The BN Village - View Single Post

Gmahogany. · (#56 (**permalink**))

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

At last!!!!!

You've finally learned how to talk to people instead of falling into a typical stereotype, well doneclp)

Quote:

Ummm, If you say so. A few gems from last post to you:

Quote:

is when they come in here and see that some of us are still talking that turn the other cheek, love your enemy bullsh*t

I was commenting on your genenral b**ching and moaning about my tone/timbre/use of profanity

BTW,I am quite capable of batting my eyelashes, and protecting the male ego(though I don't/won't as a general rule), when I'm in the mood to, or have a reason to,even if they arecompletely and utterly talking out of their ass,

I said it seemed to disturb you/offend your sensibilities so much.(some of it i believe is bullsh*t though, cause it hasn't stopped you from continuing to make little b**chified snide comments/insultseven in THIS very post

typical of how you seem to like to twist sh*taround/grasp atstraws,to save your shipwreck of an argument.....

Quote:

Actually it's all there, I've said all along "

Quote:

This jumping in with 2 feet reacting first and thinking later needs to stop."Do you remember this????

Quote:

I do remember this, and I also remember THIS:Jay Jay wrote: "I know people probably wont like what I say but.... most people the world over recognizes what Martin L. King stood and took a bullet for. He didnt have a sectarian issue or agenda. Malcom X and others like the Black Panther Party for example did have a side or separate agenda and represented a force that wasnt fully integrous (meaning love for some, not for all). When brute force comes against brute force the ones with the most weapons wins.

King represents power(knowledge), same like Ghandi and Mandela(he did more good behind bars) and they came out on top, which the world recognizes. X represented force which only a section of people holds up as he done good, because.... there was an agenda.

Quote:

I won't rehash my deconstruction of the drivel you typed about Malcolm, which confirms that you have bought into thewhite media spin of him, hook, line and sinker. THe fact that youalso threw the Panthers into the mix, to make your point, is proof positive thatYOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.For instance, Did you know that the Black Panthers REGULARLY did outreach progams andworked on certain projects withpoor white people in Appalachia?Of course you didn't know that, and most people don't know that, because most people's view/opinions on groups like the Panthers/people like Malcolm are based on the WHITE MEDIA/TOM NEGROinterpretation that has been FEDto them. Causing them to come up with all kinds of cockamamey theories and conclusions about peace and love,friend and enemy.....So your implication that the Panthers were some anti white group with some sectarian agenda is WRONG. Not that I would care if they HAD truly been sectarian. I tire of the neverending need that Negroes feel to allign themselves with other people all the damn time, as if being concerned about our own well being and having our own agenda is somehow less valid/righteous than hooking up with other groups who don't give a damn about our Black asses until they NEED from us, and sometimes not even then,lol.

Quote:

Even the most "militant" Black groups that you can think of can not be compared to white terror groups or white "citizens" groups in either their mindset/agenda or behavior.

Quote:

The thing that galls me about people like you, MLK, and others is that they consistently want to peddle this transformative love nonsense to the people who DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE sh*t. They never post up at a Klan rally or a White Citizens Council meeting and talk this sh*t(test the efficacy of their theories with the real McCoy). Rather, they comespouting this foolishness to people who do notnow andnever have suffered from the HATRED/VIOLENCE MALADY. In other words, they preach to the choir. Theysucceed in taking people who are ALREADY peaceful and loving(in relation to white folks, cause of course Negroes are never peaceful and loving in reference to each other)into people who are peaceful and loving. Quite a feat, I guess,lol.

I've mentioned to youmany many many times, stop arguing with what you think, Do you remember this???? Have a look!!!! go on refresh your mind. YOU GOT IT WRONG, From my VERY FIRST REPLY TO YOU, I TOLD YOU.

DENY THIS!!!! I DARE YOU TO DENY THE ABOVE.

Quote:

I did read the above and I ALSOread: Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

"Everybody is the armchair pied piper and never the pawn, in every case mentioned there were unique individual(s) who had the clarity of mind to rise above the nonsense of the masses and bring it all to a close, to resolve. Power always wins.

Quote:

I hear you, but what is selling out when in truth there is no sides only a tribalistic warfare thing that man has been playing since advancing from hunter gatherer.(ie: nonsense) Throughout history all sides had to swallow pride in some way, shape or form....all sides. If no one backs down a tiny bit or show some sort of courage to change how things are, conflicts will go on for aeons."

Quote:

Stating and implying that the Civil Rights movement was characterized by MASSES of Black folks on some helter skelter/blind violence/hateful agenda that needed to be risen above by some glorified Pied Piper of Peace,and comparing struggling to be free of oppression and brutalization to "tribalistic warefare" thatcan be solved by "all sides" swallowing their pride"is both ERRONEOUS and INSULTING, which I conveyed to you, several posts ago. What pride? Since when do brutalized/downtrodden/humiliated people have excess pride and ego?Since when is demanding(not even demanding, begging and pleadingin the case of most Negroes)to be treated like a human being and not be humiliated/raped/murdered at another person/groups whim, an examPle of out control hubris? You're talking nonsense and you should have NEVER brought up the Civil Rights movement to make you non-point. That's where YOU got it wrong.

Quote:

I objected to much of what you have said throughout this thread, both by way of CONTENT and IMPLICATION, choice of words and their connotations, etc. My issues with what you had to say,were multifacted.

Quote:

Jay Jay wrote:"
Nothing most people has said in this thread can end a conflict which shows where your heads at, this is what YOU want. Everybody wants the fight, the struggle to get some sort of purpose. How can you end conflicts unless all sides transforms themselves? Why is there a thread about issuing violence instead of ending violence?

Whack'em on the head hard enough to force a non retaliation, this is break and make, it doesn't work, this is a catalyist/conflict, show of force, force against force doesn't resolve anything, exactly what I've mentioned earlier in another post of mine..

how would you make everybody the world over think the same way, only with change, not break and make, what is transformative love?

Quote:

And when was this that everybody the world over thought the SAME WAY? I must have missed it. Furthermore, break/make and change are not always mutually exclusive. I've known of people who had a very mean/lowdown way of behaving in the world, very snotty, arrogant,nasty attitude/behavior towards other people, have the occasion to catch a real major beatdown and it TOTALLY transformed their personality, Changed their whole mindset and altered their behavior.(Kind of like when folks say someone had the "devil beat out of them",lol).Don't be so hasty in underestimating the effectiveness of beatdowns and ass whippings. There is a time and a season for everything, including beatdowns and ass whippings.

Quote:

Being without conflict is not the end all and be all. I'd prefer a sincere/self respecting conflict to a fake/self diminishing peace ANYDAY. Beyond that, you assume that resolution is always the goal in situations of conflict. It is not, particularly for oppressors. SUBJUGATION is the goal of an oppressor.Oppressors are not nearly as concerned with HOW subjugation is maintained, as they are concerned ,THAT it is maintained. (unlike some sh*t for brains victims of oppression who become overly wedded to one philosophical/theory/tactic rather than being wedded to a goal,ie. not being oppressed,lol.)

Quote:

Oppressors know and understand that violence can be a tool to maintain subjugation/oppression, just like appearing to concede/make concessions can be a tool to maintaining subjugation/retaining power resources(like "allowing" former AFrican colonies to have their "independence", installing a Black president in SA, etc.). They are usually willing and able to use both strategies effectively and liberally.

Quote:

Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." by Martin Luther King Jr.

The key word is transforming.

My gut and my experience,tells me that this is bullsh*t, but again, having a real discussion about the above quote would entail clarifying some operational definitions, if we were going to get beyond the flowery/superficial/bumper sticker level that most people who espouse this type of thing, tend to dwell in.

Quote:

I told you about your pride and will you be able back away from it, Do you remember this? why would I say this very early in the thread unless I knew you got it wrong. confused3

Quote:

I did not get it wrong. I infinitely understood what you were saying, by way of both CONTENT and IMPLICATION. I totally picked up on the underlying theme and tone of your posts, including the words you chose and their connotations. Since you are fond of casting aspersions on other folks reading comprehension skills, i'm sure you know that a BIG part of understanding what is written has to do with context and connotation,reading between the lines,etc. People convey all kinds of things with the WORDS they choose as well as what they DON'T say. Some words are denotative, and othe words are connotative,ie. loaded/packed with certain emotions or a certain spin. Btw, this is one of the things that Malcolm was really big on getting Negroes to peep, especially when reading something white folks, or Tom Negroeswrote....

The most blatent thing I've noticed is that you have backed away from your strong verbal attack to a wimper in your last post, why? It could be either you didn't like getting cussed back or...... just maybe you know you jumped the gun, this is the problem with people nowdays. This is why I told you they can hear you coming,

Quote:

Reread my quotes of myself from my last post to you, there were quite a few insults contained within. Furthermore, stop trying to play me like I'm "the Mad Black Woman", who is out of control. I am ALWAYS aware of both WHAT I am saying and HOW I am saying it. I have been alternately attacking and sweet/civilized to you THROUGHTOUT this thread,I'm versatile like that. I even apologized to you for my tone, several posts ago. Then you typed some more nonsense and I returned to a less pleasant mode. Depending on how you respond to this post, I may AGAIN return to that mode. The choice is yours.....

Quote:

As far as getting cussed back, Negro please. You've been making little snide/b**chified(theres that word again), comments and insults, throughout your responses to me. I don't mind getting cussed back at all. I can do that all day if that's what someone wants to do(as you well know by now, I excel at it), or I can be civil and genteel. I keep telling you, FLEXIBILITY is the key. Fixating on ONE way of doing something in every situtation with every personis folly.....

Quote:

, Do you remember this????

Quote:

I do indeed remember. I also remember: Jay Jay wrote:"
What I'm saying here is to go out into the streets and ask a broad range of people what did these people represent, not your local area and to ask all colours of skin. You can ask virtually all black people about Malcom and in all likeyhood he will be held in high esteem. How about outside of the community, what do they think? Ask the same people about other names like MLK, Ghandi and Mandela, truth is they will hold them with a much higher esteem, some wont even know of Malcom."

THis is easily the most asinine thing you wrote in a thread filled with asinine comments from you. Because more people "know: about King, Ghandi, Mandela, that means their stances were right,true,effective. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with a white media/power structure push to uphold them and their stances, because they were acceptable/advantageous or more tolerable to the powers that be and maintaining their own agenda/keeping the lionshare of power and resources/cutting their losses, etc.

Your simplistic, superficial, non analysis of something that even the casual observer can poke holes in,(as several people did, in this very thread), is part and parcel of the cluelessness that most people have about these topics, even when they insist on talking out of their ass, and posing as experts on such matters.

Jay Jay wrote: "Regarding Malcom, like it or hate it he had a sectarian view right up until he made Hajj, afterwards he didn't have this view, it was at this point Malcom himself was transforming from force into power, the following year he was assassinated. Just because people don't like the word sectarin or the fact that it was against white people doesn't count, doesn't mean it wasn't true."

Now onto Malcom, he was NOI (whites=devils) after Hajj this view was dropped, he still was force but had a differant understanding for ALL, this is now Power. Though for some it may be seen as selling out. When you can talk people down with Power(brains) and understanding and still have force behind you, they need to remove you and that is what happened. Within 1yr he was assassinated. So therefore Power wasn't fully relised."

WRONG AGAIN, and I laid out the case earlier for why that is so.

When your enemy sees YOU as exactly the same as they are, THEY will transform into a friend and visa versa.

This onecomes in second to the other comment for the the most asinine assertion made by you.

Quote:

You can mention that several people deconstructed my views, but with what? by telling me how wars are phsycally won? This is a mute pointblkheadbang when in my first post I'm telling you how you will win ultimately with truth behind you, it's there!!! what did you miss????

Quote:

Right and noone has ever been able to attain or maintain victories in war without "truth" being on their side and no groups have ever spent CENTURIES being oppressed and brutalized, or lost warswhen they did have "truth" on their side.

Quote:

The history lessons were provided to let you know that your simplistic assertions were NOT CORRECT and that history SHOWS us that.

Quote:

There is no glorious theory, it's self explanitary only you don't follow the proper use of words. Thats where you messed up.

Quote:

I followed ALL that you said(not just the parts you conveniently want to emphasize), just fine, and I objected to MUCH OF IT and corrected the FACTUAL INACCURACIES contained within.
[line]

Quote:

Can violent actions ever be justified?

If itis used under the guises of

Quote:

courage, reason, integrity and love for all, all of these represents power and in the long run has and will always overcome anything oppressive. It wins because it has no agenda other than the truth.

Quote:

[line]

Quote:

I tried to bring something constructive to the table to try and move forward, what did you bring to progress things? NOTHING!!!

Quote:

I brought plenty. You brought the same ol, tired/condescending drivel that it ALWAYS put at Black folks door step when we DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE sh*t. Thethings youare droning on about are not now and never havebeen, OUR MODUS OPERANDI, or our ISSUE, particularly as it relates to white people and the Civil RIghts movement, Which again, you NEVER should have brought up. That's where YOU GOT IT WRONG. Go peddle that mamby pamby nonsense on Stormfront. Make some headway there, and MAYBE I'll reconsider.

Quote:

You only "deconstructed/rejected/dismissed" I swept off your nonsense like dirt on my shoulder, you should be big enough and apologize, from the BEGINNING I said you were off track and I've stuck behind the quotes I've used, people wanted to ride and I said blatentlyyou don't get a worthy reply until you learn to speak properly, when you calmed down you got an answer you didn't expect because YOU WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION!!!! There was no shift in position only a CONSTANT POINTING OUT TO RE-READ THE POST IN CONTEXT and that you would jump in with a predictable 2 feet...... LOOK AGAIN...simple. I also pointed how force fails ultimately, I told the truth and sat back and watched meglomania settle inside your head (remember the "I owned you" nonsense?....please) then you choked by taking too much rope,... HAVE A LOOK AGAIN, try and style it as much as you want.

Quote:

Whatever man. Apologize for what? I didn't misunderstand you, one iota. You told the truth, my ass. You didn't even have some of your BASIC facts straight, in the "examples" you used to "buttress" your "TRUTH", so how the hell could you be arriving at the truth? Garbage in, Garbage out,lol.

Quote:

Meglomania?Hah? There is nothing meglomaniacal or egotistical about announcing with a grand and melodramatic flourish that you are GIVINGmethe thread. AS IF.... I responded to your absurdity with absurdity. If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm quite predisposed towards tit for tat/responding in kind.

Quote:

"Style it out",lol. If that ain't the pot calling the kettle Black. That's what YOU'VE been doing, throughout most of this thread. I bet you didn't think I would know what style it out meant,(we don't use that phrase here). If you thought that, you're right, I didn't know, but because I'm a champion of READING COMPHREHENSION and DECIPHERING DEFINITIONS/SUBTHEMES through context, reading between the lines, etc., I was able to figure out what it meant. Which is one of the reasons that your continued attempts to convince me that I misunderstood/misinterpreted the basic core of your position and what you were saying, have not moved me. Very little gets past me. I notice every nuance of up and down, sh*t that wouldn't even register with most people.....
offtopic.gif
On another subject... I'm not bothered or hate the white man, If I'm correct I never even mentioned white people, you mentioned it, you think I'm concerned by white people whereas I'm more concerned about how YOU denegrate African people by the use of derogatory terms, It's embrassing to me, whilst you concerned about me and how I think others see us, which is worse weigh it up..... I dont pander to anybody and I don't live in the past ....see my sigature, go read some Marcus Garvey and know yourself, stop acting like an animal and you won't be treated like one, Do you remember my evolution jibe????

Quote:

And why would YOU be embarrassed about the way some other Black person that you don't even know, expressed themselves(using a few colorful words here and therebut otherwise displaying magnificent levels of intellect and insight,lol)on a messabeboard Forum? "anyone looking into the AFrican community phiolsophy forum will be presented with....." "they might say doh, we don't have to worry about THEM for a long time"

Quote:

LOL. I KNEW you were going to try to say you weren't talking about white folks. You are so predictable. You are correct, you didn't SPECIFICALLY say white folks, but I DEDUCED that you were referring to them: A. because Negroes who adopt the types of positions you've forwarded in this thread are ALWAYS thinking/concerned about white folks. It's part and parcel of why they feel compelled to subscribe to such mamby pamby drivel, which they almost NEVER put into practice or subscribe to, when dealing with other Black folks.You see, they fundamentally believe at their core ,that Black folksare inferior, and that this is why we are oppressed, mistreated/abused, etc. They feel that if we could just showourselves to beWORTHY of not being treated like sh*t, white folks would treat us like human beings.So you'll find this type constantlytrying to get Black folks to speak a certain way, act a certain way,getting EMBARRASSED by the actions or behaviors of some other Black person whom they don't even know,insisting that we need tobe above moral reproach/sacrifice/purify ourselves toPROVE that we are worthy of humane treatment, obsessing over what white folks are gonna think/feel about this, that and a third.For those who suffer from this psychological malady, Black folks have to EARN/show that we DESERVEthe rights/humane treatmentsthat are inalienable/God Given and self evident to white folks,(even bare footed, tobacco chewing, white folks out of the backwoods who are married to their cousin,lol)

Quote:

Secondly, what other group of Non Blacks would be saying "we don't have to worry about them for a while" in reference to Black folks or even focusing on Black folks in that way? Asians? Most of them are too busy ingratiating themselves to white folks (like your boy Ghandi), to even be discussing/assessing Black folks as some kind of potential, down the line threat,lol. They feel their salvation lies in ingratiating themselves to white folks in a "I'm not as good as you, Mr. Charlie, but I'm better than THEM, type concession/resolution,lol". They don't even WANT the top spot, in the racial hierarcy sweepstakes. They concede that toMr. CHarlie, off top, and that pretty much applies to other groups of Non Blacks,(to lesser degrees), down the line. Though they are oftenquite willing to benefit from the progress made from US putting OUR heads on the chopping block and challenging Mr. Charlie.No sir, You meant WHITE FOLKS, I'm sure of it. I defy u to make a convincing case that you were talking about anybody OTHER than good old Mr. Charlie, no matter how much you try to style it out, now,lol. If you manage to do it, I'll send you a public apology....

So I will leave you with another quote....."Forward Ever, Backwards Never"

Do you wanna cuss on this also???

BTW, I'm quite familiar with Marcus Mosiah Garvey,(his theories received consideration/acceptance from Black folks here WHILE HE WAS ALIVE,while they were uniformly rejected by Black folks everywhere else,INCLUDING his home country of Jamaica), so what are u on about?

I have no problem with that quote. Don't see what relevance it has to the things that I DID have a problem with, in your posts, or what it has to do with the price of tea in China, but ok.....

Another example is the middle east conflict, neither side looking at it objectively again wants to resolve it, both sides has broken treaties, therefore I would assign both Israel & Palestine as Force. The first person to stand up heads and shoulders above the rest to finally resolve this, I would allocate as Power...

Just out of curiosity, which of the combatants has TRUTH on their side,in your opinion, in this ongoing battle? In the current situation, there was an originating act that set this all in motion, in reference to land/people displacement, etc.