Do I really want to deal with this topic, right? I don’t know. It’s like, the more you work towards a thing, the harder the individuals who wish to stop you become. In a lot of ways I see it as a video game. But…I’d rather not give that much credence to the power of those hiding behind screens. I learned early on that we feed on those weaker than ourselves. The lion and lamb probably shouldn’t be laying that damn close to one another. In a capitalist western dominated society, that means those with titles will attempt to influence the minds of those that have less, or have titles that aren’t as respected. Work in a society such as this implies work for a master. When I write posts on my blog, they are not respected if my blog is not generating fanfare. If I am not making a certain amount of money, my “work” here on my blog is considered useless. We are in deed slaves to the thoughts of others. The very reason you are able to celebrate the Afrikan portion of Barack Obama is because Whites celebrated it. In many ways, the choice to be freed of society’s chains are limited, even after manumission. And please understand that I’m not here to vilify or pretend that I don’t live according to certain standards. As I’ve stated repeatedly through my posts and else where online, hell, I love expensive suits. I enjoy luxury vehicles. However, I don’t kiss ass. I am the type to face a five to ten sentence for taking someone’s nice things. You can cream and moan all you want about how hard someone worked for whatever, yeah, keep whining. The reason your security in this country exists is because someone took land from someone. The reason your economy exists is because someone forced others to work and took the fruits of their labor. Black women were treated like prostitutes: given extra clothing and trinkets in order to have more babies that would become slaves. Why do you really think this country is in Iraq? Why do you really think this country is in Afghanistan? You are governed by the criminal elite. You sanction the criminal elite. You vote for the criminal elite. You send your children off to be programmed by the criminal elite. You hope they will grow up and be supported by the criminal elite. What has been Obama’s “cure” for the economic crisis? Give billions to those that caused the imbroglio and make emotional appeals to the middle class so they would work harder. Support the criminals, and pimp the workers. What more would you call it? We live in a capitalist economy. We live in a society that trains its children to look down upon those whose parents didn’t kill enough, didn’t pimp enough, didn’t rob enough, didn’t sell enough drugs or alcohol. We are trained, socialized, to become elite minions. We have mastered the art of being influenced by title holders and money throwers. We are like whores on a stage, shaking our proverbial asses for the person that tips the most. And we have the nerve to be moralist when the very actions and system we promote, the very ideology that our actions promote creates the criminal class that we wish to frown upon and turn our noses at. How do you think the thought of robbery and burglary gets into the minds of the young ghetto dweller? If you will kiss ass all your life in order to climb the social ladder that the elites have made you believe exist, why not those who find pride a little too bitter to swallow? AKPC_IDS += "449,";Popularity: 7% [?]

The more I write and interact with you all here in the Asylum, the more I realize the purpose of good interactive design. As a writer, you are allowed to put certain working concepts that you are still building to the side, with blogging you have to present your present thinking in real time on a pretty consistent basis. What that means for me, being sort of a polymath, and having various interests, is that I need to expand my navigation and build many categories. Also explain in some sort of visual manner that each post is building on the last post of that topic. It is like writing a book in public. I was taught that the wise artist never shows their work until complete…that’s not going to do much for my self-evaluation later tonight…any who…In my defense, even when I know I can’t give you the quantity that you may desire, I endure to give you quality. Much like my thinking on categorizing and building on topics, my spiritual beliefs and knowledge tend to work the same. I realize that most people reading this might believe that “GOD” or their “Higher Power” has an ego, or a personality, yet, I don’t. I believe that all is ALL. Yeah, I know that statement is about as vague as the initial proposition of a prostitute, yet I have this need to develop all my public explanations of my beliefs in simple terms. Possibly why I was drawn to Twitter in the manner that I was. In a more specific statement, my belief is that everything in existence, the complete set of all that is, even beyond what the senses of the best hearing or seeing or smelling sentient beings can know, is what I refer to as “God”. Some say the “universal mind”, yet I tend to think most people will conceptualize towards the anthropomorphic. That is, they will think of how their mind works, and ascribe the same characteristics of their inner world to that of what we are calling “Universal Mind” or “God”. Which is all the same quite possible, just not something my logic allows me to adhere to at the moment. If I say that my conceptualization of God, which is for the most part all we can ever discuss, is a mathematical formula, then I’ll lose most of my audience’s understanding. If I say that you are a mathematical formula within the whole of a fractal based on a similar formula, then I might lose you even more. Mainly, I believe that is because most of us like to base our understanding of the human on emotive responses. We tend to think solely about the emotional aspects of the person, and not the consistent patterns that we all share – the more structured and easily enumerated elements. And yet, many of us in certain religious and philosophical communities enjoy saying things like, “Life is math, and math is life.” Of course, the minute I describe sexual and intimate scenarios with mathematical nomenclature, I get treated like the nerd in gym class. Ironically, there are mathematical formulas for the labile, or reactionary in chemistry. In fact, I’d say a precise mind, with enough of a grasp on the abstract, such as in calculus, would be able to formulate a function for pretty much all that exist. For me, there is no separation between the spiritual and all else. It is simply a body. My particular body is a composite of billions of ’separate’ entities, and yet all serving one singular purpose, at the moment, to get me to figure out how to explain all this complex shit in a simple and even humorous manner. That means I believe that my politics are spiritual. My economics are spiritual. This shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp for those of us in the United States since our religions are embedded into both our politics and our economics regardless of conventional belief. We say that there is a separation between church and state, and yet “In God We Trust” is visibly printed on all of our bank notes and coins. Our political representatives and even our political pundits have made it a habit to say, “God Bless America”, or “God Bless the United States of America”. In my thinking, religion was actually institutionalized for such purposes. Any statements that suggests differently are nominal at best. As I’ve hinted at earlier, all of our knowledge, even most of our beliefs are what we call a “build”. They are concepts, hypothesis, and theories, accepted theories (also referred to as facts) that have been dialectically argued, or forcibly agreed upon over the course of human existence and handed to us like a cognitive baton. Often, what we do with these ideas depends on the experiences, critical thinking skills, and ability to forge an identity or even find gain in the beliefs or theories that we have been handed. Integrity be damned, it makes all the sense in the world to me when I see people that I know are actually atheist to publicly promote Christianity in a country that wars under the banner of Christianity for political or economic gain. In the same vein, it makes all the sense in the world to me for a professed anarchist to justify why they stand up at ball games with their hands on their heart during the national anthem. As stated, I don’t separate spirituality from politics or economics, and part of spirituality is an understanding of the more reactive elements that are influenced by forces outside themselves.( I’m a complicated son of a wonderful woman, aren’t I?) From socialization we are given our template of acceptable behaviors and in many ways our ideologies with regard to race, class, and sex. That template becomes a normalizing influence in our lives. As a person that has a record for rule-breaking and dissenting from social norms, I must admit, it is because I know and recognize the norms that cause me to be successful in rule breaking, or more importantly, effective. The same with the spiritual. There is a governing body of laws that allow the material existence that we must recognize as “the material existence”–or for those that accept the possibility of multiple dimensions, “OUR material existence”–to have order. Although much of our existence is governed by randomness, the decisions of sentient beings with “will power” or “instincts”, or “natural selection”, there is another area of our existence that is much less protean, and even the labile can be controlled, or at least predictions of their behavior can be accurately surmised. My experiences have shown me that the same way a scientist that understands the rules or the patterns of radical elements can control for the various outcomes of that element’s reactions to other elements, so can one who understands the patterns, or most importantly, the guiding principles, of a labile personality control the behaviors, or at least create conditions that will promote the most desired outcome from such a personality. Within that understanding comes a need for people to believe in not only a “God” that is nothing more than an all-powerful personage, but also an all caring one. Terms such as “Father” are used in many cultures to embody this idea of a power guide that only hurts as a form of “tough love”. Concomitant with that is this idea of a morally and ethically superior creature that is always right. Justifications for the reasons why good people die abound throughout cultural literature, as means to alleviate the cognitive dissonance that one might experience when considering why such an omnipotent and beneficent being would “allow” such activities to occur. As a standard of practice, those that are members of communities that profess such beliefs collectively, force upon one another absolute codes of morally dictated behaviors. Even those that simply possess the knowledge of said sorts of groups are held to often intolerable levels of human discipline. In the black community, many have mistaken simple awareness, or “consciousness”, as an invite to harshly persecute and judge. Often this is done without considering what a person’s actual ethical responsibilities and priorities lie. Ethical considerations often being relative, I have witnessed this become a very bloody sport, in deed. I am sure that someone reading the title of this post asked themselves,”How he gone say ‘God’ and ’shit’ in the same sentence…?” Sacrilege….indeed. Much of the conflicts we observe in our day to day lives either through close proximity, with familiars, or via mass communication have their origins in a quest for control, or influence over a person or group of people. The very concept of property is simply an influential belief that one or many have a right to a piece of land. That is a very simple handling of that concept, but I hope it gives you a brief moment of reflection. We as people in a society are influenced by our socialization, our templates, to accept economic systems of behavior, often without questioning why such patterns even exist, or how they came to be. Many of my colleagues can debate ad infinitum on the ideas of Big Bang theories, and can’t explain why there are more blacks in impoverished communities percentage wise compared to their white counterparts. In analogy, I tend to wonder why people lack the curiosity or critical comprehension to question why they believe what they believe. And as I have stated more than once already, I don’t separate my politics from my spirituality. I completely understand why a person that holds opposing beliefs than those espoused by their religious body would not act out of that belief. Possibly that person has a position among those that share that belief system, and voicing a contradictory opinion, no matter how well-reasoned, might cause them financial suffering, or political defeat. I hold this sympathetic view even more when assessing those in religious organizations in the black community, where our religious organizations hold the most sway, or influence, over the rest of the American black populace. Social considerations are also a part of my spiritual understanding, and social reactions and responses must be considered. Those that conflict with the more established organizations of belief tend to already have planned for escape, regroup, and revolution. Or least they should. As I close, or at least break from this particular post, I am reminded of the career of Jim Jones the leader of the People’s Temple. In his younger years, he was an outcast due to class bias and he sought understanding and acceptance from the black community. We have photographs handed down to us from his early years, with his black adopted children. He would go on to form a church and with that church he would develop such an austere reputation for helping in the black community that there are also images of him being guarded by the Nation of Islam’s FOI(The militarily trained men of the Nation of Islam) while giving a lecture to the presiding congregation of “Black Muslims”. It is pretty telling of the influence that Jones had at that time, to be a white man able to speak in front of a group of people that professed a belief in the white man being the devil. Jim Jones’ reputation would become smeared as his activities in the People’s Temple became more wide spread. His congregation’s devotion to his form of leadership allowed Jim to amass enough money to secure land in Guyana, where he and his congregation built Jonestown. Well, his congregation built it, he simply broadcasted through loud speakers how the rest of the world despised black people while the blacks were diligently working in the fields. Soon, growing weary and beginning to question their place in Jonestown, a number of members formed dissenting opinions about Jonestown. Those members would be labeled as people who begin to think for themselves within these sorts of movements are historically labeled by the “prophets” and leaders of such movements: “fearful”, “unfaithful”, and the dreaded, “hypocrite”. The families of many of the members also became suspicious and I’m sure, quite concerned about their missing relatives and a congressional delegation was subsequently formed and sent to Guyana. Reporters would be passed slips of notes from members of the People’s Temple asking for help. That help would never arrive, nor would some of that delegation make it back home. An ambush of the delegation left five dead at the airstrip. Jones would commence to order the largest mass suicide of US citizens to date. He ordered black mothers to have their black babies and children drink cyanide-laced grape Flavor Aid. Over 900 people died that day. Close to three hundred of them were children. Jones called it a “revolutionary suicide”. A political act under the auspices of a religious order, with social ramifications that have become cultural indices. Influence, force and power, is the spirit that guides us all and it can take many forms. Please be careful with your portion of God…it can get ugly in here… AKPC_IDS += "439,";Popularity: 16% [?]

I’ve been waiting until some of the smoke cleared before I discussed this topic.And even in me discussing it, it will be removed from the context that sparked the discussion. When I was younger, there was a pattern of behavior that I gleaned from various brothers that I looked up to in high school. It was a certain way with young ladies that worked to establish an hierarchy within the relationship. What occurred was I would use the term, “bitch” in a loose and joking manner when referring to them. When the sister that I was talking to reacted or responded in a manner that seemed like she was offended, I’d simply say,”Damn, bitch, you get mad about stuff like that…women really are sensitive.” Depending on how the young woman took it, after awhile, in private settings, “bitch” was her name. Now, many reading this have been subjected to this similar treatment, and possibly worse. Would anyone venture to say that what I was doing was anything short of being verbally abusive? I seriously doubt it. Would anyone question that I have some how left a psychological scar on the women, even in adulthood? Not anyone who has actually suffered it or been with someone who has. Would anyone be willing to dismiss those scars just because the women I abused in that manner started calling themselves “bitch” in play, or as an affectionate term? Is it always verbal abuse when a man calls a woman a “bitch”? Pretty much… What I’ve learned about words is that words are still reflective of the actual power relation. You can’t necessarily usurp the power from a word. You can only defend yourself from the psychological damage of the verbal abuse. Some might say that one shouldn’t be so sensitive, Franz Fanon said that violence is therapeutic. I’ve noticed that most people that profess the “don’t be too sensitive” frame of thinking, either don’t allow themselves to be called “bitch”, or are being verbally abused regularly, and don’t have the strength to stop it. I suppose running from it works too. I’ve heard the argument often enough. A young boy says “bitch” in a popular song. Young ladies recite the lyrics, and say that they don’t take offense because they aren’t a bitch. It is one of those times when I wish the theory of cognitive dissonance hadn’t become so tainted by the popular. What a young woman in that mindset is really doing is justifying the use of the term. It implies that some women are “bitches”. When in fact, the use of the term with regard to a woman, has always been demeaning. It is a term used to cripple, to embolden the user; to remind women of the place in society men have established for them. There is no way to remove the sting of the word. As long as the original users of the word in such context still remain in power, the word continues to hold on to its significance. Now, with so many issues that abound in the world of women, such as breast cancer, rape, being stoned for being raped in some places, being discriminated at the work place..should we still be so concerned that men are calling women “bitches”? Would you be concerned if someone called your mother a bitch? Do you like it when someone calls you a bitch…? Does it matter that teenage pregnancy is back on the rise…? Sure, of course it does. Just because tens of thousands of innocent civilians are being murdered in Afghanistan doesn’t take away the travesty of Aiyana Jones’ murder, or the murder of Oscar Grant. An evil is an evil. That is a reason why jails and the courts of what we refer to as the justice system have dockets that stay full. Proper punishment for the crime, but don’t forget it is still a crime. One last question for complete comprehension: How would you feel if white people used the word “nigger” in mainstream media as much as men use the term “bitch” in the same forums of mass communication? AKPC_IDS += "436,";Popularity: 30% [?]

Conversations have to be the life blood of a blogger’s inspiration. I want to revisit the discussion I had on Twitter yesterday regarding relationships. Romantic relationships to be exact. As a disclaimer, and I truly feel that writings like this should have a caveat: I’m not a relationship guru, I don’t claim to be one, and I don’t particularly feel the need to have my words taken in that context. Furthermore, as most you have gathered, I’m pretty much a relativist in my thinking, and romantic relationships tend to span the spectrum from swingers to polyamorous couples. I have my own beliefs about relationships, and I don’t want to impose on another person’s choice–within a certain context of social responsibility, of course. That out the way… Alright, I’d like to freestyle a bit and hopefully I don’t diverge into too many varying directions. From what I’m reading, observing, and hearing from others,it seems to me that there is a lot of fear with regard to intimate relationships and committed romantic involvements. From the discussion of ready made families, fears about games, fears about committing, fears about being with someone with a sordid past, and sexual insecurities in general. I’ve pretty much heard the same sorts of discussions on both sides of the gender aisle: guys saying women have unrealistic expectations, or they don’t want to date a woman who used to only date “thugs” and now that they are older they want to settle down with someone who is a little less aggressive. Women saying men don’t know what they want from a woman, and the guys they are meeting have children with multiple women, or just don’t seem like they are ready to settle down. There does seem to be a certain generational divide, where younger people are a little less prone to want to commit. With hip hop promoting not only a promiscuous life style, but one in which men are “pimps” or “super players” and women are “gold diggers” or only wanting to be involved with men that are only there to provide finances for their material exploits, there is going to be a difficulty to trust those in the dating pool. With the human propensity for novelty and security figured into that emotional miasma, you can expect a high level of relationships that aren’t, in my opinion, really aren’t worthy of the definition of exclusive. You’ve got two different social paradigms at play here. On the one hand, you’ve got people who can’t find a mate, or aren’t pleased with their prospects. On the other hand, you’ve got people supposedly committed to someone, and yet they are either not really happy, cheating, sharing themselves openly with others(I might actually tackle that at some point in time), or just in what I call a “professional relationship”. By “professional relationship” I mean, two people basically just together to provide financial support, a good showing at social gatherings, and every now and then, a warm body. The type of scenario in which the parties involved have lost a considerable amount of respect for the bond, a lot of times aren’t even friends and have grown so far apart that their lifestyles could possible be in conflict, ie, he hates her friends, she hates his hobbies, they don’t interact well, well, because they have no common interests and actually despise the type of person the other has become. Those types of situations can get ugly, meaning violent, depending on the persons involved. Plus, there is going to be a difficulty in compromising on a vision for the relationship(an idea of what the couple should be striving for in the future) if their lifestyles are so divergent that their concepts of what a relationship should be like are incompatible. Works for some, it tends to sound like a waste of my time to me. Which sort of brings us full circle. If we aren’t seeing many healthy relationships, and the ones we have been in weren’t experiences we’d like to repeat, we are bringing negative emotions into the dating pool. The direction that I’m hearing a lot of people going is the “cuddy buddy with emotional investments route”. Let me describe this…its a commitment that isn’t a commitment. It’s sex, dinner, movies, and social gatherings with hand holding…but no formal agreement between the two people involved that they are actually a couple. It’s the “we are exclusive but not exclusive enough for you to obligate me to anything relationship-y…” route. Its the “you can’t claim me” game. From my experience, observations, and discussions, these tend to be pretty messy. There is no definition! It’s Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” for intimates! I’ve personally learned that, for me, I’d rather take my chances on a break up than an emotional investment that doesn’t really exist. I tend be better suited for situations the have some sort of rules of engagement. And another thing, I’ve had a lot of experiences with people testing boundaries, it is my practice in most social involvements to lay down some sort of understanding of “this far, and no further”. Of course, I tend to be quite old school in my views regarding intimate bonds. Per the earlier disclaimer…these are simply my expressed ruminations about romantic coupling. However, in a society where wealth and power are controlled by families that don’t seem to want to ease up on their stranglehold, you’re probably going to want other people to at least be accepting of the idea of a committed relationship. I personally would hope that they are loving couples, because loving couples tend to rear emotionally nourished children. Friends tend to make time more enjoyable, so it seems logical that two people who are sharing the sort of intimate space that couples routinely do, they should probably have some common interests and enjoy a healthy loyalty to one another. AKPC_IDS += "431,";Popularity: 15% [?]