Subjectivist Hypocrisy IS Crime!

"In the 1960s, being a 'free spirit' was actually a set up for being a socialist/communist because it implied subjectivism.

That is, the belief that 'there are no values. Everything is a matter of opinion. So let's have fun without giving a damn.'

 With subjectivism in place, multiculturalism ('Western culture with it traditions of freedom and individual rights is not vastly morally superior to decadent European socialism and the primitive savage belief systems of third world countries, particularly Islam.') and political correctness ("Since if anyone speaks their mind, they may hurt someone else's feelings, so the government must regulate, or abolish entirely, freedom of speech.') both came right long behind."

 - Douglas Mayfield -

 Criminals are all about forcing equality of outcome!

 Evil only poses as stupidity.

 Subjectivism IS a criminal attack, as it is a stance indicating disagreement with the Golden Rule.

 It is a refusal to abide by the agreement to not attack first, and thus it is a first-attack threat.

Nannystaters' telling of people they have no right to defend themselves IS also attacking them first. 

Subjectivity is all about double-standards, so it cannot make sense from an objective principle POV. 

All criminals (i.e: libertine "liberals") are hypocrites (they call it "cognitive dissonance," and doctors pretend it's called "schizophrenia")!

 Libs are subjectivists, all about the double standards: only they have rights, while everyone else only has responsibilities, enslaved to them.

 "Morally Relative Subjectivism" = more commonly known as "hypocrisy."

Libtarded virtue-signalling immoral relativism/subjectivism/hypocrisy is really a criminally (i.e: intentionally) negligent THREAT - you can't pretend to split the difference between good and evil, and even the attempt outs you as being part of that evil. Libs can claim to be non-compus-mentis all they want ("all facts are really only opinions! Whee!") but either way, since they deny they have any real responsibilities to others to obey the Golden Rule of Law and not attack first, they ARE attacking first! Just lock them all up!

 All double-standard subjectivists are hypocrites. All hypocrites are criminals.

 Criminals are all about forcing equality of outcome!

 CRIMINAL LEFTARDS ARE ALWAYS REALLY ONLY ALL ABOUT PROJECTING "I'M BETTER THAN YOU!"

 Which is why they are inconsistent all the time.

 If and when one's criminal stance is all about subjective double-standards, and against objectively equal universal rights and responsibilities for everyone, where one asserts that only one's own "better" faction has rights, while all others have only responsibilities to one's self and one's faction, then of course pretty-much each and every issue one addresses will be inconsistent and libtarded!

Criminals always advise insane things to their potential victims - like that they should embrace suicidal masochism and refuse to defend them selves, and that the ultimate crime is to cause offense in hurting the criminal's feelings by accusing them of their crimes - which makes them look stupid or insane to sane folks, and look crafty and 'realistic' to other criminals.

 Criminals always want subjectivism - double standards - to apply, never universal objective principles. They want rights - especially the false right to remain irresponsible - to apply for themselves, while they also only want their victims to be responsible to them. Sharia "law" follows this crime-model to a T.

 Libertine "liberal" criminals insist they be allowed to "progress" to always extort others to have ever-more rights to be delinquent - and in fact to remain irresponsibly wrong, with ever-less responsibilities - because, as all humans choices were really ever only 'caused' by a complexity of historically predetermined, predestined and inevitable previous causes and effects, (far beyond our knowledge or capacity to ever understand them, such that we will forever all remain fallible and potentially dangerous victims), then their hypocritical subjective and emotive rejection of all objectively universal facts beyond 'this one true fact,' (that chaos is predictably inevitable LOL) proves them wrong:

 For if and when they alone are granted endless rights with no responsibilities, then from whom do these rights proceed?

 Well, from their own chosen victims, or course: from those deluded and so mentally inferior 'conservative' humans who, foolishly believing in objectively universal facts and free-will choices, are dumb enough to have enough hope for the future to become makers, from which the much smarter liberal takers (aka worthless parasite) can derive their lucrative subsistence, by forever spinning merely temporary and easily-solved problems with obvious and easy, permanent solutions, into eternal crises for which there are only at best temporary band-aid 'palliative therapies' available, and even then only by submitting to the expert authority leadership of the obviously much-smarter, far more shrewd, realpolitikingly decisive liberals.

 Deciding there is no solution, and so that in fact the only real solution is to try to instantly become a part of any given problem, works out great for them!

 Well, so far, anyway....!

Subjectivist hypocrites actually endorse objectivity to legitimize their claims: because they claim that "inevitable" (predictably, universally objective) albeit otherwise unknown and unknowable, predestined and predetermined forces are always behind every "false illusion" of human free-will intent and choice.

So we get these two, permanently opposed philosophical poles:

Law-abiding Conservatives: "Criminal behavior is an effect of free-will choice!" 

Criminal libertines: "But what CAUSED that choice? There's always a cause!" 

Their implication is that there are no crimes nor criminals because we're all "victims."

In this way, they proudly enslave themselves to the crime-excusing 'inevitable force' alibi! 

EXACTLY AS THE MUSLIMS DO WITH THEIR IDOL CALLED "ALLAH!"

 Further, there is no cause-and-effect morality: Since predation CAN happen, "Therefore" it WILL always happen; "So" we MUST form ever-larger gangs to pre-emptively, defensively extort & deter enemies in order to safely accuse and punish them for their potential crimes BEFORE they can commit them!

ALL of the so-called “soft” sciences are VICTIMOLOGIES – sociology, psychology, and even criminology – because they all begin by looking at symptoms of human behavior, but quickly “progress” to the false premise that they must look for CAUSES of those behaviors – and said causes must always be inevitable, predetermined predestined mysterious magical forces beyond anyone’s control! (The implication being that we are all really ever only helpless victims – of “society” / mere products of our environments, or as Marx put it, of “Historical Predeterminism” and as Muhammad put it, as proudly Submissive “slaves of allah”)!

Simple human free-will choice is the ONLY answer they will NEVER accept!

AND WHY? Because ALL HYPOCRITES ARE CRIMINALS, AND ALL CRIMINALS ARE HYPOCRITES!

SO: What is this "hate-speech" notion, of which the leftopaths are so fond, and why should it be considered a crime if it's NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?

If it's not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech - or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one's life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating - then it's THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of 'hurt feelings!' So it isn't objectively "offensive," but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively "offended" by their victims being notified about THEIR offenses!

Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive 'arguments' to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (criminals by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!