The trials and tribulation of the out of favor kneegrow




As fully and voluntarily made to


 In the prison where he was confined, and acknowledged
by him to be such when read before the Court of
Southampton; with the certificate, under seal of
the Court convened at Jerusalem,
Nov. 5, 1831, for his trial.




Published by Thomas R. gray.
Lucas & Deaver, print.

The above comes from the cover of The Confessions of Nat Turner, a book originally printed in 1831. The book detailed Turner’s life and the events surrounding that brief armed revolt, which left more than fifty men, women, and children dead and that culminated in Turner’s execution. Interviewed by Thomas R. Gray while in prison for his crimes, Turner begins his story with his earliest childhood memories, and the subsequent narrative leads the reader through his decision, formed over years in slavery, to strike for freedom. He discusses his religious conversion and his belief that he was called by God to murder slave owners. He spares no detail as he describes each murder he oversaw or committed. Unique in its historical moment and powerful voice, The Confessions of Nat Turner provides an uncensored look into one of the key events in the slave-holding South.

The name and man Nat Turner, often is spoken with the same reverence and pride of that of Hannibal Baca, another black man who also shook the foundation of white supremacy, albeit during the fledgling growth of the early Roman nations rise to Empire status. Turner, like Baca, became a thorn in the side…or a stick up the ass of white people, who to this day hates the name and the act associated with both, even while Turner’s exploits paled besides that of one of history’s and ourstory’s greatest military minds. EVER!

Nat Turner became sort of an outlier in amurdikkka’s slave narratives, where docile, humiliated and “tragic” men, women and children, were beaten, tortured and terrorized to appear to be accepting of the 250 genocidal years of brutalization, to build the current western nations and economies. So in that vane it was quite perplexing that in Nineteen sixty-eight another book with a similar title was published by an homosexual yurugu by the name of William Styron. According to the narrative, it concluded six years of intense work. This  “The Confessions of Nat Turner,” was also said to be an account of an 1831 slave revolt in Southampton County, Va., purported to have been narrated in Nat Turner’s own voice.


The 1968 version of “The Confessions of Nat Turner” is based, loosely….. very loosely, on a “confession” Turner gave to his court-appointed lawyer, Thomas Gray, shortly before his execution. The first book of course was an account of Gray’s notes. William Styron wrote that the Turner he found in Gray’s text was a “dangerous religious lunatic, . . . a psychopathic monster”. Styron believed that instead of   expand on the historical record, he chose to write a meditation on history, giving him “dimensions of humanity that were almost totally absent in the documentary evidence.”

In Styron’s novel, Turner is a young slave brought up as a domestic servant in the household of a wealthy, altruistic plantation owner who decides to teach Turner to read as proof that slaves are capable of “cultivation.” In Styron’s depiction, Turner is “pious, even saintly, with no romantic entanglements other than a chaste attachment to a young white woman who secretly holds abolitionist views”.

Despite the suppression of evidence, by the media and many kneegrow intellectuals at the time…. to the contrary….. Styron was not only a close friend of James Baldwin, but they were fucking each other. There is no other way i will say this. Both of these degenerates where practitioners of white sex…homosexuality. Normally I care not what they do to each other’s ass in their personal lives. However, the fact that Styron drew inspiration from Baldwin’s novel “Another Country” (1962), which depicted interracial romance in late 1950’s New York, from the perspective of both black and white characters. This inspiration afforded both of them to inject a homosexual commentary about the masculine Nat Turner, turning him into a raging homosexual, who with his last breath, appeared to come to grips with his latent attraction to the lawyer character in Styron’s version.

James Baldwin, who supplied Styron, with the encouragement and more than a little “input”, praised “The Confessions,” by observing that Styron had “begun to write the common history — ours.”

Among black intellectuals, though, the novel was widely condemned as “…For all its prose power and somber earnestness, utterly fails the simple test of honesty.” “This is meditation mired in misinterpretation,”
—Loyle Hairston

“and this is history many . . . black people reject.”

—- Charles V. Hamilton

“….In terms of getting into the slave’s psyche and his idiom, it is a monumental failure.” — John Oliver Killens

Mike Thelwell wrote that “The Confessions” “demonstrates the persistence of . . . myths, racial stereotypes and literary clichés even in the best intentioned and most enlightened minds. . . . The real ‘history’ of Nat Turner, and indeed of black people, remains to be written.”

Despite these scathing reviews, the 1968 version of  “The Confessions” got excellent reviews, outside of the black intellectuals and tellers of ourstory. The book appeared on the best-seller list, was sold to 20th Century Fox and won a Pulitzer Prize. Styron, who died in 2006 recounted fondly how he traveled to an historically black college to receive an honorary degree shortly after “The Confessions” was published: “I felt gratitude at their acceptance of me,” he wrote, “and, somehow more important, at my acceptance of them, as if my literary labors and my plunge into history had helped dissolve many of my preconceptions about race that had been my birthright as a Southerner.”

The writers attacked Styron for what they deemed historical inaccuracy and “a vile racist imagination,” but most were simply outraged at the presumptuousness:  that a white writer could dare to write of the black experience, in such a a fashion. In one of the most measured of the essays, historian (and associate of Dr. King) Vincent Harding takes issue, strongly, with Baldwin’s claim about Styron’s writing “our common history.”  Harding writes:

 Surely it is nothing of the kind.  Styron has done nothing less (and nothing more) than create another chapter in our long and common agony.  He has done it because we have allowed it, and we who are black must be men enough to admit that bitter fact.  There can be no common history until we have first fleshed out the lineaments of our own, for no one else can speak out of the bittersweet bowels of our blackness. . . . Only then will we capture Nat Turner from the hands of those who seem to think that entrance into black skin is achieved as easily as Styron-Turner’s penetration of invisible white flesh. 

The black oppositions were met with scorn from the establishment, most famously a long essay in The New York Review of Books by Eugene Genovese, who dismissed Styron’s critics as censorious radicals opposed to racial dialogue. At public forums, young activists shouted Styron down when he tried to defend himself. After protests from Ossie Davis and other African-American actors, the planned movie was shelved.

Near the end of his miserable and worthless life, Styron was gratified to hear younger African-American scholars, including Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates Jr., address the novel in more “favorable terms”. Gates even encouraged Spike Lee to consider making a film of “The Confessions”; Lee did consider it but later abandoned the project for financial reasons.

Since the turbulence of the 1960’s and the black opposition to these defecation on the heroic name of Nat Turner, many ideas and fantasies abound about the desire to do an authentic story on this great Heru. The story of Nat Turner, the movie many wished for, hoped for and prayed for, came to fruition when actor Nate Parker, he of the great debaters fame, financed, wrote with his college friend Jean Celestin and starred in. Curiously called “Birth of a Nation”, the story was influenced not by the original confessions, but by the 1968 homoerotic, docile slave version, penned by William Styron and enthusiastically supported by his notorious butt buddy, James Baldwin.

For the purpose of hamstringing the environment of the 1960’s, Baldwin and Styron completely left out Nat Turner’s wife and children although there is written evidence that they existed. The inclusion of homosexual experiences that have no historical basis and making Nat Turner a fiend for Margaret Whitehead, one of the slave holder’s daughters, was front and center in the trashy paperback. Nat is obsessed with the girl and his unrequited lust to be with her is a large part of his motivation to lead the revolt according to Styron.

When I first caught wind of the movie, slated for release in the fall of 2016, I wondered loudly of my doubt about a hollyweird promoted movie about one of the few documented acts that literally shook the foundation of black genocidal pogrom of the United Snakes of amurdikkka. White people and black people waxed glowingly about the movie and Nate Parker for a short period, walked on water with Jesus, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Then cracks started to show in the branch of the holly tree branch.  Contemplating a decision between a $20 million offer from media entrepreneur Byron Allen and a 17.5 million offer from the owners of Fox News station, Parker channeled the old 2003 Dave Chapel skit on reparations.

He sold the rights to the movie script to the owners of Fox News, in what I can only conclude that he not only was “paid”, as many shorty sighted black people echoed, but that he was also banking on a hollyweird production, further garnering him residual income and the kind of intellectual and media fame, most young kneegrows in that den of inequity never achieved, as a non homosexual.

I had commented on social media that I feared a corruption of the movie, because once the rights were sold, the savage would do all they would to shit on the movie and on extension, the name of Nat Turner. What I did not expect was how the holly tree branch not only cracked, the damn thing broke and the cradle, this babe in the hollyweird forest fell on his coconut head.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Weeks before the movie Birth of a Nation, was slated to be revealed at the Toronto International Film Fest (TIFF) and before Nate Parker was to give interviews at the event, it came out that he and Jean Celestin were arrested and tried 15 years previously for a college rape. In a 2001 trial it was revealed that an 18-year-old female classmate at Penn State University accused them both of sexual assault in 1999.

Celestin was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months in prison, according to court documents. He later appealed the ruling and a judge ordered a second trial, which was tossed out in 2005 after the accuser decided not to testify.

Many feminazis, manginas and black people who took issues with Parker’s marriage to a white woman and black people who never had an original though inside their heads, jumped all over the trial. Despite the court documents indicating that Parker was deemed innocent, the narrative was that they “gang raped” an unfortunate victim and were even part of the overall patriarchal tone of this society. A tone where men raped women, women are innocent bystanders and black men are as dangerous or even more dangerous sex predators than white men. It didn’t help that later in life the alleged victim had committed suicide. This final act of hers, was attributed to the rape accusation, without rhyme or reason, but to enhance the dialogue around “rape culture”

Of course wishing to save his tarnished image, Parker penned a response to the media driven lynching….

I write to you all devastated… Over the last several days, a part of my past – my arrest, trial and acquittal on charges of sexual assault – has become a focal point for media coverage, social media speculation and industry conversation. I understand why so many are concerned and rightfully have questions. These issues of a women’s right to be safe and of men and women engaging in healthy relationships are extremely important to talk about, however difficult. And more personally, as a father, a husband, a brother and man of deep faith, I understand how much confusion and pain this incident has had on so many, most importantly the young woman who was involved.
I myself just learned that the young woman ended her own life several years ago and I am filled with profound sorrow…I can’t tell you how hard it is to hear this news. I can’t help but think of all the implications this has for her family.

I cannot- nor do I want to ignore the pain she endured during and following our trial. While I maintain my innocence that the encounter was unambiguously consensual, there are things more important than the law. There is morality; no one who calls himself a man of faith should even be in that situation. As a 36-year-old father of daughters and person of faith, I look back on that time as a teenager and can say without hesitation that I should have used more wisdom.
I look back on that time, my indignant attitude and my heartfelt mission to prove my innocence with eyes that are more wise with time. I see now that I may not have shown enough empathy even as I fought to clear my name. Empathy for the young woman and empathy for the seriousness of the situation I put myself and others in.
I cannot change what has happened. I cannot bring this young woman who was someone else’s daughter, someone’s sister and someone’s mother back to life…

I have changed so much since nineteen. I’ve grown and matured in so many ways and still have more learning and growth to do. I have tried to conduct myself in a way that honors my entire community – and will continue to do this to the best of my ability.
All of this said, I also know there are wounds that neither time nor words can heal. I have never run from this period in my life and I never ever will. Please don’t take this as an attempt to solve this with a statement. I urge you only to take accept this letter as my response to the moment.

It was not enough that white women, feminazis, black women and all shades of manginas crawled out of the sewer to attack Parker, white pathology in capturing the black queen on the chess board, by having notorious hollyweird THOT Gabriel Union to chime in on the public lynching.  Many people might have known that Union was a victim of rape at gun point. Something she was never shy about retelling. In fact many felt that recovering from that ordeal at 24 was what drove her to become a big hollyweird “star”.

Her hollyweird movie past included many roles as the girlfriend, the vamp, the woman that trades her body for fame and even as a star in the Nate Parker movie, a slave who was raped by a white man. So it was really fucked up that Union, whose past was obviously known to the media, allowed her inner traitor to come out give validation to the cave savages, that more or less effectively shelved the movie. Something I won’t lose sleep over.