On Leadership And Racism

After giving Trump’s Inaugural Address a couple of days to marinate, the one bit that stuck with me was this:

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

If you wish to lead people from A to B, you need to do two things.

• You need to convince them that B is far superior to A, that A is not acceptable and B is much better, and

• You need to paint a believable picture of the path from A to B.

People will want to go somewhere if they think it is sufficiently better than where they are, and to get on board the bus they need to see a road to the new place that they think is actually possible. If you can provide them with those two things, and they believe you, you can lead them from A to B.

Now, because he knows how to sell a deal, Trump began this process of leadership with the first sentence of the speech, viz:

We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people.

trump-inauguration-iiNo messing around, there’s the final goal, first thing out of the box—a rebuilt and restored country. He shows that B is superior to A by the phrases “rebuild our country” and “restore its promise”. Both of these contain the implicit assumption that something that is “rebuilt” and “restored” is far superior to its original condition.

A couple of points about technique. Note that the first word is “we”. He is establishing the nature of the discussion. It’s about “we”, about everyone.

Note also that he does not propose that we join together in a great national effort—he tells us that the great national effort is already underway!

The new Captain is nothing if not audacious … one sentence into the speech and we’re shanghaied, he casually notifies us we’ve already set sail on a new adventure.


In any case, he next emphasized this difference between B and A, that B (a rebuilt and restored USA) is better than A (the current situation) by talking about today’s conditions in brutally realistic terms:

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge; and the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This passage led a number of commentators to describe the speech as “dark”. This represents a total misunderstanding of what is going on. He needs to get people to board his bus to a better future, and for them to do that, the current situation needs to be undesirable. Today’s conditions cannot be described in the dulcet golden wonderful tones the commentators seem to desire … because then people would have no reason to join the movement to improve the current situation.

So that is the reason for the two tones of the address, of a dark today and a bright tomorrow. While this contrast has puzzled the commentators, Trump knows that showing that the present is bad and the future is much better is central to getting people moving.

Now, Trump is no fool. He knows that he needs to get everyone behind him. He also knows he faces a huge problem on the road to that bright future of bringing the US together—racism and prejudice. Ugly, but there it is.

He needs to appeal to everyone, but he knows that scattered among his supporters are a number of white folks who range from the minor kind of unconscious white racists who simply don’t know when they are being insulting, all the way across the spectrum to the Aryan white power lunatics who read the Diaries of Nat Turner and believe in the coming race war and their inherent white-guy superiority.

Here’s the odd part. I grew up with these people. I know them well. Setting aside their peculiar racial monomania, most often they are good folk, patriotic and proud, full of energy, often outdoor people, dedicated to their families, and in general flag-waving Christian good old boys and girls, salt of the earth. I don’t know how racism fits with Christianity, but humans are endlessly ingenious …

And that racism and prejudice is a big problem, because there are more of those prejudiced folks in the US than either you or I might think. Put on your hip boots and turn over some rocks on the internet and you’ll get your eyebrows singed by their ranting, they are only a few clicks away. And it’s not just white folk, there are racists of all shades in our lovely land.

So … there is the puzzle. He wants to bring all the US together … but how do you stop a bunch of otherwise rational racists from being racist for long enough that they can stop and look around and notice that it is 2017? Even if they are your followers you can’t just say “Snap out of it, suckers!”

With all of that as prelude and context, I’d like you to take another look at Trump’s statement I quoted above:

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

Ah, that sneaky Donald! He’s grabbed them where they are most vulnerable. He’s realized that the racists are mostly flag-waving Constitution-worshipping patriotic folk, so he is giving them a patriotic path out of racism that is decent and honorable. He is speaking directly to his followers, and telling them in a most enticing manner that there is a way out of their prejudice.

Guess where he goes next in his speech …

The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity. 

Commenters have seen this as filler in his speech, simple Biblical pabulum for the masses. It is nothing of the sort. The Donald knows his audience. He is telling them that both patriotism and Christianity say that there is no room for prejudice, no room for racism, no room for hatred.

Consider the genius of this. He’s attacking the undeniable racism, large or small, of many of his patriotic Christian followers with a one-two punch of the Flag and the Bible. It’s a combination which they cannot resist because of who they are, and he knows it because he knows them.

Not only that, but he is offering them a way out of racism and pushing them hard in that direction, and more amazing, doing it without accusing a single one of them of being a racist … and best of all, rather than resenting or resisting his chastising them, they are loving him for it.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Finally, he binds it all together by acknowledging the differences, and finishes (as he should) by pointing again to the final goal, the shining city on a hill, that desirable future of a restored and rebuilt America:

We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

How odd this world is. Trump’s followers take him very seriously. As a result, I’d wager that Trump has just done more to reduce and defang the racism and prejudice among millions of patriotic Christian white people than any other single action I know of … and almost nobody noticed. Well, nobody but his patriotic Christian white followers noticed … and you never, ever see them on TV being asked their opinion.

One final point. He’s done a curious shifting of the goalposts here. He started by uniting people through patriotism. He then moved to uniting them through Christianity.

And now, here in the conclusion, the goal has nothing to do with patriotism or Christianity. Now the goal is the uniting itself, pursuing solidarity among all Americans.

Leadership. Go figure.

What a time to be alive!

My very best to everyone, saint and sinners, sharks and dolphins, inlaws and outlaws, white, black, and all the colors of humanity—I do think we can pull this off.


41 thoughts on “On Leadership And Racism

    • “He’s attacking the undeniable racism, large and small, of many of his patriotic Christian followers with a one two punch of flag and Bible”.

      Many are “cultural” Christians who see no conflict between racism and Christianity. Only when one enters into a personal relation with Jesus and become one in Him do we stop seeing skin color and see others as loved by God and made in his image and likeness. Jesus takes away our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. Blessings


      • Regards, Newkid. Unfortunately, things are a bit more complex. For example, pre-Civil War slave owners would certainly have assured you that they had a “personal relation with Jesus” and that Jesus had “taken away their heart of stone” … they would assuredly have argued that they are just as true a Christian as you are, and yet they owned other human beings.

        So while it is comforting to think that people cannot be true Christians and be racists, history says otherwise … in my experience traveling around the planet, it is not at all uncommon for people to happily hold two totally contradictory beliefs for a lifetime.

        Thank you for the thoughts, and also for the blessings,



        • Willis: “Unfortunately, things are a bit more complex . . . yet they owned other human beings. So while it is comforting to think that people cannot be true Christians and be racists, history says otherwise … ”

          Well, it’s even more complex than that. ‘Racism’ as the term is used today, in part as an ill-defined descriptor of hateful attitudes, in part as an epithet to denigrate political opponents, would have had no meaning for the slave-owners, who saw slavery as part of the natural order of things. Slavery of course is a very ancient institution, by no means restricted historically to other ‘races’, more usually the common fate of losers in wars. Indeed the Africans brought in chains to the Americas were often captured by other Africans and sold to the Europeans. The southern plantation owners would have probably been perfectly happy to own White slaves if it were permitted. And slavery persists today in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

          The notion of ‘race’ has a similarly long and complex history. It was widely accepted until quite recently, even (or especially) amongst the intelligentsia, that Negros were a genetically inferior sort of human, as for that matter were the ‘savage’ Indians (later ennobled in myth and story); Indians were often kept as slaves in pre-Revolutionary America. In a way it was unfortunate that slaves of African descent were physically so different-looking, as it made rules prohibiting the mixing of the Negro and Caucasian ‘races’ easy to enforce (and keep mixed children enslaved), and that gave rise after the Civil War to the idea that even if Blacks couldn’t be kept as slaves, they should inhabit separate communities. And that led in turn to the Jim Crowe attitudes that we now call ‘racist’–when the term is not just an insult.

          So Christians of all eras have been prisoners of the worldviews of their times. For a Colonial Spaniard or an antebellum plantation owner, or even for a eugenicist academic of the 20th century, the ability to deny the common humanity of slaves or the descendents of slaves would not have seemed “contradictory” to Christian belief. All of this history is well-known to Willis, and too far-ranging for incidental comments on a blog thread. My point is that it is overly glib, and misleading, to call these people ‘racist’. The term today ought to be reserved for militant ideologues who argue for ‘separation of the races’, like American Nazis or The Nation of Islam. I think it is unfair to impute hateful motives to honest folk who may have prejudices from the common culture, but not a nasty bone in their bodies.

          For this reason I was very glad that President Trump said “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice,” and not “no room for racism.” It was a carefully thought-out distinction, and an enormously valuable one. I am grateful to Willis for pointing it out.

          /Mr Lynn


          • I simply do not know how else to say this. So, here we go again. Slavery is openly and widely practiced through out Africa, Asia and the entire Middle East, fully sanctioned by the United Nations. How the fuck is that my fault? Please. Be as eloquent and persuasive as you can be and explain how this shit is MY FAULT. Waiting with bated breath, sweety.


          • 2hotel9 January 24, 2017 at 7:08 pm

            I simply do not know how else to say this

            Hotel, thanks for your post, but it was totally incoherent. Who was it that said something was your fault? What did they say was your fault? What was the context? Where did they say it?

            I ask people to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO for a very good reason. Without that quote, I have no clue just what or who it is that has you so exercised.



          • That is the unending mantra from the political left, in America and everywhere else. Slavery is “my” fault because I am white and male. Racism is “my” fault because I am white and male. Grandma’s gout is “my” fault because I am white and male. Stop buying into this crap! Nothing is my fault or your fault because we are white and male. Nobody voted for DJT because of racism, that is complete bullsh*t. Stop repeating it, it is NOT real. The only racists in America today are the leftist ideologues who are endlessly screeching about racism.


          • The endless cacophony coming out of every news source and political commentary source on the planet screeching that everything wrong is the fault of white males is what has me so exercised. None of this is our fault, you, Willis or me. And seeing people who are clearly intelligent enough to know better buying into it makes it even worse.


          • Says 2hotel9: “Nobody voted for DJT because of racism, that is complete bullsh*t. Stop repeating it, it is NOT real. . . ”

            Well, I said nothing of the kind; only that the term ‘racist’ should be reserved for radicals like Nazis or Black Muslims. I was critiquing Willis’s use of the term, suggesting that some of The Trump’s supporters were prejudiced against blacks, which is doubtless true. I doubt very much doubt if that was the main reason most voted for DJT. It certainly wasn’t mine, and I grew up in Maryland, which was not full-blown Jim Crowe, but the schools were certainly segregated (until my senior year, when that began to change). Willis will have to speak for himself.

            /Mr Lynn


        • Thanks for your response to my first venture in commenting.

          I wasn’t addressing slavery. Slavery has been around since Biblical times. My ancestors owned slaves and in those days nobody considered it “racist”. Even affluent blacks owned slaves. In many ways, it was a matter of survival in the early days of our country. Over time we began to see it as wrong and rightly abolished it.

          All of us were raised with preduces of various kinds that we need to deal with, but not all preduces are racist.

          Racism to me is denying freedom and opportunity and respect to people because of their race or skin color. I found the recent women’s march disgusting, crude and vulgar. I can freely say that because most of them were white. I find Black Lived Matter equally repugnant, but if I voice that opinion, I would be considered racist. I object to Muslims flooding into this country and threatening our culture and way of life. That’s not racist, it’s common sense. We are engaged in a spiritual battle between God and Satan, a battle between good and evil, a battle for the souls of men. Time is short and the stakes are high. There is no place for racism or political correctness. Those on the side of good are my brothers and sisters whether they’re pink blue or purple, Those who promote evil of any kind must be opposed. Common sense is not racist. This is a Christian worldview in a nutshell.

          Those with a secular worldview believe we oozed up out of the mud, there is no truth, no right or wrong, and they hate everyone who believes otherwise and consider them racist or bigots. Unfortunately, I, like many others, have friends and family who think that way. Some of them were raised in the Church and still go occasionally. Some even identify as Christians, but they don’t have a Christian worldview. Some have become anti-Christian. (These are the ones who really test us) All we can do is see them as loved by God and pray for them.

          Didn’t mean to preach a sermon. You don’t need to post this. It’s much too long. Blessings


  1. A lot of the time, what I see Trump doing takes on the form of a negotiation. One of the first things to do in a negotiation is to establish areas of common ground. Then, every time the negotiation seems to be foundering, bring the other party back to the common ground.

    What Trump has done is to select a statement of common ground that no American can reject. The leftists may not like the statement, but they can’t deny it because all the people will pick the eyes out of their moldering dead carcasses if they try.


  2. In contrast, Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ could mean something different to everyone, whatever an individual wanted, and produced no common goal to which all could aspire and own.


  3. Unfortunately politics will get in the way of this lofty goal. There will always be those who seek to prosper from the failure of a political enemy and will actively pursue courses of action in order to secure that failure. Who ever is out of power will stop at nothing to get back in power. IMO it is the result of a very strong federal government which tries to enforce its will on the entire country. I believe it is better to have a very limited central government with strong state governments so that government influence on the lives of the population are closer to local needs.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I rather thought the “no room for prejudice” line was intended for the ‘Black Lives Matter’ radicals who are intent upon starting a race war. True, ‘patriotism’ is not a value for the militant Left, but a resurgent America would leave them, gasping and irrelevant, in its wake. At least, I hope so; your interpretation is probably more to the point.

    /Mr Lynn


  5. Amazing Willis, your analysis and mine are exactly the same, except you used different words.

    I used “nice speech”.

    Maybe I should have expanded that a bit?



  6. Off Topic – Willis, I don’t see a section similar to WUWT “Tips & Notes”.

    How can I/we contact you? Or, since you have our emails, prod you to contact us?


  7. The analysis you’ve provided is bulls-eye accurate Willis! the MSM hasn’t a clue about this because of the laziness and insularity of the groupthink that drives their agendas. It is indeed an amazing time to be alive sir.


  8. So Trump supporters are racist. Interesting. All the white women chased down and smashed in the face at Trump rallies last year by Mexican Flag wielding thugs… Trump supporters beating Trump supporters. That’s a new one.


    • Dirk, it appears you’ve made two mistakes.

      First, you seem to think I said all Trump supporters are racists. Totally untrue.

      And next, you seem to think that I said that all racists are Trump supporters. Also miles from the truth.

      I said neither.


      PS—And yes, some Trump supporters are racist.


      • I’m mistaken and not your interpretation of Trump’s words?

        How many is “some”? Enough for Trump to call them out in his inauguration speech? Since those who did not vote for Trump use the flag for a bunch of things besides waving it patriotically? Who are you talking about if not Trump supporters?

        “racists are mostly flag-waving Constitution-worshipping patriotic folk”

        Can you provide a single shred of evidence this is even remotely true?


        • Dirk Gently January 23, 2017 at 8:42 am

          I’m mistaken and not your interpretation of Trump’s words?

          How would I know? You haven’t quoted the interpretation you think is “mistaken”

          How many is “some”? Enough for Trump to call them out in his inauguration speech?

          Trump DID call them out in his inauguration speech, THAT’S WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT!

          Since those who did not vote for Trump use the flag for a bunch of things besides waving it patriotically?

          Huh? That makes no sense.

          Who are you talking about if not Trump supporters?

          Talking about WHERE? Please quote what it is you are rambling on about, I have no clue what the subject of your discussion might be …

          “racists are mostly flag-waving Constitution-worshipping patriotic folk”

          Can you provide a single shred of evidence this is even remotely true?

          No, but you can. Go to the KKK web page, go to any of the Aryan loonies web sites. There you will find guns, hatred, Bibles, more guns, lots of flag-waving, more hatred, and more guns. I’ll pass on going with you, those places tend to angrify my blood …

          Or if you’d prefer something more intellectual, you could start with this:

          Religious People Tend to Be More Racist, Study Finds

          Nolan Kraszkiewicz’s avatar image By Nolan Kraszkiewicz
          March 30, 2013

          An intriguing study conducted by USC examined the connection between religious groups and racism, arriving at a provocative conclusion. The analysis was led by Wendy Wood, provost professor of psychology and business at USC College and the USC Marshall School of Business.

          The purpose of the study is to be “a meta-analytic review of past research evaluated the link between religiosity and racism in the United States since the Civil Rights Act.” The report observed that “members of religious congregations tend to harbor prejudiced views of other races.” The study surveyed over 20,000 white Christians, citing their role as the largest demographic, both in terms of race and religious denomination, in the United States.

          In any case, google is your friend. A search on “patriotism racism” brings up lots of studies, because the two concepts are so similar—”my country is better than yours” is little different in form than “my race is better than yours”.

          So yes, there’s plenty of evidence. However, curiously, I’d never looked in the past for evidence, because I trust my own judgements and my experience. Like I said, I grew up among these people, I know them well. And in fact, my experience is completely supported by the studies.

          Finally, it seems like you are quite upset with my post, but I still have no clue why. This is because you have not quoted what I said that you think is wrong.

          Best regards,



          • Okay, my mistake. I thought you were serious for a minute. Now I get it. This site is like the Onion. Well played!


          • Dirk Gently January 24, 2017 at 12:49 am

            Okay, my mistake. I thought you were serious for a minute. Now I get it. This site is like the Onion. Well played!

            I’m totally serious, and you’re looking a lot like a troll … you’re very close to the edge, Dirk. Let me suggest that you stop whatever game you think you’re playing. It’s not working, and if it continues I won’t hesitate to show you the door.

            In friendship, the opportunity is here if you wish to take it … and the door is here if you wish to take it instead.



          • “flag-waving Constitution-worshipping (sic) patriotic folk” = “gun wielding, bible owning, hatred, flag waving KKK members…”

            Google it!

            OMG! Thank you! Haven’t laughed so hard since Hillary lost. You are priceless Sir! Priceless.


          • @Willis – I think your post is spot on. But in one comment response you say

            ‘”my country is better than yours” is little different in form than “my race is better than yours”.’

            While technically correct that the form of the phrasing is very similar, I see these as worlds apart. I am being specific to the particular wording. Saying “my country is better than yours” says nothing about the people in one country being better than the people in the other. It simply says that the country as a whole, which to me embodies its system of government, way of life, economic system, etc is being claimed to be better. That is an evaluative statement that is not prejudicial. People can disagree on the evaluation, but I do not think it can be likened to someone saying “my race is better than yours” which I find grossly wrong and prejudicial.



  9. Is he a Caesar, soon to be knifed?

    Is he a Claudius, sentimentally attached to the Republic but fated to run an Empire?

    I have such a low opinion of his enemies (they are no mere opponents) that I fear for his survival.


  10. Willis,

    You sort of wrote “.. commentators . . . describe the speech as “dark”. This represents a total misunderstanding of what is going on.

    Here is an example from the press: “At the center of his foreign-policy vision, Donald Trump has put “America first,” a phrase with an anti-Semitic and isolationist history going back to the years before the U.S. entry into World War II.

    At one time some folks might have thought “America First” meant something like that. Why, still, is beyond me. Concurrently the word “gay” meant something akin to happy, or better vivacious. Also, the name of the group advocating for better race relations included, and still does, the word “colored”, and has never had a female (non-interim) leader. American-English is dynamic.
    Further, to the MSM, Jared Kushner married Ivanka Trump, in a Jewish ceremony and seems to be the person The Donald relies on for good judgement.
    Does nobody notice these things?
    The CBS commentators (following the speech) were so upset He did not say what they wanted him to say, they hardly thought of anything to say at all. Clueless bunch. I clicked it off in the middle of the 3rd one.

    Rex Murphy of Canada National Post had a well thought out review of the speech.

    Weather: Looks like you might dry out soon. Best.


  11. Two observations ~

    1 – Mr. Trump’s use of the plural pronouns, such as “We” rather than Mr. Obama’s singular “I”, instills greater inclusiveness, a trait needed if you want to be an effective leader. I guess that’s the difference between a businessman and a community organizer.

    2 – I see that the press is continuing in throwing hissy fits; today, it was all about the new way Spicer conducted the press briefing by breaking with tradition, causing the press to complain that the AP wasn’t called first, as is tradition, or, as I like to mockingly say, “that’s the way we’ve always done things.”


  12. I have watched the speech a couple of times and have yet to find any of the “dark” “anti-semitic” or “racist” items the nattering naybobs of negativity in the media are wailing&gnashing their teeth about. Have not been able to read it yet, been busy last 30 hours dealing with some flooding, will get to it. Your break down of it is most excellent, linking it to a few friends and family. And for those who are tired of the hack&wack edited crap on TV and cable news, here is the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrRJuFGvuwI

    Funny, I can’t make it through 5 minutes of news commentators or the majority of political speeches/press conferences without wanting to gouge my ears out, this guy I can actually listen to. And to be perfectly honest I never especially liked the guy, when he first got in I was a Ben Carson supporter. DJT grew on me after I read transcripts of his speeches, then I actually listened to him, that really set the hook. Now I am thoroughly enjoying watching him kick the media in their fecal stained teeth.


  13. Dead set correct Willis. Unfortunately we, in Australia, have nobody in politics with any leadership qualities anywhere in sight. Weep for us.


  14. I am always eager to read your take on things because I believe you are an original thinker.
    Your observation on the inaugural address did not disappoint.
    But I was left troubled.
    He needs to appeal to everyone, but the obstacle are racist prejudiced folks scattered amongst his supporters. Some of them don’t even know they are racist.
    But you know them. White Christian, patriotic, outdoorsy flag waving types.
    Academic studies show only agnostics are racially tolerant.
    But there is more of them than you might think.

    So, why doesn’t Trump try appealing to those who didn’t vote for him.?
    Say, a black Christian flag waving racist who’s head is exploding because of voting for a white woman.

    It seems to me the post just finally collapses into one big composition fallacy.


    • Siamiam January 24, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      I am always eager to read your take on things because I believe you are an original thinker.
      Your observation on the inaugural address did not disappoint.
      But I was left troubled.
      He needs to appeal to everyone, but the obstacle are racist prejudiced folks scattered amongst his supporters.

      So, why doesn’t Trump try appealing to those who didn’t vote for him.?
      Say, a black Christian flag waving racist who’s head is exploding because of voting for a white woman.

      Thanks, Sam-I-Am. It is a good question.

      For starters, the problem with binding black and white America into one whole is not black racism. Yes, black racism exists and we need to deal with it as well … but that’s not the big obstacle.

      The big obstacle is white racism. Trump realized that he could reach out to a whole lot of them by combining the Flag and the Bible. He knows what I know, which is that if you visit a bunch of Aryan or skinhead racist websites, you will find that they mostly worship four things—the Flag, the Bible, the Constitution, and Guns.

      Trump is using the Flag and the Bible against them in the arena of racism and prejudice, and he has done it very cleverly. And it is not just white people. He is leading everyone of every color who respects the Flag and the Bible to unite as one … and that is a very large constituency.

      Finally, you ask why Trump didn’t try “appealing to those who didn’t vote for him”. It seems you misunderstand the job of a leader. Trump is just elected. Should he

      a) Fire up and shape up his base, offer them a path out of racism, appeal to everyone who respects the Flag and the Bible on both sides of the aisle, and describe the journey to come, or should he

      b) Reach out to the Democratic elite who have reviled him in the most vicious manner and accused him of every known crime, in a final failed try to convince them of what he could not convince them of in a year of campaigning?

      He can only open the door to them, which he did. He spoke repeatedly of inclusion, of unity, of wanting to be everyone’s president. What more do you want?

      Finally, he had an important task in his speech. He had to convince the people who voted for him that unlike every other politician we’ve ever known, he would not change course now that he is elected. Because which outcome is scarier for a politician …

      a) that his enemies will continue to hate him, or

      b) that his supporters will stop supporting him.

      As a result, much of his speech was NOT designed to make one last attempt to convert his unconverted opponents. Instead, it was designed to reassure his supporters that yes, he would indeed do the things he said he would do. He welcomed the Democrats to join in with him in that great effort to rebuild and restore the US … but he’s not going to change his goals just because they oppose what he has said he would do.

      Best regards,



      • No, the “big obstacle” is black racism. In America and out side of America. Marxist/Leninist ideology was dumped on children in African nations during the ’60s and ’70s and until that poison can be driven out nothing in the Continent will ever improve. In America we have the Racebaiting Poverty Pimps, they enrich themselves from inflaming and exacerbating racial strive and divisions. The usurpers of Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s movement don’t want unity. That way leads to them being old, poor, and ignored.


  15. Leadership is an individual trait, or skill, or ability. Whatever it is, it is all in the individual.

    Racism (as others have said, a rather vague and all-encompassing term) is a crowd trait.

    Sure, individuals can be racist and individuals can try not to be racist, but it is a crowd influenced, even a crowd enforced behavior. Take smoking for example. Most smokers started because the crowd they belonged to smoked. Smokers who try to quit find it very hard if the crowd around them continues to smoke. If you want to quit any addiction, you need to find an environment that will support doing that, like AA. Rational arguments are not enough, preaching is not enough. “That’s not who we are” is not enough.
    Curing racism won’t be a top down process, no matter who is the leader.

    MLK provided inspiration and a role model, but the credit for improving civil rights in that era goes to the crowds on the bottom, not to the heroes, not to the politicians on top. Star Trek probably did more to change racist attitudes than the politicians. Racism is a cultural trait. To change racism you have to change the culture. Human nature is rather brutish, it needs to be civilized.


You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s