Which is how "government" itself favors group-might-made-rights and gangster extortionism (i.e: Dems).
So these libertine "liberal" criminals will always encourage slanderous victimology and the forgiving in advance of any and all crooks who claim to be victims (of society/products of their environments, or slaves of allah) while only blaming those who refuse to go along with their victimology "narrative" - i.e: those Judeo-Christian Conservatives who say "You have a free-will choice!"
To such criminals, those rational moral ones are the "mean" people who always blame the "victims" for making bad decisions, "as if - as permanent victims - they ever really had a say or choice in the matter!"
"What Big Meanies! Boo Hoo!"
They not only tell themselves that they only don't want to lose, but also that the best defense...!
Politicians and lawyers are all criminal negligents, whose motto is: "There's No Money In Solutions!"
Another sub-motto must be "If it don't need fixing, we must try to fix it anyway! If we don't rush in first, then some other fools will surely beat us to it!"
If they ever actually did the jobs we pay them to do, they'd solve themselves right out of their jobs!
So in stead, they spin easily-solved, simple problems with permanent solutions into eternal crises which have only temporary, band-aid therapies available to amerliorate the almost infinite pains which accrue from all the symptoms of deliberately not-solving them.
"Progressivism" itself is really only the logical fallacy excuse of any politician’s syllogism (to improve things, things must change; we are changing things; therefore, we are improving things) or argumentum ad novitam.
Bottom line: All governments these days are criminally negligent and endorse group-rights extortion.
Free markets, where everyone is allowed to own anything or everything, can be problems when one company can buy all the "vertical integration" (i.e: end up owning every sort of company needed for the complete production process of whatever they are selling) from top to bottom. Once that happens, they can simply ignore profits for each of their lesser stage companies, keeping those industries depressed for at-cost/ non-profit to them selves, and so make the price of their end product as cheap as it can possibly be, at which point, no one can compete with them, and they have achieved their monopoly at EACH and every lesser stage, too, while eliminating their competition at ALL those stages.
"Government" corruption, which enables them to do this, is part of the corporate competition process:
the corporazis bribe their government sales-puppet "politicians," not the other way around. In fact, most capitalists would scream that government shouldn't be allowed to infringe on the corporations' rights to own any and every thing they want to. But the end result will always be only ONE gang ends up owning everything ... including the government, at which point capitalism has seemingly "magically," yet predictably and inevitably, transformed itself into a state of single-owner communism.
And today we are living in the end-stages of this process, where the corporazis, because they are ONLY committed to the supply-and-demand of reducing costs and increasing profits by any and all means, hate paying taxes to any one any where ever, and so are hell-bent on destroying all sovereign nation countries and their governments and citizens by downsizing and outsourcing all our jobs to their 3rd-world slave-pens with their globalization treason scheme: no jobs here = no taxes here = no government here = no countries here! And of course, by promising to import ALL the lesser-expectations savage barbarians as wage slaves from those same 3rd world slave pens to here, they are all supported by the international communazis, and tribal moslems, who want free movement, wage parity and "equality" for those lowest-common denominator slaves as well. The moslems have been promised their one-world moslem ummah ruled by their caliphate government, as is obvious from all "our blunders" enabling their 'Arab Spring.' They will be used to keep us scared and subdued, Submissively shamed as racists and in line until it's all over for us.
We don't need the exercises in conspired irresponsibility called "corporate" gangs, nor fraudulent bankster "finance," to have basic capitalism, to simply create goods and make a profit, but this is the criminal's lie we've all been sold out by.
Banksters don't want money, because they already own all the money because they print it - they want to control people. They want everyone else to assume they owe the banks, which is why they constantly back everyone on each side of every war: because then the winners owe them, and the losers still owe them, while also owing reparations to the winners!
When all the land is taken, the only way to make money (maintain control) is by creative destruction:
by forever pitting everyone against everyone else in a permanent divide-and-conquer attack strategy.
;-(
We do need a government to exert force to defend our geographical territories (border security); we don't need corporate gangsters to employ us, nor to unemploy us by using our collective resources and know-how to make things elsewhere, thus implicitly breaching our border security and betraying us for only their own gains. The problem is with those humans in the government, who have been bought off by the corporate gangsters to commit treason against the rest of us, not with the existence of a government itself.
Government, (best conceived of by Albert Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn't compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it's OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens' rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!
