Mychal Massie March 13th 2018

I don’t know whether to pity “poe-blacks folks” or to swallow a handful of Prevacid with an Alka-Seltzer chaser for the sour stomach and indigestion their Erebusic jeremiads give me. Their latest being a maudlin treatise written by Sherrilyn Ifill who claims: “Make no mistake: Although the perpetrators of mass school shootings have been almost exclusively white, there’s little doubt that arming teachers will lead disproportionately to the killing – by teachers – of children of color.” (Black Children Will Be the Victims of Armed Teachers; Time; 3/5/2018)

The inculcation of such propaganda into the malleable minds of children should be an indictable offense; but what else can possibly be expected from the scandal-ridden relic Ifill represents.

Ifill is the current President and Director-Counsel of the disgraced NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc (LDF). And it is worth noting that her fallacious assertion that teachers will gun down black students is as morally bankrupt as was her predecessor, Elaine Jones.

Jones, some will recall, was forced to resign in disgrace as head of NAACP LDF when it was exposed that she had allegedly instructed the late Senator Ted Kennedy to have the Senate Judiciary Committee delay the confirmation of Julia Smith Gibbons, nominated by President Bush to serve on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. (See: Memogate)

Speaking at that time in my capacity as Chairman of Project 21, the conservative Capitol Hill Think Tank that shared in the honor of forcing Jones to resign in disgrace, I said: “It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Elaine Jones cast herself on her sword in the light of the ethics complaint against her.”

As I have often said, “the NAACP is a relic that exists for two reasons: 1) to foment discord based upon skin color; and 2) to monetize the discord.

Ifill, with a skill honed from decades of blaming others for the ills of black children, erroneously alleges that a disproportionate number of black children are punished in public schools, but she conspicuously avoids pointing out that the numbers were disproportionate because black children misbehave in disproportionate numbers.

I submit that the last thing Ifill needs to fear is that the arming of teachers will lead to black children being killed by “white” teachers. Ifill is deceitful and dishonest in failing to point out that no one kills blacks in consistently greater numbers than other blacks and Planned Parenthood.

Let’s revisit a few facts I have shared in the past that prove my point:
• Between 1882 and 1968, there were approximately 3,446 blacks lynched in the Untied States. Today in the United States thanks to Planned Parenthood and their participants in the “murder your child” industry, approximately 1,876 black babies are murdered every day. That means the total number of blacks lynched in an 86-year period is surpassed approximately every 45 hours.
• Between 1976 and 2011, 279,384 blacks were killed; 262,621 of them were killed by another black person. That factors out to 94 percent of blacks being murdered by another black person in a 35-year period.
• 17.3 million black babies have been murdered by their black mothers because it is easier to murder the result of immorality than comport themselves morally.
• Thanks to abortion black women are responsible for reducing blacks as a demographic by 30 percent since 1973.
• As Dr. Walter E. Williams has noted: The aggregate number of black soldiers killed in military combat in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and every war since 1980 totals 18,515. That means black males are safer on the battlegrounds of Iraq and Afghanistan than they are in the womb of their mother.

These are only a small profile of the rate blacks kill other blacks. The question I proffer to Ifill is: “In what scenario does she remotely envision armed “white” public school teachers coming anywhere near equaling the number of blacks killed by black mothers every day?” Not overlooking the number of blacks killed by other blacks every day.

Ifill shows her bigoted jaundice toward whites and she unambiguously shows her intentions to monetize her unsubstantiated assertions. She is proof that the NAACP must invent scenarios that are as unlikely to ever take place as her kind are to stop funding Planned Parenthood through the murder of black babies. Inventing lies about white people is the viscous substance Ifill and the NAACP use to fuel their flim-flam machine. — Mychal Massie (Subscribe to my website and my VideoRant YouTube Channel)

Share This!



  1. Pokey Post author

    Mychal Massie
    April 3 at 11:14am ·

    Adding to the jeremiads from the phalanx of skin-color pimps and harlots is Latonia Westerfield. I happened upon an article by Westerfield titled: “Why Black People Don’t Need Jason L. Riley’s Help.” (March 25, 2015)

    Westerfield, as is typical with her kind, had her Hanes, Jockey’s, Victoria Secrets’ or whatever brand of unmentionables she wears, in a Gordian knot because in her mind conservative Jason Riley, had dared impugn the citadel of skin-color identity politics. The citadel Jason had besmirched was the cathedral of “if you’re black, you’re a victim.”

    Jason Riley’s book, titled: “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed,” was the cause for Westerfield’s apoplectic rebuttal.

    Westerfield wrote: “[Riley’s] words are indicative of why in 2015, race and racism are still cause for black people to fill the streets in protest with their hands raised in the air, demanding that their lives be seen as valuable. This is because Riley’s book doesn’t say anything new, in terms of understanding and dealing with issues in black communities, but rather presents the same old argument that dates back to slave auctions—black culture and, by extension blackness is inherently defective, “’if the rise of other groups is any indication, black social and economic problems are less about politics than they are about culture.”’

    If black lives mattered to liberals, 17.3 million black women wouldn’t have paid the progeny of Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” to murder their babies. If black lives mattered and liberal progressive policies actually helped – between 1976 and 2011, 94 percent of all blacks killed, wouldn’t have been killed by other black people.

    Without going into the rest of Westerfield’s maudlin essay, her response validates what I have been saying all of my adult life, i.e., blacks are inculcated from cradle to grave to embrace being victims based upon color of skin. To her kind there is nothing as insufferable as a “black” person who isn’t a victim and who doesn’t harbor deep-seated antipathy against America, (read: white people).

    She finds Jason Riley’s observations as representative of the primary causal factors that result in blacks protesting in the streets. But Westerfield’s accusation is flawed. Protesting in the streets, despite what progressives would have blacks believe, is not defined as looting, rioting, and burning down entire neighborhoods. Reasonable-minded persons understand a protest to be a gathering/march to draw attention to a condition and/or situation. It can be said that the most prolific protests in the history of America were the civil rights marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King. Apparently Westerfield overlooks that: A) they were peaceful; B) they were based upon facts clearly in evidence; and C) they resulted in positive outcomes without burning down neighborhoods while stealing sneakers and televisions.

    Despite Westerfield’s attempt to inject slavery and the slave auctions into her screed, said argument serves only to support the point Jason Riley is making and that I have made ad nauseum. If Westerfield and those like her had valid complaint, they wouldn’t find it necessary to base their arguments upon a practice that ended in America nearly 150 years ago. At what point will these Erebusic skin-color hustlers get over slavery? If the Good Lord tarries, will her kind still be blaming slavery and the “auction block” in the year 2050? What about the year 2075?

    The one point Westerfield makes that I do agree with is that “blackness is defective.” My reasons for same are because neither she nor those of her persuasion are able to present any evidence that basing one’s self-worth upon being a color has accomplished anyhing but discord, immiseration, and animus. The fixation upon color of skin as a credo for self-worth has been an abysmal failure on every quantifiable level.

    Former professional basketball player Charles Barkley, was right in saying: “ The only thing liberals have done for black people is to give them an inferiority complex.”

    Westerfield has a college education and even if she gained entrance into the universities she attended based upon skin-color affirmative action (sarcasm intended), one would think she would be familiar with George Kelly’s quote from his book on Personal Construct Theory: “Psychological disorder is any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent invalidation,” i.e., repeating the same thing failure after failure is a psychological disorder.

    There exists no clearer evidence regarding the truth of Kelly’s statement than the evidence that no demographic, and specifically blacks have been helped by liberal progressives. Being poor, uneducated, and/or unemployed doesn’t justify the aberrant behavior we see exhibited today.

    Apart from what amounts to a free bowl of soup with the number of vegetables in same predicated upon skin color, liberal progressives have contributed nothing to the betterment of blacks. The question that needs be answered is why do those like Westerfield condemn those like Jason Riley and myself who understand this fact?

    I don’t want something based upon my skin color; I want it based upon my ability and merit. — Mychal Massie (Subscribe to my website and my VideoRant YouTube Channel)

  2. Pokey Post author

    Mychal Massie

    In 1964, Republicans – led by Sen. Everett Dirksen, R-Ill. – were responsible for the Civil Rights Act, which overturned 80 years of Democratic opposition to ending race-based and gender-based inequality. It was intended to provide all peoples, regardless of skin color and/or, sex, the right to service in all public facilities, and banned the unequal application of voter requirements insuring all the right to vote. Sexual consideration pursuant to employment could only be considered where sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job.

    The Act should have ended there – allowing society to advance the conditions on its own – but it didn’t. Reducing the requirements for positions that had been male-dominated circumvented the sexual component of the Act. The end result was/is that we now have women performing certain jobs for which they may have passed an exam only because of relaxed employment qualifications – making it a job for which they are not qualified.

    When the bill passed, Dr. Martin Luther King hailed it as one that would “bring practical relief to the Negro in the South, and will give the Negro in the north a psychological boost that he surely needs.” Dr. King’s assessment would have been correct had government not had another more insidious plan.

    I argue that the skin color discrimination component of the bill wasn’t circumvented by ignorance and intrusion. It wasn’t the best-laid plans of man run amok. It was the further implementation of a Wilsonian-Roosevelt-Kennedy template for socialism, vis-à-vis the Great Society Initiatives.

    On one level or another, the Great Society Initiatives were harmful to all, but no group was harmed more than blacks.

    The Great Society theme was the foundation of Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign. Republican candidate Barry Goldwater called for reducing the size of government. But Johnson’s not-so-veiled “government will take care of you” agenda cemented the decline of American civilization – especially for blacks and the elderly.

    Within the construct was a society provided for by government, as government defined the peoples’ needs. Enter programs such as Head Start, which effectively diminished parental responsibility under the guise of providing parental assistance. Government entitlement programs immediately followed.

    As mentioned, what few realized at the time was that Johnson was satisfying that system which had been started by Wilson and Roosevelt. The result was that, today, whites are falsely accused of being disproportionately advantaged – when in fact things are playing out exactly as they had been planned. Blacks are inculcated from the womb with seeds of complaint based on perceived disadvantage.

    Looking backward through the looking glass, it is clear to those who are not afraid to see — that the “Great Society” was never intended to create a better America as we perceive it – it was intended to enable government to take more from us, polarize us to prevent our uniting, and to have us look to it for everything.

    White working-class people gradually came to accept their roles as spoilers and as a superficially superior populace worthy of blame and scorn. They were the foil – the object of consternation – but the system was cruelest to blacks who were stripped of dignity, not by evil white working people (regardless of social-economic strata), but by the federal government.

    When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, 82 percent of blacks lived in married, two-parent households; 40 percent of blacks were small-business owners. In little more than three decades after said signing, blacks went from a legacy of Booker T. Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King, to Al Sharpton, Suge Knight, Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters.

    Blacks went from being proud of learning and prosperity to high school dropouts, broken homes, abortion, drugs, crime, violence and a degradation of aspiration. Blacks went from Duke Ellington and Motown to gangster rap and rap wars.

    Black accountability went out the window. It was replaced with anger, hatred of whites and a refusal to embrace modernity. Then, the cruelest blow of all was, and is, the deliberate destabilization and erosion of everything blacks at one time embraced.

    We didn’t need the Great Society to give America music, culture/art, Head Start, a Department of Housing and Urban Development, manpower, or child nutrition – but government needed those programs to enslave us to their system.

    It’s late in the game to change everything, but it’s not too late to change some of it. We must change our way of thinking – to realize that government is not our friend. — Mychal Massie (Subscribe to my website and my VideoRant YouTube Channel)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please type the characters of this captcha image in the input box

Please type the characters of this captcha image in the input box

What is 15 + 8 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)