The First Manifesto of the Third Intifada

It appears that the Palestinian population has grown weary of the politically impotent US/zionist-installed Palestine Authority (PA). Teenagers are leading furious street battles 

with the zionist army, police and civilian  lynch mobs. 

The current General Commandment of the Third Intifada is not clear yet, nor it would appear “on the surface” that its members will be immediately arrested by both the PA security police and the zionists, these two parties together don't want any intifada, but the “rule of law under occupation.”

The current leadership includes ALL the political parties, including Fateh, Hamas, the Leftist parties and even national rebellious personages who have been struggling for freedom for ages, no one fought to get the zionist peaces process of Oslo accord, nor to set the “rule of law” under the Zionist occupation.

We present below the currently standing political memorandum for the on the ongoing Palestinian Resistance in the West Bank of zionist-Occupied Palestine--Sami the Bedouin

Fifteen year old Marah al-Bakri, just out of school when a Jewish squatter falsely accused her of trying to stab him. She was shot by 10 zionist agents 

who then left her to bleed for hours. Daily humiliation and summary executions, 

especially of Palestinian children, have brought thousands to the streets in 

protests and open combat against the settler regime.

--(30)--

The Farrakhan Follies: Act II (2015)

By William PLEASANT and Malik Sekou OSEI

October 10, 2015: Louis Farrakhan gives a stunning
performance in the role of PRINCE OF THE NEGROES (Parte Deux).

As I saw and heard the second self-coronation of Minster Louis Farrakhan as PRINCE OF THE NEGROES, I thought I was listening to a remake of an old Jerry Lewis movie, with the same tin jokes. I was to witness the same social and intellectual constipation as the first Million Man March back in 1995.

When formations stop seeking actual power in the “real world,” they seek symbolism and metaphor as their vehicles of expression under the guise of mass mobilization.

After hearing about the Million Man March part two; I thought I was listening to Vernon Reid lead guitar on the “Cult of Personality” playing too fast on a 78 speed vinyl. Once again the Black constituencies have been treated to a replay of empty symbolism. I must begin that this isn’t my first piece of writing that is critical of Mr. Louis Farrakhan and ,actually on a deeper level, this piece is not a polemic against the Nation of Islam (per se), but on a more profound level. I point the finger at inane, self-declared Black revolutionary nationalist activists and their fetishization of stylized, empty militancy that relies on the symbolism of an united front with  Black face political reaction. We are addressing here the coon show minstrel troop of the Democratic Party whose sole approach to all political phenomenon within the struggle of the Black population and the Black working class, specifically,  is to create a United Front of Blacks for the Democratic Party. This operatively translates into a united front for Black opportunism and Black face capitalist reaction—the junior partners of the Democratic Party.

The Million Man March numero deux was just the theatrical manifestation of this threadbare strategy for Black petit-bourgeois careerism. Once again African American got punked-out by ostentatious and empty symbolism that was never meant to go anywhere. Its only purpose is to quench the thirst of the old hacks for their long gone glory in an imaginary political/historical relevancy. Likewise, it also strives to mine the enraged Black youth population for a new legion of suckers.

Let us rationally dissect what the Honorable Louis Farrakhan uttered on Mr. Charlie’s front lawn on October 10, 2015, his most "militant" statement. He declared, “We must rise up and stalk and kill people who are killing us.” Welcome to the Theatre of the Reckless and Absurd. Black people experience police terrorism across the US and around the clock. Black people are cast into dungeons called prisons on the slightest pretext. What does “rise up” mean? What does “stalk and kill” mean? Certainly the esteemed minister did not advocate organized, armed resistance against the state in Washington, DC, the bowels of the oppressive beast. That would be not only needlessly politically provocative but would be illegal. Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam cult are fanatically law abiding, remember? So we can only surmise that Farrakhan was simply playing, acting the theatrical role of revolutionary leader for the enjoyment of the crowd. He certainly has now nor ever had an operative revolutionary agenda. Or maybe the great leader of the Black masses has had a sort Che’ Guevara epiphany. Things happen, you know? But then I ask, what role would the Nation of Islam play in stalking white, Black, Latino and even Asians people (cops) “who are killing us?” The killers have been around in full effect long before the founding of Farrakhan’s religious cult, and they haven’t stopped “killing us” yet. When has Farrakhan’s NOI prevented a killing or ever killed a killer? Nonetheless, Farrakhan’s righteous, revolutionary histrionics in Washington elicited the expected crowd reaction, a thunder of aaamens and applause.

Baltimore 2015: Freddie Gray is assassinated by the police, and a riot erupts.
Was Farrakhan's "stalk and kill" strategy in effect then?

At this point we all know the problems that plague Black poor people in this country. From mass incarceration to unemployment to shabby health care…Black people suffer all of the afflictions that come with grinding poverty and political disorganization. Now Farrakhan is asking people to take on the state, meaning the police and other military personnel, to wage war! But after the whooping, hollering and signifying of the Washington crowd subsided, nobody bothered to ask Farrkahan and the NOI what is their PLAN for armed insurrection.  Does it resemble the tactics and strategy for selling weekly newspapers and hawking bean pies? Quite frankly, the Nation of Islam has no material nor theoretical infrastructure to wage any form of confrontation with anybody other than Black people who may “insult the messenger” by raising criticisms or political opposition to the cult. When was the last time the NOI stalked and killed among the great herds of KKK negrophobes and skinheads in the country? As a mere Broker-of-Discontent, Farrakhan knows that he doesn’t need a plan, only a stage and an appropriately hysterical script.

    

Historically Understanding Louis Farrakhan  

The high point of Farrakhan’s theatrical career was October 16, 1995, the Million Man March. Farrakhan’s subsequent media coronation as the Prince of the Negroes began at that point. Prior to that, the NOI was merely a Black bogeyman that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other zionist social formations paraded as the epitome of Black anti-semitism. Needless to say, Farrakhan relished his role as the Black ogre and garnered great bushel baskets of free nation-wide publicity. Meanwhile, the ADL brandished Farrakhan as the reason why the organization was still relevant as the Protectors of the Jews, and consequently rode fear and loathing of Farrakhan to the bank in vastly increased donations.  But to actually grasped the historical development of the call for the first Million Man March and what put him within center stage of African American protest leadership for a very short time, it must be noted that the 1995 affair was the logical outcome of a very long train of political developments that arose out of an evolution of a post-civil rights, post-segregation social landscape. In short, Black political thinkers and activists, stripped of their traditional political/social objectives of assimilation and de jure civil equality had nothing to fight for short of the overthrow of the bourgeois state. And they were not about to touch that hot potato as long as there were faculty jobs and electoral political prestige to be had from the class status quo.  

Authentic, straight from the MOTHERLAND...Well it should be, right?

Since the 1970s, African Americans have soothed this strategic political vacuum through “invented traditions” such as Kwanzaa and the pseudo-discipline of Afrocentricity; the first developed by Ron Karenga and the  latter fathered  by Molefi Kete Asante. These trendy social palliatives helped to make the rise of Farrakhan possible by creating a culture of “Black orthodoxy” or “cultural politics” through the subtle dismantling of critical thought and reflection and their replacement with conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific notions of Black (African) authenticity. For example, Kwanzaa has NO organic relationship with Africa or African culture or history. Yet Kwanzaa is unquestionably accepted and celebrated by many African Americans as an authentic relic from Africa, the “Motherland.” Likewise, Afrocentrism, which had the potential to become a rigorous intellectual discipline that could have provided answers to Africa’s past, is now a window into a race fantasy in which every Black man is a descendent of a once-noble king or warrior. 

In this tyranny of orthodoxy, any negative criticism or action against the so-called militant Afrocentric leadership can and would be viewed through the prism of Black authenticity, i.e., "Real brothas don’t kick against the king (uniformly self-proclaimed) because Mr. Charlie might exploit our disunity." The same thinking was employed by dashiki-clad Democratic Party operatives to herd millions of Blacks behind Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, despite Obama’s overt disinterest in Black suffering. Symbolism took precedent over political substance. “Well, he’s the Black man in charge!” Of what? For whom? No answer need be offered under regimen of Black orthodoxy.

Symbolic political issues like Black reparation or Afro-centric curricula are easier to address than defective public schools, environmental racism and police terror. To understand African American political culture today we see intellectual vulgarization and commercialization elevated to social and cultural norms as tools of ambition at the peril of the de-classed and lower strata of the Black population.

 Unlike most of the established Black political class, Farrakhan is not a part of the dominant political structure, meaning subordinate to the white-led Democratic Party. Farrakhan’s day in the sun was made possible by the Black political elite’s increasing irrelevance. His rise as a Black spokesman signaled the demise of the civil rights establishment and the de-authorization of Black leaders--political and intellectual. The fact that Farrakhan called for a march, and arguably a million or so men answered, underscores the political circumstances of African American political leadership. They—the established politicians and academics/intellectuals—failed in the late 1980s and early 90s to move beyond the already-colonized civil rights agenda to direct conflict with reactionary policies of both the Democratic and Republican parties. For example: The GOP’s “Contract with America” went unchallenged by Black intellectuals and activists. Bill Clinton’s rape of the social welfare system didn’t elicit a peep from the erstwhile protectors of the Black poor. The list goes on to include the War on Iraq (1&2), the imposition of a police state via the so-called Patriot ACT and more. The Black intelligentsia and political elite have consistently shown that they owe allegiance to the Democratic Party and strive for vested caucus status in that party as their strategic goal.

 Within this context, Farrakhan can be understood as the “Premier showman who actually performed leadership.” (By Claude A Clegg III “You’re Not Ready for Farrakhan.” Black Political Organization in the Post-Civil Rights Era) Farrakhan in the Post-Civil rights era was able to do something that establish Black leadership could not, namely draw out large numbers of Black people for a perverse version of Bread and Roses. The 1995 “Million Man March” was the logical culmination of what he had been doing for years. Possibly, by 1995 Farrakhan was the most influential Black entertainer in the theatrical role of race leader in America.  

Malcolm X denounced NOI leader Elijah Muhammad for 
impregnating several of his teen "secretaries,"and thus engaging in moral hypocrisy.

Farrakhan presented a reprise of his most cherished and lucrative role on October 10, 2015. The delivery of his sophistry was superb. But the content of his address was hackneyed. Maybe the event was a sort of swan song for elderly cult leader, so he felt compelled to engage in his usual historical revisionism, namely:

• The NOI really had nothing to do with the 1965 assassination of Malcolm X. Well, not a whole lot.
• Elijah Muhammad, the Messenger, was not really a pedophile. (As Farrakhan tells the story now, Elijah Muhammad’s offspring from his under-aged servant girls are the children of the prophet, after all, and middle class strivers who now assist Farrakhan in building a new and improved Nation of Islam. Case closed!)

Indeed, the October 2015 anniversary jamboree in Washington was not “A Day Of Atonement.” Likewise, Blacks were not lectured about white social control employing the historically dubious Willie Lynch Letter as the central textbook. The event was just a remake of Black militant conservatism as the Theater of Black opportunism.

“Justice or else!” Farrakhan’s spectators chanted on the Capitol lawn. Justice or else?  What is the ELSE? I am waiting for an answer from Farrakhan and the NOI. But I am not holding my breath.

For History is on our side, but not time 

--30--

Same sex marriage: The triumph of neo-liberalism

By Dawn UWANGUE

The recent legalization of same sex marriage was a triumph of neo-liberalism in the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer (LGBTQ) cultural/social stratum of the US because the genesis of the movement was top down, benefited a very small percentage of LGBTQ community members, and responded to none of the concerns of the working class and poor who comprise the vast majority of the LGBTQ community. 

And after the wedding ceremony, they will still be two "homos" in AmeriKKKa.

Neoliberalism is loosely defined as an ideology that advocates for the privatization of everything, the subjugation of everything to market forces, and the denial of the commonweal. Marriage--same-sex or otherwise--is about access to resources. Society has decreed that the condition of marriage should be subsidized and encouraged by the state, hence the 1000+ benefits marriage makes available. Sexual minorities used to provide an alternative, a living example of life outside the stultifying tedium of bourgeois marriage and child-rearing. Now that marriage is a dying institution for straight people, collapsing under the weight of abuse, abandonment, alienation and alcoholism, capitalist society vampirically looks to the LGBTQ community to make marriage seem relevant. The high divorce rates mean that people are living in different family formations that suit their needs--not the state's. The primacy of the nuclear family is long gone as is the idea that the family unit is the best way to have human needs met. Whereas sexual minorities once provided an example of different ways of organizing family life, the legality of same sex marriage  now comes with the presumption that marriage is the best way to create families and take care of loved ones. Few people are challenging that presumption.

KIM DAVIS: Hillbilly county clerk who won her
15 minutes of reactionary fame and even tea time with the Pope for refusing to license a gay marriage in Kentucky this year.

The laudatory coverage in the mainstream media should be a red flag that we are being tricked. US corporate-controlled media is wholly committed to Neo-liberal ideology. If marital status is an acceptable means of distributing money, access to health insurance, housing, or immigration status, more people have been diverted from the idea that access to these things is a human right, not a privilege conferred by the state to manipulate people into conforming and organizing their personal lives in ways that that are socially acceptable. The freedom to marry becomes the compulsion to marry. What happens to those who do not wish to marry for whatever reason? 

Wrote William Pleasant of Barack Obama's cynical, pre-election 2012 epiphany of support for same sex marriage: 'The glitterati of the "lesbian/gay community (whatever that means, except as a luscious advertising market and donor base to the DP)" has soiled its panties in joy, according to the NEW YORK TIMES. Obama said he has no problem with TWO LADIES or TWO GUYS getting married. So what?

"That is not revolutionary, continued Pleasant, "Tactically speaking, it isn't even progressive. Same-sex  marriage  operatively means that more county registry offices will collect more marriage license fees. We can expect Men's Warehouse to add bridal gowns to its stock. And, likewise, divorce lawyers will reap a new market for their brand of court room mayhem. Right? Think about it."

How does marriage address anti-gay discrimination in housing, employment, educational, and policing policy? Or the right to raise children? What protection does same sex marriage offer to a working class LGBTQ person who does not have a large estate to worry about?

In the face of people like Kim Davis--who obviously has never heard of the concept of separation of church and state--it might be difficult to think same sex marriage advocates sharing the same world view as conservatives; however the promotion of marriage as a way to have access to resources and care is a profoundly conservative position that leaves out single people and people who have their personal relationships organized in different ways. 

The Against Equality Collective critiques the same sex marriage issue from a radical queer perspective. They call into question the process by which same sex marriage--which only benefits wealthy LGBTQ people-- was imposed on a community reeling from a new level of precarity, which gay marriage does not solve. 

Radicalism versus LGBTQ assimilationist tendency

The assimilationist tendency craves respectability. The radical tendency can be summed up, according to Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, by the slogan "We don't want to marry. We just want to fuck smash the church/smash the state" Members of the Against Equality Collective represent a multiplicity of radical queer voices. Sycamore is a proud anti-lmperialist who finds it absurd that the mainstream gay movement has invested its money and political energy into gaining access to the two most conservative institutions in the world-the military and marriage. Sycamore also criticizes the mainstream LGBTQ for its identity politics, saying identity should be a beginning point, not an endpoint.

--30--.

Facebook is zionist-occupied territory & don't you forget it!

By William PLEASANT

I WAS BANNED FROM FACEBOOK FOR 24 HOUR...

The reasons were very revealing of how social media is also manipulated by zionists and their US Fifth Column. 

On late evening October 4, Facebook informed me that:

Someone reported your photo for containing nudity.

REPORT REVIEWED

ACTIVITY

Report details

Oct 4

Someone reported your photo for containing nudity.

Our reply

Yesterday

Your photo was removed for violating Facebook's Community Standards.

This is the "nudity" that disturbed the censors at FB. I posted it in
a comment to a post on Donald Trump. The image, of course,
refers to Trump, THE ZIONIST CUNT.

Indeed, the image is provocative and a political stylization of female external genitalia ("nudity") but it pales before the millions of daily FB photo and video posts that are outright pornographic. FB definitely has no problem with them. It is not nudity that offended the FB censors but the political content of the nudity that enrages them. Who reported my visual comment? I will never know, but I suspect it is a paid zionist spy on PALESTINE LIVE, one of my groups.

But FB was not satisfied with erasing my little hairy fellow. They demanded that I remove two other posts directly from my timeline. Again, the content of my posts were political and directed at US Middle East policy and the zionist squatter regime in Palestine. I was informed that if I did not remove them, then my FB account would be cancelled.

This posts comes from a series of "ISIS COMMUNIQUES" I have produced over the past six months. They are, well, tongue-in-cheek comments on the collusion between the Obama regime and the Prophet Sheldon (as in Sheldon Adelson and AIPAC) and lunatic faux Muslim mercenaries. Obviously,  their mission is to destroy the infrastructure of Middle Eastern nations and render them balkanized cantons at the mercy of the US and its Israeli proxies.

Where is the "nudity" here? FB gave no reason for banning the image above.

Neither did they explain their demand that the obviously anti-zionist image post below be erased.

Maybe the equation of Bibi Netanyahu with the maniacal murderer
Bill Sykes from OLIVER TWIST was too hot for FB to handle. Or maybe,
in light of ongoing IOF-abetted settler lynch mob attacks on unarmed
Palestinians (especially children), the image of the helpless dog struck 
too close to home. In any event, this image had to go, insisted the FB police!

Political content, especially visual materials that attack corrupt US Middle East policy or effectively lambasts the zionist squatter regime in Palestine, are very vulnerable to being ratted out to the FB censors by paid agents who monitor FB and other social media platforms for "anti-Israel" material. The authors of this type of political content are singled out for harassment and outright banning. That makes FACEBOOK  zionist-occupied territory.

--30--

BDS: The "Israel" lobby meets the genie...

By William PLEASANT

The genie is out of the bottle forever...

Today, the Obama regime insisted that it would abide the clause in the Trade Protection Authority act  that effectively shields the zionist regime in Palestine from European Union boycott/sanction measures. But Obama's State Department minions threw in a monkey wrench: They will only enforce the shield clause when European governments target businesses in the pre-1967 borders of Israel, meaning that zionist enterprises residing in the contested West Bank can be attacked without fear of any US retaliation.

The Trade Protection Authority (TPA) is primarily focused on international trade between the U.S. and Europe. The pro-zionist section of the legislation, the U.S.-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act, bans boycotts and other means of economic warfare against Israel or the “Israeli-controlled territories.” 
The amendment states that its objective is to:

"...[D]iscourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel by states, non-member states of the United Nations, international organisations, or affiliated agencies of international organisations that are politically motivated and are intended to penalise or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli- controlled territories."

Introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) with bi-partisan co-sponsorship, the anti-boycott legislation was unanimously adopted into the PTA in April 2015. Obama said today that he will not give backdoor US recognition to the so-called Occupied Territories (“Israeli-controlled territories” ) by providing diplomatic cover through the TPA. Obama essentially nullified the entire pro-Israel amendment. .

In a way, the addition of the anti-BDS (BOYCOTT-DIVEST-SANCTION) clause to the Trade Protection Act (paid for and ramrodded through congress by AIPAC and its assorted camp followers last week) in and of itself was a sign of the success of the global grassroots movement to force the State of Israel to end its occupation of stolen Palestinian lands, end Jim Crow segregation and come to a mutually beneficial peace arrangement with the Indigenous Palestinian Peoples--the political anathemas of zionist settler colonialism in Palestine.


There are two reasons why this is the case: 

1.

It acknowledges that not only is BDS putting a boot to the zionist economy, but it threatens to do even greater terminal damage. The zionists know that except for the EU market, they have no significant buyers for their agricultural goods and non-military technologies and products. In a like manner, they understand that their US-sponsored arms industry is highly vulnerable to grassroots political attack in Europe and the US. Moreover, their Third World patrons really don't have the funds to even buy US-subsidized weapons at a level that can remotely sustain the "Israeli" death factories. Inclusion of the Anti-BDS clause was actually a desperation move ordered by the Israeli government through its US-deployed agents, designed to sooth the nerves of its hometown constituents in the face of mounting international rejection and isolation. Once again, the bribe-fed US federal legislature was commanded to bark and growl on behalf of the zionist settler state so "Israel" and its US amen corner could rest easy. But maybe the tried and true narcotizing powers of that script have lost their political relevance.

2.

Fact of the matter is that the BDS movement has structurally changed the political landscape of US pro-zionist policies. Obama's apparent revolt against anti-BDS provisions represents a domestic political concession that BDS is unstoppable, just as the South African anti-apartheid divestment and sanction movement quickly became a social snowball.

Obama has signalled his zionist sugar daddies, "Look, boss, you're on your own now..." 

The zionists are absolutely correct in charging that BDS is a strategy for destroying the State of Israel, not just ending West Bank military dictatorship. BDS makes no operative distinction between the occupied territories (BTW: All of Palestine is zionist occupied territory.) and the UN-manufactured 1947 zionist colonial entity. BDS puts the lash to the occupiers and their state apparatus wherever they may reside. 

As constructed, the anti-BDS provisions actually handicap US corporate transaction negotiations with the EU by chaining the US into a role of making concessions to European marketeers for the sole sake of keeping Europeans on the anti-BDS bandwagon. And of course, that will get increasingly difficult to do and more expensive (in respect to US finances and political interests) in the face of grassroots European political rejection of all pro-zionist policies, i.e., the expanding social popularity of BDS. 

In that respect, Obama's side step of the zionist-led anti-BDS campaign is a message from Wall Street to Tel Aviv and the pro-Israel Fifth Column in the US that the game has changed.

--30--

Farrakhan reprise: The Million Chiclets March 2015

By William PLEASANT

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Wednesday (June 24, 2015) he plans to hold a Millions for Justice march in the nation's capital this fall, 20 years after the Million Man March.

During a speech at Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Washington, Farrakhan said he intends to hold the rally Oct. 10 on the National Mall, site of the October 15, 1995 rally.

The NOI leader was ostensibly coronated Prince of the Negroes
by the corporate media at the 1995 Million Man March.

"This is the time our people must see our unity," Farrakhan said. "Let's make 10/10/15 a meeting place for those who want justice, for those who know what justice is." Hmmm. That is an interesting mobilizing target. Are those people who want justice and those who know what justice is mutually exclusive groups. If they are not, then why do they need to meet? Just askin, y'all...

Ousted NAACP executive director Benjamin Chavis, who helped organize the original Million Man March, said he is optimistic that this year's turnout will be "in excess of a million." He said the event's success would be measured more by the political and socio-economical impact it has on communities.

Washington DC 1995: Can bigger mean better in 2015?

In 1995, Louis Farrakhan and his followers managed to stage a monster gathering of Black men on the lawn of the US Capitol. The domestic and international media stood in awe as the religious cult leader urged Black men everywhere to atone for their moral and political failures, and dedicate themselves to an erstwhile revolutionary path to Black Liberation.

In fact, Farrakhan's four-hour sermon on Black sin and Black redemption (atonement) became such a media sensation that even then president Bill Clinton stepped in for a bite. Speaking at the University of Texas-Austin (October 16, 1995), the US president declared, "Well, today's march is also about pride and dignity and respect. But after a generation of deepening social problems that disproportionately impact black Americans, it is also about black men taking renewed responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities. (Applause.) It's about saying no to crime and drugs and violence. It's about standing up for atonement and reconciliation. It's about insisting that others do the same, and offering to help them. It's about the frank admission that unless black men shoulder their load, no one else can help them or their brothers, their sisters, and their children escape the hard, bleak lives that too many of them still face..." (THE WHITE HOUSE: Office of the Press Secretary, For Immediate Release October 16, 1995)

Pres. Bill Clinton shows what 1 million Black marchers really meant in 1995.

Flushed with media fame and politically endorsed by no less than the leader of the free world, Farrakhan went on a global whirlwind tour as the world's most famous Black non-entertainer. Dictators and presidents from throughout Africa and the Arabs states lined up for a photo-op with the new and improved Shining Black Prince, most notably Nigeria's military strongman Sani Abacha who soon afterwards put the progressive indigenous opposition intellectual Ken Saro Wiwa to the sword. 

Indigenous Nigerian activist/writer Ken Saro Wiwa, murdered by
dictator Sani Abacha on orders from Royal Dutch Shell Oil Co. in 1995.

Likewise, Sudan's Black, arabophilic dictator Omar El-Bashir had only hugs and kisses for the Nation of Islam leader, as he merrily went about conducting  genocidal military campaigns against the Nubian people and various non-Muslim tribes in South Sudan. Farrakhan had tea with the late Libyan leader Colonel Muhammar Khadafi, leading to a false rumor that the ruler of the oil-rich nation was ready, willing and able to lay a wad of cash (some said $1 billion) on Farrakhan and his revolutionary Black atonement movement. This, of course, provoked a stampede of Black businessmen, entertainers and outright grifters who had stood on the sidelines of the Million Man March to join in coronating the New Black Prince, in hope of being first in line when their new-found royal majesty  began to dole out Khadafi's donation money. Needless to say,  Khadafi's check for Farrakhan somehow got lost in the mail.

Omar El Bashir's ethnic cleansing campaigns 
against non-Muslim and blackskin Sudanese killed millions.

Riding Farrakhan's media tidal wave, Bill Clinton at the University of Texas  echoed Farrakhan's sad assessment of Black America. "And blacks are right to think something is terribly wrong when African American men are many times more likely to be victims of homicide than any other group in this country," the president explained. "When there are more African American men in our corrections system than in our colleges; when almost one in three African American men in their 20s are either in jail, on parole or otherwise under the supervision of the criminal justice system -- nearly one in three. And that is a disproportionate percentage in comparison to the percentage of blacks who use drugs in our society."

Clinton went on,"Now, I would like every white person here and in America to take a moment to think how he or she would feel if one in three white men were in similar circumstances. And there is still unacceptable economic disparity between blacks and whites. It is so fashionable to talk today about African Americans as if they have been some sort of protected class. Many whites think blacks are getting more than their fair share in terms of jobs and promotions. That is not true. That is not true. (Applause.)The truth is that African Americans still make on average about 60 percent of what white people do; that more than half of African American children live in poverty. And at the very time our young Americans need access to college more than ever before, black college enrollment is dropping in America."

Was Bill Clinton a closet Fruit of Islam? Not likely. But he and Farrakhan share the same hokey Democratic Party political ideology, dripping with the moralistic and boot-strapping-as-social-progress harangue of the southern Baptist Church. And they both produced the same political/social outcomes for Black people in 2015. You see, Bill Clinton's 1995 description of the Black American horror show has either remained the same or worsened in depth and ferocity since 1995. And now, 20 years later, Louis Farrakhan wishes again to enlist, as Ben Chavis said this week, "in excess of a million" more Blacks behind a patently failed political movement. What is the utility of staging another Million Chiclets March?--Million Chiclets because the 1995 event amounted to little more than an assembly of atomized wads of gum to be politically chewed and spat out by Farrakhan and ultimately the Democratic Party.

Farrakhan's reasons for staging an encore of his hit 1995 performance in Mr. Charlie's backyard are apparent. The sun is setting on Farrakhan (82) and the NOI cult. The cadre of Nation of Islam stalwarts, as well as its sympathizer base, are rapidly aging. The group is socially contracting. Moreover, the NOI has been consistently upstaged in theatrical militance by the New Black Panther Party and other secular formations over the past two decades. Ironically--ideologically speaking--the NOI reached its Promised Land with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, by magnitude the ultimate act of Black-for-Black "unity" and utter political capitulation to the Democratic Party in the history of the United States. Needless to say, a large fraction of Black people see the fruit of that "unity" and they are not very impressed today. 

In the April 2015 Baltimore Uprising, many younger protesters 
viewed the NOI as riding shotgun for the police.

Therefore, the central question here is why would Black Americans, after 20 years of further social and political decline, waste one neuron of brain matter considering going down a dead end to but another dead end with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam?

--30--