You Ain't Got No Rights!!! This is White Man's Land

You have no rights in 2017 that a white man is bound to respect (See Dred Scott’s case). Before you huff and puff and respond by saying that “the Dred Scott’s case was overturned, that was so long ago, and that everything is better now!” Sorry, but nope; the Dred Scott’s case has never been overturned, the same way the 13th amendment did not (let me repeat “did not”) abolish slavery.

Before we get into a battle about the Constitution and your inalienable rights, let’s look at the “rule of law” and what it really means through the African’s lens but implemented through the European’s hands.

Manifest Destiny and The White Man’s Burden are the cornerstones of the European’s moral and legal code, which is underscored by public policy of white genetic survival. See Dr. Francis Cress-Welsing Isis Papers. Dr. Cress-Welsing does a marvelous job in fleshing out the many areas by which Europeans seek to maintain their survival both physically and socially. However, let’s take a look specifically through the legal system under this same principle.

As background, your ancestors did not require statutes and rules enforceable by prison sentences, death, or severe punishment, but lived on moral codes set out under the 42 Laws of Maat. Rule of law as we know them today did not come into play until the Mount Caucus people entered your ancestor’s homeland without moral standards. (See Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man’s Racism, Sexism and Aggression by Michael Bradly – ‘a white man’). But how, or more importantly, why are rules created?

Without going through the procedural steps of how a legislative bill is drafted and how it becomes law, let’s take a few steps back to obtain a different understanding. All rules are initially created for (1) a social purpose to start, (2) for a social purpose to end, or (3) for a social purpose to change. What do I mean? Let’s take an example: I invest and create a private prison. My motivation is to make as much money with as much cheap labor as possible Therefore, I would need to fill my private prison with as much cheap labor as possible to make money because of course it’s not government funded (although subsidized in some cases) (Read The New Jim Crow –Michelle Alexander). Which in turn motivates me to create an environment by which I can make that money. Thus, I would need a policy or rule that supports my desire to have a profitable private prison. So “I” draft a rule that says “I” can sue the State in which my prison resides if the State does not arrest, detain, and jail enough bodies to fill my private prison. So “I” or my lobbyist write up the rule that says “I” can sue the State for not filling up my private prison. It’s a “win, win” situation. Either I get my cheap labor and make money or I sue the State for not giving me my cheap labor and still make money from the lawsuit.

Seems unethical, right? I thought I couldn’t sue the State? Yes, you are right! It is unethical

and yes, I as a citizen cannot sue the state, but “they” as a white-own private prison can sue the

State. This example is actually true today. Look it up. You ain't got no rights that a white man is bound to respect, but more importantly you ain't got no rights that benefit you as a black man.This is but one of many examples as to why Africans need to change their thinking with respect to the “Law.”

The major problem that Africans face is that we assume that all people abide by the same moral code that our ancestors did. That is, if there is a rule, we are morally obligated to abide by it. However, Europeans by their direct action or inaction have shown that they are not morally “capable” of abiding by a moral code and have historically proven that over and over and over again. Would you beg and cry to a rapist about why are they still raping you, or would you categorize them as a rapist and adjust and act accordingly? Would you cry to a murderer to stop murdering you, or would you categorize them as a murderer and adjust and act accordingly?

Think about this. If your baby sister told you that she is praying, marching, begging, fasting, singing her way out of an abusive relationship. How would you respond? Would you call her crazy? Would you intervene and protect her? Would you advise her to accept the fact that her man is abusive and she should categorize him as an abuser and adjust and act accordingly. Or would you tell her that she has human rights and her abuser should act better because your sister has inalienable rights? Sound logical? Didn’t think so.

The quicker our people begin to understand that “rights” are not equally applied, has never been equally applied, and will never be equally applied; and those “rights” as understood today do not exist. Because if they did, you wouldn’t need to sing, dance, pray, fast, and tell an in-humane person that you are human. Once you realize that you are in a war and that an evil game is being played on you, the quicker you will stop being angry and the sooner you can adjust and act accordingly. It’s good to know the legal system, but it’s more important to know how to stay away from it, dismantle and destroy it.

See the article “What we can do.”