The main problem with "Lift All Voices" as a justification for the Black National Anthem is the word "All." In order to achieve "All," the Woke are going to have to cook up more different unique national anthems than they have gender pronouns.

Mathematically speaking.

1/

And why would the Black community be the first to get their own anthem over the American Indians? The Indians used to have all the land, and they still do have some of it.

(use of "American Indian" here is intentional, as that's what they prefer to call themselves)

2/
This "inclusion by division" game is just the "separate but equal" logic for 1950s segregation reskinned, but when the Woke self segregate, they self segregate based on Krenshaw's Intersectional Matrix of Oppression, which in Theory is necessarily near infinite in size.

3/
When the Woke did this with gender pronouns we went from 2 genders to 37 genders to infinite genders in the span of about 5 years, but the trans folks discovered this really didn't help them out on Tinder, so they pivoted back to "trans women are women" to try and get dates.

4/
The only people left doing the "gender pronouns" game are the ones signaling their Wokeness on Twitter to their in-group, the trans women in the dating community aren't even doing it anymore. They've gone back to 2.

5/
So we need a Jewish American National Anthem, and a Latin American National Anthem, and a Female National Anthem, and an Asian American National Anthem, and a Black Women's National Anthem, and off we go into a web of combinatorics math.

6/
Let's do the math, because math is fun. Typical Intersectionality Matrix categories: race, sex, gender, sexuality, class, disability, religion, age. Sticking to common subgroups within these classifications, we've got around 12,960 combinations.

7/
"All history is white history" is the Woke justification for having other kinds of history. Well, there might be black history, but also black female history, or such, because Intersectionality. Same number of combinations.

/8
Once *two* national anthems isn't inclusive enough, the original National Anthem becomes classified as the White Male Male-identifying Hetero Rich Able Bodied Christian Adult national anthem.

/9
And we have 12959 more National Anthems to go, before we've "Lifted All Voices."

Good luck ever getting your baseball game started.

It's almost as if inclusion and self-segregation don't work very well together.

/fin

More from Maths

OK, I may be guilty of a DoS attack attempt on mathematicians' brains here, so lest anyone waste too much precious brain time decoding this deliberately cryptic statement, let me do it for you. •1/15


First, as some asked, it is to be parenthesized as: “∀x.∀y.((∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (((∀t.((t∈x) ⇒ ((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y))))) ⇒ (z∈y)))) ⇒ (∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (z∈y))))” (the convention is that ‘⇒’ is right-associative: “P⇒Q⇒R” means “P⇒(Q⇒R)”), but this doesn't clarify much. •2/15

Maybe we can make it a tad less abstruse by using guarded quantifiers (“∀u∈x.(…)” stands for “∀u.((u∈x)⇒(…))”): it is then “∀x.∀y.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y)))) ⇒ (z∈y))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.(z∈y)))”. •3/15

Maybe a tad clearer again by writing “P(u)” for “u∈y” and leaving out the quantifier on y, viꝫ: “∀x.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ P(t)))) ⇒ P(z))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.P(z)))” [✯]. Now it appears as an induction principle: namely, … •4/15

… “in order to prove P(z) for all z∈x, we can assume, when proving P(z), that P(t) is already known for all t∈z∩x” (n.b.: “(∀z.(Q(z)⇒P(z)))⇒(∀z.P(z))” can be read “in order to prove P(z) for all z, we can assume Q(z) known when proving P(z)”). •5/15

You May Also Like

Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...


... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:


Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9


Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x


Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
राम-रावण युद्ध समाप्त हो चुका था। जगत को त्रास देने वाला रावण अपने कुटुम्ब सहित नष्ट हो चुका था।श्रीराम का राज्याभिषेक हुआ और अयोध्या नरेश श्री राम के नेतृत्व में चारों दिशाओं में शन्ति थी।
अंगद को विदा करते समय राम रो पड़े थे ।हनुमान को विदा करने की शक्ति तो राम में थी ही नहीं ।


माता सीता भी हनुमान को पुत्रवत मानती थी। अत: हनुमान अयोध्या में ही रह गए ।राम दिनभर दरबार में, शासन व्यवस्था में व्यस्त रहते थे। संध्या को जब शासकीय कार्यों में छूट मिलती तो गुरु और माताओं का कुशल-मंगल पूछ अपने कक्ष में जाते थे। परंतु हनुमान जी हमेशा उनके पीछे-पीछे ही रहते थे ।


उनकी उपस्थिति में ही सारा परिवार बहुत देर तक जी भर बातें करता ।फिर भरत को ध्यान आया कि भैया-भाभी को भी एकांत मिलना चाहिए ।उर्मिला को देख भी उनके मन में हूक उठती थी कि इस पतिव्रता को भी अपने पति का सानिध्य चाहिए ।

एक दिन भरत ने हनुमान जी से कहा,"हे पवनपुत्र! सीता भाभी को राम भैया के साथ एकांत में रहने का भी अधिकार प्राप्त है ।क्या आपको उनके माथे पर सिन्दूर नहीं दिखता?इसलिए संध्या पश्चात आप राम भैया को कृप्या अकेला छोड़ दिया करें "।
ये सुनकर हनुमान आश्चर्यचकित रह गए और सीता माता के पास गए ।


माता से हनुमान ने पूछा,"माता आप अपने माथे पर सिन्दूर क्यों लगाती हैं।" यह सुनकर सीता माता बोलीं,"स्त्री अपने माथे पर सिन्दूर लगाती है तो उसके पति की आयु में वृद्धि होती है और वह स्वस्थ रहते हैं "। फिर हनुमान जी प्रभु राम के पास गए ।