White People Who Believe Black Racism Stories

Most of us do not make up racism stories. However, some do.  I also find it curious that all the racism stories involve black and white - all of them. Motives vary.

1.  Black Hate Crime Hoax:  LB Williams, a 50-year-old black man, and married to a white female,  in the late night hours on November 4, 2011,  placed a wooden cross on his drive way, dowsed it with flammable liquid, then set it on fire. Williams then called police and claimed a hate crime was just committed against him. Williams then left a note taped to his front door so his [white] wife would find it.

“They were watching us, I assumed me and the kids, and that I better not leave that [N-word],” Donna Williams said. The note was signed “KKK.” 

Yes, you read right.  The KKK is warning the white wife NOT to leave the black man.  Hmmm.  It seems the black male was/ is in the process of a divorce  i.e.  he's a mooch and didn't want to be thrown out of her home and forced to provide for himself. Williams has been arrested for filing a false police report, among other offenses.

2.   William Hance (a black male)  in 1978 sent a letter to the Columbus, GA, police dept. telling them that a group  of racists white males were going to retaliate and kill a black female for the recent murders of seven elderly white females in Columbus. A dead black female (Gail Jackson) was then found by police.  However,  police later discovered the letter was a hoax, written by Hance to cover-up his murder of the mentioned black female. Note:  A sadistic black male serial rapist/murder, Carlton Gary, who was still on the loose at that time in Columbus, was responsible for the murders of the seven elderly white females.

---------------------------------

Honorable Judge James Ware

3.   Judge James Ware invented a story (i.e. the judge lied) about having a brother who was gunned down by racist white teenagers in Alabama in the pre compulsory integration era (pre 1964).  For years people (mainly white people) believed it. Then, someone decided to do some fact-checking. Judge Ware was finally caught in his lie.  Many people believe Mr. Ware used the hoax to advance his career i.e. to make white people pity him.

4.   Yet Another Hate Crime Hoax:   "Officials say 21-year-old [black female] UW-Parkside junior Khalilah Ford, of Louisville, Kentucky, confessed to creating [an African American] hit list found on campus.
Kenosha County Sheriff. Bill Beth says Ford’s name was the only name to appear spelled correctly on the hit list, and that was a big clue for detectives." SOURCE


5.   -- I recently read on a blog site about a guy who claimed in 1972 his [white] 89-year-old grandfather told him about a terrible lynching incident that occurred in 1912,  It involved three lynched black men that were found, and witnessed by gramps himself,  hanging from the rafters in a barn; and that lynching blacks (according to gramps) was not only a regular occurrence in the city back then but the white guys actually did it for sport - just for the fun it. The city was Cincinnati.

However, had the author did a little research he would have discovered that the lynching story was just a tall tale.  For instance, the Tuskegee Institute, which recorded lynching incidents beginning in 1882, reported no lynchings in Cincinnati for the year 1912. (Between 1882 and 1968, Tuskegee Institute reported 16 blacks lynched in Ohio - none in Cincinnati.  Oh, and how many of those lynched blacks were lynched by blacks? Tuskegee Institute doesn't have the answer to that one.

   Finally, the NAACP, which established its Cincinnati branch in 1915, also does not report in any of its literature that black men were being lynched in the city of Cincinnati.   

As incredibility reckless journalism as his narrative was, what I found to even more incredibly reckless, however,  was all the comments the white male received in his comment section.  Every single comment (most were white) contained one or all of these: (1) told him it was a great story; (2) what a horrible time it was in American history for blacks; (3) we've come such a long way since those terrible times, but more work is needed.  In other words, not one of those who commented bothered to do any fact-checking either. Every one of them bought the tall tale.


                                                 ----------------------------------

6.  Dr. Madonna G. Constantine, a former Columbia professor, was fired in 2008 for plagiarism. She also, many believe, hung a noose on her own office door, then reported a racist act against her. And the motive for this? It would lend credence to her attack on the university (where [white] people still hang nooses) for practicing “institutional racism” against her. She has forced the university to defend itself in three separate lawsuits related to her firing. 

                                               --------------------------------

Lying black female Tawana Brawley


7.   Tawana Brawley, a 15-year-old black female, in 1987 accused six white men of rape and smearing dog feces on her.  Brawley's story was proven to be a complete fabrication. She later absconded with over $200,000, which was donated - by gullible people - for her defense. There are those who claim she made up her rape story because she was out too late and feared what her stepfather might do as punishment. But if that was the case, why involve six white males? - and something guaranteed to make headline news. Police later believed her stepfather and mother were willing participants in the hoax ... to destroy the lives of six white males, that neither of them had ever met.

------------------------------------

 And for those who want many, many more examples of blacks inventing racism incidents, here's a good link:  http://www.westernrevival.org/hate_crimes.htm

And,

http://www.landlordpolitics.com/mattson1.html

And, 

Courtney Thomas, 18, wrote a message on the bathroom stall..." It named five African American students including Courtney himself… and said they would be lynched and kill" SOURCE

8.  Made-Up Story to make people SUBMIT to her guilt-tripping>>LINK

-------------------

  Pavlov's Dogs' Syndrome

  There does appear to be a pattern, a formula if you will, to all of these made up stories: All the stories have blacks as their victim(s) … and are intended for the ears of oh so many gullible white people out there.  And it's obvious to me today that many white people actually do seem to crave these stories. Why?  My theory is that Americans over the last 45 years (since the launching of Compulsory Inclusionism in 1964), through Hollywood movies and TV shows, as well as through their educational system (i.e the rewriting of their history), have been taught by implication that American white Christians  are simply the most wicked of all people in human history.  And why are they so wicked?  The wickedness seems to emanate primarily from ONE thing: the failure of white people all over America to instantly commit to race-nullification when the black race migrated to the Anglo-created urban centers of  America  between 1865 and 1968 (white people, that is, were being racist).  This failure to integrate created, so white people have been programmed to believe, incalculable suffering for the black race; and in which blacks still suffer the haunting lingering effects from it to this very day. So when white people hear stories of black victimization by their people, like Pavlov's dogs ... they are conditioned to :: (1) purge themselves of guilt and tell the world how much they despise racism;  (2) they are not one of those hate-filled white people - of which they also feel duty-bound to remind us all that there is still oh so many racists white people still out there; (3) they feel deep sorrow and deep pity for the helpless and victimized black victim(s).  When their conditioned purging process is complete ... the white people feel good about themselves. However, since the programming is a never-ending process, so too must the purging be never-ending. Every story they hear, whether it sounds true or not, they are overwhelmed by the need to purge themselves -- so they can feel good. And on and on it goes...

By the way, does anyone know of any K -12 school literature, Hollywood produced movie or TV show addressing the issue of racism and the perpetrators are not white Christian males?

http://theinjusticefile.blogspot.com/2011/01/black-violence-white-victims-part-i_09.html 

The Moynihan Report - An Unheeded WARNING

---------------------------------------------------------------

* 1965 *

The Moynihan Report

 Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a liberal democrat who was appointed by President Kennedy to be Assistant Secretary of Labor and stayed on during the Johnson Administration. In 1965, Moynihan produced a report on the then current state of the Negro family in America. The primary purpose of the the report was to inform America that the Negro family was in major crisis, due - as Moynihan saw it - to the cycle of poverty bred by an unstable family unit (specifically in urban America).  Moynihan also decided to use his report to provide an explanation for the economic differences between the white race and the black race (white people's standard of living was, obviously, much higher than blacks).   In  Moynihan's subjective opinion , he basically attributed the lower standard of living by black people in America to the legacy of slavery. Yes, this was nice safe ground, as no one could prove him wrong. But rather than staying within the safe ground of the legacy of slavery, Moynihan decided, no doubt in an effort to appear to be fair-minded, to venture into the realm of "competence testing,"  suggesting that nature itself could very well be playing a part in creating the economic disparity between the two racial groups. That is,  white people may be endowed with a higher degree of intelligence than blacks.  Of course, self-anointed leaders from the black race were furious. Moynihan's suggestion also contradicted the ideology he inferred the gov’t was now committing itself to regarding black economic desolation (the legacy of slavery was the root caused for the economic problems of the black race).  

The report ended up costing Moynihan his job. 1

--------------------------

     End of the Beginning : The Report began with a declaration that America was now in a new state of affairs, that there had been a “Negro American revolution”.  Negroes had achieved their integration (with the help of the Johnson and Kennedy Administrations). Now there was an “End of the Beginning”. They (blacks) had won something no male group had ever won : the “right” to be integrated into another race’s social stratification system - though it need also be mentioned that no other male group ever demanded such a  thing in human history. The next step for blacks (actually the federal government's next step) was “equality.”  But equality for the blacks was to have a different meaning.  According to the Moynihan Report:

“The demand for Equality of Opportunity has been generally perceived by white Americans as a demand for liberty, a demand not to be excluded from the competitions of life - at the polling place, in the scholarship examinations, at the personnel office, on the housing market. Liberty does, of course, demand that everyone be free to try his luck, or test his skill in such matters. But these opportunities do not necessarily produce equality: on the contrary, to the extent that winners imply losers, equality of opportunity almost insures inequality of results.

The point of semantics is that equality of opportunity now has a different meaning for Negroes than it has for whites. It is not (or at least no longer) a demand for liberty alone, but also for equality - in terms of group results.” 

