Monday, June 29, 2015

Consciousness and Symbols

Consciousness and Symbols

            The murders in Charleston South Carolina have ripped the scab of US history off and laid bare the festering sores and oozing puss of the consciousness and psychopathology of white supremacy for the entire world to see. That dastardly act exposed the real America. With that act one of the symbols of white supremacy, the Confederate battle flag that flies over the capital of South Carolina has come under increased scrutiny. The rebel flag has long been a bone of contention and conflict between Africans in America and whites. For Black people, the flag represents one aspect of racial oppression, slavery, terrorism, murder and injustice. I say one aspect because on many occasions US terrorists like the Klu Klux Klan and White Citizens Councils also used the American flag as their rallying symbol!
            From an accurate historical perspective, the Confederate battle flag is not the flag flown by the original Confederate States of America, the first seven states that separated from the Union: South Carolina (the first state to secede), Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Georgia.  Later, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee and Virginia withdrew from the Union and joined the Confederacy.
  The Confederacy had several flags during its brief existence. The flag known as the rebel flag or the Confederate battle flag was not one of the series of Confederate flags adopted by the Confederate States of America. That battle flag was originally the flag of General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia!
            The rebel flag that flies over the South Carolina State capital was not an official symbol of the Confederate States of America! It became the symbol Southern resistance to the anti-apartheid movement also called “integration” during the twentieth century.  In recent years especially during the “Civil Rights” movement, that flag came to represent a consciousness of racial apartheid and animus, political subjugation, socio-economic caste and psychological terror. South Carolina US Senator Strom Thurman popularized that flag when he ran as a presidential candidate in 1948 as a Dixiecrat. During this time the Democrats controlled the South.

 It wasn’t until Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that Southern whites abandoned the Democratic Party in mass and switched Republican. So in actuality the rebel flag is a modern symbol of white supremacy.
            Now in light of the Charleston killings, defenders of that ethos are trying to obfuscate and revise American history. They are attempting to deflect the truth about the real meaning of the rebel flag. Since the killings I have read and seen articles and posts on YouTube claiming the War Between the States was not about slavery, that it was about “states rights”, tariffs and finance, that the rebel flag is merely a symbol of family history, tradition and regional pride! There were posts about Blacks owning slaves and African chiefs selling other Africans into slavery; anything to take the onus off of whites to prevent us from seeing not only the individual atrocities like Charleston South Carolina but the systemic holocausts white supremacy has wrought not only here in this country but around the world!
            If there was ever any doubt about whether slavery was the central issue in the War Between the States, I’ve included a picture of a one hundred dollar bill from the Confederate States of America. Look at the images on the paper. This piece of evidence alone will reveal just how integral the institution of slavery was to the Confederate States of America and its economy. Yes there were issues of “states’ rights”, there were conflicting regional cultural practices and interests, differences in economic philosophy but never forget the fact both the North and South were united on racism and warmongering. Both the North and the South profited from slavery, it’s just the North’s economy was more diverse and did not depend mainly on agriculture as did the South. The Northern financial elites had a major grip on the flow of capital and more access to money than their Southern counterparts.
            If you look at Western and modern world history you find Europeans love war. There is rarely a year that goes by they are not fighting, killing and plundering somewhere, even today. So from my perspective the issues of tariffs, the fugitive slave act, the expansion of slavery into the territories were just excuses for them to do what they love to do best, kill and maim each other and people of color.
 Bloody Kansas between1853-1861 is an example where whites used violence to decide whether Kansas would be a “free” state or a “slave” State. Many define Bleeding Kansas as a precursor to the War Between the States. If that logic is correct then the War Between the States was about slavery!
 Remember slavery was enshrined in the original US Constitution.  The original document that bound the former British colonies together was The Articles of Confederation. It said nothing about slavery from a policy standpoint and left it to the individual states to deal with the issue as they saw fit.  But delegates to a convention called in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation conspired to created a totally new document that would enshrine their class as the ruling elite in the more centralized government they created!  Since many of the delegates were slaveholders or profited from slavery in some form or other, slavery became a key issue in the new document called the Constitution of the Untied States of America.

 “A final major issue involving slavery confronted the delegates. Southern states wanted other states to return escaped slaves. The Articles of Confederation had not guaranteed this. But when Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance, it a clause promising that slaves who escaped to the Northwest Territories would be returned to their owners. The delegates placed a similar fugitive slave clause in the Constitution. This was part of a deal with New England states. In exchange for the fugitive slave clause, the New England states got concessions on shipping and trade. These compromises on slavery had serious effects on the nation. The fugitive slave clause (enforced through legislation passed in 1793 and 1850) allowed escaped slaves to be chased into the North and caught. It also resulted in the illegal kidnapping and return to slavery of thousands of free blacks. The three-fifths compromise increased the South’s representation in Congress and the Electoral College. In 12 of the first 16 presidential elections, a Southern slave owner won. Extending the slave trade past 1800 brought many slaves to America. South Carolina alone imported 40,000 slaves between 1803 and 1808 (when Congress overwhelmingly voted to end the trade). So many slaves entered that slavery spilled into the Louisiana territory and took root.” The Constitution and Slavery
            Slavery (both European and African) was the driving force in both the colonial and US economies. Slavery was woven into the fabric of the US Constitution making it the law of the land! The roots of what we see/saw in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, Ferguson Missouri, Baltimore Maryland and Charleston South Carolina recently go back to colonial America when the European monopoly trading companies and their administrators decided to augment their white slave labor force (indentured servants) with Africans. The profit motive “the top priority is the bottom line” of capitalism forged a brutal system that exploited the white bondsmen and African captives using them both as cheap labor. That tradition continued after the Revolutionary War and up until the War Between the States.
            White and Black resistance to the colonial administrators abuses (Beacon’s Rebellion and others) forced the colonial governors to make concessions to the poor whites/indentured servants so they would not side with Native Americans and Africans against the elites. They used divide and rule to undermine Black and White unity. They “freed” the indentured servants, allowed them to call themselves “white” then gave them a modicum of “rights”, privileges and mobility they denied Native Americans and Africans.
            Those divide and rule tactics have allowed the ruling elites to still remain in power and control from colonial times, through the transition to the United States to the present. This is why incidents like Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston happen! Don’t fall for the okey doke. The rebel flag is not the central issue. It is only a piece of material. The real issue is the consciousness and values behind it! As vile as what that flag represents is, taking it down is only a symbolic concession as long as the consciousness of white supremacy, white skin privilege and domination remain.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

This Same Sex Marriage Law Contraversy Is So Overrated

They Say That Promoting/Protecting or Approving of the Gay Lifestyle (agenda) Will........

1. Make everybody go gay.

Where is the proof that if the gay lifestyle is accepted that it will turn everyone gay? If it is to say it is a choice then who would choose it once it's acceptable but folks who already had the tendencies? Does every one carry the "gay" gene that can be activated the moment same sex marriages are lawful?

2. Cause mass genocide cause same sex folks can't have children.

If it's gonna cause mass genocide.. how come there are so many people in the world. 7 billion and........  Here we have the genocide issue again. Come on there a plenty of openly gay folks in the black community who have children and grand children and great grand children.. Not to mention how many other folks have children. Even the "white" proponents of the gay lifestyle have children. Besides, if everyone turned gay, it would take centuries to wipe out the human race, because, seriously, every body ain't straight gay, there are some bisexuals and some transsexuals who have children. There are sperm banks and plenty of donors. Unless men are gonna stop producing sperm, there will always be that slight chance of somebody somewhere getting pregnant.
counting? Is the fear that so many people will turn gay and stop making babies? Hmm, that's interesting since many gay folks do have children and adopt children, and the birth rate is going down already for everyone except the "Mexicans" but seriously.. 7 billion people will just stop producing once same sex relationships are acceptable? That's 7 billion people will all turn gay then lose their desire to procreate because they are gay?

3. It is an attack on the Black race cause it's a norm for "them".

Okay, I can see how racism, police brutality, poverty, poor education in black neighborhoods, disproportionate imprisonment, marginal hiring, discrimination, cessation of funding for programs that improve the life of Black Folk, slavery, lynching, etc. etc, etc. as an attack on the Black race, but how does someone being gay do it? How is accepting the gay life style comparable to any of the above mentioned? Better yet, explain how it does damage to the Black community in particular without any generalizations. Does it cause a kind of disease that only Gay people have? Does it make people become more criminal? Would it make more people want to bear arms (I had to throw that one in there). Are gay people more racist? Will police brutality be meeted out under the direction of "Gay" police officers? Just a few of my questions on this notion of an "attack on the Black Race."

