There is still a lot of information about Malcolm X that numerous folks don’t know about. Malcolm was set about to have his debate with Louis Lomax at the Chicago Civic Opera House. At the debate, before a crowd of nearly fifteen hundred, Malcolm proclaimed that in May 21, 1964 that: “Separation is not the goal of the Afro-American. Nor is integration his goal. They are merely methods toward his real end - respect as a human being.” In June 13, 1964, Malcolm X agreed with civil rights leaders to bring up the case of oppression against black Americans to the United Nations. This plan was to internationalize the civil rights struggle. This meeting was recorded secretly by the FBI. When Malcolm X traveled into Africa, Africans love him. They viewed him as Malcolm’s long lost son. Malcolm X knew about African culture and history in a cogent, advanced fashion. Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Julius Nyerene, Sekou Toure, and Prince Faisal praised Malcolm X’s efforts to promote the human rights of black people worldwide. Malcolm X met with Maya Angelou, Julian Mayfield, and others in Accra, Ghana back in November 1964. He talked with Shirley Dubois, who was the executive director of Ghanaian television. With Malcolm X visiting a lot of women in leadership in Africa, Malcolm X promoted gender equality (for he said that a society isn't progressive unless females have the right to get an education and achieve their own personal livelihoods). In late 1964, he returned into America to see that Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in a landslide. LBJ captured 96 percent of the black vote. Malcolm X wanted U.S. race issues to go before the U.N. in order to make America accountable for its human rights violations of black Americans (these violations include lynchings, denying black people human rights, slavery, etc.). He worked with Shirley Du Bois, Julian Mayfield, and others of course to fight for human equality. He wanted the OAAU to grow in the African continent as well. He worked with Nana Nketsia too. Malcolm X discussed with Guinea President Toure about African self determination and pan African philosophy. He talked about black people in America in Paris at the Mutualite in Paris. This event transpired in November 23, 1964. He talked about nonviolence, history, and Middle Eastern matters. In November 24, 1964, he came into New York City. He was greeted by Sister Betty Shabazz and well wishers with signs saying “Welcome Back, Brother Malcolm.” He told reporters in NYC that the U.S. government and the Congolese regime of Moise Tshombe were responsible in the Stanleyville slaughter. He accused the Johnson administration of financing Tshombe’s mercenaries. Later, Malcolm X wanted to heal the rift between the MMI and the OAAU. Thw OAAU was more progressive than the MMI. In other words, some of the MMI members were hestiant to embrace some of Malcolm X's new views, while the OAAU was more receptive to accept Malcolm X's changes in his ideologies. Malcolm X wrote diaries about his travels and his personal life. In December 12, 1964, Malcolm X told a local group called the Domestic Peace Corps (as in its Cultural Enrichment Lecture Series) in NYC that black Americans should form a coalition with the new independent African nations. He wanted blacks in America to migrate to Africa culturally, philosophically, and spirituality. MMI members were regularly harassed and assaulted by rogue, NOI thugs. Lynne Shifflett was a leading secretary in the OAAU. On February 5, 1965, Malcolm X condemned the Tshombe regime alone with the Johnson administration’s ties to it, exposed the growing U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and talked about his disputes with Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm X worked with SNCC to speak in Selma in order for him to promote the national campaign for black voting rights in February of 1965. Malcolm X wanted America to pull out from the Vietnam War. He also opposed the ethnic and religious discrimination in the English working class town of Smethwick (against blacks and Asians in the UK).
In occult symbolism, you have to understand about Carl Jung’s view of archetype. Carl Jung was a pro-Gnostic leader and held on to mystical views, yet he presented himself as a mainstream psychologist. Now, Carl Jung held onto to a view called the “collective unconscious.” This idea is about all humans have a genetic memory of ancient memories of humanity. These memories deal with things all human share. These memories can range from symbols (like sun symbolizing warmth), skulls, etc. These archetypes according to Jung are part of our makeup. Jung believed that we know these images not from our personal experiences, but from the thousands of years of experience from our ancestors. The corporate logos in many respects represent the archetypes. They outline the core of human creativity that has spanned the thousands of years of human history. The sea shell logo is one famous archetype. The sea Shell is found in art (like Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus”), the Shell Oil Company logo, and in architectural structures globally (in a LDS Church building, a bank in Buffalo, NY, etc). Children used seashells all of the time. Humans use seashells as jewelry for fund as well. They adorn homes and boats spanning thousands of years ago too. The Incas buried seashells with their dead. Gothic cathedrals and famous Alhambra have seashells too. The ancient folks living in Pompeii, Italy (before the volcano came to destroy the city) used shells to adorn their holy figurers. Sea shells to the ancients are positive in their minds. They represented fertility, regeneration, and prosperity in a mystical sense. She shell also symbolizes the mythic birth of the goddess archetype (Venus Aphrodite, etc.). So, the shell is about the Female deity is pagan worship (dealing with love, reproduction, birth, the sea, etc.). In fact, Venus in Greek mythology deals with love and fertility. The recreation of estates came about in Medici’s Bobole Gardens in Florence and the Villa d’Este outside of Rome (as supported by European nobility). These estates possessed decorative shell work. To some Christians in the Middle Ages, the scallop shell is the emblem of James, son of Zebedee. Some Christian pilgrimages in medieval times came into the Way of St. James to the apostle’s shrine at Santiago de Compostela in Spain.
SOPA is a real threat to Internet Freedom. Now, some of the co-sponsors of the bill relinquished their support of SOPA (or the Stop Online Piracy Act). There have been protests against SOPA. There has been strong opposition to the Senate version of the bill too called the Protect IP Act or PIPA. Many large websites like Wikipedia and Google criticized the bill via showing “blackouts” on their web pages. There have been reports of floods of calls to the offices of elected representatives. There has been widespread media coverage that made an effect of public opposition to SOPA. Even influential Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio (a former co-sponsor of the bill) says now that the legislation should be rewritten to address the concerns raised by all sides. “I have been a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act because I believe it’s important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy, much of it occurring overseas through rogue websites in China,” Rubio said in a Face book post. “As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs.” “However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies.” the Senator added. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint also proclaimed opposition to the legislation, commenting via Twitter “I support intellectual property rights, but I oppose SOPA & PIPA. They’re misguided bills that will cause more harm than good.” Senator Robert Menendez from New Jersey (a Democrat) is critical of the current bill and he tweeted that he has concerns about the bill. He wants changes to it. Arizona Republican Representative Ben Qualye (another former co-sponsor of the bill) withdrawn support of the House bill just like Nebraska Congressman Lee Terry. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) is a libertarian leaning Republican. He changed his Facebook profile photo to the logo of the words of SOPA and PIPA crossed out (while he disabled key functions on his Face book wall to prevent guest posts). “These bills give the federal government unprecedented power to censor Internet content and will stifle the free flow of information and ideas,” Amash wrote. “Demand that Congress and the president keep the Internet open and free.” 6 Republican Senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The letter talked about concerns with the bill like its costs, litigation, and First Amendment rights dilution. The 6 Senators who signed the letter are Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) – both Grassley and Hatch had previously co-sponsored PIPA in the Senate. The authors of the legislation refuse to back down. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith lied and said that the Wikipedia protest was a publicity stunt which promoted fear instead of facts. Even Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) authored the senate bill. He claimed that the protesters are misunderstanding the legislation. He said that the Protect IP Act will affect not any website that has legitimate use like Wikipedia, reddit, etc. He wants people to point to sections of the bill that threatens their websites. Lamar Smith postponed a vote to send SOPA to the chamber floor until next month. Smith and Leahy now want to remove a provision in the legislation that would make the government to seek a court order to block access to the domain names, or We addresses, of websites they believed were pirating copyright material. Their definition of “copyright infringement” is so ambiguous that whole websites can be gone. Some felonies under SOPA or streaming copyrighted content can cause a 5 year prison sentence. That is an extreme policy to say the least. The bill could force compliance from search engines and Internet Service Providers demanding a list of banned web sites and prevent their users from accessing the sites. Advertising networks, payment providers and credit card processors would also be ordered to stop doing business with any site deemed to be acting unlawfully under SOPA. Now, the DHS seized dozens of websites for linking to copyrighted material. This material isn’t even hosted on the website itself. The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized this action as damaging to free speech. The DHS seized a popular music blog and shut down the web site for over a year. The DHS admitted that the charges are totally false. The domain name server (DNS) forward can be suspended for any site accused of piracy if SOPA is passed. A foreign based DNS can allow a person to bypass SOPA restrictions. The entertainment industry still supports SOPA since they claim to want to protect copyrighted material. SOPA is a front to restrict the freedom of speech and crack down on the Internet. Even Senator Joe Lieberman worked with the DHS to promote draconian legislation to mimic the Chinese system of Internet censorship. The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act can allow the President to shut down the Net during times of an emergency. Simultaneously, legislation such as The Cybersecurity Act and the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011″ propose allowing the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications. The libertarians are right that regulation and censorship of the Internet represents an assault on free speech. New roadblocks of e-commerce can come too, which can harm the economy. SOPA and PIPA are real threats to the alternative media that shows the truth all of the time. People from across the political spectrum want freedom not Internet censorship.
The NDAA new law has civil liberty implications. This preventive detention law is one of the most controversial laws from the Barack Obama Presidency. Many people from across the political spectrum express reservations about some sections of the law. NDAA is purely antithetical to the Bill of Rights and the legitimate parts of the Constitution. That is why we need due process and the freedom of speech. Even the journalist Christ Hedges is suing the President, because of the sections from the NDAA. The slick parts of the NDAA law can make people potentially a victim of their rights to be suppressed (without charges or a trial to be locked up for the rest of their lives). Chris Hedges is the author and the former New York Times correspondent. He believes that the new law was passed in order for the state to suppress domestic movements in America that oppose the corporate state. Now, the NDAA law says that the state can deprive the rights of those that “…substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” See, the phrases “substantially supported” and “associated forces” are key words. Legally speaking, “substantial support” (as opposed to material support) can be applied to the speech that the government gives aid and comfort to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. “Associated forces” can be anyone that the state claims to have some association with terrorists. It can be a speech or similar acts. The ambiguous tones of these phrases can list all kinds of people. These people can be reporters and citizens who express a political opinion that is in opposition to the current administration. “Dissent,” says Hedges, “is increasingly equated in this country with treason.” The Fifth Amendment is clear that we have the right to have due process and the First Amendment. Minister Farrakhan told a Chicago radio host, “That act signed into law by our president is an act that is destined to stop those of us who speak truth to power.” I don’t agree with Farrakhan on every issue, but he’s right on this issue. People in numerous communities have championed civil liberties, but we can’t be complacent to support violations to our liberties at all. Some folks have argued that the bill provides an exemption for American citizens in section 1032 which states, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." However, this section, which was intentionally worded in a vague manner, could be construed to mean that the United States military is not required to detain American citizens, but would still have the option of doing so. The NDAA violates the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment, Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and the writ of habeas corpus. The law is very slick and is a real threat to our rights indeed.
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment