The Hypocrisy of Western Liberalism.

One cannot promote a nihilistic individualism today as a guiding principle of societal organization without being accused of collectivist thinking by the attribution of 'racism' or them being 'racist'.

It is a different response to accuse such a person of prejudiced collectivism than to accuse them of a naive idealism.

It suggests a different sort of agenda on the part of the accuser than an attempt to engage the person without a underlying collective prejudice of their own.

Watch this effete, idiot lie about scientific "evidence".

What liberals are now saying openly is that they can declare themselves to be anything: woman, man, Negro, Caucasian, oriental...and appearances are a primitive prejudice.

Doesn't matter what you see, unless it validates their identity they've chosen for themselves.
Only reason they hate Trump doing the same thing is because it exposes their narcissistic delusions, which do exactly the same thing as Trump declaring a "fact", despite what the data implies.
Nihilistic dis-ease has reached the point where it now becomes obvious.
It's like many diseases. The infected one looks normal, as if he is healthy, because the disease has yet to accumulate the symptoms so that a dim-wit can notice it.

I'm sure Tucker would have cynically dismissed any diagnosis until it became so blatant, that even he can gasp at the degradation, its insanity.

What do Y and X chromosomes matter, when someone can declare themselves a woman, trapped in a undesirable form?
The height of self-hatred, hatred of past, what has been determined, expressed in a intoxicating madness of declared self-love.
The degenerates do not love themselves, they like the avatar they chose to live out a life they despise.
It's all subjective, you see, and it is so only for humans because they are 'complex' a clever way of saying 'chosen', or 'in god's image'.

What another says, his judgment, is irrelevant.
What matters is what the individuals states, says, about himself/herself.

"I am a black man trapped in a European body"
"I am a woman trapped in a man's body"
"I am a feline trapped in a primate's body"

What must be done is humour one another.
I will pretend to buy into your delusions, and you must respect me and not ridicule my delusions, because there's no objective way to determine who is more rational.
The 'love thy neighbour' has become 'respect others', even if they are deluded, insane, degenerates.

How can I decide if a man who likes copulating with human females is more sane than a man who enjoys copulating with male horses, or with human infants?
All we can do is vote on what to call illegal, until enough disease is present to vote it into legality.

Good/Bad, gives way to the moral good/evil, and now legal/illegal.
First there was the absolute God saying so....then the absolute State saying so...and now we democratically give the power to the people, and they 'say so'.
And if they say copulating with a horse is okay, and legal, then it is okay and legal, and if they say chromosomes do not matter then chromosomes do not matter, and if they say genes do not matter then genes do not matter.
God's WORD becomes State Law....of People say so.
My WORD.

I declare myself to be god.

BLM:
1) BLM is Pro-Black
2) Pro-Black is not Anti-Blue/Anti-White
3) Pro-White is Anti-Colored
2&3 are incompatible.

Two lieberal responses:
Deny 1: BLM is not Pro-Black, say it is pro-human or just pro-victim
Defend 3, Conversation:
A: Slavery is an inescapable and prominent aspect of white identity
B: Nearly every other identity, religious and tribal, had slaves as a part of their history
A: #NotAll religions and tribes, though everyone had ancestors belonging to slave owners of tribes is likely. However religions are not an acceptable distinction.
B: Whiteness is a tribe.
A: No. It is an ideology and fiction that leads to non-liberal behaviors. (Not religious, either)

---

"You're just as bad as X group for identifying as not-X and attacking their pro-X behavior. You are demonstrating pro-not-X behavior."
No, you fucking moron. I am calling out the hypocrisy of their complaints about pro-Y behavior when they are pro-X.
"Except they said pro-X is not anti-not-X and they would only be pro-X if you see them as X. If you don't see them as X, then they don't need to act pro+X."

See. Moron. If I said serial killer is pro-murder and he said "I am only pro-murder because you see me that way. So I guess I have to be now." Do you not see how they're betraying and simultaneously accepting the same standard when they're the ones saying to not be pro-not-murder?
Do you seriously not fucking care about how dishonest or disingenuous they are? Do you assume they are not pro-X, after hearing them avoid confrontation on it by instead justifying the behavior if I, myself, see my pro-Y behavior as fine?
You have to either subscribe to a moral relativism (and you are a pathetic worm) - or an utter retard.

>Murder is a social construct.

Ireland has a culture, disconnected from race, which is distinct and worthy of celebration.
Ireland must become multi-cultural.

Any action is considered an expression of 'culture' (local) when it's convenient and an expression of 'evil' (universal) when it's not.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Spoiler:

This is the attempt by artists, literature people, to justify their art within the realm of science. They want their metaphors to be pass off as equally intelligent and revealing and worthy of truth as the specific and dry language used within scientific study. The purpose is to evoke mystique by saying that a female who speaks in sociological language is just as correct as someone who speaks in physics language. All this is to justify the religious texts who says words are not representations of concepts which represent truth, but are truth itself.

This kind of validation of 'gender fluidity' is a result of deceptive elements who want to choose when they're a racial identity or not whenever it's convenient. Logic is a threat to these deceptive elements, the demand for consistent identity is a 'trapping' they need to immediately get rid of.

Most Moderns do not understand the essence of the subject because they do not comprehend what words actually are, and what role they, already, play in minds born and raised within Abrahamic Nihilistic dogmas, now secularized.
The detachment of words from their worldly reference points occurred gradually, over hundreds of years of indoctrination.
The only reason many are noticing it now is because the process of detachment has proceeded to the point where it now contradicts sensual perceptions openly.

This is why I commented about Trump's narcissistic hypocrisy as being no different than when Liberals deny what is obvious about race and sex differences.
If they can deny appearances, then why cannot Trump look you in the eyes and tell you that the crowds in his inauguration were the largest ever recorded?
If you begin rejecting what they senses indicate, and it all becomes an idea, then why do you then complain when what you used to defend yourself against a world you do not like is turned against you?

If you're going to claim that race identities are superficial, that appearances are insignificant,
that gender is not an application of sexual reproductive roles within social contexts, then why cannot another use the exact same denial to support the most absurd opinions?
If someone can claim he is a man in a woman's body then there's no end to the application of such claims.

The search for a "Truth", any truth at all, is now racist and white supremacist.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Countries, and thus civil rights, are a colonialist and racist fabrication.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Neither this post or the one before we're being hyperbolic or sarcastic. These are u ironic positions of the new black intelligentsia.

Quote :

Nazi pilot to be removed from women in aviation ceremony

Women of Aviation Worldwide Week initially stood by its decision to honour Reitsch despite criticism, with Marguerite Varin saying: “She's the first. I can’t change history. I can’t change the facts. I will not invent an alternative fact. She’s the first woman to have flown a helicopter, and we are this year having the theme on helicopters.”

The group conceded to public pressure.

B’nai Brith Chief Executive Officer Michael Mostyn said regardless, he is dissatisfied with the organizers’ response.

“It is unfortunate that they are not taking the opportunity to produce a learning moment by educating the young women who will be in attendance against the evils of the Nazis,” he said.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Study: Describing Breastfeeding as ‘Natural’ Is Unethical Because It Reinforces Gender Roles
Using the term ‘natural’ is ‘ethically inappropriate’ because it suggests women are babies’ primary caretakers.

"Homosexuality is something they choose to express and is an identity."
"Homosexuals cannot choose not to be gay."

Infantile minds creating infantile propaganda aimed at infants.
A retarded relationship of retards.

Seeing them try to 'normalize' pedophilia will be entertaining.
I bet they'll start from the more "acceptable" older woman, prepubescent extremely lucky boy.
Pedophilia is more appetizing when it's a young male being "exploited'.

Bill Nye experienced a "change".

The liberal holds two incompatible ideologies: It says that 'benefiting the individual (rights) benefits the whole' and 'when it benefits the whole, individual (rights) should be foregone'.

The individualism of liberalism makes inequality necessary and expected. The question becomes not whether inequality should exist, but whether that inequality is deserved/earned.

Of course, those who support this judgment of others' deserve/earn within a civilized context are jealous of those children whoms parents care enough to provide them with opportunities that those have-nots cannot have. This is how liberalism actually says love and kindness is a bad thing.

But, they think it's smart and 'humble' to provoke the resentment of everything that's made their little bubble of entitlement possible... So be it.

Indifference for me, not for thee.

If you're indifferent about what is uncomfortable for me to fathom, then you are a sick individual or evil. Or genetically inferior (as I love to use absolutist genetically determined words to describe my ideological "rivals" and then speak about how I'm against such language and the context surrounding it, laughing in their face and retreating into the asylum when I'm called on this).

I'm allowed to be indifferent about boring and old things, like survival, chores, politics, tribe and tradition... but sex? That's new and exciting. So is eating.

You're either with me or against me. Indifference about what I care about, is against me - and if it's against me, it can only be evil, for I am good... are you suggesting I'm not good? I care about me a lot. You can't be indifferent. So you're saying I'm evil. Saying I'm evil, is against me.

First minute, 0:00-1:00 about her being "white" because most people refer to her as "white".

Most people call 'chicks with dicks' 'guys with boobs'. Therefor, trans people can't be oppressed. Or do they not want to be called/referred to as something that makes them more 'privileged'? They literally want to be LESS privileged? And you do too? Astounding.

Reminds me of the BuzzFeels video where some fat red cheeked white skinned 'hispanic' wanted people to stop calling him white.

"Take your hands off and stop controlling God's property - me."

What can you do with a virus that attacks you and then, when your immune system tries to stop it, it says "lol triggered"? The only solution offered is their death or yours.

Every atrocity that goes unseen and ignored, every atrocity they turned their eyes blind to, is another reason for them to keep believing everything is okay.

If it's anti-Semitic for a Jew to call a person 'goy', then it's anti-white for a white person to call someone nigger. Luckily, I'm a good SJW and I hate white people, like George Ciccariello Maher. So when I'm calling people anti-white, I really mean they're pro-white. And it's true, because they don't call niggers, niggers. If they would just start calling niggers niggers and kikes kikes, then they could be pro-white again - which is anti-white. Source: New York Times, etc. "'Goy, Bye' is anti-Semitic"

This is where this douchbag Molyneux, lets his true colors shine. This is what he is about: positive image. He is building a legacy of one of the greatest pseudo-intellectuals who ever lived. Giving the negro a platform to express its simplistic ideas and tedious sentimentalism and primitive superstitions is strategic. It’s no different than the classic marketing tactic of the White politician to snap a picture of himself, smiling next to some civil rights nigger activist.

The discussion is a joke. No serious thinking. It’s all about them stroking each other off on infantile platitudes of human unity. Molynuex humors him for the sake of his audience who are utterly clueless idiots and are blind as to who their internet idol Molynuex really is underneath all his pedantic erudite verbosity that charms them like a schoolgirl in the presence of her crush.

Sometimes, a man doesn’t have to be smart to fuck a woman. All he needs is an intuitive knack for saying the right things at the right times and she swoons. Molynuex is an academic PUA to average minds who like clever articulation and wittiness. The only challenge he presents is if you are wise enough to sift through his bullshit and see the pretentious sycophant that he is.

Their juvenile discussion centers around the agreeableness angle where no inherent discourse objective is reached. It’s not about race, it’s just about the idea of America that must be given faith. The idea of being “American”, that magic word that erases all of one’s past and ethnicity and mutates it into an amorphous ideal of being an ‘individual’.

Molyneux is a another hypocrite selling philosophy and ideology on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...in the world market, AGORA.

His criteria for what is 'good' is the same as with many Nihilists:
What sells.
What is popular.
What satisfies the needs of the many - majority.

The contradiction of multiethnic states is that, despite their supposed non discrimination, they still perform wars they believe to be in the interests of their multiethnic citizenry. Except there is no criteria for that citizenry but humanity itself. This means when they go to war against the interest of their population, they are going to war against the interests of humanity itself. And it cannot be said their opponents are inhuman, no matter how lecherous they may appear. When their standard for love is humanity, any war or fight against alien populations which result in the death of "innocents" is liken to killing ones own family/citizens. In that same instance, they have performed a war against humanity.

Every humanist and anti-nationalist politician is performing an act of individual terror when they do this - an atomic and greedy outburst against all of humanity, the very thing they purport to support. It is a greed and hyperindividualism of hedonism which makes them do this.

Every crime committed likewise becomes one against humanity, so long as there exist significant differences between ethnic humans that go ignored, as a level between species and individual. One must define the species by sex a reproduction. Of course it's no coincidence these same people say there exist only one "race", the "human race", to show their anti-speciesism in an indirect way.

