Waterstar

I quoted MLK because of those particular words that he said. It is not my intention to cover every single topic. That is the beauty of anyone else being able to add more info about "little drops" not just in reference to those names or events mentioned in my initial post but of anything one might feel to add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID1Km_SdBYI&feature=related ************************************* One summary of the movie***** “My name is Alex. I may look like a little boy, but I am a grown up.” The opening scene of the 2010 film I Want To Be A Soldier leads the viewer to believe that the film will be about a rebellious youngster who won’t tolerate authority and won’t give in to threats. That’s Alex and he is only eight years old. But then we see other scenes from earlier in his life which portray an ideal upbringing of a young boy – recorded via the family camcorder. But is it the same boy? And if it is, what may have caused the transformation that resulted in his complete change of behavior? Is this change a normal part of growing up, or is it something else? Like all kids, Alex dreams of his future. He wishes to become an astronaut (don’t all boys at one point or another?) – and as he gets his good night kiss from his mother his only worry is how he will be able to do that if they both wear helmets during a space trip to the moon. One needs a lot of support to prepare to be an astronaut. But Alex is not alone. You see, he has a friend. True, it’s an imaginary friend, yet very real to Alex – a real astronaut who offers tutelary guidance to the boy as his mentor and, yes, as a role model too. Things start to change when Alex’s mother gives birth to two babies. At first, Alex is happy with his new big brother role, but as the attention of his parents shifts almost exclusively in favor of the younger members of the family, Alex starts to feel abandoned. He demands a TV set in his room and his parents, who have always been reluctant to provide him with his own TV, finally give in and grant his wish. What happens next will not really surprise anyone. The young Spanish director, Christian Molina, successfully transformed a somewhat less than original plot into a realistic tale about the influence that modern media may have on adolescents when adults abdicate from their responsibility. Alex’s imagination is captured by violent scenes, distant wars, murders and executions – all in abundance and easily accessible via the electronic box in his room. As a result, Alex changes both his attitude and his passions. He no longer wants to become an astronaut but, rather, a brave soldier who will destroy the enemies of his nation and make everyone pay. His imaginary astronaut friend is now replaced by a new figure – John Cluster – a cruel Sergeant equipped with advice and tips on how to become a better soldier. After all, that’s one of the the roles imaginary friends have, right? They help kids make sense of the adult world around them. Though the plot of I Want To Be A Soldier doesn’t exactly shine with originality, it does feature several carefully placed story turning points that manage to keep the viewer engaged. The young Fergus Riordan (for whom the role of Alex is his first lead role in a feature film) delivers an outstanding performance. Because of it, the tension that builds within Alex on the screen is truthfully reflected to the viewer. One even feels a bit of understanding and admittance to the rousing thrills of juvenile delinquency. In contrast, however, the performances of most of the adult actors felt stilted and unnatural. Despite these shortcomings, the film manages to evoke strong emotions in the viewer while, at the same time, inspire thoughts of the circumstances and events that shape the mentality of a child. The violent scenes shown in the film merely reflect what children are exposed to nowadays. Yet they create a feeling of uneasiness and distress even in the adult viewer. While I know the issue of how children are affected by violence in the media today is not a new one….I found this film very disturbing and it got me thinking about the violence children are exposed to via various media and games they play these days. Whether or not violence in the various media and in video games that children play negatively affects them, Director Molina has stated in target=”_blank”>an interview that he “wanted to educate the viewer to draw his own conclusions”. Viewing this film made me do exactly that — form my own opinion. I encourage everyone to view I Want To Be A Soldier and form your own opinion of this very topical subject.

In light of the recent killings in Chicago, the debate on gun control has been brought more to the forefront. (I suppose that some of us would merely be "pouting" if we were to note that black ppl been gettin shot up like no other here for centuries and it hasn't been enough to spark a serious massive examination of the gun control-outside of controlling access to guns for certain members of society- in this society, but I digress for now.)

“I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season’. Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. -Martin Luther King, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” January 19, 2008 It seems that we often see the end result of social change yet do not see what it took to get there. I am of the persuasion that we often do not see what it took to get there mainly because we often do not look. Oh how some of our people go on about FDR and how good he was to us negro folk. Even the president speaks of FDR with much admiration and that's okay, too. However, where is the mention of A. Phillip Randolph? He was instrumental in helping to mobilize the African American community and his threat to mount a protest rally in Washington in 1941 was major in terms of getting FDR (Foot Dragging Roosevelt) to stop slow footing on addressing discrimination in defense industries? A. Phillip Randolph's threat to mount this protest rally was instrumental in inducing the Roosevelt Administration to issue the executive order than barred discrimination in defense industries and appointing the first Fair Employment Practice Commission. (This has, by the way, benefitted many people of America, not just African Americans.) If it were not for the African American community pointing out the hypocrisy of fighting a war in the name of democracy abroad while racism was being practiced domestically and standing up for themselves, it is very possible that black people would have merely had chicken broth in the pot while their white counterparts had their chicken. "Many drops make a river."

Politicians are in the pockets of such groups/big business. Things were already bad in that sense, but became even worse when laws regarding contribution limits were done away with. LOL Funny how they were in place until Barack Obama, who ushered in the post-racial America which I have yet to see, was elected.

I would like to think that it's about balance, reciprocity. The older generations have things to offer that the younger generations cannot provide and the older generations have things to offer that the younger generations cannot provide. I don't see this concept being promoted as much as I see the "older generations vs, the younger generations". Even, generally speaking, in terms of the differences of views, I don't see how our all having pieces of the bigger puzzle is being promoted as much as the dichotomy based on our differences of views is being promoted. Why should our differences be seen more as a source of disharmony than elements of balance? It can be likened to the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" type thing. I do not play into this concept. When the basic essentials of life are not held sacred, what really remains sacred? To me, anti-woman male chauvinism is ridiculous because even the most misogynistic man came from a woman. To me, anti-man feminism is equally ridiculous because even the staunchest feminist and all any feminist that she could possibly admire would not be here if it were not for a man. As has been mentioned previously, background is often very important, because not all people see things in the same way. I was brought up by communally oriented people who emphasized always the importance of interdependence. As my elders would say "No man is an island." Everyone, no matter how big or how small was important. At the same time, my people were committed to the concept of autonomy/self-reliance/self -determination in terms of the collective. So, I was taught that it wasn't just about me, that it was about the collective. Selfishness, even from young, was betrayal. Neither money nor the myriad of privileges/amenities that it could provide was ever allowed to be our god. So whether it was selling dope while killing our people in the process or making political choices to advance as individual while selling out our people, it was frowned upon. The people over the self, rule not an exception.It didn't have to be beaten into us as younger people any more than salt has to be beaten into a potato that is in stew. Even talents, skills, and career decisions were more than just an "individual" thing. My peope/are about the fundamentals of nation building. Individuality was definitely encouraged and nurtured but never the concept of rigid individualism. "One hand washes the other, both hands wash the face./"I am because we are". These things might seem unnecessary or even foreign to many, but not to me in the least. Of course, I could have abandoned these things at any time, yet I've never had any interest in doing so. So to make a long story shorter, we all have building blocks and those things above are some of mine. .My mentality is that nothing that divides us is good for the collective. Not the male vs. female thing, not the generation gap thing, not the classism thing, etc. There is strength in unity, there is destruction in division.

I concur.

