslims before whom they are pleading for “soul freedom.
So once again, the Fake Conservatives of the National Review strip Lady Liberty down, put her on the bed on all fours, and retire to the corner to feverishly spank their monkey as they wait for the Muslim Mandingo to make his entrance and work her over.
Notice how the argument is designed to appeal to r-strategists. “If you don’t support the Muslims, one day you may face conflict and adversity!” It is actually designed as an out-grouping amygdala hijack. “Do what I say, or that big bad group may turn on you!”
This is the classic argument that evolves during childhood in the cowardly weakling on the playground. One who never had the ability to wield force themselves, or the balls to throw down anyway, but who had such a burning desire to wield power that he developed that technique and made it so integral to his nature that he continues to use it in adulthood. I don’t even have to imagine what the writer looked like as a kid, or who he was. That is his entire childhood, laid out in that argumentative style.
To an r-strategist rabbit, that is like an air-raid siren sounding the signal to run for cover and do whatever they tell you. Just look at how the Establishment right has been so adapted to r-selection by ease and lack of threat. They are even aping the left’s argumentative style – and assuming that all of the right will respond to it. They are so rabbitized that they assume everyone else is a rabbit too.
What they don’t realize is, if you are a K-strategist, your attitude would be “Fuck the Muslims, and fuck anyone who fucks with us one day too!” A K-strategist expects to face an angry mob one day, because that is the world they expect and what they are designed for. So when someone says, “If you don’t support the building of Mosques, one day others might fight with you,” the K-strategist fails to see why supporting the mosques now will avert what they view as an unavoidable conflict-circumstance later. Instead the K-amygdala will focus on the Muslim threat, and figure why not destroy it now while it is weak? That causes the whole argument to fail. It is like being someone whose neighbors hate them, and someone saying, “If you don’t let the neighbor bang your wife, one day he may get angry at you.” If you never expected niceness to begin with, then how are those two things related?
But don’t expect the cucks at the failing National Review to understand that. So sad!
What is also interesting is how as you head toward the r-strategist rabbit’s style of discourse, logic, facts, and reason all fall by the wayside as dogwhistles, out-groupings, reflexive rabbit amygdala-triggers, and emotion all come to the fore. You can see how logical argument is impossible with such minds. They will import hundreds of millions of Muslims, and everything will be wonderful. Because diversity. And Unity. And happy good-feels.
Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because we can’t count on the Cucks to do it for us
