room 101

[seshatasefekht7]

As long as White Supremacy (Racism) exists, do not speak, and/or act, as if any non-white person is responsible for any unjust and/or incorrect thing that happens, as a result of the acts of people, white or non-white. Speak, and/or of the act, as if the White Supremacists (Racist) are responsible.

Reason(s)/Explanation(s):

Those white people who practice White Supremacy (Racism) are the smartest, and most powerful people in the known universe. Their power and influence is greater than that of all other people COMBINED.

Non-white people do nothing that is not endorsed, allowed, supported, and/or promoted by the White Supremacists, who collectively have more direct and/or indirect control over the bodies, brains, and general enviroment of ALL non-white people than the non-white people have over themselves or each other. It is, primarily, the Racists who can, and , so far, DO, determine what ALL non-white people do, or don't do.

Since EVERYTHING that a White Supremacist does is designed to dominate non-white people through deceit and/or direct violence, and/or through the general promotion of falsehood, non-justice, and incorrectness, it is, then, just and correct for any person who is a victim of White Supremacy to speak and/or act as if the White Supremacist are "responsible" for all non-just and/or incorrect speech or action by non-white people.

Under White Supremacy (Racism), any non-white person who says or does anything that EFFECTIVELY helps to promote justice, and/or correctness, becomes a target for GREATER deceit, and/or direct violence, by Racists Men and/or Racist Women. -----neely fuller jr.

[seshatasefekht7]

Help give the word “love’ it’s correct meaning.
Avoid using the word “love’ to describe any “feeling” or condition now in existence.

Reason(s)/explanation(s):

“love” is speech and/or action that produces a RESULT.

“Love” is speech and/or action that RESULTS in the use of TRUTH in a manner that DEFINITELY promotes the practices of JUSTICE and CORRECTNESS at ALL times, in ALL places, in ALL areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War.

The word “love” has, incorrectly, been to describe too many different conditions in too many different ways.

In the known universe, it is incorrect to pretend that “love” is being practiced by any person, animal, insect, place, thing, etc.

All people, animals, insects, etc., in the known universe function through the practice and support of falsehood, non-justice, and incorrectness. By so doing, it is not possible for them, at the same time, to PRACTICE “love”.

Only by eliminating falsehood, non-justice, and incorrectness from the known universe can “love” be produced.

People have killed people who they said they “loved”.

People have kept other persons from speaking or acting constructively in the name of “love”.

Males have unjustly subjugated females in the name of “love”.

People have robbed and stolen in the name of “love”.

Sexual intercourse has oftimes been referred to as “making love”.

People have lied in the name of “love”.

Therefore, to compensate for the confusion that has resulted from such use, it is best for each person to try to give the word a meaning that is SPECIFIC and CONSTRUCTIVE. ----neely fuller jr.

[seshatasefekht7]

Speak and/or act to promote the use of the terms “Victim”, and/or “Victim of Racism”, to describe any person classified as, and/or who generally functions as, “Black”, and/or “non-white”.

Reason(s)/explanation(s):

Since large numbers of White” persons insist upon practicing Racism (as functionally related to “color” or “non-color” in people), and since no people called “Black” are subjugating people called “white”, it is correct to promote the terms that best describe the TRUTH.

The truth is that “white” people are “white” because they say that THEY are “white”, and “Black” people are “Black”, because “white” people who practice White Supremacy say that “Black” people are “Black”.

Since people who are classified as “white” are smarter, and more powerful, collectively, than the people that they call “Black”, then the people that they call “Black” are, in function, “Black”. It is the smartest and most powerful people who decide the names for what is called “color” will have which name. the smartest and most powerful people also decide what the relationships between people will be, and how these relationships will be associated with the factors of “color” and/or “non-color”.

Word-terms such as “black”, “brown”, “colored”, “minority”, “mulatto”, “Negro”, “non-white”, “red”, “tan”, “yellow”, etc. , can, and do, promote great confusion when used in a manner that is not carefully and directly employed in a fully-explained connection to White Supremacy (Racism).

This is extremely important to remember because these terms owe their EXISTENCE to White Supremacy in the way that they are used in reference to Victim of Racism (“non-white” people).

For these reasons, when speaking of any matter involving so-called “racial” factors, it is best to use those terms which are, generally, best understood as well as accurate.

Examples of the BEST terms are as follows:

• Racists and/or White Supremacist = Any and all people who call themselves “white”, and, who, ON THAT BASIS, directly or indirectly practice subjugation of, and/or injustice against, any, and all people that they [“white people”] classify or treat as “Black” and/or “non-white”.
• Victims,
• Victims of Racism, and/or
• Victims of White Supremacy = Any, and all people, who “white” people, consider to be “black” and/or “non-white”, and who are subject to socio-material conditions dominated directly or indirectly, by White Supremacists (Racists).------neely fuller jr.

[seshatasefekht7]

do no say that the "color" or non"color" of any person or thing is "beautiful" or "ugly".
-------------

reason(s)/explanation(s):

"colors" are neither "beautiful", nor "ugly".

"colors" are.

"colors" EXISTS.

"colors", make their own statement by the fact of their existence.

"colors", and/or non"colors" need not to be praised, nor CONDEMNED.

"color" --- or the absence of "color" -- need only be recognized.

remarks about color should be made to describe color, and/or to describe the way that color is used, or reacted to. there are no "correct" colors.

color, or the absence of color, can, however, be USED for INCORRECT purposes.

"color", or the absence of color (in people) is, most of the time, used as an excuse to treat people unjustly. a person's re-action to color, or the absence of color, may result in much speech and/or action against him or her self, and/or against other persons, against animals, things, etc.

speech and/or action against a person, animal, etc., because of "color" and/or the absence of "color" is unjust and incorrect. -----neely fuller jr.

[seshatasefekht7]

http://www.thecode.net/interviews/interviews.htm

Awake Study Group: A talk with Dr. Andrea Avayzian, Director, Communitas and Neely Fuller, Jr. Author of the United Independent Compensatory Code System Concept
 
 

John Bilal: What is Communitas?

Dr. Avayzian: Communitas was established in 1989 - Northhampton, Massachusetts its a multi- racial-ethnic group of 6, provides anti-racism education, consultation, and teaching works with houses of worship, colleges, agencies, universities, community-based organizations helps people analyze 3 levels of racism: personal, cultural, organizational institutional)most concerned with institutional nature of racism in contemporary society and helps people with a diagnosis and action plan to change policy and procedures that keeps the insidious nature of racism alive and well in America in this decade.

John Bilal: Would you like to make an opening comment Mr. Fuller?

Neely Fuller: Yes, . . .a concept that is expressed in the code book is that racism functionally comes in one form, and that form is called loosely, white supremacy. And there are no other functional forms and all other actions on the part of the victims of racism, to the existence of white supremacy, is a reaction to that and the textbook workbook is designed to, first of all, detect what racism is, and how it works. It's to help the individual person to do that, and how to respond to it in 9 areas of activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law , politics, religion, sex, and war. But is starts from the basic premise that racism is white supremacy; white supremacy is racism, and that any other approach is designed to confuse.

John Bilal: Dr. Avayzian, have you any literature or have you written any books at all on the topic of racism?

Avayzian: I've written considerably in journal articles and educational materials, and I am working on turning my doctorate dissertation into a book, but I don't have a book out, I only have articles and educational materials. And I would agree with what has been said that racism is white supremacy and they are synonymous terms. I would agree with that. When we do work on racism, we define racism as a system of advantage based on race. And the system of advantage is political, social, economic, legal, all these systems that were just mentioned, and it is the systematic advantaging of European Americans, or whites in a society that gives the constant unearned benefit, privilege, award, advantage to white people in every system in America so it's synonymous with white supremacy. we tackle it from the approach of personal, cultural, institutional racism because we think white supremacy manifests itself in 3 distinct ways, that in fact, the problem is white supremacy or racism , that it has a daily manifestation in personal interaction, personal dyads, in cultural and messages like were just mentioned with the media, entertainment, with the Oscars coming up, that there is a cultural message of white supremacy everyday in our society and further institutionalized in organizations, and institutions through policies and practices that permeate all the major institutions in this nation. So, I would agree with you that white supremacy and racism are synonymous and identical terms and I think the idea of how to respond in the nine specific areas that you mentioned are very helpful, because I think what we need to look at is, what is this insidious pervasive problem and what response can both people of color who are targeted by this social disease, what can the response be there, and what can be the response for, what we call, white activists or white allies or white advocates who are willing and able to stand up to racism and make changes in society on the cultural and the institutional level.

