Malcolm X, Trump & the Goldwater Effect


Has the election of President Donald Trump, a man rightly or wrongly perceived as ‘prejudiced’, already produced a favorable ‘Goldwater Effect’ of the kind Malcolm X mooted in this remarkably prophetic video clip in which he argues that the potential 1964 victory of the ultra-conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater (and his perceived antipathy towards minority groups) would have been a positive development and one that drove said groups to greater self-reliance and productivity – and may this help to explain the recent announcement of a dramatic fall in Black unemployment since Trump took power?

And, if so, could it be that Trump’s perceived bigotry is, paradoxically and counter-intuitively, producing unintentionally beneficial outcomes in Black America and elsewhere in much the same way the Nazi Holocaust motivated Jews to create the State of Israel and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki traumatized Japan into a post-war economic miracle?


The Canary in the Coal Mine


By virtue of the number of times he was searched by Malcolm X’s security guards upon his arrival at the Audubon Ballroom on 21st February 1965 – “three or four times” by his own admission – and by virtue of what was to occur moments later, namely the assassination of Malcolm X, it is now beyond any dispute that the presence of one LINWARD X CATHCART (aka Abdul Karriem Muhammad), a ‘lieutenant’ in the Newark Mosque #25 Fruit of Islam (FOI), and the suspicions he aroused by his behaviour (such as to necessitate multiple searches of his person), now identifies Linward X (the so-called ‘Sixth Assassin’) as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ and the first sign to those present that something evil was afoot, something terrible was at hand, that wintry Sunday afternoon…

The Great Or Else


Malcolm X was the great “Or Else” of the entire Civil Rights era. He was the lever and propulsion system behind every concession the civil rights leaders were able to extract from Washington DC’s decision makers. He was the spectre the civil rights leaders repeatedly evoked in order to prise concessions from Capitol Hill. Every negotiating strategy of the civil rights leaders was built on this binary predicate: either give Black Americans their just due or you will have Malcolm and his ilk to deal with. Put simply, Malcolm was their entire bargaining hand. It is therefore he, and not Martin Luther King, that was the pivot and driving force behind every signal legislative and societal achievement of the civil rights period. 

Can Dennis Rodman AVERT a Nuclear War?


Yep, Dennis Rodman.

There once was a time when Rodman’s friendship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un was frowned upon as a curiosity born of their mutual eccentricity, a peculiar alchemy that blended Rodman’s attention-seeking penchant for the outrageous with Jong-un’s fetish for Black American pop culture. But as the world now finds itself teetering on the brink of a calamitous nuclear conflict, could it be that Rodman – as perhaps the only American who enjoys a personal rapport with America’s deadliest foe – could very well hold the key to world peace by opening a line of communication between America’s combustible president, Donald Trump, and the enigmatic despot of the DPRK?

Most might dismiss the idea out of hand. After all, Rodman is viewed as a lip-piercing celebrity has-been with little diplomatic experience or geostrategic aptitude. But what if his lack of those attributes was precisely what well-suited him to playing this historic role? What if the perceived naiveté of this African-American NBA Hall of Famer were just what was required to bridge the cultural and generational chasm separating a nuclear-armed 33-year old Asian demigod from his 71-year old white American nemesis?

For if the alternative is a planet-ending atomic holocaust, there are surely worse ideas than this.

The Green Light


On 7th December 1964 the so-called ‘Supreme Captain’ of the Nation of Islam (NOI), Raymond Sharrieff, issued what was, up to that point, the most explicit threat to the life of Malcolm X to have emerged from the leadership of Elijah Muhammad’s organisation when he took to Chicago’s Crusader newspaper to declare:

“We hereby OFFICIALLY warn you that the Nation of Islam shall no longer tolerate your scandalising the name of our leader and teacher the Hon. Elijah Muhammad regardless of where such scandalising has been.” 

Such a threat could not have been made without the explicit sanction and approval of Elijah Muhammad – a man whose apologists stubbornly insist was either unaware or disapproving of any efforts by his own followers to take Malcolm’s life.

The significance of the Sharrieff declaration as an official ‘Green Light’ from the NOI’s leadership to its rank-and-file to proceed with any and all efforts to murder Malcolm cannot be rationalised away as a mere statement of the NOI’s intention to pursue a propaganda campaign against its former star minister since such an effort had been underway from the moment of his departure from the organisation in March of that year – and with its most vicious iteration having appeared only four days earlier in the 3rd December edition of the NOI’s own newspaper, the Muhammad Speaks, which carried Boston Mosque #11 Minister Louis X Farrakhan’s infamous “such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death” screed.

Had Malcolm Lived


The 1965 assassination of Malcolm X was a public policy calamity of immeasurable magnitude and one that may have cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars in wasted spending on Big Government programs that were born of the integrationist philosophy that Malcolm routinely demolished in every single public forum and televised debate in which it was pitted against his independence philosophy. 

Malcolm anticipated and resolved numerous race-based public policy debates decades before they took place (such as the discord over School Bussing and Affirmative Action). His assassination denied both the American public and, more importantly, US policy makers the opportunity to fully hear-out his philosophical positions in a way that might have shaped social policy and prevented the wasted expenditure of trillions of taxpayer dollars on programs that Malcolm had already shown to be unworkable since they were premised on flawed assumptions and misguided notions about how best to redress inequities between the races in a truly effective and lasting fashion. 

When Malcolm was murdered the single most effective exponent of the independence ideological paradigm was silenced and removed from the contest of ideas with the integrationist proponents. As a consequence, the only voices in Black America that gained a hearing in the White House and amongst Washington DC policy makers were those representing the already-doomed integrationist paradigm. 

This flawed philosophical construct went on to feed its misguided ideas into the policy-making machinery on Capitol Hill only to emerge from that process in the form of Big Government programs like the aforementioned School Bussing and Affirmative Action initiatives. These ill-conceived social programs likely cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars in wasted spending, produced civil and political strife, divided the races against each other, sowed resentment, reinforced the very cultural stereotypes they were supposed to extinguish and, years on, have precious little to show by way of appreciable progress towards the goals at which they were aimed.

As Malcolm demonstrates in this exchange with Wyatt Tee Walker and James Farmer (both of whom were surrogates for Martin Luther King), Affirmative Action programs were never destined to produce what Malcolm describes as a ‘real solution’ to the inequities they were designed to redress since they would have simply led to demands for ‘more than equality’ without achieving the desired outcomes. Malcolm argued that Black Americans should instead take their cue from the newly-independent African nations (and, by implication, newly-arrived American immigrants) and mobilise the talents and resources that Black Americans already possessed to redress the inequities which the integrationists sought to correct through Big Government social programs.

Had Malcolm lived and, more importantly, been granted more frequent opportunities to contest these misguided integrationist philosophical arguments before a watching public he would have likely won over not just the entirety of Black America but the overwhelming majority of White Americans, both at the public and policy-making levels and at both ends of the ideological spectrum, and Malcolm’s ideas would have successfully steered the 1960s on a vastly different ideological course, fed into the policy-making machinery on Capitol Hill and emerged in the form of government-backed but public-led initiatives that would have long ago put to bed the entire ‘race problem’ in America. 

Malcolm’s assassination was therefore a public policy catastrophe of incalculable proportions but is not one that is entirely unsalvageable. What must now occur is for Malcolm’s philosophical positions (as aired during his numerous TV appearances) to be placed before the public for a second time in a series of global broadcasts and town halls and for the world to finally be granted the opportunity to fully hear-out those positions unfiltered and in a way we were previously denied. These broadcasts and debates should be part of a new Malcolm-led global conversation designed to reshape public policy and finally produce the social and economic outcomes that were tragically deferred when Malcolm was slain.

Trump Must Apologize…


PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP MUST ISSUE A FULL & UNRESERVED PUBLIC APOLOGY TO THE ‘CENTRAL PARK FIVE’….For succumbing to the relentlessly racist TV and newspaper coverage of their case (by the ‘liberal’ news media) which, at the time, portrayed them as mindless savages and that helped to inspire a private citizen like #MrTrump to take out full page adverts in the ‘liberal’ #NewYorkTimes in which he called for their punishment by Death…


…that the ‘liberal’ New York Times, which FREELY chose to take his money and PUBLISH his adverts and thus gave the #racism of which it now FALSELY accuses him a GLOBAL PLATFORM; which, at the time, carried daily FRONT PAGE stories of its OWN condemning the #CentralParkFive as GUILTY of the rape of the jogger #TrishaMeili and of their deserving of long term INCARCERATION; which, at the time, editorialised its fulsome PRAISE for #MrTrump and published screeds favouring the HARSHEST possible penalty for the accused perpetrators; which, at the time, was JOINED by the ‘liberal’ #WashingtonPost, #NewYorkDailyNews, #LosAngelesTimes, #BostonGlobe and every other ‘liberal’ newspaper in America in calling for their MERCILESS prosecution; and was further JOINED, at the time, by the ‘liberal’ reporters of #CBS, #NBC and #ABC in their hate-filled NIGHTLY news broadcasts that PLASTERED the faces of the Central Park Five all over PLANET EARTH as wild animals deserving of UNFORGIVING retribution…

…have all agreed to PRECEDE #PresidentTrump by issuing their own COLLECTIVE GLOBAL APOLOGY for the despicable role which they themselves played in BRAINWASHING the public with their OWN viciously racist propaganda and thus helping to perpetrate a racially-motivated MISCARRIAGE of justice which they would now have the world FALSELY believe was the SOLE responsibility of #DonaldTrump and his advertising campaign.


The Racism of Jimmy Breslin


There is ample reason to suspect that the writer Jimmy Breslin, in response to whose passing many in his profession have been tripping over themselves to eulogize, may have been one of the most despicable (and fateful) racists in the history of American letters. 

For as was to later emerge in 2005, Mr Breslin who on the morning of the 21st of February 1965 was heading off to attend yet another one of the many galas at which his fellow white ‘journalists’ routinely congratulate themselves on a job badly done, reportedly received a tip-off from a white source within the NYPD urging him to cancel those plans and instead head on down to Harlem’s Audubon Ballroom and, upon arrival at the venue, to make good and sure to sit “well back” from the stage area where, shortly thereafter, Malcolm X was scheduled to appear to address his supporters.

The rest is now history and it is a period about which the notoriously loquacious Mr Breslin, with the solitary exception of a news story that featured in the following morning’s issue of the New York Herald Tribune reporting Malcolm’s shocking assassination (and a story Mr Breslin later tweaked for the paper’s afternoon edition after a scolding he received from the NYPD), has had surprisingly little to say. 

And just why might that be? Could it perhaps be that Mr Breslin, like many white ‘journalists’ of that era, was a party to the media operations of the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) – and to which many an unscrupulous white reporter volunteered their services – in assisting cross-dressing Director J. Edgar Hoover’s criminal efforts to destroy African-American leaders like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X for the simple crime of having the temerity to challenge their country to finally live up to the ideals it falsely professed? 

And is it any wonder then that many of the same white reporters that have taken to Twitter to hashtag and rhapsodise about their deceased colleague now fancy themselves to be ‘feisty truth-seekers’ who are carrying on what they would have us believe to have been Mr Breslin’s ‘noble legacy’ of holding to account the great and powerful as they’ve supposedly been doing with the embattled President Donald Trump?

The sickening indifference they’ve all displayed regarding the questionable character of the man upon whom they’ve been heaping fulsome praise, now makes it plain that whatever the shortcomings of the new president, few are less qualified than those self-same ‘reporters’ to perform that necessary task.

Alvan, Louis & Malcolm


ALVAN X WALCOTT: the (now deceased) Brother of current Nation of Islam leader #LouisFarrakhan and one of the suspects in the 14 February 1965 firebomb attack on the New York home of #MalcolmX#AlvanX also reportedly collaborated with Captain Clarence X Gill of Boston’s Mosque #11 and Captain John X Peters of Springfield’s Mosque #13 in an effort to obtain a pistol silencer from the late Leon X Ameer for use in an assassination attempt on Malcolm X.

The reason this matters is that, as the MINISTER of the aforementioned Mosque #11 (and as the BROTHER of Alvan X), there is simply no way in the world that LOUIS FARRAKHAN was not, at a minimum, aware of these specific efforts to murder Malcolm and, at worst, an active PARTICIPANT in them. This would flatly contradict Farrakhan’s long-standing assertion that the only role he may have played in Malcolm’s assassination was speaking vitriolic words that contributed to the murderous climate. Farrakhan, it would now appear, may have been a DIRECT and ACTIVE participant in the Malcolm X murder plot.

Malcolm himself referred to the roles of Alvan X and Captains Gill and Peters in efforts to take his life in this 1965 TV interview.

William McRaven Is Wrong


Admiral William McRaven’s disgraceful attack on President Donald Trump has laid bare the former Navy SEAL commander’s political sympathies for the Democratic Party. We saw Admiral McRaven’s partisanship on full display in the aftermath of the Bin Laden raid when he gushed over Barack Obama (widely regarded as the most cowardly individual to have ever served as Commander-in-Chief), lauding Obama’s role in ‘Operation Neptune Spear’ and fawning over the ex-president as “the smartest man in the room”.

Long before President Trump’s assault on the corporate-owned news media, their destructive role as “manufacturers of consent” and Pied Pipers of public opinion had been brilliantly unmasked by one of the Left’s leading intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and countless other luminaries at both ends of the ideological spectrum. The fact that McRaven is credited with planning one of the most (undeservedly) celebrated military operations in recent history endows him with no special credentials for challenging the veracity of President Trump’s denunciations of the lying MSM.

After all, when one compares McRaven’s Abbottabad mission with Sayeret Matkal’s 1976 ‘Op Thunderbolt’ raid on Entebbe or the SAS’s ‘Op Nimrod’ assault on the Iranian embassy in 1980, ‘Neptune Spear’ (which pitted over 70 Tier-One DEVGRU and CIA/SAD combatants backed by the full operational might of JSOC and USCENTCOM against a residential compound occupied by, at best, two military-age males, a few women and a smattering of children) has to go down as one of the most one-sided, overblown and hyper-glorified “special operations” in military history. It could just as easily have been carried out by a well-trained SWAT team and they likely wouldn’t have lost a multi-million dollar UH-60 in a blaze of ineptitude. The sieges at Ruby Ridge, Waco and the recent Ammon Bundy armed stand-off at Oregon’s Malheur Wildlife Refuge arguably involved more operational risk.

(What makes McRaven’s bizarre defence of the lying and irresponsible MSM especially disquieting is the damaging role they played in leaking details of the Bin Laden raid – and the Task Force Blue/ST6 unit which carried it out – to the general public and, in the process, endangering the lives of its members and their families. Classified details of the raid and its participants can now easily be found on Facebook and Instagram with a few simple hashtags…)

Has McRaven no memory of the unforgivable role played by that same lying MSM in beating the drums for the 2003 Iraq War and misleading thousands of US servicemen and women to their deaths in OIF and the human abattoirs of the Middle East? Why, President Trump’s own election victory in the face of the universal scorn heaped upon him by that same news media bears full and incontrovertible witness to the underlying truth of the President’s totally-justified frontal assault on the liars of the MSM and nothing McRaven has to say on the matter will upend that.

Admiral McRaven’s intervention in the political fray should be seen for what it quite plainly is: a transparent and pathetic opening gambit in his own well-laid plans to run, as a Democrat, for the US presidency in 2020. He will likely fare no better than his political heroine, Crooked Hillary Clinton, who has long since shuffled off the pages of history and into the dustbin of ignominy.