A few months ago, Senator Booker Booker — now a presidential candidate — reached for the stars in his questioning of the “deplorable” nominee for the Supreme Court, Bret Kavanagh. Booker put forth his most idealistic persona and demanded that Kavanagh release his emails from his days in George Bush II’s term as President.
Inspired by John’s Kennedy’s Profiles of Courage, Booker stated that he was ready to give up his whole career to have the political persona of an idealistic hero. He was going to be like Kennedy and Spartacus.
Ingratitude is the worst of sins.
Also in touch with the black con within his personality, Booker had contempt for Kavanagh’s history of helping African-Americans. He stated that he “appreciated” all Kavanagh did for young black lawyers and African-Americans in general, but this was nothing comparable to words and sentences that might be extracted from Kavanagh’s private emails when he worked for President Bush ten years ago.
(Booker is currently (6/20/19) doing the same thing with Joe Biden. Booker is accusing him of being a racist — and thus unqualified to be President — unless he apologizes for working 30 years ago with Senators who supported segregation (as did Malcom X and Mohammed Ali during the same period of time).
In the spirit of the Progressive inquisition, any word or sentence that is taboo in the Progressive definition of “racism” would prove that Kavanagh was an unredeemable bigot. If Booker found such a word or sentence, it would prove that Kavanagh was not only not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, he wasn’t even qualified to wash dishes in the Senate’s cafeteria. He was beneath contempt.
This inquisition is what every white person in American fears. One racial slip of the tongue, one wrongful deed, however private or however long ago, can reveal the stains of one’s soul and the imperfections of one’s character. It reveals that she committed the worst of all all sins: white racism. Her career would be ruined. She could never be forgiven.
The witches of Salem were innocent by comparison.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Progressive and the black con Inquisition.
The Black Con’s and the Liberal’s Anti-Catholicism
Two of the most profound sacraments of Catholicism are the Eucharist and confession (now called “reconciliation”). The theology of the Eucharist states that the consecrated host is the authentic body and blood of Jesus, and accepting it, the Catholic takes Jesus into his body, heart, and soul. This practice is said by some to be one of the surest ways of “getting into heaven before they close the door.” (1)
Then there is confession. This sacrament is believed — by many of the one billion Catholics — that one can be forgiven for all of one’s sins. All the sinner has to do is make a sincere confession to a priest, make a firm decision not to commit the sin again, and do whatever the priests recommends for penance – usually just a few prayers.
Then the Catholic can leave the confessional booth and he can believe that all of his sins are forgiven, and he is as innocent and pure as the day he was born.
(At the end of confession, the priest says, “You are forgiven for these sins and all of your sins.”)
(By existential deduction, we can imply that this belief in forgiveness can be applied to all people, Christian or not. We can believe that Jesus suffered and died for the forgiveness of sins for all humanity (if they repent and make an authentic decision not to do the sin again.)
We could see the contempt of this Catholic belief of confession during the confirmation hearings of Bret Kavanagh.
True, Kavanagh may have committed sexual abuse against a 15-year-old teen, 35 years ago, when he was 17, drunk and partying with another drunken teen. In another drunken party, in college, he may even have waved his penis in front of a drinking co-ed.
As a graduate of Catholic schools, and still a practicing Catholic, even if he did these acts, he probably confessed them and believed that he was forgiven — for these and all of his sins.
The anti-thesis of the belief of forgiveness can be found in condemnations by the Progressive con, the the feminist con, and the black con. “No,” these political activists proudly claim (with their immaculate souls), “racial sins such as these can never be forgiven. The perp must be eternally condemned and punished for them. He must learn that sins have consequences. He is guilty for the rest of his life.”
Forget that Jesus said, at the Last Supper, “I will shed my blood for the forgiveness of sins.” That is, with Jesus’ interpretation of reality, humankind doesn’t have to wallow in depressed guilt for the rest of their lives because of wrong decisions they made in the past. That is why, many believe, Jesus suffered died on the cross — for humanity to be able to be forgiven for past sins and start over.
(This is the foundation of one line of thought regarding prison reform: regardless of what a person has done, he can be forgiven and rehabilitated, and go on to live a meaningful and contributory life, whether in prison or out.)
Ban the box
An anti-thesis to this belief — that some sins can never be forgiven — can be found in a black con premise within the “ban the box” movement. This movement states that African-American criminals can be forgiven for their crimes and should not have to suffer for the rest of their lives for misdeeds they did in their youth.
However, European Americans must be punished for the rest of their lives for the smallest misdeed in their history, if it is a manifestation of white racism or white racialism. These racial micro sins are unforgivable — unlike sins such as murder and rape.
The feminist con and forgiveness
Another anti-thesis in the taboo against the forgiveness of white men’s sins concerns the feminist con’s beliefs concerning fornication, abortion, and having children out-of-wedlock (that is, having a child without the father being committed to help raise the child).
It goes without saying that in our modern society women now must have the freedom to fornicate whenever and wherever they want, without any negative consequences. (This is against the ethics of virtually every historical civilization.) Any consequences of this fornication — abortions, STDs, family break-ups, and low social esteem — are men’s fault.
Since women are believed to be immaculate, any dysfunctional fornication must be because evil men somehow pushed the woman into the act. Women would never desire to fornicate. Women are innocent and men are guilty.
Another fallacy within the feminist con is the taboo against biology. Just as it is within the Progressive con and the black con, the biological difference between male and female sexual genetic instincts are ignored. (Human beings are free from biology.) Some even argue that there is no genetic difference between the male and female sexual drives, but rather these drives are driven by the social environment — which is, of course, racist and sexist.
One of the leaders of the feminist con (as well as the black con) is Rep. Maxine Waters. She has stated that a woman must be allowed to have as many children out-of-wedlock that she likes, and no one can be critical of her for this. And thus, no taxpayer can complain about having to financially support these children, and support the mother (since she is the caretaker of the children).
But Walters and her supporters take this neurotic demand a step further: not only must taxpayers support the children born out-of-wedlock and not complain, but the children must be given enough benefits to achieve equal economic outcomes of children who have two responsible parents. Anything else is racial inequality.
The taxpayer who complains about taking money from his earnings to pay for irresponsible fathers is deemed a racist and a sexist. He has committed the cardinal sin of America.
(1) Of course, this is mythology and thus it cannot be disproved — or proved — by scientific thinking. Thus, some scientific philosophers say that the mythology is true by definition, but scientifically meaningless. But, like all historical mythologies, the question of whether or not the mythology is true (but not scientifically true) can be tested by an informal scientific laboratory called human history. The question can be asked, “has this mythology worked in human history, that is, has it increased the quality of life of people, nor not?”
In this case, the question can be asked, “Has the mythology of the Eucharist been helpful to humanity or not?” It seems an argument can be made that these mythologies are true by definition, they have not harmed humanity, and they have been a great deal of help to millions of people.