Niggers: the Bane of Every Race and Culture

04 Oct

Some races and cultures may have more niggers than others, but we’ve all got ’em.

video  00:02:04



Posted by on October 4, 2014 in Race, Values, Video


Tags: , ,

78 responses to “Niggers: the Bane of Every Race and Culture

  1. tubebuzzer

    October 4, 2014 at 2:12 PM

    Might help to reduce the number of inaccurate knee jerk reactions to also provide the definition of the term, otherwise they (of all races) be trippin… ~

    • Roger

      October 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM


      Word Origin

      Usage alert

      The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. The senses labeled Extremely Disparaging and Offensive represent meanings that are deeply insulting and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. It is so profoundly offensive that a euphemism has developed for those occasions when the word itself must be discussed, as in court or in a newspaper editorial: “the n-word.”

      Despite this, the sense referring to a “black person” is sometimes used among African Americans in a neutral or familiar way. The sense referring to other victims of prejudice, especially when used descriptively, as to denounce that prejudice, is not normally considered disparaging—as in “The Irish are the niggers of Europe” from Roddy Doyle’s The Commitments—but the other uses are considered contemptuous and hostile.


      1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.

      a. a contemptuous term used to refer to a black person.
      b. a contemptuous term used to refer to a member of any dark-skinned people.

      2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.

      a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.

      3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.


      French, Spanish – 1640


  2. Toland

    October 4, 2014 at 2:51 PM

    “I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us … I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”

    – Sen. Robert Byrd, 2001

  3. Robert Snyder

    October 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM

    This guy is a pussy,I’d decked both of them.

  4. Mel

    October 4, 2014 at 9:30 PM

    Being a Black woman, native of New Orleans, I find the insinuation of this ‘title’ extremely offensive. Just to make a short insufficient comment … I think that what we as a people in this country have endured, makes us the most profound and spectacular race on the planet. And unless you have lived it … heard the stories of ancestors being sold, killed for sport, emptied the chamber pots for generations without a thanks, and I could easily go on ….and then have fathers and grandfathers and sons serve this country … personally rank in the top two percent in intelligence in this country … I refrain from saying ‘Y– — —- — —— —!’

    • Mel

      October 4, 2014 at 9:39 PM

      I’d like to delete this post … if anyone knows how please do so for me … Thank You …

    • Adask

      October 4, 2014 at 10:35 PM

      The point to the article is to use the word “nigger” in order defuse that word, make it less powerful and less taboo. As a white man who supposedly dast not say the “n-word,” I see my opportunity and even obligation to use the word “nigger” much the same as Rosa Parks (a black woman who supposedly dast not sit on seats at the front of a bus) once saw her opportunity and even obligation to sit in one of those front seats.

      Those blacks who insist that whites can’t say the word “nigger” are every bit as racist as those whites who once insisted that blacks could not sit at the front of the bus.

      In the same sense that the bus seats should be available to all, regardless of race, the words (even the world “nigger”) should also be available to all–regardless of race.

      • Anthony Clifton

        October 6, 2014 at 12:06 PM

        I see your two niggers and raise you one “Jew”….Dov Zakheim.

      • erin

        October 19, 2014 at 12:37 AM

        i couldn’t agree more! if u see rudys vid from today w the “black hebrew israelites”, at the very end he uses it too, ps i hope this comment doesn’t include my email again where i can’t delete the post

  5. Melva Vallery

    October 4, 2014 at 10:01 PM

    I want to say to you that you have insulted me. I need you to understand clearly that any person who does a wrong, exploits, lies, acts unbecomingly is their own person and does not represent a race of people. I am sure you are an intelligent man, but you are in extreme, extreme error in your thought process regarding black people. It’s back to the old adage … try to destroy an entity and them blame them for your play … oh, well …Whatever the Chris Rock thing is …? does he lump us all into a ONE or is he referencing a group of uneducated, un-nurtured, inadequately loved group of people … your phrasing is an everyone thing and is racist; and I could care less about anyone’s political correctness … I believe in free speech … but not lies and self generating, self-righteous obviously ignorant of the real facts and  actualities manifested in your statements presented as truths.  

    • Adask

      October 4, 2014 at 11:36 PM

      I haven’t insulted you. I think I may have seen some comments by someone named “Mel” on this blog in the past. Maybe that was you. Maybe someone else. But, so far as I can recall, I have never before swapped comments with you, let alone insulted you.

      From my perspective, your reaction to my article about “niggers” illustrates some of the racial barriers that exist in this country–and not on the white side of the fence–but, instead on the black.

      My article was intended to illustrate that the word “nigger” can apply to some members of every race–not just Negroes. My article consists of a few lines and a video. At no point do I expressly name, show or indicate the presence of any Negro. In fact, I am using that article to apply the word “nigger” to a bunch of Russians–get it? White people. Honkeys. And even then, I get a ration of crapola for having dared (as a white man) to break the ultimate taboo by saying the word “nigger”–even in reference to white people.

      You complain that I’m using a few people as a basis for denigrating an entire race. But you, seeing me use the word “nigger” (which you apparently believe should be reserved for blacks only–just as the South once has public restrooms for Men, Women and Colored), claim to be personally insulted. The foundation of your felt insult is apparently your racial membership. You say I can’t judge all Negroes based on the behavior of only a few. And yet, if I identify any subset of Negroes (like “niggers”) you feel obligated to defend the race. This is hard to explain. But do you see the contradiction here? You don’t want to be “lumped in” with all members of your race, but if I speak out against any members of your race, you feel apparently feel obligated to find insult where none was made, and worse stand with all members of your race–even the “niggers” that Chris Rock complains about.

      You can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain about people who view all Negroes as the same, and yet take personal offense whenever someone talks about some some subset of Negroes. By taking offense to my remarks (allegedly) against one group–which remarks were not directed at you–you identify with that group. On the one hand, you take offense because I have allegedly identified you with the the group commonly referred to as “niggers”. On the other hand, you leap to defend that group and thereby identify with it.

      And, on top of all of that, in the “Bane” article I’d written there was no direct reference to any Negro, black, African-American or “nigger”. The entire article was intended to show that “niggers” come in all sizes, shapes, colors, cultures and races. And STILL I catch criticism.

      Apparently, even intelligent black women like yourself want to preserve the word “nigger” for use only by people who are at least partially Negro. That’s racist. If one race can say a word, but another race cannot, that’s racist.

      Your willingness to take offense where none was intended or given is not unique. I’ve seen the same attitude in a number of blacks. As a result, I’d rather avoid most black people because I don’t have time to learn all of the rules of racial etiquette, and many blacks take offense when none was intended. I’m tired to feeling some obligation to explain myself to blacks. I’m tired of trying to prove a negative statement (which proof is impossible) that “I’m not a racist”.

      I know what I am. I know why I am. And, frankly Scarlet, I don’t give damn about whatever anyone else thinks of me. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. And, although I’m trying to explain myself in this comment, I don’t really give a damn if anyone else understands me or not. If you do, fine. If not, that’s OK, too.

      But, in any case, you go back and look at the article that started these comments and find a point where I insulted you, and I’ll give you a free, life-time subscription to this blog.

  6. Melva Vallery

    October 4, 2014 at 10:44 PM

    Ok … now I’ve listened to and read the post after the absolutely flawed and biased O’Reilly commentary … My IQ is about 147 … my sisters and most relatives on my father’s side are similar. I went to Xavier University’s gifted program at the age of 12 … I.Q. tests are flawed because African Americans may not be familiar with a tee on a golf course. The posts associated with the O’Reilly thing were hard to read because they are so biased and off course. In my New Orleans neighborhood, the whites on the perimeter will include our area when they go for government grants, bank loans, etc. when it’s to their advantage. The first time I made contact with you was because a multi-billion dollar company STOLE MY product and they don’t want to compensate me. American Girl / Mattel have now retained their 4th set of powerful attorneys to fight me … a pro se plaintiff …  This country, stolen from the original native Americans and then made wealthy by hundreds of years …. 10 to 20 generations of the FREE labor of blacks and then you sell their children and still steal their land and you build prisons as a business (Still selling their children) and you and good ole Bill never mention these facts … even as a minor theorem …. Why does Mattel have all of these powerful lawyers fighting me? I guess I’m wrong to fight back … I’ll bet O’Reilly wouldn’t ask Mattel and American Girl ‘What’s Up?’ with Mel Vallery’s Federal Complaint regarding her copyright infringement claim. If this wasn’t so very sad … it’d be a laugh a second …  

    • Tony

      October 5, 2014 at 8:43 AM

      Hi Mel,

      1) No need to prop yourself up by sharing your “lofty” IQ. The innate quality of your words ought to be sufficient.

      2) There is a principle of pointing the mirror in one’s own face before placing the mirror in another’s. Another way it is expressed is cleaning up one’s own backyard before complaining about another’s.

      Yeah, absolutely, SOME whites did dreadful things. However, you overlooked mentioning the blacks who SOLD their own people to the whites.

      Now…whyja do that? Cuz they’re black and you are?

      • Mel

        October 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM

        My comments are because after I looked at the video, there was a reference to the Bill O’Reilly video which I also watched and there were comments regarding Black people’s IQ. You’re right, I don’t and should not have made the IQ comment.

        I am VERY, EXTREMELY AWARE of blacks who sold other blacks. Again, slavery has been in every culture / race … how am I complaining? What makes any people be so naïve to think that people are not cleaning their own backyards? Because you don’t see the results. I know you don’t know me. I believe you mean me no harm or offence. I have spent my life … my entire life … working hard in my community. My father, I believe was heart broken by my decisions and commitment … especially because when a person speaks out, they’re locked out.

        You folks have little idea what I’ve been through. And it’s really no big thing, I know me and respect me. These words … a brief response to something … cannot possibly say what is in someone’s heart and mind.

        And you folks keep criticizing me (and that’s fine … but let’s be accurate) … I said … I’m offended because everyone on the planet knows that the word ‘niggar’ is generally referenced towards blacks and to have people fighting on the ground, drunk and naked exposure and refer to them as ‘niggars’ is offensive. I’d like to be politically correct, but as Donna says, my critical thinking skills are probably in need …

    • Donna Lee

      October 5, 2014 at 5:07 PM

      Melva, words and attorneys are only as powerful as you perceive them to be. I’ve said my piece on this thread about the words, now let’s address the attorneys. Please take Notice: There are no lawyers in America as the legal definition of a lawyer is one learned in the law. None of them are, hence, only attorneys.

      Facts about attorneys and facts cannot be argued:

      1. All Attorneys are required to have a subscribed oath.
      2. Attorneys act to limit liability but they can only act if they are property registered to do so. (None of them are) and this ‘By and through’ nonsense is absurd.
      3. Attorneys are required to be federally registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act aka FARA under the US Department of Justice site when representing a foreign entity, which is any entity other than their own entity. *Is the ‘law firm’ representing Mattel or the attorneys registered as foreign agents as required? If not, they are acting rogue. (They’re not registered).

      If these attorneys are impeding, impairing, obstructing or inhibiting Your Public Estate/TRUST (they are) in any way by privately administrating it, thus having already EMPLOYED the NAME after taking oath to the Constitution per their Bar oaths, and restraining your trade, they are committing felony acts pursuant to 15 USC 1, which is clearly illegal by perpetrating and maintaining executor de son torts and they are all now personally and financially liable for same. Look it up for yourself:

      How powerful do you perceive these attorneys to be now?

      • Mel

        October 6, 2014 at 2:33 PM

        American Girl is a Delaware limited liability corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Mattel, INC

        I appreciate your advice and lead and I will definitely investigate. But I doubt if these big boys & girls are lacking any registration nuance … Kenyon & Kenyon (Wash DC) …Jones Walker (New Orleans) Michael Best (Madison WI) & AG’s in-house attorneys. All of them have offices in major cities / states. Listed as super lawyers, etc …

        I had a couple of lawyers and I’m sure these people scared them off and/or … they dragged their feet and baled on me … I had done all the research and comparisons of the books myself. AG did nine children’s books from my book … over 25 same and similar names and over 100 substantial and striking similarities. They have now taken the Cecile and Marie-Grace dolls off the market. after less than 3 years and AG dolls have a life span of over 20 years.

        They’ve been playing hard ball. I’ve caught them in lies, but yes, I still think they are powerful.

        I do believe I will win, but because they infringed and it’s in published writing and they have been careless in their court documents because they’ve underestimated me … but I would like this to be over. And I am disappointed that they took the dolls off the market. They are beautiful and the books/my words are nice … and with New Orleans about to celebrate our 300 years in 2018 … these dolls and books could be mega … the dolls and books were getting rave reviews.

        Thanks for your interest and encouragement.

    • Secretariat

      October 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM

      Greetings Breathren & Good Neighbors,

      When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or an African or for that matter African American, or anything else, you are being violent.

      Do you see why it is violent?

      Because you are separating yourself from the rest of Mankind.

      When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.

      These choices of your naturally endowed freedom in free will doesn’t mean doing whatever you want. It means having the freedom to do what’s right.

      So a Man, Woman or young-ling, who seeking to comprehend violence, does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system: he is concerned in honorably stewardship for one’s own total comprehension of All Walks of Life in Unanimity.

      We each are given many moments of decision, knowing full well the best this you can do is the right thing. But too often, people settle for the so-called next best thing, which is the wrong thing, while others simply always choose the worst thing you can do….nothing!!!!

      As before, I extend this missive out of a great awareness and desire for honorable unanimity with all walks of life.

      All our best to you & your loved ones.

      Until then, I AM…

      Most graciously….’In Honor We Trust’
      Notice: U.P.C. Applicable.
      P.S.: Please forgive any incorrect spelling, syntax or grammatical errors.

      • Donna Lee

        October 8, 2014 at 7:04 PM

        Yes, i agree that the titles and self-compartmentalizations absolutely compartmentalize but if one doesn’t delineate up front as to the why of the bad treatment, the why is lacking which leaves a mystery if not then explained. So it’s a cut to the chase to just define the why up front.

        It’s a pretty tall order, or should I say evolved idea to call it violent. Realize that Melva has had negative and perhaps even violent experiences based upon her level of melanin and has already been separated. There are only a finite number of cheeks to turn.

        I myself was forced to live with despicable racists in the deep south. As a 6 year old child I went to the black school because the white school was filled up. I was an instant pariah, just by sheer association to black people! White people would have nothing to do this blonde haired, blue-eyed little girl. I was forced to live in the garage because Donna Lee goes to the black school, don’t talk to her, she’s off limits. I was invisible, a ghost. I was made to feel as if I was nothing and the only time I was noticed by these racists was when brutal acts were perpetrated on me. The only people that would have anything to do with me in a positive way were black people. They were my only friends, I had no one else and I love them to this day. I know what they went through because I went through it myself. If this racist step-dad or his family ever knew I played with black children after school even though I was going to school with them, they would have killed me and said it was an accident. I am being dead serious. But it was worth the risk. And that is way too much for any 6 year old baby to bear, or for anyone to bear. At 6 years old I learned that racists are cowards, ignorant, afraid and that they desperately needed to bring others down in order to make themselves feel better about their own sad, pathetic lives. it is their own shortcomings and low self-esteem that motivates the racism. This is why I despise racists and refuse to associate with racists. No being should ever be the brunt of that ignorance, hate and fear. Or to be rendered invisible, nothing. I have never forgotten.

        So regarding the violent issue of labels, it really is a great idea perhaps it’s a bit too soon for that idea but perhaps better after the actual violence ceases somewhat.

        Peace and Love

  7. Donna Lee

    October 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM

    Melva, you have completely and erroneously missed the entire nature and message of this post.

    First, Alfred was speaking about ALL races and he even provided a clip exclusively of white people acting out.

    Second, it amazes me that you take such personal offense at this word, even when used in the context of ALL races so what business is it of yours when so many African-Americans use it amongst themselves almost as a term of endearment. Is there a trademark on this word?

    Third, I could say you insulted me by not bothering to even acknowledge the vast multitudes of Irish that were slaves before African-Americans, who were put under the most brutal conditions imaginable, first expendables in British wars, including their limbs being roasted while still alive. Note: The fly in the ointment? When the Irish ran away it wasn’t noticeably apparent that they were runaway slaves and every single race has been enslaved at one point or another. With that said, what makes your race so special and above and beyond every other race? I am asking you this question very seriously.

    Fourth, you claim to have an IQ of 147 but your critical thinking skills need to be vastly improved upon.

    Alfred is not a politician therefore he is not paid or obligated to be ‘politically correct’ in any way, shape or form and subject himself to involuntary servitude and cater to everyone’s hurt feelings and sensibilities, which is still not a crime as far as I know. So if you only want politically correct-speak, then by all means go seek out a politician. If you do not appreciate the idea of a brilliant desensitization of a thing that is just a word, you absolutely have the choice not to read it and move on to sites more of your liking.

    We are sisters. I can see that. Please honestly ask yourself why you can’t you see that?

    I truly wish you well.

    • Adask

      October 4, 2014 at 11:57 PM

      Thank you, Donna. I’m not merely pleased that someone spoke out in my defense. That’s nice, and appreciated, but not necessary. But I am delighted that you “get” what I was trying to communicate and achieve.

      Y’know, sometimes I write these articles and they are so misunderstood that I wonder if I’m speaking/writing in tongues or if my audience is “hearing in tongues”. But, every so often someone writes a comment that shows me that I am still occasionally capable of communicating and all I can do is grin.

      Thanks again.

    • Mel

      October 5, 2014 at 4:55 PM

      OK … I just came back to the site and it’s interesting the varied takes on my comments. I went to the other referenced articles associated with the ‘…bane …’ article. The one with O’Reilly stating the reason African-Americans are in the situation we are in as a people … so my comments are because of all of the related articles that you presented. These articles making your whole are offensive.

      Now I am going to go back and read everything again. I want to be sensible and fair.

      We, Black People, are in a frightening, doleful situation and if I expressed my thoughts regarding that … you might ask me to leave. We have been misused by whites, black, and others. There are those of us who have given our entire lives to try and make a positive impact and difference. And a change is going to come.

      The ‘…bane …’ article could have said ‘knuckleheads’, ‘idiots’, or any number of descriptions.

      But you chose to use a word that quite frankly has been taken away from us who have in our past used it as a word of honor. A serious cultural misappropriation.

      I lament how young people use the word today. In the rap music carelessly. Associating the word with negative values.

      I know whites tried and try to use it to disparage and ridicule … but I am of the belief that it started as a word of esteem in that African pronunciation of the French & Spanish ‘Negro’ / ‘Black’ …

      Contrary to what some people think, Black people are not lacking in intelligence or desire.

      I am an intelligent woman. Just like American Girl / Mattel stole my product, I’ve had black men and women to do the same. It’s what happens in life when you’re creative and people without moral values have no problem with creative thievery … and I know it happens to everyone … I’m no anomaly.

      But, I’m saying again, how you used the term is offensive. And Donna, I don’t think I missed the point. I got what was trying to be said … I don’t like the way the word was used … I’ll tell Lil Wayne, Jay Z, Bill Cosby and anyone else the same. I don’t like Beyoncé, Nikkie Minage (sp) and the young women using the ‘b’ word and making it an ok thing for young women to refer to themselves and others in such a disparaging manner.

      As I, and others, work hard to change the negative mindset, negative values of some of our people young and old … yes, I make comments to stop or address words going into the metaphysical universe that could further contribute to any adverse holds …

      and don’t think you’re special … I just sent a comment a few days ago to a black news mag concerned about the possible closing of New Orleans’ most cherished black all boys high school. My comments had to do with the elite black population not having the same fondness for the school now that the children attending and their families are of a different economic and social background.

      and please don’t think that I think I’m special …

      I’d love to have an afternoon at a coffee shop to chat with all of you … this forum is good … but too many thoughts are lost in the shuffle.

      I’m sorry you consider me a racist …


        October 6, 2014 at 1:48 AM

        Booker T. Washington (NEGRO), 1911<- Note the date, the NAACP was formed in 1909

        Quote: "There is (a) class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs… "

        Is Plan for Racial Strife Another Hoax?

        This from "Israel Cohen", a Communist JEW that MYRON FAGAN knew and out as such wrote this;
        “We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.” Written in 1912 by Israel Cohen. He is from that TRIBE of EDOM (JEW)

        Rep. Thomas Abernathy read this passage into the Congressional Record on June 7, 1957 (Vol. 103, p. 8559, top of page.)

        The so call JEWS, have been the biggest 'racists' and promoters of 'hate in all of history. Hollywood from the beginning was promoting racial stereo types, and tensions. The treatment that the Arabs, Negroes, and American Indians received from Hollywood was to divide and foster hate!
        In many cases, the charge of “antisemitism” and “hate” are devious attempts to outlaw opposition to Tyranny. Let’s not kid ourselves. We are facing a diabolical Evil, ruthless, vicious and cunning as well!

        WE ARE ALL BEING 'PLAYED' Get educated about who is playing us!

    • Mel

      October 5, 2014 at 5:11 PM

      Donna, I celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. It’s a key element in my 2011 copyrighted book. St. Patrick is the patron saint of slaves. I am very aware that every culture has had slaves.

      St. Patrick’s Day, March 19 is a HUGE commemorative day in the Black, Irish and Italian community of New Orleans.

      I think I stated somewhere in the posts that I’m not looking or wanting anyone to be politically correct. I believe in free speech. I said and say I was offended and insulted. I’d say that to my sister. So I guess I’m the one who needs to be more politically correct.

      And my expressing my IQ was indeed tacky. I guess I really need to work on my obviously lacking critical thinking skills. It would be an honor to be on the heightened level of the rest of you …

      In all honesty, I’m probably one of the people on the planet who desires most to see us all get along and all at our best.


        October 6, 2014 at 1:59 AM

        I live on the North Shore Slidell area and I like much of what you have expressed. Not so much how you expressed it, but I understand your passion! We are faced with a terrible Drug/CRIME problem down here, and it is ALL by design! WE truly are being ‘played’.

        Keep up your efforts but keep in mind that not everything is as we THINK!

  8. Henry

    October 4, 2014 at 11:18 PM

    Adask said: “Those blacks who insist that whites can’t say the word “nigger” are every bit as racist as those whites who once insisted that blacks could not sit at the front of the bus.”

    Al, it appears you have misunderstood the unwritten rule that applies here.

    The rule is clearly not that whites can’t say “nigger”, because white rappers, for example, often say “nigger” and no one objects. Rather, the rule is that only niggers can say “nigger”.

    That is, it’s okay to call someone a “nigger” if it’s understood that you accept, or even embrace, being a nigger yourself. See the above-mentioned white rappers for a case in point. On the other hand, if you consider “nigger” a term of contempt, then it’s foul to say “nigger”.

    As you know, a principle of the formal written law maintains that a given word can have different meanings in different contexts. The same is also true of “nigger” under the generally accepted, though unwritten, rules of social intercourse.

  9. freeman2315ray

    October 4, 2014 at 11:47 PM

    thanks for giving me a the reason for leaving this site, you have no class.


  10. Adask

    October 4, 2014 at 11:51 PM

    Who makes up all these damn “rules”? Could we have another vote?

    If I don’t know the rules of racial etiquette that that tend to prove that I am, or am not, a racist?

    • Henry

      October 5, 2014 at 1:38 AM


      I, for one, am not calling you a racist. Though I find the term disagreeable, you have stated your motivation for saying “nigger”, and I don’t think anyone who’s fair-minded would call that motivation racist. It is, as you suggest, Rosa Parks-like.

      However, the claim that there’s a consensus rule making it an offense for a white person to ever say “nigger” is factually incorrect. It’s been widely accepted that whites can say “nigger” since no later than the emergence of the “wigger” (a self-identified “white nigger” who copies African American fashion, speech, manners, etc.) in popular culture during the 1980s.

      • Roger

        October 5, 2014 at 1:10 PM


        I remember seeing wiggers for the first time, it was more than 20 years ago. I did have to cringe when I heard them calling each other “nigger”. This was at a county fair, not surprisingly.

        You could say the Beastie Boys, who got famous in 1986, were vaguely wiggers. Though the wigger phenomenon didn’t really get cranking until a bit later, when designer track suits became the thing. Lulz.

      • Adask

        October 5, 2014 at 1:30 PM

        There may be a consensus that whites shouldn’t say “nigger,” but 50 years ago, there was also a consensus that blacks shouldn’t ride on the front of the bus. Is one of those two consensuses right and the other wrong? If so, which is the good consensus and which is the bad consensus? Or are both consensuses bad? Or are both consensuses good?

        If both consensuses are good, I leave it to you to explain to blacks that it’s once again time to ride on the back of the buses.

        If one consensus is good but the other bad, please explain how that distinction can be rational.

        If both consensus are bad, then we should be every bit as obligated to see that everyone can say “nigger” as we are obligated to see that bus seats are available to all, regardless of race.

        I’m not trying to start an argument with you, Henry. I’m not criticizing you. I’m simply that the modern consensus about “nigger” is just as wrong as the former consensus about who can sit where on the bus. And more, the modern (racist) consensus that one race can say “nigger” and another race can only say the “n-word” is just as sure to spawn racial conflict and violence as the old consensus about bus seats.

        There was a time when people died over bus seats. Now, we’re at a time when people can die of the use of a particular word. That’s crazy, Henry. I’m trying to stop that insanity by “popularizing” use of the word “nigger”. The more we say it, the less it means.

        From my perspective, I’m trying to defuse the word’s emotional content and thus prevent conflict and violence. From other people’s perspective, by saying “nigger,” I’m promoting that conflict and violence. And I understand their position.

        But if we don’t start using (and thereby defusing) the word “nigger,” it will remain a cause for conflict and violence for years, even decades to come. As long as some people can’t say “nigger,” the taboo and potential for violence will remain.

        I’m saying, let’s get it over with. Let’s get the taboo out of our systems, and get on with our lives.

        Don’t we have better things to do than squabble over who can, and who can’t, say a word?

        But mostly, my objection to the “consensus” about use of the word “nigger” is this: I have supported myself (barely) for the past 34 years based on my use of words as a writer or speaker on radio. I won’t argue that I’m especially good at using words (writing/speaking) but I will argue that I love it. I cannot imagine any line of work that would suit me better than what I’ve been doing for the past 34 years. It’s not like I got rich (at least not yet) by pursuing my “dream” of writing/speaking, but I stick with it anyway. But I stick with it, anyway. Why? Because it fascinates me. I am never bored by the process of writing or speaking. I’m always learning something–or at least, I know that it’s always possible that, by means of using words, I could learn something.

        Therefore, as a man who relies on words for his livelihood and means of support, I cannot accept the idea that there are some words that I am forbidden to say because of the color of my skin. My position on use of the word “nigger” is not based on the facts that some people are “black” and some (including me) are “white”. I’d have the have the same opinion if I were yellow, brown or even black. My position on use of the word “nigger” is not based on my race. It’s based on my livelihood. I pay my rent and buy my groceries based on my ability to use words. And some unknown set of persons have arrived at some unspoken “consensus” that I–a man who writes and speaks for a living–can’t use certain words.

        Well, screw that. Screw that consensus. This consensus isn’t about race, and it’s certainly not about truth or freedom. This alleged “consensus” is about being “politically correct”. It’s about ideas and perhaps even truths that we dare not express for fear of offending someone’s feelings.

        Well, I’m part of another “unspoken consensus”. My consensus says we all (even white people) have to be free to express our ideas. That means we must must all be free to use whatever words are available to express those ideas. Some people will like our choice or words, some will dislike our choice of words. But no rational person can contend that there are some which can’t be said due to some “unspoken consensus”. No rational person can contend that he is fighting to end racism by tacitly accepting the “consensus” that access to the use of any words can determined according to one’s race.

        I’ll bet that my “unspoken consensus” (that even whites can say the word “nigger”) will triumph over the other “unspoken consensus” (that whites cannot say the word “nigger”). Even if I am the only member of the “unspoken consensus” that white can say the word “nigger,” my consensus will still triumph. Why? Because it’s true. Because it’s even necessary to defuse potential future racial hostility and violence.

        I begin to see that saying the word “nigger” is easy for me because I intend to use that word as a writer rather than as a racist. It’s so easy, obvious and even necessary for me to use that word, that I’m amazed at the virulent reactions I’ve had from both some whites and some blacks. So, I’ve been wondering why is use of that wood so easy and obvious for me and so difficult and even frightening for others?

        I begin to see that the answer is that those who refuse allow whites to say “nigger” are racists. That conclusion is obvious in relation to blacks. The idea that some words can only be said by particular race isn’t merely stupid, but is clear evidence of an intent to maintain and support racism in this country. Any black who says that whites shouldn’t be allowed to say “nigger” is a racist who is not trying to end racism, but preserve it.

        That conclusion is no surprise and I’m not the first to reach it.

        But I also begin to see that the same conclusion is also probably true for whites who refuse to use or tolerate the word “nigger” when spoken by other whites. Such whites may claim to be trying to prevent or at least conceal racial animosity, but the truth is that such whites are actually fostering racism by agreeing and even advocating that there are words which some people can’t say based on their race.

        Those whites who refuse to say the “n-word” are racists in their hearts.

        Ironically, if the Ku Klux Klan wants to foster racism and a division of the races in this country, they should be at forefront of insisting that no white man be allowed to say “nigger”.

        Do you suppose that, knowing that I’m a white man who’s dared to use the word “nigger” in public, the Klan will burn a cross on my front lawn?

        Do you suppose that, knowing that I’m a white man (or should I say “a write man”?) who’s said the word “nigger” in public and thereby tried to diminish the differences between blacks and whites, the NAACP will give me an award?

        Prob’ly not.

        Still, in a rational world free from taboos, the answers to both of those questions might be Yes.

        In our “politically correct” world where taboos are cherished and exalted, the answers to those questions is definitely No.

        We like to suppose that we live in a world that’s at least groping to become more “civilized”. But then somebody breaks a taboo by merely saying (or writing) one lousy word and the whole thing goes tribal. Our tendency to enforce taboos and behave tribally does not bode well for our future prosperity or even survival.

      • Roger

        October 5, 2014 at 2:15 PM

        Al, it seems you misread Henry’s comment. He said there is NOT a consensus that whites shouldn’t say “nigger”. And he backed up this claim with evidence which my experience confirms. Maybe there was a consensus that whites can’t say “nigger” at one time, but no longer.

        The word “nigger” has become a term of camaraderie in vernacular speech. It is also a term of offense. It’s BOTH. Which of these contradictory definitions applies in a given situation depends on context, as Henry described.

      • Anthony Clifton

        October 7, 2014 at 6:48 AM

        Rosa Parks was actually the THIRD actress to audition for that part…

        not knowing the Truth doesn’t make it go away….

        for the record there are many times more white niggers in America than Black
        maybe 10 to 20 times more….given the sports on Talmudvision

    • moon

      October 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM

      Al, sounds as if these particular rules have been made up by Henry (dark blue logo), who, of course, has his own agenda to promote. My guess is that he read them in a chic magazine while waiting for a man-icure.

      When someone’s basis for reasonable discussion fails, many times they simply attack with names…racist, troll, queer, terrorist, infidel, etc. For the name caller, it relieves the obligation for rational thought…no need to explain. After all, everybody knows the meanings of racist, troll, queer, terrorist, and infidel.

      You, Al, sound a lot like someone a lot of people would like to call a racist. When they do call you a racist, no more need for rational thought or actually hearing what you’re saying. Even more, what could a white man in Texas possibly know about the struggles of black people?

      All this commotion seems a bit overwrought considering that only one New Orleans lady has sashayed by. She doesn’t seem to be of the same mind as many of the black people in my experience.

      My preference is to NOT be around niggers regardless of their skin color. But, then, what could a redneck in Alabama possibly know about anything?

      If this comment has failed to be offensive toward anyone, please let me know…it isn’t my intention to leave anyone untouched.

      • Adask

        October 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM

        I agree with your philosophy. If you’re gonna offend anyone, it’s only fair that you offend everyone–regardless of their race, religion or creed. It’s the politically correct way.

      • moon

        October 5, 2014 at 2:37 PM

        That’s funny. You do have a way with words, write man.

      • Anthony Clifton

        October 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM

        So what is it specifically that makes a “Jew” so freakin’ “JEWISH”…

        if it isn’t Hating Jesus and having a copy of the Talmud to do pilpul twaddling with…?

        here’s some nigger news that’s overlooked by the “Jewish” media…

        most under reported RAPES in America…White Males in Prison.

        most disgusting waste of Human lives…black males under 18 in

        “Juvenile Detention”….CUI FFFFFFFING BONO ?

        oh yeah…a PLANT is “our” enemy….in 2014.

        Please Remember Texas Hero…Wayne Martin, who famously remarked
        “Larry, when you reject TRUTH you place yourself in JUDGEMENT.”

        Wayne was Murdered by TERRORISTS working for the synagogue of satan…
        paid for with “BRAINDEADGOY” taxpayer “dollars”…”in good faith”

        go figure.


        JEW JEW JEW


  11. pop de adam

    October 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM

    If I am a humanist does this make me against all forms of humanism? If I am racist, I am against a specific race? I could study humanism, this doesn’t make me genocidal. I could study racism, does this make me a racist?

  12. pop de adam

    October 5, 2014 at 3:10 AM

    One simple rule, the word “is”, you might notice it is within those words that end as “ism” or “ist”, you might be being manipulated. Alter a word recognizable to some other thing and then define that as something disparageable. “Is” is sometimes used to manipulate, like an individual conflicting the concept of “I” and “you” to the purpose of “we”.

  13. pop de adam

    October 5, 2014 at 3:19 AM

    Al, the worst might be: “Yo, nigga lighten up!”

    Of course that would be inflammatory.

  14. Adask

    October 5, 2014 at 12:16 PM

    Pop, it’s bad enough that some white idiot has dared to use the word “nigger” on this blog. Now, you’re complicating things by also using the word “nigga” and making it all even worse. Why can’t we all jus’ get along?

    • pop de adam

      October 6, 2014 at 1:18 AM

      This is not really a dare. challenge or otherwise. As a white guy, I’ve heard black sirens tempt rocks, also witnessed white klaxons threaten destruction of all. I don’t care.

      The most destructive thing I have noticed is parent’s imposing this choice upon their children because of the parent’s hang ups.

      Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong. If Peanut is right for my Fried Chicken, I’ll be watermelon.

  15. Donna Lee

    October 5, 2014 at 3:59 PM

    This post and offer from Alfred is truly one of the most non-racist things I’ve ever witnessed. Damn near but not quite tantamount to offering to turn both white people and black people gray, to blur then eliminate the lines of separation altogether. smh that people can’t see this.

    We must all stop simply reacting to a word. It is just a word.

    I fear very much for the future when our buttons can be so easily pushed, How can we be so easily manipulated, by a word? Are we even in control of our own selves or is the word in control of us?

    I don’t care if I’m called a cracker, a honky, polar bear, etc. Because those are just words…

    I wonder if Alfred would embrace it if I called him a cracker or if he’d only pitch a fit if another race called him a cracker? Personally, I don’t think he’d care either way. I don’t want to speak for Alfred but I suspect he would only laugh, and his point is to make everybody else not be controlled by this word as well.

    We must stop allowing ourselves to be separated, controlled. We are all of one race, the human race. We must stop letting these isms (Which are very, very profitable, by the way) come between us and that’s what Alfred is trying to accomplish, whether people see that or not.

    When women couldn’t vote, the men got together and ensured we had a right to vote. The government had nothing to do with it despite claim to the contrary.

    When there weren’t equal rights, the men and women got together and ensured there were equal rights. The government had nothing to do with that, despite claim to the contrary.

    The people are generally good and do good works. Stop attacking those who have pure intentions like a useful idiot and ask yourselves Who precisely is benefiting off this separation, these isms? If you need more than one guess then all is futile.

    STOP being controlled by a word. STOP being the game piece being manipulated and moved around on the board. BE the one moving the game pieces around on the board!

  16. Donna Lee

    October 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM

    Bottom line: If you allow yourself to be controlled by a word, you have signaled that you allow yourself to be controlled by those very same entities who profit off that very same control you give that word. The profiteers know the word simply needs to be said then some will perform exactly on cue. That truly is slavery and manipulation for private profit and gain. And very sadly reminds me of Pavlov’s dogs.

    Let go of the control that this word has over you and you are no longer controllable, on cue or otherwise.

  17. Roger

    October 5, 2014 at 5:10 PM

    Donna Lee said: “We must all stop simply reacting to a word. It is just a word”

    Most people are not reacting to the word. They are reacting to the perceived intent of the person using the word.

    This word “nigger”, like many in the English language, has multiple meanings. Which meaning applies in a given situation depends on context. Nowadays, this word has generally recognized meanings at both ends of the scale:

    If someone, white or black, says “nigger” as an expression of camaraderie, most people are okay with it.

    If someone, white or black, says “nigger” as an expression of contempt, most people are against it.

    Here we have a prime example of how words change their meanings with time. This word “nigger” has diversified its meaning in a big way over the last 30 years.

  18. Donna Lee

    October 5, 2014 at 5:50 PM

    Yep, there’s that word perceived again. The fact is, all of us of every color react to a word or words for an infinity of reasons, real or imagined, perceived or otherwise. I choose not to participate because the devil truly is in the details as evidenced on this site with perceived slights on a thing that is just a word. This amazes me as none commenting has every actually been a slave or actually been a slave master.

    Those who wish to continue beating a dead horse, by all means, continue. I hear a dinner bell ringing so those who wish to remain enslaved, feel free to salivate and perform on cue while the rest of us look on in dismay that the self-evident truth of this matter has escaped perception.

    • pop de adam

      October 6, 2014 at 1:43 AM

      You do or do not wish to vote upon your enslavement? Does enslavement require democracy?

      How are you to prove this obligation to obey?


      No Slave”,” I never knew could contract.

      Here is a conspiracy to negate, rights by the “seller” and the “buyer”.

      This is not a conspiracy born by the bought or sold, but by those who would do this buying and selling.

      Do you like that?

      We could vote upon whether you do or do not desire this.

      Notice the comma in parentheses.

      • Donna Lee

        October 6, 2014 at 1:24 PM

        Thank you pop de adam for your all caps FUCK YOU response to my post.

        I’m still laughing about it.

        Take care

      • Adask

        October 6, 2014 at 2:30 PM

        I deleted that post. At least, I think I did. I’m trying to keep the posts at least semi-civil.

      • pop de adam

        October 7, 2014 at 1:06 AM

        Glad you laughed it off, tipping a few to many brews, either got heated or misunderstood. Anyhow pardon the slight if you would?

  19. Donna Lee

    October 6, 2014 at 2:47 AM

    What in the world would ever motivate me to want to vote on a thing that is my own choice, which is traditionally referred to as a personal decision? I’m sorry but I feel democracy is slavery, particularly when one controlling vote out of one hundred determines your fate for you. Might as well be a blade of grass being blown whichever way the wind blows. You’re in rare form tonight, pop. Don’t get me wrong, there are many levels of enslavement. One could say that we are slaves to an oxygen/nitrogen mix and be correct. However, to quote a very brilliant man:

    “It is what it is until it is not.”

    If I have a decision to make, meaning it’s not a no-brainer, I make them based upon what’s called a Benjamin Franklin close. I write the pros and cons of a particular issue and based upon whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, that’s my decision.

    Last word: We better get ourselves together real quick as the human race. I haven’t vetted the Enforcement part of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars and I’m not sure if it can even be vetted. But the last paragraph of this document appears to be applicable to all of us, black, white, red, yellow, brown, polka dotted, striped:

    Factor VI – Cattle
    Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.

    Peace, love and the end of isms to all

  20. Peter

    October 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM

    cONsider that all the images in that video represent a currency on the global financial scene. All the currencies are a like a line of drunks, when one of then go, they are all gonna go. Been expecting it for 15 years. I strongly suspect all the drunk currencies are tumbling and have been for some time. Are the all caps appearences “NAMES”, currencies as well, subject to mark down?

  21. Donna Lee

    October 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM

    Alfred, perhaps pop was trying to desensitize me to the F-word Y-word. I’m already desensitized to it but perhaps it was simply a test to see if I would react to the bait, which would in turn show me as a hypocrite as I’m trying to desensitize others to silly reactions to words.I don’t consider laughing a silly reaction but a necessary reaction. First off, it defuses and deescalates. Second, laughing IMHO clarifies the mind, when anger clouds it.

    I’m not going to perceive anything about pop. pop didn’t physically harm me and he has the right to insult me all day long if he wishes to. That’s my law but I do have a right to choose not to participate in it. So, if pop wishes to communicate to me I simply ask that it is in a form not so vague where I can address any insult (if it was in fact an insult and not merely a test) I may have inadvertently made to him so I can make amends. That is the polite thing to do. However, my intent is to never to harm anyone and I appreciate all taking what I say in the best possible light, because that is exactly how it is intended.

    It just occurred to, one poster on here said people don’t react to the word, they react to the perceived intent of the word. I can assure all that I have never been called whitey, cracker, honkey by any white man, woman or child, only by black people. And I was never called that as a term of endearment. I was just one of these white people being blanket painted with the same hatred as those who actually did harm or insult. It’s very sad because I despise racists so when attacking me in that manner, they’re barking up the wrong tree. So the question is, do I continue blurring the lines of separation by calling out racists or do I stop caring altogether about the racists and their effects because I keep getting blanket brushed by their actions anyway?

    I continue to call out the racists because that is the right thing to do as a being.

  22. Donna Lee

    October 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

    Correction: t just occurred to me, one poster on here said people don’t react to the word, they react to the perceived intent of the word. I can assure all that I have never been called whitey, cracker, honkey by any white man, woman or child, only by black people. And I was never called that as a term of endearment. I was just one of these white people being blanket painted with the same hatred as those who actually did harm or insult. It’s very sad because I despise racists so when attacking me in that manner, (they are showing how racist they themselves are and) they’re barking up the wrong tree. So the question is, do I continue blurring the lines of separation by calling out racists or do I stop caring altogether about the racists and their effects because I keep getting blanket brushed by their actions anyway? (When it got to the point that I even needed to think about this, it really distressed me).

  23. Anthony Clifton

    October 6, 2014 at 5:56 PM

    but God is a Racist, and a Supreme Racist at that….

    you do know Adam….could show “red” in the face…as in “blush”.

    ever seen a Chinese boy named Roy ?

    Does Faux-Gynocologist Thomas Remo look like Kenneth Copeland…?

    sure wish more people understood Kol Nidre….but that is two words…

    like stupid Idiot…..or American Taxpayer….or “Jew worshipper”.

    anyone feel left out…

    fill out the form at the bottom of the page

  24. Mel

    October 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM

    I remember once as a 14year old calling into WTIX a local radio station for a ‘be the 3rd caller’ type contest. The guy (The Bluebeard) asked me if I was white or black … when I said black, he called me a nigger and hung up.

    When I was in my 20s, the little girl next door was sitting on her steps looking a little sad, I asked her what was the matter and she replied that the white teacher at her new middle school had called the black kids in the class a bunch of niggers … and this is some time ago when kids behaved themselves in school …

    All in all most black people don’t have much of a reaction to the intended (by some) insult. But to take a word that does mean something to us … like the post where the guy says ‘nigga please’ was a fun and heralded phrase when I was a teen … everyone didn’t use the term, but I did … also with great fondness and fun ‘what’s happening my nigga?! in an absolutely delightful sing-song tone.

    Most (99%) black mature people have totally stopped using the term since the rap stuff and the request by leaders to stop, however it had its hey day and I have got to do at least one choreographed piece saluting this word some day.

    This is sort of like the term voo doo … it means One God … most black people know little to nothing about the religion … but it is respected. So what do some people come into our city and do …? They name their football team, restaurants, convenience stores voo doo … who names a restaurant ‘One God”? Who does that …? Again, cultural misappropriation ,,,

    But this has been interesting. A bit sorry I said anything at all, because there is not enough time and energy (on my part) to delve into this very heavy word/subject. And I regret the misunderstandings all the way around and at every level …

    PS Donna … St. Pat’s day is celebrated on March 17 and rolls into the March 19th celebration of St. Joseph’s …

    • Anthony Clifton

      October 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM

      Have you ever read THE JUNGLE by Upton Sinclair…?

      please don’t feel like you’ve overstepped any imaginary boundary line…
      I’ve known Al a long time and he has a pure heart when it comes to being
      honest and putting the truth out front…warts and ALL…!

      besides, New Orleans has a real History and flavor…and sadness that
      is permeating the entire North American Continent…

      I’m sure Al is a glad you stopped by to read and contribute your “opinion”
      and feelings…about a “sensitive” subject…for many.

      I personally get deeply offended when my neighbors are attacked by Zionist Military
      assault forces on a Sunday morning with AIR SUPPORT…and all the “Jew” worshippers
      are cheering for the Terrorists…attempting to commit MASS MURDER
      like in Gaza.

      I really never cared much for selective indignation…
      and am still deeply offended by the Trail of Tears

      almost as much as the terrorists who print the currency & Own the media
      and operate a Crack House called Congress

  25. timmy

    October 6, 2014 at 8:26 PM

    Best states to live in:

    I wonder what they (don’t) have in common??

    • Roger

      October 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM

      All but one of them (North Dakota) voted for Obama in 2012.

  26. palani

    October 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    I have no irons in this fire being neither white nor black [I classify myself as a meat popsicle] but I sure would be upset if someone called me a ‘person’.

  27. Adask

    October 7, 2014 at 4:39 PM

    What if they called you a “meat momsicle”?

    • palani

      October 7, 2014 at 4:47 PM

      There would be no response. I don’t open other peoples mail either.

      In a court setting (for a friend) a couple weeks ago the bailiff instructed “ALL RISE WHEN THE JURY ENTERS”. Now I don’t consider myself ALL and in fact don’t even count myself as being very many so I remained seated. The bailiff yelled out “SIR YOU HAVE TO RISE” a couple times. I don’t consider myself to be in possession of any SIRship either so I ignored him.

      • Donna Lee

        October 7, 2014 at 11:38 PM

        My grandfather told me that back in the day, people didn’t rise for the judge that was coming into the courtroom, they rose for the bible that the each judge used to hold in their hands whilst walking into the courtroom. Now the bible is gone and we still perform on cue.

        Now they want people to rise for a jury? What possible reason could there be for that?

        After I watched this video on youtube entitled 5 monkeys:

        I became acutely aware of all the things I did, just because that’s the way I’d seen others do it aka the way it had always been done. That didn’t make it right and it didn’t explain when or how (the why is self-evident to condition us like bobbleheads) each particular conditioning action originated.

        This short video greatly increased my awareness on many levels. One day in the clerk of the courts office, the clerk told me the amount of a filing fee. I asked her what statute it was based upon (knowing within each statute there’s always a place where you don’t have to pay) and the clerk said she didn’t know. I told her I’d wait there for her to find it. Her supervisor came by and didn’t know either. I asked them how can they be quoting prices without ever having seen the source of the cost they were quoting. Eventually, someone there researched, found the abbreviated statute whereby I pulled up the complete statute and showed where I didn’t have to pay squat for access to the court without sale or delay. In Florida if I recall correctly this is under F.S. 28.41.

        All rise for a jury? That’s just bizarre. I’m glad you didn’t rise, palani.

      • palani

        October 8, 2014 at 7:20 AM

        That wasn’t the end of the incident. After the jury sat down the bailiff stopped yelling at some ‘sir’ fellow. They continued the trial for around 45 minutes and then the jury departed attended by the mandatory ALL RISE. I stayed seated. Then the female judicial actor lit into someone for not rising. I ignored her until she identified someone with sunglasses on. I looked up from my notes then and asked “Is this a court of law?” and then “Does stare decisis apply in this court?” as the previous decision of the court was to allow me to remain seated. She said the reason to stand was to honor the jury (I expect they were collectively a single person). Anyway … I stayed seated the next time the jury came in but elected to exercise my right to travel before they left the courtroom again.

        Funny thing was another friend also remained seated also and was not verbally targeted. Guy looks pretty much like Benjamin Franklin.

  28. popde adam

    October 8, 2014 at 12:57 AM

    I am not all?

    • palani

      October 8, 2014 at 7:27 AM

      “I am not all?”

      Being addressed in court is a summons to ‘appear’. Two types of things appear. Appellations and persons. Courtesy of an old Latin text called Attic Nights … when summoned you ELECT to appear or you do not ELECT to appear. Not appearing is not a crime.

      • moon

        October 8, 2014 at 2:22 PM

        palani, you are truly a defective machine as that term is explained in the movie Midnight Express. Also, my guess is that you’re on a list or two somewhere. If we don’t prevent more people turning out like you, something might actually change. How can a real police state be maintained with people like you running around? Sunglasses in “court”…isn’t that blasphemy?

      • pop de adam

        October 9, 2014 at 8:21 AM

        I can not appear, anymore than I may disappear.

  29. Adask

    October 9, 2014 at 10:44 AM

    Conversely, if you can “appear” in a particular jurisdiction, then you can also “disappear” from that jurisdiction.

    • palani

      October 9, 2014 at 11:31 AM

      That is the message in Ponzi vs Fessenden … &invol=254

      ‘They exercise jurisdiction, it is true, within the same territory, but not in the same plane; and when one takes into its jurisdiction a specific thing, that res is as much withdrawn from the judicial power of the other, as if it had been carried physically into a different territorial sovereignty.’

  30. Adask

    October 9, 2014 at 11:39 AM

    One “plane” is that of The United States of America–the States of the Union. The other “plane” is that of the “United States”–the states, territories, districts and possessions “of the United States”. The “plane” of The United States of America was entirely created by the People and their organic law; the modern “plane” of the “United States” was largely created by statute.

    So far as I can see, the essential difference between the two planes is this: Under Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution of the United States, the governments of the States of the Union can make no thing to be a “tender in payment of debts” other than gold or silver. However, in the “plane” of the “United States” the use of Federal Reserve Notes and fiat currency is completely lawful.

    Are you using FRNs to pay your bills? If so, you are at least presumed to have voluntarily entered into the “plane” of the “United States”. If you are in the “plane” of the “United States” you are, at best, a “subject”–and the government is your “master”.

    If you can establish that you are still acting within the “plane” of The United States of America, you are a sovereign and the government is your public servant.

    • palani

      October 9, 2014 at 11:44 AM

      Specifications for Descriptions of Tracts of Land .. by the Dept of the Interior

      They identify in this manual the original public domain of the United States. It includes only 30 states, missing Texas and Hawaii and the original 13 and some others.

    • pop de adam

      October 10, 2014 at 3:52 AM

      If Bermuda or China were to trade with the US for straw hats, would anyone assume these nations are subject to the US. I think this is a genuine issue, these countries either trade in one currency or another, who cares, the nature of markets is value for value. If we get a surplus of Bermudan currency we buy Bermuda onions, if we get a surplus of Chinese currency we buy straw hats or finger traps. The strange thing with the dollar is congress and the government usually get first choice amongst all the things that Americans produce. Mostly because of sheer volume at times, sometimes because some things also fall into a strategic category, but often if they wish to have something they just improve their bid at the cost transmitted to their competitor(and everyone else) in the form of taxes to satisfy this debt. And this other competitor would not have won the bid to make any payment possible anyhow? Suppose this loser debtor defaults, and this debt is fugitive, who really comes to the rescue? Government or the taxpayer?

      Other than what Americans want(X-boxs, Hondas and other items) there is no
      “Pop de adam currency” or “pieces of Adask”, so far to even entertain such a conversion. You or I would be able to compute any loss into said rate, an anti-tax if you will,

      What’s good for the gander…

      If they’re doing it why aren’t we?

      I think the true nature of the problem is they make FRNs and Americans accept them, both domestically and internationally, anyone holding payable debt in either category is going to be first to the trough, all else be damned. it doesn’t seem to matter how many FRNs hourglass through peoples accounts the net result always arrives as a likely loss.

      I don’t know if it is exactly true but. I have heard that currency is both loaned and spent into circulation, reflect upon what that might mean. Debt plus interest, plus debt to pay said interest, there is no end to this, only accounting.


      • Adask

        October 10, 2014 at 11:37 AM

        I believe the significance of the nature of our “money” and/or “currency is this:

        Whether we use a currency and/or money made of gold, paper, electronic digits or U-233 is irrelevant. The important questions are: 1) Who owns legal title to the money/currency being used?; and 2) Who owns equitable title to the money/currency being used?

        The reason this is important is that whoever owns legal title to the currency used in a particular transaction is entitled to legal title (real ownership) to whatever is purchased with that currency. Whoever owns equitable title to a particular currency in a particular transaction can only acquire equitable title (right of possession and use) to whatever is purchased.

        The critical point about Federal Reserve Notes is that they are LOANED into circulation. Insofar as they are LOANED into circulation someone (the Federal Reserve) still owns legal title to the green pieces of paper in your wallet or to the electronic digits in your MasterCard of Visa. The Fed will continue to own legal title to those green pieces of paper until the LOAN is repaid. In the meantime the Fed will acquire legal title to whatever you purchase with FRNs. You, on the other hand, will only acquire equitable title (right of use) to the FRNs and will therefore only acquire equitable title to whatever property is purchased with FRNs.

        If you don’t have legal title to your land, house, car or computer, you can only “use” those properties under the terms imposed by whoever actually owns legal title to those properties. If those terms include an obligation to pay income taxes, and you you don’t pay, the government (acting on behalf of or in collusion with the Federal Reserve) can seize the property that you only hold in equity.

        If you complain to the courts that the government or one of its agencies has seized “your” property, the court will hear your case only in equity because–lacking legal title to the property in question–you have no standing to enter a court of LAW. In a court of EQUITY the judge is not bound by law and can rule according to his own alleged “conscience” however he pleases. Given that the judge works for the same government seized “your” property, you shouldn’t be surprised if the judge (who works for the government) justifies the government’s seizure of “your” property.

        Because FRNs are loaned into circulation, they give legal title to the Federal Reserve and only equitable title to the people who borrow and then spend the FRNs. Result? The titles to property are divided in a trust relationship between the Federal Reserve (who gets legal title) and the purchaser (who gets equitable title). I can’t prove it, but I believe that trust is administered by the national government for the benefit of the lender (the Federal Reserve).

        FRNs are the currency of serfs, slaves, subjects and sharecroppers who never really “own” (hold legal title to) the property that they ignorantly believe to be theirs. They are a medium of “transfer” (of equitable title) but not a “medium of exchange” (of legal title).

        Gold and silver coin, on the other hand, are not loaned into circulation and therefore carry both legal and equitable titles. If you buy a product with gold or silver coin, that coin is not owned by the Federal Reserve or the government. As a result, you can use gold and silver coin to acquire both legal and equitable titles to property. Result? You really “own” YOUR property.

        Gold is a legitimate “medium of exchange” (of legal title). If I buy a new automobile with gold, the seller acquires legal title to the gold coins and I acquire legal title to the automobile.

        Result? If someone seizes property to which I hold legal title, I have standing at law to enter a court of law to regain my property. In a court of law, the judge will have no discretion and will be bound by the law. I’ll get your property back–even if it was seized by the gov-co.

        There is nothing so exceptional about the nature of gold and silver coin to make it the only “money” on earth. It has physical advantages over paper and electronic digits. But the critical question in any medium used as “money” is who owns legal title to that “money”? If the “money” isn’t loaned into circulation (and isn’t therefore “owned” by the original lender until the loan is repaid), it is a true “money” (medium of exchange of legal titles) that can be used to “buy” both legal and equitable titles to the property to the “buyer”.

        If the “money” is loaned into circulation, and if legal title to that “money” is owned by some third party (like the Federal Reserve), it can only convey equitable title to property from the “seller” to the “purchaser”. It’s not a “medium of exchange” (of legal titles) but only a medium of transfer of equitable titles (the seller gets equitable title to the FRNs used to make the purchase; the purchaser gets equitable title to whatever property is purchased). As a medium of of transfer of equitable titles, it is a “currency” rather than a “money”.

        The significance is all this is that your RIGHTS to property and your LEGAL STANDING to enter a court of LAW will depend on whether you bought the property in question with gold/silver coin or if you purchased that property with a paper or digital currency.

        With “money” (gold/silver or any other “medium” that wasn’t LOANED into circulation) you can actually “own” legal title to property. With FRNs (or any other medium that’s LOANED into circulation) you can only acquire equitable title and you have no more right to that property than a renter, sharecropper, serf, subject, etc.

        The kind of “money” and/or “currency” you use will determine your RIGHTS to property. If you purchase a house with a currency (like FRNs), you get to USE that house. If you buy the same house with real “money” (like gold or silver), you get to OWN that house.

        Most people are blind to that distinction because all they can “see” is having. They don’t “see” their “rights” and therefore don’t see the difference between money and currency.

      • pop de adam

        October 10, 2014 at 11:38 PM

        So if I sweat for any of the dollars, “title” belongs to someone else, is what you believe?

        Everything the sovreigns is becoming true in respect to the Elon Musk/Tesla fiasco. you must turn over any and all titles(MCO) to the state in order to receiver a “state” title.

        In Massachusetts the owner cannot both retain the manufacturers certificate of origin and partake of the registration process, the owner is required to surrender said title. Or be forever hassled.

        I’d love to use that F word but I won’t.


  31. palani

    October 10, 2014 at 1:49 PM

    Gold is the currency of the sea. Silver is the currency of land. Copper is the currency of peasants. Fiat is the currency of slaves. There is even now a currency of the apocalypse.

    • pop de adam

      October 10, 2014 at 11:53 PM

      I’m only renting your retirement.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s