Yes, I know their agenda. TPTB see every policy as a means to an end. They may support lgbt, free speech and free market in one instance and then do a 180 turn and go against them if they don't serve their goals anymore. It's all part of the grand chessboard and playing the dialectical sides to get to a desirable synthesis. They are above politics and ideologies - all they care about is power. Of course I know they don't do this because they're concerned with the wellbeing of society and are somehow based all of a sudden.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.
Good. Jewish ran smut industry has ruined society.
Look at your username and remember why you chose it. We both know this isn't about smut, don't we?
Yes, I know their agenda. TPTB see every policy as a means to an end. They may support lgbt, free speech and free market in one instance and then do a 180 turn and go against them if they don't serve their goals anymore. It's all part of the grand chessboard and playing the dialectical sides to get to a desirable synthesis. They are above politics and ideologies - all they care about is power. Of course I know they don't do this because they're concerned with the wellbeing of society and are somehow based all of a sudden.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.