Moral Superiority’s Blank Check

The most dangerous mind-set known to mankind is moral superiority, and it’s been on display, particularly by the Radical Left, since time immemorial. There are many harmful consequences to moral superiority, but the most dangerous one is a predisposition to violence. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, or college-snowflake protestors, the Radical Left revels in violence.

The odor of moral superiority permeates virtually all areas of our life and gives the self-righteous among us justification for destroying anyone who dares to defy their beliefs. Whether it’s the global warming scam, the murder of unborn babies, or the forcible shutting down of speakers with whom they disagree, the heretics must be destroyed at all costs.


The number-one enemy of the morally superior is, as one would expect, free speech, because free speech has the potential to convert believers into disbelievers.


After all, if you’re morally superior, you have a blank check to do whatever is necessary to save the world.


That’s what all the vicious, nonstop attacks on Donald Trump have been about. He’s the greatest threat to the Radical Left in our lifetime — and probably ever. Why? Because he is daring to stand up to those who are morally superior to him, and that simply cannot be allowed. There is no other alternative than to destroy him.

Moral Superiority?s Blank Check - by Robert Ringer

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the press has caught this disease and has failed miserably at what they're supposed to do and that is inform the public fairly, letting them make up their minds.

Having taken sides, feeling morally superior, they have perverted at least a couple generations of Americans, to the great detriment of the country.

Yeah, the difference between conservatives expressing moral outrage and conservatives expressing moral outrage are as follows...

1. Conservatives use legitimate means to illegitimate ends. Passing amendments to define marriage, passing overreaching laws, or enforcing codes: conservatives use legal means to justify their arguments. Liberals simply yell and scream and conjour up new rules retroactively. This is what Democrats did to Bernie Sanders supporters during the Las Vegas caucuses. They created new rules retroactively to justify disenfranchising Bernie Sanders supporters.

2. Indulgence in violence. It's not just a matter of committing violence: it's relishing in it. Like Mao or Stalin before them, a liberals go to response as soon as shouting doesn't work is to engage in violence. Whether it's Berkeley protests or the Great Leap Forward, liberals demand that undesirables be killed. Here's an example of a literal Social Justice Warrior and a moderate liberal engaging in violence. She commits multiple criminal assaults and engages in violence. And she thinks she has a right to engage in violence because of conjoured up "morality".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkpHwI78W5Y

3. Using the office of the state to justify violence. Go back to that video of the Social Justice Warrior and moderate liberal engaging in violence. She's an employee at the university. She had told that halpless victim that he didn't belong there and she used her position as a government employee to try and engage in intimidation. Hillary promised to initiate and American version of the Holodomor when she bragged about putting coal miners out of work. Her goal was to have millions of Americans starve to death using the force of the government to create widespread murder. This is how liberals operate. They.

Maybe the press wouldn't be so hard on Trump if he didn't lie quite so much. Just a thought.

A "lie" is anything the kooker left disagrees with. And that's the problem with the left. Shut everybody up that dares to have a conflicting opinion.

zimmer said:

Unfortunately the press has caught this disease and has failed miserably at what they're supposed to do and that is inform the public fairly, letting them make up their minds.

Having taken sides, feeling morally superior, they have perverted at least a couple generations of Americans, to the great detriment of the country.

Click to expand...

Should sides be taken on moral issues, or should we just pretend there is no morality at all, there is no right and wrong?

It seems to me each 'side' clings to its own version of right and wrong. One side, for example, says not having the proper immigration status or papers is not only illegal, but immoral. And they, the self-proclaimed enforcers of both immigration law and associated morality, are doing the right thing by separating families, getting rid of tax paying illegals, and returning them to their home countries.

Others say that they are morally superior by killing innocents with drones and torturing those left living.

So what is right, and what is wrong?

US society today has spinning moral compass, if it has a compass at all.

In its defense, society at large today is the end product of decades of brainwashing, so the question might be: is today's citizen even capable of making informed moral decisions? With intolerance and hatred at high levels, are we able to recognize the difference between right and wrong?

Vetplus40 said:

Maybe the press wouldn't be so hard on Trump if he didn't lie quite so much. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Most hypocrites don't enjoy being called out.

As long as Trump does this, the press will hate him. That and being a Republican. Selective outrage is the stock in trade for the media.

Obama lied with regularity.

Clinton raised lying to an art form.

The press was fine both of these liars.

I'm not sure that lying is not an appreciated and shared trait in the media.

reinoe said:

Yeah, the difference between conservatives expressing moral outrage and conservatives expressing moral outrage are as follows...
.

Click to expand...

Umm....

The GOP has ceded moral superiority by selecting a man with little qualification, and no expressed interest or demonstrable record of public service for the office.
Even his most ardent followers suggest people ignore the statements he makes, and that he can't be taken at his word.

Thoreau72 said:

Should sides be taken on moral issues, or should we just pretend there is no morality at all, there is no right and wrong?

It seems to me each 'side' clings to its own version of right and wrong. One side, for example, says not having the proper immigration status or papers is not only illegal, but immoral. And they, the self-proclaimed enforcers of both immigration law and associated morality, are doing the right thing by separating families, getting rid of tax paying illegals, and returning them to their home countries.

Others say that they are morally superior by killing innocents with drones and torturing those left living.

So what is right, and what is wrong?

US society today has spinning moral compass, if it has a compass at all.

In its defense, society at large today is the end product of decades of brainwashing, so the question might be: is today's citizen even capable of making informed moral decisions? With intolerance and hatred at high levels, are we able to recognize the difference between right and wrong?

Click to expand...

Very good post.

I doubt that the notions of right and wrong are a shared foundation in our country anymore.

The notions in these areas seem to be more like topically determined flights of fancy. The most important determining factors seem to be the identities of those in consideration and the feel-good factors associated by the shrieking elites.

There was a time in our history that "pulling your own weight" was respected. Today, that has morphed into "getting your fair share".

I feel that from that basic difference in our national psyche, most of our problems proceed.

As long as personal responsibility is replaced with a shared guilt, there will be no personal response demanded of the individual.

With no personal responsibility, there is no personal ownership of issues and results. A great saying in this regard is, "If it's not somebody's job, it's nobody's job."

If you are waiting for someone else to make you happy, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Vetplus40 said:

Maybe the press wouldn't be so hard on Trump if he didn't lie quite so much. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

The "press" is pissed off, just like the left is, that Americans didn't fall for their BS liberally biased propaganda and voted Trump president anyway. Therefore, Trump must be attacked so that we can go back to the status quo. What the left just can't seem to comprehend is that with the left, the press, and Hollywood all attacking Trump mercilessly before the election, Trump still won. That strategy did not work to get Hillary elected but somehow now they think that the very same strategy will dethrown Trump now.

Congratulations. You proved the OP's point in 20 words or less.