Individual life

[matrixmann]

What use has tolerance in society for me, if before law I got no right to claim my order for me?

Comments

[onb2017.livejournal.com]

It is again a method of diversion. Like you know, if people generally do not like something ( and they don't like crowds of poor people from different cultures or freaky-dicky gays and so on) and somebody makes them accept it then later the blow up will be devastating. Like in Nazi Germany they will blame Muslims for all possible economic problems. Well, this is already happening to some degree in the US.

[matrixmann]

I regard it in that way: If you always keep making society crazy about anyhting, you don't have to really do anything. Society's acceptance is useless if I am in court and before law. Let's say, if I want it noted down that I'm married to two persons. Or, that I want my best friend to be also parentally responsible for my child despite him/her being not related by blood to it or me.
Those people who always slam the hammer the most on the terms "tolerance" and "acceptance", there's barely anything you ever hear about them trying to influence politics, to do the dirty game that every lobby does and reach a change by that. Only you hear it from the really nuts organizations of which you can guess some big donator in the background will be the cause of this that anyone listens to these organizations at all.

So, what is it what this kind of people wants?
If you want real change in society, you need to fucking go to your parliament and win these for your idea. Safety before law is the first stage to fight anything 'cause everyone who gets violated in his/her rights according to that, he can go to a court and sue somebody over it. He can fucking get away making use of his rights. What is it worth if you can't and you always depend on others to accept you?
If you're unlucky, they just cut a grimace and say "Fuck you! I do whatever I want!".
Not much won with that, in my opinion.

But, if you keep only making society crazy, it's easy to present youself as the winner in this fight. Either other people defend your position against trolls and critics, or you can just stand there and call somebody "intolerant" like a little child that cries for mommy. There's no way of losing for you, if you draw that strategy.
And I get the thought, it's just about this. About being the center of attention, about being able to call everyone an idiot and be the glorious winner. The game of the glorious and awesome narcissist. Prasising yourself how good you are and decreasing the social status of another fraction...
Not like I wouldn't know it or know nothing about these things from the psychological point of view.

And that's how this appears to me on the outside. It's really about nothing in substance, it more is about some people with a narcissistic pathology and satisfying that.

[onb2017.livejournal.com]

You know, all the tolerance is probably coming from hippies. They don't want violence because they smoke pot and don't give an F about anything except some crazy delusional ideas of loving everyone. So, let's love every freak around and that supposedly will solve all the problems that the society faces.

[matrixmann]

You know, as far as my knowledge goes, I regard it as a thing in the development thread of that stuff that once started with the original hippies. This 68er stuff. (Or, wait, aren't these two seperate things? I always have the impression like it is one and the same pot and soup; only the 68er stuff is a phrase or a term how this is called in West Germany.)
'Cause, some other blog I read from time to time here and there they talk like that in the comment columns. Those ridiculous family politics this state tries to do sometimes and their fight on hatespeech - explanation that occasionally gets thrown into the ring is "that's what it looks like when those people already influenced by radical feminism enter government positions".
Interesting for me to observe, you know.
And I won't deny that so much 'cause, from the timeline, it is not only possible, but fits the situation well enough. People who have already been influenced by all that "liberation" crap from the 60s and early 70s, those are now old enough to fit into the high positions of society. The others older than them are already dead by natural circumstances or are on the threshold of dying from old age. There aren't too many left anymore of the generation before that.
And so it might be that this is a viable explanation for all that ridiculous crap that goes on.
Due to this being a phenomenon of the West, it's also no mirable that someone from the East or the former Soviet block doesn't understand it as this didn't exist there. Socialism itself modernized society, and due to the devastating war some deeply conservative attitudes were erased which the fascism based itself upon.
As a consequence from that, the former Soviet block ideologically also doesn't contain all the further results from that 68er chain. That's a rather recent phenomenon carried there from the outside...

And, I think you know what theory I have about all this 68er-/minority-activism anyway. That I don't know sometimes if that crap was controlled by outside forces in the first place and not by real, honest people.

[mexpatriot.livejournal.com]

Isn't Soros involved in the 68 West and in ending the USSR?

[matrixmann]

Er, the 68er term that I use I notice is specifically an expression for the student protests in West Germany around 1968. (See explanations here: http://www.dict.cc/?s=68er; the dictionary must originate from the German language sphere as the interface is in German in general, but also it has a lot of entries for terms used in German which you have no propper English pendants for and which you can only explain what it is.)
But, the rhetorics and topics propagated in this are pretty much comparable to the hippie movement originating from the US.
In the first place it was about the world in West Germany acting like the war hadn't happened and behind the scenes still pulling the old Nazi shit out of the hat, but later it became that crap that talked about "free love" (promiscuity), anti-authoritarian upbringing, women's rights (in that form that women act like men, are the better humans, but also that they can determine things without their spouses such as doing a job, can abort and so on - useful as well as toxic things - example for this, try research on person "Alice Schwarzer"), the lifeforms like "Kommune" (translates literally as "commune", but it is more specifically for something and English doesn't carry this over; it means people living in a community where people like share everything and think the same, also maybe share sex partners without envy - see people like "Rainer Langhans".), I think a more lax handling of drugs (the usual stuff during the hippie movement) also was present.
Specifically, I think the roots of this lie in the hippy "free love"-crap, later as in the 70s and 80s the Green party founded, they also had people in between their rows that practiceed or advocated the harmlessness of adults having sex with kids. Meaning, the pedophile shit.
Somewhere in the roots of the acceptance movement for gays these also mixed in, but I think the very origin that this was possible also lies in this 68er political movement.
Literally, a feature of the 68ers was throwing everything away that their parents and other adults did, even putting things into question which have their reason behind it and that shouldn't be touched or even cannot be touched.

This is as far as I know about it, and I rather need to acquire my knowledge through reading because, as said, this crap didn't exist in that way in the Soviet block. Hippies, I think, also existed and they also did this style of music that came from the US, but, for example, they didn't exactly have all this politcal crap identically with them. They had their own claims and they had their own kind of education resulting from science that was evidenced also through scientists of the last century.
Not like the US movement which was born at the baby boomer years (around 1950), went to university and thought like they were the kings of the world.

Which people pulled their strings in this, this is something I must do further research when the mood is there - I don't know if Soros already shifted millions between two corners already then.
One person I learned about in concrete was the guy described in this article: https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/
and that nephew of Sigmund Freud (Edward Bernays) you once wrote about. The Jew conspiracy stuff I'd try to let out of this 'cause there's a lot of bullshit in there, but one thing that seems to result from those closer family ties that were present in this kin is that he could make pretty good use from the researches and findings of his uncle. Or, he also had a talent for recognizing links in the functioning of humans.
That one and his influence I wouldn't keep out of sight for finding explanations for a few things. 'Cause, just as it is, it was COLD WAR. War means war in this term too, even if it was more a war of ideologies.