Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security, deserve neither.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain
In helter-skelter modern times, made up of blurry ethics and fragile sensitivities, the difference between “right” and “wrong” action is grossly misunderstood. Nowadays, even nonchalant inaction such as refusing to speak, or refusing to kneel, can lead to problematic consequences.
In recent weeks, people have been labelled “racist” for remaining silent about racial discrimination. Those that stay silent, disinterested, apathetic or who do not support purported anti-racist movements or organisations such as Black Lives Matter, are immediately branded as inconsiderate racists.
 |
| Female soccer player refuses to kneel and then branded as "racist", an "embarrassment" and "brave" on social media. |
 |
| Banner flown in the UK on 22 June 2020, widely condemned as "racist" by media sources. |
They're all examples of racism, of course, according to the convoluted perception deception currently infesting many people's minds. It may be true that every developed nation has a murky colonial racially-charged past, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every product of colonialism is "racist".
It would seem that in an attempt to demonstrate moral superiority, unsightly chunks of history are being sanitised and revised, simply to make everyday life more palatable to hypersensitive social justice warriors.
Anyone daring to criticise the ongoing jamboree of sycophantic virtue signalling, or refusing to board the glacial movement of the collective unconsciousness towards censoring free speech, is immediately scorned, publicly shamed and – if they’re senior enough on the glitterati food chain – forced to apologise or resign by a baying media-fuelled mob intoxicated on scapegoating those that strayed from the herd.
Naysayers are targeted and brutalised with their refusal to follow the herd justifying ghastly reprisals that dwarf the original gripes being voiced by victims of discrimination.
Mere mortals with puny social media followings typically face a barrage of abuse for pointing out that if blacks can have black pride, it stands to reason that whites can have theirs.
Many folks find it difficult to understand why it's reasonable for black people to celebrate black pride, for homosexuals to promote gay pride, and yet, whites revelling in white pride suggests they're racist white supremacists. Is it the case that only persecuted, disadvantaged and victimised people are permitted to take pride in their ethnicity? Surely not.
When discussing the issue of racial identity in society, the mob majority view rules the roost. Typical rebuttals go something like this: "Yes, all lives matter, but right now, black people are dying disproportionately compared to other ethnic groups. There aren’t enough black people in major industries, higher education and the civil service. Black people are more likely to be arrested and have a higher chance of becoming ill than the average white person."
The list of noticed inequalities of outcome is always growing and held up as a smoking gun proving institutionalised racism is a problem that requires frenzied rabble-rousing.
In other words, when the rhetoric is stripped away, the baying mob is dictating that since black people are disproportionately underrepresented and mistreated, anyone that criticises a related charity or activist cause, or disagrees with mass-media interpretation, or refuses to bend the knee to ideological blackmail – must be a rabid problematic racist needing punishment and re-education.
In effect, failure to acquiesce to the consensus justifies subsequent humiliation, harassment, aggression and persecution of any individual who dares to utter what colour of life matters most to them.
From fiction to fact: thought police
I’m not sure whether it’s yet obvious, or not, but thought-policing and witch-hunts are back in vogue. Only this time, the lines in the sand are blurrier than ever, and at least as far as most governments go, the response to the ills of society has never been more disproportionate.
Given the growing number of profoundly sick societies littering the world today, and the desperate times people have manifested for themselves, it would seem a discourse on the root causal factors is in order.
Of course, the foundation has, is, and always will be the prevalence of moral relativism and atheism.
What most people struggle to accept, is that there is a direct relationship between the number of moral relativists and/or atheists in any given society and the amount of violence, folly and immorality that occurs there.
Other factors such as demographics, socioeconomics, population density and income inequality are relevant but at the heart of the matter is the question: Where does morality originate from?
Moral relativists and/or atheists contend it comes from human beings, committees, history lessons and governments.
Moral relativists and/or atheists contend it comes from human beings, committees, history lessons and governments.
Moral realists propose that all Natural Laws influencing both the physical domain (electricity, magnetism, physics, biology etc.) as well as the metaphysical domain (thoughts, emotions, dreams, morality, rights and oughts etc.) originate outside of human beings.
They propose that Natural Laws including morality are objective and exist as a result of intelligent design. Inescapably, this requires a “first mover”, a “God”, or intelligent being that manifested all existence as we know it.
So, either moral values are fashioned by people, or they aren’t. The fact that most people think moral values can be arbitrarily chosen by other people is the root cause of all the problems in society and the primary reason why horrific events such as wars, abuse and suffering are so frequent.
On the Police
Contrary to popular belief, human beings do not emerge from their mother’s womb as “immoral” or “moral”. Although morality is absolute and definitive, monochrome and not grey, objective not relative – understanding the moral principles of Nature comes from interaction with the external world.
Immoral behaviour is typically learned and influenced by poisoned parenting, wrongful teaching, acceptance of misinformation (whether it be unintentional or deliberate) and pre-existing cultural beliefs that have been practised previously, usually in ritual fashion.
In colloquial terms, if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out.
With regards to children, widely-accepted poor behavioural habits and harmful cultural traits are taught at incredibly young ages, which when combined with inaccurate teachings of right (moral) and wrong (immoral), leads to warped development and destructive behaviour.
Therefore, higher or lower police numbers do not affect the root causal factors behind why more people are choosing to commit immoral acts. Adding police is the equivalent of a self-harmer adding more plasters to their wounds as they continue to self-harm.
The number of plasters has nothing to do with the reason why the individual is choosing to self-harm in the first place.
The optimal solution is to process the psychological issues that pre-empted the harmful behaviour (addressing what is making people disgruntled and violent) rather than adjusting plaster numbers (hiring or firing police officers).
The optimal solution is to process the psychological issues that pre-empted the harmful behaviour (addressing what is making people disgruntled and violent) rather than adjusting plaster numbers (hiring or firing police officers).
Since most people do not know, or refuse to accept, the fact that morality is absolute – or that children can easily be misled or coerced into habitual immorality – they erroneously assume that to combat immoral behaviour, erecting a system of control to ostensibly provide “protection” (in other words, plasters) in the form of police is the ideal method; instead of correct moral education for the young.
Should and shouldn’t
Problematically for policymakers, systems of control tend to attract people with an existing desire to control others and finding a legitimate means of conducting abuse. Police officers also tend to have psychological imbalances and inadequacies that are further exacerbated by stressful working conditions and internal pressure to maintain the status quo.
In fact, such traits are conveniently overlooked: what is most keenly gauged is the ability of the candidate to be an effective order-follower. The higher the degree of violence a candidate can commit without hesitating upon being ordered, the steeper their career progression is.
Combined, these two factors cannot create anything other than a system of corruption, a “race to the bottom” so to speak. The most psychopathic and cold-blooded individuals are the most likely to succeed in a system built on violence, deception and incentivised by hedonistic materialism.
The very idea of “power over others” attracts the lowliest psychological and behavioural qualities which invariably leads to an abundance of destructive trigger-happy cops. Psychopaths thrive in environments that require the committal of immoral acts, so police forces tend to become highly rewarding for them, both materially and psychologically.
Introducing more police officers, or abolishing the police altogether, does not remedy the root ill that millions upon millions of people have a poor understanding of morality while being empowered and protected by a corrupt system that was designed to foster illness rather than health.
In a world where moral values have been inverted and individuality silenced out of existence, conformity has become the barometer for success. And yet, it is not a measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Inherent values
Systems of control are inherently immoral because they are built upon the false belief that some people can be granted or delegated “rights” that others do not possess.
The concept of a monopoly on force is immoral but governments claim this privilege as a requirement for the survival of the species.
If corrupted, people soon come to believe that they have the “right to rule” over everyone else, simply because a large number of other people uphold this immoral intention.
If corrupted, people soon come to believe that they have the “right to rule” over everyone else, simply because a large number of other people uphold this immoral intention.
It may be difficult to admit but even the most cherished democracy is an exercise in mob rule. According to the Greek philosopher Plato, "dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy".
So-called democracies have been instituted in most countries and all fail to administer equality, efficiency, prosperity or transparency like all democracies claim to be able to. The only escape route from being forced into following government scripture is to convince a large number of people to support you and wait for election time.
Ranking the validity of concepts and ideas by how widely they are supported is foolish, and yet, this status quo is accepted as a matter of fact and taken for granted by billions of people.
“It’s the best of the available options, it’s the best we’ve ever had it and we live longer…”, is the rough gist of what people will mutter as a meek rebuttal, yet they will rarely question the legitimacy of this status quo.
For whom the bell tolls
Corrupted people eventually conclude they have the right to use violence and coercion against anyone and everyone that disagrees with their point of view. Such people then strive to make effective “subjects” of the people they see as their slaves.
Most morally relativist atheists would even go so far as to say that such a class of people should possess a total monopoly on physical force and that everyone should abdicate their inherent rights and responsibility of self-defence to an external group such as the police.
Protect and serve
For those still reading, and with well-developed, clear and accurate reasoning capability, understanding the aforementioned points should result in the inescapable logical conclusion that: It is always more dangerous to be ruled by corrupt psychopaths (that have duped and coerced most people to accept their authority to commit violence) than running the risk of someone violating your rights with you unable to resolve the situation yourself or with the help of your friends, family or community.
Hordes of people think the police "protects" society from total anarchy, but in truth, the police only arrive to clean up the mess while only solving a fraction of total crime.
Instead of administering peace and tranquillity, police departments commit a kaleidoscope of immoral behaviours, most disabling of which, is prohibiting people from using self-defence to protect themselves and mandating reliance on incompetent order-followers about as sharp as hammers for their protection.
Instead of administering peace and tranquillity, police departments commit a kaleidoscope of immoral behaviours, most disabling of which, is prohibiting people from using self-defence to protect themselves and mandating reliance on incompetent order-followers about as sharp as hammers for their protection.
As the adage says: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Written by George Tchetvertakov