And it's based on individual property rights and people's free-will choice to associate with others:
People have rights to freely associate and form insurance companies, and to restrict others within their own properties to, say, buy insurance while therein.
BASIC BACKGROUND PSYCHOLOGY OF LIBERALS:
turning cognitive mistakes or negligence into criminal negligence:
The left has to have "victims" to defend or their lives are just not worth a dime. In their zero-sum world, they can't imagine making themselves safe and happy, but maybe it'd work for others. Still, if the leftists couldn't find (or create) groups of oppressed victims to defend, they'd have to get real jobs and actually work for a living! Out-sourcing and projecting their adversarial needs onto "deserving victim groups" might magically transform them from whiny losers into altruistically committed "crusaders for social justice!"
"SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS" = COMMUNIST (CRIMINAL GANGSTER) TROLLS. PERIOD!
"Social Justice" is the same old communist trope of enforcing equality of outcome, not of opportunity!
SJW's are communists trolls - and their nonsensical claims are all only opinionated slander, because there is no fact in the world that will justify their group-might-makes-right stances; that:
"You have stuff, therefore you stole it (from me)!"
They're all about fighting "white privilege" - but that only shows they are against property rights, and the human right of free association (to freely associate with the other people one chooses to associate with).
See, "white privilege" is nothing more or less than how these countries were founded by white people, who had all worked hard to establish their properties, and then chose to pass them along to their own children.
These Johnny-come-latelies show up from other locales, haven't put in the time or effort to establish their own properties or legacies for their children yet, but somehow assert that it's "unfair!" of other people to have already done it, and so expect those other people to give their hard-earned properties to them, just because they don't have any.
It's nothing more or less than pure old criminal gangster communism:
"You have stuff you bothered to earn that I didn't, so YOU OWE ME!"
Then they take their slander to a new level.
In stead of daring to find and present evidence of their target groups' alleged crimes in a class-action suit in a real court of law, they simply form a larger gang of victimologists to take over the government and legislate new "laws" (crimes) to forcibly take what they want from their targets.
Bear in mind that they will also remain too afraid to accuse any real, potentially dangerous live human criminals of their crimes, and so must in stead always restrict them selves to accusing group idols, and that always means introducing fact-free, cause-and-effect reversed relativism into the equation: all real live criminals must be seen to be helpless victims of some other group's historical oppressions, for it to work.
And this is also of course why they will always back the aggressors (muslims and other criminals) 'rights,' and always attack the non-violent (Christians and Jews) - because there's no personal risk in it for them, and lots of public support available for such actions for them among the ever-present criminal elements.
And, by aligning them selves with, and championing, some unrelated group's historic oppression narrative, they can give free rein to their own propensity for attacking everyone first, by rationalizing it as really only being an ongoing, defensive counter-attack (attacking second).
Bottom line:
The Left (socialism = fearful responsibility-avoiding enforced criminal gangster extortion leading to slavery) is the permanent party of slanderous grievance fight and wants, always choosing to avoid hard work and the painful thinking of planning ahead, to ignore tomorrow's needs if and when they can borrow or steal somebody else's money to pay for their immediate wants today, while the right (hopeful, responsibility-accepting individualism) is the temporarily formed defensive party of flight and needs, always ignoring mere wants as its members try to postpone immediate gratifications and work to build a better tomorrow, today. "Rightists" only want to flee from criminal aggressors, to be left alone to literally mind and grow their own businesses.
Government is supposed to be an insurance company.
But imagine if insurance company representatives always went out looking for victims to pay! They'd go broke pretty fast, no?
Because with unlimited enforced access to everyone else's money, that's exactly what these wants-based victimology selling libertine "liberal" criminals do, in order to perpetually self-promote them selves as eternal victims' champions and good guys!
AND IT ONLY GETS WORSE:
In a free-market economy, people vote with their money. But this can quickly lead to forced sales theft and slavery when seditious slanderous victimology excuse-making "idealist" idolater traitors infiltrate government in order to abolish all borders and the local governments which embody one's rights to free association and to own property!
Then gangster extortion is empowered by some large "economic voting blocs" where gangs somewhere else can now out-vote you to steal ("seize" / "appropriate" via "Eminent Domain laws" etc) your private propterty and/or inflict forced sales (i.e: obamacare) on you!
Globalization enshrines group-might-made extortion "rights" over all real live individual human citizens' rights.
Globalization will abolish all individual rights to freely associate and own property.
Imagine what would happen if all the cell-wall "borders" in your body were to dissolve - would such diversity not be cancer?!
MORE:
Libtards are idealists who are convinced that the only way to make their own worthless lives at least "feel" like they are worth a dime, is to find some eternal "victims" to champion!
And in order to do THAT, they must also find some other people to slander as the "oppressors" of those victims!
So facts mean nada to them!
And criminals will never admit they are attacking innocent people first, which is why they can be guaranteed to doble-down on their entirely fact-free subjective critical thinking logical fallacy alibis of non-sequitur ad-hominem argumentun tu quoque slanders to excuse all their crimes, to wit: that they are not, in fact, attacking innocent people first, because nobody is ever innocent "Because you all do it, too! Whee!"
When turned on its face against them, they will insist that there are no crimes not criminals, either, because life is too complex to understand cause and effect, so no free-will criminal intent can ever exist, either - because we're all really ever only helpless victims of inevitable force, of gangs like "society;" merely predestined products of our predetermined environments and slaves of allah!
So there, Nyah!
;-(
From:
"There is no racist like an antiracist: That is because he is obsessed by race, whose actual existence as often as not he denies. He looks at the world through race-tinted spectacles, interprets every event or social phenomenon as a manifestation of racism either implicit or explicit, and in general has the soul of a born inquisitor.
These entrepreneurs of outrage suffer from a self-inflicted deliberate obtuseness, an obtuseness motivated by their desire to “maintain their rage” - a will to outrage. And this will precedes any object to which it might attach, and many people wait as if in ambush for something to feel angry about, pouncing on it with leopard-like joy (the leopard, so I was told in Africa, is particularly dangerous, for it kills for pleasure and not only for food).
Outrage supposedly felt on behalf of others is extremely gratifying for more than one reason. It has the appearance of selflessness, and everyone likes to feel that he is selfless.
It confers moral respectability on the desire to hate or despise something or somebody, a desire never far from the human heart.
It provides him who feels it the possibility of transcendent purpose, if he decides to work toward the elimination of the supposed cause of his outrage.
And it may even give him a reasonably lucrative career, if he becomes a professional campaigner or politician: For there is nothing like stirring up resentment for the creation of a political clientele.
Antiracism is a perfect cause for those with free-floating outrage because it puts them automatically on the side of the angels without any need personally to sacrifice anything.
You have only to accuse others of it to feel virtuous yourself.
There is no defense against the accusation: The very attempt at a defense demonstrates the truth of it.
As a consequence of this, it is a rhetorical weapon of enormous power that can be wielded against anybody who opposes your views. It reduces them to silence."
- Theodore Dalrymple -
Modern "education" only "teaches" (abuses kids with) liberal corruption - they inflict their own infantile delinquency and criminal negligence by offering them alibi-excuses to NOT have to think for them selves:
"Life is too complex for us helpless fallible and so, potentially dangerous mistakes to ever understand cause and effect, so, "since" all facts are therefore really only opinions anyway, our subjective, entirely fact-free opinions are the diversely opposite equals to those silly Conservatives' objective facts! Whee! And remember, kids: There's No Wrong Answers!"
To pretend there is no evil crime, and no evil criminals because everyone's really only a helpless victim, they pretend to a predetermined inevitability excuse: Marxist historical determinism, that people are all helpless victims of society, mere products of their environments, and slaves of allah.
And of course their inevitability alibi involves unavoidable mob-rule extortion, for which idolatrous group rights serve them well:
Ever try arguing with a liberal? It's pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn't exist!
They've really only declared a confession of non-compus-mentis!
And their favorite deflection is the childish critical thinking logical fallacy called the Argumentum Tu Quoque, which only amounts to trying to compare two unrelated wrongs in order to pretend to make one of them into a right:
"There's no evil crime or criminals because we (i.e: you) all do it, too! Whee!"
Beyond that, their crime is all about the objectification: victim-blaming "defensively pre-emptive" slander.
They embrace the slanderous philosophy that the best "defense" is a good offense, to keep their opponents on the defensive so they will remain emotionally off-balance and so never be able to (counter-)attack 'first!'
Only lying thieves (fraud being the most basic form of theft, the theft of the Truth) slanderously pretend their victims are too dumb to be educated!
