From [HERE] Nike’s latest “Just Do It” ad campaign includes a number of showcase Black athletes: LeBron James, Serena Williams, Odell Beckham Jr. — and non-showcase Black, Colin Kaepernick.

Kaepernick’s activism was audaciously displayed on a larger platform in Nike’s multi-national ad campaign, featuring a video and image of Kaepernick with the tagline: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” [their slogan diminishes Kaepernick to a “believer.” How stupid. Kaepernick spoke about what he saw, experienced and knew to be reality; a system of oppression that refuses to punish white cops who murder Blacks in broad daylight and rewards them for doing so. Racism and its symptom, police brutality are highly observable phenomenons. He did need not “beliefs.” Persons who sacrifice for beliefs want to be deceived - “a Believer is one who accepts that which has no basis in reality. 2) a person who enjoys being deceived. A believer does not seek—just accepts theologies and/or ideologies.” To the contrary, K-Nick challenged people who cling to jesusized beliefs in “democracy,” “authority” and “government” despite tangible, visible evidence showing otherwise. He gambled - or risked the known for the unknown. A better slogan might be “Only gamblers know what life is, Are you willing to take a risk to attain freedom from an oppressive system?]

Nike’s move led to more uproar from Kaepernick’s critics. Some white customers even ceremoniously burned their Nike apparel and called for a boycott of the company. But for Nike’s core customers — millennials and young urban men — this ad sent a strong message of solidarity.

Consumers and celebrities alike are now supporting Nike for giving Kaepernick that platform. In less than 24 hours after announcing Kaepernick as the face of their new marketing campaign, the sportswear company received more than $43 million worth of mostly positive media exposure, one report estimates.

“What can I do that’s meaningful?” asked Blackish star Jenifer Lewis as she donned a Nike sweater on the Emmys red carpet. “I’ll wear Nike. I’ll wear Nike to say thank you. Thank you for leading the resistance! We need more corporate America to stand up also.”

Some are questioning Nike’s motives. Guardian writer Arwa Mahdawi accused Nike of the latest capitalistic trend, “woke-washing” — that is, using “progressive values as a marketing ploy, appropriating social activism as a form of advertising.” [MORE]

At this point it is probably a good time to think about what “the resistance” is and what it is resisting, what it wants and who it wants it from.

Black “resisters” want “authorities” to enforce existing laws against cops. For the most part, they are not seeking the creation or termination of laws. That is, the “resistance” wants;

1) cops to be held liable in civll courts when they harm or execute Blacks and Latinos and

2) the Government to hold cops accountable for crimes committed against Blacks and Latinos and be subjected to discipline or termination in a process they can participate in and

3) to stop cops from interfering with their “rights” and harming and killing them.

No radical stuff here. What could be extremist about protesting against conduct that is already illegal? The “resistance” or BLM is what it is - people should be upset when so called “government servants” attack “citizens.” BLM or the resisters are asking cops and prosecutors to do their jobs. The resistance is simply seeking enforcement of the status quo [upholding existing laws] and equal treatment under the law. For the most part, BLM effectively organizes non-violent, lawful protests aimed at police after they unlawfully harm or kill Blacks or Latinos.

Yet, through propaganda and “propagenda” elite racists in government and media have given the public the perception that they are doing something much more than just simply blowing off steam. Like picking up the wrong luggage at the airport the resistance is perceived and has misperceived itself to be carrying on a struggle like Malcolm X or the BPP waged back in the day.

Debate in a de-mockery cannot be stilled but it can be controlled and constrained within “proper” bounds. Doggy sets the table for us or “controls the spectrum of ideas” discussed by “citizens” - encouraging us to think within certain boundaries of “thinkable thought” while enforcing the belief that freedom reigns. Such debate or “resistance” is desirable for tyrants in a corporate police state because it keeps the peasants thinking they are participating, knowledgable or involved without providing them any real means to achieve freedom.” [MORE] Dr. Amos Wilson states, "the central aim of the ruling elite's ideology process is to define the "domain of discourse." That is, the corporate elite seeks to define the limits of "acceptable ideas" and to define what is worth talking about, worth learning, teaching, promoting, and writing about. Of course, the limits of the "acceptable," the "responsible," are set at those points which support and justify the interests of the elite itself." [MORE]

In reality, the alleged “resistance” is really very tame politics engaged in by obedient citizens also known as propagandhi. Elites have drawn the parameters of Black dissent by programming Blacks to believe that what is actually common sense and essentially conservative is somehow "radical" politics. Therefore, Blacks reject common sense in rejecting "the radical" or what is perceived as "radical." Consequently, law abiding or obedient Blacks will not pursue things that anyone else with common sense would pursue- because to do so would be revolutionary! The resisters are not resisting anything. They are expressing genuine, common sense outrage at an unaccountable system of white collective power: racist suspect jurors, judges, prosecutors, fellow cops, media and businesses that support, defend and finance a cop’s right to murder or harm Blacks. But what else?

So long as the agenda is limited to better police training, more diverse police forces, enhancing police-community relations with better shows of “respect,” the use of body cameras, appeals to morality and other “properly framed” issues, then the game is basically over; excluded from the discussion/protest are defunding, terminating or disarming police departments, ending the doctrine of qualified immunity, questioning the role of courts, prosecutors & police in the face of historically low crime rates in the nation’s largest urban areas and much larger issues such as how to attain power to stop racists from practicing racism against us, examination of our own consensual role in the system of racism white supremacy, how to hold government accountable, the legitimacy of government in the first place, its authority or its right to “represent us” and rule over us and whether government is even needed.

It would also be completely “out the box” for resisters to advocate for self-defense or violent disobedience or protest. Elites have programmed Blacks to advocate a philosophy of non-violence and disarmament. This ideology fails to take into account that the other people surrounding Blacks - that is, racist white people, are not non-violent and are functioning as genocidal psychopaths in their provocative relations with Blacks. It also falsely assumes governments and police exist to protect us. ‘Non-violence has made Black people just like butter – you just cut into them with your knife, and there is no response just reaction with no meaningful repercussions. And thousands can be killed and demeaned without any violent resistance, because resistance would be violence and disobedience to authority.’

The resistance feels busy by heckling NFL fans in the parking lot and blocking traffic or disrupting shoppers buying Christmas gifts. But these activities and many more are absolutely ineffectual and ultimately have nothing to do with fighting the power of racism white supremacy. Along with voting, elite racists allow the resistance to protest as non-violent outlets for their dissatisfaction. Allowing them to vent, complain and debate - - but at the end of the day Blacks do as they are told. Such activities are just placebos to keep Blacks and Latinos under control in a white over Black system.

Chancellor Williams and Dr. Cress Welsing have both explained that most Blacks 'continue to live in a dream world where they believe that singing, dancing, marching, praying and hoping will solve their problems.' [MORE]

To the extent that resisters predicate “police reform” efforts around the belief that cops exist to protect and serve their communities they are disillusioned. Cops exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison controlled by Government. Their goal is to place you in greater confinement.  As Dr. Blynd observes, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers." Their authority is not legitimate because none is - it is a main source of your oppression. It is rule through your coerced participation and nothing more. Any protection from cops is incidental and random - making us safe is not their goal.

To the extent that protesters efforts are primarily aimed at transforming the thinking and conduct of racists or convincing racists of their inhumanity, such efforts are somnambulistically complementary to the system of racism/white supremacy. Perhaps it is even flattery. Asking master "to do the right thing" at this point in history misses the point entirely and "it is pathological for Blacks to keep attempting moral suasion on a people who have no ethics or morality where race is a variable"- perhaps a sign of a mental disorder. The master-servant relationship must be destroyed, not updated and refined. 

Individuals in “the resistance” discuss racism as bigotry or bad attitudes & behavior, mean words, stereotypes, disrespect and inconveniences to Black people. They do not discuss racism as white supremacy and white supremacy as racism. Belief that racism is only bigotry is a vital part of false programming sold to Blacks and Latinos by the vested interests for their cooperation and submission to their own oppression. [MORE] Defining racism in terms of bad attitude or bigotry leads to solving the wrong problems. [MORE]

Dr. Blynd explains, "Racism is not individualistic, but institutional, cultural, economic, political, linguistic, self-perpetuating and systematic." White Supremacy is a power group dynamic involving the relationship between whites and Blacks in a vast system of unequal power. It is economic discrimination by one group over and against another for the purposes of subjugation and/or maintaining the imbalance of power through cooperative control, misinformation, indoctrination, genocide and oppression. [MORE]  The system of racism/white supremacy is a system of vast unequal power between whites and non-whites. Racists practice racism because they have the power to do so. As explained by Dr. Amos Wilson, 'to end racism/white supremacy we must end or neutralize white power.' [MORE]

Although the system of racism/white supremacy is a main source of Black people’s oppression and dominance, it is not part of the resistance. Rather, it is focused on police brutality and the unequal administration of laws as independent “civil rights issues examined outside the context of racism/white supremacy and not as another symptom of racism/white supremacy - that is, they examine police brutality the way white liberals have defined it for them. Therefore, discussion never concerns how to attain the power to stop racists from practicing racism against them.

The “resistance” can be co-opted by anyone because it is not asking for anything except for better relations with their masters or public rulers. Choices or sides presented by the resistance are false - all statists want the law to be enforced and believe the government serves them despite all evidence to the contrary.

Is there a meaningful counter-protest to “the resistance” - a thoughtful, substantive pro-police brutality argument opposing it? There are few people who articulate support for police brutality and non-enforcement of the law without sounding like neanderthals. This is whitenology, a trick. Like fighting the darkness - consuming your time and energy wrestling with some invisible shit.

Seeking better relations with masters or public rulers is really not dissimilar to the many different plantations that existed during slavery days. Slave masters varied - some plantations offered slaves more privileges, responsibilities and allowances- others were more punitive and maintained by mean cracker slave masters. Obviously, slaves preferred to be on the less punitive master’s planation. Efforts for better relations on the planation only strengthen belief in the authority of the public rulers or masters. So long as they remain masters, they will never serve slaves or be equal with them.

FUNKTIONARY defines “corporate responsibility” as “an oxymoron 2) profits over humanity. No fiction can be accountable to conscious life.” A corporation is “an indispensable tool of Doggy, Hidalgo, Crimethlnc. and the Greater System for the promotion of White Supremacy and the dehumanization and objectification of all biophilic life-forms and life-force. As long as fictions are recognized as having the same rights as flesh-blood and spirit and sanctioned to run amok, more people will continue to be out of control renting their life-style instead of being in control owning and living their own lives.”

Nike and the NFL are large corporations motivated by profit, not securing “justice.” Both corporations are controlled by racist suspects who benefit from the current operating system (OS) and status quo. Nike thoroughly checked out its demographic data and figured its young, progressive, large urban base of consumers probably supported “the resistance.” Unlike Kaepernick they risked very little and are now setting record high profits. In fact, according to Fortune, the Kaepernick’s ads pushed Nike’s market value up $6 Billion, to an all-time high. Such profits probably increase every time some hick county or police department says they are no longer purchasing Nike products. In contrast, the NFL’s [the mean cracker master] demographic is is 83 percent white and 64 percent male and its corporate base of advertisers are elite whites. The NFL also risks very little for its promotions and policy to support “standing up” for the pledge of allegiance at games with said consumer and corporate base [a showing of involuntary servitude]. To the chagrin of “resisters” '[believing they have power that does not exist] NFL advertising revenues are also up [stances against the flag galvanize the NFL fan base in the same way Obama galvanizes the GOP base]. Ultimately, neither stance does anything to alter Black people’s relationship with white people in a white over Black system. But the participants on “both sides” righteously “feel like” they are engaged in a battle and like they are participating in an open society that is in actual reality a granfalloon only existing in between their two ears - a mind fuck or trick bag. Wearing Nike has nothing to do with challenging government authority or racism/white supremacy.

[SNigger Sleeping Toms Spike Lee and Stephen A. Smith discuss nothing really and never offend their masters.]

BI-PARTISAN TYRANNY. This construct is the same nonsense used in electoral politics. The deomcratic and republican parties both function as plantations. With regard to Blacks and Latino citizen-subjects, the democratic party is the nicer, kinder master with its plantation offering more “respect”, privileges and responsibilities to them. Larken Rose states, “There is a big difference between striving for a new, wiser, nobler master, and striving for a world of equals, where there are no masters and no slaves. Likewise, there is a big difference between a slave who believes in the principle of freedom, and a slave whose ultimate goal is to become the new master. And this is true, even if that slave truly intends to be a kind and generous master . . . As long as the people believe in the myth of “authority,” every downfall of one tyrant will be followed by the creation and growth of a new tyrant. “ Rose further explains the following:

“Among those who vote Democrat or Republican – or for any other party – no one recognizes the underlying problem, and as a result, no one ever gets any closer to a solution. They remain slaves, because their thoughts and discussions are limited to the pointless question of who should be their master. They never consider – and dare not allow themselves to consider – the possibility that they should have no master at all. As a result, they focus entirely on political action of one kind or another, But the foundation of all political action is the belief in “authority,” which is the problem itself So the efforts of statists are, and always will be, doomed to fail.

Unfortunately, this is also true of the less mainstream, supposedly more pro-freedom “political movements,” including Constitutionalists, the Libertarian party, and others. As long as they think and act within the confines of the “government” game, their efforts are not only completely incapable of solving the problem but actually aggravate the problem by inadvertently legitimizing the system of domination and subjugation which wears the label of “government.”

The Rules of the Game

Even most people who claim to love liberty and to believe in “unalienable” rights allow the superstition of “authority” to drastically limit their effectiveness. Most of what such people do, in one way or another, consists of asking tyrants to change their “laws.” Whether activists campaign for or against a particular candidate, or lobby for or against a particular piece of “legislation,” they are merely reinforcing the assumption that obedience to authority is a moral imperative.

When activists try to convince politicians to decrease “taxes,” or repeal some “law,” those activists are implicitly admitting that they need permission from their masters in order to be free, And the man who “runs for office,” promising to fight for the people, is also implying that it is up to those in “government” to decide what the peasants will be allowed to do. As Daniel Webster put it, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern; they promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Activists spend huge amounts of time, money and effort begging their masters to change their commands. Many even go out of their way to stress the fact that they are “working within the system,” and that they are not advocating anything “illegal.” This shows that, regardless of their displeasure with those in power, they still believe in the myth of “authority,” and will cooperate with “legal” injustice unless and until they can convince the masters to change the rules – to “legalize” justice. While the intended message of dissenters may be that they disapprove of what the masters are doing, the actual message that all political action sends to those in power is “We wish you would change your commands, but we will continue to obey whether you do or not.” The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed, regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of “authority” is to accept that the choice is the master’s alone to make, which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave.

One who begs for lower “taxes” is implicitly agreeing that it is up to the politicians how much a man may keep of what he has earned. One who begs the politicians not to disarm him (via “gun control”) is, by doing so, conceding that it is up to the master whether to let the man be armed or not. In fact, those who lobby for politicians to respect any of the people’s “unalienable rights” do not believe in unalienable rights at all. Rights which require “government” approval are not unalienable, and are not even rights. They are privileges, granted or withheld at the whim of the master. And those who hold positions of power know that they have nothing to fear from people who do nothing but pathetically beg for freedom and justice, However loudly the dissenters talk about “demanding” their rights, the message they actually send is this: “We agree, master, that it is up to you what we may and may not do.”

That underlying message can be seen in all sorts of activities mistakenly imagined to be forms of resistance. For example, people often engage in protests in front of “government” buildings, carrying signs, chanting slogans, sometimes even engaging in violence, to express their displeasure with what the masters are doing. However, even such “protests,” for the most part, do little more than reinforce authoritarianism. Marches, sit-ins, protests, and so on, are designed to send a message to the masters, the goal being to convince the masters to change their evil ways. But that message still implies that it is up to the masters what the people may do, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: when the people feel beholden to an “authority,” they are beholden to an “authority.” Those in “government” derive all of their power from the fact that their subjects imagine them to have power.

Legitimizing Oppression

The harder people try to work within any political system to achieve freedom, the more they will reinforce, in their own minds and the minds of anyone watching, that the “system” is legitimate. Petitioning politicians to change their “laws” implies that those “laws” matter, and should be obeyed. Nothing better shows the power of the belief in “authority” than the spectacle of a hundred million people begging a few hundred politicians for lower “taxes.” If the people truly understood that the fruits of a man’s labor are his own, they would never engage in such lunacy; they would simply stop surrendering their property to the political parasites. Their trained-in desire to have the approval of “authority” creates in them a mindset not unlike the mindset of a slave: they literally feel bad about keeping their own money and making their own choices without first getting the master’s permission to do so. Even when freedom is theirs for the taking, statists continue to grovel at the feet of megalomaniacs, begging for freedom, thus ensuring that they will never be free.

The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave.

Those who want a significantly lower level of authoritarian control and coercion are sometimes accused of being “anti-government,” an allegation most vehemently deny, saying that they are not against “government” per se, but only want better “government.” But by their own words they are admitting that they do not believe in true freedom, but still believe in the Divine Right of Politicians and the idea that a ruling class can be a good and legitimate thing. Only someone who still feels an abiding obligation to obey the commands of politicians would want to avoid being labeled “anti-government.” Since “government” always consists of aggression and domination, one cannot be truly pro- freedom without being anti-”government.” The fact that so many activists reject that label (”anti-government”) shows how deeply ingrained the superstition of “authority” remains, even in the minds of those who imagine themselves to be ardent advocates of individual liberty.

(… But the road to true freedom has never been, and will never be, a new political ritual, a new “legal” document or argument, or any other form of “political” action. The only road to true freedom is for the individual to let go of his own attachment to the superstition of “authority.”)" [MORE]