A recent comment brings something to light…. I am editing out identity not only because I have no desire to point out a specific person, but because in a larger text it apparently relates to growing constituency:
….. although I’ve been following the Zimmerman trial and post-trial postings for many weeks. I understand and agree with [xxxxxxx] comments. I also had [xxxxxx]-like feelings about many of the religious comments posted here. Not for my own sake as a libertarian atheist, but for the sake of my liberal white friends who I would like to refer to this site. I’ve often thought, “I wish these people would tone it down with the Christian talk. My friends are going to take one brief look at this site and dismiss it as a bunch of right-wing religious nuts. They won’t stay long enough to get the kernel of truth spoken here about the BGI and its government co-conspirators.” But I decided it wasn’t my place to ask this community to alter its commentary to suit the prejudices of my liberal white friends. If my friends are too close-minded to look past the religious talk then that really is their problem. I believe that much of the Christian commentary here is unnecessary and is frequently off point…..
What would possibly make you think I/we/us would want to attract a following of “liberal white friends” to this site? The descriptions you then attach to those persons fill identification (check boxes) of exactly who I/we/us would NEVER WANT to associate with. Period.
Those people you describe are the absolute cause of the ROT within our republic and to identify them as “friends” defines the disparity with clarity.
I/We/Us consider *them* the ENEMY.
Secondly, what possible psychological impetus would put forth the proposition that it would be even remotely appropriate to make such a demand?
That is really alarming when you think about it.
What would make you think it even remotely appropriate to tell ‘us’ that we need to adjust ‘who we are’ to accommodate ‘you’ (and/or your friends)?
In the larger context I could use this opportunity to point out exactly what runs through the mind of Progressives when they demand “compromise”. Not compromising their position – but rather demanding everyone move toward them. But I digress.
Let me once again repeat a prior consideration presented to Katrisha as she made demands. This is directly from me, to both her and all of the readers upon these pages. Just change the idioms inherent in the argument, and the answer is the same:
Is this a home for hermit crab? I think most assuredly it is. Rag tag misfits and hermit crabs says I.
However, I never knew it was possible to determine skin color by looking at ‘Ariel 10′ characters on a typeset.
What Katrisha senses, and rightly so, -inside herself- is the incapacity to stop those she disagrees with, the Black Grievance Industry, from saying they speak on her behalf.
The intellectual enemy has forced her to put on their uniform. They have, by full intent and purposeful positioning, then described every member of their encampment.
The frustration/fear within their camp is then held by those who do not wish to wear the uniform.
The fear they feel is then externalized against anyone who is in the fight against those Katrisha disagrees with, who do not afford separation between her and the enemy who demanded she wear the uniform of compliance against her will.
How can a righteous soldier know such distinctions? But…. how can they… separate I mean.
When the enemy is all wearing the same uniform, and the Generals in charge of the enemy proclaim that all within that same uniform should expect to be considered the enemy.
How is the truthful and righteous intellectual soldier to fight – when he or she is forced to question the intent of his or her target prior to using their trigger finger?
THE ENEMIES GOAL – Who does that trigger *fear* benefit ?
The righteous or the deceiver?
This is what Katrisha may understand yet awkwardly cannot answer.
The intellectual fight needed, the fight she must take, is within the encampment of those who demand she wear their uniform.
The fight is not with us.
Is it then weighed too dangerous, too difficult, and too significant in appearance, to her sense of self to fight them?
She knows the ideologically aligned “us” will go easier on her; and afford an understanding.
Perhaps. But is it such a noble understanding?
Or is it, as I would present, a painful co-dependency that must be broken at the origin?
The intellectual independent did not create the ideological challenge, yet we are demanded to consider it. (?)
Not I.
For I will not accept the responsibility of fighting her battle on her behalf. [I will not change the approach] She approached the wire. Someone yelled “Halt”…. or did they? (Again, ariel 10 typeset lends no capacity for definition)
Katrisha is not the enemy… Fair enough…. I can cherish you as I do all of similar constitution… but the tougher love is to: “Turn Around”, I say, “and go back to give *them* that uniform”, “then return in your non combative attire, and we will discuss your entrance”.
She might rightly reconcile fear….. “they’ll figuratively kill me”. Who’s issue is that?
Regretfully one must say, “that’s your issue”, I will not put the entire righteous platoon at risk by allowing you to enter the camp of intellectual armourment, and then define the allowable weaponry which may be used in the confrontation ahead.
Which is the truer but tougher cause?
If Katrisha’s motive is as expressed, and I have no reason to doubt the purity, then she will just as rightly demand the uniform be disassociated from herself.
This can only take place within the camp from which it originated. Not only because it is theirs, but also because it is impossible for us to remove. It has been locked upon her just as assuredly as a bolted straight jacket – and we do not possess the key for removal.
If removal is impossible under these conditions, that’s not an issue I choose to absorb… The cultural marxist infection is sewn into the fabric, and cannot advance here.
…..And come sunrise we will continue moving forward en masse’ against that rotted locale which contains the intellectually infected petri dish of collectivist Fabian origin….
…… and I swear it to be true that if you, or any other, are there when we arrive; And you, or any other, are wearing that uniform, I will most assuredly consider you the enemy with as much reflexivity as I will any other that may or may not hold a similar constitution.
And I will feel no guilt or remorse – because I refuse to accept the deflection.
In the war of ideas – boldness must be drawn.
We are not hiding what we stand for. We proclaim it. Loudly….
