Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Just another utility of the democrat party exacerbating segregation.Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
Amazing how you think BLM or any other black racist organization actually wants to do away with racism and the reason for their "cause".
Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
If you think the elites funding and running BLM care anything for actual equality then you really don't understand what the Progressive Agenda is all about. BLM's only goal is to agitate it's base. They want people to become disenfranchised with society. They want people to get angry. They want people to riot and cause chaos. The more frightened the electorate is, the more they will be willing to hand more power to central government. The progressives love nothing more than to watch a society tear itself apart, and for a society to burn itself to the ground. Why do you think progressives so vigorously defend Islam? It's the most barbaric, anti-Semitic, homosexual-executing, women-subjugating ideology on the planet, but they support it.
I emphatically meant segregation as it is the MO of the democrats.Just another utility of the democrat party exacerbating segregation.Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
Amazing how you think BLM or any other black racist organization actually wants to do away with racism and the reason for their "cause".
I think the word you meant to use was "discrimination", synonymous to "distinction", signifying "knowledge of variety".
National events don't really fall into the category of "segregation", especially when distinct groups are merging in a single town or city.
Black Lies Matter has been videoed calling for the killing of cops, attacking counter protesters and advocating the primacy of black people.Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
I do believe that most of them mean well, but George Soros who is funding the movement is not trying to find a peaceful middle, but is trying to get 99% black turnout for Hillary this November and so he is trying to alienate blacks from the rest of America in order to do that.
Just how involved are you with BLM? When you snap, will I be the first to go? The rest of your post was unintelligible.Don't understand and disagree all you want. What I said is true. Your OP takes at face value the claim that BLM wants to erase the concept of race and racism, and the rest of your argument is built on this false premise. Victim based advocacy groups do not do this.Well let me simplify it for you. Advocacy groups don't work themselves out of a job. The victims of injustice that give rise to their power will always be victims because they need to be. These groups don't work to better the lives of those they claim to represent, they work to sustain, expand, and perpetualize the organization.That's not what I think.
That's not even what I assume.
I see purpose.
I did say there was no singular cause, but I thought it was implicit there that there were multiple causes.
Understand now?
Consider there are five variable interpretations for each letter you are using, another five for each word, and another five for each sentence.
How should I know what exactly you are trying to communicate?
Keywords.
1. Don't
2. Always
3. Don't
My answer then has to be "No, I don't understand".
My comment, anyhow, is, I disagree.
I actually do want to understand. Do I get the same sentiment and intention from you? I don't deny truth.
My OPs take nothing at face value in this web forum, I'm using a computer machine to continue improving my knowledge. My avatar is not my face. It is a picture which was taken with a machine on a pleasant walk. That being mentioned as a reference, I've actually been face to face with BLM supporters - myself being one.
Erasure communicates "we are not keeping it".
Elimination communicates "it is being put aside".
The significant difference is that elimination still relates to the variety previously imposed, while erasure relates only to homogeneity.
I emphatically meant segregation as it is the MO of the democrats.Just another utility of the democrat party exacerbating segregation.Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
Amazing how you think BLM or any other black racist organization actually wants to do away with racism and the reason for their "cause".
I think the word you meant to use was "discrimination", synonymous to "distinction", signifying "knowledge of variety".
National events don't really fall into the category of "segregation", especially when distinct groups are merging in a single town or city.
It seems you are too conditioned to see the forest for the trees.I emphatically meant segregation as it is the MO of the democrats.Just another utility of the democrat party exacerbating segregation.Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
Amazing how you think BLM or any other black racist organization actually wants to do away with racism and the reason for their "cause".
I think the word you meant to use was "discrimination", synonymous to "distinction", signifying "knowledge of variety".
National events don't really fall into the category of "segregation", especially when distinct groups are merging in a single town or city.
It seems you are still learning about democracy.
I'm beginning to get a good profile on you. English is your second language which is why your word choice, though eloquent, doesn't fit together in comprehensive patterns. And it also means you can't understand simple, vernacular phrases like the one you just quoted.Just how involved are you with BLM? When you snap, will I be the first to go? The rest of your post was unintelligible.Don't understand and disagree all you want. What I said is true. Your OP takes at face value the claim that BLM wants to erase the concept of race and racism, and the rest of your argument is built on this false premise. Victim based advocacy groups do not do this.Well let me simplify it for you. Advocacy groups don't work themselves out of a job. The victims of injustice that give rise to their power will always be victims because they need to be. These groups don't work to better the lives of those they claim to represent, they work to sustain, expand, and perpetualize the organization.
Understand now?
Consider there are five variable interpretations for each letter you are using, another five for each word, and another five for each sentence.
How should I know what exactly you are trying to communicate?
Keywords.
1. Don't
2. Always
3. Don't
My answer then has to be "No, I don't understand".
My comment, anyhow, is, I disagree.
I actually do want to understand. Do I get the same sentiment and intention from you? I don't deny truth.
My OPs take nothing at face value in this web forum, I'm using a computer machine to continue improving my knowledge. My avatar is not my face. It is a picture which was taken with a machine on a pleasant walk. That being mentioned as a reference, I've actually been face to face with BLM supporters - myself being one.
Erasure communicates "we are not keeping it".
Elimination communicates "it is being put aside".
The significant difference is that elimination still relates to the variety previously imposed, while erasure relates only to homogeneity.
Go where?
It seems you are too conditioned to see the forest for the trees.I emphatically meant segregation as it is the MO of the democrats.Just another utility of the democrat party exacerbating segregation.Amazing how you think BLM or any other black racist organization actually wants to do away with racism and the reason for their "cause".
I think the word you meant to use was "discrimination", synonymous to "distinction", signifying "knowledge of variety".
National events don't really fall into the category of "segregation", especially when distinct groups are merging in a single town or city.
It seems you are still learning about democracy.
Explain why people with visually discernable traces of sub-Saharan African lineage must be politically segregated as a block unless they speak spanish-first in which case they are cordoned into a different block?
I'm beginning to get a good profile on you. English is your second language which is why your word choice, though eloquent, doesn't fit together in comprehensive patterns. And it also means you can't understand simple, vernacular phrases like the one you just quoted.Just how involved are you with BLM? When you snap, will I be the first to go? The rest of your post was unintelligible.Don't understand and disagree all you want. What I said is true. Your OP takes at face value the claim that BLM wants to erase the concept of race and racism, and the rest of your argument is built on this false premise. Victim based advocacy groups do not do this.Consider there are five variable interpretations for each letter you are using, another five for each word, and another five for each sentence.
How should I know what exactly you are trying to communicate?
Keywords.
1. Don't
2. Always
3. Don't
My answer then has to be "No, I don't understand".
My comment, anyhow, is, I disagree.
I actually do want to understand. Do I get the same sentiment and intention from you? I don't deny truth.
My OPs take nothing at face value in this web forum, I'm using a computer machine to continue improving my knowledge. My avatar is not my face. It is a picture which was taken with a machine on a pleasant walk. That being mentioned as a reference, I've actually been face to face with BLM supporters - myself being one.
Erasure communicates "we are not keeping it".
Elimination communicates "it is being put aside".
The significant difference is that elimination still relates to the variety previously imposed, while erasure relates only to homogeneity.
Go where?
So my advice is to dumb it down, stop trying to impress us, and communicate in uncomplicated language.
Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
If you think the elites funding and running BLM care anything for actual equality then you really don't understand what the Progressive Agenda is all about. BLM's only goal is to agitate it's base. They want people to become disenfranchised with society. They want people to get angry. They want people to riot and cause chaos. The more frightened the electorate is, the more they will be willing to hand more power to central government. The progressives love nothing more than to watch a society tear itself apart, and for a society to burn itself to the ground. Why do you think progressives so vigorously defend Islam? It's the most barbaric, anti-Semitic, homosexual-executing, women-subjugating ideology on the planet, but they support it.
What's the funding you need to hold cardboard with ink? You are calling that the elites? Where exactly are you placing yourself in your analysis of social structure?
Let's agree for the sake of discussion that the elites are people who have achieved something, therefore allowing themselves some leisure. Could that elite not simply make cardboard signs and use their leisure time to communicate with people who are yet procuring achievement and elite status with their daily automotive commutes?
The elite doesn't want anything, they've already got it. How difficult is it to comprehend the words you yourself are using?
Do you really think Islam needs defense? Is this question defending Islam, or attempting to evoke intelligence from you?
Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
If you think the elites funding and running BLM care anything for actual equality then you really don't understand what the Progressive Agenda is all about. BLM's only goal is to agitate it's base. They want people to become disenfranchised with society. They want people to get angry. They want people to riot and cause chaos. The more frightened the electorate is, the more they will be willing to hand more power to central government. The progressives love nothing more than to watch a society tear itself apart, and for a society to burn itself to the ground. Why do you think progressives so vigorously defend Islam? It's the most barbaric, anti-Semitic, homosexual-executing, women-subjugating ideology on the planet, but they support it.
What's the funding you need to hold cardboard with ink? You are calling that the elites? Where exactly are you placing yourself in your analysis of social structure?
Let's agree for the sake of discussion that the elites are people who have achieved something, therefore allowing themselves some leisure. Could that elite not simply make cardboard signs and use their leisure time to communicate with people who are yet procuring achievement and elite status with their daily automotive commutes?
The elite doesn't want anything, they've already got it. How difficult is it to comprehend the words you yourself are using?
Do you really think Islam needs defense? Is this question defending Islam, or attempting to evoke intelligence from you?
You're totally off on your assumptions.
Progressives want to see white Christian society to fall, as well as capitalism. They see it as evil, even though it has spread wealth and prosperity across the globe over the centuries. So your premise that these people actually want to solve any issues, is way off.
You write like a bad spell-checker.It seems you are too conditioned to see the forest for the trees.I emphatically meant segregation as it is the MO of the democrats.Just another utility of the democrat party exacerbating segregation.
I think the word you meant to use was "discrimination", synonymous to "distinction", signifying "knowledge of variety".
National events don't really fall into the category of "segregation", especially when distinct groups are merging in a single town or city.
It seems you are still learning about democracy.
Explain why people with visually discernable traces of sub-Saharan African lineage must be politically segregated as a block unless they speak spanish-first in which case they are cordoned into a different block?
Why?
Because it is culturally relevant.
That is, since you would only understand their culture perfectly if they were speaking Spanish to you first, you must segregate them in your own projections and not confuse them with any other in order to keep yourself safe from jumping excitedly into their thousand-long carefully built cultural electric fences.
You write like a bad spell-checker.It seems you are too conditioned to see the forest for the trees.I emphatically meant segregation as it is the MO of the democrats.I think the word you meant to use was "discrimination", synonymous to "distinction", signifying "knowledge of variety".
National events don't really fall into the category of "segregation", especially when distinct groups are merging in a single town or city.
It seems you are still learning about democracy.
Explain why people with visually discernable traces of sub-Saharan African lineage must be politically segregated as a block unless they speak spanish-first in which case they are cordoned into a different block?
Why?
Because it is culturally relevant.
That is, since you would only understand their culture perfectly if they were speaking Spanish to you first, you must segregate them in your own projections and not confuse them with any other in order to keep yourself safe from jumping excitedly into their thousand-long carefully built cultural electric fences.
Black Lives Matter, for example, does not oppose any race, even as it uses race as motivation.
"The faster we accomplish our goals, the fastest we eliminate the concept of race from our lives."
Somehow the motto seems to provide easy liberation. Keep speeding to finally arrive at the desired stop, thereon never having to speed again.
Should we, however, eliminate the concept of race from our lives according to those precepts? It's as though control isn't recognized as an authentic civilian, constitutional right, but only attributed to external, foreign agents which need to submit into providing instead of depriving.
Even if biologically inappropriate considering the passage of centuries, races still are legitimate philosophical pursuits. Most essentially, race is but acceleration which requires no group associations beyond singular individuality. I can race myself, and may even allow my individual, self-centered race to be recognized by curious citizens who may then might want to comment on it or participate, in turn using their legitimate control and their rights.
The perception of anything black as providing life has probably been around ever since ink was pressed out of plants.
Black Lives Matter then is simply bringing attention back to the very origins of written language, made black as standard by industrialization so our eyes wouldn't burn over time, affording us more retained energy to read longer and think greater.
In this sense, it can be understood as a diligently progressive plan along with technological and mechanical history, but somehow erratically reduced to a single race of blacks, or a single civil race.
The actual importance of black lives, or civil lives, is beyond matter, and therefore does not bequest protest, but education.
It is admirable that three words are able to encapsulate the progress of literature, but those three words should not be trespassing or inciting unnecessary physical contact (especially when the words are written so big on signs). No problem with finding a nice space to stand, sit and educate any who may be finding interest in the public ways, but that's not a protest, and it shouldn't be, that's just free education, test-free and efficient.
If you think the elites funding and running BLM care anything for actual equality then you really don't understand what the Progressive Agenda is all about. BLM's only goal is to agitate it's base. They want people to become disenfranchised with society. They want people to get angry. They want people to riot and cause chaos. The more frightened the electorate is, the more they will be willing to hand more power to central government. The progressives love nothing more than to watch a society tear itself apart, and for a society to burn itself to the ground. Why do you think progressives so vigorously defend Islam? It's the most barbaric, anti-Semitic, homosexual-executing, women-subjugating ideology on the planet, but they support it.
What's the funding you need to hold cardboard with ink? You are calling that the elites? Where exactly are you placing yourself in your analysis of social structure?
Let's agree for the sake of discussion that the elites are people who have achieved something, therefore allowing themselves some leisure. Could that elite not simply make cardboard signs and use their leisure time to communicate with people who are yet procuring achievement and elite status with their daily automotive commutes?
The elite doesn't want anything, they've already got it. How difficult is it to comprehend the words you yourself are using?
Do you really think Islam needs defense? Is this question defending Islam, or attempting to evoke intelligence from you?
You're totally off on your assumptions.
Progressives want to see white Christian society to fall, as well as capitalism. They see it as evil, even though it has spread wealth and prosperity across the globe over the centuries. So your premise that these people actually want to solve any issues, is way off.
What is your assumption then? What are those people actually doing by propagating in the media so easily, and why is it so difficult for them to find people supporting their cause?
