They Claim That President Obama Is A Racist Too
Now that’s what I call having a colorful imagination
A comment that began by mentioning in particular that they really didn’t care about what I wrote but cared just enough to give an opinion,😑 stated that my article on the president was racist🧐, which suggests that I must be a racist🤨. To call me a racist is incomprehensibly victimizing. It is as inconsequential and threadbare as to calling me a black oppressor — which is neither tangible or effectively factual.
A man cannot hate the whip with which he is being flogged but then be expected to love the person doing the flogging. When such a black man [or black woman], lying helpless bleeding on the ground expresses hate for the white person wielding the whip, it is only reasonable. — Sobantu Mzwakali
According to the unsolicited subscription to whiteness and its social dominance orientation that determines whiteness, the so-called white people in my family would be offended.
I am sure Barack’s mother (captioned above) would be, as well as his grandparents and extended family who love him unconditionally and who he loves unconditionally, feel deeply offended by such a noxious claim — not withstanding that such a claim would be psychologically reasonable enough for a black person to develop under the strain of a fraudulent system of institutional callousness and oppression.
Charges like these have been leveled against any Black person using the First Amendment to speak out against the dehumanizing ways of Donald Trump, his administration, and his supporters. When awareness is brought to the forefront of our presently devolving culture mired in an unconstitutionally chaotic state of inequality and ill repute by a tyrannical sentiment, profferred by a majority of whites, then you are dismissively thought of as perpetrating reverse racism.
Inside The Vanity And Insanity Of Whiteness Series
This absurd group membership which has monopolized the socioeconomic structures that guarantee inalienable rights to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness is obsessed with invalidating the very same rights applicable to fellow humans who happen to be citizens of the Unites States outside of the group membership or lacking the racial etiquette to get in.
I have never used a racial epithet in my writings or in my speech to justify, call out or debate the racism amongst a majority of white people — not even jokingly. My frustration with discrimination and hate aren’t so easily dissipating, not even temporarily.
Anytime racism is being challenged in defense of the vulnerability of Black women and their cowardice offenders it is seen as hostile to reactionaries. Stop terrorizing and or bullying these humans.
This twilight zone episode in America has gone on long enough. The reality that has been distorted for centuries has increasingly and effectively made our democracy fraught with a fragility and dishonesty about our unique solidarity.
My attempts to strengthen what binds us is casually and demonstrably misread and miscomprehended or sullied by this influential scam of a social construct. The framing of which the 1st Amendment employs in American journalism has yet to come to the defense of this scourge of dehumanization in our own backyard. I have yet to see a nationally renown media outfit appropriately defend against the veracity or the racism received instead I see complicity, appeasement, and placating of the conspiracy of reverse racism amongst Blacks like myself.
It was a framing that might have worked with any other two presidents. On Friday, The New York Times published a comparison of how Donald Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, approached controversies over racism. “Obama offered balm. Trump drops verbal bombs. But both were accused, in a polarized country, of making racial tensions worse,” the paper tweeted. That bland equivalence between the first black president and his white successor, who rode to the White House on a racist conspiracy theory denying Obama was born in the United States, provoked a firestorm of criticism on social media.
That fact alone shows how impossible it is to approach the Trump presidency the way the media might approach any other administration — indeed, bafflingly, the article briefly references birtherism without acknowledging Trump’s embrace of the conspiracy theory, and how it affected his political fortunes. The relationship between Trump and Obama is historically unique in that the former was elected by a racial backlash to the latter, another point the piece declines to acknowledge, whether to refute or affirm.¹
So if acknowledging racism is racist now, then suffice it to say, not acknowledging it must be stupidity.
According to Cipolla’s Laws…
- Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
- The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
- A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
- Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
- A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
¹ Just Say It's Racist
It was a framing that might have worked with any other two presidents. On Friday, The New York Times published a…
The President Can Do Whatever, Say Whatever, And Be Whatever He Wants
Especially when given the amoral licensing
Inculcating Distrust Towards Others Is What The U.S. Emphatically Does Best
The parents, and the district, heck the community on a whole are unequivocally complicit in inculcating their young…