Sunday, June 21, 2015

Representing the Difference Between Christians, and the Others, Including Media, Atheists, Muslims and SJWs

The Christian congregation which was attacked by a "millenial racist" has demonstrated restraint and forgiveness. This contrasts with the response from others, including media, AtheoLeftists, who, as says one commenter, "wave the bloody shirt". Obama called for freedoms removal, for example, before knowing whether removing Constitutional freedoms would have prevented this disaster. Try to imagine the reprisals if this were an attack on a Muslim mosque.

This obviously is a racial crime committed by a white. Does all of white America need to be held responsible for this crime, as Salon salivates? Well, let's see; are all blacks held responsible as a race for the frequent mob attacks on whites? No, that would not be justice, even in the social justice perversion of the term. But for the evil race: whites, yes, of course: all whites are responsible in the eyes of the racist anti-racists.

Defining a class of people (Classism) by the color of the skin (Racial Classism) is now de rigeur for western Leftist racists. Defending one race (A) from another race (B) by vilifying the entire race (B) for purposes of applying restrictions morally and sanctions legally against race (B) is standard racism. It has been practiced in western countries from their inceptions, and was incorporated into a political party in the USA in the early 1800s with the creation of the Democrat Party for that explicit reason (suppression of blacks, who at the time were slaves). That party has always engaged in racial strife, and still is. That political party benefits from racial strife and goes to extremes to promote it.

The fervent practice of racism is not new at all. What is new is the claim of "Social Justice" in the form of "anti-racism" which is applied to the newest anti-white racism. Never ones to object to internal contradictions and paradoxical positions, the Leftists and Democrats can convince themselves of nearly anything, so long as it is racially noxious and toxic.

An interesting bit of trivia to watch develop in this is the use of the Confederate Flag in the killer's background. That flag was an icon of the Democrat South in the days extending from the Civil War through the Jim Crow days. It is not a "white" icon; it is a political icon of the Solid (Democrat) South, and yes, it represents the ideology of racial suppression of blacks. How will that icon be handled in the upcoming discussions?

No comments: