THE BLACK WOMAN, SOCIALIST COLLATERAL DAMAGE
by Alan Stang
April 15, 2008
No treatise on women would be complete without some comments on the black woman. For years, black neighborhoods across the country have made East Berlin under the Communists look like Caesar’s Palace in Vegas. Going back to the first Watts riot in Los Angeles, in your typical black neighborhoods you find boarded up stores and few or no services, one reason for which is that blacks themselves destroyed those services.
Of course, you find rampant crime, mostly black-on-black, another example of black self-disgust, large gangs, widespread use of dangerous drugs, epidemic abortion (more self-disgust), and men who can barely speak English listening to “rap” on “ghetto blasters.” You find teenagers wearing trousers so big they must hold them up, apparently unaware that the style was introduced to facilitate pretty boy prison rape. Right now, the Department of Justice web site says this about murder: “In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.”
Yet, paradoxically, the black woman paradoxically emerges from this horror a proverbial pillar of strength. Yes, there are exceptions, no doubt many of them, but there are more than enough such pillars to make my observation true, enough so that you surely have met one or more of these powerful, authoritative, black women.
It is a situation full of paradox; those women are so strong because the black family is so weak. In so many explosive cases it has been destroyed. Indeed, by now almost everyone surely knows that the federal government destroyed it with a policy designed for that purpose.
No other people have been manipulated – recruited in various schemes as cannon fodder – as much as the blacks. Consider that white people are always white. Yellow people are yellow. But every few years somebody up there orders a change of name for the race in question.
Many years ago they were “colored.” Then they were “people of color.” Then they were “Negroes.” Then we were told the name “Negroes” was demeaning, so they were “blacks.” A few years ago, they became “African-American.” Who ordered the change? Where did it come from? There didn’t seem to be any discussion on the subject. Did you notice? I suspect a certain shakedown artist in Chicago who routinely inflicts a conglomeration of deracination on the nation.
The new name just appeared and by now it is enforced to such an invisible but profound extent that I have actually heard people apologize for mistakenly using a previously approved but now obsolete name. Why “African-American?” Obviously to inspire a spurious loyalty to another country.
Remember that B. Hussein Obama’s church says it is loyal to Africa. But Africa is not a country; it’s a continent. People whose ancestors came here from Europe don’t call themselves “European-Americans.” That is a pejorative term employed by racists who hate whites. When big immigration from Europe was still recent, whites called themselves “Italian-Americans,” or Swedish-Americans” and so on. No more.
Since everyone calls Caucasian Americans white, it makes most sense to call these other Americans black. By the way, I do have a question. I don’t know the answer. Hussein is half black and half white. Why call him “black?” Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to call him “white?” According to my dictionary, someone who is half black and half white is a “mulatto.”
Whatever, we have established that somebody is always manipulating American blacks. Today, there are white liberaloids who pander to them and black con men who make lucrative livings off them. Because of this illicit attention, it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that for decades, life in many of the nation’s “hoods” has in some respects been worse than it was in slavery on the Old Plantation. Why?
Because the white liberaloids destroyed the black family. They did so during the Johnson Administration and the weapon they used was the “War on Poverty.” Americans live in perpetual war. There are shooting wars like the present no-win, treasonous fiasco in Iraq. Often, the nation is “fighting” more than one war at a time. Thus, we were “fighting” the no-win treasonous fiasco in Vietnam while we were “fighting” the family-killing “War on Poverty” here. Few Americans have any idea what it is like to live in a country at peace.
Lyndon Johnson was a Texas sidewinder. His political career started with a miracle, an election victory in which the dead resurrected without the intervention of Jesus and marched from the cemeteries to the polling places to put him across by 87 votes. There was a lot of sadness mixed with the jubilation because they returned to their graves after voting without visiting their families.
There was also a federal inspector named Henry Marshall, who was investigating one of Johnson’s pals. Marshall must have moonlighted as a contortionist, because when authorities examined his corpse they found that he had committed suicide by shooting himself in the back five times with his own rifle. That man was hard to kill!
Until the 1960s, black families – like white – consisted of mom, dad and kiddos. That’s right; it wasn’t always like it is now. But the “War on Poverty” shoveled federal funds via “programs” to families with kids but absent fathers. And, guess what? You don’t need to be as smart as Dr. Ron Paul to know that if you pay for something, pay liberally (not a pun), you dramatically increase the chance that you will get it.
Gradually, and then, as word spread, rapidly, the black father disappeared, in fear that if the welfare worker caught him on the premises, the check could be withheld. A new kind of life emerged in the black community. In another paradox, the more kiddos there were without fathers, the bigger the check from the “War.” What would you do? The dads would show up at night – while the welfare workers were congratulating each other over wine and cheese for the good they were doing – and make sure everybody who could be pregnant was.
So, the federal government literally tailored the “program” to destroy the black family. Did they do it deliberately, as part of a scheme to create millions of Marxist lumpenproletariat they could use as cannon fodder? Remember, one of the basic principles of our system of jurisprudence says that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his acts. The destruction of the black family is the natural consequence of these “programs.”
What has this done to the black neighborhood? Today, more than 70% of black households have just one parent, mostly women, more than three times as many as there were in the 1950s. The same ratio applies to out-of-wedlock black births. Remember Katrina? When that monster destroyed New Orleans, the inmates did not know what to do. So long had they been sucking on the federal teat that they were totally emasculated. They could not help themselves. They waited until the government responded, and, sure enough, more than a year later they still were on the dole.
Don’t get the idea that this weakness is peculiar to blacks. Almost thirty years ago, some businessmen in New Zealand brought me there during a national election to speak about world government. The Socialist government in that country at the time had created a creature called the “welfare mum.”
This was a lady whose business was making babies without a husband. The government set her up in an apartment, all expenses paid. And many Kiwi women came aboard. The work was easy, fun and so lucrative! All you had to do was get pregnant! Need I add that there are no blacks in that country? We are talking of course about women as white as Laura Bush. There is also the fact that the illegitimate birth rate today among young white women in this country, which is about 30%, is higher than it was among black women half a century ago. Girls just want to have fun.
Many black women no doubt do not survive, physically or mentally, in the 'hood. What kind of woman would survive? A strong, demanding, authoritative, resourceful woman, a woman capable of holding the stunted family together, without the help of a father riding herd on normally rambunctious, young men high on their hormones, for whom the neighborhood “hero” is the guy in the fancy car selling drugs.
And now a new dynamic is at work. A few black women in different parts of the country tell me there is a “shortage” of suitable, black men in the community, because those strong, black women have Master’s degrees and corresponding jobs. You see them everywhere, well-groomed, well-dressed, actually speaking English, paradoxically living the American dream as it is about to become a nightmare. The problem is that ladies with Master’s degrees do not marry emasculated men who can’t speak English, who spend their days shooting up in the 'hood and their nights in impregnation.
So, the government set up the scam and the 'hood fell for it. Typically, the only “solution” the totalitarians offer is more handouts and more programs, more of the scam. The problem can be solved, but only by black men, black men inspired by Jesus Christ to take charge of their families and kick the enslavers out, black men who speak English, not Ebonics.
Here are some utterly fascinating excerpts that help put the problem in perspective, from a message to me from one of my readers, a black lady. Yes, needless to say, she does have a Master’s degree, despite which she was able to get a husband:
The truth is so many blacks in general believe . . . that the real problem for the black community is “skin instead of sin.” They focus on “race and not grace”; “gossip and not the Gospel” (as one writer put it). And because of this many blacks are more beholden to “culture” (and what mama did or aunty did) than they are to Jesus Christ and (obedience to) His Word. But the truth is, sin is deeply at the root of many problems in the black community.
Thus, the government didn't drive that man off, or keep him from acting responsibly; or keep him from finishing school, etc, etc. No one put a gun to someone's head to drink, do drugs, rob a bank, on and on. . . . Yet, many people (who created their own problems because of their own sinful behavior) consider themselves to be helpless/hapless victims of (“societal”) forces. Then . . . in the end they . . . blame these “forces” for the misery they've heaped on themselves and others. . . .
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Now back to the point about the woman who “has become strong,” highly educated and well-employed -- without a man in her life. Nine times out of ten (and believe me I can vouch from experience); that black woman (who everybody thinks is sooooooo spiritual or sooooooo strong and courageous) is not really strong from a Biblical sense; she's strong from an Oprah Winfrey, “I am woman hear me roar!!!!!” sense. I'm talking about pride, pride, pride!!! . . . So many black women (that I know) are sooooooo full of themselves that there really isn't room for that “suitable man” they think they are looking for. You cannot blame the government because you cannot find a husband. You cannot blame the government because your individual acts of sin are causing problems in your life.