ON TRE[E]SON — ’Tis the **SEAs[u]n** ;oD

Written Reflection from October 30th, 2013 @ Age 32

RE:  YO ADULT-MALE WHITE-SKINNED “SUPREMACISTS,” STOP BULLYING **AMERICA’S** NFL COMMISSIONER—ROGER TOTALLY KNOWS **BETTER** THAN TO INVOLVE HIMSELF, ALONG WITH **AMERICA’S** NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE AND ALL OF HER FOOTBALL COACHES AND PLAYERS—IN **AMERICA’S** CURRENTLY PENDING TREASON PROCEEDINGS, AS AGAINST “AMERICA’SGOP/A.K.A. THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, BIETZSCHHHHHHES ;oD

It’s all so disheartening.  I don’t have a Jessica.  And now everyone is scared of me and of what I’m going to do next, even though I’m the one being bullied here, and even though I did not even give him a deadline to reply, I just respectfully requested some dignity in return, in giving me a time frame by Friday with some indication as to when he would respond, as in next week, next month, never, I mean I don’t understand why everyone is being so heinously “polite”.  It disgusts me you know?  I mean, I don’t mean to be harsh, but I feel like I am being treated harshly and being backed into a corner and so yes, I certainly understand how what I did may be seen as and may have in fact, backed him into the corner so that I could get out of it myself, by why shouldn’t he be backed into the corner?!  If his response to those questions is so hideous that he doesn’t even want to reply, then isn’t that something that we all should be talking about?  That’s why I sent it to everyone.  I wanted to talk about it.

That being said, those are just my thoughts and I appreciate so very much that you listen and hear me.  I really do.  I wish I had the words…

I was so relieved to hear back from you just now I can’t even begin to explain.  I thought for sure I’d scared everyone off for good.  I hate it when that happens.  It’s not the first time.

Anyways, I really appreciate all of your advice.  In this climate of “politeness”, it feels like no one else is willing to tell me the truth besides you.  I don’t think I’d be alive still had I not learned somehow to read between the lines by this point.  I asked Senator Oelslager, after we went over all the adverse affects of S.B.43 upon the mentally ill, I said Senator Oelslager, why would someone ever even propose this kind of legislation in the first place?  I mean, I couldn’t even understand it and I kept asking Geoffrey at DRO and he would just kind of skirt the subject.  And Senator Oelslager said in between the lines that basically, when a big-hitter like NAMI Ohio comes in and asks that it be done, it be done.  And that was that.  And the conversation was over and it was time for me to leave.

So that’s why I targeted Terry, because he is the source of the wound and I am running out of resources and I can’t just go on down to the stupid statehouse every other day and talk to these guys.  And I don’t understand why they don’t “get” it in the first place, and it makes me angry that it seems they couldn’t care less.  I mean it really feels that way, like they are just going to strip me of my civil rights and for god’s sake my right to “bear arms” and I don’t even want a gun, but still!!  It just makes me so angry and they just pretend still that if I act angry, that I am “crazy” because I “should” not have any reason to be angry.  That’s part of the definition of emotional abuse you know…

“invalidating seeks to distort or undermine the recipient’s perceptions of their world…invalidating occurs when the abuser refuses or fails to acknowledge reality.”  http://www.counselingcenter.illinois.edu/self­help­brochures/relationship­problems/emotional­abuse/

I wanted to make Terry acknowledge reality.  I’m so sick of being emotionally abused.  I just can’t even tell you, and to think of all the others like me who haven’t been blessed with as much, it just breaks my heart into pieces every time I so much as think about it.  But I understand how that may not necessarily have been the best tactic and how that was certainly a reaction out of anger and not an entirely calculated response.  It just makes me so mad that I’m not supposed to be mad about this stuff you know?  Sighdeep breaths

Anyways, I know it’s just a low today.  A very low day, but all the same just a low one that too shall pass.  I will get some rest and try to do something fun ;0)  I promise.

Ohh and I will speak in December.  Do I have to sign up or do anything?  And can you help guide me a bit in trying to figure out what to say/how to say it/etc.?  I really am honored that you would ask.  I mean, really honored.  Thank you.

Talk soon,

Marissa

LETTER TO JACK CAMERON,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/OHIO EMPOWERMENT COALITION

October 30th, 2013

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.  Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.  For years now I have heard the word “Wait!  It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity.  This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.  We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and god given rights.  The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.  Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.”  But when you have seen victorious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness towards white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title of “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inners fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.  I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.  You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws.  This is certainly a legitimate concern.  Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws.  One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?”  The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of law: just and unjust.  I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.  One has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws.  Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.  I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.

Now, what is the difference between the two?  How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?  A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.  An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.  To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.  Any law that uplifts human personality is just.  Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.  All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.  It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.  Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things.  Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful.  Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation.  Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?  Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws.  An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.  This is difference made legal.  By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself.  This is sameness made legal.  Let me give another explanation.  A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.  Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected?  Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered.  Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application.  For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit.  Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade.  But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out.  In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist.  That would lead to anarchy.  One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.  I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience.  It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake.  It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.  To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.  In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.”  It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.  Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.  If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s anti religious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers.  First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate.  I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”  Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.  Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.  I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality.  Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension.  We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.  We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.  Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence.  But is this a logical assertion?  Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?  Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?  Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?  We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.  Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.  I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom.  I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas.  He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry.  It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has.  The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.”  Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills.  Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively.  More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will.  We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.  Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.  We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.  Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.  Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme.  At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist.  I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community.  One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses.  The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence.  It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad’s Muslim movement.  Nourished by the Negro’s frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist.  For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest.  I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.  If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood.  And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies—a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

April 16th, 1963

4 thoughts on “ON TRE[E]SON — ’Tis the **SEAs[u]n** ;oD

  1. Pingback: ON HIS(S)STORY/a.k.a. real life **horror** show that YOU, are a part of—whistle while you WORK, **duh** DUH duh **duh** duh **duh** DUH ;oD | JANE SAYS

  2. Pingback: WHAT DO WE SAY TO THE GOD OF DEATH?/iHave LEARNED me the **magical** proof, for FIRE—a.k.a. philosophical arithmancy + counting my spiritual blessings ++ CRIMSON hair inside my D.N.A., *o*hhhhhhh Mi ;oD | THE CULTIVATION OF BEAUTY

  3. Pingback: YOU, HAVE A **DREAM** — And, iHave a **Dream** BOOK, Dr. King ;oD | THE CULTIVATION OF BEAUTY

  4. Pingback: THE MOTHER OF GOD, HER FLEET OF ANGELS, AND HER BATTALION OF FETAL ALIENS —vs.— the antichrist/a.k.a. adult-male, white-skinned, sexual-predator “supremacists” (e.g. har[L]OTTA WHINEstein ;0) | JANE SAYS

Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s