I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but at least all the practice is making the message more concise LOL!
Recently, Dr. Ben Carson, world-renowned neurosurgeon and American Conservative presidential nominee, was slandered as an “extremist hate-monger” by the perpetually hate-mongering leftist extremist gang called the “Southern Poverty Law Center.”
They eventually retracted their slander (sort of, by elaborating on it) and so it seems now that Dr. Carson had then graciously called for a more generalized civil discourse between what he still seems to see as two equally valid opposing sides, in future.
But pretending there is no objective truth, that all people are such helpless victims before the daunting complexities of life, such that there is no real cause-and-effect Truth, and so all objective facts are really only subjective opinions anyway, so that the liberals’ subjective opinions are somehow the diversely equal opposites of the Conservatives silly objective facts – is really ever only a “liberal” criminal stance, and so one Dr. Carson should reject.
Re: Carson said “It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance. That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment. It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”
BUT – What if those you disagree with, are hateful criminals? Does one owe people who pre-emptively decide to “hate” their victims, as their preposterous, backwards rationalization for victimizing them, (as the SPLC itself always does) “respect!”?
Crime is all about the objectification: victim-blaming “defensively pre-emptive” slander.
All criminals – communist liberals included – decide at some point to use jealousy to motivate their slander, that:
“You earned stuff I didn’t bother to, so YOU OWE ME!”
Sane, civilized people agree to obey the Golden Rule of Law, most simply put as:
“Do Not Attack First.” After all, choosing to attack first, self-defines one as the predatory, criminal aggressor, and they as one’s innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it!
So, our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (thereby innocent) others, first.
Between two or more people, this means neither one is allowed to do anything either TO, or FOR, the others, unless and until it’s specifically agreed to.
In other words, philosophically, All is forbidden, unless & until specifically agreed on.
The Law, then, is voluntary a social contract; albeit not-agreeing to it, does define one as a criminal, because to attempt to somehow reserve the false “right” to attack innocent people first, is an inherent form of psychological threat.
Rights only come by agreeing to their concomitant, corollary responsibilities; one cannot have the one without agreeing to the other, for, as even the falsely-sundered criminal and civil laws agree, one must pay for what one takes. When criminals choose to give up on their responsibilities to others to not attack them first, the law demands they lose their rights to not be counter-attacked second for it.
Which brings us to “LIBERALISM:”
Like ALL criminal endeavors, libertine “liberalism” holds that, in stead, All is permitted – that they are allowed to do whatever they want TO others, as long as they can pretend it’s FOR them – for their own good – unless and until it’s specifically forbidden.
The best way to achieve this is to pretend their victims are unable to ask for their help against “oppressors” so it’s then automatically presumed the “liberal” criminal is acting in defense of those same people, and the best way to achieve this state is by pretending that everyone is a helpless victim in need of an authority’s “protection.”
And the obvious corollary to this crime philosophy, (that “All is allowed unless and until specifically forbidden”) is that nobody has any right to self-defense against the criminals’ right to do whatever they want ‘FOR’ (to) you – i.e: no right to defend one’s self against their attacking you first, and so you also have no free-speech right to complain to others about it, in aid of defending yourself, either!
Which brings us to the liberal criminals’ “hate-crimes” (thought control) attempts:
“Hate” (perpetual anger) is only the most natural, human response to ongoing crimes, like islam) as well as being the first step in the basic thought process itself: the instinctive rejection of new and strange ideas, pending further consideration.
To pretend people have a right or responsibility for others’ offended hurt feelings is insane, and it again only results in giving the infantile delinquent criminals the false right to remain irresponsibly wrong. (See also the modern liberal “Education System,” which not only no longer teaches kids how to think, or even what to think, but only how not to think at all – how to remain entitled to being irresponsibly wrong).
All criminals want rights without responsibility – like, false “rights” to our stuff, without any concomitant corollary responsibility for having to earn or otherwise pay for it!
In trying to make “hate” into a crime, they only make it “illegal” to hate crime and the criminals who commit it!
Bottom line: EVERYTHING about libertine “liberalism” involves “crime-PREVENTION” – in pre-judging people guilty of committing crimes, BEFORE they have actually committed any!
And that “pre-emptively defensive” stance self-defines itself as victim-blaming pre-judicial SLANDER; in other words, CRIME ITSELF.
Other than that, they claim to be controlling and “protecting people from themselves.”
Which is to say, they put their judgment of others ahead of those others’ self-judgment.
What these arrogant elitist liberals call progress, sane people call “the slippery slope.”