Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Friday, December 31, 2004


Today we ponder "creativity." To this end I offer a quote from Robert Faris Thompson's "Flash of the Spirit":

Kongo Presence unexpectedly emerges in the Americas in many places and in many ways. Take for example, vernacular English and singing. In the South of the United States, important Ki-Kongo words and concepts influenced black English, especially the lexicons of jazz and the blues, as well as of lovemaking and herbalism. Many a Ki-Kongo derived word has been described by etymologists as "origin unknown." The word "jazz" is probably creolized Ki-Kongo. It is similar in sound and original meaning to "jizz," the American vernacular for semen. And "jizz," suggestive of vitality, appears to derive from the Ki-Kongo verb dinza, "to discharge ones semen, to come." Dinza was creolized in New Orleans and elsewhere in black United States into "jizz" and "jism."

The slang term "funky" in black communities originally referred to strong body odor, and not to "funk" meaning fear of panic. The black nuance seems to derive from the Ki-Kongo lu-fuki, "bad body odor," and is perhaps reinforced by contact with fumet, "aroma of food or wine," in French Louisiana. But Ki-Kkongo word is closer to the jazz word "funky" in form and meaning, as both jazzmen and Bakongo use "funky" and "lu-fuki" to praise persons for the integrity of their arts, for having "worked out" to achieve their aims. In Kongo today it is possible to hear an elder lauded in the way: "like there is a real funky person!--my soul advances toward him to recieve his blessing" (yati, nkwa lu-fuki Ve miela miami ikwenda baki). Fu Kiau Bunseki, a leading native authority on Kongo culture, explains: "someone who is very old, I goto sit with hiim , in order to feel his lu-fuki. meaning I would like to be blessed by him." For in Kongo the smell of a hard working elder carries luck. This Kongo sign of exertion is identified with the positive energy of a person. Hence "funk" in black American jazz parlance can mean earthiness, a return to fundamentals.

Robert Faris Thompson

Thursday, December 30, 2004


Today we study "Purpose." To this end I offer the words of Franz Fanon:

Since the Middle Class has neither sufficient material nor intellectual resources (by intellectual resources we mean engineers and technicians), it limits its claims to the taking over of business offices and commercial houses formerly occupied by the settlers. The national bourgeoisie steps into the shoes of the former European settlement: doctors, barristers, traders, commercial travelers, general agents, and transport agents. It considers that the dignity of the country and it's own welfare require that it should occupy these posts. From now on it will insist that al the big foreign companies should pass through it's hands, whether these companies wish to keep their connections with the country, or to open it up. The national middle class discovers it's historic mission: that of intermediary.

Seen through its eyes, its mission has nothing to do with trasforming the nation; it consists , prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged, which today puts on the mask of neo-colonialism. The national bourgeoisie will be quiite content with the role of the Western bourgeoisie's business agent, and it will play it's part without any complexes in a most dignified manner. But this same lucrative role, this cheap-Jack's function, this meanness of outlook and this absence of all ambition symbolize the incapability of the national middle class to fullfil its historic role of bourgeoisie. Here, the dynamic, pioneer aspect, the characteristics if the inventor and of the discoverer of new worlds which are found in all national bourgeoisie; are lamentably absent. In the colonial countries, the spirit of indulgence is dominant at the core of the bourgeoisie; and this is because the national bourgeoisie identifies itself with the Western bourgeoisie, from which it has learned its lessons.

Franz Fanon
The Pitfalls of National Consciousness

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Not My Tribe?
I spotted this piece while perusing The article, entitled: "Real African-American Culture Is Superior to Psuedo-African Culture" was too much for me to pass up on. As is the usual for critics of Kwanzaa Mr. Mudede incorrectly describes kwanzaa:

No, the reason I don't celebrate or recognize Kwanzaa is because the language and practices of that occasion are drawn from an African tribe that is not mine.

really? Last I checked Kwanzaa was not based on any specific "tribal" practices but rather a distilliation of common themes thruout Africa. So what specifically is Mr. Mudede's problem?

I'm Manica, which is a tribe settled in the eastern, mountainous region of Zimbabwe. I recognize my tribe first, and then to a much, much lesser extent my country, whose borders were invented by the British. As for Kwanzaa, I don't know the tribe that does and says such things as "Umoja" and "Ujima"; and if I did know them I still wouldn't celebrate their holiday because it is not a Manica holiday. I don't celebrate Zulu holidays, nor do I celebrate the holidays of the Masai people, and so why should I celebrate the holiday of the tribe that says things like "Umoja" and "Ujima"?

I want to comment on this statement because it reveals much of what is wrong with much of the African intelligencia on both sides of the Atlantic. Notice that as "intelligent" as the writer is he still decides that he is more about his "tribe" than his nation. In fact he later goes as far as to state that such tribalism is at the "soul" of the Black African. Furthermore; unless he is speaking in a general sense, Why is it that he prefers to celebrate English, French or who knows what other races holidays but not one of the 'tribe next door." It seems that It's not so m uch Kwanzaa that Mr. Mudede has a problem with, it is with black people in general. But let me continue.

Mr. Mudede then extols the virtues of African-American "non-tribalness"

While African Americans enjoy their invented tribal holiday, real Africans look to America as an escape from tribalism. Indeed, the best possible gifts that black Americans could give black Africa are their tribal-less music, customs, books, hairstyles, and dances. A holiday that celebrated the traditions and practices of a tribal-less black America would probably be more useful to black Africans as a whole than one that got at all involved in the messy and usually bloody business of tribalism.

Let's all be pretty honest here and state that much of African-American culture is either grafted european customs or latent African customs. But look at his last sentance. Kwanzaa is a tribaless "holiday." It is Mudede that is injecting "tribalism" into the holiday by tripping over the use of Swahili. Furthermore, nowhere does he even discuss the meanings of the Swahhili words and thier role in Kwanzaa. No, all he does is moan about how Swahilli is spoken by some tribe somewhere and since it isn't his, he isn't interested. SHeeeeeet if that's his only problem then why not translate the Swahili words into Manica and get on with it.

Mr. Mudede then offers up something that is of real value:

Similarly, the fact that black Americans are not attached to a tribe (or tribes) means that they have created a unified African-American culture, one that offers Africans a better example for unification than anything you would find in Africa itself.

This is very true and is the great untapped gift of the Diaspora. It proves that we can be a whole unit even with our regional differences. What is lacking is what Fanon spoke about, the creation of a National Consciousness. This can be achieved in a single generation if the leadership was up to it and "intellectuals" such as Charles Mudede wasn't to busy running away from his neighbors.


Today is Ujamaa or Cooperative Economics.

Let us as Negroes, prepare ourselves throughout the world for the conflict that is bound to ensue between the rivaling forced for the ultimate domination of out country-Africa. For we are not going to give up easily, and allow these European intruders to rob, exploit and dominate the land of our fathers.

If the oil of Africa is good for Rockefeller's interest; if Iron ore is good for Carnegie Trust; then surely these minerals are good for us. Why should we allow Wall Street and the capitalist group of America and other countries to exploit ourt country when they refuse to give us a fair chance in the country of our adoption? Why should not Africa give to the world its Black Rockefeller, Rothschild and Henry Ford? Now is the opportunity. Now is the chance for every Negro to make every effort towards a commercial, industrial standard that will make us comparable with the successful business men of other races.

Africa invites capital to develop it's resources. Let not that capital, whether it be financial or man-power, be supplied by white men, bnut let us Negroes make our contribuition. All that Africa needs is proper education. The Western Negro has much of that, and it is our duty to so prepare our brothers as to place them on guard against the tricky exploiters of Europe who have been decieving and robbing them of their possessions.

-Marcus Garvey April 18, 1923

Tuesday, December 28, 2004


Today is "Collective Work and Responsibility." I couldn't find something to quote for today so I decided to just comment on the situation in South-East Asia. The US has pledged 35 million to aid the countries involved in the catastrophy. To the average person this may seem like alot but we should note that the War in Iraq has already cost over $100 Billion and it has cost many many lives. It should be unnacceptible that a nation so committed to "Christian Values" would spend such a l arge sum of money on killing, which went largely on the basis of false information, yet spends not even a 10th of that amount to help multiple countries recover from a natural disaster.

Outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powel made teh rounds this morning claiming that the US is the largest doner to AID organizations in the world. Well the US should be and that does not excuse the fact that early on the US government only wanted to give 15 million. Clearly now, as when the first Atom bomb was dropped on Japan, Asian lives and well being are not a great concern to those white men and women (and a couple of house negroes) in power in the US.


Monday, December 27, 2004

Today marks Kujichagulia, or "Self-Determination." Today I'll post a piece from Amilcar Cabral: National Liberation and Culture (Return to the Source):

History Teaches us that , in certain circumstances, it is very easy for the foreigner to impose his domination on a people. But it also teaches us that, whatever may be the material aspects of this domination, it can be maintained only by the permanent organized repression of the cultural life of the people concerned. Implantation of foreign domination can be assured difinitively only by physical liquidation of a significant part of the dominated population.

In fact, to take up arms to dominate people is, above all, to take up arms to destroy, or at least to neutralize, to paralyze, it's cultural life. For with a strong indeginous cultural life, foreign domination cannot be sure of it's perpetuation...

In fact, culture is always in the life of a society (open or closed), the more or less conscious result of the economic and political activities of that society, the more or less dynamic expression of the kinds of relationships which prevail in that society, on the one hand between man (considered individually or collectively) and nature, and, on the other hand, among individuals, groups of individuals, social strata or classes...

The study of the history of national liberation struggles are preceeded by an increase expression of culture, consolidated progressively into a successful or unsuccessful attempt to affirm the cultural personality of the dominated people, as a means of negating the oppressor culture...Therefore, national liberation takes place when, and only when, national productive forces are completely free of all kinds of foreign domination...National liberation is necessarily an act of culture.

The experience of colonial domination shows that, in the effort to perpetuate exploitation, the colonizer not only creates a system to represss the cultural life of colonized people; he also provokes and develops the cultural alienation of a part of the population, either by so-called assimilation of indigenous people, or bty creating a social gap between the indigenous elites and the popular masses...The urban or peasant petite bourgeoisie, assimilates the colonizer's mentality, considers itself culturally superior to its own people and ignores ot looks down upon their cultural values. This situation, characteristic of the majority of the colonized intellectuals, is consolidated by increases in the social priviledges of the assimilated or alienated group with direct implications for the behavior of individuals in this group in relation to the liberation movement.

But in the face of the vital need for progress, the following attitudes or behaviors will be no less harmful to Africa: indiscriminate compliments; systematic exaltation of virtues without condemning faults; blind acceptance of the values of the culture, without considering what presently or potentially regressive elements it contains; confusion between what is the expression of an objective and material historical reality and what appears to be the creation of the mind or the product of a particular temperament; absurd linking of artistic creations, whether good or not, with supposed racial characteristics; and finally, the non-specific or a scientific critical appreciation of the cultural phenomenon.

As we know, the armed liberation struggle requires the mobilization and organization of a significant majority of the population, the political and moral unity of the various social classes, the efficient use of modern arms and of otehr means of war, the progressive liquidation of the remnants of tribal mentality, and the rejection of social and religious rules and taboos whicihi inhibit development of the struggle (gerontocracies, nepotism, social inferiority of women, rites and practices which are incompatible with the rational and national character of the struggle, etc.)

Amilcar Cabral 1970

Sunday, December 26, 2004

Kwanzaa 2004: Umoja
Today marks the first day of Kwanzaa 2004. Today is Umoja, Unity. Instead of commenting directly on the subject I will post the words of Marcus Garvey c 1922:

As far as Negroes are concerned, in America we have the problem of lynching, peonage and dis-franchisement.

In the West Indies, South and Central America we have the problem on peonage, serfdom, industrial and political government inequality.

In Africa, we have, not only peonage and serfdom, but out-right slavery, racial exploitation and alien political monopoly.

We cannot allow a continuation of these crimes agins our race. As four hundred million men, women and children, worthy of existance given us by the Divine Creator, we are determined to solve our own problem, by redeeming out Motherland Africa from the hands of alien exploiters and found there a government, a nation of our own, strong enough to lend protection to the members of our race scattered all over the world, and to compel the respect of the nations and races of the earth.

Do they lynch Englishmen, Frenchmen , Germans or Japanese? No. And Why? Because these people are represented by great governments, mighty nations and empires, strongly organized. Yes, and ever ready to shed the last drop of blood and spend the last penny in the national treasury to protect the honor and integrity of a citizen outraged anywhere.

Until the Negro reaches this point of national independence, all he does as a racde will count for naught, because the prejudice that will stand out against him even with his ballot in his hand, with his industrial progress to show, will be of such an overwhelming nature as to perpetuate mob violence and mob rule, from which he will suffer, and which he will not be able to stop with his industrial wealth and with his ballot.

You may argue that he can use his industrial wealth and his ballot to force the government to recognize him, but he must understand that the government is the people. That the majority of the people dictate the policy of the governments, and if the majority are against a measure, a thing, or a race, then the government is impotent to protect that measure, thing or race.

If the Negroes were to live in the Western Hemisphere for another five hundred years he would still be outnumbered by other races who are prejudiced against him. He cannot resort to the government for protection for government will be in the hands of the majority of the people who are prejudiced against him, hence for the Negro to depend onh the ballot and his industrial pregress alone, will be hopeless as it does not help him when he is lynched, burned, jim-crowed and segregated. The future of the Negro therefore , outside of Africa, spells ruin and disaster.

Marcus Garvey

While some of the comments, specifically regarding lynching, may not be applicable today, the general sentiment of being outnumdered in the US and the affects on black monetary and political power is something we saw in the last presidential election where blacks regardless of tunrout were still unable to make THE difference in the election. Also the general commentary on slavery existing in Africa and the serfdom peonage and expoloitation rings true from Darfur to Cote D'Ivoir. It seems so odd that the statements made in 1922, some 82 years ago, still ring true today.

Saturday, December 25, 2004

The GOP for Quotas

During the first Bush administration, Bush put his half cent in on the Affirmative Action policy of the University of Michigan. He and most "conservatives" are against "quotas." That is they claim that it is discriminatory and wrong to set aside jobs and the like to "certian groups." They say that groups should compete and the market should rule. So it seems odd that the NY Times is reporting that the Bush administration is supporting an idea that Sunni Muslims in Iraq should have some ministries and other governmental positions for them as they are expected to make a poor showing in the upcoming Jan elections.

An even more radical step, one that a Western diplomat said was raised already with an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, is the possibility of adding some of the top vote-getters among the Sunni candidates to the 275-member legislature, even if they lose to non-Sunni candidates.

The diplomat said even some Shiite politicians who were followers of Ayatollah Sistani were concerned that a Pyrrhic victory by Shiites, effectively shutting Sunni Arabs out of power, could alienate Sunnis and lead to more internal strife. Shiites make up about 60 percent of Iraqis and were generally denied power under Saddam Hussein.

No matter what the reasoning, this is clearly Affirmative Action and/or a quota system. One has to wonder why AA and quotas are ok in Iraq but not ok in the US as it concerns Black people. Blacks in the US make up proportionally less of the US population than Sunnis do in Iraq, yet there has never been a suggestion that Blacks, historically denied power in the US, should recieve representation in key areas of government in proportion to their population. In fact in various states, districts have been redrawn specifically to reduce black representation (by cutting up democratic districts).

Of course we will probably never hear a peep by black conservatives who prop the party line about quotas 'cause just like their white counterparts they know that quotas are only a problem as it pertains to black folks.


Thursday, December 23, 2004

Support Our Objectors

Everyday when I'm out driving I am assaulted by bumper stickers reading "Support Our Troops." This was the brainshild of the first Bush administration for getting the US population behind the first Persian Gulf War. Fearing the "ghost of Vietnam" they concocted this idea that you don't have to support or like the war but a patriot supports the troops.


Let's be clear here,"Support our Troops" is used to show support for the war and diverts attention from the war at hand. I say we should not support our troops. Why? This is a volunteer army. There was no draft. Any person in the military now is there because they chose to. They knew the risks. Why should I be any more supportive of a soldier than a firefighter? At least a firefighter is actually doing a public good. And before someone blows a gasket, I have family and friends in the Military and they know my position. being a volunteer military also means that like Muhammed Ali the soldier could object to being deployed to a situation they morally object to. This is the highest level of military service: To object to something that ones conscious tells you is wrong and standing by it. But where are the "Support the Objectors" bumper stickers?

Nowhere to be seen.


Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Solstice the Reason for the Season

Today I watched in disappointment as ABCNEWS continued it's propaganda machine for "conservative Christians" by airing a "newspiece" about the concern Christians have about the "removal" of Christ from Christmas. This is not a new conclusion but one that has been getting more attention especially in the wake of the conclusion that "Christian Morals" decided the past presidential election. What made me so irate was that there was absolutly no one on the opposite side or a different side that was given enough air time to discuss in any real detail why the "Jesus is the reason for the season" idea is plain wrong. And what was worse was thier habit of finding black Christians who are often more virulent than their white counterparts in the "defense" of Christianity, to discuss these matters. But then again such phenomenon is not unheard of.

One of the advertisments that was flashed on screen was that 96% of people celebrate Christmas. 5% Hanukkah and 2% (maybe) Kwanzaa. Let's not even start on the Kwanzaa comparison since Kwanzaa is not even a religious observance as Hanukkah and Christmas is. But lets observe that 96% number. How many of that 96% celebrate Christmas because of "Santa Clause", "Christmas gifts" and "Christmas trees?" All, mind you non-Christian and 'pagan" in origins? Yes. Old Saint Nick is simply a re-incarnation of the Norse God Thor. The Christmas tree an allusion to the tree which was used during human sacrifices to Thor the human sacrifices being the gifts. Merry indeed!! How many of these "Born Agains" have these pagan symbols in thier homes? A whole lot. Hypocritical isn't it then to be upset because retailers are saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." But then that's par for the course.

If you look at that 96% of Americans who celebrate Christmas, only 77.25% of them also observe Easter. What's Easter? Only the represented date of "Jesus'" resurection. Why is it that so many people who observe the "Christian origins" of Christmas feel it unimportant to observe the pivotal resurection of said Christ? Because they are in it for the food and clothes. I would Hazard to guess that an even smaller number of people observe Good Friday, The day representative of Jesus's actual "humanity saving" crucifiction.

I believe that Christmas should be a strictly religious holiday. NO store sales, No Christmas trees, just a time for Christians to sit down and ponder the life of Christ whether that be in church or in their homes. I am appalled at the crass commercialization of the holiday. But The "good reverend" on ABCNEWS, instead of discussing this issue spent his time discussing what stores the "faithfull" should shop in. Hmmmmmmmm... I object to this so strenuously that last year when a member of my religion posted on a bulletin board " Merry Christmas" I quickly posted that I objected to a member of our "faith" to be involved in the commercialization of Christmas just as we object to the distortion of our own. So you see, it is not merely Christians observing the holiday and definitely not for Jesus.

But lets get back to the header of the post: The solstice. Folks there is a good a natural reason why we celebrate Christmas in the week that includes Dec 25. And note I did not say "the" 25th. Those who keep an eye on the length of daylight will know that the week of December 25th in the northern Hemisphere is the shortest daylight time of the year. That is called the Winter Soltice. After the week of the 25th the daylight hours begin to lengthen and hence the sun is "reborn" Get it? The S[u]n of God (As depicted in Khemetic theology) is reborn on Christmas. Helloooooooo!

In fact if we go further we will note that Easter coincides with the Vernal, or spring Equinox. At that time the daylight and the "night light" are of equal lengths. This represents the s[u]n finally overcoming the darkness (or Jesus coming back from "hell" or "the underworld") and the return of the daylight over the nightlight until the summer solstice in June. In other words as Easter represents the resurection of the "Son" of God,"and his conquering of death the Vernal Equinox represents the resurection and conquering of night (darkness). All of this stuff has been known for thousands of years by many many cultures and predates and is geographically irrelevant to any "Jesus".

So, in short, Jesus is not the reason for the season. The Solstice is. Sorry your reverend or pastor or whatever other Khemetic derived faith one follows, didn't have the decency to look it up, or simply didn't know. But please, don't make that my problem and please, please stop letting these know nothing people on tv to complaining about stuff they really know nothing about.


Monday, December 20, 2004

Bill Moyers

I couldn't think of a catchy title for this post but it is one that ought to be read by everyone who is concerned about the appearance if not fact that the Christian right has taken a deathgrip on power in America and how this is bad not only for those of us in America but for everyone else too:


I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed – an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 – just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of god will return, the righteous will enter heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire...

as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same god who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, America's providential history. You'll find there these words: "the secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in god is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in god's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that god has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

This is serious business folks. I saw through the whole "Jesus loves you" talk that many (I can't say all) Christians have given me. I even have a neighbor who's son (5 years) likes to talk about how I am a pagan, but that neighbor loves to ask me to watch the child. But I suppose the pagans are supposed to "be there" for the believers. Anyway I knew that deep down their "love" was very much conditional. and in fact they were more interested in Rapture than anybody else around them. That thier God was so parochial as to seek to eternally damn people who may have lived lives of Iwa Pele (Good character) simply because they chose to worship differently, seemed pretty stupid to me. But perhaps this rapture will come soon and remove these resource wasting people from our midst so we can live in peace.

Mistaking Mr. Garvey

The following is in response to an article entitled What is the Future of Black Advocacy in America By Anthony Asadulla Samad

Mr. Samad
I read your piece on “The Future of Black Advocacy” as it appeared in the Black Commentator. While I agree with the overall sentiment of the piece I must disagree with the following portion:

Two of our major advocacy organizations, the NAACP and SCLC, have on-going leadership battles centered on what the future direction of “the movement” should be. New groups like the National Action Network and Operation HOPE claim to be the future of the struggle but are fueled by “personality driven” activism (Al Sharpton and John Bryant) that seems to serve a more singular interest than collective – some say, replicating “the Jesse Model.” The “Jesse Model” only replicated “the King Model” which replicated “the Garvey Model” which replicated “the Booker T” in terms of organizations driven by personality leadership. It’s a 20th Century phenomenon we can’t seem to get away from, and the “take me to your leader” syndrome now causes a rush to the front of the line that breeds conflict on another level – the lobby for the white man’s (mainstream) attention. The point is, when you get in front of him, do you really have anything to say?

Nothing could be farther from the truth in regards to Marcus Garvey and the UNIA. While Marcus Garvey was indeed a charismatic person who at pivotal times let his ego get in the way of his organization, the model that the UNIA represented is in no way comparable to the NAACP, SNCC, NAN or Operation HOPE. A cursory glance at the work of the UNIA would confirm this.

Take for example the fact that the UNIA, from its inception was an international, Pan-Africanist organization. The NAACP, which was founded by white people with Dubois installed at it’s head, was not a Pan-African organization, nor was it international in scope. Nor was the SCLC. Furthermore, while the NAACP was putting the political cart before the economic horse and aiding and abetting the US Government to oust Garvey, the UNIA was attempting to empower millions of blacks worldwide. How then can we even begin to equate the NAACP and its “struggle” with that of the UNIA?

If one looks deeper at the NAACP vs. the UNIA one would note that the UNIA was founded and funded entirely by blacks for blacks and was not beholden to white sponsorship for it’s programs as the NAACP was and still is.

If we look at the connection between Garvey and Washington we would note that what Garvey admired about Booker T. Washington’s program was the insistence on self-help and economic activity as a means to be independent. Garvey soon went far beyond what Booker T. Washington’s ideologies. A more relevant American ideologue to predate Garvey is Martin Delany who also advocated, unsuccessfully that blacks ought to self separate themselves in order to develop economically and politically. He believed, as Garvey did later, that blacks in continued close contact with whites were and would continue to be overly dependent on whites for their “welfare.” and would continue to be the objects of their violence.

Clearly you can see that Garvey is the “odd man out” in your line up of 20th century leadership. And perhaps that is a reason why Garvey ought to be revisited as we seek answers to the question of “black advocacy.”


Tuesday, December 14, 2004

The IRS, NAACP and short sightedness

The Wall Street Opinion Journal ran an article discussing the Tax trouble that the NAACP faces due to a speech given by Julian Bond where he flat out discussed George Bush which seems to be in violation of the 501c3 tax-exempt status of said organization.

My early warning system went up when I saw it was the Wall Street Journal that was attempting to defend the NAACP. It turns out, however that the Wall Street Journal isn't really bcking the NAACp as much as it would like to defend other organizations (which it would have more agreements with) from having the same threat carried out against them.

The NAACP is just one of 60 or so nonprofits now under investigation by the tax police. Our sources tell us that some of these outfits are conservative, and all fall under the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code, which prohibits them from endorsing candidates, making campaign donations or otherwise engaging in partisan conduct. Since the groups receive tax-deductible contributions, goes the reasoning, allowing them to engage in such activities would amount to an indirect subsidy from taxpayers.

One option is simply to tax the errant remarks. The seldom enforced 527(f) section of the code says that if a 501(c)(3) organization engages in campaign intervention, the amount that it expends on that activity is subject to tax at 35%. Why not tax the speech, thus eliminating the subsidy, and leave the status alone?

Let's understand something here, most "liberal" non-profit organizations cannot afford to lose their exempt status. On the other hand many "conservative" non-profits have many large corporate entities through which they can get their funds. Now follow me for a minute. Imagine if say an organization wanted to make a overtly political event which would violate it' tax exempt status, All it would need to do is make sure that they had a corporate backer to donate enough money to cover the fine and they could go on with thier program. Therefore they could undercut the entire "non-partisan" portion of the tax-exempt rules by simply having a corporate donor throw around some cash. That is a very scary thought. When I consider the number of churches that would LOVE to do overtly political actions but do not do so because of the tax laws, I hate to think that they would be able to buy themselves exemptions where smaller organizations could not do so on nearly the same scale.

Therefore as before, I hold that if the NAACP is found to have violated their status that they be stripped of that status. And all the other organizations that are found to be in violation should be stripped as well. This would serve as a message to other organizations that they must play by the rules or exit the game. There's enough money in politics already, let's not add more.


Monday, December 13, 2004

African "American"

For those of you who watch 'The Wire" you know that the Character known as "Stringer Bell" met his end at the hands of Omar and "The Muslim." What I did not know was that the Stringer was played by one Idris Elba, who apparently is the son of a Ghanian and a Sierra Leonean. Now in the wake of certain "conservatives' who insist that "we are not "Africans" I offer up Mr. Elba as an example of just how wrong that assertion is. Certainly a majority of the watchers of "The Wire' Mistook Mr. Elba for an "African-American." Yet he is and was not.

I know, I Know, McWhorter's issue was on cultural grounds. And I understand that, but Mr. Elba makes a strong case of why given our phenotype, we should be embracing the good parts of African culture because that's who we are.

Not So Innocent Journalists

The NY times today posted a story on a debate on whether the Pentagon should ingage in the international use of deceptive information.

During the cold war, American intelligence agencies had journalists on their payrolls or operatives posing as journalists, particularly in Western Europe, with the aim of producing pro-American articles to influence the populations of those countries. But officials say that no one is considering using such tactics now.

Suspicions about disinformation programs also arose in the 1980's when the White House was accused of using such a campaign to destabilize Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya.

In the current debate, it is unclear how far along the other programs are or to what extent they are being carried out because of their largely classified nature.

If this statement is true then why should we believe that such tactics are not currently being used. Furthermore then, if a journalist is killed by "insurgents" or other "enemies" then can we be sure that they are not in fact agents of the US government and therefore "fair game?" The bigger problem here is that the use of "journalists" by government agencies puts all journalists and so called "neutral parties" at risk. So when you see another journalist captured and threatened ask yourself: Regardless to how much protesting the journalist does, are they really a journalist or are your feelings being messed with for a different purpose?


Sunday, December 12, 2004

A response to a Reader

I was going to respond in the comments section to a poster 'Rugi' Who commented on my post on John Stott and why I didn't think he mattered so much in the discussion of Morals, Christianity and the wider issues of governance in America. The reader said:

"These "truthists' believed that blacks were not even capable of "salvation""

You seem to be trapped in a logical fallacy. The fact that some people who believe in absolute truth believed something wrong, does not prove that there is no absolute truth, anymore than people who believe in the scientific method and used it to justify racist beliefs (dare I mention Nazis) makes the scientific method wrong. It just proves that they had the wrong truth.

It is wrong to say that I or others do not belive in absolute truths. I do. For example:

1) The Sky is NOT blue. it appears blue because of light scattered by the atmosphere makes it appear to be blue. The sky really has no color.

2) The Earth is round but not a perfect circle.

These are examples of absolute truths. You can verify these things through the scientific process and get the same results time and again. There is no situational definition here. Let us apply this to religion. When one says that Jesus is God or the Son of God, where is your proof? a particular book that claims that is not proof. It is only proof as much as it is proven that it was written somewhere. it cannot be verified by anyone else. Same thing for any other religion. You're not dealing with 'absolute truth" but actually articles of faith or belief. Articles of faith or belief regardless of how strongly felt does not constitute "absolute truth." In line with the "Nazi" example of "truth" there is no such thing as "wrong truth" either something is true or it is not. "wrong truth" equals "false." "unpopular turth" equals truth. Furthermore, as any student of logic will tell you, a conclusion as as truthfull as it's premises. Thus the Nazis had false premises that made thier conclusions "false" regardless of how strongly they believed in them.

Now since the commentor chose to specify my example of "blacks were not capable of salvation" let me address this specifically. The reason that this was pointed out was because the very fact that the Bible, which forms the foundation for said "Truths" was able to be interpreted in such a manner, means that said foundation is in fact flawed. If the Book is "Gods" unalterable truth yet that truth changes then it cannot be "God's unalterable truth." In which case it is man's truth and we all know what that means. We recall that this same "truth" forbids women from being leaders in the Christian religion not to mention the God warranted genocide of many people in the Middle East, while proclaiming that Killing is a sin.

This leads back to the readers further issue with my comment on Stott. He feeels that I didn't address Stott. Indeed I didn't. The title of the post was "It doesn't matter." The reason it doesn't matter is because for all his apparent differences with Falwell he still ascribes to:

. In Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ God's revelation is complete; to add any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ."

Which means he is not for "absolute truth" he is for Biblical truth,. Biblical truth is not absolute truth. It's just what it says it is "biblical truth" nothing more and nothing less and of no less truthful nature than the I-Chin or the Odu Ifa.
Kerik and Condeleeza

In an earlier set of posts I discussed why I and many others objected to Condeleeza Rice being appointed as Secretary of State or even continuing to be National Security Advisor. Many, if not all black conservatives and not a few white ones rose to defend the honor of Dr. Rice accusing black and white liberals of intellecutal parochialism, racism and only capable of puerile logic. Unfortunatly is appears that Al Sharpton has thrown his hat into this arena. I have been a pretty staunch supporterof Rev. Al, but how he says it's ok to call out Justice Thomas but not Condeleeza, smacks of the political opportunism that many have labelled him with. If this is the road Sharpton wishes to travel than I will be more than happy to unhitch my horse from that cart. But this isn't about him. This is about Condi.
Apparently Kerik has been removed from nomination to the top Homeland Security post because he apparently hired a nanny who was in the country illegally AND he failed to pay taxes on her salary. The latter makes sense since paying taxes to a person who shouldn't be here would simply point them out. But anyways, the administration has said that the presense of an illegal alien by Mr. Kerik

White House officials were clearly annoyed at Mr. Kerik for not determining the nanny's immigration status before this week but said they had no evidence he had sought to mislead them. "It was Kerik's screw-up, it was that simple," the official said. "But it's a mistake you can't tolerate with someone who has oversight for immigration."

Well now, if that is the case: that failure to determine immigration status of an individual makes them unfit for a top Homeland Security post. Then shouldn't it also be the case that a person who failed to heed the many warnings about imminent threat of attacks on US soil, or failed to inform the president of that information or failed to even know about the information, shouldn't that person be unqualified for National Security advisor much less Secretary of State?

Let's take the Black conservative position that race should not be a factor. If we remove race then if Condi, is good enough with her clear failures as National Security Advisor, then Kerik should be good enough regardless of some illegal nanny that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual execution of Keriks duties.

Silly and puerile isn't it?

[edit 12-13-2004] Oh now we find out that Kerik has apparently cheated on his wife with two women at the same time. Interesting, but still doesn't mean much as far as qualifications to run a department. And if such things were important to the American people then Bush, with his AWOL issues, would not be president.

[edit 12-13-2004] Apparently their are issues of kickbacks and possible Mob connections. So I will have to take back this comparison of Condi and Kerik, though I still think Condi is not qualified for her current or new appointment.


Friday, December 10, 2004

"Your Laundry is out on the street at 3PM"

When Bill Cosby was taken to task over his commentary about the behavior of a segment of black youth, he responded to one inquiry that blacks "dirty laundry' get's aired when our children leave school in the afternoon. To this I haven't heard much of a retort other than perhaps to attempt to ignore Mr. Cosby or discuss how wrong it is to pick on the poor. Well this week in NY we have had a rash of school violence (which really isn't new) one incident apparently involved a firearm that was stashed in a bathroom. Apparently many of the fights were gang related and some even suspect race-related though the footage I saw consisted of black on black violence. One clip, recorded by NY1 at Springfield Gardens High School in Queens showed an overweight black girl with her hand wrapped around a much smaller black girl with whome she was fighting. And of course there were numerous students watching and cheering on the event. I won't say that such behavior only happens with black youth, but as Cosby said, I'm here to discuss our own. School admins and some parents have been attempting to blame school overcrowding for the violence. I'm not sure how this is the source of problems. Are you saying that once a school reaches some critical mass of students that people suddenly lose control of themselves and must engage in violence? If so? why is it that folks on crowded subways do not end up in fistfights everyday? How come people in Japan who live in quarters that make a studio apartment look spacious not have the level of violence that we see here in the US?

Let's be real here folks: Fights happend among youth. We know this, But the level of violence and the type that we are witnessing is NOT acceptible. Most educators will tell you that it has nothing to do with classroom size, but has everything to do with the parents and the expectations put on children to behave in a certain manner and to repect the honor of thier families when they are out in public. I know a teacher in the Newark School System who told me that the day after she had to discipline a child for disrupting a class, the parent came in the next day ready to fight the teacher. The parent actually threatened the teacher. THIS is what the problem is and we need to address it.


Thursday, December 09, 2004

Mychal's Lesson

I've recently been introduced to Mychal Massie. I'm not the better for it but a few people he has run into will be the better for me writing about him. There are a lot of black conservatives that I cannot stand. Massie and Armstrong are perhaps the worst of the bunch. But Massie has such a nastly look about him AND he writes in such a nasty tone that he is perhaps the black male Ann Coulter. This time around Massie writes in an article entitled The Revolution Got Busted in which he "takes on' people he labels liberals and are well stupid.

he writes:

I posited to a militant social worker from the Oakland, Calif. area the following question: Had Bill Cosby achieved his gargantuan stature because he spoke forthrightly about the critically deficient role of parenting in the black community? He could not respond to my interrogative because to do so would have been to prove my point. So he rambled about needing to be patient.

Exactly what qualified the individual as "militant?" Does one simply have to say certain words and one is a Militant? The last time I saw any real "militancy" it was from the New Black Panther Party and not a social worker. But I digress. This encounter is actually very instructive to those of us who "stay black and die." I wrote on these very pages that the knee-jerk reaction that many blacks had about Bill Cosby's statements was uncalled for and unwise. Getting on Cosby's case because he's rich, or because one felt one didn't like "his tone." would needlessly distract from the hard truth in his message that the vast majority of us see each and every day. One should not be caught making excuses for peoples bad choices and bad decisions even when and if there are larger societal forces at play. It is consistent with African thought and philosophy to hold each person accountable for thier own actions. Had the "militant" in question had followed this line he would not have been fooled or tricked into supplying Massie with the ammunition to discredit him and would have been able to turn the tables on him immediately. We live and hopefully, we learn.

The next opportunistic victim of Massie was a young college student:

I, with no apologies for being heavy-handed, challenged a young Vassar "academician" (his word not mine) to step into the reality of the 21st century. His collegiate mind wrestled with my specific assignation of the cartoon character known as Aaron McGruder. Following his puerile logic, it was legitimate for McGruder to attack Dr. Condoleezza Rice, but it was not so for me to call him on it. This is the prevailing shameful mentality of far too many. It is a travesty that these young anachronists and those who sired them live in a self-imposed shadow world of accusations of white injustice and black inferiority.

Well we're not offered details as to what "purile" logic Massie was discussing, But I'm sure if he indeed understood what "puerile" meant he would realize that he himself uses such logic. So let me explain (again) why consciensious black people do not like Condeleeza Rice. We know she is a very intelligent person. In fact that adds to our problem with her. We know she was Dean of such and such, on the board of such and such and has a oil tanker with her name on it. The issue is that as followers of Dr. King's "Justice threatened anywher is Justice threatened everywhere." as followers of Malcolm X's call for human rights here in America. as observers of Muhammed Ali's "Ain't no Vietcong ever called me a Niggir." we object to Dr. Rice's lending her racial credibility to an adminstration that is waging an illegal war in Iraq. When one kills people or has people killed outside judicial or legal bounds one is a Murderer. So simply put George Bush is a Murderer. So is Condi Rice, Colin Powell. Donald Rumsfeld. Trust us, our distaste for Rice is shared with all the members of her clique in the white house. AS for her "qualifications." Any one who can read can find out that multiple sources of information about the threat to national security prior to 9-11 has shown that Condi either lied to the president, didn't inform him or flat out missed the importance of said information. That sir, makes her incompetent. And again, don't get us wrong, we think the entire adminstration is incompetent as well. And yes Massie you should feel free to attempt to "call me" on the issue. But seeing as I passed logic class with an A I believe you'll find my logic up there with the folks who invented the subject.

But let me direct something to the students who may be reading this. Becareful of what and to whome you speak. There is usually a group of people who think as you do who are probably better able to communicate what you want to say. Either learn the "company line" or don't speak. This is not to say you don't have 1st Ammendment rights but you must understand that the enemy is sneaky and is looking for the weakest link and you are probably it. I went through 2/3 of my college career not speaking on any black subject because I knew I was uninformed. By the time I opened my mouth my peers dubbed me "Hukem" or "Authoritative Utteranece of Blackness." Basically, anytime I spoke I usually had my facts straight. Yes I've added new information since then but the foundation had to be built. So consider yoursef warned and schooled. Do not allow yourself to be caught out there.

Anyway, Massie then goes off into left field to discuss Angela Davis and Gil Scott Heron. For some reason he feels a need to kick the man while he's down by discussing his recent drug arrest (assuming that to be true). Which proves what exactly? After all musicians are NOT revolutionaries though they may echo revolutionary ideas. In fact artists in general are a troubled lot and only really stupid people actually look to them for a plan. They are there for inspiration and inspiration only.

So there is one thing I'll agree with MAssie on: The Revolution is busted but there are those of us willing to put it back together and move forward and we don't have to compromise our principles in the process.
White Kids Wile out: Hip Hop Blamed!!!

Today I was awakened by news that an ex marine losy control of his faculties and shot up a Rock concert. Yes it is true! Mainstream news has actually reported on violence at a white music event. According to ABCNews Anchor Peter Jennings, Police say that violence among hard rock events is very common. Of course THAT comment did not make it onto ABCNews' website. If you looked at the reported news you would believe that only Black Hip Hop fans wile out at events. So the next time someone blames violence on Hop Hop tell them to go "Head banging"


Monday, December 06, 2004

Ohio Certifies

Though I'm in the extreme minority in my peers who believe Bush won the election (though I can't say he did so fair and square). There has been a ruckus regarding the Ohio numbers. Apparently Secretary "Black"well will announce the certified results for Ohio with the gap closing from 136,000 to 119,000 with the provisional Ballots added. Even though there has been some debate over the process of removing "bad" provisionals, Provisional ballots were the only real means for Kerry to have taken Ohion. As Garvey's Ghost soberingly pointed out, there were 155,000 provisional ballots cast in Ohio. John Kerry would have had to take nearly every single one of them in order to win. That was simply an statistical impossibility. as Garvey's Ghost pointed out, a large number of provisional ballots were cast in areas with next to 0 black populations and places where George Bush won by wide margins. Thus GG concluded that it would be impossible for Kerry to take Ohio based on provisional ballots. Then of course we have the spoiled ballots. As with last year people have been stuck on Chad for all the wrong reasons. Since GArvey's Ghost does not vote we can look at this from a more dispassioned position:

1) US citizens routinely allow their votes to be eliminated via the Electoral College system. If American Citizens felt that "every vote mattered" they would have eliminated the EC a long time ago.

2) barring the use of the EC, American citizens, if they cared about "every vote" would have gone for a proportional system, where EC votes are given based on stict proportion of votes won.

3) Speaking directly to black citizen voters: I fail to understand why they do not understand that they are still living under Dred Scott. You vote when where and how white folks let you. End of story. Why are we still wasting time shocked and amazed that half the country votes with Bush and co? Why are we surprised that white liberals don't care more than it takes to write an article or two on the subject of voter fraud? In all the years that black voters have been assigned poor voting machines, where were there elected officials? Why haven't there been huge pushes BEFORE NOW to address the issue of inadequate voting Apparati? Furthermore Black voter, why did you abandon Al Sharpton in the primaries? Your so called leadership told you to back Dean and Kerry and every other white man. But could not muster up a single bit of solidarity for the "black candidate"so that certain black and anti-war issues could have remained on the front burner. Fora abanding the black client, you deserved what you got on Election day.

Sound harsh? It is. Life's like that. Politics is like that. Until black voters cease to be pawns of the DLC and the RNC we will not get the kind of respect we're getting what we deserve.. no respect at all.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Who is John Stott? It doesn't Matter.

The Religion Problem in the US

David Brooks, a regular OP-Ed columnist at the NY Times wrote an OP-ED piece discussing the apparent religiosity that has come over the US. In line with most other columnists, and lay people, there is much discussion about the Christian nature of the US and what that should mean. Let me discuss the religion angle first.

To be sure, this is an overwhelmingly Christian country. As it should be given it's history. That history is that it was founded by Europeans who are overwhelmingly Christian. Since these Christians decimated the indigenous population and forcibly "discouraged" the religions of Africans who they bought here in a most un-Christian manner, they remained as the "top dog" in terms of religion. These particular Christians also knew quite a bit about religious persecution (even while practicing it on others. Hence they knew that the State, which was supposed be protective of individual liberties, was in cahoots with "the Church' then problems would arise. I believe that the reason for the prohibition of the State to "establish" religion was so that no single denomination could impose it's interpretation of the Bible upon others Christian groups. It is entirely possible that the Founders did indeed intend for the US to be a Christian country, in perpetuity but once they added that clause in the constitution, that idea was and is bound to fall.

Let's look at the issue of school prayer. Most of it's proponents are Christian. Muslims don't appear to be too concerned even though their religion requires 5 daily prayers at set intervals, some of which occur during school hours. People who practice Santeria, Lukumi, Ifa, Buddhism, Taoism also seem to not be up in arms about school prayer. So why is it that Christians feel this need to have prayer in school especially when nobody has ever been stopped from bowing their head at their desk and saying whatever prayer they want. If one can pray in school to oneself, then one does have "School prayer." What we don't have and what some people don't want, is out loud, mandatory prayer. This is a critical thing because it speaks to the Christian need (and Muslim too) to have public shows of faithfulness. Something almost entirely absent in other religions. So not only must one be accosted by "Jesus is my co-pilot" bumper stickers. and my favorite: "no Jesus, No Peace" (as If Christians haven't caused wars...Ha haaa...Anyways) But when we get to school we would then have to be lead in prayer as if we were at a church. When I ask Christian proponents of School prayer what they would do if their children were in a school that had to make salat, I've been informed that they would remove their children immediately. Now how hypocritical is that? So we know that this is not about prayer or even so much about public prayer. No folks, This is about public Christian prayer. In essence these advocates of School prayer are actually advocates of school prosylization. Herein' lies their legal problem. Schools are funded by public money from people of all religious backgrounds. It is illegal for the state to give funds to public institutions that discriminate against any part of the tax paying public covered under the Civil Rights Act. In any case where a student who does not wish to participate in "School prayer" is asked to leave the room, we have discrimination. Why should that student who's parents pay taxes be required to leave the room? Why not all the praying folks?

But lets take this further, since the constitution does NOT read that the state cannot establish a Christian religion, but instead reads that the state cannot establish religion [at all]. If the state were to say that prayer must happen (or should happen or can happen)it puts the public institution in a position of deciding which type of prayer is acceptable. Once that public institution does so it is in effect establishing a religion, a clear violation of the constitution. In fact given that some tax payers are atheists and therefore do not ascribe to any form of "God recognition" the very requirement of a prayer would be de-facto establishment of religion.

So we should not be fooled by certain Christians who think they are somehow "defending American values" when they talk of school prayer. What they are doing is passing off a clear biblical agenda (to which many Americans ascribe to) but is clearly contradictory to the Constitution. Let me return to Brook's article though.

Brooks quotes a man, John Stott who states:

Most important, he does not believe truth is plural. He does not believe in relativism of good and evil or that all faiths are independently valid, or that truth is something humans are working toward. Instead, Truth has been revealed. As he writes:

"It is not because we are ultra-conservative, or obscurantist, or reactionary or the other horrid things which we are sometimes said to be. It is rather because we love Jesus Christ, and because we are determined, God helping us, to bear witness to his unique glory and absolute sufficiency. In Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ God's revelation is complete; to add any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ."

Well this is the problem. If I don't believes in "Christ,' Then that opinion is simply that, an opinion. It is also quite arrogant and not to mention flat out wrong when this John fellow or any other Christian for that matter thinks that they are in possession of the one and only "truth." It is simply not the case and that can be proven. These "truthists' believed that blacks were not even capable of "salvation" That is not an accepted "truth" anymore (well in most denominations). Furthermore; What is "relativization" of good and evil? Is it relativizing when in the Bible it clearly states that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" yet many, many Christians support the killings in Iraq? That many many Christians approved of the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. That many many Christians to this day believe it was OK for the US to kill in Vietnam? If that is not 'relativization" then I don't know what it is. But Christians, especially white ones, have no problem killing non-Christians that they feel are a threat to them, no less than Muslims believe in Jihad. Oh Christians have access to the most efficient killing machines in the world, yet believe that one should "not kill" and "turn the other cheek." Moral relativism indeed!


Tuesday, November 30, 2004

The Coup Thickens

While perusing a messageboard, I found a post by our favorite Deskrat posted a little piece from another blog that exposed the fact that the UK knew of the plot in Equatorial Guinea which involved the crocodile teared son of Margaret Thatcher. Writes the Observer:

Britain was given a full outline of an illegal coup plot in a vital oil-rich African state, including the dates, details of arms shipments and key players, several months before the putsch was launched, according to confidential documents obtained by The Observer.

But, despite Britain's clear obligations under international law, Jack Straw, who was personally told of the plans at the end of January, failed to warn the government of Equatorial Guinea.

Oh!! But it get's better! While the Bush and the Republicans were likely spending thier time figuring out how to tamper with Deibold machines, it turns out that Donald Rumsfeld, was also informed of the Coup plot.

In December 2003 and January 2004 two separate, highly detailed reports of the planned coup, from Johann Smith, a former commander in South African Special Forces, were sent to two senior officers in British intelligence and to a senior colleague of Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, according to the documents seen by The Observer .

In December 2003 and January 2004 two separate, highly detailed reports of the planned coup, from Johann Smith, a former commander in South African Special Forces, were sent to two senior officers in British intelligence and to a senior colleague of Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, according to the documents seen by The Observer .

So let's count them up shall we? Under the Bush administration there have been what 1 abortive coup in Venezuela. A successful one in Haiti, and the Grandaddy of them all, Iraq. No wonder "they hate us for our freedoms."


Monday, November 29, 2004

Shortsighted and Dim Witted

Stanly Crouch wrote a piece in the NY Daily News (or perhaps a syndicated editorial) that declared
It's crime, not race, that puts men behind bars. This piece is illustrative of the baiting that conservatives have been using to bamboozle the public on a myriad of issues. For example in this situation, it's a no brainer that people who are behind bars, by and large end up there because they committed some crime. I say by and large because innocent people do end up behind bars. Therefore one is in a precarious situation if one decides to challenge this piece of writing. Challenging this piece could result in one being labeled" blind, racist, or some other nonsense. Similarly the No Child Left Behind legistlation is the same. Who in thier right mind wasn't to argue against a bill that purports to look out for all children.

But let's look at Crouch for a minute. He sights the following:

My friend, a lawyer, recently served on a jury in D.C. and found the experience illuminating. He had heard all of the stories about black juries not being willing to convict. With him on the jury were two women who said, from the beginning, that they were not there to "put another black man behind bars." And that was that!

Then came the evidence, which made it very clear that this particular black man was a dangerous felon. He had not been railroaded. He had not been a victim of the system. The police had done their job and the evidence had been collected very professionally, not in the interest of race but of justice. The jurors looked at that evidence. They discussed it together. He was convicted.


Within the past year I met a judge at the airport in New Orleans. He told me that when he first went on the bench, he intended to put a stop to all the black men being put behind bars due to the racism that dominated the criminal justice system. Then he started looking at defendants' records and saw the evidence presented. There were plenty of defendants who had committed minor or victimless crimes and could be shown leniency. But there were those who committed murders, rapes, robberies and assaults.

I'm not even going to argue the merits of the cases presented above because that is not the issue. The issue is simply where enforcement is done, who is arrested and who ends up in court. Statistics have shown that whites are less likely to be charged with the crimes for which they are originally arrested for. They are often plead down and other sorts of judicial gaming to lesser offenses. And that assumes they are arrested in the first place. I recall some years ago a TV special where some white kids were caught on film selling crack (or whatever it was) in their communities by a sting operation. The officers who were supposed to be taking the kids "downtown" made a detour to the childrens homes and "told their parents." Meanwhile black kids in various 'hoods' are given felony drug possesions for simple vials of crack which results in all manner of permanent disenfranchisement by the state after their prison terms are done.

Back in September I noted a gross example of this inequuity in the "system":

In an incredible (and true) story, a 19 year-old New York University undergraduate student was recently arrested and charged with committing three felonies, including criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance, and criminal sale of a controlled substance on or near school grounds – each charge carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. The undergraduate student sold high-grade marijuana, cocaine and hallucinogenic mushrooms to an undercover New York City police officer on eight separate occasions from the lobby of her dormitory. But that’s not the incredible part.

Despite facing up to 75 years in prison for her offenses, the student, a white female from a wealthy family, will actually never see a prison cell if she satisfies the gracious terms of the deferred prosecution agreement brokered between a Manhattan District Attorney and the defendant’s private attorney. The sweetheart deal – brace yourself for this one – includes 10 months at a drug rehabilitation center in Idaho followed by 8 months of work or school, and 5 years probation. Moreover, she will be permitted to plead guilty to lesser charges (perhaps misdemeanors) in 2006, pending successful completion of her “sentence.” Perhaps most importantly, her case was handled by state, rather than federal, authorities, allowing her to avoid severe federal mandatory minimum laws that would have likely resulted in a lengthy prison sentence.

Let's see Mr. Crouch explain that away with his "it's the crime.." theories.


Thursday, November 25, 2004

Thanks for...

Another Thanksgiving has arrived in the US. Millions of people are eating Tuyrkey and giving thanks for all that they have. I'm not one of them. I'm thankful for everything I have all the time. I know that but for a change in cirmustance I could be living an entirely different life. I could be living the life of a Native American on a Reservation. Many mainstream publications are talkign about how they are thankful for this and that, but fail to remind, and in some cases educate the reader as to the ture history and meaning of Thanksgiving. Indeed in a an article in the NY Times they report on a Hispanic family who says:

"When you come to this country, Thanksgiving is something that you just kind of adopt right way," Mr. Rojas said. "You can relate to the mythology of the Pilgrims' coming here and the Indians' helping them out, just like your relatives are helping you out."

really? For the uninformed, the Pilgrims, after showing so much thanks for the Natives showing them how to survive by teaching them how to plant corn and such, showed their gratitude by systematically killing off the Native American and taking thier land. Thanks.

So in reality, Thanksgiving marks the begining of the end for Native Americans and their way of life in the Americas. It is truely a story of ungratefulness and downright inhumanity. I don't identify with that at all. In fact when I learned of this tragedy I used to make it a point of reminding people of this during gatherings. Needless to say I was soon not asked to come to such events. Isn't it sad that Americans, especially black Americans would not want to take stock in what Thanksgiving actually stands for and at least, at the very minimum take time out on that day to remember the true significance of the day, and to affirm that they would not display the same callousness to those who helped them be where they are today. Now that would be something I could toast to.

Think on it.


Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Two faced Mofos and the Co-option of Black Power Ideologies

When Bill Cosby came out the closet and put a certain segment of the black community on blast for their low expectations, bad parenting and lack of foresight, Many, if not all, Black conservatives had mutliple orgasms. They were glad that Cosby had dealt a blow for "self-responsibility" and striking a blow against the "victim mentality" that holds so many blacks back from their potential. I agree with Dr. Cosby and wrote many many times in his defence against those that saw Bill Cosby as an "Elitist" person, who was bad talking the "most vulnerable" of blacks and "Crazy." Now we find the Black Conservatives showing their two faced nature when they defend Dr. Rice.

Many Black conservatives, are upset because a number of cartoonist, most of them white, and a number of us other black folks, have called Dr. Rice what she is, a "handmaiden" of the white conservative establishment, commonly known as an "Aunt Jemimah." Walter Williams (Whome I refer to as "Willy" 'cause he apparently has the IQ of one. - that was low wasn't it?) wrote a vigourous defence of Dr. Rice. he sighted that she has a PhD and an expert in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.


No one is saying that Rice is not "educated." We're saying she's traitorous to the overall goals and aims of the Civil Rights movement from which she benefitted from. She refused o testify to the American People regarding her mishandling of intelligence reports. The "greatest Terrorist act" in American history occured under her watch. And there is ample documentation of her general incompetence or purposfull manipulation and falsification of information in order to invade Iraq. And since that was was illegal, both from the standpoint of international law and from the fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, that makes George Bush and co., including Rice, Murderers under the law. Simple. That the justice department has been sufficiently infiltrated to not make a case of this, does not negate these facts. So regardless to how many Degrees she has or how many ships have her name on it, she is a traitor to the ideals of Dr. King, Malcolm X, and the strong men and women who proceeded and broke bariers for her to be where she is today. Thier philosphy is clear: Justice. Peace. Equality.

But what Willy really messes up is when he states:
Being 68, I lived at a time when the idea of a black Cabinet official was little more than a pipe dream. Robert C. Weaver's 1966 appointment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development made him the first black Cabinet officer. Since that time, there have been other blacks appointed to high office. None has encountered the vicious attacks visited on Dr. Rice and Gen. Colin Powell, and what's worse, the most vicious attacks have come from their fellow blacks.

To make sure I was correct in my recollection of blacks in earlier periods, I called my 81-year-old friend Chuck Stone, former writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and now professor at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. I asked him whether he recalled instances of today's demeaning, insulting attacks. He said no, and we recalled how black people came to the defense of people like Reps. Robert Nix and Adam Clayton Powell, for whom Stone served as chief administrative assistant. Professor Stone also reminded me that the differences between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois didn't produce today's virulence.

See Willy and Chuck Stone have missed a few things. When Marcus Garvey was around, WEB Dubois had plenty of bad things to say about his rival, including calling him a "fat, black pig." Something I think a black person, especially one who is clearly mixed, ought to refrain from saying. Garvey would often refer to Dubois as a "half breed." so I guess they were even. fact is, considering the times, Blacks have always had relatively nasty words for those they deemed as traitors or misleaders. Either way, No black should be exempted from being called out when they are out of line. This doesn't mean there can't be intellectual differences, but to do whatever it takes to get a pat on the back from white folks, is plain and simple, tom- foolery.

but oh, wait!! Willy is outdone by one Mychal Massie Who in a reverse of the usual Black Panther and Black Power Rhetoric, refers to those of us who point out Dr. Rice's deficiencies as, gasp, "Negroes."

He thinks Strom Thurman is a good white man, unfairly maligned by "Negro Liberals" because of his segrgationist past. he points out that Thurman changed parties, and hired a black aide. We should all bow down and face the direction of Strom's Grave.


How many Blacks were strung up from trees because of Strom's incitements? How many blacks were stripped of thier rights by police in his state? or nationally under his watch? How many police beatings? How many instances of shady bank dealings and redlining? Please, I had no love of a segregationist then and I sure ain't cuttin' him some slack because he hired a black aide.

Then Massie attempts to distract the reader by listing the litany of crimes against black people done by the Democratic party. Well to the informed among us "negroes" we say;


We know this already. That's why a majority of us are not affiliated with either party. We don't change masters, we get off plantations.

But let me address the "informed" who may be reading. We need to get seriously organized and start to use the tools to get our message out. We cannot afford to be marginalised while others latch on to our policies and call us names in the process. Much of the conservative agenda of self-respect, non-victim mentatily, responsibility, economic independence are rightfully ours. These are the hallmarks of Nationalits from Martin Delany, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Kwame Tourem The Black Panther Party and many others. we must be organized in our speech lest we get cought out there looking as if we defend policies that we don't and allow others to coopt portions of our message without historical context. And note that I said "historical" rather than "proper" context. Saying "proper" leaves the field open to challenge ( who says it's proper) whereas "historical" is only challengable by preseting information that contradicts what you say, and most times our adversaries are very deficient in thier knowledge of history.

We need to create forums and press releases that immediately counter mis-information from our "conservative" look alikes. That thier critiqes go unchallenged in the press is simply a recipie for disaster. We cannot just wait and hope that someone picks up our publications to find out our point of view. We need to put it out there where it is unavoidable. for example, When Bush was under critique about the inheritance Tax ( or perhaps some other issue) thousands of letters supporting Bush went to newspapers and magazines all over the nation, these letters were all the same, they only needed to be printed out (or copy-pasted) and sent off to a newspaper to hit the opinion pages. this might seem low down and unfair, but it get's the message out. The ACLU has a similar machine, where they will send emails to congresspeople on an individual's behalf, but I've never seen anything that addresses these "conservatives" and rightly so, because they expect "us" to do that work. And we are not. Our deepest thought should not be on a Hip Hop website (no offence to those) nor the message boards of "booty call" forums. The Black Commentator is the closest we have to a regular informed "non-youth orientated" web presence. And by "non-youth orientated" I mean it's not trying to "party for your right..." or entice you with celebrity gossip, you come for the straight info, no chaser. what BC needs to do, if it wants to take on the task outlined above is put itself to put out PR's in response to any "known" conservative, BC posses the connections and writing talent to pull this off.

I used to recieve PR's from teh Radical Black Congress. But to be honest thier umbrella status was, IMHO a serious impediment to me, as a Garveyite, taking them seriously. They had such a wide agenda and groups to cater to, some of whome really had little in common other than being "liberal." So being told that I was homophobic or inherently mysogynistic, simply made me ignore what they had to say. Similarly, being lumped together with Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, Punks, and other assorted groups with many divergent points of view simply was and is not effective for serious black organizers who have as their primary concern, the welfare and empowerment of disparate black comomunities.

One of the strengths of Garveyism and the UNIA was not only did it explain who and what it was against, it also had a very clear message of what it was for and a program on how to get there AND a means for the 'common man" to participate. Right now it appears to many that we are simply whining "negroes" who pass the buck and let anything go. We are mistakenly tied to the Democratic party and other "parties' except "our party."

Mr. Sowell: Wrong Again

Today I read a piece by Thomas Sowell, a regular thorn in my side, entitled: "The Arms Race and The Unlimited Enemy" In It he wrotes:
One of these seemingly immortal fallacies is the implicit assumption that our enemies have unlimited resources, so that our efforts at strengthening ourselves militarily are doomed to be self-defeating.

At least as far back as the 1930s, the intelligentsia and others have warned against military spending as setting off an "arms race" in which each side escalates its military buildup in response to the other, making the whole thing an expensive exercise in futility. The same notion was repeated throughout the long years of the Cold War.

Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices. People who talk this way are completely undaunted by the fact that Ronald Reagan proved them wrong during the Cold War.

President Reagan understood that the Soviets did not have unlimited resources -- and in fact their resources were far more limited than ours. Going directly counter to those who wanted a "nuclear freeze" or other weapons limitations agreements, Ronald Reagan began a military buildup that kept upping the ante until the Soviets had to throw in their hand, ending the Cold War.

I do hope that Condeleeza Rice is far better at analysis than Mr. Sowell is. The very first thing we should note is that the Soviet Union was not a real threat to the US. Mutual assured destruction basically kept the nuclear threat off the table. What Reagan did (maybe) was run the Russian economy into the ground. That is not a good model for the Middle East or against a nebulous "terrorist" organization. In fact it can be argued that in some cases poverty is part of the stew for "terrorists."

Secondly, there is no "arms race" to be had with a worldwide "terror" organization. The guerilla nature of said organizations assumes that they will always be behind the curve as far as weapons are concerned. All a "terrorist" organization needs is a good chemist. The point of terrorism is not to militarily defeat your enemy but to make the environment of the public so frustrating an fearfull that they eventually give in to your demands. In such a scenario, one does not have a timetable that is limited to your lifetime, so long as the idea can be pased on to others, the organization lives.

Mr. Sowell then continues:

When Reagan ordered a bombing of Libya in retaliation for Libyan terrorism, the immortal fallacy was immediately voiced by former President Jimmy Carter, who declared that this would only make matters worse and bring on more terrorism. But Libya toned down its terrorist activities.

Years later, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown in Iraq and was then dragged out of his hiding hole, Libyan dictator Kaddafi decided to end his nuclear program and cooperate with monitors. Unlike Jimmy Carter, he knew that he did not have unlimited resources.

Jimmy Carter was right, if one takes on the long term view. "terrorist" bombings in Israel continue to this day, and of course we have 9-11-2001. just because a single country was not involved does not mean that actions will not happen in other places from people with a similar mindset. On Libya in particular we should note, as written here earlier, that Ghadaffi has other things in mind which he understood having an embargo on his country would prevent him from pursueing. Ghaddafi is not done with the US or Europe for that matter. You just keep watching that falling Dollar.

Lastly Mr. Sowell, doing his best "Boss" act writes:

Critics of the Bush administration may keep saying that there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism but the terrorists themselves seem to believe otherwise. Why else are they pouring into Iraq, in what they themselves have characterized as a crucial battle to stop the Americans from reconstituting that country in ways that will make their plans for the region harder to carry out?

Well perhaps there's the issue of the US being in a country with some of Islam's Holiest Sites? Or maybe it's that they don't particularly like seeing Iraq occupied by the US. Apparently Mr. Sowell is under the impression that the US is in Iraq for the Iraqi's own benefit. he should look into the financials of Halliburton or perhaps investigate the "constitution" that gives the US access to Iraq's natural resources. Oh yes and lets not forget that, oh, what's this, the US is who put Saddam in power in the first place and supplied him with the chemical weapons he used on "his own people." Surely that was done for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

The problem with Sowell, and indeed a large number of Americans, is that they have no clue just how much dirt is done on their behalf and for thier benefit. But everybody else knows and everybody else has just about had it.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

White Genetic Anhilliation

The ultimate purpose of the system is to prevent white genetic annihiliation on Earth, a planet in which the overwhelming majority of people are classified as non-white (black, brown, red and yellow) by white-skinned people.

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing
The Isis Papers

If you do not know this about white people, virtually anything else that you know about them will only confuse you

Neely Fuller Jr.
The United Independent Compensatory Code/System/Concept: a textbook/workbook for thought speech and/or action for victims of racism (white supremacy)

The NY Times had an article discussing the falling population of Germany entitled:
Empty Maternity Wards Imperil a Dwindling Germany

Some interesting points were:
Germany's falling birthrate, like that in much of Western Europe, is entering its second generation. This means not only that mothers continue to have one or at most two children - too few to reproduce the population - but also that the number of potential mothers has dwindled.

The reunification with eastern Germany, where the birthrate is even lower than in the west, has made matters worse. Dresden, the capital of depopulated Saxony, closed 43 schools this summer because of a lack of children. Elsewhere in the country, there are too many hospitals and even too many roads.

Germany, like several of its neighbors, is running out of the people it needs to sustain its advanced social systems and public infrastructure.

"There will be 10 million fewer young people in my lifetime," observed Frank Schirrmacher, an editor at the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, who has written a best-selling book about population trends in Germany. "Our whole infrastructure is designed for a bigger population."

"A blunt-spoken woman who works as a hairdresser, Ms. Jovanovic, 32, said she also felt that children were neither particularly welcome nor prized in German society. Her neighbors, she said, complained more when her child cried at night than if she threw a party or played music.

"They want their houses, they want their cars, they want their peace," she said, apologizing to her German roommate, Simone Schönhoff, and her husband, Thorsten, who were preparing for the birth of twins.

"It is partly selfishness," Mr. Schönhoff agreed. "They want a Mercedes, and it costs so much that they can't afford a child."...

Mrs. Schönhoff noted, however, that women were motivated by something else: a fear that they will cramp their professional options if they stay at home too long. While German family leave laws are generous, allowing either parent to take three years off and return to their jobs, Mrs. Schönhoff, a secretary, says she plans to stay at home no longer than six months...

Germany's birthrate is roughly equivalent to that of Spain or Italy, but lower than that of France, which has been encouraging larger families since the 1930's. France also has a stronger tradition of working mothers.

"Spain, Italy and Germany will be the first societies in human history with more older people than children," said Mr. Schirrmacher, whose book, "The Methuselah Conspiracy," has sold 400,000 copies here. "What will it mean for popular culture? How will they vote?""

What is even more interesting, and relevant to this post is:

Even if it did, Mr. Schirrmacher noted, demographic trends take generations to reverse. Immigration is only a temporary solution, he said, because the new arrivals so swiftly adopt the German lifestyle.

The financial world in which the Europeans have created will soon wipe them off the planet taking those whome ascribe to their lifestyle or fall to thier military. Simply put Capitalism demands greater and greater profits. To get these profits the cost of production must fall or the cost of goods must go up. In modern America, both of these things are happening with housing costs going through the roof and the job market good only for those who make over $35,000/year (depending on where you live). But the ever increasing need to make more in order to basically stay put, and/or the emphasis on the increase in material wealth has forced a child limit on people who live in such societies. One does not have the time or wealth to take care of more than 2 children. In fact in America one leading indicator of financial failure is the presence of a child in a family. So here we have white folks all over Europe, with massive "immigration" problems from places where children are not seen as a burden, We also are seeing this in the US where a large portion of the population also has the 1.3 child mentality.

If anyone needed proof that the current financial situation is simply unnatural needs only to look at Germany. So now we should expect more SkinHead and neo nazi behavoir because those individuals have always been acutely aware of the anti-breeding tendancies of Europeans. In fact if one checks out discussion boards of these individuals you will find much discussion on the need to "have children" for the white race to survive the onslaught of the colored people of the world. It is highly probable that Europe in some point in the future cease to exist as we know it and become more like, say, north Africa and the "great fear" will come true.
Whites take up Garveyism

Well they take up it's essentials. The Deskrat has posted a piece by Mike Rupert in which he discusses how to gain power in these Republican times:

There's a great first rule in economic warfare. It's exactly the same reason why flight attendants instruct people to put on their oxygen masks before assisting others when an airliner's cabin depressurizes. To save the world you must save yourself first. The way you start to fight with money is to get out of debt. If that means simplifying your life then that's good anyway, you'll use less energy. But to be debt free is to stop paying your money to the corporations and banks that are creating this naked aggression anyway.

These are the same corporations and banks that will come and pluck your economic corpse when the economy crashes next year as it surely must. If you are debt free then there will be less for them to pluck.

All around the globe we see newly forming economic and political alliances. In South America and elsewhere new regional common markets are evolving rapidly. The Euro is rising to new significance as a world currency and a way to pull the rug from under the Empire. From Russia, to Iran, to China to Venezuela, to Saudi Arabia the world is drifting inexorably to a decision to price oil in Euros. China has just raised interest rates. In 2005 Iran is planning on opening an oil bourse trading futures in Euros and is quietly building consensus support. This is, in my opinion, the major motive for pressuring Iran just as Saddam Hussein's decision to price oil in Euros was his chief crime.