Ok Charlamagne is a idiot. Yes there are a lot of wealthy Jews in high positions in Hollywood but that doesnt mean firing someone for making anti-Semitic means they have too much power. It means someone said some stupid **** and got fired for it.
Since you aren’t ‘woke,’ you’ll need a tutorial. The Tea Party consisted of white racists. The simple fact they claimed to want the government to apply strict adherence to the Constitution, a racist document drafted by white slave holders, makes this clear. And slavery was terrorism. And you can add lynchings to this list. So ergo, BLM and the Tea Party both are tied to violence. The difference is that BLM violence is to achieve justice whereas slavery was a racist crime against humanity. So we may conclude that anyone associated with the Tea Party is racist and an advocate for terrorism.
george-soros I read up on Soros. His Hedge fund shorts currencies and profits at amazing rates during chaos. So he philanthropically gives in order to create chaos in the name of Social Justice. What I don't understand is why is he such a Marxist when he survived the Holocaust in Hungary? He gave $200M to BLM in the US just in 2020! Wow.
Keep in mind that Russian Jews were the most oppressed people in Czar Russia at the turn of the 19th century. They were a big supporter of the Communist Revolution. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This didn't escape the Nazis and why they were against the Soviet Union. Many Jews still think that Marxism is the way to go if you want a slave working class and an insulated elite superior upper class. Soros is a proponent and he has gathered together many of the top level Democrats into his little web. Chelsea Clinton married a Soros and many other top Democrats are tied to the Soros family. This isn't a coincidence, it was all planned, the only thing that wasn't planned was Hilary Clinton losing the election to Trump. Every penny Soros spends will be returned to him 100 fold if they win. It's like we are up against Voldamort and the Death Eaters.
The Holocaust wasn't committed by Marxists. It was committed by Nazis. I'm not saying Soros or Jews in general should be Marxists because of the Holocaust. I'm just saying that though there are a million reasons not to be a Marxist, surviving the Holocaust isn't one of them.
I thought it appropriate to put this thing on here: John Lewis died yesterday. He was an American politician, a civil rights leader and a member of the Democratic Party. He participated in the early freedom rides for which he was subjected to beatings. He participated in the Nashville sit-in's. He was also a prominent participant in the Selma Bridge crossing for which he, once again, was beaten. You don't have to think about politics to admire or reject this guy. Think of him instead as a human being with an enormous amount of courage and dignity in his fight to be recognized as a man and as a human being. You see, John was black. But you might think he was a Liberal or too aggressive in his fight for equality in this modern era. So I wonder about each of us and our beliefs. So many of us are proud of our parents and upbringing. We learned things from our parents and try to live up to their example and value system. It is ingrained in us. And I wonder how many of us have actually rejected our upbringing, to become a different person; perhaps the opposite of what our parents were. It is a psychological hard-wired light that is on at all times. And to change requires deep introspection, the recognition of your core nature and the commitment to reject it in favor of something different. It requires that one practice this new way of thinking every day. So to judge John Lewis by his politics is to decide whether or not his upbringing and life's experiences are a valid point of view. And it is. He lived in America. He lived the horror of Jim Crow. And it burned deeply into his soul. He was a not just a witness. He was also a victim. And to expect anything less from him but a mission to change our country permanently is not realistic. It is who he was. The method of change on a grand scale typically takes methods that are not normally prevalent in our daily lives. We are busy and we like the certainty of our routine. But John did not like that routine. So he had the uncomfortable route thrust upon him and he maintained discomfort. Except he chose to include us in that discomfort. Why? Because comfort doesn't enable change. It enables the status quo. It enables looking the other way. It enables rationalization that what others are feeling are somehow their own fault and not the fault of external forces. Well, John felt those external forces and they weren't his fault. And he did something about it. He risked his life over and over again. And then he became older and decided to live this reality and mission as a leader and an advocate for peace. But you may say agitation is not peace. Neither is war. But to get to the other side of the breech, where the vision of peaceful life exists, one must first battle the impediments that are in the way. John entered the breech because he was thrown into it. And now he dies an American hero. No matter if he was a Liberal or any other label you may affix upon his legacy. He didn't ask for this. Somebody forced him to live this way. And there was no way he was going to reject what he knew to be true and what he learned from his parents. I honor him today.
King, Lewis, etc. envisioned a mixed, equal society where people get along with each other, have mutual respect for one another and so forth. And then there is NFAC (read story Leader of radical black-only militia NFAC ‘believes in violence’ & wants a real-life Wakanda for every black person in America ). This rationale is that the MLK dream won’t become reality, that Blacks need a separate nation, and are owed such by America. Perhaps it’s a view that has validity. If a section of land could be carved out in Africa for those Blacks who feel this way, wouldn’t it be best for both them and America to accommodate them?
Yes, it’s nothing new. The idea was hatched at the time of Lincoln. The Nation of Islam wanted the same objective. You can listen to Muhammad Ali on Youtube interviews as a proponent.
Sleep Isn't Equitable, So These Artists Want Rest as Reparations Now sleep deprivation is a symptom of white oppression.
John Lewis obviously was a courageous civil rights leader and did a lot for his country in that capacity. Here's why I don't gush over him like the media does. Because of his reputation in the civil rights movement, he had a chance to be a real voice of reason and a force for healing while in Congress. Instead, he chose to be a run of the mill partisan hack while in Congress and largely regurgitated the talking points of the far Left. He blew a key opportunity. And of course, it's interesting to notice which members of Congress the media glorifies. When they extol a Republican, it's always a moderate who abandoned his party at key moments. When they extol a Democrat, it's a steadfast leftist like Lewis or Ted Kennedy - meaning somebody who never abandoned the media and their agenda.
The only thing terrifying about the NFAC is that if Jay is successful in his quest, is that it would be another 3rd world, ******** country that the USA would have to subsidize.
Jay mentioned he would accept Texas as an alternative It is scary that they are so armed And we know if they start shooting white people they will get a pass His hatred is intense.
I don't have a problem with them being armed. They have that right. I also have less problem with a black separatist movement than I have with BLM-types that basically want to ruin Western culture and civilization. If a bunch of black people want to form a country in Africa, that's fine. It's ludicrous, but they can ask for that. Of course, you'll notice that not many actually join movements like this, because they live wildly better in the US than they'd live anywhere in Africa. Hell, if black Americans wanted a country of their own, I'd happily give them Oklahoma. It might actually become a semi-respectable place to live - certainly more than it is now.
To me the difference is the white arned groups have nothing in common with the whites rioting throwing Molotov cocktails bricks etc using bats on police byrning buildings etcetc. The armed white groups so far just call for law and order But this NFAC group has everything in common with BLM and is openly calling for violence. They say they want to protect the Black women and children and bkack community. So will they go after the ones killing the blacks? Other blacks.?
As I understand the mindset, the prevailing view of these 'separatist' blacks is that dysfunction in the black community (black on black murder, poverty, etc.) is primarily a biproduct of white oppression. They believe that once you remove/separate the races, the dysfunction would cease. So to answer one of your questions, "will they go after the ones killing blacks? Other blacks?" I would say no. Because in their minds, black on black crime is a direct consequence of "Whitey" poisoning the waters.
Mus You may be right.That reasoning coupled with there is no financial benefit for groupls like NFAC and BLM to stop black on black killing but there is plenty to be had from threatening whites.
The problem with your idea is many of the booted Oklahomans would want to migrate to Texas. You live in Europe but the rest of us would be unduly punished.
How many black people can you buy and get to do your bidding for $220 million? And you thought slavery had ended.
