It was precisely because Walter Rodney disagreed with this ahistorical, unscientific position that Tanzania became his finishing school. It is my position that the practice and experience of Tanzania served to reinforce his belief that Pan-Afrikanism was the only way forward for Africa – that individual African countries could not achieve development as neocolonial mini-states and, further, that the class struggle was the locomotive on which we would arrive at the socialist Union of African States.
The thing that got to me was that he was not content with calling me a “black bastard”, as the rest of his ilk would have done. For those people, it is the word “black”, when attached to “bastard”, that holds the potent abusive quotient. In a manner of speaking, “bastard” is merely the packaging, the lead piping; the word “black” is the incendiary element in the pipe-bomb of racial abuse. Indeed, “black” for them is a term of abuse, which is why the pure racist, the bona fide article, is loath to use the word “black” to describe a black person they happen to be “fond of”. In such rare cases, they use “coloured”, or even “African”, in its stead.
One eloquent index that the deal is a disastrous one for Guyanese is the fact that even the IMF urged the Georgetown government to take a tougher line. “Existing production-sharing agreements appear to enjoy royalty rates well below what is observed internationally”, the World Bank’s partner-in-crime said in a statement. You know this deal must stink to high heaven when even the premier neocolonial agency [the IMF] charged with the duty of siphoning-off wealth from the poor to the rich countries can raise such an objection.
Thus, when all the lies are separated from the objective empirical matter, the imperialist adventure in Libya was predicated on Gaddafi’s alleged use of black African mercenaries to, as the media merchants of death put it, “kill his own people” – a ubiquitous form of words that has entered the political lexicon as justification for the removal of leaders of weaker nations who are antithetical to the interests of empire.
This book is not an ode to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, nor is it a lament for his passing. Despite his anti-imperialist trappings, Gaddafi was a self-serving dictator. He called himself a socialist, but stifled the self-activity of his people. He called himself a Pan-Afrikanist, but was a racist. My goal in this book was to study the 2011 imperialist aggression against Libya from the perspective of a detective investigating the murder of the Libyan leader. Put simply, this is a study of naked, imperialist aggression.
You see, dear reader, that was the crux. If the theses in my book are wrong, misguided, ideologically unsound, or theoretically suspect, then why won’t my “peers” come out and say so? Dismantle my arguments, peer review the work, as demanded by the scientific method. If am wrong, I’ll gladly go back to the drawing board. Don’t reject it because you don’t like the message, or the messenger. Refute my contentions if you can. Otherwise, declare them valid and true. That is the scientific method! It’s as if my peers are afraid to review my work, for then they will be forced to publicly acknowledge its merits. And that, it is increasingly becoming clear, they will do only under pain of death.
The West is yet again getting ready for yet another bombing spree in Syria on the highly dubious claim that the Assad government was “gassing their own people”. In 2013, they came manufactured similar claims and “evidence”, all of which turned out to be baseless, as we demonstrated in this film we made at the time.