Published in Jan 2018

Video: Do-For-Selfers Are Doomed. Here's Why

The placement of crack cocaine in the black community (very political, and politicians knew)

The Gentrification of of many black communities (very Political, Politicians Knew)

The Prison Industrial complex (Very Political, Politicians Knew)

The Dread Scott Decision (very very Political, conceived by Politicians, still exist today)

The Infiltration by white Supremacist, in police departments, (very political, politicians knew, and did nothing)

The Decision to round up Africans, from their, home land, and enslave them (very politically, and politicians conceived this)

You get the point right? If these Politicians haven't rectified this, THEY NEVER WILL!! these are, the people you want to try to rectify the wrongs? (I will not hold my breath)

Organize, Focus, and Do what it takes to stay in power,

Politics will Do us No good, until we have something to offer, Politicians are greedy (the BAG speaks Volumes)


Policy creates the conditions that cause the behavior.


All this bickering, shade, and infighting is unnecessary. Individual efforts and collective efforts work synergistically. "Do for self" or "bootstrappin" works on the individual level. Everyone should do that. However, black politics, is the collective efforts that will support or help you maintain and grow your individual efforts.


Do for self does not necessarily mean an individual only worries about themselves. It means black people working as a collective.


Politics is collective. How many millions did black people spend to go see the movie Black Panther? How much money did black people give to Hollywood and the already super rich? Politics, which I am not against takes organization and collectivism. One way other groups get government to do their bidding is through PACS. Is their a PAC for African Americans to push for a black agenda? That entertainment money would be better spent funding something like that.


00:0002:14 Introduction & Building BreakingBrown

02:42 – BreakingBrown book club : The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein

04:00 – There is a lie in the argument that two ideologies – black entrepreneurship and black politics – are not two sides of the same coin and that they can exist independently of one another

05:36 – There is this idea that racism in this country is isolated and punctuated when in reality the entirety of America weaponized itself against black America through government: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt and so on (I’ll through Obama in there as well)

07:10 – A system not built by individuals cannot be fixed by individual effort

07:34 – White people didn’t build their wealth in America

08:19 – Image : The First Colored Senator and Representatives during the 41st and 42nd Congress of the Unite States. Freed slaves were initiating their own success and it could’ve flourished had the American government not turned itself against American freed slaves.

09:17 – Government didn’t let anything happen, they actively acted against us!

11:22 - BreakingBrown book club : The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein The Color of Law points out that mixed communities existed in peace until government re-segregated America, black against white

12:13 – Separate but equal was never equal and never will. Government enacted many policies to ensure the failure of Black America: public housing, zoning, home ownership, credit and so on

12:49 – “People of Color” is nonsense because the government specifically acted against freed slaves and their descendants, not some vague group of non-white individuals

13:46 – Case Study in Segregation, Helena, Montana : Black people were living with white people harmoniously; they even had white communities being policed by black policeman. Things went well until 1906. In 1906, a prosecutor brought policies of segregation; such as, the prohibition of interracial marriage. Helena is mostly white now.

16:43 – Freed slaves were making headway in the federal government until President Woodrow Wilson entered office and made segregation law within the federal government

18:17 – Black people were evicted to make room for white people

19:58 – Government created the ghetto

20:33 – We (A.A.D.O.S.) don’t understand timing; timing is everything

21:55 – U.S. Housing Authority Manual once stated, “we should not disrupt communities…we should have harmonious communities…” – its codified racism

23:13 – During wartime Black America received extension housing which were basically throw away housing where White America received housing further inland and around stable communities

24:02 – Government would designate a neighborhood a “black neighborhood” if a few African-Americans moved into a neighborhood

26:06 – Understand that our current situation is the cumulative effort of generations of presidents and their associated governments and that your individual effort will not undo decades of coordinated government assaults

26:29 – Government didn’t begin to address it’s racist policies until approximately the 1970s

26:34 - Buchanan v. Warley , 245 U.S. 60 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States addressed civil government-instituted racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held unanimously that a Louisville, Kentucky city ordinance prohibiting the sale of real property to blacks in white-majority neighborhoods or buildings and vice versa violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for freedom of contract.

