| Sticks,
Stones and Words May Break Some Black Students' Bones
By Servando Gonzalez
January 19, 2016
Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words will never hurt me.
—Proverb
America is dead,[1] and the vultures are ripping apart its rotting
corpse. The new vultures that recently joined the New Age, Satanist,
gay, lesbian, feminist and transgender vultures already having
a feeding frenzy on America’s carcass are young, extremist
blacks in colleges and universities.
Their main fighting tool is not an assault rifle, but political
correctness. Their fighting strategy is the misuse of democracy.
Their battle plan is to conquer “safe spaces” where
they can feel protected from the threat of “micro aggressions.”
These young blacks in American colleges and universities apparently
have a monomaniac fixation with safety. Their mantra, repeated
over and over, is “safety” — they need safe
spaces to feel secure. Their concept of “safe spaces”
is actually places where nobody can express ideas contrary to
their beliefs.
Of late, the battle of these young blacks fighting for “safe
spaces” has reached new, alarming heights. Black students
at Yale complained about some Halloween costumes they considered
offensive. Black students at Amherst College asked the president
to apologize for the college’s “institutional legacy
of white supremacy, colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latin
racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/indigenous racism,
anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cissexism,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and
classism.”[2]
In November, both the President and Chancellor of the University
of Missouri system in Columbia were forced to resign by an angry
mob of black students who claimed they were responsible for racist
policies on campus.[3] But this is not the most egregious case
of young blacks’ aggression against perceived or imagined
white “aggression.”
Black students at Amherst College turned on its mascot, Lord Jeff
— or Lord Jeffery Amherst, the 18th-century military commander
whom this college town is named for. Under pressure, Union College
will modify its centuries-old motto, “Under the laws of
Minerva, we all become brothers,” to add the word for “sisters.”
Georgetown University is renaming two buildings that previously
honored slaveholders. Some black students at Harvard University
have demanded that administrators replace the law school’s
official seal, which they claim is borrowed from the family seal
of a slaveholder who helped found it.[4]
Faced with growing pressure from black students, colleges across
the U.S. are updating or renaming campus fixtures that have been
deemed insensitive or outdated. Inspired by racially-charged protests
at the University of Missouri, students have demanded changes
of that type among broader calls for improved treatment of minority
students.
Just recently, students at a small Pennsylvania college are demanding
that administrators rename a building called “Lynch Memorial
Hall” because of the racial overtones of the word “lynch.”[5]
Princeton students occupied the university president’s office
demanding that the name Woodrow Wilson — America’s
28th president and former President of Princeton — be erased
from campus. That included the Woodrow Wilson School of Public
Policy and International Affairs, residential halls and a mural
of him in the dining hall.[6] Protesters also demanded the immediate
implementation of “cultural competency training” to
reeducate faculty members and the introduction of mandatory courses
on marginalized peoples.[7]
Students at the University of Missouri recently demanded that
in two years the faculty will be at least 10 percent black.[8]
Some black students are also demanding that anything related to
black culture —art, literature, music, history— must
be taught by blacks only, not by whites.
All of this is pure, unadulterated racism. There is no other name
for it. The color of a person’s skin has nothing to do with
his knowledge, experience and ability to be a college professor.
Even more important is the fact that these students not only want
black professors but also black professors who make them feel
safe, that is, professors who fully agree with their political
beliefs.
Anyway, the least one can expect is that these racist, separatist
blacks may be consistent with their own ideology — lack
of consistency is the mark of the opportunist and the liar. Unfortunately,
inconsistency is precisely what has characterized the separatist
blacks’ discourse. If they really believe what they say,
they should ask not only for the banning of Clyde A. Lynch, but
also ask Obama to fire Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ban
pictures of Che Guevara on campus — Che’s real name
is Ernesto Guevara Lynch.
Moreover, they should ask for the erasing of anything honoring
Martin Luther King — the name Martin Luther, a guy who defied
the Pope, is highly offensive to black Catholics. Even worse,
any mention of the word “King,” must be banned, because
it is highly offensive to Americans whose ancestors fought a revolutionary
war against a king.
Also, it is a shame that many black athletes are football players,
a game that can be traced to early versions of rugby football
and association football. Both games have their origin in varieties
of football exclusively played by whites in Britain in the mid–19th
century. Black football players should immediately stop playing
a game created by slave traders.
Furthermore, politically correct young black extremists should
stop right now using iPhones created by white yuppies in Cupertino
and manufactured by yellow semi-slaves in China. They should demand
that in two years Apple employees be at least 10 percent black
and that iPhones be manufactured in Africa by black semi-slaves
— asking Apple to stop using semi-slave workers would be
an unrealistic demand.
Likewise, they should stop speaking English, the language of the
American white slave masters, and begin speaking the languages
of the African black slave masters.
In addition, it is a shame that a city in Georgia whose population
is mostly black is named after a mythical island inhabited by
a white, blue-eyed, blonde race much admired by the Nazis —
Atlantis. I guess that the name Atlanta is very offensive to most
American blacks. These politically correct black extremists must
demand that the city’s name be changed to something like
Africana.
But wait, as black American scholar Nathan Huggins has pointed
out, the “identity’ of black Africans is a fiction
created by European whites.[8] Actually, most of the so called
“Africans” in Africa don’t feel themselves as
belonging to a particular geographic area, much less a continent
Europeans call Africa, but to a particular tribe, like Ashanti,
Watusi, Zulu, Yoruba, Bambará, etc. That perhaps explains
why the Black Panthers rightly refused the denomination “African-American”
and preferred to call themselves blacks, as evidenced in their
assertion “black is beautiful.’
Back to square one.
Also, these young black extremists should stop calling Obama “black,”
because he is not. Though his father was black, Obama’s
mother was Caucasian. Therefore, he is actually a half-breed,
a mulatto. And I would bet that, at the bottom of his heart, he
is not too happy about being called black. In most countries mulattos
feel highly offended when somebody calls them blacks. Even more
important, they should stop calling Obama “African-American”
because, despite claims to the contrary, Mr. Obama is not African-American.
The qualification of African-American is applied only to citizens
of the United States who have origins in the black peoples of
Africa. It is not an ethnographic term but a political one. As
many African-American militants have pointed out, it expresses
pride in their African origins and solidarity with others of the
African Diaspora, particularly the ones brought to America as
slaves. As author Debra Dickerson contended, “Black, in
our political and social reality, means those descended from West
African slaves.”[9]
But Mr. Obama’s ancestors in Kenya were not brought to America
as slaves. Actually, there is a remote possibility that some of
his ancestors may have been among the blacks in Africa who enriched
themselves by making some of their own kin slaves and selling
them to the Portuguese and other Europeans. Most of these slaves
were acquired through intertribal wars or kidnappings.[10]
In the mid-eighties, one of the CFR-controlled think tanks developed
the idea of calling American blacks “African-Americans.”[11]
With full support of the CFR-controlled mainstream media and academia,
the term was rapidly adopted by most brainwashed blacks. In honor
to truth, however, American blacks should call themselves AMERICAN-Africans.
Contrary to Brazilian and Cuban blacks, who play African musical
instruments, dance African music, speak some African languages
and profess some African religions, there is not much African
cultural influence in American blacks. Culturally, American blacks
are 95 percent white American and 5 percent black African.
Still, now that young black extremists are deeply committed to
the name-changing business it would be the right time to change
the name of San Francisco’s Castro Street, a name highly
offensive both to blacks and gays, and rename it Batista Street.
Cuba’s black President Fulgencio Batista, a black man of
humble origins, was overthrown in 1959 by white, rich, Jesuit-educated
Fidel Castro, who quickly implemented his anti-black racist policies
— Cubans say that the Castro government is like Mount Everest:
the higher you go the whiter it gets. A few years later the Castro
government began a systematic harassing of homosexuals and even
created concentration camps where homosexuals were interned for
politically correct “reeducation.”[12]
Instead of wasting their tuition money waging political battles
they don’t fully understand — indoctrination is the
antithesis of education — these young, brainwashed black
students should profit by studying Korzybki’s dictum “the
map it not the territory.”[13] Words are just signs pointing
to things, not the things themselves. You can change the name
“torture” and rename it “enhanced interrogation
technique,” but it does not change the essential inefficiency
and inhumanity of the act. You can change the name “global
warming’ and call it “climate change,” but the
scientific fact that human behavior does not significantly affect
the weather cannot be changed.
Now, the big question is why university and college presidents
have not exerted their authority to fight back the black student’s
irrationality and madness? Perhaps President Woodrow Wilson offered
the answer a century ago.
In 1913, the year he became President, Wilson made a confession
in his book The New Freedom:
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had
men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest
men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture,
are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there
is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so
interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better
not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation
of it.
University presidents are fully aware that there
is a big power behind the extremist black student’s claim
for “free spaces.” They know, or at least suspect,
that behind their demands there is a power they cannot oppose:
the power of the Invisible Government of the US. So, they prefer
to resign and cash their generous golden parachutes than opposing
such a power that can easily destroy their careers and their lives.
There may be, however, more than meets the eye in the current
fight of these young black extremists in search for “safe
spaces.”
An American Cultural Revolution?
In his December 18, 2015, program, talk radio host Michael Savage
devoted some time to express his theory that the current trend
of growing political control of black students over colleges and
universities is a reenactment of Mao’s Cultural Revolution
in China. I think Dr. Savage is onto something.
The Cultural Revolution was launched in May 1966, after China’s
dictator Mao Tse-tung declared that bourgeois elements had infiltrated
the government and society at large, and were attempting to restore
capitalism. Mao told the masses that these “revisionists”
must be removed through violent class struggle. China’s
youth responded to Mao’s call by forming the infamous Red
Guards — groups of young people fully devoted to punishing
the politically incorrect citizens. Under the banner of the Cultural
Revolution the Red Guards harassed and persecuted millions of
people who suffered a wide range of abuses including public humiliation,
loss of jobs, arbitrary imprisonment, torture and seizure of property.
Are we in America experiencing the early steps of a Chinese-style
Cultural Revolution? It might be. We have to remember that, after
a trip to China in 1973, David Rockefeller, one of the key ideologues
at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a report praising Mao
for the great job he had done in China — a job that included
the slaughtering of over 40 million people.
In his report, “From a China Traveler,” David shamelessly
wrote:
One is impressed immediately by the sense of
national harmony . . . Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution
it has obviously succeeded . . . in fostering high morale and
community purpose. General social and economic progress is no
less impressive. . . . The enormous social advances of China
have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose.
The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership
is one of the most important and successful in history.[14]
Most of the black student’s fighting for
“safe spaces” would be surprised to discover that,
contrary to what they may think, those absurd ideas totally alien
to Americans are not of their own, but have been implanted in
their feeble, impressionable minds. Contrary to what they may
think, political correctness is actually the creation of a few
White Old Men specializing in psychological warfare. Most likely
it was developed at the Stanford Research Institute, the Hudson
Institute, the RAND Corporations or other of the CFR-controlled
think tanks.
So, may it be that the growing movement evolving on campuses that
is giving more political power to black youth is just another
carefully planned PsyOp conceived at one of the CFR-controlled
think tanks? Is this another tool to carry out a new social experiment:
the destruction of America as a necessary step to implement their
New Gay World Order?
Well, it might be.
The November events at the University of Missouri that ended with
the resignation of both the President and Chancellor began when
black student Jonathan Butler went on a hunger strike to protest
what he called “revolting” acts of racism at Missouri.
Soon after, black members of the university football team threatened
to strike for the rest of the season unless Tim Wolfe, Mizzou’s
president, stepped down. Soon after, Wolfe stepped down.
A few days later, though, somebody found out that Butler was not
part of the exploited masses of deprived young blacks but the
son of a wealthy Union Pacific Railroad executive who made $8.4
million in 2014. It is interesting to know that, almost since
the Council on Foreign Relations was created in 1921, there have
been close links between the CFR and Union Pacific.
W. Averell Harriman, who joined the CFR in 1923, two years after
its founding, was originally an executive with the Union Pacific
Railroad. Paul Warburg, another CFR founder and director (1921-1932)
was one of the Union Pacific directors. Other Union Pacific executives
with close links to the CFR were Robert Lovett, William Rockefeller
and Jacob Schiff.
Currently, both James H. Evans, former Chairman and CEO of Union
Pacific Corporation and Andrew H. Card, member of the UPC board
of directors, are also CFR members. Though Union Pacific does
not appear in the current CFR list of corporate members, it is
a corporate member of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations
(Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales), a CFR-controlled
organization of the many that have mushroomed in Latin America
belonging to what the globalist conspirators at the Harold Pratt
House now call the Council on Councils.
Surprised that an organization of old, reactionary white men is
backing the activities of young, revolutionary black students?
Don’t be so. This is not the only case.
One of the most rabidly anti-American organizations of young Hispanics
of Mexican ancestry in the U.S. is the National Council of La
Raza. Its ultimate goal is “la reconquista,” or reconquest,
of the Southwestern U.S. by Mexico.[15]
The man behind the growth and empowerment of La Raza was Raul
Yzaguirre, its president and CEO from 1974 to 2004. Yzaguirre
is a proud CFR member. As expected, La Raza survives thanks to
generous grants from the CFR-controlled Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller
foundations.[16]
Coincidence? Maybe, but I don’t think so. All roads lead
to Rome. Of course, CFR-controlled professional conspiracy deniers
will strongly oppose those who dare to publicize this fact. The
CFR conspirators and their ilk hate “truthers,” and
they brand them as “tin hat kooks.”
It is not by chance that, since immemorial times, the elders,
not the youth, have been the ones in control of the tribe. The
reason is obvious. Old people have lived long and have more experience
about life. Even more important, they are less prone to be influenced
by apparently revolutionary ideas
.
In contrast, the impressionable youth are easily captured by ideas
they see as just or revolutionary, without realizing that some
of these ideas have been planted in their impressionable minds
by reactionary white people who use them as tools to advance their
evil policies — something like what is currently happening
in colleges and universities in America. After knowing David Rockefellers’
view of Mao’s social experiment in China, I would not discard
the possibility that both “revolutions,” the one that
almost destroyed China and the one going on in America today,
had been conceived by the same people at the same place: the Council
on Foreign Relations.
Nevertheless, there is a big difference between China and America.
Mao’s Cultural Revolution was implemented at gunpoint over
a mass of unarmed citizens — Mao once said that political
power comes from the barrel of a gun. Here in America, however,
the only thing that may prevent a bloody Maoist-style cultural
revolution is the existence of an armed, alert and politically
savvy mass of citizens.
Notes:
1. America did not commit suicide, as some claim. America was
assassinated. It was a plan carefully conceived by the CFR’s
mafia and carried out by their hit men infiltrated into the U.S.
government, the mainstream press, academia and the military.
2. Roger Kimball, “The Rise of the College Crybullies. The
status of victim has been weaponized at campuses across the nation,
but there is at least one encouraging sign,” the Wall
Street Journal, November 14, 2015.
3. Eliott C. McLaughlin, “University of Missouri president
and chancellor step down amid race row,” CNN, November 9,
2015.
4. Collin Blinkey, “Colleges update mascots, mottos, amid
pressure from students,” Associated Press, November 19,
2015.
5. The building is named after Clyde A. Lynch, who was president
of Lebanon Valley College from 1932 until his death in 1950.
6. Actually, Woodrow Wilson should be re-evaluated as a traitor
to America. See, Servando Gonzalez, Psychological Warfare
and the New World Order.
7. An indication that the black student’s battle is not
racially, but politically motivated is the fact that Condoleezza
Rice, former US Secretary of State, was forced to withdraw from
a campus event at Rutgers University. According to some militant
students, Ms. Rice, a black woman, was a “war criminal”
that supported the Iraq invasion.
8. Nathan Irving Huggins, Black Odyssey: The African-American
Ordeal in Slavery (New York: Pantheon Books, 1990).
9. Debra Dickerson, “Colorblind,” http://politics.salon.com/2007/08/01/obama/,
Salon.com, January 22, 2007, http://politics.salon.com/2007/08/01/obama/
10. Contrary to what is taught at U.S. government schools (the
ones disingenuously called “public schools”), British,
Portuguese, Dutch or Spanish slave traders rarely penetrated far
beyond the coasts: they actually bought slaves already captured
by other tribes. As the great African-American historian Nathan
Huggins pointed out, “virtually all of the enslavement of
Africans was carried out by other Africans.” So, “African
Americans” who claim for reparations should look at Africa
first.
11. It is not by chance that Jesse Jackson, a proud member of
the Council on Foreign Relations, was the one who popularized
the term “African-American”. Fortunately, however,
not all American blacks were brainwashed. See, Jesse Washington,
“Some Blacks Insist: I’m Not African-American,”
AP, March 6, 2012.
Another prominent “African-American” belonging to
the CFR is Charles Rangel. By the way, none of the prominent “African-American”
leaders manifested their support for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
when she was strongly criticized and eventually sacked after suggesting
that George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 events.
12. See, Servando Gonzalez, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing
the Symbol (Oakland, California: InteliBooks, 2001).
13. Polish-American independent scholar Alfred Korzybski, the
creator of general semantics, coined the expression in “A
Non-Aristotelian System and its Necessity for Rigour in Mathematics
and Physics,” a paper he presented to the American Mathematical
Society at the New Orleans, Louisiana, meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1931.
The paper was reprinted in his 1933 book Science and Sanity, pp.
747–61.
14. The New York Times, August 10, 1973.
15. Charlie Norwood, “Exclusive: The Truth About ‘La
Raza,” Human Events, April 7, 2003.
16. Joseph Fallon, “Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical
Hispanic Lobby- Part III,” The Social Contract Press,
Vol. II, Number 1 (Fall 2000).
----------------------------
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer,
historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written
books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence,
espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia
herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando,
The
Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The
Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis
and La
madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas,
all available at Amazon.com.
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council
on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro
Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro,
California, both available at the author's site at http://www.servandogonzalez.org.
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New
World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is
available at Amazon.com.
Or download a
.pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad,
Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA:
The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Amazon.com.
Servando's book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo
y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, appeared last year, and is available
at Amazon.com
and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I
Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the
Betrayal of the America is available
at Amazon.com and other bookstores online. |
