Outlaw Conservative S01E031 – On Another Note
As I was attempting to prepare for today’s episode of the Outlaw Conservative Podcast, I found myself in a bit of a bind. Literally every story on the radar is racially tinged, and we try to avoid that sort of discussion here, for fear of what the banking system might do to us if we deviate from the Narrative.
Wouldn’t it be nice of more conservative talk shows were this honest?
We are faced with a scenario in which anybody who wishes to speak on the issues of the day will be chased off the internet, unless they lie, and that’s a major problem. Democrats keep screaming simultaneously, that we need to “have a discussion” about race, but everytime someone talks about race in a fashion unfavorable to the Democrat Party, they get accused of hate speech and chased off the Internet.
Here’s a few examples of stories I’d love to cover today, but will have to wait until Friday for the uncensored show to really talk about frankly.
The New York Times “aims to reframe the country’s history” and place “the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are” in their newly unveiled “1619 Project”.
It’s almost needless to say, that rather than call out the Times for pursuing their own ethnocentric agenda, the New World Order Approved conservative media has rushed to say ridiculous things like “No, America Wasn’t Built On Slavery, But Faith That All Men Are Created Equal“.
And of course, not a day goes by in America without somebody calling the President a Nazi. Speaking of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s support for the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement against Israel, the President said “Any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty”.
A Left wing Jewish group called the remarks anti-Semitic, of course.
“This is an explicit dual loyalty charge wielded by the president of the United States against 80 percent of American Jews who voted against him,” the group said in a statement to Newsweek, alluding to 2018 midterm election data from the Pew Research Center.
“It is not merely an anti-Semitic dog whistle—it’s a bullhorn to his white nationalist base,” said IfNotNow. “American Jews and Democratic voters know full well the impact of the racist policies of Netanyahu and the Israeli government on the Palestinian people. This is why an overwhelming majority… oppose those policies, like unchecked settlement expansion.”
If it was a “bullhorn to his White Nationalist base” one might have some trouble reconciling this other headline, which reads “Twitter Ablaze as Trump Gets Praised as ‘King of Israel, Second Coming of God’”
Something tells me the White Nationalists were less than enthusiastic about that “praise”. They would be pretty unlikely to take solace in the King of Israel serving also as President of the United States.
More accusations of racism came as the Trump administration on Wednesday unveiled a sweeping plan to detain migrant families and children for longer periods of time than currently allowed, touting a final regulation that would overhaul the immigration detention system in the U.S. and scrap a longstanding court settlement.
Another accusation of racism comes as the Trump administration announced it will begin enforcing the “public charge” rule against immigrants who come to the United States and live at the expense of taxpayers. Interesting theory, I keep on hearing liberals say that immigrants don’t use welfare. I suppose if I began talking about this subject, I’d be accused of racism too.
Granted, it wouldn’t be completely impossible for me to talk about these things, but it really is telling, I’d say, that only one side is allowed to talk about race, and they do it incessantly, while accusing everybody who responds of being terrorists. I don’t think this situation is likely to improve in the near future without substantial changes to the popular consciousness in America, so I spent some time last night and today thinking about how one might go about making that happen, without running afoul of the thought police.
How might we go about changing the discourse, so as to permit honest discussion?
|Sensitivity||Normal - Content that is suitable for ages 13+|
The owner has disabled discussion on this video.
Warning - This video exceeds your sensitivity preference!
To dismiss this warning and continue to watch the video please click on the button below.
Note - Autoplay has been disabled for this video.
1 week, 5 days ago