Mind-Blowing Liberal Hypocrisy

I responded to you when you said to another poster... " I've found that for years to discuss major issues with a partisan, whether conservative/Republican or liberal/Democrats is a fruitless endeavor. This meme was designed to flush you out."

That is NOT an example of a person that leaves everyone alone and allows them to believe whatever they wish as you claim. You are clearly expressing and even falunting your belief that you are somehow superior to what you are calling a partisan, and in fact, according to your own words you have went so far as to post a meme for the sole purpose of "flushing [them] out"...seemingly due to your belief that speaking with them is a "fruitless endeavor".

How you describe yourself, and how you present yourself are two entirely different things. That is the sole reason why I responded to you, and that is my larger point.

 

deleted

 

COVID is over now. Nobody is going to listen to anything government says.

 

No belief required. Those are the facts. What I believe has nothing to do with presenting them.

 

I wish that were true.

 

Me too.

 

I feel like I could write an entire thesis on anarchy and my views on why we need to have a government, but I'll summarize: It's true that the ideal world is one where we all have consensual relationships(of various kinds) with each other and we are in harmony. But human nature tends to stray against that.

And not so much because of the 'existing' order, but because of the natural order.(See: The animal kingdom). Competition is inherent within all blooded(warm and cold blooded) creatures. That competition leads to unfortunate results for others, and favorable results for others.

Humans have decided that we want to limit the amount of chaos and destruction that inevitably comes from that competition, and that's where we differ from the animal kingdom in that we can make that possible(however imperfectly) through the existence of a government.

In fact, from the 19th century onward the political philosophies have been about how to further regulate and further diminish the negative impacts of competition.(Although we use words such as 'racism', 'oppression', etc. The beauty of the animal kingdom is that it doesn't need such constructs. It's a simple manner of competitive dominance(or submission to that dominance.)

Today's Liberals essentially theorize that if we all hung together and sung kumbaya, then the competition would be diminished, it might even end! At the same token however, they painfully, arduously remind us that at our core, we are "different"(ie: White or black men, or whatever). Not only undermining their own kumbaya theory, but setting the seeds for new conflict.

As the groups become aware of their differences, and as they become aware that they are essentially in a pecking order(whilst being these different people, together in a room or in a country) forced to 'tolerate' the other, it's only a matter of time.

As a Fascist, the State to me is a symbol. A common place of unity for those people, we disregard race as obsolete and it gets in the way of the national unity. The same thought that applied towards the Church indoctrination of the 19th-20th century. With the church now obsolete, 'racial' views are the biggest obstacles arguably to even the anarchist world.

We don't 'eliminate' racial views by eliminating the concept of race(besides, the liberals are both for and against it, depending on the issue at the moment.). But rather by calling to something more important than the race itself. Be that the ultimate human race, or be it the country(or the planet at large.)

But in closing, where the fascist and the anarchist lie in common is that we both would like to see a consensual world. The fascist understands however that for the consensual world to be built, it must first be built around the pillar of the nation state.(Or any pillar for that matter.) It cannot be built on its own as long as our predominate nature is to compete.

 

So what are the liberals doing to stop this violence, instead of condoning it by their silence?

 

I don't know. Maybe you should ask a liberal.

 

Don't you think not wanting to do the social distancing bs and looting and burning down businesses are on way different levels.

 

Nice smack-down. I'm biased myself. So (*wink*)....

Yes, yes (I huffed), but I still reserve the right to always be RIGHT! Now lemme comb my duck's-ass hairstyle, slip into my Fonzie leather jacket and jump that fashion-statement shark for-ev-er......

Bandanas are cheaper than leather jackets and that's about it. Dress-up as peers hasn't changed any more than the days of team bowling shirts. Shooting rioters hasn't, either.

 

The left ruins everything.

 

So what group do YOU identify with? The trash burning decent people's lifetime investments, in the name of the death of a druggie counterfeiter? Forget color. Look at the facts. He resisted arrest and a way-stupid cop lost it. No cover-up. He's jury-bound.

