Rodney King Theology; “Can’t We All Just Get Along?”

Rodney King

You may have forgotten Rodney King. To refresh your memory, he was the focus of the nation’s attention on March 3, 1991 when he was beaten silly by Los Angeles Police during a traffic stop. The situation was presented as if the police were just randomly beating up some poor black man. The incident led to mass riots in L.A., and massive property damage and injuries. The National Guard had to be called out to quell the riots.

The reality of the situation was that Rodney was a large man and very strong. He was under the influence of alcohol and led the police on a high speed chase. If you’ve never been on the chasing end of a high speed chase, consider the fact that the person doing that is a.) risking their life, and b.) in a very intense adrenalin pumping situation. Once they got him pulled over, a person in a neighboring home turned on their video camera and captured much of the event.

Rodney got out of the car and became confrontational with the police. He was too strong for them, and so they put him down with billy clubs. The media played this up as if the police were brut thugs beating up black men indiscriminately just for the fun of it. The L.A.P.D. found the officers acted within department guidelines. Now, it could be debated guidelines and protocols needed some modification, but as long as the police operated within those guidelines, it’s the system the has to be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

Rodney went on to get a $3million settlement from the city of Los Angeles which he promptly frittered away on drugs etc. Being a product of government education, he never was taught how to manage money, and neither were his parents likely (don’t know for sure). During his spendthrift decline into a further abyss, Rodney was arrested again on domestic abuse of his wife.

During this time, Rodney lamented; “Can’t we all just get along?” Was this question directed to himself, or just to others? When you point an accusatory finger at others, you have three pointing back at you. The Rodney King riots were an impetus for Black Lives Matter (which is actually Bolshevik Lives Matter – because they don’t care about conservative blacks). Patrice Cullors is one of three people who co-founded BLM, and she is on You Tube video declaring herself and her associates as being “trained Marxists”.

What is a Marxist? In a loose sense, it is a person who is a disciple of Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a slovenly, lazy, unproductive whiner who hated the Bible, Christ, Christians and objective authority. His goal in life was to overturn the existing order – to remake the contemporary individual man into a man of the collective state. In other words, he wanted to overthrow the existing order in favor of a new order. Wealthy people helped finance him to keep him going so he never had to work. He just hung around the house neglecting his children and deriding his wife.

So, “Why can’t we all just get along?” The bottom line, is that we are all sinners, and that means we sin against God first, and secondly against our fellow man. As long as we are doing that, getting along is going to be very difficult. It becomes more complex when people gather in groups to force others to go along with their ideas of what is right and/or necessary.

Making someone work in order to pay taxes to finance something they abhor (doesn’t make any difference what they abhor) is wrong. Within that context of understanding, there are certain societal agreements that must be honored in order for society to survive with relative freedom, or become a slave state.

What are some of those things? The Libertarians would have you believe that all will be well if one does not do his neighbor “harm”. That sounds good until you start to define “harm”. Is anyone harmed when the act of abortion takes place? Libertarians would say it’s up to the individual (Note: there are some Libertarians such as Ron Paul who oppose abortion.). We know for a fact, and even pro abortion people will admit it; something is alive in the womb before an abortion, and it’s dead after the abortion.

Pro-abortionists care less about the aftermath when a woman leaves the office of Planned Parenthood (or whomever) and becomes morose and despondent and even suicidal. Frequently these women in order to justify their act will become particularly militant in support of abortion. Additionally, some women will suffer a perforated uterus. Some will even die from the procedure. Many suffer significant bleeding after the fact. Some will never be able to have children. It is reasonable to assess that some “harm” has been done in the womb and to the participant(s).

Abortion is probably the most polarizing issue in America today, and people who oppose the implementing of abortion don’t think their tax dollars should be spent that way. The proabortionists do not agree, and force those people through group political action to pay for it. In the process Planned Parenthood is enriched at the expense of those opponents of abortion. If we were to put the shoe on the other foot and make the proponents of abortion pay for pregnancy counseling centers run by Christians, the outcry would be enormous. So, what do you call that? Hypocrisy.

So, “Why can’t we all get along?” Sin, including hypocrisy, abortion, political manipulation and theft of funds through taxation and forced labor are a few examples. Financing abortion comes from the Socialist’s mindset, and is just the camel’s nose in the tent. From there, there are numerous subsidies that have plagued America and lowered our moral standards and our general standards of culture and living. Government supplying needles for drug injections might be another obvious decline in society with, of course, the heart rending justification that people who are this far down into the pit of society at least deserve to have clean needles to avoid diseases.

Government give away of food, health care, medicine, housing etc. are all a part of this insidious approach to a society that ultimately becomes dependent upon the government, and therefore loses its independence and its “self – esteem” as the saying goes. Really, how confident in life can you be when you have to rely upon others for your daily bread? Are these things a “harm”? Cui bono? (who benefits?). The politicians benefit because they have a built in constituency of dependent people. The party hacks benefit as they push the agenda. The companies and agencies that provide the product and services benefit from the sale of said items.

Then of course as the society declines into a cesspool of immorality, the law enforcement, courts and prisons benefit as they stay busy and employed. This then requires more laws, supervision, counselors, halfway houses, special job training etc. You can see how this can mushroom. Socialism ultimately rules with harshness. There is a saying that “Behind the velvet glove of Socialism is an iron fist.” Hitler taught that; so did Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Idi Amin, Hugo Chavez and so on. One will find out soon enough that Socialism is for the rich and nobody else. Don’t you wonder why the uber rich are constantly pushing socialism? It’s legalized thievery, and guess who gets the spoils of that thievery?

So, “Why can’t we all get along?” Read what’s been written before this, and it should answer your question quite sufficiently. Who’s to blame for all of this? Have you got a mirror handy?

SCROLL DOWN

Many Links Below – Become Informed!

Feel Free To Pass On Any Posts

Pen

Pensamiento Peligroso writes the truth as he sees it, and if it upsets you, then it makes you think!

www.touchstoneconnect.com Subscribe for free – no ads!THERE ARE  25 LINKS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE ON THE RIGHT SIDE – OTHER REPUTABLE SITES FOR YOUR EDIFICATION INCLUDING G. Edward Griffin, John Stossel, Walter Williams, Zero Hedge to

2 comments

  1. PJ London · · Reply

    Wow, quite a few topics here.
    First Marx was not a revolutionary he was an economist and writer. He described the inevitable outcome of the prevailing “Capitalist’ economy. He did not call for a change, he and Engels explained what had to happen for a change to take place. A person writing the Workshop manual does not advocate taking things apart and throwing them around, he is merely describing the functions and components of a vehicle.
    His lifestyle was quite common in London at the time. Jack London’s ‘People of the Abyss’ is a brilliant read. Better than Dickens or even Orwell on English life in the cities.
    Lenin and Trotsky took his model and used it to take over Russia in 1917, Marx had died in 1883. (PS everything Marx said was true, is happening and you can see it in the US today)
    Libertarians support the concept that everything should be permitted that does not cause physical harm or loss. I do not know any Libertarian who wholeheartedly supports Abortion. They are as divided as Christians or Jews on when Life begins and whether a foetus is a life. Many people are called (by others) Libertarian who are not. The word has become irrelevant as a name just as Liberal is an honourable title not something to be ashamed of. It is the current mis-use of the word that is wrong, not Liberalism. Libertarians are dead-set against taxes as being a ‘forced’ theft of production-wealth.
    Not the mis-use of the word again currently being pushed.
    You appear to be supporting Anarchism (Properly, one who advocates the absence of government as a political ideal; a believer in an anarchic theory of society; especially, an adherent of the social theory of Proudhon. [the true father of Communism : For Proudhon, factories and other large workplaces would be run by “labor associations” operating on directly democratic principles. The state would be abolished and instead society would be organized by a federation of “free communes” (a commune is a local municipality in French)])

    If you want to discuss “Socialism” why not discuss Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK?
    The problem especially in the US is that labels are thrown around without any understanding of what is meant. So “Socialist, Communist, Elite, Capitalist, Muslim, Racist” etc. have no meaning any more they are just emotional triggers to rouse the herd.
    Trump is the world’s best at this. None of his rallies make any sense in linguistic, semantic or logic terms. They are there to call the faithful, and sure enough, half the time is spent in screaming “Lock her up” or even more meaningful “USA, USA, USA”.
    (His Inauguration speech was the finest speech since Churchill’s ‘we shall fight them on the beaches…’)
    I do not wish to be contentious (not deliberately) but Christ’s repeated message was “Give away your wealth to the poor and follow me”, “A rich man won’t enter heaven”, “Renounce all that he has to become disciple”, Luke it says “Blessed are the poor.”
    The only time that Jesus used violence was against money changers.
    So it seems strange to me that the Christian countries are hung up on materialism and wealth.
    The Essenes, whose tenets Christ put forth, are almost the very definition of Communism.
    So my comment is that Labels are useful when they convey information, when they just rouse emotions they are not.

    Like

    1. PJ, You never cease to challenge me. I will try to parse all of this by inserting comments in sequence.
      Wow, quite a few topics here.

      First Marx was not a revolutionary he was an economist and writer. Writers and economists can and do advocate for ideologies – take Paul Krugman for example. He’s an economist who pushes the socialist agenda with every breath he takes.

      He described the inevitable outcome of the prevailing “Capitalist’ economy. He did not call for a change, he and Engels explained what had to happen for a change to take place. Again, one could easily say that he advocated for the “new man” – a man with no moral compunctions of note or value necessarily.

      A person writing the Workshop manual does not advocate taking things apart and throwing them around, he is merely describing the functions and components of a vehicle. We would have to politely agree to disagree here – I see him in a much different light, and an agitator for change.

      His lifestyle was quite common in London at the time. Jack London’s ‘People of the Abyss’ is a brilliant read. Better than Dickens or even Orwell on English life in the cities. Jack London was a good writer and a total degenerate. Talent and brilliance don’t necessarily automatically come with worthy characteristics of morality and principles. If his lifestyle was “quite common” for the day, then that speaks very poorly of London at the time.

      Lenin and Trotsky took his model and used it to take over Russia in 1917, Marx had died in 1883. (PS everything Marx said was true, is happening and you can see it in the US today). There’s nothing new about taking an idea and perverting it or extending it in different or analogous directions, but that does not change the original. In the converse, look at how Christianity has been perverted by people who profess a belief in it. I must concede that I have not read the Communist Manifesto in over three decades, so my total recall is not perfect, but I believe I remember enough to recognize an undesirable philosophy that I perceived as being embraced by the author.

      Libertarians support the concept that everything should be permitted that does not cause physical harm or loss. I do not know any Libertarian who wholeheartedly supports Abortion. I acknowledged it was not something all Libertarians promoted, and I also acknowledged the “no harm” philosophy, and in so doing, I pointed out that “harm” is not clearly defined by them – it becomes rather subjective and even vague. Any time man reasons from himself instead of from God, he gets into trouble.

      They are as divided as Christians or Jews on when Life begins and whether a fetus is a life. That may be, but even the word fetus is Latin for small child, so it’s a hard concept to shake. You have to call it something, and you cannot ignore it completely, or voila, you have a baby on your hands. I might also add that both Jews and Christians in significant numbers tend to ignore, twist and distort the Scripture which is very clear that life is and begins at conception, and the Scripture never deviates from that teaching – ever!

      Many people are called (by others) Libertarian who are not. Misnomers abound in this world! The word has become irrelevant as a name just as Liberal is an honorable title not something to be ashamed of. It is the current mis-use of the word that is wrong, not Liberalism. Libertarians are dead-set against taxes as being a ‘forced’ theft of production-wealth. Not the mis-use of the word again currently being pushed. Upon this we are in agreement.

      You appear to be supporting Anarchism (Properly, one who advocates the absence of government as a political ideal; a believer in an anarchic theory of society; especially, an adherent of the social theory of Proudhon. [the true father of Communism : For Proudhon, factories and other large workplaces would be run by “labor associations” operating on directly democratic principles. The state would be abolished and instead society would be organized by a federation of “free communes” (a commune is a local municipality in French)]) As a Christian, I cannot support anarchy, instead, I support free enterprise constrained and restrained by Biblical Christian morality as presented in an accurate translation of the Scripture.

      If you want to discuss “Socialism” why not discuss Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK? Interestingly, Sweden and Norway have turned more in the direction of free enterprise over recent years. I haven’t followed Denmark, and the U.K. has vacillated with varying degrees of acceptance by the populous. Margaret Thatcher sold off a lot of the publicly held socialist projects such as transportation. I have a Limey friend who hates socialism and lives in America. His mother still suffers under the socialized medicine of the U.K., and she hates it.

      The problem especially in the US is that labels are thrown around without any understanding of what is meant. So “Socialist, Communist, Elite, Capitalist, Muslim, Racist” etc. have no meaning any more they are just emotional triggers to rouse the herd. Again, this is something upon which we can both agree although under different motivations possibly. Whether it be a Communistic or totalitarianistic approach, undermining a language is a common strategy for destroying a nation. Language is what holds a culture and a nation together, and if nobody can effectively communicate, it’s like the tower of babel – it breaks up.

      Trump is the world’s best at this. None of his rallies make any sense in linguistic, semantic or logic terms. They are there to call the faithful, and sure enough, half the time is spent in screaming “Lock her up” or even more meaningful “USA, USA, USA”. Indeed, Trump panders to a populace with a hunger for a restoration to a better time in America. (His Inauguration speech was the finest speech since Churchill’s ‘we shall fight them on the beaches…’)

      I do not wish to be contentious (not deliberately) but Christ’s repeated message was “Give away your wealth to the poor and follow me”, “A rich man won’t enter heaven”, “Renounce all that he has to become disciple”, Luke it says “Blessed are the poor.”
      The only time that Jesus used violence was against money changers.
      So it seems strange to me that the Christian countries are hung up on materialism and wealth.
      The Essenes, whose tenets Christ put forth, are almost the very definition of Communism.
      So my comment is that Labels are useful when they convey information, when they just rouse emotions they are not.

      It should be duly noted that Christ never condemned wealth or the wealthy. The rich young ruler of whom you speak had his priorities wrong, and Christ did not expect him to sell all, he expected him to seek first the kingdom of God. Blessed are the poor means that they have God as their comfort no matter how awful life may be. Christ was vitriolic toward the money changers because they were profiting off the poor by selling sacrificial animals, and doing so hypocritically because they would change a denarius into a shekel for the Jews to, in good conscience and under their cultural mandate to make the transaction, and for that, they were taking a small percentage as well. A rich person provided Christ with a place to celebrate the Last Supper. The church must be supported with a tithe so it can function. St. Paul said you should not muzzle the ox while he treads out the grain. Paul didn’t give a hoot for oxen, he cared about pastors preaching the Gospel and being able to support themselves in the process.

      Again, PJ, you are a delight with whom to communicate. May you be well and prosperous.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: