That’s interesting. Ben Sasse published a book titled “The Vanishing American Adult”. In the tome, the legislator criticized those that do not comport themselves with an austere sobriety. Yet he appeared on the premiere episode of the Jonah Goldberg podcast where the host joked that he was wearing a spaghetti strainer codpiece. The duo referenced how corn stalks could be urinated into in such a way so that liquid biological effluent could spill out onto an unsuspecting harvester. If that was not enough, towards the conclusion of such an edifying policy dialog, a passing reference was made to “key parties.” I will admit that sometimes my content skirts along the edge of propriety. However, never did I posture that my own sense of virtue would preclude me from voting for Donald Trump because of the tycoon’s uncouth utterances as did these pivotal public intellectuals. Nor, unlike Sasse during his book tour, would I question the masculinity of college students for refusing to climb a tree twenty feet tall for the purposes of adorning an evergreen with a mere Christmas decoration.
According to presidential candidate Marianne Williamson in her other side hustle as a peddler of metaphysical swill, ‘“Only love is real. Nothing else actually exists. If a person behaves unlovingly, then, that means that, regardless of their negativity … their behavior was derived from fear and doesn’t actually exist. They’re hallucinating. You forgive them, then, because there’s nothing to forgive.” This raises a number of questions. Firstly, on what grounds then does the threat she insists Donald Trump poses actually exist? Is she admitting that what she is experiencing is a leftover effect of the dope she readily confesses she partook of in previous decades? Secondly, if behavior based on negativity such as fear does not exist, given that her campaign is based largely on the fear of the President, does that mean voters should be as similarly dismissive of her campaign as well? For if the threat of the Trump presidency ultimately has no more reality than that of Thanos from the Avengers or Sauron from the Lord Of The Rings, then why such a considerable expenditure of resources to take on a mere figment of the imagination?
Fox News is virtue signalling about not mentioning the name of the El Paso gunman. Isn’t this the equivalent of refusing to reference the perpetrators of other atrocities? So will documentaries no longer directly mention James Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, or Timothy McVeigh?
For the concept of black blood to play a prominent role in two CW dramas, it has got to have some kind of occult or gnostic significance. Maybe it is somehow related to the black eyed children often conjectured to be some sort of human/extraterrestrial hybrid. For the primary protagonist of “The Outpost” is in essence a nephilim (or in the context of the series basically an elf which is apparently a race combining humans and demonic entities known as the Lycyri.
The battle cry of the Three Musketeers was “One for all and all for one.” An advertising campaign for the CW television network is “All for we.” That is particularly disturbing in light of the homosexual advocacy underlying a number of the station’s dramas. For unlike the motto of the Musketeers, this contemporary alteration attempting to invoke the camaraderie of the original formulation insinuates that the individual possesses no inherent worth apart from compliance with the herd mentality as part of the group.
If President Trump tightens mental health confinement standards, what is to prevent him from being taken into custody for utterances failing to comply with prevailing herd mentalities?
The Naval Academy football team is dropping the slogan “Load the clip” in light of mass shooting incidents. Instead, the slogan will be “Win the day”. But shouldn’t even this replacement be condemned in regards to its celebration divisiveness and dominance? For isn’t to declare a winner nearly the ultimate way to express that one entity is better than another by some objective criteria? Doesn’t that undermine the coming together for the sake of coming together in the utopia all are obligated to aspire to or face the consequences?
In light of the El Paso massacre, the Mexican government is demanding that the United States tighten firearms laws Because gun control has certainly diminished violence south of the border.
By Frederick Meekins