[–] bezzy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 



[–] novictim 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The goal of this surrender to migration is to fracture society to the point of collapse. The specific methodology is to pit Islam against the peace loving Liberal citizenry, even those that are nominal Muslims themselves.

Before we got to this point, the Swedish citizens where necessarily alienated from their history and achievements so that they no longer understood what they had inherited and thus no longer understood what they were losing. This was accomplished by a shift in the education system to focus on negative critiques that collectivized the "West" as a monolith of "oppressive" hegemonic cultural force.

The agents of this shift were the intellectual class steeped in "Critical Theory"/Cultural Marxism, a Soviet funded movement designed to undermine common values and trust in one's fellow citizens and nation. The post modernist notion of all societies and cultures being equally valid was wedded to a negation of Western Accomplishment. First on the hit list was the negation of there being Universal Moral Principles, a notion that had been advocated by the Western Enlightenment.

The principle of there being a set of Universal Human Rights (Freedom of speech/thought/expression, the centrality of Individual Rights, etc) was then labelled as a "Western Colonialist" conceit and displaced by the "superior" notion of all cultures/value-systems being equally valid. This is part of what it called critically theory which relies heavily on alienating Western Citizens from any sense of patriotism or of belonging to a culture that has achieved noble contributions for all humanity.

Western Citizens, starting with the youth and student populations, must be "educated" in the crimes and wrongs committed by Europe and Western Governments to the point that any pride in those that came before becomes, itself, a shameful reflection of "uncritical" thought.

That the USSR/International Communists funded this movement and the intellectuals that pushed it forward for the sake of weakening the military capacity of the West is now simply a historical fact. "Cultural Subversion" as it is also called, no longer has a purpose yet it's agents and practitioners continue in their pseudo-intellectual focus on class and societal division and related activism. Witness the supremacy of identity politics which is now takes as being legitimate, and witness movements such as Antifa and the acceptance of Anarchist ideals in academia!

We now call these movements "The Left" but we should really refer to this as simply "Treason". Tragically, the methods of Critical Theory behind these manifestations have now outlived their original cause and their military purposes.

[–] [deleted] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 



[–] novictim 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

"All Men Are Created Equal"

Oh, boy. Equality of ability is not the equality that is being referred to.

You need to understand what the context was for this "equality". It is the equality of rights and opportunity. It is a refutation of the notion of aristocracy having higher rights than others. The Enlightenment Founders were scientists and worldly thinkers. They did not claim that men were equal to one another in terms of ability! They knew reality! Men are UNEQUAL in intellect, ability and strength of will and determination. Start there, with these great thinkers knowing the reality of our world!

And so the notion of an equality of outcome was not an accepted outcome for the founders.

They claimed that men were equal in terms only of moral value, of the inheritance of basic rights. That is FUNDAMENTAL. If you get that part wrong and think that they were claiming that all people are born in all manners equal then you must think, also, that these great thinkers were ideologues without an ounce of Common Sense.

Obviously, the people who founded the USA did have common sense and did live, not in ivory towers isolated from facts, but in the midst of their society and were dependent on their own skills and efforts. They measures themselves against their peers at the level of both ideas and commerce.

Thereby comes the assumption that unequal outcomes = oppression.

And there I see the Marxist doctrine you denied. In no way did the Founders advocate for Equality of Outcome. Sorry! It was not an idea that they subscribed to then nor one worthy of subscribing to today. They did not subscribe to the idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." They were Christian-influenced and did believe in charity but they were also stern in their insistence of Merit/Hard Work = Reward, reaping what you sow..

The greatest contradiction in the moral philosophy of the Enlightenment Founders of the USA was the institution of African Slavery which most seemed to accept on a practical level with the assumption that it would be done away with, which was indeed accomplished and only the West made this happen. Remember that the Portuguese learned the slave trade of Black Africans from the Muslims who (before Darwin) described blacks as dumb animals and destined for slavery and then hellfire. This conception is then passed on down the line to the peoples of what we now call Europe.

But Merit and the inequality of ability AT BIRTH is undeniable and the founders accepted it and so to do the Marxists. Visit any claimed Marxist based work co-op or commune and you will see HIERARCHY... or you will be seeing a very young system destined for dissolution. People are born unequal in ability and one doesn't need to look for a SCAPEGOAT to assign blame for this. Emmanuel Goldstein did not sneak in and oppress unfortunate and destroy their otherwise glorious future prospects.

But the good news is that we live in a society that grants us EQUAL RIGHTS which includes the right to equal OPPORTUNITY. Now, are their systems encroaching on that equality of opportunity, monopolies and government that seek to prevent competition from upstarts with better ideas and harder effort? Yes, of course and that is what we must confront for it is an expression of actual oppression which is the taking away of the right to compete.