Less Than Human -- Trump's White Nationalism

"I'm the least racist person there is anywhere in the world."

-- Donald Trump

Trump is the architect-in-chief of the “Us versus Them” mentality. His use of paranoid projection helps whites escape any guilt and responsibility and affix blame elsewhere. His wild claim of being the “least racist person” would be laughable would it not be an effective tool of his bigoted, narcissistic vision of white nationalism. As Trump adopts a pretense of grandiosity, he also further elevates himself by devaluing those he views as competitors and underlings.

Largely through the dull semantics of racism, Trump has normalized white supremacy. Racial violence, white nationalism, and white domestic terror are on the rise in America. According to FBI director Christopher Wray, there is an increase in domestic terrorism arrests, a majority of which involve white supremacist violence.

Trump’s repeated use of the term “infested,” in regard to immigrants as well as African Americans, parallels a key part of Nazi ideology – to define the enemy and those who posed a threat to the so-called “Aryan” race. Nazi propaganda promoted the myth of the “national community” and identifed who should be excluded. Jews were considered the main enemy of the state.

The analogy between Jews and vermin was a regular feature on the front pages of the notoriously anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer. The association between Jews and disease-carrying rodents featured on countless banners and posters, issued by Nazi propaganda minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels, which sought to equate Jews with parasitic vermin.

“Words can be polluted even more dramatically and drastically than rivers and land and sea. Their misuse is our undoing.”

– Malcolm Muggeridge

In his tweets and speeches,Trump employs the same imagery used by Nazis. However instead of associating European Jews with rodents and rats, he compares Latins, Muslims, and African-Americans to "animals" and vermin. His use of repulsive language plays well to his faithful followers, just as Hitler's hate-filled rhetoric fueled Nazi nationalism.

Trump supporters – voters and lawmakers alike – use substantial truth to defend his hideous words. Under the substantial truth doctrine, minor factual inaccuracies will be ignored so long as the inaccuracies do not materially alter the substance or impact of what is being communicated. The substantial truth doctrine allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement is true.

So, if Cummings’ district is truly rodent-infested, substantive truth applies. Israeli journalist Chemi Shalev says ... 

“Nazis could have used the same excuse: Conditions in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos, in which Nazi filmmakers captured the masses of poor, dirty and sickly Jews shown in The Eternal Jew (1940 German Nazi antisemitic propaganda film, presented as a documentary) were indeed squalid, decrepit and unhygienic in the extreme. The only detail missing is that it was the Nazis who herded Jews into their inhuman ghettos in the first place.”

Substantive truth? What can be the effect upon the recipient of the bigoted discourse? One may look to history and to Nazi Germany to determine the answer. A loose-mouthed, prejudiced leader is a present danger to the liberty and equality of all. Doesn't democracy require we honor the culture of words – that we use them to mend differences and solve problems, not to debase the opposition? Not to dehumanize them?

Donald Trump is the king of demeaning, belittling, bullying ... yes, dehumanizing those with whom he doesn't agree. He has mocked former prisoners of war, the disabled, and the appearance of women. He has perpetuated conspiracy theories. He has attacked Gold Star parents and widows. And he has engaged in so many racially tinged attacks.

Peter Wehner, Senior Editor at The Atlantic and senior fellow at EPPC (2019), says ...

“Many other presidents have been viewed as divisive figures, but none have taken as much delight as Trump in provoking acrimony, malice, and bitterness for their own sake; in turning Americans against one another in order to turn them against one another. He seems to find psychic satisfaction in doing so.”

With a regime built on hypocrisy and falsehoods, Trump leads his indulgent party and attempts to take the nation to untold heights of racism. He has a defect of character with respect to the truth that supporters actually admire. Why? Perhaps their color blind racism finds more support than opposition in Trump's lies and prejudiced words.

And, all of this occurs in 2019 under the cloak of Christian responsibility. “Christians love me … Without the evangelicals, I could not have won this nomination,” Donald Trump claims. Again, turn to history and the rise of nationalism in Nazi Germany.

Hitler simply could not have risen to power in Germany without what now looks like the badly misplaced assessment of Christians. Voting studies show that the most intensely Protestant regions, regions of reverence similar to the Bible Belt in today’s America, had the highest rates of support for the Nazi Party. By 1945, Christians in Germany deeply regretted their enthusiasm for Hitler, who gave them only defeat, destruction, and moral disrepute.

Oh, I hear the claims of exaggeration and partisanship from Trump supporters. Many of these same people hold onto the man despite his hate-filled attacks claiming “how great the economy is going under Trump” or “how the man stands for the major platform of their political affiliation.” The bottom line is the need to oppose a leader with flawed character, a president who has proven his racist core. No leader should be allowed to continue to incite hatred and violence through his reckless words and actions. 2020 and a change cannot arrive too early.

“First they came . . .” by Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

Source

Chemi Shalev. “Trump’s 'Rodent-infested' Rhetoric Shows How Germany and the World Stayed Silent” www.haaretz.com.  July 28, 2019.

The Dull Semantics of Color Blind Racism

“This is the dull semantics of racism. The white conservative twists the discursive field so that he is the sane arbiter of what is or isn’t racist; everyone else is frivolous and excessive, 'recklessly' invoking the most sacrilegious offense. This logic rests on the illusion that racism is mythically rare, that 'racist' is a dangerous slur rather than a common condition.”

-- Doreen St. Felix, Staff Writer for The New Yorker, “Trump, the Squad, and the 'Standard Definition' of Racism”

The “dull semantics of racism” – this is the lowest-common-denominator of racism. Doreen St. Felix says President Trump deals in promoting this language. From his “both sides” comment about a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville to his calls for four congresswomen of color – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib – to “go back” to the “places from which they came,” Trump consistently spews such language for the edification of his white nationalist base.

The bigoted semantics resound as Trump uses his language to call his faithful to action against those he deems unfit. Gone are the sickening ethnic slurs of the past. Taking their place are slick inferences and pointed accusations involving ethnicity. And, of course, denial and deflection abound as the GOP still supports Trump's hate speech. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, himself, said, “The president’s not a racist” and then said “everyone ought to tone down the rhetoric.” Confusing? No, just cover up and lies.

Behavioral scientist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls this “new” prejudice “color blind racism,” the central racial ideology of the post-civil rights era. It is characterized by a slippery, often apparently nonracial ambivalence. The five stylistic components of the ideology are the following:

1. Whites' avoidance of direct racial language,
2. The central rhetorical strategies or 'semantic moves' used by whites to safely express their racial views,
3. The role of projection,
4. The role of diminutives, and
5. How incursions into forbidden issues produce almost total incoherence among many whites.

(Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. “The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding 'Racist.” Sage Journals. January 1, 2002.)

Let's look at some typical expression that exists in color blind racism that disallows the open expression of direct racial views and positions but conceals ways of voicing them. Here are some common verbal strategies used by whites:

1. “I am not prejudiced, but” and “Some of my best friends are”

This language makes it easier to state all sorts of anti-minority positions including softening opposition to affirmative action and affirming blacks, especially those who depend on welfare, have a worse overall status than whites. Or they state their beliefs that blacks are naturally “more aggressive” or “unwilling to work hard.”

Example: “Yeah, I would say. I don’t know if that’s racist or what, but I don’t know. I don’t really talk about that much with people, you know. So, I really haven’t developed such a strong, a really strong opinion about it, but I guess I do oppose it now.”

2. “I am not black, so I don’t know”

After this phrase is inserted, people usually proceed with statements betraying a strong stance on the matter in question. 

An example: “I’m sure it’s less than it used to be, at least that’s what everybody keeps saying so: : : But, uh, I think it’s less. But uh, I can’t say. But I can’t speak for like a black person who says they’re being harassed or being uh, prejudice or uh, discriminated against.” 

3. “Yes and no, but ”

A common way of stating racial views without opening yourself to the charge of racism is apparently taking all sides on an issue.

Example: “I don’t think you should discriminate against one group to give another a better chance. And I don’t believe that’s fair at all. I also think that to move forward you have to let go of the past and let go of what happened. Um, you know, and it should really start equaling out um, ‘cause I feel that some of, some of it will go too far and it will swing the other way.”

4. “Anything but race”

Another rhetorical move typical of color blind racism is the “Anything but race” strategy. This strategy involves interjecting comments such as “Is not a prejudiced thing” to dismiss the fact that race affects an aspect of the respondent’s life. Hence, this tool allows whites to smooth out racial fractures in their otherwise color blind story.

Examples: “I did not have minority friends while growing up, but race never came into play and most of my friends were good kids.” Or “blacks read “too much” into racism when they do not get jobs.” Or ideas on racial segregation like “It really doesn’t matter to me if there’s blacks or whites there cause it's not really the color or the people that’s going to make me like an area.” 

Projection – “They are the Racist Ones ”

Projection is part of our normal equipment to defend ourselves. However, it is more than a defense mechanism, it can also be an essential tool in the creation of a corporate identity – an “Us versus Them” mentality. Paranoid projection helps whites escape from guilt and responsibility and affix blame elsewhere.

Whites project racial motivations onto blacks as a way of avoiding responsibility and feeling good about themselves. Their projections appears on a variety of issues such as affirmative action, school and residential segregation, interracial friendship and marriage, and blacks’ work ethic, but most often on the hot issue of so-called “black self segregation.”

Examples of projection: “I think they segregate themselves. Or, I mean, I don’t know how everybody else is, but I would have no problem with talking with or being friends with a black person or any other type of minority. I think they’ve just got into their heads that they are different and, as a result, they’re pulling themselves away.” Or “I have approached a couple of black people and they’ll just have their ghetto attitude that um, the white people own everything so then you have to prove yourself yada, yada, yada.”

Diminutives – “It Makes Me a Little Angry ”

Diminutive – referring to a person, object, idea that is very small (unimportant). Because maintaining a non-racial, color blind stance is key, whites use diminutives to soften their racial blows. Hence, when they oppose affirmative action, few say, “I am against affirmative action.” Instead, they say something such as, “I am just a little bit against affirmative action.” Similarly, few whites who oppose interracial marriage flatly state, “I am against interracial marriage.” Instead, they say something such as, “I am just a bit concerned about the welfare of the children.”

Example of a diminutive in the case of a racial slur: “Like, I mean, if you hear a professor say something, like a racial slur, or something just like a little bit, ya’ know, a little bit outta hand, ya’ know. I mean : : : I mean, I would just see it as like : : : ya’ know, he was just, you took it out of context or something, but, ya’ know, is just little things like that. It’s just, it’s so touchy. Everything is so touchy it seems like around here.”

Rhetorical Incoherence – “I, I, I Don’t Mean, You Know, but ”

Rhetorical incoherence – grammatical mistakes, lengthy pauses, repetition, etc.-- is part of all natural speech. Nevertheless, the degree of incoherence increases noticeably when people discuss sensitive subjects. Because the new racial climate in America forbids the open expression of racially-based feelings, views, and positions, when whites discuss issues that make them feel uncomfortable, they become almost incomprehensible, particularly when discussing their personal relationships with blacks

Example: “I mean, I would not ever preclude, um, a black woman from being my girlfriend on the basis that she was black. Ya’ know, I mean, ya’ know what I mean? If you’re looking about it from, ya’ know, the standpoint of just attraction, I mean, I think that, ya’ know … I think, ya’ know, I think, ya’ know, all women are, I mean, all women have a sort of different type of beauty, if you will. And I think that, ya’ know, for black women, it’s somewhat different than white women. Um, but I don’t think it’s, ya know, I mean, it’s, it’s ... it’s nothing that would ever stop me from like, uh, I mean, I don’t know, I mean, I don’t if that’s … I mean, that’s just sort of been my impression.”

Or this example: “I don’t know. Just … well [high pitched voice] ... I think I would have been very uncomfortable, okay, I really do. I mean, it would just be, I [raises voice] wouldn’t want to go out with a, ah … ah … really dark Middle Eastern man, or Indian, or Oriental. I mean, I, I just would be uncomfortable. If they’re closer to me in looks, okay. That’s just always the way I felt.”

Bonilla-Silva's research suggests the young, educated, middle class are not too far off from their older, less educated, working class counterparts in their crudeness and lack of rhetorical sophistication. This may well mean that as whites enter the labor market, they feel entitled to vent their resentment in a relative straightforward manner. The dull semantics of racism is at work.

This entitlement is what happens if those with power and influence view the degradation of African Americans as a positive political move. We must all be conscious of the dangerous effects of negative stereotypes, especially when they have the potential to misinform millions. When public officials spew racist rhetoric and degrade African Americans or others for their own political gain, they damage the country by emboldening white nationalists. Racism – regardless of how it is measured – appears to have been an important motive in voting for Trump. This is frightening in itself.

Footnote from the author of the studies …

“The data for the analysis comes from interviews gathered as part of two projects: the 1997 Survey of College Students’ Social Attitudes and the 1998 Detroit Area Study (DAS henceforth). The former study was conducted among 600 students (451 whites) taking social science courses in three Universities (Southern University or SU, Midwestern University or MU, and Western University or WU). The latter was conducted among 400 black and white respondents (323 whites and 67 blacks) in the Detroit metropolitan area. The interviews for the former were gathered from a random sample of the 90 percent (406) of the white students who included information on how to contact them while the latter were selected randomly among the 400 participants. Altogether there are 41 interviews with college students (10 percent sub-sample) and 83 with Detroit area residents (21 percent sub-sample).

“Since a full discursive analysis of the stylistic components of color blindness is beyond the scope of this article, I focus instead on showcasing Ž ve things. First, I document how whites avoid direct racial language while expressing their racial views. Second, I analyze the central rhetorical strategies or “semantic moves” 3 used by whites. Third, I examine the role of projection. Fourth, I show the role of diminutives in color blind talk. Lastly, I examine how incursions into forbidden issues produce almost total incoherence among many whites.”

Profit In a World of Need

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, 

and lose his own soul?” 

-- Mark 8:36, King James Version

What is the value of your soul? For those who believe, the value of the soul is measured by its eternal quality. It will never die. Your soul – your spirit – will live forever. It is that part of you that has understanding and wisdom. Its worth is truly immeasurable as are its returns on investment. The value of a soul is grounded in faith.

For nonbelievers, the soul is finite. Thus, most nonbelievers' understanding of “profit” is the accumulation of worldly goods they amass until their ultimate demise. Then, wills and other legal declarations transfer the monetary estate to others, be they family, friends, or charities. The worth is measurable – either in life or in death – and its value is purely economic in nature.

Nonetheless, if economics is a science, it must accept the principles of morality taught by the sciences of philosophy and theology. However, many economists prefer to sidestep the moral issue: they see the pursuit of profit as a substitute for morality. Enter unbridled greed and the overwhelming desire for personal acquisition at any cost.

Applied to conservative politics, this yields a hierarchy with the wealthy citizens on the top and the poor – those assumed to be weak by those above them – on the bottom. In the eyes of the wealthy, the bottom dwellers can earn redemption only by suffering and thus, supposedly, getting an incentive to do better. In the meantime, they are doomed to live in scorn without privilege.

Taken to the extreme, some would eliminate any consideration of the needs of the public altogether in order to monopolize their own profit and gain. In other words, economics and moral concerns do not neatly align. Christians and nonbelievers alike struggle with their beliefs and their opposing actions. Money is such a powerful force.

Economics cannot define “good” nor determine the intrinsic value of a moral act. It is easy to believe in the hierarchy of charity that ought to be among people, but in the midst of acquiring wealth and status, people often lose this belief – and their souls – by loving money over mankind. Hence the teaching of Scripture, "Do no set your heart on riches, even when they increase."

“The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for

the sake of something else.”

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

The Economic Policy Institue found that from 2009 to 2015, the average income of the top 1% grew by 33.9%, more than triple the 10.3% income growth among the remaining 99%. In the years since the Great Recession, the bottom 90% saw annual wage growth of just 5.4%; by contrast, the wages of the top 0.1% grew 29.8%. To be among the top 1% of U.S. earners, a family needs an income of $421,926, a new report from the Economic Policy Institute finds.

Greed – avarice, lust, want, covetousness – is not exclusive to the rich. The selfish, excessive desire for more of something affects people of all incomes. Greed stems from a basic fear of life. To be exact, greed is driven by a fundamental sense of deprivation, a need for something that is lacking or unavailable. Greed, unchecked, destroys your family, friendships and relationships, resulting in unhappiness. It creates tunnel vision while making you reckless, arrogant, and lazy.

Money, profit, soul – no one doubts that riches make the acquisition of pleasure on earth much easier. What must be questioned is the need for excess money at the expense of the common good. When working people struggle because they cannot afford decent housing, food, and healthcare, you must do some soul searching … that is, if you even believe you have a soul.

Encouraging Bigoted Action at Turning Point USA

During a Turning Point USA “Teen Student Action Summit” in Washington on August 23, 2019, Donald Trump rallied his young admirers with racist comments and lies. Turning Point USA is shunned, or at least ignored by more established conservative groups in Washington, but embraced by many Trump supporters.

Since 2016, Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has maintained a Professor Watchlist, which lists college professors whom it alleges discriminate against conservative students and advance left-wing propaganda in the classroom. The organization has also secretly attempted to influence student government elections in an effort to "combat liberalism on college and university campuses.” TPUSA's founder, Charlie Kirk, is good friends with the president's son, Donald Trump, Jr.

Turning Point leaders have also praised ICE and GEO groups on social media. Former Turning Point communications director Candace Owens claimed that she toured an ICE transitional facility and raved about the conditions on Twitter afterward. Owners said …

“This place is nicer than where I went to the public school system.”

Owens is the same leader who After the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, said that concern over rising white nationalism was "stupid.” On Facebook, Owens wrote "I proudly self-identify as an Uncle Tom." The gunman who committed the Christ Church mosque shootings (New Zealand, 2019) produced a "manifesto" where he wrote that Owens had "influenced (him) above all.”

Though TPUSA is a group for collegiate Republicans, with more than 1,000 chapters across the country and a pattern of racism and white supremacy in its top ranks, organizers of the teen summit said the audience included droves of high school students who were invited as part of a recruiting effort.

Even before Trump spoke, other speakers parroted his racism. Eric Bolling – a former Fox News host who was fired after a sexual harassment investigation – said the president was right to tell them (the minority members of the House of Representatives) to “go back,” especially Ilhan Omar of Minnesota , whom he called “anti-Semitic.”

During his 80-minute speech, Trump told the crowd that “the forces of political correctness want to silence conservative students, make you feel alone, marginalized and isolated.” He also asked the teenagers to imagine the "100 percent" poll numbers he'd have without the "dishonest" news media. And, in his vile, bigoted manner, Trump slammed Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Trump's words ...

“From Michigan, right? It’s a great state. We won Michigan. There is no way she stands for the values of the people of Michigan.

“But I watched her this morning; she's vicious. She’s like a crazed lunatic. She’s screaming. This is before she got into Congress. Who elected her? She’s screaming like a total lunatic at one of our rallies. It’s like I’m giving a little rally, and she starts screaming. And this was — this is not a sane person, folks, when you look at that.

(Laughter.) “And this is what we’re up against. You have some of that. Now, the Democrats, I guess, are forced to embrace her. And I called it 'AOC Plus 3.' Okay? AOC – 'AOC Plus 3.' (Applause.) Not that AOC is a bargain, because she’s not. I mean, she’s no bargain. Look, I mean, I — we’ll go into it at some point. I’ll tell you all about AOC. I got more on AOC. (Applause.) AOC. AOC.”

Trump demonized Democrats as captives who hate America …

“These people have lost all control. And even the Democrats — they’re Left, but now they’re getting dragged into a radical Left position. I can’t imagine who’s doing that. But they’re being dragged — they’re being dragged radical Left with these people that I believe — honestly, I believe they hate our country. Okay? I believe they hate our country. (Applause.)

“Anyone can become a target of the Left’s brutal campaign to punish dissent. Hey, I’m the number-one target in the world. And here we are. But I’m the number-one target. Who’s more of a target than me? No matter what you do, I’m the great target for these people. These people are crazy.”

This is the judgmental hatred encouraged by the leader of the free world. It reminds one of the indoctrination of the Hitler youth in Nazi Germany. Here is yet another overly pompous, narcissistic racist leading his opponents to slaughter. I fear impressionable young people are being encouraged to become bigoted, narrow-minded followers of a demagogue with no regard for the truth.

Trump's views seldom have substance or reason. Instead, he relies on emotional appeal to sway his audience and to encourage them to believe in his twisted judgment and disregard for the opposition. Encouraging teens to follow blindly, he holds himself up as their political savior.

Raffi Cavoukian, known as "the most popular children's singer in the English-speaking world," has called Trump unfit for office, racist, and misogynistic. Raffi said we must “fight fascism with everything we’ve got.” Collier Meyerson of the Intelligencer (2019) explained …

“Seemingly trite, the addition of Raffi’s voice to the American political landscape is actually invaluable. The singer-songwriter is the premier emissary for children and his positions carry with them an incredible weight.”

"Your time is now," the president told his crowd at the TPUSA Teen Student Action Summit.

Trump's speech at the summit encouraged young people to denigrate others and to exclude elected representatives of our nation. His remarks make “your time is now” a chilling statement condoning bigotry. It flies in the face of “liberty and justice for ALL.” And, most disturbingly, it knowingly legitimizes the continued use of racism.

During a 4-day conference purportedly for educating conservative high school students, Trump unleashed his hatred for minorities, for women, and for the opposing political party. Turning Point USA describes itself as a youth organization dedicated to educating and training and students "to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government." It is evident that the organization needs to find a key note speaker who lives up to its ideals.

Now He Becomes Death -- Donald Trump In Power

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."

-- J. Robert Oppenheimer on witnessing the first test of the atomic bomb in 1945

Trump likes military parades and shows of government force. He likes threatening people from other nations. And, he also likes war mongering with loose, irresponsible talk. This is what he said on August 22, 2019, while seated beside Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan at a White House meeting scheduled to be a push to mend relations with Pakistan ...

"If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win that war in a week. I just don't want to kill 10 million people. I have plans on Afghanistan, that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth. It would be gone. It would be over in – literally, in 10 days, and I don't want to do -- I don't want to go that route."

