Friday, October 21, 2016

The Elitism of Certainty

Someone once told me that my views on leftism versus rightism made him think I believed that leftism is inferior to rightism. I do. I am absolutely certain that this is the case. Moral relativists do not believe anyone is either right or wrong when it comes to matters of morality, so when they encounter moral certainty like this, they assume it's either psychopathological, arrogant, or else, silly. This was the case with my critic, because after he made the observation about my moral certainty, he proceeded to inform me how exclusive and elitist he thought I was because of it.

When anyone claims to be certain about something, that does not necessarily make them an elitist, and I don't suppose this is what prompted my friend to lay his claim of elitism on me. But yet, when I say "leftism is evil", I am certain that this is true. Therefore, rightism is superior to it. Certainty is the result of a careful, deliberate, logical, rational thought process. I am right about this, not because I say so, but because I can prove it with logic and reason.

So, let me define my terms:

"rightism": one of many words used to describe a system of thought based on reason, rational, non-emotional thinking, and a complete embrace of objective reality.

"leftism": one of many words used to describe a system of thought based on emotions, fuzzy logic, and narcissistic self-interest.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Garbage - Stupid Girl Live at Letterman 1996

Racism, A Heinous Thought Crime Deserving Extreme Punishment

This is the definition of racism, from the Google dictionary:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

So, according to the Google dictionary, racism is a negative thing, indefensible, irrational, and perhaps mean-spirited. It is possible to show racism as a substitute for real self-esteem, and to link it to various historical evils in human history. So yes, racism is bad, but not nearly as bad as lefties believe. They're quite shrill when denouncing it. In fact, lefties are shrill about all of their so-called values, especially when defending them. While racism is a bad thing, it is not nearly the heinous evil lefties say it is. The things people do under the justification of racism can be heinously evil, but racism itself is merely irrational thinking, usually based on a lack of self worth. If you want to look at an example of lefty shrillness concerning racism, do a search on Alexandra Wallace, who was threatened with death for mocking the way some Asians speak English. I would prefer to live in a world where racism was countered by education, psychology, and rational arguments instead of bullying death threats. But that's how Lefties roll. They really think if you disagree with them in any way, you're a scumbag, a moral leper deserving of a brutal beating, vicious ridicule, or death. The sad but mostly disgusting thing about them, however, is that they are always shrill, never calm and rational when debating their values (because they believe them to be undebatable), but the things they value are merely psychological rationalizations for malignant narcissistic fantasies. They say they value compassion and sympathy for the poor, but embrace socialism/communism, which ultimately results in societal collapse. They say they value diversity, which is a smoke screen for racist policies...they seem obsessed with the poor; without them as justification for their policies, where would they be? They say they  hate racism-for them, the most heinous of thought crimes-while adhering to an ideology that is remarkably similar to racism in its irrationality and its rationalizations.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Social Justice: A Null Term

Here is the Google dictionary's definition of social justice:

...Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.

"Individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"

"Individuality gives way to the struggle for  social justice?". Excuse me, comrade? Then who benefits?

Whose struggle? Whose justice? Why should individuality give way?

Communists do not like to be specific when engaging in rhetoric or polemics. They prefer to intimidate you into becoming a true believer. That is the case with the null term "social justice", null, because it means nothing specific, relative to justice (in fact, it has nothing to do with justice at all). It carries a certain amount of clout, however. Everyone on the Left gives it lip service; it seems to be a noble goal, and besides, to argue against it would be like arguing against world peace, or puppies and kittens. There are problems here with specificity: who belongs to society? Answer: no one individual, and everyone in general (except yourself). If social justice pertained to individuals, then we all could lay a claim, based on justice, to a mansion in Bel Air. Or perhaps we could just lie around all day, smoking weed, and demand a house, electricity, food, clothing, and free Internet-in the name of "social" justice. What is just, who decides, and who passes out the goodies? And again, who is society? Everyone, except individuals? No, the collectivist answer is: the sum total of all the useful idiots, brainwashed automatons, and imprisoned captives who all believe, or pretend to believe, in the State as the benefactor of mankind.

Monday, June 27, 2016

On Inclusion and Social Justice

Inclusion? Social justice? What do these Leftist values mean, actually? Can I get a definition, please? I'm just wondering what a Leftist would say if I asked him for a definition.

Inclusion is, as far as I can tell,  the principle that no one, regardless of race, creed, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or for whatever reason, should be excluded from... what? government programs? private businesses? an individual's free choice of association? I would imagine a Leftist would say "no one should be excluded from educational, economic, or social opportunities, because of who they are." Excluded, by whom? Everyone, but the elites? (there goes freedom of personal choice). And when a Leftist claims he wants to be inclusive, does that include Christians, who believe that Muslim radicals should definitely be excluded from civil society? Christians, who believe that homosexuals should be excluded from the institution of marriage? Conservatives, who believe tyranny should be excluded from the government? Or how about someone who simply disagrees with the Leftist agenda?

No, when it comes to disagreement with them, Leftists are amongst the most exclusive people in the world. Especially if you're a Christian. And tell me something, just exactly when did "inclusivity" become such a sacred principle? Also tell me, if someone doesn't want person type x into his business, the principle of inclusivity says he doesn't have that right, even if he is the owner of that business?

"Social justice" is another amorphous, vague, and  ultimately meaningless principal. Ask any liberal what it means, and you'll get a mishmash of Leftist bromides for an answer. Near as I can tell, it refers to the principal that no one should want for the basic necessities of life (as defined by lefties), which means: lefties want to take your shit and give it to a poor person. If no one should want for life's basic necessities, who then will give it to them, if they are needing it? What if some people would rather keep their shit for themselves? It's the Gulag for those selfish bastards, comrade. Or the firing squad.

Social justice destroys property rights; inclusion destroys property rights. To Hell with that, and with the lunatics who believe their fucking concern for the poor makes them morally superior, and entitles them to forcibly take the property of one man, and give it to another. Or to force their values on others.