Anarchy revised and reloaded

"Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people."  I read this somewhere on the internet.  It is a perfect, succinct summary of exactly the pseudo-intellectual philosobabble that is libertarianism.

"Let the poor people be poor together and f-- themselves into drugs and prots, as long as _I_ get to have all the money."  That is what libertarianism entails.  It is the modern-day equivalent of "Let them eat cake."  Marie Antoinette had said that in a flippant response to, "The poor people cannot afford bread."

I think the problem is that any BS thrown out into the ether is filed under the umbrella category of "intellectualism."

Unfortunately, that word is used too broadly, including being used incorrectly as in the wrong definition.  Intellectualism, by definition, has to have a lot of thought put into it.  Libertarians have not really thought through their hypothetical situations.

Ignorant dumbasses fortunate enough to be born into white upper-middle-class families.

prsrss and drug dealing are symptoms of a failing society.  a society that has failed to provide jobs, adequate wages, and educational opportunities to everyone.

oh, yeah sure.  people choose to sell drugs and prso, just like how people choose to be homeless.  Or how people choose not to be able to afford a college education.  or how people choose to have to drop out of grade school and start working labor jobs to support their families.  Or how people choose not to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and instead buy cheap junk food.

Just like how teachers choose to be paid excruciatingly low wages, right?

We really need to get away from the idea that anything that happens is purely by choice and under our control and that luck or misfortune has nothing to do with it.

We need a paradigm shift *away* from the far-too-widespread notion that America is still the land of opportunity and freedom.  Thirty years ago, yes America was the land of freedom.  That was still true back then.  Having choices, having the realistic ability to exercise options, did exist back in the day.  Social mobility was possible.  But not any longer.  This is not the case today.

The twin [[diseases, afflictions]]] of being fiscally conservative yet socially liberal is the most selfish, irresponsible, destructive-to-society combination imaginable.  If you expect people to be able to make conscious decisions to do the right thing, to do what is healthy and beneficial for themselves, and yet *at the same time* you do *not* leave open the opportunities -- as well as the financial support -- for them to realistically pursue those options.  This is ludicrously, phenomenally ignorant of the realities facing Americans today.

Related story:  As a society, we really need a paradigm shift away from the unfortunately widespread notion that just because something happens, this automatically means all parties consented to it.  Just because porst happens, does not automatically mean it is consensual.  What those women really need is a shelter that they can go to, counseling, and training and certification for some sort of respectable job.

The proposal put forth by libertarians is pure adolescent fantasy.  It equates to anarchy, to nihilism.  It is abject deterioration of society.  Their prevalent stance can be summed up thusly:  let the poor people f-- themselves into drugs and prostitution, as long as I get to keep all money ever.

Libertarianism assumes that if rich people keep skimming off the middle class, the economy will still continue to work just fine.  This in spite of the obvious fact that the economy is ingrained into the social aspect of a people.

"Libertarians" say that any activity that takes place between consenting adults__
And what, you think this activity sprang up completely out of the blue?  You think there was no chain of occurrence leading up to that point?  I suppose that you also opine that poverty, gang violence, nonexistent educational or career opportunities, dwindling social aid, all the things that lead someone into drugs or prostitution -- these things are all simply consenting adults being consenting adults as well.

Nothing exists in a vacuum.  You would do well to remember that alcohol is already legal and has been for ___ years.  Yes, during prohibition, consumption increased.  However, legalizing it has not cut down on alcohol-related traffic deaths, alcohol-related sexual assault, drunken domestic violence.  All these things can be and are done by adults buying it and consuming it legally, not just by minors that purchase alcohol with fake IDs.

Some other examples:  a woman who is trapped in a domestic violence relationship -- well, she is still there, so she must be okay with it, right?  Wrong.  Victimization.  A kid is being picked on by bullies at school.  Well, the bullying continues, so he must be okay with it, right?

Another analogy:  just because Dr. Jack Kevorkian's patients _did_ finally succumb to assisted suicide, that must mean they fully understood what was happening, and they consented to it, right?

Eh, whatevs.  Libertarianism is just another example of middle-class white boys trying to be badass.  Same as how middle-class whites love "The Sopranos," "Dexter," and movies like "The Godfather."  MCWs like those shows because they like to fantasize that they, too, can rise up in force and defend themselves against black and/or Latino gangs, drug dealers, and the ilk.

