Author Topic: The new societal conformities and norms (Read 551 times)

virtuoso · « **on:** July 28, 2013, 06:31:22 AM »

Okay, first and foremost, I am neither a liberal, nor am i a conservative, I have no political leanings because I see how these leanings simply create encampments and the deeper you are entrenched into a supposed philosophy or ideology, the more oblivious you are to it's failings and to the people you have put your faith into. I see that the right and left, are only against one another when each is in opposition and the opposition in itself is rhetoric which one side or the other can get behind because it makes the average person feel like he or she is on your side. Perhaps a few really are on your side but they reside on the back benches and or as soon as they are given a position of prominence, they then adhere to the demands which are placed before them to toe the party line thus creating an acceptance by the party's grass roots as then they feel that their voices are being listened to but the appointment into a more senior position is just window dressing.

Having said that, there is something particularly unique about both the republicans and the democratic supporters. The religious core of the republican following can be acquiesced into many things when it's done in the name of religion. If George Bush's speech writers had stood on the platform of being an athiest, or had not invoked in his speeches the spirit of Christianity, then the same backers would have instantly become his enemies as the actions of the neocons would have been decried as being against the lord but as it was the justification was the foreign policy is essentially a moral crusade, a new crusade to spread christian values and democracy to the world BUT aimed at outside of the borders. You could have of course cite the various layers of the patriot act amongst a cluster of legislation which began paving the way for the erosion of basic rights but whilst chipping away, the actions were not overt because while dangerous, this section of society were largely sidelined. In complete contrast to that, is the democratic disposition to politics.

This disposition used to encompass to a certain extent social rights, civil rights, and constitutional rights, as well as some kind of ethical moral foreign policy. However a former friend of mine, she became former because i cannot socialise with someone who would spout such toxic, said that she didn't really care what kind of evil was perpetrated as long as there was some good to go with it. Who I am talking about in this instance is a prominent lecturer in both Philosophy and English, what I am talking about is her acknowledgement that foreign terrorists were being aided, trained and logistically supported by western groups and yet saying she didn't care, because while not a real revolution in either Syria or Libya, said government forces and hierarchy, were not good people so regardless of the evils, they were doing some good. What kind of twisted rationale is this I asked myself but I have noticed this is typical of the mindset of many so called liberal intellectuals.

Essentially their staunch support is maintained by this thesis of evil cannot have been said to have been done if those who the evil is perpetrated against are not puritans. In fact what troubles me the most about so called liberals is that there are so many intellectuals who are fully supportive of their brand of authoritarianism. When I was still friends with her, over dinner, I asked her what she would die for if necessary and she replied "gay rights". I couldn't quite believe it, but there it is.

So what the establishment has done is recognise that there is a clamour for rights and in order to react to this clamour, they have brainwashed people into being distracted by their relative merits of having gay rights, of having gay marriage, of changes to the way in which we vote and other bullshit misdirections. While doing so, in the name of fighting child porn in the UK a proposal has been made to ban "horrific search terms", while doing so, the expansion of gm crops continues, while doing so, drawing up a legal framework to murder american citizens, to throw americans in jail forever because the government of the day says so, while making spying illegal, introducing sex education to little kids, empowering terrorist groups, poisoning the water supplies with fluoride and the list goes on.

The latest talking point is the death of Trayvon Martin. The question to ask is why? well let's see, let's take the facts here shall we, under the laws of the particular state the right to lethal force in self defence is permissible, now there has been a supposed anger about this and in no uncertain terms decrying that if Zimmerman was black he would have been found guilty but this is another fallacy. How can I say that...In April of 2009 Mr. Roderick Scott awoke at 3am to the sounds of three young men breaking into cars on his street. He called the police and went down to the street to make sure the young men did not flee before the police arrived. He shouted at the three to “freeze” and told them that the police were coming soon. The three boys stood before the big man obviously considering what they should do.

That’s when Christopher Cervini (17) rushed at Mr. Scott uttering “I’ll get you” or “I’ll get him.” Roderick Scott fired twice, killing the teenager.

The man was acquited by a jury of whites.

So then you ask yourself, okay, well what purpose does this serve? the intention is to stoke the fires and personalise through the perceived injustice there are 2 sinister political motives the first is to demonise the right to self defence and using a tragedy look to overturn this right.

The second is even more chilling so I will put it like this......let's suppose that Zimmerman had murdered him, let's ignore all of the reasonable doubt to the contrary, the fact is that the jury found him not guilty. Now given that, whether you hate that verdict or not, according to the rule of law, Zimmerman becomes a free man but there is a demand to overturn double jeopardy to " right a wrong", now, the purpose of double jeopardy is to STOP the state from having the means to persecute individuals

Over here in the UK to very little fanfare, double jeopardy was revoked, based on the fact that a group of white men murdered a black teenager and in doing so, a fundamental protection has been wiped away and now Americans are demanding the same thing.

It's the equivalent of a group of animals fighting amongst each other to decide who jumps into the meat grinder first. The same people who could give a shit about the millions of iraqis murdered, babies deformed or dying from cancer from the moment of birth, will cry themselves off to sleep and lead a march for "insert any name that the media pushes".