Traits Are No Substitute for Accomplishments

Captain Capitalism ^ | 18 July 2016 | Captain Capitalism

[Rummyfan]

If you've been paying attention, you've noticed an increased amount of insanity in the population. This insanity manifests itself in many ways, resulting in a relentless onslaught of what is seemingly an incoherent potpourri of madness.

31 flavors of pansexual genders.
Why everybody else has "privilege" and should let blood for those who don't.
Interstates blocked by Black Lives Matters (though it is seemingly only white people).
Majoring in the world's easiest, but most worthless degrees...and then expecting a banker-like bailout.
Feminists carrying mattresses as they throw out false rape accusations.
Leftists getting raped by Muslim invaders...and doing nothing about it.
Priding oneself on going green as we ban plastic bags and Styrofoam.
Claiming we're black or native American when we're not. Blaming your poverty, student loans, illegitimate children, and STD's on "CIS-gendered white males."

And the list goes on and on.

....

The first clue you should have is that NONE of this is coming from the political right. Triggly Puff, the student loan crisis, mattress girl, blaming Orlando on Christians, refusing to report your Muslim rapist, and accepting a monthly terrorist attack as "the new normal" are ALL, 100% the hallmarks and patents of the left. You don't see the engineer-majoring sons from nuclear families who likes Ronald Reagan demand the taxpayers bail them out of their stupid mistakes. You don't see the daughters from father-present families who want to perhaps get married and raise a stable family get raped and then not accuse her rapist. And you don't see your recent trade-school graduate who landed a job as welder block traffic on an interstate like his 40 year old leftist counterparts. This insanity, and that's PRECISELY what it is, is all owned by the left.

[savagesusie]

Reality (Natural Law Theory/Christianity) v. irrationality (Marxist utopia).

For “happy slavery” of Fichte (1810) where people are so irrational they just are godless animals who can easily be herded and culled because they actually believe the State, that “snow is black”, they have to be thoroughly brainwashed into a false Reality (screens/artificial emotions/programmed/no human interaction/no Real Life interactions where they learn to control inner (real) emotions (Virtue formation/habits). The State totally dehumanizes the children by removing them from the Natural family (Mother/Father paradigm) and putting them into artificial institutions of same age for easier programming and more unnatural environment to program into group-think (socialism/slavery)).

All MSM and skools do it program lies and irrationality into the children since they removed Classical Christian curricula in 1930 and forces irrational Darwinism/Marxism/Atheism where there is no Objective Truth or Laws of Nature (Natural Law Theory basis of Logic/Science, US Constitution)-—for the NWO of totalitarianism.

Remove the mother and father paradigm is essential for total removal from Natural Law-—”..the Laws of Nature and nature’s God). so children will be unable to understand Truth (God) (Objective Truth)——and then anything goes-—up is down, vice is virtue, etc.

Without God, everything is possible (Dostoevsky). The Marxists knew they had to destroy the Natural Family (eliminate male/female paradigm) and they could make the babies TOTALLY Irrational-—removed from ALL Natural Laws and the ability to have a mind like a Newton or the Founders. Just tribal, group-thinkers-—collectivist minds. No individuality of Free Will (choice) (Christian concepts only) because they are so devoid of Wisdom and Knowledge of Truth of Reality.

[loveliberty2]

Thank you for posting.

Perhaps readers of your post may appreciate the following. Note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":

Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON