Synopsis Two

                                Synopsis Two

In my first synopsis of my earlier works, I wanted to point out to my audience how we, as Black people, had--and have--more of a belief and trust in the people who formerly enslaved our ancestors--than a trust and faith in its' own "brothers to work it out."  You can tell, because we live within a country which wrote the legislation to regulate and maintain slavery, and yet within the minds of many, some of us still believe that some day we will have an equal society.

I often hear our people say, "There's no love out there on these streets" and "You can't trust anybody any more"--but how can we justify our faith in rich Whites within  American society, to uphold their own interests, the interests of middle-class--and our interests?  If his*story shows us anything, it shows America and Europe can fake like they are really trying to help out poor and the rest of humanity--but they always seem to land "on their feet first."  They help themselves to the best first--before they do anything for others.  These people have a long history of taking more than they give, and exploiting others off of broken promises.  They made 97 treaties with the native Americans and they broke every one!

I'm not 100% sure, but I am 99.9 %, that the number of Jews in Germany has diminished since World War II.  I'm sure that amongst other things, the main reason the population of Jews in Germany has dwindled, is because after the war, they couldn't trust German society any more.  All their faith had been shattered by Germany's treatment of Jews during WWII.  There's no reason to stay around people who don't want you there--that is, unless you plan to irritate them.  If you cannot build your own society and feel safe and secure there, why bother trying to force social equality in a place where you are not wanted?  No doubt!  Just think about the word "Holocaust" and what it takes to get to that point...

So how about us?  How can we continue to trust American society more than each other to work out our issues?  It seems like the easy way out, to stand pat while the walls are crumbling, and send letters to congress--rather than make your own help.  Is higher income potential and affirmative actions more reliable than nationality, ethnicity, and security as a people?  Is our future certain, as Black people, living in America?  How so?  And if so, why don't we all feel that way?  Is it because some of us feel, what we do in America is so indispensable to American society?  Is it because some of us feel our wealth or labor per capita for American society far exceeds our detriments?  Is it because of our entertainment value towards the rest of society?  What exactly is it?  Food for thought.

Let me say right here, that these words are not racially motivated.  Far from it.  They are documented events (some with links), to substantiate a point.  What I'm saying is, relying on another people to come to our aid makes us dependant upon them, like we are crippled or incapable of taking care of it ourselves.  And knowing their past his*storical deeds of never delivering, only exacerbate the situation. Not to mention that some of these same people that you ask for help or employment, may have had "slavemakers" in their "closet" (in their family) or some "latent racist" who will get a kick out of turning you down, simply because he has the power to.

Besides, as a people, we should not be seeking employment from another society in the numbers we do, because it establishes nothing for ourselves (as a people nationalistical speaking).  We should be making jobs where we can employ ourselves.  Doing things the other way, makes it  look like we are looking for a hand out, welfare or public assistance, or something we cannot do for ourselves with the resources available (miseducation, high school drop-out, etc.)--and I'm sure we all know better than that.

The reason why "more reliance"  is not in abundance, is some of our Black businesses, which amassed such wealth, are (for the most part) not Black conscious but singularly motivated to be successful as a single entity, and therefore do not practice the necessary affirmative action policies towards Black people as we expect White businesses to perform.  The Bill Cosbys, Oprah Winfreys, Michael Jordans, Charles Barkley, Spike Lees and Dr. J-s of the world, have  not proportionately contributed to Black employment, entertainment, interests and Black causes--because, in large, they do not believe in them or they don't want to be bothered with the difficulties surrounding such an endeavor.  I suspect that the major reason they have not done so, is because many of them do not have a healthy view of their own people and they do not want to lose a lot of their White investors by participating in Black causes.  This sort of phenomena is going to require some major reconstruction--a catharsis of sorts--for some of our Black wealthy.

Coincidentally, many Western financial planners feel that investing in Black business is bad business and tell many Black athletes the same.  I wonder why... Since properly applied, we could cure a lot of ills, in the ghettos, and areas which spawn such creative talent.  But first, you have to give a damn...  It can't be, "Gotta get yours/I gotta get mine."  That's just token success, a.k.a. drops in the bucket to give them something to offer in defense.

21)  Often, my family and my person would sit together with atlas and a globe and study the actual facts of the land masses (in hopes we were setting the foundation for my children's 'international perspective or hawks-eye-view').  Maybe you can do the same with your children as well and learn new facts.  For example, except for North and South America (as well as Antartica), most of the known world is mainly one huge land mass.

Earlier, we discussed a well-documented fact that the oldest finds of human life, originated on the central Asian continent, called "Africa," by the White man.   It is from here that life was further propagated and diversified within the "Fertile Crescent" region.  Those interested in this chronology should obtain the lecture series from The Teaching Company called, "The Great Courses"--course 4617: "Peoples and Cultures of the World" by Professor Edward Fischer of Vanderbilt University, or "Anacalyptus," by Godfrey Higgins.

 We have other names for this continent.  A lot of its' indigenous people call it "Akebulan," but as I pointed out previously, Westerners change the names of things for political reasons (which we shall discuss later).  While expressing a general ignorance to the underlying significance that life started in Africa, some Whites took this to mean that Whites were originally in Africa at the same time Blacks were incarnated!  How ridiculous!

There was never any "White Tribes" of Africa who lived alongside Blacks chronologically!  The Blackman and Blackwoman are the fathers and mothers of Civilization.  There are the essential features of every species within its original Black inhabitants.  The Whites in the Northern part of ancient Khamit were invaders from Greece and Rome, trying to get in on a good thing.  It was like what the Taj Mahal or Mecca in Saudi Arabia is today--just check out Herodotus (chronological accounts from the Loeb Classical Library pub.), Plato's writings, and Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony and Augustus Caesar to learn more.  The Afrikaners are in reality, Dutch invaders, that were subdued by the English in South Africa.  There is no indigenous White tribes, nor was there a Kimba the White lion!  As Justice once said, "I don't write about dreams!" I write the facts and give you paper trails for additional research, to further your confirmation; while I move further on the path to  our self-healing. 

My journalism is not trying to teach Whites how they really are, or bent on "making Whites feel bad" concerning their people's trangressions: I just don't want my people "looking for love in all the wrong places," or "barking up the wrong tree" in search of something that does not exist: a.k.a., "A love for humanity by the mainstream American masses."  Besides, a lot of Whites have a lot problems accepting "the soiled past" of their people... we do too.

22)   When we were young, the West tried to convince us that North America, Europe and Asia were formerly all one land mass called "Eurasia" (a name they created using the "Eu" of Europe preceding the word "Asia"), but if we took away all the current borders, this current day land mass would only be a continuation of the land which we could currently call "Asia"-- consisting of East, Central (or Middle) and West Asia respectively.  Is it any wonder why the Europeans chose to call this land mass Eurasia?

23) The only reason we don't perceive these politics behind these deeds, is because we were raised in a Western country, accustom to Western ways and  therefore we're subsequently taught to overlook it.

24) Nomenclature is a strategic system of naming things.  As you define things, you gain more of a grasp of the things you define. Once a people define a thing by its ways and characteristics, this knowledge gives the one who coined the phrase, a certain control over how others view these things. This knowledge and familiarity gives that person a certain dominion over all those things as well:  Currently, most of the world uses terms that the West uses--not the terms which the indigenous people prefer, or the labels the natives use to describe such things. . .  25) For example, why do most people call the Nipponese people, "Japanese" and not "Nipponese," as I am sure they'd preferred to be called?"

I'm sure this happened when the Catholic church arbitrated the negotiations between the Portuguese Navy and Spanish Armada.  Each of the two countries are loyal subjects to the Catholic Church), so as to appease the conquerors--the Church divided the earth up into the areas each were free to conquer--just as long as the paid tribute to the church and promised to convert the "savages" to the Catholic faith  (those interested in this type of policy should read or watch James Clavell's "Shogun").

26) Europe (under the pope) also had many other names for many of the "Non-Western lands," and we Blacks (as well as others), use the same terms because we live in a former European colony called America.  Most of the world uses the terms that the West uses (not the words and terms its natives prefer), and certainly not the labels the indigenous people use to reference such things.    Subconsciously, by using the same language, we are being conditioned to conceptualize like our oppressors.

27)   If we let our education remain in the way the White man has taught us in America about Eurasia, we would never think of Europe, Africa, and China as one continent: Asia.  If we continued to identify ourselves to the land and not the tribe or the genus (like Western ideology subscribes for us to do); we will not place much value on our common traits as a people, but we will place far too much on the country and areas where people are incarnated, and all the prejudices that come along with that.  Anthropologists know this, and take steps against it by making it a practice--not to apply their thinking to another culture's problem-solving:  Too often people talk about the "movie that they'd make"--instead of what is right there before them, which is wrong.  The issue should be accessed by what the person set out to do and how sucessful they were at executing it--not what you want it to be.
  
28) Nor can religion be the thing which unites us, for not all our people are the same religion, and within religion there are religious prejudices and differences which will keep us apart: a.k.a. "our way is the best way or "thee" way; we are more blessed; that's not the way we believe, etc.  Wars have been fought for decades over religion.  Just look at Ireland and their Catholic and Protestant conflict.  Listening through religious ears is like talking to someone while having headphones on--listening to an iPod: A conversation of prejudiced prepositions at best.  Articles like this beg for an open mind and candid conversation and observation.

Yet that will never be done because of customs and tradition within one's religion.  These are designed to order life and provide coping skills, but sometimes they don't: Not when the customs, tradition, and the way of thinking belong to the people who once used you for menial labor.  Besides the "carpenter/tool"--"master/slave" relationship, we have nothing in common, in way of custom, manner of dress, past-times, music, arts and entertainment, politics, behavior or tradition etc....  Heck, if we wear the same sneakers and gear, its through their imitation!  We can't be any more different as a people.  Yet when it comes down to cultural/nationalistic aspects, we all seem ignorant because we act just as prejudice as our White counter parts: fly the flag, Americans are better, let's root for the cowboys, those savages, call the foreigners by the same slurs the Whites concoct--"those islanders, those gooks, pickaninny, black dagos, guido or guineas (Italian), pollocks, spics, micks, sand niggers, island niggers, salmon-niggers, mud-niggers, (kafirs,  goyim), niggers, (kaffers), catfish, etc."  For those who are unaware of the above words and phrases--they are racial ethnic slurs, designed to indirectly posture prejudice and superiority.  Notice how many terms have the "N" word attached to it.   Most (all but three), have an American origin.  The problem is, not only Whites use them; but Blacks as well. They are usually accompanied by airs of superiority, disregard, and smugness.  Obviously, these are not the qualities which entertain a proper sense of diaspora (love of a people indigenously and internationally).

29) Therefore, it is very important for us to shed these types of Western idealogies and terms for things concerning life, living and politics and begin to look at things from their original nomenclature.  As expressed previously, this is not "Let's beat up on the White man or White race," it is more like familiarizing today's youth with yesterday's past: a concept that is vastly disintergrating under the previous "Old School/New School Concept," created during the early Hip-Hop Era--a little before the Knowledge Rap aspects kicked in during the 90's.  Those who don't know their past are doomed to repeat it.

 Spike Lee had a hard time getting production money for the making of "Malcolm X" because the industry felt "Roots" was enough of that type of genre.  And this point is essentially the difficulty: We were once America's free labor; providing its trade and menial task force until the Civil War.  The rich rural South was obliterated by the war--it's White working class disenfranchised and sought ways to get Blacks back under their control.  But that was not only the ideology of the South, because the North has its' own ways of regulating our Black population in America.  Whether North or South, this practice of scrutinizing and regulating Blacks continues to this very same day.  If you watched how the Republican candidates (Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Buddy Roemer) postured and insinuated during their selection process for president, it is not hard to tell how they thought White America felt concerning Blacks, leadership, and equality--by their pitches to appeal to their respective audiences. 

Living in America, a lot of Black moves are regulated by other people within the industry.  If they are not interested, the non-Black rich will say, "there's not much money in that (Black) enterprise, when American business markers often proves, Blacks as trend setting, vanguards and cutting edge.  In the sports world, just look at the likes of Doug Williams, Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick and audible/ play-calling permissibility.  The real issue here is someone else presides, judging our projects, without an open mind, while standing in a position of power--often because many Blacks won't re-invest in our own Black Enterprise, they seem to have more faith in America's White businesses.

The same thing goes on in education.  We learn 'little of black and too much of the other' (lyrics from What's Going On by Jungle Brothers).  And yes, I realize that issues like mine are minority issues within the White American majority, but that does not dismiss the need to know from those who are the American minority--neither does it need not to be responded to.  Unfortunately, it does stir-up feelings amongst so-called White liberals that I am exaggerating our chronology (as opposed to his*story), but I give references (of both Black and White) and take a scholarly approach.  I believe it only to be a response by them--that these events could be so credible--but they are--as incredible as they seem! 

What these White liberals fail to comprehend is, being that way (liberal that is), is an option granted to someone "worthy of a free man," but not one given to one of  second-class status--that is something you know little about!  So if you really want to know, and not just hear your self talk--(while expressing your general unawareness of things outside the Ivory Tower) pick up those books and read--support just causes.  There is not enough space here to satisfy those in denial--especially those who are unwilling participants.  Some will never acknowledge or believe, regardless to the amount of facts.  It only sounds gruesome because of a good job of the media; however, Whites international track record with non-Whites isn't exactly stellar now--is it?  All around the world, there are sob stories of before the Whiteman came...  As Billy Joel says, "We Didn't Start the Fire."

I am rounded, and I show that--through my taste in music, art, and literature,--but we are tired of waiting around for liberal Whites to get it before "there can be any help for Blacks in America"--sorry about that.  Who cares about what others think, we have to do for ourselves.  We have a plan called, "Make your own help because you need it." I believe it's called Kujichagulia in Kwanzaa principles, and it somewhat involves healing our own wounds without relying on anyone else's help; eventhough some of the hurt happened as a result of Europe's "good will for the natives."   Efforts like ours involves "educating the customer and activist" by researching our heritage and providing for those who are not even aware that such things exist--much less than that they also are true.  we are not searching for love that does not exist--especially not between the races.  
 
Greece and Rome were never allies to Khamit (so-called Egypt).  And if the "liberal" reader does not recognize the land by its' indigenous name, then this too is indicative of a bigger issue--too big to solve here.  Suffice it to say, "The Good Ship Jesus" was not a "pleasure cruise for our people" to wind up America, and America has never been interested in teaching the heritage and chronicles of vanquished people--past anthropologists who belong to its society.  This blog makes up for that vacuum created by "The people on the "Mayflower," who landed on Plymouth Rock--not Jamestown, Virginia.  Although I do get tired of Whites believing that we Blacks who supply this type of scholarly journalism, are making up fantastic stories.  Do some research yourself and stop being lazy!  I would not trust Irish history, if it was told by the English--nor are all my sources of documention from the hands of the same type of people who oppressed mine.  But I do cross-reference my material and many of my references are accredited in your people's schools (although that doesn't matter as much as the proof).  Just look up Cheink Anta Diop, or George C. James on Google for example.

But I want to say here, America has done good for its ruling class people--just scan across the ghettos across this country and look at the ratios and you cannot argue with this fact.  I would expect no less from Black people as a nation within America. . .  While good journalism is the aim here, there are some things I want to make perfectly clear here.  I like a lot of what the cultural set has done over in Jamaica to get Patois (patwah) recognized by mainsteam Jamaican and British societies as a legitimate nationalistic language.  I appreciate the long standing struggles of the Coptic Rastafari to propagate its' cultural heritage in the midst of Imperialistic influence, to uplift their society and raise the consciousness of Black people within a Western oriented society.  I understand the concept of majority and minority and the political process within the West.  Our development as Black people, is a minority issue for the West; therefore, our prominence will never come at the hands of mainstream America.  They are handling their own business and we must handle ours.

By numbers alone, Blacks need for empowerment is not America's major concern--not to mention the other reasons I have noted--for such apathy.  It's all good--there's nothing we can do about this but be determined to make our own help.  I've never believed in forcing others to be righteous or do the right thing, no more than I believe in making someone love me when they don't.   We (meaning our ancestors and current day people) have traditionally devoted too much time trying to change the minds of mainstream American society, while receiving minimum results for those herculean efforts.  We are shaming America into better relationship with us, but it is not coming from her heart--they just don't want to look bad in the eyes of the world.

I am not discouraging their efforts--I just don't believe in this avenue because it is not genuine.  Liberals take our freedom as an option they support but to be genuine--as with Patrick Henry--there can be no two ways about it:  This should not even be a debate if your people know it's unjust and they are just.  The way I see it, if you want things to change, you have to start with yourself first.  In other words, if we want help for ourselves as a people, we have to supply it.  Depending on others to change makes you dependant upon others.  I don't believe in Welfare or Public Assistance.  It is a humiliating experience.  Social Services has a way of putting its clients down--like the funds are personally coming out of their pockets or looking down on people because they are in need:  Doing for yourself makes you confident and capable, restores your pride, and makes one stronger with each success.  I am writing these treatises to my own people, addressing the issues that are phenotypical to our struggles--attempting to help us perform cartharsis, conscious-raising, and healing.  In order to do so, we must deal with the past parts of our chronicle--because most of our difficulties are easier to figure out when they are in their infancy.  Unfortunately, it involves White society and their past deeds concerning our people, their attitudes towards our people, and the miseducation and "hoodwinking"of our kind for the purpose of generating wealth.

Now, I know every White person was not involved; but just like there was Nazism, Apartheid--there is addiction and slavery: the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, Radical Reconstruction, the Klu Klux Klan,the Jim Crow Laws, the Pig Laws, the Vagrancy Statues in the U.S., Black Code Laws, and the subsequent Convict Leasing of Black  "Prisoners" in the South (a legal loophole--extending of slavery through a clause in the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution for falsely accused Black people) and this most drastically changed us as a people--and this is the very same area we must revisit, if we are ever going to heal ourselves.  The addiction is that American Whites feel they must be served by somebody--a menial under-class. 

As I said earlier, this has less to do with wanting to expose evilness in American society and more to do with understanding mental slavery, control, manipulation and freedom.  We lost our culture through this process--and we are striving to recapture it--therefore I leave information "threads" for those serious about putting lives back together.I am writing for my people, I am less concern about convincing anyone else that I am telling the truth, any more than I am interested in struggling or playing by the rules laid down by my oppressors.  Since I am in America, I must respect its laws and rules, but I am not trying to just fit in--especially since that would place me under the scrutiny and judgment of those who are controlling, and really sad and hollow within.  I want the loot, but not their lifestyle.  I want for my people to live our lives like we were intended--not how somebody else believes we should.  I like end zone celebrations and I think that if a Black Quarterback is going to get blamed for loosing the game, he should be able to override the play and adjust or audible based on observed developments.  But like other parts of society--its "do what I say if you want to keep working for me."

30) It is better to view things from the scientific perspective rather than religious or nationalistic/political point of view.  You can waste a lot of time, romanticizing about the past--being nostalgic, wishing things were different--complaining about things to deaf ears, but none of this will do.  Wishing, hoping, and praying is--and does nothing without the resolve to do so.  Even the Good Book (Bible) quotes God as saying, "If you make one step, I'll make two.". So according to this, doing the right thing equals real progress on a large cosmic scale.  "Right" for a scientist is following what one knows--basing ones conduct on facts, proof, principles and documentation.  That's why I supply sources, so my readers can conduct additional research.  By having the truth about things, you can navigate around things, knowing that the course you are choosing is based upon things such as they are, not what you wish them to be. 

31)  Once we have established that into our psyches, we can then be able to look at what's happening to Black people around the globe with a concerned outlook and a scientific perspective.  This will allow us to prepare for what's in front of us, as well as handle things in a consolidated manner.  This will allow us to predict things in an intelligent and informed manner and "steer clear of the "icebergs.  "Oft-times, I hear the public exclaim, "Why me?" "What For?" "What if?"

That is emotional banter and nervous tongue wagging, not preparations to deal with things as such. "Suchness" is seeing things not for how they were, or how things could be--but how" they are right now: Deal with what's in front of you.  Handle your 'bis-ness,' don't let your business handle you.  The greatest thing about knowledge and science is the ability to predict to form strategy: i.e., given the way things are going, they should end up here.  Deal with the situations as they crop-up,  don't wait until the situation is up on you.   Learn to handle things when they happen. Don't put it off.  Now!  Tomorrow, you may not have the energy, or the situation may be out of hand.

32)  Certainly, if we look at ourselves as Black first, then the country or religion we are in as a secondary issue, our perception on the human condition of Blacks around the world would be a lot more of a concern for us, because we would be looking ourselves as a people with family love.  As we watched current events, we would consider of how those things will impact on us: Seizing the opportunity to improve as a people.  The difficulty is that far too much, "we don't put ourselves in another person's place," but behavior like this can change things.

33)  By following these patterns, our means of investigating various cultural aspects would be more concise and practical: We would find ourselves examining a culture from an anthropomorphic, archaeological and anthropological point of view as opposed to a religious and indigenous or nationalistic perception.  In Nigeria, amongst the Yoruba, our people have a custom--should coins fall to the floor from your pocket, it becomes property of the children or the forces which protect your threshold.  This is wise tradition.  It is a rite and part of a ritualistic tradition--it is what they subscribe to.  They subscribe to the idea that all came from one force, Oludumare, so when they fish, the village gather huge nets and boats--comb the sea with this net and bring to shore, enough food for the village.  This too is customary, a tradition, a ritual and is a wise way.  However, the creator of all from the essence of one entity, cannot be separate from all it created--then be considered (wholly) holy; for holy is something that cannot be mixed, tampered or diluted with in any form.  This is inconceivable, in comprehensible, and not understandable (that God is not within)--yet some will believe it.
 
The belief in something you cannot possible know or understand--is by definition "superstition."  Yet you find many who subscribe to this, when despite assistance of family, companions, libraries, schools and other institutions of learning and deeds done through the love for our people--a person can claim themselves "self-made" and do only for themselves singularly.  Did they not come through the womb, or "womb of space" (which is time) and is dependent on sustenance?  Yet this is what they believe:  It is ritualistic, religiously conducted, based upon feelings, superstitious and foolish; because what is beloved is not based on knowledge, unscientific and therefore impractical.

34)  One of the things I enjoyed about reading Malcolm X's (Malik El Hajj Shabazz) books-- like "By Any Means Necessary" and "The Autobiography of Malcolm X"-- is regardless of his defining of his persons as a Muslim, his concerns expressed a love for all Black people wherever they are-- not just fellow Muslims.  These are the type of actions which supports godliness, and a firm confirmation that one is in harmony with that which created all.  Seems like this type of awareness amongst Blacks needs to be cultivated--and journalism along these lines will certainly help us get there with your cooperation.  We can either be on a rock with a fishing poll, trying to obtain a meal for one day, or develop deeper bonds with fellow tribe members, go out on the sea together and cast one huge net to eat for days.  The choice is yours.

Peace and Blessings.

  

C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers

Growing Up as A People Part I

Growing Up As A People

Part One

A few articles ago, you learned about the political, organizational, aspects of culture on a personal level: that is, to watch the company you keep, and observe the agenda, policies, or codes those who are around you.  The purpose of this is  to form alliances, think-tanks and such, with those on whom you can trust, to aide in your ideas, expand your horizons and widen your possibilites.  After all, we are composites of various forms of ideas based upon our level of consciousness, who we are affiliated with, and the families lines through which our persons are derived from.  These ideologies (which have their origin in the Almighty) are birthed in families that are a continuations of particular trains of thoughts, so it should come as no surprise that each child is an agent for the cause.

Certainly, alliances are formed to achieve something greater.  This is just a reflection of imitating the role of the Almighty one in the world.  Marriages are formed between man and woman, and children populate societies.  Corporations are formed to advance ideologies, expressed by their mission statements--which takes on a life of itself and are bigger than the sum totals of its parts.  And in both cases, these unions are only successful if they are done from the heart.

And then, there are holy and unholy alliances.  In my last article, "The more things change, the more they remain the same," there was an alliance formed from the four Southern Republican presidential candidates: Newt Gingrich being the most outspoken and obnoxious (as well as the one with the most dirt under his fingernails), Ryan--who's political career took-off in a Southern state--the most liberal, and LDS--Utah-based religious candidate who might have lost the race because of his staunch religious and political views--Mitt Romney.  All seemed, by their campaign slogans, to be unearthing something America was thought to have buried a long time ago. 

[ A SIDE NOTE: I would have thought more than 44% of White women would've object to relinquishing so many rights concerning birth control and abortion; which would have been the case, in picking Romney for president.  I guess they were more interested in relinquishing leadership control to another type of people]

And of course, there's the woman, who after assessing that this man can be of use to her (financial and otherwise), selects a Black conscious man to marry--and afterwards, does nothing to support his cultural agenda! 

These are few of the unhelpful alliances you may find yourself in, and it feels like you're alone because you have to do everything!  You might as well be single; because a divided house cannot stand for too long.  There must be many common ways, in the ways both of you do things--otherwise the compatibility will only be based on intimacy.  And we all know, there's more to life than bed and board...  And arguments often makes sex lose all of its zing.

If you ever been in a relationship before--which went bad--then you know that its' no good loving somebody--when they don't love you back.  When you have mutual care for each other, then things are negotiable because you have mutual respect for each others needs and desires.  But when there's no love there (as demonstrated by the 72 and 56%) and you still want to be part of, you are only going to get hurt further because that person does not love you, care for you or respect you--and as quietly as it is kept--you don't love yourself either: Otherwise why would you waste time championing lost causes?  Let's start with loving ourselves first.  Caring for each other first.  Doing for each other first.  If you put more love in yourself, then there will be more love in you.  If you don't love yourself first, how will you know how to properly love anyone else?  Far too often, I've run into people who want more than they are willing to (or can) give--and that is because they are too needy and destitute of love.  And that makes them takers not givers--besides the ultimate true love is between you and the source where all comes from.  When you are hollow there, if you can't see it--that's a job for you and the Almighty; not between you and other forms of expression.  That relationship must be repaired first, before you can properly love anyone else. 

But we, as a people, have to stop pushing up on others who don't love us, then lying to ourselves--saying, "we are overcoming them with our capacity to love."  --Malik Al-Hajj Shabazz. [he phrased it best]

It was in the previous article, "The Cultural Framework (Within an Individual Context),"  that I cautioned my readers to always interview and update themselves, on the policies of the company they keep--for without it you may never know when to part company with folks; particularly after the relationship has gone sour.  But it is all about covalent bonds.

As with all relationships, alliances must be maintained: quid pro quo; something for something--a.k.a., this for that!  So often, people enter into alliances wanting more than they will or can give--concealing their heart (and inability)--using deceit and silence in order to steal their jewels they lust.  Today you have the power to take it, tomorrow you won't have the power to keep--what was gained through unworthy trust.  All bonds must be fed and maintained. Alliances must be renewed by acts of compassion--terms of endearment...  Esteem should be renewed by acts of confirmation.  Something for something.  Quid pro quo.

For some reason, some people believe they can make it on their own: no people, country, or flag--just pure opportunity and that's it.  First of all, if I'm offering an opportunity, it will be to ones whose proven loyal--or those countenance shows it can be loyal.  Singularity like the one mentioned above is flamboyant.  Singularity like that--leaves you open.  And sometimes, thoughts like that can get you killed.  Everybody needs people to depend on.  Man is a social creature and resources are limited.  On the street, if you hustle, singularity will certainly bring on bigger forces--which in the end brings your demise, like the confidence of an oppressor upon the oppressed.  You must have people you can trust.

In the first season of the HBO series, "Boss," the writers offered that Golf is the only sport, with singularity-displayed through the most outrageous looking outfits displayed by "individual" people.  "But sooner or later they become more austere in their taste.  They begin to understand the value of modesty, of group strength, of groups making collective decisions, of keeping your mouth shut and checking up the ranks.  Blacks are the exception." Dealers get crews, street wise guys "hold check" and get "daps" (recognition and respect), the Black conscious ones find diaspora.  These ideas concerning group, unification, and unity transform and take shape, according to the person, and level of development prescribed.

Yes, I subscribe to the concept that we all have a reason for living; a purpose--therefore there are things for you to do and to get to know.  Those things change as you learn more--like that incomprehensible book in your youth that's like child-play, now that you're older.  This understanding is based upon growth and development.

This election gave us a truth we could have otherwise never known for sure: Despite Obama's successes at rescuing the economy and the country for a continuing war-cost concerning "weapons of mass destruction, 72% of all White males and 56% of all White females in America do not want to see Obama in the White house.  The majority of Whites do not want to see Blacks in a rulership position.  I don't care how crafty you are, you could not have gotten such a definitive answer--than the "consensus" reached by way of the exit polls during the last presidential election.  And this is something we will have to live with: despite the numerous years, we are not seen in equal light.

How many of you have taken an oath of secrecy, knowing full well that if you read between the lines--you already knew--yet you continued to pledge alliance to uphold another's dominance over ones who look like you?  A man without his people; a king without country.  What did you think: you were smarter than all of your kind?  More expansive?  Special?  What about the rest of us and your seemingly contempt for us? 
I know you can say "I didn't know" and be speaking a "half-truth: for the clandestine never reveals what's behind the veil until you cross-over.  But what could they offer to you, to relinquish the rights of your people, into the hands of thine enemies (our oppressors)? War shows us that somethings are worth living for and some worth dying for: our way as we knew it, everything sacred, right down to our native tongue was lost.  That oath: a pledge of allegiance;  that is, to adhere to one and forsake another: like Nat Turner or Denmark Vessey's accomplices at the Sunday dinner--feasting, knowing it was their words which betrayed him.  Like Cypher to Neo--like Judas Iscariot--like a bullet in the gun of Robert Ford: the instrument of cultural demise.  Somethings are not worth having--at any cost.

We have an opportunity to be what we are--but it will take trust.  That 72% and 56% do not trust Obama, nor does every Black person.  Ironic that we are often not trusted by the White man, when we were the ones who were hookwinked and enslaved.  If a Black man opened up a business in a 50-50 mixed neighborhood, what percentage of Whites would you say would patronize or support him?  And if you think more that 20% would support him, would it be enough to keep him in business.  Now, I don't know about your circumstances but in my neighborhood that guy would go belly up if not for us.  So, unless he's sheisty, we should give him support.

Which brings me to another aspect:  My love of my life, had to buy tires.  Years ago,  a friend of her parents got a deal on some tires and he told us to have this guy install them.  Since then, Bumblebee turned me on to a book called, "Our Black Year, by Maggie Anderson," co-founder of the Empowerment Experiment.

Anyway, to make a long story short, Bumblebee said, "I need tires and I think I'm going to buy them from this Black owned tire business.  The first thought which came to my attention was "BJ's rotates my tires and balances my tires in their price!" And then, I realised it was my conditioning talking: conditioning (as Marley said) "under oppressor man affliction."  I  grew up in a previously Jewish neighborhood and I know for a fact that they would even spend substantially more, to keep money circulating within their communities.  As long as he is an honest businessman, he deserves our support--maybe even a few inconveniences to get us "on the road."

And when you say that, non-Blacks act like you are being racist.  No, Whites see nothing wrong with moving the best stores in your communities and expect us to come to your stores in your communities because you say putting it in Black areas will attract more theft...  Now, that's racist!  We are only striving to help our own survive--the same as you do when you move your White owned stores in your community.  Besides, spending in your community, takes tax money from my area, and hand-it-over to yours.

If we don't take care of ourselves, who will?

Peace and Love,  

C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers

And why should rely on others more than ourselves?
(tap on this and listen to the words in this song)

The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same

Keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again.  There has been an election and some monumental things have been said and done.  As I told you in my previous articles, when observing the politics of your allies and your adversaries, one must learn to read between the lines.  Well, this presidential election has given you several things to take note concerning.  In the nature of being scientific, one must be devoted to knowing, and in order to truly know--not only must you read between the lines, but you must learn to predict and project based upon known perspectives.  Here is your opportunity to now practice and hone your skills.  If you do your duty, practice your craft--and you will be rewarded with tremendous insight and eyesight:

  "When I say unto the wicked, thou shall surely die, and they giveth not warning--nor speaketh to the wicked to warn the wicked way; the same wicked man shall die of his own iniquity, but his blood will I acquire at thy own hand."  
                                                                                                        --Ezekiel 3:18 

 

"I am guilty.  I am guilty of every crime known to man, because I watched without protest."                                                 --Jean Claude T, The Bicentennial Poet

Heavy, eh?  Keep your eyes open. 

Things have gotten dangerous, but they are still in their infancy, making them easier to spot.  "If you can spot something in its' infancy--it will be easier to know the nature of that thing."  Plato said something like this, and I must say it is as good as gold--so let's go.  

Now I spoke to you, my people, in my treatise on "Political Organization" concerning the candidate's debate: I said these debates are a chance to find out where these candidates are coming from, and the townhouse meetings are the places where you can rapid fire the candidates with a barrage of questions.  This will give you the opportunity to hear candid answers and grant yourself with the ability to make an intelligent decision.  If you follow these footsteps, you shall see some ominous signs, but at least you will know why things are the way they are.  Are you ready?  Let's go!

First, let's focus on the Republican party's primary.  Here is the genesis of the situation we are now facing.  There were several candidates for the Republican party, each with various points of views between them:  Each saying things and coining phrases concerning President Obama that  sounded more like conversation between rednecks chasing some runaway slave or escaped convict, than sounding like challenges to take down the incumbent president's policies.

  Several times, the whole lot were expounding more on their personal feelings towards the president, than they were on the issues of his job performance and the problems facing the economy and the nation.  Many were spitting out slurs, verbs, and words that sound like our president did nothing during his four years in office and that he was personally responsible for the recession.  Never was he even implied as the one who brought us delicately out of the jaws of a recession and looming depression, or the president who's forces eliminated the Bin Laden threat, start sending the troops coming home from Afghanistan (a war started by the "Bush Jr." administration), or greatly reduced unemployment and medical insurance waste with his medical care program (not to mention more healthy eating alternatives for our American public).  
  

The Republican candidates during the Republican primary were Fred Karger, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Buddy Roemer, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Jr., Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.  Having that many candidates alone, seem to indicate that the Republican party is very divided on issues and direction.

  

Fred Karger, Illinois native, political consultant, brokerage firm owner, gay activist and part of the radical homosexual community, has never held public office but worked on nine presidential campaigns.  He was senior consultant for the campaigns of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford.  He is a gay rights activist, championing causes from protection of rights to investigating the LDS Church (The Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)--a Mormon religious organization.  Obviously, this placed Karger as "Anti-Romney" element--causing havoc for the Romney campaign.  He called candidate Michele Bachmann a liar, hypocrite, and bigot in connection with her husband using conversation therapy in his clinic to attempt to cure gays of homosexuality.  He withdrew in June 2012.

  Newt Gingrich, is a politician, author, and political  consultant, former U.S. House Speaker and member of  House of Representatives from Georgia.  Newt formed the Conservative Opportunity Society, a group which included young conservative House Republicans in 1983.  Ronald Reagan adopted COS ideas on economic growth, education, crime and social issues for his 1984 re-election campaign.  While he was House speaker, the House enacted welfare reform, passed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, passed the first balanced budget since 1969-- in 1998.   He is a former Lutheran who spent most of his life under Southern Baptist ideology before converting to Roman Catholicism in 2009.  It was Gingrich who was one of the loudest instigators against Obama, calling him "Obama Care/Welfare president."  The infamous "Gang of Seven," which is Gingrich and a host of others, railed against what they saw as ethical lapses  under  the Democratic control of the House for almost 40 years.  The House banking scandal and Congressional Post Office scandal were emblems of exposed corruption. Yet Ol' Newt himself was among the 450 members of the House engaged in check kiting.  Gingrich had overdrafts on 22 checks, including a $9,463 check to the IRS in 1990.  In 1990, GOPAC distributed a memo which included a cover letter signed by yours truly, called "A Key Mechanism of Control," encouraged Republicans to speak like Newt, containing lists of contrasting words--words with negative connotations such as "radical," "sick," and "traitors"--and optimistic positive governing words, such as "opportunity," "courage," and "principled," that Gingrich recommended for use describing Democrats and Republicans, respectively.  I guess we don't have to guess who assisted in most of the negative campaigning for the presidential elections. . .  Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as Speaker.  The ethics panel "finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda," i.e. claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes.   Instead, the House officially reprimanded Gingrich (in a vote of 395 in favor, 28 opposed) and "ordered Gingrich to reimburse the House for some of the costs of the investigation, in the amount of $300,000".   It was the first time a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation (the Republicans never found such things on Obama. . . a.k.a., people in glass houses. . .).  Additionally, the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.   When Newt relinquished the speakership, Gingrich said, "I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."  After then-front-runner Herman Cain was damaged by allegations of past sexual harassment, Gingrich gained support, and quickly became a contender in the race, especially after Cain suspended his campaign. By December 4, 2011, Gingrich was leading in the national polls.  The Newt 2012 campaign used a new slogan referring to Gingrich as "the last conservative standing." Despite this, on April 19, Gingrich told Republicans in New York that he would work to help Romney win the general election if Romney secured the nomination. Gingrich ended his campaign on May 2, 2012 and endorsed Mitt Romney.

Rick Santorum is a former Senator of Pennsylvania, who began a campaign for the 2012 Republican Party nomination for president of the United States in April 2011. He had been preparing for a run since shortly after the 2008 presidential
election.  Santorum was one of the non-Mormon candidates to directly take on the accusations of Mormonism being a cult.   At a debate, which took place in Orlando, Florida on September 22, 2011, a gay soldier deployed in Iraq asked the candidates if they would take measures to "circumvent" the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, if elected president. Santorum, answered the question, "Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military, the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.  The fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- and removing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I think tries to inject social policy into the military.  What we're doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. And that's tragic."  At another event, Santorum suggested that children would be better off having a father in prison than being raised by lesbian parents.  Although he was considered a "joke" candidate and panned as unelectable in some quarters, his solid consistency with his fellow pro-life Catholics kept him in the race.  Rick Santorum surged in the week before the Iowa caucuses, propelling him to a narrow victory over Mitt Romney in the first contest of the presidential primaries. Santorum's presidential hopes received another boost when he surprisingly swept all three votes held on February 7, 2012, in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.  Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10, 2012, following the hospitalization of his three year old daughter Isabella, as well as a strong showing by front runner Mitt Romney in recent primaries and polls.  He conceded the race to Romney later that day, though didn't fully endorse him until May 7.

 Buddy Roemer, Former governor of Louisiana, declared his candidacy on June 21, 2011.  On February 22, 2012 he announced he was withdrawing from the Republican race to pursue a place on a third-party ticket, specifically the Reform Party and Americans Elect nominations. Shortly after Americans Elect announced they would not be fielding a candidate. On May 31, 2012, Roemer announced that he was ending his campaign for the presidency in 2012.

Rick Perry  Governor of Texas, declared his candidacy on August 13, 2011.  Rick Perry said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should stop printing more money to stimulate the economy, saying it was "treasonous" and that he would be treated "pretty ugly down in Texas" for his actions.  He also criticized Barack Obama for not serving in the military, saying, "The president had the opportunity to serve his country.  I’m sure at some time he made the decision that isn’t what he wanted to do."  Perry criticized the Obama administration's announcement on December 6, 2011, that the United States would initiate the use of foreign aid for promoting homosexual rights across the world.  Perry spoke out against the measure, saying, "Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn't get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights.  After doing poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, he suspended his campaign on January 19, 2012.

Jon Huntsman, Jr., Former Governor of Utah and US Ambassador to China, declared his candidacy on June 21, 2011.   Huntsman sought to establish himself as an anti-negative candidate and take the "high road."  In his announcement, he also stated "I don't think you need to run down someone's reputation in order to run for the office of president." Huntsman touted himself as a fiscal conservative, with an economic plan which the Wall St. Journal labeled "impressive."  A foreign policy moderate, Huntsman called for a decrease in defense spending and withdrawal from Afghanistan, while increasing pressure on Iran and support for Israel.  Huntsman strongly supported civil unions for years but not same-sex marriage.  He described himself as "a conservative technocrat-optimist with moderate positions, who was willing to work substantively with President Barack Obama."  He has also named Taiwan, human rights, and Tibet among the "areas where we have differences with China" and vowed "robust engagement" on human rights. After coming in third in New Hampshire, he suspended his campaign on January 16, 2012

 

Michele Bachmann, U.S. Representative from Minnesota, declared her candidacy on June 27, 2011, in her hometown of Waterloo, Iowa.  In an interview with David Gregory on Meet the Press, when asked about submission, Bachmann responded that "submission means respect." Gregory joked "Congresswoman, I didn't even have to check with my wife, and I know those two things aren’t equal." to which Bachmann responded "in our household it does." The question has raised concerns of sexism, while Bachmann's deflection of the question has been criticized.  In a June 26, 2011, interview, Bob Schieffer summarized Bachmann's critics as saying she was "very fast and loose with the truth", and noted that only one of twenty-three Bachmann claims analyzed by PolitiFact.com was found to be completely true while seven statements were rated "pants on fire".  Despite winning the Iowa Ames straw poll, she received only 5% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses.  Bachmann announced the suspension of her campaign for president on January 4, 2012.

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas declared his candidacy on May 13, 2011.  Born in 1935, in Pittsburgh, Pa., Paul appeared in the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll. The Texas congressman has made his third run for the presidency, yet he continues to ride a small-but-steady continuing wave of financial and political support from a hard-core group of libertarians.  Ron is a physician, congressman, and an author.  He was a doctor in the U.S. Air Force and National Guard. He also opened his own practice and is believed to have delivered more than 4,000 babies.   Paul's politics are a mix of Republican and Libertarian views.  His unabashed straight talk – such as the suggestion that the United States invited the 9/11 terrorist attack with its foreign military actions – have won him supporters, as well as ardent critics. Paul is spreading his attention across the country with an unclear endgame; especially since he has announced he will leave Congress as the end of his term in January 2013.  SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS:  A career Republican, Paul jumped ship in 1988 to become the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. In many ways, he was a good fit for the party with his interest in lowering taxes and reducing the size of the federal government. But Paul did differ with the Libertarians over the abortion issue as the party supports personal liberty and opposes laws and other restrictions on the actions or lifestyles of individuals. He expressed his pro-life and anti-federal government views in 1983's Abortion and Liberty.  While he came in third, Paul received almost 500,000 votes in the general election.  With Mitt Romney's GOP presidential nomination all but decided, Ron Paul supporters took control of the Maine Republican Convention and elected a majority slate supporting the Texas congressman to the GOP national convention, party officials said. The results gave the Texas congressman a late state victory.  Paul won the poll, defeating Mitt Romney, who had won it the previous three years.  Although he wasn't named the 2012 Republican nominee, he has not officially ended his campaign, yet he has been elected as Romney's running mate. . . figure that.

Mitt Romney, born in Michigan on March 12, 1947, Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor George Romney. He founded the investment firm Bain Capital and later ran for the Massachusetts Senate in 1994, losing to incumbent
Ted Kennedy.  He was born as Willard Mitt Romney and raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, where he attended the prestigious Cranbrook School before receiving his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University in 1971. He attended Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, and received both a law degree and a Master of Business Administration degree in 1975.  Romney married Ann Davies in 1969; they have five sons, Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig. Mitt and Ann Romney are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church. Their openness about their faith has brought Mormonism into the national spotlight, creating unique media attention for the Romneys and other famous Mormons.  Romney took over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and helmed a successful 2002 Olympic Games. He became governor of Massachusetts in 2003 and made a run for the Republican nomination in the 2008 election, losing to candidate John McCain. Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, declared his candidacy on
June 2, 2011.  But he's on record championing some of the most extreme -- and more importantly, extremely unpopular -- tactics aimed at blocking women's access to basic reproductive health care, including abortion and birth control. Romney made a second run for the U.S. presidency in 2012, with U.S. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, but was ultimately defeated by President Barack Obama in a tight race.

So within the party, you have a gay activist who doesn't care for the LDS and declares "open-season" on Romney because he is a Mormon, and obviously some of Mormon views incensed the "alternative" community.  It also stands to reason that Karger does not like Santorum very much either, for "his gays in the military position," nor Perry because of his criticism of Obama and his gay/foreign policy view--not to mention Bachmann because of her husband's therapeutic treatment of gays.

Of equal importance, the Republican party is well-known for its conservative view--yet Karger, Huntsman, and Paul are so far Right.  This has got to be disorganizing for the republican party.  Herman Cain embarrassed himself out of the race, on allegations of sexual harassment, and Romney seems to say awkward and disgraceful things  like his comments on the women/ contraceptive-abortion issue.  Now if Romney can be this Left on this issue, how can he be documented as holding a 56% to 42% lead over President Obama, where White women are concerned?  We shall come back to this issue.

Since the Democrats has the incumbent, the media focus was on the Republican Presidential primary--putting undue attention on the sideshow issues of the party.  Anyone who does a background check on Newt Gingrich (as we did), would label him a liar and a thief, a  "people in glass houses" candidate--and yet he stood tall hurling borderline racial slurs at the President, creating lies concerning Obama, job-less-ness, and the economy.  We shall return to this issue as well.

Now, does it come as any surprise to you that four out of the nine candidates were

Southerners?  Not to me, when it comes to  a Black president.  That seems real

ultra-conservative-- especially for the Republican party  (conservative group on the

overall).  They don't want a Black man in charge.  This is an Imperialist society; just like most of the countries in Europe.  A male-dominated society, such as America, always concerns itself with money, power (male dominance) and respect--and a Black male president challenges that perspective (at least in their minds).  Not to mention that a 72% White male vote for Romney in the exit polls (and Newt's posturing to its' public), serves as a confirmation that most White males have a problem with it.  Obama only took three Southern states--Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada (election exit poll) respectively [unless you consider Mason/Dixon states like Maryland, or Washington, D.C.]. 

Does it come as any surprise that once each were eliminated from the race, each

Southern Republican Presidential candidate promised to deliver their state to the

endorsed Republican nominee, in order to make a decent challenge at
presidency.  Mitt Romney is said to have won the popular vote, but failed to deliver in electoral votes for president (the votes that really count).   Yet on CNN network, on the night of the concession, the polls show Obama leading the
popular polls with about 600,000 votes.  However, that would not surprise me because their are substantially more Whites across America than Black, Latino, and other ethnic groups combined--yet some of these numbers are deceiving.  We will get back to this issue towards the end.

The New York Times on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 reads: FOCUS IS ON

ECONOMY AS VOTERS CHOOSE; DEMOCRATS SEEN AS KEEPING THE SENATE:
Party Captures Massachusetts; Seizes Indiana.
[Massachusetts is Governor Romney's state]
In the main headline article by Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, I quote the
following: "Four years after Mr. Obama drew broad support across so many categories of voters, the national electorate appeared to have withdrawn to its more familiar demographic borders, according to polls conducted by Edison Research.  Mr. Obama's coalition included support from Blacks, Hispanics, women, those under 30, those in unions, gay men and lesbians and Jews, though his support among Jews appeared to have diminished some.
Mr. Romney's coalition included disproportionate support from whites, men, older people, high income voters, evangelicals, those from suburban and rural counties and those who call themselves adherents of the Tea Party--a group that
had resisted him through the primaries but fully embraced him by Election day."

CNN's "Situation Room," aired on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 from 4:00 pm

to 6:41 pm, claims that a major component in how these results came to be for

Obama, was the last minute shift in undecided and some decided votes

concerning the hurricane Sandy disaster that wreaked havoc along the eastern seaboards.  The Situation Room also claimed economics as another major factor, as well.  In other words, it was Obama's sense of humanity, manifested as a quick

response to providing aid to people in these areas that gained him support by even some of his sharpest critics like Governor Chris Christie, of the state of New Jersey.  It sounds more like the hurricane victims knew there could possibly be a lot

more "red tape" if leadership shifted hands--they were only protecting their own interests--especially since one president does not have to honor the agreement of another.

CNN's "America's Choice 2012" with Soledad O' Brien, aired on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 6:00 am, had Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee

Congresswoman and Mitt Romney Camp Surrogate, came on Soledad's show, to give explanation as to why after gathering 72% of the White males votes and 56% of White women vote in the exit polls, Romney still lost.  She had this to say:  "The president was helped by Hurricane Sandy and that kind of took the campaign and broke the campaign's momentum.  The Obama campaign has convinced people that jobs and the economy is getting better.  I have a disagreement with that as you probably could imagine.  Jobs and the economy was the number one issue, especially with women.  People want to get back to work and their camp convinced them that things are getting better. . ." 

Soledad retorted, "You don't mean to say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is spinning numbers to somehow favor the Democratic?  You're not saying that are you?"

Marsha said, "No, what I'm saying is people are looking for full time gainful employment, not two part-time jobs. . ." 

Right!  Where did she get these facts and statistics from?  The Bureau of Labor Statistics?  A poll that she personally conducted?  Did she go into the areas where employment is down and interview them?  Or is this just how she feels (as opposed to knowing)? 

The above situation is essentially the problem in a nutshell: Going on feelings and likes and dislikes, instead of what is really being done.  Let's look first at the 72% of White males who did vote for Romney instead of Obama: 

Would you say that they are voting with their hearts or with their heads?  If you said head, then are they rational and reasonable, or stubborn and unyielding regardless to the facts?  If they are using their minds and are reasonable, then observe the following:

Right now I am watching Erin Burnett "Out front"

                    on Wednesday November 14, 2012 at 11:00 pm                   

    The Topic is: DOW FALLS ON FISCAL CLIFF FEARS

    President Obama: "There are loopholes that can be closed and we should look

      at how we can make the process of deductions, the filing process easier, simpler.

But when it comes to the top two percent, what I am not going to do is to extend

         further a tax cut for folks who don't need it, which would cost close to a

         trillion dollars."  

        Host Erin Burnett:  "You saw it in the market: The market gets really worried 

           --forget whether you think they want tax increases or not--the reason the

           market plunges, everybody, is because they feel that the president is saying:

          "I'm not going to do this."  And on the other side, the Republicans are saying:

         "I'm not going to do that."  And that just means, No DEAL--and that's the worst

             outcome possible. Hogan Gidley is a Republican Strategist and Maria

                  Cardona is a Democratic Strategist.  Good to have both of you.

          Maria, let me start with that question: The reason that the market goes down

            so sharply on this isn't because of their personal view, it's because they are

             worried of going off this fiscal cliff could mean a pretty deep and sudden

                recession in this country and that is really bad for everybody and for

              corporate earnings.  So is the president hurting chances for a deal by

             saying, before they started even discussing it--"I'm not going to do this!"

     Maria: "No I don't think so, though I agree with you, the reason that the DOW

    plunges is because of this uncertainty.  But I think what the president is doing is

  laying out the marker that frankly shouldn't surprise anybody:  Let's remember,

           this is the one thing that he ran on: We can discuss during the campaign

            whether he had a lack of clarity on what he would do beyond this for the

            next four years. but this was one of the things that was crystal clear that

                he wanted to do. And he got elected.by the majority of people, in a

               statistic that just blew me away, Erin, and the exit polls show he won

                 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties across this country.  So apparently

                wealthy people also agree that they should be paying more.  So he's

               the one who has a little bit of leverage going in.  If Republicans have

              other ideas on how to get to where we need to go, if even Democrats

                 have other ideas there:  Which would mean to deal with this in a

               balanced way that would not hurt middle class families, which does

              not hurt seniors, that does not hurt the most vulnerable--I think he's

               willing to listen to that.  So I think that is where the comprise can lie."

Erin: "Do you agree with that, that Republicans are going to have to

give a little bit more?"  That the president did win the popular electoral

vote.  The margin of the popular vote was only 2% but he did win it."

    Hogan Gidley:  "Sure.  Elections have consequences.  This is the consequence 

       of the election.  He is the president of the United States and he ran on this.

         He said he was going to do it, although he didn't come through on any of

    the promises of 2008, this is one he is hell bent on trying to make sure it happens."

In all fairness, Hogan--after that off-kelter remark, starts to lay into the president about no spending cuts, alternative plans, etc., but he did not disagree that we are not currently in a recession.  And this is precisely my point!  Both Cardona and Gidley are party strategists--Gidley did start to get testy about other things--so it would be a tremendous over-site, to give the above underlined statement a pass, rather than dig into it if it was not true.  Also in all fairness, there was a recession when Obama was ushered in, based on a war in Afghanistan that the Republican former President Bush ushered in under the auspices of the so-called "weapons of mass destruction."  Combine this with Bureau of Labor Statistics statements concerning employment being up and you wonder, in a time when the villain of Bush (Bin Laden) has been captured and killed under the Obama watch and tell us why 72% of White males would legitimately change "horses in mid-stream? 

The headline read economics, the Republicans talk about Hurricane Sandy helping Obama win the re-election--but other than tongue-wagging, Romney offered no comprehensive plan for helping the middle-class, working class or poor.  He posted no web-sites concerning his plan  during his election for people to get enough information about his plan or his position on things--yet 72% of White males were willing to follow him.  Why?  Romney planned to dismantle Obama care, cut social programs, which he called "over-budget spending," which would cripple the middle-class, working class, and poor who depend on such things when the economy is not good (which it is right now) and their money doesn't go as far as it used to.

   

Now I told you; you have to learn to read between the lines, so let's do some:
Now go up to the maps on the top of the page:  The states Romney won in, symbolically look very much like the maps of the slavery states (Obama is the product of a free White woman and a "African" from Central Asia, which means his ancestry does not trace back to slavery--yet the message is clear).  See the Runaway Slave poster?  Good!

Now when the South succeeded from the North there were two presidents and two houses: President Obama has the House of Congress and the "ghost" Southern
president controls the current day House of Representatives.  Each side army had its' own generals.  Look at the news today: Isn't today's gossip about generals in scandals?

Who was the most famous Southern military Strategist?  General Robert E. Lee, wasn't it?  And the hog is another name for a pig, correct?  In the 60's, the pig was the symbol of "the real authority"--"Thee Man," so to speak, eh? Not to mention that Gid is a disease that appears in herbivors like sheep (people are like sheep/ "bringing in the sheep").   Make no mistake about it:  Do not take the words of the Southern-- I mean, Republican "Strategist," Hog-an Gid-Ley (Lee), as humble-pie--far from it.  His reference to 2008, is saying, "Yeah, you won in 2008 too, but we blocked most of your policies by House of Representative veto power, and he implied, we will slow up your bills passing, this year too--you don't control us, we regulate you (pig=enforcer, the authority)--we have the authority!

As I said previously, with men--its all about power, money and respect in the Western world.  A Western-oriented male would rather buy-off his woman, than to give her real power.  Would rather cut off his arm, than to let a Blackman run the government.   And in the not so distant past in this country, the ruling class White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, shared his throne with no-one.   Make no mistake about it, Michael Vick goes by the play-calling of Andy Reid. He doesn't have the authority of a Peyton Manning--to audible and change plays--despite what the offensive coordinator puts in play. . .  to oversee the overseer--so to speak.  But this is not U.S. National League Football: this is for the highest position of the United States; the presidency.  Veto power is somewhat for 'homeostasis' in Congress.  It is a check and balance mechanism--not something to throw a wrench into the works, then exclaim--"it's not working."  Veto power was to keep any one part of government from gaining too much control--not to make it damn near impossible to run the country--due to ethnicity, party fashions, or some other divisiveness, while the country gently heads towards a depression!

Unless the business is owned by a Blackman, I personally have never seen a Blackman in control of a multi-racial business, where he did not have to report to another who is White.  I'm not saying it does not exist, but I am saying--there isn't much of it.  There is a feeling of general distrust, I get from most White men that are my age, towards Blackmen running things.  It is a sort of a fear that we will one day take over and destroy them--I know it is irrational, but if we could hypnotize them and get them to put away the politically correct rhetoric--this fear would be on a majority of their minds.  The kind that would make 72% "pull the trigger" in the election polls.

Blacks are mainly the descendants of agriculturally-rooted people.  We have rose up against injustices in this country on a few occasions, but most of us push to be accepted into their society (which I feel does not get us the respect and equality we desire because that puts them in the scrutinizing position).  We, as a people, do not demonstrate that way--accept against our own.  Look at all the nations within Central Asia that have won their independence--even South Africa--after the smoke clears, Whites still remain.  I guess it reflects what they would do if the tables were turned.  But White men generally act as though we cannot manage ourselves, much less the country of the United States. 

When I pass White men in the work place and they say that Obama did not keep his campaign promises, they are very vague on enumerating them.  It seems to be a general dislike that they are covering up as something else.  When I mention the capture and execution of Bin Laden, after the Bush Administration wasted so-much time and money, not to mention a whole term chasing him--they down-play that.  When they mention the deficit and I mention it was balanced under Bill Clinton--the Republicans recreated the deficit under "Bush Jr."  they deny those facts as well.  When they talk about the bad economics and I mention the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the upswing of employment, they deny this as well.  I guess if they would stop and just tell the truth, many Whites would have to admit that they don't trust us, even though they were the ones who enslaved us and generally treat us like second class citizens!  Go figure.  But keep in mind, there's 72% of the White male population, not happy with this same Black man in the highest office in America--and that can't foster rational thinking--but it can facilitate foolishness. 

Now about the 56% of White women who voted for Romney: Is it that many White women who hold Romney's view on women, abortion and birth control--or is it that they just don't know his views--or is it that they dislike Obama (and his kind) being in control of the Presidency just that much more?  I also find it ironic that there's this figure, because the general view is women love Obama.  I guess, for the first time they mean mainly other than White women--which came in on the exit polls as 55%. 

Romney's views are as follows:  "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda.   We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children." Plain English translation: they support criminalizing abortion. " But he's on record championing some of the most extreme -- and more importantly, extremely unpopular -- tactics aimed at blocking women's access to basic reproductive health care, including abortion and birth control.  Romney has said again and again that he would end funding for family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood that provide abortion services as part of a broader range of women's health care.   

NUMBERS CAN BE DECEIVING

Percentages in exit polls do not explain ratios, nor concentrations or voter turn out, according to ethnicity.  It can be quite possible, that rather than change party affiliations, a number of people from a specific ethnic group simply skip a person on the party ticket and vote only for the candidates whom they agree with politically.  It does not explain ratios.  For example, 72% of the White male vote is much less than 56% of the White female vote because women outnumber men in this country on average of four to one.  Which means 100 men : 400 women; or 72% of 100=72; 56% of 400= 224: therefore 72% of White men (72) is smaller than 56% of White women (224) by a margin of 3.11 women to every 1 man. 

 Also the population of White men who voted for Romney was 72% percent across the United States.  This does not account for density though.  Whites are not equally distributed in every state;  in New Mexico for example, there may be more Mexicans than Whites in most of the districts, or more Jews and Latinos in most of the districts in Florida than Whites.  So if only two-thirds of the White population show up and vote for two different candidates, it will not match the whole Latino and Jewish community voting for one candidate because the White population would have split itself into one-sixth of their population for two of three candidates, whereas the Jewish and Latino community would equal a greater percentage because the whole of both populations combined would have voted for one candidate. 

That's what happened in Florida.  Something like that occurred in Nevada and New Mexico with the Chicanos because Obama took all three Southern states-due to density and voter turn out.  So the question is 72% of how many White people showed up to vote for Obama versus how much of the population of the minorities showed up and what percentage did they vote for Obama.  Percentages alone does not paint the picture in total numbers.  That's why voter turn out amounts is more important than the percentages of who voted for who.

I watched these debates and saw that Romney did not have a comprehensive plan and said Newt-like things which offended women, the working class, the middle class and the poor.  He championed the rich and wanted to cut programs to balance the budget.  I cannot believe that 72% of White men and 56% of White women could not know these things and were voting in the dark.  I also cannot believe  72% of White men and 56% of White women are not within the lower income brackets like the poor, working class, and middle class families.  Romney lost the state he governs to Obama.  That should tell all voters something, because that's like your family, they know how it is to live under Romney's tutelage.

President Obama spoke to the American Public during the First Presidential Debate: "Four years ago we went through the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.  Millions of jobs were lost.  The auto industry was on the brink of collapse.  The financial system had frozen up.  And because of the resilience and determination of the American people, we have begun to fight our way back. Over the last 30 months, we have seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created.  The auto industry came roaring back and housing has begun to rise But we all know we got a lot of work to do."

It's easy to do Monday morning quarterbacking.  You look at what another did and then say what you would have done.  Hind-sight is always 20/20.  And if you are negative or running for office you leave out the good things to say about your opponent and what actually worked.  What you have above us, in the top paragraph, is what the outcome was after four years with Obama.  It is not perfect, but it was improvement, and that's why he was voted back in.  What you saw during the hurricane disaster, is a president who responded immediately to come to the aid of the people, not the one who waited and aided the upper Mississippi victims first--not the hard hit areas.  Bush used the levy money to fund his weapons of mass destruction campaign, raising the national deficit right back up after the Clinton administration balanced the budget.  In the first presidential debate, Romney blamed Obama for inflation, citing how inflation is crushing the middle-class--without ever referring to those who's joint income is under 250,000 a year (sign of a tycoon)!   How ridiculous!  That's like blaming your girlfriend for the rain and bad weather--because it started raining when she came up!  That's just nature at work, and you're being superstitious. He criticized Obama for having government funded training programs for the working class, not just middle-class and his solution was to increase trade, put the money in the workers hand and let him pay for his own education--at a time when the people need government programs.  In typical Rich Republican fashion, he leaves the people to fin for themselves--talking in the flowery terms of "If I were president."  Romney has been rich so long, he is out of touch with the common man and the need for assistance in hard time.  Mitt even said during the first debate, that the "high income people will do fine whether you are the president or I am."  But it's the working class who is struggling.  Mitt Romney, the truth is, those promises are all talk--"you haven't done nothin yet" and--nine times out of ten, it's just candidate pipe dreams anyway. . .  never to be fulfilled. 

My bottom line is, if  72% of White men and 56% of White women looked at the same things I made available to my people, then they still decided to vote for Romney, ignoring all these facts--and that's frightening.  Seventy two percent out of a hundred White males do not believe that a Black president should lead them.  This is something that confirms something you will never get that many White men to openly admit.  They will say all the right things and deny the obvious--but the fact is, this many White men said we don't want you to lead us and they did not get what they wanted.   They will not take this lying down.  These are not the type of people who cooperate with the man whom they tried so hard to remove, after they failed--nor will they feel all that friendly towards the stock of people whom the victor belongs.  Maybe these people have a issue of getting around color--it certainly looks like that.  Seventy two percent of White men and Fifty Six percent of White women?  Where's the love?  I mean you are not in a recession.  .  .  I mean 56% percent White women didn't spoil entirely because the exit poll totals for all women was 55% -44% in favor of Obama; but 72% White men made the total men percentage 52%-45% in favor of Romney.  That could have been devastating, had it not been for other factors like urban area--where density of population is highest (62%-36% in favor of Obama).  Or rural areas, where there is more land and less people, so depending on the amount of major cities, their density numbers may not count to win the state (rural 59%-36% Romney; 50%-48% Romney; urban top density 62%-36% Obama).  

Nor do I believe this 72% of White men and 56% of White women to be people acting out of rational thought and will express anger and violence over the oncoming months and years.  Bad economic times brings out the worst in people.  Be careful.  These people can be "closet racists"  but the exit poll paints a very ominous but factual picture.  This could prove very interesting . . .  Be careful and don't put to much trust in hidden public opinion, look how they voted.     

 

Peace and Blessings,

C. Be'eerla Hai-roi Myers