Infestors – Predators

T-man said immigrants are infesting the U.S.A. http://time.com/5316087/donald-trump-immigration-infest/

Infest? So, this predator does not see how his forefathers ‘infested’ these lands over 400 years ago. Definitely, the pot calling the kettle black. European pirates, criminals, and murderers were the REAL INFESTORS! However, they cannot see themselves as that. But ask the indigenous peoples of North, Central, and South America, The Europredators also invaded India, Polynesia, Hawaii, South Africa, and Australia. The indigenous people were treated like animals by Europeans colonialists who STOLE not only artifacts, resources like gold, silver, uranium, diamonds, and PEOPLE! They will be reckoned with by the Universe and their false religions and prophets will NOT be able to help or save them from the karma they have created.

After the Fall

Well, Winter is officially here and the FALL is over. What does that mean?

The FALL election set in motion the FALL of the American Corporation and the FALL of the White Supremacist Male. This dismantling is not obvious to most people. However, be an unconcerned observer and you will see the system FALL apart.

On this blog post, you will find responses to posts throughout the Internet that speak to this FALL.

  1. Queen Bonita Henderson in response to this video: [http://youtu.be/AiNazO8HVjM]
    President Obama was never elected, he was selected like all members of the Evilopean Recessive Racist Supremacy System. Evilopeans are not of any particular race or ethnicity, they are people who are selected to play a part in the System. The people of this society are under the delusion that they have some control in the society, but it’s not true. This society was born to be an experiment to see how far they can push humans before they become savages. The Evilopean Recessive Racist Supremacy System control every aspect of society as Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing taught us. We are not members of the System as George Carlin said on numerous comedic rants.
    Make no mistake, Trump and Clinton are playing an in your face game with the people having no intentions of doing anything they say. Trump is playing the Buffoon who can get people to show their many flaws and Clinton is playing the Criminal that escapes prosecution who pulls the ignorant sheeple behind her narrative. They are playing out a life no one in this society will ever live but they wish they could. Society is so dumbed down they don’t know the difference. They are the two wings of the same bird leading society down a dark road of deception with their consent.
    However, the world is watching because it’s a dangerous game in which this society can’t conceive. This is hope against hope in a hopeless situation. Unless the people of this society wake the hell up, there will be a world war, not a revolution, There are some behind the scene events happening to curtail this from happening but the Evilopean Recessive Racist Supremacy System would rather destroy the planet than give up its control. America is a very dangerous place but society is being entertained so they will not have any idea about these perilous times.

To Vote or Not to Vote?

The Candidates
hillarydonald-trumpjillstein
Hillary Clinton (D)              Donald Trump (R)               Jill Stein (G)
On October 20, 2016, a colleague’s column declared the following statement:

BLACKS MUST VOTE AND DO FOR SELF!

By AL CALLOWAY

al-calloway

[Source]

For me, it is still bothersome that during Obama’s entire 2007-08 candidacy for President, there were few public occasions in which he did not exhort the American people to take control of our vaunted democratic processes. Over and over, Obama said, “organization is from the bottom up not the top down,” and “yes we can.”

The Brother laid a simple revolutionary concept out there that could change America, and the ultra shame of it is that, of all people, African Americans slept on it. People came as a hoard to Obama’s January 2009 inauguration. It was freezing. The millions praised him and celebrated, many cried as the event’s enormity hit home. And after the festivities, most people went home and did nothing.

Obama’s 2007-08 clarity was phenomenal. What kind of power would we now have, had we organized our neighborhoods, forged coalitions and mobilized? “Organization is from the bottom up not the top down,” and “yes we can.” In 2011, young white professionals, intellectuals and college students organized the Occupy Wall Street movement to “protest corporate influence on democracy.” The protests also called for legal action against those that brought about the 2008-09 economic crisis.

It is up to the American people to make democracy work. We must hurry before a great internal armed force is established throughout the nation with an appendage Gestapo-like secret police. The now Donald Trump led American right wing, like a fleet of submarines, has surfaced all over America. What some thought was mainly a deep southern socio-political will now see that it permeates all of America, save for its inner cities.

Somehow African Americans have in mind that if they vote there is nothing else to be done. So they waited for Moses (Obama) to take them to the “Promised Land.” Somehow the prospect that Obama’s election presented an opportunity to pressure government through organization es- caped black people throughout America. Not one leader came to the fore from any sector of black America to galvanize the people.

If there was even a modicum of understanding that Obama needed black organized pressure on Congress, the Supreme Court and his administration to facilitate positive social change, black reluctance to do anything rendered the Democratic Party base useless. The American white nationalist right used the opening to viciously attack Obama, take Congress and the Supreme Court.

We’re almost eight years later with Hillary Clinton dependent on the black vote to be elected President and, again, there is no black organization, no black policy initiatives known, and no known agreed upon deal. There is only a consistent appeal from Hillary for the black vote. By now the Clinton camp and just about everybody else outside of Trump world are certain that Hillary R. Clinton will be the next POTUS.

While it is imperative that all eligible voters of African descent cast their votes on Tuesday, November 8th, it is equally important that the same mistake of failing to organize for group self-interest never be repeated going forward after the election. Black people must pressure the next President within the first 100 days to put all black issues high on the policy agendas with sound assurances of implementation.

Do not, I repeat, do not use the regular channels of communicating with the President, that is through the Negro leadership. These people have been negotiating for African Americans since slavery. How do you like the job they’ve done so far? These people have bravely positioned themselves to negotiate for you and I without our permission because we have allowed them to get away with “pimping” us.

Instead, let’s organize using social media and groups like Black Lives Matter. Make preachers open churches and hold community issues forums and post findings. Utilize the black press and black orientated radio, especially during drive time to share information and send political messages to the White House and to black elected officials. Black people need to start organizing. Black people need to vote and do for self. Hillary won’t give you a thing unless you make her give it.

__________________

Then, I watched this video that left me numb:

I emailed the video to some friends with this message:

In reference to newspaper column linked [above], what about these allegations, Al?

__________________

One friend responded, thus:

Time doesn’t allow me to see this full documentary (or any of those interesting ones linked to it), but I am familiar with the story (or at least with some of what all has come out in the past), and I think your subject line says it all.  We could not agree more.
twoness
This is yet another manifestation of that famous “twoness” that Dr. W.E.B. DuBois talked about over 100 years ago.  As Africans in America — members of the “Global Elite of Descendants of Survivors of the Middle Passage,” the ones whom “History has forced, obligated, challenged, and blessed to be Truth Knowers, Truth keepers, and Truth tellers,” charged with the responsibility of “keeping it real,” we see through the game and can be downright cynical about it all, but we are also those who, for the same reasons, had to be brought here “because the African presence and the African genius were absolutely required to be her to keep this from being a disaster that would have been beyond human imagination,” as an Afro-Cuban Yoruba priest once stated, and we have to be engaged in the global Village, where every human being is important and even (or especially) “When the fool speaks, the wise person listens.”  We do not write off politicians as irrelevant or beneath the rest of us.  We judge deeds, not doers.
So, as in the case of our current POTUS, love him as we might, we knew from the outset that he was the darling of Wall Street banking types who rather openly groomed him for the role, which has limited power in any case because governments have been supplanted by private multinational corporations and the global banking cartel as the primary arbiters of human destiny.  That said, who will deny that Barack Obama has brought a level of intelligence, consciousness, grace and elegance to the office that has never been there before, and who does not give thanks for all that he WAS able to accomplish in spite of the ignorance, outright hatred, and blind opposition he had to contend with?  Can any of us imagine the direction the country would have taken if either of his opponents had won?  All of this goes into answering the question that Mumia Abu-Jamal posed in a rare interview from prison: At the end of eight years of having an African-American present, what will we [people in general, but African Americans in particular, as I interpret the question] have to shoe for it?”  From day one, we had to “have his back and hold his feet to the fire” at the same time, as I have always seen it, and maybe the REAL question is, “After eight years, how good a job have WE done with that assignment?”  (Mr. Obama, we will recall, was quite honest about this: Only weeks after being elected as the candidate of “Change We Can Believe In,” in those heady President-Elect Days before actually wielding authority, he told the American people, “Change has to come TO Washington, not FROM Washington.)
So you and I seem to be in that same place, as “sober supporters” of the better candidates, not distracted by sensationalism or slogans, or tribal and gender politics, who look at these elections for what they are, knowing all the while, as your subject line says, that we have to be about the pro-active business of building the healthy alternative society.  The real reason we had to be brought here in the first place.  “The past is present.  The future is now.”
Thanks for sharing the knowledge,
G
___________________
I cannot take credit for the subject. That’s Al Calloway’s headline in the South Florida Times for his article – Subject: Blacks must vote and do for self!

My contribution was the link to the video about the Clintons and the body county that has followed them from the Arkansas governor’s office.
So, the issue, when examining the iniquities of the two candidates, is whether to vote for the Republican whose sexual iniquities objectify women and racial slurs offend African Americans, Mexicans, and immigrants (except, of course, his wife)
or
vote for the Democrat whose iniquities far surpass lying, cheating, and stealing but encompass murder.
I’m just about ready to vote for Trump.
_________________________
To which G responded:
As usual, we have to choose what we deem to be the lesser of the two evils, while knowing that we better be about the business of making something better (like being Maroons in our own time — uncomfortable and inconvenient in so many ways but free and independent of the “slimy degenerates,” as Dick Gregory used to call them [ and maybe still does]).  That choice has to be objective, informed, and scientific, rather than an emotional and hopeful gamble.
The Clintons and their track record have been a source of some fascination to me for some time.  As horrific as it looks and sounds (if this is all actually verified), it has always struck me, when I am reminded of the” body count” and other questionable dealings, as something that is more American than unusual.  That may sound glib, but I keep getting the impression that these relative rubes from Arkansas have just been less capable of covering up their trail than other families who are more practiced at the craft.  The Kennedys, the Bushes, the ones whose names we don’t even know because they stay in the shadows instead of jumping out into politics, all strike me as  being not very different from those ruthless clans that competed for thrones in the old monarchy days in Europe.
The other impression I get — bearing in mind that none of this is “scientific, objective, or informed” — is the first impression that struck me on the morning of 9/11/01, which was that these dastardly acts could not have been committed by the named assailants alone; they have to be part of a larger conspiracy in which provided lots and lots of help.
This, we are reminded, IS American culture:  A place run by and for genocidal murderers and enslavers for the sole purpose of their profit and power, whatever the cost to others.  Hillary and Donald are just the two faces of that culture that have been thrust into prominence these days, as a major distraction while others of their ilk pursue the same odious agenda behind the scenes.  We, of all people, know this even better than we might ever have wanted to.
So we have a “choice” between a pure creature of the system, totally tied to business-as-usual, with all of her connections with the usual suspects, and all her experiences in several official positions within the system, who promises basically more of the same, and a pure creature of the system, that has been rigged to his advantage from the time of his birth, that could fashion him into a candidate for the presidency out of mere  entertainment industry “realty-TV” (an oxymoron) hype and hoopla, whose track record promises that he will serve himself at whatever cost to the country.
Of the two, the woman, for better or for worse, shows herself to be innately smart, battle-tested, professional, with at least a modicum of knowledge of statecraft, along with all of the heavy baggage that she drags along with her.  The guy, on the other hand, has demonstrated no skill other than his ability to provide power and privilege for himself in a world where everything and everybody is just a tool to that end. The Clinton’s “body count” is scary indeed, and all the more so because it is out in the open (unlike so many others), while the ruin to which the Donald has brought so many people may not have produced as many identifiable corpses, but remains well hidden by the ordinary workings of a system rigged to protect the materially wealthy from such exposure.  (How many Americans even today know how many presidents were slaveholders or how many lives they held in bondage, and at what cost to how many more lives, and that is only counting the ones who went into politics and got elected?)
central-park-5

Central Park 5 in 1990

For me. Donald Trump showed his true colors when he took a full page newspaper ad (at a cost which he surely found a way to write off at taxpayers’ expense) indicting the Central Park Five basically before a real trial could be held, and then another to denounce any compensation given to them after they were exonerated years later, having some of the best years of their lives taken from them in prison.
centralpark5

Central Park 5 in 2016

It was bad enough then, but when he brought it up again only recently, claiming that those men “should have been executed” (damn the courts), it became clear that this is another kind of psychopath, who is perhaps more to be pitied and helped than scorned and demonized.
To the extent that whoever occupies the White House has any relevance to our lives at all, given the choice to be made at the polls, we have to weigh the evidence before us (knowing that there is a whole lot more that is before us that we do not even know about), and, like any dutiful jury, decide the verdict in this case against the American people for being so negligent that out of a population of nearly 320 million people (officially), these are the best two candidates we can come up with.
The elders have wisely taught us that “Everything happens for a reason.”  There are profound lessons to learn from this election (whatever the outcome).  The most profound of all may be the one we have always known, which is that we have work to do.
A luta continua,
G
__________________
Then, I visited a local bookstore owned by a friend of mine who suggested that Jill Stein of The Green Party might be the best candidate to vote for.
So, what is the choice? 
To vote or not to vote for the Democratic Woman, the Republican Elitist, or the Green Party Unknown?
But keep this in mind:
jill-stein-trumpsweapon
DJC

What’s the black strategy if Trump wins?

Columnist Al Calloway of the South Florida Times posed this question:

What’s the black strategy if Trump wins?

The largely Republican-right white nationalist Trump crowds roar approval when the Donald cites years of African American loyalty to the Democratic Party for which, he alleges, they have nothing to show for it. Trump indicts Hillary’s boast of 30 years in public service and exhorts African Americans to vote for him, stating, “you have nothing to lose.”

Here’s Calloway’s article: http://www.sfltimes.com/opinion/whats-the-black-strategy-if-trump-wins

Before even reading the article, I responded: RUN!!!

Then, S.E. Anderson responded to me with:

If Trump becomes president, there’s nowhere on Planet Earth to Run to!
The US already has a massive military presence on and around every continent. Its capitalist enterprises are entangled decisively in every nation on the planet- except for Cuba and North Korea… and they are working on both of them to submit. Trump would abandon the normalization process with Cuba and possibly demand the bombing of N Korea.
Inside the US, the deeply normalized white supremacy policies and practices will be “enhanced”. Emboldened alienated white working-class folk, the police and various white nationalist have been deputized by Trump to “Make America Great [WHITE] Again.”
The Black Strategy should be to continue the work of our Ancestors’ fight for TRUE Liberation and build a movement that is hellbent on destroys Capitalism and its racist appendages– no matter the odds. We need to, no, MUST, continue to be like Ancestor FreedomFighter William Monroe Trotter: “Let Your Motto Be Resistence!”
To Run is to submit. We never ran from enslavement: Our Ancestors Resisted in all kinds of ways. That’s why we’re here today to continue Fight for Black Liberation.
In Struggle,
Sam Anderson

To which I retorted:

Dear Sam,

Obviously, fright and flight is no joke. But running toward freedom is a viable strategy.

The Northern flight through the Underground RR was most definitely ‘running’.

Tubman’s quote still stands, “If they knew they were slaves, I could have saved thousands.”

We need a flight plan because, if Trump wins, even a railroad ticket won’t help us.

At ASALH this week, we chartered the South Florida Branch.

I had a nice, long talk with Patricia Hilliard, Asa’s daughter.  I became a lifetime member of the Association of Black Women Historians.  I struck up a conversation with George McDonald about:

  1. The number of people lynched in National Parks
  2. Homeless people living in National Parks

to determine if his $5 million budget could be used to get an ‘act of Congress’ to set up lodgings in National Parks for homeless citizens, many of whom are women with children and veterans.

Homeless and cold

Photo: http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/editorials-for-students/nycs-homeless-crisis

It’s ridiculous that there are 84.4 million acres in the National Parks system, while more than 500,000 people – a quarter of them children – have nowhere to live. It is ludicrous. It is criminal because there are still human beings that do not fit into the pattern of ‘civilization’ because they are, in fact, nomadic, which is how most tribes started out on this planet.

But the bureaucracy that set up the National Parks System that was lily-white, until The Petermans took the initiative to confront the NPS regime and published their first book Legacy on the Land to encourage African Americans to visit some of the 58 national parks in the U.S.A. despite their ingrained fear of forests where their forefathers, grandfathers, uncles, and brothers hung from trees.

What is it that we cannot get???

Running from the truth or running to the light?

Either way, either of the two candidates running will undoubtedly cause one or more groups in the country to RUN!!!

So, running will be the norm, whether it’s for Black people running from “Emboldened alienated white working-class folk, the police, and various white nationalists that will be deputized by Trump to ‘Make America Great [WHITE] Again,’ or those folks running from us.  Somebody gonna be runnin’!!!

And ‘Black Liberation’ cannot nor will ever be attained without WHITE LIBERATION from the idiotic ideology of white supremacy, a paradigm that is shifting in ever-deepening quicksand.  Their time is up. GAME OVER. WAKE UP melanated people, and push back!

Run, people, run toward the light, toward TRUTH, toward the land o’ make believe.

Run, until you reach the edge of the abyss that is human beings believing that to be civilized is to put a gate at the entrance of land that once was and should be put to good use by people living on sidewalks of the so-called ‘greatest show on Earth’ – Amerikkka!

Thanks,

Joan Cartwright

The Myth of White Ownership

Herein is a discussion with my good friend Dinizulu Gene Tinnie on the validity of the claims of Her Highness Divine: Empress Wendy Farica Washitaw (1927-2014), the late reigning empress of the Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Empire and leader of the Emperial Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Nation. SHE WAS THE LEGAL HEIR to the Maison Rouge land grant that was skillfully willed to her great-great-great-grandfather Henry Turner, son of the Marquis de Maison Rougethe child of French Nobility was rescued by Baron Philip de Bastrop at the beginning of the unrest culmination with the French Revolution.

washitaw-verdiacee2

Her Highness Divine: Empress Wendy Farica Washitaw

washitaw-land

Washitaw Land

 

Dear Gene,

Have you heard about this? Washitaw Nation Comes Under Investigation
Dear JC,
So, whatever happened to objective reporting?  (I have always had a kind of mixed respect for the SLPC, for its fine work on the on hand, but with what has always struck me as a self-aggrandizing motive.  They have established themselves as a recognized force identifying, monitoring,and exposing hate groups and actions.  It seems that the strength of their work, and the respect it has earned, has been rooted in their scientific, objective, and unbiased presentation of the data they have collected, or at least so it seemed from what encounters I have had with their work over the years.  The openly snide and lurid tone of this report is a definite departure from that perception.)  By American law, regardless of how much or how little respect for it that even the defendants caught up in its snares may have, still declares all defendants to be innocent until actually proven guilty “beyond the shadow of a doubt” in a court of law, and therefore need to be respected as such in public discourse (such as journalism), not least in order to protect potential jurors from allegations of having prejudicial views fueled by negative news reporting, like this.
That said, I only have the most casual and passing knowledge of the Washitaw nation, and have heard of the Empress and come across some of her pronouncements and political positions, only enough to know that she and her organization are linked to the Moorish Science Temple, founded by Noble Drew Ali, whole members have “-El” appended to their surnames.  (It, like the Nation if Islam, the Coptic Church, and other such organizations originated in the Garvey movement.)  I have had interesting conversations with some of the more doctrinaire members who actually contend that we (Africans/Moors) have been in these lands since before the continents separated, and who deny that the Middle Passage ever existed, as if millions of Black people, having been through what we have endured, could be duped by a hoax of such proportions, but I still consider myself as one who has more to learn than to question.)
I will share this with folks who definitely do have more knowledge of the Washitaw Nation (and other such organizations) who I am sure can shed some light on these proceedings.
I look forward to learning and sharing more of what I can find out.
Best all ways,
DGT
Gene,

I appreciate your observation of the slanted journalism here. The snide remarks of this reporter are in line with the malaise of so many white people who believe that all people of color of full of criminal tendencies, which, in fact, is mere projection in the Freudian sense of their own criminal minds that caused them to commit genocide all over this planet.
I spoke with an old friend Denise Wilson-El this week who spent lots of time with the Empress even traveling with her to the UN Conference on Indigenous Peoples in Geneva, Switzerland. She has fond memories of the Empress but regretted that documents proving the origin of the Muurs, here in this land were not copied and circulated before government renegades ramshacked the Empress’ home and destroyed the evidence.
The term “The devil never sleeps” certainly applies here. These white devils know the truth and are bent on our people never awakening to it. However, truth is the only constant and all is coming to light.
I will await the response of some of your colleagues.
Yours in the struggle
Mamayah El Molina Bey
aka Joan Cartwright
JC,

One of the folks I reached out to, wouldn’t you know, is Denise Wilson-El’s son, Guy Forchion, who is the executive director of the Virginia Key Beach Park Trust, asking him if his Mom might have some insights on this state of affairs as described in the article.  The other is Jeanette Stephens-El, aka Raining Deer, who, by the way, has a new book out called “On Eagles’ Wings: Prayers for the President” (whomever [s]he might be, going forward), and is looking for venues in which to present it in SoFla (or SoFlo in ASALH newspeak) before the election, so all ideas and insights are welcome. 

Thank you for reminding me about the UN Conference on Indigenous Peoples.  That is not where I last heard news of the Empress, but I believe she was at another event, possibly the webcast following the unveiling of “The Ark of Return” Permanent Memorial to the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade on the UN Headquarters Visitors Plaza last year.

As you know, one (of many!) of the disturbing phenomena in this land of (selective) opportunity, where the questionable bourgeois-driven concept of “ragged individualism” has taken root, is that “people without a place” (or who at least perceive themselves as being without a place on earth) find fertile ground here to take ownership, a la Columbus, of anything they think they can claim and control access to.  This is often land, of course, but also any necessary goods and services, which they make available at a price (which they set, of course), holding the needy hostage, and, of late, this tendency has spread to include “intellectual properties” (including such absurd madness as Monsanto claiming exclusive patents of GMO agricultural products with which they hope to replace the natural food supply), and even, to get to the point of where all this is leading, rightful and worthy political causes, particularly those which are not already “taken.”  Thus we find self-appointed authorities on “Indian Tribes” and their history, and even more ignobly, supposed non-profit “Foundations” trading quite profitably in “Indian Artifacts” that supposedly benefit the Tribes, but a reading of the fine print reveals that Indian Poverty is big business, and therefore needs to be kept going.

Such, it has long been my suspicion, is the Southern Law & Poverty Center, which focuses supposedly on much of the injustice that is visited upon the African American community and on identifying, cataloguing, and monitoring “hate groups,” but not without an agenda of carving out a market niche in the oppression business for themselves.  Moreover, in the spirit of non-hateful, non-pathological paranoia — by which generations of Ancestors wisely survived to give life to us and our progeny — it is not difficult to read into that organization, at least on the part of some elements within it, an agenda to use African Americans as a front for seeking out and identifying anti-Jewish, or anti-other-ethnic hate groups.

America was built from its foundations on “slick,” questionable, and outright criminal business practices (and we have a Constitution written to protect them), so, as you point out, there is much Freudian psychosis and collective guilt in the land, accounting for the ever-so-self righteous posturing of the most criminal minds in seeking to “root out crime.”  Specifically, as Malcolm X, as sharp and astute observer of the society which brought so much havoc to his own family as there ever was, once stated, “White people are artful at making the criminal look like the victim and the victim look like the criminal.”  I mean, we are in a country in which for most of its history, holding “slaves” — imprisoned forced laborers who could be violated and exploited at will and denied all human rights with impunity — was NOT considered a crime, whereas escaping from such pathological barbarity WAS a crime, punished in the most barbaric ways, as would be any act of being free and brave long after slavery had supposedly ended.

White supremacy equates equality with oppression.  What is the whole point of being white if all you are going to have is the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, if there are no exclusive neighborhoods, job opportunities, healthcare, etc.  The late brilliant South African author Jordan K. Ngubane (whose novel, modeled on the traditional Zulu umlando, or epic format, entitled “Ushaaba: The Hurtle to Blood River” is a most enlightened work) very incisively dissected the Apartheid system and its motivations, and the radical distinctions between White and Black concepts of law and value systems,  In the latter case, he wisely observed that for the invasive White settlers — people without a place — a thing had value because they possessed it ant other people did not.  It mattered not whether there was the intrinsic or natural value attached to whatever it was, only that exclusivity was established, usually by inflating the price and controlling the distribution of money. 

So how does such a society, particularly when slavery was being openly upheld and enforced as a legal institution, view something like Maroon communities, daring to survive without either being dependent on or giving profit to the parasite class?  Of course that class would see this as nothing less than a “threat to national security,” as would be any uncontrolled or uncontained Native American presence.  Should these Maroons go so far as to not only survive but to acquire some of the things (the parasites only live in a world of things – to have, to do, to be – which reduces everything to commodities) that are supposedly exclusively reserved for themselves, then insane mode is switched on, and literally anything goes, as we would see in Tulsa and Rosewood.

This is what I am reading in the snide sarcasm and cheap shots that this article about the Washitaw Nation by the SLPC has produced (in such stark contradiction to its prominent logo of balanced scales. Supposedly of justice).  The resentment is palpable, responsibility is cast to the wind, and the pretense of law becomes nothing more than a propaganda weapon against a group of people who have escaped outside control and ownership.

All of the above, of course, just forms Chapter 26,473 of the indictment against the invaders, which can barely keep up with the continuous production of evidence.  But that is all “their problem.”  Our issue is of another nature and importance.  We do not like to hear things like “No crime is ever committed without some participation on the part of the victim,” any more than we want to hear that in an auto accident where one driver is clearly at fault that the other had some degree of voluntary participation, perhaps by not being sufficiently observant and defensive, perhaps even by being in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.  That kind of stuff gets too abstract and philosophical and messes up our feelings of righteousness and lets our guilty-as-sin adversaries off the hook a bit, and we don’t need to hear that.

Yet, we, and especially those who comprise the Global Elite of Descendants of Middle Passage Survivors, like the Descendants of Trail of Tears and Genocide Survivors – those whom “History has forced, obligated, challenged, and blessed to be Truth knowers, Truth keepers, and Truth tellers,” are nobody and nothing if we are not a people who is committed to “keepin’ it real” even when everybody all around us is going nuts, and calling that a normal state, questioning our right to be alive.  We, who are formed of an intelligence honed and refined and polished and kept alive and vibrant over countless millennia of serious village palavers beneath the sacred iroko tree, during which self-determination was not even a word or a term because there was no alternative to it, we who have the responsibility to honor all those Ancestors and all those generations Yet Unborn who are alive within us, depending on our every action to make the world right for them, we may “Wear the Mask” and do much of what it takes to survive, but we have to be responsible and accountable.

We cannot, as we negotiate the delicate path from where we are to where we need to be through a yard full of rabid dogs, cannot relax our guard, cannot consider any one(s) of us to be disposable, cannot make silly compromises with demonic forces.  We have to be very astute and wise in what we, as Maroons, in hostile territory, with limited resources, do to maintain our freedom and sanity.

It is on THOSE standards that we have to weigh the actual decisions and actions taken by the leadership and the body of the Washitaw Nation.  We have inherited wisdom.  We have divination systems and proven ways to seek and receive Ancestral Guidance.  We have to evaluate the validity of strategies, the costs vs. the benefits, the reasons why we do the things we do, because we have always known to focus on the actions, not the persons (“Hate the deed, not the doer.”  “You don’t have to be a horrible person to do horrible things,” etc.) 

This is less about judging the allegations being made against the Washitaw Nation regarding past actions than about formulating a strategy for dealing with those allegations that serves our future – the future of ALL of us. For this reason, this case will bear close watching and a strong infusion of knowledge (light rather than heat) for us to fully be responsible players in the fate of our people going forward.

DGT

 

Massacres

Angels Of Light

Today, I am more appreciative of my own life, the lives of my children and their children. However, the pain of others is vast and I AM now sending Light and Love to all of those who live a life without joy. May their hearts be opened to peace and comfort.

Yesterday, a 20-year-old white boy in Newtown, Connecticut slaughtered 26 people, including 18 children and the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School, and himself.  Last night, I found it hard to fall asleep, thinking that my grandchild is the same age as some of those murdered. It all started, when Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza with her own guns.

My dilemma is that Wolf Blitzer on CNN said “This is the worst massacre in the history of America.”  Huh?  Does he have convenient amnesia?

I’m struggling with one thing. America was built by people who slaughtered thousands of Native Americans (with guns and gun powder that Marco Polo “discovered” in China). The Trail of Tears resulted in the death of 6,000 Cherokee out of 15,000 that were walked from Tennessee to Oklahoma. Now, the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 killed 168 people. Columbine massacre in 1999 killed 15 people. Four people dead in the Oregon mall shooting on December 13, 2012.

What do all of these events have in common? Young, white men considered to be “warm, loving?” by their family and neighbors???

Is there sleeper cell activity going on here?

The minds of society are NOT just now degenerating. This country was founded by degenerates whose blood flows down to this generation of murders with no consciousness.

Is this retribution for the sins of the fathers? Read this article.

Why this matters to me.

My great grandfather was Cherokee and, somehow, got the name Savage Logan.  My grandmother, H. Maude Logan left property in Asheville, NC, to my mother Charlotte Galloway.

The “Indian Problem”

White Americans, particularly those who lived on the western frontier, often feared and resented the Native Americans they encountered: To them, American Indians seemed to be an unfamiliar, alien people who occupied land that white settlers wanted (and believed they deserved). [Source]

The Trail of Tears

The Indian-removal process continued. In 1836, the federal government drove the Creeks from their land for the last time: 3,500 of the 15,000 Creeks who set out for Oklahoma did not survive the trip. [Source]

See this List of Massacres

Human beings kill each other at alarming rates over ethnicity, religion, land, money, competitiveness, power, fear, or a lover.  The question is, if we are higher than angels and the beasts of the Earth, why can’t we stop the killing?

I call on My Mighty I AM Presence, all the Ascended Masters, guardian angels, and any and all Lightworkers in and around the Earth to STOP THE KILLING, now!!!

Diva JC

Obama Endorsed

In 2008, when we elected Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency, I created this page to ask people “What does America mean to you?”  Although I received only a few responses, I continue to post this page with the trust that, eventually, people will answer this question.

I’m proud to say that my brother Carlton G. Cartwright, Founder and Executive Director of The Children’s Coalition, Inc. had the opportunity to videotape President Obama in West Palm Beach, FL

Be sure to see all of the videos – Parts 1-3.

Excerpt from The New Yorker’s Endorsement of President Obama:

In the realm of foreign policy, Obama came into office speaking the language of multilateralism and reconciliation—so much so that the Nobel Peace Prize committee, in an act as patronizing as it was premature, awarded him its laurels, in 2009. Obama was embarrassed by the award and recognized it for what it was: a rebuke to the Bush Administration. Still, the Norwegians were also getting at something more affirmative. Obama’s Cairo speech, that same year, tried to help heal some of the wounds not only of the Iraq War but, more generally, of Western colonialism in the Middle East. Speaking at Al Azhar University, Obama expressed regret that the West had used Muslim countries as pawns in the Cold War game of Risk. He spoke for the rights of women and against torture; he defended the legitimacy of the State of Israel while offering a straightforward assessment of the crucial issue of the Palestinians and their need for statehood, citing the “humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation.”

It was an edifying speech, but Obama was soon instructed in the limits of unilateral good will. Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hu Jintao, and other autocrats hardened his spirit. Still, he proved a sophisticated and reliable diplomat and an effective Commander-in-Chief. He kept his promise to withdraw American troops from Iraq. He forbade torture. And he waged a far more forceful campaign against Al Qaeda than Bush had—a campaign that included the killing of Osama bin Laden. He negotiated—and won Senate approval of—a crucial strategic-arms deal with the Russians, slashing warheads and launchers on both sides and increasing the transparency of mutual inspections. In Afghanistan, he has set a reasonable course in an impossible situation.

[In contrast,] Mitt Romney has embraced the values and the priorities of a Republican Party that has grown increasingly reactionary and rigid in its social vision. It is a party dominated by those who despise government and see no value in public efforts aimed at ameliorating the immense and rapidly increasing inequalities in American society. A visitor to the F.D.R. Memorial, in Washington, is confronted by these words from Roosevelt’s second Inaugural Address, etched in stone: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide for those who have too little.” Romney and the leaders of the contemporary G.O.P. would consider this a call to class warfare. Their effort to disenfranchise poor, black, Hispanic, and student voters in many states deepens the impression that Romney’s remarks about the “forty-seven per cent” were a matter not of “inelegant” expression, as he later protested, but of genuine conviction.

If the keynote of Obama’s Administration has been public investment—whether in infrastructure, education, or health—the keynote of Romney’s candidacy has been private equity, a realm in which efficiency and profitability are the supreme values. As a business model, private equity has had a mixed record. As a political template, it is stunted in the extreme. Private equity is concerned with rewarding winners and punishing losers. But a democracy cannot lay off its failing citizens. It cannot be content to leave any of its citizens behind—and certainly not the forty-seven per cent whom Romney wishes to fire from the polity.

The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.

The re-election of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity.

[Read entire article]

Proclamations

Who really built the United States of America?

What’s the matter with white people?

Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation Dilemma

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war,” said Lincoln at Gettysburg, “testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure.” Lincoln was fond of drawing attention outward, from local events to world import, from the crisis in America to the larger question of whether any democracy could survive the test the divided United States then faced. The Civil War, he argued, “embraces more than the fate of these United States.” Before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation — which would free slaves only in the seceded states that remained beyond the president’s immediate control — he fretted about “a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against the comet,” referring to Callixtus III, who supposedly excommunicated Haley’s Comet because it was a bad war omen.

And when he had finally signed the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September of 1862, he spoke to celebratory crowds gathered outside the White House: “It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment.”

This was more than a rhetorical trope, and not just a reminder that the world was watching. Lincoln’s agonizing over the proclamation reflected a host of worries about self-government, practical politics, the future of the newly free African Americans and very possibly his own racist misgivings.

But foremost among these was the question of legitimacy and the constitutionality of the document. Even if issued as a war measure, a mere confiscation of enemy property, it was sure to be seen by many — perhaps even by Lincoln himself — as extraordinary medicine, even extra-legal. His Hamlet-like vacillating and deception during that period 150 years ago, when he pondered the document, wrote it, hid it in a drawer and finally issued it can best be understood in terms of Lincoln’s deep-seated fears about the viability of democracy: Was it capable of fixing itself?

In the late 19th century, as white Americans tried to exorcise the memory of slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation lost luster, replaced in the popular imagination by the more eloquent Gettysburg Address (which didn’t even mention slavery). And today it seems strange that we celebrate the proclamation at all, except as a precursor to the far more sweeping and triumphant accomplishment of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which two years later banned slavery everywhere in the country, without qualifications or geographical exceptions. We have mostly forgotten the reality of the document itself, its ignominious origins in military crisis, its lack of moral certainty, its dull rhetoric and all the other faults that led historian Richard Hofstadter to complain that it “had all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.”

And yet this document of war remains a sacred document of democracy, testament to the messiness rather than the ideals of governing. In an age when Western democracies are confronted by new forms of authoritarianism, which offer prosperity and security in exchange for political quiescence, the Emancipation Proclamation forces us to think about the fundamental vexations of representative government: Is democracy capable of resolving grand crises? Can we defend against terrorism without compromise to liberty? Can we reform our economies and free ourselves from crippling debts? Can we stave off environmental apocalypse? In short, is democracy capable of great things?

Both celebrated and condemned

If you can make your peace with the Emancipation Proclamation, you can make your peace with Lincoln. The president claimed it as the signal accomplishment of his administration, and it established him in the minds of free slaves and the annals of popular history as “the Great Emancipator.” Parsing the document may be the most productive and inconclusive franchise in Lincoln scholarship. Over the past 150 years, it has been celebrated as the death knell of slavery yet condemned as an unconstitutional usurpation of power, a capitulation by the president to his radical left flank, proof of Lincoln’s slow and inadequate evolution toward racial justice, a mere tool in the prosecution of the war, a political gambit to demoralize the South, a reckless invitation to race war, and both the least and the most that a cautious, deliberate leader could manage at the moment.

During his presidential campaign, Lincoln promised that his personal opposition to slavery wouldn’t affect the institution where it was legal. And while the Civil War was first prosecuted with assurances that the goal was the restoration of union, not abolition, Lincoln began dropping hints of of a general emancipation in the summer of 1862.

His record on slavery up to that time had been mixed. He had countermanded or discouraged orders by Union generals freeing slaves in Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, citing presidential prerogatives and the necessity of placating the slave-holding but still-loyal border states. But he had also signed an April 1862 bill that abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, and a few months later he freed slaves throughout U.S. territories.

His rhetoric was equally ambivalent. Lincoln’s opposition to slavery often seemed lukewarm. As Frederick Douglass said years after the war, “Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent.”

Historians have attempted to square these apparent contradictions in different ways. John Hope Franklin, in his 1963 history of the Emancipation Proclamation, gave Lincoln the credit of most doubts, depicting the president besieged on all sides, from radical abolitionists who denounced an urgent moral evil to slaveholders still loyal to the Union who constantly threatened to join the South if Lincoln wavered on his promise to pursue only reunification. “The pressure of individuals and groups added to the President’s woes without contributing to a practical solution of the problem,” wrote Franklin.

No matter his feelings on slavery, Lincoln felt compelled to present and defend the Emancipation Proclamation as a military necessity — a strategic blow to the South, where the economy and thus the war effort depended on slave labor — rather than a moral statement. When it came, it was essentially two documents, beginning with a threat issued on Sept. 22, 1862, that he would emancipate slaves in any state still in rebellion on Jan. 1, 1863. He shared the preliminary proclamation with his Cabinet on July 22 but withheld it on the advice of Secretary of State William H. Seward, who feared it would look desperate to issue it in the midst of the summer’s military disasters. Lincoln waited two months, until after the battle of Antietam — by no means a decisive Union victory, but at least not a disaster — to make it public. The actual proclamation, greeted by ecstatic Jubilee celebrations on New Year’s Day by African Americans and abolitionists in the North, made good on the earlier threat.

Version one

The first proclamation wasn’t universally popular in the United States or abroad. It angered abolitionists for its half measures, for being merely an instrument of military policy, for its vague promise of compensation to slave owners and for its mention of colonization — Lincoln’s scheme to send freed blacks to other countries after liberation. The working class in England loved it, but their leaders, deeply embroiled in Colonial projects, saw it as a dangerous invitation to black-on-white war and fundamentally hypocritical. “The principle asserted,” said the Spectator, “is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” Between the preliminary threat and the actual emancipation, however, feelings softened, especially among abolitionists.

Yet nothing that troubled Lincoln in the first document was cleared up by the second. Lincoln repeatedly said he believed that the proclamation was constitutional, but it was immediately declared not so by editorialists throughout the North and the South. Even former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, who had dissented in the notorious 1857 Dred Scott case and resigned from the court in part because of the decision, attacked Lincoln’s proclamation as an unjust extension of executive power. When Lincoln had a chance to appoint a new chief justice in 1864, he chose the stalwart anti-slavery Republican Salmon Chase, in part because Chase could be counted upon not to overturn the proclamation.

Regardless of Lincoln’s motivations and true feelings, his delay and mixed messages had a serious impact on African Americans, according to some scholars.

“There is no making sense of such a perverse record,” writes historian Mark Neely Jr., who has convincingly demonstrated the miserable effect Lincoln’s equivocating had on free blacks. The nation was riven by race riots, and some African Americans in the North were seriously considering leaving the country: “A truthful revelation of the government policy embodied in a document in Lincoln’s desk might have changed the course of their lives.”

But likely, Lincoln was no less consistent than any other man, and though a gifted logician in argument, he was not necessarily logical in his own views on race and slavery. If he could be transplanted from his age into ours, his racial views would sound like the soft-core animus of a genteel “Bell Curve” racist: Intent on basic fairness, but convinced that whites are more civilized and better adapted to self-governance than blacks. His view on abolition might remind us of the sincerely halfhearted way that many people today embrace environmentalism or vegetarianism, convinced of their moral necessity yet unwilling to zealously oppose an entrenched way of life. This is either hypocrisy or moderation, depending on one’s perspective.

In fear of great power

Throughout his career, Lincoln was haunted by an almost superstitious fear of executive fiat, which may best explain his anguish before signing the proclamation. It showed up early, in an 1838 speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Ill., in which he imagined a Nietzschean superman rising up within American democracy and threatening it with dictatorial ambition: “Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.” This “towering genius,” Lincoln feared, might exploit the demagogic potential of slavery: “It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen.”

This was Lincoln in fear of a man just like himself. The idea of great power often seemed to flummox him. “If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution,” he said, as preamble to some of his more overtly racist and despairing remarks about slavery. His comparison of emancipation to a papal “bull,” and his frequent reference to it as a “thunderbolt” suggest how keenly he felt it might set a dangerous precedent for a nation of laws, even if limited in scope and justified as an act of war. Perversely, he yielded often enough to the temptation he abhorred, suspending habeas corpus and arresting a political opponent for giving a speech that might discourage the war effort.

And yet there is almost universal agreement — and Lincoln felt so, too — that while the 13th Amendment abolished slavery legally, the Emancipation Proclamation had killed it symbolically, and, short of a Southern victory, in all practical senses. So while a magnificent act of human justice, it was hardly an accomplishment of democracy. By the summer of 1862, Lincoln had despaired of a purely democratic process to abolish slavery, through compensation, containment and a natural withering away. Slavery would require an extraordinary response, a “thunderbolt” from outside the system of laws and representative government. He himself would have to hurl that bolt.

A crisis he envisioned

The unruliness of democracy, bitter sectional feeling, entrenchment of the slave system and Southern moral defensiveness had led America to the place of crisis Lincoln so feared in his Lyceum speech. Secession and war were failures of the democratic system, and the emancipation order underscored that failure.

This was not the way things were supposed to work in the City on a Hill, which looked impotent and broken in a world still full of vigorous autocrats. In 1861, a year before the American emancipation, Alexander II of Russia freed more serfs, and promised them more opportunities, than Lincoln did the slaves. In 1879, as Reconstruction was failing, the czar compared his thoroughly authoritarian solution with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, saying he could not “understand how you Americans could have been so blind as to leave the Negro Slave without tools to work out his salvation.”

Lincoln was long dead. But he might have said it wasn’t a matter of being blind to the problem or unaware of the dangers. He had done what he could, which might be more than the Constitution allowed. And in so doing he had righted a great wrong, paved the way for the union to survive and set a precedent that deeply troubled him.

We can sympathize today, living in a democratic system that is even larger and more unwieldy, and growing more polarized. It is a common theme of political speculation that large, Western democracies may be endangered, today: by the lethargy with which they respond to crises, the half measures and sausage making that vitiates most efforts at reform, and the sheer accumulation of threats — environmental, political and social. The Emancipation Proclamation is a terrifying reminder that sometimes the only way to fix the system is to let it break down and then hit the reset button.

What does America mean to you?