...unless it's Southern and connected to the battle flag in some way.
Discussing a new book about the history of Forsyth County, Georgia, he posts a picture from 1987 of maybe 100 people marching with a half-dozen or so battle flags and a sign that says, "Forsyth Stays White."
Sez Levin, the photo "...connects the battle flag’s history as a potent symbol of 'massive resistance' during the civil rights era with its increasing visibility in recent years, including its presence at Donald Trump rallies.
He sums up, "...it is no accident that this group embraced the battle flag as its symbol of resistance in the 1980s. They embraced a symbol whose connection to the preservation of white supremacy extended back to 1861."
And he concludes with this melodramatic finale: "No other symbol can convey such a powerful and unmistakable message."
One has to wonder how powerful it can be when a Pew Research poll found that the majority polled (58%) say they have no reaction at all to seeing the flag.
What Levin repeatedly shows us is that vast swaths of white America do not bother him, because 1. they're not in the South, which he holds in deep and abiding contempt, and 2. they're not connected to the battle flag.
Today, Forsythe County is 75% white, which is also the national average. Let's see how that stacks up to a couple of other places:
Eureka, Illinois, 95.7 white
Edina, Missouri, 98.64 white
Regardless of flags, marches, signs, etc., if you live in a community that's 95%+ white your community is de facto white supremacist -- whites own the place, and they run it. These two small towns should have significance for Levin, because two of his fans, commenters and fellow anti-racist jackasses live there -- Corey Meyer in Eureka, Jimmy Dick in Edina.
How did these two places get to be so white? In fact, how did the whole midwest get so white? Well, read the debates about keeping slavery out of the "western territories." The real motive was to keep blacks out. It worked then and it's still working 170 years later.
But how have they stayed so white since the middle of the 20th century, when political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism swooped down on the United States, determined to change the demographics, dismember Christianity, re-define the family, etc.? Well, they've stayed white because culture and politics in this country have kept minorities in the midwest trapped in major cities and their suburbs.
Does this bother "anti-racists" in Eureka and Edina? Apparently not. It doesn't bother Kevin Levin, either, because it doesn't matter to him that fellow heritage haters live lily white lives that white supes elsewhere can only dream of.... Because, you see, they talk the talk. Like Levin, they screech about the battle flag and heritage folks, call them racists, etc... and that's all it takes to get you off the hook for walking the walk.
Why isn't Levin screeching about this disparity? Why isn't he demanding that they become more "diverse" and "multicultural"? Because he doesn't CARE about that. He cares about his contempt for white Southerners, past and present; he cares about his animosity for the heritage community; and he cares about his unreasoning hatred of the battle flag....
Once again Connie tries to smear me and fails...LOL
ReplyDeleteI don't live in Eureka anymore Connie. Try and keep up...stalker
I know exactly where you live you little slander worm.
DeleteOh and BTW, Eureka was founded by Abolitionists...dumbass
ReplyDeleteSo they just abolished black people right out of their little town, huh.... Even aboes didn't have to walk the walk if they talked the talk....
DeleteEl Paso, Granville -- all the little towns associated with your residence or work -- 97% white, on average. Obviously, I made my point. If you anti-racist jackasses talk the talk, you don't have to walk the walk....
ReplyDeleteSo, how does geography determine their "anti-racist jackass"-ery? Are you implying they intentionally moved there? What's your evidence for this?
ReplyDeleteI didn't say geography determined anti-racist jackassery. Perhaps you should re-read the post.
DeleteIt doesn't matter how/why they live there. What are they doing to make their ultra-white area more diverse and multicultural? Nothing, that I can see. Thus, they aren't walking the walk. But, they don't HAVE to, because they "talk the talk" -- they call heritage people racists and white supes. That means they don't HAVE to promote diversity and can enjoy their lily white lives (defacto white supremacy) without demented leftist criticism.
Re-read the post? OK...
Delete"Regardless of flags, marches, signs, etc., if you live in a community that's 95%+ white your community is de facto white supremacist -- whites own the place, and they run it. These two small towns should have significance for Levin, because two of his fans, commenters and fellow anti-racist jackasses live there -- Corey Meyer in Eureka, Jimmy Dick in Edina."
I don't know why Mr. Levin is responsible for the location of Corey and Jimmy. He has to answer for them?
"It doesn't matter how/why they live there." - Then why bring it up? They have to move to the projects to walk the walk? You don't know the circumstances of them living where they do.
Do you suggest that they campaign for the forced removal of white people from the community? Should they round up some black people and force them to live there?
If the community actively suppresses the migration of people of color to their communities, then you might have a claim of white supremacy. Do you have that evidence? It's probably likely that those communities did in the past, most did. But, is it ongoing, and are you saying that Corey and Jimmy responsible for that?
Geez, sledge, I didn't say Levin is responsible. I said the towns should be significant to him....
DeleteI bring it up because they DO live there, regardless of how/why. THEY DO LIVE THERE. No, I don't know the circumstances of their living there. I do note the hypocrisy of people who live the white supe's dream calling other people racists.
Do you think force is the only way to bring change? Well, yes, if you're a leftist, I guess you do.
The midwest is ultra white, sledge, because of the determination of the north to keep slavery (read "blacks") out of it. I'm saying Corey and Dimmy live extremely white lives and aren't doing anything, that I can see, to change their communities to be more diverse. But they call people with far less white lives "racists."
I still don't see why he it should mean anything to him. If you asked him where I lived, he would reply "Who?".
Delete"Do you think force is the only way to bring change? Well, yes, if you're a leftist, I guess you do." - No. I don't think it's the only way. But, if people are being oppressed or repressed and there are those that are actively fighting against it, then some form of force (legislative) is necessary in a country that prides itself on equality.
Do you bemoan the slave that revolted against their masters? Do you say they should have just been quiet and waited for the whites to tire of slavery?
Should the blacks, for the 100 years after the war, have just kept quiet? Just waited til whites decided it was time to give them equality?
You yourself said some things should be challenged.
Levin has always taught at private schools. The last one was 99.7% white - but only after they recruited a lone black student.
ReplyDeleteMakes me wonder...is Levin at heart a segregationist?
Could be... and criticizing SOME segregation (specifically, Southern) is one way to reinforce his anti-racist "credentials."
DeleteDiscussing a new book about the history of Forsyth County, Georgia, he posts a picture from 1987 of maybe 100 people marching with a half-dozen or so battle flags and a sign that says, "Forsyth Stays White."
ReplyDeleteSomething's funny about that sign. It's not hand-painted. What printer prints one sign?
Another thing - about 5 or 6 feet to the right of that sign appears to be a black man.
It wouldn't be the first time Levin has used a photo that has been photoshopped.
BR, what a FIND! That's fascinating! I think I have that font on my desktop computer. I'll check later.
DeleteMeantime, I wonder how Levin got the photo. He says it's from a book. Did he scan it? And if so, was that sign appear with that font in the book? Or did it get changed afterward -- before it went up on his bog. I would love to find authentication for it. I don't intend to buy the book, but I'd love to see if the photo is credited in it...
BR, have you ever seen a sign made by a seasoned cheerleader? Or maybe the mother with children that have played ball for years? Or perhaps those plastic Coca-Cola banners draped across roads advertising the next parade? All done with those fat, sign markers.
DeleteBesides, using Connie's logic, if it was printed, how do you know that was the only sign printed? Perhaps the person had the sign made by a sign painter, if they aren't one themselves.
Usually, with shopped images, you can see some fragmentation around the area manipulated. I don't see any. But, even on Phillips's site, the image quality isn't that great.
So, is it in the realm of possibility that it was shopped? I guess. Given what went on that day, I'd say it's more likely to be real.
Also, a simple Google image search shows the image used on Patrick Phillips's site: https://goo.gl/P9NDBs
I don't see a black man to the left, right, in front of, or behind that sign in this image.
Of course, neither of you address the elephant in the image... The, obviously hand-printed, "Sickle Cell" sign to the right.
sledge, the sign is printed ... rather, I think it is photoshopped and whatever was originally on the sign was erased and what's on there now was added with a computer font. Some retro italic font. I think I even that font on one of my computers.
DeleteSo the sickle cell sign defines the rally rather than the one guy holding it? If so, why did the other sign have to be 'shopped?
I'm reserving judgment until and unless the photo is authenticated.
"sledge, the sign is printed... rather, I think it is photoshopped"... "If so, why did the other sign have to be 'shopped?"... "I'm reserving judgment until and unless the photo is authenticated." - Sounds like you've already made up your mind.
DeleteYou won't find that font. You'll find something close. There are scripts galore. But, you won't find that one.
I know you people are averse to facts, but, Google is but a few keystrokes away. Check it more often, it might help you to avoid these types of situations.
Here's an LA Times article from Jan 18, 1987 about the Forsyth protests: https://goo.gl/50bNhk
In case your clickin' finger is on the fritz, here's the paragraph referring to the moment of this exact image: "The klan members and supporters chanted, "Go home, nigger!" and carried signs bearing slogans such as "Forsyth Stays White" and "Sickle Cell Anemia--The Great White Hope." (Sickle cell anemia is a serious, hereditary blood disorder that generally afflicts blacks.)"
"So the sickle cell sign defines the rally rather than the one guy holding it? If so, why did the other sign have to be 'shopped?" - Do you not accept that those CBF wavers are protesting blacks in Forsyth?
Well, let's look at some other signs from that day.
https://goo.gl/0GuxLh - I know, we don't know that this was in Forsyth. But, it's part of an album the photographer shot in Forsyth that day. So, I'm inclined to believe him. Plus, why pass up a chance to display the CBF with the Klan.
https://goo.gl/VqJgGi - "Keep Forsyth White"! But, hey, why should this define this protest either?
https://goo.gl/52Dsh4 - Oh, look! More of the same sign! They must have been printed.
No wait! Upon further inspection, I declare these shopped with no evidence to support that, just cuz. I bet the Gainesville Times is in cahoots with Mr. Levin and Mr. Phillips.
This is ridiculous.
https://goo.gl/qQxD2P - Yep, Keep Forsyth White
https://goo.gl/b4XiqD - More from the march. All those CBF wavers there to greet those people coming into their town. I bet they were so welcoming.
https://goo.gl/q3bbby - Some nice hand-printed signs.
https://goo.gl/2PBT8w - Some more super shopping skillz on display.
So, what now? You still "reserving judgement"?
sledridge: "So, what now?"
DeleteAs I said whatever the case...
Anti-busing demonstrators in Boston and their flag of choice-
http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/01/30/1233359914_4347/539w.jpg
"Whites have rights"
https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6098/6326362013_d862ee57ff_b.jpg
"No Busing"
https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/downloads/neu:111418?datastream_id=content
https://iiif.digitalcommonwealth.org/commonwealth:qb98mr755/full/,500/0/default.jpg
"Help us stop forced busing"
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/protesters-hold-up-signs-and-american-flags-during-an-antibusing-on-picture-id497725602
"Busing is a bad trip"
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/demonstrators-participate-in-an-antibusing-protest-at-the-sheraton-picture-id497725142
"Resist"
http://www.aarrgghh.com/gladYouAsked/bostonBusRiot1976Forman3.jpg
"I'm reserving judgment until and unless the photo is authenticated." Sounds like you've already made up your mind.
Delete"I'm reserving judgment" means "I've made up my mind" to you?
You won't find that font. You'll find something close. There are scripts galore. But, you won't find that one.
Regardless of whether I find THAT font, is IS a print font and to reproduce it by hand would require either a stencil or considerable free-hand skill... So it is logical to assume it was printed at the time, or the image was 'shopped later.
I know you people are averse to facts, but, Google is but a few keystrokes away. Check it more often, it might help you to avoid these types of situations.
I am not averse to facts, but I know that often the bullcrap thrown at heritage folks, particularly by professional blogging haters like Levin, contains half-truths, embellishments, spin and outright lies (although Simpson is actually the king of that methodology), so I look at everything they say with suspicion. I also know they ignore facts that don't fit with their ideology. I also know a lot of opinion and "interpretation" from these guys are presented by them as facts, which is simply more lying. I'm not like their followers, who open up their skulls and let these spin-doctors pour any kind of nonsense into their otherwise empty brains...
~~ There's nothing in my blog post that directly speaks to Forsyth's resistance to integration, only to Levin's selective "outrage" over whiteness. Since he can't connect the Midwest's lily-whiteness to the CBF, it is a non-issue to him, meaning the FLAG, not race itself, is his problem. (Oregon is 87% white but a quick search seems to indicate that Levin never saw fit to mention Oregon until a story about THAT FLAG appeared in the news....)
~~ I know what sickle cell anemia is, sledge. The sign near the right side of the photo indicates that deadly disease among blacks is the hope of whites. Now, are all those in the photo rallying for the death of blacks, or just the fellow with the sign? Does he speak for them all? I think it is ludicrous to imagine you can look at a photo and know everyone believes/supports the sign. Yes, heritage haters want to portray Southern whites, basically ALL Southern whites, past and present, as potential dangerous racial-murderers, but it simply isn't true. Considering the fact that the vast majority of the USA's blacks live in the South, and manage to not get murdered in vast numbers (that happens far, far more in Chicago), is factual indication that the heritage haters lie, even if it's indirect.
~~ Presumably the protestors are protesting blacks residing in Forsyth. Are you suggesting they are demonstrating for the death of blacks by sickle cell anemia?
~~ There was no declaration by me (or by BR) (with "no evidence") that the image was photoshopped. There was speculation. You're smart enough to know the difference. I said I THOUGHT it was, based on the there being widely available similar fonts. And the fact that there is a flogger history of photoshopping images to slander and demonize heritage folks.... But "thought it was" is hardly a declaration...
Also note, a big part of my suspicion is based on the FACT that heritage-hater bloggers have a history of using edited images to demonize or lie about heritage folks. (Again, Simpson is the leader in this group, but the lack of protest from his cronies make them approvers... -- according to heritage-hatin' philosophy.)
DeleteI do a fair amount of photoshopping, but it is falls under parody, satire, irony or exaggeration. It isn't intended to deceive, and nobody in their right mind would think it is, and it certainly isn't to demonize anybody....
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/10/landscapins-not-all-you-can-do-with.html
Rarely, I've created or edited graphics for illustration or clarity of some things.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/02/cookin-books-on-slave-ownership.html
Whether the signs were printed by a shop or hand painted, they are authentic. That's proven.
DeleteI'm not saying the protest was intending to kill blacks, but it was indicative of the racism in the protest. Focusing on another sign, that you think is shopped, in hopes of discrediting the entire image, is what I was referring to.
Oh, your slave ownership post... wow.
BR - How do these images have anything to do with Forsyth? Whatever the case? No, this case. This is the situation that's the focus.
DeleteThat the US flag has been used similarly doesn't discount the CBF's use. I've never seen a CBF in support of a civil rights rally, only in protest of it.
"This is the situation that's the focus."
DeleteTypical effort to restrict the focus and ignore larger or pertinent situations.
You've never seen a CBF in support of civil rights ... That's because you don't see the preservation of Confederate heritage as a cultural right which, along with others, including civil rights, comprise human rights.
Per Wikipedia "Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights.[4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social, and cultural rights comprising the second portion)."
Footnote 4 cites: "A useful survey is Paul Sieghart, The Lawful Rights of Mankind: An Introduction to the International Legal Code of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 1985."
You think civil rights/human rights belong only to a select group or segment...
I note that when it comes to minorities in the USA, economic, social and cultural rights are considered to be civil rights by many supporters.
DeleteSledge: "I'm not saying the protest was intending to kill blacks, but it was indicative of the racism in the protest. Focusing on another sign, that you think is shopped, in hopes of discrediting the entire image, is what I was referring to."
DeleteWasn't in hopes of discrediting the image, but in discrediting Levin.
"Typical effort to restrict the focus and ignore larger or pertinent situations." - Because the image is in Forsyth.
DeleteI don't dispute that the US flag has been used in horrible ways. But, as the CSA no longer exists, the CBF is a flag of idealism (how it's being used in these images). They are using it as a symbol of their ideals. The US flag is used as a nationalistic symbol, because they think the US belongs to whites.
The CBF has never been used to stand for all human beings. You really consider the use by these hate groups to be a display of civil rights? Despite what you and others like you think, Southern whites are not under attack. The only things "under attack" is the lack of tolerance of those that aren't like you. Making room for others does not mean you are being made less.
"You think civil rights/human rights belong only to a select group or segment." - No, I believe they are for all humans. Not when a segment starts advocating for the discrimination of another segment.
"Wasn't in hopes of discrediting the image, but in discrediting Levin." - It failed on both counts.
DeleteWhatever the case...there are plenty of photos with whites protesting bussing (integration) in Boston while waving US flags.
ReplyDeleteOne of those photos, if I recall, shows a man with a US flag actually attacking a defenseless black man with the pole. That act did much to turn public opinion against the protestors.
Deletehttps://theopinionmill.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/soiling-of-old-glory.jpg
DeleteUpdated spin: He's probably a neo-Confederate and snatched up the wrong flag on the way to the protest...
DeleteWouldn't surprise me at all to hear some heritage hater make this claim, except for one thing. They don't defend the indefensible from their side; they just ignore it....
We don't defend the indefensible because we don't agree with that man's actions.
DeleteBut you don't criticize it the way you endlessly moan and bellyache and screech and very, very often mischaracterize the use of the Confederate flag, implying its use always promotes segregation and so-called "white supremacy."
DeleteThat is because you and your ilk misrepresent the flag and its history.
DeleteIn your opinion perhaps, but you yourself admit to being a proud Union descendant from a Northern state. So maybe you should concede that you have a bit of a bias in your own telling of that history. Sorta like a Palestinian or Jordanian trying to tell the history of the Flag of Israel.
DeleteNo we don't.
Deletehttp://i.huffpost.com/gen/1560778/thumbs/n-CENTRAL-HIGH-SCHOOL-ARKANSAS-large570.jpg
ReplyDeleteWhat is your point Eddie?
DeleteDid you look at the pic?
DeleteSo what is the point?
DeleteSledge, do you happen to notice what flag they are using to promote segregation with?
DeleteWhen has anyone ever said that these types of things did not happen?
DeleteHowever, the south perfected segregation.
"Sledge, do you happen to notice what flag they are using to promote segregation with?" - How does this discredit anything in regards to the issue of Forsyth or how the CBF is traditionally used?
DeleteBut, kudos to Eddie for going to the Huffington Post to get the image.
(I know he got it from a google search. But, it's just poetic that it came from the Huffington Post. I guess it doesn't matter the source as long as it fits the preferred narrative.)
Who said it discredits anything about the issue of Forsyth or how the CBF is traditionally used? The point is that people who focus on the battle flag as the embodiment of the country's evil, wink at, overlook, perfume, sanitize, sweep under the rug the same evil that has no connection to the flag, the South, Southerners or the Confederacy. It MIGHT not be so bad, except the almost always, the people who minimize the country's sins symbolized by the US flag are the same people who pitch the loudest fits over the South's sins. The point is not to absolve Forsyth, but to point out the inequity and bigotry of the fit-pitchers....
DeleteHow come Border Ruffian can post under an Alias but not me?
ReplyDeleteBecause he's had that alias for years. He's not changing his aliases like you do, to try to get access where you don't belong for the purpose of harassing, smearing and cyberstalking...
ReplyDeleteSo, there's a cut off for aliases?
Delete"purpose of harassing, smearing and cyberstalking" - I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
Cut off?
DeleteWell, yes, you can't miss it, when you've been beholding it since 1999, which is when I first got online and encountered creepy Corey in his "Billy Yank" alias joining our Yahoo groups and harassing, smearing and cyberstalking us...
But, you said that BR is in the clear with his alias because he's had it so long. So, I'm just curious as to the cutoff.
DeleteWhat you call "harassing, smearing and cyberstalking", was it just his refusal to accept the ol'Lost Cause?
Yes, the longevity of BR's alias establishes his track record of posting in comment threads on blogs where he's allowed to do so.
DeleteNo, a great many of Corey's comments on proConfederate sites have absolutely nothing to do with history.
"No, a great many of Corey's comments on proConfederate sites have absolutely nothing to do with history." - I've seen nothing of the sort. In fact, the experience I've had with these sites is that the sites aren't interested in history, just the prefered narrative. And if anyone speaks otherwise, hoo-boy...
DeleteWell, obviously, we aren't talking about the same sites, then.
DeleteEnjoy, Sledge. And note how far back my experience with this creep's cyberstalking, cyber-bulling and harassing goes....
Deletehttp://www.conniechastain.com/TL/Billy.html
http://www.conniechastain.com/TL/DigitalBilly.html
Oh, so its a double standard, thanks for letting me know.
ReplyDeleteNo. You have forfeited the privilege of posting under an alias by abusing it (since at least 1999). He hasn't.
DeleteHow do you know...maybe BR is my most successful alias...
DeleteNope. He is far too articulate to be you.
DeleteLOL...that is what you think. Remember I am the one here with a degree...along with others in the teaching profession...none of which are on your side.
DeleteI know it; I can read, just like Charles Baker Harris. Corey, there are people with degrees who are as dumb as a box of rocks. The teaching profession -- indeed, the whole educational establishment -- aren't on our side because they are in the leftist indoctrination business. They SHOULD be on the side of truth and history, but they are on the side of their Gramscian, Frankfurt School leftist ideology....
DeleteDill was also known "as a pocket Merlin, whose head teemed with eccentric plans, strange longings, and quaint fancies". You both do have quite the imaginations.
DeleteI love the dismal of the educated. It's all a conspiracy. Everything has an agenda. There isn't any actual evidence used to disprove anything. Just feelings and "I just know"-s.
"They SHOULD be on the side of truth and history, but they are on the side of their Gramscian, Frankfurt School leftist ideology...." - You forgot Marxism.
Sledge, are you saying higher education in the US of A does NOT lean heavily toward the left? As a matter of fact, Gramsci and the Frankfurt theorists DID have an agenda. And I didn't "forget" Marxism. Anybody who knows about these guys knows that Antonio Gramsci was a neo-Marxist theorist and the Frankfurt boys were preoccupied with Hegelian Marxism. To add Marxism to this: "Gramscian, Frankfurt School leftist ideology...." would be redundant. At least, to anyone familiar with this bunch and their agenda...
DeleteIf you don't think there is an agenda to jerk the country leftward into socialism and need proof, look at what they recommended for transforming the west, and see how much of it is now the norm in our country...
Let's start with info about Gramsci. (I didn't write this, btw. I just think it's profound and needs to be read): http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/11/still-pertinent-after-all-these-years_23.html
Really, sledge. Do you believe there has been no effort since WWII to implant and implement socialism in this country? And I don't mean economic socialism ...or rather, not just that. The efforts are cultural, as well. That's why just ending discrimination against blacks isn't enough -- the demonization of whites must be done along with it. It isn't enough to protect the rights of women; men must be demonized, as well. It isn't enough to prohibit the mistreatment of homosexuals; people must be forced to approve of homosexuality; Christian preachers who preach against it must be accused of hatred and demonized.
DeleteDo you not see this? Seriously?
Question... what is "the dismal of the educated"? Is this some voice recognition rendering of "dismissal"?
Delete"Sledge, are you saying higher education in the US of A does NOT lean heavily toward the left?" - A much younger, more conservative, version of myself attending art school knows that is true. But, that doesn't discount their views simply because they're left views.
Delete"At least, to anyone familiar with this bunch and their agenda..." - Well, that isn't me.
"If you don't think there is an agenda to jerk the country leftward into socialism and need proof" - Yes, there is. I'd say more of a Bernie-type Democratic Socialism. But, the ever widening gap of the upper-class from even the middle class is only going to make the clamor for that even worse.
Tax rates were much higher before the 80s and the wage gaps weren't as much. Healthcare was much more affordable. The cost of living was much more affordable. There are a lot of reasons for these things, but just flatly denying ideas simply because of knee-jerk reactions is why we are where we are. People are too susceptible to rhetoric.
Gramsci/Marxism/blahblahblah... - I don't really care about these "schools of thought" because it's all rhetoric.
"the demonization of whites must be done along with it" - What you call "demonization" others (usually the ones that were oppressed) call it factual. There are people that take it too far, but those will always be fringe. Trying to suppress what is truth by saying it's "demonization" is what foments the oppressed and that fringe. If honest discussion could be had and facts be recognized, then actual solutions could be sought.
Homosexuality - You don't have to approve. You just can't discriminate. I understand your point on preachers, but you also have to understand that someone being told they should not be allowed to be full members of society, or that they will burn, because of who they are and something beyond their control, it's hard to see the love in that.
Yes, "dismissal". Thank you for the spell check. I think that was clear.
What discounts leftist views is that they are morally bankrupt, deceptive, and destructive. The whole point of bringing leftist ideas to the USA in the 20th century was to destroy the republic and replace it with a socialist "utopia" -- you know, the kind that cost tens of millions of innocent lives in places where it was enforced.
DeleteBernie's kinder, gentler socialism? There is no such thing. It all eventually horrific tyranny. That's what it so sad to people who can see it. It won't solve the problems of the class gap...it will just make life wretched for all but a small handful.
We are no longer where we were in the 1980s because leftism/progressivism has been marching onward since then and we're farther down the path toward tyranny.
The "schools of thought" have had major impact on changing our society for the worse. That's not rhetoric.
Most of the demonization of whites is not factual. It is "get evenism." It is done to keep conflict stirred up. When I say "demonization of whites" I'm not talking about suppression of truth. Those are two different things, and I am well able to distinguish between them. You're not going to find "honest discussion" about white Southerners from Kevin Levin, Brooks Simpson, Andy Hall, et. al.,
Yes, the push is to force people to approve of homosexuality. If you want to do something that marginalizes you to society, don't blame society. And you consider it hard to see love in warning people about the horrific consequences of their actions?
"What discounts leftist views is that they are morally bankrupt..." - The argument could be made that their view is more Christian-like than the right's view.
Delete"Bernie's kinder, gentler socialism? There is no such thing." - Maybe, maybe not. I'm just saying from his point of view, instead of a top-down socialism, it's bottom-up socialism.
"We are no longer where we were in the 1980s because leftism/progressivism has been marching onward since then and we're farther down the path toward tyranny." - Economically that isn't at all true. Taxes have continually been lowered since the 80s (save for a slight up tick in the 90s). Taxes are nowhere near the levels they were prior to Reagan. And the income gap widens all the time.
"You're not going to find "honest discussion" about white Southerners from Kevin Levin, Brooks Simpson, Andy Hall, et. al.," - I haven't seen them disparage anyone simply for being from the South. You neo-Confederates think you own "being Southern". You don't (less and less with each passing year). I don't agree with much of anything that you, or any of the others say, but I am Southern.
"If you want to do something that marginalizes you to society, don't blame society." - The only thing that marginalizes them to society is you. Who they decide to go home to at night has no bearing on their place in society. But, if heterosexuals are going to be given preference and homosexuals are going to be marginalized in society, that isn't congruent with the Constitution.
Horrific consequences? You mean the harm that people have done to them through the years? Because that's the only harm in being openly gay.
If you're talking about spiritually, that isn't for you to decide for them. I'm sure you live by "the original Bible", the King James (or any of the other more modern incarnations). So, I wonder if you follow all of the other laws in Leviticus. Regardless, it still isn't for you to decide for them or marginalize them.
It's not about "views." It's about deeds, action. Leftism -- socialism, communism -- murdered more people in the 20TH CENTURY (262 million, R.J. Rummel) than any other force, ideology or religion in history -- even Islam (270 million deaths, but they occurred over 1400 years, per Bill Warner). Those 262 million deaths were murders and don't include war deaths. You can have all the wonderful socialist "views" you wish, but for hundreds of years, hospitals, orphanages, food providers were the religions, mostly Christian -- not commies, not socialists.
ReplyDeleteSocialism -- whether top down or bottom up -- is still socialism, and it wars against humanity. It has always, always taken a horrible toll on the human beings unfortunate enough to find themselves under its heel.
Tyranny is a whole lot more than economics and taxes.
Yes, leftists love to bash white Southerners; and one reason Levin, Simpson, et.al., are so focused on the civil war is that they can have a "legitimate" reason to bash white Southerners, because, "...we're not doing it just because they're from the South, it's because ... the Confederacy" or "because slavery," or "because treason." White Southerners are no worse, and never have been worse, than anyone else, but they are denigrated and stereotyped by government, education and the popular culture (especially in movies) as being stupid, lazy, evil. (Christians are denigrated in the same way.)
No, Sledge. I am not what marginalizes homosexuals to society. And it's not about who they go home to at night. People say, "Why do you think of it only in terms of sex? It's not about that -- it's about gays being able to love who they love..." About love, not sex? Oh, really? Then why these half-naked "pride" parades (some participants might as well be totally naked) up and down the streets of New York, San Francisco and other cities in the USA and around the world? Why the paint and feathers and the acting out anal sex in front of children, in front of cameras, at these in-your-face public events, if it's just about going home at night to someone they love?
I'm not doing any of that marginalizing; they are. What they're doing is demanding approval, and if it doesn't come, they will get in-your-face offensive.
Look at this and tell me it is harmless to decency...
https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+parade&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVmsPpkvjPAhXM5yYKHZ4IAzoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1123&bih=770#imgrc=_
The horrible consequences I'm talking about are the eternal consequences of willful sin and defiance of God without repentance and forgiveness. Christ gave Christians the responsibility of bringing truth to the lost. Informing them isn't deciding for them.
Christianity isn't found in Leviticus, Sledge. When people try to trap Christians by referencing the Old Testament, I know they don't understand how to "accurately handle the word of truth."
The Old Testament is history; we can learn from it, but it isn't for Christians to live by. The laws and commands recorded there were for a particular people at a particular time in their history.
Telling someone the consequences of their behavior isn't deciding anything for them; it's advising them, counseling them. If somebody's flying down the road toward a canyon where the bridge is out, would it be "marginalizing" them to flag them down and warn them?
Look at those pictures at the link above and tell me who is doing the marginalizing....
The best analysis of the old, Moscow Hive was made in the 1970s by a Soviet mathematician, Igor Shafarevich, a friend of Solzhenitsyn’s. He wrote from the belly of the beast, or close to it, for he held a position at Moscow University. His book, The Socialist Phenomenon, published here in 1980, argued that socialism had endured throughout history, usually in the form of one or another Christian heresy. It gives expression to the gnostic urge to rebel — the rebellion of the educated against the constraints imposed by Creation and by God. In earlier periods, when of course the socialist label was not used, it could be identified by its insistent, unvarying emphasis on certain goals: the destruction of private property and of the traditional or “nuclear” family; and above all, the dismemberment of traditional, or orthodox religion. Throughout history, the phenomenon has been obsessed with material equality, and with the eradication of individual and gender distinctions. It wars incessantly against the normal. Shafarevich concluded that a “striving for self-destruction,” for nothingness, for the “death of mankind,” was the true goal of socialism. Instinctively, without stating it or even seeing it as the conscious goal, the socialist phenomenon seeks the death of the human race.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sobran.com/hive/hum.shtml
Transcript of "The Socialist Phenomenon"
http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html