What Do OJ Simpson, the Israel vs Gaza War, and Psychopathic Retarded Black Transwomen All Have in Common?
They demonstrate the need for more nuanced, holistic, Right-Hemisphere Dominant thinking.
What do the OJ Simpson murder trial, the Israel vs Gaza War, and the political activism of psychopathic and retarded black transwomen all have in common? They each demonstrate the need for more nuanced, holistic, Right-Hemisphere Dominant1 thinking, especially when it comes to controversial issues.
In other words, the type of thinking that doesn’t miss the forest for the trees, that considers a situation from multiple perspectives and seeks to synthesize them. The kind of thinking that makes use of mental models without ever mistaking mere representations of reality for reality itself. The type of thinking that doesn’t get stuck in a rut of childish ideology. The kind of thinking that aims to understand new evidence, rather than ignore it because it contradicts one’s pre-existing beliefs.
Although the OJ trial itself, like all pop culture celebrity news, was pure bread and circus tomfoolery, it did afford an opportunity for interesting conversations about issues pertaining to race, fame, gender, and the legal system. On the occasion of OJ’s death, most of the retrospective analyses myopically focused on only one of these issues, race, and thereby missed the bigger picture.
The Israel vs Gaza War of course illustrates the dangers of one-dimensional, ideological, Left-Hemisphere Dominant thinking. For Americans (and the West generally), we are seeing the public debate about what our involvement should be reduced to idiotic sloganeering, while very real risks are completely ignored or smugly hand-waved away.
And then there are psychopathic and retarded black transwomen, a group that seems especially prone to superficial, childish, and emotionally-driven thinking. For some reason, though, the powers-that-be have decided to elevate this insane group to political prominence and to allow their infantile demands to shape public policy. The results have been uniformly disastrous.
Different takes on OJ Simpson
I learned about OJ’s death last Thursday on Twitter (where all the most important breaking news is first reported). The overarching theme of the Tweets that I saw seemed to be that The Juice’s murder trial demonstrated how black people can just ignore the Law whenever they want, and how the regime treats them with kid gloves whenever they do, because of something something racism. Since black jurors later admitted that they essentially ignored the law in order to decide the case on purely racial grounds, there’s some truth to that view, but the reality was much more complicated than mere racialism.
For one thing, throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, the cultural mood shifted towards holding blacks accountable when they broke the Law.
says this was because of the OJ verdict. To be sure, things were already trending in that direction (OJ was pronounced “not guilty” the year after the now-infamous 1994 Crime Bill was passed), but the OJ trial certainly added significantly to that momentum. (It wasn’t until our first supposedly “post-racial” president, Barack “communist Trojan Horse” Obama, that America shifted back towards treating black criminals like didndunuffin angelic victims.)A major factor in the OJ trial was “celebrity.” Before being accused of double homicide, OJ had been known as a smiling, affable media personality, and before that, he’d been a beloved star athlete. When people repeatedly see someone grin charmingly, laugh lightheartedly, and (appear to) talk directly to them via their television screens, they eventually feel like they know him; they will think of him almost as a friend; and once that inarticulate feeling of connection has taken root in their minds, they will actively resist the idea that their beloved television friend could ever be guilty of something as awful as murder.
I was in high school at the time of the OJ trial. They announced the verdict while I was in the cafeteria eating lunch. The coaches, who were the lunchroom monitors, turned on a television to watch, and almost all of the students tried to get as close to the screen as they could. When the verdict was announced, almost the entire cafeteria erupted in celebration. No exaggeration. People were ecstatic. They cheered; they applauded; they high-fived; they were elated. Why? Because of some racial agenda? Because they hated whites and were happy that a brotha got one over on whitey? Most of the kids at my Tennessee high school were white. But like many Southern whites, they absolutely loved football, and OJ was still a bona fide legend. Plus, these kids had grown up watching OJ talk to them on television during countless football games, and he’d even been portrayed in a fun way in movies and advertisements. Somewhere, deep in their subconscious, it wasn’t OJ Simpson being declared “not guilty;” it was their image of OJ, their charming and avuncular friend from TV, being declared “not guilty.” The fact that he was black was entirely subordinate to the fact that they felt like he was their buddy.2
Parasocial relationships are odd, and they’ve become much odder and more prevalent since the advent of social media, but they’ve certainly been a thing for a very long time. For example, in the 1940s and 50s, hardly anyone would even consider the possibility that FDR knew beforehand that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor, but chose to do nothing because he wanted a “day of infamy” to inspire as much war fever as possible. Why wouldn’t anyone believe this? Well, one reason is that they had heard him speak to them in such a warm and paternal way during all those “fireside chats,” and because of that, they felt a very deep, very real affection for him; they felt like they really knew him, like he’d visited them in the intimacy of their own homes and had broken bread with them; they practically trusted him like their own dad. They could never believe anything bad about FDR, no matter how true it might have been, because it wasn’t FDR being accused of participating in a treasonous conspiracy, but rather their image of FDR, who was their dear, fatherly friend and leader, with whom they had shared the deepest (albeit one-sided) bonds of a parasocial relationship.
And that’s how it was for a lot of people when it came to OJ. No way could their very dear television friend do anything evil! The exact same thing would have happened if someone had accused, say, Michael Jackson or Bill Cosby of doing something horrific. As it turned out, many people were incredibly reluctant to believe that their cool black friend from all those MTV videos, or their favorite black uncle from The Cosby Show (America’s Dad!), could ever do anything like that!
At the same time, it also remains true that many black people saw the trial primarily (if not solely) through the lens of race. Maybe they thought of it as payback for the acquittal of the LAPD officers who beat the shit out of Rodney King?3 Maybe they thought OJ deserved to go free after killing those crackas because sheeeeit, after 400 years of oppression (it’s always been “400 years,” it seems, no matter how far back you go) black people was owed the right to kill some crackas every now and then, as a form of reparations? I don’t know. But all the usual race hucksters were loud and obnoxious throughout the trial.
At the end of the day, OJ Simpson was a murderer who got acquitted of a crime that everyone knew he committed, BOTH because he was a famous AND because he was a black man. AND … at the same time, Nicole Brown Simpson appears to have been a gold-digging whore who might have brought it on herself. I don’t know the whole situation, but if Chris Rock’s infamous bit [which will be discussed momentarily] was at all factually accurate, then I agree with Rock: “I’m not saying he should have killed her, but I understand!”
Sometimes, you have a conflict between two bad actors, and acknowledging the badness of one does not negate the badness of the other. Moral culpability is not some zero-sum game where there’s only so much blame to go around and the blame assigned to one party must be balanced out by assigning virtue to the other person. Sometimes, everyone involved in a situation has contributed to a bad outcome.
So there are all these different ways of framing the OJ trial and what it meant, and you can make a good-faith argument as to why any one of them could be considered the correct view. Ultimately, however, the best view is one that accounts for them all.
Of course, there are few people better suited for making sense of complicated and controversial issues than truly great comedians. Great comedy, like all great art, relies on Right-Hemisphere Dominant thinking: seeing things from various angles and making counterintuitive, but ultimately meaningful, connections among the various issues at play. And when it came to making great comedy out of the crazy circus that was the OJ trial, there was nobody better than Chris Rock and Norm MacDonald.
Norm MacDonald doing OJ jokes
Chris Rock doing OJ jokes
Norm MacDonald highlighted the absurdity of the trial itself: the overblown media circus surrounding every aspect of the trial’s coverage, the charade of pretending that the verdict was at all legitimate, etc. Meanwhile, Chris Rock seized upon the ridiculousness of conflating the issues of fame and race, as well as the insanity of the underlying gender dynamic and the crazy injustices inflicted on men in divorce proceedings. Which view was correct? Well, really they both were, which is why both comedians’ jokes were so enormously popular with audiences.
As you may recall, Norm MacDonald was ultimately fired from Saturday Night Live because of his OJ jokes. On the other hand, as a result of his massively successful special Bring the Pain, which included his infamous OJ bit (with the recurring punchline, “I’m not saying he should have killed her, but I understand!”), Chris Rock became more famous and successful than ever and was given his own TV show. Hmmmm. White comic got canceled for doing OJ jokes that audiences loved; black comic got elevated after doing OJ jokes that audiences loved. Was that black privilege in action?
Israel vs Gaza War
I first learned about Hamas’s October 7th attack on Twitter (again, where all important breaking news stories seem to first be reported). The footage of jihadis hang-gliding into an outdoor “trance music” festival were so surreal and strange as to be almost grotesquely comic, but the videos of terrified, shrieking young women being kidnapped, and the images of other young women with the seats of their pants soaked with blood (obvious sign of severe rape and sexual trauma), or of dead young women with their limbs broken and contorted in unnatural directions, were all nightmarishly horrific.
I emphasize the “young women” aspect of it because, well, as we all know, sex differences are real. Casualties of war are horrific, no matter the age or gender, but the horror is much more stark and gut-wrenchingly visceral when the casualties are attractive and nubile young women.
And although I don’t know any of the victims, I do have daughters, and I cannot even begin to imagine what it must have felt like for those Israeli parents when they found out what had happened to their children. I think I can speak for most of the dads our there when I say that there’s not much that would be more likely to tip you over the edge towards homicidal, perhaps even genocidal, violence, than someone kidnapping, raping, and killing one of your daughters.
All of that is very real. Of course, there have also been lots of Palestinian parents over the years who have gotten terrible news about what the IDF has done to their children. And their perspectives and experiences are equally real.4
When it comes to sympathetic victims, whether Israeli or Palestinian, we must remember that acknowledging a person’s lived reality and sympathizing with him does not mean that you thereby endorse the policies of his government, nor does it mean that you have to share that person’s view of who’s ultimately right and who’s ultimately wrong in the conflict, nor does it mean that you are morally obligated to form a military alliance with that person’s government to pursue vengeance against those believed to be responsible. Sympathy, NOT empathy, is what is needed.
I do know that it is extremely dangerous, as an outsider, to get involved in a fight between people you really don’t know very well, especially when they’ve been fighting for a long time and when the origins of their conflict are shrouded in the fog of war and epic propaganda campaigns. Sometimes, the situation might call for your involvement, but you desperately need discretion and wisdom to be able to discern whether the situation truly calls for you to be involved, or whether by inserting yourself into the conflict you will succeed only in making things even worse than they already are.
I also know that the more I have learned about Israel’s involvement in America’s foreign and domestic affairs, the less I trust their government and their leaders. Israel has exerted a curious degree of underhanded influence over America’s public officials, and Israel has repeatedly rewarded American loyalty with the most vile betrayal (e.g., the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which they knew was an American vessel, because they thought they could blame the attack on Arabs and thereby manipulate America into going war on their behalf — a common theme with Israel). Lately, China has exerted a similarly strange influence over our politicians, but there’s a big difference: when people question Chinese influence operations in America, nobody tries to censor or deplatform them on the grounds that they are “anti-Sino-tic.” You can openly criticize the Chinese Communist Party without regime shills from the ADL calling you a bigot and shrieking about how you must want to genocide the Chinese people. A very different pattern has held with the Israelis. Even Jews get slandered with accusations of antisemitism when they question the zionist agenda.
Taking a step back, I recognize that I cannot discern who is ultimately right and who is ultimately wrong in Gaza. I can’t even reliably discern who is right and wrong when it comes to conflicts closer to home! I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of the situation in Palestine, so I’m relying on what people tell me and what images and data and anecdotes those people choose to share, and everyone involved in this conflict has an agenda. Maybe it’s a good agenda, maybe it’s not, but it’s an agenda. And agendas shape narratives, and narratives shape reporting. Especially in a war.
Here’s what I do know: America is in such dire straits right now, that we need to focus our resources and attention on our own problems here at home. As a country, we’ve spent the last several decades intervening militarily in a series of foreign conflicts (some of our own making, many of Israel’s making), and it has cost the American people dearly and given us practically zero benefit in return. Many things can be true of this situation at once: someone like Noa Argamani didn’t deserve what happened to her on October 7th or since, nor did her parents, and may God bless and keep them; Palestinian children have also suffered greatly, and there’s no way that they deserve what’s happened to them either, and may God bless and keep them and their families too; and the whole situation seems like a hopeless mess where there are no good options, only relatively less-bad ones. All of that can be true, and my own position as an American can also be absolutely true: America should categorically refuse the attempts of foreign agents to make us a party to this conflict.
Psychopathic Retarded Black Transwomen Are a Plague on Society
From Ibram X Kendi5 to Michelle “Big Mike” Obama, psychopathic retarded black transwomen have been a plague on society. Maybe there’s something about the combination of melanin and artificial estrogen that makes these folks especially dangerous. Maybe it has something to do with Vitamin D deficiency coupled with hormonal imbalances. I don’t know, but if there are any serious medical researchers who haven’t been completely corrupted by Big Pharma money, then I hope that they study this issue. Because the political influence of psychopathic and retarded black trans women has been catastrophic. We have been BLM’d and DEI’d nearly to death as it is, and now we’ve got a new psychopathic and retarded black transwoman to worry about: Yolande Beckles.
This is a story so crazy, it could only happen in real life. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. A British black transwoman claims that America is terribly racist and white supremacist. So she immigrates to America, because of course that’s where you would go if you were black and if you really believed that America hates black people and tries to oppress them constantly. Within a short time, she’s an influential education activist who has the ear of state legislators and who helps shape the math curricula for millions of children. (And if that’s not proof positive that America is systemically racist towards black people, then I don’t know what is!) And what does this black transwoman do to improve the education outcomes of the black students she claims to care so much about? Why, she seeks to deny the most intelligent black children the opportunity to take advanced math classes, because those classes would be too white and too Asian. And why on earth would smart black kids ever want to learn advanced math alongside whites and Asians, when they could be experiencing this level of cultural enrichment instead:
And no doubt Yolande Beckles is making bank doing all of this, because there are few things more profitable than leading a leftist nonprofit organization — as BLM co-founder Patrice Cullors showed, when she parlayed her political activism into a multimillion-dollar real estate portfolio.
Anyway, the political and cultural influence of these psychopathic retarded black transwomen has been catastrophic. From Quack Dr. Ibram Kendi to Yolande Beckles, they repeatedly prove the urgent need for nuanced, holistic, Right-Hemisphere Dominant thinking, by demonstrating the consequences of its opposite: shallow, narrow-minded, emotionally unhinged, childishly self-absorbed, Left-Hemisphere Dominant foolishness.
If you want a primer on Iain McGilchrist’s work concerning the hemispheric differences in the human brain and how they effect our thinking, perspectives, and sense of self, check out
’s series on The Master Betrayed and ’s post Left and Right, Brains and Politics.Racial attitudes were interesting in the South during the 1990s: whites would have black friends, blacks would have white friends, whites would crack racist jokes about blacks (sometimes in the presence of their black friends), blacks would crack racist jokes about whites (sometimes in the presence of their white friends), and nobody would take it personal or contact the authorities to report a hate crime. From what I can tell of the currently rising generation of teenagers, this pattern may be returning, as the kids are absolutely sick and tired of the pedantic Conformmunism of their AWFL Millennial elders. See,
I mean, I’m not saying Rodney “Can’t We All Just Get Along?” King was the saint the media made him out to be, but given the acquittal of the officers and the kind of beat-down they publicly put on King, I can understand why blacks were angry about it. As with the OJ trial, comedians (in this case Bill Hicks in his album Arizona Bay) had the best analysis. Hicks sympathetically addressed BOTH the perspective of the rioters:
AND the perspective of regular people who were victims of the rioters’ violence:
Of course, at the end of the day, the powers-that-be hated all the little people on both sides of this controversy. Just because the regime pretends to like one group for a moment because it finds that group’s anger politically useful, doesn’t mean the powers-that-be actually like that group or are in any way loyal to them (as the anti[white]racist BLM crew will inevitably find out).
For a non-American Muslim’s perspective on America and her involvement in Middle East conflicts, check out my discussion with
:
To get an idea of how destructive Quack Dr. Ibram X Kendi’s political philosophy has been, check out this post about the real cause of the Maui fires:
Leave a comment, my Neandas! What do *you* think about the OJ Simpson trial, the Israel vs Gaza War (and specifically whether America and the West should be involved in it), or the political influence of psychopathic retarded black transwomen like Ibram Kendi and Yolande Beckles?
I have to object to the use of the term "transwomen" for mentally ill MEN who think they are women. How about "trannymen" instead? Flows better too.
It's also logically and morally wrong to use "she" when referring to such men. It degrades real women by conflating them with trannymen.