Television Programmed a Social Revolution


Bitchute by Perplexed_Perspectives on December 3rd, 2019.

This entry was posted in Videos. Bookmark the permalink.
938

22 Responses to Television Programmed a Social Revolution

  1. Katie says:

    Sexual perversions does not equate to liberty. It’s a complete lie and we know it.

    When govt. makes sexual deviants a protected class, this is when insanity arises.

    It goes against nature which the common law is based on.

    Keep your freak of nature acts private. You bring them onto the streets, you will be dealt with.

    Morality is key to liberty.

  2. galen says:

    Ya know, Mary, this quote got me thinkin’… How subjective is morality? And what one finds virtuous, another may find appalling. And religion, a very loaded term. Somehow even The Golden Rule doesn’t hold up. Consider:

    “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    What if someone likes to be physically hurt? Will that person assume I’d also like to be hurt? Extreme example, I know, but there are those who go there. Would a reversal of The Golden Rule help me in not having my rights infringed? Let’s see:

    “Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself.”

    I don’t know if this holds up either. For instance, what if I, finding myself in a dangerous situation, do not want to be rescued, preferring instead to be left to my own devices? Would I assume that since I myself do not want rescuing the same holds true for another in a similar situation?

    Damn, another bad example. Jus’ tryin’ to say, it’s tricky business to define some code of ethics, some agreed upon acceptable behavior. I think I can only boil it down to, Do not infringe on each others’ rights. And believe it or not, I find some spirituality in that.

    .

    • Martist says:

      This is why the “critical theory” from the Frankfurt School was created.

      It creates a schism that goes against Natural Law i.e. simple concepts such as not committing murder, only women can be mothers, self-preservation, etc.

      Going against such basic time-tested previously universally understood and accepted mores was introduced to cause such an upheaval so that marxism could be easier implemented.

      It is “unnatural” to not want to survive but by all means, I would not deprive someone of the wish to die.

      Very akin to “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”.

    • KOYOTE says:

      “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

      “What if someone likes to be physically hurt? Will that person assume I’d also like to be hurt? “HAHAHA!!! YOU’RE RIGHT YOU KNOW BUT, I THINK VERY FEW PSYCHOPATHS ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE.

      HERE IS AN INTERESTING POINT ABOUT THIS STATEMENT. IT IS MORE SUBJECTIVE THAN ONE WOULD THINK.
      IN OTHER WORDS, “DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU,” DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE ACTIONS OF THE SECOND PARTY. WHAT WOULD YOU WANT SOMEONE TO DO TO YOU IF YOU WERE ACTING IN THE SAME MANNER? IT IS A VERY INTERESTING STATEMENT, THAT WAS PUT FORTH FOR A REASON. TO MAKE THE READER “THINK”…………”HARD”. WHEN CARRIED THROUGH BY ONE WITH HONEST INTENT, AT THE END, YOU FIND ROOM FOR JUSTICE, AND A COMMAND FOR MERCY. THE BILL OF RIGHTS FILLS THE BILL NICELY WITH ITS DEMAND FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS WELL AS ITS STRAIGHTFORWARD CLAIMS THAT OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE BACKING OF NATURAL LAW.
      NEVER STOP THINKING……………

      • galen says:

        “NEVER STOP THINKING.”

        Today you say that?!! Today when all I want to do is stop thinking, just for a little while. I was almost there and then WHAM!! I come across something that turns my day upside down and inside out. It may be old news for some, but it’s new for me. 17 min vid. I’ve listened twice and still can’t believe what I’m hearing. I have to listen again so my shock smooths out and I can digest what I’m hearing. This is someone reading an article by a Jewish man, written in 1928:

        A Real Case Against the Jews by Marcus Eli Ravage:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4bRViR_56c

        .

    • Henry Shivley says:

      I reckon on how technical you want to get.
      Someone likes to get hurt, so its all right for them to hurt me, but when I do unto you with an aluminum baseball bat that leaves both your legs, both your arms, your back broken, and your balls batted up into your throat, I guess you’ll be done doing unto others.
      In short I guess it would just be a one time deal. 🙂

      • galen says:

        I see your point. 🙂

        This right here, this seeming rumination of spiritual matters was a bit of manipulation on my part, just an on-going attempt to wiggle out of the religion box where often live imposed morals. And yet, I try to be moral according to my own understanding. This was a silent scream toward imposition, seemingly ever lurking in the portals of existence.

        Perhaps I have an infringement complex.

        🙂

        .

        • Martist says:

          I get ya, Galen. I am skeptical about everything after realizing everything I ever learned for a few decades was a complete snd utter lie. You can only do your best to be the best you can be. Some things you can’t over think. The fact you even thought about it at all or considered anyone else or anyone else’s Rights is probably 1000x more than a lot of people ever think at all. If I could change the world myself, I’d be out there doing it. Right NOW. But I know I can’t. But bettering myself as best I can and trying is what I CAN do and at least I know I died trying. Again, it’s the best WE can do and I am grateful to know there are likeminded individuals who believe in INDIVIDUAL liberties and how they are the key to everyone being free and being able to get along as best THEY can.

        • Henry Shivley says:

          You do not have to be religious to be moral.
          The Bill of Rights is common sense logic, designed for uninhibited liberty, from freedom of thought to absolute allodial ownership of property.
          It is the twelve person jury, be they religious or not, that must follow the law and weigh each individual’s rights against the other’s as if they were their own. Should any one of them render a verdict contrary to the facts and the law, they too can be charged, as can the judge who allows it. It is the job of the common law judge to make sure every individual’s rights are protected. Whether one likes what another is doing, the individual right to do so must be upheld, because that is the law.
          Unless one can show a damage, hence the corpus delicti, the damaged property or the damaged person, there can be no action, and if one is taken without the damage, the party filed against becomes the damaged person. The double edged sword of justice swings back the other way, and it is razor sharp on both sides.
          You are free to think and do as you please unless you violate another’s right in doing so.
          If two queers want to do their freak shit in their own castle, though the thought disgusts me and I find it morally reprehensible, it is not affecting me. If they come out of their castle and into the public square and try to force me to observe the reprehensible act, they are disturbing my right to peace of mind when in the public square. They are trying to force me to accept something I find unacceptable and they have seized me by bringing their personal perversion into the public square.
          This is also where the fighting words doctrine comes into effect.
          Remember, these are natural rights and in nature there are certain things that every creature will not accept and will attack on instinct. Should such an occasion occur, it would be up to that jury to decide if the fella who beat the f-k out of the two queers did so as a natural act for his or her peace of being.
          Infringement is infringement, but you cross the line when you seize the person in mind or body, and or his or her property, and force them to act against their will.
          Hope this helps. 🙂

  3. Martist says:

    This on “harry hay”:

    “Born to an upper middle class family in England, Hay was raised in Chile and California. From an early age he acknowledged his same-sex sexual attraction, and came under the influence of Marxism. Briefly studying at Stanford University, he subsequently became a professional actor in Los Angeles, where he joined the Communist Party USA, becoming a committed activist in left-wing labor and anti-racist campaigns.”

    All of the founders of church of satan and the satanic temple were marxist joos(anton levey, cevin soling, lucian greaves)

Leave a Reply