African American History Culture : "Trick Of Integration"

Discussion in 'African American History Culture' started by Fine1952, Nov 16, 2014.

  1. Fine1952

    Fine1952 Happy Winter Solstice MEMBER

    United States
    Sep 27, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Except for this link ---this all important work by Gerald Smith has all but disappeared from cyberspace. Eye will not allow this overt erasure that first opened my eyes to truth, Dr. Welsing and the historical JC take place; therefore, eye present 2 u:

    The "Trick" of Integration by Gerald Smith

    Hotep Africans:

    One of the greatest gifts of becoming "African-centered" is the clarity that it brings to the mind. Once clarity has been established, the brain is able to see the "connected-ness" of all of the

    seemingly disparate things that hitherto did not make much sense.

    I read a story in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago. Here are the first three paragraphs of that story:

    Mark Whitaker, who began his career at Newsweek as a college intern in 1977 and went on to expand the magazine's technology and business coverage and then oversee the pyrotechnics of the Monica Lewinsky story as managing editor this year, was named editor of the magazine yesterday.

    Mr. Whitaker, who is 41, had been supervising the day-to-day editorial operations of Newsweek since the magazine's previous editor, Maynard Parker, fell ill with leukemia a year ago; Mr. Parker, who had been editor for 16 years, died last month at the age of 58.

    The appointment came as little surprise to Newsweek staff members, who have expected Mr. Whitaker to become editor. His new job is significant: it not only makes him the first black editor of a major news weekly but comes at a time when the three major news weekly magazines --Time and U.S. News & World Report along with Newsweek -- are undergoing a period of self-scrutiny, competing for an audience increasingly distracted by television, the Internet and other news outlets.

    I have been studying this concept of "the first black" for sometime in my overall examination of how "white supremacy/racism" works. When I saw the article about Brother Whitaker, my mind immediately went back to recall the movie, "The Sting" which starred Robert Redford and Paul Newman.

    In the movie Robert Redford and Paul Newman wanted to steal some money. They also did not want "to be seen" as common thieves. They had to create something to make themselves feel better and to avoid detection and imprisonment. The solution to both problems was the construction of an elaborate scheme; kind of a "high class - white collar" embezzlement. Everybody knows that "high class - white collar" embezzlement is not the same thing as a "low life - common" crime. White folks do "high" crime, and as to "low" crime .....well ....Ya know !!!!!

    To pull off the scheme, they constructed an elaborate drama in which all of the elements which "appeared" to be authentic were in fact "bogus". In other words, the unreal was made to seem real. The plan was to pull off a gambling hustle where the mark would think that he is placing bets, playing cards and shooting craps in a "legitimate", "illegal" (how's that for an oxymoron) gambling parlor. At the most critical point in the transfer of the monies, Redford and Newman arranged for the police arrive to arrest everybody in the gambling house. The mark was "allowed" to escape, happy to avoid arrest - but without his money. What the mark learns much too late is that the gambling house, the cashiers behind the betting windows, the other gamblers, the service people and the police were all part of the sting.

    Please remember the critical elements of the sting. There is a mark who thinks that he is a player while he is "in fact" being played. All of the elements around him which look authentic are "in fact" bogus. What is represented as real is, in fact, unreal. And to unravel the scheme, the mark has to face the fear that his money was in fact ripped off and the embarrassment that he was so easily fooled.

    The concept of the "first one" is a scheme built upon the scheme of integration; which is built upon the scheme of western christianity; which is built upon the scheme of white supremacy/racism. The construction is careful and deceptive. To illustrate how it works, I've got to review some history.

    When what is now called "europe" first came into intimate contact wi the ancient world, the resulting clash of ideas caused great discomfort in the european arena. The system of traditional "gods" which had been worshiped in Greece and Rome (Zeus and Jupiter respectively) seemed childish next to the transcendent god systems of the ancient world. The god systems in the western part of europe (now England, France, Germany, Russia etc.) were even more primitive. The western europeans believed in "giants in the sky" and "trolls under the bridges". What we now take as fairy tales is what was saved of the original european belief systems. Giants and trolls was their previous religion.

    In trying to construct a new european belief system, the europeans faced several problems. Their first problem was antiquity; they didn't have anything that was old enough to compete with the belief systems of the ancient world. The Kemetian belief system went back at-least as far as 4000 BC, Hinduism dates back to 1500 BC and Judaism to about 1250 BC.

    The second problem faced by europe in the construction of a new religious system was authenticity. The ancient world was not as focused on modernity as we are now. We have been trained in the post-european period to equate "new" with "better". In the ancient world, "old" was "better". A new religion would need to establish itself as authentic to be able to gain followers.

    The third problem faced by western europe was connectedness. Europe was not really connected to the existing systems in any meaningful way. All of the other systems had a base of commonality in their beliefs. While it is true that Hinduism differed from Judaism; and Judaism differed from the Kemetian system, still they all shared common themes.

    Europe knew that it would have to seek a new religion while simultaneously solving its other problems. It decided to make its attack through Judaism. Fundamentally, religion is mythology. In the modern world, which has come under european control and definition, mythology is seen as "something which is not real". In the pre-european world, mythology was seen as "something so real as to defy description except in parables and allegories" (remember- this was the method of teaching used by Jesus). In the ancient world, mythology was the attempt to describe ultimate truth in terms that could readily be comprehended while understanding at the same time that ultimate reality could never really be understood. Mythology then, was seen as an acceptable approximation.

    In seeking to find a mythology that can be adopted as a replacement for your own, three things become important. The new mythology must come from what is available; it must have elements that make it compatible to your belief system and it must be seen as "better" than what you are leaving behind.

    Of what was available to europe, the religion of the Hebrews (now called Judaism) was the "hands down" choice. The Hebrews saw themselves as"chosen" by god to lead the world (from religions standpoint). Nascent europe had the desire to lead the world in all ways and saw the concept of "a chosen people" as a natural way to achieve what they wanted. Beingchosen by god also carried "authority". Any actions which europe wanted to carry out could be seen as "god's will" and the fulfillment of "his purpose". Being chosen by god brought legitimacy and vindication ; it meant never having to say that you were sorry.

    There was one problem however with Judaism. The Hebrews saw themselves as a insular group; small and special. The Hebrews have always seen themselves as "god's special elite". While it is possible to join through conversion (like Sammy Davis did), the Hebrews don't make it easy. And they definitely do not recruit.

    Not recruiting was a problem for europe. Europe wanted to be special, but they did not want to be insular. Europe had big dreams. Europe wanted to be expansionistic; europe wanted to be imperialistic. Europe wanted to rule the world. Europe's dream was to find a religion that could be expanded on the base of the Roman Empire. Europe knew that if it could pull that trick off, it could succeed. In the end, two people were used to broker the deal. The two people were Constantine of Rome and Jesus of Nazareth.

    The Roman Empire was built by military conquests. Military conquest is "labor intensive" - it takes a lot of troops. Already, by the time of the character who is called "Jesus", the Roman Empire was nearing its end in a blatant military form - it was stretched out and quickly becoming "stressed" out. It would have to change to survive.

    Now, don't get me wrong. The Roman Empire had figured out some real important stuff. First, it had figured out that it could expand by "selling assimilation". Once Rome invaded and took over your country, a few of your citizens were "allowed" to gain Roman Citizenship. These "romanized" nationals became very helpful in controlling the other natives. Their feet were planted in their native soil: but their heads and hearts belonged firmly to Rome. The methodology was to extract some carefully chosen youth from the native population and to educate them as "roman". These "romanized" assimilates, when placed back in the native population, would cause irreparable harm to the native effort to seek cohesion and clarity.

    ***Special Note****

    In our modern situation, we are much too ignorant of the histories of such men as Baltimore Mayor, Kurt Smoke and Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas until it is too late. Mayor Smoke shares "Rhodes Scholarship" with President Bill Clinton while Justice Thomas somehow made the leap from rural Georgia to the super-exclusive prep-school attended by George Bush (Exeter). It's a little late to figure out who these people are when their decisions have already begun to "bite" us on the butt.

    Constantine conceived that he could use the character of "Jesus" to create an assimilation mechanism on the level of religion similar to that which the Roman Empire had done on the military level. But first, he had to construct a decidedly "un-Jewish" Jesus. Unless he "fixed up" Jesus, there were going to be a lot of problems. In fact, Jesus was a problem; but with some work, something could be done.

    The character who is called Jesus is built primarily on the life of a Hebrew freedom fighter named Y'shua Ben Pendara (Joshua- son of the panther). Although there are many other elements which have now become integral to the christian story; the basic story is based in the life of Y'shua. And that, is where the problems start. The character of Y'shua was a freedom fighter, a therapute (healer), a rabbi (a religious teacher) and a member of the Hasmonean Maccabees. The Hasmonean Maccabees were a religious group of freedom fighters, who by the time of Jesus (Y'shua), had been fighting the Romans for some thirteen generations. Based upon the fierceness of their fighting ability, the Maccabees had been given a name by the people which translates to "the Black Panthers". It was to this reference that the founders of the American Black Panthers looked when clarity helped them to see the police in Watts as the "same Romans" who had persecuted Y'shua and were now fronting on them (excuse me for saying so..... but clarity is a "*****").

    Apparently, this Y'shua had been able to do something that had been almost impossible in earlier times. History gives indication that Y'shua had been able to unite all of the often-feuding factions of the Hebrew people (Remember Y'shua had following by both Matthew [a tax collecting government worker] and Judas [a member of the most feared "Zealots - 'sicarii"] plus all others in between).

    With the crushing of the Hebrews after the life of Y'shua, and the final destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Hebrews had been disbursed - "like so many seeds in the wind - diaspora". The diasporic Hebrews, scattered from Rome and Corinth in the west to Tarsus and Antioch in the east, each had their own story or version of the events of Jesus' life as is shown in the four synoptic gospels [each of which preserved that particular communities' version]. And for the most part, these diasporic Jews adopted the religious premises of the Greco-Hellenic world.

    Beyond the area of the diasporic Jews, in Asia proper, other names were being used. The most popular name in Asia for god was "Krishna" while in Rome the term "I Zeus" (Mighty Zeus) was popular. Constantine recognized that it would be impossible to build an empire if you could not even get agreement on the name of god. His solution was compromise: he joined the two most popular names I Zeus (Iseus) and Krishna to get "Iseus Krishna". We use the English form of this term today which is translated to "Jesus Christ". The name Y'shua actually translates to Joshua; you can hear the similar sound in the two names; Y'shua, Joshua. But since Constantine wanted to substitute Iseus (the english form is Jesus) the slight translation "error" was "de-emphasized" (like in - forgotten).

    That Y'shua was a "nationalist" was another significant problem (See Matthew 15:22-27 or Mark 7:25-29). Constantine realized that he had to make Jesus an "internationalist". To accomplish this goal, Jesus was "re-cast" as a "love everybody" character and the nationalistic quality of the historical struggle of the Hebrews was "de-emphasized". Judas, the most militant anti-Roman figure was depicted as one who would sell out his people for money. The name "siccarii" which referred to the curved swords that the Zealots would use to cut the throats of "uncle Tom" Hebrews was "modified" into the word "Iscariot" which most christians today think was his last name. When King James had Shakespeare and his boys write the "King James" version, the books of I Maccabees and II Macabees were removed along with the Book of Tobit and the Book of Judith to hide the real story of the nationalistic background of Jesus. This change had to be made since the new "protesting" churches (now conveniently called protestant instead of "protesting") were going to be urged to actually read the Bible. This was not a problem for the Roman Catholic Church since in the Roman Catholic Church members were forbidden to read the Bible, but had to rely on what the priests "told" them that the Bible said.

    Am I still talking about integration ?????

    Constantine realized that he could use "Jesus" in the same way that the Roman Empire used

    "Roman citizenship". Like Roman citizenship, "Jesus would become the "translation media" which would make the various conquered people "acceptable" within the new mechanism of the Holy Roman Empire - sorry - I mean the Holy Roman Catholic Church. When you accepted this "special" european, non-freedom fighting, non-Hasmonean, non-Maccabeean, non-Afro- Asian, non-Hebrew/Jewish "Jesus"; you would become grafted into the sting - sorry - mean the faith. It is called a "belief" because it is not "fact". The system that Constantine created had to be called a "faith" because it was not real - was not a "fact". Do you get this???? A "faith" is not a "fact" because the unreal has been made to become the real.

    There were still a few problems with the Jews and with Jesus. The problem with the Jews was that they didn't believe in man/gods - that was a Greek-Roman thing (Remember good old Zeus and Jupiter). To the Jews, who had conceived the concept of "mashiach" [messiah], the person who fit the title was to be a prophet, priest or king. Prophets, priests and kings were the only three types of leaders that Israel had ever had and Hebrew theology made it clear; the messiah had to be one of the three or a combination of the three. That he be a military leader was a given - 'cause they was at war 'wid the Man. Constantine had to make the people forget that part - forget that the messiah was to be a man; not a man/god.

    The problem with "Yshua - Jesus" being the messiah was simple. He simply didn't fit the definition.

    When I was in Sunday School, years ago, they told me that the Hebrews (God's Chosen People) had not accepted Jesus because they were "hard-hearted". That seemed strange to me, but I was young and dumb and a lot of simple stuff seemed to make sense. Later, in a college chapel, the noted doctoral theologian told us that "God had blinded the eyes of the Hebrews in order that his plan and purpose of redemption could be carried out". That explanation seemed all right for a minute or two, but it sure diminished my appreciation for why the Jews wanted to be chosen people. I had heard another christain minister and quite a few Muslim ministers say that Black people were the "real" chosen people. One thing seemed increasingly clear to me- Chosen people got their *** kicked regular and often.

    You see - the concept of the messiah is a Hebrew/Jewish concept. It is not a christian concept. Constantine set out to use the Jewish/Hebrew belief system because it solved the original problems. Co-opting Judiasm/Hebrewism gave the new european belief system connection; it gave them the concept of the chosen people; it gave them authenticity and it gave them antiquity.

    But it could not be used in its original form - it had to be changed. The messiah, under Jewish/Hebrew theology would come and (1) defeat the enemies [Romans], (2) restore the Temple at Jerusalem, (3) organize an "earthly" kingdom which would be ruled by the

    Hebrews/Jews, and (4) establish peace on earth. There was also some thought that this messianic period would herald in "the kingdom of god" whereby god "himself" would be established in the temple as the ultimate king/prophet/priest.

    The problem with Jesus is that he didn't do none of that. The Jews believed in a "right now" messiah - not a "wait a minute" messiah. The messiah was not supposed to come, leave and come back. Under the Jewish definition (and it was their definition), the messiah was supposed to do everything all at one time. Under Jewish/Hebrew theology (and I repeat, it was their definition), there was no "I'll be back". Somehow, the european world had to be made to forget what the original definitions were and made to accept new definitions.

    Just so you know - the Temple at Jerusalem was not rebuilt by the Jews; it was rebuilt by the followers of al- Islam. It is now called "the Dome of the Rock". Muslims say that Prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven from that rock (The names have been changed to protect the guilty). Today, muslims worship inside the building which has been "restored" as a mosque. Since the Jews cannot worship inside, they stand outside at the only remaining original wall and wail. That's why its called "the Wailing Wall" and now I've told you why they are wailing.

    And that is why, right after Constantine codified the Holy Catholic Church (located at Rome - the Holy See [as in seat]), the european world closed itself off from the rest of the world for almost one-thousand years (called "the Dark Ages). In that 1000 years, Rome got itself together, perfected its white supremacy/racism; hooked its economics to its education; hooked up its education to its entertainment; hooked up its entertainment to its labor practices; hooped up its labor practices to its laws; hooked up its laws to its politics; hooked up its politics to its religion; hooked up its religion to its sexual practices; hooked up its sexual practices to its war machine and proceeded to kick the hell out of us. Dr. Welsing ain't never been wrong.

    Integration is a sting built upon a sting built upon a sting. Integration is a game within a game which is within a game. Integration is "the okeydoke" raised to the "x" power.

    First, if negroes did more reading and watched less television and talking less sports; they just might have time to read. Reading is Fundamental. Not reading is both "dumb" and "dangerous".

    The word integration is built on the "cognate" or stem word, "integer". An integer is a "single-file" number (as in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

    In the 1960's, Black folks suffered from a socio-political governmental system called "segregation". Segregation prohibited the access or equal access to inter-state and intra-state transportation and public facilities. The logical remedy to do away with segregation would have been desegregation. However, using the "double agents" negro preachers that they had already developed through the desire for assimilation, the euro-american power structure introduced instead, a "dog" called integration. The logical point of attack was through the negro ministers since they had already swallowed the "sting" of christianity "hook, line and sinker" and were in the daily business of pushing the same "manufactured" concepts on us.

    When you think how skillful the trap is, it makes you want to cry. Is at in the Baptist church for almost all of my adult life thinking that John the Baptist was a member of my church. I thought that he must have looked something like Deacon Brent. I was being "screwed" with words. In Hebrew, the name of the character is "John" - "the Baptiser".

    "There's a big difference between "baptiser" and "baptist", but that's how the words are allowed to "slip just a little" so as to create just the "right" wrong impression.

    Integration said that "certain" negroes would be "allowed" to become quasi-romans (I mean quasi-white people) by accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior (I mean "integrate into the mainstream larger society). I don't know why I keep getting confused.

    Now never mind that no other group ever gained power single-file, integration promised acceptance so long as it was "singular salvation". Integration was designed, like christianity, for and by white people to serve their needs. Confusing us into thinking that we could make either one work for us was like convincing the Sunday chicken dinner to set the table and light the stove. Being "served up" is the automatic part.

    This was the same trick that christianity used dressed up in some new clothes. To accept Jesus as your "personal" Lord and Savior was the same process as "integration". Fundamentally, both require, as the price of the ticket, that you separate yourself from the corporate needs of the masses of your people; make an individual self-centered choice; "save yo **** self " - "F-em".

    In both cases, what you have to become, the definitions that you have to accept, the group power that you lose; everything - is built into the platform of the sting. All of the elements around you are in cahoots together.

    And ultimately, "The Player Becomes the Played". Like I said before,

    Clarity is a ***** !!!!!!

    There are a couple of other similarities.

    In the process of christianity, as with the process of integration, as with the process of white supremacy/racism; information must be tightly controlled. In the movie, The Sting, the reason that all of the players had to be "in on" the trick was that if the mark ever got "outside" of the system he would be able to see the designs of the trick. That is why integration, christianity and white supremacy work so hard to keep you away from "independent" information.

    Over the past year, there have been numerous on-going e-mail discussions between members of my study group and several fundamentalist christians. They all end the same way. As various questions are raised or answered by study group members, the christians counter with Bible verses. If we ask them to read; we get Bible verses. If we ask them to think; we get Bible verses, Finally, when the impasse is reached, a few will get up the nerve to read "outside" of the box - the rest retreat into self-declared silence. The ones who get up the nerve to read become "born again Africans" seemingly in a matter of minutes. From that time on, they worry you to death - want to borrow all of your books - wake you up in the middle of the night to tell you what they just read or figured out - and make you almost sorry that you ever told them anything in the first place.

    A second similarity is the use of the "impediment". Both christianity and integration must make you accept as real that there is an impediment from which you need to be saved. In christianity, the impediment is "original sin". In integration, the impediment is "your Blackness".

    Here again, the impediment is created wholly out of the air. Jews do not believe in original sin. The doctrine of "original sin" is a christian concept and that's another big problem. Christians base original sin on the story of Adam and Eve getting thrown out of the Garden of Eden. Only problem is - the story is a Jewish story and the Jews say that it does not have a thing to do with any original sin.

    But if you "accept" the premise that you are somehow "cursed" by god - then you are ripe to accept the "cure" of salvation through the european Jesus. And if you accept the fiction that there is something bad and wrong with you Black skin - then you are ripe to accept quasi-white membership on any terms that they dictate.

    Both integration and christianity make you dependent on forces "outside" of yourself - outside of your community. Both have you "waiting" for salvation or full acceptance. And both promise that you will get the benefits - after while - if you patiently wait.

    It has been probably nearly twenty years since I saw the movie, The Sting. Now that I am beginning to understand it - maybe I'll rent it again and see what else I may have missed.

    Now that I'm clear.