Obama, the African Colonial

American Thinker ^ | June 25, 2009 | L.E. Ikenga

[neverdem]

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.

Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.

The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.

Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.

My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:

First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.

Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.

The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories.  AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).

On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.

The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.

Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.  

In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.

Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress".  (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)

Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.

Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.

Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you: 

1. Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
2. Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.  
3. Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?   
4. Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse.  One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
5. Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons.  This speaks for itself.

America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.

L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.

[Fred Nerks]

YES. That’s why I posted that comment for the record. Two questions I had in my mind are now answered. Where did the name Shabazz come from, and why would Malcolm X maintain that ‘white people’ were not invited to attend the Bandung Conference in 1955?

Both answers straight out of the putrid mind of Elijah Mohammad.

[Fred Nerks]

BLACK ANTI-SEMITISM

Anti-Semitism has had a long history among African Americans. In the 1920s, for instance, the “buy-black” campaign of the black-nationalist leader Marcus Garvey was explicitly targeted against Jews, and Garvey later spoke admiringly of Adolf Hitler.

In February 1948 the black writer James Baldwin acknowledged how widespread anti-Semitism was in his community, writing: “Georgia has the Negro and Harlem has the Jew.” Baldwin later succumbed to such views himself when he wrote that while Christians made up America’s true power structure, the Jew “is doing their dirty work.” He went on to denigrate Jewish financial support of civil rights organizations as mere “conscience money.”

Malcolm X, too, was a vociferous anti-Semite both publicly and privately. According to author Murray Friedman, when Malcolm met with representatives of the Ku Klux Klan to solicit their support for his project of black separatism, he “assured them” that “it was Jews who were behind the integration movement.”

The prominent role that Jews played in the American civil rights movement did little to diminish black anti-Semitism. When the movement first began to gain traction in the late 1950s and early 60s, the front-line troops in the Montgomery bus boycott and then in the lunch-counter sit-ins were all blacks; but among the whites who soon rallied to the cause, a disproportionately large share were Jews. The Freedom Riders rode in integrated detachments, and two-thirds of the whites, Murray Friedman reports, were Jews.

A few years later (1964) came the “Mississippi Summer,” a black-voter-registration project conceived and organized by a Jew, Allard Lowenstein. According to Friedman, Jews made up from one-third to one-half of the white volunteers who took part. Of the three volunteers who lost their lives in the project, two — Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman — were Jews.

In his book Blacks and Jews, Paul Berman reports that Jews contributed one-half to three-quarters of the financial support received by civil rights groups in the 1960s. The organizational support they provided was equally pronounced. All over the United States, Jewish organizations assigned staffers to work on civil rights initiatives. In those days, writes Berman, “it was almost as if to be Jewish and liberal were, by definition, to fly a flag for black America.”

Then, just as the struggle for civil rights achieved its cardinal victories with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many of its black activists began to turn away from their original goals, taking up instead the cause of “Black Power.” The driving motive of Black Power was the venting of rage over racial humiliation, a rage that the earlier civil rights movement had insisted on subordinating to the strategy of nonviolence and sublimating in the rhetoric of Christian love.

This rage manifested itself within the civil rights movement’s own organizations, where the presence of whites in leading positions — and indeed at all levels — was now regarded as an intolerable affront. CORE and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which had been on the cutting edge of the fight for integration, suddenly became racially exclusive.

With whites in the movement redefined as oppressors and opportunists, and with so many of the whites being Jews, some of the new hostility was bound to assume an anti-Jewish tone. In 1968, during a New York City school strike, leaflets were distributed by blacks attacking Jewish teachers as “Middle-East murderers of colored people.”

In more recent decades, a number of leading black activists — some immensely popular and influential — have become vocal exponents of anti-Semitic.. Stoking the fires of racial grievance and victimology, they aim to imbue fellow blacks with contempt for, and envy of, Jews. Some of these anti-Semites serve as Imams or ministers at major mosques across the country. Others work as chaplains in America’s prison system. Others have established themselves as leaders of the contemporary civil rights movement.

City College of New York professor Leonard Jeffries, for instance, contends that “rich Jews who financed the development of Europe also financed the slave trade.” He charges that Jews have greatly exaggerated the horrors of the Holocaust, and he once described Jewish academicians who disagreed with his views as “slick and devilish and dirty and dastardly.”

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan also has a long, well-documented history of diatribes about the “white devils” and Jewish “bloodsuckers” who purportedly decimate America’s black community from coast to coast. He has referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion,” and to Adolf Hitler as “a wickedly great man.”

In January 1984 Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies,” and to New York City as “Hymietown,” during a private conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman. Jackson assumed — largely because of what he perceived as his racial bond with the black reporter — that the references would not be printed in the media. But a few weeks later, Coleman would permit the slurs to be included in another Post reporter’s article on Jackson’s poor relations with American Jews. News of Jackson’s comments set off a firestorm of of controversy. Jackson at first denied having made the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. Finally, in late February of 1984, Jackson delivered an emotional speech admitting that he had made the remarks in question, and and seeking atonement before national Jewish leaders in a New Hampshire synagogue.

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton is another prominent African American whose anti-Semitism has frequently been on public display. In 1991, for instance, after anti-Semitic riots in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section had erupted in response to a Hasidic Jew’s accidental vehicular homicide of a black child, Sharpton organized angry demonstrations and challenged local Jews –– whom he derisively called “diamond merchants” –– to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” to settle the score. Stirred in part by such rhetoric, hundreds of Crown Heights blacks continued rioting for three days and nights, killing an innocent rabbinical student named Yankel Rosenbaum in the process.

Four years later, Sharpton led an ugly boycott against Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned clothing store in Harlem, New York. The street leader of the boycott, Morris Powell, was the head of Sharpton’s “Buy Black” Committee. He and his fellow protesters repeatedly referred to the Jewish proprietors of Freddy’s as “the greedy Jew bastards [who are] killing our [black] people.” The subsequent picketing became increasingly menacing in its tone, until one of the protesters eventually shot four whites in the store and then set the building on fire –– killing seven employees.

According to Nation of Islam spokesman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Jewish conspirators possessed exclusive foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and saved their own lives that day by not going to their jobs in the World Trade Center. In 2002 Shabazz said: “Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!”

Shabazz’s mentor, the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, characterized Jews as “slumlords in the black community” who were busy “sucking our [blacks’] blood on a daily and consistent basis.”

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the longtime pastor of Barack Obama during the latter’s years in Chicago, was asked by an interviewer in June 2009 whether he had spoken to President Obama since the latter had taken his oath of office five months earlier. Wright replied: “Them Jews aren’t going to let him [Obama] talk to me.... They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.”

In a May 2006 appearance at UC Irvine, the Oakland-based Imam Amir Abdel Malik-Ali referred to Jews as “new Nazis” and “a bunch of straight-up punks,” telling them directly: “The truth of the matter is your days are numbered. We will fight you. We will fight you until we are either martyred or until we are victorious.”

Quanell X, the former national youth minister for the Nation of Islam, was quoted thusly in the Chicago Tribune: “I say to Jewish America: Get ready … knuckle up, put your boots on, because we’re ready and the war is going down ... Black youth do not want a relationship with the Jewish community ... All you Jews can go straight to hell.”

Adapted partly from “Facing up to Black Anti Semitism,” by Joshua Muravchik (December 1995).

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=94

[bacall]

Did anyone ever hear that Obama’s stepmother Kezia was pregnant by another man while her husband Barack Obama was in Hawaii? http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/obama-mystery-theater-kezias-baby/

[Fred Nerks]

You need to do some research...there are doubts that she was ever married to the kenyan-son-of-a-goat-herder. Read ‘Dreams From My Father’ - in which ‘granny’ Sarah clearly states to the children of Kezia: ‘NONE OF YOU ARE HIS CHILDREN!
Now why would they include that in the book if it wasn’t common knowledge in the village?

[Fred Nerks]

American Nazi Party Commander George Lincoln Rockwell (center) at a Nation of Islam (NOI) rally, Uline Arena, Washington, DC, June 25, 1961. During the collection, he shouted: “George Lincoln Rockwell gives $20!” (almost $135 in today's money). Malcolm X, noting the applause, asked him: "George Lincoln Rockwell, you got the biggest hand you ever got, didn’t you?”

Elijah Muhammad, NOI founder, invited Rockwell to speak at their next Savior's Day Convention, which he did on Sunday, February 25, 1962, before 12,175 people in Chicago’s International Amphitheater. (Muhammad Speaks, April 1962, p. 3.) At the podium, in full Nazi regalia, Rockwell opined “that Elijah Muhammad is to the so-called Negro what Adolph Hitler is to the German people. He is the most powerful black man in the country. Heil Hitler!” (Black History and the Class Struggle, Spartacist League, August 1994, p. 37.)

Anthony Flood

Updated July 24, 2007

SOURCE

[Candor7]

I am continued to be fascinated by the linkage between theocratic fascism ( The Muslim Brotherhood, Elijah Mohammed et all) and liberal fascism ( Black liberation theology nationalism and reparation style socialism for wealth redistribution, using government programs and taxation...and eventually force.).

Obama has clearly pursued this linkage as a matter of US foreign policy, but little has been written about it.Obama means to destroy Israel in a war with Iran, and Obama will do it as a “supporter” of Israel who just ties the hands of the US military to do little or nothing, behind his mask of “supporting “ Israel in a fascist rope-a-dope technique like he used in Libya.

Obama will pursue a continued linkage with the theocratic fascists of Islam.Their advisors are in Obama’s cabinet, and the Department of the Navy. It is amazing that US jews cannot see it.

[Fred Nerks]

The Missing Malcolm

By Simon J Black
Published: 01/13/2009
Manning Marable is a professor of Public Affairs, Political Science, History and African-American Studies at Columbia University in New York City, and the founder of the Center for Contemporary Black History (CCBH). He is the author of numerous works, including How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America (Boston: South End Press, 1983), Race, Reform and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945-1990 (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1991), and Living Black History: How Reimagining the African-American Past Can Remake America’s Racial Future (New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2006). His current works in progress include a new comprehensive biography of Malcolm X, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York: Viking, 2009).

I interviewed Dr. Marable at his Columbia University office in Manhattan. He spoke about Malcolm X’s relationship to socialist politics, his intellectual and political development, and the missing chapters in Malcolm’s collaborative autobiography with journalist Alex Haley. The interview was published in the January-February issue of the International Socialist Review and is on newsstands in North America and the UK now.

SIMON BLACK: Dr. Marable, when we speak of W.E.B. Du Bois, A. Phillip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and Martin Luther King, we are not only speaking of great intellectuals and civil rights leaders, but of democratic socialists. Malcolm also moved to the left in his later life. Much of this has been suppressed or written out of mainstream Civil Rights history. What effect has that had on how African-Americans relate to the left and how the left, black and white, relates to the African-American community?

MANNING MARABLE: African-Americans who identify themselves with socialism or left projects have been drawn to that body of politics based on their realization that racialized injustice is not simply a dynamic of color, but, rather, has something very directly to do with accumulated disadvantage driven by market economics and by the hegemony of capital over labor. Black people in the United States and the Americas who came here were brought here involuntarily due to the demand for labor and the unquenching thirsts on the part of those who own capital and invested in means of production to find the cheapest way to develop a labor pool to exploit and to extract surplus value that is accrued to them through excess profits. The engine that drove the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was capital, as Eric Williams in “Capitalism and Slavery” fifty and sixty years ago pointed out. Malcolm, on Jan. 15, 1965, a month before he dies, does an interview in Canada, I believe in Toronto, where he says, ‘All my life, I believed that the fundamental struggle was black versus white. Now I realize that it is the haves against the have-nots.’ Malcolm came to the realization, King came to the realization, that the nature of the struggle was between those who have and those who are dispossessed. [Frantz] Fanon came to this same conclusion in “Wretched of the Earth.” So this led to what some scholars have written about as black Marxism, the tradition of black radicalism that comes organically from the critical reality of the super exploitation of black labor worldwide and a response to that politically. That is, that we didn’t gravitate toward Marx simply because we liked his beard or we were seduced by his manipulation of prose, even though I loved the “18th Brumaire.” Rather, we were attracted to Marx because it helped to illuminate and make clear the objective material circumstances of poverty, unemployment and exploitation in black people’s lives, which is why we became socialists or Marxists, because we understood that there could not be a path toward black liberation that was not simultaneously one that challenged the hegemony of capital over labor.

SB: In your new biography of Malcolm, “Malcolm X: A Life of the Invention,” you discuss three missing chapters from Alex Haley’s collaboration with Malcolm, The Autobiography of Malcolm X. What’s happened to them? And what’s their importance to understanding Malcolm’s life?

MM: They’re in the safe of an attorney named Gregory Reed. He’s in Detroit, Michigan. They’re in his safe. And, he has them and doesn’t show them to people. Now why does he have them? How did that happen? Well, in late 1992, I believe October, there was an auction of the Alex Haley estate and for $100,000, he bought these chapters that were discarded from the autobiography.

Alex Haley was the ghostwriter and co-author of the book. You have to remember that Haley went on to great fame as the author of “Roots”, one of the largest-selling books in American history and a docudrama on television that had a profound impact on race relations in the late 1970s. Haley was deeply hostile to Malcolm X’s politics. He was Republican, he was opposed to Black Nationalism, and he was an integrationist. He had been in the Coast Guard for 20 years. But, he also knew a good thing when he saw it.

A charismatic, handsome, articulate black leader who had a controversial past as a hustler, a pimp, a drug addict, a numbers runner, “Detroit Red,” “Little Gangster,” “Little Bugsy Siegel,” who terrorized the Harlem community supposedly in the 1940s and went to jail and was given 10 years in prison. He goes through a metamorphosis, he becomes a black Muslim, he comes out, he explodes on the scene. He creates 70-80 new mosques in less than 10 years, turns a small sect of 400 people into fifty to one hundred thousand by 1960-62. Then, he turns more overtly to politics, he breaks from the Nation, he builds two new organizations, the Muslim Mosque Incorporated in March 1964 and the Organization of Afro-American Unity in May 1964. He goes to Africa and the Mid East. He is treated as the head of state. He is welcomed at the Fateh by the Saudi royal household. He sits down with Gamal, eats breakfast with Anwar Sadat in Egypt. He caucuses and meets and gets to know Che Guevara while he’s in Africa, as he alludes to in a talk in 1964 at the Audubon Ballroom. So Malcolm is this extraordinary figure, dies at the age of 39. It’s a hell of a story. Haley understood that. And so, it was on those terms he agreed to work with Malcolm to write the book. But, what Malcolm didn’t know was that Haley already was compromised and had basically been a purveyor of information — a kind of, not informant, but a client of the FBI in this disinformation campaign against the NOI. Haley had collaborated with the FBI. Malcolm never knew that. In the summer of ‘64 when Malcolm was in Egypt, Haley was taking the book manuscript giving it to an attorney, William O’Dwyer, rewriting passages of the book trying to get it passed as Malcolm’s survey. Malcolm’s on the run, people are trying to kill him, they’re trying to poison him in Egypt. He’s not going to have time to look at the book carefully. Then, he dies.

Haley adds a 79-page appendix to the book where he has his own integrationist and liberal Republican interpretation. And then, they have M.S. Handler of the New York Times writing in the front of the book. I mean, you know Malcolm respected Handler. But this is not who you want to lead in to a black revolutionary’s text. So Haley did a variety of things to reframe the book. And, toward the end of the book, there’s a lot of language in it that simply doesn’t sound like Malcolm. It doesn’t sound like him. There’s a lot of information that is just wrong in the book. They misspelled ‘As-Salamu Alaykum’ several times. They give the story of Johnson Hinton. They have Hinton Johnson. They put the date of this very tragic beating of this brother who’s in the Nation, Brother Johnson, in 1959, rather than the year it actually occurred, which was April 1957. So there are simple mistakes in dates, of names, events that clearly show Malcolm did not have access to the final manuscript. He didn’t see it. And, it was published nine months after Malcolm’s death. Betty Shabazz was in no shape to check and recheck facts. So all that says to me is you have to read the autobiography very very carefully, very suspiciously. It’s a wonderful book. It is a great work of literature. But it is a work of literature. It is not an autobiography. It’s a memoir. And it’s gone through the prism of Haley who was a Republican, integrationist and a defender of U.S. power. You should read the anticommunist articles he wrote for the Reader’s Guide in the mid-‘50s on Hungary. So this is the man you’re dealing with. So we must be very careful. I learned I had to deconstruct the autobiography to write the biography. If you go to www.malcolmxproject.net, you will see my biography, the architecture of that, and how I had to deconstruct the autobiography. That’s why we put the website up.

SB: What do you suspect is contained in these missing three chapters?

MM: Well, I’ve seen them for about 15 minutes. I met with Gregory. I’ve written about this in my book, “Living Black History,” that came out last year. “Living Black History” has a whole chapter on this. I couldn’t use it in the autobiography, but I had to tell the story to somebody. I talked with Gregory on the phone. He’s an attorney. He bought it for $100,000. He wanted to make money off of the material. So I phone him up, we talk. He says, ‘Fly out to Detroit. Meet with me. Come to my law office. There, I’ll show you the chapters.’ As honesty suggests, I get to Detroit. He said, ‘Don’t come to my office. Are you downtown?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Meet me at this restaurant in an hour.’ So I go there. He’s about a half hour late. He eventually shows up. And he’s carrying a briefcase. And then he said, ‘I’ll let you see these for 15 minutes.’ I’ve flown from New York and I have 15 minutes to read the text. ‘I’ll let you sit here and read them and I’ll leave and I’ll come back.’

So I’m sitting here frantically reading these pages. But it only takes me a few minutes to recognize what they are. They were obviously written sometime between August 1963 to December 1963. There’s a presumption in the text that Malcolm is still in the Nation of Islam. So he hasn’t broken with the nation yet. What they call for is the construction of an unprecedented black united front, uniting all black organizations, led by, get this, the Nation of Islam. So Malcolm is envisioning the Nation actively participating in anti-racist struggles and building various types of capacities: economic strategies, housing strategies, healthcare strategies with the NAACP, with the Urban League, with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the SNCC. So he wanted to push this religious kind of semi-Islamic organization into black civil society in an aggressive way. He wanted to open up the Nation. And, I strongly suspect that Malcolm’s drive and push to reach out to the civil rights community and SNCC and CORE is what got him into trouble inside of the NOI, because the bulk of the NOI had been thoroughly against Malcolm’s prostylization efforts that brought in tens of thousands of new members. The old guard felt threatened by that. Then on top of that, since April ‘62, the turning point in Malcolm’s career was the murder of Ronald Stokes in the Nation of Islam’s mosque in Los Angeles in April 1962. Malcolm flies out to L.A. and spends over a week there and he calls for a grand coalition, very much like the coalition he talked about in the deleted chapters, with CORE, the NAACP, with SNIC that would be anti-police violence against black people. And, he was talking about the Nation of Islam participating in that coalition. Elijah Muhammad said ‘time out,’ called Malcolm down and said ‘you better chill that out and get the hell out of Los Angeles.’ Malcolm was deeply embarrassed and humiliated that they had to end the mobilization after they had a member murdered by the LAPD. Other men in the Nation in the mosque were dragged outside, strip-searched naked to humiliate them. And Malcolm had mobilized people and he had to back down.

So Malcolm came back to New York and by July ‘62 is speaking at an 1199 protest. I have a photo of him speaking at a protest rally in July for the labor union, King’s favorite union, 1199, the largest union today in New York City. In Christmas time in 1962, two members of the Nation, who were selling Muhammad Speaks on Times Square, get arrested by the police. How does Malcolm respond? He puts 140-150 Fruit of Islam members — the paramilitary organization, the men in the NOI — demonstrating in Times Square on New Year’s Day. Elijah Muhammad called for no demonstrations, no over political activity. That’s not what Malcolm’s doing. That’s exactly what he’s doing. And he starts doing that a year and a half before the silencing, before the break.

So you know what happens? The Nation of Islam’s newspaper Muhammad Speaks in late ‘62 stops covering Malcolm X. If you go through methodically the last year from December 1962 through December 1963, guess what? You see Malcolm once in his own newspaper. And he’s the national spokesman. You see him more often in the New York Times. And this is like a year before the break. So you can already see where he’s going. It doesn’t take a mind reader to see that Elijah Muhammad only used the ‘chickens coming home to roost’ statement as an excuse to do what they wanted to do, which was to eliminate Malcolm’s influence, curb his politics. I think that they believed he would submit. Most of Malcolm’s closest followers within the Nation thought he would also submit. They weren’t prepared for a break. Malcolm contemplated a break. I think maybe he wasn’t prepared either. But he did anticipate a possibility of it.

He began, in early ‘64, talking with a number of people outside of the Nation of Islam to develop the OAAU, the Organization of Afro-American Unity. When he left the Nation, very few members of the NOI went with him, perhaps maybe 100. The mosque in Harlem had as many as 7,000 members. Only 100-150 left. They became the Muslim Mosque Incorporated, and Sunni Muslims. But the OAAU was the secular organization with largely working-class and middle-class blacks and many professionals, writers like Huey and Mayfield, historians like John Henrik Clark. The key organizer was Lynn Shifflet of NBC News, a producer, a young black woman in her late 20s. There were real tensions between the OAAU and the MMI over ideology and their relationship to Malcolm, because Malcolm increasingly was moving toward the politics of the OAAU, away from the MMI, even though these were people who had put their lives on the line to leave the NOI out of personal loyalty to him. So there were tremendous tensions between these two groups, which I will document in the biography.

SB: So the Organization of Afro-American Unity really is the culmination of, or the product of, the development of Malcolm’s thought that was written about by Haley in these last three chapters?

MM: The chapters that are missing are written prior to the split. Haley says that Malcolm changed his mind after he went to Mecca and decided to deep-six the chapters. Maybe that’s true. We’ll never know. What is true is that it would be nice to print the things that were deleted, put an addendum and appendix on the autobiography. It would be nice to see it. Well I’m not sure. Don’t hold your breath. I saw it for 15 minutes. Maybe I’m the lucky one. But eventually they will appear. We will see them.

There has been an active suppression of Malcolm’s work and his intellectual legacy for more than 40 years. And the suppression has been deliberate and for various reasons. First, many of the key people in his entourage in the Nation and in the OAAU had to go underground. I just interviewed this week James 67X Shabazz (Abdullah Razzaq) who went underground and lived in Guyana for 19 years, because he was threatened with murder and also threatened by the FBI. So it’s only now in his mid-70s that he’s returned to the United States several months a year. He lives in Brooklyn with his son. James 67X was Malcolm’s chief of staff and his secretary for many years. The others are now dead who were closest to Malcolm. There is Herman Ferguson who is the best eyewitness to the murder. I’ve interviewed him several times and I’m interviewing him one more next week, which will be fun. His eyewitness to the murder, his recount to me, which has partially been published in my journal Souls, is absolutely stunning and it raises many questions about the assassination.