In other words people, blacks, as a racial group,  must be equal in all things with white people. That is, all statistical economic differences must be racially level.   And how was this new definition of equality to be achieved for the American Negro?  By integration , taxation and new government programs. 

Moynihan then points out the true crux of the failings of the black race in America (as the white liberals saw it) : the disintegration of the black  family unit.  

“The evidence -- not final, but powerfully persuasive -- is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle-class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated. There are indications that the situation may have been arrested in the past few years, but the general post-war trend is unmistakable. So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself.”

Also,

“The white family has achieved a high degree of stability and is
maintaining that stability. By contrast, the family structure of lower
class Negroes is highly unstable, and in many urban centers is
approaching complete breakdown.”

And what caused this family breakdown?  Well, Moynihan (and the Johnson Administration) couldn’t very well blame the black males (or their cultural constraints - their non-Occupational Ranking nature), so he cites:

“…three centuries of exploitation [slavery and, after 1865, the white man‘s failure to commit to race-nullification] …” “Here the consequences of the historic injustices done to Negro Americans are silent and hidden from view. But here is where the true injury has occurred: unless this damage is repaired, all the effort to end discrimination and poverty and injustice will come to little.”

But how is the Negro family going to be repaired so they could achieve “equality as a group” with the white population?

In Moynihan’s summation he makes it clear that his report is only about “defining a problem” (all related to slavery) and not to “propose solutions to [fix] it.”  However, the solution is obvious: massive government intervention into urban black life. What else could possibly be the reason to produce such a report?

Then Moynihan decided to bring up two issues, undoubtedly in an effort to be fair-minded. 

The first issue concerned "competence".

“The ultimate mark of inadequate preparation for life is the failure rate on the Armed Forces mental test. The Armed Forces Qualification Test is not quite a mental test, nor yet an education test. It is a test of ability to perform at an acceptable level of competence. It roughly measures ability that ought to be found in an average 7th or 8th grade student. A grown young man who cannot pass this test is in trouble. Fifty-six percent of Negroes fail it. This is a rate almost four times that of the whites.”

The second issue concerned the Negro male's abandonment of his children.

“It may be noted, for example, that for most of the post-war period male Negro unemployment and the number of new AFDC cases rose and fell together as if connected by a chain from 1948 to 1962. The correlation between the two series of data was astonishing. (This would mean that 83 percent of the rise and fall in AFDC cases can be statistically ascribed to the rise and fall in the unemployment rate.) In 1960, however, for the first time, unemployment declined, but the number of new AFDC cases rose [black males had more jobs but black females with children were filing for more government assistance]. In 1963 this happened a second time.  In 1964 a third. The possible implications of these and other data are serious enough that they, too, should be understood before program proposals are made.” 

The inference in these final two observations here are important as they are ominous. (1) How can the educational system be the suggestive route to opportunity and advancement for the black race if less than half of the black males - for whatever reasons - are only able to reach the performance level more indicative of a child than an adult? (2)  How can the government expect to “fix” the Negro urban family (by employing black males and forcing integration into white male-created work groups) if the monies from these jobs are not going to be used - by the Negro males - to support his family?

Time would tell... 

------------------------------------------

1.  After this report was made public, and even though members of the media (print or TV)  and academia refused to delve into the inferences made by Moynihan, nevertheless, President Johnson immediately banished him from his administration.  Black self-anointed leaders claimed he was being racist. 

MAIN MENU PAGE

          This page will direct you to all the blogs on this site: Violent Crimes: Black On White & White On Black                       
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          WHITE  Violent Crimes - Black  Victims 
                         (99 black victims of white violence)     
          

•  ALL White-On-Black Violent Crimes 
•  White Male SUCKER PUNCH - Black Victims 
•  American (White Male) Initiated Riots - Flashpoints (1900 to 1964)   
•  Redefining A Society
• White Violence - Black Victims -- Imagery Of Innocent Black People Victimized By Whites Since Compulsory Integration Was Created

                                  --------------------------------------------                               
                         --------------------------------------------------------  

                       BLACK  Violent Crimes - White  Victims 
                        
       Below is a Resource Guide for black-on-white violent crimes under the  Compulsory Inclusionism laws (i.e. Civil Rights Act 1964 ; Fair Housing Law 1968).  These two federal laws created unprecedented new freedoms  for people of African descent to work, live in and roam freely in white communities.  



          (I found, without great effort, a staggering 2540 white victims of black violence! -  - note: as of 2016, no longer adding incidents) 

Please note:  By no means is the long long list of white victims represented in the Links below ALL the victims.  Not even the proverbial tip of the iceberg. In 2005, for example, blacks committed more than 580,000 acts of unprovoked violence against white people, well over 90% of all the violence that crossed racial lines! (LINK). Finally, I have spent a very good deal of time - well over a decade - researching black crime in America. Many of the incidents I have come across in which white people are the victim(s), the attacks are simply so inhumane, so cruel and so diabolically savage that it seems to me that many of these attacks are calculated to instill a presentment of terror into the hearts and minds of the white population. But you be the judge. Just click on a link below ... and see what this race has subjected white people to, what no other race would ever tolerate.

• Black-on-White Violent Crimes   

Sub Categories: 

• Black Male Massacres - White Victims
• Black Males - Abuse Of White Children 
• Black Males - Gang Rape Of Children 
• Black Males: Rape & Murder /Attempted Murder - White Female Victims 
• Black Males - Pack Attack On American Businesses 
• Black Males - Abuse Of White Elderly  
•  Black Male Ambush - White Victims (under construction)
• Black Males - Good Samaritan Murders - White Victims
• Black Males - Murder / Attempted Murder Of White Police Officers
•  Black Male Atrocities Since 1964 - White Victims
• Black Male SUCKER PUNCH - White Victims
• Black Male Home Invasions - White victims
• 
  
• The Black Male BULLY - America Under Siege 
• Black Males - Work Place Murders / Slaughters / Massacres 
• Black Children Who Rape / Rob / Murder - White Victims


•  Imagery Of Innocent White People Victimized By Blacks Since Integration Was Created in 1964 (Note:: High-Speed Internet recommended)
• Blacks Who Got Away With Murder -White Victims
• Black Supremacy Doctrine LINK 


• Where Do Wealthy Blacks Live ? 

                                 
                                  ---------------------------------------

     Below is a Resource Guide for African-American crime rates, high school dropout rates, illegitimacy rates and co-habitation rates before and after 1964.  
                                         (still under construction)
                               

•  Black Male Crime Statistics (Pre 1964 - Under the DMG Theorem)
•  Black Male Crime Statistics (Post 1964 - Under Compulsory Inclusionism)
•  Prison and Crime Records by race (Black and White) between 1904 and 1960 
•  High School Drop Out Rates
•  Black Illegitimacy Rates From 1900 to Present
•  Black Co-Habitation Rates - Historical figures
• 1965 Moynihan Report - An Unheeded WARNING
•                                    Time Magazine 1958
    “THE NEGRO CRIME RATE: A FAILURE IN INTEGRATION"

• Black Privilege - CASHING IN On Lawsuits Against White-Owned Businesses 
• Where Do Wealthy Blacks Live ? 

                                  ---------------------------------------------- 

                    BLACK  HISTORICAL  EVENTS &  HISTORICAL  FIGURES

•   African-American Committed Atrocities from 1900 to 1964
•   American-Initiated Riots - Flashpoints (1900 to 1964) 
•  Rosewood Massacre (1923) What Really Happened 
•  Ossian Sweet - Detroit 1925 - A Planned Massacre 
•  Martin L. King's REAL Agenda In Memphis (1968)
•  Watts RIOT (1965) - The Beginning Of Black-Intiated Riots 
•  Charitable Giving of White Toward Black In American History (1865 to 1964)
•  NAACP- Its Real Creators - Its Real Purpose   
•  W.E.B. DuBois
•  Marcus Garvey
• The Pink Franklin Case & The NAACP 
•  Blacks  Who  Lynched  Blacks -- Truth Behind American Lynchings
•  The Houston Negro MASSACRE (1917)
• George Stinney - An Atrocity Being Rewritten
• Compulsory Inclusionism (Civil Rights) -Those Who Died Pursuing Integration
• Industrialization & Urbanization - Negroes Migrate To Anglo-Built Cites
• The 'NO GUILT' Evolution Of Integration (Civil Rights) 
                                          

                                   --------------------------------------------

•  DMG Theorem 
•  Compulsory Inclusionism 
•  Chronological History Of The American Negro's Integration Efforts (1865 to 1968) (NOTE: No White Guilt In this Version)    

•  Why did Black Males demand to be integrated into another racial group (the very group they were also claiming was their brutal oppressor)?  

                                  --------------------------------------------
    
"MAP" Of Known Occupational Ranking Societies                          
                                                (under construction) 
                                   -------------------------------------------- 

Creators Of Capitalism
           (Under construction) 
                                   -------------------------------------------- 

American Negroes : Their Own Country - Why It Didn't Happen (1865 to 1964) - Page 2

Main Menu Page                       
   
                                                                 Page [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
II. Occupational Ranking & The Evolution Of Integration
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On page one,  I addressed the fact that those of African descent in America after 1865 were legally free, free as a distinct people could be. The effort on the part of White people was to make the Negro race a self-reliant race, a race that would not be in perpetuity dependent on the White race. Of course, for Negro men, particularly those who were former slaves, becoming leaders and providers for their people, as well as moving their race toward self-reliance, was an edifying process that would require some time.  But the message from White males was always consistently clear, and many times even violently demonstrated, that white males did not want Negroes in their living arrangements, in their working environments, or involved in their political environments. Many Negroes were certainly frustrated by this attitude. However, many understood the attitude. After all, it was White males who created all the economic environments and all the political environments in America, which they jealously protected as their status environments. The solution was obvious: a demand for a homeland in America for the descendants of slavery. 

This leads us, again, to  our ONE question from page one:

    Why didn’t people of African descent in America from 1865 to 1964 demand a homeland in America, whereby they could achieve mastery over their own destiny, and create their own DMG - their own society - separate and autonomous from the American DMG?

    Since integration was so vigorously sought by Negro males (achieved in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act),  and for such a long period of time (since 1865), it stands to reason that something within White males' society had to be very attractive to them to make such a prolonged supplication. So let us form the following hypothesis:

    Negro males intuitively believed that what existed in the living/ working environments of the White males (his society i.e. his social stratification system) existed because of the racial group's culture and very likely would not exist among the Negro race, because of Negro culture, if they sought separation and autonomy. 

First, it is important to define how "culture" will be used. Here, culture, as it relates to human society, will be divided into innate and non-innate aspects.

• Innate culture:  The innate culture resides within the male and becomes discernible when his male group forms its society i.e. its social stratification system.1  Essentially, an innate culture is a grouping characteristic shared by the whole male group. And for the sake of our discussion here, the innate culture will only be used to identify whether the male group can form an occupational ranking social stratification system.  In other words, a male group's innate culture is either 'occupational ranking' or 'non-occupational ranking.' So if the innate culture within the male group cannot create a social stratification system based on occupational ranking of the males, then the male group will use a non-occupational ranking social stratification system (e.g., animal husbandry, subsistence farming). 

• Non-innate-culture:  Non-innate culture within a society involves all those things that make the male-group’s society distinct, other than race (e.g. language, status symbols, religion, style of dress, diet, folklore, etc). Naturally, only a non-innate culture can be taught.

  
Note: I am not going to delve into the theoretical origin of the Occupational Ranking culture.

Occupational Ranking & The Production of "Wealth" 

"Occupational Ranking is an innate culture of the male group (excluding females) that allows the male group to achieve the necessary grouping and organizational behavior conducive to the production of 'wealth.' Wealth is essentially the production of marketable material items. The better the male group is at stratifying itself under occupational titles, the more marketable wealth they will theoretically be capable of creating."

   
-------------------------------

1. The creation of a human 'society' has essentially always followed the same pattern: A male-group (males racially, linguistically and religiously similar) first claim a geographic area. This same male-group then creates a social stratification system  (to rank males within their own male group).  When the social stratification system is created,  a "society" now exists. The male-group that created the society becomes the Dominant Male Group (DMG).  Historically, societies have stratified their DMGs by either Occupational Ranking or Non-Occupational Ranking.  
-------------------------------------

                                                        PART III>>CLICK HERE 

                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Evolution Of Integration Link

American Negroes Page I: Their Own Country - Why It Didn't Happen (1865 to 1964)

  Main Menu Page For All Blogs


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                      Page [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I.                        Integration As A "Right" 

           Many are familiar with 1960s-era documentaries documenting the struggle for civil rights—specifically the push for integration. These films often depict a series of marches, sit-ins, and protests, characterized by narrators as a collective demand by Black Americans for "equal rights," "freedom now," and "manhood." Within this narrative, white populations are frequently cast as antagonists who actively obstructed the pursuit of justice. The prevailing argument suggests that Black Americans were not merely disadvantaged but were systematically oppressed through the denial of integration.

However, a critical examination suggests an alternative perspective regarding whether the preference for racial separation constituted a moral or legal "wrong" at that time. Prior to 1964, segregated living and working arrangements were consistent with both American tradition and broader historical patterns. Proponents of this view argue that there is little historical precedent for two distinct racial groups coexisting in total harmony within a shared political and social framework. Consequently, if integration lacked a clear historical or anthropological foundation, the question arises: could the practice of separation be objectively defined as an act of oppression, or was it simply the maintenance of a long-standing social norm?

Contrary to the narratives often presented in contemporary education, racial separation has historically been a global norm rather than an anomaly. The Civil Rights Movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s—while centered on ideals of equality and justice—also highlighted complex and often contradictory dimensions of human social behavior.

The Black race's so-called 'fight' for justice, freedom, manhood and equality from the late 1950s and early 1960s also produced some very strange inconsistencies in human nature. A few examples : 

• African-Americans are remonstrating for the complete nullification of the existence of their distinctness as a people (i.e. they want civil rights legislation that forbids the recognition of race, which eliminates them as a distinct people in America).

• African-Americans are claiming their very manhood and "freedom" can only be achieved within the structure of another male-group - the very group they are claiming is their oppressor.  (also this LINK)                                                             
• African-Americans want integration - into white male society  -  to relinquish all effort among their people to achieve self-reliance as a distinct people (which would make them the only people in human history to never achieve this human requirement). 

• African-Americans claim their children are better off learning among another people's children.
  

     My friends, I am not trying to be divisive in any way here. Throughout human history, no distinct people—other than African Americans—have ever demanded integration in this manner. Never. What occurred between 1955 and 1964 was unprecedented in terms of expected human behavior. According to recorded history, human male groups do not demand to be integrated into another male group's social hierarchy or living arrangements.

Allow me to illustrate this point with a brief narrative: The year is 1770. The feared Sioux tribe, including their warriors, women, and children, march to the recognized boundary of the Crow tribe. There, the Sioux protest being forced to live separately from the Crow. They want to hunt on Crow land, eat at the Crow table, and have their children learn alongside Crow children. They demand inclusion. "Down with the lines of segregation!" the Sioux warriors and their families shout, led by their medicine man. The Crow leaders confront them and ask what they truly want. The Sioux claim they seek only "freedom," "dignity," "equality," and the right to achieve "manhood"—all of which, they say, can only be attained within the Crow tribe. Realizing they are wronging the Sioux with their separate living arrangements, the Crow leaders relent and grant full integration rights to the Sioux people.

Does this scenario sound remotely possible? Of course not. No Native American tribe would ever do such a thing. In fact, throughout human history, no racial or male group has ever demanded integration into another group. Yet, African Americans did precisely this by demanding racial integration rights—civil rights—which included the complete nullification of their existence as a distinct people.

This should not have happened.

(Note: A male-group consists of males who are located within a contiguously defined geographic area and are similar racially, linguistically and religiously.  Male-groups are the primary building blocks  for every society/ nation  in human history i.e. the 'male-group' is the creator of the social stratification system, which is the prerequisite to a society).  

     So, if we base our opinion for predicting human behavior on all of recorded human history, what should we have witnessed in the late 1950s and early 1960s regarding Negro demands?  This:  The Negro people in America, after almost 100 years of being brutally oppressed, facing persistent racism and bigotry directed at them (they claim), and a denial of freedom, dignity and manhood, being lynching for sport, or for "general purposes"  (they claim), beating them on the streets for the sheer joy of it, forcing them to live in substandard housing, exploiting their labor, etc., they simply cannot bear the persecution, the exploitation, the calculated injustices and misery any longer.  So they collectively demand a solution that has numerous and undeniable historical precedents: a homeland.  A homeland, so after almost 100 years of oppression and misery they can finally achieve the cherished dream of self-determination (i.e. the right to create their own Dominate Male Group -  DMG).   A place where true freedom, dignity and manhood can be achieved. Where they can finally have the opportunity to be master of their own destiny.
  
Well, we are all acutely aware that the American Negro never made even the slightest movement toward the goal of achieving self-determination. Indeed, they actually did the COMPLETE opposite!  This incredible and unprecedented act of demanding integration into another male-group - a group they are claiming is their brutal oppressor - I firmly believe has to be explained. It simply should not be good enough to attempt to explain away this unprecedented demand by saying that civil rights was about the fight for "equality,” "freedom," and "manhood" and that these attributes (for the Negro) could only be achieved by forcing their Anglo oppressor to give them integration rights i.e.  Compulsory Inclusionism. 

So, 
 
(1) Why didn’t people of African descent in America from 1865 to 1964 demand a homeland in America, whereby they could achieve mastery over their own destiny,  and create their own DMG - their own society - separate and autonomous from the American DMG?


Note: I want to emphasize that my theoretical outline from here on only concerns pre 1964. 

First, let's address one of the biggest deceptions in American history:: the belief that the civil rights movement was about achieving "freedom" for the Negro people in America. The black race was in fact free. In every sense of the word they were a free people. They were free to build their own industries, their own towns & cities and thereby create their own political environment(s); or, with the vast amount of unsettled land in America, they were completely free to colonize a place in America and create their own autonomous living arrangement(s) (e.g. like the Mormons).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Citations:

1.   Blacks did have political seats in state and local legislatures. However, they did not have any control of what legislation was actually made into law. That power rested, in every legislature in America, with white Christian males.

2. Race nullification is not in the US Constitution. Plessy v. Ferg. settled that dilemma in 1896. However, states could create their laws with respect to integration rights for the negro, as consistent with the 10th Amendment. New York, for example, required race-nullification in their states' school system. It should also be noted that presidents Roosevelt (1940) and Kennedy (1961) both issued executive orders forbidding racial discrimination in the federal workforce and government contracts, respectively. Though both were largely unenforceable i.e. white males refused to follow these laws (it was their economic environment - status environment - created by white males and for white males). 

3.  It should also be noted that the 1964 Civil Rights Act nullified white Christians in America as the recognized 'Americans', stripping them of their DMG status as well their identity as a people. Today, the former 'Americans' are now referred to simply by a color: white people.  

                                                                                             Page II >>CLICK HERE

Japan - Agrarian To Occupational Ranking (1853)

 (Main Menu Page For All Blogs )

         Japan Alters Its Social Stratification System

       In 1853, at the behest of American merchants, US President Millard Fillmore sent Commodore Perry with a letter to Japan’s ruling body to seek a trade treaty.  Japan at this time, and throughout her history, was primarily an agrarian, subsistence farming nation - a people who had not yet discovered coin currency. It was also a country that fiercely protected its isolation.  With an exception made only to Dutch traders, any attempt by other Western nations to land on Japanese soil for the purpose of trade or any other reason was under the threat of immediate attack (Western merchants were primarily interested in Japan as a place to dock their ships and pick up supplies).  When Commodore Perry arrived in the Bay of Tokyo with three steam-powered warships, fixed with cannons, the Japanese, whose only means of defense was the sword and the bow and arrow, had little choice but to receive him. Perry delivered his letter and promised to return within a year to receive Japan's reply. The following year Perry did return, and with a bigger fleet, comprised this time of seven warships and 500 Marines. The Japanese, gazing at the site of these mammoth warships and forced to witness a demonstration of the power of their cannons, knew they had no option and promptly negotiated a trade treaty. 

     Certainly, the Japanese had to feel bullied by the weapons these Americans possessed. And how could they also not fail to realize the overt threat to their own sovereignty should these Americans decide to exercise their very apparent superiority?  While we have to assume the Japanese saw themselves as intellectual equals to these white-skinned men, nevertheless, how could they explain this very evident superiority?  In other words, what enabled these Americans to build weapons and create material items that the Japanese didn't have?  Obviously, the Japanese saw that it was the 'structure' of American society that allowed them to build their weapons, as well as all their other material possessions. We can logically assume this since from approximately that year (1853) the Japanese, on their own volition, set about to structurally overhaul their political and economic arenas and model them after the American system. In other words, they set about to create an Occupational Ranking social stratification system.  They were, as we know, successful. By 1900 (less than 40 years), Japan had not only replicated America’s societal structure (i.e. creating wealth using occupational titles to stratify its male group), but was also producing material items very similar in quality to the Americans.  However,  this success had another ramification to it.  Up until this time, only Europeans had Occupational Ranking systems.  This transformation by the Japanese from an agrarian societal structure to an Occupational Ranking one, demonstrated that it was not just those of the European race who were capable of creating this type of social stratification system.    


By 1964, those people/ male groups that were capable of a creating an Occupational Ranking stratification system were now apparent. 

  

Marcus Garvey: Negro Separation, Self-Improvement & Self-Sufficiency

   (Main Menu Page For All Blogs)

A man who wanted to be a King

Marcus Garvey (1887 –  1940)

Marcus Garvey was born in Jamaica in 1887. According to Garvey, his father, a freed slave, earnestly counseled him on the necessity of getting an education. Whether inspired by his father or his own innate desire to learn, Marcus Garvey became a very well-read man by his early 20s. He was intelligent, a great orator, and also a very eloquent writer, though he never did finish high school. Oddly enough, Garvey’s lack of a high school diploma did not stop him from attending (or visiting?) colleges in England.  In 1914, Garvey decided to turn his attention and God-given abilities to help his people (people of African descent) achieve a sense of dignity and power over their lives … that he believed the European males were conspiring to deny them. To that end, in 1914, Marcus Garvey founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), which he believed could be an instrument to unite all peoples of African descent, including the African continent and those in the Western Hemisphere.

       In 1916, Garvey arrived in the U.S. to promote his new ideology of African unification to America‘s Negroes.  Among Marcus Garvey’s concerns were the European powers that had colonized Africa, and by so doing, Garvey believed, deprived its native people from being their own rulers, thereby denying them the right to determine their own destiny. However, as vexed as he was at European powers seizing land in Africa, Garvey’s more important concern, which he would dedicate the next decade to, was the plight of the American Negro. Garvey believed the Negro in America could never achieve equality (i.e. integration rights). He believed the white man would not allow this. Over the course of the next eight years he would give hundreds of passionate speeches to Negro audiences in almost all of the major cites of North, Mid-West, and even the South. His speeches to America’s Negroes were some of the most well-honed diatribes on the Negro's state of affairs in America to that date.

            Marcus Garvey was not an integrationist. He was a black nationalist ... who wanted America’s Negroes to move back to their ancestral homeland (Africa). His stated destination for them was the state of Liberia. With that goal in mind, Garvey launched a shipping line called the Black Star Line in 1919.  In this same year, he was also able to convince a sufficient number of his people to loan him enough money to actually purchase a ship. However, the short of it is, this shipping line, managed and run entirely by Negroes, was continually plagued by internal corruption, as well as Garvey’s own mismanagement. Not surprisingly, it ran up massive debts in a very brief time and subsequently failed in 1922. It also never made a single voyage to Africa.  Garvey’s fault was not that he was corrupt. He just didn’t have the wherewithal to manage a company the size of Black Star - at least there is no evidence he was running a scam.  His shipping line, though was actually quite an audacious and fanciful idea, and not because he wanted to use it to transport people of African descent back to their ancestral homeland. Rather, it was so grandiose that even the biggest financial tycoons of the day would have scoffed at the possibility of launching such an endeavor.  Yet, Garvey actually did get his shipping line up and going. It took a man of extraordinary talents to get as far as he did, even though, in truth, his enterprise was certainly doomed from the beginning. Garvey, being a terrible businessman, simply accelerated the inevitable.

    As for Garvey’s inspiration to reunite the American Negroes with their ancestral homeland, he was up against two formidable challenges: 1) the economic boom of the 1920s; 2) the NAACP.  Concerning America’s economy in the 1920s, American Negroes were not in that bad a shape in urban America. At least most were working. And those that were unemployed, all Negroes certainly knew - for the evidence was all around them - it was only a matter of finding remunerative work to end their indigence.

     And regarding the NAACP at this time, its agenda was in direct conflict to what Garvey was preaching. Garvey was telling the Negro that it was his fault for his present predicament because he was failing to recognize his true home (Africa), and failing to do what was necessary to get there. The NAACP, however, was telling the Negro to seek integration into America’s Anglo power base; and that his present state of affairs was entirely the white man’s fault, i.e. for failing to provide the Negro integration and race-nullification.  Obviously, Garvey and the NAACP were simply canceling out the message of the other.  

      Finally, regarding Garvey's organization, he claimed a membership of 4 million members worldwide in 1920. The NAACP's membership stood at about 62,000 (the book Chronological History Of The Negro reports that the NAACP had 85,000 members in 1919 - pg. 387).

     Garvey's Conviction: Other than rumors,  there is no concrete evidence that I could find that exists today that the NAACP applied pressure (or money?) to U.S. government officials to pursue a fraud charge against Garvey.  Regarding the evidence presented against Garvey, and ultimately used to convict him, it was shockingly flimsy. Garvey received a five-year prison sentence. However, President Calvin Coolidge, perhaps perusing the evidence and wanting to do the right thing,  did intervene after two years of Garvey's sentence and commuted his  term. Upon Garvey's release, he was deported back to his native Jamacia (1927).    

Garvey's Conviction: "Garvey blamed Jewish jurors and a Jewish federal judge, Julian Mack, for his conviction.  He felt they had been biased because of their political objections to his meeting with the acting imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan the year before. In 1928, Garvey told a journalist: "When they wanted to get me they had a Jewish judge try me, and a Jewish prosecutor. I would have been freed but two Jews on the jury held out against me ten hours and succeeded in convicting me, whereupon the Jewish judge gave me the maximum penalty.""   Wikipedia

>>> Garvey forgot to mention two other Jewish males, who were also prominent members of the NAACP's Executive Committee at this time: Arthur and Joel Spingarn.  Jewish conspiracy? Possibly. There is one absolute certainty here: the NAACP, still a fledgling organization and economically destitute at this time, benefited the most when Garvey was deported. <<<

      Marcus Garvey remains the only man of African descent prior to 1964 that gained a substantial following among American Negroes…advocating for black separation, self-improvement and self-sufficiency. 

          Garvey: “At maturity the black and white boys separated, and took
                          different courses in life. I grew up then to see the
                          difference between the races more and more….” “I
                          asked, "Where is the black man's Government?" "Where
                          is his King and his kingdom?" "Where is his President, his
                         country, and his ambassador, his army, his navy, his men
                         of big affairs?" I could not find them, and then I declared,
                         "I will help to make them.””