“You and I have never seen Democracy – all we’ve seen is hypocrisy” ~ Malcolm X
As we move from the Stono Rebellion and the Negro Act of 1740, to the 20th century we are warned to place the highest value on a free marketplace of ideas as critical thinking Black men outside of the Ivory Tower of academia. The Black Power rebel Malcolm X was assassinated on February 21, 1965 by rival Black Muslims in the Audubon Ballroom, but he had a pulse on the faux democracy on 1965 that lives on through the common Black man in 2020. Malcolm X warned that we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a hypocrisy. In a classic democracy, the masses must (1) be endowed by a culture of critical thinking & (2) have the means to express contribute their views in the marketplace of ideas. In this spirit, the Framers of the Constitution were forced to add the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by Anti-Federalist opposition.
Ratified on December 15, 1791, along with the other 9 Amendments or Bill of Rights; the First Amendment boldly declares:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on at least 326 landmark First Amendment related cases since 1791. At no point in US history, have questions of democracy, free speech, defamation and Black male intellectual agency vortexed in the manner that it has with the democratization of cyberspace. At no point in world history, has the Black common man ever had the power to speak so freely, cheaply, unfiltered and be as widely heard as he can in 2020 via web technology. The ruling oligarchy has set the rules of engagement on public discourse at least since the advent of the movable Gutenberg printing press in 1440 by German Johannes Gutenberg. Ironically, Gutenberg was a political exile because of his role in a working-class revolt against the ruling plutocrats in 1428 – he refused to be silenced by elites.
In the same spirit that inspired Malcolm X to call out the hypocrisy of the American social order and that which fueled the inventive spirit of Gutenberg; the muted Black men of America and the rest of the Western nation refuse to be silenced. Neither will we allow corporate appointed and sponsored surrogates to speak for millions of Black common men – when we can speak for ourselves. This act of Black male rebellion in digital spaces has hit a nerve with many from the halls of academia, corporate media, political apparatus, and others. Many Americans from high to low speak of democracy, but not many were prepared for the everyday Black male taking his rightful place in the marketplace of ideas. When the common Black man speaks for himself, the shock of it creates a knee-jerk reaction in those that have absorbed Black misandry via age old gender racial stereotypes and propaganda against Black men.
A common smear against the Black common man speaking in his own voice, projecting his own power, rejecting corporate approved shills – they are using hate speech. Naturally, one has to determine if hate speech has any legal definition from the highest judicial body in the United States – the U.S. Supreme Court. Of the minimum 326 cases decided by The Court since 1791, there were a number of famous so-called hate speech cases. One of the landmark cases to appear on the Court’s docket was the R.A.V. v. St. Paul case decided by SCOTUS on June 22, 1992. In that case, Justice Scalia writing for the Court in a (9-0) unanimous ruling determined that government is not free to penalize some types of speech within an unprotected category but not others on account of their content.
Furthermore, the Court ruled in R.A.V, by a concurring opinion from Justice White that, ‘the mere fact that expressive activity causes hurt feelings, offense or resentment does not render the expression unprotected speech.’ For the constitutionally deficient PC police who aim to mute the voices of the Black common man; exercising a sort of viewpoint discrimination is their strategy. The pro-censorship regiments believe the voices of common Black men- representing the ‘unwashed masses’ of Black males- are to be silenced.
They reason that some of those views and opinions are politically incorrect, insensitive, sometimes even repugnant. Therefore, because of the crudeness of some men, the content, validity, truthfulness of the arguments of ALL politically incorrect Black men should be ignored. To the PC police, the origins and tones of these ‘unwashed’ opinions are those of Black common men with bad verbal etiquette and lower status– so they should be muted.
Luckily, despite these appeals to ‘woke’ elitism, the legal grounds for offensive logical debate is safely secured by free speech rights of even the lowliest of entrants into the marketplace of ideas.
This elitist pro-censor position is rooted in centuries of gender racial bias, age old racial stereotypes and the acceleration of the mainstreaming of Black misandry. The hypocrisy of this viewpoint discrimination is obvious from a specific example from a viral Twitter TWEET that from November 2019.
Emily Lindin, was a Teen Vogue columnist, filmmaker and rabid 4th Wave feminist when she posted the infamous viral TWEET on November 21, 2017 to her 20,000+ followers. Ms. Lindin was neither fired from Teen Vogue, had her highly desired Twitter Checkmark removed, nor was she been banned from Twitter. Let’s not forget Teen Vogue has an impressionable teenage audience with 5 million monthly visitors on average. Imagine a male editor with similar status as Emily Lindin, saying the same thing about women – would he be treated with such kid gloves; even celebrated? Absolutely not. But the antagonists of the free-thinking Black common man have nothing to say about such open and blatant misandry on social media.
Since 2017, with the rise of the #MeToo movement, this sort of open misandry has become very widespread, and the defensive reaction by concerned men has increased in magnitude. The goal of viewpoint discrimination is to allow free reign of opinions and views from one preferred side of a discussion, while at the same time severely limiting or fully censoring counter views. The problem with tarnishing any attack against misandric language, ideas and actions as misogyny, is that eventually it strengthens the case against misandry.
For the reasons I’ve listed in this op-ed, the idea of muting the Black common man’s voice is popular, but if a free marketplace of ideas means anything – it means the right to defend one’s position and views. Therefore, the very vocal rejection of Black misandry is only beginning, and you can thank 40 years of unfettered misandry for that.
Welcome to 2020…
Support King Sigma On CASHAPP: $sigmawins
1. Africans in America/Part 1/The Stono Rebellion. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p284.html
2. The U.S. acquires Spanish Florida. (2010, February 9). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-u-s-acquires-spanish-florida#:~:text=
3. Johann Gutenberg. (2020, March 5). Retrieved from https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/libraries-books-and-printing-biographies/johann-gutenberg#:~:text=
4. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. (1992)
5. Lindin, Emily. (2017, November 21). Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/emilylindin/status/933073784822579200?lang=en