We have, over the last seven years, worked very hard to develop a forensic accounting of the murder. And, we believe we have figured out how the murder took place. That is, the forensics of it. We think we know how that happened. We don’t know who gave the order. But I can tell you what our theory is. The murder took place on Feb. 21, 1965, as a result of the culmination of three separate groups. There was no classic conspiracy, no direct collusion, but, rather, a convergence. Three things had to happen for the murder to take place, and they all did. Law enforcement, the FBI and the NYPD, and its Bureau of Special Services (BOSS), which was its red squad, actively wanted to do surveillance disruption of Malcolm X and possibly eliminate him; certainly the FBI, because their nightmare was seeing King and Malcolm embrace. That was its nightmare. And they realized, much to their horror, that they were far better off with Malcolm in the Nation of Islam than outside of it, because then he was being treated like a head of state in Africa. They had never anticipated that he would be a houseguest of a Saudi royal family, or that he would be speaking to parliaments from Kenya to Ghana to French Guinea. Malcolm goes to Alabama, three weeks before he’s murdered and reaches out to Dr. King. King is in prison after leading demonstrations. Malcolm goes to Coretta Scott King and he says, ‘I want you to convey to your husband my deepest respect for him and that I am not trying to undermine Dr. King’s work. My goal is to be to the left of Dr. King, to challenge institutional racism so that those in power can negotiate with King. That’s my role.’ So Malcolm understood what his role was. This was the FBI’s nightmare. And so they actively wanted to curtail his influence, if not silence him permanently.

Then you have the Nation of Islam. But what people need to understand is that there were different points of view in the NOI about Malcolm. Some of the leadership, especially in Chicago, the national secretary John Ali, the national head of the Fruit of Islam Raymond Shareef, Elijah Muhammad’s son-in-law Herbert Muhammad, the sons of Elijah Muhammad, Jr., and several others wanted to silence Malcolm permanently. Joseph X, who was a captain of the Fruit of Islam and the Northeast regional security director at Mosque No. 7, formerly Malcolm’s associate and friend, as was John Ali — they actively sought to eliminate him, to blow him up with bombs, to kill him, or firebomb his home or whatever. But other members of the Nation of Islam were against the murder and it is questionable if Elijah Muhammad ever gave the order. It could have been a situation very much like Henry II and Thomas a Becket where somebody’s ridding him of his priest. So he doesn’t have to give the order, but the deed is done. It’s understood what needs to be done. But he doesn’t technically give the order.

Then there’s a third group and that’s Malcolm’s own entourage. There were police informants in the group. Gene Roberts who tries to resuscitate Malcolm after he’s shot is an NYPD police officer. He’s a police officer who walks right directly out of the line of fire only seconds before the fuselage goes off — maybe by accident, maybe by design. What is true is that whenever Malcolm spoke, there were at least two-dozen cops. There were only two police officers in the Audubon that day and they were assigned as far away in the distance as possible in the building. They were in the rows, in very small-rows in a ballroom adjacent to the large grand ballroom, but separated by a wall and then a vestibule. It was impossible for them to protect Malcolm. There was one police officer in a small park directly across the street from the entrance of the Audubon. No other police officers. They’d been pulled back to the Columbia Presbyterian Hospital four blocks away. No captain, and the guard is usually sitting in the second floor in a booth where they collect money that directly faces the ballroom. You have to walk right past it to get out of the building. No police in the building. Why?

Malcolm gets shot. The hospital, they try to get the ambulance. They can’t get an ambulance. It’s only four blocks away. So men run to the hospital’s emergency room, grab a gurney, and carry his body in a gurney in the street. Seems odd, doesn’t it? His own men, no one checks for weapons at the door. None of the guards are armed. I’ve gone through New York’s Municipal Archives, the police reports of all the guards that day, of every guard. We’ve gone through all that. We know who they were and their names and the changes of the guards. There were three changes of the guards. One around 2 o’clock, one around 2:30 and one about five to 3. We know that several people who were guarding Malcolm that day were not generally part of the OAAU and were assigned to sensitive positions. Guards, like William George, who normally guarded Malcolm on the roster were assigned to be as far away from him as possible that day at the front of the building, not next to Malcolm on the rush. The guards who were there rolled out of the way. And Malcolm was naked and alone on the stage.

There’s only one man who could have placed the guards there that way and that was Malcolm’s head of security, Reuben Francis. Francis is the one who does shoot Hayer, who did indeed shoot Malcolm. But Hayer is interviewed very briefly by the NYPD, he’s arrested briefly. They let him go on bond. Then he disappears off planet Earth. And the FBI said, ‘We can’t find him. We believe he’s in Mexico.’ But prior to his disappearance, he’s not even called to the grand jury, even though he’s the only one who shot anybody who was an assassin.

The NYPD doesn’t even interview Capt. Joseph, the head of the Fruit of Islam, at Mosque No. 7, even though, to a room of over 120 people, he cold orders Malcolm’s death. There are witnesses to this. And the FBI doesn’t interview him? We found a folder that said Joseph X and it was empty. There were six men who killed Malcolm, not three. Two of the men who were incarcerated and given life sentences were innocent Norman Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson. They were innocent. They were sent to prison for life. Why? They weren’t even physically there. Johnson used to be Malcolm’s chauffeur. He used to stand out in the rain in front of Mosque No. 7 or in the snow, holding and reserving a parking space for Malcolm when he drove up. He used to phone him and tell him that he was coming before he arrived. Once a month, he went to go grocery shopping for Betty, Malcolm’s wife. You would know this guy if he came to kill you. Everybody would’ve known him if he had walked into the Audubon that day. He wasn’t there that day. Butler was an enforcer for Capt. Joseph. He was a notorious thug in the nation. They would have known if they walked into the Audubon that day. The two men werent there that day and yet they were convicted of murdering Malcolm X. Why?

I believe the DA was protecting informants within Malcolm’s group and within the NOI. And perhaps some of those informants were collaborators and committed the crime. So they convicted the wrong people to cover and protect the anonymity of their own agents. That’s a theory. I can’t prove it, but I think we ought to explore it and we should reopen this case. And, hopefully my book will help reopen it. William Kunstler tried to reopen it back in 77-78 and he failed because he didn’t have the evidence I have. Hopefully, we can reopen it again.

