Blog Archive

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Refuting Liberals' Favorite Arguments:

Liberals rely on two main arguments to win all debates and silence all opponents.  Until these two arguments are addressed and refuted, the weight of their logic will clear the field and leave them victorious in each and every contest they ever join.  We are helpless to stop liberalism until we stop these two trump cards liberals always play at the beginning, the middle, and the end.

#1:  If you ever single out a group for wrongdoing, the logical end result of said criticism is always another Holocaust.  We've already seen this play out once in history and there's no point going through it again, so we may as well nip all such movements in the bud.

#2:  People should be judged as individuals, not as members of a group.  Otherwise, justice will never be done and innocent people will be persecuted or oppressed for no reason.  Everyone should be allowed the freedom to reach their full potential as human beings regardless of what ancillary traits they might have that are of no consequence.

These are the two arguments liberals use in each and every debate, and conservatives have been utterly helpless whenever it came time to answer back.  Flabbergasted, flustered conservatives then have no choice but to surrender and retreat, which is all they have been doing since 1945.

There are answers to both of these arguments, however, which means there is a way to not be a liberal in this world.

#1:  Singling out a group for criticism only leads to a holocaust if you believe said group is intrinsically evil and cannot be reformed in any way, shape or form.  Since people respond to incentives, a judicious use of carrot and stick policies can easily reform any group, however currently bad, into acceptable people at the end.  All it takes is a united public policy effort to reform said group and the job could be done in a single generation.

Even assuming said group could not be reformed in any way, there are still alternate solutions to a holocaust.  They could be quarantined, deported, segregated, sterilized, kept to a one child only policy, forced to interbreed and thus mixed out of existence, contained, lived with but not listened to, stripped of various rights and privileges, rendered powerless and defanged, we could separate from them, etc, etc.  There are a million alternative acceptable solutions that don't involve mass killing.  In fact, even the Nazis were not originally planning to holocaust the Jews, but were instead trying to drive them out of Germany and into Palestine or Madagascar or just anywhere else but here.  Only the onset of World War II prevented the original peaceful measures from going into effect and created the unique conditions which led to a change in how Germany decided to undertake its final solution to the Jewish question in 1942-1943 or so.

If Germany's unique situation had not been created through a series of decisions by other people not Germany, the holocaust would not have happened.

A) If Jewish bolsheviks hadn't attempted a coup in Germany after World War I and tried to turn it into a communist dictatorship like their neighbors in Russia had managed, Germany would not have blamed Jewish Germans for losing World War I via the 'stab in the back' myth.

B)  If the Allied powers hadn't imposed such a horrendously unfair Versailles Treaty after World War I, Germany wouldn't have had any foreign policy grievances with anyone, and the economy wouldn't have crashed and sent the whole world into the Great Depression, both of which directly led to the election of Hitler to begin with.

C)  If Jews during the Wiemar period had not acted so prominently and offensively, German anger would not have been stirred up against them.  Wiemar Jews were taking all the positions of power and prestige in the country, even though they were a small minority of the population.  They were living lives of decadent luxury at a time when normal Germans were starving to death and rubbing it in people's faces.  Their artwork and propaganda were offensive to normal decent Christians who had never seen its like before.  Jewish pimps were literally whoring out German widows who no longer had a way to feed themselves or their children as a result of WW I and the Great Depression.  Of course a backlash will swell up when, instead of sharing in the suffering of the common man, you piss all over them and take advantage of them to give out usurious loans or pump and dump their innocent maidens.

D)  If Jews under the Soviet Union hadn't participated as the main ringleaders in the Holodomor and the other associated atrocities that killed tens of millions of white Europeans in the years between the Russian Revolution (The terrorists who personally executed the entire Russian royal family including the women and children were Jews, and the main proponents and organizers and backers of the Russian Revolution and the communist party to start with were all Jews) and WW II, Germany would not have had anything to fear from Jews either domestically or abroad, and would not have conspired against them as a mortal terror and nemesis that must be put down.  Even when Hitler came to power, regular German folk had to battle it out in the streets with anarchic communist Jews who tried to take power themselves by force instead of the democratic process, just like they had in the Soviet Union, Hungary, etc in years past.  The Red Terror created the Red Menace which created the German backlash against communism which was the Nazi party's main platform plank and the reason the majority of Germans supported them.  Something had to be done to stop these Jewish communists and someone who took a hard line against them was an absolute necessity.  Eastern Europe also wouldn't have gone along with Germany's war with the Soviet Union or Germany's anti-semitism if they hadn't also been the victim of these communist Jewish uprisings and purgings themselves in the recent past.  Everything that happened in 1940 came as a response to what had happened from 1917-1939, and all of that came as a direct result of what Jews in powerful positions decided to do themselves to others.  These Jewish butchers, like Lazar Kagonivich, killed more people than the Nazi Holocaust, and yet no one has ever called them to account for it even a century later.  The people at the time realized what was going on, even if now these facts have been swept under the rug, and you bet you the people at the time were thirsting for bloody vengeance.  Who wouldn't be?

E)  If the Allies had simply returned all the land they had stolen from Germany after World War I, land that was ethnically populated by Germans and wished to be part of Germany and had long historic ties to Germany, World War II never would have begun.  The injustice of Germany having to fight a war with the whole world just to get what it was due, its own people back and its own land back, infuriated the German nation.  All of that righteous fury was blamed on the Jews who, according to Hitler and a lot of the people on the street, had instigated this war and driven the Allied powers to their senselessly irrationally anti-German stances and completely stubborn refusal to compromise.  So long as Germany was winning World War II, this absolute hatred and fury towards Jews for getting them into this pointless and unnecessary war was tempered by the fact that 'hey, it was all working out so oh well,' but once the offensive in Russia ground to a halt short of victory and the Battle of Britain was lost, it slowly dawned on Germany that they were going to lose this war, and that the reprisals against them would soon be even worse than what had happened after the Versailles treaty.  So Germans were going to suffer something even worse than WW I + the Great Depression, and all thanks to the Jews?  (As it turned out, they were right about their worst fears.  Virtually all the women of Germany were raped, two million civilians were killed even after the war was already over, entire cities were firebombed or otherwise leveled into oblivion, and an entire generation of gallant young men were simply wiped out fighting odds that not even Spartans could have won against.)

So long as they were going to lose and be horrendously punished anyway, at the very least they could take this opportunity to get even with the Jews, right?  What else do they have to lose?  They've already lost everything.  The war is lost and the penalties of losing the war will be unthinkable.  So at least why not take the Satanic enemy down with you who started all of this and doomed your people from the beginning?  There's no time to make the measures benevolent and full of restraint and forgiveness, in a couple years the Third Reich will be extinguished and our ability to exact revenge on the Jews will be gone.  The only way to get any revenge on them at all is to eliminate them entirely.  The dead cannot be revived, so when the Allied forces get here a couple years from now, our revenge against the Jews cannot be reversed.  We'll have at least won some permanent gain out of this hopeless lost campaign.  Any other measure -- segregation, deportation, banning them from positions of power and prestige, separation, second class citizenship, reformation through the education system over generations, assimilation, blah blah blah, will simply be reversed and undone when the Allied forces arrive and banish our governmental policies, and the Jews will run triumphant over us yet again like they did in Wiemar Germany or worse, the Soviet Union's treatment of Ukraine, unrepentant and gloating over their victory over us.  Far from learning their lesson, Jews will delight in everything they've done to Germany and vow to do it ten times as hard as before, with the help of all their American and British and Russian and French friends who could care less about what happens to Germany but are always eager to help out the Jews.

Nazi Germany was cornered.  Only the Holocaust could possibly strike back against their worst foe.  The war was lost and all of their original peaceful measures were impossible to enact anymore.  If they didn't do the Holocaust but just left the Jews alone, it still wouldn't stop Jewish bloodlust against Nazi Germany because they hadn't been spared after World War I, so why would they be spared this time either?  It was obvious that the very thing would happen which did happen (by the way, the mass rape and murder of millions of German civilians after World War II occurred long before the people doing these crimes against Germany learned about the Holocaust.  In fact, the person who encouraged the mass rape and murder of the German people to the Red Army did so before they found the first death camp -- this inciter just so happened to be a Jew, Ilya Ehrenburg, who would have guessed.)

Ilya Ehrenburg:  "Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army."

In conditions like these, against people like these, is it any wonder that the Holocaust happened?  Germans are not particularly bad people.  For centuries they were the leading artists, philosophers, and scientists in the world.  They were some of the most decent, well behaved, crime free folk you would ever meet.  The idea that Germans would immediately decide to murder in ghastly fashion every last Jewish man, woman and child just because they had heard some negative propaganda against them is silly.  If not for the situation that developed starting in World War I all the way to the realization that they had lost World War II in 1942, the Holocaust never would have happened.  All of these factors added to the pot would have made any group, never mind Germans, and never mind anything they had been told or heard in the past, resort to the exact same solution.  The Turks had a very similar situation when they felt the Armenians had forced them into WW I and then betrayed them for the sake of Russian imperialist ambition and doomed their country (they were right about that as well, of course).  They came up with the exact same response, a genocide against the Armenians, who they at least had in their power and could exact their revenge against, even though defeating the Russians was impossible.  When an Empire is on the losing side of an existential war brought about by a treacherous minority from within which then has positions of high power and authority on the other side that is coming to stomp you into oblivion, is it any wonder said minority will be singled out and persecuted as a result?  The real wonder is that so many Armenians and Jews survived.  You would think Turkish and German hatred would burn far hotter than it actually did, after all that happened and was going to happen to them.

Unless a situation similar to WW I or WW II occurs, genocides won't happen.  Genocides are the least favored solutions to problems, and are only latched onto out of necessity, once everything else has been rendered inoperable.  No one likes or enjoys slaughtering elderly, women and children.  (Except perhaps the Soviet Union, which seems to relish this sort of activity according to their own quotes.)  Numerous completely harmless and humane measures can be taken to get rid of 'bad groups.'  The idea that no group can be criticized because it immediately leads to a holocaust is nonsense.  The harm done to the singled out group can easily be less than the harm done to the majority by letting an entire group be given a free pass no matter how horrendously they treat others.  No one should be free of legitimate criticism.  Giving entire groups free passes to, say, rape all the women of Sweden leads to more harm than anything the group criticizers were planning to do to the criticized group in the first place.  You're talking about phantom menaces at a time when actual atrocities are going on right in front of you and nothing, nothing at all is being done about it.

#2:  People are not primarily individuals.  They are primarily members of a group.  This is because people are primarily products of their genes, and these genes are shared by other members of their family, ethnicity and race.  In addition, insofar as they are not products of their genes, they are products of their culture, which of course comes from their group membership, which teaches them its own values and creeds, which may or may not be in accordance with objective right and wrong.  If an individual carries the same genes as a bunch of malefactors and ascribes to the exact same moral system as a bunch of malefactors, the odds of them being 'innocent' are virtually nil.  Even if they, through some miracle, really are immune to all the problems that beset the rest of their group, they will pass down these same flawed and dangerous genes and cultural teachings to their children, who definitely will not be miraculously innocent like this lone individual was, so he or she will still be contributing to the overall problem in the long run.

The only way for an individual to not be stained with the sins of their group are to publicly renounce said group and join the critics of said group.  After betraying their family, friends, ethnicity, race, and culture it's at least somewhat believable that they can be trusted as a lone individual exception.  In addition, these people either should not reproduce or they should intermarry with a member outside of their group, so that their geneline is renounced just as much as their outward symbolic loyalty.  Since personality, intelligence and behavior are all genetic, renouncing membership in a group but keeping to its genes is obviously disingenuous and any 'lone individual exception' attempting to pretend he's still not part of the problem can be dismissed out of hand.  Obama had a chance to be a lone individual exception.  He had the intelligence and good orderly habits of a white person, and was already half white.  Instead he chose to marry a black woman and adopt black ghetto ideology and culture by joining Reverand Wright's church and listening to his 'god damn America' sermons for 20 years.  This is a perfect example of the 'lone individual exception' argument completely going to pot.  It turns out even Obama was no exception to the rule.  In fact, the number of blacks who fit into the 'exception' category in all of America probably number less than 100.  Thomas Sowell, Justice Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson and. . .?  I don't even know past that.  I assume there are 97 other decent blacks in America, but I certainly couldn't name them.

It turned out that one of these pet 'good blacks', Bill Cosby, was a serial rapist of primarily white women.  So much for the 'exception to the norm.'

People are more likely to correctly gauge a person's true inner self and true inner worth and true effect on the outside world by relying on what you know about their group membership than you will ever guess by relying on your own personal intuition.  Everyone who thought Bill Cosby was a good guy was wrong, whereas the stereotypist, the prejudicial bigot, would have been right from the beginning.  He understood the world better than the 'content of the character' judgers did from the very start.

Even if you absolutely do not wish to persecute even a single innocent member of an overall bad group (which is silly, because we punish innocent people in jail every day all the time, because we consider it an acceptable unfortunate 'collateral damage' in order to stop crime which is a necessity for anyone to live a good life in your community), it's pretty easy to discern the good apples from the bad by looking at who they pal around with, what they've said in public, etc.  Anyone could have figured out that Obama was not one of the good ones by his associates and what he's written in his autobiographies.  The same is true of any other mythical black, Muslim, or whomever we're targeting that just might be innocent.  Even the briefest of looks into their personal lives can quickly dig up dirt on these people, or exonerate them as entirely innocent.  For instance, if there's some black hermit living in a monastery right now, I really don't see the need to get out the pitchforks and torches.  No matter how harshly we bear down on the group we intend to bear down on, there's simply no level of insanity which would persecute obviously innocent and upright members of said singled out group.  We all know that there are exceptions and we will always treat the exceptions fairly when the time comes.

Ancillary traits like sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, politics, sex, looks, age, class, blah blah blah are not in fact unimportant.  They are not less important than how the individual lives his individual life.  For instance, whether said person is a hard worker, laughs with his friends, or loves his wife, it is all of absolutely no importance compared to whether he furthers the Jihad or tries to overthrow the US justice system through demonizing innocent cops like Darren Wilson doing their job.  The amount of harm he does by supporting and belonging to an evil group far exceeds any good he might be doing in his personal life.  Any good traits about that person, whether they include dedication, passion, sincerity or integrity, are all for the worse, because it just makes the evildoer that much more dangerous an enemy.  If your group membership is 'black coven of Satan,' the last thing I want to hear is how charismatic, energetic, and articulate the guy might be.  Your 'ancillary traits' are in fact those very individual circumstances.  Nobody cares whether you like to play cards on Friday or are a huge fan of Manchester United.  But if you're a jihadi, an environmentalist, or a communist revolutionary, that matters a whole damn lot to the rest of us, because you're an enemy who is trying to kill us every night and day.

If an AI were given a full readout of all your supposedly 'ancillary' traits like your sex, religion, class and race, it would predict with 99% efficiency what your political beliefs are, and it is those political beliefs which have the largest impact on the outside world, especially in a democracy.  Therefore identifying people by their 'ancillary' traits is equivalent to identifying them by their politics, and politics is the entirety of what makes someone a friend or a foe.  Politics is force.  All politics are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.  Therefore all political disagreements are between mortal foes whose only goal is to annihilate each other by force.  Anyone who does not share my politics is my enemy.  We can never have anything in common and we can never get along over anything else.  Either one or the other of us has to be utterly and totally destroyed.  People who do not share my politics all want to enslave me and my descendants into a living hell, where I even have to participate in the moral or physical destruction of everything I love and hold dear or face punishment from my politically empowered masters.  Do you think I give a fig if said person has a lovely garden outside or really enjoys jazz music?  No, everything is politics.  Either you're with me or you're against me.  If you do not share my politics, that's the only trait I'm in the least interested in, and it's the only litmus test about whether you are a good or evil person who must be eliminated.

Just like an AI, I can guess ahead of time, by your group affiliations, just what kind of politics you're likely to have.  I can predict with the same efficiency as the AI just what evil plots you have in store for me and mine.  Judging you by these evil plots, and not meaningless things that fall under the 'content of your character' category, is precisely the most fair and just way to deliver judgment on anything.  I don't care if you're a vegetarian who loves playing with dogs either.  The content of your character has never mattered and never will matter.  The content of your politics is the only relevant thing to the outside world, and that's what you're being judged upon, quite rightly.  What else should we give a damn about?

Group membership, insofar as it includes belonging to an evil organization, matters a whole damn lot.  If it includes belonging to the Warhammer gaming society and attending dog breeding contests, no, it doesn't matter.  If it includes conquering the world and forcing it to obey sharia, then yes your membership in the group interests me a whole damn lot.  This isn't rocket science.  Brushing off group memberships as 'ancillary' is absurd.  They're pivotal.  They're the most important identifiers of a person's true nature, far beyond anything that might personally be true about them one way or the other.  So long as liberals refuse to see this, they're simply flotsam waiting to be swept aside by the very groups they refuse to admit exist.  Once Europe is totally subordinated to Islam, I wonder if they'll admit there was something to that whole 'group membership' thing after all?

* See also:

No comments: