Black folks are the march’in-ness mofos on the planet. Hell we started march'in in the 1920’s with the first March on Movements. Then in the 1930’s to the 1940’s A. Phillip Randolph got white folks all rallied up when he threaten to have 100,000 Negros March on Washington which finally happened in 63 with Martin Luther King and the March on Washington. Then we had the March to Selma in 65, we marched right on to the Million Man March in 95, and we’ve been march'in ever since. Between the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton alone, Black folks have worn out some serious shoe leather and that would include Sharpton's 07 March for decent rap lyrics.
Are we tired yet?
When I watched those young folks march'in in Jena I just couldn’t take it any more. What the hell is wrong with black folk, nine fuckin decades of march'in? Is that all we can think of doing, jump’in behind some Reverend to march for some "injustice" in a system that built to be unjust? Is march'in a reaction to black cognitive dissonance or a weekday substitute for Sunday communal worship? What the fuck?
Does anyone else find this march’in business absurd or even obscene?
Here’s one idea. Instead of march’in why don’t we concentrate on getting the hell outta here and leave Amerikkka to the new flavor, the Mexicans? Why don’t we concentrate on Reparations as one voice and take our expertise to a country that has a black government, even if it’s neo-colonial? There we may have some problems, but I don’t think they’ll try to socio-economic-politico lynch you because you are non white, or want to feel liberation. I believe that would take a lot of stress off our black behinds.
Again I ask, are we tired yet?
In this “new age Amerikka” except for time periods, can you tell me the fundamental similarities between the two events listed below
Scottsboro Boys
The case of the Scottsboro Boys arose in Scottsboro, Alabama during the 1930s, when nine black youths, ranging in age from sixteen to twenty, were accused of raping two white women, one of whom would later recant. The trials, in which the youths were convicted and sentenced to death by all-white juries despite the weak and contradictory testimonies of the witnesses, are regarded as one of the worst travesties of justice perpetrated against blacks in the post-Reconstruction South.
The case quickly became an international cause célèbre and the boys were represented by the American Communist Party's legal defense organization. The death sentences, originally scheduled to be carried out quickly, were postponed pending appeals that took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the sentences were overturned. Despite the fact that one of the women later denied being raped, the retrials resulted in convictions. All of the defendants were eventually acquitted, paroled, or pardoned (besides one who escaped), some after serving years in prison.
Jena Six
Jena Six refers to a group of six black teenagers who have been arrested and charged with crimes related to their alleged involvement in the assault of a white teenager in Jena, Louisiana, on December 4, 2006. The incident is one of many racially charged events that have occurred in the town since the hanging of nooses on the "white tree" on the Jena High School campus. The nooses initially caused racial tempers to flare, as for many it recalled the history of lynching in the South, though some have come to believe that it was just a prank with no racist intent. Critics of how the case was handled, including civil rights activists Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, have said that the arrests and subsequent charges were racially motivated.[1] Some residents of the town - both white and black - have expressed the view that the current problem is more the fault of outsiders using racial politics to influence the justice system. Additionally, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington has expressed the opinion that although discipline was mishandled by the school, he has found no reason to believe that there was unfair judicial action.[2]
Haven’t we figured it out yet? White supremacy will always affect us as long as we are here. Somewhere, somehow, this racial/cultural bullshit will find its way out of the sewer. See I think O.J. and Black America have a lot in common, both will be hounded to maintain their perceived inferiority until we are completely psychologically crushed.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
WHY I RANT
This will be one of my shortest blog entries. It has to do with my ranting about white supremacy, my aversion to religion, and my condemnation of Negros. Quite simply put, white folks will align with other white folks who they see as powerful for their perceived benefit whether they are racist or not. Religion is a lie that divides people form themselves and each other. Negros are Black folk main gatekeepers to our own cultural and self realization.
If ever there’s a group that can halt the mass extinction of ALL human consciousness and free thought from those who wish to destroy it for their socio-political-economic gain, it’s so called Black people because many of us are in essence not European and subjected to their particular cultural brainwashing. However we can never accomplish such leadership roles unless first we understand and separate ourselves from ideas and methods of white supremacy. Second, shed religious ideology so we can heal as a person and a people. Third, rid ourselves of our gatekeepers.
This is why I rant on and on about religion and xtianity in particular, because most Blacks are xtian and also about social ideas like materialism, individualism, and homosexuality, etc., because they support ideas of European cultural thought and behavior; which deter us from realizing our own cultural awareness which is needed to accomplish what I’ve already expressed above.
This is why I rant and it appears to no avail because folks just don’t want to hear it and in view of their survival is not popular. However I’m older and it appears I’ll not hear the echoes of my voice from the grave.
If ever there’s a group that can halt the mass extinction of ALL human consciousness and free thought from those who wish to destroy it for their socio-political-economic gain, it’s so called Black people because many of us are in essence not European and subjected to their particular cultural brainwashing. However we can never accomplish such leadership roles unless first we understand and separate ourselves from ideas and methods of white supremacy. Second, shed religious ideology so we can heal as a person and a people. Third, rid ourselves of our gatekeepers.
This is why I rant on and on about religion and xtianity in particular, because most Blacks are xtian and also about social ideas like materialism, individualism, and homosexuality, etc., because they support ideas of European cultural thought and behavior; which deter us from realizing our own cultural awareness which is needed to accomplish what I’ve already expressed above.
This is why I rant and it appears to no avail because folks just don’t want to hear it and in view of their survival is not popular. However I’m older and it appears I’ll not hear the echoes of my voice from the grave.
Monday, September 10, 2007
WHO'S HOMO POLITICUS?
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs
by Marlowe Hood Sun Sep 9, 1:33 PM ET
“PARIS (AFP) - The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.
Aristotle may have been more on the mark than he realized when he said that man is by nature a political animal.Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits.Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.
The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.”
Interesting, but how does this affect African people? For example in African societies (before islam and christianity), decisions were people based, meaning that decisions were made for the good of the person instead of the European’s view of a “political cognitive style." It made no difference whether one had more tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and could adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances or crave order and structure. In African cultures, decisions were not seen as part of art, science, or style.
However I would agree it is “human nature” to desire order and structure but not crave it. But the question remains what does order and structure look like for us? Is it a group of people called a government that engages in “political intrigue” for their own (which is often their so called state) interest or as in African societies, which try to accomplish fairness based on subjective (spiritual) justice and the individual's interest that also leads to the cohesiveness of the group and promotion of the social order?
When we read articles like the one above, we must be very careful not to offend our ancestral memory because that can very well cause us more cognitive dissidence. Such dissidence could further promote white supremacy by having us believe that this thinking and behavior is universal, therefore, no other thinking or behavior is valid, or even exists for that matter, unless it’s akin to Aristotle’s view. Unfortunately even the view that’s deep in your African soul, which can’t escape the education and media control, is subjected to living in European America and is considered invalid.
Question: What good is a Black political president for Black people? (or a better country for that matter?)
by Marlowe Hood Sun Sep 9, 1:33 PM ET
“PARIS (AFP) - The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.
Aristotle may have been more on the mark than he realized when he said that man is by nature a political animal.Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits.Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.
The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.”
Interesting, but how does this affect African people? For example in African societies (before islam and christianity), decisions were people based, meaning that decisions were made for the good of the person instead of the European’s view of a “political cognitive style." It made no difference whether one had more tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and could adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances or crave order and structure. In African cultures, decisions were not seen as part of art, science, or style.
However I would agree it is “human nature” to desire order and structure but not crave it. But the question remains what does order and structure look like for us? Is it a group of people called a government that engages in “political intrigue” for their own (which is often their so called state) interest or as in African societies, which try to accomplish fairness based on subjective (spiritual) justice and the individual's interest that also leads to the cohesiveness of the group and promotion of the social order?
When we read articles like the one above, we must be very careful not to offend our ancestral memory because that can very well cause us more cognitive dissidence. Such dissidence could further promote white supremacy by having us believe that this thinking and behavior is universal, therefore, no other thinking or behavior is valid, or even exists for that matter, unless it’s akin to Aristotle’s view. Unfortunately even the view that’s deep in your African soul, which can’t escape the education and media control, is subjected to living in European America and is considered invalid.
Question: What good is a Black political president for Black people? (or a better country for that matter?)
ANOTHER GARVEY IDEA AND NOT STEVE...
I like to take this time to expand on the idea of one Marcus Mosiah Garvey. First, I truly believe that the descendants of Africans in America are a key to the survival of African culture everywhere. However we must first understand what role we must play in this cultural drama.
When we look around we should realize that every other cultural-being has some historical geographical ancestral root someplace on the planet except African (Black) Americans. Our historical geographical ancestral root is recognized by many of us as being in the soil of the American south. But “historically” the America south belongs to the so called “Indians” and later, after conquest, the European. We’ve never be able to claim this land as an African or Black land and god forbide we claim Africa. Therefore, we have no place. (In my estimation too many of us don’t care or see the importance of place in our cultural lives, and other Blacks don’t understand the European cultural mind set about sharing ever with their own, never mind non-white skinned people.)
In my estimation the reason we don’t have “place” is because of enslavement. I’m sure some people can argue that on some level, but come on now, look around. I’m equally sure some can argue that the European didn’t destroy or change (a process that continues today) into its own image ever culture it contacted, but again, look around.
I think for the sake of the European cultural health and well being, as well as their cultural karma, they should seriously start rectifying their negative historical impact on people of color; in this case Africans. One way is to pay Reparations for the descendants of Africans enslaved in America.
I also think for the sake of African culture everywhere and for the health and well being of African peoples, they should take Reparations, or money owed, and those of deep African consciousness, should build a viable society elsewhere without the interference of the European. (If they can, for once in their cultural lives, stop fluckin with folks covertly or overtly) Those who don’t want to leave, stay.
I think this is not unreasonable. For example, I researched my own family background and found out that even after Blacks were freed, they still where subjected to neo-enslavement. For example in Virginia free blacks needed to register, watched closely, and at any time could (and did) be forcibly removed from a county if a white saw them as “unfit.” They were charged with crimes and many found innocent, but still had to enter into a type of servitude to pay court and other cost. Don't get me started on the enslaved. So it’s not unreasonable for white society to compensate a group, free or enslaved, crippled for 200 plus years in a myriad of ways by that very white society, to act, not in their self interest, and do the right thing for once.
Times have changed, but not so much people. It's time people change too. Marcus Mosiah Garvey still lives.
When we look around we should realize that every other cultural-being has some historical geographical ancestral root someplace on the planet except African (Black) Americans. Our historical geographical ancestral root is recognized by many of us as being in the soil of the American south. But “historically” the America south belongs to the so called “Indians” and later, after conquest, the European. We’ve never be able to claim this land as an African or Black land and god forbide we claim Africa. Therefore, we have no place. (In my estimation too many of us don’t care or see the importance of place in our cultural lives, and other Blacks don’t understand the European cultural mind set about sharing ever with their own, never mind non-white skinned people.)
In my estimation the reason we don’t have “place” is because of enslavement. I’m sure some people can argue that on some level, but come on now, look around. I’m equally sure some can argue that the European didn’t destroy or change (a process that continues today) into its own image ever culture it contacted, but again, look around.
I think for the sake of the European cultural health and well being, as well as their cultural karma, they should seriously start rectifying their negative historical impact on people of color; in this case Africans. One way is to pay Reparations for the descendants of Africans enslaved in America.
I also think for the sake of African culture everywhere and for the health and well being of African peoples, they should take Reparations, or money owed, and those of deep African consciousness, should build a viable society elsewhere without the interference of the European. (If they can, for once in their cultural lives, stop fluckin with folks covertly or overtly) Those who don’t want to leave, stay.
I think this is not unreasonable. For example, I researched my own family background and found out that even after Blacks were freed, they still where subjected to neo-enslavement. For example in Virginia free blacks needed to register, watched closely, and at any time could (and did) be forcibly removed from a county if a white saw them as “unfit.” They were charged with crimes and many found innocent, but still had to enter into a type of servitude to pay court and other cost. Don't get me started on the enslaved. So it’s not unreasonable for white society to compensate a group, free or enslaved, crippled for 200 plus years in a myriad of ways by that very white society, to act, not in their self interest, and do the right thing for once.
Times have changed, but not so much people. It's time people change too. Marcus Mosiah Garvey still lives.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
WHAT DO BLACK WOMEN WANT?
I’m at it again, thinking too damn much about ridiculous stuff. One of the things that puzzle me today is what do Black women want? Do they want a Black phenotype for a man? Do they want a *Negro for a man? What do they want?
Do they want a Black man that gives up his own spiritual and sometimes physical self to maintain a credit score or his own ego? Do they want a rebellious "thug" that strikes a blow for what he believes is his freedom and independence (expressing his male patriarchal self) while in too many cases destroys his own community and self? Do they want a Black man that is afraid of how the White man can shut down his resources therefore will submit to degenerate behavior? Do they want a Black tricksters like a Don King, the slick talking "studs," the (in)famous Reverends, Obama, etc. all who pretend they have things under control but have really struck a clandestine deal with white folk both in real time and/or through cultural indoctrination? What do they want? Do black women ever ask, what is a Black man in America?
I believe if Black women want a real Black man, Black mothers should tell their Black boys (and girls) that they “love Black men” as a whole. Black men, who survived the homosexual onslaught (whites trying to make them feel powerless as men) and are of clear conscious, should teach Black boys that to experience their “feminine” nature in youth is just that, NATURE, and patriarchal dominance is unnatural. It doesn’t mean they are feminine and they don't have to act like a "girl" if they don't feel like an alpha male.
Seriously, in the face of our history and exposure to white cultural supremacy, I don’t know what Black women want or expect. I don’t know what we, as Black men, can give(except sex) that would act to satisfy them given the standards set by free white men. Then again, we must remember that Black women have been exposed to white supremacy too and what they want may be seen from an altered cultural state of mind and they don't really want what's left of the black man in America..but for many, that's all they have. Well that's not entirely true, they can always fall back on jesus...
hey maybe they want a black man like this..on his knees:
September 4, 2007
Vick attends church, works with young boys
The Associated Press
6:37 AM EDT, September 4, 2007
Article tools
E-mail Share
CHESAPEAKE - Fallen NFL star Michael Vick is trying to show that he is making good on his assertion that he's turned his life over to God after pleading guilty to a federal dogfighting charge last week.
*A Negro is an African transformed by removal of his African essences into a black-white man after centuries of exposure to white supremacist systems and refuses to try to reconnect. This is also not unusual of Continental Africans exposed to colonialism.
**This essay is not complete. The topic is too got damn complex.
Do they want a Black man that gives up his own spiritual and sometimes physical self to maintain a credit score or his own ego? Do they want a rebellious "thug" that strikes a blow for what he believes is his freedom and independence (expressing his male patriarchal self) while in too many cases destroys his own community and self? Do they want a Black man that is afraid of how the White man can shut down his resources therefore will submit to degenerate behavior? Do they want a Black tricksters like a Don King, the slick talking "studs," the (in)famous Reverends, Obama, etc. all who pretend they have things under control but have really struck a clandestine deal with white folk both in real time and/or through cultural indoctrination? What do they want? Do black women ever ask, what is a Black man in America?
I believe if Black women want a real Black man, Black mothers should tell their Black boys (and girls) that they “love Black men” as a whole. Black men, who survived the homosexual onslaught (whites trying to make them feel powerless as men) and are of clear conscious, should teach Black boys that to experience their “feminine” nature in youth is just that, NATURE, and patriarchal dominance is unnatural. It doesn’t mean they are feminine and they don't have to act like a "girl" if they don't feel like an alpha male.
Seriously, in the face of our history and exposure to white cultural supremacy, I don’t know what Black women want or expect. I don’t know what we, as Black men, can give(except sex) that would act to satisfy them given the standards set by free white men. Then again, we must remember that Black women have been exposed to white supremacy too and what they want may be seen from an altered cultural state of mind and they don't really want what's left of the black man in America..but for many, that's all they have. Well that's not entirely true, they can always fall back on jesus...
hey maybe they want a black man like this..on his knees:
September 4, 2007
Vick attends church, works with young boys
The Associated Press
6:37 AM EDT, September 4, 2007
Article tools
E-mail Share
CHESAPEAKE - Fallen NFL star Michael Vick is trying to show that he is making good on his assertion that he's turned his life over to God after pleading guilty to a federal dogfighting charge last week.
*A Negro is an African transformed by removal of his African essences into a black-white man after centuries of exposure to white supremacist systems and refuses to try to reconnect. This is also not unusual of Continental Africans exposed to colonialism.
**This essay is not complete. The topic is too got damn complex.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Modern Crusades
When I read about the war in Iraq and the general treatment of Muslim, I think I'm suppose to get the feeling that the fuel for the “War on Terror” is a rift between the Muslims and the Christians. This is not new, there have been many Crusades or rifts between the 11th and 14th centuries and all of them were fought to increase the wealth of the church and the king with a public undertone of religion.
So what makes these present day “Crusades” of Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom any different? None really except the methodology of selling gives a loud public voice to the Christian right and today we have the creation of the State of Israel. These two things are instrumental today in helping disguise the age old battles for control of the world’s wealth by the old guard social and financial European elite.
Modern technology has further altered the perceptions of the modern Crusades. With the advent of television and instant communications that reach the remotest of areas in the world (the areas with the natural resources they want), the need for disguising the Crusades is even greater. The modern Crusades must never seem like a power grab for resources by the European and Euro-Americans, but appear to the world as a war of ideology, a religious conflict against “Radical Islam” and the forces of "Good."
But I ask you this. What if the Muslim ideology became the dominate cultural ideology in the world? That would mean more prayer and less television. That would mean less casual sex, violence and rock and roll and more conservative behavior which translates into less folks being in prisons resulting in no prison industrial complex. Also it would mean less drug money. It would mean less advertising dollars, less things to sell, fewer things to buy, and those who control the consumer markets would have to live on a fixed income. One quick example would be women’s dresses. The people who controlled the hijab and burqa markets would be the shit, the only game in town. Producing these two types of women's dress would require no marketing techniques, no advertising, no billboards, just basic black cotton with a scarf. Liquor and cigarette sales would be a felony. Western decadence would go off the shelves and those that make money selling cures for unhappiness, loneliness and insecurity would be out of work. And the key for keeping things that way is Muslim justice and it don’t play. Jail my azz..you loose a hand or worst!
Mind you I wouldn't want to live under the “Laws of Islam.” They are just as hypocritical as living in European culture, but for the European capitalist, Islam is more than a religious threat, it’s a threat to their pocketbooks and their lifestyle, their power and control and desire to organize the world in their image.
Understanding this tells me why the United States is in Iraq. It tells me why the U.S. supports Israel. It tells me a lot and more importantly it tells me that very little has to do with the idea of a Jesus or Muhammad which is why the masses support this nonsense. The need for power and control by the church and the kings is the force behind this Crusades and every one that marched to the so called “Middle East.”
Lastly, one of the things that finally got the "progressive liberals" on HuffPost piss off and me kicked off was my opposition to Mia Farrow's assessment of Darfur. It was the last anti-European cultural view straw for them. I suggested it's a religious conflict and the liberals didn't want to see it that way. They are hiding European cultural aggression as usual. The christian are proselytizing in an country that's run by an Arab government. The government armed the Janjaweed to stop the proselytizing and in doing so, struck out at non Arabs and Arabs that are sympathetic to Christians in the Darfur region. It's just an extension of the modern crusades.
So what makes these present day “Crusades” of Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom any different? None really except the methodology of selling gives a loud public voice to the Christian right and today we have the creation of the State of Israel. These two things are instrumental today in helping disguise the age old battles for control of the world’s wealth by the old guard social and financial European elite.
Modern technology has further altered the perceptions of the modern Crusades. With the advent of television and instant communications that reach the remotest of areas in the world (the areas with the natural resources they want), the need for disguising the Crusades is even greater. The modern Crusades must never seem like a power grab for resources by the European and Euro-Americans, but appear to the world as a war of ideology, a religious conflict against “Radical Islam” and the forces of "Good."
But I ask you this. What if the Muslim ideology became the dominate cultural ideology in the world? That would mean more prayer and less television. That would mean less casual sex, violence and rock and roll and more conservative behavior which translates into less folks being in prisons resulting in no prison industrial complex. Also it would mean less drug money. It would mean less advertising dollars, less things to sell, fewer things to buy, and those who control the consumer markets would have to live on a fixed income. One quick example would be women’s dresses. The people who controlled the hijab and burqa markets would be the shit, the only game in town. Producing these two types of women's dress would require no marketing techniques, no advertising, no billboards, just basic black cotton with a scarf. Liquor and cigarette sales would be a felony. Western decadence would go off the shelves and those that make money selling cures for unhappiness, loneliness and insecurity would be out of work. And the key for keeping things that way is Muslim justice and it don’t play. Jail my azz..you loose a hand or worst!
Mind you I wouldn't want to live under the “Laws of Islam.” They are just as hypocritical as living in European culture, but for the European capitalist, Islam is more than a religious threat, it’s a threat to their pocketbooks and their lifestyle, their power and control and desire to organize the world in their image.
Understanding this tells me why the United States is in Iraq. It tells me why the U.S. supports Israel. It tells me a lot and more importantly it tells me that very little has to do with the idea of a Jesus or Muhammad which is why the masses support this nonsense. The need for power and control by the church and the kings is the force behind this Crusades and every one that marched to the so called “Middle East.”
Lastly, one of the things that finally got the "progressive liberals" on HuffPost piss off and me kicked off was my opposition to Mia Farrow's assessment of Darfur. It was the last anti-European cultural view straw for them. I suggested it's a religious conflict and the liberals didn't want to see it that way. They are hiding European cultural aggression as usual. The christian are proselytizing in an country that's run by an Arab government. The government armed the Janjaweed to stop the proselytizing and in doing so, struck out at non Arabs and Arabs that are sympathetic to Christians in the Darfur region. It's just an extension of the modern crusades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)