The Navig8or Newsletter

Greetings Readers

I hope you are well and thriving. 

I am back after a long hiatus. I have been very busy, and still am, so had to let a few balls that i was juggling fall to the ground so that I could attend to a smaller number of activities. As is often the case it is the unpaid stuff that goes first, hence the newsletter was put on pause. Dr Claud Anderson has often remarked that there are hundreds of White Think Tanks in the US, funded by government, big business and wealthy philanthropists whilst we have one, his Harvest institute. Is it any wonder we so often lose out in the battle of ideas.

October is Afrikan/Black History Month in the UK and the corruption and depolitisization of this cultural concept is almost complete. I did write an essay about this in October 2010 which I have on my computer however it was not published as a newsletter for some reason. Anyway, what described in that newsletter has continued and accelerated up to the present day. You are not going to find the types of issues discussed in this newsletter raised during your typical month long, local authority endorsed, festival of happy Negrotism aka Black History Month.   

In this issue I am going to cover two topics in this issue. First the US Presidential Election, and secondly issues around family formation amongst Afrikans in the US and UK.       


1. The Presidential Selection - The Lesser of Two Evils Paradigm

Well it's nearly upon us. The four yearly US Presidential election which follows the selection by the people who run the US. 
This year features two such odious characters that they are calling it the 'hold your nose election'. What makes it a bit more interesting than usual is trying to work out where Donald Trump is coming from and whether he is really a wildcard candidate or whether this is just part of an elaborate plot to give people the belief that there really is a choice in politics and to ensure that Hillary Clinton, who is without any doubt the servant of vested interests, wins.  

One of the things that interests me is the response of Afrikans in the US, and elsewhere, to the two candidates. Sadly there is nothing unexpected in how Afrikans have responded. It's been the usual herd like, lobotomised reaction of the voting fodder that most of them are. I repeatedly warn you of the dangers of dichotomous thinking i.e. thinking that situations have to be interpreted as either/or scenarios.  
If I pose the question who are you going to vote for? Clinton or Trump, I have already taken you a long way down the rabbit hole.  First, and most importantly I am encouraging you to think that you must vote based upon a whole set of fallacious beliefs/ideas about the benefits voting has brought to you. Secondly, I am inviting you to think that there are only two candidates running for the Presidency, when there are not. Once you have been guided along this train of thought you end up at the I will vote for 'lesser of two evils' destination. The next stop from here is destination Hillary since the White Media have bee waging the most blatantly partial campaign to discredit Trump - which is not hard - and avoid discussing the high crimes of Hillary Clinton.  

Be clear this whole Trump the sexual predator is being carefully co-ordinated across the corporate media who at the same time have studiously avoided mentioning the 20 or so women ho have made accusations of rape and serious sexual assault against Bill Clinton dating back to his student days at Oxford University right up to his time in the White House. Whilst Hillary likes to talk about how all women who make such accusations should be believed she has been at the forefront of attacking her husband's accusers, including using the IRS (Inland Revenue Service) to intimidate them.  

If we go on the Clinton Foundation we have potentially the biggest charitable fraud in history. Their foundation has taken in over $2billion from despots, big business and fraudsters and has delivered remarkably little for the supposed beneficiaries.  Here is the little to an article about the Foundation's work in Columbia, the biggest recipient of donations outside the US. 
http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-victims-colombia/   
If you explore the Foundation's work in Haiti you will see how wicked the two of them are in exploiting people ravaged by disaster for their own ends. They ave racked up a personal wealth of $120 million between them, largely from services rendered to large corporations such as Goldman Sachs who pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars for individual speeches.

We could go on and talk about the email scandals for which Hillary Clinton should have faced criminal charges, but the most frightening aspect of her conduct is her incredible belligerence in foreign policy matters. You may have heard about the Podesta email leaks. These were emails by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager which expose a lot about her character. See the link here   https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release 

To give you an idea of her insane hubris; she was recorded saying, in one of her speeches to the large corporations she serves, that "We discovered Japan" (meaning the US) and that "We are going to ring China with missiles". Be assured that all of your other problems are going to fade into insignificance if this warmonger becomes President and starts a nuclear war with Russia and/or China.  She is a straight up White Supremacist, who when Bill Clinton was President, referred to young Black men as 'super predators' as part of setting the scene for the greatest programme of mass incarceration in the history of the United States. She did not say Black she used the racial code word 'urban' however White America understood the message and supported the sentiment which was "we are going to lock up those young Nig**rs!

So, when you see all those stupid Negroes at her rallies getting all dewy eyed at the prospect of the first female President of the United States, just remember that these are same types of fools who bought into the whole First Black President mess with Obama and look at how it is now open season on Afrikans in the US after 8 years of his honeycoated BS. I warned you about Obama before he became President and I am warning you about Clinton before she becomes President. She is even worse than Obama and even worse than George W Bush. She is a pathological liar, a crook and a vile warmonger.. ad those are her good points!!

So, why the focus on Clinton and not Trump? Well, it should be obvious. The whole of the media apparatus is focused on discrediting Trump and most Afrikans get their news from these sources. To be sure Trump is a vile reprehensible human being. He is crude, has no filter and taps into the hateful underbelly of America. However he also sometimes raises some important issues about the economic rape and deindustrialisation of the US. About the corruption of Wall Street and the politicians they buy. He is also less aggressive in his rhetoric towards Russia and talks about negotiating with Putin rather than threatening Russia with more missiles on its borders.

The bottom line is that there is no winner in this election for Afrikans in the US; or worldwide. I would actually say that Trump is potentially  the lesser of two evils, since Clinton's evil is proven; whereas Trump's is just potential at this stage, however I would never vote for him.

Whatever happens, political winter is coming. Afrikans are going to have to huddle together for warmth or face a slow, painful; economic, and in some cases physical, extermination.  The political chickens have com home to roost. 'Organise or Perish' as Marcus Mosiah Garvey said.

You can get some insight into Hillary Clinton from this youtube video. It's about forty minutes long, but it's around halfway where she starts to talk about how the Clinton's targeted Afrikan communities for incarceration in private prisons and other such crimes.     

CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: DONALD TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT! DARK JOURNALIST 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1U4VKrCksI

2. Family Formation amongst Afrikan people in the US and UK - Moving Beyond Victimhood
 
This topic is probably going to be viewed as controversial, however some things just need to be said and the topic of this issue has been preying on my mind for many years and it needs to be addressed without all the hate and vitriol that is normally associated with commentary on such issues. This subject of this section of the newsletter would probably not be a very wise topic if my chief preoccupation was to build up my subscriber numbers, however as I am more concerned about the quality of readers than the quantity, it’s OK and my ego can cope with the people who will probably unsubscribe in a fit of pique over this issue. Over the years I have realised that it is much more important to convey ideas than to try to please my readers. So, some of you will not like this  issue, however if you are grown up you will realise that (a) it does not mean that I dislike you, and (b) you do not have to dislike me. We have to get beyond that and focus on solving our myriad problems. 
 
This issue of the newsletter is likely to irritate, antagonise and perhaps upset some of you. I anticipate this reaction from a portion of you because I am going to go against the prevailing ideological grain, certainly that which prevails amongst the 'conscious community'. Looking back over the years I realise that there are a number of ideas that I have not agreed with that are accorded widespread support in this small portion of the Afrikan community. These include: The Continentalist version of Pan-Afrikanism, the myth that Afrikan societies were predominantly matriarchies (as opposed to matrilineal or matrifocal), the need to focus on external reparations (rather than internal reparations) in the context of Afrikan people's current pitiable condition, the promotion of the Willie Lynch myth as a valid explanation of our current and historical plight, the idea that we should not study the work of writers/thinkers from other cultures etc.
I have observed that there is a tendency in the 'conscious community' to gloss over difficult subjects and contradictory views held by the intelligentsia in the name of unity. This is understandable given our desire to present a united front, however it means that important issues are evaded. One such issue relates to the question of Victimhood and personal responsibility.

There is a strong current of thinking amongst significant elements of the 'conscious community' which promotes what I describe as 'the cult of Victimhood'. In this ideological paradigm The White Man runs the universe, the White Man is all powerful and Afrikans are hapless victims devoid of individual or collective agency. Every malady afflicting Afrikans is as a result of this victimisation and the logical conclusion of this type of thinking is that only Europeans can solve these problems, which of course they have no interest in doing. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the position of Afrikans is helpless and hopeless, unless Europeans have a change of heart.

I don't often quote Jesse Jackson, however I believe it was he who said "just because you have been victimised you do not need to act like a victim", so this newsletter is going to be a call for more honesty and personal responsibility amongst Afrikans and an exhortation for us to reject victim ideology and replace it with an ideology of personal agency, psychological and emotional resilience and empowerment.

I am going to step into the controversial arena of family formation and relationships to exemplify why we need to reject the victim ideology and the self serving but destructive ideas it foments.

I am going to examine the family formation patterns of Afrikans of Caribbean lineage in the UK and so- called Afrikan-Americans. I am choosing these two sub-groups because
i. I belong to the former group and know it's culture better than any other,
ii. I have studied the latter group very closely as they exert disproportionate impact upon the thinking and behaviour of Afrikan people globally, and
iii. Both of these groups demonstrate some of the most counterproductive patterns of family formation, allied to rationalisations to justify their actions.

I am going to preface my remarks by saying that my comments are going to focus on relationships that produce children since this is where the real harm occurs in terms of group development. I will use generalisations and statistics to amplify the points I want to make. This is inevitable and necessary and therefore just because a generalisation pertains to your situation it does not mean that it is about you and should not be read as such. One has to look at overall outcomes and averages etc. when examining issues which relate to a large group of people otherwise one is left with just anecdotes and personal experiences - which I will use -  which whilst often useful to exemplify an issue do not provide sufficient rigour to justify altering social policy or the prevailing cultural narrative.
Also, there is the real issue of correlation and causation. Correlation does not necessarily prove causation and I am very well aware of that, however I think the evidence I will offer to support my points provides very strong support for my arguments.
So let's get into this subject.

Marriage
Marriage is a cultural institution which first developed in Afrika. The primary purposes of marriage were:

- to provide a stable environment for the raising of children
- to provide material security for women who were restricted in terms of their economic productivity by the rigours of pregnancy and breastfeeding (each child for perhaps two years).
- To bind men into society and give them increased confidence that the children they were providing for and helping to raise were their biological offspring.

In this context a woman was looking for a potential husband who was economically productive and responsible. What we would now refer to as a 'socially adaptive male'.
This masculine ideal created a psychological imperative amongst males to strive and be productive if they wanted to get married and have children. Amos Wilson has spoken about this masculine ideal and imperative and how manhood is a prize that males had to attain through overcoming tests such as embedded in the rites of passage process. The Masai and Sambura peoples of East Afrika are two often cited examples, but there are plenty of other examples amongst other Afrikan and non- Afrikan people who are not noted as warriors. The book 'Manhood in the Making' by Gilmour provides a good overview across different cultures.

If we fast forward to the present day in the UK and US we see that the institution of marriage has broken down almost completely in large segments of our case study groups and that the aforementioned masculine imperative has similarly all but disappeared in large swathes of these populations, as irresponsible men (as long as they can demonstrate certain superficial traits) can get as much sex as they want; and have as many children as they want without ever having to make any significant commitment to a woman, let alone get married.

Now, I have written and spoken at length about the Economic, Social and Political context of marriage  - see 'Blue Skies for Afrikans' What's Love got to do with it' etc - so nothing I say I this newsletter should be understood or interpreted as a repudiation of the influence of this broader context, however in this issue I want to focus on personal responsibility and decision making.

