"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.
 
The best way to empower gay people is to let them decide for themselves who and how they want to be and to just judge as people there individual actions. Not always easy but probably the best approach
 
I think it best to quote the late MJ when addressing this most sensitive of issues regarding America..."It's black, it's white yeah, yeah, yeah"

giphy.gif
 
You like Donald Trump? I guess you like to be treated like used toilet paper.
 
His everyday life is the peach,So he can 'preach' as much as he wants,He is in the right.... He walks the talk and talks the walk.

As for calling him 'gay'. He never said he was 'gay' so why should he 'come out'? it makes no sense. He is Humasexual, the same way one may label themselves 'heterosexual' or 'space aliensexual' or whatever.
Just because one would not recognize that label as 'legit' does not make it any less true for that persons happiness,which is not our happiness.

It just reminds me of how when Bowie took back that he's gay/bisexual,saying that he wasn't, and a lot of his fans were disappointed.

Just seems people are looking for a gay hero and he didn't want to be or pretend to be what he wasn't. I understand why people would want a pop/rock star,media figure to take that title in order to support their position and belief systems.

M is no 'coward', he would be a 'coward' if he pretended to be 'gay' and sold out to any record company and just played the game, it would be easier for him if he said he was 'gay', a record label and the media can at least understand that and use that as an advantage for better or worse.

M is NO coward he has never taken the easy road.


So true.
 
Milo Yiannopoulos.

The deranged baby Katie Hopkins put up for adoption.

Too bad for him he isn't qualified to be Trump's running mate.

I googled her. Why does this woman look so old at 41 y.o.? Is she lying about her age? She looks like at least 15 years older...

Edit: I'm a bad person :(
 
I googled her. Why does this woman look so old at 41 y.o.? Is she lying about her age? She looks like at least 15 years older...

Edit: I'm a bad person :(
nah, you're not a bad person. objectively, she does look older. it's only natural to wonder why.

on a related topic, theres that lady that does the one show or whatever, christine bleakley, or at least she did it at the time they interviewed morrissey (which is the only reason i know of her or the show). she's obviously a very attractive lady, but i was surprised to learn that at the time of the morrissey interview she was only like 30. without even thinking about it i had thought she was about 45. not that i think she looked old or that i have crazily high standards for how people should age--because if she really had been 45 you could say she had aged extremely well--it's just that her features dont look like they belong on a young person. some people just have old faces.

i dont think that's the case with katie hopkins though, i think she's just prematurely haggard. or maybe it's a combination of premature haggardness and an old face.
 
His everyday life is the peach,So he can 'preach' as much as he wants,He is in the right.... He walks the talk and talks the walk.

As for calling him 'gay'. He never said he was 'gay' so why should he 'come out'? it makes no sense. He is Humasexual, the same way one may label themselves 'heterosexual' or 'space aliensexual' or whatever.
Just because one would not recognize that label as 'legit' does not make it any less true for that persons happiness,which is not our happiness.

It just reminds me of how when Bowie took back that he's gay/bisexual,saying that he wasn't, and a lot of his fans were disappointed.

Just seems people are looking for a gay hero and he didn't want to be or pretend to be what he wasn't. I understand why people would want a pop/rock star,media figure to take that title in order to support their position and belief systems.

M is no 'coward', he would be a 'coward' if he pretended to be 'gay' and sold out to any record company and just played the game, it would be easier for him if he said he was 'gay', a record label and the media can at least understand that and use that as an advantage for better or worse.

M is NO coward he has never taken the easy road.

Yeah I personally don't see the need for him to "come out" (although he did, for all intents and purposes even if it wasn't enough to satisfy some folks' personal desires). We know (because he has talked about it) that he has an open mind about his romantic partners and that he has dabbled in both men and women. I don't know why the gay "community" generally expects people to follow the strict guidelines that a minority of them have written up--as if gays are supposed to be all the same and as if individuals must be tied to one superficial identity rather than their own individuality!

So I defend Morrissey entirely for how he chooses to conduct his private life.

And by saying he isn't "coming out" that doesn't mean he's "in the closet" as some would suggest. To me, the whole idea of "in the closet" is judgmental and bitchy nonsense. The closet is of course a figment of certain folks' imaginations and not a real state of mind. Flamboyant gays in particular like to judge men who choose to live more reserved and private lives. Most folks aren't extreme extroverts, after all, and certainly extreme extroverts don't get to dictate how most people live their lives (even though inevitably extreme extroverts usually serve to (unfairly) represent various groups in the public sphere.

I disagree with Morrissey at times but nothing about him is fake. We can definitely say he's a genuine person. I have total respect for how he chooses to conduct his own life.
 
Yeah I personally don't see the need for him to "come out" (although he did, for all intents and purposes even if it wasn't enough to satisfy some folks' personal desires). We know (because he has talked about it) that he has an open mind about his romantic partners and that he has dabbled in both men and women.

Don't be silly.

Pete Burns is not a woman.
 
Last edited:
Yes, agree. That rings true, about extroverts representing, it's sometimes unfortunately the case. My concern was just the labeling and wanting to force a person either verbally or physically into being something that they are not. And I feel it is everyone's birthright that one should be free to label or identify(if they feel they must) themselves how ever they want,even if it means having to invent a new word or title that fits ones unique position and views. Of course in a better world there would be no need to defend ones desires,dreams,beliefs, or judge one another.

Just irked me to hear from a person who was persecuted for the expression of their sexuality, and then turn on someone else and call them 'gay' (when they know that this person is humasexual) and then say he's ' too much of a coward to come out of the closet'. Then he tried to defend his statements by saying that the person he's 'criticizing is a famous rock star, a public persona', so I guess that makes it all right. Very strange.

'The closet is of course a figment of certain folks' imaginations and not a real state of mind.'

Oh! I thought it was a actual real closet people were talking about! Hey, you learn something new everyday. ;)

Lmao!

Yes there's sort of this ironic stance with some gays that it's OK to berate homosexual or bisexual men for how they choose to navigate their sexuality (as well as males in general of all sexual orientations by shaming men with phrases like "fragile masculinity" when men act in ways in which the judgmental gays don't approve) while they themselves castigate others for berating them.

It's hypocritical and ironic as you pointed out.
 
Again, it's Morrissey who acts as some kind of moral authority. Instead of making music and letting that speak for itself he constantly tells us what to do, what to eat, what to buy and who to vote for. HE is a judge and a ranter on the Internet. Yet at the same time he lives his life in a way that some find inconsistent with his self-explained moral superiority.

The fact that I am gay and that I don't want to be discriminated, bullied, judged for something that I cannot change has nothing to do with my ability to call out M on his hypocritical ways. It seems though that because I am gay and want equality I am somehow not allowed to judge (M's behavior) according to some. Would you call me a hypocrite if I was straight and said the same thing about M? What point are you trying to make here? Six people had up-voted my first post in this thread before they reset the thumbs-up count. Are they hypocrites and bitchy gays as well?
 
Last edited:
Again, it's Morrissey who acts as some kind of moral authority. Instead of making music and letting that speak for itself he constantly tells us what to do, what to eat, what to buy and who to vote for. HE is a judge and a ranter on the Internet. Yet at the same time he lives his life in a way that some find inconsistent with his self-explained moral superiority.

The fact that I am gay and that I don't want to be discriminated, bullied, judged for something that I cannot change has nothing to do with my ability to call out M on his hypocritical ways. It seems though that because I am gay and want equality I am somehow not allowed to judge (M's behavior) according to some. Would you call me a hypocrite if I was straight and said the same thing about M? What point are you trying to make here? Six people had up-voted my first post in this thread before they reset the thumbs-up count. Are they hypocrites and bitchy gays as well?


What do you mean? Are you actually saying you have the right to judge the way a person chooses to make public (or not) his private sex life and romantic relationships, only because he has political opinions and he openly expresses his ideas about public matters? Do you mean that in order to have the right to question the morality of human behaviours that affect other people and animals, a person must open the door of his bedroom and show to the world his sexual encounters, so people can check if they fit in one of the two allowed standards: gay or hetero? I don't think so. There's a fundamental human right, the right to privacy.
If six members agree with you, that doesn't make your satatement less fanatic and witch hunting. It's terrible to say this, but opressed groups usually have the tendency to turn into oppressors, even with their own members. Are we living a gay-inquisition era? Come out of the closet o we will fire you inside it? Let people live their lives in their own way, and fight their own battles, not yours.
 
I AM letting him live his life. I just think that his own behaviours and choices make his opinions on politics and minorities less credible. I didn't say he should be shot.

But saying that makes me an oppressor of "my own members", a fanatic gay and a hypocrite, apparently.

"Obama is not a black President." "Society does not work for anyone who's not a billionaire." From a wealthy pop singer who refuses to be labelled. Purlease. He is a walking counter example to his own ridiculous claims.
 
Last edited:
He is a hardcore vegan activist yet will perform at Riot Fest amid animal flesh food courts surrounded on every side by rodeos and animal fun carnivals.
Ive yet to understand where Moz gets his knowledge and insight of black culture. He doesnt black music, never seen a Moz black employee or band memeber, cant recall any black peeps at any of his concerts......
 
Might just be where you live then and who you associate with. Plenty of black artists have come out publicly as fans musicians and otherwise
 
I AM letting him live his life. I just think that his own behaviours and choices make his opinions on politics and minorities less credible. I didn't say he should be shot.
But saying that makes me an oppressor of "my own members", a fanatic gay and a hypocrite, apparently.
"Obama is not a black President." "Society does not work for anyone who's not a billionaire." From a wealthy pop singer who refuses to be labelled. Purlease. He is a walking counter example to his own ridiculous claims.

If you think so, then go on with your inquisition. But he shouldn't be your target. He never posed as a macho man, he didn't marry nine wifes in a row to disguise his reality. His only sin is to live his private life quietly. People like you think he should be exhibiting his privacy like Elton John, so you can put him in a box and label him properly. Well, humans aren't mass products. We all are individual beings and it's ok if we don't desire to be labelled in a certain class.
He may be wealthier than you, but he doesn't belong to the ruling powerful class. Some money makes your life easier, but not always means true power, sometimes it makes you more vulnerable to the vultures. Some money makes people more conscius about the fragility of their position in this world and the scoop of true powerful people, of who we will never know their faces.
Yes, you are a fanatic hypocrite but you are not alone, so you can feel socially validated.
 
Has morrissey labeled people?

If he has, is that an implicit right to label him?
 
Back
Top Bottom