brv_016

brv_016 wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by OdiousOutlaw in by !deleted20881

Reply to so..conoclast: Because even this supposedly anarchist board is currently on the wrong side of the "war". If it were populated by beings considerable as "humans", then concepts like the need for "moderators" or that there was any kind of "offensive language" would not be entertained.

−3

brv_016 wrote

Beside the point, as usual. The very existence of the UN and such appendages as the WHO is a crime against humanity, and a crime against life itself. "Private" "business" is unmitigated destruction. warfare, abuse. "National" "government" is grand-scale warfare, plague-infected shit being dumped on lifeforms in general. "Global" "government"?...no more need be said. It is not the role of any named group of people to either impose "lockdowns" or demand "social distancing" - to do either is an act of war which should be punished with mass slaughter. COVID-19? Frankly we should let it do its job of culling the two-legged population. If you, or your relatives, are suffering, it does not make you exceptional or entitled to govern.

−3

brv_016 wrote

Reply to by !deleted20881

This article misses the point. Black Lives Matter became enemies of the entire human race as soon as they shifted their focus from police brutality to CENSORSHIP. Intruding into people's private communications, demanding - and, horrifingly, getting - both censorship of film and television, and apologies for "offences" (e.g David Walliams) which are only offences in the minds of the insane delusional and power-hungry (i.e amoral filth, that is). To claim a corporate identity (be it BLM or Wal-Mart or the Senate or the Bloods or name-any-religion - the above are all alike, they're all destructive nonhumans) is itself an act of war against the rest of the human race - a claim of elite status, exceptionalism, entitlement.

−8

brv_016 wrote

Reply to comment by brv_016 in by !deleted20881

MORALITY LESSON 102: Anyone who claims ownership of, and power of governance over, a website, radio frequency, etc is waging war with the rest of the human race.

−5

brv_016 wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted8445 in by !deleted20881

Black_Fox has just advocated censorship and claimed power to "moderate" a piece of electronic "air" which is public property. That action identified B-F as not a human but a plague-spreading animal which must be dealt with accordingly.

−5

brv_016 wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted8445 in by !deleted24215

Black_Fox has just advocated censorship. WARCRIME. Black_Fox is also claiming entitlement to "moderate" a piece of electronic air which is not his/her property, nor any specific person's. WARCRIME. To any sane people who read this - You can't reason with someone incapable of logical thought. When such a "being" (identifiable by belief in censorship and such related abusive concepts as the "problematic word") reveals itself, it is every sane person's duty to hunt it down and destroy it.

−7

brv_016 wrote

Reply to by !deleted24215

There's no such thing as the USA, just as there's no such thing as the UK. There are pieces of land with obvious natural boundaries (like mountain-ranges of inland-seas), and each is populated by two types of humanoid. The insane, who believe in and practice private property, wealth, governance in all its forms - and the sane who reject them. For as long as the aforementioned insane exist, it is necessary for the sane to wage war on them.

−5

brv_016 wrote

A point is being missed here. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is not the responsibility of any named group of people to DEMAND either mask-wearing, or lockdowns, or even social distancing. To make such a demand is an act of war against "the rest of the world". But before we even get to that, to claim a corporate identity - whether it's Parliament, Sainsbury's, Lloyds Bank or Black Lives Matter - is itself an act of war, an act of aggression. Because it is a claim of exceptionalism/superiority/entitlement. Which compels everyone outside the named elite to give them the war they so obviously want - i.e annihilate them.

−3

brv_016 wrote

Reply to by !deleted20881

The moment you acknowledge the concept of the "patriarchy" (which doesn't exist) you annul yourself. You are declaring war on males, but you are also declaring war on reality itself. Feminism (which is all about censorship and rejection of the realities of sex and the relationship between the genders) is as contemptible, dangerous, and destructive as religion.

−5

brv_016 wrote

Reply to by !deleted20335

I can't begin to guess what "your life doesn't matter" is shorthand for, what it infers.

But - this seems like a place to reiterate the bottom-line of how the human race works, what "morality" (recognition of reality) entails. (i) Whoever you are, you do not have the automatic right to live - because by being brought into the world, through your parents' carelessness or selfishness, you are thieving natural resources from everybody else. So you have to justify your continued existence every minute of every day. (ii) Every human, if they want to stay alive, must therefore learn early the many many life-skills necessary to be self-sufficient. Learn to not be a thieving wasteful consumer, to not be a hoarder of "property". and to never, ever attempt to govern anyone else's self-expression. Whoever you are, you do not have the right to never be threatened. Whoever you are, you do not have the right to never be insulted - in whatever terms the other person sees fit to use. Because - (iii) Whoever you are, you are not exceptional. Whatever you or your ancestors may have suffered, it does not make you an elite with special privileges to govern other people. You are neither apart from, nor superior to, everyone else - on the contrary, you are sub every single one of them, "Sub" = Sub-servient, due to being morally sub-standard in relation to them [even if you've somehow managed to fulfil the conditions above]. (iv) Whoever you are, the most you can hope to be to anyone else is "irrelevant". The alternative to being irrelevant is entering into a governatorial role, which is to say, being an abuser - and thus a threat to be annulled. (v) If there are two people on a piece of land, and person 1 claims ownership of something which person 2 does not have, person 2 is duty bound to kill person 1. And when persons 3, 4, 5 etc turn up, if person 2 is seen to be hoarding matter and preventing it from being distributed, then they are duty bound to kill person 2. And so on, and so on. Property is theft. Wasteful consumption a warcrime. Governance a warcrime. Those ten words are "reality" in a nutshell - the only moral code there is.

−1

brv_016 wrote

Reply to by !deleted20881

Discounting Linkedin I have never used social media, and never will - and I frankly question the sanity (meaning "basic mental competence") of those who have! We should never ever encourage passive tolerance of either the myth of "intellectual property" or censorship - the censorship practiced by Ofcom, the censorship practiced by the Home Secretary, the censorship practiced by "publishers" such as Facebook, or the censorship practiced by Twitter-mobs with their irrelevant displays of "offence" at communications which are neither "to" nor "about" them.

0

brv_016 wrote

I don't know why this obnoxious article has been copied to this site - I hope it was some kind of prank at our expense. "Lockdowns" are morally unacceptable under any circumstances, even if this were an ebola pandemic. What the UK government did on March 23 was a declaration of war by an elite upon the entire rest of the population, and must be recognised as such and responded to in kind. But that's only the beginning. It is not the role of either a "parliament" and its appendages e.g "local govenment", nor the role of any service-provider e.g a shop, to impose lockdowns or "social distancing" or, and this is a direct insult to the homeless, "cash-only payment policies" Basic logic - if you contract an airborne - and potentially deadly - virus, it is not someone else's fault. Even if someone literally grabbed hold of you and coughed in your face in an assaultive manner, your illness is not their fault because they did not bring those microbes into being. End of story. People who claim not to understand (i.e who deny) something as simple as that are presenting as insane, incapable of logic, as "seeing connections that aren't there"

−2