There are countless cases of personalities and Instagram influencers changing their face to make it seem like they have black heritage.
Jessica Krug, an associate professor at George Washington University (she has also gone by Jess La Bombalera in activist circles) revealed that she was a white Jewish woman from Kansas City.
“You should absolutely cancel me, and I absolutely cancel myself,” Krug wrote in a Medium post on Thursday.
“I have built my life on a violent anti-Black lie,” said Ms Krug, a former civil rights activist and African studies instructor who have been pretending of being African American for years.
She fully identifies herself as black.
With many other activits she strongly believes that “the idea of race is a lie” but anyway as far as liberal academic circles are concerned, it’s better to be black.
Reverend Thomas Anderson, senior pastor of the Living Word Bible Church in Mesa, Arizona, says Jesus couldn’t have been poor because he received lucrative gifts — gold, frankincense and myrrh — at birth.
(Matthew 2:9)
Jesus had to be wealthy because the Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments. “I don’t know anybody — even Pamela Anderson — that would have people gambling for his underwear,” Anderson says. “That was some fine stuff he wore.”
(Matthew 27:35)
Even Jesus’ parents, Mary and Joseph, lived and traveled in style, he says. “Mary and Joseph took a Cadillac to get to Bethlehem because the finest transportation of their day was a donkey,” says Anderson. “Poor people ate their donkey. Only the wealthy used it as transportation.”
(Matthew 2:12-15)
“Judas was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.” (John 12:6)
“The last time I checked, poor people don’t have treasurers to take care their money,” says Brown, author of “Devil, Demons and Spiritual Warfare.”
Brown says Jesus’ own words prove that he wasn’t poor.
“Jesus said you will always have the poor, but you will not always have me,” (Matthew 26:11) Brown says: “Jesus did not affirm himself as being part of the poor class.“
Anderson affirms that Jesus would never have had disciples or a large following if he was poor.
“The poor will follow the rich, the rich will follow the rich, but the rich will never follow the poor,” Anderson says.
Reinforced trite stereotypes about poor people pay very well in Hollywood’s movies but ended up very badly in das Dritte Reich.
Stephen said
I self-identify as a Chinese T’ang Dynasty sage.
Gender liquidity has a big problem. It embraces the idea that, like language, the correlation between the signifier and the signified is completely arbitrary. So it’s not a cultural phenomenon at all, but a decision of the individual that imposes his view on others. It declares the absoluteness of the Author towards anyone else. Like Louis XIV deploying a refined iconographic program to impose his vision, “genderes” impose the freedom of themselves on others.
It opposes even the concept of unlimited semiosis developed by Peirce since does not interpret itself as a sign of signs that propagates ad infinitum but implies the death of communication.
janmaru said
Gender liquidity has a big problem. It embraces the idea that, like language, the correlation between the signifier and the signified is completely arbitrary. So it’s not a cultural phenomenon at all, but a decision of the individual that imposes his view on others. It declares the absoluteness of the Author towards anyone else. Like Louis XIV deploying a refined iconographic program to impose his vision, “genderes” impose the freedom of themselves on others.It opposes even the concept of unlimited semiosis developed by Peirce since does not interpret itself as a sign of signs that propagates ad infinitum but implies the death of communication.
I have only an approximate idea of what you’re saying there but it sounds good to me. Do what turns you on but don’t expect me to approve.
DirkCampbell said
Do what turns you on but don’t expect me to approve.
I’m not sure where we go from here. I don’t have any way to understand your phrase. The context is not given, even with the prior statement.
But it reminded me of an interview given by David Berlinky on different issues and, also on gender. I don’t share his worldview but the similarity is striking.
Here is the transcription.
The rejection of the gender binary, the suggestion that a man can become a woman, a woman can become a man, that everybody exists on a gender spectrum, that the gender is entirely disconnected from biology… All of these premises are on their face logically self-defeating, they contradict each other in a variety of ways, they do not hold together as a cohesive whole […] We’ve had people do that on this program or proclaim loudly that the science backs this idea even though they have yet to provide any study that suggests that gender is separate from biology. They’re idiots. That’s my explanation, and that’s a remarkably widespread successful explanation. […] there’s a wonderful wonderful proverb in German […] (it) means against stupidity even the gods are helpless! Is there anything that you would reject in that rebuttal? […]
I share none of your libertarian persuasions in that regard. I think society has a duty to enforce certain taboos. […]
In many respects, this is the fact, that certain individuals cannot satisfy all of their desires. It’s very unhappy but we’re all in that position. We all obey the rules of society in some respect or other. Somebody who has a tremendous desire to wear women’s clothing. That’s fine, we used to call it transvestitism. Nobody really objects to a man who wants to wear a dress every now and then, the question is the justification. Society itself has now reached a transcendental stage where metaphysical issues are put into play. It’s not that certain men would like to wear a dress, it is that they are claiming a philosophical entitlement: to be considered women (as) legitimate.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)