The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Kritias]

I have to ask: did you feel any doubts when you decided to insult the intelligence of this board by falsely characterizing your interlocutor's position as the very things he's opposing?

I hit a nerve, haven't I?

Where do you base the accusations contained in posts #754 to #757? Either there's evidence for it, or you just depict these people according to your own biases. Worse, you seem to assign priviledged immunity to all your ideas, since anyone holding another position is depicted as being de facto wrong. Nowhere in the above posts is there an inkling of doubt that there's any possibility people might have decided on these actions after logically examining the situation. It's either they are enemies of the state, rehashing soviet propaganda, holding grievance narratives or they're simply brainwashed. Again, where's the evidence? Either you have it or you don't.


PS. It's funny you'd say I insult the intelligence of this board when Menelik literally writes he's not an idiot while juxtaposing his intelligence to the "mob of the left". It's almost as if your strawman is becoming self-conscious.

[Cope]

I hit a nerve, haven't I?

Persistently lying does tend to irritate.

[Kritias]

Persistently lying does tend to irritate.

Well you just proved my point, didn't you. If you were honest about your ideas and you didn't assign priviledged immunity to them you wouldn't resort to calling me a liar immediately after I challenged your beliefs.

[Cope]

Well you just proved my point, didn't you. If you were honest about your ideas and you didn't assign priviledged immunity to them you wouldn't resort to calling me a liar immediately after I challenged your beliefs.

You made no legitimate challenge: you simply spat out accusations which misrepresented your interlocutor's position. And frankly, I have no interest in enduring another series of meandering, psuedo-intellectual diatribes which attempt to dress up genetic leftist talking points in the language of the intelligentsia. Some of our younger members may find that sort of thing compelling, but I do not. Conversation over.

[Kritias]

You made no legitimate challenge: you simply spat out accusations which misrepresented your interlocutor's position. And frankly, I have no interest in enduring another series of meandering, psuedo-intellectual diatribes which attempt to dress up genetic leftist talking points in the language of the intelligentsia. Some of our younger members may find that sort of thing compelling, but I do not. Conversation over.

You accuse people not holding your views of various things from post #554 to post #557. My challenge was simple: churn out the evidence for any of these accusations. You have failed to do so. Instead, you decided to construct a strawman and say I insulted everyone's intelligence, and when this was also challenged, you quickly tapped out because "meandering, psuedo-intellectual diatribes which attempt to dress up genetic leftist talking points in the language of the intelligentsia". Whatever that means.

So: do you have evidence: yes or no?

[Ludicus]

American culture, American morals, American heritage, is vested in the self evident truth of “the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator...God-given rights”

Endowed by...who? human rights arise from human progress.I'm not fond of governmental monotheistic -or polytheistic God-languages.

and the journey to carry that mission...

The origin of theology in the so-called "God's mission(s)" is a funny... (for the lack of a better adjective) thing.Why do you feel that human and civil rights are more secure if they arise from a supernatural source that may not even exist?

[Menelik_I]

The origin of theology in the so-called "God's mission(s)" is a funny... (for the lack of a better adjective) thing.Why do you feel that human and civil rights are more secure if they arise from a supernatural source that may not even exist?

Because the precepts of the supernatural being change less often, even with heretical revolutions, while a men centered source changes too much and is erratic.

For example the BLM statue smashing would not be possible under a supernatural source, because we would all understand that the Supernatural Being would judge all at the end of times, that we are individually responsible only for our personal actions, but since supernatural doesn't exist in the left-wing mind then MAN has to judge history and historical crimes, which is why Europeans are being judged for things like "500 years of slavery of the black people" by the left and BLM crowd.

Since they can't undo history, they have to punish those in the present.

[sumskilz]

Endowed by...who? human rights arise from human progress.I'm not fond of governmental monotheistic -or polytheistic God-languages.


The origin of theology in the so-called "God's mission(s)" is a funny... (for the lack of a better adjective) thing.Why do you feel that human and civil rights are more secure if they arise from a supernatural source that may not even exist?

I would have thought the answer would be "self-evident". The American system is based on a belief in natural rights, that is rights that exist without being granted by a government and that no government has the right to impinge upon.

[Lord Thesaurian]

In fact it is the Marxist bastardization of our Americanism that has fueled the amnesiac compulsion toward the puritanism of todays “woke” Revolutionaries and critical theorists, commanding endless introspection, humiliation, and conversion from individuals and commercial interests alike, casting out heretics for failure to be sufficiently “anti racist” and anti capitalist. Accordingly, their all-consuming feedback loop of cancerous radicalism is akin to the Jacobins. With its Reign of Terror, the Revolution consumed itself through the brutal tyranny of a minority, but not before being co-opted by a young officer named Napoleon Bonaparte.

Happy in the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty, and pleased with the opportunity afforded the United States of becoming a respectable Nation, I resign with satisfaction the Appointment I accepted with diffidence. A diffidence in my abilities to accomplish so arduous a task, which however was superseded by a confidence in the rectitude of our Cause, the support of the Supreme Power of the Union, and the patronage of Heaven.

I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commending the Interests of our dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping.

https://founders.archives.gov/docume...6-02-0319-0004

By contrast, our first and founding leader, the Commander in Chief of our American Revolution, surrendered the power vested in him by the People and committed our nation into the hands of Divine Providence, in affirmation of the God-given rights of the People. In so doing he stands among the great statesmen of history, assuring the success and sustainability of our American Revolution. The French radicals destroyed theirs. Their modern Marxist equivalent has declared war upon our Founding Fathers, upon Abe Lincoln and the Union Army officers who freed the slaves from bondage, upon Christianity, upon our American Revolution and the Republic itself.

[Kritias]

In fact it is the Marxist bastardization of our Americanism that has fueled the amnesiac compulsion toward the puritanism of todays “woke” Revolutionaries and critical theorists, commanding endless introspection, humiliation, and conversion from individuals and commercial interests alike, casting out heretics for failure to be sufficiently “anti racist” and anti capitalist. Accordingly, their all-consuming feedback loop of cancerous radicalism is akin to the Jacobins. With its Reign of Terror, the Revolution consumed itself through the brutal tyranny of a minority, but not before being co-opted by a young officer named Napoleon Bonaparte.

By contrast, our first and founding leader, the Commander in Chief of our American Revolution, surrendered the power vested in him by the People and committed our nation into the hands of Divine Providence, in affirmation of the God-given rights of the People. In so doing he stands among the great statesmen of history, assuring the success and sustainability of our American Revolution. The French radicals destroyed theirs. Their modern Marxist equivalent has declared war upon our Founding Fathers, upon Abe Lincoln and the Union Army officers who freed the slaves from bondage, upon Christianity, upon our American Revolution and the Republic itself.

And how many people have these modern-day Robespierres killed so far in the name of their revolution? Because from what I can see, there's just a bunch of people protesting police brutalities. Then, again, you double down in your accusations of your countrymen's protests by naming them enemies of the state, of the religion, of the founding fathers - basically you're calling them Anti-American. Where's the evidence for all this? This is the third time I'm asking for something tangible only to be force-fed ideology.

I would have thought the answer would be "self-evident". The American system is based on a belief in natural rights, that is rights that exist without being granted by a government and that no government has the right to impinge upon.

Or you could simply say that the American system was founded on the Enlightenment ideals.

Because the precepts of the supernatural being change less often, even with heretical revolutions, while a men centered source changes too much and is erratic.

For example the BLM statue smashing would not be possible under a supernatural source, because we would all understand that the Supernatural Being would judge all at the end of times, that we are individually responsible only for our personal actions, but since supernatural doesn't exist in the left-wing mind then MAN has to judge history and historical crimes, which is why Europeans are being judged for things like "500 years of slavery of the black people" by the left and BLM crowd.


Since they can't undo history, they have to punish those in the present.

Collective guilt is a religious principle. In the case of christianity, it's the primordial sin of Adam and Eve which burdens all mankind; so the supernatural being in your examle would judge all of us by its arbitrary rules based on the primordial sin of our biblical forefather and foremother. Talking of strawmen, I haven't seen this nefarious left attack people who do not themselves utter racist, sexist, or other -ist things. Where's all the evidence guys?

Also, since you think that under a supernatural source the destruction of statues would not be possible, perhaps you should meet the darkening age. That's just one example of hundreds where religions motivated their followers to destroy statues, burn books, etc etc.

[Ludicus]

The American system is based on a belief in natural rights, that is rights that exist without being granted by a government and that no government has the right to impinge upon.

Kant claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone. Meanwhile, the American system is based in the United States Declaration of Independence, which for its part is based on a religious ground, the "self-evident" truth that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" 'All Men Are Endowed by Their Creator With Certain
...which Legio rightly quoted.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

The "self evidence" of rights endowed by a hypothetical, supernatural being doesn't make sense. It simply means that a natural law is not a natural liberty, but the pursuit of the good as established by a supreme being's revealed will, a sort of a religious mumbo-jumbo.
As we know, natural rights theories were first developed somewhere between the 12-13 centuries. According to some authors, anywhere between Plato and the Stoics, and later from the Franciscan poverty controversies (1250s -1340s), the development of ius commune in defining some rights as being rooted in natural law (rights of property, self-defence, non-Christians, marriage). And then, with the impact of the European encounter with Americas, human rights became the focus of the writings the"School of Salamanca"- the name for an intellectual movement or a certain group of theologians in 16th and 17th century Spain and Portugal: the rights of "Indians" were justified by the novel ideas of natural liberty. Curiously, they used Aquinas's texts, in which the idea of natural rights is totally missing, and this represents the final phase of the medieval tradition of natural rights thought...
It's obvious to me that the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is a splendid document in the history of human rights- in the history of the human progress.

Religious America, in all its splendor: 82% of the U.S. citizens believe in God ( mainly a Christian, Muslim or Jewish God). 62% of them believe that the new coronavirus is a message telling humanity to change. 55% believe that God will protect them. "Jesus is my vaccine",as they say.

[Lord Thesaurian]

And how many people have these modern-day Robespierres killed so far in the name of their revolution? Because from what I can see, there's just a bunch of people protesting police brutalities. Then, again, you double down in your accusations of your countrymen's protests by naming them enemies of the state, of the religion, of the founding fathers - basically you're calling them Anti-American. Where's the evidence for all this? This is the third time I'm asking for something tangible only to be force-fed ideology.

Feel free to reverse engineer evidence for or against your own strawman. I personally don’t find it compelling nor worth discussing.

[sumskilz]

The "self evidence" of rights endowed by a hypothetical, supernatural being doesn't make sense.

It's like believing that right and wrong are more than arbitrary personal preferences, which the vast majority of people do, whether or not there is any sense to it. To believe in the existence of human rights is to hold an empirically unverifiable metaphysical belief. It is essentially a religious belief that comes out of a lineage of explicitly religious philosophy, whether or not one personally associates it with belief in a creator or not.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Frankenstein and zhis monster:

The Harvard graduate who said in a TikTok video that she would “stab” anyone who told her “All Lives Matter” revealed in a new pair of recordings that she has lost her job over the perceived threats and ensuing furor.

“Standing up for Black Lives Matter put me in a place online to be seen by millions of people,” a teary Claira Janover said in a new video posted Wednesday afternoon. “The job that I’d worked really hard to get and meant a lot to me has called me and fired me because of everything.”

Janover’s LinkedIn account lists her as an “incoming government and public business service analyst” at Deloitte, a UK-based accounting firm.

During the video, Janover gestured to what appears to be a page from the company’s website, and noted that she was axed “even though they claim to stand against systematic bias, racism and unequal treatment.”

https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/harvar...k-stab-threat/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now that zher martyrdom is exposed, will the faithful be able rally and punish a Big Four firm for heresy? Who will first be compelled to post another empty black screenshot on Instagram to defeat racism? Tune in next week for another episode of Idiocracy.

[swabian]

Frankenstein and zhis monster:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now that zher martyrdom is exposed, will the faithful be able rally and punish a Big Four firm for heresy? Who will first be compelled to post another empty black screenshot on Instagram to defeat racism? Tune in next week for another episode of Idiocracy.

Zhe Eegl will rise two zhis qwestschn, i haff no doubt.

[Infidel144]

Now that zher martyrdom is exposed, will the faithful be able rally and punish a Big Four firm for heresy? Who will first be compelled to post another empty black screenshot on Instagram to defeat racism? Tune in next week for another episode of Idiocracy.

While trying to figure out off she was in the UK ("Deloitte, a UK-based accounting firm"), I saw this:
"Deloitte, however, have confirmed that she was never an employee of the company.Instead she was scheduled to complete an internship with them later this summer, which the company rescinded.
Jonathan Gandal, a managing director at the firm, said Janover 'has never been an employee of our organization'.
He said she was instead 'formerly scheduled for a two-week internship later this summer.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nternship.html

[Lord Thesaurian]

While trying to figure out off she was in the UK ("Deloitte, a UK-based accounting firm"), I saw this:
"Deloitte, however, have confirmed that she was never an employee of the company.Instead she was scheduled to complete an internship with them later this summer, which the company rescinded.
Jonathan Gandal, a managing director at the firm, said Janover 'has never been an employee of our organization'.
He said she was instead 'formerly scheduled for a two-week internship later this summer.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nternship.html

Lmao. The plot thickens.

[Kritias]

Feel free to reverse engineer evidence for or against your own strawman. I personally don’t find it compelling nor worth discussing.

All nations are founded on a mixture of legend, luck and fact. American culture, American morals, American heritage, is vested in the self evident truth of “the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator,” and the journey to carry that mission statement to fruition. To dismiss this as naive or fanciful is a fairly generic critique of patriotism or the creation of nation states at a conceptual level. It also fundamentally invalidates the argument posed by those who attack American patriotism or naturalism on the basis of it being unjust, discriminatory or consequently unlawful, because like the abolition of slavery, female suffrage or other social progress, America’s journey to create “a more perfect Union” is predicated on the collective, codified affirmation of these God-given rights, and whom those rights apply to. America is not an ethnic nation, but a new nation in a new world, conceived in Liberty by the consent of the governed. As such, American identity is not passed in the bloodstream. We are a nation of laws, not men. If it is not cherished and affirmed today, it will cease to exist tomorrow. That is what is under attack and at stake.

Thus, as summarized in the opinion piece, you can throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you cannot get rid of the bathtub, much as one might try. And so we are left with a “Revolution” that is a perverse, putrid slop of racial and ethnic tribalism, fueled by grievance narratives and recycled Soviet propaganda tactics. As such it is organized warfare upon the Republic itself, designed to divide and conquer Americans against one another and redefine our national identity as a massive fraud perpetrated by a vast, nebulous conspiracy of oppression. Not only is such a “Revolution” openly counterfactual and revisionist, the Politburo of yesteryear could only dream of such success.

A people filled with introspective doubt, distrust and self loathing in place of national values, utterly demoralized by the endlessly shifting goalposts, manufactured conflict, vengeance narratives, puritanical inquisitions and revisionism cannot possibly unite to express our collective will, nor defend our national interests, let alone project power externally with any longevity or consistency. That is the endgame begun long before the opportunistic acceleration presented by the historic domestic crises in our midst; one seized upon by the foreign authoritarian antagonists of today. It has spread across the western world as the elites parrot political actors prodded by ideological activists. It is a crisis of leadership which believes in nothing in particular, as much as a crisis of a culture being purged of itself. It is the nation itself, often those among us who are the poorest and most vulnerable to instability and strife, who will pay the price for the Revolutionaries’ campaign of destruction for destruction’s sake, the harbingers of the state of our decline.

In fact it is the Marxist bastardization of our Americanism that has fueled the amnesiac compulsion toward the puritanism of todays “woke” Revolutionaries and critical theorists, commanding endless introspection, humiliation, and conversion from individuals and commercial interests alike, casting out heretics for failure to be sufficiently “anti racist” and anti capitalist. Accordingly, their all-consuming feedback loop of cancerous radicalism is akin to the Jacobins. With its Reign of Terror, the Revolution consumed itself through the brutal tyranny of a minority, but not before being co-opted by a young officer named Napoleon Bonaparte.

By contrast, our first and founding leader, the Commander in Chief of our American Revolution, surrendered the power vested in him by the People and committed our nation into the hands of Divine Providence, in affirmation of the God-given rights of the People. In so doing he stands among the great statesmen of history, assuring the success and sustainability of our American Revolution. The French radicals destroyed theirs. Their modern Marxist equivalent has declared war upon our Founding Fathers, upon Abe Lincoln and the Union Army officers who freed the slaves from bondage, upon Christianity, upon our American Revolution and the Republic itself.

Why is it that when you're asked to give evidence for your wild accusations you 'lose interest'? Is it maybe because you have no evidence at all and this is all an ideology, akin to some kind of modern religion? Is it just your "beliefs" based on your "gut feeling"? Are you simply parroting your favourite pundits? If so, it's sad because at least they get paid to propagandize these positions. The fact remains: you were put on the spot and repeatedly failed to deliver even the slightest evidence for any of the claims you make in the bold parts.

[Vanoi]

Why is it that when you're asked to give evidence for your wild accusations you 'lose interest'? Is it maybe because you have no evidence at all and this is all an ideology, akin to some kind of modern religion? Is it just your "beliefs" based on your "gut feeling"? Are you simply parroting your favourite pundits? If so, it's sad because at least they get paid to propagandize these positions. The fact remains: you were put on the spot and repeatedly failed to deliver even the slightest evidence for any of the claims you make in the bold parts.

He's not going to prove anything he is saying or get drawn into a debate about it. Its just another long winded hyperbolic speech about how America is dying. If you're an American you've heard these kind of speeches before and you'll keep hearing them throughout your life.

They're all afraid of the same thing. Change.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Why is it that when you're asked to give evidence for your wild accusations you 'lose interest'? Is it maybe because you have no evidence at all and this is all an ideology, akin to some kind of modern religion? Is it just your "beliefs" based on your "gut feeling"? Are you simply parroting your favourite pundits? If so, it's sad because at least they get paid to propagandize these positions. The fact remains: you were put on the spot and repeatedly failed to deliver even the slightest evidence for any of the claims you make in the bold parts.

The fact remains you’re demanding that I and others “provide evidence” for the existence of events, actions and narratives that are a matter of public record referenced and discussed in the last couple pages of the same thread. What’s sad is why you would try to construe your begging the question as “asking for evidence” when you’ve already dismissed publicly reported current events as “wild accusations” and your interlocutors as reactionary propagandists.

The “progressive” left joined the rest of us in condemning a vocal minority’s controversial rise to prominence, its deliberately destructive racial grievance rhetoric, and its brazen, politically motivated assault on American institutions and public servants, as long as doing so suited them politically. Now we are obliged to accept the same deliberate destruction as “change” when the shoe is on the other foot. Label me whatever you want. I’ll pass.