Try 1 month for 99¢

Have you noticed there is a new definition of “racist?”

It was originally defined as someone who believes race is the primary determinate of human traits and these traits produce a superiority of one or several races over others. In our current enlightened world, where almost all knowledge has been reduced to sound bites, the new definition is simplicity itself: If I don’t like you, then you are a racist.

For example, what has President Trump actually done to be constantly labeled as a racist, except constantly being called a racist? Google “Trump racist” and you will get about 180 million hits.

What has Trump done that Barack Obama had not already done to be called another Hitler? Except, of course, constantly being compared to Hitler. By the way, why is he not labeled as Stalin, or Castro or even Mao?

In light of what pollsters call the “Trump effect,” this is most interesting. Pollsters began to see dramatic and emphatic shifts in how people responded to questions based on whether or not they were told the statement was made by Trump. Students would condemn Obama statements if they were told they came from Trump. Evidently, it was not the idea or concept people are responding to, but some created persona (a cartoon) of the person that determined whether an idea was Hitler-like or racist.

So the meaning of words has been reduced to a personal affinity, but that has some interesting implications. The media, for example, tries very hard to make sure you like or dislike certain people or ideas.

Does this mean that given the right combination of deep state and media support, Obama could have been turned into a racist Hitler? And, even more discouraging, a large portion, maybe even a majority of Americans would not have believed it?

The deep state has been using this technique for some time. Along with many other things, the Trump presidency has simply stripped away the cosmetic veneer. Recently, I reviewed some details of the suicide of Vince Foster in 1993 while he was working in the White House as a toady for Hillary Clinton. A year after the event, an independent counsel by the name of Miquel Rodriguez was appointed. In light of current events, it is interesting to note what happened to him.

When Rodriquez got close to establishing a scenario different from the official version, all sorts of interesting things began to happen. Direct testimonies given to FBI investigators later appeared to be rewritten to match the official story line. Pictures were modified, and evidence mysteriously disappeared. Persons who could have given witness contrary to the acceptable line were never interviewed at all. Other witnesses were harassed and threatened.

Then the leaks began with the aim of destroying Rodriquez. It was suggested he was unstable and was becoming unprofessional. The media stood by, echoing the official line and propagated the idea anyone disagreeing with it was some kind of a nut.

Sound familiar?

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Dennis Clayson is a marketing professor at the University of Northern Iowa. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not reflect those of the University of Northern Iowa.


Load comments