I am for Afrakan-centered unity, not "Black" unity. People often assume that they are the same thing.

Black unity is the concept that people unify with anybody who has Black skin; as a result, they often find themselves uniting with people who are Eurasian Supremacists (since 95% of Black people are devout Eurasian supremacists) and if you unify with them they will only lead…
…you to their Eurasian master. Most activist in the Black population only preach Black unity, which is why we are not able to develop anything.

This was the same problem with Nkrumah's Pan-African unity.
It resulted in exploitation of the concept by Arabs, Asiatic "Berbers," Chinese and Indians, and even Europoids.

Afrakan-centered unity is distinct from Black unity because it requires the Black person to be Afrakan-centered.
This safeguards the unity because they don't just have skin in common, but common understanding. This is essential because in order to build something we have to have a common understanding of what we are building, why, and for whom.
That common understanding is absent from "Black" unity movements because there are too many varying agendas, most of which are focused on Eurasiancentric rewards.
I know this is very taboo to talk about in our population because we want our race to unite, but you are being quixotic and naive if you believe that a pale Jesus worshipping Black, a beige Arab worshipping Black, or even an Einstein worshipping Black can ever help in building…
…a Black nation; they are psychologically compelled to hand over whatever they build to the people who look like their prophets.

This is why we have to be very clear about what Black people we are unifying with.
The interrupter will tell you that you're not being about unity but the truth is, for something to unify, it must distinguish itself from that which is not a part of the unifying whole. This requires more than racial unity but also a united consciousness.
What empowered the Europoids was their racial unity but ALSO religious unity (Christianity). This is why they fought with other pale races that look like them but did not agree to the religious unity.
Many Muslims, such as Turks and Iranians, do not look much racially different than Greeks or Italians, yet they are enemies to Europoids because they won't abide by religious unity with Europoids.
The Europoid Jew, who is just as pale as any Europoid, was oppressed only because they would not unify with the larger Europoid religious ideology.
The only reason Jews were allowed to be is because their Europeaness was necessary for the Christians to continue the promotion of a Europoid looking Jesus.
At the end of the day, it has been the Afrakan descendants acceptance of any Black that has prevented us from uniting with the right Blacks.
You throw all the fruit you gather into a basket without eliminating the ones that are bad, you will end up with a basket full of all bad fruit because one can spoil all.

(Kushite Pharaoh Natakamani, Meroitic Dynasty.
Altar of Smai Taui with Heru and Tehuti.)

More from History

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.