Cress Welsing: The Definition of Racism White Supremacy
Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Racism
Anon: What is Racism/White Supremacy?
Dr. Bobby Wright: The Psychopathic Racial Personality
The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism (White Supremacy)
What is the First Step in Counter Racism?
Genocide: a system of white survival
'Racism is a behavioral system for survival'
Fear of annihilation drives white racism
Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Caucasian
Where are all the Black Jurors?
The War Against Black Males: Black on Black Violence Caused by White Supremacy/Racism
Brazen Police Officers and the Forfeiture of Freedom
White Domination, Black Criminality
Fear of a Colored Planet Fuels Racism: Global White Population Shrinking, Less than 10%
Race is Not Real but Racism is
Chomsky on "Reserving the Right to Bomb Niggers."
A Goal of the Media is to Make White Dominance and Control Over Everything Seem Natural
Spike Lee's Mike Tyson and Don King
Black Power in a White Supremacy System
The Image and the Christian Concept of God as a White Man
Why do White Americans need to criminalize significant segments of the African American population?
Who Told You that you were Black or Latino or Hispanic or Asian? White People Did
Malcolm X: "We Have a Common Enemy"
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 01:41AM From [WashPost] The alert from Fox News went out at 5:30 p.m. Sunday.
“PRESIDENT TRUMP SPENDING WEEKEND WORKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE,” the chyron announced, under an image of the White House presumably captured just minutes before.
The timing of the tweet alert was curious: After all, the weekend was nearly over.
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 01:38AM From [HERE] Longtime Fox News comptroller Judy Slater has earned a spot in the unemployment line following an investigation into accusations she made racist remarks to her Black colleagues.
The conservative news network gave Slater the boot after employees alerted management to a series of racially offensive quips she had allegedly made to Black employees, prompting an internal investigation into her behavior. The accusations turned out to be true.
“We take any complaint of this nature very seriously and took the appropriate action in investigating and firing Ms. Slater within two weeks of this being brought to our attention,” a spokesman for the Fox News Network said. “There is no place for abhorrent behavior like this at Fox News.”
In one instance, Slater was accused of asking an African-American co-worker if her three children had the same father. On a separate occasion, the former Fox exec called a Black woman her “sistah” and openly griped about the way Black people pronounce certain words. Slater went so far as to write down words like “sister,” “mother” and “father” and ask that her Black colleagues say them out loud.
When saying good night to her Black colleagues, employees reported that Slater cheekily raised her hands in the “Hands up, Don’t shoot” gesture made famous following the high-profile police shooting of Black teen Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.
The comptroller’s behavior was reported to Fox human resources executive Kevin Lord, resulting in her prompt termination. Slater worked at the network for nearly 20 years.
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 01:36AM From [NY Times] Fox News, whose chairman, Roger Ailes, was ousted last year after a string of sexual harassment claims, is facing new allegations of discrimination.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday night in State Supreme Court in the Bronx, two black women said they were subjected to “top-down racial harassment” in the Fox News payroll department by Judith Slater, the company’s longtime comptroller.
The women — Tichaona Brown, a payroll manager, and Tabrese Wright, a payroll coordinator — accused Ms. Slater of making numerous racially charged comments, including suggestions that black men were “women beaters” and that black people wanted to physically harm white people.
They also said that Ms. Slater claimed that black employees mispronounced words, such as “mother,” “father,” “month” and “ask,” and that she urged Ms. Brown to say those words aloud in a meeting. Ms. Wright said Ms. Slater once asked if her three children were all “fathered by the same man.”
“We are confident that the good men and women of the Bronx will hold Fox accountable for what we believe to be its abhorrent racist conduct, reminiscent of the Jim Crow era,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Douglas H. Wigdor and Jeanne Christensen of the Wigdor law firm, said in a statement. The firm also represents two employees of The New York Times in a pending federal lawsuit against The Times, alleging age, race and gender discrimination.
Ms. Brown and Ms. Wright are suing Ms. Slater, Fox News and its parent company, 21st Century Fox, claiming that Ms. Slater’s superiors did little to address her behavior, which created a hostile work environment that resulted in “severe and pervasive discrimination and harassment.”
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 01:32AM Racist Even With the Lights Off. “Mr. Speaker, my position against this president and his administration is clear,” she said. “I oppose this president. I do not honor this president. I do not respect this president.” [MORE] Then she goes on to say she is 'more patriotic' than Trump and other silly nonsense. [MORE] Although her statements were complimentary to the system, this was still too much for O'Reilly to take - this funny looking mf.
Undeceiver Dr. Blynd defines patriotism - the degree of voluntary servitude evinced. 2) the result of one successful treason- until the next one is necessary. 3) re-inforced mindless symbolic conformism. (see U.S. citizen, Treason, USA, Corporate State, nation, U.S. Senate, Country, Congress, Constitution & Human Resources).
Racists live in a state of comparison, which Dr. Blynd defines as follows:
comparison - a disease of the mind due to the ignorance of uniqueness. Each individual is unique and beyond the scope of comparison. Those who fall victim to comparison will either become egoistic or bitter. You don't belong to any hierarchy - nobody is lower or higher than what "you" imagine yourself and "others" to be. Comparison creates differences or distinctions only when there is not uniformity. Comparison limits the possibility of living in the moment. (See: Judgment, Problems, Moment, Running Man, Surrender, Value, Exchange Value, Uniqueness, Awareness & Compassion). [MORE]
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 01:19AM A battle over the death penalty is brewing in Florida, where Orange-Osceola State Attorney Aramis Ayala has announced her office will no longer seek the death penalty in any murder cases, including in the case of Markeith Loyd, who is accused of murdering his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Sade Dixon, and Orlando police officer Debra Clayton. Ayala’s announcement sparked immediate backlash from the police union and Florida Governor Rick Scott, who called on her to recuse herself from the Loyd case. When she refused, Scott signed an executive order removing her from the case and reassigning it. Now Ayala, the first African-American state attorney in Florida history, has been receiving death threats, including from local government employees. We are joined by Angel Harris, assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 01:17AM From [HERE] and [HERE] The magnitude of a Supreme Court nomination should not be underestimated; it comes with a lifetime appointment to the bench, with far-reaching, sometimes life-or-death implications. No one understands that better than Alphonse Maddin.
On a freezing-cold night in January 2009, Alphonse Maddin was driving a truck, employed by TransAm Trucking, of Olathe, Kansas. In a statement before the press recently, Maddin recalled his ordeal:
“I was hauling a load of meat through the state of Illinois. After stopping to resolve a discrepancy in the location to refuel, the brakes on the trailer froze. I contacted my employer, and they arranged for a repair unit to come to my location.” Waiting in the freezing cold, Maddin fell asleep.
The African-American trucker went on: “I awoke three hours later to discover that I could not feel my feet, my skin was burning and cracking, my speech was slurred, and I was having trouble breathing. The temperature that night was roughly 27 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. The heater in the cabin was not producing heat, and the temperature gauge in the truck was reading minus 7 degrees below zero. After informing my employer of my physical condition, they responded by telling me to simply hang in there. … I started having thoughts that I was going to die. My physical condition was fading rapidly. I decided to try to detach the trailer from the truck and drive to safety.”
He did so, and for taking that action to save his own life, he was fired.
Maddin sued, and the Department of Labor ordered his reinstatement, with back pay. TransAm Trucking appealed, and the case was argued before the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Among the three judges hearing the case was Neil Gorsuch. Maddin’s attorney, labor lawyer Robert Fetter, recalled:
“There were five or six cases before that court that morning, and we were the last. Judge Gorsuch was neutral, or even affable, as the cases proceeded. Then, when our case came up, he became noticeably hostile. … He was not folksy or oh goshy,” Fetter said, comparing Gorsuch that day with the nominee’s demeanor at last week’s hearings. “It was like night and day.”
Maddin summed up the ordeal and the legal battle that followed, saying: “I disputed my termination from TransAm Trucking and ultimately won. This was a seven-year battle. Seven different judges heard my case. One of those judges found against me. That judge was Neil Gorsuch.” [MORE]
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 01:12AM From [HERE] and [HERE] Congress completed its overturning of the nation’s strongest internet privacy protections for individuals on Tuesday in a victory for telecommunications companies, which can track and sell a customer’s online information with greater ease.
In a 215-to-205 vote largely along party lines, House Republicans moved to dismantle rules created by the Federal Communications Commission in October. Those rules, which had been slated to go into effect later this year, had required broadband providers to receive permission before collecting data on a user’s online activities.
The action, which follows a similar vote in the Senate last week, will next be brought to President Trump, who is expected to sign the bill into law. A swift repeal may be a prelude to further deregulation of the telecommunications industry.
Republicans said President Barack Obama’s appointee to the F.C.C., Tom Wheeler, had created a slew of overbearing rules for broadband providers that would put them at a disadvantage relative to internet companies like Google and Netflix. Those internet companies are not regulated by the F.C.C. but are increasingly in competition with telecom companies for online streaming customers.
Lawmakers and Republican regulators at the F.C.C. have said they plan to target the 2015 classification of broadband as a utilitylike service that is strapped with strong regulatory oversight. They are also set to seek the overturning of Obama-era net neutrality rules that forbade broadband providers from blocking, slowing down or charging extra for downloads of websites and apps.
“What we’ve created is confusion, and this is the way to rein in an agency that was overreaching,” said Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, who introduced the House bill to overturn the privacy rules. She used the Congressional Review Act in a procedure that lets lawmakers scrap regulations recently created by government agencies.
Ms. Blackburn said the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces privacy policies created by web companies such as Facebook and Google, was the best agency to oversee broadband privacy.
The White House issued a statement just before the House vote expressing support for the overhaul of privacy rules.
“The rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission,” the Trump administration said. “This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.”
Broadband companies immediately celebrated the House vote. They promised they would honor their voluntary privacy policies, noting that violations would be subject to lawsuits.
“Today’s vote removing another set of unnecessary regulations is a win-win for consumers and their privacy,” said Jonathan Spalter, the chief executive of the broadband lobbying group USTelecom. “Online users will continue to have the consistent and strong privacy protections they require and the promise of continued innovation they expect from the internet.”
Democratic lawmakers and regulators protested the vote, saying consumers had few options for high-speed internet service, which meant more government oversight of the companies was needed. Broadband providers have an expansive view into consumers’ online habits, including seeing what sites and apps are visited, which can expose sensitive information.
The F.C.C. rules would have given consumers greater power to stop companies from making money off such information, the Democrats said.
“The rules gave individuals control over their information when it comes to privacy,” Mignon Clyburn, the sole Democratic F.C.C. commissioner, said in an interview. “The proprietary information these companies have at their disposal should not only be treated with care, but consumers should have a voice.”
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:52AM [MORE] Osho Rajineesh says "beleivers create their own deceivers." Doc Blynd explains, to "believe" is to wish one had proof or could rely on the illusion of proof to uphold a cherished assumption not based in or supported by the fundamental nature and workings of reality. All believing is make believing b/c to know, only you just have to know; whereas to believe, you have to make others believe also.
Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 02:36AM 
Real Racist in a White Sheet or False Flag? From [HERE] A white man from Maryland who told police he traveled to New York to kill black men turned himself in on Wednesday, about 24 hours after he fatally stabbed a man he encountered on the street, officials said.
Authorities described the suspected attacker as someone who had long harbored feelings of hatred toward black men before violently acting on them this week. Police said he carried out the attack in a way that intended to draw attention.
“The reason why he picked New York is ’cause it’s the media capital of the world,” said William Aubry, assistant chief of the New York City Police Department. “And he wanted to make a statement.”
New York police said they charged James Harris Jackson, 28, with murder. Police said Jackson encountered 66-year-old Timothy Caughman shortly after 11 p.m. on Monday and stabbed him multiple times. Caughman went to a police precinct for help and was brought to Bellevue Hospital, where he died, police said.
Early Wednesday morning, a little more than 24 hours after the attack, Jackson walked into the police substation in Times Square and announced that he was wanted for murder.
“‘I’m the person you’re looking for,'” Jackson told the patrol officers there, Aubry said at a briefing later Wednesday.
Jackson also told them he had knives in his pockets, and police searched him and took him into custody, Aubry said. Police recovered what Aubry called a 26-inch “black mini-sword,” which he said police believe is the weapon used to stab Caughman in the back.
The attack is “extremely distressing,” James P. O’Neill, the New York City police commissioner, said at the same briefing.
Police gave few details of Aubry’s background on Wednesday, identifying him only as a Baltimore resident and military veteran. Jackson was in the Army for more than three years, deploying to Afghanistan between December 2010 and November 2011, according to Lt. Col. Jennifer Johnson, an Army spokesperson. His service record did not include any badges reflecting combat interaction with any enemy during that time. Jackson served as a military intelligence analyst and left the service in August 2012 with the rank of specialist.
Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 02:36AM White Supremacy/racism is the ultimate affirmative action - Neely Fuller.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 11:23PM Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 02:11AM "If murder is wrong, then whether it is committed by the man or by the society and its court, makes no difference." From [HERE] A day after a newly elected Black prosecutor said she would not seek the death penalty in capital cases, the remainder of Florida’s 20 state attorneys affirmed Friday they intend to pursue death sentences when appropriate.
The statement by the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association came as a number of African-American leaders declared their support for 9th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Aramis Ayala, who sparked a statewide outcry Thursday over her decision not to seek the death penalty in the case of accused cop-killer Markeith Loyd — or in any other case.
Within hours of her announcement Thursday, an outraged racist suspect, Gov. Rick Scott reassigned the case of Loyd — accused of killing his pregnant ex-girlfriend and shooting a Black Orlando police officer execution-style — to Brad King, an Ocala-area state attorney who is an outspoken proponent of the death penalty. King is white.
On Friday, prosecutors other than Ayala voted to “affirm the responsibility of enforcing the laws of Florida,” which they maintain is “paramount to our oath of office.”
“Throughout 19 of the 20 circuits of Florida, the death penalty will continue to be sought in those cases which qualify for its implementation,” the association said in a statement provided to The News Service of Florida after the vote. “The victims’ families of Florida deserve our dedication to implement all the laws of Florida. That is why the people of Florida have elected us.”
Ayala’s office participated in the conference call but did not vote, a source with the prosecutors said.
Status hearing 3/20/17. Skip to 14:00 for discussion. Since there is no prejudice to the defense, the defense could waive any objection but Mr. Loyd has no attorney.
On Monday Ayala accused Gov. Rick Scott of abusing his authority by ousting her as prosecutor in the Loyd case. She asked a judge Monday to put a hold on proceedings in the case of Loyd.
Ayala’s action came the same day more than 100 former prosecutors, judges and law professors sent a letter to Scott challenging his authority to remove the prosecutor — who, like other state attorneys, enjoys broad discretion in seeking the death penalty — from pursuing the case as she sees fit.
In a five-page filing, Ayala argued that Scott lacks the power to strip her of her role as prosecutor. The Florida Constitution gives Ayala “complete authority over charging and prosecuting decisions,” she wrote.
State law only gives the governor the authority to remove a prosecutor if he determines for “good and sufficient reasons” that “the ends of justice would be served,” Ayala went on, citing state statutes.
“A ‘good and sufficient reason,’ therefore, must be something other than a disagreement over how I should exercise my discretion in a particular case,” Ayala wrote.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 01:55AM Nazi Like. Last month an Israeli soldier who fatally shot an unarmed already wounded Palestinian Man in the head as he was laying prone on the ground was treated like a hero by the Nazi like Israeli government. The soldier was hooked up with an 18 month sentence.
From [HERE] and [HERE] ON WEDNESDAY, a U.N. agency published a report noting that “Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole.” Yesterday, the author of that report, who has served as executive secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UNESCWA) since 2010, Rima Khalef, resigned after the Trump administration, working in conjunction with Israel, pressured the U.N. secretary-general to demand that she withdraw the report.
Khalef, a Jordanian national who has served in multiple high government positions, refused the demand to repudiate her own report, instead choosing to resign. The report — which was co-authored by the Jewish American Princeton professor and former U.N. official Richard Falk, a longtime critic of Israeli occupation — has now been removed from the UNESCWA website.
What makes this event most remarkable is how unremarkable the report’s conclusion is: It’s a point that a former Israeli prime minister — as well as Trump’s own defense secretary — has made unequivocally. Back in 2010, Ehud Barak, Israel’s former prime minister and its most decorated soldier, explicitly warned that Israel was on a path to what he called a permanent “apartheid” state. As he put it: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
Seven years later, Israel is indisputably committed to exactly that outcome. Many of its key ministers do not even support a two-state solution. Israeli expansion of illegal settlements continues unabated. Palestinians are further away than ever from full political rights, or even enjoying the right of democratic self-determination. As Barak himself pointed out, this is the very definition of apartheid.
Yet now, thanks to the Trump administration’s self-destructive devotion to Israeli interests — an odd posture for a president who ran on a platform of “Putting America First” — it is impermissible for U.N. officials to note this reality lest Israel be offended. In its report on the ouster of Khalef, CNN was surprisingly blunt about what this all means:
Memo to critics of Israel inside the U.N. system: Prepare to pay a price. … The U.S. under Trump has made it quite clear it will defend Israel perhaps more than all other countries at the U.N.
Monday, March 20, 2017 at 06:39PM From [HERE] When the leader of the United Nations apologized to Haitians for the cholera epidemic that has ravaged their country for more than six years — caused by infected peacekeepers sent to protect them — he proclaimed a “moral responsibility” to make things right.
The apology, announced in December along with a $400 million strategy to combat the epidemic and “provide material assistance and support” for victims, amounted to a rare public act of contrition by the United Nations. Under its secretary general at the time, Ban Ki-moon, the organization had resisted any acceptance of blame for the epidemic, one of the worst cholera outbreaks in modern times.
Since then, however, the United Nations’ strategy to fight the epidemic, which it calls the “New Approach,” has failed to gain traction. A trust fund created to help finance the strategy has only about $2 million, according to the latest data on its website. Just six of the 193 member states — Britain, Chile, France, India, Liechtenstein and South Korea — have donated.
Other countries have provided additional sources of anti-cholera funding for Haiti outside the trust fund, most notably Canada, at about $4.6 million, and Japan, at $2.6 million, according to the United Nations. Nonetheless, the totals received are a fraction of what Mr. Ban envisioned.
In a letter sent to member states last month, Mr. Ban’s successor, António Guterres, asked for financial commitments to the trust fund by March 6. He also appeared to raise the possibility of a mandatory dues assessment if there were no significant pledges.
The deadline came and went without much response.
Mr. Guterres has not stated publicly whether he intends to push for a mandatory assessment in the budget negotiations now underway at the United Nations. Privately, however, diplomats and United Nations officials said he had shelved the idea, partly because of strong resistance by some powerful members, including the United States.
Diplomats said part of the problem could be traced to simple donor fatigue, as well as to many countries’ reluctance to make financial commitments without certainty that the money will be used effectively.
The donor challenge was acknowledged by Dr. David Nabarro, a United Nations special adviser who rose to prominence running its mobilization to fight the Ebola crisis in West Africa, and who has been leading its fund-raising efforts for Haiti as he seeks to become the next director general of the World Health Organization.
“Donors will respond, but they need to be convinced that they’re going to be given a good proposition for what’s done with their money,” he said in January at the World Economic Forum. “The Haiti cholera story is not actually a very good one, in that it’s taken us a rather long time to get on top of it, and still the problem is persisting.”
Monday, March 20, 2017 at 03:02AM From [HERE] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Saturday rejected an emergency request [order, PDF] from two native american tribes attempting to stop oil from flowing through the Dakota Access pipeline. As a result of this rejection, the Dakota Access pipeline could begin could begin operating as soon as tomorrow. The three judge panel rejected the request because the native american tribes "have not satisfied the stringent requirements for issuance of an injunction pending appeal." The native american tribes are currently appealing an early decision to allow final construction of the pipeline and were seeking to halt any oil flow until that issue was resolved. In a concurring opinion, one judge noted that the denial was due to the fact that the emergency request was based upon the tribes' Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim, which has not yet been accepted as an issue in the litigation. To grant an injunction under those procedural facts, the judge said, would require a showing that to not grant the RFRA claim would be, as a matter of law, an abuse of discretion by the court - a burden, he contends, which has not been met. The US District Court for the District of Columbia denied the initial request [order, PDF] on March 14, 2017.
In January President Dummy Trump signed [JURIST report] an executive order that allowed for construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. On March 8, 2017, a lawsuit attempting to stop the construction of the pipeline on the basis that it would prevent a native american tribe from practicing religious ceremonies was rejected [JURIST report] by the district court. The Dakota Access Pipeline [informational website] is an oil pipeline that would transport more than 470,000 barrels of oil per day over its 1,172 mile length through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. The controversy surrounding the project is connected with its proximity to multiple large bodies of water, which could become irreparably contaminated should the pipeline fail.
