Read on Twitter
The radical left autonomists and Marxists are spilling out of university humanities departments and into your hometown. They are tinkering with school curriculums, and brainwashing teachers into ‘critical theory’ which they whitewash as social justice, but is really revolution.
At the heart of all this is deep hatred for capitalism and private property, a resentment for anyone with wealth, and a burning desire to appropriate wealth and spread it around (to them, of course).
These rancid academics are literally advocating violent revolution, though rarely will they come out and say it directly. It’s couched in terms so utterly incomprehensible nobody would even be able to prove their meaning, and of course they deny the existence of meaning itself.
What they want is pure equity. Where everyone owns everything and everyone’s needs are met by the state, only this way, they say, can we truly free.
Of course this requires an authoritarian state with guns to enforce all if this confiscation of wealth, so one wonders what they mean by free in this context.
These academics and their brainwashed minions are a cancer, a decay, a stinking rot at the very center of everything that America has ever stood for.
How do you start a revolution? You destroy the shared culture that prevents it. They have begun. Every toppled statue is another step toward this revolution.
How do we prevent this? We prevent this by doing the only thing they can’t really respond to: ridicule. Never argue, never debate, there’s only one way to defeat a movement that denies the epistemic validity of reason itsself (an artifact of white male oppression): RIDICULE.
Comedians and satirists are the only people who can stop them nonviolently. I bet you’lol never hear this again in your life, but comedy is our civilization’s highest calling for the foreseeable future. Make us laugh, and tear them apart.
Just to show you brazen they are becoming, here’s Ilhan Omar essentially quoting from the critical social justice handbook. This is the stuff that has been going around university humanities departments for 20 years. https://twitter.com/dailycaller/status/1280567269794484224?s=21 https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1280567269794484224
Here’s another. Again, this isnt quite *mainstream* leftist politics right now. But we’re getting there. . https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1280578930060128256?s=21 https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1280578930060128256
Just do a twitter search for ‘revolution’ and enjoy a trip down the rabbit hole.
Beautifully said. https://twitter.com/ai_solzhenitsyn/status/1280592470317948930?s=21 https://twitter.com/AI_Solzhenitsyn/status/1280592470317948930
Upon ridiculing the execrable critical theorist you have the misfortune of encountering, you will often get charged with ‘anti-intellectualism’.
This is basically saying you’re a Philistine, unable to appreciate the importance of the drivel he is spouting. It is very common among these types to bemoan the ‘anti-intellectualism’ of Americans.
Understand that this is just rhetoric. Once ridiculed, the critical theorist has nowhere to go, nowhere to turn but to call you names. When you hear you are ‘anti-intellectual’ you have won the first round.
Here’s another: https://twitter.com/rashidatlaib/status/1280711137022169090?s=21 https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1280711137022169090
These people believe the role of the state is to force equity.if you don’t know what equity is, here’s a cartoon they like to use to illustrate:
Certain words get new definitions under the rubric of critical social justice theory. You have to understand what they mean by these terms when you hear them used: https://twitter.com/botlife131/status/1281279290240389126?s=21
Here’s another:
freedom, n, a state of having enough resources at your disposal to participate in democratic processes without duress. Ex, If you have to work to survive, that isn’t freedom.
freedom, n, a state of having enough resources at your disposal to participate in democratic processes without duress. Ex, If you have to work to survive, that isn’t freedom.
Contrast this with the meaning of freedom as used in the American tradition:
freedom, n, the state of being unrestrained by an external authority. Ex, With every regulation, we give up more freedom.
freedom, n, the state of being unrestrained by an external authority. Ex, With every regulation, we give up more freedom.
The two definitions are starkly different. The usual sense of freedom, ie, not being enslaved by an external agent is what we usually mean. But critical social justice, when they speak of freedom, they’re talking about being free of economic constraint, reliance on a paycheck..
Obviously, for everyone to be free of a paycheck, the state must provide them with what they need and want. These theorists believe that this is the only way a society can be democratic. Thus, it is part of their agenda to make everyone free, by making them dependent on the state
How do you keep people from keeping the product of their labor for themselves? All people naturally believe what they produce is theirs. It’s just human psychology. How do we overcome this fundamental aspect of human psychology?
We have to make people want to give up what they produce, want to put it in the common basket. We do this with force. Either you pay your 100% tax, or the secret police come and arrest you for re-education. As I suggested before, this seems to be the opposite of freedom.
This pattern is very common among critical social justice theorists. They take a word that has an established meaning in society and then redefine them. Under the new definitions we are saying something very different when we speak of freedkm and justice.
They like to use the word ‘progress’ as in ‘progressive’. It means something very different than what you think it means though. It doesn’t mean, the general state of things getting better. No, no:
progress, n, a state in which the world is growing increasingly free.
progress, n, a state in which the world is growing increasingly free.
But remember the definition of freedom we specified? We have to use their definition. Thus progress is a state where people are getting ever more resources from the state. *this* is what it means to be a progressive and this is what progress is to critical theorists.
Do you understand now why all of these crazy women in the House of Representatives talk about freedom and justice In the same breath as they speak of ‘dismantling systems of oppression’?
These are the same thing to them.
These are the same thing to them.
Now, not all ‘progressives’ are fully aware of the revolutionary freightings of the terminology they use. Some are just well meaning people with compassionate streaks who detest suffering of any kind and see government as the solution to problems of human suffering.
These are the rubes. These are the people being manipulated into supporting a revolutionary agenda and electing actual revolutionaries to Congress, etc. These people must be reminded of all of this every time they talk about freedom and justice.
With these people we must always ask them if they are advocating violent revolution? If they say no, then they need to be educated on what they’re really supporting.
Most people just want a better ride on the capitalist train, not dismantle it. We need to force them to choose
Most people just want a better ride on the capitalist train, not dismantle it. We need to force them to choose
Critical social justice theorists are fond of the following saying. The best liberalism tends toward socialism. No surprise there.
But what many don’t get is that they believe the best socialism tends toward communitarian economic system, abolishing private property.
But what many don’t get is that they believe the best socialism tends toward communitarian economic system, abolishing private property.
The United States has private property at the center of its organization. There are two ways to get rid of private property in this rather unfortunate situation for these people:
1. Amend the constitution; or,
2. Go around the constitution by violently changing the system.
1. Amend the constitution; or,
2. Go around the constitution by violently changing the system.
These critical theorists have spawned an undead force of fellow travelers, particularly among young people brainwashed by universities.
You have to understand that these young people are *impatient*.
You have to understand that these young people are *impatient*.
That is, they don’t want to wait around to gain sufficient numbers to amend the constitution. They want it *now* they want your money and property *now*. This many of these people advocate violence to change the system.
Meet ANTIFA.
Meet ANTIFA.
ANTIFA locates ideologically among the most radical of left wing groups the US has ever seen. They are a couple meetings away from terrorism, that’s how impatient they are. Drug use is very common among ANTIFAs, pot is ubiquitous, but many are also hooked on meth and heroin.
These people are desperate. Have you ever seen an addict in withdrawal? They will do anything for a fix. Imagine an organized group of addicts with violent tendencies who think they are entitled to your property. ANTIFA is the seed from which leftist terrorist groups will form.
Mark my words. The only thing keeping a lid on it right now is their general belief Biden will win the election in November. If not, I hope you are all armed and trained.
Here’s a veiled threat from Jason Charter an ANTIFA leader who was recently arrested. https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1281312834987663360?s=21 https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1281312834987663360
One of the tricks of critical social justice theorists is to claim to occupy the ‘rational’ space of possible social arrangements with their calls for dismantling ‘systems of oppression’.
To this end they claim that capitalist systems and systems of private property are irrational. The idea is that privately owned property can never be as productive as publicly owned property because only one entity has an interest in mixing his labor with the property.
Publicly owned property has everyone interested in mixing their labor with the property which will make it more productive.
There are numerous problems with this conception.
There are numerous problems with this conception.
First, the examples of public property we have in hand show the exact opposite. Public property is some of the most unproductive property that exists in the US. Vast national parks, city parks, beaches, all sit entirely undeveloped.
In fact, the only way for desirable property to sit undeveloped in the US in 2020 is for a political entity to own it. Ask these leftists specifically what they prefer to happen to this land and *NONE* will suggest developing it.
This is because if you want to develop property to become productive, you put it in the hands of an entity with a profit motive. All the evidence available shows that public ownership of property is the best way to keep it undeveloped.
The second problem with this conception of public ownership of party leading to the most productivity is the very same evidence they use to demand regulations of capitalism. The tragedy of the commons.
In the tragedy of the commons, community owned property tends to be ruined by the public as they seek to appropriate it as much as they can for their own use. The historical example is the community pasture.
In a community pasture, locals can graze their herds on a large, lush field that renews itself each season by growing new grasses and vegetation. Unfortunately this isn’t what happens.
In the rush to appropriate the pasture for their own herds, farmers overgraze their herds, destroying their pasture entirely. This is the tragedy of common owned property.
It is often brought up as a reason why government regulation is necessary. Each farmers use of the pasture must be regulated to prevent the destruction of the pasture.
So by their own admission, the tendency for publicly owned property is not to become more productive, but to be destroyed. Hence government regulation is required.
With these two reasons in mind, the idea that private property is irrational begins to make less sense. If someone owns the pasture, they will sit there with a gun to prevent its destruction. Furthermore they will seek, via profit motive, to develop the land to productive use.
This the notion of private property being irrational is entirely false. But there is another argument we can make.
Let’s agree that the notion of private property is irrational. Why should this matter? Private property is about satisfaction and happiness and fulfillment, all acceptable goals, all irrational emotions. Many rights are irrational. For example take sex.
Social justice theorists will agree that gay people have a right to have gay sex with other consenting adults. Well, this right is totally irrational. How can there be an individual right to get pleasure from the kind of sex you prefer? Why on earth would we protect this?
Because the desire for pleasure is universal and part of being human. We protect ones right to enjoy those things that can bring happiness and pleasure. And one of these is wealth — private property.
So our initial, default position should be that the reasons we might want to amend the constitution to get rid of private property are suspect at best. And at worst, totally false.
The important thing here is that the critical social justice theorists *know* this. They know how weak these arguments are. They know no one buys them except those already infected by the ideology. So what then?
They turn to Marx and Engels. Their Communist manifesto essentially called for revolution. Their arguments are weak, they’ll never get the numbers, so it’s quite rational to believe it’s time for violence.
This should worry everyone, both right and moderate left. Most of the moderate left has@no fucking clue who they are electing to Congress, what they really believe. https://twitter.com/Ardhen723/status/1281581716080132096
I don’t blame this guy for not understanding what he’s advocating. It’s actually very difficult to believe that people he agrees with on some things would really seek to dismantle the systems of capitalism and private property in the US.
This is why I think it’s important to find out how deep each persons hatred of America goes. I sometimes make the mistake of dismissing yet another libtard. But I’m waking up to the fact that they don’t all know what they’re doing.
This is a good place to bring up climate change. Climate change, is, like Nazi eugenics, like the Manhattan Project, an example of science yoked to politics. Essentially a scientific agenda driven by a political agenda. We have to understand that politics came first.
If you’re a Marxist ideologue, a communist, a critical social justice theorist, or any of these types that believe the system must be dismantled, you need a reason to start seizing people’s property.
You can’t just waltz and confiscate wealth peacefully. If you want to try to dismantle the system without violence (and many do) you need an urgent reason so important that people will, out of fear, allow you trample their property rights.
Enter climate change. Why on earth, when the climate has been changing for millions of years, are we suddenly so focused on climate change? The planet is getting warmer, yes, but it has been getting warmer since the last ice age. What’s the big deal?
Well, the big deal is that with climate change we have a good apocalyptic story to tell. Climate change is the ‘urgent crisis’ the left needs to trample property rights. Ever wonder why they are so fixated on this issue? They want us to believe the world is close to ending.
Why? Because the only way to stop climate change is what? A total government regulatory incursion into the economy. Of course that won’t stop climate change and we all know this, but stopping climate change isn’t the goal.
The goal is a massive socialist makeover to the economy. They will do this by getting us used to an activist government severely restricting and curtailing *OUR LEGITIMATE USES OF PRIVATE PROOERTY*. To stop climate change, we must accept fewer property rights.
Once on this path, a new crisis will emerge and property rights will be curtailed even more. On and on, they will disappear in crisis after crisis, until (nonviolently) they have achieved the constructively public ownership of private property.
Most liberals don’t want that at all. Most liberals just want everyone to have better and fairer access to the fruits of capitalism, a bigger share of private property. Most don’t want to destroy the system and some aren’t even aware that these ideas exist.
This blissful naïveté really can’t be allowed to stand. We need to know, from each and every liberal we speak with, where they stand on property rights and capitalism. If they are simply working toward fairer access to capitalist spoils, then they are Americans like us.
If they don’t, if they want to dismantle the system like Ilhan Omar, AOC, and the other crazy loons in Congress, they are not Americans because Americans, no matter the improvements they seek to make to our system, always believe in America enough to work within the system.
All of this matters greatly. https://twitter.com/botlife131/status/1283102977486729217?s=21 https://twitter.com/Botlife131/status/1283102977486729217
They sometimes put in black and white how much they want to destroy everything about western culture. https://twitter.com/byronyork/status/1283372233730203651?s=21 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651
