MLK Jr. Would Not Accuse Trump's "shi*thole" Comment as Racist, but "Racial Ignorance" (DMR)


I know that I’m going to start a firestorm with this post, but I think that this is a conversation worth having. It seems that not a day passes that headlines don’t carry news of accusations of racism. To be sure, racism certainly is alive and well; I do not want to give the impression that I’m downplaying that reality. It is alive, and it cuts more than one way.

That said, I think that the frequency of knee-jerk, reactionary accusations of racism against people for equivocal remarks causes society to be far too sensitive and even unable to recognize true racism when it manifests. (In other words, if everything is racist, then nothing is racist.) It diminishes attempts to address indisputable and/or egregious displays of racism, thus undermining the very goal it means to achieve.

Yes, I have in mind Donald Trump’s calling Haiti and African nations “sh*tholes.” To be sure, I am NOT excusing that remark. Should he have said it? Absolutely not. Was it Presidential? No.

Was it a racist remark though? I’m not so sure–certainly not sure enough that I think it should dominate headlines as such. Trump is a tactless man with a small vocabulary, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he communicates this way on a broad range of topics, including on many that are not even tangentially related to race. Furthermore, he did not proactively bring up Haiti or African nations, and he probably wasn’t talking only about them (Central America also apparently was an intended target). His remarks were in response to their being mentioned both in the immigration bill and orally in the meeting.

Additionally, Trump’s remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries–at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems.

In order for that to be a racist idea, it would need to be discriminatory and wrong. It isn’t though. There is a reason that Americans aren’t beating down the doors of Africa in an attempt to move there.

It is invariably true that Haiti and a large number of African nations have problems that would lead many good, accepting, open-minded people to think–perhaps in different words–what Trump said. Race and tribal warfare. Religious violence. Rape as a weapon. Infanticide. Economic and kinetic warfare against populations by their own governments. Apartheid (until appallingly recently). Extremely high unemployment rates. The use of women and children as instruments of terrorism. Abject poverty. AIDS.

Do these describe all of Africa? No. Do they apply to all African countries? No. One or a combination of them do, however, apply to a too-large number of African countries–disproportionately so. There is much to love about Africa. The picture there is far from universally negative, but it remains true that problems like these are relatively more prevalent there.

This is not to say that there is anything lesser or inadequate about Africans themselves. There isn’t. They are victims of extremely poor governance and of circumstances that frequently are beyond their control. They need our help. Alleged Trump racism isn’t what’s causing these problems though. Extractive, kleptocratic leadership in many African countries is the primary cause of these problems. (For example, can one really look at the Congo and at its horrendous leadership and objectively believe that only racism could possibly cause someone to develop a negative opinion of it?)Additionally, Trump’s remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries–at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems.

Trump should not have said what he did for many reasons, including the reality that it will probably harm our relations with some African countries. The remark was cold and unwarranted. Was it racist though? I don’t think that we can say for sure that it was.

I agree with Martin Luther King, Jr: Trump’s remark probably wasn’t a sign of racism. Rather, it was probably just a sign of “racial ignorance.”

Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn’t cost you a penny more at checkout!


View RSS feed

Source: Liberty LOL – MLK Jr. Would Not Accuse Trump's "shi*thole" Comment as Racist, but "Racial Ignorance" (DMR)

FPF #141 – Trump Says Mean Things

On FPF #141, I discuss the media’s reaction to Trump’s alleged statement on Africa and Haiti. ‘The Resistance’ was flabbergasted by the fact that Trump would say something so rude. However, US policy has caused genocide, famine, refugee crisis, slavery, epidemic, war, failed states, and countless war crimes that have gone unnoticed. I look at some of the real crimes and problems US presidents have caused across Africa and the Middle East. I talk about Trump saying within the Nuclear Agreement with Iran. I also update North Korea, Yemen, and Pakistan. 

Debunking Iran myths show

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #141 – Trump Says Mean Things

Libertopia’s First Video: The Top 10 of Leftism!

Happy 2018! We’re starting out the new year with Libertopia’s first video – The Top 10 of Leftism! If you’ve ever wondered how you can be a super awesome leftist, then you’ll want to check out our crazy list of top 10 qualities. Start your amazing journey today! This comedic parody video is non stop laughs!

Want to get in on the fun? Thoughts on leftism, social justice warriors, trigglypuff, snowflakes, male patriarchy, cake baking, progressivism, art censorship, bernie sanders, leftist lunacy, statism, national socialism, murray rothbard, voluntaryism… or any other topic on your mind? Leave us a comment! Also, be sure to let us know if you’re an artist or creative who would like to be featured in an interview, or have your artwork displayed on our site! You can also check out Libertopia’s own artwork page here, download our 60 page art ebook at Libertopia: Collection One (which is on sale for 99 cents, and features a lot of our libertarian / ancap cartoons, infographics, essays and awesome artwork) or check out our unique t-shirts, coffee cups and so much more over at the libertopia store!

Source: Libertopia Cartoon – Libertopia’s First Video: The Top 10 of Leftism!

Dash and Trump's Twitter part 2 – ABS033

Hey Guys! It’s time for the Ancap Barber Shop yet again!   Co-host Adam is absent from this episode, so Scott, Dave, and Tanner take it away. They’ve moved back to Scott’s house due to the harsh Alabama cold driving them out of Adam’s loft. For the first climate-controlled episode in quite a while the ancap barber boys will be discussing Dash and Trump’s twitter (yet again).    The Ancap Barber Shop is starting a book club! We’ll begin with “Anatomy of the State” by Murray Rothbard. If you’ve never read it, it’s one of the most widely distributed essays ever penned, or more likely typed, by the enemy of the state. It comes highly recommended and we hope that you will follow along with us by reading the first chapter prior to the release of the next episode, in which we will discuss chapter 1, “What the state is not.” You can find a link to the free PDF or audiobook here. Additionally, if you would like to order a paper copy they are very reasonably priced, and you can find them here.   In our first segment, we are discussing Dash. We’ve included a few links below, including the Wikipedia page, the coinmarketcap profile and a lecture on Dash by Juan Galt at Anarchapulco 2016.   In our second segment, we discuss some of the Twitter beef between the alleged president of the allegedly united states and Kim Jong Un, the supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (the northern one, not the more capitalist South Korea). We’re wary to even include the links to the articles we read from, due to how “low energy” they are, sad…   Yet here they are, of course:   We hope you enjoy this episode, and please do remember to read the first chapter of “Anatomy of the State”.    lastly, a big THANK YOU!!! to our patrons. 
Source: The AnCap Barbershop – Dash and Trump's Twitter part 2 – ABS033

Subverting the Culture War Feat. Trey of Subversion Ep. 49

This Saturday I drove over to Eden Prairie to meet Trey, host of the Subversion Webcast. Trey and I are the first members of the Libertarian Union podcasting group to meet face to face! We had a great visit and sat down to discuss a plethora of topics, including libertarians in the culture war, libertarian drama,  net neutrality, agorism, and our resepctive experiences with the criminal justice system. We hope you enjoy our chat as much as we enjoyed recording it!

Subscribe to the Subversion Webcast!

Episode 49 of the Liberty Weekly Podcast is brought to you by:

The Liberty Weekly Amazon Affiliate Link

Our new Murray Rothbard “Enemy of the State” polygon line of merchandise! 15% OFF w/ Promo code: ROTHBARD

Our Liberty Classroom Affiliate Link

The Liberty Weekly Patreon Page: help support the show and gain access to tons of bonus content! Become a patron today!

Become a Patron! 

The post Subverting the Culture War Feat. Trey of Subversion Ep. 49 appeared first on Liberty Weekly.

Source: Liberty Weekly – Subverting the Culture War Feat. Trey of Subversion Ep. 49

Ep. 24 – AG Sessions, Reefer Madness, And The War On Drugs

itunes pic

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is using his position in order to bring attention to his old-fashioned, dangerous view that marijuana is a BAD drug that needs to be prohibited and controlled by the Federal Government.

Jeff and Tony discuss the growing trend of Americans becoming cannabis-friendly.   Also discussed:

1. A comparison of the War on Drugs to Alcohol Prohibition
2. New Hampshire’s attempts to legalize recreational marijuana
3. The failure of the Drug War and the damage it has caused over the decades

Recorded 1/9/18 –

Click here for The Ron Paul Institute’s in depth take.

Watch Dope on Netflix –

Fortune Magazine asks if legalizing all drugs is the solution –

The Boston Globe Reports On The Issue

Milton Friedman Disucsses Why Drugs Should Be Legal

Support the show at

Source: Don’t Waste Your Hate Podcast – Ep. 24 – AG Sessions, Reefer Madness, And The War On Drugs

Psychiatric association disavows Bandy Lee’s arm-chair diagnoses of Trump

Earlier this week, I reported on the questionable remarks to the media and members of Congress by Bandy Lee, a Yale psychiatrist who raised doubts Donald Trump’s mental fitness to serve as President. Lee also edited a book that included essays from 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts making the same argument.

In that article, I asked whether the American Psychiatric Association was going to address this situation, seeing that a member of theirs was using her profession as a cover for a soft coup.

Fortunately, the answer came swift and strong.

As the Washington Examiner reports:

The American Psychiatric Association urged members of its profession to uphold its decades-long principle that psychiatrists should never offer diagnostic opinions about people they haven’t personally examined, in light of President Trump’s impending medical exam and questions about his mental fitness.

“We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media,” the group wrote. “Arm-chair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.”

The rebuke came Tuesday as politicians and members of the media were ratcheting up their rhetoric about Trump’s mental health. Earlier in the day, Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle unveiled legislation that would require presidential candidates to have a medical exam and publicly disclose the results before the general election. Joe Scarborough also has said on his MSNBC program “Morning Joe” that Trump has dementia, and more than a dozen lawmakers have discussed Trump with a Yale University psychiatrist who said that Trump was “going to unravel, and we are seeing the signs.” The psychiatrist, Dr. Brandy Lee, who has not examined Trump, edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, which includes testimonials from 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts.

But the association reminded its members that one of its core principles, known as the “Goldwater Rule,” has been in place since 1973 and states that psychiatrists should not publicly issue medical opinions about people they haven’t personally examined in a medical context.

“The Goldwater Rule … makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement,” Dr. Saul Levin, the group’s CEO and medical director, said in a statement. “APA stands behind this rule.”

While the APA’s statement didn’t call out Lee specifically, it is abundantly clear that the organization had Lee in mind. Further, Lee did not need to be reminded of the Goldwater Rule. CNN raised it with Lee, who came up with vague rationalizations to justify raising doubts about Trump’s mental capacity.

Interestingly, Trump addressed this issue head on by letting cameras into a meeting discussing immigration policy. As Politico reports:

For nearly an hour Tuesday, President Donald Trump presided over an unusually public negotiating session on the subject of immigration, running the meeting while TV cameras rolled in an apparent effort to knock down reports that he is less than a fully capable commander-in-chief.

Surrounded by 25 lawmakers inside the Cabinet Room, Trump held court over the meeting, alternately inviting Democrats and Republicans — by name — to address the bipartisan group. He ran point for 55 minutes over a relatively free-flowing discussion between lawmakers about the future of the DACA program, border security and the possibility of immigration reform.

This was a brilliant move. What better way for him to show whether he is mentally fit by opening up a meeting to show him at work.

In any event, it is encouraging to see the psychiatry profession decide to not get dragged into a soft coup.

Whether the media and other politicos decide to drop this idiotic issue is another question entirely.

I’ll take the under.

The post Psychiatric association disavows Bandy Lee’s arm-chair diagnoses of Trump appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Psychiatric association disavows Bandy Lee’s arm-chair diagnoses of Trump

FPF #140 – Fighting the War State with Mike Maharrey

On Foreign Policy Focus #140, Mike Maharry joins the show to discuss how to fight the war state with the 10th Amendment. Mike discuss an effort to prevent future torture, limiting the federal governments use of the National Guard, stopping the arming of American police, and shutting down NSA surveillance. Mike Maharrey is the Communications Director at the Tenth Amendment Center and author of Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #140 – Fighting the War State with Mike Maharrey

2017 in Retrospect

What begins as a retrospective look at the show over the past year, quickly turns into an episode devoted to yours truly’s pet issue, foreign policy.  I will provide some key pieces of information that has helped form my understanding of the geopolitical quagmire in the Middle East/North-East Africa region, with a lot of help from clips made my various other media outlets.

Who are the big players, why each faction leverages power against each other, and under which proxies.  These are the big questions we need to be asking ourselves, and there’s a lot to unravel.  Consider this setting a precedent for 2018’s trajectory as a show, where you can expect to see more of the curtain be pulled back, as we subvert the gatekeepers of narrative.

Source: Subversion – 2017 in Retrospect

The Economist makes stuff up on states rights

states rights

It’s certainly understandable when foreigners don’t understand the different roles between the federal and state governments under the U.S. Constitution, especially when few Americans understand it themselves. However, perhaps charity isn’t the best attitude when dealing with a foreign magazine that really should know better.

For example, The Economist‘s latest issue includes an editorial about California’s new law liberalizing marijuana use. Unfortunately, the magazine’s understanding of states rights is simply a mess.

State activism is often confused with an argument that sounds similar but is fundamentally different. To many American ears, the notion that states should do their own thing has an echo of secession, the “states’ rights” defence of slavery made before the civil war and the resistance to federal civil-rights laws in the 1960s. To be clear: states do not have an innate right to resist federal laws, which is why California’s position on immigration enforcement, which comes close to non-compliance with the federal government, is mistaken. The federal government does often need to step in on questions of fundamental importance, such as who can vote in elections.

But in many areas, particularly in social policy, it makes sense for the states to have plenty of leeway. When mistakes are made, as they inevitably will be, the damage is limited to the state or city that did the experimenting. When new laws do succeed, they can be copied across the country.

What is absent from The Economist‘s analysis is any understanding about where the respective scopes of the federal and state governments.

In essence, the activities of the federal government under the Constitution is limited to Article 1, Section 8, which, according to Brion McClanahan, is essentially focused on common defense and commerce. States are otherwise free to address any issues outside of that scope. That would also include immigration. As McClanahan writes:

You see, immigration was long considered a State issue. Jefferson said as much in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. A State like Texas could, at least according to the original Constitution, build its own wall and craft its own strict rules on immigration and state citizenship. That includes voting. The Constitution is clear that States determine who can vote as long as the distinction is not made on the basis of race, sex, age over 18, and the requirement of a poll tax. They can prohibit aliens from voting.

In other words, whether the state can act on a particular issue has nothing to do with the sensitive feelings of those who don’t know American history, and everything to do whether the state has the legal authority to do so. A state has every right to “resist federal laws”, especially when they overstep the rights of its citizens. All the American civil war proved was that the North was military and economically more capable of overcoming the South’s desire to secede from the Union. Force does not negate an argument. States today have as much a right to nullify unconstitutional federal law, or secede from the United States, as they did when the Constitution was ratified in 1788.

The Economist clearly demonstrated that it understands none of this, notwithstanding its support for California’s liberalized pot laws. Unfortunately, given my previous rants about the magazine, this is not a surprise in the slightest.

The post The Economist makes stuff up on states rights appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – The Economist makes stuff up on states rights