COINTELPRO Chapter black feminism

EndDomination

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
31,857
Reputation
7,422
Daps
111,952
It's really bad. Drs. Tommy Curry and T Hassan Johnson opened my eyes. They can explain it better but, it comes down to government programs ignoring the plight of black men and boys, because the intersectional feminists have the ear of policy makers.
Tommy Curry isn’t too far from COUNTELPRO himself :mjlol:
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 :russ:
 

Neuromancer

Live Wire Vodoo
Supporter
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
85,061
Reputation
17,914
Daps
206,184
Reppin
Villa Straylight.
:jbhmm: 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. :skip: 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? :jbhmm:

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 :mjpls:, 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***?? :jbhmm:

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? :skip: Her biggest paydays have been associated with Push (the book) and the film based on it. Kinda like she had only had one job to do. :jbhmm:

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. :mjpls:The sister is a gem expert (again with the bum rule: grandma's maiden name was Perlmutter, ie one who works with or trades in mother of pearl). This is how wiki describes her occupation during the period her sister must have been living with her.

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.

:patrice: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. :ld:

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. :coffee:
It's always the bloodlines.
 

Nar-el

Pro
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
222
Reputation
53
Daps
1,075
Tommy Curry isn’t too far from COUNTELPRO himself :mjlol:
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 :russ:

:comeon: 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 :jbhmm:
 

kevm3

follower of Jesus
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
16,321
Reputation
5,605
Daps
83,691
:picard: 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.:patrice:

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.
 

kevm3

follower of Jesus
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
16,321
Reputation
5,605
Daps
83,691
b0f4f49b-14a1-4053-97f9-f34db0c995ad_resized_.jpg


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.
 

Mowgli

Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
104,367
Reputation
14,159
Daps
246,504
The white man knows giving the woman power will Result in shambles for the boys who become men. They'll become dependant on the government, take on the chaotic nature of the female and maintain/revel in disorder.
 

CW_1991

Banned
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
7,382
Reputation
1,356
Daps
24,307
The white man knows giving the woman power will Result in shambles for the boys who become men. They'll become dependant on the government, take on the chaotic nature of the female and maintain/revel in disorder.

:salute:

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
 

Mowgli

Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
104,367
Reputation
14,159
Daps
246,504
:salute:

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.
 

EndDomination

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
31,857
Reputation
7,422
Daps
111,952
Could you elaborate on this?
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 :hubie:
:comeon: 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 :jbhmm:
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.
 

Nar-el

Pro
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
222
Reputation
53
Daps
1,075
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 :hubie:

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 :mindblown: 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.
 

EndDomination

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
31,857
Reputation
7,422
Daps
111,952
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 :mindblown: 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.
I would love to see the example of what you're talking about.
 
Top