Maybe you own property. An increasing number of leftists do not, willingly, preferring to let others' taxes educate their kids---then complain at the quality of mis-education their kid actually gets. Enjoy paying for damage if your insurance carrier (you DO have insurance, don't you) finds out it's actually arson. Many of these property owners face the insurance lack. ANTIFA didn't care. Neither did senior black elected officials.

Perhaps you side with Democrats who spend tons of money on no-results investigations of Trump rather than spend it on minorities. They're the Democrat Party! They know what's best for the blacks they've lied to since that sorry party was ever founded.

One thing about that Braveheart bit, above. They beheaded him.

 

Lol...read my signature.

I support Korean Rooftop Snipers.
I support the right to own property and that all such rights are derived from your right to life.
I support capitalism in the purest form- without any government intrusion into the free market, which include no corporate perdonhood, patent or IP laws.
I support minorities that are victimized at the brutal hand of government.
I support burning down any and all government buildings to the ground.
I do not believe in popular sovereignty or the social contract.

The group I identify with are anarcho-capitalists. Most people don't know what that means.

 

"I support burning down any and all government buildings to the ground."

Which is terrorism.

 

Lemme see-here if'n us gaptoothed flyover squares can puzzle this out.

Anarcho-capitalists want to destroy the capitalism they say they espouse?

Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!

 

Even now, after the $100+ million in personal and public property damages, the many deaths of innocent people, and the dozens of physical assaults, committed by these protestors, the news media is still characterizing them as "mostly peaceful."

Black Lives Matter "mostly peaceful protest" rolls thru Boston, and in it's people vandalize memorials, including the Civil War "Glory" memorial, which was portrayed in the movie staring actors like Denzel Washington, Jihmi Kennedy, Morgan Freeman, etc...

George Floyd's death has become nothing but a vehicle to act out violence and greed, and to feed the hate mongers, hiding behind social justice movements like BLM ans antifa.

 

Lol

I live in Ohio.

I love it when people make inane assumptions. Not just where I live, but what I said.

And no, I never even implied that. Evidently you believe "government=capitalism".

 

No. Not really. It's fighting against terrorism. What do you think governments do?

 

Horsepucky.

 

Fascism is authoritarian, and thus antiethical to individual freedom. It is no different than any other statist construct. It does not believe in a consensual world, as it provides a monopoly of power to the ruling elite.

 

Use it as a vehicle to attack Trump, which is all I see the majority left-leaning news media doing.

 

Terrorism is generally defined as the use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Now, some definitions include the word "unlawful", and I find that inaccurate. I government can literally pass a law and make anything lawful, no matter how heinous.

All governments, including the United States, use violence and terrorism against civilians...especially their own.

 

As I said prior, a "pillar". There doesn't have to be such a thing as a "ruling elite". Government is supposed to be a conductor, a traffic stopper. It's supposed to enable a stable flow and structure to the organization of the nation-state, cities, human organizations, etc.

The problem with the anarchist world in its totality is that there's no pillar, no structure and therefore chaos is the 'order' of the anarchist society. People cannot live prosperously in a chaotic society, these last few days are a wonderful example of that.

For those rioting, they get to use their violence(for an anarchist who's supposed to be against violence, this should be depressing) to oppress those who are non-violent. The government, who believes "we're not there yet"(per Esper, who really just irked my coats right now.) is also powerless to stop the oppressive violence against law abiders.

The "solution" would be more anarchy(IE: People fighting back), but then ironically enough the law would seek to prosecute those who defend themselves!

A unified State protects all within its umbrella. Unlike divisive democracy, unlike the Republic that fell into a Plutocracy and unlike anarchic chaos that cannot protect anyone.

 

Mind blowing hypocracy, right wingers declare that Govs CANNOT declare curfews, or lockdowns, and then Trump threatens them all, if they do not declare enough lockdowns, and cops bashing libs.