/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

You're an idiot with a facetious strawman. Nobody believes there is a political right to be a murderer or pimp, unless they're Nazi or Satanic faggots. There isn't a political right to "be black" either, but no one serious believes being black is a crime or moral hazard, unless they're eugenicist and Nazi fags. Being a fag is a moral hazard - that's how these things were understood, and a fag is a particular type of homosexual that revels in the rot. It is the position of fags that everything must be like them, and guess what sort of people were in the sub basement of Nazi ideology and enabled it in the streets. It is true - exterminate faggots, and you will eliminate fascism. But, fascism is more that mere faggotry. Faggotry is a tool of such people to be used and put aside once it does its work.

All of this has been an effort to steer outrage towards eugenics. They can't make people "love" eugenics without extensive torture, so the bastards imposed a program of society-wide mandated torture, ritual sacrifice, and Satanism to make us accept an incompetent and vicious ruling elite. All of this is because it was too much for them to let us live - to let us live out any sort of life or have any social existence at all. Anyone who went out of their way to enable this faggotry with these asinine questions and false moral equivalences should burn in Hell.

>>477222
I reject your false accusations of committing a straw-man and a moral equivalence fallacy, and half of your rant seems to go off topic. BTW you clearly agree with me that Minority protections aren't universal when you say this:
>Nobody believes there is a political right to be a murderer or pimp

Why is there a universal discourse when we clearly pick and choose which groups get extra protections and which ones don't. Lets look at it from yet another point of view. The people that capitalism denies employment, technically count as a minority too, but they don't get much of that minority protection love.

I think there is a fragment of ideology hiding in there somewhere that hasn't been subjected to materialist analysis.

You can make an argument against all sorts of discrimination without having to make it depend on the size of the affected group. Consider potential alternatives: for example you could make it depend on the amount of power a group has instead. At least that would give you a metric that aligns a little bit closer with the intent.

Maybe i should have included my suspicions about the origins for this. Ruling classes tend to see them selves as being surrounded and besieged by the masses. As a small minority that is engaged in a battle to defend their privileges and power against the majority of the population. Maybe that makes it clearer what my motivations are.

>>477224
My god I can't believe I have to respond to this faggotry, but I'll bite because I'm bored.

>Why is there a universal discourse when we clearly pick and choose which groups get extra protections and which ones don't.

Because the "protections" are things that are basic to a free society, and this is clearly stipulated in the US by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This false equivocation, and things like it, are always from fags who want to relitigate the purpose of that language, which was to abolish institutions that resembled chattel slavery. The "protections" they want to remove are anything that would be a de facto restoration of slavery, and nothing else. So, this is why we have this idiotic and artificial discourse about "extra" protections. Fags like this are either aware of why they do this, or they're really naive idiots who are taught so horrifically and spread their stupidity like a disease.

The root of this is some Popperian faggotry where the state must be utterly impotent, unless it is to direct an eternal war against the weak. Imma just post a link to my book where I excoriate that stupid man, and it might be helpful to read the writing to understand how this sort of thing works and where it comes from:
http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/mymethod.html#note1202

The reason for the language is not that it refers to anything factual, but that it uses legal tricks and dodges to assert that the law can be whatever the holders of the court want it to be, and that the law has a monopoly on reality itself. That is, the law is no longer referent to a world outside of it. The law instead asserts that it is one with the universe, and only those who hold the law can decide what is real and what is not. What is a necessity of legal courts and procedures - courts cannot just accept something as authentic or real - is turned into a device for reality control. The point of doing this is to make the law irrelevant, and this is where the anarchist ideology and philosophy is at work. The point of doing this is to make it so we cannot speak of a single fact, and "Oceania has no law". This doesn't just work as a power grab for temporary purposes. It is a step towards a permanent state of exception, and the ruling of the court is that it will autistically declare reality. It is controlled insanity. This is the only way eugenics can survive, and it has been embraced as a defense of slavery, which eugenics is a reiteration of. That's why this type of "reasoning" is imposed, and it is always an ultraviolent and maximal claim. There is no "minor" version of this. That thinking is then for the slaves, who are not permitted to speak of anything real, and must always operate within the fictions of a presumed "default position" that is unmentionable. These people then claim they are "totally mateiralist". You see here the source of many bastardizations of socialism, liberalism, or even fascist thought, which whatever you may think about it, has a basis in something real to justify its existence. The eugenic creed violates any concept of reality and replaces it with the purest faggotry yet entered into the public arena. You can see here how this guy wants to make the argument that murderers and pimps are morally equivalent to anything else, and must be redirected to vague aspersions about "minorities", when everyone is quite aware he just wants to say uyghur uyghur uyghur like the old days. Hilariously enough, in the old days, people didn't think "uyghur uyghur uyghur" was an actual legal or moral doctrine, but people like this don't think that far. They just think if they can say uyghur uyghur uyghur again, they'll be strong, and this is where you get fags on /pol believing the word uyghur has magical powers, yet they're too cowardly to say this publicly because they know they'd be turned into paste if they weren't coddled and enabled. Only in Germanic schooling can this rot fester, and they've engineered society in such a way that we're not able to say no to them without threats of violence. That's all they ever have.

So, as to why you don't claim there's a "right to murder and pimping", I don't think I should have to explain that, but it's not something you had to look to the letter of the law or a rational purpose to explain. You can explain that murder and pimping has obvious consequences that a child can discern with little effort, but the point of this talking point is to force everyone into reductio ad absurdums - and again, this all relies on institutions enabling it and punishing anyone who refuses to play this Satanic cycle game. That's what they engineered in society, and dared us to attack at inopportune moments. It goes on as long as people kowtow to this, and it's intended to promote the idea that the "only way out", the only "rebirth", is more Germanic faggotry. They never have any other idea. What a stupid race.

"Being black" does not have any intrinsic moral quality. This is what they really want - "crimes of Being". The only crime in their view is a crime against eugenics. This is basic to the Germanic conception of the political. The insinuation is always made that this is rooted in a judgement of intelligence - and intelligence is the only quality they can care about for their ideology and theory to work, so it's never about any other moral quality or trait of a person, and it's never about intelligence in a genuine sense, but about a political conceit and aspersion of "who the smart people are". You can develop actual metrics of intelligence - military brain choppers have lots of them, the real tests instead of the autism score faggotry - but these metrics don't have any intrinsic political meaning, nor are they fundamentally what allows political rights. It is ultimately a conceit of managers and proprietors, and the stupidest of their race at that - and it is their thinking which animates this race-faggotry that has become the definition of society, so I can refer to the eugenists as a race of profoundly retarded and Satanic apes. The people who harp constantly about this are the graspers who think if they kick down, they won't go into the special education room. This faggotry dominates the American schooling regime I grew up in, and it's something all of the political theorists never acknowledge, because their theories could only render us as "retarded", "evil". Their theories could only have created the world we got, and they made sure no other idea or resistance was possible. That wraps up humanity as a project, until anything new happens, which won't happen until the bastards make us into what they want us to be.

Anyway, in case you're not actually this stupid, why liberals do this is clear - they don't want to keep most of humanity. It's eugenics, it's always been eugenics, and everyone who denied the centrality of eugenics and kept pushing away anyone saying what this was is an asshole. Worse yet were those who disrupted our lives when we tried to merely live, because it wasn't enough for them to lock us out of political life. Satanics can't think of anything else. They're a failed race.

There is no "other explanation", no "ulterior motive". I wish people here would stop pretending. They can try to move on and continue ignoring it, but don't act like this isn't happening. Just say you revel in the thrill of torture, which is what eugenics must always do, and then we can go on with the appropriate grounding to define the human race and its project. I don't think it's hard to see that the human race is a failed race and so there is no "other system" or endgame, so long as this idea is sacrosanct. But, you can't end it. Not now. It went on for too long, and everyone enabling it with these weasel words should know better by now. If not, it should be promulgated en masse what this is, and no one should ever lie about this so brazenly. Not when they enter our homes, destroy our families, make sure we are not allowed to have ANY conversation, and start cannibalizing basic things. Satanics can't do anything but that.

>>477222
>>477224
>>477235
>>477236
>>477237
Nice blog post, faggot. The OP wasn't an essay prompt.

That all said, "minority rights" are not actually a thing in legal theory. All such rights, so far as it pertains to American concepts of law, were extensions of the Equal Protection Clause, and so they were always rights that were presumed to be universal for all who were subject to the law. There is an obvious out for that - place subjects "beneath the law" by declaring them insane or retarded. But, no society can endure if a runaway shouting of "retarded" or ritual sacrifice became the only law. If it did, it would clearly obviate any pretense of the law's existence and we would have to regard the genuine situation as what it was, in which case there is no argument for any right whatsoever. Rights pertain to a society of laws where they could even be considered, and in eugenist society, the concept of any right is abolished forever. I can tell you though that as a policy, absolute torture is not very effective for anything you'd want to do. That is the point though - to make life unlivable so that "soft pressure" maximizes torture, exploitation, and the kill rate.

All of that said, the legal standing of civil rights or things like that was always understood as part of regular society. No one was given "special rights". There was really no basis for affirmative action legally, but it was understood to everyone that this was intended to bring an end to the "racial question" in America, rather than enshrine permanent inequality or racialism. It was not intended to mark black people or anyone else as "special", and it was always specifically aimed towards the question of racial strife, because that was a political nightmare for the US in all respects. Everyone who isn't a retard could see that the status quo was fucked up and served no good purpose whatsoever. The only people who want it are fags who insist on getting people to kill each other over peanuts. It's what Sodomites do.

America in the 21st century is, at least in legal codes, very anti-racist and denies a racial basis for society or any value to it. That was one objective, or at least that was the goal that most reasonable people could agree on. Basically 90% or more of Americans would agree that what it was in the past is not tenable, regardless of their private racism or interests. Every attempt to reintroduce racism is purely about eugenics and their proposals are always for screaming eugenism. Once eugenics is on the line, everyone will race to kick down anyone for any reason, and that's the only thing that can be litigated. At this point, most of the purpose of this debate is to ignore anything that would suggest there is a single thing in the world opposing eugenics. They really don't care about race, so long as eugenics wins and black people enforce it among their own kind, internalize it. They got enough of them to enable it and enthusiastically support dismembering the weaker of them. That was necessary to promote total and full eugenism.

At this point, with eugenics being paramount, I suspect the minority groups will start supporting resegregation - to keep whites away from them, because the whites are insane and cannot be trusted. The German volkish idea is being imposed to break up the US into plantations, and their dream is to enslave everyone who isn't a Nazi screamer.

Point being, there can no longer be any "us" - and it you see the eugenist vanguard, they do not believe there will ever be an "us" or a democratic society. That's always been the enemy - to insist that people cannot get along for whatever reason, that only a "volk" that is Germanized is correct. It's not just Nazism. It's Satanism.

Their ideas will never work, but the point of doing this isn't to stabilize society, but the exact opposite - to prepare the ground for general and open purges and exterminations, and to make life unliveable until the people agree to anything.

>>477235
>a de facto restoration of slavery
Do you even realize that in a slave society the slaves are the majority and the slave owners are the minority ?

>>477239
Dude >>477224 is OP

>>477244
Are you capable of reading, idiot? Being a majority does not have any intrinsic moral authority. Things like that show you lack any comprehension of anything. Ever.

>>477245
>intrinsic moral authority
that makes no sense to me, even as a abstract concept.
>Being a majority
The fact that you reacted to this tells me there is some kind of negotiation about quantity. I don't really get it.

Lets examine a concrete example, the fucked up shit they did to gay people in the 80s with the electrical shocks. In my mind that was fucked up because it was torture disguised as a medical thing, regardless to whom or how many it was done. Can you tell me about the quantity aspect: How does it change the measure of horror in relation to how many people they did that to ?

>you lack any comprehension
Nah, this isn't about me. Remember that i'm just trying to figure out whether this is something like an ideological reflection of ruling ideology. You can make any person part of a majority group or a minority group depending on how you define the boundaries of groups, and you can reframe the identical moral argument as minority concern or a majority concern. You can even go one step further and not use a quantitative frame at all (which is what i did in the example above).

My speculation is that the Neo-liberal society has produced a social structure where only about 10% of the population can have a decent existence and that creates an ideological pressure to express all forms of social protections in terms of minorities, because only a small fraction of neo-liberal society can be protected.

>>477250
My god you really are a dumb kid. I refuse to believe someone over the age of 25 could say something so blitheringly stupid. I keep thinking the Zoom Zooms aren't so bad, but I am often disappointed.

>>477255
How can I argue against this stupidity as if it were a legitimate position? I've made clear the flagrant and basic errors in sense that he makes and why this exists, and he just violently recapitulates it. It's the standard Germanic idiocy, pure ideology. He knows exactly what he is doing, and hopes to bait reactions so that his "argument" is given moral credence. Then he'll flood the zone with bullshit. It's how these people think, and by doing so, we cannot speak of what this is. It's disgusting you assholes encourage it, and no one can speak a single honest word. But, you'll post endless snark and faggotry. You don't want anything real. The Nazis who insist on reality control can all go to hell.

So I don't know what else I can add. I made clear his intent, and he'll just violently recapitulate the same shit. They always do. It's on the assholes moderating this chan creating a chilling effect. They'll spend exorbitant effort censoring and chilling any discussion of substance, but they allow and encourage this faggotry, so we're relitigating basic things. Eugenics does this all of the time. You're all fags for not shouting down this asshole. Instead you shout down anyone who is at all honest, because you'd rather have eugenics and allow them to go on than anything else. Stupid, stupid, stupid people.

>>477257
>>477258
There is nothing of "substance" in your posts, it's just the obnoxious ravings of something who refuses to take their antipsychotic meds.

>>477259
There is no other way to say what needs to be said to shut down this talking point. You can explain the historical origin of legal rights, civil rights, and so on, but they always recapitulate that they don't believe in those things, but they believe in the "right of conquest" and similar Germanic conceits. Unless you attack the source of the rot, this failed philosophy, you're always going to speak of nothing. The Germanic idea is that nothing new is ever possible, and any time someone suggests something that would defeat their drive towards the most abject slavery possible, they start shouting, insinuating, and resorting to unlimited threats. That is what they believe legitimizes states.

I'll just say again that "minority rights" was never a legal or political principle in force in any country. To suggest they exist is a recapitulation of Germanic essentialism and race-faggotry, and the culture war Germanics always impose on a society they infest. In the eyes of the law and the concept of political rights, whether you're a "minority" or belong to any group has no bearing on the concept of someone's rights or standing. A subject in political society encounters the state as an individual before it can be seen as a member of an organization, and organizations and institutions have no intrinsic rights. Again, a lot of this comes back to the theory of corporate personhood that came about in the US after the Civil War, and this was the first line of attack to restore the slavery institution under the banner of eugenics and the state's blessing. Basically, the argument makes a mockery of the intent of the equal protection clause. This is a line of attack that is particular to American law and its history, a history which Germanics have always denied has any existence because it is anathema to their form of despotism. This "debate" has next to no relevance outside of the Americas, but it is promoted precisely because demolishing Americans' concept of themselves and their history is the chief aim of the global system at the moment. In doing so, they hope to abolish the history of other countries which operated multinational governments like the US did - and so it is also continuing the demolition of the former USSR, ensuring the autocratic and despotic rulings of the EU instead of allowing an actual country to exist out of its members, and their aim is to abolish all concept of history and any concept that there can be international peace. The Germanic way of life is one of incessant internal conflict for its own sake, which exists to prop up inbred aristocracies. It's also a notoriously failed system, and eugenists love it because it is a weapon to use against democratic concepts of society. They don't actually believe this is how politics and human thought works. They just shout and shout until someone surrenders and gives them free land, because that's the only way Krauts know how to wage war. They're a race of losers, always have been since Roman times, and they insist everyone has to be as dumb as them. So I ask, why are we pretending this isn't what they are, and isn't what has infested recent history? We don't have any answer until we say at least some of what this is and consider that this way of thinking is a failed system. But, as long as eugenics is paramount, we're never going to have anything, and they know it.

But let's go on - presuming you understand what "the law" is, the law exists because there are men who write it, men who enforce it, and men who sit in judgement. None of this is handed down from on high, and religious law itself has its own history and concepts of due process, the conduct of courts, and why anyone should believe in God or whatever grants the authority of religious law. You only have the laws of men, or the laws of God. You don't have the "laws of conquest" or the "laws of property", or some special rights for inbred aristocrats who offer nothing to the world. You don't get to play legal tricks while remaining within the purpose of a law code, where you make the law into nothing but a weapon. If you believe lawfare is a practice that should be defended for its own sake, then there is no reason to bother pretending there is a law. You would have "Oceania has no law". That is where we are, and it was not always like this, because laws existed once upon a time to regulate peaceably affairs in the state's control. If you don't have that, you have incessant violence and no standards for comparison to suggest it can be different. This is pretty basic and you don't need a legal degree to see why laws exist; or rather, you don't need a degree to see why anyone should bother following the law. If the law is nothing more than an imperious will shouting "me wantee", that is faggotry and no one is under any obligation to give a shit. In such a world, the damned will have no recourse but to consider the institutions - all institutions - to be enemies. This is what Germanics and eugenists want, a world of endless struggle, so they can relitigate the past and "win this time", even though they're a race of losers and always will be.

I don't know how hard it is to understand that certain laws and policies exist for historical purposes, to address specific historical and current conditions. There is a very ancient principle in law that prohibits the passage of laws against particular men, but there are laws which are pretty clearly intended to address specific events and persons when written and enforced. The basis of slave society in racism was no great secret, and this is precisely what he wants to insinuate "isn't real". It's purely a legal trick because he doesn't actually believe what he's writing, and he knows it. In effect, his argument is that slavery is natural and eternal, and any law against it is inadmissible. He's trying to declare that the letter of the law makes his aims a fait accompli and "automatic", and this is standard for eugenics. It requires believing in a Germanic concept of politics (which is to say, they don't believe there is such a thing as "freedom" or "law" because they're fucking barbarians).

>>477261
I don't know what you're trying to say when you're ranting about the hecking "Germanic" stuff. Doesn't mean a thing to me.

The word "minority" really just means a small group of people, nothing more. Lets make a sentence, like thusly: only a small minority of the population is trained as a pilot, hence pilots are a minority. If you interpret more into it, that is an error on your part. Some liberals probably are genuine about protecting the powerless and the unjustly persecuted, but why aren't they saying what they mean ?

It took me a while to realize that you think cryptic racism was the intent. I read the genetics research and it turns out races are entirely fictional, with as little substance as Klingons or Hobbits. This view is backed up by a mountain of evidence. If you want to hold on to nonsense from the 17 century, that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to bend to your bullshit believes. Races just didn't cross my mind when i made the thread. And I won't apologize for that, the enlightenment and realist perception of reality i aspire too, gets no consideration by racialists either.

To burn what remains of slave-society in the US you gotta string up the owners of the private prison complex, it's the capital interest upholding the racist superstructure. The law isn't going to make it disappear, it would've evaporated long ago, if that was so. At present the PPC is trying to expand and build new prisons. If they succeed, they'll lobby for harsher policing to fill em up. Why aren't you pointing the finger at that ? it's an actionable political goal.

>>477272
When you speak of "minority rights" you are implicitly upholding a German conceit of culture war and friend-enemy distinctions that divide a society from within, and that to be a minority intrinsically means being "enemy". All of the laws in the US regarding minorities are not intended to mark minorities as "other" - every minority is under American law, and all of the laws pertaining to the status of minorities exist in principle for historical purposes, the big one being slavery. Outside of the US, this line of argument doesn't have any meaning, because it was specifically an attack on the concept of equal protection and the imposition of a German idea of what a nation "ought" to be. We're not as stupid as the theory requires us to be.

There is no concept of a "favored minority" or a minority with "special rights". The concept of a protected class exists because there was a reason for them to be protected. That's where "intersectionality" was a pernicious legal doctrine, because it confused the historical reasoning for protected classes… though in principle, any judge that would have looked at an unfair firing of, using the example, of a black woman, would not need to rely on a special class called "black woman", and the intersectional idea suggested that there were particular biases against black people and women which worked in concert, rather than an "oppression axis" where you scored points to rate how oppressed a group was. That narrative was purely a conservative and Germanic conceit of race-science and some eugenics garbage… which the liberals liked, so they codified it as policy. Such a policy would be flagrantly illegal and contrary to both the law and any purpose that we would consider good, and great pains are taken to act like the abusive policy either doesn't exist, or isn't what it actually is. And the point of the policy wasn't to protect anyone, but to make a mockery of any protection and convert it into a property claim of the institutions - that is, the very entities that are unfairly firing employees and hiring their buddies for nepotistic bullshit reasons, which is why you have affirmative action laws in the first place. If hiring were fair and equal then the concept of unfair firing and hiring wouldn't get far. Really though, the problem is that institutions are not designed on the premise of fairness. The law might uphold the concept of equality, but the institutions we have to abide are premised on deep inequality based on status given approval. Such institutions always promote nepotism and conspiracy.

But to make it clearer, if you go to the minorities in America, the things they hate about America aren't that their culture isn't given approval or respect, but that stupid white people - and this is a vocal group of white people and some tag-alongs who want to be Uncle Ruckus - won't leave them alone to let them have the basic things that would make live worth living here. Said stupid white people will and have turn against white "race traitors" who refuse to enable their faggotry. It's Nazification, it's eugenics, it's Germanic, and reasonable people think it's fucking stupid. The same essentialism can be applied to any group, even an arbitrary group like "blue eyed people" that has no real political history. And of course, it specializes professions and essentializes them.

What all of that means in the longer term is the creation of a caste system, and this is what the partisans really want. Once they get rid of that pesky concept of "laws" they will move ahead with creating the caste system these fags have always wanted.

I shouldn't besmirch Uncle Ruckus, because he actually works for a living and, ultimately, is a decent-hearted and caring person who does all sorts of favors for the Freemans. Most of the assholes who do this are just shameless fags with no such redeeming quality whatsoever.

And in case you object to my naming of "fags", I do not support any "anti-fag" laws or this idiotic eugenist drive to purge all of the homosexuals. The sexual politics angle is always used for eugenics and nothing else, and this is true of homosexualism, feminism, and the pornification of society. You can talk to some gay guys who haven't gone crazy and they're wondering what society people think we live in, because they feel they're worse targets now than they've been at any time, and they're being forcibly "outed" and put through the wringer.

>>477254
>muh brain develolment
>muh zoomzoom are dummies


Go back to "adulting"