Thursday, November 16, 2006


Usually I’m skeptical of any bill sponsored by or promoted by the Republican Party. However, when the Republican Congress blocked HR2662, a bill backed by the Anti Defamation League, I tended to agree with them. The reason was that Senator Kennedy already had a bill, S625, which, in my opinion, doesn’t go as far as HR2662. S625 added CRIMES motivated by sex, sexual orientation, and disability to a list of offenses already covered under a 1968 federal law. However, if I understand it correctly, HR2662 would make it a hate crime to make NEGATIVE COMMENTS in public against or directly to Jews, women, homosexuals, transvestites, female impersonators, persons confused about their gender, pedophiles, witches, warlocks, Satanists and anybody else that petitions to be included as a group on the list.

I believe HR2662 is more politically motivated by a special interest group and this could serious hamper open discussion of race and usher in another control lever on free speech. I think the new Democratic Congress should really let this one go, but if history is any indication, it will pass because of the strong Jewish lobby.

BTW, the word “nigger” will not be protected under HR2662 because black people themselves have made it acceptable to use the word in public discourse. It appears that this is another example of Black peoples’ internalized self destruction.

Monday, November 13, 2006


I was reading some of the liberal/Progressive Democratic blogs and they are happy. Pelosi will be the new House speaker and she wants Murtha to be Majority Leader. The bloggers are still happy.

I have a different take. Murtha is an imperialist. He has nothing against war or killing for a country’s “ideology,” of which religion is a part. In fact, he revels in it as long as it makes sense to him. The Iraqi War was never a mistake for most white folk, including Murtha; the problem came with the justification. Their hypocrisy came loose and for that, Europeans are punishing Bush and Co. See, in European culture, when one’s hypocrisy is exposed and can’t be ignored, they gotta go. It blows the cover of European culture’s ideological white nationalism.

But this hypocrisy is not just reserved for white Europeans. It has also infected their cousins, the Arabs. The Iraqi War is a mess, not just because the white Europeans’ are a majority of Christian imperialists, but their sister religion, Islam, is split between Sunni and Shiites. Not only are the American Christians entrenched in violence in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shiites are going at it like crazy.

So when we look at this situation under deeper cover, we see that religious ideology has a lot to do with this conflict, because which ever ideology prevails, be it Islam or Christianity, who ever owns the prevailing religious ideology, will own the country and it’s resources.

My na├»ve solution to solve the problem is to get rid of religion. But we all know that this solution is next to impossible for the next 1000 years or so. The reason is that both Christianity and Islam are both right. They are right about the others’ religion and this validates their position, according to them. A Muslim will say Christianity is false and they would be correct, thereby validating to their followers that Islam must be correct. The same goes for the Christians. It’s a false deductive argument. The premise is true, the inference is invalid, and therefore the conclusion is false. The logic, blank religion (others) is a false religion, but that doesn’t make blank (their) religion valid, ergo the conclusion is false.

So what’s the answer? Since we can’t get rid of religion any time soon, I’d say hold Pelosi and Murtha to a higher standard until the human species realizes that it’s putting everything on the planet in danger with its reasoning, even the priest and pundits of religion. I’d bet if the whales and dolphins could communicate with us so we could understand one another, they’d say, “You’ll some stupid muthra-fuckers.”

And if the truth be told, we've all been played by the likes of that muthra-fucker. Iraq will be divided, the oil shared among the elite warhawks and their appointed croonies and the people, as usual, are dead and/or screwed.

Thursday, November 02, 2006


Well it's fall and the leaves are saying goodbye to their summer host. People are also asking, “Are you ready for some football?” Although for many football is a distraction from the daily hustle for the material, it's also an icon of pop culture. For example, the Dallas Cowboys have been christened, “America’s Team.” For the life of me I have no idea why, but I do question the selection. Mainly I question, why in the world does “America’s Team” have to come from the South? Given the history of the South, like its succession from the Union, Slavery, Lynching, Black Codes, Jim Crow, etc., all this has me really perplexed. Why couldn’t “America’s Team” be from a northern city like New York, Philly, or Minnesota?

If the Dallas Cowboys are a symbol of what America is about, and America chooses a symbolic team from the region of the country that has an abysmal record of patriotism, racial compassion, and "progessiveness", what does embracing that symbol tell you? (Hell, maybe if it were the Stars and Bars the question could be more easily answered by some) I know it tells me that those who truly support the Cowboys as “America’s Team” are pissed that the South lost the Civil War, Slavery ended, and they ain’t too keen on the way race relations progressed in this country.

With the above assessment, there’s something more disturbing. Why African American’s would join the cheering section for the Cowboys being “America’s Team?” I can understand that they may be from Dallas or even the South, but does that give them an excuse to ignore history? Do they place the importance of a football team's symbol above the historical struggles of their ancestors? Not being from the South, I’ll ask, is there something that was in the water when they were growing up that makes them think this way? Or even more troubling, not think about it at all?

But who am I to convince folks why America should pick a more "neutral" team as its representative? I just know this football season, as with every season since 1960, I’ll root for the Redskins to beat the Cowboys. See, I have so many reasons and no illusions why I should take that position. First, I’m from D.C. (the most northern of southern cities), second, I have Indigenous and African Blood, and third I question, why in the world would a non white person, especially one whose ancestors were enslaved, cheer on a team that symbolically represents the “colloquialisms” for the slaughter of a people for their land and belief system? All this leads me to believe we should take a hint from the falling leaves and say good-bye to the host of "America's Team," your Dallas Cowboys.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006


I’m an advocate of same culture relationships. I didn’t come by this conclusion easily. I had to live it to understand it. The main reason is not because of some “racial” idea of superiority or maintenance of skin color, but for the preservation and restoration of cultural ideas, along with the desire to not be controlled by an ideology that is not to my “spiritual” likening.

When I said I didn’t come by this conclusion easily, I meant that I have been involved in some serious “interracial” relationships. I even married a white woman, but I will admit that decision was not based entirely on emotions. Hell, there was even a time when white women where harder to kick than my cocaine and cigarette habit (I suppose that’s why they call coke, white lady), but I was able to rid my mind of all three, although I still have urges for the latter two.

I hope my attitude will not be interpreted as racist or even separatist. That’s not my intent because I do like many white folk. However, I’d like them better if the prevailing racial stereotypes concomitant with America’s historical and contemporary social attitudes weren’t present. And this is one reason why interracial relationships should be put on hold for blacks and whites. I say blacks and whites because other cultures suffer the ills of white supremacy too.

No matter how much I cared for, made love to, got involved with white women, in the back of their minds, I was still the cultural other and they were still white women. It showed in many ways that I chose to ignore. For example, when something appeared on T.V. that portrayed a black person in a negative light, she would look at me with linking eyes making me feel somehow unworthy and even if it was in my own mind, living in this culture promotes such aberrations. When we discussed racial issues, she just couldn’t get the essence of European culture and behavior towards non whites and she had the weight of the world to support her position. She just couldn’t understand white supremacy in its totality and at the time, neither did I. I say neither did I because I got off fucking the white skinned, white man’s woman, that image that was burned in my brain from birth.

In my humble opinion, this is why black/white interracial unions are dangerous for black culture. It trivializes the black and promotes the white. It’s just another avenue to demean the “African-ness” in black people to the point where it means nothing, has no value, therefore can be expendable. And judging from our behavior, we are true to course in expediting our own, first cultural, and perhaps later, physical expendability.

In my final analysis, the only thing that I see as a saving grace, so we won’t go the way of the Blacks in Argentina and other Central and South American countries is to separate. We should build our own cultural ideals with our own world views based on a revised historical cultural essence, then, when we are culturally strong and economically secure, intermingle with the European culture. At that point we can marry, live with, cohabitate with whites and not lose the most important thing a human being can possess, his cultural self esteem and self determination.