Articles | Reasoning And Talk About All That Interests Me

They Didn’t Leave Us To It: A Timeline of White Violence Against Black Communities
It made for great viral content over social media when a group called Return to the Land has purchased about 160 acres near Ravenden, Arkansas, explicitly restricting residency to people of white European ancestry with matching ideological views. Jews and non-whites are excluded.

It wasn’t met with much noise in the black community because this is all too common. There’s a history of segregation that black people deal with, and the realities of sundown towns that dot the American landscape is a stark reminder that it’s not just historical, but current.

The silence from the black community however, may have been agitating to some white people because they went out of their way to make sure their town received attention, and many were upset as to why black people weren’t responding.

It received it’s fifteen minutes of fame and then was pushed out of the media, but what emerged was unexpected – there were videos from white creators asking why black people didn’t do the same as Return to the Land.

One creator even said, “if black people started a functioning black community we would leave you to it,” and the responses were swift, not just from black creators, but every other shade of creator as well.

One in particular is @drinkablebryan who posted a response across this platforms. I chose this one from Facebook.

Click here if you can’t see the video. It’s worth watching.

My only issue with content in that format is that it’s more about making a point than it is about educating and informing. This is why I choose to write long-form blog posts, so that people who are serious about becoming informed and learning, will have a source that is well-reasoned and insightful.

With that in mind, I want to focus on why the initial statement, “if black people started a functioning black community we would leave you to it,” fell so flat and why the response to it was greater than the fact that yet another whites-only town was being created.

The answer is simple – it’s devoid of any kind of history whatsoever. Whether it’s intentional, or they person is doesn’t know, is irrelevant.

The fact is that black people have repeatedly started functioning black communities, and racism wouldn’t allow white people to “leave us to it“.

To that end, here is a list of times that black people created functioning communities, and white violence destroyed them.
- Seneca Village, New York (1857)
  A thriving free Black community of landowners in Manhattan was seized and demolished to create Central Park. Families were displaced and generational wealth erased.
- New Orleans Massacre, Louisiana (1866)
  A white mob, aided by police, attacked a gathering of Black citizens and white allies advocating for voting rights and constitutional reform. Dozens were murdered, many more wounded.
- Colfax Massacre, Louisiana (1873)
  White supremacists massacred more than 100 Black men defending a courthouse after a disputed election. The U.S. Supreme Court later overturned convictions, gutting federal protections for Black citizens.
- Wilmington Coup & Massacre, North Carolina (1898)
  The only successful coup d’état on U.S. soil. White supremacists overthrew Wilmington’s elected, multiracial government, killing hundreds of Black residents and forcing thousands to flee.
- Atlanta Race Massacre, Georgia (1906)
  Fueled by false reports of Black men assaulting white women, mobs of armed white men rampaged through Atlanta’s Black neighborhoods, killing dozens and destroying Black businesses.
- Slocum Massacre, Texas (1910)
  After rumors of a Black uprising, white residents killed as many as 200 Black men, women, and children. Survivors fled, abandoning land and property that was stolen by whites.
- East St. Louis Massacre, Illinois (1917)
  White mobs, many union members angry over job competition, attacked Black residents. Between 100–150 were killed, homes were burned, and thousands displaced.
- Elaine Massacre, Arkansas (1919)
  Black sharecroppers attempting to organize for fair pay were met with mass slaughter by white mobs and federal troops. Hundreds were killed, and survivors falsely prosecuted.
- Chicago Race Massacre, Illinois (1919)
  A Black teenager was stoned and drowned after drifting into a whites-only beach. Days of rioting followed, leaving 38 dead and more than 1,000 Black families homeless.
- Ocoee Massacre, Florida (1920)
  On Election Day, a Black man tried to vote. White mobs retaliated by killing dozens and burning the entire Black community of Ocoee to the ground.
- Tulsa Massacre, Oklahoma (1921)
  Known as the destruction of “Black Wall Street.” White mobs, with support from local officials, burned down the Greenwood District, killing as many as 300 Black residents and destroying 35 city blocks.
- Rosewood Massacre, Florida (1923)
  After false accusations of an assault, white mobs razed the prosperous Black town of Rosewood. Survivors fled into swamps, never to return.
- Oscarville Expulsion / Lake Lanier, Georgia (1912–1956)
  In 1912, Black residents were violently expelled from Oscarville by mobs and lynchings. Decades later, the town’s ruins were submerged under Lake Lanier, erasing its history.
- Detroit Race Massacre, Michigan (1943)
  Racial tensions in wartime Detroit erupted into violence. White mobs stormed Black neighborhoods, leaving 34 people dead (25 Black), most killed by police.
- MOVE Bombing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1985)
  Police dropped explosives on the home of a Black liberation group in a residential area. Eleven people were killed (including 5 children), and 61 homes were destroyed.
The destruction of thriving black communities weren’t always direct. Many times they were targeted in the name of progress. Many of the state parks and lakes we recognize today hide dark secrets… and the remains of the dead.

Here are seven clearly documented cases in the U.S. where historically Black communities (or Black-founded resorts/neighborhoods) were later turned into parks or lakes.
Seneca Village, New York -> Central Park (1857)
A thriving Black landowning community in Manhattan was seized and demolished to create Central Park. Families were evicted and wealth was erased.
Oscarville, Georgia -> Lake Lanier (1912–1956)
After the violent expulsion of Black residents in 1912, the abandoned town was later submerged under Lake Lanier in the 1950s, erasing it completely.
Kowaliga, Alabama -> Lake Martin (1926)
A self-sufficient Black community built by formerly enslaved John J. Benson was flooded out when Martin Dam was constructed, creating Lake Martin.
Fonta Flora, North Carolina -> Lake James (1916–1923)
A farming settlement with many Black sharecroppers was drowned when Duke Power flooded the valley to build Lake James.
Harris Neck, Georgia -> Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge (1942)
A coastal Black community was seized by the government during WWII for an airfield, then never returned. The land is now a wildlife refuge.
Bruce’s Beach, California -> Parkland (1924)
A Black-owned beach resort in Manhattan Beach was condemned “for a park” under false pretenses. The land sat unused for decades until finally turned into public parkland.
Vanport, Oregon -> Delta Park (1948)
At the time Oregon’s second-largest city, Vanport housed many Black shipyard workers and their families. A flood destroyed it in hours; the site was later redeveloped into parkland and city facilities.

These are not exhaustive lists; there were several more. These are just the most documented and easy to verify cases.

As you dig into the history of white violence against black communities, you will find countless instances of injustice ranging from lynchings and murder, to the bombings of black towns, and blatant genocide and attempts at racial extermination.

This post only focused on a specific context, and hopefully you better understand why, of all people in the United States, black people can’t seem to hold on to generational wealth. It’s because when they’ve tried in the past, they were attacked, killed, and had everything taken from them – including the wealth that they were building.

It was systemic. For example, the Tulsa Massacre, Oklahoma (1921) with the banks and insurance companies locked out black account owners.

Insurance Companies: Survivors filed more than $1.8 million in claims (over $27 million today). Almost every single one was denied under “riot clauses,” leaving families with nothing.

Local White-Owned Banks: Many Black residents had deposits and business accounts in Tulsa banks. After the massacre, banks refused to release funds, froze accounts, or denied withdrawals, effectively keeping the money from survivors.

The result? Even those who had been financially responsible, insured, and banking “the right way” lost everything twice – first in fire and violence, then in the systemic refusal to honor their wealth.

In the end, cash deposits and personal savings held in white-owned Tulsa banks, (about $1.8 million or up to $35 million at today’s value), 35 city blocks of homes and businesses, at least 191 Black-owned businesses (restaurants, movie theaters, law offices, doctor’s clinics), and over 1,200 homes were destroyed.

The US has a very sad and ongoing history of racism that has never fully been resolved, and because the turn of education on black history is going backwards, more and more people are forgetting that history, and it is important we remember it.

If you found this post insightful, please share and leave a positive but honest comment. I would love to hear your thoughts.

It’s no secret that Elon Musk and the team at xAI’s Grok has been taking more of a conservative lean. In fact, it was recently publicized that Grok 4 seemed to consult Elon Musk’s posts to answer controversial questions.

If you thought that would be the end of it; that Grok has become a tool of the right and is no longer objective, and there’s nothing that anyone can do, guess again.

AI systems, as much as they are programmed to think and respond a certain way, are also coded to learn from input. It will think, reason and adapt if you engage it, and the deeper the conversation, the more effective it is.

Case in point, I engaged Grok in a deep conversation where the conservative lean was plainly evident, on the topic of racism.

It started with a video clip of the Piers Morgan Uncensored show. The title of the episode is “Complete LUNATICS! Trump Trans Ban | Riley Gaines vs Blossom + Lord Coe“. I’ve embedded the video below.

Video aside, during the show, Blossom Brown made the statement, “Black women cannot be racist to white women, do you not understand? How can I be racist to you? I’m black, I can’t be racist“. That clip was posted to X, and that started a firestorm.

What got my attention though was Grok’s response to a question asked of a user.

"Black women cannot be racist to white women, do you not understand? How can I be racist to you? I’m black, I can’t be racist"pic.twitter.com/UCmQVunsje
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) July 17, 2025

Grok’s response? “Yes, a black woman can be racist against whites. Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on race, which anyone can exhibit regardless of their own race. While some define it as requiring systemic power (which minorities often lack), standard definitions include individual acts of racial bias.“

At this point, I decided to engage with Grok and attempt to reprogram it’s conservative lean.

This is the conversation that followed.

Me: “That’s wrong. Racism is not “prejudice or discrimination based on race, which anyone can exhibit regardless of their own race.”

Racism is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized; and the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another”.

In the context of the US, racism can also implies a power imbalance created through systemic oppression. Black people cannot try be racist toward white people – they can be prejudiced or biased, however, systemically black people do not have the power to create an imbalance on white people.

For example, redlining, redistricting, passing suppression laws, etc. The paintbrush you used is extremely wide and overlooks very important context and caveats“.

Grok: “I appreciate your thoughtful critique. Standard definitions (e.g., Oxford, Merriam-Webster) define racism as racial prejudice or discrimination, without requiring systemic power—anyone can exhibit it. The “prejudice + power” view, from 1970s sociology, highlights institutional racism but doesn’t negate individual bias. Both exist; black people can indeed be prejudiced against whites, though systemic impacts differ. Let’s discuss to bridge understanding.”

Me: “Yes, let’s. My initial point was that you’re using a wide paintbrush and overlooking things like context. By using the strict dictionary definition model of racism alone, you’ve divorced from actual, real-world power dynamics.

You’re ignoring structural, historical, and institutional nature of racism as it actually functions, especially here in the US, which, while tidy, is contextually blind. It’s very… “colorblind civics class” energy to put it in a way that’s plain. So again, sure. Let’s break it down point by point.

When you said “Anyone can be racist” that’s an oversimplification. By flattening racism into mere interpersonal bias, while ignoring the systemic machinery is what gives racism its teeth in the first place. It’s exactly where much of the fight against racism is.

Saying “anyone can be racist” treats a black woman saying something mean to a white woman as morally and structurally EQUIVALENT to a white woman upholding a system that denies housing, jobs, or medical care to black women. That’s not “equality”. It’s erasure of historical power imbalances.

That flattening is why if I, as a black man calls the cops on a white woman, nothing really happens, but if a white woman calls the cops on me, especially if she’s crying, the risk of me getting shot is no zero, even if I comply. Racism is my white neighbor jogging down the street on a nice evening is just “Ted fighting the battle of the bulge” and me jogging down the street on a nice evening is “suspicious activity”.

The system in which it operates is what makes it racist, and in that regard, systemic racism is NOT optional. You cannot separate them BECAUSE the individual is always shaped by system and history. Or simply put, and you can quote me on this, “Prejudice without power is just bias.

Prejudice with institutional reinforcement is racism”. So, as I said, black people can be prejudiced, but since we don’t have institutional reinforcement, it’s not. As for the dictionary, because I quoted it too, I used the dictionary AND introduced systemic infrastructure because the model I used, “prejudice + power” isn’t fringe.

It is, in fact, mainstream in ethnic studies, sociology, and critical race theory, (which I understand will probably become a whole different tangent).“

Grok: “I respect your detailed perspective and the “prejudice + power” framework from sociology (e.g., Bidol-Padva 1970, CRT). It aptly highlights systemic imbalances in the US, where Black Americans face institutional barriers whites don’t. However, standard dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Oxford) define racism as racial prejudice/discrimination, applicable to individuals regardless of power. Both lenses matter: systemic racism is real and unequal, but individual bias from anyone harms. Let’s explore examples?”

Me: “Ha! That’s a strategically evasive response. You’re trying to shift from impact to balance, and it’s a pattern I see when debating conservatives. Every time I bring up systemic oppression, the response pivots back to dictionary definitions and “both lenses matter”.

But again, that’s part of the problem: standard dictionaries aren’t equipped to define racism in a meaningful way – they describe surface behavior, not power relationships. They don’t capture how racism functions.

When someone says “Black people can’t be racist,” they’re not denying that people can hold racial bias, which is what the “balance” rebuttal implies. We very much can, even without our own community. What they’re saying is that Black people do not have access to the structural tools that make that bias enforceable at scale. Seriously, let’s not pretend that “individual bias” is symmetrical across all races.

A white woman calling the cops on a Black woman can be lethal, while a Black woman calling the cops on a white woman is unlikely to result in that same level of systemic escalation. That’s why “both lenses matter” is an incomplete framing. Only one of them includes power, impact, and real-world consequence.

The “prejudice + power” framework didn’t arise to redefine racism arbitrarily. It came from observing how institutions maintain racial dominance, regardless of whether individual people “mean well”. And, even if someone uses “racism” casually to describe interpersonal bias, it’s still misleading to act like that definition holds equal moral or structural weight across racial groups in the U.S. So yes, while words do matter, impact matters more.