The ruling of the Kentucky Court of Appeals was thus reversed. Prior state court rulings had overturned racial zoning ordinances on grounds of the "takings clause" because of their failures to grandfather land that had been owned prior to enactment. The Court, in Buchanan, ruled that the motive for the Louisville ordinance, separation of races for purported reasons, was an inappropriate exercise of police power, and its insufficient purpose also made it unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Buchanan: "The effect of the ordinance under consideration was not merely to regulate a business or the like, but was to destroy the right of the individual to acquire, enjoy, and dispose of his property.

Being of this character, it was void as being opposed to the due process clause of the constitution."[2] Reversing the Appeals Court decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance surpassed the legitimate grounds of police power, as it interfered with individuals' rights of property. In addition, the court noted that the ordinance neither regulated the race of servants who might be employed in certain areas nor counted them as members of the household.

Justice Holmes wrote a draft opinion which suggested the case was "manufactured" by the seller and buyer. He withdrew the dissent and voted with the majority.[4] Taken from Wikipedia

27:09 – Institute on Assets and Social Policy : Not surprisingly, increases in income are a major source of wealth accumulation for many US families. However, income gains for whites and African-Americans have a very different impact on wealth. At the respective wealth medians, every dollar increase in average income over the 25-year study period added $5.19 wealth for white households (see Figure 3), while the same income gain only added 69 cents of wealth for African American households.

30:40 – America as a country shut black Americans out during the building period

33:00 – Houses that black Americans had access to had no equity and that is primarily why there is no inheritance in black families

35:00 – Government created post depression mortgagees that were beneficial but locked black America out; black Americans were delegated overpriced, subpar housing while white America had access to cheap, weal built government backed housing

36:52 – Shelley vs. Kraemer : n 1945, an African-American family by the name of Shelley purchased a housein St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of purchase, they were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to prevent the Shelleys from gaining possession of the property. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the purchasers because the covenant was a purely-private agreement between its original parties. As such, it "ran with the land" and was enforceable against subsequent owners. Moreover, since it ran in favor of an estate rather than merely a person, it could be enforced against a third party.

A materially-similar scenario occurred in the companion case McGhee v. Sipes from Detroit, Michigan, where the McGhees purchased land that was subject to a similar restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court consolidated both cases for oral arguments and considered two questions:

• Are racially based restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

• Can they be enforced by a court of law? Decision: The Supreme Court held "that the [racially] restrictive agreements, standing alone, cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment."[2] Private parties may abide by the terms of such a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, as that would be a state action. Such state action would be discriminatory so the enforcement of a racially-based restrictive covenant in a state court would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court sided with the blacks but the decision wasn’t felt until the 1970s!

Taken from Wikipedia

37:28 – What good is a law if there is nothing backing it up?! Antidiscrimination law historically had no teeth

38:52 – What does it mean when the Constitution doesn’t mean anything for African-Americans?

40:41 – We are currently living in a time of heightened immigration and unprecedented income inequality which individual effort cannot undo

42:17 – Current state of black America is not the fault of black America

43:14 – Zoning laws removed black Americans out of stable communities and relegated undesirable items (liquor clubs, strip clubs and so on) to black neighborhoods

44:17 – Article , ‘Exxon Mobil is Still Pumping Toxins Into Black Community In Texas 17 Years After Civil Rights Complaint’

45:30 – Immigrants aren’t invested in what has occurred and continues to occur to descendants of Americans slaves; Immigrants haven’t bared the cost of systematic government offence yet they reap the rewards of our ancestors efforts

47:58 – Nancy Pelosi stood up for eight hours defending DACA; when was the last time Nancy or any modern Democrat held the line for African-Americans?!

48:57 – Article , ‘A Massive Chemical Plant is Poised to Wipe This Louisiana Town off the Map’

52:07 – Dave Chappelle commentary: was it a good thing to give white people permission to laugh at crackheads considering that government created crackheads in black America?

1:02:19 - Destroying black people (native blacks) was a federal project

By Yvette Carnell