NYC Mayor Defends Ban on Religious Gatherings, Says Black Lives Matter Protests OK Because of ‘Profound Meaning’

submitted by scrubking from (thegatewaypundit.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Liberalism is a religion. It fulfills the same "create meaning from the chaos around us" function that religions are designed to do. It has its priests and its doctrine. Those who disagree with it are considered heretical, and we all know that heretics end up dead.

The difference is that because there is no God or Heaven, there is no hope in the chaos among liberals. All they have is their obsession with their doctrine, which keeps leading the areas they dominate into shithole status, and then they proceed to execute witch hunts to explain the failure of the same thing that keeps failing, again and again and again...

When people realize that this is a religious movement, their actions cease to be a mystery and become much more predictable.

[–]BobQuixote 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Eh, that applies to a subset, sure. Plenty of leftists are level-headed and not looking for Nazis to punch. You just don't generally hear about the reasonable people on the other side, same way they mostly hear about the sensational nutjob right-wingers.

[–]StillLessons 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

When I was younger, I was a liberal, and I was proud of it. Liberals in those days were more prone to reason than those on the right. We discussed issues and left open the possibility of being wrong. At that time, the I was one of the leftists you describe.

But as aThievingStableboy says, the government-scale institution representing Liberals (the Democratic party) has now completely jumped the shark. By employing censorship, they are stating that their ideas may not be considered wrong, and that anyone who disagrees with them is heretical. Given that the issues being discussed are social issues, there is no quantifiable science to this. There is no material basis for claiming a "right" and a "wrong", only social acceptance or not. This is textbook religious territory.

I abandoned the left for two reasons, initially because having witnessed the cycle of the left's "solution" played out enough times in enough places, it clearly doesn't work. Redistribution is a noble idea. I approve of the idea, and with little experience, I promoted it. But with a few decades more experience, it becomes clear this philosophy does. not. work. Time to move on.

The more important reason in the long run, however, is what we are discussing here. Any philosophy which claims to represent the "only acceptable answer" is a fast track to mob-violence, state-sanctioned. We've witnessed this play far too many times, and I will speak against it for as long as I am allowed.

[–]BobQuixote 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I agree with all of that, except my path has been different (and shorter). I was raised as a Republican, a conservative. Now I take a libertarian approach to policy and arrive at roughly centrist conclusions.

While I was moving away from Republican orthodoxy, the party moved in the other direction. It is now fully, and was already partially, the other party of big government.

Not only that, the GOP is now deliberately running against institutional norms to gain power, undermining the rule of law in the Supreme Court, and attempting to disenfranchise those who would vote for opposing candidates. This is not my conservatism.

Yes, leftists are, by and large, self-righteous, and many of their ideas are broken. They are enabled in their self-righteousness by the Republicans clearly gripping the wrong answers. And the worst part is we only have two options. Reasonable people will be found picking each of them.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm a vocal vote for None of the Above. Each party leads to a different form of evil. My not voting will not stop the process, but it is the best I can do, at least to assure that they do not gain momentum or legitimacy from my personal energy, small though that may be. By voting the lesser of two evils, you give energy and legitimacy to recognized evil. Given that this evil includes clear child exploitation and murder (on both sides), this cannot be viewed helplessly as somehow "better than the other side...."

[–]BobQuixote 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Given that this evil includes clear child exploitation and murder

What are you referring to?

[–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Look up the case of republican Larry King in the 1980s. Then think Epstein and his clear political connections. It's right in front of our faces. Just need to see it.

[–]BobQuixote 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I looked at King's Wikipedia article and don't see anything that fits your description. Even so, King and Epstein would not be enough to support your claim.

[–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

First, let's make sure we're talking about the right Larry King.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations

Now, this is Wikipedia, which has downplayed many "conspiracy theories" in the past. Because Wikipedia is biased toward more "official" sources, there is a natural anti conspiracy-theory bias there. That's fine. This is one perspective to balance against other perspectives.

If you're willing to do a little more digging, this one comes up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQHrbJPhus4 (The Franklin Coverup - The Discovery Channel)

Now what's so fascinating about this is that this is from 1993, and the Discovery Channel was hardly a raving factory of "conspiracy theory". This is a very mainline source, who were prevented from broadcasting this. That in itself is very interesting. Then - if you are willing to watch it, you can see the actual people making the accusations. The ones actually involved. Then it becomes a question (as all questions are) of Who Do You Believe? And if you decide to believe those who claim this was a hoax, then we disagree. I've had contact with a lot of addicts and beaten-down people in my real life over the years. Spent a fair amount of time in 12-step rooms. There is a quality to reality that I trust myself to recognize. Actors come close, but there is something else there. I see these accusers, and I believe them.

There is also a video (though I have lost the link) of the interview with one of these accusers by the police. I wish I had that, because there's further credible evidence in there.

But again, in the end this will come down to Who Do You Believe? I believe these accusers, and I do not believe the people who claim this is all just conspiracy theory.

Lastly, if you believe that after his history with Monica Lewinsky, where he was forced into the open in front of us all, that Bill Clinton was just "casually associated" with Jeffrey Epstein, we really have little to talk about. Clinton is a very gifted liar. Are you willing to accept that? Given how fluently he lies, why in the hell would anyone believe a word he says about this, where he has the most to hide?

Agree with what I say here or not. Disagreement represents a difference in perspective as to the level of moral decay we currently face in our society. I see society-ending moral decay. Maybe you don't. I wish you the best either way.

[–]BobQuixote 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, I appreciate the extensive reply; I did not expect an attempt to fill out that evidential support.

I've started watching the video, but it's so long I replied before finishing it. I'll resume it later. It is at least better than what I saw for PizzaGate when that came out.

I'm pretty sure there is corruption involving some sort of sex-related activity (per Epstein's death), but I'm not convinced it has infected essentially the entire government, or that it involves a vast human trafficking network, or that it has anything to do with something so cartoonish as Satan worship or cannibalism.

I'm not sure my answer to all this, if I were to end up agreeing with you, would be not voting. The two things I can think of are 1) no change - there's nothing to do until something shakes out so you know the enemy, or 2) work in politics as an aide, or get some other job close to the suspects in order to shake something out myself.