Category Archives: Racism

Colin Kaepernick files grievance accusing NFL teams of colluding against him

Quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who remains unemployed after a 2016 season in which he began the movement of players protesting during the national anthem, has filed a grievance accusing NFL teams of colluding to keep him out of the league, his legal representatives said.

Kaepernick retained Los Angeles-based attorney Mark J. Geragos to pursue the collusion claim and, according to a person with knowledge of the filing, it will be Kaepernick’s outside legal representation and not the NFL Players Association primarily in charge of preparing and presenting his case.

Geragos’s firm confirmed the grievance, saying it filed “only after pursuing every possible avenue with all NFL teams and their executives.”

In a statement, the law firm’ also said: “If the NFL . . . is to remain a meritocracy, then principled and peaceful political protest — which the owners themselves made great theater imitating weeks ago — should not be punished and athletes should not be denied employment based on partisan political provocation by the Executive Branch of our government. . . . Protecting all athletes from such collusive conduct is what compelled Mr. Kaepernick to file his grievance.”

 

The collective bargaining agreement between the league and the players’ union prohibits teams from conspiring to make decisions about signing a player. But the CBA also says the mere fact that a player is unsigned and evidence about the player’s qualifications to be on an NFL roster do not constitute proof of collusion.

For that reason, such cases are difficult to prove, according to legal experts.

“There has to be some evidence of an agreement between multiple teams not to sign a player,” said Gabriel Feldman, the director of the sports law program at Tulane University. “Disagreement over personnel decisions, as obvious as it may seem to someone looking at this, does not provide evidence of collusion. There has to be some evidence of an explicit or implied agreement. There has to be proof of a conspiracy.”

Kaepernick opted out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers following last season, making him a free agent eligible to sign with any team. The 49ers have said they would have released Kaepernick rather than retaining him under the terms of that deal. He has remained out of work, being passed over by other teams in favor of other quarterbacks. The Seattle Seahawks and Baltimore Ravens considered signing Kaepernick but decided against doing so.

More recently, the Tennessee Titans signed Brandon Weeden to provide depth behind backup Matt Cassel when their starting quarterback, Marcus Mariota, was hurt. That signing seemed particularly inflammatory to Kaepernick supporters who cited Kaepernick’s superior career accomplishments. Kaepernick has led the 49ers to a Super Bowl and two NFC championship games and he threw 16 touchdown passes with four interceptions for them last season.

The NFLPA issued a written statement late Sunday saying it learned of Kaepernick’s grievance through media reports and that it had learned the league previously was informed of Kaepernick’s intention to file the grievance.

“Our union has a duty to assist Mr. Kaepernick as we do all players and we will support him,” the NFLPA’s written statement said, adding that it had been in regular contact with Kaepernick’s representatives over the past year about his options and planned to schedule a call for this week with his advisers.

Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem before games last season to protest, he said, racial inequality and police mistreatment of African Americans in the United States. Those protests were taken up by other players and the controversy over them has been amplified this season even with Kaepernick out of the league.

President Trump called on NFL owners to “fire” players who protested during the anthem, referring to such a player as a “son of a bitch.” Vice President Pence walked out of a game last week between the 49ers and Colts in Indianapolis, citing players’ protests. Trump indicated that he had orchestrated that plan.

Under pressure from the White House, NFL owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday and Wednesday in New York and might seek the NFLPA’s support of a measure for players to stand for the anthem, according to multiple people familiar with the sport’s inner workings, while also pledging league support for players’ community activism efforts.

Some media members have contended since the offseason that Kaepernick was being blackballed by NFL teams based on his political stance. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and owners were asked about that contention on a number of occasions and denied that teams were acting in concert on Kaepernick because of his protests.

“Each team makes individual decisions on how they can improve their team,” Goodell at conclusion of NFL owners’ meeting in May in Chicago. “If they see an opportunity to improve their team, they do it. They evaluate players. They evaluate systems and coaches. They all make those individual decisions to try and improve their team.”

Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross told reporters in July, according to the Palm Beach Post: “I would sure hope not. I know a lot’s been written about it, but you know owners and coaches — they’ll do anything it takes to win. If they think he can help them win, I’m sure — I would hope they would sign him.”

The plan for Kaepernick to pursue a grievance under the CBA was first reported by Bleacher Report.

“It may seem obvious to Colin Kaepernick,” Feldman said in a phone interview Sunday. “It may seem obvious to someone on the outside looking at this. But collusion requires an agreement [between teams]. Individual team decisions are not challengeable under the anti-collusion provision. An arbitrator is not going to second-guess an individual team’s personnel decision.”

If such evidence of collusion by NFL teams against Kaepernick exists, it has yet to revealed.

“We don’t know,” Feldman said. “Obviously everybody is talking about the baseball collusion cases from the 1980s, where there was a smoking gun. There were notes. There was strong evidence. There may be evidence here of collusion. We just don’t know.”

The NFL declined to comment Sunday through a spokesman.

“No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making,” the CBA says, adding that applies to “whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player” and “whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player,” among other things.

The CBA also says: “The failure by a Club or Clubs to negotiate, to submit Offer Sheets, or to sign contracts with Restricted Free Agents or Transition Players, or to negotiate, make offers, or sign contracts for the playing services of such players or Unrestricted Free Agents, shall not, by itself or in combination only with evidence about the playing skills of the player(s) not receiving any such offer or contract, satisfy the burden of proof set forth … above.”

By Mark Maske/WashingtonPost

Posted by The NON-Conformist

Advertisements

President Trump rips NFL for getting ‘tax breaks’ while disrespecting anthem, flag

Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!

More from CBS Sports.com

Posted by Libergirl

Roy Moore’s Neo-Confederate Sugar Daddy Has Deep Ties To Secessionists

Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore’s top supporter is a hardline Confederate sympathizer with longtime ties to a secessionist group.

Image: Jeffrey Butler

Michael Anthony Peroutka  has given Moore, his foundation and his campaigns well over a half-million dollars over the past decade-plus. He’s also expressed beliefs that make even Moore’s arguably theocratic anti-gay and anti-Muslim views look mainstream by comparison. Chief among them: He’s argued that the more Christian South needs to secede and form a new Biblical nation.

The close connections raise further questions about the racial and religious views of Moore, the former Alabama supreme court chief justice and the front-runner to become Alabama’s next U.S. senator.

Peroutka, a 2004 Constitution Party presidential nominee who in 2014 won a seat as a Republican on the county commission in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, spent years on the board of the Alabama-based League of the South, a southern secessionist group which for years has called for a southern nation run by an “Anglo-Celtic” elite. The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the League of the South as a hate group (a designation Peroutka regularly jokes about). That organization, after Peroutka left, was one of the organizers of the Charlottesville protests last summer that ended in bloodshed.

More from Talking Points Memo

Posted by Libergirl

 

 

 

 

The Language of White Supremacy Narrow definitions of the term actually help continue the work of the architects of the post-Jim Crow racial hierarchy.

Who or what is a white supremacist, exactly? The raging debate has resembled nothing so much as a classical ontological discourse on categorization. Are white supremacists considered so because they consider themselves so? Does one become a white supremacist by more Aristotelian means, expressing a certain number of categories of being—or swastika tattoos? Or is the definition something more slippery and subtle?

The language of white supremacy has become increasingly central to understanding the argument over the broad currents of Donald Trump’s ascendancy. Long before ESPN anchor Jemele Hill famously referred to Trump as a white supremacist on Twitter, the questions of just who is a white supremacist, and just what white supremacy is, have dominated the analysis of how he came into power, and what that power means.

Hill’s comments came as part of the general response to an essay from my colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates, one in which Coates says that Trump’s “ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power.” The bent of that essay is that whiteness—and in turn white supremacy—uniquely buoyed Trump’s candidacy, and that he has in turn openly wielded those energies to capture support and lead. Hill’s summation seemed to complete the square of that argument: “Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself with other white supremacists.” In this argument, white supremacy is framed as a broad concept, one where wielding racism or benefitting from it, even in its subtler forms, earns one the mark.

Opposition to this framing has varied, from conservatives who decry a tendency of liberals to see the hidden hand of racism in gosh darn everything, to those on the left who feel Coates downplays materialist analysis and unduly elevates Trump’s danger above that of other racist presidents. But one of the thought-provoking sets of analyses comes from those who roughly agree with Coates that Trump’s primary appeal has been racial—perhaps, racist—but disagree with labeling his ideology as “white supremacy” or with Hill’s assertion that he is an obvious white supremacist.

There are several shades of gray to those objections, but a column from Jonathan Chait in New York sums them up best. Chait does not agree with an expansive definition of white supremacy that would capture say David Duke, Steve Bannon, and Donald Trump, writing that “to flatten the language we use to describe different kinds of right-wing politics is to bludgeon our capacity to make vital distinctions.” Chait sees this labeling as a kind of language creep that in casting a wide net simultaneously cheapens some of America’s cherished institutions and in turn might tend to encourage radical acts against them.

This criticism of a broad definition of white supremacy isn’t new. Last November, Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum decried the “faddish term” wielded against members of the left and the right, and placed the genesis of that connotation with Coates himself. Jesse Singal, also of New York, and a frequent interlocutor of mine, tweeted yesterday expressing concern about the flexibility of the term as used by activists. “Don’t understand the utility of labeling a huge swath of things ‘white supremacist’ or ‘Nazi’ that simply aren’t,” Singal said. Our resultant conversation is threaded on Twitter and became the genesis of this essay.

To perhaps unfairly flatten these three arguments, which constitute the best of this school of objection, they tend to agree that the modern expansive definition of white supremacy is, well, modern. But that proposition is limited. The school of critical race theory, championed by scholars such as bell hooks, has been around in academic circles for at least 30 years, and its definition of white supremacy has long animated black activism. To quote scholar Frances Lee Ansley (taken here from a passage from David Gillborn, also, a critical-race-theory scholar):

“By ‘white supremacy’ I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.”

The provenance of that definition of white supremacy does not alone guarantee its usefulness, and 30 years is still relatively new in the academia-to-modern parlance frame. Also, as my colleague Conor Friedersdorf noted last November, the critical-race-theory definition could very well be “the vernacular of a tiny, insular subculture,” one which is contested and has not reached the level of consensus.

But the idea of critical-race-theory’s insularity is belied by its deep communion with widely-read titans of black intellectual thought. James Baldwin’s work did nothing if not tend towards the idea of “white supremacy” as a collective effort that went well beyond the work of self-avowed members of hate groups, and his 1980 essay in Esquire titled “Dark Days” crystalized that tendency. “To be white was to be forced to digest a delusion called white supremacy,” Baldwin wrote. In that essay, which itself was written in parallel with the nascence of critical race theory, Baldwin ties the very concept of whiteness to white supremacy.

Lest Baldwin be counted along with Frantz Fanon and Malcolm X as more radical “fringe” voices on the topic of white supremacy, the idea of white supremacy as a shared culture has been floated by many of the establishment voices of the civil-rights-movement, including none other than Martin Luther King, Jr. In his 1967 book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, which is itself concerned with hope and building interracial solidarity, King wrote that  “the doctrine of white supremacy was imbedded in every textbook and preached in practically every pulpit. It became a structural part of the culture,” one that persisted to the present day.

“However much it is denied, however many excuses are made, the hard cold fact is that many white Americans oppose open housing because they unconsciously, and often consciously, feel that the Negro is innately inferior, impure, depraved and degenerate,” King wrote. “It is a contemporary expression of America’s long dalliance with racism and white supremacy.”

King saw that white supremacy was a structural pillar of America equally important to democracy itself. In that work, King also analyzed “white backlash” not as an insurgency responding to proximate political factors or politicians, but as a visceral, enduring autonomous response guided by white supremacy. In other words, King used “white supremacy” in a way that might have seen him scolded today, by many who do the scolding in his name.

The example of King is important, because a funhouse-mirror view of his philosophy tends to dominate the modern liberal view of race. King was famously conciliatory—in 1964 he refused to call Barry Goldwater “racist,” instead settling on saying the candidate “articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racist,”  a restraint that even many modern journalists might not have—but in his late life he often dealt with the effects of that conciliation, and with an advancing conspiracy that would eventually consume him. By the time of his death, the country had turned on King. And one major driver was a concerted effort among conservatives to take “white supremacy” and flip it on its head, and to gaslight black activism.

Chait mentions that subversion, noting that “political appeals to racism had to use some level of symbolic remove” after the civil-rights movement, but his treatment doesn’t quite do justice to the musculature of the effort. The repackaging of Jim Crow into a “race neutral” set of policies didn’t just arise as a wink-and-a-nod deal in southern political backrooms a few years near the end of the civil-rights movement, but was a half-century-long project forged by thousands of lawyers and mainstream political leaders that costs millions of dollars, and was played out in every arena across the country from the Supreme Court to town hall meetings.

A recent investigation in the New York Times Magazine by Nikole Hannah-Jones illustrates how this process took shape in the court room arms race over education after 1954’s Brown v. Board, but similar neutralization occurred in housing policy, public health, criminal justice, and voting rights. Richard Rothstein’s recent book The Color of Law in particular is a primer in the ways that even the least sophisticated white political actors moved away from explicitly racist and even subtly racist justifications for their laws to escape the scrutiny of watchful courts.

Correspondingly, as new policies intersected with public opinion and genuine policy victories won by the civil-rights movement, expressing racism became gauche, and then taboo. That taboo itself crystallized a self-conceptualization of whiteness as innately anti-racist. In turn, charges of racism themselves became epithets, and the mantle of white supremacy was relegated only to the ranks of those white folks foolish or ideological enough not to abide by the taboo. As both Chait and Drum implicitly outline in their work, now the only way to be identified as a white supremacist is to say you are one.

It goes without saying that this realignment almost exclusively benefitted white supremacists, who did not suddenly die with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In no small bit of class warfare, whites who most often carried out direct violence in white supremacy’s name took the heat, giving space to the white men in suits who did their work quietly with litigation and city-planning maps. Those people of color who critiqued white supremacy were cemented as malcontents and agitators, themselves racists or “race-baiters” who sought to exploit white guilt to upend American racial harmony.

The development of critical race theory and its definition of white supremacy strike me as a reaction against that post-King status quo. The idea of “white privilege” came about not as a mid-aughts term for Tumblr teens, but during that reaction as a way to identify the latent benefits of white supremacy during a time when white liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike promoted a fiction of progress that denied their collective benefit from it, and to recover the language of responsibility lost in the mainstream with King’s death.

Additionally, calling out white supremacy and calling people white supremacists functioned as a provocation. The provocation necessarily came from a tiny, insular group of people—as the rest of the country had convinced itself that white supremacy was a grievously offensive slander. That provocation has been continued by today’s black activists, who often see themselves not as mere instruments in building big tents under the status quo, but as awakening people to the reality that the status quo is still white supremacy. Thus, their provocation appears designed to probe and assault consensus, an endeavor that always risks enraging people who are part of that consensus.

The media likewise should not be merely a mirror of consensus; rather it should challenge groupthink any time it runs up against truth. And if consensus is that white supremacy is a thing that only exists in the hate-group fringe, that claim should be held in skepticism against the reality that many of the racial outcomes—income gaps, housing and education segregation, police brutality, and incarceration—of the era of naked white supremacy persist, or have even worsened. And when it comes to Trump, or any other politician for that matter, the knee-jerk consensus reaction that a mainstream politician cannot possibly be a white supremacist should be balanced with the truth that many or most American politicians have been, and that they were voted in by real Americans, many of whom are alive, well, and voting today.

These demands are difficult to square in today’s polarized, litigious environment. But, to counter Chait, while a more expansive view of white supremacy in media’s contemplation of politics may seem to “flatten” political discourse, perhaps the difficulty here is facing the possibility that things might actually be flat. Politics might actually be trapped in the black box of white supremacy, and people very well might be on a historical treadmill, fighting the fights their parents fought, and maybe losing. If that version of reality is true, then the panic brought on by that flattened language might be justified.

By VANN R. NEWKIRK II/TheAtlantic

Posted by The NON-Conformist

2-footed tackle: Man United fans accused of racism over Lukaku penis chant

2-footed tackle: Man United fans accused of racism over Lukaku penis chantManchester United’s Romelu Lukaku © Andrew Yates / Reuters

The story is so insane and “incredibly” racist. Their is a long history that corresponds to this and the type of behavior that goes along with it. The ancestor Dr. Francis Cress Welsing taught about this only to be scoffed at. she was always ahead of the curve, so to speak.

Manchester United have been confronted by equality campaign group Kick It Out, which has slammed the team’s fans chant about star striker Romelu Lukaku’s penis as “racist”. Opinion on social media has meanwhile split.

The song is sung to the tune of ‘Made of Stone’, a hit for Manchester band the Stone Roses, with the lyrics instead paying tribute to Lukaku and the supposed abnormal size of his penis. It’s believed to have first been first aired at Old Trafford during United’s 3-0 Champions League win over Basel.

The inclusion organization, which works to challenge discrimination in football and is funded by the English Football Association (FA), has contacted the club to ask their supporters to stop singing a chant referencing Belgian forward Lukaku’s member.

“Kick It Out is aware of footage of alleged racist chanting by supporters of Manchester United that emerged on Wednesday evening (13 September),” the organisation said in a statement, emailed to RT Sport.

“The lyrics used in the chant are offensive and discriminatory. Racist stereotypes are never acceptable in football or wider society, irrespective of any intention to show support for a player.

“We have contacted Manchester United regarding the issue and will be working closely with them and The FA to ensure that it is addressed swiftly. If we receive any reports relating to the discriminatory chant, those will be passed on to the governing body and the perpetrators can expect to face punishment.”

The issue has split opinion on Twitter, where some fans believe the chant is an unimaginative ditty that should not be given the attention it has received, while others agree it is offensive and should be stamped out.

Suggestion: maybe we could sing about Lukaku being a mint footballer instead of racial stereotypes about his dick http://therepublikofmancunia.com/why-united-fans-should-bin-the-new-lukaku-chant/ 

“Most black people wouldn’t care about this.” Ok. Thanks for speaking on behalf of most black people, Mr White Male.

No place for racist chanting in football and in my view a fans’ song about Lukaku’s manhood is RACIST! Join me from 10 on @talkSPORT.

It’s great to see the fans unite and put a stop to the Romelu Lukaku chant. I’m sure we’ll come up with a much better and censored one 👏.

From Russia Today

Posted by The NON-Conformist

White Man Arrested In Deaths Of Two Black Men, Firing On Family In Louisiana

A 23-year-old white man was arrested Tuesday and accused of cold-bloodedly killing two black men and shooting up a black family’s home in a string of attacks last week that police say may have been racially motivated.

A law enforcement official said authorities found a handwritten copy of an Adolf Hitler speech at Kenneth James Gleason’s home, and investigators said surveillance footage and DNA on a shell casing link him to the crimes.

Authorities said he would be charged with first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of a homeless man and a dishwasher who was walking to work. In each case, the killer opened fire from his car, then walked up to the victim as he lay on the ground and fired again repeatedly, police said.

“I feel confident that this killer would have killed again,” interim Police Chief Jonny Dunnam said.

Gleason’s attorney, J. Christopher Alexander, said his client “vehemently denies guilt, and we look forward to complete vindication.”

Authorities found the Hitler speech during a search over the weekend, according to the law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still going on.

Asked whether police suspect the shootings were motivated by race, Sgt. L’Jean McKneely said: “We’re not completely closed off to that. We’re looking at all possibilities at this time, so we’re not going to just pinpoint that.”

District Attorney Hillar Moore said he may seek the death penalty.

“It appears to be cold, calculated, planned (against) people who were unarmed and defenseless,” he said.

Authorities also said that just after midnight on Sept. 10, Gleason fired into the home of a black family who lived three houses down from Gleason and his parents.

More from Talking Points Memo

Posted by Libergirl

White Men & Fake Black Feminism: The Negro Bedwench Movement

B F F

Woman says that she’s an example for “Feminism” and its “evolution” by acting like a slave for her white husband

Melanoid people should be very familiar with the exceedingly dangerous Bedwench archetype. Some of the most typical examples in mainstream media that we could easily point to would be Sage Steele, Omarosa Manigault, and Michelle Malkin. In pop culture, TV shows such as Scandal, starring Kerry Washington who plays a character named Olivia Pope, a Black woman that is sexually submissive for white corporate men, has a massive cult-like following in the Black feminist/Negro Bedwench community. The same cult-like following exists in the Cosplay community, and Negro Bedwenches tend to be heavily involved with the anime movement. On social media, known trolls like Feminista Jones fit the Bedwench prototype, and those like her make a living by hating Black men that aren’t in the LGBTQ community. But for anybody still playing catch-up, here’s a detailed run-through of what we’re dealing with.

A Negro Bedwench in the 21st Century is a Black woman that’s willing to go above and beyond to satisfy non-Black males & defend the white-male power structure. These women are gatekeepers for white supremacy, and generally have an intense feeling of disdain for Black people, especially Black men. So much so, it would be practically impossible to tell a white supremacist and Black feminist apart when the conversation topic is centered around straight Black males.

Furthermore, the goal of a Negro Bedwench is to be accepted, sexually disrespected, protected, and unreservedly dominated by a white male, regardless of his social class & personal financial position. However, they consider anybody non-Black as “the next best thing”. It’s extremely common for a Negro Bedwench to have a Hispanic, Asian or Middle-Eastern partner.

The Bunny Ruckus Negro Bedwench is a different branch of the standard Negro Bedwench. Like the standard Negro Bedwench, the Bunny Ruckus panders to the ruling demographic by exuding self-hatred and regurgitating white supremacist talking-points. The difference is that they’re usually middle-aged, visually unattractive and overweight by society’s standards. You’re likely to see them with raggedy hair (occasionally blonde), and it’s usually a cheap wig or weave. Also, they tend perpetuate the “loud obnoxious sassy Black woman” stereotype in exchange for white amusement. These qualities make those in the dominant society comfortable around the Bunny Ruckus because their egos never feel threatened. Donald Trump mascots and white supremacy collaborators, Diamond and Silk, are the epitome of The Bunny Ruckus Negro Bedwench.

Diamond and Silk: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oIXGpScZ0Cg

Another example of the Bunny Ruckus Negro Bedwench would be Mollena Williams-Hass, 47, a self-proclaimed Feminist and writer. Below is a picture of Mollena Williams-Hass with her husband, Georg Hass.

Her blog, titled “The Perverted Negress”, is one that paints a vivid picture of her numerous Bedwench escapades & daily slave-like routines. She claims that her obsession with slavery began at 8 years of age, specifically when she was watching the American television miniseries based on Alex Haley’s 1976 novel, Roots. Here is a quote from her speaking about the experience:

I have fantasies about really bad things. If you go back and look at what feminism is about, it’s about us taking charge of our bodies and our destinies. The ability to choose a master/slave relationship is a mark of how far feminism has come.”

Her suspected white supremacist husband (Georg Friedrich Haas), has said that he plans on promoting this lifestyle to the younger generation. Georg stated that he hopes to “embolden younger people”, and that he’s already started to do so with his students. Mollena states that when she was first introduced to the “Kink Community”, Black people that were already a part of it were totally against master-slave relationships. She said that they were prepared to be violent if a Black person took the role of a slave. But according to Mollena, these threats did not make her refrain from such activities.

These are Mollena’s 2009 comments in an interview with Andrea Plaid from Racialicious: “I think my ancestors would be delighted that I can fucking choose to do this for a few bloody hours. I can go into the Big Ass Ice Cream Parlor of Racism and have a sample spoon, and leave. I’m not trapped there being force fed the Rocky Road Ice Cream of Oppression until I am sick.”

It must be mentioned that Mollena overcompensates by parading herself as Pro-Black on social media platforms, and she regularly has a Black-Power fist as her profile picture (twitter: @Mollena).

Not only does she expose the hidden agenda of present day Black Feminism, she shows us that the Black feminist mentality is pseudo, toxic, counter-productive, irrational and irresponsible. It’s simply regurgitated misandrynoir rhetoric from emotionally hurt women that need healing.

Feminism (as we know it), was introduced to the Black Community to divide and conquer the Black nuclear family by promoting the “independent woman” ploy, which is an ideology that no other community subscribes to. This was used to destroy the energy and momentum of Black Civil Rights groups such as The Black Panther Party, and switch our focus onto matters that were never a real cause for concern. By doing this, the importance and relevance of the Black alpha-male became null and void, and the carefully orchestrated welfare obligations (not being eligible if you had a man in the home), meant that Black women no longer felt like they needed Black men to love, support and provide.

Also, the feminist movement was pioneered by open white supremacists such as Susan B. Anthony, a woman that famously said: “I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman”. It’s important to add that white feminists revere and regularly pay tributes to Susan. This clearly indicates that the “camaraderie” and “white allyship” among Black feminists and the white feminist community is non-existent and disingenuous.

Black females are not seen or treated as women by society, the treatment of Sandra Bland and the violent incident in McKinney, Texas, 2015, involving the white supremacist cop Eric Casebolt & 15-year-old Dajerria Becton proves this. We have not received our rights as Black people, so until we’ve successfully overcome our first hurdle, it’s ridiculously illogical for a person that’s only viewed as Black to fight for something which doesn’t apply to them.

While Black feminists continue to be duped by faux women’s empowerment, 52% of white women voted for a known sexist, misogynist, chauvinist and racist, Donald Trump, because white women understand the concept of race first. The white female voters knew that Trump would be persevering whiteness once elected as president, so they got on code and jumped on team white supremacy. They managed to temporarily pause the gender-specific war that’s happening in their community, and they rightfully prioritized the self-preservation of their people. Black feminists are incapable of practicing this concept because they’re too busy being used as pawns by white feminists. They’ve been tricked into schemes such as the anti “cat-calling” movement, which is essentially just white feminists trying to criminalize the straight Black male image.

If one of our greatest leaders, such as The Most Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, presented an immediate remedy which could kill white supremacy in 24 hours, Black feminists and the Black LGBTQ community would jeopardize our livelihoods over the petty personal discrepancies that they have with the Nation of Islam & their teachings. Which again, highlights the huge differences between white feminism and Black feminism, and it lets us know that Black feminism has nothing to do with the advancement of our race. Overall, Black feminists have achieved nothing on a grand-scale for Black people since its inception, especially in comparison to groups which they’ve openly disrespected such as The Black Panther Party and The Nation of Islam.

If we were to go by the definition, egalitarian feminism would play integral role in uplifting Black women, however, today’s current practice is the complete opposite.

While we continue to be at war with white supremacy, our number one focus as Melanoid people should be self-preservation by any means necessary. Our advice: Be alertdo not let your children go outside unsupervisedconnect with like-minded Melanoid peoplecreate international allies, and exercise your Second Amendment.

By Kenny Anthony/MelanoidNation

Posted by The NON-Conformist