It is an oft-heard refrain typically from those who look upon Tradition with disgust. These wretches who demand that their abominable ways of life be not only immune from criticism at the level of social interaction, but that protections actually be enshrined into law.
The demand not to be ‘judged’ is most interestingly used by feminazis, but has been deployed as a rhetorical tactic by several other ‘persecuted groups’ (and by persecuted, we mean unhappy with their assigned role in the natural, divinely ordained order of the world).
We are reminded time and again that it is wrong to judge others on the basis of their ‘innate’ behavior, that if we criticize feminism and its adherents, what we are actually doing is engaging in a form of judgment that apparently none of us are in any position to make. This is epitomized in the stale argument closer “who are you to judge?”, an irrelevant questioning of one’s credentials that enable them to ‘judge’ a person.
But again, I think we have another word that has been… well, we should probably think of a term that can adequately describe the process in which a word is malformed in its usage beyond all coherence. I quite like ‘bastardized’.
Judgment is one of these bastardized terms because few moderns are able to define what it actually means. At this point in time, judging is just used to describe someone being critical of something that you don’t want to be criticized. Unfortunately, the word criticizing sounds too mild, so to generate the necessary outrage, we must use the word judging. This way, it conjures up images of a legal nature, and those doing the judging are seen as harsh, self-appointed arbiters of not only what constitutes a crime, but what the punishment should be as well. Of course, they won’t admit that this is what they are actually trying to do because then everyone would see through their web of lies and character assassinations.
Unfortunately for feminists, who want to “smash the patriarchy” and essentially reduce males to subordinate, effeminate pawns, this doesn’t really wash. And if it doesn’t really work for them, it’s unlikely to work for anyone else.
A simple logic test is enough to dismiss their warped definition of ‘judgment’.
1) Sally states that John should not ‘judge’ her for behaving like a whore in public because they are ‘equals’ and equals should not judge one-another.
2) This can be translated as “John should not apply a value label to Sally’s actions because neither occupies a higher station than the other”
3) However, if Sally and John are equals, and it holds that equals should not apply value labels to each other’s actions, then Sally should not apply a value label to John’s criticism of her whorish behavior
4) Sally can only state that John either is or is not judging her for behaving like a whore in public, and cannot say whether he should or should not do so.
Yet again, we see that what feminists and others really mean when they tell us not to judge them is actually a declaration of superiority, at least on the subconscious level. What Sally actually wants to say, but won’t say, is the following.
1) Sally states that John should not ‘judge’ her for behaving like a whore in public because she is superior to John, and inferiors should not judge superiors.
unless you question the meme that women are superior
then it is hate speech and you need to shut up!
Obviously the slogan of ‘equality’ gets huge mileage on the victimhood circuit, but it is not entirely apart from this discussion of ‘judging’ people. The two are related because one inherently contradicts the other.
You see, if everyone is equal, then the argument that we should not judge people is null and void, it effectively eats itself and morphs into social anarchy. Because if I shouldn’t judge anyone’s actions because we are equal, there is an implicit ‘should’ there. The question is, who judges what we should and shouldn’t do? After all, the statement itself tells us nobody is fit to judge.
To affirm the doctrine of non-judgment, the feminist has to abandon equality and reveal their true beliefs, that females are superior to males and they will be the final arbiters of what males should and should not do simply because of the superiority granted them by their sex.
interestingly, he sees himself as a ‘boy’
and not a man, which is surprisingly perceptive
We can conclude from this pretty quickly then that the doctrine of non-judgementalism in tandem with the lie of equality is simply a rhetorical device and nothing more. It has no intellectual meat on the bone which makes it hard to distinguish from most of the other feminist diatribe.
With that in mind, and because we fundamentally and correctly reject the notion that females are somehow superior to males, allow me to serve up a healthy dose of judgment.
Feminism is a disease.
The acolytes of this disgusting cult are an
abomination, detestable to anyone who sees
the world as it really is.
Feminism poisons its followers and
transforms them into diabolical banshees
who are typically physically unattractive
in the extreme, as well as highly illogical
Feminism protests the objectification
of women, and yet its followers are the
first to produce their often grotesque
naked bodies for all to see, including
Feminism is an ideology rather than
a behavior, so conceiving some
fitting punishment for its advocates is
However, we can certainly say the following
about whores, of whom many in our
media-driven age are self-identified
They should be put under the lash.
Such a punishment is fitting.
And we can definitely say the following about
baby-killers and the staunch advocates
They should surely be put to death.
Their blood is upon them.
Well, look! Not only did we get some major moral judgment, but I even delved into the remedy for such disgusting behavior.
We do not judge people because we believe we are God, nor do we fail to recognize the logs in our own eye, however Christ did not dismiss the Pharisees because they were judgmental, but because they were WICKED.
“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: FOR THEY SAY, and DO NOT!”
Should you seek today’s Pharisees, it is not the Traditionalist that you should condemn, but perhaps the average politician who may profess God with his mouth and a moment later spit upon the Book with his actions (see almost all American Democrat politicians claiming to be Catholic).
We are not commanded by God to blind ourselves to the evil things others do, and acknowledging that we also do evil does not prohibit us from judging others to be engaging in willfully wicked behavior.
So modern woman does not wish to have judgment passed on her when she murders her child, or parades herself like a common whore, or relentlessly pursues the usurpation of the legitimate authority of men in the various aspects of life whether it be the church, politics, the home, or most disturbingly the armed forces?
My response? So what?
We will judge you. We may not be able to ‘convict’ you of anything as we lack any practical or legitimate means to do so (for now) in the political sense, and obviously we cannot render ultimate conviction since we are not God. However, we may judge, and will judge using the Holy Word for it is the absolute truth in all matters pertaining to what human conduct is pleasing to the Lord, and what conduct He considers filthy.
If you are conducting yourself in a filthy manner, expect us to judge you as filthy and treat you accordingly.
The lesson for the whores of this dying modern age is clear. If you want to stop being deemed a whore, rather than demanding everyone cease judging you, just stop being a whore.
hellbound whores of FEMEN, urinating in the streets of Ukraine
stop judging them!