@ No Black Pete
This is how I see it
Either we are in a system of white domination or we are not. If we are not, white supremacy cannot and does not exist.
There is no such thing as a partial system of white domination. It either dominates us or it doesn’t.
the word “supremacy” means “the HIGHEST”
There can ONLY be one thing that is “supreme” at any given time. That is why “white supremacy” cannot co-exist with “black supremacy”
In my opinion, IF President Obama was educated, nominated, vetted, and financed by the most powerful white people in the nation (he was) then he is WORKING for the most powerful white people in the nation (and possibly the world).
Why is President Obama where he is?
Because he is being USED by the most powerful people to CONFUSE and DECEIVE us into believing we do not live in a white supremacy system.
That is the point I was making in my last three posts, that TITLES are NOT SYNONYMOUS with power.
The most powerful people are the ones WHO GIVE OUT THE TITLES.
Of course, President Obama is SUBJECT to the system of white domination, that much should be OBVIOUS.
He is a PUPPET carrying out the orders of the most powerful whites who GAVE HIM HIS TITLE
We know this is TRUE because he has EXTENDED EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION CREATED BY THE PRIOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Because Obama is WORKING FOR THE SAME WHITE PEOPLE THAT Bush worked for.
We must understand what REAL POWER is, and how it is OBTAINED.
People in POWER do not give up POWER because of an election when they are the ONES who CHOOSE the candidates
I believe (and it should be evident to ALL by now) that President Obama was (s)elected to be the BLACK SCAPEGOAT for all the things that are happening and will happening,
which includes the current wars and future wars,
the genocide in Africa (that is going on right now),
the bombing of non-white nations (which is going on right now),
and the inevitable collapse of the U.S. economy.
THE BLAME WILL BE ATTACHED TO A BLACK FACE
THE NEXT WAR WILL HAVE A BLACK MAN’S FACE ON IT.
PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL BE BLAMED FOR ALL OF IT, AND BY DEFAULT, ALL BLACK PEOPLE WILL BE BLAMED FOR WHAT THE WHITE PEOPLE IN CHARGE ARE DOING
that is the ONLY REASON Obama is sitting in the White House
Black people DID NOT ELECT HIM, we do not have enough votes to select a president.
We really need to be clear about that.
There is NO TIME LEFT for wishful thinking and playing MAKE-BELIEVE.
We cannot afford to tell ourselves ANY MORE LIES.
REAL POWER IS NEVER GIVEN AWAY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NONE.
For example, if the owner of a company hires me and gives me the title of CEO, that does not suddenly make me HIS boss.
He’s the one who GAVE ME THE TITLE, and at the end of the day, IF i want to keep that job as the CEO, I have to do what he tells me to do.
Otherwise, I will be fired.
Being the CEO (or the President of the United States) doesn’t make me the owner OR the boss of the people WHO HIRED ME.
THEY ARE MY BOSS, and I AM THEIR EMPLOYEE, regardless of my TITLE.
In a white supremacy system, EVERY white person has a higher caste than EVERY black person, regardless of title, education, looks, income or occupation.
THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
that’s why it’s SUPER IMPORTANT to understand what white supremacy is and how it functions.
I know that ALL nationalism is not reactionary. The Italian nationalism of Mazzini is one thing, and the nationalism of Il Duce is another. The nationalism of Lumumba or even Fanon is progressive. That of Mobotu is another matter. And, of cousre, the revolutionary nationalism of MalcolmX, the African Blood Brotherhood or the ORIGINAL Black Panther Party is each a different creature than the conservative nationalism of NOI or US. Now both Bobby Seale and Ron Karenga invoked the image of Malcolm X--Seale for revolutionary purposes, and Karenga for reactionary ones. Now to what use is the memory of Charles Martel put by a seemingly fasacistic group like "generation identitaire" ?. And their assaults on the office of the Socialist Party? But not on the National Front. I'm no expert on that group but I think I can make an educated guess what they're up to. As for places of refuge? Depends on time and circumstances. Some AA revolutionaries DID seen refge during the 1960s in the predominantly Muslim Arab country of Algeria. Of course, Algeria's revolution, despite betrayal, was still young and the revolutionary spirit still existed. A more conservative Arab regime would be a different matter. And, of course, Algeria today is far different than in the 1960s
Marx explained what your Indian speaker "failed" to see. "Free trade" is good for the big companies and detrimental for the small economies.
It's insane and ignorant to say that the French cinema industry and the American cinema industry are equally competing and that the French market is closed to American movies.
Here are the last stats by the official office that is monitoring the cinema in France.
"La part de marché des films français est estimée à 35,2 % sur les sept premiers mois de 2013 (41,3 % sur janvier-juillet 2012) et celle des films américains à 54,2 %(45,4 % sur janvier-juillet 2012). Sur les 12 derniers mois, la part de marché des films français est estimée à 37,5 %, celle des films américains à 47,4 % et celle des autres films à 15,1 %."
In the last 7 months : French movie share : 35.2%
American movie share : 54.2%!!!
In the past 12 months, French movies get 37.5% of the market, US movies take 47.4% and other nations (including your clueless Indian Bollywood) 15.1%.
Have a look on the American market and find us the various shares of foreign cinema ... In fact, the USA is the most closed market in the West, the arch-protective because theaters never put foreign movies in their programs.
The diversity policy is made to maintain an open market and prevent the US monopolistic cinema companies. In many fields, free trade is not "free" at all and only a new face of monopolistic capitalism, imperialism and destruction of local cultures.
We keep up cultural diversity in France without switching to xenophobia or US types of veiled protective policies.
I recall that House Speaker John Boeghner was invited, as well as George W. Bush. At least one other Repuubican office holder was invited, but I don't recall his name. They declined. But I don't find anything curious about that. The Republicans are a right wing party, certainly far more so than during the 1960s. Dr. King himself, the freedom Movement which he led, and many of the people commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, were progressives of various stripes. Most contemporary Republicans--unlik e many of the 1960s--would have felt out of place at such a gathering as I would a gathering of the Tea Party or one of those "Christian Aryan" meetings. I guess this one of the longterm outcomes of Nixon's "southern strategy."