SB: The dominant understanding of Malcolm’s life and meaning in mainstream American popular culture really comes from two sources: Haley and Spike Lee’s film. Spike Lee’s interpretation of the assassination shows a Malcolm, who seems to be prepared for his own martyrdom and orders his guards not to be armed on that day, in a way that King with his mountaintop speech also appears to be prepared for what he seems to think is his inevitable fate. Is that a damaging interpretation?

MM: No, it’s not and it may be true. Malcolm clearly knew he was going to die. He didn’t know when and I strongly suspect that Malcolm was not going to run away from death and he had the courage to face death. Not that he wanted to die, he didn’t have a death wish. But he had the courage to face death. There is a story, a very influential legend within Shia Islam, about Ali and his grandson Husayn, both of whom perished a kind of murder in the cathedral, in the case of Ali in the mosque, and in his grandson at Karbala where he was killed in, I believe, 682 in common era. About four years later, women came to Karbala, in today’s Iraq, and began to beat themselves and lament that they had not protected the grandson of Ali. In Shia, Ali is the Shia that we have today. They still gather every year at Karbala. Now hundreds of thousands and maybe a million people lament the events of Karbala. There is nothing greater in Shia Islam than martyrdom, the embrace of death for a higher belief. And to some extent, I think that Malcolm embodied that at that moment. Not that he sought death, but that he did not fear it. That he saw in his martyrdom a way to transcend death that there would be a life after death. I‘m sure he was familiar with the legend. Who knows? Perhaps that influenced his actions.

SB: What will your biography broadly do to assert a new Malcolm X, itself a reinvention of Malcolm X, as your book is titled, because he reinvented himself many times? What will it do to displace Haley and Spike Lee as the dominant understanding of Malcolm X’s life and meaning?

MM: There are three core things in the book. The first is what I call a kind of a life of reinvention. Malcolm’s tale is a hero’s tale that’s not unlike Odysseus — a story of travel, of learning, of experience, of ordeals and tests, a classic kind of hero story. It’s a classic Greek story, which frequently or usually ends in death. But at the end, there’s a broader, richer, deeper, critical consciousness that’s achieved. The thing about that story is that Malcolm’s growth comes through a series of artful creative reinventions. He reinvents himself even to the point these reinventions have different names. He was “Jack Carlton” in the summer of 1944. When he was 19 years old, he wanted to break into show biz and he was at Lobster Pond bar on 42nd Street in Midtown Manhattan working as a drummer and professional dancer for about three or four months. He doesn’t write about that in the autobiography. You just have to find out about that. He worked in a bar and grill in Harlem, Jimmy’s Chicken Shack, alongside of the funniest dishwasher and server in Harlem, a guy who had red hair. Malcolm had red hair. So they called Malcolm “Detroit Red” cause nobody had ever heard of Lansing, Michigan, and they called the brother from Chicago “Chicago Red.” His last name was Sanford. We know him today better as Red Foxx, the comedian. So Malcolm and Red Foxx worked in the same restaurant in ‘43 and early ‘44. He does mention something of this in the autobiography. Malcolm in prison called himself at times Malachi Shabazz. He was Malcolm X. He was El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. He had many many different names: “Detroit Red,” “Homeboy,” “Mascot,” “Satan” when he was in prison. Yet, through these transformations, he was able to navigate brilliantly a life of reinvention.

What makes Malcolm different from every signature black figure in American history is that he combines the two central characters of black folk culture. He is both the trickster and the minister. He’s both. That’s “Detroit Red” — the hustler, the gambler, the outlaw. And, he is also the minister who saves souls, who redeems lives, who heals the sick, who raises the dead. He’s both. King is one. Jesse Jackson is one. Malcolm’s both and he understood the streets and the lumpen proletariat. I hate that phrase, but it comes from Marx. As well as, he saw himself as a minister and an Amun, a cleric. He was always this. And he embodied the cultural spirit of black folk better than anyone else. When I asked one student about a decade ago, ‘What was the fundamental difference between Malcolm and Martin? He said, “Dr. Marable, that’s easy. Martin Luther King, Jr., belongs to the entire world. Malcolm X belongs to us. There is a tremendous degree of identification on the part of people of African descent, and globally on the part of Muslims, invested in the figure of Malcolm. The very first postage stamp honoring Malcolm X was issued, not by the United States, but by the Ayatollah Khomeini government of Iran, in 1982, by the Shia Muslims. Perhaps they knew something that everybody else didn’t know.

The second theme in the book is a spiritual journey and Malcolm’s growth in spiritual sojourn from the periphery of Islam represented by the Nation of Islam to Sunni Islam. There was a price in the journey because he also had to embrace Nasser’s definition of what Islam was in the Pan Arab world. So we have some excellent very interesting articles and speeches Malcolm gave in Cairo. The writings that he did, very critical of the state of Israel in the summer in August and September 1964, cast Malcolm in a very interesting kind of light as it relates to the Arab struggle and the Palestinian struggle, that heretofore, in the United States, we rarely have seen.

The third theme is betrayal. Malcolm had a capacity ethnographically to read audience better than any public speaker of his generation. He knew people. He could walk into an audience, read it and give a brilliant address. He could debate at Harvard and Oxford, as well as on 125th Street and Lenox Avenue/Seventh Avenue. He was just a remarkable public speaker. But where his failure came was his consistent inability to make critical accurate judgements of the people closest to him who would betray him. And, those included his two brothers Philbert and Wilfred Little who sided with Elijah Muhammad against Malcolm; his chief protégé Louis X/Louis Farrakhan who proclaimed Malcolm to be a man worthy of death, who lead the jackal’s course leading to his murder. How do we explain Farrakhan? I sat down with Louis for nine hours in an interview a year and a half ago. We had a fascinating conversation about it. The question I ruminate over is, how much of it is true? Then we have Joseph X, the leader of the Fruit of Islam at Mosque No. 7, who Malcolm had promoted, pulled out of the gutter in Detroit in 1952-53, raised him up to be his chief right-hand person, who then would be betray and try to murder him. John Ali, who had been Malcolm’s secretary of Mosque No. 7, who he promoted to the national leadership, who then conspired to murder him. A variety of people. His closest personal friend Charles Kenyatta had been turned out by the police and was probably a police agent, Malcolm’s best friend, which I’ve only just discovered last week because I just got the file. So we have some interesting info. So I think between this data and the other things, a big chunk of the book is about the forensic discussion of the murder and our theory of the murder. I think people will have more than enough information.

SB: Let’s bring this full circle. We’re now sitting in your office in 2007 in Bloomberg’s New York. We’ve gone through a period of social cleansing that was Giuliani’s New York, characterized by police brutality, intense gentrification, privatization of public housing. And I was today at Friday Juma at the Malcolm Shabazz Mosque in Harlem and the message today was one about homosexuality, as an abnormal and immoral practice. The other message was about self-help and the idea of the community needing to raise itself up and take care of its own problems. What does the Malcolm X of your book say to this current political economic conjuncture?

MM: Well an honest representation of Malcolm should show the whole person and his trajectory and his evolution. The trajectory of Malcolm was increasingly anti-corporate capitalist. He talked about the need not to appeal to the United States to readdress grievances, but to take the criminal to court, that is, the court of world opinion at the United Nations. He called for what is today known as a south-south dialogue, that is, between the Caribbean, blacks in Latin America, Africa and South Asia that would span across continents that would be in part Arab and Muslim, and part black and brown. And, he envisioned a global kind of jihad of worlds against western imperialism and a need for people who had experienced colonialism to take back the power through international bodies that built broad-based unity transnationally. That was what Malcolm’s politics were. It was not bootstrap capitalism, nor was it gentrification. Nevertheless, once you’re dead, your image is up for grabs. By 1972, Richard Nixon had invited, and Betty Shabazz had agreed to be on the dais of the re-elect Richard M. Nixon for president at a dinner party in Washington, D.C. This was only six or seven years after Malcolm X’s assassination. So once you’re murdered, you can’t control what people who had some sort of relationship to you — whether they’re married to you, or they’re political affiliates or associates — what choices they make — sad but true. It is particularly sad that from the Masjid or mosque, one hears a kind of message that’s more appropriate to Booker T. Washington than Malcolm X. But, nevertheless, the struggle continues.

[Candor7]

Shabazz indeed.

I lived for about 6 months with two Chicago radicals who
spouted the same tripe as Malcolm X believed. They ignored entirely the weakness of the socialist cause, that it is in the fact taht the basic nature of mankind is to be free, thereby simultaneously abandoning the very tenants of the freedom movement which began shortly after emancipation in 1865 or so. And I lived with them in Ethiopia during the summer of 1970.

Obama considers this tripe his inheritance, and moreover, has added in the nationalism evident in Black Liberation Theology, espousing the racial superiority of black folks and other racial minorities over the white man, excluding Asians, because of their success.

This constitutes the hidden Obama, and the real Obama and the very subcultural roots of the Obama movement which now threatens to usurp the Constitution of the United States.

Obama is far from the guacamole/nacho munching president , the ordinary guy image he so glibly portrays on nationally televised talk shows , interviews where Barabara Walters gets to ask him, “ What do you do on thse long trips on Air Force One?” while the nation’s economy goes to hell in a handbasket and the real questions go unanswered. May we rid ourselves of him and his ilk soon.They are worse than poisonous snakes.

[Fred Nerks]

It’s a goldmine of little gems that illustrate what he meant by ‘a story of race and inhertitance’ isn’t it?
He’s following in the footsteps of his father.

[Fred Nerks]

BLANCO/NEGRO - WHITE CAT/BLACK CAT

NEKROPOLIS

Reminded me of someone else...

[Candor7]

That seems to be the case, a simple DNA test between Obama and X’s progeny would tell the tale.

Every bit of Obama’s subversive politics are focused on one area: the diminution and extinction of individual liberty and rights, while manifesting a glib liberationist image.The dichotomy is very obvious to anyone who can compare talk with action in an objective and unbiased way.

It is this dichotomy which needs to be presented to Obama publicly, in front of the media , over, and over, and over again, until this United States of Zimbabwe Emperor has not a stitch of clothing on, with the ugly naked truth staring the entire electorate in the face.

[Fred Nerks]

Q: What is the Republic of New Afrika (RNA)?

A: In the late 1960s, at the height of the Black Power Movement, two acquaintances of Malcolm X, Gaidi Obadele and Imari Abubakari Obadele assembled a group of 500 militant black nationalists in Detroit, Michigan, to discuss the creation of a black nation within the United States. On March 31, 1968, 100 conference members signed a Declaration of Independence outlining the official doctrine of the new black nation, elected a provisional government, and named the nation the �Republic of New Africa� (RNA).

The RNA believes that as a nation, black people are entitled to the full rights of a nation, including land and self-determination. Furthermore, Amerikkka as the land upon which Black People (New Afrikans) have lived, toiled and made rich as slaves is theirs; it is land that Blacks must gain control of because, as Malcolm X said, land is the basis of independence, freedom, justice and equality. The RNA even identified the five states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina as Black People's land. According to the RNA, gaining control of our land is the fundamental struggle facing Black People; without land, Black Power, rights and freedom have no substance. (See RNA leaflet below. - Courtesy of Brown-Tougaloo Exchange)

REPUBLIC OF NEW AFRICA. SOURCE LINK

Segregationist Dreamer

excerpt:

Milton Henry, right, in 1969, as vice president of the Republic of New Africa, with Mabel Williams, center, wife of the R.N.A.’s president in exile, Robert Williams.

Frustrated by the pace of change, Henry was soon drawn to black nationalism. He met Malcolm X and traveled with him to Cairo to meet African leaders. Henry helped organize the 1963 conference in Detroit at which Malcolm delivered his Message to the Grass Roots. (A lifelong audiophile, Henry recorded and released the speech on his own record label.) He was a pallbearer at Malcolm’s 1965 funeral.

By 1968, Henry and his brother Richard had adopted African names and developed a vaulting plan for racial separation. The Republic of New Africa, a socialist black nation, would be carved out of five Southern states with large black populations. In a move that helped ignite the contemporary reparations movement, the brothers demanded $400 billion in compensation from the U.S. government to descendants of slaves. Their offer to begin negotiations between the two nations received no reply.

SOURCE LINK

[daisy mae for the usa]

Have you seen these posts? This same info gets put on other threads but I never see follow up. Does this mean anything to you?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2893123/posts?page=4#4

[Fred Nerks]

thank you.

[Fred Nerks]

Starts here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278969/posts?page=402#402

excerpt

SEKOU ODINGA (Nathaniel Burns.)

“The teachings of Malcolm X, who was then with the Nation of Islam, became a big influence on me at that time. After my release, I became involved in Black political activity in New York, especially revolutionary, nationalist politics. In 1964, I also became involved in the Cultural Nationalist movement. By 1965, I had joined the organization of African American Unity, founded by El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X). I began to move with and among many young African Nationalists. My political consciousness was growing daily. I was reading and listening to many Afrikan Nationalists from Africa and the U.S. and became convinced that only after a successful armed struggle would New Afrikans gain freedom and self-determination. I also became convinced that integration would never solve the problems faced by New Afrikans...

http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/bla1.html

[little jeremiah]

BTTT for an excellent research thread.

[Fred Nerks]

[Graewoulf]

Great thread, thanks!

[Fred Nerks]

saving your comment for the record:

The background of the Obama family, Muslim minorities in predominently Christian Kenya, is certainly illuminating, but sadly, far too much for most to pay attention to or understand.
More fascinating is the trail the media are assiduously ignoring, with a documented beginning in 1979 with Vernon Jarrett, Valerie’s father-in-law, interviewing Wahhabist attorney Khalid al-Mansour, about Saudi plans to start with twenty million dollars to develop education for minorities in the US. The article written by Jarrett, obviously a plug for al-Mansour and his activities as a Black Nationalist with Saudi money, was published in the St. Petersburg Evening Independent on Nov 6, 1979, and turned up by journalist Frank Miele. (Thanks Jack Cashill) Al-Mansour, who organized the development in both Africa and the US, of Wahhabist Madrass’ was interviewed at his law office in San Francisco, before his law firm added bin-Talal to its masthead in the early 80s, and moved back to San Antonio. (Warden/Mansour’s first law partner became a judge, in Oakland I believe.)

Khalid al-Mansour’s slave name, which he used while a law student at UC’s Boalt Hall, and during his activities as a founder of African American Association and the Black Panthers, is Donald Warden. Warden casually mentioned in a Youtube video that he met Obama while Obama was at Occidental, but has since explained that any mention of an association with Obama might interfere with his objectives, and won’t comment. Warden/Mansour was, among many other activities, recruiting Wahhabi converts from US prisons, and defending OPEC in international court. He is a brilliant lecturer - just listen to his many Youtube lectures on Islam and Black Nationalism - more intellectual than Malcolm X and Rev Wright, and much more so than Louis Farrakhan. It was Mansour who contacted Percy Sutton, who was the attorney for the three luminaries above, as well as for The Muslim Brotherhood, for Charles Rangel, and President of his Manhattan Borough.

Mansour, according to a well-circulated local access television interview made in 2007, contacted Sutton in the mid-80s for help getting Obama into Harvard Law. Sutton was proud to help, and mentioned that Mansour assured him that money was not at issue because “Obama’s patron was Alwaleed bin-Talal, one of the world’s richest men.” Shortly before Obama entered Harvard Law, bin-Talal donated twenty million dollars to Harvard. Five or six years later bin-Talal created the “Alwaleed bin-Talal Center for Islamic Studies” at Harvard Divinity School, its best-funded division. At about the same time bin-Talal, probably with al-Manour as his agent, opened similar centers at Georgetown, Cambridge, American University, and probably, three or four other major Universites. Al-Mansour was involved in the funding of Wahhabi mosques throughout the US.

One can conjecture about the silence of the American press. Bin-Talal is the largest private investor in News Corp, which owns the WSJ and FOX news. He was bailed out of his potential total loss, benefiting, much as did Warren Buffet, from Obama’s bailout of Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and GE. Just look at Buffet’s investments and bin-Talal’s and then to the beneficiaries of TARP funds (for which the Peter Schweizer book, “Throw Them All Out” is remarkably concise). He owns major parts of Cisco, Apple, Oracle, etc. etc.

Bottom line: According to a man of sterling integrity, self-made, black squadron Army Air Force pilot, Percy Sutton, Obama’s patron, after leaving the tutelage of William Marshall Davis, fellow communist, and longtime friend of Vernon Jarrett, was Alwaleed bin-Talal. It is public record that bin-Talal was a major benefactor to Harvard, and that his Center for Islamic Studies is the most lavishly funded division of Harvard Divinity School. Rudy Giulliani rebuffed bin-Talal’s tribute of ten million dollars, really to the success of the Muslim destruction of the WTC, but Harvard happily took the money and keeps its silence about their major patron, even with his name prominently on their Divinity School - such perfidy, when the Muslim doctrine is committed to absorbing or crushing the other religions represented at Harvard.

This has nothing to with Obama’s religious beliefs. We will probably never know, and shouldn’t care. Those are between Barack and his God, whomever that might be. But the Muslim connection goes much further back than Sarah’s Hajj. Barack Senior was involved with the always volatile Jihad in Kenya between the Muslim minority and Christians. When Barack’s Uncle Odinga, for whom Senator Obama actively campaigned in Kenya, lost the election to Kibaki, Muslim’s burned over one thousand churches, causing the winner to agree to share the office with Odinga. This is about power and money, and Muslim’s are happy to have the younger Obama beholden to them in the most powerful office in the world.

5 posted on Thursday, 11 October 2012 12:31:14 PM by Spaulding

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2942996/posts?page=5#5

[LucyT]