Black in America 2: The Minstrel Show is Back!!

Oh how Sia's soul trembled when he heard of the return of Black in America 2! This might just be the best Minstrel Show of the year! You know the Europeans love this. I wonder does the KKK throw parties centered around this series? Racist politicians surely have to break the butler out for this viewing. Nothing like eating fine cuisine while you watch blacks in 2009 find a way to fit in society (and it's still not working).

What this show exemplifies is the European's desire to keep us in our "bucket of crabs." They love to see our struggle, it's fascinating to them. The mind of the racist European doesn't want us here in the first place. At best, they would prefer we deported to another country (i.e. Africa) and at worse, they would prefer us to move to the back of the bus (i.e. segregation). When neither happened, you have what Marcus Garvey predicted in earlier times: A country that will forever be racially torn. It reminds me of what happened the first time a black delegation was allowed in the White House. The country, as it always has been was in a racial anarchy. Mr. Emancipator, Lincoln, was trying to convince black people to go back to Liberia (nooo! not Lincoln). He was attempting to keep the European race as white as Jesus (pun intended)! He told the delegation:

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should be separated."
-Source- Dred's Scott's Revenge


So Mr. Lincoln and his American Colonialization Society got $100,000 bucks to get rid of us. Yup, instead of freeing the slaves-he felt it better for the union to get rid of us (didn't they bring us here?). But okay, I'm getting off subject-this blog is about the 2009 negroism being displayed by our liberal buddies, CNN.

So since the seperation failed, the Euros (not the currency) have to deal with us. And what better show to watch for a prejudiced or racist Euro then Black in America! Oh yeaaahh, let them see the hood, let them see the drop out rate, teen pregnancies, single family homes, how black women do their hair, don't forget about the H.B.C.U.s-thats right, show just how tough of a time the "negros are having."

"Only 70% of all High School Students Graduate in Four Years. That Number Drops to 50% for Black Students."
-Carl Azuz, CNN (previewing Black in America)

A moment like this would call for a European requesting a rare steak from his butler while he devotes his attention to this crap. Some of you Africans are looking at this and are excited, but you don't see whats going on. YUP! It's black exploitation at it's finest!! Real smooth, so smooth, they had to bring it back. Whats sad is that our people will probably request part 3! You people go head and watch that dog poop-I'll be studying lessons on self. Now back to my regular agenda.

"Abe Lincoln: A Victim of Righteous Justice"

The more I read the book Dred's Scott Revenge by Andrew Napolitano, the more I realize that Abraham Lincoln was a supreme racist. Moreover, he was not an emancipator, he did not care about the rights of slaves (not to the least) and he felt the "white" race or European peoples, as I like to call them, were inherently superior to the African race!! Way to go Abe! They did a good job of sweeping your dirty history under the rug.

Lincoln was a sellout to his own people. He had a knack for arguing both sides of the issue. But inherently, like most whites in the South at the time, he supported slavery. From the looks of it, Lincoln was hated by the South because he just wasn't bold enough to put his foot down and wave the flag of slavery.

Now, to show you what time it is...peep this:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races lifting together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
-Abraham Lincoln (Source Dred Scott's Revenge)

Dang! What kind of Wheaties was he eating? Now grant it, I knew Abe wasn't the saint they made him out to be before reading this book, but I had no idea he was this much of a bigot. The last place a man like this should be is in the oval office. Sad, Sad, Sad.

But justice is something to be reckoned with and it seems that everything spun out of control for Mr. Lincoln. Trying to appease the North while inherently supporting the South just didn't seem to work out. Therefore, it was his rightful fate to be the first president to be assassinated. When you deem any group of people inferior, when you attempt to change God's law of all humans being equal, there's no telling what you are opening yourself up to. In Lincoln's case, it was a shot to the cranium with a Philadelphia Deringer. That's one heck of a gun to-couldn't have been much left of his brains and that's fair since he was using it correctly anyway. Hitler had some of the same pretenses towards the Jews-however he beat 18 assassination attempts. In the end, he killed himself.

But all in all, you can't deny that African peoples around at the time saw through Lincoln's antics. And while a lot of the country mourned his death, I'm sure many slaves thanked God for justice being served. Ironic indeed-wouldn't you agree?

*Picture courtesy of www.topicsites.com*

Abraham Lincoln: An Enemy of Africans & The South

It's no secret that the United States' educational system, as it relates to depicting history as it really went, is tainted numerous falsehoods. Among these "superlies," as I like to call them, is the tale of Abraham Lincoln. We've all heard how much a hero he was when he freed the slaves. In fact, according to western history books, the civil war was fought solely for the freedom of slaves.

However, it only takes one to read a couple of books to discover this was a bunch of dog poop thats been simmering in a crock pot for a 100 plus years. The truth of the matter is Lincoln had no interest in freeing slaves. On the contrary, Lincoln was simply trying to preserve the Union. African's freedom, was not on the forefront of his agenda;however, keeping the country in tact was.

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
-Lincoln's Secretary of State William H. Seward

The Fact is, Lincoln was caught between a rock and a hard place. As one can imagine the conflict of trying to appease the north and the south was arduous at best, but history shows that Lincoln clearly had no interest in the moral side of the issue.

In fact, the south, frustrated by Lincoln's position on slavery and his knack for infringing on state's rights, created The Confederate States of America (do you remember this in American History?). The states that comprised this nation was South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. That's right, they created there own nation solely to protect the institution of slavery. But all in all, Lincoln could give a rats butt about Africans. He did not uphold the pillars of what this country was supposed to be founded on.

How disappointing huh? To me, it definitely makes me view the Lincoln Memorial in a different light. Why? Because Lincoln didn't stand for liberty and justice for all. No wonder they kept this quiet in history class.

Does the Color of Jesus Even Matter?

Historically speaking, yes says Oronde. So long as I can see, the ancient history of the African race has been trampled over, swept under rug, and remodeled for the western world. So spiritually speaking, no, the color of Jesus doesn't matter. However, historically speaking, his color does matter.

Couple that with that fact that Europeans glorified this fake, white, blond hair, blue eyed godman even to the point of justifying slavery---knowing the truth about the matter holds even more relevance in African communities across the world.

Remember, that Africans could not speak the toungue of the Portugese, English, or Dutch (some of the major slave traders right after Columbus opened the market up). What happened in the "breaking in" process of slaves? And yes, there was a breaking in process which Europeans attempted to solidify African's new mode of behavior, customs, creed, religion, etc- I like to call it whitewash.

Well, among many things, Africans were presented with pictures. You probably didn't know that the elaborate stain glasses in churches that display saints and Jesus use to have a more profound meaning, did you? Well think about it. We couldn't read in those times, so a picture was truly worth "a thousand words." And it's no secret that Europeans in power used this to their advantage as a thesis for them being the superior race.

I'll never forget Amistad. Spielberg presented the concept of the Bible, whereas there were plenty of pictures for Africans to see that the white jesus had a direct lineage to God. Meanwhile, western history books boldly state that one of their excuses for murdering, and enslaving natives was because they weren't Christians. So much for do unto others as you would have done to yourself Iguess. Anyway, I won't hold you long today because I want you to view these two clips from Donahue where this same topic is discussed. Know your history, know yourself, and then you will know the truth.

Walmart Has More Rights than Dred Scott Ever Had

Do you know about Dred Scott? He was a slave that sued the U.S Government in order to restore his freedom. To make a long story short, he moved to free territory (slavery was illegal) with his masters. He then sued the Fed's for his freedom asserting it was illegal to prohibit his freedom on free land. The United States Supreme court disagreed. The reasoning for such measures, according to the court, was that Dred Scott wasn't a "person." We can presume that this ruling was based merely on the color of skin. So the word person, as it is written in the constitution, does not apply for Mr. Scott.

Meanwhile, a corporation like Wal-Mart, because of previous precedent in federal courts, is considered a person. This, my fellow readers, was a historical moment in the American legal system. As soon as corporations were deemed humans, this automatically meant that corporations had more rights than Dred Scott as well as the slaves of that era. Talk about big business. On another note, it doesn't seem fair that a man can judge who is a human/person or not does it? Aren't we all humans? I guess not.

Since I read the book Constitutional Chaos by Andrew Napalitano, I've become a fan of his assertiveness in holding our government accountable for breaking its own laws. I'm excited about his new book, "Dred's Scott Revenge-A legal history of race in America," and I look forward to sharing with you the knowledge I gain from the read.

If you thought I was joking about Wal-Mart having more rights than a human, click here and see it with you own eyes.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised!

I remember hearing that quote back in Spike Lee's prime. Yes, the revolution will not be Televised. This is not to say that it will not be presented to us. Moreover, it's to say that the revolution will be so all encompassing, one will not foresee the ends to its means once it's presented.

Bit by bit, the pieces of the New World Order (N.W.O), but everyone will sleep on it. They will actually contribute to this new global scheme of world domination by Europe. When they witness the atrocities that will result afterwards,the desire to research history to find some justification for the occurrences will arise in the masses. Unfortunately, by then it will be to late.

John Henricke Clarke noted in his book Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust, "Slavery and the Rise of the European Capitalism,
"They have already proven that they have a mission in mind, irrespective of religion, politics or cultural affiliation and that mission is to dominate the world and all of its resources by any means necessary. The new rationale for this dominance is now called a New World Order [my emphasis]. Africans and other non-European people must plan and strategize for a New World Order for their own that will be developed by them, for them. Our mission should not be to conquer Europe, but to contain Europe within its borders and let it be known that anything Europe wants from other parts of the world can be had through honorable trade."

History is the best teacher, and if we take an honest look at the timeline of historical events, from their escape from the Church of England, Europeans of the so called New World have come to power on the backs of indigenous cultures. Afrikans, who became Negroes under the authority of their masters, took the brunt of this labor. Not only were we forced to work but outsiders also purged our history from written record, took credit for most of our accomplishments, trained us to hate our own brother and sister (See the Willie Lynch documents here), and equated our inherent logic to one of a beast.

You show me a so called "black man" that does not see the significance of all "blacks" uniting on an international front, and I'll show you a man who still has the same thinking that his ancestors had no choice to accept in the 18th century.

In America, we look at other cultures resentment to the United States. Japan, China, Venezuela and Iran are classic examples. Any culture that took pride in inducing the biggest holocaust to humanity (and had the nerve to say it was the Christian thing to do) should be treated cautiously. Sadly, because of how long it took to get formal apologies, we are just now beginning to see apologies from our government for the slavery that built this country from the ground up. Does a formal apology do anything to help our condition? Doubted.

I look at the tube and praise Allah that I don't have cable. I look to the news and find history repeating itself. I see our youth being swayed towards ungodly ideals everyday. Politicians are blatantly in the business for their own benefits, and the land of the free and home of the brave seems that it's close to running it's empire in a ditch. How long can any great empire last anyway?

The revolution will not be televised because what you see on T.V. is not the revolution, moreso, you see the small bits and pieces that are needed for this revolution to be initiated(it's already in progress). If we don't combat their revolution with our own, where will we be at the end of the night?

Laws are in place to protect your natural rights that God gave you-but if you don't defend them, history can show you were you will be down the road.