Legendary Legacy: 30 years on, Mike Tyson In Perspective (Part 2)

Holyfield broke into the heavyweight division in 1988, stepping up from being the undisputed cruiserweight champ, to beat James Tillis by a technical knockout in the fourth round. Had Tyson beaten Douglas, the 41-1 underdog, he would have surely gone on to fight Holyfield in 1990, but instead, losing the fight, he paved the way for Holyfield to win the belts off Douglas (October 25, 1990). Afterwards, Tyson was supposed to fight Holyfield for the belts but instead, he was convicted of rape, and imprisoned for three years in March 1992. More tragedy came in the year of his release when in 1995, Tyson’s father died.  Upon returning, and now a Muslim, he beat Peter McNeeley (TKO, round 1[2]) and Buster Mathis (round 3 KO). In 1996, he then beat Bruno a second time, before beating Bruce Seldon within 90 seconds (round 1 KO), finally setting the stage for his fight with Holyfield. Tyson would lose. In 1997, he got his rematch against Holyfield however, this time, the fight ended in a manner as bizarre as the first fight which saw Tyson knocked down in the sixth, staggered at the end of the 10th, and (technically) knocked out at the start of the 11th.

Before the Douglas fight, Tyson didn’t train properly and had had lots of women in his room. He was even knocked down by one of his sparring partners. About the Douglas fight, Tyson would claim, “It should [not] have been a hard fight… [former opponent] Tony Tucker had knocked Douglas out…[so] I didn’t take Douglas seriously.” It was as if he saw Douglas how Foreman had seen Ali: a pushover, and Holyfield, it might be said, was a similar story. Although Tyson realised that post-prison, he was not the same person, losing his manhood and having everything taken away from him, again it was his vices that got the best of him: “I believed I was god, I believed I was great; I didn’t believe I had to train hard…I thought everybody was afraid of me…I just thought I was somebody really special. I fooled around…I had tremendous amount of sexual activity and it caught up with me.” Having two belts on his waist, and realising he still had amazing punching power, it seems Tyson got complacent. At the same time, it might be equally argued that Holyfield got ugly.

“I came to the ring, supremely confident, knowing that I will beat him.” In fact, Tyson got head butt, multiple times, throughout the match, with a temporary stoppage called in round 7. Tyson even got stunned in Round 6, knocked down for only the second time in his career; Douglas had been the first to. (Lewis was the only other man to do so in 2002, although, there were questions about the condition of Tyson.) During the match, however, Holyfield – Tyson raged – repeatedly butt him, and it severely affected him. At the end of round 10, Tyson was out on his feet after dropping his fist whilst throwing a punch. Holyfield counterpunched and had Tyson groggy, unleashing a fiercesome flurry which had Tyson staggered on the ropes the same way Holyfield had been against Bowe towards the end of their third fight. Tyson was saved by the bell but wandered back to his corner almost as confused as Frazier in the first round of his fight against Foreman in 73’.  At the start of the eleventh round, Holyfield saw through Tyson’s raging attack, and responded with his own offensive provoking the referee to stop the fight. Tyson-Holyfield II was scheduled for May 1997, but postponed for a month. When the fight finally commenced, boxing history was written

“He butts me again” Tyson recalled, revisiting the fight. “I receive a cut eye…he started looking at the eye; he butts me again. I complain to the ref [Mills Lane] the referee doesn’t do anything…I become ferocious. Thhird round comes out…I’m mad. I get so mad I want to kill him. I fight again; at the moment, I’m enraged. I lose all composure and discipline…I want to choke him. I bit him; he got mad, he turned around; I wanted to just kick him right in his groin but I just pushed him…I wanted to just choke him; I wanted to just kill him. I couldn’t believe he head butted me and I just lost my cool; I lost my composure. The worst thing a soldier could ever do is lose his discipline. I was [upset] with myself but not because I bit him but because I lost my discipline and composure; I wanted to destroy everything about him. I wanted to destroy his corner; I wanted to destroy everybody in his corner; the whole ring goes into a rampage…I’m a good person but at that moment I went insane; I was enraged and I did not care about fighting him no more by the Queensbury rules… he butt me with his head, intentionally, to hurt me so I wanted to intentionally hurt him… so when Mill Lane came and disqualified me, I didn’t even care; I wanted to inflict as much pain as possible on that man…”

Tyson was suspended and fined. That same year, he was forced to pay Mitch Green $45,000 for the 1988 incident.  In March, he settled with King out of court following a dispute. In 1998, he reapplied for his licence but postponed this after he was sentenced for another assault. Tyson returned in 1999 fighting Francois Botha and Orlin Norris which ended as a No Contest after a Tyson foul. He won his next two fights in 2000, and that year, also forced Gollota to quit (No Contest), although this decision was later reversed after it was found that Tyson failed a drug test.  In the next five years, he would have a fight a year (Brian Nielsen Win TKO 7, Lennox Lewis, Loss KO 8, Clifford Etienne, Win KO 1, Danny Williams, Loss KO 4, and Kevin McBride Loss R 6.) After his loss to Kevin McBride, Tyson retired from the Ring with a record of 58(50)-0-8.  It might be said that only Douglas managed to beat Prime Tyson. Lewis knocked out a shadow, and Holyfield fought a post-prison Tyson, much like it might be suggest Frazier fought a post-prison protest Ali.

In Tyson (2007), early on, he expresses: “I deal with a huge inferiority complex; as a boy, I was fat and they picked on me so now I never back down from a fight… person can say an infantile thing…and I will strike them; I I’m not somebody that would walk away; I would provoke a fight from them; I won’t start one, but I won’t walk away from one either. In a fight in the street, not like the ring, it has to be almost to the death because you never know, if you don’t knock them out cold or if you don’t beat them half to death, he’ll go home and come back with a gun…a friend with a gun or a gang of people so normally, a fight in the street, is normally, deadly.” Despite having little trust in people, he was almost forced to trust D’Amato, and yet, all of his confidence (self-concept) – much of it developed by the support, nurturing and encouragement of Cus – was destroyed once he was convicted of rape. Tyson was not the same. Once again, he found he could not trust people. Everything was taken from him, and it was something he could not put behind him.

In Reading gaol by Reading town

There is a pit of shame,

And in it lies a wretched man

Eaten by teeth of flame,

In burning winding-sheet he lies,

And his grave has got no name.

And there, till Christ call forth the dead,

In silence let him lie:

No need to waste the foolish tear,

Or heave the windy sigh:

The man had killed the thing he loved,

And so he had to die.

And all men kill the thing they love,

By all let this be heard,

Some do it with a bitter look,

Some with a flattering word,

The coward does it with a kiss,

The brave man with a sword!

Oscar Wilde’s “The Ballad of Readng Gaol.” (1898)

Posted in Sport Talk | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legendary Legacy: 30 years on, Mike Tyson In Perspective (Part 1)

Mike Tyson only fought bums, it might be said, and yet, even if true, as Cus D Amato and Angelo Dundee seemed to both conclude, you can only fight what is in front of you. (In this article, we not only want to interrogate this claim, but we want to put Tyson in perspective) Many names came in front of Tyson, only to be left on their backs, if not only on their bums. His rise to the top meant many got put on their bottoms, being made to look like amateurs, despite their professional status. More importantly, Tyson was fighting somebody’s, such as Tony Tucker who was 34-0 prior to meeting Mike, and 1984 Gold medallist, Tyrell Biggs who was 15(10)-0. Other major names Tyson fought included Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Razor Ruddock, Carl Williams, Pinklon Thomas, Trevor Berbick and Andrew Gollota, who himself, gave Bowe a tough fight prior to his disqualification losses.  In the case of Gollota, Tyson was so menacing that he forced Gollota to retire at the end of the second round.

Tyson burst onto the professional scene on Ghana Independence Day, in 1985, when he defeated Hector Mercedes, via knock out, in the first round. He went on to knock out his next 14 opponents of that year, bar 1 (R3), in the first two rounds. 1986 saw him continue this streak, even if with greater difficulty, with the next three opponents – albeit being knocked out – taking his past the second round. Tyson’s next fight, James Tillis – like the one after that; Mitch Green – saw him taken the distance for the first time. He would then win – via knockout – 6 of his next 7 fights in the first or second rounds. (Jose Ribalta survived into round 10 before also being knocked out.) His last fight of 1986 saw Tyson make history knocking out, notably, Trevor Berbick, in round 2, to win the WBC heavyweight title, becoming the youngest ever heavyweight champion. Tyson had arrived.

Berbick had defeated Ali in December 1981, almost five years earlier. Likewise, Holmes, had also defeated Ali, 1980, whilst Michael Spinks, had beaten Holmes in 1985, shattering Holmes perfect record of then, 48-0, before again beating him on points, a year later. Tyson, however, was not as mesmerised by their histories knocking out all three in spectacular fashion. An undefeated Spinks earnt almost 11 million, getting knocked out in 90 seconds, in a manner just as brutal as Tyson’s 28 second battering of Marvis Frazier. Meanwhile, Tyson became the only person to ever stop Holmes, knocking out the aged, returning professional, who had come out of retirement for a 5 million pound pay day. (Holmes did, however, like the returning Foreman, go on to fight the distance against the crowned Holyfield). In between these Holmes and Spinks fights, Tubbs was knocked out in the second round; meaning none of his 1988 fights went beyond the fourth round.

All four of Tyson’s 1987 fights went beyond round 6 with two going the scheduled 12 rounds and the other two being knockout victories. It was in both his title fights that year, interestingly, against James Smith (WBA) and Tony Tucker (IBF) that he was taken the distance, en-route, unifying the belts and becoming the undisputed champion by August.  Following his three knockouts victories of 1988, 1989 saw him knock out Frank Bruno (round 5) and Carl Williams (round 1) to defend his title. (Following the January Bruno fight, he would famously remark, “how dare they challenge me with their primitive skills”, quoting the fictional character, Apocalypse, from the X-men franchise.) 1990m by contrast, saw trouble in Tokyo, in what was to become, “the biggest upset in the history of heavyweight championship fights.” Like Tillis in round 4, during the fight, (round 8) Douglas would go down, as Tyson showcased his skills the same way he had during round 5 of his fight with Mitch Green. Unlike Tillis, however, in round 10 the unthinkable happened: after lining up measuring Tyson with a series of soft left hand jabs, he struck a devastating right uppercut, swung a right hook followed by a left, then two more straight/ghost punches and finally, to quote from Chris Rock,  Tyson “was crawling around looking for his mouth piece.”

His next two fights, he won by first round KO, en route whooping 1984 gold medallist Henry Tilman who had twice beaten him at the youth level , whilst 1991 saw him twice beat Razor Ruddock, one by KO (round 7) and the other by points after twelve rounds. He could not, however, overcome his next opponent when in 1992, after his February 10 charge, he was convicted of rape following accusations made by Miss Black America contestant, Desiree Washington.  It was perhaps the second time Tyson felt betrayal, following his February 1989 split from Robin Givens which came after a humiliating and enraging television interview in which she presented Tyson as an animal. Closer to home, Tyson’s career was also impacted by three other major losses.  Much earlier, Teddy Atlas left his camp around 1982, but more importantly, Kevin Rooney parted company after the Spinks fights in 1988 with Tyson’s then promoter, Don King, installing Jay Bright and Aaron Snowell as trainers, along with managers John Horne and Rory Holloway. At the time of leaving Rooney, Tyson’s record was 35(31)-0; he was set to surpass the greats.

After 1988, Tyson’s career was radically transformed. In February he married Robin Givens, but by June, media stories were already suggesting there was conflict between the two with the police being called around the house in response to a call. In September, Tyson felt a lethal blow when, during a Barbara Walters interview, Given’s referred to her marriage with Tyson as “hell.” In August he got involved in a street brawl with Mitch Green, and in the same year, also tried to break from Clayton, eventually doing so around the time of the Spinks fight. 1988 also saw allegations made against him for allegedly making inapppropriate advances at night club patrons, Sandra Miller and Lori Davis, with a civil jury finding him guilty in November 1990, and forcing him to pay charges.  He eventually split from Clayton, and started to team with Don King, but a worst split occurred on February 14, 1989, when he split from Robin Givens. “I lost that belief in myself once Cus died; once I went through my divorce.” In Tyson (2007), we hear a recital of D’Amato’s famous musings.

Father-figure, trainer-manager, Cus D’Amato would introduce Tyson to both Jacobs and Clayton (1984). After the death of Jim Jacobs (1988) Bill Clayton assumed responsibilities, and came to ransom Tyson to a contract which saw him take a third of his prize-money. This continued until Tyson fired him near the Spinks fight, almost clearing every ghost of his past, and yet, it was as if he could never forget Cus: “A boy comes to me with a spark of interest. I feed the spark and it becomes a flame, I feed the spark and it becomes a flame. I feed the flame and it becomes afire. I feed the fire and it becomes a roaring blaze.” Tyson’s greatest loss was not in the ring but outside it when November 4, 1985, Cus D’Amato passed away. “I lost that belief in myself once Cus died” he recalled. It was devastating. Cus had been introduced to Tyson around 1980, by Bobby Stewart, who first taught Tyson boxing.  He essentially adopted Tyson, who came to live with him and Camille, after his mother passed away in 1982. Cus took Tyson to the junior Olympics where he shattered the record by dispatching his opponent in 8 seconds, following a series of first round victories. He finally took Tyson to professional level in 1985. After breaking Cus D’Amato trained, Floyd Patterson’s record of being the youngest heavyweight champion, he dedicated his victory to Cus.

Cus had a massive impact on Tyson. Tyson remembers “going to school and being bullied… I couldn’t believe a human being would do that… and I think that why people, like myself, become more assertive in life, and become aggressive….more outgoing…because they fear that they don’t want that to happen to them no more and they don’t want to be humiliated in that particular fashion anymore and that’s why I believe I’m the person that I am…I’m just afraid of being that way again; of being treated that way again; of being physically humiliated in the streets again, and I just wish I knew had to fight back then […] Cus was different with me than he was with his other fighters; Cus trained me to be totally ferocious, in the ring and out. We had a totally different relationship, that’s why, once I got involved with Cus, I was a young boy, but, once he spoke with me every night about discipline and character I knew that nobody physically, was going to f**k with me again…I talked to Cus and Cus talked to me over and over again, every night, for hours and hours…I just never had to worry about nobody ever bullying me again.”

Posted in Sport Talk | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brazil 1 – 7 Germany

In between the World Cup and Continental Championships (Euros, Copa America, African Nations, Olympics? etc), the Confederations Cup was played every two years – since 1995 – before FIfa decided to host it every four years instead. Brazil won the last three (2013: Beating Spain 3-0, 2009: Beating USA 2- 3, 2005: Beating Argentina 4-1). Of these three victories, their 3-0 defeat of Spain was most telling as Spain, had won the 2008 and 2012 European Championships, beating Germany (1-0) and Italy (4-0) respectively. In between, they had also won the World Cup 2010, beating Holland 1-0 AET. With Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona players central to their squad, it was also noteworthy that Barcelona had featured in five consecutive Champions semi-finals between 2008 and 2012, and one more in 2013, when Pep had left: (United 1 – 0 Barcelona AGG), 2009 (Barcelona 2 – 0 United, Winners), 2010 (Barcelona 2 – 3 Inter Milan AGG) 2011 (Barcelona 3 – 1 United, Winners), 2012 (Chelsea 3 – 2 Barcelona AGG.) Although in April 2013, they were eliminated by Munich, two months later, many of these Barcelona players would reaffirm themselves on the international stage and lift the world cup, en route, beating Germany, in the semi final, along the way.

Having been eliminated by France in the 2006 World Cup, Spanish football had come a long way, and although they were stunned by USA in the 2009 Confederations Cup Semi Finals, they were expected to beat Brazil in the 2013 final, only to be stunned once again in the final by a Neymar led attack. Brazil looked set to honour their host nation status and win the 2014 World Cup in their backyard, but Germany had other plans. In the semi-final, they dominated and humiliated Brazil racing ahead in the first half thanks to five goals, with four of them coming in 9 minutes. After the game, lots of criticism was levelled against the Brazil squad, and yet, the irony was that the starting eleven was not very different from that team that had beaten Spain months earlier. Brazil were missing Silva (suspension) – replaced by Dante – and Neymar (injury) – replaced by Bernard – but the side featured 7 starters from 2013, whilst Paulinho, a starter in 2013, came on at half time. Miacon replaces Alves, completing the four changes, meaning that there were only four changes, with two of them being forced.

2013 Brasil 3 – 0 Spain 2014 Brasil 1 – 7 Germany

12 Julio Cesar 12 Julio César
02 Alves 23 Maicon
03 Thiago Silva 13 Dante
04 David Luiz 04 David Luiz
06 Marcelo 06 Marcelo
11 Oscar 11 Oscar
17 Luiz Gustavo Dias 17 Luiz Gustavo Dias
18 Paulinho (Hernanes – 88′ ) 05 Fernandinho (Paulinho – 45′ )
09 Fred (Jo – 80′ ) 09 Fred (Willian – 69′ )
10 Neymar 20 Bernard
19 Hulk (Jadson – 73′ ) 07 Hulk (Ramires – 45′ )

Brazil’s collapse, then, cannot simply be attributed to their squad, despite it being deemed so average. Maybe the likes Ramires and Paulinho could have started the match, but would it have made much of a difference. More importantly, the question of the Brasillian defence is the real question here, for at least five of Germany’s goals came from Brazil errors.
1 Marcelon gives the ball away and eventually, an unmarked German score from the corner
2 Hulk misplaces a pass and after a counter, Klose scores after Paulinho fails to intercept
3 After a hopeful Luiz long ball, Germans counter. Mueller misses cut back but Kroos doesn’t
4 Seconds later, Kroos steals from Paulinho in his own half, and exchanges passes to score
5 Luiz misplaces a hopeful pass, then pulls out of a tackle as Khadeira goes on to score
6. Lahm, unmarked, takes advantage of Marcelo out of place, and squares it to Schurle
7 Players get caught chasing Lahm, after a long throw, as he plays it back to Schurle
We might argue that if not for these criminal errors, the score line would have been very different even if, as the summary below suggests, Germany had at least three more chances to score. Brazil did, however, miss three decent chances, and so, did themselves no favours, but the fact remains, it was more a case of an implosion than a conquest.


09:35 Marcelo misplaces a pass from Hulk, deep in the German half, and the Germans break. Marcelo tracks back and intercepts a cross earning a corner for Germany. From a Kroos (18) cross, an unmarked Mueler volleys the ball in for the first.

21:37 In the opposition half, Hulk misplaces a pass (intercepted) and Germany break, winning a throw deep within Brazils half. Muller then plays a ball to Kroos that Paulinho fails to intercept – actually misses the ball. The pass is played to Klose who scores on his second attempt after the keeper’s parry “…And Brazil looking very weak defensively here.”

Seconds after Bernard fails to control a long diagonal from Luiz, the keeper collects. Neur throws to Mueller, and after 4 passes – Mueller – Khaideira – Kroos – Mueller – Lahm. Lahm cuts the ball back from the wing, and Mueller misses the shot only for Kroos to pop up and lash the ball home. “It’s getting too easy for Germany”
*Paulinho should have pressed Kroos early, but also, should not have let him continue to run after, but got distracted by Mueller.

Again, seconds later, Kroos spots a Dante pass to Paulinho and tackles Paulinho from behind, deep within the Brazil half. He plays to an unmarked Khadira who has broken loose in a CF position. He plays back to Kroos who slots the ball in
“…its mayhem..Its total collapse for Brazil; It’s goals and glory for Germany”
Commentator reminds us they lost a 4 – 0 lead against Sweden in the qualifiers

28:40 Mueller misplaces a through ball to the feet of Luiz who plays a long ball forward, but it is missed by the forward. Clearing up, the defender races forward from the DM position into the OM position in Brazils half. Despite a bad touch, his lunge beats Luiz to the ball and plays it on to Khadiera who following a 1-2 with Ozil to his left, sweeps the ball home. Note: Dante fails to play Ozil offside whilst Maicon is indecisive in who he is picking up
“Game 61 of 64…it’s five and Brazil are in absolute tatters. Germany are wiping the floor with them”


50 Klose fails to control a ball that would have made it 2 on 1 against the Brazil keeper
5130 After great work by Marcelo on the left, he passes to Ramires who puts Oscar in only for a weak shot straight at the Keeper
5240 After a corner kick, and a clearance, Ramires headers the ball through to Paulinho who does not trouble the keeper
5800 Schurle is on for Klose and begins with a foul on Marcelo
58:40 Fred takes a shot instead of bringing his partner into play
59 Under pressure, Luiz misplaces a pass back in his own half, however, Mueller is not able to round the keeper completed as it goes out for a goal. A minute later, the keeper makes a great one handed save from a left footed Mueller curler.
61 David Luiz finds Maicon with a fine ball, which he controls on his first touch in the German box, but then falls over under a ghost challenge, as the ball goes out for a corner, essentially wasting a dangerous position
64 After a Luiz past does not find its player , German counter but player on the wing cannot locate Ozil who is advancing or Schurle who is free, unmarked, on the far right
66 Luiz far up the field does not complete his pass, as the block is intercept up field to Mueller, who after playing a 1-2 with Khadiera, releases it to the two free players on the right, but the Brasillian keeper sweeps up
6830 from German defence, play develops up to Lahm who, after playing an exchange with Khadiera on the right, moves into the box, and plays the ball square to Schurle who just got ahead of Mueller to score his first of the game. Marcelona caught out and no one marks Schurle in the box as three are caught ball watching (Willian is bought on immediately for Fred)
75 Khedira off as Draxler comes on
78 After Luiz intercepts a pass for a throw, Germany build from the left, then suddenly, following a Mueller pass from the left wing, Schurle lashes the ball past the keeper. Stunning! The long throw caught them off but also, they were caught chasing Mueller who was in quite a harmless position.
8830 Oscar, played through at a tight angle, shoots the ball wide rather than cutting it across. Only 30 seconds later, Bernard skies a shot, and then, 30 seconds later, as the Germans counter, Ozil completely miscues a 1-on-1, sending his shot wide. (Schurle, although catching up, was wide open on his right) then finally, on the Brazil counter, Oscar scores the final goal. After Marcelo plays it high to the left wing, having beaten the offside trap with a diagonal run, Oscar cuts in past Dante, and shoots the ball over the falling keeper.

Posted in Sport Talk | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Les Diaboliques

For those who don’t know, I embody many roles within the context of The Situation: a researcher, a campaigner, a theorist, a consultant, a commentator, and yet, the most important facet of my person is that I am serious. This means and entails many things; most importantly, it means that I am more serious about dignity than I am offspring – and that comes from a fan of children. In fact, I am often asked when I will have children. If only, I wonder, they were more concerned with dignity than they were progeny. I myself cannot see the logic in wanting to bring children into an environment that is not only hostile, but one that I do not possess. It is not only an embarrassment that so many Bakala ask and entertain this thought of “little ones”, it is a sign of sickness surfacing. Let us not forget that these are people who are routinely accustomed to labelling others – especially myself – as “mad”, and yet, in spite of their incoherent thought patterns and disjointed thinking structures, they still afford themselves the luxury of imagining they are of right mind?

It is no surprise; within the confines of this zoo, such ridiculousness and absurdities are to be expected. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that this ridiculous situation could exist, and persist, if the bakala people could think properly and authentically operate. Much rather, they must be programmed with and function from a base of ill-logic, and a fragmented paradigm. Most recently, amongst these “confused” (conquered) people, a thought has re-emerged. Kanye West seems to be a key proponent of this thought that suggests that “class” is the issue and not “race”. In fact, this blik finds support from those who claim that we are in a post-racial place; that those who still “dwell” on colour are stuck (lost), and that, as Jack Saturday might say, “the world has changed.” If only they knew. In the first place, as we have already discussed elsewhere, as a part of this total system thought framework, race is simply rule. Moreover, those who talk about “race” can rarely give the term a definition, and as for the part about, “colour”, I am still waiting for the day that someone can show me a “white” person.

Although people might conflate terms and identify with the label “white”, it is more to do with position and role, than anything else. In fact, we go further to say that the term white, might be best explained as “someone empowered with mobility and authority.” In outdated terms, we might even say that anyone that identifies themselves as white – and is identified as such – is racist (only, that term, is rather meaningless.) To identify as white is to equate oneself with the very rule which is a regime of domination that involves relational structures and agreements between peoples. To be white is to operate from, benefit from, and essentially be an advocate of that/these arrangements. In short, since race is rule, white is domination. When we say that, for obvious reasons, we are apprehended by those most trained by domination: those who are disciplined, domesticated and docile, if not dedicated. They say that nonwhites, or bakala, can be “racist.”

Many say that those who talk the truth about power are “radical” and “segregationist”, or they see us as living in past-time’s parrowdice. It does not occur to them, however, hwow many of their “white friends” are playing and participating in the game of domination-seduction, fragmentation violence. They fail to see their “peers” and “contemporaries” and fellow “human beings” as Terry Silver’s. Maybe they have yet to see the Usual Suspects, maybe because it is always them in the line-ups. It is likely then that those bakala who see whites as being spiritually inept, still have faith, and hope, in better days, and ghetto heavens. It does not occur to them that at best, the prisoners ought to harbour hostility towards those who hold them in captivity, and that, their resentment does little to alter the relations between the servants and the masters because at best, the nonwhites are reactionaries, reacting to the domination.

Minister Malcolm highlighted this upon his return from Mecca, even if the likes of James Farmer would have liked to have – us, or he himself – imagine otherwise. During an interview on the Open Mind, Farmer claimed that there were two versions of the Minister. Apparently the “moderator”, Heffner asked “[Malcolm lived] long enough for him to [seemingly] have shifted his own orientation in the sense of separatism, which he was expressing at our programme together. Which Malcolm, which civil rights movements [are we] going to remember: separatists or integrationists.” Walker corrected this notion of “separatism” by admitting the campaigners were “more de-segregationists than integrationists.” He explained “there were a large cadre of us who were not concerned about being with white people to give any affirmation to ourselves but to be sure that we as American citizens had access to things all other Americans had access to, but the verbiage of the media at the time in a sense brainwashed people’s opinion.” Farmer, however, seemed to subtly object.

For Farmer, “we had the thesis, we had the antithesis and we now have synthesis. Malcolm moved closer toward the civil rights movement after his return from Mecca, and the civil rights movement moved closer to Malcolm with black identity becoming a part of the civil rights struggle, so the mainstream …is part integrationist and part black identity and afro centrism.” Later in the programme, Farmer added, “one of the things about Malcolm [is that] in his pre Mecca days, he believed that white racism was genetic; in other words, they had it, god, Allah, he would say, gave it to them, and there was nothing you could do about it. After Mecca, he saw that that was not true. He in Mecca saw white Muslims worshipping Allah, kneeling beside him and he was convinced then that racism as he had witnessed it in America, was learned and not genetic, and if it was learned, I repeat, it can be unlearned.” This latter part, of course, was his personal view.

This idea is not uncommon, for there is a popular idea that, as Farmer added “the funny thing is, he [Malcolm] began to change his position.” Convinced Malcolm underwent a radical transformation, and a second chapter, Farmer pontificated that there was a “second Malcolm, from the time of his visit to Mecca”, who would agree that we – we, who – could solve the problem of “racism” in the body politic of the nation. It was however, somewhat ironic that sitting next to him, Walker gave credit to the living Malcolm when he conceded “most of us were more optimistic about the possibility of change in American society than we needed to be and I confess that …Malcolm was more accurate in his assessment about where America was on race than we were at that point in time.” Walker also noted that the rise in identity “pride” had confused the situation, which was elaborated upon by Farmer in his visit to the Open Mind, during episode 421.

Upon his return, Farmer stated that “more than a cult, he is being made a god, he is being deified”, whilst offering a critique of Malcolm: “He was lucky then [during uprisings] that he didn’t have to put up or shut up when he talked violence. This is one criticism that I had of Malcolm in the sixties…that is that he talked and he didn’t do anything because the things that he talked about doing would have been self defeating if he attempted to do them …guns can be no solution when talking about a minority that has no guns to compare to that of their adversaries.” We appreciate, here, Farmers insight, and also his commentary which reveals the many nuances of todays topics, for we agree that “leadership is easy when the issues are simple.” His analysis also explains much of the confusion that is so prevalent today.

Explaining the differences and difficulties confronting those attempting to challenge and oppose domination, Farmer argued that “we are dealing with reverse discrimination and affirmative action…Issues of the 1960s…were so simple… but [Bakke, 1978], we had to make a decision based on which right was more in keeping with the requirements of public policy at that particular time …In the 60s we were right and we knew it and those who opposed our right to sit on the front of the bus …were wrong… we cannot be as dogmatic today on many of the issues, as we could be in the 1960s…what we are going to do [therefore] is to develop more wisdom, for one thing. We’ve got to find out which side is more in keeping with the demands of public policy and work with it. Now it’s harder to organise a movement and to get motion… when you don’t have a clear devil to point to.”

Although much of his reflections are useful, we do challenge Farmers rhetoric on Minister Malcolm, for it does not seem to be an accurate picture, especially when he espouses there were two Malcolm’s: “the first Malcolm …was the Malcolm of hate; hating whites and believing that whites were evil. Most of the young blacks are not aware that there was a Malcolm subsequent to that; that Malcolm changed his views when in Mecca, he saw blue eyed blondes worshipping Allah along with him and indeed kneeling beside him and he came to the conclusion, as he said to me [personally]….that Islam was [not purely] the blacks man’s religion and that white people could [in fact] get close to Mecca …he said that lead him to do researching, rethinking and soul searching and he came to the conclusion that anybody who will fight along with us, not for us…was his brother.”

Indeed, in his acclaimed Biography, we find the Ministers word match up with Farmer’s assessment that “he had had very little formal education…and he believed what he had been told by his [former] leader, Elijah Muhammad” however, his message at the New York City, Militant Labor Forum, (January 7th, 1965), talking on “The Prospects for Freedom”, goes contrary to the picture painted by Farmer. In this speech, to use his words, Malcolm stated explicitly,” how in the world can a white man expect a black man to change before he has changed; how can you expect us to change when you haven’t changed; how can you expect us to change when the cause, that make us as we are, has not been removed. Why, it’s infantile, immature, [and] adolescent, on your part, to expect us to change, to expect us to be dumb enough to change, when you have not yet gone to the cause of the conditions that makes us act as we do.” SNM

Many years ago Boesk dealt with this issue of whiteness when he effectively advocated the position that white people were to be judged within the context of this present set of arrangements. He claimed that the failing of previous selfhood theorists was that they seemed to ascribe to whites flaws in their moral make-up. They seemed to believe that whites were inherently demonic rather than seeing that their privileged positions within a criminal context afforded advantages which dictated their conduct. In his analysis, these misguided theorists were focussing on moral characteristics so much, they did not engage in the discussion about power, and that whites did what they did, relating and operating as they did, because power enabled them to do so. It meant then that the key to dignity was transforming this relation.

It is important to note, however, that in our reading, Boesk’s view is incomplete, and somewhat invalidated by Ani, who seems to imply that whites operate as they do the other peoples because they function from a different moral world. Whilst this does take us away from talk of demons and devils, it is useful in as much as it encourages us to focus on how those that rule, rule. Examining this, a caller to radio broadcast, The COWS asked, “is deception and trickery intelligence…don’t you think it’s easy to trick a group of people when your operating off a different moral compass from them?”, to which the host responded, that this was exactly what white people had done: “they have tricked us into thinking that yes, we’re all one, human family, democracy, all in this together, we all have the same morals and ethics” In fact, this was not true at all for they have a totally different moral compass.

In reality whites have a moral compass which dictates they view the world, and place themselves in opposition to everybody that is not white. Ani then, has much credibility to her claim that white thought patterns and structures compel them to create these complex relational systems which maintain them in positions of domination and power. Furthermore, we ought to also suspect more is taking place when, as one theorist reminds us, all over the world, as highlighted by global domination in multiple areas of the world, whites seem to miraculously or magically know that they are supposed to be in charge. We see, and saw then, Mandela being given shorts in prison to designate that he was a boy; the Indians being made to bow to Dyer’s troops; the American Bakala being referred to as “boy”, and the like, which are reflect rule. These are master-servant relations recreated repeatedly, and that is beyond coincidence. It’s almost as if they are a team and each, like a German squad, know their role, and perform it.

Often the claim is made that all white people are individual, and therefore we cannot group all of them together and yet, the face of American hostility was white: it was French, Canadian, Hungarian, German, Polish, Irish, you name it but all these national entities gave way to the aim and goal of crushing the “spirit” of the Bakala. For the sake of domination, these nationhood constructs merged and dissolved only to again surface when it was convenient. This, however, is of little importance; for they will then say that “Jews” fought alongside the Bakala, going on to add that Jon Brown offered the most radical challenge to white domination. They will not, however, refer to John Booth who told those in Nyasaland that none of the whites were to be trusted. They fail to mention, as Clarke adds, that Brown’s generals were just as important as he was. They leave out that Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner were but three bodies discovered by the pale FBI, that seemed largely indifferent prior.

For those that say we should avoid “generalising”, I ask, when we walk by these white females and they clutch their purposes, are they seeing us as individuals? When we encounter the same problem of being followed around shops, is that generalising? When we are told we “speak well” or are “intelligent” or “articulate” – for negroes – is that generalising? Or when we are grouped together with strangers we happen to be close to but resemble in image, is that generalising? Again, we ask, and wonder, why it is that we, the bakala are “corrected” on these habits when the people that should be “checked” are those who injure us daily? It is as if those who attempt to “moralise” do so because they are akin to missionaries who evangelise to us, so as to sedate us before the raw conquerors finish the job. They are security forces, and stewards, there to appease us, so we remain confused, never focussed on the target. Sadly, we cannot continue to remain at first base and so, irrespective of their intentions, they must be ignored.

There are then those who say, routinely, that some of the most helpful people they have encountered have been whites, and again, we are not surprised. They can afford this luxury just as James Goldsmith could afford the luxury of taking a moral stance against GATT once he had lived lavishly and clobbered competition. It is important then to draw upon the inspiration of Amos Wilson who reminds some, and informs many that individual choice is a product of group actions. From here, I argue that it is not difficult to give prisoners an extra few moments of “social” if ultimately, they will return to their cells. In fact, if you give them enough, they may even forget they are in prisons, and come to take favour with you, seeking more of your approval, as they seek to make the days go by quicker. More importantly, I do not mind giving you charity if your impoverishment was caused by my family robbing you in the first place.

As for those who claim that their people – whoever these people are – have been most hostile, it makes sense that those who have been injured, and insulted, daily, will have such enmity. Animals in their cages have reasons for rages. For them, there is no holiday, just horror. In terms of niceties then, the chances are that we will not be as courteous towards, and amongst each other because we have little to offer each other, creating the scenario The Joker mocked when he claimed morality is a joke: “their morals, their code, it’s a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be [but] when the chips are down, these civilised people, they’d eat each other.” Without any standard of conduct governing our behaviour, we seem resigned to death, and with that, bitterness. Conquered, we go on conquering. Let’s admit then, that those who focus on the black side of chess board tend to do so to escape a confrontation with those who seem to be winning the game.

There are many bakala who want to avoid this confrontation because they are defeated. They want to be liked, seeing that as the limit of their reality. They seem convinced that “we cannot govern ourselves…we are unworthy of genuine independence and… foreign tutelage is the only remedy for our wild, war like and primitive ways… if they are to be saved from their richly aggressive instinct.” They are settled; the whites will always be in control and there is nothing we can do about it and so we better have children, partners, cars, houses, properties, businesses, etc, in trying to avoid being at the bottom of the ladder, or left to drown in the water, as opposed to be safe on the big ship. It is also logical to want to avoid this fate because those that challenge that enormous force of whites do not seem to have many victories.

Although there are those of us who have been genuinely duped by the lies of the whites, we can do better if we have a quick way to identify who these people are and so I ask, can you exist without ever seeing another white person again? Kamau 301, however, gives us three other (better) questions to ask which quickly establish who is serious about controlling their reality, when he lists three questions? He asks, do you believe that American foreign policy can be changed; that we need to get whites to live up to their ideals and that the system works, but needs reforming. If so, the chances are that such a person will not be of immediate value in this ongoing effort. They want to only “suffer peacefully” or go about their business experiencing less hostility. They are not actually bothered by white domination; and have few problems with whites owning the distribution of wealth, so long as they can have jobs.

In closing, we need to be on guard against both the whites and the “blacks”, who are but whites in disguise. Even if police violence (State Attacks) were to cease, the fact that we are not in control would still remain a problem. If we were housed, had jobs and access to healthcare, but whites remained in charge, for those of us who are serious, that would be defeat, which bring us to a final few points about confrontation. George Subira was correct in observing that whites have no problem with us so long as we tolerate them, and they accommodate us, and yet, if we refuse to be silent, there is trouble. Minister Malcolm’s return from Mecca highlights reality of white domination which is a death wish; when they asked if he changed they were gauging if he had been duped (assimilated) to which he affirmed, he wasn’t, and yet, those who try to “freeze frame” Malcolm want to confuse us with this myth.

It is paramount that we the bakala realise just how many whites are invested in this situation, The Situation, and spot them. They are those who are uneasy when we talk about “rule,” which is “whiteness.” They are those who talk about the abstract supremacy whiteness without talking about how they directly participate in it. They talk about “racism” without definition, and say “things are getting better” without offering any comparisons, or leaving it there to simply imply, as Herblock did, that we should show gratitude that whites are contemplating changing their behaviours. They want us to believe that the images of white terror in America was examples of the “racism” that died rather than telling us that what we saw then was “barbarism”, whilst simultaneously, they refuse to revisit any of the footage from South Africa for “fair” it might show too much of their hand.

We will remain as clowns until we are able to think in context and operate with proper perspective. At present, we cannot even read reality, and so, when we hear of “monkey chants” in sporting stadiums, we see this as the “racism” of a few “bad apples” rather than the “appreciation” of those “breaking rank” that can no longer lie to themselves and pretend they are there to watch “human beings.” Aside from those excessively aroused, impulsive types who spew these “slurs”, we should be on guard against those who disrupt and sabotage teh Blue-eyes Brown-eyes experiment claiming they refuse to do it to their fellow human beings, under the righteous pretext, of course. Much rather, when it comes to whites, we must realise that we are dealing with characters like Yung (The Perfect Weapon, 1991), Verbal Kint (The Usual Suspects, 1995), Terry Silver (Karate Kid III, 1989) Aaron Stampler (Primal Fear, 1996) Timmy York (Identity, 2003) Jack Doyle (Gone Baby Gone, 2007).

For all this talk about “class”, “robber barons” and “the establishment”, the fact is, we can never collaborate, especially because we sit on separate sides of the fence. We are merely cannon fodder, jump offs that the white collective are not true to. They play the game, and we buy it. In closing, we leave you with the immortal words of Renegade who urges us to be ever vigilant in dealing with those who have mastered deception: “If you can fool someone…particularly if the people know that you have a tendency to be deceptive, and you can still fool them, I have to concede that this person is very smart about doing what they want to do because they can do this and some of us even seem to know that these people can lie a lot but we still fall for it, we’re still in bed with them, [and] we still do not acknowledge, they’re on the other side of the chessboard.”

Posted in Eternal Birth | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why We Are Bitter

Our future is futile! All we want is everything and yet, we will have nothing. It is as if we shall forever be on the outside looking in, waiting to take that opportunity that will never come .

There is nothing in place for us, at least, nothing we can see, never mind reach. For the females, they want to live vicariously through those who have fame and for the males, they want to live lavishly, conspicuously, and large.

Maybe we need to add “us” the HOES, as opposed to just putting “me” between the HOES. Either way, the only property we seem to be concerned with is that which elevates us and makes us feel somebody.


Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

Hoax Caller (B)

In January 2013, a year after starting, we left. We could no longer sustain radio. We were not financially accomplished. We could not be doing all this “voluntary” work if it was not “paying” us/off. Also, we could no longer make the effort to travel there every week, as the distance was taxing. We could no longer come in on a Tuesday which was a labour day. There were, however, deeper reasons. It was as if I was not taking hold of my life, and by that, we mean “realities.” At times, for instance, we were entering the studio despite housing issues and other uncertainties. (As for finances, that is always an issue.) Beyond that, vanity happened: for the information we were offering, we felt slighted by the Tuesday afternoon thinking there should have been enough initiative to give us a “better” slot, even if that meant a longer one. It was as if we were a cog in the wheel, and so there was an issue of “recognition.” It was as if “management” was not familiar with “management”, and factors of talent recognition etc. It was as if they did not realise the amount of effort we had begun to put into the broadcasts, or the depth of research that we had engaged in. We were seen as “just another” as opposed to someone with “the answer.” Again, we can never say if we have “all answers”, but we surely have many, and yet, when there was no “discrimination”, it was as if the people in positions of importance, were sleeping; asleep dreaming they’re awake. Our issue, however, was not the management; it was the people. We also came to fear that they were “groupies.” They were without memory, without discernment, and without conviction. They were defeated and indifferent and so, could not discern my seriousness. They were jokers and clowns imagining they were more serious than they were when really, they were not prepared to do the work to graduate their thought and transform them into serious people. They were there for the ride, and would do so with whoever was on the slot.

There is so much data flying about, or floating about these days, that few can discern the quality of anything. There are a myriad of “talkers” on the “circuit”, and many are repeating the same stuff. There are popular icons, and public figures of prominence, and yet, often, we remain no better. For this reason, this mess, we only listen to a set few; we prefer that to the promiscuous approach. There are those “gullible” ones, however, who entertain anything, discerning little. They have no overall focus and live for the moment, without direction. They take on all information without ever drawing it together, or placing it into a wider framework. They have no memory but live in a continuous present; they are immersed in diversion and obsessed with distractions; they like fashion trends and current affairs that are of no relevance in terms of ultimate goals; they think “positive” without constructive practice; they consume information like it was a buffet; they gather knowledge like hoarders collect newspaper. They fail to, however, collaborate. They fail to develop programmes or put systems in place for peoples that will come after them. They talk about nations but have no relations. They say the family is under attack but cannot piece together their own ones; they live on benefits and say we need to “know ourselves.” They are an embarrassment; they have little appeal; they have little class; in short, they do not impress. They are the necessary dupes. They need to exist to deplete us; they are form without substance. If no one were to call us up, we might realise we are not “reaching” people, but with their “feedback”, we get lost, mistaking our “reaching” for “connecting.”

We stepped down from our role to focus on financial ones. We said we need to secure our future rather than sacrificing it for people who were not going to support or uplift us. It is not to “blame” them as fundamentally, there is no sustaining consciousness for these ideas. There are no platforms or structures for these ideas. We are just a scattered collective. We will continue to burnout and breakdown so long as there is no organising collective or more importantly, a CODE. In the past, however, we attempted to be spectacular individuals. We thought we could “go at it alone.” We imagined our “talk” would be of consequence without realising it needed a collective. This means then, that the issue is twofold. Firstly, there are few serious people. Many of the listening audience are “clowns” however, there are others who are indifferent as they have little faith in the talk. When they were serious, others were not; when they put themselves out, others did not. When they gathered knowledge, others did not appreciate them; when they made sacrifices, others ignored them. When they made efforts, few paid attention. When they warned us, we laughed at them. And when they died, we cried for them, without ever having done things for them when they were living. These people gave their time and made efforts; many were serious about “dignity” – dubbed, “liberation” – but were met with ridiculousness. They listened to radio desperate to hear seriousness but instead, were met with comedy. They came to listen to people who should have been nowhere near a mic. They were listening to personalities rather than workers. They wanted builders but hear banter, and did the right thing: they left hoes to be hoes and didn’t attempt to turn them into housewives. Myself, I called up these jokers and mocked them… hoping others would realise it was a parody. Few saw through this comedy; they took the farce for fact because for them, between work and play, there was little difference.


Posted in Competent Commentaries | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hoax Caller (A)

We cannot quite recall exactly when it was we started to tune in to “protest” radio, in particular, the “conscious” station. We used to attend the “meetings” but no longer. We rarely even hail the others we see – they are people that we used to know. Even today, we are quite reluctant to listen to broadcasts, never mind call in, as we see the broadcasts as a farcical. Nevertheless, between January 2012 and January 2013, we hosted a “show” on a West London platform, broadcasting to the public, on Tuesday afternoons. This lasted for a year, but was with its difficulties. In particular, we had a couple disagreements with “management”, questioning the degree to which they were “serious” and “focussed.” Much rather, they had a problem. They found us to be “eccentric.” They concluded that we were “intelligent” but needed to value our “leaders.” Earlier, they had complained suggesting that our broadcasts were missing some direction and structure however, later on, their argument evolved. They came to take exception to our comments on leadership. This was because, we challenged the popular rhetoric and cherished convictions. We said that these icons and their accompanying images, whilst assuring and comforting, were unimportant. We said that whilst their memories may soothe us, there legacies are not apparent. In sum, we said, these “stories” were irrelevant. Our argument was quite simply, it does not matter how far I have some if I still have so far to go. Likewise, I cannot concern myself with the best efforts at escape if I remain in a cell and so, unless we were going to use these previous efforts to update or contrive a plan, to even mention them was to delude ourselves.

Peoples preferred the dream. They didn’t want me to delve into these characters and identities and so there was a split. There were some listeners who took to this “refreshing” approach, and scholastic bias, by meeting us with praise and gratitude. Meanwhile, there were others who saw our effort as “prehistoric”, akin to taking people through a “museum” tour. (It was intriguing but didn’t provide us with anything to take away.) In fact, it seemed to be that they were suggesting we were “abstract.” Finally, there was another critique: apparently, in addition to “attacking” the concept of “community” and “leaders”, we were quoting “James Baldwin.” To his credit, we praised Baldwin for “defeating” Minister Malcolm in their debate (which was more a panel discussion.) It was not that Baldwin was “articulate” but “sharp”, and we recognised that. (Oba Shaka said this.) We found this useful in as much as seeing our “heroes” defeated gets us to reflect. American getting whooped by Vietnam got them “thinking” (although, in a typically British fashion, they will belittle this defeat so as the maintain their psychological superiority-selfhood.) In short, we were told to stop referring Baldwin and to stop attacking leaders. We might say that to some extent, this was useful . Another maestro at the station said that we needed to uplift the people who already are bitter and defeated whilst a caller suggested that we were speaking down to people. (Another suggested we were not enthusiastic.) In time, we came to work with these comments, and work alongside the callers; the people.

During our broadcasts, we sometimes clashed with a caller who spoke about “spirituality”. Those who “know” us know that we have no patience for the “spooky stuff” seeing it as an alternative to the typical escape of sex. We have always found the concept to be ill-defined and conveniently, poorly judged. Our critique is outlined as follows: We rarely, for instance, ever hear anyone linking spirituality to morality, but moreover, have yet to see people who compliment this evolutionary consciousness with concrete challenges to the existing regime, and status quo, every day in their walking life. It is as if this “hysterical” comfort is an excuse for serious study, hence, why we refuse to entertain this “melanin magic”, and ignore those who even mention it. People like Manu Ampin, have answers, without saying we have a special connection with the “most high” but instead, we “believe” in the “Willie Lynch” speech. For these reasons, we sometimes clashed with this caller, however, this isn’t to pretend that we were the enemy of the people. We had many supporters. Our problem, however, was with the seriousness of these people, rather than the resistance and opposition. Our “problem” then, was with our “friends” rather than our “enemies.” Those who “liked” us did not seem to take this sympathy further. Instead, we still had people asking us about a “solution” rather than accepting our concept of seriousness. We had people calling us “intelligent” but still not taking on board our concept of “seriousness.” We HAVE people who like our language-focus, but still do not quite seem serious. This remains our issue. Those who study, do so for play, whilst those who are not that way inclined, only play.

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

To Accuse Or Suspect (Vol 3)

Only last week, I sat in on a forum of nonwhites. In their presence was a white female who was doing research into the experiences of nonwhites in attempting to get access to services. The attendees complained about the council not recognising their group but paying lip service to it in their reports so as to tick the boxes of their “equality” criteria. (In a routine manner, these “blacks” did not exist beyond the “uses” and “purposes” of the whites. They were objects, or chattel, for these uses of these “professionals.”) The attendees fretted and ultimately enquired as to what the researcher would do with the information they gathered as if it was to collate a report, the idea was not new. They even informed her that many reports had been published in the past. It got worse when one person claimed that they need to inform and educate the council on how to help them. It was at this point I all but wept. It was as if these nonwhites still did not get it; the council has no regard for people it has no concern for. It cannot be reformed; it cannot be educated. It is beyond ruin.

These nonwhites still clung to their faith in “human” beings and imagined, as it were, that these whites were operating within a moral framework. It is this idea of a moral framework which may soon become a recurring theme. Syed, for instance, has repeatedly brought to our attention the work of a Nigerian based writer who claims that what the nonwhite world did not realise about Europe was that the Europeans were not operating within a moral framework. (This reiterates what Marimba Ani noted in “Yurugu” when she spoke about the “rhetorical ethic” which sees Europeans utilise language as a weapon to neutralise or deceive nonwhites.) Although I have contested this idea of a moral framework with Syed, he seems to prefer that idea. I prefer to say that they have a different concept of language that is not shared by nonwhites; that unlike nonwhites, whites draw upon language to maintain their regime, and so, to begin with, they are starting from a different place; a place of power. I do not see it as an issue of morality; I see it as an issue of language and a matter of power. It is from this place I have to be suspicious of this lady when she speaks of “white supremacy”. Is she trying to pull a T.I. and “bring em out”?

With my colleague I explained the subtle dynamics implicit, and in the background, when speaking with this white lady. I can tell her that she is in a position of power and that I am very cognisant of; that it has an impact and dictates how I can respond to her. I cannot, for instance, answer her “question” and “explain” to her, Neely Fuller’s functional concept of “race” as “white supremacy.” I cannot speak openly with any white person about race because whiteness is a political party; that there is generally a possessive investment in whiteness; that she is a person but I am not one under the current arrangements; that I can volunteer information to her that she hijacks, subverts and uses against nonwhite peoples. I cannot “inform” her of her whiteness and what it entails in terms of her being a warden as opposed to a prisoner; that at any time, a white person is a police enforcer; that I am under her rule and at her mercy; that she is in charge and in control. I can only do what she permits; and yet, she must acknowledge, and even confess this, but that isn’t everything.

Posted in Justice Saves | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To Accuse Or Suspect (Vol 2)

In the week, I met with a “white” woman. Of course, she was not a “white” woman but an associate. She was in fact a voice hearer group facilitator. We were meeting to discuss the possibility of combining to work on a paper exploring paranoia and hearing voices. She was seeing if I might be a consultant to the project which involved training services in the experiences of voice hearers. Agreeing provisionally, she then proceeded to show me a slide from their planned training sheet and it looked at the background of people; their frame of reference which “informs our beliefs about the world and our beliefs about other people’s beliefs.” Of these many items, “race” was on the agenda, which prompted her to pose a question to me, as a non-white: should race be included as a frame of reference, assuming, and since, there is one race. It was at this point that our thinking began.

Later in the conversation, as she went on to talk about bel Hooks she mentioned “white supremacy”, and maybe she expected to me to be moved but far from that, I was suspicious. Tommy J Curry has destroyed “white privilege” arguments, whilst Gus T Renegade has embarrassed white rhetoricians who profess to challenge white supremacy, and likewise, when a white female mentioned this, my initial reaction was to question her purpose in pushing the envelope. To begin with, she did not connect herself to white supremacy but the way she spoke about it might have suggested it was something abstract, in the ether, somewhere. It did not seem to connect her to the regime; to identify the ways in which she might be complicit in the regime and even collaborate with practitioners within it. More importantly, “white supremacy” does not identify the ways a “white” person performs “zookeeperism.”

It makes it impersonal and to the extent someone does that, they collude in maintaining the order, by design or by default. Saying “white supremacy” implies that the prisoner and the warden can work together to eradicate or eliminate this evil but invisible menace that is out there somewhere. It implies, pretends, or imagines that we have equal power, or powerlessness, and are similarly subjected to the regime; taking for granted, of course, the regime exists. More importantly, “white supremacy”, like the words “racism” is a scapegoat, a puppet; it is akin to the football fans complaining about the spectator making “insulting” gestures and chants, singling that person out as a “bad apple” and a “racist” as opposed to identifying that person as one offshoot of the already pathological regime that their chanting is merely an extension of. This white supremacy talk then was only a reason to be suspicious in as much as it obscured more than it explored.

If this associate wanted to be useful she would have put on the table the issue of how her whiteness operates and how she practices. performs or permits zookeeperism, Therefore, we agree with Renegade who asks all “white” people to speak about the regime and their role within in it; how they function in relation to nonwhites and how they relate to each other as whites, whilst Welsing asks that whites tell nonwhites what they speak about when nonwhites are not around. For us, the issue is “whiteness” and for nonwhites, this whiteness is an inescapable reality. It cannot be ignored, overlooked or bypassed because as a nonwhite, my experience and reality is dominated and dictated by the zookeepers I am subjected to and at the mercy of. She cannot cease to be white, even at this personal level we were in. She is always white, and her whiteness is always an issue (suspect), or a problem (accuse). Earlier today when I met another friend, the topic was “whiteness” and the extent to which “whites” are conscious of how their whiteness impacts and affects others,

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

Message To Pale Folk

“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.

Posted in Eternal Birth | 1 Comment