4. It is against God and His word!

Well, since I am not a biblical scholar, I am not going to touch that one with a 10 foot pole except to say, that a I heard about a lot of things that are written in the Bible that folks do not do today... And some take it so far as to threaten to "kill" them or themselves. Like I said, I am not a biblical scholar, but where does it say you can kill them or commit suicide over them in your "Holy Book"?

This whole paranoia about the Gay life style being acceptable and same sex marriages being the law of the land is so overrated. There are so many more pressing issues to concern ourselves with and be proactive about than to worry about, for lack of sounding cliche, what someone does in their bedroom, or who someone chooses to love or marry.

How about what people are doing to other people's bedrooms, defiling their home, killing their women and children while lying innocently sleeping in their beds. Let's look at the child trafficking and child pornography that is happening. Let's look at how many children go missing every week! Let's look up at our skies and down on the Earth that we are wreaking havoc with, let's make the effort to be kind to one another, or at least do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Again, this same sex distraction is so overrated and so full of fallacious fears and innuendos it's hard to believe that it is getting so much attention with all else that is going on. But then again, maybe that is the real plan. Distract folks so they won't think about looking into what is really happening on this Prison Planet Matrix called Earth.

On that note, I'm just saying. These arguments are very, very interesting.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Clarence Thomas: Slavery Didn't Take Away Dignity So How Can Same-Sex Marriage Bestow It?

Okay, I am probably gonna get some flack for this comment but.... I kinda see his point. If a government can give you dignity, it can take it away. I think he is saying that human dignity is not for sale or barter. That if people believe that their dignity is arbitrary, then anyone can deny it or determine it.

With the perception of knowing who you are, no matter what anyone says or does to you, you are assured within yourself than no one, can take your human dignity away from you. I have to say that that point to me is very powerful and may be missed because he is talking against marriage equality. I believe that is how Africans survived through slavery, that is how any oppressed people survive, i.e., the Muslims in the Middle East who are so outrageously demonized. They still hole their heads up high. I could site so many other examples but suffice it to say, human dignity is not an arbitrary construct of someone's imagination that can be imposed on another, unless..... the other accepts it and thus gives up their personal power and self determination.

Once a person believes that someone else can take their human dignity away, they whither and die. Only the strong survive, despite the odds, and I think that is the real message of his statement.

No government, person place or thing should have that much power over how someone feels dignified. I understand how a system can attempt to belittle, downgrade, even demoralize another so called "inferior" but a man is as  he thinketh. If he believes he has no dignity then no one can give it to him or take it away. He is simply unaware of who he is and therefore is susceptible to viewing himself through the lens of his oppressor.

I have always said that LGBT folks who want to get married should just do that without having to beg to be recognized by the government. There are various ways that it can be done, through contracts, notarized documents and various other steps that can be taken. There were and are always someone who will marry you, and if you can't find that someone, marry yourself. There is always a way to get around it.

Societies have socialized and institutionalized marriage around the world. They see marriage as a communal act between those who marry and the community they belong to. Over time it has become a system of barter, protocols, laws, restrictions, politics and bellicose religious indictments.  It seldom becomes a personal matter between persons but rather a socio-economic and political statement about what and who you are. Because human beings are socialized into believing they must be accepted by their communities, families, churches and other religious institutions, they go through the rituals that in some instances have nothing at all to do with how they feel on the inside. Marriages have gone from being partnerships and dedication to having property and the value, worth and status that comes with it. As a result, people want to be "acknowledge". And in this case, do to the social construct of this Nation, the USA, they felt the need to make it to the Supreme Court with their case. 

Actually, marriage is really an arbitrary situation that is deemed to exist between the people who are "married" and not necessarily something that has to be sanctioned by others. What I mean is that there are so many kinds of partnerships that have contributed to the making of families around the world. In fact, polygamy is a more natural construct than the ownership of another that happens in Western style marriages. The spiritual connection that folks feel towards one another is often shrouded in the external, "how to be" in a relationship that often what is truly happening between the souls of individuals gets lost because of the pressures of society. Some people never marry and live together as a devoted couple for years and years, helping and supporting and loving and even baring children together. Are their unions any more worthy than the ones that are "sanctioned" by the larger community? Just think, with all this marriage equality business folks can run out and spend more money on getting married when they could have very well saved that money to build a business together. And then after all that money is spent to please the onlookers, some of these self same marriages end in divorce. Why? Because they were sanctioned or was it because the true connection on the Soul level was "NOT" made and therefore there was no "glue-on" to hold it together to stand the test of time.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas may very well be married to a European woman and some may say that there was a time where he could not have been legally married to her, but does that or did that determine his love or devotion to her??? Obviously not. And I doubt if her being married to him diminished her dignity. Though I am guessing here, it still stands to reason that no one can tell you who you can love or not love, marry or not marry, or at least no one should have that kind of power over your life, and if they do, to me, there is something very wrong with this picture.

All too often people rely upon someone or something to acknowledge their worth and "dignity" instead of knowing who they are and that it matters not, who else knows it. I think the movie "The Green Mile" shows how a man can remained dignified, no matter how he is treated. He knew who he was and what powers he had, he sincerely knew where his heart was and that he was innocent, but he even went to the electric chair with dignity. I believe that is what Judge Thomas is saying. He may not realize it himself but he said it and it makes sense to me.

The Green Mile

Clarence Thomas: Slavery Didn't Take Away Dignity So How Can Same-Sex Marriage Bestow It?

Clarence Thomas is one of the most conservative and one of the most controversial justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia gets a lot of attention, in part because his dissents of late have been hyperbolic and bombastic, but Justice Thomas rarely gets much attention.
He deserves a lot more, and not in a good way.
The 67-year old Georgia-born jurist who replaced – of all people, Thurgood Marshall – on the bench, offered a stunning statement in his dissent of the same-sex marriage case.
"Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the 'dignity' of same-sex couples," Justice Thomas writes. "The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no 'dignity' Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity."
"Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,' they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built."
OK, you're probably thinking, this is nuts, and insensitive, but wait, there's more.
"The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."
Let's do that again.
"Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved."
Is he serious?
Being property, being owned by another person, with absolutely no rights, subjected to violence and rape and starvation and whipping and all sorts of other indignities does not cause one to lose their dignity nor their humanity?
Speaking personally, I have never been a slave, nor confined in an internment camp, but I can imagine how horrific that was.
How is it possible that Justice Thomas cannot?
And, as a gay man who married two years ago, almost to this day, I can without qualification state that my personal dignity was greatly affected – positively – upon becoming a legally married man.
The exact moment my husband and I were pronounced married I was a changed person. My world changed, and yes, it had to do with legal acceptance and validation, and dignity.
Something Justice Thomas, sadly, must not know anything about.
Justice Thomas' dissent is so vile and offensive, he's actually right now the number two trending topic, right under #LoveWins:


Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Is Gun Control the Real Answer? Sure it is. It's Disaster Capitalism!

With all this fear mongering and heavy handed responses to the event that happened in Charleston, SC, it makes you wonder over and over again, what is the hidden agenda?
Race Riot?
Civil War?
Martial Law?
Polarizing the American public?
Discrediting Conspiracy Theorist who align this event with other false flags/hoaxes?
$29 million pay out (off) the the victims' families?
Stricter Gun Control Laws?
Exposure of Repubs White Supremacist supporters?
Shifting the Balance of the Presidential candidacy towards the DEMS?
Home grown terrorism and blame it on ISIS?
More martial law?
And on and on......


Let's Talk About the Hypocrisy of Gun Control As a Solution

"The American Military Empire spent 20 billion dollars  in training and weapons for the Iraqis.  The Iraqis are using those weapons to fight ISIS.  ISIS is also using weapons from the American Military Empire.  The American Military-Industrial Complex is in the business of selling weapons of war, and they don't care who to.............."


The irony of all this is underneath it, this is disaster capitalism.

1. Black folks will buy more guns to protect themselves from whites
2.White folks will buy more guns to protect themselves from blacks
3. All folks fearful of new gun control laws will buy more guns before they make stricter laws about gun ownership
4. The threat of stricter laws just makes the manufacturers of guns even richer as they sell more guns to frightened people who feel they must stock up.
So actually, events like this, police brutality, racism, poverty, fear and degradation actually impact on the stock markets and trading and boosts their assets and profits.
Question: is this a stimulus package for the corporations and banksters that deal in weapons manufacturing?
Is this a tactic to get more money out of the pockets of the consumer who has been virtually holding on to their cash, being more thrifty about purchases and using better budgetary sense?
When you think about this stuff and stretch your mind to the realm of "outside the box" you realize that the public is being played, but how and for what end seems to evade us. So like Dora says, "Let's stop and think."
Who really benefits from all this? The average citizen or the corporations, banksters and globalists who have an agenda that for all intents and purposes is to forment chaos so that they can stay in power. I seriously don't believe they want to take the guns from the American people.
The argument that folks need to protect themselves from the Government Martial Law is whimsical in that seldom do you hear of a person being armed and stopping the police from invading their home or business establishment. And in those case, most often the armed person is taken down!
I believe that they want everyone to HAVE guns, that way crimes of passion with a firearm can rise, people can be even more leary of their neighbors, domestic violence can sore, and children can accidentally kill their friends and family. But mostly, they can sell more guns, guns, and more guns.......
Heck, they openly sell them to Rebel groups around the world, especially in the middle East and Africa, now the Ukraine, why not arm a restless, frightened, economically beaten down US citizenry? Makes sense?

Obama Sells Guns; Lots of Guns
Excerpt: "When an incumbent president seeking a second term has already put two people on the nine-member Supreme Court who would vote away this basic human freedom [Second Amendment gun rights], they have the right to be fearful. And when you realize that, if reelected, that incumbent president would have a good chance of getting a few more Supreme Court picks, and so could reshape the high court for decades, people have a right to be motivated to buy firearms now. _Forbes"

11 Photos Of U.S. Weapons Used By ISIS — And Some Rockets From America’s Friends
Excerpt: "Far less has been made of the captured weapons that are likely most useful to ISIS as the group continues its onslaught in parts of Syria and Iraq: the small arms like assault rifles and handguns that every soldier needs and regularly employs. “A U.S. Humvee might be good for the show, for propaganda, but what’s interesting is to know with what they actually fight,” said Damien Spleeters, a field researcher with Conflict Armament Research, a U.K.-based firm that tracks weapons in conflict zones. “Small arms are less sexy, but I believe they are very important.”

Armed with U.S. weapons, infamous militia beating ISIS

Excerpt: "The U.S. spent $20 billion training and arming the Iraqi army. Now many of its weapons are in the hands of these unchecked militiamen.

But with the Iraqi army in disarray, they have the best track record of defeating ISIS in central Iraq. The villages around Al Muqdadiyah are battle scarred and the local people have all fled. The battle for Al Muqdadiyah lasted four days, and when ISIS was finally defeated its fighters fled over hills where they've now regrouped."

US War on ISIS a Trojan Horse
Excerpt: "Few would believe if one told them then, that in 2015, that same discredited US would be routinely bombing Syrian territory and poised to justify the raising of an entire army of terrorists to wage war within Syria's borders, yet that is precisely what is happening. President Obama has announced plans to formally increase military force in Iraq and Syria "against ISIS," but of course includes building up huge armies of "rebels" who by all other accounts are as bad as ISIS itself (not to mention prone to joining ISIS' ranks by the thousands).

All it took for this miraculous turn in fortune was the creation of "ISIS," and serial provocations committed by these Hollywood-style villains seemingly engineered to reinvigorate America's justification to militarily intervene more directly in a war it itself started in Syria beginning in 2011.

ISIS could not be a more effective part of America's plans to overthrow the Syrian government and destroy the Syrian state if it had an office at the Pentagon.

Having failed to achieve any of its objectives in Syria, it inexplicably "invaded" Iraq, affording the US military a means of "easing into" the conflict by first confronting ISIS in Iraq, then following them back across the border into Syria. When this scheme began to lose its impact on public perception, ISIS first started executing Western hostages including several Americans. When the US needed the French on board, ISIS executed a Frenchman. When the US needed greater support in Asia, two Japanese were beheaded. And just ahead of President Obama's recent attempt to formally authorize the use of military force against "ISIS," a Jordanian pilot was apparently burned to death in a cage in an unprecedented act of barbarity that shocked even the most apathetic."