America ’21: A Comedy

    Fuck the bullshit, ladies and gentlemen. We are back!

    The amount of contradiction and ignorance that is sweeping our western world is beyond appalling now, to the point that it has become comical to watch. Forget streaming or spending money on the new must-see comedy from “Hollyjewed.” This comedic show airs 24/7 and accessible to those who still have a functioning brain outside of society’s constricted group mentality. 

    Not even an hour after the inevitable guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, who is now serving time for the overdose of George Floyd, in Columbus, Ohio, a police officer responds to a 911 call where a 16-year old black girl is about to stab another “non-white” girl with a knife. As her arm comes down to stab the other, the officer does what he is trained to do and stops the attack by opening fire. 

             How do the media and political puppets react? With complete and utter outrage, of course! They don’t see or report how an officer had prevented a violent attack nor how he saved an unarmed girl from what could have been a brutal knife attack. Yes, the violent attack was prevented with a gun; however, that is the tool that officers are trained to use and have been using to prevent crimes for a very long time. 

    News reporters are the people who should be shot for their paid-off, biased distortions of what happened. Rather than facts, they focus on how the 16-year old was a black, “straight-A” student who had a bright future. The officer indeed put an end to her future, which more likely would have been a future of stabbing others to solve their high school problems. The officer was taken off the streets and will never see the end of his “horrible disservice” of preventing a girl and others from being stabbed by a deranged, ‘straight-A” student. 

    And of course, once the news becomes public, the hive-minded zombies come out of the sewer “maintenance holes” (no longer a “manhole”) and begin their tirade of meaningless protests. And in come their ignorant, name-calling contradictions of referring to others as racist, bigoted, and intolerant for not accepting the way they view choose to see (or unsee) things. For those with short attention spans, it is a direct contradiction to call someone bigoted and intolerant because they disagree with your views. 

The most intolerant people are often those who say they are fighting for tolerance. And there’s the ironic punchline. These people will yell all day for you not to be intolerant while not being tolerant of you; they will tell you not to judge while judging you and claim there are no moral absolutes while preaching that tolerance and equality are moral absolutes that everyone should support. These are the same people who refuse to believe that Twitter isn’t a news source. There is no news anymore. The news is gone and isn’t part of the “new normal.” Kiss it goodbye, along with your freedom. 

If you’re a white male, you have become the scum of the earth simply for being born that way. Not that you chose that life, which would give those screaming “white privilege!” a valid argument. But they don’t have one. Them claiming you have privilege basically declares that they are better than you because you have not been oppressed like they have. That alone makes any such argument invalid from the start. It’s a strange thing to claim in support of equality.

The political and social movements of today are made up of such individuals, many with educated backgrounds but have become blind to their actions or are fully aware but are involved for some other reason, such as a loved one being a “victim” of whatever they oppose. Respect is given to those who can put up a decent argument for their cause without referring to fake statistics, “news” they heard on Twitter or Facebook, and ad hominem attacks. We have yet to discover such an individual in support of the LGBT and Transgender movements. 

LGBT and Transgender supporters love to throw around blatant lies, such as gender being a social construct that must be morally tolerated. If one was to make this claim, or any claim that must be “morally tolerated,” then morality needs to be put into question. Unlike sex or gender, morals are not an innate part of the genetic makeup of a human being. Morality is itself a social construct due to its relative subjectivism—everyone has their own code of ethics, which will differ from another’s code of ethics living across the world. For a society to function correctly, a shared agreement on what is considered right and wrong must be established. In a sense, there is no right or wrong, only popular opinion. 

Clearly, two people with differing morals don’t have to live across the world from each other. For example, I am not in any agreement with calling someone by some obscure pronoun that didn’t exist two years ago, and if anyone has a problem with that, it is their problem. It isn’t any problem of mine because I am okay with it. I am OK with people not agreeing with me because I know that I don’t have a right to be liked by everyone. Nobody has the right to be liked by everyone, but everyone has a right not to like something or someone. Accept it. 

Those who cannot see this fact have allowed their emotions and will to get in the way of thinking clearly. Since they cannot make an intelligent argument based on facts, they do anything else to attack opposers and avoid hearing facts that contradict their lifestyle choices. Therefore, the truth gets batted away as a form of defense. 

Let’s say that society doesn’t create morality to function; that it’s an inherent trait all humans are born with, exempting diagnosed psychopaths. Whether ingrained or conditioned, we live our lives based on the determination of what is “right.” if we choose to live in a way that goes against that, it will continue to constrict us for suppressing the truth and living against our perceived morals. As a result, we will aggressively seek rationalizations to prove to everyone, and ourselves, that we actually are living “right.” This inner conflict then boils over into a rage against anyone who suggests that our behavior is wrong. 

We all know that there is strength in number. Alone, it’s nearly impossible to convince others, but with a group, things such as adultery and sodomy have become endorsed behaviors by the moralization of slogans pertaining to “equality” and “choice.” This is done to convince those easily influenced into thinking that what these groups want is “right.” A good example is the name “social justice warrior.” Is anyone going to oppose this and claim to be in support of social injustice? I think not. 

The whole thing is a double standard. While we all must restrain ourselves for the sake of civilization, SJWs are entitled to toss off all restraint and demand from society not just tolerance, but endorsement of their ignorance.