StrictlyLogical

What you observe here are "free will" and the "man made".  These are somewhat different from the primacy of consciousness.
The relationship between existence and consciousness in the same thing is hierarchical.  Your consciousness is possible due to and indeed arose from existence.  You weren't, then you were (now you are) and your consciousness is, but one day you simply won't be.  Technically, the existence of you, in all your complexity, does not at once "cause" you to be conscious... you ARE conscious because of your identity... the whole nature of the complexity of you... things are their attributes after all.  Electron's do not have charge because of existence causes them to be so, electrons simply exist AND ARE negatively charged.  Your conscious existence has specific requirements in reality, i.e. in the "natural" world from which you consist, which were not met, prior to your being conscious... and will not be met... after you pass.
The reverse, i.e. a disembodied consciousness, deciding it needed something to be conscious of, giving birth to existence, to one day in the far future dissolving it ... would be the erroneous idea of the primacy of consciousness. 
 
Consciousness does play an interactive and hence causative role in the world- it would have to since, far from being cut-off from it...  it is embedded and constituent here fully of and by the natural world... a natural and real identity as absolute as anything else in existence.   As such, free-will and the man made are not counterexamples of the primacy of existence they are examples of it.. in a particular structural and functioning form.

Nice to meet you Sebastien.  Neat and tidy conceptualization... very important for proper thought.
Query:  Why do some tend to avoid neat and tidy conceptualization?  What is achieved by "avoiding" it?  What motivations are at play?  The left will conflate and equivocate and provide arguments which are semi-formed, confusingly self-contradictory and anti-conceptual... how does a person adhering to reason "argue" against a position which inherently eschews neat and tidy thought?  In the end I suppose being clear in your own mind is more important than worrying about another's lack of understanding.
 
Keep thinking clearly and critically. 
 
Wisely observed.  Some would see "all companies and stores discriminating" and conclude that must be the result of cause and effect of an economic system on the culture of the people... this of course is a laughable error.  Many cultures of the world included racism, tribalism, etc. ... one can easily conclude from the same observation "all companies and stores discriminating" is the result of the culture of the people (arising from religion, ancestral stories, myths, dogmatic indoctrination by parents and teachers, countless other factors) and not an "effect" of capitalism.  In fact, the truth of it, the reality may be that a flawed culture having discovered capitalism, may not have been exposed to capitalism long enough for the inertia of the culture to have been eroded.
In science, as in logic, one must be careful to understand that statistical or perceived "correlation" does not as of a logical necessity point to a cause and effect, although cause and effect of course often leads to correlation, analysis of a correlation requires a neat and tidy mind to understand it.
 
The "Left" will see the persistence of racism in a culture, and conclude that the "capitalist system" is racist.  But this is NO MORE logical than concluding that the "capitalist system" is "religious" simply because religion persists, for example, in the U.S. 
A scientific mind might see the apparent lack of a capitalist system's imposing any effect on the culture of the people as an indicator that capitalism leaves people generally free to form their own culture... and perhaps that might not be such a bad observation.

If one defined subjective as "of and due to and dependent upon the perceiving subject's consciousness", does that hold? Naturally there are physical, biological differences among all brains as among all bodies, but consciousness is consciousness. If "subjective" were accepted in the colloquial meaning (as it usually is): loosely as "variably specific to each person" - I'd agree. The proper one - opposed to objectivity - has to be maintained by O'ists, though. Therefore the careful distinction between "personal" and subjective (that Rand made some times). Otherwise, great. There is an identifiable confluence between a (personal) organic brain, psychology, consciousness, the rational ethics, honesty, self-esteem, deserved pleasure ... and chosen, objective, values.
The "brain's wiring" and neuroplasticity is greatly absorbing, here and in the wider context. Neuroscience, meet free will. (Hard to fathom why neuro-scientists I read of are philosophically strong determinists). Practice makes perfect and "you'll get very, very good at it". The "muscle memory" of virtues laid down in neural pathways by conviction and repetition.

As a preliminary what I find as interesting here is an accent on motivation rather than consequence.
Which brings up a subtle issue.. are you more interested in asking whether the action of a person (while making a choice) is moral or not or in determining whether the choice presented is a moral one or not?  There is the question of "being good" but also there is the question of "what IS the good".
I think in terms of "traditional" subjective philosophies about morality, the motivation of a person, their subjective intent to be moral "as such", i.e. to do what they think is their duty, is more important than any fact of reality, whereas a philosophy whose purpose for morality (which is to act a  guide for a person) is flourishing of that individual, holds that such intentions, no matter how honestly held, cannot be absolutely paramount.   Again, we can label a person acting as moral or not (being good) separately from whether the act itself is moral or not (what constitutes the good).
Of course individuals are fallible, so there is no contradiction, if one observes a person acting morally (with the intent to act rationally, in view of reality, for their own flourishing) but nonetheless performing acts, due to some error of knowledge or logic, which are themselves "immoral" in the sense that they are inimical to life.
 
Thinking in terms of the primacy of existence (rather than consciousness), "the good" is foundational, defining and making "being good" possible.
 
Thoughts
As for ice cream on a random night, it was meant to act as a single non-consequential decision... perhaps a decision re. ice cream have consequences which are too delicious to act as such. 
As for the issues which your question implies, I would add the following: 
Psychological flourishing is an essential aspect of flourishing, and one aspect of psychology is pleasure, another is self-awareness or introspection of your own actions... your own successes and failures as authored by your choices... and self-esteem is also seen as one of three cardinal values, in Rand's view.  So ice cream is never really just ice cream... it's health, and psychology, self-esteem etc.  We must not forget however, that some random isolated things ... are forgotten... and in some instances, some things are of so little consequence that they might well have not even happened.  Perhaps ice cream is too tasty to fit into such a category...
 
I agree with you, but I might label things differently.
In the ladder of abstraction, I would identify the response you have to ice cream as an objective value, psychological pleasure is a value and it results from a certain flavor, but I would "characterize" your brain's wiring for that flavor as subjective or idiosyncratic.  In this way of looking at things, your favorite "flavor" is not so much an objective value to you, so much as the pleasure which results from your subjective tastes, is an objective psychological value to you. 
In such a way of speaking, your objective values (pleasurable tasting food being a psychological value) would not change even if your subjective tastes did change.
 
 
I tend to think that the value in doing the things one enjoys, is not "in the things" one does, but is "in the pleasure" one experiences doing them.  So perhaps "ice cream" as such is too narrow and concrete... what is of value is the pleasure, and the knowledge that it was earned honestly (assuming you paid for it), so that the pleasure validates your existence and confirms you are fit to live and flourish in reality. 

Values, proportionate to time - a life's duration (i.e. "long term"):
"Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one’s lifespan, it is a part of one’s life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it".
 
“Concepts of Consciousness", AR

Before I read Rand, I would have said Capitalism is an economic only system, independent of politics.
After Rand, Capitalism is a new concept for me (as new as morality became for me), and is not so much economics as an economy defined by politics... and I cannot but utter the implied preface "Laissez-faire"... even though ironically insistence on that is as redundant as saying "independent" before "thought".
Ownership, refers primarily only to the rights in one's property.  But can we say that (capital C) Capitalism is a system agnostic to freedom of speech?  What about freedom of association or movement of the press, the rule of law, equality under the law, and the right to one's life itself?  As everything to a hammer is a nail so too I would suggest a current day Economist of the academy would see Capitalism, technically defined, as purely an economic system (see how "purely" serves as the great compartmentalizer) and hence as independent of such things since they are in the political realm.  If we have enough economic activity technically conforming to our concepts of capital etc. it matters not that people do not have free speech or equality under the law.
 
After years of saturating myself in Rand's ideas, I have come to see that there are a few ways to look at economic "systems" which depend implicitly on what one thinks they are.  First, in a manner analogous to a biologist, and second in the manner of a Hermann Goering.  The first is concerned with the study and description of nature, because that is what is meant by a "system" in the context something which arises naturally, while the second is concerned with a "prescription" for the organization of people for reaching the aims of the state or its ruler, because that is what is meant by "system" in the second context, i.e. what is to be imposed and put into place.  A biologist observing a natural system would never conclude there is no system, she would point to what is happening and identify it, whereas a Goering who has specific goals for his master, unless there are specific edicts put into place for specific goals he would (quite consistently with his definition of a "system") be correct to say there would be no system.... and to him "Laissez faire" at most is a system of "no system", so to speak.  In the first sense, the economy is what people do and in the second sense, it is what we (or the state) make or allow people to do.
Why the point about the two ways of looking at economic systems?  First, almost everyone I meet, no matter how much of a proponent of freedom and rights, when speaking of economics, especially in the comparison between Socialism and Capitalism, tends to inadvertently slide toward usage of terms similar to that which would be used by a State central planner.  Of course, the conclusions are different for what "we" should do about, this or that "social ill", which implicitly is the "responsibility" of "us" (or the state) to "manage", but the philosophical perspective where the "the ends" are firmly pulling the leash, and the "means", almost forgotten and apologetically being tugged hither and thither by an some untrained pooch, is all too salient.  What is an economic system, how does one validate and assess its success?  Outcomes or method, ends or means?
Anecdotally, but not unrelated, some years ago, a pre-law acquaintance of mine essentially told me that Rand had tried to justify Capitalism on the economic outcome, but that such outcomes do not result as of a necessity, and hence she was wrong, other interventions are "required", and hence Capitalism is not the "best" system.  I of course retorted that was not the case.  Rand had not argued, Capitalism is "right" because it always makes everyone wealthier.  It is right because it is the result of the activity of free individuals whose rights are protected by a proper government, i.e. a proper political system.  [That said any "system" (which can be described) as arising within such a context would be a proper Laissez-faire economic system...  I do not discount the possibility that some such economic system might not be best labeled or associated with "Capital". Presumably Rand, (as I do) tended to believe it just so happens that Capitalism happens to be the natural way free peoples voluntarily act and trade with each other.... and one day maybe a Laissez-Faire Economy (LFE), as such, including several aspects, will be the correct term to use]
It comes full circle for me that those thinking to prescribe and solve so-called "problems" will never understand the true meaning of what Rand identified as LF-Capitalism, economically it is descriptive not prescriptive, but it goes hand in hand with a certain, a proper political system.  Hence the circle, Rand is certainly prescriptive about what the proper society is politically, i.e. what a proper government is and does, and what individual rights are.  So Rand's economic system is not prescriptive in the second sense of an "economic system" but it requires a prescription for a political system which makes it possible.  Given that the proper politics here literally defines and brings about the economic system arising therefrom... even in the first sense of "economic system" it becomes difficult to simply identify Capitalism as "purely" economic.  In other words IMHO, LF-Capitalism is a description of an economic system naturally arising from a certain prescribed and proper political system...
 
I'll try to focus this meandering, about description and prescription, ends and means, economic and political... so as to conclude my ramblings on the when and where:
 
I tend to see Capitalism as arising naturally and spontaneously from a correct political system whose sole role is to protect individual rights. 
It's existence requires nothing less, and imposes nothing more.
 

There is so much which is conspicuously wrong with Fraser's address that it is almost a waste of text here to try to address the flaws we all can see and which Rand has specifically refuted throughout her work.

As for addressing "specifics advanced" in the paper... what stands out to me is actually what is NOT specifically advanced in the paper.
Although I feel a sense akin to the futility of disproving an arbitrary claim and the impossibility at pointing at traces left by that which does not exist, I realize that pointing out what should have been investigated, presented, and argued and was not, is possible and shall suffice.
 

First, I note that her approach does not critically distinguish between the system, capitalism, and the people participating in that system, nor the causal interrelationships therebetween.
If she were serious about determining whether "capitalism is racist", or necessarily so, wouldn't she be concerned with controlling variables... i.e. serious about determining whether the people themselves are racist and how can one tease apart racism on the part of the people and purported "racism" of the system or caused by the system?  In this vein, would a population of non-racists, in a non-racist culture, (let's say individuals of multiple races kidnapped from a perfect Marxist Utopia of Fraser's making), if "made" (or allowed) to run (or participate) in a capitalist system, become racist?  Or would the people remain devoid of any racism, and the system itself exhibit racism, quite independently of the lack of racism of any of its individuals?
Moreover, what constitutes "racism" BY a system?  Any system or organization or activity including people who are racist has "racism" occurring in proximity to it, but if one's concepts of "racism by people" and "racism by systems" are distinguishable according to any rational standard, such kinds of racism must not to be attributed to the system as such.  Whatever the system under investigation, some interaction between the racism of individuals and the system must be investigated in order to determine whether or not the system itself is "racist".  For example, does the system tend to decrease racism, increase it, or tends to leave it at the same level?  How does the system interact with the psychology of its participants such that it does give rise to this tendency?  But all this depends on a valid concept of race and racism.
 
Fraser's concept of "racism" is just as problematic than her concept of capitalism. 
Her implicit definition and characterization of racism is severely lacking and quite frankly IS racist.  She focuses on one particular form of racism, namely, white or European racism against people of color in the recent historical context caused in part by the slave trade in Africa.  Such a concrete is not racism as such but only an example of it.  A psychological remnant of exploitation (which slavery was) which survives in a uniquely historical culture and context, and exists.  To assume racism only takes that form, no matter where or when capitalism is instituted, is to attribute an intrinsic hierarchy of domination (implicitly, an intrinsic imbalance of capability, intellect, merit) of whites over blacks which is a highly racist idea.  If her thesis is about capitalism as such, and racism as such, it cannot be focused only on historical and geographical happenstance.  Accordingly, it would seem her ability to distinguish between concepts in the abstract versus concrete examples thereof is lacking.  Would the capitalism in Japan, for example,  refute or corroborate her theory about the relationship between race and capitalism?  Are whites in Japan extorted in the same way and for similar reasons blacks are in the US?  Are whites in Japan extorted at all?  What happens (or would happen) in African capitalist systems? Are whites extorted, how and why?  And once again is it the system which is racist or is it the people and what is the relationship? 
Is her so called racial extortion simply an echo of the technological extortion (conquest and slavery), causally linked and persistent in the minds of each population generations later merely because race is easily visible and distinguishes people as descendants of that technological extortion?  If so, then rather than tending to show any particular system is racist,  her ideas should lead her to the conclusion that the remnants of technological extortion and conquest persist psychologically in populations and arguably any system, where people can be identified as uniquely descendant from those groups, the conquered and the conquerors.  But such would require original investigation into psychology, tribalism, historical conquest, and how systems in general work, which do not necessarily fit well with her already determined outcome, and would take her far afield from her desired narrative.

Fraser makes no serious inquiry.  She makes no attempt to investigate the ideas of racism and capitalism and their actual causal interrelationships on a fundamental level.
She assumes her premises about exploitation and power, observes the historical accident of race correlating with technological advancement at around the time of the African slave trade (Europeans who happened to be white were more advanced technologically than those inhabiting Africa who happened to be black) in particular (while ignoring slavery crosses all racial boundaries and has existed for millennia and possibly since the dawn of man), and observes outcomes for certain populations compared with others as supporting her already held beleifs about capitalism (an incredibly new and never fully realized system), and asserts (essentially in a vacuum) moreover that capitalism is itself racist and implicitly magnifies and/or causes racism.
 
Perhaps Fraser's has unintentionally discovered that her implicit belief that white people or people of European descent (I single them out because she does) are or tend to be racist against people of color due to history, combined with her implicit knowledge that capitalism is the system which provides freedom (whether admits she knows it or not), leads, at first analysis, to the conclusion that the system does not serve to attenuate or directly stamp out that racism, but on the surface only leaves people to be free to commit the same errors.
In the grand scheme of things, even this is wrong, certainly for any actual capitalist who wants to succeed, and knows that doing so requires judging people on merit and not by skin color.  A laissez faire government does not stamp out gross errors of judgment, it allows  reality to do so and reality does so, even if only at a rate much slower than those who would rather force things to resolve themselves more quickly.  And as always, for those who see no problem with force, the relative timelines serve as a strong justification for its use. 
 
Finally, I must state I get the very strong sense that the paper is not, by any stretch, an impartial investigation into causal links or relationships between her concepts of "capitalism" and "racism", so much as it is a juxtaposition of language meant to fit or resemble a narrative, and ring true to her long ago ossified world view.  Such an approach and goal cannot abide serious, dare I say "critical", and open inquiry.  She decided on the "answers" before she set out to "find" them, and found the answers she wanted to find by "finding" the connections and congruencies she needed in various "sacred texts" of her ideology, not unlike how a prophet motivated to influence his village might "find" and reveal a prophecy of imminent disaster which had always been hidden in the old books of wisdom.
There really is nothing new to see here.  Nothing at all.
 

I am not trying to provide an explanation of all his behavior, in every instance, but pointing out that having a hostile and prejudiced Press (from the very start) against one has to have something to do with his actions. It meant that not a single Executive decision would ever meet with approval or a fair debate. He took them on at their own game, and I don't believe this was always smart or principled. I don't fault his unconventional methods in foreign policies, keeping enemies guessing and showing they can voluntarily make good choices: a carrot or the stick. My position is the over all positives for the country, not the personality/style of the president. This isn't a Mr Congeniality Contest. There is no such thing as perfection in a political leader. The Objectivist "good" - for whom and for what purpose? -  surpasses that mystical, intrinsicist notion, anyway. In short, you make best use of what you're given, making constructive criticism. The alternative on offer to any standards of freedom and self-responsibility - and a thriving US economy/employment which did enable and encourage those moral goods - until this year -  does not bear considering. Not necessarily in Biden's time in office, if that should happen, but veering further Left is being planned after him, no doubt.

As a president intent upon ~American self-interests and independence~, free from prior (economic/military) encumbrances, - yes, I think this is evident. He explicitly has advanced this. An "anti-altruist" president, I said and repeat - in practice and by consequence, I did not say by philosophical conviction.
I have also remarked that he is squarely in favor of individual American self-responsibility, which I thought evident. He displays few of the flaws of Nanny-ism which pervade most national leaders with highly submissive populations, and which is increasing in the USA.
I did NOT state, and do not mean, he is ethically "FOR rational self interest". That's another thing. There has never been such a world leader.
You made that leap.
Trump's so-called "narcissism" - I think is grandiosity - is a job-requirement for every politician with aspirations for high Office, some just hide it better under a show of humility and modesty, than others. Although I'd have voted for Obama's first term, for instance, it was clear to me that he also had a (subtle) grandiose - "narcissistic" - tendency which didn't initially put me off him.
Should I say this simply? Trump has shown he is against a self-sacrificial America. One which the rest of the world has long taken for granted and depended on while also disparaging. When dealing with foreign countries he's also indicated how they could act in their self-interests ("make a good deal") if they choose. Therefore is "anti-altruist".
While he has publicly denounced Socialism, right, he might have mixed premises in policy decisions. As have all presidents. But for full-blown Socialism let the Democrats have their way for some terms. Trump represents the block on that outcome. For a while.
 

Yup, chaotic and erratic, discomfiting at times. Together with the clownishness, he ¬seems¬ to give the impression of not knowing what he's doing, but I think most of it's bluff by Twitter to throw off or tease his virulent media opponents into frenzies. Such as delaying the election and even extending his term, which he retracts later. He does know what he wants to attain for the US in the long run, and it spells greater freedom plus self-responsibility for Americans, not less. The saying is apt: his supporters take him seriously but not literally, his enemies take him literally but not seriously. I'd not be fooled, he is dead serious.

This is a great analysis. Reminds one that an Objectivist institution should stay out of broadcasting their political personae preferences, and, particularly not commanding and speaking for Objectivists at large. ("Sell-outs to Objectivism"?!).  Rand could and did give her advisement - and too she allowed for caveats in her judgments. But who has the predictive-conceptual capacity of Rand, or her reckoning of a person's character virtues/flaws, or what she saw in their "sense of life". Especially not her abstractive grasp of the essential nature of America. So why try to imitate her? Is it that ARI's internet exposure needs to be more 'relevant'? And why specifically so anti- Trump? Perhaps, I'll surmise, the 'market' for future Objectivists is perceived to be from among the secularist-atheists, while naturally not from the religious-conservatives (although many are known to have accord with Objectivist political theory). Therefore, in the subject matter and tone of many articles/essays I've read in recent times which are otherwise very good, if predictable, ARI writers have consistently leaned towards the Leftists, at times looked to be pandering to them. Please leave each O'ist to his/her own judgment calls in these matters.

A nation that is of value to a person will be inclusive by him of every other citizen who was born there or equally becomes a legal citizen there, in that sovereign nation. The outsider - the other - needs to go through the same process and would be keen to ... if he/she perceives that value too.
I see Trump as extremely embracing of all who do. In essence: That you are "here" indicates your value in America and to America. I have never bought into that xenophopic/racist criticism by people who, in the final analysis don't understand Trump's love for the country and view him with cynicism: he's out for himself.
What I also could not help gather over the last 20+ years is the gradual decline in pride in the USA by Americans. It came through most visibly from the (Leftist) media and powerfully too by the (Leftist) movie industry, in the content and themes of many or most of its films. The third leg has been well documented by many commentators, being the Leftist professors and teachers in colleges. With almost complete control of those three areas, it's clear that the Left/Progressives/etc. have dominated many citizens' attitudes and it shows. First came self-doubt (America isn't and wasn't perfect, many mistakes and moral grievances were committed). Then loss of confidence, in even the Constitution. Then cynicism. The shame felt by many for their country became extremely apparent just now, destroying monuments/taking a knee/riots/"systemic racism"- meekly accepted as morally-valid assaults on the country.
In the last 10 years the drift I notice has been outwards, towards the Old World and merging the US character/political/cultural nature closer with the (supposedly) 'sophisticated, European elitism'. 
This sea-change of many Americans' attitudes to the USA, the rhino in the parlor, needs to be acknowledged here in the election debate. This is a crucial turning point, for you and for the world - obviously not "politics as normal". The battle is ideological, for the soul of a nation. And if "Biden is our only hope" - America will succumb one way or other to the self-disgust promoted by some/many Leftist Americans. 

I am not assuming that Trump has any principled foundation whatsoever. He's not a capitalist or a socialist, he's a random behavior generator. He's an unprincipled statistical machine that tries something, sees if it works, then tries something else. I don't assume that he will veto the left's press for socialism on principled grounds. I do assume that the alternative candidate tends to support socialist legislation. So the difference could come down to a slightly higher chance of veto with Trump as POTUS.
The primary threat, IMO, comes not from what Biden will do, but what his successor will do when the Presidential Succession Act is triggered and ?Kamala Harris is the next president.
 

So who is doing most of the lying?  The mainstream media or this guy?
 
Tim Pool has a few channels on YouTube.  He is a moderately left leaning "classical liberalist".  But for me he has distinguished himself as a rational commonsense critical thinker who questions the mainstream narrative, and the loud far left Marxist intersectional religious types. The big meta-message from all of his channels points to a panic induced corruption of mainstream media, social media, and  the democratic party, and possibly beyond.. all in reaction to or anticipation of the election in November and the drive to stop Trump at all costs. 
He points out hypocrisy, false reporting, and the insanity of the far left time and time again... if he were to be trusted much of the mainstream media, big data (specially social media), and the democratic party at all levels, have already been irredeemably corrupted. 
 
So who is closer to the truth?  Tim Pool or the mainstream media?
 
Timcast Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe02lGcO-ahAURWuxAJnjdA
 
Timcast IRL Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA
 
Tim Pool Channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/Timcast/featured

Warning:  The following is to be taken as poetic rather than literal...
 
Religio - re connect or re-linking back
 
Identifying the self with the universe, or the planet... is in the direction of mythical or religious thinking... because although you are in and of these things, you are not identical with them... being unseparated from them and indeed embedded in them.. it is a natural direction in which mystical thinking points... we are star stuff... made from elements formed in supernovae... in a literal "tree of life" billions of years old... each a node on an unbroken branch of ancestry and direct physical, chemical, biological causality ... the eyes, ears and minds of the Earth, the solar system... this is religion and myth... and so perhaps such is going too far.
 
So too perhaps, identifying the self, the "I" with the whole person, an undivided individual, is mythical thinking.   Those far flung parts of our physical bodies not under voluntary control even indirectly: secreting, pumping, and processing, just as the stars whirl, the planet spins, and the continents drift. So too, identifying the "I" and "self" with the body is going too far into myth and religion.
 
So too even with identifying "I" with the whole of the brain and its doing, in identifying with the whole of its processes... where so much occurs autonomously, in the background, subconsciously, or in the depths of sleep.  So much is unbidden and out of our conscious control that we should treat them as foreign as all the rest... lest we be mythologizing ourselves... and such would be going too far.
 
 
Perhaps finally then we might hold onto the "I" as only that tiny portion of all that which is the first-person view of willed conscious experience... whose range of will is a feeble and fleeting "focus or not"... perhaps a rejection of anything mythical or anything religious is to identify only with that one little spark and its feeble range of direct causative power...
 
And yet there is room for something more akin to mythologizing the self... perhaps... for that tiny spark can be the root cause of whole civilizations, and one day, cause continents or even planets to move ...
and perhaps there also is room for a re-linking to those things with which any "I" participates and is enmeshed: in a complex relationship as literally as old as time and as wide as the universe...
identifying the "I" and the "self" with the Objective experience of the nigh infinite whirling whole through but one of many of its utterly unique center points about which it all goes round and round and round. 

Warning:  The following is to be taken as poetic rather than literal...
 
Religio - re connect or re-linking back
 
Identifying the self with the universe, or the planet... is in the direction of mythical or religious thinking... because although you are in and of these things, you are not identical with them... being unseparated from them and indeed embedded in them.. it is a natural direction in which mystical thinking points... we are star stuff... made from elements formed in supernovae... in a literal "tree of life" billions of years old... each a node on an unbroken branch of ancestry and direct physical, chemical, biological causality ... the eyes, ears and minds of the Earth, the solar system... this is religion and myth... and so perhaps such is going too far.
 
So too perhaps, identifying the self, the "I" with the whole person, an undivided individual, is mythical thinking.   Those far flung parts of our physical bodies not under voluntary control even indirectly: secreting, pumping, and processing, just as the stars whirl, the planet spins, and the continents drift. So too, identifying the "I" and "self" with the body is going too far into myth and religion.
 
So too even with identifying "I" with the whole of the brain and its doing, in identifying with the whole of its processes... where so much occurs autonomously, in the background, subconsciously, or in the depths of sleep.  So much is unbidden and out of our conscious control that we should treat them as foreign as all the rest... lest we be mythologizing ourselves... and such would be going too far.
 
 
Perhaps finally then we might hold onto the "I" as only that tiny portion of all that which is the first-person view of willed conscious experience... whose range of will is a feeble and fleeting "focus or not"... perhaps a rejection of anything mythical or anything religious is to identify only with that one little spark and its feeble range of direct causative power...
 
And yet there is room for something more akin to mythologizing the self... perhaps... for that tiny spark can be the root cause of whole civilizations, and one day, cause continents or even planets to move ...
and perhaps there also is room for a re-linking to those things with which any "I" participates and is enmeshed: in a complex relationship as literally as old as time and as wide as the universe...
identifying the "I" and the "self" with the Objective experience of the nigh infinite whirling whole through but one of many of its utterly unique center points about which it all goes round and round and round. 

SL, Poetically said, I think the poetic manner is a singular way to condense and express this unbelievable totality of life and one's life's existence. There are wonders here, how this animal made of star-stuff could become consciously rational and aware of its consciousness which ~almost~ seem mythological or religious. "Lest we be mythologizing ourselves" - of the species and of the individual being, I don't know of how one cannot. Obviously, without the supernaturalism. That autonomous "I" unique to you was who could observe, will to think those things, question them and marvel. This recalls, I like that old "You are a child of the universe: no less than the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here". We are "right" to be here and right for "here", without any intention of the Universe.  And another, from that song: "I sing the Body Electric ... I toast to my own reunion, when I become one with the Sun".

Politics - "socio-politics" - is moving faster than philosophy. This is where I've chosen to focus, for one example, and am appalled that many of my colleagues don't see what this conservative does and several others have, and write about and broadcast it clearly and unambivalently:
The Establishment Strikes Back
By Buck Sexton

Dear reader,
If you turn on the TV or open up your newspaper, you'll find practically nothing about the fiercely contested presidential race just five months away. At least at first glance...
The stories appear to be focused on an array of topics that aren't about electoral politics. And yet most of what we see is presented with a clear theme: America is doing poorly.
There's the renewed media obsession with COVID-19, for example. The few weeks of relative quiet is all over now. Predictably, the Democrat-dominated media took a brief hiatus from the "social distancing" mantra so that tens of thousands of protestors (and rioters) wouldn't be the target of public shaming.
There was a convenient absence of public health professionals on cable news networks or social media calling out protestors for their mass gatherings. Who needs social distancing when you have social justice?
Among conservatives and independent-minded voters, this partisan hypocrisy was noted – causing a tremendous loss of faith in the so-called "objective experts" who are now demanding another lockdown.
National media is also focused on the nationwide protests... which so often turn into riots. Nonetheless, they are described as "mostly peaceful" even when journalists can clearly see a burning building and violent mobs. At first, the movement was all about the killing of George Floyd and police brutality. Then it rapidly transitioned into demands for police budget cuts or even total police defunding. Now it's a Marxist movement seeking to erase and rewrite American history through toppling and destroying statues.
Nobody really knows what these protestors will be enraged about next week. It doesn't really matter. Journalists certainly don't plan to get to the bottom of any of it. The point of all this rabble rousing and street activism is not to address systemic inequality or the history of American oppression and racism. This is all about power politics and the upcoming election, plain and simple.
Call it the "Make America Miserable Again" plan.
Recommended Link:   3 million to lose jobs... NOT because of coronavirus?
A terrifying (for some) and new disruptive force is creating thousands of new millionaires (Barron's estimates 20,000 to 200,000 so far) while at the same time destroying the financial future for many others. Don't get left behind. Get the facts for yourself here.
These mobs have taken to the streets as part of a mass mobilization of the Democrat party.... whether shouting in cops' faces, looting stores, or burning down buildings. And they are running a widespread and well-coordinated campaign against President Donald Trump – they're just not doing it in the most traditional way. Think of it as asymmetrical political warfare.
This is not a standard presidential battle between two men...
Presidential candidate Joe Biden is effectively a ghost, refusing to leave his basement in Delaware unless he dons an ominous black face mask and dark sunglasses. He seems to forget where he is and mumbles a bizarre gaffe almost daily.
Few believe Biden is going to inspire a movement. But that's not the plan...
All Biden has to do is fog a mirror. The establishment will take care of the rest.
That's because all of 2020 is a referendum on Trump. If the mood of the country is positive and hopeful this November, he's probably going to be the president for four more years. The country doesn't have to be perfect... It just has to be moving in the right direction.
What Trump was doing before the pandemic was working. All he has to do now is convince enough voters that he has a plan to bring back the economy of January 2020.
On the other hand, Democrats and the establishment ruling class will seek to stop this "right direction" feeling at all costs. We are seeing that effort right now.
The more they can get the American people to focus on a pandemic, civil unrest, and mounting economic anxiety from the shutdowns – the tougher it will be for Trump to focus on his voters and go on the offensive against his opponent. The national news media is pulling out all the stops to make sure that there is an overwhelming narrative of national fatigue and frustration that has set in by November. All of this will play to Biden and the Democrats' advantage...
Fair or not, the American people expect the party in power to deliver.
Trump is the guy in the White House with the biggest job in the world, and voters in the swing states aren't going to respond well to anything that sounds like, "It wasn't my fault, it was the virus and the dirty-fighting Democrats" – no matter how true that may be.
Trump doesn't have to beat Biden... He has to beat the ruling class that is still in a state of shock and rage from 2016. Back then, they laughed at him and assumed they could force him out with the absurd Russia collusion hoax. Now, they're willing to tank the whole country as long as it finishes off Trump's reelection.
Remember that as you watch and read all these stories about a nation in crisis. If we simply refuse to undergo lockdown again and enforce some law and order in the streets, America will bounce back pretty quickly. The biggest obstacle to our recovery is not from a virus or an anti-cop narrative... but is the coordinated, stop at nothing effort of many powerful individuals and their interests that view America as mere collateral damage in their maniacal anti-Trump campaign.

