Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Necessary and Legitimate Words (without Coded Language). This is Overt Language



Note by Me: It is important to know that when we expose the system, people like me aren't hating certain human beings. We just disagree with corrupt people in society. People like us believe in the equality of all human beings and all human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. In my life, I've meet sweet, engaging people that are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and numerous backgrounds. So, I have no issue with a person promoting Black Power (including Black Love & Black Families) and I don't have an issue with a person promoting the interests of the human family. Also, one thing that I will always do is to support my black people's interests and my people's God-given human rights too. I believe in fighting for the dignity of black women  (Black women are intelligent, have strength, and have great beauty in my eyes. I will always love black women as I am a black man) and black men. Therefore, I will keep on fighting against injustice, oppose racism, and oppose reactionary ideologies period. So, that's real. I reject violence and any form of oppression. I just believe in self defense being utilized in extreme circumstances. A person expressing militant words is much better than members of the oligarchy executing deplorable, evil, and unjust deeds in real life. I am not ashamed of embracing controversial views (of believing in hope and believing in justice for my people). I will never apologize for my core convictions. Black culture is beautiful, liberty is just, and the dream shall never die. So, the truth in the end will prevail.

By Timothy


This is a great speech.

By Timothy


  1. rbrownes Says:
  2. This whole thing just shows me that black people still don’t know white people or the situation we’re in today. Why do we agree to do these things with white people. White people aren’t forcing Janet Jackson or Terrell Owens to do these things. Why do we allow ourselves to be maneuvered into these situations. I saw Janet say that she was surprised/disappointed with Justin. Why was she? I really don’t get mad at white folks when they made a big stink over this white man uncovering Janet’s breast when if he had done this to a white woman, probably would have been some small fcc fine and nothing else would have been said. My question is why do we allow white folks to manipulate us like this? The picture with lebron james looking like some kind of beast with his mouth wide open and a blonde on his arms. Why did he allow this? These people are not being taught ANYTHING about white people/white racism. This is because most of us want to hide from the reality of racism by pretending it does not exist. So these kinds of things will happen over and over again. I don’t see anything that can be done about it. This is white folks stuff and they do what they want to. I watch that show 2 and a half men. There is so much subliminal x-rated stuff said on that show that it’s bordering on being criminal. So, I don’t get mad when they do these things to black people. Black people need to stop allowing themselves to be put in these positions.
  3. You are right RBrownes, many have not been taught, thus, many will not be taught. It’s a crime in and of itself that we have not taught our youth the reality of racism. Lebron should have been so schooled on the implications of that imagery. Somehow we think if we don’t teach our children they will not be effected. We’re highly victimized and retarded in our thinking. So much so that when those of us who are teaching our children what to be aware of, what to look out for – we’re accused of BEING racist. So those who know must continue to verbalize and hope that eventually a number of us will get to that point of not being unwittingly manipulated. The anti-humans are on their job 24/7, we must be as well.
    P.S. Was it Jagger that pulled Tina Turner’s skirt off during a show? And remember when Adrian Brody (?) molested Halle Berry right on stage during an awards show, saying he just wanted to do it or always wanted to do it. Pleeeze. He would have gotten round-housed. Beat into the stage, on national tv. Heels off all upside his head. He would have been black alright. Black and blue.



Come to think of it, most politicians are handmaidens of the 1%. Both political parties are subservient to corporate money and interets; the Republicans are simply more obviously so. They have no progressive or disadvantaged constituency that they must try to placate while kissing up to the rich. Hence the Republicans openly attack rights of workers, and Obama gives only tepid lip service in defense of workers. Republicans reject even the idea of universal health care, and insist on keeping the dictatorship of the corporate elite over health care. Obama SAYS he's for universal health care, but offers a watered down package which offers a few things we didn't have before (for liberals must concede SOMETHING to workers and poor) but leave CORPORATE control intact...and he compromises away even the public option (though partly under pressure from rightwing blue dog dems). The 1% are mainly those operating things behind the scenes. Poliicians put on a show.



Savant wrote:

Ah. So, it's your RACISM that motivates you after all. For none of this was the policy of Obama. Your phobia regarding Obama--for a phobia it is--has nothing to do with his policies.
Your problem is acutally with BLACK PEOPLE. And you offer the same old tripe that has been argued by racists since segregation in housing was banned during the 1960s: "When those colored people move in the value of property goes down"
But you racist simpletons have a track record: You flee with racist panic not only with the so-called "section 8" folk arrive, but even when the new neighbors are black doctors, entrepreneurs, professors and engineers.
And frankly, I suspect that much of the Obaam-phobia on the right, regardles of rhe rationales offered, are really a matter of racist phobias.
The only reason you jokers find Cain acceptable is that he give support for your racism and your reactionary view of life.
Cain is yuur Steppin Fetchit.


If it weren't for the working classes (all colors) who create wealth expropriated from them by the elite, there would be no tyranical 1%. And without the mind numbing racism created by the 1% there would be no backward retarded bigots like you who hate everyone except their real oppressors--the 1%.



Your stupidity is obvious. Coretta Scott, like Martin King, came from a middle class black family, and was an educated woman. She probably wouldn't have known what a food stamp looks like.
At any rate, there are more whites who subsist on welfare and food stamps than blacks. Not that I blame them. I blame the 1% for the poverty of both blacks and whites. I blame you for the stupidity of your racism. It's the 21st Century. Isn't it time you left the 19th Century behind?



bappie wrote:
No, it isn't. If a poor person needs food, clothing or shelter, the Lord understands. The key word in your post is "honest." There's nothing honest about selling out your people by taking advantage of someone's misfortune, especially those someones who happen to be of your own race, by moving in lower class people to deliberately bring the value of their homes down in order to make a profit for yourself. On judgement day it would be better to be welfare trash, than greedy, white trash, that preys on his and other races to enrich themselves.
Of course, you'll find that out for yourself, on that day so enjoy your ill, gotten gains, INMORALE THIEF, WHILE YOU CAN.


icu_ wrote:
Then the lord can give them clothing, not the goverment that says the lord doesnt exist.
Thats the way the ball bounces
But of course! If God doesn't exsist, you can continue doing what you do. Not caring about anyone but yourself. It's not surprising devil inspired people think like you. He exsists, look in the mirror.



bottlecap wrote:

Sometimes it is FUN to be partisan AND I know that you are pulling for Obama, so coming on strong for him in full battle mode is certainly appropriate.
However, I know you see things at a much greater depth and realize there is a great EVIL behind the scenes which tugs and pulls and maybe dominates any man in the Oval Office. If it ever comes down to confronting that EVIL directly, I know we will be on the same side.:)
Plenty of FIREWORKS ahead for both of us.
So true. I am conflicted as you know. However, I'd be loathed to share "what we really know" with these people who are as committed for whoever wins the Republican nomination because of most of their reasons which are plain old racisim. We'll absolutely be on the same side, no doubt! You're absolutely correct about the coming fireworks that are going to leave most of the nation in shock and awe, lol.


If Obama said he wanted the USA to have the smartest kids in the world, the GOP would give him an argument about that.
That's true. Look at how they're jumping all over Michelle about her healthy eating plan and encouraging people to excercise. They don't want anyone telling them what to do or how to eat, wth???? PTA Republican Women upset because they can't do anymore bake sales of cakes and cookies.

HELLO AMERICA! Children as young as 8 or 9 are getting diabetes, hypertension, strokes, and heart attacks! What part about the American diet is unhealthy don't they get? Oh, the corporations who create junk food, full of chemicals and perservatives and God knows what are upset that she's messing up their business, wth about our health and the health of our children? Yet, she's a bossy b____, etc. They don't want health care, nobody is telling them that they should, well drop the pluck dead, dumb azzes, I mean they're beyond freaking ridiculous.

They will agree with nothing said by him or Michele. Yet Nancy could create a stupid a___ "Just say No" to drugs as if that helped while "borrowing" thousand dollar dresses (that would go into a musem after use) or sending out recipes when people where struggling for shrimp casseroles, lol! Oh, did Republicans forget that Americans were struggling then too, under their savior president with his massive budget cuts that released the mentally ill into the streets (most Viet Nam Vets) and account for all the homeless people since his presidency we now see in the streets? Whole families now, they should be so proud!

Please, don't get me started and they want to rant about Jimmy Carter! although he was a little lousy, to tell the truth but his heart was in the right place and he is still enriching people's lives by his peace efforts, and building homes for habitat, instead of personally enriching himself like they do!



brown eyes wrote:
American people have 9 percent disaproval rating of do nothing, Tea Party controlled Congress. Worst Congress in US history some say..
That's how they will be remembered by History. They were willing to let this country go down the tubes rather than cooperate with the first black american president. Obstinate, obstructionist, and not giving a d____ about the country, people, or anything else other than not cooperating with Obama. The worst congress in the history of this country and at its core was RACISIM! They were determined to see him fail and if that meant them taking the rest of the nation with them, so be it. That means they were and are TRAITORS TO THIS NATION.



Mr Zaius wrote:

That is certainly reassuring coming from a fellow that calls himself Savant.

Such as?

Black people and folks that do not usually vote republican do not have government identification? Did they know they can get them for free?

Why aren't democrats concerned about voter fraud?

Estimated by who? Why do we have five million Americans without any form of identification running around? Where did they come from and how do they survive without a job, vehicle or public assistance?

Where is your evidence of this? Republicans have won many elections and will win many more in the future. This is a center right nation after all.

What about Black panthers with weapons in front of polling places seeking to intimidate white voters? We should allow that I reckon, eh?
Aren't you a professor at a prestigious university? Is this what you are teaching children?
What about white Tea Party members with weapons in their meetings who are they seeking to intimidate, THEMSELVES?? LOL! What about the hundreds of thousands of bonifide Black voters in Fla and other Republican voting polls who's votes were thrown out, who were mislead of where they should vote (as in precinct) and all the other dirty tricks you losers used to win the election between Gore and Bush? Do you deny that the fake president didn't use his brother's clout and influence to steal the FL vote by disenfranchsing black voters? Is that why when he did his victory march the crowd screamed hail to the thief?


We now know why he had to steal that election, don't we? Look at the country now, all on the Republican's dime!



I will think of some books on the subject of American black religiosity if AA religion interests you. But with regard to Dr. King to whom I've devoted a thread, you might check out GOD AND HUMAN DIGNITY: THE PERSONALISM, THEOLOGY AND ETHICS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR by Dr. Rufus Burrows, Jr. Cornel West's PROPHESY DELIVERANCE may prove interesting. Interestingly enough, your philosopher compatriot Simone de Beauvoir makes some interesting observations on her encounter with African-American religion in Harlem. She was introduced to some Black churches, including that of Adam Clayton Powell, by her friend AA writer Richard Wright. Though herself an atheist, De Beauvoir was sympathetic to the religious expression she found in AA churches in Harlem, which she perceived as expressive of a peoples yearning for freedom. Check out AMERICA DAY BY DAY. Or rather, en version originale: L'Amerique au jour le Jour. Your AA teacher ought to introduce you to some of the churches in Bmore or parts further South. Or maybe I will if you happen to be here again and have time on your hands. Now here's an interesting tidbit of info: Dr. Richard McKinney, and elder philosophy professor with whom I once studied, knew Dr. King when King was still a young student of philososphy and theology. That was back in the 1940s when my PARENTS were young. Old McKinney died at age 99 in 2005. When I met Dr. Mckinney while I was still a teenager, I had not idea that this old black sage--the first true SAVANT and philosopher I was ever to meet in person--had known Dr. King when King was a teenager


Sinajuavi wrote:

Compared to today's GOP, even Goldwater starts to look good...
Newtie can't win. It's Mitt the Corporate Hairpiece we have to worry about.
Ironically, Eisenhower may have been the first to warn about the military industrial complex.
Someone on MSNBC mentions an interesting finding, which may PARTLY (not totally) explain why the Obama experience has been often disappointing.
Some survey apparently shows that ther MOST CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS are more liberal than the most liberal Republicans.
The Republicans have really moved that far to the Right. It was also observed that even in the Clinton Administration--and before Obama NO ONE hated more than Bill Clinton by rhe Right--even then there were some moderate Republicans whom Clinton (who wasn't exactly FDR himself) could work with. Same with Johnson, Kennedy, FDR, etc. Under Abe Lincoln (Obama's favorite pres) when the Republicans were the most progressive of the two parties, a part of the Democratic party in the North allied with Lincoln.
It is so bad now that there virtually NO ONE among Republicans whom Obama can work with. So, his centrist "bipartisanship" was in vain. He's only now beginning to realize this. Had he figured it out one or two years earlier, the naitonal experience may have been greatly different.
Obama may as well simply take off the gloves and make war against the reactionaries under a progressive banner? But will he? He may get one more chance in November. If so, will he use it wisel???

Keep the Occupy Movement going. That's how we put fire under the heels of politicians.


Savant wrote:

As for the dead and illegal aliens voting at elections, that's mainly urben legend. As for the DISFRANCHISEMENT of Black folk by measures now proposed by REpublicans (which resembles measures once imposed by Dixiecrats)-of this we have a TON of historiacl evidence.
Like the poll taxes of the past, the Republicans' new restrictions are designed to affect predmominantly Black communities and other coummunities that usually do not vote Republican. And ONLY under Republican administrations are such measures being proposed or imposed. It is estimated that at least FIVE MILLION American could be excluded from the 2012 elections, mainly Democratic constituencies, and disproportionately African-Americans.
Republicans want to STEAL an election than they cannot WIN honestly. They are thieves and fascists determined to suppress democracy by suppressing the votes of non-Republicans.
The measures should be stopped where thy've not yet taken effect, and immediately overtunred where they have.
Moreover, those who imposed such restrictions should be BARRED from political life, if not jailed.



Ron Paul does differ from Barry Goldwater in his distance from goldwater's robust militarism. He seems to oppose militarism due to his isolationist position. but on most other social issues the difference between them is not great.(I don't know what position Goldwater would have on the war on drugs).
But even Goldwater looks moderate compared to the Republicans we have now.



His Council on Jobs and Competitives -- the jobs offshoring crew

Unfortunately, with all his talk of jobs, he's managed to gather, but with several exceptions, those individuals most responsible for offshoring the most jobs in America and making so many unemployed for the foreseeable future:
Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric chief executive
(see “Secret History of GE”)
James W. Owens, head of Caterpillar
(On boards of the Peterson Institute – whose long-time agenda has been the offshoring of all American jobs, the privatization of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and is the baby of Peter G. Peterson, LBO pirate, and on board of Business Roundtable)
Robert Wolf, chairman and CEO of UBS Group Americas
(Oh great, a guy from the major Swiss bank!)
Mark Gallogly, founder and managing partner at Centerbridge Partners L.P.
(formerly with Blackstone Group, world’s largest private equity LBO firm, Centerbridge is also a private equity, leveraged buyout firm)
Penny Pritzker, chair and founder of Pritzker Realty Group and Classic Residence by Hyatt
(Member of the ultra-rich Pritzker family, questionable bank ownership w/involvement in subprime industry, and you do know about all the anti-labor and criminal behavior at Hyatt, right?)
John Doerr, partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
(Doerr has a mixed background, but while he was with Intel, he appeared to strongly support the jobs offshoring program --- Intel lost over $1 billion in the chip project in India, which they belatedly relocated back to America. Doerr also appears to support the privatizing of American education.)
Monica C. Lozano, Director of Bank of America
(BofA director, what more need be said? That she was also on the BoD of Walt Disney Corporation, and the Tenet Healthcare Corporation [from a wiki entry: In the early 1990s as National Medical Enterprises, the company was accused of committing fraud by admitting thousands of psychiatric patients who did not need hospitalization and then charging these patients inflated prices. In 1991, the federal government investigated the company for fraud and conspiracy. In 1993, offices of the company were raided by law enforcement in an attempt to show that the company was defrauding patients and insurance companies. In 1994, the company paid $2.5 million to settle lawsuits from 23 patients at its psychiatric hospitals. Again in 1994, National Medical Enterprises settled fraud charges with the United States and 28 states involving payments of a record $380 million USD at the time and federal guilty pleas on eight criminal counts by two of its units. The company also agreed to a 5-year corporate integrity agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.] Also on BoD of a Mitsubishi financial subsidiary.)
Charles E. Phillips, Jr., president of Infor.
(former managing director with Morgan Stanley)
Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO
Austan Goolsbee, chairman of Council of Economic Advisers
(Told the Canadian press, during Obama’s first presidential campaign, that all the talk against NAFTA was purely political, and not to be concerned. Goolsbee’s wife is a former management consultant at McKinsey & Company, historically the major PR/mouthpiece for the global banking cartel. Also Yale Skull & Bones)
Christina Romer, former chairperson of Council of Economic Advisers
(Submediocre economist, questionable papers on causes for the Great Depression, not that far removed from Bernanke’s submediocre papers on the Great Depression.)
William H. Donaldson, former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman
(Nixon and Geo. W. Bush administrations, Skull & Bones – also, I believe Donaldson is a member of THE Donaldson family, which married into and became part of the ultra-rich DuPont family.)
Laura D'Andrea Tyson, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration
(Long-time position on Board of Directors of Morgan Stanley)
Martin Feldstein, former chief economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan,
(Feldstein was a director at HCA when they paid the largest out-of-court settlement for Medicare/Medicaid fraud, Feldstein was a director at Eli Lilly when they had to pay the largest criminal penalty in history for falsely marketing a drug which killed a number of people (over $1 billion penalty), and Feldstein was a director at AIG’s Financial Products group when they were involved in the largest insurance swindle in US history (selling $460 billion worth of credit default swaps without keeping the necessary capital on hand --- received over $333 billion in government bailouts, and still counting, had billions also written off from their losses by the US gov’t – you may have heard of them???)
Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF)
(Former partner with McKinsey & Company, member of the Group of Thirty, the international group of financiers, created by the Rockefeller Foundation in 1978, which pushed for the removal of “legal risk” in the widespread adoption of credit derivatives, i.e., the primary cause and platform for debt leveraging resulting in asset-price inflation, in other words, massive wealth transfer to the plutocracy. Majority of Group of Thirty members also belong to Peter G. Peterson’s Peterson Institute, also referred to as the International Institute for Economics.)
David F. Swensen, CIO at Yale University
(Former SVP at Lehman Brothers, specializing in swaps.)
The majority of these people also are familiar and socialize frequently with one another as they hold trustee positions at the same, and interlocking, organizations, as well as various BoD positions also at the same institutions.


LesiaModerator5 hours ago

I eventually came to that realization when it came to my son, especially since he has a mental health disability. I make sure he is as happy and comfortable as possible, and I never treat anyone better than I treat him (maybe just as nice), but NEVER better!
SoultrySoulModerator4 hours ago
My Momma use to say, 'Can't nobody steal my GLORY!"

It can be worded differently by many...the bottom line of it means the same. Control you - do not allow anyone to take your inner smile away.

My Lord woke me, and my imagine in the mirror winked at me - - my inner smile was rooted early this morning and shall remain all day. No on can steal my GLORY!!!
I know that "colorblindness" is an easy and reliable strawman but this is nonsense.

The simple reason the GOP don't see anything wrong with their racist policies is because they are deeply racist, not because they are colorblind. Racism is deeply embedded in their ideology so that they hardly notice it. This is not the same as colorblindness, meaning someone who is oblivious to racial issues.

It's hard to mistake the GOP's coded attacks on "welfare recipients" (wink wink) as naive or clueless. They know very well what they are saying and who they are saying it to.
Correction: No surprise that The Root gives examples of racists statements by all thee major GOP candidates. It would be awesome if the GOP base considered this unacceptable in their candidates.
sebhai wrote:
Probably it's because of their limited exposure to the whites.I didn't even know what hatred means until I go to school with the whites.I understood then why black people created their own college and schools.But then again there those dumb whites who keep saying black people are racist too simply because they build educational institution reserved for blacks only.
2428 wrote:
Funny, because I'd say that the majority of whites would like to have their own schools. They just pretend that they don't and say they love diversity to make themselves look like the good guys. Even here in Canada when minorities start moving into white neighborhoods, white people move out. I knew someone who used to go to High School in a majority white area and he said there was a lot of racisim there.

2428 wrote:
I remember back in grade 11 when I selecting what courses to take my guidance counselor only encouraged me to take non-academic courses like Gym and cooking. I also remember a white teacher telling me that I used "big words" when she took a look at my English assignment. The sad thing is that Canadians of all races (some, not all of course) still pretend that racism doesn't exist here...

Kumiho wrote:
Great points made! I've also observed that too. I remember when I was going to an all-white elementary school and all of my white teachers we're amazed at how smart I was and a lot of times my mom was called in for "conferences" (in which I found out much later in my life that they were accusing my mom of doing my homework for me). I'm a pre-med student and at first I thought that I'd see a good amount of whites in my classes but guess what? My classes are currently dominated by Middle Easterners and Asians...but I have seen a lot of whites in art classes though (go figure, right?).


devilishangelrjpModerator5 days agoin reply to Paul Kirklin
Your argument is based on the premise that society is not a reflection of the government's actions; that society changes irrespective of what is going on in the government. This is patently false. The reason "society became less racist" is not because of a gradual realization on the South's part that blacks were not inferior. It was as a result of the villanization of slaveholders and racists, made possible by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Therefore, some infringement on property rights WAS in fact necessary to repeal the laws of slavery and Jim Crow. Moreover, society tends to swing back and forth between accepted behavior. With the possibility of excluding blacks still on the books, whites may decide later on that blacks are untouchables, and begin to re-frequent places with Whites Only signs. To assume that the current situation, which is a result of everything that you are arguing against, would be exactly the same had the past not occurred, is absurd. The market would only punish people from excluding patrons from restaurants, if it became viewed as unpopular and bad to do so. If it was popular, conversely, the market would not correct it.

That racism does not self-correct is evinced by the fact that slavery continued to exist as long as it did. If no infringement on property rights is necessary, then slavery would have continued into perpetuity. Southerners were resistant at the time of the Civil War, after the Civil War, and they continue to be resistant to the idea today. If slavery was not painted as an evil, the North would have gritted their teeth and bore it like they had been doing, because they were still getting rich as a result anyway. Further, the fact that racism does not self-correct is evinced by the fact that institutionalized racism is still a problem today, and whites continue to reap the benefits of it, whether they admit it or not. Institutionalized racism continues because the status quo is such a strong force to be reckoned with. A black man is still 50% less likely to get hired than a white man similarly situated. This, despite the fact that society has "become less racist."

I also argue that the proposed solutions do not give blacks a chance to voice their opinions to the government, but in fact take away blacks' agency in their own destiny and the way they are treated. Who can protest at a Whites Only drinking fountain? They know blacks will be angry; they just don't care. It takes white people to voice the opinion and refuse to drink at a water fountain or eat an establishment for stuff to change. This does not further the cause of the value in our society for our voices to be heard and for justice to prevail.


devilishangelrjpModerator5 days agoin reply to MoRtiS_NoCTu
Because eating at a restaurant has nothing to do with the ideology of the owner.

No, it is not the right of the private property owner of de facto public property to refuse service to anyone based on protected criteria. If you would serve a white man, the 14th Amendment states that I should have equal privileges.
Kevin117Moderator5 days agoin reply to EmbraceTheTruth
Not if he's running a licensed business that tax payers (like the Black guy) support through infrastructure improvements, like power, sewers, water, water purification, streets, sidewalks, food testing, business loans, all of which make said restaurant business possible.

Wake up. The whole world is interconnected. Nobody stands alone. Nobody makes it without everyone else's help.

Now if the restaurant was out on a privately owned island, and the restaurant owner butchered, grew, inspected, cooked the food himself. And he ran the power plant and ran the power lines, and he dug his own sewer, and built his own sewage processing plant, and dug his own well and tested his water for purity, then sitting on his little island by himself he ould exclude the world. Whoopie!
Jonathan MooreModerator6 days agoin reply to Rick Fisk
"The bus line was owned by the government. This fact is too-often ignored."

Yeah, state and local governments, that were explicitly racist under the pretense of "States Rights".


Mr.Parnell Moderator6 days agoin reply to EmbraceTheTruth
Most of those WHITE RACIST OWNERS used government funds to get he shouldn't do as he wishes, because he/she uses government funds and services.

THOR wrote:
Luckily, the white teachers didn't destroy you mentally like they do so many black students whose parents trust that there is no racism. I have personally witnessed many talented black students who were bullied out of high school by white teachers or were coached into taking courses that would not qualify them for university because they are not smart enough. Meanwhile, there were dumb white students getting alot of help from white teachers so that they can make the grade required to apply for university. Covert racism is hard to prove, hence, white teachers get away with the harrassment of black students, here in Canada.

Since whites read a lot of those fantasy romance novels they call history books, they tend to major in history and archeology programs, so they too can further add to and teach the fantasy they call white history. And since many think they can be the next Michelangelo or Da Vinci, art is another subject that is of interest to them. Many white students are actually failures in high school but since they were coached into obtaining a postsecondary education by white teachers and their parents, they take up courses in the arts. Because they would not succeed in science or math programs. Some teachers go a bit further when they do the white students a disservice by providing them false grades in the sciences and math so that they may enter university science programs. In Canada, students are qualified for university based on the grades they receive in the last year of high school - no SATs, no entrance exams. I have personally witnessed white students receiving marks just for showing up to class. Yes, there are marks for attendance. I can only speak of the Canadian school system which I have experienced.


His "better way", the north buying and freeing slaves, buys into the assumption that Black people are property to be bought and sold. How people can believe that he supports individual liberty and equality for ALL people boggles my mind.     

-Jonathan Moore


crispusattucksModerator3 days agoin reply to J.A. Woodard
"It is clear that the states, according to our founders and our constitution, have the right to withdraw from the union. It was one of the features of our government that the founders wished to emphasize most. " (c) J.A. Woodard.

Where in the constitution does it provide for states to withdraw from the Union? It's not there. Per our constitution, it is not a right that States have.

Also, why do you believe slavery would have ended within a year or two without the war? Can you support that statement?


Except that it's been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional ever since. Both the Commerce Clause contained in Article I of the Founders’ Constitution as well as Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment plainly give Congress the power to ban racial discrimination by private businesses that run public accommodations. In 1964, in the landmark case of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the public accommodations provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act under the Commerce Clause, pointing out that racial barriers thrown up by Jim Crow were hampering the free flow of interstate commerce. No Justice of the Supreme Court has ever questioned the correctness of Heart of Atlanta’s holding, including Justice Thomas, who has long urged the Court to dramatically cut back on the recognized reach of the Commerce Clause. For good reason, Heart of Atlanta is a foundational part of our law. Congress must have substantial power to forbid commercial practices – such as racial discrimination – that hinder free trade of goods and services.

Just as important, Heart of Atlanta’s holding that Congress has the power to prohibit racial discrimination by businesses that operate places of public accommodation finds deep support in the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, two Justices in Heart of Atlanta specifically concurred to explain that the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to enact the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wrote Section 5 to give Congress authority to regulate the actions of state officials and private actors to protect the liberty and equality of the newly freed slaves and their allies. Acting against the backdrop of efforts to re-establish slavery, as well merciless violence perpetrated by former rebels and white terrorist groups against the freed slaves and their Union allies in the South, the framers sought to ensure that Congress would have broad legislative authority to protect civil rights, whether under attack by private actors or government officials. In fact, Congress’ very first piece of civil rights legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, applied to both state actors and private actors, and it is universally recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment was written to ensure that Congress had the power to pass the 1866 Act. Nothing in this history gave private businesses a free pass to discriminate.

The basic premise of the Fourteenth Amendment – reflected in the text of the Equal Protection Clause – was that the states have a constitutional obligation to protect all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, an obligation that Congress could enforce. States could not turn a blind eye to criminal or discriminatory acts committed against a disfavored group. As the framers recognized, “[a] State denies equal protection whenever it fails to give it. Denying includes inaction as well as action.” Thus, when states sat idly by while the freedmen and their allies were murdered, or otherwise had their rights trampled, the Fourteenth Amendment ensured Congress had clear constitutional authority to intervene.

To summarize, you are wrong about the unconstitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Find another way to criticize it.     


Jonathan MooreModerator6 days agoin reply to USSConstitution
"Or maybe he's just dealing with the reality that they were treated as property at the time."

If Ron Paul was "dealing with the reality", he would've known that his proposed solution was tried in 1862 and failed because it was rejected by Southern slave owners.

If he truly believed that black people weren't property his answer to who was in the right during the Civil War would've been different. He would've said something along these lines:

"Given the fact that black people are human beings and not property, the federal government had the authority under the constitution to protect their life, liberty, and property, which implies overriding State laws or policies that deprive them of it. And the Federal government would've been justified in doing so."

But, he did not say that


timHitler-so jerry sandusky, warren jeffs, & all the other white pedophiles & freaks-masquerading as "mentors & leaders" of the community & molesting young boys, girls , women & fathering a bunch of illegitimate mutant babies-that will be on welfare-is DESPICABLE!


COINTELPRO was a bytch! Many younger sisters and brothers have no idea that much of the chaos in the Black community now was brought on by the massive repression of the Movement and the decimation of leaders. In the place of CONSCIOUS sisters and brothers, we got gangsters and pimps (in the place of Panthers) in the hood. And in the place of SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS middle class sisters and brothers (like King, Angela Y. Davis) we got timeservers, status seekers and sychophants. Even much of the bitter intergender hostilities one finds in Topix, though more extreme than average, has its origins in erosion of solidarity, of community and family--largely made possible by the removal of the MOST CONSCIOUS sisters and brothers in the community. Even Eddy Conway, former Bmore Panther, infers as much. We have to rebuilt community and solidarity. We also need to begin, as Dr. King argued, a transition to a "revolution of values" which places PERSONS above things and property in the order of values. It is those of us who remain, we the living, who must decide by our action (or inaction) whether those martyrs will have given their lives in vain. The choice is up to us.

jazzwatchModerator8 hours agoin reply to babyboy119
Well SOME of them are BOLD ...but in fact when they do the John Wayne thang, then REALLY are more like Pee Wee Herman......
Jonathan MooreModerator6 days agoin reply to Mary Hysmith
"The sad part of this story is that the author of this piece probably has a college degree and yet, zero knowledge of the civil war."

"But then, the war did not start over slavery, nor did the south "attack" the north. As stated in a previous post, the number one important issue of that war was federalism."

I won't claim that you have "zero knowledge of the civil war", but you're certainly wrong about this. In fact, South Carolina's justification for secession found in the official document "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union", argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. All the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery.

By far, the claim that the Civil War was over the issue of States Rights, or in your words "federalism" is by far the weakest non-slavery justification. As Historian James McPherson puts it:

"While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle."
Jonathan MooreModerator6 days agoin reply to USSConstitution
"Lincoln himself said that he only wanted to preserve the union..."

Lincoln did say this, but it does not follow from this that slavery was not the cause of the war. Everything else in that paragraph you said was true, but your conclusion just doesn't follow from it. So, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union from secession by the Southern States. The Southern States seceded in large part due to perceived threats to their institution of slavery and its economic and cultural impact (Just read the actual arguments and justifications by the South at the time! It's not hard to find.) For example, South Carolina seceded prior to Lincoln's inauguration primarily due to fear that Lincoln would stop the expansion of Slavery into new states, fating them to perpetual minority in the House of Representatives (This was a common complaint of the Southern States). This is simply what happened.

"So again, while Slavery was an issue and heated topic of the day and certainly played a role in the split of the states etc, it was NOT the actual reason the war was fought."

Slavery was the reason and justification for secession. Official documents explicitly say so. It's no conspiracy that virtually every academic historian agrees with me on this (Not just 5th grade Social Studies Teachers). The evidence is just overwhelming. The claim that slavery was not the main reason needs to be called out for what it is, historical revisionism.



I'll share something with you, brotha. Jusr (a few days ago) heard that Bush signed the "Military Commissions Act" into law. Heard they're "looking" in prisons (where a million BM are locked up) for "potential" terrorists, I see the direction this country is going in (police state), watching the economic news, the Iraq war, all that shyt, Katrina black folks still getting dogged out, Madonna buying a black baby, people in Africa dying and I gotta say, MAN, I'm a little on edge. Then, when I see BM & BW fighting each other and this system egging us on, and man, it gets to be a bit much. Honestly.

My "aggression" on this board, not making excuses, is a combination of MANY things. Sometimes, a brotha gotta pull up and EXHALE...


I'ma check out that custom font thing cause these damn fonts is too small! :-)


Can't say I'm surprised by what you posted but it's still chilling, man. I heard something in the news about NY subways. There's a lot going on now. Global positioning satellites, tracking devices built into all new cars (that nobody told us were there), spying on message boards and emails and phone calls and blogs.
The Military Commissions Act Bush just signed into law gives Bush (and his cronys) almost unlimited power. They can try you (any citizen) by a military tribunals and deny you the constitutional right to a trial by a judge or a jury of your "peers". Scary s____...

You're right, the BM is gonna experience the brunt of these new police powers. The handwriting's on the wall, man. That's why BM need to question ANYTHING the media pushes on us, like this IR s____. (BW need to do the same thing) The powers that be know there is power in UNITY. They want to separate us to divide and conquer. We need to ask why these media images are showing BM & BW in such negative terms, showing us separated from each other. It kinda reminds me of what happens in corporate America. First they get the managers to fire the workers and then they fire the managers. Bottom line the top guys didn't want either one of them around.

Here's a link to a site that talks about what you posted:
Check it out.



Why? Wrote:
I don't feel it is an honest portrait of what is going on. I am so sick and tired of these one sided movies that bash the black man or the black women. In one movie black men aren't s___ but womanizers, jigalos,ex-convicts,absentee fathers etc, etc and in another movie black women are the overbearing, insensitive, angry, golddiggers who have yet to comprehend the term compromise. And we (both black men and women) feed into this like were idiots. Instead of taking responsibility for the way we treat each other and hurt each other we blame the opposite gender for all of our problems. And these types of movies only perpetuate those attitudes. Until we look at ourselves honestly and work collectively to be better husbands, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, mothers, fathers and all the other roles we play in each others lives these types of movies will continue to have an audience. What's worse than that, is that we continue to treat relationships with people outside of our race better than those we have in our race. This is just another divide and destroy movie. I still love my black men and I hope they still love me.

I'm with you. I'm sick of BW and BM bashing. I'm d____ sick of hearing some BW or BM claim how "great" some WW or WM is. Bull____. If WW or WM were so great the white divorce rate wouldn't be over 50% (and it would be a lot higher if it wasn't for money, kids, and other complications).

Blacks gotta stop acting like we the only ones with relationship problems. We gotta stop buying into the HYPE. Relationships are TOUGH--period, no matter what color you are. We gotta see the BIG picture as to why our relationships are failing, starting with the trauma of slavery, then Jim Crow, then segregation, and the systematic attack on the black family which has never stopped since we've been here. More than anything, BM & BW gotta start looking in the mirror and ADMIT what we are doing wrong so we can make things better.

Regardless, there are BM like myself who ain't falling for the divide and conquer programming. IR-dating is NOT an option for me--period. There are too many BW out here in all shapes, sizes, colors and personalities for me to look elsewhere.

D____ divesity--I want somebody who shares my reality--the good and the bad--and understands it. I don't want a woman who doesn't have a clue what I go through as a BM or a black person. I don't want people looking at me thinking I THINK white women (people) are better than black women (people). I d___ sure don't want a woman who does not understand my PASSION for a good pot of collard greens! Now, that's me. Might sound intolerant. Too bad. Just being honest, here. In saying this, I can't speak for no other BM but myself and let me go one further: I LOVE YOU, TOO, SIS.

Keep the faith--it ain't over until it's over.


EkDesiLadki wrote:
I don't think islam is a problem by itself but Sharia is definitely a problem. It treats women as HALF. In countries with Sharia it's always 4 men or 8 women witness that is counted as equal.
When people talk about giving minorities the same rights, it cannot be "equal" unless you know how the laws of minorities are different from US laws. You've been doing lot of research on Dr. King, I'm curious IF he will give away women rights in the name of giving minority "equal rights" ?
How will he handle ? How will he handle kid's right ? Should we turn blind to people who want their daughters to be married at 12 ? You can't make everyone happy all the time. What will you pick, minority vs women ? Sometimes when you pick minority rights, minority women's right will get abused.
Well, Dr. King never faced some of the issues you mention here. We an speculate. I think that had Dr. King survived into the 1970s, he would have leaned more in the direction of women's rights. I imagine he would have serius problems with anyone--Muslim or non-Muslim--bedding or marrying under age girls.(Granted, he wasn't always monogamous himself. But touching children? I can't imagine it)
I don't think King would accept oppression in the name of religion. Islam as understood by Abdul Ghaffar Khan he might sympathize with as he sympathized with Buddhists in Vietnam fighting for the liberation of their country. Probably he'd be thrilled to see the Arab Spring, and tormented by the horrible massacres in Syria. But thrilled by the rapid spread of nonviolent revolutions in the Middle East, and by the nonviolent insurgency of labor in Wisconsin.
When asked after a lecture i gave on King at a university last year whether King would be marching in Egypt, I said he'd be marching in Wisconsin and talking about thow the struggles here agains injustice is the same struggle that's happening in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. And even in his 80s, he would be with us in the Occupy Movement---would probably see it as the continuation of what he was trying to do with the Poor Peoples Campaign.
As for the issue of "minority rights", for King these were essentially HUMAN RIGHTS. Human rights wuuld not include the right to exploit children. After all, children are human beings



tishreniModerator9 hours ago
These people are doing whatever they want to kids more and more these days..I seen on the news tonight that they have a new law in California that wants to lock up sex offenders(rapist) of kids under 18 for life.

Im sure some advocates for mental health will be against it but most people are gonna jump on this one .They apparently ppassed this law in California and they said they are looking at 5 more states.Nothings written in stone but i think its a great start!

And don't think that the placing of non-black women ONLY in Black films marketed towards Black people is about open minded or glorifying bm/ww relationships... and "color blind love." If it were truly about color blind love, tell me why don't we see more mainstream white actors and actresses paired in romantic relationships with Black people and have those films marketed to wp? Why is it that when Bw are already under represented in mainstream (read: white) films, its Black women who aren't represented at all in Black films and magically we're color blind but ONLY when it comes to Black women in Black films? We're not color blind when it comes to white women starring in white films...

Why don't I ever hear films tellng white people to support movies where the love interest is a Black or Asian woman...and whtie women are absent from the movie? Why is it just Black women...who are marketed at and expected to support films that don't support their image and even ERASE their image?

Would we ever see major film companies expecting white people in droves to support a film that put the Black mistress of Thomas Jefferson above his white wife in a mainstream film ? Why don't we we ever see Scarlet Johanssen with a Black man in a romantic comedy or a white actor in a MAINSTREAM, high budget film with a Black woman or an asian woman?

Why is it that people have no problem putting up functional examples of white-white relationships, but with Black movies there is an over representation of negative Black relationships and then a bias towards showing non-black and white women in the positive roles with Black men?

that's what i don't understand...if all things were truly equal we would see a more balanced representation of interracial coupes in ALL types of movies not just in the big budget Black movies and not just white women with Black men in mainstream movies.

Would hitch have been as successful as a romantic comedy with a white man and a filipino woman, would the media market it the way they marketed Hitch as a bw/hw? Would white women/white men be expected to continuously support movies that ignored white women as love interests for white men?...

Also to me it seems that some people obviously view it as sinister to depict Black women as anything other than the mammy,jezebel or sapphire because those have been the roles we've been constrained to since we were brought to this country...

If all things were equal, we would see a more balanced representation of interracial couples of all sorts and not just in the black movies...

but it seems to ME that the focus is moreso on erasing Black women altogether from the mainstream positive roles, while uplifting white women with white men and all other men and its getting tired...

I'm tired of hearing that my parents are conspirators against black womanhood.

and I'm tired of black womanhood being devalued, misrepresented or made invisible. I'm very tired of that.



WandaLouise wrote:

Black men have a baby mama ideology. This is normal for them. They even coined the term. Non black men don't have that term. They are more inclined to work it out with the woman before he decides to move on whereas black men will not be looking to stay with the woman period. He will have already moved on.
White men don't have this belief. They are more structured. They want to settle down more whilst black men are forever keeping their roving eye on permanent look out!
Non black men do not only want the lightest brightest black women. They are happy to date a black women period whatever colour she happens to be.
Etc etc etc, get the pic yet?
That's truly false since a lot of black men love black women of any skin tone including dark skinned sisters. The rest of your post signifies issues that you have with your own people.

The issue that we brothers have isn't that you have found love. More power to you. It's that you constantly place all black men into one negative, degenerate category. If you have found love, why do you constantly demonize us? You should just live your life and call it a day. I don't have a thing to do with oppressing you. Also, more white men in America are on welfare, have more meth drug abuse, etc. than black people. If a person is content with experiencing an IR, they would just live their lives without obsessing with the Black men and black women that are in love with each other period. You don't want Black Love, so that is your business. The stereotyping of black men into a sick designation is just as wrong as stereotyping black women.

Yet, you don't want Black Love. You want black men and black women to be at each other's throat since you want to destroy Black Unity (among both genders) in the world. That is why I will never fall in your trap. Black men and black women are strong, resilient, intelligent, and acquire huge ingeunity in our souls. I will not only be a better man, but I will respect black sisters too (and I will not allow IR BW and IR BM to brainwash me at all). See, Black Love is superior than an Eurocentric agenda or the worship of whitenss. Black Love is embraced by the vast majority of black people in the world. BLACK LOVE IS POWERFUL AND BLACK LOVE IS REAL.

-By Timothy


here is my response:

i'm going to respond to her comment generally speaking, in the case of Red Tails I think its an issue of white washing history moreso than anything...but i'm going to speak moreso about the bias against black women in this response...

First of all to me (all things being equal) there is nothing "sinister," about a white woman/black man relationship... Just as there is nothing "sinister" about an asian woman/white man or black woman/ arab man or any other pairing...(btw why don't we see a more balanced representation of those couples)...?

What struck me about the posters comment was that (s)he stated that its understandable that there aren't enough depictions of functional black relationships, but then the assumption is that there's something sinister about depicting a Black man with a white woman.

My response to that is, if you can understand that the portrayal of positive Black relationships in the media is unbalanced compared to positive white and interracial Black male relationships, why would you assume that the issue is just with interracial relationships between ww/bm in it of itself?

To me that's just a way to overlook the fact that YOU DO know that the media is unfairly portraying Black women/Black men relationships and it's derailing from that fact. It is undeniable to me that Black women are not portrayed positively in the media, the last sucessful mainstream movies we've had about Black women were The Help and Precious...that should say something...both of those were fictional or warped stories of Black women as caretakers and mothers and interestingly in both films Black men were portrayed badly and so were Black women.

These fictional accounts have warped not only the perception of Black women, but of Black men and their relationships with Black women. In contrast, we see a diverse and wide range image of white women and white men in functional, loving relationships. We see positive films about white women (The Blind side) often. Yet, when they have a chance to tell a "TRUE STORY" about a positive Black woman, magically they erase Black women and put in a white woman to tell the story?...

There's nothing sinister about white women being with black men, but what is sinister is the misrepresentation and the erasure of Black women in the media, and the glorification of non-Black women as their "replacements."

Psst! NoniJuice! I think the impotent trio are ignoring me! :-(

I, the master of cram, have accomplished the UNTHINKABLE.

i, the one who got "blasted and obliterated" by the combined intellectual power of the TruthSlayer, the Real Deal Brotha and the Self-Guided, has actually ran THEM into hiding -- at least from my a___. Actually, this is a damn good deal for me. Now, I can post in peace, knowing none of them will dare to cross the old Cram's line of sight by posting directly to me. I, the Cram, have struck a blow against silly a___ men EVERYWHERE!

Now, for the bad news. The D/L Hughley brothers have mounted an attack on an innocent lone female, walking in cyberspace, picking daisies and minding her own damn business. How courageous they are! How MANLY! They get p____ off at a MAN and in their own manly way, have targeted a woman who they assume is an easier target.

Have no fear, fair damsel nonijuice, old Cram will come to your aid even though I know for a FACT that you could whip these THREE PUZZYCATS -- Self-Guided, Truth Slayer and Real Deal Brotha-- with one hand tied behind your pretty back. You are the original cool head. You don't even break a sweat when they growl like an angry pack of wet kittens at your back door. YOWL!

Thank you crammaster for bringing some sanity to this board.


You're welcome, but let me say this. I didn't come on this board to win or put other BM down. I'm bothered by the EASE by which che WHITE MEDIA has succeeded in turning BM & BW against each other.

I predicted this years ago when I saw how the media CONSTANTLY portrayed IR (mostly BM/WW) couples on TV Talk shows, Court Shows, movies and television programs). I noticed the way they made damn near EVERY BW look evil, unstable and generally UNDESIRABLE.

Over the last several years, the media has tried to convince BM that the WW is his best friend. They show NOTHING BUT positive interactions between BM & WW and nothing BUT negative interactions between BM & BW.

Some of us BM SAW through the MADNESS but some have fallen for it. (not many, thank God). Of course, it's madness. WW--as a group -- aren't againt racism, they're against SEXISM. Their biggest gripe with this racist and sexist system is they are not getting their fair share of the spoils. I see the way many WW deal with BW. They are the FLIP SIDE of the WM dealing with the BM.

I had this WW at work come up to me and start bad-mouthing BW out of the blue, about their sexual easiness. I'm like, WTF, does this fool know who she's talking to? So, I happily reminded her a___  about the pornography industry (mostly White) and those "Girls Gone Wild" videos. That ended that conversation because I guess she was feeling me out to see what kind of fool I WAS. We haven't talked since -- a good deal for my a___.
Bottom line, BM and BW are being MANIPULATED. Can't we see the strategy of divide and conquer? Don't we know this system is trying to destroy us? If you agree with that, how the hell can we pretend we don't need each other? Why aren't we seeing through the hype and asking oursevles why our relationships are always being portrayed through a negative lens? Of course, we need to hear all viewpoints but we should do that in the spirit of trying to understand each other, not to condemn each other.
Even if we don't date or marry IR we are still bringing this crazy a___  hateful s______ to our BLACK relationships.

We gotta wise up, folks. The BIG GAME is being run on us. Aren't we tired of being played by now?

No comments: