“niggers are filled with unfulfilled ambitions”
For the longest time, we wondered if we should erase the word “white” from this forum, suggesting it might be “outdated”. It immediately seems to be accusatory, and “implicates” white people in a crime they do not, or did not commit. It creates antagonism and maybe even hostility, but more importantly, is sharply separates and divided people. It takes away from our humanity and keeps us angry at each other. It does not help build bridges and allow us to move forward. It only alienates others. For this reason, I wondered if I should erase the term. After all, this blog was never made to indulge. It was not made for “black” people, but for all! It was made to offer strategies for resolving the “conflicts” we have. It was supposed to explore, and yet, the question we have is this: how can we explore if people are hiding and holding secrets we need to expose. Yes, the term “white” is confusing, but only because it is a disguise. It is a veil with much lurking beneath. More importantly, it is a reality. We cannot escape this reality and should not escape it so long as it is the oxygen in the air. If whites feel uncomfortable with it, the easiest thing to do is to challenge the regime, or simply deny it exists, but, if doing the latter, we would urge you to avoid reading here.
We know. If whites read this blog, they may be uneasy. They most certainly wont want to be reading alongside their nonwhite partners. We upset without apology because things are not okay. We are living under criminal conditions, and these conditions are created by the ways in which whites relate to nonwhites. We are not talking about something out there ins the ether somewhere; we are talking about concrete circumstances and the results of deeds, thoughts and speech patterns. Whites, in this post, we are talking to you. We are standing up in the cell even if it bursts the bubble of “innocence.” We say this as there are two responses to posts like these. The first is the people who turn off immediately, classing this as “hate” and “separatism.” It so happens to be the case that in refusing to confront issues that are not framed on their terms, this mode of maintaining domination is easily identified. The other response is to read into this but either deny the extent to which the violence implicit in this regime does damage to people, or to distance oneself from the regime by talking about “class” and “institutional racism.” For the record, this blog is not about “racism.” It is about race domination, and since we advance that the only race is the “white” team, race domination is white domination. We are less than 69 years removed from the height of this reality which is often associated with the images of dogs being set on protesters but that was a blip. In truth, the American images showcases barbarism.
For “racism”, not only do we not know what that is; we dont even think it is constructive to talk about. It is the brainchild of the “racist” and so, to talk about “racism” is to admit you are subject to it, and that is the greatest irony: those who imagine themselves to have mastered it, as blindly servile. Racism is a joke, and yet, this mould has stuck with our most confused scholars. In trying to tackle it from the very paradigm they have tried to combat, they have exposed their limitations. In our view, unless mistaken, racialism was a concept use by the likes of Adorno, and others, to refer to the plight of European “Hebrews.” It was used to describe the treatment because it was whites (“germans”) responding to whites (“jews”), because both these types of whites constituted a “race.” The issue then was THE race battling each other, with the germans contesting the whiteness of the other being the source of the controversy. These “hebrews” then, were accepted as white (“human”), because they were part of a/the race. By contrast, the bakala of America experienced such brutal savagery and violent oppression because they were not accepted as “human.” They were seen as animals trying to venture out of their cages, and that is why they were “hurt.” More importantly, the “lens” of “racism” has only highlighted the extent to which these bakala people were “subjected” to domination in as much as they literally attempt to describe their “African” experience through “European” language.
In trying to find solace under the banner of racism, and using that sentimental word in their desperate efforts to elicit sympathy, they only expose the extent to which they have been conquered by those who subject them to this existing arrangement, zookeeperism. Calling “racism” is thus, the same as accepting yourself as a second-hand person. It is effectively saying, “you have sympathy for the European “jew”, so have sympathy for “us.” Although this may seem obscure, a better analogy is to be found through the term “nigger.” Just as Amos Wilson explained that “love” is determined by group consciousness, the term “nigger” is term we are trained to respond to. It is a “taboo” that other groups of people are supposed to refrain from “labelling” – or identifying – “blacks” with because of its “evil” “history.” It is “begging”, made by people as helpless and thus dependent as they were when they first “arrived” IN territories dominated by Europeans. The term “nigger” and the associated “sensitivity” only highlights the ridiculousness of “blackness” both as an idea and an identity. In essence, blacks have how they should respond to the term dictated by how whites train and programme them to respond to it. It is thus, a “throwing chain” that exemplifies our point: that the absurdity of supposing and imagining blackness as apart from whiteness in as much as blackness is totally dependent upon, dominated by, and subjected to the epistemological framework of whiteness.
“Radical” radio talkers who talk “black power” are equally defeated in as much as they “believe” black power can exist within a framework of “white domination”, and in doing so, give fuel to the psychotic conception of black “identity.” Again, it is much easier to talk about black history than white domination just as it is safer to talk about “what we need to do” as opposed to studying “what they do to us.” There is much “YOU” do to us, but principally it all comes down to the ways in which you organise yourselves, and with that, your power, to maintain the existing state of affairs. Really, we have nothing to say to you as we do not need to “educate” you. Having found yourselves in position of “power”< or set yourselves up in those positions, our reality of being dominated and harmed by your processes, is not something "we" should need to inform you of, and so, when we write, we writer to "inform" and "educate" those who evidently need to be far more receptive and reflective in their modes of relating to you. If this upsets you, and you are compelled to claim we are hostile, perhaps it is because we are standing up in the cell, as opposed to seating to take a piss, and thus, bursting your bubble. Again, we are not even entertaining the inconsequential discussion that begins by asking, "is white racism deliberate and conscious", and irrespective of the answer, nonwhites are harmed by the practice. Our principal question is how we can complete the "Bakala Project" so as to provide a context, space and overarching framework for "our" people to use, so as to centre themselves as they make efforts to counter the existing, and expanding regime, of white domination. If sincere, you should support us.