The Last Part:
While I disagree of course that my motives are (as you stated) “nefarious”, I do see – given the context of the articles on your website – how you may have come to that conclusion. When I started these videos about black and mixed race women I did what I always do – praise women. I simply do not believe that tearing women down for supposed wrongdoing is the answer to any problems. Men should support their women. Men (along with women) are BORN out of women, yet if we are to engage in a war against them we are disrespecting the womb whence we came. Now you may see my motives as “cashing in” on black women or perhaps as something else, you are of course free to think, interpret, and assess my reasoning in any way, shape, or form that you like, I leave it up to you to conclude whatever you must, but these are my motives. You have been very courteous in answering my questions and since you seem adamant on your views it would be unfair if I didn’t allow you the same courtesy in return on your request for this information, which I have now provided by email. I didn’t post this information in the comments section on your article when I first read it because of the reason I outline at the end of this response.
Concluding this, to address your comment that I do not respond in the comments section on your website and that if I would that I supposedly know I would receive a “thorough grilling” I can say this: I don’t have an issue with addressing any matters that you or your audience have. What do I have an issue with is the format (or medium) that you discuss it in. I would be more than happy to host a live streaming wherein you and your followers debate said matters with me on video with audio, but I know this won’t happen because you and your followers prefer to hide behind the anonymity of made-up names and profiles without photos revealing your indentity. You and your followers are what I colloquially refer to as ‘hiding behind the pencil’, a preferred method of trolling individuals so as to avoid identity recognition, under the guise of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘identity theft’.
This represents a larger problem in that most of you who occupy yourselves with this fruitless quest can never back up your rhetoric with actual identities, therefore your arguments are both in common and legal sense null and void. I won’t enter into a public discussion where the parties are covered by anonymity, because for the educated individual that means nothing, just names and words on a screen, as opposed to moving images with sound and attached identities. And for that reason I will not post in your comments section because I won’t deal with a group of people who hide behind ‘privacy’ and other cowardice excuses as a cop-out to avoid embarrassment while having no problem to slander others from anonymity. I already get that on the daily in the comments section on my videos. What makes you think anything that you or your followers say has any merit when you are afraid to reveal your identity?
Because that’s what it is, you’re afraid of your face (and faces) being shown in public, and you’re also afraid of being put on the spot. I challenge you and your audience to talk to me live! But we both know you won’t do it, for said reasons AND because you’d be out of your comfort zone, far and away from the safe and edited keystrokes that have provided a safe haven for you and your followers up until now (and as per my prediction forever more). That’s also why on your YouTube channel you only post videos from and about other people, never revealing your face, nor on your website, nor on or in your book, or anywhere else for that matter. What are you going to do when I pose you a question you that you need to think about for an hour first and subsequently edit five times, meticulously wording your retort like you might do with your website articles or your response to me via email, while I give you answers to your and your audience’s questions in real-time? To be frank with you, while I respect your courtesy and certainly can appreciate your intelligence and candor in our past conversations, it is my opinion that your followers – and you in particular – are a cowardice lot, demonizing the very women representing one of several races of progenitors of life on this planet, too afraid to show yourselves; you want to play ball or play with your keyboard?
Let me know if you’re man enough to face me live Mr Umanah and I’ll give you my word that I shall redefine the term ‘grilling’ for you single-handedly. 😉
You’ll notice that he pulled the old pro black rhetoric about not disrespecting the womb where we came from. As I have stated before not all women are to be praised and uplifted, only a fool would blindly allocate accolades to women across the board. Would you uplift women like this?
I certainly wouldn’t. Men are only to support those women who are worthy of support. The last section of his email is the main part that I wanted to deal with. Naninck seems to believe that if somebody is responding to him but he cannot see what they look like then somehow their response is invalid. At the end of the day it is Naninck who is the individual on trial here, not Verbs2015, Afrofuturism1, Bill Smith, Sigma Jones, Mike TO, Frilla77, Michel, FLCLimaxxx, Daniel BrotherDan Ward, Whtgrlsrawsome and the rest of the good fellows who frequent the website and leave their comments. How a person chooses to present themselves on the internet is entirely up to them, there is no universal law or statute that requires a person to take the same approach as Naninck, in fact many black male YouTubers because of the controversial topics they discuss rightfully remain anonymous for the protection of themselves and their family members.
