The Black Race and Self-Perception

Editor's Note: The following was originally published on 8.30.16 as a guest post by Burgess Owens, former NFL star and author of Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps.

 

“If you can define the self-perception of a race, you can define its future for generations.”

- Burgess Owens

 

The visionary, industrious, Christian and segregated Black community of the early to mid 1960’s understood and embraced the importance of a positive self-perception. It was this same recognition that drove millions of young patriotic Black men throughout our nation’s history to be among the first to volunteer when our nation went to war. It was reflected in their actions on the field of battle—courage, patriotism, faith, tenacity and love for race, God and country.

It has been recorded throughout the annals of American history beginning with our nation’s first martyr—an ex-slave and free Black man Crispus Attucks—in its fight for Independence in 1770. Our history records, among its host of proud war veterans, over 5,000 Black men who fought as patriots during the Revolutionary War.

We read of the courageous march south to battle the Confederate Army by the All-Black, 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. Unlike their white counterparts, they understood from the beginning that they would be offered NO quarter if captured alive.

The importance of projecting a positive self-perception was seen with the 332nd Fighting Group nicknamed "Hell Fighters" by their German enemy, who received France’s highest military honor, the Croix de Guerre, during WWII. My dad and uncles were among the 125,000 proud Black American volunteers who, throughout their entire lives, considered their decision to serve during WWII as their greatest honor.

RELATED: Former NFL Great Burgess Owens on How Democrats Breed Black Votes

Our past Black generations understood instinctively that they were fighting the battle of racism on two fronts:

The most obvious was their fight against the Democratic Party’s racist Jim Crow laws, intimidation by its terrorist arm, the KKK, and its demeaning messaging of abortion by Black and White Democratic eugenicists.

The second battle, fighting to maintain and grow its positive self-perception, was not as easily measured. In hindsight, we can see the initial success of their mission. It is portrayed in pictures like the one of educated, disciplined and intelligent young WWII Black Tuskegee Airmen whose tenacity and courage earned the respect of White B-17 Fortress pilots, whose lives they protected and saved.

It was the understanding of the power of perception that allowed the Martin Luther King Jr. generations to stay true to the strategy of non-violence, refusing to retaliate when every emotional instinct would justify them doing so. Its leaders would lead demonstrations and often be jailed wearing white shirts, black ties and jackets—all for the sake of perception.

Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Montgomery_arrest_1958

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., arrested in Memphis, Tenn. wearing suit and tie.

They fought against negative racist stereotyping with their appearance, their command of the English language, their emotional discipline and their Judeo-Christian love that allowed them to forgive and move forward. They had faith in the American Promise that these actions would soften the hearts of our nation and defeat the hateful and demeaning perception assigned by the southern Democratic Party.

They were correct in their faith in the American people.

What exactly were racist stereotypes that they were fighting during that era? It was the portrayal of an inferior, dependent and monkey-linked race. It was a race projected as sloppy in appearance and dress, uneducated, inarticulate, incapable of critical thinking, easy to “herd” into groupthink, physically, emotional and sexually undisciplined, reckless breeders. But, boy, do they LOVE to sing and dance.

RELATED: Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Four-Part Series

This demeaning stereotype, once defeated by MLK’s generation, has reared is ugly head once again in the setting of BET (Black Entertainment TV), 100% owned and controlled by wealthy and powerful White Liberal/Socialist Democrats. Their three billion dollar purchase in 2001 gave Sumner Redstone and the Viacom Corp unfettered access to the urban Black community. They then proceeded for the next 15 years to fire-hose this community nationally with anti-White, anti-police, anti-American, anti-woman, anti-family liberal FILTH. It has resulted in the fermenting of hatred and distrust for police authority and a disdain for our American culture. As Viacom shines the light of unaddressed Black Misery as a political strategy, it has increased the dependency and loyalty of the Black urban community as a voting block for the Democratic Party. Predictably omitted are the facts that at the root of all Black misery, as far back as 70 years, are Anti-Black Democratic policies.

Within the BET website can be seen the dark and empathy-free heart of the White Socialist Democratic owners of BET, who have successfully re-established the racist stereotypes previously eradicated. The White racist perception of the Black race can be seen in BET’s featured star, a rapper that young urban fatherless boys will soon seek to emulate. It is the tattooed face and neck of a young man called “Young Thug.” With a tribal-like ring through his nose and inarticulate speech patterns, he has a continual presence on BET’s gossip page discussing his reckless breeding habits, accumulation of “baby mommas” and the babies who he refuses to support. His filthy language, filthy mind and disdain for commitment and respect for women is presented to our young Black girls and boys as normal—although the cowardly, wealthy White Wizard, hiding behind the curtain of Blackness, would never tolerate his presence around their family or living in their mixed neighborhood of Democratic elitists.

The 2016 White Liberal Democratic owners of BET have portrayed for 15 years a perception of Black Americans that remarkably mimics the racist Democratic-controlled south of the early to mid-1900’s—sloppy in appearance and dress, uneducated, inarticulate, incapable of critical thinking, easy to “herd” into groupthink, physically, emotional and sexually undisciplined, reckless breeders. But, boy, do they LOVE to sing and dance.

Within the website of Viacom, aka, BET is also seen the true cowardice and bullying of the White racist Wizard as they utilize a strategy proven effective in 1930’s by Margaret Sanger—The Negro Project. With the use of a Black front, they pay like-minded Socialist Black Americans to demean, attack and denigrate other Blacks who are deemed a threat to their plantation-like groupthink. Typically, these are articulate, educated, successful, Christian, patriotic and thoughtful Black Americans offering alternatives.

Ultimately the restoration of the Black community will rely on the delivery of this message by committed Black Conservative Americans. Other Americans can support this effort by helping to shed light on those who have purposely used misery and hopelessness to empower themselves and their party.

It is time we call Viacom CEO Phil Dauman, Sheri Redstone and the all-White Democratic Board of Viacom from behind the curtain of Blackness to explain their organizations decades-old strategy for fermenting the Marxist and racist hate group, Black Lives Matter. Every time a policemen is assassinated and another young Black American radicalized through their BET anti-police, anti-American website, this corporation and its leaders should be held accountable.

Only when the light and eyes of the American people are on these “Corporate Hate Breeders” will we be able to grant a level of safety to our police nationally and stem the divisive nature of the Democratic Party-driven Socialist/Marxist movement within our country.

Image: (L to R) Rapper Young Thug, alternately known as No, My Name is Jeffery or Jeffery (Photo Credit: Black Entertainment Television); Members of the 332nd Fighter Group attending a briefing in Ramitelli, Italy, March, 1945. (Photo Credit: Toni Frissell Collection, Library of Congress)

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.