Rob's House

Not sure where to put this, but I guess this is as good a place as any.

This is what relinquishment of any semblance of self respect looks like.

Police use tear gas on peaceful rioters exercising their first amendment right to vandalize public property.

Black man fights back against his homeless oppressors.

"Protestor" in Fredericksburg smashes window of a car with a baby inside.

I can see how it looks that way, but based on her history I don't think that's what she meant. I think her point was it wasn't a fight, it was a viscous attack coming from unhinged irrational rage that seems to be increasing.

It's not so cut and dry and I really don't have the exact answer. I have some theories, but nothing I'd lay out as definitive. It's important to remember that they don't have to all be in it together. They just have to share the same vision. Academia is filled with Marxists - the overwhelming majority of the most prestigious universities are run by Marxists. Most major media outlets are run by Marxists. The Democrat party has been largely taken over by Marxists. They're not a monolithic group, and there is infighting among the factions, but the proof is in the proverbial pudding. Bernie Sanders, a life-long Marxist, nearly won the Democrat nomination. He was only thwarted because he was too open about it and threatened to hurt the cause. It has to be subversive to work. Socialism has become openly accepted by the msm. Chris Matthews was cancelled for pointing out that actual socialism, as opposed to the watered down version that amounts to a market economy with extensive social programs as is popular in Europe, is tyrannical and dangerous. Antifa and BLM are self-avowed Marxist organizations, and they are the media darlings spearheading this movement. People didn't organically rise up and riot in every major city across America because a cop killed a guy in Minnesota. It was clearly orchestrated by the aforementioned organizations (I would like to know exactly who is funding them), and facilitated by the media. Ultimately it's people with money, power, and influence who desire a strong ruling class because they believe they will be part of the ruling class. It's hard to identify them specifically because they are a disparate groups that operate behind the scenes. There are others on this board that can explain this better than I.

No. That was just me mocking the media.

A Leftist Paradise

Oppressed black man victimized by white privilege.

Reposted with edits: A lot of you have been waiting to hear my take on all the uproar that's been going on lately. No one's actually told me this, but I just know it's true. For the better part of this century I've felt that political correctness was the single greatest threat to our society. I couldn't quite explain exactly why, or how it would manifest, but I felt it in my gut. Last year I spent some time reading up on the Bolshevik revolution and it started to become clear. I began to see the progressive movement as a covert marxist movement masquerading as social justice. It's the kind of statement that elicits eye rolls and allegations of "conspiracy theory," but If you substitute the class divisions of classical Marxism with the group identity divisions of social justice the pieces start to fall into place. I recall a conversation from several years ago where I was told PC simply means "perfect courtesy." The problems inherent in the demand for "perfect" courtesy aside, that perception illustrates how political correctness acts as a trojan horse. Twentieth century America was too strong for a Bolshevik style revolution to succeed. Communism was highly unpopular and an overt campaign would be futile. Instead they set upon a gradual subversive takeover from within. To succeed it was necessary to sow division, pit groups against each other, tear down the institutions and traditions that have formed our cultural identity, and break the common bonds that unite people and allow us to live in relative harmony as one nation. They've used political correctness to accomplish that. America's historical racial divisions were easy to exploit. The theme of America as a racist and oppressive country with marginalized victim groups struggling under the constant strain of active racism was steadily drummed into the national conscience. Speech codes with select buzz words were put in place to prevent anyone from stating truths that ran counter to the narrative. Swift and harsh retribution, demanded by an intolerant minority with the power of the press, effectively coerced compliance. The buzz words are associated with concepts that evoke a strong emotional response. Once the association is established in the public psyche, the language is manipulated to expand what falls under the definition of that buzz word. This enables them to deem offensive that which would otherwise be innocuous simply by tying it to a buzz word with a negative association. The most obvious example is "racism." The working definition has evolved from something along the lines of unfairly discriminating against others based on race, to believing in one's own racial superiority, to white recognition of racial differences (unless admiring the superiority of the minority), to the state of being white. That last example is not hyperbole. In woke terms, racism is inherrent to whiteness and cannot be avoided. The only path to redemption is to admit one's own racism and actively work to compensate for it. Consider this against the backdrop of a world where a "racist" is the lowest form of life, and one who must be expelled from society for the betterment of all. One need not actually do anything that is hateful or detrimental to another to be deemed "part of the problem," as long as any action or statement can be interpreted to fit under the broadest definition of "racism," even if only in a very technical way. This manipulative association applies to symbols of culture and tradition as well. The Kaepernick movement is a perfect example of manipulating the perception associated with cultural symbolism to erode the spirit of the country. Whatever Kaepernick's reasoning, those with the power to push the narrative support it because it simultaneously stokes group division (a necessary ingredient) while stripping the flag and anthem (symbols of our national pride and identity) of their sanctity. If you're trying to conquer a society you certainly don't want massive displays of pride and respect to the symbols that represent the system you seek to topple. For years they've gone to great lengths to deter any public expression of Christianity because it creates a common cultural bond among people (and gives them a higher power to look to than the state). This is why they've fought so hard to suppress Christmas. It's the same reason they want to inject political controversies into sports. They want to pervert every cultural tradition that brings people together. This is the real reason why they're so determined to take down Confederate statues. Regardless of one's opinion of the Confederacy, this has nothing to do with eliminating racism or protecting blacks from the trauma of being offended by homages to figures from the distant past. They need the confederacy to be categorically synonymous with racism and tear down all its remnants. The goal is to eliminate any sense of southern identity, divide people along racial, regional, and cultural lines, and most importantly, to set the precedent for eliminating all historical vestiges of "racism." This sets the stage for the wholesale condemnation of the founding of America. The American people still overwhelmingly respect the founders and the Constitution. Those who seek to rebuild the country in their own image are positioning themselves to jump that hurdle. We will soon hear growing cries of sanctimonious outrage over the claim that America was founded by racist slave owners who should not be honored. The ideals of individual liberty on which the country was founded were espoused by those racists and are thus maligned by association. The Constitution is based on those ideals and did not immediately outlaw slavery, and is therefore illegitimate. When that time comes, speaking out in defense of the founders will be politically incorrect. It will be seen as an act of racism. It's entirely likely that failure to actively denounce the founders will put you in company with the untouchables. It's often said, and rarely true, but right now we really are living in dangerous times. The foundation of the amazingly stable system of freedom, equality, and prosperity that we increasingly take for granted is being set ablaze. The useful idiots, with no clear plan or purpose beyond opposing an abstact sense of injustice and a burning desire to be part of a movement, will ride the crazy train right up to the gates of hell. They don't realize that the people who start revolutions are not the ones who take power in their wake. They believe if things go wrong they can simply change their government. They're going to learn the hard way that once you let a fire get out of hand you can't just put it out.

Anyone coming to Rice with me? BURN IT DOWN!!!

Are you seriously going to pretend companies have been firing people for expressing views in support of civil rights?

He's trolling the left.

I'm glad to know you'll be so understanding if people get fired for wearing BLM clothing to work.

The implicit statement in all these ethnocentric declarations is "if I lived in that time I would be against it." The only thing you're actually communicating is that you don't understand moral psychology and you want to feel/signal moral superiority. The truth is you have no idea how you would have felt had you been raised in different times under different circumstances. Any suggestion to the contrary is hubris.

It's easy to see why morons would, but viewing a man from the 1400s through the ethnocentric lens of 21st century American morality is patently absurd. The concept of individual liberty wasn't present anywhere in the world. Conquest and subjugation was the norm among all civilizations. There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about this. Columbus isn't remembered for being the wokest angel of his time, he's remembered for bringing European civilization to the Americas. Ethnocentric purity tests aren't enlightened. They're fu¢king stupid.

Your point?