Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Minister Farrakhan Must Be A "LaRouchian" Too. This Is About As UnPlantation Negro As It Gets

13 comments:

The Doc aka "I put this on my Lord my niece was four when she felt chinchilla..." said...

Damn, DV, you know it's hard to get past the fact that son wacked out Malcolm, but brotha does make some damned good points here.

Denmark Vesey said...

"but brotha does make some damned good points here." That Dude

but?

some damned good points?

Come on Dude.

What you shooting for ...?

Understatement of the year?

He didn't make any points.

He asked some obvious questions Plantation Negros have been conditioned not to ask.

He asks them publicly.

In front of hundreds of thousands of people.

Yet he can't get on Plantation TV.

And muhfuggas who know that ... still ... obediently ... watch Plantation TV (NPR & PBS included) with fashionable skepticism ... but still fall for the shit.

Plantation Negros "doubt" the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory.

Free Brothers call it BULLSHIT every chance they get.

The Doc, who might be "that dude", but not THAT that dude. :) said...

Well DV, what i'm sayin', and i'ma be honest here, is i'm a Farrakhan hater. The reason being, I see him get on stage and talk all that good ish to black foke, but then I still can't get past the fact that when you had a black man stepping up to be proactive, stepping up with a real plan on how black people can organize and gain some of the power we've been denied so long, the same old crab in the bucket syndrome kicks in and you take him out to save your own power base.

So for me it's like, Negro I know 911 was bullshit. It doesn't change the fact you killed one of the best leaders we've ever had. It makes me doubt whether Farrakhan would support any real plan that doesn't result in Farrakhan standing on stage in $1000 red silk outfits (with matching hat).

HotmfWax said...

@Doc,


More reason to hate "Farrakhan" :).

Critic on asking Libya for help.

Denmark Vesey said...

1) A Black auto-industry is a silly idea.

The car business is the debt business. A "black" automaker's fortunes would be just as bad as the fortunes of all the other automakers. Bankrupt & owned by the government.

2) Farrakhan's move to develop relationships with oil rich nations like Libya is excellent strategy.

3) History is important. But this aint history. This is now. The Libyan trade is oil. It is not slaves. It hasn't been in hundreds of years.

If you play that game ... black folks wouldn't be able to do business with anybody.

4) We already have a "super religious state". That religion is State Sponsored Secularism. Which is the undeclared religion of the United States.

5) He's wrong about Europe. The state of affairs that he describes is not ... an example of a religious state .. it is a perfect example of a pagan state.

Disguised as religious.

Religious people don't live like that. By definition.

To assess the value of a religious state ... I submit ... one must actually examine .. a RELIGIOUS state. Not a fake one.

Why did the good brother Clarke not look to the ancient HIGHLY RELIGIOUS STATE of Kemet ... as an example of a Super Religious State?

He himself described that particular religious state as "A 10,000 YEAR WALK IN THE SUN."

Why must one examine the Straw Man of the clearly pagan, Highly Polytheistic, Roman Catholic Europe complete with its pagan demi-God saints, virgin births, and Sun-king messiah?

So Brother Wax.

I would have to respectfully challenge the good Dr. Clarke on his attempt to dismiss the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan based upon these uncharacteristically shallow positions.

I would also resist the urge to reduce one of the most courageous men among us to the obtuse cliche which holds him singularly responsible for the murder of Malcolm X.

HotmfWax said...

@DV,

"I would also resist the urge to reduce one of the most courageous men among us to the obtuse cliche which holds him singularly responsible for the murder of Malcolm X."


Never would,

I had the good fortune of playing golf with a retired CIA agent who was a best friends of well know executive that I think all you guys know a while back.

We got to be good friends pretty quick and "I think that he had a burned out don't give a f@#K anymore attitude. He let me into his confidence maybe because he saw how close me and his best buddy was. One day we got to talking about X and I brought up that same meme that you mentioned about killing X. He started laughing and said let me show you something. He pulled out some pictures and said that the boys who shot X were guys from his graduating class at the agency. No apologies, no remorse, just said that was the way things had to be done back then. He named the cats. Didn't blink.

Messed with my head to this day.

DV- he was not lying. He had no need to make it up.

Don't run with that crowd anymore, so I don't even whatever happen to him. But I know he was the real deal.

KonWomyn said...

LOL. DV is trooof.

Sometimes history can be a crippler rather than an enabler in the present.

Sorry Prof Clarke is on point plenty times, but his commentary on Arabs and Islam is an anachronistic interpretation of contemporary power relations - the Slave/Master dialectic is past. Unless under seige, a nation or a people are its own Masters and its own enslavers.

Farrakhan may have his controversies and moreso for Gaddafi, but both of men have the courage to speak the truth that other activists and leaders fail to do.

cadeveo said...

I wouldn't lay everything on the Minister re: the assassination of Malcolm X. There was intelligence agency infiltration of the Nation, most notably by the FBI's John Ali, who was coordinating and fomenting the assassination plot while messing up the Nation's money. He played what were cult-like loyalties among rank in file within the Nation, Elijah's very own human insecurity about maintaining his leadership, as well as the desires of those rising in the ranks to play for position, including Farakhan who shares responsibility for inciting a lynch mob mentality against Malcolm. And he's talked out of both sides of his mouth about his own responsibility ever since. In one breath, he does a Mike Wallace interview regretting his words in the presence of Betty Shabazz, but then he can go back to the Mosques and tell the rank and file that the Nation had the right to deal with it's "traitor" any way they wanted. I respect lots of what Farakhan says, but he's compromised and I don't trust him. The whole Nation was gamed by the intelligence agencies of the U.S. and I don't believe he'll ever come clean about it.

Not to throw ol' Larouche in the mix, but he and Farakhan are very similar in that both say a lot of shit that is true and will never make it into the MSM. However, both also say and do a lot of bullshit. So, to me, it's a wash. LaRouche runs a private intelligence agency for hire doing dirt tricks for whoever will pay, plus collaborates with old school Nazis and has both claimed to be a conduit to the CIA and also a victim of them (and hey, why can't both be true?); Farakhan preaches that good ol' Malcolm fire while having ties to dictators who oppress their people and, in some cases, have collaborated with the very intelligence agencies he has criticized in the past. (Qadaffi comes to mind.)

(And no, I don't think you're a LaRouchian...I just happen to know way too much about the dude from my own unhealthy adventures.)

I can take the truth Farrakhan speaks and co-sign THAT, but I can't co-sign the man, because I can't be sure why he's *really* saying what he says.

The Minister is far from a Plantation Negro, but...look, the way I see it, it's because he owns a Plantation of his own. Even some of the 5% become another subgroup of the 10% over time.

That's why I'll always honor folks like Garvey, Father Allah and Malcolm who either never went that way or whose lives were cut short before they ended up as Farrakhans.

On a totally different note, though. The put options thing, which is verified fact, cited in multiple news sources gets even deeper when you read up on the history and find out that...there were ALSO put options placed coincident to the assassination of JFK back in '63. (The first place I read about this was in an out of print book called "Were We Controlled?" but you can get corroboration elsewhere.)

Same playbook and some of the same players.

D.SMITH said...

Maaaan, DV...thanks for posting this. I watched the other videos related to this, and Farrakhan made it perfectly clear what the motive was behind this tragedy by providing the examples of Amerikkka's "claiming" of Puerto Rico and Cuba, as well as his comments about the Vietnam War; both of which were based on a lie. Why would this so-called War on Terrorism be any different? I especially liked the point he made about the Israeli men on top of the van shortly after the attack. Brought me back to when I heard that it was the Israelis who were responsible for the beheadings in Iraq...that of course was blamed on Islamic insurgents. And when I pose that "what if" to people, the lips get all poked out. How you say DV, "Dey woodn't do dat!" Right before the new healthcare bill was passed, Pacifica radio's Amy Goodman was speaking to someone who stated that revenue generated from this bill would go to funding the Israeli military. I made that comment to a couple of people in a "so, what if..." manner as well, and they all looked at me like I was f@ckin' crazy. You know what, I am f@ckin' crazy. And the value of people's lives here and around the world have been diminished to worth less than the paper our crap currency is printed on. Many people will doubt Farrakhan because of who he is, or rather what they were told he was by those who can't afford to agree with him or accept the fact that "he has a point". And it's not even that simple, as you stated earlier. Until somebody stands up and provides actual proof that what he is saying is incorrect, then what they are saying themselves cannot be held as "the truth" either.

The Doc said...

And in an odd bit of synchronicity, guess who just made parole?

And nah, don't get me wrong, I ain't try'na say Farrakhan was the only one behind Malcolm's death, and i'm well aware the CIA played their part, but I still can't get past the part he did play. But that's just me personally.

Anyway, yeah I do give him his props for speaking those uncomfortable truths. Dude does drop knowledge.

KonWomyn said...

Cadeveo said

"Farakhan preaches that good ol' Malcolm fire while having ties to dictators who oppress their people and, in some cases, have collaborated with the very intelligence agencies he has criticized in the past. (Qadaffi comes to mind.)

The Minister is far from a Plantation Negro, but...look, the way I see it, it's because he owns a Plantation of his own. Even some of the 5% become another subgroup of the 10% over time."

This is also truth.

Anonymous said...

Bumpy Johnson offered protective services to Malcolm X.

"This was after Malcolm X’s break with Elijah Muhammad’s sectarian, politically anemic Nation of Islam (NOI), which quickly devolved into a dangerous “one-sided thing,” as he described it to “New York Times” reporter Theodore Jones three days before his assassination on Feb. 21, 1965.

“I’m a marked man,” he assured Jones. “No one can get out without trouble, and this thing with me will be resolved by death and violence.”

Malcolm X reportedly knew Johnson when the former New York NOI minister and national representative was a minor Harlem street hustler in the early 1940s known as “Detroit Red” because of his flaming red “conk,” or relaxed hairstyle, which was produced by a lye and egg concoction.

Peter Goldman, Malcolm X’s best biographer, briefly recounts Johnson’s discussion with the president of the Sunni Islamic Muslim Mosque, Inc. (MMI) and chairman of the pan-Africanist Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) in The Death and Life of Malcolm X (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974, 1979):

“One day, he [Malcolm X] had coffee at 22 West [Restaurant on 135th Street in Harlem, his favorite post-NOI luncheonette] with an old Harlem racketeer named Bumpy; Malcolm talked about the threats against his life, and Bumpy argued that he ought to go to war against his enemies. ‘Malcolm,’ he said, ‘they ain’t ready to die no more than anyone else. You pinch them, they’ll holler, too.’ Malcolm seemed mostly amused.”

Earl Grant, one of Malcolm X’s closest aides, recalled the incident somewhat differently in an interview with Gil Noble on the long-running New York black affairs series Like It Is in 1983.

After a near-confrontation with NOI members at a meeting in Harlem’s historic Abyssinian Baptist church on Dec. 12, 1964, “When we left, we went up to 135th Street. … And there used to be a shoeshine stand there and Bumpy Johnson was sitting up in there getting his shoes shined. And [when] we come across [the street], he looked out, he jumped down, run out and grabbed Malcolm’s hand.

“He said, ‘Hey, brothers!’ Said, ‘Been reading about you. I hear you got some problems.’”

(Johnson might have been referring to the Dec. 4, 1964, issue of Muhammad Speaks, the NOI newspaper, which included a five-page attack on Malcolm X by Boston NOI Minister Louis X [now Farrakhan], which Goldman correctly described as a “death warrant.”)

“He [Malcolm X] said, ‘Yeah, I kinda have some…,’” Grant continued.

“Bumpy told him…, ‘Well, you know how to handle that, man. All you gotta do is make a phone call and that’d be taken care of.’

“They talked for awhile about the old times. And we walked down 135th toward Lenox Avenue and … I says, ‘You know what he meant, don’t you?’

“He says, ‘Yeah, I know what he meant. … I don’t want black folks killing black people.’”

“That was his attitude,” Grant said. “And a lot of those people down there [NOI members] need to be told that the only reason some of ‘em [are] still walking around is because Malcolm allowed them to keep walking around.”

Grant added that there was “another group of his old buddies from his running days out in the streets,” who visited Malcolm X at his Hotel Theresa office. “They came up and offered their services — just for old times’ sake. That they’d take care of it, you know.”

However, Malcolm X again declined. “I believe in taking action,” he told Ted Jones, “but not action against black people. No, sir.”"
-Paul Lee

Bumpy Johnson was the mentor to Frank Lucas who Denzel played.

Some friends of mine had a chance to go to dinner with Amiri Baraka aka Leroy Jones. He told us that one of Bumpy's goons threatened him on the sly for some negative remarks he was making about Sidney Poitier at the time...so he generally gave protection to well known folk. Amiri Baraka also told us of the story with Bumpy and Malcolm and crazy wars taking place between the NOI and Malcolm's camp after his death.

Anonymous said...

‘Yeah, I know what he meant. … I don’t want black folks killing black people.’”-Malcolm X

There are many people who are naturally concerned about self preservation or even vengeance that they would have accepted Bumpy's offer. This is among other things is a testament to Malcolm's sincerity.