The “elites” - including the "education" elites - are cowardly masochists who always want to form ever-larger gangs to protect them selves; they are all about the double-standards of subjectivism, and so oppose universal objectivity; they want rights without responsibilities, and so must offload their responsibilities onto their victims.
The reason they embrace might-made group “rights,” is both offensive and defensive: they can always assert they are “defensively protecting” others if and when they can make even a tenuous connection between some others at least somewhat similar to them selves who, somewhere else, at some other time, were oppressed by some other people who were sort of like YOU; in which case, YOU OWE THEM!
The corollary is that if and when they get caught for their crimes, they can always use the group idol as an alibi-excuse to dilute their own culpability:
“I didn’t do it! ONLY the GROUP did it! Whee!”
(Substitute “The System,” &/or “The Procedures” or your choice of idolatry for “The Group!”)
I'm pretty sure the main strategy AND subsequent tactics of liberals is to always generalize to dilute personal responsibility. It's why they endorse group rights and responsibilities and absolutely hate factual cause-and-effect specifics. Generalizations are lies and exaggerations used to hide all the specific details of their individual criminal culpability. And they also get to blame specific victims for general group membership responsibilities, too!
They are criminals.
They pretend only they, the authorities, have the right to defend any/all individuals; that no idividual has the right to defend themself! They slander everyone as aggressive victims!
As poor helpless fallible dangerous mistakes, who must Submit to control for thier own good!
This leftist path is Satanism, selling the temptations of easy weakness and victim-blaming aggressive corruption - of perpetuating fear and greed in stead of safety and happiness, of deliberately ignoring problems to exploit their symptons, in stead of solving them. Deciding not to do something to help others if it doesn't risk the self, is still a decision. This is crime.
So we've gone from a society where only individual human citizens have rights (and all mere groups of individuals are at most assigned some temporary, revokable privileges) to the exact opposite - where only groups have rights (as they sell divisive identity-politics, mere symptoms of individual humans) and all fallible victim humans are at most assigned some temporary, revokable privileges.
Under the Golden Rule (do not attack first) even the largest group, the state, didn't have the right to attack any of it's individual human citizen members first, which is where we got "innocent UNTIL Proven Guilty" from... but of course that's now being reversed, too. When we hire ('elect') salesmen to legislate, then legislate they will - if only to be seen to be doing something to earn their money. But since all laws depend form the Golden Rule, and there's only so many time & space applications to apply that rule to, they must eventually start breaking that rule of morality, and legislating false 'ethics' (the symptoms of having broken that rule). Which is where we're all at now.
Statists of both parties (conformists; collectivist group-might-makes-rights-oriented extortionist gangsters) always reverse the onus of proof to guilty until never proven innocent - asserting that people need a strong invasive all-encompasing goverment force in their lives, to micro-manage them, because humans are all fallible weak helpless victims and so also potentially disfunctional criminals. Humans can't be trusted, so large gangs of fallible, dysfunctional, untrustworthy humans is the obvious solution! Which explains the Globalization push.
Against all these evil forces, we have only the Truth … while only they currently control both the fear and the greed - the stick and carrot of the threat of having their careers protested by angry mobs of swarthy criminals (like happened at recent Trump rallies) or their own families targeted for beheadings and their homes incinerated by jihad - or taking oil-money bribes to keep their pensions.
So the "liberal" criminals have been told and told, and given all the facts many times, yet keep on insisting that “Islam ('just like the Bibles') is contradictory and unclear, therefore it’s only an opinion!”
Then they say we have no right to self-defense, because defending our selves with violence from islam’s criminal initiatory violence will somehow make us equally as bad as they – as if self defense is as immoral as the criminals’ offensive violence.
They decry us as being immoral for lumping all muslims together – and yet that’s exactly what islam does, and is in fact islam’s only reason for existing: to lump together and declare eternal violence against all the world's non-muslims!
So they say they’re against people who lump together all the members of a different religion and then advocate for the use of violence to attack them, (even in self-defense) but they really only mean they’re against that sort of thing when it’s white people doing it in response to the swarthy “muslim” criminals declarations of intent on doing it first!
So just ask liberals to clarify:
"Are you against people who lump all the members of other religions together, and then endorse the use of violence against them all - Yes or No?"
When they say "Yes, of course!"
Then ask them: "Is it permissible to use violence to defend one's self &/or innocent others from such violence-initiating people - Yes or No?"
;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment