HOME | DD
paradigm-shifting — No One And Nothing Is Above It
by
Published: 2020-01-27 00:16:41 +0000 UTC; Views: 1860; Favourites: 72; Downloads: 4
Redirect to original
Description
Depending upon the situation, where you are and who is around you -- you are not allowed to question or criticize:THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
THE UNITED NATIONS
THE EUROPEAN UNION
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
ANY GOVERNMENT, PERIOD
JEWS
CHRISTIANS
MUSLIMS
ATHEISTS
THE POLITICAL RIGHT
THE POLITICAL LEFT
THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA
THE TRUTH MOVEMENT
LGBTQ
WOMEN
NON-WHITE PEOPLE
... the list goes on.
So no matter how much people virtue signal about "muh freedom" and "muh moral high ground" -- we do live in a global tyranny. This information is not meant to scare you, but inform you. The more people who are INFORMED AND REMAIN CALM, the more something can be done about it. If however people are only willing to become outraged, or stick their head in the sand -- then the fate of humanity will not be a good one, if people don't step out of this learned helplessness collective stockholm syndtome. The choice is yours. You can ignore this information, you can feel outraged and let that rage control you as if you are nothing more than a rabid dog, or -- you can calmly and rationally process the information, and start to ask questions and be open to answers that might be outside of what you've been taught to blindly believe in.
Related content
Comments: 84
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 3 ⏩: 2
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To "answer" simply means to "respond". Or as the dictionary describes it "a thing said, written, or done to deal with or as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have to say, That's pretty funny man.
here's my problem with that though, you make several very clear assertions under this meme, information that you assert is some found truth or reality (answers?) and based on that you suggest people choose certain actions.
you say
"...we do live in a global tyranny"
"...If... then the fate of humanity will not be a good one"
"...the more something can be done about it"
"...if people don't step out of this learned helplessness collective stockholm syndtome...."
"...let rage control you as if you are nothing more than a rabid dog OR..."
and this one
"...this information..."
information that you've briefly present as reality, reality which has negative consequences in our collective real world... IF we don't do as you advise.
Frankly i think it's good advise.
It's to bad that.. maybe a blind adherence... to a concept/philosophy seems to make you want to nullify your own words.
By claiming there are NO real answers, as in objective universal truths/reality that we all SHOULD embrace, just any "response" "a thing said, written, or done to deal with...".
If "Answers" only equals "to Respond" then "feeling outraged and let that rage control you" is as valid an "answer" to all the questioning you suggest should be done.
you obviously care about people and what happens to the world.
I'm not sure why you'd want to negate your good advise by opening the door to the idea that any responses to a our infinite questions are answers worth having.
And don't allow for questions to arrive at answers which reveal objective universal truths/reality that we all SHOULD embrace so "the fate of humanity" will be a good one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In my opinion, I think you're picking this apart way too hard and it is convolution the obvious point of even posting the meme at all. People can pick things apart about anything all day long, and it really doesn't help anything. My meme is an obvious statement against tyranny. Now if you want to pick apart what answers are or are not, what tyranny is or is not, what anything may or may not be, the implication of what they may or may not be, etc, etc, ad naueuim to infinitude -- you totally can. It just isn't my personal cup of tea.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I'm doing 3 things
1. just asking questions.
as you wisely encourage.
2. Noting that you seem to have landed on some "answers" about how the world is and what needs to be done to make it better.
and
3. asking if you think there are others answers that can be found when questioning all the isms and ideas you mentioned should be questioned.
It's not "...ad naueuim to infinitude".
The last one is the only real question i directed at you. It's just 1 question. Not an infinitude.
And to be blunt, your answer... reply... response... at best seemed to dodge the question. At worse negated your own pronouncements.
In a way that's similar to many of the politicians that we both have problems with. "...that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." But I'm not sure what constrains you from the freedom to opening up to the option that there may be other answers pertaining to the concepts and isms you mentioned, as well as those clearly outline by the reality we see of the present tyranny and learned helplessness collective Stockholm syndrome.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not sure I understand the question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Does terrorism (three examples: burning little girls alive for going to school, blowing up government buildings that contain day care facilities, flying jets into public buildings) have ANY positive aspects? If not, then there need be no debate about antiterrorism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have a better one for you. Lets look up the definition of the word terrorism.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica :
"Terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."
This is literally the description of how all governments operate.
"We don't need to debate about antiterrorism, because WE ARE the terrorists!" -GOVERNMENT
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you left something out of your definition. Terrorism, as a term of common usage, is the use of violence directed against civilians and noncombatants (i.e. bombing hospitals, burning churches and temples, and otherwise waging war on a civilian population, where civilians are not unintended collateral damage but the actual targets). If it is directed against military targets, it is just war. Don't confuse the two. War can be justified, because the participants are hitting back at their oppressors directly ("as ye sow, so shall ye reap," "he who lives by the sword shall die by the spear," "an eye for an eye" and so on, which are valid arguments), but terrorism can't be justified, because the targets are not the oppressors ("the ends justify the means" is far more often invalid than valid).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It wasn't my definition, it was Encyclopedia Britannica's definition. I merely agree with them.
Psychological warfare and the threat of violence is still terrorism as well. The reason unconstitutional / draconian laws end up passed and obeyed, is because people fear disobeying. The reason people fear disobeying, is not only because they've been psychologically tricked into a state of learned helplessness, but the threat of gun violence against them is issued by authorities. Terrorism mean to terrorize. Just as government literally means "to control the mind".
GOVERN-MENT. Ment from the latin mente which means mind. Even in English it can be seen.
GOVERN-MENTAL.
govern = control
mental = mind
Words mean exactly what they mean, very much on purpose.
Sometimes people will counter that with things like "well then, how about environmental? is environ it's own word?"
Actually, yes it is. Environ means that which surrounds or encircles.
The external is that which surrounds and encircles you. You experience the external reality around you by way of your mind.
So environ-mental, is that which encircles the mind.
Beyond that, terrorism can be justified. At least in the mind of a tyrant, it can. And tyrants are exactly what runs the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't agree with it. That definition is so broad that it loses its meaning. According to that definition, a parent who spanks his child for torturing and killing the neighborhood pets is a terrorist, on the same footing as a bunch of Somalis who burn little girls to death for going to school. That's ridiculous. No, terrorism can NOT be justified, except in the minds of the insane, narcissistic and megalomaniacal tyrants you cite (and historically, tyrants who become too oppressive are often executed).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
" terrorism can NOT be justified, except in the minds of the insane, narcissistic and megalomaniacal tyrants you cite"
Exactly. That is exactly who runs the world. There is provably a ruling elite who runs every government in the world. No one is ever [s]elected to positions of power that are not insane, narcissistic and megalomaniacal.
None of this is my opinion, these are all facts. As is the factual meaning of the word government itself.
However I can understand that when such information creates an emotional / psychological denial reaction, because we do not want to believe something like that is true, then we see what we want to see and believe what we want to, regardless of the facts.
According to your own chosen personal perspective of how you are choosing to view that definition, a parent who spanks his child is a terrorist. This however, is not what I said, nor is it what the encyclopedia said, either. You're the one who of your own accord and choice, are volunteering these ridiculous extremes and then making a claim that your chosen extremes are somehow absolutely what is being stated to you. But it is not. I am not making a any claims that the definition is as ridiculous as you are stating, nor did the encyclopedia make any such claims either. You are making the choice to perceive it as such, despite the fact that it was neither said, nor meant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You're the one who of your own accord and choice, are volunteering these ridiculous extremes and then making a claim that your chosen extremes are somehow absolutely what is being stated to you."
Your entire argument is extremist, as is that definition.
"No one is ever [s]elected to positions of power that are not insane, narcissistic and megalomaniacal."
That is absolutism, and thus not true, or at least wildly variable in degree. Ghandi, for example, was orders of magnitude less tyrannical than Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot. George Washington accepted the leadership of this country under protest and very reluctantly, out of a sense of duty (as a wealthy and fairly autonomous man, it was against his own self-interest). If there are degrees of anything, then things exist at either end of the scale which do not have the attributes of your definition, either by not having them at all (which I would postulate is a form of insanity in itself), or by far exceeding them. Incidentally, the closest we have ever had to a tyrant was Abraham Lincoln; nearly everything he did during the Civil War was in violation of the law, against the wishes of the majority of the American people, and in outright defiance of the Supreme Court.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One of the many important things humans tend to rebel against being conscious of, is that the way the human brain and mind functions, is that no human is able to see things any other way except through their own perspective. That perspective is formed over time through a great number of different things within their own long-term experiences. Even definitions within a dictionary or encyclopedia can't help but also be subjective in this way. Which is why I said that I agree with the definition, as opposed to claiming that the definition is some absolute truth. I recognize that this definition was created by human beings.
No human being really goes by definitions written in a book anyways. Lets look at a more simple word. The word love. We know what dictionaries and encyclopedias claim love is. We know what various societies may or may not claim love is or isn't. But honestly, first and foremost -- love is merely a 4 letter word. That word is there to attempt to represent a greater concept that exists as a lot more than one single word. On the next level, a personal definition of love is formed though personal experience. Someone for example, who has been used and abused by every person who said "I love you" has a very different personal definition for the word love. For them it means naivety, foolishness, danger, entrapment, usury, harm, betrayal, etc. For this sort of a person, this word "love" initiates their fight / flight response. It is not a good word for such a person, and no one can convince them otherwise. Their own personal life experiences have provided them with their own personal definition and if they ever decide to let go of it and form a new definition through new and better experiences, that is purely up to them and them alone, provided they ever decide to do it at all.
Even a tyrant never views themselves as being a tyrant. These people are the heroes of their own story in their own minds. They fully believe that they are doing what is best for both themselves, their country and humanity. They always believe they are a force of good, and sometimes even a force of God if they are a part of a god-based religion. Hitler grew up enjoying stories about knights fighting evil monsters. As Hitler rose to power, he considered himself to be of kin to those knights in those stories. He justified his every action as a lesser evil towards a greater good. As did Abraham Lincoln and you're correct about him. He is on record stating that he would have been equally fine freeing none of the slaves, some of the slaves or all of the slaves. That everything he did, was nothing more than military strategy. He did anything he thought would increase his chances for victory, period. He enacted martial law, and martial law has been in effect ever since. A president can not write executive orders except in a state of martial law. Hollywood has narrowed the minds of people to believe that martial law looks like a gestapo standing on every corner, along with curfews at night, and other such more extreme things. They don't realize that such things are merely a type of order that COULD be given during a time of martial law, but they do not realize that no such orders are required in a state of martial law. There does not have to be a gestapo on every corner, nightly curfews, or anything that even remotely looks like that. People don't realize that tyranny can be very subtle, and it is still tyranny.
The other problem with extremism and radicalization, is that an extremist always considers themselves as moderate, and a radical always considers themselves as being completely rational. They are blinded to their own flaws. So to an extremist, non-extreme views will seem very extreme. To a radical, non-radical views will seem very radical to them. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter -- because people seldom look at strategies and tactics and actions and ask themselves whether or not doing those things is right or wrong. They deem the same actions to be right or wrong purely based on which team they are on. If their team does it, then it is right. If the other team does it, then it is wrong. Anyone who can see that it is wrong no matter who does it, will be deemed a radical extremist by both teams.
As I have previously proven, the word government / governmental literally means "to control the mind". It is simply a fact, just as fire is fire and it burns, is a fact. But fire has meant many different things to many different people as well. Fire has been worshiped and condemned as being both a god and a devil. Some people love fire, some people fear and hate fire. From a more neutral rational perspective, fire can create electricity and cook food and do useful things when the ideas of fear and worship are put aside.
The reason government literally means "to control the mind" is because there is a philosophy behind this idea. The philosophy is this: that the concept of freedom and liberty is too dangerous for humanity to be able to ever achieve. That any attempt would destroy humanity. That as Obama once said, average men and women are not capable of managing their own affairs and therefore, the only way to achieve order is for people to surrender their rights to an all powerful sovereign. I have a video of him saying that, but isn't it interesting how few if anyone on the left even knows he said this? Just as people on the right have ignored similarly unconstitutional things that Trump has said. But anyways, there is a section of society who believes that the establishment of mechanisms to control what people think, feel and believe and how they perceive reality, are not only necessary for humanity -- but that it is their moral duty to establish and enforce such systems. They have also correctly figured out that the most efficient way to do this, is by using fear against people -- from the most subtle and sneaky to the most overt and obvious, and everything between. People are far more likely to conform to whatever a person or group of controllers demand they conform to, if fear is motivating them into complicity. In modern times, this belief that mind control through fear is necessary, is called Communitarianism. You can do research on it or not, that is entirely up to you.
So the idea of government being tyranny and mind control, is a ship that sailed long ago. Machiavelli. Sun Tsu. Etc. It is literally an ancient concept that was resolved long before any of us were born. Long before our great, great, great, great, great grandparents were born. The discussion of modern times, is about what are the best ways to control the people to achieve peace through world order. Just as you can see through Communitarianism, the argument is not Capitalism vs Socialism. That ship has also long sailed. Now the discussion is how to have both, how much of each, and in which ways each of those should be used.
So the absolute extremist view is not a discussion about what is and is not tyranny. The absolute and extremist view, is one in which it has been decided that peace and order can only come by way of tyranny, and now it is merely an attempt to figure out what are the best and most efficient methods of achieving that goal, and making it finally stick once and for all.
Most people have Communitarian views, even if they are not aware of it and have not heard the term. One common example, is how most Americans seem to feel that the murder of civilians over seas is acceptable to achieve a military objective. They feel that they are on the side of goodness and justice, and that such sacrifices are warranted. So they call it collateral damage. Where as if another country attacks and murders our civilians, we label those people as evil monsters. But the hard truth is, both sides view themselves as "the good guys" and both sides justify the same actions when they carry them out, and condemn those same actions when others carry them out on them.
So is my recognizing the utter hypocrisy of all of the different sides, absolutist extremism on my part? Well, I can at least say that I understand why both sides can't help but view it that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, kind of. I happen to know for certain that there are people out there that KNOW they are evil, don't care that what they are doing is wrong, and deliberately go out of their way to do so (I've come into contact/conflict with some of them; they are called psychopaths). There are also some who are so frightened of doing something that someone might find offensive, that they never take any action or accept any responsibility at all; thus they fall afoul of the axiom/truism "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." An extension of this is those people who want to release all black prisoners, regardless of their offenses and propensity to re-offend, so that their numbers balance racially with all other prisoners. Their responsibility is to protect the public safety, not to placate the radical left. After all, the primary responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens, regardless of any left wing or right wing agenda or party affiliation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I don't think in terms of absolutes. Every rule has it's exceptions, otherwise the rule could not exist. But exceptions and the rule, are two different things. The good people far outnumber the evil people, so by default of pure numbers, it is the good people who allow evil to triumph. It is the same idea as when a business hires a majority of white people, in an area where white people literally are the majority. So it is not racism, it is simply that there are more white people in that area than non-white people. The same is true when you have an area that is a majority non-white and white people are the minority. The businesses will be hiring majority non-white, simply due to numbers that are out of their control.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Well, I don't think in terms of absolutes."
Nevertheless, absolutes exist, and they do so whether or not you believe in them. If a tree falls in the forest it is going to make a sound whether or not you are there to hear it and, indeed, whether or not you even exist. Its existence, properties and the laws of physics and human nature do not depend on you or your belief. Science exists as well as art. Science is nothing BUT rules. Art has none.
"Every rule has its exceptions...
Okay, this is a prime example of what is called "the big lie." A big lie is an outrageously false statement that has been repeated so often that people accept this perversion/inversion of reality as truth. The rules of science are carved in stone. They are what something called "reality" is based on. If a rule can't exist without exceptions, then it is very obvious (to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together) that it is not a rule. There are rules that have been broken, of course. To name one example, that nothing can move faster than light was a "truth" that people believed in for many years -- until several things were observed or proven to exist that were routinely travelling faster than light (neutrinos, several other types of sub-atomic particles and anything coming too close to a black hole). Other things are constants and we (along with everything else in the universe) rely on them for our existence.
"The good people far outnumber the evil people, …"
That is very highly debatable, as is your definition of good, and it is highly debatable both on an individual basis and generally. Very few people are good, Very few are bad. Most are just neutral and have no real and objective value outside of their immediate sphere of influence. People, as a group, are pretty much defined by their lowest common denominators. Generally speaking, they are stupid and panicky herd animals and the science of statistics is pretty much based on this type of observed behavior.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We both have an opinion, and our right to it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, we do, no matter how obviously wrong it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A 16 years old girl in my country, Mila, insulted wildly Islam in a video a few days back. Her life is now over, she is threatened every minutes the worst things, and to top it all off, she is being procecuted for hate speach.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People in each country need to rise up and take back their governments, otherwise this sort of stuff will continue and get worse. Though in many instances violent revolution might be needed, it is always wise to start things peaceful in order to be on the right side of history. To me, this is what starting it peaceful looks like:
Step #1: have a VERY LARGE GROUP of people attempt a peaceful citizens arrest of all politicians, judges and authorities so that new authorities can be selected by the people and fair trials may be held.
Step #2: if the police refuse to follow the people's demand, then the people demand that any police who refuse to serve the people in this way step down, or also be subject to citizens arrest as well.
Step #3a (countries where citizens are armed): any police that refuse, do whatever needs to be done. Whatever that looks like. However it goes down. Start with physical force, don't fire the first shot. Let the cops shoot first, otherwise you're on the wrong side of history.
Step #3b (countries where citizens are not armed): any police that refuse, do whatever needs to be done. Take the guns from the cops by force. If the cops decide to genocide their own citizens, there is more citizens than there are police. This is not a video game or movie where the cops have unlimited amo. Once a cop runs out of amo, they won't be able to reload faster than the citizens can take the gun and his / her remaining amo. Of course the death of these treasonous officers won't be as fast as the deaths those officers gave the people they shot in cold blooded murder. The people will be outraged at the deaths of their citizens, and will kill those officers much more slowly and painfully for revenge. Thats just the honest truth of what that would look like, it is not me suggesting anything. It is an acknowledgement of what a regular human would do in that sort of situation.
Step #4: once treasonous cops are dealt with and loyal cops join with the people, then you proceed to those before mentioned citizens arrests.
The main problem right now in most countries, is that even the most angry citizen is not willing to do this yet. They wish to sit there and bed like a dog for scraps, or like a small child begging their drunk high on drugs abusive parents to please stop beating the shit out of them. They are like dogs who have the power to defend themselves, but instead sit there allowing themselves to be repeatedly whipped by abusive masters. They want some sort of story book magical solution, or some sort of hero or savior. They are not yet willing to do whatever needs to be done. They are only willing to have pointless arguments with each other online where they vent their rage on each other, instead of directing it where it actually needs to go, and instead of doing what actually needs to be done.
As for your country, the yellow vests are a fucking joke. They have no plans, no strategies, nothing. They sit there in the streets and complain while tear gas is launched at them. The most cowardly ones set random cars on fire and break store windows and steal stuff. Again, totally misplaced rage. Though I'm sure some of those people are thugs hired by the French government in order to make the yellow vests look bad, the yellow vests already make themselves look bad and they don't need any help looking bad. They are just like American protesters. Weak. No strategy. Waiting for a savior while throwing tantrums.
If you want to know how to do things, look to both Iceland and Hong Kong. Those are two countries where the citizens are intelligent and have the balls to do the things that need to be done.
The rest of the countries of the world (or at least the western world anyways) are just filled with a bunch of outrage addict pussy cowards who want to wait for a savior or vent misplaced rage in ways that don't accomplish anything.
People need to grow some balls (literal or metaphoric). They need to quit their addictions to outrage culture. They need to stop fighting with each other. They need to stop worshiping human authority. They need to stop following cults of personality (Trump, Hillary, Alex Jones, whomever each person chooses as their cult leader). They need to remember what it is to be human and stop being mindless obedient robots. Most of the boomers are complacent, most of the millennials are cucked. We might have to wait a few more years of this nonsense to see if Gen-Z grows some balls.
The minority of us who are of the other generations who are not complacent and cucked, we simply need to be there to support Gen-Z and inspire them to rational thinking and courage.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Freedom only applies to those who make the rules, freedom of speech only to accepted speech. Freedom finds a person the moment they stop giving a fuck what everyone thinks about them. One Life, One Heart, One Brain. One Soul...so dont waste em.
Always be willing to learn. Know when to accept and when to rebel. proper judgment at the proper time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly. When a person finally learns that there is only one thing in this life that they have any control over, THEMSELVES -- then navigating a world of chaos becomes more ease and flow.
The basis of most people's fear, is that they fear the coming of a world that they don't realize is already here. They fear world war 3, when we've been in it since the Korean war. We are currently in the longest of the 3 wars, as this is the third time that the world has been at war with itself. People fear a future of martial law. We've been in martial law since Abraham Lincoln enacted it and it was never disbanded. No politician may write executive orders except for while being in a state of martial law. People fear the rise of nazis. Already done. Most of the high ranking nazis were smuggled to the USA by way of operation paper clip. The people executed at Nuremberg were low-ranking pawns of war. Cannon fodder. Those nazis came over here and started the FBI, CIA and NASA. And of course continued to make such organizations as the NSA and Homeland Security (which is an idea that Hitler had and implemented in Germany during his time).
I could go on and on but the point is simply that the world people fear might happen one day, is the world they were born into. It is the world which surrounds them every day of their lives. However they desire to emotionally and psychologically protect themselves by denying the true state of the world around them, with virtue signaled denial.
Even Hitler himself was merely a game piece on the global chess board being used by forces with more power and influence than he had. All politicians in all countries are puppets of these forces. Even government itself has no power. It is merely a tool used by multi-national corporations, and multi-national corporations are tools used by a global organized crime syndicate which has ruled this world for longer than anyone truly knows and that we can only speculate upon.
These truths are out in the open even in the mundane surface level history, no wild theories required.
In fact, this is why people wanted to "come to the new world" back in the day. An attempt to get away from the nonsense of the global organized crime syndicate that the average common person in those days knew well for a fact ran the world. It was common knowledge of the common people. It seems we can only speak of imperialism as something that happened only in the past, but to mention that imperialism never died is deemed as some sort of wild conspiracy theory. Todays modern corporate ladder is the exact same system that has always been used. We may have different language terms to describe it, but when compared with all of the imperial systems of enslavement in the past, it is literally the exact same system.
Employees. Managers. Executives. CEOS. Presidents. Prime Ministers. Kings. Queens. Dukes. Earls. Peasants. All the same exact system.
In fact the inbreeding of this large organized crime family did not start as inbreeding. It started with a different tradition. If you wanted to conquer another kingdom, the best way to do it that avoids all out war, is to have your kingdom marry into the other kingdom. What is theirs becomes yours, what is yours becomes theirs. In short: both kingdoms are now members of the same one crime syndicate. The alleged sovereignty of each kingdom, merely virtue signaled so that the peasants don't suspect anything. Well eventually they got to the point where the entire world was conquered, but the tradition of royal families marrying into each other in order to preserve the power of the monolithic crime syndicate was still in place. So, the inbreeding began.
Nowadays, as this family tree continues to implode more and more into a family bush, each subsequent generation becomes more biologically damaged, more pathological, more blood thirsty, more insane, more impatient and more dumbed down. This is why many of the ancient past generations of this crime family were brilliant, and today we mostly see the members of this crime family acting like foaming at the mouth delusional idiots. They've dumbed themselves down every bit as much as they've dumbed the masses down, though in their case it is as much biological as it is paradigmal.
All of these things are provably fact even within basic mundane level history. Which is also why they want to destroy that history and re-write everything. So that the peasants don't even have basic history to look into. This is why they take history class out of high schools, destroy historical monuments, and so on. It is why they want people to define "nazi" and "commie" as "anyone i don't like".
He who controls the past, controls the present. Whomever controls the present, controls the future.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I enjoyed reading this, thank you. No truer words, we can only control ourselves...and we have trouble doing that. But once you know......I remember when I was younger and was caught up in the game. Now that I have eyes to see its so very surreal. It seems the things we poked fun of because they could never happen.....are indeed true. And just the tip of the iceberg. I had hoped I would be gone before things got to this point. Seems all we can do is try and find some happiness here and there.
Take good care
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, you can either view this as an opportunity or a burden. I choose to view it as an opportunity. Nothing worth doing is without challenge and risk. Not that everything in life has to be hard, that is a false paradigm used to keep people enslaved. But simply that in most cases, the best achievements took a lot of work, were very challenging and had high levels of risk. Thats the world we live in. So we can either accept the challenge and be pioneers of a better world to come, or give up and surrender to the false state of learned helplessness that society has programmed us with.
Each individual gets to make that choice for themselves. No one can make it for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree, just don’t waste your time confusing them with the truth, cause there minds are made up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I speak truth only as a means of not consenting to tyranny, and as per my right to choose to be the person I want to choose to be. I never try to "convince anyone of anything" because that is not possible. The only ones that anyone can talk to, is the like-minded. Or at the very least, someone with enough maturity to be able to agree to disagree in a civil discussion, without everything turning into an egotistical shit flinging penis measuring event.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I've never personally experienced that, but I've had my own experiences with trans people and with all of them, they seem to expect you to walk on egg shells with them and if you don't, they'll start drama with you and start shaming you.
I also really am not a fan of lying to people and I feel like many of them are literally asking me to lie to their face. When some beautiful girl wants me to call them "sir" or some bearded man wants he to call them "mam" ... it feels like they are telling me that they want me to lie to them about what my own eyes are seeing. I always offer the compromise of doing my best to avoid pronouns all together with them, but that usually isn't good enough. They want me to see them the way they want me to see them. They want who I am to change in order to suit who they desire to be, which is hypocritical. If they reserve the right to be who they want to be (and they do reserve that right), then why should I give up that same right for myself? I think both people's rights can be preserved and neither person's right infringed. But thats not what they want.
I don't hate trans people, nor do I fear them. I simply play fair for all sides and equal rights, and that doesn't seem to be what they truly want.
Just like with the whole Olympic team nonsense. Instead of starting trans teams for the Olympics, they want to invade women and mens teams. These teams are separate out of fairness, not bigotry.
Also the same for the bathroom stuff as well. Instead of having mens, womans and trans bathrooms, they want it so whatever you "identity as" is the bathroom you can go into. This is very dangerous because people who are NOT trans but who are straight rapists and pedophiles, will simply "identity" as whatever they need to identify as, in order to go sexually assault their next victim.
People who claim to want tolerance and compromise, want no such thing. If they did, they'd stop the virtue signalling and they would literally live their lives as an example of the change they want to create, making the virtue signaling unnecessary because it then would be a genuine lifestyle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry that's the experience you've had with trans people, and I apologize on behalf of the pushier trans folks.
My take on the issues you've brought up:
1) If someone looks like a man, I'll say ''sir'', if someone looks like a woman, I'll say ''ma'am''. This includes trans people who pass as the gender they identify as, because, quite frankly, I wouldn't know to call them otherwise because they pass. I'm not going to call someone who looks blatantly male/female opposite of what they look like. This goes for myself included. Honestly, it's just confusing and uncomfortable. But, if a trans person looks like the gender they identify as, I use their preferred pronouns. It's easier anyways. Like, I would be uncomfortable calling this guy (a FTM youtuber) ''she''. I imagine you feel the same. Of course, I don't support forcing anyone to call anyone anything.
2) I don't think it is bigotry to keep trans folks off of other sex teams. I think we would need evidence it's not unfair to even consider letting them on the teams.
3) Why not have more family bathrooms or single toilet bathroom for trans people? Normal bathrooms of any sex are dangerous for trans people. Women's bathrooms might harass trans woman and men in male bathrooms have assaulted and bullied trans men who don't pass.
4) Many trans people live average, quiet lives. They don't bully cis people and they don't demand in equal rights. But you don't hear about those people on the news. After 10-15 years, most trans people pass and stop identifying in trans circles because they just want to live their lives. Please don't assume all trans folks are crazy SJWs who are out for blood!
Hope this all makes sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It does. Just for the record, I wasn't just talking about news stories. I've personally run into trans people and it is how they tend to act with me. With your photo you shared, you're correct. If that person never told me they were trans, I would use the pronoun "he" because that is the gender they appear to be. There is a trans actress who plays a character on Super Girl who used to be male and transitioned to female. She does not look it. She looks completely 100% female. If this information about her was not public record, I'd have never known otherwise and "she" would be the pronoun that I would use. I personally feel that people who look and sound exactly as the gender they transitioned to, would have a much easier time if they did not tell people they were trans, except for close friends and family, or potential intimate relationship partners. Because beyond that, there really is no reason to announce it to people. I don't go around constantly professing "hey! i was born with a penis! I still have my penis!". There is no need for me to do that. How I treat people and conduct myself in the world takes priority over what is between my legs.
You make perfect sense, I personally had just never experienced a non-narcissistic trans person. Though I had no doubt that some must exist, I just personally have never experienced one. At least that I know of, anyways. Perhaps I did and they just never mentioned that they're trans.
When anything is "politicized" it always degrades. This is the problem with feminism, gay rights activism, lgbtq, and pretty much any other group you want to name. They always become the antithesis of what they set out to be. People end up identifying with the fight so much, that victory is unacceptable.
Females have rights. They won that battle a long time ago. However when a female refuses that victory, then they begin to become man haters. Then feminism becomes about dominating and destroying men. Which also effects trans men who actually look like men. They'll take just as much heart from those feminists as any natural born male will. The same applies when race becomes political. People who are not white, have rights. It is a thing. They won. But when they won't let go of the past and they identify with the unending fight, then winning isn't good enough. Then they become racist against white people to such a degree that they don't recognize their own racism, and they go so far as to claim that to be white in and of itself, is a form of racism. Which is the same tyrannical bullshit that their ancestors experienced from white people when they were told that to not be white, means to be some untamable savage animal that needs to be kept caged. This has also happened with the Truth Movement. When you have a movement that is fighting for the truth, it all becomes about identifying with the fight. All the facts and truths are out. This is the 21st Century internet. People can dismiss it all as conspiracy theory, or accept it as the truth. But that battle has been won. However, because these people identify with the unending battle, that victory is not enough for them. So instead of accepting their victory and uniting to finally take down the mutual enemies of humanity, they divide against each other and fight each other. It goes from being the a movement about truth and freedom to "if you disagree with me, you're working for the illuminati!". It becomes an ever-dividing bunch of paranoid schizophrenic self-haters.
This is what happens when people identify with "the battle". Victory becomes unacceptable, because victory means the fight is done. Which then means the identity they have built for themselves has become irrelevant. So now they have no clue who they are, or what to do with themselves. There are many veterans who go through the exact same thing. They've learned to identify with fighting for so long, they have no clue how to go back to civilian life anymore.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Questioning and denying certain rights are two different things. I believe you are entitled to be wrong about transgender people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Male anatomy has no place in women's spaces. But i suppose I'll excuse your ignorance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You assume I'm male, but I'll excuse your ignorance. Also, you won't know every trans person when you see them, so why do their privates matter?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>