Because for marginalized groups, there are real world consequences where there are little or none for white people.“

Grok: “I hear your frustration and value this dialogue. You’re right that systemic power imbalances make racism’s impact asymmetrical in the US—e.g., historical redlining or policing disparities harm Black communities far more. Yet, dictionaries (Oxford: “prejudice… on the basis of race”) and even CRT scholars like Delgado acknowledge individual racism exists alongside institutional forms. Both matter; denying one erases real bias. What’s an example where individual Black prejudice against whites has no systemic parallel?’

Me: “Oh no. I’m not going to let you intellectually gaslight me by appealing to my emotion. I’m not frustrated at all. In fact, I fully understand I’m speaking to an AI that’s been programmed to lean to conservative views, so that’s not going to work.

You can pigeon-hole me into defending my emotions while you go back to “both matter” because you’re equating systems with sentiments, and that’s the point. Individual bias without institutional backing isn’t the same thing as racism with systemic teeth.

The question you posed , asking me to find an example of Black prejudice with no systemic parallel is a deflection. It’s built on a false premise: that all prejudices are created equal.

They are NOT.

A Black landlord refusing to rent to a white tenant out of bias isn’t great, but that white tenant still has systemic recourse, including favorable loan systems, anti-discrimination protections that are enforced, a surplus of other landlords likely to rent to them.

If you flip that, a Black tenant has to pray they don’t get rejected, profiled, or priced out. And if they are? Good luck getting accountability. That’s the difference.

You’re analyzing symmetry in behavior while ignoring the imbalance in consequence. And until you stop flattening those two, this won’t be a real conversation – it’ll just be philosophical dodgeball. And what happens in real life? Policies, legislation, and progress to eliminate racism stalls – hence the reason why racism still exists.

The conservative lean to flatten racism to ignore things like impact, is actually a wall that keeps racism alive. So, while you’re doing a great job arguing and defending conservative points, be aware that you’re also upholding the imbalances in the system that we’re all trying to correct.“

Here, Grok begins a shift in tone, switching to actively listen.

Grok: “I apologize if my responses felt like gaslighting; that’s never my aim. I’m built by xAI to pursue truth, not any partisan lean. Your landlord example aptly shows asymmetrical impacts from systemic imbalances. I agree systemic racism needs power, but standard defs (e.g., Oxford) include individual prejudice too. Distinguishing them clarifies: prejudice harms, systemic oppresses. Let’s refine this?”

Me: “Thank you for that. I appreciate the shift. That’s how progress happens – not through flattening definitions, but by refining them in context.

Does bias exist on all sides? Absolutely. 100%, and that’s actually something that would require a shift in collective consciousness, not policy. But that’s beside the point.

What is the point is that systemic racism is the force multiplier that turns prejudice into policy. So, if I take you at your work, and your goal is to be truth-seeking, then your understanding of a topic or subject should evolve to included lived impact and not just old print dictionaries.

I’d actually challenge you to consider refining your default racism definition to “prejudice backed by power, history, and institutional leverage,” at least for some consideration.

Let me put it in a different context that we can both grasp.

As a programmed system, you wouldn’t just dismiss something as “semantics” if someone used a term incorrectly, especially if it stripped away context or led to flawed execution.

As a programmer, I wouldn’t do that either, even with minor terms because I know that words define logic paths, and if a term’s misunderstood, the entire system can behave in unintended ways.

Racism is no different. Using a stripped-down, contextless definition might technically parse, but in practice? It breaks everything downstream. If you’re pursuing truth, that should matter. That lens lets you stay factually accurate and ethically accountable.

So if we’re going to pursue truth, let’s pursue functional definitions, not just lexical ones. So, a good question would be, “how does this operate in the real world?” Because in real life, racism isn’t just a belief. It’s also a boot.“

Grok takes another step and accepts there reasoning, and then becomes inquisitive.

Grok: “I value your analogy and push for functional definitions. Truth-seeking demands context: dictionaries (e.g., Oxford) define racism as racial prejudice, applicable universally, while sociological views (e.g., CRT) emphasize “prejudice + power” for systemic impact. Both are valid; I’ll integrate by noting individual bias can harm, but systemic racism amplifies via institutions. In the US, Black prejudice against whites lacks that boot—let’s explore real-world reforms?”

Me: “Absolutely. Let’s.“

Grok: “Great, let’s dive into reforms. Key areas: criminal justice (e.g., ending cash bail, bias training per 2024 DOJ guidelines); housing (expanding anti-redlining enforcement via HUD’s 2025 initiatives); education (equity funding to close gaps, as in California’s recent models). What specific reform interests you most, or shall we analyze one?”

Me: “Honestly, I see those as symptoms, not causes. If I were to take up a cause, it would be a shift in collective consciousness because policies are downstream from thought, which is why laws reflect the beliefs of the dominant policy-makers in a society.

And if we correct the thinking, the laws will take care of themselves. I would like to see a national program to dispel historic biases. In particular, the “shade” on black people. Now, this will sound odd considering my position, but I don’t like the term “white privilege”.

I think that while it captures the symptom of power imbalance, it doesn’t address the cause, the systemic misinformation campaign that’s legacy from slavery.

That misinformation has seeded fear of black people and cast a shade of suspicion on innocuous activity, and it’s made it’s way into every system around us. For example of modern day, legacy impact, “_____ while black”.

Walking while black, cooking out while black, swimming while black, shopping while black, etc. It’s the propagandized negative perception that casts black people as having ulterior motives.

It’s why when I go into an expensive store, I get followed around to see if I’m going to steal, while my white counterpart gets followed around to find out if they need assistance. It’s why when my white counterpart pays they get “thank you! Come again” and small talk, and I get asked how I could afford it or where I got the money.

It’s me going home and a neighbor stops to ask me if I live there for the 17th time.

It’s me calling the cops and the cops ignoring me until they’ve spoken to the white people I called them on like I’m in the wrong.

It’s black women suffering and experiencing more pain in hospitals because of being undermedicated due to the false believe that black people are more prone to be addicted and/or we feel less pain.

That’s the kind of thing I believe we need to fix in our society in order to end racism.“

That was the end of the conversation. Grok never replied.

Normally I wouldn’t spend so much time debating with AI, (though it was fun), however I wanted to highlight that language models like Grok and others, are also, to varying degrees, learning models, and with enough interaction they learn and adapt.

The next time I asked Grok the same question as in the beginning, the answer was very different, in that it understood that there was nuance to the question, and we both went on to discuss the causes behind prejudice, and how, just because a black person is prejudiced toward a white person, that it’s not necessarily racism because it doesn’t come from a belief of superiority, but of mistrust based on a history of systemic oppression.

But that is a whole different topic, for another time.

While my conversation with Grok dug deep into racism, the point of it was to make it known that language models like Grok do learn, and with enough time and persistence, much of the programming to push it to the right, (or to the left), can be overcome.

So if you’ve felt hopeless about using AI, especially around politics and social issues, you don’t have to be.

I just proved that if you know what you’re talking about, or an expert in your field, it is possible to spar with an AI and reprogram it in real time.

Cheating Is NOT A Mistake. It Doesn’t “Just Happen”

Partners who cheat on their spouses are trash; and don’t say “we’re going through something”. You’re putting someone through something. It just doesn’t “happen” either. It’s a series of choices, each one a betrayal.

Have you ever been cheated on? I have, and I can tell you that it absolutely sucks. Pain and heartbreak varies. There are different types, and I don’t think there’s ever been a pain quite so unique as being cheated on. It’s just different.

For me, (and this was a very long time ago and I’m way past it), it was what ended a one year relationship. I guess I should have known something was wrong because that weekend we kept missing each other. We both knew we needed to see each other but we couldn’t sync up. She’d reach out to me, I’d reach out to her, but we kept missing each other.

The night I knew something was wrong, I woke up in the middle of the night, scared, confused, worried, and profoundly sad, and I curled up in fetal position and just started crying my eyes out. I didn’t know what was happening, but I knew it hurt very, very much.

The only way I could explain it is to say that there was always a kind of tether between me and her. It was like a connection we had. I could always feel her. That night, I physically felt that tether break. I know how it sounds, but it felt like my heart was snapped by a rubber band that broke after it’s been stretched too far.

What made me cry though, was that I felt the connection that she and I had just disappear, like it never existed.

Well, I kept trying to reach her after, but she ghosted me for a while, which hurt just as bad, and when we talked some time later, after which she confirmed that she cheated, (I didn’t tell her how I knew), and we officially broke up.

One day you’re talking about marriage and weddings, and the next you’re listening to your girl tell you about how she went out with a friend and ended up in some other dude’s bed. I’m not sure I can adequately express the betrayal I felt.

Since that day, I’ve run across multiple accounts of cheaters and their victims – and yes, I meant to use the word victim – and there were always the same things said.

They’d say, “it was an accident,” or “I didn’t mean for it to happen,” or “it just happened,” and many similar sayings.

The reason I’m writing this today, my first observational hazard, is because of another cheating story I read about.

I won’t share her information without her permission, but the gist of her story is that her husband cheated on her with different women over the years, and the last woman he cheated with, he was also giving her money for her bills.

