Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Jim
Jim Allen

5807
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/5/2011 1:33:05 PM
Replace all - Liberal/Regressive with Liberal/Agressively/Regressive
Quote:
Hello friends, this article from the Canada Free Press was in my inbox today and I as I read it, it really resonated with me. It is a brilliant article that spells everything out in a way that can not be misunderstood, or at least by those who can recognize the facts. I give a thumbs up to Morry Markovitz for this very well written article.

The barbaric savage you actually are

Open letter to tax-the-rich, wealth re-distributing, liberal/regressives

- Morry Markovitz Monday, October 3, 2011

Dear 21st Century Liberal/Regressive:
Your “tax the rich” idea and the idea of redistributing wealth are so intellectually brilliant you can actually boil them down to one single word without losing any of their essence. That word is: “Gimme.”
You want it, you think you need it, there it is in someone else’s possession, so just take it. Just “gimme.” You want, I have, so you feel you have some kind of moral right just to take it from me.Your lack of it plus your want of it, automatically give you a moral right to seize it from me by force.
I have 5 potatoes, you have one, so just grab a couple of mine. Wonderful moral idea. An absolutely brilliant and creative solution to not having something you want. Worthy of an Einstein. No wonder you have only 1 potato. Only a bona fide moron could call a philosophy that belongs in the prehistoric jungle, and which comes straight from the jungle, “progressive.”
What brains you liberal/regressives must have to think of such a clever solution all by yourselves, with only some drivel (by an undoubtedly mentally stable Jewish anti-semite named Karl Marx) to clue you in. Hard to imagine the hilarious ideas you’d come up with if you had ALL the Marx Brothers to memorize excerpts from.
See anything you need anywhere in someone’s hands or garage or pocket? Take it! WOW, what a creative leap. What an admirable moral system must underly that idea. It’s probably so complex we’ve just gotta interview the many thousands of experienced experts who have lived by that rule and now occupy the prison system.
It amounts to legalizing crime, the crime of theft, which all progressives clearly respect as the lovable and moral and endearing trait of a wise and admirable and superior human being like their very barbaric selves. You also think you have a right to a lifetime of comfort and care? Well,OK. How about this: we’ll set up a nice clean prison cell for you, too.

That was a joke. I know you don’t REALLY want to spend your life in a cell. So I understand—FULLY—why you advocate LEGALIZING your criminal proposals.
When an animal wants something, it takes it. When a tiger is hungry, if he sees a litter of squirrel pups he eats them alive. If he sees a lion cub eating part of a recent kill, he takes it from the cub. It’s called the law of the jungle. IT IS IN ORDER TO BANISH THAT LAW FROM HIS LIFE THAT MAN CREATED CIVILIZATION. A lone Tarzan in the jungle would have to live by that law too.
But we do NOT choose to live in the jungle. We are MEN. We live together in man-made, man-created groups. And these places are NOT just collections of bricks and wood, which is all your strictly materialistic mentality can see. They are the result of ideas, of laws, of intense and brilliant thought by great intellects, and of the resulting moral principles which men agree they MUST live by in order to graduate FROM the jungle to the benefits of civilization, and in order to realize their highest potential as human beings in peace, without the threat of being eaten alive by a wild animal or otherwise destroyed by some inhuman liberal/regressive jungle beast like you.
We acknowledge the rights of all men and we do the uniquely MAN thing, we live according to our IDEAS of what is right and wrong for ALL of us as human beings. We RESPECT each other’s existence and rights. We develop detailed, rigorous thinking into documents like a Constitution. We don’t live by “take, and ye shall receive.” We don’t live by the law of the jungle. We chose to rise above that, we escaped from it, because . . . we are HUMAN beings and the last thing we need is to drag back into our magnificent creation—civilization—the very thing we sought to banish when we created civilization: being subjected to the jungle’s moral code of “Gimme,” the code embraced by the modern-day liberal/regressive barbarians.

If you don’t like our system, go back to the jungle where your morality will fit right in. Then you can relax and be comfy in your own kind of world. You won’t be “a stranger and afraid in a world you never made,” or be constantly reminded of your inferior animalistic nature and mental deficiencies by all those superior HUMANS around you who know how to deal with reality better than a pathetic animal like you does. Back there in the jungle with the animals is your true home, where you won’t have to try so hard to convince yourself of your inherent superiority, because you probably will in fact be a wee bit more intelligent than most of the animal life around you.

A newborn human infant operates on the law of the jungle too. When he sees what he wants, he reaches for it and if nothing interferes to stop him, he takes it. Just like an animal. Just like a liberal/regressive. He is not yet a full human being, just like a liberal/regressive. He still has all his non-human animal attributes, but has yet to develop his uniquely HUMAN ANIMAL behaviors, knowledge, and ideas. Just like a liberal/regressive. He has yet to develop his human MIND. Indeed, just like a liberal/regressive, an infant’s mind hasn’t yet progressed to the fully HUMAN level. Someday it will, assuming he doesn’t have liberal/regressive parents.

Human parents teach their animal-like infants how to grow into full human beings. Liberal/regressives want to teach full grown human beings how to turn themselves back into animals. CORRECTION: They want to FORCE full grown human beings to turn themselves back into jungle beasts.

HUMAN parents teach an infant how much better it is FOR HIM,HIMSELF and for EVERYONE around him who are his potential friends and assets, if he can develop the ability to see beyond the range of the immediate “now” moment in which other animals perpetually live, and look into the future, long range, and THINK, and accumulate knowledge and plan for perpetually improving his lot and the welfare of everyone in society simultaneously,rather than stagnating at the level of an animal who lives today in the same way and at the same level as he did 10,000 years ago—and who will remain in that same moment eternally. WE are the ones who teach our infants how to PROGRESS steadily by understanding the relationship of the present to the future, and that it is often in a HUMAN being’s own best interest to give up or “trade” a current need or want for much greater rewards tomorrow and next month and next year. And that to be able to live in such a world of hope, ever increasing knowledge, ever-lengthening lifespan, ever-improving health, ever-expanding cultural and intellectual opportunities and ever improving conditions of every stripe, he must respect the full rights of others who share those goals, he must regard them not as objects which may be holding something he wants now, but as equals to himself, with the same human rights,which he must respect if he expects them to respect his—under a moral code which would never work for animals, but which is the ONLY code that will work for a HUMAN BEING if he chooses to be a full human being, to actualize his potential, and to rise above the reflexive, instinctual “gimme NOW” level of a jungle beast or a newborn human infant or a liberal/regressive.

It is PROFOUNDLY IRONIC that those who call themselves “progressive” advocate a MORAL philosophy that amounts to a monstrous REGRESSION, demanding that we return to the morality NOT of a human adolescent or even a human child, but to the morality and ethics of a beast in a pre-historic jungle. It is anti-human, it is anti-civilization, it is anti-HUMANE, it is anti-INTELLECT, it is anti-MIND it is anti-LIFE and it is anti-PEACEFUL HUMAN CIVILIZATION WITH MUTUAL RESPECT AMONGST ALL GENUINELY CIVILIZED INDIVIDUALS. It is ANTI-those who prefer the UNIQUELY HUMAN laws of civilization to the law of the jungle.
And need I add: it is ANTI-PROGRESS. It is in fact, a regression all the way back to the beginnings, the absolutely most extremely regressive idea anyone could possibly conceive. Back to the time BEFORE human beings had even arrived on this earth. Back to total chaos, and LITERAL “dog eat dog.” That’s the incredible irony of its advocates calling themselves “progressives.” It would be hilarious if it weren’t so stupid—and so frightening that people with advanced college degrees can be so abjectly ignorant, and so incredibly STUPID. (Come to think of it, the stupidity part is actually very understandable. Isn’t it obvious that abject stupidity is a PRE-REQUISITE in order that someone be able to advocate seriously the savage ethics of the jungle as a moral ideal and practical base for human civilization?)

C’mon, Mr. Liberal/Regressive, admit it. You may not be a “noble savage” but you are a savage, and a pretty darned moronic one at that.
OK, down to brass tacks now:
You, sir or madam, are an advocate against humanity, human intelligence, and an arch enemy of everything man has accomplished in rising above the law of the jungle. You are a throwback, not of a century or even a millennium, but a throwback by eons and ages. You see someone who has what you want, or what someone you like wants, and your moral idea—MORAL, I emphasize—for obtaining it is ... just seize it—like an animal would or like a human infant would try to do. You want to re-introduce the law of the jungle back into civilization, which was created to escape that very law of the jungle. You want us to regress back to even further than the operating moral code of a human child. You want men to adopt the moral principles governing the behavior of newborn human infants and of wild jungle beasts. You want to legalize, to incorporate into the laws of OUR HUMAN civilization, provisions which will enable the moral philosophy of “gimme” to be exercised and enforced by law. And you want to live in OUR HUMAN civilization, but demand that you be allowed to behave like a wild animal toward the rest of us.
And worse: Pathetic moral coward that you are, you want to use OUR LEGAL SYSTEM to force SOMEONE ELSE to use THEIR fangs to do your dirty work for you so you won’t have to see yourself as the barbaric savage you actually are. You want to open wide our doors to the jungle, and welcome its prehistoric jungle law back in to destroy the civilization that HUMAN BEINGS have created.
And you call this a MORAL code. And you call this “PROGRESSIVE.”
Do you really dare to think of yourself as human?
Oh, that’s right, I guess you do. For a moment there I forgot how stupid you are.

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Amanda Martin-Shaver

2190
2587 Posts
2587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 100 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/5/2011 3:42:54 PM
Now we have Morgan Freeman accusing the Tea Party of Racism because they have said something like 'let's make sure Obama is a one term President'

Morgan Freeman charged the tea party with racism. Now, tea party activist and entrepreneur Ali Akbar has invited Freeman to an actual tea party. Some of Freeman's neighbors are even joining the effort to invite the famous actor.

Hear more as Roger L. Simon reports on the efforts to combat Freeman's false charge.


+0
Kathleen Vanbeekom

11447
13305 Posts
13305
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/5/2011 4:24:34 PM

After they do that....let's see lawsuits about gender-bias from Sarah Palin against all men who didn't want her to be VP. Let's see lawsuits about age-discrimination from John McCain against everyone under 40 who thought he was too old to be elected.

Gender-bias and Age-discrimination are way more rampant BECAUSE that's a 50-50 split in the population, and very difficult to prove. So it's always about Racism and nothing else.

People in this country need to start listening VERY CAREFULLY to EVERYTHING out there, because gender-biased and age-discriminatory language is rampant, always has been, and unfortunately always will be, and those issues are never seriously addressed BECAUSE they are so prevalent in society, it's taken for granted and not even noticed.
Start noticing those things, people, you'll get a very rude awakening.

If Herman Cain was 72, the age John McCain was a few years ago, I think he'd still have massive support. If he was a few years older now and ANYONE said he was unelectable, THAT would be called RACISM, right? Nobody would call it AGE-DISCRIMINATION, right? Because it's just easier to put blame on the visual, the skin color, and that's why gender and age discriminations are let go all the time.

+0
Kathleen Vanbeekom

11447
13305 Posts
13305
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/5/2011 4:30:10 PM

While I'm on that topic, Gender-Bias is WORSE than Age-Discrimination:

How many times have rape victims been asked what they were wearing when attacked?

Are elderly people ever asked why they go out in public with their white hair? Does any police office or judge or lawyer think that old people could have brought on their own attack because of their appearance?

WHY are women victimized a second time by being made to feel self-blame for looking female?

If a person is attacked, it's the fault of the attacker, it's the fault of the person who has mal-intent against another person, whether they attack a woman who's dressed sexy, or whether they attack an obviously elderly person who dares to go out with their white hair in public.

+0
Kathleen Vanbeekom

11447
13305 Posts
13305
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/5/2011 4:33:24 PM

If racially-based attacks are handled as Hate Crimes, I also think gender-based attacks and age-based attacks should also be Hate Crimes and carry the penalties for Hate Crimes in ADDITION TO the penalties for the actual crimes committed against women and the elderly.

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!