by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

What are the real reasons for this so called "war on terrorism"? In a 2.5 hour stream
of wisdom pouring into 20,000 eager vessels, Min. Louis Farrakhan gave a high tech geopolitical
answer to this question at the Western Forum in LA on February 17th. At the heart of that answer was
America’s insatiable desire for oil. He revealed that "America is an oil junky" willing
to lie, steal and even kill to get that fix.

Min. Farrakhan used computer graphics displayed on two large screens to deliver to Black people
what they had been too lazy or too scared to discover for themselves. Many Black people had no idea
about the great oil deposits north of Afghanistan. Many Black people never questioned what was
beneath the soil in Libya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq. Most Black people whose parents owned land in the
South never thought to get a geological survey of that property before they sold it for pennies. The
full speech can be viewed at : http://finalcall.com/media/sd2002_02-17-2002.htm
.

Not only did they give up their land for pennies, but they are easily deceived when evaluating
the value of land to human life. Food for many of them comes from the stores, so who needs farmers.
They look at a leader like President Mugabe in Zimbabwe and think, " why would a man risk the
sanctions of America just to run a few white people off of their land?"

Black people are being asked to participate in more radical politics and help fight
Globalization, the IMF, the WTO and other acronyms representing the new world order mentality. I
recently received an issue of "Toward Freedom" bi-montly magazine that has been in
existence for 50 years promoting "a progressive perspective on world events." Some of the
articles I found enlightening such as "Enron’s Global Game" and "Big Brother is
Back". However, as a Black person there was a very disturbing article that made the front page
of this magazine, "Mugabe’s Last Stand: The anatomy of a rigged next election", written
by Jamal Jafari.

In this article he implies that President Mugabe is a tyrant, his land reform is a failure and
the coming elections will be rigged. Jafari writes, "This highly organized campaign of violence
and repression is designed to deal with an opposition party that embraces peace, democracy, and
human rights, and a civil society clamoring for change and respect for the rule of law." It
seems that Mr. Jafari embraces the sanctions leveled against Zimbabwe by America under this same
guise of "respect for the rule of law". America has condemned Mugabe for
"unlawfully" taking farm land from some 4,000 white farmers.

Jafari collects incidents of "violence" and "terrorism" to portray President
Mugabe as a thug, then ends by writing, "…the only question remaining is whether history will
remember him as a Slobodan Milosevic or an Idi Amin." Is there no middle ground here or will it
depend on who writes that history, Zimbabweans or outsiders?

Fortunately, I was at the National Black Land Loss Summit held in Atlanta on February 9, 2002
where I was able to record the 45 minute expose of the Zimbabwean land crisis by the Honorable Simbi
Mubako, Zimbabwe’s Ambassador to the US The full contents of that address is presented in a three
hour video tape highlighting the conference entitled, "Steps
to Healing the Land".

According to Mr. Mubako, Zimbabwe’s land crisis began in 1895 when the European powers set down
to partition Africa among themselves. Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria and Namibia went to
Britain. The Europeans first entered the land looking for mineral resources. They did not find as
much gold as they had anticipated so they turned to grabbing land and practicing "ethnic
cleansing" to secure it. Instead of paying their soldiers in gold, they paid them in land.
White British soldiers who fought in World Wars I and II were given the best farm land in Zimbabwe
while the Black soldiers were given bicycles. Over time this gift to white British soldiers grew to
46.6% of Zimbabwe’s agricultural land and was comprised of the best land.

Eventually Africans began to fight to expel the colonial powers. And in Algeria and Angola the
indigenous people obtained a total military victory and kicked all foreigners out and seized their
land. However, Kenya and Zimbabwe had partial military victories but the British negotiated a peace
before total destruction and this was the downfall of Zimbabwe. President Mugabe agreed to a scheme
of orderly transition and paid the price for trusting the British and Americans.

At the time of Zimbabwe’s fight for liberation from the colonial rule of Britain, the white
population was 60,000 while Black population of Zimbabwe was 12,500,000. Of the 60,000 whites only
4,000 were farmers, but that class owned 46.7% of Zimbabwe’s farm land. These white farmers held
40% of their land for speculative purposes and did not farm them, but would not lease them out to
Blacks to grow food. The "mystery" of Blacks starving in Africa is now revealed; whites
own the best agricultural land.

Britain, under Margaret Thatcher, and America, under Jimmy Carter, agreed in 1980 to provide the
liberated colony of Zimbabwe with $2 billion to buy the land from the white settlers who did not pay
a dime for this land. This land would then be turned over

to Zimbabwe to be dispersed to her landless poor and former liberation fighters. Britain and
America reneged. And now after 20 years, the people of Zimbabwe warned President Mugabe that they
were ready to seize the land that was rightfully theirs in an orderly or disorderly manner,
depending on the government’s decision. The government of Zimbabwe bowed to the wishes of her
people, so land reform is now almost 90% complete.

The opposite perspective on land reform accuses Mugabe as trumping up the land issue as a way to
gain votes. However, Ambassador Mubako related a story which contradicts such charges. Mugabe’s
political party had a conference and one of the delegates who was also an ex-combatant rose up and
stated his case:

"Comrade President we must remind you that we fought the liberation war for majority rule
and the recovery of our land from the white settlers. We got majority rule 19 years ago, but we have
not recovered our land back now. You always told us to be patient and wait for orderly
redistribution of the funds from Britain. We obeyed you. When people moved in to occupy the land as
Chief Shoshet’s people had recently done, you ordered them to vacate. They obeyed you. Now Britain
has finally abandoned the land reform program and 19 years of our lives are gone. And still we have
no land and no jobs. You were taken for a ride by the British. For their cousins are still occupying
our land while we go hungry. Comrade President, this time we will take the land and when you tell us
to leave, we will disobey you."

The situation in South Africa is even graver. At the end of minority rule in 1994 whites
represented only 10 percent of the population but controlled 87% of the land. The land area under
the control of whites is much larger than in Zimbabwe and the total population in South Africa is
now 44 million instead of 12 million as in Zimbabwe. This is why America and Britain are so
concerned about what happens in Zimbabwe, because if not handled correctly South Africa could
explode and the whites could lose a tremendous amount of capital investments.

So as America continues her propaganda assault on President Mugabe and pushes the world towards
Armageddon in the name of fighting terrorism, hopefully Minister Farrakhan will be around long
enough to keep the "ostriches" informed. Because while you stick your head in the sand you
leave vital organs exposed. In other words, you can’t protect your backside by being a
"geopolitical idiot".

Imam Warith Deen Mohammed admonished the Muslims on Friday, February 15th, to remember that the
first word revealed to Prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago was "READ". And be sure to read
more than one source for news. For as Minister Farrakhan stated on Sunday, February 17th, "One
man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter."

The need for guidance will become even more crucial as the US begins to play this
"reparations" game. The US never responded to the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s request
for land as the center of a genuine reparations package. Now slick lawyers are letting the Federal
government off the hook by focusing on corporations from whom only a monetary reward can be garnered
for a very limited clientele. It would be quite informative to read USA Today’s February 21st
front page article "Activists challenge corporations that they say are tied to slavery"
and then review my article and documentary "Snake in the reparations’
grass". There is a difference between the wisdom of "activists" infiltrated by
"snakes " seeking gold and the wisdom of one guided by God such as Minister Louis
Farrakhan seeking freedom "in deed".

Peace, Doc