The Importance of Marriage and Committed Relationships for childrearing 

There is a whole host of evidence and studies which demonstrate the much poorer life outcomes for children raised in single parent households compared to those raised by married couples. This includes such issues as academic achievement, school drop outs, incarceration, substance misuse, earnings and wealth and almost every significant outcome in life. Despite this it has become socially blasphemous to highlight the destructive effects of the massive rise in single parent households on our case study groups N.B. There is no such thing as a single parent family from an Afrikan cultural perspective, which I have explained in detail in my books.
If you control for children from single parent households much of the massive disparity in incarceration rates between Afrikan-Caribbeans/Afrikan Americans and Whites actually disappears, however we cannot discuss such realities because of the uncomfortable places where they lead us.
Now, one of the seemingly strong arguments against the importance of marriage theory says that if you control for poverty then the outcomes for the children of single parent households are much closer to those for the children of married couples; and this is indeed the case. However the elephant in the debating room is that a single parent household is on average much more economically vulnerable and more likely to be in poverty or stay in poverty than a two parent household. Here are two articles that highlight the issues that concern me.

'Children in single parent families 'worse behaved'
 "Children raised by single mothers are twice as likely to misbehave as those born into traditional two-parent families, according to research.
 
Some 12 per cent of children brought up by one parent displayed series behavioural problems by the age of seven, it was disclosed, compared with just six per cent of youngsters raised by both natural parents.
The disclosure is made as part of a major study of around 14,000 children born in Britain between 2000 and 2002.
It found that family make-up, parental qualifications and household income had a major effect on children’s behaviour at a young age, which could have “damaging long-term consequences”.
In a separate analysis, researchers also discovered that children with younger mothers had a “much more difficult start in life” than those with mothers over 30.
They were far less likely to have married parents and more than seven times as likely to have step fathers, it was disclosed.
 
Lisa Calderwood, from London University’s Institute of Education, said: “Living apart from natural fathers can be associated with poverty and negative outcomes for children.” …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8064435/Children-in-single-parent-families-worse-behaved.html
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor 7:01AM BST 15 Oct 2010
 
 
'Are Children Raised With Absent Fathers Worse Off?'

Children raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college. [i]  Not all children raised in single parent families suffer these adverse outcomes; it is simply that the risks are greater for them.

…..A recent study by Richard Reeves and Kimberly Howard finds that parenting skills vary across demographic groups and that forty-four percent of single mothers fall into the weakest category and only 3 percent in the strongest category.
The weak parenting skills found among single parents in the study may be related not only to the lack of a second parent, but to a lack of income and education as well. Education, in particular, stands out as the most critical factor in explaining poor parenting. But it is not clear that we should look at these variables in isolation from one another. In real life, compared to married parents, single parents tend to be poorer (because there is not a second earner in the family) and less well-educated (in part because early childbearing interrupts or discourages education), and this is what matters for their children. 
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/07/15-children-absent-fathers-sawhill By: Isabel V. Sawhill July 15, 2014 

You will find contradictory research cited by groups such as Gingerbread in the UK that campaign on behalf of single parent households however if you explore the research they use you will see that they virtually always control for key factors such as poverty which as the above article highlights are inherently much more frequently associated with single parent households.

How the Welfare State became Daddy
In general, when you subsidise something it increases and one of the consequences, intended or otherwise, of the welfare state has been the subsidising of irresponsibility. Now, it needs to be acknowledged that there are nearly always negative unintended consequences of any major social policy and the creation and in particular massive expansion of the welfare state has had such attendant negative consequences, particularly in the realm of family formation.  The pendulum has swung from a position where there was shame attached to being an unmarried mother to one where single mothers now expect housing and benefits for as many children as they care to produce by as many fathers as they care to choose.
Here is an extreme example of the madness that has infected our people. 
Black Welfare Mother with 15 Kids says "Somebody Needs to Pay for all my Children!"
You can hear the above quote at 2mins 18 secs of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0QBD6CXgdo 

There can be no male reproductive irresponsibility without female reproductive irresponsibility

There is a myth that is regurgitated as if it is fact that needs to be firmly squashed. This myth states that the massive levels of single parent households amongst Afrikan-Caribbeans and Afrikan-Americans is caused by male irresponsibility and Afrikan men from these groups refusing to marry. This is such a ridiculous and nonsensical generalisation as to be laughable if it was not so widely believed. The reality is that we have at least as big a female irresponsibility problem as male irresponsibility problem, however because of the different ways in which we view men and women we treat irresponsible women as victims and irresponsible men as perpetrators.  Let me explain.

When it comes to sex between consenting adults, in an era where contraceptive aids are freely available, each party is responsible for managing their fertility. The only party who can fool the other with regard to contraception is the woman. A woman knows if a man is using contraception, except in the unlikely scenario that he lies and says he has had a vasectomy, so the idea that women having unprotected sex with, and getting pregnant by; irresponsible men are victims is ridiculous.

The truth is that if a woman has sex with an irresponsible man she is being irresponsible. If she does not know the character of the man she is having sex with she is being irresponsible, so there is no get out clause that he tricked her. If you are being sensible you don't have unprotected sex outside of a committed relationship in which you both agree you want children and are ideally married.
Another truth is that there are a minority of irresponsible men who are getting multiple women pregnant and these women know the character of these men and are happy to roll the pregnancy dice with them. What is really galling to me is that it is many of these type of women who then spew out the 'there are no good black men nowadays' nonsense. The unpalatable truths for these women, which most people instinctively know, but don't say, and which certainly responsible men know, is that most responsible childless men do not want to marry single mothers. This is so obvious that it is amazing that it needs explaining, however since it apparently does I will do so.  When I was a single childless man I did not want to settle down with a single mother, because I simply did not want the hassle of baby mother/ baby father drama and the 'you're not my Dad you can't tell me what to do' challenge from step children. Life is hard enough as it is without voluntarily complicating it. The more children a single woman has the lower her chances of getting married. This is a simple truth. To have children with irresponsible men and then chastise responsible men for not wanting to marry you is the height of hypocrisy. Insert chart of ages of single mothers.
Another obvious question that needs to be asked is that if the women are so responsible and the men so irresponsible then why are the young men of today, the majority of whom are raised primarily by single mothers decried as being irresponsible!!

The reality is that there are economic, social and cultural factors which impact on marriage and family formation, however the cult of Victimhood and in this case female Victimhood is supporting and justifying people's irresponsibility.

Irresponsible fathers are derided as deadbeat Dads and are even imprisoned in the US for failing to pay child support. On the other hand, as this video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOCNoMMJGSs amply demonstrates irresponsible women are given housing ( or beg for housing), benefits and sympathy as if they were forced to have sex with irresponsible  men (It's pretty much only those with children who are going to eligible for this public housing). You may notice that this film looks like footage we are used to seeing during famines in Afrika except in this case the people are pleading for housing applications rather than food. This footage from Atlanta (the so-called Black Mecca), which I have highlighted before,  perfectly captures the result of this victim culture. Thousands of overwhelmingly Afrikan women out in the blazing hot sun begging the State for a lottery ticket for housing. There is footage of this event from another television company in which you see a Black woman attributing her fortune in getting a chance to apply for housing (not actually getting a house) to Jesus; and it's a perfect example of learned helplessness and victim ideology. People who have made bad decisions in the expectation that the State would be there to bail them out and are lost when it does not. If you think I'm being harsh, ask yourself where are all the Europeans, Chinese, Indians, Arabs etc. in this crowd? Afrikans are only around 50% of the population of Atlanta but virtually 100% of this massive crowd.

The rise of the Breeders
During enslavement breeding farms arose in the US, particularly after the importation of Afrikans was banned. These farms mainly focused on breeding for certain physical attributes.
Well, we have come full circle with some Afrikans voluntarily reproducing without any significant emotional or psychological attachment to their procreational partner.
Here is a little anecdotal example from my experience.
Many years ago when I was in my twenties I was introduced to a 'brother' who we will call Mr B who was dating a friend of a friend. The young Caucasian woman this man was seeing was childless, however Mr B had already stacked up 13 children by nine women. The mothers were Afrikan(Caribbean) and European. I was reasonably naive and whilst I had heard of such characters in community folklore, I had never had the chance to get an insight into the thinking of such an individual. I started with a bit of fun and asked him how old his children were. I must admit to not being surprised as he struggled to recall the ages of his offspring.
Over time, following several discussions with Mr B, what became clear to me was what I have discussed in this newsletter, namely that the mothers of his children were not victims. They were perpetrators like Mr B and the only victims were their poor hapless offspring. Mr B shared with me that several of his Baby Mothers were well acquainted with each other, apparently with little to no animosity between them. He also made it clear that he had no shortage of female admirers despite his rugby league team of children.
Mr B drove a distinctive prestige German car. It was not new, but new enough to attract attention and he told me that when he went to clubs, upon exiting he would find women's phone numbers placed under his windscreen wipers. Now the context is that this was in a medium sized city with a small Afrikan-Caribbean population; so it is almost certain that his female admirers were well aware of his paternal background. So; it is quite clear that these females did not fit the notion of the abandoned female who would happily marry their baby’s father if only there were enough decent men around. These were unmarriageable, irresponsible women happy to have children with an irresponsible male.


Take a similar story from the U.S.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXY28nnxuh8 Man with 30 kids asks for a 'break'
This is a story about a Tennessee man who had fathered 30 children by 11 women by the age of 33 years of age! 
This irresponsible man has impregnated a horde of irresponsible women and yet if you watch the video you will see that the story as presented on US TV channels and in UK newspapers such as the Daily Mail, is depicted as being exclusively about a Deadbeat Dad? It is so ridiculous to see the mothers being presented as if they were vestal virgins who had been despoiled then abandoned by this terrible men. The truth, as in my earlier anecdotal story is that these women knew exactly what they were doing. Some of them had more than one child by this man. You will also notice that the reporters never explored how many of them had multiple fathers for their children. In one instance one of these ridiculous women had taken this Deadbeat Father to court for less than $2 a week in child support. This is a man who was working a minimum wage job and had fathered 30 children! What was the point of taking him to court except as an act of vindictiveness which provided the possibility of getting him imprisoned for non-payment of child support, which is a felony in some US States. So, this is the prevailing narrative. Men and women, who sometimes barely know each other's first names, have consensual, unprotected sex but it is only the men who are irresponsible when the children come along.

As I said earlier; when you subsidise an act it increases and since the sexual revolution of the 1960s we have gradually seen the costs of single parenthood moved from the parents and family of the mother; and sometimes father, onto the State. The balance of  risks and rewards has been fundamentally changed, hence irresponsible men can now get as much sex as they want, whilst responsible men are supposed to assume some form of collective responsibility and guilt for the acts of these irresponsible men and the irresponsible women they impregnate.

All of these self-inflicted wounds are rationalised under the rubric of Victimhood, where Afrikan people adopt the psychological position of objects floating in a sea of White Supremacy, being tossed hither and thither, like so much flotsam and jetsam. In this world it's harsh and uncaring to suggest that grown adults should recognise the need to control their fertility. It is wrong to point out the overall much more negative life outcomes for children raised in single parent households compared to married households, because of the desire for some contrived unity based upon individual feelings rather than values and principles and most importantly ‘What Works’ or at least what is most likely to work in childrearing.

Well, I say that life is tough enough as an Afrikan living in a hostile society without making it tougher voluntarily. We need to recognise where we are being victimised but reject the cult of victimhood. We have all faced stresses, strains and pain in life - some significantly more than others - and we all have the ability to heal and learn and make decisions as adults with regard to our individual behaviour. We need to become the most disciplined and focused people on Earth, not the least disciplined and focused and whatever mistakes we have made we should at least be honest with our children so that they don't repeat them rather than seeking to justify actions that don't aid group development.
Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do something. Just because you can get pregnant does not mean you should get pregnant. Just because you can get a woman pregnant does not mean you should. People having children just because they want a child is the height of selfishness. The desire for a child is only the starting point and has to be balanced against your capability of raising a child effectively. The idea, which I have heard promulgated, that all we need to do is simply focus on the quantity of child production, irrespective of the quality of child rearing is just plain stupid. Of all people we should know that organised, disciplined and well funded minorities can defeat and control far larger groups of disorganised, impoverished people. Think back to the Congo, where literally a few hundred Belgian colonialists controlled a country the size of Western Europe and its tens of millions of Afrikan inhabitants. Between the mid 1880s and early 20^th century they oversaw a genocide that reduced the population from around 30 million to round 10 million. This was the worst genocide in the last 150 years. Look at South Africa and Zimbabwe and my points need no further explanation. We need more people with sense who are emotionally balanced, not just more people.
For me this is not a moral issue. I am not religious and so no driven by any particular theological instructions. If women having four children by four different men, conceiving those children in a back alley and never getting married was the most productive way for us to produce children and overthrow White Domination (and any other type of domination) then I would say to women go forth and multiply as you see fit. It’s all for a good cause! However, as we all know (I hope all), nothing no gwarn so.

We have destruction tested the ideas that marriage does not matter and that children don’t need fathers, because Mummy can play both roles just as well; and the test results are in and we have achieved a collective FAIL. In the United States and Britain we do not have a single Black community worthy of the name and the majority of our people are preoccupied with soothing their pitifully damaged racial self-image via empty, superficial symbolism, such as President Barack Obama, which does not address a single problem we face. Now, that the economy has been looted the white economic breast is being withdrawn from hungry Afrikan mouths and we face a perilous future. If we are not careful we are going to look back on the second half of the 20^th century as the good old days! You may have thought  it was hyperbole when I wrote about the purge of Afrikans in a previous issues, however you wait and see what happen after the US Presidential selection, whoever wins. The gloves are really going to come off.   

Well that's it, probably not my most popular issue I will speculate, however as I always say, you don't have to agree with or believe anything I say, I just want you to think about it and use your intelligence to question ideas you take for granted.
There is nothing more important than how we raise our children and having a child is the biggest commitment you can make. If two people are married for 20 years and have no children, they can divorce divide their assets and never have any further connection or contact with each other. However if two people meet for the first time, have unprotected sex in the back of a car and produce a child; they are connected for the rest of their lives. That's why I always say that having a child is a bigger and more daunting commitment than getting married, however in my so-called community it seems that most people have not read the memo!

In preparing this newsletter I have been doing a bit of reminiscing, looking back over my newsletter archive. You can find the 2008-2010 issues here:  http://houseofknowledge.org.uk/newsite/index.php/contact-us/navig8or-past-issues. I came across an issue from October 2010 which contained a charter for Afrikan Power. I thought you may also find it interesting. Here is the link http://houseofknowledge.org.uk/newsite/documents/2010%2010%20-%20Oct%20Navig8or%20Newsletter.pdf   The charter starts on page 12. You will see that pretty much all of the topics I  regularly cover in this newsletter are contained within the charter. There is also a section on our failed alliances which is earlier in the newsletter.

Remember, 'Power is the ability to define reality and have other people respond to your definition as if it were their own' (Professor Wade Nobles). It's time for us to start redefining our reality and let go of this cult of victimhood.
 
As usual I am happy to hear from you with your views and responses as long as they are reasoned and thought through!

It's time to win. 

Stay Blessed


Ifayomi
http://blackfinancialfitness.com