Distributing Hate

[commonsense]

Hate seems to me to be an emotion that originates in the lizard brain.

The triune brain model is not accepted by the majority of neuroscientists anymore. The parts of the brain associated with hate are the insular cortex, putamen, and left superior frontal gyrus. And they are in different parts of the brain.

While higher cognitive functions may ameliorate this emotion, or at least restrain its expression, I don’t think it can be reprogrammed short of shock therapy.

I don't think hate is pathological unless it is, pathological. I know kind of tautological, But I mean by this that occasionally feeling hatred is not necessarily a problem and even would be natural in certain situations if it was felt more that occasionally. Slaves, victims of ongoing human rights violations, children with abusive parents, victims of ongoing bullying, people regularly treated with disrespect in certain types of employment situations may feel regular hatred for their abusers and this isn't pathological. It is natural to hate that which hates you. It imight even be healthy if you have not good way to create distance from the abusive person(s).

Thanks, I, for educating me.

[Harbal]

What would you hate, and regard as legitimate to hate?

I almost hate how the word hate is bandied around so freely these days. I'm guessing that has its origin in the much "hated" woke culture I keep hearing about. It seems you only have to express a slightly negative opinion about something to be condemned as a hater. I don't think I actually hate anything; not even Donald Trump.

[Immanuel Can]

I think it is legitimate to hate pain as well as things that cause pain. Beyond that, I don’t think I would add anything to the list.

I would think there are quite a few things one should legitimately hate. I wouldn't say that pain was one of them, since we so often trade off pain for other things. It seems we don't hate pain enough to avoid it, if the benefits are considerable at all. For example, athletes put themselves through a great deal of pain voluntarily, as do physical labourers of any kind, and as do mothers giving birth, notoriously.

In fact, failure to hate something really deplorable is often a sign of moral disorder. Consider, for example, the people who seem insufficiently concerned about child trafficking...one wonders why something so horrendous fails to make a visceral impression on them. Isn't child abuse something people should absolutely hate?

[Iwannaplato]

What would you hate, and regard as legitimate to hate?

Well, one thing that I mentioned to commonsense is that it comes pretty automatically to hate what hates you. If I get that there's some merit in someone hating me, then I may not feel hatred in return. I might feel regret and apologize.

But if there is something that hates for reasons I don't respect, I'll likely hate back. I'd hope to not have to be around such a person, and that's the way my hate would stop. And anything that hates my life, or hates life, or is trying to get me to hate myself or treat others I care bout in these ways, or even treats strangers in these ways and I come across them in real life - rather than read about them in the new - there I may well hate also.

I'm not sure I want to say this is all legitimate. I don't think I sit there are work out the legitimacy of my feelings. Though I do, often, try to understand what is leading to my feelings or led to them if my current feelings have to do with the past.

But I don't have a problem with hate per se. It depends on the context. It's not a feeling I seek out.

[commonsense]

I think it is legitimate to hate pain as well as things that cause pain. Beyond that, I don’t think I would add anything to the list.

I would think there are quite a few things one should legitimately hate. I wouldn't say that pain was one of them, since we so often trade off pain for other things. It seems we don't hate pain enough to avoid it, if the benefits are considerable at all. For example, athletes put themselves through a great deal of pain voluntarily, as do physical labourers of any kind, and as do mothers giving birth, notoriously.

In fact, failure to hate something really deplorable is often a sign of moral disorder. Consider, for example, the people who seem insufficiently concerned about child trafficking...one wonders why something so horrendous fails to make a visceral impression on them. Isn't child abuse something people should absolutely hate?

I would just say that normal people don’t enjoy pain.Athletes may endure pain, but that doesn’t mean they like it.

I would also add that child abuse is included among those things that cause pain.

To some extent, I think we may be in agreement, except that my terminology may not be as clear as yours.

[Immanuel Can]

I think it is legitimate to hate pain as well as things that cause pain. Beyond that, I don’t think I would add anything to the list.

I would think there are quite a few things one should legitimately hate. I wouldn't say that pain was one of them, since we so often trade off pain for other things. It seems we don't hate pain enough to avoid it, if the benefits are considerable at all. For example, athletes put themselves through a great deal of pain voluntarily, as do physical labourers of any kind, and as do mothers giving birth, notoriously.

In fact, failure to hate something really deplorable is often a sign of moral disorder. Consider, for example, the people who seem insufficiently concerned about child trafficking...one wonders why something so horrendous fails to make a visceral impression on them. Isn't child abuse something people should absolutely hate?

I would just say that normal people don’t enjoy pain.Athletes may endure pain, but that doesn’t mean they like it.

Yes. They trade it off against other things that they value more...like achievement or victory. But it's complex, because even in the midst of pain, athletes report a certain degree of satisfaction or joy, experienced because of the presence of the pain.

You see this most graphically in weightlifters. Nothing they do looks painless, and at peak levels, it looks excruciating. But weightlifters report feelings of exhilaration and delight in the midst of a lift, as they feel the bar come up. That's very odd...but surprisingly not absent from other such scenarios.

I would also add that child abuse is included among those things that cause pain.

Well, they cause pain for sure...but to others, not to the predators that do it. They must enjoy the pain of others, among other things.

The big point I'd make is that it's not easy to say that pain is the ultimate explanation of what is evil or worthy of hate. Pain is a very equivocal matter, as it turns out. We'd have to drill down a bit, I think, to find out when pain accompanies something worthy of hate, and when it doesn't, or when it accompanies something that's actually good.

To some extent, I think we may be in agreement, except that my terminology may not be as clear as yours.

No, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to explore your view with you, by asking questions that might stretch it until we both have a firmer grasp on what we're talking about.

[Immanuel Can]

What would you hate, and regard as legitimate to hate?

Well, one thing that I mentioned to commonsense is that it comes pretty automatically to hate what hates you. If I get that there's some merit in someone hating me, then I may not feel hatred in return. I might feel regret and apologize.

That would be quite big of you, actually. People find that sort of self-realization hard to achieve, or generally prefer not to apologize.

But if there is something that hates for reasons I don't respect, I'll likely hate back.

So...no "Love your enemies," you'd say?

I'm not sure I want to say this is all legitimate. I don't think I sit there are work out the legitimacy of my feelings. Though I do, often, try to understand what is leading to my feelings or led to them if my current feelings have to do with the past.

Perhaps, though, a feeling can have causes you know from the past, and be strongly felt, but may still be illegitimate?

What I mean is that not everything we feel is good. Not every feeling we have is laudable. Not every feeling we might experience should be reinforced, or celebrated or indulged. There are such things, I would say, as inappropriate feelings. And in the matter of hatred, one inappropriate cause is jealousy or covetousness.

For example, the Wokies certainly indulge hatred toward all those they dub as "oppressors," or "white," or "patriarchal," or "colonial," or "right wing," and so on, all the while declaring themselves the paragons of tolerance, inclusion and community. They are, to use the term favoured by a now-defunct candidate, "deplorables": and "deploring" them is taken by her supporters to be a sign of moral high-mindedness, not of venom, even if "deplorables" should turn out to make up half the country. There, hatred is turned into a virtue, on the assumption that the object of the hatred is just so bad that it's virtuous to spit on them.

As they say, now, go "punch a Nazi."

[Gary Childress]

Probably.

Considering how they acted during the BLM-riots, and how they act today, I don't think they are.

I think true contentment comes from Purpose and Meaning in life.

Activism tends to imply one feels a "purpose" and "meaning". To be completely broken, nihilistic and defeated is to basically surrender and allow ourselves to silently go down without a fight.

[Age]

Premise: Because humanity and all mammalian species pick on and bully a 'whipping-boy', runt-of-the-litter, this phenomenon must be analyzed with regard to Postmodern Politicking, in every society or nation, across the world.


Western Civilization in general:

Jesus Christ is the metaphorical 'whipping-boy' of Western Civilization, Europeans, and "The West" in general. Jesus Christ is depicted as the quintessential 'innocent man', who was blamed for pretty much every "Sin" of mankind. All Sins were placed upon His shoulders. He was punished, on behalf of All Mankind. The analogy of Jesus Christ, represents the most heinous and extreme Injustice which could be metaphysically possible. The myth and reality of Jesus Christ is a direct extension of Greek and Hellenic philosophies, specifically Platonism and Plato's Republic, by which Socrates was condemned to death, for 'influencing' the young Aristocratic minds of Greece. So too is the charge against Jesus Christ, 'influencing' the minds of his followers within the Roman Republic.

The Christian religion has been built upon and around Jesus Christ. The religious and moral implications are countless. But the Principle stands even today: the lesson of Christ must not be repeated. In other words, an innocent man cannot be sacrificed for the vanity of the rest of Mankind. Jesus Christ represents a hypothetical End to human sacrifice, and blood sacrifice. His example is supposed to End, the 'whipping-boy' phenomenon, such that societies cannot place all their blame, guilt, and hate, upon scapegoats, in attempts to absolve themselves of Sin. Your Sin is your own, not another's.

Christians invert this lesson to this day. They say "Jesus died for our Sins", as-if the Christian is blameless or "cleansed" of responsibility. This makes Christ's death and His lessons, in vain. Christians do not know the lesson of Christ, nor truly care, and would likely repeat the emotional accusations and persecutions of Christ, when he reappears Today. My argument is such—Christians are not followers of Christ. Because they didn't "learn their lesson" the first time. Because when you pass your Sin upon Christ, you are committing a worse crime, a more Evil type of action. The actual lesson of Christ is to take the load off Him. You're supposed to not blame Him. You, as a Christian, are supposed to help Him bear the Cross. You are supposed to take the place of Him. You are supposed to understand, sympathize, empathize, with Him.

Christians do not do this, to this day, over 2000 years later. So it is (mostly) a false religion.


America and the Anglosphere in general:

Just as Christians do not learn the lesson of Christ, so too do Westerners repeat the same method of projecting and placing their Sins, upon others. Politically speaking, this means, blaming your political rivals of all your own failings. Everybody sees this today between the constant infighting between Republican and Democrat Representatives in the United States. Most of the squabbling is facetious, not serious, and both sides come together to serve the Status Quo, and serve the Deep State, which is the true underlying power in the West. However, the political game has taken serious turns since 2008, such that the stakes have grown so high, that each half now attempts to make the other half, second-class citizens, and an 'inferior' class. The problem with Classism is distinct and obvious, but has different histories in USA versus Europe. Europeans know full well what it means to have second-class citizens, Feudal outlooks, serve Aristocracy, and the peon/peasant mindset.

America was supposed to be different...

But that difference is coming to an end, as the inevitable looms over the horizon. The counter-argument is simple. Western Liberals will claim that "but Negroes have already been second-class citizens, and women too!" They have substantial and persuasive arguments in this. Because there will always been Over-classes and Under-classes. In Nature, mammalian groups have large, strong, tall, dominant males...while weak, small, cowardly males get bullied, excluded, beaten upon, and otherwise rejected. It is also a sexual matter. Dominant males compete to reproduce, while weaker, inferior males, mostly do not. So when it returns to Politics, the matter of the weaker and inferiors of society, must be addressed. Western Liberalism does this by 'including everyone equally'—"into the vote". By giving political voting power to the weakest members of society, to women, to blacks, to weak men, this 'Democratic' style of government hypothetically changes society "for the better".

But where is the better? Where are the actual improvements? Are women happier now, post-feminism? Are blacks happier now, post-civil rights? Are cities safer? Are jobs and incomes more prosperous? Many will claim they are Not, and so, "for the better" is reduced again to political power and competition, which instead lines the pockets of all those who deceive the masses, to convince the inferiors that they "have their best interests in mind", when they don't, and so the Status Quo never changes, or if it changes, very slightly.



All of these concerns return to the matter of Blame and Attribution—who dictates who, shall be the new Whipping-Boy? Which group, or race, or gender, or sexuality, shall receive Punishment? And is it righteous? For example, should homosexuality and transexuality, and those who promote it to children, or teach children to "tolerate" it, be punished? Here is where the political battle is waged today. But it is waged every year, every decade, every century, every millennium.

What is really being fought over, is the Divine Godly Authority, to attribute Blame, to choose the Whipping-Boy, to choose the new Jesus Christ, to once again place all Sin upon Him... and Sacrifice Him.

The 'premise' IS OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect, so the rest is NOT REALLY worth reading.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, one thing that I mentioned to commonsense is that it comes pretty automatically to hate what hates you. If I get that there's some merit in someone hating me, then I may not feel hatred in return. I might feel regret and apologize.

That would be quite big of you, actually. People find that sort of self-realization hard to achieve, or generally prefer not to apologize.

It doesn't come easy. Sometimes it has taken me years to realize there was justification in their reaction to me. I am stubborn around perspectives as the next person. In fact it took me a long time to understand why I was so defensive.

So...no "Love your enemies," you'd say?

I don't rule that out, but I don't try to overpower my reactions. Sometimes I can feel both hatred and empathy for the same person. Sometimes empathy comes later. If it is so clear the person hating me is damaged, I may not feel hatred. That I feel direct empathy while they are, for example, hurling rage at me, well, not so likely. But when I'm back home perhaps. Love is not really on the table, unless love is already part of the relationship. But I don't have the Christian goal of loving that which is hating me. I suppose on a literal battlefield I might even weep after killing someone. But as long as someone is hating me and they seem to have their wits about them - they are not developmentally cognitively disabled or psychotic - then empathy will likely not be there most of the time. Should they stop hating me or actively trying to damage me, then the empathy can come. But I don't try to override my not so Christian reactions, no.

I will try to organize my life so that I don't have contact with them. I am not attached to hating and prefer not to. I had a narcissist as a boss and I hated this person fairly often while I worked there. When I could leave, I did, and very much so I no longer needed to experience hate coming at me or my own hate.

Perhaps, though, a feeling can have causes you know from the past, and be strongly felt, but may still be illegitimate?

Oh, sure. Again, I don't really think in terms of legitimacy. But I might realize, oh this person reminds me of my dad and my reactions lose intensity or even the type of emotion present.

What I mean is that not everything we feel is good. Not every feeling we have is laudable. Not every feeling we might experience should be reinforced, or celebrated or indulged.

Sure, but I'm going to accept my feelings regardless. Exactly what I think they mean about the other person, I will be exploring and this may shift. But again I don't sit there are judge based on the laudableness and so on. I don't always express my emotions at/with/in front of other people. There are all sorts of ways I feel about the emotions I am having in the moment. But I accept the emotions, period, then of course try to sort out what is going on. Is this the past? Did they really mean that? Am I sure they actually did that? Was the rumor true?

But if I cannot accept my emotions, I will not actually accept other people. I may have a model in my brain that 'accepts others and their emotions', but really I am just judging myself and will be judging them also, even if I don't notice.

There are such things, I would say, as inappropriate feelings. And in the matter of hatred, one inappropriate cause is jealousy or covetousness.

I don't think we need to sit in judgment of emotions. IOW if I don't agree with your here, it doesn't mean that I think jealousy is good, for example. But I dislike the idea of inappropriate feelings. If I felt jealousy, which is not pleasant to feel. I would continue exploring the feeling until I got some resolution. Ah, this is about the past. Oh, there is a problem in the relationship. Oh this person is repeatedly disrespecting me I need to not be with them. Ah, I see there is a deep fear here I don't want to face and I convert to anger, so I will talk to her about it.

But I do not want to sit in judgment of the emotions. We've been doing that for thousands of years and we have self-hatred built into both secular and religious models of how we 'should self-relate'.

This doesn't entail that I celebrate my jealousy. Though I might celebrate my facing it. IOW I might be denying my jealousy and when I notice the feelings and express them I may well feel good about that. I might express alone or I might involve the person I love or a friend.

I don't see this all as fixed. I think real bravery is going into these things as process.

For example, the Wokies certainly indulge hatred toward all those they dub as "oppressors," or "white," or "patriarchal," or "colonial," or "right wing," and so on, all the while declaring themselves the paragons of tolerance, inclusion and community.

Sure, they do. And while I was growing up conservatives often indulged in hatred of people who they deemed faggoty, not patriotic enough, not manly or feminine enough, not dressed right, not normal, not eating 'normal' foods, and on and on. Both groups have virture signaling, judgments, hate and members who will resort to violence to enforce their judgments. Woke values certain get backed up by media more these days. When I was growing up the other side had much of the media and certainly dominated playgrounds and streets and often the courts and schools. Conservatives seem to have no memory of when they had the upper hand on a lot of the issues dear to woke people. It's like the hatred is only inherent in left positions...it's a real memory gap. And of course conservatives continue to virtue signal, judge and hate, but they are no longer in the power position.

For me, at my age, it comes across as hypocrisy. Like if conservatives could criticize the current situation while acknowledging that it has made them reflect on how they behaved when they had the upper hand, that'd be a different story. I mean, one should point out abuse of power. I am not saying that conservatives should be silent because they were bad before or have bad tendencies now. Of course they can react to what they see as immoral or hypocrisy or abusive. But the lack of self-awareness or sense of history strikes me as a huge lack of insight.

I don't fit in well with 'either side'. They both strike me as abusive, judgmental, controlling and those on good days. I put 'either side' in citation marks because that's how both sides frame it. Us vs Them. Two teams. And there is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy with this. You get enough people to think there are two teams than other options, positions seem not to exist.

They are, to use the term favoured by a now-defunct candidate, "deplorables": and "deploring" them is taken by her supporters to be a sign of moral high-mindedness, not of venom, even if "deplorables" should turn out to make up half the country. There, hatred is turned into a virtue, on the assumption that the object of the hatred is just so bad that it's virtuous to spit on them.

As above...sounds very much how conservatives reacted to people with differing values much of my life and even now.

[Age]

Well, one thing that I mentioned to commonsense is that it comes pretty automatically to hate what hates you. If I get that there's some merit in someone hating me, then I may not feel hatred in return. I might feel regret and apologize.

That would be quite big of you, actually. People find that sort of self-realization hard to achieve, or generally prefer not to apologize.

It doesn't come easy. Sometimes it has taken me years to realize there was justification in their reaction to me. I am stubborn around perspectives as the next person. In fact it took me a long time to understand why I was so defensive.

But UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING the VERY REASON WHY 'you', human beings, HATE leaves that one NEVER HATING ANY of 'you'.

I NEVER hate 'those' who HATE 'me', and this IS BECAUSE I KNOW WHY ALL of 'them' HATE 'me'. See, sometimes the Truth HURTS, and people do NOT like Truth, which HURTS.

Also, will you provide ANY examples of when someone HATED you, and you FOUND 'merit' in their HATE of you, and when you may not feel hatred in return?

Furthermore, you MUST OF done some HORRIBLE 'thing' if you felt REGRET, and APOLOGIZED.

And, if you felt REGRET, and felt you HAD TO APOLOGIZE, then there is NO wonder that 'they' HATED you.

What would have MADE you DO such 'thing/s' to 'those people'?

So...no "Love your enemies," you'd say?

I don't rule that out, but I don't try to overpower my reactions. Sometimes I can feel both hatred and empathy for the same person. Sometimes empathy comes later. If it is so clear the person hating me is damaged, I may not feel hatred. That I feel direct empathy while they are, for example, hurling rage at me, well, not so likely. But when I'm back home perhaps. Love is not really on the table, unless love is already part of the relationship. But I don't have the Christian goal of loving that which is hating me. I suppose on a literal battlefield I might even weep after killing someone. But as long as someone is hating me and they seem to have their wits about them - they are not developmentally cognitively disabled or psychotic - then empathy will likely not be there most of the time. Should they stop hating me or actively trying to damage me, then the empathy can come. But I don't try to override my not so Christian reactions, no.

I will try to organize my life so that I don't have contact with them. I am not attached to hating and prefer not to. I had a narcissist as a boss and I hated this person fairly often while I worked there. When I could leave, I did, and very much so I no longer needed to experience hate coming at me or my own hate.

Perhaps, though, a feeling can have causes you know from the past, and be strongly felt, but may still be illegitimate?

Oh, sure. Again, I don't really think in terms of legitimacy. But I might realize, oh this person reminds me of my dad and my reactions lose intensity or even the type of emotion present.

What I mean is that not everything we feel is good. Not every feeling we have is laudable. Not every feeling we might experience should be reinforced, or celebrated or indulged.

Sure, but I'm going to accept my feelings regardless. Exactly what I think they mean about the other person, I will be exploring and this may shift. But again I don't sit there are judge based on the laudableness and so on. I don't always express my emotions at/with/in front of other people. There are all sorts of ways I feel about the emotions I am having in the moment. But I accept the emotions, period, then of course try to sort out what is going on. Is this the past? Did they really mean that? Am I sure they actually did that? Was the rumor true?

But if I cannot accept my emotions, I will not actually accept other people. I may have a model in my brain that 'accepts others and their emotions', but really I am just judging myself and will be judging them also, even if I don't notice.

There are such things, I would say, as inappropriate feelings. And in the matter of hatred, one inappropriate cause is jealousy or covetousness.

I don't think we need to sit in judgment of emotions. IOW if I don't agree with your here, it doesn't mean that I think jealousy is good, for example. But I dislike the idea of inappropriate feelings. If I felt jealousy, which is not pleasant to feel. I would continue exploring the feeling until I got some resolution. Ah, this is about the past. Oh, there is a problem in the relationship. Oh this person is repeatedly disrespecting me I need to not be with them. Ah, I see there is a deep fear here I don't want to face and I convert to anger, so I will talk to her about it.

But I do not want to sit in judgment of the emotions. We've been doing that for thousands of years and we have self-hatred built into both secular and religious models of how we 'should self-relate'.

This doesn't entail that I celebrate my jealousy. Though I might celebrate my facing it. IOW I might be denying my jealousy and when I notice the feelings and express them I may well feel good about that. I might express alone or I might involve the person I love or a friend.

I don't see this all as fixed. I think real bravery is going into these things as process.

For example, the Wokies certainly indulge hatred toward all those they dub as "oppressors," or "white," or "patriarchal," or "colonial," or "right wing," and so on, all the while declaring themselves the paragons of tolerance, inclusion and community.

Sure, they do. And while I was growing up conservatives often indulged in hatred of people who they deemed faggoty, not patriotic enough, not manly or feminine enough, not dressed right, not normal, not eating 'normal' foods, and on and on. Both groups have virture signaling, judgments, hate and members who will resort to violence to enforce their judgments. Woke values certain get backed up by media more these days. When I was growing up the other side had much of the media and certainly dominated playgrounds and streets and often the courts and schools. Conservatives seem to have no memory of when they had the upper hand on a lot of the issues dear to woke people. It's like the hatred is only inherent in left positions...it's a real memory gap. And of course conservatives continue to virtue signal, judge and hate, but they are no longer in the power position.

For me, at my age, it comes across as hypocrisy. Like if conservatives could criticize the current situation while acknowledging that it has made them reflect on how they behaved when they had the upper hand, that'd be a different story. I mean, one should point out abuse of power. I am not saying that conservatives should be silent because they were bad before or have bad tendencies now. Of course they can react to what they see as immoral or hypocrisy or abusive. But the lack of self-awareness or sense of history strikes me as a huge lack of insight.

I don't fit in well with 'either side'. They both strike me as abusive, judgmental, controlling and those on good days. I put 'either side' in citation marks because that's how both sides frame it. Us vs Them. Two teams. And there is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy with this. You get enough people to think there are two teams than other options, positions seem not to exist.

They are, to use the term favoured by a now-defunct candidate, "deplorables": and "deploring" them is taken by her supporters to be a sign of moral high-mindedness, not of venom, even if "deplorables" should turn out to make up half the country. There, hatred is turned into a virtue, on the assumption that the object of the hatred is just so bad that it's virtuous to spit on them.

As above...sounds very much how conservatives reacted to people with differing values much of my life and even now.

[Wizard22]

Are women happier now, post-feminism? Are blacks happier now, post-civil rights?

Probably. But beyond that I'd like to point out that your criterion is happiness. Rather than say, sense of dignity, ability to express more parts of themselves, sense of being allowed to be themselves. and probably other criteria. Freedom to do a wider ranges of things, express more of one's personality can come at a cost for happiness. Choice is stressful, responsibility can lead to guilt, shame, self-judgment. But most people won't give these up to be safe and cozy, though some will.

But is that the way we should evaluate a society, by happiness?

You're following-up on Harbal's failures. He, incorrectly, interpreted in my OP that the 'happiness' question is the weakest vector to counter-attack. Did you read the entire thing? Did you read the two questions I posed, before the one you quoted? What did I ask? I'll help you:

"But where is the better?"

The point and direction of the OP, are the many or countless ways that Underclasses are formed, or change over time, and are used as whipping-boys for the Authoritarian power-that-be. (Political) Power changes. Sometimes it is overthrown. Sometimes revolutions happen. In the West, historically, we are in an era of the 'End' of the Enlightenment and Postmodernism. These recent bouts of Transexuality, Genital Mutilation, "Willing" self-castration, etc. symbolizing a repeating of history and religious/social immorality. If this is the end-result, the conclusion of "Liberty", Liberalism, Libertarianism, then will the masses continue forward with it, the "new progressivism"? Or, is it not regressive?

The Scandanavian countries, for example, rate very high on happiness quoitents. And they are also very high on feminism, civil rights, anti-discrimination and so on.

Scandinavian Vikings have been homogenous for thousands of years. It wasn't until recently, post WWII, that European Marxists heavily pressured them to receive hordes of African and Moslem immigrants. It is not going well for them there. Want a homework assignment? Do some research on rape and violent murder cases in Sweden and Norway, and tell me the race of the perpetrators...go ahead, I'll wait.

Are jobs and incomes more prosperous?

These were going up for a long time, then since the 80s they have been going down. Corporates concentrated power, and as the first globalists moved many jobs out of their countries. There has also been a tremendous shift by corporate america and finance america in making money out without producting anything. All the people who, like many finance people, make money out of mathematical games with money and stocks. This doesn't add one tiny product or service to the world. They are skimming parasites, like tapeworms in you gut, in our guts. There is less money, then, to go around. There are other factors leadning to this trend.

Yes, they were going up...which attracts the parasites, and then it comes down.

But, are the economic parasites, within or outside of political power and control in the United States? How much welfare checks go out, and for how much? To whom? Why? How much do votes cost? Should children be allowed to vote? How about 5 year olds? Yet...they can 'transition' their gender? They can 'choose' to castrate themselves?

[Wizard22]

But not the come-and-spout-your-conservative-propaganda thread. This might be a place for discussing politics, but not one for promoting political (or religious) views. Especially with the level of dishonesty that has become alarmingly prevelant online these days.

Sorry Hairball, you need triple-digit IQ to understand the OP. I'll try to dumb it down for you more next time around.

I'll use big letters too.

[Wizard22]

I understand what you are saying and I think why.

I counter by pointing out that we are thoroughly drenched, soaked and steeped in what you call “propaganda” of a hyper-liberal sort. I would not call it propaganda so much as ideology made to seem “righteous” and “good”. It is very coercive though but it can be disassembled.

I understand Wizard to be inclined in that direction. I do not have to agree with all of it. But I validate it. The need and right and value of proposing counter-currents.

I would call it: Insidiously Evil.

Western propaganda costs hundreds of billions of dollars. And governments gladly pay the price, to retain control and power.

[Wizard22]

I imagine many, if not most, black people feel the same.

You're delusional.

There are literally zero black people in the United States, crossing the street to avoid groups of pasty-white teenage gangbangers.