Post by The Peeler Post by jew kike SHEINIE paedophile Barry Z. SHEIN's preferred jew aliash Ron Jacobson
SHUCH a chutzpah already!
SHUCH a jew HYPOCRISHY already!
UP this shit, you jusht can't MAKE!
ROTFLOL!!! Poor sick asshole!
The mangina has no chance against us!
Jack Marshall writes about John Lewis and his fans.
A Popeye For John Lewis And His Fans
AUGUST 1, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
This post was in my head and keeping me awake all night, so I had to get out
of bed and get it out
I was just about to let the late John Lewis go, when a Facebook friend
inflicted the late Congressman’s so-called “final words” on me with a post
in Facebook that garnered bushels of likes and teary faces, immediately
putting me into a quandary. The guy’s a lawyer, and should know better than
to extol such transparent grandstanding, varnished over with dishonesty.
I almost—almost—wrote a searing rebuttal and reprimand. I didn’t, and it’s
keeping me awake tonight. More on that in a moment.
First, regarding Lewis: I didn’t want to read his op-ed in the Times,
knowing, as I knew Lewis’s routine well, that it would either make my head
explode or make me want to blow it up. Writing such a thing itself is pure
narcissism: Lewis was shuffling off this mortal coil with words designed to
make those who do not know him, except by the dated accolades with which he
has been celebrated by the fawning media, think he was a better man than he
was, while making his detractors face being called racists if they call his
piece out for what it is. This, for example, was nauseating:
In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the
way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn
to let freedom ring.
This is the same John Lewis who told NBC audiences the day before Martin
Luther King Day and less than a week before the Inauguration that
President-elect Donald J. Trump was “an illegitimate President.” In 2017,
Ethics Alarms pronounced this “an unprecedented act of vicious partisanship
and unethical public service.” I understated it. Lewis deliberately
triggered the perpetual anti-democratic unrest that has led directly to
today’s riots, toppled statues, and self-righteous hate. He isn’t the only
public figure accountable for this, but he is the only one who assisted in
tearing the nation apart while patting himself on the back as someone who
has “done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love.”
“All,” Congressman? How about serving as an honorable example for citizens
by accepting the leader chosen by our system as it has done for more than
two centuries, and not deliberately encouraging an insurrection? How about
that? How does creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation that requires
citizens and businesses to support a Marxist movement or risk being
“cancelled” let freedom ring?
I had to wrestle my rebellious gorge to the ground and place my violently
rolling eyes back in their sockets when I read this at the start of Lewis’
While my time here has now come to an end, I want you to know that in the
last days and hours of my life you inspired me. You filled me with hope
about the next chapter of the great American story when you used your power
to make a difference in our society. Millions of people motivated simply by
human compassion laid down the burdens of division. Around the country and
the world you set aside race, class, age, language and nationality to demand
respect for human dignity.
That is why I had to visit Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, though I
was admitted to the hospital the following day. I just had to see and feel
it for myself that, after many years of silent witness, the truth is still
Emmett Till was my George Floyd. …
What inspired John Lewis is pure anti-white racism and creeping
totalitarianism, cloaked in human rights rhetoric. Who, at this point,
believes that the demonstrations/riots/vandalism in cities across the
nation, calls to abolish police departments, prisons, and merit-based
standards for everything from licensing lawyers to choosing symphony
orchestra programs, and petitions to fire dissenting professors and business
leaders are based on a concern for “human rights” rather than a thirst for
power? Lewis’ original crusade, with Martin Luther King, was about human
rights, but that was before Lewis was corrupted by access to power, perks,
and people treating him like saint regardless of what he said or did.
“Laid down the burdens of division”? Was Lewis on the same planet as I am?
The “movement” that made him so proud has been the greatest source of
division in the country since the Civil War, yes, even more than Viet Nam or
the civil rights movement. Authoring his own valedictory, John Lewis decided
to join the current fad of wielding Rationalization 64, “It isn’t what it
To be fair, he was doing it in the course of self-sanctification that could
be fairly called, “I’m not who I am.”
The nadir in Lewis’s introduction should have been his pairing Black Lives
Matter with the concept of “truth.” The organization is built on lies and
deals in lies, the primary one being that it opposes racism when its
objective is to enact policies and societal structures based on the racist
assertion that all whites are racists and the United States of America keeps
its knee on the throats of minorities.
Then Lewis declared George Floyd the equivalent of Emmet Till.
George Floyd’s death had virtually nothing in common with the lynching of
Emmet Till, an innocent black teen whose capitol crime was being black and
daring to interact with a white woman in public, in Mississippi. To begin
with, there still is no evidence whatsoever that Floyd dies because he was
black, or that racism was a factor in his death. “The truth goes matching
on,” Lewis says, but the claim that Floyd was the victim of racism has
nothing to support it except the facts that Derek Chauvin was white, Floyd
was black, and Chauvin was a police officer. The “truth” according to Black
Lives Matter, and apparently John Lews, is that if any black man dies at the
hands of a white police officer, it’s systemic racism at work, because as
that eminent BLM member Tiffany Haddish explains—I’m sure Lewis was proud of
her, too—police hunt and kill blacks.
What else? Well, Till was lynched. There haven’t been any lynchings in the
U.S. in more than half a century, so the strategic decision was made to
characterize Floyd’s death as lynching. Till’s murder was intentional,
first degree murder by any definition. Chauvin was almost certainly guilty
of negligent homicide, but he was not trying to kill Floyd, if only because
doing so would mean the end of his career at very least. Unlike Till, Floyd
contributed to the circumstances of his death, allegedly engaging in a
crime, being stoned in public, and resisting a lawful arrest. Till’s
lynching in Mississippi in 1955 characterized the culture of a large swathe
of the nation during the Jim Crow, era as JohnLewis knew as well as
anyone. The immediate outrage over Chauvin’s brutality occurred because such
conduct was not characteristic of the United States in the 21st century.
There were no legal consequences for Till’s murderers, other than the
routine acquittal so many racist killers received in that period.
Other than that, however, the two cases are identical.
I’m used to John Lewis’s race-baiting, dishonest rhetoric and false pose as
a unifying force in our society, though his farewell op-ed was especially
flagrant. I’m annoyed at my friend for endorsing Lewis’ posturing and
circulating the disgusting comparison of George Floyd and Emmett Till on
social media for ignoramuses to cheer.
Facts Don’t Matter to the George Floyd Freakout mob, but my friend is a
lawyer. People are supposed to be able to trust lawyers, who are, in turn,
supposed to be trustworthy because of their fealty to facts.
What, however, should I do? I have written here that everyone need to be
proactive on social media and elsewhere, actively opposing Big Lies, false
narratives and propaganda. But I know exactly what would happen if I posted
some equivalent of this post on my friend’s John Lewis thread. I would
embarrass an old friend of many years who did not put this garbage on my
page—he knows better than that—but his own. I would be fielding endless
angry replies, mostly from Deranged Facebook users I don’t know, calling me
a racist, a “Trumpster” and a Fox News acolyte. Nobody would mount an
intelligent rebuttal, because there is no intelligent rebuttal.
At some point, the ethical dilemma here approaches the core reasoning of the
Second Niggardly Principle: it’s unethical to upset people for no real
purpose. To all those who “liked” the John Lewis op-ed, my critique would
appear to be a gratuitous smear of a dead civil rights icon, and an insult
Still, while I respect anyone’s decision to hold progressive views (my
friend is a text-book nostalgic Sixties liberal and undoubtedly sincere), I
expect smart people to avoid being ethics corrupters. Though I know calling
out his post would be futile, I am not opposed to futile acts based on
principle, having engaged in and suffered for, many of them in my life. Some
windmills demand to be charged. Yet I can’t bring myself to alienate a
friend and court abuse by pointing out sharply that the the dead civil
rights icon was a toxic fraud, and his op-ed, to be blunt, was a
self-serving crock. I feel, as a result, like a hypocrite, a coward, and a
And that’s why I woke up at 4:00 am to write this.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.