This is not fake! They murdered her in response to the 2017 Chicago Torture Incident

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Politics: Questions For White People About Racism (White Supremacy)

The following questions (from page 147 of the United Independent Compensatory code by Neely Fuller Jr) are for any "White" person who is willing to openly discuss all aspects of Racism (White Supremacy) with me and my audience. Please write your answers in the comments or put a link to a video response with your answers:

1.   Do you know and understand the basic characteristics of a Racist (White Supremacist), as regards to how he or she functions in each and every area of activity including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war?

2. Are you now, or have you ever been a Racist (White Supremacist)?


3. Are you now, willfully, deliberately, and by personal choice, maintaining comradeship with any person who you have reason to believe is a Racist (White Supremacist)?

4. What are you doing now, and what have you ever done, willfully and deliberately, to eliminate Racism (White Supremacy)?


5. What suggestions do you now offer to the victims of Racism (non-white people) as to what they, themselves, may, can, and / or must do to insure that Racism (White Supremacy) is immediately eliminated, and / or the Victims compensated?

Freedom of speech is my first amendment right, which I have chosen to express here on YouTube. The views expressed in my videos are mine and / or of others that I agree with. They do not necessarily reflect the views of my family members, friends, employer, business, or any professional, religious, or political organizations that I am associated with.

The views of another person and / or entity may appear to be related to and / or similar to my own. Unless I specifically state so, it is coincidental and means that we simply share similar observations. It does not mean that we are responsible for each other's thoughts, speech, and /or actions. I am United-Independent.

Sexy Black Moms, Sexy Black Moms, Sexy Black Moms

A few victims of Racism (White Supremacy) made an observation a few days ago. One of them googled "Sexy White Moms" under images and got pictures of (presumably) "White" females wearing skimpy and / or sexy clothes. No children which would indicate to me that some of them may not be mothers, but whatever.

Then he googled "Sexy Black Moms" and got "Black" females with all their goodies showing. They had our sisters pop up and popping out in their birthday suits and it was raw. We are talking XXXXXXXXXXX rated!

Some of the "Sexy White Moms" appeared to me to be "Non-white" females. That didn't make sense to me. Another victim stated that he saw Beyonce's image in there. Very confusing. I am also confused about the whole "White" person thing. I am still trying to find that real white person. You know the one who has skin the color of the white background that you are reading on? Or at least the color of a white crayon?

Pardon my digression.

I thought about this sexy situation. I know it was the Racist mind that developed these search results but how? Was this done by design? or did it just happen this way?

I have been learning a little about something called Search Engine Optimization (SEO). It has to do with associating key words to your internet content to help it be found easily by the user who googles the words. For example if you google "Counter Racism Now", you are going to get this page and it will be listed first in the listings.

Let's say you googled "Tariq Nasheed". You will get every website and other content that has his name associated with it.

I suspected that if I associated the words "Sexy Black Moms" with this page you will....well....get this page. Along with whatever images I associate with it. I got the idea that if we could get huge numbers of people to do the same thing, we could in fact change the kind of images that are seen when "Sexy Black Moms" is googled. This was only my hunch.  While writing this article I discovered something else. I looked at those images to find Beyonce. LOL!

No not the "Sexy Black moms" which would probably produce a XXXXXXXX Beyonce look a like, because we know the real Beyonce aint having that! Remember another victim said they saw her listed with the "Sexy White Moms"?

Anyway, I googled "Sexy white moms" under images and got the same results as mentioned above. I didn't see Beyonce in there. I saw other "Non-white" females though. I also put the term in and hit enter before I clicked on images. I saw information on this situation. One victim had even made a Youtube video about it. It was taken down for violating YouTube standards.

I found an article (listed as the first search result) that someone asked the following question in a Google forum five days ago:

"Why are the sexy black mom images pornographic while the sexy white mom images are not?" 

Google's rep stated:

"Google Images are indexed based on the way images are labelled on the publishing website and/or surrounding text on the webpage. Google can't (yet) look at an image and recognize the content visually. Any apparent bias in the image results is caused entirely by the publishers of the images, with no intervention by Google."

So my hunch was correct! At any rate I discovered something else. I googled "Sexy Black moms" and the same google forum came up but it was listed as number three.

Sexy White Moms

Notice how the "Explain the Google Image for sexy white mom versus sexy" information is listed first? That's the Google forum I am speaking of and it's first because of the person who asked the question five days ago. If you look at the other listings they are for porno sites. So that means if "Sexy white moms" was googled six days ago you would have gotten nothing but porno sites if you didn't click images. But why are their images not porno?  So I went back and looked at them and discovered that most of the images are pictures of females wearing WHITE CLOTHING! LOL!

Sexy White Moms-Should be Sexy Moms in White

That explains why we saw some "Non-white" females in those images. Damn! That is deep! I checked the site with the first image and the blogger was wearing a white shirt posing in "sexy" positions in her pictures. She also typed in her blog that she was wearing "a beautiful white top". So there it is!

sexy black mom

Okay so I did the same thing with "Sexy black mom" and now the "Explain the Google Image for sexy white mom versus sexy" information is listed as number four. Can you guess why?

It's because the words "sexy white mom" came before the words "Sexy black mom" when the questioner made the"Explain the Google Image for sexy white mom versus sexy" thread.

Interesting. That means that if we make enough websites and post non-porn images of Black Moms and add the keys words "Sexy Black Moms" to those images by putting them in the articles posted on those sites we can counter the current search results.

So let's tamper with the system and see what happens when I associate this image:

Sexy Black Mom in White

 Now, here's a "Sexy Black Mom" and now she can pop up under "Sexy White Moms" too!


 I hope this was constructive.

Go Kaap! Go Kaap! Go!....Go!....Go Kaap!

Greetings Victims! Its been awhile! I've been busy trying to de-victimize!

This page is for my words about this Colin Kaepernick hoopla.

I am glad that he did it because it keeps the issue of Racism (White Supremacy) on the minds of the people. We need this to happen 24 hours a day seven days a week in all places. We need to keep the dialog going until we get down to the bottom line of Replacing Injustice With Justice!

Now, don't you victims who love to run and do everything you see "White" people do, go and spend your hard earned money on such foolishness as burning a football jersey! Keep your hard earned money.

LISTEN!!!!!!!!

This man Just THREATENED a NATION of "BLACK" PEOPLETHIS VIDEO IS BEING RPORTED AS THE FREELANCE REPORTING RIGHTS! IM POSTING TO CALL OUT THE FBI OR LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT ALLOWS THIS OUT RIGHT TERRORIST THREAT AGAINST A NATION OF PEOPLE! HE EVEN SAID HES GOING TO "HUNT" THEM DOWN!!  FACEBOOK SHOPULD NOT VIOLATE US FOR THIS POST CAUSE ITS FREEPRESS AND EVIDENCE!! Why is he NOT being ARRESTED and CHARGED WITH "TERRORISM"?!?!SOMEBODY NEEDS TO DEMAND THIS! 18 U.S. Code § 2331“domestic terrorism” means activities that—(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B) appear to be intended—(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.WE ARE AWAKENING......Freedom of the Press WE ARE NOT VIOLATING ANY LAWS WITH THIS POST! WE ARE REPORTING IT! The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication and freedom from Censorship.The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the press." The courts have long struggled to determine whether the Framers of the Constitution intended to differentiate press freedom from speech freedom. Most have concluded that freedom of the press derives from freedom of speech. Although some cases and some legal scholars, including Justice Potter Stewart, of the U.S. Supreme Court, have advocated special press protections distinct from those accorded to speech, most justices believe that the Freedom of the Press Clause has no significance independent of the Freedom of Speech Clause.The Court explained its reasoning in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1978). According to Chief Justice warren e. burger, conferring special status on the press requires that the courts or the government determine who or what the press is and what activities fall under its special protection. Burger concluded that the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment adequately ensure freedom of the press, and that there is no need to distinguish between the two rights:    Because the First Amendment was meant to guarantee freedom to express and communicate ideas, I can see no difference between the right of those who seek to disseminate ideas by way of a newspaper and those who give lectures or speeches and seek to enlarge the audience by publication and wide dissemination.The Court has generally rejected requests to extend to the press Privileges and Immunities beyond those available to ordinary citizens. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972), it held that a journalist's privilege to refuse to disclose information such as the names of informants is no broader than that enjoyed by any citizen. As long as an inquiry is conducted in Good Faith, with relevant questions and no harassment, a journalist must cooperate.Justice Stewart's dissent in Branzburg urged the Court to find that a qualified journalistic privilege exists unless the government is able to show three things: (1) Probable Cause to believe that the journalist possesses information that is clearly relevant; (2) an inability to obtain the material by less intrusive means; and (3) a compelling interest that overrides First Amendment interests. In an unusual break with tradition, several circuit courts have applied Stewart's test and ruled in favor of journalists seeking special First Amendment protection. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has steadfastly held to its decision in Branzburg, and shows no sign of retreating from its position that the First Amendment confers no special privileges on journalists.Laws that affect the ability of the press to gather and publish news are suspect, but not automatically unconstitutional. In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 111 S. Ct. 2513, 115 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1991), reporters for two Twin Cities newspapers were sued for breach of contract when they published the name of their source after promising confidentiality. The reporters claimed that the law infringed their First Amendment freedom to gather news unencumbered by state law. The Court held that the law did not unconstitutionally undermine their rights because its enforcement imposed only an incidental burden on their ability to gather and report information. Writing for the majority, Justice byron r. white said that laws that apply to the general public and do not target the press do not violate the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against members of the press has an incidental burden on their ability to gather and report the news: "Enforcement of such general laws against the press is not subject to stricter scrutiny than would be applied to enforcement against other persons or organizations." The Cohen decision indicates the Court's continued unwillingness to extend special First Amendment protection to journalists.Generally, the First Amendment prohibits prior restraint, that is, restraint on a publication before it is published. In a landmark decision in near v. minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), the Court held that the government could not prohibit the publication of a newspaper for carrying stories that were scandalous or scurrilous. The Court identified three types of publications against which a prior restraint might be valid: those that pose a threat to national security, those that contain obscene materials, and those that advocate violence or the overthrow of the government.
Posted by The Great Awakening Of African Americans - 2 on Monday, August 31, 2015

I Got Bank! ......."Black" Bank.

Damn, it's almost been a year since I last posted here. Well, I have to say by the lack of comments from readers that I am not sure if it mattered anyway. Most of the time it appears that I am only writing to myself. I've been working on my YouTube channel more. YouTube pulled a whammy by changing how things worked in the way of video production and it's taken me a lot of years to figure it out. I suspect that I have the hang of it now and so I am back producing content.


New content is what brought me here today. I opened an account with a "Black" bank and made a video about it. I also found a book called "I Got Bank". It was written by Teri Williams, the President of the Board Of Directors for OneUnited Bank. A "Black" bank with branches in California, Massachusetts, and Florida. She wrote the book to increase the financial awareness of children. I've learned some things about banking while reading it with my son. I thought the book was so great that I decided to introduce it to you. I suspect that it is constructive in helping us learn more about how Racism (White Supremacy) works in the minor area of Finance, which falls under the major area of Economics.

click here to join One United Bank
oneunited.com/referral?KHAL5


Purchase the book below.