Wednesday, 31 December 2014

Two types of 21st century revolutionaries

The Occupy Movement, Anonymous, Britain Uncut and Russell Brand represent what I would call the main heads of the 21st century's left wing revolutionary movement, and although we have two, that and the libertarian, represented by the Tea Party, Heartland Institute, UKIP, and individuals such as Ron Paul, the major difference I see is one is based on fact while the other is based on emotion. The leftist movement don't like what they see, it feels wrong, and like babies they scream. They know they don't like it and want something else, but only the vaguest idea what. They do overlap on a few unavoidable facts so clear even they can't miss them, much like hunger or cold, the crooked bankers are impossible to miss by anyone except the governments who don't prosecute them for fraud, so they work much like the human papilloma virus, causing visibly horrible warts all over society but the policemen, the society's immune system, can't detect or remove them from the system. But apart from the bankers the world seen by the left and the libertarians couldn't be any more different.

Various journalists interviewed the occupiers during the months they squatted in the streets of world capitals, and the bottom line was they wanted to get rid of the bankers and capitalism, the rest was pretty much based on the individuals and there was no clear actual goal, in fact like Russell Brand they just wanted to take down this system and besides paying the poor more benefits (to reverse the changes made by the current UK coalition) they hadn't really thought of actual alternatives and were far more focused on destruction than any positive ideas. The libertarians are an old and established movement, with philosophers and academics writing on the subject for centuries. You cannot compare those on the left, Marx and Engels etc, with the current left wing movement as they probably don't even know who they are. Their heroes are activist groups, headless collectives such as Greenpeace, MoveOn, The Sierra Club etc, which if you ask most of them what they think of George Soros (for the handful who know who he is of course) they'd rightly lump him in with the worst of the bankers and call for his head. Yet he is the one who runs many of these groups including funding the roots of the Occupy Movement. The crooks motivate the useful idiots to impotently fight their own system, and look so ridiculous it then discredits any genuine attempts to bring them down as the idiots are so high profile any genuine fighters are associated with them and dismissed accordingly. A very clever formula really.

Libertarians however are based on knowledge. Knowing how most acts of government are unnecessary, how much of the money taken in taxes is wasted or appropriated and never used for the people who assume the government need it to pay for services. Not much does. They realise a mature society needs a government to do what they can't- look after the poor and sick, and protect the country against hostile actions etc. They have no role in social engineering- creating 'equality', putting certain people in certain jobs, telling people what they can and can't say outside lying, and dictating their morals. The moral question is an area of itself with plenty of dedicated material, but suffice to say whatever you believe outside the protection principle, ie treat others the way you would want to be treated so don't attack them physically or their property, is different from person to person, society to society and era to era. There is no right answer to morals as they are no different to what food or music you prefer and are mainly passed on by religion and your parents. It is not for anyone to tell others on penalty of law what words you can use for disabled or ethnic people, or what sort of sex people can have in private, or actually even in public as taking offence is an entirely personal reaction and should not be protected by law either. Just because most people feel incredibly strongly about seeing people naked, having sex or breastfeeding in public it doesn't mean it should be against the law, it may be chaotic but it hurts nobody. Urinating or defecating in the street spreads germs so cannot be treated equally.

The overlap between Occupy and the libertarians is the core of central fraud in society they both want to get rid of. Ultimately we all want peace and freedom, even probably the jihadists who want to be free to lock up women and force men to pray five times a day, but the difference being the jihadists want to impose their will on other people, breach the protection principle, so are the enemy. Again, returning to basic philosophy, your freedom simply ends when it affects other people. Black magic affects the will of others, so uses spells to target specific individuals against their will, while white magic only attracts a woman to you, not a specific one for instance. Whether or not it works the principle is there. I suppose in a way the left at least are on a positive track by recognising there is something deeply wrong with 21st century society but they react emotionally, are often uneducated and unemployed, and are the sort of people who cause more problems for both themselves and everyone else as they are misusing the power of protest and muddying the waters for the viewers who find it hard to tell the difference between the two types. I rarely see any of them reform and most are beyond a point of learning as they seem to be cooked, ripe to maturity and fixed in their emotional views based on a feeling of personal impotence and jealousy of those better off than them. The fact most failed at school and do not have the talent to reach the heights of those who they envy has no effect on them, they simply assume the successful must have cheated and stolen to get what they have, talent and hard work mean nothing to the hard left as all success must be cropped, unless it's so clear it was based on incredible ability those who have many millions from that, such as Russell Brand, are exempt from their fury.

Ideally we could educate the rabble and then they may realise the difference between destructive and constructive revolution. They don't really like losing the chance to make more money, they just don't believe they ever will so want guarantees the state will look after them and take the money from those who have more. That is both negative and unnecessary.  Currently they have little power but waste their time and energy and have a negative effect by bringing more people on board who may have either stayed out of politics altogether or learned more over time and moved to the good side. There is a hard core of mentally twisted educated on the hard left but there always were and they were considered extremists and misanthropes and left well alone, but now they have their barmy armies of unwashed and uneducated mental pygmies to make their cause appear more mainstream. None of them would ever want the sort of regimes they propose, besides the existing unemployed who would simply maintain their current way of life but with more security. But even that would be addressed by a universal basic income meaning everyone had what they needed and they would get more by working. We can afford it. But what would they protest about then?

I hope once you recognise the difference between informed and negative protest movements you will not be drawn to the wrong ones. To many people they seem similar on the surface, they both want to get rid of fraud and cartels in society, but there the similarity ends. You will never hear a libertarian accuse someone of racism for wanting fewer immigrants or making jokes about foreigners, they will never berate you for your carbon footprint and eating good food when others are starving. They will never look at a rich person and think if they had less you would have more. These are all trademarks of the loser movement. They lose at everything in life. Work, relationships, life in general. They are disillusioned angry failures, and want everyone else to feel just like them so they can feel better. We don't want people like that with any power as they create wars, divisions and hate wherever they go and Russell Brand is their current poster boy, despite having everything they don't, except a bath.

No comments:

Post a Comment