They say Donald Trump is off the hinges
because when he speaks the public cringes
as if he has no sense of limits.
He must have devout commitments
to irrationality and non-sense.
His statements are so absurd,
you don’t need context.
They ask: is he compensating for something?
Does he have a Napoleon Complex?
The media pretends he is a character from Star Trek.
But Trump’s ideas are not an aberration,
they are standard operation for this racist nation.
He learned from the way millions of Africans were kidnapped and held as slaves.
He learned from the way millions of Native Americans
suffered genocide and were raped.
He learned from the internment of the Japanese.
He learned from American foreign policies
that destroyed Latin America and brought the Middle East to its knees.
Trump is simply America taken to its logical extreme.
By Darryl Walker Jr
(c) Copyright 2016
Zone of Non-being 
October 21, 2016 at 5:11 pm
Not its LOGICAL extreme, but it’s worse-case-scenario extreme. It’s ultimately ILLOGICAL extreme.
Why hate people for what WE DID TO THEM?
This is not where — as a nation and a culture — were were heading. Hopefully, after this … thing … or whatever we are calling this hideous election … we will remember our manners. Remember ourselves. Recover our civility. Recall some history. We do not have to hate everyone because it’s bad, ugly, and immoral. Also counter-productive and ends us up with even less than we had before.
We all know, those of us who pay attention to history and the undercurrents of our culture, that there is a lot of anger and resentment in this country. IN THIS WORLD. Why human beings find some kind of … what, solace? joy? comfort? … in hating other people for not being the same as them has never made any sense to me. I have never understood it. If I’m going to bother to hate someone, it’s going to be entirely personal. But hating whole races? Entire religions? Continents? Seriously?
It’s ugly, it’s wrong, it’s evil … and to me, ultimately, it’s insane and self-destructive.
LikeLiked by 3 people
October 21, 2016 at 5:44 pm
Hello Marilyn! Thank you for the support and your thoughtful commentary! I certainly agree!
Allow me to explain why I chose the word “logical” instead of “illogical”.
Too often, we say monstrous people are “freaks of nature” who acted illogically, unreasonably, and irrationally. The problem is: we never question what logic, reason, and rationality ARE. I contend that what we call logic, reason, and rationality are problematic.
Lets look at the word logic. The etymology is “logos”, which means “reason, speaking and words”. We should not take this granted. We live in the New World (post 1492). The native tongues of Africans were destroyed by slave masters. Thus, slaves were not allowed to speak or think in a different way than their masters. Logic, reason, and rationality are the rules of a white supremacist, anti black society. From the perspective of the slave, logic is racist and racism is embedded in logic. When we say something is illogical, we are assuming the perspective of the master.
Here is an example: the black revolutionary and scholar, Frantz Fanon, remarked on reason by saying: “it played cat and mouse with me. When I walked into a room, it left”. Interestingly, Fanon spoke French – and “reason” translates to “la raison”, which is feminine. Now, if a black man walks into a room and reason walks out, what can he do? Force it to stay?! A black man forcing a white woman to stay!? Sounds a bit rape-y.
Reason and logic are white concepts. Trump is logical in his racism. And that is the problem. We need to unhinge racism from logic and rationality/reason instead of just saying racism is illogical or irrational/unreasonable.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 2:30 pm
I think it is just a question of semantics. No one controls the meaning of a world. I think you have to examine the entire person when considering the words they have chosen with which to express themselves and if i’m not mistaken, you and Marilyn are pretty much on the same wave length. Maddeningly, the definition of literally has now expanded to also mean figuratively. Thus, a word has been allowed to become its opposite as well as itself. Sets my teeth on edge, but this I guess is evolution in language.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 2, 2016 at 2:40 pm
I agree, different people use language differently. The meaning of words is constantly in fluctuation. I agree with you from a post-structuralist perspective.
But I do not think Marilyn and I are on the same wavelength. Marilyn is saying Donald Trump is a monster we have not seen before. She is saying his words/actions are aberrations from the norm – she is saying they are illogical. I am saying the opposite: I am saying Donald Trump’s thoughts and actions are a reflection of the norm, and that he is behaving logically. In other words, I am saying that what we call “logical” IS violent. We need to question logic itself.
Remember: the slave masters went into Africa and kidnapped millions of people because the Bible told them to do it. Slavery was logical. Killing Native Americans was logical. Throwing Jews in gas chambers was logical. All of this logic is the problem.
When we say stuff is “illogical”, we are missing the point completely.
Does that make sense? I am thinking about writing a longer, more detailed post about this. What do you think? This is a nuanced perspective so it may merit a more detailed treatment.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 5:15 pm
I am saying that you just have a different definition of what is logical but I can agree that Mr. Trump is the norm. He is reflective of a tendency that seems to be in the ascendancy at the moment, but these things fluctuate. I think to brand something as logical implies that the action itself makes some sort of sense. It may be explainable without it itself being logical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 2, 2016 at 5:58 pm
I understand.
It does make sense … for America. Saying it makes sense does not mean it is ethical or moral or legal – it just means it is consistent and woven into the fabric of everyday life.
A rapist who beats a woman makes sense considering he has a long history of these actions. Debating morality, ethicality, and legality are wholly separate discussions.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 6:05 pm
Do you understand what I am saying? From the perspective of whites, they think it is logical to oppress blacks. From the perspective of men, they think it is logical to oppress women. From the perspective of bosses, they think it is logical to oppress workers.
Of course, we can say the inferior classes think it is “illogical” – but in every structure, the perspective of the powerful group determines what will happen. Whites, men, and capitalists have ideological control. So the perspectives of blacks, women, and workers does not properly “matter”.
This is why it makes no sense to say it is illogical. If we keep saying it is illogical, all we are doing is trying to make it more logical. But this is what the oppressing class wants: logical oppression! We become collaborators with oppression.
We have to tackle the way the powerful group legitimizes it: that oppression is logical. We have to smash the logical/illogical dichotomy and implement a new way of being
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 8:49 pm
Hope you aren’t saying all whites have the same perspective toward other races. Some of us are fascinated by differences and then in pursuing them find that all types of people are everywhere. The first time in my life I ever felt totally accepted was in Africa and although I loved the different cultures and people in them, I learned a hard lesson in discovering all types were represented, as in every country I’ve ever visited. The same is true of Mexico, and I choose its ills over the ills of the U.S. The definition of logic is “sound reasoning,” and just because someone thinks something is logical does not make it so. I could never accept the lynching of an innocent person as being logical, no matter how sure a KKK member might think it so. So, again, I don’t disagree with your premise. Just with your usage of words and your seeming stereotyping of “Whites.” This sounds confrontative and I do not mean for it to be at all, Darryl. I appreciate the dialogue. I look forward to your posting on this topic. I’m following you so should see it. This is an extremely busy time for me, however, so if I happen to miss it in the Reader and if you don’t see a comment from me, I’d appreciate your sending a link.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 2, 2016 at 9:43 pm
Hello Judy! Here are a few points. I am not offended by your statements. Thanks for the dialogue:
1. It is not productive to individualize whites and talk about the ways each person is different. I know everyone is separate, but for analytical and methodological purposes, we need to analyze them as monoliths. The reason is because racism is not about individuals, it is about groups of people. Racism is a system that grants power and privileges to white people as a group, at the expense of non-whites as groups.
So when I speak of “whites”, I am talking about their collective POWER over non-whites. This is not a stereotype, this is a political, economic, and social fact. I am not referring to you or any particular individual. I am referring to a system.
2. There will always be exceptions to the rule. During slavery there were free blacks; during Jim Crow there were black mayors; during mass incarceration there is a black president. Pointing out the individual exceptions is an attempt to skate around the fact that black people are systematically oppressed as a group. When we bring up individuals, we lose sight of the group. This is a typical window dressing strategy whereby one person is elevated above the struggling masses so as to disenfranchise everyone else.
Pointing out that a white person is an exception is disingenuous – because it is an attempt to escape an analysis of power.
3. No matter how many times we interact non-whites, go to non-white lands, and profess anti-racism, we still harbor white supremacist attitudes in very covert ways. I am a black man with white supremacist attitudes, and can admit it, so you should be able to, as well. We ALL have work to do, not just white folks.
4. You said that logic is defined as “sound reasoning”. Fair enough. Consider the following word problem:
A. Tyrone is innocent
B. Innocent people get lynched
C. Therefore, Tyrone gets lynched.
This argument is logically sound. The conclusion follows from its premises. Stating you “could never accept the lynching of an innocent person” is a declaration of MORALITY, not logic. You are conflating the two. Logic is cold and calculated – it does not have to be moral. On the other hand, morality has a heartbeat and is human – it does not have to be logical. My statement that Trump’s thoughts and actions are logical was very precise: I am saying that given the premises of American life, Trump being the presented conclusion makes total sense. He fits the script perfectly. Any objection to this argument is based moreso on moral grounds. We may not like him, or like America (I don’t like either!), but they are a match made in heaven.
5. I agree with you: I condemn Trump. I am, in no way, shape or form, attempting to endorse him or rationalize anything. From a moral perspective, he is one of the worst things to happen to this country in a very long time. If he gets elected, the US is in a world of trouble.
6. I will be sure to send you the link once it is up =)
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 10:10 pm
A. Tyrone is innocent
B. Innocent people get lynched
C. Therefore, Tyrone gets lynched.
In order for your syllogism to work you would have to say “All innocent people get lynched.”
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 10:19 pm
How is “all innocent people” qualitatively different than “innocent people”?
Your previous message invalidates this one, in that case. I said “white people” and then you took me to task for stereotyping ALL white people. So, by your own reasoning, “white people” and “all white people” are exactly the same … which means “innocent people” and “all innocent people” are exactly the same!
I trust that you understand my point.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm
I will likely combine all of these responses into a new post, so thank you for challenging me on this Judy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 2, 2016 at 8:38 pm
That’s a big part of blogging–the conversations that take place afterwards.. You are very welcome. Nice to meet you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 2, 2016 at 8:39 pm
Nice to meet you as well 😀
LikeLike