Posts Tagged With: activism

Why liberal and anarchist men are misogynists

It’s been bugging me lately, the question: why are liberal and anarchist groups so anti-woman?  So misogynist.  So rape culture oriented.  At first I though this was just a stereotype, or a fad among the participants, like how teenagers tend to use cell phones more often that adults.  Then I decided I’d better take a closer look.

.

Boys don’t like authority.  It stifles them, locks them in, controls their behavior, and (ostensibly) protects the weak. Authority reminds them of their first female rulers, their mothers, who kept them on an umbilical leash, then on an emotional one, and likely whacked them when they picked on the girls.  They associate any and all authority with the Feminine, especially since the recent push for big government has included female politicians and feminists.  Even in popular films like Psycho, the female, particularly the mother, the primal authority figure, is the real villain.

.

Patriarchal media likes to pretend women control and influence their men, but if this were as common as they say, would there be any marital rape or pay inequality?  No.  Besides, this “power” they say women have usually consists of sexual “power”= ability to “seduce”.

All too many of these perverts are liberal, even though a good number are conservative.  A proportionately large number are socialists, democrats, or anarchists, whom you would expect to be more respectful of women.  Nevertheless…Anthony Weiner, who sexted- sent sexual cell phone text messages to- female citizens, is a Democrat.  Dominique Strauss Kahn was a French liberal, and he raped a maid.

.

Is this a surprise for a liberal man to be this way?  No.  When they scream about “freedom”, they mean freedom for them, not for you.  Men want the freedom to take away your freedom through coerced sex, usually PIV.  They claim you’re not really forced to, it’s just a social expectation. Of course, this is five sentences after complaining that social distaste for porn is a fascist infringement on their freedom of speech.

.

Boo hoo hoo!  Heaven forbid an authority figure tell me I can’t rape whoever I want!

.

Politically inclined men are always screaming about “dimmm-moccckk-rraaa-cceeeeeee!!!!” against the tyranny of monarchs- singular, often female authority figures who try to keep “the people”- read: men- from misbehaving.  In fact, one could read the anti-monarchist French Revolution as a giant 1960s, a giganto rebellion against the warm, sticky, “irrational”, idea of monarchy- it’s too family like, really.  Too familiar and warm and unmechanized. It’s not pathologically rational.

.

For example, the French Revolution was a dood-fit thrown against limits- especially economic ones- imposed by parent figures- often females like Marie Antoinette, who was not the peasant-hater she’s accused of being.

The obsession with “logic” and “objectivity” reminds us of Objectivism, a very pro-capitalist, anti-monarchy, anti-community philosophy- a very MALE philosophy which, surprisingly, was invented by a woman, Ayn Rand.

.

Now I hate to sound “fascist” here, but sometimes if the majority of a country’s populace misbehaves, then democracies or republics just aren’t desirable.  Like someone once said- I think it was Mark Twain maybe, I don’t know- “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” 

If you misbehave, you bring dictatorship on yourself, because, to the rest of the population, to the minority, you are so odious AND so numerous that freedom would only work in your benefit.  It often becomes necessary for that society to choose a queen or dictator and hope his or her ethics are good and that she is strong enough to change or contain the bad behavior and the misbehavers.  Besides, the men “ask for it”: every time a revolution’s over, they scream “the king is dead! long live the king!”

.

.

Here’s a reason “masculine” men might like socialism: THEY see it as a system that rewards the undeserving, like their anti­-socialist parents may have told them…only the boys like that supposed aspect of it.  Many women are conservative and capitalist, FAR more than you would expect to see, given the anti-woman stance of many parts of the Republican party.  Perhaps many of these women support capitalism because they see it as a was to reward the responsible, the good, the mature…and weed out losers and deadbeats.  Unfortunately, like most other systems, capitalism doesn’t punish men for their crimes, but allows them to go Scot-free.
.

Masculine men only like which political system suits them.   It’s just like with parents- they like Daddy when Daddy’s on their side, and the hate him when he defends little sister when they try to hit her.

.

I don’t feel the same way about the “democracy is the best system” idea the way most OccuProtesters do.  It was invented by males, inherent to the system of the state, born from bad monarchies and dictatorships, and a system of distribution and organization of goods- it still saw women and animals and children as goods and not as persons.  It’s a big farce designed to make us FEEL more free.  Perhaps democracy in itself isn’t bad, since it’s hard to tell what’s good or not when patriarchy is influencing everything.

.

The authorities males find acceptable are misogynistic- sort of like how these sorts of men only accept parents and teachers when they benefit the cause of the immature male.  They only accept authority when it’s pro-male.  Take the case of Europe, where men fight for the “freedom” of Muslims to impose Sharia law in their communities.  They’re fine with that.  But laws inEuropeabout verbally abusing your wife? Heaven forbid those stay on the books!  The EU, of course, is not popular with men, it being an all-encompassing entity designed to make European nations into more of a community.  Doesn’t help that it’s headed by many women, like Angela Merkel.  I’m not sure if the EU itself is a force for good, or for feminist good, but I know why men don’t like it- it’s too much like one big family for them, the good kind of family, not the kind of dysfunctional family that men see as analogous to the individual European governments- that is, families that have their sovereignty (read, their right to abuse their members) taken away by a big mommy figure.

The end of religion didn’t mean the end of male authority- it meant the end of the oppressive authority of sky gods and the beginning of the oppressive authority of real gods- men.  Atheists like Richard Dawkins are certainly no less authoritative or oppressive or masculinist and no less misogynist. (see his dismissal of Rebecca Watson’s ordeal) They don’t want less oppression- they want to take the emotion, the spirituality, the human side away from life and strip it naked- raw, hard, scientific, evolutionary male aggression and domination.

The women at Occupy Wall Street fear the Dionysian “freedom” element and prefer the Apollonian order and rationality.  Like conservative women, they instinctively understand that “freedom” and “anarchy” and “avante garde” mean freedom to rape, no government to punish rapists, and bizarre and painful sexual activities.

.

As you can imagine, many women support the state because it is defensive of them, but many others oppose it because it abuses them and they recognize it as an extension of patriarchy.  But a male anarchist state would still have patriarchy, and it would be uncontrolled, loose.  At least a state has objective rules it has to follow.

“Free speech” is a huge excuse for jerks and doods to unleash hate speech, violent porn, “art” featuring piss or pedophilia (or a combination of those two), and to delude or confuse victims into having very low self worth.

Anarchism, to men, is the freedom to have sex with 13 year olds without complaints from prudish conservative women.

Men’s idea of sex is active, so they’re the only ones who lose out when control is introduced, the way the bully or roughhouser loses out on the playground when the teacher says no hitting allowed.

.

.

The Occupy Movement quiets rape victims to protect the movement.  They keep the mic all to themselves.  They are obnoxious and loud; some expose themselves to child protestors.  Occupy dudes find feminism divisive, but not misogyny.  They only call the cops when a rapist gives the movement a bad name.  Somehow, surprisingly, when cops get involved, women still end up getting groped.  One newspaper warned men not to go to OWS in case they get arrested and raped in prison.  “It would be humiliating for her and especially for him…” the paper says.  That’s disgusting.

 

Men are having a hissy fit because they’re being marginalized by society- treated like girls.   They shriek about the spirit of humanity and how those awful one percenters are oppressing the other white male 14-16%!

The guy who made the video “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall St.” makes rape jokes on his page on FaceBook.  What kind of “humane” world is this?

 

.

.

 

Another sexuality and politics theory:

 

Conservatives only allow men to have sex with one woman, so liberal men, in order to trick women into having sex with them, bash the conservatives.  Really, it’s not about the rights of women for either of them.  They both see her as property, only, true to form, the conservative is a robber baron and wants the property in the hands of one person, and the liberal is a damn commie who wants her to belong to everyone (hence the “sexual liberation” excitement).

This is why lots of self-assured men are often conservative- they don’t need the “help” of a fuck-buddy distribution system that the geeky communistic liberals want (seriously now- how many ACTUAL real life geeks are the sexually innocent respectful pals portrayed in movies?)

Oftentimes, the opposite of this whole theory is true.  Many wimpy men are conservative, possibly because they feel like they need a system to keep their “property” from running away.   Either way, they’re masculine men, and masculinity is NOT the healthy natural state of any human being.

Advertisements
Categories: Articles In English, Conservatism/Liberalism, Liberty Doods, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

What Would It Take?

.

What would it take for humanity to overthrow and transcend patriarchy?  Who must be the warriors in this battle against the patriarchs?  What must be done?  What must society be taught, in order to make this successful?  Must we break laws?  Which laws?  Do we lie to get our way?  Should we speak to children?  The religious?

.

I believe that women’s liberation from forced sex, second class status, poverty, disease, unwanted pregnancy, torture, death, psychological humiliation, and feeling of otherness is more important than obeying laws, being honest, paying taxes, or respecting the mythical parental right to influence children.

.

Laws are meant to protect people from being harmed or wronged in a complex society.  To break a law such as “don’t murder” would be to do wrong, it would be to harm someone.  But to break a law such as, “don’t trespass on school property or hand pamphlets to underage children” would not be bringing harm to anyone, or wronging them.  We must weigh the consequences; will the damage done by our action outweigh the damage done if we do not perform the action?  (Also, we must keep in mind that we must only perform such actions if they are the only way to achieve our goal, such as if the goal cannot be achieved in a less destructive way).

,
If we hand radical feminist pamphlets to sixth graders telling them about PIV sex and gender theories, and teaching them how to take control of their own sexual experiences, is the damage that will be done by them reading the pamphlets and getting their fragile little minds warped greater than the damage that will be done if we don’t hand them the pamphlets, and they become used and abused by men?  Is the risk of getting ourselves sued or thrown in jail (which we can avoid anyway by remaining anonymous and running off before we are caught) really worse than what will happen to those poor girls if they are not taught to be liberated?

.

If a local politician is seriously in the business of signing a bill that would criminalize accidental miscarriages, should we really refrain from physically forcing him to stop, or from interfering with the police when they try to arrest the suffering pregnant woman who is about to be put in a jail cell?  At what price must we continue to choose to obey the law?

.

     Over all, I think the necessity of the women’s liberation movement supersedes the necessity of obeying laws which prevent relatively harmless activities. 

.

What is to be done politically?  A good start would be to vote for all women, only women candidates.  Even those who are supposedly conservative will have empathy with women’s issues, because they must suffer under patriarchy as well.  Also, many conservative women have the same views as radical feminists about many things (the futility of the sexual liberation movement, the intuitive understanding of the nature of masculinity), as opposed to mainstream leftist or fun-fems.  Or, one could run for office herself, as a woman candidate, as a women’s issues supporter…or, if you would rather be a subverter, run under a lukewarm moderate campaign, while avoiding speaking about women’s issues, and then when elected, introduce women’s rights bills into the legislation.

.

Perhaps one day, if we get enough money pooled, or get enough women on board, we can set up our own nation or society, the way the Jews have done with Israel.  Someplace like Greenland would be nice.  It’s owned by Denmark, which is a relatively liberal country, at least compared to places like Greece and the United States.  And Saudi Arabia.  The cold weather would prevent intruders from wanting to stay too long, and the remoteness of the place would be good for women trying to escape abuse and depression.

,

Another great idea would be to get either a government fund or a private fund to ship abused women and children from the Middle East and Africa over to havens in Europe, Greenland, Canada, or the US (haha!) until we can clear the rats out of the Middle East and Africa and the other third world countries.  The bad men would be taken out by police force or government edict, the laws changed, and the good men transported to safe havens along with the women and children, but perhaps generally on the periphery.

All of them would be screened- politely and like human beings, please- for issues like emotional and physical abuse, and for evidence of patriarchal family structure.  Women and children would have the choice to leave any abusive husbands that were discovered during the screenings.  Money could be raised by legislating better use of government funds, or by selling baked goods, necklaces, objects on EBay, knitted scarves, collecting money from churchgoers “for a good cause”, and donating part of the income we already make.

,

We should send speakers to public schools who are supportive of radical feminism.  They can contact the school, advertising their willingness to teach the children about bullying and sexual health issues, and then when they get up to the microphone, they can add in a bunch of stuff that is crucial to our cause, such as the nature of patriarchy, and the helpfulness of lesbian communitarianism.  Of course, we should advertise our services under a different guise every time, lest the schools catch onto the our act, and start banning sexual health speakers because most of them turn out to be radfems in disguise.

.

If we do get women in office, laws should be passed that promote affirmative action for women and women of color, along with a privilege tax which men should have to pay, since patriarchy unfairly benefits them.  The proceeds from this tax may go to the havens for foreign women, or for the Greenland colony, or for sending condoms and sexual health and pro-feminism pamphlets to Africa.

The driving and voting ages should be lowered for women and lifted for men, since males on average mature much more slowly than females.  Any males entering the police or other law forces should undergo a sexual violence propensity test, and police departments should have a quota of at least 50% women. Most violent crimes committed by the police are by white male officers, who are often sophomoric and immature.  The military must unquestioningly allow gays and lesbians to serve without discrimination, either public or private, and Army rapes must go reported, with offenders being dishonorably discharged.

.

Women should try to have as many relationships with other women as possible, either lesbian, or, if one cannot change one’s heterosexuality, find a rare good male and be sure to stock up on as many female friends as possible.  The rare good men should be shared by women.

.

Books and movies as are read and watched by children, such as patriarchal, woman-mocking 1940s films, or fairy tales in which females are demonized as wicked stepmothers should be discussed in schools and only watched for the entertainment value, not as education.

.

.

As you can see, it would be difficult but not complex or confusing to free women from men’s chains.  All we need to do is make plans, band together, and keep at it. 

Categories: Abortion, Articles In English, Lesbianism, PIV, Pragmatic Activism, Radical Feminism, Separatism, Sex, Woman's Nation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NiggerWalk: A Spoof

.

.

This article is a spoof of SlutWalk (whose LA branch was headed by a man, a former statutory rapist) and details why the protest tactic isn’t a good idea, by substituting the plight of enslaved African Americans for enslaved women to make a comparison.

It also mocks PIV centrism and heterosexual-normativity by asking why blacks must work on white fields, and why field work must be more harsh to the black than the white.

.

KEY: Nigger=Slut
black=woman
white=male
slave owner=male partner
field work=sex
forced onto a field=raped
trans-racial=transgendered
white skin=the penis

.

.

.

 

Last week in Harlem, local activists led by white black history professors Edwin A. Locke IV and Harry Whittlestone VII organized an event called NiggerWalk.  The event aims to teach black people they have the right to dress as slaves, lowlifes, and gangstas, and tells marchers and onlookers it’s fine to call black people nigger for dressing this way, as long as they respect the word and the person.  Newspapers cheered the open-mindedness of the two white professors for renouncing bigotry, especially since they used to coerce blacks to do work on their plantation fields and have now repented.

.

“We have the right to dress as stereotypical black caricatures and be respected for it!” says Tina Brown, an African American marcher who helped organize the event.  Cheers echo from the crowd, a lovely rainbow of supporters comprised of 50% whites, 35% blacks, and 15% white-born black-identified persons with chocolate colored paint on their faces.  “We have the right to work on the plantation of whoever we choose, and no one should disrespect us for it!” shouts Diana Harris, a black marcher, as a large group of white people behind her grin and enthusiastically show their support.  Along the sidewalks, dozens of white people have shuffled up near the street to watch the parade and show their support, many carrying signs that say “nigger” “I support niggers” “go niggers!” and “niggers can plow my field any time!” and others who applauded the marchers’ willingness to be open minded.  Some groups of people even had peculiar white hoods and robes.

.

From far and wide, people showed up to support African Americans’ right to work on any field they liked, on any plantation they chose, for any owner or overseer they wanted, and for their right to dress as slaves and demand people call them nigger with respect!  They also want to stop the practice of white people kidnapping blacks and forcing them to work on their fields.  The emphasis on choice, they say, on a black person’s choice of which field to work on, will stop this tragedy.

.

But not everyone was so well behaved.  A little controversy showed up in the form of the racist Black Liberation movement, who attacked the bewildered marchers with extremely angry QUESTIONS (we told you it was ugly!) about black-white relations.  Dawn Barnaby, an officer in the liberation group, chatted with protesters and reporters about what she subjectively, personally feels is the problem:

.
“The word ‘nigger’ was conceived as an offensive word, and this protest asks that people use that word to refer to people.  Also, it was intended to refer to a specific group of people, black persons, as a way to demean them because of their race.”

.

Our own white correspondent, Nicholas Reed, answered, “But white people can be called niggers as well.  How can you say the word is offensive only to blacks, or that it causes racism, if it is used against whites as well?”

.

.

“Mr. Reed, if you call a white person a nigger as an insult, are you not implying black people and blackness are negative things?”
“I-I’m not sure I understand what you mean.”
“If you were to call a human being a dog as an insult, would any sane person believe you were implying that being human was a shameful thing…or rather that being a dog is the shameful thing?”
“Well, okay! [chuckles]  That’s for you guys to decide.  What makes you think you can’t reclaim the word, change it into a good thing?”
“You can’t make other people respect you by making yourself less sensitive to a word.  And you can’t stop the forcible kidnappings that way.  Besides, if someone was called nigger in a racist manner, this will be a reminder to them of the pain they experienced, even if they know a word itself is just a word.”
“Ah. I see.  What else has bothered you about this protest?”
“It’s the emphasis on field work and on how black people can make their choices only along the lines of field work.  Do you wanna work on this field?  Do you wanna work on that field?  You mean you don’t wanna use these new tools that make it a lot more intense and fun for your owner?  That kind of stuff.”
“Oh, gee.  This must be a black thing because I’m not so sure a goofy white guy like me is going to know what would bother a black person!  I’m kidding, of course.”
“Well, it’s this whole field work-positive thing.  What if some black people don’t want to do field work?  What if they want to be lawyers and doctors and writers?”
“Isn’t it more natural to want to do field work? Everyone’s doing it!  Dr. William Bradfield, PHd, says that blacks who don’t want to do field work are unliberated, agriculturally-inexperienced, lazy, and prude.”
“Why black people?  What about white people who don’t like field work and plantations?”
“Well!- [chuckle]- whites naturally enjoy plantations and field work more than blacks.  That’s just evolution.”
“No, it’s because we make it so that blacks do the uncomfortable and painful aspects of field work- they’re always the ones out in the fields, they’re the ones who get overheated, whites are the ones who benefit from the setup since they’re always inside watching and overseeing the blacks’ activities.”
“A lot of scientists and church leaders would disagree with you there.  Besides, there’s the “white man’s burden” of having to take care of the black worker, of having to make sure they’re fed, directed to do the right kind of work, civilized….”

.

.

Reed and Barnaby went closer to the action so they could get more perspectives from the extremely open-minded and tolerant crowd:

.

“It’s your fault if you dress like slaves and make us think all blacks are supposed to be used as cheap labor!!” a white man with a mullet and a Re-elect Trent Lott shirt shouts to the crowd. “God-damn niggers!  Gonna force you to work in my fields one of these days.  You’re askin’ for it!”  He reassures the camera crews he’s just joking, but we thought the remark was a bit distasteful, if not anything to be worried about.

.

Josh Baker, a 20-year-old college student, was interviewed by Reed and Barnaby as well. “This movement is stupid.  Most whites keep their blacks dressed appropriately, not like slaves.  They want them to be respected by whites and they don’t want them running off and working on others’ plantations instead of their own.  Isn’t that a much more respectful way of handling the problem of blacks being captured and forced to work?  Blacks should know not to dress like slaves.  I mean, I’m a white.  I know how whites are.  We can’t help but want to have blacks work on our field.  It’s Darwinian evolutionary scientific survival genetico-biology, for Christ’s sake.  We’re not in control of it.”

.
Dawn Barnaby disagrees that it’s white nature to enslave blacks, and that whites cannot control their actions, but Josh stands firm:
“Blacks don’t know how bad whites can be.  How can they possibly know?  I can’t imagine how they could possibly be aware of it.  I mean, it’s our job to be in control and protect them from it.  Dress them right and shit.  And this is why it’s inappropriate for blacks to make the first move, for them to go out and choose which white person to work for.  Blacks should always wait for whites to make the first move, to invite them to their plantation.  That’s the traditional civilized way to do it, to keep blacks safe from white advances.  Because- and I know this offends you for some reason- whites all want you just for the work thing.”
“How on earth can having whites make the first move possibly make it safer for black people under those circumstances, then?  The circumstances of whites being so dangerous?” asks Barnaby.  “Never mind,” says Josh.  “This is why white people need to change,” Barnaby says.

.

Josh’s brother, Mark, has been listening to everything Josh and Barnaby have said, and agrees to be interviewed as well.

.

“We need to change?  We need to change??  Why?!  Who are you to say all whites are dangerous to black people!?” he shouts at her.  “Who told you that?  I can’t imagine where you heard THAT!  You must have made that up!  Are you some kind of anti-white bigot?  Why should I trust you on this issue, anyway.  You’re black.  You’re biased.  And probably a nigger.”   Barnaby looks at Reed, and asks him if he now understands why the reclaiming of the word ‘nigger’ won’t work.  (It’s okay.  We don’t get her point, either).  Mark continues, “I wouldn’t want my black to dress like a slave because then someone else would try to use them for their plantation.  And it embarrasses me to be associated with a nigger or slave.”  “Your black?” asks Barnaby.  “What? It’s just a phrase!” Mark replies.  “My black is supposed to work, all right, but only for me.”  “How is that liberating?”  “Shut up!”

.

Alex Jones, a white woman watching the march, believes whites should protect blacks from working for other whites.  “Other whites might force you to work for them, and they might make you do worse or more painful work.”  Her brother disagrees. “That harder work is liberating for blacks!  And hey, I can’t say we don’t enjoy having them work hard,” he says with a wink.

.

Also interviewed is Graham Hughes, 22, computer programming student, member of several socialist, anarchist, and Occupy groups, and collector of 80s rock music CDs and Japanese anime torture porn.  He looks over his glasses at Barnaby.

.

“Blacks naturally want to work for whites,” he says, smiling sarcastically. “Human nature.  It’s built into us.”
Barnaby questions him, “What about blacks who only want to work for other blacks?  Or whites who want to work for blacks?”
“That’s not how it goes,” Hughes says with a smile, “because humans evolved so blacks would work for whites.”
“We can’t work for other blacks?”
“You can work for other blacks.  Yup.  No one’s stopping you.  And it’s kind of exotic.  We whites enjoy watching that.  But isn’t it not very liberating to only work for each other and not for whites, too?  No variety?”
“Variety?  You want variety? Why not get other whites to work for you?  Or would that be unnatural too?”
“Whites don’t want to work for other whites.  That would be wrong, wouldn’t it?  Blacks work for us, sometimes more than one black.  That’s also evolutionarily important.  One white can oversee many blacks and get more work done.”
“But can’t one black choose to work for many different whites?  Wouldn’t that be just as useful a practice?  One black works for different whites, picks up different skills, gives their talents to whichever white overseer earns them the most…”
“Blacks don’t like working for more than one white.  Their brain chemistry makes them want to stay with only one white, while white brain chemistry makes them want to oversee more and more blacks.”
Barnaby barrages him with more questions.  “Why should it be that blacks do the tiresome and painful work and whites have the job of overseer?”
“Whites are stronger creatures.  They’re not meant to do passive work like taking dictation from higher authorities.  White skin is also stronger, that’s why our white nature is stronger.  It’s the symbol of whiteness, what makes us strong and white.”
“Then why does your skin burn in the sun and not ours?  Try taking the beating and sunburns black people do and see whose skin is stronger.”
“I don’t think so.  White nature is to be stronger.”
“No it certainly is not.”
“Well, stop fooling us then, by wearing those slave clothes and asking to be treated like a field hand.  You’re making us think you all want the same thing.”
Making you think?  How can I make you think something?  You have control over your own mind.  And how can you believe we all want the same thing if we’re all individuals?  How about the fact that slave and so-called nigger-style clothes are all that’s being sold at the stores in my size?”
“Lose weight.” He smiles again.
“Not everyone can do that.  And what about the fact that little black children are told to dress like slaves from the age of three, because of what they see on the TV?  Do you think they can escape that when they’re adults?”
“You have control over your own mind.” He winks.
“But what about the children who are watching TV shows that tell them to dress like slaves, find a nice white overseer, and flood their lives with thoughts of white people?  What if they work before they’re ready for it?”
“It’s liberating for children to work.  I don’t mind children working for me.  And aren’t they ‘all individuals’?” he smirks.
“No-well-you…that’s not what I meant.  Children at least should be protected.”
“Fine by me.  You’re right.”
“What do you mean I’m right?!”
“What’s the matter?  I said you were right,” he says, a smile coming onto his face
“You just said I was wrong before.”
“Well, I’m saying you’re right now. You win,” he smirks even more.
“Get that rude smirk of your face!”
“You seem a little psycho,” he says calmly, still smiling.

.

Since Barnaby was looking slightly irritated, we could see why Hughes thought she was mentally unstable as Negroes’ brains are more likely to lead to psychosis than whites’ non emotional ones (vive la difference!), though we do think Hughes was off the mark in his opinions.

.
Next, Barnaby teamed up with fellow Liberation member Bryan Thompson, an intelligent, well spoken man, but an odd conspiracy theorist who believes society is structured to benefit whites over blacks and thinks conscious racism and hate are the main cause of blacks’ problems, not simple ignorance about the nature of blacks, or totally accidental mis-education about race, and subconsciously ingrained social beliefs.

Like many other black liberationists, he is reluctant to assign responsibility to individual blacks for overreacting to perceived bigotry, such as the Timothy Waits case, in which a young black teen who was taunted for months on end about the death of his aunt and told daily by whites he was inferior, went on a rampage, actually striking other students with his fists who had participated in the taunting!

Thompson is a legal writer who helped found the highly radical organization Homeland for Africans (which preaches the importance of establishing a black-only, black-run nation for victims of perceived racism); he defended Waits in court, successfully keeping Waits out of mental counseling and temporary psychiatric confinement, in a decision experts were uneasy about, given the boy’s purposeful targeting of only white students in his attack, and the irrational mistrust he harbored for all white people (which would prove disastrous in his quest to find a suitable field to work on and a good overseer).

.

Although their beliefs are rejected by the vast majority of society, Barnaby and Thompson are a force to be reckoned with, and they are good conversationalists, despite their exotic beliefs.  Interviewing white-born black-identified marchers was an interesting expedition.  Approaching a group of activists, with brown paint smeared carefully on their faces and large pink lips drawn on with goopy lipliner, Barnaby and Thompson politely but firmly press one of their key issues: trans-racial criticism.

.

.

“Hello.  We’re really glad you’re here.  Look, we appreciate that you’re trying to support us, but don’t you think saying you’ve experienced the effects of racism is a little dishonest, and takes meaning away from the black persons who were born black, perceived as black, and treated as black since childhood?”  Thompson asks.
“No,” says LaDawnda Sparxx, trans-racial activist and chairwoman of the Blaque Nigguzz charity, which helps provide skin-dyeing and lip enlarging services for white children who feel they were born black inside.  “We feel that when- excuse me,” she interrupts, turning around and reapplying some black paint to her forehead, where a water droplet landed.  “We feel that blackness and whiteness are things a person can feel inside themselves, and that no one is fully white or black.  We think children who like rap music should be free to be who they are.”
Barnaby answers, “That sounds fair enough on some levels.  We all come in different skin colors, and some of us are half white and half black.  But don’t you think they can listen to rap without changing their body?  And don’t you think some persons are perceived and treated, from birth, to be black- and have suffered psychologically from the abuse?  How can you claim a child who was born white enough to escape daily racism has suffered in the same way as a child who was born with darker skin and called “nigger” everyday?”
“No one lays a claim on experience,” says Sparxx, as trans-racial supporters cheer, some holding signs that read, “black chick”, “nigger forever!”, and “once you go blaque, you don’t go back”.  “Who are you to determine who may become black and who may not?  If I have black skin now, how is that different from being born into that racism?  I can imagine what it would be like if I feel like it.”
“Some people have good imaginations and can empathize well.  But this empathy isn’t automatically guaranteed just because the person is mimicking the outward appearance of who they wish to become.”
“I know what it’s like to be black, and I know what it’s like to be white, so I know there’s a difference!”
“You know what it’s like to be white?  Good for you.  I wish I knew what it was like to be able to escape from racism on a whim like that!”
“You guys are bigots,” says Sparxx, and goes to set up the wooden stage for a black minstrel performance, in which white-born performers black their faces and mimic stereotypical black behaviors, in order to better appreciate the black community.  Barnaby and Thompson seem strangely uncomfortable with this, and go back to talk to Reed, who wraps up the interview and then bids them goodbye.

.

.

Despite inviting a bit of controversy, the presence of the two radicals didn’t disrupt the event to the point of chaos.  While Barnaby and Thompson claim to be tolerant, most people feel their stance is unenlightened, at best, and that welcoming trans-racial activists into the black liberation community will help boost numbers, if anything.  But the radicals have their own agenda, and there is no part in it for enlightening whites, who suffer from the exact same amount of hatred blacks do.

.
“We don’t want to educate them, we want to stop them,” they claim, forgetting that tolerance and forgiveness are the key.  “The media is controlling society and helping whites wage war against us,” they believe, failing to acknowledge that the totally and completely unconscious beliefs persons hold about blacks are to blame on the media, not whites.  Let us repeat: we should not blame whites, who are- we shall 100% spontaneously add- NOT controlling that media or society in ANY way.

.

NiggerWalk is an extremely important event that wants to allow blacks the right to dress as they choose, work for whichever owner and whatever plantation they choose, and save them from the horror of being disrespected when they make their choice, which will allow them the freedom to make even more wonderful field work choices.

.

“Niggers!  Pick my cotton!  That’s all you’re good for!!!” shouts a man in a car, then drives away.

 

.

We can’t help but wonder if people like Barnaby and Thompson aren’t somewhat responsible for this kind of attitude against NiggerWalk and blacks.  Perhaps if anyone deserves to be forced onto a field, it’s these two troublemakers.

Categories: Articles In English, PIV, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.