The Early Mentors and Influences

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. – Barack’s father was an African socialist. While he was not with his son for much of Barack Jr.’s childhood, they did keep in touch through routine correspondence according to the memoir, Dreams From My Father.

Stanley Ann Dunham – Barack’s mother was a 60′s liberal feminist and an atheist – all the makings of a rebellious, 60′s-era, left-wing radical. There is little written about Barack’s mother and her political views, but from what is known, she was certainly on the left of the political spectrum.

Frank Marshall Davis – “Frank,” as Barack Obama refers to him in his book, Dreams From My Father, was a member of the Communist Party (USA). He was also a former community organizer in Chicago. As a youth, Barack was treated to many of Davis’ rants about white supremacy, white Christianity, and undoubtedly was aware of Davis’ pro-Soviet writings. In his memoir, Barack merely says he was “intrigued” by Davis.

Saul Alinsky – Mr. Alinsky was an avid and open socialist and the king of social activism, commonly called the “father of community organizing.” He created many organizations that relied on street agitation tactics, such as the Industrial Areas Foundation, which trained Obama in organizing tactics. He wrote the book, Rules for Radicals, which outlined many of the tactics used today in community organizing campaigns. Barack Obama worked with the Developing Communities Project and the Gamaliel Foundation – both inspired by Saul Alinsky’s tactics and socialist philosophy. Barack even wrote a chapter on community organizing in the book, After Alinsky. Saul Alinsky’s son, Lee David Alinsky, recently praised Obama on his ability to perform Saul’s tactics, saying that Barack “learned his lesson well.”

John L. McKnight – Referred to as Obama’s “community organizer mentor,” McKnight taught Barack about community organizing while they were both working with the Gamaliel Foundation – a Saul Alinsky production. John McKnight is also a former ACLU director and sits on the board of the National People’s Action (NPA), another leftist community organizing group. He teaches at Northwestern University  and he wrote a letter of recommendation to Harvard for Obama.

Radical Faith Testimonials

Reverend Jeremiah Wright – “Uncle J” was Barack’s former pastor and mentor at Trinity United Church of Christ. The philosophy of the Church is based on the teachings of James Cone’s black liberation theology. Cone admits that his theology is a mix of “black religion and Marxist philosophy.” Wright’s fiery anti-white, anti-capitalist, and anti-United States sermons landed him in a media controversy that eventually led to Barack’s denouncement of him in the spring of 2008, after 20 years of friendship. Wright had married Barack and Michelle and had baptized their two children. The pastor has also worked with Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, and his church’s magazine, Trumpet, has given Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award with praise coming from Wright.

The black liberation theology that is practiced at Trinity is based on James Cone’s version of the religion. He has stated that Trinity represents the most accurate interpretation of his theology. Among the ideas expressed by Cone is the notion that “black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society.” He also believes that “to be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores.” Recently, reports have stated that Cone believes nothing Barack Obama has said or written in his books and speeches contradicts Cone’s black liberation theology. Obama has simply blunted the more “radical edge.” On the other hand, Reverend Wright seems to have a firm grasp on what his theology represents – and he was able to influence Barack Obama with it for 20 years.

Father Michael Pfleger – This seemingly out-of-place white priest with a predominantly black congregation in South Chicago has had a relationship with Obama for nearly 20 years as well. He has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in earmarks and foundation grants from Obama and has contributed to Barack’s multiple political campaigns. He had appeared on Barack’s campaign website under the “Faith” category, but he has since been removed. Much like Wright, Father Pfleger spews fiery racial sermons and gives his support and admiration to Louis Farrakhan. According to Wright’s Trumpet magazine, Pfleger also claims he “got very educated by the [Black] Panthers – very educated.”

Domestic Terrorism and Social “Reform”

William Ayers – Mr. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist and an anti-capitalist. He was a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960′s and one of the militant spin-offs, the terrorist Weather Underground organization. These organizations were comprised of communist (“small ‘c’”) and anti-capitalist radicals. Part of Ayers’ Weather Underground strategy was to align with black revolutionary organizations like the Black Panther Party because among other things, they felt “white America” exploited black people and they were taken to the military-like discipline exhibited by those groups. Their activities included bombing police stations, the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon. In recent years, Ayers has publicly stated that he is not sorry for what he did and wishes that he had done more. He has been photographed stomping on the American flag and says the idea that the United States is a fair and just nation “makes me want to puke.” He has also given speeches in Venezuela praising the efforts in education that the Hugo Chavez regime has been making…efforts that he has been trying to implement in the Chicago school system for decades.

Bill Ayers served for six years on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) with Barack Obama. Both men headed up separate branches of the CAC that worked together on project funding. He also served on the board of the Woods Fund with Obama for three years. In 1995, Ayers hosted the event at his house which would become the kick-start to Obama’s political career. In that “meet-and-greet,” Alice Palmer handed over her Illinois State Senate reins to Barack (more on that later). Ayers wrote a book on the juvenile justice  system which Barack endorsed warmly, then the two were on a panel set up by Michelle Obama to discuss the merits of the book and current (at the time) legislation on the subject – which both Ayers and Obama opposed, as well as Bernardine Dohrn. Barack also taught classes at the University of Illinois-Chicago, where Ayers is a faculty member. In 2002, the Black Radical Congress (BRC) hosted a panel discussion at the University of Illinois-Chicago called “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis.” Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and three endorsers of the BRC were on this panel. Contrary to the protestations by the Obama campaign, Bill Ayers is more than “just a guy” who lives in Barack’s neighborhood.

Bernardine Dohrn – She is the wife of Bill Ayers and a former radical herself. Dohrn was the leader of the Revolutionary Youth Movement of the SDS and the Weather Underground. She was also a signatory of the Weather Underground’s “Declaration of War” against the United States. She was a communist (Marxist-Leninist) and is a convicted criminal for her actions in the violent radical groups she was involved with throughout the 60′s and 70′s, particularly the aforementioned bombings. Dohrn later obtained a position at Sidley & Austin, the law firm where Michelle Obama worked. Dohrn’s father-in-law, Tom Ayers, owned a company which had received long-time outside counsel from Sidley. She obtained her position at Sidley & Austin through Howard Trienens, a senior partner. Trienens, Tom Ayers, and Sidley partner Newton Minow, all served on the board of trustees at Northwestern University. Dohrn is now an adjunct professor at Northwestern.

Mike Klonsky – He was a Maoist, a former SDS national chairman (1968), and formed the “October League” when the SDS broke into several factions. The October League later became the Beijing-recognized U.S. Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), of which Klonsky became a leader in the 70′s, traveling to China and praising the Maoist leadership. He took over the Small Schools Workshop which was created by Ayers, when Ayers headed up the CAC in 1995. The CAC, with Barack as one of its chairs, continued to fund the Workshop throughout the CAC’s existence. Klonsky was also an official blogger for the Obama presidential campaign website in 2008.

Marilyn Katz – She oversaw security for the SDS, where she met Ayers. She was part of the Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which organized the 2002 anti-war speech in Chicago where Barack Obama famously spoke out against the Iraq War. Katz is a signatory of the Progressives for Obama website and the founder of Chicagoans Against War on Iraq. She also happens to have played poker games with Judson Miner, the liberal lawyer who hired Obama upon his return to Chicago after graduating Harvard Law School. Obama met Katz through the Miner Barnhill & Galland law firm. Miner was also a law school classmate of Bernardine Dohrn at the University of Chicago in the 60′s. Katz has held fundraisers for Obama in her home and is a media advisor for the Obama presidential campaign.

Carl Davidson – He was a former leader of the SDS and a Maoist, like Klonsky. He was also one of the organizers for the 2002 anti-war speech. Davidson is the webmaster for the website, Progressives for Obama, which posts blogs from other 60′s radicals like Tom Hayden and Bill Fletcher, who created the website and its agenda.

Bill Fletcher – As mentioned, he was a 60′s radical (a Maoist) and is one of the creators of the Progressives for Obama website. While there is no evidence of a direct connection to the Obama campaign, he has endorsed the call of the Black Radical Congress along with Obama advisor Cornel West and has connections to others that are directly involved with Obama and his campaign.

Incestuous Relationships and Friendly Donations

Woods Fund – In 1993, Barack Obama became a board member with the Woods Fund. A man named Ken Rolling was a program officer with the fund at the time. During the late 80′s the Woods Fund gave grants to the Developing Communities Project, where Obama had worked as a community organizer. At the time, the Woods Fund was supporting the Chicago Local School Councils (LSC’s) which were created from the 1988 Chicago School Reform Act. Bill Ayers was involved with establishing these LSC’s along with his brother John, who was a leader in the LSC’s and became head of the Leadership for Quality Education (LQE) in 1993. The LQE was a group formed at the time of the Reform Act and was supported by a local business lobby that wanted to use the LQE as a means to train the LSC’s. Ayers joined Obama on the board of the Woods Fund in 1999 and they worked together there until 2002.

Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) – Bill Ayers played a seminal role in the creation of the CAC. One of the main goals of the Challenge was to build on the 1988 Reform Act and the LSC’s, which he supported and in which his brother was involved. In 1995, the CAC began its operations with Barack Obama as Chairman of the Board. Bill Ayers was co-chair of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of three branches of the CAC – the Board being another. Ken Rolling was brought in from the Woods Fund as Executive Director. In the first year a 5,000 grant was awarded to the Small Schools Workshop which was founded by Ayers but control was turned over to fellow radical, Mike Klonsky, once Ayers began the CAC. Obama and Ayers worked together in the CAC from 1995 until its end in 2001. That year, the CAC came to an end but handed startup funds over to Penny Pritzker and the Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF). Pritzker is now part of the fundraising operation in the Obama campaign. In 2003, the CAC’s own report admitted that the ultimate goal of the CAC – to improve academic achievement – was a failure. Regardless of the outcome, it is plain that the goals for Ayers and Obama were similar…and knowing Ayers’ past, it isn’t something that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sidley & Austin – This is the Chicago law firm that brought in Obama as a summer associate in 1989. It’s also the firm where Michelle Obama worked and reportedly met Barack for the first time. Sidley had been outside counsel to Tom Ayers’ company, Commonwealth Edison. Howard Trienens, the partner that handled Commonwealth Edison, hired Bernardine Dohrn at Sidley. Trienens was on the board of trustees at Northwestern with Tom Ayers, Dohrn’s father-in-law, and Newton Minow, another Sidley partner.

ACORN – Obama has extensive ties to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, as do his two prominent spiritual influences, Wright and Pfleger. Obama’s Developing Communities Project and his “Project VOTE” campaign worked closely with ACORN. Both the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation – where Obama sat on both boards – gave frequent donations to ACORN. He filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of ACORN to enforce the “motor-voter” law in Illinois. Madeleine Talbot, a former ACORN leader in Chicago, hired Obama to train her staff on organizing tactics. Talbot was arrested for a protest that broke into a Chicago City Council session in 1997. In return for training Chicago ACORN leaders in community organizing techniques, Obama received their help with his political campaigns. Obama had also joined with ACORN to try to overturn Indiana’s voter I.D. laws, but the Supreme Court rejected their complaint.

What is ACORN’s record? In St. Louis, eight local ACORN workers were indicted on charges related to voter fraud from fake information on registration forms in 2006. One of the eight pleaded guilty in March. Seven workers were indicted on felony charges in Seattle because of phony registration forms and some of the workers already had criminal records. Three workers pleaded guilty in 2007 and ACORN eventually settled the largest case of voter fraud in Washington State history, paying ,000 in restitutions. Similar problems are being investigated in at least twelve other states. ACORN’s political action committee (PAC) has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Notable Friends and Advisors

Linda Darling-Hammond – Currently an education advisor to the Obama presidential campaign, Darling-Hammond has some less obvious connections to the leftist agenda, so it will take a little longer to define them. She has writings and has supported the notion of an “education debt” which is said to plague minority communities. This concept is a product of another educator, Gloria Ladson-Billings. Ladson-Billings is one of the pioneers of the phrase “education debt,” which is apparently the by-product (at least in part) of a reparations agenda pushed by people like the factually-incorrect and racist, Randall Robinson and books like, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. In 2006, Ladson-Billings gave her Presidential Address to the leftist-tainted American Educational Research Association (AERA) in which she spoke about repaying the “education debt.” She also announced the selection of Darling-Hammond to the Association’s governing council that same week. As it turns out, Bill Ayers was recently elected as an AERA vice-president (but for some reason, he no longer appears on their website as a VP of curriculum studies.)

Darling-Hammond and Ladson-Billings also appear together in two different liberal education programs, the Forum for Education and Democracy (FED) and the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) “Bold Approach.” Both of these programs preach the concept of “social justice,” which seems to be code for socialist redistribution programs. And they both have more connections to Bill Ayers. Ladson-Billings has contributed writings for Ayers-edited books, she’s been a co-editor with Ayers, and wrote a forward to another of his books. Darling-Hammond, who has taken up the agenda of the two liberal programs, including the notion of the reparations-inspired “education debt,” and is a long-time member of the AERA, has also had her writings appear in an Ayers-edited book. Ayers obviously supports the liberal agenda of both of these educators, the two programs, and the AERA, as does Mike Klonsky, who is a co-signer of the “Bold Approach” agenda.

Laurence Tribe – Mr. Tribe was one of Barack’s professors/mentors at Harvard. He co-founded and is on the board of advisors of the American Constitution Society (ACS), a leftist counter to the Federalist Society. The ACS defines itself as promoting the “progressive” agenda in law. Mr. Tribe has been accused of plagiarizing in one of his books and believes animals should have legal standing to sue humans and businesses. He is on a short list of possible Supreme Court nominees if Obama wins the presidential election and is currently an advisor to his campaign.

Charles Ogletree – He is another one of Barack’s Harvard professors/mentors and an advocate for reparations for slavery, despite the fact that he believes reparations could cost the government trillions of dollars – and the fact that those trillions would come from the taxpayers, including other black people. He has also been accused of plagiarizing, like his colleague Laurence Tribe, and is currently an advisor to the Obama campaign.

Cornel West – Mr. West defines his political ideology as “non-Marxist socialist.” He is an anti-capitalist and honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. He is a contributor/signatory to the Progressives for Obama website and has endorsed the Black Radical Congress’ (BRC) call for a “renewed struggle.” He appeared together with Reverend Jeremiah Wright on a panel called “Faith as a Weapon: Spirituality and the Role of the Church in the Radical Movement” hosted by the newly formed BRC in 1998. West was also involved in the Million Man March and has many other connections to the racist and anti-Israeli, Louis Farrakhan.

Alice Palmer – She is a former executive board member of the U.S. Peace Council (a communist front group), which is an affiliate of the World Peace Council (a Soviet front group). In 1983, she attended the World Peace Council’s Prague Assembly. Palmer wrote an article in the People’s Daily World – a CPUSA newspaper – describing how impressive the Soviet system was when she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. When she decided to give up her Illinois Senate seat in an effort to win an election for U.S. Representative, she identified Barack Obama as her successor in the State Senate. She held a “meet-and-greet” at the home of Bill Ayers for Obama’s introduction into the Illinois political arena.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko – The relationship between Obama and Rezko goes back to 1990. That year, Tony Rezko offered Obama a job with his housing development business, but Obama declined. They remained friends ever since and Rezko became one of Obama’s biggest campaign contributors. Over the years, Barack has obtained millions of dollars in grants for Rezko to build inner-city housing. However, many of these properties have been plagued by financial misdeeds and problems with infrastructure and maintenance. One project for a senior-citizens complex garnered million for Rezko and his business partner, Allison Davis – an Obama fundraiser and former boss at the law firm then named Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. At the time Obama’s letter was written asking for legislative support for the project, Cottage View Terrace, Obama was a lawyer with Miner Barnhill & Galland – the same law firm but without Davis as a partner. The firm had several companies owned by Rezko and Davis as clients, but not New Kenwood LLC which was in charge of Cottage View Terrace. Tony Rezko was recently convicted of several felonies involving corruption and kickbacks to various Chicago politicians.

In June 2005, Barack Obama and Tony Rezko purchased adjacent properties on the same day and from the same owner in Chicago. Obama paid 0,000 below the asking price while Rezko paid full price. At the time, it was already known that Rezko was under investigation for criminal charges. In January of 2006, Mrs. Rezko sold a ten foot strip of property to Obama. When asked about the questionable circumstances surrounding the purchase of the two properties, Obama apologized and said his actions were “boneheaded.”

Rashid Khalidi – Mr. Khalidi is a Palestinian political activist and a professor at Columbia University. For six years in Beirut, he was the director of WAFA, the official Palestinian press agency where his wife had also worked as chief editor of the English section. Mr. Khalidi has also worked with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the height of its terrorist campaigns in the Middle East. While in Chicago, the Khalidi’s created the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), an anti-Israeli group, and received ,000 in grants from the Woods Fund when Obama and Ayers were on the board. Khalidi has also held fundraisers for Obama and the Obama’s have had many dinners at the Khalidi’s home in Chicago. Khalidi also started the website Electronic Intifada – an anti-Israeli site – with Ali Abunimah, another Obama associate. Both Khalidi and Abunimah have considered Obama a friend and ally to their cause.

Robert Malley – This former “informal” foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign resigned in May 2008 due to allegations that he was meeting with members of the terrorist organization, Hamas. Malley dismissed his meetings with these contacts as simply being part of his job. But he is also anti-Israeli with a long list of op-ed articles – some co-authored by former Yasser Arafat advisors – with a revisionist slant and intent to denounce Israeli attempts for peace and security. Not surprisingly, Malley’s father was a fervent anti-Western, “Third-Worldist” who wrote about liberation “struggle” – leftist code for anti-capitalism and pro-socialist/communist movements.

Other Supporters of Obama and/or His Policies

Hugo Chavez – Venezuelan dictator
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – President of Iran
Fidel Castro – Cuban dictator
Party of European Socialists
Louis Farrakhan – Supreme Minister, Nation of Islam
Democratic Socialists of America
Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
Frank Chapman – Member of U.S. Peace Council Executive Committee (an FBI-identified communist front group)
Mark Solomon – National co-chair, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
Joel Wendland – Managing editor of CPUSA online magazine Political Affairs: Marxist Thought Online
Pepe Lozano – Leader in the Chicago Youth Communist League and editorial board member of CPUSA newspaper, People’s World Weekly

Closing Thoughts

These are not just associations. All of these connections are family members, close friends and “mentors,” and affiliations/organizations that Obama willingly participated with and in – and financially supported. If Barack doesn’t know about their past and their political ideologies, then he is oblivious to his surroundings and does not belong in the White House as the leader of our country. If he knew about these things but didn’t think they mattered, then he is beyond naïve and does not belong in the White House. If he knew about these things and openly welcomed it, then he’s just downright dangerous and does not belong on a local school board, let alone in the White House.

