The Death of Black America

Bernie Mac makes off-color joke at Obama event : Political Correctness, Thought-Criminality, and Liberal Fascism

Comedian Bernie Mac recently made an off color remark at an Obama rally that didn't go over very well. Members of the audience found it offensive and divisive. Well, welcome to the world of political correctness which is defined below as:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term "politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

The fact that Bernie Mac's joke had to be smoothed over by Obama tells me that the liberal population is now self-enforcing thought-crime. According to Orwell's 1984, these Obama supporters have labeled Bernie Mac a thought criminal. The squelching of inappropriate and offensive language and thought is unamerican. It also further enslaves the population by limiting honest discussion of uncomfortable issues and topics. If we don't speak it, it doesn't exist as a problem, or the problem will just go away.

In 1984, the government controlled its subjects actions, behaviors, and thoughts by labeling anything considered subversive as a thought-crime. In 2008, it is the liberal population that seeks to control the actions, behaviors, thoughts, and language of America citizens. I'll call it Liberal Fascism.  It's the flip side of Right Wing fascism in which Liberal Fascism's  main objective is to control the mind, while traditional Right-Wing fascism sought control through physically oppressive measures.

Yes, people will say things that annoy and aggravate you, but this place is called America for a reason and when fellow citizens begin to push for the squelching of free thought and the right to free speech, then I have very little hope for this country.

Without direct and honest discussion and thought, problems don't get better, they get worse.

Demand Destruction of Drug Use in America

 

I once met a drug dealer that told me his two busiest business days were Fridays and Saturdays. When I asked why, he said those are the nights when white people from the suburbs drove downtown to buy their drugs for their weekend high. It’s interesting that most of America’s drug users are white, but the majority of those incarcerated for drug possession are Black and Hispanic.

 

Americans consume 70% of all the world’s illegal drugs. Why do Americans spend time and money getting high? That answer I do not know, but in order to stop the drug trade, you have to destroy the demand, thereby creating a chain reaction which removes the profit motive.  

 

Demand Destruction is a term in reference to Peak Oil, in which as oil resources become scarce, the price will increase to a point where it is unaffordable for average people to buy, thereby destroying the demand for oil.

 

The ideas of Demand Destruction can also be applied to the drug trade in America by targeting the drug user. Here is a three prong approach:

 

1. Make drugs unaffordable: create an environment where the social cost of buying drugs becomes unaffordable to the average drug user.  Create harsh penalties for drug users such as:

 

• A felony conviction
• A mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months in jail doing public works (park cleanup, trails, environmental cleanup)
• Upon release they would be charged for court costs, room and board while in jail, and any drug treatment/counseling costs
• If they have children, they can be billed by social services for any child foster care, counseling, and healthcare cost that accrued while they were incarcerated  

 

Most of America’s drug users are working and middle class white Americans who would find a felony conviction and time in jail detrimental to their standard of living.  Most of these buyers would lose jobs, homes, and assets, while also carrying a felony conviction that would hinder them from replacing the formerly well paying job that supported their drug habits to begin with.

 

2. Create fear of buying drugs: Create an environment where users are afraid to buy drugs; this decreases the incentive of street level drug gangs to sell drugs and, at a strategic level, the motivation of the cartels to export this destructive product.  No demand means, no profit, and no profit means no competition among street level gangs which would decrease the street violence while also removing the primary funding source of criminal enterprises.

 

3. Target suspected business front operations:  force these criminal enterprises to centralize their operations through consumer fear of buying on the street. These underground enterprises such as storefront businesses and clubs would actually be easier to target and investigate by law enforcement with sting operations. This again feeds the consumers fear of conviction, destroying demand.

 

But being that most of America’s drug users are white working class and middle class Americans, I doubt such a strategy would be implemented.  Americans tend to need a scapegoat (violent drug dealers) to blame for problems that they themselves support through their personal weekend drug use. It’s easier to blame other people for one’s problems rather than face up to the underlying reasons why working class and middle class white Americans choose to get high. But with such childish hypocrisy and immaturity also goes the moral high ground.

 

The American People need to Hire a Good Lobbyist

The American people need to begin operating like corporations and begin buying political influence and legislation that directly benefits them. Corporations can't vote in elections, but they damn sure make campaign contributions to multiple candidates to create a voting consensus to pass legislation that directly benefits their businesses. Corporations hire lobbyists who are more politely called Congressional Liaisons, who run all over Capitol Hill wining, dining, and contributing to politicians with their hands out. Lobbyists also draft or assist in drafting the legislation that their corporate client wants passed.  Remember the Medicare Reform Act? In that Act, the government can no longer negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices. Big Pharama is happy, the lobbyists are happy, politicians are happy, but the average American gets screwed. There are a whole litany of episodes like this that take place daily on the hill, but I won't go on. Do your own research.

I'm suggesting this, say 10 million American people form their own political interest group, and let's say we call it The American Peoples' Political Interest Group, the APPIG for short. Then we set it up as a non-profit entity, with all the proper paper work, office space, and a management team. Let's say that each of those 10 million card-carrying members of the APPIG contributes 10 dollars. That would generate 100 million in revenue to buy the political influence and therefore the legislation necessary to really help the American people. With that 100 million, we could hire one of Washington D.C.'s best lobbying firms, pompous slick types, like Jack Abramoff, just without all the scandal stuff. 

Once we have a good lobbying firm, we flood Capitol Hill with men like Jack, guys wired into the Hill, that know all the nooks and crannies of the political process. While they're greasing palms, our lawyers could be drafting legislation that we want, maybe universal health care, maybe paid college tuition for all U.S. citizens, maybe legislation to reverse NAFTA, who knows. 

Then late one night on the floor of the House and Senate, when some of the Representatives and Senators balk at passing legislation that would benefit the American people, our lobbyists could call in political favors and remind these guys who's buttered their bread while they've been in office. Our lobbyists could put pressure on the speaker of the house to hold the vote open for hours, (just like the Medicare Reform Act)  while they pressure weak-will congressmen to vote or change their vote for our Bill, the one we drafted and paid for with our APPIG campaign contribution funds.

We have to learn to play ball like corporations, corporations don't vote, they buy influence. If the vote really mattered, why is it that corporations always seem to get legislation passed that benefits the few, but not the many?

I really think the APPIG is a plausible solution. Pool what little money we have left as working people, and buy the politicians that we would have formerly voted for without thinking. This will allow us to continue voting for weak-willed, degenerate frat boys who can be bought. Guys that pay prostitues five grand not to use a condom, guys that text message congressional pages for sex, guys that like to play touch my pee pee with other boys in public restrooms.

Corporations contribute to both Democratic and Republican candidates. Regardless of who wins an election, corporations cover all bases and buy the influence and votes necessary to pass measures in their best interest as corporate entities.  They figured out something that many of us do not understand, Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin, politicians, and a politican bows to influence and pressure.

This is how we can repair America, by hiring good lobbyists to buy the votes of politicians, one politician at a time.   

Obama is Finished!

Obama has made two fatal mistakes in his handling of recent race related episodes. The first is his response to acquittal of the officers in the Sean Bell murder. Obama responded:

"Well, look, obviously there was a tragedy in New York. I said at the time, without benefit of all the facts before me, that it looked like a possible case of excessive force. The judge has made his ruling, and we're a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down," he said in response to a question at a gas station in Indianapolis, where he was holding a news conference.

"The most important thing for people who are concerned about that shooting is to figure out how do we come together and assure those kinds of tragedies don't happen again," he continued. ... "Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and counterproductive."

Obama appears to be comforting white voters more than blacks with this response. Obama had to appear non-violent and conciliatory in all confrontations, while also appearing to maintain faith U.S. system of justice. He did not appear angry, frustrated, but almost apologetic in that he acted as a racial gatekeeper meant to diffuse possible violence. He simply accepted the verdict and avoided referring to it as a miscarriage of justice. He in a sense is trying to project or rather maintain the appearance of Black America's faith in the judicial system, while also appealing to a white voter base who may have seen no problem with the ruling. He avoided addressing the underlying class and race issues that create these recurring incidents. He espouses "change," but in the end, Obama's statement reflects a man comfortable with the status quo, instead of a man dedicated to change. He may believe he can change the system from within, but to avoid discussing the underlying issues or expressing any displeasure with the ruling will lose him a considerable number of black voters.

In Obama's response to Rev. Wright, he states:

"When he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries; when he equates the United States's wartime efforts with terrorism; there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans."

Margaret Sanger's Negro Project, the Tuskegee Experiment, and the government funded MKNAOMI, HIV programs (See Horowitz's Emerging Virsus) are evidence of the pattern that Rev. Wright was referencing when discussing the tradition of racism and the subsequent programs implemented with the intent to at least decrease the Black American population. Obama's statement dismisses this well documented and strong pattern of racism as ridiculous and conspiratorial. He's insinuating that such things could not happened in America, yet there is strong evidence to the contrary. 

This puts him in a catch-22, if he validates the concerns and frustrations of Black Americans he will at the same time alienate white American's who cannot look honestly at the American tradition. Obama is also having problems garnering votes from white blue-collar votes, whom seem to see Obama as elitist, but at the end of the day, also black. He's lost creditability with black voters and disrupted the comfort zone of white voters through his association with Rev. Wright. From this point on, Obama's run for president will slowly disintegrate because neither he, nor the majority of the American population can honestly look itself in the mirror and assess its problems with both race and history.   

Homo Sapien

Only man, unlike an animal, knows the creativity of cruelty.

4th Generation Warfare in America

Gangs around America are adopting 4th Generation Warfare tactics in America's cities. Gangs are now becoming both more violent and more sophisticated in how they control communities and combat rival gangs and law enforcement.  Underlying this pattern, is the evolution of a new type of criminal in which The San Francisco Chronicle found:

Increasingly, the young murder suspects coming to the station for questioning seem to lack basic morality, said Sgt. Tim Nolan, who has been investigating Oakland homicides for 17 years.

"There are more and more families where there's less and less structure," he said. "Talking to these suspects day in and out, there's a higher percentage today with no sense of right and wrong. It's frightening, but we are creating super-criminals."

In Chicago, 32 people shot, 6 wounded in one weekend, is an example of this growing problem. Many of these young men are also gaining training and combat experience while serving in Iraq. Gangs are becoming more militaristic, better organized, better trained, and more brutal.

The incidents in Chicago is similar to the 4th Generation Warfare tactic of Dispersed Swarming, in which small groups converge on multiple targets simultaneously, overwhelming the ability of local authorities to counterattack.

The coupling of military training on males raised with no  moral compass or empathy toward other people means gang violence and gang strength will increase and will seriously challenge local police forces. Gangs now have access to similar weaponry, similar training, and combat experience. This is another point that demonstrates the disintegration of American into a third world nation.

Affirmative Action: Race Based Initiatives and White Cronyism

Recently I was asked by a white female if I was for affirmative action. When I’m asked this, I always sense the motivation is based in assumed white supremacy. I have a hunch that White Americans feel that giving preferential treatment to individuals of dusky races whose qualifications may be questionable decreases the number of slots or opportunities for a more deserving white person whose credentials and qualifications are assumed to be beyond reproach.

In all honesty, White America has never allowed an equal playing field for any person of color to find this out. America’s tradition of racism cannot allow an equal playing field because if a person of color outperforms a white person it would destroy the idea of white superiority. The idea was always to suppress equal competition, via Black Codes, Jim Crow, disenfranchisement of Native Americans, Japanese Internment Camps, and Mexican American disenfranchisement. All of these groups were meant to operate solely as a cheap, wage-based labor force. America traditionally has legislated disenfranchisement of dusky races while providing raced based initiatives for White Americans. 

Affirmative action refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all races). Motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past and current wrongful discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population. (1)

The opponents of affirmative action say that using it to remove discrimination is counterproductive, both because it requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate in order to work and because it promotes prejudice by increasing resentment of those who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action from those who have been adversely affected by the policy. In short, opponents argue that affirmative action:

1.        Continues discrimination in the opposite, in what is known as "reverse discrimination"
2.        Promotes the less-qualified over the more-qualified
3.        Continues the circle repressed groups needing to continue to be under privileged for their benefit
4.        Hurts mainstream groups for injustices they did not cause or condone (2)

On the issue of reverse discrimination and promoting the less qualified over the more qualified, let’s use the example of Black Jockeys that rode in the late 1800s. Black Jockeys dominated racing after the Civil War. In order to end this domination, Black Jockeys were systematically stripped of the opportunities to ride professionally in preference for less qualified white jockeys. This is an example of white cronyism. Neil Schmidt’s wrote about the reverse discrimination of Jimmy Winkfield, a black jockey who was at the top of the sport in preference of white jockeys:

Competition for jockey jobs became more intense, and Mr. Claypool said white owners and trainers started to align with white jockeys. Racism also haunted black jockeys on the track. The August 1900 edition of The Thoroughbred Record described the “desperate measures” white jockeys were taking to knock out their rivals at Harlem Race Track near Chicago, with Mr. Winkfield once bruising his leg and his colt suffering cracked ribs when he was crowded into the fence. Mrs. Casey said her father received threats from the Ku Klux Klan. Fewer African-American jockeys were being cultivated. The great black riders had grown up on horse farms, or near them, but by 1910; many African-Americans were living in Northern cities. Racial
prejudice and violence, lynchings and the Klan, contributed heavily to that migration, Mr. Hotaling said. From then through the late 1940s, African-American jockeys were excluded from the major tracks in the South due to Jim Crow practices.(3)

Another example of a race base initiative is the Homestead Act.

The Homestead Act was a United States Federal law that gave freehold title to 160 acres (one quarter section or about 65 hectares) of undeveloped land in the American West. The person to whom title was granted had to be at least 21 years of age, white, and free, to have built on the section, and to have farmed on it for 5 years[1], and to have a house on it that was at least 12 by 14 feet (3.6 x 4.3 m) in size. The Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on May 20, 1862[2][3][4][5]. Eventually 1.6 million homesteads were granted and 270 million acres was privatized between 1862 and 1934. A total of 10% of all lands in the United States.[6] (4)

The Homestead Act gave 1.6 million historically socio-politically dominant White Americans 270 million acres of free land in exchange for developing it over a five year period. This is land taken from Native Americans by force, who where then placed in a dependent state on reservations, making them an under privileged group.  Isn’t this race based preferential treatment? Did this act provide many white Americans with the wealth base to begin building independent farms, capital, and leverage to branch into other business opportunities? Where all these white people more qualified to work land and build independent farms than the Native Americans already there, or the recently freed slaves that had worked southern plantations?  To answer point three, if Blacks and Native Americans had been made eligible for such an opportunity, do you
think (they would continue the circle of repressed groups needing to continue to be underprivileged for their benefit). If they had been entitled to ownership earlier in America’s history, do you really think minorities would spend time begging for scraps?

Another argument against affirmative action is that it (hurts mainstream groups for injustices they did not cause or condone). Did not the exclusion of minorities from programs such as the Homestead Act, the GI Bill, and the FHA loan program, increase the standard of living of White Americans who may or may not have been as qualified as members of other races? From these programs, successive generations of White Americans built business, acquired wealth, and gained education and employment opportunities that set them on course to out pace minority groups while espousing White Supremacy. Honestly, if it were not for these historically race based initiatives, America would not have its current White American middle class who claims to be hurt by, but did not cause or condone historic discrimination practices which have benefited them. In America
race based initiatives are long standing practices meant to benefit the dominant socioeconomic group.

In the end, America is a land based on White Cronyism. This is one reason you see less assimilation into mainstream society by Hispanics, Asian, and East Indian groups. They know America is a land of White Cronyism, but they take advantage of the economic stability to self finance businesses that don’t require them to assimilate. This is done to the chagrin of White Americans who watch these groups gain wealth that supersedes their own success which resulted from raced based initiatives to their great-great grandparents (Homestead Act), their great grandparents (Jim Crow), their grandparents ( the New Deal),
and their parents (GI Bill & FHA programs).  When you stifle the socioeconomic opportunity of rightful citizens for hundreds of years, to benefit members of a particular race, you will have inequities that need to be righted. If American had really been the land of fair and equitable opportunity, Affirmative Action wouldn’t be an issue for discussion.


Sources

(1) Affirmative action. (2008, January 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 13:22, February 1, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affirmative_action&oldid=187517770

(2) Ibid.

(3) Schmidt, Neil. Black jockey's journey spanned different worlds Prejudice rode ex-Cincinnati rider out of country.The Cincinnati Enquirer. April 29, 2002. from http://www.enquirer com/editions/2002/04/29/spt_black_jockeys.html

(4) Homestead Act. (2008, January 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 13:28, February 1, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homestead_Act&oldid=188164187

Dr. James Watson: More Than One N----- In His Woodpile

The phrase a nigger in the woodpile is used to describe a Caucasian who appears to have some Negroid ancestry there is said to be a nigger in the Woodpile, usually said if the Caucasian has some Negroid traits like kinky hair.

I’m arguing the Dr. Watson (See Source) has African Ancestry on all four branches of his family tree. To demonstrate this in strict terms, if a pure African and a pure European have one child, the first generation child would be 50% African, 50% European. If that mulatto child then marries a 100% pure European, the second generation offspring would be 25% African and 75% European. If that offspring then marries a 100% pure European, that third generation child would be 12.5% African and 87.5% European. Then if that fourth generation child then marries a 100% pure European, the fifth generation child would be 6.25% African and 93.75% European. Remember that a child receives 50% of his DNA from each parent. Depending on the percentages of each parent, certain racial percentages can fluctuate up or down.

For Dr. Watson to be 12.5% African ancestry, which is 5 generations removed from African ancestry, would have required that two of his great grandparents be mulattoes and two be of pure 100% European ancestry. This is not the case.

To reach his percentage of 16% African ancestry, Dr. Watson’s parents would each have had to carry 16% African ancestry themselves, since they each could only contribute 8% of Dr. Watson’s 16% African ancestry.


It would also require that at least two of his four grandparents carried roughly 32% African Ancestry if not more depending on the unique percentages of their individual genetic makeup. This whole situation kind of reminds me of Dave Chappelle’s character Clayton Bigsby, the black white supremacist.

But there are positives to this situation, with Watson having more than the standard 1 drop rule of African ancestry we can now claim on Black History Month that a Black man worked out the structure for DNA and received a Nobel prize for his research.  Nor should we hold a grudge against our African American brother.

I suggest that the African American community extend a hearty welcome to Dr. Watson. We need to claim every positive brother we can find these days. Who knows, he might enjoy the feel of a vibrant kinte cloth outfit or the taste of a fresh bean pie.  Hey, maybe we should even honor him with an NAACP Image Award, even R. Kelly receive one of those damn things.

All I’m saying is that since the African American community is such a forgiving community, just look at O.J. and Michael Jackson when they got in a pinch. Why should the fallout over Brother Watson’s comments be any different? Claim him, embrace him, and never let him forget he’s loved by his people, because Dr. Watson definitely has more than one nigger in the woodpile.