by Steve M. Schlissel
Originally September 22, 2020
We’ve all seen how the socialist lust for raw power in America, how their fixed determination to eradicate Christianity has driven leftist mad, as in, nuts. They are now unashamed to say, “People with uteruses have babies– NOT women have babies.” (Please, say no more. We ALL understand, but it’s no use.)
And we have seen how a movement with wide appeal was widely embraced by Americans–when it was insisted that character must be reckoned more highly than color. “Yes,” America replied. “That makes sense.”
But then we saw that color began to function as a component allowing for PREFERENCE, so that color itself began to rank higher than character, or competence, or capability.
Man’s ineradicable pursuit of consistency recently found the Smithsonian anticipating objections to the now acceptable racism, thought to get ahead of any sanity or sense by asserting, via its National Museum of African American History & Culture, that among “signs of whiteness” which have been wrongly leveraged against, ahem, people of color, we must include “Individualism, hard work, objectivity, the nuclear family, progress, respect for authority, delayed gratification” and more.
Never mind that the very idea in that assertion is manifestly, unavoidably insulting and demeaning to the people they pretended to have in view as objects of their concern. Forget that. What I want to know is, can a White person–let’s say, one inspired by the life strategy of Elizabeth Warren–can a White person, by adopting a lifestyle that is lazy, communalistic, dependent on others, disrespectful and indulgent, can he, on the strength of his anti-White lifestyle, credibly claim to be “a person of color”, and be granted the mounting privileges now accorded to the hip, preferred brand of hate?
If you think they could not go any further down in stupidity and ridiculousness, you have NOT been paying attention. So, start watching.
What was that about fairness? When the Supreme Court said that express reliance on God was a danger to our children too serious to permit in schools (in 1962), we put rationality out with the trash and opened the door for anything slogans might buy. The same court now insists that two men could comprise a husband and a wife. And their cheerers immediately said, “That means a boy is a girl–if it wants to be.” And THEIR cheerers said, “You deny that, and we’ll destroy you for hate.”
And they are qualified to tell US what “hate” is?
Any person not voting for Trump deserves all the judgment to follow. Every bit. For they already exhibit a horrid symptom of brain atrophy caught from “the thinkers” cited above. The Left has been sufficiently exposed, by the grace of God, so that no one can claim, “I didn’t know.” They are of their father, the father of lies. But in the transactions which flow from a people who have believed piles of lies, there is an ineradicable element of personal responsibility for their having been deceived. Among those already under God’s wrath t
you will find the ones who have been MADE TO BELIEVE THE LIE. So, there goes that plea.
Who do you love? asks an old blues song. The Bible tells us that the true answer to that question will also be revealed by a true answer to this one: Whom do you hate? Psalm 139. In an age of epistemological self-consciousness, that list can get mighty long. It might come to include lazy, shiftless covenant-breakers of every color. When that same color range is evidenced in your LOVE for covenant-KEEPERS, you are in the right place–no matter what ANYONE says.