Leftists conceal their agenda behind accusations


Leftists are a variety of the Crowdist, or the person who decides that he desires no oversight by social standards and so joins others in a lynch mob to overthrow culture, hierarchy and morality.

Conservatives normally mistake these for nihilists, or people who believe in nothing, but the grim fact is that Crowdists believe very much in their new God: themselves, and the pretense that they have created which says their selfish power seizure is in fact “altruistic” or “egalitarian.” In reality, it is neither.

Like a scam artist caught in the act, a Crowdist will turn and attack when confronted. They will promptly accuse you of whatever they are doing. If they say you are stealing, then check their pockets because assuredly they are. In the same way, Crowdists pre-emptively attack by using an accusation to force you to relinquish control.

The pattern never changes, although most people cannot see it because it takes form with different issues and slogans. They find a person or group of persons who are in some way having a hard time in life, invent a story about how this is a systematic event — in other words a product of the culture, hierarchy and morality they wish to destroy — and then march up to their leaders and demand to know “what is being done” about this.

Usually, their leaders have nothing to say about it, because the people who are having a hard time, like most of us until we learn discipline, are victims of themselves and no one else. The winos and criminals of the world usually in the process of deceiving others come to deceive themselves and fall prey to their own illusions when they collide with reality. Think of the man who insists he does not have a gambling problem and can quit any time when the loansharks show up during dinner hour.

Back in 1789, the Crowdists stumbled into a perpetual “blank check” for all of their activities. This was equality, which was designed as a weapon for class warfare, in which those who are not succeeding demand that those who have succeeded redistribute the wealth and power on the basis of the non-succeeders being human too. This morphed into Civil Rights at the time of the American civil war when Crowdists realized that as long as they could find a black victim, they could seize power much as they did any time they found a group of starving peasants near the Bastille. From there they have expanded to other groups: women, other ethnic and religious minorities, gays/etc and even extreme sexually nonconforming people like polygamists, pedophiles and incest participants.

Their old refrain goes like this, courtesy of Peter Singer:

Why do racism, sexism and discrimination against people with disabilities still exist, despite the widespread acceptance that they are wrong? There are several reasons, but surely one is that many people act unthinkingly on the basis of their emotional impulses, without reflecting on the ethics of what they are doing. That, of course, invites us to discuss why some people have these negative emotional impulses toward people of other races, and that in turn leads to the old debate whether such prejudices are innate or are learned from one’s culture and environment. There is evidence that even babies are attracted to faces that look more like those of the people they see around them all the time, so there could be an evolved innate element, but culture certainly plays a very significant role.

The message in the above is an accusation: you do what is convenient for you, not what is right, because — see, here we have these people who are not succeeding. Since we are all equal (we assume) the only reason for their lack of success is that some horrible injustice has been done to them. Even more, the message above equates opposing miscegenation with knee-jerk responses and animal instincts, which makes us feel unsuccessful and un-evolved if we choose it. Yet our gut instincts often save us in time of stress and danger, and — as conservatives will note — those ideas which have succeeded longest are probably best.

But let us think strategically here. What might Singer and his liberal cohorts be concealing? In other words, what are they using to accuse us, while actually being guilty of it themselves? Discrimination, obviously, which was once a word for having high standards but now means failure to include anyone, no matter how broken or useless, in your activities. We mind wonder what they are actually discriminating against, except that it becomes clear: defense of the less-equal means penalizing the more-equal. As analyzed by one IQ researcher, the discriminated group is not a tangible ethnic or religious grouping, but intelligent people — those who might notice the flaws in our ideology — who rise above the “equal plus” standard of marginally talented that guarantees success in the herd:

By dividing the distribution function of the elite professions’ IQ by that of the general population, we can calculate the relative probability that a person of any given IQ will enter and remain in an intellectually elite profession. We find that the probability increases to about 133 and then begins to fall. By 140 it has fallen by about 1/3 and by 150 it has fallen by about 97%. In other words, for some reason, the 140s are really tough on one’s prospects for joining an intellectually elite profession. It seems that people with IQs over 140 are being systematically, and likely inappropriately, excluded.

All of recent history represents a vast conspiracy to avoid those who might notice. The intelligent, or those above 120, are most suspect; those who hover at 120 or just below are intelligent enough to be clever but fall short of genius. This makes them perfect drones because they will feel vastly accomplished for simple tasks, and cannot understand anything more complex, but are arrogant enough based on their superior status to the real doofuses that they will ignore anything they do not understand. They are the perfect zombies for an army united by ideology.

Most people fall to understand that Crowdism exists for a single reason, which is to avoid consequences of the actions of those in the Crowd. They fear any higher standard which will reveal them to be dumber, more shortsighted, less moral, or of deprecated utility compared to others. They want a zero standard which approximates the lowest possible so that they have no chance of failing. Their hope is to avoid any confrontation with reality, or those who notice reality, by discriminating against those of higher intelligence while simultaneously accusing that group of discriminating against the “disadvantaged,” a.k.a. anyone not doing so well under a reasonably realistic social system.

The goal of Crowdism — and by extension, of liberalism — is to avoid those who might notice that the Crowd ideal is out of line with reality. Crowdists work to make jobs into mind-numbing tedium, society into a series of bureaucratic tasks, and to ruin the family and any other honest attributes of society. This drives away the smarter people, who require more from life than bread and circuses, and allows the idiots to take over. This is the sole reason for their focus on discrimination; they are guilty of it themselves, and they want to distract from this so that no one notices the ongoing removal of the smart and their replacement with obedient near-dunces who, in the time-honored tradition of those smart enough to make fun of others but not understand their own failings, will proclaim themselves natural leaders and promptly push their civilization into ruin.

Tags: , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading