Sunday, July 18, 2010




Minister King Shamir Shabaz, decked out in a para-military outfit, black beret, jack boots, uniform and dreadlocks, tortuous facial expressions, caustic voice and aggressive posture pitched another racist diatribe to a large attentive and respectful audience.

“You want freedom?” he shouted, fists clenched, still, I hope only in jest, “then kill some dirty white crackers and kill their white babies in their cribs.”

Or words to that effect. “I hate white people!” he exclaimed. “I hate white people!” But does he really hate white people or are there darker, sociological forces at work which excuse, indeed, justify his hurt feelings?

While I’m not really sure what a dirty white cracker is, (I wash fairly often) still, I suspect that as I am white, I may also be a dirty white cracker. Indeed, I married a cracker; so there it is. While I do want to give the good minister the benefit of the doubt, I will nevertheless avoid the symposiums and rallys where Minister King Shamir Shabaz, is scheduled to minister to quiet, interested, respectful and, wrathful audiences.

I was, however, surprised that I did not hear anyone, in the video that I watched, disagree with the King’s primary thesis that dirty white crackers and their babies are better off dead—presumably, the sooner of the better. I did not see a single hand or sign; I did not hear single voice raised in protest. I heard nothing but praise and admiration. Why?

That said, as I considered Minister King Shamir Shabaz’s diatribe in light of the transcendent philosophy of political correctness, now the religious mandate of this exceptional democracy, I concluded that his call for the murder of white babies was not all that racist: First because I saw in Minister King Shamir Shabaz, a man in excruciating inner torment, a man of kind intentions wrestling a conscience so shrived by white root causes he would consider seriously, if not delightfully, the murder of dirty white crackers and their babies. I think his is a soul aggrieved by society’s denial of the wealth, prestige and power, and the righteous place he believes society owes him—Big Time. Shabaz, after all, is a minister and a king. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe that all he wants is his own way. Why then should we not give it to him? Have we no empathy?

I then considered these consequences: When seen in the light of political correctness, one must ask, well, what if Minister King Shamir Shabaz should kill off a few white crackers and perhaps smother a few babies in their cribs; where really is the harm? After all, there are plenty of crackers and as most of us are too ignorant to know anything about birth control and as we abhor the abortion of children imminently ready to be born, there are more than enough cracker babies to go around, in fact, a plethora of babies. Where then is the problem? Why all the fuss?

Perhaps, in recognition of our ignorance, we should now at last repudiate the irrational pretension that inclines us crackers, and shall I confess to it, religious crackers, to believe that all life is sacred and should therefore have the protection of a Constitution dedicated to the sanctity of life and the pursuit of happiness.

Nevertheless, there is a deeper intellectual conflict at work here. It is that Minister King Shamir Shabaz’s passion to kill white people when considered in light of the religious, enlightened, and in any event, totalitarian principles of political correctness, leads inexorably to the rational conclusion that in recommending the snuffing out of white people and their children, the good minister, far from engaging in an outrageous racist act, is actually crying out for help. His is an earthy and eloquent protest against injustice that have filled him to the brim with raw, insidious and self-destructive hate. May we really blame him simply because he is exhorting black panthers to kill off a few crackers and their babies. What, have we no empathy?

Therefore, while on its face, the killing of white cracker babies may appear to be an act of violence, in fact, it is an act of haloed protest not so different in its power and prosaic eloquence from Thomas Paine’s famous sentence: “These are the times that try men’s souls—” which sentence incidentally precipitated a revolution, the creation of the United States of America and a national anthem whose high notes only .119999 % of the American population, short of an abysmal croak, are able to warble.

I am also politically and correctly confirmed in my belief that Minister King Shamir Shabaz is not a racist purveyor of hatred because if he were the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) would have condemned his conduct. Besides which Minister King Shamir Shabaz is, after all a minister and a king; and neither ministers or kings are inclined to stoop to racist hate.

There are, however, people who well deserve American censure. Hallmark, three years ago, published a children’s postcard, containing a recording, which admittedly, in a childish way, addressed the universe and the phenomenon of black holes. While no connection whatever was drawn by the creators of the card to African Americans, NAAP members discovered that, if you listen to the recording long enough, say three or four hundred times, as one becomes physically and emotionally ill, and at last profoundly bored, the repetition of the words “Black Hole” finally begin to sound sort of like “Black Hos” a black reference to black prostitutes. Really, Hallmark should be ashamed.

Hence NAACP’S conclusion, consistent with the philosophy of political correctness and therefore unimpeachable, that Hallmark is owned and staffed by racists. Accordingly, NAACP’S leadership demanded that Hallmark scourge the holiday card from their collection, do penance, perhaps pay a large fine and fund a black college or two. (This last is jest). Hallmark, in a demonstration of the courage that the tenets of political correctness instills in the wilted liberal soul immediately surrendered— more or less.

Concurrently, so as to stay on top of the racist thing, NAACP also passed a resolution condemning tea partiers for the racists they are this based on accusations for which NAACP refuses to provide proof. NAACP’S condemnation of white cracker tea partiers is centered on the baseless accusation that a cracker or two spat on an African American Congressman and shouted the N word. In all of this I do not recall NAACP commenting on the language and recommendations of Minister King Shamir Shabaz. While I do not for a moment believe that Minister King Shamir Shabaz is a racist, still, that part of my mind not pickled by the jingoist mandates of political correctness compels me to ask NAACP these questions.

With regard to Hallmark: Who reported this instance of Hallmark’s alleged racism to you? Did you meet with Hallmark representatives and try to resolve the issue before publicizing to the world your conclusion that Hallmark had engaged in a racist act? Did any African American woman, excepting members of NAACP, conclude independently that the Hallmark card was racist? At any time during Hallmark’s nearly 100 years of operation, did the company ever create and sell a racist greeting card? Do you have any evidence that corroborates your accusation that Hallmark, in creating a holiday card that addressed the universe and the existence of black holes secreted into the card an insidious, secret message calculated to demean black women? Finally, how many gallons daily of Kool-Aid does the NAACP leadership quaff? Have you considered reducing the dosage?

With regard to Minister King Shamir Shabaz recommendations concerning dirty white crackers and their babies these questions. What is your opinion of his remarks? Are his remarks racist? Do you intend to pass a resolution, as you did against the tea partiers, condemning the suggestion made to African Americans that if you want freedom you should kill dirty white crackers and their babies? Have you commented publicly on Minister Shabaz’ remarks? Do you intend to? Well, why not?

In your opinion should the good minister be reprimanded by someone in the hierarchy of the New Black Panther Party? By the way, does NAACP support the New Black Panther Party financially? Do you support and approve its political demand for a separate black nation? Do you support its demand of present day crackers that they pay trillions in reparation for the imposition of slavery, a historical fact for which they are entirely innocent? (They were not alive at the time and many were not yet American citizens). Finally, do you subscribe to the doctrine of political original sin?

The real blame, however, must fall upon the late genius John Archibald Wheeler, a physicist and contemporary of Einstein, dead at age 96 (only the innocent die young) who had the temerity to invent the metaphor “Black Hole” to describe the intense gravitational field created by the implosion of a star. While he contributed mightily to the physics of Black Hole theory, all we must admit to the benefit of scientific knowledge, still we crackers must wonder at his insensivity. For why would a man of his impressive intellectual powers fail to note the obvious synchronicity of the words black hole and black ho. I mean to say, whatever was he thinking about!

Where after all was his sharp, comprehending and brilliant mind? Had he even the most shallow understanding of the philosophical discipline that has come to be known as political correctness, (a name derived from Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book) he would, shame-faced, have chosen a different name. I say that Mr. Wheeler was insensitive in that he might have chosen a more appropriate name for an imploded star, a name unlikely to injure innocent blacks even inadvertently. He might have named it… well what?

Personally, as I recall John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, I conclude that the physics of the black hole must be renamed. Hereafter, scientists should refer to an imploded star as The Slough of Despond. The Slough you say? Why Slough? Well, first because the Slough has a religious connotation. The Slough, a sort of metaphysical mud puddle, was invented by a Christian. Enough said!

Secondly, I have concluded, after long and extensive experimentation, that no matter how many times you say, Slough of Despond, for example, Slough of Despond, Slough of Despond, Slough of Despond, Slough of Despond, and Slough of Despond and so on, and so on, there is simply no way you can derive from its cadence the demeaning term used mostly by blacks— Black Ho.

There! This cracker lawyer rests his case.

No comments:

Post a Comment