"The famous image of Aunt Jemima was based on the real image of Nancy Green, who was known as a magnificent cook, an attractive woman of outgoing nature and friendly personality, an original painting of which sold for $9,030 at MastroNet. The painting was rendered by A. B. Frost, who is now well known as one of the great illustrators of the Golden Age of American Illustration.[13]"
This quote is from the Wikipedia article covering the life of Nancy Green, the original celebrity personality representing the soon to be discontinued brand, known as, Aunt Jemima. 
I hope there is common ground among the other contributors to this thread regarding the nature of the decision of the Quaker Oats company. Their decision is a meaningless gesture pandering to the Social Justice Warriors, who will, no doubt, glow with pride for their valiant campaign to retire poor Aunt Jemima. Quaker Oats can breathe easier now. But, I can't truly cooperate with any sort of boycott of Quaker Oats products, as I can't remember the last time I've purchased any. Pancakes and syrup are a little too rich for my breakfast diet.
This has all been somewhat educational; I was unfamiliar with the story of Nancy Green, until yesterday. I have been aware of the very controversial "mammy stereotype," or archetype, which every you prefer. According to the available resources, Nancy Green made a success from her personality, as well as her apparent abundance of other virtues. Whether or not one might approve of her persona, it served her well, as it served the needs of industry marketing of a fine product. She was born a slave, but she chose to be the person she became, with the help of free enterprise. She was not forced to cook pancakes; she was a free woman. I don't know how much money she made, but she didn't die in poverty, as far too many other African-Americans of her generation did. I think it would be reasonable to promote awareness of her life story, as well as other early-twentieth century African-American celebrities and entrepreneurs. Regardless of the means of her success, Nancy Green deserves some credit for not only achieving the American dream, but for her efforts in promoting the dream to others.
I stand by my position that it seems pathetic, silly, and wasteful to try to persuade others to believe in the heinous nature of a harmless logo. The heinous nature of racism will never be properly understood, when SJWs waste their 15 minutes of fame trying to harpoon red herrings such, "plausible" racism found in marketing logos. How will the conversation be taken seriously as this goes on? The mammy-image of Aunt Jemima had been revised for years, but some people will take offense at anything. You can remove the image of every human, anthropomorphic animal, vegetable and/or extraterrestrial alien from children's cereal boxes, and it won't make a damn bit of difference in progress toward changing the justice system. If you'll indulge me a slippery-slope argument, we may all be satisfied, if not thrilled, when the food products available arrive in plain beige containers, marked, Brands X, Y, and Z, after all mascots have been deemed unlawful. And the only place you'll find a representational image of slave-holder George Washington will be the statue on display in Trafalgar Square.
And that's about all I have to say about that. Eioul, go ahead and pick all of the nits from my statement you want until your heart's content.

Red, brown, yellow, black and white . . .
But where do you draw the line? Suppose, magically, there were five races conjured on earth. Add to that 7000 years of intermingling. Are DNA records going to be used to categorize individuals according to genome? What was Chauvin's DNA breakdown? What was Floyd's DNA breakdown? If there are no magical "race" borders, then to borrow on Wendy's slogan of yesteryear, "Where's the beef?"
If Chauvin/Floyd spills over into Columbus/Green (Jemima, if you prefer), then credibility is lent to the magical five, or so, races conjured on earth. If intermingling prevails, then those who see a white cop murdering a black suspect are not willing to wait for the DNA results to confirm the Chauvin was a pale-skinned black, or that Floyd was a dark-skinned white. A is A. Both cannot prevail intellectually.
The fact that this issue is spilling over into areas outside of the legal enforcement that spawned it, bears testimony that unresolved, a.k.a. unclear issues, are encapsulated into the aftermath of this incident.
Without 'race', there are only individual human beings, judged by their own merit. With 'race', the conclusion "that there are only individual human beings, judged by their own merit" gets challenged in such a thread as this.
My wallet, for now, is residing in my hip pocket.
For some reason, I've acquired a hankering for some French Toast with a side of Sausage Links, Canadian Maple Syrup, a pat of Unsalted Butter and a glass of Orange Juice in the morning.

Not "stereotyping" others isn't any guarantee they won't and don't racially stereotype you. And usually will. (A few times I've heard "white privilege" thrown my way). There's the difficulty of being individualist in a especially collectivist time. The decent and considerate folk, the individualists and, yes, any Objectivists (joke) might see a person and perceive "person" who -also- happens to be black, brown, white, female, short, tall, fat - whatever. Racists and anti-racists and racialists perceive: Black or White person. Racialism is what most stokes up the differences of race groups - tribes. Avidly looking for and making everything 'about' race - briefly. Something our media is expert at. This also can include individuals who are just overly sensitive of any racial aspects. I've had confided in me by a few individuals - black - that many a time they're in a social group, there will often be white individuals being over-solicitous of their opinions and jokes (listening very seriously and laughing uproariously). I was told by this guy and woman that they felt rather sad and patronized, while also being quite amused by the idiocy of their colleagues . To be not treated on your own merits is dishonesty and injustice by others. To be attributed qualities one may not have, on superficial appearances, isn't that dishonesty and injustice too?

The Onion article also points out the absurdity of your case.

This is all part of the cleaning up of past history as if it never existed. A statue offends one or only a minority of individuals in one group, tear it down. An innocent image on a box by another, the same. This has a little to do with people not wanting to offend some others too delicate to handle reality, but mostly to do with mind control for political power. You can hardly blame a company's flip-flop marketing strategy, their profits are at the mercy of activists' mass action. On the broad front, all capitalist enterprise can end up 'owned' by the people. Marxism wins without a shot fired. We, the people, deserve what we get when we perceive symbols as reality and substitute feelings for free minds. How far men sink into apologism for their very existence is yet to be seen.

I like Maple syrup, myself, as well as butter over the many substitutes available. Buying more or less Quaker Oats 'Raisin, Date and Walnut' instant oatmeal does not target the controversial product. The Nancy Green story has many iterations. Here is one that is succinct.  

Give a different, less spineless, producer a try. If you trade with cowards you'll get more cowards.