Saw this earlier.
It’s badly researched and historically inaccurate.
It’s badly researched and historically inaccurate.
COINTELPRO Chapter black feminism
- Thread starter GrindtooFilthy
- Start date
Tommy Curry isn’t too far from COUNTELPRO himself
And there haven’t been any “intersectional feminist” policies yet, so I’m not sure what “having the ear of the policy makers” has done
It's always the bloodlines.In my research, i often find it illuminating to look into the family trees of persons of interest. My logic is, if you come from bums, 92% of the time, you'll continue the tradition.
Thus, whenever this picture is posted, I'm compelled to re iterate that this woman is Gabby Sidibes aunt. (Gabby's mother was a subway singer and so they actually lived with her sister for while a while, therefore this woman helped raise her). Is Gabby not continuing the family tradition? Was her break out role not facillitated by Lee Daniels, clearly an agent?
I looked into the author of the book Precious was based on and the author even has a very 'curious' background. She, pen name Sapphire, had been an unknown, yet received a whopping $500k from esteemed publisher Random House for a book that, based on reviews, was even more detailed and lurid than the film. I never saw it but Precious was supposed to be underage, right? So was that essentially literary child p***??
The author has written 4 books, including the aforementioned, since 1996, the last written in 2011. Wiki says she lives and "works" in NYC? Doing what?
Receipts:
http://www.glbtqarchive.com/literature/sapphire_L.pdf
How author created film character Precious through her own sexual
Steinems family is interesting too.
Her grandmother was a feminist as well (confirmation of my bum rule), and the first Jewish woman elected to office in the US iirc. Her sister explains how and why a girl from Toledo ended up graduating from a Washington dc school you can't find no information on.
While in college, Susanne Steinem worked at a jewelry store, and became fascinated by gems. She learned the industry working as buyer in New York and Washington D.C.. She taught gemology classes[5] and hosted a local television show on the subject.
Im not sure of her qualifications, which is why i mentioned the maiden name thing. All i know is, she and her sister attended Smith, an expensive, elite womens college. How? Their family was supposedly broke and the father had left. This might explain it:
During World War II, the campus transformed itself into U.S.S. Northampton, the official training ground for the country’s first women naval officers.
Learning to ‘Be Navy’
Also, the Navy housed this country's first intelligence agency, founded in the 1880s. If the sister looked like Gloria, she mighta been a honey pot/ spy.
Also #2, Julia Child is another Smith grad from the same period with a history working for the OSS/ CIA.
And this, researchers, is why you always look at ppls families.
Could you elaborate on this?
Tommy Curry isn’t too far from COUNTELPRO himself
And there haven’t been any “intersectional feminist” policies yet, so I’m not sure what “having the ear of the policy makers” has done
C'mon breh. I'm talking in a general sense. Think tanks and advocacy groups advise government officials, who allocate funds. These programs tend to target minority women and girls which sounds good on the surface, but assumes all groups of men are privileged. And the private sector follows suite. In intersectional world, woman+black means more oppressed than BM, despite this not being backed up by stats.What's your critique of Curry
Well damn. Alphabet boys were all over the place from the 60s-80s. It’s genuinely depressing.
But then, this begs the question; “why would they allow feminism to run free within their own society if they know it pits genders against eachother” ? If they are this good at socially engineering things, you would think that they would’ve disrupted the white version of feminism a long time ago. Something is missing here, but I don’t know what.
Because they field test it on blacks before they roll it out to society at large. The elites really running things could not care less about average to poor whites. They are part of those that will be culled when they try to significantly reduce the population.
You can tell this was a government organized agenda because black men had NO PATRIARCHAL POWER. Black men weren't in positions to stop and block black women from progressing, so how did feminism really affect our community so much? They knew the devastating effect that it would have on the family structure and then they would funnel the misguided offspring from a broken family structure right into prisons for profit.
This guy gets it.
It's literally 4D chess. Empower and appeal to the ego of the woman. Disenfranchise, demonize and deplatform the image, position and authority of the man, ensuring that the entire community stays at the bottom. Because the woman will regurgitate and teach the ideologies and teachings of whoever is in power and is giving them crumbs to the next generation that she is put in charge of presiding over.
The woman is not a leader. She will not lead her people to any kind of real salvation. Thier followers by nature.
It's high level divide and conquer 101. It's what you do when you're at the top of a society / kingdom and want it to stay that way and not be opposed
It's corny in 2021 but it's all in scripture. The standards are there and the further away we have gone from that the more chaotic our people have become.
This guy gets it.
It's literally 4D chess. Empower and appeal to the ego of the woman. Disenfranchise, demonize and deplatform the image, position and authority of the man, ensuring that the entire community stays at the bottom. Because the woman will regurgitate and teach the ideologies and teachings of whoever is in power and is giving them crumbs to the next generation that she is put in charge of presiding over.
The woman is not a leader. She will not lead her people to any kind of real salvation. Thier followers by nature.
It's high level divide and conquer 101. It's what you do when you're at the top of a society / kingdom and want it to stay that way and not be opposed
Most of the academic peers he works with who were activists and the like and survived the 70s and 80s, including Karenga, engaged in subversive tactics in the Black revolutionary struggle.
We can’t say for certain if they were feds or not, especially with the differences in ideology, but I look at him as funny as I looked at some of the Steinem acolytes.
Asante and Orlando Patterson are a few of the others (though he's been critical of Asante), in this grouping. There's a term some people use and call it "doing the fed's work," basically acting as a counterforce without actually being on the payroll.
I'm not saying he's a fed tho
They target Black men and Black woman - the idea of a "double minority" that fulfills two spots instead of one doesn't really happen in any of these pseudo-affirmative action programs.
What's your critique of Curry
And I think you're misunderstanding "intersectionality." It doesn't mean "more oppressed" it means oppressed in different ways, different factors, and different effects.
I like some of Curry's ideas actually, there should be focuses on both Black women and men extensively. I find an issue with him that are actually obvious: (1) he tries to place Black male studies in opposition to a lot of the Black studies and Womanist work that's already been published - instead of in tandem with it. It seems he's got chip on his shoulder concerning it, a lot of his conclusions are decades old (Frantz Fanon, E. Franklin Frazier, Oliver C. Cox, Huey P. Newton, Angela Davis, Gerald Horne, and Du Bois came to those conclusions already), but he'll package them as a new phenomenon and posit them in a way that seems like they were being stifled by "intersectional" work.
It's simply not true.
And when you're attempting to describe someone as the "most oppressed" you're starting off on ridiculous footing. Black men and Black women face different systemic issues.
TheAnointedOne
Superstar
And black feminists don't do the boldest is that what you're saying?
Most of the academic peers he works with who were activists and the like and survived the 70s and 80s, including Karenga, engaged in subversive tactics in the Black revolutionary struggle.
We can’t say for certain if they were feds or not, especially with the differences in ideology, but I look at him as funny as I looked at some of the Steinem acolytes.
Asante and Orlando Patterson are a few of the others (though he's been critical of Asante), in this grouping. There's a term some people use and call it "doing the fed's work," basically acting as a counterforce without actually being on the payroll.
I'm not saying he's a fed tho
They target Black men and Black woman - the idea of a "double minority" that fulfills two spots instead of one doesn't really happen in any of these pseudo-affirmative action programs.
And I think you're misunderstanding "intersectionality." It doesn't mean "more oppressed" it means oppressed in different ways, different factors, and different effects.
I like some of Curry's ideas actually, there should be focuses on both Black women and men extensively. I find an issue with him that are actually obvious: (1) he tries to place Black male studies in opposition to a lot of the Black studies and Womanist work that's already been published - instead of in tandem with it. It seems he's got chip on his shoulder concerning it, a lot of his conclusions are decades old (Frantz Fanon, E. Franklin Frazier, Oliver C. Cox, Huey P. Newton, Angela Davis, Gerald Horne, and Du Bois came to those conclusions already), but he'll package them as a new phenomenon and posit them in a way that seems like they were being stifled by "intersectional" work.
It's simply not true.
And when you're attempting to describe someone as the "most oppressed" you're starting off on ridiculous footing. Black men and Black women face different systemic issues.
According to Curry and Johnson, that's not the way intersectionality is taught, and these guys are in academia debating these people. It's assumed that men are privileged over women in general because of patriarchy. I think he actually had to show a prominent black feminist professor that black men didn't make more money than white women
They seem to care more about theory than stats.I never got the sense that he was repackaging something as new, but reintroducing decades old scholarship that mainstream black feminists conveniently ignore. I'm not an academic but from what I keep hearing, writing flashy and provocative papers can get you funding, publishing, and prominence faster than solid/boring research these days. And it's not just in the humanities.
Well yeah, they're central theses are polemics against intersectionality, of course they would lambast it unfairly and mischaracterize the fairly simple concepts.According to Curry and Johnson, that's not the way intersectionality is taught, and these guys are in academia debating these people. It's assumed that men are privileged over women in general because of patriarchy. I think he actually had to show a prominent black feminist professor that black men didn't make more money than white women
I never got the sense that he was repackaging something as new, but reintroducing decades old scholarship that mainstream black feminists conveniently ignore. I'm not an academic but from what I keep hearing, writing flashy and provocative papers can get you funding, publishing, and prominence faster than solid/boring research these days. And it's not just in the humanities.
I would love to see the example of what you're talking about.