Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.
Jim Morrison

Since the plantation days, the cave savages have stolen or bought our intellectual and physical gifts, for a song and dance, and in the process rendered the Afrikans enslaved in amurdikkka, inert, impotent and ignorant. This was done, all the while further enriching themselves, creating generational wealth and perpetuating the myth, that white people are smarter, more creative than Afrikan people. Thus reasoning why they should be the guardians of other people’s culture and nature itself. After all, are they not gods children, personified. Amongst us folks, the pseudo intellectual and weekend conscious folks, develop outstanding mileage sitting around in circles, having intellectual circle jerks and speaking knowingly about the so call “war” that white pathology constantly wages against black people. Loudly pontificating and pointing to minor or major conflicts, such as poLICE executions, theft of farm lands, predator loans or the prison industrial system, yet failing to define or identify what the “war” actually is, what it looks like from a wide-angle lens and more importantly, how we contribute to its presence, and how to best end it.

Ending this “war”, which has long since become less of a war and more of an occupation, means doing things that are uncomfortable and demands certain sacrifices. These sacrifices do not necessarily involve death or injuries, but more often demanding discipline and  the denial of certain customary behaviors, that would keep one enthralled and tied to the guilty and immoral pleasures of white pathology. The intellectuals will get orgasmic when “one of us” gets validation through marriage to “one of them” be given a title in one of their corporate prisons, given a degree of recognition from one of their conditioning institutions or being paid exceptional blood money or Judas price for prostituting for and supporting and maintaining white pathology. Many of these behaviors are not necessarily due to ignorance either.

Long before that white female called Prince, decide to fight with Sony for rights to his music, by changing his name to a symbol, later selling some of his music online direct to customers, I have toyed with and shared the idea that kneegrows in hollywierd should have made their own movies and download it directly to their customers. The idea, came about, during the period I was heavily involved in web building, at a time when the profession was still young and shortly after Spike Lee and Denzil Washington were snubbed for best director and actor for the movie Malcolm X. This period and this incident of the hollywierd establishment failing to fund that project.  Even AFTER Malcolm X was supported by well-known knee-grow money from Oprah, Michael Jordan and yes Bill Cosby, the knee-grow went cap in hand right back to the beast to ask for funding for his next movie.

It’s not like direct to customer movie of music is new. Currently many of us enjoy movies from Afrika, particularly Nigeria and Ghana and while some asshole would state that they were low-budget or simple, these self-same assholes, were people or children of people who used to enjoy the bullshit “chop sockie” martial arts movies, coming out of China in the 70s. Today China’s movie industry is a sophisticated industry. Same can be said for Bollywood, then and now. These same ass holes fail to see some of the movies coming out of Los Angeles that are either retread, simplistic, imbecilic and straight up parochial in story line and direction

Niggers are scared of revolution

In 1970 four musicians calling themselves the last Poets, released an album called  Niggers are scared of revolution. The defining song of the same name, encapsulates not only Meritorious Manumission, but the Willie lynch syndrome, the civil rights movement and the current state of the once Afrikans, now kneegrows across the planet. Niggers are Scared of Revolution details how, we fear to demand self discipline and the denial of certain customary behaviors, that would keep one enthralled and tied to the guilty and immoral pleasures of white pathology.  This joint is by far my favorite intellectual lesson and study material

There are many definitions of what revolution is. However, they one that is often used as an antithesis to war is:

  1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
    2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
    3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something.
    4. a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
    5. a single turn of this kind.

Last year, as milquetoast and as kumbaya a personality as actor Danny Glover, wanted to put out a movie on the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804). To date and as far as i know the movie hasn’t been funded, much less production started, because hollywierd demanded that Glover insert a white hero and protagonist in the movie. Glover’s refusal effectively mothballed the movie idea and moth ball it was. Why? Because Glover is of the mindset that it has to be a big budget affair, something too many of us pursue. We like to hype. We like the ball out. And …as Neely Fuller stated…we like to show off! If you are the person that has had your head buried in the sand of life, all of your natural life, then it is overstandable that you wouldn’t overstand why Glover wouldn’t put a white hero in that movie. Well number one, there are no good white people, protagonist or hero anywhere. historically and ourstorically in the Haitian Revolution. Also the only white people of significance were Napoleon Bonaparte, his French forces, that was summarily kicked out of Haiti, French colonial authorities, such as RochambeauLeclerc and colonial militias, that beheaded and murdered upwards of 162,000 Haitian as a reign of terror descended on the proud and courageous Afrikans and the 3000 savages, that were justifiable slaughtered in retaliation by Jean-Jacques Dessalines.

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.
Jim Morrison

Yet even under this glorious occasion, the Stockholm Syndrome rose up to effectively kill the momentum of the Haitian revolution and set a standard so slow that black people are still following. Starting with L’Overture’s capture and imprisonment, because he was expecting respect and benevolence from France and continuing with Haiti, agreeing to pay the losers of the war, compensation, that is till being felt several generation later, the black man/kneegrow has not defined what warfare is with yurugu. What warfare looks like. And how to extract themselves from under the current state of war that is white pathology. When Nate Parker came out with his version of the Nat Turner rebellion, black people were all warm and fuzzy, because a black person was telling their story. I mean how can you go wrong? Right? Well the establishment also liked the movie, especially since in the movie there are white protagonist and if you look hard enough, a white hero or two.

Based on the images taken from the internet, there seems to be significant white involvement in Nat Turner’s life and I can just see some disingenuous person attempt to spin a white protagonist or hero in it. Like they continually do with the one or two whites involved in the underground railroad and how they would highlight their presence instead of the numerous “freemen and women”, whose time, effort and money, kept that railroad going. Contrary to white propaganda, the few whites involved demanded heavy compensation to help move the escaped prisoners, or they would not help. They fear of being turned over to slave patrols, forced many to capitulate.

Below are some images from the Nat Turner movie

Below is actor Christoph Waltz, fresh from his hero role in Django unchained

I can see this movie getting some mileage at next years Academy awards. Considering this years mealy mouth backlash, from irrelevant black actors and the fact that white men are in semi prominent roles in this movie.

I specifically mentioned once on a Spy-book post, that I find it interesting that the establishment was all warm and fuzzy about Parkers project, yet to date we have not seen a green light for Glovers. By the images on top, we can see why. I predict that they will go to extreme to promote or talk about some “good” white people in the movie. maybe even mention they few white people who were involved in the underground railroad. I mean forget the fact that the underground railroad was primarily Afrikan and the few whites involved demanded financial compensation or else they would not piss on the people. Nate Parker I believe came to prominence with his strong performance in the movie Great Debaters and is touted as the “next” Denzel Washington… as well as having black females cream their panties over him.

So he is at a point where he is young (36) handsome, talented and appears radical, that black people will rally around this very important (for black people) project. Recently it was stated that Parker’s movie, a hit at the recent Sundance film festival, was bought up by Rupert Murdoch ($17.5 million), who out bid Byron Allen ($20 million) for the movie rights. Yep, yep. Murdoch under bid Allen and got the rights for the movie.

Recently I read where Rupert Murdoch’s bid is the best one for Parker, based on the availability of the larger distributor network of Murdoch. the male who stated this also stated, implied and even suggested (without empirical evidence) that this network would outshine and out class anything that Byron Allen could produce, because it is assumed that he doesn’t have one.  By selling out to the lowest bidder, Parker has fallen into the second part of the Meritorious Manumission, by creating something and making it available for white people to benefit from. Something that our gestation in the nukka manufacturing laboratory of amurdikkka, creating a false sense of reality, where we seek validation from white people, financially, socially and in other areas.

Regarding the movie Malcolm X, the following is excepted from research done around the movie Malcolm X, as part of this post.

Producer Marvin Worth acquired the rights to The Autobiography of Malcolm X in 1967. Worth had met Malcolm X, then called “Detroit Red”, as a teenager selling drugs in New York. Worth was fifteen at the time, and spending time around jazz clubs in the area. As Worth remembers: “He was selling grass. He was sixteen or seventeen but looked older. He was very witty, a funny guy, and he had this extraordinary charisma. A great dancer and a great dresser. He was very good-looking, very, very tall. Girls always noticed him. He was quite a special guy.”

Early on, the production had difficulties telling the entire story, in part due to unresolved questions surrounding Malcolm X’s assassination. In 1971, Worth made a well-received documentary, Malcolm X, which received an Academy Award nomination in that category. The project remained unrealized. However, several major entertainers were attached to it at various times, including Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and director Sidney Lumet.


In 1968, Worth commissioned a screenplay from novelist James Baldwin, who was later joined by Arnold Perl, a screenwriter who had been a victim of McCarthy-era blacklisting. However, the screenplay took longer to develop than anticipated. Perl died in 1971.

Baldwin developed his work on the screenplay into the 1972 book One Day, When I Was Lost: A Scenario Based on Alex Haley’s The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Baldwin died in 1987. Several authors attempted drafts, including David Mamet, David Bradley, Charles Fuller and Calder Willingham. Once Spike Lee took over as director, he rewrote the Baldwin-Perl script. Due to the revisions, the Baldwin family asked the producer to take his name off the credits. Thus Malcolm X only credits Perl and Lee as the writers and Malcolm X and Alex Haley as the authors of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Production difficulties

The production was considered controversial long before filming began. The crux of the controversy was Malcolm X’s inflammatory and often angry denunciation of whites before he undertook his hajj. He was, arguably, not well regarded among white citizens by and large; however, he had risen to become a hero in the black community and a symbol of blacks’ struggles, particularly during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. In the three years before the movie’s release, sales of The Autobiography of Malcolm X had increased 300 percent, and four of his books saw a ninefold increase in sales between 1986 and 1991.

Once Warner Bros. agreed to the project, they initially wanted Academy Award-nominated Canadian film director Norman Jewison to direct the film. Jewison, director of the seminal civil rights film In the Heat of the Night, was able to bring Denzel Washington into the project to play Malcolm X. Jewison and Washington previously worked together in the 1984 film A Soldier’s Story. A protest erupted over the fact that a white director was slated to make the film. Spike Lee was one of the main voices of criticism; since college, he had considered a film adaption of The Autobiography of Malcolm X to be a dream project. Lee and others felt that it was appropriate that only a black person should direct Malcolm X.

After the public outcry against Jewison, Worth came to the conclusion that “it needed a black director at this point. It was insurmountable the other way…There’s a grave responsibility here”. Jewison left the project, though he noted he gave up the movie not because of the protest, but because he could not reconcile Malcolm’s private and public lives and was unsatisfied with Charles Fuller’s script. Lee confirmed Jewison’s position, stating “If Norman actually thought he could do it, he would have really fought me. But he bowed out gracefully”. 

Spike Lee was soon named the director, and he made substantial changes to the script. “I’m directing this movie and I rewrote the script, and I’m an artist and there’s just no two ways around it: this film about Malcolm X is going to be my vision of Malcolm X. But it’s not like I’m sitting atop a mountain saying, ‘Screw everyone, this is the Malcolm I see.’ I’ve done the research, I’ve talked to the people who were there.”

Concerns over Lee’s portrayal of Malcolm X

Soon after Spike Lee was announced as the director and before its release, Malcolm X received criticism by black nationalists and members of the United Front to Preserve the Legacy of Malcolm X, headed by poet and playwright Amiri Baraka, who were worried about how Lee would portray Malcolm X. One protest in Harlem drew over 200 people. Some based their opinion on dislike of Lee’s previous films; others were concerned that he would focus on Malcolm X’s life before he converted to Islam. Baraka bluntly accused Spike Lee of being a “Buppie”, stating “We will not let Malcolm X’s life be trashed to make middle-class Negroes sleep easier”, compelling others to write the director and warn him “not to mess up Malcolm’s life.”[5] Some, including Lee himself, noted the irony that many of the arguments they made against him mirrored those made against Norman Jewison.[7]

Concerns over Washington’s portrayal of Malcolm X

Washington agreed to play Malcolm X while Norman Jewison was scheduled to direct the film. Still, Lee stated he never envisioned any actor other than Washington in the role. Lee, who had worked with Washington on Mo’ Better Blues (1990), cited Washington’s performance as Malcolm X in an Off Broadway play as superb. However, some purists noted that Washington was far shorter and had a far darker complexion than the real Malcolm X, who stood 6’4″ and had notably reddish hair and a lighter complexion (due to his very fair-skinned Grenadian-born mother’s partial white ancestry) and bore only a passing resemblance to him.

Budget issues

Spike Lee also encountered difficulty in securing a sufficient budget. Lee told Warner Bros. and the bond company that a budget of over US$30 million was necessary; the studio disagreed and offered a lower amount. Following advice from fellow director Francis Ford Coppola, Lee got “the movie company pregnant”: taking the movie far enough along into actual production to attempt to force the studio to increase the budget. The film, initially budgeted at $28 million, climbed to nearly $33 million. Lee contributed $2 million of his own $3 million salary. Completion Bond Company, which assumed financial control in January 1992, refused to approve any more expenditures; in addition, the studio and bond company instructed Lee that the film could be no longer than two hours, fifteen minutes in length.[8]The resulting conflict caused the project to be shut down in post-production.

The film was saved by the financial intervention of prominent black Americans, some of whom appear in the film: Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Janet Jackson, Prince, and Peggy Cooper Cafritz, founder of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Their contributions were made as donations; as Lee noted: “This is not a loan. They are not investing in the film. These are black folks with some money who came to the rescue of the movie. As a result, this film will be my version. Not the bond company’s version, not Warner Brothers’. I will do the film the way it ought to be, and it will be over three hours.” The actions of such prominent members of the African American community giving their money helped finish the project as Lee envisioned it.

Like El Hajj Malik Al Shabazz, the Nat Turner story and character is well loved and mythologized by Afrikan people. To do such a movie one has to walk a fine line. And while more is known about Malcolm X than Nat Turner, yurugu has done more to demonize and screw with Turner’s image, more than Malcolm. This was because in Malcolm, it was hard to mess with, though devils like Manning Marabel and other lawn Jockey kneegrows, attempt to show Malcolm was homosexual and chased that other white meat, even after joining the Nation of Islam. in the case of Nat Turner, it was James Baldwin and his savage butt buddy, William Styron, who attempted to turn Turner into a white girl loving, homosexual, in their book…confessions of Nat Turner.

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.
Jim Morrison

There are two versions of the Nat Turner biography by the same name, but the one by Baldwin and Styron is the one that is full of propaganda and outright made up bullshit.  I am displeased that Parker chose to go with Rupert Murdoch.  is said to be, arguably the world’s most powerful media tycoon, stepped down from the CEO role at cable TV and broadcasting giant 21st Century Fox in July 2015 but remains executive co-chairman alongside his son Lachlan; his son James Murdoch took over as CEO. Rupert Murdoch also continues to chair News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal and other print operations. He built a media empire out of Adelaide, Australia; at 22 he inherited two newspapers when his father died. He is 35 on the Forbes list of wealthy people and is worth $11.7 Billion. Today, the Murdoch family controls 120 newspapers in five countries; a large cable TV network comprised of the Fox channels in the U.S. and Fox International Channels across Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia; book publishing powerhouse Harper Collins; a movie studio and a large broadcasting and satellite TV arm.

So he indeed has a very large and strong network for distributorship of the Nat Turner film. A note of caution for those getting excited about the distributorship though. Not only is this kat anti Afrikan, but who remembers when Malcolm X came out? Did you remember the controversy around the theater showings? patrons buying tickets and getting directed to a theater with a competing film? Distributors not showing the film in certain neighborhoods or theaters because of unfounded complaints of potential riots? How about failing to show it in wealthier (white neighborhoods) because white people weren’t interested in this movie? Well the story of Nat Turner is one that should frighten white people more than that of Malcolm X. It is on the same mythological level of the Italian tales of Hannibal by the gates of Rome. A story to tell bad behaving children to scare them into compliance. I am displeased by Parker taking this course, because it removes control of this movie from black hands into white hands. This to me continues the legacy of part 2 of the Meritorious Manumission.

Inventing something that a white slave master could make a profit from. I await to hear what the fall out will be for Nat Turner, after Murdoch decides to distribute it.

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.

Jim Morrison