The Hypocrites Iron Fist - The PC Movement in light of the War on Drugs

...CONTINUED...


THE HYPOCRISY OF HYPOCRISIES

No one could argue that SJW'ism doesn't have firm roots in radical Feminism. Yet somehow given the the fact that Sharia Law is without a doubt the most anti-female rights doctrine perhaps known to man, maybe in all of human history, yet somehow SJW's love it to death?

Check out this list of female related tenets of Sharia Law:

• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
www.billionbibles.org...

Perhaps even weirder is how all of mainstream Christianity is against those practices, yet SJW's have complete and utter contempt for Christian's:


Do note that I'm not a Christian, I'm a hardcore agnostic. But this idea they want to ban public displays of Christianity, yet they march around everyday wearing rainbows and unicorns on their sleeves, and that's okay?

Beatings are not the worst of female suffering. Each year hundreds of Muslim women die in "honor killings"-- murders by husbands or male relatives of women suspected of disobedience, usually a sexual indiscretion or marriage against the family's wishes. Typically, the killers are punished lightly, if at all. In Jordan a man who slays his wife or a close relative after catching her in the act of adultery is exempt from punishment. content.time.com...

The penetration of the bride's infibulation takes anywhere from 3 or 4 days to several months. Some men are unable to penetrate their wives at all (in my study over 15%), and the task is often accomplished by a midwife under conditions of great secrecy, since this reflects negatively on the man's potency. Some who are unable to penetrate their wives manage to get them pregnant in spite of the infibulation, and the woman's vaginal passage is then cut open to allow birth to take place. ... Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife." This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis. en.wikipedia.org...

Despite "being an oppressor of women for being a straight white man" (alone), I can't even read anymore material on this topic, despite having 'The Iron Gut of Iron Guts'.

I could go on much further in all of these arguments (as well as spend more days editing whats here), but it's time to move on to my next "epic" post (the why of all this most ultimate case of mass diversion).

In closing, firstly I'll insist, that to everyone that would ever have cause to open and read all of this: Be The Change You Want To See In The World (although if your cause is being a bigot then do us all a favor and just jump off a bridge). Finally, I'll leave you all with this: If SJW'ism were to eventually merge with Sharia Law (as their sympathy for it and behavioral parallels would suggest it could be possible), only then might we realize every single aspect of George Orwell's worst case scenario of a "Final Warning":

I think that allowing for the book being after all a parody, something like 1984 could actually happen. This is the direction the world is going in at the present time. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. The sex instinct will be eradicated. We shall abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty to the party, but always there will be the intoxication of power. Always at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one. Don’t let it happen. It depends on you.

edit

(the why of all this most ultimate case of mass diversion).

Bring it on Igno , bring it on.

Good book.

Might take me a few weeks to read it all.

Well laid out.

Most people think that social justice is a real thing. But it is nothing more than thought control. It is hypocritical and destructive.

We had a brilliant man shamed and his achievements destroyed because these pathetic excuses for people decided that his shirt was an affront to feminism.

www.returnofkings.com...

This is why I don't take these people seriously. No one else should either.

The war on drugs is nothing more than a money making scheme.

For government, of course. SJWs have as much invested in keeping the system the way it is as the government.

They would be irrelevant if we ever did end these policies.

Policies they helped create with their progressivism.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hiya IgnoranceIsntBliss

You've put in a lot of effort, not taking that away from you, but did you realize you've just ended up talking exactly like a feminist academic?

'SJWs' (for want of a better term) talk about everything you're saying and more. There is the whole issue of what color is third wave feminism? It's white and it's middle class for the most part. POC feminists talk about that issue all the time and it includes the war on drugs. Same with black masculinity. There are entire 'SJW' books dedicated to analysis of black masculinity along with hundreds of blog posts from black feminists declaring that white women generally don't know what it's like living with black men and they should rethink or, in some cases, stay out of it all together.

It's like when people talk about SJWs not believing in gender at all. There are entire tomes on this subject just asking the question... if there is no gender, then what the hell is feminism? And if there is gender, which there probably is, then when the hell do we know when equal rights has actually happened?

Most of the questions levelled at what I'll call 'casual' feminists are already well documented in broader feminist literature. This post isn't a scathing defense of your 'SJWs' rather I'm just making a point that if you read these other books and got involved in the discussion it would be the most devastating thing you could do to casual feminists / SJWs... you could ignore them, and the grown ups could have a conversation elsewhere.

The problem with feminism in my eyes isn't the SJWs, it's that you and the media and everyone else doesn't want to put the effort in to find well read, reasonable people to have a conversation with most of the time. It's always anti-feminist vs third wave blogger, like during the whole Suey Park incident.

You've made your own perpetual motion machine. By all means continue to drive it, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

originally posted by: onequestion
Good book.

Might take me a few weeks to read it all.

Oh cmon, I only came to grasp any of this stuff only 6 weeks ago (aside from seeing the last season of South Park), thought of researched gathered wrote coded uploaded & edited this entire piece, impromptu from scratch 'several' weeks ago.

So it might take 3 days to read for you tortured souls that have had to endure this nitpickery constantly since its incremental march began a few years ago

a reply to: Pinke

I appreciate the time you must have spent to write all that.

I hadn't found any pages detailing any of that stuff, so I apologize. In reflecting on this, I would hope for all this nitpickery there would be a lot of actual diversity in the process.

Honestly, I'm a n00b to all this stuff. I'm an exceptional example of a staunch critic of the direction this is already proving to go, especially since I'm as hardcore agnostic libertarian as you could find.

To me, anything that promotes elevated levels of victimization, animosity and prejudice, to me, is a disease. Libertarianism is the surest cure to the CRT/PS mental disease (speaking in metaphor).

It's absurd the fact that SJW's are expected to never be libertarian, given the fact that only libertarianism can inherently bring about (short of totalitarianism) anything resembling the "utopia" one would expect from SJW as a casual observer to the whole premise of the zeal.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

A nice compendium of how fubar it has all become. Well done laying much of it out. Makes hoping for material change in my lifetine seem like an exercise in futility. There is just too much of this nonsense embedded in our institutions, politics, and culture. But I do hope at least some future generation gets it right.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

CRT etc... is a way of looking at things. Its origins don't actually match what it has been applied to. I'm not saying what parts I agree with or don't disagree with, it's just an FYI. A lot of the original applications were around legal matters.

Truth I that a lot of gender studies courses internationally (I don't know about the USA) struggle with the conversation simply because of how fragile people can be on the subject. It's not just a white male problem, a lot of people struggle to have reasonable conversations on the topic because of the activism around it.

I'm not even saying that you will agree with a lot of wider feminism, am just saying its there and people already furiously ask these questions. It's like asking your average NRA member about guns. You'll get a bunch of poorly thought out nonsense. That said, there are well read people out there within and outside of universities.

If you want to share references sometime let me know. I'm not a super expert, but I do share your issues with the application of some theories if you check my post history. I've also somehow managed to stay a feminist though haha

First and foremost this is an excellent writeup with great effort, even the parts that were profoundly stupid. But it is mostly valid reasoning, and infinitely better than the single-paragraph-rantings of most threads that thrive here.

The War on Drugs is simply not a failure because, in actuality, its purpose is to increase revenue and power within the government and private hands. Selling a product to people and then incarcerating them for it is just good business sense; you make far more money that way. Keeping drugs illegal is a great way to monopolize the industry and assert control over it. Drugs themselves are a great way of keeping people pacified.

Remember how opium production increased under the occupation, while the Taliban had suppressed it. Suspicious, no?

That said the best weapon against cartels would certainly be regulation of drugs. I fully agree with sentences against people driving while high or otherwise endangering other lives, but when left to themselves, it is not a crime to ingest something. No one should care about what you do in your basement.

Cannabis is an interesting case study in this SJW ordeal, as it basically debunks this idea that homosexuals are "oppressed" considering the fact that there's hardly a show on TV anymore that doesn't have to feature some sort of gay love scene in every episode

Okayyy... aside from having nothing to do with anything, somehow homosexual people aren't discriminated against because a couple tv shows have gay scenes? "Hardly a show" that doesn't, do you only get HBO or something?


Being a "pothead" should be a negative connotation. All this talk about removing labels yet somehow people's primary personal identifier is with a drug? It's just stupid. Not to mention how they all like to deflect blame for everything onto alcohol. A man enjoys a beer after work or at lunch and he's an alcoholic, yet potheads can get high every day and live with a cognitive dissonance that they do not have a problem? It's absurd. There is such a thing as too much of anything.

Of every group that will be mentioned in here, or even could be, none have been more oppressed than Potheads.

You cannot be serious trying to compare people who make a choice to use (and sometimes abuse) an illegal substance with oppression for being born a certain color or sexuality. Regardless of the absurdity of it being illegal, people are still deliberately choosing to break a law.

You can blame Obama all you want for not passing drug laws, but he did state his intention to in his Vice interview. Think about all the flak he received for gay marriage, which is an even easier concept than drug legalization.



Yes, it is completely hypocritical for people to be anti-rape culture and then lambaste men and wish prison rape upon them. But you can cherry-pick the internet for idiots of any leaning to make a point. There are hypocritical people everywhere, and the best thing to do is ignore them. Addressing them will only embolden them.

today one could change the word Jew to SWM's in all of that, and it'd read coherently in line with what is already happening today with this social justice front.

Oh christ, don't even try to compare the horror of being a straight white male with being a Jewish person in nazi germany. We are not being exterminated. This is alarmist and outright disingenuous.



Regardless of the denial that perpetuates on this site, racism does exist plentifully. I have lived in the US and Canada, Europe, the Middle East, and hatred of black people is pretty universal, for literally no reason. But that's just the nature of racism, it is unreasonable.

But you're exactly right that the civil-rights-movement-wannabes of modern day have taken things far past the goalpost and circled around to the starting point. They have been so anti-racist that many have become racist themselves. Hating white people for something other white people did is racism, period.


As for sharia law, can you provide one example of a self-identifying social justice warrior promoting it here? What about one example of someone being okay with stoning gay people? No? Methinks you are conflating acceptance of Muslims in general with some extremist stretch of the imagination. Supporting someone's right to faith is nowhere near supporting violence, and neither is it hypocritical. I also support other religions right to faith, even if they hate a group. It's their actions against them that are criminal.

I've probably lived in more Muslim countries than most members of this site, and I did not have problems as a white atheist. Human beings are generally courteous if you give them a chance. But then again we have bombed all of the actually liberal Muslim nations (Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq) and militarily supported the extremist ones (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan).

Notice how the vast majority of genital mutilation is done in Africa? When I asked locals in Arabic countries about it they all stated that it was a purely African cultural tradition. The numbers support that. And its not even based on their holy book, but rather the commentaries on it.
And I find it amusing that nobody gives a damn about male genital mutilation. (onward come the excuses)

As for Christians complaining about not being allowed to show Christmas imagery... why on earth would you want to? Christmas isn't Christian. It's a pagan holiday.

Damn fine writing!

👌 Took me about an hour or so to read because it was very well thought out and RELEVANT, but certainly well worth it. I learned a lot and agreed with it all.

Thank you, and look forward to your next post concerning the 'why'. 👍

originally posted by: SargonThrall
First and foremost this is an excellent writeup with great effort, even the parts that were profoundly stupid. But it is mostly valid reasoning, and infinitely better than the single-paragraph-rantings of most threads that thrive here.

The main driving directives were in building a compendium of hypocrisies AND authoritarian parallels.

This was done in a hurry. I was as patient with it as I could stand, between never having the time for any of this (I cant stress that enough), and it quickly growing into a monster that grew increasingly absurd to edit (having to write + code it simultaneously). I could have spent a lot more time on every subject. But it went on far beyond expected, and beyond not having time I just couldn't take it anymore I had to end it.

I'll address your points as the day goes on....

a reply to: Pinke

I just cant see where lumping people into groups, and then focusing their energy on "oppressions" can be expected to have good outcomes. Not anymore. Oppressions used to be REAL DEAL. But with equal rights across the board now, and with stacks of non-discrimination laws (for everybody but SWM), and this trend now where SWM have the lowest odds of getting hired, I just don't see the point in what feminism hopes to achieve beyond this point. To push any further, the only place left to go, well reread my OP.

That does leave the continual battering on the blacks as a whole, and the War On Drugs is the solution to that problem (where motivating them to want to kill whitey is the absolute worst thing for them I can see right now beyond the War On Drugs itself).

The progressive movement was needed at one time, and should stay on peoples minds, while a healthy dose of conservatism (like skepticism) should linger in peoples minds as well. But those 2 ideologies held in extremes, especially while representing left/right us/them divide/conquer, to stick to that model, like with pushing CRT/PS on people, is all backwardsness.

Left/right got us out of the 20th Century. In the 21st Century libertarianism is what's needed, while ousting the Bankster Elite (like Occupy was supposed to be about) is needed, ending the War On Drugs is needed. Without these things humanity is sunk in 20 years. What technology is about to do in the next 10, it alone, is already too big a threat, that for this stuff to be boiling over right as we're about to cross that rubicon, my doubts about the survival of the species past 2050 have never been lower.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Thread, Bro!

Big S&F for the relevance and work put forth on this thread.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Funny enough, the very top reason I dislike academic narratives on anything sociological is the language structure, it's generally pretentious and verbose. I suspect that is true for most people even while feminist or staunchly egalitarian, stay the hell away from Theory.

Verbosity may serve as a great stretching exercise for writing law or legal arguments down the road but then again our laws and legal language are stupidly wordy and I'm really certain that it's intentional so that people groan and beg for TL;DR breakdowns.

I suspect, strongly, that had your title not been clearly derogatory click-bait intended to make your target audience salivate at the prospect that one of their own could write a page and half OP, you would have been mistaken for a most devoted pupil of the most unpopular feminism known to exist.

What's even more comical is that you borrowed the verbosity and the vernacular of that which you despise and brought it to a place where most (it was so refreshing to see some others not buying your BS) will just flag you (no, flags truly don't matter but it's a decent judge of accepted versus rejected) simply for the title. You didn't bring this to a place where you could actually debate/discuss what you feel is a truth about the something you are clearly obsessed with revealing.

Now as for your talking points, I'll summarize... You project Libertarianism as the cure academic feminism seeks but twists itself into pretzels over while ignoring the type of feminism (really sociology) that exists in Left-Wing Libertarianism and its cry to end the War on Drugs.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Trying to stay on this Bronc...I think I've agreed with you and disagreed with you at least 50 times

Doesn't matter - I think you should get some kind of a prize for this

:-)

originally posted by: Kali74

Now as for your talking points, I'll summarize... You project Libertarianism as the cure academic feminism seeks but twists itself into pretzels over while ignoring the type of feminism (really sociology) that exists in Left-Wing Libertarianism and its cry to end the War on Drugs.

Thank you!!! You just saved me about an hour of wasted time.

originally posted by: SargonThrall
The War on Drugs is simply not a failure because, in actuality, its purpose is to increase revenue and power within the government and private hands. Selling a product to people and then incarcerating them for it is just good business sense; you make far more money that way. Keeping drugs illegal is a great way to monopolize the industry and assert control over it. Drugs themselves are a great way of keeping people pacified.

Don't disagree with your sentiments there. I was trying my best to be moderate in my approach, and minimize "conspiracy theory". While your angles would actually make cause to enhance my urging of them facing this (the TRUE "Patriarchy"), trying to "prove" that whole angle was too far beyond the scope.

Okayyy... aside from having nothing to do with anything, somehow homosexual people aren't discriminated against because a couple tv shows have gay scenes? "Hardly a show" that doesn't, do you only get HBO or something?

You're saying gays aren't over represented in media? Then how do you account for the public having the impression that some 20%+ of the population are gay, when its only 4%?

Being a "pothead" should be a negative connotation. All this talk about removing labels yet somehow people's primary personal identifier is with a drug? It's just stupid.

Cannabis Culture is a REAL thing. Period. As is Psychedelic / Psychonaut Culture. I dont actually knock beers or buds. If SJW's get to be unicorns they're inventing, lol.

Not to mention how they all like to deflect blame for everything onto alcohol. A man enjoys a beer after work or at lunch and he's an alcoholic, yet potheads can get high every day and live with a cognitive dissonance that they do not have a problem? It's absurd.

BLAME isn't the word I would use, unless it's in regards to Big Booze lobbying against cannabis. They use it to highlight the hypocrisy of the whole War On Drugs, it being the most harmful drug of all. BLAME is what SJW's do.

Of every group that will be mentioned in here, or even could be, none have been more oppressed than Potheads.
You cannot be serious trying to compare people who make a choice to use (and sometimes abuse) an illegal substance with oppression for being born a certain color or sexuality. Regardless of the absurdity of it being illegal, people are still deliberately choosing to break a law.

Who are you to say that many people weren't born to be cannabis users, or trippers, etc? Okay, so people born anything but SWM, they get the world handed to them on a platinum platter from now on (especially if they THINK they need to be a different gender to feel good). But people who cannabis makes them complete, they need to still looked down upon?

You can blame Obama all you want for not passing drug laws, but he did state his intention to in his Vice interview. Think about all the flak he received for gay marriage, which is an even easier concept than drug legalization.

He can sign an executive order and done deal. He's had 8 years to campaign, to prepare everyone for the transition. Instead he's out-spent Bush by a long shot on anti-medical marijuana efforts. I had to take a double take when I saw that part.

originally posted by: Kali74
You didn't bring this to a place where you could actually debate/discuss what you feel is a truth about the something you are clearly obsessed with revealing.

That's makes no sense. But if I'm t gather anything from it, whatever, I'm a master debater, and unlike what you just did with most of your response, I deal with the issues. I guess you did deal with one of mine:

Now as for your talking points, I'll summarize... You project Libertarianism as the cure academic feminism seeks but twists itself into pretzels over while ignoring the type of feminism (really sociology) that exists in Left-Wing Libertarianism and its cry to end the War on Drugs.

Check out my last response to Pinke up above for the feminism/liberal/etc part.

If ending the War On Drugs is a top priority for the SJW lot, then why doesn't the BLM site have some page that is the ULTIMATE debunker/destroyer of the War On Drugs? They've had over 3 years to do it. Yet it took me to do it for them, single-handedly, in only about 3 weeks.

What protests/rallies/etc have they held about it? Why haven't SJW's been Occupying the White House over it? What proper SJW website/organization is dedicated to this issue? Where is the manifesto with it at the top of the list?

Without all that, as I've argued, the whole zeal of the SJW mania is hollow; void.