“Black is Back!” Coalition (Communist Rally)

November 4th, 2017 in Washington, DC was disappointing. Only five Antifa members showed up to the White House, and they were all old and weird-looking. I couldn’t find the “Black is Back!” rally along their parade route to the White House, although I biked around for a while. I waited at the White House for 2 hours and they didn’t show. I left for an hour and came back; they still weren’t there.

Fortunately, the “Black is Back!” Coalition (BiBC) was having a meeting on the very next day — Sunday, November 5th. It was an annual conference which was to be held at Howard University, which is not far from the White House. I went with the same attractive, young Nigerian girl from the previous article (Black Lives Matter “Open House”).

Doors opened at 12:00 noon, and the conference officially started at 12:30. There was modest attendance at first, although a significant amount of people filtered in over the course of several hours. The event began with a noticeably homosexual man, who took the podium and began introducing a woman named Lisa Davis, who is the co-chair of the BiBC. Before Lisa took the stage, he energetically inquired of the audience “are you ready for the revolution!?” The audience was moderately enthusiastic. He then led some call-and-response with the audience using Pan-African words and slogans.

Lisa Davis was playful and friendly with the host as he handed her the microphone. Her demeanor quickly changed to one of anger and hatred as she demanded: “we need to build the revolution now! Right NOW!!! We need to overthrow this capitalist government now!” The audience responded with mild enthusiasm to her various calls to action. She quickly handed the mic to a woman with an African name (I failed to write it down correctly, and I don’t want to butcher it).

The woman with the African name proceeded to inform the audience in no uncertain terms that “you are either with us or against us.” This is a common theme among a variety of black activists and academics, and is sometimes expressed by saying something along the lines of “silence is violence.” “Silence is violence” essentially states that, by not vocally supporting a certain cause, you are engaging in an act of violence (and thus justifying a violent response). This woman, however, clearly and literally stated “with us or against us,” and there was no ambiguity nor any attempt to dress it up in a pseudo-intellectual slogan such as “silence is violence.”

Lisa Davis retook the microphone and went on to introduce Omali Yeshitela, who is the chair of the BiBC. He is also the co-founder of the “Uhuru” movement, which is an African nationalist movement under the umbrella organization known as the “African People’s Socialist Party.” In the future I would like to research more heavily into these organizations, and do articles about them as well. For now, however, there is plenty to talk about in regards to Mr. Yeshitela and his presentation at the BiBC. He was quite verbose, and talked about a lot of interesting and relevant issues.

Mr. Yeshitela began by insisting that we must focus on and not forget about “oppression from the past.” He briefly introduced Glen Ford (a very light-skinned man wearing black who would later speak about communism), and then launched into a harsh critique of president Trump. Interestingly, however, he saved his most scathing and detailed criticism for former president Barack Obama. He informed the audience that Obama had “swindled” black America with his familiarity — tricking blacks into thinking that he was an ally, only to “sell out” the black community once in office.

Mr. Yeshitela referred to the BiBC as “The Black is Back! Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations.” He went on to complain that, under Lyndon Johnson and JFK, the United States assassinated Patrice Lumumba, overthrew Kwame Nkruma, and fought against domestic Black Power movements here in the U.S. Some of this is quite legitimate, and I will expand a bit on the example of Lumumba.

The CIA-led assassination of Patrice Lumumba (a democratically-elected Congolese president) was, in my opinion, both a murderous crime and a terrible political decision. Not only did we overthrow democratically elected politician during peacetime, but we also then went on to install a terrible dictator named Mobutu Seso Seko. Mobutu spent decades ruining the Congo, and it has never recovered. His awful regime eventually led to 2 Congolese civil wars the late 90s and early 2000s. Not only were these civil wars very deadly (and they made ample use of child soldiers as young as 7 years old), but “genocidal rape” was used as a deliberate tactic by all involved parties in order to demoralize their opponents. The UN estimated that, by 2008, over 200,000 women had suffered from sexual assault.

Women between the ages of 5 and 80 were not only raped, but also mutilated in horrible ways. Some were raped and mutilated while family members were made to watch. The problem was so extensive that there is a whole generation of rape babies living in the Congo right now. For more information about these conflicts (and how they relate to other conflicts in Africa), check out a book called “Dancing in the Glory of Monsters.”

With all that being said, Mr. Yeshitela’s criticism of US foreign policy is certainly not unwarranted — however, we must also refrain from failing to assign blame to the African individuals who carried out these atrocities in the wake of Lumumba’s assassination. The line of good and evil runs down every human being’s heart, and the evil of the assassination of Lumumba does not excuse the evil of child soldiers and genocidal rape.

Mr. Yeshitela insisted that “terrorism against Africa and Africans has been unceasing.” It is only fair to note that terror in general is unceasing, and pervades the history of every single nation and ethnicity on the planet. The people at the BiBC seem content, however, to selectively condemn some terrorism while celebrating terrorism in other contexts (more on this later). He then talked about the Vietnam war, and complained that most of the anti-war movements were full of white people. He briefly mentioned “indigenous people’s rights,” and gave a shout-out to Haiti.

Mr. Yeshitela then praised what he referred to as a “relative peace” in Iraq and Afghanistan, and congratulated the Iraqi and Afghan people for “chasing out the interlopers” (referring to the American soldiers). While there is certainly legitimate criticism to be made of US foreign policy in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan (including but not limited to whether or not we should have gone there in the first place), it is wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Yeshitela to consider the American soldiers as having been “chased out.”

Mr. Yeshitela then veered off into a conversation about Ferguson, Missouri. He repeated the fully-debunked “hands up, don’t shoot” slogan, and then proudly mentioned that the Black Panthers had an even better slogan: “kill the police.” “In the Black Panthers, we used to say ‘kill the police’ and ‘off the pigs.’” Mr. Yeshitela was proud that the Panthers did not mince words or make attempts at diplomacy with their rhetoric, and his eyes seemed to sparkle as he remember the good old days when black radicals were open about their desire to kill police officers. He described black communities as “occupied territories,” likening police to an invading army which was to be resisted at the point of a gun.

“Black people pushed back with weapons back in the 70s,” Mr. Yeshitela recalled proudly. “This is not to glorify violence, but to indicate that we were mature enough to understand that is wasn’t about one cop, but about collective liberation.” This is an important theme, and one which will be returned to and expanded upon later in the presentation when, for example, the Dallas Sniper was venerated as a hero by Mr. Yeshitela himself. It’s not about getting revenge against an individual police officer who did something wrong; rather, it is about attacking the police as an organization through the use of terrorism and violence against anyone with a badge.

“Capitalism itself is insidious, and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever!” he said, with animus. He quoted Karl Marx, as he and others would on a variety of occasions throughout the event. He credited Africans as (virtually) the sole source of wealth for “impoverished and disease-ridden Europe.” He complained about the imprisonment and/or death of his old Black Panther friends, and then launched into an attack on France and England for colonizing Vietnam and China.

“This is the nature of the social system,” he said, referring to capitalism. “It is not ‘one bad cop,’ it is a rotten system with no redeeming qualities!” His words were imbued with anger and hatred as he forcefully gesticulated towards the audience and his voice crescendoed to a fever pitch of passionate condemnation.

He calmed down a bit and began to speak about various African independence movements, including the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya was a revolt by the Kikuyu people of Kenya, who are perhaps best known for their cultural obsession with female genital mutilation — a practice which the Kikuyu people have engaged in for centuries and which continues today. Rather than mention this, however, Mr. Yeshitela decided instead to draw attention only to accusations of genital mutilation made against the British.

Any reasonable person can agree that colonialism was bad, and that terrible things happened as a result of it; however, Yeshitela and people like him seem content to focus solely on the shortcomings of Europeans rather than to include the ubiquity of cruelty and dysfunction that has permeated all human societies since the dawn of time. Considering the fact that Yeshitela is a self-described communist (as are his friends and colleagues), it is reasonable to assume that he is attempting to use the historical reality of colonialism to construct a racially informed Marxist dichotomy of oppressor versus oppressed.

In the service of the construction of his Marxist narrative, Mr. Yeshitela went on to say that the British would mutilate Kenyan women by inserting snakes and banana leaves into their vaginas, and that they would genitally mutilate Kenyan men as well. He then graphically described a rape scene where the British allegedly kicked hot water into a young woman’s vagina. “The social system is the source of all of this brutality and viciousness,” he said at last. “This is what capitalism does.”

So, there you have it: if we could only overthrow the social system (capitalist, western democracy) and replace it with radical socialism, we would usher in a utopia devoid of “brutality and viciousness.” African women would never get water kicked into their vaginas again. After all, “this is what capitalism does.” Not only is Mr. Yeshitela fear-mongering, but he is specifically attempting to blame capitalism and western democracy for the existence of “cruelty and viciousness” in general. Unfortunately, people of all races have been cruel to one another since the beginning of time, and no amount of communist revolution is going to solve that.

Mr. Yeshitela then criticized Obama once again, condemning him for continuing our involvement in the Middle East. He admonished the crowd that we should not be afraid of terrorists, and that our fear is better directed inwards. In a somewhat esoteric and decidedly pro-Islamist interjection, he then praised the Iranians for capturing American spies in 1979.

“Blacks have never been on the side of the oppressor,” he insisted, once again making apparent his intention to create a racially informed Marxist dichotomy. Immediately after he said this, he then chided Obama for being a “capitalist and an imperialist.” So blacks have never been on the side of the oppressor, but Obama (who is black) is an oppressor. It seems that the only thing about which these activists are consistent are their views on the acceptability of political violence.

After praising Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, Mr. Yeshitela then complained that “the electoral process (in The United States) protects the system.” Democracy seems to be a persistent obstacle to Mr. Yeshitela and those like him, and he made quite clear his intention to circumvent it whenever possible. He praised the BiBC for leading what he claimed to be the first ever march against Obama organized by blacks, and complained that white liberals were afraid to condemn Obama.

Next up was Glen Ford, a light-skinned man wearing all black. Mr. Ford was intelligent and well-spoken, and clearly had a firm grasp on world events and global politics as they related to him and his cause. His attitude mannerisms were understated in comparison to the other speakers, who were often passionate and emotional. He was, however, no less sincere in his commitment to the necessity of violent communist revolution.

Mr. Ford began by discussing Obama’s visits to Africa, and discussed the ways in which Obama maintained and advanced US imperial interests in Africa and elsewhere. He specifically mentioned that the United States Special Forces has 80,000 operatives, which is “bigger than almost all of the national armies across the globe,” and which we use in the application of our imperialist and exploitative capitalist ambitions. He also implicated France and the US as “partners in imperialism and the occupation of Africa.”

According to Mr. Ford, the Special Forces are “the CIA’s army.” “They always lie about CIA-directed forces,” he went on, referencing the death of 4 US servicemen in Niger. Apparently, this event had subsequently alerted the Nigerian people to the existence of 800 Special Forces active in Niger about whom they had been ignorant Mr. Ford accused “multi-national economic interests” of “conspiring against Africa” while hiring their own corporate mercenaries to enforce their imperialist policies.

Mr. Ford was my favorite speaker. Certainly, there is legitimate criticism to be made about United States foreign policy. We need people like Mr. Ford to reel us in and remind us that, despite being the freest and most powerful country in the world, we are still beholden to morality and decency on an international level. If it were not for his complicity with violent radicals, Mr. Ford would be a much more positive and effective force against the excesses of US foreign policy. My apologies, Mr. Ford, but you can’t fly with the eagles of you sleep with the pigeons.