Fuller: I have a question, then. Are you classified as white?

Dr. Avayzian: Yes, I am. I am a 44 year old European American woman.

Neely Fuller: Are sometimes mistaken for non-white?

Dr. Avayzian: No, I am clearly white although I am Armenian American. And that has a whole history of the genocide and I am in this country clearly white when I pass through the world or apply for jobs, or meet people or go to hotel counters. I look white. People mistake me for Jewish or Italian.

Neely Fuller: No one ever mistakes you for being non-white?

Dr. Avayzian: What I am most often confused about is people don't tend to say to me oh you are Armenian, they don't tend to say that, but people ask me often if I'm Jewish or if I'm Italian.

Neely Fuller: Do you have a reason for, in your own mind , why people would perceive you as being as such and what that would mean?

Dr. Avayzian: I know that I cannot imagine being targeted by racism in America. This is not something that is in my experience at all. what I try and do in my work, there are people of color on our team. I am the director and I am white, but there are people of color on our team. What I try to do in my work is I try and work with and speak to predominantly other white people. And the people of color on our team we work in bi-racial pairs, but when I am presenting or speaking or doing a consultation, I ask other white people to join me in the struggle and the white ally or a white activist to speak out to and stand up to racism in myriad of ways that are available to white people to be allies in the struggle for justice. So I never pretend to and never violate a trust of speaking for people of color. that is not something I do. I am not of color. I would not know that experience. And I do know what its to receive unearned advantage and privilege everyday. So I can speak to white men and white women about what it means to be on the receiving end of unearned advantage and invisible privilege. And I speak about that all the time. I understand that just as men, cannot have the experience of being women and knowing what its like to be targeted each day as a woman. Men can still be allies to woman in the struggle for equity and justice to dismantle sexism by looking at their own issues and their own unearned advantage and power and that I know that in the struggle for equity for women we need men to be allies with us at speaking to other men that's speaking out for justice. The same parallel goes for me as a white person. I never speak for people targeted by racism. That as a person dominant in that form of ism, I speak as a white person to other white people and call them to be accountable and ask whites to look hard at the systems of advantage available to whites everyday in our society. And its been available to every white person in this country since the day they were born.

John Bilal: Do you have any specific recommendations for victims of racism as to how to lessen their victimization?

Dr. Avayzian: What we do in our agency is we talk to people who are targeted by racism about the process of empowerment that we believe is a multi-stage or multi-step process, which actually is a extended part of a workshop that we do with people. We talk to white people about the stages they need to go to, to be strong allies to people of color and we talk to people who are victimized or targeted by racism about coming to a strong sense of who they are in the world despite the fact they are targeted routinely, constantly, and continually by a brutal form of oppression (racism). So we talk about the stages of empowerment and what it means to attain or reach a place of personal power and what it also means to maintain that despite the constant barrage of negativity that is reamed down upon people who are victimized by racism. So we do a lot of thinking about strength thru community and individual touching of one's own place of empowerment and then we talk a lot about strategies for maintaining that sense of power and how much people who are victimized by racism can actually get away with or risk being the fully powerful people they are in the world. Where they find nurture and sustenance. What risks are safe to make. We do a lot with people who are targeted by racism and each setting the strategies vary because we do not have one canned or prepared workshop or presentation that goes with us to all the cities around the country. We do a lot of listening and we do a lot of dialogue.

Neely Fuller: In your research and in your interactions, that is attended to your studies, what do you perceive or what has been reported to you or expressed to you either directly or indirectly is the greatest fear, the greatest fear (underlined) that white people seem to have when it comes to this business of interactions between black people and white people?

Dr. Avayzian: I would say that the media has done a very effective job at instilling in white people's head a fear, particularly of men of color. So there is sometimes a visceral or physical fear that white people have because the media has been so successful in portraying men of color as dangerous and criminal and predators and that has been such thorough message that we have been inaccurately, inappropriately, incorrectly fed. So white people often have a fear of particular of men of color. I think on another layer, we have become such a profoundly segregated, frightened and barricaded society that many white do not have close interactions with people of color. And one fear that I hear from whites all the time is that they are afraid of their interactions with people of color because they are very afraid they will make a mistake, look foolish, be humiliated. Um, I think they are actually afraid that their racism will show and that they won't be able to keep it in check or monitor it sufficiently. Um, and so people of color often make white people inadvertently very self conscious because white people don't know how to behave appropriately in their presence and its because they have had so little interaction with folks of color, that we are still such a segregated and separated society. So I think that what we see in whites is a reflection of the barrage of media messages and also a reflection of the limited experience in multi cultural, multi-racial groups at the workplace, in the neighborhood, at a house of worship, in a community that there are so few interactions that many white people have on a regular and close basis with people of color that they feel that they are in foreign territory.

Neely Fuller: I have another question that is associated with that. If it is true that it was "media generated, what would you say accounts for the aversion to non-white males (to black males) by white people in general when there was no media coverage. I was underlining not just fears in general because there are quite a few fears but the basic fear, the greatest fear that has been given to you information-wise by white people when they start talking about interactions with black people. Is there a fear that's greater than any other fear that you perceive or you've heard or have been reported to you. And what exactly is that fear?

Dr. Avayzian: I'm not sure I have a brilliant answer for you. I think that white people learned long ago to exploit colonize, and I think that the roots of racism have, I think fear has developed, but I think the real roots are the aggrandizement of power and greed. I think that the roots of racism are rooted in white people and European peoples' need for power and control and greed. And I think the fear that has grown out of that is the fear that because white people have developed this white supremacist attitude towards the world and approach to the world and have taken so much that was not theirs and colonized and exploited; I think there's a fear that maybe we will (white people) will receive what is due to us and there's a fear that the balance will shift and whites will no longer be a power in control and the brutal and inhuman things that white people have done throughout the centuries, throughout the millennia, will be visited upon us. That is not a well - practiced or well-thought-out response. In my work I am much more focused on the contemporary face of racism. I tend not to look back because in my workshops and in my consultations in my experience, especially white people less so people of color, but white people get very focused on the task of trying to prove their innocence. They didn't do that, they have no relatives that did that, they never owned slave, they were not part of the middle passage, And they work very hard to prove their innocence and I get caught in a very unhelpful spiral of reliving and recreating the past. So what I do is do a very thorough assessment of what we call neo-racism, which is racism of the ‘80s and the ‘90s. What's it look like today? What is all this history, all this pain, all this tragedy, all this exploitation, where has it brought us today, and how is it playing out in our communities, in our cities, in our churches, mosques, synagogues, in our places of worship. What does it look like today, and how can every white person and person of color be a change agent to look towards the millennia and into the new century with a sense that we can make a difference and we can actually tackle this social disease, and if not heal, make some further strides towards equity and justice.


Neely Fuller: Well, yes, I can see that um, you have answered the question partially, from your view. But what I was basically trying to arrive at is something based on my experience and observation and conclusions that I have made; 1) is that even when white people interact with non-white people particularly black people, what we call black people, in a constructive, harmonious "setting", there's still one basic fear that at some point or another comes out and that is the fear that white people will, through black people, have offspring that are not white, and that is a very terrifying, absolutely terrifying fear, particular among white grandmothers but that is unspoken except in very hush tones and it might be to get to the genesis of some of this problem if you can get white people to admit that and to admit it consistently and to admit it under all circumstances and then maybe, just maybe we can start getting some clarity in how we can proceed from that point. If that point is not made and that point is not made consistently and thoroughly and in every conceivable setting where black people and white people interact with each other, then we're going to have more confusion, more deception, and more of the same of what we've been getting, and that is a view of where I have sat and I have found that many white people will go into denial when that is brought up, except when they are forced to out of anger.

Dr. Avayzian: Well, my experience with that is that it is folks in the older generation that carry that fear and that it's people in the baby boom era and the younger generation that is_____________ fear. My sister is in a bi-racial marriage. And the community I live in has a very large bi-racial, matter-of-fact there's such a large bi-racial family system that there is an entire large group that meets for social events, potluck suppers, meetings and only people in bi-racial and mixed-family marriages and mixed families are invited. I think it's the older generation that carried exactly that, a fear that there would be a mixing of the races and it was a very deep fear. In my experience that has changed with the baby boomer generation and in fact in know bi-racial families is growing each year in the census figures that we follow in this office at a really exponential rate. I was just a reader for a book being published by the university of Mass. Press. Prior to publishing it they asked experts in the field to read and comment on the manuscript. And I just last week sent the manuscript and my comments back to the Univ. of Mass. Press, and the book of called "Check Other: Portraits of biracial and Multiracial families, and its a book about the growing number of mixed families and how there's a movement afoot to get your census form and check the "other " box, rather than white, Hispanic, black, Asian; to check other, because so many people are coming from mixed heritage families. So in my experience that isn't the number one fear for the baby boom generation, but it is a very profound fear for seniors in this country, that the idea that the races would mix.

Neely Fuller: I noticed you used the term and it's a cliché term, when people speak about race, they always, as a rule, they finish what they say, by saying "in this country", whereas the race problem is worldwide. Now, case-in-point, in Brazil they're talking about the very thing we're talking about; mixed people. its very odd, that as long you have had "mixed people" in Brazil, nobody wants to be black. Everybody wants to be classified as something other than black. Isn't this kind of odd and doesn't that kind of fly in the face of what you're saying about acceptability because I understand that the Portuguese over a long period said that it was okay , yet at very pronounce, everyday level, it is not okay. The people you see standing on the balcony in Brazil are always white. Or they can be classified as white and the people who are down in the slums are always black, or can be classified as black. Now that should be studied if you're going to follow that line of logic in what we call this area of the world in the northwestern hemisphere. That should be studied in fine detail to see where it eventually plays out, because what you'll have is the same thing with a new name.

Dr. Avayzian: Because I am not fully doing a full workshop or consultation, we obviously are on the telephone and we're not face to face and so I am not doing my usual guidelines and introductory comments, but in each interaction where I am actually making a presentation, a speech, or a workshop, I share with people the fact that my comments about racism are confined to this country. My doctoral dissertation work was simply about racism in the United States and although racism is a global problem, it's an international problem, it happens all around the world and it absolutely should be studied and it absolutely should be addressed. I have found that for me to be an expert in one area, I can only focus on this country, and what happens often in workshops is that white people want to talk about racism everywhere else except the Bronx, or LA, or Chicago, or North Hampton Massachusetts, or Hartford or Albany or Maine or anywhere else. They never want to talk about it in their backyard. They always want to talk about east Temore, or Bosnia, or someplace else where ethnic cleansing is happening failing to see the system of apartheid in our own country. So what I have done is I am focused on racism in the United States and I finish most sentences with "in this country" or "in this nation" to be very clear I'm not talking about Brazil, Argentina, Japan, because I have been unable to become an expert on the racism in Japan, the racism in Argentina, the racism in Brazil. What I have been able to do is to get a real handle on neo-racism, contemporary racism, and the history of racism in this country, and I focus on that. Everything you're saying I agree with and I actually think that having a global perspective is useful. The reason I don't teach or speak from that perspective is because in my experience it gives white people an "out" to talk about other nations, other people, other problems and not look at their family, their church, their synagogue, their street, and their place of work. So in my work I bring it home all the time, to how are white people complicit, how are white people polluting, and what can we do to change the face of the nation. It seems a big enough job for me to just focus on this country. So I don't disagree with anything you said I just wanted to clarify my perspective.

John Bilal: Dr. Avayzian, I would like to ask a question because of something you said earlier about "bi-racial couples". Do you believe that bi-racial couples is a solution to the system of racism or not?

Dr. Avayzian: I don't believe its a solution to the system of racism. I think if people, my sister has fallen in love with and connect with and have relationships with people across the racial divide, bravo, congratulations, wonderful, I think that's fine. I think that it is not the solution. I think white people have to wrestle very profoundly with the false notions of superiority that has been poured into our heads since children. And I think people of color have got to continue despite the risks and the pain to claim the power and the affirmation of who they are in the world and I think the struggle still lies ahead. I think bi-racial families is wonderful, I have one in my family, I think that's a wonderful thing, but I don't think that that is the answer. I think the answer is the struggle for equity which is a moral, ethical, political, and social struggle, and I think we're in the midst of it and I think we have been for decades.

John Bilal: Dr. Avayzian, if you could comment please on two things that have been in the news recently, I guess in the last year, the O.J. Simpson verdict and trial and perhaps Minister Farrakhan and the Million Man March. What are your thoughts on those two events and how they impact on the system of racism and the way that people interact on a close one-on-one basis. I'm sure since you've been training thru that period maybe you've seen some fallout, maybe you can give us some insight as to what your observations have been.

Dr. Avayzian: I wish now that I had sent you, I must not have sent you the article I wrote after the O.J. Simpson trial and the Million Man March. I did not send you an article called "Can We Talk?".

John Bilal: No, I didn't receive that.

Dr. Avayzian: Okay, I wish I'd sent an article. An African American woman who I work very closely with named Dr. Beverly Daniel-Tatum. She and I co-author things on occasion. We do a great deal of speaking, and training and teaching together. And she and I wrote an article after the Million Man March and the O.J.Simpson trial called ‘can we talk'. It's a co-authored article ‘can we talk'. And its about what we perceive together in our dialogue with each about how both the O.J. Simpson trial and the MMM brought into stark release in this country the tremendous divide and insulation that separates people of color and specifically African Americans and white in this country. That we are not becoming a more integrated society as a matter of fact we were more integrated in the ‘70s than we are in the ‘90s. And how barricaded, insulated, and separated the two races white and black are in this country despite the fact that W. E. B. Dubois told us ages ago that the issue for the century was the issue of the color line, and people have been saying, telling this nation for decades that forever that if we don't solve and get to the root of our racial divide that we will remain a fractured and sick society. But our understanding, one of our perceptions about the MMM and the O.J. Simpson verdict is that it brought into stark relief this tremendous separation where white people and people of color specifically African Americans are not speaking to each other and in dialogue with each other so that there could be this totally different reaction to the O.J. verdict with many African Americans feeling affirmed and cheering and congratulatory that O. J. was found not guilty and that white people just convinced he was guilty and ringing their hands and that the division between the two um races was uh was in in in stark relief um I think the MMM, and there's that we can come back and say about the O. J. Simpson trial, but I think the MMM was a really a very powerful visual image. For white people and people of color to see the strength, the power, the clarity, the beauty of a million African Americans men and others, I know there were some Latinos and others involved, in standing up for pride and dignity and self worth. Um and I think it made a lot of white people hushed. I think that Louis Farrakhan became less significant in white peoples minds than the fact that, and reports vary, but let's say, a million black men fathers and brothers and children and grandparents and men from all walks of life came out to join in a statement of solidarity and purpose and vision and dignity and that is really counter to what white Americans are fed each day by the media. So I think the um, but again it showed how separated and wary and cautious these two groups are of each other especially white people um of of a African Americans in our society. And um Beverly and I sat down and wrote an article which I would be very happy to share with you called "Can We Talk" about when will it come time, when will we be ready for white people and people of color to dialogue respectfully, um and talk to each other about painful, real, and authentic issues. Not just white social interactions in the church fellowship room in the street when one passes occasionally, but in real heart-to-heart mind-to-mind dialogue about our differences and their similarities and in the article we talk about how the O. J. Simpson trial and the MMM point to the need for white people to do a lot of listening and a lot of believing about what the life experiences and life circumstances are for people of color in this country. And when whites quiet down and listen and believe, the first step towards an honest authentic dialogue will have been made. Um.

Neely Fuller: I have a question.

Dr. Avayzian: That's a quick sketch.

Neely Fuller: I have a question.

Dr. Avayzian: Yes, please.

Neely Fuller: When you dialogue with other people and you say all the things to them that you are saying now, uh people are motivated by some type of profit motive of some type. Now that profit may take all kinds of forms. What do you tell a white person that they are going to get out of all this. All of this interaction with black people. What do you tell them that they are going come out of it with?

Dr. Avayzian: I tell white people they have the possibility of regaining and reclaiming their soul. That until white ...

Neely Fuller: That's a hard sale.

 

[seshatasefekht7]

Dr. Avayzian: It's a real hard sale. And that's why that it is certain people don't or are not interested in hearing the message. I think that, I talk to people about combating racism, it's the right thing to do. Straight out. It's the right thing to do. It is what we are ethnically , morally, spiritually, psychologically, politically, and socially called to do. And that we have the possibility of reclaiming and regaining our souls, that until we are able to join hand in hand as equal partners with members of the human family, we are broken. And we have the possibility in our lives of being of mending the brokeness in the human family.

Neely Fuller: And that is what you say ?

Dr. Avayzian: I say it and I say to people it's hard and you will be ostracized in your community and you will receive hate mail and you will get yelled at on your phone machine and you will get all the things that I have gotten, and that it's the right thing to do.

Neely Fuller: And I have a question, another question attendant to that.
Once you say that, what does the average white person that you talk to say,

Dr. Avayzian: Well

Neely Fuller: About this business of giving up a lot of things that are near and dear to them including their entire value system in order to interact with black people, in order , "reclaim their souls".

Dr. Avayzian: By that time in the workshop, we are far, I mean, it's not the first thing say. It is well into the workshop and what we have already done prior to that is we have done an analysis of racism. So by the time they've gotten there, they've also dealt with the fact that they spent the first several days or hours or whatever it took telling me there is no racism. See that's the first hurdle. Reclaiming their souls is minor compared to the fact that (some laughter) so many white people tell you until they're blue in the face that there is no racism. So first we have the major mountain to climb to convince white people that racism is still a problem in 1996. Or in 1986 when I was doing this. They say, "uh we solved that with the civil rights movement. We solved that. You know, get with the program girl this isn't a problem anymore. So we've already climbed a few mountains by the time I get to the point of saying, "why do this, why be a white ally, why care about racism. Why care about a system of injustice where you receive the benefit. Why care. Well there are answers to that. And the answers are that I think embedded in each person is actually a desire to be a good person. And things are given up, but things are also gained. That justice, as the bible says, the universe bends towards justice. That justice is something that I think people have an innate desire to see it, to help create. And that it is the right thing to do and a lot of people cannot stand the contradiction. That they go to church every Sunday and talk a lot of good religious talk and then live in a divided, frightened, unequal world that they are complicit in and colluding with. And it actually brings a lot white people a great relief to figure out how they can be agents for change, and how they can minimize the contractions in their own life. Tell them that there are ways that they can really bring their deepest beliefs and their behaviors into congruent pattern.

John Bilal: Yes. I wanted to ask, um, Mr. Fuller, if you could maybe, I know you have certain concepts as to the basic um I guess thrust of racism being uh deception and violence. Can you maybe tie that in to what has been said so far and Dr. Avayzian, I'd like to know if uh, if you directly attack that in your discussion with uh people who practice racism.

Neely Fuller: Well, the basis in order to have a system of white supremacy, you have to use deception, and you have to use violence. Now deception is a form of violence if it's malicious in intent and malicious in result. If it has a destructive result, that's a form of violence, even though you didn't actually use direct violence which is physical. If you're trying to fool someone to their detriment, then that is form of violence. So that is a necessity if you're going to maintain a system of white supremacy. White supremacy is an artificial system. It's set up based on someone has got to be in charge of somebody else and it's going to be done in a royal fashion. It's basically just the old royal system put on a color basis, therefore you have more subjects within the royal enclave, and so that when you do that then you have to deceive people because you have a lot of subjects to watch and you can't watch ‘em all 24 hours a day, so you have to put them on automatic which means you have to control the way that they think and the way that they act even when you're not looking at them. And the only way you can do that is through deception. And when the deception fails, or runs into flaws, then you have to use direct violence and that is how the white supremacists operate world wide ever since the first person who thought of the idea. It was the most powerful social and material idea ever conceived. No religion has ever paralleled it. It swept completely over the entire earth in a very short period of time and it got a lot of things done in a very short period of time because when you can talk to people and you don't have to take ‘no' for an answer, you can get a lot of things done. And uh this is how the system basically works. But it has to be backed up by the bottom line. You have to be able to use tremendous and overwhelming violence in no unmistaken terms in order for it to work. Cause every now and then some of the people who are deceived become aware of what's going on and come to the conclusion that something is out of order. and then they become surly and then they become balky, and then they become rebellious. So they have to be "put back" in their place. And the fastest way to do that in the most unmistakable tried and sure way of doing that is with brute force.

John Bilal: Dr. Avayzian what would be your response to that.

Dr. Avayzian: Well, I agree. I agree. I think that that is the accurate analysis, I think it's uh a bold analysis, I think it's the right thing to say. When we do workshops we talk about um racism, again, we talk about racism, domestic, we talk about racism in this country. And Mr. Fuller was just talking about globally but I agree with everything he said. When we do our teaching we talk about racism as kept in place by two forces, and I think we're very much in agreement here. We use slightly different words but not much. One, is we say racism is kept in place by two forces. One is ideology. And that is part of the deception. The deception, the ideology, the belief system that one race is superior to another. That one can be exploited, that one , all the deception, the lies, we call them the lies we've all been taught, um so the ideology is one factor that keeps racism in place, the second is violence or the threat of violence. And we do analysis that has just been beautifully articulated. I mean, I agree completely that, he would say deception, I would say ideology. I think we're talking about the same things, and violence and the threat of violence. When violence has been used repeatedly, violence sometimes actually does not need to be used because the threat of violence is so great that it keeps people um in a passive and subservient um behavior, because the threat of violence, it it carries, you know the realities that the actually violence is just around the corner or waiting, you know, til sundown or whatever , but I agree completely. Because white supremacy is based on a lie, it has to be upheld or reinforced by deception and violence to keep the lie in place.

John Bilal: I'd like to maybe push the envelope here. Dr. Avayzian, if you can, can you maybe give us what you think, out of all of your experience in dealing with racism (white supremacy), the way that you see this entire, I guess in your sense you would talk about the way that the country is moving, people in the country are moving. What would you predict for the next ten years, so to speak, or out into the future as regards to this system of white supremacy, is it gonna to get stronger, is it gonna falter and fail, uh what do you see and then Mr. Fuller if you would follow that up with your analysis of the same thing.

Dr. Avayzian: I'll be very interested in hearing what Mr. Fuller has to say because I try and crystal-ball, look into the future all the time and get a sense from where we have been and where I think we are now to where we're headed, and I'm not going to be brilliant about this, so I'll be very interested in Mr. Fuller's reflections on this. My sense is that we are um experiencing a second wave of the civil rights movement. and that we are growing in intensity the um, the reaction to the outcry again, the people willing to combat racism is growing. I think we're experiencing a period of empowerment and definition and strength of people of color in this country despite the crushing and grinding nature of racism. And I think we actually had some good well intentioned white people who are waking up to the level of deception and lies that they have been fed and absorbed and I think we're seeing more white people wake up and become active, sometimes not always in the most effective ways, but wake up and become active and um a lot of people of color taking leadership, speaking out against racism, not colluding with the system anymore, not trying to a assimilate, not holding up integration as the great hope, but really claiming a sense of of power and dignity and authority and leadership and um I have hoped for the next century um because I think there are a lot of good people stirring up trouble. Things probably will get worse before they get better, but that tends to be how social movements operate.

Neely Fuller: Well, I gonna finish with what I started with, uh one of the major points that I started with. And that is somewhere along the line, if this thing is gonna work, that is replacing white supremacy with justice, it means that there's gonna have to be some type of arrangement, I'll say relationship really, because we already have an arrangement and it's not working. A relationship that takes into account the fact that there is such a thing as preservation of species. People are talking about saving the seals, they're talking about the whales and the butterflies, etc. Now along with that at an instinctive level, there are millions of white people on this planet who do not want their offspring or their grand offspring to be black. And that's got to be faced head on. And when you come to the table that's one of the first things that's got to be talked about before you even get to anything else. You've got to go straight for the sex thing. This business, particularly between black males and white females. That's got to be talked about openly, and it's got to be talked about by everybody and it's got to be talked about cross the board, all ‘I's dotted and all ‘T's crossed.

John Bilal: Mr. Fuller?

Neely Fuller: Then get worked out where you can bottom-line how that's going to play out in the end so that people can then settle back and make an arrangement where the white species does not disappear.

John Bilal: Mr. Fuller?

Neely Fuller: (unintelligible)

John Bilal: Mr. Fuller, do you see that happening, I mean, based on uh the way that things are moving, the direction that things are moving, do you see that happening and if that should happen, what would you suspect would happen next.

Neely Fuller: Well you can get justice, but you have to, first of all, talk about what you're really talking about, rather dance around it. For years and years and years, all I've seen particularly in the last 30 or 40 years, is both black people and white people dancing around that particular subject. And when it's brought up, somebody will say something that's almost mealy-mouth like, well to each is own and love conquers all, and all that etc., etc., etc., nonsense. It doesn't work like that. You might as well hit the hard buttons and hit them fast and hard right now, if you're going do any kind of business that makes sense. You're going to have to figure out how many white people are going to be on this planet because when you mix black with white, somewhere down the line you're going to have all black because that black gene will devastate white. And we might as well come on and talk about it and be up front about it and just be business-like about it and make an arrangement just like you do with the butterflies and the seals, so that we can have some order without black people having to walk around looking over their shoulder thinking that white are going to attack them because white have this fear of genetic annihilation. Because that's what's happening. It's been happening all over the planet but people get to the place where people want to talk about it less and less, that when they do, they it in a mealy-mouth, non-business-like fashion. That nonsense has got to stop.

John Bilal: Dr. Avayzian, here at the Goddard Space Center, I'm sure you're aware that NASA and Goddard Space are I guess purported to be like some of the premier scientific minds on the planet. I'm sure in your experience in moving about, and I saw in your literature that your group has gone to various places and various locations in discussing the topic of racism with various people, do you find that when you talk to organizations and people who have a scientific inclination that you do any better in getting your point across or not.

Dr. Avayzian: Well, we have (unintelligible), I would say the scientists I've worked with have been members of the faculty, for example Smith College, Mount Holy College, Dartmouth College. I worked, specifically, science faculty at every one of those institutions. Um, and I think that um when we speak to scientists it isn't really that much different when we speak to other folks. I mean every group we come and work with, we try and listen to them and (unintelligible) ... level of sophistication of the understanding where they're stuck, how can we move them forward. And every group thinks they're very special and very unique, but um the misperceptions are shared nationwide, the inaccuracies, the misinformation that people have learned are sought of shared nationwide. Um, we would do a lot of listening and figure out where people are and what they need to move forward, um, but uh so I don't, I I don't have a lot to say about that. I think that it would be an exciting experience to work with, you know, right uh, people who have concern about these issues and are awake and aware and ready to challenge and um, but I think that in terms of receptivity it just varies group by group and in every group there's some real receptive and ready-to-go sophisticated folks who already have an analysis and want to move forward and they're with you from moment 1. And there are some folks who are resistant until the moment you leave. That it doesn't make sense and it's not how they see it and they're clinging to their past beliefs that they don't want a new paradigm and then there's sort of a bulge of people in the middle.

John Bilal: Mr. Fuller, I mean, can you address that. In working here at Goddard myself you know I've have interaction and I guess my experience has been some as to what Dr. Avayzian just pointed out. But it seems to me that if a person has a scientific mind that they would be able to break through this problem and like you said in a recent talk that you gave, that the best people should be on this hideous problem.

Neely Fuller: It's the smartest people that are the people that should always step forward to solve any problem. And there are always smart at any given time in history who can step forward and solve a problem. Uh, people are just given that, sometimes people call them geniuses or they call them guilty people, sometimes it's one person, sometimes it's a whole family of people or a people in different families, or people in different groups. But whoever the smart people are should step forward and solve the problem. Now when they don't, it means that the people who are ignorant are supposed to get smart and then they take over and do the job themselves. And they do it in the fashion that's best suited for their level of uh expertise, which is probably not as, at the same level of the people who are already smart, i.e., the people who could have done what they needed to do. So this business about uh, who should take charge of repairing damage should always be assigned to the smartest person. If there's 10 people in a room, the smartest person in repairing that particular damage should step forward. If that person refuses to step forward, that person shouldn't have anything to say about the person who takes over the job and then tears it all apart and messes it up or whatever. The person who didn't step forward is absolutely the blame. This is why when I made my talk out there at Goddard space center, I made it clear I am not the best person for job of trying to solve the race problem, because there are people who are smarter than me, presumably. These people are supposed to be getting out of their beds and doing this work. If they don't, they cannot say that they are not the blame for whatever happens from that point on. In other words, you let the lunatics take over the asylum, so be it.

John Bilal: Dr. Avayzian. Dr. Avayzian?

Dr. Avayzian: Yes.

John Bilal: Yes, I would to get your comments about the recent, I guess you could say, recent wave of language concerning cultural diversity and/or multiculturalism. Do you believe that this is an effective way to address the problem of racism. If so, why and if not, why not?

Dr. Avayzian: This I think is going to be my last response because I need to step into a 1:00 meeting and um so I will make this my closing response. I think that the wave of multiculturalism is one good effort. I think that we need many efforts and I um I think that we need many approaches to a huge and a brutal and a pervasive problem. Uh and I think that multi-culturalism education and anti (unintelligible) work with children and any work that embraces a pluralistic approach to society with shared power. I think it's a very good thing. I don't that it is THE answer. I actually don't think there is one answer. I think that there are um, there's a need for many approaches and many good minds and and gatherings of people engaging in this work. Um, my feeling is that the wave of multi-culturalism is uh, is a good effort. Some of it I think is uh marginalized and focuses on the trivial. I think some of it is actually worthwhile in changing minds and hearts. But I am a strong proponent of a combination of efforts that will attack this problem and keep the issue of um racism and the struggle as far as anti-racism, alive, um, in this country and in the consciousness in the minds of white people and people of color alike.

John Bilal: Yes, Dr. Avayzian, we really appreciate your input into this dialogue. We intend to use this dialogue to inform and speak with other groups on center who have as a goal to eradicate things like this and create a counter-racist force and thank you for the interview.

Dr. Avayzian: Thank you very much and Mr. Fuller I'm very ... been influenced by your comments and your analysis so thank you for sharing it openly and for affecting my thinking as well.

Neely Fuller: Then, I thank you for this exchange of views.

Dr. Avayzian: I, appreciate it. I appreciate the the chance to have an exchange with you and my best to all of you. I'll be signing off.

John Bilal: Thank you.

Dr. Avayzian: Bye, bye now.

John Bilal: Bye. Mr. Fuller?

Neely Fuller: I'm here.

John Bilal: Yes, do you have any comments?

Neely Fuller: Well, none. It was a constructive exchange of views, just like I said, uh anything that doing what we're supposed to be doing, we're talking about the major problem on the entire planet, before we transfer it to some other planet and have to do it all over again there, in that it is always important. We're talking about THE major problem on this planet and we're not going to be able to solve any major problem between people, scientific problems, yes. Trying to get a better computer, yes. That'll be a snap. That's getting to be a piece of cake. But what you put on that computer is getting to be a problem, because people do not interact with each other correctly and they don't do so because white supremacy has not been replaced with justice and you can't solve any major problem of the people on this earth until you do that. And scientific people are supposed to have been, supposed to have figured this out, really, a long time before now, rather than going into denial or say that that's something that could be put on the back burner. Unless the people who are really smart have decided that they like it the way that it is, and that this going thru mechanical motions in mistreating people everyday and glorifying violence and death as you see in all the bookstores, and on the uh videos, and the television programs and just say that this is a "normal" way to live on this planet, then so be it. But, uh, the position of the counter racist logic is that there's a better way. That justice, i.e., balance between people, IS better than racism. Racism gets a lot of things done in a short period of time. Justice is the longer way around, but it makes for a much better environment. Now that is the feeling that I have, otherwise, why bother.

John Bilal: The counter racist position, that, at least my comprehension has a position that white people need to take an active part in dismantling racism. This is one of the reasons why Dr. Avayzian when she made her comments on the Dorothy Heely Show, that the things she was saying on that show and the things she has said here today sort of parallel things that are in the code. And I thought it was an excellent interview.

Neely Fuller: I thought so.

John Bilal: Any other questions? We're at the end of our interview time, Mr. Fuller.

Neely Fuller: And thank you very much.

John Bilal: And thank you.

 

This interview is brought to you by the Awake Study Group, c/o Black History Club at GSFC at Greenbelt Maryland. Any inquiries as to this document should be directed to John S. Bilal II, Workforce Diversity Committee at Code 220, NASA, GSFC, Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771. Thank You, PEACE. 
 

[seshatasefekht7]

Chapter III

War is Peace

The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war -- for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war -- one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces. Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the super-states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment.

All of the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products such as rubber which in colder climates it is necessary to synthesize by comparatively expensive methods. But above all they contain a bottomless reserve of cheap labour. Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores or hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies. The inhabitants of these areas, reduced more or less openly to the status of slaves, pass continually from conqueror to conqueror, and are expended like so much coal or oil in the race to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, to control more labour power, to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, and so on indefinitely. It should be noted that the fighting never really moves beyond the edges of the disputed areas. The frontiers of Eurasia flow back and forth between the basin of the Congo and the northern shore of the Mediterranean; the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific are constantly being captured and recaptured by Oceania or by Eastasia; in Mongolia the dividing line between Eurasia and Eastasia is never stable; round the Pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories which in fact are largely unihabited and unexplored: but the balance of power always remains roughly even, and the territory which forms the heartland of each super-state always remains inviolate. Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world's economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient -- a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete -- was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired. Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter -- set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call 'the proles'. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.

All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science'. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance -- meaning, in effect, war and police espionage -- the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist, or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject as are relevant to the taking of life. In the vast laboratories of the Ministry of Peace, and in the experimental stations hidden in the Brazilian forests, or in the Australian desert, or on lost islands of the Antarctic, the teams of experts are indefatigably at work. Some are concerned simply with planning the logistics of future wars; others devise larger and larger rocket bombs, more and more powerful explosives, and more and more impenetrable armour-plating; others search for new and deadlier gases, or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents, or for breeds of disease germs immunized against all possible antibodies; others strive to produce a vehicle that shall bore its way under the soil like a submarine under the water, or an aeroplane as independent of its base as a sailing-ship; others explore even remoter possibilities such as focusing the sun's rays through lenses suspended thousands of kilometres away in space, or producing artificial earthquakes and tidal waves by tapping the heat at the earth's centre.

But none of these projects ever comes anywhere near realization, and none of the three super-states ever gains a significant lead on the others. What is more remarkable is that all three powers already possess, in the atomic bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any that their present researches are likely to discover. Although the Party, according to its habit, claims the invention for itself, atomic bombs first appeared as early as the nineteen-forties, and were first used on a large scale about ten years later. At that time some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centres, chiefly in European Russia, Western Europe, and North America. The effect was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

None of the three super-states ever attempts any manoeuvre which involves the risk of serious defeat. When any large operation is undertaken, it is usually a surprise attack against an ally. The strategy that all three powers are following, or pretend to themselves that they are following, is the same. The plan is, by a combination of fighting, bargaining, and well-timed strokes of treachery, to acquire a ring of bases completely encircling one or other of the rival states, and then to sign a pact of friendship with that rival and remain on peaceful terms for so many years as to lull suspicion to sleep. During this time rockets loaded with atomic bombs can be assembled at all the strategic spots; finally they will all be fired simultaneously, with effects so devastating as to make retaliation impossible. It will then be time to sign a pact of friendship with the remaining world-power, in preparation for another attack. This scheme, it is hardly necessary to say, is a mere daydream, impossible of realization. Moreover, no fighting ever occurs except in the disputed areas round the Equator and the Pole: no invasion of enemy territory is ever undertaken. This explains the fact that in some places the frontiers between the superstates are arbitrary. Eurasia, for example, could easily conquer the British Isles, which are geographically part of Europe, or on the other hand it would be possible for Oceania to push its frontiers to the Rhine or even to the Vistula. But this would violate the principle, followed on all sides though never formulated, of cultural integrity. If Oceania were to conquer the areas that used once to be known as France and Germany, it would be necessary either to exterminate the inhabitants, a task of great physical difficulty, or to assimilate a population of about a hundred million people, who, so far as technical development goes, are roughly on the Oceanic level. The problem is the same for all three super-states. It is absolutely necessary to their structure that there should be no contact with foreigners, except, to a limited extent, with war prisoners and coloured slaves. Even the official ally of the moment is always regarded with the darkest suspicion. War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. It is therefore realized on all sides that however often Persia, or Egypt, or Java, or Ceylon may change hands, the main frontiers must never be crossed by anything except bombs.

Under this lies a fact never mentioned aloud, but tacitly understood and acted upon: namely, that the conditions of life in all three super-states are very much the same. In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually the three philosophies are barely distinguishable, and the social systems which they support are not distinguishable at all. Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the same worship of semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous warfare. It follows that the three super-states not only cannot conquer one another, but would gain no advantage by doing so. On the contrary, so long as they remain in conflict they prop one another up, like three sheaves of corn. And, as usual, the ruling groups of all three powers are simultaneously aware and unaware of what they are doing. Their lives are dedicated to world conquest, but they also know that it is necessary that the war should continue everlastingly and without victory. Meanwhile the fact that there is no danger of conquest makes possible the denial of reality which is the special feature of Ingsoc and its rival systems of thought. Here it is necessary to repeat what has been said earlier, that by becoming continuous war has fundamentally changed its character.

In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police. Since each of the three super-states is unconquerable, each is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life -- the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.


 

[seshatasefekht7]

THE PSYCHOPATHIC RACIAL PERSONALITY
By Bobby E. Wright

In a bullfight, after being brutalized while making innumerable charges at the movement of a cape, there comes a time when the bull finally turns and faces his adversary with the only movement being his heaving bloody sides.  It is believed that for the first time he really sees the matador. This final confrontation is known as the “MOMENT OF TRUTH”. For the bull, this moment comes too late.

The experience of black (non-white) people all over the world presents an analogous situation.  For hundreds of years, blacks have been changing at the banners that are held by the European (white) matadors. Those banners have been represented by concepts such as democracy, capitalism, Marxism, religion, and education ( and/or the nine areas of human activity in the known universe according to Neely Fuller Jr., being Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War).

The banners remained constant as long as blacks were assets. However, with technology and worldwide industrialization on the rampage resulting in a further exploitation of Africa’s resources which in turn produces an increase in Africa’s (black’s) national consciousness, blacks are now a threat and a liability to the white race. Therefore, the banner held by the matador represents only one concept:  GENOCIDE. As a consequence, the major research that white scientists are involved in today is genocidal in nature (nuclear warfare, population control, medication control, genetic engineering, psychosurgery, electrical stimulation of the brain, and the highly complex science of behavioral technology). Indeed, it is black’s moment of truth; IT IS TIME FOR BLACKS TO LOOK AT THE MATADOR.

This presentation is based upon the following very simple premise: in their relationship with the black race, Europeans (whites) are psychopaths and their behavior reflects an underlying biologically transmitted proclivity with roots DEEP in their evolutionary history. The psychopath is an individual who is constantly in conflict with other person or groups. He is unable to experience guilt, is completely selfish and callous, and has a total disregard for the rights of others.

There is a scientific dictum which states, “everything that exists, exists in some amount and if it exists, it can be measured.” One of the best methods that can be used to measure the psychopathic traits of the white race is observing and analyzing their universal overt behaviors and attitudes toward blacks. However, in so doing, since blacks have been enslaved and colonized by whites, a very subtle psychological problem is posed of which every black should be aware---intellectual insight about whites does not insure that there will be a corresponding change in black’s behavior and attitude toward whites, particularly when there is a threat involved.

For example, everywhere one finds whites and blacks in close proximity to each other, whether it is Chicago or Zimbabwe, THE WHITES ARE IN CONTROL. Yet blacks rarely question this extraordinary universal phenomenon which defies every known statistical LAW OF PROBABILITY. In fact, blacks denounce those who simply raise this question with admonitions such as “we should not be racist and treat them as they have treated us”. In fact, WHITES ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW BLACKS TO TREAT THEM AS THEY HAVE TREATED BLACKS, so that requires no discussion.