I've talked about this trend before.  Because they do not have any monetary or political power like rich white people, and yet at the same time they are not at the point of having nothing to lose like ghetto poor people, MCWs do not have any recourse.  Therefore they like to live vicariously through their entertainment choices.  This includes TV shows, movies, video games.  I suppose it was inevitable that this wanting-to-be-badass would eventually manifest as a sociopolitical ideology.  What's the matter, cupcake, you're not getting enough tail?

Why Libertarians Are Assholes

Same with libertarians, e.g., andrew sullivan, sam harris, others of which I can't think of their names right now.

Libertarians worry me because they labor under the false assumption that anything that happens in this universe absolutely surely must have been between consenting parties or else it would not happen, right?  Let us extend that to logical conclusions and see what we come up with.  Maybe a hiring manager doesn't feel like hiring a black person even though said person is the best qualified candidate, ehh, just because.  Maybe a paramedic decides he does not feel like saving someone's life?  Maybe a cop decides he does not feel like pursuing a criminal?

Libertarians are mostly selfish egotistical aholes.  They want that THEY should be allowed to have all the privileges, all the second chances in the world, all the money to fall back on, to be able to dust themselves off and try again, to be able to come rescue them up out of their self-inflicted dumbassery hijinks -- but no one else should be allowed.

They want privileges, comfort, back-up money, emergency funds, something to fall back on so that when they get in a medical emergency they don't go broke and homeless -- but no one else in the country should be allowed to have this.  They should be allowed to have a rainy day fund -- but no one else should be allowed to have one.  they should be allowed to have unearned income be sitting and ready to bail them out of their stupid decision-making any time their little heart's desire, any time it strikes their fancy -- but no one else should be allowed to have it.

This is a fiscal concept a lot of people are unaware of.  Tax-wise and legally, unearned income is NOTTT the same thing as earned income as in actual salary from your job that you work at, clocked in hours that you put in every week, two weeks, or whatever your employer's pay period.  Get to have money just sitting there ready in waiting to bail them out yet again -- but no one else should be allowed to have it.

They get to toss aside human beings and not pay average employees and workers what they are truly worth.  They get to shortchange the frontline floor workers, screw them over, and not pay them what their jobs really truly demand of them on the job itself.  Nor the amount of education and training that was required in pathos extrinsically before even being considered for the job.  The employees' qualifications.

"I don't give a flying shyt whether honest hard-working employees get paid enough.  I don't care if people have morals and a sense of dignity and therefore they purposely sought out decent jobs that require skill and that aren't nasty immoral contributing to social decay.  If they want money so badly, they should just quit their jobs as teachers, nurses, police officers, manual laborers.  Go sell your bodies, go sell drugs, I really don't give a fat rat's shyt.  All I care about is that I get to keep all the money."

They get to have money, they get to have drugs, they get to have cheap sx, as in paid for and nothing else, they get to have abortions.  And in addition to all that, they should get to have money to come rescue them out of it when they screw up.

But no one else should get to have any privileges whatsoever.  If someone not from your socioeconomic class screws up, oh well.  If someone not from your spoiled middle class mummy and daddy overdrawn bank account tens of thousands of dollars in debt to pay for your liberal arts degree, screws up, oh well.  If someone is not from your spoiled ivory tower, "stupid sons of rich men," is not born into the social status but most likely with no intelligence or business-management skills whatsoever, oh well.  If someone is poor because their full-time job does not pay enough, oh well.  What the hell do you care?

Why Atheists are Assholes -- A Continuing Study

I have noticed a disturbing trend as of late.  Atheists are just as incessant in their assholery as religious fundamentalist zealots, although they attest different reasons to this assholery from those of the religious freaks.  One thing that both groups have in common is that they have their various strawmen to which they hitch their personal creeds.

At the heart of all this is the plain fact that atheists are not necessarily logical and scientific.  They are simply looking for other BS excuses to exact torture and abuse against people that they deem inferior, such as women and colored folk.

Atheists are harboring latent loosely-suppressed criminal tendencies, particularly hatred against women.  Atheists are apparently [[[__hiding,

They have their common litany with which they defend their depraved tendencies.  Atheism is based in logic and reasoning....  Atheists have arrived at this conclusion thru informed decisions and rational thinking...

Oh, bullshyte.  You don't like logic.  You hammer the same misogynistic bullshyte that religious fundamentalist zealots cum over.  At least religious extremists have the decency to acknowledge that the concepts they advocate and promote are not based on any logic or reasoning whatsoever.  They freely admit that these antiquated notions are handed down to them from ghosts in the sky and voices in their heads.

It’s just that atheists no longer have a beastly spectre to blame for their prejudgments and repetitive tropes.  So they have to turn to other sources.  "I know!  Let’s just call it science.  Considering the abysmal ignorance of science by the general public, they won’t know any better and can be easily fooled."

Now, to be sure, I do not want to trivialize the seriousness of the crimes against humanity that religious zealots perpetrate.

However, look at the court system.  Why is it that in a r--- trial, the victim of the crime is the one that is put on trial?  I thought the court system and atheists were supposed to be [[[_propenders__]]]] of logic and reasoning?
I'm not just gleaning this from TV shows.  I have read up on several different court trial transcripts.

Who thought of video games where they rack up points based on how many women they can r--- and murder?  Who thought up those complex mythology worlds where they again r--- women, buy and sell women like cattle, trade women like objects of currency?

Creepy, disgusting, useless nerds.  I am specifically talking about the sick nerds that use nerdy skills -- computer programming, writing code, building CG interfaces -- for the express purpose of living out fantasies of disemboweling women.  You know, those video games where they dismember women, and then repeatedly r-- each severed limb.  

(Nothing against useful nerds such as those that research particle physics or possible cures for cancer.  I am a nerd myself.  I fully appreciate the existence of normal nerds.)

Who thought up the concept of forcing children into prsks?  Who thought up kidnapping women in Russia from their homes and forcing them into___

Guess what, folks.  Religious types did not do any of that.  Non-religious types did.

Ohhhh yeeeeeaaaahhhh, atheists are sooooo totally respectful and benevolent towards women.  All evidence toootaallly points towards this.  They thump ideologies of treating women like interchangeable wh---s, chattel, material possessions.  Their opinion -- and do not forget that this is all opinion and conjecture anyway -- is termed "evolutionary biology."  And they have the gall to call this "science."

They produce and create movies with gory scenes of r--- and dismembering of women.  And they call this "creativity."

Geez, at least religious fundamentalist zealots do not labor under any pretense whatsoever that their psycho antics are based in logic.  At least religious zealots are honest.  They come right out and say, "Do what we tell you to do because our deity orders you to.  You are stupid and have no right to freedom of thought.  We order you to do what we say, infidels."

Atheists are almost worse than religious fundamentalists, for the reason that they try to assert their ideals are logical.  They have their entire fawning, sycophantic pseudo-intellectual audience convinced that their actions are rooted in "logic."

"Oh, but it's logic," you say.  "It's rooted in scientific and biochemical evidence," you say.

[[Regarding atheists and r----pp by evolution, as opposed to Christians and their r----ppp by marriage.  (And how god is a man, and man is created in god’s image, a husband takes his wife as property ;;;))

Yes, they have their boogeymen -- and you have yours.  You deflect responsibility away from yourself through various causes du jour, same as they do.

I say, you can assign whatever semantics you want.  You can call it biological factoids, you can call it chemical equilibrium, you can call  ___ , you can say that the Easter Bunny made you do it, you can attest it to schizophrenia, you can say the devil made you do it, you can call it an act of G-d, or perhaps in your case, an act of Alistair Crowley.  There is no difference.  It is still rape.  "Ohh but it's evolution, it's totally 'science.'  We're waayy better than the religious fundamentalist zealots nuts that say God lets males re-- women."

You may blame whatever bogeyman and straw men that you like.  But it does not matter to anyone that exists outside your pretty little head which imaginary friend you choose to shunt responsibility to, now does it?

Time Travel- 1700s Edition

I just realized something.  The world has in many ways reverted back in time approximately three hundred years.  We have a Tea Party- political protesters objecting to the government using normal hardworking citizens' taxpayer money to bail out multi-billion-dollar mega-corporations.

We have pirates at sea.  Like actual pirates, not the idiotic use of the word "piracy" to indicate people at home making copies of their friends' music albums.  There are actual Somali pirates wreaking havoc in the Atlantic, due west of the African continent.  Good times.

Atheist attitudes towards women

One reason that many women do not feel welcome in the atheist community is some atheists' various excuses du jour for justifying rape, pornography, and violence against women.  Truly, in many ways atheism is as misogynistic as the religious fundamentalist zealot extremism that it claims to be better than.

Anyone else remember the postulate from a while back that tried to assert that rape against women is justified by evolution? I won't even bother to list logic-based arguments against this, because it is such a sick, vile, cruel notion that a horrific crime is in any way justified. I can only come to the conclusion that proponents of this crap do not possess any capacity for empathy or compassion whatsoever.

There are notorious bottom-feeders all over internet message boards that insist that the only reason women have a problem with sadomasochism or other violent sexual practices is because of religion.  They conveniently blame antiquated notions of Puritanism, Christian oppression, ad nauseum.

They conveniently dismiss the fact that sex is a deeply personal, private issue.

They simply dismiss the fact that a woman, who is a human being, has 100 percent right to decide what happens to her own body, physically, sexually, medically. That is a human right. If she decides she does not want to do something, end of story. 
It is not open to negotiation, compromise, or discussion.

The woman to whom that body belongs has the final say in what she does with it. Everyone else out there, including atheists, would do well to remember that.

Christianity and feminism

Christianity is actually surprisingly pro-woman___

Think atheist morality is just as good as Christian morality?  Think again.

The more I read about how Christianity recommends people conduct their lives, the more I realize that they did this for the betterment of mankind.

The reason they started Christianity was actually so it would be a reliable guideline for social cues.

Marriage, so that men could not just have sex and then toss a pregnant woman out on the street.
This is exactly what the modern court system does nowadays.

Believe it or not, a lot of the social [[[constructs]]] dictates [[[suggested, commanded]]] by Christianity were pro-woman.

Christians were right all along

Remember how Christians were all worried that without the guiding force of God in people's lives, people would just be led astray?  Christians were stating that without the driving factor of an imposing moral authority figure, people would just drift and disintegrate into lost little ragamuffins that have no idea how to conduct their lives in an orderly fashion.

It turns out they were kind of right.  Atheists cannot handle it.  They cannot handle being responsible for their own decisions, for their own choices in life.  They are not capable of that much mental work or that much responsibility for themselves.

They cannot handle the idea that without a stern, austere, emotionally neutral authority figure, they only have their own wavering, fluctuating, faltering, wishy-washy, non-convicted moral compass to guide them.

they can't handle the fact that___
As Jane Eyre put it succinctly (but in a slightly different context), "left to myself, I abandoned myself."  That's why atheists are so miserable.  They have no sense of personal responsibly, no ability to trust themselves, no self-respect.

Suddenly now that they no longer believe in a vengeful ghost in the sky, this for some odd reason means that anything goes with regard to the human species.  No more civilization.  No more empathy, no more compassion, no more morals, no more treating people with respect.  But worse yet, no more treating oneself with respect.

Now they think this somehow renders moot five hundred thousand years of human progress.  Now all of a sudden they have cast off any emotional, moral, psychological growth and awareness.  Drugs?  Great.  Prostitution?  Great.  Now that there is no *external* motivator of forcing behavior into socially acceptable conduct, there is no need to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

I just realized this kind of reads like a goddamn "Onion" parody article.  Too bad it's all true.

**Atheism does lead to lack of morality.
Religion really does make people more moral.  Case in point:  religious people actually get married, i.e., make a committed, sustained, long-term commitment to each other.  They tend not to f--- around random people.  Especially not druggie, infested, rabies-ridden random sexual encounters in bathroom stalls at trashy cheap "clubs."  They tend to have lower rates of STDS, general viral infections, AIDS.  They tend to have better hygiene in general.

Atheists, on the other hand, do tend to do all of the above and worse.  Seriously.  There are numerous editorials that exist all over the internet that summarily say, "since I don't really have a god, and don't believe in heaven and/or hell, and therefore I will not go to hell if I act immoral, there is really no point in me acting morally."

I don't get it.  What is the possible connection between a big bullying fairy in the sky -- and having evolved, polite, caring human behavior?

Are atheists really that closed-minded?  Are their minds really not capable of any critical thinking?  Are they really not capable of making responsible decisions that benefit society, for the reason that these decisions benefit society?  Must a beastly spectre be constantly breathing down their necks and forcing them towards good choices?

Can they really not advance their brains beyond this?  They entertain the absurd thought process that only a monotheistic deity could possibly desire moral behavior.  And since they no longer have a monotheistic deity to which to supplicate, there is no need to aspire to moral behavior.

They are plagued/crippled with the exact same [[[ something that ultimately causes a downfall  ]]]] that unchaperoned teenagers are faced with.  Without rules imposed on them by an external authority figure, unsupervised teenagers do not know right from wrong.

They are incapable of making rational decisions.  They are incapable of morality, self-respect, or self-discipline.  Neuroscience has proven that this impulsive, irrational behavior is due to the state of underdevelopment of a teen's brain.  They do not possess the capability of long-term projection, planning for the future, weighing pros and cons of any type of behavior.  predicting the most likely outcomes of decisions.

People would be listless and lost and wandering.