The US has been pursuing a diplomatic strategy to end the 18-year war in Afghanistan, holding on-again, off-again talks with the Taliban in Qatar to reach a peace deal. Of course, Afghanistan pushed back against Trump's remarks made during that Oval Office meeting. They were the second nation to do so.

Trump had claimed that India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally asked him if he would like to be a mediator in the decades-long conflict between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region. A spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar, denied Trump's claim, saying on Twitter that "no such request has been made" by Modi.

Sediq Sediqqi, the spokesman for the President of Afghanistan, said in a statement …

"The Afghan nation has not and will never allow any foreign power to determine its fate. Given the multifaceted relationship between Afghanistan and the United States, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan calls for clarification on the US President's statements."

Others expressed their displeasure with Trump's threat. Afghan-American author Khaled Hosseini called Trump's statement "reckless" and "appalling." And, Rahmatullah Nabil, former Afghan intelligence chief and presidential candidate, slammed Trump on Twitter.

Nabil wrote …

"Your insulting message to [Afghanistan] is either accept the [Pakistan] proposal for peace or eventually you may have to use nukes.”

The threats, ultimatums, and lies by Trump represent a present danger. He evidently views these miscues as somehow beneficial to his own power and prestige. Of course, on the world stage, Trump aligns himself with the likes of Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin – both sworn enemies of the United States. His faithful are blind to the deceit.

Reread Trump's outburst on annihilating Afghanistan. He uses the pronoun “I” six times in the brief threat. The narcissistic Trump is a self-appointed “know-it-all.” He needs validation in order to feel good about himself. This insatiable craving to be “put on a pedestal” explains to a large extent the narcissist’s sense of conceit, entitlement, and self-absorption. He craves showing off and loves to brag. In this case, his continual use of first person illustrates his belief that his will – no matter how evil or destructive – can be done.

Now, read the quote once more and look for his never-ending braggadocio. Remember, this is the same man who told America he knew more about Isis than the generals; he knew more about taxes than the economists; he was a extremely stable genius; and he was loved by women, Hispanics and African-Americans. Trump seems almost happy in declaring he could – if only he wanted it – annihilate 10 million people.

Last, ask yourself about Trump's “plans on Afghanistan.” He says “if I wanted to end that war ...” as if he controls the conscience of a nation … no, make that two nations. Trump later said …

“But what we did and what our leadership got us into is ridiculous. But we will – I think we’ll have some very good answers on Afghanistan very quickly.”

This is the diplomacy of a sick, unhinged man who claims he is the greatest president of all. Consider another world leader making the same statement of domination and disaster to the United States. And, remember, his friend Kim while you are considering this ominous parallel. “Little Rocket Man” Trump calls him and yet he treats the dictator with high praise. It appears we have our own concerns about a powerful dictatorial head of state.

Equality -- Individuality or Conformity?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, July 4, 1776

What commitments did the Founding Fathers hold when they declared independence?

We understand that the basic principle for their proclamation was to declare that the people of the United States could reject a monarchy (based on the superiority of a king) and replace it with a republican government (based on the consent of the people).

We also understand that the work was drafted by the so-called “Committee of Five” consisting of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia.

What we acknowledge less is that the declaration did not pledge a commitment to establish freedom for all. Indeed, it did advocate for that lofty principle; however, at that time – and for a long time after – blacks, Native Americans, and women were not afforded the basic rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The idealistic language in the document obscured very illiberal attitudes. In short, the authors did not hold full human equality as a positive social goal. Such a commitment to action was implied, but remanded.

Blacks were excluded. Most whites believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live. They strongly opposed miscegenation (interbreeding). And, although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that opposed equality.

Native Americans were excluded. They were referred to as “merciless Indian Savages” who had been encouraged by the British crown to fight against the Patriots. George Washington, himself, proposed the cultural transformation of Native Americans. Throughout U. S. history, Euro-Americans committed countless acts of violence against Native people – extermination or genocide, theft of Indian lands and resources, captivity and enslavement, forced removals from homelands, and schooling aimed at destroying Native cultures. Gradually, however, it became clear to most native groups, that an independent America posed a far greater threat to their interests and way of life than a continued British presence that restrained American westward expansion.

Women were excluded. In Revolutionary times, women were widely considered to be inferior to men, a status that was especially clear in the lack of legal rights for married women. The law did not recognize wives' independence in economic, political, or civic matters in Anglo-American society of the eighteenth century. Future First Lady Abigail Adams suggested to her husband, John Adams, that in the "new Code of Laws" that he helped draft at the Continental Congress, he should, "Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them." Despite her concerns, Abigail could not participate in the creation of this government.

So, considering the lack of equality at the time of its origin, is the Declaration of Independence simply a hollow, hypocritical document? Perhaps Abraham Lincoln expressed the answer best.

In his June 1857 speech on the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln explained the conflict between the Declaration’s foundational principle of human equality and the practice of slavery at the time. The Founders, he argued, “did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them.” In fact they had no power to confer such a blessing.

Lincoln declared instead the Declaration “meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated ... “ He added, “The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use.”

Over 100 years later, Martin Luther King Jr. in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech echoed this sentiment when he acknowledged the Founders and their evident grant of a “promissory note” of equality …

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The hypocrisy of the Committee of Five is clear to us today. We can dismiss it as “reflective of the times” or as “within the legal framework” of the past, but to do so would be an injustice. The great vision of the Founding Fathers remains as a foundation for freedom. Journalist Jeff Jacoby asks …

“Would the Declaration of Independence have been improved if those words had been omitted (“all men are created equal’’)? Would slavery have ended sooner had abolitionists not been able to invoke that self-evident truth?”

We all know the answer to those questions. The declaration, more than any other document, helped define and shape the course of progressive change in America. However, we must acknowledge that the commitment also comes with a firm obligation. We must continue to focus on equality for all as we continue to struggle with the attainment of a precious birthright. The American Dream remains a dream deferred for so many. African Americans, Native Americans, and American women of all races continue to sing: “None of us are free if one of us is chained.”

Objectification -- Shout It Loud and Clear!

If America is ever going to confirm inclusion and equality, it will not be because people stand behind a demagogue and chant ...

“Drain the swamp.”

“Lock her up.”

“Build that wall.”

“Love it or leave it.”

“Send her back.”

Elaina Plott, reporter and editor for The Atlantic, notes: “Where the president’s fans once called for a female opponent’s imprisonment, now they are longing for another woman to be literally banished from the country.” This latest outburst supports something many of the faithful simply dismiss as entitled chauvinism.

The content of Donald Trump's rally cries is racist, xenophobic, and notably misogynistic. He encourages this offensive sexist cheerleading. Did you ever notice Trump supporters don't make chants about men? The president claims to support women when, in reality, he has been widely called out throughout his life for his objectification of them – he has a tendency to criticize women for their looks and lower them to means of his own self-gratification.

From “grabbing their pussies” to saying no one would vote for his former rival Carly Fiorina because of her face to suggesting that women should be "punished" for having abortions and "joking" that he'd date his daughter … Trump degrades women. And, his adoring crowd always condones it. Moreover, they loudly parrot his vile degradation as if his stature entitles him to dominate anything between their legs.

Trump has long bragged that he likes “beautiful women,” but this is the same man who when profiled in the August 2000 issue of Maximum Golf magazine, told the writer when he saw a young woman enter his Mar-a-Lago club, “there is nothing in the world like first-rate pussy.” He sees himself as a noted connoisseur and seasoned inspector of such fare.

This man who sexualizes his own daughter’s appearance and consistently dehumanizes women is a confirmed misogynist. Women have long paid the price for Trump’s bad behavior, and they continue to pay now. He dismisses women who don't fit his narrow ideal of femininity as “pigs” and “dogs.” Jill Filipovic reporting on his disgusting dichotomy in Time wrote: “Mr. Trump sees women: Either as “first-rate pussy” or “fat” and “ugly.”

Filipovic concludes …

“It’s not just that Mr. Trump is so gross and sexist he’s unfit to be president (he is). It’s that he’s a kind of hideous funhouse mirror, reflecting back at us an engorged, amplified vision of the misogynist norms we have all enabled and perpetuated. He’s the epitome of a repulsive chauvinist. But we created a world where he could succeed — all the way to the presidency.”

No one can deny Trump has a special propensity to attack women of color – the representatives of “The Squad” – Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts; Representavie Maxine Waters; journalist April Ryan. Just look at his policies of separating mothers from their babies at the border, mainly because Trump sees women of color as the people who reproduce children who keep him from making America white again.

The shamelessness of Trump’s misogyny is proudly carried by the screaming throngs of white women at his rallies. Why? They will tell you it's because of his stand on abortion or because he is good for the economy. Hell, I've even talked with Trump evangelicals who believe God ordained Trump to the office to lead us through “dark times.” (No pun intended)

Rutgers University gender and Africana studies professor Brittney Cooper called on white feminists to stop “thanking black women for protecting the nation from the voting patterns of white people” and begin “organiz[ing] white women.”

Women’s March co-chair Tamika Mallory asks if it is even possible for white women to get their “Becky situation[s] in order”?

Note – the epithet “Becky” – In 2016 Karsonya Wise Whitehead of Loyola University Maryland attributed this meaning to the term: "a white woman who is clueless, who is kind of racist, [and] who makes statements without knowing what she's saying.”

It seems that the truth of the matter is that though plenty of women are disgusted by Trump, they are not committed to a progressive policy to hold him accountable for his misogynistic views. Social scientists have pointed out how Trump successfully taps into an evangelical narrative, based on white American nationalism, of returning Christians to their rightful place at the center of American life – of course that means “its rightful (white) Christian heritage.”

How could any woman vote for a sexist president? Gender is not evidently a deeply felt identity category for many women. What do these Trump females consider an “ideal” political woman? An old-fashioned or outdated Christian, strong but submissive, traditionally pretty, smart but not too smart, sexy but also chaste, white female. Others need not apply. “Send them back – they do not 'fit.'”

“Women do quite well politically when they’re perceived to be, or actually in service positions. I think women are actually allowed to have quite a bit of

poweras long as it’s in service of those who are perceived as entitled to their feminine-coded services.”

– Philosopher Kate Manne of Cornell University

Trump and His Racism: Do You Serve Two Masters?

"President Donald Trump's racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color" and 'strongly condemns' the President's remarks, including 'that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and thosewho may look to the President like immigrants, should 'go back' to other countries.'"

This resolution comes after Trump suggested in a series of tweets that the congresswomen – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts – should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

The House voted on Pelosi's words: The Democratic-controlled House voted not to strike Pelosi's comments from the record and to allow Pelosi to speak on the floor of the House again. The vote was 240 to 187. Four Republicans and one independent – Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan – supported the resolution as well as all Democrats who voted.

What Pelosi said about her speech: She told reporters she had "absolutely" no regrets for her language describing the resolution. Why should she?

I am sure the Trump faithful and most lily-livered Republicans fearing negative political consequences will dismiss Trump's latest racist remarks as “just Donald Trump being Donald Trump.” With a long history of bigoted comments, Trump has once again confirmed his congenital prejudice. Since October 1973, when the Justice Department sued Trump and his father Fred for barring blacks from their apartment buildings, it has been known that the president is a racist.

The question remains: Why do people continue to support a person in the White House with such racist views? The answer is simple, yet shocking: This quality is central to his politics and to his appeal.

All Trump supporters, especially supposedly omnibenevolent evangelicals, will eventually have to ask themselves if they should go on believing Trump has sufficient character to hold the presidency. I believe they will simply dismiss his bigotry as something of which they have no concern. This is deeply troubling and indicative of the real state of civil rights in 21^st century America.

Donald Trump, himself, admitted to “not being concerned” about white nationalist groups finding “a common cause” with his racist remarks because “many people agree with him.” And, confirmation of support for his bigotry is evidenced by those who love his daily tweets, campaign rallies, and executive orders. The faithful, like programmed automatons on steroids, parrot his messages of hatred for anything that doesn't meet his view of “making America great again.” Of course, after Trump's divisive tirades, political parasites in the GOP like Lindsey Graham debase themselves by supporting his unquestionable bigotry.

Allow me to repeat my thesis: Racism is central to Trump's politics and to his appeal. We DO NOT live in a post-racist America. Systemic racism infects the very structure of American society. It is in our schools, our offices, our courts, our police departments, and in our government – and it is now boldly implanted in our executive branch. Trump has emboldened supremacists, hate crimes, and, most regrettably, those who had suppressed their fear and loathing for people of color.

Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has said, "The main problem nowadays is not the folks with the hoods, but the folks dressed in suits."

These racists fear minorities will take their wealth, their jobs, their housing, and their educational opportunities. The truth is that these whites blame minorities for their own lack of ability and initiative. Trump feeds their bruised egos with his own bigoted views, and they are then emboldened to expose their own true feelings of prejudice.

Racism appeals to the Trump minions. They support his white agenda. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who agree that black-white relations are good is at a 20-year low. And for the first time since the pollster has asked the question, a majority of blacks rate race relations as bad. The Trump era has set race relations back, and new, deep scars threaten to cripple future progress.

What happens when those with power and influence view the degradation of minorities as a positive political move? Exactly what anyone with a speck of brain would expect. It exposes the systemic racism in our country – all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help others. Buoyed by a warped sense of empowerment and privilege, marginal people feel justified in seeing the "others" with suspicion and in attributing negative characteristics to an entire group of people. They revert to shouting slogans like “America, love it or leave it. They hate … and hate … and hate.

It is precisely this that results: Those who were, in truth, always racists – despite their hollow claims of loving integration – affirm their prejudice by word, by deed, or by indifference. They latch onto despair and support a bigot. For whatever reason they find convenient, they justify their dark actions. Some do so with claims of adhering to religious tenets, others with claims of patriotism, and still others with views of inherited superiority.

“Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common: they both begin where reason ends.”

– Harper Lee

If you follow bigotry – no matter your political party, your faith, or your other beliefs – you become complicit in enabling unspeakable hatred. You see, then, no matter what political figure dismisses the obvious for whatever reason, you are responsible. It is NOT Trump acting like Trump. Instead, it IS you acting as you.

“Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education: they grow there, firm as weeds among stones.”

– Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre

Turtles All the Way Down ... Respect Them All

So don't waste your mind on nursery rhymes
Or fairy tales of blood and wine
It's turtles all the way down the line
So to each their own 'til we go home
To other realms our souls must roam
To and through the myth that we all call space and time

From “Turtles All the Way Down,” Sturgill Simpson

Country singer/songwriter Sturgill Simpson invokes the Turtle in connection to his own quest for meaning. The thoughtful Kentucky lyricist explains: "'Turtles' is about giving your heart to love and treating everyone with compassion and respect no matter what you do or don't believe.”

Heady stuff for a country song, huh? If you've never heard of the saying “turtles all the way down,” you probably aren't alone. The expression concerns the logic of infinite regress – a sequence of reasoning or justification which can never come to an end. Or, allow me to put it like this: An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P₁ requires the support of proposition P₂, the truth of proposition P₂ requires the support of proposition P₃, and so on, ad infinitum.

Infinite regress arguments tacitly rely on a principle of non-contradiction to generate the infinite sequence. On the one hand, they are often quickly brushed aside as being unreasonable and even preposterous. On the other hand, the alleged absurdity of infinite regresses has been a source of inspiration and the ground for far-reaching conclusions.

The saying about turtles alludes to the mythological idea of a World Turtle that supports the earth on its back. It suggests that this turtle rests on the back of an even larger turtle, which itself is part of a column of increasingly large turtles that continues indefinitely (i.e., "turtles all the way down").

The exact origin of the phrase is uncertain. A similar saying – "rocks all the way down" – appears as early as 1838. References to the saying's mythological antecedents, the World Turtle and its counterpart the World Elephant, were made by a number of authors in the 17th and 18th centuries. This mythology is frequently assumed to have originated in ancient India and in other Hinduist beliefs.

Of course, it makes sense that any proposition requires justification. And, it follows that any justification requires support. A regress argument proposes that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned.

“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

“At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.'

“The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?'

"'You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down!'”

• from R.A. Wilson. Prometheus Rising. 1983

Whether it's turtles or elephants or country music songs “all the way down,” infinite regress is pertinent to the current state of tolerance in America. Sturgill Simpson wrote in his song: “So to each their own 'til we go home to other realms our souls must roam.” Beliefs are just that – tenets or things that are accepted and held as OPINIONS. And, lord knows, opinions differ. Accepting diversity with understanding fuels necessary tolerance, something sorely lacking now as America suffers through the reign of a leader who is both bigoted and xenophobic.

The “turtles” that support your belief system are not necessarily the same slow-moving reptiles that underpin the trust of your neighbors. To even comprehend the complex problems and obstacles others face requires some suspension of your own slippery reality.

“All the way down” requires contemplation of infinity, and that mental activity is particularly enigmatic. Paradoxes that characterize the concept of infinity deal with astrophysical data and complex opinions such as the continuum hypothesis. Try as they might, most intelligent minds struggle with any morsel of reality in infinity and end up with a question mark. I believe the notion of infinity is fundamentally beyond the human ability to comprehend, so I can leave you with an affirmation – Turtles all the way down sounds about right to me. Testudines, how low can you go?

Click it for Sturgill Simpson and “Turtles...": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gBV-Nzq7Pg

Rock and Roll Love Affair

“Singing I love rock and roll
So put another dime in the jukebox, baby
I love rock and roll
So come and take the time
And dance with me”

“I love rock and roll” – so the hit song by Joan Jett goes. That “love” for the music permeates nearly every facet of American society. Since the 1950s, the music has influenced family lives, teenage behavior, and social movements such as civil rights and anti-war protests. Rock music continues to influence the culture and reflect its changes.

Yet, from the beginning, rock had strong opposition. Because rock and roll originated among the lower classes and a segregated ethnic group, many middle-class whites thought it was tasteless. Rock and roll records were banned from many radio stations and hundreds of schools.

Associate professor of economic and author, David George Surdam, relates ...

“Commentators ranted indignantly about the new music. Frank Sinatra complained that rock’n’roll featured: 'cretinous goons' who used 'almost imbecilic reiteration and sly, lewd, . . . dirty, lyrics' to become the 'martial music of every side-burned delinquent on the face of the earth.' The New York Times quoted psychiatrist Francis Braceland, who called rock’n’roll, 'a cannibalistic and tribalistic form of music.'

“Rock’n’roll’s destructive and subversive force knew no bounds. A Florida minister claimed that 'more than 98% of surveyed unwed mothers got into their predicament while under the influence of rock’n’roll.' New Jersey Senator, Robert Henrickson claimed, 'Not even the Communist conspiracy could devise a more effective way to demoralize, confuse, and destroy the United States.'”

Despite the resistance, the subversive, brutish beat captured the hearts of young America. Rock was not only “cool,” but also exciting. And, it stimulated much more than the minds of the youth. The term “rock and roll,” once a sexual code word in blues songs, became a recognizable euphemism for all the physical rhythms set in motion by the beat.

Most could not verbalize their passion for the music, but instead instinctively “moved with the groove.” What rock dinosaur can forget Dick Clark's American Bandstand with its "Rate-a-Record" segment justifying potential hit songs with the phrase "It's got a good beat and you can dance to it"?

Indeed, teens loved the rebellious music in part because its recognizable beat drove the soundtracks of their lives while celebrating the joys of being young and occasionally expressing the frustrations of youth. They totally identified with the lyrics as the music gave them a base of shared ideals distinguishing them from their parents' generation. Rock and roll reflected society like no other musical form.

“Until I realized that rock music was my connection to the rest of the human race,

I felt like I was dying, for some reason, and I didn't know why.”

– Bruce Springsteen

Rock and roll began to be commonly accepted as popular American music. As it did, it helped create a new generation. Simply put, it changed things … almost everything followed the beat. America, in its traditionalist state after World War II, was ripe for a diverse transition. The music influenced daily life, fashion, attitudes, and language in a way few other social developments have equaled.

Over the years, rock and roll exploded in a technicolor transition of its many forms. Rockabilly, blues rock, psychedelic rock, British rock, country rock, southern rock, progressive rock, metal rock – all of these structures flourished and added their own individual styles to the music. Now rock, in general, colonizes other musical genres while blurring musical boundaries.

The music traveled everywhere with the people. Rock became ubiquitous – a constant companion in public places and with every sort of activity. Sound devices like transistor radios, car radios and tape players, jam boxes, Walkmans, and eventually smart phones delivered the music to the masses. Listening to music no longer referred to an activity in to a special place or on an important occasion but, rather, these machines caused rock and roll to a staple of recreation, and even a background at work. It remains instantly access able for public consumption.

“There's always something magic
There's always something new
And when you really really need it the most
That's when rock and roll dreams come through
The beat is yours forever
The beat is always true
And when you really need it the most
That's when rock and roll dreams come through....for you”

From “Rock and Roll Dreams Come Through,” Meatloaf (Jim Steinman)

But, any true lover of rock will profess to the music's greatest appeal. More than any other form of art, rock and roll creates dreams. It is the Mystery Train, the conveyance of the imagination. 

As the music casts its spell on the listener, the drums, the guitars, the vocals, and the keyboards push the imagination and fuel personal desire. Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, the Beatles – all of the greats employed their own magic to uplift the masses to greater levels of euphoric emotion. People took from the music what they needed to fuel their own fantasies and aspirations.

“Hey hey, my my
Rock and roll can never die
There's more to the picture
Than meets the eye.
Hey hey, my my.”

“Hey Hey, My My,” Neil Young

Now, rock and roll has matured, and during its many years of existence, it has suffered its share of scars and bruises. Drug abuse, payola scandals, racial prejudice, commercialism, government censorship – all hurt the music. In retrospect, one can make a case that MTV, the Internet, and corporate radio effectively suppressed the form. Yet, rock and roll is not dead. The music still inspires young artists and listeners.

You see, the “more to the picture than meets the eye” is just one more mysterious rock allusion that comprises the dreamscape of rock and roll music. No amount of analytical examination of lyrics, of melodies, of context, or of history can demarcate the ethereal presence of the music. It is there waiting on the next generation. As it continues to drift through the airwaves, rock and roll creeps into every crevice of America. Long live the music … and, of course, the beat.

“Just, let me hear some of that rock 'n' roll music
Any old way you choose it
It's got a back beat, you can't lose it
Any old time you use it
It's gotta be rock 'n' roll music
If you wanna dance with me”

“Rock and Roll Music,” Chuck Berry