Saturday, February 4, 2017

Unconsious Leftist Posts Indictment of the Left

A commenter at another site produced this photo, ostensibly from the Holocaust Museum:



The site being overtly Leftist, the implication was that this applied to Trump and the Deplorables. Let's take a look-see:

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism.
Presumably as opposed to anti-national, one world domination by the Left. The Left has decried patriotism with the same vehemence as it decried the patriarchy, institutional (invisible) racism, privilege (innate racism due to birth), microaggression (invisible assault on sensibilities), and other putative crimes. Protected by the relatively open society and laws of the west, they revile the west and its relatively open society protected by national boundaries.

2. Disdain for Human Rights.
The Left actively wishes to delete much of the US Constitution, because it gets in their way. Free Speech is especially free for the Left, but not the Othered Class. Bearing arms is hated for the obvious reason that only the state should bear arms... yet police are also denigrated by the Left. Under Social Justice War, hate crimes are defined and punished by the Left - and the Left continually adds new Protected Classes and hate crime categories to attack.

3. Identification of Enemies as a Unifying Cause.
The obvious Marxist class war being waged by the Left is exactly a unifying, pseudo-moral, cultish righteousness claim to moral superiority and messiah claims of salvation for their designated Victimhood Classes. In fact, the Victimhood Classes never receive salvation, they receive crumbs of bare sufficiency for survival. That is obviously necessary because the Victimhood Classes must be maintained and never released, because they are fundamental to the messianic self-righteousness of the Left. Identification of enemies is a performance art, seen every day as Leftists speak; they speak hatred of the Othered Class.

4. Supremacy of the Military.
The military under the Left and Obama consisted of the Dark Militarization of the many executive branch bureaus, almost all of which now have their own armed forces. Under the Left and Obama, the US military was marginalized and the international military, UN, NATO, "coalition", was strengthened. The one world fascism of the Left was obvious.

5. Religion and Government Intertwined
Atheism, and its hydra head of many untethered belief systems, including New Age, Post Truth, Post Enlightenment, Post Rationalism (Nietzschean), Post Moral, Consequentialism, Messiahist Marxism, has been the Leftist form of religion embedded in government.

6. Obsession With National Security.
How this is a characteristic solely of Fascism is a curiousity; the EU has become overrun due to the lapse of common sense National Security. But for one worlders, there should be no nations, and thus national security - like patriotism - is a hate crime for the Left.

7. Corporate Power Protected.
The Left provided massive bailouts to several huge corporations in the past decade. Hillary courted and received huge payouts from Wall Street. Crony politics (coming up) is a mark of the Left, much of which is filthy rich and the rest of which is permanent Victimhood Class (contentedly "oppressed").

8. Labor Power Suppressed.
That is why Trump is president: the Left doesn't care about Labor, especially non-union blue collar workers; it cares about wealthy crony connections.

9.Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts.
This is clearly not the case for Hitler's National Socialism. The NAZIs revered Nietsche (the national philosopher), Wagner (the national composer), and they stole and preserved massive amounts of highly valued paintings and scuptures from conquered museums.

In the USA, the concept of Intellectualism has been corrupted to mean "Leftist Narrative Only" in both academia and MSM. That is functionally anti-intellectual, as contrary concepts are not allowed (riots against MILO, rather than open debates). The Arts have degraded into Piss-Christ and other denigrations, as well as stupendously stupid displays such a an artist sleeping in her Plexiglas display case on the museum floor. To be against the funding of these parasitic atrocities is merely rational common sense.

10. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption.
Just one word: Clinton. That Leftists revered her/them is sufficient demonstration of their actual morals.

11. Fraudulent Elections.
Two items: the fraudulent nomination of Hillary which shut out Bernie Sanders. And the perpetual Leftist fight against voter I.D., thereby allowing mere claims of identity to suffice.

18 comments:

  1. This is in response to the heading "Atheism Analyzed", and the comment "Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories". NO I DON'T!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh! How DARE we demand a rational response from such a tender snowflake? The poor dear! You'd better modify your blog header, Stan, or next he'll be shouting NOT MY PRESIDENT and dressing like a vagina.

      Delete
  2. Michael,
    Then your position as an Atheist deserves zero respect. That's because you are asserting a fallacy while not disclosing any reasons or reasoning for your Atheism. This is because you have no reasoned objections to present, no structured logic, no evidence to support your belief system, which is therefore merely a VOID of intellectual content. Without reasons or reasoning, your position is seen to be purely emotional, and without any intellectual content whatsoever. Zero intellectual content; zero intellectual respect.

    Aristotle had intellectual content. Hegel had intellectual content. Nietzsche had intellectual content. Russell had intellectual content. Hitchens had intellectual content.

    You do not. Hence, zero respect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Stan, fuck you and your useless imaginary god.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Michael, thank you for the confirmation and the compliment. You are everything that's wrong with the incoming generation. Give us a ring when you've decided to grow up and move out of your parent's house, snookums.

      Delete
  4. Michael,
    Perfect example of Atheist intellect. Thanks for the display.

    BTW, I did notice your symbol of the fish with four feet. Perhaps you would share the species it represents? Or is that your imaginary god? I suspect the latter, but you can fill us in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see why you allow them in here, Stan. No amount of words, no elaborate explanation, can replace a visit by a genuine man-child determined to troll. It's like a snapshot - and a picture is worth a thousand words.

      Delete
    2. Also, you will note that our visitor did not even deign to read anything on the blog past the header. Pure emotion, knee-jerk in response to a threat to his own religion... the one that involves worshiping himself.

      Delete
  5. You two (Stan and Steve), are very funny and misunderstand my first statement, I simply do not owe an explanation to not believe your claim! However to make you happy, here it is. If your god is what you say it is, why are it's millions of messengers all on different pages and contradict each other with unclear messages.I am not impressed with this god in any way at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I suppose you could pay for me. Let me know how that works out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, you do owe us an explanation, Michael. Any time you take a stand, even if it is against something, you simply must have facts, evidence and good reasoning for it. Stan is just asking you to write them down.

    But... then you told Stan to fuck off, and his useless imaginary god, too. That's not funny and it's not hard to misunderstand what you wrote. Stan has never said whether he's a believer or not - he IS saying that atheists, as well as the Left, don't have a rational leg to stand on. So it's not HIS god.

    And if the God of the Christians is who He says He is, then I don't think it matters one whit to him - or those who believe in him - whether *you're* impressed or not. And I suspect that you'd agree, if you gave it a minute's real thought.

    I have no idea what to make of your second post. Let me know how that works out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Only one claim has been made: Prove that there is no creating entity for the universe, using either disciplined, Aristotelian deductive logic processes, or valid empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, non-falsified, peer reviewed and open data scientific material evidence.

    The claim is that you cannot produce either the logic or the science to validate your Atheism. Therefore, your Atheism is merely an unsupported and unsupportable personal blind-belief system - aka, religious in nature.

    A blind-belief system which reveres science and logic as the ultimate source of knowledge, yet which cannot prove its own validity is incomplete. It has a naturally occurring null position, which is that everything exists for material reasons via cause and effect. Except for the universe, which came from nothing - or the Fable called the multiverse (no evidence => fable). And except for life, which is inexplicable, materially, unless panspermia creates a regression which is also materially inexplicable as a primary source.

    So Atheism devolves to a VOID of inexplicable, unanswerable questions which require blind faith that their answers exist, and they exist with material causation.

    The refusal to give reasons or reasoning for one's Atheism is the normal response of those who know, sub-intellectually, that there can be neither logic nor science which produces rational cause for rejection. Rejection without rational cause, is irrational.

    The rational individual would reject the irrational, and try to find rational answers, first for the materialist religious VOID, and when that fails, then for the proper method to deduce the answer which fits.

    That is what this blog is about. Certainly you may take it or leave it. If you choose to take it for what it is, then we can converse about the principles of Atheism, and their rational analysis. OK?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michael,
    Here's another, quick way to look at the issue:
    Proposition A is rejected without either logical reasons or scientific empirical reasons.

    Thus there is no reason, logically or scientific to reject it.

    It is therefore unreasonable and unreasoning to reject it.

    Being unreasonable and unreasoning, it is irrational to reject it.

    Perhaps you have logical and/or scientific reasons to reject the proposition.

    If you claim that you do have such reasons, but refuse to give them, then your intellectual sincerity is suspect.

    You gave a reason for rejecting religious ecclesiasticism, not for the existence of a creating being.

    Let's discuss the most fundamental question of all; why anything exists.

    It's up to you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are an intellectual dynamo, and I am but a mere buffoon. I have no argument to prove that there is a creator of the universe. I simply don't believe in the religious gods because there isn't sufficient evidence for me. Maybe I'm a moron, but I don't believe for the same reasons most people don't believe in santa claus or the easter bunny. My only claim is without evidence I don't know and remain skeptical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea whether your a moron or not; I doubt it seriously.

      Regarding a creating entity for the universe: What evidence do you require?

      Here's a fundamental piece of evidence: under the principle of parsimony (the simplest explanation is generally the best explanation), nothing should exist, because there is no reason for it to exist.

      Yet there obviously is existence. The question then becomes, "Why". There are two possibilities: 1. by accident, arising out of nothing; 2. on purpose.

      Number 1, something arose from nothing, is not observed to occur, ever. Number 2, purposeful creation, is observed to occur.

      So take your choice, 1 or 2.

      Delete
  11. BTW I don't live at my parent's house, but I have been accused of living and crawling out from under a rock.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stan, the problem here is the same as with most garden-variety atheists. It's not that they're stupid, or even ignorant. The key is in the phrase "sufficient evidence for me". If "sufficient evidence" means "whatever I choose to admit as evidence", it's entirely subjective and since the Atheist has already eliminated any possibility of objective evidence - that is, evidence that is sufficient whether the atheist agrees with it or not - you will never, ever be able to satisfy their demand for 'sufficient' evidence.

    By choosing to be an atheist, they *automatically* reject anything that is not in accordance with their belief - that there is no God, no Creator. It's their foundational axiom. There simply is no talking them out of a position using logic and solid examples when logic and solid - that is, objective examples - did not get them there in the first place.

    That's what I love about you, though. Always tilting at them windmills. Who knows? One of these days you'll skewer one of the buggers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steven: Har! I had to laugh out loud at that. And you are right, because in this, the tenth year of this blog, I haven't disabused anyone of their self-godhood.

    However, I have encouraged those who are attacked and condemned by Atheists and Leftists in the knowledge that both logical reason and empirical science are NOT on the side of the self-annointed elitist Marxist Class Warriors, who have nothing but false Atheist "morality" and the drive to force it on everyone else.

    This Atheist is a case in point. He came here in full elitist aggression mode. He now has to consider the underpinnings of his belief system, or merely admit to himself that he doesn't want to do that.

    I'm always willing to talk to any Atheist who puts his knives down, and discusses reality however briefly.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS comments and comments by banned parties will be deleted without being read.