There are few things which have more directly contributed to the destruction of occidental society as we know it, than the now pervasive misconception that a free society is predicated upon not only tolerating, but respecting all beliefs equally. Here in reality a society, whatever kind it may be, dies the day it accepts the notion it should tolerate and promote antithetical beliefs equally with those upon which it was founded. It should go without saying the left, seeking to subvert and supplant western Judeo-Christian values with atheistic Marxism, therefore aggressively and assiduously pushes the latter.
You cannot subvert a thing without first having access to it. As I've said for many years this is the genuine purpose of "diversity" and "anti-discrimination" policies. "Diversity" encourages, and eventually requires people and institutions, to admit subversives. Under the pretext of being more "inclusive" a company (for example) will hire leftist proletarians, who then (as all leftists do) begin working from within to change the policies and structure of the company to suppress and ultimately expel traditionalists, until no one is left but other leftists or amoral cowards willing to accept interminable prostration. Until no one is left but people who either have the same beliefs, and therefore engage in the same behaviors (because behaviors are a direct product of beliefs), or indifferent lemmings whose only care in life is getting a paycheck. (We all know such people. The sort that spend their free time with their faces glued to the TV watching sporting spectacles, about which they can impart all manner of nuanced information, but are completely oblivious to the nuances of polity.) All leftists, whether sodomites, "feminists," or racist Socialists (Fascists) like BLM, serve this purpose and openly do this. And thus it is typically very easy to recognize them as, all being Marxist proletarian groups, they consistently use the same tactics to achieve their objectives.
Leftists exploit western values and liberties to destroy western values and liberties. They use religious freedom to destroy religious freedom. They use freedom of speech to destroy free speech. Et cetera. But never, at least initially, openly. The leftist doesn't openly profess that speech should be regulated. He never unambiguously states you should only be able to say what he allows. As that would be something which even most of the dimwitted viewed in a negative light. Instead leftists anathematize dissent. In case that's not clear enough allow me to elaborate. The leftist does not explicitly say (in the earlier phases of subversion anyway) that any opinion in disparity with mine should be illegal. The leftist says "racism" should be illegal, and then proceeds to label any opinion (speech) in disparity with his own, "racist." Or "homophobic," "transphobic," "sexist," "fascist," et al., all of which serve the same purpose. (I've addressed how leftists manipulate language to induce moral inversion in the minds of the dimwitted before.) In this manner the left achieves the same objective, the regulation of speech, but under the facade of preserving freedom. They're not suppressing free speech, they're suppressing "hate speech." And thus people are shamed, ostracized, fired from their jobs, and ultimately fined and/or jailed for "hate." And what is "hate?" The expression of any idea contrary to the exigencies of the Communist Party, or which would threaten the ability of its proletarian subversive groups (sodomites, "feminists," anti-white Fascists, etc.) to serve their purpose.
As I said previously.
"Diversity campaigns and anti-discrimination laws facilitate the Socialist infiltration of various institutions, and subsequently prevent infiltrated institutions from expelling such subversives. Indeed, they're not even allowed to acknowledge that a subversive is in fact subversive. A flagrantly hostile Muslim with terrorist sympathies, who advocates the implementation of Sharia law in the U.S., must by law be viewed and treated as no different than a Christian patriot. To do otherwise can result in profound punitive repercussions."
Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was expressing troubling views long before he committed the murders. But, being a protected proletarian class, he could not be expelled. As I said then, as a result of "anti-discrimination" policy, he could not even be acknowledged as different. Because those around him were not permitted by law to even acknowledge disparity much less expel it. And the purpose of this isn't "inclusion." It's to prevent non/anti-Marxist entities from obstructing their subversion. You need to understand that no matter what manner of specious drivel you hear from "liberals" on this topic. "Diversity" and "anti-discrimination" policy isn't about creating a more tolerant and welcoming society (which you'll see unequivocally illustrated shortly). It's about forcing Christian institutions to admit (grant access to) sodomites, so they may subvert Christian institutions. It's about forcing patriarchal institutions to admit (grant access to) "feminists," so they may subvert patriarchal institutions. It's about forcing white institutions to admit (grant access to) non-whites, so they may subvert white values and culture. It's about forcing Christians to bake cakes for sodomites, or else be sued into oblivion and/or jailed. Because despite what you're told by leftists, it is not the political right that supports "slavery," but the left that denies others the freedom of dissociation. As I've stated previously.
"You're not free. You might think you are, but you're not. The First Amendment, for all practical intents and purposes, essentially no longer exists. Do you understand that? It's been effaced by federal "anti-discrimination" law. Under our current form of government, Donald Trump does not have the right to dissociate from Jim Acosta, Christians do not have the right to dissociate from "homosexuals," whites do not have the right to dissociate from blacks, Americans do not have the right to dissociate from illegal immigrants, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera."
Under the often farcically disingenuous pretext of eliminating "racism," "hatred," "bigotry," etc., freedom of speech has been nigh obliterated.
Consequently, those who make videos on Youtube substitute all manner of other words for coronavirus to avoid being demonetized. That's just one example. There's a slew of prohibited words. The result is content creators regularly speaking in arbitrary code (that varies from creator to creator) to avoid being demonetized or censored. The leftists at Youtube decide who can make money and who can't. What can be said and what can't. And yet I'd wager most of those affected, if asked, would tell you they believe they're still free. Even as they regularly censor themselves (something social media conditions its users to do) to retain their channels and in some instances even their livelihoods.
The sort of harmless aspersions many of us once dispensed as children, now result in suspensions and expulsions as children, and in adulthood termination, or worse. So, even though it might be "legal" to say a thing, you won't say it. Because you've seen what happens to others that do. Which is the purpose of the frequent, public social assassination of dissidents, in which the left so ostentatiously engages. They're the modern version of public executions. Intended to convey to the broader society what happens to those who vex or cross the left. To convey this is what will happen if you decide to step out of line.
Again, "diversity" and "anti-discrimination" policies force traditional institutions, and even individuals, to facilitate their own subversion and destruction. Leftist institutions and individuals, by contrast, do not allow themselves to be subverted in this fashion. Leftists typically only associate with other leftists, and leftist institutions consistently practice ideological testing and aggressively purge dissidents, precisely to prevent the very subversion they perpetrate against others. A prime example of this is the firing of Gina Carano.
"Therefore be it resolved that the Communist Party, USA redouble its efforts to fight oppression of LGBT people; and, Be it further resolved that the Communist Party step up its efforts to work for full equality for LGBT people; and, Be it further resolved to establish a National Commission of the Party on the fight for LGBT rights and equality. - Communist Party, USA: Resolution on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Rights, 28th National Convention of the Communist Party, USA, Chicago, IL; July 1-3, 2005."
Which, as usual, the Democrat Party's platform mirrors.
Gina's views were not in conformity with the Communist Platform. Not because she denounced transvestism. She didn't (unfortunately). But because she did not endorse it. And that needs to be emphasized. Gina didn't express any opposition to transvestism in her post. Rather, she refused to do as she was told and endorse it. And for that she was made the object of a crazed, vitriolic hate campaign, which resulted in her termination.
What happened to Gina (and countless others) serves to illustrate why those on the right, who give platitudes about "tolerance" and "inclusion" from the left any credence whatsoever, are abject morons. Leftists do not adhere to their own values. When leftists are in positions of power they're not going to afford you, as a Conservative, the same courtesies and protections they demand for themselves. As seen with Gina who was clearly not afforded that "tolerance." She wasn't kept on the payroll in order to have a more "inclusive" and "diverse" workplace. The proponents of inclusiveness had no qualms about "discriminating" and expelling her for having disparate beliefs and voicing them. They did the complete opposite, as usual, of everything they claim to represent and support, to someone who is ostensibly everything the left claims to love and champion. A strong, independently minded woman. But they didn't love and champion Gina. Why? Because they only support such things when they're in service to the Marxist agenda (i.e., subverting non/anti-Marxist entities). Which means they don't support them at all.
Anyone reading this needs to understand this will happen to you, to some degree, at some point. Many of you no doubt think you will be left alone, and permitted to live your life unmolested, provided you do not express vocal opposition. You won't. It will not be sufficient to merely not oppose the leftist platform. In many instances it's already not. You must endorse it. And eventually you will be required to be complicit as well. How do I know that? Because it's happened before.
"'Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, 'No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. [...] 'Don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.' 'Get out of our way,' they replied. [...] 'We’ll treat you worse than them.' They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door." - Gen 19.
It wasn't enough for Lot to not oppose the mob. He needed to be complicit. Complicity, and even participation, will eventually be requisite for you as well. As society continues to degrade, thanks to the amorality of the ignorant and dimwitted, the number of reprobates will continue to grow, resulting in the accretion of greater socio-political influence, resulting in more of what we've already seen; the decriminalization of certain behaviors. If you think things like pedophilia, or rape can't be legalized, you either haven't been paying attention or you're hopelessly obtuse. Some (morons) will, as always, argue that's hyperbole. That the assertion is "hateful" and absurd. Even as deviants are already openly engaging in coercion campaigns designed to shame people into having sex with them.
Either let transvestites rape you or you're a "hatemonger." And yes, I said rape, because this image is part and parcel of an ongoing, growing "campaign," on the part of sexual deviants to bully others into having sex with them. (What do you think "date" means exactly? Holding hands? Drinking milk shakes together?) And one should understand, there are droves of cretins who will actually argue otherwise, despite the fact the image openly admits the other parties are "unwilling." Merely not opposing is not enough. Non-participation is not enough. "This has to change." If you refuse to participate, to give them what they want, then you are guilty of "hatred." In much the same manner that anyone opposed to any other facet of the subversive Marxist agenda (e.g., "homosexuality," "feminism," anti-white racism, unfettered illegal immigration, etc.) is likewise guilty of "hatred."
Imagine if I went around telling women they're terrible people for being "unwilling" to have sex with me and that "has to change." Imagine me arguing I'm not bad for wanting to have sex with "unwilling" participants. They're bad because their unwillingness is "hatred." Understand that, how the left corrupts language to create moral inversion, and you will understand the left. Corrupt the language of a society and you corrupt the entire society. That's why leftists consistently manipulate, distort, and pervert terminology. They use words incorrectly, out of context, change the meanings of words, invent new ones, and through this they change the collective thought and values (culture) of society. Antonio Gramsci, a pivotal figure in the progression of Cultural Marxism, acknowledged the power of language, how language changes as culture changes, and how this naturally occurs under Marxism as well.
"Language is transformed with the transformation of the whole of civilization. [...] Nobody today thinks that the word 'dis-aster' is connected with astrology or can claim to be misled about the opinions of someone who uses the word. Similarly even an atheist can speak of 'dis-grace' without being thought to be a believer in predestination. The new [...] meaning spreads with the spread of the new culture, which furthermore also coins brand-new words or absorbs them from other languages as loan-words. [...] Thus it is probable that for many people the term 'immanence' is known, understood and used for the first time only in the new 'metaphorical' sense given to it by the philosophy of praxis (Marxism)." - Prison Notebooks.
Basically, language and culture have a reciprocal relationship. As a culture changes its language changes and vice versa. Under Marxism however, this process does not occur organically, but is orchestrated. Marxists deliberately change the meaning of words and create new ones (that serve to advance Cultural Marxism). An example of the former is the term "racism," which now has little to do with its traditional meaning. To be a racist was to believe in the superiority of one's race over others. Under the new Marxist meaning, i.e., disparity with the Marxist platform, one no longer has to believe in their own racial superiority at all to be deemed a racist. You need merely disagree with, or serve as an obstacle to, a Marxist. Examples of the latter are things like "homophobic," "transphobic," "transgender," etc. Utterly meaningless terms, with no basis in reality, that serve purely to induce the intellectual vitiation and moral inversion requisite to advance Cultural Marxism. And this should be obvious even if modern "journalists" didn't openly cite Socialists advocating the corruption of language.
"The Welsh Marxist theorist Raymond Williams’s 1976 book Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Williams’s goal [...] was to encourage readers to become 'conscious and critical' readers and listeners, to see the language of our everyday lives 'not a tradition to be learned (sic), nor a consensus to be accepted, [but as] ... a vocabulary to use, to find our own ways in, to change as we find it necessary to change it, as we go on making our own language and history.' Words gain their power not only from the class position of their speakers: they depend on acquiescence by the listeners." - Rebecca Stoner, The language of capitalism isn’t just annoying, it’s dangerous.
Here's an example of this linguistic subversion in action.
Observe the language. "Equality." "Inclusion." "Rights." "Equality" is a Marxist concept. "Inclusion" facilitates subversion. And "rights" allows one to portray opposition as anti-rights. The language creates moral inversion and makes vilifying opposition easy. Leftists incessantly apply the term "racism" to anyone resisting subversion because racism is considered irredeemably bad. Terms like "homophobia," "transphobia," "misogynist," etc., all serve the same purpose. By constantly referring to traditional beliefs and culture with terms that convey negative connotations, a negative perception of those things is established in the minds of the dimwitted and uninformed, as racism and opposition to Socialism become conflated in their minds. Through this assiduous and interminable verbal denigration of their history and heritage, juxtaposed against constant praise and promotion of Marxist ideals, people are made to feel ashamed of and disinclined to defend the former and more amenable to adopting the latter.
This sophistry must be rejected. We have a right to defend our beliefs, values, and culture.
"By our [...] laws against vice and immorality, we do not mean to enforce religion. [...] But we do mean to protect our customs, no matter that they may have originated in our religion; for they are essential parts of our social life. Instinctively, we defend and protect them. It is mere social self-defense." - Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 1859.
Opposition to Marxism isn't racism. It's "social self-defense." And to that we end we have both the right, and duty, to suppress (be intolerant of) beliefs and behaviors subversive to our own.
Failing to endorse transvestism wasn't Gina's only transgression against the Marxist hate mob. She also had the audacity to make the observation that the Socialist left in America, is disturbingly similar to the Socialist left in mid-twentieth century Germany.
The Nazis also did this. Hence why I stated last August on my social media.
"It's been a source of no small frustration how oblivious the average person is to what crap like this represents. The disposition and rhetoric of groups like BLM is identical in substance to that of the Nazis towards Jews. They view their political opponents, not only as political enemies, but as racial enemies. They openly support the confiscation and redistribution of property belonging to racial enemies. They assiduously vilify political/racial enemies; a precursor to genocide. It seems forgotten today, in the amnesiac West, that the Jews were the object of assiduous and protracted dehumanization campaigns prior to their genocide. Why? Because most people will not support 'genocide.' But they will support the killing of (racist) monsters." - Me, August, 2020.
The Socialist left doesn't just dislike political dissidents. It would be too generous to even say it vilifies them, as it typically seeks to portray dissidents as the consummation of evil. ("Racist," "Nazi," etc.) And the reason for that should be obvious. Validation. They can justify virtually anything, any conduct, no matter how inappropriate or odious in their own minds, if the target of such is deemed the pinnacle of evil.
Dayna, who is increasingly emblematic of the average leftist, doesn't view Republicans as people with a different opinion on politics. She views them as Nazi terrorists, and as such, she feels justified in perpetrating atrocities against them. It wouldn't be innocent people being rounded up, molested, and starved (like Ukrainians under Stalin) in her eyes. It would be monsters getting what they deserve. This predilection and penchant to inflict real atrocities upon people, as recompense for imaginary ones occurring purely in the minds of leftists, has conspicuously been increasing for years. Hence my social media post this past December following the flagrantly stolen election.
"Democrats have been assiduously deluged with the notion that Donald Trump is Hitler for four years. For four years he's been called a fascist, and not just Hitler, but worse than Hitler by the left. Never mind that there are no concentration camps run by the GoP where racial enemies of the Socialist state are being exterminated. Never mind that it was the Democrat Party that put Asian Americans in internment camps just decades ago. Never mind that it's Democrats that adopted and have continued 'Nazi' genocidal eugenics programs (abortion). The TV and the leaders of the Democrat party told them Donald Trump is the king of the White Supremacists so they believe it.
Now ask yourself this. What would you do to get Hitler out of office? Would you falsify ballots to save society (in your mind) from a genocidal racist dictator? It's not even a question of whether or not the Democrat Party would engage in voter fraud. They would, based upon their admitted conceptions of the political landscape, believe it to be a moral imperative. Democrats don't think they're rigging an election, they think they're bringing a genocidal dictator to justice." - Me, December, 2020.
All of you with "Democrat friends," who think they'd never let such a thing happen to you, are mistaken. As Gina correctly observes the more fanatical leftists will line the streets to cheer, and spit on you, while screaming "Nazi" as they round you up and send you to reeducation and extermination camps. Your "Democrat friends," who elevated the people rounding you up to power, will be hiding in their homes as you're carried off, for fear of the repercussions of being associated with you, a racist Nazi terrorist, in any way. They may lament your circumstances in private but, as history has evinced, few if any will put themselves at risk to change them.
What happened to Gina isn't just happening with large corporations. Not anymore. It's happening with much smaller businesses as well. "Diversity" (subversion) grooming is now pervasive and mandatory in businesses of every sort and size. I've gone through it in school and with multiple employers. Nothing of consequence is being done about it. Trump made a tepid, essentially moot gesture in opposition to it, shortly before being expelled from office. The eunuchs of the establishment GOP can't even be relied upon to do that. Virtually all of them have proven utterly impotent to even trammel, much less reverse, the tide of Cultural Marxism. Rapidly shifting values have produced a society that would have been inconceivable mere decades ago. Depravity of a sort that was never even conceived, much less advocated when I was a child, is now celebrated, encouraged, and showcased in virtually every program on television. Feckless psychotic (Marxist) parents openly campaign for the right to destroy the minds and bodies of their own children.
People's lives are being obliterated every day by racially obsessed Socialists, for the slightest transgression against the Marxist hegemony, evincing that "cancel culture" is the name for Cultural Marxism, and even outright fascism, among those who lack the knowledge and discernment to recognize such things for what they are. (Be wary of those who invent and use new names for things that already have one; they merely facilitate Marxist subversion by dictionally obfuscating the truth.) The left has no interest, and no intent, to "tolerate" or even coexist with us. How many more Donald Trumps, Gina Caranos, and Mike Lindells does there have to be before that's understood by our side?
Approaching my conclusion, how did we get here, and how did it come to this? How did we get from a society in which sodomy was illegal in every state and suspected Communists were blacklisted, to one in which it's celebrated and people are blacklisted for not endorsing transvestism and Marxist terrorist organizations? The answer to that is literally provided in the very first line of this contribution. The misconception that freedom is predicated upon untrammeled, indefatigable tolerance, of any and all beliefs. In reality freedom requires suppressing certain beliefs, particularly those contrary to liberty, as much as it does permitting those conducive to such. Genuine liberty (in the West) is based upon a (Judeo-Christian) system of values. Not indiscriminate tolerance.
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, & insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carrol, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.
Freedom is preserved by adhering to those values, and suppressing values contrary or inimical to such. Proffering this truth to others typically produces responses of this nature.
Above is but a brief excerpt of Yuri's video. Look it up and watch the original. It's excellent. Virtually everything he mentions is flagrantly being practiced by the "Democratic" (Marxist) left (and by leftists throughout occidental society). He speaks about the delegitimization of religion and its supplantation with speciously altruistic alternatives. He speaks about the dangerous level of power being wielded by the inept media (e.g., to dictate the outcome of elections). He speaks about a meaningful education being replaced with pseudo-education in meaningless crap (like "gender studies"). He speaks about how Marxists seek acceptance for their beliefs from those they're subverting, but do not extend such to the beliefs of those they're subverting. He speaks about sexual deviancy being promoted, respect for police and law and order being undermined, and how "liberals" would, through specious appeals to "social justice," facilitate all of it. And much more. I've posted Yuri's video for many years. Most of it would be obvious to anyone with a functional knowledge of American history, and done even moderate reading of Marxist theory. (Which, unfortunately, excludes 99% of Americans.)
With Yuri's explication in mind it should be obvious how our society reached its current state. We got to this point because the American people were beguiled into believing the lie that indiscriminate tolerance and freedom are the same thing. Thereby allowing Marxists to gain access to virtually every facet of American society, to subsequently subvert virtually every facet of American society, which in turn allowed them to turn our own institutions (the state, our colleges, our corporations, and even the Church) against us. The American people imbibed the specious rhetoric and allowed the Marxist agenda to progress from demoralization, to destabilization (wide scale Marxist orchestrated riots), and arguably even varying stages of crisis. To put it simply, we did not excise the cancer when doing so would have required and caused little effort and harm, but instead allowed it to metastasize throughout the entire body politic. Easily half the population are now practicing Marxists (whether they realize it or not). Leaving us only two options. The continued systematic extirpation of our beliefs and culture, or civil war.
I've tried for many years, with little success, to explain to other Conservatives that someone's values will be imposed. If not ours then our enemies. Refusing to impose our values, will not (and did not) produce a tolerant society in which all beliefs are equal, but instead one in which our values are extirpated by enemies left to impose their values without opposition. Freedom requires discrimination. It requires a society with both the discernment, and austerity, to both recognize and suppress beliefs inimical to their own beliefs, institutions, and freedoms. A society knowledgeable and moral enough, not only to recognize those hostile invasive beliefs when veiled within specious virtue, but to suppress them. But ours has not been that society.
What could have prevented with minimal difficulty or discomfort, through the "restriction of some liberties for small groups" which are enemies of (i.e., profess beliefs antithetical to) our society, can now only be rectified through a division that sunders the nation or a catastrophic conflict. And it needs to be understood this belies the arguments of those who advocate(d) pacifism. Their reluctance to suppress subversive beliefs, due what they would deem "compassion" for their fellow man, for "oppressed minorities," etc., directly caused our current circumstances. Because they failed to act, when doing so would have been easiest and caused the least harm, we are now all oppressed and subject to far greater evils than that resulting from what Yuri described. The truly compassionate thing to do would have been to strangle this subversion in its cradle, before it extinguished the lives of tens of millions of our children, for example. And yet despite the toll it's taken on our society financially, spiritually, in lost freedoms and lives, etc., we still yet see these specious appeals to tolerance for the sake of preserving "unity" and "peace," as our enemies vandalize, steal, rape, murder, and burn down cities.
The left has been so successful at subverting our society I see little hope at this point. The Democratic Party has long been completely subverted. The GOP as well has been largely subverted. The "Libertarian" party is and has always been a subverted, incoherent, pervert thronged mess. The only party I've seen worth supporting is the Constitution Party, but it exists in nigh total obscurity, precisely because it's not subverted enough (yet) to garner wide-sale support.
In closing I say this to Conservatives. It is okay to be intolerant. Indiscriminate tolerance is not a virtue, and is indicative of stupidity and credulity. Until the right in America has this realization, and stops allowing the left to define right and wrong (through the corruption of language), there can be no hope of saving this country.
