Here at TRS, we are always scanning the rhetorical horizons in an effort to keep America safe and prosperous. Language holds the keys to the kingdom, and how we define words often dictates our reactions. This is the primary reason that political correctness is a pox upon our house. Often, this redefining is offensive to the sensibilities of most citizens, and serves only to further the “progressive” ideas of small, deviant sections of the populace.
Away from the prying eyes of America, liberal academia has been busy scheming over one such subversion: the legitimization of pedophilia.
At TRS we have noted a growing trend among leftists to place social status above intellectual consistency. When narrative-challenging events like yesterday’s shooting at leftist magazine Charlie Hebdo occur, what typically happens is liberals will coalesce around the easiest and safest narrative available. In this case it took the form of projecting fears over possible Islamophobic backlash. “Islamophobia” being defined as “any perspective that could possibly make me question what made such a tragedy possible in the first place (protip: look in the fucking mirror).”
While many granola-eaters are content with taking the easy out in political discourse, some liberals feel a need to signal higher status than the crowd. Providing us with a perfect example of such behavior is one Jacob Canfield, what appears to be a white-presenting kebab, offering us an interesting (read: retarded) take on the Charlie Hebdo shooting Wednesday (boldface added for emphasis):
When faced with a terrorist attack against a satirical newspaper, the appropriate response seems obvious. Don’t let the victims be silenced…
In this case, it is the wrong response.
Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.
The victims of the shooting should be silenced. Because they’re white and racist. Ouch, I cut myself on all of this edge.
It’s that time of year again. The time when liberals collectively remind us with tweets from their iPhones that they are above petty consumerism and that employing a mere 6,000 out of 2.2 million workers at minimum wage (a policy which they’re phasing out) is tantamount to slavery. Many of them cheered when the UFCW and AFL-CIO operated OUR Wal-Mart union announced plans to strike at every one of Wal-Mart’s 1600 locations (there were no strikers at either of mine). The #RaiseTheWage and #FightFor15 crowds are calling this year’s strikes “the most successful ever”.
So how many went on strike? According to the OUR Walmart union approximately 1,500 workers nationwide went on strike for Black Friday.
That’s 0.006% of their retail associates. No, that’s not a typo. Zero point zero zero six percent. Less than one per store.
But only in Western nations and due to their inherent egalitarian natures. Is it not the epitome of irony that the only societies where feminism can persist are the very ones that do not need it? Perhaps, but I believe that we can go deeper and find an even more biting irony.
A black guy just died of Ebola in Dallas. As mentioned in a previous article, this made liberals go absolutely bananas, given that the first guy to get Ebola in America, Dr. Ken Brantly, a white man, survived his ordeal while Thomas Eric Duncan, a black man, did not.
If you listen to the left, the cause is clear: racism.
Thomas Sowell once talked about the liberal inability to think of actors in any given situation as anything other than “abstract people in an abstract world”. It goes far deeper than that, however, with the modern left. They are abstract people in an abstract world where the only thing that isn’t abstract is racism.
Picture the following: featureless, gray humanoids, all assembled in two different groups. Give one, or both, of those groups weapons. Now, do they start to kill each other? No. Not yet, lets not make them do that just yet. First, lets paint one of these groups black.
Did you do it? No, no, don’t give them huge nostrils and stop making them chant “Bix nood mofugga”. That’s insensitive.
If you’ve been paying attention, what you are about to read should not surprise you.
British Philosopher and self-proclaimed “futurist” (read: useless, overeducated, disconnected net negative on societal resources) David Pearce penned an article that drew attention from lefty Gawker science rag io9. The article, entitled “Reprogramming Predators” is part of his “Blueprint for a Cruelty Free World” series, which aims to eliminate, in a way which he believes to be realistic, literally *all* forms of suffering from this Earth. Including suffering by non-sentient animals, which puts him on a whole new level of liberalism.
How does he intend to do this? Why, by genetically altering wild animals to eliminate all predatory instincts. Pearce gets upset when wild animals kill one another, so he desires to put an end to the entire concept of darwinism. Ironic.
Some people seem to be upset that a porn star is encouraging women to have sex with illegal immigrants. Honestly, I was triggered as well, but not because my race is threatened by some dark-colored penises in some light-colored holes.
While it is interesting that pornography is now branding itself “progressive,” this only reinforces my argument that what is supposedly a philosophy is really a sales pitch.
On March 24th, 2014, a pair of African American women hailing from Towson University (lol Matt Heimbach) won the Cross Examination Debate Association’s national Championship at Indiana University. It was a first for formal college debate–a pair of African American females winning a major national debate by a 7-4 vote.