More Content Talk

I am afraid you did, in fact, read that right. The United States of America, arguably the most successful and wealthiest nation to ever exist, has officially experienced its greatest loss to life expectancy since one of the most brutal wars to ever take place. The study, presented by NBC news, came as no real shock to people who had been paying attention to the decrease in quality of life that had been going on in America for some time now. The 2007 housing crisis combined with the 1999 tech boom, severe climate change, cuts to disability and food stamps programs, along with the anti-immigrant rhetoric of Trump, which caused job loss in the tourism sector and finally the Covid-19 pandemic were just too much for America to handle. This calls into question our claim to be the greatest nation in the world. I am not saying that this nation is not redeemable; it certainly is. But we have some very hard work to do to whip it back into shape. Progressive policies are not hated like many people claim. Programs like Medicare for All, though lampooned by establishment democrats and anti-Trump establishment republicans alike, remain extremely popular with the American people, with a whopping seventy two percent in support of it! Desiring to live in a world where you get to see your kids well into their thirties or forties is not socialism; it is the desired result for all of us. And no, we do not have to tax the middle class to make this happen. We all know who is not paying taxes; the middle class have paid their share and it is now time for the wealthy to give back to this country, the country they helped destroy with pollution and greed. Medicare for all is not some pipe dream that only college students have. The prior administrations have been lacking in healthcare reform. Many people remain uncovered through no fault of their own, unable to find a job with high enough wages to pay for both adequate health coverage and rising housing costs, not to mention groceries and job loss from the pandemic. It is a bit infantile for these businesses to expect people to flock back to work in such conditions, that they can just switch us on and off like machines. Can we really be expected to do so when no one will see to our repairs? If we are to be treated as machinery, we should at least receive the proper nuts and bolts. Medicare for all will help to solve the mental health crisis, along with the addiction crisis that is spreading with harmful drugs like fentanyl, along with the obesity epidemic. All of the aforementioned problems need addressing and there is no evidence that doctors will be in great demand once the pandemic has finally ended. In fact, doctors' salaries have decreased overall over the last few years. Combine that with an aging population and you really do have a recipe for disaster: a lot of elderly people to care with very few qualified health professionals. This really is a ticking time bomb because the birth rate is also rapidly decreasing in this nation. It is obviously time for us to rise to the occasion here; we must offer bold, new solutions to these old problems. We cannot keep working with people who are hostile to this nations to achieve our goal. We cannot allow the cold hearts of stone age party politics to dominate the narrative. We must be firm and we must hold fast if we want real, substantive change. We must continue to drill into the heads of these people who view themselves as our masters that we are not owned by the Koch Brothers or by Fannie Mae or by Goldman Sachs. This is America, not some corporation to be invested in and subsequently crashed. We cannot continue on an all too familiar downward spiral. It is time to embrace the future instead of living in the past. On certain issues it is not about political ideology, but human decency. I know you may not like Bernie Sanders, but is the dislike of this man worth the death of a friend or family member? What are we trying to prove here and to whom?

Yes, you are correct, not everyone who worships has what we would define as a mental disorder. We are pretty certain that is correct anyway; there is no real way to tell after all and how would one even measure the severity of one's beliefs? While fantasizing about possible scenarios and basing policies off of them is in bad taste, I see no problem with a simple discussion on how elements of religion in culture may traumatize people. That is all that I am trying to accomplish in this episode. Freudian psychology posited that all religion is a symptom of mental disorder; this biased claim has no basis in reality. However, religious entities often discourage psychiatric care, stating that belief in their particular deity can remedy all mental health problems. This is also very untrue. Many spiritual people are told, often times by representatives of religious faith in their own community, that any problem they have with mental health, any at all, can be remedied by having a stronger faith in god. But is this even possible? Recent developments in psychiatry have shown that mental disorders are biological in nature. If you believe in creation then you probably are familiar with the term, "that is the way god made me". Well, if god is real, then he, she or it, also created certain people with mental health issues. This does not meant that the side effects of mental health problems present themselves immediately. In fact, it can take up to twenty, forty or, in some cases, even up to sixty years before any symptoms present themselves. The symptoms are triggered by trauma, which generally comes in the form of loss: loss of career, loss of wealth, loss of loved ones, loss of one's home, etc. These traumatic experiences are troublesome for the vast majority of people, but it can be absolutely devastating for those with serious mental disorders, causing them to spiral into mental breakdowns. This is one instance where prayer has definitively been shown not to work. No matter what you hear about "the benefits of religion" online, you can not make a serious argument that you can pray away biology. You can go ahead and bow before god all you like, but he, she or it, is not going to change your skin color, and the same can be said for your neurological composition. You are born with one brain and the environment you live in influences that brain; of course you could argue that this is all a part of god's plan and that is fine, but you have to recognize that psychological and psychiatric therapies are available for people suffering from these problems. You have to at least give them the opportunity to get well. Yet the vast majority of churches have no psychiatrists or psychologists on staff. Even worse, these holy organizations tend to demonize psychiatric intervention, citing the particular holy text as discouraging medical interventions. Further, these organizations still hold the very wrong idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder, which is nothing more than Freudian nonsense that no modern health experts entertain (Freud argued that homosexuality was a case of arrested development due to anal retentiveness, basically arguing that homosexual people were under developed humans beings; needless to say, no evidence for this claim exist). We also hear of certain religions demonizing other forms of normal human behavior: masturbation, greed, hatred, jealousy, etc. While it is perfectly fine to make an argument for moderation on certain issues (I certainly would not want to dedicate all of my time to sex or jealousy for that matter), there is no case that can be made for any of the aforementioned feelings or actions being strictly wrong because we have no real control over what we desire or feel. Religion argues that we have complete control, that we can change anything as long as we wish it to be so. This has stigmatized seeking therapy so much that, in fact, one third of Americans' mental problems have been misdiagnosed.  

At times when we are searching for the truth, we are really searching for our own "personal truth", not reality. The two are very rarely the same thing. In this episode, we delve into the reasons we lie to ourselves, sometimes for profit, sometimes for a boost of ego, but, most of the time, in order to maintain our biased perceptions of our own reality, all while being sure to call as many people who disagree with us illogical slime along the way. The truth should be a rallying cry for what is the right thing to do. It should be a way of coming together. However, people do not like the truth because it challenges whatever dogmas they ascribe to, which makes them less and less at ease established knowledge as the years go by. This is where personal truth has its moment in the sun. All over the country, whether you speak with democrats or republicans, you see complicity when it comes to governance. These people pretend as if they are fighting the government to protect others, all while ensuring that not everyone in the country can vote, all while being sure not upset the wealthy and middle classes. The wealthy and middle classes are the most complicit, joining a "centrist" viewpoint that neglects to realize that the future of the nation is progressive, whether they like it or not. This process really began after the civil rights movement was passed. Narratives were created blaming black gains on civil rights as being to costly to enforce. It was just as successful then as it is today, tapping into whatever guilt people feel about things like slavery and racism, then pointing at poor black people and saying, "see, it's their fault you feel that way; they made you feel guilty through no fault of your own." This "everything is the poor black man's fault" narrative is, in fact, a racist narrative. Black people did not disenfranchise themselves and sail to America on a whim. We were brought here, and, like a child with a goldfish, America has simply decided to let their new pets die off, rather than provide them with a new and better home. Well, we are not going anywhere. We will vote in the next elections just like we voted in this election and we will continue to fight for real truth, not your nicer, whiter version of it. The rational movement has failed in the United States. Rational people do not search for truth; they work for Google and create algorithms to scam everyone else. You live in a world where you can literally find anyone supporting your dogma, providing silly arguments to make you feel better about the lies you tell yourself. Well, America has told itself many lies and lies have a way of harming you eventually. Liars cannot hide the fact that they are lying for long periods of time; they are eventually exposed for the filth they really are. And when these personal truths, these lies, are found out, revolutions occur, not only in terms of politics, but in terms of thought. It is difficult to see truth as even being relevant in this political climate. No one cares what the truth is. They care how many people like their youtube videos. But if truth is now synonymous with likes on social media, there is not even a government worth recognizing, let alone fighting for. Trust me when I say that one day your lies about abortion being genocide, your lies about the voting rights act taking away states' rights, your lies about black lives matter being a terrorist organization, your lies about Antifa storming the Capitol, your lies about the pandemic being over when you do not even have young children vaccinate, will all be exposed. I will see to that and so will many others. You can only lie for so long until it all comes crashing down. And when your lies fade, and your children loathe you, and your loved ones stop loving you, and your leaders abandon you, and your political parties disintegrate, do not come and ask me why it all happened. You have constructed for yourself a bed of lies and you must lie on it. 

An insult is a powerful thing...if used correctly. However, all too often, an insult is used in a very weak way, as a kind of signal that one has lost an argument, or at least has been forced to reconsider it. We are always slow to change. A critique of our arguments is, in a sense, a critique of our character, thus it is not at all unreasonable for one to take offense after listening to a sound argument that disproves their ideology, or at least challenges it. I expect such reactions and am never surprised when I see them. I like to ask difficult questions. I have always been this way. One marvels at how easily a question can unnerve these armchair philosophers. "You dare question my logic?" they sneer, "That is just insane. Do you see how many people kiss my ass on social media? Just look at that following. I am certainly correct no matter what I say!" Then the name calling begins, almost always initiated by someone who is not only incorrect, but completely misguided. A linear model of thinking leaves one with a feeling of comfort; it explains every little question away, kind of like one shoos a fly away. A simple copy and paste is performed stating that you have given a fallacious argument and that you must study the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or the "Straw Man" fallacy; this automatically renders your concerns irrelevant and you are to bow before the master debater. But there are times when logic can be quite deceptive. Take the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, generally applied to matters of belief. The fallacy is an appeal to purity. But is stating that there are qualifications in order for one to apply a label to themselves an appeal to purity? Would you call someone who does not know how to bake a baker simply because they instructed you to do so. No, you would first demand to taste some of their desserts before you even thought of applying that label to them. Well, just like not everyone who holds a pan in their hand is a baker, not everyone who holds a religious text in their hand is religious. Many members of religions are simply members by name, attempting to connect with an organized religion that is also a social, cultural and political body in the real world. However, the bible, the doctrine of Christianity, very clearly states what a true Christian is; so, if I say that there are requirements for belief in Christianity, I am only stating what the doctrine says. I did not make up the doctrine; I am basing my argument on it. So, how is it fallacious to say that there are requirements for belief? By the way, here are the requirements for belief in Christianity, as plainly written as the eye can see, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and courage and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11.1) "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11.6). We see here that there are very strict requirements for Christian faith; there is no room for doubt whatsoever. You must be confident that god exist to even begin to be a Christian; you must have assurance about that which you do not see, namely god. The same can be said for prayer in the bible, which demands that you believe your prayer will be answered before you even fold your hands. I did not appeal to purity, I recognized the text's appeal to purity, a purity that is required for "true" belief. Whether or not you agree with the bible should be irrelevant here because the fact is that there are requirements for faith and belief. People who simply ease out of religion never got to that level of devotion; their doubt was stronger than their belief ever was. But it is much easier to simply say illogical, irrational, unfounded, and grumble of like some old geezer. It is easier to call a person a name than to recognize they may have a point. About one percent of people have narcissism, but to social media, it is another pandemic

It's Father's Day, and I personally was just fine with my son and my absolutely beautiful partner of over ten years now doing, well, nothing, not for me anyway. I used to take offense at this, as if it were somehow sacrilege to not acknowledge the holiday; it once caused me to fantasize about how all fathers were underappreciated. But that was not the full story, only a brief delusion. There is no anti-male conspiracy that so many paranoid, undersexed men seem to imagine today. The various insecurities that men feel are not, in any way, directly related to feminism or body positivity or pro choice movements or any other female centered movements for that matter. The negative reaction to such movements is only the manifestation of years of low self esteem, but feeling as if women hate all men is not the same as being able to actually prove it. Many people have deluded themselves into believing that we are somehow at war, the male and the female, as if we belong to a separate species and are in the midst of fighting for dominance of a particular territory. But what are we trying to dominate exactly? What do we hope to accomplish by continuing this fight. It is hard to say. No one really seems to know where such rhetoric leads, apart from fearmongers, who simply wish to create chaos and, in some ways, that is indeed the point. But this is an article about Father's Day, a day I spent with my Dad pretty much every year he was alive. I still remember running off to buy him something with my Mother every June, often times hunting through the Hallmark store down the street, looking for something at the last minute, as was often the case. It was a small store with cards and miniature statues everywhere, the kind of place people go to buy things too useless to be practical, yet too nice to be immediately cast off for its uselessness. Then, of course, I would buy him something for golf because he loved everything about golf. I will never know why he loved that sport; it seemed to make him so angry, especially when he was not on his game. He would become so frustrated all the time. I really do not understand how that was fun for him, even to this day. But I loved to play golf with my Dad; I loved that I was really the only one that would spend time with him, especially when my Mom had finally had enough and filed for divorce. I remember thinking to myself, "No big deal. He had it coming. If he had only tried a little harder, stopped drinking a little sooner, put down the cigarettes a few year earlier, earned a bit more money, cooked a few more meals, fixed a few more things, enjoyed life more, then maybe, maybe it did not have to end that way. Maybe they could have stayed together." I now realize how silly those thoughts were. At a certain point, no matter what you do, it is too late to make amends. Literally all you could do is die at that point, that is likely the only thing left that will evoke even a bit of sympathy from a scorned lover, a person who was devoted to a relationship while the other, my Father, was busy drowning his sorrows in television or gambling or drinking or smoking or...golf. Yeah, the last one does not really seem to fit. But I have forgiven my Father's transgressions on this Father's day because I see the hatred for Fathers, especially black Fathers, in the eyes of members of all political parties, a kind of hatred of the position in general. This feeling is not completely unfounded. People who leave their children are despicable and Fathers are in the majority there. And I am sure, if we sat around here researching it, we could gather so much data that we could demonize all Fathers for their lack of emotion or whatever comes to mind at the moment. But instead of beating a dead horse when he is down, I would like to make amends with my Father and all Fathers. You never left me Dad; you always stood up for me the best you knew how. I still remember you hugging me after all the seizures. I forgive you.

The words "I disagree with you" have way more power than most people will ever fully realize. You automatically give yourself the power of being unique as well as firm. Will this hurt people's feelings? Probably. Perhaps sometimes people need to have their feelings hurt. That may sound harsh, but a kind of satiric sharpness is sometimes necessary to evoke understanding, to peel back the disguise of righteousness, and to reveal the ignorance hidden beneath the surface. Many wise people know that ignorance and stupidity are not alike; yet undoubtedly there are those who say that they are exactly the same, those that reject another kind of disguise, the disguise of equality. There are so many disguises to unfurl; I somehow doubt that I will ever be able to so completely because many have failed to do so before me. I am not here to educate you, to speak to you, as I have often been spoken to, as if I am somehow more intelligent than you. However, an exceeding number of people find it entirely vital to voice their superior intellects, to add "new" takes on old arguments, if there is such a thing, so we all can understand how ridiculous we are all being what with all the complaining and the arguing. It does not seem very humble of us to do so. It does not seem like we appreciate many parts of society any longer. However, it only seems that way to someone who lacks understanding. Indeed, the problem may be that many people care too much. How else would someone become so offended by the actions of so called "suspects" that they feel the need to shoot them in cold blood, to snuff them out in the streets? How are people driven to shout at people for simply playing music from another country in a public park? Why can't two black women make out without someone butting in and trying to dictate to them how to live their life? Are these not people of god? Most of them, sadly, are. But I am not against religion entirely; personal spirituality seems to work for some people, as does small group worship based up a kind of Unitarian model. I am no devil and I have no desire to rid the world of religion. Why? Well, many have tried and it has not always ended in the best of ways. But much more than that, the atheists nations thriving today have largely kept their Christian cultures, even some of the group rituals; they simply do not believe it to be reality. The spirituality for them is a kind of guide or perhaps a strength to rely on in difficult times. Their faith has not failed them and I have no reason to make that so. It is also an impossible task to ruin someone's faith unless you are willing to torture them. What would be the point of that if not despotism, the thing I despise. Nor do I desire any form of censorship. Though I can certainly understand why private businesses have rights to ban people from social media platforms, I also do not think that the government should be allowed to support or empower such actions. So what is the goal here? What am I doing anyway? The show is no cash cow, so why do it at all? I mean, come on, why even bother? Because the social media is a our reflection. That screen you are staring at right now is your world in a sense and, though it is not complete reality, it sometimes bleeds into it, a lot like light reflecting off of the mirror. So the narrative does not have to be centered in the establishment, but can be steered willingly by the populous. All that is required is to talk enough, to film enough, to write enough, that you simply silence ignorance in the same way that ignorance silenced democracy, with more content! This is the philosophy of More Content Talk. We are a political comedy show that dares to drown out the conspiracy theorists and the science deniers. We support those who support knowledge, civil rights and human decency. We are not perfect. We will inevitably say offensive things, but that is not what we are about. We are trying to counteract the sword with the pen. 

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I say, I would rather have a salary than fans any day of the week. So would most people actually. This is the whole reason we have copyright laws, to ensure that the people who create are the people who get paid. It is not a perfect system, but at least we have something in place to slow cultural appropriation. For years, Europeans simply stole ideas from other cultures; they then profited from this dishonest task by selling cultural art and inventions to companies and calling it their own. Elvis Presley was the king of rock and roll, not because he invented rock and roll, but because he stole it from us black folks. He song, Hound Dog, was originally sung by Big Mama Morton, a black woman that could belt like no other. My father hated Elvis Presley for this reason. Every time he would see him on the television, inevitably heavier than the last time he was on TV, may father's eyes would roll in the back of his head and a large, exhausted sigh shortly followed. "Not this white boy again," my father would say in disgust as he quickly reached for the remote to change to channel to literally anything else. My father's disdain for Elvis is not uncommon in the black community. Still to this day you will hear even young black people express their dislike of whitewashed black culture. But why? Shouldn't black people be happy that their music is finally getting the recognition if so rightfully deserves? White people certainly think we should be happy when we see white artists telling black stories, our stories, but that is because white people love to watch white entertainers. I, personally, have grown increasingly tied of European entertainment since it is nothing more than the whitewashed version of other cultures. In America, we do not allow black people to tell black stories; we contract white artists to rewrite our narratives and to extract anything black out of them so as to make it pretty for Tammy and Becky down the street. If being forced to be ashamed of yourself is flattery, I'm not really all that interested in being flattered. I do not, as a black artist, think it is cute to see white people pretending to be minorities. I do not think it advances anything at all. It does not make it so that I can get a job as an artist and feed my kids if a white person steals my idea and makes it their own. It does nothing for me at all, but I am, for some reason, supposed to be grateful. Why? Why should I even care to watch any of this entertainment if it is always going to tell me that I am not fine the way I am, that my skin is not white enough for prime time? Am I supposed to be excited about that or some dumb shit? You all must be crazy or maybe you just do not know me very well. Allow me to introduce myself, I am the black man with enough sense and self-esteem to realize when he is being scammed. How the hell are you going to hire artists who have never struggled to represent my struggle? That does not make one lick of sense! Yet the censors are out in full force, toning down the blackness in every piece of art and history they can get their hands on, making it nice and white for all of the white consumers. Europeans, however, are so loud about their culture and other people not stealing it that they built a damn wall at the border to keep other cultures from influencing it! If that is not Orwellian, I do not know what is. Europeans also love to talk crap when you cook their food incorrectly; I know that because I am part Italian and you better not put cream cheese in my lasagna! Europeans also did not allow blacks to participate in popular music and acting for decades. Why? Because they wanted to preserve their "superior" culture and not have it "tainted" by so called "inferior" cultures. But now that the tables are turned, and white people know damn well that they need to have minorities to make money, they are mad when we call them out for cultural appropriation.

Is it prejudice or is it preference? How do you know which is which? Well, that is a very simple question to answer, as I will demonstrate in the following podcast. In the year 2008, distinguishing between the two was decidedly less difficult. Having entire news segments dedicated to defining what was and was not prejudice simply did not exist back then. You could not find a respectable news station that would waste time on such an infantile issue as what the definition of a word was. Today we have regressed quite a bit in that department. Due to the right's redefinition of words like "racism" and "prejudice", many people are now confused as to exactly what words like prejudice mean, which was always the right's goal. If the right controls the narrative on what is and is not prejudice then ultimately nothing will be considered prejudice and you better believe that is the endgame for them. Silly democrats who continue to work together with people who are actively trying to erode the definition of civility do nothing more than add to the problem; as usual, such democrats have nothing more than pretty words to offer. Van Jones and Don Lemon crying on the news about racial inequality does absolutely nothing other than distract from the real problem at hand, which is the erosion of civil rights. Begging republicans and wealthy businessmen for "a place at the table" has never worked and never will work, but this false narrative is confusing people into thinking that all they need is a pat on the back and a new holiday to get ahead in the world. Bullshit. The last time the government gave black people a federal holiday, they so besmirched the man it was named after, Martin Luther King Jr, that they even went as far as to remove his name from various streets that were predominantly black. So, you may be impressed by such hollow actions, but I certainly am not. So what is prejudice anyway? Where does it come from and how should we react to it? In order to tackle this issue, it is important to note the glaring difference between prejudice and preference because they two are complete opposites. Your preferences are perfectly valid and most likely based on real life concerns and dangers. Prejudice, on the other hand, is an outright rejection of reality. A prejudice person sees whatever type of person as a threat and has no good reason to feel that way. This is one of the reasons you will often hear me call the entertainment industry as a whole prejudice because they have the means to cast people of color and yet consistently choose not to. Do they have a good reason for this? No. Of course they believe that they do, but belief has nothing to do with reality. If you are in no danger then you have no need to act as if you are. You often hear people who are prejudice say things like "that would not work for that period" or "that is not historically accurate"; they do this because they have been taught incorrect versions of history or because they tend to prefer the western European narrative of history. But is this a valid preference or an arrogant prejudice? Consider the conversations I have had with you in other episodes about western European historians going out of their way to make it so that real history stays out of the textbooks so their European children are proud of their idiocy. Of course this is prejudice. What good reason do you have to lie to your own goddamn children other than your own inflated ego? Why should the European narrative that states that black people are somehow luck to be in a nation that did not even recognize black independence from slavery until 150 years after the fact? There is nothing reasonable going on here at all and so we continue to fight against ill informed prejudice. We will not be beat back from this sacred objective by a bunch of moderates in fancy suits because we are not congress and have not obligation to billionaires. Prejudice is not preference, not matter what the right says.

Is it just me or is everyone on social media an expert...in everything. Experts have always been a mixed bag, with some of them hoping to help large amounts of people while others hope to use their expertise to further dubious causes. It is perfectly fine not to blindly trust whoever claims to be an expert in any subject; however, there comes a point where the questioning can turn into unwarranted interrogation. Not every expert is a scam artist; many of them have valuable information for us, but many people in this country and around the world have grown so paranoid that they automatically disagree with anything that comes out of a professional's mouth. But this creates the obvious problem of how to get your information if you do not trust any sources as being reliable. In order to replace these reliable sources people basically make up whatever they hell they like. This is why amateurs all over the world are now regarded as authorities by massive swaths of people. These amateur experts have built massive followings on social media, giving them the appearance of professionalism without the hard work or experience that actually goes in to expertise. You will often hear these people refer to themselves as "independent researchers"; hold on a minute, we all know that most people do not like to do research so why the hell is Uncle Cletus all of a sudden interested in brushing up on some Ayn Rand or Aldous Huxley. What gives? An organized attack on reliable sources of information by the far right have destroyed all trust in expertise, while at the same time elevating the intellectual laziness that goes along with being a high school drop out. Mediocrity, not greatness or excellence, is admired by the right; they see it as a badge of honor to think less, not more. The right has rebranded this form of willing stupidity as a kind of badge of honor. Their research is done in gun shops and first person shooter video games. Their debates are nothing more than insulting rhetoric. Their strategy for a better world is genocide and brute force. Dressing up this rabid violence and vitriol as a form independent thinking is far more appealing to people than throwing up Nazi signs and planning coups. So the rise of the amateur expert is simply a disguise for the greater rebellion that is being organized by the right. It is a distraction so well organized that anyone who calls it out is seen as an instigator, an obstacle to some unity that the left fantasizes about, a unity that will never come until leftists are not longer allowed to speak, and perhaps even breathe. Ignorant people believe that there is some value to this sort of rhetoric, that claiming to know things when you do not is somehow admirable. I fervently disagree with this notion. The problem with lies is that you can never really tell when a person is lying or just gullible. Up until this point, we have assumed gullibility in evil people; we have been assuming that the rise of the alt-right and the proliferation of their ideology was because of ignorance. But ignorance is not a choice. Ignorance just happens to people through not fault of their own. But if the problem was solely ignorance than why are schools not helping? Why are the endless streams of public service announcements failing to inform the populous in a timely fashion? The problem is not ignorance; the problem is ideology. These people know what they are doing. They know that they are misinforming large amounts of people. That is the point, to destabilize the nation so that they can take power. So whenever you see some amateur expert pop up on quora or twitter when you are trying to have a civil discussion, hit the mute button or block them. Do not give them the opportunity to spread lies to your friends or loved ones. Or, if you are against censorship like I am, simply shame and mock them until they stop their nonsense. Both techniques are effective, unlike the so called research of Uncle Cletus.  

We all know that we are living in an age of corporate welfare, where multi-billionaires are allowed to fire employees at will while simultaneously calling up the federal government every time they need another bailout. However, we do not talk so much about the spiritual welfare the most churches are currently on, leading lavish lifestyles while their congregants suffer in poverty. This double standard is on full display within the black community. Churches have done quite well for themselves over the years, gaining more money than ever before due to the various tax write offs and the general privilege that comes with owning a Christian church in America. You would not know it by going into a black neighborhood, but black Americans on average donate far more to churches than their white counterparts. An article in the Washington Post states that, "...nearly two-thirds of Black households donate to community-based  organizations and causes, to the tune of $11 billion each year,  according to a joint 2012 study from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and  Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Black households on average give away  25 percent more of their income per year than Whites. Communities of  color are giving at an increasing rate, the report found." That's right, black Americans are the main group of people in America who are keeping the idea of charitable giving alive while white people have largely abandoned this process. Such a large amount of giving should receive an equally large or larger return of interest. However, we are seeing the exact opposite happen, with black communities in far worse conditions than white communities. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 21.2% of black people lived in poverty in the United States in 2019, compared with a nine percent poverty rate for white people, that is over twice the amount of white people living in poverty. How could this be? Where is all of the money that black people are giving to charitable organizations going? It is certainly not into the hands of the people who need it. Charitable organizations in general are shady; they get caught all the time stealing from funds that were meant to help those in need. It is the oldest hustle of all time and black churches are no different. The black community today is living in a fantasy world where all money given in the collection plate on Sundays makes it into the hands of those who need that money the most. That is a lie. I needed help for several years when I was ill and literally all the black Christians in my life abandoned me and left me to rot. Meanwhile, as I sat in bed drifting in and out of consciousness and not knowing whether or not this would be my last breath, I could turn on the television and see rich black Christians like Kayne West tell me how lazy I was for thinking that slavery had an effect on my current status in life. Black Christians love to blame black people for everything because they love to be accepted by white Christians. They do not want to upset their white friends with all the talk of civil rights and equality. Yet they want us all back at church now. They want us back because they want to steal our money, just like they have always stole all the wealth we generate as black people. Well, sorry, but the freedom train needs to be free in order for me to get on board. Where were all of these black pastors when I was dying of epilepsy? Oh yeah, they were up there laughing at me with Trump and all of their other conservative, wealthy, white friends. They were dancing on piles of money like Creflo Dollar. They were unlawfully soliciting sex and hiring abusers like T.D. Jakes. They were doing absolutely nothing to fight white supremacy. Instead they were busy telling us to love our neighbors and turn the other cheek. Fine, I will turn the other cheek and head for the exit.