After complaining about the fact that many Africans are complicit with what he considers to be neocolonialist power structures within the African continent, Mr. Ford then went on to highlight the relationship between Africa and China. Much like the newly-liberated Cuba had a choice to make between an approximation of western democracy and an approximation of Soviet totalitarianism (and the attendant alliances that would result from either decision), African nations now have a choice between working with the West or working with China. Clearly, the idea of an African alliance with pseudo-communist China holds promise for Mr. Ford and others of his ilk.

“Africa is China’s biggest trading partner,” he explained, informing us of the extent to which China is invested in the construction of permanent infrastructure across the African continent. He then went on to criticize the United States Africa Command (AfriCom), which he viewed as an imperialist arm of the United States government with a stranglehold on Africa. “With the exception of Eritrea, all African nations are in the formal clutches of AfriCom.” He concluded by saying that the United States had “planted the seeds of the new colonialism” within the African continent as a whole.

Khalid Raheem, a man both large and loud, then suddenly began to speak about Nigeria. Mr. Raheem explained that Nigeria was in possession of highly valued “sweet oil” (which is a form of crude oil which is easier to refine than sour crude), and that American oil companies intentionally prevented Nigeria from extracting this oil while favoring oil from other countries. Lest you think that Mr. Raheem was going to spend his time boring you with information about the international oil market, he then proceeded with no hesitation to broach a much juicier subject.

“We Must Support Boko Haram!”

That’s right folks, Boko Haram: the radical Islamist terror group in northeastern Nigeria which is perhaps most famous for the Chibok school kidnapping, during which almost 300 adolescent girls were kidnapped from a local high school and forced into domestic servitude and sexual slavery by a group of violent militants. Anyone who is interested in this horrific event can easily find information about it from a variety of reputable sources on all sides of the aisle. In addition to this infamous incident, Boko Haram is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people as a result of terrorism and civil war. I mention Boko Haram briefly in my book, The Segregation of Dialogue.

Mr. Raheem taunted the crowd for being upset about the kidnapping and subsequent sexual enslavement of several hundred African schoolgirls, reminding us that Boko Haram were “freedom fighters” and that US corporations were destroying Nigeria. “Boko Haram is the onlygroup fighting the scourge,” he insisted. He compared the Boko Haram kidnapping to the kidnapping of white women by Native Americans, and claimed that there were plenty of stories of white women who enjoyed their tribal captivity and that such events were indicative of the legitimacy of such kidnappings. Later, he would go into further detail about his support for Boko Haram in the face of their human rights violations.

Shortly before quoting Mao Tse Tung, Mr. Raheem warned that “we do not have integration in America, and we certainly must not have it in Africa.” By integration, he is referring to a lack of segregation. Mr. Raheem and his cohorts are radical segregationists, and believe that blacks and whites are completely incapable of living together. “Police are occupation,” he informed the audience. “They call us militants, black identity extremists… well, I would rather be caught with a gun than without one.”

In an inadvertent admittance of the reality of progress, Mr. Raheem asserted that “kids today don’t know how bad it was in the 60s,” and bragged about mouthing off to court officials during his one of his arrests. He went on: “What would Cuba and Vietnam look like if they were ‘non-violent?’ There would be no place for Assata! There is a difference between violence of oppression and violence of liberation — the former should be condemned, the latter celebrated.”

Mr. Raheem fell back and made way for Betty Davis, from Tampa, Florida, who began with a story about how her uncle had “escaped” from the south. “I also escaped from Florida” she said, smiling. She had been on her phone up until this point, but had set it down on the table in front of her when it was her turn to speak. “The whole world is changing,” she informed the audience, “and it’s not an accident.” She then proceeded to blather on about a variety of different topics, many of which melted together in a haphazardly rantish and yet simultaneously disinterested commentary.

She complained about teachers not understanding the difference between black and white students, perhaps a condemnation of “colorblindness.” She claimed that black people “want nothing for themselves, only for the people.” “You are all Africans,” she continued, because “all people come from Africa.” She then launched into a brief rant about Brooklyn College, which she termed “one of the most racist, Zionist colleges in America.” (Black identity extremists are often very critical of Israel and the Jewish people in general).

Ms. Davis went on to describe what she termed the “immigration pyramid,” with Africans and Caribbeans as “the top, very smallest part of the pyramid.” At first, I wasn’t sure what she was talking about; then, however, she said something that I found extremely interesting. Ms. Davis told us a story about how the Black Panthers had actively lobbied for increased immigration from Africa and the Caribbean, and that they had, in fact, succeeded in this aim. Limits on African and Caribbean immigration were lowered, and many Africans and Caribbeans successfully relocated to the United States, thanks in part to the efforts of the Panthers. What she said next expressed a sentiment which would later be repeated and amplified. It went something like this:

“When those Africans came over here, they didn’t want to be black — they just wanted to make money! They were still capitalists!” This comment was extremely significant; Ms. Davis and her fellow Panthers were actually complaining about the fact that African immigrants were striving towards success and stability for themselves and their families. She specifically chided them because “they didn’t want to be black” — here, we see black activists clearly engaging in blacker-than-thou shaming tactics. Ms. Davis accused recent African immigrants of “not being black” because they came here to provide for their families rather than to join a group of violent communists who were attempting to destabilize the United States government and recreate the turmoil they had just escaped.

I can’t imagine anything more selfish and destructive than to demand that recent 3rd world immigrants recreate the instability of their home countries within their new country. African don’t come here to break things, they come here to be successful. Many become doctors, lawyers, etc; they also often have intact families, and instill family values and a good work ethic in their children. The fact that Ms. Davis and her cohorts are willing to ruin theses immigrants’ success stories for their own selfish, radical and violent extremist is proof enough for me to know that they do not in fact possess the moral authority to which they lay claim. However, those looking for further proof will not be disappointed; let us continue.

“Rome has been at war with Africa for a long time, since Carthage,” she went on, meandering into a shallow historical commentary which she apparently intended to superimpose upon her own ideas about a grand conspiracy against Africans stretching back into the ancient past. She cited the conquering of Egypt and Carthage, as well as the destruction of the library of Alexandria, as examples of how Europeans have always tried to destroy Africa. Disregarding the ubiquity of war and tragedy which characterizes the totality of human and history, Ms. Davis went on to say: “this (Europeans hurting Africans) isn’t new, it’s just upgraded.” She then claimed, briefly and without adequate explanation, that “Native Americans are also Africans.”

Surprisingly, Ms. Davis then drew attention to the fact that Africans had been enslaving each other for 1000s of years prior to the arrival of European colonists and slave-traders. “Black people enslaved each other through war, but they never looked at their slaves and said ‘you’re not human’” This is extremely relevant: Ms. Davis acknowledges that Africans killed and enslaved each other long before whites arrived in Africa, however apparently this doesn’t count because they never pointed at their slaves and prisoners and said “you’re not human.”

I’m not sure how many experts on precolonial, black-on-black slavery were consulted by Ms. Davis and her friends when they made this decision, nor am I aware of any successful time-travel done by Ms. Davis or any of her colleagues to pre-colonial Africa during which time an inquiry about the specifics of dehumanization could be made. Apparently, when presented with the fact that humans have been horrible to humans throughout the entirety of history and without regard to race, an arbitrary distinction was made: “blacks didn’t dehumanize (trust us, we’re experts), so black-on-black slavery doesn’t count.” I suppose that one could capture a prisoner, enslave them, rape them, and terrorize their entire family without serious condemnation by Ms. Davis or her colleagues — that is, as long as you don’t point at the person you’ve just tortured and say “you’re not human.”

Ms. Davis went on: “the people who fought in the 60s did not accept the capitalist construct.” She then proceeded to vomit out a variety of words and phrases, including but not limited to: radical environmentalism, the East India Company, African rainforests, and so on. Eventually, she got around to asserting that “it is the duty of all races to be on the right side of history” (presumably a call for white people to donate money to black identity extremists).

She concluded by referencing the MOVE organization, which was a radical, militant collective which encouraged a return to hunter-gatherer societies (yes, really) and which engaged in a variety of violent confrontations with police (including a bombing of their compound from a helicopter in 1985, in what I consider personally to be a gross misuse of police force which resulted in the deaths of 5 children and the destruction of 65 homes).

Next up was a man representing the National Black Alliance for Peace. His name was not on the flyer for cross-reference, and I originally recorded it as “Neta Freeman.” I am not sure if the spelling/pronunciation of his first name is correct.

Mr. Freeman proceeded to immediately assure the audience that the Black Alliance for Peace was “not a pacifist organization,” and that they did in fact support and advocate for political violence, which they termed “self-defense” (a rationalization which would appear later, as well). “By any means necessary is not a contradiction,” he said, “You can struggle for peace through violence” when there is “no other option.” I found it very interesting that Mr. Freeman felt such an immediate need to inform the audience that the presence of the term “peace” within the title of his organization did not imply non-violence; clearly, he was acting in line with the other panel members and the wishes of at least some of the audience members.

Mr. Freeman asserted that the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) was a decidedly “anti-capitalist” organization, and that “the only way to get peace is by fighting.” He claimed that there is a pervasive myth that Africa (and people of African descent) “need policing.” BAP, he explained, is in favor of “complete police withdrawal from all black communities,” including all black neighborhoods in America. Personally, I have lived in low-income, high-crime black neighborhoods my entire life, and I know very well how much pain and suffering would result from a complete withdrawal of police. I have a feeling that Mr. Freeman knows this as well, however he likely justifies this as a necessary price to pay for ushering in a black, communist utopia.

Like Mr. Ford did previously, Mr. Freeman implicated the CIA in an “assault on Africa.” He accused the CIA of giving weapons to “people who don’t have the consciousness to run a liberation movement,” and that the CIA was engaging in “assisted genocide” by arming various African factions. I agree that “coalition-building” and the hiring of mercenaries are both problematic practices which should be subject to intense criticism and scrutiny; however, Mr. Freeman seems content to relieve the Africans themselves of any responsibility for what they do with those weapons once they get them.

“The term ‘African-American’ is paradoxical,” he explained; “the concept of ‘Africa” is inherently opposed to the the concept of ‘America’” He gave a shout-out to the book “Economic Hitman,” and used the recent example of the CIA servicemen in Niger (mentioned earlier by Mr. Yeshitela) as proof that the term ‘African-American’ is an oxymoron. He chided Africans for “inadvertently supporting Americanism,” and complained that “nobody’s for peace because there’s no money in peace.”

What Mr. Freeman and his colleagues fail to realize is that capitalism is not the source of human greed and avarice; rather, it is an economic system which is at least mature enough to understand that greed and avarice are undeniable aspects of human nature. We have had the entire 20th century to learn how communist utopianism is incompatible with human nature. Greed and self-interest are not social constructs; rather, they are biological realities which we must strive to overcome through the development and maintenance of a moral and functional society.

Mr. Yeshitela then once again took the microphone, and called upon African Americans to be “the US front of the African revolution.” “The entire social structure (in the West) is based on oppression,” he insisted. He briefly referenced the Marxist concept of “primitive accumulation” before launching into a rant about how “the capitalist state came into existence through slavery.” Like Ms. Davis, he complained about black people becoming successful professionals and business-owners. Then, things got real:

“The Dallas Sniper was Self-Defense!”

On July 7th, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson killed 5 police officers and wounded 9 others, including civilians, in a mass shooting that would eventually end in a standoff where Johnson was killed using a bomb which was strapped to a remote-controlled robot. I remember hearing a story on NPR which presented a narrative of the incident from the point of view of the robot, which was an interesting commentary on the use of robots in law enforcement. I also remember that one of my African Studies professors at SUNY Albany, Dr. Daphne Chandler (aka Amanisheketi Ani) said that the Dallas Sniper was a hero, and had his picture as her profile pic on Facebook for a full six months after the shooting. I write more about Dr. Chandler in my book, The Segregation of Dialogue.

Mr. Yeshitela explained that, since it isn’t about “one bad cop,” any act of violence against “the system” is an act of self-defense. He specifically advocated terrorism (mentioning both bombings and shootings of civilians, government and law enforcement), and went on to specify that “even if they (the terrorist) are not conscious, even if they are drunk and crazy, these are acts of self-defense.” From now on, when you hear someone like Mr. Yeshitela talking about “self-defense,” be aware that this is the sort of thing they are talking about.

He went on to echo Mr. Raheem’s praise of Boko Haram, although he was at least nice enough to say “I disagree with the tactics, but I unite with the fight against imperialism.” “The United States is the strategic enemy of everyone on earth,” he insisted. Then, surprisingly, he went on to mention that the Arab slave trade (which victimized both African and Europeans) went on for three times as long as the Atlantic slave trade. “The reason this doesn’t matter,” he assured us, “because we need to destroy capitalism; you can’t get free by fighting Muslims.” It seems that Mr. Yeshitela’s acceptance of the Muslim enslavement of Africans is intertwined with his current political sympathy for radical Islam.

“There is no such thing as a self-oppressed people,” he explained, while also insisting that “control of the state” was necessary. Apparently, control of the state through the current institutions (black police, black mayors, black presidents, etc) isn’t enough; rather, as Mr. Yeshitela insists, “we need our state to take power — somebody has got to go to jail!” I’m not sure what he meant with the “jail” comment; he could be referring to the jailing of “the oppressor,” or he could be referring to a willingness on the part of black to risk imprisonment in the service of a communist revolution.

“You are always African,” he declared. “The only thing that changed about us was our address; we need to get the pigs out of our communities.” He then went on to praise Kim Jong Un, and insisted that Donald Trump was trying to trick us into being afraid of North Korea. Apparently, the long history of North Korean totalitarianism and cruelty towards it’s own people is not relevant in his assessment of the sanity of Kim Jong Un or his predecessors. In fact, the Black Panthers were notorious for their trips to North Korea and their collaboration with various communists autocrats. I suppose Mr. Yeshitela is merely continuing and maintaining this proud tradition.

Mr. Yeshitela went on to talk about Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal who killed and ate several (mostly black) prostitutes. “Jeff Dahmer wasn’t crazy — he didn’t eat white people!” exclaimed Mr Yeshitela, as he bizarrely attempted to make the insanity and sexual perversion of Jeffrey Dahmer a political issue. He went on to tell the audience that Dahmer was later killed in prison by a black man, at which point the audience (understandably) cheered. “Then, right after he killed Dahmer, he went and killed another white guy!” Before any specifics could be given, the audience erupted in applause, apparently excited by the very notion of white death at the hands of a black man — regardless of context.

“I believe Marx,” he stated, quite plainly. “Let’s destroy capitalism, that is our goal; and I know that, working with communists like these, we cannot win,” he misspoke; “I mean, we cannot lose,” he quickly corrected, and the audience chuckled. He then introduced “Comrade Maisha,” who opened up a question and answer session.

The first question came from the student president of the “African People’s Socialist Party” at Howard. He complained about the fact that classes at Howard were teaching black students how to be financially successful entrepreneurs. “These oppressive classes are teaching Africans to support capitalism,” he complained, “and these African students are losing ‘who they are;’ how can we convince them that this is bad?” This was a continuation of Ms. Davis’s complaint that Africans are more focused on providing for their families than playing communism with a bunch of aging militants.

Mr. Yeshitela responded by mentioning the shooting of an 18-year-old black kid in Missouri, although I’m unsure as to the relevance of this reference. He then said that “students want to listen to people like you instead of their teachers anyway,” and encouraged him to undermine the efforts of professors to make black students into successful entrepreneurs.

The next question came was about AfriCom, and African trade with China. It was a general inquiry, and the person asking the question merely asked the panel members to comment further on potential African partnerships with communist China.

The first answer came from Mr. Raheem, who warned that any trade with China should be done on African terms, with a focus on the benefit of African people. “It’s ok for even Europe to come to Africa for trade, but they must give and not just take,” he warned. Mr. Freeman chimed in by saying “we need to do things on our own terms.” Mr. Ford then added “the Chinese aren’t angels, however they are investing in infrastructure which will benefit Africans long into the future.” Mr. Ford concluded by reminding us of the importance of “protecting sovereignty” in Africa. Ms. Davis then mentioned that she supported the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, because “any country opposed to US imperialism must be armed.”

Ms. Davis went on: “wherever Europeans go, they commit genocide!” Like the Islamic slave trade, the commission of genocide by non-Europeans does not serve the Marxist narrative of the BiBC, and so it is disregarded; perhaps such genocide didn’t include “saying you’re not human,” and so it didn’t count. Ms. Davis then meandered into a monologue about how human being are “90% water,” and how this relates to some shadowy and nebulous plot by the American government to pollute the water supply, or something like that.

“I trust the Chinese,” she concluded, “because they say they are anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.” I suppose the reality of the subjugation of Tibet, as well as the fact that the Chinese economy is not truly communist, does not affect Ms. Davis’ trust of the Chinese in their commitment to “anti-capitalism” and “anti-imperialism.”

Mr. Yeshitela then joined in, stating plainly that “there is no sovereignty in Africa.” He called for the formation of a “United States of Africa,” with the various African nations as member states. “Africa can’t fight from 54 positions,” he said, referring to the 54 countries within the African continent; “Africa right now is weak,” he stated. He briefly mentioned Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, and insisted that socialist revolution was needed in Africa. “We have a responsibility to make revolution here in America,” he said, in order to prevent America from continuing to wield influence on a world scale.

The next question was in reference to the opium trade in Afghanistan, which has long been known to help support Islamic extremists. “How does the US benefit from the heroin trade in Afghanistan, and how is this related to the ‘war on opioid addiction’ which Trump recently declared?”

“The ‘arch-enemy’ of America, Osama Bin Laden,” began Mr. Raheem, sarcastically, “he issued a decree to stop opium production in Afghanistan!” I know of no evidence to support this claim, and in fact it seems from a cursory analysis of relevant news articles (from a variety of sources) that Bin Laden and others like him actually benefitted greatly from opium production in Afghanistan. He complained about the United States’ relationship with Bin Laden, and presented Bin Laden as a virtuous man.

The next question came from a man who looked to be in his 30s. “Capitalism is my enemy,” he began, “but how can I justify Boko Haram given the child-snatching?”

Mr. Raheem again took the mic, explaining quite clearly and emphatically that “They (Boko Haram) are fighting for independence, they are anti-American — that’s all you need to know! In fact, I heard that one of those girls elected to stay with them even after she was offered freedom! Besides, those kids were the children of oppressors, anyway.”

There you have it, folks: as long as Boko Haram is anti-American, it doesn’t matter what they do. Besides, those children they kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery were “children of oppressors” anyway, so who cares? In fact, I heard one of those girls kinda liked it.

Anyone with a strong stomach who wants the full details about what these young girls endured during their captivity can find this information easily, and from a variety of different sources. My guest and I left shortly afterwards, and I held my tongue so as not to cause a stir (not yet, anyway). My one question for Mr. Raheem is this: if I found a letter, written by Sally Hemmings, saying that Thomas Jefferson was a really nice guy… would you take that statement at face value, or would you say that it was written under duress?

As we walked out of the auditorium, one of the staff got on stage and began to request money from the crowd. She referred to this as a “call for resources.” On the way out I made eye contact with Glen Ford, and I smiled. He looked at me with a mixture of sadness and helplessness.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!