However, the subject of black racism should be discussed. A functional definition of racism could be “the oppression and exploitation of people because of their race”. Using this definition, it is very clear that at this point in time blacks cannot be racists because of their lack of power to oppress anybody.

…….Cont’d in the book.

 

[seshatasefekht7]

THE JOHN BROWN SCHOOL
By Malcolm x

There are many white people in this country, especially the younger generation, who realize that the injustice that has been done and is being done to black people cannot go on without the chickens coming home to roost eventually, and those white people, even if they’re not morally motivated, their intelligence forces them to see that something must be done. And many of them would be willing to involve themselves in the type of operation that you were just talking about.

For one, when a white man comes to me and tells me how liberal he is, the first thing I want to know, is he a nonviolent liberal, or the other kind? I don’t go for any nonviolent white liberals. If you are for me and my problems----when I say me, I mean us, our people---then you have to be willing to do as old John Brown did.  And if you’re not of the John Brown school of liberals, we get you later---later.

1/07/65


 

[seshatasefekht7]

Richard Lynn is professor emeritus of psychology of the University of Ulster. This article is based on a longer paper published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, 2002, Vol. 32, pp.273-316.


http://www.amren.com/0207issue/0207issue.html#cover

  While psychopathic personality is a psychiatric disorder, it has long been regarded as the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population. In this respect it is like other psychiatric disorders. For instance, severe depression is a psychiatric disorder, but everyone feels depressed sometimes, and some normal people are depressed more often and more severely than others. It is the same with psychopathic personality. There are degrees of moral sense throughout the population, and psychopaths are the extreme group.



There is a difference between blacks and whites—analogous to the difference in intelligence—in psychopathic personality considered as a personality trait. Both psychopathic personality and intelligence are bell curves with different means and distributions among blacks and whites. For intelligence, the mean and distribution are both lower among blacks. For psychopathic personality, the mean and distribution are higher among blacks. The effect of this is that there are more black psychopaths and more psychopathic behavior among blacks.
Psychopathic personality explains many racial differences in behavior that are not explained by differences in IQ.

In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association issued a revised Diagnostic Manual listing 11 features of anti-social personality disorder: (1) inability to sustain consistent work behavior; (2) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior [this is a euphemism for being a criminal]; (3) irritability and aggressivity, as indicated by frequent physical fights and assaults; (4) repeated failure to honor financial obligations; (5) failure to plan ahead or impulsivity; (6) no regard for truth, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or “conning” others; (7) recklessness regarding one’s own or others’ personal safety, as indicated by driving while intoxicated or recurrent speeding; ( inability to function as a responsible parent; (9) failure to sustain a monogamous relationship for more than one year; (10) lacking remorse; (11) the presence of conduct disorder in childhood.
This is a useful list. Curiously, however, it fails to include the deficiency of moral sense that is the core of the condition, although this is implicit in virtually every feature of the disorder. All of these behaviors are more prevalent among blacks than among whites, and suggest that blacks have a higher average tendency towards psychopathic personality.


 

[seshatasefekht7]

http://www.birdhouse.org/words/scot/pfunk_appendix.html


Appendix: The P-Funk Cosmology-in-a-Nutshell
Scot Hacker

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dig: The secret of funk was placed inside the pyramids 5,000 years ago. If we had stayed tuned (To pyramid power? Connect this to the Chariots of the Gods melieu of the same era, and the visiting spacemen theme of P-Funk) to The One, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. "Mother earth is pregnant for the third time. We all have knocked her up." It took the arrival of Dr. Funkenstein to unearth the funk and usher its viral spread over the de-funkatized surface of the planet. The problem with earth is that it is devoid of funk, -- earth is the "Unfunky UFO" -- due to the unfunky operations of the white house, the pentagon, Nixon, businessmen and greed in general, and an overall lack of supergroovalisticprosifunkstica-tion. The symbol for the collective greed/war mentality is embodied by Sir Nose, D'Void of Funk ("I have always been D'Void of Funk, I shall continue to be D'Void of Funk..."), who relentlessly pimpifies the people "By sucking their brains until their ability to think was amputated...pimpifying their instincts until they were fat, horny, and strung out" in pursuit of "financial security or an eternal supply of TRIM," the result being that "the very source of life energies on earth have become the castrated target of anile bamboozelry from homo sapiens' rabid attempts to manipulate the omnipotent forces of nature."

The ruthless whoring of Funkentelechy has brought mother nature to her knees, and we're pinned beneath them. "The frenzied incipience of pimpification hath risen to the point of cosmicide." In other words, we all have a bad case of the Placebo Syndrome, having traded in "the real thing" for a civilization comprised of cheap imitations, which is now crumbling around us. The Placebo Syndrome has given the body politic weak knees, which are doomed to give out from under us at any moment. We no longer feel the pulse, or smell the deep draughts of the Cosmic Slop which generates the funk. "When the signal is too weak, you're in the syndrome."

But hark! We do have booties and we do have boots, so let's move 'em! "When the syndrome is around, don't let your guard down. All you got to do is go on a bump." We have the strategic assistance of Star Child, who takes careful aim and shoots at Sir Nose (who inhabits the Nose Zone, or the Zone of Zero Funkativity) with his Bop Gun, funkatizing him in the luminescent sheen of its rays. In concert, guitarist Gary Shider flew over the crowd, wearing diapers of course, blasting at the crowd with a strobe light attached to a space-age rifle, "Chasing the Noses away," which forces Sir Nose to "give up the funk" and dance. "We shall overcome...we got to shoot 'em with the Bop Gun." To gather the collective energies of the funkateers into a mobilized force, Uncle Jam's Army was created to snuff out Sir Nose wherever he may lie.

 

[seshatasefekht7]

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1c012502.html

Dirt-Eating Persists in Rural South

By THOMAS SPENCER

c.2002 Newhouse News Service

 
ROXANA, Ala. -- Carrie Webb, 78, is thankful she can buy white dirt in East Alabama convenience stores. The local red variety will do in a pinch, but the white tastes better, particularly when fried with a little grease.

Carrie Webb of Roxana, Ala., eats a chunk of white dirt. Dirt-eating is practiced around the world and persists in rural places in the United States. (Photo by Joe Songer)

"That red dirt has grit in it sometime. This here is the best," she said, drawing the powdery white chunk of clay out of a plastic bag. Smiling, she slipped a piece of "Down Home Georgia White Dirt" into her mouth.

"This is sho 'nuff good," she said.

It's a tradition at least as old as history. It's practiced all over the world. And though it might seem strange to the uninitiated, it's not that different from adding salt (sodium rocks) to your food or chewing on a piece of gum (synthetic rubber).

Though dirt-eating's demise has been predicted for decades, the practice persists, particularly in rural areas such as the slice of East Alabama from Loachapoka to Camp Hill, from Tallassee to Opelika, where modern distribution has displaced the home-dug supply.

Wayne Smith, owner of a Conoco convenience store near Opelika, estimates he sells 50 of the one-pound bags of white dirt every month. "They say they don't eat it. They get it for someone else," Smith said.

In Loachapoka, they're more straightforward.

"We have white dirt connoisseurs around here," said Ron Burton at the Greenway Grocery. "They'll want to sample it before they buy it. ... I've got a lot of young girls who are pregnant come in for it."

Though both of the South's dominant races are known to practice "geophagy," the scholarly term for dirt-eating, it is most commonly associated with black women, particularly during pregnancy. Webb said she "was in the family way" when she started.

The white powdery clay Webb prefers is pure kaolin. That is the principal ingredient in Kaopectate, the over-the-counter medication for diarrhea and intestinal cramping. Iron, a mineral that's sometimes lacking in the diet but is particularly important during pregnancy, gives Alabama clay its red hue.

Biological benefits aside, the dirt-eating is culturally perpetuated, according to experts who've studied the phenomenon.

Dennis Frate, a professor in the department of preventive medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, first studied dirt-eating in rural Mississippi in the early 1970s. At the time, more than half the women surveyed in one rural Mississippi county said they had consumed clay.

"It was quite a common sight to see a group of women gathered on the porch sharing a plate of dirt," he said.

The dirt was harvested from earthen banks where the clay layer, usually 24 to 36 inches underground, was exposed. Frate said women often bake it in an oven or a chimney, drying the clay and making it longer lasting. Some flavor it with vinegar and salt. But no matter how it's spiced, Frate has never found it to his liking.

"I guess it's an acquired taste," he said.

Several former dirt eaters described the taste, once acquired, as a craving.

"I used to tear up a bank," Webb said. "When I used it regular, I don't care what it done. I went wild over it, I ate so much. I was killin' that dirt."

As Webb was aware, over-consumption of clay can lead to constipation. But in general, dirt eating is not particularly harmful, Frate said. In fact, it is better than some of the substitutes people have come up with. Some women substitute laundry starch and baking soda for the dirt. Both have similar textures but are potentially more harmful.

Geophagy is widely and elaborately practiced in modern Africa. Prized dirt from different regions is sold in markets. Africans sold into slavery appear to have brought the tradition across the Atlantic. Perplexed plantation owners devised mouth locks to prevent slaves from eating dirt. Poor whites picked up the habit, earning them the pejorative nicknames "dirt eaters" or "clay eaters."

"If you look at ethnographic accounts of people and societies, about every population at some time in their history engaged in geophagy," Frate said.

Plato wrote about Greek women eating soils, and the Swedes used to add a clay to their flour when making bread, Frate said.

Humans aren't the only dirt-eating species. Scientists have observed elk, bears, raccoons, parrots, giraffes, zebras, sheep in New Zealand and Nepalese monkeys eating soils. In Kenya, elephants make treacherous climbs to hillside caves in search of their favorite dirt. In experiments, rats, also known dirt eaters, were fed compounds that caused stomach aches and diarrhea. The rats responded by eating much more clay than normal.

In fact, geophagy may have made the domestication of potatoes possible. A book by Timothy Johns, an ethnobotanist at Montreal's McGill University, points out that nearly all of the 160 species of wild potatoes growing in the Andes contain toxic chemicals. Indians eat the poison potatoes with a dip made of clay and seasoned with herbs. With the clay neutralizing the toxic effects of the potatoes, the Indians, Johns hypothesizes, were able to begin consuming them, leading to the cultivation and selection of non-toxic varieties.

But the potential dangers of dirt-eating made the news in Alabama recently. Monsanto is being sued for allowing PCBs produced at its plant to contaminate an Anniston neighborhood. Many of the residents have high levels of PCBs in their bloodstreams, and one possible route for exposure was snacking at the neighborhood clay bank, which was a tradition there in bygone days.

Because of the potential for contamination and other reasons, Neil Sasse, Alabama's state toxicologist, advises against dirt-eating. "We would rather people not eat clay," he said.

In fact, Charles and Shirley Maddox, whose Griffin, Ga., company distributes the dirt, advise against eating Down Home Georgia White Dirt. It's labeled "Novelty" and the label warns: "Not suggested for human consumption."

Charles Maddox is retired from the grocery and beverage business, and he took up the clay cause from his father. They are aware that some portion of the three to four tons of kaolin they bag each year gets eaten. But Maddox would rather focus on the dirt's non-culinary applications.

"It is a product Georgia should be proud of. They make so many things out of it," Maddox said. The label reads: "Some of its uses: adhesives, catalyst, ceramics, glass, ink, paint, paper, pesticide, pharmaceuticals, plastics, rubber, old whitewash."

Maddox added, "I keep some in my boat and use it as a fire extinguisher."

 
 

[seshatasefekht7]

PURPOSE OF THE CODEBOOK

To present material, in book form, which can be used as a basic guide for those individuals non-white persons who are the Victims of Racism (Victims of White Supremacy), and who may wish to think, speak, and/or act to eliminate Racism (White Supremacy), and do so, not as a "formalized group", but as individual persons.

[This means that an individual non-white person who is the victim of Racism can pick, choose, and support through individual thought, speech, and/or action, only those parts of the book which he or she, as an individual person "sees fit" to support, through his or her individual thought, speech, and/or action].

To present material, in book form, which can be used as a start for a "complete" code of thought, speech, and/or action for Victims of Racism [non-white people], which when promoted by an effective number of individual Victims of Racism, will result in a "collective" effect against Racism.

To present material, in book form, which may serve as a basic guide and/or general format for the making of other books which can serve as a compliment, and/or supplement, to the "codified", and/or systematic concept of eliminating Racism (White Supremacy) through the thought, speech, and/or action of individual persons, by their own will, at a time and place of their own choosing.

To help any and all persons to know and/or understand truth, and to use truth in such manner as to produce justice and correctness at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity.

To explain the necessity of eliminating functional Racism before attempting to make other major changes in the socio-material activities of the other people of known universe, and to function as a general guide toward doing so.

This is not a book to be used to promote dislike or hatred for white people.

This is not a book to be used to encourage animosity toward white people or to be used to promote a dislike for white people because of their "whiteness", and/or because they appear to be "White" to the eye/mind of the onlooker.

This is not a book to be used to embarrass, belittle, nit-pick, poke fun at, or otherwise show "disrespect" for any people, be they "White", "Brown", "Red", "Yellow", "Blond", "Brunette", etc .

This book is not designed to be used to basically oppose any people except those persons racially classified as "White"-- and only those persons so classified, who are responsible for establishing, maintaining, expanding, and/or refining the practice of White Supremacy (Racism), in any one or more areas of activity, including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and/or war.

This book, when used correctly used, will help to promote thought, speech, and/or action, specifically designed to help reveal truth, promote justice, and promote correctness.

The ultimate purpose of this book and/or any of it's parts is to help produce "peace".

Excerpt from the United-Independent Compensatory Codebook by Neely Fuller Jr. " 

[seshatasefekht7]

Discussion About Racism/White Supremacy


Economics Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of Economics? What are solutions?

Education Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of Education? What are solutions?

Entertainment Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of entertainment? What are solutions?

Labor Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of Labor? What are solutions?

Law Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of Law? What are solutions?

Politics Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of Politics? What are solutions?

Religion Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of Religion? What are solutions?

Sex Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of sex? What are solutions?

War Discussion
How does white supremacy work in the area of War/Counterwar? What are solutions?




Code Writing - Suggestions and Reasons/Explanations


Economics Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Economics here.

Education Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Education here.

Entertainment Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Entertainment here.

Labor Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Labor here.

Law Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Education here.

Politics Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Education here.

Religion Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Education here.

Sex Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Education here.

War/Counterwar Code
Please submit your Codified Suggestions for the area of Education here.


http://www.thecode.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

[seshatasefekht7]

Basic “Ten Stops” for Victims of Racism [Non-White People], The =

(1) Stop “snitching” (volunteering information about people for purposes of gaining “personal favors” from Racists).
(2) Stop “name-calling”.
(3) Stop cursing.
(4) Stop gossiping.
(5) Stop being discourteous.
(6) Stop stealing.
(7) Stop robbing.
( Stop fighting.
(9) Stop killing, except under conditions of extreme emergency defense, and/or maximum emergency against Racism.
(10) Stop squabbling among yourselves and depending on Racist (White Supremacists) to settle the squabbles.

Racism, has done more to promote non-justice, than any other socio-material system known to have been produced, or supported, by the people of the known universe.

No major problem, that exists between the people of the known universe, can be eliminated until Racism is eliminated.

The fear, frustration, malice, and confusion, that is caused by Racism, retards or prevents all constructive activity between the people of the known universe.

The only form of functional Racism that exists among the people of the known universe is “White Supremacy”.

The people who have the ability to eliminate Racism do not have the will to do so, and, the people who have the will to do so, do not have the ability.

Regardless of all that has been said or done, the quality of the relationship(s) between white people and black people is, and has been, a total disaster.

Justice is better than Racism.

As long as Racism exists, anything said, or done, by people, that is not intended to help eliminate Racism, and to help produce justice, is a waste of time/energy.

Each and every Victim of Racism should minimize the time and effort spent doing anything other than, thinking, speaking, and acting, in a manner that helps to eliminate Racism, and helps to establish justice. Each and every person should seek to do this, every day, in every area of activity, including, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War.
-----by neely fuller jr