Lion of Ta Meri - A White Demon in Black People

European history proves, beyond any doubt, that they have never had an understanding of God. If they did, they would have never committed the atrocities that they engaged in throughout the world. Therefore, how can we accept their interpretation of the bible or of spirituality, when their actions are so vehemently contrary, and opposed to both. Everywhere they went they were welcomed, fed and sheltered. Only to turn around and murder and enslave their hosts. There is no exception to this. The missionaries preached a false, made up doctrine, that non-whites were divinely inferior to whites, to prepare the indigenous people for perpetual colonization. They promulgated this white supremacist theology everywhere they went, using a false picture of Jesus, created by Michael Angelo, by order of Pope Julius II in 1505. This was the same time period that European slavery began, with the Pope's blessings, as Christopher Columbus sailed out of Europe. The white image of Jesus was used as a psychological tool, to get non-whites to worship, revere and fear the white man. Sadly, that fear and reverence, is still in far too many black people today.

Historically, the pictures of Jesus, and His mother Mary, were black, reflecting their ethnic and geographical origin. Today, in churches all over Europe; in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Poland, Russian, etc., one can find antique pictures and statues of the Black Madonna and Child (examples). Why don't we have these in Africa or South America? What happened, that the entire non-white world is awash with pictures and statues of a white Mary and Jesus? White supremacy is what happened. They could not justify their white supremacist views and mistreatment of non-whites, with a Black Messiah on Calvary. The saviour of the world had to be made white. As a result of white supremacy conquering the world, everything good in the world and in Christianity was made white or associated with whiteness, while everything bad was made black or associated with blackness (look up black and white definitions in the oxford dictionary for evidence of this). The angels are white, Mary is white, the disciples are white, Moses is white, Jesus is white, and God is an old white man sitting on a throne in heaven. However, the devil is never white. He is always red, brown or black.

Today whites tell us that the color of Jesus does not matter. Then why did they change it? If he was a man that lived on this earth, what is wrong with being historically accurate? Can we change the color of Julius Cesar, or Alexander, to black and it be alright, or will it be all wrong? Why do they want us to keep living a lie, when they know it is impossible for Jesus to have been white, as he was neither Roman nor Greek? Neither he, nor his parents ever set foot in Europe. As it is also impossible for Moses to have been white, when he grew up in Pharaoh's palace. Why do they want us to keep looking at these false images, painted with ill motives. Images carry more power than words, and since they decided to doctor the original images, we must now critic these images that are worth a thousand words.

Black children growing up in this white-washed world, see all these positive images associated with whiteness and start hating their blackness. In adulthood, they try to bleach their skin and put on blond and/or straight hair and blue eyes (examples 1, 2, 3). This ideology cuts so deep, that even in an all black nation, the lighter one is, the better they are presumed to be. We managed to cast out this white supremacist demon out of politics, and put in black leaders. Today, we must take the final steps and cast this demon out of education, and most importantly, religion. We, black people, have the deepest and richest history of any people on the face of the earth, and it must be told today (examples 1, 2).

Lion of Ta Meri - The Media and poverty

Mass media sets the talking points within a nation. Most media outlets are owned by the elite. From t.v. and radio stations, to newspapers and book publishers, the vast majority of them are under the control of wealthy individuals. Seeing as the first law, of any creatures' nature, is self preservation, the masses, who are not wealthy, should always be aware that these media outlets will be bias towards the elite and the status quo to varying degrees. It is only intelligent to expect this as the norm, and the few, if any, unbiased ones as the anomaly.

Some media houses are anti-establishment, and attack government policies, with or without officially supporting the opposition. This should however not be confused with them being pro-poor or anti-elitist (anti-capitalist). The suffering masses love to see the object of their oppression take a beating, but that in no way, shape or form, means that the attacker is on their side.

A clear example of this, in African experience, is our interaction with Semitic Arabs. The Africans, who suffered greatly under Roman oppression, were over joyed when the Semitic Arabs attacked them, and drove them out of Northern Africa, back into Europe. However, they did not anticipate that the Semitic Arabs would replace Roman oppression with their own cruel oppression and exploitation of Africans. Just because there is an opposition, does not mean they are your friends. They might kick the oppressor of your back, only to make room for themselves.

The reporters in these media houses are all subject to an editor, who is subject to the owners. There are no poor owners of mass media, so they all intrinsically support the interests of the owners, who are wealthy. This is why no mass media outlets in the world today, aggressively address the systemic causes of poverty and inequality in the world, such as capitalism, privatization, and land ownership. They report on the symptoms and effects, and hardly ever address the root causes. The lack of access to fertile land is the main cause of poverty in the world. Access is denied through the system of capitalism. No capital, no land. Most of peoples' incomes therefore, go to landlords, and this keeps them from advancing in life. Who made them lord over the land? Capital in some cases, the sword in others.

It is immoral to deny any creature on this planet free access to land. To deny any creature land is to bring about their undue suffering, and ultimately, their extinction. We recognized this early on, and created large reserves of land for parks, in which animals could have accesses to land and be free. There is no freedom without land, in which one can exercise their freedom.

If every human being has the right to life, then they must have a right to those things that are a prerequisite for life; air, water and food. Food only comes from land. So land is a right of every human being. There is enough fertile land on this planet to satisfy the needs of every family. The challenge comes from these same elites who own vast expanses of fertile land; hundreds of thousands of acres, when a family could survive extremely well with 1-2 acres of fertile land. Some elites use the land for commercial farming, and sell the food back to the landless, while many don't produce anything with the land.

The reported news we hear, watch and read about, cover the symptoms of capitalism's grip on land and resources. This is the issue at the root of poverty and its vises, facing all nations, from America to Kenya. Before this foreign, British created system, came to indigenous people, there were no millions of hungry or homeless squatters. Land was never for sale anywhere on the earth, except in England where the king kicked out the church and made himself divine, and took control over the land and made landlords, to which he gave title deeds.

A principle rule is; if you did not make it, you cannot own it. Something that is not owned, cannot be sold. No human being ever made air, water or land, so there could never be a right of ownership. Every living thing needs these three things to live, so they have to be shared for balance to be maintained. However, this concept was, and still is foreign to many.

How many reporters can aggressively pursue such stories? How many editors will publish such stories? There's a lot of pain involved in being right in a world gone wrong. But, if you run from pain, you run from life.