Lauren Southern Stupidity – Lies! Damn Lies!
I don’t know if I will have to force the 7 laws into this topic. I won’t try. If it naturally flows into it, then it does. If it doesn’t then it doesn’t. It may do, considering some of the subject matter.
So someone called “Lauren Southern” gets banned from entering “the UK”, meaning the piece of turf that particular set of politicians, the gang called government, deem to be theirs. And why?
Firstly, she’s “detained” (meaning captured) under terrorism laws and then, without “due process”, she is condemned as spreading racism, acting against British public policy, and evicted from the political gang’s turf. The “racist” or “terroristic” act was a test of public reaction (a social experiment). In response to the relative silence when a media outlet, in effect, insults her god, Jesus Christ, claiming that he could have been homosexual, she hands out tracts or pamphlets, saying that Allah, the object of worship of Muslims, is a homosexual god, a god of homosexuals, who accepts them. Because of this, she was banned from “the UK.”
After this ban, she did a number of interviews, and was a subject of media commentary. She made claims that “the UK” was supposed to be founded on freedom of speech, showing concern that the thugs who captured her, the Kent police, were implementing old blasphemy laws to get her out of the country. Yet, despite them effectively stripping her of her “rights”, she said the thugs were “nice”. An American TV commentator called Tucker Carlson, when seeing the apparent protection of so called “jihadists” who were allowed into the political gang’s turf, into “the UK”, in contrast to the banning of Lauren Southern and some others of the same political persuasion, he said, “I thought the UK was a free country.”
The amount of stupidity, lies and deception on every side is astounding, not necessarily for its quantity, but definitely in regards to quality.
For now, let me focus on the acts committed by the government thugs upon Southern.
One thing forbidden in the seven laws is kidnap. It falls under the prohibition of theft. If a government official (mis)uses government edict to hold you against your will, would that government official be culpable? If that official is in charge of others whom he commands to capture a person (mis)using a government law, would he or his underlings be guilty of kidnap? Does government have the right to capture people who it accuses of disobeying its edicts?
Those who have read this blog or have seen what I’ve said publicly will know I have a minority view about this, even possibly a minority view amongst those who are actively cognizant of the 7 laws. Unjust capturing of a person by individual or government is theft! The question for me is liability (meaning if coercion is present to excuse the person doing the kidnapping).
It would be interesting to hear the arguments against that stance.
What makes it unjust is the reasoning given: Racism and terrorism. The girl did nothing that showed hatred to a race as race is not the same as religion. And she committed no violence with the aim of causing terror to change political views. So on every level, the thugs of government were liars and were much closer to being terrorists themselves than she was.
If our law of justice is about fairness, then this was unjust, unfair.
But then we have the girl herself. I shake my head in disbelief thinking about the seeming idiocy she both espouses and promotes, that is, setting aside the charge of possible idolatry (worshipping a man as god).
A band of mercenaries captures her, in effect kidnapping her, they withhold her “rights” such as having legal counsel or to remain silent, threaten her to gain compliance, hold her like this for an hour, and she calls them “nice”, excusing their actions as just obeying orders from “above” (LOL. Above??? LOL).
Now, considering her worldview, this makes sense. She is a Christian. In Christianity, we do the crime and Jesus does the time regardless of and without our consent. The sober-minded should see this isn’t merely injustice, but also irresponsibility. It is morally reprehensible. It’s because it spits on the principles of personal responsibility in the Jewish Bible. It mutilates and horribly disfigures the teaching in the offerings in the law of Moses, mangling them into the glorification of human sacrifice, or worse, portrays the degrading and insulting image of a dead God.
Coming back to responsibility, she treats the actual culprits, the ones who personally violated her (“rights”), as irresponsible, helpless to obey immoral orders. And their politeness duped her into seeing her captors as “nice”. Stockholm syndrome at its best! Imagine a victim of rape, excusing the rapist because he was polite. Or imagine the Jews of the Holocaust excusing the Nazis, who kidnapped and killed them, because they were nice and only following orders.
The idolatry in the cult of statism is deluding. This deluding nature of statism carried across to other nonsensical rhetoric spouted by Southern and Tucker, in Southern’s odd belief that “the UK” was founded on freedom of speech, and in Tucker’s thought that it was a free country. Both history and reality makes a mockery of such speech. In fact, Southern contradicts herself. How so? She keeps saying that “the UK”, or, more properly, its political, ruling gang, had blasphemy laws, i.e., historically there was not freedom of speech. The fact that the thugs of government can detain and ban her for speech or communication shows there’s no such thing as freedom of speech in the UK now. Added to that, UK police thugs are capturing people for things said on Twitter, charging people for “crimes” of “homophobia”. Just recently, a man called “Count Dankula” got convicted in a British court for, as a joke, posting a video of a dog saluting to some Nazi statements. Freedom of speech isn’t simply dead in this country. It never existed.
Its also interesting that she referred to “the UK”, the united kingdoms, and thinks it was founded on free speech. I don’t think Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all joined willingly with England because of freedom of speech. There was bloodshed and war in the bringing together of these people groups and lands. The idea of freedom of speech being the basis of the UK is asinine tripe.
And a “free country”??? I feel sorry for people who hold such infantile and utopian notions quite separate from reality. I work with special needs children who have a firmer grasp of reality. Hmmm … that was wrong. I shouldn’t lower the intelligence of the special needs kids to such an ideology.
Was that too harsh? Hmmm … if I’m insulting an idea and not a person, it should be fine, right?
Anyway, think about it! To be free means to be unrestrained, uncoerced, without someone’s control over you. What necessary implication must the word “government” have if not control??? This system, this political system is hinged on a gang telling others what they can and can’t do under threat of force, aggression. DO AS YOU’RE TOLD OR ELSE WE WILL HURT OR KILL YOU!
I was discussing this with some work colleagues and the realisation was reinforced: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE COUNTRY! Whenever someone who supports or advocates for any aspect of the state utters the idea of a free country, they lie! They lie to themselves and others!
“BUT WE HAVE FREEDOMS! WE HAVE RIGHTS!” cries the believer. Again, numerous cases, including this Lauren Southern incident proves this stance fallacious.
To say “we have freedoms” is to say “I have this freedom here and I have that freedom there”. These “freedoms” are simply places or acts that the government allows. They are simply government allotments and privileges. It’s the same principle with “rights” as the set of so called “human rights” differ from one political gang turf to another, from one period of time to another, from one culture to another. They, the ruling gang, set these privileges (“freedoms”, “rights”), as shown by the fact that they differ from government to government. Even the privileges somewhat agreed upon, judges and legislators and the police (translate as “more government officials”) get to choose the scope of the privileges and when or when not to pay attention to them. And with or without these privileges, that gang of people set the demands and the threat.
The fact that Southern’s “rights” and the “rights” and “freedoms” of others, “rights” that are said to be bound to the fact that we are humans, “freedoms” that are supposed to exist and be effective as long as we are human, supposedly inalienable, that those “natural” rights, “rights” supposedly bound to our very nature, can be taken by force of government demonstrates the actual fact: there is no objective basis, no true basis, in the concept of “rights”. They are simply transitory and imaginary privileges created, given and / or taken away by the ruling class and the thugs. Essentially, you get whatever privileges the government gives you.
Remember, a right, in this system, is a legal claim, that is, a claim backed up by law, which is nothing other than edicts, ukases, whims, yes, the opinions of the politicians and rulers. That’s why so called “human rights” are conflated with “civil rights” (the rights given by government) or “constitutional rights” (the rights created in an old, man-authored document which innately has no power).
No one can looked to God saying, “these men sinned in that they took away my rights.” There is no divine command, no explicit divinely given principle of rights. The political gang just used the idea whitebait, luring victims in with false promises of privileges apparently owed, and then the gullible are hooked into giving legitimacy to the fishermen, hunters, the dominators.
What makes my analogy flawed is that it makes it seem as if the gang (“fishermen”) have a different nature to the prey / serfs / citizens when in fact – and what makes things worse is that – they are just like the rest of us; it is only faith and indoctrination that makes them seem different or superior. Ah, yet another similarity to idolatry.
Let me cut this here.
So, yes, in this Southern debacle, there are questions brought up by the application of the seven laws, maybe even some indictments. There are also great flaws in reasoning and outright deceptions promulgated by victim and oppressor alike. In it, there are lessons to be learnt about the continuing power of idolatrous faith in the minds of even those supposedly innocent, the Stockholm Syndrome that is popular in all nations.
Just like how a human, a Gentile, is supposed to know what is prohibited and permitted according to our divinely given obligations, it is also important to discern between fact and fiction so as not to let the fictions gain power over our priorities.