Comments by "Muck006" (@Muck006) on "Tousi TV"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
J and M "Liberalism" (in my definition) is basically about "the FREEDOM of the INDIVIDUAL" ... and this has consequences, because people are "focusing on THEMSELVES and their own rights", they become SELF-CENTERED. This works fine and dandy in a world with low population density, where people "HAVE TO take care for themselves", but the more this density increases the less liberal can a society afford to be. You NEED "police" and "rules" to keep order.
There is a BASIC PROBLEM with "ideologies" like Marxism and also Liberalism ... and I can explain it easily with an analogy:
In school you learn about chemistry and physics ... and both these subjects have "equasions" to explain "principles / laws" ... but TO MAKE THEM WORK you need an ENGINEER to create a machine / technology ... and these always have LOSSES / REQUIREMENTS involved with them.
The big problem of Marxism - which is a THEORY dreamt up by someone "in his study" - and also liberalism ... is that the "engineering part", the "how CAN this work IRL" is missing and certain people are RELIGIOUSLY FOLLOWING THE HOLY TEXT TO THE LETTER. A really big example for liberalism is SARGON OF AKKAD, who always proclaims himself to be a "classical liberal" and who has gotten his knowledge out of BOOKS. He has NEVER spoken about the downsides of liberalism ... and this is the same behaviour as all the Marxists, Feminists, SJWs, radical muslims, ... show. There are downsides to EVERY IDEOLOGY ... and for british liberalism/liberal culture the SEPARATIST MUSLIM COMMUNITIES showcase a serious problem. Nobody is really talking about this. The other aspect is the "looking away/not caring unless it affects you direclty" part ... which would explain the unwillingness to protest.
As long as people do not acknowledge these downsides of their own ideology, they are in danger of a) being a religious zealot and b) destroying things ... and you can destroy things actively (like radical muslims and communists) or passively (like "classical liberals" who dont realize that there need to be LIMITATIONS to "freedoms" and by not enacting those limitations they are giving free reign to other active ideologies). Liberals are the ones who vote for a law - like Bill C-16 in Canada - because the law says "rights" or "freedom" in the text/name ... without thinking about the consequences. That is how liberals destroy: by NOT CARING, NOT THINKING IT THROUGH!
---
Concerning the Stephen Lawrence inquiry: the MacPherson report (or the "analysis" which followed) introduced the term "institutionally racist" for ALL police. "Racist" is a THOUGHT-TERMINATING CLICHÉ just like fascist, sexist, islamophobe, ... and not meant to "tell the truth" but rather to CONDITION THE LISTENERS who believe. This has been done by the communists all throughout the Cold War, although they were just limited to the word "fascist". The [Berlin] Wall was the "anti-fascist protection wall" in their rhetoric and Antifa (the "anti-fascists") was conceived in Berlin with lots of help from East Germany's STASI.
The ONLY "directive" you should give to the police is "UPHOLD THE LAW ... NO MATTER WHAT and NO MATTER WHO!", but Britain has even adopted SOCIAL JUSTICE in their LAW: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/12/celebrities-fame-sex-offences-sentences-guidelines so you get a harsher sentence if you are "rich and famous"? That is NOT BLIND (and thus impartial) JUSTICE! Sure, they also included the grooming gangs in this group of "harsher sentences", but it would be easier to just increase it ACROSS THE BOARD ... 10 years minimum for ANY CSE offense.
The whole hate-crime laws and the 2003 Communications Act show that not everyone can "be offended" and have the police arrest others ... it is a law which only applies to certain MORE EQUAL ANIMALS ...
---
As for "cultural vulnerability" ... There are always AGGRESSIVE and PASSIVE cultures ... and a passive one will LOSE to an aggressive one all the time. EVERY culture needs to have the right to "defend itself". As a german I have basically given up on Germany, because we have been indoctrinated for decades to "never say no to any foreigners". Our language gets more and more anglicised, our culture is shaped a lot by US TV and movies and english music. There were german fast food restaurants in the past (70s, a chain called "Wienerwald") which served chicken + fries/potatoes ... but they have been replaced by McDonalds and Kebab ... ANYTHING FOREIGN.
Liberalism is a PASSIVE culture/ideology ...
1
-
J and M "Classical Liberalism is not a religion" ... that is one problem ... because EVERY IDEOLOGY can become "a religion" [where the followers BELIEVE UNQUESTIONINGLY IN THE TRUTH of the ideology AND are "incapable of seeing the faults/flaws of the ideology" (thus my example with Sargon)].
G.K. Chesterton (a christian) once said: When we stopped believing in god we didnt start believing in nothing but rather in anything. and this is kinda proven to be true by the ZEALOUS behaviour of communists/socialists, feminists, SJWs, but also by capitalim fanboys, and followers of esoteric beliefs. Classical Liberalism can be just as much a religion, but because the ideology is rather passive the "zealous nature" doesnt really appear ... and you have to look for the "are they able to criticise their ideology/see the flaws?" question.
---
I am not a fan of collectivism ... I am a fan of LOGIC and "the common good" ... and I have ZERO PATIENCE with collectivists from the left AND the right. All the idiots calling for "non-whites to be kicked out of Britain" for example are failing to acknowledge that many of the non-whites are more british than the white commies spewed out of universities nowadays (like that "doctoral student" who wished death on all Conservative voters during the election).
For instance: I prefer the "everyone pays for health care with taxes" NHS to the "everyone for himself" american version ... for the simple reason that it is poor folks who will probably need health care more and it is beneficial to make it easy for them to get some. Our german system - when you are employed you HAVE TO HAVE health insurance AND the employer also has to pay some part - is somewhere in the middle, but it adds complexity and BUREAUCRACY to it ... which ultimately wastes money again, especially when different health insurance companies have different rules for how doctors are billing them. Having the NHS makes it easier for SMALL BUSINESSES (the ones who actually pay "most of what they are supposed to pay in taxes") to employ someone because of less paperwork.
It is an "emotional argument" at some level ... but I do think logical decisions far outweigh it, because everyone but the most rabid self-centered idiot has to realize that our societies only work because "someone is gathering the trash and driving the public transports in the middle of the night" and we need to take care of them (or our cities will end up like Italy ... with trash heaps on the street). So IMO logic outweighs emotion for my decisions.
Maybe my view of liberalism is coloured by the behaviour of todays "liberal" parties, but there is always a kernel of truth in it. A great example is our german liberal party, the FDP, which had a paper [Wiesbadener Grundsätze] about their values ... and it started with a great headline: "Freedom is responsibility" ... but then they made that responsibility VOLUNTARY in the "small print" again, which makes it entirely pointless to have that headline. That party has the reputation of "being a bunch of wealthy self-serving a-holes" ... because they lobbied for "special rules for hotel owners". I bet there are similar stories about the LibDems ... and
OBVIOUSLY 95% of the times anyone says "liberal" these days they actually mean "communist" or "left-wing" instead, which is happening because "all you english types" have no clue about the real definition of left- and right-wing[1] ... and thus fill it with garbage. The definition for "liberal" went out the window as well and just meant "freedom / rights" ... and thus every left-wing policy which used those terms became a "liberal" policy.
[1] Again Sargon is one of the worst transgressors ... because he is actually "believing" that the Nazis are left-wing ... because he THINKS "socialism is left-wing" ... it isnt. Listening to Tim Pool also shows a bit of a "fuzzy definition" ... but since he doesnt talk about Nazis being left-wing, he gets off the hook. The problem with Sargon is - again - his BOOK-LEARNING ... his THEORETICAL knowledge ... and the fact that he only looks for similarities and overlooks the IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES between communists and fascists/Nazis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1