anonymous50

Oh no! I am not having health problems at all. As far as I know, I am healthy. I just felt that I have personally exhausted most of the topics that would be of interest to this post, I did not realize that I would be missed that much.

This will probably be my last post for this forum. The title is not a statement of me being ultra hotep or black nationalist. It is just a fact. Unless there is an event in the next 100 years or so that causes a catastrophic loss of life such as nuclear WWIII or the second coming of Jesus Christ (which both are very possible), black people will be in the majority on planet earth. Why do I say this? Humanity's population in general is decreasing, but this is particularly true of non-black races. People of white or European origin are declining rapidly. This is one of the reasons there is an increase in far-right wing white nationalism and white supremacist groups both here in America and in Europe. They use terms such as "replacement theory" and "white genocide" to describe their demographic problems. The population growth rate of Europe on average is 0.12%. That is below replacement level. The rate of growth in Britian is 0.40% In Sweden, its 0.6%. In Germany, its 0.0%!! In Spain, its 0.1%. In Italy, -0.6%, and Russia -0.4%. If these numbers are true, then Europe is dying. In America, the decrease may not be as sharp; but the white(non-Hispanic) has decreased from 74% in 2010 to 64% in 2020 to 47% by 2050. And that number is expected to go down even further. Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing groups in America. But they might redefine who is considered white in the US. Believe it or not, Southern Europeans and some Eastern Europeans were not considered white during the 19th and early 20th century. Demographers may decide to reclassify such groups as Hispanic, Arabs, and East Indians as "white." Some Hispanics are white, but most of them are of mestizo or mixed-race origin. Arabs or Middle Easterners, on the other hand, are of the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian race. East Indians are also of the Mediterranean subgroup but display strong Australoid admixture, especially the darker-skinned Dravidians of Southern India and Sri Lanka. The term Australoid refers to the aboriginal race in Australia. Some Dravidians and Veddoids in India might be related to them. Continental Asia is also experiencing a future population collapse. The population growth rate of Japan is -0.5%, which is below replacement. In large part due to the One Child Policy, China's population growth rate has shrunk to 0.1%. I understand that they have reversed this policy to allow women to have up to three children. North Korea's population growth rate is 0.4%. In South Koreas its -0.2%. Myanmar is 0.7%. Thailand is 0.38%. Indonesia's growth rate is 0.74%. The Philippines has one of the highest growth rates in Asia of `1.54%. This is next to India at 0.81%. China and India will be the most populus nations for some time to come, but their PGR(Population Growth Rate) is decreasing all the same. Lets go to the Middle East. In Algeria the PGR is 1.7%. In Morocco it is 1.0%. In Egypt 1.5%. In Tunisia, it is 0.8%. In Iran, it is 0.7%. Iraq is 2.7%. Syria population growth is 0.24%. In Turkey, it is 1.09%. The Middle East seems to have the second highest growth rate outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. la Next up, Latin America. The two largest countries in Latin America, Mexico and Brazil, used to have very large PGRs. Today, Mexico probably still has one of the higher population growth percentages in Latin America but sometimes it is not very consistent. It is higher in some years than it is on others. From the 1980 to the late 2010's it ranged from the 2.0%s to 1.0%s. Today it is 0.75%. An almost identical situation existed in Brazil, the second largest country in the region. In 1980, Brazil's PGR was 2.38%. Today it is 0.75%. Part of this decrease is due to the fact that half of all the women in Brazil were sterilized to cut down the population growth. In Colombia, the growth rate is 0.41%. In Venezuela, it is 1.9%. Honduras is 1.5%. In Nicaragua, its 1.4%, and the Dominican Republic -1.1%. Bolivia has the highest birthrate at 2.5%. Uruguay has the lowest rate at -0.9%. Las,t but not least, Sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria growth rate is 2.53%. Currently, the country has a population of over 200 million people. Demographers predict that by the turn of the next century it could be over 1 billion. This would make it the third largest country next to China and India. Niger has the highest birthrate in Africa or the world at 3.8%. Exponentially, that is six children for every woman of childbearing age. Mali growth rate is 3.16%. In Angola, its 3.24%. In Gambia, it is 2.5%. The PGR in Burkina Faso is 2.66% The countries that I just listed are the largest growing ones in the world. Phenotypically, these people are not just black the way Americans consider being black. Because we look upon people who are clearly mixed and sometimes damn near white as being black because of the one-drop rule. These people are truly black with dark skin, 4c hair, full lips, and wide noses. It is estimated that half or over half the world's population will be in Africa. This does not mean(despite the title of the blog) that black people will be the only people on earth. at least not for the next 100. There will still be non-black human beings on earth mainly in China and India, but their populations will be getting older while Africans will be younger. Economically speaking, it is where the youth is that counts. If the world last another 200 years, it might mark the first time since the Tower of Babel (I do believe in the Biblical account of creation and the evolution of races) that there might be one race of mankind. Many people believe that blacks were the very first people at the beginning of the world and could be the last as the world comes to an end. But what you have to understand is that in most developed countries that have moved from rural agrarian to urban industrial, the population growth generally tends to go down. This includes all of Europe, Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, China (even though some of them are Communists), and The United States of America. Sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of a few large cities such as Lagos, Nairobi, Abidjan, and others, is largely Third World, rural, tribal, and undeveloped. Women in such countries tend to have more children than the ones in First World countries. However, if Africa becomes more developed and industrialized, the birthrates will begin to decline there as well. But, I hate to burst a few hotep and pro-black bubbles. . Although African countries do have high birthrates, they also have high infant mortality rates also. Even though the people are black, this does not mean that they are going unite and get along. We know that civil wars are common in some of those countries like South Sudan. There is a lot of rivalry and conflict among the different tribal factions. There is political strife between Marxist and those who are perceived to be loyal towards the former colonial powers. And there is religious tension between Christianity and Islam, both of which are growing at an equal rate. Of course, there is famine and widespread diseases such as Ebola which wipes out a lot of people. It was rumored that AIDS and Covid originated from Africa. But the birthrates are so high in Africa to maybe these factors can be offset. Finally, just because Africans might be a majority on the earth someday does not mean that they are going to control it. After all, South Africa had a black majority and it was still controlled by the British. Over a hundred years from now, white people may be on the verge of extinction but that does not mean that they will not still control the world. Let me explain. The few white people who are around at that time in America, Europe, and elsewhere will be some of the wealthiest people in the world. They will probably be trillionaires!! These families and individuals will be a part of the global elites that will have such wealth, power, and influence that they will literally have the global domination many of them have been seeking for decades if not centuries. No longer will there be poor or working-class whites. When these people are phased out due to low population growth, the white elite families will be wealthier because assets of the 99% will go to the very top!! This is the reason you see so many lower quality whites on the economic level at Trump rallies. Because even though Trump is a billionaire, he stands up to the globalist with his nationalist rhetoric. If you want some idea as to who these families are, just type in the Google search engine "the families who control the world." Remember, it is not the majority population that ever has the most power. It is usually the oligarchs who control the resources and assets who have it. And, they are usually in the tiny minority. This is true in both capitalist and socialist countries. There may be a sinister reason why population control is never implemented in Africa as in other less developed parts of the world. The world's white elites will be wealthy enough to buy back what China has invested in Africa and recolonize the continent again. If Africa is still an underdeveloped continent at that time, they could re-introduce slavery again. I do personally think that most of the world will be enslaved someday. That is because most of the world will be black. As a disclaimer, if the people of Sub-Sharan Africa start to take advantage of the vast wealth and resources of that continent (with the help of China), that would be a major game changer in their favor. Think of Wakanda in the Marvel Studio movie Black Panther. A Also, on a more positive note. African influence will be more prominent in terms of culture, food, music, and beauty standards. e

I know that this is a divisive issue in the African-American community and some might disagree with me. This post addresses colorism mostly in the dating arena. When the issue of colorism is addressed in dating, it usually centers around dark-skinned black men with light skinned black women. It has never been a secret in the black community that many dark-skinned black men, especially when they obtain money and status, prefer lighter skinned women. This is certainly nothing new. It has been going on for many, many years or decades. Celebrities of yesteryear such as Stepin Feichit and Nat King Cole to today's entertainers and athletes have had fair skinned trophy wives. Even civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. chose light skinned Coretta Scott to be his mate. This is because black men associate light skin with with money and position, which are all symbolic representations of whiteness. Whereas dark-skinned black women are associated with poverty and struggle. This has always been something that has always frustrated darker black women ; particularly, the ones that were looking to "level up" by seeking higher status black men. I remember back in the 80s seeing letters written to Essence and Ebony magazines complaining about the "redbones" of the day such as Vanessa L Williams, Jayne Kennedy, and Anna Marie Johnson of how they were preferred over darker women when it comes to men and roles. Today, there are You Tube anti colorist content creators such as Chrissie, Paris Milan, and I am Eloho who express the same sentiment with female celebrities such as Zendaya, Beyoncé, and Niki Minaj. Of course, many unions between light skinned women and dark skinned men are not solely based on love. His reason for being with her is, in many cases, out of phenotypical fetishization for the reasons that I described in the previous paragraph. Often, her reason for being with him is out of money and resources. The one party that is never really discussed in colorism debates are light skinned black men. I realize that we are all black whether we have light skinned, keen features, looser textured hair, or dark skin, Africoid features, and more tightly coiled hair. That is not the issue, at least not yet. The more and more bi-racial people demand their independence from the black category to "Other," it could be in the future. But, I don't really see that happening soon because the One-Drop rule is so embedded in he mindset of both blacks and whites in America. But, it is white people who decide and classify who you are since they have the power. But, I digress. I never hear MLS(multi racial light skinned) men complain about their women being taken from them by darker skinned men like I hear with dark-skinned women over fair skin women being with their men. From a ratio standpoint, dark skinned black men take light skinned women more so than vice versa because most black people are dark. Light skinned people are a minority in the community. Not very many interracial unions take place to produce mulattoes or blasians on a massive scale as most races prefer their own kind. Not all light skinned people bi-racial, but many are. Light skinned privilege applies mostly to women when it comes to dating, jobs, and roles in films , TV, and commercials. I am not saying that MLS men are at the same disadvantage as dark-skinned black women, but they are not as privileged as MLS women either. In the African-American community, light skinned black men are considered too soft for regular black women( since MLS men are frequently feminized by black culture), they are too black for white women(because of the One-Drop rule), and their women constantly get selected from them. Maybe, mixed/light skinned black men need to improve their masculinity and economic status by developing a blue chip mindset advocated by Red Pill content creator CoachGregAdams the same way darker skinned black women are subscribing femininity channels online and on You tube offered by people like Chrissie. Men are primarily judged by their social and economic status. Women are judged by their femininity and looks.

Although it is belated, Happy Black History Month. How do many people on this forum celebrate Black History Month? I mostly celebrate it by looking at historic old documentaries that I recorded from TV and Radio regarding the struggle such as Jim Crow, MLK, and tragic events such as Tulsa and Rosewood. My favorite period of black history between the end of slavery and the civil rights era of the '50s and '60s was the Harlem Renaissance. Also, I look at recorded specials on legendary celebrities such as Louis Armstrong, Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, and Tyra Banks as well as different musical genres pioneered by blacks such as jazz and blues. I also look at a lot of black movies as well. So, needless to say, I keep a low profile. How do many of you celebrate the month? Is it by going to parades and festivals?

The purpose of this post is not to bash capitalism or to advocate Marxism or Communism. As people in America and all over the world know, capitalism has provided a very high standard of living. But, there is a dark side to early capitalism. Before businesses were privately or publicly owned, the government sponsored most forms of merchant activity and international trade. The British chartered the East Indian Trade Company in 1600. Later, it became an joint-stock company. This is an organization in which stocks are bought and sold by shareholders. It became a predecessor to, if not actually the first, major corporation similar to the Fortune 500 companies traded on Wall Street today. b The commodities that the company bought and sold were cotton, sugar, tea, and spices. But, more controversial, it traded in slaves and Opium. These slaves were sent to North American colonies. This helped to create the Southern plantation system in America. Some of the wealthiest people in America between the colonial period and the Civil War were planters and slaveholders. The North in the US was by no means innocent of slavery. Before the Revolution, the North also had slaves. But, after Independence, human chattel slowly died out. But, textile mills, which depended heavily on Southern cotton, were established. Merchants and shippers from the northern coasts often sold cotton to overseas buyers. . As a result, financial institutions were established in the North to fund these businesses that revolved around slavery. These institutions included the early beginnings of Lehman Brothers, Aetna Inc, Jp Morgan Chase, and New York Life. It is estimated that 40 percent of New York's cotton revenue came indirectly through sources related to physical slavery. The continental railroad system and the steamboat industry were established to transport cotton, sugar, and other Southern crops to different parts of the country. This would build the fortunes of post-antebellum, Gilded Age tycoons like Cornelius Vanderbilt, the great-great-great grandfather of CNN journalist Anderson Cooper. A similar situation took place in Britain. The British East Indian Company also sold slaves to Britain. Although slavery was abolished in England in 1833, thanks to the efforts of William Wilberforce, Britain still depended on Southern cotton imported from America for its textile businesses. The textile spinning would become the premiere industry of the Industrial Revolution. Over the next 100 years, the Industrial Revolution would expand to other businesses across Britain, western Europe, and America that depended on natural resources such as iron, timber, copper, coal, and petroleum(oil and gas). The financial institutions who were responsible for funding these businesses were Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Lloyd's of London, and Barclays. Overall, I would say that slavery was just as indispensable to capitalism then as the fossil fuel industry is today. More than just the transportation sector depends on oil companies for gasoline, diesel, and kerosene to run cars, trucks, and planes. Plastics are derived from the by products of oil and gas. Petrochemicals are also used to make some of the ingredients in soaps, detergents, polishes, deodorants, synthetic fibers, paints, rubbers, fertilizers, etc. Certainly, too many to name. Even the the moral arguments made by abolitionist against planters/slaveholders are very similar to the ones made by environmentalist/climate activist against the fossil fuel industry. Slavery was considered abuse and degradation of human beings. The emissions that are produced by the fossil fuels industry(oil, gas, and coal) are considered abuse and degradation to the environment by contributing to global warming. I guess this is the reason why many extreme pro-black, social justice activist, and far left woke militants are calling for an end to capitalism as we know it, possible to be replaced by socialism or Marxism. But, capitalism is changing anyway. Today, it is morphing in to what Klaus Swab of the World Economic Forum has termed a "Fourth Industrial Revolution." This is basically a digital revolution based off of IT, Artificial Intelligence, algorithms, big data, and cloud storage of information. Also included would be electric/self driving cars from alternative sources of clean energy including wind and solar. The more pejorative term to describe these changes would be a technocracy. Others, maybe including Klaus Swab himself and Prince Charles(now King Charles), refer to it as part of a Great Reset. e

This post asks a very hypothetical question. How can Republicans increase their share of POC (People of Color) voters? A lot of points I made in previous posts will be reiterated. A person of color is someone who is not considered traditionally white, meaning they are not of predominately European origin. This includes blacks, Asians, and the majority of Hispanics. Sometimes it even incudes darker Caucasians such as Arabs and Indians. They really can't do it by their policies, especially with the party leaning closer to fascism, nationalism, and xenophobia just as the Democrats are leaning closer to Socialism and Marxism. But maybe they can employ a divide and conquer strategy among minorities (especially among black people). Let's start with the ADOS community. Not only could they try to keep as many of the small minority of traditional black conservatives, but also court the Red Pill Black Manosphere community online. There are already black incels that blame the findings in Moynihan Report (1965) for kicking black men out of the home and replacing them with black matriarchs. This is also a talking point among white, pro-family conservatives as well. This could create political divisions between black men and black women with more black men voting Republican and black women remaining Democrat. Black Manosphere content creators such as Obsidian Ali and Oshay Duke Jackson profess to be Republican. Another way the Grand Old Party could increase POC voters is to declare Hispanics as being white. What many people may not be aware of is that technically Hispanics are considered white anyway even though most nationalities are of mestizo or mixed-race descent. Of course, they are not treated as nor regarded as white by white people. But a century ago, they did not look upon southern Europeans as being white either. My grandfather always said that whenever a Mexican gets a nickel, he wants to be white. This goes back to the colonial days of Latin America when Criollos (the ruling white Latin American minority of predominantly European Spanish ancestry) considered their mixed blood offsprings as white if they had education, money, status and a minimum of non-European features. There is a saying today in Brazil and other Latin American countries that money "whitens." There are some Hispanics that are legitimately white like Spaniards, Argentines, and white Cubans in Miami. Hispanics voting Republicans is not something that is impossible, especially before the age of Trump. I still remember the Texas gubernatorial race of 1998 when George W. Bush was running for re-election before he ran for President. He courted Latinos vote and got nearly 50 percent of their vote. With demographic changes inevitable, at some point in the future the Republicans could say screw the racist and xenophobic populism that is so prevalent in the party today and go back to Jr. Bush's model of the open tent. If Hispanics are looked upon as being white, that would increase tensions between them and blacks because they would no longer see themselves as an oppressed people. Thus, they would think they are better than blacks. A second way the GOP could increase its turn out among ADOS voters is to support a separate racial category or "other" for black bi-racial people. I mentioned this on my first post before I became a member that this was once proposed back in the '90s. But two black congressmen voted against it. The reason why they opposed it is because if bi-racial blacks were no longer seen as being traditionally black, they would not be as loyal to the black community as far as civil rights issues are concerned. Observation has shown this to be true. If a person compares American, black-identified bi-racials to multi-generational Dominican mulattoes and South African Cape Coloureds, there is a difference in self-perception. The latter in both cases want to identify more with their European ancestry and even shun African ancestry. Many South African Coloureds voted for the white Apartheid party. When many Dominicans come to America, the first words they speak in English are "we are not black." If American mulattoes (I still used the term mulatto because bi-racial could mean any racial mixture) adopt a similar attitude, that could increase Republican votes among them since that is the party most associated with white people. But, in order to accomplish this, the one drop rule would have to totally be abolished. I don't think most people, unless they are in the deeply racist Southern states, pay little attention to that anyway unless the person looks black. To elaborate on this further, there is somewhat of an emerging third component of the online gender war that I mentioned in my last two posts. The best way I can describe it as the Multiracial Light Skinned (MLS) movement. This is mostly female oriented in that it is a space for light-skinned mixed women to respond to dark-skinned, pro-black, anti-colorist video creators. Basically, it is squabbling between light-skinned black women and dark-skinned black women on YouTube. MLS side with black men more in the gender war than they do black women. But they also bash black men and the black community as a whole. They sometimes refer to it as "blackistan." MLS content creators call for a separate mixed-race classification (as some anti-colorists do). But what they classify as mixed are people who look like they are less than 100 percent full black and have a 25 percent black admixture. This would include a lot of people who are not bi-racial. For example, brown-skinned individuals who have white features like supermodel Iman. People who phenotypically look like they have non-black admixture could comprise up to 30 percent of the African American population. But, regardless of the methods above (even if combined altogether) Republicans use to increase their voting status among POC, it will never make up for the decline of the white population. The Democrats once found themselves in a similar position. As hard as it is to believe today, the American South used to be as Democrat as it is Republican today. The South was Democrat from the pre-antebellum days of Andrew Jackson to the Civil Rights era of Lyndon Johnson. They were a slave holding segregationist party. Once the Democrats started supporting civil rights, they would permanently lose the white South. At that time, many thought that the Democratic Party was over. But, by pivoting towards blacks, other minorities, and progressive special interest groups; the party of the donkey was able to reinvent itself by replacing white Southern voters. Unfortunately, this won't be the case with the Republican Party as it embraces nationalism that alienates most non-white voters.

The white population both in America and in Europe is decreasing. This is one of the reasons why you see an uptick in racism, xenophobia, and a rise of far right-wing politicians such as Donald Trump in America, Victor Orban in Hungary, Andrzej Duda of Poland, and even to some extent Vladimir Putin of Russia. Gerrymandering and voter suppression laws reflect this anxiety as well. They are also upset over the embrace of globalism and the decline of Western Judeo-Christian values. I guess it really makes sense that they would feel some form of superiority and entitlement since Europeans and people of European descent have ruled the world going back further than colonialism but to the Roman and Greek Empires where Western Civilization began. It really started with Alexandria the Great rather than Christipher Columbus. But they are still winning in two areas. One of them is the judicial system both with the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. The 40 years between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump have seen more justices put on the Supreme Court by Republican administrations than Democratic administrations. As a result, the Supreme Court has a 6 to 3 conservative majority. This affects social issues such as voting rights, abortion, climate change, and gay marriage. These Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointees. To show you how long a justice can be on the Supreme Court, just look at Clearance Thomas. He has been on the court since 1991. I think some of this is political strategic planning. By 2045 or 2050, America will be a minority-majority nation. At that time, the white population could dwindle down to the point where Republicans will not be able to be elected as President unless there is some kind of paradigm shift. In order to keep America from drifting into socialism or even Marxism, the judicial branch of the government will thwart the executive and legislative branches. Always remember that Roe V. Wade was overturned in a Democratic administration and a Democratic congress!! Gay marriage is definitely next. I don't care how much politicians try to deny it. If a nearly 50-year-old ruling can be overturned, surely a seven-year-old one can. Another area where white people will continue to thrive as a minority is in economics. This is where real power is. True power resides on Wall Street, not Washington DC. Will POCs (People of Color) be in control of major corporations such as Wal-Mart, am*zon, Exxon, GE, Telsa, Apple, and Target just to name a few? Most white Americans do not control these gigantic international financial institutions, including the founding families. They are control by banks, private equity firms, trusts, and hedge fund owners. In other words, the very "one percent." It is these people that have control over the political issues of both parties. The conservative fossil fuel oligarchs keep Texas Red the same way liberal Hollywood and Silicon Valley keep California Blue. I am not saying that people do not have control of their vote, but it is influenced more by big money than you realize. The reason why white colonizers controlled predominantly black sub-Shahara Africa is because they had the economic power. The same thing is true in Latin America. Even though mestizos (mixed Spanish and Indian people) consist of a majority in most countries south of the American border, it is the Criollo (Latin Americans of mostly European Spanish descent) oligarchs that control those nations. So, when mid-century arrives, POCs will be politically more in control than economically. Most of the wealth (not all) that black people produce is through music and sports. But this is not generational wealth. Generational wealth is money that is passed down from one generation after another such is the case with family fortunes until it becomes old money. Unless they are smart enough to become businessmen like Jay Z and 50 cent, most of these rappers, ballers, and actors usually go broke within the next few years after they spend their short-term wealth on houses, cars, drugs, and Instagram models. The money is not passed on to kids and grandkids. But, with that being said, there are some black generational wealth families

There is a female counterpart to the gender war. I am not sure what it is officially called but I think it is the Sisterhood. Their spaces on You Tube and the internet are targeted toward black women just as the black manosphere is toward black men. The "the black womansphere" as I called it is divided into three sectors 1. The Anti-Colorist. 2. The Hypergamist. 3. The Divestors. Examples of anti-colorist content creators are Chrissie, Paris Milan, I Am Eloho, and the more feminist For Harriet. They explain how colorism negatively affect the black community, especially black women. Light skinned women fair better (no pun intended) than dark skinned women when it comes to finding a potential mate (especially a higher quality one). People who are lighter are more likely to be hired on a job than darker skinned individuals. Darker skinned blacks are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system in the form longer prison sentences and police brutality. Kids who are dark skinned are expelled from school more often than light skinned or mixed kids. Chrissie's channel is among the more popular if not the most popular on You Tube addressing these issues. Even though she explains consequences of colorism on all points, she mostly focuses on how it affects the relationship between men and women in the black community. She argues that when black men become successful they often choose light skinned/mixed and non-black women because they are a symbolic representation of whiteness that money, power, education, and status bring. Light skinned women are perceived as being more attractive and feminine. Whereas dark skinned women are associated with poverty, struggle, masculinity, and ratchetness. So, most of her videos are about dark-skinned black men with light skinned or non-black women. Anybody who is even a casual observer of the African American community knows that most successful high value dark skinned black men (and sometimes women) prefer lighter skinned partners. She and other with a similar platform claim that this is a result of a hidden self-hatred that many dark-skinned black men have. Chrissie, Paris Milian, Rhoseda Strouber, and similar video creators on You Tube oppose the one-drop rule that may have been established going back to America's colonial years. In case there is anybody who does not know what that means, the rule states that any non- Hispanic person who has any black admixture (no matter how small) is considered black. The reason why they are against the one-drop rule is because it perpetuates colorism by classifying people as black who should not be black. Examples of these people would be white passing mulattoes, quadroons (1/4 black), and octoroons (1/8 black). The reason why this is the case is because African Americans (especially dark-skinned unambiguous blacks) are told that their Africoid or Negroid phenotype of big lips, wide noses, and kinky hair is considered ugly. As a result, dark skinned blacks dislike their features. On the other hand, mixed people who are light skinned are considered to be more desirable, especially if they have keen features, small noses, thinner lips, and just an overall more Caucasian or European phenotype. Even during slavery, the house slaves were fair skinned and field slaves were darker skinned. Black people begin to place light skinned people on a pedestal in their community. This is how colorism was born. And most black people, especially black men, have bought into colorism. So, in cases where being with a white woman may not be feasible for a black man they always have that redbone or Latina that comes close. This is the reason why many anti-colorists think that mixed people should have their own category/identity separate from both whites and blacks similar to the South African Cape Coloreds or the Latin American Mestizos. But, this would not necessarily stop black men from pursuing these women just because they are not black. After all, they still date and marry white women and more of them are falling in love with Hispanic women. Those who subscribe to SYBM (Save Yourselves Black Men) will fly to Brazil, Colombia, and The Dominican Republic to meet the women over there. Speaking of SYBM, there is a female version of that. They are Known as Divestors. They are called divestors because they have divested from black men and sometimes the black community in as a whole. These are the black women who are tired of being rejected by black men for non-black women and even light skinned black women. So, they start seeking men of other races to date. They expand their options, so to speak. The most well know divestor online would be author Christelyn Karazin who wrote the book Swirling. This book explains how to interracially date and marry. She was married to a white man for nearly 20 years and has several bi-racial children. The term "swirling," used to describe interracial relationships, comes from this book. Whereas the black manosphere puts down black women as being unattractive, Un submissive, and masculine in their videos; the divestors consider black men to be "dusties" and economically at the bottom of the barrel. The term dusty refers to a black man that is poor, broke, and no ambition. Basically, your typical Pookie from the hood would fit this description. " But, what both SYBM and divestors need to realize is that most non-black peoples (especially whites) do not want their kids to marry black people because they know the children of such a union will be considered black; and, they will have to deal with the baggage that comes along with being black in America whether it be historical, economical, societal, and even internal (as these two posts have shown). Sure, these ballers, rappers, and entertainers marry out of their race a lot. Although the parents to these non-black women (and sometimes men) may personally object to the relationships, the fact that these men are wealthy compensates for their blackness. At least, in the short term, their non-black daughters are "getting the bag." Money talks. Then, of course, there are the Hypergamist. The term hypergamy means dating or marrying above a person's economic and social status. Examples of this platform on You Tube would be Chloe, Joulzey, and also Chrissie. These channels tell black women to "level up" and stop dating broke dusties. I noticed that many colorism and hypergamy channels are related. Even though Chrissie discusses colorism, she almost equally talks about hypergamy. It's not that black men are not with dark-skinned black women, you see that every day. The problem is, as mentioned already, the higher status ones want light-skinned women while dark skinned women are reduced to "baby mama" status. Hypergamy is the end game. Colorism is a barrier to it. This is the reason why Chrissie encourages dark-skinned black women to date mostly black men with means who are established and avoid dusties , even if they have ambition, is because there is a difference between the women than men date/marry when they are broke and the ones they marry when they have money. When a black man is poor and struggling, he will be with a dark-skinned woman from the hood because that is all he can afford. But, once he becomes successful, that man may leave the woman in favor of someone who is light skinned/mixed or non-black. The woman a man chooses when he has fame, fortune, success, and money is the type of woman he favors. If a black man or any man is wealthy and he chooses a dark-skinned black woman, then that is his preference. Chrissie also encourages black women to be more competitive with other women not only for black men but men in general. She does this through her femininity/hypergamy channel. This is done by encouraging dark-skinned black women to be more feminine, soft, dainty, and gentle. In so many words, developing characteristics that will enable them to compete with non-black women and some mixed women, at least for the sake of the bag. She strongly opposes the masculine promotion of black women in the media. The most controversial if not most popular figure on the female side of the gender war is Cynthia G. What Tommy Sotomayor is to black women, she is to black men. Her whole platform is almost exclusively dedicated to bashing black men who date interracially. She thinks these men are weak, self-hating, and effeminate. I think Cynthia G is an Afro-Centric black nationalist similar in some ways to Dr. Umar Johnson. She is really the flip side of a white nationalist/supremist. in some of her earlier videos, she talks about how much she hates white people. She blames interracial relationships for both the downfall of both Ancient Egypt and the Moors. In addition to this, she believes that the Civil Rights Movement was mostly about black men having access to white women without risking their lives. There may be some subliminal truth to that. Really, Cynthia G hates miscegenation the same reason why white racists hate it. In one video, I think she said that the impurity of the blood weakens the black race, which is very similar to the original IBMOR statement on the other side of the gender war. I guess really what that can be interpreted as meaning is that it produces weak light-skinned simp males and more traditionally feminine light-skinned women. It has gotten to the point where she absolutely despises black men because they marry out so much. In another one of her videos, she states that black women ought to abort black male babies. I think even though her platform is targeted towards black women, there are some white supremist males in the comments section (since you can't see them) of her videos posing as black women. If they don't agree with Cynthia G on nothing else, they love the way she puts down black men who are with white women. Though it is uncommon, some white supremist can agree with some very divisive black figures. David Duke appeared on Tommy Sotomayor show once and he even agrees with Louis Farrakhan on some issues. Like the different sub-divisions of the manosphere, there is a lot of intersectionality among the different categories of female side of the gender war. Chrissie videos are mostly about colorism and hypergamy, but she supports divestors. Christelyn Karazin emphasizes divesting on her site; but, being a dark-skinned black woman, she opposes colorism. Both of them would agree with Cynthia G that white supremacy and colonialism are the causes behind racism and colorism. Unlike the Black Mansophere, the Sisterhood (as I call it) does not alter the political status quo of the black community. They may even double down on it. Whereas the Manosphere leans heavily towards the far right, the female counterparts of the gender war lean towards a far-left agenda of Afro-Centralism, Pan-Africanism Black Nationalism, and even Marxism. They are against racism, colorism, sexism, patriarchy, homophobia, colonialism, and capitalism. Colorism and patriarchy are at the very heart of the gender war. Since most pro-black hoteps and Pan Africanist blame Western Civilization and its culture for racism and colorism, it make's sense that they would affirm black women's natural features more so than the average black man who influence by the white standard of beauty in America. This is the reason why so many on the female side of the gender war love Dr. Umar Johnson who said he would never date a white woman. We saw the same thing back in the 1960s and 70s during the Civil Rights movement when black people were encouraged to wear Afros and take pride in their skin tone and phenotype. This prompted James Brown to record Say It Loud-I'm Black and I'm Proud. I knew these two posts were going to be long. Thats why I had to divide them up into two parts. How much the black gender war online is indicative of the true state of relations between black men and black women in America is debatable. But, I will say this, wherever there is thunder there is lightening somewhere.

This is going to be more like an essay than post. So, it is going to be in two parts. I apologize for the length. Black people have spent most of their history in this country fighting racism and white supremacy. For over 200 years (1619-1863), we were slaves. If you were from the South, you experienced almost another 100 years of Jim Crow after The Civil War/Reconstruction, which consisted of segregation and sharecropping. It has just only been 60 years since blacks have not been considered second-class citizens. But, have we been ignoring underlying issues within the black community that could divide us in ways we never expected. The things that the African American community discusses behind closed doors but not in the open. I wonder if these issues are not expressed in the so-called "gender war" between black women and black men online. The two main divisions of this conflict are: 1. The Black Manosphere. 2. The Anti-Colorists/Divestors/Hypergamies. I should start by defining what the Manosphere is. The Manosphere is a collection of pro-male rhetoric ranging from MRAs (Mens Right Advocates), MGTOW (Men Going Thers Own Way) and PUA (Pick Up Artist). Men's Rights Advocates believe that men are disadvantaged in the court system when it comes to child support, custody, and community property during a divorce. Because of these bitter experiences, this has led to form MGTOW or Men Going Their Own Way. This is where men abandon the idea of marriage altogether and focus on self-improvement. Pick Up Artists (PUAs) are also included among this category. These are basically pump and dumpers of women . Sometimes these people are referred to as incels (especially MGTOWS) which is short for Involuntary Celibacy. The Manosphere is also known as the Red Pill Community. This concept is taken from the movie The Matrix (1998) starring Laurence Fishburne. In the film, people have the life choice between the metaphoric "Red Pill" and "Blue Pill." The blue pill is what society wants a person to believe. The red pill is the way life really is. Once a person takes the red pill, he becomes enlightened and his perspective changes (in this case when it comes to relationships). In other words, the blue pill represents love, marriage, children. The red pill represents when everything just mentioned goes south and leads to bad marriages, separation, divorce, and sometimes financial devastation. The Manosphere/Red Pill philosophy started in the white community with people like Tom Leykis, Rollo Tomassi, Sandman, and Paul Elam. Most of these content providers online discourage marriage and long-term commitments. They particularly railed against single mothers, overweight, and post-wall women. Sometimes their videos engage in outright women bashing. I am not going to even go into the terms that they use. It would be too long. Post Wall is one of them, meaning a woman is past her prime in regard to looks, age, and fertility. You have to look up the rest of them online. Another popular term is S.I.M.P(which is a misogynistic acronym) meaning a man who goes beyond the call of duty to please a woman who may not be worth it. Because much of the manosphere leans toward the right wing, this alienated a lot of black men. So, they started their own version known as the Black Manosphere. Examples include Mumia Obsidian Ali, Oshay Duke Jackson, Angry Man Valdez, and Donaven Sharpe. Their grievances are mostly against black women. They complain that black women chose thugs or "Pookies and Ray Rays" over descent black men, they wear too much weave, too masculine, and not submissive enough and single mothers. The most polarizing figure in this group was the late Kevin Samuels. In society, women are judged by femineity, beauty, youth, and fertility. Men are judged by money and status. This is not to say looks don't matter to men. The gender war had begun the settle down until Samuels compared the looks of a woman to the type of man she wanted and told her she was "average at best" and if she did not lower her standards she would "die alone." There is sub-branch of black manosphere that is known as IBMOR or Introspective Black Male of Reflection. IBMOR is about the closest a black man could come to having a right-wing manifesto. It differs, of course, from white conservatism because they are against white supremacy and believe in reparations. Here is a summary of what IBMOR believes: 1. Black heterosexual male leadership and female subordination. 2. The main problem of the black community is white supremacy and black matriarchy (sometimes referred to as a black gynocracy). 3. They don't believe in marriage under the current system of black matriarchy and white supremacy. 4. Homosexuality weakens the black community. 5. Interracial sex is permitted but not offsprings. It weakens the black genetic code. So, as you can see, it is very misogynistic. One of leading IBMOR content providers on You Tube is known as Black Gnostic Speaks, better known as BGS/IBMOR. He alleges that black women have a secret hidden contempt for black men because blacks were a conquered race of people and do not rule the world like whites. The topics on his channel are not just limited to manosphere issues, but also politics, philosophy, and the economy. IBMOR believes that the black feminist gynocracy is just as dangerous as white supremacy. In fact, they think that there is a conspiracy between right leaning white supremacy and left leaning feminism (both white and black) to remove black men as leaders in the black community and replace them with black women. This has been mentioned a lot by BGS/IBMOR and Dr T Hasan Johnson of the Onyx Report. I guess this goes back to the fact that a lot of first wave feminist of the late 19th and early 20th century were racist. It is very similar to the Hegelian Dialect. There is something that IBMOR and the black manosphere as a whole believe in that could have political consequences for the distant future if enough black men start to embrace this. They are strong adherents to the Moynihan Report (1965). The report was written former late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who was also Secretary of Labor in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. In short, the report states that the demise of the black family is because of the single parent households and the lack of men in the family. Even though Moynihan was a liberal Democrat, his talking points are championed by both white conservatives and the black manosphere. I don't know if this is in the report or not, but I heard that in order for women to receive welfare benefits back in the 1960's, husbands or men could not be present in the family. So, black women allegedly choose welfare over their men. The liberals behind this were same 1960's politicians who promoted and passed The Civil Rights Act(1964) and The Voting Rights Act (1965). It may not have been intended to do so, but it appears on the surface that the Moynihan Report blames black women for the dysfunction of the back family It is true. women are the leaders in the black community. Most households are headed by women. The political and civil rights activist are mostly women. The SJWs you see marching after a police brutality case are female. The founders of Black Lives Matter are women/LGBTQ, even though they protest on behalf of black males that are treated unjustly. Investment Bank Goldman Sachs established a program called One Million Black Women where they invested 10 million dollars in businesses run by African American women. Vice President Kamalah Harris is half ADOS. The most powerful voting bloc in The Democratic Party are black women. But this really goes back to Africa. Some Sub-Saharan tribes were patriarchal, some were egalitarian in that women were on equal footing with men, and other tribes matriarchal. Wakanda type women warrior tribes like you see in the movie Black Panther (2018) are more common than you think in Africa. There are even some female tribes that won't even let men in their communities. Another sub-branch within the black manosphere is Save Yourselves Black Men or SYBM. Whereas white MGTOWs discourage any kind of permanent relationships with women, black men who are tired of black women (or at least African American women) seek relationships with women of other nationalities and races. Many of them go to exotic countries such as Brazil, Colombia, the Philippines, and Thailand. I guess they perceive those women to be more feminine and submissive than American women, especially American black women. But personally, I think that most of what these foreign women are just practicing hypergamy. They will hook up with any American man just to escape the poverty they are in and to get a taste of the American lifestyle. This is where the black manosphere could have possible political implications. Women run the show in the black community. Men generally do not like to be ruled by women. It hurts their masculine pride. Remember what I said in the other paragraph about black women choosing welfare over men in the home? Well, some in the black manosphere/IBMOR community blame this on liberal politicians. They think that the traditional progressive civil right leadership is too female oriented or "gynocratic." b As subtle as it might be, I noticed a trend that took place during the Democratic Presidential primaries of 2020 and another that is still taking place at Trump rallies. During the 2020 presidential primaries, Joe Biden secured the Democratic nomination for President by winning the black vote. There is nothing unusual about that. Democrats have been overwhelmingly winning ADOS votes since the civil rights era. What I took note of is that vote consisted more of black women than of black men. I am not saying that the majority of black men did not vote for Biden, but there was a slight ratio difference between the sexes. As a reward for their vote, he chose Sen Kamala Harris of California. Later, when he became President, Joe Biden promised to select a black woman as Supreme Court justice. He did that with Ketanji Brown Jackson. Biden's White House press secretary is Katine Jean Pierre, an LGBTQ black woman. Something else I have been paying attention to. Even though the GOP is about as racist as it has ever been under Donald Trump, there is still a small sprinkling of blacks at his rallies, mostly black men. In the past, I do not remember seeing as many blacks at crowds when Reagan and both Bushes spoke, and they were less racist. I am somewhat inclined to think that some of these people are more than just the usual tiny minority of "Toms" and "Coons" but possibly black incels. Remember, the leader of militant right-wing group The Proud Boys is an Afro-Latino. Could they be influenced by the manosphere? . I think despite Trump's racist rhetoric, Trump represents patriarchy and male leadership, something that is lacking in the black community. That was demonstrated when rappers Ice Cube (formerly of NWA) and 50 Cent went to Donald Trump during the latter part of his term to discuss what would have been a "black man's contract for America." But many leaders in the black community felt this excluded black women. The one thing that all the manosphere, regardless of race and ethnicity, can agree on is that they are very strongly opposed to feminism Part 2 The Black Womansphere or Sisterhood is coming soon.

There is a non-fiction book made into a movie called The Free State of Jones: Mississippi's Longest Civil War by Victoria E Bynum. It documents the true story of how Captain Newt Knight and Jones County Mississippi broke away from the Confederacy during the Civil War. Knight felt that it was a war that was fought on behalf of the Southern planter aristocracy(slaveholders) and disadvantaged many of the poorer soldiers who were actually on the battlefield fighting the war. As a result of deserting the war, he was considered a fugitive hiding with runaway slaves. The biography of Newt Knight has a very personal application to me. I am not joking, jiving, or bullsh*tting by saying this, but Newt Knight was my great-great grandfather on my Dad's side. Knight had many kids by both his legal white wife and by black mistress women. Among the mixed blood off-springs were Anna Knight and Augusta Ann Knight. Anna Knight was a Seventh Day Adventist missionary who took up residency on Oakwood College now Oakwood University in Huntsville, Alabama. Her sister Augusta Ann Knight Watts was my father's paternal grandmother. Of course, Newt Knight is considered a traitor and turncoat; but, to family(or at least his black descendants) he is kind of considered to be somewhat of a folk hero for going against the Confederacy and making alliances with former slaves. The film version of The Free State of Jones stars box office movie star Matthew McConaughey as Newt Knight. His white wife is played by Keri Russel, formerly of teen drama Felicity. Rachel Knight(one of Newt's concubines) is played by GuGu Mbatha-Raw. It was released in 2016. My Dad and I saw it the very first day it was released in the theaters. The movie was not a hit because of the medium and the time period it was released. If it had been released as a TV movie or miniseries on Lifetime, A&E, or The History Channel rather than a theatrical film, it would have been more successful. Many movie goers, especially young, people are not interested in historical movies about controversial topics such as slavery and the Civil War. The movie came out around the late spring/early summer when many film-goers are interested in action pack releases. Also, if The Free State of Jones had been made during an earlier period in Hollywood's history when people were more into epic movies, it would have stood a greater chance of success. Think of movies such as Birth of a Nation, Gone with The Wind, and The Ten Commandments. These movies lasted four sometimes five hours with overtures at the beginnings and intermissions in the middle. I'm not saying The Free State of Jones should have been that long but released during a similar era. Speaking of the Golden Age of Hollywood, this is not the first attempt to tell the story of the free state of Jones County Mississippi. There was a movie made in 1948 called Tap Roots. It starred Van Heflin and Susan Hayward. The film was not directly about Newt Knight but you could tell by the storyline that it was very loosely inspired by his story. I thought I would share a little of my family history behind that project.

Even though blacks and Southern "redneck" white have traditionally been arch enemies throughout American history, they may have more of a common cultural heritage than meets the eye. On Youtube, black conservative columnist Thomas Sowell posted a video called Where Does Current Black Culture Come From. I have a link below to the abridged version of the video. The unabridged version is about an hour long. If you have the time, it might be worth checking out. That video was really an eye-opener! Not too many people would suspect that the urban, ghetto, ratchet, culture of Pookie and Ray Ray may share something in common with the rural, hillbilly, redneck culture of Bubba.

Is it possible for an individual, not politician (because most of them are well off anyway), to believe in Democratic Socialism when they are financially successful. Sure, when a person is financially struggling, Socialist programs are very appealing. For example. politicians like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC promise free college tuition and socialized healthcare that won't bankrupt an individual when they get sick. In some instances very progressive candidates promise to abolish student loan debt, which can be very devastating to someone who owes such debt. They also promise higher taxes on the rich to pay for these social programs. But, to the dusty* who remains in poverty this does not matter. They look upon the rich as having too much anyway. Part of it is class envy and the other part is realism. The so-call 99 percent who look at the extremely wealthy 1 percent class with their palatial manors, Rolls Royces, private jets, yachts, and access to some of the most beautiful women in the world know that all of these luxuries are beyond their reach in this lifetime. I know some would call this a poverty mindset. Most people don't have the drive, ambition, skills and patience to become rich. The paths to riches are limited anyway. Most start up businesses fail after a short period of time. You stand a greater chance of being struck by lighting twice than winning the lottery. Many get-rich-quick schemes advertised in the mail, online, or TV(infomercials) don't work. Only a small number of Pookies and Ray Rays from the hood who aspire to become rappers or baller are successful. People who go to Hollywood to find themselves seldom become the next big movie stars. So, the poor dusty who struggles from paycheck to paycheck to barely put food on the table looks at the astronomical wealth and toys the 1 percent has and thinks "why should they not be willing to have their wealth redistributed to help those who are less fortunate." But, when a person is able to lift themselves out of poverty and become wealthy, is he or she still willing to give up a certain percentage of income through taxation to fund the programs that person once relied upon when he or she was destitute? Some politicians would like to impose a 40 percent tax rate on the well-to-do. *To use online urban vernacular, a dusty is a man(usually a black man) who is low quality, poor, broke, and has no ambition

In some Black Nationalist circles and on YouTube, there is this thought that interracial marriages will lead to the end of the black race (at least in America). Nothing could be further from the truth. White Nationalist also believe this about their race but there is a difference. White people are drastically declining in their population due to low birth rates. The death rate among white people is higher than the birth rate. This is the reason why in America, Europe, and even in Ukraine there is a rise in white supremist and nationalist groups. They feel that white people are on the verge of extinction. But, I digress, getting back to the topic. All interracial marriages do is reassure that there will always be white admixture in African Americans. ADOS people will never be as black as their African descendants. The reason for this is because mulattoes are considered black in America. Because of the one drop rule, we don't distinguish mixed blacks from unmixed blacks. As a result, most black bi-racial people embrace a black identity and marry full black people. Some mixed black people marry white. Some marry each other. But, most marry black. As a result, they are going to produce future offspring that are mostly black that have white admixture. This is the reason why there are varying shades and phenotypes of black people in America is because of the miscegenation that took place during slavery between white slave masters and their black concubines ranging from light skinned, brown skinned, light brown skinned, light skinned with Negroid features, dark-skinned with Caucasian features and looser texture hair, etc. Some Black Nationalist, particularly on YouTube, oppose both interracial marriages and the one drop rule because they think both are responsible for colorism in the black community. Black people tend to fetishize light skinned mixed people because their features are closer to white. And it is certainly no secret that black men who are considered high value with money and status generally(not always) prefer light skinned black women as trophy wives because they represent the approximately to whiteness. One black female YouTuber said that anytime a black man gets a dollar he has to have the closest thing to white as possible , which is something many darker skinned black women have been complaining about for many years. But, with all that said, most people of any race tend to marry within their own racial or ethnic groups. Although the bi-racial population has grown significantly, most belong to one ethnic group. They don't belong to the "Other" category.

I just want to start out by saying that I am not a race denier. I believe, from an anthropological standpoint, that there are only three races. There is the Caucasian race, the Negroid race, and the Mongoloid race. Although originating in the Caucasus Mountains, the Caucasian race consists of white Europeans, Arabs, and East Indian (both dark skinned and light-skinned). The Mongoloid or Asian race includes the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, Indonesians, and what we would term American Indians. The Negroid or Africoid race involves Sub-Saharan black Africans. However, the Australoid race kind of defies a racial category because they have a similar phenotype as Africans but are not considered to be Negroid. Then, there are people who are legitimately of mixed race. Many Latinx peoples are mestizos mixed Spanish and Indian descent). Some are even mulatto (mixed black and white) like Dominicans. I think East Indians are a Mediterranean Caucasian people with a strong Australoid admixture. Filipinos are a Mongoloid people with Negrito/Australoid admixture. Polynesians are mixed Melanesian/American Indian-type Mongoloid. Jews are not a race, even though most people think of them as an ethnicity. Judaism is a religion. Most Jews, racially, are Caucasian. But, America does not exclusively define race by DNA or biology. For instance, take the one drop rule. The one drop rule says that a person who has any black in their DNA is considered black. I, like many ADOS families, have some people in my family going way back who look white. It does not matter if the person is over 90 percent white and has a predominately white phenotype. On the other hand, many Hispanic mestizos are technically considered white even though they are of partial indigenous blood. Many of them don't look white. White people don't think of them and treat them as white. And a lot of them don't see themselves as white. But, some of the assimilated ones would like to be thought of as close to white as possible. Some people in Sub-Sharan Africa don't look at black Americans as being black because they are so mixed and admixed with European blood. So, race is more socially constructed in America than it is in other places.

Slavery in the traditional sense is when a person is considered a chattel worker with absolutely no freedom whatsoever. That person or group is considered a piece of property with no rights as a human being!