On Saturday, the Nation contributor Elie Mystal accurately asserted on MSNBC’s "The Cross Connection" with Tiffany Cross that Georgia's Republican candidate for Senate Herschel Walker was “unintelligent” and bereft of “independent thoughts.” He explained Republicans back Walker because he “is going to do what he’s told ... That’s what Republicans want from their negroes: to do what they’re told.” [MORE]

Probably all true. Walker was an excellent fullback but he is a shenanigger who obviously would handle matters important to Black life with frivolity. As explained by Dr. Blynd, ‘beware of those who don’t read, never let them lead.’ Nevertheless, as FUNKTIONARY explains, all such choices in the Free Range are false (to be discussed infra)

But in what ways are non—threatening rolebots like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker bucking the party line to advance Black people’s interests? And don’t Dems expect OpporTomist Ketanji Brown to function just like Herschel? Judge Brown was selected apparently for her lack of experience and her neutrality to Black criminal defendants, not her pro-Blackness or independent judicial philosophy. [MORE] White liberals don’t approve of that kind of Blackness and prefer to impose members of The Mo-Tea-Suh Tribe (MoreTeaSir?) onto Blacks. Is there a lot of independent Black thought coming out the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, Sharpton etc., whom all fall in line with Dems like butter or mindless borgs? Even BLM, despite their image of being radical, essentially petition authorities to hold cops accountable and encourage voting for Democrats. Protesting to authorities against conduct that is already illegal or advocacy to uphold the status quo through the enforcement of existing laws is actually tame politics. Black dems like Mr. Mystal should stop bullshitting and look in the mirror.

The democratic and republican parties are both plantations. Both parties also function as white parties - owned and run by elite whites who set the political agenda and messaging. Since the 1970’s Black politics has gone from being aggressively results oriented to being activity channelled into voting for the Democratic Party and its grimacing white liberal and black rolebotic or HNIC candidates. With regard to Blacks over the past 25-30 years Democratic party politics can be described as generic, symbolic politics carried out through the appointment, selection or election of Blacks to political positions on many levels. The goal of these SNAG’s, HNIC’s or Strawbosses is to vicariously empower Blacks solely by their existence or personality while delivering nothing of tangible value to Blacks and serving the needs of white Dems. Dumbocrat party politics and its “unintelligent” Black agendas have had no effect on the system of racism white supremacy. For example, in liberal cities like NYC, D.C., Oakland, Chicago and St Louis the quality of Black citizenship stays low, as Black people are; trained with a servant education, harmed and surveilled, stopped and searched by cops as they go about their daily business. There are only a few ways that Americans can meaningfully exercise their citizenship; enlisting in the military, running for national office, voting, serving on a jury and walking/driving (freedom of movement). Yet Black folks are routinely struck from juries, prevented from voting and subjected to policies such as stop, search and frisk rendering their 4th Amendment rights meaningless in reality. Black people in liberal cities own almost nothing in their communities, are underworked in McJobs, live in substandard housing and fill up the liberal criminal courts, jails and homeless shelters, etc.

Nelly Fuller correctly describes Blacks as “the powerless class.” He states "in a socio-material system dominated by elite racists, all major decisions involving Black people are made by elite racists. Elite racists are their bosses, their masters, and their major decision-makers.’ In urban areas Black people such as BOHICANs Muriel Bowser or Eric Adams may be on the face of things but elite racists are the underlying power controlling commerce, utilities, jobs and all important resources. Dr. Amos Wilson explains, ‘To live under the power of white people is to be created by white people. To be rewarded or punished by white people is to be created by white people. We are living under them as the result of the exercise of the power of white people over us. Therefore, if we wish to change this situation (i.e., the conditions under which we live), then we must change the power relationships. If we are to prevent ourselves from being created by white people and are to engage in the act of self creation, then we must change the power relations.’ [MORE] So, Mr. Mystal is only half-right. Does he think he is serving his own people when he cheerleads for white liberals? Consensual, voluntary master-servant relations, which are the gravamen of racism white supremacy, is something Black people can control and such relations must be destroyed at once.

Elite whites maintain both plantations for all people. Black people on these plantations (or free range prisons) are constantly under anxiety and forced into greater confinement. At any rate, all statists (Dems, GOP, libertarians, green) want and need a master to obey and to be responsible for them on their respective plantations. The real question is why have any master in the first place, why be on anybody’s plantation?

FUNKTIONARY explains,

Statism - the belief "citizens"' and "states" exist and the memetic thought patterns supporting such beliefs. 2) the religion of oppression and domination coupled with the science of exploitation and sociopathic control. 3) the opiate of the so-called Elites. 4) a philosophy that idealizes majority rule gang force (authority) over individual authenticity (autonomy). 5) servitude over liberty and statutes over humanity. [MORE]

Undeceiver Larken Rose explains, “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.“

Larken Rose further explains; 

"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.[MORE]