In the club
I think I’m literally never gonna be sick of this masterpiece. I think watching it on a loop for eight hours could fix me. Dancing’s what clears my soul. Dancing’s what makes me whole.
In the club
I think I’m literally never gonna be sick of this masterpiece. I think watching it on a loop for eight hours could fix me. Dancing’s what clears my soul. Dancing’s what makes me whole.
(Waves this around in executives faces) wow it's almost like profitable art happens without exploiting workers. Wow. Imagine that
Also it's good. The movie is good. It's nice to see something where you can tell the people working on it didn't just love the movie, but had fun working on it. Let film making be fun instead of detrimental to a person's physical and mental health
sometimes people dont really understand that having schizophrenia doesn’t permalock me as an angsty 13 year old evanescence fan
why do people refer to some of their kids as "furry children"? it makes no sense to separate them from your other kids just because they're a furry
the realisation that furry children means dogs hit me like a train at 4 in the morning
T Count: 16
Letter Count: 185
Your T Percentage: 8.65%
Average T Percentage: 6.95%
You used the letter T 0.84 times as much as average.
As: 21 Es: 39 Is: 10 Os: 16 Us: 11
❗️Vowel Ys: 4
Total vowels: 101
123456 890
[nine out of ten]
is that jesus 👀👀👀
oh don't you think about it mister
Reblog if it makes sense to separate them from your other kids because they're a furry
residentrain705
headspace-hotel
I only remembered vaguely that this book talked a lot about "western civilization" and that's often a red flag that something is a lil bit fascist-leaning, so I decided to re-read and annotate, since i recall this book being pretty influential among evangelicals (?) and we're currently being terrorized by a Christo-fascist political faction
Between this and The Decadent Society, I'm starting to think that anybody who talks a lot about "Western civilization" has one method of analyzing history, and it's "generalize wildly from the basis of the 2 (two) historical events they've heard of"
Anyway, this book is very insightful actually, because it has the recurring core ideas that:
So those are the two core ideas that are repeated over and over again throughout the book: that Christianity is the basis of order, truth, and reason, and that previous societies that "failed" did so because they didn't have Christianity.
I am vibrating with frustration at how bad this man is at drawing conclusions about history. He either leaves out entire art movements, periods of time, and civilizations that can't be horribly misrepresented to support his point, or just straight up doesn't know they exist.
He blatantly ignores the intellectual and artistic achievements of people who aren't Christians, and blatantly ignores violent and authoritarian Christians. A quick glance at history will cause your eyeballs to pick up a dozen uncontroversial facts that send all his points straight to Eeby Deeby, and yet he still possesses The Audacity.
E.g. Roman arenas are evidence of a "fascination with violence" that is symptomatic of "decadence." Public hangings, burning at the stake, medieval torture devices, duels, cockfighting, and hunting Native American people for sport (literally)? I guess the history books you don't read can't hurt you!
He has a conclusion he wants to support and he cherry-picks information from the most obscure resources to support it. that thing about Rome in the above paragraph was written by a guy who died in the 1790s
Schaefer's ultimate conclusion is that the only two options for "our" society in the future are: a return to Christian ideas and values, or authoritarianism.
What he does not explicitly acknowledge is this: really, his conclusion is just "authoritarianism."
His arguments get him to that dichotomy because his "Christian" worldview is authoritarian. Humans need an authority to make them do good things, or they will be bad. The universe needs a powerful entity to make things true, or nothing is really true. Society needs some kind of greater power to make it legitimate, or a non-specific bad thing will happen.
It's fascinating and chilling to see the extent to which this assumption is fully unquestioned in his writing.
Schaeffer certainly shares what I consider to be one of the main "signs" of a fascist ideology: a kind of permeating anxiety about some form of cultural "order" being "lost," resulting in degeneration into moral and cultural "chaos."
Some of the things that terrify Schaeffer include:
and
Francis Schaeffer, after watching a movie 100 times: it still wont ttel l me?? what s objectvi ly true... i,m ssh akign,,???,,,
There is no book or work of writing that lays out the core creed or ideas of fascism, so pinning it down will always be somewhat impossible, but fascism generally revolves around the following:
Authoritarianism and fascism are not the same; there are authoritarians all over the political spectrum. however, fascism generally speaking is authoritarian
I'm using the term "Christo-fascist" because in the USA, the far right-wing, predominantly Christian faction is displaying virtually all the signs right now: