The case against our "Hate Crime" culture mentality in one easy story

A two year investigation of the Covenant School Shooting, the shooter's manifesto never having been officially released to my knowledge, has come to an end.  Apparently the school, the traditional, conservative Christian school, was just a random target. Yes, the investigation found much rage and hatred aimed at targets that could be argued to identity with that particular school.  But apparently the school being targeted was just random and not for any other reason than dumb, blind luck.  

Remember, George Floyd was killed by a racist cop because of American systemic racism. The protests, riots, court case, condemnation of America as a 400 year old racist state, were all based on that verdict as soon as the story broke.  And how did we know it was racism?  Derek Chauvin is white, that's why.  That's all we needed to know to not only immediately label it a racist hate crime, but then move to tarnish by association everything up to the whole of Western Civilization. 

Yet time and again we'll see cases where something like the Covington shooting happens, and contrary to similar standards in other cases, it looks like it was just random fortune.  Or a shooter with reams of rage hate against religion in general or Christianity in particular opens fire on a church - and authorities are unable to pinpoint a reason for it. Maybe a mental health problem?  Or a black man kills multiple white people and is found to have endless posts hating on white people, but can we ever know why?  A card carrying Democrat and leftwing activists opens fire on a group of Republican politicians, but we can't really speak to motives can we?  Or a Muslim goes into a bar and murders multiple people because, according to the gunman, he is outraged at America's policies in the Middle East.  So perhaps it was homophobia?  

I'm no lawyer, but I recall the argument against the concept of hate crimes - and yes, youngsters might be shocked to discover that this was a debate in the 90s and not something universally agreed upon - was the pure subjective nature of it.  That it could be driven by very shallow, and trendy, opinions, narratives and nothing more.  Or it could be based on social prejudices or biases or ideological activism and not actual proof.  Of course there were other arguments, such as the severity of the crime being based on the demographic identity of the victim. The implication that a white man raping and murdering a white woman might be bad, but nowhere as bad as if he does the same exact thing to a black woman purely because of the victim's skin color, had a certain ick factor for some people.  Assuming, of course, that saying a white or black person has anything to do with skin color.  

But on the whole, the argument I remember repeated often was that the idea of 'hate' is just too darn subjective, and too apt to be based only on theoretical fashions, trends, and the latest talking points in a college bar rather than objective fact based assessments.  Nowhere is this more clear than here, or any one of dozens of cases where motives never seem able to challenge the dominant leftwing narratives of who will or won't forever be guilty based on oppressor or oppressed status. 

For my part - again, no lawyer here - that is the problem.  That it seems almost a stealth way of preemptively judging or exonerating people based on their particular identities and allegiances, only with legal teeth.  

When Bishop Barron takes off the gloves

You know you're dealing with grave evil.  Bishop Barron isn't exactly known for his Terminator approach to adversaries of the Faith.  He's long tried the Neville Chamberlain approach and, as can be expected, usually ticks off everyone on all sides as a result.   

So for him to come out and explicitly say this is an anti-Catholic hate group, and call their behavior offensive, is like watching Pollyanna grab a combat assault rifle and plunge into the fray.  Which is good. 

I've said that this thing we call the Left - perhaps Marxist Communist would be appropriate at this time - is almost every day revealing itself to be more and more nakedly evil.  Now, as the rhetoric changes from 'it's a lie, nobody will ever surgically alter a minor's body' to 'it's a lie, nobody will ever alter a child's body', and we watch so many who brainlessly follow along, the line between good and evil is becoming thick and obvious. 

There will come a time when excuses are no longer acceptable.  To support the evil is to be the evil.  I just fear that those who support the evil will be prepared to do evil to defend their allegiance.  That's when it will get ugly. 

But as for this particular moral stench, it shouldn't surprise students of the Christian Faith.  After all, the hatred of the Church is rooted in the hatred of Christ.  And it isn't as if Christ didn't see it coming. 

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you."  John 15.18

What bothers me most about the White hating Rutgers professor

Isn't that she's simply being human as human history goes, and that's yearning for a day when 'those people' get it in the neck.   It's that she sounds like this:

"Like, the thing I want to say to you is we got to take these motherf---kers out. But, like, we can't say that, right? We can't say, like, I don't believe in a project of violence. I truly don't," Cooper said.

I've heard discourse in middle school lockers rooms that sounded more lucid than that.  This is what America's institutions of higher education are trotting out to teach our young adults?  Rambo was more articulate than her.  And this is a professor at Rutgers.  A professor. 

Whatever you want to call it - I call it The Left - is a poison on all that is good in the world.  It leads to dumb.  It leads to the least.  It leads to the animal.  It leads to ugly.  It leads to ignorance. It leads to pride.  It leads to hate.  It leads to hypocrisy.  The amount of things associated with sin and evil that are defined by and demanded by The Left are legion, for they are many.

Nothing shows this more than the above professor, her hate filled race rants, and the clunky, pubescent level of rhetoric she employs to ramrod her bitterness and rage.  Well done American education.  Well done. 

CNN continues to hate it some America

And encourages blacks especially to join with the America hate.  That's the heavy communist influence behind the Left coming through.  The only good thing about CNN is that so few bother watching it./ 

I've mentioned several times how, back when I was part of an ecumenical organization as an Evangelical minister, I gave a talk on that strange phenomenon of demographic self-hate.  Why it was that among liberals, hating your own demographic and forebears seemed as American as apple pie and baseball to conservatives. 

I also mentioned it was equally strange that, with the exception of the LGBTQ movement, the most 'anti'-rhetoric you had came from those in the same demographic being hated.  That is, the most anti-male rhetoric wasn't from most feminists, it was from liberal men.  Or the most anti-white race hate wasn't from non-whites, it was from white liberals.  And on and on.

I can say it's time to revise that, as a growing number of black Americans have been bitten by the 'white-hate' bug.  They despise this country and everything in it.  They have no problem speaking  of whites the way Nazis spoke of Jews, or the KKK speaks of blacks for that matter.  Openly saying they hate whites, don't care if whites die, or other warm and fuzzy rhetoric is becoming more the rule than the exception. 

This is fine for the Left of course. Its desire is the destruction of the Western Democracies and the values and principles of the Christian religion.  That's the Left's end goal and it's well on its way to achieving it.  Part of what made this possible was the neurotic self loathing that came to define Western liberalism, particularly among whites and men.  But now you are seeing people demonstrate an age old fact of humans: Sin is universal.  If you give people the chance to take the low road to Hell, they'll take it.

Seeing the ease and joy with which a growing number of non-whites are embracing the white hate and America hate with rhetoric in the manner of Goebbels or Hess, it's harder and harder to believe one of the Left' most stupid lies: that only whites in Europe and America were ever able to be racist.  That's a level of stupid falsehood that makes Flat Earthers seem wise by comparison.  But it's also accepted dogma, and hence the growing number of non-whites ready and willing to take it to the next logical step. 

At some point - and boy I know this may put some people off, and trust me I don't consider myself a racist - we're going to have to be honest that people are people.  And whether Jew, Black, Muslim, Asian, or Native American, if you give them the encouragement to do wrong and evil, they'll do it. 

Continuing to hang our heads or shuffle our feet or do a Rodney Dangerfield collar tug when people from various groups make it clear the extermination of whites, Christians, America and Western culture is their end goal will show itself more like cowardliness than humble virtue.  We might actually have to take a stand.  After all, if we're not on the side of the Left and all its manifold evils, we're already racists and sexists and bigots anyway.  What will we have to lose? 

An excellent question about Critical Race Theory

During a recent gab session, one of my sons asked a question that sums things up pretty well: How is CRT not racial profiling?  

I'll be darned if I can think of how it isn't.  The entire premise is that you can look at a room full of people, judge their overall life experiences based on skin color, then act accordingly.  

Maybe racial profiling is too narrow as it typically refers to criminal activity, but I see little to suggest it doesn't apply at all. 

Anti-Catholic hate crimes continue

Another statue of the Blessed Virgin has been desecrated.  And here, a statue of Christ Himself has been beheaded.   If you're waiting for the national press to run with these stories, I wouldn't.  Certainly don't hold your breath.

Some Catholics, like Mark Shea, say this is acceptable and have even defended some cases of it, or at least downplayed them.  Others, like Fr. James Martin, have been willing to discuss the criticism of Christian art based on the wrong ethnic portrayals in that art.  In the city soon to be the former city of Columbus, Ohio, Mayor Ginther and the City Council did what the KKK tried to do and failed, and that's get rid of Christopher Columbus.  Though no doubt they will retort that they did what the KKK wanted to do, but for the right reasons.  He was European, Caucasian, and Christian, and that's why they ditched him.  Not just because he was Catholic.  Given that we here in the Buckeye State entertain Black History Month and Indigenous Peoples - both groups with much death and slavery and conquest in their histories - it can't be because of anything Columbus did.

This war on the West is more broadly a war on Christ.  This is Antichrist.  This is the Beast.  And its greatest victory isn't those who have rejected the Gospel who now make war upon it.  It's not even those within the folds of the faithful who join forces of heresy, blaspheme, slaughter for debauchery and tyranny.  The greatest victory will be when those who see the writing ion the wall and see the Enemy for who he is, but will do little to nothing about it.

Mr. Henry Karlson is what I mean about blogging

So who is Mr. Karlson?  His name is Henry Karlson.  He has a blog at Patheos.  I believe he's an Orthodox convert, and that's how I found him. 

I only visited his site a couple times, but thought I'd try to see if there was something there.  Then he posted on something - immigration IIRC, though I could be wrong.  It was a partisan politic post wrapped in religion.  Several pointed out the problems with what he wrote, or took other viewpoints.  One or two, I'll admit, got mean.  I didn't, and most didn't.   Then I went away.

Because I have the little 'notify me of updates', I got an update a day or so later.  Apparently he declared he would not tolerate hate and racism on his blog, and had deleted and banned multiple comments.  OK.  Since I didn't say anything hateful and racist, I didn't care.

Well, a week or so ago, a blog post of his came by my desk.  It was, again, another Trump/GOP/conservative/Satan vs. progressive politics/liberal narrative/heaven template.  So I went to point out that some of that which he posted could be seen as other than the obvious Gospel truth.  It might be that he's actually reading things on the Right in the worst way possible, and giving an easy pass to those on the Left.

Well, as soon as I went type, what did I see?  Voila!:

What?  Banned?  I only commented once, and was not a racist or any such thing.  I merely disagreed with him. I guess mine was one of the many [disagreeing with Henry] comments he banned.

Not to be thwarted, I saw at the bottom of his post a link to his Facebook page (that's something contributors at Patheos were encouraged to do).  So I went and found this post on his FB thread.  I posted that he says he's eager for visitors to comment and engage in the discussion.  But if he's going to ban every comment that doesn't agree with him, that's not much of a conversation.

Well, guess what.  I went back later in the day, and my comment had been deleted on his Facebook page, the one in which he's asking for comments and discussions.  So by discussions, apparently the gist is that all who agree with him and his views are welcome.   I understand that sometimes you have to ban people.  In hindsight, I should have banned more than I did when I was at Patheos.  But there's banning abusive language or evil pronouncements, and then there is considering anything that doesn't celebrate and conform to your way of thinking abusive and evil - a staple for the move to ban freedom in our nation today.

That is the problem with blogs and the Internet in general. Sure, Mr. Henry's approach is a bit more extreme than you'll usually see. Most won't just ban anyone for daring to disagree once.  They'll usually size you up and, after so many wranglings, then ban you.   If Mr. Karlson is an extreme example, he nonetheless reflects where many  - not all, but many - social media sites have gone.  Basically, surround one's self with same-think, and develop increasingly hostile, contemptuous, and even hateful attitudes toward those outside of that same-think group.  With the all important ban button - used nowadays far more frequently than it was two decades ago - it's easy to isolate yourself in a world where the line between you and God becomes ever more blurred.  And that is a very dangerous thing indeed.

Young Turks and the Hitler Youth of tomorrow

It's been said that today's radical Alt-Left youth bear striking resemblances to the Hitler Youth of the 30s.  They've been told who to hate.  They've been told their own moral and intellectual superiority is unquestionable.  They've been taught contempt and loathing for those who dare question their rightful place in society's highest chambers from which to rule on high.  They've been assured that the world exists merely to bow before their unparalleled awesomeness.  And they're being taught that things like liberty, freedom and even life are only worth anything when it serves their superior interests.

Few mainstream - if you can call it that - outlets exemplify these attitudes more than the network called Young Turks.  It's a far left, radical pseudo-Bolshevik, anti-American sounding board designed to sway youth into the above way of thinking.

Many, such as I, became aware of them by their legendary meltdown after Trump's victory in 2016.  It's hilarious viewing to be sure.  Watching people so assured of their moral and intellectual superiority and the debt the world owes their awesomeness have a complete collapse when things don't go their way has a certain schadenfreude quality all its own.

Yet in that video there are also signs of the Left's pure evil, most notably in the ease with which they speak of and condemn people based on categories of race, gender and political identity.  Without a sense of irony, they speak of the groups they despise in ways that Hess or Goebbels spoke of Jews.

So when a story like this comes by, I have no problem believing it is true.  I am not shocked when, upon researching, I discover it it true and more than true, even if most MSM outlets are avoiding it like the plague.  After all, this 'network' is a group teaching young people to hate.  To be arrogant and prideful.  To mock, if not rejoice in, the suffering and pain and even death of the ever growing number of assigned demographic categories they are learning to despise.

They also remind us that for many on the Left, there is little doubt that the only reason they hate Trump and condemn the things they accuse Trump of saying is because he has an (R) rather than a (D) in front of his name.  Based on how they, and a growing number of leftist partisans, behave and react, it's impossible to think they really despise Trump on anything close to a principle.

FWIW, it looks like Crenshaw responded.  While politics is not religion, and the State is not the Church, I ask you: who would you side with?  A foul mouthed, hateful person spewing contempt on the dead and mocking the wounded, or someone who replies with grace, dignity and restraint?  Whoever the New Prolife Christian would side with, I know who I will side with.  Oh, and spare me the old 'I'm just a comedian' dodge.  If you spew hatred, have the guts to rise up and stand with it.  After all, Hess and Goebbels did.

American racism done right

So we had this horrible story, about a raging black woman who, in a fit of anger, pushes an elderly white man off a bus.  Sadly for the man, he sustained injuries from which he was unable to recover.  He died shortly afterwards, the woman being charged in the assault.

And yet, not one story have I found from media outlets suggesting even once that this could be a hate crime.  Truth be told, I've found few stories in mainstream outlets covering it more than once.

That, my friends, is racism socially sanctioned.  Had this been a white person (esp. a man) pushing a black person (esp. a woman) to her death, you bet your bottom dollar it would be around the clock coverage.  It immediately would be assumed to be a hate crime, pending investigation.  Charges of racism and America's vile racist past would be floated.  You might even have protests and vigils popping up in Las Vegas or around the country. Perhaps join the growing movement to eradicate the memory of our white racist founders would gain steam.  And finally we'd find out it was all Trump's fault.

As it is, I've barely heard about it.  No vigils.  No headline news.  In fact, few national outlets covered it at all.  No condemnations really.  Certainly no suggestions of racism, bigotry or hate on the part of the accused.  Just a few stories and a couple social media posts.  And one old man who died violently. And that is all.

That is socially constructed racism in action.  This is the old Hollywood movie that has brave white explorers climbing a mountain with African porters close behind.  Suddenly, one of the porters slips and falls to his death.  The white explorers then scream out in terror: "Oh no!  There go the medical supplies!"  It didn't happen that often in movies, even in the early 30s.  But it was there.  Racism did exist in America, even if not in the cardboard, one dimensional way described by the Left.

But all we're seeing now is the same exact racism, but with different nameplates.  The Left has spent many long years convincing us not to care unless it impacts us.   If others die of AIDS, terrorism, fall through the cracks due to globalization, it's just the sacrifice we have to make.

Likewise, we've been taught to quickly see if we can exploit human death and suffering, or if we should just shrug our shoulders and move on.  The most egregious of this in recent months being the sad case of young Jazmine Barnes, whose death at the hands of a white man in a pickup truck was round the clock news for four days until the perpetrators turned out to be two black men involved in drugs.  Almost overnight every major news outlet and left wing publication dropped the story like a hot potato.

But we've been watching yet another development.  This is one that opponents of the concept of 'hate crimes' warned would happen if we went that direction.  Inevitably, we would begin saying a woman kidnapped, raped and tortured was really wronged if it was done for racist reasons.  And yet, even in the early days, we began noticing that the door to hate crime charges often only swung in certain directions.  So if the woman was white and the rapists black, can anyone ever really know?  But if she was black and the rapist white, then who needs and investigation?  Obvious it is a hate crime. So now, today, we literally will have some mock the notion that we should care about suffering or even death, if those doing so are not part of the designated demographics that matter.

Sure, news agencies may pick up this story some more if there are developments.  But how will they cover it?  In a series of disgraceful episodes, cases of white Trump supporters kidnapped, tortured, killed or even five police officers murdered by a black man hellbent on murdering white people were addressed almost with a pro/con attitude.  That is not how Ferguson, Baltimore or the Charleston shootings were addressed.  Nor was it how Tuscon was addressed.  It was how the Washington congressional shooting was addressed.  Likewise, the coverage between the Sri Lanka church bombings and the New Zealand mosque shooting couldn't have been more different.

But enough of this.  Who are we fooling?  Whether the Left really thinks all whites are racists or gives a damn about blacks or even mass shootings is anyone's guess.  What is patently obvious is that how the Left/Press covers such stories is radically inconsistent, and whether intentional or not, it is beginning to ingrain in our society - as well as our dear religious leaders - a whole new era of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination and apathy about human suffering unless it ends up impacting ... them.

Teaching minorities to hate

Years and years ago, in my other life, I attended an ecumenical conference in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.  Each of us had to present a talk, and I spoke about the Great White Guilt that was emerging as progressives tried to avoid putting responsibility for the attacks on the attackers.  The emerging trend was for the white American and European Christian male to continually apologize for whites, Christians, Americans, Europeans and men.

I noted, however, that as this continued, it was getting worse.  Those who embraced this demographic guilt were beginning to sound like the very racists and bigots they condemned.  They were merely sounding that way about their own demographics.  In fact, I pointed out, my experience was that the most bigoted and venomous rhetoric came from them about their own demographics.

So the worst anti-male sexists were, as often as not, liberal men.  Sure you had the odd wacked out radical feminist, but far more common was the liberal male sounding the sexist alarms.  Same with blacks and racial minorities.  With few exceptions, the most anti-white racists I heard were whites.  Same with everything except LGBTQ issues, in which I conceded that it broke about 50/50, with those within the various orientation categories being as bad as the worst I heard among heterosexuals (see Brian Sims as an example).

But no more.  Sure, the progressives are increasingly sounding like Nazis speaking of Jews when they talk of white people, or men, or Christians, or Americans.  And yes, the LGBTQ community can be pretty darn freaky in a Himmler without the whimsy sort of way when it comes to calling for the eliminating of the 'white cis-male whatever.' 

But increasingly, I'm noticing that young blacks are sounding as racist against whites as any KKK rally sounds against blacks.  Likewise, I'm hearing young girls and young women speak of men in a way that no man in the most sexist age spoke of women.  Far more flagrant are they about 'screw you men' than any liberal male.  Hence the #MeToo movement taking out men, liberal or otherwise, while standing guard against the notion that women can be guilty in any way.  I'm hearing the same among younger Indians, who all but say it's time for the white man to get the hell out of their country and screw you.

These youngsters have been taught to hate.  The Left, Marxist influenced as it is, doesn't reckon forgiveness, or humility, or reconciliation, or mercy.  Like most philosophies with a Marxist heart, it's based on jealousy, revenge, hatred and bloody revolution.

I thought of that as I saw this article about protesters taking on the evil of the Christian West.  Apparently to celebrate the West is to celebrate Nazis.  And look at the pictures.  It's not do-good white liberals calling down hellfire on their own heritage and ancestors.  It's black students, speaking of the West the way Nazis spoke of Jewish culture.  These are the children of the Left, the new Hitler Youth, but with dark skin and vaginas and dressed in drag.  It's not swastikas, but rainbow flags they. under which they march.

This is because the hatred, and the desire for total eradication of the grand white/Christian/American conspiracy they blame all evils of history upon, is being taught and being believed.  Censorship, banning speech, punishing thought, digital book burning, shouting down movies, destroying statues and memorials, uprooting grave markers, threatening violence and destruction - there is nothing that is off limits.  As anything we witnessed in Europe in the past, this is a generation raised to ferret out the true cabals of evil and burn them alive or dead.

But Christians who jump on board, embracing this repackaged racism and sexism, embracing censorship and violence, are unfortunately the same who would have been goosestepping around Nuremberg in the 1930s with a Bible in one hand and a Nazi flag in the other.  And worse, they are actively helping teach these up and coming generations to never forgive, but only hate, the teachings of Jesus on the subject be damned. 

The forces of evil that are behind this?  It's the same with any force of evil in history.  It will bring death and destruction, and then answer for its sins before the throne of the Almighty.  But for those Christians, through hubris, pharisaical judgmentalism, or sheer cowardice, who have played a part in weening a generation based on bigotry, hate, revenge and even violence?  Jesus has these words:

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.“Woe to the world for temptations to sin!  For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!" Matthew 18:5-7 

The double condemnation we will receive is not just because we have sinned.  It's because we are sinning in the same exact way as those who we have spent generations condemning.  But in our unwarranted arrogance and hubris, we believe the same sins are now virtuous merely on the basis of our ultimate superiority.  If we say hating based on correct skin color or national origin is good, then good it is, because this time we obviously have it right.  Our superior intellect and morals are incapable of error, so the millions of lives lost, shattered and ruined on the altars of our self-righteousness must be ignored, and our reasoning embraced.

Woe to us indeed.

The problem with hate crimes and the lies they breed

John C Wright did the homework and came up with a list of now fewer than over 200 reported cases of false accusations and lies about supposed hate crimes in America.  Whew.  Think on that.  As National Review points out, the idea that America is Nazi Hitler, and minorities are spending every day being attacked and murdered by the billions by white skin Jesus freaks with MAGA hats and pants that say 'Grab Me', is about as accurate as the old narrative that Germany's problems were all due to a vast conspiracy by Democrats, Communists and Jews.

Of course us old timers can remember when the very idea of 'Hate Crimes' was highly controversial, and more than just hard line right wingers saw problems with the concept.  One, all crimes could (should?) be seen as the result of hate, so it could be argued to be redundant.  Two, it's awfully difficult to prove, and doubly easy to fake (see above).  Three, you can't help but notice the rather subjective, and often inconsistent, manner in which 'hate crimes' terms are applied.  And finally, it could lead to the idea that some people are just more important than others, more likely victims, more likely the bad guys, or variations on 'they do or they don't have stars on their bellies.'

Given the hot mess we've seen, given that we've watched people insist that wrongly accused people with the bad skin color deserve what they get; given that we've seen people insist that the right, victimized skin color can be forgiven for killing the bad skin color; given that we've seen people insist that this gender can always be counted on to rightly accuse that bad gender; given that we've watched a growing sentiment that our very laws should only apply given a certain ethnicity, national origins, religions or nationalities; I'd suggest it's safe to say the old concerns about where hate crime mentality could lead were justified.  After all, how many things did liberalism of the 20th century promise would never happen that have happened beyond what the most paranoid detractors of old were worried about?  This would hardly be a first in fulfilling the 'worst case scenario' predictions of liberal ideals.

There comes a time when you do have to ask just how many more times we'll be fooled and yet continue to do nothing, before we have to say we deserve what we get.  Actually, we deserve what our posterity will get.  But that's another rant.

Meanwhile the New York Times ratchets up the hateful rhetoric

In the face of the caravan of immigrants heading toward the United States.  Yes, it's hateful rhetoric.  When you define an opposing view as hatred, then unless you can prove it's because they truly hate, you are the one being hateful. 

The word 'hate' has become a smack down.  It's the post-modern equivalent of Archie Bunker's 'stifle yourself!'  It's meant to end debate and hand the trophy to the winner.  In this case, those who are advocating open borders and post-national globalization.  If you aren't with them, you're a liar, a hater, a bigot, a racist, a Nazi. 

And that, children, is hate.  Not opposing such positions as globalization or open borders (or, for that matter, supporting them).  But framing salvation and righteousness as only capable if one supports your own opinions.  If it isn't hate, it's the next best thing.

Speaking of the Left's beloved racism

So The New York Times has hired a bona-fide white hating racist Harvard Grad (well done Harvard!).  That's right.  She speaks of whites in ways reminiscent of Goebbels or in ways one might hear at a KKK rally.  She hates them and is proud of her hate. 

Remember Solzhenitsyn.  Just because the West gave up its imperial holdings doesn't mean other cultures or civilizations are willing to let bygones be bygones.  It certainly doesn't mean there is no idiocy behind liberalism's assertions that only the West had such things as racism, sexism, bad slavery and bad genocide.  Forgiveness was a mandate in Christianity.  Most of the rest of the world, and most of the secular West, reserves the right to jettison all notions of forgiveness or reconciliation when it sees fit.

Why we don't see the glaring problem with turning a blind eye to such hate is a level of dumb I can't comprehend.  I don't fear that liberals and the rest of us are going to learn horrible lessons as a result of the modern dumb.  I fear it will be out posterity who pay the price for our socially sanctioned idiocy.

UPDATE:  I didn't bother looking at the comments until now.  The only thing more atrocious than the flagrant racism is the numerous commentators defending it.  Most popular defense: Racism and the hatred of people based on race is only bad if you have the power to do something about it.  Since, I guess, if you don't have power now, you never will, so no big deal.  The level of dumb in our society reminds us that in a thousand years, we will be compared to the peasant of the middle ages and likely found wanting.

Exploiting shooting victims for a political cause

By now, anyone with half a brain should know that the 'student marches' in response to Parkland are being aided, if not coordinated, and supported by interests well beyond the halls of a local high school.  The media, of course, is on board, getting 99.9% of our attention to be on solutions that would likely do little, if any, good in curtailing this ghastly phenomenon of handling our problems at gun point aimed at soft targets.  

Now, it's bad enough that the press is obviously doing this for its political purposes.  It's bad enough that people are behind this, pushing the kids ahead as shields against criticism of the press's position.  But as Donald McClarey discovered, it's a well orchestrated shield, in which those whose experiences or ideas don't match the Marxist Left are sent to the media cornfield.  Or at least told they can't have a microphone at a 'open town hall meeting.' 

Shameful.  His experience is every bit that of any of the students who suffered that horrible day.  Yet he was silenced by CNN.  Call this reason #984,579,844,795,794 why lovers of freedom and those worried about the society we are bequeathing to our children are skeptical about things like the Gun Control Movement. If the American Propaganda Ministry wasn't behind the GCM, there might be less suspicion.  Though the growing 'Ban Guns, Kill the NRA, Gun owners next time' memes I'm seeing aren't helping ether.

Meanwhile, another instance of a police officer shot and killed reminds us that the problems are greater than any one gun law.  

Attention Gun Control Activists

Don't use victims of school shootings to cover the hate spewed today by Gun Control activists.   And let's not pretend that it's gun owners who are the violent, murderous ones spouting the hateful, pro-death rhetoric at anyone they disagree with.  I'm not saying no gun owners do such things.  That would be laughable.  But as Victor Hanson points out, lobbing 'wish they were dead' speak at those other types is something that the biggest critics of the gun lobby have become rather good at.

Thus here:

Or as seen on this site, as well as the comments:

Note the first comment: we have met the enemy, and it is them.  Followed by 'don't forget they have white skin, so that means racist!'  Gun owners apparently being white by nature. 

Perhaps - and this is just me being crazy - but perhaps the reason we've had shootings over the last few decades has been the growing divisions in our nation that says there is one group, the good guys, and the other group, the evil stupid types who need taken out.  I wonder what it would be like to be a kid growing up, listening to adults frame everything that way.  Sometimes I think we're seeing what it is like.

The cynical conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it might be deliberate.  It might be that we train our society to hate and kill, and then swing in and move to end freedom and liberty in the wake of a nation taught to be filled with hatred and narcissism.  But I'll stay calm and assume it's really just a glaring blind spot.  A blind spot that is so large because we just can't bear the thought that this society we've spent decades building might not be good for your health.

By the way, as a side note, is there not one of the student activists who think the solution is other than gun control?