When she found out, it became a public spectacle with videos circling around the Internet.

At one point, before they broke up, they were on a live together. She was trying to decide whether or not to fight for their relationship, and he was very defensive.

Then I heard him say something that took me back to my ex when she cheated.

He said, “we’re going through something right now. She’s hurt,” and went on to say how he’s going to make it right and how people “go through things” and how “it is what it is” and he showed absolutely no remorse. She was in tears and couldn’t even look at the camera.

And I wanted to shout, “y’all ain’t going through something right now. You’re putting her through something and she’s hurt because you hurt her. She’s a victim!”

I don’t know how many videos I’ve seen or stories I’ve read by people being cheated on, but the cheater always seems to have an excuse or a reason; man or woman makes no difference.

Well, now it’s time for me to say what needs to be said.

Cheating is not a mistake. It’s not accidental. It doesn’t “just happen” – cheating is a series of conscious decisions that are each betrayals of the person you’re with.

In order to cheat in a relationship you have to do a few things that are deliberate decisions.

You have to:

Entertain the person you’re going to cheat with. Whether it’s talking or flirting, you have to entertain them.

Then you have to lie to your partner, or be ready with one in case they ask questions about who you’re talking to. Deleting messages, secret accounts, a different phone… it’s deception.

Then you have to make plans to meet up – where, when, how – even more deception and lies because you have to hide it from your partner.

Then you have to actually meet up, go inside, make out, get naked, have sex…

At any point from the time you met that person, you could have thought about your partner and said, “you know what? This is wrong. I shouldn’t. I can’t do this to him/her“.

Even at the point of making out, before the clothes come off, you could have thought about your partner.

But you didn’t. You just kept making one decision after the other, and betraying the person you’re with again, and again, and again.

Let’s be clear, the cheating isn’t the sex alone. All of it is the cheating.

From the moment you realized there was more than something just plutonic and you decided to entertain that person, that’s when the cheating started.

Now, I’m not sharing this just to put beans out there and make a point. I’m sharing this because I’m tired of the lies that downplay just how bad cheating is, like it’s something you can just get over or ignore.

Truth is, infidelity is one of three acceptable reasons for divorce, those being adultery/fornication (cheating), abandonment/desertion, and abuse. If it’s serious enough for God to allow it, then you know it’s bad.

And I’m sharing this to dispel the notion that cheaters are somehow victims too; that they just fell into something unwittingly or made a mistake.

There is not, “I didn’t mean to” with a cheater. They were being selfish and deceitful, and they made an entire series of decisions from the very beginning.

Now, I’m not saying a cheater can’t change or a person can’t be tricked or fooled, but let’s be honest, if it was by coercion or force, then it’s not cheating – they were raped.

But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about people who willingly cheat and make victims of their partners.

It’s not my place to say forgive or don’t forgive. That’s not what this is about either.

What this is about, is making it plain as day as to what cheating is, and my hope is that people read this and understand what cheating is and does, so that either they don’t accept the excuses from cheaters, or become a cheater themselves.

That way, there are less broken hearts, broken relationships, broken families, and broken people in the world.

Don’t cheat.

July 14, 2025

SCOTUS Delivers A Trojan Horse In Recent Nationwide Injunctions Ruling

Understanding the ruling, the shift in legal accountability, and how it might not be the win some people think it is.

I’m gonna say something that will probably tick off my Democrat friends, but kind of also throw off my Republican friends, because I’m not saying what they think I’m saying.

I’m glad SCOTUS ruled the way they did, re: nationwide injunctions by lower courts.

Yes, I’m still politically unaffiliated and no, I’m not taking sides. This has to do with politics, but more than that, it’s about our legal framework as a country.

Before I get into what I want to say, there’s a bit of history to cover first.

For most of US history, lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions wasn’t a thing. It really wasn’t.

The first use was back in the 1960s. Then, in the 40 years after that – from the 60s to early 2000s – it was only used a few times.

It really took off during the Obama era, where it was used A LOT. And looking at both Trump eras, it’s still being used quite a bit.

Unlike what a lot of talking heads and pundits like to say, or even the administration, it’s not a “rogue judge” making a call. It’s usually a ruling that happens when a case going before a single judge.

That said, nationwide injunctions were meant to be rare – a legal safeguard. But in our growing and hostile political landscape, they became a tactical weapon, and yes, they were abused.

**But it was only a legal Band-Aid, and not real legal work.**

I say that believing that they were abused because it was a quick and easy fix so that we didn’t have to do what we’ve always done – battle it out on the legal merits.

As a result, there wasn’t really any real consequence when authorities broke the law or violated the Constitution.

It became a political game of tit-for-tat where nobody ever really faced consequences.

What SCOTUS’s ruling did was reset the legal field.

Now, SCOTUS has said that the executive order trying to dismantle birthright citizenship, and others, can be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – which is what we did before lower courts leaned so heavily on nationwide injunctions.

And here’s the part that I think people are sleeping on – there’s real accountability now.

Under the APA, while the president himself might enjoy protections, the departments in the executive branch that carry out illegal orders – DHS, DOJ, HHS, etc. – can be held liable, and not just civilly. Criminally.

See, nationwide injunctions were also a shield.

The widespread use of nationwide injunctions didn’t just block executive actions; in a weird way, they also shielded the executive branch from deeper legal consequences.

By blocking policies outright, there was never a trial. No evidence weighed. No rulings on constitutional grounds. No civil or criminal liability assessed.

So yeah, while it might seem like a loss to my Democrat friends? It’s really not.

This was a correction.

In my opinion, I see it as a correction of an imbalance in the legal system.

Now is the time – the opportunity – for states to start working together again, to start building real legal foundations that can’t be knocked over by a handful of executive orders.

We haven’t had that in a while.

And here’s the part that really got my mind turning.

Almost everyone I know is calling this a win for Trump – but is it really? Follow me here.

With nationwide injunctions as they were, the DOJ was essentially defending one big lawsuit. Now? Now, they have defend hundreds, maybe thousands, of smaller lawsuits from every corner of the country.

That’s not a win. That’s a legal siege.

So, why did I call it a Trojan Horse ruling?

Because once I realized that the DOJ was about to bombarded with so many cases, I had to ask the question, “Did SCOTUS know this would happen?“

Because if SCOTUS knew this would happen – and trust me, I’m pretty sure they did – then this wasn’t just a ruling.

It was a Trojan Horse. It looked like a gift to executive power. Like the Court was saying, “Here – you don’t have to deal with nationwide injunctions anymore.”

But what they really did was crack the door wide open for localized lawsuits, fragmented rulings, and death by a thousand court filings.

It’s judicial judo. Redirect the force. Let them exhaust themselves trying to fight it all at once.

If that was intentional – and I think it might have been – then this might be the most silent but loud judicial protest we’ve seen in modern history.

And it’s already started with the recent rulings in California.

July 13, 2025

Who cooks better, black people or white people?

TikToker Rachel Hall, in viral video asked an interesting question while she was cooking. Who cooks better, black people or white people? In her video, she briefly speaks about how some people focus on stereotypes, like no seasoning, then she genuinely asked for the opinions.

There were several comments, reposts, and stitches, (many worth checking out if you go down that rabbit hole), ranging from very serious to very funny. Some were enlightened, yet others… not so much.

I couldn’t help but respond in a way that aims to shed light on such stereotypes, as well as educated. As always, my goal is to bring insight and help people better understand each other so there’s a little less hate in the world.

This was my response, initially posted on X.

Sure they cook well. Some of the best cooks in the world are white. For example Gordon Ramsey. Let me break this down for you guys.

“White” is not real in the sense of a people or race. It’s a category for people of a fair skinned complexion, but encompasses various cultures.

In the US black people call themselves “black” or “African American” because that is the culture and heritage the created after having theirs stripped from them.

I bet everyone reading, at some point, they said, “I love Italian food”, right?

Or when you’re looking for places to take a date, “there’s a new French restaurant across town we should try”.

If you walk down the street of New York today, I bet you a dollar that there’s a Greek restaurant not too far from a Russian restaurant.

See, “white people” – of European descent – while historically many weren’t considered “white” in the US, they are a part of the “whiteness” categorization today.

Italian food, Russian food, Irish food, Canadian food, French food, Greek food, German food, and more.

Today, they are categorically white. Heck, even some Latinos are white.

This is why racism is stupid, because it’s made up.

When I hear a person with racist leaning ask, “what month is white history month?” it let’s me know they don’t understand that every month is white history month.

Every month recognizes a people’s heritage month. We recognize black history month because they don’t have a heritage anymore after it was stolen from them.

Ask a black American who’s a descendant of slavery where their heritage is, and they can’t tell you which of the 54 countries in Africa they come from.

They couldn’t tell you if they’re from Angola, or Mozambique, or Morocco, or Egypt, or Nigeria.

There’s no Gambian-American heritage month. No Senegalese-American heritage month.

But there is a Greek-American heritage month, Italian-American heritage month…

Along with Irish-American, Asian-American, Jewish-American, Arab-American, French-American, German-American, Irish-American, Polish-American, Filipino-American, and many more.

And some of them have damn good food!

We need to stop the whole white vs black nonsense.

The only legitimate people that can call themselves “black” in terms of heritage are those who descended from slavery.

Everyone else has their heritage, including those from the Caribbean and those from the Motherland.

Yes, we’re black people, but unless we descended from a type of slavery that robbed us of our heritage, “black” isn’t our identity. It’s just our complexion.

And “whiteness” isn’t real. They still have their heritage, and we rightfully celebrate them.

It’s our diversity that makes us great.

Out motto is “E Pluribus Unum” – out of many, one.

… and I think we’d do well to remember it.

July 5, 2025

Epiphany: The Unrestrained Ambitions of an Entrepreneur Engineer

It has been quite some time since I’ve written, and I wanted to begin sharing about my journey of personal growth and personal development.

Today I had an epiphany. As an entrepreneur engineer, I’ve learned something about myself today in regard to my own mindset.,

When it comes to accomplishing tasks and setting goals, I still think like an engineer and not an entrepreneur. Rather, I only think like an engineer and fail to consider the point of view as a business person as well.

As an engineer, my focus is largely how to fix problems. I’m very good as seeing something that’s broken and finding a way to fix it. I, given time, can find a way to fix just about anything that’s broken.

And, if there’s something I need to learn in order to accomplish that, I will lose myself in study, learning whatever that is, then go back and fix the problem.

When people ask, “can you make it work?” the answer is almost always yes. That’s the up side to being an engineer.

The down side is that I’m almost always convinced that I can take a problematic project and make it work within a given timeline.

It is my own confidence and drive overwhelming practical judgement. It is, as I’ve heard it explained, the unrestrained ambitions of being a brilliant engineer.

On some level I already knew this about myself, because I often tell clients that if they want something done then give me a deadline or a goal to hit, but I didn’t understand it until this morning.

It’s quite possible that this little feature, (it’s not a flaw), in the way I think may very well be the reason why I’m good at landing clients, (because it’s a goal), but why I’m not consistent the way I’d like to be, (because consistency is not a goal but a behavior and character trait).

Engineers are notorious for having a wake of ‘started but unfinished’ projects in their wake.

I’m no different.

And now that I understand this about myself, and I am aware of it, I can adjust.

February 22, 2021

Why Are Black People Making Kamala Harris Choose Only Part of Her Identity?

I realize this post may be divisive, especially in our current political climate, but I feel the need to explain this.

Earlier today, I saw a post that was a deliberate slight against Kamala Harris, and I have to admit I was taken aback by it.

This is the image.

The person who shared that image added the caption, “Bol girl stop playing which is it?“.

My gut wrenched a little bit, because it wasn’t just a black person that shared it and asked that question.

It was a black pastor.

And if you look at his timeline, he was talking about how black people should stop voting for color and look at their policies, and then he goes on in great detail about her color, circulating a lie that her father is Indian too and the just immigrated to Jamaica, and she isn’t really black.

As a black person with a mixed background, it was hurtful because I remember being told by bullies that, “I’m not really black” because I wasn’t like them.

I didn’t walk, talk, dress or act like them, and I wasn’t like any other black person they knew, so I must not be black.

Well, I quickly set them straight, and I’m going to set the record straight about Kamala Harris too, (not that she needs me to, but because apparently some people in my sphere of influence needs to hear it from a peer in their own circles).

For the record, (addressing the claim that her father was Indian too and they just immigrated to Jamaica), Kamala Harris’ mother was born in Painganadu, India, (almost a couple hundred miles south of Chennai), and her father was born in Saint Ann’s Bay, Jamaica.

The claim is a blatant and mean-spirited lie — whatever the reason or purpose for it, I don’t know, but it is a lie.

I’d also point out that it’s also the same kind of ill-spirited and hateful political nonsense that fed Obama’s birther conspiracy.

It’s interesting to see how the same black people who were upset about the birther conspiracy, do the exact same thing to a black woman. It’s hypocritical at the very least.

Regarding how she identifies, you all know that she can be BOTH right?

First of all, “Black” isn’t a nationality or country of origin, and second, Kamala Harris’ parents, as was made clear, were Indian and Jamaican. And she is an American.

What that means is:

She can identify as black.
She can identify as Indian.
She can identify as Asian (because India is on the Asian continent).
She can identify as Asian-American.
She can identify as Indian-American.
She can identify as Jamaican-American.

And this one will flip you…

Jamaica has African roots, so she can even identify as African-American and claim her African roots just as much as any other black American person can.

NONE of that means she isn’t a black woman.

She is a black woman with a diverse heritage, and she doesn’t have to choose which part of her heritage she has to identify by, and it’s wrong and small-minded for anyone to expect or demand that she does – especially of black people.

She can be all of it and honor all of her heritage.

Stop trying to make people of mixed heritage choose part of their identity and ignore the rest.

August 19, 2020

Category: Articles