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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

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 whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would