Naninck doesn’t seem to understand that within black society one is not allowed to hold to a different opinion than the group and that those who do decide to break away from the collective mindset are treated very harshly. When you phone up the customer service department in any business, at the end of the conversation do you turn around to the representative and say that the information they gave you is not valid because you couldn’t see their face?
This is a ridiculous argument on its face, this is more based around Naninck’s curiosity and nosey nature to want to place faces to names and is exactly how black women operate. What does a person’s face have to do with the truth and the facts? If somebody is speaking the truth but wishes not to have their image on the internet this doesn’t make the truth they speak any less valid. Truth is truth no matter what the source, the same goes for facts, a faceless source doesn’t change them either.
Naninck’s accusation of trolling is utterly ridiculous, I have never visited the comment section of any of his videos, I was only supposed to write one article about him, however when he responded I decided to do another. Trolls troll, they don’t lay out the facts and make valid points, they simply pester, irritate and make ignorant comments devoid of any substance. His claims of identity have nothing to do with anything at all, he is simply wanting to be nosey. Again, as I stated before many black folks have valid reasons for wanting to keep them identity private, especially those who talk about the shortfalls of black women. I don’t have a problem with people seeing my face, however the time of that moment will not be dictated by other people.
Again, the talk about our responses being null and void because he cannot see our faces is complete garbage, something that has been fabricated in his own mind, a classic straw man argument. Then he went on to talk about how we are cowards and we hide ourselves to avoid embarrassment, embarrassment of what exactly? Isn’t this the man who has written such a long essay in his attempts to convince us that he isn’t a fraud, yet he did this without seeing my face right? This right here goes to show you the identity issue he has raised is simply a straw man argument, as I stated before Naninck is not the authority on how people are to present themselves on the internet, people have the right to choose the method of presentation they feel most comfortable with.
My identity has nothing to do with anything, it is the information that I am bringing to the table which is supposed to be the focus of the discussion, not what somebody looks like, this is childish behaviour. I’m not afraid to be put on the spot at all, it is simply the case that I have moved on from this subject. The only reason why I am posting this long email now is because he wanted me to in order for you guys to see it. As for a live audience, maybe later on down the road, however now I am dealing with other things.
I have no idea what Naninck is talking about in relation to us being afraid to come out of our comfort zones, in reality what Naninck is attempting to do here is provoke us into taking action according to HIS parameters, however as I stated before, he is the one who is on trial not us, he cannot perform the position of judge and criminal at the same time. He doesn’t get to dictate the rules and the regulations surrounding my critique of his movement. Do you see how he is shifting the focus from the information presented to showing one’s face? Again, in the same manner that he introduced other races into the mix when dealing with black women and their violent tendencies, here he is doing the same thing once again under the guise of “proving who we are” via imagery.
You’ll notice that there are quite a few black female YouTubers who make videos without showing their faces, yet he won’t go in on them and call them cowards because they are “mother earth, queens and gods”. As for me not being able to answer questions on the spot, I just finished a 3 hours radio interview with the Obsidian Radio Network yesterday(Wednesday 17th May 2017), I will assure Naninck that I am just as sharp on my feet being questioned in real-time as I am on the blog, don’t be fooled simp, don’t be fooled.
At the end of the day I wrote the article on Naninck, not the reverse. There is nothing he can “ask me on the spot” pertaining the black women that I cannot answer immediately, again I simply ignore this empty jab as it is another attempt trying to provoking a response under his rules. This is the dishonesty of Coen Naninck on display once again. As far as I am concerned I had already moved on from the second article I wrote about him, this will be the last time I will write an article about him unless of course he does something else to embarrass himself once again.
Coen Naninck is simply disgruntled at the fact that somebody has called him out on his simp to pimp operation, oh well that’s life.
The Deprogramming And Decontamination Process Continues
Most High Bless