Social justice "anti-hatred" is self-righteousness in that the expression of one's own hatred is taken as exclusively from the fruits of one's own love and attempts at protection, and the hate (originating from the other) is not. There are a couple of assertions which attempt to reconcile this, so as not to appear contradictory:

1) Appeal to universal morality. This is the idea that there exists a objective perspective for the most moral position. From here, one is allowed to say they are more moral than the other. Or, one has a higher moral claim to valid love/hatred than the other in some regard. One attempt at criteria might be appeals to utilitarianism, capitalism or liberalism. Some might say that one should only hold principles at any one time that maximize the happiness of everyone. Another could say you should hold a principle of reducing conflict at any cost, if capable (tolerance doctrine). This doctrine of tolerance can take on many different forms, such as valuing human life above dignity (endure torture if it means you risk killing the torturer if you respond, etc.)
2) Appeal to universal morality, community edition. One here takes claim that the other individual is loving but not to some communal standard, meaning they are too greedy or have localized their love too narrowly. A weakness of this is that if the standard for 'love' is also too encompassing/free, then it dilutes its very meaning.
3) Appeal to truth, bad premises of the other. In this case, the person says that they have righteous, accurate, or more accurate premises for their hatred than the other. This, then, provides them justification for declaring the other either dangerous or stupid, but not necessarily immoral; unless they make the claim that ignorance is the same evil (a stark contrast to the idea that ignorance is actually innocence when it comes to accusations "I didn't know!"). If declared dangerous, it generally justifies (for them) either intimidation (paralyzing the other with fear so they do not act on bad information) or otherwise some sort of constraint or physical resistance. In some ways, this is an appeal to consequence.
4) Appeal to morality, fallacy edition. Some examples are appeals to 'common sense' (acting confounded or declaring 'preposterousness'), appeals to authority, etc.

When it comes to love, humans have a biological limitation. Claims for love abounding further than those biological limitations leave the individual open for exploitation. That is, the degree to which reputation cannot be independently and transparently examined, is the degree to which the individual opens themselves vulnerably. If there are state or institutions in place to protect that vulnerable behavior, then the costs are mitigated, to the degree that protection extends over the phenomenon which would effect them.
Individuals who do not want to take on those costs are then, usually, declared to be blasphemers or are otherwise forced/coerced to take on the costs. Some individuals may not trust the institution or body which proclaims to be providing adequate protection in exchange for the costs/risks. Some may have principled concerns or be, to some opinions, 'paranoid' - making them resistant to all paternal entities.

If white: don't be proud of your racial heritage or ancestry, only individual achievements matter.
If black: black people built the USA!

The most powerful force in the world is destruction, not love, despite what those supposed haters of hatred say. This is the case because in a hostile world where all order is subject to damage and chaotic erosion, it is easy to scapegoat the destruction they purposefully cause as a result of natural processes. So, the haters of hatred, the intolerant of intolerance and destroyers of destruction, still dishonestly utilize the language of hatred and destruction for their supposed 'anti-hatred'. When the irony isn't lost on them, they instead become self-righteous. This is despite the fact that self-righteousness is a behavior of conservation and defiance in the face of change - or what they like to call 'progress'. That irony, at the very least, appears lost on them, since they like to pretend they are victims or powerless against the 'evil' that their opponents represent. It is a demonstration that, if they are not utterly stupid, then they take their 'evil opponents' for fools or utilize the language in a purposefully malicious way. If they are not malicious, it's a curious wonder, then, how it is they are so brutalized by an idiotic opponent if they were not even more-so idiotic themselves.

When they are declaring that 'racism is trying to become legitimate' or 'validate itself' anyway it can, it's also a wonder how they can still claim that they are such 'victims of racism' when they talk as if racism were struggling to regain, instead of maintain, power. And, if they are operating on a system of reciprocity, where they are behaving malicious without any ill conscience to the fact (because they believe we are), then they are utilizing rhetoric only as some sort of retarded 'magical weapon' against their opponent at best (which, if admitted, would be an open declaration of hostilities) or expressing their condescending attitude towards the audience's agency (and intellectual ability) in making their own rational decisions or considerations, at worst.

In all empirical interpretations of the idea of 'destruction of destruction itself', it is absurd and tautological. Historically this kind of language was reserved for hypothetical behaviors like the deityous powers of Shiva, who was given that precise ability of destroying destruction itself. Those claiming to support such behaviors rely on faith or, if believing they actually accomplish it, are claiming the ability for supernatural power and are likely delusional while also claiming for themselves the very idea of perfect goodness in what amounts to a narcissism or delusion of grandeur that is more pathological than even the most cartoonish representations of an 'evil' throughout history.