All of these incestuous relationships directly place Barack Obama deep inside the socialist/communist movements in Chicago. His plans and policies are radical and his associations and partners are mostly on the very far left of politics. Socialism and communism are not – and shouldn’t be – acceptable philosophies in this country, especially from a person running for president. This isn’t simply a matter of “guilt by association.” These relationships are long-lasting and ingrained into Barack’s political philosophy and ideology. There’s a reason why he will do anything and everything it takes to ignore, deny, or denounce every one of these associations once they are brought to the public’s attention.

Is this guilt by association? Not at all. These associations demonstrate a pattern of relationships with leftist radicals, criminally corrupt developers, and racially divisive activists. These relationships are not a matter of happenstance either. Barack sought out these groups from his early days. He did not grow up in Chicago – he chose to live there. His associations are a direct result of his decision-making and his chosen path to political power. He willingly participated in socialist-minded groups and worked with radicals and unrepentant criminals. He is beyond dangerous to this republic of ours and his policies are beyond destructive.

For all of the voters going to the polls in November to vote for change:

You have been warned.

Related Blogs

• Commentary » Blog Archive » Campaign Finance Reform? Just More …
• Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » “You Haven't Freed Nobody”
• Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services deeply involved in …
• Rules for Reactionaries: Lie, distort, misinform…. (reposted from …
• Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis was a sex pervert who …
• DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » 'What Would Saul Alinsky Do?'
• Barack Obama's Connections to Socialism, Communism and Racial …
• World Wide Waddie – FACEBOOK WAR: Lady Gaga Vs. Barack Obama
• Barack Obama: Corrupt-ocrat | RedState
• A combined opposition cannot just be anti-PPP : Kaieteur News

1. I Ain’t Yo Nigger!
2. Hip-Hop Mozart
3. Spot the Black MP

The Justice Ministry statistics showed that the number of black people being stopped and searched under counter-terrorism laws rose by 322%, compared with 277% for Asian people and 185% for white people.

If you recall, back in late October 2003, the bell rang out on round two of the ongoing battle between the government and the BBC, with the screening of the shocking, and much-talked-about documentary The Secret Policeman.

The BBC promised to show us damning new evidence of racism in the police force that would be impossible to ignore, valiantly bringing the issue into the open, and forcing a fresh public debate. Our man in blue examined the fallout, and while it was certainly as infuriating and sickening to watch as promised, the title of the programme was telling. The Secret Policeman – but secret to whom exactly?

Ballistic Turbans? Is it even possible?

I doubt that there were many black people rubbing their eyes in disbelief as the programme aired, many Asian people fretfully wringing their hands around the water cooler the next morning. Indeed, the satisfaction that many blacks and Asians may have felt at finally seeing the racism, that they have long known still infects the police force, so powerfully attested to on screen, will have been mixed with frustration and anger that only now is mainstream society taking their complaints seriously. Now they have seen it, they believe it. “Well,” some might say, “we have been telling you this for years. Welcome to our world.”

Star of this particular show was North Wales’ PC Rob Pulling, who, with minimal coaxing from undercover BBC report Mark Daly bragged about his fantasy of killing a ‘Paki’, said that Stephen Lawrence ‘deserved to die,’ and branded Lawrence’s parents ‘spongers.’ But Pulling was ably assisted by a strong supportive cast of like-minded heavy-browed knuckle-dragging colleagues, who spoke openly of the hatred of ‘Pakis’ and their and their discretionary application of B.A.T when dishing out on-the-spot-fines to ethnic minorities (Black Added Tax).

No surprises that the report became a national talking point and a tabloid cause celebre. Rarely had police officers been caught on camera being so openly, viciously racist. However, the shock was more profound because so many wanted to believe that, post- Macpherson, racism in the police force wasn’t a problem any more. After the bungled Stephen Lawrence enquiry, society nodded solemnly, learned to speak the language of institutional racism, and put the whole unpleasant incident down as a learning experience. Mr and Mrs Decent of Middle England tutted one last time, thanked God that all that horrid racialism business had been sorted out, and buried their heads safely back in the sand.

But now they have been wakened from their slumber again in the most sensational, and satisfyingly narrative, manner: by a brave, crusading journalist, who put himself on the line to root out the horrible truths that no-one else had the guts to pursue; by astonishing covert camera footage of new police recruits mimicking – in scenes nauseatingly reminiscent of the Stephen Lawrence suspects – the assault of an Asian colleague. PC Pulling provided the headline-grabbing climax by cutting eye-holes in a pillowcase in an approximation of a KKK hood.

The furore was aggravated by the inelegant intervention of the government, with a senior Home Office civil servant allegedly attempting to suppress the film. David Blunkett himself condemned it as a ‘stunt’ days before it was screened, and without any knowledge of its contents, only to backtrack embarrassingly after the broadcast, admitting that his comment had been ‘a mistake.’

However, the willingness of the normally bullish Home Secretary to make such a public U-turn was surprising. Was he forced into it because the contents of the programme were so patently indefensible that it would be suicidal not to? Or did he, with his experienced politician’s nose for an opportunity, sense that he might turn the whole incident to his advantage?

For, disturbing, arresting stuff as The Secret Policeman was, what did it actually reveal to us? Did it provide a genuine insight into the ongoing problem of bigotry in the police force?

Or was it ultimately a sensational grab for the moral high ground that – though well intentioned – will ultimately play into the hands of the ‘few bad apples’ brigade who have sidelined the issue of police racism for decades?

As a gripping good-against-evil narrative, the film was a triumph: the courageous white hero, boldly uncovering wrongdoing, and unmasking the reassuringly, telegenically grotesque villains – the ‘bad apples’ who can quickly be expunged with a quick-fix of purging, public soul-searching, and promises to do better. But, ultimately, doesn’t this just play into the hands of the likes of Blunkett who, with his stance on asylum seekers, has done as little as any Home Secretary in recent memory to further race relations in this country, and for whom the ascendancy of Jean Marie Le-Pen in France was an excuse to cosy up further with the Daily Mail-re a ding classes, and trot out the old line that, unless we take a ‘hard line’ on issues of race and nationality, the doors will be left open to the ‘real’ extremists.

But, regardless of how quickly and cheaply it might placate the masses; a quick fix will never be enough. Regardless of what we might wish, the odious goons caught on camera in The Secret Policeman were unlikely to be the most racist officers in the country. Just the most unlucky. And the most stupid.

You didn’t have to be an investigative reporter to know that none of those featured had turned their backs on promising careers in rocket science or brain surgery in favour of donning the bell-shaped helmet of justice. By focusing their investigation on the most jaw-droppingly vile individuals they could train a camera on, the BBC has allowed society to look outside itself once more for the root causes of racism – to believe that it is a problem caused solely by a handful of skin-headed, Sie-Heiling zealots, rather than by a cancerous, pervasive mistrust and fear of ‘the other’ that lives in the hearts of all of us, white or black.

