Counter Racism Now! Campaigns

Sunday, July 21, 2013

My analysis of Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin

I suspect that this speech was constructive.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
July 19, 2013
1:33 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session.  The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week -- the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling.  I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday.  But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation.  I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.  

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner.  The prosecution and the defense made their arguments.  The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict.  And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works.  But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. 

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son.  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.  And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away. (Until White Supremacy is Replaced With Justice)

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store.  That includes me.  There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.  That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator.  There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.  That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.  And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.  The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws.  And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.  It’s not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.  They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.  And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well; there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.  So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys.  

But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this?  How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?  I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent.  If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.  But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do. 

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here.  Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code.  And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive.  So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.
Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists. 

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things.  One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped.  But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing. 

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law.  And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive.  And I think a lot of them would be.  And let's figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.  (This is a message to the Effective Number, who must start examining "state" and "local" laws and taking action enough to sway public ["White" folks] opinion towards making sure that these laws get changed. Racist Suspects have been using them against "Black" males heavily. See here)

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.  On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see? 

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?  And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?  And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys.  And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about.  There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement.  And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them? (Get your organizations ready for the resources that will come your way if your involved in helping young "Black" males.)

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program.  I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front.  And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation.  And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. 

And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.  There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race.  I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations.  They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.  On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can?  Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?  That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.  (A truly open and honest discussion about the so-called "race" issue, must be had and should continue until the system of White Supremacy is eliminated.)

And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.  Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race.  It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society.  It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.  But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are -- they’re better than we were -- on these issues.  And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.

And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues.  And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.  But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

Thank you, guys.

His words sounded constructive and were definitely soothing to the hearts and minds of huge numbers of people (and yet painful to others), I hope that they are the prelude to some serious steps towards solving the problems that "Black" folks have inherited from Racism (White Supremacy). Right now, Obama's got nothing to loose. There is no more re-selection for him. He could come out and talk about Racism (White Supremacy) every single day, and there wouldn't be a damn thing that anyone could do about it. If he did that, he'd be the boldest, baddest, greatest, "leader" that ever lived..... Just by using his words. I could be incorrect.

Stay Strong In The Struggle To Replace White Supremacy With Justice

Friday, July 19, 2013

Some Things To Show You

Trayvon Martin Homicide Photo is within the below Video.

It just occurred to me the other day that Obama can never be selected again, because the law allows him to be president no more than twice and he is now in his second term, so he doesn't have to worry about what the "White" folks think anymore. We ( my "mom" and "wife") were just saying that Obama could come out and talk about the Trayvon Martin Case. He could now speak freely about Racism (White Supremacy) how it has victimize us. Did you know that he can't be impeached for using his mouth to tell the truth about our being victims of racism?

Impeachment - The Law

The removal of the President from office was provided for by the founders of the United States in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution focuses specifically on the executive branch of the government, how the President is selected, the duties of the President, and the term of office. The last section of Article II, Section 4, deals specifically with the grounds for impeachment:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
That's it - nothing more. The process is spelled out in Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, but there is no further elaboration on reasons for the impeachment of a President.

Imagine if he came out tomorrow with Jeremiah Wright on his right side!!! Imagine if with Jeremiah by his side he said "I only said what I said about Rev. Wright, to get to this point in my presidency! Wouldn't that be tight! Hell (at the risk of facing possible assassination attempts) he could have a lot of influence on the world, just be using his words carefully in the below video. Obama just became my president today. Check it!!!

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Why No Justice For Trayvon Martin?

Trayvon Martin August 2011
Travon Martin was a Victim of Racism. He was not allowed to freely go to the store and return from the store in peace. A Suspected "White" person named George Zimmerman wanted to know what it was like to kill someone. Like the coward that he is, he chose to kill a teenaged boy, who wasn't a threat to him.

The first thing to recognize is that this case was about "Race". As long as the system of Racism (White Supremacy) exists everything is either directly or indirectly tied to the so-called Race issue.

The second thing is to acknowledge that we are Victims Of Racism and we are NOT FREE, in this system of injustice. As long as this system exists, if you are a "Non-white" person YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY  SUSPICIOUS no matter what. And, if you are a "Black" person, you are MORE SUSPICIOUS THAN ANY OTHER "Non-white" person.

Example- Let's say that there are five people in a room. One "White" person, one "Yellow" person, one "Red" person,  one "Brown" person, and one "Black" person. If something comes up missing everyone, who didn't take it, will suspect that the "Black" person took it. (Even "Black" people suspect other "Black" people whenever a crime is committed.) Those same people wouldn't think that the "White" person did it. If the "White" person was the only person in the room at the time of the theft, they'd come up with excuses that justified the "White" person doing it.

Because the Racists have trained the majority of this planet to suspect that the "Black" person is always guilty. All eyes are on us.

This is were Counter Racist logic earns its keep, because it helps to bring balance by putting "White" people under suspicion too. That is the only way to resolve the "Race" issue.

Counter Racist Logic is about behaving in a manner that gets everyone in the room to say, "Nope. it wasn't the "Black" person this time."

I agree with Mr. Fuller when he said that "Black" people should develop a culture of not committing any crimes, except the one, which the Racists call "panhandling"( more on that later).

Imagine if we developed a culture of not committing crimes as though it was the new style. You know how we love to be in style. If we made it the new style and kept it that way for a long period of time, maybe the day would come when no one would believe that "Black" folks could commit any crimes. I could be incorrect.

Stay Strong In The Struggle To Replace White Supremacy With Justice

    Wednesday, July 10, 2013

    "Political Education Neglected" by Carter G Woodson

    I am posting this in response to the recent Supreme Court Decision to End the Voters Rights Act.
    Chapter 9
    pp.83 to 95
    The Mis-Education of the Negro 
    by Carter G Woodson
    First Published in 1933 

     "If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, for he will seek it himself. If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one."

    SOME time ago when Congressman Oscar De Priest was distributing by thousands copies of the Constitution of the United States certain wiseacres were disposed to make fun of it. What purpose would such an act serve? These critics, however, probably did not know that thousands and thousands of Negro children in this country are not permitted to use school books in which are printed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are mentioned in their history as figures in politics rather than as expounders of liberty and freedom. These youths are not permitted to learn that Jefferson believed that government should derive its power from the consent of the governed.

    Not long ago a measure was introduced in a certain State Legislature to have the Constitution of the United States thus printed in school histories, but when the bill was about to pass it was killed by some one who made the point that it would never do to have Negroes study the Constitution of the United States. If the Negroes were granted the opportunity to peruse this document, they might learn to contend for the rights therein guaranteed; and no Negro teacher who gives attention to such matters of the government is tolerated in those backward districts. The teaching of government or the lack of such instruction, then, must be made to conform to the policy of "keeping the Negro in his place."

    In like manner, the teaching of history in the Negro area has had its political significance. Starting out after the Civil War, the opponents of freedom and social justice decided to work out a program which would enslave the Negroes' mind inasmuch as the freedom of body had to be conceded. It was well understood that if by the teaching of history the white man could be further assured of his superiority and the Negro could be made to feel that he had always been a failure and that the subjection of his will to some other race is necessary the freedman, then, would still be a slave. If you can control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his action. "When you determine what a man shall think you do not have to concern yourself about what he will do. If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, for he will seek it himself. If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one.
    This program, so popular immediately after the Civil War, was not new, but after this upheaval, its execution received a new stimulus. Histories written elsewhere for the former slave area were discarded, and new treatments of local and national history in conformity with the recrudescent propaganda were produced to give whites and blacks the biased point of view of the development of the nation and the relations of the races. Special treatments of the Reconstruction period were produced in apparently scientific form by propagandists who went into the first graduate schools of the East to learn modern historiography about half a century ago. Having the stamp of science, the thought of these polemics was accepted in all seats of learning. These rewriters of history fearlessly contended that slavery was a benevolent institution; the masters loved their slaves and treated them humanely; the abolitionists meddled with the institution which the masters eventually would have modified; the Civil War brought about by "fanatics" like William Lloyd Garrison and John Brown was unnecessary; it was a mistake to make the Negro a citizen, for he merely became worse off by incurring the displeasure of the master class that will never tolerate him as an equal; and the Negro must live in this country in a state of recognized inferiority.

    Some of these theories may seem foolish, but historians even in the North have been won to this point of view. They ignore the recent works of Miss Elizabeth Donnan, Mrs. H. T. Catterall, and Dr. Frederic Bancroft, who have spent years investigating slavery and slavetrading. These are scientific productions with the stamp of the best scholarship in America, treatises produced from such genuine documents as the court records of the slaveholding section itself, and these authors have rendered the public a valuable service in removing the whitewash which pseudo-historians have been giving to slavery and slaveholders for more than a century.

    In the preparation of Negroes, many of whom teach in the South, these biased Northern historians even convert them to such a faith. A few years ago the author happened to listen to a conversation of Negro lawyers in one of our Southern cities, in which they unanimously conceded practically every contention set forth in this program of propaganda. They denounced, therefore, all reconstructionists who advocated equality and justice for all. These Negroes had the biased point of view of the rewriters like Claude Bowers and had never been directed to the real history of that drama as set forth by A. A. Taylor, Francis B. Simkins and Robert H. Woodly of the new Southern school of thought. These Negro critics were especially hard on Negroes of our day who engage in agitation for actual democracy. Negroes themselves in certain parts join with the whites, then, in keeping out of the schools teachers who may be hold enough to teach the truth as it is. They usually say the races here are getting along amicably now, and we do not want these peaceful relations disturbed by the teaching of new political thought.

    What they mean to say with respect to the peaceful relation of the races, then, is that the Negroes have been terrorized to the extent that they are afraid even to discuss political matters publicly. There must be no exposition of the principles of government in the schools, and this must not be done in public among Negroes with a view to stimulating political activity. Negroes engaged in other spheres in such communities finally come to the point of accepting silence on these matters as a fixed policy. Knowing that action to the contrary means mob rule which may destroy the peace and property of the community, they constitute themselves a sort of a vigilant committee to direct their fellows accordingly.

    A few years ago a rather youthful looking high school principal in one of the large cities was unceremoniously dismissed because he said jocosely to the president of the board of education, in reply to his remark about his youthful bearing, "I am old enough to vote." "Horrors!" said the infuriated official. "Put him out. We brought him here to teach these Negroes how to work, and here he is thinking about voting," A few prominent Negroes of the place muttered a little, but they did nothing effective to correct this injustice.

    In certain parts, therefore, the Negroes under such terrorism have ceased to think of political matters as their sphere. Where such things come into the teaching in more advanced work they are presented as matters of concern to a particular element rather than as functions in which all citizens may participate. The result is that Negroes grow up without knowledge of political matters which should concern all elements. To prevent the Negroes from learning too much about these things the whites in the schools are sometimes neglected also, but the latter have the opportunity to learn by contact, close observation, and actual participation in the affairs of government.

    Negroes in certain parts, then, have all but abandoned voting even at points where it might be allowed. In some cases not as many as two thousand Negroes vote in a whole state. By special legislation providing for literacy tests and the payment of taxes their number of voters has been reduced to a negligible quantity, and the few who can thus function do not do so because they are often counted out when they have the deciding vote. 

    -----------------------------The Reason For The Voters Rights Act of 1965------------------------------------
    The tests established for the restriction of suffrage were not intended to stimulate political education but to eliminate the Negro vote by subterfuge. Negroes presenting themselves for registration are asked to do the all but impossible thing of expounding parts of the Constitution which have baffled high courts; but whites are asked simple questions which almost any illiterate man can answer. In this way the Negroes, however intelligent, are turned down; and all ignorant whites are permitted to vote. These laws, then, have retarded rather than stimulated the political education of both races. Such knowledge is apparently useless for Negroes and unnecessary for the whites, for the Negroes do not immediately profit by having it and the whites may function as citizens without it.

    The effect of such a one-sided system is decidedly bad. One does not realize it until he talks with men and women of these districts, who because of the denial of these privileges have lost interest in political matters. A book agent working in the plantation area of Mississippi tested the knowledge of Negroes of these matters by asking them questions about the local and State government. He discovered that they knew practically nothing in this sphere. It was difficult to find any who knew who was president of the United States. One meets teachers, physicians, and ministers who do not know the ordinary operations of courts, the functions of the counsel, jury or judge, unless such knowledge has come by the bitter experience of having been imposed upon by some tribunal of injustice. Some of the "educated" Negroes do not pay attention to such important matters as "the assessment of property and the collection of taxes, and they do not inform themselves as to how these things are worked out. An influential Negro in the South, then, is one who has nothing to do or say about politics and advises others to follow the same course.

    The elimination of the Negro from politics, then, has been most unfortunate. The whites may have profited thereby temporarily, but they showed very little foresight. How the whites can expect to make of the Negroes better citizens by leading them to think that they should have no part in the government of this country is a mystery. To keep a man above vagabondage and crime he needs among other things the stimulus of patriotism, but how can a man be patriotic when the effect of his education is to the contrary?

    What little chance the Negro has to learn by participation in politics in most parts of the South is unfortunately restricted now to corruption. The usual stir about electing delegates to the National Republican Convention from the Southern States and the customary combat the Negroes have with Lily-white corruptionists are about all the political matters which claim their attention in the Lower South. Neither the white nor the black faction, as a rule, makes any effort to restore suffrage to Negroes. The objective is merely the control of delegates and Federal patronage for the financial considerations involved. To do this they resort to numerous contests culminating in closing hotels and bolting doors for secret meetings.                                                                                                                                                                  

    Since this is the only activity in which Negroes can participate they have learned to look upon it as honorable. Large numbers of Negroes become excited over the contest and give much publicity to it on the rostrum and in the press as a matter of great importance. The methods of these corruptionists of both races, however, should be condemned as a disgrace to the state and nation.

    Instead of doing something to get rid of this ilk, however, we find the "highly educated" Negroes trying to plunge also into the mire. One of the most discouraging aspects in Negro life recently observed was that of a presidential campaign. Prominent Negroes connected with three of our leading institutions of learning temporarily abandoned their work to round up Negro votes for one of the candidates. The objective, of course, was to control the few ordinary jobs which are allotted to Negro politicians for their campaign services. When the successful candidate had been inaugurated, however, he carefully ignored them in the make-up of the personnel of his administration and treated Negroes in general with contempt. When you think of the fact that the Negroes who are being thus used are supposedly the most reputable Negro leaders and our most highly educated men you have to wonder whether the Negro has made any progress since Emancipation. The only consolation one can get out of it is that they may not represent the whole race.

    In the North the Negroes have a better chance to acquire knowledge of political matters of the simple kind, but the bosses do not think it is advisable to enlighten them thoroughly. Negroes in parts are employed in campaigns, but they are not supposed to discuss such issues of the day as free trade, tariff for protection, the World Court, and the League of Nations [currently called the United Nations]. These Negro workers are supposed to tell their people how one politician seeking office has appointed more Negro messengers or charwomen in the service than the other or how the grandfather of the candidate stood with Lincoln and Grant through their ordeal and thus brought the race into its own. Another important task of these Negroes thus employed is also to abuse the opposing party, showing how hostile it has been to the Negro while the highly favorable party was doing so much for the race.

    The course of these bosses has been interesting. At first the white man used the Negro leader by giving him a drink occasionally. The next step was to give him sufficient money to set up drinks in the name of the white candidate. When drinking at the expense of the candidate became too common the politicians fell back on the distribution of funds in small amounts. When this finally proved to be insufficient, however, the politicians had to go a bit further and provide Jim Crow jobs in certain backrooms with the understanding that the functions of the so-called office would be merely nominal and the incumbents would have no close contact with white people. In this stage the Negroes find themselves today.

    The undesirable aspect of the affair is that the Negro in spite of the changes from one method of approach to that of another is never brought into the inner circle of the party with which he is affiliated. He is always kept on the outside and is used as a means to an end. To obtain the meager consideration which he receives the Negro must work clandestinely through the back door. It has been unnecessary for the white man to change this procedure, for until recent years he has generally found it possible to satisfy the majority of Negroes with the few political positions earmarked as "Negro jobs" and to crush those who clamor for more recognition.

    It is unfortunate, too, that such a large number of Negroes do not know any better than to stake their whole fortune on politics. History does not show that any race, especially a minority group, has ever solved an important problem by relying altogether on one thing, certainly not by parking its political strength on one side of the fence because of empty promises. There are Negroes who know better, but such thinkers are kept in the background by the traducers of the race to prevent the enlightenment of the masses. The misleading politicians are the only persons through whom the traducers act with respect to the Negro, and there are always a sufficient number of mentally undeveloped voters who will supply them a large following.

    Even the few Negroes who are elected to office are often similarly uninformed and show a lack of vision. They have given little attention to the weighty problems of the nation; and in the legislative bodies to which they are elected, they restrict themselves as a rule to matters of special concern to the Negroes themselves, such as lynching, segregation and disfranchisement, which they have well learned by experience. This indicates a step backwards, for the Negroes who sat in Congress and in the State Legislatures during the Reconstruction worked for the enactment of measures of concern to all elements of the population regardless of color. Historians have not yet forgot what those Negro statesmen did in advocating public education, internal improvements, labor arbitration, the tariff, and the merchant marine.

    Tuesday, July 09, 2013

    How To Deal With White People. PART 2

     (Click here to read part 1)


    Today, we're going to talk about dealing with White people in the area of politics.  I'm confused, so please bare with me, while I attempt to undo that confusion (and help you undo yours), while being less confused (than you are) at the same time.

    In order to get a full idea of what this article is intended to convey, you must pretend that race and / or being apart of a race is not a biological truth, but rather a concept. It only appears to be one because huge populations of people believe in it. You have to pretend that you, (and most people connected to you) were brainwashed into believing that race was proven science. In addition to that you'll have to believe that white skin does not exist, unless it's been painted with white paint. Even then you'll have to believe that it's not real white skin.

    Does this photo help with your imagination?

    Presumed "White" person with white paint on her face
    See the white paint in contrast to her skin?

    Does it blend in?

    Remember, we're only pretending that it doesn't. You can go back to believing that white people actually have white skin in a short time. Now since we're pretending that white people do not have white skin, we're also going to have to pretend that we can't see them. We're pretending that no white person has skin that's the same color as white paint. So how could you see them as a white person?

    So here's where I'm asking you to do something real scary.  As far as I know, very few "Non-white" people (including me) have had "the balls", to ask it. It's called the critical question. Are you ready?

    Here it is..... "Are you a White person?"   click here for more info.

    To eliminate the confusion even more, when referring to white people, let's put the word white in quotes because they aren't really white, are they?

    You'll also have to visualize race as being more like a membership in a highly exclusive club, that has top level members in good standing, low level members in bad standing, and other members that fluctuate between the two. The most important thing that you have to pretend when it comes to race, is that the only race that functions as an exclusive club with wealth and vast knowledge, is the "White" race. Any other so-called race, attempts to be a race based on the standards set by the "White" race. In other words when "Non-white" people say "this is how we should be as a race" their conclusion is based on their observations of the operations of the "White" race.

    You must use the Counter Racist Compensatory premise that there is only three types of people in the known universe:

                                                                     "White" people
                                                                  "Non-White" people
                                                             Racists (White Supremacists)

    You have to read page 20 of The United Independent Compensatory Code (textbook / workbook) by Neely Fuller Jr, at least three times, out loud, in order to get a full understanding of this premise. Don't have it? please call Mr.Fuller at 202.484.5461 to order (Tell him Khalif sent you).

    So for the purpose of this article, here's the new definition of "White" people-

    Play the above video over and over again until your pretending sinks in as though it were true (just for the purpose of reading this article. You can go back to being the mindless drone that the Status Quo would like for you to be, soon enough).

    Add to this pretended belief that the world that you live in is ruled by approximately 10% of its population. It is composed of extremely smart and powerful "White" people. Not just any "White" people, but highly organized, intelligent groups of "White" people. All such groups have Racist Men and Racist Women amongst them who posses highly specialized knowledge in all fields of industry and business. Such intelligent groups are made up of scientists, educators, chemists, inventors, business analysts, public relations specialists, transportation experts, economists, lawyers, judges, accountants, doctors, labor leaders, political leaders, entertainment leaders, religious leaders, military leaders, etc. They constantly plan ways and means of using White Supremacy efficiently and effectively for the benefit of "White" people and make it profitable for themselves at the same time.  They pioneer, experiment, and blaze trails in new fields of endeavor on a daily basis at all times, in all places, and in all areas of people activity. They support colleges, hospitals, public and private schools, they build roads, bridges, buildings, railways, planes, trains, automobiles, satellites, space stations, weapons, many forms of technology, publish information, and most important of all they pay most of the costs of governments. They control every single government on this planet. It's really one government and an incorrect one at that.

    Now to make it even less confusing we'll call the "White" people mentioned in the above words the Sophisticated Racists (White Supremacists). Not all "White" people are Racists, but all Racists are "White" people.

    You might say where do the Nazi Skinhead Ku Kluckers come in at? We got a category for them too!

    Let's call them the UN-Sophisticated Racists (White Supremacists), because anyone with the intelligence of a mouse can see them coming! They're actually easier to deal with because they are honest about not liking you. You know where they stand. Most "Non-white" people know how to deal with these kind right off the bat. They are placed in the unsophisticated category by the Sophisticated Racists (White Supremacists), because they have very little to offer the club. Many of them are considered in bad standing for some reason like lack of education, substance abuse, poverty, laziness, petty crime, etc. These are the ones that the Sophisticated Racists want you to be thinking about when your thinking about which "White" people are Racists. They tend to serve as "foot soldiers" for the sophisticated members.

    The only ones that do not have the ability to practice Racism (White Supremacy), are infants and the senile.

    Racist= The 4th definition of a Racist in The United Independent Compensatory Code [textbook / workbook] by Neely Fuller Jr, listed on page 306 states that a Racist is "Any white person, who is mentally or physically able to speak, and/or act, to eliminate White Supremacy, but who does not do so."

    Okay, you still with me? I'm not done yet.  By now that subconscious defense mechanism should be kicking in. It might be saying "this is that same old we hate whitey stuff." Or something like that. You might be feeling nervous that your "White" friends, co-workers, and / or family members are going to catch you reading this material (how do you think I feel? Hell, I'm typing it! Oh, I just had some coffee, so it might be that). Anyway, if you've gotten this far. You're already in the rabbit hole. So don't leave now, I need readers.

    Okay, three more three more things and then on to the dealing. I promise.

    Essentially all of this narrows down to people relations aka politics. When it comes to believing in politics we must think about the two sides, and one middle, of the political spectrum.

    The Political Spectrum that I suspect eliminates the most confusion about "White" people and politics
    In the area of politics you always hear a lot about "liberals" and "conservatives". Sometimes you hear about "moderates". What do these terms mean? I've gotten many different answers from many people, but have summed it up to be:

    It's been said that "White Liberals" like to help "Non-white" people and "White Conservatives" don't.

    It's also been said that "White Conservatives" like to help "Non-white" people and "White Liberals" don't.

    From my observations most "Non-white" people appear to favor "White liberals"over "White Conservatives" simply because they've been told that "Non-white" people favor "White Liberals" over "White Conservatives". "Politics" is boring to most of us and we lack knowledge in this area, so it's easier to follow the crowd and say "Non-white" people are with the democrats.

    Such terms can be confusing when helping you deal with "White" people, so I'm asking you to pretend that both "White liberals" and  "White Conservatives" can not be trusted. 

    When you hear these terms being thrown around in a political discussion on CNN ("Liberal" news) and FOX ("Conservative" news) or anywhere else, remember the below terms and their definitions.

    Racist Liberal is a "White" person who speaks and/or acts to maintain, expand, and/or refine the practice of White Supremacy (Racism) by very skillfully pretending not to do so.

    Racist Conservative is a "White" person who says or does anything to establish, maintain, expand, and/ or refine White supremacy (Racism).

    Racist Moderate is a "White" person who sometimes speaks and/or acts to maintain, expand, and/or refine the practice of White Supremacy (Racism) by very skillfully pretending not to do so, and at other times says or does anything to establish, maintain, expand, and/ or refine White supremacy (Racism).

    These terms are not intended for use in name calling against "White" people. They are for you to learn more about what Racism (White Supremacy) is and How it works. Name Calling makes you feel good. But, feeling good isn't constructive because it is only temporary. You don't want temporary. You want permanent. Therefore your objective is to solve the problem. You must fight this with logic.

    Anyway, lets say that you have to believe all of the above in order to deal with "White" people, when it comes to the area of Politics.

    Finally. Now how do you deal with "White" people?

    Very carefully and cautiously.  You have to decide at a time and place of your own choosing, based on whatever history or other evidence that you may have, whether a "White" person will harm you mentally or physically...and then act accordingly (You already do this with "Non-white" people). Ask questions with precision and say what you mean with truth, and to the best of your ability. I may or may not have done that here. I am still learning.

    Stay Strong In The Struggle To Replace White Supremacy With Justice.