Do you REALLY want to be WIRED TO THE SYSTEM??

 

Image result for belko experiment

 

Recently, I watched a movie called The Belko Experiment. The main characters were employees of Belko Industries, which was located in the middle of rural Colombia (in the middle of nowhere.) Long story short, they were  trapped in the office building against their will by an unknown entity, who pitted them in a death match against each other . If the trapped employees chose not to engage in the sadistic game, they would die by an exploding microchip that was inserted in their brain when they first started working with the company.   To see the savagery emerge from those people to save their own ass was pretty mind-blowing. It was a pretty gruesome movie to say to the least.

That’s the power of the microchip, I guess (smh.) Ignorance is bliss.

If you haven’t seen the movie The Ghost in the Shell, it touches on the same topic as well…

 

Image result for ghost in the shell

 

Giving your power away, when it comes your body (your temple!) for the sake of convenience through technology may not be the smartest move, fam!

But we’ve been moving in this direction for awhile when it comes to pacemakers and devices like them.  Maybe it’s inevitable (smh.)

Check out these movies from your local Redbox and OBSERVE them. Don’t get caught up in the action and the stupid storyline. Hopefully it’ll make you second guess placing technological convenience over common sense.

If not, this is where the general population of this world is inevitably headed (read article below.)

 

Enjoy!!

 

 

Article posted on Waking Times (click link for original)

 

Corporations and Government Engineering a World Where Everyone Will be Microchipped

 

Microchip.jpg

 

 

 

Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” – Frederich Nietzsche

Technology is moving incredibly fast. Although certain advances are doing the world a lot of good, over time, new tools inevitably grant new opportunities for the powerful to garner more control and influence over the people. One of the most insidious means of mass control has not yet been fully implemented, but is being pushed at an ever-increasing rate: human microchipping.

Microchips Are Already Here

Many people like to pass off the issue of microchipping as a “conspiracy theory,” or something of the like. However, microchipping of humans is already underway as people discover that slavery can be incredibly convenient. Take for example Tim Shank, who allowed a microchip to be surgically implanted between his thumb and forefinger. As a software engineer, he believes that having technology imbedded into his body will be more convenient for him. A piercing and tattoo shop called Skin Art Gallery also performs the procedure, and companies online are beginning to sell kits for microchipping.

“This is an NFC chip, so it’s similar to what phones have nowadays.” – Tim Shank

Businesses have also begun microchipping their employees. Three Market Square, a Wisconsin-based company which sells microchips as well as vending machines that work with them, came under fire recently for taking technology to an uncomfortably invasive level. Their vision is for the entire population to become microchipped so they will never have to use credit cards or cash again.

“Eventually, this technology will become standardized allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities, etc.” – Todd Westby, Three Square Market CEO

In 2015 BBC reported that a Swedish company called Epicenter Stockholm started offering microchips to employees as well. This company reportedly used RDIF chips as opposed to NFC, which are much more easily tracked and hackable.

“We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped – the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip.” – Hannes Sjoblad, Chief Disruption Officer at Epicenter Stockholm and Self-proclaimed “Human Augmentation Activist”

Implanted Microchips Will Inevitably Result in the Elimination of Cash

The inevitable result of transferring all transactions to electronic means is of course the abolition of cash. Without cash, not only are there no longer anonymous purchases, but consequently anyone from the manufacturer of your chip to the bank you use could at any time strip away your ability to make purchases. This is incredibly dangerous because it demands a certain level of conformity and obedience in order to stay alive in the modern world.

In July 2017, Visa announced a new initiative called “The Visa Cashless Challenge” which would be used to give up to $500,000 to 50 restaurants that go ‘100% cashless’. Of course, when more people use digital forms of payment, Visa makes more money. If cash was entirely eliminated then Visa and the other credit card companies would rake in much larger profits. One economist wrote in a column for the London Telegraph that banning cash would allow more government control over the economy and grow their ability to monitor the populace, which he claims to be a good thing.

“Once all money exists only in bank accounts – monitored, or even directly controlled by the government – the authorities will be able to encourage us to spend more when the economy slows, or spend less when it is overheating. – Jim Leaviss, Former Bank of England Economist

Back in 2015 JP Morgan Chase began eliminating the storage of cash in its safety deposit boxes. This news came directly after Citigroup economist Willem Buiter advocated for the elimination of cash altogether.

“It is precisely the existence of paper currency that makes it difficult for central banks to take policy interest rates much below a zero, a limitation that seems to have become increasingly relevant during this century.” – Willem Buiter, Chief Economist at Citigroup

Music festivals have also bought into the idea of cashless society as many around the world, such as Austin City Limits, Lollapalooza, and Firefly, are now requiring wristbands, made by a company called Intellitix, linked to an individual’s payment information for purchases of T-Shirts and albums.

“Organizers can even drive more sales by introducing time-sensitive promotions to targeted customer segments on the fly during the festival or post-event. Customer data can also be used to improve future event content to boost sales even further.” Eric Janssen, chief revenue officer of Intellitix

The Next Step: Microchips in Your Brain

It might sound farfetched now, but the Pentagon’s technological development arm known as DARPA is already working on microchips which are designed to be imbedded in the brain. In 2016, DARPA spent $62 million on developing these chips, which are roughly one cubic centimeter in size and have massive implications for the degradation of human freedom and free thought.

“[The chips would enable] data-transfer bandwidth between the human brain and the digital world, feeding digital auditory or visual information into the brain, [and thereby] open the channel between the human brain and modern electronics.”

In 2015, engineers at Texas A&M University developed a chip, which embedded into the brains of cockroaches allows them to control movement of the specimen. Called “backpacks”, these devices weigh less than three grams and contain all the necessary wiring to remote control an insect.

“[The] cockroach walks naturally, and we simulate barriers by sending pulses to its antenna. They use their antenna as touch sensors, so stimulation on one side directs these insects towards the opposite direction.”

Former Google CEO and recurring Bilderberg member Eric Schmidt is a big proponent of brain chips as well.

“There’s what I call the creepy line and the Google policy with a lot of these things is to get right up to the creepy line, but not cross it. I would argue that implanting things in your brain is beyond the creepy line…at least for the moment until the technology gets better.” – Eric Schmidt, Former Google CEO

In an attempt to merge the human mind with artificial intelligence Tesla CEO Elon Musk

recently launched a venture called Neuralink

, a company whose goal it is to create devices which can be implanted in the human brain, effectively cutting off humanity from discovering our true potential, and finding the answers to life’s biggest questions, by trapping us in a technological sub-world with clearly defined limitations coded into existence by people we have not and will never meet.

“Over time I think we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence…what hasn’t been done [yet] is the reading and writing of neural code.” – Elon Musk

Will You Accept or Reject Being Tagged with a Microchip?

Microchipping is akin to a cow being tagged – a system of virtually unremovable identification which allows its owners to keep track of personal information such as health, vaccination schedules, eating habits, etc. In humans, this comes in the form of purchases, internet browsing history, social media activity and more.

The scary part in all of this is that a significant number of people, although there are many who oppose it, seem to be unaware of the near and present dangers associated with microchips. In 2015, a survey found that one in four Australians would accept a chip implanted under their skin if it meant more convenience for them when making purchases. In 2016, NBC produced a propaganda piece saying that your children must be microchipped “sooner rather than later” in order to keep them safe from predators.

“When barcodes first came out in the late 1960s, people were appalled. They were wary of them and did not understand the concept. Today, it is so commonplace, we don’t even notice it. A microchip would work much in the same way.”

Fortunately, more people are becoming aware of this and are prepared to reject microchipping when it starts to become mandatory or large numbers of people begin receiving implants. Will you reject this modern method of slavery or accept a tag for convenience? The choice is yours.

Advertisements

The Folly of Big-Time Sports Pt.7 : Boycott the NFL for Colin Kaepernick’s cause?? Are You F**king Serious?!

 

Image result for colin kaepernick protest

From the Melanin Man:

It’s been a process, but slowly but surely, I’m pulling away from the distraction of mainstream professional sports. Yet I’m compelled to write about the travesty of Colin Kaepernick not being signed yet by any NFL teams due to his protest of the National Anthem. For some strange reason, there are a good number of us who believe that Kaepernick is being punished for standing up for social justice for Blacks (Melanin-Dominants.)

So what do we do?

“BOYCOTT THE NFL!!” “PETITION NFL TEAMS TO SIGN COLIN KAEPERNICK!!”

(Sighing in disappointment as I shake my head)

Here are a few questions we need to ask ourselves:

  1. Why are we continuing to support this WALKING CONTRADICTION?
  2. WHYYYYY are we feeding into the fictitious drama the NFL manages to drum up before the beginning of EVERY season now?
  3. Do you understand the CRUEL paradox we’re trapped in?

 

Those individuals behind the scenes sure know how to rile up the emotions of us minions, especially through  nonsensical sports entertainment. Slaves Athletes are essentially bought off by the slave masters owners of these sports plantations franchises who run these sports leagues. So if I can you use one of my paid slaves players to drum up even more attention (i.e. increased viewership, jersey and ticket sales) towards my franchise and league  by using a genuine platform such as racial politics, why not take advantage?

We were/are being hooked, lined, and sunk through the fallacy of Colin Kaepernick’s protest!

Who cares about a f**king national anthem?!

We continue to gain acceptance from a majority white-Caucasian run nation and its majority white-Caucasian constituents which has not yet to this day acknowledged that we are fully human beings!!

REALLY?!!!!

If Black Melanin-Dominant folk (which we’re the ones mainly supporting this hypocrite) truly desired to break away from our benefactor Massa and fend for self, then WHY are we begging petitioning NFL teams to sign him in lieu of a boycott? Has it be encoded in our DNA to continuously ask for acceptance a handout? And to bring more validity to the madness,  fellow NFL players and shills celebrities such as Michael Bennett, Michael Jenkins, and Spike Lee* have joined in the chorus.

*Side note: There was a  time not too long ago when I thought highly of Spike Lee and his work. And I still do respect his talent. But  I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s an  agent to the system. You know what I’m talking about.

I do not believe Colin Kaepernick truly cares about the plight of his people, nor does he understand the paradox  we can’t seem to shake.  If he did, not only would he  would shun the NFL completely, he would denounce the entire game of football in general.

You know, timing is everything.

It’s funny how a couple of weeks prior to the Colin Kaepernick’s shenanigans were being drummed back into the news, there was a study  released that stated that 99% (or 111 out 112!) of the brains of deceased NFL players tested positive for the brain degenerative disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy,  better known as CTE. In deceased college football players who didn’t even make it to the NFL, it is over 90%!

WHY have we totally forgotten that small bit of information? THAT WAS NOT EVEN A MONTH AGO!

Black Melanin-Dominant men make up roughly 60-70% of college and NFL rosters. Those of us who even flash any semblance of athletic talent are hounded down as early as middle school by recruiters who see only dollar signs for themselves and the plantations universities they work for. And after shucking and jiving (or juking and diving in this case)  for free for our respective plantations universities who make hundreds of millions in the process, the select few of us who are able to come out unscathed have the “opportunity” to make chump change in the NFL while the slave masters owners (as well as Vegas)  make billions upon billions every year.

Maybe some of us come out of college with a degree that we can use. Maybe a handful of us retire from the NFL as millionaires, if the agents and certain long-lost friends and family members haven’t sucked us dry. But at the end of the day our real wealth lies in our health…physically, emotionally, and spiritually! Unfortunately, the majority of us Black Melanin-Dominant men who travel down this road are broken inside and out.

We find ourselves not only suffering from brain diseases such as CTE, but suffering other permanent, debilitating physical ailments due to the game of football. If by some sort of miracle we don’t, we’re nevertheless still serving white supremacy and butt buddy capitalism (i.e. sportscasters, team ownership, etc.)

Damn, that is a very efficient assembly line they got going on!

How is this benefiting our collective?

(That’s a rhetorical question.)

We are being played, fam!

So get the f**k outta here with the Colin Kaepernick protest and this petition nonsense. He  (and other players who’ve jumped on the bandwagon) is NOT on our side whatsoever. They’re allies to the state and to those who wish to kept this DESTRUCTIVE PARADIGM ALIVE! The sad thing is that they may not even realize that.  They haven’t said  or done anything new; when has protesting done anything for our people besides enslave us even more?

Let’s use our THIRD EYE and look deeper into what is being given to us by those who do not have our best interests at heart.

Trust me…everything we see and feel ain’t real!

 

Peace and Love to my melanated family,

The Melanin Man

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Folly of Big-Time Sports P.6- a repost: ‘I’ll Die for This Damn Sport’: Football, Concussions and Why African-Americans Continue to Brave the Risk

Originally article posted on Atlanta Blackstar

By D. Amari Jackson 7/31/2017

On an episode of the current season of the popular Netflix reality docuseries “Last Chance U,” Isaiah Wright — star sophomore running back for East Mississippi Community College — gets pulled from a game in the first half for precautionary measures, having sustained a concussion the week prior. During a dramatic halftime exchange with a coach who explains they are trying to protect him, an irate and desperate Wright shouts, “I don’t care about me, I wanna play football! I’ll die for this damn sport!”

Wright’s precarious affinity for football is motivated as much by economics as his passion for the game. A foster youth abandoned by his single mother, the talented Tennessee native sees the violent sport as his one chance at “making it” in life and realizing a more fortunate existence for himself and his loved ones.

Wright is not alone. For numerous young African-Americans and their families across the country, football is commonly viewed as their “one shot” at changing their impoverished reality. Despite the daunting odds — a mere 3.9 percent of Division I draft-eligible collegians of all races were chosen in the 2016 NFL draft — the potential rewards of a lucrative NFL contract often outweigh the inherent dangers of a brutal game.

Unlike the mental fog suffered by a concussed baller, these dangers have recently become clear. In a new study by Boston University researcher Dr. Ann McKee, Mckee examined the brains of 202 deceased football players and discovered 110 of the 111 brains of NFL players had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease caused by head trauma. To make matters worse, 56 percent of the brains of collegiate players studied had severe CTE, and 44 percent had mild cases, as did the brains of three high school players. Even mild cases are known to present a troubling array of progressive symptoms, including depression, behavioral abnormalities, anxiety, memory loss, impulsivity, explosive anger, cognitive issues, suicidal tendencies and abuse, both chemical and physical. The study further revealed the most common cause of death among those with mild CTE to be suicide. Such recent and revealing data has caused a number of players to walk away from the game.

“When you’re running down the field full-speed on kickoff team, they relate the impact to that of a car accident,” says Michael Peterson, an Atlanta-based entrepreneur and former defensive back and special teams player for the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets. A member of Tech’s 2009 ACC Championship team, the talented painter and conceptual artist has drawn attention to the violence and toll football takes on players through artwork exhibited at museums and galleries across the country. “In the late ’60s or early ’70s, there was an article in Life magazine on football, and the title of it was ‘Suicide Squad,’” says Peterson, who, during research for an art project, found that the moniker was what players of previous generations commonly used to call the kickoff team. “It kind of blows my mind that they were forecasting what’s transpiring today.”

African-Americans comprise 70 percent of current NFL players. Given that a third of white NFL players occupy such low-collision positions as kicker, punter or quarterback, Black pros are far more likely to sustain concussions. While the NFL has gone to great lengths to keep a lid on the link between repetitive head trauma and progressive brain disease, its more recent commitment to minimizing such injuries can only do so much in an inherently violent sport.

Especially since the trauma need not be repetitive. “When you suffer a blow — a single blow or repetitive — you may have immediate symptoms or may not have immediate symptoms,” explained Dr. Bennett Omalu in a December 2015 interview with Vice Sports. Omalu, the forensic pathologist and neuropathologist portrayed by Will Smith in the film “Concussion,” first recognized CTE as a serious concern for sports involving head trauma. “The absence of symptoms does not mean you haven’t suffered cellular injury,” he said. “CTE is neurodegenerative. It gets worse. Concussion is part of the spectrum, but it is not the underlying cause. The underlying cause is [brain trauma], the factor that initiated the cascade of events.”

Still, while many acknowledge the risk, American dreams die hard. An estimated two-thirds of Black boys believe they can be professional athletes, and African-American parents are four times more likely than white parents to believe the same. Such dreams are fostered by years of propaganda, in outdated Horatio Alger references and endlessly looped depictions of urban lotto winners. They have little relation to the infinitesimal chances and stark realities they obscure. Even when presented with the grim reality of the odds they face, that athletes are exponentially more likely to get head trauma than an NFL contract, many cling to these dreams, as they are unwilling to face the spirit-breaking economics of their absence.

“A lot of folks in sports are using it as their ticket out of their circumstances,” says Peterson, noting the competitive edge of teammates playing “for a way bigger reason.” For such players, concussions are mere and expected bumps on their field of dreams.

“I haven’t had any recorded concussions,” offers Peterson, intoning about how head trauma commonly goes untreated at all levels of the game. “But I have had my bell rung, I have seen stars, I have been dizzy and I have had the little ones.” These are unlike a normal injury, he says, where “Someone is going to cart you off the field or you’re going to limp off. With concussions, you don’t really recognize them, especially the small ones.” In addition, says Peterson, football is “a very masculine sport, and its hard sometimes to say that you are in pain when a limb is not dangling.”

Even so, football isn’t all about pain, trauma or impossible dreams. Beyond the brutality lies power, speed, strategy, technique, intellect and, yes, even beauty and grace. Those who doubt this have likely never played the game, never fully recognized its artistry, or never truly appreciated the gridiron’s storied past, nor its fast-paced present, as represented by the ballet-like fluidity of a Gale Sayers, a Lynn Swann or an Odell Beckham; the power and drive of a Jim Brown, a Walter Payton or a Marshawn Lynch; the awe-inspiring dominance of a Lawrence Taylor or a Reggie White; the skill, precision and intellect of a Warren Moon, a Steve McNair or a Cam Newton; the symphonic movement of a Barry Sanders; and the once-in-a-lifetime instincts and ability of a Sean Taylor.

Undoubtedly, the game imparts its many lessons, ones particularly valuable for less fortunate youth regardless of whether they play for a year or two decades. It offers all the components of a compelling metaphor for life — active awareness, situational analysis, intense preparation, discipline, decision making under pressure, mental and physical toughness, teamwork, strategy, effective management of fear, and mastery of self.

That said, it is a sport of contrasts, one as destructive as it is constructive, as expressive as it is debilitating. Outside of the kickers who occasionally prance upon the field to apply their specialty at little risk, and the zebra-striped whistle-toters who dot the field just out of harm’s way, no one can escape its violence. Make no mistake, the game has a cost, one far more pricey than the admission paid by legions of rabid weekend groupies to witness the punishing spectacle.

Peterson is ever reminded of this. One of the reasons he portrays the cost and violence of the game in his art is his connection to an NFL idol who succumbed to the sport’s dark side. “I did have people that I grew up with that committed suicide because of football,” he says, citing the shocking July 2012 suicide of NFL defensive back and fellow Tampa native O.J. Murdock. Murdock’s brain was one of those subsequently studied by CTE researchers. Noting he played football with Murdock’s little brother in Tampa, Peterson details how the tragedy inspired his 2014 artwork “Pursuit of Vanity: Pistol Formation,” which consists of the jersey nameplates of famous NFL players who have committed suicide. The nameplates, including that of late All-Pro linebacker Junior Seau, are hung in the shape of a pistol.

“When I added O.J. to the list, it felt surreal, it felt awkward,” acknowledges Peterson. “These things are continuing to occur, so I’m honoring these guys but also shedding light onto the severity of the situation.”

Still, despite the established dangers, there is ever that slim chance, one steeped in the passion for and the economics of a violent-yet-lucrative sport, that a kid from the lowest socioeconomic rung of our society can separate from the pile, break free from those trying to pull him down, and win at the larger game of life. In a recent segment for “The United States of Football” — a documentary exploring the cumulative effect of repetitive head trauma and based on a father’s uncertainty over allowing his son to play — Pro Football Hall of Fame member and current commentator Cris Carter spoke openly about the inherent health hazards of his beloved game. Responding to the need for the NFL and related media to promote an awareness of these hazards, Carter clarified why many, like Isaiah Wright, will continue to brave the risk.

“I believe,” said Carter, “it is also our responsibility to convey to kids that they have the right to have the same dream that I did.”

The Folly of Big-Time 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