This is the everyday reality of racism; a reality that made Tony Blair’s claim, in the days after the documentary was screened, that, “the vast bulk of police officers are…not in any shape or form racist,” at best naive, and at worst wilfully dishonest. As is his wont, Blair was re-iterating the comforting illusion that racism is defined by calling Asians ‘Pakis’, blacks ‘niggers’, and enjoying the work of Jim Davidson. The truth is that the real agents of racism are nice/decent people, who, unlike PC Tony Lewin, would never smilingly confess, “I’m a racist bastard.”

Given that the police draw their ranks from a racist society; can we really expect them to be better than the rest of us, no matter how much we need them to be? The answer is no. But, what we cannot tolerate is for them to be worse than the society they are charged with protecting. And the worrying truth is that they are. People often speak of a ‘police culture’ – it is a handy label, often glibly and lazily applied. But the ‘police culture’ does exist. I know, because I have been a part of it.

For just under 18 months, I worked as a civilian, but in an operational role, for a large regional police force, and in that time, I met no one even remotely as contemptible as the likes of PCs Pulling and Lewin. I met a lot of deeply pleasant, civilized people, and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I heard racial epithets being used. And yet, I still came away disappointed, believing that the police force is a racist institution.

One thing that was illustrated by The Secret Policeman is that, for all their faults, those at the top of the policing hierarchy seem to be doing their best to drive out racism. The problem is amongst the rank and file, who are a fiercely protective, inward looking unit, overwhelmingly comprised white males. They are supported by a union – the Police Federation – that has learnt the language of ‘political correctness’, and uses it to their advantage, while simultaneously muttering darkly about how it hampers them in their work.

Political correctness is the modern bête-noire of the police force. I soon lost count of the number of times I spotted a disgruntled officer shaking the pages of his Daily Mail in disgust, and repeating their dreary, charmless mantra: ‘It’s political correctness gone mad!’ The overwhelming feeling was that the drive to eliminate racial profiling in every d a y policing (with the monitoring of Stop and Search records etc) and to be transparent and accountable in all they do, flew in the face of ‘common sense’, and stopped the officers from doing their jobs effectively. On a more general level, the sense was that the imposition of supposedly ‘PC’ values in language and so on, represented a ‘sissification’ of an institution that needed men to be men.

The irony, of course, was that politically correct language actually hampered the quest to root out racist practice. It was notable from the BBC film, and from my own experience of the training received by officers, that the overwhelming emphasis was on what you could and couldn’t say. While it goes without saying that a police officer who uses words like ‘coon’ or ‘Paki’ is unfit for the job and it is made abundantly clear that use of such language is a sacking offence, the overwhelming emphasis on language is turning the pursuit of racism into a phoney war. All that is being taught is a new, safe vocabulary, such that the political correctness that causes so much consternation amongst the rank and file ends up acting as a safety blanket.

Justice Ministry statistics for 2009 shows that black people stopped and searched rose by 322% under counter-terrorism laws, compared with 277% for Asian people and 185% for white people.

I witnessed first-hand how the language of political correctness ends up becoming a parody of itself, ultimately serving only to sugar-coat the same boorish, racist sentiments. One thing the police are great at is inventing jargon. In this spirit, they have created a number of alphanumeric codes to represent different ethnic groupings. Naturally, white people are IC1, while black people are labelled IC3. But what use is a dispassionate, alphanumeric moniker, when it is used in the kind of ways I heard when I was a ‘civvie’: When two known black offenders from another area are rumoured to be local: “If you see any IC3s walking down the street or driving about, you fucking pull ‘em”. Or, quite simply, when talking about a black suspect for a robbery: “Fucking IC3s!”

Are we meant to feel better that officers can be advised – formally or informally – to target ‘IC3s’ or ‘African- Caribbeans’ for Stop and Search? That some officers sit around wearily discussing IC3s and their love for ‘wacky backy’? What has changed except the language?

All the same, while overt racist attitudes exist in the police force, as they do in every sphere, the idea that it is no more than a uniformed arm of the BNP is dead wrong. The real toxicity of the ‘police culture’ is its overwhelming emphasis on machismo and conformity. In truth, the problem of racism in the police is a mere corollary of these two things.

While some people might be attracted to the police force out of some unpleasant authoritarian impulse, I still believe that most do so out of a desire to serve the public, and that the vast majority of these people are decent, honest folk. However, so strong is the ‘police culture’, that all but the strongest recruits inevitably finds themselves swayed by it. Ultimately, you have to conform to survive, and almost everyone ends up reverting to a default position of macho, no-bullshit, boys’ club posturing. Unfortunately, what might be termed as ‘traditional’ attitudes on race and colour are as much a part of this as ‘traditional’ attitudes on gender, sexuality, religion, and countless other issues, and it takes a brave individual to rock the boat.

So, in a way, Tony Blair was right. The overt, loutish racists, like those captured on The Secret Policeman are in a tiny minority in the police force. But, it has a far larger problem on its hands, in the poisonously macho, conformist culture that holds sway amongst the rank and file – a culture that stifles progress and dissent, that wilfully and crassly shuts out that which doesn’t fit in with its white, male-dominated credo, and which encourages potentially good officers to do nothing in the face of bad practice. And that is a problem for which there is no quick fix.

Related Blogs

• Clegg blasts rivals' cut plans in TV debate | Public Property UK
• Prince William's First SAR Posting – North Wales! | British Royals
• Pakistan hospital bomb blast kills nine – AFP « Web Hay News …
• Hospital bomb attack kills at least 10 | the very latest news
• Disbelief and Enemy of the Sun new songs available online …
• Weho Daily » fountain la brea is man assaulting woman – male …
• Park Police Seek Vandal Allegedly Writing Racist Messages – City …
• Cowboys & Turbans Indian Mexican street food fusion
• World star Cesaria Evora to lead secret Chinese center? | The …
• The Absurd Report » William Ayers' Wyoming Debacle Highlights …

1. A Message to Those Messing with the Messengers
2. The Trials, Traumas and Triumphs of the British Black Press

Of 646 MPs, only 15 are from BME communities. Of those, only 2 are women, and to date, there has not been an Asian woman MP. Justice and equality are the driving forces behind achieving representative democracy for BME communities. A closer reflection of society would be nearer 60 MPs of which over half would be women.

Operation Black Vote in partnership with the Communities and Local Government (CLG) are delighted to re-launch the dynamic MP Shadowing Scheme. The aim of the cross-party project is to address the deficit of BME individuals in all areas and at levels of political life and nurture a generation of BME leaders

Building upon the unprecedented success of Operation Black Vote’s award winning Shadowing Schemes – Councillor, National Assembly for Wales, Magistrates, and Parole Board – this project aims to help tackle the under representation of BME individuals within parliamentary life and also demystify the functions of our elected institutions.

Programme aims and objectives:

What does the programme comprise of?
The cross-party programme will enable 25 dynamic BME individuals aged 18 years upwards to shadow Members of Parliament from constituencies around Britain. Participants will gain an invaluable experience of parliamentary politics at Westminster and in the local constituency. The programme will comprise of approximately 10-12 non-consecutive days over a six-month period and individuals will participate in a mixture of shadowing days and training sessions.

The initiative will focus on giving participants first hand knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of MPs and an insight into Parliamentary systems and procedures. Our aim is that upon completion, this leadership programme will equip and motivate participants to engage in political activities. Participants will also be encouraged to become Community Ambassadors, explaining and promoting the benefits of political engagement and encouraging others to also become involved in democratic and civic life. The scheme will also give MPs and Party officials an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of BME communities. OBV view this process as essential to involving BME communities in the wider scope of activities within the decision making process.

Learning Seminars:
Shadows will attend learning seminar sessions in addition to politician’s briefings.

To include:

The Process
OBV in conjunction with the CLG will select a total of 25 BME men and women to participate in the programme. Candidates will comprise a mix of BME communities and will shadow MPs from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

Participants will follow a programme devised by OBV that allows a unique perspective of MPs, both at Westminster and in the constituency. On completion of the scheme, shadows will have gained a better understanding of the political process to consider putting themselves forward as candidates for elected office.

Requirements of Applicants:

Is there a fee?
No. There is not a cost to participate on the programme as OBV are keen to promote political engagement in political life.

Travel and food costs will be reimbursed for shadowing and training days.

What happens when the scheme has finished?

OBV’s Shadowing Schemes and leadership programmes have received numerous awards for their ability to inform and inspire. Many graduates have become Cllrs, Magistrates, School Governors, with others creating political history as political firsts.

Our aim is that upon completion, this leadership programme will equip participants with the skills and motivations to engage in public life. All participants who successfully complete the programme will be awarded with a certificate of recognition.

In addition, participants will join OBV’s Alumni programme, which will provide assistance, support and networking opportunities to further develop your political aspirations.

What is the next step?
If you are interested in applying to the programme, please complete the application form and return it to OBV by Monday 1st February 2010 at 12 noon.

Print this page and download an application form.

Please note that interviews will take place in London at the end of February/ beginning of March 2010.

For any further information, please contact:
Francine Fernandes, Head of Shadowing Schemes, Operation Black Vote (020 8983 5426).

1. Issues in Black Mental Health
2. Slave Narratives: the Bedrock of Black Literature?
3. On Black History Month

Mine eyes doth itch: Doth that bode weeping, dear Emilia? …
O! these men. These men!

The Illustrated London News.
After the Age of Utopias came what we may call the American Age, lasting as long as the Boom. Men like Ford or Mond seemed to many to have solved the social riddle and made capitalism the common good. But it was not native to us; it went with a buoyant, not to say blatant optimism, which is not our negligent or negative optimism. Much more than Victorian righteousness, or even Victorian self-righteousness, that optimism has driven people into pessimism. For the Slump brought even more disillusionment than the War. A new bitterness, and a new bewilderment, ran through all social life, and was reflected in all literature and art. It was contemptuous, not only of the old Capitalism, but of the old Socialism. Brave New World is more of a revolt against Utopia than against Victoria.
– A review. The Illustrated London News, May 1935. By G.K. Chesterton.

Patriarchy. Capitalism. De-Capitalism & Le Guillotine.

The Western world dominates the world. The whole world. The world and over. We are all enchained to the monstrous guillotine of capitalism, de-capitalism. There is in our time an onslaught of anxieties due to the myriads forms of identity crises. Myriad and mounting. And like Babel escalating. And if that is not bad enough, we also happen to be at the terminal of the path of our eternal quest for identity. Away, far away from the Mother, contemptuous of her and restless for knowledge of her power so to undo her, contemptuous and ahistorical, we refuse her tomb-like womb, and our back to her, away, always away, far away from her, we now stand under there where extremities meet, and there, the Archaic and Dark Mother, four times ninety-degrees, her tomb-like womb.

The demise of patriarchy, and there is an impending loss of all things familiar. We saw it coming, even before McLuhan. We saw it as soon as Gutenberg, and who knows, perhaps even Galileo. The demise of Patriarchy: And of course we recourse to misogyny. Dispossessing the indigenous ones.

You mustn’t be embarrassed. I’ve lost everything. It costs me very little to beg you.

Baroness Von Blixen. Out of Africa.

Now take back the soul of Denys George Finch Hatton… whom You have shared with us. He brought us joy… and we loved him well. He was not ours. He was not mine.

Baroness Von Blixen. Out of Africa.

The inheritance. The return of the Prodigal sons. The ego and the eternal quest for identity.

Patriarchy is dead. There is no God, and there is no country.
And the emperor?
Stripped naked. Stark. … And here comes the pattern, the compulsion repetitive: Nietzsche’s madman.
What madman? What pattern? ….

Diane Jonte Pace. Speaking the Unspeakable. An inevitable experience of the loss of the archaic mother …. establishes a pattern in which any loss or fear of loss has the potential to trigger anxiety about … the maternal body. … an inevitability to misogyny, a kind of repetition compulsion. Only a deep understanding of our propensity to retreat to misogyny in time of crisis can help us transcend this pattern.

Brave New World. Here Comes the Brave New World.

The times. A sign of the times. The end times. The indigenous age. The indigenous world. Is this not the same which Zola, Emile Zola branded Brave New World? Germinal. Germinal … a vision of a Brave New World in which justice would reign and men would be brothers? The meltdown, and Capitalism, like Mistah Kurtz, Capitalism dead. He dead. So is God. Him along with stuff of patriarchy, each one unsustainable, the repetition compulsion, the inevitability to misogyny, nature and peoples indigenous.

A Brave New World?

The Archaic and Dark Mother: Everywhere. She is everywhere. Selfsame, she is uncanny and wild. The Archaic and Dark Mother, her ways uncivilized and savage, she is beauteous and swift. The Archaic and Dark Mother, the selfsame to the rescue. The rescue. The rescue. To the rescue. The coming of the indigenous age. Matriarchy, archaic and dark, and once lost to us, she is returned in a guise or rather we are returned to her. The Archaic and Dark Mother, as Technology, she is returned. Her tomb-like womb, a widening gyre, dark and seductive, and coercing mourning, a worldwide mourning, all and each to be siphoned into a world oceanic, tombs and wombs, where no boundaries, no identities, no boundaries and no egos. There, there is no God, no country, no borders, no boundaries and we are told it is the indigenous age, and it is the indigenous at heart who reign supreme.

You mustn’t be embarrassed. I’ve lost everything. It costs me very little to beg you.

Baroness Von Blixen. Out of Africa.

Now take back the soul of Denys George Finch Hatton… whom You have shared with us. He brought us joy… and we loved him well. He was not ours. He was not mine.

Baroness Von Blixen. Out of Africa.

Mourning&Matriarchy. Technology. A Brave New World.

The coming of the indigenous age. The Global Village. The savage oceanic inundation of the Mother, dark, archaic and uncanny, in her presence everything interconnected, the life-force, energies and currencies, merchants enchanting the high seas, the oceanic feeling, …. Who ever thought about it; Technology. Technology, inter-netting, merging net-worlds, creating societies which transcend borders, countrymen and women losing their identities online, and whole countries bordering on losing their sovereignty, twitter revolutions and then Humpty-Dumpty, London Bridge falling down, ….

… Technology. She is the Archaic and Dark Mother in disguise. In disguise. Technology, legerdemain, beauteous and swift, she takes pride of place where Global Hegemony sought to attain, … Technology, and the experience for us is like with Jonah and the whale, octopus-like, online net-worlds, worlds and identities, meeting and merging, threaten to swallow us up and send us a-wallowing. A-wallowing, for this here is the Gutenberg Galaxy.

Mine eyes doth itch: Doth that bode weeping, dear Emilia? ….
O! these men. These men!

A Brave New World? Rally the chief mourners. A chance. A chance. A chance for humanity. For all humanity is one. And the only way is through. A Brave New World. Technology: The Archaic Mother as guise.
Good Mourning! Mourning becomes eclectic. Mourning, and then matriarchy. The ritual of mourning and the promise of renaissance.

To a Brave New World!
To a Brave New World!

1. Mourning and Matriarchy
2. This Small Thing Called Tribalism
3. Corporations on Trial

Let me first nail my colours firmly to the mast. The BNP is a fascist organisation, which is necessarily antidemocratic. Its policies are as illegal as they are illogical. Many of its prominent members have criminal records, for violent crimes and the incidence of racist violence increases wherever it enjoys electoral success or assumes a raised public profile. I am implacably opposed to their very existence. Having said all this, the BBC’s decision to give Griffin a platform on Question Time was inevitable and criticising the BBC for doing so is aiming at the wrong target. Allow me to explain why I consider this to be the case.

The BNP enjoys the status of a legal political party. As long as it does and subject to it crossing the threshold of electoral significance, the BBC had no credible choice but to provide them with a platform. The BBC Charter, approved by Parliament, obliges the BBC to give political parties the right to speak to its audiences. The criteria used by the BBC to determine the BNP’s electoral significance was exactly the same as that which applied to the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party), Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists), Green Party and UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party).

So here is an idea, Messrs Hain, Abbott et al: instead of bleating at the BBC, why not do something which is in your powers but (quite rightly) outside of theirs, namely ban the BNP? Now, some of you may well be asking: what is the case for such draconian action against this organisation? There are several good reasons for the it to be outlawed. Firstly, a political point: they are necessarily antidemocratic; it is therefore absurd that they are allowed to hijack the democratic process to pursue their antidemocratic objectives. History repeatedly teaches us that this never ends well. Secondly, many of their actions are unlawful: they discriminate on racial grounds on who is eligible for membership. Following a recent legal case brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, they are obliged to consider changing this and to suspend acquiring new members until they do so. However, even if they make such a dramatic transformation, this will not change the third reason for outlawing them: their policies are illegal. They are committed to paying legally settled ‘immigrants’ and their descendants money to leave Britain. Ironically, this is discrimination on racial grounds against white Britons, who would be offered no such inducements to head for America, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere. Additionally, they are committed to unilaterally reneging on Britain’s obligations to refugees, which are governed by international law.

The legal case for outlawing the BNP, is I would contend, a compelling one. However, what are the democratic implications of such a move? Would this be the first step on a slippery slope towards banning all political parties that the powers that be find objectionable? Absolutely not, for two reasons. The first of these is the antidemocratic nature of the BNP; it is paradoxical to argue for the continued legal existence of an antidemocratic organisation on the grounds of democracy. The second is the malign effects of their electoral success and public profile. However objectionable some people may find the policies of the SNP, say, or the Greens, their success does not put families and communities at risk of violence. In sharp contrast, violence follows the BNP like flies following a bad smell.

Let me make it clear that I have no issue arguing with their opinions, which, intellectually and morally bankrupt as they are, present little challenge. However, the terms of any such debate must change, to protect the lives and wellbeing of people likely to be subjected to the violent excesses of their knuckle dragging hard core members and hangers-on. As long as they are legal, the lives of children, young people and women in particular are at increased risk, because like most thugs, those who commit unprovoked racist attacks are cowards, likely to prey on ‘soft’ targets.

A common counter argument to outlawing the BNP and its ilk is that, forced underground, they may become more dangerous. It is better, so this argument goes, to have them openly active where they can be seen. This is unsupported by the facts. The violence that surrounds the BNP is seldom out in the open, except in occasional street confrontations with organised anti fascist and anti racist opponents. Racist thugs, in common with all criminals, wish to do their work undetected. On the other hand, the democratic legitimacy conferred on the BNP by being a legally recognised political party hands them two gifts: publicity and respectability.

We would all do well to remember that the banning of political organisations in Britain is nothing new. Simply being a member of some Irish republican organisations is a crime. Several so-called Islamist organisations have also been outlawed in recent years. If a political party was established to promote the sexual exploitation of children, would banning it from standing for election be an affront to democracy? I would certainly hope not. The BNP is just as dangerous to many children as paedophiles and their claim to political legitimacy is just as suspect.

I am therefore calling upon democratic politicians of all parties and none to do the job you should have done a long time ago: ban the BNP now! And I am calling on all voters who oppose racism and fascism to write to your MPs, demanding that they stand up for democracy and community safety.

1. Stop and Search: Racism in Blue
2. The Trials, Traumas and Triumphs of the British Black Press
3. This Small Thing Called Tribalism

I met up with the Right Honourable Phillip J. Pierre – Minister for Tourism, Commerce, Investment and Consumer Affairs – to discover his philosophy on sustainable tourism and economic development in the region.

I wanted an opportunity to sit with the Minister and talk about some of the things that were of interest to our Drum readers. They wanted to know about sustainable development. I wanted to find out how Drum could help to encourage more travel to the Caribbean and have a presence in the area. One of the obvious benefits would be in helping to develop a stronger skill base (and economic potential) to counteract the usual Caribbean brain drain.

Returning nationals can only be a good thing, or so I thought, either by way of investment and business, or simply as a beautiful country in which to live and enjoy life.

What we so often see instead is foreign nationals investing in the Caribbean who don’t always have the people’s best interests at heart. I was playing Devil’s Advocate now.

The minister smiled and nodded his agreement but before turning to tourism, I wanted to challenge his perception of a changing Saint Lucian youth culture blighted by the ever-present effects of Uncle Sam.

So does American TV and culture really influence the behaviour of young people in Saint Lucia?

The question and the challenge we have is how to get through to our young people. If you walk in Castries now, you can see that the influence of American television and culture is international, and you could be anywhere in the world. The style is the same, the music the same, the dancing the same, everything. The problem that we have is how, if possible, to stem that flow. How to reach out and reclaim our young people? And it’s partly down to the media.

What has happened is that the press in this region has become political. The press believes that its role is to attack Government. They don’t look at issues like the cultural dynamics, negative influences from abroad, or the bridging of different Caribbean interests; their role is to attack Government. The press has a responsibility, and its responsibility is to inform, not to pressure. The press has become like a pressure group.

So how do you persuade the press to act more responsibly?

Well, you see, anybody can become a journalist in Saint Lucia. People leave school, they have a CSE in English; they become press people. It is the only occupation that you need no qualification to enter in Saint Lucia. So, the press now becomes an imposition of the personality, or the group, which owns it. You guys have a variety of press, left, right, centre, and whatever. You don’t have that problem.

Why do all the top jobs in big hotels seem to go to foreigners?

For the simple reason that we entered the tourism industry late. We made our money in bananas. The best brains did not go into tourism. That’s a fact. A hotel owner would prefer to hire a Saint Lucian because he pays him less. He doesn’t have to give him a house. He doesn’t have to bring his wife and children down. We’ve been late in the tourism industry. We are a banana people. Bananas made our money. When I was in school, I had the best brain but I would never go into tourism. I studied economics.

And your friends?

My friends all studied physics and maths. We became historians, got degrees in science, studied English Literature–while some of the other guys did medicine. So what happened when the country entered the tourism industry is that the guys, all due respect to them, who didn’t pass exams–they all went into tourism.

So there you have your answer. Now, there is a new generation of hotel managers emerging. Bright young people who have studied hotel management and can pass exams. And further, in the hotel industry, you must start from the bottom.

Does the government encourage foreign investors to empower local people through training and educational grants and bursaries?

Of course we do. I’m a Pan-Africanist. I’m a fellow who really believes in black empowerment and the collective interests of our people, but I will not tell you that this or that action is deliberate. I will tell you that there might be barriers put in the way. It’s like the bar might have been a little higher sometimes because in the tourist industry you basically serve white people. I never wanted to serve white people.

So can advertising aimed exclusively at white holiday makers really encourage returning nationals or other black frequent flyers like myself with a natural connection to Saint Lucia and the rest of the Caribbean?

I know what you’re getting at. You see, we have not planned the vertical change in the tourism industry. We do not control the source. We are only at the level of the service.

We’ve got to economically empower ourselves, and what empowers us is money. Black people because of our lack of education and access, and I don’t mean degrees, but we are always working for other people. This is a serious problem that is not easily solved.

My brother, if you look at it superficially, you will see that what has happened to us is that we have not gone where money is. If you look at the black families in Saint Lucia who had money in the past, they have no money now, because they didn’t put it into wealth creation and emerging industries.

How does Saint Lucia support returning nationals?

This government has helped returning nationals a lot. You come back here; you get all your stuff duty free. Once you’ve lived ten years in England and you come back to Saint Lucia, you can bring in all your belongings duty free. You get your car, your equipment, your tools, you get everything duty free. We welcome you back home in order to help create a more stable environment for our future.

Do you sometimes find your hands tied by the workings of the US?

Part of the problem is that we cannot legislate for the majority because we get buckled by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

So your economic policy has to be across the board otherwise I get called by the US State Department because we want to only import 25% of chickens from abroad. We have our own chickens! But I get called by the State Department all the time because they tell me we are flouting WTO rules.

In other words, Uncle Sam still has power over developing economies through organisations like the World Bank, IMF, WTO and others. So now, as Caribbean people in the region, we have to be strategically prepared, and decide that we’re working together, and forget partisan politics.

Can a British magazine like Drum provide any real help in this climate?

First of all, you have to up your circulation in this region. I noticed that you’ve had some very interesting articles. I’ve been getting it. Did you see a copy in the waiting room outside? It’s very striking.

I saw a few topics there that are real. You had something called Men on the Downlow, about men who go out with men. That’s a real topic. A topic that plenty in Saint Lucia wouldn’t want to believe exists because most people are still homophobic. If a guy in Saint Lucia wants to pay you an insult, he’ll call you, “Bulla” (gay). Though you’re probably not a homosexual and he knows nothing about your lifestyle. “Bulla,” he’ll shout.

So you see where we are – education, education, education! Whether it’s Barbados, Saint Lucia, Antigua or Jamaica, there are a number of similar issues that we need to face and come together and work on in the Caribbean. Other people do it. Why not us? But it takes guys like you who have transgressed, guys who have gone that step further, and can be role models to our people.

They’ll listen to you. No one listens to me, I’m a politician.

Word on the street was that the Honourable Phillip J. Pierre could be the next Saint Lucian Prime Minister. In the general elections that followed months later, his party was ousted from power. It seems that no one was listening.

1. Sylvester Stein Republished
2. Playing the Game: Subverting Colonial Power Structures in Kaffir Boy & Things Fall Apart
3. Hip-Hop Mozart