Competent Commentator

Last week Thursday I attended a “meeting” on Haiti. I was none the wiser after leaving there but that was no shock. I expect nothing less from these pretentious people, however, the thing that did shock me was that many people were surprised by my attire, and even asked me what my purpose was wearing the outfit, so let me explain beginning with a text by Nobel Literature Winner Harold Pinter. It is in his play “The Homecoming” (1965) where we encounter an obscure character in the form of Teddy. Teddy is intelligent but he is defeated. His passive philosophical approach might be the reason why he fails, or at least is reluctant to intervene when his wife Ruth, dominates and manipulates Teddy’s brother and father, through her sexuality (power.) Maybe Teddy is impotent, and virile only in a psychological sense, but at any rate, he is not as responsive as the other males who are comfortable with violence as a gender role. Maybe Teddy has been resigned to a conflicted fate of being a spectator where others are participants, and silently paralysed by his complex analysis, he cannot breach this alienating divide. At any rate, it is as if he is invisible/dead, and unable to function to influence others.


Arguably, Teddy is much like the female character in Homer’s The Iliad: “Cassandra, or Alexandra, was a daughter of Hecuba and King Priam, the rulers of Troy during the Trojan War according to Homer’sIliad. Cassandra was a beautiful young woman, blessed with the gift of prophecy by Apollo, who was infatuated with her. Unfortunately, she shunned Apollo at the last minute and he added a twist to her gift; Cassandra was doomed to tell the truth, but never to be believed.” (Indeed, this sentiment is reminiscent of the biblical prophet of Isaiah 53:3, who “was despised and rejected by people. He was a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering. He was despised like one from whom people turn their faces…” Alas, we can slowly and gradually return to the matter of “interference.” In order to intervene in these spectacles, (“meetings”), and share some genuine insights, one first needs to be credible in the eyes of the people (oppressed) lest they run the risk of being accused i.e. called “arrogant”, “uncle-toms”, etc. Unless they belong to the in-group, they will never been integrated into it, and will therefore always be at a distance. They can never be a part of the people, for they will remain “other” and treated like roaming denizens who can pass by but never settle and attain citizenship. In order to “naturalise” they would have to first unlearn (suppress) their own language (insight) and have this supplanted by a new primary code, and yet, if they were to lose themselves, they would also sacrifice the meaningful insight they intended to bring to the group. DO you follow?

Rather than complicate affairs, this wanderer might be quick to “pass”, camouflage and “adjust” by remaining quiet or even feigning agreement with the general consensus of the group. They will not be permitted to challenge the group otherwise the members, feeling threatened, would turn on this individual and attempt to (psychologically) eradicate them, and this is “BLACKNESS,” established mediocrity. Finally, we can return to the question of intervention. It makes no sense to “share” with these people, unless by gradual stealth and technical methods (i.e. like the Jesuits) , otherwise one would be ostracised. These groups are JOKES, and cannot be anything but because the members, we might say, are caught in the infamous double-bind. They are oppressed people pretending they are “liberated”; they are confused people who imagine themselves to be discerning; they are lost people who fantasise about a world which can [not] be found. They must indulge in an illusion and wishing, dream of a better place. In truth, their gathering is nothing more than two rats in a cage scheming to take over the world. It is sad, and yet, to be expected. Victimised by the painful parody that is their environment, they become the violence they fail to properly conceptualise. Their world is therefore blurred and the boundaries collapse between the real and the imagined. Rather than entertain or accept the idea/notion that they’re finished, they must engage in a fantasy in which they are in control and just seconds away from making that vital breakthrough which will bring about the ultimate revolution. They cannot afford to see that the plane has left having already paid the price of the ticket, and yet, this comes at a cost.


If the people who came to these meetings were all similarly dressed, in representing themselves accurately, there would be less deception, which might lead to more constructive work being done. Those people sincerely searching for answers would not focus on these farces, and would instead seek out the informed people who have done the groundwork and meaningfully examined the questions.If not seeking them, these people would naturally emerge, and rise to the top. If these clowns went in costume, from the outset, these meetings would be constructive in as much as the people attending would know what to expect, and expect nothing more than utter rubbish! I only go to these meetings to sell books as MONEY is the present reality I am engaged in. These attendees exist in an unreal place but ultimately, they are not serious. If they were serious, rather than engage in convoluted rhetoric about being “compensated” or getting “reparations”, they would try and focus on building, as opposed to babbling. If not just economics, practical ideologies get things moving. If agendas are to be progressive they have to be supported by people whether this comes about by lobbying (and campaigning), having parliamentarians legislate (filibustering), or creating institutions which propagate and promulgate their plans and proposals through academic circles and/or think tanks, etc. These are just a few ideas however, the constant theme is that of consequences. It is senseless to have numerous gathering where guess-takers masturbate with ideas especially if these people are not influential, or influencing people, Merely joining groups will not help if these groups are going nowhere for as Jung realised long ago, a million zeroes strung together do not add up to one. (QUIT FRONTIN/POSING)Image

MOSIAH MONTH (oh please)

About omalone1

I live I die I write
This entry was posted in Eternal Birth and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Competent Commentator

  1. Onitaset says:

    You’re one rad Brother. You got me laughing in my house! 🙂

    But true, Garvey wrote:

    “You must not mistake lip-service and noise for bravery and service.”

    – Marcus Garvey

    In Wa’Set it was written:

    We mustn’t confuse mastery with mimicry, knowledge with superstitious ignorance.

    With the first quotation, we need to wonder what difference there is between lip-service and service. From my experiences, I deduced “Sacrifice.” Yesterday, I was really disappointed, I spent hours on the streets to little avail. But I really want to gather a team and I really want our people to read better material, gaining knowledge of self. What I did was sacrifice. Speaking with a Sister in a highly perturbed way, she commented on my language. I called her an armchair. She has no sacrifice under her belt. Therein to me is the difference between lip-service and service.

    As to mastery and mimicry, knowledge and superstitious ignorance, these dichotomies were blasted very eloquently by you. You’re doing it well. I await when the two of us meet as Titans of internationally reconnected African Communities.

    I’m due to write a posting on “The Real Point of Discussion” noticing that a lot of us are distracting the people or at least not engaging in what we’re really concerned. The big hint is “What does that have to do with the price of bread?” I.e. “What’s that to do with controlling our cost of living?”

    “Actually we are slaves to the cost of living.”

    – Carolina Maria de Jesus

    Keep being awesome. I hear you on “Money.” An Adinkra symbol is:


    “when you climb a good tree”

    symbol of support, cooperation and encouragement

    From the expression “Woforo dua pa a, na yepia wo” meaning “When you climb a good tree, you are given a push”. More metaphorically, it means that when you work for a good cause, you will get support.

    We should bring from our Continent our customs. It’s altogether beneficial to be as our ancestors.

    Thanks for sharing,

  2. truthbetold says:

    This is one of the reasons why the black race as a whole remains confused. One thought to helping us become more enlightened. Perhaps having them read a book like Neely Fuller’s The Compensatory Code and have a discussion?

    Sometimes we blacks need a little push in the right direction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s