The Third Rail of ALM

 I still don't know, re Harris's favored DNA.  African, right? -- or not?  Person of color is sort of non-specific -- or, if you will, exclusive.

["***."  What, like Cherokee, like Elizabeth Warren?  "***!"  What do you mean, 'hate speech'. You're  kidding.  "***!  ***."  Then what about 'Indian Gaming' -- it's their own term for cripe sake.  "***.  ***."  That's ridiculous. "***!  ***."  So I suppose it's, Native South Asian?  "***.  ***."  And this is important to people?  "***!"  Yeah I get that.  But it goes both ways.  "***.  ***."  I think that demonstrates a lack of understanding and information, about history and about human nature.  "***!"  Yeah, well, whatever.  One of us is disagreeing with reality.  "***!  ***!  And I suppose...  "***!"]

My, that was unpleasant.  But moving on.  

Of course it's racism, picking a favorite, privileging it.  It's absurd even to call it "reverse racism".  That would be the reverse of racism -- not color-blind, not tolerance or acceptance, but indifference.  As of a trait that is simply insignificant and literally meaningless.  Like freckles or attached earlobes.  

Race is a meaningless word anyway.  We mean ethnicity or culture, as in the Rwandan genocide, with the black Hutu massacring the black Tutsi because of no reason at all.  Well, yes, racism, if we let that word mean vicious hatred of superficialities.  The way the English hated the Irish, long ago.  

So it's not that turnabout is fair play.  Cowardice and decadence are fair play.  Bullying and hypocrisy are fair play.  For everyone, always, everywhere.  Because that's how inevitability works.  Human nature is like this.  Ape nature is like this.  Primate brains are wired for fairness and for revenge.  

The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, but they were in charge in the slavery South.  Different lunatics, but same human nature.  Why do they do it?  Because they can.  It's a choice, like abortion.  It's equality, like making no effort but being entitled.

So now Disney, the angriest place on Earth, is teaching hatred to kids -- Disney plus, like lgbq whatever plus.  The Proud Family, snarling a vicious rap about how black racism is good -- repartitions equal empowerment.  Ungawament. (Before your time.)  If it were really children performing, well, they only know what they're taught.  It's adult black bigots and white lefties and sorry to all haters of other "colors" I'm leaving out -- I just don't feel like making that long a list. Is that offensive?

Black is beautiful, but not more beautiful, or less beautiful.  Sorry, I know that's like saying All Lives Matter.   Another sitcom -- N Lear presents, All in the Proud Modern American Family.  But take out the American -- too racist to be ironic.

Given our color-based theme, I suppose snowflake would not be the apt term for the critically racist theoreticians of color.  Something else, fragile and insubstantial but, gauchely, color coordinated.  Neopolitan cotton candy?  The -politan resonance works.  But, color isn't right either.  Critical Color Theory.  Honesty, I have to say it.  Ultra-neo-post-Marxism.  What color is Marxism?  Red of course and that doesn't work.  Rainbow then.  Except they don't have black in their flag.  

So, everybody.  A full spectrum, from an absolute absence of light, then a stirring of super-ultra violate I mean violet, right on through to infinite red.  But, yet, somehow, because this inclusiveness is so very divided into bands, it can never come together, united if you will, into the horror of unforgivable whiteness.  No vanilla, in our neopolitan.

That's what equality is, to the UNePoMers.  Compliance, and no disagreement allowed.  No preferences -- excepting the necessary correction, of a dispreference for what some are pleased to call white.  And do not stop apologizing, because it will never be accepted.

We prefer the term people with no color.  Tannables is allowed, but we don't like transparent. 

Regarding the Preferred -- because we've changed our minds about that, and agree that it's a good thing -- in Hillary's Bouquet of Preferables, would Jews count? -- or is it The Jews.  And, um, the Asians?  Only the non-achievers.  The affirming action of achievement is replaced by capitalized Affirmative Action, administered via the coercive power of Federal and State government, albeit not via the Constitution.  

And by the way, "a lack of understanding and information" is a polite way of saying stupid and ignorant.  

The many successive name-changings is, are understandable.  It's like pronouns -- generally, young people trying to set themselves apart and fit in.  I'm special.  Given the reality of racist oppression, a demand for self-assertion, for agency is a healthy stage of development.  And each generation does it -- anyone remember afro-american?  

My point re "non-achievers" is that, I would expect people with real self-respect and developed character to not latch onto a label of corporate helplessness, which inherently assumes victim status.  Once they've thought about it, achievers identify with cooperative individualism.  They are overcomers.  People of color is the most binary label there is.  All of us people, and you.  

And, hasn't that affirming clock just about run out?  LBJ had a dream.  Isn't our Society Great yet?  Something was wrong with his gigantic-government dream.  It should have focused on character, rather than entitlements.

Am I cutting too close to the bone?  It's just my unhappy childhood, abused as I was by being taught to believe in individualism.  This is a too-complex subject.  Not a subject at all.  Power, entitlement, ability, oppression -- the Romans had it as right as it could be.  Slaves could become senators, and emperors.  But there were slaves.  That's not right.  It's just universal.  

Let's be alphabetical.  Lives that Matter:

All ... no, Asian, and Black, and ... Caucasian, and, um, Drug-addict, Eskimo ...  hm, I suppose that's far enough.  Too far.  All I can think of is "fag".  That's not included in the alphabet identities, is it. LGBTTQQIAAP  Lives Matter.  L+LM.  But no F.  Is that offensive?  And why do the Lesbians get to be first?  Pushy much?  I said pushy.

If I were gay, I'd call myself a fag.  It would be my n-word -- I'd take it back.  

Do you think I wouldn't?  I grew up with it.  That, and individualism.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time writing these posts.  They don't show up on a search.  Even if you're there, I don't feel heard.  I'm like Lucifer shouting at God from a mountaintop in hell.

J