Skip to main content

ESPN Host Calls Trump "White Supremacist" for Being White and Proud at the Same Time

ESPN host Jemele Hill labels Donald Trump a "white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself [with] other white supremacists."

She continues with her next tweet, "Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime. His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period."



First, Donald Trump's "rise" has far more to do with the real state of the American economy and the shift of the minority vote, a category that Barack Obama previously dominated in addition to that of civilian casualties by way of drone strikes, something the majority would surely describe as offensive.

Voters effectively expressed their preference for a non-establishment candidate by supporting Trump over Clinton.

White supremacy was hardly even a subject under consideration at the time of the election.

Suddenly, after a number of violent episodes between two wildly-abrasive and contentious groups who have far more in common than they would readily acknowledge, mainstream media has inundated their audiences, and clearly even their own staff, to accept that the actions of these few are somehow representative of a sociological shift and a new cultural zeitgeist.

As it turns out, both Antifa and the Neo-Nazi camp endorse the mechanism of government as the principal tool of righteousness, merely differing on how that tool ought to be exercised, and to what extent.

The relative palatability of the one over the other seems to spawn from the shortsighted, and often unstated, operating assumption that white people exclusively, and without exception, benefit directly from the transgressions of historical figures of identical complexion.

As it turns out, a majority of those white people are descendants of late-19th century, early-20th century immigrants who bore no involvement in the repugnant practices of their predecessors. 

Ultimately, a burgeoning segment of civilization has broadly committed to an endless discovery of fault with anyone whose ideological composition, or apparently physical complexion, stands at odds against the prevailing wisdom of unquestioning political correctness.

There is seemingly always someone else to blame for one's shortcomings, and if Donald Trump has indeed "risen" to any position of rank, it is incontrovertibly that of icon to those who prefer to mourn their misfortunes and worship their perceived, often imaginary, oppressors instead of taking personal responsibility over their own lives.

This ongoing bout appears only to support the notion that it is far easier to hate than to understand.

And in the world of entertainment, one of the two is far more powerful and appealing to the masses who prefer the comforts of emotion over the complexities of thought.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…