I would disagree with Malcolm's legacy not being a demonized one. Sure brothers and sisters were rocking "X" and "M" hats and tshirts all over the place when Spike Lee's movie about Malcolm X came out, but that does not take away from the campaign to tarnish the image of Malcolm neither during his life nor in his death. When the movie "Panther" came out, brothers and sisters were rocking shirts with pictures of Huey Newton or Angela Davis or buttons with "Panther" all over the place, too. That does not take away from the campaign to tarnish the image the panthers neither then nor now in the continued negative information about these brothers and sisters who, just like Malcolm X, the panthers, the Black Liberation Army, etc. were targeted, harassed, tortured,, framed, jailed, and in many cases killed by the state. These people were branded "militants" and that brand was associated with negativity in the past and it is associated with negativity in the present. Take for example the "militants" in Syria. When this is said by journalists and politicians, what are the images this conjures up in the minds of people in America? In the minds of many people who live in America, Malcolm is seen as a "racist man who encouraged hatred" and these sentiments are not only held by white people, not by a long shot. It is different with many about Martin Luther King Jr., because many of many different backgrounds revere him. The case is dramatically different with Malcolm X. I notice that a lot of our people distance themselves from Malcolm. Not even in Malcolm's death are black people in America free enough to openly proclaim their appreciation of Malcolm X's contributions. Malcolm is just not one of those "safe" topics. Malcolm X's name has and continues to have a stigma that Martin Luther King's name just does not have. The civil rights struggle in general just does not have the same stigma that the liberation struggle has and that is so from past to present. It does not matter that many who were fighting for civil rights have extensive files on them just like those in the liberation struggle. What you interpret as my focusing on the past can be summed up in this quote: The events which transpired five thousand years ago; Five years ago or five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; five years From now or five thousand years from now. All history is a current event." Dr. John Henrik Clarke The generations are something. Think of a how a heirloom can be handed down from generation to generation. An elder can hand down an heirloom which is precious to him, one which came from the elders before him. The continuity of this depends upon the younger generations and the generations not yet born. The care will determine its continuity or its discontinuance. There are some of us of the younger generations who will inherit the heirloom and sell it just as quickly as we get our hands on it because it doesn't mean that much. Some of us will think so little of it that we will be see something that we want while window shopping that we can't afford yet say, "Oh wait. If I pawned that thing, I can get it!" and just like that, it's out of our hands. Then there are some of us who will guard and polish the heirloom. We take value it highly and take good care of it because we are looking at it as did our elders, as something to be handed down from generation to generation and we strive to teach those who are younger than us about the value of the heirloom and the instructions for its care so that when it is in their hands they will pass it on in the same way, so that they will carry it on. Some of us are the abandoners of things and some of us are the keepers. The different slant that we have on things is not just about our living in different parts of the country. This is not the only place that I have lived and it is certainly not the only place in which people that I love and am concerned with live. It is my opinion that the American south is just really a microcosm for geopolitics. If one can understand the dynamics of southern fried capitalism and its governing politics, then surely one can understand the dynamics of world class capitalism and its governing politics. I think that in the American North and the American South, we don't often realize that we are eating variations of the same meal and bigger than that, all over this globe, we are eating different versions of the same meal. I can understand how your living in a bubble and being removed from certain things can make certain things foreign or at least kind of distant to you. We all bring our backgrounds wherever we go and though the schema of an individual is not always known, its importance should always be kept in mind. I came up a certain way, marinated in certain things that probably often make me see things different than some just like the next person came up a certain way, marinated in certain things that probably make him/her see things different from myself or the other person next to him/her. All in all though, I feel that a difference of methods does not automatically constitute a difference in objectives. I believe that many individuals and groups have been separated by differences that became dichotomies. Differences don't have to be dichotomies. If I have no religion and the sister who is a christian sees things re: religion totally different from me, does that make her anything less than my sister? No, absolutely not. On the contrary, if she feels differently about that, that is nothing that I can help, but in such an event, I did not make the situation into a dichotomy, she did. I feel that the so called "generation gap" often comes with the same possibility. Even if I am a friendly and respectful person who is 17 with my pants hangin on the ground and you are 63 and you don't speak to me because my pants are hanging on the ground, I can't make you abandon your thought process and therefore I cannot keep you from making our differences into a dichotomy. Let me leave you with this. About a month ago, I was on a different continent and while I was there, I met a brother who spoke very little of my primary language and I spoke very little of his primary language. However, instead of using these differences as a "barrier", we worked together, using the fragments that we 'did' have and with the sincerity along with the patience that we had with one another along with the genuine aim of building with each other for the betterment of our people, we built a bridge and not a wall. I was able to learn from him and he was able to learn from me though the languages that we spoke were different. In my eyes and in my heart, he is my brother. In his eyes and in his heart, I am his sister. Differences in languages cannot change that. In a situation similar to this, two can just as easily use the differences in languages as a wall, a "barrier" to communication. All this to say that differences in languages cannot change the fact that my brother is my brother, Your age could never change the fact that you are my sister. This is so for you or any brother or sister. Language might not be universal, but love and sincerity are.

Well I know I'm in that number. The rest of y'all betta get right wit Gawd~

That's definitely real@ pick and choose for convenience in both cases. I think that the main reason that we have no learned from Malcolm's lessons is because we have never really studied Malcolm. From T.Abetu's reviews The author reflects on the enduring resolve of Malcolm X’s teachings despite numerous attempts to assassinate his political legacy Opinion: The Myth of the Post-Mecca Malcolm X Many people talk about Brother Malcolm after he made his pilgrimage to Mecca as if he did a 180 degrees turn from his ideas, opinions, and goals after doing such. This is very much inaccurate and it is not just inaccurate; it is pure trickery. While it is definitely so that Brother Omowale El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, more popularly known as Malcolm X, made some drastic changes during this time, many would have us believe that the changes he made were in the direction of recounting, renouncing, and abandoning many of his beliefs and objectives in reference to liberation to primarily embrace the nonviolent struggle for civil rights in America as well as for the advocacy of world peace. This was not at all the case. In fact, in an WBAI-FM interview with Harry Ring in 1965, Malcolm was questioned as to why he, to the disturbance of many white supporters of the Freedom-Now Movement, rejected the concept of nonviolence to which he replied: "Well, we think that when nonviolence is taught to the Ku Klux Klan or the White Citizens Council or these other elements that are inflicting extreme brutality against Blacks in this country, then we would accept it. If we're dealing with a nonviolent enemy, then we would be nonviolent, too. But as long as our people in this country have to face the continued acts of brutality on the part of the racist element in the North as well as in the South, then I don't think that we should be called upon to be nonviolent. When they'll get nonviolent, we'll get nonviolent." Brother Malcolm, no doubt, involved himself fully in the struggle for human rights which he felt would, once attained, automatically guarantee his people civil rights as well. I am fully convinced that he, like many of us, would have loved a peaceful world, but the way that many people in books, on televisions, in day-to-day conversations, have said that Brother Malcolm had completely changed is beyond inaccurate; it is criminally untrue. While many have circulated this myth intentionally in the hopes that it would neutralize the carrying on of works of liberation, many have regurgitated this myth mostly based on simply not knowing anything about Malcolm's words, involvements, and objectives after he left Mecca (and quite possibly not knowing a lot about his words, involvements, and objectives before he went). What is almost never mentioned about Brother Malcolm is perhaps the most important aspect of his post-Mecca life, because as he made his travels and links in Mama Africa, his already pan Africanist mind expanded tremendously and so did his ability to articulate and to set out clear pan Africanist objectives. When Brother Malcolm returned to America, he did so with a much more refined understanding of the global struggle for liberation; his mind had become much more internationalized. He explained, “In 1964, oppressed people all over the world, in Africa, in Asia and Latin America, in the Caribbean, made some progress. Northern Rhodesia threw off the yoke of colonialism and became Zambia and was accepted into the United Nations, the society of independent governments. Nyasaland became Malawi and was also accepted into the UN, into the family of independent governments. Zanzibar had a revolution, threw out the colonialists and their lackeys, and then united with Tanganyika into what is not known as the Republic of Tanzania-which is progress indeed… Also in 1964 the oppressed people of South Vietnam, and in that entire Southeast Asia area, were successful in fighting off the legions of imperialism…And with all the highly mechanized weapons of warfare-jets, napalm, battleships, everything else- and they can’t put those rice farmers back where they want them.. ”2 Our problem has to be internationalized Malcolm stood in solidarity with others around the globe who were fighting against imperialism and emphasized the importance of the exploited and oppressed masses to unite: “…When these people in these different areas begin to see that the problem is the same problem and when the 22 million Black Americans see that our problem is the same as the problem of the people who are being oppressed in South Vietnam and the Congo and Latin America, then the oppressed people of this earth make up a majority, not a minority. Then we approach our problem then as a majority that can demand, not as a minority that has to beg.”3 Brother Malcolm understood that there was a global battle, a resistance by the oppressed against their oppressors. He saw that the situation faced by his people in America was but a microcosm for the situation faced by his people in Africa and of the situation faced by the oppressed in Asia and Latin America. “...Our problem has to be internationalized. Now the African nations are speaking out and linking the problem of racism in Mississippi (The United States) with the problem of racism in the Congo and also the problem of racism in South Vietnam. It’s all part of the vicious racist system that the Western powers have used to continue to degrade and exploit and oppress the people in Africa and Asia and Latin America during recent centuries.”4 I tend to believe that most of what many of us know about Brother Malcolm is limited to what Spike Lee's movie showed and/or what other works or words in the media have portrayed. In America, many of our people do not speak about Malcolm. He is so demonized here in the United States, the same country where pirates like Christopher Columbus are praised, where slave holders like George Washington are revered. He is demonized in the same way that Marcus Garvey and countless others who have had the audacity to assert the right to self-determination and human dignity have been demonized. All of this brings up perhaps a more important and more general point. All around the globe, we have been allowing others to pick our heroes and our villains for us for far too long. Only when we really grasp the realities of the problems that we face will we be in a position to even devise their solutions. It is imperative that we strive to break down the information that we encounter just as the body breaks down food before digesting it. We must read, search, and think for ourselves. It is imperative that we teach the children to do this; they are the carriers of the torch and our teaching is the number one factor in their deciding what they will do with that torch. If they throw the burning torch down, it might not only burn them but also many future generations to come. Notes Sources: 1Interview by Harry Ring on Station WBAI-FM in New York, January 1965 2 Malcolm X, Speech at Militant Labor Forum on “Prospects for Freedom in 1965 3 Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary: Speeches, Interviews, and a Letter by Malcolm X (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), pp. 35-67. 4 Interview by Harry Ring on Station WBAI-FM in New York, January 1965 5 blackpast.org, Introduction to (and) Malcolm X at the Founding Rally of the OAAU, Audobon Ballroom, New York City, 1964

Pardon me, I initially thought that your response about guns was your initial response re: "gun like religion". I had the argument confused at first, but I see your argument and I definitely concur. I personally think that a lot of punks would be much more humble if guns were banned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID1Km_SdBYI Please watch when able.

Yes, a burglar without a gun would pose less of a threat to the home owner, yet I don't think that too many burglars with sense are going to try to break into a house without a gun, because it is always a possibility that someone is present. Do you know that the incident that I am telling you about happened in broad daylight? That's how bold and greedy people can get these days. I am not at all a fan of guns, but goodness knows that I was happy that the homeowner had that gun and I was happy that he knew very well how to shoot it. At the same time, I was happy that the homeowner was the person that he is though. Though he had every right to shoot this guy's brains out, he did not. The burglar would not at all have been so lucky with a lot of people. The homeowner has a gun not because he loves violence but because he loves himself and his family and will protect them by any means necessary even if it means using that gun. The burglar, could have killed him that day. Just like that. Over breaking into his house over some "stuff" and there is the life of a man whose love for his family and for others gone, just like that. The missionary comes to "the primitives" with his bible in one hand and his rifle in the other hand to bring "civilization". What can the bible do without the missionary? What can the rifle do without the missionary? Neither the bible nor the rifle is on a mission. The missionary is on a mission to rob, kill, enslave, rape, and mislead, all in the name of his god. Is the missionary's god the problem or the missionary himself the problem? Guns couldn't exist without people. LOL How could religion exist without people? Without people, what could possibly be the need for religion? That's like toilets. Without people, what could possibly be the need for them? You wanna know the real deal? No people, no problems. You take all of the people out of the world and you have just eliminated every problem that the world has ever had. Some might say that this sounds harsh, but hey, I'm probably agreeing with their god. Heck, according to the bible, he let the place flood more than George Bush let the 9th Ward flood out during Hurricane Katrina cause people were wicked as hell. You think that's it? According to the bible, next time, he supposed to burn this mutha down cause people wicked as hell. I don't see why he would make people them in the first place if he gotta go through all that, but maybe he is just as sadistic as the people that he made. Hey, on another note, to my sisters who are christians, y'all better read that bible better before y'all go around talkin bout y'all want a man who's "god-like". What can you say when a crazy azz man is in the bushes in his pajamas outside your job? He gon' be like, " You SEDDDD you wanted a god-like man. Gawd a jealous gawd; I'm just bein god-like." Plus, you thought Sharazad Ali was crazy when she gave black men the option of giving y'all an "open hand slap". Yet the god of the bible would smite somebody for doing stuff FAR less major than what y'all do so what you think he gon do to you? Man, he put da G in "Gawd". Oh you think he chilled out on his violence in the new testament? HE KILLED HIS OWN SON because the people he made were so wicked and that's the only way that they could go to heaven, so WHAT YOU THINK HE GON DO TO YOU!? Are you SURE you want a god-like man? I know, I know. Some of you think I'm going to hell. Some of you been thinking that since I brought up Reverend Porkchop/Bishop P. Tenderlions. Don't you TALK about ma savior I meant ma PASTOR! Don't mind me, life is short and I have to make time to laugh. P.S. Did you know that according to your bibles, gawd already knows who is and who is not going to heaven? It's kind of like pre-decided cheerleading tryouts. Are you sure you're being good for a good reason? Even Santa makes a list, checks it twice, and finds out who's been naughty or nice. As for Gawd, he has had that list since from how long and either you on it or you ain't. My word too, out of all the people in this world, only 144,000 gon be in that numba. You think YOU in it? Gurllllll/Boyyyyyy stoppppp LOL Am goin to hell, right?

I think that no hands are clean in this. Not ours, not the Media's, not the military's, not the artists' etc. We are basically socialized to not only be violent but also to like being violent. We are desensitized to human suffering, numb with little chance of compassion. How can this not be expected though when we can watch the coverage of such an atrocity on one channel and then escape the botheration of it all simply by changing channels? Out of sight, out of mind. To find those who are endowed with the human factor is to find needles in 7 tons of haystacks! That's kind of something though how this young man was able to just walk into the movie theater armed like this. I suppose that they don't do a weapons check. That's interesting, because even when I was in school, we could not walk into the BUILDING without passing through metal detectors and patdowns. On another note, I wonder what implications this murder will have for "protective measures". Concern is definitely normal, but I wonder...will this lead to panic that will be high enough to add more and more "protective measures" in many different public places? I think ridiculousness is on both sides of that argument between the liberals and the conservatives, because the liberals seem to not be able to see the forest for looking at the trees and the conservatives can't see the forest just for plain not looking. The film itself is not even a logical scapegoat for this incident. As for more armed movie goers, just like you said: Goodness knows how many people would have been shot/wounded if more of the people in there had guns.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, the human intent to kill or the invention of the gun? Did that gun walk in there and kill these people or did the human walk in there and use a gun to kill these people? Don't get me wrong. I definitely feel that the banning of guns should at least be seriously considered. I think that it would be great. I'm just saying that the people are the violent ones, not the guns that the people use to carry out their violent acts.

While I totally agree with our needing to better understand, learn, and learn from these changes, I do not think that the whole point or even the majority of it escapes those who quote Malcolm while he was still in the Nation, because many of his viewpoints remained the same. I think it heavily depends on what type of material the person is quoting. To quote Malcolm on say Dr. Yacub and neglect to mention that he had abandoned the promotion of this subject would seem to be an example of missing the point. However, for us to separate him into two parts with the first being his Elijah stage and his post Elijah stage and to say that Malcolm abandoned most of his thoughts in his Elijah stage would not be accurate.

"I say this as a President, and I say it as a father. We must tell our children about a crime unique in human history. The one and only Holocaust -- six million innocent people -- men, women, children, babies -- sent to their deaths just for being different, just for being Jewish. We tell them, our children, about the millions of Poles and Catholics and Roma and gay people and so many others who also must never be forgotten. Let us tell our children not only how they died, but also how they lived -- as fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters who loved and hoped and dreamed, just like us." - President Obama "The one and only holocaust"?? Wow...

Today, because the whole world is caught in the same electronically produced, intercommunicating network, youth have an experience that their elders never had. They face a new era, one shaped by the Bomb, satellites, jet flight, free-wheeling technology, the population explosion, the breakdown of cities and the destruction of the natural environment. Until recently, our elders could say, "I have been young and you have never been old." Today, the young can reply, "You have never been young in the world I am young in ." From "Culture and Commitment: A Study of the Generation Gap" 1970 (<---- And just think of how VERY much has changed even since then.) Changing values, changing society, of course. If it is so that industrialization made society take many steps forward, it is also so that industrialization made society takes many step backward. "The ruins of a nation can be found in its homes." Industrialization and consumerism changed family and communal dynamics greatly, but this current era, the Information Age built on top of that destruction like a a farm built on top of a toxic waste site; the fruits that we enjoy are delicious and toxic. With industrialization, elders began to be valued a lot less and with the Information Age, people in general began to be valued much less. As is the case with many things, I think that we have felt the effects of this devaluation the hardest. So many things that affected us disproportionately have taken place within all of these eras. We have never been in a truly "good" situation here, but I think that most of us can look and see all of the backward steps that we have taken and continue to take in the name of" progress". It is not at all uncommon to hear both older and younger people talking about "the generation gap". In my eyes, what so many of us from either the older or the younger generations fail to realize is that we need each other. I think that the HNIC or the Queen B syndrome can be seen in both the older and the younger generations. However, this type of approach often does more harm than good and stretches the "generation gap" further on both sides. What, I think, we have to try harder to acknowledge is that there is always something to learn. I don't care how old you are, you don't know everything. I don't care how young you are and how much you feel that can't nobody tell you nothin, you don't know everything and such an attitude is going to keep you from learning a lot of things that could really benefit you. There is always something to learn and instead of constantly finding excuses to not be more open to the knowledge of the older or generations, simply charging our closemindedness and unwillingness to tolerate the existence of ideas that do not necessarily fit ours to "the generation gap", why not choose to act primarily out of more respect for the "oldheads" or "youngheads" and the knowledge and wisdom that they have and its potential to enrich our lives? It is said that it takes a village to raise a child. It is also said that it takes a village to raise a child who will in turn help to raise up that village. We are currently playing in to a very dangerous cycle. Just how much has a society "arrived" when the elders are treated as if they are society's maggots? Why are most elderly people rotting away in the loneliness and the stench of understaffed nursing homes? Why is it rare for elders to sacrifice for the younger people unless their blood flows through these younger people? Where is the reciprocal relationship between the younger and and elder generations? One hand washes the other, both hands wash the face. In our case, the face would just stay dirty, because both neither hand is really reaching out to the other. It used to be commonplace for Grandma to walk to the library and reach home safely. Now it is commonplace that if Grandma walks to the library, she just might get robbed or even raped. There is a very dangerous disconnect between the elders and those of the younger generations. Neither these days really feels a strong sense of responsibility to either. Some older people will straight up tell you, "I can't stand kids!" As if these people have never been kids. By the very same token, some younger people will straight up tell you, "I can't STAND old people!" As if, provided that they live long enough, they will never be old people. An older person driving on the street is very much likely to get cursed out if he/she is driving in front of a younger person these days. Let me tell you something. I wish I WOULD have even bene behind an older person who is walking slowly in front of me and cross in front of that older person when I was a child.I don't care HOW slowly they were walking; I would have gotten my behind dealt with FORREAL. These days, a younger person will cross right in front of an older person even if they are on stairs. At the same time, not all of these younger people we see with their pants hanging down off them lack respect for older people. Yet the fact that their pants are hanging down will often cause the older people to lack respect for them. Things are different these days. These younger people have all TYPES of stories that many older people simply have no idea about. I am not young; I am am young-er. I have younger people under me and I have older people over me and where does that leave them? Both worthy of my dealing with them with respect. Respect breeds respectability. No one's age makes their feces smell better or worse. Older people's crap stinks and younger people's crap stinks, too. How do you think that we improve the ways in which we of the younger/older generations relate to one another?

I don't know one person with whom I would always agree 100% and I sure don't know one person who would agree with me 100%. I tend to look at our minds as filters for all the stuff that our brains will take in and that with all people and/or events, it is wise to eat the fish and leave the bone. Or vegan version, eat the fruit and leave the pit.

Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism by Kwame Nkrumah 1965 The Mechanisms of Neo-colonialism In order to halt foreign interference in the affairs of developing countries it is necessary to study, understand, expose and actively combat neo-colonialism in whatever guise it may appear. For the methods of neo-colonialists are subtle and varied. They operate not only in the economic field, but also in the political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres. Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism. Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world. Who really rules in such places as Great Britain, West Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal or Italy? If General de Gaulle is ‘defecting’ from U.S. monopoly control, what interpretation can be placed on his ‘experiments’ in the Sahara desert, his paratroopers in Gabon, or his trips to Cambodia and Latin America? Lurking behind such questions are the extended tentacles of the Wall Street octopus. And its suction cups and muscular strength are provided by a phenomenon dubbed ‘The Invisible Government’, arising from Wall Street’s connection with the Pentagon and various intelligence services. I quote: ‘The Invisible Government ... is a loose amorphous grouping of individuals and agencies drawn from many parts of the visible government. It is not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency, although the CIA is at its heart. Nor is it confined to the nine other agencies which comprise what is known as the intelligence community: the National Security Council, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence and Research, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ‘The Invisible Government includes also many other units and agencies, as well as individuals, that appear outwardly to be a normal part of the conventional government. It even encompasses business firms and institutions that are seemingly private. ‘To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this shadow government is shaping the lives of 190,000,000 Americans. An informed citizen might come to suspect that the foreign policy of the United States often works publicly in one direction and secretly through the Invisible Government in just the opposite direction. ‘This Invisible Government is a relatively new institution. It came into being as a result of two related factors: the rise of the United States after World War II to a position of pre-eminent world power, and the challenge to that power by Soviet Communism... ‘By 1964 the intelligence network had grown into a massive hidden apparatus, secretly employing about 200,000 persons and spending billions of dollars a year. [The Invisible Government, David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, Random House, New York, 1964.] Here, from the very citadel of neo-colonialism, is a description of the apparatus which now directs all other Western intelligence set-ups either by persuasion or by force. Results were achieved in Algeria during the April 1961 plot of anti-de Gaulle generals; as also in Guatemala, Iraq, Iran, Suez and the famous U-2 spy intrusion of Soviet air space which wrecked the approaching Summit, then in West Germany and again in East Germany in the riots of 1953, in Hungary’s abortive crisis of 1959, Poland’s of September 1956, and in Korea, Burma, Formosa, Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam; they are evident in the trouble in Congo (Leopoldville) which began with Lumumba’s murder, and continues till now; in events in Cuba, Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, and in other places too numerous to catalogue completely. And with what aim have these innumerable incidents occurred? The general objective has been mentioned: to achieve colonialism in fact while preaching independence. On the economic front, a strong factor favouring Western monopolies and acting against the developing world is inter-national capital’s control of the world market, as well as of the prices of commodities bought and sold there. From 1951 to 1961, without taking oil into consideration, the general level of prices for primary products fell by 33.l per cent, while prices of manufactured goods rose 3.5 per cent (within which, machinery and equipment prices rose 31.3 per cent). In that same decade this caused a loss to the Asian, African and Latin American countries, using 1951 prices as a basis, of some $41,400 million. In the same period, while the volume of exports from these countries rose, their earnings in foreign exchange from such exports decreased. Another technique of neo-colonialism is the use of high rates of interest. Figures from the World Bank for 1962 showed that seventy-one Asian, African and Latin American countries owed foreign debts of some $27,000 million, on which they paid in interest and service charges some $5,000 million. Since then, such foreign debts have been estimated as more than £30,000 million in these areas. In 1961, the interest rates on almost three-quarters of the loans offered by the major imperialist powers amounted to more than five per cent, in some cases up to seven or eight per cent, while the call-in periods of such loans have been burdensomely short. While capital worth $30,000 million was exported to some fifty-six developing countries between 1956 and 1962, ‘it is estimated that interest and profit alone extracted on this sum from the debtor countries amounted to more than £15,000 million. This method of penetration by economic aid recently soared into prominence when a number of countries began rejecting it. Ceylon, Indonesia and Cambodia are among those who turned it down. Such ‘aid’ is estimated on the annual average to have amounted to $2,600 million between 1951 and 1955; $4,007 million between 1956 and 1959, and $6,000 million between 1960 and 1962. But the average sums taken out of the aided countries by such donors in a sample year, 1961, are estimated to amount to $5,000 million in profits, $1,000 million in interest, and $5,800 million from non-equivalent exchange, or a total of $11,800 million extracted against $6,000 million put in. Thus, ‘aid’ turns out to be another means of exploitation, a modern method of capital export under a more cosmetic name. Still another neo-colonialist trap on the economic front has come to be known as ‘multilateral aid’ through international organisations: the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-national Bank for Reconstruction and Development (known as the World Bank), the International Finance Corporation and the International Development Association are examples, all, significantly, having U.S. capital as their major backing. These agencies have the habit of forcing would-be borrowers to submit to various offensive conditions, such as supplying information about their economies, submitting their policy and plans to review by the World Bank and accepting agency supervision of their use of loans. As for the alleged development, between 1960 and mid-1963 the International Development Association promised a total of $500 million to applicants, out of which only $70 million were actually received. In more recent years, as pointed out by Monitor in The Times, 1 July 1965, there has been a substantial increase in communist technical and economic aid activities in developing countries. During 1964 the total amount of assistance offered was approximately £600 million. This was almost a third of the total communist aid given during the previous decade. The Middle East received about 40 per cent of the total, Asia 36 per cent, Africa 22 per cent and Latin America the rest. Increased Chinese activity was responsible to some extent for the larger amount of aid offered in 1964, though China contributed only a quarter of the total aid committed; the Soviet Union provided a half, and the East european countries a quarter. Although aid from socialist countries still falls far short of that offered from the west, it is often more impressive, since it is swift and flexible, and interest rates on communist loans are only about two per cent compared with five to six per cent charged on loans from western countries. Nor is the whole story of ‘aid’ contained in figures, for there are conditions which hedge it around: the conclusion of commerce and navigation treaties; agreements for economic co-operation; the right to meddle in internal finances, including currency and foreign exchange, to lower trade barriers in favour of the donor country’s goods and capital; to protect the interests of private investments; determination of how the funds are to be used; forcing the recipient to set up counterpart funds; to supply raw materials to the donor; and use of such funds a majority of it, in fact to buy goods from the donor nation. These conditions apply to industry, commerce, agriculture, shipping and insurance, apart from others which are political and military. So-called ‘invisible trade’ furnishes the Western monopolies with yet another means of economic penetration. Over 90 per cent of world ocean shipping is controlled by me imperialist countries. They control shipping rates and, between 1951 and 1961, they increased them some five times in a total rise of about 60 per cent, the upward trend continuing. Thus, net annual freight expenses incurred by Asia, Africa and Latin America amount to no less than an estimated $1,600 million. This is over and above all other profits and interest payments. As for insurance payments, in 1961 alone these amounted to an unfavourable balance in Asia, Africa and Latin America of some additional $370 million. Having waded through all this, however, we have begun to understand only the basic methods of neo-colonialism. The full extent of its inventiveness is far from exhausted. In the labour field, for example, imperialism operates through labour arms like the Social Democratic parties of europe led by the British Labour Party, and through such instruments as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now apparently being superseded by the New York Africa-American Labour Centre (AALC) under AFL-CIO chief George Meany and the well-known CIA man in labour’s top echelons, Irving Brown. In 1945, out of the euphoria of anti-fascist victory, the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) had been formed, including all world labour except the U.S. American Federation of Labor (AFL). By 1949, however, led by the British Trade Union Congress (TUC), a number of pro-imperialist labour bodies in the West broke away from the WFTU over the issue of anti-colonialist liberation, and set up the ICFTU. For ten years it continued under British TUC leadership. Its record in Africa, Asia and Latin America could gratify only the big international monopolies which were extracting super-profits from those areas. In 1959, at Brussels, the United States AFL-CIO union centre fought for and won control of the ICFTU Executive Board. From then on a flood of typewriters, mimeograph machines, cars, supplies, buildings, salaries and, so it is still averred, outright bribes for labour leaders in various parts of the developing world rapidly linked ICFTU in the minds of the rank and file with the CIA. To such an extent did its prestige suffer under these American bosses that, in 1964, the AFL-CIO brains felt it necessary to establish a fresh outfit. They set up the AALC in New York right across the river from the United Nations. ‘As a steadfast champion of national independence, democracy and social justice’, unblushingly stated the April 1965 Bulletin put out by this Centre, ‘the AFL-CIO will strengthen its efforts to assist the advancement of the economic conditions of the African peoples. Toward this end, steps have been taken to expand assistance to the African free trade unions by organising the African-American Labour Centre. Such assistance will help African labour play a vital role in the economic and democratic upbuilding of their countries.' The March issue of this Bulletin, however, gave the game away: ‘In mobilising capital resources for investment in Workers Education, Vocational Training, Co-operatives, Health Clinics and Housing, the Centre will work with both private and public institutions. It will also encourage labour-management co-operation to expand American capital investment in the African nations.’ The italics are mine. Could anything be plainer? Following a pattern previously set by the ICFTU, it has already started classes: one for drivers and mechanics in Nigeria, one in tailoring in Kenya. Labour scholarships are being offered to Africans who want to study trade unionism in of all places-Austria, ostensibly by the Austrian unions. Elsewhere, labour, organised into political parties of which the British Labour Party is a leading and typical example, has shown a similar aptitude for encouraging ‘Labour-management co-operation to expand . . . capital investment in African nations.' But as the struggle sharpens, even these measures of neo-colonialism are proving too mild. So Africa, Asia and Latin America have begun to experience a round of coups d'etat or would-be coups, together with a series of political assassinations which have destroyed in their political primes some of the newly emerging nations best leaders. To ensure success in these endeavours, the imperialists have made widespread and wily use of ideological and cultural weapons in the form of intrigues, manoeuvres and slander campaigns. Some of these methods used by neo-colonialists to slip past our guard must now be examined. The first is retention by the departing colonialists of various kinds of privileges which infringe on our sovereignty: that of setting up military bases or stationing troops in former colonies and the supplying of ‘advisers’ of one sort or another. Sometimes a number of ‘rights’ are demanded: land concessions, prospecting rights for minerals and/or oil; the ‘right’ to collect customs, to carry out administration, to issue paper money; to be exempt from customs duties and/or taxes for expatriate enterprises; and, above all, the ‘right’ to provide ‘aid’. Also demanded and granted are privileges in the cultural field; that Western information services be exclusive; and that those from socialist countries be excluded. Even the cinema stories of fabulous Hollywood are loaded. One has only to listen to the cheers of an African audience as Hollywood’s heroes slaughter red Indians or Asiatics to understand the effectiveness of this weapon. For, in the developing continents, where the colonialist heritage has left a vast majority still illiterate, even the smallest child gets the message contained in the blood and thunder stories emanating from California. And along with murder and the Wild West goes an incessant barrage of anti-socialist propaganda, in which the trade union man, the revolutionary, or the man of dark skin is generally cast as the villain, while the policeman, the gum-shoe, the Federal agent — in a word, the CIA — type spy is ever the hero. Here, truly, is the ideological under-belly of those political murders which so often use local people as their instruments. While Hollywood takes care of fiction, the enormous monopoly press, together with the outflow of slick, clever, expensive magazines, attends to what it chooses to call ‘news. Within separate countries, one or two news agencies control the news handouts, so that a deadly uniformity is achieved, regardless of the number of separate newspapers or magazines; while internationally, the financial preponderance of the United States is felt more and more through its foreign correspondents and offices abroad, as well as through its influence over inter-national capitalist journalism. Under this guise, a flood of anti-liberation propaganda emanates from the capital cities of the West, directed against China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Algeria, Ghana and all countries which hack out their own independent path to freedom. Prejudice is rife. For example, wherever there is armed struggle against the forces of reaction, the nationalists are referred to as rebels, terrorists, or frequently ‘communist terrorists'! Perhaps one of the most insidious methods of the neo-colonialists is evangelism. Following the liberation movement there has been a veritable riptide of religious sects, the overwhelming majority of them American. Typical of these are Jehovah’s Witnesses who recently created trouble in certain developing countries by busily teaching their citizens not to salute the new national flags. ‘Religion’ was too thin to smother the outcry that arose against this activity, and a temporary lull followed. But the number of evangelists continues to grow. Yet even evangelism and the cinema are only two twigs on a much bigger tree. Dating from the end of 1961, the U.S. has actively developed a huge ideological plan for invading the so-called Third World, utilising all its facilities from press and radio to Peace Corps. During 1962 and 1963 a number of international conferences to this end were held in several places, such as Nicosia in Cyprus, San Jose in Costa Rica, and Lagos in Nigeria. Participants included the CIA, the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), the Pentagon, the International Development Agency, the Peace Corps and others. Programmes were drawn up which included the systematic use of U.S. citizens abroad in virtual intelligence activities and propaganda work. Methods of recruiting political agents and of forcing ‘alliances’ with the U.S.A. were worked out. At the centre of its programmes lay the demand for an absolute U.S. monopoly in the field of propaganda, as well as for counteracting any independent efforts by developing states in the realm of information. The United States sought, and still seeks, with considerable success, to co-ordinate on the basis of its own strategy the propaganda activities of all Western countries. In October 1961, a conference of NATO countries was held in Rome to discuss problems of psychological warfare. It appealed for the organisation of combined ideological operations in Afro-Asian countries by all participants. In May and June 1962 a seminar was convened by the U.S. in Vienna on ideological warfare. It adopted a secret decision to engage in a propaganda offensive against the developing countries along lines laid down by the U.S.A. It was agreed that NATO propaganda agencies would, in practice if not in the public eye, keep in close contact with U.S. Embassies in their respective countries. Among instruments of such Western psychological warfare are numbered the intelligence agencies of Western countries headed by those of the United States ‘Invisible Government’. But most significant among them all are Moral Re-Armament QARA), the Peace Corps and the United States Information Agency (USIA). Moral Re-Armament is an organisation founded in 1938 by the American, Frank Buchman. In the last days before the second world war, it advocated the appeasement of Hitler, often extolling Himmler, the Gestapo chief. In Africa, MRA incursions began at the end of World War II. Against the big anti-colonial upsurge that followed victory in 1945, MRA spent millions advocating collaboration between the forces oppressing the African peoples and those same peoples. It is not without significance that Moise Tshombe and Joseph Kasavubu of Congo (Leopoldville) are both MRA supporters. George Seldes, in his book One Thousand Americans, characterised MRA as a fascist organisation ‘subsidised by . . . Fascists, and with a long record of collaboration with Fascists the world over. . . .’ This description is supported by the active participation in MRA of people like General Carpentier, former commander of NATO land forces, and General Ho Ying-chin, one of Chiang Kai-shek’s top generals. To cap this, several newspapers, some of them in the Western ;vorld, have claimed that MRA is actually subsidised by the CIA. When MRA’s influence began to fail, some new instrument to cover the ideological arena was desired. It came in the establishment of the American Peace Corps in 1961 by President John Kennedy, with Sargent Shriver, Jr., his brother-in-law, in charge. Shriver, a millionaire who made his pile in land speculation in Chicago, was also known as the friend, confidant and co-worker of the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Allen Dulles. These two had worked together in both the Office of Strategic Services, U.S. war-time intelligence agency, and in the CIA. Shriver’s record makes a mockery of President Kennedy’s alleged instruction to Shriver to ‘keep the CIA out of the Peace Corps’. So does the fact that, although the Peace Corps is advertised as a voluntary organisation, all its members are carefully screened by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Since its creation in 1961, members of the Peace Corps have been exposed and expelled from many African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries for acts of subversion or prejudice. Indonesia, Tanzania, the Philippines, and even pro-West countries like Turkey and Iran, have complained of its activities. However, perhaps the chief executor of U.S. psychological warfare is the United States Information Agency (USIA). Even for the wealthiest nation on earth, the U.S. lavishes an unusual amount of men, materials and money on this vehicle for its neo-colonial aims. The USIA is staffed by some 12,000 persons to the tune of more than $130 million a year. It has more than seventy editorial staffs working on publications abroad. Of its network comprising 110 radio stations, 60 are outside the U.S. Programmes are broadcast for Africa by American stations in Morocco, Eritrea, Liberia, Crete, and Barcelona, Spain, as well as from off-shore stations on American ships. In Africa alone, the USIA transmits about thirty territorial and national radio programmes whose content glorifies the U.S. while attempting to discredit countries with an independent foreign policy. The USIA boasts more than 120 branches in about 100 countries, 50 of which are in Africa alone. It has 250 centres in foreign countries, each of which is usually associated with a library. It employs about 200 cinemas and 8,000 projectors which draw upon its nearly 300 film libraries. This agency is directed by a central body which operates in the name of the U.S. President, planning and coordinating its activities in close touch with the Pentagon, CIA and other Cold War agencies, including even armed forces intelligence centres. In developing countries, the USIA actively tries to prevent expansion of national media of information so as itself to capture the market-place of ideas. It spends huge sums for publication and distribution of about sixty newspapers and magazines in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The American government backs the USIA through direct pressures on developing nations. To ensure its agency a complete monopoly in propaganda, for instance, many agreements for economic co-operation offered by the U.S. include a demand that Americans be granted preferential rights to disseminate information. At the same time, in trying to close the new nations to other sources of information, it employs other pressures. For instance, after agreeing to set up USIA information centres in their countries, both Togo and Congo (Leopoldville) originally hoped to follow a non-aligned path and permit Russian information centres as a balance. But Washington threatened to stop all aid, thereby forcing these two countries to renounce their plan. Unbiased studies of the USIA by such authorities as Dr R. Holt of Princeton University, Retired Colonel R. Van de Velde, former intelligence agents Murril Dayer, Wilson Dizard and others, have all called attention to the close ties between this agency and U.S. Intelligence. For example, Deputy Director Donald M. Wilson was a political intelligence agent in the U.S. Army. Assistant Director for europe, Joseph Philips, was a successful espionage agent in several Eastern european countries. Some USIA duties further expose its nature as a top intelligence arm of the U.S. imperialists. In the first place, it is expected to analyse the situation in each country, making recommendations to its Embassy, thereby to its Government, about changes that can tip the local balance in U.S. favour. Secondly, it organises networks of monitors for radio broadcasts and telephone conversations, while recruiting informers from government offices. It also hires people to distribute U.S. propaganda. Thirdly, it collects secret information with special reference to defence and economy, as a means of eliminating its international military and economic competitors. Fourthly, it buys its way into local publications to influence their policies, of which Latin America furnishes numerous examples. It has been active in bribing public figures, for example in Kenya and Tunisia. Finally, it finances, directs and often supplies with arms all anti-neutralist forces in the developing countries, witness Tshombe in Congo (Leopoldville) and Pak Hung Ji in South Korea. In a word, with virtually unlimited finances, there seems no bounds to its inventiveness in subversion. One of the most recent developments in neo-colonialist strategy is the suggested establishment of a Businessmen Corps which will, like the Peace Corps, act in developing countries. In an article on ‘U.S. Intelligence and the Monopolies’ in International Affairs (Moscow, January 1965), V. Chernyavsky writes: ‘There can hardly be any doubt that this Corps is a new U.S. intelligence organisation created on the initiative of the American monopolies to use Big Business for espionage. It is by no means unusual for U.S. Intelligence to set up its own business firms which are merely thinly disguised espionage centres. For example, according to Chernyavsky, the C.I.A. has set up a firm in Taiwan known as Western Enterprises Inc. Under this cover it sends spies and saboteurs to South China. The New Asia Trading Company, a CIA firm in India, has also helped to camouflage U.S. intelligence agents operating in South-east Asia. Such is the catalogue of neo-colonialism’s activities and methods in our time. Upon reading it, the faint-hearted might come to feel that they must give up in despair before such an array of apparent power and seemingly inexhaustible resources. Fortunately, however, history furnishes innumerable proofs of one of its own major laws; that the budding future is always stronger than the withering past. This has been amply demonstrated during every major revolution throughout history. The American Revolution of 1776 struggled through to victory over a tangle of inefficiency, mismanagement, corruption, outright subversion and counter-revolution the like of which has been repeated to some degree in every subsequent revolution to date. The Russian Revolution during the period of Intervention, 1917 to 1922, appeared to be dying on its feet. The Chinese Revolution at one time was forced to pull out of its existing bases, lock stock and barrel, and make the unprecedented Long March; yet it triumphed. Imperialist white mercenaries who dropped so confidently out of the skies on Stanleyville after a plane trip from Ascension Island thought that their job would be ‘duck soup’. Yet, till now, the nationalist forces of Congo (Leopoldville) continue to fight their way forward. They do not talk of if they will win, but only of when. Asia provides a further example of the strength of a people’s will to determine their own future. In South Vietnam ‘special warfare’ is being fought to hold back the tide of revolutionary change. ‘Special warfare’ is a concept of General Maxwell Taylor and a military extension of the creed of John Foster Dulles: let Asians fight Asians. Briefly, the technique is for the foreign power to supply the money, aircraft, military equipment of all kinds, and the strategic and tactical command from a General Staff down to officer ‘advisers’, while the troops of the puppet government bear the brunt of the fighting. Yet in spite of bombing raids and the immense build-up of foreign strength in the area, the people of both North and South Vietnam are proving to be unconquerable. In other parts of Asia, in Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, and now the Philippines, Thailand and Burma, the peoples of ex-colonial countries have stood firm and are winning battles against the allegedly superior imperialist enemy. In Latin America, despite ‘final’ punitive expeditions, the growing armed insurrections in Colombia, Venezuala and other countries continue to consolidate gains. In Africa, we in Ghana have withstood all efforts by imperialism and its agents; Tanzania has nipped subversive plots in the bud, as have Brazzaville, Uganda and Kenya. The struggle rages back and forth. The surging popular forces may still be hampered by colonialist legacies, but nonetheless they advance inexorably. All these examples prove beyond doubt that neo-colonialism is not a sign of imperialism’s strength but rather of its last hideous gasp. It testifies to its inability to rule any longer by old methods. Independence is a luxury it can no longer afford to permit its subject peoples, so that even what it claims to have ‘given’ it now seeks to take away. This means that neo-colonialism can and will be defeated. How can this be done? Thus far, all the methods of neo-colonialists have pointed in one direction, the ancient, accepted one of all minority ruling classes throughout history — divide and rule. Quite obviously, therefore, unity is the first requisite for destroying neo-colonialism. Primary and basic is the need for an all-union government on the much divided continent of Africa. Along with that, a strengthening of the Afro-Asian Solidarity Organisation and the spirit of Bandung is already under way. To it, we must seek the adherence on an increasingly formal basis of our Latin American brothers. Furthermore, all these liberatory forces have, on all major issues and at every possible instance, the support of the growing socialist sector of the world. Finally, we must encourage and utilise to the full those still all too few yet growing instances of support for liberation and anti-colonialism inside the imperialist world itself. To carry out such a political programme, we must all back it with national plans designed to strengthen ourselves as independent nations. An external condition for such independent development is neutrality or political non-alignment. This has been expressed in two conferences of Non-Aligned Nations during the recent past, the last of which, in Cairo in 1964, clearly and inevitably showed itself at one with the rising forcesof liberation and human dignity. And the preconditions for all this, to which lip service is often paid but activity seldom directed, is to develop ideological clarity among the anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, pro-liberation masses of our continents. They, and they alone, make, maintain or break revolutions. With the utmost speed, neo-colonialism must be analysed in clear and simple terms for the full mass understanding by the surging organisations of the African peoples. The All-African Trade Union Federation (AATUF) has already made a start in this direction, while the Pan-African Youth Movement, the women, journalists, farmers and others are not far behind. Bolstered with ideological clarity, these organisations, closely linked with the ruling parties where liberatory forces are in power, will prove that neo-colonialism is the symptom of imperialism’s weakness and that it is defeatable. For, when all is said and done, it is the so-called little man, the bent-backed, exploited, malnourished, blood-covered fighter for independence who decides. And he invariably decides for freedom.

------------------------------- US ArmyAfrica does not need an American military base on its soil. Would Americans welcome such a foreign base in their land? Motsoko Pheko urges African countries to resist this imperialist move, which is intended to facilitate plunder of their resources. Africa: US Africa Command a Tool to Recolonise Continent Motsoko Pheko US ArmyAfrica does not need an American military base on its soil. Would Americans welcome such a foreign base in their land? Motsoko Pheko urges African countries to resist this imperialist move, which is intended to facilitate plunder of their resources. The USA Africa Command, which America calls ‘Africom’, is a military structure of the Defence Department of America. Africom was formed in 2007 during President George W Bush’s second term of office. That was two months after America had bombed a small African country, Somalia, destabilising it to the ashes it is today and to the danger it now poses to Africa and international trade. The coast of Somalia is infested with sea piracy and kidnappings. This is as a result of the earlier American invasion of Somalia, in pursuit of its illegitimate economic interests in Africa. The political instability of Somalia has now caused the problem of ‘terrorism’ for East African countries such as Kenya. In October 2011, the Institute of Security Studies held a seminar in Pretoria, South Africa, on United States’ security policy in Africa and the role of the US Africa Command. The main speaker was the American Ambassador to South Africa. He presented what was a ‘non-military insider’s perspective on the United States’ Africa Command.’ This way he was supposedly to ‘separate facts from fiction and rumours and deal directly with misconceptions and misapprehensions about Africom.’ The American apologists of Africom suggested that the creation of this American military structure under the American Defence Department ‘has turned out to be different from what the USA government had originally envisioned and what the United States of America had originally perceived, having quickly foresworn locating its headquarters in Africa.’ It seems that even in this 21st century the United States of America government does not respect the sovereignty of African states and the territorial integrity of the continent. If it did, it would know that Africans have national and continental interests and the right to protect them. Assistance should be solicited. Those who need assistance know what kind of assistance they want. The United States of America has no right to prescribe Africom on Africa even at the expense of dividing Africa and weakening the African Union. America wants its own interests to prevail over those of Africa. Africans have a painful history of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, racism and colonialism by nations that claim to be ‘civilised’ but have behaviour that is contrary to civilisation. They dehumanised Africa’s people and saw nothing wrong with that. They have never shown any remorse for their inhuman deeds to Africans or offered any reparations for the colossal damage they inflicted on Africans. America’s persistence to impose Africom on Africa proves this beyond reasonable doubt. UGANDAN OIL AND AMERICAN TROOPS TO ‘HELP’ Uganda suffered unspeakable atrocities under Idi Amin’s government that was installed by Britain under Prime Minister Edward Heath. The British government did not like the socialist policies of President Milton Obote. Idid Amin killed many Ugandans. They included the Anglican Archbishop Janani Luwum. After the overthrow of Idid Amin, there emerged Joseph Kony, leader of what he calls the Lord’s Resistance Army. Kony has murdered thousands of Ugandans. This included kidnapping hundreds of Ugandan children who he forced to join his army to fight the Ugandan government. Many of those children were killed in the senseless war. This has gone on for over 20 years. The US government never approached Uganda or the African Union or its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity, to ask how the United States could help. Now there is discovery of oil in Uganda. Almost immediately, there are reports that US government has sent an army to Uganda to find Joseph Kony and rescue Uganda’s children. Why did America not make this offer long before Uganda discovered this oil wealth? Acquisition of Africa’s resources is the chief purpose of Africom, not the development of Africa. WILL US ALLOW RUSSIAN OR CHINESE ARMY INSIDE AMERICA? Some African countries have been threatened with sanctions and ‘regime change.’ One of them is Libya, where Colonel Maummar Gaddafi was killed under the dark cloud of NATO and United States of America. When Africans raise concerns about ‘Africom’ they are said to suffer ‘misconceptions, misapprehensions, rumours, and fiction.’ Now, is the United States of America government prepared to allow Russia or China to establish their own ‘American Command’ and call it ‘Americom’ in pursuit of their national interests in America? How would Americans react to this? Would they go to the streets and say, ‘Welcome messiah!’ Anyway, the architect of ‘Africom’ President George W Bush has said that the United States’ Africa Command ‘will co-ordinate all United States security interests throughout Africa.’ If this is not imperialist arrogance and contempt for the sovereignties of African States, then the proponents of ‘Africom’ must be sent to a mental hospital for treatment. VICE ADMIRAL MOELLER HAS SPILLED BEANS ABOUT AFRICOM Vice Admiral Moeller was the man President George W Bush entrusted with the mission of Africom. Moeller knew that mission in and out. At the United States’ Africa Command Conference held at Fort McNair on 18 February 2008, this American head of ‘Africom’ declared that, ‘Protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market is one of Africom’s guiding principles.’ Admiral Moeller specifically cited ‘oil disruption’, ‘terrorism’ and the growing influence of China as a major challenge to United States’ interests in Africa. Africom is organised by the office of the Under-Secretary of Defence for Forces Transformation Resources and National Security Policy at the National Defence University Fort McNair, Washington D.C. Africom serves the interests of the United States of America. Africa does not need ‘Africom. Africom is a jackal in sheep’s clothing. A jackal cannot be entrusted with the security and lives of sheep. WHAT AFRICA NEEDS TO PROTECT HER INTERESTS What Africa needs is a mechanism to respond to peace missions in Africa to stabilise this continent politically, for rapid economic development, control of her resources and speedy technological advancement of her people. The solution to Africa’s problems lies in strengthening the African Union and accelerating the economic development of Africa. Africa’s underdevelopment was brought about by the Trans Atlantic Slaver Trade and colonialism, which subsequently enriched and developed european countries and underdeveloped Africa. Sir Winston Churchill admitted this fact when he said: ‘Our possession of the West Indies gave us the strength, the support, but especially the capital wealth, at a time when no other european nation possessed such reserve, which enabled us to come through the great struggles of the Napoleonic Wars…but also to lay the foundations of the commercial and financial leadership which when the world was young … enabled us to make our great position in the world.’ America and NATO have the worst records in their dealings with the African people. Patrice Lumumba was assassinated with the connivance of the US and Belgian governments. Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown with the assistance of America’s CIA. In recent years the American government and its British ally have plotted ‘regime change’ in Zimbabwe. In Libya it is America and NATO that bombed the country and got Colonel Muammar Gaddafi killed. This has happened inside Africa. How much easily and frequently will this happen, now with the Africom operating inside this continent? America has sophisticated weapons and intelligence gathering that Africa cannot match at presently. The ill-intentions of the USA and its NATO allies towards Africa were exposed recently when these allies made it impossible for a delegation of the African Union to enter Libya to mediate and bring peace to Libya between the rebels and Gaddafi’s government. America and NATO treated the African Union with contempt and disdain. They literally sabotaged the AU efforts to bring peace to Libya as well as to Ivory Coast. Africom will destroy Africa. Africom will undermine the United Nations and the African Union. It will deeply divide Africa into moderates and militants. Africom is a handy imperialist tool for ‘regime change.’ It will be used to install puppet governments on the African people to serve the interests of imperialism. What Africans need is the collective defence of Africa against imperialism. This means increasing Africa’s military capability to defend Africa’s interests against external aggression. All African states have a national and continental obligation to refuse the presence of Africom on the African soil. African leaders who play the American Africom game are digging a mass grave for African people and their children. Such leaders are a security risk for the people of Africa and of African descent. They cannot advance Africa economically and technologically, control Africa’s riches, use them for Africans and defend Africa’s people from those who still see Africa as a place of their enrichment and think the raw materials of this continent belong to them. Imperialism is becoming more dangerous and desperate. This is its last kicks before it crumbles. Its economies are in a shambles. Imperialist countries are heavily in debt. ‘Africom’ is a tool to save an anachronistic, decaying, vile system of ruthless economic oppression. The youth of Africa must rise and protect the riches of Africa for the benefit of Africa’s people. Africa’s youth wherever they may be must defend what is theirs by all means necessary. Dr Motsoko Pheko is author of several books and a former Member of Parliament in South Africa.

Bingo.

It definitely is so that the overwhelming majority of those in the younger generations do not dig reading. It's like "Books? Who needs those? If I need to find something out, all I gotta do is whip out my handy-dandy iPhone and WIKIPEDIA it!" Reading for pleasure seems almost obsolete. The digital takeover has many consequences and not all of them are cool, either. We're eating more junk, watching more junk ("reality" tv case in point), listening to more junk, and neglecting the building of the minds more and more. I digress, though. That, to me, points not only to a possible problem with the book store promoting itself but also it possibly points to the problem of our not instilling the importance of supporting black enterprise within the children and within the community. It can be likened to an adult who does not eat vegetables attributing this to the lack of promotion by the USDA when it was no big deal for the parents and the community to promote the consumption of vegetables. So yes, owners of black book stores often should promote more, yet I think we all have an important role to play in the bigger scheme of things. I think that the promotion of these black owned bookstores should be much more of a collective effort. I'm just saying that we as adults have to do better not only about promoting reading but also about promoting the importance of supporting black enterprise to the youngheads (younger heads). Yes, that brother who had the only black owned and operated record shop back in the day's records cost more than the chain store and true his shop took about 5 more minutes to get to, but what's paying a little more and driving just a little farther to support his business? Such is an example of the type of examples that we need. Though Amazon is very convenient and though it is often much cheaper, I buy the majority of my books from a black book store. If the store doesn't have a book that I want, then I will see if it is possible for the store to order the book. If this is not possible, I even try to see if I can get the book from another black bookstore that will be in a different city or state that I am set to visit. (That HURTS when you're addicted to books, because you be feenin' n stuff and u don't really wanna wait. lol) Anyway, I think that we need more dedication and that we all have to do better about playing our parts promoting and supporting one another. Sometimes we gotta get down and grassroots with it.

In my humble opinion, this speech has much relevance in this day. However, the same can be said about many speeches of yesterday because today is but the offspring of yesterday. As far as Malcolm, the content of Malcolm's speeches evolved as his perceptions evolved. If you are interested in this evolution, I will gladly post some links with his speeches and you can compare and contrast speeches from the earlier ones to the later ones. I think that Martin Luther King's evolution is often overlooked as much as Malcolm X's evolution is overlooked. While I do not at all think that it is accurate to say that either of these men did a 180, I do think that it is accurate to say that the content of their speeches evolved as their perceptions and objectives evolved.