Tuesday, September 3, 2013

More Reality and News

TrojanPam says:
@ 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
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.
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.
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.
In a white supremacy system, EVERY white person has a higher caste than EVERY black person, regardless of title, education, looks, income or occupation.
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.

a whiteboi


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."



"....Taylor who sat in silence, BOTH women had other folks hair glued and sewn to thier scalps". That's WHY she sat in silence. And that's WHY it's SO difficult to eradicate white supremacy, so MANY Blacks BELIEVE in it THEMSELVES!!!!


Did you see the episode of all the cast members who demonstrated clips and fake hair on the same show? Julie the asian woman took hers out, the blonde took hers out,Taylor took hers out. The only one that had all her hair was Sarah. The point is, non black women ,have been doing this for years.,Wearing fake hair..This didn't start with black women but sadly, we get the brunt of it. Trust when I tell you, Their are just as many if not more, non black women who wear FAKE HAIR.
YOU said There is NO doubt that whites, asians, latino's, etc wear false hair. But their hair is CONSISTANT with WHO they ARE. These women are not walking around with afro's or braided wigs/weaves. Nor do most Black women opt for afro/braided wigs/weaves. Instead, most opt to wear LONG hair CONSISTENT with white hair. Notice, even Blacks who talk about having NATURAL hair often preference it with the word "LONG"
I agree with everything you just said except the LONG PART What I mean by that is this, Long hair, no matter what the race. LONg hair has spiritual implications so those of us who are naturally long, should never FEEL ASHAMED THAT this is what we were given. I always say, more black women would have naturally longer hair, if the mothers before them, took time and not frustration with our own hair. Because our black beauty is so unique, it does require us to take DIFFERENT care of what is ours . AS YOU SEE, other races of women ,can just wash and go. Nothing really pressing to it. But us, we are a bit different and their is nothing wrong with that. Long hair is not special because black women , including other races can grow hair long. The problem is, long hair is synonymous with Yt,asian,latin women only and thats bull sheet. Our hair is long and bushy but we can show any other race of women that, HAVING LONG HAIR IS NOT SPECIAL because WE CAN DO IT TOO. but, they cannot naturally achieve the beauty that was given to BLACK WOMEN. AGAIN, they have been chasing us for centuries and because we have grown to hate what we naturally have, is the only reason that gives them some kind of societal dumb edge. I say ,reverse the thinking.
We should not be ashamed of having long hair. Whether its straightened or in an afro, the length is ours short medium or what have you..YT ,ASIAN, LATIN, women DONOT have a PATENT on LONG HAIR. So when you see a sister wearing her natural LONG OR KINKY, it's not BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO BE YT by a long shot.
There is NO doubt that Black women ARE the most beautiful, the cream of the crop of ALL women. That's WHY I push for naturalness(Skin, hair, etc). Even our imperfections are superior to "others" flawlessness!!! We were CREATED to both adapt to and survive in our enviornment. Every PART of us were made for those reasons. Natural Black hair offered MORE protection from the sun than long stringy hair. Black NATURAL hair offered MORE protection from falling objects than long FLAT hair. In addition, Black natural hair offered MORE resistance to bugs and parasites than white hair. And whites KNOW that. Their hatred of us is based on simple genetics, thus their job is to enstill DOUBT about our NATURAL selves(Tops in the genetic food chain)WHILE pretending THEY are the TOP of the line genetically. NOT so!!! While we tend to agree on MOST topics, we must agree to disagree on this one, and that's ok as I am still learning and absorbing as I live.
I have nothing but respect for you.
this post you just wrote is 100 percent true. OUR hair was given to us for many reasons. when we start to understand what you have written ,we will throw away and do away with this notion that we have to obtain what others have.....Have no doubt about it,I agree with this post you wrote. We really need to educate ourselves about the positives of our own beauty,hair,skin.We are like no other. :)
edud01 Exactly. Had it not been for these physical traits, Blacks would not have survived to be the origin of all human life. Yet these attributes are viewed as "ugly" by other races and sadly some of us. Ironic isn't it?
Hello Erica. I believe that Sheryl Underwood should be treated with compassion though, even though I disagree with her statements. I think this a learning and a teaching experience. We all wish for the days where Black Consciousness was in a higher level than today.
-By Timothy (Me)
Before I went natural, I wore relaxers, wigs, extensions, braids, etc. So I'll never vilify someone for their choice of hairstyle. With me, hair was like an accessory. As you stated, it's the mentality behind the hairstyles that creates issues. And it's easier and safer to blame Black people. That's plantation negrahs for ya!


Emily Wright                                                                                                         
    Black women, as individual women, are allowed to have agency over their own heads.
If they want to wear a weave, so be it. It is THEIR hair. I wear my hair natural and at times I wear a weave at times. Even when I was relaxed. As a busy woman, it was easier to style my hair in the morning with a weave then with either relaxed or natural hair.
I also don't like manipulating my own hair too much. Weaves actually helped my hair grow because it wasn't breaking off as much due to styling.
There was a time when black women were not allowed to have agency of their bodies. That time is gone. Let women be individuals. Wearing a weave doesn't have to mean you hate your natural hair. I think natural hair is beautiful.
" Even our imperfections are superior to "others" flawlessness!!!"
And you're still equating natural hair with imperfection, a little freudian slip there?
Right!!! They were(still are, only MORE covertly now)attacking our ENTIRE being, including hair, skin color, lips, eyes, hands, feets, etc. And those who BELIEVED that indoctrination took steps to CHANGE themselves into the IMAGE of whiteness. Skin bleach, different colored contact lenses, long wigs/weaves, european nails, etc.

I echo everyone else's words. There is too much self hatred in world. This self hatred is accuminated among blacks and non-blacks. Don't get it twisted, because other non-blacks have expressed this self hatred too. The major point about this situation is that we should love our natural black being. Our natural hair is very beautiful, unique, and asthetically dynamic. Underwood is wrong in this affair (which represents her self hatred. She needs to understand her true inner and outer beauty without degrading the hair of her own people), because natural hair is a cogent, beautiful aspect of black humanity. We must be allied with our people. The only positive outcome of this situation is that we can discuss about this issue maturely and we can be further inspired to advance natural hair more readily in our community. We certainly have an opportunity to speak truth to power. Subsequently, our black value and our black humanity must be respected. We must always love Natural hair irrespective of the nefarious materialistic nature of modern Western society.

-By Timothy (Me)


No wonder Caucasian birthrates are dwindling. You'd rather spend your time pretending to be Black men than procreating. Therefore, you're not the best person to speak on intelligence.

When somebody start talking about saving hair my first thought is a voodoo spell. LoL Sheryl should have kept the tired joke/comment to herself. Our hair is curly not nappy. Nappy is nothing but another derogatory "N" getting thrown around way too much


Hi Courtney :).....It is very serious based on how we are viewed by others as less than; It is seen as "look at them, they don't even like themselves, they have the same negative opinions of themselves as we do so why should we view them as anything more than how we view them?" Which gives others the excuse not to hire us as frequently as others, not to give us the same justice as others, to treat us with less respect than others and etc... These negative views of our traits are the same as the mockery of us in the media and in advertisements of the past. (By the way, it is funny how anything we do is viewed so negatively but when others do it, it is perfectly fine i.e. wearing fake hair or whatever it may be that others are doing as well.)
exactly. they know what they are doing from a mental stand point. They hate themselves. Always altering but they through media,figured out how to propel themselves as the most beautiful in the world after taking bits and pieces from us.At the same time, consciously making sure that they don't show to many of us at the same status as far as beauty goes, on a national level. Just a few and those few that fall in line in what THEY THINK is acceptable. So, I get it, I see it.We are treated as less threatening when we look more like what they want .So, what is the real insecurity that they have ,when they say that their is something wrong with anything other than what does not fall in line in what they want..?
Exactly, and one major problem is that back in the 60's and 70's, there were organizations and watch groups that would protest the negative images of native Americans and blacks on television, of course there were still some negative stereotypes but the protests were heard and usually their wants met as well as there were many positive black shows and images on television. I'm sure there are still those watch groups but their voices either are not being heard as loudly or they are not trying to yell about much and now you have very few positive images and these bullchit shows: Meet the Browns(and basically any other Tyler Perry produced show since I can't name them off hand), The Rickey Smiley show and etc....

The love for ourselves has been lost and it is such a shame. I loved those days of "black power" unity and love of how we look and who we are. One can only do to you what you allow one to do to you.

I agree. All that attack black women for doing what other races of women been doing for centuries know that they are liars.The hypocrisy in it is what I'm pointing out. As far as some black women, the the detriment comes when they start to believe that , their is something inherently wrong with our hair because its naturally different. Well, thats the entire point. we are NOT like any other race of woman on the face of this earth. We stand alone and because of that, we are admired and picked apart because those races look and have attributes like every other race of women except us. WE ARE ELITE but somehow, the world has done a great job on many of us to make us hate what is so BEAUTIFUL AND GREAT ABOUT US AS WOMEN. Case closed.

First of all, it's a mistake to make generalizations about what 45 MILLIONS of African Americans think about Africans, just as it would be silly to make generalization about what 1 Billion Africans think about African-Americans. A lot depends of the consciousness of people, and there are different levels of consciousness within any group. Many African Americans were part of the anti-apartheid movement, and some of us went to jail for our militant protests at the South African embassy or places where officials of the South African racist regime met. Pan-Africanism has been a sentiment among African Americans for at least a century. Then, of course, there are backward American Blacks who do dislike Africans, as there are backward Africans who dislkke African Americans. It would be better for all involved if we paid less attention to backward Black people (whose hatred for others is an expression of self-hatred) and focus on our common struggle and legacy of solidarity.



No comments: