For me these philanthropists were always suspicious, because I feel that they are not who they appear to be. For me anyone to get rich just to give opportunities to the unfortunate poor is simply too good to be true. Perhaps there are those among them who, after becoming rich, do not want to appear as selfish capitalists, such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Perhaps. But the reason for their enrichment cannot be the mere desire to help, even if their inventions indirectly benefited many people. But that is always the side effect not the motivation. But behind the mask of charity there can also be gaining influence. However, there may be much more dangerous intentions behind this. Which is making way for political and economic influence of certain ideologies.
If we take a good look at who George Soros supports through his foundations around the world and what kind of lobbying power he has, we have to see that this is more than mere ‘charity’. Not the mention of the several fatal attacks against national currencies, and increasing food and energy prices. It cannot be said that this benefits the poor, but aside from Soros, you can see he just uses the system to his own advantage. The fault lurks in the system, or the system IS the fault. It’s a myth that liberals ruin everything, the liberals and their rise to prominence are just the inevitable consequences of centuries of forced integration. And because the world is not governed by principles, but by interests, this results in a gradual shift to the left of liberals. Not all liberals are leftists, and not all leftists are liberals, but there is a vocal minority who have consistently taken the place of downfalling communists, with the very same interest.
The transformation of Western society consists of four stages:
- Accelerating cultural decadence and demoralizing society with sex, drug, nihilism ect.
- Creating social chaos by grouping society and provoking them against each other, such as class struggle, exploiters, exploited.
- A crisis must be encouraged that leads to civil war or invasion and economic collapse, this will provide the pretext for the communist takeover. The acceleration of third world immigration and forced multiculturalism.
- Making Western society hate their own culture, and making them totally disarmed against crime and terrorism.
Leon Trotsky invented the ‘racist’ phrase to intellectually disarm their opponents, but Trotsky was a mass murderer who knew well that forced integration and enforced multiculturalism create social chaos. Anyone who would doubt the relationship between cultural divorce and world communism can see the USSR was never accused with lacking multiculturalism and open borders. And the reason for that because the communist takeover has already taken place there.
Leftists no matter they are communists or liberals don’t care about civil rights, open borders, cultural diversity, and ethical issues, they just use them to disarm their opponents ang gain moral supperiority. Foucault for instance never bothered with ethical issues, he used ethical as aesthetic phenomenon, but beyond that considered as obstacle to achieving ‘truth’.
The heart of the ultra-left is civil rights issues, but only against the white European indigenous population, never for their protection. In other words, in practice, they encourage the influx of third world migration in order to destabilize Western society and anyone who tries to put up the least resistance gets stigmatized with ‘racist’, ‘Islamicfobic’, ‘transfobic’, ‘nazi’, and ‘homophobic’ labels. Never was mentioned that Marx was insanely racist and antisemitic despite he was a Jew. Because ‘racism’ is such a weapon against the whites.
The evil of anti-discrimination laws
What do anti-discrimination laws mean in practice? To understand this, we must first clarify what discrimination means in everyday life. If we select a product in the supermarket, for instance, and take it off the shelf to make a purchase, we are at the same time discriminating against all the other products that we did not select. The same rules apply to both the service industry and in human relations. Discrimination is complete in sexual selection as well. If someone gets married, he discriminates against all other women whom he did not marry. If someone likes brown-haired women, he discriminates against all blondes, blacks, and reds from the very beggining. If someone only likes Creoles, then both whites and blacks are already discriminated against before choosing a partner. If someone can only imagine his/her future with a Roman Catholic, he/she discriminates against all other religious or non-religious person. If an IQ above 110% is a consideration for a woman, she discriminates against all men below that. The variations are of course endless and vary from individual to individual.
The bottom line is that discrimination and freedom of choice are inseparable. In other words, one who has no right to discriminate has no choice, one who has no choice cannot be free. In principle, democracy and multi-party systems are based on this principle. Choice and discrimination are two sides of the same coin. The truth is, however, anti-discrimination laws do not eliminate discrimination, nor are they intended to do so, they only monopolize it. This is state-level discrimination, which is incompatible with individual discrimination. Discrimination at the state level and forced integration go hand in hand, and indigenous ethnic, tribal and religious minorities are the most affected.
Aboriginal children in Canada, for instance, were forcibly taken from their parents, taken from their natural environment and deported to residential boarding schools until recently to give them ‘equal opportunity’. Unfortunately, prostitution, drug addiction, alcoholism, and poverty are not exactly an opportunity for entire generations of extremely traumatized children pushed to the verge of civilization and removed from institutions. This happened to native children in Canada for long decades and the same in Australia. Eradication of indigenous communities and cultures is not only a priority in the territory of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China but in the middle of the Anglo-Saxon liberal democraties as well. Both forced integration and state-monopolized discrimination, hypocritically called anti-discrimination, hide a very dark truth: The individual is not a human being in the eyes of power, only a problem to be solved with all its tragic consequences.
All human beings on earth are affected and targeted at the same time. If you have no right to discriminate you are a slave. The segregation is a basic human right. Individual discrimination can have only one alternative, the collective discrimination, segregation, and as result genocide either culturally or literally. Collective discrimination and segregation is when the state decides which groups are undesirable in society, and which is preferable or desirable. Groups not individuals. Individual can discriminate only individuals, but the state discriminates groups or engrouped individuals. Anti-Discrimination laws are equal to collective discrimination.
Liberals don’t want anti-discrimination, they want monopolized discrimination. All human rights are property rights, and anti-discrimination laws and property rights, i.e. human rights, are mutually exclusive. You can’t help but notice how evil anti-discrimination laws are and how dramatic their consequences are. Anti-discrimination laws destroy the trust and hard earned reputation. From now on, you cannot choose your neighbors, colleagues, employees, your children’s teachers, curriculum, classmates based on ethnic, religious, cultural, social, and intelligence background. But every individual segregation is self-segregation as well. You cannot separate yourself from society with your family or other groups. If you can’t segregate anyone based on your personal preferences from your life you can neither segregate yourself. And this means that you no longer have the right to self-defense either. You are a slave.
All societies are hierarchical, but the freer a society is, the more individual responsibility is to get stuck at the bottom of hierarchy. Getting stuck at the bottom of society is definitely not a picnic, it’s a horror, not only bleak and empty but disgusting as well. In a free society, which is also a just society, you can get out of poverty with hard and consistent work. That means you are to blame for getting stuck at the bottom. It’s entirely your fault. Thus in just society the poverty is a choice. The slum is not accidentally at the bottom of society. Anyone who wants to get upper must learn to behave, new skills, and work hard. The anti-discrimination laws destroy this endeavour. So many poor simply reject the tools necessary to get out of poverty, and seek excuses. They victimize themselves. The whole process gets distorted in fatal way. In educational institutions those students who want to fulfil better and want to get better education are abused, beaten. Those who want to get upper are to blame for joining ‘exploiters’. The anti-discrimination laws punish the hard work and good intention and reward the reprobate and counter productiveness.
Positive discrimination, on the other hand, is just a game of words which is so typical of leftist liberals, that is, changing the meaning of words to win debate. Positive discrimination is like positive lynching. If you prepare a marathon runner for the championships by putting him in the car at every mile and moving him forward two miles, he is guaranteed to be among the first falling out runners when the real race comes around. That’s all about positive discrimination.
The purpose of these laws is to keep the poor poor. It’s all about money, control, and power. Whoever represents the poor is interested in maintaining poverty. It’s simple, because less poor means less votes, less support, and therefore less money and power. The fighters against poverty or social justice warriors, civil right activists, de facto, are the maintainers of poverty, moreover the breeders of poverty. This is why liberals want to destroy the economy completely. More poverty = more power. As simple as that.
How liberalism became the Trojan horse of leftists
In the beginning, liberalism had noble goals, indeed. From Locke to Mill liberalism was not about anything but the protection of individual freedoms. This was the era of classical liberalism, the four freedoms formulated in the American Constitution, which did not talk about anything else but the protection of the individual rights. In the middle of the twentieth century, the kind of view gained more and more space that no one can be truly free below a certain minimum necessary for subsistence. Therefore, the definition of liberties began to include certain positive rights, such as the right to education, health care, pension, minimum wage, and so on.
The problem at the first place is that it cannot be a right that requires the work of another person. Because the fruits of someone’s work must be taken away so that someone else’s rights can be secured. Whoever is deprived of the fruits of his labor thereby loses freedom, and becomes a slave. This is easy to understand, isn’t it? And what about the one we give rights to? That one loses freedom too, becomes a slave of the system, because no longer can live with no welfare support. More positive rights means less negative (true) rights. And finally, the system becomes what it defines itself against, tyranny.
There is only one way to make this fair. At the good old Marxist way. People must be ungrouped based on their social status. They are divided to exploiters and exploited. The poor must be made to believe that they are the victims of the rich. You can only get rich by exploiting others or by luck, which is ironically true of socialist systems. From then on, getting rich is no longer a function of individual performance. This has nothing to do with freedom anymore. This is a distorted liberalism, the modern liberalism, or leftist liberalism, it is precisely the opposite of classical, i.e., original liberalism. It’s a tyranny and slavery. Accordingly, it attracts completely different people with different intentions than the original.
In the 1960s western communist intellectuals changed tactics after Nikita Khrushchev unveiled the sins of Stalinism, but since communists realized even in the time of Marx that they can’t rise to power in a developed industrial society they started to prefer the so-called Fabianic socialism. The essence of this is that power must be gradually acquired during elections, with the gradual nationalization of the means of production, for which the economic crisis provides an excuse, instead of violent revolution. The classless socialist society must be actualized by slowly undermining the western culture and destabilizing society. There were many communists in the Western intellectual elite, even in the government sphere in which McCarthy was absolutely right, but his reputation was destroyed by the press. Another reason why the communists were forced to change tactics was that the standard of living in capitalist countries had robustly risen at the 60s.
The next blow, which they did not survive, was the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Most of them found the new ideological mask in liberalism and globalism, which was already shifting more and more to the left. Soros and Brezinsky already overruled the communism even in the time of USSR. Moreover they considered the Soviet style communism a main obstacle to achieving the global social democracy. The new liberalism consisted of left-leaning liberals and apostate communists. In fact they’re liberals in their name only. They want equal rights for everyone in the world, but it’s just a mask. With their activities, they serve such rich economic and political interest groups who are the true enemies of poor.
In conclusion
Leftist liberals are not true liberals as nationalists are not true conservatives, they are all modernists or socialists, who treat people not as responsible individuals but as a livestock. It’s all about money, control, and power.
If we take the original morality and meaning of the principles, all true liberals are also conservatives, and all true conservatives are also liberals. Those who call themselves liberal and conservative today are actually all socialists. Modern liberalism and modern conservatism, which is more like postmodern nationalism, are nothing more than different masks of socialism, which are more alike than different. Both are collectivist, the enemy of human action and individual responsiblity. They are group and crowd oriented, and worshipers of state. One preaches a global multicultural socialism, they are the ethno-socialists, the other a homogenous cultural national socialism, they are the ento-socialists.
Just as ethno-socialists and ento-socialists do not differ in terms of their goals, they are all supporters of Fabianic socialism and nationalization, i.e. the right and left wings of global social democracy, classical or original liberalists and conservatives ought not to be different at the same way. The real difference is not between right and left, which are only clichés by the way, but between classic and modern.
Logically, what is conservatism about, according to its original meaning? Protection of property rights of individuals and indirectly of the civilization based upon this principle. How to attain this? With protection of individual rights and liberty. Which must be the essence of liberalism according to its original meaning.
What is the base of modern liberalism and conservatism? Mob rule and the superiority of state. Since we are talking about socialism and nationalization in both cases in the name of the people or nation, both are about the endless increase of power, making individual weak, harmless, and insignificant. Power can only be increased to the detriment of individual property and liberties, because only the civil society can limit the freedom of the state. Whether this takes place in a multicultural or homogenous cultural environment is secondary, since deprivation of rights is the basis of these ideologies, over protection of rights.
Ethno and ento-socialists can never agree with each other, since both want to be the same, the sole monopolists of every possible thing. But to achieve this they must be monopolists of the truth first.
Everything that state gives is just a mere illusion, everything you get from them they take from you. Everything that is taken away from you is a stolen opportunity to have a meaningful, fulfilling life, which is worth living.
Thanks for reading me!