"America is Black" - Morrissey on U.S. election - Sam Esty Rayner Photography / Facebook


What a bizarre, unhinged rant. This is perhaps one of the most baffling of them all.

*EDIT*

Text of post below

Message from Morrissey

America is Black

In the United States, minorities are the majority. But who would guess such a thing to scan an eye over the political frontrunners in the 2016 election?
Donald Trump is George Wallace.
Hillary Clinton is pooled money.
Neither speaks for modern America. The day when the new President is to be announced is already prepared as a national day of mourning, for there can be no result for the good of all (or even for the good of most). American politics doesn’t work – not even for the American people alone, and each time you vote you support the process. Far from being excited about immediate change, America is already slumped in a head-shaking disbelief.
The myth that ‘anyone’ can become U.S. President neglects to add the crucial ‘if they have 1 billion dollars to fund their campaign’.
Bernie Sanders, being the only candidate to offer change that does not involve bombs and war and bombs and more war, could not possibly be allowed to win because he far too much resembles a human being. He is true and he is honest but he doesn’t have the necessary 1 billion dollar campaign at his fingertips. Despite his quite incredible initial success, he was not ever allowed CNN headlines. As he won an impressive collection of states, CNN would instead announce A LOSS FOR CLINTON, whereas when Clinton wins, the headlines are hers alone, and do not trumpet A LOSS FOR SANDERS. By this we see how Sanders had always been willed to lose. We have been force-fed a Clinton win from the very start of the election, whereas the astonishing gains by Sanders have been reported as someone getting in the way. There has not been a fair media representation of Sanders success because that success makes it very plain that America is not quite robustly convinced of yet another Clinton president, therefore even the bulk of American democrats are already giving the thumbs down to the future President, which doesn’t look terrific on a global level. Whatever will North Korea think?
With the three main political faces of 2016 being white, it becomes clear that Barack Obama did nothing to build black economic power, and perhaps black oppression is now rife throughout America because Obama had made it clear that he does not defend black people (Ferguson is the only example you need, but there are many others). In white-supremacist political Britain, London’s ‘Princess’ Diana (for she wasn’t ever seen in any other part of the country) was wiped-out because, if still alive, she would now have at least three brown children, and they – not the mentally stunted William and Kate, would be the faces of modern political London, and thus the anarchy of monarchy would feel its grip slip.
Black people built modern America, yet there is zero black energy in American politics. It existed at one time (Malcolm X, Dick Gregory, Dr. King, and perhaps James Baldwin), but no more. CNN has given every main headline for the last six months to Donald Trump – who erroneously believes that America is a ‘white’ country (it wasn’t ever so) and who seems to be a whisper away from uttering the word ‘lynching’. Skeletons in rocking chairs are impressed by Trump’s gung-ho aggression … but why? It’s illogical to create more laws against minorities on the basis that minorities statistically break the law more often than middle-class whites, because, after all, laws in America target blacks and Hispanics far more than they target whites, which is why the masculine energy of numerous TV cop ‘reality’ dramas will only show the police chasing poor people (usually black), but never errant bankers or devious lawyers, or judges who applied the wrong sentence. The sadness, of course, is that even now we must talk in terms of black and white or varied color. It is politics, and not the people, who insist upon divides. How else to rule?
The main crisis of this election is that both Clinton and Trump are, once again, the undisputed faces of the already dominant society – a society that does not work for anyone who is not a billionaire. Clinton talks about new freedoms for women as if women have just been invented. In her world, perhaps they have? Whilst it is true that ALL American TV commercials feature middle-class white women, there is admittedly the obligatory Hispanic passer-by - waving and reassuringly happy on the sidelines, looking in. After a historically shocking two years of random murders of black males by white police officers, where in America are the modern black revolutionaries? Nowhere visible. On Skid Row in Los Angeles, none of the thousands of homeless faces are white. Just coincidence? Instead, we see lots of strong masculine black energy with … nothing to do and nowhere to go and no one to make them believe that hope could even exist. This is the truth of America that is alien to Clinton and Trump, and must always remain so.
It is unimaginable for Ethiopia to ever have a white Prime Minister, for the leaders must at least physically resemble the people to some degree - otherwise, chaos.
What America needs for balance is something that it has never had: a black president.

MORRISSEY
29 April 2016.
 
do you ever, like, relax?

- - - Updated - - -

sometimes when i watch those pride parades i get a longing to be a sexy gay boy. they look like they have fun. more fun than i have.
 
do you ever, like, relax?

- - - Updated - - -

sometimes when i watch those pride parades i get a longing to be a sexy gay boy. they look like they have fun. more fun than i have.

Oh don't get me wrong. Naughty sex is part of being gay. I wouldn't want to give up the sort of freedom that comes with the lifestyle.

I just think the "in your face" pride nonsense is just repulsive. It goes back to the left enforcing division of individuals based on superficial traits. But I already jabbered on about that.
 
Oh don't get me wrong. Naughty sex is part of being gay. I wouldn't want to give up the sort of freedom that comes with the lifestyle.

I just think the "in your face" pride nonsense is just repulsive. It goes back to the left enforcing division of individuals based on superficial traits. But I already jabbered on about that.
"naughty sex is a part of being gay"? wait...is that true of all gay men or a "superficial assumption"? i mean, if i were a gay man (two things i am not) i'd probably be rather disconcerted that anyone would have that assumption about me just because im gay. it's not really fair, is it?

i dont know, i think the "in your face thing" is effective, a way of being totally out in the open, of setting a tone where it's okay to be brazen and unrelenting when it comes to who you are; to say "we're not asking for acceptance, we're taking it as our right"
 
"naughty sex is a part of being gay"? wait...is that true of all gay men or a "superficial assumption"? i mean, if i were a gay man (two things i am not) i'd probably be rather disconcerted that anyone would have that assumption about me just because im gay. it's not really fair, is it?

i dont know, i think the "in your face thing" is effective, a way of being totally out in the open, of setting a tone where it's okay to be brazen and unrelenting when it comes to who you are; to say "we're not asking for acceptance, we're taking it as our right"

Naughty sex is part of being gay. Part. Men are quite sexual beings, generally speaking. Nowhere did I say that "naughty sex is all there is to being gay." So I am somewhat perturbed by the response. Generally we speak generally, no?

I think sexual instincts are pretty obvious and don't really come under the "superficial assumption" category for me. Maybe people assume "top" or "bottom" unfairly but if you aren't having sex with them anyway it's not a big deal.

Gays do the whole sex thing differently from straights. But aside from the sexual and intimate relationship aspects of life, there are really no differences between homos and heteros aside from individual personal differences that occur between all individuals. So I find pride parades to be a bit disingenuous and entirely celebratory of sex, which is really one's own business.

Gay men are generally more sexually adventurous because of the fact that there are two males. That's kind of self-intuitive. It's nice to kind of avoid the courting phase and the necessity of dating. Homosexual encounters are by nature more covert and to me that's part of the experience.

With all that said though, sex is only one part of a person. I find it bizarre that people parade about in celebration of sex. No one really cares or wants to hear about what you do in bed or in the bathroom stalls. And that's a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Naughty sex is part of being gay. Part. Men are quite sexual beings, generally speaking. Nowhere did I say that "naughty sex is all there is to being gay." So I am somewhat perturbed by the response. Generally we speak generally, no?

I think sexual instincts are pretty obvious and don't really come under the "superficial assumption" category for me. Maybe people assume "top" or "bottom" unfairly but if you aren't having sex with them anyway it's not a big deal.

Gays do the whole sex thing differently from straights. But aside from the sexual and intimate relationship aspects of life, there are really no differences between homos and heteros aside from individual personal differences that occur between all individuals. So I find pride parades to be a bit disingenuous and entirely celebratory of sex, which is really one's own business.

Gay men are generally more sexually adventurous because of the fact that there are two males. That's kind of self-intuitive. It's nice to kind of avoid the courting phase and the necessity of dating. Homosexual encounters are by nature more covert and to me that's part of the experience.

With all that said though, sex is only one part of a person. I find it bizarre that people parade about in celebration of sex. No one really cares or wants to hear about what you do in bed or in the bathroom stalls. And that's a good thing.
well i just imagined that there are some gay men who arent into sex, or who arent into sex that much. does that make me terribly naive? is it all about sex? i mean is it not possible to be gay and just desire non-sexual intimacy (ew i hate that word) of the other male and not the sexual aspect? are there not themes of longing and identification and companionship that go into relationships that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex?
you're acting like 'sex' is the golden thread running through everyone binding them in some all inclusive circle of humanity, when you say it's a part of everyone. what about people who simply arent into sex, but still have the desire of closeness with one or the other sex? what do they call themselves? pray, what part do they get in your world view?
 
well i just imagined that there are some gay men who arent into sex, or who arent into sex that much. does that make me terribly naive? is it all about sex? i mean is it not possible to be gay and just desire non-sexual intimacy (ew i hate that word) of the other male and not the sexual aspect? are there not themes of longing and identification and companionship that go into relationships that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex?
you're acting like 'sex' is the golden thread running through everyone binding them in some all inclusive circle of humanity, when you say it's a part of everyone. what about people who simply arent into sex, but still have the desire of closeness with one or the other sex? what do they call themselves? pray, what part do they get in your world view?

No, of course you're right on that point. I mean we do see homosexuals who favour very traditional "heterosexual" type relationships. And some folks are just not that sexual. Sex drive varies with every person, for sure.

I'm just saying that the rules kind of go out the window with two men. There are so many different choices really. I mean you can be the, er, receiver or the giver. And that makes things interesting I think.

Well I'm young. Maybe I'm a bit more sex-focused at the moment than I will be at 40 or 50. But I tend to question the role of domesticity in male homosexuality. It kind of takes away the cool and fun and interesting aspects of the gay male sexual experience. And the development of male-male relationships often takes different courses and shapes than hetero relationships.
 
haha excellent stuff. Has Morrissey created a business selling St. Patrick statue's in Ireland that we don't know about because the Mike Joyce judgment would be chump change compared to what Bernie is proposing for his income bracket.
 
I am proud of having overcome the tremendous fear and anxiety involved in the coming-out process and having done just that at a fairly young age. I'm proud of having been able to accept, understand and acknowledge my sexuality despite growing up in a Catholic environment being constantly told that I am a vile sinner tantamount to pedophiles and murderers and a freak of nature who deserves to die. I'm proud of being unashamed of who I am, despite there being countless individuals, laws, statutes, organisations, etc that would rather I not be who I am. And I am proud of living my life with integrity, true to myself and pursuing happiness, holding my partner's hand in spite of the nasty stare, the eeeews, the judgemental looks and disapproving glances that still come our way, in 2016.

I am also proud of being fearless now, proud of overcoming gay-bashings, injuries, broken bones, jobs that I didn't get, opportunities that I didn't have, not letting all that scare me / stop me from pursuing my dreams and building the life I want to live.

Get it, Mary!!!!
 
Not too long ago I championed in favor of keeping the comments section on this site active. So disappointing to see the content of the majority posts. Cyber bullies and the dullest of wit. It's time I rethink my position. To those who do offer some hope and delightful insights to a headline. Thank you very much for possessing the qualities of what The Smiths and Morrissey stood/stand for. Opinions are welcome on curious situations and comments, but with a degree of class and style. Take care and all the best, we are a rare breed indeed. Cheers
 
How many black band/crew members has Morrissey employed over the years, by the way?
 
Does Morrissey ever have anything positive to say about anything?

Questioning whether Obama is truly black - as if all black people are supposed to behave in the same way, and Obama somehow doesn't fall into line.

And he offers no suggestions about how to fix this awful world we live in, except for not voting. Which is going to achieve what, exactly?

Sanctimonious is not the word.

Get your head out of your arse and find a record label. Your rants are beyond boring now.
 
Hillary really does eat a lot of jalapenos and hot sauce. So? Who's going to vote for her because she likes hot & spicy food? She's also a meat and dairy consumer. She also worked as a fish slimer. EWWWWW!

#FeelTheBern

It is kind of embarrassing to see Hillary's and Bernie's pandering to blacks with idiocy like "I carry hot sauce in my purse." That's just sad, Crooked Hillary!

Really embarrassing actually.

On the other hand, Trump will treat all AMERICANS equally regardless of skin colour and his policies help the poor including the blacks. Trump will be the best president for black Americans since JFK.
 
The best thing I've heard Hillary say about pandering to the black vote was when she was on a radio station consider a black station mearning they played a lot of bLack artists and traditionally black music and the host was giving her a tough time in the sense that he was asking blunt questions and not being rude or anything and he said it still seems like you're pander to the black vote no matter what you eat or listen to and asked what she had to say to people who held that view and she replied well is it working and everyone laughed. I thought it a good moment
 
Oh what insight! This from a man who has never had a single woman, or black person, or homosexual (Spencer?) in his band. Talk about skid row... I've never once heard of Moz going down there to help those people with money or burritos or anything... Hypocrite.
 
Morrissey is a bit off on Mr Sanders. He supported Serbia, Libya, and Syria, and voted to give Bush the ability to wage war anywhere he wanted. He is as much an interventionist as Hillary is. He won't get the independent vote because they hear the words European democracy and they think the worst.

As far as the Trump is George Wallace comparison....Wallace I believe was much more a racist where as Trump just tells the rubes who vote what they want to hear. He will re-tweet David Duke and then claim ignorance.
 
Sanders was one of the few in the U.S. Congress who did not vote for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. I would not compare that invasion with Serbia, Libya or Syria in terms of hostility level, duration or number deaths. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died after the US-led invasion. He is NOT as interventionist as Clinton. I agree with your second paragraph.
 
It's wonderful that you overcame this obstacle to be able to live a more fulfilling life. You may be out, but I feel you'll never be truly free if you need to judge others as people have once and still judge you.

I just find it sad that you would point your finger at someone and call them 'gay' and say that they are 'too much of a coward to come out of the closet'. Especially when you don't know what their own personal and private idea of happiness is.

For what is right for you,may not be right for others.

This is a fair point.
 
Derek17 wrote: "That's a fair point"

Not really. If anything, it strengthens my argument. If an unimportant person surrounded by religious nutbags and homophobes can and should come out so can a wealthy rock star. If he doesn't want to do that for whatever reason then he should at least stop his ridiculous rants from his ivory tower and stop pretending to care about the oppressed.
 
Last edited:

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom