In the column titled “White Nationalist Terrorism and the Gospel”, Southern Baptist ideologue Russell Moore condemns White nationalism as “the way of the flesh” and “as the tribal identity cult”. So when does he intend to publish a column similarly condemnatory of Black Lives Matter, La Raza, or even Antifa? Rather in numerous essays and public statements, Moore has admonished Whites as to why they must strive to comprehend the anger of minorities that results in looted businesses and destroyed property. So long as it is apparently not Moore’s or Southern Baptist property it’s not all that big of a deal.
For all the condemnation of it, ever notice how not much definition is given to White supremacy and racism? Considerable outrage has been articulated against talk of Hispanic invasion referenced in the so-called manifestos posted by two recent mass murders. Yet little is being said regarding sentiments in these tirades regarding population control and radical environmentalism. Anyone utilizing violence against unarmed civilians to further an ideological agenda must be condemned for the perpetration of such an egregious act. But why is it that every culture and racial extraction with the exception of Whites are not only allowed but celebrated in organizing to protect its heritage?
How exactly is racism and White supremacy being defined? Does it consist of the insistence that certain areas are less desirous to live in because of the cultural and character shortcomings of those residing there? If so, should those rushing to condemn President Trump’s remarks about Baltimore refusing to live in the area be similarly condemned? After all, with so much abandoned property there, real estate has got to be quite affordable. In the future, perhaps real estate professionals should be authorized to report to law enforcement agencies and credit bureaus those refusing to consider property in these areas no one is supposed to consider as less than desirable if their price happens to fall within a particular buyer’s affordability threshold.
In light of a series of mass shootings across the United States, it has repeatedly been said that people need to come together in unity. Apart from not shooting others, just how close are people obligated to draw together? Relatedly, do those categorizing these incidents as failures in tolerance intend to compromise on those incessant demands constantly made by those advocating progressive revolution under threats of violence and upheaval? For it is usually those holding to traditionalist conceptions of normality that are expected to alter their fundamental beliefs or be imposed a variety of punitive sanctions.
So if President Trump’s rhetoric can allegedly indirectly cause violence, where is condemnation on the part of mainstream media and presidential candidates for the direct calls for violence against Senator Mitch McConnell?
Progressives are outraged that some would question the accuracy of Jeffery Epstein’s death being a suicide. To do so is deemed to be spreading conspiracy theories. So what other things that authorities tell us are we obligated to believe as docile minions of the New World Order? More importantly, who exactly is it that determines what we are and are not allowed to question?
Business Insider is accusing conservative media (Fox News in particular) of categorizing illegal immigrants as invaders hundreds of times hundreds similar to rhetoric invoked by the El Paso mass murderer. Patrick Crusius’ manifesto also mentioned over population and resource depletion, topics mentioned even more through the indoctrination permeating mainstream media, public education and reinforced by a litany of environmental organizations. So, to be consistent, where is the rhetoric calling for the toning down of ecological alarmism?
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin in an oration at First Baptist Church of Durham in support of social justice insinuated that critics of this leftward turn are akin to the Gestapo. In the remark, Akin observes that often we go looking for secondary things to pick fights about rather than try to get along. But when these social justice acolytes sweep into churches, do they intend to heed their own advice and bite their tongues when they see something that they disagree with?
Perhaps if a church looks good enough to swindle away from a dwindling congregation, at least do them a solid allowing them to keep the American flag and to sing a few patriotic anthems about three times per year during designated civic commemorations.
On an episode of the Christian Transhumanist Podcast, theologian N.T. Wright criticized those that emphasize that believers go to Heaven after we die. Rather what to be taught is renewed life following Christ’s Resurrection. But do we get continued individual existence or not after we croak if we believe in Christ? If not, why bother?
As much as consummate establishmentarian Richard Clarke cusses in his Future State podcast, on what grounds can these sorts get bent out of shape regarding Trump’s potty mouth?