The Folly of Sports Pt. 5 -a repost: Why It’s a Problem When NBA Stars Take Less Money Than They’re Worth

(This is a continuation of my The Folly of Sports series)

Article posted on TheRinger.com (click link for original)

By Michael Baumann

On Thursday, Dirk Nowitzki, the NBA’s active leader in games and minutes played, points, free throws, and defensive rebounds, re-signed with the Dallas Mavericks for $10 million over two years. Compared to Nowitzki’s $25 million team option for 2017–18, which Dallas declined, it’s a huge haircut for the future Hall of Famer, but Nowitzki is 39 years old and coming off a season in which he played fewer minutes per game (and fewer games overall), scored fewer points per game, and attempted fewer shots per game than he had in any season since his rookie year. Nowitzki is certainly on the decline, and far from his MVP form of a decade ago.

Still, Nowitzki will make less over his two-year deal than free-agent bench guy Amir Johnson will make with the Sixers next season alone. He’ll make $8 million less per year than Joe Ingles (career high 7.1 PPG in his age-29 season last year), less than half as much as Zach Randolph, who’s almost as old as Nowitzki, and only a half-million per year more than Justin — not Jrue, Justin — Holiday. But this deal keeps him with the only NBA franchise he’s ever played for, and Nowitzki has already made over a quarter of a billion dollars in salary over his career. While some might question the wisdom of taking an 80 percent pay cut to keep living in Texas and playing for a lottery-bound club, he’s a grown-up and can do what he likes.

Like Golden State’s Kevin Durant, who’s fresh off a $10 million pay cut of his own, Nowitzki can do whatever he likes, but that doesn’t make it admirable.

The putative reason Durant took less money to stay with the Warriors was so that money could be redistributed to his teammates and strengthen the team’s roster. To Golden State’s credit, that’s happened: Shaun Livingston and Andre Iguodala got pay bumps, and Nick Young, the NBA’s god of folly, came up the coast from the Lakers at a cost of $5.2 million. The rules that govern NBA salaries and transactions are Byzantine to say the least — just look at all the shifting pieces behind Chris Paul’s move to the Rockets from the Clippers — but in short, Durant’s pay cut didn’t make the Livingston and Iguodala extensions possible, it made them cheaper, both in terms of the Warriors’ overall salary outlay and in terms of their luxury tax bill. Warriors ownership, led by venture capitalist Joe Lacob, could have paid Durant, Livingston, and Iguodala and just gone deeper into the luxury tax, but they chose not to. (Maybe Young doesn’t come over as the team’s midlevel exception if Durant takes the max, but I don’t think Swaggy P is going to be what puts the Warriors over the top in 2017–18.)

Meanwhile, the Mavericks, who finished 11th in the Western Conference last season, are almost certainly not going to make the playoffs this season, and have thus far failed to attract any notable free agents. That shouldn’t be Nowitzki’s problem, anyway; his job is to use his arsenal of YMCA dad moves to score points, not assemble a competitive roster.

But as The Ringer’s Danny Chau wrote when Durant first signed, “Durant’s decision makes it painfully clear that it will always be the players who have to make ‘sacrifices,’ never the owners.”

On the grand scale of global economic injustice, Durant making $25 million next year and not $34.5 million isn’t even a drop in the bucket. Since time immemorial, people have complained about how much athletes get paid, and to be totally frank, those complaints aren’t without merit. Durant is a godlike basketball figure, a former league MVP, last year’s Finals MVP, a two-time Olympic gold medalist, a four-time scoring champion, and an eight-time All-Star. Countless millions of people, including me, love watching him play basketball, and while there’s great value in entertaining the public, he’s not healing the sick, teaching people to read, or performing any function that’s strictly essential to society as we know it. On some level, Charlotte Observer columnist Scott Fowler’s much-pilloried take about Steph Curry (who is himself underpaid according to LeBron James’s treatise on the intersection of basketball and the labor theory of value) making the equivalent of 1,000 schoolteachers’ salaries is spot-on. We probably would be better off if we took $40 million from either Lacob or Curry and spent it on teachers.

Of course, that’s not the choice Durant or Nowitzki made. In an egalitarian utopia, sports teams would be public utilities, like a parks department or a library system, provided by a city for the emotional and intellectual well-being of its citizens. Sports teams are essentially civic institutions now anyway, and average people take great pride in their success, to the point where we root for the institution, sometimes — specifically when it comes to salary negotiations — against the individual athletes who make it successful.

Sports owners have co-opted that civic pride and are squeezing not only their workers but us fans. Civic pride causes us to support “Dallas” or “Golden State” or “New York,” but sports owners, who will charge you $11 for beer because they can, have insinuated themselves into that relationship, to their great profit. It’s perverse, but predictable in a society that’s so devoutly capitalist that politicians run as “pro-business” (as opposed to “pro-people”) and we vote for them by the tens of millions.

Make no mistake, the Warriors aren’t a public utility, but a for-profit business, so their labor savings here aren’t being passed on to the consumer. The average Warriors ticket — in the Bay Area, the Xibalba of Gentrification — cost 69 percent more in 2015–16 than it did the year before. Now that Durant’s taking a pay cut, Lacob’s organization is raising the cost of season tickets 16.9 percent in 2017–18. As little as $10 million means to Durant, or $20 million to Nowitzki, it means even less to Lacob and Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

So we, the fans, the citizens who buy tickets and jerseys and overpriced hot dogs and pay the taxes that fund arena construction, aren’t getting that money back, whether in cash or in the way we would with parks or libraries or higher teacher salaries — short of worldwide proletarian revolution. It’s either going to Durant and Nowitzki, who are what make basketball compelling, or the owners, whose function in society is to turn millions of dollars into billions of dollars.

Without players, the owners would have no product at all. Without owners, players would have to hire their own administrative and marketing arms, which probably wouldn’t cost anywhere near the 50 percent of basketball-related revenue the owners get. I like watching Durant and Nowitzki play basketball, but I don’t know what function owners serve that couldn’t be filled more cheaply and effectively by hired-gun administrators in a league owned by the players. Meanwhile, Lacob is a venture capitalist. Cuban is a relic of the dot-com bubble turned reality television heel. Cuban sometimes veers into taking the title “owner” too literally, while Lacob has a weird relationship with the Larry O’Brien Trophy, but they’re relatively benign as billionaires go. For as much as Durant and Nowitzki aren’t healing the sick, though, Lacob and Cuban don’t even make you smile — unless you’re a fan of Shark Tank or throwing money at a 3-D orthodontics company.

That’s more than you could say for Clippers owner Steve Ballmer, who as the former CEO of Microsoft was complicit in making Internet Explorer your default web browser, even though it doesn’t work that well. Some NBA owners, like the Lakers’ Jeanie Buss and the Knicks’ James Dolan, did nothing more to deserve their billion-dollar piece of the basketball pie than being born into the right family.

Other NBA owners actively, often primarily, profit from the immiseration of working people. Bucks owner Wes Edens is either a “subprime scion” if you read the New York Post or the “king of subprime lending” if you read the Wall Street Journal. Rockets owner Leslie Alexander owns a stake in a for-profit student loan company. Richard DeVos, the nonagenarian owner of the Orlando Magic, made his fortune running a pyramid scheme and funds organizations that fight against LGBT rights. Dan Gilbert, the typographically creative owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers — last seen standing athwart the boneheaded double of anointing the inexperienced Chauncey Billups to run his organization, then lowballing the TV commentator into turning the gig down — rode into his native Detroit on a white horse, promising to alleviate the urban blight that his company, Quicken Loans, had been instrumental in creating.

The players aren’t blameless. Many of them, most notably Michael Jordan, who crossed over and bought the Charlotte Hornets, see themselves as tycoons in the making, not laborers. In other words, they see ownership as role models, not the people keeping them down. Under the leadership of Chris Paul, the players’ union has fought for provisions like the supermax contract (which benefits superstars and teams) instead of using that negotiating capital to go after something, like abolishing the draft or restricted free agency, or even a higher percentage of revenue, that would have been a greater benefit to the union’s poorest members. Even among workers, the rich exploit the poor.

After all, Durant and Nowitzki could have demanded to be paid what they’re worth. Nowitzki in particular, as the immensely popular face of a franchise that’s treading water, is the rare athlete who could win the PR battle in a contract dispute against the abrasive Cuban.

Perhaps Nowitzki and the Mavericks have a handshake deal regarding Nowitzki’s post-basketball career, but a sinecure special assistant to the GM role likely wouldn’t pay $10 million a year — even if the whole arrangement didn’t smack of cap circumvention. And sure, being close to Silicon Valley helps Durant network with the business leaders he might one day hope to become, though in the age of videoconferencing and private jets, physical location matters much less than it used to. Durant was a global icon when he played in Oklahoma City, after all. And though it’s been said that both Nowitzki and Durant could make their money back through endorsements, Nowitzki has famously eschewed endorsement deals, except for his Nike contract, and it doesn’t matter if Durant makes the money back through endorsements. Why couldn’t he have signed the bigger deal and still garnered all the same endorsements?

Besides, a couple of lost millions for super-rich athletes aren’t the real problem here.

In today’s American labor culture, demanding to be paid the value of your labor is frequently painted as “not being a team player,” which is a cardinal sin for a team sport athlete. Athletes are trained not only to play a game, but to be obedient and to respect people in power just because they’re powerful, and regardless of whether they’re shown the same respect in return. When Durant or Nowitzki — themselves both worth hundreds of millions of dollars — gets mesmerized by that power, it’s not a huge deal. But when the lessons of those relationships get translated to ordinary worker-employer relationships, it is. When was the last time your boss used the phrase “be a team player” and gave you good news? Why should you sacrifice for your employer?

Suffice it to say, I’d rather the odd $10 million go to the players, and not the owners. And unless you’re in the business of ripping off housewives or saddling college kids with lifelong debt or kicking people out of their homes, so should you.

“Moana” and the Disney feminist agenda

 

moana.jpeg

From the Melanin Man:

 

I have to admit it, I was a big sucker for Disney movies as a young child.

I bought into the happily ever after bullshit just like the majority of kids who are brainwashed by the machinations of Disney films. Unfortunately, there is no happily ever after in real life unless you decide to make it happen and put in the hard work. And even then, more likely than not, it’s not totally that way at the end of the day.

The more I have learned the last couple of years, especially about the “Disney propaganda”, the more madness I find myself wanting to censor my daughters from.

Which leads me to the movie Moana that I recently watched on Netflix. The last animated movie that I posted about, the infamous Trolls post, has surprisingly to me received a ton of feedback than I expected to receive. Of course the feedback is mostly negative, but people have their opinions, and so do I.

Such is life. To this day, I stand by my opinion of that movie 1000% and wholeheartedly believe that the movie is STILL not suitable for children.

But anyways, I’m not going that deep with Moana as I did with Trolls so keep your pitchforks in the closet for all who happen to come across this post. I’m not going to give a synopsis of the movie as I assume you have watched the movie by now. If not, check it out on Netflix or other subscribers who have it available. Or you can just read the Wikipedia synopsis (haha!)

Check this article out as well: How the Story of “Moana” and Maui Holds Up Against Cultural Truths

So here’s my take…

On the low,  this is a tale of the aboriginal beginnings of the world, by aboriginal people who were obviously Melanin-Dominant.

**Quick fact** The original natives and settlers of islands in the Pacific, from the Melanesia to the Polynesia,  resembled Black Africans of today. Obviously, it wasn’t in Disney’s best interest to tell that part of the story.

For a time it seemed that these aborigines respected the natural order of the Earth and the delicate balance of life, innately civilized.  Then the male wind and sea demigod Maui, (who can be perceived as a metaphor for current godlike status of the white, Caucasian male) steals the heart (or the natural resources of the Earth ) of Te Fiti (or Mother Earth)  to gift to humanity. To me, Maui represents the nature of the white male (not all but generally speaking) to steal and conquer, taking his artificial role to supply the world’s peoples its needs.

(Keep this thought in mind…)

The heroine lead Moana is tasked with restoring Mother Earth back to its natural, pure state. In my opinion, her success in achieving her task is mainly due to the position that women (specifically  Black Melanin-Dominant women) are the greatest HUE-man representation of Mother Earth.

In essence, Mother Earth will only return to its natural state once the Black Melanin-Dominant woman as a whole returns to their natural state as the preeminent woman!!

That sounds like a happy-ever-after story to me. But here’s where Disney screws it up.

99% of the viewers, which are mostly children, are not privy to the real story minus the animation and familiar plotline. Nor are they familiar with the faux man versus woman nonsense perpetuated in today’s society. Throughout the film, Moana battled with mainly male figures in her quest to return the heart of Te Fiti, from defying the orders of her chief father to sail beyond the reef to persuading a reluctant Maui to assist her. It seems that Disney is unwittingly portraying all men as a whole, and not specifically the white, Caucasian male  to be the enemy to all women and their goals (i.e. equality.)

Why would they anyway, since Disney is ran majorly by white males!!! Duhhhh!!!

The portrayal seems to mirror the popular point of view of feminism, which honestly is toxic to the natural man-woman dynamic where men and women work together and are  not in competition. And I’m just not saying this because I’m a male and I have a secret hate for women. I was born from a woman and raised by a whole heap of ’em. The love for women, particularly my Black women, I have is forever unconditional.  Plus, there are plenty of women who seem to share my sentiment that popular feminism largely benefits those females of the Caucasian flavor, using women of color when it suits them best.

Look, Disney has a documented history of promoting the perceived greatness of whiteness for over EIGHTY YEARS!! Hell, they have a website dedicated to Disney Princesses, from Snow White to Ariel and Belle, baby!! So it’s not that far-fetched to think that it’s in the Disney board’s best interest to promote feminism.

“It’s just children’s entertainment, idiot. Get over yourself and your little male ego!”

Hey, I got two daughters, who are Black Melanin-Dominant, to raise and look after. Due to my ignorance and naivete of this world prior to their birth, they’ve gotten hooked to this stuff. And due to their innocence, they can’t see the shenanigans.

That’s where daddy comes in to save their brains from the madness. And I’m no longer  ignorant of it! If you think this daddy is “crazy” and “out of his mind,” so be it.

Their my seed to protect!

Their my responsibility!

I’m just doing the best I know how.

 

Stay woke, fam! (haha!)

 

Peace and Love to my melanated family,

The Melanin Man

 

Why I love…and HATE…The Cosby Show

the cosby show.jpg

From The Melanin Man:

 

I’m back…again.

I haven’t actually written a post in a couple of months. I’ve been itching to get done with this memoir of mine and I’ve finally finished it.

Now to edit…oh dear.

So now I can get back to churning out more posts. I have so much to catch up on, but I’ll pace myself. There’s no rush, I have the time now.

Back to work I go…

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I get a feeling of nostalgia and a reminder of a long-gone childhood innocence I once had when I watch reruns of old shows like Family Matters, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Martin, Living Single, and of course, my all-time favorite The Cosby Show. Recently I watched the entire eight seasons of The Cosby Show on Amazon Prime (yeah, I know right?! Binging on reruns!) It was refreshing to see Black, Melanin-Dominant families and people in a positive light on the television again, even if it was from thirty years ago.

A time more receptive to the concept of Black prosperity although NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and the various big-time networks greatly benefited the most by exploiting it.

But anyways, I remembered the countless laughs and good vibes I would get from the Heathcliff’s perplexing behavior , Claire’s sultry style, the different worldly quirkiness of Denise, Theo’s shenanigans, etc. I could go on and on. Many of the themes and topics that were discussed on the show, from drugs and sex education to the extreme importance of college and marriage values, hit home for many of us. The unconditional love and respect that was shared between each family member on the show appeared genuine and honest. Anyone raised  in even a semi-decent family environment can relate to the type of love displayed on the show.

Note: I was born during the production of the show, so obviously I watched the majority of the show during its subsequent rerun cycle.

For those reasons, The Cosby Show is and will always be a timeless treasure to the once innocent inner child in me. And for those reasons, I love the show.

So again, why do I hate the show?

Eventually over time, that youthful childhood innocence of mine  fleeted within this paradigm of illusions. Watching the show with the lens of a uncalcified THIRD EYE as a young Black husband and father, who now values the essence of blackness more than ever, I realize that my all-time favorite show ultimately does not challenge the status-quo.

Its premise (a Black high middle-class family featuring a male doctor married to a female lawyer raising five kids) creates the notion that through hard work, dedication, and  attitude (see: assimilation), in spite of  your race, creed or even gender, the American Dream is achievable. You will be acceptable, and tolerable, to the world as a whole.

But should that be the goal for Black, Melanin-Dominant families?

Achievement through assimilation? Losing your value (if there is one) for blackness in the process? 

The Cosby Show, and shows of its ilk, do not challenge that status-quo whatsoever. It seeks to justify the current parasitic capitalistic paradigm with white viewers, and draw in “wayward” Black-Melanin Dominant viewers who may still question the system’s validity. It paints the typical glamorous, “happily ever after” picture: by securing financial freedom, a better overall quality of life is possible for the  financially challenged, which consist mainly of the Black and Brown population.

What about the sacrifices that have to be made by those who choose to pursue careers in medicine and law, specifically those of the Black Melanin-Dominant population?

For example:

You go through eight to ten years of training, for most, in the prime of your youth. Paid merely pennies through training as a law clerk or medical resident, you rack up hundreds of thousands dollars in debt. More than likely you endure overt and subtle incidents of prejudice and racism in the process. You even put off marriage and having kids, all the while under the impression that a prestigious career path in medicine or law will you put you in the forefront of helping those people, your people, that are truly in need of your services.

Yet…

You realize, ten to twenty years later down the road, that the medicine you prescribe or promote to the public does more harm than good to those people, your people, you seek to help. You realize that the people and/or companies you represent are thieves, rapists, and murders with a seemingly unlimited amount of resources to influence the decisions of lawmakers and law enforcers to their benefit and to the detriment of the people, your people, you wish to seek justice for.

You realize that the main objective of the medical field is to profit instead of heal. You realize that the law you so deeply uphold was written by men, who do not look like you,  who once promoted the  ownership of men and women who resembled you. 

All the while you have no spouse or offspring to show for it. If you happen to find yourself married with kids, somebody(s) is probably being neglected. Either the spouse, the kids, or both.  If both spouses have such demanding careers , I guarantee someone else besides the parents are raising the kids. Ain’t that something?!

Then maybe, hopefully, one day you arrive to that point of cognizance and you ask yourself, “Now what?? Shall I awake or stay sheep?”

 

NOW…does The Cosby Show depict that reality one iota? Does it even try to invoke that sort of thought in the minds of its viewers?

(I’ll put my life on it that the reality I just illustrated  occurs wayyyyy more often than you think.)

Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen, smoke and mirrors. It’s not just entertainment, folks.

Thus, that is why I hate The Cosby Show. Nothing to do with, according to the mainstream media,the now despicable Bill Cosby. That’s another story , but I’m getting into that one.

 

 

Peace and Love to my melanated family,

The Melanin Man

 

 

 

a repost: Manipulating the Mass Mind & Attention

Article posted on the Waking Times (click link for original)

 

Mind-Control

By Fred Dodson

In my 30 years as a self-improvement coach, the most important insight is that where you put your attention is where your energy goes. If you find that hard to believe, try this: Walk through a crowd. Put your attention on the people. Then walk through the same crowd again and put your attention on the gaps between the people. More of them will now make way. Try it. It never fails. Here’s another experiment: Stand at the corner of any city street and look upwards for a while. You will notice people around you also look upwards. They want to know what you are looking at, and for that brief period you determined the direction of their attention.

If I tell a group of people to think of a red car, there is a great likelihood that all of them will do it. And if I tell them not to think of a red car… they will also think of a red car! They could have chosen to think of a blue mountain instead. From that you realize how easy it is to steer mass attention.

Rarely will anyone form their own thought or choose different than what they are told. In fact, if you do not make decisions and intentions, someone else will do it for you. You know this from your own life: If your spouse asks you where you want to go for dinner and you don’t really have any specific preference, then they will decide where to go. The same applies on a mass-scale.

Due to a general weakness of will and awareness, most people have their reality decided for them, with merely the illusion of choice given – such as being able to choose whether you will pay your taxes by credit card or bank wire.

In school, children do not learn how to think but what to think. They do not learn how to steer attention but instead various things they are supposed to steer attention to.

It is humbling to realise that most people on the planet do not practice focusing, guiding, re-directing, shifting, retrieving and un-sticking their own attention. Thus the life-experience of most of us is determined by external agendas as given by mass media, schools, our parents and countless other sources that have very little to do with our innermost heart’s truth.

We are lucky that at least some of the direction we get from outside is benign. We are lucky if we have parents who say, “You are highly talented, intelligent and beautiful,” thus directing our attention in the right direction. Have you ever heard a newscaster tell you, “You are safe, talented, intelligent, beautiful, empowered and able”? Not hardly. You’ll hear you are the victim of horrible circumstances that you can do nothing about.

Through directing attention, you become a mini-reality-creator. But the mass media is the grand sorcerer of reality manipulation as it directs the attention of millions. It’s not generally understood to what bizarre extent the news media actively participate in the creation of our reality. It is thought they only “report” what is “happening,” but that’s not the case.

The following are different levels of mass-reality-creation by the news media, sorted by the degree of manipulation:

Level 1: Filtering

When I create a movie for my work, I usually choose an outdoor location. I make sure to set up the camera in nature so the scenery looks really good. By choosing what to point the camera at, I am excluding everything I don’t want viewers to see, anything that does not fit my agenda.

I recently filmed breathtaking natural scenery… or at least that’s what it looked like in the final result. I excluded an adjacent parking place, trashcans, roaming dogs, public signs, ugly houses and anything else that disturbed the illusion of me being in paradise. Any filmmaker understands to which extent the filmmaker distorts reality.

From the millions of events that happen every day, the reporter filters which ones to report. This is a normal process. I do it for my own website by presenting only information relevant to its overall topic. People do it on Facebook by presenting themselves in a certain way and excluding pictures that might put them in a bad light.

News media, however, tend to apply several filters. The first one is the filter of negative bias. Why? Because at Earth’s current level of consciousness, fear, drama and hatred still capture more interest than peace, prosperity and harmony. Desperate to sell ad slots on their news program and their declining newspapers, most reports are filtered by how much upheaval and action they contain. In addition, televised news media follows the creed, “if there is no footage (video), it doesn’t matter.” When I was younger I worked for a well-known news station where I was told exactly that. I tried to get the editor to cover important angles of a story, but if there was no footage of it, it was as if it didn’t exist.

If they were to portray life on a day on Earth accurately, as it is for most people most of the time, it might appear “boring.” So the camera zooms in on places of the most mayhem and tragedy. This extreme filtering gives the audience the false impression that the whole world is mostly in a state of chaos, coupled with the implication there is absolutely nothing you can personally do about it. The sensationalist journalist never adds words of advice on improving your life, moving to peaceful surroundings or words of encouragement. He only cares about the sheer terror of explosions, debris, blood and destruction. If any of your relatives talked like a news anchor, you’d consider them mentally unstable.

A recent movie The Nightcrawler (starring Jake Gyllenhaal) exposes the juvenile and sadistic mindset of some sections of modern “journalism.” No doubt, the last decade has seen a rise in terrorist attacks all over the world. And while these are horrific, they are still actually just localised events, pinpointed at certain buildings with a limited amount of people. They are not nearly as bad as the nation-to-nation all-out-wars we’ve had in decades before that.

I happened to be in the city of Munich on the day of a terrorist attack at the end of July 2016. The shooting of 9 people at the hands of a 19-year-old kid named Ali went around the world. And yet, I learned it from the news, not from being in Munich at the time. On that day I was riding my bike along the river and went for a swim. I received numerous text messages asking whether I’m still alive and sending blessings to me and my family. You see my point…. things are bad, but rarely as bad as the news says they are.

On an odd note: The same journalist who happened to be at the Nice (France) terror attack only a week before, shooting live footage of it, also “coincidentally” happened to be pre-positioned at Munich on location and filming. His name is Richard Gutjahr and he is either magnetically attracted to such events for the sake of “terrortainment” or there is something more sinister going on.

When, if I may ask, is the last time you saw windsurfers in the Palestinian Gaza Territory or a happy family having a barbecue in their Jerusalem garden in the news? These events happen every day, by the hundreds, but they do not automatically come to your mind when I say “Gaza!” or “Israel!” I have been to both Palestine and Israel on numerous visits, both privately and for business, and I’ve always had a great time. Yet when I tell people I am travelling there, they tell me “be careful! That’s dangerous!” They associate these places with the blood and gore the news showed them. They know virtually nothing about the realities of these places than what they have been shown.

I mean no disrespect to the suffering of people in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. I am merely using these extreme examples to make the point of filtered-realities. They cause a lack of balance in our perception of the world as well as desensitising us toward violence.

Ideally, news media would have to not only show a nice segment at the end of their show, but more positive and interesting segments throughout. Then we learn that the world is a balance of light and darkness. Where are the news reports of hope, inspiration, everyday-heroes and human accomplishment? They are far and few between. If a proper balance of dark and light were given, the audience would become more involved in the healing of darkness rather than apathetic to it.

Level 2: Distortion

The next level of reality-manipulation is deliberate distortion by the journalists themselves because they wish to see something in a certain manner or are partial to some political, religious or philosophical ideology.

Of course, nobody is completely neutral and unbiased, nor is that expected. But one of the problems of our times is there is virtually no mass media outlet that is not widely known as being affiliated with some political, governmental, anti-governmental or philosophical “side” and a far shot from “neutral.” Latest statistics from my country (USA) show that the Top Ten most successful “news” outlets on the Internet are either “right-wing” or “left-wing” affiliated. The fact that we are able to determine whether an outlet is “left” or “right” is in itself problematic. It is disheartening how almost every story “top news outlets” carry is filtered through political bias. In other words, these are not “news” outlets and their employees are not “journalists,” they are unabashed propaganda outlets for one of the two political parties in the US.

Another form of distortion occurs when a journalist makes something better or worse than it is. He knows the editor will only accept a story if its interesting enough so he adds a few details here and there, knowing nobody will likely ever examine them more closely. From writing my own blog to a fairly large audience, I am somewhat familiar with the problem, but have always resisted the urge to exaggerate reports. I’d rather have some of my reports be understated (“boring”) than to report things that did not happen. Needless to say, I am not only blaming the mass media, as they only reflect the desires of the populace, who favour entertainment and excitement over reason and truth. When that audience goes to the cinema, they rarely pay to see peace, love and harmony, they usually pay to see death and suffering.

Another form of distortion is that most news stories are reported without wrapping them into a wider context. Most things that happen are part of a greater pattern, part of a history, part of a mindset. Yet, the way stories are reported is as separate pieces that have little or no relation to each other.

When I report on my blog, I frequently like to put what I wrote into context and comparison with other things I wrote in order to give a congruent overall big-picture. This is not the case in conventional news media where people think that the presidential elections in the US, the hurricane that happened just before, the resignation of the CIA-boss and the resurgent Israel-Palestine conflict (all having happened within a few weeks a couple of years ago) have nothing whatsoever to do with each other and are separate bits of information. But they are interconnected, not only metaphysically but geopolitically. Because the news reports too much and journalists write too quickly, ignoring context and connections, they breed ignorance of the depth and meaning of things.

Level 3: Deliberate Fabrication

This is the most intense form of reality-manipulation which hopefully does not occur too often. I recently spoke to someone who used to work for the British “Ministry of Defense.” He shared the following story: Some decades ago a group of reporters went to Northern Ireland to capture footage of the conflict. When they arrived everything was peaceful, so they went ahead and created some chaos, just so they could return home with footage. They bribed a local to make and throw molotov cocktails (amateur bombs) off rooftops into the streets, setting cars and trashcans ablaze. In this instance, the journalists literally created the news. They refused to go home saying “the streets of Belfast are peaceful at this time.” The guy who told me the story lamented that this scandal of sorts was never revealed or reported on to this day. It was covered up by the BBC to avoid embarrassment.

For a mature human being it is important to at least be aware of how news media manipulates reality. Mere awareness immunises you. You can then read and watch the news without being dragged down to victim-mentality or desensitised apathy, and if you are interested in a story you can then read different news outlets to view the different viewpoints and versions of it and gain a birds-eye-view.

It’s better not to rely on only one news outlet. In my view, most of these stories are just the world-mind processing garbage, like in some kind of bad dream. None of it needs to have anything to do with you, your reality and the reality of those around you. You experience only what you attract through the contents of your own consciousness and subsequent decisions. In some cases you will have a friend or relative who gets way too caught up in news media, exaggerating the importance of various events.

Back in the 80s some believed AIDS would completely wipe out the entire planet by the year 2000. It didn’t happen. Then they thought “Swine-Flu” would “wipe out civilisation as we know it”: It didn’t happen. Then they thought 2012 would enlighten humanity to a golden era of peace and bliss. Didn’t happen. And they thought 9/11 would mark the beginning of World War III. Didn’t happen. I dare say that for most of us, life went on like it did the 10 years before and progressed or regressed in accordance with our personal level of consciousness.

Those who take the news way too seriously very rarely do anything actively to help the situation. They’d prefer being worried and indignant to taking positive action. For them, daily preoccupation with the news is like an escape from their own lives which may lack movement or excitement. But when the time comes that their own lives pick up, their interest in daily news recedes. This means they have chosen to focus their precious attention to places that really matter in the development of their own spirit.

Attention is the currency of the 21st century and I recommend you use yours wisely. Be conscious of what you give your eyes to see, your ears to hear, your mind to think and your heart to feel.

a repost: Does the Bounty of New Television Shows On Racism Keep Audiences Woke or Commodify Black Suffering?

If there is one thing I realized to be true in this day and age, is that nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, is real on TE-LIES-VISION. Anything and everything that is broadcasted on a screen requires a production crew or have a “credits” section.

Thus, ten times out of ten it’s a concoction!

Google definition of concoction: an elaborate story, especially a fabrication.

That includes Black suffering, whether produced, directed, or even distributed by our own.

-The Melanated Man

 

Article posted on Atlanta Blackstar (click link for original)

 

By: Gus T. Renegade

Gil Scott-Heron was wrong.

In 2017, you can binge watch the revolution on Netflix.

During a May NPR interview with the stars of ABC’s beloved sitcom “black-ish,” the current Hollywood era was described as “a renaissance of shows featuring, written or produced by people of color.” Beyond spotlighting Black dramatists and filmmakers, countless new series are centrally focused on racism and its erosion of Black life. Conscious content makers hope substantive viewing educates and resonates with the Black Lives Matter generation.

Standup comedian W. Kamau Bell and retired basketball star Charles Barkley both launched prime time series that address dire issues such as police terrorism against Black citizens and the rise of white nationalist politicians like Richard Spencer of “alt-right.” But Bell and Barkley are television personalities, not trained race theorists. After reviewing both shows, Journalist and National Public Radio’s first full-time TV critic Eric Deggans confesses disappointment that both projects spliced gripping subject matter with “jokey asides” but failed to ask “tough, detailed, direct questions.”

The Netflix series “Dear White People” the television series based on Justin Simien’s 2014 independent film was similarly disappointing according to Journalist professor Jason Johnson. He described the 10-episode series as a “comedy that is steeped in the politics of Black life and pain” but unwilling to risk indicting white viewers for being complicit in the dramatized and real-world violence against Black people.

Kenya Burris, the creator of “black-ish,” told NPR that he uses his sitcom to talk “about those things that make us uncomfortable.” Despite relying on an audience that’s 75-percent white, Barris infuses episodes with protests against police shootings, homages to minister Malcolm X and cameos for the 2015 book, “Between the World and Me” and its author, Ta-Nehisi Coates.

It’s easy to assume Barris being employed to produce three seasons of such content represents a modicum of progress and an indicator that many white viewers are receptive to Black perspectives on racism. Unfortunately, that’s not necessarily the case.

There’s a robust record of whites adhering to racist convictions while consuming narratives of Black pain. The late historian Vincent Woodard’s book, “The Delectable Negro,” details 19th-century whites who devoured Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” a novel celebrated for and credited with detailing the horrors of Black enslavement and igniting the Civil War. However, Woodard documents that, for some readers, the thought “that one man could possess, sell or whip another, caused … intense excitement.” Stowe’s “romanticized images of slaves” and depictions of Black suffering satisfy a peculiar taste acquired from centuries of dehumanizing Black people.

Professor Amy Louise Wood corroborates Woodard’s analysis with her research on the history of Black mutilation as a form of entertainment. In “Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890-1940,” she explores decades of lynchings and examines how these public mob killings became productions of racist theater. Emphasizing that lynchings were often advertised in advanced for maximum audience attendance and participation, Wood writes that these “rituals … and their subsequent representations imparted powerful messages to whites about their own supposed racial dominance and superiority. These spectacles produced and disseminated images of white power and Black degradation, of white unity and Black criminality, that served to instill and perpetuate a sense of racial supremacy in their white spectators.” Whites affirmed their racial identity and dominion over Black people by witnessing staged slaughters.

In a 2016 interview, Woods acknowledged similar messages of racial dominance are transmitted when footage depicts the final moments of Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner or the most recent victim of the white supremacy police state. Dash cam and cellphone footage captured with hopes of safeguarding citizens’ rights and guaranteeing accountability for police misconduct often become widely viewed confirmation of Black subjugation.

Journalist and author Isabelle Wilkerson also detected a symmetry between antique photos of Black people being hung and the now endless loops of police violence “caught on videotape [that] have reached hundreds of thousands of watchers on YouTube — a form of public witness to brutality beyond anything possible in the age of lynching.”

Even with a virtual crowd, the multitude of onlookers is often insufficient to criminally convict modern-day lynchers.

This viral and vicarious feast on Black suffering suggests a large population of whites have no problem digesting, and perhaps even crave, content that confirms the continued abuse and exploitation of Black people. The enormous social media presence of Black Lives Matter protesters appeals to unscrupulous advertisers willing to use the name of Tamir Rice to hawk toy pistols.

Pepsi’s recent public relations miscalculation demonstrates the shameless commodification of Black life and the years of political protest against white supremacy. The soft drink giant released a commercial depicting a fictionalized rally and the requisite phalanx of enforcement officials. A carbonated beverage establishes racial harmony where years of grassroots activism proved fruitless.

The tacky affair supports Johnson’s critique that, “So long as you can sell it to white audiences,” counterfeit concern for Black issues may be a profitable shtick for peddling merchandise or television shows.

Television star and filmmaker Jordan Peele told The New York Times he crafted the breakout horror flick “Get Out” to confront “the lack of acknowledgment that racism exists.” He deconstructed the symbolic meaning of television in the movie, describing it as a marker for inaction and escapism, similar to “the fact that the entertainment industry is not necessarily inclusive of the African-American experience,” Peele said.

That lens should frame our reception of and response to the sudden marathon of racially focused viewing options.

—————————————————————————————————

Gus T. Renegade hosts “The Context of White Supremacy” radio program, a platform designed to dissect and counter racism. For nearly a decade, he has interviewed and studied authors, filmmakers and scholars from around the globe.

A repost: Whites Cheer Black Athletes and Loathe Them At the Same Time – We Ask Why? – Atlanta Black Star

Article posted on Atlanta Blackstar (click link for original)

Baltimore Orioles’ outfielder Adam Jones was allegedly subjected to racial abuse while facing the Boston Red Sox on May 1.

By: Gus T. Renegade

In 2016, USA Today asked Baltimore Orioles’ center fielder Adam Jones why no Black baseball players mimicked football player Colin Kaepernick’s protest of the national anthem. Jones declared that Black players “already have two strikes against us.” Compared to basketball and football, Black Major League Baseball players constitute a miniscule number. “They don’t need us,” the Baltimore outfielder said. “Baseball is a white man’s sport.”

One year later and 70 years after World War II veteran Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball, Boston, Mass., spectators confirmed Jones’ assessment and wasted a bag of peanuts in the process. During a May 1 contest between the Orioles and the Red Sox, Jones reported being “called the n-word a handful of times” and having a bag of nuts thrown at him.

An assortment of athletes, including Jason Heyward of the Chicago Cubs and Golden State Warriors teammates Draymond Green and Stephen Curry, immediately disclosed that they’ve endured similar abuse from racist sports fans. The fact that the Cubs and Warriors have each hoisted recent championships in their respective leagues suggests the pinnacle of athletic achievement fails to shield Black athletes from anti-Black racism.

During the 1950s and ’60s, Bill Russell secured 11 titles for the Boston Celtics while describing the town as “a flea market of racism.” Chris Yuscavage writes that the hoops legend was conflicted about “how he was supposed to feel when he was routinely cheered by some of those same” white New Englanders who expressed unadulterated contempt for Black life before and after Celtics victories.

It’s likely that Jones’s verbal assailants badgered him while simultaneously reveling in the current playoff run of the overwhelmingly Black Celtics team.

University of Texas professor John Hoberman authored “Darwin’s Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of Race” in part to explore the contradiction of racist sports fans patronage of Black-dominated athletics. He reminds readers that historically, white culture declared white women and men intellectually and athletically supreme. Hoberman explains how the “emotional stake” in maintaining the lie of white superiority demanded that generations of Jackie Robinsons be barred from competing with white students or athletes.

What began with “Black firsts” like boxing champion Jack Johnson and tennis prodigy Althea Gibson, has, according to Hoberman, swelled to the point that, “A lot of whites, if they’re sports fans, they are going to have to consume a lot of sports entertainment that is going to feature people who do not look like them, who do not have white skins.”

The billion-dollar global sports conglomerate verifies the insatiable appetite — and market — for Black athletes. Hoberman submits that stale racial stereotypes helped a number of whites digest the never ending serving of Black athletic triumph. He writes, “The myth of Black hardiness and supernormal vitality has been the crucible of our thinking about” Black bodies and often a leading justification for their enslavement. The antebellum delusions about Black endurance and pain tolerance that made people with melanin ideal candidates to be shackled conveniently explained the athletic brilliance of Black people. Laboring in white-owned fields with a ball or bail of cotton is our genetically predetermined destiny and limited range of expertise.

However, for multitudes of white sport fans, thinking of Black athletes as mutli-million-dollar slaves has made it no easier to stomach a sports world where Black ballers reign. In “The History of White People Hating LeBron James,” Chris Osterndorf writes that whites “are able to appreciate [Black athletes], to rely on them, but we’re not necessarily able to separate that from the belief that they work for us.” Black athletes aren’t role models or human beings, they’re white folks’ servants. Osterndorf says this mentality explains how racists hail the accomplishments of Black players on their favorite sporting teams, “all while calling him a ‘n—-r’ in the same conversation.”

During a NPR 2014 interview, U.S. Congressman James Clyburn used his daughter’s college homecoming football game to explain how devotion to the system of white supremacy is compartmentalized during heated sporting events. Representative Clyburn’s daughter, Mignon Clyburn, observed a white motorist with a bumper sticker promoting University of South Carolina football player George Rogers’ Heisman trophy campaign. She doubted the driver would sport a bumper sticker endorsing her father for Congress. Ms. Clyburn recalled that during the ballgame, the white fans who jeered and heckled the Black homecoming queen loudest were the most vocal in praising every yard gained by Rogers. She synthesized those events into a succinct conclusion: “It’s all right for us to entertain, but they don’t want us to represent them.”

Many Black people, including athletes like Hall of Fame football player Kellen Winslow, erroneously assumed white consumption of Black sports figures signified the wane of racism and the power of interracial athletics to lessen racial hostilities. Winslow has since publicly acknowledged his error.

When he was a physically gifted star on the gridiron, he was “treated and viewed differently than most African-American men in this country.” His Black life mattered. Racism was not a problem. “Then, reality came calling,” writes Winslow in the forward for the 1996 book In Black and White: Race and Sports in America by Kenneth L. Shropshire “After a nine-year career in the National Football League filled with honors and praises, I stepped into the real world and realized, in the words of Muhammad Ali, that I was ‘just another n—-r.’”

Gus T. Renegade hosts “The Context of White Supremacy” radio program, a platform designed to dissect and counter racism. For nearly a decade, he has interviewed and studied authors, filmmakers and scholars from around the globe.

The Original Writer of The Matrix and The Terminator Is A Black Woman

Man oh man! I’m sure some of you have known about this for quite some time but it’s definitely news to me. I surely don’t want to become that person who believes that EVERYTHING was created and ultimately stolen from Blac…I’m sorry, Melanin-Dominant people. But the more I learn each day that’s the conclusion I’m coming to.

I shouldn’t be surprised at this point in the game that if you’re a Caucasia…oops, Melanin-Recessive individual, hailed as an master creator/innovator specifically in the entertainment industry, especially in HOLLYWEIRD, there should be an entire 52-story building dedicated for all sorts of doubt.

Just how much input did they have in the “masterpieces” they  produce?

The 99% of us don’t really know what going behind those scenes, behind those credits we see on the screen or even in written literature. We’re just believing the word of our Massa, the powers-that-be. Seems like everything we consume on the entertainment realm is a psyop.   Literally I can’t watch that idiot box anymore just for my entertainment, unless I’m decoding it, without having to go through a deprogramming ritual to rid myself of the madness.

But anyway, for those of you who may not know about this, this may capture your interest. Please read it:

 

 

Laurence Fishburne and Sophia Stewart It looks like ANOTHER example in a long, long history of WHITE THEFT of black intellectual property, which includes inventions, music, dance, and, yes, novels …

Source: The Original Writer of The Matrix and The Terminator Is A Black Woman

My thoughts on “Arrival”, the concept of Time, and its effects on our minds

arrival-poster-russia.jpg

 

 

From the Melanated Man:

I wasn’t intending on writing a post on this movie, partly because I wasn’t intending on going to watch this movie either. Honestly I did not know anything about this movie; my wife told me about it and wanted to go see it. She figured that I would want to go watch it as well, stating the rave reviews it had received, describing it as a cerebral film.

Well, at first glance the old me wouldn’t dare spend $8.50  (that is the matinee price, because I refuse to spend double to see the same movie in prime time!) to go watch an alien invasion movie seemingly without any real action whatsoever.

What’s the point?

But obviously the old me is dead and buried six feet underground. The new me was partially excited and skeptical since I hadn’t heard anything about the movie, and it wasn’t a movie on my personal “Must See” list (i.e X-Men Apocalypse, Doctor Strange.)

WELL…

It was good! I learned, well reaffirmed, some knowledge that I had been thinking and contemplating on the last couple of months. Particularly on the concept of time. There were other elements of the movie that I found interesting as well, such as the “aliens” technology,  but none like the interpretation of time that was presented to the audience by the “aliens.”

The connection between the concept of time and man’s culture (mindset) is the main focus of this post.

I suggest everyone go see this movie. It is presented as a thought-provoking film, and it is; for myself it was only confirmation for me on so many levels.

 

**SPOILER ALERT** DO NOT READ PAST THIS POINT IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, THAT IS, IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT

 

Synopsis: Twelve extraterrestrial aircrafts, known as Shells (which they actually do look like shells), arrive in strategic locations on Earth. The film’s lead is Amy Adams, who portrays Dr. Louise Banks, an renowned linguist. She is called upon by the US Army Colonel Weber (portrayed by Forest Whitaker) to lead a special team at one of the Shell landing sites in Montana, to decipher the alien’s language and figure out their intentions. Also on the team is Ian Donnelly (portrayed by Jeremy Renner) an astrophysicist who is skeptical of Banks’ skills and how they pertain to the task of communicating with the aliens. Throughout the entire movie Louise is haunted by visions of losing her daughter to a rare disease not known to the audience. The alien creatures resemble cephalopods (or squid-like), and are protected by a glass window whenever the team comes into contact with them.

 

My thoughts and opinions are written in bold.

Throughout the entire film, there are references to time. The whole basis of the movie revolves around the concept of time. There was a statement at the beginning of the film by Dr. Banks stating that she feels that “time has no beginning or an end.” She stated to Colonel Weber that through her studies with other cultures on Earth that a society’s language is influenced by their viewpoint of life and the universe. There was another statement such as “time is non-linear,” when it came to decoding the aliens written language. The alien’s language is written in a circular-form, indicating that their understanding of time is in fact cyclical in nature.

If you have a decent relationship with the Good Book, then you should be familiar with this verse:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Revelation 22:13

Minus the obvious contradiction of the Bible, there is alot of truth within it. Each and every one of us are the living manifestation of this verse.

Let me elaborate on that.

The average Internet research scholar should be privy to the fact that the Bible, well the earlier variations of it, was practically written by individuals who were Melanin-Dominant. Those “aliens” in the movie represent those ancient Melanin-Dominant ancestors who knew everything regarding the “concept of time” and of the things to come. Whether we know it or not, our ancestors tried to warn us (i.e. the Melanin-Dominant including Blacks, Africans, Aboriginals, etc.) of the coming storm, or terror that was to come. They knew that time is only a recurrent phenomenon. 

The ancients sensed long ago that there was going to be a shift in power, and thus, the mindset of the people on the planet. It would transfer into a new cycle of living, a very  cycle of living not natural or conducive to Melanin-Dominant peoples. The philosophy changed from one of a collective (African) to an individual (European) philosophy. We are well-versed to the fact that this new cycle has chad major consequences for Melanin-Dominant peoples throughout recent history of the last 6,000 to 10,000 years. The age of -isms has been in full supply, from Capitalism to Imperialism to Fascism to Racism and so on and so on.

Famine, widespread disease, pollution, and war are the byproducts of this now supreme philosophy. It explains how Louise can see her future daughter contracting and dying from a rare disease, and her future husband Dr. Donnelly leaving her in the subsequent aftermath. The society (Western, European culture) that is the preeminent culture of the day has created a scenario such as this. When the African mindset was dominant on the planet, these this sort of situation was virtually non-existent. Any dis-ease could be cured through the African holistic way.

If you understand and overstand a species culture and mentality, it’s not too hard to predict their actions and reactions. Then time, if there is such a thing as time, does not exist.

As we say: “Wash, rinse, repeat.”

 

The dominant culture in today’s society (Western culture) has a finite foundation. Every aspect of Western culture and thought has as a beginning and an end. For instance:

-The way we write and communicate, there is a beginning and end to our sentences that we write, and to conversations we have with one another. 

-The way we work for 30-40 years searching for that light at the end of the tunnel called retirement, it explains how individuals can settle for a subpar occupation for so long.

-Even the way we look at death, we figure that’s the end of our existence, it’s only a stepping stone to the next stage. For example in the movie, the alien named Costello by the humans mentioned that Abbott was “in the death process,” following the attack  by rogue Army soldiers who were against the aliens’ presence on Earth.

(Note: The aliens did not retaliate from that attack, only pulling their ships a few thousand feet away from the surface to protect themselves from further confrontation. They kept calm and patient. Their behavior reflect that of a highly civilized, melanated culture.)

Western civilization has trapped the majority of the inhabitants of this planet with this finite understanding of time. The “primitive” cultures that the West has devoured over thousands of years knew that time (and history) repeats itself.

“What goes around, comes back around.”

Sort of like a REVOLUTION! 

revolution-

  1. a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
  2. an instance of revolving.

 

Why do we even call a revolution (the uprising part of that term) a revolution anyway?It puzzles me. Because we complain about the same thing over and over again, have an uproar about, and the same shit repeats itself again in a different form/manner.

We need to do away with words that have a double meaning. We are unwittingly causing confusion within our minds. Remember, language imitates culture, culture imitates mindset.

It’s time that we change our language, our culture, our mindset, back to that of our ancient Melanin-Dominant ancestors, brothers and sistahs.

Maybe we can break this destructive cycle we are currently revolving.

Our liberation depends on it.

 

Peace and Love to my melanated family,

The Melanated Man

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doctor Strange Decoded! (Oh yeaahhh…)

 

 

doctorstrange.jpg

 

From the Melanated Man:

 

YOU…HAVE…TO…GO…SEE..THIS …MOVIE!! I saw it this past weekend and all I have to say is…

Best movie of the year in my opinion! I love this movie!!

 

(Disclaimer: PLEASE…if you have not seen this movie DO NOT CONTINUE reading this post!)

 

My third eye enjoyed every bit of this movie from the beginning to the end (granted I missed the first 15 minutes but I practically know what happened anyway: Dr. Strange loses feeling in his hands from wreck, the villains are introduced yada yada yada!)

It’s interesting that I have been kind of looking into occultism, mysticism, etc. with the last couple of months; this movie hit right home for me! I’m still new to this occult information but I could tell there were many, many occult symbols in the movie that I noticed from my studies. The entire premise of the movie is focused on how the world as a whole is currently turning away from conventional Western thought and philosophy back toward Eastern thought and philosophy.

This  is metaphysics galore!

It briefly discusses chakras,the power of meditation, and alternate dimensions. And with everything that you may have encountered with this blog, the movie also heavily talks about the dark force, or dark matter (melanin). There are so many easter eggs and messages hidden in plain sight in this movie I don’t know where to begin. But I have to start somewhere, and I’ll start by discussing the synopsis.

Note: You have to use today’s movies as a learning tool instead of for entertainment, secretly brainwashing the unawakened individual, especially these “superhero” movies. If you remove the tried-and-untrue plot and theme of good vs. evil, or better yet flip the two, you will began to truly understand what the power-that-be are throwing at you. They have taken  knowledge that they have stolen from our ancient melanated ancestors, capitalized on it, and manipulated it into a lukewarm form to keep you locked into their game, their system, their Matrix. Open you THIRD EYE, the most important eye, to see past their bullshit. 

Also, Everything in bold besides the characters names are my thoughts and opinions.

 

Let’s begin.

 

Synopsis: Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Dr. Stephen Strange, a brilliant neurosurgeon who loses the ability to use his hands from a car accident. After seeking help through conventional Western medicine and experimental procedures, he looks for guidance from  former paralegic who was healed by the name of Jonathan Pangborn (portrayed by Benjamin Bratt). Pangborn leads him to Kamar-Taj, Nepal the secret compound of an ancient mystic aptly named the Ancient One   (portrayed by Tilda Swinton.) Strange is skeptical of her methods when she tells him that she does not heal anyone yet their students heal themselves. But she shows Strange the powers she possess i.e. through astral projection, and Strange is skeptic no more. Though at first The Ancient One shuns Strange for his arrogance, she is convinced by her aide Mordo (portrayed by Chiwetel Ejifor) to take in Strange. From there, Strange begins to train and enhance his abilities as a powerful mystic, impressing his pupils and his teachers the Ancient One and Mordo. As Strange becomes more intune with his new abilities, he crosses paths with Kaelcillius (portrayed by Mads Mikkelsen), one of the Ancient One’s former pupils who has broken off on his own with a couple of followers, seeking to bring to Earth  the powerful Dormammu of the Dark Dimension, where time is non-existent and life is immortal. 

 

 

There is no need to talk about the obvious whitewashing with Tilda Swinton being cast as the Ancient One in a historically Brown-populated Nepal. In a sense, in my opinion, it was a brilliant move. As Strange said in the movie after her death by the hands of Kaelcillius, “she was complicated.” No one knew the exact age of the Ancient One, but it was said that she had lived for many centuries. No one was sure how she was able to live for so long, but is was discovered by Strange that she was stealing energy from the Dark Dimension to live as long as she did. For starters, the Dark Dimension is not really  dark (or evil);  it is only portrayed that way in the movie. It is a subtle reference to dark matter, or better yet melanin. The more you enhance and respect the power and the gift of melanin, the more you attain inner peace. If you were to translate this situation into real life, the Ancient One played by Swinton represent how Europeans, Caucasians, Melanin-Recessive groups have stolen knowledge concerning EVERYTHING from the physical realm to the metaphysical realm from the ancients (the Africans, Aboriginals, Melanin-Dominant groups) to attain dominance over the world over time. Melanin-Recessive groups have ALWAYS depended on Melanin-Dominant groups’ innate natural ability and knowledge to survive, and ultimately to take over.  Kaelcillius knows about the Ancient One drawing energy from the Dark Dimension, which caused him to break off from the Ancient One in the first place.??

If you noticed in the movie there were numerous, numerous books in the compound’s library guarded by Wong (portrayed by Benedict Wong) of knowledge on the mystics arts and the such. Somewhere the powers-that-be have hidden this stolen knowledge from the general population where it is heavily guarded. For my esoteric followers and readers, could be  the Vatican, right? The powers-that-be have given bits and pieces of this knowledge to certain entities (in Dr. Strange’s case, the privileged European/Caucasian)  who have created institutions (i.e yoga shops, certified meditation gurus, etc.) to capitalize on it.  In the movie, it is revealed that the Earth is protected from other dimensional entities by three buildings called Sanctums (definition of sanctum- a sacred place, especially within a temple or church) that are located in London, New York City, and Hong Kong. For those of my esoteric individuals, it has been known that power and control of the planet has been divided amongst three cities on Earth: London, Washington D.C., and the Vatican City. Two of the cities have been switched, but the symbolism is still valid. London runs all banking industries in the world, Washington D.C. is in charge of all military operations, and Vatican City of course is on top of ALL religious entities and institutions that exist (rather it be Islam, Christianity, or Hinduism.) Instead of the protecting the people from  extraterrestrial or alternate dimensional forces, these real-life “sanctums” are trapping the overall consciousness of the people, especially my Melanin-Dominant brethren, into mental and spiritual slavery. These “sanctums” are not sacred at all; it is preventing the people from true liberation of body and soul. Dr. Strange is hailed as the “hero” and the protectors of these “sanctums” in the movie. But just like all of these “superhero” movies and shows produced by the Jewish elite of Hollywood (yes, most, if not all, of your major players in the entertainment industry are Jews. Look it up!), Strange’s ultimate goal symbolically is to protect the status quo of the day: white, Western civilization supremacy.

As mentioned earlier, at the beginning of the movie Dr. Strange only seeks to heal himself and his persona is one of arrogance and pride. At first he shunned and disregarded the “unconventional” methods of the Ancient One. Now this is a not so subtle shot by those who are consumed with Western thought and philosophy against the natural healing methods of the body and spirit that have been advocated and preached by our ancient Melanin-Dominant ancestors since time immoral (you have to acquire the book African Holistic Health!) Our continual dependence on Western thought and philosophy, which teaches to look outside of yourself for the answers, constantly has us in state of disarray and discontentment. And although Dr. Strange embraces his “newfound ” philosophy and powers, the movie secretly still seems to drive home the point that Western thought and philosophy still takes precedence over the “unconventional.” When Dr. Strange was  injured fighting one of Kaelcillius’ henchmen protecting the New York sanctum, he returns to the hospital that he practiced in New York City for medical assistance from his nurse girlfriend Christine Palmer (portrayed by Rachel McAdams, the most useless character in the movie) And the ultimate insult was when the Ancient One (the same one that drew so much of her energy from the Dark Dimension) was mortally wounded by Kaelcillius himself and she is rushed back to the same hospital in a attempt to be revived. If these methods that the Ancient One and Dr. Strange practiced were so liberating, why every single time each one was injured did they end up in a hospital? To be saved by conventional Western medical philosophy? Couldn’t they just heal themselves or trust the body to heal itself through natural means? The powers-that-be: “You may dibble and dabble with this natural, mystical nonsense if you like, but eventually at some point you will end up back in our hands.” In short, the medical philosophy of Western civilization will always be the foundation for man, hue-man, mankind, whatever. Smh

Mordo is my favorite character throughout the entire movie. Of course he is the only Black-African main character in the movie. I love that. And at the beginning of the movie he is portrayed as a henpeck who is ignorant to what’s really going on. Although at first he supports the idea of Dr. Strange becoming a pupil of the Ancient One, he increasingly becomes wary of Dr. Strange when he learns time manipulation with the Eye of Agamatto, which holds the Infinity Stone of Time. He warns against using the Eye to break the Laws of Nature; it is implied that he is a avid believer of protecting the Natural Law.And honestly, in this reality, most Black, African, Melanin-Dominant people have no problem doing that.  Mordo also sees a similar thirst for power and knowledge in Strange that he recognized in “evil” Kaelcillius. When he finds out that the Ancient One has been able to live hundreds and hundreds of years by way of energy drawn from the Dark Dimension, the same Dark Dimension Kaelcillius had seek to unleash on Earth,  he loses all faith in all he had trusted and believed up to that point.He realizes that there was no  difference between the Ancient One and Kaelcillius. Ultimately, he was manipulated by the Ancient One, just like most Melanin-Dominant people are by these Melanin-Recessive individuals in power who they believe are all-knowing and/or have great influence on their own merit. When Kaelcillius and his minions are defeated by Strange with the Eye of Agamotto through a time loop , Mordo turns away from him, Wong, and the rest of mystical guard. He determines that Dr. Strange, the Ancient One, and Kaelcillius are all one in the same in that essentially they seek dominion and influence one way or another:

Dr. Strange the surgeon is no different from Dr. Strange the mystic. He relishes the idea of having the ability to control life and death and time (see White Savior Industrial Complex.)

The Ancient One has no problem of being a major figure of influence, a keeper of supposed hidden knowledge, which resembles the current state of the world politics (who controls 98% of the world’s resources?)

Kaelcillius seeks to be the one who unleashes the Dark Dimension, the gift of immortality, on the people, which is the White Savior Industrial Complex in reverse.

 

Mordo makes his own path, which should serve as inspiration to my Melanin-Dominant brethren. He can only trust in himself and respect the only laws that truly matter at the end of the day, the Laws of Nature. This is why Mordo resonates so much with me. At the end of the credits. Mordo is shown visiting Pangborn, the paralegic who was healed by the Ancient One. Mordo takes Pangborn’s energy that he attained from his time in Nepal to walk again from him. He says that there are “too many sorcerers in the world”(of course Mordo will be portrayed as the next villain/enemy in the sequel of Dr. Strange.)

sorcerer (n.)-a person who claims or is believed to have magic powers; a wizard.

 

If you apply the “sorcerer” term to certain individuals amongst the general population who have knowledge that can help others but choose not to except for their own gain, then it makes too much sense. Pangborn chose not to learn more about his abilities, instead dipping back into his regular existence as a tradesmen. There is great responsibility in having knowledge that can help others, and you have responsibility to yourself to learn as much as you can about yourself. There is NO honor in sitting on knowledge for your own benefit or refusing to self-learn out of fear. To trick others in thinking that it is OK  is an act of sorcery. That was what Mordo was implying with Pangborn.

 

One last thing…

 

As mentioned previously, Dr. Strange was able to defeat the Dormammu with the Eye of Agamotto through looping time. Every time Dr. Strange came to Dormammu to bargain, Dormammu killed Dr. Strange. Thus Dormammu became a prisoner to Dr. Strange’s manipulation of time. Some of you, like myself, may shun the concept of time. What is true today will be true tomorrow. There is nothing new under the sun, according to the Good Book. So in essence, time does not exist. If the Dark Dimension represents real truth and knowledge, time, or the concept of time, will not change that. The enemy to the truth (Dr. Strange?) will always be the same as it was yesterday, today, and the next. So why did Dormammu bargain with Dr. Strange? He was the truth, and Dr. Strange was no match for him whatsoever. What did Dr. Strange have that Dormammu didn’t? The concept of time, which is the biggest concoction ever created by the elite. It has the majority of people, specifically Melanin-Dominant people, living in the moment, which works right in the hands of the powers-that-be. No matter how long you may have to fight off your enemies, you should never submit to their will. Especially when you have truth on your side. That scene alone will reinforce the lie to the masses that time is your enemy, that this life and reality is the only one that matters. That’s how I see it.

 

 

 

So there you have it. That’s my two cents on the movie. If you have any other thoughts on the movie feel free to write them in the comment section. If you love or hate the hell out of this post please feel free to write in the comment section. I’m open to all your opinions. Thanks for indulging me on this post by reading it; it took me over FOUR hours to write this post. I’m certainly dedicated to uplifting my people and imparting some knowledge that I may have to others.

 

Peace and Love to my melanated family,

The Melanated Man

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Esoteric Review: Netflix “Luke Cage”

luke-cage2

From the Melanated Man:

 

I wasn’t going to watch this show. Really, I wasn’t. I’m not a series kind of guy and I don’t watch that much TV at all for obvious reasons. My wife turned it on while we were spending a kid-free weekend.

Then I got hooked.

The Luke Cage series came out on September 30th. I finished the entire series on Oct 4th!! Talk about a series binge! I never did anything like that, but it was well worth it. I kept my THIRD EYE open and thankfully I caught some information that isn’t particularly new to me or to some of you reading this, but it was really interesting to see portrayed on tel-lies-vision in a non-threatening way, at least from my perspective.

The show  has a major Blaxploitation feel to it, and is almost reminiscent of Shaft. What’s funny is that Shaft is well before my time and I never actually watched that movie ( I did watch the remake with Samuel L.Jackson), but I have watched enough Blaxploitation movies like Foxy Brown to be familiar with the elements.

So let’s get to it. I’m going to hit some of the highlights that caught my attention and going into detail on them.

 

Articles that are good to read on Luke Cage:

Netflix’s Luke Cage is a Great Show Marred by Terrible Third Act

Luke Cage takes on the ultimate villain: America’s toxic black male stereotypes

Seven Things We Loved about Luke Cage and Two We Didn’t

 

Spoiler alert: Some scenes and storylines may get mentioned so avoid reading any further if you haven’t seen the show yet.

 

If you’re not familiar with Carl Lucas aka Luke Cage (portrayed by Mike Colter), he is one of Marvel Comic’s first black superheroes created in the late 60s/early 70s time period. In the comics, he originally hails from Harlem, but in the show he is only a transplant, an escapee from Seagate Prison off the coast of Georgia. That is where he attained his abilities by way of a failed experiment to save his life from an attempted murder while imprisoned. He has bulletproof skin and enhanced strength by way of the experiment, which sort of describes the durability of melanin with the skin and is vital to muscle health.Luke is also very proficient in hand-to-hand combat from his past in the Marines, according to the show.

He attempts to lay low in Harlem, working for Pop, a local barber who is hip to Luke’s abilities but keeps his secret. Luke is initially reluctant to use his abilities to help those in need as to not draw any attention to himself. Even though Luke is only fighting common criminals throughout the show, he operates outside of the system, and thus becomes labeled as a vigilante. Whenever there are  Black-Melanated men or women decide rise against injustice outside the boundaries of the system, they become labeled as militant,  or “communists.” When Pop is killed by one of Cottonmouth’s henchman, only then Luke decides he must  stand up for his adopted community.

cornell-stokes

Cornell Stokes aka Cottonmouth (portrayed by Mahershala Ali) is Harlem’s kingpin and owner of the club Harlem Paradise for the first 6 episodes, and my favorite character. He is one of the most complex characters on the show, conflicted with his role as kingpin and illegal arms dealer. Through flashbacks to his youth, Cottonmouth can be seen practicing on his music of a keyboard inspiring to become a famous musician one day. But he is pushed to run the family mob business by Mama Mabel Stokes (played by LaTanya Richardson) who started the illegal enterprise back in the day. Cottonmouth has to perform certain “initiation” duties to show his loyalty. Cottonmouth is not the ruthless, cold-blooded gangster that we may be familiar with. He respects the so-called code of ethics of the streets and only believes in violence when only necessary, the “eye for an eye” kind of attitude i.e. his disdain when he finds out Pop was killed without his approval. Because of  his relationship with Pop in his younger days, he pays his respect at the memorial which showed to me that Cottonmouth did have a heart.

They say we are defined by our actions, but I can safely say that with Cottonmouth I believe he made decisions that were necessary for his own survival. He made the decision to succumb to the street life, ultimately contradicting who he truly was and could become as a talented Black man. Unfortunately instead of overcoming his destructive upbringing, he became a product of it. Many people, specifically Black-Melanated people, have to make decisions just to survive not only their own environment that they were raised in, but the oppressive white-dominated system that they must face on a daily basis that is ultimately constructed to elevate one group of people’s potential and suppress the others’. From my perspective Cottonmouth is not a villain in the traditional sense even though he is defined as a criminal by the “law.”  In some ways he can be viewed as a leader, a man who does whatever it takes to not only survive, but to protect his community and people, even if he has to break the rules. Which is brings us to…

 

alfre-woodard-as-mariah-dillard

 

Mariah Dillard aka Black Mariah (portrayed by Alfre Woodard) is the cousin of Cottonmouth and crooked councilwoman of the Harlem district. Through the first half of the show, Mariah has good intentions to revitalize Harlem into a vibrant community even though her methods (through her ties with Cottonmouth) are against the law. She is a determined woman and refuses to let her goals for a New Harlem Renaissance to be thwarted even when Luke Cage causes havoc with Cottonmouth’s operation. We began to see a changing of the guard when she kills her cousin in a fit of rage and covers it up with the help of Hernan Alvarez aka Shades (portrayed by Theo Rossi), who was originally an advisor for Cottonmouth by way of gunsdealer Willis Stryker aka Diamondback (portrayed by Erik LaRay Harvey.)  I see that Mariah was the one suppressing her true desires of domination and control of Harlem, like a true megalomaniac, through her role as a politician. Shades, who intended to kill Cottonmouth himself, and Diamondback use Mariah to not only gain control of Harlem but to frame Luke Cage for numerous crimes.

 

shades

 

Shades is one of the few non-Black characters in the show. Since he started advising Cottonmouth, the Stokes family empire started to crumble. Later I realized that Shades had ulterior motives the entire time, setting his sights on taking control with Mariah by his side. The casting move may or may not have been intentional (and I may be reaching a bit) but it seems that throughout  thousands of years of history every time Blacks invite non-Blacks into their society/business nothing good comes of the relationship, an thus, the Blacks began lose power and ultimately sink to the bottom of the Totem pole. At the same time Shades has manipulated Mariah enough to gain her trust as if he were family. Another Black-Melanated woman succumbing to another non-Black man’s machinations like usual.

Diamondback, who was lurking behind the scenes the first half of the show, shows up after Cottonmouth is dead seeking to take Luke Cage with a deadly obsession. Later it becomes known that Diamondback is Luke’s evil half-brother through their father and  framed Luke for the crimes that originally sent him to Seagate. He felt neglected by their father thinking he  favored Luke since Diamondback was the product of a extramarital affair.  He is the one that has produced the gun and bullets that can actually penetrate Luke’s skin and in the season finale he wears a suit that can not only protect him from Luke’s punches but he can dish out his own pain on Luke as well.  Looks like weaponry imitating melanin to me. Also, Luke Cage was basically used as a guinea pig in testing whether the weapons would work on him. Blacks throughout history have been used as  guinea pigs in all types of warfare.

 

misty-knight

 

Misty Knight (portrayed by Simone Missick) is the sexy NYPD detective and reluctant sidekick of Luke Cage who was raised in Harlem and deeply cares for her community. She does her best to abide by the law, the system, to bring about justice. Like Mariah, who was heavily  influenced by Mama Mabel, she demonstrates a strength and determination to achieve her  goals despite the odds; from my own experience that seems to be  a common trait amongst  Black-melanated  women regardless of their makeup. Claire Temple (portrayed by Rosario Dawson) is a nurse who helps Luke when he is successfully injured by Diamondback, and develops a budding relationship with Luke towards the end of the season. I find it intriguing that Luke had a brief fling with Misty at the beginning of the season then turns around and develops feelings with Claire later on. What’s even more intriguing is the fact Misty and Claire, during a hostage situation in one of the later episodes, discuss their “interactions” with Luke without either one getting offended. Luke didn’t “belong” to neither one of them and vice versa, but he did have a intimate connection with them nevertheless. There was a time long ago when Black-melanated woman and men, indigenous cultures, were not possessive of each other when it came to intimacy and romance. In short, polygamous relationships were normal, prior to the introduction of religion and European mindframe of one man, one woman doctrine. Is it possible that can become acceptable again?

 

lukecage1

 

You may have noticed that I didn’t talk about Luke Cage himself. No offense to Colter, who did a brilliant job in portraying Cage, but there was not much complexity in the character. And that was by design.

In my opinion, Luke Cage is your typical superhero with the typical backstory, tasked with protecting the status quo only in blackface. He may have been a vigilante about it, which most superheroes are, but ultimately he wants to make sure that the “criminals” or law-breakers fall back in line like the rest of the sheep of Harlem.

The only problem the police and politicians have of superheroes is that they go above the law to get the job done. And superheroes can do it more efficient than they can. Nevertheless, the status quo being kept.

The real criminals, the powers-that-be are the policy makers who created the conditions and environment that birthed the Cottonmouths, Mariahs, and Diamondbacks of the world  But that’s not going to be the forefront  in a superhero show. The theme and plot must be kept simplistic for the average viewer, to make you go “Oooooo” and “Wowwww!!”

When watching a superhero flick/show, Try not to watch it through the archaic lens of good versus evil. I don’t adhere to that concept, the good guys versus bad guys, the  law-abiding citizens versus criminals.

At the end of the day they’re one in the same. The only thing that separates the two is timing.

 

Overall, I got plenty of information from the show besides what the creators wanted me to receive. So it wasn’t time wasted, although I probably won’t series binge like that again for lonnngggg time. Thirteen hours worth of episodes is alot to consume in a short period of time.

 

Share your thoughts on the show as well if you’ve binged on it just like I did.

 

 

Peace and Love to my melanated family,

The Melanated Man