This is in response to commenter Rickie who wrote, of church people:
I reckon most are creepy or odd, misfits, oddballs not to mention downright evil in some cases. I was sent to church every week until I was 16, Catholic school, altar boy. I have been on both sides of the fence, I take notice of religious followers who overtly display their beliefs and they are not the sort of people I like or trust.
I agree with that as far as it goes. However, that is only one small part of the overall picture. The major weapons used to break up society include fanaticism in many forms:
1. This pretend “gay rights” push and its ridiculous implications, such as the licence that gives govt to infringe on the real rights of other people, such as those enshrined in the American Constitution, by prosecuting them for not embracing falsehoods, the first falsehood being that gays have no rights, which is BS – they already have civil rights, same as anyone else under the law, same as women, same as children, same as all men – gays need no new ones.
And once having got people believing in these falsehoods because the society has now lost perspective on its underpinnings, the things really protecting it, other falsehoods then flood in, in the form, for example, of PCism.
2. PCism and its satanic spawn, SJWism, then become the new orthodoxy, along with its forebears Darwinism and the promotion of Big Science as the new substitute god, which has the added effect of removing the moral constraints that the former orthodoxy maintained in society – demanding fidelity to spouse, leaving children right out of drugs and sex, maintaining taboos on paedophilia, imposing a culture of chivalry towards women and children, of integrity by default in dealings with others, of business ethics.
3. This is not to say society ever achieved that but those things were always aspired to as a civilized society’s ideals, which then aligned with and supported the burgeoning of the bourgeoisie, in the form Boris Johnson noted: “living lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity”.
For the majority of society, it was a workable mix of vaguely Christian ideals, Calvinist work ethic, freedom of speech to a point, bobbies on the beat, safety on the streets, tempered by Enlightenment freedom of thought and learning.
It was as high as society could realistically hope to get and children growing up in that more or less had security and good parenting. Job prospects were good. Debt was minimal. It’s always a good test of the health of a society – children being shielded from things way too early. Chimney sweeps were a bad phenomenon but that ended because this society no longer accepted it.
4. Social engineering, in the form of flooding the indigenous populations of Europe with alien cultures, including the clearly satanic, Islamic, murdering and raping and mistreatment of women.
And one of the worst spin-offs is the hardening of one section of the population quite divorced from reality, into some sort of social justice force, based on a handed-down ideology which hijacks language and twists concepts, calling right wrong and wrong right in the name of feelgood words now divorced from their original meanings, e.g. equality, diversity, tolerance, further embuing those wrongly defined concepts with the power of law.
5. And this fanaticism divides society right down the middle. Because there are many of us who do not want a bar of this Brave New World.
6. And this, when govt decides to use it for its own ends, also turns the nation into criminals, making it impossible for people to not breach these new laws, imposed by federal structures headed by unelected fanatics. And that is classic Soviet Union. Exceedingly clever of the fanatical architects, guaranteed to create a dystopia instead of the promised utopia, employing all the tactics the ideology is supposedly down on.
7. It also trivializes, dumbs-down, mediocritizes and infantilizes the new generation, such that none of the original ideas of what is high and noble matter any more – they now have substitutes such as celeb culture and Miley Cyrus.
Those are the major thrusts in western society today and there are opponents of those thrusts, implacable foes:
1. The increasingly white-anted Church, in the form of Catholicism and Protestantism, which must be publicly misrepresented by fanatics through, for example, test cases such as the gay cake row and and gay B&Bs, the real fanatics forcing these things on people supposedly running their own gaff in their own way.
The lie taught to the new generation is:
a. That the only devotees of the faith must ipso facto be fanatics who wish to take away people’s rights, when it is some of those very accusers who are the most intolerant of all – classic satanic inversion – that the ONLY Christians are fanatical people, that charity and charitable minds do not exist within the church, that there is no healing ministry, only Paisley-like fire and brimstone, paedophilia and mistreatment of young mothers.
b. That people of faith form a major threat to society, when their numbers are nowhere like those of the PC and SJW army, they don’t wish to impose anything on anyone, just maintain their own right to follow the nation’s traditions the way they always did – non-religiously.
And that is summed up neatly by Richard Dawkins:
Something worse is precisely what happens when Christian underpinnings are lost. This is a political, not a religious reality. Dawkins was making a political statement.
As Dawkins has always said, there is a lot which priests and nuns must historically answer for, e.g. in Ireland, inquisitions and the like but to kill off this faith altogether [something no one can actually achieve] is a different matter to coming down hard on abuses.
And herein lies the core theme of this post – fanaticism. Every field of endeavour has its fanatics, from anorak trainspotters to SJWs to those who mercilessly attack Christians for believing in what they do. There are fanatics in all fields. The Royal Society are fanatics, as is its destructive spawn, the IPCC. Michael Mann is a fanatic.
In looking at fanaticism, one must identify ALL the fanatics, not just the fashionable betes noires. And I am against ALL fanatics, whether Christian or secular.
Fanaticism, in my book, is forcing others to adopt your ways and mode of thinking.
2. The non-Christian secularists, e.g. those who just wish to maintain the way things were, especially the freedom to speak, write, associate and worship, this including half the libertarians, a sub-set which dangerously merges those wanting true freedom with those pushing faux freedom:
a. The classical liberal whose creed is personal freedom, e.g. freedom from govt interference, until it impinges on another person;
b. Those of the “do as thou wilt and damn anyone else” mold and it is this subset which harbours fanatics who target others they claim are fanatical yet they are the fanatics themselves in their hatred, so choked up in their own detestation that they can’t see what they are doing.
The problem with libertarianism has always been when it comes up against true fanatics such as the murdering and raping Muslims who are unequivocally trying to take over whole countries and reconstituting them in their own image. There is almost no difference in intent between them and the nazis of the 1930s or the Soviet Union or today’s Marxists. All of them are trying to take over society.
A libertarian has a genuine dilemma here. He or she is forced by circumstances into going against type and agreeing to curtail freedoms for those who would openly destroy freedom.
A classical liberal has no issue whatever in doing this, doing the necessary, a “do as thou wilt” libertarian struggles with it. A classical liberal says that to curtail the Muslim fanatic is to preserve freedom for our society. He doesn’t call for a ban on the PC and SJW fanatic, the Penny Red or Russell Brand but he does call for it on the Muslim fanatic.
Similarly, the Christian does not call for a ban on the intolerant atheist who wants him rubbed out, just as the intolerant Muslim wants the Jew rubbed out but he does call for a ban [or deportation] of the Muslim fanatic. Corral the bstds in their own lands.
But by saying this, he is handing the govt a weapon. Give an inch and the govt always takes a mile.
It’s the very forcing of people into positions they don’t like which is a form of fanaticism in itself.For example, a person might have no issue with gays as such, might be more than tolerant as a rule but when the gay mafia tries to redefine society, then that fanaticism on their part divides and splits everyone else, polarizing and forcing hitherto moderate people into more and more extreme positions on either side, only for the reconstituters to turn around and say – there, look at those haters.
So we are all finally dragged, kicking and screaming, to the realization that one must be intolerant of some things in order to preserve overall tolerance. And it is always the fanatics who claim they are the tolerant.
The litmus test of fanaticism is this – which lot are trying to change society? They are the fanatics, not the ones trying to stop them.