Cal Thomas is now flagellating himself over the specter of White privilege as lamented in his column titled “America’s Reckoning With Racism”. If he is really so concerned about this why doesn’t he surrender his influential position in the media to a minority? Readers should also note that he selected the luxury of Florida in which to live out his golden years rather than the squalor of one America’s ghettos in which he would have been able to actualize the values he demands of the rest of us such as the willingness to be verbally denounced and berated by those we have allegedly oppressed.
So do media propagandists jacked out of shape over the use of tear gas and pepper spray to disperse riotous protesters intend to articulate condemnation as rigorous of Antifa’s strategy to gouge out eyes?
Do those claiming to support Black Lives Matter really support the cause when asked or fear bodily harm and vandalized property?
Regarding municipalities and jurisdictions threatening to disband police departments in order to placate riotous mobs demanding astronomical welfare handouts categorized as social programs: will those breaking the law in such areas still be apprehended or taken into custody? If so, even if under the banner of another name, aren’t those still the functions of a police department?
With the abolition or defunding of police departments, Whites have even more justification to flee urbanized areas leaving them to further decay and blight.
Apparently mobs marching through the streets are enough to get technocrats to ease the rigors of the plague cult. Perhaps churches ought to begin holding mass decentralized public worship meetings not directly linked to any one congregation surrounded by armed militias. If left unaccosted, such would not be violent.
Given that Black Lives Matter only gets jacked out of shape when those of a certain ethnic composition get mistreated by the police, doesn’t that expose how inherently racist that movement is?
If protesters carry signs with language deemed linguistically inappropriate, the media shouldn’t blur the image. Don’t these liberal journalists any other time insist upon how obligated oppressors are to listen to these disenfranchised COMMUNITIES expressing THEIR TRUTH unfiltered?
During protest coverage, media propagandists informed that certain images had to be blurred to protect viewers and their families from alleged profanity. Too bad the media is not as decisive about rendering judgment against the destruction and theft of private property
Media propagandists said that the profanity on protest signs had to be blurred so as not to harm viewers at home. But is it about protecting viewers or out of concern that seeing such might shock the average American that usually doesn’t consider the implications of this subversive element regarding how there is an effort underway to implement a worldview of demoniac tyranny formulated in the bowels of Sheol itself.
Protesters are demanding funds from cut police budgets be redirected towards jobs and education. Yet those calling for such will barely work or pursue academics as it is. Often these behavioral choices are denounced among such demographics as “acting White”.
Veggie Tales creator Phil Vischer has criticized the conservative response to violent protests as valuing property over lives. Wonder if he would respond the same way if the target had been a warehouse full of his anthropomorphized produce DVD’s and related licensed merchandise?
In its streamed service, a church posted a slide that in person worship would not resume until later in the summer. Then perhaps the next song sung by the worship band should not have contained the lyric that to die for Christ is gain? Because doesn’t that propositional juxtaposition indicate they really don’t mean it and are just as much afraid to croak as nearly every other slob on the street?
As much as these churches are harping about race, don’t be surprised if after lock down quite a few White pewfillers simply don’t come back.
If the government and private enterprise imposing the policies of such (the definition of fascism) can coerce you into wearing a mask in the name of public health, what is so wrong with assorted laws and regulations intended to punish sexual contact outside of heterosexual marriage in the name of disease prevention? Granted, such laws would be near impossible to enforce from a standpoint of practicality. However, that is not usually the position that they are argued against. Rather, it is claimed such regulations infringe upon matters of personal choice even when the health of another individual is involved, the very principle that has been curtailed to a disturbing extent in the Age of Plague.
It it was immoral to stoke fear of disease in the name of promoting abstinence, why is it moral to stoke fear of disease to coerce compliance with a variety of social distancing measures?
A Confederate monument was preemptively demolished in Decatur, Georgia on the grounds that allowing an incompetent band of hooligans that had probably never even held a powertool prior to being overcome with the current fit of revolutionary madness could imperil public safety. So wouldn’t it be prudent to also remove assorted Martin Luther King or Barack Obama commemorative statuary for similar reasons out of an abundance of caution?
At the Trump campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, attendees were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they would wear a mask. Medical establishment functionaries (many of which no one elected to office or not even employed as part of the civil service) issued numerous pronouncements decreeing that those deciding not to conceal their countenances in the proscribed manner were threatening the lives of those with compromised immune systems. But unlike a supermarket, one does not possess a compelling necessity to attend a political rally in order to continue one’s existence or maintain one’s quality of life. As such, so long as the individual is fully cognizant that masks will not be required at a particular venue or event, doesn’t there come a point where the individual needs to shoulder some of the responsibility for their own healthcare maintenance rather than to pawn that obligation off on everybody else? After all, haven’t we been told for decades now that if you don’t want your mind or soul soiled by filthy media, then don’t tune into such productions? Likewise, if you are afraid of picking up a disease in a place that the purpose in being there is more of a pleasure than a necessity, perhaps you ought consider not going there in the first place.
Commissar Cuomo is categorizing the removal of the Theodore Roosevelt statue at the Museum of Natural History in New York as an act of love. How long until mass executions or the seizure of the property of designated counterrevolutionary thought criminals will categorized as an act of love?
On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace remarked that, in light of the NFL’s reversal on the national anthem and the call to rename a number of military bases, a cultural shift is underway. But are these changes something that the vast majority want? Or is it that they afraid to question such proposals out of fear of riots and looting on the part of violent subversives?
If we are to be so gripped with fear of violent retaliation on the part of apoplectic activists (for that is rather the reason than belief in diversity and inclusion) to the point that White thespians can no longer be allowed to perform voiceovers for cartoon characters of color, do the producers of the musical Hamilton intend to replace the Black actor that performed that eponymous role with a White one to more accurately depict the historically documented image of that particular Founding Father?
Perennial rabble rouser Al Sharpton insists it is an outrage to have someone to pay taxes to provide for commemorative statues of individuals that fought to keep that taxpayer enslaved. Maybe so. But given that it has been documented that Sharpton is profoundly delinquent in regards to the taxes he owes, he obviously doesn’t have as much going towards that particular budgetary outlay as he dupes his deluded followers into believing. Shouldn’t this multimillionaire having flouted his fiscal obligations be the even greater outrage?
On the Five, establishmentatian mouthpiece Dana Perino called for a moratorium on all conspiracy theories. In other words, we are obligated to believe without question any information handed down to us by government or those institutions in league with it at the highest levels such as academia, multinational industry, and the mainstream media. Who is to say what constitutes a conspiracy? This time several years ago, had someone pronounced that a virus would be invoked to keep you under near house arrest, your face swaddled like a jihadist concubine, and vast swaths of the economy nearly destroyed, they would have also been denounced as a conspiracy theorist.
By Frederick Meekins
No comments:
Post a Comment