The Obeyers 1
Thinking that because someone puts on a uniform, a robe, a funny hat, or gets bestowed a title of some sort, they are automatically gifted with omniscience is one of mankind’s fatal flaws. Anyone who hangs on such an absurd belief, is one of the Obeyers.
It’s not a harmless quirk, since we are all at risk from the Obeyers. People who think that if someone “passes a law,” not only do they have to “obey” it, but everyone else as well. No investigation, no clarification, no learning allowed. Simply dogma and assertion.
What Happens with Obeyers
Instead of listening to the ideas of others, to alternatives, they become spies or agents for the government, looking for “dissidents” to “expose.”
We’re stuck with a crazy, unjust “justice system,” that only continues because of the Obeyers.
And a stream of crazed minions, creating their corrupt “laws.”
You’ll hear, that “they” are going to “make a law.” Or, its complement: “There ought to be a law.”
What circle of hell are we in to fall for this time and again?
Some great ones: “It’s illegal to steal from Walmart.” “It’s illegal to steal from Target.” “It’s illegal to steal from Wong’s Corner Grocer at 48th & Pine...”
“It is illegal to kill government employees,” in the U.S. Social Security office. WTF??? In what kind of an anti-human environment would there be a need for such a sign?
It’s already a crime to steal, so we don’t need an individual law specific to each and every store, office or business ever.
Mind-boggling, that no one ever seems to question why they need a sign in the S.S. office about killing government employees. Unless they, government minions, are considered outside of the normal, common law. There’s a good chance that’s true, but who is going to admit it? And why should they? We already know that the government is its own little world.
We should realize though, that this atomization to specifics is a strategy. It's a make-work project to justify government, government encroachment, and increased government. It creates confusion and pretext, along with solidifying the illusion of government as “lawmaker,” something we know is a falsehood, since we don’t create, but discover, law. (Another quote that bears shameless repetition.)
Another shocker from the halls of government: a recent ruling, this time from the U.S. Supreme Court itself, that basically nullifies the Fourth Amendment by creating a loophole that allows unwarranted searches.
Can't forget Roosevelt’s theft of gold from the American people, back in 1933, made legal with the stroke of a pen. Soon after, government revalued the dollar from $20.67/oz to $35.00/oz, a 41% devaluation. The machinations and schemes that led to that unfortunate event wouldn't have been possible without the Obeyers.
Of course, the Obeyers are wonderful at portraying government as a benevolent force, as we see in things like the absurd worship of Abe Lincoln.
“Lincoln freed the slaves” nonsense was even debunked on the mass-media. Kwik-E-Mart manager Apu explained on The Simpsons that the Civil War wasn’t just about slavery.
Lincoln was very clear, he wasn’t interested in freeing anyone, but would use the notion as a war tactic. Anyone can research this for himself or herself.
Shockingly, SJW dweebs on Facebook and Reddit are adamant that it was about slavery. Why? Virtue signaling? Superiority complex? They get off on this sort of thing.
It’s yet more stridency from low-testosterone cucks and fruitcakes. There can be no examination of the civil war because slavery was the Big Bad, and will not brook further discussion. Utter nonsense of course, and open slavery is an expedient but inefficient system, so it was on the way out anyway.
The Reddit retards strutting about with their “knowledge” are of course, Obeyers, and these scum, of course, make future war and oppression more likely. Remember, if we can’t examine causes and consequences, there can be no advancement.
It’s shocking to observe how people still generally don’t know how to research, despite the advent of this great resource, the internet. And it’s shocking to see the influence of confirmation bias is so strong, when things like this Lincoln quote are now effortless to research.
Letter to Horace Greely:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
He considered the slave emancipation as a military tool (anticipating that the slaves would revolt against their southern masters). Somehow this is considered... good? No, that’s not the way to do it, to create death, chaos and destruction. Destabilizing. You can’t just “free” a bunch of people, leaving them nowhere to go. You couldn’t or shouldn’t even offer a haven for escaped slaves in abolitionist states, considering you might be unwittingly welcoming in some criminals, murderers, and so on.
Perhaps monetary compensation could be offered to the slaveholders (a tactic actually suggested back then). You might offer passage back to Africa for those who desired it. In fact there were any number of peaceful strategies to unwind the dilemma.
Reddit just shows what a vast number of fools we have walking the streets. As though those poor sharecroppers had vast armies of slaves at their beck and call. Only the very wealthy scum had slaves in the first place, the same scum who concocted the scheme to move forward by enslaving everyone, nothing to do with the average schmo. So, it is not really legitimate nor fair to say the U.S. even had slavery, it was so isolated. The bulk of the populace was poor immigrants looking for a better life.
Then we’re told, in one of the most epic examples of weaselly double-speak:
I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Okay, Linkie-Boy, whatever you say. Well, the rebel states wanted to be free and independent, didn’t they? But you worked tooth and nail to suppress that struggle for freedom. Such nonsense. The South was being oppressed by the Feds, with punishing tariffs and other favoritism towards the North. Again, inefficient slavery would have ended anyway, especially with the turn of public opinion and technological advancement, like the cotton gin.
Never mind the hypocrisy, and irony, of a nation that, not so long prior, had fought a bloody war to free itself from a different out-of-control government, Great Britain, now finding itself facing another murderous campaign by its own government against its own people.
This was a higher-level operation, well-planned. The scheme to make everyone an unwitting slave, largely accomplished by early in the 20th century, if not before, meant they’d have to abandon overt slavery.
Also maddening is the fact that despite all the filthy defamation of the U.S., overt slavery persists, particularly in South Asia and Africa, the Middle East and Africa (just like before the U.S. was even formed). This is never mentioned by the filth of Reddit or their ilk. Plus, of course, human trafficking is rampant all over the world (with one obvious kingpin being Jeff Epstein & Associates).
Remember, the victor writes the history, so naturally the U.S. government will paint a rosy picture that it just desired freedom for all in spanking those nasty Confederate rebels!
Ridiculous, the same nonsense exposed in the article, War, and with the same solution as described there.
Comments